The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros / Meriç River Valley by Ekbmm Ekbmm

BAKTELCOVER44.6x22:BAKTELCOVER44.6x22

7/20/11

9:57 AM

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

lefki

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·1

The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·2

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·3

EUROPEAN CENTER

FOR

BYZANTINE

AND

P O S T-B Y Z A N T I N E M O N U M E N T S

The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley

Robert Ousterhout & Charalambos Bakirtzis

Thessaloniki 2007 iii

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

lefki

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·5

In memory of our friend and colleague Thanasis Papazotos (1951-1996)

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·6

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·7

Contents INTRODUCTION (R.O. – C.B.)

CHAPTER 1. The Evros/Meriç valley in Byzantine times (R.O. – C.B.)

CHAPTER 2. Ainos (Enez) and its monuments (R.O.)

CHAPTER 3. Vera (Pherai) and its monuments (C.B.)

CHAPTER 4. Didymoteichon and its monuments (R.O. – C.B.)

CHAPTER 5. Pythion and Pranghi (R.O. – C.B.)

145

CHAPTER 6. Adrianopolis (Edirne) and its monuments (R.O.)

161

CONCLUSION (R.O. – C.B.)

179

vii

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·8

Distant view of the fortress at Pythion, with the Evros/Meriç River valley in the background

viii

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·1

Introduction The river dividing Thrace between Greece and Turkey today was known in antiquity as the Hebrus River – the Evros in Modern Greek, the Meriç in Modern Turkish, and the Maritsa in Slavic languages. A sleepy backwater today, its appearance gives no hint of its historic vitality. In contrast to its current, liminal situation, throughout the Byzantine period (330 -1453 CE), the valley maintained close cultural connections with the nearby Byzantine capital Constantinople, for which it figured as an important hinterland. Until the nineteenth century, in fact, the river functioned as a thoroughfare, the major transportation artery from the north Aegean Sea into Thrace, connecting to the chief regional city, Adrianopolis (now Edirne, Turkey), with rivergoing vessels traveling as far inland as Philippopolis (now Plovdiv, Bulgaria). Historical disjunction. The advent of the railroad in the 1890s signaled the demise of the river network and dramatically altered the economy of the valley. Entire towns were abandoned or shifted as the population moved into closer proximity to the railroad. The port town of Ainos/Enez, for example, had been a transportation hub throughout the Byzantine and Ottoman periods, but when bypassed by the railroad, it declined into a virtual ghost town. Most of its population moved across the river to the previously insignificant village of Dedeagaç (now Alexandroupolis, Greece), the final station stop before the railroad turned northward, bypassing the lower river valley. The demise of the river system was completed with the establishment of the modern international border along the Evros/Meriç with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, as Western Thrace passed to

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·2

Greece following negotiations at then conclusion of the Balkan Wars, World War I, and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Subsequently, the river became a liminal zone, allowed to silt over, and what was once a vital connective axis was transformed into a frontier. The valley became quite literally a backwater. Towns such as Soufli, which had thrived prior to this time, found the residential and commercial areas on the western side of the river cut off from the fields and orchards, on which their economic vitality depended, on the eastern side. Long an important center for silk production, the prosperity of Soufli came to an end as the new border was established.

Edirne (Adrianopolis) at the end of the Ottoman period

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·3

The separation of the river valley was exacerbated by the population exchange that followed the Greek-Turkish War in 1922-23. The displacement of more than 2.5 million Greeks and Muslims from Anatolia and the Balkans resulted in a loss of cultural continuity and recurring conflicts between groups that had previously cohabitated. With the dramatic political and demographic changes, a visitor to the Evros/Meriç valley today – on either side of the river – comes away with no sense of its historic vitality. Scholarly disjunction. For the Byzantine history of the Evros/Meriç valley, modern scholarship began in the late nineteenth century, as historians and epigraphers, such as Lampakes, Lampousiades, Samothrakes, Kourtides, Papadapoulos-Kerameus, Hasluck, and numerous dedicated Thracian hommes de lettres explored the region to record its Classical and Byzantine past. In doing so, they noted much incidental information concerning the survival of historic monuments (into which inscriptions were set) and their context at that time. Their pioneering work was cut short by the outbreak of hostilities in the Balkan Wars, World War I, the Greek- Turkish War, and World War II. Active scholarly exploration only began again in the late twentieth century. By that time, however, the border had become a psychological barrier, encouraged by political, religious, and linguistic differences. Displaced Greeks from the eastern side of the river often preserve a nostalgic memory of their lost heritage, as place names, bishoprics, even icons and church furnishings were relocated (as is the case in Ainos/Enez) to the western side. Among the resettled villages on the Turkish side, the inhabitants have no historical memory and often little curiosity about the historical artifacts in their midst, which are dismissed as “Greek.” In the 1970s, the Greek Archaeological Service began a series of surveys and excavations in Western Thrace to determine its historical character and its cultural position. Although they were aware of the earlier regional investigations, their efforts were hampered by lack of access to the monuments in Eastern Thrace and to Turkish scholarship. Moreover, they labored against numerous prejudices. Modern Greece is Classically-oriented and Athens-centered, and in this cultural configuration, the Evros valley is a distant, provincial backwater; its major historical monuments may be viewed as late, decadent, and impure, contaminated by proximity to the Turks and the Bulgarians. 3

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

In the same period, Turkish Classical archaeologists began explorations at Enez (Ainos). Although their interests were in the ancient city, they uncovered the remnants of numerous Byzantine monuments. Most of the excavated buildings had been standing into the late nineteenth century and had been noted in the epigraphic studies, but without access to the Greek scholarship, the Turkish archaeologists were unable to identify them. Moreover, as in modern Greece, the privileging of the Classical period was combined with a general suspicion of the later constructions. In modern Turkey, Byzantine monuments are invariably associated with Orthodox Christianity and with Greece, and thus may be viewed as both religiously and politically contaminated. At Adrianopolis/Edirne, on the other extreme, the Byzantine city has been entirely overshadowed by its Ottoman successor, which played a critical role in the history of Ottoman conquest and the construction of Turkish national identity. New excavations at Edirne may begin to redress this imbalance, but at the time of this writing, they remain unpublished. In both Greece and Turkey, then, the international border forms a psychological barrier, which few Greek or Turkish scholars were willing to cross. Byzantine monuments reclaimed. In contrast to the epigraphical studies of a century ago, which privileged the text, more recent studies recognize the value of archaeology and studies of material culture to the writing of history. This is particularly important in the examination of periods and regions for which the written record is incomplete. In our attempt to reclaim what has become a marginalized borderland as a vital area of cultural production in its historical setting, this study examines the Byzantine architecture of the Evros/Meriç River valley. Because of the limitations of the written record, we will take the architectural monuments of the region as the primary “documents” for constructing a cultural history of the region. In addition to the historic buildings that survive, we include those that no longer survive but were recorded before their destruction and those known from archaeological investigations. The monuments included in the following study form an important regional grouping, from which a better picture of the significant historical culture of the valley may be derived, bringing

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·5

Carved wooden icon from Ainos (Enez), now in Alexandroupolis (13th century)

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·6

together the evidence from both sides of the river for the first time. Although this area is little known today, and many sites have fallen off the map, the architecture is both sophisticated and distinctive. Until the twelfth century, there were close associations with the Byzantine capital. For example, the now destroyed Hagia Sophia at Edirne (Adrianopolis) parallels the better known structural experimentation of sixth-century Constantinople. New discoveries at Enez broaden our understanding of construction during the poorly documented Transitional Period of the seventh through ninth centuries. The two large twelfth-century churches in Enez and Pherai clearly were been built by Constantinopolitan workshops, emphasizing the continued relations with the capital. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, however, technical and stylistic developments throughout the valley testify to the growing importance of local workshops, and they parallel the cultural fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire in its last centuries. Taken together, the monuments of the Evros/Meriç valley tell a remarkable story of a vital area of cultural development during the Byzantine period. In many ways, national identity, and current national boundaries shape our worldview today; they also affect the ways in which scholarship is written and how “regional studies” are defined. The dramatic events of the early twentieth century described above redefined the international frontier and created a scholarly barrier between Greece and Turkey. They pose challenges to the modern historian, but at the same time, they may offer differing ways of interpreting the cultural remains of the region. The overview of the monuments presented in the following chapters represents the long-standing interests of its two authors. Our assessment of the monuments of Eastern Thrace depends to a large part on the reports of the Turkish archaeologists and art historians working in that region, rather than on new surveys. In deference to our Turkish colleagues, we refer to their ongoing research efforts but limit our discussion to what has been published. For Greek Thrace, we are able to include to information from surveys and excavations conducted by the authors under the auspices of the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities at Kavala. By viewing the Evros/Meriç River valley from both sides, in effect, we hope to offer a new perspective on an important region of Byzantine cultural development.

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·7

Bibliography Byzantinische Forschungen 14 (1989), Papers of the First International Symposium for Thracian Studies:”Byzantine Thrace: Image and Character” (Komotini, 28-31 May 1987), 2 vols, ed. Ch. Bakirtzis

The Kosmosoteira at Pherai (Vera, Ferecik) at the end of the nineteenth century (Uspensky)

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·8

The delta of the Evros/Meriç River, with the town of Enez (Ainos) at the lower left (Google Earth)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·9

CHAPTER 1

The Evros/Meriç Valley in the Byzantine Period Routes of Transportation. Throughout the Byzantine period, the Evros/Meriç River was strategic to transportation in Thrace and the Balkans. The river was navigable by large boats from its mouth inland as far as Adrianopolis, and further inland by smaller boats to Philippopolis. Communication from one bank to the other was effected in a variety of ways. Boats of various sizes could ferry passengers across and several points. For example, the abbot of the Kosmosoteira at Vera had the privilege of owning a vessel for ferrying the monks across the river, and the port at Vera is mentioned as late as the sixteenth century. Pontoon bridges could be erected for the movement of army troops, as Anna Komnena related in the Alexiad. Crossing could be made by foot or by horse in places when the river was low or where the water was shallow, as for example at the “Ford of Philokalos,” also mentioned by Anna, on the eastern shore near the mouth of the river. There was a masonry or wooden bridge across the river at Adrianopolis, mentioned by Akropolites. Another bridge or another sort of crossing must have been located on the route of the Via Egnatia as it traversed the river near Vera. There were occasional years when the river not only carried down ice from the Rhodope mountains, but it also froze solid, permitting a crossing by foot, as happened, for example, in the harsh winter of 1208/9, when the Latin army of King Henry was able to march across the ice near Kypsella. Although the alluvial deposits have altered the positions of the river’s estuaries, during the Byzantine period there were three harbors in the delta that formed at the mouth of the river. These connected the overland routes with the sea: near Traianopolis, inland on the western bank; 9

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·10

A traditional flat-bottomed river boat of the Evros Valley

at Vera, on the western bank near the innermost reaches of the delta; and at Ainos, by the sea on the eastern shore. The first two of these were also stations on the Via Egnatia, the great Roman road that connected Constantinople to the Adriatic, while Ainos served the main harbor for ships arriving by sea. At some point on the Egnatia, near Vera and before the crossing of the river, began one of the well-established land routes that led northward along the narrow western bank of the Evros, through Didymoteichon and Pythion, to Adrianopolis. This route continued further to the north to connect the Aegean to the Danube. The route to Didymoteichon also connected to a road that led into the valley of the Arda, a tributary of the Evros, and continued through the Rhodope mountains to link the Propontis and Constantinople with the cities of the Balkans and with the harbors of the northern Adriatic. Another overland route passing through Adrianopolis was the major road connecting Constantinople with Central Europe. History. The transportation networks clearly indicate the strategic geopolitical position of Thrace in general and of the Evros Valley in particular during the Byzantine period. It formed quite literally the crossroads of the Byzantine world, the bulwark and hinterland of Constantinople. Throughout its history, the region maintained close contacts with the Byzantine capital, for better or worse. The relationship of Byzantine capital and Thracian hinterland began dramatically: Constantine defeated his rival Licinius at Adrianopolis in 324, giving him sole rule of the Roman Empire and 10

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·11

precipitating the transfer of the capital from Rome to the site of Byzantion on the Bosphorus. Others leaders found their beginnings or met their fates in the same area. In 378, Emperor Valens was routed and killed by the Goths in the Battle of Adrianopolis. Alexios I Komnenos proclaimed himself emperor in Adrianopolis in 1081. John VI Kantakouzenos did the same in Didymoteichon in 1341 and was subsequently crowned in Adrianopolis. Others important historical figures found their exile in the river valley: the Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos founded and retired to the Kosmosoteira monastery at Vera, following his banishment from the capital. The statesman and scholar Theodore Metochites was exiled to Didymoteichon following the palace revolt of 1328. As the hinterland of the capital, Thrace served as its breadbasket and its bulwark, its agricultural lands supplying both grain and other foodstuffs, its towns and villages providing soldiers. With any mention of Thrace, “there comes to mind some thought of courage, masses of soldiers, war, and battle, for these things are innate and hereditary in that province,” noted Justinian in 535 [Novel 26], who fortified or refortified many cities in the region. Justinian’s concerns were justified, for any land-based attack on the capital by necessity came through Thrace. Adrianopolis played a particularly significant role. During the second half of the sixth century, Slavs and the Avars besieged the city and its

Didymoteichon, funeral innscription of the komes Diogenes, end of the 5th c.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·12

surroundings. With the subsequent rise of Bulgaria as a political power, the city became an important military outpost. Throughout the ninth and tenth centuries, Adrianopolis, Didymoteichon and the upper river valley felt the brunt of the conflicts between the Byzantines and the Bulgars. The kastron at Didymoteichon was besieged, and Adrianopolis fell briefly to both Krum and Symeon. Less of the early history is recorded for the lower river valley, although Ainos, at the mouth of the river, must have suffered similar threats. According to Procopius, Justinian strengthened its defensive walls, but prior to the late eleventh century the harbor town rarely appears in the historical record, except for its participation in church councils. Toward the end of the eleventh century, the nomadic Pechenegs entered the region. In 1078 they raided the area around Adrianopolis and in the following decade, allied with the Cumans and Uzes, they penetrated as far as the sea of Marmara, in the region of Ainos. There Alexios I confronted them in battle, as Anna Komnena recounts, soundly defeating them at the Mt. Lebounion, near the mouth of the Evros.

Pherai (Vera), Kosmosoteira monastery, capital, 12th century (now in the Benaki Museum, Athens)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·13

During the later twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the region was a major point of contention between the Byzantines, Crusaders, and Bulgars, with the major towns and fortresses changing hands several times. Prior to the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204, both the Crusaders and Venetian merchants had established themselves in the region, and their presence is noted from Ainos to Adrianopolis. Bulgaria was on the rise in this same period, and led by Kalojan, the Bulgarians plundered the countryside around Adrianopolis and Didymoteichon, fighting both Byzantine and Latins. The Byzantines gradually regained control of the region, and by 1225, both cities came under the control of Laskarids of Nicaea, although Adrianople fell once again to the Bulgars in 1230. The Laskarids subsequently used both cities as bases for a campaign against the Bulgars. View from the Pythion fortress looking the road to Edirne/Adrianopolis Cumans and Tatars both appear in the regional conflicts of the thirteenth century. With the reestablishment of Byzantine rule in Constantinople in 1261, Adrianopolis became the strategic center on the border with Bulgaria. The Catalan Grand Company, Spanish mercenaries hired by Andronikos II, turned against the Byzantines following the murder of their leader Roger de Flor at Adrianople in 1305, by Alan mercenaries probably at the instigation of Michael IX. Using Kallipolis (Gelibolu) as their base, 13

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 16:36 ™ÂÏ›‰·14

they raided throughout Thrace during 1305-07, laying siege to Ainos, Adrianopolis, and other centers. Michael IX used the kastron Didymoteichon as a base and a staging post in his campaign against them. Didymoteichon appears frequently in the accounts of the civil wars of the fourteenth century. In the conflict between Andronikos II and his grandson Andronikos III, the latter used the town as his military base and residence after his flight from Constantinople in 1321. In the second civil war, after the death of Andronikos III in 1341, John VI Kantakouzenos was proclaimed emperor in Didymoteichon, and the city became his de facto capital during the civil war of 1341-47. His residence and treasury was located nearby at the fortress of Pythion. In early 1344/5, John Kantakouzenos brought the fleet of Umur of Aydın to Ainos to assist him, and in 1348, Orhan dispatched Turkish troops to his aid. Following the victory of John V Palaiologos and the abdication of Kantakouzenos in 1347, Thrace underwent a sort of feudal subdivision. In 1352, Didymoteichon became an apanage of John V Palaiologos, while Adrianopolis was given to Matthew Kantakouzenos, leading to further conflicts and interventions by Orhan. Control of the port town of Ainos regularly was contested in this period, and the unstable situation there led to an invitation to Genoese freebooter Francesco Gattilusio to rule the city, sometime around 1384. The Gattilusi family maintained control of Ainos until it fell to the Ottomans in 1456. With the Italian presence, the subsequent history of the coastal region and north Aegean islands differs somewhat from that of areas further inland. Orhan’s participation in the civil war of 1341-47 is often viewed as the introduction of the Ottomans onto European territory. In 1354, the Ottomans occupied Kallipolis (Gelibolu) and used the fortress as a base of operation for expansion into the Balkans, with Orhan’ son Süleyman Pasa gaining control of much of southeastern Thrace. Orhan, married to a daughter of John VI, was often entangled with Byzantine politics. Although he was on occasions both supportive and conciliatory, his expansion of Ottoman control of Thrace resumed after 1359 and continued unabated. Didymoteichon was probably conquered twice by Orhan, first in 1359 and

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·15

decisively in 1361. His son and successor Murad I established his residence in Didymoteichon (Dimitoka) ca.1373-77 and continued his father’s expansionist policy. Adrianopolis seems to have been seized by the Turks in or around 1369, and ca. 1376-77, Murad I established his residence there. The city subsequently was developed as the Ottoman capital. Slightly more than a millennium Constantine’s decisive battle over Licinius, much of the region had been conquered by the Ottoman Turks, and, like Constantine, they set their sights on the Bosphorus. It was from the new Ottoman capital in Adrianopolis/Edirne that the final siege of Constantinople was launched, ending with the fall of the city in 1453.

Bibliography Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake-, Rodope- und Haimimontos),Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6 (Vienna,1991)

Bulgarian troops before Edirne, 1912-13

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·16

Enez, view from citadel looking northwest, with the Fatih Camii in foreground

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·17

CHAPTER 2

Ainos (Enez) and its Monuments Situated on a spit of land, the harbor town now known as Enez (Turkey) is surrounded by lagoons to the north, west, and south. The present channel of the Evros/Meriç River meets the Aegean Sea immediately to its north. The acropolis hill is fortified by a well-preserved wall, dating from the ancient and medieval periods. Strengthened by numerous towers, the plan of the citadel is oval, extended in the NNW-SSE direction, with the main entrance on the west side. The unwalled lower city extends to the south. The marshy lagoon to the west of the acropolis was the harbor of the historic city. From the north and south ends of the acropolis, fortifications walls extend to the banks of the lagoon.

History As the ongoing Classical excavations of the University of Istanbul are demonstrating, Enez is a site of great antiquity. Mentioned in the Iliad, the city flourished in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, from which time its coinage is distinctive. Its position was strategic, as it connected by land and water routes to Adrianople/Edirne to the north, and eastward to both Kallipolis/Gelibolu and Constantinople/Istanbul. In the Byzantine period, Ainos was the capital of the province of Rhodope. Procopius included

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·18

Enez, map of area by Choisseul-Gouffier (1808), showing the mouth of the Evros/Meriç

Enez, plan of present city (after Ersen)

the city walls of Ainos among the achievements of Justinian, claiming that its low walls were raised and made inpregnable, and that the open entrance to the sea was blocked for security. From the seventh century onward, Ainos is listed as an autonomous archbishopric of the province of Rhodope, and from the end of the eleventh century as a metropolis.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·19

The 1152 typikon of the Panagia Kosmosoteira at Vera situates the monastery in relationship to Ainos. The typikon instructs the monks to purchase olive oil directly from the ships that docked at Ainos rather than from the town merchants - suggesting something of the role played by the city in regional trade and commerce. In addition to its port, the prosperity of Ainos was based on salt production, as well as the wealth of fish and other animals in its vicinity. At the time of the foundation of the Kosmosoteira monastery, numerous villages in the vicinity of Ainos were turned over to it. From the Komnenian period onward, Ainos appears both as a military headquarters and a site of contention. In 1090/1, Alexios I Komnenos headquartered his troops in Ainos before battling with the Pechenegs nearby, on the opposite bank of the river. In 1189, Duke Friedrich of Schwaben plundered the city, and its inhabitants fled. The city and its storehouses subsequently fell to the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. With the Cuman influx following the Mongol invasion, the Cumans penetrated and plundered Thrace as far as Ainos in 1237. In 1264, Byzantine troops were besieged at Ainos by Constantine Tich and the Tatars. Following an agreement of June 1265 with Michael VIII, Venetian business establishments were maintained in the vicinity of the town, although in 1320 the doge complained about the mistreatment of Venetians by the imperial officials at Ainos. The Catalan Grand Company besieged the city unsuccessfully in 1307. During the Second Civil War, in early 1344/5, John Kantakouzenos accompanied the fleet of Umur of Aydın to Ainos. The port town was subsequently contested between John Palaiologos (margrave of Montferrat), John V Palaiologos, John VI Kantakouzenos, Nikephoros II of Epiros, and the rebellious commander of the fleet, Limpidarios. The instability of Ainos during this period may have led its citizens to invite the family of the Genoese freebooter Francesco Gattilusio to rule the city, ca. 1384. The Gattilusi maintained control of the city until it fell to the Ottomans in 1456, when Mehmet II beieged the city by land, while his captain Yunus Pasa attacked it from the sea. In 1462 Mehmet briefly turned Ainos over to Demetrios Palaiologos,

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·20

Enez, entrance to citadel, mid-20th century (Eyice)

the deposed despot of Moreia. It subsequently returned to Ottoman control, but was briefly conquered by the Venetian Niccolo` da Canale in 1469. The town frequently appears on sea charts of the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries as Denio, Enio, Ponta Deno, etc., in connection with trade and piracy.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·21

Monuments For Greek scholars, the Byzantine monuments of Enez are known primarily from the 1902 visit by G. Lampakes, who recorded the inscriptions evident at that time, and by a later, less systematic account by Mystakides. The first study of the architecture came from the Turkish scholar Semavi Eyice, published in 1969, whose conclusions may be refined and expanded by the subsequent excavations conducted by the University of Istanbul, which are ongoing at Enez. Combining the published information from the archaeological investigations with the older Greek epigraphical record yields a much richer portrait of the town, however, as Thanasis Papazotos demonstrated, matching the descriptions of Eyice with the buildings visible in the unpublished photographs of Lampakes. Although much of Enez was already abandoned and derelict at the time of Lampakes’ visit, he nevertheless called the town a “mega mouseion tes Christianikes technes” - a great museum of Christian art. Fortifications. Excavations within citadel have produced Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman remains, and a reused ancient inscription in the fortress gate mentions a praetorium. The fortifications of the citadel have not been properly studied. The rebuilding by Justinian noted by Procopius presupposes an ancient circuit. Unfortunately, the walls were heavily restored in the 1990s, precluding a proper archaeological examination. The recorded inscriptions may give some idea of their history, as well as of the military significance of the site. Most date from the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries. These include two marking a reconstruction following an incursion of the “Tataro-Bulgars” toward the end of the thirteenth century, another marking partial reconstruction in 1307/8, and several from the period of the Gattilusi rule. The latter are the most impressive. One, marking the construction of a tower, may be dated 1 May 1382 or 1385, by its Latin inscription, which is embellished with emblems of Gattilusi (or possibly crowned eagle of Doria family), in the south ramparts. Another, also marking the construction of a tower, is dated 1 August 1413; the Latin inscription is accompanied by the armorial plaque of Gattilusi, set in south face of a square tower of fortress. A third provides only the date, 1416/7.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·22

Enez, inscriptions of the Gattilusi (Hasluck)

Enez, inscription of the Gattilusi in fortifications, dated 1382 or 1385

Enez, inscription of the Gattilusi in fortifications, dated 1413

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·23

Foundations of medieval residential architecture and a large building complex, perhaps a palace, has been excavated along the northwest wall of the citadel, but this awaits full publication. Impressive examples of glazed ceramics and sgraffito ware have been found as well.

Byzantine Churches Fatih Camii. The most important Byzantine monument inside the acropolis wall is the ruined church that probably served as the cathedral of the city, a large domed basilica now known as the Fatih Camii. First published by Eyice in 1969 as a Palaiologan church, Ousterhout’s analysis of the building two decades ago proposed a twelfth-century date. The large scale of the church, which measures ca. 21 x 38 meters overall, not including the apses, makes it larger than almost all Middle or Late Byzantine churches in Constantinople. Now in ruins, it was already in a dilapidated state when it was studied by Eyice in 1962. At that time, it still functioned as a mosque, although it collapsed in the 1965 earthquake and was subsequently abandoned. At that time the north wall and vaults fell. The original Byzantine dome had been replaced in the

Enez, Fatih Camii, portico façade, seen from southwest, 1982

Enez, Fatih Camii, plan (Ousterhout, redrawn after Eyice)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·24

Enez, Fatih Camii, seen from north, ca, 1960 (Eyice)

Enez, Fatih Camii, seen from south, 1979 (Ousterhout)

Ottoman period by a shallow dome without a drum. There is also evidence of much repair to the building in the Ottoman period - notably the resurfacing areas of along the apses and the repositioning of windows. Portions of the south walls of the narthexes collapsed between 1979 and 1982. Some attempts were made to repair the western portico façade ca. 1990, and the team from Istanbul University recently cleaned the interior, but this important building still stands derelict. On the south side, the walls still stand to the height of the dome cornice. With the photographs published by Eyice and observations made on site by Ousterhout in 1979-82, it is possible to reconstruct the original form of the building. The design of the church is unusual, and it might be termed a domed basilica. The large naos is cruciform in plan, preceded by two narthexes. The eastern arm of the cross comprises the bema, which is flanked by large, barrel-vaulted pastophoria. All three chambers of the sanctuary terminate in apses that are semicircular on the interior and polygonal on the exterior. The western cross arm is attenuated, flanked by abbreviated side aisles, which are separated from the nave by arcades. The crossing was covered by a broad dome - greater than 7 m. in diameter - supported on piers. The piers are L-shaped, each accentuated at floor level by two engaged columns, which 24

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·25

support pilaster strips on the upper level. The cross arms of the naos were originally covered by barrel vaults, as are the pastophoria. The side aisles are covered by pairs of groin vaults. The inner narthex, divided into three bays, was covered by groin vaults to the sides and a transverse barrel vault at the center. The form of the west wall of the inner narthex remains unclear. The outer narthex is fronted by a graceful portico façade and is not bonded with the main body of the church, although it must have been constructed at the same time. It was probably covered by a wooden roof originally.

Enez, Fatih Camii, interior, looking southeast, 1979

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·26

Enez, Fatih Camii, detail of wall construction

Enez, Fatih Camii, brick pattern on the prothesis apse

The Byzantine construction technique is all parts of the building consists of courses of recessed brick alternating with courses of squared stone. Much of this may be reused material, and the construction often appears crude and clumsy - a distinct contrast to the elegant features of design and detailing. In many areas, the mortar is apparently of inferior quality and has fallen away. In general, the recessed brick technique, in which alternating courses of brick are set back from the wall surface and hidden behind what appear to be exceedingly wide mortar beds, is associated with the architecture of eleventh- and twelfth-century Constantinople, although both earlier and later examples have been noted. Moreover, numerous other decorative details and the general sloppiness of construction correspond with the twelfth-century churches of the Byzantine capital. In several areas of the interior, for example, where the mortar surfaces are well preserved, the edges are scored with impressed lines of string, and even the looped ends of the strings have left their impressions. 26

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·27

Enez, Fatih Camii, view into prothesis, looking east

Enez, Fatih Camii, reused stones in dome cornice

The decorative brick patterning and details of construction accord with contemporaneous buildings in Constantinople. These include a meander pattern on the prothesis apse, a lunette field of herringbone pattern on the south façade of the diakonikon, and a cross set within a disk within the lunette field on the north façade of the prothesis. Within the apse conch of the prothesis, the brick courses are laid in an elaborated chevron pattern. Similar details appear in the Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii), Chora (Kariye Camii), and Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii) 27

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·28

churches in the capital. The arches of the west façade are highly stilted, as were the windows of the north cross arm, recorded in Eyice’s photograph. The form is tripartite, with a tall thin light at the center, flanked by lower, broader lights - an unusual form found at the Theotokos Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane Camii) in Constantinople and nowhere else. The south crossarm windows were altered in Ottoman times, perhaps with the conversion of the church to a mosque, when the south wall became the qibla. Similar lunette windows may have appeared on the lateral walls of the western naos as well, where the arch is still evident on the south façade, but these were altered on Ottoman times as well. The plan of the church is unusual, with the standard Greek cross unit of the naos extended westward to form a sort of domed basilica with a transept. The scale of the building and the cruciform plan of the naos encourage comparison with the church now known as the Gül Camii and with the Kyriotissa in the capital, both twelfth-century buildings. At the same time, the plan may appear closer to that of churches of the Transitional Period, such as Hagia Eirene of Constantinople in its eighth-century form, or the ninth-century church at Vize in eastern Thrace. The attenuated plan and the domed basilica design of the Enez church may have been influenced by older regional examples, and it may have followed the plan of an older building. Soundings along the south façade conducted in 1986 revealed older foundations below the lateral wall, although the soundings were not extended to other parts of the building. At the same time, the Fatih Camii relates closely to developments in twelfth-century Constantinople. Along with related buildings in the capital, it may represent a revival of older architectural forms, reflecting the conservative milieu of the Komnenian court. The graceful portico façade of the exonarthex remains the most attractive portion of the building, with a central triple arcade flanked by double arcades, rhythmically alternating piers and columns. Although it was assumed to be a Palaiologan creation, Ousterhout has demonstrated that the portico façade must be contemporaneous with the main block of the building and thus twelfth-century in date. Recessed brick is employed throughout, and the masonry courses were

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·29

Enez, Fatih Camii, capital of exonarthex

aligned from the narthex to the exonarthex, even though the two units we not bonded. The lack of bonding may be explained by the fact that the exonarthex was lighter and more open in character than the main block of the building. It was most likely covered by a wooden roof rather than heavy, masonry vaulting. The two units would have required different foundation systems, and the lack of bonding would have allowed for differential settlement.

As with much of the building material in the Fatih Camii, the marble elements all appear to be reused. Byzantine marble quarries ceased to function after the seventh century, but in a town with a long history like that of Enez, the older dilapidated buildings would have provided building materials. The columns of the portico façade and the naos are reused, as are all the capitals. Within the naos, the surviving Corinthian capitals are clearly sixth-century, while the simple, cubic capitals may be sixth-century as well. All four capitals of the exonarthex have cubic forms, based on sixth-century prototypes but were executed later, perhaps in the ninth or tenth century. The south capital, which has concave surfaces and more elaborate patterning, may be slightly later than the others. All have trapezoidal fields with a central roundel or arch flanked by leaves or branches. The central feature within the arch or roundel is either a cross or a rosette. At least four different forms of string course appear in the naos. The ovolo molding may date from the Transitional Period; the decorated chamfered moldings from the tenth or eleventh centuries. The doorframes were also spoliated; the south portal in the narthex is clearly assembled from mismatched pieces. The marble blocks of the dome cornice, still pinned together, are spolia, including a reused Classical inscription and one panel preserving an older cross decoration.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·30

Enez, Fatih Camii, fresco above main entrance, showing Virgin and ecclesiastical figure

The fragmentary frescoes of the Fatih Camii have been cleaned and were summarily published by Ihsan Tunay in 1993. Most important is the partially preserved image in the lunette above the main entrance to the naos, which represents a female figure standing on a footstool flanked by an ecclesiastical figure, set on a green ground against a dark blue background. The left side of the panel and the upper portions of the figures are missing. The central figure is undoubtedly the Virgin, for only she appears standing on a footstool like this. The fresco would recommend a

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·31

dedication to her, rather than to either Constantine or Hagia Sophia, as the Greek tradition would have it. The Virgin wears a dark blue garment with a purple robe over it. The bishop to her left wears a plain dark blue sticharion (tunic) with a green and brown phelonion (cape) over it. The omophorion (bishop’s scarf, embroidered with crosses) hangs down his front. He holds a book in his left hand and gestures toward the Virgin with his right. Neither his face nor his inscription survives

Enez, Fatih Camii, fresco in prothesis, showing standing saint

Above and to the right of the lunette, an area of paint survives, including the uppermost portion of the wall panel, with blue background and part of a halo. Above this, a red line separates this panel from a narrative scene that extended onto the barrel vault. Of this, the feet of at least three figures appear on a green ground, but not enough to identify the scene.

Another figure is preserved in the arch leading into the prothesis, a haloed, bearded figure with dark hair, who wears a simple red-orange tunic. His face and hands have been scratched away, and the lower portion of his body is missing, but areas of the drapery are well preserved, with the folds highlighted in white. Based on the limited stylistic details, an early Palaiologan date may be proposed for the wall paintings.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:10 ™ÂÏ›‰·32

Enez, view looking south across citadel taken by Lampakes in 1902, showing the Theotokos Chrysopege on the right side, with St. Gregory and the Fatih Camii in the background

Theotokos Chrysopege. Located inside the fortifications, a marble inscription once built into the wall of the church named Demetrios Xenos as founder of the Theometor Chrysopege, dated 1422/3, under Palamede Gattilusio, styled Palamedes Phrantzesos Gateliousios Palaiologos. The 32

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·33

Enez, Theotokos Chrysopege, excavation plan by Erzen, 1971

Enez, Theotokos Chrysopege, excavation photograph by Erzen,1971, looking east

simple, single-naved building measured ca. 7 x 10.5 m overall. A large section of the north wall still stands; it is unarticulated and made of a rough stone and brick construction. Eyice published the church in 1969 with an incorrect plan and without identification, but it may be clearly identified from Lampakes’ photographs as the Theotokos Chrysopege. The inscription is now apparently lost. In 1971, Afif Erzen excavated the church and identified it correctly, based on the account by Hasluck. His excavation clarified the plan of the church, which had a small central apse raised above the floor level and protruding slightly from the east wall. A small prothesis niche appeared to the north side, set into the thickness of the wall, with a small rectangular niche set into the adjacent north wall. No parallel features appeared to the south side. Within the church, Erzen found the stylobate of the templon and immediately west of it, two tombs. One was centrally positioned and set beneath the floor and the other raised above floor level, in a masonry sarcophagus set against the south wall. Burial remains were preserved in both. In addition, fragmentary frescoes of Constantine and Helen once appeared on the north wall; these must date from the fifteenth century as well. 33

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·34

Enez, Theotokos Chrysopege, inscription photographed by Lampakes 1902

In addition to the several local names noted above, the informative dedicatory inscription, photographed by Lampakes in 1902, is signed by KOCT O MACT: that is, Maistor Kostas or Konstantinos. The name of the same master mason appears in another lost inscription, which Lampakes photographed in the church of H. Vlasios, but which came from a church of St. Nicholas, dated 1420/1. A second inscription, recorded by Lampakes inside the Chrysopege and dated 1423/4, is similarly informative, naming the reigning emperor Manuel II, his wife Eleni, a bishop John, and the patriarch Joseph.

Hag. Gregorios Neokaiserias. A small, domed Byzantine church appears in Lampakes’ photograph of the citadel. The view shows very clearly the relationship of the church to the Fatih Camii and the Theotokos Chrysopege; he must have been standing on the western wall of the city when he took the photograph. Unfortunately, the photograph is not very clear, but from it, Papazotos was able to identify the church as Hag. Gregorios Neokaiserias. Mystakides tells us that the church was located inside the walls; it was expanded on the right-hand side for the women’s section; and the dome was supported internally by four columns, with two in the sanctuary. Two additional photographs of Hag. Gregorios from the archives of the British School at Athens, taken by F.W. Hasluck in 1908, show the church from the northeast and from the southwest. The first is more useful for clarifying the Byzantine form of Hag. Gregorios, while the second shows the later additions. Along the north façade, we see banded brick and stone wall construction, with setback brick arches corresponding to the gabled crossarm and to the low corner bays of the naos, and with a slightly lower arch marking the narthex. The spatial divisions of the building are marked by simple pilasters along the façade. Although the arches have an 34

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·35

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, seen from northeast, photographed by Hasluck in 1908

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, seen from southwest, photographed by Hasluck in 1908

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, plan, redrawn after Erzen

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·36

extra setback, this does not continue into the pilasters - this system of arcading was known in Constantinople in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. The eastern façade appears to have been heavily reworked and is unarticulated, with traces of an arched (perhaps triple-arched) window in the apse, where the photographs shows a single, tiny opening. The tall dome of Hag. Gregorios is noteworthy; it billows at the crown, suggesting a pumpkin dome inside. The octagonal drum is detailed with pilasters and half-columns at the corners. The attenuated form, with the tall drum rising well above the springing of the dome proper, makes the dome more comparable to those of early Palaiologan Thessaloniki, rather than to anything in the Byzantine capital. Partially blocked windows appear in the facets on the cardinal axes, with niches in the diagonal facet, although the niches may represent the blocking of windows in the drum. The regularity of the wall construction and the details of the pilasters suggest that Hag. Gregorios may be Middle Byzantine in date, while the dome must have been rebuilt in the Palaiologan period. Excavations at Enez partially uncovered the remains of the church of Hag. Gregorios in 1985. It was published as the “Area G Chapel”; it is here identified as Hag. Gregorios for the first time. The excavators cleared the interior of the church, but they did not expose the exterior of the walls. From the details of the plan, it was clearly a small cross-in-square church. Column bases are still visible toward the east wall, and the stylobates to either side may mark the position of the templon. The corner compartments must have been quite small, with rectangular terminations. A tiny, semicircular niche appears in the north wall of the prothesis. Rectangular stone foundations (but not in situ column bases) mark the positions of the western two supports for the dome. A tomb was set into the north aisle; this may have been a later insertion, as it does not correspond with the spatial divisions of the building. Another tomb was set on axis, into the floor of the narthex. Some abraded Post-Byzantine tombstones were also found at the site, their original positions unclear. The excavators also noted evidence of several layers of fresco decoration and architectural fragments found in the area of the apse.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·37

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, view of excavated site, seen from west (1987)

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, opus sectile pattern from floor (1987)

The church preserves elements of a marble floor with an impressive hexagonal inlay of opus sectile in one large marble block of pavement, ca. 1.65 in length. The marble panel forms a solid matrix for a curvilinear hexagon set within a circle, its segments filled with colorful opus sectile of triangular, square, and circular tesserae. The panel appears to have been in second use in the church, with additional cuttings at the corners and to one side. Curiously, the opus sectile was not mentioned by any of the early visitors to the town, and it must have been covered at the times of their visits. As noted by the early visitors, the original building was expanded to the south and west, and the archaeological evidence corresponds to that visible in Hasluck’s photograph. Lampakes recorded an inscription on the lintel of a window (yperthyro), a dedication by Hadji-Thordores Nakases of 1807, and this may be related to the expansion.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·38

Enez, Photograph by Lampakes 1902, showing view to new district, looking northeast

Enez, Detail of photograph by Lampakes 1902, showing Hagios Ioannes

Hag. Ioannes Prodromos. In Lampakes’ general view of the lower town (Kato Machala) of Enez, Papazotos identified the small domed church as Ag. Ioannes, which had served as the metochion of the monastery of Ag. Panteleimon. He was also able to associate this church with a ruined building published by Prof. Eyice in 1969, who called it simply the “Yenimahalle’de kilise” - the church in the new district. The church is clearly Byzantine, of the cross-in-square type, with a tall dome above gabled cross arms, and arched setbacks within the cross arms. The form of internal supports is not known; nor is the exterior form of the apses; Eyice indicated the interiors as semicircular. There was a slight setback in the interior north wall at the cross arm, and a rectangular niche in the prothesis. Lampakes dated the church in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, but Papazotos favored a twelfth-century date for Hag. Ioannes, because of the similarity of the “recessed brick” masonry 38

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·39

Enez, plan of Hagios Ioannes (after Eyice)

Enez, Hagios Ioannes, surviving wall (1987)

to that of the Fatih Camii. However, this suggestion was based on a misidentified photograph in the publication of Eyice: the masonry in Eyice’s fig. 68 looks like that of the Fatih Camii because it is the Fatih Camii, a part of the wall now destroyed, but recorded in 1979. This is quite unlike the masonry visible in Eyice’s figs. 64-67, which is much cruder, and which certainly belongs to Hag. Ioannes. To be sure, recessed brickwork was also employed in the construction of Hag. Ioannes, but it is significantly different character than that of Fatih Camii, considerably less even, of a type more common in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 39

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·40

Lampakes’ photograph does not allow a more detailed examination of the masonry, but it shows the form of the dome, which has long since vanished. It has a billowing, pumpkin-like form on the exterior, with scalloped eaves above a tall, octagonally faceted drum, with pilasters and halfcolumns at the corners - that is, very similar to the dome of Hag. Gregorios, and similar to those of Palaiologan Thessaloniki. Tall, thin windows appear on the cardinal axes but not on the diagonal facets - although it is unclear if perhaps there were windows in the diagonal facets that were blocked prior to the time of the photograph. As Lampakes originally suggested, a date in the thirteenth or fourteenth century seems most likely. Fragments of wall painting were once visible on the interior, which probably date to a restoration of 1680. Lampakes recorded that he could detect an older layer beneath these. Panagia Phaneromene. Located outside the walls in the rocky slopes to the south of the Fatih Camii are the remains of a rock-cut chapel, published by Eyice in 1969. It can be identified as the Panagia Phaneromene, based on the description by Mystakides. The rock-cut chamber measures 8.65 x 4.5m internally and is barrel-vaulted, with a single apse and a prothesis niche in the northeast corner. To the south, the chapel was expanded with masonry construction forming the south wall and extending beyond it into a space not destroyed which served as a sort of narthex. There is also a door to the west and roughly cut passageway to the north. The southern entrance opens with a vault within which was a marble plaque roughly inscribed: Epi ton ydaton fone K[yrio]u. As it was recorded by Eyice, it was decorated with crosses, interspersed in the single line of text. Enez, Rock-cut church of the Panagia Phaneromene (after Eyice)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·41

Enez, Yunus Bey Türbesi (Hagios Evplos)

Enez, Yunus Bey Türbesi, photograph by Lampakes, 1902

Yunus Bey Türbesi/Hag. Evplos. Situated in the lower city near the harbor, the small cross-domed chapel was converted into an Ottoman tomb for the commander of the fleet under Mehmet II. Lampakes and other Greek philologists, identified the türbe of Has Yunus Baba as formerly the church of Ag. Evplos, a saint whose cult center in Ainos is noted in a fourteenth-century Life of the saint from the Chalke Theological School library. Although Lampakes and Eyice both had compared its form to the mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, the small, roughly built chapel must be considerably later in date, perhaps from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. The chapel measures ca. 8 x 6.6 m overall, with barrel-vaulted crossarms and a central dome raised on a tall, unarticulated drum. There is no indication of the liturgical arrangement of the interior, other than the apse. The north cross arm has a single thin window on the upper level and a door inserted at the lower level. The tomb of Yunus Baba lies opposite, in the south crossarm. The original western door is blocked. The dome rises above a simple, cylindrical drum, open by four thin windows on the cardinal axes. 41

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·42

The reasons for associating the chapel with Hag. Evplos are not clear. An inscription recorded by Lampakes in the nineteenthcentury church of Hag. Blasios came from a church of Hag. Nikolaos, built 1420/1 by Augoustarikes Kanaboutzes. Because of its harbor-side location - common for dedications to St. Nicholas - and presumed late date, we might also consider Hag. Nikolaos as a possible original dedication for the Yunus Bey Türbesi.

Enez, Yunus Bey Türbesi, plan (after Eyice)

Kral Kilisesi. Perhaps the most exciting Byzantine discovery of the University of Istanbul’s excavation was the so-called Kral Kızı Mevkii Kilisesi (which we shorten here to the Kral Kilisesi), located outside the citadel, near the lagoon to the southeast. Only incompletely excavated in the 1980s, the preserved portions of the eastern end of the church are finely constructed of brick and stone, with highly articulated corner piers in the nave and particularly distinctive in the pastophoria, with multiple setbacks at the corners. There were both annexed chapels flanking the eastern end of the building, and lateral aisles flanking the nave. The main apse and the apses of the annexed chapels are slightly greater than semicircular on the interior and three-sided on the exterior. The western portion of the building, still buried by the rising slope, was never excavated. Numerous small crosses were carved on the piers, suggesting that the church was the object of local veneration. In addition, the excavators found an important hoard of 10 gold coins of the Komnenian

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:11 ™ÂÏ›‰·43

period near one of the piers, as well as 86 silver coins. Within the area of the apse, the excavators found a large marble fragment of what was probably a closure panel from the templon. Finely profiled, its upper surface has cuttings for two inset metal crosses. Traces of glass mosaic and fresco were also noted, and the original building seems to have been richly appointed. As to the chronology, the excavators had suggested a twelfth-century date based on the coin findings, but the construction technique of the Kral Kilisesi is distinctive, considerably more careful than that of the Fatih Camii, and the church must be considerably older. The stone is more evenly squared, the brick more evenly laid, without the recessed courses. The construction technique, combined with the unusual plan, Enez, Kral Kilisesi, hypothetical plan (Ousterhout, after excavation plan by Ersen) would suggest an earlier date, perhaps in the Transitional Period of the late sixth-to-ninth centuries, and this is encouraged by a comparison with the masonry of buildings of the period, such as Hag. Sophia in Thessaloniki. Moreover, there would appear to be at least two phases to the construction of the Kral Kilisesi, with the parts of the enclosing wall of the naos much cruder, and presumably later in date, than the eastern portions of the building. The state of the church when excavated would suggest that it had been out of use for quite some time and was thus unknown to scholars of the last century.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·44

Enez, Kral Kilisesi, remains of northeast nave pier

Enez, Kral Kilisesi, fragment of templon panel(?) with cuttings for inset crosses

Some suggestions can be made for its reconstruction. The bases of two large masonry piers are imbedded in the later rubble masonry between the south nave piers. This detail encourages a reconstruction of the building as a domed basilica, similar in plan to the ninth-century church at Vize. A domed, basilican plan for the Kral Kilisesi would also be similar to the domed church at Amorion, which had been transformed from a standard basilica perhaps in the ninth century. Within the nave of the Kral Kilisesi, a dome with a diameter of ca. 7.60 m may be positioned between the large piers, with barrel vaults to the east and west. Post-Byzantine churches. Lampakes listed a total of 26 churches in Enez. The other recorded buildings would all appear to date from the Ottoman period. Three monasteries in the hinterland of Enez are regularly mentioned during the Ottoman period. The nearby monastery of the Theotokos tes Skalotes (or Skaloti) was probably the most important. It preserved a tradition of a Komnenian foundation. An inscribed cross, once recorded at the monastery and now in London, gives the names of Manuel I and Patriarch Michael III. 44

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·45

Enez environs, Skaloti Monastery from west, photograph by Lampakes 1902

Enez environs, Skaloti Monastery, courtyard looking south, photograph by Lampakes 1902

Enez environs, Skaloti Monastery, reconstructed plan by Ötüken and Ousterhout

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·46

Because of the Komnenian tradition, Petit once suggested that Skaloti might be identified with the Kosmosotiera monastery, and this suggestion is occasionally repeated in print. But the photographs of Lampakes and the identification of the site by Ötüken and Ousterhout put this suggestion to rest. The site lies above the village of Amigdalia/Cavusköy, where the rock-cut features are still preserved and traces of the walls can be ascertained. The apse of the main church was cut into the rock, and chambers to its south were cut in a step-like manner. The monastic enclosure appears fortress-like in Lampakes’ photograph, with a machicolation above the entrance and traces of a lower, outer enclosure. In the views of the interior, the buildings forms appear rather simple; the church was single-aisled and unvaulted. Nothing photographed or evident on site gives the slightest suggestion of a Byzantine date, and we suspect the foundation is entirely from the Ottoman period. Lampakes recorded a date of 1632 on the entrance façade of the monastery, and this may be the date of its construction. The sites of the Post-Byzantine monasteries of Hag. Panteleimon, and Hag. Athanasios may also be identified, although virtually nothing is preserved at the sites.

009 OS 086.qxd 29-03-07 07:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·47

Bibliography Asdracha, Catherine. La région des Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Athens, 1976), 120-24 ____________. “Inscriptions byzantines de la Thrace orientale et de l’ile d’Imbros (XIIe-XVe siècles). Présentation et commentaire historique,” Archaiologikon Deltion 43/ A (1988), 219-291; 4446 part A (1989-91), 239-334 Basaran, Sait. “Enez (Ainos) 1995 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Calismaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 18 (1996), 489-514; and subsequent reports; NB: 26 (2004), II, 115-28 Erzen, Afif. “Enez (Ainos) 1972 Kazıları,” Güney-Dogu Avrupa Arastırmaları Dergisi 10-11 (1981-82), 348-51 ___________. “Enez Kazısı Calısmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 5 (Ankara, 1983), 297-300; 6 (1984), 213-34; 7 (1985), 603-618; 8 (1986), II, 273-91; 9 (1987), II:279-98; 14 (1992), II, 205-21; 15 (1993), 455-94 Eyice, Semavi. “Trakya’da Bizans Devrine ait Eserler,” Türk Tarih Kurumu Belleten 33 (1969), 325-58. ____________. “Les monuments byzantins de la Thrace turque,” Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate 18 (1971), 293-308 Hasluck, F.W. “Monuments of the Gattelusi,” Annual of the British School at Athens15 (1908-09), 248-57 Lampakes, G. “Periegeseis,” Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Etaireias 8 (1908), 3-41 Lampousiades, G. “Hodoiporikon,” Thrakika 15 (1941), 99-134 Mystakides, B.A. “Enia-Ainia,” Thrakika 2 (1929), 47-62; 3 (1932), 44-54 Ousterhout, Robert. “The Byzantine Church at Enez: Problems in Twelfth-Century Architecture,” Jahrbuch der Österriechischen Byzantinistik 35 (1985), 261-80 Ötüken, Yıldız, and Robert Ousterhout. “Notes on the Monuments of Turkish Thrace,” Anatolian Studies 39 (1989), 121-49 Papazotos, Thanasis. “Schediasma peri ton mnemeion tes Ainou eos tis arches tou parontos aionos,” Thrakike Epeteris 9 (1992-94), 89-125 Samothrakes, A. “He Ainos kai hai ekklesiai tes,” Thrakika 19 (1944), 11-38 Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake-, Rodope- und Haimimontos), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6 (Vienna, 1991), 170-72

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·48

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, seen from the southwest (2005)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 17:19 ™ÂÏ›‰·49

CHAPTER 3

Vera (Pherai) and its Monuments Situated in the middle of the town of Pherai (Greece), known in Ottoman times as Ferecik, on a hill overlooking the valley of lower Evros River some 4 km away, is a large and impressive Byzantine church set within the remains of a fortified enclosure. The site was first identified by Th. Uspensky as the Byzantine Vera, where in 1152 the Sebastokrator (crown prince) Isaakios Komnenos founded the monastery of the Panagia Kosmosoteira, with the unusual dedication to the Virgin as the savior of the universe. Isakios describes the site thus: And so I think that the charms of the monastery and the site will draw many men to them. There is the spot itself - even if previously it was the dwelling of snakes and scorpions - the river Ainos, the sea with its surf and its calms, the pasturage and grazing land of evergreen meadows to nourish horses and cattle. There is the site on the crest of the hill, with its easy access. There is the fine temperance of the currents of air and the power of strong breezes with the everlasting reeds rustling in tune with them about the mouth of the river. There is the immense plain, and the panoramic view, especially in summertime, of corn in flower and in ear, which impresses great gladness on those who gaze there. There is the grove of lovely saplings growing so near the monastery, and bunches of grapes are entwined among them. As a joy to the throats of the thirsty, water gushes forth wonderfully beautiful and cold. [Typikon, ¨74]

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·50

Pherai, view from the south, 1906 (Uspensky)

The monastery’s abbot had the privilege to own a vessel in the river for fishing and transferring monks to Ainos on the opposite bank, only 20 km to the south. Alluvial deposits have altered the morphology of the river’s estuaries, but the port of Vera, mentioned by John VI Kantakuzenos and later by Pierre Belon (1550), was probably not on the sea but on the river, at the spot where the river’s width necessitated the transfer of travelers from its one bank to the opposite. History. Much of our information about the Kosmosoteira comes from the monastic charter, or typikon, drawn up by Isaakios in 1152. Following the example of his mother Eirene Doukaina, who founded the Monastery of Kecharitomene and drew its charter, and his brother John, who founded the Monastery of Pantokrator and drew its charter, Isaakios prepared his own typikon 50

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·51

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira seen from northeast (mid-1920s)

for the Kosmosoteira. First introduced by M. Gedeon, who published some fragments of the text in 1898, the typikon was published in full by Louis Petit ten years later. There are such close similarities to the older charter of the Monastery of the Panagia Evergetis in Constantinople that the parts that deal with the diet and the conduct of the monks are identical. This imitation is a sort of Byzantine creativity, in which Isaakios took pride: 51

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 17:19 ™ÂÏ›‰·52

Among those wise men who restored holy monasteries and assigned monks to them to sing praise to God, there were many who preferred the Typikon of the Evergetis to the [typika] used in other monasteries. I, too, following their [example], prefer this one, and I wish the monks to join in using it for all instructions ... [¨8] The typikon of the Kosmosoteira nevertheless contains plenty of unique information concerning the site and the region, as well as Isaakios’ personal opinions on administrative and economic matters. Petit describes the author’s style as fiery, subtle, and decked with Homeric expressions. In 1994, Georgios Papazoglou published a critical edition of the typikon, accompanied by a translation in Modern Greek and extensive annotations. An English translation by Robert Jordan appeared in 2000, with notes by John P. Thomas. As the typikon relates, Isaakios had his tomb moved from its original location at the Chora monastery in Constantinople to his new foundation at Vera. He seems to have died shortly after writing the charter in 1152, and the more personal sections of the document read like a last will and testament. In 1183/4, Isaakios’ son Andronikos I stopped at Vera to visit his father’s grave while hunting in the vicinity of the monastery. In subsequent decades, the monastery figured in the struggles between the Latins, Bulgarians, and Byzantines for control of the region; it is often mentioned in relationship to its river crossing. The area was plundered by the Turks in 1329/30, as the region became a focus of the civil wars. In 1343, John VI Kantakuzenos camped his troops near Vera, by which time the monastery was fortified. John III Vatatzes subsequently took possession of it. In the severe winter of 1342/43, Umur Pasa anchored his fleet at the mouth of the river, and 300 of his soldiers froze to death. John V Palaiologos took control of the fortress in 1355, by which time the monastery was no longer functioning, and he found the enclosure was inhabited by peasants. Vera probably fell to the Turks under Lala Sahin and Evrenos, first in 1371 and again in 1373. In 1433, Bertrandon de la Broquière noted that Vera was an important town, with a mixed population of Greeks and Turks, its fortress partially destroyed, and its church converted into a mosque.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·53

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, view from the southeast (S. Mavromates)

Architecture. The church is a variation of the five-domed, cross-in-square type. Its plan, as survives today, is almost square, measuring approximately 15 x 20 m, subdivided internally into nine bays. Irregularities in the layout may be attributed to the sloping site, which required deeper foundations along the south side. To the east, three faceted apses project further eastward. The central apse is five-sided, with a large three-light window, now partially blocked. To either side, the apses of the pastophoria were originally four-sided, with two-light windows.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·54

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, plan drawn by P. Xydas

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, longitudinal section, looking north drawn by P. Xydas

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, south façade elevation drawn by P. Xydas

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·55

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior looking east (S. Mavromates)

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior looking west, thin coupled columns separate the corner bays from the naos (S. Mavromates)

The spacious interior has a tripartite sanctuary to the east, with the bema separated from the prothesis and diakonikon by thick walls pierced by arched openings. On the west side, the corner bays are separated from the naos by thin coupled columns. The column pairs are set parallel to the main axis of the church, and combined with the elongation of the western bays, suggests the axiality of a three-aisled basilica, while in its elevation, an inscribed cross is expressed in the vaulting, with three arms of equal length (north, south and east), while the western arm is attenuated. The walls of the church up to the height of the cornice are built in local stone alternating with courses of brick. These are built in the recessed brick technique, in which alternating courses of brick are concealed behind what appear to be exceptionally broad bands of mortar. The masonry is reinforced with internal wooden chains. 55

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·56

The vaulting begins above the level of the cornice, some 5 m above floor level. Wide barrel vaults cover the four arms of the cross, while small domes, raised on eightsided drums, cover the corner compartments, and conches cover the apses of the sanctuary. All the vaulting is built in the recessed brick technique. The main dome rises above a dodecagonal drum pierced by windows, about 7 m in diameter and rising to a height of 11 m. All of the domes are “pumpkin domes,” scalloped on the interior surfaces, and compare to contemporary examples in Constantinople. Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, axonometric plan drawn by M. Korres

The main static problem that had to be addressed at the Kosmosoteira was the outward thrusts caused by the weight of the main dome, which rises on pendentives above the high barrel vaults. In the interior, the dome rests above heavy masonry piers to the east, and thin coupled columns to the west. The difference in stability between the eastern and western points of support is obvious. To compensate for this difference and to increase the stability of the columns, iron tie rods were inserted, extending from above the column capitals to the outer walls. The use of metal in a structural capacity is unusual in Byzantine architecture, but it provided a stronger and more permanent solution than wooden tie beams, although elsewhere in the church, wooden bracing was used. At the cornice level, four wooden tie beams stabilized the barrel vaults at their springing.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·57

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, west façade elevation drawn by P. Xydas

The outward thrusts exerted onto the walls the church may have also been countered by an ambulatory that enveloped the building along its north, west, and south sides. The ambulatory may have been of light construction, for its only remaining indications are the brackets on the north and south façades. However, the western part of the ambulatory has left its marks in the west façade and may have been vaulted; this portion may have constituted the exonarthex, mentioned in the typikon, where special burials were to be located.

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·58

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, view from the northwest (S. Mavromates)

All walls of the church are pierced with openings. The main entrance appears in the west façade. Probably there were secondary entrances to either side, opening into the western domed bays, but these were subsequently blocked. The present north entrance to the nave is not original. It and the blocked doorway in the south façade belong to the Ottoman period when the church served as mosque, from the end of fourteenth century until the early twentieth century. The west window in the southwest corner dates from this period as well. The number, size and placement of the windows results in the sense of great height within the church and the abundant natural light pervades its interior during the daytime. The lunettes of the west, north, and south cross arm contain large, distinctive tripartite windows. The middle light of each is topped by a semicircular arch, while the two lights culminate in halfarches so that as a unit, the windows appear to be framed by the curvature of the barrel vaults. Along the north and south facades, the triple windows are augmented by three additional arched windows, which are set below the cornice and aligned with the three lights above, enhancing the height of tall triple window. 58

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·59

Set within the half-cylinder of main apse is a tall triple window, its lights separated by marble mullions, while the apses of the prothesis and diakonikon originally had smaller, two-light windows with one mullion each. In each apse window, the mullions are placed at the corners of the external facets, as was the practice in Constantinople. All are now partially blocked. Arched windows are found both in the north and south walls of the western corner compartments. They enhance the natural light of these spaces.

The domes are raised on windowed drums. The main dome has twelve tall arched windows, one in each facet. The four smaller domes have simple arched windows only on their external facets but not in the sides towards the base of the main dome, where they abut the rising walls of the cross arms. At the sill of the south window of the southeastern corner dome, part of the original window has been preserved, made of cast mortar with pieces of yellowish glass panes set into alternating circular openings, with the triangular openings in the corners.

Pherai, Panagia Kosmososteira, northeast corner dome, detail of construction in recessed brick technique

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:12 ™ÂÏ›‰·60

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, original window preserved in the southeast corner dome

The façades of the building remain relatively plain below the level of the lunette windows. The walls are constructed of alternating bands of stone and brick, the latter built in the recessed brick technique where the mortar beds measure three times that of the brick thicknesses, following the standard Constantinopolitan technique of the day, as in the south church of the Pantokrator Monastery (1118-1124), and in the church now known as the Fatih Camii nearby at Enez (Ainos). The arches of the windows have been built using the same technique. Several areas have been repaired in rough rubble masonry, most notably on the east and west façades. The lunettes of the crossarms are framed by two concentric arches. The surface of the lunette is steps back from the arches, while the windows add a fourth setback. The great size of the windows combines with the consecutive setbacks of their arches to offer considerable variety to the upper façades of the church. 60

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·61

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, southeast corner dome

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, detail of brick letters on a pilaster of the main dome

The facets of the dodecagonal drum of the main dome are accentuated with pilasters and setbacks around the windows. Probably the dome originally had a scalloped cornice, following the arches of the windows, but the drum was raised in the Ottoman period and its cornice leveled, now formed by a double band of dogtooth in brick. Six of the pilasters facing east and south bear ornamental brick letters, although their meaning is not clear. The lesser domes have similarly faceted drums, with half-columns at the angles and setbacks around the windows. Moreover, the drums were also raised and now terminate in horizontal courses of dogtooth. There is a greater plasticity in the main dome, while the minor domes blend with the façades. 61

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·62

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, detail of masonry at the southeast corner

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, detail of brick decoration of an eagle (S. Mavromates)

In addition to the curious letters on the dome drum, several areas of ornamental brickwork enliven the exterior of the building. Between the middle and the eastern lower window of the south façade, there is a stepped fret pattern in brick. The shallow niches on the upper level of apses have either flat or concave fields that include brick patterning. On the main apse, one surviving niche has a W-shaped chevron pattern in the lunette; the other a reticulate pattern. A similar W-shave chevron appears in a niche of the diakonikon apse, while the southeast corner niche is filled with the unusual image of an eagle. The plasticity of the apses and the ornamental brickwork is similar in the twelfth-century phase of the Chora monastery (Kariye Camii) in Constantinople, probably also built by Isaakios Komnenos. Repairs and transformations occurred during the Ottoman period when the building was converted to a mosque and the orientation was shifted so that the south wall became the qibla. The building suffered from numerous structural problems. Most critically, the great thrust of the 62

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·63

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior looking southwest, 1906 (Uspensky)

main dome resulted in the vertical deviation of the western supports. Consequently, the barrel vaults on which the base of dome rests have sunk up to 0.50-0.70 m, a process exacerbated by the aging of the masonry and the deterioration of the wooden reinforcement in the base of the dome. This may have motivated raising the eight-sided base by ca. 0.50 m. Additional interventions in the roof probably were intended to address the same problem, notably with changes to the roofline and the added bracing at the springing of the large arches. It is unclear what motivated the refacing of much of the eastern façade. On the interior, half of the arch that connects the south pair of columns to the southern wall was reconstructed as well. Damage may have been the result of an unrecorded calamity, such as an earthquake. In recent years, during the 1920s the Service for the Restoration of Monuments under the direction of A. Orlandos intervened to stabilize the building. They constructed the four large buttresses on the south and north sides of the church in order to prevent the further outward rotation of the lateral façades. A metal ring was inserted in the base of the dome, and the southern pair of columns were given additional bracing. During the years 1973-1998, the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities committed a series interventions in order to strengthen the monument’s solidity: the lead cladding of the domes and arches was replaced, the masonry was repointed; 63

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·64

additional reinforcing rods were added to the southern columns; and the columns were provided with steel braces. A system to monitor vertical movement was installed at that time. Built by a member of the imperial family who had patronized the arts through his career, the Kosmosoteira fits squarely within our picture of Constantinopolitan church architecture. The scale, great volumes, the rhythmical repetition and variation of architectural shapes and forms, and the austere ornamentation all correspond to the characteristic style of the Komnenian era, as evident in the twelfth century at the Chora (Kariye Camii) and the Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii). Although the Kosmosoteira is sometimes considered as a combination of the fivePherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, southwest corner bay. domed cross-in-square type with the twoAdditional reinforcing rods are added to the columns; column cross-in-square church, the latter the columns are provided with steel braces (S. Mavromates) type is unknown in Thrace and rarely applied on such a large scale. On the other hand, the five-domed cross-in-square is a type of church that comes certainly from Constantinople, perhaps originating at the Nea church in the Great Palace (881), and also seen at the north church of Constantine Lips (907). The Constantinopolitan prototype probably

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·65

influenced the elaborated design of Sv. Sophia in Kiev (1037-1046) and the simpler plan of Sv. Panteleimon at Nerezi (1164).

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, paired columns in the northwest corner of the naos (S. Mavromates)

The coupled columns of the western supports, however, find no parallels in the capital. It may be that the unusual solution developed in response to the available materials. The columns are too thin to have supported the central dome in standard fourcolumned cross-in-square church of this scale. The need to structurally stabilize the great dome may account for the presence of the two eastern piers and the coupling of the columns to the west. A second consideration is the mortuary character of the church. Opening the western bays allowed founder’s tomb to be visible from the naos and allow the tomb closer proximity to the liturgy, while still indicating that this was a separate functional area. A final possibility is that the coupled columns reflect a Western influence - the fashion in the culture of the Komnenian court. Coupled columns also appear in Crusader architecture at the same time.

Wall paintings. The church was fully covered with paintings of which some survive in fragments. After their recent cleaning a new discussion of the iconographic program and the style is

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·66

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior looking north (1990)

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior looking south (1990)

possible. In many ways, the paintings fit squarely within the developing picture of Byzantine painting of the twelfth century, while including several unique features in their iconography and arrangement. In the central dome it is unclear whether any of the mural paintings are preserved beneath the

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·67

Turkish plaster. In the upper zone of the north and south walls of the cross arms, busts of two hierarchs are depicted in each. Beneath them, between the tall lights of the triple window, we find two full-length figures of prophets holding scrolls. Below, between the three arched windows, we have busts of military saints. In the lower zone of the wall paintings, processions of concelebrant hierarchs face toward the sanctuary. Above the pairs of columns in the eastern faces of the walls have a two-part composition of the Annunciation, with the Angel to the north and Virgin to the south. On the north face of the wall above the southern pair of columns, the Presentation in the Temple is depicted. On the eastern intrados of the southern barrel vault is the Nativity of Christ. In the inner arch of the southeast bay is the Pentecost. A bust of Christ originally appeared in the crown of the southwest dome above. In the inner arch of the northwest bay, the scene of the Holy Women at the Tomb is represented. In the northwest minor dome, the Virgin Mary appears orans in medallion, with standing figures (perhaps prophets) in the drum. In the prothesis, the Communion of the Apostles appears on the south wall, while in the dome an Archangel appears in medallion, and unidentified figures appear in the conch of the apse. In the diakonikon dome, another Archangel appears in

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Angel of the Annunciation

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·68

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Presentation in the Temple

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, six-winged angel

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, hierarch

medallion, surrounded by standing figures in the drum, with a six-winged angel in the southeast pendentive, and St. Romulus on the eastern wall. On the vertical walls and in the barrel vault are hierarchs. Several other fragmentary and isolated scenes now barely visible can be found throughout the church. The lowest zone of the walls was painted to imitate a marble dado. 68

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·69

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, St Gregory of the Decalogue and St Sylvester

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, St Romulus and Saint Vincent

The hierarchs (holy bishops) in the diakonikon are identified by the accompanying inscriptions: St. Gregory of the Decalogue, Roman pope (d. 604), and St. Sylvester, Roman pope (c. 314-355), in the northern wall; St. Vincent, bishop of Capua (4th c.) in the southern wall, and St. Romulus, student of Apostle Paul, bishop of Fiesole in the eastern wall; and St. Onesiphorus, bishop of Colophon, in the smaller dome’s drum. They are therefore mainly hierarchs of the Roman Patriarchate. Onesiphorus, bishop of Colophon in Ionia is related to Rome through the Apostle Paul. Hierarchs of the Roman Patriarchate are depicted assembled in Saint Sophia in Ohrid (1040-1045), where they are joined with hierarchs of all other four patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and thus this grouping in the diakonikon may have been part of a larger program. In the lower zone of paintings along the north and south walls of the cross arms, processions of full-length hierarchs are partially preserved, six on each side, turned to face the sanctuary. They hold scrolls and appear as concelebrants, participating in the liturgy. As such, they are unique in 69

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:13 ™ÂÏ›‰·70

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, celebrating hierarch

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Communion of the Apostles

their placement; normally concelebrating bishops are depicted in the bema, as for example at the church of the Virgin in Veljusa (ca. 1080). Moreover, when hierarchs are represented outside the sanctuary area, they are normally depicted frontally, in full length. We do not know the iconographical program of the bema. The scene of the Communion of the 70

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:14 ™ÂÏ›‰·71

Apostles was sometimes represented in the main apse, but at the Kosmosoteira the scene has been shifted into the prothesis, the space where the Eucharist was prepared. Similarly, the scene of the Annunciation was usually represented on the wall surfaces flanking the arch leading into the bema, but here it has been transferred to the opposite arch beneath the main dome, so that the scene faces toward to the sanctuary. Set prominently on the north and south walls of the cross arms, between the small arched windows, are haloed male figures in bust-length with military attire, two on each side. Although

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, military saint (with features of Andronikos Komnenos?)

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, military saint (with features of Alexios I Komnenos?)

009 OS 086.qxd 29-03-07 07:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·72

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, military saint (with features of John II Komnenos?)

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, military saint (with features of Isaakios Komnenos?)

normally identified as military saints, they wear crowns and appear without inscriptions and with unusual facial features. In fact, their features resemble those of the members of the founder’s family, specifically Andronikos (? Isaakios’ brother) and Alexios I Komnenos (Isaakios’ father) on the north side; John II (Isaakios’ brother) and Isaakios Komnenos himself on the south side. While not exactly “portraits” in the modern sense, the unusual depictions may have been intended to pay tribute to the military valor associated with the Komnenos family. Their faces are infused with an inwardness and tension, but without bright linear highlights and intense movements common in the painting of the second half of the twelfth century. 72

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:14 ™ÂÏ›‰·73

As for the dating of the wall paintings, it is generally accepted that they are not far removed from the year 1152, when the monastery’s typikon was written, although the document makes no mention of the wall paintings. The charter notes only a mosaic of the Koimesis, possibly a portable icon, which was to appear on the west wall, above the entrance. Stylistically, in the wall paintings of the Kosmosoteira, the linearity that characterizes the figural art of the eleventh century has been replaced by the solidity of fully modeled figures. The scale and restraint confer rigor, grandeur, and a classical sense of calmness to the whole. For example, the folds of the angel’s garment in the Annunciation are not turned into decorative flourishes, as occurs in later Komnenian art, as at the church of Saint George in Kurbinovo (1191), while the plasticity of the body suggests graceful movement in space. Due to these characteristics, the wall paintings of the Kosmosoteira could be called conservative. Because of this, Djuric and Mouriki have attempted to date them around the year 1200 or at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, compared to the wall paintings of the chapel of the Virgin in the Monastery of St John the Theologian on Patmos (late twelfth-early thirteenth century), where the lights and shadows in the fleshy faces are more intense and result in an otherworldliness, the paintings of the Kosmosoteira appear much closer to the human condition. Their grand rigor and classical calm may be related to the princely background of the founder and to the contemporary court culture of Constantinople.

Architectural sculpture. Although Isaakios prided himself on the gleaming marbles and gold of the interior decoration of the church, today its adornment seems to be rather austere. The coupled columns of the naos are nevertheless noteworthy. The four shafts are

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, capitals in the northwest corner (S. Mavromates)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·74

of white polished marble, set on stepped bases. Both the shafts and the bases are spolia, which the founder acquired, but not without difficulties, as he explained in the typikon. The four capitals with their abaci are also spolia, but they were worked anew in the present setting, probably because they did not have the right ornaments. In their original form, the capitals have their surfaces covered with alternating lotus and spiky acanthus leaves. The beveled surfaces of the abaci are covered with frieze of spiky acanthus leaves. Both capitals and abaci subsequently were covered with plaster and recarved, with surfaces ornamented with wreathes in high relief, framed by leafy branches, with floral rinceaux in the

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, capitals in the southwest corner, late 19th century (Uspensky)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 17:19 ™ÂÏ›‰·75

abaci. The plaster covering survived in poor condition only on the south capitals but were partially removed during recent conservation. It was noted that the plaster corresponded with that of the wall above, where the scene of the Presentation in the Temple is located, indicating that plaster coverings of the capitals date are from the Byzantine period and must be the same date as the wall paintings. Most likely, the capitals were resurfaced to cover imperfections in the reused capitals or to enhance their volume to better fit with the massive wall above. Similar plaster coverings were applied to the marble cornice that extends around the interior of the church at the springing of the vaults, and to the dome cornices. These have not been preserved, but the dimensions of the plaster cornices must have been sizeable, if we judge by the empty bands that extend into wall paintings below and above the cornice. The thin marble cornice must have served as an anchor for the fixing of the plaster cornice to the wall. The size of the plaster cornice and its detailing must have been similar to that of the capitals. The marble chancel screen of the bema is also part of the architectural sculpture. Fragments of the epistyle 0.19 m in height carry in their front decoration consisting of a frieze of three-leaved acanthus above a torus molding, with decorative bosses. Other fragments of the epistyle are 0.15m in height and carry simpler decoration, a frieze of alternating lotus and acanthus; they come from the epistyles of the prothesis and the diakonikon. These are now incorporated into the modern chancel screen of the church which imitates screen a Byzantine style. The lintel above the main entrance is decorated with a similar spiky acanthus frieze. The door frame itself is reused and probably not in its original position. The founder’s tomb. The monastery typikon (¨ 89 and 90) provides much information about the tomb Isaakios had prepared for himself at the Kosmosoteira: It was once my intention to have my humble remains interred in the monastery of Chora, and I set up a tomb there [to contain] them, in accordance with the wishes I expressed to the Chora monks. But now that I have renewed, with God’s help, this holy 75

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·76

monastery of my ever pure Mother of God, the Kosmosoteira, another thought has come to mind, namely, to have my remains interred in this one. Indeed, I have begun to [take measures] towards this [end], which I [lay down as] injunctions in the present typikon of mine. Already, I have indicated in other requests and agreements with the Chora [monks] that the slabs of the coffin [that was to contain] my remains should be taken up, and placed here in order to receive my remains-that the [slabs] be taken up, plus whatever I myself joined to the tomb, just as the content of the letter addressed to me by the superior of the monastery of Chora indicates. This very [letter] has been deposited in the sacristy of this holy monastery of my Kosmosoteira the Mother of God. It is my duty to carry out this plan, just as I wish [to do], with God’s help, if I have time yet to live. But if I pass away, it is the duty of the superior, along with the others, to fulfill this plan of mine and have the marbles of my tomb taken up from the monastery of Chora and to transport them to this newly established monastery (just the way I transported the marbles for the church), and to set up this tomb on the left side of the narthex, there where I made an extension to the building on account of the tomb. In the center of the lid of my tomb, I wish my enkolpion [of] the Mother of God to be fastened in a prone position in [a setting of] silverwork; [this] has been readied and handed over, and I have just now deposited it in the sacristy. The important [elements] of my tomb at Chora (along with the marbles of the tomb), are the following: a cast bronze railing, and the portraits of my revered holy parents the emperors, and the stand for my mosaic [icon of the] Mother of God. As for the portrait of myself, made in my youth, in the vanity of boyhood, I do not wish for it to be removed from Chora, but to stay where I set it up. For my wretched body, which worms will tear apart, will not need to be honored with a likeness, after its dissolution. If by chance [the monks of Chora], with a greedy hand or out of willfulness with regard to my orders, balk and do not hand over the things of which I spoke, the superior of my Kosmosoteira the Mother of God, accompanied by some of the monks, must approach the holy emperor and file charges regarding this unjust business. He-for I know well the goodness of his

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·77

conscience and his character-will not deem me unworthy of such a just appeal, but, for the sake of God, will return with [his] imperial hand the things that are being requested, that have been deposited in Chora for safekeeping. But since the degradation of an unfortunate life has nursed me from infancy, and, in the course and flow of this life of ill-luck, [I have] been separated from my sweet fatherland for most of the years of my existence, a stranger to my kinsmen’s renown and [since] of course I did not heedlessly choose the tomb here [to house] my remains, having run through in my mind and reckoned up all the things in life that together turned out badly for me, as I lie on a bed in a dark corner, alas grievously ill, by God’s will, and already falling into Lethe, and of the memory . . . . .instead of any other kind of adornment of fantastic glory for my tomb, [I want] the icon from Rhaidestos of the Mother of God as the Kosmosoteira, [which was] sent down to me from heaven, and which I framed with an ornament of gold and silver. [I want it] to be placed at one end of my tomb in its projected form. It should remain resting in that spot throughout all time, preserved without change, to mediate for my wretched soul. Furthermore, I wish [the icon of] Christ, which is the same size, to rest alongside it, the placement of these icons being appropriate for them, and pleasing as well, and the illumination suitable. Indeed if he fails to carry out this wish of mine, the superior and the rest of the monks will be judged along with me on the Day of Judgment. After my tomb is set up I need no other great expenses for it, as I will be insensible to the sight of the sensible and visual [world]. At any rate, I wish the tomb to be divided from the entire narthex by the bronze railing that I mentioned earlier, but access to the tomb [should be] through [this railing]. From the text we learn the following: Isaakios earlier had founded his tomb at the Chora monastery in Constantinople. The tomb’s founding may be dated between his two exiles in 1136 and 1143. After his permanent removal from Constantinople and the founding of the

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 17:19 ™ÂÏ›‰·78

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, plan with hypothetical arrangement of the founder’s tomb

Kosmosoteira monastery, Isaakios decided to be interred in the katholikon of this monastery “on the left side of the narthex, there where I made an extension to the building on account of the tomb.” Locating the exact placing of the tomb depends on the meaning attested by Isaakios to the two architectural terms of narthex and extension (parekvole). The term narthex might indicate the now-destroyed vestibule to the west of the church. However, Isaakios also mentions an exonarthex, where the tombs of his secretary Michael and his servant Leon Kastamonites were to be buried in marble sarcophagi set in frescoed arcosolia (¨ 107). The lost western vestibule was more likely the exonarthex, and to the east of this, in the west part of the main church, was the narthex. Nancy Sevcenko proposed that extension (parekvole) means a sort of structure, a small funerary room attached in the north wall of the katholikon. She wondered whether the wall of an additional structure that seems to be protruding from the north wall of the Kosmosoteira in an 78

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·79

old picture is the extension. In contrast, Robert Ousterhout has suggested that the narthex is the elongated western part of the church - that the extension is the northwest corner compartment, which was separated with a bronze railing from the rest of the naos. Isaakios specifies that no other burials were to be “inside the church and its narthex,” and the major icon of the church Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, northwest dome with was to be at his tomb and not in the naos the Theotokos in roundel (S. Mavromates) proper. The dome above this bay contains an image of the Virgin, whom Isaakios implores fervently for the salvation of his soul, and the arch contains a scene of the Holy Women at the Tomb, a common funerary theme. In the latter, the Angel seated on Christ’s tomb, points downward toward the proposed location of the founder’s tomb. The form of Isaakios’s tomb is not known. Since marbles are being mentioned we can assume that it was a sarcophagus made up of four marble slabs with a lid on which there was a special place for the founder’s enkolpion of the Virgin. From the area around the Kosmosoteira, Ch. Bakirtzis has collected pieces of carved marble that were originally mounted on a wall and may come from the founder’s tomb. Several articles were to be brought from the founder’s tomb at the Chora monastery: (a) a bronze railing; (b) paintings of his parents, the imperial couple Alexios I Komnenos and Eirene Doukaina; and (c) an icon stand with the mosaic icon of the Virgin Kosmosoteira, which the founder acquired in Radestos, and an icon of Christ. The position of the icons suggests that the visible part of the tomb monument was freestanding under the corner dome. At the same time, Isaakios specifies that his own portrait from the Chora monastery, “done in my 79

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 17:19 ™ÂÏ›‰·80

youth in the vanity of boyhood,” was to remain at the Chora. Elsewhere in the charter he asked that his portrait should not be depicted anywhere inside the monastery (¨77). The strictness of the order suggests either great humility on the part of Isaakios, or that such orders as this were not obeyed. Nevertheless, Isaakios adds the following as an expression of the utmost humility: “For my wretched body, which worms will tear apart, will not need to be honored with a likeness after its dissolution” (¨89). Th. Uspensky noted the existence of a funerary inscription, which he saw in the middle of the church, and he rightly supposed that it came from another part of the building. It is a reused marble slab with dimensions 0.95 X 0.97 m, its upper part missing. It bears seven lines of couplets, the uppermost incomplete. It is not know whether it bore more. ... embittering feeling and the heart. But thou who dispenseth the blessings in this world and withdraweth them again according to thy will, preserve him as an ear of corn, as a pearl, as sweet honey in your storehouses. Plant your worshiper, the despotes as a flourishing tree in the valley of bliss.

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, inscription from the tomb of Isaakios Komnenos (?). Now in the Ecclesiastical Museum of Alexandroupolis

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 17:19 ™ÂÏ›‰·81

The writing is elegant in capital letters with correct orthography and punctuation. The carving is shallow, with capital letters terminating in drill holes. Each line ends with a decorative scroll. The form of the letters can be securely dated to the twelfth century. The despotes (“lord,” or “master”) who is the object of the inscription may be Isaakios himself, and it is possible that the slab formed the lid covering his tomb. It should be noted that Isaakios refers himself indirectly as despotes in the typikon (¨107). Of course there were other graves as well, either inside or outside of the church, of notables and plain people. In addition to the information about burials provided in the typikon, an underground chamber, perhaps a tomb, was found beneath the floor of the diakonikon. In addition, the French traveler Robert de Dreux, who visited in 1669, wrote, “We stayed at Vera/Feredjik and we had the chance to visit the mosque that is very beautiful. The imam who is the minister of the mosque, showed us many graves with inscriptions, which led me to the conclusion that the mosque was once a church.” Other monuments. In the typikon, Isaakios mentions the outer and inner walls of the monastery, gates, towers, and other buildings inside and outside the enclosure: cells of the monks, the refectory, baths, storerooms, a treasury, a library, cisterns, a dwelling for his secretary Michael, a hospice for the elderly, a hostel for visitors, a residence for the founder, stables, mills, chapels, and oratories. In addition to the

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, proposed plan of fortifications (Orlandos)

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·82

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·83

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, fortification tower to southeast of the church

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, fortification tower to southwest of church

buildings of the monastery, he mentions villages and rural settlements of the area, and two bridges that connected the monastery to its estates, as well as to the main road (Egnatia). Today sections of the fortification wall and towers survive. They are built of cut stone with bands of brick or not. However, it is uncertain if the surviving sections of the enclosure are those mentioned by Isaakios, for they may represent a later work, perhaps of the first half of the Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, aerial view, two towers of the fortification are visible south of the church

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·84

fourteenth century, when the monastery served as a fortress. At that time, the peasants of the area, together with the monks, defended the fortress against the incursions of the Bulgars and the Turks. In the middle of the fourteenth century, Vera is mentioned by Kantakouzenos as a fortress but not as a monastery. The deep gorge, to the west of the monastery, leads the water from springs in the neighboring hills into the plain and ultimately to the Evros River. On its banks were the mills noted by Isaakios once, as well as one of the bridges. From the springs, the monastery also drew water by means of an underground channel. The line and the slope of the gorge necessitated an acqueduct, from which rectangular foundations constructed of stones and two arches constructed of bricks survive. The aqueduct was established to carry water to a lower settlement that developed on the edge of the plain to the east and south of the fortress of Vera after its conquest by the Ottomans in 1371/1373. This extensive agricultural settlement, known as Ferecik, had baths, fountains, ceramic workshops and tﬁrbes.

Pherai, remains of the Early Ottoman aqueduct

Bibliography Asdracha, C. - Ch. Bakirtzis. “Inscriptions byzantines de la Thrace (VIIIe-Xve siècles). Édition et commentaire historique,” 35/A (1980) [=1986], 261-3 Avdes, Thales - Ch. Bakirtzis, “Parakolouthese mikrometakineseon tou naou tes Kosmosoteiras, Pherai Evrou,” Mnemeion kai Perivallon 3/I (1995), 90-101

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·85

Bakirtzis, Ch. “Ho esoterikos choros kai to mystiko noema tes toichodomias sten Kosmosoteira,” Gnorimia 18 (1977), 6-11 Bakirtzis, Ch. “W. Thrace in the Early Christian and Byzantine Periods,” Byzantinische Forschungen XIV (1989), 41-58 Bakirtzis, Ch. “Warrior Saints or Portraits of Members of the Family of Alexios I Komnenos ?” Mosaic, Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw, ed. J. Herrin, M. Mullet, C. Otten-Froux, British School at Athens, 2001, 85-7 Konstantinide, Ch. “Paratereseis se parastaseis hierarchon sto katholiko tes mones Panagias Kosmosoteiras ste Vera”, Byzantinische Forschungen XIV (1989), 303-28 Koundourakis, D. - Tsouris, K. “He hydreuse tou oikismou ton Feron kata ten Tourkokratia,” Thrace Postbyzantine (XVe - XIXe s.), Actes du 3e Symposium International des Études Thraciennes, éd. K. Manaphis, Komotini, 2005, 549-69 Orlandos, A.K. “Ta byzantina mnemeia tes Veras,” Thrakika 4 (1933), 3-34 Ousterhout, R. “Where was the Tomb of Isaak Komnenos?” Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts 11 (Toronto, 1985), 34 _____________, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999), 119-27 Papazoglou, G. Typikon Isaakiou Alexiou Komnenou tes Mones Theotokou tes Kosmosoteiras (1151/52), Komotini, 1994 Petit, L. “Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Ainos (1152),” Izvestiia Russkago Arkeologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopole 13 (1908), 17-75 Sevcenko, Nancy P. “The Tomb of Isaak Komnenos at Vera/Ferecik.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29 (1984), 135-40 Sinos, S. Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira) (Munich, 1985) Skawran, K.M. The Development of Middle Byzantine Fresco Painting (Pretoria, 1982) Thomas, J. P., and A. Hero, eds. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents (Washington, D.C., 2000), II:782-858 (with translation by R. Jordan) Tsouris, K. “Neapolis-Christoupolis-Kavala,” Archaiologikon Deltion 53/A (1998)[=2002], 436-7 Uspenskij, Th. “L’octateuque de la Bibliothèque du Sérail à Constantinople,” Izvestiia Russkago Arkeologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopole 12 (1907), 21-2 Varzos, K. He genealogia ton Komnenon (Thessaloniki, 1984), I:238-54

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:15 ™ÂÏ›‰·86

Didymoteichon, general view of Didymoteichon and Erythropotamos, looking west toward citadel

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·87

CHAPTER 4

Didymoteichon and its Monuments A favorite hunting retreat and residence of the Byzantine emperors during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the town of Didymoteichon (Greece) is located on the Erythropotamos River, a tributary of the Evros/Meriç, and was connected to major transportation routes through Thrace. The fortified citadel rises above a rocky outcropping and forms an irregular oval, bordered by the river to the south and west. Within the citadel are the substantial remains of two chapels, as well as numerous rock-cut cisterns, storage chambers, and the foundations of houses. As today, an unwalled lower city lay to the east, known in the fourteenth century as the emporio.

Didymoteichon, plan of town showing relationship to Hagia Petra/Plotinopolis (Ch. Bakirtzis)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·88

View from Didymoteichon looking toward the hill of Hagia Petra/Plotinopolis

History The Byzantine town was preceded by the Roman Plotinopolis, which had been founded by Trajan in the second century and located on the adjacent hill, now known as Hag. Petra. The road connecting Trajanopolis and Adrianopolis passed between the two hills. A bishop of Plotinopolis is first mentioned in the 530s. According to Procopius, the fortifications of Plotinopolis were improved under Justinian. Perhaps at the same time, the neighboring hill was also fortified. Plotinopolis seems to have been subsequently razed and abandoned in the seventh or eighth century. 88

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·89

It was long believed that Didymoteichon was the successor, mentioned as a bishopric for the first time in the ninth century - that is, after the demise of Plotinopolis. Excavations of the walls of Didymoteichon have uncovered large areas of Early Christian construction, with bands of brick and carefully squared stone, which must date from before the eighth century at the latest. Similar construction has been found between the two citadels, for which the ceramic evidence provided a sixth-century date. Consequently, it is clear that the two hills were occupied at the same time, with the major overland road passing between them. Presumably as the urban role of Didymoteichon diminished, the less secure of the two hills was abandoned. The excavations confirm the 1937 conjecture of N. Vapheides that the name Didymoteichon meant “twin castles,” rather than twin walls, referring to the coexistent fortified citadels. The name Didymoteichon appears for the first time in 591 or 592, when it was mentioned as a stopping place for the troops of Priskos during the war with the Avars. The “castle of Didymoteichon” is one of the cities refounded in Thrace by the emperor Constantine V in 751. Plotinopolis continued to be listed as a suffragan of the metropolitan of Adrianopolis from the seventh through the ninth centuries; the town is still named as Plotinopolis in the Council of 787.

Didymoteichon, funeral inscription of Britannia, September of 501

Didymoteichon, excavated remains between two hills

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·90

In 813, Didymoteichon was besieged by Krum, and an inscription of about this time on an boundary stone, now in the Sofia Archaeological Museum, identifies it as kastron Didymotychou. The name is mentioned frequently after that time, and by the thirteenth century, its ecclesiastical status had risen to Metropolis without suffragans. A kommerkiarios is mentioned already in the ninth century, and the kastron is noted as a post during several military campaigns. Didymoteichon served as a place of refuge when the crusaders took Adrianopolis in 1189. In the subsequent siege by Friedrich von Schwaben, the inhabitants were killed and the town destroyed, although a well-built tower below the town was spared. In the Byzantine-Venetian agreement of 1198, the districts of Didymoteichon and Adrianopolis were connected to form a province. The town was taken by Baldwin and the crusader forces in 1204, although they were driven out the following year, and the town welcomed the population of the surrounding countryside, which had been plundered by the Bulgarian Kalojan. The Latin siege was brought to an end by the flooding of the river in the fall of 1205. In 1206 Kalojan plundered the town and countryside, damaging the water system and the fortifications to the extent that the Frankish lords of Constantinople considered its rebuilding an unviable proposition: “and he [Henry of Flanders] and his noblemen saw that there was no possibility of rebuilding Didymoteichon, such was its state,” as Villehardouin relates. Didymoteichon fell to Theodore of Epiros in 1225 and subsequently to the Laskarids of Nicaea. The town became a military post in the Bulgarian campaign of Theodore II Laskaris in 1255/56, and the Laskarids seem to have undertaken its refortification. Michael IX used the kastron as a base and staging post in his campaign against the Catalans in 1306. The town appears frequently in the accounts of the civil wars of the fourteenth century. In the conflict between Andronikos II and his grandson Andronikos III, the latter used Didymoteichon as his military base and residence after his flight from Constantinople in 1321. Following the 90

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·91

Didymoteichon, plaque with Late Byzantine monograms of Andronikos Raoul Asanes Palaiologos

conclusion of hostilities with the retirement of the elder Andronikos in 1328 and the accession of his grandson to the throne, the old Prime Minister Theodore Metochites was exiled to Didymoteichon. During his two years of exile, Metochites complained about the meanness of the inhabitants, the vegetables that gave him indigestion, and the wine that went sour in no time. Didymoteichon also figured in the second civil war. A few months after the death of Andronikos III in 1341, John Kantakouzenos was proclaimed emperor (known historically as John VI) in the palatial church of Saint George Palaiokastrites in Didymoteichon on 26 October 1341, and the city became his de facto capital during the disastrous civil war of 1341-47, and the town became the base from which he launched his campaigns. His personal hideout and treasury was located at the castle of Pythion, about 15 km. outside the town. During the conflict, a ditch was dug to protect the suburbs (exo synoikia) of Didymoteichon. In the proskynetarion of Saint Demetrios inside the old town there is a plaque bearing four monograms of Andronikos Raoul Asanes Palaiologos, the son of the Commander of Didymoteichon (1342) and nephew of the wife of John VI Kantakouzenos. Pressed by both Byzantine and Bulgarian forces during the winter of 1343, John VI Kantakouzenos called for assistance from the Emir of Aydin, who brought Turkish troops into Thrace. With the victory of John V Palaiologos and the abdication of Kantakouzenos in 1347, the city was joined to the territory ruled by the Palaiologoi. In 1352, Didymoteichon was given as an apanage to John V Palaiologos, who quickly came into conflict with Matthew Kantakouzenos, who ruled in Adrianopolis. The city was probably conquered twice by Orhan, first in 1359 and 91

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·92

Didymoteichon, view toward Pentazoon looking south, by A. Desarnod (1829-1830)

decisively in 1361; later it was besieged by John Ugljesa. In September 1373, Murat I took the city and made his residence there until at least 1377. His grand-son Mehmed I built a large mosque in the lower city. Bertrandon del la Broquière visited the town in 1433. Following his defeat by Peter the Great in the Battle of Poltava in 1709, Charles XII of Sweden fled into Ottoman territory, was taken captive, and subsequently in 1713, he was imprisoned in Dimitoka (Didymoteichon). A popular local tradition identifies a Byzantine cistern near the church of Hag. Athanasios as the Philakes Karolou (Prison of Charles). 92

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·93

Monuments Both written sources and archaeology indicate the fourteenth century as the major period of development. The Historiai of John Kantakouzenos and Nikephoros Gregoras provide some information: a palace and several churches and monasteries are mentioned, as well as the division between the upper (walled) town and the lower town to the east, the “emporium,” or the quarter of the peasants and artisans, which was enclosed by a moat. The rock-cut dwellings and cisterns are also noted.

Didymoteichon, fortifications on east slope

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·94

Fortifications Almost the entire circuit of defensive walls is surviving for the citadel of Didymoteichon. The walls follow the contours of the rocky outcropping, and because of the natural defenses it provided, in some places no wall was necessary - notably along the western perimeter. The

Didymoteichon, Kaleportes, pentagonal bastion built of large ashlar blocks, 6th c. with later additions

Didymoteichon, Pentazonon, round bastion and well, Late Byzantine period

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·95

eastern side of the fortification facing the lower town was the main façade of the castle. It comprised the wall and bastions with the Christian symbols, monograms of the Protostrator Constantine Tarchaneiotes (1351/2), and other inscriptions. The later, outer wall includes a rectangular tower that belongs to the Roman fortification of Didymoteichon. The unwalled lower town communicated with the upper walled town with the main gate, the Kastroportes or Kaleportes (“castle gates”), flanked with two pentagonal bastions built in the sixth century of

Didymoteichon, Neroportes

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·96

large ashlar blocks that had been removed from earlier buildings of Didymoteichon. A second, later gate Sarayoportes (“palace gates”) was located further north next to the Roman tower, where a sixth-century section of the walls is visible behind the Palaiologan curtain. There was a third gate at the northernmost edge of this side. The Pentazonon, a Late Byzantine round bastion at the north corner of the fortification, stands out like a barbican but actually served as a well and

Didymoteichon, Neroportes, inner arched gate, Late Byzantine period

Didymoteichon, Neroportes, outer triumphal gate, Early Ottoman period

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·97

Didymoteichon, tower on south wall with brick decoration

Didymoteichon, tower at southeast corner of citadel;

cistern to ensure a supply of water, drawn from the Erythropotamos. A later gate is mentioned adjacent to the Pentazonon. The wall followed the course of Erythropotamos and terminates at the western main double gate, the Neroportes (“river gates”), leading to the Erythropotamos and to the road coming from the Arda valley. On the inside of the gate is a Byzantine arched entrance between two pentagonal bastions, the east one of which covers its sixth-century precursor. On 97

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·98

Didymoteichon, tower with Tarchaniotes monogram

Didymoteichon, Tarchaniotes monogram on a tower, framed by brick patterning

Didymoteichon, inscription in walls reading KOMNHNOY

the outside, an early Ottoman triumphal gate with ogival arches was added next to the western pentagonal bastion. On the south side of the fortification, masonry of different periods may be discerned, including two rectangular Middle Byzantine towers. On one of these preserves a brick ornament of the “tree of life”. The round bastion at the south corner is called the Tower of Vasilopoula and it is related to a legend of a princess killed during the Ottoman siege. 98

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·99

Settlement The Kastroportes and the Neroportes delimit the central urban thoroughfare, cut into the soft rock, off which branched the secondary streets leading into the neighborhoods of the town. The citadel is composed of soft rock, a sort of decomposed limestone, and the foundations of all buildings were cut into the bedrock, thus leaving the “footprint” of the urban development. This means that the pattern of settlement may be clarified simply by the removal of the topsoil. Numismatic evidence found in recent excavations indicate a mid fourteenth-century period of inhabitation, although the cuttings may in fact be older. Within the walls are the remains of rock-

Didymoteichon from south

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·100

Didymoteichon, area of Byzantine settlement on southeast slope of citadel

Didymoteichon, rock-cut storerooms

100

Didymoteichon, Byzantine cistern excavated on south slope of citadel

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·101

Didymoteichon, rock-cut storerooms

cut cisterns, storerooms, and the foundations of houses - in fact, entire neighborhoods of houses, most evident in an area cleared along the western slope of the citadel. Foundations identified tentatively as “the palace” at the top of the hill remain to be explored. Due to the lack of water at Didymoteichon, cisterns were excavated in the soft rock stratum beneath the houses: “they hollow underground cellars and wells to receive rainwater,” as Gregoras relates [I, 357]. The houses of Didymoteichon had a characteristic form. Set onto a slope, the superstructure was apparently constructed of wood and rubble above a rock-cut storage area: the cuttings that 101

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·102

remain are primarily the storerooms below the dwelling. Many of the surviving, post-Byzantine houses still exhibit this form. Excavated neighborhoods appear dense in their settlement, with individual units separated by narrow alleys and stairs leading up the grade. There is a randomness to the organization, and the positioning of the dwellings appears to have been subject to the variations in the topography. Similar rock-carved features extend around the citadel, often with circular indentations to anchor pithoi, or large storage jars. A Byzantine cistern, finely constructed in the recessed brick technique, was excavated on the south slope of the citadel. Unlike the often crude rock-cut cisterns, the construction may suggest a Middle Byzantine date.

Byzantine Churches Hagia Aikatherini. The small funeral chapel now dedicated to Hag. Aikaterini lies on the north slope of the citadel of Didymoteichon. The 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities excavated and studied the building in two campaigns during in 1986-87. Clearly a work of the Late Byzantine period, the chapel was surrounded on all sides by tombs cut into the bedrock, and the building seems to have served as a funerary chapel. A substantial burial area was uncovered to the south. The plan of Hag. Aikaterini measures slightly less than 5 x 9 meters on the exterior. It has a single-aisled interior, measuring slightly greater than 3 x 7 m. along the same walls. More than half of the standing walls survive from the Byzantine period. The north wall is preserved in relatively good condition, although some parts are missing or damaged, particularly in the upper portion. The west wall is also surviving, but in poor condition: the position of the portal has been altered, and the upper termination is unclear. On the east façade, the Byzantine construction is preserved only along the north side and in the foundations. The shallow curvature of the apse is

102

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·103

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, seen from north

visible in the lower courses, but the upper wall was reconstructed without an apse. On the south façade, only a fraction of the Byzantine wall remains at the south end and along the foundations. As most of the upper walls no longer survive, it is unclear if the original building was vaulted or covered by a wooden roof.

103

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·104

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, archaeological plan (drawing by Arghyris Bakirtzis)

The exterior façades originally were decorated with blind arcades, best seen on the north façade, where the wall was articulated with stepped pilasters, and radial patterns in brick appear in the lunettes of the arches. Judging from the excavated foundations of the south façade, it must have been similar. On the west façade, the portal was flanked by shallow segmental niches, as apparently was the apse on the east façade, where only the north niche survives. The single-aisled interior was lined with three pilasters along each of its lateral walls, the stubs 104

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·105

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, east façade

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, interior after excavation, looking northeast

of which were uncovered in the excavation. The lower part of each was cut directly from the bedrock, with masonry construction above. From the damaged surface of the north wall, it is evident that the pilasters continued the entire height of the building. The pilasters are not evenly spaced, but they would have modulated the interior space. The eastern pair identifies the areas of the bema; perhaps the western pair were meant to identify a sort of narthex. A setback niche articulates the wall between the eastern two pilasters on the south wall. 105

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·106

The curvature of the apse is exceptionally shallow and flanked by setbacks, beginning only about 26 cm. above the Byzantine floor level. The original masonry in this area is about a meter in height. The Byzantine masonry rises the full wall height in the northeast corner, where the prothesis niche is located. Actually a double niche, it is formed by a tall, round-headed niche, rectangular in plan, set into the north wall, and an apsidal niche in the east wall, it contained a stone table. An area of brick paving was preserved adjoining the northeast pilaster, beginning along its western face and extending into the nave; it may have formed the stylobate for the templon. Evidence of original portals may be observed in the wall areas between the western and central pilasters, and these may help to explain the irregular rhythm of the pilasters. In the north wall, a portal, now blocked, began at the juncture with the western pilaster. Along the south wall a distinct break appears in the masonry of both the interior and exterior foundations. The break is centrally positioned within the bay, and coordinated with the articulation of the exterior. The position of the south portal seems to have corresponded with an open area between several rows of tightly spaced burials. The construction technique is best evident on the north façade. The walls are constructed of irregular bands of stone and brick, utilizing the so-called recessed brick technique. The stone is irregular and the brick appears to be reused, but much of the irregularity would have been disguised by

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, ceramic rosettes used in wall decoration found in excavation

106

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·107

the mortared finish, which has deteriorated. Large putlog holes appear at two levels below the arches, and another appears close to the roof level at the west end. There is no evidence of fenestration in the surviving Byzantine masonry. Along the north façade, the three eastern arches are identical in form, and each is topped by two concentric arches of brick, enclosing a radiating brick pattern in the lunettes. The upper arches were originally outlined by a row of ceramic rosettes framed in brick. This detail may be observed in two of the spandrels, although the upper portion of the wall has been extensively reconstructed. The rosettes were cylindrical and unglazed, pinched to form a quatrefoil at the exposed end. Several more or less complete examples were found in the excavation. This detail stopped after the third arch, where the portal was positioned, and did not continue further westward. The lunette of the westernmost arch includes a chevron pattern flanked by radiating brick, and the concentric arches are constructed of alternating brick and stone voussoirs, outlined in brick. Original portions of the east façade survive in the foundations and in the north section of the wall. The shallow curvature of the apse is visible in the foundations. The north section of the façade includes a shallow, segmental niche with setbacks, similar in

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, detail of masonry on east façade

107

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·108

form and dimension to those on the west façade. It terminated with a shallow conch of radiating brick, now only partially preserved. Below the conch is a horizontal band of brick, a dogtooth course, another horizontal band, and below this a row of ceramic rosettes, all partially preserved. These details may have continued directly from the outlining of the arches on the north façade. Several of the bricks in the curvature of the niche were carved specifically for use here. The construction technique is similar on the interior, but with single courses of small stones alternating with single courses of brick. The mortar beds are normally sloped downward. The differences in banding between the interior and exterior indicate that the wall was conceived as two faces with a rubble fill between, without regular bonding. Although many stylistic and technical features evident in the architecture of Hag. Aikaterini suggest a proximity with the Byzantine capital, they also indicate that the workshop responsible for the chapel was not from Constantinople. However, the style of the capital may have exerted an influence, and with limited resources, the builders of Didymoteichon seem to have successfully mimicked the features of a more cosmopolitan architecture. The building may also reflect the continued influence of a Laskarid workshop in the region, paralleling the developments in Constantinople. There are also numerous stylistic similarities with Bulgarian and Serbian monuments. Standing along an important overland route from the Byzantine capital into the Balkan peninsula, Didymoteichon could draw inspiration from both directions. In terms of the date of the building, our best chronological indicators may be the architectural style and the construction technique. Certain features, such as the shallow niches and the treatment of the banded voussoirs, suggest a late date, probably toward the middle of the fourteenth century. The generally impoverished nature of the architecture would support a late date: there is no indication of marble decoration or of any other luxury materials, all construction materials are spolia, the scale is diminutive, and the form is simple. Moreover, in the early PostByzantine period, the elongated, single-aisled naos, whether covered by a barrel vault or by a wooden roof, became one of the most common church type in the Balkans. 108

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·109

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, detail of wall painting on lower northeast corner

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini during excavations (1986)

Wall Painting. Several areas of painted plaster are preserved along the lower portion of the dado at the eastern end of the building, rising to a height of only about 30 cm. above the bedrock floor. The patterns are simple and linear, and the colors are limited to red, dark blue, and grey on a plain white background. The white plaster continued to floor level, and a broad red band defines the lower edge of the design, extending upward at the corners. The lower wall areas to either side of the apse were accentuated by a dark blue frame enclosing a reticulate pattern. Within each diamond was a red circle accentuated with four red dots forming a cross. Traces of the same patterning may be detected on the lateral walls immediately adjacent to the east wall. The pattern seems to be that of a textile: similar designs appear on the garments of figures in late Byzantine art, and imitative textiles commonly appear in the dado zones of late Byzantine church interiors. Below the apse, the step was decorated with a rough rinceau in dark grey on a white background. Burials outside the chapel. The burial area to the south of the church was framed to the west by a masonry niche, perhaps the remnant of a covered burial area. Ten tombs were cut into the bedrock, organized in three irregular rows, probably added over a period of time. Several cavities contained multiple burials. Tomb C, on axis with the niche, may have been the original burial, and 109

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:28 ™ÂÏ›‰·110

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, burial slab with inscription, found in second use

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, burial area to south of chapel, looking east

the skeleton was found with corroded copper buttons and two simple gold earrings. Tomb D, the largest of in the western range, was covered by an inscribed slab, which measured 0.70 x 1.83 x 0.08 m. Its inscription, turned downward, indicates that the slab came from the tomb of a certain monk Dionysios, and it names the reigning emperor Manuel Komnenos and the empress Maria. The date is given as 1173, and the inscription ends with a curse on anyone who disturbed the monk’s tomb. The inscription is the oldest from Didymoteichon but was clearly reused here to cover a rather modest Late Byzantine or early Post-Byzantine tomb. Another row of tombs extends along the north wall of the church; the long western tomb may have been originally two cavities. 110

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·111

Nothing found in the excavation of the tombs could help to clarify the chronology of the chapel, although on general stylistic grounds a mid-fourteenth-century date seems likely. Eighteen burials were identified in the 1987 excavation. An additional six had been found in 1930. Although none was found on the interior of the chapel, these should indicate the function of the building as a funeral chapel, perhaps with the occupant of Tomb C as its donor. Chapel by Hagios Athanasios. The remains of a second Byzantine building survive along the north flank of the metropolitan church of Hag. Athanasios, located on the south slope of the citadel of Didymoteichon. The 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities excavated and studied the

Didymoteichon, Hag. Athanasios, 19th-century church and site of chapel before excavation

111

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·112

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, archaeological plan showing chapel to south and apotheke and cisterns to north (drawing by Anne Marshall)

site in 1990-92, with support from the Municipality of Didymoteichon. Prior to the investigation, the surviving north wall and a portion of the east façade of the building could be seen between the north wall of the nineteenth-century church of Hag. Athanasios and the rock cliff that rises slightly further to the north. The foundations of the Byzantine building rest on level bedrock, and other features of the site were carved from the bedrock. A small, trapezoidal courtyard between the north (exterior) façade of the ruin and the rock cliff allows access to a series of rock-cut rooms, including a large apotheke (storeroom). One cistern is known locally as the Philakes Karolou (Prison of Charles): according to local lore the site where Charles XII of Sweden was imprisoned. Several additional cisterns and storerooms were cut into the bedrock further to the east. The original building was long and narrow, perhaps representing the aisle of a larger building. The single-aisled space extends more than 17 m in length and was divided into two distinct 112

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·113

sections. A long western nave was lined with arcades, and originally covered by a barrel vault, reinforced with diaphragm arches, the remains of which are visible at the springing of the vault. Following the collapse of the vault, the height of the wall was raised with an irregular stone construction. A separate sanctuary bay to the east was covered by a dome or domical vault raised above a tall arch, which had been blocked its full height. The remains of pendentives were visible immediately above. The exterior of the eastern end of the wall was enlivened with arcading and decorative niches, which continue around the corner onto the remains of a faceted east façade. In several places in the nave and sanctuary, the ruinous remains of fresco decoration were visible. Stylistic considerations of the architecture suggest a dating in the early fourteenth century for the building. Although numerous decorative features of the building fit well within architecture of the Palaiologan period, the long and narrow plan is unique in Byzantine architecture and demanded further investigation. The eastern end was detailed like the apse of a church, and the interior terminated in a sanctuary, but the plan did not conform to known examples of Byzantine church architecture, Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, archaeological plan at floor level showing positions of which normally have more centralized tombs, crypts, and beams supporting foundations plans. Several possibilities were considered. (drawing by Anne Marshall) The building could have been the north aisle of a large, ambulatory-plan church. Alternatively, if the remains were of a long, thin building, lined with arcades, it could have served as either a funeral chapel or a trapeza, a Byzantine monastic refectory. In any case, it would appear that the building was part of a larger establishment, perhaps monastic, which also included the rock-cut storerooms. It should be noted that the metropolitan church, constructed in 1834, was said to have been built on the site of a “very old church,” although it is not clear if 113

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·114

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, interior, looking northwest, before excavation

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, after excavation, nave looking east

this reference is to the building in question or to a separate structure, now buried beneath the nineteenth-century foundations of Hag. Athanasios. The building was discovered to considerably more unusual than was suggested prior to excavation. Like the north wall, the south wall of the building consisted of a series of arches, however, these were built against a solid bedrock wall. The foundations of the nineteenthcentury church were laid directly against the opposite face of the bedrock wall, preventing 114

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·115

further exploration in that direction. The piers of the south arcade were set farther apart than those of the north arcade, and thus the arches were wider than their northern counterparts. In addition, their springing point was lower, and they were set asymmetrically to the arcade opposite. A plastered floor was uncovered about a meter below the concrete terrace, extending throughout the nave and sanctuary. It stopped short of the arcades, and beneath each arch, a tomb was found, cut into the bedrock. Two barrel-vaulted burial crypts were discovered below the plastered floor, accessible only by means of trap doors in the nave floor. A door opened in the north wall of the building provided access to the small courtyard and storerooms. Additional tombs were discovered cut into the bedrock of the courtyard floor, as well as one to the east of the building. Prior to the Palaiologan period, the area may have served as an open cemetery. Numerous tombs were cut into the level bedrock surface, organized into three rows on an east-west axis (see plan at crypt level). All but one measured just less than 2 m. in length, and the common form is trapezoidal, narrowing toward the eastern end. Whereas most of the tomb cavities clearly predate the Late Byzantine building, which sits awkwardly on the irregular bedrock surface, a more exact dating was not possible. The first construction phase consisted of the south nave wall, not including the sanctuary. Piers of brick and stone were added to a bedrock wall above a floor level approximately 40 cm. below the present plastered floor. Tombs were positioned within each arch, below the floor level, and

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, archaeological plan at crypt level, showing positions of tombs and ossuary crypts (drawing by Anne Marshall)

115

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·116

the size of the individual tombs corresponded to the dimensions of the arches. The building was decorated with fresco, substantial portions of which survive, extending below the level of the plaster floor. The piers were constructed in the recessed brick technique, with etched mortar beds. Because of the limited survival of this building phase, it was not possible to determine its overall form, although it must have been similar to the final form of the building. The construction may be dated to the early Palaiologan period, based on the limited evidence of its fresco decoration and its numerous similarities with the subsequent construction phase. The building subsequently underwent a reconstruction, incorporating the south wall arcade and adding the sanctuary and the present north wall. The two phases are Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, pier of clearly distinguished by the differences in south wall, detail of masonry materials, notably the sizes of bricks and the thickness of the mortar joints. The resulting building was completely asymmetrical, with apparently six arches along the south wall (of which four were excavated) and seven along the north wall, and the sanctuary bay set off-axis with the nave. The floor level of the building was raised about 40 cm. and vaulted funeral crypts were added below the nave floor. The construction of the sanctuary and of the north wall rises above rows of tombs, but the relationship is not as regular as in the earlier construction. In several places, timber baulks were laid across the tomb cavities, and the superstructure was build directly 116

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·117

on wooden supports. The sanctuary bay is set off-axis to the nave. The arcades of the north wall are taller and less regular than their southern counterparts, and their functional relationship to the tombs below is unclear. It is also unclear how the diaphragm arches of the barrel vault related to the supports of the south wall. Construction details suggest a chronological closeness between the two phases that is difficult to explain. The masonry of both phases was of alternating brick and stone courses, and both employed the recessed brick technique, although the mortar beds of the north wall are sloped downward rather than etched. The arches of the later construction have banded voussoirs, and the eastern exterior surfaces are lavishly articulated. Based on stylistic details, this phase of construction should be dated approximately to the 1320s or 1330s. During the Ottoman period, the building underwent several transformations. It continued to be used for burials perhaps as late as the nineteenth century, and the eastern portion continued to be used as a chapel or proskynetarion into the early twentieth century. At an unknown date, the barrel vault of the nave collapsed, and the north wall was raised in height, forming a two-storied building with a wooden floor to the upper level. Post-Byzantine frescoes in the sanctuary indicate the functioning of at least part of the building as a church as late as (perhaps) the seventeenth century. The south wall was apparently destroyed at the time of the construction of Hag. Athanasios, and a terrace was subsequently laid over the site. The bema was defined by two tall arches that broadened its space to the north and south, and a shallow apse extended the space to the east. An arch separated the bema from the nave, possibly with a narrow templon. The central area was covered by a dome or domical vault raised above pendentives. The north arch survives almost its full height, rising about 4 m. above floor level. Along the north wall, a prothesis niche appears to the east, and a second niche is set into the west wall. The outline of the apse could be discerned in the plaster floor of the bema, which had been overlaid with square ceramic tiles. 117

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·118

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, after excavation, looking west

Along the south side, the plastered floor stops abruptly at the line of the pier. About 40 cm. below this level is a bedrock step, corresponding to the original floor level of the building, and a rockcut tomb fills out the area of the recess. The tomb cavity extends beneath the east wall, where cuttings and mortared cavities indicate the positions of two squared wooden beams that once supported the wall construction above the east end of the cavity. Fresco fragments from this area indicated a painted dado of geometric patterns and imitation marble.

118

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·119

Fragmentary frescoes were found on the upper north sanctuary walls as well, representing standing saints in liturgical garb, but these probably date from the 17th century. The frescoes and numismatic finds in this area of the building indicate its continued Christian usage well into the Post-Byzantine period - indeed, as recently as 1913. Visitors noted paintings of holy figures in the building, and they must have been referring to these frescoes. The central area of the nave was about 15 m. long, but it is only about 2.5 m. wide, expanded about 50-70 cm on either side by the arcades. Its curious asymmetry may be attributed to the difficulties encountered in building above the irregular pattern of tombs cut into the bedrock. The central area is covered by a plastered floor, which rises gradually from east to west and does not continue into the arcades. The south arcade was constructed against a bedrock wall, about 71-75 cm. thick, which is abutted and partially overlapped by the rubble foundations of the 19th-century church. Square piers were built against the wall, their lower portions cut from the bedrock, and their upper portions built of brick and stone. The springing of the arches is evident in the brick construction. Each of the piers measures about 70 cm. square, and each of the intervening arches has a diameter of 1.80-1.85 m. The piers related to a floor level about 40 cm. below the plastered floor, roughly corresponding to a bedrock ledge. The springing of the arches appeared at about a meter above the original floor level, and the height of the original arches may be reconstructed as about 1.90-1.95 m. With the raised floor of the nave, these would have risen only about 1.5 m. above floor level and would have appeared awkward when contrasted to the taller and thinner arches of the north arcade. Evidence of painting appears throughout the area, notably geometric patterning in the dado zone, meant to imitate marble. Enthroned figures survive on the rear walls of the second and fourth recesses, of which the lower portions survive. Within the third recess, the bedrock wall is neatly cut away along one side, and the opening was blocked with a rough rubble fill.

119

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·120

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, northeast corner

The north wall and arcade are substantially preserved, rising to just above the springing of the barrel vault that once covered the nave. The high arch of the sanctuary rises to a springing about 4 m above floor level, and the arched recesses of the north wall rise about 2.25 m above the nave floor. Fragments of painted decoration may be noted in several places on the upper wall surface. The vault was reinforced by diaphragm arches of brick, with putlog holes for tie beams at the springing. Another irregular line of putlog holes appears approximately at the springing of the barrel vault. A small aperture appears above the third pier, extending through the thickness of the nave wall, positioned immediately below the springing of the barrel vault. Its upper surface is formed by reused stone pieces, perhaps from a templon. The north arcade is considerably more irregular than its southern counterpart, and the dimensions of both the piers and the recesses vary: the eastern two recesses measure ca. 1.30 in length while the western five are closer to 1.70 in length. The second recess originally formed a portal opening into the north courtyard, and at the western end, the arcades intersect the rock face and become irregular. Remains of the western wall of the building may be seen about 60 cm beyond the westernmost recess. All of the arches are constructed with alternating brick and stone voussoirs. Although the spacing and the positioning of the piers were apparently dependent on the location of 120

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·121

tombs cut into the bedrock below, the relationship of the tomb cavities and the walls above is much more irregular than that of the south arcade. In several places, the tombs extend into the nave, beyond the width of the piers, and the piers commonly overlap the tombs. Where the walls extend over the cavities, a system of corbelling was improvised. The small area of north wall, which joins to the first recess, extended above a tomb cavity, over which three wooden beams were laid before the wall was constructed. A similar wooden support was used beneath the second pier. The entire north wall is set back about 70 cm. from the arched entrance to the sanctuary, and this created a small area of the wall at the east end of the nave. This was once decorated with fresco; a small patch representing jeweled drapery suggests a royally-clad saint was depicted here. Remains of figural frescoes survive in both reveals of the first recess as well, of standing saints with yellow haloes against a dark blue background. The east façade of the building was faceted and lavishly detailed, but most of it is now destroyed. Two facets survive, which formed the transition to the north façade. They were divided into zones by chamfered stringcourses, with the lower stringcourse appearing at the foundation level and the upper mid-way up the wall. The east facet is articulated with niches at two levels, the upper framed by colonnettes. The northeast facet contains a shallow niche in its lower surface. The north façade exhibits remarkable variety, with each exposed bay articulated differently. It does not appear to have been coordinated with that of the east façade, although the greatest degree of detail appears on its east bay, where it would have been most visible. The east bay corresponds to the sanctuary and is defined by a tall arcade, with broad pilasters to either side. Within the arcade, the wall surface is divided into two levels by a chamfered stringcourse, set at a noticeably higher level than that of the east façade. The lower wall area steps back to a segmental niche, with the conch of the niche composed of wedge-shaped stones. Above the string course is a centrally positioned window, now blocked, framed by a setback. The arches are constructed of stone voussoirs, with the outer arch framed in brick. Above the tall arcade, the original saddle-shaped roofline of the sanctuary is visible. 121

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·122

Beyond the sanctuary bay, the roof level dropped dramatically to the lower barrel vault over the nave. In the Post-Byzantine period, the nave was transformed into a two-storied hall, and the wall surface was raised. A setback stone arch corresponds to the first recess in the north wall of the nave interior. It includes setbacks to a flat wall surface, and the arches are composed of stone voussoirs. Although slightly narrower than the lower arch of the first bay, it is identical in height. The next bay was originally a portal, its arch topped by banded voussoirs. It is approximately the same width as the second arcade, but both its sill and the arch above are lower. Immediately to the west of the portal was a small niche, topped by an arch of banded voussoirs. Further to the west, the facade disappears behind the rubble fill. The soft stonework of the north facade has been inscribed with a variety of graffiti. Some is modern, but many appear to be quite old. Notably, graffiti did not appear on the areas of repair to the building, such as the blocking of the portal. Thus, the graffiti may predate these modifications. Two kinds of graffiti are most common: images of vulvae or female genitalia, and depictions of sailing ships. These may be interpreted as visual prayers, inscribed by the faithful in request of fertility or of safe passage for travelers. In sum, the excavations revealed a building - or a part of a building - of unique design but clearly funerary in function. The combination of asymmetrical, elongated plan and domed bema finds no direct comparisons, and it might be better interpreted as the aisle of a larger building that once stood on the site of Hag. Athanasios. Unfortunately, this area could not be investigated, and no connection through the south wall of the chapel was

Didymoteichon, chapel by Hag. Athanasios, north wall, graffiti

122

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·123

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, reconstruction of sanctuary façades, seen from northeast (drawing by Anne Marshall)

found. Although there are a variety of Late Byzantine elongated chapels in Constantinople, Bulgaria, and the Greek islands, none is as long or proportionally as narrow as the building at Didymoteichon, and none includes a domed bema. Perhaps the best comparison is the parekklesion of the Chora in Constantinople (1316-21): its function was clearly funerary, and it is similarly asymmetrical and lined with arcosolia. However, its dome appears over the westernmost bay, and there are cisterns rather than funeral crypts below. With the site limitations 123

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·124

at Didymoteichon, the most important view of the building was from the east, where the façade received its greatest articulation. In the final analysis, the unique combination of forms at Didymoteichon reflects a variety of Late Byzantine architectural and funerary concerns in response to an unusual site. In spite of the fragmentary and damaged nature of the building’s exterior, its sophisticated formal articulation is noteworthy. Compositional principles and many details recall the architecture of Constantinople, although there are some features for which no exact parallels may be found. For example, the use of arcades with stepped pilasters was standard in the architecture of the capital and elsewhere from the middle Byzantine period onward. As is common in Palaiologan architecture, the details of the exterior do not correspond with the interior, and the purpose of the external arcading must be understood primarily as decorative. Moreover, there is also little attempt to coordinate the individual features of the facade into a unified system of organization. In addition, the relationship between the north facade and the flanking surfaces of the east facade is poorly resolved. A similar lack of visual coordination around corners was evident at the church of Hag. Ioannes in Selymbria, now destroyed but thought to be the product of a Constantinopolitan workshop, ca. 1325. Much in the brick and stone construction corresponds to standard Late Byzantine practices in the region, although several features are noteworthy. Both brick and stone were apparently used in the vaulting as well: the pendentives of the sanctuary were of brick, but the barrel vault of the nave seems to have been of stone. The use of stone in vault construction as well as the sole use of stone in arches appears in distinct contrast to standard Byzantine practice. The unusual selection of materials at Didymoteichon is likely the result of the easy availability of stone at the site. Moreover, brick was not used decoratively on the surviving portions of the exterior, nor do dogtooth cornices appear. With a single exception, exterior arches are constructed entirely with stone voussoirs. In addition, the conches of niches are formed by means of stone wedges, rather than brick. This may be unique in the Byzantine architecture of the region, but it may represent

124

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·125

an attempt to translate standard brick construction into the more readily available stone. Stone arches and conches also appear at Hag. Ioannes at Selymbria, but on a much smaller scale, with conches of the individual niches carved from a single stone. In spite of numerous unique features, the chapel is best viewed within the sphere of influence of Constantinople. On the other hand, the uniqueness of the plan and of certain constructional details emphasizes the distance from the Byzantine capital, and these features are best understood in a local context - taking into consideration the limitations of the site and the availability of materials. The building may be the product of a local workshop, indebted to the stylistic influence exerted by the architecture of Constantinople, and aware of developments elsewhere in Thrace and the Balkans. The builders were experienced, and they were able to accommodate the functional requirements of the chapel to a restricted and irregular site, as well as to adjust the formal articulation to an unusual building. Formal concerns and particular decorative details help to position the building squarely in the early Palaiologan period. Although we must rely on stylistic considerations to date the building, a date in the 1320s or 1330s seems most likely for the second Palaiologan phase. This is also a period of increased contact with Constantinople and the imperial family. As discussion of the frescoes will suggest, an association of the building with one or more members of the imperial family seems likely, although it is not clear with whom. North courtyard and adjacent spaces. The small, trapezoidal courtyard to the north of the building measures just under 10 m in greatest length and about 2.5 m at its greatest width. Along its north side, the courtyard is bounded by a rock cliff and two cisterns, one of which projects to the east. Several drainage channels were cut into the rock. The western cistern, partially enclosed in rubble masonry, is known locally and certainly incorrectly as the Filakes Karolou, the socalled Prison of Charles - where the King of Sweden is said to have been imprisoned by the Ottomans following the Battle of Poltava (1709).

125

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·126

Didymoteichon, apotheke interior, looking north

At the west of the cliff, immediately before the rubble fill that terminates the trapezoidal courtyard, is the entrance to a large, rock-cut apotheke, which measures approximately 6 x 9 m. internally, subdivided by two rock-cut piers. Its floor is cut with 27 depressions to hold large ceramic pithoi for the storage of foodstuffs. A graffito monogram of the Palaiologues is carved into the wall immediately to the right of the entrance. Large quantities of Post-Byzantine ceramics were found in this area as well. Didymoteichon was a major centre of ceramic production in 18th-19th c. 126

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·127

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, east burial crypt

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, west burial crypt

Crypts beneath the nave. Two barrel-vaulted ossuary crypts were discovered beneath the floor of the nave, cut into the bedrock to a depth of just over 2 m. - that is, to a lower level than the tombs flanking the nave. The two are similar in form and size, each accessible only by means of a trap door in the nave floor. The crypts were clearly funerary in function, with tombs cut into the bedrock of their floors, and with numerous additional bodies laid at floor level. All of the latter were found in a disturbed condition. The crypts probably continued to function for burials well into the Post-Byzantine period.

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, longitudinal section through nave, showing ossuary crypts beneath floor level. The western section (left) was not excavated (drawing by Anne Marshall)

127

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·128

Although very nearly identical, the construction of the crypts differs, with brick vault of the western crypt employing the recessed brick technique, while the brick vault of the eastern is of standard brick construction, with thin mortar beds. The latter is distinct from the construction evident in either phase of the superstructure. All four tombs flanking the western crypt have holes bored into the bedrock that correspond with rectangular openings in the haunches of the brick vault. The purpose of these is not entirely clear. Tombs. In addition to the mass burials in the crypts below the nave floor, eighteen tombs were identified in the course of the excavation, all cut into the bedrock. Nine were found in the arched recesses flanking the nave and sanctuary; three in the courtyard to the north of the building; one to the east, extending below the foundations of Hag. Athanasios; one in the east crypt; and four in the west crypt. All but the east tomb were cut on an east-west alignment. The standard shape is slightly trapezoidal with rounded corners, wider on the west side. The burials uniformly had the head of the deceased in the west; normally the arms were folded across the abdomen. Many of the cavities contained multiple burials. With one exception, the burials were modest, and the finds were minimal, primarily assorted potsherds, fallen fresco plaster, buttons, and nails. The evidence suggests that burials continued well into the Post-Byzantine period. Wall Paintings. Traces of Byzantine wall painting survive throughout the building. Most impressive are two large areas on the walls of the second and fourth south niches of the nave. The first, uncovered in 1990, shows a life-size figure from the knees down. The painting runs the full length of the recess - ca. 1.80 m, with a total height of ca. 60 cm. It shows the lower portion of a figure, wearing a gold and jeweled robe and red buskins, with feet resting on a red hypopodion placed on a footstool. Elements of a throne may be discerned behind the figure. The background is dark blue with a green ground area, and the whole is outlined with a red and white border. The lower edge corresponds to the height of the bedrock ledge, indicating that the painting must have been part of the first Palaiologan phase. It cannot be later, because the raised floor is about 40 cm. higher than the lower border of the fresco. The lower edge curls outward, suggesting that it once overlapped the floor. A small patch of similar fresco - dark blue and green 128

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·129

with brown drawing - is visible in the southeast corner, continuing from the south wall, where pale, finger-like projection appears on a small preserved surface. Based on the analogy of the figure in the fourth south nave recess, this is probably the tip of a wing. The figure is likely male because of the size and prominence of the feet. The off-center positioning of the figure and his relationship to the throne - shown in a sort of perspective suggest that he is sitting. Both the throne and the footstool are rendered in shades of brown, imitating wood. The throne has prominent legs and is detailed with an arcade across its front surface. The footstool appears tipped upward, overlapping the lower portion of the throne. The color employed in the shoes and in the cushion is a rich red; it is identical in both, and the two are distinguished only by the black outlining of the shoes. The cushion is also outlined in black, and both cushion and shoes have white striped decoration. The shoes include a three-lobed pattern at the toes and a row of white pearls across the ankles. A circle decorated with dots appears on the cushion between the feet.

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, fresco in niche 2

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, figure in niche 2 reconstructed

129

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·130

The robe worn by the figure is painted in a pale ochre, and the area remaining is framed by horizontal bands at the top and bottom. The bands are decorated with two rows of white pearls, with red and blue rectangular jewels at the center and ends of each. The field is filled with a diaper pattern formed by rows of white pearls, with two rows of round red jewels and one row of round blue jewels. The few surviving traces indicate that a similar field appeared above the upper decorative band. To the left of the figure, at ground level, is a curious, light brown object. It is shaded in darker tones, and the coloration is similar to the adjacent footstool. Set at a diagonal, the object is curved at the top, and the curve is emphasized in the dark band on the upper edge. It is unclear if a strap of some sort appears further to the left of the object, or if this is damage to the painted surface. The identity of the object in not certain: it may be a purse or some sort or a quiver, although neither can be confirmed. The composition in the fourth south recess is virtually identical to that just described, although there are a few differences in detail and coloration. Notably, a greater portion of the figure survives, and its condition is considerably better. The fresco extends the full width of the recess,

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, fresco in niche 4

130

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, figure in niche 4 reconstructed

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·131

about 1.85 m., and it rises just over a meter to its maximum height at the east corner. The painted surface is continuous with smaller fragments on the east and west reveals, where fragments of red fresco representing drapery are visible. The lower border conforms to the first Palaiologan floor level, but, unlike the previous example, the plaster surface for the fresco was laid flat against the wall, and it was apparently overlapped by the floor. The area not meant to be exposed has been left white, and there are several places where the paint has dripped onto the white surface. As in the previous example, the field is blue with a green ground, with red and white borders. In this instance, the figure is preserved almost to waist height, and it is clear that he was both regally dressed and seated on a throne. A bend at the knee is evident, and the figure holds a scepter with his right hand. A bit of a cushion is visible on the upper surface of the throne. Curiously, wings appears to either side of the figure, fragmentary on his left side but clearly preserved on his right. The throne and footstool are rendered in brown tones resembling wood. They occupy the same positions as in the previous composition: the throne is shown in perspective with the right side shaded, whereas the footstool appears to fly in front of the throne, with its front face contiguous to the lower edge of the fresco. The throne is raised on prominent legs, which are rendered threedimensionally with shading. Its surfaces are articulated with two rows of arcading, highlighted with white. Three horizontal bands of rinceaux divide the surfaces, detailed with white on a dark brown. A similar rinceau band appears on the front of the footstool. The red buskins rest on a red hypopodion. Both are rendered in the same tone of red, distinguished by the black outlining of the footwear. The cushion is detailed with wavy lines in pale white and black. The red tone here is closer to a cadmium red, differing from the slightly deeper red employed in the previous example. The cushion on the throne is a similar red, detailed with two dark stripes.

131

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·132

The costume worn by the figure also differs from that of the previous example. The lower portion is a field of ochre with some white highlights, covered with a diaper pattern of maroon lines. Inside each diamond-shaped segment is a smaller diamond with discs at the four corners, all in maroon. Above this is a horizontal band decorated with two rows of white pearls, punctuated by large rectangular jewels in red and blue. Above this, the drapery surface is patterned with a pale ochre on a maroon background. A vertical band rises on the axis of the figure. Its left-hand portion repeats the pattern of the horizontal band just described, whereas the larger right-hand portion includes diamond-shaped and rectangular jewels surrounded by white pearls on an ochre field. A swatch of drapery hangs down to the right—apparently over the figure’s left arm, turned so that the red inner lining of the costume is visible. The cuff of the sleeve is just visible on the figure’s right wrist; it also has an ochre background, decorated with pearls and jewels. The wings, spread into individual feathers, are rendered in tones of brown, shaded in black with white highlights. Several general comments may be made about the two paintings. First, because of the limited height of the recesses, whatever the identity of the figures, in order for them to be depicted nearly life-size, it was necessary to represent them as seated and to begin the composition at floor level. Thus, if the paintings were meant to be understood in relationship to the tombs below, it was not possible to include a sarcophagus above floor level, as was standard in an arcosolium grave. Although the two compositions are quite similar, the technical differences - such as choice of pigments and the treatment of the lower surface - suggest that they may not have been painted at exactly the same time. On the other hand, the iconographical similarities are noteworthy and require further discussion. The upper portions of the figures must have been positioned frontally, along the central axis of the recess, with the legs turned to one side and the flank of the throne visible on the other. The details of the costumes and regalia - jeweled robes, red buskins, red hypopodion, scepter, elaborate thrones - indicate imperial nature of the figures. They must be either emperors, or someone, such as Christ or an archangel, in imperial garb. The fact that there are at least two

132

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·133

similar compositions, and that both frescoes included wings limits the possibilities. Three possible identifications should be considered: enthroned archangels, emperors with angelic attendants, or winged emperors. Large, individual figures of archangels appear frequently in Byzantine churches, perhaps intended as guardians of, but in such instances, their costume is more military than imperial. Moreover, in Byzantine art angels are never represented as seated unless the narrative requires them to do so, as for example, in scenes of the Old Testament Trinity or of the Holy Women at the Tomb. No iconic, seated figures of angels have come down to us from Byzantium. Thus, in spite of the prominent wings, the identification of the figures as angels should be ruled out. Rulers are sometimes represented with attendants: flying angels with crowns and symbols of office, or attendants positioned behind the throne; both appear at Ljubostinja in Yugoslavia. A manuscript portrait of Nicephorus III Botaniates shows personifications crowded behind his throne. However, in the surviving images, flying angels invariably flank standing rulers, whereas the standing attendants that appear behind seated rulers are invariably wingless. Considering the size of the unfurled wings in our frescoes, it is difficult to imagine them attached to what would have to have been tiny angels. It would be a tight fit, even if angels are immaterial beings. The third possibility is that the figures represent winged emperors. Actually, such images are known on Byzantine coinage from the late thirteenth century onward. The image may have been popularized because of the association of Michael VIII with St. Michael, but it may have originated earlier, as Bertelè suggests. In fact, the association of emperors and angels has a long history in Byzantine rhetoric and art. It was a rhetorical convention to compare emperors to angels, as in the curious texts of panegyric poems written by the court rhetorician Holobolos in praise of the emperor Michael VIII. The poems were used in the Prokypsis ceremony, in which the emperor and members of his family were dramatically presented to the acclamations of the people. Curtains were parted to reveal the rulers brilliantly illuminated, and then they were

133

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·134

lauded with heavenly comparisons. In one of Holobolos’ verses, the emperor and his two sons became the three angelic messengers entertained by Abraham. In another, the emperor was described as seated between Michael and Gabriel, who were called upon to protect him with their wings. Another poem called the emperor the “crown-bearing angel” and compared the two sons to his wings. The inclusion of wings thus reflected court rhetoric, emphasizing the comparison of emperors with angels. In another sense, the wings can be seen as symbols representing divine or divinely bestowed power. It is interesting that in the last Byzantine centuries, as the emperor’s actual power decreased, the sacerdotal nature of his rule was given greater emphasis. The appearance of the images of winged emperors may be seen as a visual reflection of this transformation. Wall painting fragments. Hundreds of fragments of wall painting came to light during the excavation, often clustered together as fill in the tombs. They may have been buried intentionally and represent a range of dates, from the late Komnenian to the Post-Byzantine. Unfortunately, their original positions within the building - or, indeed, if they belonged to the building - could not be determined. A reconstructed niche. Numerous fragments found along the south side of the nave in the vicinity of the second recess may be reassembled, at least in part. These fragments came from a niche whose reveals were decorated with a rinceau pattern executed in black silhouette on a white background. The pattern includes multi-lobed white leaves set into a vine scroll, of a type common in late Byzantine decoration. Portions of two different reveals could be reconstructed, one 12 cm. deep, the other 10 cm. deep. For both, the inner and outer borders were clearly defined. The outer corner is marked with a broad pink stripe on the convex surface and a thin black stripe on the flanking wall, which was left white. The inner corner has a similar, broad pink stripe on its concave surface, and then a fragment of the niche is preserved. The last is painted a deep maroon speckled with ochre to imitate the stone porphyry.

134

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·135

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, fresco fragments of figure standing on porphyry; reveal of niche adjoining same image

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, inscription from same

More than a dozen fragments of imitation porphyry were found that could not be reassembled. Several fragments included both the porphyry and other patterns so that these could be associated with the decoration of the niche. These included more than twenty fragments of pale blue-grey

135

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·136

drapery outlined and highlighted in white, with the toes of pink shoes joining to both the border of the drapery and the porphyry. On a few fragments, the blue-grey drapery is next to a deep red drapery. The ten fragments of an inscription in white minuscule on a yellow-green background appear to have come from the same grouping as well: several fragments have the same yellowgreen field bordering the deep red fabric. The inscription seems to begin with the mention of an empress, her name lost. A hypothetical reconstruction of the niche decoration may be proposed, with a female figure standing on the left side, turned slightly to the right. She was clad in a blue-grey robe, wearing pink shoes, and standing on a porphyry floor. To the right was a red curtain and the inscription apparently the dedicatory inscription for the Phase II building. Because of the porphyry floor, the other frescoes of emperors, and the reading of the inscription, it would thus appear that the founder of the building was a late Byzantine empress. Unfortunately, it is not clear where exactly within the building the niche was located. The existing recesses are clearly larger than the 10-12 cm. depth of the niche. Because the south wall appears to have been destroyed when the 19th-century church was built, the niche may have been located higher up in the south wall - although this is simply a guess. A piece of a half-column with a diameter of 12 cm was found in the central area of the nave, molded in white plaster and striated to resemble marble. The unpainted, white ground matches that of the wall surface flanking the niche. We may speculate that the niche was framed by half-columns. Other niche reveals. In addition to the reveal patterns just discussed, several patterned fragments of a second niche were found in the area in front of the third south nave recess. Again, the original location of the niche is not clear. The pieces include both the convex outer border and the concave inner border, detailed with a broad pink stripe. The maximum width of the pieces and the depth of the niche is approximately 10.5 cm. The field of the reveals is white with black outlining forming a series of large triangles. Within each is a series of chevrons of wavy lines in

136

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·137

brown, blue-grey, pink, and ochre, perhaps based on marble patterning. There are several fragments that once joined the concave inner border of this niche. Three fragments preserve a pale ochre halo outlined in dark blue and white against a dark blue background. One fragment preserves a small white cross on a dark blue background, perhaps the beginning of an inscription. These details suggest that the niche contained the image of a saint. The face of Christ. The most impressive of the figural fragments come from a life-size Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, painted portrait of Christ, found in the excavation of pattern from reveal of niche the tomb in the first north nave recess (estimated height of head: 30 cm.). The face is seen frontally. One large piece represents the mouth, chin, and beard; another the nose; still another part of the forehead with the forelocks and the beginning of the hair; and yet another the right ear with hair and part of the halo. Unfortunately the eyes are missing. The amount of detail in the rendering of the facial features is remarkable, and much must have been done with a single-haired brusHag. The face has an ochre cast with olive shading. There is a highlighting of thin white lines on the forehead, face and lips, and a strong red is used in the lips, nose, and cheeks. The modeling is very subtle, with a wide range of colors. The lips are small but full, curving upward, countering the downward curves of the moustache. The nose is long and thin, outlined in a maroon-brown and red, with white highlights. Along the cheek and chin, the olive shadows blend into the maroon-brown of the moustache and beard, all executed with very fine lines. The hair is separated from the face by a double line of thick ochre-white and dark brown.

137

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·138

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, fragments of a portrait of Christ

138

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·139

The figure’s right earlobe is delicately modeled but not clearly detailed. The hair is outlined in dark brown and striated with ochre and white. The halo is now reddish with a greenish overpainting for the bar of the cross-nimbus; perhaps it was originally gold. The exceptional quality of this image is evident even in its fragmentary condition, and it suggests an artist of the first rank, probably from Constantinople. The highlighting with thin, parallel white lines and the multicolored outlining of the facial features corresponds to early Palaiologan mosaics and frescoes in the Byzantine capital, such as the Christ from the Deesis in Hag. Sophia or the paintings of the Chora. On the other hand, the indistinct treatment of the earlobe, not separated from the cheek, may be unique in such representations of Christ. In addition, the mouth of the Didymoteichon Christ differs from the Constantinopolitan examples: although the lips are characteristically narrow, the moustache extends outward to either side and does not droop, giving the face a less severe expression. It remains unclear where within the building the fresco was originally located. Numerous related fragments of drapery were also found, painted in a purplish brown with pale ochre hatching meant to resemble chrysography. The drapery pieces have darker, concentric ovals to define the underlying form. Tonal gradations are within a single color, and darker, thicker lines represent the folds in the drapery. Objects found with burials. A single burial preserved significant grave goods. In the third south nave tomb, a skeleton was found beneath a disturbed layer and above another burial. It was in deteriorated condition but accompanied by fragments of cloth, including a braided border and a silk ribbon, copper buttons, a perfume sprinkler, a ring and one earring. Around the skeleton were 16 nails with fragments of wood attached, indicating that the body had been buried in a wooden coffin. The glass perfume sprinkler, or myrodocheion, is a good example of an omon-shaped vessel, popular in Islamic (Syrian or Egyptian) glass manufacture during the 12th-15th centuries, with 139

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·140

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, grave good from tomb in niche 3: glass bottle, ring, and earring

a conical base, a doughnut-shaped body, and a tall neck; trailed handles appear a the joining of the body and neck. The vessel measures 24 cm. tall by 10 cm. across its body. The translucent blue glass preserves traces of a rough decoration of red and white paint. The jewelry found in same burial fits generally within the picture of the development of Byzantine metalwork, although Late Byzantine jewelry is neither well published nor often studied. The ring is made of a gold alloy and measures 1.55 cm. exterior diameter and 1.35 cm. interior diameter. The thin metal band is engraved with a Solomonic knot or basket weave pattern on its rectangular bezel and with scrollwork on its hoop. The bezel decoration may be read either as a common Christian apotropaic motif or perhaps as one with particular 140

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·141

monogrammatic or familial associations. Similar emblems with four crossed bars appears in association with members of the imperial family during the Late Byzantine period. An almost identical motif appears on the walls of Didymoteichon, executed in brick, flanking the monogram of the Protostrator Constantine Tarchaniotes, who was archon of the city ca. 13511352. The motif might thus have been associated with the Tarchaniotes family. A gold earring from same burial has a pouch-like body and a hinged hook. It measures 1.54 cm. in height, 1.4 cm. wide and 0.7 cm. thick. The unusual, long closing pin measures 1.23 cm. The body is hollow, and its lower surface is covered with an openwork foliate design that resembles filigree. A bead pattern appears on the sides, and the upper surface is plain. The body was probably made in two pieces with the loops for the hook later soldered to it. The decoration was probably executed before the pieces were joined, using a stamping and punching technique, judging from the three-dimensional quality of the design. Post-Byzantine churches. The Post-Byzantine churches in Didymoteichon include the cathedral of Hag. Athanasios (1834), the church of the Koimesis of Panagia (1843), a parish church outside the walls constructed on the site of an older church of 1806, and the church of Christ (1846). All are three-aisled basilicas with pi-shaped narthexes. Their elaborated wooden iconostases were carved by Stamates from Madytos, and exhibit

Didymoteichon, icon of the Panagia Didymoteichitissa, 14th c.

141

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·142

Western influences. The nineteenth century icons on the iconostases were dedicated by the guilds of Didymoteichon, and most of them are signed “by the hand of Nikolaos from Adrianopolis”. The church of Hag. Georgios (Surp Kevork) was the centre of worship for the Armenian community during the nineteenth century. It was built probably Didymoteichon, Glazed plates, early 19th c. on the site of the Byzantine church known as Hag. Georgios Palaiokastrites, where John VI Kantakouzenos said prayers after his coronation on 26th October 1341. Kantakouzenos himself related (III, 167): “As after the applause the emperor, mounted on his steed, and whith all his retinue on horseback, proceeded to the church of the holy martyr Saint George Palaiokastrites”.

Bibliography Asdracha C. La région de Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Études de géographie historique (Athens, 1976), 130-37 __________ and Ch. Bakirtzis. “Inscriptions byzantines de Thrace (VIIIe-XVe siècles) Édition et commentaire historique,” Archaiologikon Deltion 35/A (1980) [= 1986], 263-71 Bakirtzis, Ch. “Didymoteichon: un centre de céramique post-byzantine,” Balkan Studies 21 (1980), 147-53 Bertelè, T. L’imperatore alato nella numismatica bizantina (Rome, 1951) Euthymiou, Gr. “To Didymoteichon kata tous byzantinous chronous,” Archeion Thrakikou Laografikou kai Glossikou Thesaurou 22 (1957), 349-78 Giannopoulos, F. Didymoteichon: Istoria enos byzantinou Ochyrou (Athens, 1989) [Greek translation of Id., Didymoteichon: Geschichte einer byzantinischer Festung, diss. Köln, 1975] Gouridis, A. To historiko Didymoteicho (Didymoteicho, 1999) Lampousiades, G. “Didymoteichon,” Thrakika 2 (1929), 87-93

142

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·143

Manakas, D. “Sylloge afegeseon, thrylon, paradoseon kai historikon gegonoton Didymoteichou,” Thrakika 37 (1963), 12-39 Meimares, I. - Ch. Bakirtzis Hellenikes epigrafes hysterorromaikon kai palaiochristianikon chronon apo te Dytike Thrake (Komotini, 1994) Ousterhout, R. “Observations on the ‘Recessed Brick’ Technique during the Palaeologan Period,” Archaiologikon Deltion 39 (1984) [=1990], 163-170 _________. “The Palaeologan Architecture of Didymoteichon,” Byzantinische Forschungen, 14 (1989), Acts of the First International Symposium for Thracian Stuidies “Byzantine Thrace: Image and Character”, Komotini, May 28th-31st 1987, 430-443 _________. Unpublished excavation reports, on file with the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Kavala, 1990-92 __________. “Hag. Aikaterini at Didymoteichon,” Archaiologikon Deltion 42, B2 Chronika (1987), 471-474 ___________. “A Late Byzantine Chapel at Didymoteichon and Its Frescoes,” in L’arte di Bisanzio e l’Italia al tempo dei Paleologi 1261-1453, eds. A. Iacobini and M. della Valle (published as Milion 5 [Rome, 1999]), 195-207 ___________ and Th. Gourides. “Ena Byzantino Kterio dipla ston Agio Athanasio Didymoteichonu,” To Archaiologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake, 5 (Thessaloniki, 1994), 517-121 Papadopoulos, S. Didymoteicho (Didymoteicho, 1990) Papatheophanous-Tsoure, E. and Tsouris, K. “Palaiologeio monydrio sto kastro Didymoteichou,” Archaiologikon Deltion 44-46/A (1989-1991),12-39 Samothrakes, A. “He phylake tou Karolou XII, Vasileos tes Souedias en Didymoteichon,” Thrakika 20 (1944), 87-92 Tsouris, K. “Anaskafike erevna sto Didymoteicho,” Athens Annals of Archaeology 20 (1987), 43-65 _________. “Nea evremeta apo to Didymoteicho,” Athens Annals of Archaeology 23 (1989), 89-110 _________. “Ta kineta evremata tes anaskafes dyo byzantinon spition sten Arta kai sto Didymoteicho. Prote prossegise,” Praktika Diethnous Synedriou “To Despotato tes Epirou”, Arta 2331.5.1990 (Arta, 1992), 495-504 Vapheides, N. “Hai Ekklesiai Didymoteichou,” Thrakika 13 (1940), 228-241 _________. “ Byzantinon parekklesion tes Agias Aikaterines en Didymoteicho tes Thrakes,” Archeion Thrakikou Laografikou kai Glossikou Thesaurou 22 (1957), 165-8

143

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·144

Pythion, fortress seen from south (1987)

144

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·145

CHAPTER 5

Pythion and Pranghi Located about 15 km east-northeast from Didymoteichon and 32 km south of Edirne, the massive, ruined fortress of Pythion (Greece) sits on the edge of a plateau, above the plain of the Evros/Meriç River valley, about 2 km west of the river itself. The fortress may be identified with the tameion or treasury and residence of John VI Kantakouzenos, called by him Empythion or Pythion. From the Historiai of Kantakouzenos, we know that the fortress existed already at the beginning of the second civil war in 1341 and that it was built during the reign of Andronikos III - that is, either his joint rule with Andronikos II, 1321-28, or his sole rule, 1328-41. Dendrochronological examination of wood beams from the larger tower indicates a felling date 1331 and thus a date in the later period is likely. The historian Nikephoros Gregoras indicates that there may have been an older, ruined fortress on the site. Gregoras wrote that “Kantakouzenos undertook expensive works in the castle of Pythion .... and managed to make it look as if suspended in the air.” In 1342 Kantakouzenos was besieged at Pythion by Alexios Apokaukos, and in 1352 by the Bulgarian supporters of the Palaiologues. The fortress fell to the Ottomans under Hacı Ilbeyi around 1359, as the region from Didymoteichon to Adrianopolis came under Ottoman control, and the fortress assumed his name.

145

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·146

In its final form, the fortress consisted of an outer and inner enceinte, with two towers and a gateway where they joined. Only a few traces remains of the outer enclosure, which extended westward along the plateau to define a trapezoidal space, apparently with towers at the corners, set at a distance of about 120 m from the surviving gateway. The inner courtyard extended to the northeast and was entered through a fortified gateway protected by two substantial but asymmetrical towers. The inner courtyard was also trapezoidal but smaller, following the extent of the plateau, and extending an estimated 85 m, perhaps terminating in a third tower. Portions of its enclosure walls remain, and their line may be determined, although this area is poorly preserved, as the end of the plateau was destroyed with the construction of the railroad and highway.

Pythion, plan of fortress (drawing by M. Korres)

146

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·147

Pythion, reconstruction view from southeast (drawing by M. Korres)

What remains most substantial today are the two towers and the gateway. The north tower is the oldest and most impressive part of the fortress. It served as the donjon, the most secure portion of the complex and last point of refuge during a siege. In plan, it is almost square, measuring slightly less than 15 m on each side. Three vaulted stories are preserved, rising to a total height of approximately 17m. In his study of the fortress, Manolis Korres has hypothesized a fourth, uppermost level, rising above the battlements. The walls average 2.5 m thick. Each floor was subdivided into four bays, covered by large domical vaults (ca. 5 m diameter) supported on arches rising from the outer wall and the central pier. Vaulted passageways filled the spaces between the domical vaults; these may have been used for storage, or they may have been included simply to reduce the massiveness of the construction at the level of the vaulting. A single entrance opens to the northeast, connecting to the inner enceinte. The entrance passage 147

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·148

Pythion, the entrance of the large tower before restoration (1974)

Pythion, large tower, vaulted staircase

Pythion, section of the large tower, looking northeast, with hypothesized upper level (drawing by M. Korres)

148

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·149

also connects to a vaulted staircase, set into the thickness of the wall and covered by a series of ramping barrel vaults, and this provides access to the upper floors. Indicative of its defensive nature, few windows opened to the interior. The ground floor may have been windowless originally. Immediately above the main entrance, the window includes a rectangular “murder hole” in its sill. On the upper levels, only thin slit windows open in the southwest wall, which was the most exposed, with small arched windows on the other facades. Those of the upper level are the largest, and as this level included both a fireplace and a built-in cupboard, we may assume it was the residential floor of the tower. Most distinctive of the tower’s features are the continuous stone machicolations preserved at its summit. These once supported battlements to protect the defenders, and they provided “murder holes” from which the walls could be defended from attackers at close range. The larger windows on the upper levels were also equipped with at least four defensive balconies of similar form, rising above stone corbels on the northeast and northwest façades. Some strengthening of the central pier and pilasters seems to have occurred at a later time. In spite of its massiveness, the fragility

Pythion, interior of large tower, upper level, showing the vaulting (1974)

149

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·150

Pythion, large tower, detail of masonry

Pythion, large tower, first level, showing technique of vaulting (1974)

of the construction is evident by the perilous state of the vaulting. In its fragmented condition, it provides and inner aspect suggestive of a Piranesi engraving of Roman ruins. A cistern was added subsequently as well, by walling in one-quarter of the ground floor. It seems to have been supplied by rainwater through pipes that led from the roof. A study of the masonry indicates that the larger tower was constructed first and may have been freestanding originally. Courses of brick appear within the rough stone masonry of the exterior 150

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·151

Pythion, towers seen from west (1986)

to mark the transitions between the levels of the interior. The recessed brick technique appears consistently in these courses. A variation of the recessed brick technique appears in the domical vaults of the interior, with large fragments of bricks in the mortar joints. This technique appears in none of the other, presumably later, components of the fortress. The four-bayed plan, with brick vaulting at all levels, and the extensive use of stone machicolations mark the tower as unique among Byzantine fortifications and at the cutting edge of military technology in the fourteenth century. It must have been costly to build, as Gregoras implies, and with its great height and in its dramatic situation, it would seem to have been “suspended in the air.” The smaller tower and the arched gateway were constructed later, simultaneously with the wall of the inner enceinte. The tower is almost square in plan, measuring ca. 7.4 m on each side, preserved to a maximum height of 20 m. Although it does not rise to height of the larger tower, its foundations begin at a considerably lower level, set onto the slope of the hill. In addition, the walls of the tower are battered, exhibiting diminution as they rise. As in the larger tower, its four floors are marked on the exterior by courses of brick, although the recessed brick technique is not employed here. On the interior, the floors are all single chambered, each covered by a domical vault of brick. The ground floor was only accessible from above and has no windows; it was probably used as a dungeon, entered by ladder from above. There is no communication 151

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·152

between the upper floors, each of which was entered separately from the exterior. Windows open on the upper levels; that on the southeast façade, now damaged, may have connected to a machicolated balcony. The small tower may have terminated in another level topped by machicolations, similar to the larger tower. The two towers are joined by a wall 2.65 m thick with a portal leading to the inner courtyard. The walkway at its top connected to a window on the third floor of the larger tower. The passage is covered by a barrel vault ca. 4.6 m in length over an opening 3.3 m wide. On the lateral walls,

Pythion, courtyard during restoration, looking west toward the entrance (2005)

Pythion, the fortified gateway before restoration (1974)

152

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·153

there is evidence for attaching an outer and an inner two-valve door, as well as for bars to secure them in place. A small chamber covered by a domical vault appears above the passageway. This was accessible by an internal staircase, which, however, does not extend to the ground level. Above this rose a corbelled balcony. The inner courtyard is surrounded by a wall 2.20-2.40 m thick. To the south, the wall is preserved for a length of 28.5 m, with a maximum height of 9 m. To the north, slightly more than 10 m of the length is preserved. The curtain walls were reinforced internally with wooden chains and built with blind arches on their inner surface. Perhaps there were also lightweight buildings set against them around the interior of the enclosure. Based on its construction technique, the outer enceinte seems to have been built separately, apparently in a final phase. Certain problems are posed by the three-phased chronology of the fortress. If the main tower was built after 1331, the two enceintes must have appeared shortly thereafter. We may credit these to Kantakouzenos’ need for better defenses during the period of the civil wars, although this is nowhere stated in his history. When he mentions the fortress

Pythion, plain greenish glazed cup, 14th c.

Pythion, bottom of a glazed bowl with brown and green sgraffito decoration, 14th c.

153

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·154

during the period of the civil war, he writes of it as if it had existed for some time. On the other hand, the fortress is known in early Ottoman sources as Ilbeykülesi, and it may be that it was strengthened by Gazı Ilbeyi after he captured it in 1359. This would explain why the fortress came to bear his name. Since 1993, the fortress has been the subject of extensive study and restoration under the direction of the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities. Pranghi. Located between Didymoteichon and Pythion, the village of Pranghi or Prangion (Greece) is known from the fourteenth century as the site of the tomb of the father of Gazi Evrenos. According to a defter dated to the period of Süleyman the Magnificent, “the father of Evrenos is said to have been Isa Beg, later called Prangi, because he died in the village of that name; his son Evrenos had a mausoleum built there and established a waqf.” According to the defter, an alternative name for village of Prangi is Karye-i Sırcık. Just south of the village, by the present road from Didymoteichon to Pythion, at the site known as Panokklisi (“Upper Chapel”) or Gnematoudia (“Tombs”), the remains of a small church complex were discovered. The site was excavated by the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities in the early 1980s. The main feature at the site was a single-aisled church, very similar in type to Hag. Aikatherini at Didymoteichon. The church measures 13.23 x 7.47 m overall, with exterior articulation of pilasters and blind arcades. Access to the narthex was by means of an axial western portal and by a secondary doorway to the north. A single entrance, with bivalve doors, led into the naos. Heavy internal pilasters reinforce the lateral walls, aligned with two on each side. On the basis of these, we may suggest that the chapel was covered by a banded barrel vault. The floors of the naos and narthex were covered with large stone slabs, which had been carefully worked. Close to the center of the naos is a well for drinking water. A slab has been cut to form a wellhead with a circular well, whose walls were constructed of stone laid without mortar. 154

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·155

Pranghi, Plan of the excavated church complex (drawing by Arghyris Bakirtzis)

The apse of the bema is three-sided on the exterior and semicircular on the interior, extending almost the full width of the naos. The stylobate for the templon extends across the eastern part of the interior, between the setback of the apse and the eastern pilasters. The upper surface of the stylobate preserves cuttings for the templon piers. To the south of the church, about 1.25 m away and on the same alignment, is a small chapel, measuring 3.15 x 2.95 m, with a semicircular apse and a west entrance. Its floor was found covered with a layer of plaster, beneath which was a layer of stone slabs, apparently its first floor covering. During the first phase at the chapel, there was an arcosolium tomb of an important person in the lateral wall, which was removed in the second phase. 155

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·156

Pranghi, the main church

Pranghi, the south chapels

To the west of the chapel and adjacent to the southwest corner of the church, a second chapel was found at a lower level and at a slightly different orientation. Perhaps older, it measured ca. 4 x 4 m overall, with a west entrance and a semicircular apse. The floor is covered with stone slabs. A masonry templon separates the bema, whose floor is raised slightly. On the exterior, the walls of the chapel were covered with mortar, with straight and cruciform (horizontal and vertical?) incisions. The chapel was extended to the west with two connected rectangular spaces, which served as narthex and exonarthex, and which were also paved with stone slabs. To the west of the church a floor of stone slabs forms a sort of courtyard bounded to the west and south by piers and closure slabs, as indicated by the cutting in the stone pavement. The organization of the courtyard pavement appears more similar to the flooring of the southwest chapel than to that of the church, and may belong to the second phase of use at the site. The complex is enclosed on the south side by a wall. After the destruction of the church and chapels, the area was used as a cemetery. About 20 m south of the church five tombs were excavated: four were cist tombs of children, two of which each contained a glazed pottery vessel. 156

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·157

Pranghi, glazed bowl with brown sgraffito decoration, second half of 13th c.

Several carved stone pieces were found during the excavation: closure planels, piers, the epistyle of the templon, pieces of a window frame and glass. The excellent quality of the sculpture echoes that of Constantinople, with which nearby Didymoteichon had close connections. The erection of the church above a well, known as a custom from ancient times, fixes the position of the Byzantine road from Didymoteichon to Pythion, which is mentioned the fourteenth century as 80 stadia in distance. The details of the building, such as the lack of alignment of the façade arcades with the interior supports, as well as the architectural sculpture, suggest a date in the second half of 13th century.

Pranghi, the epistyle of the templon found in the excavation

Pranghi, Basket capital found in the excavation

157

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·158

Pranghi, closure panels found in the excavation

Pranghi, closure panel found in the excavation

158

Pranghi, fragments of window frames found in the excavation

087 OS 178 29-03-07 07:49 ™ÂÏ›‰·159

Bibliography Asdracha, Catherine. La région des Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Athens, 1976), 120-24 Bakirtzis, Ch. Archaeologikon Deltion 33(1978), B2, Chronika, 327-29 Bakirtzis, Ch. - D. Triandaphyllos, Thrace, ETB∞ Cultural Guides (Athens, 1990), 74 Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu olarak Vakıflar ve Temlikler,” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942), 342 Gregoras, Nikephoros Byzantina Historia, ed. L. Schopen, II:708 Hetherington, Paul. “Pythion: A Thracian Frourion of John VI Kantakouzenos,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 45 (1995), 307-12 Kantakouzenos, Ioannes. Historiai, ed. Schopen, II:184, 195 Korres, M. “The Architecture of the Pythion Castle,” Byzantinische Forschungen 14 (1989), 274-78 Kuniholm, P.I., and C.L. Striker, “Dendrochronological Investigations in the Aegean and Neighboring Regions, 1977-1982,” Journal of Field Archaeology 10 (1983), 411-420; “1983-1986,” Journal of Field Archaeology 14 (1987), 385-98 Nichol, D. The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Washington, D.C., 1968), 35-103 Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake-, Rodope- und Haimimontos), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6 (Vienna, 1991), 414, 419-20 Tsouris, K and A. Brikas To frourio tou Pythiou kai to ergo tes apokastaseos tou. Prokatarktike anakoinose (Kavala, 2002) Vocotopoulos, P. “The Concealed Course Technique: Further Examples and a Few Remarks,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28 (1979), 247-60

159

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·160

Edirne, An early twentieth-century view toward the old city; the Clock Tower, built above a Roman-Byzantine bastion, appears at the center; the Tunca River appears in the background

160

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·161

CHAPTER 6

Adrianopolis (Edirne) and its Monuments Situated on the Tunca River, close to where it joins the Meriç/Evros and some 5 km from its confluence with the Arda, Edirne (Adrianopolis) was throughout its history a major transportation center, situated at the intersection of strategic routes, connecting by both waterways and overland roadways to major centers in Thrace and the Balkans. The Roman and subsequent Byzantine fortification walls formed a rough parallelogram, parts of which may still be traced, enclosing an area of about 0.36 square kilometer, and connecting to the Tunca at the southwest corner. The early Ottoman monuments lie outside the ancient enclosure, situated primarily to the north.

History The Thracian town of Uscudama was taken by the Romans in 72 BC. Hadrian subsequently expanded and fortified the city in the second century AD, giving it his name. By the end of the third century, there is strong evidence of a Christian population, for the city produced a number of martyrs, before Licinius fell to Constantine in battle, near Adrianopolis, in 324. Shortly thereafter, the first Christian bishops are recorded, and Adrianopolis subsequently became the metropolis for the ecclesiastical administration of the province.

161

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·162

Adrianopolis, plan of the Roman-Byzantine city (Ousterhout, redrawn after Papazotos and Peremeci).

As the major stronghold and administrative center of the region, Adrianopolis played a significant role in all conflicts between the Byzantines and their Balkan neighbors, protecting the capital from invasions from the north. Valens was routed by the Goths in 378 in the Battle of Adrianopolis. During the second half of the sixth century, Slavs and the Avars besieged the city. Throughout the ninth and tenth centuries, the city witnessed the conflicts between the Byzantines and the Bulgars, falling briefly to both Krum and Symeon. The city was a base for John Tzimiskes’ war against the Russians in 971, as well as a center for resistance against the Pechenegs in the eleventh century. Adrianopolis was also a major commercial center; Venetian traders are noted in the city as early as the late eleventh century. Alexios I Komnenos was proclaimed emperor in Adrianopolis in 1081. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the city was a major point of contention between the 162

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·163

Byzantines, Crusaders, and Bulgars. Frederick Barbarossa occupied the city in 1190 and from there negotiated a treaty with Constantinople. The Bulgarian Kalojan defeated the Latins at Adrianopolis in 1205, although the conflict continued for several subsequent years, with the Latins evidently maintaining control of the city. In 1225, Adrianopolis passed from the Latins to John III Dukas Vatatzes of Nicaea but fell in the same year to Theodore of Epiros. In 1230, the Bulgarians once again took the city, but John III reestablished Nicaean rule in 1242-46. In 125556, Theodore II Laskaris used Adrianopolis as his base for a campaign against the Bulgars. With the reestablishment of Byzantine rule in Constantinople in 1261, Adrianopolis became the strategic center on the border with Bulgaria. The Catalan Grand Company besieged the city during their westward march in 1307. Adrianopolis played an important role during the civil wars of the fourteenth century. In 1346, John VI Kantakouzenos was crowned in Adrianopolis by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter, the city and its district were given as a fiefdom to his son Matthew Kantakouzenos. In the subsequent conflict with John V Palaiologos, John VI brought Turkish troops to his aid. The city seems to have been seized by Turkish begs in or around 1369, and in 1376-77, Murad I established his residence there. The city subsequently was developed as the Ottoman capital, serving as such prior to the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries witness major architectural investment in the city by the Ottomans.

Monuments Little survives in modern Edirne to bear witness to the important Byzantine history of the city. Continually ravaged by war during the Byzantine period and dramatically rebuilt in the early Ottoman period, the historic core of the city was devastated by fire and earthquake and suffered additional damage during the Russian siege and occupation of 1877-78 in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. An inventory compiled by I. Saraphoglou in 1929 lists one Byzantine church, ten postByzantine churches, four churches that had burned in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, 163

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·164

Edirne. A view of the fortifications by A. Desarnod (1829-1830)

and three churches converted to mosques but in ruins or destroyed by the time of his writing. In 1907, C. Gurlitt sought the Christian buildings of the city with little success. Only two Byzantine churches are known from physical remains, recorded a century or more ago, both had disappeared by the early twentieth century.

164

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·165

Edirne, Remains of the fortification wall

Fortifications The lines of the ancient city walls are no longer visible, but they were described by Evliya Celebi, Lampousiades, and others. The ancient wall was laid on a parallelogram plan, running approximately 800 meters on the east and west sides, and 600 meters on the south and north sides, enclosing an area of about 0.36 square kilometer. Round towers appeared at the corners, with a barbican at the river’s edge, joined to the southwest corner tower. Each stretch of walls included several gates; Evliya Celebi named eight gates and claimed that in former times the walls were surrounded by a moat. Areas of the north wall are preserved, along with the northeast tower, now known as the Macedonian Tower, which has been much rebuilt and recently restored. Called by Evliya Celebi the Makeduna Kullesi, the tower is round, about 10 m in diameter, and constructed of alternating bands of brick and squared stone. It was altered and heightened in 1884 and again in 1894 with the addition of several stepped stages to serve as the Clock Tower (Saat Kulesi), and it became a distinctive landmark in the city. The upper stages were removed following damage in the earthquake of 1953. 165

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·166

Edirne, Clock tower, early 20th century, showing remains of Byzantine inscription

Edirne, Macedonian Tower, following 2002 restoration, with the remains of the brick inscription visible

Sometime in the Byzantine period, the tower was rebuilt and a brick inscription was added to commemorate its reconstruction. The inscription once read: K<YPI>E BOH£EI Tø EYCEBECTATø K<AI> ºI§OXPICTø BACI§EI HMøN IøANNH. This was partially obliterated with the insertion of windows, but the letters had been accentuated in plaster and paint following the 1894 reconstruction. After 1953, however, the remains were covered with plaster, although part of the inscription still survived. The remains were uncovered in the 2002 restoration. 166

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·167

Edirne, Clock tower, early 20th century, detail of the inscription

The formulaic inscription gives the name of an emperor John, although it does not specify which one. K. Kyriazes once proposed that the tenth-century emperor John Tzmiskes was responsible for its construction, and, indeed, the tower is sometimes called the Tower of John Tzimiskes. But the inscription more likely belongs either to either John V Palaiologos or John VI Kantakouzenos; as E. Siderides suggested, it probably records the reconstruction of the fortifications following the devastating earthquake that struck Thrace in 1353. Other recorded inscriptions from the walls give the names of Basil II, Nikephoros Bryennios, John II Komnenos, and Michael VIII Palaiologos. The area behind the northeast tower was excavated in 2002 under the direction of Sahin Yıldırım, but the results are not yet published. The excavation revealed the lower courses of the fortification walls, built of large squared stone, and well as evidence of later repairs and modifications. Parts of a small Byzantine church, were also unearthed, dated by the excavators to the tenth century, and an industrial area with several ceramic kilns. Finds are on display in the archaeological museum.

Byzantine Churches Hagia Sophia. Although known today as Hagia Sophia, the name may be no more than a fanciful 167

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·168

Edirne, Church known as Hagia. Sophia. Photograph by Léchine, 1888, from south

168

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·169

designation; the original dedication is unknown. Lady Wortley Montagu visited a ruined church when she passed through Adrianopolis in 1717, and perhaps confusing it with its namesake in Constantinople, she wrote: “I was in haste to see the ruins of Justinian’s church, which did not afford me so agreeable a prospect … being little more than a heap of stones.” Certainly by the nineteenth century, when it was photographed and cursorily studied, it lay in ruins. Located in the Old City, the church seems to have been converted into a mosque but used as such only for a short period of time. During the reign of Murad II (1421-1451) a medrese building was added to its one side, and a certain instructor by the name of Omeri Halebi was assigned to it, from which its Ottoman name derives (Halebi Medresesi Camii). Ignatios Nazianzou, writing in 1760, records that the building, known both as the Ai-Sophia Camii and as the Halebiye, had been converted to a mosque but paintings were still visible, including a Pantokrator in the dome. The building seems to have been destroyed in the earthquake in 1751 and left a ruin. According to Badı Ahmet Efendi, writing ca.1888-98, the building had a dome, which was positioned on four arcades and was accompanied by a wooden minaret. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, there was almost nothing left of the building due to the removal of the masonry for reuse in new construction. A. Choisy published two schematic plans of the building in 1876 and 1913. In 1888, the Russian consul Gh. Léchine took a photograph of the ruined building, seen from the south, which is now in the archives of the Institute of Bulgarian Archaeology in Sofia. By 1902, the church was said to be completely destroyed. A second photograph, of poor quality and of uncertain date, was published in 1928 and shows a single standing pier. Mateev, Mavrodinov, Eyice, and Papazotos have discussed the church, based on Choisy’s plans in combination with the 1888 photograph. Choisy claimed that the building had two construction phases, and this seems likely. The building was cruciform on the exterior, measuring some 32.40 m in width and length, with the square core measuring about 15.20 m across, or approximately 48 Byzantine feet. On the interior, the core was expanded by cross-arms of equal measurement,

169

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·170

Edirne, Hag. Sophia, restored plan. Phase 1 (Choisy and Ousterhout)

Edirne, Hag. Sophia, restored plan. Phase 2 (Choisy and Ousterhout)

projecting about 8.50 m on each side, each apparently terminating in an apse enveloped by an ambulatory. The plan of the building in the first phase may be reconstructed as an aisled tetraconch, similar to that of S. Lorenzo in Milan, which dates from the second half of the fourth century, and to numerous examples in Athens, Syria, and elsewhere, built during the subsequent two centuries. The innovative, open design would also suggest a comparison with Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and this resemblance may account for its designation. Many details of the first phase remain unclear. Choisy’s plan includes four piers or columns set into the central area to support a dome with an estimated diameter of 7.20 m. Based on other examples of the aisled tetraconch building type, however, this seems unlikely, and more probably the central area was completely open. In addition, the plan does not indicate how the ambulatories were separated from the tetraconch core of the building, but, again, based on comparable examples, this was most likely accomplished by means of columnar screens, which would have allowed dynamic spatial relationships in the double-shelled design. None of the other examples of early tetraconch buildings are squared off on the exterior, but this detail is indicated clearly on Choisy’s plan, with niches and corner compartments accessible from the ambulatory. It is unclear if at this phase the building had a gallery above the ambulatory, although it its second phase, the building seems to have included a gallery. Because of the scale 170

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·171

of the building and the relative thinness of the supports, the central area may have been covered by a pyramidal wooden roof or possibly by a dome of light construction. Choisy dated the first phase to the seventh century, but most other scholars have suggested a fifth-century date, which seems more likely. In a second construction phase, heavy supports were introduced into the corners of the central area to support arches and pendentives, and a dome with a diameter of approximately 7.20 m above the central area. As it is evident in the photograph, the rising walls, the pier supports, and the dome were made of brick. It is unclear if the aisled tetraconch plan was maintained in this phase, if the church was reduced to a cruciform core, or if the colonnades of the exedrae were filled with solid walls. The cluster piers are penetrated by narrow passageways on two levels; in the photograph the lower arcades are almost completely buried, but their presence is clearly indicated by a lower cornice, and it would appear that in this phase at least the church had a gallery. The lower cornices are detailed with an astragal and a heavy fascia, while the upper appear to have been champfered. The dome raised above a cylindrical drum, pierced by large windows, with setbacks in each opening. The springing of the dome was concealed behind the rising cylinder of the drum on the exterior. Each cross-arm seems to have ended in an apse or exedra, perhaps vaulted with a half-dome. Eyice saw the dome as the only feature that belonged to the second phase, which he attributed to the Late Byzantine period. However, the construction and detailing of the drum can be compared to the dome of the Fatih Camii in Trilye, built ca. 800. Moreover, the forms of the cluster piers at the corners of the naos are similar to those in Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki (late sixth century), and the lower cornice profiles are similar as well. In contrast to Eyice, Mavrodinov had dated the second phase to the eighth century, and based on the details of the piers, dome, and cornices, a date in the Transitional Period seems most reasonable. Papazotos believed the church to be of a single phase in the seventh or eighth century; he suggested a tripartite sanctuary with pastophoria in the place of the eastern conch and ambulatory, but there is no clear evidence of this. Although there must have been some sort of accommodation for the 171

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·172

later Byzantine liturgy, the corner compartments of the original plan may have utilized as pastophoria. Sinaitikon. A small tetraconch chapel has also been documented, known as the Sinaitikon. According to Ignatios Nazianzou, writing in 1760, the church of Hagios Ioannes Theologos served as the metochion of Sinai. Saraphoglou situates it inside the palace ton Blachon, by whom it was given to the monks of Sinai. The building survived into the early twentieth century, when

Edirne, Sinaitikon. Old photograph, seen from south

172

Edirne, Sinaitikon. Plan, elevation, section, and dome plan by C. Gurlitt

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·173

its plan and elevation were recorded by Gurlitt in 1907. A single photograph of the building also survives, published by Saraphoglou in 1928-29, but there are notable differences between it and Gurlitt’s drawings. In his analysis of the building, Eyice suggests that Gurlitt had attempted to represent the building as it looked in the Byzantine period, rather than recording its contemporary appearance. The chapel measured only 7.70 m in length, with a dome with a diameter of 3 m. The outer walls followed a tapered cruciform outline while inner layout formed a tetraconch. The west niche includes a door, the one opposite is lined with small niches set into the thickness of the wall. There is no evidence whether two of the other arms had similar arrangement. Certain discrepancies are immediately evident between the photograph and Gurlitt’s plan: the diagonal walls are faceted in the photograph, rather than concave as Gurlitt drew them; in addition, the windows as photographed are positioned lower in the walls and are both larger and differently spaced that those in Gurlitt’s drawing. Eyice compared the plan of the Sinaitikon to that of a Roman tomb at Side, thus implying an early date, while suggesting that the tall drum reflecting a remodeling of the twelfth century, based on its similarities with the dome of St. John of Trullo (Hirami Ahmet Pasa) in Constantinople. However, the plan and the attenuated proportions of the elevation resemble more closely those of the Theotokos Mouchliotissa in Constantinople, as Gurlitt suggested. The latter was probably constructed in the late thirteenth century and includes a dome of similar external design. The proportions and details of the dome would suggest a likely date in the period of the twelfth-to-fourteenth centuries. Yıldırım Camii. Gurlitt interpreted the cruciform plan and odd orientation of the Yıldırım Camii as Christian in origin, and consequently in his publication he termed it the “Kirchenmoschee.” His opinion that the building was originally a church was shared by the 1914 Baedecker’s Guide and later by Semavi Eyice. Gurlitt proposed that the building was originally built in the thirteenth century, converted ca. 1400, and remodeled in the eighteenth century. Despite its considerably 173

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·174

larger scale, both Gurlitt and Eyice compared the plan to that of the mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna. The mixed brick and stone masonry, with banded voussoirs in the arches, follows the Byzantine system, but it resembles more closely the wall system of the early mosques of Bursa than that of Byzantine monuments. Although Byzantine foundations might have been reused, the building is undoubtedly of early Ottoman origin, probably constructed as a zaviye. Byzantine spolia were incorporated into the building, including two cubic in the arcaded entry. One remains atop its column; the other sits in the mosque garden. Both have trapezoidal fields with herringbone at the corners and must date from the Middle Byzantine period. In the south

Edirne, Yıldırım Camii, plan by C. Gurlitt

Edirne, Yıldırım Camii, reused templon architrave

174

Edirne, Yıldırım Camii, reused templon architrave

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·175

Edirne, Selimiye Camii, outer enclosure, eagle capital

Edirne, Archaeological Museum, Capital no. 30

convent room, or tabhane, a fragment of a templon architrave is reused as the window lintel. Its inner face is decorated with a scene of the Ascension of Christ, with a small, seated Christ in a mandorla carried by two flying angels. A lotus-and-palmette motif appears to either side, in which a six-winged seraph appears. The lower surface is decorated with a geometric pattern of overlapping circles and rhomboids. The piece must also be Middle Byzantine in date. Other monuments. Byzantine spolia and disjecta membra appear throughout the city, and an inventory of these would be a useful undertaking. Within the Bayezid II Camii, for example, the Hünkâr Mahfili (imperial loge) is carried on fifteen marble supports, composed of square pedestals surmounted by octagonal colonnettes. Of these, possibly eleven (of three different kinds of stone) are originally Byzantine pieces, a type of pier colonnette used in chancel barriers 175

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·176

during the Middle Byzantine period. At the Selimiye Camii, a reused column is set into the north corner of its enclosure wall, topped by a fifth-century acanthus capital with eagles carved in the abacus bosses. Two Middle Byzantine capitals that had been reused in the nineteenth-century Metropolitan Church (now destroyed) lie in the garden behind the Sultan Hotel. Cubic in form, a striated pattern frames semicircular fields that contain crosses or six-pointed stars. At least seven additional Middle Byzantine cubic capitals are on display at the Archaeological Museum. Of these, the most interesting is No. 30. Its faces are decorated with coupled leaf stalks, two of which have twisted stems, and two of which have bead-and-reel astragals in the place of the stems, terminating in open and closed human hands.

Bibliography Asdracha, Catherine. “Inscriptions byzantines de la Thrace orientale et de l’ile d’Imbros (XIIe-XVe siècles). Présentation et commentaire historique,” Archaiologikon Deltion 43 part A (1988), 219-291; 44-46 part A (1989-91), 239-334 Baedecker, K. Konstantinopel, Balkanstaaten, Kleinasien, Archipel, Cypern (Leipzig, 1914), 50-55 Eyice, Semavi. “Bizans Devrinde Edirne ve bu Devre ait Eserler” in Edirne Edirne’nin 600. Fethi Yıldönümü Armagan Kitabı (Ankara, 1965) 39-77 ________. “Edirne Saat Kulesi ve Üzerindeki Bizans Kitabesi,” Güney-Dogu Avrupa Arastırmaları Dergisi 8-9 (1979-80), 1-22 Gökbilgin, M.T. “Edirne,” Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden, 1965), II, 683-86 Gregory, T.E. and N.P. Sevcenko. “Adrianopolis,” Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York, 1991), I, 23 Gurlitt, C. “Die Bauten Adrianopels,” Orientalisches Archiv 1 (1910-11), 1-4, 51-60 _______. Die Baukunst Konstantinopels (Berlin, 1912) Kreiser, K. Edirne in 17. Jahrhundert nach Evliya Celebi. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der osmanischrennStadt (Freiburg, 1975)

176

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·177

Lampousiades, G.I. Peri ton teichon tes Adrianoupoleos (Orestias-Komotini, 1923. second edition with introduction and notes by Thanasis Papazotos, Komotini 2007) Mavrodinov, N. “L’origine de la construction et du plan de Sainte Sophie à Constantinople,” Actes du VIe Congrès International des Études Byzantines (Paris, 1951), II, 277-98 Ötüken, Yıldız, and Robert Ousterhout. “Notes on the Monuments of Turkish Thrace,” Anatolian Studies 39 (1989), 121-49 Papazotos, Thanasis, “ Scolio pano se mia fotografia tes Hagias Sophias Adrianoupoleos,” Thrakike Epeterida 9 (1992-94), 29-35. Peremeci, O.N. Edirne Tarihi (Istanbul, 1939) Saraphoglou, I. (unsigned notes). “Apo ta byzantina mnemeia tes Thrakes,” Thrakika 1 (1928), 349, 392 Saraphoglou, I. “Peri tes Adrianoupoleos,” Thrakika 2 (1929), 66-82 Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake-, Rodope- und Haimimontos), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6 (Vienna, 1991), 161-67

177

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·178

View into the Evros/Meriç valley from the fortress at Pythion

178

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·179

Conclusion The systematic examination of the surviving and documented monuments of the Evros/Meriç valley yields a new understanding of the cultural role the region played throughout the Byzantine period. As the heartland of the Byzantine Empire and the hinterland of the capital, the region of Thrace preserves a rich and varied architectural legacy that both reflects and deviates from that of the capital. While Thrace offers many parallels for the buildings of Constantinople, at the same time, it presents a variety of unique architectural solutions. The monuments examined here both broaden and challenge our traditional picture of architectural developments in the Byzantine capital. Very little is preserved from the Early Christian centuries, but the plan of Hagia Sophia in Adrianopolis/Edirne, insofar as it may be reconstructed, is instructive. As an aisled tetraconch, the double-shelled plan employed here was widely disseminated throughout the Mediterranean from the late fourth century onward, attesting to the cosmopolitan nature of the Late Antique world. Perhaps the best known example is S Lorenzo in Milan of the third quarter of the fourth century, where a sense of the spatial complexity of the original building is still evident. Other examples are known in Athens, Antioch, Syria, Armenia, and at Ohrid and Perustica (Bulgaria) in the Balkans. With the exception of S Lorenzo, these date to the fifth or early sixth centuries. The proximity of our example to the Byzantine capital has important implications for the development of the innovative architectural forms of the sixth century, as at HH. Sergios kai Bakchos (Küçük Ayasofya Camii) and at Hagia Sophia, which similarly employed columnar screens and developed sophisticated interior spatial relationships. As a Byzantine city, Adrianopolis was both strategic and cosmopolitan. 179

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·180

For the critical Transitional Period (late sixth through ninth centuries), very few buildings survive in Constantinople, and scholars have traditionally looked to Bithynia for supplementary examples. Thrace also provides some compelling transitional churches. The church known as Ayasofya in Vize is one of the best preserved examples from this period, securely dated by dendrochronology to the ninth century. Until the excavations at Enez, it stood in virtual isolation. If our restoration and dating of the Kral Kilisesi are correct, we can offer another example of a domed basilica from the Transitional Period, as well as a building of exceptional quality. The central domed area of the Ayasofya in Edirne (now destroyed) seems to have been rebuilt around the same time, with a moderately sized dome raised above cluster piers. While none of these buildings finds an exact parallel in the capital, they suggest more broadly-based developments for a poorly documented period. For the Middle Byzantine period, two well-known examples, the church of the Kosmosoteira at Pherai and the ruined church now known as the Fatih Camii at Enez, both correspond in terms of technique, scale, and spatial disposition with the twelfth-century monuments of Constantinople. They would appear to have been constructed and probably decorated by workshops composed at least in part of artisans from the capital. With the Kosmosoteira, the presence of a crown prince, the Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos, emphasizes the connections with the capital, for even in his exile, Isaakios was not without resources – and not without connections in the capital, as his typikon attests. We might imagine a similar scenario for the construction of the Fatih Camii at Enez – that is, built by a wealthy patron with close ties to Constantinople. Its well-preserved portico façade offers an excellent example of a building component now missing from most of its contemporaries. In addition, both buildings offer spacious, light-filled interiors, capable of housing sizeable congregations, as one finds in the great twelfth-century churches of the capital. Nevertheless, both churches preserve features unknown in Constantinopolitan architecture. For example, should the elongated plan and engaged columns beneath the dome at Enez or the

180

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·181

coupled columnar supports and open corner compartments at the Kosmosoteira be regarded as Constantinopolitan or as features of local derivation? At Pherai, the innovative design of the western domed bays reflects the growing concern for the commemoration of the dead, which resulted in a variety of new building types in Constantinople. The open interior provided a unique position for Isaakios’ tomb, with a clear visual relationship to the setting of the liturgy. Although the Kosmosoteira finds no exact parallel in the capital, its design is experimental in precisely the same ways we find in Constantinople in the same century. The Enez church, on the other hand, parallels the increased scale and sense of openness that characterizes the great twelfth-century endeavors in Constantinople, such as the Pantokrator churches (Zeyrek Camii), the Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane Camii), and the church now known as the Gül Camii. As with the coupled columns at the Kosmosoteira, the engaged columns at Enez may have resulted from the employment of marble spolia to their best advantage. At the same time, the elongated “domed basilica” design is unusual and perhaps reflects older prototypes. The discovery of the Kral Kilisesi at Enez offers a potential local prototype from the Transitional Period, as does the church at Vize. Limited soundings along the south side of the Fatih Camii suggest that the building may in fact rest on older foundations. That is to say, while Thracian patrons and builders looked to the capital for architectural ideas, they also could find a similarly rich architectural heritage within their own backyard. The Late Byzantine churches of Didymoteichon and Enez reflect to a certain degree the architecture of Constantinople, but they are replete with technical and stylistic details that suggest the growth of regional workshops in the final centuries of Byzantium. The churches of Hag. Ioannes and Hag. Gregorios at Enez have attenuated domes quite unlike those of the capital and which find better comparison further to the west. At Hag. Aikaterini in Didymoteichon and elsewhere, wall construction is a simple facing on a rubble core, quite unlike the building technique of Constantinople. The plans of the simple, single-aisled churches like Hag. Aikatherini or the church excavated at Pranghi find no comparison in the capital.

181

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·182

On the other hand, cultural and political connections with Constantinople continued. The odd building by Hag. Athanasios in Didymoteichon may in fact have been the aisle of a larger church, and as such would reflect the development of ambulatory plans with accommodation for burials, as at the Monastery tou Libos (Fenarı Isa Camii) or the Chora (Kariye Camii). The mysterious images of winged emperors and the exceptional quality of the painting would also indicate close relationships with the art of the capital. The fortress at Pythion similarly stands out as a unique example of defensive architecture. Whereas it reflects the sad state of affairs in the fourteenth century as Byzantium descended into civil war and was gradually overtaken by the Ottomans, at the same time, it demonstrates the continued possibility for innovation in the regional architecture until the very end of the Byzantine period. In sum, the architectural developments of Byzantine Thrace add important nuances to the growing picture of architecture in and around the Byzantine capital. At the same time, it is important to realize that there were local workshops of builders, whose style and construction techniques differed significantly from those of Constantinople. These local workshops became considerably more important in the final centuries of Byzantium. Unfortunately, the “Thrace of Ares” (as our colleague Danuta Gorecki once called it) continued through much of the history of the region. Often a battleground in the Byzantine period, the historical record is filled with accounts of destruction. For the period before the sixth century, virtually nothing has survived. Although we may blame the Goths or the Avars for this lacuna, the twentieth century has been just as cruel. Many of the monuments known a century ago have vanished without a trace, lost in the turbulence of the Balkan Wars, the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Population Exchange, and the Greek-Turkish War. Now, with serious archaeological activity taking place on both sides of the border, we hope that new discoveries, exchanges of ideas, and collaborations will yield a richer and more nuanced picture of the Evros/Meriç valley during the Byzantine period. We offer this book in hope that scholarship can transcend national boundaries, for Byzantium represents the common heritage on both sides of the border.

182

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·183

View of Didymoteichon from northeast

183

179 OS 184 29-03-07 07:50 ™ÂÏ›‰·184

The authors on the roof of the Kosmosoteira, 2005

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following institutions and individuals for their assistance: The 12th Ephoreia of Byzatine Antiquities at Kavala, the Center for Advanced Study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Engin Akyürek, Thales Avdes, Arghyris Bakirtzis, Nezih Basgelen, Suna CagaptayArıkan, Theodoros Damianou, Lena Dimitriadou, Thanasis Gourides, Photeine Kontakou, Manoles Korres, Dimitris Korres, Vassilis Marinis, Anne Marshall, Socrates Mavromates, Yıldız Ötüken, Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Christina Pavlidou, Lila Sambanopoulou, Stathes Smarlamakes, Tassos Tantsis, Kostas Tsouris, Dimitris Vlachos, Pandelis Xydas, Nikos Zekos.

184

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

lefki

BAKTELCOVER44.6x22:BAKTELCOVER44.6x22

7/20/11

9:57 AM