Secular Buildings and the Archaeology of Everyday Life in the Byzantine Empire 1842171054

Citation preview

Secular Buildings and the Archaeology of Everyday Life in the Byzantine Empire

Edited by Ken Dark

Oxbow Books 2004

LC.sTPiC~~

1'/ ~\

31-'0 r9~\1-

2. uOl--\

Published by Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OXl I HN

© Oxbow Booles, Ken Dark and contributors 2004

ISBN 1 842171054

A CIP record for this book is available fro111 the British Library

Cover: A Byzantine street at Sardis

This book is available direct from Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford, OXl IHN (Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449)

and The David Brown Book Company PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA (Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)

and via our website www.oxbowbooks.com

Printed in Great Britain by AntonyRowe Chippenham

Contents

Introduction The Heart of the Empire: The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors Reconsidered J. Kostenec

1 4

2

Early Byzantine Housing S. Ellis

37

3'

Middle and Late Byzantine Houses in Greece (tenth to fifteenth centuries) L. Sigalos

53

4

Shops, retailing and the local economy in the Early Byzantine world: the example of Sardis A. Harris

82

5

Everyday Artefacts as Indicators of Religious Belief in Byzantine Palestina E. Ribak

123

Introduction

The origin of this book was the 2001 'Summer Symposium' of the Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies of The University of Reading, held at the Faeulty of Letters and Social Sciences in July of that year. The success of that symposium played an important part in establishing the Rescarch Centre for Late Antiquc and Byzantine Studies at Reading. However, the present volume is not simply a publication of the papers given on that occasion. It focuses on an academie theme, rather than a scholarly cvcnt. This theme is the archaeology of everyday life in the Byzantine Empire and, especially, the archaeology of secular domestic structures. The 'archaeology of everyday life' may be defined as the study of how people live on a dayto-day basis, both at home and within the wider communities of which they are a part. The ability to use archaeology to reconstruct day-to-day existence is a mainstay of conventional archaeological research worldwide, but - with notable exceptions - remains a somewhat underexplored aspect of the archaeology of the Byzantine world. Historians have not neglected the study of Byzantine everyday life. To the contrary, their recent work has placed much importance on this, alongside more traditional concerns ofpolitical, religious or intellectual history, theology, aesthetics and literature (for recent examples: Miller 1997; Saradi 1998; Thomov and Ilieva 1998; Magdalino 2000; Mango 2000; NeClpolglu 2001; Laiou 2002). Nonetheless, material evidence for Byzantine eVClyday life remains relatively unstudied compared to that of comparable periods and places. In this respect, many historians studying the Byzantine world have been ahead of most of their archaeological counterparts. Partly, this neglect may be because archaeological study of the Byzantine world has had a rather chequered history. As is well known, until recently Byzantine deposits were often simply 'shovelled away' on sites investigated to examine their Hellenistie, Classical or pre-Classical dimensions.! Moreover, there arc not (and never have been) nearly as many archaeologists working on the Byzantine world as on the Classical period or prehistory. As a result, the role played by archaeologists in the study of these other periods has frequently been assumed by art historians, or by historians interested in material culture as a subsidiary source alongside texts. Thus, mainstream developments in archaeological method and theory, as well as the broader debates and concerns of the discipline, have often passed the study of the Byzantine world by.2 While far more attention is being paid to Byzantine material culture today, both on- and offsite, it is still conspicuously truc that many archaeologists working on the Byzantine Empire remain primarily foeussed on works of art or (usually ecclesiastical) architecture. Moreover, the conceptual basis of the archaeological study of the period often rcmains rooted in the methods and theoretical assumptions of 'Descriptivist' archaeology. Recent studies (eg. Rheidt 1990; Laiou 2000) have begun to improve archaeological knowledge of everyday life in Byzantine towns. However, agricultural life, village communities and fanus - that is, how most of the Byzantine population actually lived - are still neglected by archaeologists in many parts of what once was the Byzantine state. Consequently, while

2

Ken Dark

Byzantine Studies is now a large, flourishing and diverse field, in this - as in many respects 'Byzantine archaeology' lags far behind the archaeological Shldy of the Roman Empire or western medieval world. While this sihmtion has improved greatly in recent years, and these comments do not apply to all those studying the archaeology of the Byzantine world (nor equally to every pmi of what was that world), many of the most obvious archaeological themes remain unexplored. Many conventional archaeological techniques (such as environmental analysis or animal bone studies) are still seldom applied to Byzantine material. The sihmtion is at its best in regard to the material culture of the Early Byzantine period, that is, to the archaeology of the Eastern Roman Empire in Late Antiquity (Ball 2000; Cameron, Ward-Perkins and Whitby 2000). Fifth- to seventh- century deposits are frequently encountered on Roman-period settlements in the eastern Mediterranean, and the burial of populations contemporary with these settlements is often found both at church sites and in cemeteries established earlier in the Roman period. The excavation and publication of such deposits and burials has led to a steady flow of high-quality data on Early Byzantine burials and settlements. Archaeological problems become more apparent the later one looks in the Byzantine period. After c.700, there is very little material relating to evelyday life, even from those areas with plentiful fifth-seventh century evidence. For example, the archaeology of agriculture (such as barns, mills, field boundaries and storage facilities) lacks any comprehensive up-to-date study. Of course, there are notable exceptions to all of these points and undoubtedly this sihmtion is worse for some parts of the former Empire, for some cenhlries of its history, and for some categories of 'everyday' material culhlre, than for others. However, one would be hard-pressed to find much published archaeological data for low-stahls secular mral settlement in the eighthor ninth-cenhlry Byzantine Empire (for recent discussions: Eyice 1996; Ousterhout 1997). Yet this period is cmcial for understanding the social and economic history of the Byzantine world. This book seeks to help contribute to promoting greater attention to the archaeology of everyday life among archaeologists studying the Byzantine Empire. It both presents new evidence and offers substantial discussions aimed at stimulating further archaeological work. As such, it does not intend to offer final statements or definitive collections of material, rather a series of starting points regarding impOliant themes for future investigation. The papers published here were written independently of each other and do not attempt to present a unified set of methods or arguments. Thus, although unified by the common theme of studying everyday life, the contributors (and editor) do not be necessarily agree with the content of any paper that they did not write. The archaeology of everyday life is, by definition, velY wide-ranging. So, these papers focus on what might be considered one of its most obvious representations: the archaeology of secular domestic stmctures. Simon Ellis and LefSigalos bring together and reinterpret much of what is known of Byzantille secular domestic housing in the fifth to fifteenth centuries. Anthea Harris looks again at the rich archaeological data for domestic and commercial activities from the 'Byzantine. shops' at Sardis, often employed as a paradigm for interpreting similar structures else~here. III the Byzantine world. Eliya Ribak re-examines a cmcial question concel11ing the relatIOnship between artefacts and religious identity in Early Byzantine domestic contexts in Israel. How:ver, it se:ms fitting to start with Jan Kostenee's detailed reinterpretation of the most extenslVely studied (and grandest) of all Byzantine 'everyday domestic contexts': the Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors at Constantinople.

Introduction

3

Notes I 2

For a recent discussion of the statc of Byzantinc archacology: Dark 200 I, ch.!. For theoretical devclopmcnts in archaeology during thc twentieth century (and thc terms used in thc following paragraph), sec: Dark 1995

Bibliography Ball, W., 2000, Rome in the East (London and New York). Cameron, A., Ward-Perkins, B. and Whitby, M. (eds.), 2000, The Cambridge Ancient History vol. XIV. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D.425-600 (Cambridge). Dark, K., 2001, Byzantine PottelJ! (Stl'Oud). Dark, K., 1995, Theoretical Archaeology (London). Eyiee, S., 1996, 'Tlirkiye'de Bizans Donemi Yerle~i\l1i Hakkmda NoUar' ('Observations on Byzantine Period Dwellings in Turkey'), in Anon. (cd.), Tarihten GOniimiize Anadaolu 'Da Konut Ve Yerle.'jme. Housing and Settlement in Anatolia A Historical perspective (Istanbul), pp. 206-220. Laiou, A.E. (cd.), 2002, The Economic HistolJ! of Byzantium From the Seventh through the Fifteenth CentUlY (Washington DC). Magdalino, P., 2000, 'The Maritime Neighborhoods of Constantinople: Commercial and Residential Functions, Sixth To Twelfth Centuries', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54, pp. 209-226. Mango, M.M., 2000, 'The Commercial Map of Constantinople', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54, pp. 189207. Millcr, T.S., 1997, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire (2nd cd) (Baltimore and London). Neclpolglu, N. (ed.), 2001, Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments, Topography and Evelyday Life (Leiden). Ousterhout, R., 1997, 'Secular architecture', in H.C.Evans and W.D.Wixom (eels.), The Glory of Byzantium (New York), pp. 192-199. Rheidt, K., 1990, 'Byzantinsiche Wohnhauscr des 11 bis 14. lahrhunderts in Pergamon', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44, pp. 195-204. Saradi, H., 1998, 'Privatization and Subdivision of urban properties in the Early Byzantine centuries: social and cultural implications', Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 35, pp. 17-43, Thomov, T, and Ilieva, A., 1998, 'The shape of the market: mapping the Book of the Eparch', Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 22, pp. 105-116.

Chapter 1

The Heart of the Empire: The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors Reconsidered Jan Kostenec

Introduction Almost nothing survives of the fourth-centmy Imperial Palace in Constantinople' but textual descriptions show that, by the tenth century, a huge palace complex stretched from the Hippodrome to the Mannara shore. 2 At its core was the original palace of Constantine the Great, later known as the Daphni. No substantial parts of this fourth-century palace have been excavated, but the written sources for its layout offer a starting point for considering the buildings of the Great Palace in gencral. 3

The Daphni Palace The Daphni probably occupied the two uppermost of the several terraces in the palace area. Recorded palace itineraries often relate to this area, starting or ending at the Chalke, the main palace gate. These include structures that stood in this area: the guard's barracks (the Scholai, Exkoubita and Canditates), the Makron of Candidates, the Consistorium, the Onopous, the Chrysocheir Portico and the Augusteus. 4 In the most famous text concerning palace protocol (De Cerimoniis) there is no indication that the Chalke, Exkoubita, Candidatcs and the Tribunal (an open space lying to their west, along the east side of the Hippodrome) were at different levels. These buildings were situated on the uppennost terrace, although a later part of the Scholai was apparently at a lower level. s The Makron of Candidates skirted the east side of the Tribunal and opened into the Consistorium, apparently on the same level. However, De Cerimoniis indicates that there was a change of level nearer the core of the Daphni. One had to ascend a staircase to reach the Onopous from the Consistorium. Part of this staircase was enlarged to form a raised platfonn for the emperor's throne in the Consistorium and the upper end of the staircase led into the triple door of Onopous. 6 There was also a flight of stairs leading from the Tribunal to the Onopous through the main palace entrance - the Middle Door of Tribunal.? Other locations mentioned (the Augusteus, Triklinos of 19 Couches, and Octagon) were at the same level as the Onopous. H This change oflevel suggests that the core of the Daphni Palace (the Onopous, Chlysocheir, Portico of 19 Couches, Triklinos of 19 Couches and Augusteus) was fairly compact, its ground floor was raised above the level of the Tribunal and a high socle formed a lower portion of its

The Heart of the Empire

5

fayade. 9 This is in contrast to the conventional interpretation that these were separate, scattered, halls. Berger interprets the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae to suggest that the northern limit of this fourth-century palace coincided with the border between Regions I and II. The Tribunal (the open space to the northwest) belonged to Region II and the Imperial Palace to Region 1. 10 Noting that the Notitia does not mention any palace building in Region I1, Berger argues that its original gate was situated at the border between the regions. 11 The later main palace gate, the Chalke of De Cerimoniis, was built under the Emperor Anastasius I (491-518) and rebuilt in the reign of Justinian I (527-565), after the Nika Riot. 12 In a 1998 papcr, I suggested a possible similarity between Theodoric's palace fayade dcpicted in mosaic at San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravcnna and the Daphni palace in Constantinople. This hypothesis was based on Cassiodorus' claim that Theoderic had the Constantinopolitan palace (where he was a hostage during the reign of Leo 1457-474) in mind when he built his own palace at Ravenna. It is possible, then, that the mosaic at Ravenna shows a palace that was modeled on the one in Constantinople, but this does not mean that both palaces were identical. Theoderic did not erect his palace de novo but rebuilt an existing palatial complex. I) However, the two palaces do have demonstrable points of similarity. For example, their fayades faced open spaces: the Tribunal in Constantinople and thc Plateia Maior in Ravenna. Both the San Apollinare Nuovo mosaic and textual sources relating to the north fayade of the Daphni may be read to suggest that similar architectural features were employed. These included rows of columns and a palacc gate in the middle of the fayade - a central entrance porch with four front columns carrying a gable. For Constantinople, John of Antioch reports delphikoi kiones in the stoa of thc Delphax/Tribunal and De Cerimoniis notes the Middle Door of the Tribunal, opening onto the Onopous. 14 Much has been made of the claim that the Daphni too copied another palace, that at Rome. However, the identity of Constantinople as the New Rome was promoted under Constantius (337-361) and his successors, not by Constantine the Great. Malalas' claim, in the sixth century, that the palace in Constantinople was modeled after its counterpart in Rome need not, therefore, be taken too seriously. IS Similaritics, if they existed, should perhaps be understood on an ideological level, although both palaces had audicnce and dining halls, baths, domestic apartments and an adjacent circus or hippodrome. Thc layout of Roman impcrial palace complexes could differ widely, as can be judged from the known Tetrarchic palaces. These (except for those at Split and Gamzigrad, which were probably intended for retired empcrors) had onc prominent feature in common: an adjacent hippodrome. We see this at Sirmium, Trier, Milan, Thessaloniki, Antioch, Maxentius' palace on Via Appia and Maximian's palace at Cordoba. But nonc was a direct copy of Domitian's imperial palace in Rome,u' If one takes these palaces as a guide to its possible form, Constantinc's architects might have built the Daphni complex either as a very grand modified portico villa (as at Split, Cordoba and possibly Antioch) or as a multi-peristyle structure (as at the Domus Augustana and perhaps at Thessaloniki). The open area in front of the Constantinopolitan palace (the Tribunal) and quadrifons monument (the Milion in Constantinople) at the intersection of colonnaded streets leading to the palace (the Regia in Constantinople), point to a close connection with this Tetrarchic palace architecture, suggesting the validity of the comparison. l ? In my previous work, I reconstructed the Daphni as a winged corridor villa, based mainly on

6

Jan Kostenec

the testimony of De Cerimoniis. In this reconstruction, the middle entrance, accessible from the Tribunal by a flight of stairs, contained the main gate of the palace: the Middle Door of the Tribunal in De Cerimoniis. This would have opened onto the Onopous, and the Portico of 19 Couches might be interpreted to connect the multi-apsed Triklinos of 19 Couches (probably to the west of the Daphni, next to the Hippodrome 'R ) with the Onopous. 19 However, it seems unlikely that the Consistorium was the eastern wing of the palace. This hall apparently lay at a slightly lower level and De Cerimoniis does not mention a portico connecting the Consistorium and the Onopous. On this basis, one would expect the Consistorium to have been an isolated triklinos in front of the main palace fa MIKAHA BOHE> with a depiction of a warnor hghtll1g a drdg,,~\ i l~\j "l''''~) 9 A fragment of a pottery lamp with a menorah was found in onc of the tumhs;ltlt!l.' ~jh: , (13 ..".,U) IOTI ' 'tc might thcrefore bt'1I111'1j11,,:1c:d but another tomb produced a cross pendant l~' , le SI . . as a community of both Christians and Jews.

Artefacts with Religious Symbols From Religious Structures , ," i nificanee of religious buildings as contexh "lilT': ThiS, of course, hlghltghts the s g . . d . '11 import:lIl1':': 111 ,,(luLIl' . ,. ' I f tl bo)s on mtefacts carne suc Identity IS certal11, le sym ..e a d e fi1111'te asso ". CI"'ltl")n th.::;.I.' arld,b, h , , bctwel,.'ll ' existence, then one WOll Id expec t to sc known religion of the sites. , " 'T()gues For eX:lmp.k, ':"'"1,,.111' . . , . . 'ble at Byzantme synag , " The same pattel11s seem VISI . 'b 1 ",\'th 'Ill I\ralllah: Ili, ,1IIL..h" I ! "', , fI d pottery mscn el.v . ' ,~ , thc synagogue at Horbat ~I~non Dun and out of 453 animal hones idclltll1d III 1989). There were no Chnsttan artefact:, d 1O'};} wen: caltk. WIth \1111\ 0.;· I! deposits 67% were sheep/goat (caprovtlle) an

1998), . n to produce only finds h~'arlt1,S rhrhll.lti Usually, churches and monastenes se~ lW' with stamped CHI"....:;. . W:.h !\lqllll I"; Ph aean Red Shp are I symbols. For examp 1e, QC, 0 Likewise, lamps onullllentc,1 WII I the church at Keisan (Landgraf 198 ~ii a (Mage n 1990), Cnlss-.,tamp(d 1',.1\,,1'. the crypt of the church at Horbat cl-K y,

,I

J30

Eliya Ribak

at the church and monastely of the 'Kathisma' in Ramat Rahel (Testini 1964, 105). Therc We lamps with Christian symbols at the same site, but no pottery or lamps with Jewish synlb a (Testini 1964, 106). Thus, excavated churches and synagogues bear out a cOlTelation between the symbolis found on artefacts and religious identity. However, precisely in the same way as we find minority of secular settlements with a mixture of Christian and Jewish symbols, so too - lUa surprisingly - there are a few religious buildings where this is also true. This raises the qucSti< of whether this invalidates the argument, or whether another explanation for this can be foun The presence of Jewish symbols at Christian churches (as at the church at Hot'bat Ga v ' presents no great problem, because almost every Jewish symbol is acceptable in Christi; iconography. However, one would not expect Jews to use Christian symbols, especially not religious contexts. Thus, when one finds a ring with a Latin inscription '0 Christ, help Andrew', engraved I its bezel (figure 23) in the synagogue area at Hammat Gader, this seems somewhat surprisil (Sukenik 1935, 70-71). The lamps from the site also present both Christian and Jcwi symbolism: one is decorated with a cross symbol (Figure 25) but there is one with .Tewi symbols, including the menorah. (Fig. 5:B, PI. 24:2, No.248/3l) (Dothan 1983,64). It may be possible that Christians used the synagogue as a house of worship alongside t Jews. The finger ring could easily have fallen from the hand of such a worshipper. However, t presence of a lamp bearing a cross symbol suggests that this may not have been an i501at incident, or that this was a community with particular liberal views on using religious symbol iSI In either case, there seems some reason to suppose that the Jewish community at Hammat Gad took a tolerant attitude toward their Christian neighbours. Sueh an explanation might have wider applicability regarding the occurrence of Christian symbols at Byzantine synagogues. The evidence from religious structures, therefore, does not contradict a clear connecti, between the symbols found on artefacts and the religion of the people who used the artefac Anomalies do occur both in domestic and religious contexts but they are the minority and c perhaps be explained by a close relationship between the two religious Cornmunities.

Conclusion It appears then, that relying on the artefacts to recognise religious identity of the Byzanti

population of Palestina is not as 'far fetched' as it might at first appear. Despite thc 5111 number of animal bone and mollusean studies, a correlation between artefactual evidencc a animal bone and molluscan evidence does appear. Artefacts from definite religious conte: also largely support this conclusion. Anomalies appear in the data, but these do not detract 1'1'( the pattern shown in the majority of the finds. This has clear implications for the study of Byzantine Palestina. However, it must be stress 'le use of artefacts marked with religious symbols is not enough in itse If to indicate a phi ,hip. This evidence shows only that persons of a religion frequented or lived at