New Cities in Late Antiquity: Documents and Archaeology 9782503555515

Citation preview

BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE L’ANTIQUITÉ TARDIVE PUBLIÉE PAR L’ASSOCIATION POUR L’ANTIQUITÉ TARDIVE

35

BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE L’ANTIQUITÉ TARDIVE

PUBLIÉE PAR L’ASSOCIATION POUR L’ANTIQUITÉ TARDIVE c/o Bibliothèque d’Histoire des Religions Maison de la Recherche de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV) 28 rue Serpente 75006 Paris (France) Cette collection sans périodicité régulière, éditée par Brepols Publishers, est conçue comme la série de suppléments à la revue Antiquité tardive publiée depuis 1993 par l’Association chez le même éditeur. Elle est composée de monographies, de volumes de Mélanges ou de Scripta Varia sélectionnés soit par l’Association avec l’accord de l’éditeur soit par l’éditeur avec l’agrément de l’Association dans le domaine de compétence de l’Association : histoire, archéologie, littérature et philologie du ive au viiie siècle (de Dioclétien à Charlemagne). Un conseil scientifique procède à la sélection et supervise la préparation quand elle est assurée par l’Association, sous la responsabilité du Conseil d’Administration dont voici la composition actuelle : Président : F. Baratte, professeur d’archéologie de l’Antiquité tardive, Université Paris-Sorbonne. Vice-présidente : G. Cantino Wataghin, professoressa di Archeologia Cristiana e Medievale, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli. Secrétaire : Th. Rechniewski. Trésorier : M. Heijmans, ingénieur de recherches au CNRS, Centre Camille Jullian (Aix-en-Provence). Membres : J.-P. Caillet, professeur d’histoire de l’art du Moyen Âge, Université Paris Ouest-Nanterre ; J.-M. Carrié, directeur d’études, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris ; E. Destefanis, docente all’Università del Piemonte Orientale, Vercelli ; J. Dresken-Weiland, Priv. Doz., Université de Göttingen ; A. S. Esmonde Cleary, professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Birmingham ; S. Janniard, maître de conférence à l’Université François-Rabelais, Tours ; M. Jurković, professeur à l’Université de Zagreb ; G. Ripoll, profesora titular de arqueología, Universitat de Barcelona ; J. Terrier, archéologue cantonal, Genève. Déjà parus : 1. Khirbet es Samra 1 sous la direction de J.-B. Humbert et A. Desreumaux et sous le patronage de l’École Biblique et Archéologique Française et du Centre d’Étude des Religions du Livre (CNRS), 1998. 2. A. Michel, Les églises d’époque byzantine et umayyade de Jordanie (provinces d’Arabie et de Palestine), ve- viiie siècle. Typologie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques (avec catalogue des monuments), 2001. 3. Humana sapit. Études d’Antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, édité par J.-M Carrié et R. Lizzi, 2002. 4. N. Thierry, La Cappadoce de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, 2002. 5. Mélanges d’antiquité tardive. Studiola in honorem Noël Duval, édité par C. Balmelle, P. Chevalier et G. Ripoll, 2004. 6. The Past Before Us. The Challenge of Historiographies of Late Antiquity, édité par C. Straw et R. Lim ; Actes du colloque tenu à Smith College (Northampton, MA) en 1999, 2005. 7.  A. Chavarría Arnau, El final de las uillae en Hispania (siglos IV–VIII), préface de G. Ripoll et de J. Jarnut, 2006. 8. H. Brandenburg, Ancient Churches of Rome from the fourth to the seventh century. The dawn of Christian Architecture in the West, photographs by A. Vescovo, trad. de l’allemand par Andreas Kropp, 2005. 9.  L. Khroushkova, Les Monuments chrétiens de la côte orientale de la Mer noire (Abkhazie), ive- xive siècles, 2007. 10. Stucs et décors de l’Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge, Actes du Colloque (Auxerre, 2005), édité par Chr. Sapin, 2007. 11. Renée Collardelle, La Ville et la mort. Saint-Laurent de Grenoble, 2000 ans de tradition funéraire, 2008 12. M. Fixot et J.-P. Pelletier, Saint-Victor de Marseille, Étude archéologique et monumentale, 2009. 13. Saint-Victor de Marseille, Études archéologiques et historiques. Actes du Colloque Saint-Victor, Marseille, 18-20 nov. 2004, édité par M. Fixot et J.-P. Pelletier, 2009. 14. St. Ratti, « Antiquus error ». Les ultimes feux de la résistance païenne, Scripta varia augmentés de cinq études inédites, préface de J.-M Carrié, 2010. 15. Nina Iamanidzé, Les installations liturgiques sculptées des églises de Georgie (vie-xiiie siècles), 2011. 16. Maria Xanthopoulou, Les Lampes protobyzantines, préface de J.-P Sodini, 2010. 17. Carte des routes et des cités de l’Afrique romaine établie par Pierre Salama, réalisée par l’Institut géographique national (Paris), notices sur les sites antiques des provinces de Proconsulaire, de Byzacène et de Tripolitaine rédigées sous la direction de N. Duval, J. Desanges, Cl. Lepelley et S. SaintAmans, 2010. 18. S. Carella, Architecture religieuse haut-médiévale en Italie méridionale : le diocèse de Bénévent, 2010. 19. Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides. Peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, Actes du colloque édités par A. Borrut, M. Debié, A. Papaconstantinou, D. Pieri, J.-P. Sodini, 2012. 20. M.-C. Comte, Les reliquaires du Proche-Orient et de Chypre à la période protobyzantine (IVe-VIIIe siècle), 2012. 21. M. Studer-Karlen, Verstorbenendarstellungen auf frühchristlichen Sarkophagen, 2012. 22. Le cheval dans les sociétés antiques et médiévales, Actes des Journées d’étude internationales organisées par l’UMR 7044 (Étude des civilisations de l’Antiquité), Strasbourg, 6-7 novembre 2009, édités par S. Lazaris, 2012. 23. Les ‘domus ecclesiae’ : aux origines des palais épiscopaux, Actes du colloque tenu à Autun du 26 au 28 novembre 2009, édités par S. Balcon-Berry, Fr. Baratte, J. P. Caillet, D. Sandron, 2012. 24. J.C. Magalhaes de Oliveira, ‘Potestas populi’. Participation populaire et action collective dans les villes de l’Afrique romaine tardive (vers 300-430 apr. J. C.), 2012. 25. M. Fixot, Le Groupe épiscopal de Fréjus, 2012. 26. B. Boissavit-Camus, Le baptistère Saint-Jean de Poitiers. De l’édifice à l’histoire urbaine, 2014. 27. Y. Narasawa, Les autels chrétiens du Sud de la Gaule (Ve-XIIe siècles), 2014. 28. J.-L. Prisset, Saint-Romain-en-Gal aux temps de Ferréol, Mamert et Adon. L’aire funéraire des thermes des Lutteurs (IVe-Xe siècles), 2015. 29. S. Balcon-Berry, La mémoire des pierres. Mélanges d’archéologie, d’art et d’histoire en l’honneur de Christian Sapin, 2016. 30. D. Glad, L’armement dans la région balkanique à l’époque romaine tardive et protobyzantine (284-641), 2015. 31. Libera curiositas. Mélanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité tardive offerts à Jean-Michel Carrié, édité par C. Freu, S. Janniard, A. Ripoll, 2016. 32. E. Neri, Tessellata vitrea tardoantichi e altomedievali. Produzione dei materiali e loro messa in opera. Considerazioni generali e studio dei casi milanesi, 2016. 33. C. Proverbio, I cicli affrescati paleocristiani di S. Pietro in Vaticano e S. Paolo fuori le mura, 2017.

BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE L’ANTIQUITÉ TARDIVE PUBLIÉE PAR L’ASSOCIATION POUR L’ANTIQUITÉ TARDIVE

35

new cities in late antiquity DOCUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Edited by Efthymios Rizos

F

Front cover image: Zenobia-Halabiya (Syria). View of the fortified town from the east bank of the Euphrates (© Sylvie Blétry). Back cover image: Viranşehir – Mokisos (Turkey). View of the Kara Kilise (© Efthymios Rizos). © 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2017/0095/123 ISBN 978-2-503-55551-5 e-ISBN 978-2-503-56492-0 DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.107437 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................. 7 Efthymios Rizos, Introduction............................................................................................................. 9 John Bintliff, Aspects of Settlement Change in Late Antiquity from Regional Survey Evidence.................................................................................................................................. 13 Efthymios Rizos, New cities and New Urban Ideals, AD 250-350............................................ 19 Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska, Castellum – Castrum – Civitas ? L’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements de l’antiquité tardive en Pannonie et en Mésie Seconde : étude comparative................................................................................................................................ 39 Martine Assénat et Antoine Pérez, La topographie antique d’Amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – VIe siècle après J.-C.) d’après les sources littéraires.......................................................... 57 Emanuele  E. Intagliata, Palmyra and its Ramparts during the Tetrarchy................................... 71 Efthymios Rizos and Mustafa Hamdi Sayar, Urban Dynamics in the Bosphorus Region during Late Antiquity.......................................................................................................................... 85 James Crow, New Cities of Late Antiquity: Theodosiopolis in Armenia................................... 101 Martin Gussone und Dorothée Sack, Resafa / Syrien. Städtebauliche Entwicklung zwischen Kultort und Herrschaftssitz............................................................................................... 117 Sylvie Blétry, L’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de Zénobia-Halabiya : résultats de la mission franco-syrienne (2006–10).............................................................................................. 137 Elİf Keser-Kayaalp and Nİhat Erdoğan, Recent Research on Dara/Anastasiopolis................. 153 Albrecht Berger, Mokisos – eine kappadokische Fluchtsiedlung des sechsten Jahrhunderts..... 177 Marlia Mundell Mango, Androna and the Late Antique Cities of Oriens.............................. 189 Carolyn  S. Snively, Golemo Gradište at Konjuh: A New City or a Relocated One?............. 205 Vujadin Ivanišević, Main Patterns of Urbanism in Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima)............... 221 Javier Martínez Jiménez, Water Supply in the Visigothic Urban Foundations of Eio (El Tolmo de Minateda) and Reccopolis............................................................................ 233 Günder Varİnlİoğlu, ‘Built Like a City’: Boğsak Island (Isauria) in Late Antiquity............. 247 Georgios Deligiannakis and Vassileios Karabatsos, Palatia of Saria, a Late Antique ‘Nēsopolis’ of Provincia Insularum: a Topographical Survey....................................................... 267 David Hill, Håkon Roland and Knut Ødegård, Kastro Apalirou, Naxos, a SeventhCentury Urban Foundation................................................................................................................ 281 Jean-Michel Spieser, Villes neuves dans l’Antiquité Tardive. Conclusion................................ 293

Acknowledgements

This volume stems from a conference held in Istanbul on 9–10 November 2013 under the auspices of the Netherlands Institute in Turkey and the Istanbul Department of the German Archaeological Institute. I wish to thank the two hosting institutions and their directors, Professors Fokke Gerritsen and Felix Pirson, for their generous financial and organisational support. Dr Jesko Fildhuth of DAI Istanbul provided invaluable help with preparing and managing the event. The organisation of this conference was part of a research project which I conducted at Koç University, with the support of the Research Center for Anatolian Civiliza-

tions and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. I am indebted to Professor Alessandra Ricci and to Koç University’s Department of Archaeology and History of Art for their unfailing support to my work. Finally, I wish to thank the Association pour l’Antiquité Tardive for welcoming the proceedings of the conference among the volumes of the Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive. Efthymios Rizos

Introduction Efthymios Rizos

With its roots lost in the development of early cities during the Bronze and Iron Ages, urban life in the ancient Mediterranean expanded mostly by colonisation conducted by pre-existing urban communities. As the city states of Greece and Rome expanded territorially, they reproduced their own model of settlement and society, by founding new cities in their newly acquired lands. The world of Late Antiquity inherited from them not only a thoroughly urbanised landscape, but also the firmly rooted idea that the world was to be governed by cities, and that civilised living meant urban living. During the three centuries following the accession of Diocletian, the Roman Empire remained a society ruled by urban based landowners. The beginning of Late Antiquity is marked by the foundation of the new imperial city of Constantinople, the largest city ever founded by the Romans and a major geostrategic project. Yet the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity experienced much less economic and territorial expansion and, accordingly, its ability and perhaps need to found new cities were seriously undermined. There was a sharp contradiction between the culturally embedded Roman attachment to urbanism, and the actual hardships and insecurity threatening the cities in many parts of the late Roman world. Active urbanisation was so infrequent that its manifestations now appear paradoxical or unexpected against the background of general urban recession in that period.1 Yet new cities continued to be founded, asserting the attitudes of a state and society which knew no better way to rule and defend their lands than through cities. Major building projects like the foundation, renewal, relocation, or expansion of cities, are particularly important moments in urban history, since they encapsulate the ideals and trends of urbanism at their time. This is of special interest in a period like Late Antiquity, for which the definition of the city and its characteristics are usually discussed in connection with the decline or transformation of old cities. In new cities, however, the attitudes, needs, and practices, which elsewhere develop against the background of pre-existing Graeco-Roman urban environments, can be observed being applied on ‘virgin soil’, and therefore with particular clarity. This collection of papers aims to address precisely this question: how can the testimony of new cities and settlements inform our understanding of urbanism and urban transfor1. See the remarks of John Bintliff in this volume.

mation during Late Antiquity? A discussion on this question, combined with updates on recent fieldwork, was the subject of a conference held in Istanbul on 9–10 November 2013, the proceedings of which constitute the bulk of this book, augmented by a number of additional papers. Scholarly interest in the foundation of cities in Late Antiquity has its origins partly in references to them by the written sources. A. H. M. Jones was among the first to produce a comprehensive assessment of new urban foundations under the late empire, mainly based on administrative documents like the Synekdemos of Hierocles, Georgius Cyprius, and the sources of ecclesiastical administration.2 Besides these, there is a number of narrative accounts by Ammianus Marcellinus, Procopius, Malalas, Moses of Khorene, and pseudo-Zachariah of Mytilene, which describe the foundation of cities in the Constantinian, Theodosian, Anastasian and Justinianic periods.3 These texts portray a city type of a distinctively ‘unclassical’ and highly militarised outlook, with an emphasis on strategic planning, defensive installations, and ecclesiastical building. The same impression is also confirmed by the only late antique text of theoretical considerations concerning the building of cities in Late Antiquity. This is a section in a Greek manual of military theory, now ascribed to the ninth-century author Syrianos Magistros.4 Although a 2. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford, 1940, pp. 59–94; idem, The Later Roman Empire. AD 284–602: a Social, Economic and Administrative History, Oxford, 1964, pp. 718–22; D. von Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt im 6. Jahrhundert (Byzantinsches Archiv, 13), München, 1969, pp. 203–08. Also see the remarks by: E. Kirsten, Die byzantinische Stadt, in Berichte zum XI. Internationalen ByzantinistenKongress, V.3, München, 1958, pp. 1–48, esp. 3–4, 9–12; J. Arce, La fundación de nuevas ciudades en el imperio romano tardío: de Diocleciano a Justiniano (s. IV-VI), in G. Ripoll, J. Gurt and A. Chavarría (eds.), Sedes Regiae (ann. 400–800), Barcelona, 2000, pp. 31–62. 3. These texts are discussed in this volume in the papers by Rizos, Crow, Assénat and Pérez, Blétry, and Keser-Kayaalp, Erdoǧan and Palmer. 4. The text was published under the title Anonymous Byzantine Treatise on Strategy (the chapters referring to the building and fortification of cities are 10–12): G. T. Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises (CFHB, 25), Washington, D.C. 1985. On the identification with the work of Syrianos Magistros and the date of the text, see: C. Zuckerman, The compendium of Syrianus

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 9-12. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111884

10

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Middle Byzantine composition, the treatise of Syrianos almost certainly relies on much earlier sources, and its chapter on city building is very probably derived from a late antique text, reflecting practices known mainly from the fifth and sixth centuries. Unsurprisingly, this text is mainly concerned with the defensive qualities of the settlements, both in the way of natural position and man-made fortifications. As a manual meant to be read by generals, the composition of Syrianos Magistros, with its Hellenistic and late antique sources, reflects the role of the army as the only body possessing the engineering skills and resources to undertake a project of the scale of designing and building a new city. Indeed the army built the most notable new cities during Late Antiquity, which were conceived as active participants in the defence of the frontier areas, rather than as purely civilian centres. These aspects partly dictated the character and geographical distribution of most, and the most significant, urban foundations in this period: as will be seen in the papers collected here, the new cities founded by the Late Roman Empire were usually strongly fortified and militarised settlements in the Asian and European frontier provinces, i.e. Syria, Mesopotamia and the northern Balkans. Two sites of central importance for our understanding of the emergence of a new urban ideal in the frontier areas during this period are Palmyra and Amida (Diayarbakır), both of which were transformed into vast fortified centres during the late third and early fourth centuries. Emanuele Intagliata offers an overview of the late Roman fortification of Palmyra, identifying phases of building, and juxtaposing the data from the site with the written sources, while Martine Assénat and Antoine Pérez discuss the complex urban evolution of Amida from the Severan period to the late fourth century. These two sites exemplify the rise of a new urban paradigm, according to which the city was as much an active base of defence as it was a civilian centre. This is discussed on a broader synthetic basis by Efthymios Rizos who provides a survey of cities built or re-founded under the Tetrarchy and Constantine in Syria, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and Anatolia. Rizos argues that the militarised city type, established with the rebuilding of Amida and Palmyra, was reproduced in smaller and larger cities of the Mesopotamian and Danubian frontier zones, and in the inner Balkans. The question of the relationship between urbanism and military building is analysed in depth by Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska based on a comparison of the features of two riparian forts (Tokod and Iatrus/Krivina) and two major interior fortifications (Keszthely-Fenékpuszta and Abritus/Razgrad) in the Danubian provinces of Pannonia and Moesia Inferior. The urban ideals exemplified by the fortress towns disMagister, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 40,  1990, pp.  209–24; P.  Rance, The Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (formerly the Sixth-Century Anonymus Byzantinus), in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 100.2, 2007, pp. 701–37.

cussed in these four papers were shaped under the tetrarchs and the Constantinian dynasty, but retained their actuality pretty much down to the sixth century. Their continuity under the Theodosian emperors is reflected by the city of Karin-Theodosiopolis (Erzurum), a major fortification which embodied Roman military presence and urbanisation in the non-urbanised Armenian lands. Jim Crow’s discussion of Theodosiopolis proposes a model for reading the traces left by the fortifications and other features of the late Roman city in the texture of medieval and modern Erzurum. With the many unanswered questions concerning its fortifications and overall development, Theodosiopolis exemplifies the problems of our knowledge on city-building under the Theodosian dynasty: although a substantial number of cities are reported to have been built or promoted to city status during this period, none of them is sufficiently known archaeologically. These problems also emerge from the study of Efthymios Rizos and Mustafa Hamdi Sayar on the towns of the Thracian hinterland of Constantinople, most of which were declared cities under the Theodosian emperors. Quite understandably, the cities which have largely dominated discussions about late antique urbanisation so far are those founded during the Anastasian and Justinianic periods, especially Dara-Anastasiopolis, Resapha-Anastasiopolis-Sergiopolis, Zenobia, and Justiniana Prima. The governments of Anastasius and Justinian apparently took particular pride in these urban projects, and we therefore have relatively good textual documentation for them. At the same time, their sites are arguably the most extensively investigated and discussed by archaeology.5 Updates on the archaeological projects conducted on these sites are presented here by three papers. Sylvie Blétry presents the finds of the latest excavation campaigns at Zenobia, where new evidence tends to confirm Procopius’ reports about an expansion of the fortified space under Justinian. The finds of the excavated earlier fortification, in particular, seem to confirm the existence of a pre-Justinianic late antique urban phase. Martin Gussone and Dorothée Sack discuss the diachronic development of Resapha and its environs from a local cult centre to a major fortification, and, finally, to an eighth-century caliphal centre. Elif KeserKayaalp, Nihat Erdoǧan, and Andrew Palmer present recent results from Dara, which throw new light, amongst others, on the extensive and densely settled suburban area surrounding the fortified city. We can plausibly argue that the building of the cities of Dara, Resapha, and perhaps Zenobia, belonged to a broader 5. See the discussions by E. Zanini, Introduzione all’archeologia bizantina, Roma, 1994, pp. 141–59; idem, The urban ideal and urban planning in Byzantine new cities of the sixth century AD, in L. Lavan, W. Bowden (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology (Late Antique Archaeology, 1), Leiden, 2003, pp.  196–223; P.  Carità, Problemi di urbanistica giustinianea. Le città della Siria e della Mesopotamia (BAR Int. Ser. 1255), Oxford, 2004, pp. 43–68, 85–130.

introduction 11

building drive along the Asian frontiers of the Roman Empire, which was conceived and implemented under Anastasius, and continued under Justinian. In the domain of urbanism, the scale of this scheme was imposing, as it included not only the building of these three new cities, but also the expansion and refortification of pre-existing fortress-cities like Melitene, Martyropolis, Satala, and Karin-Theodosiopolis (here discussed by Crow).6 This strategic plan apparently did not include just military building and fortifications, but also a campaign of cementing a Christian Roman identity centred on the church and its cults. The principal reason for the development and fortification of Resapha was the cult of Saint Sergius, whilst, as Keser Kayaalp and Erdoǧan argue, the urban project of Dara seems to have been directly related to major church building projects in its territory – notably of the great fortified monastery of Qartmin. The Anastasian fortifications of Martyropolis and Melitene also hosted major pilgrimage shrines, of the Persian Martyrs and Saint Polyeuctus respectively.7 An interesting aspect of the development of the Asian frontier provinces in this period is the spectacular growth of the site of Androna, which is discussed by Marlia Mundell Mango. It is unknown if Androna was among the new cities designed and built by the state, and, according to Mundell Mango, it never acquired official city status. Yet it seems to have benefitted massively from the economic impact of the army, as it was located on routes of communication used for the provisioning of the frontier forces. The speed of Androna’s spontaneous urban growth is rarely observed in pre-industrial history. Within a few decades in the early sixth century, its settlement exploded from the size of a hamlet to over 150 hectares – way larger than the average city of the time, and indeed larger than many regional capitals. With two rings of fortification, several churches and a military kastron, Androna was probably more urban than several officially recognised towns of its time. It declined as rapidly and mysteriously as it appeared, thus fitting perhaps better than any other late antique city John Bintliff’s paradigm of paradoxical thermodynamic reactions. Another famous example of late antique urbanism is Caričin Grad/Justiniana Prima, recent finds from which are presented in this volume by Vujadin Ivanišević, enriching our knowledge especially about the area surrounding the fortified town. Justiniana Prima has often been described as an ‘artificial city’, solely built in order to serve the megalomaniac desire of Justinian to glorify his own birthplace. Yet imperial rhetoric here also is only a superficial aspect of a much more complex reality surrounding the foundation of this city. Justiniana Prima was not a solitary case of a new town appearing 6. Proc. Aed. 3.2; 3.4. 7. The ‘parallel lives’ of Resapha and Martyropolis are discussed by E. K. Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran, Berkeley and London, 1999, pp. 45–100.

in the middle of the northern Balkans during this period, but was linked to a vast network of hilltop fortified settlements which appeared during the late fifth and sixth centuries. They included at least five major settlements, namely Zlata Kale and Jelica Gradina in today’s Serbia, and Davina Gradina at Čučer, and Golemo Gradište at Konjuh (discussed by Carolyn Snively in this volume) in today’s FYR Macedonia. All of these sites are comparable in size to Caričin Grad, though clearly less monumental in the way of building and architecture.8 Urbanising activity is also observed during the same period in the provinces of the Lower Danube, with the building of the magnificent hilltop town of Veliko Turnovo (probably the textually attested Zikideva of Lower Moesia) and the major fortified settlement of Balchik, both in north Bulgaria.9 All these building projects took place in parallel to two major administrative reforms, namely the creation of a new ecclesiastical and administrative centre for Dacia, based at Justiniana Prima (AD 534), and the establishment of the new military command of the Quaestura Iustiniana Exercitus for the Lower Danube (AD 536).10 One may rightfully interpret all these measures as aspects of a broader plan to re-establish Roman domination in the northern Balkans. Closely comparable to the Anastasian and Justinianic foundations are the only two examples from the post-Roman West included in this volume, namely the cities of Reccopolis and Eio in Visigothic Spain, discussed by Javier Martínez Jiménez. These are both centrally planned foundations in the heartland of the Visigothic kingdom, and were probably part of an effort to assert the dominance of this state in the Iberian lands in a period of confrontation with Byzantine Spania. The two cities share with the Anastasian and Justinianic cities of the East a common emphasis on ecclesiastical building and sophisticated water-supply, which is the main subject discussed by Martínez Jiménez. The foundation of cities in Late Antiquity was not confined to militarised settlements only, but also included cities growing thanks to the forces of the economy and communications. We have already discussed the formidable impact 8. On Zlata and Jelica, see: M. Milinković, Рановизантијска насеља у Србији и њеном окружењу, Beograd, 2015, pp. 143– 248. On Čučer, see: I. Mikulčić, Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen in Nordmakedonien: Städte, Vici, Refugien, Kastelle, München, 2002, 153–58. On Konjuh, see Snively, this volume. 9. On Turnovo: V. Dintchev, Zikideva: an Example of EarlyByzantine Urbanism in the Balkans, in Archaeologia Bulgarica, 1.3, 1997, pp. 54–77. On Balchik: S. Torbatov, Укрепителната система на провинция Скития (края на ІІІ-VІІ в.)- The Defence System of the Late Roman Province of Scythia (end of the 3rd-7th century AD), Veliko Turnovo, 2002, pp. 263–70. 10. A. Sarantis, Military Encounters and Diplomatic Affairs in the North Balkans During the Reigns of Anastasius and Justinian, in A. Sarantis and N. Christie (eds.), War and Warfare in Late Antiquity: Current Perspectives (Late Antique Archaeology 8), Leiden 2013, pp. 787–90.

12

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

of the routes of pilgrimage and commerce, which favoured the development of Resapha and Androna. In the Eastern Mediterranean, these networks were further boosted by the presence of Constantinople. Its powerful impact on its immediate hinterland on the shores of the Propontis is discussed in this volume by Rizos and Sayar, who demonstrate that, within decades after the foundation of the new capital, several minor settlements became its satellite towns and were declared cities. Constantinople, however, influenced the development of commerce routes and settlements, not only in the immediate hinterland of the capital, but all along the coasts of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. Günder Varinlioǧlu explores the possibility that commerce combined with local pilgrimage along the busy routes of coastal Anatolia was among the factors which favoured the quasi-urban development of a burgeoning late antique settlement on the barren islet of Boǧsak Adası. Similar questions are also posed by Georgios Deligiannakis and Vasileios Karabatsos with regard to Saria, an apparently flourishing settlement in the marginal environment of a satellite islet of Karpathos in the Aegean. Both of these papers associate the growth of their sites with the impact of maritime routes connecting Constantinople with the coasts of Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean provinces. With these settlements, we are evidently dealing with geographical areas and settlement types which are very different from those of the fortress towns of the frontier provinces. Fortifications play a smaller or no role here, and it seems very unlikely that these settlements had a particular importance for the army or the central administration. They certainly sought good positions on the routes of communications, and apparently had an important role in commerce which must have been the main resource for their vitality and rapid development. Yet, at the same time, their preference for uncomfortable sites like the rocky islands suggests that security was a major concern for their founders. The challenging effort to combine connectivity with security is an essential feature in newly-founded settlements of the fifth and sixth centuries. In this volume, this is reflected in the important examples of Konjuh in north Macedonia, discussed by Carolyn Snively, and of Viranşehir/Mokisos in Cappadocia, discussed by Albrecht Berger. Both are substantial settlements, not necessarily far from their local routes of communication, but certainly hidden from direct access. The reader should notice that both papers agree in proposing that these settlements were the result of relocation of pre-existing communities. Snively reaches this conclusion through archaeological observation in the surrounding area, whereas Berger supports this by associating Viranşehir with Procopius’ account of the relocation and re-foundation of the Cappadocian city of Mokisos. Relocation is mostly the case when Procopius refers to city foundations in the interior of the empire: for example, his account of the relocation of Mokisos is directly compa-

rable with his description of the foundation of Kastoria in Macedonia, and of the relocation of Euroia in Epirus.11 The reliability of his account on Kastoria has been confirmed by archaeology, showing that Procopius’ text reflects the reality of an increasingly insecure and tumultuous era. According to Syrianos Magistros (and his sources), relocation was one of the options when a settlement was assessed as insufficiently protected. The author was strikingly aware of the fact that his own time was different from earlier and safer periods in history, and, accordingly, cities had to be built in a different way: ‘I am not unaware that many people, looking to the prosperity of their times and believing that it would last for ever, whenever they undertook to build great cities, did not care so much about security as about beauty. They therefore usually built them on plains, and adorned them with gardens, parks and lawns. As for us, taking account of the uncertainty of future events, and deeming security to be more important than beauty, we prefer to build and fortify them on such sites where the machines of besiegers become useless.’12 These trends and troubles culminated in the Dark Ages, when compact fortified settlements, mentioned by the Byzantine sources as kastra, become the dominant pattern of urbanism. By way of epilogue, this period is represented in our volume by the fortified town of Kastro Apalirou on Naxos, the systematic investigation of which is conducted by the team led by David Hill, Håkon Roland and Knut Ødegård. It is one of the few systematically studied seventhcentury settlements, and is therefore bound to become a site of key importance for our understanding of the transition into Dark Age and Byzantine urbanism. One of the most striking aspects of Kastro Apallirou is its location: the authors argue that this fortification was built in replacement of the main port-town of the island. To give up a good port for a land-locked rocky and windy hilltop is a strikingly ‘introvert’ choice, suggesting that the concern for security had now completely overshadowed any desire for connectivity. Kastro Apalirou indeed embodies the passing into a new era.

11. Proc. Aed. 4.1.39–42; 4.3.1–5. 12. Οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δὲ ὅτι πολλοὶ τὴν προσοῦσαν εὐδαιμονίαν ὁρῶντες καὶ ταύτην διὰ παντὸς ἑστάναι νομίζοντες, ἐπειδὰν πόλεις μεγάλας ποιεῖν ἔμελλον, οὐ μᾶλλον τῆς ἀσφαλείας ἢ τῆς εὐπρεπείας ἐφρόντιζον, διὸ κατὰ πεδίων ταύτας πολλάκις ἀνῳκοδόμουν κήποις τε καὶ παραδείσοις καὶ λειμῶσιν ὡραϊζόμενοι. ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸ ἄδηλον τῶν ἐπισυμβαινόντων ὁρῶντες καὶ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν μᾶλλον τῆς εὐπρεπείας προκρίνοντες ἐκεῖ ταύτας ποιεῖν βουλευόμεθα καὶ τείχη περιβαλεῖν, ἔνθα ἂν τὰ τῶν πολιορκούντων ἀδυνατεῖ μηχανήματα. Syrianus Magister, Strategy, 11. 25–33 (text: Dennis, Three Byzantine Military Treatises, cit. [n. 4]). My translation.

Aspects of Settlement Change in Late Antiquity from Regional Survey Evidence John Bintliff*

Aspects des changements de l’habitat durant l’Antiquité Tardive d’après les résultats des prospections archéologiques La situation archéologique et artistique de l’Antiquité tardive dans le monde méditerranéen offre un mélange d’indications troublant, si nous regardons les changements au fil du temps ou les variations dans l’espace. D’une part, nous avons de nouvelles villes et l’élargissement de la colonisation rurale dans des endroits et des régions spécifiques, une floraison remarquable de l’architecture ecclésiastique monumentale et de ses œuvres d’art, et une «mondialisation» sans précédent du commerce, marquée par la pénétration d’un spectre limité de céramique fine, d’amphores et de leur contenu. D’autre part, il y a des villes, beaucoup plus communes, qui se contractent et perdent leurs infrastructures classiques, et beaucoup de régions dont les territoires ruraux entrent en déprise. Tout modèle simple, comme celui de prospérité et de floraison, ou encore de déclin et d’appauvrissement, ne parvient pas à rendre raison de cette mosaïque unique et déroutante. Dans cet article, je vais discuter des divergences apparentes dans nos preuves actuelles, en portant particulièrement l’accent sur les résultats de projets de prospection dans la Méditerranée orientale. (Trad. E. Rizos)

Introduction The historical record for Late Antiquity offers a picture of increasing chaos for the Roman Empire, beginning with the military losses of the fourth to fifth centuries AD, followed by the mid-sixth–seventh century crises caused by the failure of expensive attempts at Western reconquests, the plague from the sixth century onwards, climatic deterioration, and the success of the Arab storm. Yet new towns appear, such as Justiniana Prima1 in the North Balkans and Mokisos, a sixth century AD, 45 hectare imperial urban foundation in Cappadocia,2 while long distance transport amphorae and widely traded finewares show largescale interregional trade flourishing. In many Eastern Mediterranean landscapes, settlements abound, Pettegrew’s ‘busy countryside’,3 although typified by villas. However our historic sources argue for high levels of dependent labour. Yet alongside fuller countrysides are almost empty landscapes. And even in the same landscapes * University of Edinburgh/ Leiden University. 1. See Ivanisević in this volume. 2. A. Berger, Viranehir (Mokisos), eine byzantinische Stadt in Kappadokien, in Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 48, 1998, pp. 349–429; see also this volume. 3. D. K. Pettegrew, The busy countryside of Late Roman Corinth: Interpreting ceramic data produced by regional archaeological surveys, in Hesperia, 76, 2007, pp. 743–84.

there is contrasted decline, as we see from the fate of small towns surveyed within the Greek Peloponnese: in the Argolid, the town of Halieis is a mere villa;4 on Kea, just one of four towns survives in Late Antiquity;5 in Methana, two of three nucleated sites go, the survivor is one third of its Classical size;6 we can also note for the same Methana Survey, that the many small upland sites with presses are seen as tenant farms. Yet a great florescence might also seem assured in the surviving Eastern Roman Empire, based on the proliferation of churches from town to village. Urban sites with the numerous new Christian basilicas seem to indicate a flourishing city life.7 Yet closer inspection challenges the artistic and architectural image of prosperity. Many cities have shrunk and show symptoms of the decline of Greco-

4. M. H. Jameson, C. N. Runnels, et al. (eds.). A Greek Countryside. The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day, Stanford, California, 1994. 5. J. F. Cherry, J. C. Davis, et al. (eds.), Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History, Los Angeles, 1991. 6. C. Mee, H. Forbes (eds.), A  Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, Liverpool, 1997. 7. J.-P. Sodini, Notes sur deux variantes régionales dans les basiliques de Grèce et des Balkans, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 99, 1975, pp. 581–88.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 13-17. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111885

14

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Presence of transport and storage amphorae from the urban and rural survey at ancient Tanagra, central Greece (from Bes, Bintliff et al., Puzzling over pottery, cit. n. 14).

Roman institutions.8 In Athens, for example despite some wealthy mansions, the town shrinks behind a new defence wall which excludes the ancient Agora, where paradoxically a great mansion or palace is built, perhaps never completed.9 The Roman colony at Corinth had been only a fraction of the Classical city in size, but in Late Antiquity it shrank even further, with the Roman Agora left outside the new city wall, and an area just one-third of the Early Roman town.10 Nearby however something very different is occurring: the Hexamilion Fortress constructed in and partly from the ruins of the pagan sanctuary of Isthmia is an early example of a Kastron (fortified small nucleation typical for the Late Antique and Early Medieval Balkans). This is argued to house soldier farmers with industry and local villa support. For Kardulias and Gregory this is a new kind of town, precursor of mature Byzantine urbanism.11 In a recent paper, I have also reviewed rural settlement changes in the Eastern Mediterranean over the same period, in Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Israel and Libya, suggesting that they are often associated with an ultimately unsustainable expansion of land use and population into areas of a rather 8. J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford, 2001. 9. J. M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven, 2001, Ch. 7. 10. D. Romano, City planning, centuriation, and land division in Roman Corinth, in C. K. Williams, N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth, The Centenary 1896–1996, Athens, 2003, pp. 279–301; K. W. Slane, G. D. R. Sanders, Corinth: Late Roman horizons, in Hesperia, 74, 2005, pp. 243–97. 11. P. N. Kardulias, From Classical to Byzantine: Social evolution in Late Antiquity and the fortress at Isthmia, Greece (BAR Int. Ser., 1412), Oxford, 2005; T. E. Gregory, Isthmia IV: The Hexamilion and the Fortress, Princeton, 1993.

marginal nature, or into a form of highly-specialised commercial agricultural production.12 The centrality of state and elite support for such ventures and their association with a high degree of long-distance commercialisation puts them all at risk as the empire’s grip on security slips, and the desire of great landowners to commit their wealth to the rural world is replaced by their flight to the larger cities and the capital of Constantinople. It has also been argued that the intensity of such Late Roman rural activity has been exaggerated due to the abnormal character of its archaeological evidence. David Pettegrew from the Eastern Corinthia Survey has challenged whether the richness of Late Roman ceramics reflects a real population boom or heightened pottery visibility and diagnosticity.13 We have also observed the same bias from our total urban survey at the Central Greek city of Tanagra and at villas in its hinterland (Fig. 1),14 and from close study of the dense ceramics from the rural villas near ancient Thespiae (which appear to have a large size but minimal resident population).15 12. J. L. Bintliff, The paradoxes of Late Antiquity: A thermodynamic solution, in Antiquité Tardive, 20, 2012, pp. 69–73. 13. Pettegrew, Busy countryside, cit. (n. 3), pp. 743–84. 14. From P. Bes, J. Bintliff, et al., Puzzling over pottery. Thespiae, Tanagra and methodological approaches toward surface ceramics, in D.  Malfitana, J.  Poblome, J.  Lund (eds.), Old Pottery in a New Century (Monografie dell’Istituto per i Beni Archeologici), Catania, 2006, pp. 339–45. Cf. also J. Poblome, A. Ceulemans, et al., The Late Hellenistic to Late Roman ceramic spectrum of Tanagra, in Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 128, 2004–5 (2008), pp. 561–69. 15. J. L. Bintliff, P. Howard, et al. (eds.), Testing the hinterland: the work of the Boeotia Survey (1989–1991) in the southern approaches to the city of Thespiai (MacDonald Institute Monographs), Cambridge, 2007.



ASPECTS OF SETTLEMENT CHANGE IN LATE ANTIQUITY FROM REGIONAL SURVEY EVIDENCE

15

Fig. 2. Locations studied by the Boeotia Project (prepared by Emeri Farinetti).

Let us look in more detail at some of these issues from the same Central Greek survey project which I direct with Anthony Snodgrass and Bozidar Slapsak, focussing on the cities of Hyettos, Koroneia, Thespiae and Tanagra and their rural surroundings (for locations of area studied by the project, see Fig. 2, prepared by Emeri Farinetti). Despite large rural villas, all these towns see permanent contraction in occupied area already in Early Roman Imperial times. Hyettos shows a slight re-expansion in the Late Roman era, whereas Koroneia shrinks almost to its Acropolis in the latter period. Thespiae is half the size in Early Imperial times of its Hellenistic predecessor, while in Late Antiqity the town is even smaller. Tanagra has benefitted from an almost complete and revelatory geophysical survey by Professor Slapsak’s Ljubljana University team,16 which demonstrates (Fig. 3) that the Late Roman rewalling left a large part of the older town outside, we believe by now abandoned, in so doing cutting through a lower Agora. Fur16. In J. L. Bintliff, B. Noordervliet, et al. The Leiden-Ljubljana Ancient Cities of Boeotia Project, 2010–2012 seasons, in Pharos, 19(2), 2014, pp. 1–34.

ther geophysical research (August 2016) has revealed that the Hellenistic town was at least twice as large as the Late Antique city. The new Late Roman city wall includes much recycled spolia. Characteristically the same geophysical survey nonetheless revealed a previously unknown pair of large basilican churches in the upper part of the shrunken city. In terms of size, nonetheless Tanagra city seems the largest in Late Antiquity compared to Hyettos, Koroneia and Thespiai, and it has quite distinctive ceramics. An excellent thesis by Dean Peeters has provided remarkably fine detail of the special economic status of this city compared to its Boeotian neighbours, by examining their variable involvement in Late Roman economic exchange.17 In the next figure 17. D. Peeters African Red Slip Ware. Indicator of Economic Activity and Distribution in Boeotia, BA thesis, Leiden University, 2012; cf. also D. Peeters, P. Bes, et al., Making Use of Time and Space – Using African Red Slip Ware as an Indicator of Economic Activity in Mid- and Late Roman Thespiae and Tanagra. In J. Hilditch, A. Kotsonas, C. Beestman-Kruijshaar, et al. (eds.), Island, Mainland, Coastland and Hinterland: Ceramic perspectives on connectivity in the ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Amsterdam. 1–3 February

16

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 3. The geophysical evidence for a wider Greek city at Tanagra preceding the smaller Late Roman town (image by Bozidar Slapsak, in Bintliff, Noordervliet, et al., The Leiden-Ljubljana, cit. n. 16).

(Fig. 4), Peeters contrasted the presence of imported African (Tunisian) Red Slip tableware in different Boeotian cities over the Roman to Late Roman centuries. He highlighted the constantly stronger access of Tanagra compared with these other towns. In the fifth century only Tanagra maintains its levels, even into the later seventh century. An additional study of the rural villas of Hyettos and Tanagra by Peeters showed a matching scenario, with far more effective penetration of imports into the Tanagra countryside. The extraordinary quantities of commercial transport amphorae found on the city surface compared to our other Boeotian cities (see supra) confirm the heightened embeddedness of Tanagra into specialised interregional trade, perhaps in wine, for which its landscape was famed in later Hellenistic times (according to the contemporary travel-writer Herakleides Kritikos).18

2013, Amsterdam, (forthcoming). 18. On Greek Cities, I: 8–10.

Conclusions The Late Roman ‘florescence’ of the Eastern Empire often appears to be either exaggerated archaeologically, or real but a sign of stress as more marginal areas are taken in which are not suitable for long-term high populations. Perhaps the decline of the West, the increasing needs of Constantinople and the frontier armies, and a highly commercialising economy based on larger estates, are pushing the economic system into unsustainable over-specialisation and lateral expansion. To escalate these pressures, John Haldon has supported the thesis that by the mid-seventh century the Empire had only one quarter of its mid-sixth-century income.19 And yet new towns are built, Constantinople explodes outwards, wonderful basilicas with rich art appear like grass in towns and villages, and there is booming interregional trade. 19. Cf. J. F. Haldon Byzantium in the Seventh Century: the Transformation of a Culture, Cambridge, 1990, Ch. 1.



ASPECTS OF SETTLEMENT CHANGE IN LATE ANTIQUITY FROM REGIONAL SURVEY EVIDENCE

17

Fig. 4. The varying proportions over time of imported African (Tunisian) Red Slip tableware in different Boeotian cities over the Roman to Late Roman centuries. The upper key refers in order to the lines from top to bottom on this cumulative graph (from Peeters African Red Slip Ware, cit. n. 17).

I have attempted to explain these paradoxical phenomena elsewhere in the following terms: The Later Roman Empire was subject from the third century AD to overall decline in manpower, economic production, military effectiveness and political cohesion, the cumulative crisis which eventually culminated in the loss of the Western Empire and then of the Middle Eastern provinces, leading to the small Byzantine state. As non-linear dynamics teaches us, universal decline is not the only option for systems which are running down so dramatically.20 To replenish the declining system, new sources of energy will be sought out, even if this is merely a temporary strategy if unsustainable in the long term. But the remaining energy can form new patterns, often of considerable

20. J P. Coveney, R. Highfield, The Arrow of Time, London, 1990; Bintliff, Paradoxes of Late Antiquity, cit. (n. 13), pp. 69–73.

internal sophistication, through concentrating the constantly dissipating resources of the system into new constellations of highpoints surrounded by increasing zones of minimal energy. Thus I think we can explain the polarisation of visible phenomena in Late Antiquity: alongside genuine new urban foundations in some districts we see in just as many, giant new buildings in shrinking towns being transformed into kastra or villages; empty or half empty landscapes bordered by well populated and ‘busy countrysides’; extraordinary elite wealth and the low living standards of a largely dependent peasantry. In reality the declining total energy in the Empire was being channelled into smaller but effective achievements.21

21. J. L. Bintliff, Prosperity, Sustainability, and Poverty in the Late Antique World: Mediterranean Case Studies, in I. Jacobs (ed.), Production and Prosperity in the Theodosian Period, Leuven, 2014, pp. 319–26, esp. 325–26.

New cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350 Efthymios Rizos*

Cités neuves et idéaux urbanistiques nouveaux, 250–350 apr. J. C. Cet article traite d’un groupe de plus de trente villes, nouvellement construites ou radicalement reconstruites et agrandies à la fin du IIIc ou du IVc siècle en Syrie, en Mésopotamie, dans les Balkans et en Anatolie. Ce fut une période cruciale pour la formation des idéaux urbains tardo-antiques, qui a vu l’apparition d’un nouveau type de ville, fortement militarisé. Des exemples significatifs de cette nouvelle forme urbaine sont attestés dans les provinces de Syrie et Mésopotamie, en particulier dans la forme reconstruite de Palmyre et Amida, et dans les villes fortifiées, plus petites, de Neocaesarea, Sura, Tella-Constantina et Singara. Toutes ces cités possédaient des fortifications considérables, qui servaient en même temps de bases pour des unités militaires et la population civile. Dans la même période, de nombreux exemples du même type de cité sont apparus dans les provinces du Danube et des Balkans. Ceux-ci comprennent une section de la ville de Serdica (Sofia, Bulgarie) et plusieurs cités dans les provinces de Mésie et de Pannonie (par exemple Bononia, Abrittus, Zaldapa, Tropaeum, Ibida, Acrae, Keszthely-Fenekpuszta, Alsohetenypuszta, Környe, Ságvár et Tác). Leurs fonctions mixtes, civiles et militaires, se reflètent dans les bâtiments publics inclus dans leurs murs, à savoir des entrepôts militaires, des casernes, des maisons et des bains publics. Un autre groupe de villes neuves de cette époque peut être observé dans le sud de la Thrace, l’est de la Macédoine et le nord de l’Épire (Hisarya/Diocletianopolis, Maximianopolis, Diocletianopolis, Caesarea, Elbasan/Scampa, et Grazhdan). Dans l’Anatolie, la seule ville qui pourrait se conformer à ce type de cité est Nicée (Iznik) dans sa forme fortifiée tardo-romaine. Un petit nombre de fondations neuves de la période tétrarchique situées dans le sud de l’Anatolie ne présente aucune des caractéristiques des cités fortifiées de la frontière : Maximianopolis de Pamphylie, provisoirement identifiée avec l’ancien habitat du Döşeme Boğazı, était une bourgade bien développée, mais sans fortifications ni édifices monumentaux, sauf pour un grand complexe d’horrea. L’Anatolie a cependant livré deux documents épigraphiques importants, concernant l’attribution des droits civiques aux communautés de Tymandos en Pisidie et Orkistos en Phrygie, sous les règnes des Tétrarques et de Constantin. La promotion de ces communautés au statut civique ne faisait pas partie d’une campagne de construction impériale, mais fut le résultat d’une initiative locale. De manière significative, cependant, ces nouvelles poleis n’ont reçu aucune infrastructure monumentale après leur promotion administrative.L’État n’était pas la seule force derrière la croissance et l’apparition de nouvelles villes, mais sa politique et ses besoins étaient les facteurs décisifs pour la conception et la mise en œuvre de nouveaux idéaux urbanistiques. (Auteur)

The Roman Empire was a mosaic of cities and civic territories, some of which predated the Roman conquest and some were founded by the Roman emperors. Rome was an empire born of a city, an urban culture par excellence, and it was through cities that it controlled its conquered lands. The foundation of cities always had both a practical and ideological significance, as it expressed the growth of the empire and its civilizing impact, but, at the same time, it was * University of Oxford, Linacre College.

intrinsic to the government and economy of the state. The devastating effects of the third-century crisis, and the radical administrative, military, and fiscal reforms of the Tetrarchs and Constantine affected the network of the empire’s cities and led to a new understanding of the city and its functions. Yet the role of this period in the transition from early Roman to late antique urban ideals is very partially understood. A. H. M. Jones in his masterly surveys of the Later Roman Empire and of the Greek City, and shortly after him Dietrich von Claude, were among the first to note the importance

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 19-38. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111886

20

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

of new foundations, based exclusively on a survey of the administrative sources (mainly Hierocles, Georgius Cyprius and Procopius).1 In most archaeological and architectural discussions of Roman and late Roman urbanism, however, this period is normally represented by a narrow selection of examples, typically comprising the imperial capitals of Trier, Milan, Sirmium, Thessalonike, Antioch, and Constantinople, and the fortified villas of Diocletian and Galerius in the Balkans.2 This approach correctly stresses the central role of imperial building policy in this period, and the attachment of tetrarchic and Constantinian palatial architecture to earlier models of urban monumentality. However, one may rightfully question how far an urban paradigm based on imperial capitals and palaces reflects the realities and ideals of urbanism in the rest of the empire. In this paper, I shall attempt to broaden our understanding of urbanism in the late third and early fourth centuries using a different set of examples which, unlike imperial residences, rarely feature in discussions of Roman urban history. The sites mentioned or described here form a small, but substantial group of over twenty cities which were either built ex novo or radically rebuilt and expanded in the late third or early fourth centuries. Much like imperial palaces, they were new foundations, built by imperial decision. The purpose of their construction, however, was to support government and defence in the provinces, rather than to create opulent settings for imperial ceremonial. Their classification as urban depends both on their architectural features and substantial size, and on textual documentation confirming that they were recognised as cities in Late Antiquity (which imperial palaces and fortified villas were not). In other words, this paper will explore urban principles and ideals as were applied for the building of cities rather than palaces.

1. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford, 1940, pp.  59–94; idem, The Later Roman Empire. AD 284–602: a Social, Economic and Administrative History, Oxford, 1964, pp.  718–22; D. von Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt im 6. Jahrhundert (Byzantinsches Archiv, 13), München, 1969, pp. 203–08. Also see E. Kirsten, Die byzantinische Stadt, in Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, V.3, München, 1958, pp. 1–48, esp. 3–4, 9–12. 2. Most recently discussed by: H. W. Dey, The Afterlife of the Roman City: Architecture and Ceremony in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Cambridge, 2015. E. Mayer, Rom ist dort, wo der Kaiser ist: Untersuchungen zu den Staatsdenkmälern des dezentralisierten Reiches von Diocletian bis zu Theodosius II, Mainz, 2002; S.  Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent, New Haven and London, 2010, pp.  18–40; U.  Wulf-Rheidt, Residieren in Rom oder in Provinz? Der Kaiserpalast Felix Romuliana im Spiegel der Tetrarchischen Residenzbaukunst, in U. Brandl, M. Vasić (eds.), Roms Erbe auf dem Balkan, Mainz, 2007, pp. 59–79.

The eastern frontier provinces Given their close connection to the military reforms in the aftermath of the third-century crisis, the emergence of new urban ideals can be first observed at cities and provinces of a special defensive importance, particularly those closest to the frontiers. By contrast with early Roman urbanism which favoured the clear separation of urban and military space, cities were now treated as indispensable elements of the military network. This is reflected in both the foundation and building of new cities, and in the radical rebuilding, fortification and expansion of some pre-existing ones. A new, highly militarized urban form emerged, which combined elements from the building traditions of both military forts and cities into a novel settlement and community pattern, with troops and civilians living together within the same fortifications. From an archaeological viewpoint, the archetypal example of a city transformed towards this form is Palmyra in Syria – even though it was not a ‘new city’, it is necessary to start our discussion from it. After the suppression of Zenobia’s revolt by Aurelian, Palmyra lost much of its earlier monumental splendour, and was transformed into a heavily fortified city, receiving a new wall-circuit which enclosed about 120 ha.3 At first sight, the late Roman transformation of Palmyra may appear like a commonplace event. Yet it was a crucial point not only in the history of the city itself, but also for Roman urbanism and defensive strategy in general, since it included the construction of a monumental military fort within the walled area of the city. This was the so-called fort of Diocletian (c. 5 ha), located on the highest part of the settlement, which is the best preserved and earliest known military sector built within an urban settlement during the late Roman period (Fig. 1).4 The co-existence of army and city was close in the provinces of the East, since the harsh environmental conditions and the necessity of settlement near water sources dictated the stationing of the army on sites with already flourishing civilian settlements. Yet the fundamental principle of building forts separately from the city was respected throughout the Principate. Even if the army was stationed in the immediate vicinity of cities like Jerusalem or Palmyra, its presence did not interfere with the civilian space.5 The late Roman for3. See Intagliata in this volume, for bibliography and plans of Palmyra. 4. On the fort of Palmyra, see: M. Gawlikowski, Le Camp de Dioclétien: bilan préliminaire, in D. Schlumberger, H. Seyrig (eds.), Palmyre. Bilan et perspectives. Colloque de Strasbourg, Strasburg, 1976, pp. 153–63; S. P. Kowalski, The camp of Legio I Illyricorum in Palmyra, in Novaensia, 10, 1998, pp. 189–209. Also Intagliata in this volume. 5. The sources concerning the basing of troops in cities have been collected by: R. McMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome, New Haven, London, 1988, pp. 209–17. The subject is extensively discussed in: N. Pollard, Cities, Soldiers and Civilians in Roman Syria, Ann Arbor, 2000, p. 35 ff.

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

21

Fig 1. Palmyra. The ‘fort of Diocletian’ (after Gregory, Roman military architecture, cit. n. 11, vol. 3, fig. E1.3).

tification of Palmyra, however, overturns this principle, by placing within the city a military base (of a novel type, much smaller than early Roman forts), and by treating the entire urban area as a centre of defence. The Fort of Diocletian at Palmyra was not just the base of a local urban garrison, but the headquarters of a legion of the regular army, the Legio I Illyricorum.6 Such a use of urban space would have been unthinkable under the Principate, except in periods of war, but it became the rule in Late Antiquity. Consequently, the urban fort and barracks of Palmyra constitute the archaeological manifestation of a major change in the concept of urbanism as a result of changing defensive strategies. The transition from the Principate to Late Antiquity left a deep trace on the once rich and monumental city of Palmyra which ceased to be the thriving commercial city it was in the first three centuries AD, and became the principal military centre of the Strata Diocletiana. This military highway connected Palmyra to other fortress-towns, like the city and legionary base of Sura (Suriya, Syria) and the fortress-town of Dibsi Faraj on the Euphrates (now flooded

6. Not. Dign. Or. 34.30; Pollard, Cities, Soldiers, cit. (n. 5), pp. 298–300.

by Lake Assad, Syria).7 The latter is the most extensively investigated of these sites. Dibsi Faraj is believed to have been a fortress-town built by Maximian Galerius after his victorious campaigns in 298, and named in his honour as Neocaesarea (‘city of the new/young Caesar’), suggesting that it was built during his reign as a Caesar to Diocletian (AD 293–305). Excavations prior to the inundation of the site in the early 1970s explored parts of the 5 ha citadel, confirming that the town was built there under the Tetrarchs (Fig. 2). Among other buildings, the excavations revealed the so-called principia, a compact complex of most probably military usage, including a small bath suite. Outside the citadel stretched a settlement of about 20 ha, but it is unknown if it was fortified.8 7. T. Ulbert, Villes et fortifications de l’Euphrate à l’époque paléochrétienne. In J.-M. Dentzer, W. Orthmann (eds.), Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie II. La Syrie de l’ époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, 1), Saarbrücken, 1989, pp. 286–88. 8. R. P. Harper, T. J. Wilkinson, Excavations at Dibsi Faraj, Northern Syria, 1972–1974: a preliminary note on the site and its monuments, in DOP, 29, 1975, pp. 319–38; Ulbert, Villes et fortifications, cit. (n. 7), p. 286. Pollard, Cities, Sodliers (n. 5), pp. 74–78.

22

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig  2. Dibsi Faraj. Plan of the fortified citadel with excavated parts (from Harper, Wilkinson, Excavations, cit. n. 8, fig. B).

What archaeology reveals about the building of cities in Syria, is reflected in the sources about the cities of Mesopotamia. Ammianus Marcelinus describes Amida (Diyarbakır, Turkey) as follows: This city (Amida) was once very small, but Constantius, when he was still a Caesar, in order that the neighbours might have a secure place of refuge, at the same time that he built another city called Antoninopolis, surrounded Amida with strong walls and towers; and by establishing there an armoury of mural artillery, he made it a terror to the enemy and wished it to be called after his own name. (……) Of this town the regular garrison was formed by the Fifth Legion Parthica along with a force of no mean size of natives. But at that time six additional legions, having outstripped the advancing horde of the Persians by rapid marches, were drawn up upon its very strong walls.9 9. Amm. Marc. 18.9.1–3 (text and translation J. C. Rolfe, revised by J.  Carew, Loeb Classical Library, 1971–72). Discussed by J. Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani: a comparison of late antique fortress cities on the Lower Danube and Mesopotamia, in A. G. Poulter (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond (Proceedings of the British Academy, 141) Oxford, 2007 pp. 436–55; Pollard, Cities, Soldiers and Civilians, cit. (n. 5), pp. 288–90.

In other words, the city served as the permanent base of a regular military unit, and as a temporary stronghold for other units campaigning in the area at times of war. Strong walls with towers and artillery turned the city into an enormous and mighty fortress, recalling the situation observed on the terrain in Palmyra. Ammianus uses similar terms in his account about neighbouring Singara (Sinjar, Iraq): (…) Singara (…) was abundantly fortified with soldiers and with all necessities. The defenders of the city, as soon as they saw the enemy a long way off, quickly closed the gates and, full of courage, ran to the various towers and battlements, and got together stones and engines of war (……) This city was defended by two legions, the First Flavian and the First Parthian, as well as by a considerable number of natives, with the help of some horsemen who had hastily taken refuge there because of the sudden danger.10

Although Ammianus reports that Amida existed before Constantius’ intervention, its earlier past is uncertain. His (and our) information on the history of the cities of Mesopotamia is partial, but, since he is the first written source to refer to Amida, his account has marked our understanding of its 10. Amm. Marc. 20. 6.1–2, 6.8 (translation Rolfe).

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

23

Fig  3. Tella-Constantina. U-shaped tower of the eastern fortification (courtesy of Jim Crow, photo taken in 1978).

history. Antoine Pérez and Martine Assénat recently argued that the city was monumentalised already in the Severan period, and that, in Late Antiquity, its fortified space was almost doubled from c. 80 to c. 150 ha. The authors believe that this expansion was the result of successive phases of building, under the Tetrarchs, Constantine/Constantius II, Jovian, and Valens.11 Indeed Ammianus states that Amida was the base of the Dioceltianic Legion V Parthica, and it is plausible to assume that a phase of expansion and fortification of the city accompanied its militarisation already under the Tetrarchs, according to the better documented model of Palmyra.12 The possibility of a tetrarchic phase at Amida can be indirectly supported by examining the case of the neighbouring city of Tella. Ammianus reports that Amida was fortified at the same time as Tella (Viranşehir, Turkey), which in Roman times was known as Antoninopolis.13 This name apparently celebrates the (re)foundation of Tella under Septimius Severus who made his son Antoninus (Caracalla) his co-emperor in AD 198, right after his victorious Parthian campaign. One century later, Tella/ Antoninopolis was sacked by the Persians, and restored by Maximian Galerius who renamed it after himself as Maximianopolis. Ammianus appears unaware of these 11. See Pérez and Assénat in this volume with references to earlier bibliography, and plans of the city of Amida. Also, see: Pollard, Cities, Soldiers, cit. (n.  5), 2000, pp.  288–90; T. A. Sinclair, Eastern Turkey: an Architectural and Archaeological Survey, London, 1989, pp. 164–76; S. Gregory, Roman military architecture on the eastern frontier, Amsterdam, 1997, vol. 2, pp. 59–65. 12. On the V Parthica, see: D. Ritterling, Legio, in RE, I, col. 1586; D. Hoffmann, Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia dignitatum, Düsseldorf, 1969, Bd. 2, pp. 413–14. 13. Amm. Marc. cit. (n. 9).

events, which are only recorded by the much later chronicle of John Malalas. The latter also reports that, some thirty years after its restoration by Galerius, Tella was destroyed again and restored by Constantine, now being renamed as Constantina.14 The succession of the city’s names (TellaAntoninopolis-Maximianopolis-Constantina) is an unusual example of dynastic toponymy following the phases of urban history, and demonstrating the importance and intensity of imperial intervention in the cities of Mesopotamia. The sequence of phases recorded for Tella (Severan-TetrarchicConstantinian), was very probably repeated at neighbouring Amida and perhaps Singara.15 Very little survives to be seen from the Roman phases of these three fortress towns of Roman Mesopotamia (Amida, Tella, and Singara), but it seems that they were fortified with sophisticated walls equipped with massive U-shaped or round towers (Fig. 3). This architecture is well known from other fortifications of the late third and early fourth centuries in the frontier provinces of Europe, Asia and Africa. In Mesopotamia, it had a lasting impact, since it was reproduced by fortifications built under Anastasius and Justinian (at Dara) and was maintained and reproduced even by the Artuqids (in the rebuilt walls of Amida, Martyropolis, Singara, etc.). It is unknown which parts of these cities hosted the lodgings of the local military units. Amida has a citadel, which is separated from the city by an Artuqid line of fortification. It is likely to have been fortified also in Antiquity.16 Singara also 14. Malal. 12.47; 13.12. 15. On the probable Diocletianic phase of Amida, see: M. Assénat, A. Pérez, Amida Restituta, in A. Gasse, F. Servajean, C. Thiers (eds.), Et in Aegypto, et ad Aegyptum. Recueil d’Etudes dédiées à J.  C. Grenier (Cahiers de l’ENIM, 5), Montpellier, 2012, pp. 7–52, esp. 28–30. 16. Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, cit. (n. 11) pp. 164–76; A. Gabriel, Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie orientale, Paris, 1940,

24

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

has a high rocky citadel which is likely to have been used as a military stronghold (Fig. 4). Almost nothing is known about the interior organization of Tella/Constantina, since its ruins have disappeared, although they were excellently preserved until the early nineteenth century. It seems that it was a roughly rectangular fortification.17 There is a hierarchy of size among these cities, which may reflect a hierarchy in their military role. Amida probably served as the central and by far largest fortified base (150 ha), apparently playing a role similar to that of Palmyra in Syria (120 ha), while the other towns played the role of secondary and much smaller fortifications: Tella’s walls enclosed about 60 ha, whereas Singara encompassed about 17. We may confidently regard the fortification and militarisation of the cities of the Asian frontier under the Tetrarchs and Constantine as a building drive reflecting a new strategy for the building of centres of Roman habitation and defence. The Danube provinces In the same period, numerous fortress towns also appeared in the Danube provinces, where archaeological remains rather than textual testimonies furnish the bulk of the evidence. The most characteristic, and perhaps earliest, example of the transformation of a pre-existing city into a fortress-town in the Balkans is probably Serdica (mod. Sofia, Bulgaria). This city can be compared with Amida as an example of massive expansion of fortified space, and with Palmyra as an example of functional transformation. Founded under Trajan and fortified under Marcus Aurelius, Serdica was a very small town of about 16 ha, but, under the Tetrarchy or Constantine, it acquired a new fortified sector of 55 ha (Fig. 5).18 Defended with strong walls and round towers in dense positioning, the new sector of the city remained separated from the pre-existing early Roman fortification, but linked to it by a gate. With its two linked fortified sections, the city resembled the shape of a top-heavy ‘8’. pp. 85–90. See Pérez and Assénat in this volume, for more recent suggestions concerning the possible site of the legionary base of Amida. 17. J. G. Taylor, Journal of a Tour in Armenia, Kurdistan and Upper Mesopotamia, in Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 38, 1868, pp. 353–54; Pollard, Cities, Soldiers, cit. (n. 5), p. 291; E. Keser Kayaalp, The Church of the Virgin at Amida and the Martyrium at Constantia: Two monumental centralised churches in late antique northern Mesopotamia, in Olba, 21, 2013, pp. 405–36. 18. V. Dintchev, Северната крепост на Serdica (Сердика ІІ). История и актуално състояние на проучванията, in idem (ed.), In honorem proffessoris Георги Кузманов (Bulletin of the National Institute of Archaeology, 41), Sofia, 2013, pp. 237–79; S. Boyadzhiev, Принос към историята на крепостната стена на Сердика, in Arkheologiia, 1 (3–4), 1959, pp. 35–45.

Fig  4. Singara. Plan of the fortified city (from Gregory, Roman military architecture, cit., n. 11, vol. 3, fig. C10.1).

Given the scarcity of excavations within the new fortified section of Serdica, its character and purpose remain obscure. Under Aurelian or Diocletian, Serdica became the provincial capital of the newly-created province of Dacia Aureliana, and later of Dacia Mediterranea. Dacia Aureliana was created as part of the re-organization of the administration and defence of the Lower Danube provinces, after transdanubian Dacia was given up and thousands of Romans migrated south of the Danube in the 270s. Serdica most probably received refugees and this may have created a pressing need to increase its walled area. Besides, the strategic importance of the city for the support of the Danube frontier rose immensely. Serdica stood on the main military highway of the Balkans (from Aquileia to Byzantium), at a point where it was crossed by secondary highways leading to the Danube and the Aegean. The newly walled area of the city is very likely to have served military purposes and the need for a strongly fortified base for the armies stationed in the region. Besides its new walls, Serdica was also equipped with a large supply-base consisting of eight public warehouses (horrea),

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

25

(Vidin, Bulgaria),21 Augustae (Hurlets, Bulgaria),22 Abrittus (Razgrad, Bulgaria),23 Zaldapa (Abrit, Bulgaria),24 Tropaeum (Adamclisi, Romania),25 Ibida (Slava Rusa, Romania),26 and Acrae (Cape Kaliakra, Bulgaria),27 were organised and fortified as cities in the early fourth century (Fig.  6).28 A similar building drive can be followed in Pannonia (late Roman Valeria and Pannonia Prima), with the settlements of Keszthely-Fenekpuszta, Alsohetenypuszta (Fig. 7), Környe, Ságvár, and Tác in Hungary.29

Fig  5. Serdica. The early Roman (south) and adjacent late Roman (north) fortifications (after Boyadzhiev, Принос към историята, cit., n. 18, fig. 8).

built along the southwest walls of the early Roman fortified sector. The presence of horrea probably suggests that Serdica was a major centre of military supply in the north Balkans.19 The building of new fortress towns is a salient feature in the provinces of Pannonia and Moesia.20 In the Lower Danube provinces (late Roman Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Inferior and Scythia Minor), the fortress towns of Bononia

19. E. Rizos, Centres of the late Roman military supply network in the Balkans: a survey of horrea. In Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 60,  2013, pp.  659–96, esp. 677–78; V.  Dintchev, Късноантични обществени складове от Thracia и Dacia, in: M. Milcheva (ed.), Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem professoris Ludmili Getov (Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis Suppl., 4), Sofia, 2005, pp. 277–85. 20. See discussions by: A. G. Poulter, Roman towns and the problem of late Roman urbanism: the case of the Lower Danube, in Hephaistos, 5/6,  1984, pp.  109–30. V.  Dintchev, Новите късноримски центрове на Scythia и Moesia Secunda, in C. Popov, A. Tenchova (eds.), Сборник в Памет на Професор Велисар Велков, Sofia, 2009, pp. 414–48.

21. M. Ivanov, Bononia, in R. T. Ivanov (ed.), Roman and Early Byzantine Settlements in Bulgaria, Sofia, 2003, pp. 18–22. 22. S. Maschov, Das spätantike Kastel und frühbyzantinische Stadt Augustae beim Dorf Hartletz, Nordwestbulgarien, in G. Susini (ed.), Limes, Bologna, 1994, pp. 21–36; R. Ivanov, The Defence System along the Lower Danube between Dorticum and Durostorum from Augustus to Mauricius, Sofia,1999, pp. 180–84. 23. T. Ivanov, Абритус. Римски кастел и ранновизантийски град в Долна Мизия, Sofia, 1980; R. Ivanov, Abrittus, in idem (ed.), Roman Cities in Bulgaria, Sofia, 2012, pp. 155–98. 24. S. Torbatov, The Late Antique City of Zaldapa, Sofia, 2000; idem, The Defence System of the Late Roman Province of Scythia (end of the 3rd-7th century AD), Veliko Turnovo, 2002, pp. 318–39. 25. I. Barnea (ed.), Tropaeum Traiani I. Cetatea, Bucureşti, 1978; C. Scorpan, Limes Scythiae: topographical and stratigraphical research on the late Roman fortifications on the Lower Danube (BAR Int. Ser., 88), Oxford, 1980, pp. 44–50; Tabula Imperii Romani: Romula, Durostorum, Tomis. L35 – Bucarest, Bucarest, 1969, p. 74; M. Zahariade, Scythia Minor: a History of a Later Roman Province (284–681), Amsterdam, 2006, pp.  85–86 ; Torbatov, Defence System, cit. (n. 24), pp. 300–07; R. Born, Die Christianisierung der Städte der Provinz Scythia Minor. Ein Beitrag zum spätantiken Urbanismus auf dem Balkan, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp. 111–14. 26. M. Iacob, (L)Ibida, Slava Rusa, Tulcea, 2005, pp.  10–23; Zahariade, Scythia Minor, cit. (n. 25), pp. 95–96; Scorpan, Limes Scythiae, cit. (n. 25), pp. 40–41; Torbatov, Defence System, cit. (n. 24), pp. 281–85. 27. G. Dzhingov, A. Balkanska, M. Iosifova, Калиакра 1: Крепостно строителство, Sofia, 1998, pp. 24–70; S. Torbatov, Defence System, cit. (n. 24), pp. 226–32. There are significant dating problems concerning the fortifications of Kaliakra, on which see Dintchev, Късноримски центрове, cit. (n. 20), pp. 426–29. 28. See general discussion by: Dintchev, Късноримски центрове, cit. (n. 20). This settlement network included the smaller but similarly fortified sites of Ulmetum, Voivoda, Popovo, and Tutrakan/Transmarisca. On them, see Dintchev, ibid. pp. 424–26. These sites shared the same road network and supportive functions as the larger cities, but had a smaller size of 1.5 to 7 ha. None of them is recorded as a city or bishopric by any late antique source (except Transmarisca which appears as a bishopric in the seventh century). Their absence from the administrative sources is, I think, too consistent to be fortuitous. It most probably suggests that they had a special role, perhaps associated with imperial domains. I would therefore classify them as non-urban inner fortifications, comparable to the imperial centre of Gamzigrad, which belonged to their size scale and was also absent from the sources of civil and ecclesiastical administration. 29. For bibliography on the Hungarian sites, see Heinrich-Tamáska in this volume, with plans of the site of Keszthely-Fenekpuszta

26

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig  6. (1) Abrittus, (2) Zaldapa, (3) Ibida, (4) Tropaeum (same scale) (after Dintchev, Новите късноримски центрове, cit. n. 20, fig. 10).

Most of these sites are likely to have been inhabited already under the Principate,30 and a few are even known to have been seats of early Roman municipia (Tropaeum, Abrittus, Tác).31 Yet, prior to their fortification at the beginning of Late Antiquity, they had neither the status of a city, nor any significant role in the defensive network of the Danube frontier. Most of them are located at a distance of 20–50 km from the Danube, forming a network of large fortified settlements along a supportive zone in the rear of the frontier line proper. Normally, they occupied relatively flat sites on plains, thus continuing the tradition of early Roman settleand a map of the Danube frontier highlighting the sites under discussion. For a summary description and plans of all the sites mentioned here: E. Tóth, Late Roman Fortresses in Transdanubia, in Z. Visy (ed.), The Roman Army in Pannonia: an Archaeological Guide of the Ripa Pannonica, Pécs, 2003, pp. 181–93. 30. For example, the recently undertaken systematic excavation at Zaldapa located a second/third-century phase on the site: G. Atanasov, V. Ionov, I. Valeriev, Античен град Залдапа, in Archeologicheski Otkritiia i Razkopki prez 2014 g., 2015, pp. 421–23. 31. On Tropaeum: E.  Doruţiu-Boilă, Über den Zeitpunkt der Verleihung des Munizipialrechts in Scythia Minor, in Dacia 22,  1978, pp.  245–47. On Abrittus: M.  Tatscheva, Die Munizipalisierung in den Provinzen Moesia Superior und Moesia Inferior (Mitte des 2.- Mitte des 3. Jhs.), in M. Mirković, Römische Städte und Festungen an der Donau, Beograd, 2005, pp. 211–17. Tác is believed to have been the site of the early Roman municipium Gorsium: J. Fitz, Gorsium later Herculia, Hungary, in Princeton Enclyclopedia of Classical Sites, Princeton 1976, pp. 361–62.

Fig  7. Alsohetenypuszta (from Tóth, Transdanubia, cit. n. 29, p. 192).

ment. Nevertheless, they demonstrate a stronger appreciation for the defensive advantages of the landscape than early Roman fortification normally does. For example, Slava Rusa/ (L)Ibida included a hilltop citadel, whereas Abrit/Zaldapa was built on a quite steep slope. Recent research on the landscape around Keszthely-Fenekpuszta has demonstrated that it was originally built on a narrow headland protruding deep into Lake Balaton, surrounded by marshland.32 Natural defensive advantages are most evident at the settlement of Cape Kaliakra (the city of Acrae), occupying a magnificent oblong headland protruding about 2 km into the Black Sea. Fortifications were the first and best kind of infrastructure provided for these sites, demonstrating that their preparation for defence was a priority. The buildings protected inside the fortifications were mainly large military warehouses, villa-like residences, and baths, in various spatial arrangements. Tropaeum had a central street with porticoes, whereas Keszthely-Fenekpuszta had two central streets, symmetrically crossing at a right angle in the centre of the site, with a tetrapylon/groma marking their crossing. These are the only elements of public monumentality known so far from these sites. At the moment, there is no clear evidence for any one of them having had an orthogonal street grid with canonical insulae, and none of them seems to have had a forum, temples, or show buildings, which are normally expected in 32. P. Sümegi et al., Reconstruction of the environmental history of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in O. Heinrich-Tamáska (ed.), KeszthelyFenékpuszta im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und Moesia (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense, 2), Leipzig, 2011, pp. 541–72, esp. 561–64.

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

Roman cities. The absence of distinctive religious architecture is particularly striking. Monumentality in these towns was expressed by the austere strength of fortifications, rather than by the refined opulence of civic and religious buildings. Indeed, it would have been difficult to distinguish them from military forts of the time, had it not been for their size, which qualifies them as the largest of all the newly fortified settlements of the fourth century (Fig. 6). Ibida/Slava Rusă, Zaldapa/Abrit and Akrai/Kaliakra reached a size of c. 25 ha; Bononia and Alsohetenypuszta were c. 20 ha; Fenekpuszta 15 ha; Tropaeum and Abrittus c. 10 ha. In other words, these settlements were larger than most of the military forts built in the same period, which hardly ever exceeded an extent of 5 ha (e.g. Iatrus, Troesmis, Tokod, etc.). Uncertainty as to whether these sites were military or civilian led Hungarian scholarship to describe them by the neutral term Inner Fortifications, which also reflects their position in the interior of the province rather than on the frontier line proper.33 Although there are few reasons to believe that the Lower Danube examples differed in functions and character from their counterparts in Hungary, Bulgarian and Romanian scholarship never hesitated to call them cities, because better textual documentation allows us to know that the ‘Inner Fortifications’ of the Lower Danube indeed had civic status in the administration of the East Roman Empire. The common features of these settlements in their layout and fortification strongly suggest that they were the product of a centrally designed building drive, betraying a plan to restore the settlement landscape after its devastation by the third-century crisis, now following a new logic of social organization and a new defensive strategy. In peaceful times, they coordinated the local production and storage of supplies for the troops, and therefore most of them were equipped with horrea. At war, they could be used by the combatant forces as strongholds, and were therefore surrounded with very strong and sophisticated walls. The most eloquent expression of this mixed role is found in the dedicatory inscription from one of the gates of Tropaeum, dating from c. AD 315: it declares that the ‘civitas Tropaeensium’ was built under Constantine and Licinius from its foundations (‘a fundamentis constructa est’) for the support of the defence of the frontier (‘ad confirmandam limitis tutelam’).34 Albeit rhetorical, this statement suggests that the building of Tropaeum was regarded as a significant building project, and that the site was at the same time a civilian settlement (civitas) and a centre of defence.35 The 33. O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung von Kesthely-Fenékpuszta: innere Chronologie und funktioneller Wandel, in eadem (ed.), Kesthely-Fenékpuszta im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und Moesia (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense, 2), Leipzig, 2011, pp. 651– 702, esp. 655–61. Also see the author’s paper in this volume. 34. CIL 3 13734. 35. See discussion by A. G. Poulter, Roman towns and the problem

27

archaeology of Tropaeum provides concrete evidence in support of this claim. Under the Principate, Tropaeum was a municipium with a settlement of some 5 ha. It was probably completely destroyed during the mid-third-century crisis and for some decades it is likely to have been deserted. In the late third/early fourth century, a new fortification started to be built, which doubled the size of the city to about 10 ha. It was protected by very strong walls which featured densely positioned U-shaped towers and large barbicans. Towers of this typology were probably used for mounting artillery and for sophisticated forms of siege tactics. The defensive role of Tropaeum is also reflected in the central building of the town: a large warehouse (horreum) of a typically military architectural type, built on the central crossing of the two main streets, and most probably used for the storage of food supplies (the annona militaris).36 Thrace As said already, this new pattern of urbanism mostly appears in the limes provinces, but there are some notable examples in the central Balkans, which deserve a special discussion. These areas were not strictly speaking parts of the limes, but they received the attention of the imperial government in the aftermath of the third-century crisis, probably in response to their extensive devastation by the Gothic invasions of that period. The Thracian Plain was one of the most seriously affected regions of the Balkans during the mid-third-century Gothic invasions: Philippopolis was sacked in 249 and besieged in 267/8, while Gothic groups roamed the region wreaking havoc in the 250s and 260s. In an effort to restore the area, the Tetrarchs created three new cities which, not fortuitously, received dynastic names, paying homage to their founders: Diocletianopolis, Diospolis (‘the city of Zeus/Jupiter’, named after the patron of Diocletian) and Sebastopolis (‘city of the Augusti or the Augustus’).37 In its local context, the naming of cities after the Tetrarchs was a major political statement, mirroring the plethora of cities named after Trajan and his family in Thrace: the Optimus of late Roman urbanism: the case of the Lower Danube, in Hephaistos, 5/6,  1983/1984, pp.  109–30, esp. 119; idem, The transition to Late Antiquity, in: idem (ed.), The transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and beyond (Proceedings of the British Academy, 141), Oxford, 2007, pp. 1–50, esp. 35. 36. Rizos, Centres of the late Roman, cit. (n. 19), pp. 672–73. 37. On third-century warfare in Thrace, see: G. Martin, Dexipp von Athen, Tübingen, 2006, pp. 17-19, 104-136 (relevant fragments from Dexippus); SHA Ga 5. 6; Zos. 1. 22-23, 42-43, 45-46; Jord. Get. 18-20; H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, transl. T. J. Dunlap, Berkeley, 1988, 43-57; P. Heather, The Goths, Oxford, 1996, pp. 38-43. On the new cities of Thrace: Hierocles, Synekdemos (ed. Honnigmann, 1939), 635.6-8; P. Soustal, Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos) (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 6), Wien, 1991, pp. 239, 245, 247, 437.

28

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig  8. Hisarya/Diocletianopolis of Thrace. Plan of the fortified city (from K. Madzharov, Diokletianopol I, cit. n. 40, fig. 9).

Princeps was remembered as the emperor who had built the greatest number of cities, and had contributed more than any Roman ruler to the development and prosperity of the region; Diocletian and Maximian presented themselves as continuing and restoring his work. Indeed, Diocletian was praised by a panegyrist for having filled ‘the deserted parts of Thrace with inhabitants brought from Asia.’38 One of the new cities of late antique Thracia was the ancient settlement of Hisarya, north of Plovdiv, which has been tentatively identified as the Diocletianopolis of the written sources.39 Hisarya/Diocletianopolis was a strongly fortified settlement built on relatively even ground, with a fortified area of about 30 hectares (Fig. 8). It was founded on the site of a spa resort, exceptionally rich in thermal springs. 38. Pan. Lat. 8. 21.1. 39. For an overview of the site and bibliography, see M. Madzharov, Diocletianopolis, in R. Ivanov (ed.), TIR K-35/2Philippopolis,Sofia, 2012, pp. 98–102; idem, Diocletianopolis, in R. Ivanov (ed.), Roman cities in Bulgaria, Sofia, 2012, pp. 439–66.

A thermal complex seems to have existed on the site since the second century. It was further extended and monumentalized under the Tetrarchy. Near the baths, a small amphitheatre was built, showing that this was indeed a site of recreation. Two very large fourth-century houses have been excavated, suggesting that the city was also the seat of a group of rich landowners or officials. In a secondary phase, during the fourth century, the city was monumentalised and acquired a very broad central alley (12 m wide) which connected the north and south gates, with a tetrapylon decorating its central crossing. Nevertheless, there is currently little evidence for the existence of an orthogonal street grid beyond the central alley.40 40. K. Madzharov, Diokletianopol I: topographie, système de fortification, urbanisation et architecture, Sofia, 1993; M. Madzharov, Diocletianopolis, ville paléochrétienne de Thrace, in Actes du 11e Congrès International d’Archéologie Chrétienne, Città del Vaticano, Roma, 1989, pp. 2521–37; idem, Diocletianopolis, in R. Ivanov (ed.), Roman Cities in Bulgaria, Sofia, 2012, pp. 445–54.

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

29

Fig  9. Hisarya/Diocletianopolis of Thrace. Barrack compound II, west of the Camels Gate (from K. Madzharov, Diokletianopol I, cit. n. 40, fig. 98).

All these buildings demonstrate that Hisarya/Diocletianopolis was designed as a major civilian centre, seat of the local elite and administration, and probably as a recreational resort. At the same time, however, it was also equipped as a mighty military stronghold, being by far the most heavily fortified site of Thrace. Its walls were very strong (with a thickness of 2.50–3.50 m) and exceptionally well-built, featuring masonry of a quality comparable to that of the third-century walls of Nicaea and Nicomedia. Their architecture is simpler than that of fortifications built near the Danube, as they feature mostly square towers, but the number and dense positioning of these towers suggests a settlement with an active and complex role in defence. Besides its walls, Hisarya/Diocletianopolis was also equipped with a very extensive barracks sector, stretching along the south and southeast walls (Fig. 9). It seems that these barracks were built during the fourth century, in association with a general revision of the urban plan, which included the addition of the central alley of the city.41 This is the best built and most extensive complex of late Roman military accommodation known from the Balkans, and one of the most noteworthy anywhere in the late Roman world. It is estimated that the barracks of Hisarya/Diocletianopolis could accommodate at least two thousand soldiers, which is the equivalent of two late Roman legions.42 The size and quality of this sector is far beyond the needs of a simple city garrison. Hisarya/Diocletianopolis may have been chosen to host the headquarters and accommodation of a comitatensian legion, and it certainly had an active role in the military network. The militarisation of Hisarya/Diocletianopolis may be related to the fact that it controlled the entrance of a mountain pass over the Haemus range (the Stara Planina), 4 1 . K .   M a d z h a r o v, К а з а рм е н и т е п о с т р о й к и н а Диоклецианополис, in Известия на Музеите на Южна България, 8, pp.  77–96. idem, Diokletianopol, cit. (n. 40), pp. 101–11. The excavator believes that the barracks were built in the late fourth century, under the Theodosian dynasty. An early to mid-fourth-century date seems likelier to me. 42. On the size of late Roman military units, see: T. Coello, Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army (BAR Int. Ser., 645), Oxford, 1996, pp. 1, 2, 59–64; P. Southern, K, Dixon, The Late Roman Army, London, 1996, pp. 30–33.

through which the Goths had entered Thrace in the mid-third century. The building of the city was therefore a measure for the security of the Diocletianic province of Thracia, in the aftermath of the third-century crisis. It is indicative of the threat Hisarya/Diocletianopolis posed for the enemies of the empire that, at some point, all the towers of the city were systematically demolished in an effort to neutralize the defensive value of the fortress. This may have happened during the wars of the Byzantine Empire with the Bulgars. A settlement very similar to Hisarya/Diocletianopolis is the mostly unexcavated ancient site of Maximianopolis, near modern Komotini in northern Greece. Maximianopolis, probably named as a counterpart of Diocletianopolis in honour of the other Augustus, was built on the site of the older settlement of Porsule, a station on the Egnatian Way (Fig. 10).43 Maximianopolis likewise seems to have been part of a plan to restore urban life and administration in Thrace. Very little is known about events in Aegean Thrace during the third century, but it seems that the crisis of the time was related to the demise of the ancient city of Abdera which, from the late third century on, disappears from the historical record after nine centuries of flourishing urban life. It seems that Maximianopolis replaced Abdera as the main centre of administration between Topirus and Maronea, and it is likely that it was assigned also a military role.44 As a settlement, Maximianopolis resembles Hissarya/ Diocletianopolis so closely that they can be described as ‘sister cities’. It occupied a flat site, surrounded by a wall-circuit of a rectangular shape, protecting a large area of c. 32 hectares, roughly the size of Hisarya/Diocletianopolis. Its fortifications do not stand any more, but a small excavated section of them suggests that they did not differ from those of Hisarya/Diocletianopolis, and were densely dotted with about 40 towers. Parts of an aqueduct bridge are still standing, demonstrating that Maximianopolis had running water supply from the neighbouring mountains. Virtually nothing is known about its urban plan, since it is 43. P. Soustal, Thrakien, cit. (n. 37), pp. 369–71; A. Avramea, TIR K 35, I: Philippi, Athens, 1993, p. 49. 44. The province of Rhodope had a limited military presence, according to the Notitia Dignitatum: Not. Dign. Or. 40. 46.

30

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig  10. Maximianopolis of Thrace (from Google Earth).

currently impossible to locate even its gates.45 Maximianopolis seems to have been a remarkably successful city, as it was the only tetrarchic city of the Balkans which survived the Dark Ages. It is known to have been inhabited until the thirteenth century, preserving its administrative importance and maintaining its fortifications without changes. A recently excavated hexagonal church of the Middle Byzantine period is suggestive of the remarkable prosperity of the city in the last centuries of its life.46 Illyricum A building drive comparable to that of Thrace was carried out in the rough regions between Macedonia, Epirus Nova and Dardania, in the northwest part of Illyricum. Much like Thrace, these were areas gravely affected by the thirdcentury crisis.47 The devastation was such that two cities, Styberra and Gordynia, were permanently abandoned. The war with the Goths demonstrated the need for strongly fortified centres in the mountainous valleys which connected the Adriatic, the Aegean and the Danube, and were probably also prone to the aggressiveness of local mountain tribes. Dynastic toponymy helps us identify two new foundations of the Tetrarchs in these regions: Hierocles, Procopius and the sources of ecclesiastical administration mention the cities of Diocletianopolis and Caesarea (‘the city of the Caesars’) in the late Roman province of Thessalia. In fact, these were built within the ancient Macedonian regions of Orestis and Elimiotis, in the upper reaches of the Haliacmon. At the time of Diocletian, these areas probably still belonged to the province of Macedonia, but, with the revision of the 45. N. Zekos, Μαξιμιανούπολις-Μοσυνόπολις. Ανασκαφή Περίκεντρου Ναού, Kavala, 2008; idem, ΜαξιμιανούπολιςΜοσυνόπολις: ανασκαφή περίκεντρου ναού, in Byzantinische Forschungen, 30, 2011, pp. 537–70. 46. Ibid. 47. Zosim. 1.43.

provincial boundaries under Constantine or Theodosius I, they were assigned to the province of Thessalia, and it is within this province that both Hierocles and Procopius mention Diocletianopolis and Caesarea. Procopius describes in detail how Justinian relocated Diocletianopolis to the neighbouring lake and city of Kastoria. His description allows the secure identification of the tetrarchic city with the large fortified settlement near modern Argos Orestikon.48 Diocletianopolis was a large settlement of 42 ha near the left bank of the Haliakmon (Fig. 11). Its fortified circuit had an irregular elongated shape, and wellbuilt walls with U-shaped towers. Very few parts of it have been excavated so far, including two Christian basilicas, and a fourth-century building, perhaps a dwelling or bath. Recent research suggests that Diocletianopolis was built as a successor to a pre-existing municipal entity in the same area, the koinon of the Orestae (κοινὸν Ὀρεστῶν), which was based at an extensive settlement, about 2 km west of the late Roman city.49 The large size of the Diocletianic settlement is suggestive of an ambitious foundation which, however, proved to be short-lived. According to Procopius, it was so badly affected by the fifth-century wars that it was deemed necessary to relocate the community to the site of neighbouring Kastoria.50 It seems that the foundation of Diocletianopolis was twinned by that of Caesarea, a town also built near the left bank of the Haliacmon, further downstream. Caesarea was probably the successor settlement of ancient Aiane. Its identification with the settlement of Paliokastro near the modern village of Kaisareia has been confirmed by the discovery of the fifth/sixth-century funerary inscription of Makedonios, bishop of ‘the city of the Caesars’.51 The name Caesarea 48. Procop. Build. 4.3.1; Th. Papazotos, Ανασκαφή Διοκλητιανουπόλεως. Οι πρώτες εκτιμήσεις, in Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον, 43.Α, 1988, pp.  195–218; A.  Petkos, Ανασκαφή νοτιοδυτικού τμήματος τειχών Διοκλητιανουπόλεως στο Άργος Ορεστικό Καστοριάς, in Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 14, 2000, pp. 581–90; F. Papazoglou, Les villes de Macédoine à l’époque romaine (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément, 16), Athènes, Paris, 1988, pp. 140–41, 238–39. 49. D. Damaskos, D. Plantzos, Πανεπιστημιακή Ανασκαφή στο Άργος Ορεστικό, in Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 23, 2009 (2013), pp. 27–32; D. Damaskos, Τοπογραφικά ζητήματα της Ορεστίδος και η αναζήτηση της έδρας του Κοινού των Ορεστών, in Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη, 20, 2006 (2008), pp. 911–22. It is significant that the Diocletianic city was the successor of a koinon, which, as a community category, was very probably the Greek equivalent to the nonurban municipia of the Latin provinces. Thus a parallel can be drawn with the examples of Tropaeum, Abrittus and Gorsium (Tác), all fortress towns replacing earlier municipia. 50. Procop. Build. 4.3.1. 51. Hierocl. 642.11; Procop. Build. 4.3.9; A. Keramopoulos, Wo lag die Καισάρεια des Procopius (de aedif. IV, 3, 273= V, 442)?, in B. Filov (ed.), Actes du IVc Congrès International des Etudes

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

31

Fig  12. Caesarea of Thessaly (from Google Earth). Fig  11. Diocletianopolis of Thessaly, near modern Argos Orestikon (after Papazotos, Ανασκαφή Διοκλητιανουπόλεως, cit. n. 48, fig. 4).

could, of course, relate to any period of Roman history, but in the context of west Macedonia its association with the Caesars of the Tetrarchy is likelier. The site and fortification pattern of Caesarea resemble Diocletianopolis, but its size is much smaller. The city stretched over about 10 hectares on a natural promontory surrounded by steep slopes (Fig. 12). Although small, it was a strongly fortified town, with a peculiar fortification consisting of two parallel curtain walls and semi-circular towers. Due to the fact that the site is not cultivated, it is possible to discern very clearly the shapes of buildings and of its spatial organization on the surface, especially with aerial photography and on Google Earth. The city had no organized street plan and no orthogonal insulae. Nevertheless, it probably enclosed several well-built structures, including what looks like a quadrate peristyle house, and a separately walled sector in the southwest part, which seems to have been a later addition, rather than part of the original urban plan. A number of new cities were also built further north in the Illyrian provinces. The form of their fortifications strongly suggests that they were roughly contemporary with the two tetrarchic cities of Macedonia. One of them is the site of Kalaja outside the village of Grazhdan (Dibrë district) in east Albania. It controlled the valley of the Black Drin, which connected Lychnidus (Ohrid) and the Via Egnatia with Scorda (Shkodër) and the plateau of Dardania (Kosovo). It is Byzantines (Bulletin de l’Institute Archéologique Bulgare, 9), Sofia, 1935, pp.  407–13; O.  Karagiorgou, Urbanism and Economy in Late Antique Thessaly (3rd to 7th century A.D.): the Archaeological Evidence, DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford, 2001, pp.  10,  139–42; Papazoglou, Villes de Macedoine, cit. 48), pp. 248, 249; A. Rizakes, I. Touratsoglou, Ἐπιγραφὲς Ἄνω Μακεδονίας (Ἐλίμεια, Νότια Λυγκηστίς, Ὀρεστίς), Athens, Paris, 1985, Cat. Nr 66.

a large irregularly shaped fortification of about 34 hectares (Fig. 13). The course and architecture of its walls resemble both Diocletianopolis and Caesarea: they form an irregular ciruit with U-shaped and square towers in dense positioning. Nothing is known about its inner organisation and plan.52 This major settlement is perhaps one of the unidentified cities of Epirus Nova, Alistron or Skeptōn.53 Another new foundation seems to be the late antique town of Scampa (Elbasan, Albania) on the Via Egnatia, which commanded the mouth of a mountain pass connecting Dyrrachium with the lake of Ohrid. It was the administrative and defensive centre of the valley of the river Shkumbin (the ancient Scampa, which gave the city its name). In the early fourth century, it was fortified with a perfectly quadrate fortification defending an area of about 12 hectares (348 × 348 m) (Fig. 14). The quadrate shape of its walls and the architecture of their U-shaped towers are unusual in Epirus. In plan, Scampa is reminiscent of the Inner Fortifications of Pannonia, and has been regarded by some scholars as a purely military fortification. Very little is known about its interior organisation and plan, since the site has been continuously inhabited into our days, and there has been only limited excavation. The walls, however, survive in much of their length on the south and west sides of the settlement, with the late antique masonry visible under later repairs which go into the Ottoman period. The settlement had two gates symmetrically placed at the middle of the east and west sides, and was traversed by the Via Egnatia. Three early Christian basilicas have been located, two of 52. A. Baçe, Fortifikimet e antikitetit të vonë në vendin tonë, in Monumentet 11, 1976, pp. 45–74 ; V. Popović, Byzantins, Slaves et autochtones dans les provinces de Prévalitane et Nouvelle Épire, in Villes et peuplement dans l’ Illyricum protobyzantin, (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 77), Rome, 1984, p. 201. 53. Alistron and Skeptōn are only mentioned by Hierocles (654.1a, 1b), and seem to be named after local tribal groups.

32

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig  13. Grazhdani. Late Roman fortified city (from Baçe, Fortifikimet e antikitetit, cit. n. 52, tab. III).

Fig  15. İznik/Nicaea. Plan of the late Roman fortified city (after Foss, Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications, p. 261, fig. 1).

Anatolia Late Roman urbanism in Anatolia hardly fits the city type portrayed so far in this paper. The dominant theme in the urban history of Anatolia concerns the maintenance or decline of the rich monumental heritage in the cities of the region.55 The only Anatolian city conforming to the fortress-town type described here is Nicaea (İznik) in its heavily fortified late Roman form (Fig. 15). Much like the already discussed case of Palmyra, Nicaea was a prosperous and monumental ancient polis, which was fortified under Claudius Gothicus (AD 268–70), being transformed into one of the most impressive late Roman fortresses. Nicaea is the only city of Anatolia, the fortification of which seems to have been a major imperial project, carried out with imperial funds and military resources. This is suggested by the building quality and architectural sophistication of the Nicene walls, which stand out as one of the finest fortifications built anywhere by the Romans.56 The reason for this exceptional treatment Fig  14. Elbasan/Scampa. Plan of the fortification (from Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, cit. n. 2, fig. 38).

which were extramural. Scampa seems to have functioned as a fortified administrative centre at the beginning of the dangerous upland course of the Via Engatia.54 54. E. Hobdari, Y. Cerova, Scampis dans l’antiquité tardive : la ville intra et extra-muros, in L. Përzhita, I. Gjipali, G. Hoxha, B. Muka (eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Albanian Archaeological Studies : 65th anniversary of Albanian archaeology (21–22 November, Tirana 2013), Tiranë, 2014,

pp. 501–10; G. Karaiskaj and M. W. E. Peters, Die spätantiken und mittelalterlichen Wehranlagen in Albanien: Städte, Burgen, Festungen und Kastelle (Ex Architectura, 7), Hamburg, 2010, pp. 185–86 ; G. Karaiskaj, Të dhëna të reja për datimin e kalasë së Elbasanit, in Monumentet, 3, 1972, pp. 147–58. 55. Extensively discussed by I. Jacobs, Aesthetic maintenance of civic space : the ‘Classical’ city from the 4th to the 7th c. AD (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 193), Leuven, 2013. 56. A. M. Schneider, W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Iznik (Nicaea), Berlin, 1938; C. Foss, D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications: an Introduction, Pretoria, 1986, pp. 79–120, 125– 29; J. Crow, Fortifications and urbanism in late antiquity:

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

33

Fig  16. Döşeme Boğazı/Maximianopolis of Pamphylia (?). Plan of the settlement (from Mitchell, Archaeology, cit. n. 58, fig. 64).

of Nicaea was its special position in the defensive network, commanding the beginning of the military highway from the Straits to the eastern frontier. Other cities along the same highway, like Nicomedia (İzmit), Iuliopolis (Çayırhan), and Ancyra (Ankara), are likely to have received walls of a comparable quality, but the archaeological evidence for this is currently limited.57 In the rest of Anatolia, no fortress towns are known from this period. The militarisation of the civil diocese of Asia was very limited – except in its southern provinces of Pamphylia and Isauria. South Anatolia played mainly a supportive role in the provisioning of the troops, which is reflected in one of the few identified tetrarchic city foundations: the town of Maximianopolis in Pamphylia has been tentatively identified as the ancient settlement at the south entrance of the Döşeme Boğazı, north of Antalya. The site is sufficiently well preserved to allow us to describe it as a well-developed village, with no monumental features (Fig. 16). Its core was an early Roman road station (mansio) of the Via Sebaste and it remained a small, unfortified settlement into the end of Antiquity. No walls, forum, streets or show buildings were ever constructed to make it look like a monumental Roman city. One piece of infrastructure, however, was provided: a massive horreum, some 81 × 85 m in size, the remains of which still stand to a substantial height (Fig. 17). It is very probable that this building was related Thessaloniki and other eastern cities, in L. Lavan, (ed.), Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism (JRA Suppl., 42), Portsmouth, 2001, pp. 89–105, esp. 90–91. 57. See Sayar and Rizos in this volume, pp. 87-89.

to a local imperial estate, and to the need for a large storage base for the produce gathered from it, possibly as part of the annona militaris network.58 It should be noted that, besides the city of Maximianopolis, the Synekdemos of Hierokles also mentions a κτῆμα Μαξιμιανουπόλεως in Pamphylia, i.e. ‘the domain of Maximianopolis’.59 It is perhaps no coincidence that the great horreum of Maximianopolis is the only notable public building known to have been provided to the new city: the state was more interested in providing infrastructure for a state network (the annona militaris), than in creating a monumental setting of traditional civic buildings for local politics. The foundation of Maximianopolis in Pamphylia was probably mirrored by the foundation of the city of Iovia in the same province, named in honour of Diocletian (Iovius).60 The foundation of Maximianopolis probably conformed to a long tradition of promoting rural communities to civic status. The urban development and sophistication of Roman Anatolia was reflected in the hierarchy of civic titles and statutes awarded not only to cities proper (ranging from polis/ civitas peregrina to metropolis and colonia), but also to rural 58. Hierocl. 681.5–6; S.  Mitchell, Archaeology in Asia Minor (1990–8), in Archaeological Reports, 45,  1998–9, p.  173; H. Hellenkemper, F. Hild, Lykien und Pamphylien (Tabula Imperii Byantini, 8), Wien, 2004, pp. 719–20;. Also, see E. Rizos, Remarks on the logistics and infrastructure of the Annona Militaris in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, in AntTard, 23, 2015, pp. 245–60, esp. 251. The site is visible on Google Earth. Coordinates: 37.10.21 N 30 36 07 E. 59. Hierocl. 681.5–6. 60. Hierocl. 680.1.

34

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig  17. Döşeme Boğazı/Maximianopolis of Pamphylia (?). View of the late antique horreum (Author 2012).

communities with an institutional structure that could potentially lead to a full civic statute: the latter could be recognized as mere villages (κώμη) and often could cluster into leagues known as demoi or koina (δῆμος, κοινόν).61 An interesting case of promotion of a non-civic community to civic status can be found in an early third-century AD inscription from the Pisidian town of Pogla: a local notable is honoured for liturgies he performed in times when Pogla belonged to a koinon (…ἔτεσιν κοινω|ν[ίας]…), and later when it became a city (…ἔτεσιν πο[λιτείας]…). It is very likely that Pogla was initially a village of serfs serving an imperial domain which was gradually granted civic recognition.62 Anatolia has produced two important epigraphic documents, concerning the awarding of civic statutes to the communities of Tymandos in Pisidia and Orkistos in Phrygia during the tetrarchic and Constantinian periods. These 61. C. Schuller, Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien, (Vestigia 50), München, 1996, pp. 217–31. 62. R. Cagnat, Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (IGR), Paris, 1906, vol. 3, p. 161, Nr. 409; M. Rostowzew, Die Domäne von Pogla, in Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts, 4, 1901 (Beiblatt), pp. 37–46.

documents illuminate a very different situation from what we have followed so far: these cities were not the product of an imperial building drive for defensive purposes, but the result of initiative by the local communities which saw the political changes of the time as a window of opportunity for their administrative upgrading. Under the Principate, Tymandos seems to have been a notable community which certainly had a structure of offices headed by a strategos. This, however, did not necessarily qualify Tymandos as a polis, since such offices existed in villages and koina.63 In the late third century, Tymandos appealed to an emperor (probably Diocletian, Galerius or Maximinus Daia) requesting to be granted civic independence. The petition was favourably met, and an imperial decree was issued granting the civic statute. The document was carved in full text and publicly exhibited at the town. According to it, the locals could now form a civic council with judicial, fiscal and policing powers. The main requirement for their community was to have a sufficient number of men eligible to undertake curial offices and liturgies. The emperor ordered that a council of fifty men be provisionally 63. Schuller, Ländliche Siedlungen, cit. (n. 61), pp. 240–41.

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

created – a very small number indeed – and expressed the hope that the city would grow and a larger council would be possible in the future.64 A few years later, the Phrygian town of Orkistos requested from Constantine to be restored to city status and to be removed from the territory and rule of neighbouring Nakoleia. Its petition was granted and the city had the documents related to its independence proudly carved on a marble block. The promotion of Orkistos to city status is documented in greater detail than that of Tymandos, since the inscription quotes in full the letter of the locals to Constantine, the response of the emperor, and the letter of the praetorian prefect Ablabius announcing the news to the city – all dating from AD 324–26.65 The people of Orkistos make their case by describing their town as a notable settlement in every respect: in their letter they call it oppidum, not deigning to call it by its proper administrative status (apparently a κώμη/vicus). According to its inhabitants, Orkistos was well located in the regional communications network and had a station of the cursus publicus; it had a forum with statues of emperors and a substantial population; it also had several water mills, implying its importance as a grain producing centre. Early third-century inscriptions from Orkistos confirm the presence of imperial statuary (of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus) and the existence of developed civic institutions, including a political assembly (ἐκκλησία) and a council of elders (γερουσία) which issued decrees and commissioned honorific monuments. It was probably based on these monuments that the locals supported their claim that their town had once been a city. According to them, their city was deprived of its title by an unfair decision of the imperial authorities, and was subjected to neighbouring Nakoleia.66 64. ILS 6090 = CIL III 6866; B. Hürmüzlü, Preliminary Report on Results of the Isparta Archaeological Survey 2008: New Investigations at Pisidian Tymandos, in Colloquium Anatolicum, 8, 2009, pp. 199–233; K. Belke, N. Mersich, Phrygien und Pisidien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 7), Wien, 1990, pp. 408–09. Also see the comments by: J. Arce, La fundación de nuevas ciudades en el imperio romano tardío: de Diocleciano a Justiniano (s. IV-VI), in G. Ripoll, J. Gurt and A. Chavarría (eds.), Sedes Regiae (ann. 400–800), Barcelona, 2000, pp. 31–62, esp. 33–35. 65. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, 7: Monuments from Eastern Phrygia, Manchester, 1956, pp.  69–75, Nr. 305; A. Chastagnol, L’inscription Constantinienne d’Orcistus, in MEFRA, 93,  1981,  381–416; F.  Kolb, Bemerkungen zur urbanen Ausstattung von Städten im Westen und im Osten des römischen Reiches anhand von Tacitus, Agricola 21 und der Konstantinischen Inschrift von Orkistos, in Klio, 75, 1993, pp. 321–41; R. Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constantine, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 151–83; Arce, Nuevas ciudades, cit. (n. 64), pp. 35–38. 66. It is now doubted if the community of Orkistos had full civic status under the Principate: Schuller, Ländliche Siedlungen, cit. (n.  61), pp.  227–30 (with references to the early Roman

35

Besides civic institutions, the early Roman inscriptions of Orkistos also mention the existence of associations (κοινοὶ σύλλογοι), suggesting a strong presence of associational religion. One of these sectarian groups may have been a Christian congregation, since the presence of Christians is one of the main reasons Constantine invokes for the awarding of a civic statute to the community: ‘like a crown atop all these reasons comes the fact that all the inhabitants of this place are said to be followers of the most holy religion.’ (Quibus omnibus quasi cumulus accedit quod omnes ibidem sectatores sanctissimae religionis habitare dicuntur).’67 Evidently the Christians of Orkistos seized on the opportunity to gain privileges by demonstrating their loyalism towards the new Christian regime. Another possible example of an Anatolian town rising to civic status thanks to the Christianity of its inhabitants, more or less during this period, may be Nazianzos in Cappadocia. Nazianzos was almost completely unknown until the fourth century AD, when it emerged as a dynamic Christian centre. Previously, it is only mentioned as a road station, and there is no evidence for it having been an earlier autonomous city.68 Like Orkistos, it was probably a prosperous rural or semi-rural settlement, well positioned on the regional road network, and, like many places in Anatolia, thoroughly Christianised. Its first bishop, Gregory of Nazianzus the Elder, was a wealthy local landowner, of a probably similar background to the Christian notables of Orkistos, who sought to form their own city council. Although officially designated as cities, Tymandos, Orkistos, and Nazianzos are not known to have received anything notable in the way of buildings and infrastructure. The two foundation documents anyway say nothing about new buildings or fortifications – the Orkistos inscription indeed insists on pre-existing infrastructure. It seems that the two new cities were expected to cater for themselves. Civic independence meant fiscal autonomy and the freedom to manage local resources, a fact which was expected to provide financial means for public building. The importance of fiscal autonomy is reflected in a second imperial letter included in the inscription of Orkistos. How far did these newly-founded cities benefit from their newly-acquired autonomy? Orkistos seems to have been a rather unsuccessful foundation, since it is not mentioned by any of the sources of civil and ecclesiastical administration in Late Antiquity. Its autonomy is unlikely to have outlasted the fourth century. By contrast, Tymandos and Nazianzos are steadily mentioned at least down to the seventh. As far as their physical development is concerned, little can be said, given the absence of archaeological inscriptions). 67. See n. 70. 68. F. Hild, M. Restle, Kappadokien: Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 2), Wien, 1981, pp. 244–45; Itin. Anton. 144.5 ; Itin. Burdig. 577.2.

36

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig  18. Sites in Anatolia and the East.

evidence. In any case, they appear to have been rather inconspicuous settlements.69

During the fifty years from the accession of Diocletian to the death of Constantine, the Roman Empire not only founded a great number of new cities, but also effectively adopted a new urban ideal. Continuity from the traditions of Roman urban planning and building is expressed through preference for lowland sites on even terrain, and for a normal, if sometimes small, size of a city. Ruptures from early Roman urbanism, however, are also striking. Newly built towns appear to have neglected the traditional aspects of monumentality. A very few of them had colonnaded arteries and orthogonal street grids, and none is known to have had a monumental forum or traditional civic and religious buildings. Their main piece of infrastructure was fortifications, and sometimes aqueducts. Their internal organisation appears to have been in most cases loose, often including baths and large villa-like houses in free spatial arrangement. In many ways, the new city type was a hybrid combining features of both urban centres and military establishments

of the early Roman period, without fully emulating either of these categories. As a settlement type, the late Roman fortress-town was the product of a new defensive strategy and social organisation model, conceived and adopted in the aftermath of the third-century crisis. The institution behind the design and foundation of fortress towns was the imperial government, and, accordingly, their architectural equipment and urban configuration reflected the needs and priorities of state networks and institutions: fortifications and barracks for the army, warehouses for the storage of the annona, and residences for a centralised administration. Similarly, their geographical distribution follows areas of major geostrategic interest for the state: the frontier provinces of the East and the Danube, vulnerable areas and military routes in the central Balkans and Anatolia. As a city-type, the fortress town remained remarkably successful in the East, as it was reproduced in city building projects carried out under Anastasius and Justinian, notably at Karin-Theodosiopolis (Erzurum, Turkey), Martyropolis (Silvan, Turkey), Dara-Anastasiopolis (Dara, Turkey), Zenobia, Resapha (Rusafa, Syria), and Justiniana Prima (Caričin Grad, Serbia), most of which are discussed in this volume.70

69. On Orkistos: K. Belke, M. Restle, Galatien und Lykaonien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 4), Wien, 1984, p. 211; on Tymandos: see n. 66.

70. See the papers in this volume by: Crow on Theodosiopolis; Keser Kayaalp, Erdoǧan and Palmer on Dara; Bletry on Zenobia;

Conclusions

new cities and new urban ideals, AD 250-350

37

Fig  19. Sites in the Danube provinces and the Balkans.

State policy and defence, however, were not the only force behind the growth of cities. Far from the zones of geostrategic interest, the networks and forces of provincial economy were active and sometimes allowed the unplanned development of new centres. The epigraphically documented Ivanišević on Carićin Grad; Sack and Gussone on Resapha. Also, see the discussions by: E. Zanini, Urban Ideal and Urban Planning in Byzantine New Cities of the Sixth Century AD, in L. Lavan, W. Bowden (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology (Late Antique Archaeology, 1), Leiden, 2003, pp.  196–223; J. Arce, La fundación de nuevas ciudades en el Imperio romano tardío: de Diocleciano a Justiniano (s. IV-VI), in G. Ripoll, J. M. Gurt (eds.), Sedes Regiae (ann. 400–800), Barcelona, 2000, pp. 31–62; H. Saradi, The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century, Athens, 2006, pp. 464–70.

cases of Tymandos and Orkistos provide a strong example for that. Here it was the prosperity and ambition of local communities, and their desire to acquire civic status, that instigated their designation as cities by the emperors – not some particular need of the central government. Strikingly, but significantly, the promotion of these communities to civic status does not seem to have involved any notable building or the creation of settlements of a distinctive character. In this respect, Tymandos and Orkistos represent a different current in late antique urbanism, that of the economically dynamic small rural community, which Gilbert Dagron defined by the term bourgade.71 Although smaller and 71. G. Dagron, Entre village et cité : la bourgade rurale des IVc– VIIc siècles en Orient, in Koinonia 3, 1979, pp. 29–52 (reprinted

38

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

less monumental than cities, some villages did develop an economic dynamism of a quasi-urban level, which often led to their official recognition as centres of administration. The inscription of Orkistos, with its emphasis on the wealth of the settlement provides an exemplary case. At the same time, Orkistos is also the first known example of a community being promoted to civic status in partial recognition of its position in the ecclesiastical landscape, thus combining for the first time two features which pushed several large villages into the echelon of cities during Late Antiquity: regional economic importance and ecclesiastical prominence. It should be clear that the conclusions presented here are provisional, since the majority of the examples discussed in this paper have received little or no archaeological investigation. My goal was to raise awareness

in G. Dagron, La romanité chrétienne en Orient, London, 1984).

of the features of a pivotal phase in the history of Roman urbanism which, even though it culminated in the foundation of Constantinople, remains poorly understood. I hope that future surveys and excavations will enrich the picture outlined here with more data from these fascinating sites. Acknowledgement I am grateful to Koç University, the Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, the Technological Research Council of Turkey, and the Netherlands Institute in Turkey for supporting my research in 2011-13. I wish to thank Professors Scott Redford, Alessandra Ricci, Hansgerd Hellenkemper, Fokke Gerritsen, and Bryan Ward-Perkins for their help and advice at various stages.

Castellum – Castrum – Civitas ? L’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements de l’antiquité tardive en Pannonie et en Mésie Seconde : étude comparative Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska* Castellum – Castrum – Civitas? Functional changes in the new foundations of Pannonia und Moesia Secunda in Late Antiquity : a comparative study** The present article examines, on the basis of selected examples from the Danube provinces, the processes of transformation that took place in Late Antiquity. In each of the two provinces of Pannonia and Moesia Secunda two examples of particularly well studied fourth-century fortifications are compared: Tokod and Iatrus/Krivina on the Limes, and Keszthely-Fenékpuszta and Abritus/Razgrad in the interior of the provinces. Taking the debate about the function and date of the Pannonian inner fortifications as a starting point, the comparative approach to the Lower Danube provides an opportunity to better understand the purpose of these installations in the context of the organisation of the frontiers in Late Antiquity. In addition, the wider development and transformations these sites underwent are examined, showing that civil authorities and Church organisation became increasingly important. (Author)

1. Introduction Le renforcement du limes romain le long du cours moyen et inférieur du Danube prit, au plus tard à partir de l’abandon de la province de Dacie, une importance fondamentale pour l’empire romain. Face à la pression des incursions barbares sur la frontière du Danube, on inventa de nouvelles tactiques

militaires, réforma l’armée, construisit de nouveaux forts et mit en place un système de ravitaillement complexe. Ce processus, dont les débuts remontent à la Tétrarchie et qui vit sa dernière grande phase d’expansion sur le bas-Danube sous Justinien Ier, signifiait que le limes ne représentait plus une frontière linéaire à vocation défensive mais devint un élément d’un système à plusieurs échelons qui comprenait

* Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas (GWZO) an der Universität Leipzig. ** Cette étude s’inscrit dans le cadre de ma participation, à travers le GWZO, au projet intitulé « Continuité et discontinuité dans la Chrétienté du Danube moyen et inférieur entre l’Antiquité tardive et le haut Moyen Age » https ://www.uni-leipzig. de/~gwzo/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id =1146&Itemid=1811 [23.01.2015]) et s’appuie aussi sur des travaux effectués à Belgrade et Zagreb alors que j’étais titulaire d’une bourse de recherche Feodor-Lynen de la Fondation Alexander de Humboldt. *** Abréviations : Barnea = I. Barnea (éd.), Tropaeum Traiani 1. Cetatea. (Bibl. de Arch., 35), Buҫureşti, 1979. – Ber. RGK = Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission. – Bülow et Milčeva  = G. von Bülow, A.  Milčeva (éd.), Der Limes an der unteren Donau von Diokletian bis Heraklios, Sofia, 1999. – Heinrich-Tamáska 1 = O. Heinrich-Tamáska (éd.), Keszthely-Fenékpusza im Kontext spätantiker Kontinuitätsforschung zwischen Noricum und Moesia (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 2), Budapest et al., 2011. – Heinrich-Tamáska 2 = O. Heinrich-Tamáska (éd.), Keszthely-Fenépuszta : Katalog der

Befunde und ausgewählter Funde sowie neue Forschungsergebnisse (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 3), Budapest et al., 2013. – Iatrus I–V = Iatrus-Krivina, Spätantike Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau I–V (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike, 17), Berlin, 1979,  1982,  1986,  1991,  1995. – Iatrus VI = Iatrus-Krivina, Spätantike Befestigung und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau VI (Limesforschungen, 28), Mainz, 2007. – Konrad et Witschel = M. Konrad, Chr. Witschel (éd.), Römische Legionslager in den Rhein- und Donauprovinzen – Nuclei frühmittelalterlichen Lebens ? (Bayer. Akademie d. Wissenschaften Phil.-hist. Kl. N. F. 138) ) München, 2011. – Mócsy = A. Mócsy (éd.), Die spätrömische Festung und das Gräberfeld von Tokod, Budapest, 1981. – Poulter = A. G. Poulter (éd.), The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and beyond (Proceedings of the British Acad. 141), New York, 2007. – Vagalinski = L. Vagalinski (éd.), The Lower Danube in Antiquity (VI c BC – VI c AD), 6–7.10.2005, BG-Tutrakan, Sofia, 2007. – Vagalinski et Sharaknov l. Vagalanski, N. Sharankov (éds.) = LIMES XXII. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012, Sofia 2015.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 39-55. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111887

40

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

ainsi que transformait l’arrière-pays.1 Au cours du IVe siècle, on fortifia également certains habitats civils et on assigna à ces derniers de nouvelles tâches dans le cadre de la réorganisation des frontières. La construction de grands greniers (horrea) laisse à penser que ces greniers jouaient un rôle dans l’administration de l’annona.2 1. Voir en général : A. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A  History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire, London, Boston, 1974, pp. 213–358 ; A. G. Poulter, The Transision to Late Antiquity, in Poulter, pp. 1–50 ; id., The lower Danubien frontier in Late Antiquity : evolution and dramatic change in the frontier zone, c. 296–600, in A. Schwarcz, P. Sousal, E. Tcholakova (éd.), Der Donauraum in der Spätantike und im Frühmittelalter (Miscellanae Bulgarica, 22), Wien 2016, pp. 171–192 ; J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, The Lower Danube Region under Pressure. From Valens to Heraclius, in Poulter, pp. 101– 34 ; M. Whitby, The Late Roman Army and the Defence of the Balkans, in Poulter, pp. 135–61. – Pour la Pannonie, voir entre autres : S. Soproni, Der spätrömische Limes zwischen Esztergom und Szentendre. Das Verteidigungssystem der Provinz Valeria im 4. Jahrhundert, Budapest, 1978 ; Id., Die letzten Jahrzehnte des pannonischen Limes (Münchener Beiträge zu Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 38), München, 1985. – Pour le bas-Danube, voir entre autres : R. Ivanov, Das römische Verteidigungssystem an der unteren Donau zwischen Dorticum und Durostorum (Bulgarien) von Augustus bis Maurikios, in Ber. RGK, 78, 1997, pp. 476–640, ici 519–606 ; Id., Der Limes von Dorticum bis Durostorum (1.–6. Jh.) – Bauperioden des Befestigungssystems und archäologische Ergebnisse 1980–1995, in P. Petrović (éd.), Roman Limes on the middle and lower Danube (Cahiers des Portes de Fer, Monogr., 2), Belgrade, 1996, pp. 161–71 ; T. Ivanov, Абритус. Римски кастел и ранновизантийски град в Долна Мизия, Том І. Топография и укрепителна система на Абритус. – Abritus a Roman castle and early Byzantine town in Moesia and Moesia Inferior, vol. 1. Topography and fortifications system of Abritus, Sofia, 1980, pp.  183–212  ; T.  Sarnowski, Die Anfänge der spätrömischen Militärorganisation des unteren Donauraumes, in H. Vetters, M. Kandler (éds.), Akten des 14. Internat. Limeskong. 1986 in Carnuntum (Der römische Limes in Österreich, 36) Wien, 1990, pp. 855–61 ; V. Dinčev, Classification of the late antique cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia, in Archaeologia Bulgarica, 3, 1999, pp. 39–73 ; Id., The fortresses of Thrace and Dacia in the Early Byzantine period, in Poulter, pp. 479–546 ; M. Zahariade, Moesia Secunda, Scythia și Notitia Dignitatum, București, 1988 ; C. Băjenaru, Minor fortifications in the Balkan-Danubian area from Diocletian to Justinian (Nat. Mus. of Romanian Hist. Center of Roman Military Stud., 8), Cluj-Napoca, 2010. 2. L. Borhy, ‘Non castra sed horrea…’. Zur Bestimmung einer der Funktionen spätrömischer Befestigungen, in Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, 61, 1996, pp. 207–24 ; Id., Spätrömische Stadtmauern in Pannonien. Funktion, Typologie, Chronologie, in A. R. Colmenero, I. Rodá de Llanza (éd.), Murallas de ciudades romanas en el occidente del Imperio : Lucus Augusti como paradigma, Lugo, 2007, pp. 99–113 ; A. Mócsy, Das Lustrum Primipili und die Annona Militaris, in Germania, 44, 1966, pp.  313–26  ; A.  G. Poulter, The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Lower Danube : the city, a fort and the countryside, in Poulter, pp. 51–97 ; Id., Town and country in Moesia Inferior, in

D’autre part, on rencontre également de nouvelles fondations d’habitat ou acquisitions et transformations d’anciens habitats. Le terme « fortifications intérieures »3 s’est établi dans les milieux de la recherche hongroise pour décrire les installations construites en Pannonie. Ce terminus technicus se réfère simplement à la situation des fortifications à l’intérieur de la province, à l’exception de la ripa pannonica ; la distribution de ces fortifications semble avoir renforcé le réseau urbain (Fig. 1).4 En l’absence de documents écrits, le statut juridique de ces fortifications, et par conséquent leur appartenance aux autorités militaires ou civiles compétentes, n’a jusqu’à présent pas fait l’unanimité. Ces désaccords sur les fonctions que ces établissements remplissaient ont également influencé les opinions sur leur date de construction : on propose généralement les deux premiers tiers du IVe siècle.5 Une comparaison avec la région du bas-Danube permet d’approcher la question sous un nouvel angle. Cette région possède des établissements semblables à l’intérieur de Id. (éd.), Ancient Bulgaria. Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, Univ. of Nottingham, 1981, vol. 2, Nottingham, 1983, pp. 74– 118 ; Id., Roman towns and the problem of Late Roman urbanism : the case of the Lower Danube, in Hephaistos, 5–6, 1983–1984, pp. 109–32 ; V. Dinčev, Sur la caratéristique d´Iatrus (deuxième moitié du IVe – début du Ve s.), in Bülow et Milčeva, pp. 165–74 ; Id., Kѣcнoaнтични oбщecтвeни cклaдoвe oт Thracia и Dacia (Late antique public granaries from Thracia and Dacia), in Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Ludmili Getov (Stud. Arch. Univ. Serdicensis, IV), Sofia, 2005, pp. 277–95 ; A. Schwarz, Städte und Föderaten an der mittleren und unteren Donau im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert, in H. Friesinger, A. Stuppner (éds.), Zentrum und Peripherie – Gesellschaftliche Phänomene in der Frühgeschichte (Mitteilungen d. Prähistorischen Kommission, 57), Wien, 2004, pp. 105–13 ; E. Rizos, Centres of the late Roman military supply network in the Balkans  : a survey of horrea, in Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 60, 2013, pp. 659–96. 3. En Pannonie, ce fut A. Radnóti, Római tábor és feliratos kövek Környéről (Le camp romain et les monuments épigraphiques de Környe), in Laureae Aquincenses. Memoriae Valentini Kuzsinszky dicatae, Budapest, 1941, pp. 77–105 ici 105, qui introduisit le concept de « fortifications intérieures ». 4. En résumé, voir : E. Tóth, Az alsóhetényi 4. századi erőd és temető kutatása, 1981–1986. Eredmények és vitás kérdések (Vorbericht über die Ausgrabung der Festung und des Gräberfeldes von Alsóhetény 1981–1986. Ergebnisse und umstrittene Fragen), in Archeologiai Értesítő, 114–15, 1987–1988, pp. 22–61 ; Id., Studia Valeria. Az alsóhetényi és ságvári késő római erődök kutatásának eredményei, Dombóvár, 2009 ; Soproni, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n.  1), pp.  138–55  ; O.  Heinrich-Tamáska, Pannonische Innenbefestigungen und römische Kontinuität : Forschungsstand und -perspektiven, in Konrad et Witschel, pp. 571–88. 5. Ibid. Sur les questions de datation : O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Bemerkungen zur Transformation spätantiker Strukturen in Pannonien am Beispiel von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, 42–43, 2007–2008, pp. 199–229 ici Tab. 1. – Voir également la section suivante du présent article.

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

41

Fig. 1. Les frontières du limes et leurs arrière-pays dans le région du Danube moyen et inférieur aux IVe et Ve siècles apr. J.-C. : 1 Keszthely-Fenékpuszta ; 2 Környe ; 3 Tác/Gorsium ; 4 Ságvár ; 5 Alsóheténypuszta/Iovia? ; 6 Tokod ; 7 Szombathely/Savaria ; 8 Sopron/ Scarbantia ; 9 Pécs/Sopianae ; 10 Osijek/Mursa ; 11 Vinkovci/Cibalae ; 12 Sremska Mitrovia/Sirmium ; 13 Donji Petrovci/Bassianae ; 14 Belgrad/Singidunum ; 15 Kostolac/Viminacium ; 16 Gigen/Oescus ; 17 Svičov/Novae ; 18 Krivina/Iatrus ; 19 Razgrad/Abritus ; 20 Adamklissi/Tropaeum Traiani ; 21 Nikjup/Nicopolis ad Istrum ; 22 Lòveč/Melta ; 23 Kutlowiza/Montana ; 24 Niš/Naissus ; 25 Gamzigrad/Felix Romuliana. – Auteur.

la province, auxquels on attribue le rôle d’habitats civils remplissant des fonctions militaires. Ces fondations du IVe siècle forment une chaîne avec les villes déjà établies, et s’alignent le long d’une voie majeure à une distance d’environ 30–50 km du limes danubien et parallèlement à ce dernier.6 Ces établissements ne sont en réalité pas sans précurseurs, mais leur réincarnation ne remonte pas au-delà de l’époque de la Tétrarchie ou du règne de Constantin. Ainsi on inclut Abritus – que l’on traitera de façon plus détaillée cidessous – et Voivoda (en Mésie seconde / Moesia Secunda ; Fig. 1 : nos. 19 et 26) ainsi que Tropaeum Traiani, Zalpada et Libida en Scythie mineure (Scythia Minor ; Fig. 1 : nos. 20, 27 et 28) dans cette catégorie.7 L’uniformité de leur 6. Poulter, Transition, cit. (n.  1), pp.  29–37. – Voir aussi O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Castra and towns in the hinterland of the Limes during Late Antiquity : Pannonia and the provinces along the lower Danube in comparison, in Acta Archaeologica Carpathica XLXI, 2016, sous presse. 7. Poulter, Roman towns, cit. (n. 2), pp. 121 f. ; E. Rizos, Cities, architecture and society in the eastern and central Balkans during Late Antiquity (ca AD 250–600), (thèse de doctorat inédite, Université d’Oxford), Oxford, 2010 (inédit), pp.  57–86  ; M.  Zahariade, The Tetrarchic Reorganisation of the Limes Scythicus, in Vagalinski, pp. 293–304 ; S. Тorbatov,

construction a amené A. G. Poulter à suggérer la présence d’ingénieurs militaires et à proposer que ces établissements étaient occupés par les officia des praesides et des duces.8 Le présent article a pour but – après avoir présenté un résumé de l’état actuel des recherches concernant les rôles remplis par les fortifications intérieures de Pannonie, les dates proposées et le rang qu’elles occupaient dans l’infrastructure de l’Antiquité tardive – de proposer que le site de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta en Pannonie première (Pannonia Prima) était effectivement une de ces «  nouvelles fondations » et de le comparer au site de Razgrad/ Abritus en Mésie seconde. En plus des deux castra situés Kѣcнoaнтичният град Залдапа (The Late Antique city of Zaldapa), Sofia, 2000 ; M. Wendel, Karasura III : Die Verkehrsanbindung in frühbyzantinischer Zeit (4.–8. Jh. n. Chr.) (ZAKS, 6), Langenweissbach, 2005, pp.  44–54, cartes 2a–b ; A. Barnea, Concluzii, in Barnea, pp. 227–31 ; V. Dinčev, Новите късноримски центрове на Scythia и Moesia secunda, in Сборник в памет на професор Велизар Велков, Sofia, 2009, pp. 414–48. 8. A. G. Poulter, The use and abuse of urbanism in the Danubian provinces during the Later Roman Empire, in J. Rich (éd.), The city in Late Antiquity, London, New York, 1992, pp.  99–144, ici pp. 119 et 129 ; id., Roman towns, cit. (n. 2), p. 122.

42

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

dans l’arrière-pays des deux provinces, on prendra aussi en considération deux forts, chacun situé sur une section du limes : Tokod en Pannonie valérienne (Valeria ; Fig. 1, no 6) et Krivina/Iatrus en Mésie seconde (Fig. 1, no 18). Cette étude forme la base d’une discussion portant sur les ressemblances et les différences dans la conception de ces établissements, leur aménagement intérieur, ainsi que sur les bases de l’infrastructure et de l’économie en place au cours des IVe au VIe siècles. L’examen de ces aspects – s’intéressant à quatre sites archéologiques particulièrement bien étudiés – devrait permettre d’esquisser les transformations subies par ces habitats pendant l’Antiquité tardive. Une approche comparative semble particulièrement adaptée à la détection de différences dans l’évolution des deux régions : l’administration romaine aurait cessé de fonctionner en Pannonie au début du second quart du Ve siècle, mais on observe que certains éléments de cette organisation ont persisté. Une partie de la Pannonie savienne (Savia) et de la Pannonie seconde (Pannonia Secunda) a même été réincorporée à l’empire.9 La Mésie seconde subit des incursions majeures à la suite des campagnes d’Attila dans les Balkans, mais l’organisation des frontières fut rétablie et resta en place jusqu’au début du VIIe siècle.10 Ainsi ce ne sont que les formes d’une continuité romaine que l’on pourrait tenter de retrouver en Pannonie, formes qui auraient pu persister de manière décentralisée et morcelée jusque vers la fin du Ve siècle et même au VIe siècle.11 La Mésie seconde, par contre, aurait pu continuer 9. R. Bratož, Pannonien, in Reallex. Germanischen Altertumskunde, 22, Berlin, New York, 2003, pp. 469–83, ici 473–82 ; L. Barkóczi, History of Pannonia, in A. Lengyel, G. T. B. Radan (éds.), The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, Lexington, Budapest, 1980, pp. 85–124, ici 110–24 ; Z. Tomičić, Der Untergang der Antike und deren Nachlebeformen in Südpannonien (Nordkroatien), (Zaton antike in njene oblike preživetja v južni Panoniji [severni Hrvaški]), in R. Bratož (éd.), Slowenien und die Nachbarländer zwischen Antike und karolingischer Epoche (Situla, 39,1), Ljubljana, 2000, pp. 255–98 ; H. Gračanin, Južna Panonija u Kasnok Antici i Ranom Srednjovjekovlju (od konca 4. do konca 11. stoljeća), Zagreb, 2011, pp. 69–145. 10. Voir note 2. De plus, voir F. Curta, Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.  500–700, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 120–89. 11. Voir entre autres, T. Vida, Die Zeit zwischen dem 4. und dem 6. Jahrhundert im mittleren Donauraum aus archäologischer Sicht, in Konrad et Witschel, pp. 615–48 ; Id., Local or Foreign Romans ? The Problem of the Late Antique Population of the 6th–7th Centuries AD in Pannonia, in D. Quast (éd.), Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe : Thirteen International Studies on Early Medieval Mobility (Monographien d. RGZMs, 78), Mainz, 2009, pp.  233–59  ; Heinrich-Tamáska, Bemerkungen zur Transformation, cit. (n.  5), pp.  215–23  ; R.  Bratož, Die Auswanderung der Bevölkerung aus den pannonischen Provinzen während des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts, in Konrad et Witschel, pp.  589–614  ; V.  Bierbrauer, Die Keszthely-Kultur und die romanische Kontinuität in Westungarn (5.–8. Jh.). Neue

de bénéficier du pouvoir économique et social de l’Empire Byzantin, vu sa situation de province frontalière. La Pannonie État des recherches sur les fortifications intérieures L’intégration des fortifications intérieures à l’infrastructure de l’Antiquité tardive constitue un élément central du débat autour de la date d’origine et du rôle de ces établissements. En plus de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, on compte les sites de Környe, Ságvár, Alsóheténypuszta et Tác parmi les installations de ce type (Fig. 1, nos. 1–5).12 Keszthely-Fenékpuszta semble être le seul site situé en Pannonie première, mais, étant donné que le tracé exact de la frontière avec la Pannonie valérienne n’a pas été établi avec certitude, il n’est pas exclu qu’il soit situé en province valérienne.13 Endre Tóth a récemment récapitulé les éléments communs aux fortifications intérieures de manière suivante  : premièrement, elles occupaient une situation topographique semblable, dans les zones basses et près de cours d’eau ; deuxièmement, elles avaient en commun certains éléments d’architecture, y compris leur plan régulier et rectangulaire couvrant une surface allant de 7 à 20 hectares et des bâtiments à fonction identique tels les horrea, les thermes et les bâtiments de prestige.14 La date de construction des fortifications intérieures repose sur une datation en deux phases des tours des fortifiÜberlegungen zu einem alten Problem, in H. Seibert, G. Thoma (éds.), Von Sachsen bis Jerusalem. Festschr. für Wolfgang Giese zum 65. Geburtstag, München, 2004, pp. 51–72 ; N. Christie, The survival of Roman settlement along the middle Danube  : Pannonia from the fourth to the tenth century AD, in Oxford Journal of Arch., 11,3, 1992, pp. 317–39 ; Id., Towns, Land and Power : German-Roman Survivals and Interactions in fifth- and sixth-century Pannonia, in G. P. Brogiolo, N. Gauther, N. Christie (éd.), Town and their Territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Transformation of the Roman World, 9), Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2000, pp. 275–97. 12. Tóth, Az alsóhetényi, cit. (n. 4), pp. 61–81 ; Id., Gorsium ? Herculia ? in P. Kovács, Á. Szabó (éds.), Észak-kelet Pannonia I. Előszó változatok, kommentárok, olvasatok a CIL III 2 3 kötethez (Studia Epigraphica Pannonica, I), Budapest, 2008, pp. 61–101 ; Á. Szabó, O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Eine spätrömische Innenbefestigung in Környe, in Heinrich-Tamáska 1, pp. 47–59. L’attribution de Kisárpás à ce type de site est par contre erronée. E. Szőnyi découvrit un habitat non-fortifié, que l’on peut identifier avec Mursella, à cet endroit. Voir  : E.  Szőnyi, Mursella, in M. Šašel Kos, P. Scherrer (éds.), The autonomous towns of Noricum and Pannonia. Pannonia II (Situla, 42), Ljubljana, 2004, pp. 85–98. 13. Selon E. Tóth, Itineraria Pannonica. Római útak a Dunántúlon, Budapest, 2006, p. 151 ; Soproni, Die letzten Jahrzehnte, cit. (n. 1), p. 23, notes 82–83, suivant Mócsy, considère le problème comme résolu. 14. Tóth, Studia Valeria, cit. (n. 4), pp. 71–76.

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

cations, observées pour la première fois sur le site d’Alsóheténypuszta. On attribue les tours en forme de « U », celles en forme d’éventail ainsi que les tours quadrangulaires à la phase la plus ancienne ; la deuxième phase vit leur remplacement par des tours circulaires. Ces deux phases n’ont cependant pu être vérifiées que sur les sites d’Alsóheténypuszta et de Ságvár.15 Környe et Keszthely-Fenékpuszta n’ont que des tours circulaires, c’est-à-dire seule la seconde phase est présente ; par contre, seule la première phase est représentée à Tác, les tours circulaires étant absentes. Cette situation laisse entendre que, malgré un concept uniforme, ces établissements n’avaient pas tous été construits en même temps. En conséquence les dates proposées jusqu’à présent fluctuent entre le début du IVe siècle et la fin du second tiers du IVe siècle.16 Ce ne sont pas seulement les questions de datation qui ont fait l’objet de discussions ; en effet le rôle que les fortifications intérieures remplissaient a également suscité des débats prolongés dans les milieux de la recherche. Ils portent surtout sur leur attribution soit à la sphère militaire, soit à la sphère civile17. Dans les études plus anciennes, on assumait qu’il s’agissait de latifundia et même de latifundia impériales en raison des parallélismes avec Romuliana/ Gamzigrad.18 Depuis quelques temps déjà, on ne considérait plus ces fortifications intérieures comme des villes ; Aladár Radnóti pensait plutôt que ces établissements étaient des installations paramilitaires et qu’elles servaient de refugia.19 Les arguments suivants ont été avancés contre une fonction militaire : premièrement, ces localités ne figurent pas sur la Notitia Dignitatum ; deuxièmement, aucun fort du limes ne possède de tours circulaires ; et troisièmement, on constate souvent une absence de baraquements militaires et de garnitures de ceintures à décor excisé (Kerbschnitt) qui font généralement partie du mobilier des sépultures associées aux forts.20 15. Ibid., pp. 64–70. 16. En résumé : Heinrich-Tamáska, Bemerkungen zur Transformation, cit. (n. 5), p. 209, tab. 2. 17. Ibid. pp.  209–15. Récemment voir aussi les résumés dans Heinrich-Tamáska, Pannonische Innenbefestigungen, cit. (n. 4), pp. 577–80 ; Tóth, Studia Valeria, cit. (n. 4), pp. 78–80. 18. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, cit. (n. 1), p. 134. 19. A. Radnóti, Pannoniai városok élete a korai feudalizmusban, in Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, II. Osztályának Közleményei, 5, 1954, pp. 489–508 ici p. 499 f. 20. J. Fitz, Die Innenbefestigungen der Provinz Valeria, in Alba Regia, 18,  1980, pp.  53–60, ici 56 f.  ; Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, cit. (n. 1), p. 395 ; L. Barkóczi, Á. Salamon, Tendenzen der strukturellen und organisatorischen Änderungen pannonischer Siedlungen im 5. Jahrhundert, in Alba Regia, 21, 1984, pp. 147–87 ici 168 f. – Entre-temps, un fort avec des tours circulaires a été découvert sur le limes à Göd-Bócsaújtelep : Zs. Mráv, Archäologische Forschungen 2000–2001 im Gebiet der spätrömischen Festung von Göd-Bócsaújtelep (Vorber.), in Communicationes Arch. Hungariae, 2003, pp. 83–114.

43

En revanche, l’unité qui se manifeste dans l’exécution des éléments architecturaux et les aspects organisationnels des fortifications intérieures constitue un argument en faveur d’un contexte militaire. Les grands horrea et les indices permettant de déceler la présence d’une production de pain et de viande à grande échelle iraient dans le sens de centres de distribution servant l’arrière-pays du limes, ravitaillant les limitanei en temps de paix et les comitatenses en temps de guerre.21 On a également interprété les fortifications intérieures comme faisant partie d’un système défensif à plusieurs niveaux en opération en Pannonie pendant l’Antiquité tardive ; ce système, examiné par Sándor Soproni, se serait développé progressivement pendant les règnes de Constantin Ier et de Constance II. Ce système comprenait trois éléments : 1) un système de talus et de fossés en avant-poste dans les régions du Barbaricum (c’est-à-dire le limes sarmatiae ou fossé de Csörsz) qui s’étendait entre le coude du Danube et les Portes de Fer et délimitait le territoire sarmate.22 Des talus et fossés semblables, construits sur de longues distances, ont également été identifiés sur le bas-Danube en Valachie et au nord du delta du Danube (Fig. 1).23 2) Le limes lui-même formait la seconde ligne de défense : il s’agit ici de la ripa pannonica. 3) Enfin Soproni reconstruisit deux lignes de défense intérieures qui suivaient les voies principales en deçà de la frontière et qui étaient formées par une série de villes et de fortifications intérieures. Une de ces lignes suivait le Danube à une distance d’environ 40–50 km depuis Scarbantia, via Környe, Ságvár et Alsóhetény jusqu’à Sopianae, une autre formait une diagonale entre le nord-ouest et le sud-est, menant de Scarbantia, via Savaria et Keszthely-Fenékpuszta vers Sopianae (Fig. 1).24 Les noms que les fortifications intérieures portaient à l’époque romaine ont fait l’objet de débats tout aussi vifs. Les identifications de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta avec Mogetianae ou alors avec Valcum et de Ságvár avec Tricciana, basées sur l’Itinerarium Antonini, sont aujourd’hui dépassées, car 21. Tóth (Studia Valeria, cit. [n. 4], pp. 78–80) suppose que les tours des fortifications hébergeaient les garnisons. 22. En résumé : É. Garam, P. Patay, S. Soproni, Sarmatisches Wallsystem im Karpatenbecken (Régészeti Füzetek II, 23 2), Budapest, 2003. 23. Il existe cependant différentes opinions sur leur datation. Voir U. Fiedler, Zur Datierung der Langwälle an der mittleren und unteren Donau, in Arch. Korrespondenzblatt, 16, 1986, pp.  457–65  ; O.  Heinrich-Tamáska, Das Alföld im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend : Landschaft und Besiedlung, in ead. et al. (éds.), Offene Landschaften  = Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie, 31, 2014, pp. 161–90 ici 176–80. 24. Soproni, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 1), pp. 142–50. – Sur les questions autour de Kisárpád voir note 13 ci-devant. Voir aussi O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Inner fortifications and the Late Roman Defence System in Pannonia (4th–5th c. AD) – some Notes, in Vagalinski et Sharaknov, pp. 117–125.

44

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

l’itinéraire avait été rédigé alors que ces établissements n’étaient pas encore construits.25 La datation de la Tabula Peutingeriana s’avère tout aussi problématique ; de plus cette dernière ne recense pas de voies de communications à l’intérieur de la Pannonie et (sauf pour Környe) ne peut donc servir de source.26 Enfin la Notitia Dignitatum peut être considérée comme source adéquate, du moins du point de vue chronologique.27 C’est sur cette base que Soproni établit les équivalents suivants entre les fortifications intérieures et les stations des cohors-praefectus : Környe = Vincentia ; Ságvár = Quadriburgium  ; Alsóheténypuszta = Iovia.28 Cependant ces identifications, à part Alsóheténypuszta/Iovia, ont été reçues d’un œil critique.29 Keszthely-Fenékpuszta : castellum/castrum contra civitas Ce site, situé à l’ouest du Lac Balaton sur la pointe d’une presqu’île s’avançant sur le lac, a été au centre des recherches sur la continuité en Pannonie depuis des décennies. La présence de nécropoles devant le mur sud de la fortification comprenant des sépultures de l’Antiquité tardive, du Haut Moyen Âge (VIe–VIIe siècles) et de l’époque carolingienne30 a très tôt suscité des discussions sur la possibilité qu’une population locale romanisée ait continué à y résider. Ces discussions se sont concentrées sur l’origine de la culture de Keszthely datant de l’époque des Avars ; cette culture pourrait représenter soit des romani pannoniens soit un ou des groupes d’immigrants.31 Le fait que l’habitat lui-même soit à peine entré dans ces débats est d’autant plus étonnant que du matériel datant du Haut Moyen Âge y a été retrouvé.32 La fortification, en 25. On ne pourrait les localiser à ces endroits que si des habitats plus anciens, datant du Haut-Empire ou du milieu de l’époque impériale les avaient précédés. Tóth (Itineraria Pannonica, cit. [n.  14], pp.  141–49),  Radnóti (Pannoniai, cit. [n. 20], p. 496) et Barkóczi et Salamon (Tendenzen, cit. [n. 21], p. 168) étaient déjà de cet avis. Voir aussi O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta : Innere Chronologie und funktioneller Wandel, in HeinrichTamáska 1, pp. 653–702 ici 658–61. 26. Tóth, Itineraria Pannonica, cit. (n. 13), pp. 138 et 164 f. 27. A. Mócsy, Pannonia-Forschung 1973–1976, in Acta Arch. Acad. Scien. Hungaricae, 29, 1977, pp. 373–401, ici 391. 28. Soproni, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 1), pp. 172–77. 29. Tóth, Itineraria Pannonica, cit. (n. 13), pp. 154–66. Sur les problèmes concernant Iovia cf. ibid., pp. 108–36. 30. R. Müller, Die Gräberfelder vor der Südmauer der Befestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense, 1), Budapest, 2010. 31. Heinrich-Tamáska, Bemerkungen zur Transformation, cit. (n. 5), pp. 215–20. 32. K. Sági, Adatok a fenékpusztai erőd történetéhez (Über die Geschichte der Festung in Fenékpuszta), in a Tapolcai Városi Múz.  Közleményei, 1,  1989, pp.  261–317  ; R.  Müller, Neue germanische Funde aus der Festung Keszthely-Fenékpuszta,

grande partie rectangulaire, occupant une surface de 15 hectares, et pourvue de tours circulaires et de quatre portes, fut construite pendant le deuxième tiers du IVe siècle.33 L’emplacement régulier de chaque porte au centre du mur d’enceinte est conforme au plan des installations militaires. Les restes d’un tetrapylon ont été retrouvés au centre de la fortification, au croisement du decumanus maximus et du cardo maximus. Cet édifice représente un niveau de planification exceptionnel : l’accent mis sur ce carrefour central l’élève au rang d’élément architectural déterminant pour tout l’ensemble.34 Les bâtiments sont organisés en insulae, mais non pas en rangs serrés, le long des deux axes principaux, et ils sont fréquemment pourvus d’un portique donnant sur rue (Fig. 2c). Le plan de l’établissement ainsi que le rôle qu’on attribue aux bâtiments intérieurs sur la base de ce plan ne s’inscrivent cependant pas dans un contexte militaire. On retrouve leur précurseurs plutôt dans l’architecture des villae : en plus des pièces pourvues d’hypocaustes à abside, ces différents complexes renferment également des zones de production agricole et artisanale. On remarquera en particulier le bâtiment 25 (Fig. 2c), qui combine deux villae à péristyle et qui occupe une surface d’environ 3 000 m2 constituant ainsi le plus grand édifice de l’établissement.35 En outre deux balnea ont été relevés : une installation assez grande pourvue d’une latrine publique (Fig. 2c, no 24) et une plus petite accolée au bâtiment 25 (Fig. 2c, no 23).36 On in Acta Arch. Akad. Scien. Hungaricae, 59, 2008, pp. 231–45, O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Civitates et castra im Lichte der Kontinuitätsforschung : zwei Beispiele aus Pannonien (5.–7. Jh. n. Chr.), in ead. et al. (éds.), „Castellum, civitas, urbs“ – Zentren und Eliten im frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa/Centres and Elites in Early Medieval East-Central Europe (Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense, 6), Budapest et al., 2015, pp.  45–69 ici 48–58. 33. Toutes les portes furent fouillées, sauf la porte est. Cette dernière se situait sur une arête de terrain qui souffrit d’un glissement de terrain qui détruisit aussi le côté nord-est de l’enceinte et l’emporta vers le lac. Il n’a pas encore été possible de dater cet évènement. Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung, cit. (n. 25), pp. 667–73. 34. Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung, cit. (n. 25), pp. 686 f. – De plus, cf. J. Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani  : a comparison of Late Antique fortress Cities on the Lower Danube and Mesopotamia, in Poulter, pp.  435–55 ici p. 450 f. 35. Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung, cit. (n. 25), pp. 688–91 ; ead., Überlegungen zu den „Hauptgebäuden“ der pannonischen Innenbefestigungen im Kontext spätrömischer Villenarchitektur, in G. von Bülow, H. Zabehlicky, S. Zabehlicky (éds.), Bruckneudorf und Gamzigrad. Spätantike Paläste und Großvillen im Donau-Balkan-Raum (Koll. zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 17), Frankfurt am M., 2011, pp. 233–45. 36. O. Heinrich-Tamáska, R. Prien, Neue Erkenntnisse aufgrund der Ausgrabungen 2009 im Bereich der Gebäude 4 und 24 der spätrömischen Innenbefestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

45

Fig. 2a–b. Keszthely-Fenékpuszta : l’ancienne presqu’île (crête de lœss) avec la fortification de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta superposée à une carte géologique (a) ; les alentours de la fortification de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta avec les surfaces disponibles pour l’exploitation agricole (env. 120 ha, en hachuré) dans les environs (b). – Base des cartes : Lóczy 1912 et Földtani térkép (MÖFI Budapest 1985). Concept : auteur ; traitement : K. Kolozsvári.

46

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig.  2c–d. Keszthely-Fenékpuszta  : plan de base et structures internes de la fortification d‘après les fouilles archéologiques menées jusqu’à présent (c) : 1–3, 5–13, 16–23 bâtiments à fonction économique, bâtiments d´habitation et de représentation, 4 et 14 horrea, 15 basilique paléochrétienne, 22 tetrapylon, 23–24 bains, 25 villa/bâtiment principal ; phases de construction (1–3) de la basilique paléochrétienne attestées archéologiquement (d) : attribution probable à une phase en gris clair ; attribution certaine en gris foncé ; sans attribution, vide. – Auteur.

a également retrouvé le plan de deux horrea.37 L’un d’entre eux, le bâtiment 15 (Fig. 2c), fut détruit et remplacé par deux fois ; la couche de destruction associée à la première destruction a livré une grande quantité de restes de céréales carbonisées.38 Zsolt Visy a calculé, sur la base de sa taille, que ce grenier avait une capacité d’environ 5 000 m3, ce qui présuppose la culture d’une surface agricole correspondante et qui indique – si l’on tient compte de la surface Heinrich-Tamáska 2, pp. 619–33 ici 631. 37. Ibid. pp.  619–26  ; Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung, cit. (n. 25), pp. 677, 679 f. 38. Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung, cit. (n. 25), pp. 679–81 ; Tóth, Studia Valeria, cit. (n. 4), pp. 63 et 74–76 ; Borhy, Non castra sed horrea, cit. (n. 2).

occupée par la zone d’habitat, les prés et les champs – une taille considérable pour tout l’ensemble.39 Cependant les 39. Zs. Visy (Die ländliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft in Niederpannonien, in H.  Bender, H.  Wolff [éds.], Ländliche Besiedlung und Landwirtschaft in den Rhein-Donau-Provinzen des Römischen Reiches [Passauer Universitätsschriften zur Arch., 29] Espelkamp, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 421–49 ici p. 430, vol. 2, p. 143) donne une surface de 100 km2 (ce qui correspondrait à 10 000 hectares !), mais il s’agit sûrement d’une erreur. Il s‘envisageait probablement 100 hectares, ce qui correspondrait à un rendement d’environ 200 m3 de céréales par hectare. – Voir an revanche : O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Spätrömische Villen an der mittleren Donau – Anmerkungen zu Erforschung der Landnutzung am Übergang zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter, in V. Denzer et al. (éds.), Homogenisierung und Diversifizierung

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

analyses archéobotaniques ont révélé qu’une partie au moins du blé carbonisé stocké à Keszthely-Fenékpuszta était importée ;40 ainsi la taille du grenier ne prouve que de façon fort limitée l’étendue des parcelles qui auraient pu exister. Les horrea retrouvés en plusieurs occasions dans d’autres fortifications intérieures telles que celles de Ságvár et d’Alsóheténypuszta41 sont par conséquent plus informatifs sur la protection et l’administration de l’annona qu’ils ne le sont sur la capacité productive des champs aux alentours de ces établissements.42 Sur la base des données archéologiques relevées au sud des remparts (en dehors de la nécropole et de la zone fortifiée) et des données pédologiques et hydrologiques, la zone d’activité de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta aurait pu comprendre une surface d’environ 100 hectares (Fig. 2a–b). Cet ordre de grandeur correspond à la taille des surfaces productives occupées par les plus grandes villae rusticae.43 Les données archéobotaniques indiquent aussi qu’en plus d’une exploitation agricole basée sur la production céréalière et l’horticulture, on pratiquait aussi un type d’agriculture inhabituel pour l’époque romaine, dans lequel (au lieu de l’orge et du blé) l’engrain, l’amidonnier et l’épeautre étaient les espèces dominantes.44 En plus du grenier on peut citer d’autres indices permettant de reconstruire le type d’agriculture pratiqué à l’époque. Plusieurs fours ainsi qu’une quantité d’outils agricoles ont été retrouvés.45 Les études paléo-écologiques fournissent également des indications sur la culture locale des céréales et sur la pérennité des pratiques agricoles méditerranéennes jusqu’au VIIe siècle.46 Par contre, une nécropole fut établie à côté du grenier au courant du VIe siècle, ce qui laisse conclure que ce dernier ne remplissait plus sa fonction originale. L’autre horreum, situé à proximité de la porte nord, était déjà hors d’usage à cette époque.47 von Kulturlandschaften = Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie, 29, 2011, pp. 39–59 ici 48. 40. F. Gyulai, Pannonische Pflanzenbaukultur am Beispiel des Makroreste von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in Heinrich-Tamáska 1, pp. 581–95 ici 591. 41. Tóth, Studia Valeria, cit. (n. 4), pl. 1 et 11. 42. Dans un sens plus large, ainsi Tóth, Studia Valeria, cit. (n. 4), p. 78. Voir également : Visy, Ländliche Besiedlung, cit. (n. 40), pp. 430 f. ; Borhy, Non castra sed horrea, cit. (n. 3), pp. 220–23 ; Heinrich-Tamáska, Die spätrömische Innenbefestigung, cit. (n. 25), p. 696. 43. À propos de ce sujet de fortifications intérieures, voir  : Heinrich-Tamáska, Spätrömische Villen, cit. (n. 39), pp. 46–50. 44. Gyulai, Pannonische Pflanzenbaukultur, cit. (n. 40), pp. 592 f. 45. L. Rupnik, Eisenfunde aus ausgewählten Befunden der Ausgrabungen bis 2002 in Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in HeinrichTamáska 2, pp. 443–502 ici 499–502. 46. Sümegi et al., Reconstruction of the environment history of Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in Heinrich-Tamáska 1, pp. 541–72. 47. Heinrich-Tamáska, Prien, Neue Erkenntnisse, cit. (n. 36), p. 633.

47

Une basilique paléochrétienne fut construite entre le VIe et le VIIe siècle dans l’angle nord-ouest de la fortification (Fig. 2d).48 Elle indique d’une part que les constructions n’ont pas cessé après le retrait de l’administration romaine de Pannonie première et d’autre part qu’une organisation ecclésiastique était en place à cette époque. En l’absence de documentation écrite, il n’est cependant pas prouvé qu’elle représente le centre d’un évêché comme Florin Curta l’a suggéré.49 L’église et le riche mobilier retrouvé dans les sépultures à eux seuls permettent de spéculer sur l’importance et sur les relations qu’entretenait cette communauté chrétienne. Le mobilier des sépultures illustre une multiplicité de relations, les objets de l’Antiquité tardive et paléochrétiens ayant des parallèles tout aussi bien dans le monde méditerranéen que dans les provinces des Balkans.50 Un changement a donc eu lieu au cours du Ve siècle dans le rôle que jouait la fortification de l’Antiquité tardive. Au IVe siècle elle faisait partie d’un nouveau système défensif et opérait comme centre d’approvisionnement de l’armée ; elle renforçait également le réseau urbain et fut probablement aussi fondée pour assumer certaines fonctions civiles, comme ce fut le cas d’autres fortifications intérieures. Il s’agissait d’une fondation planifiée, et non d’un habitat qui se serait formé organiquement, qui ressemblait fondamentalement à un camp militaire mais dont les aménagements intérieurs s’apparentaient aux structures des villae. Le plan régulier et la présence de greniers, de thermes et de bâtiments de prestige à Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, connus également sur les sites d’Alsóheténypuszta et de Ságvár,51 constituent des arguments en faveur d’un plan concerté. Après le retrait de Pannonie de l’administration romaine au milieu du Ve siècle après J.-C. le site de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta continua à être occupé et à remplir un rôle central ; les traditions de l’Antiquité tardive y furent maintenues et une communauté paléochrétienne s’y établit.52 Cet habitat dépendait d’une 48. Pour une nouvelle interprétation des phases de construction, voir : O. Heinrich-Tamáska, Sakral- oder Profanbauten ? Zur Funktion und Datierung der Kirchen von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta (Komitat Zala, Ungarn), in N. Krohn (éd.), Kirchenarchäologie heute. Fragestellungen – Methoden – Ergebnisse (Veröff. Alemannisches Inst., 76), Darmstadt, 2010, pp. 91–112. 49. F. Curta, Limes and cross : the religious dimension of the sixth-century Danube frontier of the Early Byzantine Empire, in Starinar, 51, 2002, pp. 45–68 ici pp. 48–53 ; A. G. Poulter, L´avenir du passé. Recherches sur la transition entre la periode romaine et le monde protobyzantin dans la région du Bas-Danube, in AntTard, 6, 1998, pp. 329–43 ; Heinrich-Tamáska, Civitates et castra, cit. (n. 32), pp. 55–58. 50. T. Vida, Das Gräberfeld neben dem Horreum in der Innenbefestigung von Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in HeinrichTamáska 1, pp. 397–437 ; Id., Die Zeit zwischen, cit. (n. 11). 51. Tóth, Studia Valeria, cit. (n. 4), p. 63. 52. Probablement aussi à Tác. Cf. Heinrich-Tamáska, Pannonische Innenbefestigungen, cit. (n. 4), p. 583 f. ; ead., Civitates et castra, cit. (n.  32), pp.  56–58  ; ead., Une époque de

48

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

c

Fig. 3a–b. Situation géographique de la fortification de Tokod figurant sur la première carte militaire (XVIIIe siècle) de la monarchie austro-hongroise (a) ; la fortification et autres sites aux alentours (b) : 1 nécropole du Bas-Empire ; 2 habitat d’époque romaine ancienne ; 3 fortification de Tokod. – Base de la carte : Arcanum ; concept : auteur ; traitement : K. Kolozsvári. Fig. 3c. La fortification de Tokod, plan de base et structures internes : 1 horreum ; 2–3 annexes quadrangulaires aux tours orientales (bâtiments sacrés ?). – D’après Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, cit. (n. 53), fig. 49.

exploitation agricole autarcique telle qu’elle était pratiquée à la fin du Bas-Empire. Tokod : castellum et refugium Le fort du Bas-Empire dénommé Tokod-Várberek, situé en Pannonie valérienne dans la région du coude du Danube, occupe une position particulière due à sa position géographique et à la présence de divers éléments architecturaux combinés sur ce site (Fig. 1, no  6  ; 3a–c). On l’identifia d’abord avec le site de Cardellaca qui figure sur la Tabula bouleversement? Remarques sur l’étude de l’antiquité tardive et de la paléochrétienté en Pannonie. In: Á. Bollók, G. Csiky, T. Vida (éd.), Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe. Archäologische und historische Studien. Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburstag. – Between Byzantium and the Steppe. Archaeological and historical Studies in Honour of Csanád Bálint on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Budapest, 2016, 291–306.

Peutingeriana,53 puis avec le site de Cardabiaca d’après la Notitia Dignitatum,54 ou encore avec le site de Lacus Felicis suivant l’Itinerarium Antonini55 ; toutes ces identifications ont été vigoureusement contestées56. La date de construction 53. F. P. Sinka, Római tábor Tokodon, in Esztergom Évlapjai, 1935, p. 97; A. Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, in Mócsy, pp. 37–120, ici 43 f. 54. Soproni, Die letzten Jahrzehnte, cit. (n. 1), p. 21. 55. Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, cit. (n. 53), p. 43. 56. D. Gáspár, Christianity in Roman Pannonia. An evaluation of early Christian finds and sites from Hungary (BAR Int. Ser., 1010), Oxford, 2002, pp. 134 f. ; P. Prohászka, O. HeinrichTamáska, Pannonien zwischen Spätantike und Attilazeit am Beispiel von Tokod und Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, in Hunnen zwischen Asien und Europa. Aktuelle Forschungen zur Archäologie und Kultur der Hunnen (Beitr. Ur- und Frühgesch. Mitteleuropas), Langenweissbach, 2008, pp. 143–56, ici 145 f., note 20.

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

de cet établissement ne fait pas non plus l’unanimité. Suivant les arguments avancés, on attribue la date de sa fondation à l’époque de Constance IIe ou à celle de Valentinien Ier ;57 il est à noter qu’un habitat du Haut-Empire le précède.58 Les noms de Frigeridus dux, Terentius dux, Lupicianus tribunus et de Terentianus tribunus figurent sur les estampilles des briques ; tous se réfèrent à des individus qui occupaient des postes importants dans l’administration civile et militaire de la Pannonie entre 360 et 370 après J.-C.59 Le fort se situe à 4,5 km au sud du limes, en bordure de la vallée du Danube. Il fut construit au pied du versant nord du Dankberg qui surplombe la plaine du Danube (Fig. 3a–b). Les environs n’ont pas encore été prospectés, ce qui empêche d’établir si le site était entouré de champs cultivés comme à Keszthely-Fenékpuszta. Les champs aux alentours du fort auraient certainement convenu à cette tâche, mais l’interprétation des outils en fer retrouvés sur le site n’est pas sans ambiguïté.60 Le fort occupe une surface presque rectangulaire d’environ 1,6 hectare, ceinte de murailles pourvues de tours en forme de « U ». L’accès était au nord-ouest ; ce secteur comporte des tours quadrangulaires encadrant la porte, tandis que des tours en forme de goutte occupent les angles et que les côtés sont équipés de tours en forme de fer à cheval. Un fossé de 7 m de largeur et de 2,5–3 m de profondeur a été mis à jour à l’est des murs de la fortification, à une distance de 21 m de ceux-ci (Fig. 3c).61 Un grenier (horreum) dans l’angle nord-est représente le plus grand et le meilleur édifice de pierre de la fortification ; il fut probablement construit en même temps qu’elle (Fig. 3c, 1).62 Deux structures rectangulaires également en pierre furent relevées au sud du grenier, chacune avec une tour en forme de fer à cheval sur leur côté est (Fig. 3c, 2–3). Ágnes Salamon et László Barkóczi ont vu dans ces édifices à abside des indications d’une transformation de l’habitat et ont aussi considéré la possibilité que ces bâtiments repré-

57. Soproni, Die letzten Jahrzehnte, cit. (n. 1), p. 21 f. et 58–60 ; Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, cit. (n. 53), p. 44. 58. Pour un point de vue critique : Zs. Visy, The Ripa Pannonica, Budapest, 2003, p. 45 f. 59. B. Lőrincz, Gestempelte Ziegel aus Tokod, in Mócsy, pp. 121– 43, ici 121–23. 60. C’est au moins ainsi que les trouvailles sont présentées par M. R. Pető, Eisenfunde aus der Festung, in Mócsy, pp. 145–57, ici 145. 61. Les différentes formes des tours ainsi que les structures internes laissent à penser qu’elles ont été remodelées : Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, cit. (n.  53), pp.  37–42; Barkóczi, Salamon, Tendenzen, cit. (n.  20), pp.  161–63  ; Prohászka, Heinrich-Tamáska, Pannonien, cit. (n. 56), p. 146. – Voir aussi la critique de H. Bender, A. Mócsy (éd.), Die spätrömische Festung und das Gräberfeld von Tokod, Budapest, 1981, in Germania, 61, 1983, pp. 645–46. 62. Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, cit. (n. 53), p. 39 f.

49

sentaient des églises.63 Dorottya Gáspár suppose de même qu’une communauté chrétienne existait à Tokod.64 En plus du fait que les divers types de tours documentent plusieurs phases de construction, un niveau de destruction étendu, suivi d’une reconstruction partielle, a été identifié. András Mócsy suggère que l’incendie détruisit Tokod pendant le dernier tiers du IVe siècle, et qu’à sa suite, le site perdit sa fonction originelle d’habitat et devint un refugium pour la population des alentours.65 La céramique et les petits objets mobiliers, ainsi que la nécropole avoisinante, permettent de supposer une occupation continue jusque vers la fin du Ve siècle ou le début du VIe siècle.66 Une transformation dans les rôles que le site remplissait semble donc s’être produite, et ceci s’accomplit apparemment encore pendant le Bas-Empire – alors que le limes était encore intact. Le fait que le grenier ne fut pas reconstruit pendant la seconde phase et que les bâtiments reconstruits étaient de moindre qualité sont des arguments en faveur d’une restructuration du site. Mais la question d’une fonction sacrée et par conséquent d’un rôle organisateur initié par l’Église reste encore ouverte. Il faut cependant souligner que le fort de Tokod continua à être occupé jusque vers la fin du Ve siècle ou le début du VIe siècle ; il n’existe pas de raison de supposer que ses habitants aient bénéficié d’un approvisionnement centralisé. On ne peut discerner un changement dans le développement de l’habitat à l’occasion du retrait historique de la Pannonie valérienne en 433. La Mésie seconde Abritus : castrum et civitas L’Abritus du Bas-Empire, détruit en partie par une tuilerie moderne, se situe aujourd’hui sur le périmètre est de la ville de Razgrad. Le site se trouve dans l’arrière-pays du limes, à une cinquantaine de kilomètres du Danube et au carrefour de plusieurs voies romaines (Fig. 1, no° 19 ; 4a–b). Une inscription date la construction de cette fortification d’environ 15 hectares de l’époque de Constantin Ier, alors qu’autrefois on avait aussi pensé à une fondation de la fin du IIIe siècle.67 L’enceinte à peu près rectangulaire suit les 63. Barkóczi, Salamon, Tendenzen, cit. (n. 20), p. 167. 64. Elle considère par contre que l’horreum était une synagogue (Gáspár, Christianity in Roman Pannonia, cit. [n. 56], pp. 134– 39), mais cette suggestion a été reçue avec scepticisme. 65. Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, cit. (n. 53), p. 44. 66. M. H. Kelemen, Funde und Grabungen in Tokod, in Mócsy, pp. 13–36 ; V. Lányi, Das spätrömische Gräberfeld, in Mócsy, pp. 169–222 ici 190–220 ; P. Prohászka, Tokod a rómaiak korában – Tokod in der Zeit der Römer, Tokod, 2005. 67. Ivanov, Abritus, cit. (n.  1), pp.  221–26  ; G. Radoslavova et G. Dzanev, Абритус (Abritus), in R. Ivanov (éd.), Римски и ранновизантийски селища в България – Roman and early Byzantine settlements in Bulgaria, vol.  II, Sofia, 2003, pp. 100–48.

50

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 4a–c. Razgrad/Abritus : situation topographique avec emplacement des nécropoles et des voies romaines (a) ; les romain routes aux environs d’ Abritus (b) ; plan de base et structures internes (c) : 1 horreum; 2 basilique paléochrétienne, en deux phases ; 3 basilique paléochrétienne à trois nefs. – a et c d’après Radoslalova 2011 (note 81), fig. 1–2 ; b d’après Wendel, Karasura II, cit. (n. 7), fig. 333.

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

contours orientaux du terrain (Fig. 4c) et rappelle une sorte de promontoire fortifié occupant un méandre de la rivière Beli Lom qui se jette dans le Danube près de Ruse/Sexaginta Prista (Fig. 4b).68 Les collines de cette région sont entrecoupées par la vallée de la rivière Beli Lom orientée de sud-est en nord-ouest. Des nécropoles occupent les amonts du site, dans toutes les directions ; celles au sud, à l’ouest et à l’est ont livré des sépultures de l’Antiquité tardive (Fig. 4a).69 La construction de la fortification n’est cependant pas sans précédents : les vestiges d’un vicus du Haut-Empire ont été retrouvés sur la rive est (Fig. 4a) près d’un camp de cohorte documenté par des inscriptions dès le Ier siècle après J.-C.70 De plus, de nombreux éléments architecturaux (spolia) ont été réemployés dans la construction des murs, des tours et des bâtiments intérieurs de la fortification, corroborant ainsi l’hypothèse d’un habitat antérieur.71 Le statut officiel de l’habitat au moment de la construction de la fortification reste inconnu ; une pierre tombale de la fin du IVe siècle ou du début du Ve siècle portant l’inscription civ(itas) Abr(itanorum) représente le témoignage le plus ancien à ce jour.72 Une référence à un certain Martionus episcopus civitatis Abriticae date de l’an 458.73 Les Notitiae episcopatuum mentionnent Abritus74 et Hierokles recense Abritus (̉Εβραιττός)75 comme faisant partie des sept villes existant dans la province de Mésie seconde pendant le premier quart du VIe siècle. Le développement de l’habitat présente plusieurs caractéristiques déjà rencontrées dans les fortifications intérieures de Pannonie. On retrouve par exemple les tours en forme de « U » connues également à Alsóheténypuszta ;76 la répartition des espaces suivant les axes principaux (Fig. 4c) ressemble aussi à celle observée dans les établissements de Pannonie. Un horreum, dont la position et la taille rappellent celles du grenier près de la porte ouest de Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, a 68. Ivanov, Abritus, cit. (n. 1), pp. 26 f. 69. Ces nécropoles restent inédites. Les indications données ici se basent sur la description qui figure dans : T. Ivanov, S. Stojanov, Abritus. Geschichte und Archäologie, Razgrad, 1985, pp. 69 f. 70. Ibid., p. 11, fig. 8. 71. Ibid., p. 13. 72. G. Mihailov (dir.), Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, Sofia, 1970, vol. II, p. 153,4. 73. V. Beševliev, Из късноантичната и средновековната география на Североизточна България (Aus den spätantiken und mittelalterlichen Geographie Nordbulgariens), in Известия на Археологическия институт (Bulletin de l’Institut d’Archéologie), 25,5, 1962, pp. 1–18. 74. Notitiae episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae : texte critique, introduction et notes, J. Darrouzès (dir.), Paris, 1981, p. 241 Notitia 3, no 608. 75. Le Synekdèmos d’Hiéroklès, in Fontes Graeci Historiae Bulgaricae II, Sofia, 1958, 636,8. 76. Cf. Ivanov, Abritus, cit. (n.  1), pp.  28–152, pour les résultats de fouilles entreprises dans les fortifications. Pour Alsóheténypuszta : Tóth, Studia Valeria, cit. (n. 4), tab. 12–14.

51

été identifié à l’intérieur (Fig. 4c : 1) ; les ressemblances sont aussi visibles dans le bâtiment principal construit dans le style d’une villa à péristyle et rattaché au decumanus maximus par un portique (Fig. 4c : 4).77 Deux églises ont été relevées à ce jour à l’intérieur des murs d’Abritus ; elles révèlent en partie plusieurs phases de construction. Une basilique à trois nefs a été identifiée près de la porte ouest, à l’est du grenier (Fig. 4c : 3). On a avancé que sa construction date de l’époque de Justinien, mais son plan, ainsi que le fait qu’elle a été érigée sur les vestiges d’un sanctuaire dédié à Apollon, pourrait suggérer une date plus ancienne.78 Une basilique plus grande, également à trois nefs, datant du début du VIe siècle a été retrouvée sur le côté opposé de l’établissement, à l’est du bâtiment à péristyle (Fig. 4c : 2). Elle avait un précurseur que l’on date de la seconde moitié du Ve siècle et qui se serait situé un peu plus au nord de cette basilique.79 Dans l’état des recherches actuelles on aurait donc construit le premier bâtiment sacré environ 150 ans après la fondation de la fortification.80 Il faut cependant souligner que la plupart des bâtiments ecclésiastiques de la région, comme par exemple à Novae, datent également de cette époque.81 Les alentours de l’établissement n’ont pas encore été explorés dans le cadre d’une étude impliquant l’archéologie de l’environnement, mais certains indices laissant cependant conclure à une exploitation agricole du territoire environnant. Les outils en fer retrouvés dans l’habitat et sans doute produits sur place indiquent que l’on pratiquait l’agriculture et l’élevage ; par contre les amphores trouvées suggèrent 77. Radoslalova, Dzanev, Abritus, cit. (n. 67), pp. 120 f., fig. 49. 78. Bâtiment XIII : Ivanov, Stojanov, Abritus, cit.(n. 69), pp. 3, 39 f., fig. 48 ; M. Oppermann, Das frühe Christentum an der Westküste des Schwarzen Meeres und im anschließenden Binnenland (ZAKS, 19), Langenweißbach, 2010, p. 128. 79. Les indications sur la position et la datation de cette église sont assez contradictoires. Selon Ivanov et Stojanov (Abritus, cit. (n. 69), p. 40, fig. 51), il s’agirait d’un petit bâtiment à abside situé au nord de la grande basilique. Radoslalova et Dzanev (Abritus, cit. [n.  67] pp.  141 f., fig.  55) suivent également cette ligne d‘argument. Oppermann (Das frühe Christentum, cit. [n. 78], pp.  128 f., note 1223–24) avance par contre que, d’après les rapports de fouilles de G. Radoslalova et G. Dzanev, l’ancienne église aurait été remplacée par la grande basilique du VIe siècle et suggère que cette dernière aurait déjà pu être érigée au cours de la première moitié du Ve siècle. Voir aussi J.-Ph. Carrié et D. Moreau, The Archaeology of Roman Town of Abritus : The Status Quaestionis in 2012, in Vagalanski et Sharankov, pp. 601–610 ici 607. 80. Une nouvelle église fut construite sur les ruines de la basilique au Xe siècle : G. Radoslalova, Abritus – eine spätrömischbyzantinische Stadt in Moesia Secunda, in Heinrich-Tamáska 1, pp. 247–56. 81. G.  Milošević, Typology of early Christian Churches on the Lower Danube between Singidunum and Durostorum, in Vagalinski, pp. 321–28.

52

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

que l’on importait le vin et l’huile.82 Une étude ayant pour objectif une meilleure compréhension du territoire à travers la cartographie des bases pédologiques et des processus d’érosion ainsi qu’à travers la distribution des nécropoles pourrait s’avérer productive. L’état incomplet des publications sur Abritus rend l’évaluation de son évolution pendant l’Antiquité tardive d’autant plus difficile. Plus de 100 ans séparent la construction de la fortification à l’époque de Constantin de la présence d’une église ou encore du fait qu’un évêque soit documenté sur place. L’habitat a cependant été occupé de façon continue et certains bâtiments ont été renouvelés ou restaurés jusqu’au VIe siècle. On pourrait donc en déduire que l’établissement s’est transformé au cours des siècles, et qu’au VIe siècle on le connaissait comme une civitas remplissant un rôle différent et équipé de deux bâtiments ecclésiastiques. On pourrait mettre la construction de ces églises en relation avec le réaménagement militaire de la frontière du Danube, comme le suggère A. G. Poulter.83 L’importance croissante d’une Église organisée devient de plus en plus perceptible à partir du milieu du Ve siècle, comme l’indique la présence d’un évêque résidant sur place.84 Krivina/Iatrus : castellum et foederati Les fouilles entreprises sur ce site depuis plusieurs décennies permettent d’avoir une bonne connaissance des origines et des transformations d’un poste-frontière sur le bas-Danube entre le IVe siècle et le début du VIIe siècle (phases A–D).85 Une partie de l’établissement fut emporté par la rivière Jantra à une époque plus tardive (Fig. 5a) ; on ne peut donc qu’estimer sa taille originale, qui pourrait être de l’ordre de 2 à 2,5 hectares. Contrairement aux autres sites décrits, son plan n’est pas rectangulaire ; il s’agit plutôt d’une surface allongée et irrégulière, orientée d’est en ouest et suivant les contours du terrain (Fig. 5b). Ici on retrouve plusieurs formes de tours combinées – en forme de « U », de fer à cheval et quadrangulaires – comme dans d’autres fortifications datées de l’époque de Constantin, par exemple à Abritus, dont la porte sud possède aussi des caractéristiques clairement sem-

82. Ivanov, Stojanov, Abritus, cit. (n. 69), pp. 42 f. 83. Poulter, Roman towns, cit. (n. 2), pp. 125–28. Voir aussi Carrié et Moreau, The Archaeology, cit. (n. 79), pp. 605–607. 84. V.  Dinčev, Gesellschaftliche Komponenten der Struktur frühbyzantinischer befestigter Siedlungen auf dem Territorium des heutigen Bulgariens, in M. Wendel (éd.), 15 Jahre Ausgrabungen in Karasura (ZAKS, 1), Langenweissbach, 2001, pp. 217–35. 85. Le site a également été réoccupé au Moyen Âge (voir les contributions in : Iatrus III). Les résultats des fouilles ont été publiés de manière exemplaire dans les monographies Iatrus I–V et Iatrus VI. Voir aussi G. v. Bülow, Das spätantike Kastell Iatrus am Unterdonau-Limes in Bulgarien, in Ber.  RGK, 75, 1994, pp. 5–22 ; ead., Zur Geschichte der Grabung Iatrus – Krivina, in Vagalanski et Sharakov, 203–215.

blables à celles de la porte est d’Iatrus.86 L’axe principal – la via praetoria – mène vers les principia à l’ouest ; cependant ces dernières ne remplit cette fonction que pendant la phase A de l’établissement. Ces éléments correspondent aux dispositions de l’architecture militaire impériale.87 Les horrea, ainsi qu’une basilique paléochrétienne et un petit établissement de bains (balnea) dominent l’intérieur dès la phase B/C (c. 350/60–440/50) et ces structures furent en partie renouvelées à la suite d’un évènement destructeur du début du Ve siècle (Fig. 5b).88 A la fin de cette phase, c’est-à-dire au milieu du Ve siècle, on constate une remise en état de l’établissement à partir de l’époque du règne de l’empereur Anastase (phase D1), suivie d’un aménagement plus ample à l’époque de Justinien (phase D2 : Fig. 5c). Les aménagements intérieurs du VIe siècle sont bien moins denses : on rencontre des petites maisons en bois, et une nouvelle basilique paléochrétienne en pierre n’apparait que dans la phase D2 (Fig. 5d).89 La zone occupée par la fortification se situe aujourd’hui à environ 3 km au sud du Danube, sur les berges de la rivière Jantra (Fig. 1, no° 18). À part quelques petites collines de loess convenant à l’exploitation agricole, la campagne environnante est une plaine formée par ces deux rivières ; on rencontre aussi des zones marécageuses au nord du fort (Fig. 5a).90 Les greniers fournissent des preuves indirectes sur l’exploitation agricole et ainsi sur l’approvisionnement de la fortification, mais ce sont surtout les outils agricoles en fer qui fournissent des indications sur une production autonome.91 De plus, des macrorestes botaniques carbonisés et des profils polliniques ont également été analysés. Les données botaniques proviennent surtout de la phase de 86. B. Döhle, Die Siedlungsperiode A in Iatrus, in Iatrus V, pp. 9–28. – Voir aussi Tropeaum Traiani : G. von Bülow, The Fort of Iatrus in Moesia Secunda : Observations of the Late Roman Defensive System on the Lower Danube (Fourth-Sixth Centuries AD), in Poulter, pp. 459–78. 87. Döhle, Siedlungsperiode A, cit. (n. 86) ; id., Zur spätrömischen Militärarchitektur. Das Limeskastell Iatrus (Moesia Secunda), in Archeologia, 40, 1989, pp. 41–54. 88. En résumé : B. Döhle, Beobachtungen zur Bebauung und Bauabfolge im Westabschnitt von Iatrus (Perioden A bis D), in Bülow et Milčeva, pp.  141–50  ; G. von Bülow, Die Siedlungsperiode von Iatrus in der Periode B/C, in Iatrus V, pp. 29–53. 89. G. von Bülow, Die Siedlungsperiode von Iatrus in der Periode D1, in Iatrus V, pp. 55–60 ; ead., Die Siedlungsperiode von Iatrus in der Periode D2, in Iatrus V, pp. 61–66. 90. Döhle, Siedlungsperiode A, cit. (n. 86), p. 10, fig, 2 ; M. Lazarova, Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen an Material aus den archäologischen Ausgrabungen im Kastell Iatrus, in Iatrus VI, pp. 447–56. 91. G. Fuchs-Gomolka, Die Kleinfunde vom 4. bis 6. Jh. aus Iatrus, in Iatrus I, pp. 149–205 ici 183 ; id., Die Kleinfunde vom 4. bis 6. Jh., in Iatrus IV, pp. 167–211, ici 176 f. ; id., Die Kleinfunde, in Iatrus VI, pp. 265–304, ici 301.

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

53

Fig. 5a. Krivina/Iatrus : situation topographique avec tracé des voies romaines : 1 fortification d’Iatrus ; 2 vestiges de sépultures romaines. – Adaptation d’après Döhle, Die Siedlungsperiode A, cit. (n. 86), fig. 2. Fig.  5b–d. Krivina/Iatrus, plan de base et structures internes : période B/C, phase B (a) : 1 basilique B, 2–3 horrea; période D2 (b) : 1 basilique D ; plans des basiliques paléochrétiennes B, C et D (c). – b–c d’après Iatrus VI, annexes ; d d’après Ivanov, Roman and early Byzantine settlements, cit. (n. 87), fig. 2.

54

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

destruction de la phase C (milieu du Ve siècle). La nature dispersée de ces restes dans les bâtiments domestiques et utilitaires permet d’en déduire que l’approvisionnement et le traitement des denrées étaient décentralisés et organisés par de petits groupes.92 Le seigle, moins exigeant que certaines espèces de blé, était la production céréalière la plus importante. L’épeautre et d’amidonnier ne sont pas représentés sur le site. Par contre les légumineuses sont présentes, et certains indices révèlent qu’une exploitation horticole, comprenant la culture des vignes et des noix, était active. La proximité du Danube, la présence de bâtiments de stockage pendant la phase B/C et celle de noyaux d’olives laissent à penser qu’en plus d’une production indigène on importait aussi des denrées pendant certaines périodes.93 Ainsi on présume qu’un changement dans l’organisation de l’approvisionnement a eu lieu après la phase A, sans pour autant influencer l’exploitation agricole et la consommation de denrées de manière décisive. Les analyses polliniques vont dans le même sens, car elles indiquent que l’exploitation agricole aux alentours du site était constante et intensive tout au long des IVe, Ve et VIe siècles.94 Par contre, les données archéozoologiques laissent conclure qu’une croissance de l’élevage représente un changement après la phase D1.95 Les modèles interprétatifs formulés jusqu’à présent supposent un abandon de la fortification de la part de l’armée après la phase A et son remplacement par des foederati.96 Les analyses des sciences naturelles esquissées ci-dessus démontrent qu’ils subvenaient par moments à leurs propres besoins ; la céramique et le travail du fer soutiennent aussi cette interprétation.97 Les horrea construits au début de la 92. G. von Bülow, Anmerkungen zum Wirtschaftsleben im Kastell Iatrus (Moesia Secunda) im 4./5. Jh. n. Chr., in Anados. Studies of Ancient World, 1, 2001, pp. 33–49 ; B. Böttger, Die Lebensmittelversorgung des niedermösischen Kastells Iatrus (4.6. Jh.), in H. Vetters, M. Kandler (éds.), Akten des 14. Internat. Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum (Der Römische Limes in Österreich, 36,2), Wien, 1990, pp. 925–29. 93. E. Hajnalová, Archäobotanische Funde aus Krivina, in Iatrus II, pp. 207–35 ; ead., Archäobotanische Funde, in Iatrus IV, pp. 261– 98, ici 290–98 ; R. Neef, Archäobotanische Untersuchungen im spätantike Iatrus/Krivina (Grabungskampagnen 1992–2000), in Iatrus VI, pp. 415–45 ici 444 f. 94. Lazarova, Pollenanalytische Untersuchungen, cit. (n. 90), pp. 453–55. 95. N. Benecke, Archäozoologische Untersuchung an Tierresten aus dem Kastell Iatrus, in Iatrus VI, pp. 383–413 ici 406–13. 96. G. Gomolka-Fuchs, Zur Militärbesetzung im spätrömischen Limeskastell Iatrus vom 4. bis zum zweiten Viertel des 5. Jahrhunderts, in Eurasia Antiqua, 5,  1999, pp.  47–52  ; G. von Bülow, Föderaten im spätantiken Limeskastell Iatrus (Moesia Secunda) ?, in U. Peter (éd.), Stephanos Numismaticos. E. Schönert-Geiß zum 65. Geburstag, Berlin, 1998, pp. 145–57. 97. G. Gomolka-Fuchs, Die Kleinfunde, in Iatrus VI, pp. 289–91 ; B. Böttner, Die Gefäßkeramik ais Iatrus und ihre wirtschaftliche Aussagen zur Bevölkerung von Iatrus, in Iatrus V, pp. 67–80.

phase B/C ne sont pas remplacés après un incendie. On trouve à leur place de petites structures domestiques ou utilitaires qui incorporent aussi les murs encore intacts.98 Ces éléments vont également dans le sens d’une décentralisation de l’approvisionnement et d’une ruralisation de l’habitat. Mais comment expliquer les travaux de construction, en particulier l’érection d’églises ? Ici il faut avoir recours à la continuité du lieu : une nouvelle église à trois nefs fut érigée à l’époque de Justinien (phase D2 ; Fig. 5b : 1 ; 5c : 1 ; 5d) précisément là où se situait une basilique construite pendant la phase B/C et qui fut renouvelée après un incendie (contrairement aux horrea qui ne sont pas remplacés). Cette nouvelle église représente le plus grand édifice en pierre qui ait été construit à l’intérieur des murs à cette époque et sa position dominante dans le paysage bâti ne peut être le résultat d’une augmentation de la communauté chrétienne, comme on l’a proposé pour la phase B/C.99 La basilique C avait la particularité de posséder un bassin carré dans son annexe nord, interprété comme une piscina et suggérant ainsi la présence d’un baptistère en dehors des sièges épiscopaux.100 Enfin, la basilique B représente une des plus anciennes églises de la région.101 L’existence d’une église dès le milieu du IVe siècle et l’absence de preuves d’une présence militaire après la phase A démontrent clairement que l’établissement a changé de fonction. Cependant, le rôle défensif de la fortification aurait pu continuer à être l’élément décisif, comme l’indique la remise en état soigneuse des fortifications. De plus, le témoignage qu’apportent avant tout les églises indique la continuité d’une centralisation des travaux de construction dès le début du Ve siècle. Les preuves d’un approvisionnement autonome réfutent par contre l’hypothèse qu’Iatrus faisait partie d’une « administration militaire centralisée ».102 Il faudra donc revoir quelles influences l’Église organisée aurait pu exercer sur cette fortification économiquement autonome. Castella, castra et civitates  : modèles d’un processus de transformation Les quatre sites présentés ci-dessus peuvent servir d’exemples illustrant les transformations vécues par les habitats de l’Antiquité tardive, associées à un déplacement des responsabilités allant de la sphère militaire vers la 98. von Bülow, Die Siedlungsperiode, cit. (n. 88), p. 37 f. 99. Pour les églises, cf. T. Ivanov, Zwei altchristliche Basiliken des 4.–6. Jahrhunderts in Sektor III, in Klio, 47, 1966, pp. 153–91 ; Id., Die neu entdeckte dritte Basilika, in Iatrus  I, pp.  27–33  ; G. Fuchs-Gomolka, Zum frühen Christentum in Iatrus, in Iatrus V, pp. 107–16. 100. von Bülow, Die Siedlungsperiode, cit. (n. 88), p. 35. 101. Ibid, pp. 33–36. 102. Ibid, p. 53. Voir aussi Id., Iatrus – spätantikes Kastell oder befestigte Siedlung am Unterdonaulimes ?, in LIMES XVIII in Aman, Jordan (BAR, Int. Ser. 1084,2) Oxford, 2002, pp. 663–72.

castellum – castrum – civitas ? l’évolution fonctionnelle des nouveaux établissements...

55

compétence civile, à un changement dans l’approvisionnement allant d’un système centralisé vers une autonomie alimentaire, et à la présence de bâtiments sacrés. Chaque cas possède évidemment ses propres particularités, appartient à des temporalités diverses, et se manifeste dans des proportions variables. Les deux habitats sur la frontière du limes démontrent qu’ils avaient perdu leur fonction militaire originelle déjà au courant du IVe siècle. Tokod et Iatrus avaient tous les deux été construits comme postes-frontières au courant du milieu du IVe siècle dans le cadre de la défense du limes romain, mais ils furent abandonnés en tant que tels dès la fin de ce siècle, quoique leur fonction défensive ait continué à jouer un rôle primordial. Les nouveaux travaux de construction, documentés par les améliorations et renouvellements des murailles et des tours ainsi que par le réaménagement des structures internes, démontrent que ces sites ont continué à faire partie d’une administration centrale. L’aménagement et les bâtiments typiques d’un camp militaire classique disparaissent au profit d’une organisation de l’habitat plus souple comprenant des structures domestiques et utilitaires ainsi que des églises. Les habitants, comme on le suppose pour Iatrus et également pour Tokod, auraient pu provenir des groupes barbares recrutés et établis ici par l’empire romain ; ils auraient exercé, en plus de leur service militaire, une activité autonome d’agriculteurs et d’artisans, produisant les outils et ustensiles nécessaires sur place.103 L’exemple d’Iatrus illustre que leur économie était basée sur l’autosuffisance, et ceci déjà pendant la phase sous administration impériale. Cette situation aurait, entre autres, pu garantir la survie de certaines communautés après le retrait de l’administration romaine de Pannonie. Les deux castra à l’intérieur des provinces auraient aussi rempli des fonctions militaires au moment de leur fondation ; ils auraient fonctionné comme centres logistiques dans l’arrière-pays du limes, comme centres de production agricole et comme centres de stockage et de distribution de l’annona. Dans ce cas, une stricte séparation entre les responsabilités militaires et civiles ne semble pas avoir beaucoup de sens. On retrouve ces deux aspects combinés dans le développement et l’architecture des fortifications. L’organisation de l’habitat dénote une approche planifiée ; contrairement aux deux forts du limes, ces fortifications de l’intérieur des provinces continuèrent à respecter un plan

orienté le long des axes principaux pendant leurs phases d’expansion et de transformation. La transformation d’Abritus en civitas n’est pas sans équivoque. Toutefois, certains bâtiments font penser à la présence d’une population civile de statut social approprié dès l’origine. Au plus tard à partir du moment (au milieu du Ve siècle) où la localité devint un siège épiscopal, le pouvoir de l’Église aurait pris de l’ampleur en tant que nouvelle force organisatrice.104 Le renouvellement et la construction de nombreuses églises à l’époque de Justinien marquent le zénith de cette évolution, que l’Église est bien représentée à Abritus. On ne peut mettre cette transformation en rapport avec l’attribution d’un statut juridique ou encore avec l’adoption d’un siège épiscopal – comme l’avait proposé Florin Curta105 – à Keszthely-Fenékpuszta ; en effet il n’existe pas de documents écrits, et le site se trouvait en dehors de l’organisation de l’empire à partir du milieu du Ve siècle. On peut cependant observer qu’une communauté chrétienne était présente là aussi, que son élite était en contact étroit avec le monde romain, et que sa base économique était ancrée dans une tradition agricole romaine persistante. Que l’Église et ses représentants aient supplanté l’Empire dans son rôle d’organisation dominante reste encore une hypothèse provisoire qu’il faudra vérifier de façon plus approfondie. Les quatre sites présentés ici illustrent le processus de transformation que les provinces du Danube vécurent pendant l’Antiquité tardive. Ils sont principalement caractérisés par leur intégration dans la juridiction militaire et civile qui permettait d’assurer la sécurité des frontières de l’empire romain. Le limes entra dans des relations beaucoup plus étroites avec l’arrière-pays, les villes qui existaient déjà assumèrent de nouvelles fonctions et, avec les nouveaux établissements de l’arrière-pays décrits ici, elles se partagèrent l’approvisionnement en troupes et en denrées alimentaires. Des églises furent construites dès la fin du IVe siècle ou le début du Ve siècle. L’Église deviendra petit à petit le pouvoir administratif le plus puissant en Mésie,106 et les sièges épiscopaux tels qu’Abritus devinrent des villes importantes dans les provinces et diocèses de l’Antiquité tardive. En Pannonie aussi, on observe à partir du milieu du Ve siècle la formation de liens entre les débuts du christianisme et la survie des traditions romaines ; celles-ci continuèrent à exister jusqu’au passage du VIe au VIIe siècle à Keszthely-Fenékpuszta tout comme dans les localités du limes du bas-Danube.

103. von Bülow, Föderaten, cit. (n. 96) ; Mócsy, Die spätrömische Festung, cit. (n. 53), p. 44.

104. Oppermann, Das frühe Christentum, cit. (n. 78), p. 128. 105. Curta, Limes and cross, cit. (n. 49), p. 66. 106. Dinčev, Gesellschaftliche Komponenten, cit. (n. 84), pp. 223– 26 ; Curta, Limes and cross, cit. (n. 49), pp. 47–53.

La topographie antique d’Amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – VIe siècle après J.-C.) d’après les sources littéraires Martine Assénat*, Antoine Pérez**

The ancient topography of Amida (third to sixth centuries AD) according to the written sources The city of Amida presents a rare paradox both for the historian and the archaeologist: although boasting one of the most important late antique fortification circuits surviving today, the metropolis of Early Byzantine Mesopotamia is very poorly known. Its topography remains to this day largely obscure, both because of the absence of major archaeological investigations, and due to the apparent poverty of the textual record of the city’s history. The purpose of this study is a re-evaluation of literary sources in a topographical perspective. Combined with the results of a morphological analysis of today’s old city, the examination of the sources – mostly Syriac – allows us to recognise in Diyarbakir the contours of a fairly standard proto-Byzantine urban topography. The texts, however, allow us to go even further back in time, and to signalize the probable existence of a civitas under the Early Roman Empire, which featured a large theater. Thus the foundation of Amida by Constantius II in the mid-fourth century must, strictly speaking, be regarded as a re-foundation. Nevertheless, one may still see it as a ‘new city’, insofar as its fate was so inextricably linked to Constantine’s son: he endowed it with a new, very extensive pomerium and adorned it with his name and with the title Augusta – distinctions awarded to no other city in the entire empire during his reign (Authors).

La cité d’Amida, l’actuelle Diyarbakır, en haute Mésopotamie, présente aux yeux tant des historiens que des archéologues un paradoxe assez rare : dotée de l’une des plus importantes enceintes tardo-antiques visible de nos jours (Fig. 1), la métropole de la Mesopotamia protobyzantine est très mal connue. Sa topographie reste encore à ce jour assez obscure. Et il est vrai que, si l’on fait exception de sa muraille remarquable, aucun des monuments, aucun des vestiges qui sont la marque ordinaire d’une métropole de l’Antiquité ne sont visibles aujourd’hui dans la vieille cité ottomane. Cette méconnaissance s’explique en partie par l’absence de travaux archéologiques à Diyarbakır. Elle s’explique également par l’apparente maigreur d’un dossier littéraire qui a été, à notre sens, sous-évalué et que nous nous proposons de reconsidérer quelque peu. Plus déprimée encore est la situation en ce qui concerne l’existence d’Amida avant l’époque byzantine. Alors qu’elle est déjà mentionnée sous ce nom dans les annales royales assyriennes, au IXe siècle av. J.-C.,1 la ville paraît en effet

comme surgie du néant sous l’empereur Constance II : au témoignage d’Ammien Marcellin, voulant lui donner son nom,2 il aurait le premier conféré à la modeste bourgade son rang de ciuitas, l’extirpant de l’anonymat d’une existence antérieure médiocre, qu’aucune source, d’aucune sorte, n’aurait documentée. Quelques années plus tard, Amida ne serait devenue la métropole unique de la Mésopotamie byzantine qu’à la faveur d’un concours de circonstances assez insolite, à savoir la perte de Nisibe consécutive au traité romano-perse de 363, le traité dit de Doura. Enfin – mais ce point est parfaitement connu – Amida devient au VI e s. avec Antioche et Edesse, l’une des cités majeures de l’Orient byzantin, un foyer culturel d’importance, centre de littérature syriaque, ce qui explique d’ailleurs une bonne part des renseignements dont nous allons faire état ici. Une ascension fulgurante, donc, que l’on a quelque mal à admettre s’agissant d’une fondation ex nihilo du IVe siècle. Si de fait, comme on va le voir, Amida n’est pas, loin s’en faut, une « new city of Late Antiquity », elle n’en constitue pas moins un exemple remarquable de re-fondation tardo-an-

* Université Montpellier III, Laboratoire CRISES, IFEA. ** Université Montpellier III, Laboratoire CRISES. 1. Amed(u) ou Amed(i). Cf. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyria (RIMA), II, Text A. 0. 101. 1, p. 220, lignes 104–10. La

ville est le siège d’un gouvernement provincial de l’Empire néoassyrien : J.-J. Glassner, Chroniques Mesopotamiennes, [éd. et trad.], Paris, 2004, pp. 164, 169). 2. « (…) suo nomine uoluit appellari » (Amm. Marc. XVIII, 9, 1).

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 57-70. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111888

58

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Les remparts de Diyarbakır au début du XXe siècle.

tique : à ce titre, elle s’inscrit pleinement dans le programme et les thèmes de ce colloque. Notre propos n’est pas ici de revenir de manière exhaustive sur l’histoire complexe de la ville. Nous voudrions plutôt présenter quelques éléments pour une requalification du dossier littéraire, dans une perspective, certes chronologique, mais surtout ici topographique : conjugués aux résultats d’une analyse morphologique de la vieille ville actuelle, les enseignements des sources – gréco-latines mais surtout syriaques – nous permettent en effet d’esquisser les contours d’une topographie protobyzantine assez attendue. Ils nous permettent même d’aller plus loin encore, à savoir de documenter à Amida une réalité largement antérieure à l’époque protobyzantine, probablement celle d’une ciuitas du Haut-Empire, que l’analyse morphologique de la vieille ville actuelle a récemment permis de mettre en évidence : la fondation de Constance est, de ce fait, la deuxième fondation romaine d’Amida. *** Les sources littéraires mettent en exergue deux grands moments de l’histoire d’Amida, moments consécutifs aux deux grands sièges militaires qu’eut à soutenir la cité du Tigre :3 3. Un premier siège est attesté à Amida par Théophane de Byzance durant l’année 337 ap. J.-C., à la fin du règne de Constantin, alors que Constance II était César (cf. Theophanis Chronographia, éd. de Boor, Leipzig, 1883, T. I, p. 20). Ce dernier reconstruisit la

1. Le siège de 359 ap. J.-C., d’une part, avec en amont la « fondation » de la cité par Constance II (entre 336 et 349) et en aval l’agrandissement de la ville consécutif à l’arrivée des réfugiés de Nisibe, quatre ans plus tard. Cette phase se conclut avec les travaux de fortification de Valens dans les années 370 ap. J.-C., dont témoigne l’unique inscription latine connue à Diyarbakır ; documentée essentiellement par Ammien Marcellin et par des chroniqueurs byzantins et syriaques héritiers de la Chronique Universelle d’Eusèbe de Césarée, cette période n’offre que peu de précisions d’ordre topographique. 2. Le siège de 502 ap. J.-C. et ses prolongements jusqu’en 506, donc sous le règne d’Anastase. C’est seulement pour cette période, et pour la période immédiatement consécutive du règne de Justinien qu’apparaissent les – rares – monuments publics d’Amida. 1. Le «  moment Constantien  »  : plus historique que topographique La relation que donne Ammien Marcellin du siège d’Amida dans ses Res Gestae constitue un morceau d’anthologie de la littérature latine tardive.4 Comme on sait, ce dernier, ville, en faisant une « citadelle redoutable » selon Ammien Marcellin. Cette précision introduit la relation du grand siège de 359. 4. Amm. Marc. XVIII, 9 – XIX, 8. Sur cette relation de l’un des sièges les plus célèbres de l’Antiquité, et sur les procédés littéraires mis en œuvre par Ammien, la bibliographie est diluvienne. Pour un éclairage récent, cf. par exemple G. Kelly,

la topographie antique d’amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – vie siècle après j.-c.) d’après les sources littéraires

59

protector domesticus du Maître de Cavalerie Ursicin, participa à la défense de la ville, en cette fin d’été de l’année 359, avant de s’en échapper nuitamment : il fut donc tout à la fois narrateur et acteur dans cette affaire. C’est, paradoxalement, cette double qualité qui a desservi la connaissance d’Amida, en sur-focalisant ce « moment » tardo-impérial de la ville au détriment de toute autre séquence chronologique.5 S’il met en évidence l’importance historique et militaire de la citadelle du Tigre à l’époque de Constance II, le passage d’Ammien ne nous donne que peu d’informations quant aux monuments propres de la cité. Il y est seulement fait mention de faubourgs (suburbia) où se tenait une foire annuelle lorsque survint l’attaque de Sapor6, de quelques sources et fontaines, de souterrains à la localisation problématique…et bien sûr de la muraille et de ses portes : bref, d’éléments essentiellement poliorcétiques, éléments auxquels il convient d’ajouter un jugement assez rapide sur la petitesse, l’exigüité de la ville, dont l’extension ne se serait pas prêtée à des manoeuvres militaires d’envergure intra muros. C’est donc moins ici la topographie de la ville qui intéresse Ammien que ses infrastructures proprement défensives, dans la perspective du grand siège de l’été 359.

– Un certain nombre de chroniques tardives, essentiellement syriaques, confirment l’assertion d’Ammien, qui évoquent, pour la plupart, cette fondation vers la fin des années quarante – 348 ou 349 : Constance est alors Auguste.10

– C’est dans ce contexte que l’historien d’Antioche évoque d’ailleurs la fondation de la cité :7 Nous sommes en 337, la dernière année du règne de Constantin : Constance, encore César (Caesar etiam tum), est dépêché en Orient par son père pour réorganiser la frontière orientale en butte aux menées incessantes des Perses. Il fait d’une cité « autrefois très petite » (hanc civitatem olim perquam breuem) une citadelle bientôt redoutable : « (…) voulant donner un refuge tout à fait sûr aux habitants des environs, il la ceignit de tours et de murailles puissantes (…) ; et l’ayant pourvue d’un dépôt d’artillerie de siège, il la fit redouter des ennemis et voulut lui donner son nom (suoque nomine uoluit appellari) ».8 On a montré ailleurs qu’il ne fallait sans doute pas prendre au pied de la lettre ce jugement de l’historien d’Antioche relativement à la « petitesse » de la ville antérieure à Constance, le passage d’Ammien étant sans doute ici destiné à mettre en valeur l’action de Constance à Amida dans la perspective dramatique qui préside à sa relation du siège de Sapor.9

rappellera que, si la superficie de la cité remparée doubla dans l’Antiquité tardive, la ville qui la précédait – celle de l’époque tétrarchique, et probablement du Haut-Empire – affectait tout de même un ordre de taille assez respectable – plus de 80 hectares (sur quoi, cf. notre étude récente, Amida 4. Constance II et Amida, dans Anatolia Antiqua, 22, 2014, pp. 199-217). Ce jugement d’Ammien semble destiné à souligner, par effet d’opposition, l’action de Constance II, qu’Ammien n’aimait certes pas, mais dont il lui arrivait fréquemment d’amplifier les mérites pour les besoins de sa démonstration. 10. Ainsi la Chronique d’Edesse ; Jacques d’Edesse ; la Chronique dite de l’an 724 ; la Chronique de Zuqnin (pseudo-Denys de Tell Mahré) ; Théophane le Confesseur ; la Chronique dite de l’an 819 ; la Chronique dite de l’an 846 ; Elias de Nisibe ; Michel le Syrien ; la Chronique de Se’ert ; la Chronique dite de 1234. Sur la date précise, cf. la discussion de Burgess dans : R. W. Burgess, W. Witakowski, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Historia Einzelschriften, 135), Stuttgart, 1999, pp. 277–80. L’auteur propose 349 ap. J.-C. La présence de l’empereur est alors attestée un peu partout en Orient, alors qu’aucun combat n’est mentionné, ce qui aurait pu lui laisser toute latitude pour fortifier la frontière. 11. Mich. Syr. Chron. VII, 4 ; J.- B. Chabot (trad.), Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), Paris, 1901, p. 267. On notera pour mémoire que le Chronicon Syriacum de Bar Hebraeus (fin du XIIIe s.) reprend à la lettre ce passage de Michel : mais comme il lui doit notoirement l’essentiel de son information (sur quoi Burgess, cit. [n. 10], p. 117 avec la note 18), nous n’y insisterons pas. 12. J.- B. Chabot (trad.), Chronicon miscellaneum ad annum Domini 724 pertinens, in T. Guidi, E. W. Brooks, J.-B. Chabot, Chronica Minora 2 (CSCO, 4, SS, 4 ; 3–4), Louvain, 1904, p. 77. 13. Nous faisons un point sur cette question dans, Constance II et Amida, cit. (n. 9). 14. Titulature admise en dernier lieu par P. Maraval, Les fils de

Ammianus Marcellinus : The Allusive Historian, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 59–62. 5. En l’occurrence celle relative à l’existence antérieure de la cité. Sur quoi, cf. M. Assénat, A. Pérez, Amida Restituta, in A. Gasse, Fr. Servajean, Chr. Thiers (éds.), Et in Aegypto, et ad Aegyptum. Recueil d’Etudes dédiées à J.- C. Grenier (Cahiers de l’ENIM, 5), Montpellier, 2012, pp. 7–52. 6. Amm. Marc. XVIII, 8, 13. 7. Amm. Marc. XVIII, 9, 1. 8. Traduction par G. Sabbah dans : E. Galletier et al., Ammien Marcellin  ; texte établi et traduit (Collection des Universités de France, 0184–7155), Paris, 1970. 9. Assénat, Pérez, Amida Restituta, cit. (n.  5), pp.  12–13. On

– Deux autres témoins syriaques, tous deux tributaires d’une continuatio des Chronici canones d’Eusèbe de Césarée, la Chronicron de l’année 724 et la chronique de Michel le Syrien, confirment ce propos d’Ammien, mais nous donnent une précision supplémentaire quant au nom que Constance donna à Amida. En effet, selon Michel le Syrien : «  En Mésopotamie, il (Constance) agrandit et acheva Amid qu’il appela Augusta ».11

Et selon le Chronicon 724 : « De même, en Mésopotamie, il (Constance) bâtit la cité d’Amid, qu’il nomma Augusta Constantina ».12

Nous avons développé ailleurs le problème de la titulature d’Amida :13 il semble établi que la cité prit le nom de Constantia Augusta, entre la fin du césariat de Constance, en 336–37, et l’année 349,14 ce qui en fait à notre connaissance

60

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

l’unique cité de l’Empire à avoir reçu cette épithète du fils de Constantin et, partant, documente la réalité de l’œuvre édilitaire du nouveau ktistès. Ce qui importe ici, c’est que la fondation officielle de la cité paraît le fait de Constance, et que d’une « petite » ville frontalière, il fait une place-forte puissante, dotée d’une légion, la Quinta Parthica,15 légion qui disparut en 359, à la suite du siège de Sapor, puisqu’elle n’est plus mentionnée dans les listes de la Notitia Dignitatum d’Orient, rédigée autour de 400.16 La puissance militaire de cette citadelle constantienne se doubla de l’attribution à la cité d’une vaste juridiction territoriale couvrant la vallée du Tigre depuis Amida jusqu’à la frontière perse17. Deux textes hagiographiques relatifs à des saints hommes du Tur Abdin, se font l’écho de cette information, dans un excursus procédant indiscutablement d’une source commune, mais indéterminée : La Vie de Jacques le Reclus – un moine ayant vécu entre Constantin, Paris, 2013, p. 209. Le fait que ce nom ne soit pas entré dans la postérité est probablement dû au discrédit dont son auteur Constance, notoirement arien, souffrit aux siècles suivants dans la littérature chrétienne orthodoxe. 15. La Ve légion Parthique est mentionnée par Ammien Marcellin (XVIII, 9, 3), dans sa présentation des corps de troupe présents dans la ville à la veille de l’attaque de Sapor, à l’automne 359. Selon D. Ritterling, (‘Legio’, in RE I, col. 1586), elle aurait été créée par Dioclétien avec les IVe et VIe Parthicae, respectivement cantonnées à Kirkésion et Kephas (à partir de Constance II pour cette dernière). Mais il doute que la Ve, basée depuis longtemps à Amida au témoignage d’Ammien, (…cuius oppidi praesidio erat semper quinta Parthica legio destinata…), l’ait été depuis ses origines. Hoffmann est, quant à lui, catégorique : il fait d’Amida un camp légionnaire sous Dioclétien, et de la Ve Parthique une legio ripensis, c’est-à-dire attachée au limes  : D.  Hoffmann, Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia dignitatum, Düsseldorf, 1969, Bd. 2, pp. 413–14 et notes 797 et 808). Cette conclusion fait aujourd’hui autorité (ainsi, Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, B V, 13). C’est sans doute la catastrophe de 359 qui sanctionne sa disparition : elle n’aurait pas alors été reconstituée. 16. Notitia Dignitatum, Or., XXXVII, p. 279 de l’éd. C. Neira Faleiro, Madrid, 2005, où ne sont mentionnées en effet, pour la Mésopotamie, que les Ie et IIe légions Parthiques. Les données de la Notitia nous renseignent, pour la pars orientalis de l’Empire, sur la situation à la fin du IVe siècle (sur ce point, C. Zuckermann, Comtes et ducs en Égypte autour de l’an 400 et la date de la Notitia Dignitatum Orientis, in AntTard, 6, 1998, pp. 137–47). Il est possible qu’une autre légion ait été basée à Amida, une unité pseudo comitatensis que la Not. Dign. Or. (VII, 11) connaît sous l’appellation de Transtigritani, sous les ordres du Maître de la Milice d’Orient et dont la base de rattachement n’est pas mentionnée. Cette unité avait une compétence sur toute la haute vallée du Tigre, depuis Amida jusqu’à la fontière perse. Elle fut transférée en Egypte après 400. Sur quoi, cf. Assénat, Pérez, Amida restituta, cit. (n. 5), pp. 40–41. 17. Sur cette « juridiction » d’Amida, sur l’importance stratégique nouvelle de la ville sous le règne de Constance, cf. notre « Constance II et Amida » déjà cité

les règnes de Constance et de Théodose II-18 précise : « Après que l’empereur Constantin (sic), fils de Constantin le Grand, eut bâti Amid, il l’aima plus que les autres villes de son empire et lui soumit de nombreux pays » – suit une description très précise des pays en question.

La Vie de Siméon « des Olives » – un moine du couvent de Qartamin, dans le Tur Abdin, mort en 734- comporte pour partie, et dans des termes très semblables, la même information :19 «  Qustantinos (sic), the son of Qustantinos the Great, built Amida and loved it more than all his realm. He subjected to it the regions of the East… ».

Cette juridiction sur les territoires « de l’Est », de même que cet attachement particulier de Constance à notre cité – la seule dans l’Empire à qui il conférât le titre d’Augusta, redisons-le – implique qu’Amida n’est plus une petite cité, et qu’elle dispose dès le milieu du IVe siècle d’un apparat monumental conséquent. Or, et le fait n’a pas été souvent relevé, cette importance nouvelle de la ville de Constance pourrait être confirmée, à la fin des années 350, par l’Expositio totius mundi et gentium : ce texte anonyme y présente en effet Amida comme l’une des deux grandes cités de Mésopotamie, sur le même plan que Nisibe, pour peu que l’on accepte de lire avec Jean Rougé, le dernier éditeur français de l’expositio, Amida en lieu et place d’Edesse.20 Cela implique que la cité était pourvue d’un urbanisme et de monuments classiques bien avant la reconstruction qu’occasionnèrent les dégâts consécutifs au grand siège de Sapor II et à sa vindicte. On ne sait à peu près rien de ces destructions. Seul Ammien évoque le sujet et encore le fait-il de manière assez peu diserte : au début de l’année suivante, Constance s’arrête devant les remparts ruinés d’Amida et se lamente, avant de gagner Bézabde.21 Il semble bien que Sapor n’a 18. Traduction de Jacques Nau dans Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 20, 1915, p. 7. Jacques le Reclus (ou de Salah) commença sa vie érémitique en Égypte sous le règne de Julien. Il s’installa à Kephas (Hassankeyf), sur le Tigre, après une période d’errance, et mourut en 421. Cf. M. H. Dodgeon, S. N. C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226–363) : a documentary history, London, 1991, p. 381. L’auteur anonyme de la Vie écrit à la fin du XIIe siècle (1197). 19. Traduction d’ A. Palmer, Monk and mason on the Tigris frontier : the early history of Tur ‘Abdin, Cambridge, 1990, p. 6. Edition du texte : P. Dolabani, Maktabzabnē d-ʻumrā qaddīshā d-Qartmīn, Mardin, 1959. 20. Expositio Totius Mundi et Gentium, XXII. Sur la datation du texte avant la mort de Constance, l’identification de son auteur et l’assimilation d’Edesse à Amida, cf. notre Constance  II et Amida, cit. (n. 9) avec la bibliographie. La plupart des chercheurs admettent aujourd’hui cette identification : F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337, Cambridge, MA, London, 1994, p. 483 ; St. K. Ross, Politics and Culture on the Eastern Fringes of the Roman Empire, 114–242 CE, London, 2001, p. 15. 21. Amm. Marc. XX, 11, 5.

la topographie antique d’amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – vie siècle après j.-c.) d’après les sources littéraires

pas occupé la ville, se contentant de déporter un certain nombre d’habitants.22 Quelques années plus tard, un événement considérable bouleverse le topographie de la cité : à la suite du traité concédé par l’empereur Jovien en 363, la métropole Nisibe est retrocédée aux Perses et la population s’expatrie vers Amida. La ville devient de fait la métropole unique de la Mesopotamia romaine.23 L’ampleur démographique de cet accroissement est difficile à évaluer. Maîtres de Nisibe, les Perses ont en effet organisé, en accord avec les Romains, l’évacuation des habitants de la métropole, lesquels disposent d’un délai de trois jours pour quitter leur patrie.24 Selon les sources quasi-unanimes, la plupart aurait émigré vers Amida.25 Par son caractère pathétique, cet exode est l’un des événements les plus spectaculaires de l’histoire tardo-impériale, du moins dans sa partie orientale : la perte d’une métropole provinciale était conçue comme inouïe.26 Elle accentuait aux yeux des contemporains la gravité d’une situation vue comme « le début de la fin » du monde romain chez un auteur tel que Zosime.27 Cette dramatisation a, selon nous, conduit les auteurs modernes à surévaluer l’importance statistique de cette déportation, et, partant, des conséquences qu’elle eut sur le développement d’Amida. Conjuguée à la 22. Sapor déporta dans le Khuzestan des prisonniers d’Amida (cf. E. Kettenhofen, Deportations, in Encyclopedia Iranica, VII, Fasc. 3, p. 301 s.), à l’exception des vieillards et des impotents, précise Josué le Stylite (éd.Wright, pp.  42–43). Mais rien ne permet de supposer que les Perses installèrent une garnison dans la ville : le fait aurait été immanquablement signalé par Ammien qui affirme au contraire en XIX, 9, 1 que, du fait de la proximité de l’hiver et suite à un présage défavorable, le Roi retourna chez lui sans tarder avec butin et captifs. 23. Il faut attendre le témoignage du Synecdemos d’Hieroklès, au milieu du VIe siècle, pour une attestation formelle de cette situation. Aucun texte contemporain ne relate à proprement parler l’événement. Chez Hieroklès donc, Amida est la métropole en même temps que la cité unique de Mésopotamie : Ἐπαρχία Μεσοποταμείας, ὑπὸ ἡγεμόνα, πόλις α΄. Ἄμιδα (715, 4). 24. C’est un fait exceptionnel. Les déportations de populations étaient habituelles chez les Perses, mais, comme on vient de le voir, toujours à l’intérieur de leur propre Empire : les négociateurs romains durent arracher cette stipulation de haute lutte. 25. Zosime, Histoire Nouvelle, III, XXXIV, 1 : « (…) les habitants de Nisibis, après avoir obtenu un délai pour quitter les lieux, émigrèrent la plupart et pour ainsi dire tous à Amida, cependant qu’un petit nombre d’entre eux s’établirent dans d’autres villes » (trad. Fr.  Paschoud, CUF, 1979). Amm.  Marc. XXV, 9,  1–6  ; Malalas, XII, 2 (éd. Dindorf, Bonn, 1831) ; Chronicon Paschale, I, p. 554, (4–19) (éd. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832). 26. L’événement eut un retentissement considérable, au delà-même de l’Orient, dans tout l’Empire. Cf. R. Turcan, L’abandon de Nisibe et l’opinion publique (363 ap. J.-C.), in R. Chevallier (dir.), Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol, Paris, 1966, pp. 875–95. 27. Pour reprendre le mot de François Paschoud, dans son édition du livre III de l’Histoire Nouvelle (p. 228, et n. 99).

61

digression d’Ammien sur la modestie de la cité pré-constantienne, elle a amené les rares savants qui ont écrit sur Amida à postuler un doublement de superficie et donc à faire de cet événement l’acte de naissance de la grande cité d’Amida.28 Que disent exactement les textes ? Jean Malalas rapporte les modalités de cette installation à Amida : « Jovien entoura d’un rempart une cité en dehors des murs de la cité d’Amida et l’appela le ‘bourg de Nisibe’(kômè Nisibeos), et il y établit tous ceux qui venaient de Mygdonie,29 y compris le magistrat Silvanos».30

La mention du président des curiales de Nisibe montre bien que l’on transfère alors toute l’organisation socio-politique de Nisibe à Amida, lui donnant en quelque sorte sa légitimité métropolitaine.31 La Chronique Pascale nous donne une précision topographique supplémentaire : « (…) et il (l’Empereur) munit d’un rempart le bourg qui se trouvait en dehors de la ville d’Amida, et il relia ce rempart à celui de la cité d’Amida».32

Selon nous, cette appellation de « bourg » (Komè) hypothèque d’emblée une stricte équivalence entre le quartier nouveau et la ville préexistante. Il est évident que le « quartier » de Nisibe, sis désormais intra muros, devait occuper dans l’urbanisme amidéen une emprise importante mais en aucun cas comparable à celle de la ville antérieure. Comme on l’a dit, les anciens – et à leur suite, l’historiographie moderne – ont sans doute, par effet de dramatisation, exagéré l’importance statistique de la déportation de Nisibe : si le fait historique ne saurait être mis en doute, le traumatisme qu’il occasionna conduisit les commentateurs à en amplifier la réalité. Peut-on préciser la topographie de cette fondation ? (Fig. 2). On a déjà montré ailleurs la succession de deux villes au sein de la vieille cité intra muros, l’une – ici la ville rouge sur la figure – étant une extension de l’autre – la ville verte.33 C’est cette ville rouge, à l’ouest de la cité, du coté de la plaine mésopotamienne, c’est-à-dire là où la ville pouvait se développer, qui pourrait avoir été concernée par l’arrivée des habitants de Nisibe.34 28. C’est l’opinion d’Albert Gabriel (Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie orientale, Paris, 1940, pp. 175–82). Il considère que la population d’Amida double : la ville des Nisibéens multiplie par deux sa superficie. François Paschoud va aussi dans ce sens (Se non è vero…, p. 47 avec la note 41). 29. La Mygdonie est l’appellation hellénistique de la région de Nisibe. 30. Malalas Chron. XIII, 4–5 (p. 336 de l’éd. de Bonn). 31. Sur le caractère symbolique de cette « nouvelle Nisibe » amidéenne, cf. Assénat, Pérez, Amida restituta, cit. (n. 5), p. 46. 32. Chron. Paschale, p. 554 (14–16) de l’éd. de Bonn. 33. Cf. Assénat, Pérez, Amida et Constance II, cit. (n. 9). 34. Dans son édition latine de l’Anonyme de Zuqnin, J.-B. Chabot

62

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 2. Les deux villes avec la grande ellipse de l’ouest (Komè Nisibeos ?).

Si l’on reprend à la lettre les indications du Chronicon Paschale, on peut quasiment lire à deux reprises dans la topographie urbaine d’Amida le rattachement d’une enceinte plus petite à celle du rempart général (Fig. 2). Deux propositions de localisations de cette Kome Nisibeos peuvent donc être avancées, mais avec une préférence pour l’une d’entre elle. La première hypothèse (Fig. 2), que nous ne retenons pas, porte sur une grande ellipse conservée dans la ville rouge à l’Ouest de la ville, près de la porte d’Urfa-Edesse. Cette structure en amande, qui semble avoir été munie de porte, paraît également avoir été reliée dans un deuxième temps à l’enceinte générale. Pourtant elle se trouve à l’intérieur

du rempart, à l’intérieur de la courtine principale ce qui ne correspond pas à la description des textes lesquels évoquent clairement un bourg à l’extérieur de la ville. L’observation de cette ellipse montre qu’en son extrémité méridionale, la « patte d’oie » caractéristique qui désigne toujours, dans l’interprétation de la planimétrie urbaine, une porte ou une entrée, semble tenir compte d’un obstacle topographique majeur, en l’occurence l’église Meryem Ana, l’un des plus anciens lieux de culte chrétien de la ville : de plan tétraconque et dédiée à Marie,35 l’église affecte d’ailleurs l’orientation précise de la ville nouvelle – la ville rouge – mais la date de l’édification de cette église n’est pas sûre,

traduit le syriaque par le mot occidens : J.-B. Chabot, Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum I (CSCO, SS, 3.1), Louvain,1949, p. 134, l. 7–9 ( …et omnem populum Nisibis transtulit Amidam Mesopotamiae, et eis aedificauit ad occidentem ciuitatis). Il est bien évident, de toutes les façons, que la cité ne pouvait s’accroître à l’est, puisqu’elle se trouvait là à l’aplomb de la vallée du Tigre.

35. Meryem Ana ne peut être ici confondue avec le sanctuaire marial construit hors-les-murs suite au siège de Kavadh, en 502–06 (Jean d’Ephèse, Histoire du monastère de Mar Jean Urtaya, in Patrologia Orientalis, 19, p. 221, éd. E. W. Brooks). E. Keser, The Church of Virgin in Amida and the Martyrium at Constantia : two Monumental Centralised Churches in the Late Antique Northern Mesopotamia, in Olba, 21, 2013, pp. 405–35.

la topographie antique d’amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – vie siècle après j.-c.) d’après les sources littéraires

63

Fig. 3. Les axes cardinaux de la ville et le tetrapylon. L’arc tétrapyle, purement illustratif, est celui de Palmyre.

son existence n’étant pas attestée avant le VIIe siècle,36 ce qui ne permet aucune précision chronologique. C’est plutôt dans le quartier sud-ouest de la ville remparée que nous sommes tentés de rechercher le « bourg de Nisibe » (Fig. 2). La forme générale de la ville développe en effet une sorte d’anomalie topographique qui, vue d’avion, lui adjoint une sorte d’appendice qui lui confère l’aspect d’un poisson, le « kalkan » (turbot) des habitants de Diyarbakır.37 Or cette « queue », ou « nageoire de poisson » paraît bien avoir constitué un temps une entité séparée. L’excroissance, déterminée par deux redans de la grande enceinte, semble bien en effet avoir été raccordée après coup à cette dernière. On discerne encore dans la planimétrie actuelle le tracé d’une rue sinueuse, qui sépare en quelque sorte le corps principal de la ville de cette fantaisie planimétrique, comme si le rempart avait primitivement exclu un espace suburbain qui n’est d’ailleurs que marginalement structuré par la trame du réseau rouge. Par ailleurs, la forme de la courtine et des tours est spécifique à cette partie du tracé de l’enceinte.38 Si l’on retient l’identification de la kômè Nisibeos avec la « queue du poisson », l’essentiel de la ville nouvelle n’aurait pas directement à voir avec le « bourg » ainsi défini : elle aurait été fondée avant l’intégration du faubourg de Nisibe, et serait donc redevable à un empereur antérieur à Jovien 36. Par l’historien arabe du VIIIe siècle Al Waqidi, Kitab Al Tarikh wa Al Maghazi (Chronique des campagnes du Prophète), cité par Ş.  Beysanoglu, Anıtlar ve Kitabeleri ile Diyarbakır Tarihi, in Diyarbakır Büyük Şehir Belediyesi, Ankara, 2003, pp. 155–56. 37. On aura en effet remarqué que, vu d’avion, la ville affecte la physionomie d’un poisson à l’embonpoint marqué. 38. Pour l’heure cependant, rien ne permet de dater précisément ces tours.

et Valens : en l’occurrence Constance II. Ce scénario aurait l’avantage d’expliquer les nombreuses attestations littéraires dont nous avons parlé précédemment : ayant donné son nom à la cité, Constance aurait fondé une nouvelle ciuitas avec les rites afférents. Il aurait créé kardo et decumanus, avec un forum nouveau, à la manière classique – si l’on ose dire etrusco ritu –, en greffant le locus gromae de sa terminatio urbaine sur celui de la ville précédente comme on le voit sur la Fig. 3.39 Nous devons également prendre en compte, à Amida l’existence du camp légionnaire de la Quinta Parthica. Pour l’heure nous n’avons aucun indice sur sa localisation mais l’enquête topographique à laquelle nous nous sommes livrés nous a conduit à poser la question de savoir si la ville rouge n’aurait pas repris l’orientation de celui-ci : un camp qui aurait été stationné là, dans la banlieue de la cité ancienne depuis des décennies, peut-être depuis le règne de Dioclétien – selon un schéma assez fréquent dans le monde romain.40 Abandonné depuis peu – puisque, on l’a vu, la Notitia dignitatum ne fait état d’aucun stationnement légionnaire à Amida à la fin du IVe siècle – ce camp éventuel aurait pu être intégré à la fin du règne de Constance à l’urbanisme nouveau de la ville, qui se serait ainsi augmenté à peu de frais d’une surface déjà aménagée, sinon urbanisée. Plus tard, après l’intégration du faubourg de Nisibe et celle 39. C’est ce qui explique la concurrence des deux systèmes dans le quartier de la grande mosquée, et tout spécialement le fait que son mur occidental affecte l’orientation de la ville ancienne, alors que le reste de l’édifice appartient à la ville nouvelle. 40. Ainsi à Bostra, en Arabie, au milieu du IIIe siècle : la porte nord de la ville tient lieu de porte sud au camp légionnaire.

64

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

des suburbia dont Ammien fait état au début de sa relation du siège, le rempart aurait commencé d’affecter la forme et l’ampleur qu’on lui connaît aujourd’hui. La grande dédicace impériale à Valentinien, Valens et Gratien de la porte de Kharpout commémorerait alors l’œuvre d’un Valens donnant sa forme et son extension définitive à l’ensemble de la cité et du rempart. Quelques années à peine, en effet, après l’exode des Nisibéens, une action du successeur de Jovien, l’Auguste d’Orient Valens est documentée à Amida par l’unique inscription latine connue à ce jour à Diyarbakır. Placée en réemploi dans le contrefort ouest de la porte de Kharpout, elle a sans doute été déplacée et il n’est pas certain qu’elle ait été originellement associée à cette entrée monumentale. En voici le texte : VIRTVTE PRECIPVIS INVICTIS IMPERATORIBUS SALVIS [ddd nnn] VALENTINIO VAL[ente et] GRATIANO PERPETVIS AC TRIVMFATORIBVS SEM PER AVGGG CIVITAS DISPOSITIONE PIETATIS EORVM A F[und]AMENTI[s] FABRICA[ta es]T41

Comme on l’a dit plus haut, l’inscription commémore sans aucun doute la fin des travaux relatifs à l’agrandissement de la ville, après l’arrivée des réfugiés de Nisibe. La syntaxe de l’inscription exclut clairement qu’elle n’ait été que relative à la porte sur laquelle elle se trouve aujourd’hui – eût-elle été monumentale – pas plus qu’à une quelconque construction particulière. La ciuitas…a fundamentis fabricata dont parle l’inscription se rapporte de fait à une œuvre d’ensemble, qui sanctionne un acte politique autant que rituel : quelques années après le début des travaux, se serait achevée cette intégration de la kome nisibeos par l’agrandissement du rempart. On aurait alors classiquement procédé à l’inauguratio de la cité nouvelle et du nouveau pomerium qu’impliquait forcément l’agrandissement de la muraille.42

41. CIL, III, 6730 ici modifiée. L’inscription, située à quelque six mètres de hauteur, avait été mal vue par les premiers rédacteurs du CIL (III, 213). La lecture en fut améliorée dans le Suppl. de 1902 (III, 6730), correctement interprétée par A. Gabriel et précisément établie par J. Szidat dans, Civitas… fabricata est (CIL III, 6730). Überlegungen zur Neubefestigung von Amida in den Jahren 367–75 n. Chr. und zur Befestigungstätigkeit von Valens, in C. Eucken, C. Schäublin (éds.), Panēgyris symphilologountōn : Festschrift für Thomas Gelzer zum 60. Geburtstag am 29. Juni 1986, Berne, 1986, p. 131. Sa datation se situe entre l’accession à l’augustat de Gratien, en Août 367, et la mort de Valentinien, le 17 Novembre 375 ap. J.-C. 42. C’est une question débattue, mais il semble que la fondation de Constantinople se soit encore faite à la manière ancienne, auspicaliter.

Joachim Szidat,43 a préféré lier l’inscription à une fortification de la cité en vue de l’assaut d’envergure que Valens projetait de mener contre les Perses, avant que le désastre d’Andrinople n’anéantisse tant le projet que son auteur en 378. On ne peut se prononcer sur cette question, mais cette hypothèse n’est aucunement exclusive de notre lecture. Il est en tout cas très probable que, eu égard à la proximité chronologique des deux événements, cette inscription atteste la fin d’une séquence de travaux consécutifs à l’agrandissement de la cité… et sanctionne la naissance de la grande cité d’Amida, celle que l’on peut embrasser aujourd’hui en considérant la muraille.44 Au total, on voit bien que, concernant le IVe siècle, les renseignements textuels sont rares sur le plan strictement monumental : la nouvelle fonction politique d’Amida suppose des monuments, tant civiques que cultuels, mais ils ne sont pas décrits. On notera cependant comme un fait important que la taille de la ville la plus ancienne est déjà quatre fois plus importante que celle d’une autre fondation (ou là encore, refondation) frontalière de Constance, sur le Danube, Tropaeum Traiani, si l’on se réfère à l’estimation qu’en a donné récemment J. Crow (Fig. 4).45 A l’orée du Ve siècle, Amida est donc une grande ville, son enceinte est importante, mais elle reste… vide. 2. Le «  moment  » d’Anastase, puis de Justinien  : une topographie enfin dévoilée Il faut attendre la relation du deuxième grand siège de la 43. Op. cit. pp. 130–42. 44. Il semble bien que, sauf modifications de détail, le tracé de l’enceinte ne subit pas de modification importante après le IVe siècle. L’action de Justinien fut plus de restauration que d’agrandissement. Procope (De Aedificis, II, 3, 27–28) écrit des murs d’Amida : « …construits depuis longtemps… ils menacent de tomber en ruine à cause de leur âge ». Justinien les « …remplace par des constructions nouvelles et rétablit ainsi la sécurité de la cité ». De l’avis général aujourd’hui (malgré D. Van Berchem, Recherches sur la chronologie des enceintes de Syrie et Mésopotamie, in Syria 31, 2–3, 1954, p. 265 s., qui penche catégoriquement pour l’époque de Justinien), la muraille d’Amida, dans son premier état, constituerait l’un des exemples les plus caractéristiques d’enceinte du IVe siècle : cf. D. Oates, Studies in the ancient history of northern Irak, London, 1968, pp. 103–06 ; et en dernier lieu, J. Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani : a Comparison of Late Antique Fortress Cities on the Lower Danube and Mesopotamia, in A. G. Poulter (éd.), The transition to late antiquity on the Danube and beyond (Proceedings of the British Academy, 141), Oxford, 2007, p. 444 s. 45. J. Crow, op. cit. p. 444. Voir également J.-M. Dentzer, et al., Formation et développement des villes en Syrie du Sud de l’époque hellénistique à l’époque byzantine  : les exemples de Bosra, Suweida, Shahba, in M. Al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer, J.-M. Dentzer (éds.), Hauran  V. Du Néolithique à l’Antiquité tardive. Recherches récentes. Actes du colloque de Damas 2007, Beyrouth, 2010, vol. 1, pp. 139–69.

la topographie antique d’amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – vie siècle après j.-c.) d’après les sources littéraires

65

Fig. 4. L’emprise des deux villes successives).

ville, au début du VIe siècle de notre ère, sous Anastase I, pour que les auteurs byzantins nous offrent quelques renseignements d’ordre topographique, et on ne peut que regretter à cet égard la perte du livre qu’Eustathe d’Epiphanie a consacré à cette deuxième chute d’Amida.46 Ce sont des auteurs tardifs, essentiellement syriaques – et pour deux d’entre eux originaires d’Amida – qui constituent nos sources les plus précieuses : elles nous laissent cette fois deviner l’apparat monumental classique d’une ciuitas proto-byzantine. L’étude de la morphologie urbaine de Diyarbakır permet d’identifier une série d’édifices que ces auteurs évoquent souvent incidemment, et d’en proposer parfois une localisation assez précise. Il est à remarquer, donc, que les deux sources les plus disertes émanent d’auteurs précisément natifs d’Amida : il s’agit du Pseudo-Zacharie de Mytilène, que l’on a longtemps confondu avec l’évêque de Mytilène, et qui composa son œuvre sous le règne de Justinien, vers 569 ap. J.-C. ;47 de l’anonyme de Zuqnin, un moine du couvent du même nom, proche d’Amida, qui, écrivant à la fin du VIIIe siècle, intégra dans sa chronique un texte composé sous le règne d’Anastase.48 Evidemment, cette origo explique en 46. Si l’on en croit Evagre, Hist. Eccl., I, 19 ; III, 37. 47. G. Greatrex, Le Pseudo-Zacharie de Mytilène et l’historiographie syriaque au sixième siècle, in M. Debié (éd.), L’historiographie syriaque (Études Syriaques, 6), Paris, 2009, p. 40. Selon cet auteur, le ps. Zacharie a peut-être utilisé une source encore plus ancienne, relative au règne d’Anastase. 48. Rappelons que la Chronique de Zuqnin, attribuée par erreur par son découvreur l’érudit Assemani au patriarche jacobite

partie le focus donné sur la topographie d’une ville que les deux auteurs connaissaient fort bien. L’arc tétrapyle (Fig. 3) Mentionné pour la première fois, par le pseudo Zacharie de Mytilène au VIe siècle,49 puis par la Chronique de Zuqnin, ou Pseudo-Denys de Tell Mahré,50 enfin par Michel le Syrien,51 il se dressait encore au cœur de la cité sous le règne de Justinien.52 Un certain Cyrus, prêtre jacobite de L’Gin, d’Antioche Denys de Tell Mahré – d’où son appellation de pseudo-Denys – fut écrite par un moine stylite du couvent de Zuqnin, près d’Amida, vers 775. Il s’agit probablement de Josué, selon : A. Harrak, The Chronicle of Zuqn’n Parts III and IV A.D. 488–775 (Mediaeval Sources in Translation, 36), Toronto, 1999. 49. G. Greatrex, R. P. Phenix, C. B. Horn, S. P. Brock, W. Witakowski, The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor : Church and War in Late Antiquity (TTH, 55), Liverpool, 2011, p. 397. C’est dans l’introduction du livre X que se trouve cette unique mention : il y est question d’un certain Cyrus, prêtre de la localité de L’gin, « (…) qui fut brûlé vif dans le tetrapylon d’Amida ». L’affaire devait constituer la matière du chapitre trois, malheureusement perdu. 50. W. Witakowski, Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre chronicle, known also as the Chronicle of Zuqnin. Pt. III (TTH, 22), Liverpool, 1996, p. 35. 51. Chabot, Michel le Syrien, cit. (n. 11), t. II, p. 231. 52. Notons que J. Mühlenbrock ne fait pas mention de ce monument dans son catalogue général : J. Mühlenbrock, Tetrapylon. Zur Geschichte des viertorigen Bogenmonumentes in der Römi-

66

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

une localité voisine d’Amida, est supplicié dans le tetrapylon d’Amida sur ordre de l’évêque chalcédonien de la ville, le tristement célèbre Bar Kaili. La chronique de Zuqnin indique que « … il fit se dresser ce prêtre (dans le tétrapyle) et ils y entassèrent du bois de tous ses environs, ils mirent le feu et ils le brûlèrent, tandis que la ville voyait, se lamentait et pleurait à cette vision d’horreur et brisant le cœur… ».53 On met évidemment ce tetrapylon en relation avec les axes majeurs de la cité, ceux de l’époque de Constance II, mais aussi de la ville antérieure, axes dont il aurait assuré la liaison formelle.54 Le caractère exemplaire ou édifiant de cette exécution (« Tandis que la ville voyait ») laisse penser à un lieu, un locus central.55 Le Pseudo-Zacharie, à l’instar d’Evagre, évoque d’ailleurs, à la même époque, une exécution publique dans le Grand tétrapyle d’Alexandrie d’Egypte.56 Le tétrapyle, si on fait l’hypothèse d’un emplacement au croisement des deux systèmes urbains, aurait joué cette fonction à effet d’optique qui a été mise en évidence, par exemple, à Bosra ou à Palmyre, articulant les changements de direction des voies et les harmonisant. A Amida, la nécessité de relier géométriquement et harmoniquement les deux villes verte et rouge a du se faire sentir au moment de l’extension urbaine de Constance II et de ses successeurs, mais nous ne pouvons bien sûr donner une la datation précise de ce monument.

Fig. 5 (a). La Grande Mosquée : plan d’ensemble (d’après A. Gabriel, 1940).

Des portiques La présence d’un tétrapyle s’accorde en tout cas avec l’existence des voies urbaines portiquées dont la présence est attestée par les dizaines de chapiteaux, colonnes où bases de colonnes qui ornent aujourd’hui le seuil des portes des maisons de Diyarbakır, ainsi que les cours intérieures. Pour n’être pas les « portiques d’Antioche », les vestiges de ces allées couvertes correspondent à l’image classique d’une cité ordonnée selon les canons tardo-impériaux – voire plus schen Architektur, Münster, 2003. 53. Witakowski, Pseudo-Dionysius, cit. (n. 50). Dans la traduction de Robert Hespel (CSCO 213, Louvain, 1989, p. 25) le terme tetrapylon était rendu par « la ville aux quatres portes ». Il semble en fait que le savant Jésuite a démarqué de trop près le texte syriaque, puisque le contexte implique bien que le ou les termes ici concernés désignent un monument, pour le moins un locus : Wittakowski opte justement pour « tetrapylon ». Traduction qu’impliquait de toutes les façons la mention sans ambigüité de Zacharie, plus ancien que l’anonyme de Zuqnin. 54. Sur la fonction et la position des arcs tétrapyles cf. Mühlenbrock, Tetrapylon, cit. (n. 52), p. 26. 55. Le caractère public de l’édifice en fait le lieu d’exécution ordinaire des condamnés à mort : Michel de Syrien le présente comme le lieu de supplice de délinquants de droit commun. 56. Ps.-Zach. Chron. IV.2a ; Evagre, Hist. Eccl., II, 8. A Alexandrie, c’est, à l’inverse, l’évêque chalcédonien qui fut pendu dans le tétrapyle.

Fig. 5 (b). La Grande Mosquée : façade ouest de la cour, détail (photog. des auteurs).

anciens encore si l’on voit dans la ville verte la trame d’une ciuitas classique. Un Forum, une basilique, un groupe épiscopal (Fig. 5 a et b) Ainsi localisé, l’arc tétrapyle jouxte probablement le forum proto-byzantin et la « grande église » (cathédrale) construite par Héraklius,57 dont nous avons suggéré qu’elle 57. Anonyme de Zuqnin (ou pseudo-Denys de Telle Mahré) : J.-B. Chabot, Incerti auctoris chronicon pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, vol. I, (CSCO, 104), Louvain, 1933, pp. 258–59. «  En ce temps là, les Amidéens entreprirent une restauration considérable et admirable de leur grande église, qui avait été

la topographie antique d’amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – vie siècle après j.-c.) d’après les sources littéraires

67

Notre hypothèse de travail est donc la suivante : on aurait, de manière assez classique, une espace occupé par le forum, peut-être déjà un forum du Haut-Empire, pérennisé à cet endroit à l’époque byzantine, au croisement des axes cardinaux de la cité et dont le tétrapyle commanderait l’entrée monumentale. Le tripyrgion (Fig. 2)

Fig. 6. La Grande Mosquée et le Bazar, au cœur de la cité.

occupait l’emplacement du complexe ultérieur de la Grande Mosquée (Ulu Cami) et de ses dépendances, probablement fondée sur la trame monumentale du groupe épiscopal protobyzantin.58 Le plan tripartite de l’actuelle madrasa pourrait ainsi être issu d’un baptistère ou d’un martyrium. Mais nous n’aborderons pas davantage ici la question complexe de la topographie cultuelle chrétienne de la cité. Il faut en tout cas souligner la présence dans la cour actuelle de la mosquée d’un portique remarquablement cohérent, dont les décors architectoniques peuvent renvoyer à l’époque des Sévéres. Nous avons ailleurs fait l’hypothèse que cette façade ouest de la grande mosquée n’ait pas été proprement liée à l’édification du lieu de culte musulman, mais corresponde à l’intégration, dans le plan de la nouvelle mosquée, d’un élément architectural complet qui aurait simplement été consolidé, voire en partie reconstruit avec ses blocs originaux, par la suite.59 On remarquera d’ailleurs (Fig. 5 a et 6) que l’orientation de cette façade est celle de la ville « ancienne », à la différence du reste des structures – dont la Mosquée elle-même- dont l’orientation relève de la ville « rouge », tardo-impériale. C’est pourquoi nous pensons que l’actuelle cour de la grande Mosquée a pu participer de l’ancien espace public, le forum dont l’extension totale peut être recherchée également sous l’actuel Bazar, contigü de la Ulu Cami (Fig. 6). bâtie par l’empereur craignant Dieu, le fidèle Héraclius, parce que depuis la première fondation, cette église n’avait pas été restaurée. Et il fit diligence pour sa restauration, parce qu’elle été endommagée et près de tomber ». 58. Cf. M. Assénat, A. Pérez, Amida 2. Un forum à Amida, in Anatolia Antiqua, XXI,2013, pp. 135–58. 59. Ibid. pp. 141–48.

Mentionné par le Pseudo-Zacharie et Procope qui ne le nomme pas, ce monument composé de trois tours s’élevait dans la partie ouest de la cité.60 La plupart des chercheurs l’ont donc localisé au voisinage de la porte occidentale d’Urfa. Un parallèle se trouve dans Procope, qui évoque dans ses Guerres un coup de main des Perses à Edesse, « (…) près de la porte dite Soinia (…) à l’endroit qu’ils appellent Tripurgia».61 Mais l’interprétation du texte fait problème pour Amida : si l’on en croit le Pseudo-Zacharie, les assaillants perses auraient utilisé des conduites d’eau souterraines pour investir la ville. Procope, lui, parle de simples souterrains sans mentionner le terme «tripyrgion».62 Sans rejeter la localisation qu’on vient de dire, nous proposons une hypothèse alternative : identifier ce monument composé de trois tours comme le castellum diuisorium général de la ville. Comme on sait, les castella principaux, dont Vitruve documente la structure tripartite,63 se trouvaient souvent adossés à la muraille, sur un point topographiquement élevé, afin que la distribution des eaux vers les castella secondaires se fasse correctement.64 Dans ce cas, le monument technique pourrait être situé un peu plus au Nord, comme indiqué sur la figure 2, sis sur l’un des points les plus hauts de la ville, là ou se trouve encore à Diyarbakir un complexe de bassins, l’Anzane. A l’égard des monuments liés à l’eau, le pseudo-Zacharie et la chronique de Zuqnin évoquent l’importance des bains publics à Amida, des thermes que, selon le pseudo-Zacharie, le roi utilisa lui-même, ce dont il fut à ce point satisfait qu’il 60. Ps.-Zach. Chron. VII. 4a : Greatrex et al., Pseudo-Zachariah, cit. (n. 49), pp. 237–39. Cet édifice se trouve en effet « du coté ouest de la cité (là où) se rejoignent les aqueducs ». 61. Procop. Bell. Pers., II, 27, 4. 62. Ibid., I, 7, 20-21: Ἡμέραις δέ τις τῶν Περσῶν οὐ πολλαῖς ὕστερον ἄγχιστα τῶν πύργων τινὸς ἐκβολὴν ὑπονόμου παλαιοῦ εἶδεν οὐ ξὺν τῷ ἀσφαλεῖ κεκαλυμμένην, ἀλλὰ χάλιξι σμικραῖς τε καὶ οὐ λίαν συχναῖς. 63. Vitr., De Arch. VIII, 7. 64. Ainsi à Pompéi : Le castellum aquae se trouvait enchâssé dans le parement intérieur du rempart, adossé au flanc ouest de la porte du Vésuve (cf. J.-P. Adam, « Le castellum aquae de Pompéi, étude architecturale », RA, 2008/1, 45, pp. 37–72). Ainsi également du castellum de la porte Romaine à Ostie. Sur cet ouvrage particulier et une étude typologique générale sur les castella aquae, cf. E. Bukowiecki et alii, Ostie, l’eau dans la ville. Châteaux d’eau et réseau d’adduction (CEFR, 402), Rome, 2008, passim, avec les fig. 2 et 3.

68

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 7 (a). Le théâtre d’après la photographie aérienne.

Fig. 7 (b). Le théâtre d’après la photographie aérienne.

en diffusa ensuite, au témoignage de l’anonyme de Zuqnin, le modèle dans tout son Empire.65

monument qu’il nomme kunegion, tandis que Michel (XIIe s) n’en a qu’une connaissance livresque, le stadion dont il parle ayant très probablement, à son époque, disparu. L’épisode concerne la captivité de notables amidéens emprisonnés dans le kunegion de la cité lors de l’occupation d’Amida par les Perses, en 502–03. Josué le Stylite rapporte que :

Un tétrapyle, des portiques, un groupe épiscopal, le forum, un éventuel castellum divisiorum, des établissements thermaux. Il faut, pour finir, faire une place particulière au dernier édifice mentionné par les sources, car plus que les autres, il ancre l’histoire d’Amida dans la longue durée : le kunegion (Pseudo-Josué le Stylite, l’Anonyme de Zuqnin) ou le stadion (Michel le Syrien). Ce monument pourrait être le plus révélateur de l’ancienneté de la ville, s’il s’agit bien d’un théâtre comme nous le proposons. C’est le texte du pseudo-Josué – assimilable à l’anonyme de Zuqnin, dans lequel ce dernier est incorporé – qui gagnera notre faveur : l’auteur, originaire d’Edesse, à composé sa chronique au tout début du VIe siècle, sous le règne d’Anastase, soit quelques années à peine après les événements qu’il rapporte.66 Il a probablement eu une connaissance oculaire du 65. Chabot, Chronicon pseudo-Dionysianum, cit (n. 57), p. 219. 66. Cf. supra note n 47. Le passage consacré à l’« histoire des temps d’afflictions à Edesse, Amida et à travers toute la Mésopotamie », incorporé dans la chronique du VIIIe siècle, fut composé avant 507, par un chroniqueur qui a donc vécu les événements rapportés. Selon A. Palmer, ce pourrait être Stratonicus, un diacre de la céthédrale d’Edesse : A. Palmer, Wo wrote the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite ? in R. Schulz, M. Görg (éds.), Lingua restituta orientalis : Festgabe für Julius Assfalg (Ägypten und Altes Testament, 20), Wiesbaden, 1990, pp. 272–84. Mais cette identification ne fait pas l’unanimité, cf. J. Watt, Greek historiography and the ‘Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite’, in Gj. Reinink, A. C. Klugkist

« Les Perses, craignant que la population d’Amida ne livre la ville aux Romains, enfermèrent tous les hommes qui étaient là dans le Kynegion ».67

Et selon Michel le Syrien : « Environ dix mille hommes des notables de la ville et du peuple furent pris, enfermés et gardés dans le stade (sic). (…) Quand les Perses virent cela, ils renvoyèrent ceux qui survivaient : ceux-ci sortirent du stade, tels que des morts sortant des tombeaux… ».68

Nous identifions ce monument à un théâtre qui nous paraît clairement reconnaissable par photo-interprétation (Fig. 7). Eu égard aux deux termes employés concurremment par nos chroniqueurs – kunegion et stadion – on avait d’abord, par acquis de conscience mais pour l’écarter rapidement, examiné l’hypothèse d’un stade-amphithéâtre – stadionamfiteatron dans les inscriptions – dont l’une des sphendonai aurait été fermée dans l’Antiquité tardive pour accueillir les (éds.), After Bardaisan :‬ Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers, Louvain, 1999, p. 317 avec la note 3. 67. F. R. Trombley, J. W. Watt (trad.), The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite (TTH, 32), Liverpool, 2000, pp. 61–62. 68. Mich. Syr. Chron. IX, 8 ; Chabot, Michel le Syrien, cit. (n. 51), p. 260.

la topographie antique d’amida (IIIe siècle après J.-C. – vie siècle après j.-c.) d’après les sources littéraires

spectacles de l’arène, à l’exemple de l’édifice bien connu d’Aphrodisias, en Carie. Rien n’autorise une telle conclusion : dans ce cas de figure, en effet, et comme le désigne clairement son appellation épigraphique, la modification de la sphendonè a engendré une forme d’amphithéâtre, plutôt sommaire d’ailleurs, comme on le voit bien à Aphrodisias, et surtout infiniment plus modeste que notre édifice amidéen. Par ailleurs, l’examen de la photographie aérienne montre bien qu’aucun parcellaire, au sud du quartier, ne trahit l’empreinte d’une quelconque cavea ou d’un dromos. De toutes les façons, l’emprise de l’ellipse interdit d’emblée une telle possibilité : un tel stade aurait été proprement gigantesque, plus grand que celui de Domitien à Rome. Le fait que Michel le Syrien utilise le terme stadion ne fait aucune difficulté : c’est par ce terme générique que l’on désigne souvent, dans la partie hellénophone de l’Empire, les lieux de spectacles – un auteur latin aurait utilisé le terme circenses. C’est ainsi que dans un autre passage de la Chronique relatif à la ville de Rome, Michel établit clairement l’équivalence stade-théâtre, qui utilise les deux termes pour désigner le même édifice.69 Quant au terme employé par le Pseudo-Josué, le Kunegion ou « lieu de chasses », il désigne le monument dans lequel se tenaient, au bas-Empire, les venationes, c’est-à-dire les spectacles mettant en scène des animaux sauvages, qui, sous la pression des empereurs chrétiens, avaient fini par remplacer les combats de gladiateurs. On utilisait alors, sans distinction, les théâtres ou les amphithéâtres, avec une faveur sensible pour les premiers édifices, plus nombreux dans les cités orientales. Comme l’édifice repose sur un terrain sans grand accident de relief, il ne peut s’agir d’un monument adossé, mais plutôt entièrement construit : un théâtre de type romano-italique, donc. En Syrie, à la différence des provinces micrasiatiques, c’est ce type d’édifice qui s’est répandu. Il s’agirait d’un très vaste théâtre : aucune mesure précise ne peut être pour l’heure réalisée, puisque nous ne savons dire où il convient d’arrêter la reconnaissance des gradins de la cavea. Seuls des sondages archéologiques pourront déterminer la limite précise de la summa cauea, l’observation morphologique ne pouvant à elle seule évaluer l’ampleur des phénomènes morphogènes qui parasitent, en ville, l’identification d’un monument enfoui. C’est d’ailleurs là l’une des principales difficultés et limites de la photo-interprétation dans la détection des structures architectoniques disparues : en 69. Ibid. p. 344 : « A cette époque, Telemachus, moine d’Orient, alla à Rome. Il entra dans le stade, et voulait faire cesser le combat et l’effusion du sang. Les spectateurs qui étaient dans le théâtre se mirent en colère et lapidèrent le chaste moine. – A cause de cela, l’empereur abolit ce spectacle détestable et fit ranger le chaste moine Telemachus au nombre des martyrs » (VII, 8). Il s’agit probablement ici du théâtre de Pompée, au Champ de Mars. Sur tout ceci, cf. M. Assénat, A. Pérez, Amida 1. Un théâtre antique à Amida, Anatolia Antiqua XX, 2012, pp. 147-55.

69

ville en effet – et le phénomène est encore plus marqué dans le cas du tissu rural – le parcellaire tend souvent, avec le temps, à une auto-génération de formes qui affectent la même orientation et, parfois, la même métrologie. Il est donc délicat, en l’absence de toute vérification matérielle (la fouille archéologique, donc), de donner une limite stricte à une forme caractéristique. La mairie de Diyarbakir a fait procéder à des tests géophysiques qui indiquent en effet la présence d’un important monument enfoui sous le dense réseau actuel des ruelles du quartier où nous avons reconnu le théâtre. Cette opération a notamment révélé la présence, au nord-ouest de notre anomalie, d’un mur rayonnant de 3,5 m d’épaisseur, profondément enfoui (jusqu’à 9,5 m) qui semble participer de la structure architecturale de la cavea. Si on s’en tient aux formes actuellement perceptibles, on doit admettre que le mur de scène de notre édifice mesurerait quelques 110 mètres ce qui est important. Par ses dimensions ce monument serait en effet comparable au théâtre d’Apamée, en Syrie (145 m pour la cavea), le plus grand édifice de ce type connu en Orient, et à celui de Sparte. Ajoutons que son orientation (c. NG 5° E) ne correspond pas à l’une ou l’autre des deux villes que la morphologie actuelle de la vieille ville permet de distinguer, ce qui ne constitue pas une difficulté : c’est fréquemment le cas des édifices de spectacle, même strictement urbains.70 Si nous ne nous trompons pas, s’il s’agit bien d’un théâtre, c’est là sans aucun doute la mention textuelle la plus importante, à la fois d’un point de vue topographique et historique. En effet, un théâtre – mais, nous y insistons, le raisonnement serait strictement le même dans le cas d’un amphithéâtre – ne peut qu’avoir été édifié sous le Haut-Empire : le dernier théâtre oriental daté a été édifié à Philippopolis par Philippe l’Arabe, dans les années 250 ap. J.-C, lorsqu’il éleva sa bourgade d’origine au rang de colonie romaine.71 Concernant Amida, c’est l’époque des 70. Elle se trouve à peu près entre les deux orientations correspondant aux deux plans d’urbanisme que nous décrivons par exemple dans Assénat, Pérez, Amida restituta, cit. (n. 5) ; idem, Constance II et Amida, cit. (n. 9). 71. Cf. E. Frézouls, Recherches sur les théâtres de l’Orient syrien, in Syria, 36, 3–4, 1959, p. 222. Aucun théâtre du monde romain, Occident compris, ne semble lui être postérieur, dans l’état actuel de nos connaissances (cf. P. Gros, L’architecture romaine du début du IIIc s. av. J.-C. à la fin du Haut-Empire I. Les monuments publics, Paris, 1996, pp. 301–02). Si D. de Bernardi (Teatri in Asia Minore, IV, deduzione e proposte, Roma, 1974, p. 241), avait daté un temps la construction du théâtre de Selge de la deuxième moitié du IIIe siècle, on a abandonné aujourd’hui cette chronologie basse. Il semble bien que les travaux ultérieurs à la mi-IIIe siècle ne relevèrent ailleurs que de restaurations ou de transformations pour changement d’affectation, lorsque les représentations dramatiques laissèrent la place à des spectacles plus vulgaires – entre autres des uenationes. Et encore le cas de Philippopolis fait-il figure d’exception puisque les plus récents

70

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Sévères qui est la plus vraisemblable, puisqu’on sait que la ville appartint alors à la deuxième province de Mesopotamia (198–248), si l’on écarte l’hypothèse peu plausible de la première province éphémère de Trajan.72 Ce monument pointe l’existence d’une communauté civique solidement organisée… et suggère donc l’existence d’une ciuitas romaine bien avant l’époque byzantine, un siècle avant que, Caesar etiam tum, Constance ne donne son nom à Amida. C’est une autre raison importante pour laquelle nous attribuons à la ville verte une chronologie impériale – médio-impériale et non tardo-impériale- fondant une réalité historique que de rares chercheurs ont soupçonné.73 *** Ainsi se trouve « débloquée » quelque peu la chronologie d’une ville dont le talent littéraire d’Ammien Marcellin a occulté l’histoire antérieure. C’est en effet la formidable relation que fit ce dernier auteur du siège d’Amida en 359 qui consacre encore, dans la plupart des ouvrages savants, l’apparition sur la scène de l’histoire de la cité du Tigre, laquelle aurait été fondée quelques années auparavant par Constance II. Dès lors que ce verrou chronologique n’a plus lieu d’être, on s’explique mieux que le nom même d’Amida ait traversé les siècles depuis l’âge du bronze jusqu’au temps de Constance : la ville ne cessa en réalité d’exister comme une agglomération. Le théâtre lui donne une réalité au Haut-Empire. Il est possible que la cité ait été fondée bien antérieurement comme une ville royale hellénistique, à l’époque des Séleucides, par Antiochos IV Epiphane, comme tend à le suggérer un faisceau de convergences textuel : nous en faisons l’hypothèse dans un travail récent.74

théâtres orientaux, ceux de Doura-Europos, Palmyre, Gerasa ou encore Byblos doivent être datés du tout début de l’époque sévérienne (Frézouls, cit., p. 228). Cela suggère donc pour notre édifice une construction dans le premier tiers du IIIe siècle. 72. CIL, X (Antium), 8291 : la province de «  Cappadoce, d’Arménie Majeure et Mineure », fut abandonnée en 117 ap. J.-C., soit deux ans après sa création. 73. Un statut colonial romain au IIIe siècle est ainsi envisagé par M. A. Speidel, Ein Bollwerk für Syrien. Septimius Severus und die Provinzordnung Nordmesopotamiens im dritten Jahrhundert, in Chiron, 37, 2007, pp. 414–17. 74. M. Assénat, A. Pérez, Amida 3. Epiphaneia… kata Tigre : une fondation hellénistique à Amida  ?, in Anatolia Antiqua, XXI, 2013, pp. 159–66.

Ce qui importe ici, c’est donc que l’histoire antique d’Amida/ Diyarbakır doit être désormais envisagée dans la longue durée : depuis la lointaine mention d’Amedu, dans les Annales Royales assyriennes, jusqu’au siège héroïque de 359, c’est une ville importante qui se dressait sur le Tigre, une cité dont la succession des Empires, loin de la plonger dans l’anonymat, accrut avec le temps le prestige. C’est cette histoire multiséculaire que nous nous attachons à décrypter, malgré le caractère lacunaire des sources littéraires que le hasard explique pour une bonne part. Amida, c’est un fait, fut fondée par Constance II. Elle fut même à notre connaissance la seule cité de l’Empire à être honorée par ce prince du titre d’Augusta, probablement parce qu’elle avait partagé son destin depuis l’époque où, jeune César, il avait été envoyé par son père renforcer la frontière d’Orient :75 n’est à cet égard pas anodin que l’Empereur « l’aim(ât) plus que les autres villes de son Empire »,76 ou qu’il se fût à ce point affligé devant le spectacle de sa désolation, après le siège de Sapor.77 Mais il reste que cette fondation ne fut que la deuxième, du moins du point de vue romain : Amida existait déjà comme ciuitas sous le Haut-Empire, et c’est le mérite de l’historiographie syriaque de nous l’avoir révélé. Cette réalité doit-elle exclure la ville du Tigre des new cities of late antiquity ? – La réponse à cette question est double : oui, si l’on considère le fait qu’Amida existait déjà, et probablement comme une cité puissante sous les Sévères ; non, si l’on veut bien considérer le fait que Constance lui donna un nouveau plan urbain et commença d’agrandir son pomerium, l’associant – par son nom – à sa majesté et à son destin.

75. Assénat, Pérez, Constance II et Amida, cit. (n. 9). 76. Cf. Vie de Jacques le Reclus. 77. Amm. Marc. XX, 11, 5. Le siège a eu lieu à la fin de l’été 359. Constance est au bord des larmes et profondément affecté par le sort dramatique des habitants de la cité lorsqu’il considère ses remparts ruinés au début de l’année suivante.

Palmyra and its Ramparts during the Tetrarchy Emanuele  E. Intagliata*

Palmyre et ses remparts dans le temps Tétrarchique La prise de Palmyre par les troupes d’Aurélien en 273 a. J. C. marque conventionnellement la fin de la période romaine relativement bien connue et le début des «âges sombres» de la ville. Malgré le fait que la vie semble avoir continué sans interruption majeure durant la période suivante, notre connaissance du quart de siècle qui suit la prise est inégale et incomplète. Très peu pourrait donc être dit sur le rôle joué par Palmyre dans cette période, en partie à cause de l’état lacunaire des données archéologiques. Inversement, on en sait plus sur la période tétrarchique, qui a été marquée par un essor de la construction militaire et civile. La «renaissance» de Palmyre sous Dioclétien et sa fonction nouvelle de bastion militaire de la frontière orientale ont joué un rôle essentiel afin de garantir la survie de la ville tout au long de l’Antiquité tardive. À cette époque, la limite physique de la ville a été marquée par son circuit urbain, qui, étendu à une longueur de 6 km, englobait une superficie de plus de 120 hectares. Les remparts de Palmyre ont fait l’objet de l’attention de nombreux chercheurs en raison de leur longueur et de leur bon état de conservation. On a beaucoup spéculé sur la chronologie de cette structure, mais aucun consensus ne s’est imposé, pour l’heure, chez les savants. À partir d’un examen synthétique de la littérature récente, cet article tente de mettre en avant une autre interprétation de la chronologie des vestiges. Après avoir fourni un bref aperçu de Palmyre dans le temps tétrarchique, l’auteur évalue la fiabilité des sources écrites qui mentionnent l’existence d’un mur de la ville. Ensuite il examine les techniques employées pour la construction du mur, examen basé sur la documentation photographique maintenant conservé au Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina (Université La Sapienza, Rome). Enfin, il tente de contextualiser synthétiquement les remparts de Palmyre dans la tradition architecturale militaire de l’Antiquité tardive en utilisant des parallèles au Proche-Orient (Trad. E. Rizos). Introduction The fall of the Zenobian ‘Empire’ of Palmyra to the Aurelianic troops in A.D. 272 and the subsequent sack of the city the year after represent a significant watershed for the history of this settlement.1 Our knowledge of the fate of the city between this event and the early A.D. 290s is particularly

lacunose. Disruptions certainly occurred: major building activities, such as the construction of the theatre and the Great Colonnade, stopped abruptly;2 the Hellenistic quarter to the south of the ephemeral riverbed wādī al-Suraysir was abandoned and the inhabited urban area shrank to almost half of its original size.3 The poor evidence at our disposal would suggest, however, that life in the city continued, to

* University of Edinburgh. 1. The preliminary conclusions advanced in this paper are part of a Ph.D. research project on late antique and early Islamic Palmyra/ Tadmur carried out by the author at the University of Edinburgh under the supervision of Prof. Jim Crow and Dr Andrew Marsham (E. E. Intagliata, Late Antique and Early Islamic Palmyra/Tadmur. An archaeological and historical reassessment, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh). I am greatly indebted to Prof. Jim Crow and Dr Efthymios Rizos for the useful comments on this paper. Any mistakes, however, remain my own. Letters and numbers in squared brackets (e.g. [A201]) indicate structures according to the new designation system in K. Schnädelbach, Topographia Palmyrena. 1-Topography, Bonn, 2010.

2. M. Barański, The Roman army in Palmyra: a case of adaptation of a pre-existing city, in E. Dabrowa (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine army in the East: proceedings of a colloquium held at the Jagiellonian University, Kraków in September 1992, Krakow, 1994, pp.  9–17; M. Żuchowska, Quelques remarques sur la grande colonnade á Palmyre, in Bulletin d’Études Orientales, 52, 2000, p. 191, 192, fig. 71. 3. A. Schmidt-Colinet, K. al-As‘ad, and W. al-As‘ad, Thirty years of Syro-German/Austrian archaeological research at Palmyra’, in Studia Palmyreńskie, 12,  2013, pp.  299–318 with further bibliography.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 71-83. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111889

72

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

some extent, without major interruptions.4 It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what role Palmyra might have played in this period; indeed, we hear no more through the epigraphic record of caravan contacts with the East, for which the city was famous in Roman times. Eventually, the treaty signed by Diocletian with the Persians in A.D. 297, which established Nisibis as the sole trade point between the two Empires, would put an end to any hope the city might have had of reviving its commercial prosperity.5 As a consequence, the caravan trade moved northwards and the central Syrian caravan routes were abandoned.6 The reasons for the survival of Palmyra in Late Antiquity has primarily to be sought in the increased Roman military presence along the eastern frontier under the reign of Diocletian. This has been differently explained in modern literature.7 Some scholars believe that this is a response of the growing threat of the Saracens, whose movements along the fringe of the Empire had greatly affected the security of this borderland.8 Others have argued that the activities of the local nomadic element must have been limited to minor acts of banditry and that the presence of the army can be better explained by the necessity of patrolling roads and, more broadly speaking, economic security.9 Recently, Lewin has reached a mediation between these two positions, stressing

4. S. P. Kowalski, Late Roman Palmyra in literature and epigraphy, in Studia Palmyreńskie, 10, 1997, pp. 41–44. 5. E. Frézouls, Les fonctions du Moyen-Euphrate à l’époque Romaine, in J. Margueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate: zone de contacts et d’échanges: actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 Mars 1977, [Leiden], 1980, p. 383; M. Gawlikowski, Réflexions sur la chronologie du sanctuaire d’Allat à Palmyre, in Damaszener Mitteilungen, 1, 1983, p. 68. 6. M. Sartre and A. Sartre-Fauriat, Palmyre. La cité des caravanes, Paris, 2008, p. 93. 7. A. Lewin, Amr ibn ‘Adi, Mavia, the phylarchs and the late Roman army: peace and war in the Near East, in A. Lewin and P. Pellegrini (ed.), The late Roman army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab conquest: proceedings of a colloquium held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2005), Oxford, 2007, pp. 243–44. 8. S. T. Parker, The legionary fort of el-Lejjūn, in S. T. Parker (ed.), The Roman frontier in central Jordan. Final report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, Harvard, 2006, pp. 111–22. On the limes Palestinae: M. Gichon, 45 years of research on the Limes Palaestinae – the findings and their assessment in the light of the criticism raised (C1st – C4th), in P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z. T. Fiema and B. Hoffmann (ed.), Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth international congress of Roman frontier studies, held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), Oxford, 2002, pp. 185–206. 9. B. Isaac, The eastern frontier, in A. Cameron and P. Garnsey (ed.), The Cambridge ancient history volume 13: the late empire, AD 337–425, Cambridge, 1997, p. 459; D. L. Kennedy, The Roman frontier in Arabia (Jordan), in JRA, 5, 1992, pp. 437–89; G. K. Young, Rome’s eastern trade. International commerce and imperial policy 31 BC-AD 305, London, 2001, pp. 130–33.

the multiple functions of the late Roman army in the East.10 After a targeted military expedition against the Saracens in May/June 290,11 the defences along the eastern frontier experienced substantial building renovations. These also interested Palmyra and transformed the settlement from a caravan city into a military stronghold. The most important change in the city’s fabric at the time was the addition of a fortress at the western end, on the slope of Jebel alḤusayniāt. The Camp of Diocletian, as the fortress is known in modern literature, was partly installed in a pre-existing built up area, making extensive used of building material robbed from earlier structures.12 It is organised around two major road axes, the via praetoria, running east-west, and the via principalis, stretching north-south, intersecting roughly in the middle at right angles. A monumental groma would have marked the crossroads. The entrance to the via praetoria from the east was secured by a triple gate installed on top of an earlier row of rooms originally used as shops. The fortress could be also entered through a postern, [A115], situated at the northern end of the via principalis and flanked by two buttress towers. The four quarters created by the intersection of these major roads were occupied mostly by barrack blocks. At the end of the via praetoria, opposite the main entrance to the fortress and preceded by a large open courtyard (the forum), was the principia of the compound, that is to say the administrative and religious hub of the fortress. The horreum (granary) was situated further to the south, against the city ramparts. The plan of the Camp of Diocletian does not look dissimilar from other sites along the eastern border; yet, it is characterized by an architectural pretentiousness that is unrivalled. The dating of this fortress is set securely to Tetrarchic times thanks also to the epigraphic evidence. The lintel of the doorway to the aedes of the principia bears a foundation inscription informing that «Diocletian [and Maximian], the unconquered Augusti, and Constantine and Maximian, the most noble Caesars, have established this entrenchment (castra) under favourable auspices, through the care of the most perfect Sossianus Hierocles, governor of the province […]»13 The interpretation of the inscription is not 10. Lewin, Amr ibn ‘Adi, cit. (n. 7), p. 244. 11. Pan. Lat. III.11, 5, 4–5; 7.1; M. H. Dodgeon, S. N. C., Lieu, The Roman eastern frontier and the Persian wars, AD 226–363. A documentary history, London-New York, 1991, p. 107. 12. The results of the excavations of the camp of Diocletian have never been published in full. For useful overviews see M. Gawlikowski, Le Camp de Dioclétien: bilan préliminaire, in D. Schlumberger, H. Seyrig (eds.), Palmyre. Bilan et perspectives. Colloque de Strasbourg, Strasburg, 1976, pp.  153–63; S.  P. Kowalski, The camp of the Legio I Illyricorum in Palmyra, in Novaensia, 10, 1998, pp. 189–209; M. Lenoir, Le camp Romaine: Proche Orient et Afrique du nord, Rome-Paris, 2011, pp. 74–80. 13. J.-B. Yon, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie. Tome XVII – fascicule 1. Palmyre, Beirut, 2012, pp.  132–33,

palmyra and its ramparts during the tetrarchy

devoid of problems, first and foremost the adoption of the term castra, which according to some scholars could refer to the city as a whole.14 Nonetheless, it dates securely the foundation of the camp of Diocletian to a period between AD 293 and the end of Sossianus’ office, i.e. A.D. 303.15 The fortress is normally believed to have been the base of the Legio I Illyricorum, whose presence in Palmyra is recorded in the much later Notitia Dignitatum.16 The same Sossianus is also mentioned in an inscription found in the city centre and recording the building of the Baths of Diocletian (τὸ Διοκλητιανὸν βαλανῖον). The baths are now believed to be situated opposite the area between the theatre and the Sanctuary of Nabu.17 The building was the object of excavations from the 1950s until 1970, but the results have never been fully published. It could be entered by a portico with four columns made of reused architecture and projecting onto the northern portico of the Great Colonnade. The impact of the installation of the garrison upon the civilian settlement must have been much more profound than what the archaeological evidence currently available allow us to see. Military personnel are attested outside the Camp of Diocletian, suggesting a high degree of interaction between civilians and the army. The official Avitus, for example, dedicated an altar to Zeus in A.D. 302 in the Sanctuary of Baalshamin, which must still have been in operation.18 At the time, the physical urban limit was marked by the course of the inner city wall. The chronology of the latter has been the object of considerable speculation by the scholarly community and, therefore, deserves a detailed separate discussion. n. 121; transl. by Vince in Dodgeon, Lieu, The Roman eastern frontier, cit. (n. 11), p. 119. 14. R. Fellmann, Le «camp de Dioclétien» à Palmyre et l’architecture militaire du Bas-empire, in P. Ducrey et al. (eds.), Mélanges d’histoire ancienne et d’archéologie offerts à Paul Collart (Cahiers d’archéologie romande, 5), Lausanne, 1976, pp. 190–91. 15. Yon, Inscriptions, cit. (n. 13), pp. 132–33, n. 121. 16. Not. Dig., Or., XXII, 30. 17. A. Ostratz, Note sur le plan de la partie médiane de la rue principale à Palmyre, in Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes, 19, 1969, pp. 109–20; T. Fournet, Les bains de Zénobie à Palmyre. Rapport préliminaire – août 2009 (available at ˂http:// balneorient.hypotheses.org/604˃ – accessed 18/05/2014), 2009; T. Fournet, Résumé de T. Fournet, (available at ˂http://balneorient. hypotheses.org/1124˃ – accessed 18/05/2014), 2009; A. Bounni, Un noveau panorama de Palmyre, in Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes, 21, 1971, pp. 122–23; A. Bounni, K. al-As‘ad, Palmyra: history, monuments and museums (2nd ed.), Damascus, 1988, pp.  215–30. On the marble material from the Baths of Diocletian see H. Dodge, Palmyra and the Roman marble trade: evidence from the Baths of Diocletian, in Levant, 20, 1988, pp. 215–30; D. Wielgosz, Coepimus et lapide pingere: marble decoration from the so-called Baths of Diocletian in Palmyra, in Studia Palmyreńskie, 12, 2013, pp. 319–32. 18. Yon, Inscriptions, cit. (n. 13), pp. 163–64, n. 154.

73

The city wall Introductory remarks The circuit wall originally ran along 6 km around the late antique and early Islamic city, providing effective defence for secular, religious and residential buildings (Fig. 1).19 Today it survives for a total of 5.1 km. The section of the wall immediately to the south of the Sanctuary of Bel is no longer standing, while the one to the north of the same compound is only partially visible, having been hidden by the gardens and orchards that surround the new town. For the sake of convenience, the ramparts can be said to consist of three sections: the northern, from the Sanctuary of Bel to the foot of Jebel al-Ḥusayniāt; the western, an ‘appendix’ surrounding the Camp of Diocletian; and the southern, running parallel to the wādī al-Suraysir. The surviving remains comprise a curtain wall 2.5 m thick on average, broken at irregular intervals by three types of towers: 1) Buttress towers occur every 30–35 m. They are rectangular in shape, project normally for about 2.00–2.70 m from the curtain wall and are bonded with it (Fig. 2). A number of them, especially those flanking gates, were later included into U-shaped towers. They generally survive for no more than six courses with solid lower parts and have limited size, about 5 m2, hardly enough to accommodate any rooms of any size on their upper section. Their upper platform was probably accessible from the battlement. 2) U-shaped towers occur at less regular intervals (Fig. 3). Like buttress towers, they have a standard size, projecting from the curtain wall by c. 11 m and having a width of c. 9–10 m. They abut the curtain wall and, consequently, are later than it. The ground floor is not solid, but is provided with a large chamber (c. 4.00–5.00 m × 6.00–7.00 m) that is accessible either from outside through a narrow postern located to their east or west sides, or through an internal staircase from the upper platform. The presence of tile fragments within the towers suggests that the interiors were probably brick vaulted.20 Three narrow, vertical openings are visible on three sides of some of the best preserved towers. These have a splayed shape and were very likely used as windows for ventilation and light.21 3) Alongside buttress and U-shaped 19. For a general account of the remains after recent restorations by the Syrian authorities see K. Juchniewicz, K. al-As‘ad, K. al-Hariri, The defense wall in Palmyra after recent Syrian excavations, in Studia Palmireńskie, 11,  2010, pp.  55–73. For a detailed, feature-by-feature description see: Intagliata, Late Antique and Early Islamic Palmyra/Tadmur, cit. (n. 1), pp. 402–518. 20. E. Zanini, Il restauro giustinianeo delle mura di Palmira, in A. Iacobini, E. Zanini (eds.), Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio, Rome, 1995, p. 67. 21. J. Lauffray, Halabiyya-Zenobia, place forte du limes oriental et la Haute-Mésopotamie au VIc siècle, I: Les duchés frontaliers de Mésopotamie et les fortifications de Zenobia, Paris, 1983,

74

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Schematic plan of Palmyra’s inner circuit wall (redrawn from Schnädelbach, Topographia Palmyrena, cit. [n. 1], annexe).

Fig. 2. Northern section in BT1 and BT2. Curtain wall between towers [A208] and [A201] (photograph 900309d bis, Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina, La Sapienza, Rome).

palmyra and its ramparts during the tetrarchy

75

Fig. 3. Northern section, U-shaped tower [a221] (photograph 901312d, Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina, La Sapienza, Rome).

towers, a number of pre-existing tombs was incorporated into the curtain wall; these must have been converted into defensive structures at the time of the construction of the ramparts. Openings through the city walls are numerous. They have the form of simple passageways, sometimes flanked by buttress towers or U-shaped towers, or more imposing and complex gates, such as the triple entrance ‘Damascus Gate’ [B300] or the ‘Theatre Gate’ [K603]. Doubtless, some of these gates were erected to impress the flow of soldiers, merchants and pilgrims travelling along the eastern border at the time. The wall has been the object of attention of numerous studies due to the overall good state of preservation of its remains. Its chronology has often represented a challenging enigma, puzzling many scholars since the first European visitors of the site in the end of the seventeenth century. One of the first who attempted a dating was Wood in 1753, who was persuaded that the wall was constructed in Justinianic times. He based his assumption on a passage of Procopius, which will be discussed below, and on the observation that the course of the wall includes earlier pagan tombs. Accorp. 97; S. Gregory, Roman military architecture on the Eastern frontier, Amsterdam, 1995, p. 153.

ding to him, ‘the wall was posterior to the sepulchres, so we can conclude that it was built when the pagan religion no longer prevailed there.’22 Debates over the chronology of the city wall based on the examination of the actual remains started in the first half of the twentieth century. In 1935 von Gerkan advanced the theory of a Zenobian chronology, postulating that the defence was hurriedly erected by the queen in order to stop the Aurelianic assault of A.D. 272.23 Later, Seyrig went farther, suggesting that the U-shaped towers were Justinianic additions to the ramparts.24 His theory was based, once again, mostly on the passage of Procopius. The Zenobian chronology was rejected by Van Berchem in 1954, who put forward a Tetrarchic dating. According to him «la ville fut mise à sac, et l’arrêt complet de la civilisation palmyrénienne, observable dans les nécropoles, prouve que la population fut, sinon totalement éliminée, du moins réduite à ses éléments les plus misérables. L’érection du rempart a,

22. R. Wood, The ruins of Palmyra; otherwise Tedmor in the desart, London, 1753, p. 39. 23. A. Von Gerkan, Die Stadtmauer von Palmyra, in Berytus, 2, 1932, pp. 25–33. 24. H. Seyrig, Antiquités Syriennes, in Syria, 27, pp. 240–42.

76

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

de toute évidence, suivi la catastrophe».25 His theory became rapidly popular and has been considered valid by most of the scientific literature of the second half of the last century.26 Van Berchem’s conclusions, however, were recently rejected by two scholars, who based their research on a careful examination of the written sources and building techniques, the latter having never been attempted in previous works. Zanini argues that the wall was the result of at least three building interventions. A first wall must have been erected by Zenobia and later destroyed by Aurelian. In a later stage, the Camp of Diocletian was fortified. Yet, the city itself remained without ramparts until the reign of Justinian, who restored it and added the U-shaped towers.27 Juchniewicz has recently proposed a more simplified model, postulating that the circuit was built by Aurelian and later strengthened with U-shaped towers by Diocletian.28 Despite this long history of studies, several important points in the discussion, such as the reliability of written sources or the typological studies of the structural elements of the wall, have never been discussed in depth. The studies by Zanini and Juchniewicz are certainly of value, as they approach the issue from a different perspective by examining building techniques, yet at the same time they contradict each other. The debate is, thus, far from being concluded. On the reliability of written sources Before starting any analysis of this archaeological feature, it is important to stress the rather misleading and contradictive nature of the written sources describing the curtain wall in the period under discussion. A passage from the Life of Aurelian in the Historia Augusta on the A.D. 272 siege of Palmyra reports that, ‘it cannot be told what a store of arrows is here, what great preparations for war, what a store of spears and of stones; there is no section of the wall that is not held by two or three engines of war, and their 25. D. Van Berchem, Recherches sur la chronologie des enceintes de Syrie et de Mesopotamie, in Syria, 31, 1954, p. 259. 26. See e.g. M. Gawlikowski, Les défenses de Palmyre, in Syria, 51, 1974, pp. 231–42; D. P. Crouch, The ramparts of Palmyra, in Studia Palmireńskie, 6–7,  1975, pp.  6–44; P.  Leriche, Les fortifications Grecques et Romaines en Syrie, in J.-M. Dentzer, W. Orthmann (eds.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie, II. La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam, Saarbrücken, 1989, pp.  267–82; Barański, The Roman army, cit. (n. 2), p. 11. 27. Zanini, Il restauro giustinianeo (n. 20), p. 77; on this position see also F. de’ Maffei, Le fortificazioni sul limes orientale ai tempi di Giustiniano, in Corsi di Cultura sull’Arte Ravennate e Bizantina, 32, 1985, pp. 115–16. 28. K. Juchniewicz, Late Roman fortifications in Palmyra, in Studia Palmireńskie, 12,  2013, pp.  193–202. Genequand has advanced similar conclusions on the basis of a comparative analysis with other Tetrarchic forts in the region. D. Genequand, Les établissements des élites omeyyades en Palmyène et au Proche-Orient, Beirut, 2012, p. 27, note 57.

machines can even hurl fire.’29 Leaving aside the problem of reliability of this text, the passage does not identify the inner circuit wall as the one already in place in Zenobian times and nothing would exclude associating it with earlier ramparts defending the city.30 The problem is further complicated by the fact that, if an association has to be made, the c. 5 m2 buttress towers protecting the curtain wall at the time would have hardly been large enough to accommodate any pieces of artillery, as conversely argued by the passage under discussion.31 In addition, it is unreasonable to assume that a 2.5 m thick curtain wall and buttress towers with limited projection (and, therefore, with little capability to provide effective enfilading fire), would have represented an insurmountable obstacle for an imperial-led army. According to Procopius, the city was strengthened by Justinian ‘with defences which defy description’ (ὀχυρώμασί τε λόγου μείζοσι ἐπιρρώσας).32 As already discussed, this passage has led some scholars to think that the U-shaped towers were added on this occasion. Yet, this is a fairly common formulaic sentence in Procopius’ text that, again, cannot be associated with any circumstantial evidence on the ground.33 The contemporary Malalas recounts how ‘the emperor appointed an Armenian named Patrikios as comes Orientis in Antioch. He gave him a large sum of money with instructions to go and reconstruct the city in Phoenice on the limes, known as Palmyra, and its churches and public baths. He ordered a numerus of soldiers to be stationed there with the limitanei, and also the dux of Emesa, to protect the Roman territories and Jerusalem’.34 Admittedly, Malalas seems to be better informed than Procopius. Nonetheless, he does not mention any Justinianic restorations of the city wall. This does not have to be interpreted as a careless omission by the author, since Malalas takes generally great care in

29. SHA V, Aur., II, 26, 4 (transl. Dodgeon and Lieu, The Roman eastern frontier, cit. [n. 11], p. 96). Zosimus (Hist. Nov. I, 54) further reports that «the people of Palmyra jeered that it [the city] could not be taken» (transl. by J. J. Buchanam, H. T. Davis, Historia nova. The decline of Rome, San Antonio, 1967, pp. 32–33). 30. For an overview of the city’s defensive circuit walls, see Gawlikowski, Les défenses, cit. (n. 26), pp. 231–42; Crouch, The ramparts, cit. (n. 26), pp. 6–44. 31. The commonest pieces of artillery contemporarily in use, the ballista and the onager, are reported by written sources to be extremely difficult to move and to require a large specialised crew. E. W. Marsden, Greek and Roman artillery; historical development, Oxford, 1969, p. 117. 32. Proc., Aed., II, xi, 10–12. 33. D. Roques, Procope de Césarée, Constructions de Justinen Ier (Περὶ κτισμάτων/De aedificiis), Alessandria, 2011, p. 112, note 46, p. 205, note 151. 34. Malal., Chr., XVII, 2 (transl. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas, Melbourne, 1986, p. 245). See also Theophanes, Chr., AM 6020 (following Malalas).

palmyra and its ramparts during the tetrarchy

77

Fig. 4. Walls in BT1-BT3 masonry. 1- BT1 (grey) and BT2 (white) courses. Curtain wall between towers [A202] and [A201]. 2- Wall in BT3. Curtain wall between towers [A202] and [A115] (redrawn from photographs 870805a, 901008a and 901009a, Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina, La Sapienza, Rome).

recounting restorations of ramparts.35 It seems unlikely that this author would have neglected recounting the restoration of the Palmyrene city wall, especially if it ‘defied description’, as Procopius argues.36 Building techniques Because of the contradictory nature of the written sources, a study of this urban circuit cannot, therefore, ignore a detailed examination of its building techniques. The ongoing conflict currently taking place in Syria makes impossible any visit to the site, thus preventing any further examination of the visible remains. Fortunately, an Italian team from the Università la Sapienza in Rome had already undertaken a systematic investigation of the wall in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and kindly agreed to provide the author with the relevant documentation produced at the time. An extensive corpus of photographs of the curtain wall were taken by Prof. Fernanda de’ Maffei and her team during these surveys and is now kept at the Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina at La Sapienza, Rome.37 The study of 35. See e.g. Mayyāfāriḳīn/Silvan/Martyropolis (Malal., Chr., XVIII, 5). 36. Indeed, the reliability of Procopius’ work has often been contested in modern literature. See e.g. I. Barnea, Contributions to Dobrudja history under Anastasius I, in Dacia, 4, 1960, pp. 363–74; W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Resafa in Syrien, 1976, pp. 51–53; B. Croke, J. Crow, Procopius and Dara, in JRS, 73, 1983, pp. 143–59. 37. I warmly thank all the members of the team who agreed to

these photographs, whose preliminary results are presented in this paper, is of great value, for they record the state of preservation of the ramparts as it was a quarter of a century ago, before modern restorations substantially altered the legibility of its structure. At least four building techniques (henceforth BT1-BT4) are distinguishable from these photographs. Three of them (BT1, BT3 and BT4) have already been identified in the study of Zanini.38 BT1 consists of two faces of generally regular courses of grey narrow blocks laid normally in stretcher bond without mortar in the joints and a filling of small stones mortared together (Fig. 4.1). At least from the share the results of their efforts with me. My greatest thanks go especially to Professors Alessandra Guiglia, Antonio Iacobini and Enrico Zanini for having welcomed me in Rome and for granting me access to the archive. I am also grateful to Claudia Di Bello and Lorenzo Riccardi, both Ph.D. students in History of Art, who were always present during my examinations of the material and who made my stay in the urbe delightful and enjoyable. On the Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina, see A. Paribeni, Le missioni di studio in Oriente e il Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina (1966–2006), in A. A. Longo, G. Cavallo, A. Guiglia, A. Iacobini (eds.), La Sapienza Bizantina. Un secolo di ricerche sulla civiltà di Bisanzio all’Università di Roma (Milion, 8), Rome, 2012, pp. 39–54; A. Iacobini, La Sapienza Bizantina. Il contributo della storia dell’arte (1896–1970), ibid., pp. 9–38; E. Zanini, Storici dell’arte, esploratori, antropologi, archeologi: le missioni lungo il limes orientale (1982–1992), ibid., pp. 99–118. 38. Zanini, Il restauro giustinianeo (n. 20), pp. 68–70.

78

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 5. Stretch in BT1-BT2 between towers A207 and A205 (photograph 900309d bis, Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina, La Sapienza, Rome).

photographs, no reused building material is recognisable. The wall made with this building technique usually survives up to two or three courses. It is visible throughout the whole course of the city wall with the exception of the stretch surrounding the Camp of Diocletian and the U-shaped towers. An inscription from a re-used tomb ([A207], in the northern section) provides a TPQ of A.D. 212 for the wall in BT1.39 Courses in BT2 sit normally on top of those in BT1 (Fig. 4.1). The superimposition of the two building techniques is especially noticeable in the most exposed, northern section of the city wall (Fig. 2). BT2 masonry is technically similar to BT1, but differs by the use of blocks of whitish instead of greyish limestone. Again, no reused building material seems to be present. The superimposition is puzzling and difficult to explain. The irregularity of the coursing in some places would suggest that the reason behind it might not have been aesthetic (Fig. 5). Either the original wall in BT1 was partly destroyed and later restored in BT2 or the blocks used for the construction of the ramparts were simply taken from two different quarries. In the latter case, the two building techniques would be contemporary. The answer must wait autoptic examinations focussed in particular on the consistency of the mortar adopted for the filling. BT3 masonry is visible only in the stretch surrounding the Camp of Diocletian with the exception of the tower flanking to the west the northern entrance of the fortress. It is characterised by irregular courses of small blocks of reddish limestone normally in stretcher bond with no 39. J. Cantineau, Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, fasc. VI, le camp de Dioclétien, Beirut, 1931, p. 2.

mortar in the joints and the usual inner filling of mortared rubble (Fig. 4.2). The irregularity of coursing is caused by the inclusion of larger, possibly reused, blocks that are cut at their edges to be integrated into the structure of the wall. The blocks are carefully laid and certainly without haste; the construction of this stretch of the wall must have required time and a specialised workforce. The junction between the sections in BT3 and BT1-BT2 is not visible and, therefore, it is not possible to establish any safe relative chronology between them. BT1, BT2 and BT3 are all associated with the construction of buttress towers. The identification of these three building techniques refutes Juchniewicz’s conclusion for a single Aurelianic building phase of the main wall with buttress towers and points towards at least two (if not three) phases of construction over a time span between A.D. 212 and the late third or early fourth centuries A.D. Restorations in BT4 (a Tetrarchic building technique, as discussed below) over courses in BT1 and BT2, suggests that at least the northern and southern sections of the wall underwent considerable destructions before the A.D. 290s-300s. It is tempting to believe that this damage was the result of the Aurelianic attacks of A.D. 272–73, which would provide a convenient terminus ante quem for the construction of the wall in BT1-BT2. Yet, despite being plausible, this conclusion remains conjectural and difficult to prove with the evidence available, especially under the lack of data from systematic excavations. The wall in BT4 masonry consists of two faces made of courses of closely-fitting narrow blocks, constructed with a core of mortared rubble (Fig. 3, 6). Every one to three blocks, narrow blocks are set at right angles to consolidate

palmyra and its ramparts during the tetrarchy

79

Fig. 6. Comparison between structures in BT4. Coloured blocks in grey and light grey indicate the two expedients used to regularise coursing. 1- Back wall of the principia of the Camp of Diocletian (redrawn from Kolątaj 1975, fig. 5). 2- view from the vantage court of the south wall of the Theatre Gate [K603]. 3- Repairs in BT4 in the curtain wall between towers [A225] and [K603] (2 and .3 drawn from photographs 871013a and 900505a, Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina, La Sapienza, Rome).

the structure. Further, single courses of narrow rectangular blocks placed horizontally are included every three to four normal courses, again to make the wall more resistant. The building technique adopts extensively reused building material, whose inclusion in the wall breaks the regularity of the coursing. Two expedients are adopted to integrate reused elements: i) the edges of the blocks are carefully cut (an expedient also noticed in BT3); ii) secondary courses of narrow blocks are added to compensate for the different heights of ordinary courses. Construction in BT4 is associated with U-shaped towers and the tower flanking on the west the northern entrance to the Camp of Diocletian (so-called ‘northwestern gate’ [A115] in Fig. 1).40 Further, as noted, it is clearly visible in several places along the northern and southern sections, mostly above BT1-BT2 masonry.41 The 40. Zanini, Il restauro giustinianeo, cit. (n. 20), p. 70. 41. Clearly visible at least in [Α302] – [A301], [A228] – [A227],

vantage court of the ‘theatre gate’, [K603], was also strengthened with this technique. Juchniewicz has already briefly mentioned the similarity between this building technique and that adopted for the construction of the principia of the Camp of Diocletian (Fig. 7), dated securely to Tetrarchic times.42 The two expedients in use to regularise the coursing are clearly visible in these structures (Fig. 6). Similarly, he has drawn a parallel with the walls of the contemporary horreum of the same compound. A Tetrarchic chronology for BT4 is sound and is supported by further elements: i) the northern wall of the Camp of Diocletian (in BT3) is pierced by a later opening [A227] (tower 4) – [A226] and [A225] – [A224]. In [A408a] – [A409] a second wall was erected in BT4 against the pre-existing curtain wall. 42. K. Juchniewicz, Late Roman fortifications, cit. (n. 28), pp. 193–202.

80

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 7. The back wall of the principia of the Camp of Diocletian (2010, photograph by S. Nava).

that is in line with the via principalis of the fortress and it is, thus, likely to be contemporary with it. The west buttress tower flanking this entrance and abutting the curtain wall was certainly built at the same time in order to defend this new access to the fortress. Indeed, the tower is constructed in BT4 masonry; ii) The latest phase of construction of the ‘theatre gate’ [K603] is in BT4. Its plan is strikingly similar to that of other gates found in Tetrarchic forts, as discussed below. There is, therefore, evidence to suggest that the Ushaped towers and some restorations on the southern and northern section of the city wall, are part of a Tetrarchic intervention that is contemporary with the installation of a garrison and the consequent militarisation of the settlement. The Justinianic restorations to the fortifications reported by Procopius are, thus, not archaeologically visible. Palmyra’s city wall in the context of late antique military architecture Further observations can be made by comparing the two constitutive elements of this defensive system, namely towers and gates, with examples from a number of sites. It is important to stress, however, that a comparative analysis provides very little indication to pinpoint exactly the dating of the construction of Palmyra’s circuit wall. One of the reasons behind this lies in the uncertainty of the chronology of most of the comparable sites. In addition, the plan of Palmyra’s gates, buttress and U-shaped towers can easily be found in numerous other sites across the Empire within

a wide chronological sweep. Yet, a synthetic overview of sites in which similar architectural features occur may still be useful to contextualise the military building tradition within which this wall was conceived. Buttress towers are common from Hellenistic times,43 and in the Roman world they appear from the end of the reign of Gallienus,44 A selection of case studies is sufficient to prove the widespread diffusion of these defensive structures in the Near East. Notable examples are visible at Jerash, whose city wall was dated to the beginning of the fourth century A.D.45 43. M. Todd, The Aurelianic wall of Rome and its analogues, in B. Hobley, J. Maloney (eds.), Roman urban defences in the West: a review of current research on urban defences in the Roman empire with special reference to the northern provinces, based on papers presented to the conference on Roman urban defences, held at the Museum of London on 21–23 March 1980, London, 1983, pp. 58–67. 44. A. Lewin, Studi sulla città imperiale Romana nell’Oriente tardoantico, Como, 1991, p. 15. 45. J. Seigne, Jerash Romaine et Byzantine: développement urbain d’une ville provinciale orientale, in M. Zaghloul et. al. (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. 5. Papers given at the Fourth International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan, held in Lyon, France, Amman, 1992, p. 341. For a description of the city wall: C. S. Fisher, Description of the site, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis. An account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928–1930) and Yale University and the American

palmyra and its ramparts during the tetrarchy

81

At Dibsi Faraj buttress towers project further (about three to four meters) and occur at wider intervals of about 30 m. They have been tentatively dated to Tetrarchic times on the basis of Van Berchem’s chronology of Palmyra’s city wall.46 The eastern section of the city wall of Halabiyyia/Zenobia might have included similar towers.47 Further, buttress towers are frequently adopted as interval towers between corner towers in small forts and fortlets along the eastern border. Examples include Umm al-Raṣāṣ/Kastron Mefaa (second half of the third or beginning of the fourth century A.D.),48 Aditha49 and Khirbet al-Zōna50 (both undated). Civil settlements adjacent to forts have been found fortified with walls provided with buttress towers; these include the fortifications at Tall alRum and Qusayr al-Sayla/Tetrapyrgium.51 U-shaped towers are extremely common from the end of the third century A.D. onwards, and are later adopted, with some alterations, in early Islam.52 In the Near East, however, they seem to be particularly common in Tetrarchic times. At the forts of al-Lajjūn53 and Udruḥ54 in Jordan, they are used as interval towers and project for about 10 m. In both cases, a chamber on the ground floor is accessible through an entrance open onto the fortress; another chamber in the second floor is entered through a staircase from the outside. Other examples of U-shaped interval towers in Syria

include Khan al-Manqūra55 and the first phase of the fort of al-Bakhrā’,56 both dated to the Tetrarchic period. Further north is the site of Singara (pre-A.D. 363), in the Mesopotamian frontier.57 Parallels can also be traced with a number of Tetrarchic forts in Egypt, such as Luxor,58 Qaṣr Qarun,59 and Nag’ al-Ḥagar.60 The curtain wall of Palmyra, however, differs from all these sites by the fact that its U-shaped towers alternate with pre-existing buttress towers, a pattern found in a limited number of sites in the Near East in much later times. Early examples include the urban circuits of Diyārbekir/Amida, the construction of which commenced before A.D. 337, and that of al’Ayn/Resaina/Theodosiopolis, whose ramparts have tentatively been dated to the fourth century A.D. on the basis of comparanda.61 Much later is the discussed city wall of the city of Dara, in today’s Mardin Province, Turkey,62 and that of Viranşehir/Constantina/Tella.63 At Ruṣāfah/ Sergiopolis the early sixth century ramparts include buttress towers alternating with towers of different shapes and size (including U-shaped towers).64 To cite a final parallel, at Mayyāfāriḳīn/Silvan/Martyropolis, which according to Procopius was strengthened by Justinian, only two squared towers are known between towers C (polygonal in shape) and D1 (U-shaped). According to Gabriel, buttress towers

Schools of Oriental Research (1930–1931,  1933–1934), New Haven, 1938, p. 12. 46. R. P. Harper, Excavations at Dibsi Faraj, northern Syria, 1972–1974: a preliminary note on the site and its monuments with an appendix, in DOP, 29, 1975, p. 326. 47. J. Lauffray, Halabiyya-Zenobia, cit. (n. 21), p. 127. 48. J. Bujard, La fortification de Kastron Mayfaa/Umm ar-Rasas, in M. Zaghloul, F. Zayadine, K. ‘Amr (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. 5 Art and technology throughout the ages. Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan held at Jordan University of Science and Technology in Irbid between 12–17 April 1992, Amman, 1995, pp. 241–49. 49. Lenoir, Le camp Romaine, cit. (n. 12), p. 117. 50. Parker, The legionary fort, cit. (n. 8), pp. 45–46. 51. M. Gschwind, H. Hasan, Tall al-Rum. A Late Roman to Early Islamic settlement on the river Euphrates, in K. Bartl, A. Moaz (eds.), Residences, castles, settlements. Transformation processes from Late Antiquity to early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, Rahden/ Westf., 2008, p. 458. 52. D. Genequand, Umayyad castles; the shift from Late Antique military architecture to early Islamic palatial building, in H. Kennedy (ed.), Muslim military architecture in Greater Syria. From the coming of Islam to the Ottoman period, Leiden, 2006, pp. 17, 25. 53. B. de Vries, V. Godwin, A. Lain, The fortifications of el-Lejjun in S. T. Parker (ed.), The Roman frontier in central Jordan. Final report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, Harvard, 2006, pp. 187–211. 54. D. L. Kennedy, H. Falahat, Castra Legionis VI Ferratae: a building inscription for the legionary fortress at Udruh near Petra, in JRA, 21, 2008, pp. 121–69.

55. D. L. Kennedy, D. N. Riley, Rome’s desert frontier from the air, Austin, 1990, pp. 181–83. 56. Genequand, Les établissements, cit. (n. 28), pp. 73–79. 57. D. Oates, Studies in the ancient history of northern Iraq, London, 1968, pp. 99–106. 58. M. al-Saghir, J.-C. Golvin, M. Reddé, H. al-Sayed, and G. Wagner, Le camp Romain de Louqsor: (avec une étude des graffites gréco-romains du temple d’Amon), Cairo, 1986, pl. 14. 59. J. K. Lander, Roman stone fortifications: variation and change from the first century A.D. to the fourth, Oxford, 1984, p. 190. 60. M. Mackensen, The Tetrarchic fort at Nag el-Hagar in the province of Thebaïs: preliminary report (2005–08), in JRA, 22, 2009, pp. 286–312. 61. S. Gregory, Roman military architecture on the Eastern frontier, Volume II, Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 89–93. 62. J. Crow, Dara, a Late Roman Fortress in Mesopotamia, in Yayla, 4, 1981, pp. 12–20; Croke, Crow, Procopius and Dara, cit. (n. 36), pp. 143–59. Cf. de’ Maffei, Le fortificazioni sul limes orientale, cit. (n. 27), pp. 115, 140–44; M. Whitby, Procopius’ description of Dara (Building II.1–3), in P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (eds.), The defence of the Roman and Byzantine East, Oxford, 1986, pp. 737–83. 63. J. Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani: a comparison of late antique fortress cities on the lower Danube and Mesopotamia, in A. G. Poulter (ed.), The transition to Late Antiquity: on the Danube and beyond, Oxford-New York, 2007, p. 444. 64. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer, cit. (n. 36), p. 19; C. Hof, Masonry techniques of the early sixth century city wall of Resafa, Syria, in K. E. Kurrer, W. Lorenz, V. Wetzk (eds.), Proceedings of the third international congress on construction history: Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, Germany, 20th-24th May 2009, Cottbus, 2009, p. 820.

82

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 8. Theatre Gate [K603] (redrawn from Schnädelbach, Topographia Palmyrena, cit. [n. 1], annexe).

would have existed in other sections of the city wall, but they were later demolished.65 Although this brief overview demonstrates our patchy and still uncertain knowledge of the chronology of comparable sites, it also proves that a Tetrarchic dating for the U-shaped towers is perfectly plausible. Yet, the effectiveness of the U-shaped towers means that these were adopted also in much later times. Looking at later sites, where these towers alternate with buttress towers, it is legitimate to ask whether this pattern in Palmyra might have been the first step of creating a formula that would be repeated in Mesopotamia and Syria in later centuries. Nonetheless, a Justinianic dating remains dubious even through a comparative analysis with other sites. As noted by Crow, the only two safely dated Justinianic city walls from Syria, namely Qinnasrīn/Chalcis and Halabiyye/Zenobia (both with large, projecting rectangular towers with chambers accessible from a central staircase)66 have very little to share with this pattern.67 As for gates at Palmyra, two of them stand out for certain characteristics. The Damascus Gate [B300] is situated in the southern section of the city wall, not far from the porta praetoria of the Camp of Diocletian, and gives access to the Transversal Colonnade. Although its remains are still mostly 65. A. Gabriel, Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie orientale, Paris, 1940, pp. 213–17. 66. D. Feissel, Les édifices de Justinien au témoignage de Procope et de l’épigraphie, in AntTard, 8, 2000, p. 98. 67. Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani, cit. (n. 63), 444. On Halabiyye/Zenobia: Lauffray, Halabiyya-Zenobia, cit. (n. 21), and Blétry in this volume; on Qinnasrīn/Chalcis: J.-P. Fourdrin, Une porte urbaine construite à Chalcis de Syrie par Isidore de Milet le Jeune (550–51) (with an epigraphic appendix by D. Feissel), in T&Mbyz, 12, 1994, pp. 299–307.

covered in debris and soil, the outline of a triple entrance gate is clearly visible on the ground. Triple entrance gates are extraordinary occurrences in the late antique Near East as they are attested only in two other cities, Diyarbakır/Amida and Ruṣāfah/Sergiopolis.68 The Tetrarchic fort of al-Lajjūn is also provided with two triple entrance gateways, the porta praetoria and the porta principalis sinistra. The other two gates (porta principalis dextra and porta decumana) are single entrance openings.69 It seems, thus, reasonable to assume that the priority of the architects who worked on the Damascus Gate was not to construct an unbreachable gate, but to impress whoever was about to pass through it. The Theatre Gate [K603] is also particularly diagnostic (Fig. 8). To the north, it makes use of a pre-existing triple arch dated by Filarska to A.D. 171–236.70 The side entrances of the arch were later blocked and decorated with two niches while its northern side is reinforced with an abutting wall in BT4. To the south of the arch is a vantage court accessible through a single opening embellished with a moulded doorframe. The south wall and the upper parts of the east and west walls are made in BT4 masonry. Two U-shaped towers, now hardly discernible on the ground, would have flanked the entrance to the vantage court. It seems, thus, that the gate underwent at least two distinct building phases: i) the arch was included into the city wall; ii) in Diocletianic times, the vantage court was created, the arch strengthened and two U-shaped towers added. The plan of this gate finds good 68. Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani, cit. (n. 63), p. 446. 69. De Vries, Godwin, Lain, The fortifications of el-Lejjun, cit. (n. 53), p. 198. 70. B. Filarska, Études sur le décor architectural à Palmyre, in Studia Palmireńskie, 2, 1967, p. 157.

palmyra and its ramparts during the tetrarchy

parallels in large settlements and fortresses of Tetrarchic times, rather than Justinianic sites. These include Singara and Diyarbakır/Amida in Mesopotamia, Luxor and very likely Qaṣr Qarun in Egypt, Abrittus, Iatrus and Dinogetia in Lower Moesia.71 Concluding remarks To conclude, this paper has argued that written sources are misleading and contradictory informants to date the inner city wall of Palmyra. The analysis of the photographs from the Centro di Documentazione di Storia dell’Arte Bizantina in Rome has proven to be indispensable to probe recent hypotheses on the dating of the city wall based on the study of construction techniques. Specifically, it has concluded that the original city wall is the result of two, possibly three (BT1-BT3) interventions. Yet, it has argued that pinpointing an exact chronology for these phases is an impossible task without regular access to the site and systematic, targeted surveys and excavations. In addition, it has been possible to confirm the conclusion reached by Juchniewicz, who sees

71. Crouch (The ramparts, cit. (n. 26), p. 23) provides the parallel of the safely dated Justinianic west gate at Leptis Magna. That is, however, considerably different as it is not provided with a proper vantage court.

83

in the U-shaped towers the result of a Diocletianic, and not Justinianic, intervention. A thorough comparison between the main constituent elements of this wall and those of other sites seems to support the conclusion reached by the analysis of the building techniques. The strengthening of the curtain wall in Tetrarchic times is representative of the new role acquired by Palmyra after the collapse of the Zenobian ‘Empire’. In this occasion, the Roman caravan city was transformed into a major military stronghold. The new strategic importance of the site is reflected by the erection of an imposing fortress, the Camp of Diocletian, in the westernmost part of the settlement. Yet, Palmyra retained also its civilian character, as suggested, inter alia, by the construction of the Baths of Diocletian. The double nature of the city, military and civilian, would eventually be maintained throughout Late Antiquity and reinforced in the first half of the sixth century A.D. with the Justinianic renovations. It would eventually find an end with the Muslim conquest of the city in A.D. 634 and the collapse of the Roman eastern line of defence.

Urban Dynamics in the Bosphorus Region during Late Antiquity Efthymios Rizos*, Mustafa Hamdi Sayar**

Dynamiques urbaines dans la région de Bosphore durant l’Antiquité tardive La crise du IIIc siècle a mis la région de Bosphore au premier plan et l’a établie comme une région stratégique de premier rang dans le paysage militaire de l’Empire romain. Le facteur déterminant de cette évolution était la présence des routes militaires terrestres et navales, ce qui a augmenté l’importance défensive de Nicomédie, Nicée, Périnthe et Byzance, les villes gardiennes des routes militaires. La fondation de Constantinople, à son tour, a fourni un nouvel élan formidable pour le développement de la région, qui, d’une zone tranquille et sous-développée de l’empire a été transformée en une région en croissance rapide. Plusieurs nouveaux centres urbains se sont développés dans l’ancien territoire de Byzance (Helenopolis, Rhegion, Athyra, Derkos, Medeia) et dans la province d’Europa (Selymbria-Eudoxiopolis, Bergule-Arcadiopolis, Raidestos, Panion-Theodosiopolis, Drusipara), et ont joué un nouveau rôle dans la défense et les communications autour de la capitale. Par l’intervention impériale, de petites bourgades préexistantes ont été reconnues comme des villes, et équipées de fortifications et d’autres commodités. L’absence de recherches archéologiques sur ces sites est un obstacle sérieux pour notre évaluation de leur taille et de leur développement. Ceux pour lesquels nous avons des indications (Helenopolis, Selymbria, Derkos, Medeia) semblent avoir eu une taille de 10 à 20 hectares, et il est possible que les autres villes nouvellement créées de la région étaient similaires. Cette taille modeste était normale pour des villes construites durant l’Antiquité tardive. Ce qui est unique, cependant, est le grand nombre et la densité des nouvelles fondations urbaines dans l’hinterland de Constantinople, ce qui est révélateur du dynamisme démographique causé par la fondation de la nouvelle capitale. (Auteurs)

The history and culture of Late Antiquity was deeply marked by the foundation of the new Roman capital of Constantinople in a region of extraordinary strategic importance, the Straits. Under the Principate, this part of the Roman world, divided between the provinces of Thrace and Bithynia-Pontus, was rather peripheral, but its strategic importance rose dramatically during the third-century wars. This paper discusses the geopolitical dynamics which led to the major urban project of Constantinople, and, in its turn, the impact of the new capital upon the development of settlements in its immediate hinterland, with a special emphasis on the appearance of new towns and cities in the territories of ancient Byzantium and in the province of Europa.

* University of Oxford. ** University of Istanbul.

The principal cities of the Bosphorus region and their defensive role During the chaotic years of the third-century crisis (AD 235–85), the Roman emperors spent most of their reigns in the frontier areas, and some of them never saw the city of Rome. By contrast, almost all the emperors of the crisis years visited the Bosphorus area, often several times. During the third-century wars, the Straits became a crucial part of the military zones of the empire, as it was the crossing point of some major maritime and land routes used by the army on its frequent movements between Asia and Europe.1 The 1. On the third-century crisis, see: J. Drinkwater, Maximinus to Diocletian and the ‘Crisis,’ in A. Bowman, A. Cameron, P. Garnsey (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, volume 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193–337, Cambridge, 28–66; A. Demandt, Die Spätantike: römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian, 284–565 n. Chr., München, 2007, pp. 34–46. On the areas of strategic importance resulting during and after this crisis, see: B. Ward-Perkins, A most unusual empire: Rome in

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 85-99. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111890

86

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Part of the Thracian province of Europa with the sites discussed in this article (after R. Talbert [ed.], Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton, 2000, map 52, by C. Foss, modified).

Fig. 2. Part of Bithynia with the sites discussed in this article (after R. Talbert [ed.], Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton, 2000, map 52, by C. Foss, modified).

urban dynamics in the bosphorus region during late antiquity

cities of Nicomedia, Nicaea, Perinthus, and Byzantium stood at the terminal points of the military highways of the Balkans and Anatolia, and they thus became central hubs in the defence network of the Roman Empire. It is therefore no coincidence that the new era of stabilization of the Roman Empire started here. Diocletian ascended the Roman throne on 20 November 284, choosing Nicomedia as his principal residence and base of the senior Augustus. His goal was to bring to an end the long-lasting turmoil and instability, and for this purpose, he introduced numerous administrative and fiscal reforms, one of the most important of which was the creation of multiple imperial centres and the establishment of an entirely new system of provincial administration.2 The cities of Nicomedia (İzmit) and Nicaea (İznik) were the gates of Asia for the Roman army, commanding the starting point of the great northwest-southeast road leading to the Eastern frontier. In Roman times, the standard way from the Bosphorus to Ankara used to be via Nicomedia, Nicaea, Iuliopolis (Çayırhan), and Lagania (Beypazarı). This is the only route appearing on the Peutinger Map, and is also the way indicated by the Antonine Itinerary (early third century) and the Itinerary of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (AD 333).3 Although there was an alternative route through the area used by the modern Istanbul-Ankara highway, it was not used by the Roman state networks and the army.4 The special military role of Nicomedia and Nicaea is suggested by the signs appearing on the Peutinger Map (Fig. 3): they are among six cities in the entire empire distinguished through a special vignette depicting a fortification ring (alongside Ravenna, Aquileia, Thessalonica, and Ancyra). All of these cities were regarded as centres of extraordinary importance for the movements and provisioning of the army, and they had imperial palaces. We know that the palace of Nicomedia was built by Diocletian; Nicaea also had an imperial palace, the fourth century, in C. Rapp, H. A. Drake (eds.), The City in the Classical and Post-Classical World, Cambridge, 2014, pp. 109–29, esp. 112–16. 2. On the Tetrarchy, see: A. Demandt, Die Spätantike, cit. (n.  1), pp.  20–34; F.  Kolb, Diocletian und die Erste Tetrarchie: Improvisation oder Experiment in der Organisation monarchischer Herrschaft?, Berlin, 1987; S. Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, AD 284–324, Oxford, 2000; W. Kuhoff, Diokletian und die Epoche der Tetrarchie, Frankfurt am Main, 2001; A. Demandt, A. Goltz, H. Schlange-Schöningen (eds.), Diokletian und die Tetrarchie, Berlin, New York, 2004. On Diocletian’s economic reforms, see: B. Meißner, Über Zweck und Anlaß von Diokletians Preisedikt, in Historia, 49, 2000, pp. 79–100; H. Brandt, Erneute Überlegungen zum Preisedikt Diokletians, in Demandt, Goltz, Schlange-Schöningen, Diokletian und die Tetrarchie, cit., pp. 47–55. 3. Tab. Peut. VIII; Itin. Ant. 139–47; Itin. Burdig. 571–75 (ed. O. Cuntz, Itineraria Romana I, Leipzig, 1929). 4. D. French, Roman roads and milestones of Asia Minor (BAR Int. Ser., 392), Oxford, 1981, passim.

87

the date of which is unknown.5 Bithynia also played a central role in the provisioning of the army, and probably included extensive imperial estates: the Peutinger Map distinguishes Libissa (Eskihisar) and Eribolum (Karamürsel), near Nicomedia, and Chrysopolis (Üsküdar) on the Bosphorus, with a special vignette denoting them as military supply bases (horrea) (Fig. 3).6 The clearest expression of the strategic importance of Bithynia was the quality of its urban fortifications. The splendid walls of Nicaea were arguably one of the best fortifications built at any provincial city of the Roman Empire, anticipating by a few years the Aurelianic Walls of Rome (Fig. 4). Nicaea’s special fortification and upgrading to a military hub took place during the third-century crisis, about ten years after the city was sacked by the Goths.7 According to their building inscription, the walls of Nicaea were built in the late 260s, under Claudius Gothicus (AD 268–70). These walls, with their excellent masonry and architecturally sophisticated U-shaped towers, stand out among the ramparts built elsewhere in Anatolia in the aftermath of the Gothic invasions.8 This quality indicates lavish funding by the imperial government, while their architecture suggests a design by military engineers and presupposes substantial regular military forces for the defence of the city, much more than what any urban garrison and militia would have been able to provide. Nicaea retained this central military role, as demonstrated by the fact that it was the theatre of military events during the fourth century, including the election of the emperor Valentinian by the troops, after the death of Jovian in 364.9

5. On the palace of Nicomedia: Socr. Eccl. Hist. 1.6. On the palace of Nicaea: Euseb., Vita Constantini 3.10.1; Procop., Aed. 5.3.3. C. Mango, The Meeting-Place of the First Ecumenical Council and the Church of the Holy Fathers at Nicaea, in Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Hetaireias, 26, 2005, pp. 27–34. On the strategic importance of Nicaea as a special imperial centre, see: J. Crow, Fortifications and urbanism in late antiquity: Thessaloniki and other eastern cities, in L. Lavan, (ed.), Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism (JRA Suppl., 42), Portsmouth, 2001, pp. 89–105, esp. 90–91. 6. Tab. Peut. VIII.2. One of the imperial domains of the region may have been Achyron, the Nicomedian suburb where Constantine died, while preparing to campaign against Persia: D. Woods, Where did Constantine I die?, in Journal of Theological Studies, 48.2, 1997, pp. 531–35. 7. Zosim. 1.35.1–2. The sources on Nicaea are gathered and quoted in: S. Şahin, Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia) – İznik Müzesi Antik Yazıtlar Kataloǧu, Bd. II.3 (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, 10,3), Bonn, 1987, pp. 21–52. 8. A. M. Schneider, W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Iznik (Nicaea), Berlin, 1938; C. Foss, D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications: an Introduction, Pretoria, 1986, pp. 79–120, 125–29. 9. Amm. Marc. 36.1–2.

88

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 3. A copy of the section of the Peutinger Map featuring the Bosphorus region (in the public domain).

Fig. 4. Section of the walls of Nicaea, on the northeast side of the city, featuring a tower and curtain wall of the late third-century phase (E. Rizos, 2009).

Although not surviving, the walls of Nicomedia must have been of a similar date and quality. A few standing sections of them, ascribed by Clive Foss to Diocletian, have almost the same masonry as those of Nicaea.10 Further east 10. C. Foss, Survey of medieval castles of Anatolia, Oxford,

along the military highway, the main fortified centre was Ancyra (Ankara), which is also singled out with a special vignette on the Peutinger Map. Its Roman walls are known 1985, pp. 29–31; Crow, Fortifications and urbanism, cit. (n. 5), pp. 90–91.

urban dynamics in the bosphorus region during late antiquity

only though rescue excavations which have revealed parts of remarkably high quality. They can be ascribed to the late third century, namely the same period as the walls of Nicaea and Nicomedia. Parts of a similarly strongly built urban fortification have been uncovered by the recent excavations of Iuliopolis (Çayırhan), the main city between Ancyra and Nicaea. A date to the late third or fourth centuries seems to be possible for this wall, based on the excavation finds (the wall crosses an early Roman necropolis, overlying graves dated up to the mid-third century) and the masonry.11 It appears that the fortification of the main cities along the Anatolian military highway became the object of a state-sponsored building drive, perhaps starting from Nicomedia and Nicaea. The westward expansion of the Palmyrene Empire which engulfed Galatia, occupying Ancyra in 271, is likely to have provided a strong incentive. The military highway of Anatolia was virtually the continuation of the two highways of the Balkans, the Via Egnatia or Egnatian Way (from Dyrrachium to Perinthus and Byzantium, via Thessalonica) and the so-called Via Militaris or Diagonal Way (from Aquileia to Perinthus and Byzantium, via Sirmium and Serdica).12 The role of Nicomedia and Nicaea as custodians of the military highway in Bithynia was mirrored by Perinthus and Byzantium in Thrace.13 11. On Ancyra: K. Görkay, Roman City Walls (3rd Century City Walls), in M. Kadıoǧlu, K. Görkay, S. Mitchell, Roman Ancyra (translation E.  Keser Kayaalp), Istanbul, 2011, pp.  205–16. On Iuliopolis: O. Cinemre, Juliopolis nekropolü 2012 yılı kazı çalışmaları, in 22. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu, Ankara, 2013, pp. 410-12; F. Onur, Epigraphic Research around Juliopolis I: a Historical and Geographical Overview, in Gephyra, 11, 2014, pp. 65-83, esp. 69. E. Rizos would like to thank Fatih Onur and Mustafa Metin for a guided visit to the site of Iuliopolis in 2013. 12. Characteristically, the Antonine Itinerary (131–47) records the journey from Aquileia to Antioch as a single continuous route. 13. On the Via Militaris in Thrace, see: J.  C. Jireček, Die  Heerstrasse  von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und  die  Balkanpässe, eine historisch-geographische Studie, Prag, 1877, pp.  47–51; P.  Soustal, Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos) (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 6), Wien, 1991, pp. 132–34; A. Avramea, Land and Sea Communications, Fourth – Fifteenth Centuries, in A. Laiou (ed.), The economic History of Byzantium  I, Washington DC, 2002, pp.  57–90, esp. 63 f.; A. Külzer, Ostthrakien (Europe) (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 12), Wien, 2008, pp. 194–97. On the Via Egnatia, see: Jireček, Die Heerstrasse, cit., pp. 52–55; E. Gren, Kleinasien und der Balkan in der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der römischen Kaiserzeit (Uppsala universitets årsskrift, 9) Leipzig-Uppsala, 1941, pp. 31–36; V. Beševliev, Bemerkungen über die antiken Heerstraßen im Ostteil der Balkanhalbinsel, in Klio, 51, 1969, pp. 483–95; P. Schreiner, Städte und Wegenetz in Moesien, Dakien und Thrakien nach dem Zeugnis des Theophylaktos Simokates, in R.  Pillinger (ed.), Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Kultur Bulgariens zwischen Orient und Okzident, Wien, 1986, pp. 25–35, esp. 32; A. Avramea, Trace et fonction de la Via Egnatia. Du IIe

89

Since the Roman annexation of Thrace in AD 46, Perinthus had the primacy in the administration of the province: it was the capital of the imperial province of Thrace and, after the administrative reforms of Diocletian, it became provincial capital of Europa and diocesan capital of Thrace. On 13 October 286, Perinthus was renamed as Heraclea, in honour of the junior Augustus Maximian Herculeus (interestingly, the new name of the city is not recorded on the Peutinger Map). The city was also the base of an imperial mint (the only one in Thrace), which remained active into the late fifth century. Like Nicomedia and Nicaea, Heraclea had a palace, where Diocletian stayed in 293, and which remained functional throughout Late Antiquity.14 Already large and monumental since the Roman Imperial period, Perinthus-Heraclea grew and flourished during Late Antiquity. The excavated parts of the lowland walls of the city resemble architecturally the walls of Nicaea, featuring large U-shaped towers (Fig. 5). However, this fortification has been dated by brick-stamps to the early fifth century, that is at least 150 years later than the walls of Nicaea.15 Unless there are phases of earlier construction, which still await discovery, the absence in Perinthus-Heraclea of a good fortification from the third or early fourth century is somewhat surprising. Whatever its tetrarchic fortification may have been, the walls of Heraclea were diligently maintained and strengthened throughout Late Antiquity. During the late fifth or early sixth centuries, a new wall was built on the acropolis, the architecture and construction of which differed notably siècle avant J.-C. au VIe siècle après J.-C., in E. Zachariadou (ed.), The Via Egnatia under Ottoman rule (1380–1699) : Halcyon Days in Crete II : a symposium held in Rethymnon 9–11 January 1994, Rethymnon, 1996, pp. 3–7; K. Boshnakov, Die Thraker südlich vom Balkan in den Geographika Strabos ( Palingenesia, 81), Wiesbaden, 2003, pp. 174–84, 223; Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit., pp. 199–202; M. H. Sayar, The Via Egnatia in Eastern Thrace, in: Via Egnatia revisited. Common past, common future. Proceedings of the Via Egnatia Foundation Conference, Bitola, February 2009, Driebergen, 2010, pp.  43–44; A. Külzer, TheByzantine road system in Eastern Thrace: some remarks, in Byzantinische Forschungen, 30, 2011, pp. 179–201. 14. For the sources and archaeological evidence on Perinthus, see: M. H. Sayar, (1998), Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung: Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften (Veröffentlichungen der kleinasiatischen Kommission, 9), Wien, 1998, pp. 76–77. On the mint of Heraclea, see: M. F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, c. 300-1450, Cambridge, 1985, pp. 378-397; idem, The Economy, Fiscal Administration and Coinage of Byzantium (Variorum Reprints), Northampton, 1989, articles IV, V, VI, VIII; P. Grierson, M. Mays, Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection, Washington DC, 1992, p. 62. 15. J. Crow, Recent research on the late antique cities of Eastern Thrace (Provincia Europa), in L. Ruseva-Slokoska, R. T. Ivanov, V. N. Dinchev (eds.), The Roman and Late Roman City, Sofia, 2002, pp. 342–51, esp. 342–43.

90

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 5. Perinthus-Heraclea. Early fifth-century walls of the lower city (E. Rizos, 2012).

from the lowland walls, as it had pentagonal towers and pure brickwork in the curtain sections (Fig. 6). This phase was probably roughly contemporary and strategically related to the fortifications of Selymbria and Medeia, and thus can be associated with the broader fortification drive centring on the Anastasian Long Walls (see below). Perinthus-Heraclea faced the challenges of the tumultuous fifth and sixth centuries with remarkable success: alongside Hadrianopolis (Edirne), it was reportedly the only city Attila failed to take, on his devastating march through Thrace, which spared no city from the Danube to the Aegean.16 The region of Heraclea was also pillaged by the invading Avars in 590, but it is uncertain if they managed to take the city itself.17 16. Priscus fr. 9. 4; fr. 6. 14–15 (edition and translation R. C. Blockley, The fragmentary Classicizing Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, Liverpool, 1983).

17. Theophylact Simocatta (6.1.3–4) reports that the Avars burned parts of the basilica of Saint Glyceria, but the precise whereabouts of this shrine is unknown (was it intramural or extramural?). Josef Strzygowksi identified it as the intramural Byzantine cathedral, and, based on this, it has been deduced that Heraclea was sacked by the Avars. Yet John Covel who visited the city

As said already, Perinthus shared its role as gateway from Asia to Europe with its ancient rival, Byzantium, the guardian of the Bosphorus. Naturally favoured by its unrivalled strategic location, the military importance of Byzantium was exceptional for a provincial city. During the war between Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger in AD 193, Byzantium withstood on its own more than two years of siege by Severus’ army (AD 193–95).18 Such an ability of in the seventeenth century reports that the cathedral was in fact dedicated to the Holy Apostles (Μεγάλοι Ἀπόστολοι). Covel also reports that the monastery of Saint Glyceria (very probably the successor of her late antique shrine) used to stand near the cathedral, and had collapsed into the sea some time before his visit. Consequently, it must remain an open question whether the Avars of 590 managed to sack the entire city or just the suburbs and shrines outside the walls: J.-P. Grélois, Dr John Covel, Voyages en Turquie 1675–1677, Texte établi, annoté et traduit (Réalités Byzantines, 6), Paris, 1998, pp. 120–24. Contra: E. Kalinka, J. Strzygowski, Die Cathedrale von Heraclea, in Österreichische Jahreshefte, 1, 1898, Beiheft, pp. 3–28. 18. G. A. Harrer, The Chronology of the Revolt of Pescennius Niger, in JRS, 10, 1920, pp. 155–68; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton, 1950, vol. 1, pp. 669–70.

urban dynamics in the bosphorus region during late antiquity

91

The chora of Byzantium after the foundation of Constantinople I. Bithynia

Fig. 6. Perinthus-Heraclea. Early sixth-century walls of the acropolis (E. Rizos, 2012).

resistance was not common for a provincial city, and must have left a lasting impression. One should remember that, a few decades later, the city of Palmyra, which aspired to create its own empire, fell to the troops of Aurelian within a few weeks of siege. Despite its humiliation by Severus, and its temporary downgrading to a kōmē (village) of Perinthus, Byzantium was restored, and resumed its active military role during the third-century wars, as a base of military forces defending the Bosphorus.19 It was two men from Byzantium, Cleodamus and Athenaeus, that directed the defence of the Black Sea during the Herulian invasion of 268.20 In 324, Byzantium became the theatre of the last episodes in the confrontation between Constantine and Licinius, and, immediately after the former’s victory, it was chosen as Constantine’s new capital.

19. C. Mango, Septime Sévère et Byzance, in Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2003, pp. 593–608. 20. SHA Ga 13.7; Ga 6.8–9; A 10.3, 13.1–15, 35.5; A. Schwarcz, Die gotischen Seezüge des 3. Jahrhunderts, in R. Pillinger, A. Pülz, H. Vetters (eds.), Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter (Schriften der Balkankommission, 18), Wien, 1992, pp. 47–57; Magie, Roman Rule, cit. (n. 18), p. 705 ff.

The foundation of Constantinople led to the creation of the largest city ever founded by the Roman Empire, and, at the same time, to the abolition of the institutional existence of one of the most important poleis of the Balkan-Pontic region, Byzantium. Constantinople inherited from Byzantium the monumental settlement of a prosperous provincial city, and a very extensive rural territory, including numerous suburbs and satellite towns. In Antiquity, the chora of Byzantium was larger than that of any of the Greek colonies of Thrace, stretching from the European coast of the Bosphorus to as far west as the lagoons of Athyra (Büyükçekmece) and Derkos (Terkos Gölü). It may have even included the ancient town of Selymbria and its territory, and very probably the entire length of the coast of Salmydessos (Fig. 1).21 Besides this, however, Byzantium also possessed lands on the Bithynian coast (indeed, despite its geographical location, it belonged to the administration of the Roman province of Bithynia rather than Thrace): it controlled cape Hieron on the Asian coast of the Bosphorus (today’s Anadolu Kavaǧı with the fortress of Yoros Kalesi), and a coastal enclave bordering on the territories of Nicomedia, Nicaea and Cius/Prusias (Fig. 2).22 This remotely located peraia comprised the lowlands around Yalova, an area with good direct access from the Marmara Sea to Nicaea. It is unknown when and how the Byzantines acquired these lands, but epigraphic finds confirm that they belonged to them through to the imperial period.23 It is in the Bithynian peraia of Byzantium that the administrative impact of the new capital is first recorded: shortly after the foundation of Constantinople, in 327, the whole area was declared an independent civic territory, centering 21. L. Robert, Inscriptions de la région de Yalova en Bithynie, in Hellenica, VII, 1949, pp. 30–44, esp. 39; id., Divinités éponymes, in Hellenica, II, 1946, pp.  61–64. Selymbria was certainly a dependent settlement (kōmē/vicus) during the Principate, but it is unknown if it belonged to Perinthus or Byzantium. The fact that it was declared an autonomous town and was included by the Anastasian Wall in the fortified suburbium of Constantinople may suggest that it was part of the old Byzantine chora. On the Peutigner Map (VII 5), the space west of Perinthus features the legend Byzantini (see fig. 3). 22. The Anatolian lands of Byzantium are mentioned by Polybius (4.50.2–4; 4.52.9). 23. According to the sources, this enclave was also ethnically distinctive, since it was inhabited by a Mysian rather than Bithynian population. Robert, Yalova en Bithynie, cit. (n. 19), pp. 30–44, esp. 39–41; D. R. Wilson, The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia and Pontus in the Greek and Roman Periods, BLitt Thesis, University of Oxford, 1960, pp. 87–88. T. Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus: a Historical Study from the Seventh Century BC to the Foundation of Constantinople, Oxford, 2017, pp. 104-112.

92

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 7. View of the lagoon of Helenopolis with the remains of an aqueduct bridge (E. Rizos, 2012).

on a newly-founded city named after Constantine’s mother – Helenopolis. Helenopolis was built on cape Drepanon (modern Dil Burnu near Hersek), on the site of a pre-existing village called Souga.24 Cyril Mango has demonstrated that the main purpose of Helenopolis was to provide a good landing point on the Bithynian coast, which would allow a quick seaborne connection between Constantinople and Anatolia, avoiding the long and costly detour around the Gulf of Izmit. The Peutinger Map throws more light on this, since it shows that right opposite Helenopolis across the gulf, at Libyssa (Eskihisar), there was a major military supply base (Fig. 3). The port of Helenopolis may have facilitated the connection between the horrea of Libyssa and Nicaea. Furthermore, the site was said to have been also a place of Christian interest, since it was thought to be the resting place of Saint Lucian of Antioch, one of the most famous of martyrs of Nicomedia.25 The precise nature of Constantine’s building project at Helenopolis is unknown, but it must have mainly focused on the port facilities. The small lagoon on its coast was probably regarded as a safe, sheltered harbour. Procopius claims that the city was only given an illustrious name, but no public buildings.26 According to Procopius, 24. Malal. Chron. 13.12 (ed. J. Thurn, CFHB, 35, Berlin, 2000). The site can be seen on Google Earth. Coordinates: 40˚ 43’ N, 29˚ 30’ E. 25. C. Mango, The Empress Helena, Helenopolis, Pylae, in T&Mbyz, 12, 1994, pp. 143–58 (with references to the sources and bibliography). 26. Procop. Aed. 5.2.1–5.

Justinian built an aqueduct, a bath, churches, and a palace in Helenopolis. Nothing of the ancient buildings is visible on the site, except for a few pieces of architectural sculpture, and some pillars of what seems to have been an aqueduct bridge (Fig. 7). The territorial jurisdiction of Helenopolis was quite extensive, stretching as far west as the thermal spa of Pythia (Termal), which was hence known as the baths of Helenopolis in late antique sources. A few decades after the foundation of Helenopolis, a second new city was founded in the same region by Julian (360–63), and similarly named after his mother, Basileina, as Basileinopolis. Like many other newly-designated cities of the imperial and late antique periods, this city was formerly an imperial estate (ῥεγεών). Its precise location is unknown, but it seems that it bordered on the territories of Nicaea and Nicomedia, both of which claimed ecclesiastical jurisdiction over it. It was probably closer to Nicaea, since its decurions were recruited from that city. The late Sencer Şahin reasonably suggested for its site the landlocked basin of Valideköprü, which was traversed by the road from Helenopolis to Nicaea (Fig. 2).27 Given its reportedly modest development, it is unlikely that Basileinopolis was a notable or monumental settlement.

27. Şahin, Inschriften des Museums von Iznik, cit. (n. 7), pp. 112– 15 (with quotations from the sources).

urban dynamics in the bosphorus region during late antiquity

II. Thrace After the foundation of Constantinople, the European chora of Byzantium was mostly occupied by imperial and senatorial estates, villas and military establishments. The building of the Anastasian Long Walls, according to Procopius, was a response to the development of this peculiar landscape and its close association with the Constantinopolitan elite.28 The precise administrative status of the suburbium of the New Rome, however, is unknown. It must have been exceptional, belonging neither to the administration of the Urban Prefect of Constantinople nor to that of the Consularis of Europa. It is remarkable that neither of the two major towns of this area, Athyra and Rhegion, appears in the Synekdemos of Hierocles (Fig. 1). This suggests that the two towns were not centres of separate fiscal territories, perhaps because the land around them consisted almost entirely of imperial and senatorial estates. Anastasius reportedly subjected the area between the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople and the Long Walls to two vicarii, a civil one, subject to the Praetorian Prefect of the East, and a military one, subject to the Magister Militum Praesentalis. In other words, the area was treated as a separate province. In 535, these two offices were united into one single praetor Iustinianus in Thracia (πραίτωρ Ἰουστινιανὸς ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης), who combined both military and civil power, and was responsible also for public building works in this region.29 The jurisdiction of the praetor probably did not include the settlement of the Hebdomon, which must have been regarded as more closely attached to Constantinople: this is indirectly suggested by the fact that Procopius includes it in the first book of the Buildings, alongside the rest of the building works of Constantinople. By contrast, his account of Thrace in the fourth book of the Buildings starts from Rhegion.30 The structure of Procopius’ Buildings seems to be following strictly the geography of late Roman administration, which suggests that his data are drawn from the chanceries of the state. Thus book 1 seems to have been mainly based on the archives of the Urban Prefecture of Constantinople, while book 4 was written with material furnished by the administrations of Illyricum and Thrace. Consequently, Procopius’ decision to place two neighbouring sites, Hebdomon and Rhegion, in different books probably suggests that they were administratively separate in his time.31 28. Procop. Aed. 4.9.2–8. 29. Nov. Just. 26 (535). B. Croke, The Date of the Anastasian Long Wall in Thrace, in GRBS, 20, 1982, pp. 59–78, esp. 74–78; M. Meier, Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches, Stuttgart, 2009, pp. 146–47; J. Wiewiorowski, Vicarius Thraciarum in the 4th and 5th centuries: Some remarks, in Byzantinische Forschungen, 30, 2011, pp. 385–410. 30. Procop. Aed. 1. 11.16; 4. 9.15. 31. Against the view of Cyril Mango that Rhegion was the extramural fourteenth Region of Constantinople : C. Mango, Le mystère de la XIVc Region de Constantinople, in V. Déroche,

93

Rhegion was the first notable settlement west of the Hebdomon, and was located on a hill on the southeast coast of the lagoon of Küçükçekmece. Procopius informs us that Justinian repaired the road between Rhegion and the fort of Strongylon (also known as Kyklobion, at today’s Zeytinburnu) and built a stone bridge at the mouth of the lagoon (Fig. 1).32 Excavations by Arif Müfid Mansel in the 1940s on the acropolis of Rhegion uncovered remains of an extensive palatial complex from the fifth and sixth centuries, the size and grandeur of which suggest that it was the imperial palace of Rhegion known from the sources. These remains have mostly disappeared, except for some walls and four granite columns still visible on the site today.33 Recent excavations by Şengül Aydıngün and her team on the northwest coast of the lagoon, have uncovered the impressive remains of another strongly fortified coastal site, stretching over an extensive area, perhaps exceeding 10  hectares. The finds include a network of paved roads, piers for docking, sophisticated water supply with cisterns, and large monumental buildings, probably belonging to a late antique palace. This settlement is within the area of the imperial villa of Melanthias, mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus.34 The impressive discoveries at Küçükçekmece allow an insight into a site belonging to what must have been an extensive and complex network of settlements along the coast of the Marmara Sea. Similar settlements must have existed in the neighbouring lagoon of Büyükçekmece, the ancient lake of Athyra, with the homonymous town (modern Büyükçekmece) (Fig. 1).35 Palladius in the Life of John Chrysostom, calls Athyra a fortress (φρούριον), while Procopius calls it a city (πόλις). The latter reports that it was fortified, and that Justinian built a cistern and repaired its walls.36 In the vicinity of Athyra, Procopius mentions the unidentified site of Episkopeia C. Morrisson, C. Zuckerman (eds.), Melanges Gilbert Dagron (= T&Mbyz, 14), Paris, 2002, pp. 449–55. 32. Procop. Aed. 4.8. 33. On Rhegion, see. Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 615–18; A. M. Mansel, Les fouilles de Rhegion près d’Istanbul, in Actes du VIe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, vol. 2, Paris, 1951, pp. 255–60; S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent, New Haven, London, 2010, pp. 91–92. 34. Amm. Marc. 31, 11; Jireček, Heerstraße, cit. (n. 13), p. 53; Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n.  13), pp.  526–27. Melanthias was located between the northwest coast of Küçükçekmece and the TEM highway, on which see: M.  H. Sayar, Ziegelstempel von den Ausgrabungen am Nordwestufer des Lagunensees Küçükçekmece, in A. Rhoby (ed.), Inscriptions in Byzantium and Beyond (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung,  38), Wien, 2015, pp. 187–94. 35. Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 270–74. 36. Palladius, Dialogus de vita Chrysostomi IV.27-28 (ed. A.-M. Malingrey, Sources Chrétiennes 341, 342, Paris, 1988); Procop. Aed. 4.8.18.

94

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 8. Selymbria. Section of the late antique walls (E. Rizos, 2012).

which he describes as a sophisticated fortification built under Justinian.37 This could be either the site of Ahmediye on the northwest coast of the lagoon, or the early Byzantine fortification of Çatalca. The latter is probably preferable, since it is the largest (c. 2 ha) and most notable fortified site in the vicinity of Büyükçekmece.38 Procopius’ emphasis on the quality of the walls of Episkopeia prepares the reader for an account of a militarised landscape, dominated by the Anastasian Long Walls. The construction of this 64-km long rampart in the early 500s acknowledged the development of the suburban region between Selymbria and Constantinople, and its defensive importance for the capital. Imperial interest in this area is manifested about a century before the building of the Long Walls, with the early fifth-century fortification projects of Selymbria and Perinthus-Heraclea. Selymbria was an ancient Thracian settlement which was colonized by the Megarians in the early seventh century BC and became a polis.39 Located between two powerful neighbours, Perinthus and Byzantium, Selymbria lost its civic independence quite early, and, during the imperial period, it was a village (kōmē) under Perinthus or Byzantium.40 In 37. Procop. Aed. 4.8.19. 38. Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), p. 533. The author identifies Çatalca as Metrai. 39. L. Loukopoulou, A. Lajtar, Selymbria, in M. H. Hansen, T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 2004, pp. 921–22. 40. E. Oberhummer, Selymbria, in RE II A 2, 1923, pp. 1324–27; E. Schönert-Geiß, Die Münzprägung von Byzantion, Berlin, 1975,

AD 333, the Bordeaux Pilgrim still records it as a mere road station (mansio).41 Selymbria’s civic independence was restored probably under Arcadius who renamed it Eudoxiopolis, after his wife, Eudoxia, who died in 404.42 Nevertheless, the old name Selymbria (an indigenous Thracian name meaning ‘fortress of Selys’) remained in use down to our days in the form of the Turkish name Silivri. After its re-foundation as a city under Arcadius, Selymbria was apparently fortified. Its wall-circuit, enclosing an area of c. 10 hectares, was partly standing until the twentieth century, but its state of preservation has deteriorated dramatically with the rapid development of Silivri in recent decades.43 Very few parts of the walls can be seen today (Fig. 8).44 Once fortified, Selymbria became an important pp. 37–38; Robert, Divinités éponymes, cit. (n. 21). 41. Itin. Burdig. 570.4. 42. Socrates HE 7.36.17; Hierocl. 632.1; Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 635–43 (Selymbria). 43. Procop. Aed. 4.9.12; F.  Dirimtekin, La fortresse byzantine de Selymbria, in X.  Milletlerarası Bizans Tetkikleri Kongresi tebliğleri, İstanbul 1955, İstanbul, 1957, pp.  127–29; Crow, Eastern Thrace, cit. (n. 15), pp. 343–44. 44. The remains of Selymbria have mostly disappeared under modern construction in the centre of Silivri. Among the deplorable losses of the twentieth century are the Byzantine churches of John the Baptist and the Koimesis: P. Magdalino, Byzantine Churches of Selymbria, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 32, 1978, pp. 309–18; R. Ousterhout, Two Byzantine Churches of Selymbria/ Silivri, in M. J. Johnson, R. Ousterhout, A. Papalexandrou (eds.), Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and its Decoration. Studies in honor of Slobodan Ćurčić, Farnham, 2012, pp. 239–57.

urban dynamics in the bosphorus region during late antiquity

military stronghold in the hinterland of Constantinople: before his accession as emperor in 457, Leo I was commander of a unit stationed there.45 The fortification of Selymbria was closely related and probably contemporary with that of Heraclea Perinthus, reflecting the increasing defensive importance of the area already in the early fifth century, which culminated in the building of the Anastasian Long Walls. The maintenance and defence of the south end of the Long Walls was apparently shared by the two cities.46 Procopius mentions Selymbria as part of his account of the Long Walls, while Malalas and Theophanes report that Justinian stayed in Selymbria from Easter to August 559, supervising the repair of the Anastasian Walls.47 Between Selymbria and Heraclea Peinthus, there was the important coastal settlement and anchorage of Daunium – also known as Daneion, Daoneion or Daonioteichos, at modern Kınalıköprü. Remains of buildings, including a chi-rho relief and a Roman bridge of the Via Egnatia are known from the area.48 There is much less textual documentation on the north end of the Anastasian Long Walls and the Pontic coast of Europa. This long coastline surrounded by thickly wooded hills was known in Antiquity as Salmydessos, and was associated with the kingdom of Phineus, the blind Thracian king and oracle of the Argonauts’ myth.49 Defence there was perhaps simpler, because of the roughness of the landscape, which rendered those areas very difficult to penetrate. Yet, at the same time, this was a sensitive region, traversed by the conduits of the Constantinopolitan water supply system, and containing 45. Photius, Biblioth. 79; J. R. Martindale (ed.), Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, Cambridge, 1980, pp. 663–64 (Leo 6). 46. On the relationship of Selymbria to the Anastasian Wall see: J. Crow, The Long Walls in Thrace, in C. Mango, G. Dagron, G. Greatrex (eds.), Constantinople and its hinterland : papers from the twenty-seventh spring symposium of Byzantine studies, Oxford, April 1993, Aldershot, 1995, pp.  109–24; idem, Fortifications and the late Roman East: from Urban Walls to Long Walls, in: A. Sarantis, N. Christie, War and Warfare in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology, 8), Leiden 2013, pp. 414–18; J. Crow, A. Ricci, Investigating the hinterland of Constantinople: interim report on the Anastasian Wall Project, in JRA, 10, 1997, pp. 235–62; J. Crow, The Anastasian Wall and the Danube Frontier in the sixth century, in L. F. Vagalinski (ed.), The Lower Danube in Antiquity, Tutrakan, 2007, pp. 397–401; J. Crow, S. Turner, Silivri and the Thracian hinterland of Istanbul: an historic Landscape, in Anatolian Studies, 59, 2009, pp. 168– 73 ; M. Meier, Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches, Stuttgart, 2009, pp. 141–48. 47. Procop. Aed. 4.9.12; Malal. 18 129.25–29; Theoph. Chron. I, 234. 48. Steph. Byz. 222. The ship of the emperor Maurice took refuge at Daneion/Daoneion during a storm in 592: Theoph. Simoc. 4.1.1–4. General on Daneion, see: Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 321–22; Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia, cit. (n. 14), p. 66. 49. K. Schuten, Salmydessos, in RE, IA.2, 1920, pp. 1991–92; K. Ziegler, Phineas, in RE, XX, 1941, pp. 215–48.

95

paths leading to Constantinople from the Pontic coast. The Anastasian Wall, the aqueduct, and the roads demanded the presence of communities to support their defence and maintenance, but on the Black Sea side of Thrace habitation was comparatively scarce. At the same time, the foundation of Constantinople increased the maritime traffic between the Danube and the Bosphorus, and the scarcity of settlements and anchorages between the Bosphorus and Agathopolis (Ahtopol, Bulgaria) was probably dangerous for maritime communications. For these reasons, two new cities were built on the Pontic coast of Europa, roughly equidistant from the Anastasian Wall: Derkos and Medeia (Fig. 1). It is probably significant that Procopius says nothing about these two settlements, suggesting that their foundation and fortification pre-dates the reign of Justinian. As it was during Antiquity, the coast of Salmydessos is still much less developed than the Propontic coast of Thrace, and therefore the remains of the two Byzantine towns are much better preserved. Derkos or Delkos lay on the homonymous lake (nowadays Terkos Gölü, by the village of Durusu), 40 km northwest of Constantinople, and some 22 km inside the Anastasian Walls. It was earlier believed to have been the north terminal point of the Wall itself, but the recent surveys of Jim Crow and Alessandra Ricci have established that the wall terminated several kilometres north-west. Under Justinian, a group of Monophysite clerics was exiled there. The city appears in the episcopal lists only in the eighth century.50 Lake Terkos, which in modern times used to supply Istanbul with water, was initially a lagoon accessible from the Black Sea through a narrow strait. At the mouth of the lagoon, c. 5 km north of Derkos, there was the cape and port of Phinias (mod. Karaburun), which was virtually a twin settlement of Derkos, and the first naval station north of the mouth of the Bosphorus.51 The Byzantine city of Derkos was a fortified settlement of about 10 ha on a narrow headland protruding into the lake, near the modern village of Durusu. It was surrounded by walls, remains of which are visible at various places both on the coasts and on the mainland side (Fig. 9). The site has undergone no archaeological investigation so far. About 15 km outside the Anastasian Wall, lay the city of Medeia (modern Midiye or Kıyıköy).52 The Byzantine city 50. A.  Gaitanou-Gianniou, Ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀνατολικὴν Θρᾴκην. Ἡ ἐπαρχία Δέρκων, in Thrakika, 12,  1939, pp.  161–209, esp. 161,  162,  192,  193; C.  Capizzi, L’imperatore Anastasio  I (491–518) (Orientalia Cristiana Analecta, 184), Roma, 1969, p. 204; A. A. Stamoules, Δέρκοι, κέντρον τῶν Μονοφυσιτῶν, in Thrakika, 5, 1934, pp. 218–21; Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 332–33; Crow, Ricci, Anastasian Wall Project, cit. (n. 46). The site of Byzantine Derkos is visible on Google Earth. Coordinates: 41˚ 18’ N, 28˚ 39’ E. 51. Tab. Peut. VII, VIII. 52. F. Dirimtekin, The walls of Midye, in Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı, 5, 1963, pp. 56–61; Crow, Eastern Thrace, cit. (n. 15), pp. 345– 47; A. Pralong, Remarques sur les fortifications byzantines de

96

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 9. Derkos. Land section of the late antique and Byzantine fortification (E. Rizos, 2014).

lay on a site of c. 15 ha on a prominent coastal promontory at the mouth of two rivers (the Pabuç and Kazan Deresi) surrounding the site on both sides.53 It was protected by a brilliant fortification with pentagonal towers and good purebrick masonry, reminiscent of the acropolis walls of Perinthus-Heraclea (Fig. 10). Medeia and Derkos resemble each other strikingly in their preference for naturally defendable locations, their similar size (which roughly corresponds to the size of Selymbria as well) and their roughly equal distance from the Anastasian Wall. All these suggest that the two cities were part of a building drive, aimed to create new strongholds on the scarcely populated Black Sea side of the fortified Constantinopolitan suburbium. They can be regarded as derivative projects of the Anastasian Wall guarding the Black Sea end of the Wall, just as Selymbria and Perinthus-Heraclea protected its end on the Marmara Sea coast.

Thrace orientale, in E. Ahrweiler (ed.), Géographie Historique du Monde Méditerranéen (Byzantina Sorbonensia, 7), Paris, 1988, pp. 179–200. 53. The sizes given for the two settlements are approximate, estimated from Google Earth. The site’s coordinates are: 41˚ 38’ N, 28˚ 05’ E.

From roadside villages to cities: towns on the Via Egnatia and the Via Militaris Founded in AD 46, the province of Thrace stretched from the Haemus range in the north, to the Aegean and the Propontis in the south. In Late Antiquity, the largest part of the early Roman province of Thrace was divided into the Diocletianic provinces of Thracia, Rhodopa, Haemimontus, and Europa, belonging to the civil diocese of Thrace within the Praetorian Prefecture of the East.54 The extreme southeast part of Thrace became the province of Europa, stretching over an area of 16,000 sq. km, and administered by a consularis based at Perinthus-Heraclea (Fig. 1). Besides the already mentioned cities of Perinthus and Byzantium, notable centres of this area in the early Roman period were the colony of Apri and the city of Ulpia Bizye (Vize), the former founded under Claudius and the latter under Trajan. Further important cities were Sestus and Callipolis on the Thracian Chersonese.55 54. Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), p. 76. 55. A special section of the region was the Thracian Chersonese which, although geographically belonging to Thrace, was declared an imperial possession, exceptionally administrated by equestrian procurators (procurator regionis Chersonesi). Under Hadrian, it became a separate province. In Late Antiquity, it formed part of the province of Europa. On this, see: U. Kahrstedt, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thrakischen Chersones (Deutsche Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 6), Baden-Baden, 1954; A. Külzer, Die Küstengestade des Golfs von Saros und der thrakischen Chersones von der Antike bis zur frühen Neuzeit: einige Anmerkungen, in K. Belke (ed.), Byzantina Mediterranea. Festschrift für Johannes

urban dynamics in the bosphorus region during late antiquity

97

Fig. 10. Medeia. Section of the late fifth- and sixth-century fortification (E. Rizos, 2012).

The foundation of Constantinople had an immense demographic, economic and military impact upon the province of Europa which was now turning into one of the most densely populated areas of the Late Roman period.56 Several settlements located on the Via Egnatia and the Via Militaris developed in the fourth to sixth centuries from road stations to significant fortified settlements, and some of them were awarded city status. From backwaters during the imperial period, they grew into important regional centres in the hinterland of the new capital, with special importance for its defence. Indeed the fortresses and cities of Europa feature prominently in accounts of external invasions and Roman military operations in Late Antiquity.57 It seems that the strategic features of the area were most systematically studied and exploited in the Theodosian period, when three new cities were designated and named after emperors of the Theodosian House (Panion-Theodosiopolis, BerguleArcadiopolis, and Selymbria-Eudoxiopolis).

Koder zum 65. Geburtstag, Wien, 2007, pp. 353–63; M. H. Sayar, Zur Lage von Lysimakheia, in A. Iakovidou (ed.), Η Θράκη στον Ελληνορωμαϊκό κόσμο: πρακτικά του 10ου διεθνούς συνεδρίου Θρακολογίας, Κομοτηνή-Αλεξανδρούπολις 18–23 Οκτωβρίου 2005, Paris, 2007, pp. 514–17. 56. On the economy of Europa, see: D. Drakoulis, Η οικογεωγραφική οργάνωση της επαρχίας Ευρώπης κατά την πρώιμη βυζαντινή περίοδο, in Byzantiaka, 29, 2010, pp. 13–48. 57. V. Velkov, Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Late Antiquity, Amsterdam, 1977, pp. 119–24; Crow, Cities of Eastern Thrace, cit. (n. 15), pp. 342–51.

The already mentioned revival of the pre-Roman polis of Selymbria as Eudoxiopolis seems to have been preceded by the revival of another ancient polis, Bisanthe, under the name Theodosiopolis. Bisanthe was a Samian colony which flourished until the Roman conquest of Thrace. It existed until the second century AD, when it is last recorded as a town by the geographers Pliny and Ptolemy, but it seems to have lost its civic autonomy under the Principate, like Selymbria.58 The dissolution of Bisanthe’s civic existence probably took place after the Roman conquest of Thrace in AD 46, and its territory was absorbed by the newly-founded Claudian colony of Apri. The ancient Greek colony probably declined sharply, and, by the fourth century, even its name and location were forgotten. The Byzantine authors remember Bisanthe only as a city of Antiquity, identifying it with Rhaidestos (Tekirdağ). Pliny, however, mentions both towns separately, suggesting that they were different settlements.59 This is confirmed by epigraphy and archaeology which now allow a more accurate localisation of Bisanthe at the coastal village of Barbaros, 8 km southwest of Rhaidestos / Tekirdağ (Fig. 1).

58. Mela 2.24; Herodotus 7.137; Plin. NH 4.11.43. Also see Oberhummer, Bisanthe, in RE, 3, 1899, pp. 500–01; A. Külzer, Die thrakische Propontisküste. Beobachtungen zum Siedlungsbild in byzantinischer Zeit, in Kölner Jahrbuch, 43, 2010, pp. 429–41, esp. 434–36. 59. Plin. NH 4.11.43, 48. The phrase Βισάνθη ἤτοι Ῥαιδεστὸν in Ptolemy (Geogr. 3.11.6) is almost certainly a Byzantine gloss.

98

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Barbaros stands out by the wealth and quality of its Hellenistic epigraphy which remains unparalleled in the region, attesting to the presence of a flourishing pre-Roman poliad community. Particularly important is a set of inscriptions dedicated by local citizens to the Pergamene kings Eumenes II, Attalus II, and Stratonike, which mention the shrines of Athena Nikephoros, Apollo Pythios, and Zeus Soter. Although Bisanthe is not mentioned by name in any of these epigraphic documents, their civic character suggests that they belong to a polis.60 Until the nineteenth century, there were visible remains of an extensive ancient city on the site of today’s Barbaros (then still called Panidos by the Greeks and Banıdoz by the Turks), which Albert Dumont described as follows: In Thrace, there are very few sites where there was a city in Antiquity, the name of which cannot be identified. The only exception is the township of Panidos, where there are many and beautiful ruins. It is evident that this so small and humble village once extended towards the surrounding hills, especially to the south.’61

None of the remains Dumont saw is visible on the ground nowadays, but recent rescue excavations carried out in 2014 and 2015 have produced new and very rich evidence for the settlement history of the site.62 These excavations uncovered several Hellenistic inscriptions, which now make Barbaros the greatest repository of pre-Roman inscriptions in the region, a number of funerary inscriptions of the imperial period, and the remains of an extensive settlement spanning the fourth to sixteenth centuries AD. The localisation of the ancient city of Bisanthe at Barbaros illuminates thus far unknown aspects of settlement dynamics in that region, and helps explain the relation between ancient Bisanthe and the Roman, late antique and Byzantine settlements of Panion/Panidos and Rhaidestos. It seems that, by the late fourth century, even the name of Bisanthe had been forgotten, which suggests that the ancient city was largely abandoned. At some point, the site came to be known by a new name, Panion. It is under this name that the city reemerges in the sources during the fifth century: Panion-Theodosiopolis appears as a bishopric in the acts of 60. M. H. Sayar, Pergamon und Thrakien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Thrakiens in der Hellenistischen Zeit anhand von Ehreninschriften aus Bisanthe für Eumenes  II, Attalos  II und Stratonike, in P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, H. Thür (eds.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Ditter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (ÖAI Sonderschrift, 32), Wien 1999, pp. 245–51. 61. A. Dumont, Ἐρανίσματα. Ἡ Θρᾴκη καὶ αἱ ἀρχαιότητες αὐτῆς, in Ὁ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Ἑλληνικὸς Φιλολογικὸς Σύλλογος, 6, 1871–72, pp. 359–85, esp. 373 (quotation translated by us). Dumont proposes an hypothetical identification of Panidos with Neon Teichos. 62. These excavations were carried out by the Museum of Tekirdağ, under the direction of Mr Önder Öztürk and Dr Mete Aksan. Reports are due to be published in the future.

the Council of Ephesus (431) and as a city in the Synekdemos of Hierocles.63 It seems that, after a long break, the settlement of ancient Bisanthe was revived and fortified, and it was once again recognised as a city and episcopal see. This happened under the emperor Theodosius I (379–95), as suggested by the dynastic name awarded to the new city, Theodosiopolis, and by a building inscription which commemorates the building of walls in the early 390s.64 All this is supported by the recent excavations which have confirmed an intensive revival of occupation from the fourth century on. The reasons why Panion was chosen to become a city in the late fourth century are unknown. If the motives were military, they must have been related to the defence of the Thracian Chersonnese rather than of Constantinople, because it is hard to explain why a site on the Via Egnatia was not preferred. In such a case, the much better positioned Rhaidestos (modern Tekirdağ) would have been an obvious choice. Rhaidestos was an indigenous Thracian settlement, only mentioned after the Roman annexation of Thrace and the construction of the east Thracian extension of the Via Egnatia.65 The importance of Rhaidestos seems to have risen thanks to its excellent position as a coastal station of this road: it is first mentioned by Pliny as being directly connected by the Via Egnatia to the colony of Apri, and it is probable that the latter used Rhaidestos as its port.66 The presence of the highway seems to have been the defining factor which favoured the development of Rhaidestos at the expense of neighbouring Bisanthe during the imperial period, and it may have greatly contributed to the precipitous decline of the latter. For the same reason, Rhaidestos seems to have preserved its importance, even after the revival of Bisanthe as Panion/Theodosiopolis, even though it was fortified and awarded city status much later, under Justinian. From that point on, it became one of the most important ports of the Propontis, alongside Kallipolis, Selymbria, and PerinthusHeraclea.67 Remains of a brick waterway bridge, perhaps belonging to the Justinianic aqueduct, are the only ancient building still visible in Tekirdağ. Strategic reasons seem to have dictated also the development and fortification of three settlements on the other great Roman highway of Thrace, the so-called Via Militaris, between Hadrianopolis and Perinthus. It was under Theodosius I, very probably in parallel to the foundation of Panion-Theodosiopolis and Selymbria-Eudoxiopolis, that city status was awarded to the settlement of Bergule which 63. Hierocl. 632.5; E. Schwartz, ACO, 1 = Concilium universale Ephesenum I, Berlin, 1927, 1.7.122.30. 64. IG X2 1, 44. The inscription was transferred to Thessaloniki by Greek refugees from Panidos in 1924. It is now kept and displayed at the Museum of Byzantine Culture. 65. Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 607–13. 66. Plin. NH 4.11.48. 67. Procop. Aed. 4.9.17–20.

urban dynamics in the bosphorus region during late antiquity

was named Arcadiopolis in honour of the emperor’s son and successor Arcadius (modern Lüleburgaz).68 As a major fortification on the way to Constantinople, Arcadiopolis was reportedly besieged and sacked by the Huns between 442 and 447, by Theodoric Strabo’s Goths in 473, and by the Hunnic invaders of 559.69 The next major site after Bergule was Drusipara (modern Büyük Karıştıran), which is not mentioned as a city by any late antique source, but it appears as a bishopric in the Acts of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.70 The importance of Drusipara was very probably boosted by the presence of a notable Christian shrine in its environs, dedicated to the military martyr Alexander.71 His passio is one of the most extensive texts of hagiography from the Balkans, and it presents Alexander’s martyrdom in the form of a long journey from Rome to Byzantium, following the Via Militaris from Serdica to Drusipara.72 The cult of Alexander probably established this hitherto unimportant road station as a local centre of pilgrimage. The shrine was plundered by the invading Huns in 447, and by the Avars in 592.73 It seems that the town did not survive the Dark Ages, and, in Middle Byzantine times, it was overshadowed by the neighbouring fortress of Mesene (Misinli).74 Finally, Tzouroulon (today’s Çorlu) seems to have been a primarily military site and it is unlikely to have been awarded city status in Late Antiquity.75 It features in numerous campaigns, invasions and battles in Late Antiquity, but only appears as a bishopric in Byzantine times.76 Nowadays an important industrial and commercial centre, Çorlu preserves the ancient name and a few parts of the Byzantine fortifications.

68. Hierocl. 632, 3; Theoph. Chron. 77.25; Cedrenus I 568. 69. For the sources, see: Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 264–67. 70. Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 338–40. 71. Malal. Chron. 18.129 (mentioned as ἅγιος Ἀλέξανδρος Ζυπάρων). 72. The text of the passio (BHG 48–49) is published in: D. Dimitrov, Пътуването на св. Александра Римски през Тракия, in Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Bulgare, 8, 1935, pp. 116–61. 73. Callinicus, Vita Hypatii, 52.6 (ed. G. J. M. Bartelink, SC 177, Paris, 1971); Theoph. Simoc. 6.5.2; 7.14–15. 74. For Mesene, see: Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 530–32. 75. Ibid. pp. 684–88. 76. Notably the confrontation between Licinius and Maximinus Daia in 313, the march of Constantine against Licinius in 324, a Slavic invasion in 550, and the Avar invasion of 592. Theoph. Chron. I 234, 1; Procop. Bell. 7.38.5–10. Külzer, Ostthrakien, cit. (n. 13), p. 684.

99

Conclusion The third-century crisis brought the Marmara Sea and the Straits to the foreground and established them as a region of prime strategic importance in the minds of the military leadership of the Roman Empire. The defining factor behind this development was the presence of the military highways and naval routes, which increased the defensive importance of Nicomedia, Nicaea, Perinthus and Byzantium. The foundation of Constantinople, in its turn, provided a new formidable impetus for the development of the region, which was transformed into a busy and rapidly growing area. Several new urban centres grew in the former territory of Byzantium and in the province of Europa, playing a new role in communications and defence around the capital. By imperial intervention, small pre-existing settlements were recognised as cities, and equipped with fortifications and other amenities. The lack of archaeological investigations on these sites is a serious obstacle for our assessment of their size and overall development. Those for which we have evidence (Helenopolis, Selymbria, Derkos, Medeia) seem to have had a size of 10 to 20 hectares, and it is possible that the other newly-founded cities of the region were similar. This modest size was normal in cities built during Late Antiquity. What is unique, however, is the great number and density of new urban foundations in the hinterland of Constantinople, indicative of the great demographic dynamism triggered by the new capital.

New Cities of Late Antiquity: Theodosiopolis in Armenia James Crow*

Nouvelles villes de l’Antiquité tardive : Théodosiopolis en Arménie Les nouvelles villes ont correspondu à un phénomène important dans l’empire romain d’Orient, souvent négligé dans l’érudition moderne, la poursuite de leur étude peut contester les hypothèses « de déclin [...] et de chute ». Cette étude propose deux interprétations de nouvelles villes de l’Antiquité tardive, basées sur les concepts de bastide, ville fortifiée, et de bourgade, grand village, ayant acquis les éléments d’une ville. Bien que l’accent soit mis sur Théodosiopoulis en Arménie, elle comprend une brève discussion sur des villes particulières en Anatolie, notamment Euchaita et Amorium. On présente ici les données topographiques et historiques pour Théodosiopoulis-Erzurum, et l’on discute des vestiges structuraux de murs et de l’emplacement des autres bâtiments qui survivent pour restituer le plan et la forme de la ville antique. Des sources écrites, venant des énumérations de Procope dans le De Aedificis, sont examinées en détail, et tandis que les études précédentes n’ont pas évalué cette source en détail, on soutient que cet auteur offre un récit convaincant pour la création de la ville comme un fort établi sous Théodose II et plus tard étendu sous Anastase et Justinien. En combinant ces données avec une étude des sources arméniennes, il est possible d’identifier un certain nombre de bâtiments à l’intérieur de la ville et de connaître l’aspect de la ville nouvelle de l’antiquité tardive. (Auteur)

The wild and uncivilised life of man at the beginning of time was first separated from communion with the dumb animals and beasts by the founding of cities. In them the common utility discovered the idea of the state. And so the most powerful nations and most consecrated princes thought that there was no greater glory than the foundation of new cities or the transfer of those founded by others to their own name under some expansion. In this enterprise the Clemency of your serenity wins the palm. For by others few or single cities, by your piety countless cities have been completed with such continuous activity that they appear not so much built by human hands as sprung up by divine will.1 * University of Edinburgh ** Abbreviations- N. Adontz, Armenia in the period of Justinian, the political conditions based on the NAXARAR system, trans. N. G. Garsoïan, Lisbon, 1970, Adontz, Armenia in the period of Justinian; J. Crow, Fortification and the late Roman East: From urban walls to long walls, in War and Warfare in Late Antiquity, Current Perspectives, Late Antique Archaeology 8.2 edd. A.  Sarantis and N.  Christie, Leiden 2013, pp.  397–432, Crow, Fortification and the Late Roman East; N. Garsoïan, La date de la foundation de Théodosiopolis-Karin, in Revue des études Byzantines 62,  2004, pp.  181–96, Garsoïan, La date de la foundation; G. Greatrex, S. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and The Persian Wars Part II AD 363–630 A narrative sourcebook, London, 2002, Greatrex, Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier; T. Greenwood, Armenia, in S. F.Johnston, The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2012, pp. 115–41, Green-

The writer of this extract rarely figures in discussions of ancient urbanism. He is the late Roman writer Vegetius, wood, Armenia. J. Howard-Johnston, Roman defences north of the Taurus and the new fortress of Citharizon, in D. H. French, C. S. Lightfoot, (eds.) The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (BAR Int. Ser., 553), 1989, pp. 203–29, Howard-Johnston, The new fortress of Citharizon; I. Jacobs, Aesthetic Maintenance of Urban Space, The Classical City from the 4th to the 7th century, Leuven, 2013, Jacobs, Aesthetic Maintenance; S. Janniard, La Novelle V, 3 de Théodose II: l’armée Romaine et la défense de tractus Armeniae au Ve s. apr. J.C., in Mediterraneo Antico, 8, 2, 2005, pp. 523–46, Janniard, La Novelle V, 3 de Théodose II; S. Janniard, Armée et «acculturation» dans l’Orient romain tardif. L’example des confins syro-mésopotamiens (Ve–VIe s. apr. J. C.), in MEFRA, 118/1, 2006, pp. 133–49, Janniard, Armée et «acculturation» dans l’Orient romain tardif, R. H. Ünal, Les Monuments islamiques anciens de la ville d’Erzerum et de sa region (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l”Institut Français d’Archéologie d’Istanbul, 22), Paris, 1968, Ünal, Les Monuments islamiques anciens; C. Zuckerman, Sur le dispositive frontalier en Arménie, le limes et son evolution, sous le Bas-Empire, in Historia, 47,  1998, pp.  108–28, Zuckerman, Arménie, le limes. 1. Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris, 4; translated by N. P. Miller, Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science (TTH, 16), Liverpool, 1993, p. 113.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 101-115. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111891

102

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

renowned throughout medieval and later times as the author of a digest of ancient military thought suffused with nostalgia for the armies of the imperial age. The quoted text forms part of the preface for his final book on fortification and siege warfare. Although there remains uncertainty about the date of composition and to whom it was addressed, as we shall see it is more fitting for the anonymous emperor to be either Theodosius I or his grandson Theodosius II rather than the western emperor Valentinian III, as is often claimed.2 Whoever it is, ‘the foundation of new cities or the transfer of those founded by others to their own name under some expansion’ still brought ‘no greater glory’, to the holder of imperial power. Vegetius’ perspective reminds us of the continuing ambition of late Roman emperors to create and expand new cities and a significant aspect of late antique urbanism which has received little attention in recent studies.3 Although the form of these new cities, often did not match the recognised configurations of established cities known from the Roman east, especially across western and southern Asia Minor, they constitute a new urban component throughout late antiquity into the seventh century. A classic account of such a checklist of civic amenities, although made apparent through their absence, derives from Pausanias’ often quoted account of the city of Panopeus in Boeotia. A city hardly justifying its status, bereft of the conventional array of civic monuments. But as has been noted by Alcock and others,4 although the urban formula is stripped of the most of its structural attributes, in Pausanias’ eyes Panopeus still retained the status of a polis through the basic elements of a walled circuit, a defined territory, a mythic founder and as a place of cult veneration and pilgrimage. While they hardly contribute to the broken ruins appreciated by the enlightenment scholars and modern tourism, these were crucial urban attributes which as we will see were to remain as enduring elements for the new cities of late antiquity and in some cases beyond. The identification of new cities in late antiquity is not new to scholarship. Paul Collinet, a Byzantine legal historian, described the new sixth-century foundation of Dara as 2. For the date see most recently M. Charles, Vegetius in Context: Establishing the date of the Epitoma rei militaris, Stuttgart, 2007; see also comments in Miller, Vegetius, cit. (n. 1), p. 113, n. 2, who notes the cities founded by the Theodosian dynasty; and the reassessment in S. Janniard, Végèce et les transformations de l’art de la guerre aux IVc et Vc siècles après J.-C., in AntTard, 16, 2008, pp. 19–36. 3. For instance there is no discussion in the influential text book A. Cameron, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, AD 395–700, London, 2012; see however discussion of new cities in Jacobs, Aesthetic Maintenance, pp. 99–100, 668 noting the military nature of many of the new foundations. 4. S. Alcock, Pausanias and the Polis: Use and Abuse, in M. H. Hansen, Sources for the Greek City State, Symposium August 24–27, 1994 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre), Copenhagen, 1995, pp. 326–34.

‘une ville neuve’ in 1924.5 Although his description of the city was reliant on outdated nineteenth-century accounts, he set the new city in the context of a range of later, medieval foundations, including the bastides found across central and south-western France. These new foundations which often began as lordly plantations and commercial enterprises, later became defended centres during the long wars between Plantagenet-held Gascony and territories loyal to the French crown.6 In 1964 A. H. M. Jones’ masterly study of the Late Roman Empire considered the changing legal status of the new cities and listed many of the new dynastic foundations, including nineteen from the house of Theodosius and their wives, noting that Justinian ‘outbid all his predecessors with fifteen or more’, and concluded, ‘Some new cities thus continued to be created, but new foundations were rare’.7 Significantly Jones’ study closely represented the written documentation of the state and excluded archaeological evidence. Whereas in a study first published in 1979, Gilbert Dagron introduced the concept of the bourgade8 as a new urban concept noted especially in Asia, where villages grew to exceed in size but did not necessarily achieve the full chartered status of poleis, and remained komai, like Androna in Syria, a settlement with a total area of 160 hectares.9 In a real sense the distinction between the bastide and the bourgade can help to define the two alternatives for the late antique new town, one a state-sponsored urban foundation often with a military role which could exist side by side with regional innovations and developments, while the other evolved urban structures of streets, baths, churches, and even walls, but did not acquire the formal status of a polis.10 5. P. Collinet, Une ville neuve byzantine en 507: La foundation de Daras (Anastasiopolis) en Mésopotamie, in Mélanges offerts à Gustave Schlumberger, Paris, 1926, I, pp. 55–60. 6. M. Beresford, New Towns of the Middle Ages, town plantations in England, Wales and Gascony, London, 1967. 7. A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire. AD 284–602: a Social, Economic and Administrative History, Oxford, 1964, pp. 718–22. 8. G. Dagron, Entre village et cité: la bourgade rurale des IVc–VIIc siècles en Orient, in Koinonia, 3,  1979, pp.  29–52. Reprinted in G. Dagron, La Romanité chrétienne en Orient. Heritages et mutations. London, 1984. 9. M. Mundell Mango, Byzantine settlement expansion in northcentral Syria: the case of Androna/Andarin, in A. Borrut, M. Debbié, A. Papacostantinou, D. Pieri, J-P. Sodini, (eds.), Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbasides. Peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, Turnhout, 2011, pp. 93–122; in area Anderin is larger than late-antique Palmyra, see Intagliata in this volume; for its military significance see Janniard, Armée et «accultaration» dans l”Orient romain tardif , p. 141. 10. See also the discussion of ‘The Secondary City’, in C. Morrisson, J-P Sodini, The Sixth Century Economy, in A. E. Laiou, (ed.) The Economic History of Byzantium (DOS, 39), Washington, 2007, pp. 179–81. The discussion focuses on similar data to that considered by Dagron and only considers one maritime site, and

new cities of late antiquity: theodosiopolis in armenia

Before turning to the more detailed case study it is also worth to consider briefly other aspects of new ‘foundations’ in central Asia Minor at Amorium and Euchaita and the otherwise unidentified settlement at Viranşehir, in east Cappadocia. None of these fall into Jones’s list of new foundations noted above, but all reveal the significance of either explicit or implicit imperial intervention. One way of creating or refounding a city was through the construction of new fortifications, since in an age of greater insecurity walls came to represent cities. One case may associated with a group of cities in the province of Europa (Turkish Thrace) at both Selymbria, renamed Eudoxiopolis, and Perinthos renamed Herakleia, there is clear evidence for the refortification of these cities in the early fifth century, and in the case of the former the acquisition of a new imperial name of the Theodosian house, although its use did not persist.11 Similarly in the Anatolian examples we can observe direct imperial intervention in the cities’ fortifications which was to provide an important defensive resource throughout the period of the Byzantine/Arab wars from the later-seventh century onwards. At Amorium the circuit wall was renewed in the late-fifth century; only the west gate and a small section of curtain have been excavated but what distinguishes the defences from other city circuits in western Asia Minor is that they do not employ spolia,12 but seem to be a new build with a characteristically ‘military’ form of tower. Similarly at Euchaita, which emerges as a new pilgrimage centre in the fifth century, from the evidence of a surviving inscription of the emperor Anastasius, it would seem that the city was provided with new walls, although how they fared in later centuries is not known without excavation. The city continued into the Middle Byzantine period as an important pilgrimage centre despite its unpromising location on the north Anatolian steppe.13 The third example has no convincing identification, but is also a newly constructed defended enclosure in eastern Cappadocia. Located at the village of Viranşehir/Şerifiye, at an elevation of 1650 m on the Uzun Yayla, north of the modern Kayseri to Malatya highway, the trapezoidal enclosure measures 400–375m, and decorations on the surviving gate indicate a fifth- or sixth-century date (Figs 1, 2).14 It may be associated with the large villages newly fortified by Anastasius in Cappadocia after the Hunnic no military strongholds. 11. See J. Crow, Late antique cities in eastern Thrace (Europa), in The Roman and Late Roman City, in edd. L. Slokoska and A. Poulter, Proceedings of the Conference on Classical and Late Antique Urbanism, Veliko Turnovo 2000, Sofia, 2002, pp. 342–51; also see Sayar and Rizos in this volume. 12. See the important recent study by Jacobs, Aesthetic Maintenance pp. 19–110. 13. Crow, Fortification and the Late Roman East, pp. 409–11. 14. M. Restle, Viranşehir-Kaleköy, ein befestigter Platz in Kappadokien, in Jahrbuch der Östereichischen Byzantinistik, 24, 1975, pp. 196–207.

103

raids of eastern Asia Minor during 515.15 What is certain is that it is clearly new and with a more formal organisation than other near-contemporary settlements in the region such as another Viranşehir, identified with Mokissos.16 Theodosiopolis/Erzurum The main focus of this article is concerned with a study of Theodosiopolis (Erzurum) a new fortress city founded in the Armenian district of Karin on the eastern borders of Roman Armenia and representative of the changing patterns of military dispositions and demands of new border strongholds and strategy in the late Roman period.17 The city is located in a broad high plain with an elevation of 2000 m close to the one of the fabled watersheds of Western Asia; the headwaters of the Euphrates flow to the west and then south, and the source of the Araxes (Aras) flowing eastwards into the Caspian lies a few kilometres to the east. Until the later fourth century, Rome and Iran had allowed Armenia to remain an independent buffer state between the two great powers. The formal division into Roman and Persian Armenia may be dated to 387 but in all likelihood the two powers may not have adopted a physical presence until a few decades later.18 Thus the Persians did not depose the last Arsacid ruler of Persarmenia until 428 and the chronology of the military presence in Roman Armenia will be discussed below.19 Unlike Theodosiopolis in Mesopotamia, re-founded by Theodosius I on the site a major Mesopotamian urban centre, Resaina,20 the new Armenian military command does 15. Malalas Chron. 16.17; note that E. Jeffreys (ed.), The Chronicle of John Malalas, a translation, Melbourne, 1986, p. 227, incorrectly renders komai as towns. 16. Berger, see this volume; in Turkish Viranşehir means ruined city. 17. See C. Zuckerman, L’armée, in C. Morrison (ed.), Le Monde byzantine, Tome 1: L’Empire romain d’Orient 330–641 (2nd ed), Paris, 2012, pp.  143–80, for a discussion of the fundamental changes in frontier control during the late empire; new border strongholds in the east have recently been discussed in: E. Zanini, The urban ideal and urban planning in the sixth century AD, in L. Lavan, W. Bowen (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology I, Leiden, 2004, pp. 196–223; J. Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani: a comparison of late antique fortress cities on the Lower Danube and Mesopotamia, in A. G. Poulter (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond (Proceedings of the British Academy, 141) Oxford, 2007 pp. 436–55; and Janniard, Armée et «accultaration» dans l”Orient romain tardif, esp. pp. 135–40, who considers the social and economic impact of these foundations. 18. For recent discussion concerning the creation of the new province of Roman Armenia, east of the Euphrates, see Garsoïan, La date de la fondation; Zuckerman, Arménie, le limes pp. 108–12; Greatrex, Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier, pp. 28, 53–54; Janniard, La Novelle V, 3 de Théodose II, pp. 523–46. 19. See comments by Greenwood, Armenia, pp. 128–29. 20. See C. H. Kraeling, R. C. Haines, Structural Remains, in

104

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Viranşehir looking north, with north gate inthe background. The mounds of stone on the west wall represnt the position of rectangular towers. (1978).

Fig. 2. Viranşehir north gate (1978).

not figure in the dispositions of the Dux Armeniae of the Notitia Dignitatum (Or. 38), commands which include units C. W. McEwan, L. S. Braidwood, H. Frankfort, H. G. Güterbock, R. C. Haines, H. J. Kantor, C. H. Kraeling, Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah (OIP, 79), Chicago, 1958, pp. 11–17, pl. 10–13, 87; the excavations were curtailed by the Second World War, but a long length of late Roman wall and towers was uncovered on the east side, the settlement is c. 80 hectares in extent. The Roman city was raised to the rank of a colony by Septimius Severus: Greatrex, Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier, p. 16.

dating from the late fourth or early fifth century.21 21. Not. Dig. Or. 38 Dux Armeniae includes four units with Theodosian titles, and another of Valentinian, all indicative of reorganisation in the later fourth century. See C. Zuckerman, The Early Byzantine Strongholds in Eastern Pontus, in T&MByz, 11, 1991, pp. 533–35; and comments by P. Brennan, The User’s Guide to the Notitia Dignitatum: the case of the Dux Armeniae (ND Or. 38), in Antichthon, 32, 1998, pp. 34–49. The document presents a compendium of official lists not without inconsistencies and contradictions, thus the Dux Osrhoenae includes an ala prima

new cities of late antiquity: theodosiopolis in armenia

That the late Roman traces of Theodosiopolis have received little attention is not surprising. Unlike other border strongholds such as Dara and Zenobia, Theodosiopolis continued to be a major fortified city on the border between Byzantium and Islam, captured by the Moslems in 650, but frequently changing hands over the succeeding four centuries, and retaining military significance up to the First World War; today it is the largest urban centre in east and north-eastern Turkey. Unlike Dara and others, Theodosiopolis/Karin/Erzurum is an example of a successful late-Roman ‘new town’. Following the Seljuk domination of Central Anatolia after the battle of Manzikert, the city continued as a major centre with an impressive array of Islamic architecture dating from the later twelfth to the beginning of the fourteenth century.22 These mosques, medreses and türbes dominate the ancient core of the modern city. Despite the prominence of these later monuments, it is possible to make some observations about the nature of the late antique and early medieval city, which together with a number of written texts provide important insights into the new towns of late antiquity. A representation of the city from the early sixteenth century shows an expansive rectangular walled circuit which is divided by a cross-wall into two parts filled with a diverse range of Islamic monuments.23 Although Matrakçι Nasuh’s miniatures portray highly stylized urban landscapes each of his cities is distinctive, and for many such as Diyarbakır represent specific features which survive today. We can be confident that in the early sixteenth century the city comprised two quarters, although the layout of the individual monuments is highly stylised. Evliya Çelebi’s description in the mid-seventeenth-century records two ‘castles’ of a square form, the distance between the walls is ‘eighty paces broad and twenty deep’ and this is the arrangement outlined on Ünal’s plan of the old city which shows the approximate extent of the city’s concentric enceintes, with four main gates.24 There is no representation of the cross-wall as indicated on Matrakçι Nasuh’s miniature. Parthorum at Resaia (sic), thought to be Resaina, Not. Dig. Or. 35, 30; while in the Dux Mesopotamiae attests the equites scutarii Illyricani at Resaina-Theodosiopolis, Not. Dig. Or. 36, 20, thus reflecting changes in provincial organisation, but still present in the text as if contemporary. Brennan’s assertion that the Dux Armeniae should date before the creation of the new province in 387 can be challenged, since it assumes the new province was going to match earlier ducal commands, see n. 18. 22. Ünal, Les Monuments islamiques. 23. The miniature is by the famous Ottoman polymath Matrakçι Nasuh, illustrating the campaigns of Suleyman the Magnificent, reproduced in A. G. Sagona, The Heritage of Eastern Turkey: From earliest settlements to Islam, Sydney, 2008, p. 204. 24. Evliya Çelebi, Narrative of travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa in the Seventeenth Century, translated by Joseph von Hammer, Cambridge, 2012, pp. 108–15, he also notes the extensive extramural suburbs to the north, east and west occupied by Christians; Ünal, Les Monuments islamiques anciens, Figs 1, 2.

105

Despite extensive modern demolition of the walls, parts of the curtain do survive on the east side, between the turn at the south-east angle, still preserved with an outer wall, and the exterior angle of the citadel to the north, a total length of 345 m.25 The citadel is situated on the highest ground and may be seen to define the original Roman foundation of Theodosiopolis. The outline of the early modern circuit wall which Ünal published is based on earlier studies in the twentieth century and shows the full circuit extending north of the citadel by 330 m. Yet the ground falls steeply away to the north and it seems reasonable to project the north side of the citadel to the west as far of the known west wall, thus creating a rectangular enclosure, with gates to the west (Erzincan Gate), south (Harput Gate) and east (Tabriz Gate) (Fig. 3)26 Such a proposition conforms with the miniaturist’s representation of two enclosures for sixteenth-century Erzurum and would probably suggest that the northern, lower enclosure was later in date than the initial late-Roman construction. No trace of the gates survives, however the English geologist William Hamilton who visited Erzurum in 1836 on his way to Ani, observed that on the main west, Erzincan Gate, he was able to discern traces of a Greek inscription, +ΠOPTA (= ‘gate’), clear evidence for the survival of a late-Roman or Byzantine west gateway the city.27 Before describing the remains of the citadel, it is important to consider a significant structural relationship between the walls and the most celebrated Islamic monument. The most ornate and elegant building in Erzurum is the Çifte Minareli Medrese constructed in c. 1253.28 The building is aligned north-south, and its east wall unusually uses the pre-existing inner defensive wall of the city as its east side, and incorporates a pentagonal shaped tower.29 The majority of the major Seljuk and Saltukid monuments are aligned along the modern Cumhuriyet avenue between the sites of the Tabriz (east) and Erzincan (west) gates, and it is reasonable to assume that these were set beside the city’s main street from the late antiquity onwards; the location and alignment of the city’s first and major mosque the Ulu Camii 25. All measurements are derived from GoogleEarth. 26. Traces of the west curtain wall are recorded by Ünal, Les Monuments islamiques anciens, Fig. 2. Because of modern buildings, it is difficult to recognise the prominence of the citadel but it is clearly apparent from earlier photographs, see Ünal, cit. Pl. III, 5, 6; photograph 6 shows clearly the two circuits as described by Evliya. 27. W. J. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, London, 1842, Vol. I, p. 181. 28. The date of construction remains controversial; see an exhaustive discussion by J. M. Rogers, The Date of the Çifte Minare Medrese at Erzurum, in Kunst des Orients, 8, 1/1, 1972, pp. 77–119. 29. Ünal, Les Monuments islamiques anciens, p. 58, Figs. 2, 32, 33, 37; the relationship of the curtain and madrese is discussed by J. M. Rogers, The Date of the Çifte Minare Medrese at Erzurum, in Kunst des Orients, 8, 1/1, 1972, pp. 97–98.

106

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 3. Sketch plan showing the outline of the late fifth-century city of Theodosiopolis (GoogleEarth 2010).

Fig. 4. Erzurum. The pentagonal tower flanking the site of the Tabriz gate, with the citadel in the distance (1987).

new cities of late antiquity: theodosiopolis in armenia

107

Fig. 5. Erzurum. East curtain wall from the citadel with the twin minarets of the Çifte Minareli Medrese, the roof line of the of the Ulu Camii can be seen to the right, indicating the open space within the gate (1987).

(second half of twelfth century) is especially persuasive of this suggestion. The association of part of the city’s east wall and tower with the Çifte Minareli Medrese provides a valuable indication of chronology with a clear terminus ante quem of c. 1250 for the city wall and towers. (Figs 4, 5) Indeed it can be argued that, by this stage in the history of Theodosiopolis/Erzurum, the inner wall no longer retained its full defensive significance and was ‘available’ to be an integral part of such an elaborate religious building. The same type of wall construction can be seen to extend northwards towards the citadel beginning immediately north of the main Cumhuriyet Caddesi and extending for 135 m to the south-east angle of the citadel, flanked by three pentagonal towers spaced 30 m apart.30 (Fig. 6) Walls and towers of this form are common in late antiquity and the later Byzantine period, but were not frequently found in Islamic fortification until the later middle ages. Typology alone can be a fickle guide, but in this instance there is the very precise reference to the pentagonal towers of Theodosiopolis and the work of the patrician Anatolius in the writings of Movsēs Xorenac’i, an early-medieval Armenian source of uncertain date, but clearly displaying a close knowledge of the city. The citadel located on the prominent hill of Erzurum is 30. All measurements are derived from GoogleEarth.

a long, irregular rectangle, with the long side, aligned from west to east, measuring 126 × 50 m, with a gate on the south side, facing into the city, later protected with an outwork (Fig. 7). As Ünal observed the citadel walls display many phases of refurbishment and renewal, including an early mosque constructed within a tower, and circular Seljuk brick tower, later used as a clock tower, and clear evidence for modifications to the main entrance.31 However the city’s walls evolved throughout the Middle Ages and into the early modern period up to the time of Evliya Çelebi’s visit to the city. As was observed earlier the position of the long, north-facing side of the citadel can be seen to define a third (north) side to the late antique main urban enclosure. The evidence of the west gate was noted before and this enables us to estimate with some confidence the overall dimension of the first city. On the east side it was 345 m north to south, and east to west 625 m, a total internal area of 21.7 hectares. This is about half the size of Dara, and small in comparison to Amida (Fig. 8), but is comparable to a legionary fortress of the principate, such as Satala and Melitene, excluding the external civilian quarters which at Melitene at any rate were

31. Ünal, Les Monuments islamiques anciens, pp. 16–17, Fig. 3, Pls. 5–8.

108

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Erzurum. The east curtain restored south of the citadel (2013).

incorporated into the later circuit.32 In considering the late Roman city, it is reasonable to assume that a major central street ran west-east between the sites of the two main gates, on the line of the current Cumhuriyet Caddesi, and directly aligned with the north side of the Ulu Camii. Another cross street between the north and south gates created a cruciform plan, comparable to new cities like Zenobia, and on a smaller scale at Justiniana Prima. The main east-west street was c. 600 m long, comparable to the colonnaded street at Zenobia on the Euphrates.33 As noted before the Çifte Minareli Medrese is constructed against the pre-existing east curtain wall and tower, but the highly decorated façade with twin minarets is set back 45 m south from the line of the main avenue. (Fig. 5) Both facts suggest that the new medrese was 32. For Satala see C. Lightfoot, Survey Work at Satala: A Roman Legionary Fortress in North-East Turkey, in R. Matthews (ed.), Ancient Anatolia. Fifty Years” Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Exeter, 1998, pp. 273–84; for Melitene, Procopius, De Aed., 3. 15, 16–20; A. Gabriel, Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie orientale, Paris, 1940, pp. 263–68. 33. Jacobs, Aesthetic Maintenance, p. 548; Site Plan 13.

constructed in an urban space which valued proximity to the main mosque and the city gate, but was restricted by existing buildings and a public, open space east of the mosque and the city wall. We cannot be sure how far these dispositions predate the original Muslim conquest, but it could be that a pre-existing piazza from the late Roman city was retained in Islamic times.34 The citadel on the city’s high point and at the north-east angle of the first circuit is a relatively small, oblong rectangle, and its limited extent to the south does not seem to be predetermined by topography, but rather perhaps by the urban needs of the city. Procopius provides a full, but in places contradictory, account of Theodosiopolis with details matching closely his description of Dara. Earlier in the introduction to Book Three of the Buildings, he erroneously attributed the division of Greater Armenia to Theodosius II, rather than to his grandfather.35 After a description of the works of Anastasius 34. A piazza and honorific column within a gate is shown at Jerusalem on the Madaba map mosaic, reproduced in Jacobs, Aesthetic Maintenance, Fig. 2. 35. Procopius, Aed. 3.1.11.

new cities of late antiquity: theodosiopolis in armenia

109

Fig. 7. Erzurum, view of the citadel hill from the north-west with the Boyahane Camii in the foreground (Author 2013).

and Justinian at Melitene, his attention turns to Greater Armenia, east of the Euphrates. Although the account of the construction of the fortress and new city retains a number of the themes familiar in other books of the Buildings, like his description of Melitene, he presents a description which draws upon its earlier military significance.36 Initially Theodosius constructed a fort (phrourion) on a hill, later extended by Anastasius who created a city with walls 30 feet high which enclosed the original phrourion. However, these and other works were deemed inadequate by Justinian and were extended and improved, together with a great ditch. Elsewhere a new church of the Theotokos is noted in the city, as well as an extramural shrine to the Forty Martyrs nearby, soldier-saints from the Legio XII Fulminata originally from Melitene.37 His description reflects the topography closely, but cannot be confirmed by the archaeological record which has been subject to extensive repair and restoration over a 36. For Melitene Procopius notes the involvement of Trajan (Aed. 3.9.15–17) and the antiquarian detail of a legion; the theme is also seen with reference to Pompey’s capture of Colonia, 3.4.6–8, probably in error for Nikopolis. See D. Roques, Procope de Césarée, Constructions de Justinien Ier, traduction, commentaire, Alessandria, 2011, pp. 231–32, n. 52. 37. Noted by Procopius, Aed. 1.7.3, in his account of Justinian’s miraculous cure from gout.

millennium and a half.38 Procopius also states, ‘Indeed, there was actually a certain elevation which came very close to the city and overtopped the curtain wall.’ From the current setting of the city and its wall, this seems most unlikely, since the citadel occupies the only high ground on the relatively level site of medieval and later Erzurum. At Dara, Procopius also describes how a great mound of earth to the south of the city’s wall could be used to mask an attacker’s preparations and siege works;39 this was removed and probably represented a prehistoric tell or mound which are common in Mesopotamia. It is possible that there was something similar at Theodosiopolis, although it is also likely that the author may be simply applying a familiar topos which he applies, with justification at Antioch, but frequently as a generic description elsewhere.40 38. Procopius, Aed. 3. 5. 4–5; 3.4.14. 39. Ibid. 2, 1, 26–26; see comments by B.Croke, J.Crow, Procopius and Dara, in JRS, 73, 1983, p. 152, n. 60. 40. Procopius, De Aed. 2.10.9; see now: C. Brasse, Von der Stadtmauer zur Stadtgeschichte. Das Befestigungssystem von Antiocheia am Orontes, in C. Wawruschka, A. Wirsching, T. Zimmer (eds.), Neue Forschungen zu antiken Stadtbefestigungen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum und im Vorderen Orient, Konstruktion – Funktion – Semantik (Byzas, 10), Istanbul, 2010, pp. 261–82; see comments by Croke, Crow, Procopius and Dara,

110

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 8. Comparative plan to the same scale of eastern border cities, 1) Amida/ Diyarbakır, 2) Theodosiopolis/Erzurum, 3) Dara, 4) Martyropolis/Silvan (drawn by Audrey Scardina).

The sequence of fort (phrourion) replaced under Anastasius by a fortress city cannot be so easily paralleled from either the written or the archaeological sources,41 but for historians the crux of the argument is which Theodosius initiated the work. There seems to be little reason to doubt that the division of Greater Armenia occurred in the reign cit. (n. 39), p. 146. 41. See however the sequence of earlier Tetrarchic fort, later pilgrimage centre and subsequent fortress town at SergiopolisResafa, see Sack and Gussone this volume; although significantly Procopius does not note the earlier military character of the site, focusing instead on the pilgrimage site of the soldier saints, Sergius and Bacchus, Aed. 2.9. 1–9.

of Theodosius I. However, as has been noted, Theodosiopolis in Armenia does not occur in the Notitia Dignitatum, and indeed cannot with any certainty be attested before the 440s. It thus seems best to attribute the phrourion to Theodosius II, and recognise in Procopius’ account some local knowledge, both in terms of the situation and the fort’s foundation. Indeed a fort comparable to the first phase of Theodosiopolis, such as Procopius describes, is located in the Bingöl plain, about a kilometre north-east of the east end of the runway of Bingöl airport, and 5 km north of the Murat River (Arsanias), the main tributary of the Euphrates in eastern Turkey. This has been identified with Citharizon, established by Justinian, four days journey south from

new cities of late antiquity: theodosiopolis in armenia

Theodosiopolis, in Asthianine.42 The fort is an irregular rectangle 146 by 100 m, with square towers at the corners and rectangular structure at the centre. An outer enclosure follows the ridge to the west, tapering like a tadpole at the west end with a gate flanked by towers. In overall plan and size the site is reminiscent of the Justininianic foundation of Caričin Grad in Serbia, although a little smaller in scale.43 Unlike many known phrouria of the fifth and sixth centuries which are well protected on steep-sided hill tops,44 Citharizon and Caričin Grad are in a raised position but on a level plain, surrounded by hills and mountains, a situation shared by Theodosiopolis in Armenia. In addition to the structural evidence for the late-Roman fortress and Procopius’ description of the city’s foundation there are two accounts in Armenian sources relevant to the foundation of the city. While the nature of these early medieval sources remains contentious45 they present specific details which both reflect what is known from the city and also may provide some insight of into the structures of the Roman city and how they were remembered in later sources. The first is from the history of Movsēs Xorenacʽi:46 Theodosiopolis founded by Anatolius on the orders of Theodosius. …at the foot of a well situated mountain whence flowed a multitude of small clear springs. He surrounded it by a deep moat and in a ditch laid the foundations of the walls. On these he raised enormous and heavy towers of which he called the first Theodosia in honour of Theodosius. Further he built sharpended towers like the prow of a ship and stretched walls with incurved recesses which faced the mountains. Similar towers were built facing the plain to the north. On the eastern and western sides, however, he built round towers. In the centre of the city on a raised spot were established a number of magazines and this place was called the Augusteion in honour of Augustus. He also led in other streams through many places by hidden channels. He filled the city with arms and troops and named it Theodosiopolis.47 42. For Citharizon: Procopius, Aed. 3.3.7–9; for the identification of the site see, Howard-Johnston, The new fortress of Citharizon. The site can be viewed on GoogleEarth at 38°51´44.66”N 40°38´02.06”E. 43. B.  Bavant, V.  Ivanišević, Iustiniana Prima-Caričin Grad, Leskovac, 2006, p. 47. The acropolis, a polygonal enclosure 100 × 100 m, upper and lower towns, total c. 10 ha on an oblong ridge, measuring 500 m in lenght; there is also an extensive extramural area protected by a deep ditch, see this volume Ivanišević. 44. See Crow, Fortification and the Late Roman East, pp. 411–12; 424–25. 45. Greenwood, Armenia, pp. 128–29. 46. Movsēs’ account of Armenian history ends in 450. See a summary of scholarly views on the date and character of the text in N. Garsoïan, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/movsesxorenaci (viewed 24/6/15); and Greenwood, Armenia, p. 127, on Armenian Quellenforschung. 47. Movsēs Xorenacʽi 3. 59, trans. in Adontz, Armenia in the period

111

Anatolius is attested as a military commander in the Roman east throughout Theodosius II’s reign and was active as a commander in the east for over twenty years, he was magister militum per Orientem in 442, and left in 447 to become magister militum praesentalis at Constantinople.48 He was renowned for pious acts in Armenia and it is not surprising that Movsēs identifies him as the builder of Theodosiopolis, whether he actually was or not. The account presents a specific description of the building of the city, closely matching known practice, comparable in its detail (but quite different) to the descriptions in Procopius’ De aedificiis. The city was well watered, a fact confirmed in later accounts, see especially Matrakçι Nasuh’s topographical miniature which shows streams and a large ornamental fountain, also noted by Evliya Çelebi, as well as provided with ‘hidden channels’, a reference to below-ground aqueducts.49 There was a deep ditch, but, more significantly, Movsēs specifically observes ‘the sharp-ended towers like the prow of a ship’. As noted before four towers with this form and a stretch of curtain wall are known on the east curtain on either side of the site of the Tabriz Gate. The orientations of the walls which Movsēs describes do not fit the current location, but in other respects they are an accurate representation of the surviving remains. Furthermore he also describes how ‘he built incurved recesses’ on the walls which are likely to represent the embrasures on the top of the curtain creating a two storey fire platform, also noted by Procopius in a prolix account of raising the height of the curtain wall at Dara.50 Within the city there were depots or horrea at a central place called the Augusteion, and Movsēs adds a gloss that the name was from Augustus. As a name, it was given to major squares notably in Constantinople, but, in this instance, it may apply to the citadel, probably the former phrourion of Procopius’ account. Finally it was noted that one of the large prow shaped towers was named the Theodosia. The naming of Justinian, p. 119; see also discussion and French translation by Garsoïan, Date de la foundation, p. 189. 48. B. Croke, Anatolius and Nonus: Envoys to Attila, in Byzantinoslavica, 42,  1981, pp.  161–63; see also the discussion in Garsoïan, Date de la foundation. 49. See nn. 23,24. 50. Garsoïan, Date de la foundation, p. 189, translates the phrase as: ‘passages creusés’. Adontz, Armenia in the period of Justinian, p. 124 discusses the gallery based on Texier’s drawings of Dara, a largely fanciful source. For Dara see Procopius, Aed. 2, 1, 16; shown on Gertrude Bell’s panoramic photograph R 106 of the south curtain, reproduced in J. Crow, Dara, A late Roman fortress in Mesopotamia, in Yayla, 4, 1981, pp. 12–20; for further discussion of embrasures at Constantinople and elsewhere, see J. Crow, The Infrastructures of a Great City: Earth, Walls and Water in late antique Constantinople, in L. Lavan, E. Zanini (eds.),Technology in Transition (Late Antique Archaeology, 4), Leiden, 2007, pp. 251–85; a fuller discussion of Dara and other examples in preparation as part of the author’s study on the Anastasian Long Walls.

112

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

of towers was not uncommon in the late Roman and Byzantine worlds. Marcellinus Comes identifies a ‘Herculean’ tower constructed by Anastasius at Dara,51 and Theophanes records how in 710 the army of Justinian II assaulted with a ram two towers at Cherson, named the Kentenaresios and the Wild Boar.52 As noted earlier, prow-shaped towers like those that survive on the east curtain at Erzurum are not uncommon among late Roman fortifications, but do not figure in Islamic fortifications before the time of the Seljuks, and in this instance are patently earlier than the thirteenth-century Çifte Minareli Medrese. The form is most commonly found in the Balkans and while some date from the fifth century, the bestdated examples, such as the Anastasian long wall, belong to the beginning of the sixth and into the time of Justinian, although they continue to be applied in Byzantine fortifications, notably at Ankara in the early ninth century.53 Recent work at Resafa has been able to date the fortification wall with a number of pentagonal towers, closely comparable to Theodosiopolis, to the time of Anastasius.54 A number of other examples are known from major ‘Armenian’ circuits, notably at Martyropolis and Melitene: Procopius claims that the former was largely undefended before the Justinianic restoration, but, at the latter, he recognises the contribution of Anastasian work on the circuit completed by Justinian. A note of caution has already been sounded concerning over-reliance on typology for the dating of defences and other features. It is best practice to simply use a known, dated example as a terminus post quem, rather than as an indicator of a specific period of construction. However, the coincidence of literary derived historical dates for the three major Armenian fortified cities (Martyropolis, Melitene and Theodosiopolis) with extant military architecture supports a major construction event, initiated under Anastasius in the aftermath of the Persian war, and completed under Justinian as Procopius notes, although in some instances exaggerated 51. B. Croke, Marcellinus on Dara: a fragment of his lost De temporum qualitatibus et positionibus locorum, in Phoenix, 38, 1984, pp. 83, 85–86. 52. Theoph. Chron. AM 6203; C. Mango, R. Scott (ed. and trans) The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Byzantine and Near eastern History AD 284–813, Oxford, 1997, p. 528, n. 9. The editors cite other examples at Constantinople, Nicaea and Trebizond. The precise connotation of Kentenaresios (= Centenarensis) is not known. 53. A single, early example is present at the south end of the Land Walls of Constantinople, dateable to c. 415, is tower 1, originally beside the Sea of Marmara. N. Asutay-Effenberger, Landmauer von Konstantinopel-Istanbul: historisch-topographische und baugeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Millenium Studien, 18), Berlin, New York, 2007. For the most recent discussion with a full bibliography see E. Rizos, The late-antique walls of Thessaloniki and their place in the development of eastern military architecture, in JRA, 24, 1, 2011, pp. 450–68. 54. See Sack and Gussone in this volume.

in Justinian’s favour. For Theodosiopolis, this proposal can be bolstered by the detailed statement in Malalas’ Chronicle that, at the commencement of Justinian’s reign, a new magister militum per Armenias, Sittas, was appointed to a new command combining the four Roman provinces of Armenia of which Theodosiopolis directly confronted the approaches to Persarmenia and was known later to be the base of the new magister militum.55 Armenian sources also attest another foundation story for Theodosiopolis. This is a legendary account of the foundation of the city by the monks Moses and David, who were ordered by Theodosius II to build a new city and construct a Xosrovian tower, fearless against siege engines, and who raised three walls on one foundation. The account later mentions palaces, towers, underground channels, ‘and that the streets, squares, slaughter houses and markets are of impeccable cleanliness’. The account concludes that ‘the gates of the city are tall and broad, the walls are well kept, and the towers are all Xosrovian’.56 The use of ‘Khosrovian’ matches details from Mosves’ account. Garsoïan dismisses this text as ‘une description fantaisiste et passablement incohérente d’une grande ville fortifiée’.57 To a degree, this is quite justified, as much of the ‘legendry’ account is formulaic, although the unusual use of Xosrovian, a symbol of potency, derived from the name of Sasanian shah, Khosro, complements Movsēs’ Theodosian tower. This deserves comment, as do the urban stories themselves, not just as sources for historical enquiry. Indeed there is a sense that the two Armenian foundation stories parallel the accounts for the construction of Dara, which define the tension between the metropolitan intervention and the response of the local community. In one, Marcellinus Comes stresses the role of the imperial general Calliopius, while the local Syriac source highlights the contribution of Thomas the bishop of Amida.58 Garsoïan also criticizes Movsēs account as being derivative of Procopius’ descriptions of the construction of Dara and Theodosiopolis. It seems most unlikely that a copy of the Buildings was available to the enigmatic Armenian historian, but the extent of local detail for the new city as shown from Movsēs’ description of the walls and the central Augusteion, indicates a local rather than a Constantinopolitan source used by the Armenian chronicler, 55. See n. 58 below. The account, like the later law, Nov. Iust. 31, refers to the four Armenian provinces, see: Adontz, Armenia in the period of Justinian, pp. 110–11. Details apparent in Malalas are not replicated exactly in Theophanes who follows much of the same sources material as the former, but replaces Malalas’ kastrisianous stratiotas, with ‘a force of Armenians was conscripted to serve under him, since they knew the regions of Armenia’. Malal. Chron. 18.10; Theoph., Chron. AM 6020. See Zuckerman, Arménie, le limes, p. 126 for an amendment to Malalas’ text. 56. Adontz, Armenia in the period of Justinian, pp. 119–20. 57. Garsoïan, Date de la foundation, p. 191. 58. Croke, Crow, Procopius and Dara, cit. (n. 34), p. 150.

new cities of late antiquity: theodosiopolis in armenia

at whatever date it was compiled before the tenth century. She is probably correct to question the identification with Anatolius as city founder, since her argument is predicated towards a late fourth-century foundation date and Movsēs’ account of Anatolius is likely to be questioned. Similarly Procopius’ description of the evolution of the settlement from phrourion to fortified polis passes unmentioned by Garsoïan and other recent commentators. The territory of Armenian Theodosiopolis remained resolutely non-urban right to the end of the sixth century. A single new foundation, like Dara, it does not figure in Hierocles’ Synekdemos, which is the basis for A. H. M. Jones’ and later urban distribution maps of the late Roman world, or in George of Cyprus’ Descriptio orbis Romani.59 The latter provides references to Amida, Dara and Martyropolis, and twenty-six kastra, in this instance used in place of phrouria as employed by Procopius. George goes on to enumerate Arsamosata and Kitharizon, between the Arsanias (Murat) river and the Bingöl plain, with further kastra, but nothing further north towards Theodosiopolis.60 The absence of lesser fortified places or phrouria in the vicinity of Theodosiopolis and the high plains of Armenia from Procopius’ account is significant, since new sites such as Baiberdon (Bayburt) and others further north and east in Tzanika are reported in the De Aedificiis.61 Such an absence supports Garsoïan’s suggestion that cities such as Theodosiopolis were rare and essentially places for outsiders. The region of Karin was also not provided with rural defences of a form comparable elsewhere in the empire’s eastern border lands.62 It is important to differentiate these border phrouria attested in writers such as Procopius, Theophylact Simmocata, and George of Cyprus from the forts and camps of the earlier limes,63 such as the Strata Diocletiana in Syria set up c. 300 and the better-known river and land frontiers of Roman Europe and north Africa. Theodosiopolis in the sixth century in many senses resembles the location of Singara, in eastern Mesopotamia during the fourth, a distant, strongly defended outpost of Rome, until its loss in 363.64 The Armenian outpost after its 59. Jones, Later Roman Empire, cit. (n. 7), p. 713, map V. 60. The sources are collected in Adontz, Armenia in the period of Justinian; see comments of Howard-Johnston, The new fortress of Citharizon, pp. 273–74, n. 66. 61. Procopius, Aed. 3.4.10–11; 3.6.15–19. 62. Quoted in Greenwood, Armenia, p. 128, n. 59; the majority of Armenian bishops were rural rather urban unlike Asia Minor at this period. 63. One can question the view that Armenia after the partition between Rome and Persia was ‘Dotée probablement dès son integration à l’Empire de garnisons du dux Armeniae’: Janniard, La Novelle V, 3 de Théodose II: p. 545. In contrast, see: Zuckerman, Arménie, le limes, pp. 126–27, on Justinian’s restructuring of the military commands in Armenia beyond the Euphrates. 64. See D. W. Oates, Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq, London, 1968.

113

refortification and expansion under Anastasius and Justinian emerges from the limited written and material sources as a garrison town, heavily fortified, a place where large bodies of soldiers could muster and whose garrison and population could resist invaders. In 543, Theodosiopolis was the main mustering points for the invasion into Persarmenia, which ended disastrously near Dvin. Procopius records how Valerian, general of Armenia (magister militum per Armenias) camped close to Theodosioplis with the Armenian field army together with regional forces under the command of Narses.65 Drawing upon troops from further south in Mesopotamia and Syria the magister militum per Orientem Martinus mustered his troops and other units at Citharizon in the Bingöl plain, four days march distant.66 It is difficult to assess exact size of armies, but Procopius’ account is usually taken to represent the failure of the Roman forces to cooperate and coordinate their advance. However it might equally represent the stages of the campaign as troops advance separately in order not to overburden urban and military centres such as Theodosiopolis, reflecting also the character of the Armenian commands which relied on levies drawn from allied Armenian nobles.67 In 576–77 Khusro failed to capture Theodosiopolis in an unsuccessful campaign and was finally defeated after the sack of Melitene.68 The fragmentary account in the history of Menander the Guardsman presents the most detailed account of the city under siege. ……When Khosro arrived there he encamped to the south of the city (Theodosiopolis) in a region called the Arabessi, while the Roman army, such as had been mustered, was encamped at the foot of the mountain to the north of the city in a region called ‘The Narrows’. Then by Theodosiopolis, as Theodorus (son of Bacchus) watched, Khosro drew up his cavalry, arranging it by order and by phalanxes, and, pretending that he had no particular motive, he himself appeared on horseback as if his body was still in full health and strength. He was planning how he might capture Theodosiopolis, since he realised he could not regain Persian Armenia and Iberia, unless he took possession of the strongest of the Roman cities and, establishing himself there, protected Persarmenia and Iberia in its rear. For this reason he was determined to take Theodosiopolis and, as an implicit declaration that the city will fall to him, he asked Theodorus which city, Daras or Theodosiopolis, seemed to him to be the more difficult to take. (That is to say, if he had taken such an impregnable city- meaning Daras-, how much easier he would take the weaker Theodosiopolis). Theodorus, however, made a very clever reply, saying that Theodosiopolis was impregnable, because it was forever defended by God. Before he dismissed 65. Procopius, Bell.2,  24–25. Note the city was not expansive enough to accommodate a larger field army unlike Amida. 66. See the comments of Howard-Johnston, The new fortress of Citharizon, p. 221. 67. Here one is reminded of Procopius’ colourful account of the red-booted satraps from Armenia IV, De aed. 3.1.17–23; see also, Janniard, La Novelle V, 3 de Théodose II: pp. 532–34 for the contati. 68. John of Ephesos 6. 8–9.

114

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Theodorus, the Persian king, when he came close to Theodosiopolis, realised that the city was very well prepared for war……. When Theodorus begged him to abandon the assault, Khosro decided to agree providing that within thirty days, a message came to him from the Caesar with the necessary proposals. When Theodorus had departed, Khosro, since he realised he could neither take the city by storm nor would it profit him to besiege it and to attempt the wall with his engines (for in the meantime the Roman forces would have gathered), withdrew from Theodosiopolis..69

The fragment survives in a later compilation and was retained, because it illustrated diplomacy and stratagems. But the account still presents an immediate image of a powerful city, comparable only to Dara. Even if we are unconvinced by Theodorus’ ruse, the story stresses the strategic importance of the stronghold, but also serves to remind that the role of such fortified cities was also to deter, and to serve as places for negotiation and diplomacy. There is no reference to commerce from the Byzantine texts, although Procopius does mention traders at Dvin, so it is not unreasonable that the major city acted as an entrepôt, as did the cities in Mesopotamia.70 Conclusion Unlike previous studies of the newly configured provinces of Armenia from the later fourth century, this account aims to focus on the city of Theodosiopolis as a new foundation, which from its altitude and situation, was amongst the most remote and demanding of cities ever founded by Rome. Unlike the legionary fortress of Inchtuthill in Roman Scotland which lasted barely a decade, TheodosiopolisKarin-Erzurum continues to flourish, a continuous urban history of 1500 years. Others studies noted previously by Garsoïan, Janniard and Zuckerman are concerned primarily with the wider history of the new foundation of the province, and especially the elucidation of the detailed and complex administrative texts such as the Theodosian Novel V, 3; or Justinian’s Novel XXXI. What is especially striking from these studies is the limited and fragmentary nature of the evidence available for the fifth century in comparison with the much fuller sources for the succeeding century. A consequence of these lacunose facts is that one, often circumstantial account can take on a significance it hardly deserves. For Theodosiopolis there is the colourful account of bishop Eunomius manning an artillery piece during a Persian siege and silencing a blaspheming Persian foe. The anecdote appears in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, the event seems to date to the war of 420–21 and the city 69. Menander the Guardsman, Frag 18.6, trans. R. C. Blockley, The history of Menander the Guardsman, Liverpool, 1985, pp. 167–68; see M. Whitby, The Emperor Maurice and his historian, Oxford, 1988, pp. 264–65. 70. Procopius, Bell. 25.2–3.

in question has been variously associated with Armenian Theodosiopolis or Resaina in Mesopotamia, which as noted before figures in the Notitia Dignitatum.71 If the Armenian identification is preferred, it presents an early date for the city’s existence, together with a possible bishop, nearly two decades before the earliest attested bishop from Armenian Theodosiopolis at the Council of Ephesus. The genealogy of this particular interpretation was recently restated by Greatrex, who as noted has subsequently questioned the merit of this interpretation.72 Resaina-Theodosiopolis was a different imperial (re-)foundation with origins extending into prehistory, located close to a major spring and one of the sources of the Habour. In the sixth century after the loss of Dara in 576, Theodosiopolis-Resaina figures in the campaigns reported by Theophylact Simocatta, since like Dara it was major watering point for campaign armies, as well as a major fortified city.73 Other sources are equally tenuous, and none present forensic proof for the foundation by either Theodosius or his grandson. However, as observed before, the character of Roman and Persian control over Arsacid Armenia differed from direct annexation known in the earlier Roman period and it is not necessary that the city immediately followed the creation of the new province, especially as it was 150 km east of the major fortress at Satala. Such a view contradicts Garsoïan’s interpretation, which sees the southern and northern cities of Theodosiopolis in the late fourth century as complementing the forward roles of Dara and Armenian Theodosiopolis were to play under Anastasius and Justinian.74 However, such a view fails to take into account the differing character of the new province beyond the Euphrates, as viewed from a Roman perspective. There is no evidence for formal garrisons, and it is questionable whether this was ever envisaged given the existing structure of local Armenian levies. Indeed the frontier garrisons represented by the Notitia Dignitatum for the eastern frontier provinces become increasingly difficult to identify on the ground during the fifth and sixth century.75 The focus was on urban strongholds, as centers for military organization and resistance. This was the role expected of Theodosiopolis, it was not a legionary fortress with associated auxiliary commands familiar from the early Roman period. Models had already been established in the east at Constantina, Amida and

71. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, 5.3.6–10. See Greatrex, Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier, p. 41, n. 50, which expresses less confidence than formerly in the Armenian location; see reservations in Garsoïan, La date de la fondation, p. 184. 72. Garsoïan, La date de la fondation, pp. 183–85; Janniard, La Novelle V, 3 de Théodose II, p. 184, n. 26. 73. Theophylact Simocatta, Hist. 2.10.4; 3.15.13. 74. Garsoïan, La date de la fondation, pp. 194–95. 75. See the discussion of the changing role of Palmyra by Intagliata, in this volume.

new cities of late antiquity: theodosiopolis in armenia

elsewhere.76 Instead we can recognize the significance of the evidence which Procopius presents, albeit overelaborated by his inevitable laudatory formulas. The full account presented by Procopius has not figured in recent discussions, probably because the topography of the place is not considered relevant. Yet Procopius reflects a real knowledge of the place probably from descriptions available to him in Constantinople. What is important is that his narrative of a smaller fort replaced by a larger urban circuit is not a regular topos and does not conflict with the known topography and remains, and parallels exist from sixth-century foundations for comparable features. In fact the establishment of a fort and settlement under Theodosius II, similar in scale to Justiniana Prima in Serbia, perhaps under the supervision of Anatolius, following later tradition, may be suggested as the first phase, in time for a bishop to sign in for the Council of Ephesus. In turn the city was extended and refortified under Anastasius following the renewed upsurge of wars between Rome and Persia, a new fortress-city contemporary with the construction of Dara, and matching the designs of contemporary towers found at Resafa, and possibly comparable with designs from Silvan (Martyropolis) and Eski Malatya (Melitene). For the interior of the city there was a citadel, possibly the Augusteion noted in Armenian texts, unless this was an open piazza in the city. The two major streets linked the major gates, with a central junction about which nothing is known, although a tetrapylon is reported at Amida and from other cities.77 The later main Friday mosque, the Ulu Camii, was aligned with the existing main east-west street and may overly a major church of the Theotokos, as is possibly the case at Amida, and certainly evident from Damascus and elsewhere.78 To the east of the mosque there was an open space, respected by the builders of the Çifte Minareli Medrese in the thirteenth century, possibly representing a piazza inside the Tabriz gate, similar to the piazza shown on the Madaba map for Jerusalem. The Armenian sources expand our urban image with references to store buildings,79 buried water pipes, even an abbatoir. With the exception of the church, not noted in the Armenian texts, Theodosiopolis appears as a very utilitarian place. The sources are united in 76. See Crow, Amida and Tropaeum Traiani, cit. (n. 17), pp. 435–55. Also the papers by Rizos, any Pérez and Assénat in this volume. 77. Dara and other sixth-century cities had honorific columns, see the discussion in Jacobs, Aesthetic Maintenance, pp. 201–13. 78. See Pérez and Assénat in this volume. 79. Such stores buildings or horrea are known in both civil and military late Roman contexts, and may provide a precedent for the apothekai documented in seals from the seventh to the ninth centuries associated with the changing structures of military commands during the invasion period after 650, see E. Ragia, The Geography of the Provincial Administration of the Byzantine empire (ca. 600–1200): I.1 The Apothekai of Asia Minor (7th–8th c.), in Byzantina Symmeikta, 19, 2009, pp.195–245.

115

the power of its defences, supported by Menander’s account of Khusro’s parleys in 576–77, and the order of the town. Like the other frontier cities of the east, there was no attempt to match the urban display of the high empire. Public buildings were ecclesiastical or administrative and, like at Panopeus, they could define a more pragmatic form of urbanism. The agents for their creation, as their imperial names attest, were the state, and it would seem that their urban legacy required continued state intervention, from Constantinople or its successors. In this sense the new border towns conform to the bastide, noted by Collinet in his study of Dara. For the bourgade, we need to turn elsewhere, and especially to coastal areas and marginal parts of Syria. Indeed the polarity these two terms represents a greater diversity of new late antique urbanism, revealed elsewhere in the volume. It is hoped that this study which combines, the textual, material and topographical will go some way to fulfill Gilbert Dagron’s ambition for the study of new towns in his pioneering article on the bourgade: ‘Nous aurions plaidé pour une histoire plus démographique et moins juridique, en attendant que l’archéologie dise son dernier mot.’80 Aknowledgement I wish to thank Efthymios Rizos for having the vision and energy to arrange this conference on New Towns, and the Dutch and German Institutes in Istanbul for hosting two days of fruitful meetings. In the preparation of this paper I’m grateful to Scott Redford and Andrew Peacock for travelling with me to Erzurum and expanding my knowledge of Seljuk Anatolia. Robert Hillenbrand gave me useful references on the Çifte Minareli Medrese, and Caroline Finkel on Evliya Çelebi. A  conversation with Vivien Prigent, lead me to contact Sylvain Janniard who promptly sent me his paper on Novel V, 3, although our interpreatations of Greater Armenia may differ. The University of Edinburgh funded my travel to Istanbul and my most recent visit to eastern Turkey, Audrey Scardina created the line drawings, I’m grateful to all, but I take full responsibility for any errors.

80. G. Dagron, Entre village et cité: la bourgade rurale des IVc– VIIc siècles en Orient, in Koinonia, 3, 1979, p. 52. Reprinted in idem, La Romanité chrétienne en Orient. Heritages et mutations, London, 1984.

Resafa / Syrien. Städtebauliche Entwicklung zwischen Kultort und Herrschaftssitz Martin Gussone*, Dorothée Sack*

Resafa/Syria. Urban development from cult centre to seat of government Resafa is located about 25 km south of the Euphrates in northern Syria, on the edge of the Syrian Desert steppe. Based on field research carried out in recent years with the involvement of a variety of disciplines, new insights have been gained regarding the background of urban development in the city and its environs, in a zone of dynamic cultural and political confrontations. The adverse environmental conditions, the shifting political frontiers, and the continuously dominant cult of Saint Sergios are factors which defined the growth of the settlement. Beginning as a limes fort, the site evolved during the fifth and sixth centuries into a pilgrimage centre of worldwide renown, with imperial support and thanks to the cult of Saint Sergios who is said to have suffered martyrdom here about 312. In the second quarter of the eighth century, and after a period of decline in the late sixth and seventh centuries, Resafa experienced a new flourishing, as the Umayyad Caliph Hisham or Abd al-Malik established his residence here. After the overturn of the Umayyad dynasty by the Abbasids, there is a clear break in occupation. Prior to the final abandonment of the settlement in the second half of the thirteenth century (after 1269), a brief revival is observable under the Ayyubids (twelfth and thirteenth centuries). The goal of our research project is the mapping of all the relevant phases of settlement history in the city and its surrounding area, by chronological layer plans. This paper summarises research results which provide the basis for further questions, focusing on the principal development phases of the site. (Transl. E. Rizos)

Resafa liegt in Nordsyrien, 25 km südlich des Euphrats, in einem semiariden Gebiet am Rand der syrischen Wüstensteppe.1 In diesem Beitrag soll seine städtebauliche * Technische Universität Berlin. FG Historische Bauforschung. 1. s. R. Wolfart, Geologie von Syrien und dem Libanon (Beiträge zur regionalen Geologie der Erde, 6), Stuttgart, 1968, S. 28; E. Wirth, Syrien – eine geographische Landeskunde (Wissenschaftliche Länderkunden, 4/5), Darmstadt, 1971, S. 88−93. Zu den Forschungen in Resafa s. Th. Ulbert, 50 Jahre Forschungen in Resafa/Sergiupolis : Struktur und Kontinuität, in K. Bartl, A. Moaz (Hrsg.), Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Damascus, 5.−9. November 2006 (Orient Archäologie, 24), Rahden/Westfalen, 2008, S. 19−30; M.  Konrad, Roman military fortifications along the eastern desert frontier: Settlement continuities and change in North Syria, 4th-8th centuries, in Bartl, Moaz, Residences, Castles, Settlements, cit., S. 433−453; D. Sack, M. Gussone, A. Mollenhauer (Hrsg.), Resafa-Sergiupolis/Rusafat Hisham. Forschungen 1975–2007. Reader; Mit einer Übersetzung ins Arabische von I. Salman: Resafa – Sergiupolis/ Ruṣāfat Hišām. Dalῑl ad-dῑrāsāt wa‘l-abḥāṯ almunǧaza ẖilāl al-fitra 1975–2007, Berlin, 2013; jeweils mit weiterführender

Entwicklung in der Spätantike und in der Zeit des frühen Islam im Mittelpunkt stehen, die vor allem davon gekennzeichnet ist, dass sich hier im 5./6. Jh. einer der wichtigsten Pilgerorte des östlichen Mittelmeerraums entwickelte, und im zweiten Viertel des 8. Jh. der Kalif Hisham. b. Abd alMalik (reg. 724−743) seine Residenz anlegte. Die vielfachen Entwicklungsstufen des Ortes Resafa in Syrien manifestieren sich bereits in den unterschiedlichen Namen, mit denen der Ort im Lauf seiner Geschichte bezeichnet wurde: Der für das Projekt verwendete Name RESAFA, geht vermutlich auf die Umschrift des Namens Resapha zurück, der erst bei Ptolemaios auftaucht.2 Ursprünglich gab Literatur. Bedingt durch die Ausrichtung des Kolloquiums auf die Spätantike, liegt auch in diesem Beitrag der Schwerpunkt auf die Vorstellung von Resafa bis zum 7. Jh.; die Entwicklung der Stadt in islamischer Zeit wird an anderer Stelle umfangreicher dargestellt. Dank an Catharine Hof, Martina Müller-Wiener und Axel Schuhmann für Anmerkungen und Hinweise zum Manuskript. 2. Die Schreibweisen ‘Resafa’, eingeführt von A. M. Schneider und J. Kollwitz, sowie ‘Sergiupolis’, nach E. Honigmann, folgen dem Gebrauch der vom Resafa-Projekt des DAI etabliert wurde,

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 117-136. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111892

118

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

es wohl einen aramäisch beeinflussten Ortsnamen, von Charles Clermont-Ganneau als ROSAFA gelesen, der in etwa ‘gepflasterte’ oder ‘ausgebaute Straße’ bedeutet,3 und auf die Lage Resafas am Rand einer bedeutenden Karawanenstraße hinweist, die von Mittelsysrien nach Nordmesopotamien führte.4 Dieser Name lebte sowohl im griechischen RESAPHA als auch im arabischen ARRUSAFA oder AR-RASAFA fort. Der arabische Name ist noch heute gebräuchlich. Die assyrische Siedlung RASAPPA, die vermutlich dem biblischen RESEF entspricht und lange mit Resafa identifiziert worden war,5 konnte jedoch nicht durch archäologische Belege nachgewiesen werden.6 Nach dem aktuellen Forschungsstand ist diese Siedlung im Gebiet des Jabal Sinjar zu verorten.7 Nachdem der Ort zum Pilgerort wurde, erhielt er nach der Erhebung zur Metropole um 510 den Namen SERGIUPOLIS, nach dem am Ort verehrten Heiligen SERGIOS. Dieser war ein Offizier der römischen Armee, der zum christlichen Glauben übergetreten war und in Resafa während der letzten Christenverfolgung um das Jahr 312 den Märtyrertod erlitten haben soll.8 Als einer der Namen von Resafa wurde gelegentlich auch ANASTASIUPOLIS angeführt, der als Ausdruck der umfangreichen Förderung Resafas durch den byzantinischen Kaiser Anastasius I. (reg. 491−518) zu erwähnen ist.9 vgl. M. Mackensen, Eine befestigte spätantike Anlage vor den Stadtmauern von Resafa (Resafa, 1), Mainz, 1984, S. 1. Anm. 1; E. Honigmann, s. v Sergiupolis, in RE, II A2, 1923, S. 1684−1688. 3. Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, La voie romaine de Palmyre â Resapha. Resapha et la Strata Diocletiana, in Recueil d’archéologie orientale, 4, Paris, 1901, S. 69−74. 112−113; vgl. M. Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes in Syrien: Archäologische Untersuchungen an den Grenzkastellen von Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle und in Resafa (Resafa, 5), Mainz, 2001, S. 2−4. 4. Vgl. A. Musil, Palmyrena, a Topographical Intinerary (American Geographical Society. Oriental Explorations and Studies, 4), New York, 1928, S. 260–262; Ch. P. Grant, The Syrian desert. Caravans travel and exploration, London, 1937, S. 40−45; Th. Bauzou, A  finibus Syriae : recherches sur les routes des frontières orientales de l‘Empire Romain (Thèse de doctorat. Université de Paris), nach E. K. Fowden, The Barbarian Plain, Saint Sergius between Rome an Iran (The transformation of the classical heritage, 28), Berkeley, 1999, S. 67−77. 5. F. Sarre, E. Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigrisgebiet, 1, Berlin, 1911, S. 137 zitieren Jesajas 37, 12 (= II. Könige 19, 12); vgl. Beer, s.v. Resapha, in RE, I A1, 1914, S. 620. 6. Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 3), S. 14. 7. s. B. J. Parker, Garrisoning the Empire: aspects of the Construction and Maintenance of Forts on the Assyrian Frontier, in Iraq, 59, 1997, S. 77–87, bes. 85, Anm. 46. 8. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 8−17; s. a. B. Kötting, Peregrinatio religiosa. Wallfahrten in der Antike und das Pilgerwesen in der alten Kirche (Forschungen zur Volkskunde, 33/35), Münster/Westfalen, 1950, S. 132–138; Honigmann, Sergiupolis, cit. (n. 2). 9. F. Sarre, Rusafa-Sergiopolis, in Monatshefte für Kunstwissen-

Abb. 1. Resafa, Luftbild. Blick von Norden. Im Vordergrund der al-Mundir-Bau (Foto M. Stephani 1999).

Einen weiteren Namen, RUSAFAT HISHAM, erhielt Resafa als im 8. Jh. der Umaiyaden-Kalif Hisham b. Abd al-Malik (reg. 724−743) hier, im Süden der befestigten Stadt, Residenz nahm.10 Dafür waren verschiedene Gründe ausschlaggebend. Zum einen die Nähe zu den ihm von seinem Vater Abd al-Malik zugesprochenen Latifundien, die sich im Wesentlichen in der Jazira und an den Ufern des Euphrats befanden.11 Zum Anderen suchte Hisham als Kalif die Nähe zu seiner Klientel, in das er auch die christlichen Araberstämme in der Nachfolge der Ghassaniden (heute auch nach ihren Eliten vielfach als Jafniden angesprochen),12 einschloss, die Sergios als ihren wichtigsten Heiligen verehrten.13 Einer schaft, 2, 1909, S. 95−107, bes. 107; der Name ist nicht unumstritten, siehe Diskussion in: G. Brands, Die Bauornamentik von Resafa – Sergiupolis: Studien zur spätantiken Architektur und Bauausstattung in Syrien und Nordmesopotamien (Resafa, 6), Mainz, 2002, bes. S. 221−223. Die Quellen sind auch zu finden in: G. Greatrex, S. N. C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars  II: 363−630. A  Narrative Sourcebook, London, 2002. 10. B. Kellner-Heinkele, Ruṣāfa in den arabischen Quellen, in D. Sack (Hrsg.), Die Große Moschee von Resafa – Ruṣāfat Hišām (Resafa, 4), Mainz, 1996, S. 133−154; s.a. Sack, Große Moschee, bes. S. 155−160. 11. J. L. Bacharach, Marwanid Umayyad building activities: speculations on patronage, in Muqarnas, 13, 1996, S. 27−44, bes. S. 30−31; M. Müller-Wiener, Eine frühislamische Kalifenresidenz zwischen archäologischem Befund und schriftlichen Quellen: Resafa – Ruṣāfat Hišām, in: D. Sack (Hrsg.), Resafa-Rusafat Hisham. Die Residenz des umaiyadischen Kalifen Hisham b. Abd al-Malik (Resafa, 10) (im Druck). 12. G. Fisher, Between Empires. Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2011, S. 3−7. 13. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n.  4), bes. S. 141−144.

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

119

Abb. 2. Resafa, Stadtplan (M. Gussone – G. Hell 2010, Mitarbeit N. Erbe, I. Salman) 1 al-Mundhir-Bau; 2 Basilika A; 3 Nordhof; 4 Große Moschee; 5 Westhof Basilika A − Suq; 6 Zentralbau; 7 Zentralbau − Suq, 8 Basilika B; 9 Straßenbogen (II) − Basilika B; 10 Pfeilermonument (I) − Basilika D; 11 Basilika D; 12 Straßenbogen (III) − Nordtor; 13 Doppelapsidenbau; 14 Basilika C; 15 Kuppelbau vor Großer Moschee; 16 Khan; 17 Hausgrabung; 18 maison arabe; 19 Große Zisterne; 20 Kleine Zisterne; 21 Wasserverteiler; 22 Kuppel-Zisterne; 23 Nordwest-Zisterne.

120

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

ihrer bekanntesten Bauten ist der sog. al-Mundhir-Bau, der aufgrund seiner Apsisinschrift dem Phylarchen al-Mundhir b. al-Harith (reg. 569−581) zugeschrieben wird. Der Bau liegt auf der Nordseite der befestigten Stadt inmitten einer älteren Nekropole.14 Die Basilika A mit den Reliquien des verehrten Heiligen ist hingegen intra muros das spirituelle Zentrum des Sergios-Kultes.15 In diesem Zusammenhang ist festzuhalten, dass sowohl bei den christlichen Araberstämmen, als auch bei Hisham bei ihrem Besuch des Wallfahrtsorts religiöse Überzeugungen und politische Motivationen eng miteinander verflochten waren:16 ‘al-Ruṣāfa was a ḥaram operating as a point of convergence for social, economic, and even political as well as religious interests’.17 Der Ort Resafa mit seiner ummauerten Stadtanlage und der in ihrem Umland angelegten Kalifenresidenz ist seit 2006 unter dem Titel: ‘Resafa-Sergiupolis / Rusafat Hisham. Pilgerstadt und Kalifenresidenz’, Gegenstand neuer bauhistorischer und stadtbaugeschichtlicher Untersuchungen.18 Mit der 169−173; I. Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, 1.1. Political and military history, 1.2. Ecclesiastical history, Washington, 1995, S. 949−962; idem, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, 2.1. Toponymy, Monuments, Historical Geography, and frontier studies, Washington, 2002, bes. S. 115−133. 14. G. Brands, Der sogenannte Audienzsaal des al-Mundhir in Resafa, in Dam. Mitt., 10, 1998, S. 211−235; E. K. Fowden, An Arab building at al-Ruṣāfa-Sergiopolis, in Dam. Mitt., 12, 2000, S. 303−324; die Zweckbestimmung des Baus ist nach wie vor umstritten, zur Diskussion s. M. Konrad, in Sack, Gussone, Mollenhauer, Forschungen 1975−2006, cit. (n. 1), S. 75−79; s. a. I. Shahîd, The Ghassanid Structure outside Sergiopolis/Rusafa: Church or Praetorium?, in J. D. Alchermes, H. C. Evans, T. K. Thomas (Hrsg.), Ἀναθήματα ἑορτικά. Anathēmata heortika : Studies in Honor of Thomas F. Mathews, Mainz, 2009, S. 283−287. Zur Publikation der archäologischen Arbeiten unter der Leitung von Th. Ulbert s. Th. Ulbert (Hrsg.), Forschungen in Resafa – Sergiupolis. I. al-Mundhir-Bau und Nordnekropole. II. Basilika C (Resafa, 7) Berlin, 2016. 15. Th. Ulbert, Die Basilika des Heiligen Kreuzes in ResafaSergiupolis (Resafa, 2), Mainz, 1986, bes. S. 147−154; s. a. Ch. Konrad, D. Sack, Die Wiederverwendung von Baugliedern in der Pilgerkirche (Basilika A) und in der Großen Moschee von Resafa-Sergiupolis/Ruṣāfat Hišām, in I. Gerlach, D. Raue (Hrsg.), Sanktuar und Ritual. Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund (Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen. ForschungsCluster, 4, Bd. 10), Rahden/Westfalen, 2013, S. 63−73; D.  Sack, St.  Sergios in Resafa. Worshipped by Christians and Muslims alike, in M. Blömer, R. Raja, A. Lichtenberger (Hrsg.), Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed. Continuity and Change (Contextualizing the Sacred, 4), Turnhout, 2014, S. 271–282. 16. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), bes. S. 174−182. 17. E. K. Fowden, Sharing holy places, in Common Knowledge, 8.1, 2002, S. 124−146, bes. 134. 18. Durchgeführt vom FG Historische Bauforschung der TU Berlin, Leitung D. Sack, und weiteren Institutionen im Auftrag und in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut (DAI) und der Direction Générale des Antiquités et des

Darstellung der Namensgebung Resafa-Sergiupolis / Rusafat Hisham sind auch die Themenbereiche angesprochen, die den Mittelpunkt des Forschungsprojekts und dieses Beitrags darstellen: der KULTORT und der HERRSCHAFTSSITZ. Resafa-Rosafa Mit dem Namen Rosafa wird genauer das römische castrum bezeichnet, das Teil der Befestigungsanlagen des römischen limes war. Besondere Bedeutung kam bei der Überwachung und Sicherung der Grenze in der nordsyrischen Wüstensteppe der Kontrolle der Wasserstellen zu, die von strategischer Bedeutung waren. Eine Quelle stand in Resafa zwar nicht zur Verfügung, doch ist der Ort durch eine saisonal wasserführende Senke begünstigt.19 Das castrum lag vermutlich auf einer Anhöhe in der Nähe dieser saisonalen Wasserstelle. Dem Geländeverlauf zufolge lag das Kastell sehr wahrscheinlich in dem Bereich, der heute von der Ruine der Basilika B eingenommen wird. Belege für eine römische Siedlung der frühen Kaiserzeit, die höchstwahrscheinlich mit einem römischen Grenzposten zu identifizieren ist, sind Keramikfunde aus dem 1. Jh. nach Chr., die von Michaela Konrad in ihrer Sondage unter der Basilika B ergraben wurden.20 Diese Siedlung stand sehr wahrscheinlich im Zusammenhang mit dem gezielten Ausbau der römischen Militärpräsenz am Euphrat.21 Auch das aus den Quellen bekannte spätrömische Kastell des 3. Jh. ist in diesem Bereich zu verorten, der die höchst gelegene Stelle in der Topographie von Resafa einnimmt.22 Aus der Notitia Dignitatum ist bekannt, dass Resafa der Standort von equites promoti indigenae war, einer indigen-arabischen, berittenen Einheit.23 An den besonders tief liegenden Zonen, an denen sich vermutlich ursprünglich das aus den saisonalen Regenfällen resultierende Oberflächenwasser sammelte, wurden die Zisternen gebaut.24 Musées de la Syrie (DGAMS), Damaskus/Raqqa, s. hierzu die zusammenfassenden Kurzberichte und Hinweise auf weitere Beiträge (Resafa-Projekt-Bibliographie), in: D. Sack, M. Gussone, C. Winterstein, A. Brauchle, A. Schuhmann (Hrsg.), MSD Jahrbuch 2012–14 (Masterstudium Denkmalpflege der TU Berlin, Heft 10), Berlin, 2014, bes. S. 22−31. 38−60. 19. Wolfart, Geologie, cit. (n. 1), S. 35; Wirth, Syrien, S. 150. 442. 20. Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 3), S. 313–402. 21. M. Konrad, Frühkaiserzeitliche Befestigungen an der Strata Diocletiana? Neue Kleinfunde des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus Nordsyrien, in Dam. Mitt., 9, 1996, S. 163–180; vgl. J. Wagner, Die Römer an Euphrat und Tigris, in Antike Welt : Sondernummer, 16, 1985. 22. M. Konrad, Flavische und spätantike Bebauung unter der Basilika B von Resafa-Sergiupolis, in Dam. Mitt., 6,  1992, S. 313−402, bes. 345–348. 23. Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 3), S. 14 verweist auf die ND Or. XXXIII 27. Siehe auch I. Shahîd, Rome and the Arabs: a prolegomenon to the study of Byzantium and the Arabs, Washington, 1984, bes. S. 60. 24. W. Brinker, Zur Wasserversorgung von Resafa-Sergiupolis, in

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

Das diokletianische castrum und der dazugehörige vicus sind in Resafa von meterhohen Siedlungsschichten überdeckt. Die benachbarten Limes-Stationen Tetrapyrgium oder Cholle vermitteln uns jedoch eine ungefähre Vorstellung von der Form und Ausdehnung der Kastelle und ihrer gleichzeitig errichteten und umwehrten Zivilsiedlungen, die ein regelmäßiges Straßensystem mit Hofhäusern aufweisen.25 Bereits für diese Phase konstatiert ihre Ausgräberin Michaela Konrad eine Verbindung von übergeordneter Planung (‘hippodamisches System’) und lokalen Traditionen (‘Binnenstrukturen mit Hofhäusern […] Bautechnik unter Verwendung von Lehmziegeln’).26 Damit dienen diese Orte als Manifestation des römischen Herrschaftsanspruchs − quasi lokale Herrschaftsorte durch die Kontrolle der Wasserressourcen − und wurden durch die ‘agrarisch und handwerklich geprägten’ Zivilsiedlungen, die sozusagen ausgelagerte ‘Dienstleistungsaufgaben’ für die Besatzung der Kastelle übernahmen, gleichzeitig Ausgangspunkte der Siedlungsentwicklung in diesem Gebiet.27

Dam. Mitt., 5, 1991, S. 119−146, bes. 135–136; s.a. G. Garbrecht, Der Staudamm von Resafa-Sergiupolis, in G. Garbrecht (Hrsg.), Historische Talsperren, 2, Stuttgart, 1991, S. 237−248. Neuere Untersuchungen hierzu s. J. Berking, B. Beckers, B. Schütt, Runoff in two semi-arid watersheds in a geoarcheological context – a case study of Naga, Sudan, and Resafa, Syria, in Geoarchaeology, 25.6, 2010, S. 815–836, bes. 819−820; B. Beckers, B. Schütt, The elaborate floodwater harvesting system of ancient Resafa in Syria – construction and reliability, in Journal of Arid Environments, 96, 2013, S. 31−47. 25. Zu den kastellzeitlichen Vicus-Ausdehnungen von Tetrapyrgium (Quṣair as-Saila): ca. 230 m × 250 m und Cholle (al-Ḫulla bzw. al-Ḫalul): ca. 240 m × 400 m s. Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 3); zu Resafa, s. Konrad, Roman military fortifications, cit. (n. 1) fig. 7; alternativ dazu C. Hof, Die Stadtmauer von Resafa – Spuren früher Planänderung und deren Datierungsrelevanz, in: Koldewey-Gesellschaft (Hrsg.), Bericht über die 45. Tagung für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung vom 30. April bis 4. Mai 2008 in Regensburg, Dresden, 2010, S. 233–248, bes. Abb. 7; sowie D. Sack, M. Gussone, D. Kurapkat, A Vivid City in the ‘Syrian Desert’ − The case of Resafa-Sergiupolis / Rusafat Hisham, in D. Morandi Bonacossi (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the workshop ‚Settlement Dynamics and Human-Landscape Interaction in the Steppes and Deserts of Syria‘, 8th ICAANE in Warsawa, 3.-5. May 2012 (Studia Chaburensia, 4), Wiesbaden, 2014, S. 257–274, bes. 258−260. Fig. 2. 26. M. Konrad, Gräberarchäologie und ihre Evidenz für die Bevölkerungsgeschichte der Steppengebiete in den spätrömischen Provinzen Syria und Arabia, in: M. Gawlikowski, G. Majcherek (Hrsg.), Fifty Years of Polish Excavations in Palmyra 1959–2009, International Conference,Warsaw, 6–8 December 2010 (Studia Palmyreńskie, 12), Warsaw, 2013, S. 203–226, bes. 204. 27. Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 3), S. 113−116. Hier auch weitere Ausführungen zur ‘systematischen Planung’ der Kastelle und ihrer vici.

121

Resafa – Sergiupolis Von entscheidender Bedeutung für die Entwicklung Resafas zu einer vergleichsweise großen Stadt und zu einem Zentralort von weitreichender Bedeutung war allerdings seine Funktion als Kultort und Pilgerstätte am Grab des Hl. Sergios.28 Die hierfür grundlegende frühe Geschichte Resafas erschließt sich jedoch nur in zeitlich rückwärts gerichteter Reihenfolge, so ist noch einmal der Märtyrertod des Sergios anzusprechen und die Frage nach dem Platz seiner Bestattung, der auf Grund von Berichten über sich dort ereignende Wunder, einen ständig wachsenden Pilgerstrom angezogen haben soll.29 Der Ort, an dem Sergios hingerichtet und bestattet wurde, ist nicht genau bekannt. Die einzige Quelle hierzu ist die um 450 entstandene Märtyrer-Biographie des Hl. Sergios, die Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi, die besagt, dass Sergios vor dem castrum hingerichtet wurde.30 Der Quellenwert seiner Heiligengeschichte wurde lange angezweifelt, aufgrund der sorgfältigen Analyse ihrer Entstehungsumstände durch Elizabeth Fowden hat sich allerdings die Auffassung durchgesetzt, dass den Aussagen der passio − mit der gehörigen Vorsicht hinsichtlich topischer Stereotype − eine historische Aussagekraft beizumessen ist.31 Da aus der passio bekannt ist, dass Sergios als Gefangener von Sura über Tetrapyrgium nach Resafa geführt und dort hingerichtet wurde, liegt es nahe, den Hinrichtungsort auf der Nordseite des Kastells anzunehmen.32 Geraume Zeit − nach Fowden ‘long time after’ − nach der Bestattung des Märtyrers versuchten Christen aus dem benachbarten Ort Sura, die Reliquien zu stehlen. Dieses wurde durch die Besatzung des Kastells verhindert; von Reue getrieben oder als Entschädigung wurde von den ertappten Reliquienräubern eine erste, sehr bescheidene Memoria errichtet.33 Der 28. Zur Anwendung der Zentralort-Theorie von W. Christaller auf die Archäologie s. O. Nakoinz, Zentralortforschung und zentralörtliche Theorie, in Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 39,  2009, S. 361−380. Im Rahmen des Excellence Clusters TOPOI wurde untersucht, inwieweit die Zentralort-Theorie auf Resafa zu beziehen ist, s. B. Beckers, Ch. Konrad, D. Sack, TOPOI-Projekt AI-3. Resafa-Sergiupolis/Ruṣāfat Hišām, Syrien – Pilgerstadt und Kalifenresidenz, Landschaftsbezug von Kultort und Herrschaftszentrum, in O. Nakoinz (Hrsg.), Zentrale Orte, im Druck. 29. I. van den Gheyn, Passio antiquior SS. Sergii et Bacchi, in AnBoll, 14, 1895, S. 372−395; s. a. J. Boswell, Same-sex unions in premodern Europe, New York, 1994; die umfassendste Darstellung ist zu finden in: Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 11; aktuell hierzu s. Sack, St. Sergios in Resafa, cit. (n. 15). 30. Datierung und Analyse, in: Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 7–11. vgl. 157–159. 31. Honigmann, Sergiupolis, cit. (n. 2); Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 17–29. 32. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 174–175, Diskussion s.u. 33. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 11.

122

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 3. Spätrömische und byzantinische Befestigungen zwischen Palmyra und dem Euphrat(nach Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 3), Abb. 1)].

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

123

genaue Ort des Martyriums und der ersten Grablege des Hl. Sergios ist allerdings nicht bekannt und eine der offenen Forschungsfragen zu Resafa. Dass dem Zentralbau eine besondere Lage und Bauform zu eigen ist, wurde zuletzt von Gunnar Brands hervorgehoben: ‘Es ist ein verführerischer, aber vorerst unbeweisbarer Gedanke, dass der Zentralbau in irgendeiner Weise mit den Andenken an den ersten Stadtheiligen verbunden war;’ allerdings hielt es Brands für ‘mehr als unwahrscheinlich’, dass der Zentralbau ‘den Ort der ersten Grablege oder den Schauplatz des Martyriums des Hl. Sergios bezeichnet’, den er − so wie auch verschiedene andere Autoren − im Bereich des al-Mundhir vermutet.34 Diese These wird unterstützt durch die Lage des al-Mundhir-Baus inmitten des wohl ältesten Friedhofs von Resafa, der bereits Ende des 3. Jh., also vor der Zeit des Martyriums des Hl. Sergios, belegt worden war.35 Die spezielle Form des Zentralbaus und seine städtebauliche Lage lassen jedoch weiterhin annehmen, dass dem Zentralbau eine besondere Bedeutung in der sakralen Topographie Resafas zukam, die mit dem Hl. Sergios verbunden war.36 Bei neuen Ausgrabungen, die Axel Schuhmann an der südöstlichen Außenseite des Zentralbaus durchführte, kamen in einem sehr tief liegenden Niveau Mauerreste zu Tage, die seiner Auffassung nach in Zusammenhang mit einer ersten architektonischen Fassung des Hinrichtungsplatzes des Hl. Sergios stehen könnten, so dass sich auch hier die oben erwähnte, erste Memoria befunden haben könnte.37

Abb. 4. Vergleich der Limes-Kastelle und ihrer Zivilsiedlungen, Tetrapyrgium/Resafa/Cholle (Tetrapyrgium und Cholle nach Konrad, Der spätrömische Limes, cit. (n. 3), Beilage 3 und 4; für Resafa wurde für das Kastell das Vorbild Tetrapyrgium verwendet, der gestrichelte Rahmen bezeichnet die ungefähre Ausdehnung des vicus).

34. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 175; mit Verweis auf A.Grabar, Martyrium. Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l‘art chrétien antique, Paris, 1946; s. ursprünglich Sarre, RusafaSergiopolis, cit. (n. 9), S. 104; zur Verortung der ersten Grablege des Hl. Sergios s. Brands, Audienzsaal, cit. (n. 14), S. 232. 35. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 157–159 mit Verweis auf Musil, Palmyrena, cit. (n. 4), S. 264. Aktuell zur Datierung der Nordtornekropole s. Konrad, Gräberarchäologie, cit. (n. 26), bes. S. 204–211. 36. Seit den Ausgrabungen unter der Leitung von J. Kollwitz hat sich die Auffassung durchgesetzt, dass der Zentralbau als Bischofskirche anzusehen ist und nicht das Martyrion des Stadtheiligen darstellt, wie zuvor von der früheren Forschung von F. Sarre (Sarre, Rusafa-Sergiopolis, cit. [n. 9], S. 104) bis A. Grabar (Martyrium, cit. [n. 34], vol. I, bes. S. 189; vol. II, S. 372) angenommen worden war: ‘Nirgendwo dagegen fanden sich Reste einer hier geübten Märtyrerverehrung. Dieser Befund lässt wohl nur eine Interpretation zu: wir haben in dem Zentralbau die Bischofskirche des 6. Jahrhunderts vor uns.’ (J. Kollwitz, Die Grabungen in Resafa, in E. Boehringer, [Hrsg.], Neue deutsche Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet und im Vorderen Orient, Berlin, 1959, S. 45−70, bes. 69). G. Brands wandte allerdings ein, dass für den Zentralbau eine ‘Multifunktionalität’ von Martyrion und Bischofskirche denkbar ist, die auch an anderen Wallfahrtsorten nachweisbar ist (Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. [n. 9], S. 174−175). 37. A. Schuhmann, Die Sakrallandschaft von Resafa (Sergiupolis)

124

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Für die Deutung des Bereichs des Zentralbaus als Platz der Hinrichtung des Heiligen sprechen aber vor allem die Lage und seine exzeptionelle Form. Somit können in Resafa also zwei Orte als potentielle Stätte der Hinrichtung und ersten Verehrung des Sergios angesprochen werden. Für beide Thesen zum Hinrichtungsort des Sergios gibt es Argumente, zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt ist es allerdings nicht möglich, eine der beiden Auffassungen eindeutig anzunehmen oder zu verwerfen. Den Quellen zufolge war der Ort seiner ersten Grablege aber offensichtlich nicht sicher genug; deshalb wurde dann, kurz vor 430, auf Veranlassung von Bischof Alexander von Hierapolis, innerhalb des castrum eine erste Kirche errichtet, wohin die Reliquien überführt wurden.38 Auch wenn die genaue Lokalisierung des SergiosMartyriums nicht möglich ist, ist jedoch sicher, dass mit dem Einsetzen der Sergios-Verehrung und der gezielten Investition des Alexander von Hierapolis ein wichtiger stadtgeschichtlicher Entwicklungsschub einherging, auch wenn Resafa in formaler Hinsicht zu dieser Zeit noch keine Stadt war: Der Bau dieser Kirche erfolgte im Rahmen der nach Gunnar Brands ersten ‘städtebaulich und architektonisch relevanten Bauphase’ Resafas.39 Nachdem die erste im castrum liegende und aus Lehmziegeln errichtete Kirche abgebrannt war, wurde dort − vermutlich in der 2. Hälfte des 5. Jh. − eine zweite Kirche in ähnlicher Bauweise errichtet. Beide Anlagen und ihre Zerstörungen konnten im Nordschiff der Basilika B von Michaela Konrad archäologisch nachgewiesen werden.40 Die umliegende Siedlung, die durch den Zuspruch der Pilger wohl immer mehr wuchs, wurde von ersten Straßen erschlossen, und durch eine Lehmziegelmauer befestigt.41 Es bleibt allerdings unklar, ob es sich bei der von Alexander von Hierapolis errichteten Stadtumwehrung ‘um einen Neubau, eine Restaurierung der älteren Kastell- oder Vicusmauer oder deren Erweiterung gehandelt hat’.42 Unter dem − Liturgie einer Pilgerstadt an der östlichen Peripherie, in: O. Brandt, V. Fiocchi Nicolai (Hg.), Acta XVI Congressvs Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae. Romae (22.–28.9.2013). Costantino e i Costantinidi. L’innovazione Costantiniana, le sue radici e i suoi sviluppi II. Studi di Antichità Cristiana LXVI (Città del Vaticano 2016), S. 1805–1820. Der Zentralbau wird als Tandem-Dissertation von I. Salman (wissenschaftliche Rekonstruktion) und A. Schuhmann (Archäologie und Liturgie) bearbeitet, wobei die Bauforschung vor Ort gemeinsam erfolgte; siehe hierzu auch die Beiträge I. Salman und A. Schuhmann, in: MSD Jahrbuch 2012−14, cit. (n. 18), S. 58−59. 38. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 21. 39. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 212. 40. Konrad, Flavische und spätantike Bebauung, cit. (n. 22), S. 313−383. Zur Abfolge der Schichten und Bauphasen s. bes. S. 314−320. 345−350. 41. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 212. 42. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 212; vgl. Fowden,

‘mittelalterlichen Wohnkomplex’ gegenüber der Kuppelzisterne wurde eine ‘massive Packung dicker Bruchsteine’ mit Lehmmörtel versetzt, mit einer Breite von bis zu zwei Metern aufgefunden, die in ihrer Ausführung zwar von der sorgfältigeren Machart der diokletianischen Kastellmauern von Tetrapyrgium abwich, wie der Ausgräber Matthias Wemhoff feststellte,43 aber möglicherweise die Begrenzung des vicus bildete.44 Da sich die frühe Stadtbefestigung bisher archäologisch nicht eindeutig bestimmen lässt, lassen sich zur Größe dieser Anlage nur zwei unterschiedliche Hypothesen aufstellen: 1. entweder war sie so angelegt, dass sie der Umgrenzung des vicus direkt entsprach, oder 2. sie umschloss zusätzlich das Gelände, auf dem später die Basilika A errichtet wurde und erweiterte damit die ursprüngliche Ausdehnung des vicus nach Osten. Die Errichtung der Basilika A, ihres Nordhofs, des benachbarten Vier-Stützen Baus (der möglicherweise als Baptisterium anzusprechen ist) erfolgte wohl – entsprechend der Überlegungen von Gunnar Brands – Ende des 5.Jh.45 Dieser große Baukomplex, der noch verschiedene Erweiterungen erfuhr, nahm nun die Reliquien des Hl. Sergios auf und bildete fortan das Zentrum der Heiligenverehrung.46 Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 93. 43. M. Wemhoff, Ein mittelalterlicher Wohnkomplex in Resafa, in Dam. Mitt., 8, 1995, S. 247−268, bes. 248−249. 253−254. Abb. 3. 44. In diesem Sinne s. zur Ausdehnung des vicus mit verschiedenen Abweichungen: Konrad, Roman military fortifications, cit. (n. 1), Fig. 7.a; Hof, Stadtmauer, cit. (n. 25), S. 241. Abb. 7; s.a. Sack, Gussone, Kurapkat, Vivid City, cit. (n. 25), S. 259. Fig. 2. Da die Bruchstein-Struktur nicht datiert werden konnte, könnte es sich möglicherweise auch um Reste der ersten Umfassung des Alexander von Hierapolis handeln. 45. Die bis dahin etablierte Datierung des Basilika A ins Jahr 559 (Th. Ulbert, Eine neuentdeckte Inschrift aus Resafa (Syrien), in AA, 1977, S. 563–569; Ulbert, Basilika, cit. (n. 15), bes. S. 34, 147; P.-L. Gatier, Les Inscriptions grecques, in Ulbert, Basilika, S. 161−170, bes. 161) wurde durch den Fund einer Türsturzinschrift in Frage gestellt, die bei der Ausgrabung der Großen Moschee entdeckt und Basilika B zugewiesen worden war. Darauf antworteten Ulbert und Gatier mit Erwägungen einer möglichen Datierung der Basilika A vor 518 (P.-L. Gatier, Th. Ulbert, Eine Türsturzinschrift aus Resafa-Sergiupolis, in Dam. Mitt., 5, 1991, S. 169−182, bes. 175−179). Im Zusammenhang mit der Untersuchung der Baudekorationen beschäftigte sich Brands mit der Zeitstellung der verschiedenen Kirchenbauten Resafas und kam zu einer Datierung der Basilika A ins letzte Drittel des 5. Jh. (G. Brands, Die Entstehung einer Stadt. Beobachtungen zur Bauornamentik von Resafa, in U. Peschlow, S. Möllers (Hrsg.), Spätantike und byzantinische Bauskulptur. Beiträge eines Symposiums in Mainz, Stuttgart, 1998, S. 77−92; Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. [n.  9], S. 52−56). Dieser Argumentation wurde bislang nicht widersprochen. 46. Ulbert, Basilika, cit. (n. 15), bes. S. 137−144; Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), bes. S. 48−52; s.a. B. Brenk, ‘Der Kultort, seine Zugänglichkeit und seine Besucher’, in Akten des XII.

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

Um die Zeit der Errichtung der Basilika A, die es nun als Pilgerzentrum zu schützen galt, wurde mit dem Bau der imponierenden und heute noch sichtbaren Stadtmauer begonnen.47 Nach den Forschungen von Catharine Hof begann dieses große Bauprojekt gleichzeitig an zwei Stellen: Zunächst an der Nordseite, wo im Osten der Stadt sozusagen ein Musterstück für den Bau der Mauer errichtet wurde und etwa gleichzeitig an der Westseite, wo ein Stück der Mauer genau an der Stelle errichtet wurde, an dem es galt, die Zuleitung der temporär auftretenden und zu sammelnden Wassermassen zu schützen.48 Von hier aus erfolgte dann der Zufluss zu der ersten der vier großen Zisternen, die wohl alle im 6. Jh. errichtet wurden.49 Der Baubeginn der Stadtmauer ist sehr wahrscheinlich in der Regierungszeit des Kaisers Anastasius vor dem römisch-persischen Krieg von 502 anzusetzen. Aufgrund der großzügigen Konzeption einer repräsentativen Stadtanlage ist davon auszugehen, dass die Planung in einer Zeit des Friedens erfolgte. Etwa zur selben Zeit, gegen Ende des 5. Jh., erfolgte auch die Einwanderung der Ghassaniden/ Jafniden nach Syrien. Anastasius schloss 502 mit ihnen Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 22.−28. September 1991 (JAChr, Ergbd. 20.1), Münster, 1995, S. 110−122, bes. 110−117; Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), bes. S. 77−87; Sack, St. Sergios in Resafa, cit. (n. 15). 47. s. W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Resafa in Syrien (Denkmäler antiker Architektur, 11), Berlin, 1976; aktuelle Forschungen, detaillierte Untersuchung des Bauablaufs und neue Erkenntnisse zur Datierung s. C. Hof, Masonry Techniques of the Early Sixth Century City Wall of Resafa, Syria, in K.E. Kurrer, W. Lorenz, V. Wetzk (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction History, Cottbus, May 2009, Cottbus, 2009, S. 813−820; Hof, Stadtmauer, cit. (n. 25), S. 235−248. 48. C. Hof, The late Roman city wall of Resafa/Sergiupolis (Syria), its evolution and functional transition from representative over protective to concealing, in: R. Frederiksen et al. (eds.), Focus on Fortification. New Research on Fortification in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East. Conference 9. December 2012 at the Danish Institute at Athens (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 18), Oxford, 397–412. 49. Zu den Zisternen s. Brinker, Wasserversorgung, cit. (n. 24), S. 119−146. Neuere Untersuchungen von St.  Westphalen und P. Knötzele haben ergeben, dass − abweichend von der Datierung W. Brinkers − als erstes, wohl im frühen 6. Jh. n. Chr., kurz nacheinander die Kuppelzisterne und die benachbarte kleine Zisterne gebaut wurden und erst zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt, vermutlich im 6. / 7. Jh. n. Chr., die große Doppelzisterne und die Nordzisterne errichtet wurden (s. St. Westphalen, P. Kötzele, Water Supply of Resafa, Syria – Remarks on the Chronology of the Big Cisterns, in H.-D. Bienert, J. Häser (Hrsg.), Men of Dikes and Canals. The Archaeology of Water in the Middle East. International Symposium held at Petra, Wadi Musa [H.  K. of Jordan] 15–20 June, 1999 (Orient-Archäologie, 13), Rahden/ Westf., 2004, S. 345−348.

125

einen Vertrag ab, wodurch sie in der Folge als foederati eine wichtige Rolle bei der Grenzverteidigung übernahmen.50 Da beide Ereignisse zeitlich sehr dicht beieinander liegen, erscheint es wahrscheinlich zu sein, dass ein Zusammenhang zwischen der Bündnispolitik des Anastasius mit den Jafniden und dem gezieltem Ausbau des Verteidigungssystems zur Sicherung des arabischen Limes besteht. Die Veränderungen am Wassereinlass noch während des Bauprozesses und die erkennbar hastige Fertigstellung der Stadtmauer lassen jedoch annehmen, dass die Ausführung dieser Maßnahmen in die Zeit nach 502 fällt, da auf Ereignisse aus diesem Krieg reagiert wurde und die Arbeiten weniger sorgfältig geschahen und unter einem großen Zeitdruck erfolgten.51 Dazu gehören die Ausführung der letzten Teilabschnitte mit Nischen ohne Wehrgang, der Bau der meisten Türme in formal reduzierter, orthogonaler Form – die in der ursprünglichen Planung im Wechsel mit kleineren Türmen polygonal oder halbrund angelegt waren – und auch der nicht mehr ausgeführte Dekor an der Ostseite des Hofes der Nordtoranlage.52 In dieser Stadtbauphase erfolgte durch die Förderung des byzantinischen Kaiserhauses der großmaßstäbliche Ausbau des vormals relativ bescheidenen Wallfahrtsorts zu einer monumentalen Pilgerstadt. Wie Stephan Westphalen zusammenfasst, ist davon auszugehen, dass die aufwendige Stadterweiterung, durch die sich die Fläche Resafas auf das Vierfache vergrößerte, unter Anastasius geplant und vermutlich auch begonnen wurde. Die Fertigstellung hat sich allerdings sehr wahrscheinlich bis in die Regierungszeit von Justinian hingezogen. Die städtebauliche Gestalt Resafas war zu dieser Zeit vermutlich ‘von einer “Altstadt” aus römischer Zeit bestimmt, die von einer größeren byzantinischen “Neustadt” überbaut’ oder vielmehr durch diese erweitert wurde.53 Bei der Anlage der Stadt wurden sicherlich die bestehende Siedlung, die sakrale Topographie und die Voraussetzungen der Wasserversorgung berücksichtigt, wie der Verlauf der Nordtorstraße, die unregelmäßige Anordnung der Torbauten und die Positionierung des Wassereinlasses erkennen lassen.54 Vor diesem vergleichsweise umfangreichen Stadtausbau, mag sich das Wachstum der Siedlung relativ organisch 50. Shahid, BASIC 1, S. 3−12. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt waren sie wohl bereits christlich geworden, wobei der Hl. Sergios von großer Bedeutung für sie war, s. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 141−149. 51. Hof, Stadtmauer, cit. (n. 25), S. 245−248. 52. Hof, The late Roman city wall, cit. (n. 48). 53. St. Westphalen, Resafa: Untersuchungen zum Strassennetz in byzantinischer Zeit, in Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie. Wien 19.-26.9.1999. Frühes Christentum zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel, Città del Vaticano, Wien, 2006, S. 783−793, bes. 784−785. 54. zum Verhältnis von Wasserversorgung und Stadtplanung s. Garbrecht, Staudamm, S. 241−244.

126

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 5. Resafa, Archäologische Karte, Bauprozess der Stadtmauer, Beginn um 500, 2014.

vollzogen haben, spätestens zum Zeitpunkt des Baus der Basilika A und der Stadtmauer ist Resafa jedoch eine ‘Großbaustelle’ mit übergeordneter Planung und Beteiligung auswärtiger Werkstätten.55 Es erscheint wahrscheinlich zu sein, dass die ‘Neustadt’ durch ein regelmäßiges Straßennetz erschlossen wurde, auch wenn dies nicht sicher belegt ist.56 Ein Beleg für die großmaßstäbliche Planung ist sicherlich 55. Beitrag C. Hof, in: D. Sack, M. Gussone, D. Spiegel, A. Brauchle (Hrsg.), MSD Jahrbuch 2010–12 (Masterstudium Denkmalpflege der TU Berlin, Heft 8), Berlin, 2012, S. 30. Zu den in Resafa tätigen Werkstätten aus Nordsyrien bzw. Nordmesopotamien s. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), bes. S. 236−274; Hof, The late Roman city wall, cit. (n. 48); s. a. M. Gussone, D. Sack, Resafa (Syrien). Militärstation, Pilgerstadt und Kalifenresidenz im Spiegel von Kulturaustausch und Mobilität, in: Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie, 6, 2013, S. 182–210, bes. 188−194. 56. s. Westphalen, Strassennetz, cit. (n. 53), S. 783−784 mit Verweis auf F. W. Deichmann (1982); E. Zanini, The Urban Ideal and Urban Planning in Byzantine New Cities of the Sixth Century AD, in: L. Lavan, W.Bowden (Hrsg.), Theory and practice in late Antique archaeology, Leiden, 2003, S. 196–223.

auch, dass das natürliche Gelände im Gebiet der ‘Neustadt’ durch ‘mächtige Planierschichten’ geebnet wurde, um den Baugrund vorzubereiten, wie im Apsisbereich der Basilika D exemplarisch festgestellt werden konnte.57 Der ständig wachsende Pilgerstrom erforderte aber auch noch weitere Kirchenbauten. Der Baubeginn der bereits genannten Basilika B, die an der Stelle des inzwischen wohl verfallenen römischen castrum errichtet wurde, ist durch eine Inschrift für das Frühjahr 518 gesichert.58 Sie stellt einen wichtigen chronologischen Ankerpunkt in der Stadtbaugeschichte von Resafa dar. Die Errichtung des Zentralbaus fand ungefähr zeitglich statt, wie anhand der Baudekoration nachgewiesen wurde. Mit diesen Bauten (der Basilika B und dem Zentralbau) ist auch das Nordtor stilistisch eng verwandt.59 57. St. Westphalen, Resafa. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1997 bis 1999, in: Dam. Mitt., 12, 2000, S. 325−365, bes. 344−347. 58. Gatier, Ulbert, Türsturzinschrift, cit. (n. 45), S. 169−182. 59. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), bes. S. 114−117. 176−179. 209−211.

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

127

Abb. 6. Resafa, Stadtmauer. Rekonstruktion des Bauprozesses, Phase 2 (N. Erbe/C. Hof, 2013).

Die Erhebung von Resafa-Sergiupolis zur Metropole mit dem Sitz eines Erzbischofs, erfolgte unter Anastasius ‘um oder kurz nach 510’,60 jedoch ‘spätestens zwischen 514 und 518’,61 und steht sehr wahrscheinlich im Zusammenhang mit einem umfassenden Ausbau der Ostgrenze unter Anastasius, wie die nahezu zeitgleiche Gründung von Dara-Anastasiupolis zeigt.62 Die Erhebung zur Metropole belegt jedoch auch die gestiegene Wertschätzung der Pilgerstadt und stellt eine Würdigung der Ghassaniden/Jafniden und ihres Schutzheiligen dar. Zudem attestiert sie der Siedlung einen städtischen Charakter, der diese Benennung rechtfertigte. Darüber hinaus ist diese administrative Statusverbesserung auch als Wachstumsimpuls für die Stadt anzusehen. Neben dem gestiegenen Renommee war mit der Erhebung zur Metropole eine größere Autonomie der lokalen Amtsinhaber verbunden; sie zog vermutlich auch den Ausbau der kirchlichen Verwaltung nach sich. Bischöfe treten in Resafa nicht nur als Initiatoren von Kirchenbauten und

60. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 213; vgl. Honigmann, Sergiupolis, cit. (n. 2): ‘Dies muß vor 512 geschehen sein.’ 61. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 226; Diskussion 222−223. 62. Fraenkel, s. v. Dara 2, in RE, IV 2, 1909, S. 2147. Zur Stadtmauer von Resafa im Hinblick auf die Gründung von Dara, siehe Hof , late Roman, zu Dara siehe auch den Beitrag von E. KeserKayaalp in diesem Band.

Reparaturmaßnahmen auf,63 wie der Basilika A und Basilika B, sondern auch als Bauherrn von Versorgungseinrichtungen wie einer weiteren Zisterne.64 Zudem ist davon auszugehen, dass sie weitere Baumaßnahmen, wie zur Unterbringung des Klerus oder von Herbergen veranlassten.65 Damit entspricht Resafa in besonderer Weise dem Typus einer der ‘New Cities’ der Spätantike, die von Enrico Zanini durch die folgenden Eigenschaften charakterisiert wurden ‘as cities they are small, fortified, Christian and imperial. […] They were at the same time administrative centres, focal points in a system of defence and fixed points in the ecclesiastical geography of their respective regions’.66 In der Regierungszeit von Justinian  I (reg. 527–565) folgte dann wohl um die Mitte des 6. Jh. ein weiterer Aus63. Gatier, Inscriptions, cit. (n. 45), S. 161−169; Gatier, Ulbert, Türsturzinschrift, cit. (n. 45), bes. 175−182. 64. P.-L. Gatier, Inscriptions grecques de Résafa, in: Dam. Mitt., 10, 1998, S. 237−241. 65. H.-G. Severin, Pilgerwesen und Herbergen, in Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 22.-28. September 1991 (JAChr Ergbd., 20. 1), Münster, 1995, S. 329−339. 66. Zanini, Urban Ideal, cit. (n. 56), S. 216. Hier werden für Resafa jedoch nicht die Baumaßnahmen von Anastasius und Justinian unterschieden, was allerdings nötig und auch für andere Stadtanlagen in der Region von Bedeutung wäre.

128

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 7. Basilika A, Hauptschiff, Blick über das Bema nach Osten (M. Gussone 2006).

bauschritt, dem vermutlich der Bau der in der Nähe des Osttors der Stadt gelegenen Basilika C67 und der östlich des Zentralbaus gelegenen Basilika D68 sowie verschiedene Ausbaumaßnahmen wie der Einbau von Gewölben in den Türmen der Stadtmauer oder die ‘Modernisierung’ der Ausstattung der Kirchenbauten durch Inkrustationen zuzuweisen sind. Die ältere Forschung war geneigt, – auf Grundlage von Prokops Berichten, bei denen aus heutiger Sicht wohl eher das Herrscherlob im Vordergrund stand – Justinian den Hauptteil der Baumaßnahmen in Resafa zuzuweisen.69 Durch die Arbeiten von Gunnar Brands und die Forschungen der letzten Jahre haben sich jedoch die Hinweise verdichtet, dass 67. Ulbert, Forschungen, cit. (n. 14); Sack, Gussone, Mollenhauer, Forschungen 1975−2006, cit. (n. 1), S. 54−55. 68. Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57), S. 325−365. 69. Procopius, Aed. II 9, 7–9 (nach H. B. Dewing, Procopius, On buildings [The Loeb classical library. Procopius, 7], London, New York, 1954, S. 157). Dazu auch Th. Ulbert, Einige Überlegungen zu Buch II, Syrien, in AntTard, 8, 2000, S. 137−147.

der Ausbau Resafas bereits unter seinen Vorgängern Zeno, Anastasius und Justin erfolgte.70 Höchstwahrscheinlich handelte es sich also bei den Justinian zugeschriebenen Maßnahmen eher um umfassende Ausbaumaßnahmen von früher errichteten Strukturen – so der Ausbau der Stadtmauer, bei der die ursprünglichen Balkendecken in den Türmen allem Anschein nach im zweiten Drittel des 6. Jh. durch Gewölbe ersetzt wurden.71 Bei der Beschreibung der Ausstattung Resafas, die Prokop Justinian zuschrieb, wurden insbesondere Säulenhallen erwähnt: ‘Furthermore, he added to the place houses and stoas and the other buildings which are wont to be the adornments 70. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 214–221, s. a. Hof, The late Roman city wall, cit. (n. 48). 71. Zur Datierung der Entstehung, vgl. Hof, Masonry Techniques, cit. (n. 47), S. 813–820; eadem, Stadtmauer, cit. (n. 25), S. 235– 248; zum späteren Einbau der Gewölbe, s. eadem, The late Roman city wall, cit. (n. 48), vgl. A. M. Schneider, ‘Bericht über eine Reise nach Syrien (2.X.-22.XI.51)’, in Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 4, 1952, S. 1−26, bes. 18; Karnapp, Stadtmauer, S. 25–26.

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

129

Abb. 8. Resafa, Archäologische Karte, Stadtausbau in der Spätantike (um 518), 2014.

of a city.’72 Inwieweit diese tatsächlich in Resafa vorhanden waren, kann zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt auch nur vermutet werden.73 Es lag zumindest nahe, die an verschiedenen Stellen gefundenen Säulenstümpfe und Basen als Indiz für eine weit reichende Ausstattung mit Säulenstraßen anzunehmen.74 Die architektonische Inszenierung einzelner Straßenzüge durch 72. Procopius, Aedificiis II 9, 7–9 (Dewing, buildings, S. 157); ‘Dazu fügte er noch Häuser, Wandelhallen und die sonstigen Bauten, was eben gewöhnlich einer Stadt zum Schmuck dient.’ (nach O. Veh, Die Bauten (Prokop Werke, 5), München, 1977, S. 123). Zur Verläßlichkeit von Prokop, vgl. Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 214−221. 73. Westphalen, Strassennetz, cit. (n.  53), S. 783–784; idem, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57), S. 335–342. 74. F. W. Deichmann (1982) nach Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57); vgl. Karnapp, Stadtmauer, Abb. 179; zu den Befunden, vgl. J. Kollwitz, W. Wirth, W. Karnapp, Die Grabungen in Resafa Herbst 1954 und 1956, in Les Annales archéologiques de Syrie, in Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire, 8/9, 1958/1959, S. 12−54, bes. 42–48; vgl. dazu die Kritik bei Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57), S. 335–337; idem, Strassennetz, cit. (n. 53), S. 784. Zuerst erörtert von Musil, Palmyrena, cit. (n. 4), S. 156.

Bogen- und Pfeilermonumente, die von Stephan Westphalen als Ausdruck einer zeremonialen Ausschmückung der Stadt für den Wallfahrtsbetrieb gedeutet wurde,75 ist jedoch unbestritten. In welcher Weise diese baulich hervorgehobenen Stellen eine besondere Rolle für die Organisation des Pilgerbetriebs und zum Lenken der Pilgerströme hatten, wird im Moment von Axel Schuhmann erforscht, der ausgehend von seinen Untersuchungen am Zentralbau versucht, die Pilgerwege in der Stadt zu rekonstruieren.76 Die Entstehung der Pfeiler- und Bogenmonumente während dieser späteren Ausbauphase wird durch archäologische Befunde unterstützt. So errichtete man z. B. das Pfeilermonument auf einem bestehenden, bereits längere Zeit genutzten Straßenpflaster, wodurch eine Datierung in die erste Hälfte,77 75. Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57); idem, Strassennetz, cit. (n. 53). 76. Schuhmann, Sakrallandschaft, cit. (n. 37); s. a. idem, Beitrag in: MSD Jahrbuch 2012–14, cit. (n. 18), S. 58. 77. Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57), S. 329; idem, in: DAI Damaskus (Hrsg.), Zehn Jahre Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Syrien 1989–1998, Damaskus, 1999, S. 83−88, bes. 86.

130

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

wenn nicht sogar Mitte des 6. Jh. n. Chr. anzunehmen ist. Somit scheint die Behauptung Prokops, dass Resafa durch Justinian mit Säulenstraßen ausgeschmückt wurde, trotz der angeführten Zweifel im Bereich des Möglichen zu liegen. In dieser Phase des Ausbaus der Stadt wurden auch die meisten Kirchenbauten – nach dem Vorbild von Konstantinopel – mit Inkrustationen ausgestattet.78 Bischof Abraamios (um 565) ist wahrscheinlich einer der Protagonisten dieser Aktivitäten, den wir namentlich fassen können.79 Alle diese Ausbaumaßnahmen belegen, dass in der Mitte des 6. Jh. ein Modernisierungsschub erfolgte, durch den das ursprüngliche Aussehen Resafas durchgreifend verändert wurde. Somit bestand im letzten Viertel des 6. Jh. eine mit einer repräsentativen Stadtmauer befestigte, ‘modernisierte’ Stadtanlage, die hinter ihren Mauern fünf große Kirchenbauten barg, deren Zentrum die Basilika A mit dem Reliquienschrein des Hl. Sergios bildete. Im Norden der Stadt lag umgeben von Nekropolen80 der al-Mundhir-Bau,81 im Nordosten und Osten der Stadt erstrecken sich die Steinbrüche, aus denen das Material für den Bau der Stadt gewonnen worden war. Bislang war man davon ausgegangen, dass es im südlichen Umland einzelne Fundplätze mit spätantiker Keramik gab. Nach einem neuen Survey von Martin Gussone und Martina Müller-Wiener im Umland der Stadt ist nun allerdings bekannt, dass bereits für die Spätantike eine deutliche Siedlungstätigkeit im westlichen Teil des südlichen Umlands bestand,82 auch wenn ihre bauliche Ausbildung zur Zeit noch nicht einzuschätzen ist.83 78. Siehe Beitrag I. Oberhollenzer, in MSD Jahrbuch 2012–14, cit. (n. 18), S. 48; vgl. Gussone, Sack, Militärstation, Pilgerstadt und Kalifenresidenz, cit. (n. 55), bes. S. 193–194. 79. Siehe die Beiträge I. Salman und A. Schuhmann sowie I. Oberhollenzer und H. Shash in: D. Sack, A. Brauchle, M. Gussone, D. Kurapkat, D. Spiegel (Hrsg.), MSD Jahrbuch 2008–10 (Masterstudium Denkmalpflege der TU Berlin, Heft 6), Berlin, 2010, S. 42. 93; vgl. Ulbert, Basilika, cit. (n. 15), S. 161. 80. Konrad, Gräberarchäologie, cit. (n. 26), bes. S. 203–206. 81. Brands, Audienzsaal, cit. (n. 14); Fowden, Arab building, cit. (n. 14); zudem neue Beiträge von M. Konrad und G. Brands mit abweichenden Schlussfolgerungen zur Zweckbestimmung des Baus in: Ulbert, Forschungen, cit. (n. 14). Vgl. Sack, Gussone, Mollenhauer, Forschungen 1975−2006, cit. (n. 1), S. 75−80. 82. M. Gussone, M. Müller-Wiener, Resafa-Rusafat Hisham, Syria. ‘Long-term survival’ of an Umayyad residence – First results of the extended surface survey, in: R. Matthews, J. Curtis et al. (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April-16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London. Vol. 2. Ancient & Modern Issues in Cultural Heritage. Colour & Light in Architecture, Art & Material Culture. Islamic Archaeology, Wiesbaden, 2012, S. 569−584, bes. 572−574. Fig. 3. 83. Durch die Auswertung der geophysikalischen Prospektionen sind hierzu noch weitere Erkenntnisse zu erwarten, vgl. M. Gussone, Resafa – Rusafat Hisham, Syria. New Insights regarding the

Resafa im letzten Viertel des 6. und im 7. Jh. Für die Zeit zwischen dem Ende des 6. Jh. und dem Anfang des 8. Jh. haben wir nur sehr wenige Nachrichten über Resafa. Die Ausgrabung am Fundplatz (FP) 1 durch Michael Mackensen erbrachte exemplarisch archäologische Befunde, die Zerstörungen belegen und eine Unterbrechung der Besiedlung dieses Platzes vom Ende des 6. bis Anfang des 8. Jh. annehmen lassen.84 Auch aus den Schriftquellen sind für diese Zeit keine gesicherten Nachrichten über Resafa zu entnehmen.85 Es ist jedoch anzunehmen, dass auch Resafa von den Erdbeben, Epidemien und kriegerischen Ereignissen betroffen war, von denen Nordsyrien heimgesucht wurde. Die Erarbeitung der Bauphasenpläne für alle anstehenden Bauten durch Dietmar Kurapkat, erbrachte, dass die Bauten der blühenden, christlichen Pilgerstadt nach ihrer Fertigstellung wohl kaum länger als 30 bis 50 Jahre in Benutzung waren.86 Denn es sind bereits in der zweiten Hälfte des 6. Jh. verschiedene, starke Erdbeben in der Umgebung von Resafa belegt, die vermutlich für die deutlichen Zerstörungen in der Stadt verantwortlich sind.87 Nachzuweisen sind die Erdbebenschäden eindeutig durch die Art der Zerstörungen.88 In der Folge kam es zu dem behelfsmäßigen Einbau einer ‘Notkirche’ im Zentralbau89 und zur Aufgabe der Basilika B,90 die nicht wieder aufgebaut wurde. Sie wurde vielmehr settlement structures extra muros based on archaeological prospections, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), 25–29 April, 2016, OREA, Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna (im Druck). 84. Mackensen, Spätantike Anlage, cit. (n. 2), S. 62−63. 85. C.-P. Haase, s.v. Ruṣāfa, EI, 2.8, 1995, S. 630–631; KellnerHeinkele, Arabische Quellen, cit. (n. 10). Auch die von Kollwitz erwähnte Eroberung Resafas (616) durch Khosroe II ließ sich anhand der Quellen nicht nachvollziehen. 86. s. Beitrag D. Kurapkat, in: D. Sack, A. Brauchle, M. Gussone, D. Kurapkat, D. Spiegel (Hrsg.), MSD Jahrbuch 2007–09 (Masterstudium Denkmalpflege der TU Berlin, Heft 5), Berlin, 2009, S. 27; sowie in: D. Sack, A. Brauchle, M. Gussone, D. Kurapkat, A. Tuma (Hrsg.), MSD Jahrbuch 2009–11 (Masterstudium Denkmalpflege der TU Berlin, Heft 7), Berlin, 2011, S. 36. 87. z. B. um 557, 565, 581 und 587 sowie nach der Earthquake Data Base des U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Programs: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_circ.html (Auszug einer Zusammenstellung durch C. Hof 2014). 88. s. Beitrag I. Oberhollenzer und H. Shash, in: MSD Jahrbuch 2008–10, cit. (n. 79), S. 93; s. a. M. Gussone, H. Heister, W. Liebl, I. Oberhollenzer, D.Sack, H. Shash, Resafa, Syrien. Zentralbau. Terrestrisches Laserscanning (TLS) als Grundlage für Bauforschung und Schadenskartierung. Objektive Dokumentation oder/ und Analyse der Konstruktion?/!, in: K. Heine, K. Rheidt, F. Henze, A. Riedel (Hrsg.), 3D in der Historischen Bauforschung (Von Handaufmass bis High Tech, 3), Mainz, 2011, S. 209–18, bes. 207. 89. Kollwitz 1963, S. 330−331; Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 122, 127−128. 90. Sack, Große Moschee, cit. (n.  10), S. 25–26,  39; Brands, Bauornamentik, cit. (n. 9), S. 117.

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

131

Abb. 9. Resafa, Stadtmauer, Turm 36, Querschnitt mit Orthofoto, Blick nach Nordwest (C. Hof/ N. Erbe 2010).

Abb. 10. Resafa, Straßenbogen III am Nordtor. Ansicht von Norden, Grundriss und Rekonstruktionsvorschlag. Am Kapitell über der Säule befindet sich die Inschrift: „Siegreich ist der Glaube der Christen“ (nach Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57), S. 337. Abb. 7).

132

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

als Materialdepot genutzt, denn in der auch in Mitleidenschaft gezogenen Basilika A lassen sich ebenfalls Schäden und darauf folgende Baumaßmahnen feststellen. So wurden nach einer Zerstörung durch Erdbeben Instandsetzungsmaßnahmen am südlichen Seitenschiff durchgeführt und die Weitarkaden, die das Mittelschiff von den Seitenschiffen trennen, durch eingestellte kleinere Arkaden unterfangen, deren Säulen aus der Basilika B stammen.91 Die seit 541 bis in 8. Jh. nahezu zyklisch auftretenden Pestepidemien, verstärkt durch vorausgegangene Naturkatstrophen, sind ein weiterer Faktor, dessen ‘demographischen Folgen […] als verheerend einzuschätzen’ sind und denen ein erheblicher Anteil bei der Veränderungen der spätantiken Stadtkultur des Mittelmeerraums beigemessen wird.92 Inwieweit sich die wiederholten persischen Eroberungen Syriens konkret auf Resafa auswirkten, ist nicht sicher einzuschätzen. Allerdings ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass die sich über Jahrzehnte hinziehenden kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen dem Pilgerwesen und dem Handel nicht zuträglich waren.93 Für Resafa wird zudem von Nachteil gewesen sein, dass ihre wichtige Schutzmacht, die Ghassaniden/Jafniden, in Folge der Verbannung des al-Mundhir ab 582 geschwächt waren.94 Die muslimische Eroberung Syriens seit Anfang der 630er Jahre scheint hingegen kein wesentlicher Einschnitt gewesen zu sein. Inzwischen ist die Auffassung weitgehend akzeptiert, dass die im archäologischen Befund erkennbaren Zerstörungen in Syrien, nicht wie früher angenommen, durch die islamische Eroberung bedingt sind, sondern früher einsetzten; in frühislamischer Zeit erfolgte vielmehr ein Wiederaufleben der Siedlungstätigkeit.95 Die meisten Städte in Nordsyrien und in der Jazira wurden nicht gewaltsam eingenommen, sondern aufgrund von Verträgen um 637/638 91. Ulbert, Basilika, cit. (n. 15), S. 19−22, 118−127. 92. M. Meier, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians. Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n.Chr. (Hypomnemata, 147), Göttingen, 2003, bes. S. 328; s. a. P. Horden, Mediterranean Plague in the Age of Justinian, in M. Maas (Hrsg.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge/New York, 2005, S. 134−160, bes. 153−156. 93. Allgemein für Syrien und vermutlich auf Resafa übertragbar: G. Tate, Les Campagnes de la Syrie du Nord du IIc au VIIc siècle, un exemple d’expansion démographique et économique à la fin de l’Antiquité (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 133), Paris, 1992, S. 333−342; C. Foss, Syria in Transition, A. D. 550−750: An Archaeological Approach, in DOP, 51, 1997, S. 189−269; kürzlich: J. F. Haldon, Introduction, in: idem (Hrsg.), Money, power and politics in early Islamic Syria. A review of current debates, Farnham/Surrey, 2010, S. 1−11. 94. Zur Verbannung al-Mundirs: Shahid BASIC 1, S. 455−561, vgl. Fisher, Between empires, cit. (n. 12), S. 173−174. 95. A. Walmsley, Early Islamic Syria. An Archaeological Assessment, London, 2007, bes. S. 34−47.

übergeben, die christlichen Stämme behielten ihren Glauben bei.96 Allerdings sind für die zweite Hälfte des 7. Jh. in der Umgebung von Resafa kriegerische Auseinandersetzungen im Zuge des ersten und zweiten Bürgerkriegs (Siffin 657, Jabal Bishri ~690) sowie weitere Pestepidemien (684/685) belegt, die die Stadt zwar nicht direkt betrafen, aber allgemein für ein Klima der Unsicherheit sorgten und sicherlich die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung Resafas hemmten.97 Aus den genannten Gründen sind für das Ende des 6. und für das 7. Jh. wohl keine weiteren Neubaumaßnahmen oder ambitionierte Reparaturmaßnahmen, sondern vielmehr die Aufgabe von Siedlungsflächen anzunehmen. Die Wallfahrt scheint nicht gänzlich zum Erliegen gekommen zu sein, die Siedlung bestand weiter, wie Münzfunde in geringem Umfang belegen, der Zuspruch war jedoch höchst wahrscheinlich sehr viel geringer.98 Nach der Abwägung all dieser Fakten lässt sich diese Zeit und vor allem die zweite Hälfte des 7. Jh. nach Lutz Ilisch daher sicher als eine Phase der Stagnation, vermutlich sogar einer städtebaulichen Rückentwicklung Resafas bezeichnen, auch wenn seine Charakterisierung von Resafa ‘als weitgehend wüste Stadthülse ohne städtische Wirtschaft’ etwas überspitzt formuliert sein mag.99 96. C.-P. Haase, Untersuchungen zur Landschaftsgeschichte Nordsyriens in der Umayyadenzeit, Münster, 1975 (Diss. Hamburg 1972), bes. S. 106–107; s. a. St. Heidemann, Die Geschichte von ar-Raqqa/ar-Rafiqa – ein Überblick, in St. Heidemann, A. Becker (Hrsg.), Die islamische Stadt (Raqqa, 2), Mainz, 2003, S. 9−56, bes. 13−15. 97. G. Rotter, Die Umayyaden und der zweite Bürgerkrieg (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 45.3), Wiesbaden, 1982, passim, chronol. Übersicht s. S. 252. 98. M. Mackensen, Die spätantiken Fundmünzen, in Ulbert, Basilika, cit. (n. 15), S. 181−226. 99. s. L. Ilisch, Die islamischen Fundmünzen, in: Sack, Große Moschee, cit. (n. 10), S. 111−132, bes. 130. Hierzu kritisch, aber widersprüchlich G. Brands, Old and New Order- City and Territorium of Rusafa in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, in A. Borrut et al. (Hrsg.) Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abassides, Actes du colloque international de Paris, INHA, 18−20 octobre 2007, (BAT, 19), Turnhout, 2011, S. 59−76, bes. 62−66. Die von Brands angesprochenen Veränderungen bei Produktion und Handel von Keramik beziehen sich wohl vor allem auf das Ende des 6. Jh. und die erste Hälfte des 7. Jh., vor allem ist jedoch die Datierung oder Bestimmung der ‘Laufzeit’ der Keramik schwierig (Mackensen, Spätantike Anlage, cit. (n. 2), S. 45−47). Demgegenüber sind die numismatischen Befunde sehr viel präziser zu datieren, wodurch das ‘weitgehende Fehlen von Fundgut des 7. Jahrhunderts’ und ‘die Abwesenheit von Reformmünzen des Abd al-Malik aus den letzten Jahren des 7. Jh.’ doch schwerwiegender ins Gewicht fallen (s. Ilisch, Fundmünzen, cit. [n. 99], S. 130; in Übereinstimmung mit Mackensen, Spätantike Anlage, cit. [n. 2], S. 29−30. Anm. 98). Auch räumt Brands selber ein: ‘political or religious unrest and perhaps economic instability during the second half of the seventh or in the early eighth century’ (Brands, Old and New

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

Resafa-Rusafat Hisham Der geschilderte Siedlungsrückgang ist jedoch sicher dadurch belegt, dass von den arabischen Chronisten berichtet wurde, die Stadt (und somit auch die sie umgebenden Siedlungsareale) hätten in Ruinen gelegen, als sich der Umaiyaden-Kalif Hisham b.  Abd al-Malik entschied, in Resafa Residenz zu nehmen.100 Er errichtete die von ihm und seinem Hofstaat genutzten Bauten seiner Residenz, wohl auch mit Rücksicht auf die christliche Prägung der Stadt, außerhalb der Stadtmauern.101 Die Palastanlagen liegen in unterschiedlich dicht besiedelten Zonen des Residenzareals, wie die geophysikalischen Untersuchungen und die Aufnahme der an der Oberfläche sichtbaren Baustrukturen belegen. Diese Besiedlungszonen werden durch eine Wadi-Bucht, die sich östlich des in SüdNord-Richtung verlaufenden Hauptwadis gebildet hat, in zwei Bereiche unterteilt. Der nördliche Bereich zeigt eine wesentlich dichtere Bebauung als der südliche. In dem nördlichen Bereich liegt einer der größeren Paläste (FP 106), der durch seine Nähe zur Stadt hervorgehoben ist. Die südlich der Wadi-Bucht gelegene Zone zeigt dagegen eine weitgehend lockere Bebauung, in der sich ein weiterer großer Palast (FP 220) mit seinem im Süden anschließenden, bewässerten Gartenareal (FP 222/223) besonders abzeichnet.102 Der übrige Bereich der Nordzone der Residenz ist unterschiedlich dicht mit Gebäuden bebaut, die im Wesentlichen dem Qasr-Typ folgen. Einen weiteren Komplex von Bauten am östlichen Rand der Wadi-Bucht bildet der FP 199 mit den ihn umgebenden kleineren Bauten (FP 198–201). Order, S. 66), wobei für das frühe 8. Jh. bereits eine Konsolidierung der Herrschaft der Umaiyaden-Dynastie unter Abd al-Malik und seinen Nachfolgern anzunehmen ist. 100. Haase, Ruṣāfa, cit. (n. 85), S. 630–631; vgl. Kellner-Heinkele, Arabische Quellen, cit. (n. 10). Zum ‘Kollaps der Wirtschaft in den Neusiedelgebieten [Nordsyriens]’ im 7. Jh. s. a. H. Gaube, Die syrischen Wüstenschlösser. Einige wirtschaftliche und politische Gesichtspunkte zu ihrer Entstehung, in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 95.2, 1979, S. 182–209, bes. 192 mit Hinweisen auf Berichte der arabischen Historiker. 101. Zur Anlage der Residenz s. D. Sack, H. Becker, M. Stephani, F. Chouker, Resafa-Umland, Archäologische Geländebegehungen, geophysikalische Untersuchungen und digitale Geländemodelle zur Prospektion in Resafa – Rusafat Hisham. Bericht über die Kampagnen 1997–20012, in: Dam. Mitt., 14, 2004, S. 207−232, bes. 207−213. 102. Die Fundplätze (FP) 106 und 220 wurden von Ch. Konrad archäologisch untersucht und im Rahmen einer Dissertation bearbeitet, s. Ch. Konrad, Resafa/ar-Rusafa. Die Paläste von Rusafa Hišam. Ergebnisse der Untersuchung von zwei der frühislamischen Großbauten der Siedlung extra muros, in in: D. Sack, D. Spiegel, M. Gussone (Hrsg.), Wohnen − Reisen − Residieren. Herrschaftliche Repräsentation zwischen temporärer Hofhaltung und dauerhafter Residenz in Orient und Okzident (Berliner Beiträge zur Bauforschung und Denkmalpflege, 15), Petersberg, 2016, 139–151.

133

Der südliche Bereich des Residenzareals wird nach Süden durch mehrere Bauten gleicher Grundriss-Konzeption (rechteckige Anlagen mit einem oder mehreren Höfen) abgeschlossen. Für die Bewertung und die Interpretation des dichter bebauten nördlichen Teils der Residenz ist die Lage der Haupterschließungswege von besonderer Bedeutung. Vorläufige Überlegungen zur Durchwegung der Residenz wurden von Martin Gussone und Ulrike Siegel angestellt; den Verlauf der ursprünglichen Militärstraße (Abb. 12, Nr. 1) hatte zuvor bereits Christoph Konrad rekonstruiert.103 Diese liegt seit Beginn der Besiedlung des Platzes und der Anlage des Limes oberhalb des Hauptwadis, sozusagen im Trocknen (sie war also nicht durch temporäre Fluten beeinträchtigt), und führte auf das Südtor der Stadt zu. Auf Grundlage der Aufnahme der an der Oberfläche sichtbaren Baustrukturen und der Auswertung der Geophysik konnten die prinzipiellen Wegeverbindungen im Süden der Stadt festgestellt werden. Zudem wurden alle erkennbaren Eingänge der dort liegenden unterschiedlich großen Bauten kartiert. Dadurch konnten für den Nordteil der Residenz ein kleinteiliges Erschließungsnetz nachgewiesen werden.104 Dabei zeigte sich auch, dass es vermutlich in umaiyadischer Zeit zu einer Neuanlage oder Aufwertung einer weiteren Nord-Süd-Verbindung kam, die bis heute der wichtigste Verbindungsweg in Nord-Süd-Richtung geblieben ist (Abb. 12, Nr. 2); sie zweigt am Ostrand der Wadibucht von der früheren Militärstraße ab. Die neue Straße zeichnet sich dadurch aus, dass ihr Verlauf durch die Lage von mehreren, aneinandergereihten kleineren turmbewehrten Gebäuden mit nahezu quadratischen Grundrissen gekennzeichnet ist. Von dieser Straße wurde wohl auch der in der Nähe der Stadt gelegene Palast (FP 106) erschlossen. Die bauliche Konzeption des Nordteils der Residenz zeigt neben den genannten noch weitere, unterschiedlich große, wohl vielfach turmbewehrte Anlagen. Unter städtebaulichen Gesichtspunkten ist besonders zu bemerken, dass die umaiyadische Siedlung im südlichen Umland zwischen der Hangkante im Westen und der neuen Nord-Süd-Verbindung (Straße 2) eine deutlich höhere Bebauungsdichte aufweist, als die übrigen Bereiche und einer einheitlichen Ausrichtung zu folgen scheint. Zudem kam wohl auch der Geländeform eine besondere Bedeutung bei der Ausrichtung der Bauten zu. So wurden einige Bauten der Hangkante folgend angelegt. Diese Beobachtungen legen den Schluss nahe, dass die Siedlung gezielt angelegt wurde und wahrscheinlich in dem dichter bebauten Bereich zwischen der westlichen Hangkante und der neuen Nord-Süd-

103. s. Beitrag Ch. Konrad, in: MSD Jahrbuch 2007–09, cit. (n. 86), S. 32. 104. s. Beitrag von M. Gussone, D. Sack und U. Siegel, in MSD Jahrbuch 2007–09, cit. (n. 86), S. 30.

134

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 11. Resafa, Archäologische Karte, Residenz des Kalifen Hisham b. Abd. al-Malik, 2013.

Verbindung (Straße 2) einer übergeordneten Planung folgt.105 Die Neubewertung der Schriftquellen durch Martina Müller-Wiener erbrachte neue Erkenntnisse zu den in Resafa zu erwartenden Personengruppen und damit Anhaltspunkte zur Nutzung der Residenz.106 Die Verbindung von Schrift105. M. Gussone, Resafa – Ruṣāfat Hišām, Siedlung und Residenz. Ergebnisse zur relativen Chronologie der Siedlungsreste und ihre Auswirkung auf die Interpretation der Kalifenresidenz, in: Sack, Spiegel, Gussone, Wohnen − Reisen – Residieren, cit. (n. 102), 125–138. 106. Die Revision der Schriftquellen zu Hisham b. Abd al-Malik mit dem Ziel den Personenkreis identifizieren zu können, der sich

quellen und baulichem Befund ist noch vorzunehmen, doch lässt sich bereits sagen, dass in den verschiedenen Bauten unterschiedlicher Größe und Ausstattung die Familie des Kalifen, seine Söhne einschließlich des Thronfolgers sowie seine verzweigte Gefolgschaft und sein Hofstaat untergebracht waren. Dieser bestand aus einer vergleichsweise überzur Regierungszeit von Hisham in Resafa aufhielt, erfolgte im Rahmen eines TOPOI Fellowship, s. Müller-Wiener, Frühislamische Kalifenresidenz, cit. (n. 11); umfangreicher s. M. MüllerWiener, Zeremoniell und gebauter Raum in der frühislamischen Palastarchitektur, in: Sack, Spiegel, Gussone, Wohnen − Reisen – Residieren, cit. (n. 102), 51–63.

resafa / syrien. städtebauliche entwicklung zwischen kultort und herrschaftssitz

135

Abb. 12 Resafa/Rusafat Hisham, Plan des südlichen Umlandes bis zum ‚kleinen Wadi‘ Ausweisung der Fundplätze (FP) und Markierung der Gebäudezugänge (►) sowie der Hauptwegeverbindungen: Weg 1 = ältere Nord-Süd-Verbindung; Weg 2 = neuer Nord-Süd-Hauptweg, Weg 3 = Ost-West-Hauptweg. (Kombination von Aufnahmen aus der Ausgrabung 1952/54, den Surveys (1977/1983–86) und der Bauaufnahmen der Oberflächenbefunde sowie der Auswertung der Geophysik, M. Gussone/U. Siegel 2008).

schaubaren Anzahl an Würdenträgern, die unterschiedliche Funktionen hatten und den Siegelbewahrer, den Kämmerer, den Chef der Leibgarde und den Chef der Polizei sowie Schatzmeister, Sekretäre, Schreiber, Prinzenerzieher, Dichter und Gelehrte umfasste.107 Obwohl Hisham außerhalb der Stadt siedelte, war ihm wohl auch die Wiederbelebung der Stadt, die das Pilgerzentrum umgab, ein besonderes Anliegen. In seiner Regierungszeit lassen sich eine Reihe von großen, wichtigen und die Stadt verändernden Baumaßnahmen nachweisen. So ließ er die Große Moschee auf der Nordseite der Basilika A errichten, wodurch die wiedererstehende Stadt das religiöse und politische Zentrum der Kalifenresidenz wurde.108 Zudem wurden auf Hishams Anordnung auch die Wasserversorgungsanlagen mit den großen Zisternen und dem zugehörigen Kanalsystem sowie die ebenfalls zum Teil zerstörte Stadtmauer instand gesetzt, wie arabische Historiker berichten.109 Eine besondere Bedeutung hatte unter Hisham wohl auch die Förderung des Handels, was durch mehrere Basaranlagen belegt ist, die in umaiyadische Zeit datieren.110 Sie wurden 107. Müller-Wiener, Zeremoniell und gebauter Raum, cit. (n. 106). 108. Sack, Große Moschee, cit. (n.  10), bes. S. 155−160; vgl. Fowden, Barbarian Plain, cit. (n. 4), S. 174−182. 109. Kellner-Heinkele, Arabische Quellen, cit. (n. 10), S. 133−154; s. a. Sack, Gussone, Kurapkat, Vivid City, cit. (n. 25), bes. S. 264−268. 110. Untersuchungen hierzu erfolgen von M. Müller-Wiener im Rahmen des Projekts ‘Regionalismus und Interaktion: Keramische Traditionen als Indikator soziopolitischer und wirtschaftli-

in der Nachbarschaft der großen Kirchen errichtet, wie auf der Westseite der Basilika A und der Großen Moschee,111 vor der Basilika D112 und im Bereich des Zentralbaus an der Straße, die zum Nordtor führt.113 Mit diesen Maßnahmen gehen die Instandsetzung und der Ausbau der Straßen einher, deren Straßenquerschnitte – vergleichbar mit den in Palmyra, Latakia und Damaskus nachweisbaren Veränderungen – verkleinert wurden. 114 Zudem lassen sich Baumaßnahmen in den Ruinen der Basilika B115 und Basilika D,116 nachweisen, die von nun an als Wohnquartiere genutzt wurden. Im Zentralbau wurde nach ersten Zerstörungen durch Erdbeben die bereits erwähnte ‘Notkirche’ eingerichtet, die noch bis zum 9./10. Jh. in Be-

cher Transformation im frühislamischen Syrien und Irak’ (DFG). 111. Th. Ulbert, Beobachtungen im Westhofbereich der Großen Basilika von Resafa, in Dam. Mitt., 6, 1992, S. 403−416. 112. Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57), bes. S. 328−336. 113. Kollwitz, Wirth, Karnapp, Grabungen, cit. (n. 74), bes. S. 45−48. 114. E. Wirth, Die orientalische Stadt im islamischen Vorderasien und Nordafrika. Städtische Bausubstanz und räumliche Ordnung Wirtschaftsleben und soziale Organisation, Mainz, 2000, S. 29−48; vgl. A.  Raymond, Islamic City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views, in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 21.1, 1994, S. 3−18; Walmsley, Early Islamic Syria, cit. (n. 95), bes. S. 76−90. 115. J. Kollwitz, Grabungen, cit. (n. 36), S. 45−70, bes. 48; vgl. Beitrag D. Kurapkat, in MSD Jahrbuch 2007–09, cit. (n. 86), S. 27. 116. Westphalen, Ausgrabungen, cit. (n. 57), S. 349−358.

136

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

nutzung war.117 Insgesamt gesehen sind diese Veränderungen als deutliche Indizien dafür zu werten, dass Resafa unter dem umaiyadischen Kalif Hisham b. Abd al-Malik wieder zu einer blühenden Stadt wurde. Spätere Nutzung Der Tod des Kalifen Hisham b.  Abd al-Malik und die wenig später erfolgende Ablösung der umaiyadischen Dynastie durch die Abbasiden stellten eine deutliche Zäsur in der Geschichte Resafas dar. Die Kalifenresidenz im Umland der Stadt wurde – wie dem bei den Surveys registrierten Fundspektrum zu entnehmen ist – in weiten Teilen aufgegeben.118 Innerhalb der Stadt ist – wie anhand der Auswertungen der Grabungsfunde und aufgrund verschiedener Reparaturmaßnahmen geschlossen werden kann – von einer kontinuierlichen Besiedlung auszugehen.119 Die Siedlung in Resafa wurde im letzten Drittel des 13. Jh. nach dem ‘Mongolensturm’ endgültig aufgegeben.120 Vorher ist jedoch noch einmal für die Zeit der Aiyubiden im 12./13. Jh. sowohl innerhalb der Stadt als auch in ihrem Umland ein sehr deutliches Wiederaufleben der Siedlungsaktivitäten nachweisbar.121 Dieses letzte ‘Aufblühen’ der Pilgerstadt und ihr Fortbestehen als monumentale Ruine bis in die heutige

117. J. Kollwitz, Die Grabungen in Resafa Frühjahr 1959 und Herbst 1961, in AA, 1963, S. 328−360, bes. 330−332; A. Legner, Die Grabungen in Resafa IV. Islamische Keramik in Resafa, in Les Annales archéologiques de Syrie, 14, 1964, S. 98−108; vgl. Beitrag I. Salman, A. Schuhmann, in: MSD Jahrbuch 2007–09, cit. (n. 86), S. 37. 118. Gussone, Müller-Wiener, Long-term survival, cit. (n. 82), S. 569−584; vgl. Beitrag M. Gussone, M. Müller-Wiener, in MSD Jahrbuch 2010–12, cit. (n. 55), S. 27. Im Gegensatz zu früheren Auffassungen (s. Sack, Becker, Stephani, Chouker, ResafaUmland, cit. [n. 101], bes. S. 210–215) bedeutete dies jedoch nicht das Ende der Siedlungstätigkeit extra muros um ca. 800 n. Chr. 119. Zur Kultkontinuität der Basilika A s. Ulbert, Basilika, cit. (n.  15), bes. S. 147−154; zur Kontinuität der Siedlung intra muros s. exemplarisch P. Knötzele, Resafa: Die Gefäßkeramik der Stadtgrabung 1997–1999, in F. Bloch, V. Daiber, P. Knötzele (Hrsg.), Studien zur spätantiken und islamischen Keramik. Ḫirbat al-Minya − Baalbek − Resafa (Orient-Archäologie, 18), Rahden/ Westfalen, 2006, S. 167−208. 120. Sack, Große Moschee, cit. (n. 10), bes. S. 159–160; Ilisch, Fundmünzen, cit. (n.  99), bes. S. 131–132; Kellner-Heinkele, Arabische Quellen, cit. (n. 10), bes. S. 151–153. S. a. L. Ilisch, Geschichte der Artuqidenherrschaft von Mardin zwischen Mamluken und Mongolen 1260−1410 AD (Diss. Universität Münster/Westfalen, 1985), bes. S. 49–57. 121. Extra muros s. Gussone, Müller-Wiener, Long-term survival, cit. (n.  82), bes. S. 574–576; intra muros s. L.  Korn, Resafa: Fundmünzen der Stadtgrabungen 1997−1999, in: Dam. Mitt., 14,  2004, S. 197−206, bes. 199; Knötzele, Gefäßkeramik, cit. (n. 119), bes. S. 167−169. 195−203.

Abb. 13. Resafa, Große Moschee (nach Sack, Große Moschee, cit. (n. 10), Taf. 75).

Zeit sind ebenfalls Gegenstand unserer Forschungen,122 jedoch nicht dieses Beitrags, der schwerpunktmäßig der Entwicklung von Resafa von der Spätantike bis zum frühen Islam gewidmet ist. In diesem Zeitraum sind vor allem zwei Epochen konstitutiv für die Geschichte des Ortes. Seit der Spätantike ist Resafa als berühmter Kultort ein Anziehungspunkt von überregionaler Ausstrahlung. In der späten Umaiyadenzeit ist es die Funktion als kalifales Herrschaftszentrum, die Resafa weitreichende Bedeutung verleiht. Diese außerordentliche Geltung des Ortes manifestierte sich, trotz der abgelegenen Lage Resafas, in ehrgeizigen städtebaulichen Projekten und anspruchsvollen Bauten.

122. D. Sack, Resafa-Sergiupolis/Rusafat Hisham – neue Forschungsansätze, in Bartl, Moaz, Residences, Castles, Settlements, cit. (n. 1), S. 31−44; s. a. Beiträge Sack, Gussone, in: MSD Jahrbuch 2012–14, cit. (n. 18), S. 40−43; die Beiträge M. Gussone, A. Mollenhauer sowie T. Horn und A. Mollenhauer, ibidem, S. 38−60; jeweils mit weiterführender Bibliographie.

L’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de Zénobia-Halabiya : résultats de la mission franco-syrienne (2006–10) Sylvie Blétry*

Urbanism and settlement at the city of Zenobia-Halabiya : results of the Syrian-French mission (2006–10) The city of Zenobia is well known through the texts of Procopius, and from the studies of Jean Lauffray in the middle of the last century. We present here the contribution of the Syrian-French team, which worked during five seasons on the late proto-Byzantine and early Umayyad occupation of the site. We mainly conducted soundings and excavations on three sectors intra muros, revealing a part of the cardo and its colonnade. The new sectors reveal that in later periods of the city, an artisanal or commercial centre, probably intended to supply the soldiers of the local garrison, took over the socalled forum. A public building appeared near the north gate, which could have been a guard-room or a toll-house. In the southern part of the city, we excavated a late block of domestic dwellings, whose plan remains original in the region. We also studied the fortification of the city, and are now able to demonstrate that some of Procopius’s assertions are reliable. (Author)

Le terme de « ville » s’applique en réalité assez mal au site de Zénobia-Halabiya (Fig. 1 et 2) ; celui de « ville-forteresse » sur la moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate, qui est celui qu’avait adopté Jean Lauffray, le premier fouilleur du site, conviendrait sans doute mieux à cette agglomération d’une douzaine d’hectares. Notre connaissance du site est avant tout tributaire de la description de Procope1 et des travaux in situ de Jean Lauffray, effectués de 1944 à 1945, et publiés en 1983 et 1991.2 Par la suite, la mission syro-française, qui a pu travailler sur le site de 2006 à 2010, avant d’être interrompue par les tragiques événements que l’on sait, a tenté d’apporter sa contribution à l’étude de l’urbanisme et de l’habitat du site (les interventions de la mission sont indiquées avec leur no de secteurs sur la Fig. 3) ; c’est l’objet de la présente communication. Nous examinerons donc successivement les principaux secteurs où nous avons pratiqué des fouilles ou des sondages

* Université Paul-Valéry, Montpellier – EA 4424, C.R.I.S.E.S. 1. Procope, De Ædificiis, II, VIII, 8–25 ; le site est aussi évoqué dans les Guerres, II, V, 4–7. 2. J. Lauffray, Halabiyya-Zénobia, Place forte du limes oriental et la haute Mésopotamie au VIe siècle, t. I, Les duchés frontaliers de Mésopotamie et les fortifications de Zénobia (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 119), Paris, 1983 (abrégé infra en Lauffray I) et t. II, L’architecture publique, privée et funéraire (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, 138), Paris, 1991 (abrégé infra en Lauffray II).

intra muros,3 et dont l’objectif était de fournir de nouvelles données sur ces questions. Nouvelles données sur les fortifications D’après Procope, la ville aurait été fondée par Zénobie de Palmyre à la fin du IIIe s. ap. J.-C.,4 mais elle aurait été en grande partie à la fois réhabilitée, agrandie et restructurée par Justinien. La fiabilité du texte de Procope est un sujet qui a déjà fait couler beaucoup d’encre : elle a été souvent mise en doute, mais parfois confirmée.5 J’ai tenté de démontrer 3. Les prospections des nécropoles, situées au nord et au sud du site, ont fait l’objet d’une première publication (S. Blétry, Les nécropoles de Halabiya-Zénobia, premiers résultats des observations et prospections menées en 2009 et 2012, in Syria, 89, 2012, pp. 305–30) et seront présentées en détail dans S. Blétry (dir.), Zénobia-Halabiya, Cinq années de recherches de la mission syro-française (2006–2010), Cuadernos Mesopotamicos 6, La Coruña a Ferrol, 2015. 4. Ni les travaux de Lauffray ni les nôtres n’ont pu confirmer l’existence de vestiges urbains datant de cette occupation romaine présumée. Seuls pourraient éventuellement en témoigner les tombeaux-tours des nécropoles, mais nous avons proposé, à la suite de Jean Lauffray, d’y reconnaître des tombes légèrement postérieures : Blétry, Les nécropoles de Halabiya-Zénobia, cit. (n. 3). 5. Voir notamment J.-M. Carrié, N. Duval, Ch. Roueché (dir.), Le texte de Procope et les réalités (AntTard, 8), Turnhout, 2001. Et sur le cas particulier de Dara, en Mésopotamie : B. Croke, J. Crow, Procopius and Dara, in JRS, 73, 1983, pp. 143–59, qui

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 137-152. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111893

138

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Carte de la moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate.

Fig. 2 Vue de Zénobia-Halabiya depuis la rive est de l’Euphrate (octobre 2010).

l’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de zénobia-halabiya...

139

Fig. 3 Plan général des secteurs d’intervention.

par deux fois6 que, même s’il s’agit d’une exception, la la remettent en cause. Aussi : M. Whitby, Procopius and Dara, in Ph. Freeman, D. Kennedy (dir.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East, Proceedings of a colloquium held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986 (BAR Int. Ser., 297), Oxford, 1986, pp. 717–35 ; idem, Procopius and the Developpment in Upper Mesopotamia, ibid., pp. 737–83. Whitby juge moins sévèrement le témoignage de Procope. 6. S. Blétry, Le De Ædificiis de Procope, La propagande à l’aune de la réalité. L’exemple de Zénobia-Halabiyé, in Colloque « La fabrique de l’événement », Montpellier, Université Paul Valéry, 18–20 septembre 2008 : http://crises.upv.univ-montp3.fr/equipe/ chercheurs-et-enseignants-chercheurs-rattaches-a-titreprincipal/ archeologie/bletry/ et sur HAL :https://hal.archives-ouvertes. fr/. Eadem, S. Blétry, Si vis pacem, para bellum, La politique de paix de Justinien avec l’empire perse. Étude d’un cas historique et archéologique : Zénobia, in A. Coppolani (dir.), La fabrique de la paix. Acteurs processus et mémoires, Actes du Colloque international La fabrique de la paix, Montpellier 2-4 Novembre 2013, Presses Universitaires de l’Université Laval, Québec, 2015, 45-66.

description, extrêmement précise, de ce site par Procope pouvait être considérée comme relativement crédible, bien qu’un certain nombre d’éléments mériterait une vérification sur le terrain. C’est en tout cas ce que nous avons pu montrer, par une série de sondages, à propos du déplacement de la branche nord des remparts et de l’agrandissement de la ville, que mentionne Procope et qu’il attribue à Justinien7. En suivant en cela les hypothèses de Lauffray, nous avons exploré, lors de nos campagnes de 2006 à 2008, un secteur (« secteur 1 ») situé à l’ouest de la tour 25 sur la branche du rempart qui longe l’Euphrate (Fig. 3 et 4). Sous un habitat, aux vestiges assez ténus, car très proches de la surface, et qui remontent au plus tôt à la seconde moitié du VIe s., nous avons en effet découvert sur une dizaine de mètres de longueur, les restes d’un massif de fondation, large d’environ 5,60 m, que nous interprétons comme celui de la branche nord du premier rempart de la ville (Fig. 5a). Ces fondations sont, en 7. Procope, De Ædificiis, II, VIII, 19–24.

140

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 4. Plan du secteur 1.

l’état, conservées sur une hauteur d’environ 1 m. Elles sont constituées d’un blocage de petits fragments de gypse et de basalte liés dans un plâtre de gypse, et sont soigneusement enduites, au moins sur leur paroi sud, d’une fine couche de plâtre de gypse bien lissée. L’élévation du rempart a, en toute logique, disparu, puisque les blocs qui la constituaient ont dû être remployés pour construire le nouveau rempart nord quelque mètres plus loin. Par ailleurs, ainsi que l’avait remarqué Lauffray, la tour 25, qui devait originellement se trouver à l’angle des courtines est et nord du rempart qui entourait primitivement la ville, témoigne de ces transformations et de l’augmentation de la surface de la ville. Au-delà de ce bastion vers le nord en effet, la courtine orientale présente une largeur supérieure à celle que présente le reste de l’ouvrage au sud de ce même bastion (3,40 m contre 2,60 m) (Fig. 5b) ; elle n’en serait donc pas contemporaine. Par ailleurs, la courtine n’est pas

chaînée à la construction du mur nord du bastion, alors que c’est le cas sur son flanc sud, comme entre le bastion 26 (qui est devenu le nouvel angle nord-est de la fortification après les ajouts attribués à Justinien) et la nouvelle courtine nord.8 Enfin, la nouvelle courtine vient partiellement boucher une meurtrière appartenant à un premier état du bastion, sur la face nord de celui-ci, à l’époque où celle-ci aurait entièrement donné sur l’extérieur de la ville. Dans son premier tome, Lauffray a fourni un relevé de ce bastion 25, qu’il corrige dans son second volume,9 en restituant la porte d’accès du bastion non pas à l’ouest, mais sur l’avant-corps 8. Lauffray II, pp. 109 et 111, et fig. 34–35. Des dégagements effectués par le Direction des Antiquités de Deir Ezzor en 2008 viennent confirmer les hypothèses de Lauffray, qu’il avait laissées en pointillés sur ces deux plans. 9. Lauffray I, p. 110 et fig. 33 et Lauffray II, p. 23 et fig. 7.

l’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de zénobia-halabiya...

141

Fig. 5a et b. Massif de fondation des anciens remparts et face nord du bastion 25.

sud, ce qui se justifie et s’explique parfaitement dans l’hypothèse où ce bastion aurait formé l’angle du rempart primitif. Nous avons aussi pu ajouter certaines remarques sur les techniques de construction des fortifications, apportées grâce à l’expertise de Jean-Claude Bessac, qui se fonde aussi sur des comparaisons avec des ouvrages contemporains de la région.10 Les branches sud et nord du rempart présentent des différences de conception architecturale notables, que Lauffray avait d’ailleurs déjà soulignées. La première, plus ancienne, ne bénéficie pas des avancées techniques et des caractères innovants que l’on remarque dans la seconde et que l’on peut mettre sur le compte d’architectes venus vraisemblablement de la capitale de l’empire et de maîtres d’œuvres talentueux et expérimentés. Les réalisations du rempart nord revêtent, de plus, un caractère plus esthétique que fonctionnel ; en cela, elles s’apparentent à une construc10. Blétry, Zénobia-Halabiya, Cinq années de recherches, cit. (n. 3), chapitre 11.

tion destinée à renforcer le prestige d’un commanditaire impérial. Voilà qui coïncide bien avec les indications de Procope, selon lequel les maîtres d’œuvre désignés par l’empereur auraient été Jean de Byzance et Isidore de Milet le jeune.11 On peut en outre se demander quel intérêt aurait eu ce dernier à ne mentionner que le rempart nord parmi les réalisations de Justinien, lui qui s’empresse tant de fois de mettre au crédit de l’empereur des constructions qu’il n’a ni financées, ni commandées, ni entreprises. Enfin, si l’on suit encore Procope, l’inclusion de la citadelle dans le système de fortification de la ville induit de facto la destruction d’un ancien rempart ouest, rendu caduc par la protection occidentale désormais assurée par l’introduction de citadelle dans le système de fortification. Cet ancien rempart devait se raccorder à la branche sud à l’emplacement qu’avait pressenti Lauffray, entre les tours 1 et 2, à un emplacement situé en forte pente, où il n’avait 11. Procope, De Ædificciis, II, VIII, 25.

142

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Restitution conjecturale des anciens remparts.

pu effectuer de relevés précis en raison de la difficulté d’accès à ce secteur de la courtine (en A sur la Fig. 6). Nos observations ont pu confirmer qu’un mur perpendiculaire s’était bien, dans un premier temps, raccordé au rempart sud. Nous avons aussi pu noter la présence, au pied de la colline occidentale (en B sur la Fig. 6), de certains blocs en grand appareil, qui sont encore très vraisemblablement en place, et intégrés à la rampe d’accès du « complexe K » de Lauffray. Ils appartiennent sans doute à la branche primitive de la courtine occidentale. Sous réserve de plusieurs sondages de vérification que nous n’avons pu mener avant la fin de notre dernière campagne en 2010, il est possible dès lors de proposer un tracé approximatif et conjectural des premiers remparts protobyzantins de la ville (Fig. 6).

Un habitat tardif sur les fondations de l’ancien rempart (secteur 1) Les structures dégagées dans le secteur 1 (Fig. 4) appartiennent à habitat domestique qui est aménagé à l’emplacement de l’ancien rempart que nous venons d’évoquer et recouvrent le massif de fondation qui en subsiste :12 il s’agit, au sud, de deux pièces, dont nous ne connaissons pas toutes les limites, et d’un réduit dallé. Contre le seuil qui sépare les deux pièces, une fosse, aménagée dans la pièce 2, contenait un abondant matériel céramique (jattes, jarres et amphores) datable de la seconde moitié du VIe s. au VIIe s. Cette chronologie confirme le fait que le rempart primitif est effecti12. Il est sans doute à mettre en rapport avec le complexe G que Lauffray avait – très partiellement – relevé (voir Lauffray II, p. 141).

l’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de zénobia-halabiya...

143

Fig. 7. Plan du secteur 7.

vement antérieur à cette période. Immédiatement au nord du massif de fondation, circule un drain (CN 1048) destiné à évacuer les eaux qui proviennent des quartiers occidentaux du site établis sur forte pente. Selon nos hypothèses, il aurait été mis en place après la destruction du premier rempart, peut-être à l’emplacement d’un fossé qui le longeait. Par la suite, sur le dallage de gypse qui le recouvre, on a installé un grand tannur (FR 7099). L’ensemble de ces structures sont à mettre en relation avec d’autres pièces qui sont installées en spoliant en partie le portique qui longe l’édifice révélé par la fouille de notre secteur 7 et dont nous avons mis au jour plusieurs murs (MR 7155 et 7156). Un bâtiment public contre le nouveau rempart nord (secteur 7) Au nord du drain, nous avons en effet dégagé un bâtiment public en bordure du cardo (« secteur 7 », Fig. 3, 7 et 8), situé à proximité immédiate de la porte nord de la ville et donc quasiment contre le nouveau rempart : une petite rue, perpendiculaire au cardo, longe celui-ci et le sépare de la fortification. Ce bâtiment est composé d’au moins deux pièces et d’un espace dallé (pièce 3, que nous avions inter-

prétée dans un premier temps comme une « cour »)13, entre la cardo et la route construite dans les années 1980. C’est cette dernière qui a constitué, par la force des choses, la limite orientale de notre fouille et nous avons dû nous résigner à renoncer à explorer d’éventuelles pièces situées plus à l’est (nous en avons trouvé l’amorce à l’est de la pièce 1). Les murs de ce bâtiment étaient construits en brique crue sur un solin de petits blocs de basalte. Ils étaient régulièrement consolidés par des blocs de grand appareil de gypse14 et enduits, sur leur paroi interne, au plâtre de gypse. De nombreux fragments de plaques de gypse dépoli et translucide, trouvés dans l’effondrement de l’élévation en brique des murs indiquent la présence de fenêtres vitrées. La pièce 3 est dallée de grandes briques cuites carrées (environ 40 cm de côté). Dans la partie orientale de cette pièce, une large banquette, qui s’appuie contre le mur, est, elle aussi, recouverte du même type de dallage. Le mur oriental qui clôt la pièce 3 ne comporte donc, fort logiquement, pas de traces de seuil, 13. Lauffray a mis au jour d’autres espaces dallés de ce type dans les domus autour du forum (Lauffray I, p. 139 (pièce L1 et L2), p. 140 (couloir L4), et p. 141). Selon lui, tous ces espaces étaient couverts et il ne s’agit jamais de cours. 14. Sauf le mur 7040–7096 qui ferme la pièce 2 au sud.

144

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 8. vues du secteur 7 depuis le nord et l’est.

mais une pièce devait s’inscrire dans son prolongement à l’est, parallèlement à la pièce 2 et à celle qui communiquait avec la pièce 1, dont les vestiges, à l’est, se trouvent sous la route moderne. Le mode de construction de ce bâtiment est très similaire à celui que Lauffray indique pour les grandes maisons situées aux abords du forum, sauf en ce qui concerne la toiture (en tuile, pour ces dernières) : nous n’en avons pas d’indices pour notre bâtiment, si ce n’est les traces d’une fine poutraison dont nous avons trouvé des fragments carbonisés. Les trois pièces sont bordées à l’ouest d’un portique qui donnait sur le cardo ; il permet l’accès aux pièces 2 et 3 (par deux seuils construits 7011–12 et 7028), tandis qu’on ne pouvait entrer dans la pièce 1 que depuis la pièce dallée (seuil 7057). À l’ouest de ce portique, nous avons dégagé le stylobate (SB 70002) qui supportait la colonnade orientale

du cardo.15 Le portique, au sud du secteur, est spolié par l’habitat tardif du secteur 1 qui a pris place au-dessus des fondations du rempart primitif. Contre les murs ouest des pièces 1 et 3 ont été aménagées des banquettes16 et surtout deux fosses (respectivement US 7018 et 7013). Celle de la pièce 1 (7018) contenait des fragments de verre qui appar15. En demeurent encore les fragments de deux colonnes de gypse effondrées et de plusieurs chapiteaux ; les uns comme les autres étaient sans doute destinés, après l’effondrement du bâtiment et de la colonnade, au grand four à chaux que nous avons retrouvé près du rempart oriental, contre la route moderne. 16. Ce sont, dans la pièce 1, les structures SB 7051 et 7074. Ne figure plus sur le plan une troisième banquette (SB 7021), en forme de L qui s’inscrivait dans l’angle sud-ouest de la pièce 3 et que nous avons démontée au cours de la fouille.

l’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de zénobia-halabiya...

145

Fig. 9. Plan du secteur 6.

tiennent à la fin de la période byzantine ou à l’époque de transition byzantino-omeyyade. Elle renfermait aussi trois monnaies byzantines,17 datées des règnes d’Anastase et de Justinien, et dont l’usage s’est sans doute prolongé bien audelà : elles ne fournissent donc qu’un terminus post quem. Le matériel céramique, lui aussi, est peu discriminant : il appartient à une dernière phase d’occupation allant du VIIe s. aux époques islamiques, et peut être daté de l’époque de transition entre la fin de la période byzantine et la période omeyyade, époques pour lesquelles les formes et les pâtes ne sont pas réellement différenciées. Mais aucun matériel céramique ne correspond à la période de mise en place du secteur et de sa colonnade qui, en toute logique, est plus ancienne : on voit mal en effet comment la prolongation du cardo et l’aménagement de ce bâtiment auraient pu intervenir à la fin de la période byzantine, voire après la prise de la ville par les Perses ou encore après la conquête arabe. La situation de ce bâtiment, contre la porte nord de la ville, nous invite à lui attribuer une fonction de corps de 17. Catalogue des monnaies in Blétry (dir.), Zénobia-Halabiya, Cinq années de recherches, cit. (n. 3), chapitre 9 (par O. Callot), no 4, 11, 12 et 22.

garde ou d’octroi. Nous émettons l’hypothèse qu’avec l’habitat domestique qui le jouxte au sud (notre secteur 1 et le complexe G de Lauffray), il illustre la phrase de Procope, qui indique que, grâce au déplacement du rempart nord, Justinien « élargit considérablement la ville de Zénobia », car « dans ce secteur les bâtiments de la cité se trouvaient fort à l’étroit et cette situation désolait les habitants de la ville ».18 De nouveaux aménagements, publics ou privés, semblent donc bien avoir pris place dans ce quartier après que l’ancien rempart eut été rasé. Nouvelles données sur la zone du forum (secteur 6) Nous avons également fait porter nos recherches sur la zone que Lauffray identifiait comme étant le forum, autour duquel il avait dégagé plusieurs maisons « aristocratiques ». Dans cet espace, qui aurait dû se trouver logiquement vide de tout aménagement, nous avons mis au jour un ensemble d’au moins 8 pièces reliées entre elles par des espaces découverts (secteur 6, Fig. 3, 9 et 10). 18. Procope, De Ædificiis, II, VIII, 19–20.

146

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 10. Vue du secteur 6 depuis l’est.

Là aussi, les murs sont construits en briques crues ; ils sont épais de 0,90 m (briques de deux modules, l’un carré de 50 cm de côté et l’autre de 50 × 30 cm) et sont montées sur quelques assises de moellons (de basalte en majorité) bien appareillés. C’est d’ailleurs la mise en œuvre que Lauffray a signalée pour la plupart des bâtiments du site qu’il a dégagés, hormis les remparts et les églises, qui sont, eux, construits en grand appareil. Les sols sont, en général, en terre battue. Seule la pièce 6, qui était sans doute située en sous-sol, car on y accède par un escalier, est dallée de briques de même dimension que celles de la pièce 3 du secteur 7. Bien que cet ensemble soit situé à un niveau inférieur à celui des domus byzantines découvertes par Lauffray autour du « forum », le matériel qui y a été retrouvé nous inviterait à le dater d’une phase légèrement postérieure, celle de la période de transition byzantino-omeyyade. Le terrain aurait été décaissé par rapport au niveau des habitations d’époque byzantine, pour installer ce complexe. Cet ensemble comprenait de nombreux aménagements tels que des fours, des tannurs, des aires grossièrement dallées destinées aux préparations culinaires et peut-être un bassin dans la pièce 1 (US 6229). Un nombre très important de jarres, de cruches et d’amphores vinaires ont été retrouvées (dont certaines quasiment entières) dans la

pièce 2. En outre, dans tout le secteur, de nombreux objets métalliques, en particulier des pièces d’armement (fragment d’armure, pointes de flèche, couteaux, fragments de boucle de sac ou de ceinture) et des objets liés au tissage (des pesons notamment) nous font penser à un ensemble lié à l’artisanat et/ou à l’approvisionnement des troupes, ce qui ne serait pas étonnant dans une ville de garnison. La fouille de ce secteur n’était pas achevée lors de notre dernière campagne et, depuis lors, c’est la zone du site qui a le plus souffert du pillage et des destructions… Une interprétation plus assurée ce secteur, qui n’était déjà pas très facile, est peut-être définitivement compromise. Sondages et fouilles sur un îlot d’habitat domestique Le dernier secteur que nous avons fouillé intra muros est un îlot d’habitat domestique, situé au bas de la pente vers l’Euphrate et au sud du site urbain (secteur 3) (Fig. 3, 11 et 12). Avant nos dégagements, cet îlot formait un petit tell qui s’inscrivait dans un alignement de vestiges d’apparence similaire quoique moins étendus, d’orientation grossièrement parallèle au rempart sud. Cet îlot est divisé dans toute sa longueur en deux parties, dans le sens nord-sud, par un long

l’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de zénobia-halabiya...

147

Fig. 11. Plan du secteur 3.

mur (MR 3006–3009–3028) qui ne s’interrompt qu’en deux endroits par des seuils. Ceux-ci ouvrent sur des cours (pièce 22 et au-delà de la pièce 16). Notre première hypothèse, au vu de l’orientation de l’îlot, qui correspond peu ou prou à l’église sud-est du site, était qu’il s’agissait d’un habitat qui aurait pu lui être contemporain. La fouille a révélé qu’il s’agissait en réalité d’un habitat plus tardif, daté une fois encore, au plus tôt de la fin de la période protobyzantine pour le niveau le plus ancien, alors qu’il semble bien que l’église puisse être datée du règne d’Anastase, avec des réfections du VIe s., et que les dernières phases du secteur 3 appartiennent à l’époque de transition byzantino-omeyyade. Nous avons exploré cet îlot sous forme de sondages stratigraphiques dans sa partie orientale (secteur 3A), alors que nous l’avons dégagé de façon extensive à l’ouest du long mur nord-sud (MR 3006–3009–3028) (secteur 3B). Les sondages dans le secteur 3A ont montré une occupation en trois phases, entrecoupées de phases de nivellement. Quoi qu’il en soit, l’orientation des murs reste la même, même s’ils n’ont pas toujours été reconstruits exactement au même emplacement au cours des différentes périodes. La construction reste sommaire : les sols sont constitués d’une mince couche de plâtre remontant de quelques centimètres sur la base des murs, et les murs eux-mêmes sont élevés en brique crue sur quelques assises de pierres basaltique ou de gypse de tout venant ; ils comportent en outre de nombreux spolia. En tout état de cause, leur mise en œuvre est bien moins soignée que ce que nous avons remarqué pour les secteurs 6 et 7 et s’apparente davantage à l’habitat tardif du secteur 1.

L’usage de cet habitat est, à n’en pas douter, domestique. Des petits foyers sont placés dans les pièces 12, 13, 17 et 19 et dans la pièce 1 subsistait un tannur (Fig. 13) qui n’avait jamais servi. La cour 11 comportait deux petits fours pour une petite métallurgie à usage domestique (Fig. 14, US 3207 et 3231). C’est avant tout la forme et l’organisation interne de cet îlot qui nous interroge le plus, ainsi que l’économie de ces structures. Cet îlot ne s’apparente en effet à aucun habitat contemporain de la région, qu’il soit urbain ou rural. Grâce à l’emplacement des seuils, on remarque que les pièces semblent s’organiser deux à deux,19 et les deux ou trois cours20 sont placées à la périphérie de l’îlot. Par ailleurs, on note que la pièce 19 a une surface environ double de la surface des autres pièces. Une de nos hypothèse est que cette pièce aurait pu être utilisée pour des activités communes par une famille au sens large du terme alors que des familles cellulaires auraient pu occuper chacune deux pièces. Il existe des cas d’organisation similaires – bien qu’agencés différemment : dans la steppe à l’ouest de l’Euphrate, « le minimum spatial nécessaire à une unité familiale » semble correspondre là aussi à un ensemble de deux pièces conti19. On remarque ainsi que les pièces 1 et 2, les pièces 4 et 5, les pièces 13 et 14, les pièces 15 et 16, les pièces 18 et 21 sont reliées entre elles par des seuils et que seule l’une d’entre elles ouvre sur l’extérieur. 20. L’espace 11 et ceux qui sont situés à l’est de la pièce 16 et de la pièce 22.

148

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 12. Vues des secteurs 3A et 3B.

guës.21 Cependant les unités à pièce unique dans notre secteur 3 qui ouvrent uniquement sur l’extérieur (7 et 8 en secteur 3A et 12, 17, et 20 en secteur 3B) ont cependant elles aussi une fonction domestique (présence de fours, de calage de récipients) : elles sont la marque d’une occupation de ce secteur par une catégorie sociale extrêmement modeste. La pièce 22, quant à elle, au vu de son aspect très précaire, n’était sans doute qu’un appentis. Le plan des îlots du quartier sud de Halabiya reste cependant difficilement comparable à celui des installations rurales ou semi-rurales des villages qu’on a pu étudier ailleurs, que 21. C. Duvette, Habitat byzantin dans la steppe : maisons et villages de terre, in P.-L. Gatier, B. Geyer, M.-O. Rousset, (dir.), Entre nomades et sédentaires, prospections en Syrie du Nord et Jordanie du Sud (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient, 55 ; Conquête de la Steppe, 3), Lyon, 2010, pp. 175–206, ici pp. 195–96.

ce soit dans le Hauran,22 dans la steppe centrale de Syrie,23 dans les villages du massif calcaire de Syrie du Nord,24 ou 22. Voir notamment A. Guerin, Organisation de l’espace habité en milieu rural à la période Islamique, Msayké, un village dans le Léja (Syrie du Sud), in C. Castel, M. al-Maqdissi, F. Villeneuve (dir.), Les Maisons dans la Syrie Antique du IIIe millénaire à l’époque aux débuts de l’Islam, pratiques et représentations de l’espace domestique, Actes du Colloque International de Damas, 27–30 Juin 1992, Beyrouth, 2007, pp. 195–202. 23. Duvette, Habitat byzantin, cit. (n. 21). 24. Un état de la question est proposé par P.-L Gatier, Les villages du Proche-Orient protobyzantin : Nouvelles perspectives (1994–2004), in J. Lefort, C. Morrisson, J.-P. Sodini (dir.), Les villages dans l’Empire Byzantin (IVe–XVe siècle) (Réalités byzantines, 11), Paris, 2005, pp. 104–19. On peut se référer aussi aux synthèses de : G. Tchalenko, Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord (BAH, 50), Paris, 1953–1958 ; de G. Tate, 1992 : G. Tate,

l’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de zénobia-halabiya...

149

Fig. 13. Tannur de la pièce 1 du secteur 3.

dans la province d’Arabie,25 où semble prédominer une structuration autour d’enclos destinés au bétail ou de vastes cours, autour desquelles se répartissent les habitations proprement dites. Les différences sont également flagrantes en ce qui concerne la disposition urbanistique de ces habitats, disposition liée davantage à la topographie qu’à la contrainte d’un plan organisé. À Halabiya, où le contexte est beaucoup plus urbain, on ne retrouve aucune de ces caractéristiques. Nous Les campagnes de la Syrie du nord, du IIe au VIIe s. (BAH, 133) Paris, 1992 ; J.-.P. Sodini, La contribution de l’archéologie à la connaissance du monde byzantin (IVe–VIIe siècle), in DOP, 47, 1993, pp. 139–84. 25. Pour Umm al Rasas : B. de Vries, Continuity and the Change in the Urban Character of the Southern Hauran from the 9th Century  : The Archaeological Evidence at Umm Al-Jimal, in MeditArch, 13, 2000, pp. 39–45. Pour les villages de Batanée : P. Clauss-Balty (dir.), Hauran III, L’habitat dans les campagnes de Syrie du Sud aux époques classique et médiévale (BAH, 181), Beyrouth, 2008.

avons affaire à un habitat au plan beaucoup plus concentré, qui a en outre conservé, même à cette époque, une tradition urbanistique sans doute d’origine byzantine, où l’organisation se fait selon un plan rigoureux, voire orthonormé. Les points de comparaison en milieu urbain stricto sensu ne sont pas si nombreux pour cette époque,26 mais on y 26. Kennedy relève cependant la vigueur et la prospérité des installations de la haute époque musulmane, qu’on a longtemps minimisée : H. Kennedy, From Polis to Medina : Urban Change in Late Antique ans Early Islamic Syria, in Past and Present, 106, 1985, pp. 3–27 ; idem, The impact of Muslim Rule on the Pattern of rural Settlements, in P. Canivet, J.-P. Rey-Coquais (dir.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’islam, VIIè-VIIè siècles, Actes du colloque international de Damas (1992) (Institut Français de Damas, 137), Damas, pp. 291–98. La continuité entre l’occupation byzantine et les périodes omeyyades et abbasside est évoquée pour le Massif Calcaire par C. Morrisson, J.-C. Sodini, The sixth-century Economy, in A. Laiou (dir.), The Economic History of Byzantium : from the Seventh through to Fifteenth Century (Dumbarton Oaks

150

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 14. Fours de métallurgie domestique du secteur 3A.

retrouve souvent la même organisation que pour les habitats ruraux ou semi-ruraux. Lorsque le caractère urbain est plus affirmé, les maisons présentent une cour intérieure plus ou Studies, 39), Wahsington, D.C., pp. 171–220. Aussi, en Arabie, à Umm al Jimal par de Vries, Continuity and the Change, cit. (n. 25), avec des plans très similaires à ceux des agglomérations byzantines. On peut aussi se référer aux exemples d’habitats évoqués dans C. Castel, M. al-Maqdissi, F. Villeneuve (dir.), Les Maisons dans la Syrie Antique, cit. (n. 22), et dans K. Bartl, A. Moaz (dir.), Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, Proceedings of the International Conference held at Damascus, 5–9 November 2006 (Orient-Archäologie 24), Damas, 2008 (pour la Syrie notamment, mais aussi en Arabie) ; dans Clauss-Balty, Hauran III, cit. (n. 25), ou encore C. H. Kraeling, Gérasa, City of the Decapolis, New Haven, 1938 ; C. S. Fisher, C. C. McCown, Jerash-Gerasa : a Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of the Joint Expedition of Yale University and the American Schools of Oriental Research, in AASO, 1929–1930, pp.  1–59  ; R.  H. Smith, The 1981 Season at Pella of the Decapolis, in BASOR, 249,  1983, pp.  45–78  ; M.  Gawlikowski, A Residential Area by the South Decumanus, in F. Zayadine (éd), Jerash Archaeological project 1981–1983, Amman, 1986, p. 112.

moins centrale, autour de laquelle se trouvent trois ou quatre iwans qui s’ouvrent largement sur elles. Mais il s’agit alors de maisons bien moins modestes, tant par leur superficie, leur mise en œuvre, leur décor et leur usage, que celles que nous avons retrouvées à Halabiya dans ce secteur 3. Pour autant, on ne peut que s’interroger sur la nature et la fonction de la population qui pouvait y résider. Ce ne sont sans doute pas des militaires : cet habitat n’est pas un baraquement ni une caserne et les soldats devaient résider soit dans le prétoire, soit dans la citadelle. Rappelons aussi qu’en 540, la garnison, sans doute fort modeste, n’a pas impressionné Khosrô qui a n’a pas jugé bon de prendre la ville.27 Le texte de Procope n’est pas assez précis pour que nous puissions savoir si, à Zénobia, étaient stationnés des comitatenses ou des limitanei ayant reçu des terres à exploiter et qui pouvaient être accompagnés de leur famille. Mais l’importance de la population civile à Zénobia a certainement été sous-estimée. Jean Lauffray s’interrogeait déjà sur la fonction de la ville, qui, selon lui, ne se réduisait pas à ses activités militaires.28 27. Procope, Guerres, II, V, 4–7. 28. Lauffray I, p. 144.

l’urbanisme et l’habitat de la ville de zénobia-halabiya...

151

Fig. 15. Pièce 7 du secteur 3.

Néanmoins, il est difficile d’admettre que cet îlot ait pu abriter des agriculteurs ou des éleveurs de bétail. Les grands blocs de gypse évidés qui ferment au sud la pièce 7 (Fig. 15, au premier plan) pourraient dans un autre contexte avoir servi de mangeoire ou d’abreuvoir. De tels blocs ont été signalés par Lauffray dans la pièce S des domus du « forum »29 et dans le complexe C attenant à l’église sud-est30 et, dans ces cas, ce sont de toute évidence des abreuvoirs pour des étables ou des écuries : en aucun cas ils ne forment la limite d’une pièce ou d’un bâtiment. Ils font partie, sur le « forum » d’habitats de notables et, dans le dernier cas, du complexe épiscopal. De toute évidence, en ce qui concerne le mur de la pièce 7 de notre îlot, ces blocs sont des spolia qui ont dû servir de solin pour l’élévation en brique de ce mur ; ils auraient constitué un obstacle bien insuffisant pour s’assurer que le bétail ne puisse s’échapper et ne peuvent avoir suffi à clôturer la pièce, qui dispose en outre d’un seul bien soigné. Dès lors, surtout lorsqu’on considère le caractère très précaire et très modeste des constructions de cet îlot, on peut s’interroger sur la fonction des habitants qui l’occupaient : étaient-ils liés, comme les installations situées un peu plus à l’est, de l’autre côté du cardo, aux activités portuaires ?31 Étaient-ils employés par le complexe épiscopal ou par les propriétaires terriens de la cité, dont les tombes – en grande 29. Lauffray II, p. 140 et fig. 62. 30. Lauffray II, p. 94 et fig. 13, p. 50. 31. Mais tout espoir de pouvoir étudier les aménagements et les activités éventuels d’un port, même modeste, resteront désormais vains après le comblement de la berge de l’Euphrate pratiqué en 2008–2009 par les travaux préparatoires à l’édification d’un barrage, interrompus depuis 2011.

partie de beaux hypogées ou de grandes tombes rupestres– jalonnent les nécropoles ?32 La réponse ne pourrait être fournie que par de nouvelles fouilles d’autres îlots similaires ou des habitats qui se rangent le long des remparts et dont la mise en œuvre est très semblable. Une fois encore, nous n’avons pas trouvé de parallèles sur d’autres sites de la région qui auraient pu permettre des comparaisons. Conclusions En conclusion de ces comptes-rendus sur les nouvelles recherches effectuées à Zénobia depuis 2006, il convient de faire trois remarques. L’une d’elles a trait à la fiabilité du témoignage de Procope dans sa description du site de Zénobia, que nous pensons avoir confirmée, au moins en ce qui concerne l’histoire des remparts de la ville et de son extension nord. Une autre concerne la pérennité de l’occupation du site qui s’est prolongée a minima jusqu’à l’aube de la période omeyyade, par des aménagements tardifs qui prennent place au cœur de la ville, sur son « forum ». L’îlot d’habitat domestique qui forme notre secteur 3 a été implanté à la fin de la période byzantine, sans doute comme ceux qui s’inscrivent dans le même alignement au sud du site, et continue d’être occupé au début de la période omeyyade, même si certains de ses murs ont été reconstruits en léger décalage. Enfin, il convient sans doute de nuancer la tradition historiographique qui n’attribue à Zénobia qu’un simple rôle de vigie militaire sur l’Euphrate. La reprise des prospections 32. Nos prospections des nécropoles ont permis d’accroître de façon notable l’inventaire des tombes établi par Lauffray (Blétry, Zénobia-Halabiya, Cinq années de recherches, cit. [n. 3], chapitre 13).

152

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

dans les nécropoles permet d’établir que la part de la population urbaine et civile, susceptible d’ériger des nombreux tombeaux monumentaux, était sans doute beaucoup moins négligeable qu’on l’a souvent estimé. Par ailleurs, l’existence d’un double complexe ecclésial, constitué de deux basiliques aux rôles complémentaires, prêche en faveur d’une fonction qu’on n’a sans doute pas suffisamment prise en compte jusqu’à présent. Une récente analyse33 démontre en effet qu’il est fort probable qu’il a sans doute accueilli un public plus large que celui qui occupait ce petit centre urbain

33. W. Khoury, B. Riba, Peut-on discerner des modèles reliés à des communautés ecclésiales ou linguistiques en Syrie du Nord, (IVè-Xès.) ? in Études Syriaques, 10, 2013, pp. 107–30, ici. p. 119.

(comme en témoignent les vastes atria des deux basiliques) et qu’ait pu s’y développer, dans l’église nord-ouest, un culte martyrial. Le poste militaire de Zénobia, ayant reçu les faveurs épiscopales et impériales, aurait aussi pu constituer une étape sur les routes de pèlerinage vers la Terre Sainte. C’est désormais toute la vision traditionnelle de cette ville-forteresse qu’il convient ainsi de considérer, dont le rôle ne se limitait vraisemblablement pas à sa garnison, mais dont les fonctions étaient multiples et complémentaires.

Recent Research on Dara/Anastasiopolis Elİf Keser-Kayaalp*, Nİhat Erdoğan** with a contribution by Andrew Palmer

Recherches récentes sur Dara/Anastasiopolis Depuis 2009, le musée de Mardin a entrepris des fouilles archéologiques, des sondages et des enquêtes à Dara. Cet article n’est pas un rapport sur ces études, mais une introduction aux principales découvertes de ces dernières années et une nouvelle présentation de la ville à la lumière de ces découvertes. Après avoir mis en perspective la ville dans le Nord de la Mésopotamie, il se concentre d’abord sur l’intérieur des murs. Dans ce contexte, le plan urbain, les églises et l’alimentation en eau de la ville sont explorés. En ce qui concerne sa vaste banlieue, on présente la zone située au sud des murs sud jusqu’au village d’Ambar, un bâtiment monumental avec des mosaïques situé au sud-ouest des murs sud-ouest, puis la grande nécropole à l’ouest de la ville. Enfin, le monastère de Mor Gabriel est présenté comme un projet dérivé de la construction d’Anastasiopolis (Trad. E. Rizos).

When the Roman generals and commanders of Anastasius’ army were blamed for their defeat by the Sasanids in Amida in AD 503, they defended themselves by saying that they did not have ‘a place of refuge for rest, because the fortresses were remotely located and were too small to receive the army; and the water and other food supplies that were in them were not adequate’.1 To rectify this situation, the generals urged the Emperor Anastasius to build a city ‘as a place of refuge for the army and a resting place, for the preparation and storage of weapons’.2 These were the reasons for beginning the building of Dara in 505. * Dokuz Eylül University ** Mardin Museum *** We would like to thank Murat Eroğlu, Andrew Palmer, Dirk Krausmüller and Efthymios Rizos for their help in the preparation of this article, which was developed and finalised when Elif Keser-Kayaalp was in Munich on an Alexander von Humboldt research fellowship. We would like to extend our thanks to the Alexander von Humbolt Foundation and Professor Franz Alto Bauer. Finally, we should also thank Dr Marlia Mundell Mango who shaped this research in its initial stages. 1. Ps.-Zachariah, Chron., vii, 6, a (trans. by R. P. Phenix and C. B. Horn, with contributions by S. P. Brock and W. Witakowski in: G. Greatrex [ed.], The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity [TTH, 55], Liverpool, 2011). The chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor will be referred to as Ps.-Zachariah from now on. This work was compiled in Syriac in AD 568/9. It draws extensively on the Ecclesiastical History of Zachariah the Rhetor for the period from 451 to 491. The rest, up to the early years of Justinian, is from other sources. 2. Ps. Zachariah, Chron., vii, 6, b. cit. (n. 1). Similar accounts in The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, trans. with notes and intr. by F. R. Trombley and J. W. Watt, Liverpool, 2000.

This city on the frontier naturally became an important part of the defence system of Northern Mesopotamia, which was composed of fortified cities such as Amida, Constantia, Edessa, Martyropolis and Cephas, individual fortresses such as Kale-i Zerzevan, Rhabdion, Sawro and many others,3 and even some monasteries that may have functioned as fortlets.4 The fortifications of Northern Mesopotamia continuously received special imperial attention from the time of Constantius II to that of Heraclius.5 The founder of Dara, Anastasius, in particular, reinforced the defences of the region extensively.6 This heavily fortified region was also wealthy7 and had remarkable architecture, both in the 3. See A. Comfort, Roads on the Frontier between Rome and Persia: Euphratesia, Osrhoene and Mesopotamia from AD 363 to 602, PhD thesis, Exeter University, Exeter, 2008. 4. For example, Dillemann identifies the monastery of Mor Gabriel with Banasymeon, a fortification mentioned by Procopius. L. Dillemann, Haute Mésopotamie orientale et pays adjacent, Paris, 1962, p. 229. Procopius, Buildings, II.4.14 (ed. and trans. H. B. Dewing, Loeb Classical Library). 5. Ammianus Marcellinus talks about Constantine’s works on the walls of Amida. Amm. Marc. xviii.9.1 (ed. and trans. J. C. Rolfe, 1971). Cyril Mango suggested that the Theodore mentioned in one of the inscriptions on the walls of Amida could have been the brother of the emperor Heraclius, showing that in the seventh century, the walls of Amida were restored. C. A. Mango, M. Mango, Inscriptions de la Mésopotamie du Nord, in Travaux et Mémoires, 11, 1991, pp. 465–71, nos 5–7. 6. F. K. Haarer, Anastasius I: Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 65–72. 7. On the wealth of Dara, see: M. Mundell, A  Sixth Century

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 153-175. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111894

154

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Map of Northern Mesopotamia in the Late Antique period.

cities and in the countryside.8 In that respect, Dara was built not just as an ordinary fort for defensive purposes, but as a well-planned city with classical features, like the few Byzantine cities newly built in the sixth century; Rusafa, Zenobia and Justiniana Prima. At intervals, Dara served as residence of the dux of Mesopotamia. In 530, Justinian’s general Belisarius won his first victory over the Persians here, and in the same decade the city was refortified by Justinian. In the war of 539 to 544 Dara resisted a Persian siege but, in 573 it fell to the Persians. In 591 it was given back as part of the price that the deposed Persian king Khosrau II paid for the support he received from the Romans in his campaign to recover his throne. In 606 the Persians took the city once again, after eighteen months of siege. Dara changed hands again in 628, as a result of the victorious campaigns of Heraclius, but was permanently lost to the Arabs in 639.9 As we shall mention Funerary Relief at Dara in Mesopotamia, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 24, 1975, pp. 209–27, esp. 225. 8. E. Keser-Kayaalp, Church Architecture of Northern Mesopotamia, DPhil thesis, Oxford, 2009. 9. B. Croke and J. Crow, Procopius and Dara, in Journal of Roman

below, after the Arab conquest the city was inhabited by a cosmopolitan society, which probably included East Syrians. The lists of Syrian Orthodox bishops of Dara continue down to the eleventh century. Today, Dara is a small village known officially as Oğuz, mostly built of reused materials from the Late Antique buildings. It is located in modern southeast Turkey, about 30 km southeast of Mardin (Fig. 1). Although there are considerable archaeological remains at the site, property issues coupled with chronic security problems have made excavations there a difficult endeavour. In 1986, Malik Ekmen, then deputy director of Mardin Museum, together with the late Professor Metin Ahunbay of Istanbul Technical University as scientific advisor, initiated the excavations in Dara. Excavations continued with this team until 1990 and then stopped because of the political conditions in the region. Two short reports of these excavations have been published.10 Between 2001 and 2009, further excavations were conducted by the then Studies, 73, 1983, pp. 150–51. 10. M. Ahunbay, Dara-Anastasiopolis, in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, XII, 1, 1990, pp. 391–97; idem, Dara-Anastasiopolis, in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, XIII, 1, pp. 197–204.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

director of Mardin Museum, Songül Ceylan Bala, again in collaboration with Professor Ahunbay. Since 2009, due to new regulations by the Ministry of Culture, the Museum of Mardin has become solely responsible for the excavations. The work of the Museum at Dara has been intermittent due to limited labour and financial resources. As it is exceptionally well documented in ancient sources and many structures are still standing, Dara has attracted the attention of scholars since the beginning of the twentieth century, and there is already a substantial bibliography on it. This article has no pretensions to complete coverage, whether of the ruins or the literature; nor is it an inventory of the results of the excavations at Dara. Our aim, instead, is to highlight some finds uncovered since 2009, which are crucial for our understanding of Dara, and which may contribute to the general discussion about the character of newly built cities in Late Antiquity. While providing some background information, the article will describe the recent work inside and outside the city walls. Inside the Walls While it was smaller than other cities in Roman Mesopotamia, such as Amida, Edessa and Nisibis, Dara was larger than cities newly built in other provinces in the sixth century, such as Zenobia, Justiniana Prima and Rusafa.11 Typically for a frontier city, it was fortified with strong walls. At the time of its foundation, careful thought was given to the location of the new city. Some suggested Dara, others were in favour of ʿAmodin. The emperor Anastasius decided on Dara.12 Malalas reports that Dara had ‘two public baths, churches, colonnades, warehouses for storing grain and cisterns for water’ and statues of Anastasius.13 This shows that Dara was built with all the features that a city should have. Zanini points out that aqueducts, cisterns, baths, public buildings, churches and residences for public authorities, which are mentioned frequently in sources, together with fortification walls were what characterised a city in the sixth century.14 He also believes that the four newly built cities of Rusafa, Zenobia, Justiniana Prima and Dara could be considered part of the classical, Hellenistic and Roman urban tradition, since they were planned by architects and engineers in Constantinople according to a basic conceptual model, which was locally adapted to the specific needs of each settlement. 11. E. Zanini, The Urban Ideal and Urban Planning in Byzantine New Cities of the Sixth Century AD, in L. Lavan, W. Bowden (eds.), Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, Leiden, 2003, pp. 196–223. 12. Ps.-Zachariah, Chron. vii, 6, b, cit. (n. 1). 13. Malalas, Chron. 16.10 (ed. H. Thurn, CFHB, 35, Berlin, 2000). English transl. E. Jeffreys et al., The Chronicle of John Malalas, Melbourne, 1986, p. 399. 14. Zanini, Ideal, cit. (n. 11), p. 209.

155

The urban layout and fortification of Dara followed the topographical conditions, resulting in an irregular shape (Fig. 2). The city walls, 2.8 km long, have received considerable scholarly attention.15 The identification of its building phases and their attribution to Anastasius or Justinian, have been central questions discussed by archaeologists who have worked on the site so far.16 Croke and Crow studied the walls of the city in relation to the accounts of Procopius, who accompanied Justinian’s general Belisarius between 527 and 542, and wrote a detailed eyewitness description of Dara. According to them, Procopius’ accounts in the Buildings are ‘distorted and exaggerated’. By contrast, Michael Whitby argued that Procopius could be trusted up to a certain point.17 More recently, the literary rather than documentary value of Procopius has tended to be emphasised18 but, whichever reservations one may have, it is impossible to ignore his accounts which are significant in so many ways. On the one hand, Croke and Crow may be right in their claim that Procopius exaggerates the extent of Justinian’s building activity at Dara but, on the other hand, Zanini and Furlan have convincingly argued for a substantial Justinianic construction phase in the walls of Dara.19 Inside the walls of Dara, the most significant topographical feature is the River Cordes, which flows from north to south, dividing the city into two parts (Fig. 2). The surviving remains give the impression that the region to the west of the Cordes was reserved for public buildings, whereas that to the east, which features hardly any remarkable remains, may have been for domestic structures. In the cities of Northern Mesopotamia there was a continuation of the Greek and Roman street planning tradition with orthogonal street grids. At Nisibis, Amida, Edessa, Constantia, and Martyropolis, the main roads still follow the alignment of the ancient cardines and decumani. At Dara, a colonnaded street used to run parallel to the river. Excavations revealed shops alongside this street producing coins of Justinian, Justin II, Tiberius II Constantine, and Phocas. This street, the only one excavated at Dara so far, probably continued north, parallel to the river, linking all the monumental structures west of the Cordes. 15. I. Furlan, Accertamenti a Dara, 1984, Padua; S. Gregory, Roman Military Architecture on the Eastern Frontier, Amsterdam, 1995, pp. 80–88, Ahunbay, Kazı Sonuçları, cit. (n. 10); Croke, Crow, Procopius and Dara, cit. (n. 9); J. Crow, Dara, a late Roman Fortress in Mesopotamia, in Yayla, 4, 1981, pp. 12–20; M. Whitby, Procopius’ description of Dara, in P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East, Oxford, 1986, pp. 737–83. 16. Croke, Crow, Procopius and Dara, cit. (n. 9). 17. M. Whitby, Procopius and the Development of Roman Defences in Upper Mesopotamia, in P. Freeman, D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East, Oxford, 1986, v. 2, pp. 717–35. 18. G. Greatrex, Perceptions of Procopius in Recent Scholarship, in Histos, 8, 2014, pp. 76–121. 19. Zanini, Urban Ideal, cit. (n. 11), p. 20, fn.21.

156

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 2. Plan of Dara and the necropolis.

During his excavations, Ahunbay uncovered a rectangular structure composed of L-shaped piers (no 1 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3),20 which he identified as a tetrapylon.21 Tetrapyla are a significant feature of classical cities, usually marking the intersection of the main streets, and their existence is documented for the neighbouring cities of Amida22 and Constantia.23 In Dara, however, no signs of a road around this structure have been found yet. Its location just next to the western wall of the cathedral may suggest that this structure was related to the episcopal complex (see below), rather than being a tetrapylon. At a central location in the city, on an artificial terrace, a three-storied structure has been identified as a praetorium (no 5 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).24 In fact, this is likelier to belong 20. Ahunbay, Kazı Sonuçları XIII, cit. (n. 10), p. 199. 21. Other contemporary tetrapyla are mentioned in: M. Mundell Mango, The Porticoed Street at Constantinople, in N. Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople; Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, Leiden, 2001, pp. 29–51, esp. 39. 22. Ps.-Zachariah, Chron., x, 0, a, cit. (n. 1). 23. G. Bell, M. Mango, The Churches and Monasteries of the Tur Abdin, London, 1992, p. 155, pl. 87–88. 24. Zanini, Urban Ideal, cit. (n. 11), p. 210, fig. 6. For another possible praetorium: M. Mundell Mango, Building and Architec-

also to the episcopal complex. Between it and the cathedral there are remains of another monumental structure (no 4 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), the function of which is still to be determined. As we shall see below, the ‘building with mosaics’ should rather be identified as the praetorium. Churches The sources mention only two churches in Dara: the Great Church and St. Bartholomew’s. According to Ps.-Zachariah of Mitylene, bishop Eutychian went to Constantinople, and Anastasius gave him gifts of holy vessels and gold for the building of the Great Church.25 As for the church of St. Bartholomew, Theodore Lector ascribes it to Anastasius,26 while John Diakrinomenos reports that the apostle appeared to this emperor in a dream and offered to protect the city. Thus, his relics were brought from Cyprus and deposited in one of Dara’s new churches.27 Malalas and Evagrius Scholasticus ture, AD 425-ca.600, in Cambridge Ancient History, 14, 2000, pp. 918–71, esp. 933. 25. Ps.-Zachariah, Chron., vii, 6, f-g, cit. (n. 1). 26. Theodore Lector, Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, ed. G. C. Hansen, Berlin, 1971, II, 57. 27. E. Key Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

157

Fig. 3. Aerial view of the area around the cathedral.

also ascribe the churches of Dara to Anastasius,28 whereas Procopius claims that both the cathedral and the church of St. Bartholomew were built by Justinian.29 In fact, one may consider that their construction might have taken a long time and could have seen the reigns of both emperors. There are remains in the city, which can be associated with these two churches. The cistern in the centre of the city, known to the locals as the ‘prison’, was most probably the substructure of the cathedral (no 2 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). The foundations of the apse to the east, the baptismal font to the north of the cistern, a crypt with a flat roof just next to the Rome and Iran, Berkeley, 1999, p. 65. 28. Malalas, cit. (n. 13), and Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, III. 38 (ed. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier, London, 1898). 29. Procopius, Buildings, II. 3. 26.

font, fragments of an opus sectile pavement surviving around it (no 3 in Fig. 2) and finally its relatively significant location in the city indicate that the building standing on top of this cistern was part of an important complex – the cathedral. Building cisterns under churches was a common practice in Late Antiquity. The cistern of the cathedral is a monumental structure that has received considerable scholarly attention in the past.30 In terms of its plan and arrangement with lateral 30. C. Preusser, Nordmesopotamische Baudenkmaler altchristlicher and islamischer Zeit, Leipzig, 1911, pl. 58. I. Furlan, Oikema Katagheion. Una Problematica Struttura a Dara, in C. Barsanti et. al. (eds.), Million 1. Collana di studi e ricerche d’Arte Bizantina, Roma, 1990, pp. 105–27; G. Brands, Ein Baukomplex in Dara- Anastasiopolis, in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 47, 2004, pp. 144–55.

158

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 4. South facade of the cathedral.

Fig. 5. Apse of the cathedral from southeast.

piers, the cistern under the cathedral is similar to the great cistern in Rusafa,31 the cistern to the south of the Nea church in Jerusalem,32 and the cistern in the monastery of Euthymius in the Judaean desert.33 31. W. Brinker, Zur Wasserversorgung von Resafa- Sergiopolis, in Damaszener Mitteilungen, 5, 1991, pp. 119–46, fig. 4. 32. N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, Oxford, 1984, fig. 279. 33. Y.  Hirschfeld, Euthymius and his monastery in the Judean Desert, in Liber Annuus, 43, 1993, pp. 339–71; pl. 19–24, fig. 5.

The work of the Museum at the cathedral included the uncovering of some areas in the southern and eastern parts of the building. The works on the southern part revealed that the subterranean structure and the superstructure might be of different periods. On the visible part of the south façade of the cistern, there is an arcade supporting a cantilever that used to carry the walls of the upper structure, the church (Fig. 4). Behind that arcade, one can see a wide arch and a substantial wall of the cistern. As we mentioned above, the sources attribute the Great Church either to Anastasius

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

or Justinian. As these recent finds illustrate, the cistern and the cathedral may have been built separately, the former in the time of Anastasius and the latter in the time of Justinian, as has already been suggested by Whitby, based on textual accounts. Procopius talks about two cisterns built by the emperor Justinian, one close to the church of St. Bartholomew and another between the circuit wall and proteichisma (outer fortification).34 Whitby suggested that the reason why Procopius does not mention the cistern under the cathedral is because it was the work of Anastasius. He thinks Procopius rather talks about the Great Church that lies above it because it was built by the Emperor Justinian on top of an existing cistern.35 Although the foundation of the apse and a few blocks of the west wall are the only remains from the upper structure, a reconstruction has been attempted. Guyer suggested that there were a prothesis and a diaconicon that would correspond to the small corner rooms in the cistern.36 The excavations in the eastern part of the church show that the eastern arrangement was more complicated than that. It is still not possible to suggest a definite plan for it, but there seem to have been several phases in that part. The polygonal apse is a feature that we come across mostly, but not exclusively, in the early churches of Constantinople.37 In Dara, on the south wall of the polygonal apse, an archway is visible, which hints at a space under the apse, most probably a crypt (Fig. 5). Crypts under apses were also common features in early Constantinopolitan churches, but again not confined to them. In some cases, like the church of St. Ioannes in the Hebdomon and St. Polyeuktos, the crypt could be reached from the outside,38 and that might have been the case at Dara. The overall dimensions of the church above the cistern show similarities with the early basilicas of Constantinople. The dimensions and proportions of the building are close to those of extant Constantinopolitan basilicas, namely the Chalkoprateia, the Stoudios church, and St. Sophia in Nicaea39 and the reconstructed church of

34. Procopius, Buildings, II.2.1. 35. Whitby, Description of Dara, cit. (n. 15), p. 776. 36. S. Guyer, Amida, in Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 38, 1916, pp. 193–237, esp. 213. 37. Polygonal apses from the fourth century were found in Cyprus and North Italy. In the late fourth and fifth centuries, they started to appear in Constantinople and Asia Minor. In the sixth century, they became more common in Asia Minor, Greece, Cyprus, the Aegean islands and the Balkans; we also find a few in Palestine and Syria. For a summary, see U. Serin, Early Christian and Byzantine Churches at Iasos in Caria: An Architectural Survey, Città del Vaticano, 2004, p. 47. 38. T. F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, London, 1971, p. 109. For crypts elsewhere see J. P. Sodini, Les cryptes d’autel paléochrétiennes: essai de classification, in Travaux et Mémoires, 8, 1981, pp. 437–58. 39. Mathews, The Early Churches, cit. (n. 38), fig. 12.

159

St. Artemios.40 Thus, a possible reconstruction of the church may be as a three-aisled basilica with interior colonnades resting atop the engaged piers of the cistern. Another option may be a domed-basilica, which is strongly suggested by the squarish layout. Although the foundations of the church (the cistern) may at first glance appear to be contradicting a domed arrangement, it should be remembered, as Ćurčić has argued, that there was conservatism in terms of foundations when domes first began to be built.41 In sum, the surviving evidence does not permit a reliable reconstruction. For the windows of the cistern on the west wall to be above the ground, the original floor level to the west of the church must have been approximately the same level as it is today. This means that the entrance to the church was from an upper level, as has already been suggested in the past.42 Recently, a floor pavement and remains of another monumental structure were excavated in the area to the south of the cathedral. As we write this article, excavations continue in that part (Fig. 4), revealing mosaic tesserae of gold, silver and other coloured glass, pieces of pottery and glass that have not been studied yet. According to Procopius, the church of St. Bartholomew stood ‘close’ to a cistern to the west of the city.43 There are remains of a subterranean structure just by the western walls (no 7 in Fig. 2). The springing of one of the five vaults that used to cover this space and an interior pier still survive. Furlan reconstructed the cistern with five rows of columns and with dimensions of 12.5 m × 13.5 m according to his plan.44 There are no substantial structures around this socalled cistern to be identified as a church, and the cistern itself is too small to have supported a church on top of it. The cistern Procopius mentions must be the large ten-partite cistern (see below, no 8 in Fig. 2). Wiessner recorded a structure in the vicinity, which was locally known as ‘church’ (around no 9 in Fig. 2), and to this day the area around it is still known as Kilise mahallesi (‘church district’).45 The same structure is designated as ‘unidentified building near granary’ by Mundell Mango.46

40. C. Mango, On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople, in Zograf, 10, 1979, pp. 40–43, fig. 1; Keser-Kayaalp, Church Architecture, cit. (n. 8), pp. 58-59. 41. S.  Ćurčić, Design and Structural Innovation in Byzantine Architecture before Hagia Sophia, in A. Çakmak and R. Mark (eds.), Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 16–38, 25, 36. 42. Brands, Ein Baukomplex, cit. (n. 30), p. 153. 43. Procopius, Buildings, 2.2.1. 44. I. Furlan, Cisterne a Dara, in A. Iacobini, E. Zanini (eds.), Milion 3. Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio, Roma, 1995, pp. 51–63, fig. 19. 45. G. Wiessner, Christliche Kultbauten im Ṭūr Abdīn. Wiesbaden,1982–1993, II/1, p. 233; II/2: Abb. XXX, pp. 119–22. 46. Bell and Mango, Churches and Monasteries, cit. (n. 23), p. 104.

160

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Hypothetical plan of St Bartholomew? (redrawn from Wiessner, Kultbauten im Ṭūr Abdīn, v.2/1, fig. 29).

Wiessner describes the plan of the so-called church as a combination of the hall-type (so-called parochial) and the transverse hall-type (so-called monastic) churches. Both of these church types are found in the Ṭur ʿAbdin, a limestone plateau to the northeast of Dara, dotted with Syrian Orthodox churches and monasteries. The transverse hall-type church, in particular, is an unusual plan type and peculiar to the region. The so-called church featured a tripartite sanctuary, like the transverse-hall type churches and an oblong nave of east–west direction (Fig. 6), which was typical of halltype churches. Its location near the main road axis, which passed by the cathedral and baptistery, suggest that this was an important ecclesiastical building. The fact that it is near the cistern in the northwest agrees with the description of Procopius, supporting its identification as the church of St. Bartholomew. Today the structure is located on private property surrounded by gardens, and we were not allowed to investigate it. Water Management In a city near the frontier under continuous threat from the enemy, managing and storing water was crucial for the survival of soldiers and inhabitants. This is why a sophisticated system of dams, canals, cisterns and aqueducts was planned. Like its walls, the water management in Dara has received considerable attention.47 In the city, there were two separate water distribution canals, one for irrigation and the 47. Croke, Crow, Procopius and Dara, cit. (n.  9), pp.  156–58; G.  Garbrecht, A. Vogel, Die Staumauern von Dara, in G. Garbrecht (ed.), Historische Talsperren, 2, 1991, pp. 263–76; G. Garbrecht, Procopius und die Wasserbauten von Dara, in C. Ohlig (ed.), Wasserbauten im Königreich Urartu und weitere Beiträge zur Hydrotechnik in der Antike, Siegburg, 2004, pp. 105–31.

other for drinking water. The cisterns in the city were filled with drinking water from the aqueduct northeast of the city. In the southeast of the city there are water canals, and also a ditch filled with water by canals. In the north there is a dam built to control the waters of the Cordes. The account of Procopius, who dedicates a long passage to the water works in Dara, has been considered in great length in earlier scholarship. According to Procopius, there was an underwater channel in the city. It was a creative solution to protect the city both from the enemy and from the water of the flooding river.48 According to Procopius, the water used to disappear underground within the walls of Dara and resurface near Theodosiopolis (Resaina), leaving the enemy encamped outside the city walls without water.49 The channel also reduced the risk of flooding. Unfortunately there are no visible traces of this ingenious water management solution, but a simple geophysics survey in the river bed may help to shed light on this. Wall remains about 15 m north of the north wall seem to be related to the control of the water entering the city. Similar walls for blocking and controlling water can also be seen 100 m north of the north wall and in the northwest of the city. The water collected here was distributed to the cisterns of the city via conduits. These consisted of 20–30 cm wide clay pipes, located in canals that have survived up to 30 m long in some places.50 We have already mentioned the large cistern under the cathedral, which has received considerable attention in the literature.51 In the past, the ten-partite structure (no 8 in Fig. 2) in the northwestern part of the city was identified 48. Garbrecht, Procopius und die Wasserbauten, cit. (n. 47), pp. 122 and 130. 49. Procopius, Buildings, II.2.16. 50. Garbrecht, Vogel, Die Staumauern, cit. (n. 47), pp. 263–76. 51. Brands, Ein Baukomplex, cit. (n. 30).

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

161

Fig. 7. Recently cleaned cistern between the walls and proteichisma.

as the granary mentioned by Malalas,52 but recent finds of canals and of a small stone cascade on the south side of the building leave no doubt that this was a cistern with possible water displays like a nymphaeum. Nymphaea existed in late antiquity along the main roads of many cities.53 We may assume the existence of a major road running by the tenpartite cistern – very probably the same road that passed by the building we identified as the church of St. Bartholomew. Recently, one of the cisterns outside the city, recorded earlier by Preusser and Furlan,54 was cleaned by the Museum (no  10 in Fig.  2). It had been filled with earth up to half its height. Following the recent work the cistern can be viewed in its original state. It is a deep cistern carved into the bedrock up to the springing points of the cross vaults covering the space. The piers in the middle and the side walls are all rock-cut. It gives the impression that it was a quarry (one can still see the traces of cuts), which was later turned into a cistern (Fig. 7). According to analysis of the plaster, mortar and stone in the Museum’s laboratory this cistern is contemporary with the cistern under the cathedral. Two different plasters show that the cistern was restored at some point with mortar that contained ceramic fragments. This cistern, which is located just outside the western walls,55 is no doubt the one mentioned by Procopius, who says that Justinian built a cistern between the inner and outer walls.56 52. Bell, Mango, Churches and Monasteries, cit. (n. 23), p. 103. Malalas, cit. (n. 13). 53. Mundell Mango, Porticoed Street, cit. (n. 21), p. 40. 54. Furlan, Cisterne a Dara, cit. (n. 44), fig. 16; from Preusser, Baudenkmaler, cit. (n. 30), pl. 55. 55. Furlan, Cisterne a Dara, cit. (n. 44), fig. 19. 56. Procopius, Buildings, II.2.1–2.

Dara’s newly-discovered, extensive suburban area and outer defences In the last few years, the Museum has conducted a number of soundings outside the south and southwest city walls, yielding substantial new evidence for the suburban zone of Dara and its outer defences. 170 m outside the main walls of Dara, a mound 3–4 m high and 30–40 m wide was excavated (no 13 in Fig. 2). In the first soundings, traces of a building were discovered, and the excavation was extended in order to determine its plan. It has been established that it is a building composed of eight spaces arranged around an octagonal central space paved with stone blocks (Fig. 8). It is around 20 m × 22 m (Fig. 9). The building gives the impression that it was constructed in several phases. The uncovering of a coin of the Artuqid ruler Necmettin Alpi may show that it was still in use during the Artuqid period. Just to the south of this building (x in Fig. 10), there are traces of a wall (no 14 in Fig. 2), made of ashlar masonry and of about 4 m wide (Fig. 11). As mentioned, this wall is about 170 m away from the main walls of the city. This wall must be the wall Whitby described as being around 120 m away from the proteichisma.57 One can follow the traces of this wall for about 210 m stretching to the west of the excavated structure. Another wall runs parallel to it, 85 m south (Fig. 12), and continues for about 330 m (no 15 in Fig. 2). This wall is probably the one Whitby mentions as being 40 m away

57. Whitby, Description of Dara, cit. (n. 15), p. 761. His measurements are estimates.

162

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 8. Recently excavated structure located to the south of southern walls (around 170 m from the south walls). Fig. 9. Aerial view of the recently excavated structure located to the south of southern walls. At the top left, the wall in Fig. 11 can be seen from the top.

from the previous wall.58 In most parts, it is composed of ashlar blocks but in other parts towards the west it is more irregular and composed of reused material like sarcophagus lids. By the river, it turns into an arched structure with ashlar masonry, which was most probably crossing the river 58. Ibid.

(Fig. 10). These masonry walls show similarities in terms of their location to the earthen ramparts at several sites in Scythia Minor, notably Argamum (Romania),59 and they 59. S. Torbatov, The Defence System of the Late Roman Province of Scythia (End of the 3rd-the 7th century AD), Veliko Turnovo, 2002 (in Bulgarian), p. 173.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

163

Fig. 10. The location of the defence walls outside the southern city walls.

Fig. 12. The wall located 170 m + 85 m south of the city walls.

Fig. 11. The wall located 170 m south of the city wall.

were probably built to stop or slow down the cavalry attacks that were expected from this direction. Bavant says that Justiniana Prima was surrounded by less sophisticated defences, such as ditches, earth ramparts, drystone walls and wooden palisades, and by a network of fortlets forming an outer zone of defence for the city.60 60. B. Bavant, Caricin Grad and the Changes in the Nature of Urbanism in the Central Balkans in the Sixth Century, in A. G.

164

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 13. Plan of the church at Ambar (redrawn from Mundell Mango, Deux églises (n. 68).

Similar systems also seem to have existed in Dara. In his essay about the location of the fortified site of Mindouos mentioned by Procopius, Lillington-Martin mentions the foundations of a potential tower-like structure located about 6 km southeast of Dara and 20 km west of Nisibis.61 It is around 700 m SE of the hamlet of Kasriahmethayro (around 5 km southeast of Dara), and the quarries which were earlier mentioned by Nicholson.62 Lillington-Martin identified the foundations of the structure as a possible watch tower to support a fortlet constructed at Kasriahmethayro.63 The structure is a rectangle measuring 26 m × 19 m, similar in size and shape to the recently excavated structure that we mentioned above (Fig. 9). As Lillington-Martin points out, at Tunainir, around 80 km south of Dara, in Jordan, Israel

and Iraq64 and in Tripolitania,65 similar structures have been identified. They all have a rectangular design with rooms organised around a central court and were built of stone. Although they have not been properly studied yet, these structures demonstrate that, like other late antique cities, Dara had an extensive system of defences outside the main fortified core on which scholarship has focused so far. All the remains uncovered to the south of the city walls show that the area between the city and Ambar,66 3 km south of Dara, was dotted with structures. Around 870 m south of the south water gate there are remains of a towerlike structure, which was probably used as a mill by the villagers. At Ambar there is a monumental transverse-hall type church (Fig. 13). Although it has a plan type that seems

Poulter (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity, on the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 2007, p. 372. 61. C. Lillington-Martin, Where was the Fortified Site of Mindouos Constructed?, paper for Master of Studies in Late Antique and Byzantine Studies, Oxford, p. 7 (published in academia.edu). 62. O. Nicholson, Two Notes on Dara, in American Journal of Archaeology, 89, 1985, pp. 663–71. 63. Lillington-Martin, Mindouos, cit. (n. 61), p. 9.

64. D. Kennedy, D. Riley, Rome’s Desert Frontier from the Air, London, 1990, pp. 159–66. 65. For example Gasr Duib. See C. Bajenaru, Minor Fortifications in the Balkan-Danubian Area from Diocletian to Justinian, ClujNapoca, 2010, pl. 13. 66. M. Mundell Mango, Deux églises de Mésopotamie du Nord: Ambar et Mar Abraham de Kashkar, in Cahiers Archéologiques, 30, 1982, pp. 47–70.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

to have been used exclusively for monastic churches, its function as a monastic church has been questioned because of its proximity to the battlefield. Marlia Mango suggested that it was a parish church because it contains a structure she identified as a beth slotha, i.e. an outdoor oratory that seems to be exclusively used in village churches of the Ṭur ʿAbdin.67 However, the apse, which looks free-standing, was in fact part of a building, probably a chapel. This is apparent from the height of the structure and the remains of an arcade to its north. With a height of some 7 m the apse is too high for a beth slotha: the highest example of a beth slotha in the Ṭur ʿAbdin is that next to Mor Sovo at Hah, which is about 4.5 m.68 In addition to that, there are examples of beth slotha in monastic churches, for example in Deir Saliba.69 According to other scholars the church of Ambar may have had a partially military function or may have been built to commemorate the victory of 530.70 It is indeed surprising to find such a monumental church in a military zone but, since our survey has demonstrated that the area between the walls of Dara and Ambar was settled, the church at Ambar may have belonged to a suburban monastery. As we said, it has the plan type of the monastic churches of the region and it has buildings surrounding it, turning it into a religious complex. In other cities of Northern Mesopotamia, we find monasteries located in the close vicinity of the cities. We know the names of twenty-four churches and monasteries around Edessa, ten monasteries around Amida and fourteen churches and monasteries around Nisibis.71 Whitby argues that Ambar might have served as a signalling post, ‘since it is the nearest point to Dara from which the citadel of Mardin is visible’.72 These suggestions do not rule out the possibility that this structure was part of a monastery. The monasteries were instrumental in providing sipiritual security.73 In the sounding done about 50 m south of the southwestern corner of the main city walls, Hellenistic terra sigillata fragments have been found. This area may provide information about earlier (i.e. pre-Roman) phases of Dara, recalling Malalas’ claim, which became a local tradition, that ‘the reason why this place received the name Dara from Alexander of Macedon was that he had captured the emperor of the 67. E. Keser-Kayaalp, Églises et monastères du Ṭur ʿAbdin: les débuts d’une architecture ‘syriaque’, in F. Briquel Chatonnet (ed.), Les églises en monde syriaques, Paris, 2013, pp. 269–88, esp. 278. 68. Ibid. fig. 6. 69. Bell, Mango, Churches and Monasteries, cit. (n. 23), pl. 185. 70. C. Lillington-Martin, Archaeological and Ancient Literary Evidence for a Battle near Dara Gap, Turkey, AD 530, in A. S. Lewin, P. Pellegrini (eds.), The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest, Oxford, 2007, pp. 309–10. 71. Keser-Kayaalp, Church Architecture, cit. (n. 8), v.2, tables 1–7. 72. Whitby, Description of Dara, cit. (n. 15), n. 12. 73. A. Palmer, Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Ṭur ʿAbdin, Cambridge, 1990, p. 53.

165

Persians there’.74 From the accounts about the foundation of Anastasiopolis in the sixth century, we know that there was a small settlement in the area where it was decided to build the city. However, the finds we have at the moment are negligible in determining the existence or character of the earlier settlement. In the area to the south of the building with mosaics (no 11 in Fig. 2) (see below), fragments of the foundations of a building were uncovered (c. 65 m × 21 m). Around 60 m west of this building there is a pavement, 4 m wide, which continues for around 120 m in a north–south direction, then makes a turn and continues for another 60 m. It is probably a paved road. Around 80 m to the west of the building with mosaics three graves have been uncovered. This part suggests an extramural suburb. Zanini thought that Dara and Zenobia had no suburbs for security reasons.75 Yet the recent survey and excavations outside the walls demonstrate the opposite, indicating an extensive landscape of extramural defensive installations and settlements. A remarkable building outside the walls is the building with mosaics, which we shall discuss under a separate heading. Much work needs to be done on the Islamic periods of the city, which have thus far received minimal attention. Around 870 m south of the southern walls, opposite the tower-like structure mentioned above, Islamic tombstones were uncovered, which have not been studied or dated yet. It seems that extramural habitation flourished in Islamic times, as has been observed also in Rusafa.76 Earlier, we mentioned the discovery of coins from the Artuqid period in a recently excavated military structure outside the walls. Building with Mosaics During the excavations in 2007, Prof. Ahunbay uncovered a large structure with mosaics, located around 200 m southwest of the southwestern corner of the city walls (no 11 in Fig. 2). In 2010, on the Museum’s initiative, a cleaning process was undertaken in the building, and the mosaic with its Greek inscriptions was studied.77 Two rooms in the eastern part of the structure are paved with mosaics. The one in the middle, which is well preserved, features a representation of a figure sitting on a rock with a dog, two sheep and a goat beside him (Fig. 14). The man is identified by a one-word Greek inscription as a shepherd. The centre of the mosaic is occupied by an eleven-line Greek inscription which reveals that the mosaic was made in October 514, by a certain Makimos. The names Maros and Sabas, appearing on the handles of the tabula ansata frame of the inscription, are probably 74. Malalas, cit. (n. 13). 75. Zanini, Urban Ideal, cit. (n. 11), n. 54, p. 214. 76. See D. Sack, Resafa-Sergiupolis, in Jahrbuch Masterstudium Denkmalpflege, 2008 and 2011. 77. Andrew Palmer prepared it as a report to the Mardin Museum and is working on its publication.

166

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 14. Mosaics of the ‘Building with mosaics’.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

the names of the mosaicists. The inscription reads: Text (Greek majuscules, as in the inscription; abbreviations resolved in minuscules): 1 ΕΚΑΡΠΟΦΟΡΕΘΗ Κ(αι) ΕΚΤΙΣΘΗ Κ(αι) ΕΨΗΦΩΘΗ ΜΕΤΑ Θ(εο)Ν 2 ΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΕΥΣΕΒΕΣΤ(ατου) Κ(αι) ΦΙΛΟΧ(ριστο)Υ Η[Μ] ΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛ(εως) 3 ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΙΟΥ ΚΕΛΕΥΣΕΙ ΜΕΝ ΤΟΥ ΕΝΔΟΞ(οτατου) ΔΑΕΘΟΥ ΤΟΠΟΤΗΡΗ 4 ΤΟΥ : ΤΩΝ ΥΠΕΡΛΑΜΠΡΩΝ ΕΠΑΡΧΩΝ ΠΡΟΝΟΙΑ ΔΕ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΕΙΣΤΑ 5 ΜΕΝΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΑΓΙΩΤ(ατης) ΕΚΚΛ(ησιας) ΑΜΙΔΗΣ ΘΕΟΦΙΛ(εστατων) ΑΝΔΡΩΝ : ΕΝ ΧΡ(ονοις) 6 ΕΥΤΥΧΙΑΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΟΣΙΩΤ(ατου) ΕΠΙΣΚΟ(που) ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΙ 7 ΟΥΠΟΛ(εως) ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΟΥΝΤΩΝ ΤΑΥΤΗΣ ΑΒΡΑΑΜΟΥ Κ(αι) ΘΩΜΑ 8 ΤΩΝ ΘΕΟ[ΣΕ]Β(εστατων) ΠΡΕΣΒ(υτερων) 9 ΜΗ(νι) ΔΙΩ ΙΝΔ(ικτιωνος) Η ΤΟΥ ϚΚΩ ΕΤΟΥΣ ΕΙΣ ΔΟΞΑΝ Θ(εο)Υ Π(ατ)[ΡΟΣ] 10 ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ Χ(ριστο)Υ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥ 11 ΜΑΤΟΣ ΑΜΗΝ : ΜΑΚΙΜΟΣ ‘After God, (this building) was funded, founded and paved with mosaics the (monies) of our most pious and Christ-loving emperor Anastasios, at the command of the (most) distinguished (vir gloriosissimus) Daethos, the locum tenens of the most illustrious (vir illustris) Praetorian Prefect; and by the forethought of those men, most dear to God, who preside over the most sacred church of Amida; in the reign of Eutychianos, the most holy bishop of Anastasioupolis, while the administrators of this (city) were the (most) God-fearing priests Abraamos and Thomas, in the month of Dios, Indiction Eight, of the year 826 (October 514 CE), to the glory of God the Father and of his Christ and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Makimos (made this part of the mosaic?).’78

The information in the inscription fits well with the accounts of the foundation of Dara in the chronicle of Ps.Zachariah: Dara was named Anastasiopolis after the just emperor. He swore by his crown that no statement of accounts would be required from Thomas and his church, neither by him nor by any who became emperor after him. [Thomas] appointed and consecrated as the first bishop of [the new city] the priest Eutychian, a conscientious man who was experienced in business, and he gave the privilege to collect alms to his church from the authority of the church of Amida. John, a Roman soldier from Amida, was assigned to him. Eutychian tonsured him and made him a priest and master of the xenodocheion. When [Thomas] went to the imperial city he came with him. When [Eutychian] was presented to the emperor, [Anastasius] gave an endowment to his church. Abraham bar Kaili from Telmidê, the son of Ephraem of Constantia, who was at the time the notary assigned to bishop Eutychian, was also made a priest and was sent to become the supervisor over the works and the construction of the public bath, and eventually became steward of the church. 78. Transcription and translation by Andrew  Palmer, with the advice of Prof. Cyril Mango.

167

The emperor gave to Eutychian gifts of sacred vessels and gold for the building of the great church to be built in the city and sent him off. The bishop lived a little while longer and then he died. Then after him Thomas bar ‘Abdiya, who was a soldier from Reshʿaina, became [bishop]. He was the steward of the church of Amida, and he too was watchful and experienced with regard to business matters.79

The bishop Eutychianos mentioned in the inscription was appointed by Anastasius as the first bishop of Anastasiopolis. The Abraamos mentioned in the inscription is probably Abraham bar Kaili, mentioned by Ps.-Zachariah who was the notary assigned to the bishop. Thomas, also listed as priest and administrator, must be the Thomas bar ‘Abdiya mentioned by Ps.-Zachariah, steward of the church of Amida who was ‘watchful and experienced in regards to business matters’. Ps.-Zachariah does not mention Daethos, locum tenens of the Praetorian Prefect, so this is an important contribution of the inscription to Byzantine Prosopography. When Rist wrote his article about the meticulous recording of Dara by Ps.-Zachariah, the mosaic had not been excavated.80 This discovery supports his arguments that Ps.-Zacharias was an important source for sixth-century Mesopotamia, providing eyewitness accounts. The function of the building with mosaics is unclear. Although the tripartite arrangement in the east and the east–west orientation of the building recalls a church, the inscription on the mosaic is not arranged to be read from the hall to the west of it. In addition, the inscription and the figure are designed to be looked at from two different sides, south (inscription) and north (figure). Palmer has studied the inscription and the mosaic for the Museum and suggested that the building was a guest-house (xenodocheion), belonging to the cathedral church of Dara. Ps.-Zachariah narrates that when the bishop Eutychianos went to Constantinople, he presented his guest master, John, to the emperor.81 According to Palmer, Eutychianos may have received money for the building of the guest-house. Palmer adds an argument for the guest-house function based on the iconography of the mosaic. In the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, Chapter 25, Verses 31–46, Christ is described separating ‘men into two groups, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left’. Then Christ says to those on his right hand: ‘You have my Father’s blessing; come, enter and possess the kingdom that has been ready for you since the world was made. For when I was hungry, you gave me food; when thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was a stranger you took me into your home, when 79. Ps.-Zachariah, Chron., vii, 6, f-g, cit. (n. 1). 80. J. Rist, Der Bau der ostsyrischen Stadt Dara (Anastasiupolis): Überlegungen zum Eigengut in der Kirchengeschichte des Ps.-Zacharias Rhetor, in M. Tamcke (ed.), Syriaca  II, 2004, pp. 243–66. 81. Ps.-Zachariah, Chron., vii, 6, g, cit. (n. 1).

168

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

naked you clothed me; when I was ill you came to my help, when in prison you visited me.’ Then when the righteous asks, ‘when did this happen?’, Christ replies, ‘anything you did for one of my brothers here, however humble, you did for me’. The reading of the iconography of the mosaic as an example of Christian heritage, combined with the inscription mentioning the clergy, may support the idea that the building was a hospice belonging to the cathedral. Christ with sheep and goats appear in Christian iconography, for example in the north wall of the central nave of San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, or on a sarcophagus lid from Rome, now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York.82 However, as Palmer also noted, the iconography also has many parallels in classical and secular art, for example on a Justinianic silver dish in the Hermitage Museum.83 When the depiction is read in a secular context, it may represent a pastoral scene, an idyllic environment. The presence of goats and sheep could also suggest wealth. These alternative meanings do not rule out the hospice as a function but make other options possible as well. If the building was a guest-house or a hospice, it is curious that, despite its perfect accord with the accounts of Ps.-Zachariah, John, the master of the guest-house mentioned in the accounts of Ps.-Zachariah, is not mentioned in the inscription. In the inscription, the Praetorian Prefect is mentioned right after the emperor. This may lead us to suggest that the building was a praetorium. According to Lavan, praetoria were usually located in the provincial capitals, and they were not only residences but also public buildings.84 Dara was elevated to a metropolitan see, probably after Sergiopolis became one in 514,85 meaning in or after 514. The mosaic is dated to 514 and the building may have been built just after its status was raised. Today only a part of the building is uncovered but the aerial photograph shows that its remains stretch further south and east of the uncovered parts. The uncovered walls show that the building was an almost 70 m long complex composed of multiple spaces around an inner court (Fig. 15), thus resembling architecturally the other two epigraphically confirmed late antique praetoria, namely the northern praetorium in Caesarea Maritima86 and the praetorium in Gortyn.87 At the praetorium in Caesarea there is a floor 82. B. Brenk, Tradition und Neuerung in der christlichen Kunst des ersten Jahrtausends: Studien zur Geschichte des Weltgerichtsbildes, Wien, 1966, p. 40. 83. A. Bank, Byzantine Art in the Collections of Soviet museums, Leningrad, 1985, pl. 55. 84. L. Lavan, The Praetoria of Civil Governors in Late Antiquity, in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism (JRA Supplement, 42), Portsmouth, 2001, pp. 39–56, p. 45. 85. E.  Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’ Asie antérieure au VIc siècle (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 127. 2), Louvain, 1951, p. 104. 86. For a plan see Lavan, Praetoria, cit. (n. 84), fig. 4. 87. For a plan see ibid. fig. 1.

inscription mentioning the judicial or financial assistants of the governor.88 In the inscription of Dara clergy are mentioned, but when the inscription is brought together with the account of Ps.-Zachariah we see that these clergy are praised as able administrators. Dara was also a customs post on the Byzantine side and it fits to have had such an administrative building with offices at the entrance of the city from the west. Although it does not help us to securely determine the function of the building, the mosaic in the building is important, not only because it includes one of the few imperial building inscriptions that have survived in frontier forts in Mesopotamia89 and the information in the inscription is in harmony with information in a sixth-century chronicle, but also for its figural decoration. There are only two more floor-mosaics with figural decoration in Northern Mesopotamia: in Haleplibahçe, Edessa (Urfa), where fifth-century mosaics depicting hunting Amazons were found in a secular building,90 and in a beth qadishe in the village of Yolbilen near Constantia (modern Viranşehir), with Syriac inscriptions, a praying figure in the centre, and animals around it.91 Necropolis To the west of Dara there are five quarries in the shape of pockets of rock from which the stone used for the building of the city was extracted (Fig. 2). The one closest to the city was used as a necropolis (Fig. 16). The work of the Museum in the past few years has concentrated on this area, which is one of the most remarkable necropoleis of Late Antiquity. The work involved mainly the removal of a layer of about 4.5–5 m of earth that had resulted from flooding and erosion, thus fully uncovering the north face of the necropolis area. Before the excavations, one hundred and fourteen chamber tombs were already visible, and the decoration of some of them has been published by Marlia Mango.92 The recent excavations have revealed around one hundred more rock-cut tombs belonging to types typical of Late Antiquity, namely chambers, arcosolia (Fig. 17, both in the background), chamosoria (rock-cut lidded tomb at ground level) and freestanding rock-cut sarcophagi (Fig. 18), some of which had typical late Roman sarcophagus-lids (Fig. 17).93 In addition to these graves, there are one hundred and forty three simple graves made of blocks of stone of later date (Fig. 19).

88. Ibid. p. 54. 89. Mango, Mango, Inscriptions de la Mésopotamie du Nord, cit. (n. 5). 90. H. Karabulut, M. Önal, N. Dervişoğlu, Haleplibahçe Mozaikleri, Istanbul, 2011. 91. Keser-Kayaalp, Church Architecture, cit. (n. 8), pl. 199. This mosaic has now been moved to the Urfa Haleplibahçe Mosaic Museum. 92. Mundell, Funerary Relief, cit. (n. 7), p. 215. 93. See E. L. Baysal, H. Elton, A Tomb with a View: The Rock-cut Cemetery at Alahan in Isauria, in Adalya, 17, 2014, pp. 181–208.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

Fig. 15. Aerial view of the ‘Building with mosaics’.

Fig. 16. Aerial view of the necropolis of Dara.

169

170

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 17. Sarcophagus lid with an inscription.

Fig. 18. Chamosorion-type graves.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

171

Fig. 19. Graves made with stone blocks.

Fig. 20. Canopy-like structure in the middle of the necropolis.

In a central location in the necropolis, there is a monumental rock-carved structure in the shape of a canopy standing on four piers with arches in-between and a curved ceiling at the top (Fig. 20). Under and around the canopy are thirteen graves that seem to be of special importance. Some of them are smaller than others. In some of the graves, small finds were discovered. For example, in one grave, finds included five necklaces with glass beads, a bone button, a glass ring, a steel ring, a metal earring, an earring made of glass, bronze and limestone beads, a metal object, a bronze coin, two teardrop bottles, two needles and two glass brace-

lets. From one no bones were recovered, and in others there were several burials with the shape of only one body intact. On two of the graves around the canopy there are inscriptions, both of which are read by Palmer as θεολόγος (theológos); one of those is intact (Fig. 17), whereas the other is in a fragmentary state. These may be graves reserved for priests as ‘theolοgos’ can be translated as one who speaks of God or teaching or preaching about God. It is strange that two of the graves were inscribed with this generic title. This area under the canopy may have been reserved for holy men and privileged people buried near them.

172

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 21.Interior view of the monumental rock-carved chamber in the necropolis (ossuary?).

The most remarkable structure in the necropolis is the monumental rock-carved chamber located in the western end of the necropolis. This chamber has received scholarly attention in the past because of the remarkable sculpture on its entrance.94 The sculpture is composed of two parts. The scene on the left, including a figure with a tunic and a pile of skulls clearly depicts Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones. To the right of this scene is a rectangular frame with an amorphous shape inside it. There is a window in the centre of the composition. To the right of the window there are two grooves and a pediment starting to the right of them. Under the pediment are traces of three figures. To the right of all these is a cypress tree without a trunk. Marlia Mundell (Mango) suggested that the amorphous shape on the left represented fire – more specifically Nebuchadnezzar’s Burning Fiery Furnace – and interpreted the figures under the pediment as the three Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace.95 However, Nicholson suggests another Old Testament scene including fire, namely the Burning Bush on Mount Sinai, ‘from the flames of which God first gave Moses his commission to deliver his people out of captivity and lead them into the Promised Land’.96 We shall return to these interpretations later on. The chamber is entered through an arched doorway under the sculpture. The entrance level is arranged like a gallery and looks over the main area, which has a floor area of around 140 m2. Until recently only the main area and the gallery were known.97 During the excavations of Metin 94. Nicholson, Notes on Dara, cit. (n. 62), pp. 667–71; Mundell, Funerary Relief, cit. (n. 7), pp. 212–17. 95. Mundell, Funerary Relief, cit. (n. 7), p. 216. 96. Nicholson, Notes on Dara, cit. (n. 62), p. 670. 97. Preusser recorded the entrance level and the level below it. Preusser, Baudenkmaler, cit. (n. 30), pl. 60.

Ahunbay, another storey below the main area was discovered and there has been some work on this level. However, the results of that excavation have not been published. We know from the accounts of the workers that about 1.5 m of earth was excavated there. Mardin Museum continued Ahunbay’s work in that area in 2009 and excavated about 25 cm down from the level he left (Fig. 21). It is estimated that there is another 75 cm to the original level of this storey but the excavation, which lasted only one season, was not continued, as the conservation authorities demanded the protection of the chamber itself first. Recently the conservation project has been approved and the Museum plans to continue the excavations in the chamber. This will be done in the presence of anthropologists from the University of Ankara who are also currently studying the bones from the chamber. In these 25 cm, bones of approximately two hundred people were found. Given the further depth (of about 75 cm) and Ahunbay’s earlier excavations, it has been roughly estimated that the bones of more than one thousand people were deposited there. However, one will only be able suggest safer numbers after the further excavations and detailed studies of the Anthropology Department in Ankara are concluded. The arrangement and distribution of the bones is remarkable. There is a single arcosolium with a great number of skulls. This part was not further excavated, but was left for later excavations in the presence of anthropologists. In the rest of the space, the bones seem to be placed randomly, with the exception of one individual skeleton which was found intact. Its place was clearly formed by pushing other bones aside (Fig. 22). At another location, there is a stone with a cross suggesting a tombstone. In the western part of the chamber there is heap of burned bones. However, there is no trace of a fire on this level. The burned bones must have been brought here secondarily.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

173

Fig. 22.View of the lower level of the monumental rock-carved chamber in the necropolis (ossuary?).

The ceiling of the lower level is constructed with moveable slabs (Fig. 21). This, together with the piles of bones at some areas, may suggest that some skeletons were thrown down from the upper level. It seems that, when the lower level was filled up to the staircase, people stopped going down, and used to leave lamps at the entrance of the staircase, as many of them have been found at that location. The fact that some burials in other parts of the necropolis were empty (see above) may suggest a practice of exhumation, but it is too early to say anything certain about this. The initial and unofficial results of the Department of Anthropology at Ankara University state that there are bones of men, women and children in this chamber. There is also a single horse jaw. In terms of small finds, metal objects, whorls, lamps and two coins (one Late Roman in the lowest level and one Artuqid in the gallery level) were found. The middle layer of the chamber has a square layout with four arcosolia on each side, and in these arcosolia there are again multiple burials. The upper gallery was probably used for ritual purposes. In the southwest corner of the upper gallery there is a high ventilation shaft which becomes narrower at the top. There are traces of smoke in this shaft and inside the chamber. These and the burned bones are probably to be due to an accidental fire. Based on the iconography of the sculpture in the entrance of the chamber, there have so far been two suggestions as to who was buried there. Mundell has suggested that, after Dara was taken by the Persians in 573, its inhabitants were led off to exile in Persia. She suggests that those who returned after Dara was given back to Romans in 591 may have chosen to be buried together in a chamber whose iconography is associated with their own return from exile.98 98. Mundell, Funerary Relief, cit. (n. 7), p. 227.

Nicholson also thinks that the chamber was probably built by those who returned from exile, but he argues that it was built for the fallen soldiers in the battle in 573. Mentioning the Sasanian tradition of not burying the dead, he suggests that the inhabitants returning from exile found the bones of the deceased soldiers lying around on the terraces of the necropolis, which are suitable for laying the bodies, and built this chamber to commemorate them.99 The Ezekiel text in fact depicts the Valley of Dry Bones as a ‘vast battlefield strewn with the bones of men long dead’.100 Thus it is plausible that, as Nicholson suggested, those whose bones were deposited were not the returned exiles but those who had fallen in battle. The bones that Ezekiel revived were also an army, but the symbolic importance of Ezekiel’s vision of death and afterlife may have been the main emphasis here, and thus the bones may have not necessarily belonged to the soldiers. Mundell argues that the graphic image at the Ezekiel scene suggests that ‘the sculptor was acquainted with similar heaps of bones’.101 She thought this was a result of their being introduced, during their exile years, to the Sasanian custom of exposing their dead. Nicholson, on the other hand, suggested that there may in fact have been such a heap of bones that was buried in the tomb behind the relief. Although recent finds of heaps of bones may support this argument, there is, on the other hand, nothing dramatically realistic about the depiction. The existence of bones of women and children in the lower level may indicate that this monumental chamber was used as a public ossuary where exhumed bones were stored over decades or maybe centuries. Although exhumation and 99. Nicholson, Notes on Dara, cit. (n. 62), p. 669. 100. Ibid. p. 669, fn.58. 101. Mundell, Funerary Relief, cit. (n. 7), p. 215.

174

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

storage of bones in ossuaries is a standard practice in the Eastern Orthodox Church until today, we are not aware of a late antique example, and this may be a unique find of a late antique public ossuary. Given the absence of a parallel, it is currently difficult to tell if this large chamber was originally built as a depository of exhumed bones, or rather if it was initially cut as a burial chamber, and later turned into a public ossuary. It is possible that its functional conversion took place after the war, as suggested by Mundell and Nicholson, or after a disaster – perhaps a plague – causing mass deaths during the sixth century. Further excavation and anthropological study will enable us to contextualise the material better in the future. In various parts of the necropolis, Greek and Syriac inscriptions have been recorded and studied by Andrew Palmer, who is currently preparing them for publication. The Greek inscriptions all date from the period between the sixth and early seventh centuries. They are clearly later than 514, the date of the mosaic inscription in the ‘building with mosaics’ located outside the city walls, as their style is different. The twenty-three Syriac inscriptions that have survived in the necropolis are all later. One of them is dated to AD 724/5 and another to the early ninth century. The rest are of uncertain date. Palmer has made a detailed study of the shapes of the letters, and he concluded that most of the Syriac inscriptions can be dated between about AD 790 and 820.102 According to Palmer, the Syriac inscriptions show that the cemetery of Dara is the oldest Syrian Christian cemetery yet discovered. Inscriptions dating from the same years have been found elsewhere in the Ṭur ʿAbdin, but they are scattered and usually do not belong to laymen. Based on epigraphic diction and onomastics, Palmer also suggests that the cemetery may have been used by an East Syrian community, arguing that the Dara inscriptions have more in common with East Syrian epitaphs than with those of West Syrians. East Syrian hagiophoric names in the inscriptions lend further support to this argument. Marlia Mango suggested that East Syrians and their clergy might have lived in Dara already when it was taken by the Persians in 573,103 but it is equally possible they settled there after the Arab conquest. These are questions that are yet to be answered. The excavations in the necropolis have produced many small finds such as lamps, coins, earrings, buckles, hundreds of nails used for timber coffins, chisels and hoes used for quarrying and coins of Gordian II, Anastasius, Justinian, Phocas, Constans II, and also an Ummayad coin from AD 742. All this material is currently being studied.104 No Sasanian coins were found during the excavations.

102. A. Palmer’s preliminary report to the Mardin Museum. He is working on a detailed publication. 103. Mundell, Funerary Relief, cit. (n. 7), p. 226. 104. Excavation reports of the Mardin Museum. They are currrently being prepared for a detailed publication.

Mor Gabriel in the Ṭur ʿAbdin: A  Derivative Project of the Building of Anastasiopolis During Anastasius’ reign, the monasteries of the Ṭur ʿAbdin region received generous imperial benefactions, the most substantial of which seems to have been bestowed on the great monastery of Mor Gabriel.105 In the sanctuary of the main church of the monastery of Mor Gabriel (see Fig. 1 for its location), there are wall mosaics composed of glass, marble, silver and gold tesserae, while the floor of the sanctuary is paved with opus sectile of black, red and white marble. In missing parts of this opus sectile we find Proconessian marble fragments, probably coming from marble revetments of the walls.106 Expensive decoration like this is unusual for the monasteries of the region. In the lives of the saints associated with this monastery, the emperors Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius II and Anastasius are mentioned as benefactors of the monastery, but the reliability of such legendary accounts is limited.107 The only emperor who seems to have had a better documented relationship with the monastery is Anastasius. In later sources, it is recorded that the monastery was built in 512,108 a date also supported by the style of the mosaics and opus sectile, and by the style of the Greek inscription of the mosaic.109 Anastasius’ sympathy with the Miaphysites also makes his benefaction plausible. Haarer argues that building additional civic amenities by the border was ‘important in retaining the loyalty of border populations’. Anastasius’ benefactions to religious institutions aimed ‘to strengthen his position as God’s vice regent on earth, and to promote his own monophysite cause’.110 Given that the decoration of the sanctuary is unique in the region, and that it is of exceptionally high quality, it seems likely that it was executed by workmen who came from elsewhere. The sources report that workmen were summoned from all over the empire in order to build Dara.111 These clearly included skilled mosaicists, as demonstrated by the mosaics discovered in the building outside the walls of Dara and by quantities of tesserae made of gold, silver and other coloured glass, recently discovered in the area to the southeast of the cathedral. The reported construction date of Mor Gabriel and its mosaics (AD 512) would fit 105. Haarer, Anastasius, cit. (n. 6), pp. 239–41. 106. M. Mundell, E. J. Hawkins, The Mosaics of the Monastery of Mar Samuel, Mar Simeon, and Mar Gabriel near Kartmin, in DOP, 27, 1973 pp. 279–96. 107. Palmer, Monk and Mason, cit. (n. 73), pp. 49–72 and 113–48. 108. Qartmin Trilogy LXI, microfiche of A. Palmer. Palmer dates the composition of this text between 819 and c. 969. Palmer, Monk and Mason, cit. (n. 73), pp. 13–17. 109. Mundell and Hawkins, Mosaics, cit. (n. 106). 110. Haarer, Anastasius, cit. (n. 6), p. 245. 111. Ps.-Zachariah , Chron., vii, 6, d, cit. (n. 1). Although the Qartmin Trilogy, LIX (n. 73) says that the workmen were summoned for the building of the monastery, they were probably gathered for the building of Dara and sent also to the monastery.

recent research on dara/anastasiopolis

well with a possible second wave of construction activities in Dara, when the building with mosaics mentioned above was also built. As there is no parallel to Mor Gabriel’s mosaic elsewhere in the Ṭur ʿAbdin, it may suggest that imported craftsmen employed for the building of Dara also worked in the surrounding monasteries.112 Thus, one can argue that the construction of Dara had an impact on the surrounding settlements. At the same time, however, the architectural sculpture found in Dara itself is in keeping with local building traditions, which are highly distinctive because of their preference for classical features.113 Conclusion The building project of Dara had a dynamic interaction with the building traditions of the local rural monasteries and the urban centres of wider Mesopotamia, while it was also connected to Constantinople, the other newly built cities of Late Antiquity, like Justiniana Prima, and other late antique centres in Anatolia, the Balkans and Syria. As Zanini pointed out, a model was probably applied when Dara was built. It seems to have had the basic structures of a classical city. It was a medium-sized city, larger than other cities founded in the sixth century but smaller than the surrounding cities such as Amida, Nisibis and Constantia. There were some differences in the city resulting from the local needs. For example, control of water was a priority because of the floods and military tactics. As a result, the cisterns are the most remarkable structures to have survived. The work of the Museum in the past few years has concentrated mostly on the necropolis to the west of the city. During the excavations around one hundred graves of different types and one more level in the monumental Ezekiel tomb have been uncovered. The Greek and Syriac inscriptions have been recorded. All the Syriac inscriptions date between 720 and 820. The two most remarkable discoveries of the studies in the necropolis are the possible earliest East Syrian cemetery and the possible public ossuary. The Museum redocumented a structure that was excavated earlier but not published by M. Ahunbay. Located to the south of the necropolis, this structure is remarkable especially for its mosaic with figures and Greek inscrip112. Palmer suggested that after Dara was built, available manpower was used in the surrounding monasteries. Palmer, Monk and Mason, cit. (n. 73), p. 123. Mundell has suggested that the main church of the Deir Zafaran monastery was built between 526 and 536 when there were new constructions in Dara. M. Mundell, The Sixth Century Sculpture of the Monastery of Deir Zafaran in Mesopotamia, in Actes du XVc Congrès International D’études Byzantines, Athènes 1976, Athènes, 1981, pp. 511–28, esp. 528. 113. M. Mundell Mango, The Continuity of the Classical Tradition in the Art and Architecture of Northern Mesopotamia, in N. G. Garsoian, et al. (eds.), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, Washington, 1982, pp. 47–70.

175

tion. The content of the inscription is in accordance with a contemporary chronicle, and this contributes to prosopographical studies. The iconography of the mosaic is common in the Late Antique world. This structure has tentatively been identified as the xenodocheion. However, in this article we have suggested, as a working hypothesis, that it may have been a praetorium. The recent excavations in Dara show that the city was not confined to the walled area, as shown in the plans of the city published so far. There were remarkable structures outside the southern walls extending probably all the way to Ambar. In that respect, Dara is similar to other Late Antique cities, especially in the Balkans, as we mentioned above. Islamic remains located south of the city require further work and they will shed light on the fate of the city after the Arab conquest in 640. Textual sources mention two churches in the city and we have suggested plans and locations for them. If the identification and plan of it are correct, the church of St. Bartholomew follows local building conventions with a tripartite eastern arrangement and a hall-type nave. The cathedral, on the other hand, either a basilica or a domed basilica, has a plan-type that was common all over the Empire. The opus sectile fragments that have survived to the north of the cathedral, some architectural fragments, which are either scattered around in the city or displayed in Mardin Museum, and the mosaic mentioned above show that the city was adorned with structures built by skilled craftsmen who made use of expensive materials. After all, it was a display of the Roman Empire’s might in the face of the enemy as well as towards the local people. The presence of skilled craftsmanship, material and money also resulted in ambitious building projects in local monasteries like Mor Gabriel. This article provides only an introduction to the recent finds in Dara. all the material presented here requires further study. Detailed publication of the inscriptions by Palmer and of the excavations by the Museum will shed more light on the issues that we have raised here. The excavations continue and our knowledge of the city changes. Although we have presented some ideas about the further defensive structures to the south of the city, the building with mosaics, the churches, the burial practices and inscriptions, more research and new findings may change our conclusions here. In Dara, the priority today is to prepare the site conservation plan, a project already assigned to a private company. According to the plan, expropriation and excavation of further areas will be carried out and a site management plan will be prepared.

Mokisos – Eine kappadokische Fluchtsiedlung des sechsten Jahrhunderts Albrecht Berger*

Refuge in the mountains: Mokisos in the sixth century The site of Viranşehir lies 27 km south of Aksaray in Cappadocia, hidden in an upland valley on the foot of the Hasan Dağı (3258 m), at an altitude of about 1500 m. It preserves the ruins of a large number of roughly built residential houses, constructed with local stone and partially vaulted. About 50 Roman chamber tombs from an earlier phase have survived among the ruins of the houses. The town was protected by an acropolis on the north-west hill and by two fortresses in the vicinity, but had no walls. In the centre of the site, there is a heavily destroyed ecclesiastical complex comprising one large and two smaller churches with attached residential buildings, which can possibly be identified as an episcopal residence. Two other large churches on the slopes of the valley, the so-called Kemerli Kilise and Kara Kilise, are better preserved. A number of smaller churches can be located in the town. All these buildings were erected in the sixth and seventh centuries, featuring characteristic forms of Anatolian ecclesiastical architecture such as dressed stone masonry, horse-shoe arches and apses. After this time, building activity in the town ends: two Middle Byzantine monasteries were built outside the site of the late antique town, probably with spolia from it. Viranşehir is usually identified with the city of Mokisos which was founded under Justinian I, probably in 535, and is described in Prokopios’ Buildings. In that time, Mokisos became the metropolis of the new ecclesiastical province of Cappadocia III, but seems to have had no political or military importance in later centuries. It is therefore probable that it was already destroyed in the seventh century. (Author)

Die Stadtanlage Im Südwesten von Kappadokien liegt, etwa 27 km südlich von Aksaray am Fuß des 3258 m hohen Hasan Dağı, die Ruinenstadt Viranşehir in einem Hochtal über dem Dorf Helvadere.1 Das Tal, ein erodierter Nebenkrater des Hasan Dağı, liegt in etwa 1500 m Höhe. Es ist in nord-südlicher Richtung etwa 1000 m lang und 300 m breit, an seinem Nordende zweigt ein nochmals 300 m langes Seitental nach Westen ab. Zugänglich ist der Ort von Norden, Osten und Westen durch die Sättel zwischen den Hügeln. Die Hänge des Tals sind fast völlig mit Ruinen überzogen, ebenso auch der Talboden, soweit er nicht unter der eingeschwemmten Erde versunken ist. Auf den Außenseiten der Hügel gibt es dagegen nur vereinzelt Reste alter Bebauung. Viranşehir ist deshalb von dem im Norden liegenden Hügelland aus fast

unsichtbar; nur die Akropolis auf dem Nordwesthügel, eine heute zerstörte Kirche auf dem Nordosthügel und einige Häuser in deren Umgebung waren ehemals von weitem zu sehen. Befestigt war die Siedlung bis auf die Akropolis nicht. Das Niveau des Talbodens ist durch die Einschwemmungen um etwa 2 bis 3,50 m angestiegen, die dort vorhandenen kleinen Hügel und Anhöhen waren daher früher im Vergleich zur Umgebung erheblich höher als heute. Zur Zerstörung der Ruinen hat auch die neuzeitliche Nutzung durch Bauern und Hirten aus dem Dorf Helvadere beigetragen, denn im am tiefsten verschütteten Teil des Talbodens wurde bis vor einigen Jahrzehnten Getreide und Gemüse angebaut, und er dient heute im Sommer den Hirten als Lagerplatz. An den Gebäuden auf den Hängen und Kuppen sind dagegen fast keine neuzeitlichen Veränderungen erkennbar. Häuser

* Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. 1. Diese Untersuchung ist das Ergebnis dreier Forschungskampagnen im Auftrag der Abteilung Istanbul des DAI in den Jahren 1994–1996. Ausführlich dazu: A. Berger, Viranşehir (Mokisos), eine byzantinische Stadt in Kappadokien, in Istanbuler Mitteilungen 48, 1998, S. 349-429.

Die besondere Bedeutung der Ruinenstätte von Viranşehir besteht in der großen Zahl der dort erhaltenen frühbyzantinischen Wohnhäuser. Das ist in Kappadokien ohne Parallele, da dort sonst überwiegend in den Felsen gehauene Architektur auf uns gekommen ist. Orte, die sich in verschiedener

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 177-188. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111895

178

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 1. Plan von Mokisos.

Hinsicht mit Viranşehir vergleichen lassen, gibt es vor allem in Kilikien, Syrien und Lykaonien. Am ähnlichsten sind den Häusern von Viranşehir, was die Bauart angeht, die Ruinenstätten Dağören und Gölören im lykaonischen Karaca Dağı,2 die wohl auf dieselbe Zeit zurückgehen und auch die vermutliche Entstehung als Fluchtsiedlungen mit Viranşehir teilen. Häuser von praktisch identischer Gestalt, wenn auch nicht so grob gebaut wie in Viranşehir, sind in Kappadokien und ganz Inneranatolien bis ins zwanzigste Jahrhundert errichtet worden. Eine Datierung der Wohnhäuser ist nach der Architektur daher kaum möglich, zumal Umbauten und Reparaturen nur schwer zu erkennen sind. 2.  K. Belke, Galatien und Lykaonien, Wien, 1984 (TIB 4 = Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 172), S. 174 f.

Viranşehir bestand aus mindestens tausend Häusern auf einer Fläche von etwa 45 bis 50 Hektar und war damit eine nach damaligen Begriffen recht große Siedlung. Als Baumaterial dient durchweg der in der Umgebung des Hasan Dağı vorhandene rötliche bis schwarze Basalt, der an Ort und Stelle aus den felsigen Hängen und Kuppen gebrochen wurde. An einzelnen Stellen blieben große gewachsene Felsteile stehen und wurden in Häuser oder Stützmauern integriert. Die Mauern der Häuser an den Hängen bestehen überwiegend aus riesigen, unbehauenen Steinbrocken, die gewöhnlich ohne besonderen Verband aufgeschichtet sind, nur für die Türgewände und manchmal für die Hausecken wurden etwa rechteckige Stücke ausgewählt. Als Türstürze dienen große, gelegentlich grob zugehauene Steine von bis zu 3 m Länge, die sich bei einer Reihe von Häusern noch in situ befinden. Die Mauern waren wohl durch eine Füllung

mokisos – eine kappadokische fluchtsiedlung des sechsten jahrhunderts

179

Abb. 2. Häuser in Mokisos.

aus Lehm und kleinen Steinen zu Wänden geschlossen. Mörtel ist dabei nicht verwendet worden, er findet sich nur bei den Kirchen, von denen noch zu sprechen sein wird, und bei einigen Zisternen. Die meisten nicht gewölbten Häuser besitzen nur einen Raum im Inneren, keine Fenster und nur eine Tür. Oft sind sie in Zeilen oder kleinen Gruppen mit durchgehenden gemeinsamen Wänden gebaut. Die gewölbten Häuser sind durchweg aus zweischaligem Feld- oder Bruchsteinmauerwerk gebaut. Sie bestehen meistens aus kleinen, rechteckigen, durch einen Gurtbogen in zwei ungefähr quadratische Teile gegliederte Räume, die zu zweien oder dreien parallel nebeneinandergelegt und durch einen vorgelegten Korridor oder auch untereinander mit Türen verbunden sind. Die Spannweite der Gewölbe geht wegen der Bauweise aus kleinen Bruchsteinen und Erde über 2,50 bis 3 m nicht hinaus. Fenster fehlen auch hier, das Licht dürfte durch Öffnungen in den Kuppelscheiteln ins Innere gedrungen sein. Die Nekropole Über das bebaute Gebiet von Viranşehir verteilt finden sich etwa fünfzig Gräber einer Nekropole, die zeitlich vor der Stadt liegen muss. Die Siedlung, zu der sie gehört, ist bisher

nicht gefunden worden, dürfte aber am Platz des heutigen Helvadere oder etwas westlich davon gelegen haben. Die Gräber sind mit wenigen Ausnahmen Tumuli mit einem kurzen Dromos und einer gewölbten Kammer aus großen Basaltquadern, teils mit steinernen Bänken im Inneren. Die Mehrzahl von ihnen liegt zu beiden Seiten des Sattels zwischen Nordost- und Osthügel und auf der nördlichen Seite des Westhügels. Nach der Entstehung der Stadt wurde die Nekropole aufgegeben, einige der Gräber wurden zu Häusern oder Lagerräumen verwandelt. Die Bestattungen fanden seitdem zunächst auf dem Hügel hinter einer der großen Kirchen statt, wo der Bau von Tumuli in fast unveränderter Form fortgesetzt wurde. Diese neue Nekropole wurde später aber ebenfalls durch Häuser aus Felsbrockenmauerwerk überbaut. Überreste von Bauten, die älter als die Hauptphase der Stadt sind, aber keine Gräber, gibt es nur wenige. Es handelt sich zumeist um gerade oder abknickende Mauerzüge, nur an wenigen Stellen sind Grundrisse von Häusern unter der späteren Bebauung erkennbar. Sie sind an ihrer sorgfältigeren Ausführung erkennbar und waren die Quelle der in ihrer Umgebung gehäuft verbauten Spolien, vor allem Türschwellen und Stürzen.

180

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 3. Gräber der Nekropole.

Die Kirchen der Ruinenstadt wurden zwar in der Mehrzahl erheblich sorgfältiger gebaut als die Häuser der älteren Phase und der Hauptphase, aber ihre Existenz setzt das Bestehen einer großen Siedlung voraus, die doch wohl die Stadt aus Felsbrockenmauerwerk sein muss, und ihre architektonischen Formen zeigen, dass sie nicht vor dem 6. Jh. entstanden sein können. Strassen Der älteste erkennbare Weg im Gebiet von Viranşehir durchquerte die Stadt am Fuß des Nordost- und Nordhügels, auf dem die Akropolis liegt, und verließ sie nach Westen durch ein steiles Tal. An ihm liegt eine Reihe von Gräbern der römischen Nekropole, was nahelegt, dass sie auf die Zeit vor die Neugründung zurückgeht. Die bei der Stadtgründung neu angelegten Straßen durchziehen das bebaute Gebiet ohne besonderes System. Es gibt keine regelmäßige Planung in Rasterform und keine geraden Straßenachsen und Plätze. Portikus, auch eine Kanalisation fehlen, und nur vereinzelt haben sich Reste von Straßenpflaster und Treppen an den Hängen erhalten. Es ist also offenkundig, dass die Stadt eilig und als Fluchtsiedlung angelegt wurde. Eine Rekonstruktion des alten Straßennetzes ist freilich nicht durchgehend möglich, weil viele Straßenzüge durch neuzeitliche Feldeinfassungen stark gestört sind.

Der direkte Weg vom heutigen Dorf Helvadere her durch den Einschnitt zwischen den beiden Hügeln im Norden, das sogenannte Demirkapı, spielte zur Zeit, als die Siedlung bewohnt war, noch keine Rolle. Die Wasserversorgung Reste einer Wasserleitung existieren nicht, Zisternen gab es nur wenige und nur in der Nähe der großen Kirchen. Die Wasserversorgung muss sich deshalb vor allem auf natürliche Quellen gestützt zu haben. Die Ruinenstadt ist heute wasserlos, doch soll noch im 19. Jh. dort eine kräftige Quelle entsprungen sein, die dann verschwand und in Helvadere wieder ans Tageslicht trat.3 Helvadere besitzt heute eine Anzahl ganzjährig fließender starker Quellen, die durch eine Fernleitung auch zur Versorgung der Stadt Aksaray dienen. Befestigungsanlagen Die Stadt besaß wie anfangs erwähnt keine Mauer, und auch die relativ bequem zugänglichen Eingänge zur Stadt waren nicht befestigt. Doch liegt auf dem nordwestlichen 3. S. Terraz, Un pèlerinage à Nazianze, in Échos d’Orient, 4,  1900/01, S. 171–77, hier 174; der genaue Ort wird nicht angegeben.

mokisos – eine kappadokische fluchtsiedlung des sechsten jahrhunderts

181

Abb. 4. Der Komplex um die Hauptkirche von Mokisos.

der von Viranşehir zum Sarıgöl und weiter übers Gebirge nach Süden führte. Die andere, kleinere liegt etwa 3 km westlich von Viranşehir. Sie diente zur Überwachung der Ebene, durch die in etwa 2 km Entfernung die Straße nach Koloneia/Aksaray führt.

Hügel eine Festung von ungefähr 120 m Länge und 30–50 m Breite, in der Reste einer Kirche, eines größeren Gebäudes und einer Zisterne auszumachen sind. Für die Identifizierung der Stadt ist die Frage von Belang, ob diese Festung mit ihr zusammen als Akropolis oder schon früher als selbständige Anlage entstanden ist. Letzteres wurde von Eugenia Equini Schneider angenommen, die die Bautechnik der Mauern für hellenistisches Pseudo-Polygonalmauerwerk hielt, die Festung also erheblich vor die byzantinische Stadtanlage und die römische Nekropole datierte.4 Das mörtellose Mauerwerk mit Außenschalen aus sehr großen, grob gebrochenen Steinen unterscheidet sich aber in nichts von dickeren Mauern in der byzantinischen Stadt. In derselben Weise gebaut ist auch ein kleines Fort von etwa 18 m Länge und 26 m Breite, das mitten im bebauten Gebiet am Rand des Talbodens in der Nähe einer Kirche liegt. Es ist sicher älter als die Hauptphase der Stadt, denn einen militärischen Sinn kann es nur zu einer Zeit gehabt haben, als es die umgebenden Wohnhäuser noch nicht gab. In der näheren Umgebung von Viranşehir befinden sich auf zwei Vorbergen des Hasan Dağı außerdem Burgen zur Sicherung der zur Stadt führenden Straßen. Die eine davon liegt etwa 2 km östlich und von den höhergelegenen Stadtteilen aus in Sichtweite.5 Sie überwachte den Weg,

Die Kirchen von Viranşehir6 zeigen die für die byzantinische Architektur des inneren Kleinasiens typischen Merkmale: Apsiden und Tonnengewölbe sind oft hufeisenförmig, und das Mauerwerk besteht ausschließlich aus Stein, der anders als bei den Häusern oft sehr sorgfältig mit Außenund Innenschalen aus Quadern verarbeitet ist. Die großen, architektonisch anspruchsvollen Kirchen scheinen dabei im 6. und frühen 7. Jh. errichtet zu sein. In der Mitte des Talbodens lag die Hauptkirche der Stadt, wohl eine gewölbte Basilika mit Querhaus und Vierungskuppel von etwa 18,50 m Breite und 15,50 m Länge, von der außer der Apsis nur noch wenige Reste sichtbar sind. Sie bildete das Zentrum eines Baukomplexes, in dem wir vielleicht die Residenz des Erzbischofs von Mokisos erkennen können – über die Identifizierung der Stadt wird später noch zu sprechen sein.

4. E. Equini Schneider, Classical Sites in Anatolia: 1994 Archaeological Survey in Cappadocia, in XII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara 1994  (1995), S. 429–40, hier 433  f.; dies., Classical Sites in Anatolia: 1994 Archaeological Survey in Cappadocia, in XIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara 1995 (1996), I, S. 15–33, hier 18 f. 5. Erwähnt bei İ.  H. Konyalı, Âbideleri ve kitâbeleri ile Niğde

Aksaray Tarihi I–III, İstanbul, 1974–75. 6. Zu ihnen zuerst H. Rott, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler, Leipzig, 1908, S. 265–68; W. M. Ramsay, G. L. Bell, The Thousand and One Churches of Asia Minor, London, 1909, S. 325 f. 363 f. Vgl. auch M. Restle, Studien zur frühbyzantinischen Architektur Kappadokiens, Wien, 1979 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 138).

Kirchen und Klöster

182

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 5. Kemerli Kilise und Kara Kilise.

Zu diesem Baukomplex gehörten eine heute stark zerstörte Kirche mit Parekklesia zu beiden Seiten, die wegen der dort zu findenden Arkosolgräber wohl als Grablege angesehen werden kann, ferner eine kreuzförmige Kuppelkirche, eine Zisterne und einige Wohngebäude, darunter ein besonders sorgfältig ausgeführtes auf einem Hügel östlich von der Hauptkirche, der zur Bauzeit die Umgebung um etwa sechs Meter überrragt haben muss. Besser erhalten sind zwei weitere Kirchen auf dem Westhang der Stadt. Die eine davon ist die kreuzförmige sogenannte Kemerli Kilise, die ihren Namen den beiden erhaltenen großen Tragebögen der Vierung verdankt. Die Kirche besitzt um das zentrale, ca. 5 × 5 m große Kuppeljoch drei Kreuzarme von etwa derselben Tiefe wie die hufeisenförmige Apsis und wurde wegen der Lage an einem steil ansteigenden Hügel nicht von Westen, sondern durch zwei Türen im Winkel zwischen Süd- und Westarm betreten. Es lässt sich auch erkennen, dass sie nach einem Einsturz der Kuppel aus dem vorhandenen Material einmal neu aufgebaut worden ist. Außer bei dem Baukomplex im Talboden sind nur bei der Kemerli Kilise Gebäudereste erhalten, die man als Kloster oder als Wohntrakt für Kleriker deuten könnte. Die sogenannte Kara Kilise steht noch bis über den Ansatz des Gewölbes aufrecht und ist ca. 6,35 × 8,80 m groß. Der jetzige Bauzustand ist nicht der ursprüngliche, sondern durch einen reduzierenden Umbau entstanden, denn von den Schiffswänden ist die südliche großenteils aus wiederverwendeten Quadern errichtet, und Nord- wie Westwand bestehen aus nur grob behauenen Steinen. Dabei wurde die

Nordwand verstärkt, die Südwand erhielt einen hohen Portalvorbau mit einem Tonnengewölbe. Ob die Kirche in der ersten Phase dreischiffig war, ist dem Befund nicht sicher zu entnehmen. Möglicherweise besaß sie nur zwei seitliche Kapellen, die nach Westen etwa bis zur Mitte des Schiffs reichten. Später, ob gleichzeitig mit dem Wiederaufbau oder danach ist unklar, wurde der Boden der Apsis erhöht und darunter eine Krypta eingerichtet. Die mehrfachen Umbauten lassen vermuten, dass sie länger als die anderen großen Kirchen in der Stadt unterhalten wurde und vielleicht der letzte Bischofssitz von Mokisos war. Übrigens ähneln zwei Kirchenruinen in der näheren Umgebung von Viranşehir der Kemerli Kilise und der Kara Kilise so sehr, dass sie als deren Kopien intendiert gewesen sein müssen – ein Hinweis darauf, dass Viranşehir als regionales Zentrum eine gewisse kulturelle Ausstrahlung besessen hat.7 Außer diesen repräsentativ gestalteten Kirchen gab es in der Stadt noch eine größere Zahl von einfacheren, einschiffigen Bauten, teils mit einem Parekklesion, von denen meistens nur die Grundmauern erhalten sind. Sie sind zumeist in der Kleinquadertechnik der gehobenen Wohnhäuser mit oder ohne Mörtel errichtet, in einem Fall sogar in dem erwähnten Felsbrockenmauerwerk. Bei mehreren Kirchen ist an Baunähten zu erkennen, dass sie additiv durch das 7. Sarıgöl: Restle, Studien, cit. (n. 6), S. 24; Çanlı Kilise: R. G. Ousterhout, A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia, (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 42), Washington D.C., 2011, S. 135–37.

mokisos – eine kappadokische fluchtsiedlung des sechsten jahrhunderts

183

Abb. 6. Die kleinen Kirchen von Mokisos.

Aneinanderfügen einzelner Teile entstanden sind: Der Bau begann mit der Apsis, dann wurden ein Schiff, vielleicht auch ein Parekklesion und ein Narthex hinzugefügt. Zwei Kirchen kamen dabei nicht über die Apsis hinaus.8 Auch außerhalb der Stadt gab es eine ganze Reihe von Kirchen, vor allem an den Hängen des Hasan Dağı über dem Waldgürtel. Vier davon, die sogenannte Süt Kilisesi und die Kirchen am Sarıgöl südlich von Yenipınar, bei Yağdebaşı und Bozboyun, stammten aus der frühbyzantinische Zeit, und bei den ersten beiden lassen Bauereste vermuten, dass sie zu einem Kloster gehörten. Zwei weitere Klöster in diesem Bereich entstanden dagegen erst in der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit und wohl schon aus dem Material der zerstörten Stadt. Das eine davon liegt auf dem sogenannten Domuz Düzlüğü. Seine Kirche aus drei hintereinanderliegenden quadratischen Jochen besaß im Inneren einige Arkosolgräber und war nachträglich mit mehreren Parekklesia versehen worden. Vergleichbare Kirchen in Griechenland, auf der Balkanhalbinsel und in Westkleinasien, aber auch in Inneranatolien werden ins 10.–13. Jh.  datiert.9 Das zweite der mittelbyzantinischen 8. Die Errichtung in mehreren zeitlich aufeinanderfolgenden Abschnitten war auch andernorts ein üblicher Vorgang: In Akören in Kilikien lässt sich anhand von Inschriften feststellen, dass die Apsis einer Kirche 525, das Langhaus 540, der Narthex 594 erbaut wurde, vgl. G. Mietke, Survey der römischen und frühbyzantinischen Siedlung bei Akören in Kilikien 1994, in XIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 1995 (1996), S. 35–48, hier 38. 9. J. Koder, Hellas, in RBK II (1971), S. 1099–1189, hier 1150 ff.; Z. Kádár, Bulgarien, in RBK I (1966), S. 795–836, hier 822 f.;

Klöster, der sogenannte Eshab-ı Kehf Hanı etwa 1500 m westlich von der Stadt,10 besteht aus einem ummauerten Hof mit einer Kreuzkuppelkirche in der Südostecke. Zur Identifizierung des Ortes Alles in allem ist Viranşehir eine sehr merkwürdige Ruinenstätte, vor allem, weil es am Ort selbst keinerlei Hinweise auf seinen alten Namen gibt. Wegen des Fehlens von Inschriften ist der ursprüngliche Name nicht direkt festzustellen, und unsere lückenhafte Kenntnis der Topographie des byzantinischen Kappadokien erlaubt bis heute keine völlig sichere Identifizierung. Die Griechen, die vor 1923 das Dorf Helvadere im Tal darunter bewohnten, lebten K. Rheidt, Die byzantinische Wohnstadt (Altertümer von Pergamon, 15/2), Berlin, 1991, S. 229; ders., Boğazköy und Pergamon. Zur byzantinischen Klosterarchitektur in Kleinasien, in Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 43, 1993, S. 479–85, hier 480 f. Auch eine Rekonstruktion als Dachtranseptkirche mit einer überhöhten Quertonne im Mitteljoch ist denkbar; zu diesem Typ vgl. A. K. Orlandos, Ἀρχεῖoν τῶν βυζαvτινῶν μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδoς I, Athen, 1935, S. 181–96; G. Demetrokalles, Ἡ καταγωγὴ τῶν σταυρεπιστέγων ναῶν, in Xαριστήριov εἰς Ἀ. K. Ὀρλάνδoν, Athen, 1966, II, S. 187–211; H. M. Küpper, Bautypus und Genesis der griechischen Dachtranseptkirche, Wien, 1996. 10. Konyalı, Âbideleri, cit. (n. 5), S. 1085–1088. 1955 f. Als Kale Kilisesi oder Han Kilisesi bei Rott, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler, cit. (n. 6), S. 268; Ramsay, Bell, The Thousand and One Churches, cit. (n. 6), S. 463 mit Abb. 356; F. Hild, M. Restle, Kappadokien (TIB, 2 = Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.hist. Klasse, Denkschriften, 149), Wien, 1981, S. 188.

184

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 7. Die Umgebung von Mokisos.

dort nicht kontinuierlich seit der byzantinischen Zeit und kannten den alten Namen nicht.11 Die Versuche, Viranşehir mit einer aus der literarischen Überlieferung bekannten Siedlung zu identifizieren, setzen schon mit den ersten Besuchern Charles Texier 1837 und William Hamilton 1843 ein.12 Nach ihren Beschreibungen muss sich die Stadt etwa im selben Zustand wie heute befunden haben, doch ist eine genaue Interpretation ihrer Berichte schwierig, weil Pläne fehlen und die Himmelsrichtungen nicht klar angegeben sind. Später hielten Hans Rott und Gertrude Bell, die den Ort 1908 und 1909 besuchten, Viranşehir für eine Klostersiedlung,13 was bei seiner Größe aber so gut 11. Berger, Viranşehir (Mokisos), cit. (n. 1). 12. Ch. Texier, Déscription de l’Asie Mineure II, Paris, 1849, S. 94 f. 95 f.; W. Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia, London, 1842, S. 226 ff. – Hamilton schreibt Texier teilweise fast wörtlich aus, nicht ohne die Meter in Fußmaße umzurechnen. Er kannte Texiers Material also schon vor der Publikation, erwähnt aber nicht wie an anderen Stellen seines Werkes (z. B. I, S. 383–99), dass jener vor ihm den Ort bereist hatte. 13. Vgl. oben Anm. 12 und G.  Bell, briefliche Mitteilung in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 17, 1908, S. 277: ‘small monastic foundations are scattered over the north and west flanks’; ähnlich noch N. Thierry, L’eglise paleochretienne de Hanköy, monument inedit de Cappadoce, in Monuments et mémoires, 71, 1990, S. 43–82, hier 22.

wie ausgeschlossen ist.14 Hamilton hatte Viranşehir zunächst mit Nazianzos identifiziert,15 das aber sicher erheblich weiter im Nordosten liegt und nicht in Frage kommt.16 John Anderson setzte Viranşehir auf seiner Karte Kleinasiens 1903 mit einer Festung namens Nora oder Neroassos gleich, was in populären türkischen Publikationen bis heute manchmal zu lesen ist. Da Nora nach Strabon aber nur zwei Stadien Umfang hatte,17 ist diese Identifizierung schon bald bezweifelt worden.18 14. Die Fixierung auf Klosterarchitektur hat vielerorts zur falschen Deutung von Gebäudekomplexen und Siedlungen geführt, vgl. dazu im Zusammenhang mit den Felssiedlungen bei der Çanlı Kilise R. Ousterhout, Historic Design in the Environment: A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia, in Proceedings of the WestCentral Regional Meeting of the American Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Champaign, 1995, S. 13–18, hier 18; ders., The 1994 Survey at Akhisar-Çanlı Kilise, in XIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 1995 (1996), II, S. 165–80, hier 171. 15. Auch von Texier, Déscription ebd.; ferner bei Terraz, Pèlerinage, cit. (n. 3), in einer Beschreibung mit merkwürdig verdrehten Himmelsrichtungen, und H. Leclercq, Nazianze, in DACL, XII, 1935, S. 1054 f. 16. Zur wirklichen Lage von Nazianzos und seinen Überresten vgl. Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10), S. 244 f. 17. Strabon 12, 537. 18. H. Kiepert, Formae orbis antiqui, Berlin, 1909, Text S. 17b;

mokisos – eine kappadokische fluchtsiedlung des sechsten jahrhunderts

Erst Ernst Honigmann schlug 1939 vor, in Viranşehir die unter Justinian I. (527–65) neu gegründete Stadt Mokisos zu sehen; er begründete dies mit der Beschreibung durch den Historiker Prokopios und mit der Überlegung, dass alle später bekannten Suffragane des Erzbistums Mokisos südlich vom Halys/Kızılırmak lagen und deshalb auch der Metropolitensitz selbst dort gesucht werden sollte. Zu dieser Datierung passen auch die oben erwähnten Eigenheiten der Stadtanlage und die Formen der dort erhaltenen Kirchenreste. Mokisos ist, wie sein vorgriechischer Name zeigt, ein alte Siedlung, deren Geschichte weit vor die byzantinische Zeit zurückreicht. Doch gibt es darüber keine Quellen, und greifbar wird für uns der Ort erst durch den Bericht des Prokopios, der über die Neugründung mit folgenden Worten berichtet: Es gab aber in Kappadokien ein Kastell namens Mokisos, das in der Ebene lag und so verfallen war, dass es teils bereits eingestürzt war, teils einzustürzen drohte. Kaiser Justinian ließ es abreißen und westlich vom alten Kastell an einer steilen, sehr hohen und schwierig anzugreifenden Stelle eine riesige Mauer errichten. Dort erbaute er auch viele Heiligtümer, Herbergen, öffentliche Bäder und was sonst anzeigt, dass eine Stadt wohlhabend ist. Seitdem stieg Mokisos auch zur Würde einer Metropolis auf; denn so nennen die Römer die erste Stadt des betreffenden Volkes.19

Die Verlegung einer Siedlung aus militärischen Rücksichten ist in der Zeit Justinians nicht ohne Parallele,20 doch könnte sie im Fall von Mokisos in Wirklichkeit bereits unter Anastasios I. (491–518) in Angriff genommen worden sein, denn Stephanos von Byzanz führt in seinem geographischen Lexikon Mokisos als Stadt der Provinz Kappadokia II auf. Seine Quelle sind die nicht erhaltenen Isaurika des Kapiton,21 in denen den Aufstand der Isaurier in den Jahren zwischen 491 und 498 geschildert wurde.22 Da sich die Bezeichnung von Mokisos als Stadt schlecht mit dem von Prokopios erwähnten alten Kastell verbinden lässt, könnte die Neugründung bereits damals erfolgt sein. Wahrscheinlicher ist aber, dass die Neugründung eine Folge der Einfällen der Sabiren nach Kleinasien im Jahr 515 war. Danach ließ

W. Ruge, Nora, in RE, 17/1, 1936, S. 923 f. 19. Prokopios, Bauten 5, 4, 15–18. 20. D. Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt im 6. Jahrhundert (Byzantinisches Archiv, 13), München, 1969, S. 97 ff. 201. 21. Stephani Byzantii Ethnica III, ed. M. Billerbeck, Berlin, 2014 (CFHB, 43,3), 332 = M 218; zu Kapiton (Capito) vgl. E. Schwartz, Capito, in RE, III (1899), S. 1527. Mokisos ist der einzige Ort in Kappadokien, der von Stephanos unter Verweis auf Kapiton angeführt wird, vgl. FHG IV, ed. C. Müller, Paris, 1851, S. 133 f. 22. Eine Zusammenfassung der Ereignisse bei F. Hild, H. Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien (TIB, 5 = Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften, 215), Wien, 1984, S. 41 f.

185

Anastasios mehrere Städte mit neuen Mauern versehen,23 doch wurden diese Befestigungen überwiegend erst in der Zeit Justinians vollendet und außer der von Melitene von Prokopios diesem alleine zugeschrieben. Dass wir in den Ruinen von Viranşehir tatsächlich Mokisos vor uns haben, erscheint sehr plausibel. Für die Identifizierung spricht außer der Lage die Tatsache, dass die ungefähr datierbaren Kirchen stilistisch in das 6. und frühe 7. Jh. passen, und einige Ungereimtheiten, die dem entgegenzustehen scheinen, lassen sich teils durch den Charakter von Prokopios’ Werk als Propagandaschrift erklären, teils auch dadurch, dass er den Ort wahrscheinlich selbst nie gesehen hat. Die auffälligste Divergenz besteht darin, dass es in Wirklichkeit keine Stadtmauern gibt; wenn sie neuere Reisende an einigen Stellen zu sehen glaubten,24 ist das schon ein Schluss aus der Identifizierung mit Mokisos und der Beschreibung des Prokopios. In dieser ist allerdings nicht explizit gesagt, dass die Befestigung die Kirchen und öffentlichen Gebäude einschloss, es könnte also auch nur die Akropolis auf dem Nordwesthügel gemeint sein. Wenn Propokios außerdem die Herbergen und Bäder im neuen Mokisos hervorhebt, muss das wohl als literarischer Topos erklärt werden.25 Unter den erhaltenen Ruinen befindet sich kein als Bad erkennbares Gebäude und keine Wasserleitung, wie sie für den Betrieb nötig wäre. Die Erhebung zum Erzbistum fand wie einige weitere Änderungen in der Kirchenverwaltung wohl 535 statt. Dabei wurde im Gebiet um den Hasan Dağı eine neue Kirchenprovinz Kappadokia III mit Mokisos als Zentrum gebildet, politisch gehörte die Stadt aber weiterhin zur Kappadokia II. Nicht erwähnt wird von Prokopios merkwürdigerweise die Umbenennung der Neugründung in Iustinianupolis. Unter diesem Namen erscheint Mokisos zuerst 536 in den Dokumenten einer Synode in Konstantinopel, auf der sein erster Metropolit Petros anwesend war.26 Am V. ökumenischen Konzil in Konstantinopel nahm 553 der Metropolit

23. Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. H. Thurn, Berlin 2000 (CFHB, 35), 16, 17; im folgenden vgl. Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10) S. 68 f.; W. Brandes, Die Städte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten, 56), Berlin, 1989, S. 47; Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt, cit. (n. 20), S. 222 f. 24. F. Hild, Das byzantinische Straßensystem in Kappadokien (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften, 131), Wien, 1977, S. 50–51; Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10) S. 238 (beim Demirkapı); E. Karatza, Kαππαδoκία. O τελευταίoς Eλληνισμός της περιφέρειας Ακσεράι Γκέλβερι, Athena, 1985, S. 66. 25. Claude, Die byzantinische Stadt, cit. (n. 20), S. 196. 26. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum III, ed. E. Schwartz, Berlin, 1940, S. 27, 30; 115, 8; 126, 18; 154, 29; 162, 20; 166, 18; 170, 38; ein Diakon Thomas aus Mokisos ebd. 150, 26.

186

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Abb. 8. Kappadokien in der byzantinischen Zeit.

Theodosios,27 am Quinisextum 692 Theopemptos teil.28 Danach verschwindet der Name Iustinianupolis wieder aus den Quellen. Mokisos behielt seine Stellung als Metropole der Kirchenprovinz Kappadokia III durch die ganze byzantinische Zeit bei, erlangte aber keinerlei politische Bedeutung, denn die Provinz Kappadokia II mit dem Hauptort Tyana wurde anders als der Metropolitansprengel nie geteilt, Mokisos nie Provinzhauptstadt, und der Ort wird später nur noch im Zusammenhang mit der Kirchenverwaltung namentlich erwähnt. Die Neugründung der justinianischen Zeit hat also nur eine kurze Blüte erlebt. Wie wir gesehen haben, wurde der Bau von Häusern zwar noch einige Jahrzehnte fortgesetzt und führte sogar zu einer Ausdehnung der Siedlungsfläche in die christliche Nekropole hinein. Doch sind an Einzelgebäu-

den nur selten mehrere Bauphasen erkennbar, ein Hinweis darauf, dass der Ort nur vergleichsweise kurz besiedelt war. Wann Mokisos sein Ende fand, kann aus Mangel an Quellen nur vermutet werden, doch dürfte der Niedergang schon bald nach 600 begonnen haben: Seit 609 wurde der Osten Kleinasiens von den Persern angegriffen und war zwischen 615 und 628 teilweise von ihnen besetzt. Spätestens 643 begannen die regelmäßigen arabischen Plünderungszüge, die erst im zehnten Jahrhundert endeten.29 Mokisos könnte besonders unter dem Überfall auf Koloneia (Aksaray) im Jahr 664 gelitten haben, bei dem die arabische Expeditionsarmee dort überwinterte.30 Militärisch spielte Mokisos in späteren Jahrhunderten keine Rolle. Der arabische Geograph Ibn Hurdādbih nennt in Kappadokien fünf Hauptfestungen und 14 weitere Festungen, davon acht mit Namen.31 Die meisten davon liegen

27. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum IV 1, ed. J. Straub, Berlin, 1971, S. 5, 1 f.; 21, 31; 33, 34; 40, 31; 204, 32 f.; 226, 12 f.; die Umbenennung aus Mokisos wird nur in einer Aussage auf der fünften Sitzung erwähnt, ebd. 100, 6 f. und 26 f. 28. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum ser. II, II 2, ed. R. Riedinger, Berlin, 1992, S. 893, 8 f.

29. Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10) S. 70–84; Brandes, Die Städte Kleinasiens, cit. (n. 23), S. 52–80. 30. Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10) S. 207 f.; Brandes, Die Städte Kleinasiens, cit. (n. 23), S. 57. 31. Ibn Hūrdādbih, ed. M. E. de Goeje, Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum 6 2(1967), S. 108. Die Identifizierungen nach E. Ho-

mokisos – eine kappadokische fluchtsiedlung des sechsten jahrhunderts

A

B

C

D

187

A. Blick über den Talboden zum Hasan Dağı. B. Der Kirchenkomplex im Talboden. C. Die Kemerli Kilise. D. Die Kara Kilise.

an den Straßen durch das Bergland des Hasan Dağı und der Melendiz Dağları, die in der byzantinischen Zeit statt der antiken, die Berge in der ungeschützten Ebene umgehenden Routen bevorzugt wurden.32 Mokisos, das unmittelbar an der nigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 971, in A. Vasiliev (Hrsg.), Byzance et les Arabes III, Bruxelles, 1935, S. 45 ff.; Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10), s. v. – Die Hauptfestungen sind Koron/Çömlekçi, Sasima/Hasanköy, Antigus/Anduğu (Altunhisar), Argos/Keçikalesi, Kyzistra/Zengibar Kalesi; die übrigen mit Namen genannten Festungen sind Nakida/ Niğde, Balbissa/Valisa (Yaylayolu), Malandasa/Karamelendiz (Ovalıbağ), Karbala/Gelveri (Güzelyurt), Malakopea/Melegübü (Derinkuyu), Andabalis/Andaval (Yeniköy), Orbada/Aravan (Kumluca) und Sālamūn/Selime. 32. Die eine der antiken Straßen verlief im Norden über Nazianzos und Sasima, die andere umging den Hasan Dağı auf der Südwestseite und berührte Salaberina und Antigus, vgl. Hild, Das byzantinische Straßensystem, cit. (n. 24), S. 41–48.

kürzesten Verbindung von Tyana nach Koloneia lag, wird dabei nicht erwähnt. Mehrfach überschritten die Araber den Tauros und griffen Westkappadokien an, um sich den Weg über Ankyra oder Ikonion in Richtung Konstantinopel zu bahnen. Beim letzten großen Feldzug 830 eroberten sie mehrere Festungen, und wieder ist von Mokisos nicht die Rede, obwohl die Erwähnung der großen Festung Hisn Sinān etwa 16 km nördlich von Mokisos nahelegt, dass der Angriff auch auf der mittleren Route durch das Gebirge vorgetragen wurde, an der Straße entlang, die durch Mokisos lief oder die Stadt berührte.33 An den Kirchen von Viranşehir sind einige Reparaturen sichtbar, die sich aber nicht datieren lassen. Nur die Umbauten an der Kara Kilise gehören mit einer gewissen 33. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, cit. (n. 31), S. 101 f. 288. 392; Hild, Das byzantinische Straßensystem, cit. (n. 24), S. 50 f. (Route A 1 d).

188

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Wahrscheinlichkeit der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit an und lassen vermuten, dass diese noch länger nach der Zerstörung der übrigen Bauten genutzt wurde. Die später entstandenen Klöster in der Umgebung lagen nicht in der damals wohl schon zerstörten alten Stadt, sondern außerhalb an den Hängen des Hasan Dağı. Wenn der Sitz von Mokisos in späteren Bischofslisten noch steht, kann das auch bedeuten, dass der Metropolit nicht hier zwischen den Ruinen, sondern in einem nahegelegenen Kloster oder einer Festung residierte. Als Ausweichresidenz käme die erwähnte Festung Hisn Sinān in Frage, die im 7. und 8. Jh. eine zentrale Rolle bei der Verteidigung der Region spielte,34 oder später auch der Komplex um die sogenannte Çanlı Kilise, einen Bau wohl der letzten byzantinischen Zeit in Kappadokien.35 Nach der türkischen Landnahme bestand die Kirchenverwaltung in Kleinasien zunächst weiter, doch zogen sich viele Bischöfe, auch solche von Mokisos, nach Konstantinopel

zurück. Als Folge der zweiten türkischen Einwanderungswelle im späten 13. und frühen 14. Jh. ging der Anteil der griechisch sprechenden Bevölkerung in Kleinasien stark zurück, und die kirchliche Organisation brach zusammen. Der Sitz von Mokisos war zeitweise vakant und wurde seit 1327 von Kaisareia aus verwaltet,36 bis er 1369 neu besetzt wurde.37 1370 versuchte das Patriarchat die Kirchenverwaltung in Kappadokien ein letztes Mal neu zu ordnen und ernannte dabei einen Erzbischof von Mokisos. Danach verschwindet der Name für immer aus den Quellen. Warum die Stadt oder das, was von ihr nach den Angriffen der Araber noch übrig war, schließlich ganz aufgegeben wurde, ist leicht zu erkennen: Die Erosion hatte durch Einschwemmungen im Talboden das alte Siedlungszentrum verschüttet, das Wasser wurde im Lauf der Zeit knapp, und vor allem wog die größere Sicherheit der Lage in einer politisch stabilen Zeit das beschwerliche Leben im Hochtal nicht mehr auf.

34. Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10) S. 277–79. 35. Ousterhout, A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia, cit. (n. 7).

36. J. Darrouzès, Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople I 5, Paris, 1977, Nr. 2133 und 2486; im folgenden vgl. Hild, Restle, Kappadokien, cit. (n. 10), S. 122 f. 238. 37. Darrouzès, Les Regestes, cit. (n. 36), Nr. 2554.

Androna and the Late Antique Cities of Oriens Marlia Mundell Mango*

Androna et les cités tardo-antiques d’Oriens Dans une récente communication l’auteur a proposé une classification des villes du Bas-Empire du proche Orient fondée sur leur statut administratif en tant que polis: capitale diocésaine, capitale de province, et ville ordinaire de province. On peut y ajouter un quatrième cas, représenté par Androna, village par son statut (kome), qui a connu cependant à cette époque une expansion prodigieuse (superficie de 160 ha, onze églises, une enceinte murale). Comment expliquer ce développement qui dépasse celui de bien de villes? Sur la base d’une campagne de fouilles et d’études du paysage conduite par l’Université d’Oxford, l’auteur discerne une expansion agricole ayant pour but un marché particulier, à savoir le ravitaillement de l’armée byzantine stationnée à proximité, sur la rive de l’Euphrate. (Auteur)

The announcement of the New Cities Workshop stated that ‘The perception of urban change in Late Antiquity as decline, [was] championed for decades by’ classical archaeologists and ancient historians.1 For those working in the Diocese of the East, this classicist perception exists and is paired with that of Islamic archaeologists and historians who likewise view the period as in decline.2 To them, the post-conquest Levant experienced a much-needed economic revival thanks to regime-change in the seventh century. In a recent paper I discussed the city in the Late Antique Levant by means of examples representing four levels of urban status: namely, Constantinople, the new imperial capital, founded and developed in the fourth–fifth centuries, followed by the three eastern cities of Antioch (the diocesan capital), Scythopolis (a provincial capital), and Gaza (a provincial city) (Fig. 1, provinces I, VIII, VII).3 * St John’s College, Oxford University. 1. Program circulated prior to the Workshop meeting on 9–10 November 2013. As I was unable to attend the Workshop, I am grateful to Olga Karagiorgou for reading this paper for me in Istanbul. For help with its publication I thank Ian Cartwright and Floss Wilkins for preparing the illustrations and Priscilla Lange for help with the project records. For help in other respects I am grateful, as always, to Cyril Mango. Project participants are listed in notes 25–26 below. 2. H. Kennedy, From polis to madina, in Past and Present, 106, 1985, pp. 3–27; J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford, 2001, pp. 29–30, 39–40, 58, 61. 3. M. Mundell Mango, Monumentality versus Economic Vitality: was a balance struck in the Late Antique city? in Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Sofia 22–27 August 2011, I, Sofia, 2011, pp. 239–62. This Congress paper is based on material contained in my doctoral thesis (Buildings, Silver Plate and Books: the economy of material culture in the

The city of Constantinople, largely a creation or re-creation of Late Antiquity, provides us with a prime model of what was needed for a city in that period.4 Three categories of building were discussed in the four cities: state ceremonial settings, utilitarian infrastructure and amenities. To cite a few examples: in Oriens (Fig. 2), as at Constantinople, the forum or agora continued to play its ceremonial and/or commercial role. A large imperial forum was built at Antioch by Valens in 370s, another with shops was remodelled at Scythopolis in 515 (Fig. 2: 20) and another was still in use at Gaza, 536–48.5 And the civil basilica continued to be built or restored at Antioch, with six of them restored or standing in the sixth century. Another civil basilica (60 × 28.7 m; cited as basilike in the inscription) was built to the northeast of the agora at Scythopolis in 515/6 (Fig. 2: 26), and a civil basilica given a new roof at Gaza in 536–48.6 As at Constantinople, infrastructure and amenities building occurred in all three cities, namely of circuit walls, large public baths and churches.7 The concern for these monuments relates not only to new building but the maintenance of an overall balance of both preserved ‘historical’ and newer structures.8 The local economy of the three cities suggests possible sources of private funding of other public construction, for example, of cult buildings, in addition to the funding provided by the state or city. Agricultural production in the hinterland of the cities of Antioch, Scythopolis and Gaza Roman Diocese of Oriens, AD 313–641), due to be published in the near future. 4. Mundell Mango, Monumentality, cit. (n. 3), pp. 241–42. 5. Ibid. pp. 243, 249–50, 255. 6. Ibid. pp. 243, 248, 250, 255. 7. Ibid. pp. 244, 250, 255–56. 8. Ibid. pp. 240, 248, 254–55, 260–62.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 189-204. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111896

190

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Map of Diocese of the East (Oriens), indicating its 19 provinces and their capital cities, as known in the sixth century: triangles refer to Antioch, Scythopolis and Gaza (Drawing A. Wilkins).

(Fig. 3 AC) resulting in international trade extending from Britain to India, includes that of grain and oil (transported in LR 1 amphora), near Antioch; of grain and linen (dependant on flax production and rated no 1 in Diocletian’s Price Edict) and other high-grade cloth at Scythopolis; wine (transported in LR4 amphora), near Gaza. In addition to public buildings privately funded in these cities, in the latter’s hinterlands we can cite cult and other public buildings erected with private funding in villages as recorded in inscriptions, either carved or in mosaic (Fig. 3 A-C on right).9 The respective examples in villages cited here include a church mosaic pavement of 417 at Rayan, a synagogue pavement (partly funded by the sale of 100 modii of wheat) of 518–27 at Beth Alpha , and one table, seven columns and three slabs of 601, in a church

at Nessana.10 We shall return to the subject of agricultural production in relation to the economic development of Androna, where all known inscriptions record privately funded building (Fig. 7 A). Named donors of Androna, also feature in a mosaic church inscription of unknown origin (Fig. 7 C); see below. In addition to the ‘Old City’ of Late Antique Oriens, maintaining traditional monumental building with state, civic and commercial support as at Antioch, Scythopolis and Gaza, there is also the ‘New City’, the subject of this Workshop, brought into existence by the state in response to specific needs, particularly defence. Mesopotamia (Fig. 1, provinces XV-XVIII) was a main area of military engagement with the Persians and its established cities, such as Edessa, Amida,

9. Ibid. pp. 245, 247–48, 251–54, 256–57, 258–60.

10. Ibid. pp. 248, 254, 259.

androna and the late antique cities of oriens

191

Fig. 2. Plan of the Byzantine city of Scythopolis, capital of Palaestina Secunda. (After Tsafrir, Foerster, Urbanism at Scythopolis, cit. n. 16, fig. D).

and Constantina, were fortified and provisioned with graneries and water by successive emperors.11 And two cities were newly founded there in response to the enemy, namely Martyropolis and Dara. Theodosius II built the first in c. 420. Literally ‘the city of the martyrs’, it was founded on the bones of Persian martyrs brought to the empire by the bishop Marutha. Several large reliquaries may be associated with this foundation.12 Martyropolis became a trophy to Rome and Persia alternately, with imperial positions taken.13 The second new frontier city is that of Dara founded following the war with Persia 502–06 (see below) by Anastasius with additional building by Justinian in the 520s. Dara was to replace the strategically important and nearby city of Nisibis ceded to Persia in the mid-fourth century.14 The long reign of Justinian (39 years) as described by Procopius, is noted for 11. C. Mango, M. Mundell Mango, Imperial Building Patronage in the Eastern Roman Empire: capital and frontier, in Y. A. Marano (ed.), Rulers and Patronage in the 5th-6th-century Mediterranean (in press), note 16. 12. Mango, Mundell Mango, Imperial Building, cit. (n. 11), notes 14, 49, 50; G. Bell, The Churches and Monasteries of the Tur ‘Abdin, with introduction and notes by M. Mundell Mango, London, 1982, pp. 123–30, Plate 50. 13. Mango, Mundell Mango, Imperial Building, cit. (n. 11), note 51; C. Mango, Deux études sur Byzance et la Perse sassanide, in T&MByz, 9, 1985, pp. 91–118. 14. Mango, Mundell Mango, Imperial Building, cit. (n. 11), notes 17, pp. 52, 54.

its building programme which included 95 sites in Oriens, with the defensive predominating, including 20 new forts in Mesopotamia.15 Geographically situated among many of these fortified cities and forts, is the site of Androna, modern al-Andarin (Fig. 4). What sets Androna apart from all these other sites is the fact that it is both documented as a village (kome) and many times larger than the new cities discussed here, and even many older cities. At 160 ha, the walled site of Androna was larger than the walled area of the Byzantine city of Scythopolis, the provincial capital discussed above, which was 134 ha.16 Although smaller by comparison to the two Syrian capitals of Antioch and Apamea, Androna, situated between the Orontes and Euphrates Rivers, is twice the size of the nearby city of Chalcis and larger still than the new or renewed cities of Dara, Rusafa and Zenobia. In Fig. 5, one sees Apamea (at 255 ha) and Androna (at 160), as well as, in the upper right, Chalcis (80 ha), Dara (45 ha), Rusafa (c20) and Zenobia (c10).17 Despite its enormous 15. Ibid. notes 25,  34. 16. Y. Tsafrir, G. Foerster, Urbanism at Scythopolis-Bet Shean in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 51, 1997, p. 100. 17. M. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion in North Central Syria: the Case of Androna/Andarin, in A. Borrut, M. Debié, A. Papaconstantinou, D. Pieri, J.-P. Sodini (eds.), Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides. Peuplement et

192

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

the polis, and Androna, the kome.18 Attested already in the late third century as a mansio on the Palmyra-Chalcis road leading ultimately to Antioch (Fig. 4),19 Androna expanded markedly in Late Antiquity. The site itself illustrates the economic vitality of the Late Antique pre-conquest period because of its enormous size and dense habitation. In this paper I shall argue that the expansion of Androna was due to its economic engagement with the militarized area in which it existed. To date there have been three archaeological investigations of Androna (Fig. 6). The survey work there in 1905 by H. C. Butler and his Princeton team20 established that it was a large site, with two sets of circuit walls and several communal buildings including a kastron, a public bath and nearly a dozen churches, as well as one reservoir and a necropolis outside the walls to the southeast. Nearly 40 Greek inscriptions were recorded, with all dated examples falling within the sixth century (Fig. 7 A-B). In the 1930s Androna formed part of Mouterde and Poidebard’s aerial study of the region of Chalcis.21 In 1997, a new, international project of excavation and survey was started at Androna, with collaborating teams from Syria (under the late Dr Zaqzuq), Germany (under Prof. Strube) and ours from Oxford.22 The project aims to distinguish the developmental phases of the site and to clarify the nature and layout of the settlement and its defensive organization. One question we posed concerned the inner and outer circuit walls: was one of these Roman and the other Byzantine or Islamic? Was the implied Byzantine expansion or reduction linked to local resources or historical circumstances, such as

Fig. 3. Local economy of the hinterlands of 3 cities of Oriens: A) of Antioch: oil (?) amphora and village church pavement (417) at Rayan; B) of Scythopolis: village synagogue pavement partly funded by 100 modii of wheat (518–25?) at Beth Alpha; C) of Gaza: wine amphora and village church 11 column and slabs (601) at Nessana. Compiled by M. Mango and A. Wilkins.

size and dense habitation (Fig. 6), Androna did not enjoy urban status, as we know from a mosaic inscription (Fig. 7 C) which records the names of church donors from Chalcis, dynamiques spatiales (BAT, 19), Tournhout, 2011, pp. 95–97.

18. H. Salame-Sarkis, Syria grammata kai agalmata, in Syria, 61, 1989, pp. 232–37. I thank Olga Karagiorgou for discovering this inscription which appeared on the antiquities market in Beirut. 19. R. Mouterde, A. Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis. Organisation de la steppe en haute Syrie romaine, Paris, 1945, pp. 61–63, 174. 20. H. C. Butler, Architecture, Section B, Northern Syria, in Syria. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria 1904–1905 and 1909, Leiden, 1920, pp. 47–63. 21. Mouterde, Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, cit. (n. 19), pp. 15, 61–63, 171–74, 217, Pls. CX-CXIII. 22. See Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), note 12, for bibliography; ead., Baths, reservoirs and water use at Androna in late antiquity and the early Islamic period, in K. Bartl, A. al-R. Moaz (eds.), Residences, Castles, Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, (Orient-Archäologie, 24), Rahden/ Westf., 2008, pp. 73–83; ead., Androna in Syria: questions of environment and economy, in R. Daim and J. Drauschke (ed.), Byzanz. Das Römerreich im Mittelalter 2: I. Schauplätze, Mainz, 2010, pp.  245–90; ead., Landscape Study and Excavation at Andarin, Syria, in Bulletin of the Council for British Research in the Levant, 6, 2011, pp. 64–66; C. Strube, Al-Andarin, das Antike Androna, in Daim, Drauschke, Byzanz, cit., pp. 211–43.

androna and the late antique cities of oriens

Fig. 4. Map of northern Syria and Mesopotamia. Drawing T. Papaioannou.

Fig. 5. Plans of 6 cities and 4 villages with size in hectares indicated. Compiled by M. Mango.

193

194

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Google Earth image of Androna.

Persian invasion or Arab conquest? Faced with a large site, the project strategy concentrated work in key areas in the centre and on the periphery. Excavation began in the centre of three prominent communal or public buildings, two of them dated by inscriptions and both built by one Thomas: the kastron of 558–59 excavated by Heidelberg, the bath of c.  560 Figs. 7 A, 13–14) opposite, by Oxford, and an Umayyad bath, by the Syrian team. There followed excavation of two domestic complexes, two gates, and Oxford partially excavated two extra-mural water reservoirs (Figs. 8–10).23 Within this general programme, Oxford places 23. Mundell Mango, Androna in Syria, cit. (n.  22), pp.  248– 54; C. Strube, Androna/Andarin . Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagnen in den Jahren 1997–2001, in AA, 2003, pp. 25–115; ead., Al-Andarin, cit. (n. 22) ; ead. Al-Andarin, das antike Androna. Oberflächenbefunde und Grabungsergebnisse:

Androna within its environmental context and investigates aspects of local water usage, both the Byzantine bath and the irrigation installed for agriculture. As recognized already by Mouterde and Poidebard in the 1930s, water played an important role in shaping the environment and the economy of this semi-arid area.24 Overall, Oxford’s work at Androna falls into two main categories, excavation and survey. We excavated the Byzantine bath, parts of two reservoirs and the area of the stylite column.25 Survey work was carried out on irrigation systems Die Umfassungsmauer und das Kastron, Mainz, 2015. 24. Mouterde, Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, cit. (n. 19). See note 26 below. 25. For this work, R. Anderson was architect and kite photographer, assisted by J. Bardill followed by T. Papacostas and L. A. Schachner. A. Johnson carried out geophysical survey. D. Hopkins

androna and the late antique cities of oriens

195

and the entire Landscape Study area.26 For the irrigation, i.e. water usage outside the site, we investigated the qanats and reservoirs. Qanats may be described as subterranean aqueducts.27 The diagram in the upper left corner of Fig. 8 illustrates the basic qanat layout. Its vertical shafts excavated in limestone descend to a slopping horizontal tunnel which leads water to the surface from an aquifer often situated at the base of hills or mountains. The mouths of the qanat shafts are visible on the surface running in a line (Fig. 8 in upper right), as seen with qanat 5. Oxford’s Landscape Study, started in 2004, identified at least six groups of qanats in our area (Fig. 11).28 The two (nos 4–5) closest to Androna fed the southeast and northwest reservoirs (Figs. 8–10). The qanat systems were first discussed regionally by Mouterde and Poidebard.29 Our water-level survey team chose to record qanat 4 for several reasons.30 It is closest to Androna (Fig. 11) and could represent an original installation phase of irrigation. Secondly its source was within our study area. It also has a short east-west branch which terminated at Sammakiyya in a rectilinear structure which was of added interest. Finally, qanat 4 delivered water north as far as Umm al-Jurun, to a property with a large church and an imperial boundary stone set up in the names of Justinian and Theodora, 527–48, was finds draughtsman. Excavation was carried out by K. Blythe, A. Claridge P. Clark, C. Hall, R. Hoyland, A. Lerz, C. Mango, M. Mango, A. McCabe, M. Parani, N. Pollard, and S. Randall. J. Emmit carried out flotation of excavated samples. Excavated materials were studied by N. Pollard (pottery), A. Vokaer (Brittlework pottery), O. Karagiorgou (marble), N. Ristovska and M. Parani (metal, glass), P. Lange (animal bones), C. Cartwright (wood, fish bones), M. Robinson (flotation samples), C. Salter (slag). 26. For this work, qanats in the general area were explored by A. Wilson and M. Decker; 6 local qanats were plotted by R. Hoyland and L. A. Schachner; water flow survey was carried out by L. A. Schachner and B. Magee. The Landscape Study was planned by M. Decker and C. Hritz, the latter also plotted the holloways. L. A. Schachner prepared maps from satellite imagery. The gazetteer of the area and the history of settlement and agriculture are being compiled by R. Hoyland and K. Mohammed. Draft plans of main sites were made by R. Hoyland using GPS. Plans were made of 19 buildings by S. Greenslade and S. Leppard and 507 loose architectural and agricultural pieces were recorded by A. McCabe, S. Waidler and R. Razzall. Pottery collection was directed by J. Stockbridge and pottery was identified and sorted by T. Papaioannou. 27. D. R. Lightfoot, Syrian Qanat Romani: History, Ecology, Abandonment, in Journal of Arid Environments, 33, 1996, pp. 323, 327; A. T. Hodge, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, London, 1992, pp. 19–24. 28. Mundell Mango, Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), pp. 260–63. 29. Mouterde, Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, cit. (n. 19), pp. 12–14, 174, 234–35. 30. For the survey of the short branch of qanat 4, see Mundell Mango, Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), pp. 262–63, fig. 18.

Fig. 7. Three inscriptions related to Androna: A) c. 560: one of two inscriptions recording building of bath by Thomas; B) 527–48: boundary stone set up in the names of Justinian and Theodora at the martyrion of Jacob at Umm al Jurun; C) 6th c. (?): mosaic pavement listing donations to an unknown church by 3 families of Chalcis, polis (lines 2–3), Androna, kome (lines 7–8), and Andarna, kome (line 11). (A-B Photos Cyril Mango; C. after Salame-Sarkis, Syria grammata, cit. n. 18).

relocated by Cyril Mango (Fig. 7 B). The survey took the upper surface levels from shaft no 4 up to and beyond the northwest reservoir, and the lower surface levels within four vertical shafts. The section drawing (Fig. 9) covers this qanat up into the shallow northwest reservoir and on into its lower masonry outlet channel for up to 972 m towards Umm al-Jurun (Fig. 11).31 31. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17),

196

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 8. Androna. SE reservoir and qanat 5, looking SE. (Kite photo R. Anderson 2003) Upper left: cross section of qanat (after Lightfoot, Syrian Qanat Romani, cit. n. 27).

Fig. 9. Cross section of qanat 4 and NW reservoir illustrating water flow. Survey recorded by Lukas Schachner (on the left) and Bruce Magee; transcribed by T. Papaioannou.

androna and the late antique cities of oriens

197

Fig. 10. Androna, Plan of the SE reservoir. Construction recorded by R. Anderson; magnetometry survey of outlet channel and kilns by Alex Johnson, GPS plotted by L. A. Schachner; pottery collection grid recorded by K. Mohammed, S. Randall, J. Stockbridge; all compiled by T. Papaioannou.

The four reservoirs identified within three qanat systems (Fig.  11, nos  4–6) are all built of limestone. Our partial excavations (see note 25 above) of the southeast (Fig. 8) and northwest (Fig. 9) reservoirs helped to establish their capacities, operating mechanisms, and dates, as well as their integration into adjacent field systems. They also confirmed that the two are similar and undoubtedly contemporary, both being shallow (2.5  to  3.0 m deep) and measuring 61 m on a side, equivalent to 200 Roman feet. Both are built of limestone ashlar masonry with cobbled or paved floors, display interesting similarities and differences in planning and were elaborately decorated. The large niches, columns or figural relief sculpture suggest that the reservoirs provided the setting for water displays, possibly in connection with the Maiuma. One reservoir may have been used for fish breeding.32 p. 104, figs. 11, 19; ead., Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), fig. 32. 32. Mundell Mango, Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), pp. 263–68, figs. 20–27; ead., Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17),

The southeast reservoir (Fig. 8) was dug in limestone rock and its blocks apparently quarried in situ. Qanat 5 (Fig. 10) delivered its water into the masonry inlet channel which flowed into a square settling pool opening into both the reservoir and two lateral channels. Although the main outlet of the reservoir had been removed, apparently in modern times, in 2006 using magnetometry Alex Johnson traced the channel running northwest from the reservoir up to 300 m. away, as well as, to the southeast of the site, a row of kilns used to make cement for the reservoir floor,33 which Stuart Randall and Antonietta Lerz excavated in 2010.34 Charcoal in cement sampled from the southeast reservoir floor was radiocarbon dated to the sixth–seventh century, fixing the p. 105, figs. 11–12; ead., Fishing in the Desert, in P. Schreiner, O. Strakhov (eds.), Golden Gate. Festschrift for Ihor Ševčenko (= Palaeoslavica , 10, 2002), vol. I, pp. 323–30. 33. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), p. 105, fig. 12. 34. Mundell Mango, Excavation at Andarin, cit. (n. 22), p. 64.

198

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 11. Androna map of Landscape Study Area annotated to indicate resources and production. Compiled by T. Papaioannou.

time of the reservoir’s construction. A Late Roman date for the construction is supported by the evidence of broken pottery contained in waste material used to manure the irrigated field. Of the 600 sherds collected on the outlet side of the reservoir (see the grid on Fig. 10), no imported fine wares pre-date or post-date the Late Roman period.35 Furthermore, the carbon 14 date for the floor cement of the southeast reservoir just cited (sixth-seventh century), combined with the Justinianic date (527–48) for the boundary stone (Figs. 7 B, 11) at the terminal point of the northwest reservoir, cited above (p. 195), indicate a sixth–century installation of irrigation closest to Androna. Why was large scale irrigation installed at Androna in this period? The installation suggests that, although Androna

was large and densely settled, it probably engaged in surplus production, in addition to support of its population. Its wine was well known and therefore circulated in this period.36 As a mansio, on the road between Palmyra and Chalcis (Fig. 4), as attested in the Antonine Itinerary, Androna had supplied lodging and horses for travel. When Palmyra’s importance as a trading centre began to decline by the late third century when foreign trade was diverted elsewhere, Androna may have reoriented itself towards broader agricultural production, particularly with the installation of irrigation. An obvious market for a wide range of produce was the army garrisoned to the north, northeast and east, on the eastern frontier, namely at Chalcis and on the Euphrates (e.g. at Callinicum, Zenobia, Circesium, etc. (Fig. 4). Situated on

35. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), p. 105, fig. 12.

36. Mouterde, Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, cit. (n. 19), p. 15 and note 1.

androna and the late antique cities of oriens

199

Fig. 12. Animal bones excavated in Androna bath. A) Graphs of percentages found in cistern. B) Graph of age of death. C) Photo of pig bones of different ages. Prepared and compiled by P. Lange.

the Roman road to Chalcis, Androna was well placed to supply this regional military centre.37 As listed in the Theodosian Code, the decree issued AD 37. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), pp. 116–17.

360 at Hierapolis, north of Androna (Fig. 4), Late Roman military rations consisted of biscuit for two days, bread the third day; wine on one day; sour wine the next two; salted pork one day; mutton the other two.38 Did Androna supply 38. Theodosian Code, 7.4.6.

200

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 13. A) Androna, plan of bath (plan R. Anderson). B) Zenobia, plan of bath (after Laufray). C) Androna, saqiya jar (drawing D. Hopkins).

the army with any of these staples? Two texts refer to emergency army rations obtained from the general area of Androna. In the fourth century, famine at Antioch coincided with provisioning the army there under Julian. Extra grain was obtained then from Chalcis and Hierapolis, in addition to Egypt.39 In 502 and 504 during the war in northern Mesopotamia, involving over 52,000 men, a similar emergency

developed. Grain was again sought in Egypt and near Beroea (modern Aleppo), not far from Chalcis, Hierapolis and Androna (Fig. 4).40 Perhaps by the sixth century Androna became part of a Euphrates supply network which included Chalcis, Beroea, and Hierapolis. By looking at Late Roman army rations one can then speculate about the resources available at Androna to furnish any of the commodities and

39. N. Pollard, Soldiers, Cities and Civilians in Roman Syria, Ann Arbor, 2000, pp. 222–23.

40. Ibid. pp. 224–25; F. R. Trombley, J. W. Watt, The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, Liverpool, 2000.

androna and the late antique cities of oriens

amounts required. The Theodosian Code does not quantify the rations stated in 360, but Jean Gascou argues that wine was allocated in two xestai and meat in portions of one Roman pound.41 In contrast to the emergency wheat rations for 52,000 men on campaign just considered, normal rations would have been less for garrisoned limitanei at other times within the region. For example, according to current estimates a legion such as the Legio IV Parthica, which moved from Circesium on the Euphrates (Fig. 4, lower right corner) to Beroea north of Androna in the sixth century,42 may have numbered 1000 men.43 We turn now to Androna’s population and the size of its sustaining area. As stated above, Androna occupied 160 ha (Fig. 6) which may have accommodated 100 persons per ha, i.e. a population of 16,000.44 For the sustaining area to support this population we can cite figures used by Douglas Baird for the Konya plain survey, namely one hectare for each person.45 At Androna this means 16,000 ha of land outside the site. Although other methods of calculation might give lower figures, I use the maximum numbers in order to test the available agricultural land to the extreme for its theoretical yield. Estimates of sustaining areas of Bronze Age settlements in north Syria are based on holloways, the preserved radiating paths walked daily from the site by farmers and animals. Carrie Hritz has identified in Corona satellite images narrow Byzantine period holloways radiating from Androna on its east and south sides (Fig. 11), with a maximum length of 10 km, equivalent to a two hour’s walk. These holloways suggest a sustaining area around the site of 31,400 ha, well over the minimum required 16,000 ha discussed above and comparable to our entire Landscape Study area (illustrated in Fig. 11) which is 30,800 ha.46 We have benefited from the work of the recent SyrianFrench Arid Margins survey, concerning the geological and archaeological profile of the broader area in which our site is situated. The great plain with Androna at its centre, is 60,000 ha and covered with limestone silts suitable for ce41. J. Gascou, La table budgetaire d’Antaeopolis (P. Freer 08.45 c–d), in J. Lefort, C. Morrisson (eds.), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantine IVe–VIIesiècle, Paris, 1989, pp. 290–92. 42. A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284–602. A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, Baltimore, 1986, p. 661. 43. R. Tomlin, A. H. M. Jones and the Army in the Fourth Century, in D. Gwynn (ed.), A. H. M. Jones and the Later Roman Empire, Leiden, 2008, pp. 143–66. 44. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), pp. 97–98, Table 1. 45. D. Baird, Settlement expansion on the Konya plain, Anatolia: 5th-7th centuries A.D., in W. Bowden, L. Lavan, C. Machado (eds.), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside (Late antique archaeology, 2), Leiden, Boston, 2004, p. 238; Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), p. 103, Table 4. 46. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), p. 103, Fig. 8.

201

real, especially wheat, cultivation when irrigated by qanats.47 As stated above, in 502 and 504 the army of 52,000 men required wheat with production areas of up to 21,250 ha. This amount was easily available within this broad expanse, as were the 16,000 ha needed for Androna itself. At the north limit of the great central plain is the salt lake at Gabbula, a resource exploited in the Late Roman period as today.48 Our Landscape Study area (see note 26 above), just mentioned, encompasses two different terrains, one basalt, the other limestone (Fig. 11). To the west a basalt djebel runs 10 km north-south. The area around and to the east of the djebel is limestone, mostly of flat ground, with a limestone hill, also running north-south. Each mini environment may have been exploited differently. Most important were the aquifers at the foot of the hills which fed the irrigation systems of qanats and reservoirs. Excavation (see note 25 above) of Androna’s Byzantine bath of c. 560 (Fig. 13 A) yielded a range of material, much of it obtained by flotation, including many animal and fish bones, reflecting local environmental conditions of the site enhanced by irrigation. These, combined with extant agricultural paraphernalia (mills, vats, etc.), allow us to speculate about the exploitation of some areas.49 The hypothetical locations of agricultural production are summarized on the map in Fig. 11. The limestone area could support both the wheat irrigated by qanats and olive plantations which flourish on limestone. Plantations and qanats may have provided shade and water needed for livestock rearing (e.g. at Sammakiyya, by qanat 4), while the nonirrigated land east of Androna could support dry farming of barley and, as today, pasturage. The extant bench terracing on the basalt djebel to the west indicates that this was the area of vine cultivation. The southeast reservoir may have been used for fish breeding (see note 29 above). Salt for processing was available to the north in the Gabbula area, as noted above. What follows is an attempt at quantification of postulated production, both sustaining and surplus, of certain commodities for Androna’s population and for suggested markets such as the army. To start with wine, Androna was known to produce fine wine, as stated in the pre-Islamic Mu’allaqa of ‘Amr Ibn Kulthum.50 The bench terracing on the basalt djebel west of Androna provided adequate moisture for the vines grown there and may have predated the qanat systems. We can calculate the maximum production of wine on the basis of this total area which is 47. R. Jaubert et al., The Arid Margins of Syria. Land Use and Vegetation Cover. Semi-arid and Arid Areas of Aleppo and Hama Provinces (Syria), Lyon, 1999, pp. 17–19. 48. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), p. 104, Plate 7a-b. 49. Ibid. pp. 104, 108–11, Figs. 14, 18–20. 50. Mouterde, Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, cit. (n. 19), p. 15 and note 1; Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), pp. 109–11, Table 7; ead., Excavation at Andarin, cit. (n. 22), p. 66.

202

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

100 times greater than the area of the vineyard described by Cato and its yield could therefore amount to 384,000,000 xestai. This was more than enough to cover the annual wine of 1000 legionary soldiers, that of 16,000 people at Androna and for export to the general wine trade for which Androna was known. Comparable calculations can be made for Androna’s production of olive oil, attested at and near the site by the presence of olive mills and olive pits used for fuel in kilns.51 One set of archaeological finds in particular at Androna suggests that production for army rations is plausible. These are the numerous domesticated pig bones excavated especially in the bath cistern, identified and studied by Priscilla Lange, that comprise 24% of the total of 2170 identifiable bones compared to the sheep and goat with combined total of 48% (Fig. 12 A).52 While mutton for rations would be widely available in the East, the pork may not have been. Pork features prominently in Late Roman army rations and is typical of the Italian Roman diet; pig bones are found on military sites. However, the pig is highly unusual in the rural – not urban ̶  Levant where it must have been deliberately introduced at Androna. Taking our model for army rations based on 1000 men, they would require 120,000 lbs. of salted pork per annum (at 120 lbs. each). Approximately two to three sties at Androna, of the type excavated at Settefinestre in Italy and comparable to the building standing at Sammakiyya by qanat 4 (Fig. 11), could produce the equivalent of one pig per man. Finally, who was responsible for Androna’s expansion? Was irrigation installed by the Byzantine army as part of a defensive scheme to create a ‘limes of Chalcis’ in the wake of the Persian sack of Antioch in 540, as proposed by the Mouterde and Poidebard survey in the 1930s?53 State sponsored projects required explicit acknowledgement as epigraphic evidence attests, e.g. nearby at Chalcis (Fig. 4), where work was carried out in 550 for Justinian, by Isidore the Younger and titled officials, as explicitly stated there.54 Even for private projects (baths, houses,  etc.), honorific and other titles (lamprotatos, trakteutes) are stated, as seen in inscriptions of the period in nearby Djebel Hass.55 By contrast, at Androna itself, among its approximately 50–60 Greek inscriptions, no person mentioned has a title, 51. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), pp. 119–21, Table 8, Fig. 20b; ead., Excavation at Andarin, cit. (n. 22), p. 64. 52. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), pp. 116–19, Table 6, Figs. 16–17a. 53. Mouterde, Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, cit. (n. 19), pp. 3–23, 229–40. 54. J.-P. Fourdrin, Une porte urbaine construite à Chalcis de Syrie par Isidore de Milet le Jeune (550/51),in Travaux et Memoires byzantins, 12, 1994, pp. 299–307. 55. Mouterde, Poidebard, Le limes de Chalcis, cit. (n. 19), pp. 202–03, 226, 230–31.

except for two church officials.56 Thomas, builder of both the kastron and the bath in 558-c. 560, gives his name but no title in 15 inscriptions, one of which is shown in Fig. 7 A. Instead, in the inscription over the kastron’s main portal, he associates himself with those who ‘give of their riches’.57 Surely, if he boasted of his riches, and repeated his name 15 times, he would have boasted of any title he had. Perhaps he represents an entrepreneurial private sector involved in large-scale agriculture for sale to the military. Androna’s expansion may have been the work of one or more economically powerful private individual(s) (such as Thomas). Gatier suggests that Qasr ibn Warden southwest of Androna may be the domain of a landowner.58 This complex is composed of a palace, church and barracks, two dated precisely 561 and 563, respectively. The first two buildings have a triconch plan and dome and are therefore elitist. The same could be said of Thomas’ bath at Androna (of c. 560) (Fig. 13 A; see note 25 above). This differs from village baths in north Syria which were built on a row plan, of well-cut and carved limestone and tessellated pavement and with water supplied from a cistern.59 Instead, the Androna bath, adorned in marble, recalls urban baths such as that of Zenobia (Fig. 13 B) built recently (c. 550) as part of an imperial project under the famed engineer Isidore the Younger,60 working also at Chalcis, as just stated above. The layouts of both baths are similar, with the exception that the entrance court at Zenobia is on the north rather than the east where the Euphrates flows. Both baths have the entrance court and frigidarium (areas 1–2) built of stone and the warm and hot rooms (3–4) of fired brick. Water for pools in both baths was obtained from a well operated by a saqiya powered by a circulating animal as suggested by low curved walls. Water-lifting, or saqiya, jars (Fig. 13 C) were used on a chain to raise the water above ground level.61 Aside from the frescoes on the walls of the entrance court and the caldarium,62 the decoration of the Androna 56. M. Griesheimer, L’occupation byzantine sur les marges orientales du territoireà Apamée de Syrie (d’après les inscriptions de Taroutia emporôn et de Androna), in B. Geyer (ed.), Conquête de la steppe et appropriation des terres sur les marges arides du Croissant fertile, Lyons, 2001, p. 139; Strube, Vorbericht, cit. (n. 23), p. 92 and note 176, fig. 78. 57. Strube, Vorbericht, cit. (n. 23), p. 69. 58. P.-L. Gatier, ‘Grande’ ou ‘petite Syrie Seconde’? Pour une géographie historique de la Syrie intérieure proto-byzantine, in Geyer, Conquête de la steppe, cit. (n. 56), p. 105. 59. E.g. at Sergilla; G. Charpentier, Les bains de Sergilla, in Syria, 71, 1994, pp. 113–42. 60. Mundell Mango, Baths, reservoirs and water, cit. (n. 22), pp. 73–75; ead., Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), pp. 248–54, figs. 3–12. 61. Mundell Mango, Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), pp. 249–50. 62. Ibid. p. 251, fig. 9: brief description which illustrates a foot from the procession of individuals entering the bath in the entrance court, where there is also a Victory: see M. Mundell Mango,

androna and the late antique cities of oriens

203

Fig. 14. Androna, bath, use of marble and other decorative stone: A) frigidarium small pool with revetment missing and with carved limestone sides and interior seats; B-C) fragments of revetment; D) fragment of fluted marble basin found in well; E) tepidarium, opus sectile marble pavement; F) frigidarium, marble door surround. Photos M. Mundell Mango and O. Karagiorgou.

204

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

bath relied heavily on impressive marble (Fig. 14).63 Olga Karagiorgou studied, identified and weighed among its recovered 500-odd kg of material, 19 types of marble and other decorative stones (over half of it Proconnesian). The basalt walls were left rough on the surface (see Fig. 14 A, on left), plastered thickly and packed with off-cuts of polished marble to achieve a flat surface for revetting with more marble or other stone (Fig. 14 B-C). Some areas of the bath had marble opus sectile floors (Fig. 14 E). In the frigidarium, marble slabs carved with mouldings were attached to the walls to provide door frames (Fig. 14 F), and gold and other glass mosaic covered the semi-domes above four apses. The walls there were also decorated with opus sectile of a type known in the cities of Apamea and Pella.64 A fragment of a fluted marble basin (Fig. 14 D) and the fingers of a small marble statue were also recovered from the bath. During Late Antiquity, a flourishing economy supported continuation in urban building in the East, both in old cities and of new. While the large site of Androna remained a kome it provides a striking example of this economy, expanding its production by installation of irrigation. While epigraphy, Carbon 14 dating and pottery evidence suggest a general dating of the installation by the sixth century,65 other indications may document the silting and abandonment of the reservoirs to the eighth / ninth century. At the southeast reservoir (Fig. 10), dating of sediment samples from near the inlet and of olive pits used as fuel in kilns there (lower R corner) suggest that a lop-sided pool (in centre left), roughly 1/3 of

Oxford Excavations at Andarin (Androna): September 1998. http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/research/research_projects/Andarin/ publications (15.06.2009), figs. 11, 22–23; in the caldarium there were Greek inscriptions enclosed in wreaths and coloured discs: ead., Excavations and Survey: the Oxford Team 2000, in DOP, 57, 2003, p. 295, fig. 8. 63. Mundell Mango, Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), pp. 250–52, figs. 4–8, 10; ead., Byzantine Settlement Expansion, p. 98, Fig. 5c. 64. M. Mango, Excavations and Survey at Androna, Syria: The Oxford Team 1999, in DOP, 56, 2002, p. 311, Fig. 13. 65. Mundell Mango, Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), pp. 104–05, 108, Fig. 12.

its size, was apparently built there then to receive diverted water still delivered by the qanat to the silted reservoir; the dating is supported by the excavation of two copper coins of AD 734 and AD 763, respectively, in one of the kilns and in the reservoir.66 This probably marked the end of largescale farming at Androna, after the disappearance of the Byzantine army from the area. Abandonment is also seen in the Byzantine bath turned over to small-scale industrial activities represented by a kiln built in the entrance court (Fig. 13 A 1) and a metal workshop installed in the tepidarium (Fig. 13 A 3).67 Another bath was built in the Umayyad period downhill from there incorporating in its fabric lintels and other blocks with Byzantine inscriptions and utilizing the Byzantine bath’s well water.68 Continued excavation of the site may further document these developments. Conclusion The three komai considered above (Fig. 3: Rayan, Beth Alpha, Nessana) with their own privately funded cult buildings, produced grain, oil, wine and flax for the nearby cities of Antioch, Scythopolis and Gaza. The kome Androna, with 11 churches and a public bath all privately funded, may have produced grain, oil, wine and livestock for military rations supplied to nearby cities, namely the army garrisons of the Euphrates River. In effect, the economic operations of the four komai (Rayan, Beth Alpha, Nessana and Androna) are generally similar, but differ enormously in scale thanks to Androna’s investment in costly irrigation.

66. Ead., Excavation at Andarin, cit. (n. 22), p. 64; R. G. Hoyland, Khanāṣira and Andarin (northern Syria) in the Umayyad period and a new Arabic tax document, in A. George and A. Marsham, eds, Power, patronage and memory in early Islam: perspectives on Umayyad elites, Oxford, forthcoming, figs. 7 a-d. 67. Mundell Mango, Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), p. 254; ead., Byzantine Settlement Expansion, p. 122. 68. Mundell Mango, Baths, reservoirs and water, cit. (n. 22), p. 75; ead., Androna in Syria, cit. (n. 22), p. 254; ead., Byzantine Settlement Expansion, cit. (n. 17), p. 122.

Golemo Gradište at Konjuh: A New City or a Relocated One? Carolyn  S. Snively*

Golemo Gradište de Konjuh: cité nouvelle ou transférée? Un projet américano-macédonien a mené des enquêtes systématiques dans la ville de nom antique inconnu de Golemo Gradište, Konjuh, dans la province de Kratovo de la République de Macédoine, depuis 2000. Le site, en particulier la Rotonde unique du VIe siècle et une église médiévale, est connu depuis les années 1930, mais il n’a pas été légalement excavé, sauf pour un projet de sauvetage, à proximité en 1995. Il est clair qu’un habitat tardo-antique puissamment fortifié s’y trouvait autrefois, protégé par la rivière Kriva et une acropole escarpée. Cette bourgade – ou ville – considérable, d’ environ 17 hectares, dont les murs de fortification peuvent être tracés sur le terrain, a été fondée au Ve siècle et reconstruite au début du VIe siècle. Dans cet article, l’habitat tardo-antique est décrit comme il apparut en 1998, et à la lumière des résultats des enquêtes de notre projet. Nous présentons aussi des preuves pour l’existence d’habitats de l’époque romaine dans les environs mais pas sur le site même de Golemo Gradište, et nous proposons des conclusions préliminaires concernant l’habitation romaine de la région entière. Après un aperçu des habitats dans la vallée de Bregalnica à des fins de comparaison, nous discutons les raisons administratives, stratégiques et/ou économiques pour lesquelles une ville aurait pu être établie ou transférée au Golemo Gradište dans l’Antiquité Tardive (Trad. E. Rizos).

In 1998 when the team members of an international pilot project set out to investigate Golemo Gradište, Konjuh, in the Kratovo district of R. Macedonia, relatively little was known about the site.1 Clearly a Late Antique settlement once stood there. It had been a substantial town or city, c. 17 ha, whose fortification walls could be traced on the terrain. Svetozar Radojčić had published in detail the Rotunda, a unique sixth-century church located south of the city, along with a mention of a Christian basilica on the northern terrace and a brief discussion of the nearby medieval church, usually known as Sveti Djordji.2 Although * Gettysburg College 1. Ivan Mikulčić is the scholar cited most frequently in this article; he studied the site of Golemo Gradište at Konjuh in the early 1970s, carried out extensive survey over the whole of R. Macedonia, and recently published a book on the cities of the Bregalnica valley. I.  Mikulčić, Два безимени доцноантички града во Источна Македонија, in Зборник на Археолошкиот Музеј Скопје, 6–7, 1975, pp. 115–16, noted that the basic facts about the extent and character of the city remained unknown; the situation changed little over the next two decades. 2. S. Radojčić, Crkva u Konjuhu, in Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta, 1, Beograd, 1952, pp. 148–67; K. Balabanov, A. Nikolovski, D. Ćornakov, Споменици на Културата на Македонија, Skopje, 1980, p. 86, provide a very brief description of Sveti Djordji.

Tranupara had been suggested,3 the ancient name of the city was unknown, and little evidence was available for argument about possible identifications. In this paper, the Late Antique city is described, as it appeared in 1998, and in light of the results of the investigations of the Macedonian-American project that has carried out systematic excavations at Golemo Gradište annually since the year 2000. Evidence for earlier Roman settlement in the area, apparently not at Golemo Gradište itself, is presented, along with practical conclusions about Roman occupation. After a consideration of other settlements, the reasons why in Late Antiquity a city might have been established or relocated specifically at Golemo Gradište are considered. 3. Tranupara, a toponym of Thracian origin, appears only in the Tabula Peutingeriana as the second stop on the Stobi XX – Astibo XXX – Tranupara L – Pautalia route. The identification was first proposed by S. Radojčić, Crkva, cit. (n. 2), p. 150; discussed in detail by V. Lilčić, Размислувања околу убикацијата на Транупара, in Културно Наследство, 17–18, Skopje, 1990–91 (1994), pp. 33–47; accepted by I. Mikulčić Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen in Nordmakedonien: Städte, Vici, Refugien, Kastelle, Munich 2002, p. 128. E. Rizos suggested (personal communication, January 2015) that Tranupara might have been the name of one of Konjuh’s pre-fourth-century predecessor settlements in the region.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 205-219. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111897

206

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Golemo Gradište, from the north. The excavations on the northern terrace are visible behind the trees marking the line of the Kriva River. [25 July 2009].

Fig. 2. Golemo Gradište, from the north. The lower ridge to the south, on which the south city wall stood, is visible in left middle ground. [8 August 2009].

The fortified city consists of three parts, 1) the acropolis or long ridge running east-west, 2) the saddle between the acropolis and a lower ridge to the south, and 3) the northern terrace between the acropolis and the Kriva River (Figs. 1–2,11). The southern part of the city has not been investigated, but it should be noted that little material, e.g., pottery, worked stones, and roof tiles, has been noted in the plowed areas; possibly it served as a refuge in times of danger, and no large buildings stood there. Our excavations have focused on the eastern plateau of the fortified acropolis and on the northern terrace, where the lower town was located. Although no one had excavated legally at Golemo Gradište before 1998, the site was known to the scholarly world because of the Rotunda. In 1919 villagers from Konjuh and nearby Beljakovce, led by an old man from Šopsko Rudare,4 uncovered the Rotunda, a church located c. 200 m south of the city. Its unusual plan reflects geometrical calculation. Externally it forms a trapezoid, slightly wider at the west, with a protruding, three-sided, eastern apse. On the interior, two apsidal rooms flank a narthex. A horse-shoe shaped aisle, ending at the east in small rectangular rooms, enclosed the round nave and the presbyterium. In addition to the single western entrance, doorways in the north and south perimetral walls gave access to the small eastern rooms. 4. S. Radojčić, Crkva, cit. (n. 2), p. 149.

A blind annular corridor or kyklion ran around inside the apse behind a stone-built platform with steep stairs. Numerous fragments of relief sculpture were retrieved, some of which were interpreted as belonging to an ambo, although no base for that feature was found. The discovery of a capital carrying the inscription ΔOMATRIRS and its interpretation as ‘Domus martyris’ led to the identification of the Rotunda as a martyrium, although by the sixth century buildings of central plan were part of the standard architectural repertoire for churches and no longer denoted martyria. It should be noted that the Rotunda was built on an almost sterile site, no burials were found in the church, and it is not located in a cemetery area.5 5. S.  Radojčić Crkva, cit. (n.  2), pp.  152–65, describes the building and its sculpture; K. Petrov, Стауродекорација од Коњух, in Зборник на Археолошки Музеј Скопје, 2, Skopje, 1957–58, pp. 31–45, and idem, Реконструкција на амбонот од Ротондата во Коњух, in Годишен Зборник на Филозофски Факултет, Скопје, 22, 1970, pp. 271–302, analyzed the sculpture. In 1988 members of the RZZSK under the direction of Ž.Vinčić studied the Rotunda and dug test trenches in preparation for conservation that was never carried out. See also C. S. Snively, Golemo Gradište at Konjuh: Report on the Excavations in 2000, in DOP, 56, 2002, pp. 302–05; Lj. Džidrova, Art, Form and Liturgy in the Rotunda at Konjuh, in Niš & Byzantium, 5, Niš, 2007, pp. 151–58, 163–64, 168–69; and S. Filipova, The

golemo gradiŠte at kinjuh: a new city or a relocated one?

207

Fig. 3. The west end of the acropolis, rising above the Kriva River, from the northeast. The small terrace and the entrance to the room quarried into the cliff are visible toward the left. [28 July 2014].

In 1995, in preparation for a railroad to be built between Skopje and Sofia, salvage excavations were carried out on K’šla, a large, irregular plateau located c. 500 m northwest of Golemo Gradište, on the north side of the Kriva River. In addition to Iron Age and Roman graves,6 a small basilica with a large vaulted tomb came to light. Finally, in addition to the lines of the fortification walls, numerous rock-cut features were visible on and around the acropolis. A ramp on the north side of the acropolis led from the level of the Kriva River up apparently to the line of the fortification wall. The ravine running below the east end of the site had been converted into a road by cutting away bedrock along the sides and using stone slabs to fill in holes and level the roadbed.7 But the feature that has most intrigued visitors to the site is the room quarried completely into the cliff face near the west end of the acropolis (Fig. 3). Closer examination reveals other rock cut spaces on several levels around the small southern terrace onto which the room opens, as well as cuttings for beams of wooden structures. A small community once lived around the terrace but, although often described as ascetic or monastic, there is no certain evidence for purpose or date of the complex.8 Influence of Eastern and Western Architectural Models on the Churches Built in the Province Macedonia in the 5th-6th Centuries, in Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2.3, Rome, 2013, pp. 426–28. 6. M. Ivanovski, К’шла, in Археолошка карта на Република Македонија, 2, Skopje, 1996, p. 185. 7. Lilčić, Размислувања, cit. (n.  3), pp. 36–37. 8. C. S. Snively, The Rock-Cut Room on the Acropolis at Golemo Gradište, Konjuh: Date and Purpose, in Niš & Byzantium, 12, Niš, 2014, pp. 193–204. In this article an argument is made that

The hypotheses posed and the conclusions reached about Golemo Gradište during the twentieth century were mostly based on informal survey. Our investigations since 2000 have confirmed a number of earlier hypotheses, but they have also disproved certain assumptions and provided new information about the chronology and organization of the site.9 First of all, it had generally been assumed that Golemo Gradište, i.e., the large hill that forms the acropolis specifically and the parts of the ancient city to its north and south more generally, had been occupied during the Roman period, i.e., from the creation of the province of Moesia in AD 6, or certainly from the formation of Moesia Superior late in the first century. The acropolis in particular was believed to the room dates to the second quarter of the sixth century as part of the fortification of the acropolis; other rooms may belong to the refugee settlement later in the century. 9. Project publications include C. S. Snively, Golemo Gradište at Konjuh, Republic of Macedonia: Prolegomena to the Study of a Late Antique Fortification, in Niš & Byzantium, 4, Niš, 2006, pp. 229–44; eadem, Archaeological Excavations on the Acropolis of Golemo Gradište, Konjuh: 2000–2004, in Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 18, Skopje, 2002–2004, [2008] pp.  335–51; eadem, Golemo Gradište at Konjuh, 2005 and 2006 Seasons: The Northern Terrace, in Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 19, Skopje, 2004–2006, [2010] pp. 375–89; eadem, The New Basilica at Golemo Gradište, Konjuh: a Sixth Century Church in the Province of Dardania, in Niš & Byzantium, 9, Niš, 2011, pp. 187–201; eadem, Golemo Gradište at Konjuh: an Unidentified Late Antique City and its Churches, in CIAC 15, Rome, 2013, pp. 403–14; G. Sanev, C. S. Snively, M. Stojanoski, Excavations on the Northern Terrace at Golemo Gradište, Konjuh, 2007–2010, in Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 20, Skopje, 2011, pp. 347–64.

208

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 4. Rooms and features cut into the bedrock of the acropolis; from the east. [22 July 2005].

have served as a strategic look-out post from the beginning of any military activity in the area.10 One of the main focuses of the pilot project at the site in 1998 was the collection of pottery from as many parts of the site as possible and its analysis by Virginia AndersonStojanović, a ceramics expert known for her publication on the pottery from Stobi. This was not a systematic survey; several members of the team collected pottery from the northern terrace, the acropolis, plowed fields south of the city, and from the K’šla plateau across the Kriva river to the northwest. Already in 1998 Anderson-Stojanović reached two somewhat surprising conclusions, which have been modified only slightly over the last fifteen years. The first was that there were no imported fine wares of Roman date; a very few pieces have appeared since. Her second conclusion was that no pottery had been found that could be dated between the third century BC and the third century AD; an occasional piece of third to fourth-century date appeared here and there across the site, but the earliest Roman pottery and the only pieces that might be dated to the third century came from K’šla, the cemetery area some distance northwest of Golemo Gradište.11

10. I. Mikulčić, Антички градови во Македонија, Skopje, 1999, p. 360. 11. A small amount of Iron Age material was found on the northern terrace, but some wall foundations of the Northern Residence had been dug directly into Neolithic levels. A prehistoric settlement on the terrace is not surprising, but Late Neolithic pottery also appeared in two or three spots on the acropolis.

The Acropolis Excavation on the eastern plateau of the acropolis during the seasons of 2000 through 2004 revealed a 5 m deep rockcut cistern, a large administrative or residential complex, east and south entrances through the fortifications, a paved street running from the south gate into a possible open square, and numerous buildings that seemed to combine domestic and industrial activities. The plateau was not a natural formation; it had been created by first quarrying away the top of the ridge. Then a combined terrace and fortification wall was constructed, running along the south slope; filling in behind/north of the wall resulted in a relatively level space c. 140 × 20 m. Pottery dated the creation of this plateau, one part of the fortress on the ridge, to the second quarter of the sixth century. In the western part of the fortress, the bedrock was carved and shaped into rooms and other features (Fig. 4). The amount of landscaping – and therefore money and manpower – required strongly suggests imperial or at least provincial intervention and the stationing of a garrison on the fortified acropolis. Such hilltop fortifications, often dated to the sixth century, are found frequently in the Balkan Peninsula and elsewhere in the empire and are considered to be part of the (re-) fortification during the reign of Justinian I. Significant rebuilding of structures on the plateau, however, suggest that late in the sixth century the population of the lower town fled for refuge to the acropolis, where a large percentage of their pottery consisted of vessels for storage of food, i.e., they were prepared for a siege. Violent destruction of a number of buildings on the acropolis probably occurred early in the seventh century.

golemo gradiŠte at kinjuh: a new city or a relocated one?

209

Fig. 5. The northern terrace and its environs, from the south. The Episcopal Basilica and the Northern Residence are visible on the terrace. [28 July 2014].

The Lower Town on the Northern Terrace The major part of the civilian settlement at Golemo Gradište was located on the northern terrace (Fig. 5). Our excavations in the center of this lower town have revealed a large Christian basilica and two residential complexes on successive sub-terraces; further east, a section of the fortification wall and a stone-paved street came to light. The orientation of the street, together with evidence from GeoRadar scanning, suggests that it ran from an East Gate to the Northwest Gate. As mentioned earlier, the line of the fortification wall can be traced around the site. Excavation just inside the wall, however, demonstrated that it had been built over an earlier construction and strengthened our hypothesis that the fortification wall was part of the reconstruction of the city in the second quarter of the sixth century. The Southern Residential Complex, situated on the slope just below the acropolis, consisted of an irregular block bounded by streets on at least three sides; it included one three-room house, other units of two or three rooms, and several one-room units (Fig. 6). While some areas were used for habitation, others appear to have been storerooms or workshops. The evidence suggests that access to most of the units was from an alley, courtyard, and second alley running north-south through the complex. A staircase points to a second storey located above some part of the complex. Deep excavation in one trench outside the west wall of the

complex revealed several street levels and earlier walls, but nothing before the middle or second half of the fifth century. The Southern Residential Complex as a whole, however, appears at present to belong to the rebuilding of the city during the second quarter of the sixth century, although renovations and repairs took place later.12 The basilica (Fig. 7) occupies its own terrace just north of the Southern Residential Complex. It is, at first glance, a standard three-aisle basilica, with protruding eastern apse, narthex, annexes accessible from the narthex located to the north and south of the church. The unusual features, i.e., the annular corridor and crypt in the apse, pseudo-transept, barriers between the columns of the colonnades, two ambos, and a semi-circular enclosure located just west of the large ambo at the south side of the nave, have been described elsewhere.13 A very thoroughly destroyed baptistery, from which only a large stone vessel survived unscathed, was found on the north side of the church in 2012. To our sur12. C. S. Snively, G. Sanev, Late Antique Residences at Golemo Gradište, Konjuh, R. Macedonia, in Niš & Byzantium, 11, Niš, 2013, pp. 160–64. 13. Snively The New Basilica, cit. (n.  9); eadem, An Unidentified Late Antique City, cit. (n.  9); eadem, The unidentified, semicircular enclosure in the Episcopal Basilica at Golemo Gradište, Konjuh, Republic of Macedonia, appendix in Les églises en monde syriaque (Études Syriaques, 10), Paris, 2013, pp. 566–68.

210

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Plan of the Southern Residential Complex. North is at the top.

prise, in 2013, a well-preserved piscina came to light in a large apsidal room on the south side of the basilica, leaving in question whether the northern baptistery had been deliberately demolished and a new one constructed. Fragmentary sculpture from the ambos in the basilica on the terrace shows striking similarities to that from the Rotunda. Without much question, the same craftsmen or ones from the same workshop created the decoration in both churches. Since our investigations have provided an approximate mid-sixth-century date for the basilica, the Rotunda must be of similar date. Several walls of an earlier building, probably not a church, were found below the floors of the basilica on the terrace. The large Northern Residence (Fig. 8) located only a few meters to the northeast of the church, might have ser-

ved as an Episcopal Residence or housing for the clergy of the basilica. No definitive evidence has yet been found to support or refute this attractive hypothesis. The space where the annexes of the basilica might meet the residence has not yet been investigated because of practical problems of communication across the excavated area. The southeast wing of the residence, consisting of a corridor along the west side and a large room along the east, has been completely investigated. The material found in the Room with Pithoi confirmed the identification as a residence. Iron knives, fragments of glass vessels, pieces of bone combs, and a large number of smashed ceramic vessels came to light, along with window glass, and a small hoard of bronze coins. The complex continues to the north and northwest of

golemo gradiŠte at kinjuh: a new city or a relocated one?

Fig. 7. The Episcopal Basilica on the northern terrace, from the west. [22 July 2011].

Fig. 8. The Northern Residence, from south and above. [28 July 2014].

211

212

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

the southeast wing. Excavations in 2013 finally reached the north wall of the building, whose dimensions are c. 25 m north-south, by at least 20m east-west. Two additional large rooms are located along the east side, although the northernmost one had been subdivided. An apparent kitchen area lay at the west side of a courtyard, which displayed eastern and southern colonnades. We still do not know if the wall at the west edge of the putative kitchen marks the west wall of the building or if it extends further to the west. Finally it remains unclear where the entrance to the residence was located. The hoard of coins found in the Room with Pithoi are mostly sixth-century issues of minimal value, of Anastasius, Justin I, and Justinian I; they provide a terminus post quem of c. AD 565 for the destruction of the residence.14 Evidence for Roman Activity The evidence for earlier settlement in the area may be divided into several different categories. Archaeologists who carried out survey at the site reported first to third-century coins, part of a cult statue of Artemis, a fragmentary Ionic capital, and other Roman material.15 Our excavations on the northern terrace have turned up quite a number of large, somewhat battered stone blocks that were probably re-used from some monumental construction, as well as several fragments of relief sculpture. The most interesting are a fragmentary scene of a lion and a deer (Fig. 9) and a part of a relief portraying a Thracian rider, tentatively dated to the second half of the third or first half of the fourth century.16 Local villagers, especially our workmen from Konjuh, have reported the discovery during plowing of burials, usually cremations, in several areas around the site, but the largest and most definite cemetery is the one mentioned earlier, located on and around the K’šla plateau (Fig. 10). The single paragraph published about the salvage excavations in 1995 may be summarized as follows: Fifty-four graves were opened, of which eight were from the Iron Age and forty-six from the Early Roman period. The latter had been dug into a damaged tumulus. The arched tile burials contained both cremations and inhumations. Grave goods included pottery vessels and bracelets, earrings, finger rings, necklaces, and other.17

Unfortunately the material from the salvage excavations 14. Snively, Sanev, Late Antique Residences, cit. (n.  12), pp. 164–70. 15. Mikulčić, Два безимени доцноантички града, cit. (n.  1), pp. 119, 122–30; V. Lilčić, Македонскиот камен за боговите, христијаните, и за живот по живот. Античка камена архитектонска пластика во Република Македонија, 1, Skopje, 2001, pp. 308–09, presents the piece of Ionic capital, but notes that little evidence exists for the early periods at the site. 16. S. C. Higgins, Riding into Late Antiquity: A Thracian Rider Relief from Golemo Gradište, Konjuh, in Niš & Byzantium, 11, Niš, 2013, pp. 173–85. 17. M. Ivanoski, К’шла, cit. (n.  6), p. 185.

Fig. 9. A fragment of relief sculpture showing a lion and deer. [30 July 2009].

is not accessible for study by members of the international team. Our project has excavated a few disturbed cremation burials on the top of the K’šla plateau; several fragments of gold leaf, fragments of lamps, an illegible coin, and potsherds of a light tan color have been found, but the burials cannot yet be precisely dated.18 In addition to cremations, cist graves with inhumations were noted at K’šla. Inscribed gravestones had been reused in the construction of two or more Late Roman cist tombs.19 Of the six inscriptions from Konjuh published by Borka Dragojević-Josifovska in volume 6 of the inscriptions of Moesia Superior, three come from K’šla and possibly from one of the cist graves mentioned above. One is very fragmentary, while the other two are the gravestones of 16year old Pamphorus and of 35-year old Sabinus Antius, the latter identified by Dragojević-Josifovska as the centurion of a cavalry cohort.20 Other inscriptions are known and will be published by Slavica Babamova, epigraphist at the Archaeological Museum in Skopje. Members of the Konjuh project have spent a great deal of energy looking for a settlement contemporary with the cemetery at K’šla. Informal surveys have been carried out, and the villagers have pointed out places where walls 18. The most intriguing find from these burials was a glass object identified as a breast pump; it will be published by Mihail Stojanoski. 19. For a discussion of this practice of using earlier tombstones for the construction of cist graves, see A. Jovanović, O problemu grobova sa spolijama iz kasnoantičkog perioda na tlu Dardanije, in Novopazarski Zbornik, 20, 1996, pp. 23–32. 20. B.  Dragojević-Josifovska, Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure VI. Scupi et la région de Kumanovo, Beograd 1982, Nos. 234 (Pamphorus), 235, 236 (Sabinus Antius), 237, 238, 239.

golemo gradiŠte at kinjuh: a new city or a relocated one?

213

Fig. 10. The K’šla plateau, where Roman and Late Antique burials are found, from the east and above. (28 July 2014).

or concentrations of material were noted in their fields. Although we know about walls and possible structures here and there, no concentration of architecture sufficient to suggest a settlement has yet been found. The search for ‘Roman’ material and occupation requires some background. Cultural and economic development in the Kumanovo basin, on whose periphery Konjuh is located, followed a slower pace and occurred later than in the neighboring valley of Scupi. The region appears not to have been extensively Romanized or urbanized before the third century AD. Until then local pottery continued to be made, and relatively few imported objects, high quality local pottery, glass, coins, inscriptions, or luxury items were in use; the primary economic bases continued to be farming, stock raising, and transhumant pastoralism. For the most part, settlements still consisted of the pre-Roman oppida.21 One exception was the town of Lamud near the modern village of Lopate, located on the plain c. 2 km west of Kumanovo.22 There the evidence of coins and inscriptions, combined with the results of excavation, mostly of burials at the site of Drezga, points to an important urban center already by the end of the second century AD. The town stood on a major Roman road coming south from the Morava valley, i.e., part of the millennia old route from central Europe 21. I.  Mikulčić, Teritorija Skupa, in Živa Antika, 21, 1971, pp.  470–72; Z.  Mirdita, O južnoj granici Dardanaca i Dardanije u antici, in Vjesnik Arheoloskog muzeja u Zagrebu 3rd ser., 32–33, 1999–2000, p. 74; V. P. Petrović, Pre-Roman and Roman Dardania: Historical and Geographical Considerations, in Balcanica, 37,  2006, pp.  16–17; B.  Dragojević-Josifovska, Inscriptions, cit. (n. 20) p. 42. V. Ivaniševic, P. Špehar, Early Byzantine Finds from Čečan and Gornji Streoc (Kosovo), in Starinar, 55, 2005, p. 152. 22. ‘Lamud’ is the abbreviated place name from an inscription (B. Dragojević-Josifovska, Inscriptions, cit. [n.  20], No. 209) that refers both to the restoration of the temple and the customs station. The full name of the town is unknown.

to the Aegean Sea. Not only did Lamud have a Mithraeum, restored in 211, and a temple of Dolichenus; it was also the site of a customs station, and a librarius from a legion is recorded among the mining bureaucracy.23 Mikulčić suggested that Lamud was the regional administrative center for the Kumanovo basin during the Roman period.24 Thus, the real chronological issue is whether or not identifiable Roman material attests Roman activity at Konjuh before the third century and thus perhaps a settlement contemporary with Lamud. Much of the evidence, however, points to Roman activity only during the third and fourth centuries, characteristic of the Kumanovo basin, although the discovery of well-dated earlier burials or other material could change that tentative conclusion. Against this background, the search for an early settlement in the vicinity becomes less clear cut. No good candidate for an oppidum has been observed. What would a smaller Dardanian settlement look like, and could it be identified as such and reliably dated, if one were found? But would the inhabitants of such a site have buried their dead in what appear to be Roman style graves at K’šla and elsewhere in the vicinity? Or should the search be for a small Roman military base and associated civilian settlement? Fortunately these questions need not be fully answered at this time. What is clear is that from at least the third or fourth century, perhaps earlier, there was Roman occupation in the Konjuh area and, given the apparent size of the cemetery scattered 23. Dragojević-Josifovska Inscriptions, cit. (n.  20), pp. 42–45, and Nos. 208, 209, 227, and 241. Lilčić, Македонскиот камен, cit. (n.  15), vol. 1, pp. 128–31, describes the uninscribed architectural fragments. 24. Mikulčić Teritorija Skupa, cit. (n. 21), p. 470; idem, Античци градови, cit. (n. 10), p. 283. Although B. Dragojević-Josifovska (Inscriptions, cit. [n.  20], p. 42) described the site as the most important one in the region, she disagreed strongly (note 9) with Mikulčić’s hypothesis that it was a municipium and local center.

214

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

across and around the K’šla plateau, fairly extensive occupation, even if a nucleated settlement has not been found. Location, Military Presence, and Mining The site of Golemo Gradište lay near the southeast border of the Early Roman province of Moesia Superior (AD 86 to c. 272) and of the smaller Late Antique province of Dardania from the late third century on. The borders of Macedonia, Moesia, and Thracia, from the first to third century, and those of Macedonia (Secunda), Dardania, and Dacia Mediterranea in Late Antiquity apparently met at Asanica, c. 10 km east of Golemo Gradište.25 Dardania was included among the provinces of the civil Diocese of Dacia, the northern half of the Praetorian Prefecture of East Illyricum. In Late Antiquity, if not earlier, a road ran through the Kriva valley; at the west end, near the confluence with the Pčinja river, it intersected with a north-south route along that river and thus with a branch of the major north-south highway from the Aegean Sea to central Europe. At its east end, near Psača, the Kriva valley road joined another eastwest highway that led from Scupi/Skopje toward Serdica/ Sofia. From Ovče Polje to the south, a road ran through a pass at Pezovo and intersected with the road through the Kriva valley at Golemo Gradište.26 (If our anonymous city is indeed Tranupara or the successor of an earlier site of that name, it would represent the second stop on the Stobi XXAstibo XXX – Tranupara L – Pautalia route from the Tabula Peutingeriana.) The tombstone of Sabinus Antius and other inscriptions indicate that soldiers, auxiliaries if not legionaries, were stationed in the Konjuh area in the third or fourth century.27 Reasons for a military presence included border defense, maintaining law and order, mining, and customs collection.28 The proximity of the borders of Macedonia to the south and Thracia/Dacia Mediterranea to the east provides one possible explanation. Also Dardania had a reputation as an unruly and dangerous region; Mócsy, in an article about the latrones Dardaniae analyzed the evidence from several grave inscriptions of men killed by brigands. He concluded that the latrones were highwaymen and inhabitants of the uplands, who focused their attacks on travelers along roads 25. Mikulčić, Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen, cit. (n.  3), p. 21. 26. Ibid. pp. 38–39; V. Lilčić, Размислувања, cit. (n.  3), pp. 36–37. 27. Mikulčić, Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen, cit. (n. 3), p. 64; also unpublished inscriptions. 28. Mikulčić, Антички градови, cit. (n.  10), pp. 281–83. A customs station is attested at the site of Vizianum, near the village of Klečovce and the confluence of the Kriva and Pčinja Rivers, c. 12 km west of Konjuh, in the early third century; see DragojevićJosifovska, Inscriptions, cit. (n.  20), pp. 44–45, and inscription Nr. 212. It is unlikely that another one would have been located around Konjuh, despite its proximity to borders, at that time, but the situation could have changed in Late Antiquity.

in several mountainous regions in Upper Moesia.29 Their depredations provide another reason for military presence in certain parts of the province. The administration of the Roman province of Moesia Superior and of the later province of Dardania would have been arranged to a great extent around the exploitation of mineral resources, especially metal ores. Konjuh is located in a mining region; although modern mines are located further east and south, in the Kratovo-Zletovo region, evidence for ancient mining has been documented in the area around Konjuh, and the amount of slag found at Golemo Gradište points to metallurgical activities at the site. In the Roman world, wherever mining was being carried out, the military was present. The primary role of the army in a mining province was protection against a variety of internal and external enemies. Mining may provide the most likely reason for the presence in the Konjuh area of Sabinus Antius and other soldiers.30 Settlement Patterns in Late Antiquity The transformation of the settlement landscape around Konjuh, with the progression from burials of the third or fourth century and scattered evidence for mining and military activity, mostly around K’šla, to an organized and heavily fortified city at Golemo Gradište in the second quarter of the sixth century remains unclear. And why did that transition occur? A workshop entitled ‘New Cities in Late Antiquity’ would appear to focus on sharply defined urban settlements. For archaeologists and historians, towns and cities are important and intriguing; they captivate scholars by offering almost 29. A. Mócsy, Latrones Dardaniae, in Acta Antiqua, 16, 1968, pp.  351–54. He also concluded that the cohortes Aureliae Dardanorum, mentioned in SHA, vita Marci 21.7 (armavit etiam gladiatores, quos obsequentes appellavit. latrones etiam Dalmatiae atque Dardaniae milites fecit. armavit et Diogmitas. emit et Germanorum auxilia contra Germanos), were unlikely to have been stationed in the regions where they had previously operated as brigands! 30. See inter alia, S. Dušanić, The Roman mines in Illyricum: organization and impact on provincial life, in C. Domergue (ed.), Minería y metalurgía en las antiguas civilizaciones mediterráneas y europeas, Madrid, 1989, 2, pp. 148–56; idem, Army and Mining in Moesia Superior, in G. Alföldy, B. Dobson, and W. Eck (eds.), Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit: Gedenkschrift für Eric Birley, Stuttgart, 2000, pp. 343–63; A. M. Hirt, Imperial Mines and Quarries in the Roman World: Organizational Aspects 27 BC-235 AD, Oxford, 2010; A. Keramidčiev, Римското рударство во Источна Македонија, in Гласник на Институтот за Национална Историја, 18,1, Skopje, 1974, pp.  119–33; idem, Извори за рударство и металургијата во античка Македонија, in Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 3, 1977, pp. 103–16; Mikulčić, Антички градови, cit. (n.  10), pp. 285–90.

golemo gradiŠte at kinjuh: a new city or a relocated one?

infinite opportunities for study and speculation. One general conclusion about new cities established in Late Antiquity is that they did not just happen, but that specific and sometimes urgent reasons led to their founding.31 Another conclusion that one might reach simply from the papers presented at this conference is that Late Antique cities and especially new ones deny any attempt at a single definition; questions about the nature of settlements are implicit in many of the presentations. Recent research suggests that especially in Late Antiquity settlement patterns changed in such ways that one dare not focus only on cities, however defined, but must look also at other types of settlements and at the relationships among them. Archaeological surveys have provided a great deal of information about settlement patterns and population and how they changed through time in particular regions.32 In many regions of the southern Balkans the number of settlements in Late Antiquity was greater than during the Roman period.33 More specifically, conclusions reached as a result of survey in Greek Macedonia appear to be generally valid also for the provinces of Macedonia Secunda and Dardania.34 Between the third and sixth centuries, a number of cities, especially those in valleys and plains, were abandoned or destroyed and ceased to exist or lost status to the point of no longer being considered cities. Ones that survived built or rebuilt fortifications, often on a smaller scale than the original ones. A number of cities relocated, usually to higher or more easily defensible locations; a number of new ones were established; and forts or small towns occasionally grew and developed into urban centers. Outside actual cities, small existing sites were fortified and new fortifications appeared, guarding some strategic point or road or arranged as outlying defenses around a city. 31. E. Zanini, The Urban Ideal and Urban Planning in Byzantine New Cities of the Sixth Century A.D., in L. Lavan, W. Bowden, (eds.), Theory and practice in late antique archaeology, Leiden/ Boston, 2003, pp. 196–223. 32. J.  Bintliff, The contribution of regional survey to the Late Antiquity debate: Greece in its Mediterranean context, in The Transition to Late Antiquity in the Danube and Beyond, Oxford 2007, pp. 649–78; A. Dunn, Continuity and change in the Macedonian countryside, from Gallienus and Justinian, in: W. Bowden, L. Lavan (eds.), Late Antique Archaeology 2. Recent research on the Late Antique countryside, Leiden/Boston, 2004, pp. 535–86; idem, The transition from polis to kastron in the Balkans (III-VII cc.): general and regional perspectives, in BMGS, 18, 1994, pp. 60–81; Mikulčić, Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen, cit. (n.  3). 33. It remains unclear whether the population was larger or just more widely distributed. See J. Bintliff, The paradoxes of Late Antiquity: a thermodynamic solution, in Antiquité Tardive, 20, 2012, pp. 69–73. 34. A. Dunn, Continuity and change, cit. (n. 32); Mikulčić, Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen, cit. (n. 3), pp. 50–76.

215

A well-known example of a city that did not survive is Styberra, near Prilep in western Macedonia. It was a large and flourishing Roman town; recent excavations have brought to light monumental buildings, inscriptions, and an amazing amount of sculpture. By the end of the third century, however, it had ceased to exist.35 In Dardania, Lamud in the Kumanovo plain is attested into the first half of the fourth century, but disappeared soon after.36 The middle Bregalnica valley, a mining region south of the Konjuh area in eastern R. Macedonia, was not extensively urbanized until the fourth century.37 Its four or five towns illustrate various aspects of Late Antique and earlier settlement and provide useful comparanda for the Kriva valley. The settlements at Štip, Goren Kozjak, Krupište, Vinica, and Kalata all stood beside or close to a Roman road that followed the Bregalnica River to the east toward Scaptopara (Blagoevgrad) and the Strymon valley.38 This road through the Bregalnica valley was not the Stobi—Astibo—Tranupara—Pautalia route. Although the region belonged to the province of Dacia mediterranea in the fourth century, by sometime in the second half of the fifth century, it lay within Macedonia Secunda. Four of the cities that Hierokles lists in the latter province must be located in the Bregalnica valley: Bargala, Kelenidin, Harmonia, and Zapara.39 At modern Štip, often identified with Astibo on the Stobi – Astibo – Tranupara – Pautalia route, there is some evidence in the Star Konak neighborhood for a second/third-century Roman town, complete with cemetery and aqueduct. Astibo, at the confluence of the Otinja and Bregalnica rivers, stood at an important road intersection, from which one road ran north toward Tranupara and Pautalia and the other ran east through the Bregalnica valley. It may have served as a military base and customs station, and galleries for mining copper, silver, and gold are known. The Goths probably destroyed the town in 267/68. Astibo continued to exist, as attested by Early Byzantine ecclesiastical spolia built into medieval churches. Although Late Antique walls have been found beneath medieval fortifications at Isar in Štip, almost nothing is known about a settlement of that period.40

35. K. Kepeski, Бедем-Styberra, in Археолошка карта на Република Македонија, 2, pp. 316–19. 36. I. Mikulčić, Teritorija Skupa, cit. (n. 21), p. 471; N. Petrova, Дрезга—Куманово, во светлината на новите проучувања на северно-македонскиот простор, in Мacedoniae Аcta Аrchaeologica, 11, 1987–1989 (1990), pp. 135–49. 37. A recent and very useful source for this region is: I. Mikulčiќ, Ancient Towns on Bregalnica, Skopje, 2009. 38. See Mikulčić, Spätantike und frühbyzantinische Befestigungen, cit. (n.  3), pp. 37–40. 39. Hierokles, Synekdemos, 641.6–9. 40. Mikulčiќ, Ancient Towns, cit. (n. 37), pp. 22–29; V. Sanev, Z. Beldedovski, Штип, in Археолошка карта на Република Македонија, 2, pp. 445–49.

216

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

The easternmost town in the valley was located at Kalata, near modern Makedonska Kamenica. It stood on a hill, surrounded on three sides by the Bregalnica and Kamenička rivers. Fortification walls enclosed both the upper town on top of the hill and a lower town below, an overall area of c. 6 ha. Of several known churches, two were excavated before the site was flooded by a dam; they were dated to the sixth century.41 The three-aisle basilica at Begov Dab showed unusual features; it displayed a transept in whose wings small rooms were separated from the aisles, and the semicircular apse was almost completely withdrawn behind the east wall of the church. Mining has been the primary occupation in this region since the Roman period. Mikulčić argues that Kalata was one of several mining settlements attached to forts in the region but, when new deposits of iron and lead-silver ore came to light nearby, the settlement developed into an economic, administrative, and ecclesiastical center for the region. In the sixth century, the settlement probably became an episcopal seat and achieved the status of a city, which Mikulčić identifies as Harmonia.42 Viničko Kale, another naturally fortified hill, rises above the modern town of Vinica, at the southeastern edge of the Kočani plain. A fortification of the Roman period, perhaps from the second century, enclosed an oval area of c. 4 ha. A smaller Late Antique fortress of c. 2 ha rose within the earlier walls; the fortress or some phase of it may date to the sixth century. Despite its small size and the sparse information available about the site, Kale at Vinica has been described as a regional administrative center for the Kočani plain and an episcopal seat; Mikulčić tentatively identifies it as Kelenidin.43 Located in a mining region, it – like Kalata – may have developed as the result of increased exploitation of metal ores. Remarkably little is known from the ‘systematic’ excavation of the site that began in 1985 and continued for more than two decades; Viničko Kale is most famous for the remarkable terracotta icons discovered there.44 Above the village of Krupište rises a hill known as Tsapar, on which stood a late Hellenistic and early Roman fortified 41. I. Mikulčić, Dve ranohriščanske crkve kod Makedonske Kamenice, in Starinar, 27, 1977, pp. 181–91. 42. Mikulčiќ, Ancient Towns, cit. (n. 37), pp. 101–03. 43. Ibid. pp. 85–87. 44. Ibid. pp. 74–75, note 39, pointed out that no preliminary reports of the excavations, directed by Cone Krstevski and Kosta Balabanov, had appeared. Unfortunately the recent publication by K. Balabanov, Vinica Fortress: Mythology, History and Religion Written with Clay, Skopje, 2011, has not contributed much to our knowledge of the site or its chronology. Of 329 pages, more than 250 are devoted to discussion of the terracotta icons; there is no discussion of the chronology of buildings on the basis of archaeological assemblages. This lack of reliable information is especially annoying, because the site shares certain characteristics with Golemo Gradište at Konjuh and may have experienced similar events and historical trajectory.

settlement. In the fourth century AD, a military camp was apparently established on a low rise in the marshy plane below Tsapar, where the Zletovica River runs into the Bregalnica. The military camp gave way to a civilian settlement, of which poorly preserved remains of a fortification wall have allowed a tentative reconstruction as an irregular rectangle enclosing c. 7 ha. The remains of at least two unusual churches suggest that the town was the seat of a bishop.45 One is a large, three-aisle basilica with three apses and two additional apsidal annexes; the ‘red church’ was an inscribed-cross church in its final phase but may rest on earlier foundations. The original construction of the basilica can be dated with certainty to the second half of the sixth century; opinion on the date of the red church is divided between the sixth and the ninth/tenth centuries. In part on the basis of similarity of the name with Tsapar, Mikulčić identifies the town as Zapara, whose bishop attended the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.46 A concentration of Roman and Late Antique settlements has been documented for c. 10 km from Krupište toward Štip, occupying the plain that stretches from the left bank of the Bregalnica river toward the southeast. The Late Antique city identified as Bargala stood just above the eastern edge of the plain, at Goren Kozjak. In plan it is a slightly irregular rectangle enclosing a space of almost 5 ha; two major streets connecting gates in the four sides intersect west of center. The overall plan, i.e., a rectangle provided with exterior towers, suggests that it was founded as a military camp. The earliest material found at the site consists of coins of Constantine I; the visible constructions belong to the fifth and sixth centuries. Excavated buildings include an episcopal basilica and baptistery with multiple phases, an episcopal residence, workshops, houses, an extramural cemetery basilica, and a small centrally located basilica. Bishop Dardanius from Bargala attended the Council of Chalcedon in 451.47 During World War  II, at the site of Anče near the village of Karbinci, near the Bregalnica River, an inscribed sandstone slab was found; dated to AD 371, the inscription recorded the construction of a gate at the city of Bargala in the province of Dacia Mediterranea. Trial excavations revealed massive foundations of a large (72 m long) structure and other buildings of the third–fourth centuries. V. Sanev 45. Of the four Late Antique churches claimed by B. Aleksova to exist at the site, the verdict on the basilica under the seventeenthcentury church of St. Nicholas just outside the city is possible but ‘not proven’. There is no evidence to identify the round buildig on nearby Kletovnik Hill as a church. In the case of these two buildings, I speak from personal observation. See: B. Aleksova, Крупиште, Штипско, археолошките истражувања 1975 и 1981 година, in Зборник на археолошкиот Музеј Скопје, 10–11, 1979–82 (1983), pp. 85–100. 46. Mikulčiќ, Ancient Towns, cit. (n. 37), pp. 103–15. 47. Ibid. pp. 47–71.

golemo gradiŠte at kinjuh: a new city or a relocated one?

Fig. 11. Plan of Golemo Gradište, Konjuh, 2015. G. C. McArdle, after I. Mikulčić, M. Milojević, and the National Survey Institute; with additions by C. Snively.

217

218

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

concluded that Roman Bargala had been located in this area and had been destroyed during barbarian incursions at the end of the fourth century, after which the settlement moved from the vulnerable lowland site near the Bregalnica to the higher and somewhat more defensible site at Goren Kozjak.48 Other scholars, however, have sometimes located Roman Bargala on the hill known as Bandera above the village of Dolen Kozjak, where a fortified settlement with a shrine and representations of several pagan gods were found; it was dated on the basis of trial excavations to the late second century, with a probable destruction in the first half of the fourth century.49 Considerable controversy remains: did a Roman town of Bargala exist in a separate location from the Late Antique city, and if so, where? Does the inscription refer to a gate at Roman Bargala or to the main west gate of Late Antique Bargala? Was the castrum established at Goren Kozjak at the time of the civil war between Licinius and Constantine early in the fourth century or as the base for a comitatensian legion later in the century or only at the end of the century in response to barbarian incursions? One final observation about Late Antique Bargala is that a defensive network of smaller forts apparently surrounded the city.50 One site from that network is Kula at the village of Kalauzlija,51 c. 4 km distant from Bargala; it has been investigated and is clearly contemporary with Late Antique Bargala. It includes two fortified plateaus separated by a ditch; the northern enclosure may have been a fortress and the southern one a civilian settlement. On the southern plateau a very unusual church came to light: a single-aisle building with eastern apse and very thick walls supported by exterior buttresses, between which tombs had been constructed.52

48. V. Sanev, Карбинци: Беш Тепе—Анче—Баргала, in Археолошка карта на Република Македонија, 2, pp. 435–36. 49. V. Sanev, Долни Козјак: Бандера, in Археолошка карта на Република Македонија, 2, pp.  433–34. See also I.  Mikulčiќ, Ancient Towns, cit. (n. 37), pp. 29–31; B. Aleksova, C. Mango, Bargala: a Preliminary Report, in DOP, 25, 1971, pp. 265–66. 50. B. Aleksova, Episkopijata na Bregalnica, Prilep, 1989, pp. 33–34. The problem of dating sites on the basis of survey complicates the identification of sites that might belong to this fortification network. I.  Mikulčiќ, Ancient Towns, cit. (n. 37), pp. 49, 71, dismisses most of the nearby towers and forts as hasty constructions associated with the war between Licinius and Constantine and abandoned some time after AD 324. 51. V. Sanev, Z. Beldedovski, Калаузлија: Кула, in Археолошка карта на Република Македонија, 2, p. 435; Mikulčiќ, Ancient Towns, cit. (n. 37), pp. 71–73. 52. Z. Beldedovski, M. Šterjov, Нови сознанија за локалитетот Кула кај с. Калаузлија, in Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 19, 2004–2006 (2010), pp. 309–20.

The Anonymous City in the Kriva Valley If we return to Golemo Gradište at Konjuh and consider it in the context of the southeast corner of Dardania and of the Kriva River valley, it appears that the valley and surrounding area were extensively developed only in Late Antiquity. The results of survey, published in the Archaeological Map of the Republic of Macedonia, shows that the number of recorded Late Antique sites is five times greater than Roman ones.53 Golemo Gradište was the only city site recorded among a series of Late Antique fortresses that overlooked and guarded a road that ran through the valley of the Kriva River. Thus one of our working hypotheses has been that the settlement established on the northern terrace at Golemo Gradište in the middle or second half of the fifth century was a development or relocation of the already existing population in the area when the need for protection beside a steep and naturally defensible acropolis overcame the objections to living on a northern terrace that was (and still is) cold and unpleasant in winter. Frequent finds of arrowheads and ballista balls may provide some explanation. A further assumption was that the need for defense was associated with the exploitation of local mineral resources that became more important in Late Antiquity. The city would have served as an administrative center for the mining region, it would have housed the associated personnel and perhaps a military contingent and even the miners themselves, and it would have guarded the ores, ingots, and/or metal products, until they were shipped east or west by road to other regions. The nature of the fifth-century settlement remains very uncertain. Clearly it occupied some part of the northern terrace, but its size is uncertain, and it may not have been enclosed by a fortification wall. At the same time there was activity on the acropolis, but only the rock-cut cistern may belong to this period. The fortress on the acropolis, the rebuilding of the lower town, and the fortification of the entire site all belong to the sixth century. An important point is that the anonymous city at Golemo Gradište cannot be considered in isolation but must be examined together with the road through the Kriva valley and the line of the other, much smaller, fortified settlements 53. Given that many of the sites listed in the Археолошка карта на Република Македонија (АКРМ) were found during informal surveys carried out over a period of years for the purpose of creating the АКРМ, one might ask whether more Late Antique sites were found because they were more visible and some Late Antique material is more easily identifiable. I thank John Bintliff for raising this question at the conference. The Kriva River valley, i.e., the valley and the lower parts of a number of tributaries, falls into the districts or counties of Kumanovo, Kratovo, and Kriva Palanka. The entries in АКРМ for the last two districts generally show more Late Antique sites than Roman ones. In the Kumanovo district, however, overall more Roman sites are listed, but villages in the Kriva valley show roughly the same number of Roman sites as Late Antique ones.

golemo gradiŠte at kinjuh: a new city or a relocated one?

that guarded the road. The data is insufficient to say whether those sites and others in the vicinity were created from existing sites or were built from scratch, i.e. how many of them pre-dated the establishment of the city at Golemo Gradište, or were contemporary with either its initial settlement in the fifth century or its sixth-century rebuilding and fortification. The end result in the mid-sixth century was a network of sites, probably with a variety of functions, but all involved to some extent in mining or guarding the road and its traffic of metal ores or products. Although the city at Golemo Gradište was much larger than any of those in the middle Bregalnica valley, the two regions show many similarities. Late Antique settlements outnumber Roman ones to a much greater degree in the Bregalnica valley than along the Kriva River. In both cases, mining was the primary economic basis, and metal ores were exploited to a greater extent in Late Antiquity. A road linking the settlements provided a way for products to be exported from the area but also required protection. Regional administrative centers developed, either from earlier towns or from castra, and those centers became bishoprics.54 In the case of Golemo Gradište at Konjuh, however, one might question whether the requirements and amenities of a settlement that existed primarily because of mining included churches, such as the Rotunda or the large basilica located centrally on the northern terrace, and whether a mining center needed a bishop of the stature and education that one might imagine given the liturgical elaboration of his ecclesiastical constructions. Mikulčić long ago suggested that Golemo Gradište had been a relocated city in another sense, as follows. An important Roman center had been located near Lopate in the Kumanovo region. Lamud was one of several administrative centers in the region of Dardania within the province of Moesia Superior; most notably a customs station was located there. The evidence of burials documents its

54. For the comparison of Roman and Late Antique sites, see АКРМ 2 and 3. Note the law of the emperor Zeno, c. 480, to the effect that all cities should have their own bishops to deal with ecclesiastical matters; Corpus Iuris Civilis I.3.35 (36).

219

existence into the first half of the fourth century. Mikulčić argued that in Late Antiquity the lowland settlement at Lamud became too exposed to attack and gradually shrank in size. The economic center and its population moved to the southeast, into the foothills of the mountains. Despite its location so near the boundary of the province, the city at Golemo Gradište replaced Lamud as the administrative center and primary city in eastern Dardania, and thus in Late Antiquity it also became the seat of a bishop.55 Conclusion In conclusion, I repeat a statement made earlier, i.e., that new cities in Late Antiquity were not founded by chance but for specific reasons or needs, and their sites were chosen to meet those needs. It is possible that the anonymous city at Golemo Gradište responded to several problems. The first was the consolidation of the scattered population in the area in one defensible settlement. A second and perhaps third was the demand for an administrative center for the mining region and for a fortress for the military contingent associated with the mines. Finally, if Mikulčić’s hypothesis is correct, a more defensible, secondary administrative center in eastern Dardania was being sought. The establishment of a city at Golemo Gradište, together with other settlements in the Kriva valley, met all those needs. Acknowledgements I wish to thank the organizers of the workshop, Efthymios Rizos and Jesko Fildhuth, and the host institutions, for an extremely thought-provoking and useful conference, and also to express my gratitude to Gettysburg College, which has supported my research at Konjuh and in the field of Late Antique urbanism.

55. Mikulčić, Teritorija Skupa, cit. (n. 21), p. 471.

Main Patterns of Urbanism in Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima) Vujadin Ivanišević*

Les principales voies de développement de l’urbanisme de Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima) Caričin Grad constitue un exemple unique d’urbanisation tardive sur l’espace de l’Illyricum du Nord. Erigée durant les années 530, cette ville était destinée à être un centre religieux et administratif. Elle comprenait quatre secteurs principaux : une acropole, une ville haute et une ville basse d’une superficie totale de 7,4 ha et des faubourgs qui occupaient 13 ha. Son accès était défendu par un réseau de forteresses environnantes qui, simultanément, assuraient la protection d’un aqueduc d’une longueur de 20 km. Les toutes dernières recherches ont permis de confirmer l’existence d’une nouvelle entité de la ville – des faubourgs nord et est, d’une superficie de 4,5 ha – qui était, elle aussi, ceinte d’un rempart. Il s’agissait principalement d’un secteur d’habitation. Des vestiges d’habitats ont notamment été mis au jour dans la partie sud-ouest de la ville, sur la pente nord de la Ville Haute, ainsi que dans le cadre d’insulae imbriquées entre les ouvrages religieux et publics. Durant sa brève existence la ville a connu toute une série de modifications. Les mieux documentées sont celles entreprises au niveau du complexe de bâtiments identifiés comme les Principia. Celui-ci, dans sa construction originelle, a pu être destiné à abriter un préfet du prétoire de l’Illyricum (?), fonction qui, comme le rapporte la Novelle 11 de l’empereur Justinien Ier datée de 535, a bien été créée. Cette création étant restée probablement sans suite, comme cela est consigné dans la Novelle 131, datée de 545, ce complexe a finalement été transformé en siège du commandement militaire. Parmi les questions les plus importantes soulevées par l’urbanisme de Caričin Grad figure celle de la fortification de l’Acropole qui, selon certains avis, aurait été érigée dans un second temps. L’idée étant que la conception urbanistique initiale de la ville suivait un plan orthogonal, avec le Cardo et le Decumanus parfaitement tracés qui se croisaient devant la façade orientale de la basilique épiscopale et le fronton du palais. Cette supposition ne s’appuie toutefois que sur l’orientation d’un petit nombre de bâtiments et omet de prendre en compte le fait que la Ville Basse faisait partie intégrante du projet initial. Outre cela, un horreum récemment dégagé sur la pente septentrionale de la Ville Haute, qui appartient à la phase initiale, ne s’inscrit pas dans le plan orthogonal proposé. Le point le plus faible de cette supposition tient à la topographie du terrain qui montre que tout l’espace de l’Acropole a été clairement planifié en prévoyant un nivellement du plateau et la taille du tracé du rempart dans le rocher même. Il apparaît donc que le plan de la ville a été dicté, dans la totalité de son concept, par la topographie du terrain. Le second point important soulevé par l’urbanisme de Carčin Grad tient aux zones d’habitation qui occupent les espaces compris entre les bâtiments publics et religieux, dont l’aménagement commence déjà à l’époque de Justinien Ier. Toute la pente septentrionale de la Ville Haute était, elle aussi, habitée, y compris ses parties hautes touchant à la face extérieure du rempart de l’Acropole. Il en va de même pour les vastes faubourgs de la ville. Enfin, au pied de la ville on a mis au jour toute une série de fours pour la fabrication de briques et, vraisemblablement, de céramique, ainsi que pour le travail du métal. On peut donc supposer avec une grande certitude que les environs de la ville étaient habités sur un vaste espace comme l’attestent les forteresses se dressant à proximité même, ainsi que le grand nombre de basiliques situées hors de l’aire de la ville. (Auteur)

* Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade. New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 221-232. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111898

222

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. The Late Antique fortifications in the Leskovac basin.

The site of Caričin Grad is identified as the remnants of Justiniana Prima, the city built by Emperor Justinian I in the vicinity of his birthplace. According to the Justinian’s novel 11 – the city was founded in the 530s, and judging by the numismatic evidence it lasted until after 615.1 Caričin Grad is a unique example of the late urbanization of northern Illyricum. As revealed by archaeological excavations, ongoing for more than a century, the city was built in the sixth century on an elongated, flattened stretch. It consisted of four main units. The Acropolis, the Upper and the Lower Town surfaced 7.4 ha, and the suburbs totalled 13 ha. The workshop centres and buildings next to the fortified area, the dam bridge at the foot of the city, the aqueduct and the surrounding fortifications were also part of the city’s territory. We believe that Caričin Grad was a complex, comprising the urban core and near-by units, including its fortification system.2 1. B.  Bavant, V.  Ivanišević, Ivstiniana Prima – Caričin Grad, Beograd, 2006, pp. 77–82. 2. V. Kondić, V. Popović, Caričin Grad, utvrđeni grad u vizantijs-

The city was built in the middle of an un-urbanized area outside the main road network. The closest cities were Naissus, 45 km to the northeast, and Ulpiana – Justiniana Secunda, situated 57 km southwest of Caričin Grad. The area of the Leskovac Valley, with Caričin Grad built on its eastern fringe, was moderately settled. Numerous fortifications stretched along the slopes, while the settlements in the flat parts of the basin were much fewer.3 It should be pointed out that, using traditional survey methods, only a small number of these could be safely dated to the sixth century, which blurs the general picture.4 (Fig. 1) The closer vicinity of Caričin Grad was settled in the fourth and fifth centuries as well. The most important was the Radinovac fortification, erected above the right bank of kom Iliriku, Beograd 1977, pp. 17–152; B. Bavant ‒ V. Ivanišević, Ivstiniana Prima, cit. (n. 1), pp. 46–63. 3. V. Ivanišević, S. Stamenković, Late Roman Fortifications in the Leskovac Bassin in Relation to Urban Centers, in Starinar, 64, 2014, pp. 219–30. 4. S. Stamenković, Rimsko nasleđe u Leskovačkoj kotlini, Beograd, 2013, pp. 53–59.

main patterns of urbanism in cariČin grad (justiniana prima)

223

Fig. 2. The remains of a pillar of the aqueduct in the village of Bačevina.

the Jablanica River, 6.5 km south of Caričin Grad. It may be dated from the third century BC to the ninth–tenth centuries AD. Judging by coin finds, especially between the third and fifth centuries this fortification played a significant role in defence of Lece, a rich mining area intensively exploited by the Romans.5 The Radinovac fort was to control the route between the Leskovac and the Kosovo and Metohija Valleys, i.e. between Dacia Mediterrranea and Dardania. Some 2.7 km to the northeast of Caričin Grad, the remains of a small Late Roman agglomeration have been found. By all appearances it was a Roman villa, coin-dated to the third–fourth centuries. Two large stone wine-presses have been documented on the site.6 The building of a new urban center must have cost a great deal, especially if we bear in mind that there were several lines of fortifications, numerous public buildings and the aqueduct. According to the latest results, it was some 20 km long.7 (Fig. 2) Recent years have seen breakthroughs in our knowledge of the city’s topography. The results of the field prospection and excavations which followed were presented in October 2012 in Leskovac, at the Early Byzantine City and Society conference, dedicated to the centenary of archaeological 5. V. Ivanišević, S. Stamenković, New Data on Monetary Circulation in Northern Illyricum in the Fifth Century, in N. Holmes (ed.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009, Glasgow, 2011, pp. 757–63. 6. Stamenković, Rimsko, cit. (n. 4), pp. 50–51, 58–59. 7. V. Ivanišević, Akvedukt Caricinog grada - Justiniana Prima, in Saopštenja, 44, 2012, pp. 13–31.

research in Caričin Grad. On that occasion, the present author and Ivan Bugarski presented an analysis of the topography of the city area after processing the lidar-derived DTM (digital terrain model). In this model, new parts of the city were indicated. Apart from that, precise ground-plans of two fortifications in the immediate vicinity of Caričin Grad were obtained, and the aqueduct route emerged as well. By combining new sets of data with archive aerial photographs, the results of geophysical prospection and old and recent excavations, and the modern cadastre, a new fortification line was defined, enclosing the 4.5 ha large northern and eastern suburbs. The rampart is 1.60 m wide. It was built in opus mixtum, with arche recesses.8 The same construction was discovered during the excavations of the large thermae, and described as a suburb fortification by Djordje ManoZisi.9 There were also southeastern, southern, and probably western suburbs, defended by means of palisades. (Fig. 3) Defining the fortified suburb makes a new moment in the interpretation of Caričin Grad. Previous studies pointed to an ‘official’ character of the city, supposedly stretching within the limits of the imposing fortifications of the Acropolis, the Upper and the Lower Town. At the Acropolis there were the large Episcopal Basilica and the Episcopal Palace complex, in the Upper Town there were the Principia, horreum, numerous public buildings and three churches. In the 8. V. Ivanišević, I. Bugarski, New topography of Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima), in: Early Byzantine City and Society, Caričin Grad  V, in print. 9. Đ. Mano-Zisi, Iskopavanja na Caričinom gradu 1955 i 1956 godine, in Starinar 7–8, 1957, pp. 315, 319, Fig. 9.

224

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 3. Caričin Grad: plan.

Fig. 4. The houses erected on the foundation of a ‘stable’ in the Lower Town.

main patterns of urbanism in cariČin grad (justiniana prima)

Lower Town there were the large cistern, the small thermae, different public buildings and three more churches. One of them, situated in the southeastern corner of the city, is still unearthed. A part of the settlement was explored in the southwestern area of the Lower Town, consisting of two rows of houses. The lower parts of the houses were built in dry stone, and the storeys were made out of unfired brick or wattle and doub. All the houses were roofed with tiles – tegulae and imbrices.10 Furthermore, parts of the settlement were documented in the course of the recent geophysical surveys and excavations of the Upper Town’s northern plateau. Public buildings are known from the suburbs as well, such as the large thermae and basilica in the eastern suburb and two churches outside the fortifications – Basilica J and Basilica in Svinjarica. The excavations of the settlement in the Lower Town contributed to our understanding of its chronology. Particularly important is the conclusion that the building of Caričin Grad – Justiniana Prima – was never completed. According to Bernard Bavant and Vujadin Ivanišević, and contrary to the conclusions of Vladimir Kondić and Vladislav Popović, the Lower Town settlement should be dated to the same period as the other two major units of the city, The Acropolis and the Upper Town.11 We further believe that from the same phase came the construction of spacious northern and eastern suburbs, within the limits of which there were the large thermae. The Lower Town settlement can be dated as early as the time of Justinian I, although the adaptations of drystone houses came from the second half of the sixth century, i.e. from the reign of Emperor Justin II and his successors. The foundations of a single building testify to an early occupation of the Lower Town area. This 19.20 m by 15.50 m large building with a courtyard of similar size, probably a stable, may have belonged to the original plan of the city. The building was soon dismantled to make room for a number of smaller houses. (Fig. 4) Space organization from the later phase resulted in the complete closing of the communication lines along the southern and western ramparts or of the access to the towers, especially the southwestern corner tower through which the aqueduct was brought to the city. The tower and parts of the ramparts got incorporated into a new building. On the other hand, in the southeastern part of the Lower Town three unexplored large public buildings 10. V.  Ivanišević, Caričin Grad – The fortifications and the intramural housing in the Lower town, in F. Daim, J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter, 2.2, Mainz, 2010, pp. 747–75. 11. Kondić, Popović, Caričin Grad, cit. (n.  2), pp.  372–74; B. Bavant, Caričin Grad and the Changes in the Nature of Urbanism in the Central Balkans in the Sixth Century, in A. G. Poulter (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond (Proceedings of the British Academy, 141), Oxford, 2007, pp. 353–61; Ivanišević, Caričin Grad, cit. (n. 10), pp. 750–59.

225

were constructed in opus mixtum, one of them believed to have been a church.12 Evident changes in the city’s plan were studied during the excavations of the complex of buildings in the southwestern corner of the Upper Town. A large rectangular building with an apse in the north, 31 m by 18.80 m in size and parallel to the western rampart, belonged to the first construction phase. According to Bernard Bavant, the whole area was soon about to undergo changes, by building two two-storey wings perpendicular to this building and a string of shops along the western portico of the Upper Town’s south street. The eastern part of the main building was ruined and its space was incorporated into a new, three-part building complex with a spacious courtyard. It was described as Principia – the seat of a military commander.13 (Fig. 5) It is not clear why the change was so sudden. It is possible that the first buiding was planed for the Praetorian Prefect of Illyricum. According to Alexander Sarantis, as yet alone in this supposition, one should not exclude the possibility that in the 530s Justinina Prima was actually the Prefecture, as stated in Justinian’s novel 11. This could have lasted until the year 540, when, according to novel 131, the Prefect was in Thessalonika.14 From this phase are the Villa Urbana, as a private residence, the Basilica, a private church, and other unexplored buildings positioned between the southern street and the western rampart of the Upper Town. Later on, in the last occupation phase, parts of this complex were divided by dry-stone walls. The complex, or at least some of its parts, had lost its function. Among the most important questions of the urbanism of Caričin Grad is the issue of the Acropolis fortification, framing the Episcopal Basilica, the large Baptisterium and several buildings that constituted the Episcopal Palace complex.15 According to Čedomir Vasić, this fortification was not part of the original plan but was built in a later construction phase. It has been suggested that the initial urbanistic conception, supposedly orthogonal in plan with clearly predefined cardo (north – south) and decumanus (east – west) which were to meet in front of the eastern façade of the basilica and the Secretarium of the palace, was completely changed with the erection of the ramparts with protruding towers. This was believed to have caused the deviation of cardo and the circular piazza towards the 12. Ivanišević, Caričin Grad, cit. (n. 10), pp. 760–62. 13. B. Bavant, Identification et fonction des batiments, in B. Bavant, V. Kondić, J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Caričin Grad II: Le quartier sud-ouest de la Ville Haute (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 75), Belgrade, Rome, 1990, pp. 123–60. 14. A. Sarantis, War and Diplomacy in Pannonia and the Northwest Balkans during the Reign of Justinian:The Gepid Threat and Imperial Responses, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 63, 2009, p. 24. 15. N. Duval, V. Popović (eds.), Caričin Grad III, L’acropole et ses monuments (cathédrale, baptistère et bâtiments annexes), Rome, Belgrade, 2010.

226

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 5. Principia: Phase I (a), Phase II (b) (after Bavant, Identification et fonction, cit. [n. 13])

east.16 (Fig. 6) The idea rests on the orientation of only few buildings which would fit the ‘original’ plan of the city, namely the above-mentioned large rectangular building in the Principia complex, the Episcopal Basilica and two buildings of the Episcopal Palace complex. In fact, the Episcopal Basilica, according to Čedomir Vasić one of the oldest buildings in the city, did not follow the supposed plan, as it considerably deviates from the western part of the decumanus. In this respect, the position of the Basilica in the Upper Town is also problematic, as it would occupy a part of the western portico of the Upper Town’s south street. The Villa Urbana diverges also from the cardo. An additional weakness of this conception is in that it does not take into account the fact that the Lower Town was part of the original plan. It would have been planned in the same manner, especially because it occupies a mildly descending terrain. Further, the layout of the buildings on the Upper Town’s northern plateau, clearly visible in the 1947 aerial photographs and proved in the course of recent geophysical surveys and excavations, does not indicate any predefined orthogonal plan. On the contrary, it respects the conditions of the terrain. For same reason the horreum, recently discovered on the same plateau, deviates from the directions of both the northern street of the Upper Town and 16. Č. Vasić, La plan d’urbanisme de la Ville haute, in Bavant, Kondić, Spieser, Caričin Grad II, cit. n. 13 pp. 305–11.

the supposed original plan of the cardo. There can be little doubt that the horreum came from the city’s first construction phase, so one would expect it to fit the supposed orthogonal plan. Finally, during several excavation campaigns no traces of older constructions were found in that area. The weakest point in this argumentation are the buildings on the Acropolis themselves. All the researchers consider that they are from the initial urbanistic plan.17 It should be pointed out that the rocky peak of the elongated plateau of Caričin Grad must have been flattened prior to any building activities. That was also the time when a large cistern was dug in the atrium of the basilica, to collect rainfall. The intentions and skills of the architects and masons are demonstrated by the fact that most of the main buildings on the Acropolis, i.e. the Cathedral Basilica, the Baptistery, the so-called Consignatorium, and the longest part of the central street with porticoes, were built on a flattened plateau at 397 m above sea level. The Episcopal Palace complex was built at 396 ms above sea level, and only a small section along the northern rampart and the northeastern angle of the ramparts is at the height of 395 m above sea level. Recent excavations showed that the northern plateau of the Upper Town was leveled as well, to a significantly lower height, to prepare the ground for the construction of the fortification and for the building activities which were 17. Duval, Popović, Caričin Grad III, cit. (n. 15), pp. 630–35.

main patterns of urbanism in cariČin grad (justiniana prima)

227

Fig. 6 Upper Town urbanistic plan: (a) Initial, (b) Constructed (after Vasić)

to follow. This is best demonstrated just below the northern rampart of the Acropolis, in the areas of the rectangular tower, the horseshoe-shaped tower in the northeastern angle of the ramparts and the southern rampart, where the elevation differences are between 1 and 1.5 m. The terrain levels can best be studied in the Secretarium of the Episcopal Palace. The foundations of the rectangular apse of the Secretarium, near the Acropolis rampart, tower and postern, are laid much higher than the postern passage and the ground level of the Upper Town’s northern plateau. We may conclude that the Acropolis, with its fortification, was part of an integral urbanistic plan. More than that, it was a nucleus around which the main communication routes, city quarters and insulae were conceived. Most illustrative in that respect is the settlement formed below the Acropolis, on the flattened rock of the Upper Town’s northern plateau. It was organized according to the route of the northern rampart of the Acropolis on the one hand, and the general layout of the terrain on the other. The same is true of the recently discovered horreum which, by all appearances, was part of the original plan of the city. The second conclusion is that the topography of the terrain was decisive for the conception of the city planners. It is hard to imagine that the orthogonal plan could have been performed on an elongated, narrow stretch with significant elevation differences. The orientation of the city with its wide streets and porticoes deviates towards the east. A slightly

shifted north-south axis of the city’s central street (cardo) and the direction of the cross streets with porticoes, of the eastern street of the Lower Town and the western and eastern streets of the Upper Town (decumanus), leading to the central street of the Acropolis, testify to that effect. A similar plan, but on a rather vastly differing sizes, is that of Constantinople, with its central street with porticoes in the north-south direction – the Mese – cutting the city in two, and the cross streets with porticoes.18 At the junction of the main streets in Caričin Grad is the circular piazza, inspired by similar squares in Constantinople, such as the Forum of Constantine.19 This impression relies upon the fact that Justiniana Prima was an imperial endowment. The modest dimensions of the piazza – the Forum – can be explained by the lack of space, and by the fact that both the ceremonial and administrative functions of the city were performed in the episcopal complex on the Acropolis.20 (Fig. 7) Another important element of the urbanism of Caričin Grad is settling the ‘empty’ spaces inside the fortification 18. M. Mundell Mango, The Porticoed Street at Constantinople, in N.  Necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, Leiden, 2001, pp. 35–37. 19. The idea of Čedomir Vasić that the circular plan of the square was conditioned by the oblique angle of the street should be rejected. 20. A. Berger, Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 54, 2000, p. 168.

228

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 7. Central junction of the main streets with the circular piazza

walls, first of all in the southwestern corner of the Lower Town and on the northern plateau of the Upper Town. Most probably, these areas were originally intended for public buildings. Only a single building of such purpose, the stable, has been constructed in the 0.6 ha large part of the Lower Town, framed with the southern and western ramparts, the large cistern and the southern street of the Lower Town. As already mentioned, the stable was dismantled very soon and a number of buildings were constructed in this part of the city. According to coin-finds, this took place as early as the time of Justinian I. Only a southern area of this settlement has been explored. Judging by the nature of the architecture and the small finds, it was settled by the middle-class civil servants, soldiers, craftsmen, and merchants.21 The settlement on the Upper Town’s northern plateau was similar. There was only one building in opus mixtum 21. Ivanišević, Caričin Grad, cit. (n. 10), pp. 760–75.

there, while the rest were built in dry stone. The building in opus mixtum occupies the eastern part of the plateau, leaning on the complex facing the portico of the northern street. Although the excavations have not been completed, by all appearances it was a horreum. South of it there was a spacious open courtyard. Unlike the other buildings, fanning out and cascading perpendicularly to the countour of the terrain, the horreum was parallel to them. According to preliminary results of the excavations and the analyses of the topography, this whole area was densely populated. Particular building complexes may have been of a public character. This could be the case with the central row of buildings stretching along the northern plateau from the Acropolis fortification to the northern rampart of the Upper Town. In one of the buildings of this complex – building 15c – the pithoi were stored, and many traces of pear were found there. A number of quern-stones and baking ovens point to the major activities that were ongoing in this part of

main patterns of urbanism in cariČin grad (justiniana prima)

229

Fig. 8. The house with the atrium

the city. Unlike the ones in the eastern part of the plateau, the houses in its western part were by all appearances separated from one another, i.e. these were private houses. It seems that they came from the reign of Justinian I. There can be little doubt that this was the date of the horreum, which must have belonged to the initial construction phase of the city. Soon after its completion, other buildings were constructed in this area 0.9 ha in size. Apart from settling the plateau, a string of buildings very different in plan were erected along the outer face of the northern rampart and towers of the Acropolis. A large building with a small courtyard and the atrium leaning on the fortification wall has been fully explored, and some other buildings in this area only partly (Fig. 8). Important data was gained from excavations of the horseshoe-shaped tower on the southern rampart of the Acropolis. The walls of the tower were deconstructed to make room for a minor building of irregular plan erected in its place. This dry-stone building was oriented perpendicularly to the then-closed tower entrance, and the rampart underwent some modifications as well. In the northern corner of the building, the rampart was slightly dismantled, and a small oven, probably for baking bread, was constructed and roofed with an arch of trapezoidal bricks.22 Along the outer face of the western wall, near the junction with the rampart, a sooty brick floor of an oven has been found. It may have belonged to the other room of the same building, leaning on the southwestern rampart. To the east, parts of another dry-stone wall have been uncovered. This 22. V. Ivanišević, S.  Stamenković, Razgradnja fortifikacije Akropolja Caričinog grada, in Leskovački zbornik, 53, 2013, pp. 22–31.

must have belonged to another building, perpendicular to the southern rampart. The buildings were recorded west of the horseshoe-shaped tower on the northern rampart as well, and during the old excavations in the area below the eastern rampart of the Acropolis. A number of buildings were constructed along this rampart and in the zone of the Upper Town’s western street portico. As can be seen, the whole belt around the Acropolis was occupied by numerous, most probably private buildings. It is not a trouble-free task to date these houses. Some of them could well have come from Justinian’s time, and some could have been of later date: a very well preserved follis of Justin II was found in the wall of one of the buildings next to the eastern rampart of the Acropolis. It has long been known that the empty spaces in Caričin Grad became occupied in the last decades of its lifespan. This phase, according to Vladislav Popović the one of ruralization of the city, can be linked with the influx of the local population into the city’s firm fortifications.23 What was less known, and is indicated by the results of recent excavations around the Acropolis fortification, is that numerous humble buildings were constructed in the ‘empty’ zones of the Acropolis too. According to Noël Duval, who had led the revision excavations on the Acropolis, such houses were built along the eastern part of the northern rampart and in the area of the central street portico near the western rampart. Only a single such building has been completely excavated, named as the House with pithoi. (Fig. 9) Although coins of 23. V. Popović, Desintegration und Ruralisation der Stadt im OstIllyricum vom 5. bis 7. Jh. n.Chr., in D. Papenfuss, V. M. Strocka (eds.), Palast und Hütte. Beiträge zum Bauen und Wohnen im Altertum von Archaologen, Mainz, 1982, pp. 545–66.

230

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 9. The house with the pithoi.

Emperors Justin I and Justinian I have been found, the house was dated to the city’s last phase.24 The recent excavations showed that there were buildings along the inner faces of the western, southern, and eastern ramparts as well. By building some of these, even the stairways to the ramparts and towers have been cleaned out. That was the case with the stairways near the horseshoe-shaped towers on the southern rampart and on the northeastern angle of the Acropolis fortification. As a consequence of dismantling the southern rampart horseshoe-shaped tower, the eastern stairways were put out of use. The eastern pilaster was removed for fencing the area between the ‘Consignatorium’ and the southern rampart of the Acropolis. To that end, a wall was built perpendicularly to both the public building mentioned and the rampart. The whole area around the horseshoe-shaped tower on the southern rampart was rearranged by reducing the access to the fortification. Most certainly, such late buildings existed in other areas too, but were not recorded during the 1912 and 1936–38 excavations of the Acropolis.25 This spacious part of the city, together with part of the fortification, was excavated in just four years, which testifies to the haste with which these non-systematic works were performed. Thus, principally in the second half of the sixth century the ‘empty’ zones on the Acropolis, the Upper and the Lower Town were occupied by numerous buildings of light construction. They were built by combining dry-stone and wood, wattle and daub, and unfired brick. Settlements developed in the suburbs as well, especially in the northern and eastern ones, protected by the ramparts 24. Duval, Popović, Caričin Grad, cit. (n. 15), p. 60, fig. VII,7, pp. 579–85, fig. VII, 10–11. 25. Ibid., p. 58.

built in opus mixtum. The excavations were executed only in the area of the large thermae and in a small trench in the northwestern corner of the suburb. Numerous architectural alterations were recorded in the area of the large thermae, coin-dated to the second half of the sixth century and the beginning of the seventh. Coins minted for Phocas prove the continuation of life in the suburb up to the beginning of the seventh century. The 1991 geophysical survey by Alain Kermorvan of Tours University pointed to the presence of buildings and dividing walls on the mild slope of the eastern suburb. Similar were the results of the 2010 geomagnetic survey performed by a team of the German Archaeological Institute, when some of the anomalies were explained by furnaces. Judging by these preliminary results, we may suppose that parts of the suburb were populated by craftsmen. Some buildings were also registered in the southern and western suburbs, but according to the weak anomalies in geophysical data the level of settlement was low. The southern suburb was defended by an elongated Vallum and a palissade. Traces of craftsmen’s activities were noticed at the foot of the city, where two brick furnaces were discovered on the right bank of the Caričinska Rivulet; a third one was found in Svinjarica. It is evident that part of the workshop complex spread along the watercourses. This was indicated as early as 1937, in one of the first excavation reports by Vladimir Petković, who mentioned some smelting furnaces near the dam-bridge.26 On the other hand, one should not exclude the possibility that in the immediate vicinity of the city there were watermills run by water from the lake. We suppose the existence of a large quarry on the western slope of the 26. V.  Petković, Iskopavanje Caričina Grada kod Lebana, in Starinar, 12, 1937, p. 83.

main patterns of urbanism in cariČin grad (justiniana prima)

231

Fig. 10. Caričin Grad and the city territory.

southern suburb. The cemetery was located on the western edge of the southern suburb. The close vicinity of the city was also populated, if one were to judge by a basilica in the village of Svinjarica. Near the basilica there was a round construction; this complex may have belonged to a minor agglomeration. Between Svinjarica and Caričin Grad, the remains of a wall were recorded as well. (Fig. 10) The surrounding fortifications, erected on smaller elevations, were part of the city’s territory. The closest to Caričin Grad is the St. Elias fort, trapezoidal in plan with towers at the corners. This small fort is 0.28 ha in size. Its eastern and southern ramparts are 60 m long, and the lengths of the western and northern ramparts are 52 m and 45 m respectively. The second fortification is situated above the Svinjarička Rivulet, south of the present-day village of Caričina. It is 0.31 ha large, hexagonal in plan, with ramparts c. 33 m long. According to the lidar scans, there were no towers. In the southern part of the fortification there seems to have been a large rectangular building, and in the eastern part a singlenaved basilica (?) may have been situated. (Fig. 11) From the south and the east, the accessible sides of the fortification were protected by a ditch and a palisade. In the north there are remains of a large earthen bulwark. The most important role of this fort was to protect the aqueduct, running between

the southern rampart and the ditch. Having been built in opus mixtum, the ramparts of both fortifications are identical to the ones of Caričin Grad. Far less is known about the fort at the Jezero stretch. This watchtower is positioned at the top of a saddle, to overlook the access to the city from the east. It is a triangular (?) fortlet with 30 m long sides, covering 0.05 ha. There is no data on the structure of the ramparts or on the intramural buildings. North of the city, above the present-day village of Sakicol, at the top of a rise controlling the approach to Caričin Grad from the north, from Pusta Reka, that is from Naissus, a fourth fortification is situated. Its longest sides measure 60–70 m. The fort is irregular in plan and is strengthened with a polygonal tower.27 On the eastern side there was a ditch. Inside the fortification, a church and the foundations of numerous other buildings have been recorded. Caričin Grad is a complex agglomeration consisting of an urban core with its main units – the Acropolis, the Upper and the Lower Town and the suburbs. The city’s territory comprises numerous buildings and fortifications in the immediate vicinity. Thus far, the excavations have focused on the city’s core, and the surroundings were studied by the 27. Kondić, Popović, Caričin Grad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 149–50.

232

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 11. The fortlet in Svinjarica – Digital model terrain.

means of archaeological, geophysical, lidar and photogrammetric surveys, aiming to detect architectural structures. This research has contributed to our knowledge of the city. The image now includes spacious suburbs attached to the area previously studied. Future explorations should answer

key questions concerning the level and character of settling the suburbs, which would lead to a better understanding of Caričin Grad – Justiniana Prima. One of the research priorities will also be the study of the aqueduct, the crucial element of a metropolis.

Water Supply in the Visigothic Urban Foundations of Eio (El Tolmo de Minateda) and Reccopolis Javier Martínez Jiménez*

La distribution d’eau dans les fondations urbaines wisigothiques d’Eio (El Tolmo de Minateda) et Recopolis Les fondations urbaines wisigothiques d’Eio (localité identifiée sur le site d’El Tolmo de Minateda) et de Recopolis ont été étudiées depuis longtemps, et on peut les considérer comme étant les deux nouvelles villes véritablement créées dans l’Occident de l’Antiquité tardive. Elles ont été construites pendant la période de la formation de l’état wisigothique ; ces cités n’étaient pas simplement des symboles de la monarchie wisigothique renouvelée, mais aussi des points de repère importants et des villes habitées. Ceci est révélé non seulement par une la séquence stratigraphique continue (la séquence s’étend du VIe aux VIIIe et IXe siècles) mais aussi par les systèmes d’alimentation en eau élaborés qui se trouvent sur les deux sites. Dans cet article je vais tout d’abord situer ces deux nouvelles fondations dans leur contexte wisigothique (et occidental) d’un point de vue archéologique avec une attention particulière portée à l’urbanisme des sites. Il sera alors possible de proposer une analyse descriptive des systèmes d’alimentation en eau : les aqueducs et les citernes. L’article comparera les systèmes d’alimentation en eau des deux sites (l’aqueduc et les sources à Recopolis, les citernes à Eio) des points de vue fonctionnel et symbolique, puisque le caractère des deux localités est bien différent. Cette analyse mènera à une présentation générale des systèmes d’alimentation en eau dans les villes de l’Antiquité tardive en Espagne, dont le but sera de parvenir à une conclusion en ce qui concerne la relative unicité ou, à l’inverse, fréquence des deux systèmes comme possibilités alternatives, ce dans un contexte plus large. (Auteur)

Late antique new urban foundations are a phenomenon considered characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean but often unexpected from the early post-Roman West. However, although not generally acknowledged, Visigothic Spain offers one exception that confirms the rule in Western Europe, as seen both in written sources and the archaeological record: the foundation of new urban settlements. The creation of these new towns as a result of the Visigothic monarchy’s desire to make a political statement and to reaffirm its control over the territory, has been widely studied and, in the better-known cases of Eio and Reccopolis, this has extended to discussions of their architecture and urbanism as well. However, for these two sites there has relatively little research or speculation in their water supply systems.1 * University of Cambridge. 1. I want to thank first and foremost Efthymios Rizos for inviting me to contribute this paper after a colloquium I co-organised in Oxford in November 2013 and Bryan Ward-Perkins whom with I have been working on this topic for many years. Tom Lankin, Elena Sánchez, Dan Reynnolds, and Conan Parsons have helped me with the text, in form and content. Lastly, Sonia Gutiérrez

This paper will briefly introduce the new urban Visigothic foundations but focus primarily on the water supply systems of these sites which will be explained and analysed within their own respective contexts. This will be done both in terms of urbanism and functionality and also in terms of symbolism. The first case study will be the aqueduct of Reccopolis, which was not only the last aqueduct built in the Roman tradition in Spain, but is also linked to a royally-sponsored urban foundation. The second will be Eio, the town which was built on the frontier and fortified against the Byzantines, and which relied on alternative water supplies to aqueducts. These two systems will later be compared to each other and with the water supply systems of other towns, in order to see how typical or innovative the new royal Visigothic water supplies were.

Lloret (University of Alicante) and Lauro Olmo Enciso (University of Alcalá) have been very helpful and I am greatly thankful for their comments and suggestions.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 233-245. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111899

234

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Map of the Iberian Peninsula in the period of Visigothic state formation (6th-7th centuries), indicating the places mentioned in the text and highlighting the new urban foundations (author).

Urban foundations in Visigothic Spain Visigothic Spain is quite unique in its western, postRoman context as the monarchy promoted the construction of at least four new different settlements (Reccopolis, Eio, Ologicus, and Victoriacum), two of which we know for certain were truly urban in nature (Fig. 1). Reccopolis and Eio were genuine newly built towns, as opposed to other parallel examples of late antique urban foundations, such as the towns renamed after reigning monarchs in Vandal Africa and Ostrogothic Italy, and this construction effort has to be framed during the period of state formation and urban renewal, which has been extensively discussed.2 2. Especially by Lauro Olmo from the University of Alcalá de Henares: e.g. L. Olmo Enciso, Recópolis: una ciudad en época de transformaciones, in L. Olmo Enciso (ed.) Recópolis y la ciudad en la época visigoda (Zona Arqueológica, 9) Alcalá de Henares, 2008, pp. 40–63; id. Ciudad y estado en época visigoda: Toledo, la construcción de un nuevo paisaje urbano, in A. García, R. Izquierdo, L. Olmo and D. Perís (eds.) Espacios urbanos en el occidente mediterráneo, ss. VI-VIII, Toledo, 2010, pp. 87–112. There are also some English publications: L. Olmo Enciso, The royal foundation of Recópolis and the urban renewal in Iberia during the second half of the sixth century, in J. Henning (ed.), Post-Roman Towns and Trade in Europe and Byzantium, Berlin,

The period of Visigothic state formation can be dated between the mid-sixth and the early seventh century AD, and may be considered as a reaction to the presence of East Roman troops in southern Spain. These troops first arrived during the civil war between Agila and Athanagild, requested by the latter, and soon the imperial soldiers took various coastal enclaves, including Málaga and Cartagena, later advancing further inland. After this, Athanagild attacked his former allies, beginning a war which only concluded with the conquests of Swinthila in the 620s.3 In the face of these 2007, vol. 1, pp. 181–99. J. Martínez Jiménez, Crisis or crises? The end of Roman towns in Iberia, between the late Roman and the early Umayyad periods, in E. Van der Wilt and J. Martínez Jiménez (eds.) Tough Times: The Archaeology of Crisis and Recovery. Proceedings of the GAO Annual Conferences 2010 and 2011, (BAR Int. Ser., 2478) Oxford, 2013, pp. 77–90. 3. E. A. Thompson, Los godos en España, Madrid, 1971, pp.  29–30; 369–79.The most complete works on the topic are by Jaime Vizcaíno and by Margarita Vallejo: J. Vizcaíno Sánchez, La presencia bizantina en Hispania (siglos VI-VII). La documentación arqueológica, (Antigüedad y cristianismo 24), Murcia, 2009 (2nd ed.); M. Vallejo Girvés, Hispania y Bizancio: una relación desconocida, Madrid, 2012. For a recent approach in English, see J. Wood, Defending Byzantine Spain: frontiers and diplomacy, in Early Medieval Europe, 18.3, 2010, pp. 292–319.

water supply in the visigothic urban foundation of eio (el tolmo de minateda) and reccopolis

events Athanagild and his successors, especially Liuvigild (568–86) and Reccared (586–602), carried out a series of policies that strengthened the Visigothic monarchy and its administration. These were aimed at the ‘unification’ of the kingdom, both by political and military expansion and by a strategic alliance with the ecclesiastic and land-owning elites, accompanied by broader programmes of law and coinage reform.4 It is in this context that towns became once again the main focus of the administration and that cities regained their role as central places, which led to a period of urban renewal and a wave of new monumentality identifiable in the archaeological record. Whereas in some areas, such as the Mediterranean coast, the Guadalquivir valley (as we know from Barcelona,5 Tarragona,6 Valencia,7 Córdoba,8 or Seville9), and some other exceptional cases (such as the former Roman capital, Mérida10), towns had never ceased to function as such. In some other regions, like the northern Meseta or the Cantabric region, this was not the case.11 It is in these last regions, where towns were not as active or functional, that we see new urban foundations; the state needed to exercise its power in those areas and as a result of the lack of urban settlements, new ones had to be founded. Ologicus and Victoriacum, less known than Reccopolis or Eio, were founded in such areas: in the territory of the 4. A. Fernández Delgado, J. Martínez Jiménez, and C. Tejerizo García, New and old elites in the Visigothic kingdom (550–650 AD), in van der Wilt and Martínez Jiménez, Tough Times, cit. (n. 1), 161–70; L. García Moreno, Leovigildo, unidad y diversidad de un reinado, Madrid, 2008; Martínez Jiménez, Crisis or crises, cit. (n. 2), pp. 81–85. 5. J. Beltrán de Heredia (ed.) From Barcino to Barchinona (1st to 7th centuries). The Archaeological Remains of the Plaça del Rei in Barcelona, Barcelona, 2002. 6. J. M. Macias Solé, Tarracona visigoda ¿una ciudad en declive?, in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 293–301. 7. A. Ribera i Lacomba, La ciudad de Valencia durante el periodo visigodo, in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 303–20. 8. R. Hidalgo Prieto, Algunas cuestiones sobre la Corduba de la antigüedad tardía, in J. M. Gurt and A. Ribera (eds.) VI reunió d’arqueologia cristiana hispànica. Les ciutats tardoantiques d’Hispania: Cristianització i topografia, Barcelona, 2005, pp. 401–14. 9. E. García Vargas, La Sevilla tardoantigua. Diez años después (2000–2010), in J. Beltrán Fortes and O. Rodríguez Gutiérrez (eds.) Hispaniae urbes. Investigaciones arqueológicas en ciudades históricas, Seville, 2012, pp. 881–926. 10. M. Alba Calzado and P. Mateos Cruz, El paisaje urbano de Emerita en época visigoda, in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 261–73. 11. Cf. J. Martínez Jiménez and C. Tejerizo García, Central places in the post-Roman Mediterranean. Regional models for the Iberian Peninsula, in Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 28.1, 2015, pp. 81-103.

235

Vascones, between the Pyrenees and the Ebro, west of Pamplona. We know of these two foundations through written sources. John of Biclar in his chronicle mentions how ‘In the fifth year of Tiberius [II], which is Liuvigild’s thirteenth … King Liuvigild took a part of Vasconia and founded a city which is called Victoriacum’.12 Similarly, Isidore of Seville mentions that Swinthila, after defeating the Vascones, settled them in a city: ‘[the Vascones] founded a city of the Goths, Ologicus, with their own taxes and effort, promising to be obedient to his (Swinthila’s) rule and dominion, and do whatever they were ordered’.13 The location of both foundations is unknown, and how they might have looked is equally a mystery. Victoriacum has been traditionally associated with Vitoria-Gasteiz (in Álava) and Ologicus with Olite (in Navarre), but these claims are simply based on name similarities and have no archaeological support. For the case of Victoriacum/Vitoria-Gasteiz, the archaeological evidence, in fact, confirms that there is no Visigothic settlement and that Vitoria-Gasteiz is a later medieval foundation.14 Both Victoriacum and Ologicus were founded as a way of asserting Visigothic control over the Vascones, in a territory which had been largely de-urbanised (with the main exception of Pamplona) and, as we may infer from sources such as the Life of Saint Aemilianus, was largely rural. The sites of Reccopolis and Eio are better known. The foundation of Reccopolis is recorded in John of Biclar and in Isidore, and in both cases is attributed to Liuvigild, in honour of his son Reccared in AD 578,15 but probably also commemorating his decennalia.16 The site of Reccopolis is currently located in Zorita de los Canes (Guadalajara), on a hill over the Tagus (Fig. 2). The town was equipped with suburbs and walls, and privileges were granted to the new inhabitants.17 It was intended to be the capital of a new province, Celtiberia, in the hinterland of the royal capital of Toledo, and was located in a fertile and rich region in

12. ‘Anno V Tiberii, qvi est Liuvigildi XIII annvs … Liuvigildus rex partem Vasconiae occupat et civitatem,quae Victoriaco nuncupatur, condidit’, John of Biclar, Chronica a. DLXVII-DXC, in Chronica Minora, v. 2 (=MGH AA XI), pp. 207–20. 13. ‘Ologitin civitatem Gothorum stipendiis suis et laboribus conderent, pollicentes eius regno ditionique parere, et quidquid imperaretur efficere’ Isidore of Seville, Historia de Regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum et Sueborum, in Chronica Minora, v. 2 (=MGH AA, XI), pp. 241–303. 14. A. Azkárate Garai-Oraun, El País Vasco en los siglos inmediatos a la desaparición del Imperio Romano, in P. Baruso and J. A. Lema (eds.) Historia del País Vasco. Edad Media (siglos V-XV), San Sebastián, 2004, pp. 23–50. 15. Olmo Enciso, Recópolis: una ciudad, cit. (n. 2). 16. A. J. Stoclet, From Baghdad to Beowulf: Eulogising ‘Imperial’ capitals east and west in the mid-eighth century, in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 105C: 4, 2005, pp. 151–95. 17. John of Biclar, Chronica, 578; Isidore of Seville, Historia de Regibus, 51.

236

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 2. Map of the site of Reccopolis (based on Olmo Enciso, Recópolis: una ciudad, cit. [n. 2], fig. 2).

which no important towns existed.18 The fact that it was such a rich region in the immediate vicinity of the capital (and in which there were no functional administrative centres) may have prompted Liuvigild to set up his new city there. It has been proposed that Reccopolis might have been a secondary royal seat,19 but what the archaeology confirms is simply that it was a main economic centre, as evidenced by the large storing area (perhaps aimed at collecting taxes or storing revenue in kind) in the ‘palace complex’,20 the presence of glass and gold workshops,21 large amounts of imported pottery,22 and the fact that it had a mint.23 It was

evidently a place for state display, built ex novo, and built in imitation of Constantinople in its axial palace, monumental gate, and main road layout.24 Eio (or Elo), located at the archaeological site of El Tolmo de Minateda,25 was built during the reign of Reccared as a Visigothic stronghold against the Byzantines. The hilltop on which the site is located had been occupied by the Roman town of Ilunum until the second century AD, and it was chosen as a new episcopal seat to substitute the see of Ilici (modern Elche), which was under Byzantine control. This allowed the Visigothic monarchy to claim part of Ilici’s large

18. The nearest Roman town, Ercavica, had long been abandoned, and Complutum had by then lost its urban layout and function: S. Rascón, and A. L. Sánchez, Urbanismo de la ciudad de Complutum los siglos VI-VII, in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 243–58. 19. G. Ripoll López and I. Velázquez, Toletum vs. Recópolis. ¿Dos sedes para dos reyes?, in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 204–19. 20. Olmo Enciso, Recópolis: una ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 47–52. 21. M. Castro Priego and A. Gómez de la Torre-Verdejo, La actividad artesana en Recópolis: la producción de vidrio, in L. Olmo Enciso (ed.), Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n.  2), pp.  116–28. Cf. Olmo Enciso, Recópolis: una ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 52–53. 22. M. Bonifay and D. Bernal, Recópolis, paradigma de las importaciones africanas en el visigothorum regnum, in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 99–115. 23. Olmo Enciso, Recópolis: una ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 55–58; Cf. M. Castro Priego, El sistema montario visigodo y su alcance

regional: el ejemplo de la provincia Carthaginensis y la ceca de Toledo, in García et al. (eds.) Espacios urbanos, cit. (n. 2), pp. 285–94. 24. J. Martínez Jiménez, A preliminary study on the aqueduct of Reccopolis, in Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 34.3, 2015, pp. 301-20. 25. S. Gutiérrez Lloret, L. Abad, and B. Gamo Parras, Eio, Iyyuh y el Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Albacete): de sede episcopal a madîna islámica, in J. M. Gurt i Godoy and A. Ribera i Lacomba (eds.) VI reunió d’arqueologia cristiana hispànica. Les ciutats tardoantiques d’Hispania: Cristianització i topografia, Barcelona, 2005, 345–70. The identification is contested, but not on good solid basis: J. C. Márquez Villora and A. M. Poveda, Espacio religioso y cultura material de Ilici (ss. IV-VII d.C.), in J. M. Gurt I Godoy and N. Tena (eds.), V Reunió d’Arqueologia Crisiana Hispánica, Barcelona, 2000, pp. 177–84; A. M. Poveda Navarro, La creación de la sede de Elo en la frontera visigodobizantina, in Alebus, 6, 1996, pp. 113–36.

water supply in the visigothic urban foundation of eio (el tolmo de minateda) and reccopolis

237

Fig. 3. Plan of the excavations at the site of El Tolmo (Eio) (based on Gutiérrez Lloret and Sarabia Bautista, The episcopal complex of Eio-El Tolmo de Minateda, cit. [n. 26], fig. 1).

territory. Eio’s location on the main crossroads between the Mediterranean coast and the Visigothic interior made it a key strategic point. The site was equipped with a fortified entrance and an acropolis, although the main monument at the site was its episcopal basilica-hall complex (Fig. 3).26 All of the structures seem to have been built following a pre-conceived plan, and the architects chiselled the outline of the buildings on the rock.27 As opposed to the aqueduct supply of Reccopolis, water at El Tolmo was supplied and stored in large rainwater cisterns. The final significant fact about these two new urban 26. S. Gutiérrez Lloret and J. Sarabia Bautista, The episcopal complex of Eio-El Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Albacete, Spain). Architecture and spatial organization. 7th to 8th centuries AD, in Hortus Artium Medievalium, 19, 2013, pp. 262–300. 27. L. Abad Casal, S. Gutiérrez Lloret, S. Gamo Parras, and P. Cánovas Guillén, Una ciudad en el camino: pasado y futuro de El Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Albacete), in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 323–36, esp. 329–30; Gutiérrez et al., Eio, Iyyuh y el Tolmo de Minateda, cit. (n. 25), pp. 346–47.

foundations lies in the fact that they continued to function as towns and central places into the Umayyad period (although the urban structures and layout entered a period of decline from the seventh and into the eighth centuries).28 In fact, they only ceased to be urban settlements when new Umayyad ‘central places’ were founded to substitute them: Murcia to replace El Tolmo and the jund (an Umayyad garrison) of Zorita for Reccopolis. It is, however, the different water supply systems of these two sites that will be the focus of this paper, as they illustrate perfectly the nature of water supply in the post-Roman period and its relationship with urbanism in Visigothic times.

28. L. Olmo Enciso, M. Castro Priego, A. Gómez de la TorreVerdejo and Á. Sanz Paratcha, Recópolis y su justificación científica: la secuencia estratigráfica, in Olmo Enciso, Recópolis y la ciudad, cit. (n. 2), pp. 65–75, esp. 71.

238

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 4. Map of the aqueduct of Reccopolis, indicating the location of the known sections and the proposed course of the conduit up to the main site (author).

The aqueduct of Reccopolis As mentioned previously, Reccopolis is unique for various reasons, one of which being its new aqueduct, which was built as part as the foundation programme. The aqueduct itself is a feat of post-Roman engineering, as it was built in a period when, after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the widespread decline of large public infrastructure, it seemed inconceivable that aqueducts could be built at all. It is the last aqueduct built in Spain following the Roman technique, and one of the last in the West. Whereas the aqueduct of Ravenna had been rebuilt by Theoderic (which is not the same as building it ex novo), and Rome’s aqueducts had been repaired during his reign as well, in Spain the last new urban aqueduct had been built in the third century, and there had been no successful aqueduct repairs since the fourth.29 However, as the whole site was a large display of power and resources, finding skilled engineers who could build an aqueduct (even if they had to be brought from abroad) may not have been the main issue at the time.

29. Ibid. Cf. R. Coates-Stephens, The water-supply of early Medieval Rome, in C. Brunn and A. Saastamoinen (eds.) Technology, Ideology, Water: From Frontinus to the Renaissance and Beyond, Rome, 2003, pp. 81–114.

The aqueduct was first identified as such in the 1980s because traditionally the standing remains of the conduit were known by the locals as the ‘Wall of the Moors’ (la pared de los moros). Despite this, it was not until the recent years that it has been the subject of field survey and study.30 The conduit was probably 5 km long (only 2.30 km have been located along the hills of El Loberón and La Boneta), tapping water from a small river, the Arroyo Madre Vieja, and taking it directly to the main site, probably to the palatine complex (Fig. 4). The construction technique is consistent in all the identified remains: mortared rubble walls with a specus lined in opus signinum, built either in a trench cut into the soil or else on a wall over ground level (Fig. 5). No arches have been identified, but it is probable that there were arcuationes in those sections where a valley had to be crossed. In fact, there may have been an arch originally at the section known as Boneta 1, where square foundations for a possible pillar have been identified.31 30. The fieldwork was part of the Reccopolis Archaeological Project ‘Construcción y dinámicas del paisaje Medieval (HAR2009–11627)’ included in the I+D+I National Plan of the Spanish Government’s Ministry of Science and Innovation, directed by Lauro Olmo Enciso (Universidad de Alcalá), who has been most helpful in encouraging these field surveys as part of his scientific project. 31. Martínez Jiménez, Aqueduct of Reccopolis, cit. (n. 24).

water supply in the visigothic urban foundation of eio (el tolmo de minateda) and reccopolis

Fig. 5. Remains of the Reccopolis aqueduct, found at the Boneta hill, sector 1.1 (author).

The construction technique and the caementa identified inside the opus signinum both match the material and techniques from the main site, so the relationship between the site and the aqueduct seems clear, as well as its Visigothic dating. The aqueduct, however, presents some problems. The first one is its bad state of preservation, which prevents a systematic engineering analysis of the flow or volume of water carried by the conduit. Despite this, it was possible to calculate the gradient in some sections. The gradient appears to have varied greatly from section to section, but it seems to have ranged between 9.46 and 9.65 m/km, three times as much as the average Roman conduit. The location at which the aqueduct entered the main site is yet to be located, so it is not clear yet how it crossed the valley between the chain of hills where the aqueduct has been identified and the isolated hill where Reccopolis lies (either on an arched bridge or by means of an inverted siphon).32 The conduit was likely an element of urban and royal prestige. Many Roman towns built aqueducts as a way of stating their Romanitas, and often not out of real necessity, during the first century AD. The first aqueducts in Spain were built above all in Augustan colonies, such as Mérida,33 or 32. Ibid. 33. C. Fernández Casado, Acueductos romanos en España, Madrid,

239

those towns which were promoted by Augustus himself, such as Tarragona34 or Córdoba.35 This, together with the granting of Latin rights to all Hispania by Vespasian, triggered a boom in aqueduct construction, so most towns (both pre-Roman settlements and Republican colonies), had aqueducts and baths built in these years. The point is that even if aqueducts were not originally an urban necessity (rainwater cisterns, wells, and springs already supplied all towns and allowed dense urban populations), they were an important symbolic element.36 The construction of the aqueduct of Reccopolis should be understood from this perspective. Reccopolis was a new capital, possibly a royal seat, dedicated to the son of the Visigothic king and in the hinterland of Toledo. Reccopolis appears to have been a symbol of the king’s power and a new city, and for both reasons it needed to have an aqueduct. This is not necessarily a reflection of old Roman imperial practices, but rather an emulation of current imperial patterns. Justinian, for instance, was very keen in building aqueducts (according to Procopius’ Buildings), and did so in Justiniana Prima – an inevitable comparison with Reccopolis.37 Furthermore, building an aqueduct was a way of making a statement of power and control over the territory: the presence of an aqueduct implies that the city (and the state) is capable of protecting and maintaining a construction which could have been easily damaged by the enemy (by simply blocking the channel, or breaking the conduit). By building an aqueduct, Liuvigild was reassuring the inhabitants of Reccopolis that the state could protect the city, its territory, and its water supply.38 Besides its symbolic importance, it should be stated that in Reccopolis the aqueduct was also extremely useful. As opposed to most Roman towns in Spain, Reccopolis was 2008, pp. 117ff. 34. Ibid., p. 40. 35. Á. Ventura Villanueva, El abastecimiento de agua a la Córdoba romana I: el acueducto de Valdepuentes, Córdoba, 1993. On the aqueducts of Mérida, Tarragona, and Córdoba, see also: E. Sánchez López, J. Martínez Jimenez, Los acueductos de Hispania: Construcción y abandono, Madrid 2016. 36. J. Martínez Jiménez, Aqueducts and Water Supply in the Towns of Post-Roman Spain (AD 400–1000), DPhil thesis, Oxford, 2014; C. González Román, El agua en las ciudades de la Bética: organización y funciones, in L. G. Lagóstena Barrios, J. L. Cañizar Palacios and Ll. Pons Pujol (eds.) Aqvam perdvcendvm cvravit. Captación, uso y administración del agua en las ciudades de la Bética y el occidente romano, Cádiz, 2010, pp. 41–66, esp. 41; R. Laurence, S. Esmonde Cleary, and G. Sears, The City in the Roman West c. 250 BC – c. AD 250, Cambridge, 2011, pp. 30, 95, 203–15. 37. V. Ivanišević, Akvedukt Caričinog grada – Justinijane Prime, in Saopštenja, 44, (2012), pp. 13–31. The course of the aqueduct of Justiniana Prima (heading towards the upper town) is the model proposed for the Reccopolitan aqueduct. Also see Ivanišević in this volume. 38. Martínez Jiménez, Aqueduct of Reccopolis, cit. (n. 24).

240

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Section of the episcopal complex at El Tolmo de Minateda, indicating the location of the northern cistern (based on Gutiérrez Lloret and Cánovas Guillén, Construyendo, cit. [n. 43], fig. 7).

not built on the valley or the plain, but on a hilltop far from the water table, so domestic wells were unlikely to have met the requirements of everyday supply. This seems to be confirmed archaeologically, as all of the negative features excavated on the site are either pits or silos rather than wells. Water carried from springs, or down from the river, might have been a solution although arguing ex silentio, large ceramic water containers (as those known from the Islamic period) have not been found in Reccopolis. In the domestic contexts that have been excavated, there are no signs of private domestic cisterns either. There is one public cistern but it is not certain where it obtained its water from; it was allegedly fed from rooftops, but this is a problematic issue as it is not located next to any large roofed area that could have collected enough water, and so it may have been fed by the aqueduct. Therefore, aqueduct water seems to have been one of the main (if not the most important) sources of water for the site, acknowledging the fact that only the large palace complex area and a small part of the dwelling areas have been excavated. Eio and its cisterns Eio does not seem to have been a large new royal project, and is not attested as such in the surviving written sources in contrast to Reccopolis, Victoriacum and Ologicus. Nevertheless, archaeological evidence suggests that large resources were invested in its construction, as the city played

a key strategic role along the Visigothic-East Roman frontier. As it has been mentioned, Eio had to rely on rainwater for its water supply. The site of El Tolmo is located on an isolated hilltop, similar to Reccopolis, but is distinguished from Reccopolis in the fact that the hill is not conveniently close to any hilly countryside where springs and rivers are abundant. As it was located on the frontier, an aqueduct was not a safe option, because it could have been easily cut and thus deprived the citizens from drinking water (although this does not seem to have been a main issue, as we learn from the siege of Rome by Witigis in AD 537).39 The hill itself is a rocky outcrop, so, as in Reccopolis, wells are not a possibility either, but rock-cut cisterns have been identified at the site, located in key parts of the settlement: at the acropolis and at the episcopal complex. The acropolis cisterns are poorly understood, but the episcopal ones have been more systematically studied. The episcopal complex had two sets of cisterns, at opposite sides of the basilica: north and south of the main building. The northern cistern was located in the open courtyard (Fig. 6), and was fed by rainwater filtered into the cistern by cracks in the rock, whereas the southern cistern was fed by rain water collected from the roofs, which was then led into it through rock-cut drains (one of which crosses 39. Procopius, De Bellis, 5.19.13, 5.19.28 and 5.20.5.

water supply in the visigothic urban foundation of eio (el tolmo de minateda) and reccopolis

the floor of the basilica and has a small settling basin) and then through natural cracks in the rock. These cisterns, holding 10.77 m3 and 24.38 m3 respectively (the northern cistern measures 270 × 210 × 190 cm and the southern one 390 × 250 × 250 cm), were lined in opus signinum in order to prevent the water from filtering away to the subsoil.40 These cisterns are not big enough to be considered public, but may in fact indicate a private supply for the clergy of the episcopal complex. Rough estimates can be calculated for the real capacity of the northern cistern. According to Fig. 7, this cistern, located in the courtyard, collected rainwater from an area of roughly 480 m2 (this includes the area of the courtyard, the north watershed of the basilica roof and the watershed of roof of the buildings north of the courtyard, following the reconstruction of the researchers).41 Considering that the average annual rainfall of this area in the last 30 years42 is 367 l/m2, the roof surface and the courtyard could have collected 177.07 m3 of water per year, most of it collected over the autumn and spring months. Accounting for evaporation and other forms of water loss, this means that the cistern could have been fully filled ten times every year, perhaps enough to supply the clergy, but certainly not enough to be considered a viable public source of water. Overall, for the rest of the site, water supply seems to have been a domestic issue. Although the site has not been excavated in full, the remains from the earlier Roman and the later Umayyad periods provide us with more information to confirm this suggestion. The Roman contexts identified below the Visigothic levels were badly damaged when the late antique complex was built, as a new artificial terrace was chiselled out of the bedrock in order to erect the basilica (a pattern common for the rest of the site).43 Amongst the structures damaged by this levelling there were various pits which could have been domestic or industrial cisterns. Likewise, in the Umayyad period, there is plenty of evidence for the widespread use of large, domestic, ceramic water containers, called ‘tinajas’, which would further confirm a 40. L. Abad Casal, S. Gutiérrez Lloret, and B. Gamo Parras, La basílica y el baptisterio de El Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Albacete), in Archivo Español de Arqueología, 73, 2000, pp. 193–221, esp. 195–202. 41. According to Gutiérrez Lloret and Sarabia Bautista, The episcopal complex of Eio-El Tolmo de Minateda, cit. (n. 26). 42. Data provided for Albacete by the Spanish State Meteorological Service: Valores climatológicos normales: Albacete Base Aérea, Agencia Estatal de Meteorología, http://www.aemet.es/ es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologic os?l=8175&k=clm (accessed 19 February 2014). 43. S. Gutiérrez Lloret and P. Cánovas Guillen, Construyendo el siglo VII: Arquitecturas y sistemas constructivos en El Tolmo de Minateda, in L. Caballero Zoreda, P. Mateos Cruz, and M. A. Utrero (eds.), El siglo VII frente al siglo VII. Arquitectura. Visigodos y Omeyas 4 (Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología, 51), Mérida, 2009, pp. 91–132.

241

Fig. 7. Schematic calculations of overall roof and courtyard area that fed the north cistern of the episcopal complex, according their reconstructed watersheds (based on Gutiérrez Lloret and Cánovas Guillén, Construyendo el siglo, cit. (n. 43), fig. 7). Key to the plan: Area 1 (north half of the basilica): 208.7 m2; Area 2 (north buildings and episcopal hall, excluding eastern half): 81.5 m2; Area 3 (west tower and buildings): 65.6 m2; Area 4 (courtyard): 126.7 m2. Area calculations based on published scaled plans.

domestic water storage system.44 Storing either rainwater or else water collected (and carried) from nearby springs was a solution known for Islamic Toledo45 and late Roman and Islamic Cartagena.46 Public water supply in the new foundations? Early Roman towns had emerged and developed without aqueducts, but even before aqueducts were built alternative public water supply systems existed. It is true that domestic wells and cisterns were the most common water supply, but public springs (often monumentalised), wells, and cisterns 44. S. Gutiérrez Lloret and V. Cañavate Castejón, Casas y cosas: espacios y funcionalidad en las viviendas emirales del Tolmo de Minateda (Hellín, Albacete), in Cuadernos de Madīnat al-Zahrā, 7, 2010, pp. 123–48, esp. 131, 147. 45. Fernández Casado, Acueductos romanos, cit. (n. 33) p. 210. 46. A. Egea Vivancos, Características principales del sistema de captación, abastecimiento, distribución y evacuación de aguas de Carthago Nova, in Empúries 53, 2002, pp. 13–28; esp. 17; S. Ramallo Asensio, A. J. Murcia Muñoz, and J. Vizcaíno Sánchez, Carthago Nova y su espacio suburbano. Dinámicas de ocupación en la periferia de la urbs, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.) Las áreas suburbanas en la ciudad histórica. Topografía, usos, función, Córdoba, 2010, pp. 211–54, esp. 217.

242

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

existed as well.47 From this point of view, aqueducts were another source of water, a way of maximising available resources and supplying large quantities of water for industries, baths and gardens. Their inherent usefulness and symbolic importance meant that in the late Roman period they were continuously repaired and maintained when some other monuments, such as fora, basilicas, theatres or amphitheatres were not. However, the needs in manpower and resources for the constant maintenance of water supply,48 and the precise engineering skills necessary to carry out major repairs, meant that, in late Antiquity, only the state (and later on, the Church) could maintain this infrastructure. Besides Reccopolis and Justiniana Prima there are many other instances of direct involvement of the central administration in aqueduct maintenance and construction. Rome49 and Constantinople50 are the clearest examples, not only because they enabled a very dense population and public amenities (such as baths), but also because of their symbolic importance.51 Aqueducts as monuments were the subject of much praise, as put by Cassiodorus in his Variae: ‘But in the aqueducts of Rome we note both the marvel of their construction and the rare wholesomeness of their waters’.52 Direct state intervention is seen also in Ravenna, where Theoderic rebuilt the conduit originally built by Trajan, and probably also in Arles, the seat of the Prefect of Gaul. The works at Ravenna are known from the sources,53 but for Arles it can be inferred from the fact that the aqueduct was repaired several times in the late Roman period and that it fed the large bath complex built by Constantine which remained in use into the sixth

47. J. E. Stambaugh, The Ancient Roman City, London, 1988, pp. 128, 174–75. 48. Cf. The problems encountered by the Nicomedians during Trajan’s reign: Pliny, Epistulae X.46. 49. J. Martínez Jiménez, Uso y suministro de agua a la ciudad de Roma en el periodo Ostrogodo: 476–552 dC, in García et al. (eds.) Espacios urbanos, cit. (n. 2), pp. 267–76; R. Coates-Stephens, The walls and aqueducts of Rome in the Early Middle Ages, AD 500–1000, in JRS, 88, 1998, pp. 166–89; Coates-Stephens, Water-Supply, cit. (n. 29), pp. 81–114. 50. J. Crow, J. Bardill and R. Bayliss, The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople (JRS Monograph 11), Oxford, 2008. 51. B. Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy AD 300–850, Oxford, 1984, pp. 119–25. 52. Cassiodorus, Epistulae Theodoricanae Variae, in MGH AA XII: VII.6.2. ‘…in formis autem Romanis utrumque praecipuum est, ut fabrica sit mirabilis et aquarum salubritas singularis’. 53. Excerpta Valesiana, in MGH AA X: II.12.71; Although the aqueduct is known and pipes with the legend D(ominus) N(oster) rex Theodoricus [aquam] civitati reddidi(t) have been found. Cf. L. Prati and A. Antoniazzi (eds.) Flumen aquaeductus: nuove scoperte archeologiche dagli scavi per l’acquedotto della Romagna, Bologna, 1988.

century.54 Occasionally it would be high ranking officials or bishops responsible for commissioning these restorations (like in Narbonne55 or Gaza56) rather than the emperor or the king, but this was not as usual as direct royal or imperial intervention. This process of elite maintenance ultimately led to a partial (and sometimes total) privatisation of the water supply. In the sixth century the vacuum left in municipal administration by the curial elites was mostly filled by bishops, who usually took over responsibility for aqueducts for the benefit of the Church. Pope Symmachus (498–514) diverted one of the aqueducts in order to supply water to the Vatican complex, which included a fountain, a latrine and a bath,57 but in other cases the privatisation went further. A similar example is Barcelona, where the episcopal complex was built directly where the aqueduct entered the city, and the bishops seem to have built a new set of baths in the complex, which was fed by aqueduct water.58 In Naples and in Nola, it seems that the bishops in the late sixth century went even further, and monopolised the aqueduct supply, leaving the rest of the city without piped water.59 This elitist approach to aqueduct supply is already institutionalised in the foundation of Justiniana Prima, as the aqueduct led directly towards the episcopal complex of the upper town. This does not imply that there was not a public supply through fountains,

54. A. Bouet, Les thermes privés et publics en Gaul Narbonnaise, Rome, 2003, pp. 41–44; M. Droste, Arles. Gallula Roma – Das Rom Galliens, Mainz, 2003, pp.  70–71; M.  Heijmans, Arles durant l’Antiquité tardive. De la Duplex Arelas à l’Urbs Genesii (Collection EFR, 324), Rome, 2004, pp. 17–19, 131–32; D. Raffard, M. Vinches, J.-P. Henry, P. Leveau, M. Goutouch, and R. Thernot, The building of the Roman aqueducts: financial and technological problems. The case of the Arles aqueduct, in G. C. M. Jansen (ed.) Cura Aquarum in Sicilia, Leiden, 2000, pp. 125–34. 55. CIL XII 4355. 56. Choricii Gazaei Opera 45, cited in P. Mayerson, Choricius of Gaza and the water supply system of Caesarea, in Israel Exploration Journal, 36.4, 1986, pp. 269–72. 57. Liber Pontificalis 53.6, translated in R. Davies, The Book of Pontiffs: The ancient biographies of the first ninety Roman bishops to AD 750, Liverpool, 1989. 58. J. Beltrán de Heredia, Continuity and change in the urban topography. Archaeological evidence of the north-east quadrant of the city, in J. Beltrán de Heredia (ed.) Barcino to Barchinona, cit. (n. 5), pp. 96–111, esp. p. 102; J. Martínez Jiménez, Reuse, repair and reconstruction: Functioning aqueducts in post-Roman Spain, in B. Jervis and A. Kyle (eds.) Make-do and Mend: the Archaeologies of Compromise (BAR Int. Ser. 2408), Oxford, 2010, pp. 26–44. 59. P. Squatriti, Water and Society in Early Medieval Italy, AD 400–1000, Cambridge, 1998, pp.  12–17; Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity, cit. (n.  51), pp.  131–32. Cf.  Gregory the Great, Epistulae, IX.76 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 140a).

water supply in the visigothic urban foundation of eio (el tolmo de minateda) and reccopolis

but this was probably a secondary priority.60 In Reccopolis, considering available evidence, it is very plausible that a similar late antique pattern existed, and that the aqueduct was mainly aimed at the palace complex (perhaps including a set of baths), without excluding the possibility that there were public fountains supplied by the aqueduct. The aqueduct of Valencia seems to have performed this double function of semi-privatised supply, as it seems that the bishops were in control of the water supply but still preserved the public fountains of the forum’s nymphaeum.61 The lack of a previously existing public supply system in Eio prevented any sort of privatisation or a reduction of its public nature as had occurred in other post-Roman towns, but as opposed to Reccopolis, there does not seem to have been any attempt to make one. Springs and water courses were of public use and, in this respect there was some legal protection over public access to water.62 In Eio no infrastructure was built to bring the water to the town or to store rainwater for the population. Eio is, in fact, an example of what the situation was in secondary towns and minor cities, where the old public water systems had been completely abandoned during the late Roman period, as it was in the case of Cartagena. The aqueduct of Cartagena had been abandoned by the third century and, during the rest of the Roman period, water supply was completely privatised and storage limited to domestic infrastructure.63 In Málaga the situation seems to have been similar, as the water supply in the late antique period totally relied on domestic wells and cisterns, and access to various springs within the city.64 The apparent lack of public water supply in Eio (which in fact is the lack of a public water distribution system, where distribution and storage belongs to the domestic sphere) had become the norm in the late antique period. While in some cases this situation derived from the end of public supply systems, such as aqueducts (as in Cartagena), in others, it was simply the continuity of the old urban patterns as aqueducts or public cisterns were not built in every town. These new foundations offer two different examples of urban water supply, very different in their nature and approach, but still both fulfilled their function. One of the consequences of these two water supply systems was the development of distinct patterns of urbanism. 60. Ivanišević, Akvedukt Caričinog grada, cit. (n. 37). 61. J. Martínez Jiménez, The continuity of Roman water supply systems in post-Roman Spain: the case of Valentia, a reliable example?, in Arkeogazte, 1, 2011, pp. 125–44. 62. C. Brunn, Water legislation in the ancient world (c. 2200 BC – c. AD 500), in Ö. Wikander (ed.), Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, Leiden, 2000, pp. 539–606. Cf. Dig. XLIII 20.3.3, XLIII 12.2 and XXXIX 3.10.2. 63. See note 48. 64. C. Peral Bejarano, La infraestructura de aguas urbanas en la Málaga andalusí, in L. Cara and M. Malpica (eds.) Agricultura y regadío en al-Andalus. II Coloquio de Historia y Medio Físico, Almería, 1995, pp. 117–32, esp. 121–23.

243

Water supply and urbanism in its Visigothic context Having presented the nature of the two alternative water supply systems and the motives and limitations that lead to the different solutions seen in Reccopolis and Eio, it is necessary to mention what the consequences of these alternatives were, especially how they affected urbanism in the two new urban foundations. The presence, or lack, of an aqueduct supply greatly affected the evolution of urban layouts in late Antiquity, and there are plenty of examples in Visigothic Spain to compare with the developments of Reccopolis and Eio. This comparative method is, in fact, useful to venture a reconstruction of the general urban layout of the two towns, as the limited excavated areas in both sites prevents from other approaches. As we know from sites both with and without aqueducts in the post-Roman period, the nature of water supply affected the location of the dwelling areas. This is not to say that water availability was the defining factor in this sense, but it was one of a number of factors that were taken into account. This may be a coincidence, but there is a correlation between the location of the newer, late antique centres of power (episcopal complexes and palaces) and easily accessible water. Valencia, Tarragona, Mérida, Barcelona and Córdoba are perhaps the best examples to set as comparisons in this regard, as these were main administrative towns in the Visigothic period which preserved their aqueduct supply for varying periods of time, and this had a strong impact on their urbanism. As mentioned before, aqueducts are not an urban necessity, although they certainly improved town development by enabling denser settlements. But, after three or four centuries of use, they had become an integral part of the town, and reverting back to pre-aqueduct days was a great shock, which was not always easy to cope with.65 In Córdoba and Tarragona, we see a relocation of the urban settlement during the late antique period. In both cases, aqueducts ceased to supply the main settled area by the fifth century (certainly by the fourth century in intra-mural Córdoba,66 and by the early sixth in the case of the aqueduct that fed the lower town of Tarragona67), and as a result, the urban settlement became more dispersed, and focused on new areas which could either be easily supplied by wells or else where the other aqueducts of the city still flowed. In Tarragona, the lower town was abandoned in favour of 65. Martínez Jiménez, Aqueducts and Water Supply, cit. (n. 36), pp. 204–09. 66. A. Ventura Villanueva and G. Pizarro Berengena, El Aqua Augusta (acueducto de Valdepuentes) y el abastecimiento de agua a la Colonia Patricia Corduba: investigaciones recientes (2000–2010), in Las técnicas y las construcciones en la ingeniería romana, Madrid, 2010, pp. 175–204. 67. Martínez Jiménez, Aqueducts and Water Supply, cit. (n. 36), p. 108.

244

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 8. Plan of Tarragona in the Visigothic period, indicating the settled areas and the available sources of water (based on J. M. Macias Solé, I. Fiz Fernández, L. Piñol Masgoret, M. T. Miró Alaix, M. T. and J. Guitart, Planimetria arqueològica de Tàrraco, Tarragona, 2007, plan of phase V).

the harbour suburb (where wells could be dug) or the upper town, where an aqueduct and various cisterns were in use (Fig. 8).68 Toledo, which had no functioning aqueduct in this period, saw the development of a large new urban area, the praetorium suburbanum or royal suburb, in the meadow by the river where wells could be dug, as shown by the recent excavations at the site of Vega Baja.69 Similarly, in Córdoba, 68. Ibid. pp. 186–88. 69. Lauro Olmo Enciso, La Vega Baja en época visigoda: una investigación arqueológica en construcción, in A. García and D. Peris, La Vega Baja de Toledo, Toledo, 2009, pp.  69–94 – Although, allegedly, we know very little about the upper town of Toledo in this period to confirm this point; see Martínez Jiménez, Aqueducts and Water Supply, cit. (n. 36), pp. 189–91.

the dwelling area in the walled town was clustered next to the river and the bridge, where the water table is higher, and where the civil palace was built.70 Furthermore, in Barcelona and Valencia the new centres of power, the episcopal complexes, were built where they could benefit from aqueduct supply, rearranging in turn the urbanism around them.71 Considering these examples, it is possible to propose two different models for the settlement density and distribution in Eio and Reccopolis, which will require further and 70. Martínez Jiménez, Aqueducts and Water Supply, cit. (n. 36), pp. 193–97. 71. Beltrán de Heredia, Continuity and change, cit. (n. 58); Martínez Jiménez, Valentia, cit. (61); Ribera i Lacomba, La ciudad de Valencia, cit. (n. 7).

water supply in the visigothic urban foundation of eio (el tolmo de minateda) and reccopolis

extensive excavations to prove. In Reccopolis, the presence of an aqueduct might have enabled a dense settlement pattern on the hilltop, but as its supply appears to have been mostly aimed at the civic complex the denser areas might have been both the area around the upper town or else in the lower suburb, which was next to the river. In Eio there were domestic storage systems, but they are not suitable for a very densely populated settlement, especially if they rely on rain water. Perhaps suburban or peri-urban settlements in the surrounding territory, where water could be accessed, were more common than what is known to date. The fortified hilltops certainly fulfilled an administrative role as a central place, but it lacked the dense urban entity that can be expected in Reccopolis. Conclusions Visigothic new urban foundations were a reflection of the process of state formation the kingdom was going through, but they were still late antique towns (even if designed ex novo). The transformations that Roman towns had undergone through the fifth and sixth centuries had ultimately culminated in a late antique city, which had a set of very specific characteristics which appeared in the new foundations, even if in contemporary towns these were the result of long-term changes. Amongst these were functional small walled enclosures, new Christian and civic centres, a new architecture of power, and a radical approach to public water supply. As it has been shown, approaches to public water supply systems varied greatly from town to town, as large, expensive infrastructures such as aqueducts could only be preserved and maintained in towns with an elite powerful and willing enough to do so. This only happened in the

245

principal cities of the kingdom (such as Barcelona or Córdoba), where either local aristocrats, bishops, or the central administration preserved public munificence. In secondary towns, aqueducts could not be maintained (or had never been built), so other systems existed such as springs, cisterns and wells. In both main and secondary towns, and as it had been the case in the Roman period, water storage was largely a domestic issue, and the only difference was the degree of involvement of municipal authorities in facilitating the supply. This polarisation away from early Roman patterns of the attitude towards ensuring a supply and facilitating the access to water is evident in the two case-studies presented in this paper of Reccopolis and Eio. Our knowledge of the water supply system in Eio is quite limited, although from the material culture of the Islamic period and the excavations of the episcopal complex, it is clear that it was founded without public water supply system. Even if this has not been confirmed archaeologically, and as it happened in Cartagena, Tarragona and Málaga, there must have been public sources of water (springs or streams). Although this does not imply that water was carried to the town or that they were located outside the walled enclosure. At the opposite end is Reccopolis, where a new aqueduct was built and there is some evidence for a probable wider public distribution. These two different approaches have much to do with the rationale behind each of the two foundations: the one a royal commemorative foundation and intended economic centre and the other a frontier bishopric intended to claim occupied territories. In fact, from this perspective it would not be surprising if Ologicus and Victoriacum had had water storage systems similar to those of El Tolmo de Minateda, disregarding the degree (or lack thereof) of urbanism these two may have had.

‘Built Like a City’: Boğsak Island (Isauria) in Late Antiquity Günder Varİnlİoğlu*

« Bâtie comme une ville ». L’île de Boğsak (Isaurie) dans l’Antiquité tardive L’île de Boğsak dans l’ancienne Isaurie/Cilicie âpre est une des quatre petites îles qui bordent les côtes du golfe de Taşucu. Ce paysage insulaire a été exploité et habité au cours de l’Antiquité tardive à une échelle sans précédent. Un habitat important, identifiable comme l’ancienne Asteria, était développé sur la petite île (c. 7 ha) connue aujourd’hui comme Boğsak. Les preuves archéologiques, acquises par les prospections de surface menées par le Boğsak Archaeological Survey depuis 2010, ont démontré que la principale période d’habitation et d’activité sur l’île était de la fin du IVc au IXc, ou même Xc siècle. Tout au long de cette période, toute la surface de cette île rocheuse était occupée par un grand quartier résidentiel couvrant les pentes nord et nord-est. Une série de structures, éventuellement avec des fonctions maritimes et commerciales, couvraient les rives accessibles des côtes ouest et nord. Un vaste cimetière s’étendait sur et autour du sommet. Il y avait aussi une zone fortifiée à la pointe sud, et sept églises de différentes tailles, datant de la deuxième moitié du Vc à la première moitié du VIc siècle. Bien que les trouvailles céramiques suggèrent que l’habitat peut avoir été abandonné peu de temps après le IXe, ou même le Xe siècle, les limites chronologiques de l’utilisation de l’île – laquelle doit être distinguée de la période de son habitation – doivent rester une question ouverte pour la recherche future. La formation et la prospérité d’un habitat aussi complexe et important sur un îlot rocheux, sec et pauvre en ressources, doivent avoir grandement bénéficié du commerce maritime dans la Méditerranée orientale. Plus important encore, le site de pèlerinage de Sainte Thècle, accessible par le port voisin de Holmoi, à moins de 5 miles marins à l’est de Boğsak, doit avoir donné l’impulsion fondamentale pour la création et le maintien de ces habitats nouveaux. La colonisation de notre île, laquelle était « bâtie comme une ville », d’après une inscription, doit être interprétée dans le contexte de ce pèlerinage maritime (Trad. E. Rizos).

Islands, big and small, close or distant from the mainland, are construed as epitomes of isolation and remoteness. But these characteristics are not easily applicable to islands lining the shores of Isauria (Roman Rough Cilicia) in southern Turkey.1 This province is known for its rugged mountainous terrain with limited agricultural resources and difficult land access. Its equally rough shore, however, lay on the busy maritime itineraries along the Mediterranean coast of Anatolia, especially during the prosperous and well-connected world of Late Antiquity. Located no more than one hundred kilometers north of Cyprus, Isaurian anchorages must have * Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Istanbul, Department of Art History. 1. Isauria and Rough Cilicia (Cilicia Trachea) cover roughly the same territories. Because the archaeological evidence encountered in this project is predominantly late antique, I choose to refer to the province as Isauria, following the nomenclature after Diocletian’s administrative reforms.

been an integral part of Mediterranean maritime networks.2 2. Regarding the involvement of Rough and Smooth Cilicia in the Mediterranean trade, see O. Karagiorgou, LR2: A Container for the Military Annona on the Danubian Border?, in S. A. Kingsley, 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, pp.  129–66; M.  Decker, The Wine Trade of Cilicia in Late Antiquity, in ARAM, 17, 2005, pp. 51–59; N. Rauh et al., Viticulture, Oleoculture, and Economic Development in Roman Rough Cilicia, in Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte, XXV, 1, 2006, pp. 49–98; V. Iacomi, Some Notes on Late-Antique Oil and Wine Production in Rough Cilicia (Isauria) on the Light of Epigraphic Sources: Funerary Inscriptions from Korykos, LR 1 Amphorae Production in Elaiussa Sebaste and the Abydos Tariff, in Ü. Aydınoğlu, A. K. Şenol (eds.), Olive Oil and Wine Production in Anatolia During the Antiquity (Symposium Proceedings 06–08 November 2008, Mersin, Turkey), İstanbul, 2010, pp. 19–32; A. F. Ferrazzoli, M. Ricci, Production and Trade of a Cilician City from the Roman to the Byzantine Age: The

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 247-266. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.1119000

248

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. The map of the Taşucu Gulf and its ancient and medieval settlements.

Along the topographically difficult and often inaccessible coasts of Isauria, a small number of islands and bays offered refuge, basic amenities, and small scale provisioning for maritime traffic. The region under study is the Taşucu Gulf, extending from the site of ancient Aphrodisias in the west, to ancient Holmoi in the east (Fig. 1). The coastline under study has a few anchorages, bays, and islands that connected this rough geography to the Mediterranean.3 Four off-shore islands in the Taşucu Gulf, namely Kösrelik, Dana, Güvercin, and Boğsak, from west to east, were occupied and/or inhabited during Late Antiquity. In addition to the islands, the promontories of Aphrodisias and Liman Kalesi, each separated from the mainland by a narrow isthmus, Case of Elaiussa Sebaste, in M. C. Hoff, R. F. Townsend (eds.), Rough Cilicia: New Historical and Archaeological Approaches (Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska, October 2007), Oxford and Oxville, 2013, pp. 210–18. 3. These islands and anchorages figure frequently on portulans from the Late Middle Ages onwards. For a summary of the various toponyms used for these places, see H. Hellenkemper, F. Hild, Neue Forschungen in Kilikien (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 4), Wien, 1986, pp. 30–31.

have remains of late antique construction and occupation. Although the earliest occupation of these island landscapes cannot yet be precisely dated, surviving material remains indicate seasonal or all-year-long occupation between the fourth and ninth, possibly even the tenth centuries, with the construction of churches taking place during the fifth and sixth centuries.4 The islands, however, do not seem to have followed common models of occupation despite their geographical similarities. Our knowledge of their history is limited to descriptions of nineteenth-century travelers and scholars, and cursory observations of twentieth-century scholars who did not single out any particular island.5 4. All the dates in this paper are A.D. unless otherwise indicated. The ninth- and tenth-century dates are based on the study of the pottery assemblage by Rick Wohmann and Dr Nicholas K. Rauh. 5. Other Isaurian islands west of the Taşucu Gulf are not included in the fieldwork permit of this project, which extends roughly from Yeşilovacık in the west, to Ağa Limanı in the east. Only a few of other Isaurian islands have been studied by other teams. For example, the underwater survey at Cipçiklikaya, a small island south of Antiochia ad Cragum, revealed iron anchors dating from the sixth–seventeenth centuries (and a single example from



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

Among them, Sir Francis Beaufort, who traveled along the coastline in 1811–12, provided a vivid description of the region’s geography, but he was less descriptive when it came to archaeological remains.6 In the western part of Isauria, especially in the coastlands and their hinterland, urban centers and nucleated settlements proliferated in the early Roman period, between the late first and late third centuries, as the population reached a climax in the first and second centuries. Although the population and urban density never reached the levels of the early Roman period, archaeological evidence for settlement and land use continued uninterrupted at least until the end of Antiquity.7 In the Taşucu Gulf, and in particular on Boğsak Island, the main period of activity dates from the fourth to the ninth, and even the tenth centuries. The unprecedented occupation of Isaurian islands in Late Antiquity, possibly associated with the intensification and/or specialization of productive capabilities on land, parallels the expansion of rural settlements into the agriculturally poor hills rising above the coastline, particularly in the hinterland of major urban and commercial centers. The capital of Isauria, Seleucia ad Calycadnum (modern-day Silifke), was such an urban, religious, military, administrative, and commercial hub, connected to a network of towns, villages, hamlets, farmsteads, inhabited caves, etc.8 In the territory east of Seleucia ad Calycadnum, rural settlement proliferated in Late Antiquity, while the territory immediately west of the capital has not yet been subject to systematic archaeological investigations. The the fifth–fourth centuries B.C.). See: N. Rauh et al., Life in the Truck Lane: Urban Development in Western Rough Cilicia, in JÖAI, 78, 2009, p. 275. 6. F. Beaufort, Karamania, or A Brief Description of the South Coast of Asia-Minor and the Remains of Antiquity, London, 1818, pp. 204–13. 7. The coastal and mountainous territories in western Isauria/Rough Cilicia (between Iotape in the west and Antiochia ad Cragum in the east) was surveyed in 1996–2011, by the Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project (RCARP), directed by Nicholas K. Rauh. This project (Rauh et al., Rough Cilicia [n. 5], pp. 269–305) labels the fourth–seventh centuries as late Roman, and considers the Arab invasions of 630s as the turning point for the subsequent disintegration and disruptions in economic networks, settlements, and population. At the same time, we know very little about the Isaurian territory east of this investigated area, and especially the region between Antiochia ad Cragum and Seleucia ad Calycadnum, due to the lack of systematic landscape and settlement surveys. For an overview of recent research in Rough Cilicia, see Hoff, Townsend, Rough Cilicia, cit. (n. 2). 8. For an overview of rural settlements and their domestic architecture in the territory of Seleucia ad Calycadnum, see I. Eichner, Frühbyzantinische Wohnhäuser in Kilikien: baugeschichtliche Untersuchung zu den Wohnformen in der Region um Seleukeia am Kalykadnos (Istanbuler Forschungen, 52), Tübingen, 2011; G. Varinlioğlu, Living in a Marginal Environment: Rural Habitat and Landscape in Southeastern Isauria, in DOP, 61, 2007, pp. 287–317.

249

questions why rural settlement surged in Late Antiquity and when rural landscapes were abandoned are complex, and are not the subject of this paper. One should, however, underline the effect of the foundation of Constantinople in 330, which led to the reorganization of the production, distribution, and trade in order to supply the new capital of the empire and its growing population. The Isaurian and Cilician coastlands were on the Mediterranean ship lanes, as the annona was transported from Egypt to Constantinople. The majority of rural sites in the lower mountains of Isauria were not resettled after their abandonment, which occurred much later than the end of the seventh century, as new evidence suggests. Having remained deserted or sparsely inhabited and used until the mid-twentieth century, their stone masonry architecture survived remarkably well to this day.9 For coastal sites, however, connectivity has been a mixed blessing. In coastal Isauria, much fewer sites have left behind archaeological and architectural remains. Boğsak Island’s settlement is one of less than a handful of coastal sites with well-preserved architectural remains (e.g. Manastır, Anemurium) west of the Calycadnus. Similarly, the mountainous hinterland immediately west of Seleucia ad Calycadnum, does not display the same level of population growth, intensive exploitation of resources, or construction activity, although one should take into account that this is an archaeologically unexplored territory. Since 2010, this coastal and insular landscape and its hinterland have been the subject of the Boğsak Archaeological Survey (BOGA), which, in its first phase, has focused on the documentation and study of the abundant material remains on Boğsak Island and Bay.10 The settlement on Boğsak Island grew and prospered between the fourth and late ninth/tenth centuries, when residential, commercial, utilitarian, and ecclesiastical buildings were constructed on a previously 9. The damage caused by the construction of a coastal highway by the Forestry and Road Services in the late 1960s, was noted by G. E. Bean and T. B. Mitford, who carried out an epigraphic survey in 1961–1973: G.  E. Bean, T.  B. Mitford, Journeys in Rough Cilicia 1964–1968, Wien, 1970, pp. 2–10; T. B. Mitford, Roman Rough Cilicia, in ANRW, 7, 2, 1980, pp. 1252–1253. An even more aggressive road building, mining and quarrying, and industrial development have been going on in the past ten years. 10. This article is based on the results of the fieldwork in 20102013. The ongoing survey on Boğsak, Güvercin, Kösrelik, and Dana Islands, and the extensive survey on land in 2014-16, provided new data shedding light on the chronology, settlement, and land use in this region. Although the preliminary findings of this research are briefly mentioned in this work, their evaluation and interpretation is the subject of publications in progress. Meanwhile, the field reports of each campaign have been published in Turkish and/or in English in two annual series: Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2012–2015 and ANMED-Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri-News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas, 2011–2016. The project website can be found at www.bogsakarchaeology.org.

250

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 2. Boğsak Island viewed from the west. Photograph taken from the minaret of the village mosque (2013).

uninhabited island (Fig. 2).11 Like other Isaurian settlements, the second half of the fifth and the sixth centuries are characterized by the Christianization of the built environment. The rocky, arid, and seemingly inhospitable surface of the island was transformed into a dense, sizeable Christian settlement with complex infrastructure and architecture, through intensive construction activity across the entire area of the island. Seven churches, extensive cemeteries, residential neighborhoods equipped with cisterns and drainage systems, and structures of unknown functions lining the island’s shores, prompt questions about the conception, status, and use of the island. Boğsak Island lies 4 nautical miles southwest of ancient Holmoi (modern-day Taşucu), which functioned as the harbor of two major places in late antique Isauria: Seleucia ad Calycadnum and the pilgrimage site of Saint Thecla, in its outskirts. The port at Holmoi was also an outlet for the Calycadnus (modern-day Göksu) River Delta, the largest and most fertile plain of Isauria. The existence of these three interconnected centers of Late Antiquity, Seleucia, Saint Thecla, and Holmoi, is a key to understanding the 11. I should underline that the dates presented in this paper, in particular for the initial phases and the abandonment of the island are not conclusive. Archaeological excavations at two coastal cities of the region, Anemurium in the west and Elaiussa Sebaste in the east, showed that they were abandoned after the mid-seventh century. Although these two cases are examples for the migration from urban coastal centers to more protected zones possibly in the hinterland, whether this was a region-wide phenomenon should be evaluated case by case, instead of reaching wholesale conclusions.

formation and characteristics of settlements in this understudied geography. Despite the construction of coastal roads in the Roman Imperial period,12 travel through this rugged territory was circuitous, slow, and expensive compared to maritime travel using small vessels. Even until recently, the coastal asphalt road offered a challenging journey. In order to contextualize Boğsak Island within this maritime landscape, an overview of other islands and settlements in the survey territory is necessary. Kösrelİk Island (Gökada) and Aphrodisias Kösrelik Island and Ovacık Adası (Cape Cavaliere, Zephyrion) lie on the western limit of the Taşucu Gulf. The importance of maritime connections for this site cannot be overstated, as high coastal mountains hindered the connections with the fertile Ovacık plain to its north, less than 5 km as the crow flies. This location was the site of Aphrodisias, a 12. Based on milestones, Sayar identifies four phases of road building in Roman Rough Cilicia: After 72, under Vespasian; under Hadrian (117–38); under Septimius Severus and Caracalla (197–211), and in the first years of the fourth century. See M. H. Sayar, Antike Straßenverbindungen Kilikiens in der römischen Kaiserzeit, in E. Olshausen, H. Sonnabend (eds.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums, 7, 1999: zu Wasser und zu Land. Verkehrswege in der Antiken Welt, Stuttgart, 2002, pp. 452–73. However, none of the milestones mentioned by Sayar were found in BOGA’s fieldwork area. Bean and Mitford argued that the old road along the bottom of the valley at Palaea was identical to the coastal road built by Vespasian: Bean, Mitford, Journeys in Rough Cilicia, cit. (n. 9), p. 195.



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

settlement in the chora of Seleucia ad Calycadnum.13 Aphrodisias was mentioned in the Stadiasmus Maris Magni,14 and later in the tenth-century De Thematibus, as a city in the theme of Seleukeia.15 Ovacık Adası, an island in its Turkish nomenclature, is in fact a promontory separated from the landmass by a 300 m-wide, 500 m-long isthmus, with two small bays on either side, which may have previously been connected by a canal allowing the passage of small boats. The remains noted by earlier scholars north and south of the isthmus have partially survived: rectangular and square structures identified as warehouses, a church with fifthcentury architectural sculpture and mosaic tesserae, a well or fountain, and a large brick-rubble masonry structure. The monumental remains of fortifications of mortar-free polygonal masonry, which BOGA partially documented in 2016 on the hills south of the isthmus, might belong to a defense system built by Seleucus I in the third century B.C.16 On the military topographic map of the region, the western bay is denoted as Boğsak, evidently a toponym denoting an isthmus or a narrow bay, and deriving from the Turkish verb boğmak (to strangle).17 The main harbor, suitable for 13. For an overview of the history and archaeology of Aphrodisias, see Hellenkemper, Hild, Neue Forschungen, cit. (n. 3), pp. 27–31; F. Hild, H. Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 5), Wien, 1990, pp. 195–96. 14. The date (second half of the third century) and purpose of this document (periplous/ nautical guidebook) have been challenged in the study by: P. Arnaud, Notes sur le Stadiasme de la Grande Mer (1): la Lycie et la Carie, in Geographia Antiqua, XVIII, 2009, pp. 165–93. Arnaud argues that this document may be a compilation written as late as the fifth century, using different sources of various periods (e.g. late Hellenistic, early Roman). According to Arnaud, this rather formulaic text has no bearing on actual navigation, therefore cannot serve as a nautical guidebook in cabotage. I would like to thank Dr Candace Rice for bringing this article to my attention. 15. Const. Porph., De Thematibus 13.6 (ed. A. Pertusi, Costantino Porfirogenito De Thematibus [Studi e Testi, 160], Città del Vaticano, 1952, p. 77). 16. The cape was described by the nineteenth-century travelers and scholars. See Beaufort, Karamania, cit. (n. 6), pp. 204–06; R. Heberdey, A. Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, Wien, 1896, pp. 96–98, identified the site as Aphrodisias. The canal was suggested in L. Budde, St. Pantaleon von Aphrodisias in Kilikien, Recklinghausen, 1987, p. 17. The architectural remains, as well as late antique pottery have been noted in Bean, Mitford, Journeys in Rough Cilicia, cit. (n. 9), pp. 193–95. The hellenistic fortifications at Ovacık Adası are discussed in N. Rauh, M. Dillon, R. Rothaus, Anochors, Amphoras, and Ashlar Masonry: new Evidence for the Cilician Pirates, in Hoff, Townsend, Rough Cilicia, cit. (n. 2), pp. 67-86. My statements on the current state of the isthmus stem from limited observations after two visits in 2010 and 2016, and information provided by the archaeologists at the Silifke Museum. In future seasons, BOGA plans to carry out a geophysical and pedestrian survey at Aphrodisias and environs. 17. The term appears on the 1/25 000 map prepared by the Gen-

251

larger maritime vessels was the larger eastern bay, where Kösrelik Island was also situated. The promontory was known as Cape Cavaliere (Porto Kabalieri) in the early thirteenth-century portulans. In 1210, the Armenian King Leo I conceded to the Knights Hospitaller possessions in Camardesium (Komardias), Castellum Novum (Norberd), and Seleucia, in exchange for the support he had received from them in his war against the Seljuks. Porto Kabalieri and the Provensale (Dana) Island, located between the first two of these locations, may therefore have been controlled by the Knights Hospitaller in the thirteenth century.18 Aphrodisias occupied the northern foothills of Göktepe (250 m × 600 m) overlooking Kösrelik Island and marking the southern limit of the eastern bay. Three or more churches, houses, shops, cisterns, fountains, monumental structures, a necropolis with chamosoria and masonry graves, a Byzantine (?) tower on the summit, as well as small finds, coins, and pottery from the sixth century to the late Byzantine period have been noted by earlier scholars, but have not yet been sufficiently recorded or studied. The best known structure of Aphrodisias is the late fifth-century church of St. Panteleimon, excavated by L. Budde in 1972.19 Built on the northern slope of Göktepe, at a location visible both from the sea and the settlement, this three-aisled columnar basilica with galleries, was a small but ornate church. It was decorated with wall paintings, columns and capitals of Proconnesian marble, and floor mosaics with four dedicatory inscriptions testifying the benefaction of a certain Paulos, a ship-owner. The church was reduced in size twice and transformed into a single-aisle church by blocking the aisles, but the chronology of these transformations is unclear. The island of Kösrelik (Gökada), 400  meters off the mouth of the eastern bay, is a small (c. 5 ha) piece of land, which has not yet been the subject of any systematic study. Budde’s short exploration in the early 1970s is the only scholarly report on the remains on the island, which BOGA has yet to verify on the site. Walls of rubble and ashlar masonry in the northwestern and northeastern sections might suggest the existence of a fortification wall. The northeastern slopes were occupied by a necropolis consisting of chamosoria, among which a single tomb of ashlar masonry stood out. There was at least one church, located at the center of the island, where a large pile of rubble included a finely carved limestone capital bearing a mason’s mark and traces of red eral Command of Mapping in Turkey (Türkiye Harita Genel Komutanlığı): THGK, series K – 816, sheet P31 – d2, printed in 1990. 18. Hild, Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, cit. (n. 13), 1990, p. 195. 19. Budde’s dating of the basilica to the last quarter of the fourth century (St. Pantaleon von Aphrodisias, cit. [n. 16], pp. 21–36), has been rightly questioned by Hild and Hellenkemper (ibid.), who argued for a late fifth-century date based on the style of the column capitals.

252

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

paint, possibly datable to the second half of the fifth century. A ‘sacred enclosure’ was also proposed by Budde on the highest point of the eastern tip, where he found remains of pink granite and white marble columns, as well as mosaic and glass fragments.20 This cursory description is certainly insufficient to characterize and date the occupation of this small island. It is, however, noteworthy that, unlike Boğsak and Dana Islands, no scholars have so far identified the remains of a settlement and associated houses at Kösrelik. In other words, the extant remains suggest use of the insular space only for the dead and the churches. The promontory across from the island was the site of the main settlement, unlike Boğsak where both the island and the land were extensively occupied. Similar to other islands in the Taşucu Gulf, Kösrelik experienced some building activity during the late antique period. Dana Island (Pityoussa) The largest (3 × 1.2 km) and most remote island (ca. 2.5 km) of the Taşucu Gulf, Dana was transformed into an important station controlling the passage through the Kargıcak Strait.21 On this big island, the relatively flat northwestern coast was transformed into a servicing station and settlement, perhaps as early as the early Roman period. The land side of the Kargıcak Strait has not been archaeologically explored, but the existence of a settlement near the modern holiday resort of Mavikent is well-known, though undocumented.22 On the island, Beaufort reported ‘ruined dwellings and churches, columns, and sarcophagi: amongst others were observed the remains of an extensive building, somewhat resembling a Gymnasium. A citadel stands on the summit of the highest peak; and the whole island presents such means of natural and artificial defence, as to make it probable that it was once a station of great military strength.’23 When Heberdey and Wilhelm visited the island in 1891–92, they saw several churches, graves (house-tombs, sarcophagi, and other unspecified tombs), several houses, among which one 20. Budde, St. Pantaleon von Aphrodisias, cit. [n. 16], p. 18, Abb. 19a. For BOGA’s cursory prospection on the island in 2015, see G. Varinlioğlu “Boğsak Archaeological Survey (BOGA) 2015,” ANMED-Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri-News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas, 14, 2016, p. 166. 21. Other names for the island are Manavat and Kargıncık. For an overview of research on the island, see: Hellenkemper, Hild, Neue Forschungen, cit. (n. 3) 1986, pp. 32–33; idem, Kilikien und Isaurien, cit. (n. 13), p. 380. The island is named as Pityoussa in the Stadiasmus Maris Magni 483. 22. The architectural sculpture from a late antique church, located in the hills immediately east of the resort, was brought to the Silifke Museum in 2013 by the museum staff. The structure is today almost entirely destroyed. Similarly, fragmentary remains of walls along the coastline are in a bad state of preservation. BOGA carried out a preliminary prospection in the area in 2015. 23. Beaufort, Karamania, cit. (n. 6), p. 206.

was preserved up to 4–5 meters with its door posts and windows still intact.24 BOGA’s reconnaissance visits in 2011 and 2014 revealed the foundations of narrowly spaced structures and rectangular indentations stretching about 1.5 km along the coast. These start right on the current, severely eroded waterline and extend inland for about 150 m, organized on terraces on the lower slopes of the mountain, which then rises steeply to about 250 m above sea level. Today, ‘Beaufort’s citadel’ can still somewhat be observed from the sea. BOGA’s extensive survey on the southern peak of the island in 2016, indeed led to the remains of a multi-phase fortress enclosing several structures, among which stand out a large, vaulted cistern and a well-preserved basilica of late antique date. A monumental staircase, preserved for about 240 m, presumably connected the lower and upper settlement, the latter consisting of the fortress and several other structures to its southeast.25 Along the coastline, the multitude of underground cisterns and/or containers, which are not always associated with the structures on the terraces behind the coastline, suggests that the coastal strip was serving the maritime travelers going through the Kargıcak Strait.26 Among the services offered at Dana Island there were bath facilities. The well-preserved, baths, with at least three cisterns in the vicinity for water supply, and the neighboring structure, which may have functioned as a kiln, are among the few structures using brick masonry in Isauria (Fig. 3).27 The presence of a coastal bath on this waterless island brings to mind the coastal settlement at Aperlae in Lycia, where Roman period baths on the shore were also supplied by cisterns only.28 24. Heberdey, Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, cit. (n. 16), p. 98. BOGA did not come across the remarkably well-preserved house and the house-tombs. 25. BOGA’s 2016 season on Dana Island, which included an intensive and extensive survey (led by Dr Noah Kaye, Dr Nicholas Rauh, Dr Matthew Dillon), architectural mapping (led by Dr Günder Varinlioğlu, Hilal Küntüz, Yasemin Aydoğdu), maritime survey (led by Dr Rebecca Ingram, Dr Michael Jones), and 3D photogrammetry (carried out by Tuğrul Oktaş), is cursorily mentioned in this article. See G. Varinlioğlu, N. Kaye, M. R. Jones, R. Ingram, and N. K. Rauh, The 2016 Dana Island Survey: Investigation of an Island Harbor in Ancient Rough Cilicia by the Boğsak Archaeological Survey (BOGA), in Near Eastern Archaeology, 2017, forthcoming. 26. Hellenkemper, Hild (Neue Forschungen [n. 3], p. 32) reported over 20 houses based on the number of cistern openings. BOGA’s 2016 survey revealed a much larger settlement. 27. Both structures combine brick and ashlar masonry, reminding the construction practices known from a few late antique structures in Isauria, such as the cisterns at St. Thecla. See U. Peschlow, Die Zisternen von Meriamlik. Fragen zu Bau- und Mauertechnik im Bezirk von Ayatekla, in I. Eichner, V. Tsamakda (eds.), Syrien und seine Nachbarn von der Spätantike bis in die islamische Zeit, Wiesbaden, 2009, pp. 57–80. 28. R. L. Hohlfelder, R. L. Vann, Cabotage at Aperlae in Ancient Lycia, in The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 29.1, 2000, pp. 126–35.



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

Fig. 3. Remains of baths on Dana Island (2011).

Dana Island’s first coastal settlement may have taken place in the early Roman period, but in a later phase, the Christian character of the settlement was made visually evident through the construction of several churches visible from the Kargıcak strait.29 A big sarcophagus on the coast, bearing a cross on its basin and covered with a roof-type lid with plain acroteria, is today clearly observed from the sea. The island had at least five basilical churches, four directly on, or near the shore, and one inside the fortress on the southern summit.30 Remains of mosaic pavements (Church 4), 29. The ubiquity of ashlar masonry and the use of brick masonry in the bath structure led earlier scholars to date the beginning of the settlement to the Roman imperial period. See Hellenkemper, Hild, Neue Forschungen, cit. (n. 3), pp. 32–33. Indeed, at first sight, the mortar-bound small stonework characterizing late antique construction in Isaurian settlements (e.g. Boğsak Island and Manastır on the coast, Karakabaklı inland) does not dominate the architectural landscape. The ceramic assemblage, however, undoubtedly points to Late Antiquity as the main period of occupation. 30. S. Eyice who worked on Dana Island in 1978, prepared scaled ground plans of a basilica and other structures on the northern

253

small tesserae of colorful glass (Church 2), imported marble capitals (e.g. fragment of an Ionic impost capital), columns and panels (Church 4), suggest a level of opulence, that was also present at St. Panteleimon in Aphrodisias, only 4 nautical miles southwest of the island. Otherwise, the walls of the churches were partially carved out of the bedrock, while most surviving architectural sculpture and building material were made of limestone, quarried most probably along and behind the northwestern shore of the island. Pityoussa seems to have been a well-known anchorage by the fifth century, when the author of the Acts of St. Barnabas wrote about the three nights-stay of the ship carrying the saint, waiting for the storm to calm down.31 If some of the large sloping surfaces at the northeastern and southwestern edge of the settlement were used as slipways, one could envision a lively maritime activity on the island, where vessels could get maintenance services.32 After a long textual silence, the island figures in the late medieval portulans and marine maps under the name of Provensale, a toponym still used in the nineteenth century by sailors.33 This toponym may either refer to the Langue de Provence, the first in the eight divisions of the Hospitaller Order, or to a station of traders from Provence. Considering that the Provençal traders had a special status to handle the transit trade from Konya to Cyprus in the Late Middle Ages, one of the stations on the way may have been Pityoussa.34 Dana Island has the potential to yield material remains at least from the Hellenistic to the Late Middle Ages. Nonetheless, like in other coastal and inland landscapes studied by BOGA, Late Antiquity was undoubtedly the main period of growth and activity. The churches have remains tentatively datable to the fifth and sixth centuries, while the 2016 pedestrian survey yielded a predominantly late antique ceramic assemblage in the lower settlement in the northwest.35 Dana coast (unpublished). See S. Eyice, Silifke ve dolaylarında yapılan topraküstü arkeolojik araştırmalar raporu (1978), in Belleten, 44 (173–76), 1980, pp. 117–18. 31. Barnabas stopped at Korasion (Susanoğlu), Palaia (Tahtalimanı), Pityoussa and Akonesiai (islands west of Aphrodisias) on his way to Anemourion, from where he sailed to Cyprus. R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet (eds.), Acta Philippi et Acta Thomae Accedunt Acta Barnabae, 1903, p. 11. 32. Found during BOGA’s reconnaissance survey in 2011, I raised the question whether these may be tentatively identified as slipways. However, in our discussions with Dr Matthew Harpster alternative functions, such as garum production areas, salt pans, or quarries, were also considered. Preliminary results from the 2016 field study conducted by Dr Michael Jones and Dr Rebecca Ingram has shown that only a very small number of the man-made formations may possibly be identified as slipways. 33. Beaufort, Karamania, cit. (n. 6), pp. 207–08. In the 16th century, Pirî Reis (Kitāb-ı baḥriye, fol. 325a) mentioned the cisterns on Uskovi Porvinsalo as viable sources of drinking water. 34. Hild, Hellenkemper, Kilikien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 95, 127, 380. 35. Phocaean Red Slip Ware (Late Roman C); Cypriot Red Slip

254

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 4. Exterior façade with alternating bands of grey and white stone courses at Güvercin Island (2011).

Island might have been the site of a permanent settlement; a maritime station comprising a large variety of services, such as baths, hostels, restaurants, churches, boat repair, shops and provisioning facilities, etc., as well as accommodation for workers; or a combination of these. In this rugged coastal landscape with difficult access to the hinterland, the raison d’être of the settlement of Dana Island should be sought for in its strategic location as an appropriate staging post in the maritime traffic. Güvercin Island and Palaea (Tahtalİmanı) Regardless of their roles in a connected maritime environment, islands seem to have become attractive places in Late Antiquity. Güvercin Island, a small rock (0.5 ha), off an uninhabited small bay with a seasonal stream and limited land access, is another example for the diverse functions assumed by the islands along the Isaurian coastline. The islet was accessible from a small man-made landing bay still partially preserved to its northeast. It is occupied by a monumental late antique building complex with a roughly square plan, Ware; and the nearly contemporaneous Late Roman Amphora 1, 4, and 6 should be mentioned as the dominant types. I am grateful to Dr Nicholas Rauh, Dr Matthew Dillon, Dr Noah Kaye, and Rick Wohmann for their work and feedback on the pottery.

and having additional spaces adjoining the main walls or separate from the main central building.36 The central complex stands out by its thick walls, consisting of a thick core of mortared rubble masonry, dressed with small stonework on either side.37 The exterior façade of its northeastern wall has been carefully built using alternating bands of grey and creamish-white limestone courses (Fig. 4).38 The remains of a mullion capital (perhaps second half of the fifth century) must belong to a chapel or church located within the central complex. A small necropolis of chamosoria tombs aligned side by side is located northeast, presumably east of the apse of the chapel/church. A fragmentary mosaic pavement of stylized, almost geometrical floral motifs of colored stones, does not allow a closer date other than the late Roman/late antique period. Hild and Hellenkemper suggested several functions for the island: signaling station, Roman villa, early Byzantine monastery replacing a local 36. The island was studied partially during a single visit by the small BOGA team in 2011, followed by an aerial photogrammetry project carried out in 2014. 37. The interior surfaces of the walls are often covered by vegetation and given our limited time on site, we did not have a chance to study them closely. 38. Already noted by Heberdey, Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, cit. (n. 16), pp. 98–99.



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

ancient sanctuary.39 The evidence for refuting or supporting any of these proposals is lacking at this stage. Although we haven’t yet determined the functions or precise chronology of Güvercin Island’s remains, this is yet another distinct example for the various modes of occupation of the islands in this maritime landscape. The small, yet important port of Palaea (Tahtalimanı), about 1 km north of Güvercin Island as the crow flies, was the outlet for the large alluvial plain of Akdere, irrigated by an annual spring of fresh water. Ammianus Marcellinus describes Paleas as a fortified place by the sea, used to store and distribute supplies to the Isaurian garrisons of the Roman army. Resisting the attacks of the Isaurian bandits in 354, Roman soldiers retreat to the fortress (munimentum), which was located at the top of a steep slope.40 Bean and Mitford in the 1960s, and Hild and Hellenkemper in the 1980s, reported the remains of polygonal circuit walls enclosing numerous ashlar masonry structures, located north of the bay, along the old road (the same as the itinerary of Vespasian’s coastal highway) climbing the hill towards Boğsak and Seleucia.41 The short stretches of the ancient road BOGA documented in and around the modern-day Boğsak village, must be part of the same itinerary. The BOGA team has also seen architectural ruins of uncertain date (pre-Hellenistic?) and functions (fortress?) on the steep and high precipices delimiting Tahtalimanı south and north, possibly the same as the remains reported by earlier scholars.42 A handful of structures, some partially buried under the pebble and water, is still preserved in the bay. In the early 1960s, Bean and Mitford reported a small village of stone masonry houses dating from Late Antiquity. Two decades later, Hellenkemper and Hild found much fewer remains, but 39. Hellenkemper, Hild, Neue Forschungen, cit. (n. 3), p. 33. Eyice, who mistakenly refers to Güvercin Island as Küçük Ada (Nesulion of the Stadiasmus Maris Magni), identifies the structure as a late antique villa. See Eyice, Silifke, cit. (n. 30), p. 117. 40. Amm. Marc. 14.2.13. Also mentioned in Stadiasmus Maris Magni 183–84; Acta Barnabae 11. 41. Bean, Mitford, Journeys in Rough Cilicia, cit. (n. 9), p. 195. Hellenkemper, Hild, Neue Forschungen, cit. (n. 3), p. 35; Hild, Hellenkemper, Kilikien, cit. (n. 13), p. 372; H. Hellenkemper, Legionen im Bandenkrieg. Isaurien im 4. Jahrhundert, in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III, 13. Limeskongreß (Aalen 1983) (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg, 20), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 629–30. 42. Tokmar Fortress, 4 km west of Palaea and about 460 m above sea level, has commanding views of the plain and bay. Hild and Hellenkemper argue that this might be the westernmost example of an Armenian fortress (cf. Yılanlıkale in Eastern Cilicia), possibly built in the late twelfth century. They identify Tokmar as Norberd in the property of Sebastos Henri, under the rule of Leo I of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. Norberd (Castellum Novum) was among the properties that Leo I transferred to the Knights Hospitaller in 1210 for their assistance against the Seljuks. See Hild, Hellenkemper, Kilikien, cit. (n. 13), p. 367.

255

also dated them to the late Roman-early Byzantine period based on the similarity of building techniques (e.g. mortared small stonework, slit windows) to the better-preserved structures of the same period at Manastır (Mylai?).43 The significance of this small bay continued beyond Antiquity. In the tenth-century De Thematibus, Palaios is listed as a port in the Cibyrrhaeot Theme.44 For Boğsak Island, devoid of any natural resources, Palaea only 1.5 nautical miles southwest would be the most convenient location for acquiring the produce of the rich agricultural plain. A future regional survey will help us unravel how Boğsak Island was connected to and supported by this complex landscape. Boğsak Island and Bay Boğsak Island is yet a different case in the chain of islands in the Taşucu Gulf. The island is only 300  m wide and 500 m long as the crow flies (c. 7 ha), and rises steeply 51 m above sea level. Today, like the other islands on the Isaurian coastline, Boğsak Island is a deserted place, except for occasional visitors, fishermen, and divers who usually stay close to the small pebble beach northwest, suitable for pulling small-draft coasters and shallow boats. All the ancient quays have collapsed, so landing on the island, especially in windy weather, can be a tricky task. Among the islands of Isauria, Boğsak has undergone the most comprehensive, labor-intensive, and expensive transformation. Substantial financial and human resources were needed to transform the rocky and steep terrain into a habitable zone and undertake extensive construction. The growth of fully-fledged and permanent habitation, with residential, commercial, utilitarian, and ecclesiastical buildings, seems to have taken place no earlier than the fourth century, dated tentatively by coins and pottery assemblages found in unstratified contexts. Besides one Phoenician amphora fragment and a couple of Hellenistic and early Roman sherds, the surface pottery is predominantly late antique, dating between the fourth and the ninth century, and possibly even from the tenth. Similar to the pottery assemblages of Dana Island, Cypriot Red Slip and Phocaean Red Slip Wares are the commonest types of fineware, while the amphora assemblages are dominated by Late Roman 1.45 Twelve bronze coins found on the island 43. Silifke Museum excavated a church near the coast, but I have had no access to reports from their excavations so far. In 20152016, BOGA has carried out an architectural (2015) and ceramic (2016) survey inside the surviving settlement in the bay. For a short, preliminary report of the 2015 campaign, see Varinlioğlu, Boğsak, cit. (n. 20), p. 167-68. 44. De Thematibus, 79. 45. The pottery assemblage from 2010-2012 has been catalogued and studied by Rick Wohmann, assisted by Dr Nicholas Rauh and Dr Matthew Dillon in 2014. The ceramic survey, led by Dr Nicholas Rauh, continued in 2015-2016.

256

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

in 2010–13 date from the fourth to seventh centuries, with half or more belonging to seventh century.46 The earliest occurrence of Boğsak Island in the textual sources is in the Stadiasmus Maris Magni, where this rocky outcrop and its bay are referred to as λιμὴν Νησούλιον, ‘Islet Port’.47 The bay was recorded on several late medieval portulans and nautical maps as Portus Pini or Porto Pim. Among them, Portulan Rizo from 1490 describes the island as a formerly inhabited place, which by then offered no amenities.48 In the early seventeenth century, Beaufort did not pay particular attention to Boğsak Island, which was yet another small island with ruins, no different than others he had seen in his journey: ‘Many rocks and small islands near the shore are occupied by similar ruins, and on the inland hills we saw some respectable castles and square watch-towers.’49 Only 4.5 nautical miles (one hour’s sailing distance) from the harbor at Holmoi (modern-day Taşucu), Boğsak Bay was a natural harbor sheltered from the northern winds. Thus it must have served as a secondary stopping point, an emergency refuge in inclement weather, an alternative anchorage, and a restocking and repair station along the grand maritime route, in which the main destination was the regional harbor at Holmoi. The coastal strip along the western section of the bay about 1 km west-northwest of the island consisted of flat, alluvial land created by the seasonal stream of Boğsak, fed by three small streams, namely Kızlarkapızı, Suuçtuğu, and Zindan (from north to south). Indeed the area immediately south of the Boğsak stream, is marked as Ayazma (Hagiasma) on the Turkish military maps and is still known as such among local inhabitants.50 Until recently, a well, adjacent to a large late antique structure of unknown function by the sea, was still providing brakish water. The ancient settlement on land was almost entirely obliterated by road construction in the late 1960s-early 1970s. A small number of old photographs at the Silifke Museum, the scanty architectural remains in and outside the modern Boğsak village (cisterns and wells, walls, architectural sculpture, mosaic pavement51), and interviews we 46. I am grateful to Dr Oğuz Tekin, who has studied and dated the coins. I also would like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Tourism representative İbrahim Sezen for his preliminary study and documentation of the coins found in 2013. 47. Stadiasmus Maris Magni, 182: Ἀπὸ τῆς ἄκρας εἰς λιμένα Νησούλιον καὶ ἄκραν ἐπινησίαν στάδιοι ξ΄. 48. For other portulans about Boğsak, see Hellenkemper, Hild, Neue Forschungen, cit. (n. 3), p. 38; idem, Kilikien, cit. (n. 13), pp. 366–67. 49. Beaufort, Karamania, cit. (n. 6), pp. 210–11. 50. THGK, cit. (n. 17), series K-816, sheet P31 – b 4, printed in 1990. 51. We know only the approximate location of this mosaic pavement about which only one black-and-white photograph is preserved in the archives of the Silifke Museum. The site is currently occupied by a camping center.

conducted with the inhabitants, indicate that the core of this settlement was in the vicinity of this stream. The remains of an ancient road, probably part of the Roman coastal road to Seleucia, is still preserved within the modern village, about 15 m above sea level. The southern section of the bay is delimited by the Kavurkaklık Hill, rising about 100  m across from the island, which is separated from the land by a 330 m-wide strait (Fig. 5). The rocky and inhospitable coastline does not have traces of human intervention (stairs, quays, other such access points), however the remains of a badly preserved fortified enclosure, fragmentary walls, channels, and tombs across the hill, indicate that parts of Kavurkaklık were built up and utilized.52 Along the northern part of the coastline below the hill, starting immediately south of the Hagiasma, are a series of slipways. This location, still locally known as çekek (slipway), was identified and documented by a maritime research team led by Dr Matthew Harpster in 2013-2014.53 BOGA had previously noted similar examples along the northwestern coast of the Dana Island. The existence of slipways along this coastal landscape shows that the bays and islands along the Isaurian shores offered repair, and perhaps also boat-building services, albeit at a small scale. The northern section of Boğsak Bay comprises Liman Kalesi, a fortress of uncertain (Ottoman?) date, located on a coastal hill, and a promontory connected to the land via a narrow and flat isthmus, similar to Ovacık Adası.54 The fortress guarded the small natural bay at Ağa Limanı (Ak Liman) to its northeast, which served as a port (Scala) for Silifke in the early nineteenth century.55 On the summit (about 17 m 52. We are grateful to Kadir Gürbüz for guiding us in the field. In 2015, the construction of a building complex by the Silifke Forestry Department, led to the destruction of parts of the enclosure. 53. M. Harpster and G. Varinlioğlu, Stemware and Slipways: the 2014 Maritime Survey at Boğsak, Turkey, in Institute of Nautical Archaeology Quarterly, 42.1, 2015, pp. 18-25. 54. For a description of this eight-sided polygonal enclosure, see Hellenkemper, Hild, Neue Forschungen, cit. (n. 3), pp. 38–40. The authors suggest an Ottoman date for the fortress (but earlier than the Külliye in Payas). So far, no evidence for a late medieval predecessor is known. Access to this archaeological site has been restricted since 2002, because this area was transformed into a military zone right before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Although the Turkish Parliament rejected the resolution authorizing the deployment of U.S. forces to Turkey on 1 March 2003, the site had already been transferred to the Turkish navy. Akdeniz Bölge Komutanlığı (Mediterranean Sea Regional Command) gave us the permission to visit it for two hours in 2011. 55. Beaufort (Karamania, cit. [n. 6], pp. 212–13) mentions Grimstone’s report about the port being a pirate nest, and a 1613 battle between the pirates of Liman Kalesi and military ships sent by Cosimo II of Tuscany. See: E. Grimstone, A continuation of this present history, in R. Knolles (ed.), The Turkish History from the Original of that Nation, to the Growth of the Ottoman Empire:



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

257

Fig. 5. 1: 25,000 scale map of the Boğsak Bay based on the data acquired from the General Command of Mapping (Turkey) in 2015.

above sea level) of the small promontory at the northeastern tip of the bay, BOGA located a three-aisled basilica of late antique date, possibly with a chapel attached to its northeast corner.56 The central apse is a slightly elongated semi-circle, flanked by the semi-circular apses on either side. Both under the church and in its vicinity there are several underground cisterns. The remains of an ancient paved road, about 2.2 m with the Lives and Conquests of Their Princes and Emperors, London, 1687–1700, pp. 897–962. Alishan, who follows closely Beaufort’s account, includes a 1: 15, 000 scale map of Boğsak Bay and Ağa Limanı, in which he refers to the northern promontory as Cap Sarpedinium (Sarpedon). His map shows ancient remains (ruines) on the island and inside the bay, south of the stream. He also reports about the fortress and the modern Turkish village to its south. See Alishan, Sissouan, ou l’Arméno-Cilicie: description géographique et historique, avec cartes et illustrations traduit du texte arménien, Venice, 1899, pp. 387–88. 56. In 1978, Semavi Eyice’s team saw a badly-preserved basilica on the summit of the promontory, which is most certainly the same structure BOGA located in 2011. See, S.  Eyice, Silifke, cit. (n. 30), p. 118.

wide, are preserved for a few hundred meters along the northwestern coast of the promontory. Boğsak Island’s settlement The infrastructure needed to make Boğsak Island habitable was substantial. The island’s rugged terrain, rocky shores without natural safe anchorages, and foremost, the absence of fresh water, arable land, or natural resources (except for the sea) rendered this strategically valuable piece of land somewhat off limits. Nevertheless, a Christian settlement with complex infrastructure and architecture developed between the fourth and the ninth/tenth centuries. Unlike the rural settlements on the Isaurian coast and its hinterland, there is practically no evidence for agricultural processing (e.g. millstones, olive/wine presses), with the exception of a few pieces of what looks like small grinding stones suitable for domestic food preparation. The settlement was almost entirely dependent on imports of food, wares, implements, etc. The survey and vegetation clearance carried out by BOGA revealed that the settlement on the island was much

258

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Plan of the settlement on Boğsak Island (drawn by S.Deniz Coşkun, the plan reflects the state of the mapping up to 2014).

more extensive than earlier scholars noted. In fact, almost the entire surface of Dana Island was transformed into a habitable place, and was built up with structures constructed mainly with mortared small stonework masonry, using limestone quarried on site. The coastline all around the island was continuously built up, even along the southern and southeastern coast which rises on rocky precipices. In its general outlines, the island comprised elements one would find in any late antique Christian coastal settlement: residential neighborhoods, churches, cemeteries, services for travelers, and basic infrastructure (Fig. 6).57

57. We have not located any baths at Boğsak. On the other hand, both Dana Island and Manastır have relatively well-preserved remains of baths.

While the southern and eastern cliffs of the island remained inaccessible, the northern, northeastern, and western shores were substantially transformed to facilitate docking. The rock-cut staircase with five surviving steps (Fig. 7), extending into the sea today – not necessarily right on the water in Late Antiquity – is representative of the well-maintained and easily accessible condition of the western coastline, while the island was still inhabited. Wooden piers and posts, which must have been the norm, left no trace underwater.58 The small beach northwest of the island is currently used for beaching small vessels. While Boğsak Bay was a sizeable natural harbor suitable for the long-term anchorage of large and small boats alike, the island itself could have functioned as a ‘man-made’ port for smaller and more maneuverable vessels, the standard vehicles of cabotage. Lighters or other small vessels with sail or oars, which could easily dock at the island, could be used to transfer from and to the bigger vessels anchored safely in the bay.59 The western, northern, and northeastern coasts of the island belonged to a busy maritime space. The virtually uninterrupted stretch of buildings along the shoreline must have functioned as eateries, hostels, shops, warehouses, customs, and other such services oriented towards the maritime traffic. The residents of the island, however, lived in the one and two-story houses organized into dense neighborhoods along the terraces of the northeastern and eastern slopes (Fig. 8). These houses with rectangular and arched windows overlooked the harbor at Holmoi to the north, as well as the maritime lanes to the east of the island. The floors were carried by wooden beams and/or masonry arches, some of which still survive (Fig. 9). The upper structure consisted of pitched roofs covered with terracotta roof tiles of several types. These buildings utilized mainly the limestone quarried and cut on site, although other types of stones do also exist in substantially smaller quantities. The prevalent masonry was mortared small stonework (petit appareil), consisting of roughly squared small stones, bound by lime mortar and laid in two layers.60 The façades must have been plastered, 58. The remains of stairs carved out of natural rock have been preserved at a number of locations along the western shoreline. Several flat surfaces partially underwater along the northwestern shore of the island might be remains of quays. BOGA carried out an underwater survey in 2014 under the leadership of Dr Matthew Harpster. See Harpster, Varinlioğlu, Stemware and Slipways, cit. (n. 53). 59. For a discussion of the use of small ports with minimal or no docking facilities, see: G. W. Houston, Ports in Perspective: Some Comparative Materials on Roman Merchant Ships and Ports, in AJA, 92.4, 1988, pp. 553–64. 60. The close study of the structural and architectural properties of select structures on the island started in 2014. The ‘Architectural Inventory Project’ has been carried out by a team led by Dr Mine Esmer. Simultaneously, since 2013, we have sampled architectural materials, such as plaster, mortar, stone, and brick for scientific analysis. This analysis is currently the subject of Murat



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

259

Fig. 7. Stairs extending into the sea on the western shore of Boğsak Island (2012).

Fig. 8. Eastern neighborhood of Boğsak Island (2013).

Fig. 9. A house (ST01) from the eastern neighborhood of Boğsak Island. This is the only known example of a fully preserved masonry arch supporting the second floor (2013).

260

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 10. Examples of mortared small stonework used across Boğsak Island (2013).

Fig. 11. Free-standing vaulted cistern situated west of Church I on Boğsak Island (2010).

as a few buildings still have preserved examples. In the churches, where ashlar masonry was used for the construction of apses and conches, the main walls were built with the mortared small stonework ubiquitous across the island (Fig. 10). Decorative elements in domestic contexts were rare, and when they existed, their execution was rudimentary at best. In conclusion, the architecture of Boğsak’s residential quarters follows the building traditions widely practiced in rural Isauria especially after the fourth century both on the coasts and in the mountains. For example, the coastal village of Manastır, only 6 km northeast of Boğsak, displays similar Eroğlu’s PhD thesis, under the supervision of Dr Ali Akın Akyol.

architectural characteristics dating from the fourth through to the end of the seventh century.61 On an island without fresh water, an extensive water provisioning and drainage system was a crucial component of the settlement. The basements of all the structures were occupied by deep rectangular cisterns carved into the bedrock, lined with hydraulic mortar, and covered with barrel vaults of ashlar masonry. Stand-alone reservoirs were also constructed near churches (Fig. 11) and close to the main access points of the island. Rock-cut drainage and/or sewage 61. For an excellent survey of the early Byzantine houses and their building traditions, see Eichner, Frühbyzantinische Wohnhäuser, cit. (n. 8).



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

systems, retaining walls, and terraces regulated the flow of rainwater and erosion along the slopes.62 A burgeoning Christian settlement, Boğsak acquired seven churches during the second half of the fifth and sixth centuries. As all these churches, except Church V, are almost entirely covered by vegetation, they have not been subject of an architectural study by the BOGA team yet. Semavi Eyice, the first scholar to study the island and its architectural remains, located four churches and produced scaled ground plan drawings of the surviving remains.63 Six of these churches are three-aisled columnar basilicas oriented approximately northeast. The basilicas, built entirely of limestone quarried on the island, must have been covered with timber roofs and terrracota tiles, both materials being imports.64 The narthexes and pastophories may sometimes be made out under vegetation, whereas the existence of galleries cannot yet be conclusively argued, as BOGA has not yet systematically studied any church in its entirety. Churches seem to be the only structures with floor mosaics (Church II), opus sectile pavements (Church IV, V, VI), and imported marble. Their architectural sculpture comprises chancel screens and posts, unidentifiable slabs, columns, and capitals, all produced predominantly of limestone, but occasionally also of imported (Proconnesian?) marble. The column capitals date mainly from the second half of the fifth century (mostly towards the end) and the first half of the sixth.65 Only one church (Church V) differed from the others by its architecture, date, and perhaps also its function. Annexed 62. These channels are still preserved along the rocky coastline, especially in the northeastern section of the island. 63. A comprehensive study and interpretation of the churches will be the subject of future fieldwork and publications. For the time being, this preliminary discussion relies on the plans produced by Eyice’s study in the 1970s, the aerial photographs BOGA took in 2010, 2012–2014, and limited field observations, which unfortunately remain inadequate due to the thick vegetation cover. Eyice published a small portion of the work he carried out on the island in 1972–1980 with a small team from Istanbul University. See, S. Eyice, Silifke, cit. (n. 30), p. 117; id., Einige byzantinische Kleinstädte im Rauhen Kilikien, in 150 Jahre Deutsches Archäologisches Institut 1829–1979, Mainz, 1981, pp.  204–09, Taf. 1, for a sketch plan of the settlement on the island; id., Quelques observations sur l’habitat byzantine en Turquie, in Anadolu Araştırmaları, 10, 1986, p. 524; id., Ricerche e scoperte nella regione di Silifke nella Turchia meridionale,in Milion, I, 1988 pp. 15–33, pl. III, 1 for the plans of Churches I and V (according to BOGA’s numbering system). I would like to thank S. Eyice for showing me the original drawings of his work, and for sharing with me his memories. 64. An assemblage of roof tiles found off the northeastern shore of the island by the underwater survey team in 2014 must be part of a cargo destined to the island. The comparison of this material with the roof tiles found across the island has not been done yet. 65. The recording of the architectural sculpture is an ongoing project, while a detailed study of the material is pending.

261

to the northeast of Church I, it was situated right below the summit of the island, in such a way as to be visible by the maritime vessels approaching the island from the north, south, and east. Unlike other churches of the island, Church V is almost completely preserved; hence it has been the most frequently mentioned remain of the island.66 This is a small, roughly square (6 m × 6.4 m, excluding the apse) structure with a cruciform interior. The cross-arms are covered with barrel vaults and the central bay is surmounted by a masonry dome rising on pendentives (Fig. 12). A semi-circular apse with a double window projects from the northeastern wall, while the entrances are located on three sides. The southwestern entrance is preceded by a narrow rectangular area between the two churches, which may have served as a narthex. S. Guyer, the first scholar to survey the structure in 1906–07, dated the church to the first half of the sixth century.67 On the other hand, A. Aydın, who revisited it in the 2000s, argued mainly on typological grounds that it may have functioned as a martyrium.68 Church V also stands out by its sumptuous decoration, of which only fragmentary remains survive. BOGA found pieces of opus sectile pavements of several types of imported marble, dug by looters in the ‘narthex.’ Traces of mortar beds or plaster on the walls, vaults, and niches of the structure indicate the existence of mosaics and/or wall paintings. A small number of colorful tesserae, too small to be used for floor pavements, was found in the debris nearby. These suggest that the interior indeed had fine mosaic decoration. Finally, several fragments of decorated architectural sculpture made with imported marble (Proconnesian?), show that this church differed from others by the quality and cost of its decoration. Boğsak Island has multiple funerary zones, all located on and around the summit, along the rocky ridges extending northeast and southwest, and around the churches.69 In comparison to wealthy port towns like Corycus and Elaiussa Sebaste in the east, or Anemurium in the west, Boğsak’s funerary remains are modest and conservative. The absence of inscriptions, decoration, and other chronological markers 66. Heberdey, Wilhelm (Reisen in Kilikien, cit. [n. 16], p. 99) mentioned only this small church (Kirchlein) and a single uninscribed sarcophagus on the small island (Inselchen). 67. S. Guyer, Grundlagen mittelalterlicher abendländischer Baukunst, Einsiedeln, 1950, pp. 59, 69, Abb. 11b. Hellenkemper, Hild (Neue Forschungen, cit. [n. 3], p. 37) argue that Church V was a later construction, perhaps also in the fifth century, but certainly not later than the sixth century Eyice improved Guyer’s plan in such a way to also include Church I. See Eyice, Ricerche e scoperte, cit. (n. 63), pl. III.1. 68. A. Aydın, Boğsak Adası’ndaki merkezi planlı yapı, in Adalya, VII, 2004, pp. 263–78. 69. BOGA initiated a preliminary study of the funerary remains in 2010; however, the first systematic inventory of the island’s tombs was carried out in 2014 by Yasemin Aydoğdu.

262

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 12. Church V, interior view towards southwest (2010).

make the dating of the tombs very challenging. For this reason, one should consider the possibility that the island’s ridges were already used for burial, before the burgeoning of the settlement, and the construction of the churches in the second half of the fifth century. The funerary landscapes of the island consist predominantly of simple chamosoria (about 100) covered by flat stone slabs or undecorated and uninscribed roof-type lids. A few chamosoria are smaller than the rest of the assemblage. These may have been intended for children, or used as ossuaries. The only free standing sarcophagus on the island is located very close to the shore in the northwest. The second most widespread tomb type (about 10 %) is masonry tomb chests, i.e., single or multiple rectangular graves built of mortared rubble or small stonework. BOGA has located so far three vaulted tombs (two near Church V, one near Church I) built using a combination of mortared small stonework and dry stone ashlar masonry (Fig. 13). Regardless of type, all tombs seem to have contained inhumation burials.

What kind of settlement is this? A settlement comprising seven churches, extensive cemeteries, vast residential neighborhoods, a comprehensive water provisioning and drainage system, and a continuously built shoreline, prompts many questions about the formation, status, and functions of Boğsak Island. Was the settlement on the island a village, a harbor town, a staging post, a monastic center, a secondary pilgrimage site, or a combination of these? Did its layout, architecture, functions, and role in the region change over time? What were the phases of occupation and settlement not only during Late Antiquity, but also before the foundation of the settlement itself, as well as after it gradually or suddenly fell out of use? The only complete inscription found on the island gives some insights about the character of this settlement, or rather a glimpse of its perception by the patrons of the island’s monumental buildings. Found ‘on a sarcophagus on the summit of the island’ by G. E. Bean and T. B. Mitford in the 1960s, it was deciphered by G. Dagron and D. Feissel in 1987 (Fig.  14). Dated by the epigraphists to the fifth or sixth centuries, the inscription reads: Αὔξῃ Ἀστερή[α] ὐκωδωμουμένη ὡς πώλης (May you prosper, Asteria, that is



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

263

Fig 13. Aerial photograph of the necropolis zone northwest of Church V. Chamosoria and vaulted tombs are located in the vicinity of Church V (2013).

built as a city!).70 Asteria must be the name of the settlement on Boğsak Island and, most likely, also its counterpart on land. This inscription actually repeats the formula in the Greek Psalm 121 (Heb. 122) that belongs to the collection known as ‘Songs of Ascent’, also called Pilgrim Songs.71 This psalm, attributed to David, is associated with the 70. Bean and Mitford visited Boğsak (they call it Bağşakada) twice and reported two churches (BOGA’s Church I and V) and many rock-cut sarcophagi. Judging from their description, they must have found the inscription in the necropolis zone northwest of these churches, where there are a number of chamosoria carved in rocky outcrops in such a way to look like sarcophagus basins. The inscription, which is today at the Silifke Museum, is carved on the bottom surface of the base of a double column. This architectural element must be a spolia from one of the churches in the vicinity. See Bean, Mitford, Journeys in Rough Cilicia, cit. (n. 9), pp. 195–96; G. Dagron, D. Feissel, Inscriptions de Cilicie, Paris, 1987, p. 23. 71. I am grateful to Efthymios Rizos who informed me about the psalm.

pilgrimage of the Israelites to Jerusalem and proclaims the superiority of Mt. Zion over other holy mountains: Our feet were standing within your gates, Jerusalem/ Jerusalem, that is built as a city that is compact together (ἑστῶτες ἦσαν οἱ πόδες ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς αὐλαῖς σου, ῾Ιερουσαλήμ. ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ οἰκοδομουμένη ὡς πόλις, ἧς ἡ μετοχὴ αὐτῆς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. Ps. 121, 2–3). How should we interpret the usage of this formula for Asteria? Taken at face value, the acclamation suggests that Asteria did not acquire the administrative status of a polis, in other words it was a non-city, maybe a village. By deliberately selecting this formula from the Bible, the patrons of the building, where this inscription belonged to, expressed their urban aspirations. In other words, their architectural patronage competed with other settlements in the region, by means of urban features that the patrons deemed to be the requisites of a polis. Indeed, by the late fifth century, churches were the most conspicuous elements of Christian townscapes. The multitude, monumentality, location, and opulence of the churches, as well as the dense fabric of the settlement justified their statement: Asteria was

264

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 14. Inscription from Boğsak Island, today preserved at the Silifke Museum.

indeed built like a city. But why select this particular verse from the Pilgrim Songs? I believe that this can be explained by the existence and magnetism of Saint Thecla’s holy site in the outskirts of Seleucia ad Calycadnum. Already a popular pilgrimage destination by the late fourth century, Saint Thecla received the patronage of emperor Zeno in the late fifth century during which at least two monumental churches were built on the site. The pilgrims traveling by sea reached Saint Thecla via the harbor at Holmoi, only one hour’s sailing distance to Boğsak. Moreover, another pilgrimage destination – of lesser importance – was the sanctuary of Saint Theodore, situated southwest of Holmoi, near the late antique site known today as Manastır (Mylai?).72 Asteria was situated in a landscape of pilgrimage. The lucrative traffic, or religious tourism if you will, created by the intensive pilgrimage activity along the maritime routes passing by the island, must have provided a major economic opportunity for the settlements along the itinerary. I would argue that the layout and positioning of the settlement on Boğsak Island developed as a response to, and in a dialogue with, this busy maritime activity. In 2013, vegetation clearance on the eastern slopes of Boğsak Island, revealed a wide, stone-paved avenue climbing up through a series of ramps and carefully built ashlar steps, contrasting sharply with the narrow alleys of the settlement (Fig. 15). Occasionally aligned by tombs, it runs by, and thus connects, Churches I, V, VII, and possibly also III. I would tentatively argue that there was a preconceived development plan for this section of the island, whereby the six churches were lined up along the eastern sightline facing the sea lanes. Similarly, the residential quarters on the 72. See G. Koch, Das Heiligtum des Hg. Theodors bei Holmoi (Isauria) wiedergefunden!, in Adalya, 10, 2007, pp. 259–70.

northeast and eastern slopes also overlooked these highly frequented maritime routes. Thus, for the maritime traveler, Boğsak Island presented itself with a monumental Christian landscape, marked not only architecturally, but also by the peripatetic movement of inhabitants and visitors alike going up and down the stepped avenue. The audience of this built environment was the maritime travelers, rather than those using the land routes across the bay. The churches were meant to attract the attention of long-distance travelers who were little acquainted with this geography. For those that anchored at Asteria, the floor mosaics, wall paintings, and colorful marble revetments decorating the churches offered an architectural space akin to the urban ecclesiastical architecture they experienced in major cities like Seleucia and, I would argue more importantly, at pilgrimage centers like Saint Thecla. An analogous development can be observed on the Lycian coast, which also had a large number of churches and monasteries along the maritime route taken by pilgrims to the Holy Land. ‘This coastline itself acquired a sanctity because of its association with pilgrimage, an attitude created, then confirmed by the presence of so many holy buildings.’73 The protagonist of this pilgrimage landscape was Saint Nicholas, the protector saint of the sea and sailors, whose sanctuary was located in Myra. Two Lycian settlements, both archaeologically well investigated, provide particularly useful comparanda for Boğsak: Aperlae was a settlement on land, but as it was isolated, its main access was via the maritime networks. Like Boğsak, it had a population of less than 1,000, but it was still listed as a city in the Synekdemos of Hierocles and as a bishopric in the Notitiae Episcopatuum. Its five basilicas, all built in Late Antiquity, dominated the 73. Hohlfelder, Vann, Cabotage at Aperlae, cit. (n. 28), p. 28.



‘built like a city’: boĞsak island (isauria) in late antiquity

265

Fig. 15. The stepped avenue on Boğsak Island (2013).

maritime landscape. Although Aperlae was not another pilgrimage site, through its ecclesiastical building program, it acquired religious sanctity and joined the network and economy of pilgrimage.74 Similarly, on the small island of Saint Nicholas (Gemiler Adası) in Lycia, four churches were built during Late Antiquity on conspicuous spots, in such a way as to attract pilgrims whose main destination was the church of Saint Nicholas at Myra.75 The multitude of churches on a small island like Boğsak was not only an expression of faith, wealth, allegiance to Christianity and, by association, to Constantinople, but also an investment in the religious ‘market’ for travelers, mariners, and pilgrims to Saint Thecla and beyond. In other words, I believe that the intention may have been to create for the faithful an additional stop on the way to Saint Thecla and the Holy Land. Therefore, the reference to pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the aforementioned inscription can hardly be a coincidence. It deliberately proposed Asteria as a site of religious sanctity, perhaps mimicking Saint Thecla not far away, while at the same time expressing the patrons’ desire to sponsor buildings worthy of a city.76 The naturally dramatic 74. Also see R. L. Hohlfelder, Aperlae in Lycia: Ancient Maritime Life beyond the Great Harbors, in Classics Ireland, 12, 2005, pp.  26–27; R. L. Hohlfelder, Maritime Connectivity in Late Antique Lycia: A  Tale of Two Cities, Aperlae and Andriake, in D.  Robinson, A.  Wilson (eds.), Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2011, pp. 211–22. 75. S. Tsuji (ed.) The Survey of Early Byzantine Sites in Ölüdeniz Area (Lycia, Turkey). The First Preliminary Report. Osaka, 1995; K. Asano (ed.) The Island of St. Nicholas. Excavation and survey of Gemiler Island Area, Lycia, Turkey, Osaka, 2010. 76. Whether Boğsak Island in particular and islands in general, were associated with any cults or deities in the pre-Christian

terrain of the island was transformed into a monumentally built ‘urban’ environment. The island acted as an outpost of the main settlement on land and made a strong visual statement to outsiders. Boğsak Island’s built environment is testimony to the role that visibility played in this newly forming Christian geography. Thus, the history of this site must be closely connected to pilgrimage, commerce, transportation, naval expeditions, and piracy which, after all, shared the same lines of communication. Conclusion The gradual development of a vast settlement on Boğsak Island, and particularly the ecclesiastical construction, seems to be a mid- to late fifth and sixth-century phenomenon, parallel to the increasing investment in, and popularity of, Saint Thecla. The other four off-shore islands of the Gulf of Taşucu that were briefly presented in this paper, though not yet fully explored by BOGA, also bear evidence for the intensification of construction and use during Late Antiquity. However, each one of them seems to have functioned and to have been organized quite differently from the others. Kösrelik, associated with the city of Aphrodisias, though extensively built up, does not seem to have become a settlement in its own right. Dana’s location along a difficult coastline disconnected from the hinterland, gave it a strategic adavantage, thus leading to its use as a station on the sea. Güvercin’s functions are also unclear, but the site is certainly too small to have housed a settlement, or to have provided supplies and services for maritime passengers. In other words, the period has not yet been investigated, but will be the topic of future research.

266

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

islands of the Gulf of Taşucu fulfilled different functions, responded to various needs of travelers, and were transformed in diverse ways. In that respect, what brings them together is the geography they are located in, rather than their organizational, functional, or architectural features. Archeologically speaking, we owe the preservation of Boğsak Island to the conceptual remoteness islands are associated with to this day. However, the creation, existence, and demise of this new settlement are closely linked to its relationship with the neighboring landscapes, as well as the wider geography connected by the sea. ‘Built like a city,’ built as a pilgrimage destination, built as a servicing station, built as a harbor, I believe that the settlement on Boğsak Island had multiple functions, which have changed over the course of its history. This new settlement of Late Antiquity became a vibrant center of maritime activity between the fourth and at least the ninth centuries. When, how, and why did the period of building and maintenance come to an end? After the midseventh century, the Arab navy was indeed active along the southern coasts of Anatolia, but, as the case of Boğsak suggests, we should not assume that this led to the wholesale destruction or abandonment of coastal and insular sites. I believe that this is an open debate that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is continuing activity in the region during the medieval period as attested by the fortresses at Seleucia, Tokmar, and Ağa Limanı. The economic, religious, and administrative networks that contributed to the prosperity that Boğsak, though poor in resources, enjoyed during the late antique period, especially in the fifth and sixth centuries, may have gradually shifted to other settlements, which may have been more protected, less dependent on a

functioning network of settlements, hence more resilient. Thus the explanation of the processes of abandonment and relocation in this insular geography must be intricately linked to the mechanisms of connectivity, which shifted drastically between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Acknowledgments BOGA has been carried out with the permit of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Republic of Turkey. I would like to acknowledge the institutions and individuals who provided invaluable financial, logistical, and institutional support over the years: Mersin İl Özel İdaresi, Mersin Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Silifke Kaymakamlığı, İmamuşaklılar Derneği, Silifke Museum (director İlhame Öztürk and staff), Döner Sermaye İşletmesi Merkez Müdürlüğü, Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (director Dr Scott Redford), Suna-İnan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations, American Research Institute in Turkey (Ankara branch, especially director Dr Elif Denel), European Commission FP7, Institute of Nautical Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, Dr Sarah T. Brooks, Dumbarton Oaks (especially Dr Margaret Mullett, director of Byzantine Studies), and last but not least, Loeb Classical Library Foundation. I express my heartfelt thanks to all the students and scholars who contributed to the project over the years. I should, however, single out three young archaeologists and one senior epigraphist, who have endured the most difficult seasons of the fieldwork. They are the founding members of BOGA: Hatice Çınar, Lara Taş, Adil Yılmaz, and Dr Ender Varinlioğlu.

Palatia of Saria, a Late Antique ‘Nēsopolis’* of Provincia Insularum: A Topographical Survey Georgios Deligiannakis** Vassileios Karabatsos***

Palatia de Saria. Une nēsopolis tardo-antique en Provincia Insularum. Prospection topographique Cet article traite de Saria, une petite île rocheuse (23 km2) située au large de l’extrémité nord de Karpathos, en Dodécanèse méridional. Nous présentons ici un relevé topographique du site de Palatia, localisons de nouveaux bâtiments importants et proposons la réinterprétation d’autres qui sont déjà connus. Finalement, nous suggérons un contexte historique général pour l’ensemble du site. Il présente toutes les caractéristiques d’un grand village ou d’une petite ville tardo-romaine avec acropole, qui comprend de nombreux édifices ecclésiastiques, des bâtiments de bains, une nécropole monumentale et des quartiers résidentiels. L’engagement bien attesté des insulaires dans le commerce maritime était probablement une des principales raisons de la croissance remarquable de l’habitat de Palatia. Cette croissance est également considérée comme une manifestation du phénomène plus large de l’expansion rurale dans le monde tardo-antique, qui impliquait la réoccupation d’îlots près de la zone littorale, qui fonctionnaient comme des extensions d’habitats côtiers voisins en croissance. Pour cette catégorie d’habitats, les auteurs utilisent ici le terme nesopoleis («îlots-villes») (Trad. E. Rizos).

The Province of the Islands was created after the administrative reforms of the emperor Diocletian (284–305) and included most of the islands of the central and eastern Aegean. Rhodes was the metropolitan city and the seat of imperial and ecclesiastical administration. The non-military province was normally administered by a hēgēmōn/praeses, subordinate to the proconsul of Asia and consequently to the Praetorian Prefect of the East.1 In 536, the emperor Justinian included the province of the Islands, along with Cyprus, Caria, Moesia II and Scythia, into a new vast territorial unit, the Quaestura Exercitus Iustiniana, carved out

* ‘island-town’, see below. ** Open University of Cyprus. *** Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese. 1. Zosimus II.3; A. H. M. Jones, The later Roman Empire, 284– 602: a social, economic and administrative survey (284–602), Oxford, 1964, pp.  101,  370–71,  481–83, n.  23; D.  Feissel, Vicaires et proconsuls d’Asie du IVc au VIc siècle. Remarques sur l’administration du diocèse asianique au Bas-Empire, in AnTard, 6,  1998, pp.  94–95. For an up-to-date list of known governors of the province Insulae: D. Bosnakis, K. Hallof, Alte und neue Inschriften aus Kos IV, in Chiron, 40, 2010, pp. 349–50; G. Deligiannakis, A new consularis from the Province Insulae?, in ZPE, 169, 2009, pp. 180–82.

of the Praetorian Prefecture of the East.2 The Synekdemos of Hierokles (compiled before 535) reports that the province had twenty cities, but it gives only nineteen: Rhodes, Kos, Samos, Chios, Mytilene, Methymna, Petalon, Tenedos, Poroselene, Andros, Tenos, Naxos, Paros, Siphnos, Melos, Ios, Thera, Amorgos, and Astypalaia.3 The missing twentieth city is most probably Karpathos, the second largest of the modern-day Dodecanese Islands (301 km2) (Fig. 1). According to contemporary sources, Karpathos played an important role in the maritime exchange of goods during late antiquity. We hear that Karpathian fleets were involved in annonary shipments of Egyptian grain to Constantinople, while Karpathian merchant vessels frequented the sea routes between the African Pentapolis and Alexandria.4 Located 2. Nov. Just. 41; Joh. Lydus, De Mag. II, 28–29. Jones, Later Roman Empire, cit. (n. 1), p. 280; S. Barnish, Government and Administration, in A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby (eds.), The  Cambridge  Ancient  History. Volume 14, Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–600, Cambridge, 2006, pp.  183–84; A.  E. Gkoutzioukostas, X.  M. Moniaros, Η περιφερειακή διοικητική αναδιοργάνωση της βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας από τον Ιουστινιανό Α΄ (527–65): η περίπτωση της Quaestura Iustiniana Exercitus, Thessaloniki, 2009. 3. Hierocl. 685.7–687.6. 4. Cod. Theod. 13.5.32 (409); Synesius, Letters, 41 and 51; Isid.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 267-280. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111901

268

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 1. Map of Karpathos, Saria and Kassos.

near the coasts, the classical cities of Karpathos retained their role as the main settlements of the island throughout Late Antiquity.5 The bishopric of Karpathos is one of the earliest attested of the Insulae, first recorded in 343.6 This paper deals with Saria, a small rocky island (23 km2) located off the northern edge of Karpathos. Known as Saros in Antiquity, Saria has always functioned as a satellite of Karpathos, being separated from its northern edge through a strait c. 80 m wide at the head of the Armyro bay. Near the Karpathos-Saria strait, lies Tristomo, the largest and safest harbour of Karpathos, which was in use during Late Antiquity. The inhabitants of ancient Saros (Σάριοι) are mentioned twice in the so-called Athenian Tribute Lists as members of the Delian League, while the use the demotic Sarios is also attested in three later inscriptions.7 Strabo alone attributes a fourth city to the island of Karpathos, named Nisyros, and scholars have assumed that it should be identified with Saros, yet this is not certain.8 Piri Reis Etym. 14.6.25. G. Deligiannakis, The economy of the Dodecanese in late antiquity in Ch. Papageorgiou-Banis, A. Giannikouri, (ed.) Sailing in the Aegean. Readings on the economy and trade routes, Meletemeta 53, Athens, 2008, 209–33. 5. See also M. C. Nelson, A. Kelly, D.J. I. Begg and T. Brenningmeyer, The early Byzantine settlement at Leukos, Karpathos in BSA, 110, 2015, pp. 1–47. 6. S. Destephen, Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire III, Diocèse d’Asie (325–641), Paris, 2008, p. 202 (Bassos 1). 7. IG I3 283. 3.21; 290. 1.4; also IG 12.1. 1010–1. 8. The other three were Arkesia, Vrykous and Karpathos (Ps. Skylax 99). For the discussion, see: M. H. Hansen, T. H. Nielsen

(398b) records Saria (Küçük Kerpe, Nisireye) together with Karpathos saying that the island provided safe shelter to navigators on windy days. Nowadays, Saria is almost uninhabited. The main modern settlement on the islet is the abandoned hamlet of Argos. Apart from a few families that stayed permanently on the island, the inhabitants of the nearby village of Olympos in northern Karpathos used to migrate along with their animals to Argos twice per year for ploughing and harvesting. A Greek source speaks of Argos in 1896 as a large agrarian seasonal village.9 It consisted of single-roomed houses separated from each other by farms and threshing floors.10 It appears that Argos saw its heyday between the late nineteenth and early twentieth century until perhaps the 1930s, when the village was nearly abandoned. Not far southeast of Argos, lies the main archaeological site of Saria, a small natural anchorage, known as Palatia (Fig. 2).11 No systematic excavation has ever been conducted at Palatia. In the past, scholars have briefly reported about Neolithic and Bronze Age finds, Classical/Hellenistic inscriptions, rock-cut tombs, one large Early Christian basilica, a bath house, one or more watchtowers, a spring of brackish water and several ‘medieval buildings’ of unclear function.12 An early Christian basilica and prehistoric pottery have been also located in the safe cove of Alimounta to the northeast of Palatia. Moutsopoulos was the first who offered a more detailed description of the site’s ruins. His study offered a number of useful plans of extant buildings, and he further suggested a historical interpretation of the so-called medieval buildings of Palatia, which he connected with an Arab colony, supposedly existing on the site between the seventh/ eighth or ninth/tenth centuries.13 His views are revised below. (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 2004, p. 771; V. Patsiada, H αρχαία Ακρόπολη στον Κάστελλο της Σαρίας, in Karpathiaka, 4, 2012, pp. 22–30. 9. E. Manolakakis, Kαρπαθιακά, Athens, 1896, p. 152; M. G. Michailides-Nouaros, Ιστορία της Νήσου Καρπάθου (Δωδεκανήσου) από των αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων μέχρι σήμερον, Athens, 1940, p. 318; R. H. Simpson, J. F. Lazenby, Notes from the Dodecanese, in BSA, 57, 1962, p. 168, n. 126; J. Ma, Empire, Statuses and Realities, in J. Ma, N. Papazarkadas, R. Parker (eds.), Interpreting the Athenian Empire, London, 2009, p. 141, pl. 5.6. 10. N. K. Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος. Σημειώσεις ιστορικής τοπογραφίας και αρχαιολογίας, in Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Πολυτεχνικής Σχολής, Τμήμα Αρχιτεκτόνων, 7, 1978, p. 347. 11. For a more detailed analysis of the site, see: G. Deligiannakis, The Dodecanese and the Eastern Aegean Islands in Late Antiquity, AD 300–700, Oxford Monographs in Classical Archaeology, Oxford, 2016, ch. 5. 12. L. Ross, Reisen auf den griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres, III, Stuttgart, 1845, p. 62; J. T. Bent, The islands of Telos and Karpathos, in JHS, 6, 1885, p. 239; R. M. Dawkins Notes from Karpathos, in BSA, 9, 1902–1903, pp. 206–08. MichailidesNouaros, Ιστορία της Νήσου Καρπάθου, cit. (n. 9), pp. 315–18; Simpson, Lazenby, Notes from the Dodecanese, cit. (n. 9), p. 167. 13. Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος, cit. (n. 10).

palatia of saria, a late antique ‘nēsopolis’ of provincia insularum

269

Fig. 2. Panoramic view of Palatia.

More recently, Patsiada conducted a topographical survey on the site of Kastellos, which is situated at close distance from Palatia to the south. She identified a fortification wall of possibly Classical or Hellenistic date, that protected the hill, and on top of it she located the ruins of an early Christian basilica with annex buildings, cisterns and other structures.14 All this evidence shows that the area of Palatia and Kastellos was the centre of the ancient settlement of Saria. Our paper aims to offer a topographical survey of the whole area, by identifying new important buildings, re-interpreting others, and also suggesting an overall historical context for the interpretation of the material evidence found on the ground. The residential area The site of Palatia is located on a narrow coastal plain formed at the bottom of a gorge running down to the sea. Further inland steep slopes rise into cliffs and the land contracts into a ravine. The residential core of the settlement is located in the lowland part and the foothills, near the modern church 14. Patsiada, H αρχαία Ακρόπολη, cit. (n. 8).

and early Christian basilica of Aghia Sophia (see below) (Fig. 2).15 Extensive remains of walls filled in with ancient debris can be seen, especially where the water has eroded the soil. Thick bushes cover the rest of the area. Well-built walls made of rubble and mortar run on an east-west direction, parallel to the foot of the south hill, probably being parts of terrace walls. The fill of earth between these walls contained a high concentration of sherds; one can identify among them numerous fragments of Roman sigillata (mostly African, Late Roman D and Phocaean RSW), and types of Late Roman amphorae (for example, Late Roman 1 and 2). To the east of Aghia Sophia, about ten meters from the apse, lies a bath-house, probably contemporary with the early Christian church. It corresponds to a bath type common in this period, with two adjoining rooms, once roofed with small domes.16 Another interesting ruined structure, also belonging to a bathhouse, is located a few metres higher up the slope to the southwest of Aghia Sophia. The building in its present form consists of two rooms: the northern one is 15. Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος, cit. (n. 10). 16. F. Yegül, Bathing in the Roman World, New York, 2010, pp. 329–49.

270

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 3. Inscription on the wall of the bath house.

covered by a vault; an arch is opened in the eastern wall of this room that seems to have later been blocked with a wall, while small blind arcades opened on the south and north wall. A small window-like entrance gave access to a second room with low ceiling, being also divided by a wall. More interestingly, on the plastered surface of the north wall there are traces of a Greek inscription in red paint inscribed in a tabula ansata. The text consists of about five lines finished with a cross. The only part of the inscription that can be read today is the word [ἐ]πισκόπου (‘of the bishop’) in line 4, but the style of letters of the whole text clearly suggests that the inscription was written in the early Christian period (Fig. 3). Christian Basilicas Mentioned by all previous students of the site, the basilica underlying the modern church of Aghia Sophia lies at a distance of less than 200 m from the seashore. The extant small church was built within the sanctuary of the early Christian building in two phases, of which the more recent dates from 1803.17 Neither Moutsopoulos, nor any of his predecessors refer to any other examples of Christian architecture in Palatia. Yet, no less than four more basilicas of quite large dimensions can be recognised in the area, under a confusing layer of rubble, fieldstones and thick bushes. Three of these basilicas are arranged in a straight line along the northern steep slope. Starting from the east, we can conventionally name these buildings as Basilicas A, B and C. None of them has been excavated, while their plans and exact measurements are presented here for the first time. Although there is not sufficient evidence for a precise 17. Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος, cit. (n. 10).

chronology of these churches, at the present stage of work, it seems justified to suggest that they are Early Christian, based on their architectural plan and other finds. The early Christian church underlying the chapel of Aghia Sophia is a three aisled basilica oriented east-west, with dimensions 38 × 19 m (ratio 2:1) (Figs. 4–5). It belongs to the simple type of the Early Christian basilicas, common in the late fifth and the early sixth centuries.18 On the east side, it preserves a semi-circular apse, 4.40 m wide and 2.10 m deep, containing a semi-circular synthronon with three rows of built steps, and a bishop’s throne visible in the middle of the top row of seats.19 There is a narthex on the west, along the whole width of the church, with three entrances leading from it into the nave and the side aisles. At the southwest corner of the church, adjacent to the narthex, there is a small chamber (1.60 × 1.30 m) which is likely to have served as a diakonikon. A few pieces of architectural sculpture found in the building indicate that the church received sumptuous decoration and furnishings of imported marble: two rows of monolithic columns crowned with Corinthian capitals flanked the nave, supporting a clerestory with windows and gabled timber roof.20 Two large Corinthian capitals of imported marble, belonging to the nave colonnade, can be dated on stylistic grounds to the first quarter of the fifth century (Fig. 6).21 Other surviving 18. A. Orlandos, Η Παλαιοχριστιανική Βασιλική της Μεσογειακής λεκάνης, Athens, 1952–4, vol. 1, pp. 26–89. 19. Semi-circular synthrona were introduced in the late fifth century and became common in the sixth: Orlandos, Η Παλαιοχριστιανική Βασιλική, cit. (n. 18), vol. 1, p. 29. 20. Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος, cit. (n. 10), pp. 300–02, pl. 80a, 81, 84a ; figs. 66–67. 21. T. Zollt, Kapitellplastik Konstantinopels vom 4. bis 6. Jahrhun-

palatia of saria, a late antique ‘nēsopolis’ of provincia insularum

271

Fig. 4. Plan of the Aghia Sophia Basilica.

Fig. 5. The Aghia Sophia Basilica and chapel looking east.

elements of the building’s decoration include marble fragments from the ambo, and many more from the prothesis and altar tables, as well as part of the floor mosaic. Built at the north-east edge of the steep rock towards the sea, Basilica A is also of the three-aisled type, with narthex and semi-circular apse, preserving part of its superstructure at the apse (Fig. 7). The inner dimensions of the church are 25.70 by 12.70 m (ratio 2:1). The apse, 6 m wide and 3 m deep, preserves one row of synthronon steps, and two dert n.Chr., Bonn, 1994, p. 130 and 136, no 365, fig. 11.

window openings, 0.80 m in width. There is a narthex (13.60 × 3.40 m) with three entrances to the nave and aisles. It seems that the north aisle had also its own external entrance (on the north side) from the north courtyard. A doorway from the south aisle led to a southern corridor that seems to have been divided into two different rooms of unknown dimensions. In the interior of the church, particularly in the nave, there are several fragments of veined grey-whitish marble, mainly from columns, and an impost capital from a marble window mullion. It is likely that the nave colonnade carried arches which supported a clerestory with windows.

272

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 6. Corinthian capital from Aghia Sophia.

Fig. 7. Plan of Basilica A.

Fig. 8. Plan of Basilica B.

palatia of saria, a late antique ‘nēsopolis’ of provincia insularum

273

Fig. 9. Cisterns attached to Basilica B.

The ceiling would have been of timber, with tiles used for the roof. The building seems to belong to a type of basilicas developed in the first half of the sixth century. Examples of the same simple type of Ionic impost capitals as those found in the debris of the church are thought to belong to the second quarter of the sixth century.22 Basilica B is located at a higher level than Basilica A, c. 200 m. to the west, on a precipitous site overlooking the lower settlement and the harbour area, with the ground falling steeply from north to south. (Fig. 8). Most of the church survives to the height of 1 m except of the northwest corner, which stands up to 4.50 m with a small window. The east façade of the main apse, and the north aisle, are preserved up to 5.0 m. This church was a two-aisled basilica with a narthex on the west, and a semi-circular projecting apse on the east. The nave measures 21 × 4 m. The north 22. Orlandos, Η Παλαιοχριστιανική Βασιλική, cit. (n. 18), vol. 2, p. 322, fig. 280.

aisle (22.20 × 3.10 m) is extended into a small room with a four-sided apse, protruding 3.5 m eastwards. There are two ancillary rooms on the south side: the north one is an oblong corridor measuring 13 × 2.30 m, which was added in a secondary phase. The south is a rectangular room with an apse to the east (4.20 × 2.60 m), which can be identified as a baptistery. The ground plan indicates that the complex consists of two successive structures built on an east-west axis. There is an outer doorway through the west wall of the narthex, and two connecting the narthex with the nave and the north aisle, measuring 1.20 m in width. The narthex measures 8.50 m × 4.40 m from north to south and corresponds only to the nave and north aisle. The south corridor and the baptistery room probably had an independent entrance from the west. Among the several structures attached to, or surrounding, Basilica B, there are also two large cisterns, one of which is better preserved, with hydraulic plaster covering its interior, and its lid of white limestone still in situ (Fig. 9). The total absence of marble fragments among the debris of Basilica B may indicate that it had barrel-vaulted roofs

274

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 10. The cistern and the 1923 oven.

supported by masonry piers. The church conforms to a type developed during the second half of the sixth century, except that the diakonikon has been moved to the east end of the north aisle, instead of the south aisle, as is suggested by documentary sources.23 As the liturgy developed in the second half of the sixth century, we find the diakonikon and the prothesis at the east end of the church, flanking the altar space. In most cases the diakonikon is placed at the east end of the south aisle, but there are a few cases when it is placed on the north side.24 23. Testamentum Domini 1.20; Constitutiones Apostolorum 2.25. 24. This arrangement is applied in the ‘small basilica’ of Kephalos, and the basilica of Kamares near Kephalos on Kos: I. Baldini, G. Contò, G. Marsili, L’architettura religiosa di Kos in età protobizantina e gli scavi Italiani, in I. Baldini, M. Livadiotti (eds.), Archeologia protobizantina a Kos: La basilica di S. Gabriele, Bologna, 2011, pp. 126–28, figs. II.3.17; II.3.20. Other examples of this arrangement are basilica B at Arnitha on Rhodes dated to the second half of the sixth century: A. Orlandos Les Monuments paléochrétiens découverts ou étudiés en Grèce

Α few meters to the west, lies an imposing round building. Its interior forms an elliptic paraboloid tholos that is covered outside by a stepped cylindrical wall (Fig. 10). It preserves two entrances, one at the level of the original floor inside the building, and another slightly higher. Next to this building there is a small oven with an inscription on the stucco, giving the year 1923. Moutsopoulos believed that this building was used as a dwelling in the Middle Ages, but a closer look leaves no doubt that, in its original function, this was also a cistern, converted to domestic use only recently, with the opening of two small doors.25 It therefore makes sense to suggest that this large cistern was also functioning in tandem with the other two similar structures nearby. 1938–1954, in Actes du Ve Congrès d’Archéologie chrétienne, Aixen-Provence, 1954, Vatican, 1957, p. 115, fig. 7. Also, the Aphoti basilica of Karpathos, dated to the mid-sixth century: E. Kollias Ανασκαφή εις «Άφωτην» Καρπάθου, in Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias, 1974, p. 202, fig. 1. 25. Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος, cit. (n. 10), pp. 349–51.

palatia of saria, a late antique ‘nēsopolis’ of provincia insularum

275

Fig. 11. Plan of Basilica C.

Fig. 12. Pan of the Basilica of Kastellos.

Basilica C is located at the west end of the settlement, on the very steep north side of the hill (Fig. 11). It was a three-aisled basilica with narthex at the west end, and a semicircular projecting apse at the east. The apse is inscribed on the east side within a long corridor oriented north-south enclosing two pastophoria of different sizes due to the side of the hill.26 The church measures 22 × 11 m, including the apse and the pastophoria, giving a length to width ratio of 2:1. The north pastophorium measures 4.70 × 3 m, and the south one 5.70 × 3 m. An outer doorway led through the west wall of the narthex, and three inner doorways opened gave to the nave and the aisles. The walls of the apse, surviving to a considerable height, were pierced by a large window (1.8 m wide), probably double arched. The nave was separated from the aisles by heavy stone-built piers, extant on the south side. Doorways leading to the pastophoria pierced 26. Orlandos, Η Παλαιοχριστιανική Βασιλική, cit. (n. 18), vol. 1, 210–13.

the east walls of both aisles. The southeast corner of the apse stands at a height of 2.50 m, while the partition wall between nave and narthex at its southwest corner stands at 1.50 m. A mosaic floor is preserved in the south pastophorium, while in the sanctuary area there are fragments of pierced chancelscreen slabs, carved from local soft tuff. The total absence of architectural sculpture is indicative of stone-built piers rather than columns, supporting a barrel-vaulted roof. Such an interpretation would explain the heavy accumulation of debris within the church. Finally, the fifth Christian monument of Palatia is located on the flat top of a steep rock that slightly sticks out into the sea at the south-eastern extremity of the Palatia bay, known as Kastellos (Fig. 12). It is a natural acropolis extending lengthwise in direction north-south, for a length of about 150 m, and a width of 80 to 50 m. It can be reached by going southwards through a rock-cut path, cut vertically along the eastern slope of the steep rock near the west end of the beach. A recent topographical study of this particular

276

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

area identified the remains of a defensive circuit (of unclear date, perhaps Late Classical or Hellenistic), as well the ruins of a large three-aisled basilica, rock-cut cisterns, tombs and scattered pottery of Classical, Hellenistic and Early Christian date.27 The remains of the basilica lie at the southernmost levelled part of the acropolis. The church is preserved in parts at approximately 2 m in height. It was a three-aisled basilica with narthex at the west end, and a semi-circular projecting apse at the east. The overall dimensions of the church, including the apse, are 28 × 17.50 m. At the eastern end of the south aisle an apsidal rectangular room is annexed, which has been identified as a baptistery. The church of Kastellos was constructed as a simple three-aisled basilica of a type which was developed mainly in the fifth century.28 Marble fragments of architrave and nave columns indicate the existence colonnades in the nave, made of grey-veined white marble, probably from Proconnesus. The predominant building material for all these churches seems to have been limestone locally cut from the rock face cliffs of the surrounding area. According to the methods of construction and decoration, the churches can be divided into two distinct groups: the church of Aghia Sophia, the Basilica of Kastellos and Basilica A can be assigned to the first, since they share various features, notably timber-roofed and the use of imported marble; the second group comprises Basilicas B and C, which are marked by the lack of marble elements, the vaulted roof, and the exclusive use of local hard limestone. The three churches of the first group seem to follow forms and plans typical of the first half of the sixth century. They can be dated around this period, and can be associated with the development of bi-apsidal and tri-apsidal basilicas. Finally, for Basilica C we can assume that it was cemeterial (see below), while the function of the other four is unclear. The Necropolis A large number of small vaulted buildings are immediately visible to the visitor approaching the little cove (Fig. 2). There are about 70 of them, dispersed in small clusters on the surrounding hills. Starting from north, several examples cluster together in an area west of Basilica B and higher up the slope. Others are scattered between Basilicas B and C, on the opposite hill-slope, and on the small plateau towards and around Kastellos. They are built of rubble and mortar, with small quantities of bricks or sherds sometimes inserted in the masonry. A thick layer of hydraulic and/or lime mortar is normally preserved on the exterior and interior surfaces of their walls. Their size (3.5–5.5 m long, 3.5–4.5 m wide) and orientation vary. They feature at least four types of roofing: barrel-vaults, pointed barrel-vaults, pitched roofs, and 27. Patsiada, H αρχαία Ακρόπολη, cit. (n. 8). 28. Orlandos, Η Παλαιοχριστιανική Βασιλική, cit. (n. 18), vol. 1, pp. 26–89.

domes (Figs. 2, 13–14). In a few cases, two or more rooms are attached together. They all have small window-like doors and small openings, usually square or oblong, high up in the rear wall. A few have a narrow sally running along their long walls. They show traces of modifications due to their re-use in later periods. In recent times, they seem to have been used as dwellings for shepherds, cisterns, and stables for animal flocks. These enigmatic monuments, known as ‘medieval buildings,’ have caused much discussion about their purpose and chronology. They have been thought to have functioned as cisterns, tombs or houses. Moutsopoulos believes that they belong to a medieval settlement inhabited by the Saracens of Crete during the ninth and tenth centuries.29 He reached this conclusion in an effort to explain – based mainly on historical arguments – the unique occurrence in the Aegean of beehive domes which, according to him, are reminiscent of similar early modern houses in Syria and Eastern Turkey (Fig. 13). It seems, however, that these vaulted chambers, at least in their earliest phase, were sepulchral in function, and should be linked to the large-scale late antique occupation of the site. The compelling evidence for this interpretation comes from: (a) the interior arrangement preserved in a few examples, in which low dividing walls create three separate spaces with a corridor in the middle for the insertion of burials; (b) the traces of painted decoration with Christian symbols and letters, which are also remindful of funerary architecture and decoration.30 Many of them contain red-painted dipinti of a Christian character, depicting a christogram, encircled crosses and large crosses with flaring arms; a cross with the apocalyptic letters Alpha and Omega suspended below the vertical arm, the Christian acronym XMΓ (Χριστὸν Μαρία Γεννᾷ = ‘Mary gives birth to Christ’), other unidentified words, stylised birds, geometrical and floral patterns (Fig. 16). The letter-forms, the acronym ΧΜΓ and the type of the cross, are all motifs pointing to Late Antiquity.31 Even though the basic characteristics of our buildings are not period-specific and none of our evidence is stratified, there are good reasons to place them in a fifth- to seventh-century chronological span based on: (a) the type of letters and Christian symbols of the dipinti; (b) the overall chronology of the monumental ecclesiastical architecture and of the pottery scatter of Palatia; and (c) the presence of similar monuments elsewhere in the Dodecanese, where coins and 29. Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος, cit. (n. 10), pp. 345–60. 30. For a typology of funerary monuments from Greece: N. G. Laskaris, Monuments funéraires paléochrétiens (et byzantins) de Grèce, Athens, 2000, pp. 291–310. 31. Compare I.Aph 1.11; 3.8.ii; 4.3.10.ii; 15.102. The ΧΜΓ symbol is widely attested in papyrus documents, dedications and epitaphs from the fourth to the seventh century; for its meaning, see S. R. Llewelyn, The Christian Symbol ΧΜΓ, an acrostic or an isopsephism? in New Documents illustrating early Christianity, 8, 1984–5, pp. 156–68.

palatia of saria, a late antique ‘nēsopolis’ of provincia insularum

277

Fig. 13. Two types (acute arched and beehive) of burial chambers in Palatia.

Fig. 14. Two burial chambers of the southern slope, Palatia.

other finds are indicative of the same date.32 These buildings represent the local variation of a more general type of a simple, free-standing barrel-vaulted burial chamber attested in numerous necropolises across the southern coastlands of Asia Minor. This type of burial chamber first appears in cities of western Asia Minor in the Imperial period (first to third centuries), and, on most sites, it remains in use until at least the mid-seventh century. Examples are 32. M. Koutellas, Οι παλαιοχριστιανικοί καμαροσκεπείς τάφοι της Καλύμνου, in Καλυμνιακά Χρονικά, 17, 2005, pp. 447–70.

found in Ephesos (the Harbour necropolis), Anemurium, Elaiusa Sebaste, Antiochia ad Cragum, and Korykos in Cilicia; the Keramos peninsula, Halikarnassos, and Iasos in Karia and various other sites in Lycia (Fig. 15).33 Isolated 33. Caria: V. Ruggieri, Il golfo di Keramos: dal tardo-antico al medioevo bizantino, Rome, 2003, pp.  209–16; F.  Tomasello, L’acquedotto romano e la necropolis presso l’Istmo, Rome, 1991, pp.  133–227,  169–71; H.  Lohmann, Risulatati di una survey condotta nella penisola di Kazikli, in La Parola del passato – Rivista di Studi Antichi, 60, 2005, pp. 352–54, fig. 9a-b; D. Parrish, B. Poulsen, Late Antique Tombs with Mosaics in Ancient

278

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 15. Burial chambers from the necropolis of Anemourion, Cilicia.

examples also come from sites on Kalymnos, Telendos, Kos, Amorgos, Leros and Crete. Across the Aegean, this type of building is known as tholari (θολάρι).34 These Halikarnassos, in M. Şahin, (ed.), 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, October 16th – 20th, 2009, Bursa, Turkey, Istanbul, 2012, pp. 722–33. Asia: M. Steskal, H. Tauber, N. Zimmermann, Psalmenzitat, Paradieskreuze und Blütenmotive. Zu zwei neuentdeckten Grabhäusern mit spätantiker Malerei in der Hafennekropole von Ephesos, in JÖAI, 80, 2011, pp. 291–307. Lycia: S. Tsuji, The survey of Εarly Byzantine Sites in Olüdeniz Area (Lycia, Turkey): the First Preliminary Report, Osaka, 1995, pp.  13–14, fig.  8. Cilicia and Isauria: Ε. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Anamur nekropolu – The necropolis of Anemurium, Ankara, 1971, esp. pp. 121–23; Α. Matchatschek, Die Nekropolen und Grabmäler im Gebiet von Elaiusa Sebaste und Korykos im Rauen Kilikien, Wien, 1967, esp. pp.  100–10; E.  Schneider, Elaiusa Sebaste II: un porto tra Oriente e Occidente, Rome, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 383–511, esp. 431–33. F. Hild, H. Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 5), Wien, 1990, pp. 198 (Arsinoe), 187–91 (Anemourion), 178–85 (Anazarbos), 400–01 (Elaiousa Sebaste). 34. They are remindful of the term ἡρῷον καμαρωτόν (‘vaulted tomb’) found in a funerary inscription from Amorgos (IG 12.7.478). For isolated examples from Pserimos, Kos, Leros, Ikaria, Thera, Amorgos, Yali, and Crete: I. Volanakis, Παλαιοχριστιανικά μνημεία της νήσου Ψερίμου, in Κάλυμνος Ελληνορθόδοξος Ορισμός του Αιγαίου, Athen, 1994, pp. 199, 203– 04; L. Ross, Reisen auf den griechischen Inseln, cit. (n. 11), pp. 39, 87, 104, 135, 138; L. Marangou, Αμοργός Ι – Μινώα. Η πόλις, ο λιμήν και η μείζων περιφέρεια, Athens, 2002, pp. 67–68, pl. 82 (Amorgos); M. Michailidou, Παλαιοχριστιανική βασιλική στο Παρθένι της Λέρου, in Ιωνίας Άκρον, Τόμος αφιερωμένος στη μνήμη του Διον. Οικονομόπουλου 1830–90, Athens, 1993, p. 14, n. 25; J. L. Benson, Ancient Leros, Durham, 1963, pp. 18–19, 30 (‘Roman graves’) (Leros); N. Chr. Stambolidis et al., Άγονη

structures may have been used in earlier (that is, ‘Roman’) and, most certainly, later periods, by imitating the same type of building for the same or other uses, by repairing/ adjusting pre-existing structures or erecting new ones. It is yet certain that at least some of these buildings were part of a necropolis stretching over the basic arteries of the large late antique settlement. Of a probably later date is the so-called ‘beehive building’, the last phase of which can be dated to the late Ottoman period (Fig. 13).35 Γραμμή. Ένα αρχαιολογικό ταξίδι στο Καστελλόριζο, στη Σύμη, στη Χάλκη, στην Τήλο και τη Νίσυρο, Athens, 2011, p. 331 (Yali); Τ. Bechert, Kreta in römischer Zeit, Darmstadt-Mainz, 2011, p. 83 (Lisos and other sites in southern Crete). 35. This is inferred by a jar decorated with a light-yellow glaze, inserted upside-down into the roof. Yet note that this part of the roof shows clear signs of a previous repair. It has been suggested that this building may have functioned as a türbe: Deligiannakis, The Dodecanese, cit. (n. 11), p. 83; Moutsopoulos, Κάρπαθος, cit. (n. 10), pp. 356–60, 388–99. Western travellers mention that both Greeks and Turks lived on Karpathos already by the sixteenth century: D. Dimitropoulos, Μαρτυρίες για τον πληθυσμό των νησιών του Αιγαίου, 15ος – αρχές 19ου αι., Athens, 2014, pp. 304–05; I. Vingopoulou, Le monde Grec vu par les voyageurs du XVIc siècle, Athens, 2004, p. 114. Compare the erection of a Muslim türbe (fifteenth century?) over a Middle Byzantine cemetery in the site of the Artemision in Ephesos: M. Weisst, Mittelalterliche Grabungsfunde im Artemision von Ephesos, in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Spätantike und mittelalterliche Keramik aus Ephesos, Wien, 2005, pp. 14–15, pl. 5; S. Ladstätter, Die Türbe im Artemision. Ein frühosmanischer Grabbau in Ayasuluk/Selcuk und sein kulturhistorisches Umfeld (SoSchrÖAI, 53), Wien, 2015. Compare the story of Piri Reis (99/a) about a holy monk on the island of Patmos, whose miraculous grave was respected by both Turks and Christians.

palatia of saria, a late antique ‘nēsopolis’ of provincia insularum

279

Fig. 16. Dipinti inside the vaulted chamber: crosses; Alpha-Omega, ΧΜΓ, and schematic birds (upper right side).

Conclusions This study on Palatia reveals a so far unknown, yet spectacular, case of late antique coastal settlement. The site shows all the characteristics of a late Roman large village or small town with acropolis, numerous ecclesiastical buildings, bath-houses, a monumental necropolis and residential quarters. The level of occupation and the character of the archaeological evidence are indisputable witnesses to the fact that the economic and settlement expansion of Saria in Late Antiquity was exceptional compared not only to earlier centuries, but also to the modern period, when the main pattern of occupation on the island was seasonal. It seems that the general boom in rural settlement, together with the need for better access to regional and local transport networks, pushed the island population towards more marginal areas. Considering the scale of monumental architecture of the site on the one hand, and the scarcity of arable land on the other (at least, drawing on our knowledge of early modern conditions), we could also assume that late antique Palatia was probably not self-sufficient, and that cabotage would have been an essential component of its economy. The large harbour of Tristomo at the northwest tip of Karpathos nearby would have supported the seaborne activities of the inha-

bitants of Saria.36 In general, the well-attested engagement of the islanders in sea commerce must have been a major reason behind the remarkable growth of the Palatia settlement: a fair number of literary sources refer to Karpathian and other Dodecanesian naukleroi (mariners) travelling along the major sea routes between the new capital and the eastern provinces, and recent studies of the material evidence have proved the significant role of these islands in maritime exchange, also revealing a picture of economic growth and high connectivity on an inter-regional level.37 An alternative driving force behind the dramatic expansion of Palatia in Late Antiquity may have been sacred topography.38 The 36. Four Early Christian churches have been located in Tristomo and the Steno, all unpublished. See now Deligiannakis, The Dodecanese, cit. (n. 11), Karpathos 8. 37. Deligiannakis, The economy of the Dodecanese, cit. (n. 4). 38. Cf. S. Tsuji, The survey of Εarly Byzantine Sites in Olüdeniz Area (Lycia, Turkey), The First Preliminary Report, Osaka, 1995, pp.  76–77,  131–32 (Aghios Nikolaos); K. Asano, The Island of St. Nicholas: Excavation and Survey of the Gemiler Island Area, Lycia, Turkey, Osaka, 2010; Varinlioğlu in this volume (Aghia Thecla). On sacred topography: P. Horden, N. Purcell, The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford,

280

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

discovery of three Early Christian basilicas lined along the northern slope is striking, and makes one wonder whether the establishment of an important pilgrimage or monastic centre was responsible for the number of churches here.39 Palatia must be viewed as a manifestation of the wider phenomenon of rural expansion in Late Antiquity, which involved the re-occupation of off-shore islets functioning as extensions of growing nearby coastal settlements and fulfilling a similar range of functions: a series of booming off-shore islets and coastal towns with an impressive number of Early Christian buildings appears all along the busy coasts of western and southern Asia Minor during this period. The inclusion of the tiny island of Poroselene (23 km2) (today’s Cunda Adası, off the coast of Ayvalık, Turkey) in the list of cities of Hierokles’ Synekdemos illustrates the predominance of the island over the mainland as the aggregate economic strategy along the Asiatic coasts of the Aegean during Late Antiquity.40 Similarly, Telendos (4.6 km2), Alimnia (7.4 km2), and Pserimos (14.6 km2), three tiny islands in the Dodecanese, feature a remarkable number of Early Christian buildings.41 The same is observable in the cases of Kekova (Kakaba) (4.5 km2), Gemile(r) (Perdikonesi) and Karacaören islands in Lycia; Boğsak (ancient Asteria/Nesoulion) (0.07 km2), Güvercin and Dana (ancient Pityoussa) islands in eastern Isauria.42 All these maritime settlements display the whole apparatus of a Christian Roman town comprising several elaborate churches, residential nuclei, bath-houses and necropolises. They constitute a distinct level in the regional hierarchy of 2000, pp. 401–60. 39. See the useful discussion about the function of the site of Alahan Manastırı in Isauria (monastic and/or pilgrimage): M. Gough (ed.), Alahan: An Early Christian Monastery in Southern Turkey. Based on the work of Michael Gough, Toronto, 1985; C. Mango, Germia: a Postscript, in JÖB, 41, 1991, pp. 297–300; H. Elton, Alahan and Zeno, in Anatolian Studies, 52, 2002, pp. 153–57. 40. Poroselene: Hierocl. Synek. 686.9; J. Koder, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 10: Aigaion Pelagos: (die nördliche Ägäis), Wien, 1998, p. 266. 41. Deligiannakis, The Dodecanese, cit. (n. 11), pp. 127–128. Μ. Koutellas, Παλαιοχριστιανικές βασιλικές της Καλύμνου, in Corpus, 49, 2003, pp. 75–85. I. Volanakis, Παλαιοχριστιανικά μνημεία της νήσου Ψερίμου, in Κάλυμνος Ελληνορθόδοξος Ορισμός του Αιγαίου, Athens, 1994, pp. 192–211. 42. Kekova, Gemiler and Karacaören islands, Lycia: H. Hellenkemper, H. Hild, Lykien und Pamphylien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 8), Wien, 2004, pp. 581–84, 600–01, 794–97, 505 (Choironesi), 727–28 (Melanoscope); Tsuji, Olüdeniz Area, cit. (n. 38), pp. 76–77, 131–32 (Aghios Nikolaos); K. Asano, Early Byzantine site in Ölüdeniz area, West Lycia, in H. Friesinger, F. Krinzinger (ed.), 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, Wien, 1999, pp. 721–23. Dana: F. Hild, H. Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, cit. (n. 33), p. 380. Boğsak island, eastern Isauria: Varinlioğlu in this volume.

late antique settlements, between the growing number of villages and the cities.43 The fifth/sixth-century acclamation ‘Long live Asteria, built as a city!’, which is associated with the tiny island of Boğsak and is discussed by Varinlioğlu in this volume, rightfully echoes the aspirations of the inhabitants of these late antique nēsopoleis (‘island towns’).44 I use this term here to describe large insular settlements with high dependence on maritime economy, regardless of their official status for the late Roman provincial administration, since differences in the architectural, demographic and ecclesiastical/political profiles of middle-sized cities and large villages become nominal during this period in large parts of the eastern Mediterranean coastlands.45 The sudden rise and fall of coastal market towns (sprung whether on tiny islands, or along the continental shoreline of Asia Minor) is a recurring phenomenon of the pre-modern Mediterranean, conditioned by the dynamic integration of these communities into expanding long-distance maritime exchange networks in different periods.46 As we saw, many social and economic aspects of these settlements in late antiquity remain unclear due to the lack of written sources and specialised studies of their material evidence. One can therefore stress that, besides the systematic study of the archaeology of these sites, there is an urgent need for a diachronic and comparative analysis of these island societies and of their ecology, with a view to deepening their profiling, from a synchronic point of view.

43. B. Morrison, J.-P. Sodini, The sixth century economy, in A. E. Laiou, (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 179–81. 44. G. Dagron, D. Feissel, Inscriptions de Cilicie (Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies, 4), Paris, 1987, p. 23, nr. 6; Varinlioğlu in this volume, pp. 263-265. 45. For prominent examples from Kos: Deligiannakis, The Dodecanese, cit. (n. 10), pp. 65–67. Compare Aperlae and Andriake in Lycia: R. Hohlfelder, Maritime Connectivity in Late Antique Lycia: A Tale of Two Cities, Aperlae and Andriake in D. Robinson, A. Wilson (eds.), Maritime Archaeology and Ancient Trade in the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2011, pp. 211–22. 46. Compare F. Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, 2 vols, London-New York. 1972, i, esp. p. 150, 154; Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, cit. (n. 38) ch. 4; F. Lätsch, Insularität und Gesellschaft in der Antike. Untersuchungen zur Auswirkung der Insellage auf die Gesellschaftsentwicklung, Stuttgart, 2005; R. E. Kasperson, Dodecanese: Diversity and Unity in Island Politics, Chicago, 1966; E. Zachariadou, Changing Masters in the Aegean, in J. Chrysostomides et al. (eds.), The Greek Islands and the Sea: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium Held at the Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway, University of London, 21–22 September 2001, Camberley, 2004, pp. 199–212.

Kastro Apalirou, Naxos, a Seventh-Century Urban Foundation David Hill*, Håkon Roland*, Knut Ødegård*

Kastro Apalirou de Naxos. Une fondation urbaine du VIIème siècle Cet article présente un résumé des premières phases de recherche entreprises par l’Université d’Oslo à Kastro Apalirou de Naxos, une fondation urbaine fortifiée du VIIème siècle, et discute la fondation ainsi que la fonction du site. Le modèle traditionnellement admis sur l’urbanisation en mer Egée et dans les Cyclades à cette époque est un processus de déclin suivi d’une rétraction. Cependant l’échelle de cette ville, son organisation interne ainsi que le niveau d’investissement, qui sont uniques pour la région, nous permettent d’esquisser une réalité assez différente (Trad. E. Rizos).

Introduction This article presents the results of three years field work undertaken by the Norwegian Institute at Athens1 in collaboration with the 2nd Ephorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities for the Cyclades, at Kastro Apalirou, Naxos. The survey has demonstrated that the scale and size of the Kastro and its presumed foundation in the seventh century makes Apalirou a unique site within the early Byzantine world. The Eastern Mediterranean in the seventh century provides a historical backdrop of insecurity; migrations and invasions into the southern Balkans and the Peloponnese, the prolonged war against Persia followed by Islamic expansion caused territorial contraction and economic disruption. An increase in piracy and sea-borne raiding led to a breakdown in long distance trade.2 A reading of the historical evidence from Byzantine chronicles gives us a picture where little optimism is to be gained, and a pattern of demographic decline and shrinking Imperial power becomes the historical context in the Aegean. Barbaric raids are well attested in the sixth century.3 Arab fleets laid siege to Constantinople around 670 and again in 717–18, and from 827 to 961 Crete was held by Andalusian Arabs to whom Naxos paid a tri-

* University of Oslo. 1. University of Oslo Museum of Cultural History (KHM) and the Institute of Archaeology, History and Conservation (IAKH). 2. P. Magdalino, Naxos and the Aegean World in the 7th and 8th Centuries, in J. Crow, D. Hill (eds.), Proceedings of the Congress Naxos and the Byzantine Aegean 12–13th April 2014 on Naxos, forthcoming. 3. A. Avraméa, Land and Sea Communications, Fourth-Fifteenth Centuries, in A. E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium. Washington, DC, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 57–90, esp. 60–66 with bibliography.

bute.4 After the capture of Thessaloniki, the Arabs sailed by Naxos on the way to Syria.5 Chora, the largest settlement on Naxos, declined in late antiquity, and settlement intensified away from the coast.6 There are a number of indicators however, which suggest that, whilst the Island of Naxos in the seventh century fell into this traditional pattern of decline, it also responded to the crisis positively and developed a strategy of adaptation to the challenges. Naxos has one of the highest densities of Byzantine monuments in the Mediterranean, with up to 150 decorated churches in the landscape, and survey work has shown a correlation between churches and settlements.7 Furthermore, at least 48 of these churches were certainly built earlier than AD1000.8 The density and spread of churches 4. In AD 904 Naxos paid tribute to the Muslims of Crete. Ioannes Cameniates, De expugnatione Thessalonicae 70 (ed. G. Böhlig, CFHB, 4, Berlin, New York, 1973). 5. Cf. Avraméa, Land and Sea Communications, cit. (n. 3), pp. 86–87 on sailing routes and further references. 6. K. Aslanidis, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία στη Νάξο, Doctoral thesis, University of Patras, 2014; idem, Byzantine Church Architecture on Naxos, in Crow, Hill, Congress Naxos, cit. (n. 2), p. 45; V. Lambrinoudakis, Naxos in Imperial and Early Christian Times, ibid. Conclusions based upon the Melanes-Chora aqueduct going out of use, and on excavations in Chora (Grotta, Aplomata) and at Gyroulas, which give a picture of declining activity. 7. Aslanidis, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία, cit. (n.  6), pp.  52–59; G.  S. Mastoropoulos, Naxos: Byzantine Monuments, Athens, 2006, p. 152; A. Vionis, Island Responses in the Byzantine Aegean: Naxos under the lens of current archaeological research , in Crow, Hill, Congress Naxos, cit. (n. 2). 8. Crow J, Turner S. L’archéologie des églises aniconiques de Naxos, in M. Campagnolo, P. Magdalino, M. Martiniani-Reber, A. L. Rey (eds.), L’aniconisme dans l’art religieux byzantin. Actes du colloque de Genève (1–3 Octobre 2009), Genève, 2015, pp. 193–204.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 281-291. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111902

282

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

in the landscape suggests that that the island’s population may have increased through either new settlers from other regions using Naxos as a refuge, and/or demographic growth due to stable economic conditions. The impulses were either a result of direct imperial policy, or through organic development and positive insular ecology on Naxos. Coin hoards from the late eighth century consist exclusively of nomismata of Constantinople, and bear witness of commercial relations with the east in this period.9 Most notable is the construction of the large early Byzantine fortification of Kastro Apalirou that was built at least by the end of the seventh century, and probably took over the role as the main fortified settlement of Naxos. Prior to the Norwegian survey, no systematic study of Kastro Apalirou had been made and only the church of Agios Giorgios had been recorded in any detail.10 There are no textual sources that mention the Kastro as a functioning element of the imperial political system and, as a result, Apalirou has escaped the attention of historians.11 The earliest source that treats the Kastro is from c. 1680 and describes the take-over of the Cyclades by the Venetian Marco Sanudo that began with the siege of Apalirou in 1207.12 The text is seen as being unreliable on details.13 However, it is important, because it outlines the Venetian take-over in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, and the creation of the Duchy of the Archipelago based at Naxos which now became the centre of Venetian rule in the Cyclades. The written sources describe how an expeditionary force was led by Marco Sanudo to capture Naxos, on hearing that a rival Genoese force had taken control of Kastro Apalirou. The fleet moored at the south of the island, advanced inland and laid siege to Apalirou which fell after some weeks. Sanudo created a feudal duchy in the Cyclades and parceled out estates and landholdings to his followers. The account is of importance for Byzantine Naxos, as it shows that Kastro Apalirou was strategically central to the islands. In 1212 Sanudo held control over Naxos, Paros, Ios, Antiparos, Melos, Siphnos, Kythnos, Amorgos, Kimolos, Sikinos, Syra and Pholegandros.14 The recent focus on Byzantine Naxos, by the Norwegian Institute, and the Universities of Edinburgh and Newcastle, 9. C. Morrison, Byzantine Coinage. Production and Circulation, in A. Laiou (ed.), Economic History of Byzantium, Washington, DC, 2002, vol. 3, 901-958. 10. Mastoropoulos, Naxos, cit. (n.  7), pp.  112–13; Aslanidis, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία, cit. (n. 6), pp. 52–60. 11. Some sources mention Naxos, but none mention Apalirou or refer to a town, cf. G. Dimitrokallis, Ο βυζαντινός ναός Ευαγγελιστρίας εις Επισκοπιανά Πάρου, in Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Κυκλαδικών Μελετών, 7, 1968, pp. 642–71. 12. J. K. Fotheringham, L. R. F. Williams, Marco Sanudo: Conqueror of the Archipelago, Oxford, 1915, p. 13. 13. Ben Slot 2013 pers.comm. 14. P. Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 1204–1500, London, New York, 1995, p. 147.

in collaboration with the 2nd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, resulted in an international conference in 2014.15 The goal of the conference was to collect researchers who have worked with Naxian and Aegean material in order to frame the research questions and air the data gained so far. The fieldwork at Apalirou is undertaken therefore within a wider international and inter-disciplinary frame where the settlement and landscape of Byzantine Naxos is the focus.16 The survey of Apalirou is important as it brings new data into Byzantine History. In particular the period from the seventh to the ninth centuries is poorly represented in the sources; between 620 and 670 there are no historical sources for the area covered today by modern Greece, which has contributed to the negative term ‘Dark Age’ being used.17 Little room is left for models of adaptation and development, and assumptions are made that crisis was systemic and complete. As is often the case, ‘Dark Age’ scenarios relate primarily to a hiatus in historical sources. Life did go on though, and other ‘Dark Age’ periods have been revisited and rewritten based upon new archaeological data triggering alternative models.18 Sites that are able to show how the seventh-century Byzantine Empire reacted to ‘contraction’ and ‘collapse’ and demonstrate what responses were employed are vital to understanding the seventh to ninth centuries. Any new data will have to come from archaeological field work bringing new material to Byzantine research. In this respect the fieldwork at Kastro Apalirou and on the historic landscape of Naxos is able to offer new data on the theme of adaptation and change in the seventh century.19 The material presented 15. Naxos and the Byzantine Aegean. Forthcoming publication 2015, J. Crow and D. Hill (eds.). Crow, Hill, Congress Naxos, cit. (n. 2). 16. J. Crow, S. Turner, A. Vionis, Characterizing the Historic Landscapes of Naxos, in Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 24.1, 2011, pp. 111–37. 17. F. Curta, The Edinburgh history of the Greeks, c. 500–1050: The Early Middle Ages, Edinburgh, 2011, p. 97; P. Niewöhner, Die ´Dunklen Jahrhunderte´ im byzantinischen Anatolien, in J. Henning (ed.), Post-Roman towns, trade and settlement in Europe and Byzantium, Vol.  1, The heirs of the Roman West (Millennium-Studien, 5), Berlin, 2007, pp. 140–57; N. PoulouPapadimitriou, The Aegean during the ‘Transitional’ period of Byzantium: the Archaeological Evidence, in Crow, Hill, Congress Naxos, cit. (n. 2). 18. See I. Morris, Early Iron Age Greece, in W. Scheidel, I. Morris, R. P. Saller (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the GrecoRoman World, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 211–42; N. Mac Sweeney, Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia, Cambridge, 2014; H. Härke, Invisible Britons, Gallo Romans and Russians: Perspectives on Culture Change, in N. Higham (ed.), Britons in Anglo Saxon England. Woodbridge, 2007, pp. 57–67. 19. The Apalirou Environs Project between Edinburgh, Newcastle and Oslo will look at long term settlement and landscape development from the Early Bronze Age – Middle Ages and seek to

kastro apalirou, naxos, a seventh-century urban foundation

283

Fig. 1. Map showing Naxos and the location of Kastro Apalirou.

here is new, and represents change and adaptation in the Byzantine Aegean from the end of Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. Kastro Apalirou – location and situation Kastro Apalirou is situated on a mountaintop at an altitude of 485 metres at the south-western part of Naxos, approximately six kilometres from the coast. The mountain is steep on all sides and highly defensible. Sheer crags make up the eastern edge; whilst the western slopes offer easier access albeit at 45% inclines. Defence must have been the priority behind establishing an urban community on the mountain, as there are no sources for water other than what can be collected in run-off cisterns. Transport and general access is compromised by site location and only feasible from the west. However, the survey team noted that Apalirou would have been able to function normally despite its location. Based upon historical context Kastro Apalirou has been dated to the second half of the seventh century; it is unlikely understand the relationship between Kastro Apalirou and the settlements in the surrounding landscape. For methodology see Crow, Turner, Vionis, Historic Landscapes, cit. (n.  6).

that such a location would have been chosen for a new urban foundation before the mid-seventh century, and the preliminary collection of surface finds and numismatic material supports this. So far documentation of the standing remains at Kastro Apalirou has been the main focus of the survey, the second phase of the project will include systematic collection of datable surface material. Chora the traditional capital and urban centre of Naxos from the Bronze Age to the end of Antiquity and again from 1207 to the present day, declined from the mid-seventh century.20 Its fate in the Byzantine period is something of a mystery, but the scarcity of Byzantine monuments and finds in Chora is probably an indication of decline, if not actual abandonment. It is possible that Kastro Apalirou took over some of the administrative and political roles that Chora had, but this hypothesis remains to be confirmed by further fieldwork. Part of Greco-Roman Chora now lies submerged to the west of Grotta, and the aqueduct from Melanes was no longer maintained after the mid-seventh century.21 These facts indicate that the settlement was challenged by a num20. Lambrinoudakis, Naxos in Imperial, cit. (n.  6). 21. Lambrinoudakis, Naxos in Imperial, cit. (n.  6).

284

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 2. Kastro Apalirou seen from the West.

ber of unknown factors in the seventh century. As is often the case with systemic decline, seeking one single trigger to explain a radical change in a material, risks simplifying what surely was a complex situation. The Survey The initial priority of the survey was to increase the level of documentation at Apalirou, and map the site, as it was clear that data needed to be collected in order to start a discussion. The ultimate questions that the survey wanted to ask concerned Apalirou’s status – Was it a fortress or a town, When was it built, How many phases can be observed, And what can Apalirou tell us about the settlement history of Naxos between Late Antiquity and the Middle Byzantine period. The survey was spread over three years with modest seasons of approximately two to three weeks.22 Longer seasons were not practical due to the logistics of working at Apalirou. The site is not easily accessible, and equipment and supplies needed to be carried by the team. The ascent entails a fortyfive minute climb over rough terrain covered by loose rock. Late autumn was the preferred period for fieldwork when temperatures did not require carrying large quantities of water up to the site. Autumn was also more conducive to 22. This article is based on field work until December 2013, new results from subsequent seasons confirm the preliminary conclusions of this paper.

survey than spring, as vegetation on the slopes and at the Kastro seriously affects the visibility of the remains. Survey was undertaken using a Trimble total station, a local coordinate system, based upon UTM, (anchored by handheld GPS points with standard 2–4 m deviation) was laid out. The focus of the first phase of the survey was mapping the circuit walls, the church complex of Agios Georgios and the largest and most visible cisterns. In the second and third phases, the smaller structural remains and the internal street and terrace system were mapped. A digital grid was laid across the site and a systemised recording sheet was used to record contextual data (construction types: Mortar, stonework, building plan and type). Two documentation teams then recorded all standing and visible remains grid square by grid square, whilst a total station team survey refined the plan. ArcGis 10.1 was the preferred GIS package. The working conditions at the Kastro are challenging as structures have collapsed upon themselves and loose stone and rubble often obscures the extent and plan of the visible remains. Results The greatest length enclosed by the curtain walls is 320 m from north to south, whilst the greatest width is 100 m east to west. The area enclosed by the walls is 2.06 ha. The lowest point of the site is 386 m and the highest 485 m, the internal topography of Apalirou is steep and rockyThe spatial organisation of Apalirou suggests that the site was divided into

kastro apalirou, naxos, a seventh-century urban foundation

285

Fig 3. Preliminary plan of Kastro Apalirou (Norwegian Survey 2010–14).

two parts; the northern part contains a large ecclesiastical complex and the substantial community cisterns initial survey suggests that this area was physically divided from the rest of the town by a wall that would have effectively created a citadel. The buildings here are larger and the size of the cisterns show that even larger buildings, no longer visible, lay behind them. A gateway into the citadel, accessed by a stepped entrance, lay between two large cisterns that would also have functioned as a further defensive barrier. This part of the site, to the north of the church complex, was leveled, and not built upon terraces as elsewhere, so that a greater level of planning and spatial control is evident. The second part of the Kastro is located to the southern end of the site and is of a different character. Smaller houses and buildings are laid out upon terraces and are connected by a street plan running throughout. The terraces that the buildings lie on represent a system that would have required internal control at an intra-urban level. We can see signs of both a centrally planned urban system, as well as a domestic zone employing a range of flexible, organic and individual responses. Indeed some of the E/W steeped streets are constructed with a system of gutters that channel rain water across the site to the large community cisterns, and are suggestive of a planned communal mentality. In this part of the site we see a large degree of private decisions and individual adaptation. On the one side we have evidence for the ecclesiastical centre at the northern part of the site, whilst the southern part gives us a glimpse of

a private domestic quarter, such that there is a functional duality visible in the spatial organization of the site. The results of the Apalirou-survey bring fuel to the discussion on the Byzantine Kastro, and the alleged ”castralization” of the Aegean. Are we dealing with a new settlement type different from the well-documented refuge defences on the islands and on the mainland?23 Buildings The survey documented a surprisingly high number of buildings and dense intramural settlement. Through surface survey we have been able to identify two types of building based upon construction type: linear terraced structures (19) that comprise three to five basement partitions, and ‘block houses’ (16), quadratic self-contained domestic units with up to three stories and containing internal cisterns in the basement. We identified a third group of buildings (4) that were defined by size and quality of construction rather than form that formed a group at roughly the mid-point of Apalirou. They were more strongly constructed than the other domestic buildings, and up to three floors in height. 23. J. Crow, Perspectives on the archaeology of Byzantine Greece 600–1000 AD, in Pharos, 20.1, 2014, pp. 291–311, esp. 304–05; M. Veikou, Urban or rural? Theoretical remarks on the settlement patterns of Byzantine Epirus (7th to 11th centuries), in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 103.1, 2010, pp. 171–93.

286

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

There are a further 22 as yet undefined buildings that require further study, and due to collapse issues their architectural details remain obscure. In addition there are a number of cruder structures that can be defined as outhouses or ancillary buildings that are built into recesses in the cliffs left by quarrying, or against crags. The project will undertake more work aimed at refining the typology and function/status of these types, so we expect the picture to develop. The total number of visible houses at by the end of the 2013 season was 70. However, that number is expected to at least double through more intense investigation. We have only surveyed walls that can be defined as a building. As many areas are covered by rubble and collapse, we are able to see the presence of a building but have not been able to survey its outline without moving stone. Based therefore on the areas to be the focus of further study and upon the total terraced area we feel confident that a figure of at least 175 houses/buildings can be expected. Defences The defences are made up of a single curtain wall between 1.5–2 m thick, consisting of loose rubble blocks fixed together with mortar/cement. In large sections, the wall consists only of roughly hewn stones with no binding mortar. There are eight towers, both semi-circular and rectangular, and one gate. The towers are uniform in size, construction, and masonry. The only exception being the semi-circular tower at the West side, near the bastion that was a later addition to the defence walls. The towers are not constructed as an integrated part of the wall, but as extensions to the outside of the wall. The walls are constructed to use the crags and the cliffs effectively. The towers are small and probably had the purpose of creating platforms from which to fire onto an attack made against the walls. There is a stretch of the western walls where there is no visible tower for 166 m, except for the tower attached to the city gate. This is the most vulnerable side and, as such, it seems odd – it may be so therefore that there was a tower that has fallen away or that a tower was not considered necessary here due to reasons that are not clear today. Close intervals between towers were in general considered important on sites mainly built for defensive purposes, in order to be able to engage in crossfire against an enemy. This would not be possible at Apalirou with greater distance between towers. A parallel is found at Corinth were a substantial part of the wall at the vulnerable south flank is guarded only by two towers.24 However, immediately east of the gate at Apalirou a group of large solidly built houses that might have served as a secondary line of defence have been documented. It is difficult to fully understand the defence organisation until further examination of the wall 24. D. Athanasoulis, The Castle of Acrocorinth and its enhancement project (2006–2009), Archaia Korinthos, 2009, p. 44.

on the western slope and adjacent buildings are done. We assume that the height of the walls must have been four to six metres high, which means that considerable degradation of the structure has taken place.25 Much of the material has collapsed and much has been removed, presumably to build fences, terraces and other structures in later periods. There are two visible phases in the defences or, perhaps, it would be better to say, one phase with a later addition or improvement. The probable artillery tower/platform at the north was a later addition. The walls were strengthened and extended to create a platform where heavy artillery could be used, and a platform was created. The addition is visible as a different mortar was used in greater amounts, and more sharply cut stones are used throughout. The southern part also has an inner wall walk behind crenulations that extends southwards to connect with the older defensive wall. To the extreme south and north, the remains of walls abutting the defences have been interpreted as signal or look out towers, both at locations with clear panoramas. We assume that if there was an initial military phase at the site, prior to the construction of the large defensive structure, then it would have been a look-out, pseudo-bastion, or signal tower at the highest point of the Kastro at the south. From here, the whole southern and western approach to the island from the sea can be seen and a beacon or signal visible to most of the populated western side of the island could have been located here. In addition, the location has clear sight to the nearby islands. Churches There are two churches at Apalirou, Agios Georgios, the large church at the centre of the ecclesiastical complex, and a smaller twin apsidal church at the southern end of the site, which was discovered in 2013.26 The church of Agios Georgios was known, and partly studied, before the Norwegian project. It is mentioned briefly by Mastoropoulos,27 and it has also been discussed recently by Aslanidis.28 The dedication to Saint George is not certain, but is based on popular tradition. Agios Georgios is composed of a cluster of structures and the relative chronology between the different parts is not completely clear, mainly due to building debris covering the floor surface. The entrance to the church from the west is almost completely collapsed and makes a reconstruction of this part of the building difficult. The main part of the complex is a double-aisled church, with arcades separating 25. A height of five meters is documented at the Acrocorinth: Athanasoulis, Acrocorinth, cit. (n. 24), p. 45. 26. This church has been partially excavated, results will be published in forthcoming articles. 27. Mastoropoulos, Naxos, cit. (n. 7), pp. 112–13. 28. Aslanidis, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία, cit. (n. 6), pp. 52–59; idem, idem, Byzantine Church Architecture, cit. (n. 6).

kastro apalirou, naxos, a seventh-century urban foundation

287

Fig 4. Kastro Apalirou seen towards North with the church complex of Agios Georgios.

the main aisle to the south from the very narrow northern aisle. The arcades are clearly a later addition, presumably when the original timber roof was replaced by a barrelvaulted roof. It is possible, but not certain, that a small vault was also inserted in the main aisle. In the main apse, three fairly large windows, now in large parts collapsed, opens up towards the east. Another church, or chapel, is located immediately to the south. It is a single aisled structure, located at a slightly higher level than the double-aisled church to the north. This structure was also rebuilt, since the apse shows signs of at least two building phases, presumably also here when the original timber roof was replaced by a barrel-vaulted roof. The chronological relationship between the single-aisled chapel to the south and the main church to the north is not clear. They were evidently at one stage connected through a staircase in the south-western part of the complex, but they were clearly originally constructed as two separate structures. A later addition to these two chapels was at the northern end and oriented at a slightly oblique angle to the doubleaisled church in the south. A doorway in the northern wall of the double-aisled church gave access to these two later chapels. Finally, a barrel-vaulted room was constructed

to the north of the apses of the double-aisled church. The function of this room, which is situated at a lower level, is quite unclear, but an external stairway must have passed on top of it, giving access to a door of the northern aisle of the double-aisled church. A detailed chronology of the Agios Georgios-complex will depend on further works and the cleaning and removal of collapse and building debris. Based on comparison with other, better dated churches at Naxos, an initial construction in the seventh century seems likely, with further rebuilding and additions in the eighth–tenth centuries.29 This was clearly the main ecclesiastical centre of Kastro Apalirou, not only because of its size, but also because of its location in a clearly delimited area in the north of the town (see above). Water supply After the defences, the best-preserved structures at Apalirou are the cisterns. This is simply because mortar, plaster and cement have been used in their construction, and in larger amounts than elsewhere in the site. We note that, even when mortar was used in house construction, it was done 29. Aslanidis, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία, cit. (n. 6), pp. 52–59.

288

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig. 5. Masonry type 1.

sparingly. We interpret this as being a result of economy, since water at Apalirou was restricted, and that sand and lime would also have needed to be carried up to the site. Altogether 50 cisterns have been documented, although several more certainly existed but are buried under collapsed structures today. There are several types of cistern: those built into the basements of the block houses, normally at the lowest (northwestern) corner; freestanding cisterns; and smaller ‘opportunistic’ cisterns built into walls, corners and niches. In addition, we have also the substantial community cisterns at the northern part of the site, which are the largest constructions at Apalirou apart from the defensive walls. These cisterns are part of an apparently integrated hydraulic system that channeled run-off water from across the town and led it to where the community cisterns are located at what is the lowest part of the site. These cisterns also functioned defensively by forming a solid wall incorporated into part of the citadel defences. Based upon their location and spatial integration in the site we can see that the large cisterns were constructed at the same time as the first phase of the ecclesiastical buildings at the southern part of Apalirou, and we should assume that the integrated hydraulic strategy of Apalirou was planned from the beginning. It should be noted as well that the carrying capacity was dependent upon run-off from a large area. When the survey focused on the streets and tracks through the site we observed a system of organized gutters and channels on the stepped streets and north south terraces that was constructed to collect the run off and channel it to large storage cisterns. Almost all other buildings have a cistern, and the size of the community cisterns would have required a large roofed area, that is not visible today, to fill them. Rainfall at levels able to fill cisterns can only be expected

in the winter months, and Apalirou has a small catchment area, so an efficient collection system needed to be in place for when significant rainfall occurred. Cisterns organized at this scale and integrated into a defensive structure also reflect a society prepared for siege, and/or sustained periods of drought. Masonry and mortar The restricted use of mortar at Apalirou has strongly influenced the types of structures that have survived today. Larger buildings, the bastion and cisterns are structures where the use of mortar was necessary or prioritized. As a consequence, they have survived to a higher degree than the buildings with unbounded masonry. The buildings and defences on Apalirou are mostly built with unworked or roughly cut stones. Bricks or building ceramics are not seen making up a part of any construction, but fragments of broken roof tiles and large amphorae sherds are occasionally used for the rough coursing of walls. Ashlar is hardly seen, but is sparsely used in stressed quoins at the corner of towers and in a few larger houses. The stone material observed on the surface of Apalirou can be misleading since we must expect that the greater part of cut stones and ashlar were removed for re-use after the Kastro went out of use. The survey has revealed four roughly classified types of masonry. 1. Uncoursed dry stones are used mainly in the defence wall and towers, terraces and some of the roughly built terraced houses. The stones are mostly unworked or roughly hewn, although stressed quoins are seen especially in the towers. 2. Uncoursed and undressed stones with extensive use of

kastro apalirou, naxos, a seventh-century urban foundation

289

Fig. 6. Masonry type 2.

Fig. 7. Masonry type 3.

smaller, flat stones and tiles for support and stability. The stones are more worked to form a fair faced outer surface. This masonry is used in the larger block houses, and in the outer walls of larger cisterns. A moderate use of mortar is seen in places. 3. This type is in many ways similar to the preceding ones, but it is mainly coursed and has tiles replacing the use of flat stones in between. This masonry is seen in larger block houses and the city gate, and is occasionally used for repair of damages in older walls and buildings. We can also here see moderate use of mortar in places. It has been noted as well that mortar was used at the other part of walls and mud and clay inside, also for reasons of economy. As a general remark, it has been said that bricks used for bonding might

be a late addition in the provinces, and that it perhaps is an inspiration from the central government. An introduction in the provinces from the eighth century has been suggested.30 This model requires brick for coursing, and at Apalirou only tile fragments in small amounts have been observed. A closer examination of the use of tiles (and bricks if used at all) is needed for further studies of Apalirou. 4. The last type of masonry differs strongly from the previous ones. It is uncoursed, made up of sharply cut stones of irregular size, but worked to form a fair face. It is heavily bonded with grey mortar and occasionally with the surface 30. C. Foss, D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications: an Introduction, Pretoria, 1986, p. 145.

290

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

Fig 8. Masonry type 4.

almost completely washed by mortar. This type was used first and foremost for the bastion, but also in a few, larger cisterns and vaulted basements in the larger block houses. The large houses might have served additional function to housing, perhaps food storage. Two main types of mortar are used on Apalirou, grey and pinkish. The main pattern is that grey mortar is used in the masonry of houses and churches, and, to a lesser extent, in towers, the gate, and in the outer wall of cisterns. In the grey mortar we find differences in inclusions. In some parts, inclusions are almost (visually) absent, while in other parts heavy inclusions of charcoal and quartz are seen. Inside the cisterns we can see that pinkish mortar is used without exception. The pinkish colour comes, of course, from heavy inclusions of crushed tiles. This has certainly a function to keep water from entering into sand based mortar that would eventually dissolve. Also, in some of the larger cisterns we find large parts of broken pottery used as fill in the inside walls. The use of two types of mortar follows a clear functional division between defence walls and general buildings on one side, and the interior of cisterns on the other. Clearly a hydraulic mortar was needed for the inner walls of cisterns that were in contact with water. According to common late Roman and Byzantine practice, hydraulic mortar was produced by the addition of crushed tiles into the lime, which makes this mortar type easy to distinguish from the other.31

31. J. Bardill, Building materials and techniques, in E. Jeffreys, J. Haldon, R. Cormack (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 2008, pp. 335–52, esp. 336 with references.

End of Apalirou and systematic destruction The end of Apalirou as a central place and defended centre is easier to discuss than its beginning. We have written sources that describe the end, a clear historical sequence and the monuments that took over from Apalirou are well studied. One interesting aspect that we noticed was that all of the freestanding cisterns were destroyed systematically by having a hole knocked through at their lowest point. In addition, it seems that the tower and ramparts at the northern end have also been chiselled away and lowered to neutralise them. We must assume that this has also occurred at the gate towers at the entrance as they do not remain visible today. This neutralising of the site is clearly systematic and thorough, and carried out by the Venetians after they had built both the new Kastro at Chora and at Apano Kastro. We suggest that they would also have issued a law that no-one was to re-occupy Apalirou. which was was then left as a ruin. This fact also suggests that early Venetian rule on the island was tense and enforced by law and military control. Conclusion It remains to say that Apalirou is an important site for Byzantine Studies. Within the context of this volume, it is valuable to present here a post Late-Antique urban foundation, representing a reaction to the challenges of the seventh century. Kastro Apalirou provides important data with which we can discuss the important and source-empty early and middle-Byzantine periods. That Apalirou was not constructed upon Roman remains, nor built upon by a later medieval town is also unique. Monemvasia and Mistras could offer parallels, however both are later than Apalirou, and altered by later medieval

kastro apalirou, naxos, a seventh-century urban foundation

developments. With the exception of the bastion and rampart mentioned above, it seems that the defence walls and (some of the) towers bear traces of Dark Age construction. In some parts of the settlement, later buildings have replaced and erased the earlier ones. However, the significant extent of the defence walls, and what appears to be an early general settlement plan indicate that Apalirou from the beginning was planned as an urban settlement, and not simply as a small, defensive stronghold. Further studies on the masonry and building phases of the defences and buildings are needed to reach certain conclusions regarding the chronology and construction phases. Adaptation and evolution in the face of change have been seen as the strengths of the Byzantine system. Apalirou and Byzantine Naxos represent that in a particular and definite way. In general, settlements withdrawn from the coastline, with strong defences and difficult access tend to be regarded as signs of poverty, escape and decline. However, this might not be the case. Planning and constructing a large kastron on an acropolis should perhaps rather be

291

seen in the light of a deliberate policy, as a response to a shift in economic and political preconditions. It may even ‘coincide with affluence rather than decline in the civilian settlement below’.32 To follow Niewöhner further, we can also question if the paucity of archaeological evidence for continuous urban habitation might be accounted for by the inability to identify ceramics of the period. Difficult access in mountainous areas such as on Naxos was not necessarily a disadvantage or a hindrance for trade and maritime activity. Apalirou was built in an area of Naxos that has the necessary harbours and deep water anchorage, proximity of forest resources, defensive opportunities and supplies of fresh water.33 That archaeology will need to play the main or only role in unlocking the information contained at Apalirou is also interesting. The material at Apalirou will be able to provide valuable information on ceramic chronologies, architectural types, etc. It is not often that a new town is ‘discovered’ that has the potential to influence and contextualise the history of this period.

32. Niewöhner, Dunklen Jahrhunderte, cit. (n. 17), p. 144. The ongoing field survey in the area below the Kastro has revealed substantial traces of habitation. 33. A. Laiou, C. Morrisson, The Byzantine Economy, Cambridge, 2007, p. 15.

Villes neuves dans l’Antiquité Tardive. Conclusion Jean-Michel Spieser*

Il est toujours difficile de conclure un colloque de manière à s’assurer de n’oublier aucun des thèmes importants et, par ailleurs, de ne pas simplement répéter ce qu’on peut déjà lire dans les résumés publiés. Je vais donc essayer d’éviter ce double écueil, de passer en revue l’ensemble des communications en les regroupant de manière à mettre en évidence quelques grands thèmes qui m’ont paru se dégager de ces journées. La première impression qui se dégage de ces communications, une des plus importantes peut-être, est, à travers et malgré des traits communs, l’extraordinaire diversité des situations, non seulement régionales, mais même à l’intérieur d’une même région. Cette diversité, comme le fait remarquer J. Bintliff, n’est pas seulement le fait des villes, mais aussi des campagnes et de l’occupation du sol1. Mais, en ce qui concerne les villes, un autre élément se rajoute à cette confusion. La ville romaine semblait répondre de manière stable à une double définition ; elle était caractérisée par sa monumentalité, plus précisément par la présence de certains types de monuments qu’une ville se devait d’avoir élevés, mais elle possédait aussi un statut juridique particulier qui en faisait une πόλις. Or, à travers les secousses subies par l’empire à partir du IIIe siècle, cet équilibre apparaît comme rompu. Cela concerne même les cités à l’existence ancienne, qui connaissent des évolutions différentes, mais c’est encore plus frappant pour les villes neuves fondées dans ces siècles agités. C’est un paradoxe de voir se créer des villes dans une période qui passe généralement pour une période de récession, mais ce n’est pas une évolution linéaire qui conduit à la situation difficile de la fin du VIe siècle. Des agglomérations neuves se créent, mais, en particulier, des agglomérations qu’on ne sait pas trop comment qualifier, ce qui apparaît comme une nouveauté. En Pannonie sont construites, à partir du IVe siècle, des forteresses qui ne sont plus simplement des forteresses2. La situation militaire est évidemment la raison de ces créations. Leur statut est ambigu et leur vie relativement courte puisque l’abandon * Université de Fribourg – Suisse. 1. Voir J. Bintliff dans ce volume. Voir aussi C. Morrisson, J.-P. Sodini, The Sixth Century Economy, in A. E. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium I (DOS 39), Washington, 2007, pp. 171–220, en particulier, 175–179. 2. Voir Heinrich-Tamáska dans ce volume.

de la Pannonie entraîne aussi l’abandon de ces forteresses. D’autres sites nouveaux en des lieux difficiles d’accès ont été observés en Bulgarie, mais ils ne sont pas justifiables d’une explication aussi claire que ceux de Pannonie3. Leur typologie n‘est pas nettement établie. En raison de leur situation, ces créations paraissent liées à des questions d’insécurité, mais leur apparition paraît antérieure aux invasions slaves et avares. L’accent a été mis sur les problèmes de ravitaillement dans la mesure où, à proximité immédiate de ces sites, la culture du blé ne semble pas possible. Il a été suggéré qu’ils n’ont donc été habités qu’à des périodes où un ravitaillement par l’annone ou par l’armée pouvait encore être assuré. Leur abandon serait lié au moment où l’état n’arrivait plus à assurer cette fonction dans cette région. Cette approche est intéressante, mais elle semble encore nécessiter une réflexion supplémentaire. D’autres solutions pourraient être suggérées. Aussi bien les forteresses de Pannonie que ces sites de refuge ne prétendent évidemment pas à la monumentalité qui est celle des villes et des cités. Il en est de même pour d’autres agglomérations, qui, malgré une taille relativement importante, plus étendue que certaines villes, et malgré une visible prospérité, ne sont pas des villes. Gilbert Dagron les a désignées par le terme de bourgades, en référence essentiellement à la Syrie4. Elles ne sont pas liées à l’armée, mais plutôt à une importante activité agricole. Les fouilles d’Androna permettent de mieux connaître ce type d’habitat. Androna ne montre aucun développement administratif, ni aucune activité artisanale5. Elle est plutôt ce que, en termes contemporains, on pourrait appeler un gros bourg agricole. Aucune élite sociale n’y était présente pour revendiquer le statut juridique de cité.

3. Cette problématique a été présentée dans une communication au colloque qui n’as pas été donnée pour publication : Ch. Kirilov, Emergence, Character and Decline of Fortified Hilltop Settlements in the Eastern Balkans (5th-7th c. AD). 4. G. Dagron, Entre village et cité : la bourgade rurale des IVe–VIIe siècles en Orient, dans Koinonia, 3, 1979, pp. 29–52, (réimprimé dans G. Dagron, La Romanité chrétienne en Orient. Héritages et mutations, London, 1984, texte VII) 5. Voir M. Mundell Mango dans ce volume ; voir aussi, dans ce volume, Crow, p. 102, avec les références données, en particulier, à Morrisson, Sodini, Sixth Century, cit. n. 1, pp. 179–181.

New Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, edited by Efthymios Rizos, Turnhout 2017 (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, 35), pp. 293-297. FHG DOI 10.1484/M.BAT-EB.5.111906

294

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

La petite île de Boğsak Ada présente une autre image de cette ambiguïté6. Une inscription suggère que l’agglomération qui y était installée durant l’antiquité tardive s’appelait Asteria. L’absence apparente de statut juridique de cité semble l’apparenter à Androna, mais il ne s‘agit pas d’un bourg agricole. Malgré sa taille restreinte, l’agglomération bénéficie d’une architecture monumentale, même si elle n’est pas tout à fait aboutie. L’île était une escale. Sa prospérité semble plutôt liée à un pèlerinage qui a dû s’y établir, mais dont la renommée n’a sans doute pas duré. Ces agglomérations atypiques créées montrent une nouvelle hiérarchie plus complexe et moins claire. Néanmoins, dans l’Antiquité tardive, la notion de polis, c’est-à-dire des agglomérations qui avaient le droit de cité, restait prégnante. Dans l’optique de ce colloque, il s’agissait aussi de voir, si, par delà ces agglomérations d’un type nouveau, des poleis neuves ont aussi été fondées. La réponse n’est pas univoque et il convient de faire un certain nombre de distinctions. Ce sont d’abord ce que l’on pourrait appeler de fausses villes neuves qui ont été mentionnées. Il faut désigner ainsi des agglomérations qui existaient déjà, mais qui n’avaient pas le droit de cité. C’est, par exemple, la situation de Tymandos en Pisidie. Ce village s’est développé progressivement et, pour cette raison, a obtenu le statut de cité sous Dioclétien. Il serait intéressant de savoir si un développement monumental, en principe marque d’une cité, a suivi cette « promotion » ou, éventuellement, l’a précédé, mais on n’a guère d’indication à ce sujet7. Naziance semble avoir connu la même évolution, même si une source précise manque, mais ne paraît pas avoir connu de développement monumental. On connaît bien, par une inscription, la situation d’Orkistos qui perd, puis retrouve sous Constantin, le droit de cité8. Mais il faut bien se rendre compte que ces petites cités n’ont pas grand-chose à voir avec les grandes cités d’Asie Mineure ou de Grèce, dont les vestiges modèlent l’image habituelle que nous nous faisons de la ville de l’Antiquité tardive. Un autre exemple de cette ambiguïté est donné par Grégoire de Naziance qui trouvait que Sasima, son siège épiscopal, situé sur le plateau anatolien, était poussiéreuse, bruyante, remplie de vagabonds et n’avait rien d’une ville9. Il faut peut-être mentionner dans la même catégorie l’agglomération qui s’est développée sur l’îlot de Saria à proximité de

6. Voir G. Varinlioğlu dans ce volume. 7. Le cas de Tymandos a été présenté par B. Hürmüzlü, New Investigations at Pisidian Tymandos and its Environs, sans être donné pour la publication : voir B. Hürmüzlü, Preliminary Report on Results of the Isparta Archaeological Survey 2008 : New Investigations at Pisidian Tymandos, en Colloquium Anatolicum, 8, 2009, pp. 199–233. Voir aussi, dans ce volume, E. Rizos, New cities. 8. Pour Naziance et Orkistos, voir Rizos, New cities, dans ce volume. 9. Grégoire de Naziance, Carmina II, L (PG 37, col 1059–1060).

Karpathos, entre la Crète et Rhodes10. Les sources ne sont pas très claires sur son statut ancien, mais elle se développe de manière importante durant l’Antiquité Tardive, sans que la datation puisse être précisée, mais cette prospérité ne semble pas durer. L’hypothèse a été faite qu’il s’agit d’une quatrième cité de Karpathos, mais il n’est pas très clair si le développement dans l’antiquité tardive correspond à une nouvelle situation administrative. Elle partage avec d’autres villes neuves le caractère éphémère de son développement11, mais son évolution pourrait aussi bien se rapprocher de celle d’Asteria sur l’île de Boğsak Ada, rappelée ci-dessus. L’histoire d’Erzurum  / Théodosioupolis est différente. Fondée sans doute à la fin du IVe siècle, comme une fortification, elle devient une cité à une date qui reste encore discutée12. Sa situation de ville frontière, de ville de négociations assure son importance. Serdica, l’actuelle Sofia, connaît une évolution parallèle. C’est d’abord une fondation peu importante de Trajan ; elle est fortifiée sous Marc-Aurèle, puis croît systématiquement comme capitale de province et profitera ensuite de sa situation sur la grande voie de communication qui s’est mise en place entre l’Ouest de l’Europe et l’Asie, sanctionnée en quelque sorte par la fondation de Constantinople13. On reviendra encore plus loin sur l’évolution très variable des différents types de villes neuves. Une autre catégorie de villes que l’on pourrait appeler neuves, en forçant un peu le terme, serait celle de villes qui existaient déjà, mais dont le site a été déplacé, sans doute pour des raisons de sécurité. Cela semble être le cas du site de Viranşehir14. Cette agglomération ne garde rien de l’aspect monumental qui s’attache en principe à une cité. Elle a visiblement été construite rapidement, à l’écart, mais elle a été identifiée avec la cité de Mokisos. Les habitants de celleci ont abandonné leur ville, peut-être sous Justinien, plus vraisemblablement sous Anastase, et en ont reconstruit à la hâte une nouvelle dans un lieu où ils étaient plus en sécurité. Une évolution tout aussi peu claire est celle de l’agglomération de Golemo Gradište15. Elle semble résulter d’un développement lié à la relocalisation, pour des raisons de sécurité, dans une situation élevée, d’habitants de petites agglomérations ou de sites qui avaient des fonctions diverses, dans une région essentiellement minière, sans jamais jouir du droit de cité. Une autre hypothèse serait qu’elle remplace, dans sa fonction administrative, Lamud, une cité qui était à proximité, plus exposée et dont la population diminue peu à peu au IVe siècle. A-t-on voulu au Ve siècle fonder un centre administratif dans une région qui en était dépourvue ? Mais cette fondation prend aussi place dans un mouvement général lié à l’insécurité. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Voir G. Deligiannakis et V. Karabatsos dans ce volume. Voir ci-dessous. Voir J. Crow dans ce volume. Pour Serdica, Rizos, New cities, dans ce volume, p. 24-25. Voir A. Berger dans ce volume. Voir C. Snively dans ce volume.

villes neuves dans l’antiquité tardive. conclusion

Un dernier aspect de ces « fausses villes neuves » est donné par des villes qui existaient déjà, qui avaient ou avaient eu le statut de cité, mais qui ont perdu de leur importance avant qu’une nouvelle donne ne la leur rende. On pourrait parler de « refondation », sans que ce mot ait toujours un sens institutionnel précis. La ville qu’il faut mentionner ici est avant tout Constantinople, mais son évolution est suffisamment connue pour qu’il ait été inutile d’introduire dans ce colloque un rappel de ce qu’était la Constantinople paléochrétienne16. Il a néanmoins été insisté à juste titre sur la manière dont elle a contribué au développement de la région du Bosphore17. Pour cette catégorie aussi, plutôt qu’une série homogène, ce sont des cas particuliers qui apparaissent. Celui d’Amida, aujourd’hui Diyabarkır, est particulièrement intéressant, mais peu clair18. Son importance antérieure semble certaine, puisque son nom apparaît dès le IXe siècle av. J.-C., mais, pour reprendre l’expression employée dans ce volume, elle semble surgir du néant sous Constance II19. Il n’est pas exclu qu’elle reçoive seulement à ce moment le statut de civitas, si bien qu’il aurait peut-être fallu la mentionner cidessus dans une autre catégorie. C’est un indice de plus de la diversité des situations abordées dans ce colloque, qui ne se laissent pas facilement enfermer dans des catégories bien distinctes. Sa situation sur la frontière orientale de l’empire a conduit Constance II d’abord, Jovien ensuite, à lui donner des moyens après deux sièges où elle avait été prise. Elle est alors pourvue de monuments dont il ne reste presque plus de traces, sauf les remparts qui se sont développés en plusieurs étapes. Une étape, sans doute décisive de son développement et de son importance future, est, entre ces deux règnes, la perte par l’empire de Nisibe. Une grande partie de ses habitants se réfugie à Amida. Les remparts marquent l’importance politique et militaire de la ville, les autres monuments, l’importance symbolique que lui donnent les empereurs. Un autre cas particulier, à ranger pourtant dans cette catégorie, est celui de Thèbes de Phthiotide, aujourd’hui Néa Anchialos, ville détruite, mais qui renaît peu à peu sans intervention officielle semble-t-il, et tout en se déplaçant. Pour des raisons qui n’apparaissent pas clairement, elle devient plus dynamique que sa voisine Démétrias20. 16. Voir, par exemple, pour le développement pendant la période traitée dans ce volume, C. Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople, Paris 1985. 17. Voir E. Rizos, M. H. Sayar dans ce volume. 18. Voir A. Pérez, M. Assénat dans ce volume. 19. Pérez-Assénat, cit., p. 57. Voir aussi, pour Amida, Rizos, New cities, p. 22, dans ce volume. 20. Communication d’O. Karageorgiou qui n’est pas publiée ici. Voir ead., « Christian » or Thessalian Thebes : The port city of Late Antique Thessaly, dans J. Albani, E. Chalkia (éd.), Heaven & Earth. Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens, 2013, pp. 156–167.

295

Les aspects qui viennent d’être évoqués ont déjà montré que le concept de « villes neuves » recouvre des réalités très variées. La fondation de villes ex novo n’en est qu’un cas particulier. Celles-ci aussi connaissent des évolutions très différenciées à partir de situations de départ particulières et il est difficile de les ramener à un modèle commun. Zénobie, au bord de l’Euphrate, est une fondation du IIIe siècle, qui connaît un nouvel essor sous Justinien, puis dure jusqu’à l’époque omeyyade, mais son étude n’est pas encore assez avancée pour que l’on comprenne bien dans quelles conditions elle a vécu ou survécu, ni les raisons claires de son abandon21. Un nombre important de villes ont été fondées dans la période 250–350, en particulier par les tétrarques, surtout dans les Balkans, et, avec d’autres caractéristiques, en Anatolie22. Elles sont connues de manière très inégale. Elles ont en commun d’être liées, mais pas toutes de la même façon, à des besoins militaires. Certaines, dans les Balkans paraissent destinées à abriter une légion ; d’autres en Anatolie, sont plutôt des points d’appui23. Elles reçoivent le statut de cités, mais elles n’ont pas toujours profité d’un décor monumental ; quelques éléments en existent à Hisarya/ Diocletianopolis en Thrace ; un exemple contraire semble être Maximianoupolis en Pamphylie où on n’a pas repéré de monument. Dans de nombreux cas, on ne sait guère ce qui les a éventuellement précédées, ni, de manière précise, la date de leur abandon. L’équilibre traditionnel entre monuments et cité est, là aussi, rompu. À ce point de vue, la situation est la même que ce qui a été décrit ci-dessus pour MokisosViranšehir, mais à une époque bien antérieure. Nous avons déjà évoqué les incertitudes liées à la fondation et au développement de Golemo Gradište : cette fondation pourrait aussi bien être incluse dans cette catégorie. Par contre, on peut plus sûrement comparer ces fondations des tétrarques aux villes, comme Helenopolis, Rhegion et bien d’autres, fondées au IVe siècle en relation avec le développement de Constantinople et sur lesquelles on reste aussi peu informé24. C’est toute la région du Bosphore qui profite alors d’un nouveau dynamisme. D’autres cités neuves, présentées dans ce volume, sont fondées et se développent, dans un premier temps du moins, d’une manière tout à fait traditionnelle pour une cité, mais les circonstances de leur naissance et leur développement postérieur en font autant de cas particuliers. Dara/Anastasioupolis, tout en étant fondée au début du VIe siècle, pour des raisons militaires, est construite

21. Voir S. Blétry dans ce volume. 22. Pour les villes mentionnées dans les lignes suivantes, voir Rizos, New Cities dans ce volume. 23. C’est à cette problématique que peuvent aussi se rattacher les nouvelles fortifications de Palmyre construites sous Dioclétien : voir E. Intagliata dans ce volume. 24. E. Rizos, M. H. Sayar dans ce volume.

296

new cities in late antiquity. documents and archaeology

comme une cité et devient même capitale de province25. Ses monuments sont encore mal connus, mais leur existence est mentionnée par les textes. Dara décline à partir du moment où, conquise par les Arabes, elle cesse d’être ville-frontière et ne joue plus le rôle pour lequel elle a été créée. C’est le cas aussi de Caričin Grad où, sur une petite surface, tous les monuments qu’on s’attend à trouver dans une cité sont présents26. Mais Justiniana Prima, puisque cette identification doit maintenant être considérée comme sûre, ne survivra pas non plus au changement de la situation politique. Elle n’a jamais joué le rôle administratif important que Justinien avait voulu lui attribuer, mais même son rôle local a perdu son sens lorsque les Slaves se seront installés dans l’Illyricum. Elle sera abandonnée dans les premières décennies du VIIe siècle. Les deux fondations wisigothiques d’Espagne évoquées dans ce colloque se comparent aisément avec Caričin Grad : fondées pour des raisons politiques ou militaires, elles sont abandonnées lorsqu’elles ne jouent plus ce rôle (dans ce cas, parce que les Omeyyades finissent par fonder de nouvelles villes)27. L’analogie entre Reccopolis et Justiniana Prima est encore renforcée par la construction, dans les deux fondations, d’un aqueduc, à la fois élément de prestige et élément très utile, sinon nécessaire en raison de l’absence d’eau sur la colline où s’élevaient ces villes. Resafa, en Syrie, est un dernier cas particulier, tout en présentant des analogies avec les exemples précédents28. La ville se développe lentement à partir d’un camp romain sans que l’on sache avec précision quel était son développement avant qu’Anastase n’en favorise l’essor, sans doute pour aider des tribus alliées. Resafa était déjà un centre de pèlerinage, mais il est vraisemblable que l’intervention d’Anastase et l’essor de la ville, devenue une métropole, qui l’a suivi ont également profité au pèlerinage. La situation militaire et politique de la fin du VIe siècle et au VIIe siècle provoquent un affaiblissement de la ville qui connaît, cependant, un dernier essor sous les Omeyyades. Enfin une dernière fondation, au VIIe siècle, a fait l’objet d’une communication. À Naxos, une forteresse, qui devient une petite ville, Kastro Apalirou, est construite sur les hauteurs à l’écart de la côte29. Elle devient le centre le plus important de Naxos. Alors que les exemples précédents se rattachaient au passé, Naxos annonce l’avenir et cette ville n’a plus aucune des caractéristiques de la cité antique. Une des raisons de sa fondation est certainement l’insécurité, mais il est aussi l’écho de transformations plus profondes. Ce n’est pas par hasard que cette fondation d’un type nouveau date du VIIe siècle qui, plus que tout siècle précédent, montre que nous ne sommes plus dans l’Antiquité.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Voir E. Keser-Kayaalp, N. Erdoğan dans ce volume. Voir V. Ivanišević dans ce volume. Voir J. Martínez Jiménez dans ce volume. Voir D. Sack, M. Gussone dans ce volume. Voir K. Ødegård, D. Hill et H. Ingvaldsen dans ce volume.

Dans les pages précédentes, j’ai essayé de dégager et de regrouper les principaux thèmes qui se sont dégagés des communications de ce colloque. Peut-on généraliser davantage ? En particulier, dans quelle mesure ces communications sur les villes neuves donnent-elles des aperçus sur la problématique des villes en général ? Comme il a été souligné, il n’est plus possible de répondre simplement en choisissant entre « continuité » et « catastrophes »30. Catastrophes, tremblements de terre, invasions, massacres ont souvent existé et bien des villes, à de nombreuses époques, s’en sont remis. Les catastrophes sont des éléments supplémentaires qui ne deviennent décisifs que lorsqu’ils frappent une situation déjà compromise. L’exemple d’Antioche, qu’il est inutile de reprendre ici en détail, est parlant à travers les renouveaux qu’elle a connus après de graves catastrophes avant de décliner. Il se conçoit facilement que les villes subissent des évolutions qui ne concernent pas qu’elles, que la prospérité de l’état facilite croissance et multiplication et vice-versa. Mais ce qui est intéressant à l’époque considérée ici, c’est la grande diversité avec laquelle réagissent les villes pendant les profondes transformations que connaît l’empire romain à partir du IIIe siècle, comme d’ailleurs dans la situation difficile qui commence à la fin du VIe siècle. C’est précisément cette disparité, qui affecte aussi bien les villes anciennes que les villes neuves, comme ces communications l’ont montré, qui empêche de se rallier aux solutions simples rappelées au début de ce paragraphe. Pour arriver à une description plus générale et plus abstraite, il faut invoquer la notion de système31. C’est ce que fait, dans sa communication, John Bintliff, qui rappelle que les systèmes en crise ne décomposent pas de manière linéaire. Il se crée des distorsions qui expliquent la formation de points forts et de points faibles, dans le cas présent, de zones de prospérité et de zones d’abandon. D’ailleurs, comme le rappelle la même communication, cette disparité dans l’évolution se retrouve aussi dans les campagnes. La notion de système est bien celle qui est nécessaire pour comprendre l’évolution du monde romain à partir du IIIe siècle. C’est la seule manière de rendre compte des interactions entre les multiples causes de ces transformations. La crise du système vient du fait que les équilibres, qui étaient ceux du fonctionnement de l’empire romain, sont rompus, équilibre entre pression externe et possibilités de défense, entre taille du territoire à administrer et les possibilités de communication entre centre et périphérie, pour ne citer que les plus flagrants, sans compter l’immense bouleversement du christianisme, celui-ci étant aussi une tentative de réponse à ce déséquilibre. Un nouveau type de ville, représenté dans ce colloque par Naxos, va se dégager. Ces villes ne sont plus soutenues par les bases idéologiques et économiques de la 30. Voir J. Crow dans ce volume. 31. Voir J. Bintliff dans ce volume.

villes neuves dans l’antiquité tardive. conclusion

cité classique qui reposaient sur une classe de notables qui ne joue plus le même rôle et qui est elle-même transformée par les bouleversements évoqués. Mais il est nécessaire aussi, en-deçà de ce niveau d’abstraction, de mettre en évidence quelques facteurs qui, dans un système de cette complexité, sont à la fois causes et conséquences. On peut partir de l’opposition, mise en lumière par le vocabulaire dans certaines langues modernes, villes vs cités. Le droit de cité est obtenu par des agglomérations qui, comme nous l’avons vu, ne correspondent pas à ce que spontanément, on appellerait aujourd’hui villes, et qui, d’ailleurs, ne correspondaient pas non plus aux habitudes traditionnelles. C’est une sorte d’inflation du droit de cité à laquelle on assiste, avant que cette notion même soit abandonnée, parce qu’elle n’avait plus de sens, parce qu’il n’y avait plus de fonds disponibles, parce que les donations pour l’Église ainsi que le pouvoir central drainaient davantage les ressources et les surplus financiers. Si on considère le sort des villes neuves, on constate une opposition forte entre villes fortes et villes faibles, entre villes qui durent et villes qui disparaissent rapidement. Des villes plus anciennes ont d’ailleurs connu la même évolution dispersée. La comparaison entre deux villes relativement proches géographiquement fait apparaître clairement ce phénomène. Caričin Grad, fondé dans des circonstances et un environnement très particuliers, ne survit pas dès que ces conditions changent. Serdica, au contraire, va non seulement survivre, mais aussi prospérer. C’est l’importance de la route qui relie l’Europe centrale à Constantinople qui entraîne ce développement.

297

Les villes qui survivent sont celles qui bénéficient d’un certain nombre de conditions favorables qui leur permettent de résister aux crises. Il ne devrait pas paraître étonnant que les villes anciennes, dont la fondation s’est imposée en raison d’une situation favorable, par exemple à un carrefour de routes, bénéficient de plus de stabilité que des villes neuves dont la fondation est souvent liée à une situation historique particulière. C’est le cas, déjà évoqué, de Caričin Grad, mais certainement aussi celui de Golemo Gradište et d’un certain nombre d’autres agglomérations éphémères évoquées dans ce colloque, comme bon nombre des fondations tétrarchiques. Même l’évolution de Resafa, qui survit plus longtemps et qui a une histoire plus complexe, relève de cette explication. On pourrait dire que les conditions géographiques qui restent stables dans les temps considérés, gagnent ou perdent en dynamisme en fonction de la situation politique. Être situé sur le Bosphore n’a pas suffi pour que Byzance devienne une ville importante. Mais l’évolution politique peut aussi avoir l’effet contraire et affecter même des villes anciennes : le commerce du grain n’enrichit plus la Thessalie, ce qui explique la disparition de villes comme Démétrias ou Thèbes en Phthiotide. En fait, le sort des villes neuves, examinées dans ce colloque, est une sorte de miroir grossissant des problèmes que rencontrent aussi les villes anciennes de l’empire. Les siècles de l’antiquité tardive voient le passage progressif de la partie orientale de l’empire romain, qui était un empire des villes, à un nouvel empire plus centralisé, dont le fonctionnement est différent et où les villes ne jouent plus le même rôle.