ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA 111 1999 No 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Articles

Niko/ova, L.: Dubene-Sarovka 1181-3 in the Upper Stryaпш Valley (towards the periodization and chronology of Early Bronze 11 in the Balkans) ... ...... ....... ... .. .... ... ....... ... ... ... 1

Golubovic, S.: (YU): А Grave in the Shape of а Well from the Necropolis ot· Yiminaciшn ........ 9

Boteva. D. : Two Notes on D. Clodius AIЬinus ............................................. ..... ...... .. ................ ..... 23

Ku/lef, 1./Djingova. R./Kabakcltieva. G.: On the Origin ot' the Roman Pottery from Moesia lnferior (North Bulgaria) ................. .. ...... ...... ... .................. .......... ... .... ..... .. .. ... .. ... ..... 29

Dinrchev, V.: Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thrш.:ia авd Dacia .......... 39

Daskalov, M./Dimitmv. D.: Ein Paar шlthropozoomorphe Bugelt'ibeln (des. sog. Dnjeprtyps) aus Sudbulgarien ...... ... ... ..... ..... .... ......... ..... .... .................. ..... .. .... .. ....... .. ...... .. .. ........ ... ... .. .. ....... .. ...... . 7'5

Atanasov, G.: On the Origin, Function and the Owner of the Adornments of· the Preslav Treasure from the 1 0''' Century ............................................... ..... .. .. ... ............ ....... .......... 81

Reviews Ha,./toiu, R.: Die fruhe Yolkerwanderungszeit ir1 Rumaпieв. Bukarest 1998. (Сипа. F USA) ... ....... ........................... .. .............. ...... .. ... ..... ...... .......... ........ ......... 9'5

Editor: Mr. Lyudmil Ferdiпandov VAGALINSKI Ph.D. (lпstitute ot· Archaeology at Sof'ia)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA is а four-пюпth joнrrшl (thricc а уеаг: 20 Х 28 cm: са. 1 ОО pages ш1d са. 80 illustratioпs per а nurпber: colotJred cover) \VI1ich preserнs а pнЫisl1i11g t·or-нm for research in archaeology iп thc widest seпse ot' the word. Tl1er·e аге rю r·estrictioш; t"or time and territory btrt Sot1tl1easterr1 Енrоре is the ассеrн. Ohjecti,,e: interdisciplinary research of archaeology. Contents: articles. revicws and пcws. Laщ~ua.~es: Eпglish. Gerrнan апd Freпch .

/nte/1(/etl l'eшlas : Scholars and studerнs of the followiпg fields: Archaeology. Numismatics, Epigraphy. Aпcient History, Medieval History, Oriental Studies, Pre- arн.J Early History. Byzшнine Studies. Anthropology, Palaeobotany. Archaeozoology. Histor·y of Religion. ot· Art. of Architecture. ot· Techrюlogy. of' Medicine. Sociology etc .

011 lhc t"O\'Cr: а ~1t111c porlrail ot· Rurnaв cшpcror Diщ; lcliaв ("!) 1 21.(4-.Щ:'i ). Naliorral M1r~CIII1J ot· Лrt· IJacolo~y-Sotla .

JSSN 1310-9537

Archaeo\ogia Bulgarica III 1999 3 39-73 Sofia

CLASSIFICATION OF ТНЕ LATE ANTIQUE CITIES IN ТНЕ DIOCESES OF THRACIA AND DACIA

VENTZISLA V DINTCHEV

Notwithstanding that the classification of the late antique cities has not been а central point of interest for the modern historiography, in the puЬiications а certain division has been suggested, or at least presumed. Differences in the aspects of studies reflect on the classifica­tion purposes, criteria and models. Sometimes when there is а wider researclting interest as proЬiems, in one апd the same puЬlication defi­nitions coming from different in purpose and criteria classification models are used.

The analysis of the late antique sources dis­plays а certain insecurity in the definitions of cities used, and respectively - in the views of corresponding authors and their contemporar­ies concerning the city statute of а particular settlement, concerning the essence itself of the city statute and the city way of living in gen­eral (Ciaude 1969, 10-14, 201-202; Курбатов 1971, 5-6, 60; Velkov 1977, 73; Ravegnani 1983, 12-24; Dagron 1984, 7-9; Schreiner 1986, 26-30; Suceveanu/Barnea 1993, 174; Dunn 1994, 60-67, 77-78; Динчев 1998, 16-23). For that reason the classification of the towns of the Late Antiquity, including the dio­ceses of Thracia and Dacia, can not Ье estab­lished only or primarily on the base of the dif­ferences in the definitions, i.e. on the terms used in the sources to denote them.

One of the classification models for the late antique cities is based on their origin (Ciaude 1969, 203-223; Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 179). А modern classification of the late antique centers must reflect mainly the differences in their demographic and size parameters, апd in their real importance as economic, administra­tive, cult and/or military centres.

Definitions of size and importance can Ье found in almost every puЬlication for the city life in the Late Antiquity. They are most often with two major meanings -"small" cities and "large" cities represented in different variants and nuances 1. Towns of "middle importance" (Bavant 1984, 286) or "middle" towns are men­tioned (Курбатов/Лебедева 1986, 103, 113). The definitions, however, are not always pre­cise from the point of view of the criteria used and are usually without concrete classification parameters А basic requirement for the classification of

the late antiquity towns is the presence of ob­jective criteria, which can Ье estaЬlished through studies, and are applicaЬle for the dif­ferentiation itself. А part of the criteria used in the literature- administrative statute for exam­ple (Курбатов 1971, 80-115, 211-212; Dunn 1994, 60, 66; Poulter 1996, 118) demographic potential (Курбатов/ Лебедева 1986, 114) do not meet that requirement. Referring only to administrative statute reproduces the situatioп with the town definitions in the sources to а certain extent, while it does not provide а pos­siЬility to classify the towns, which '''ere поt provincial capitals. The demographic potential itself is important and objective index, but the actual state of the archeological research does not provide enough information to apply it di­rectly as а basic criterion.

The town fortification was а known, but not а uЬiquitous case during the Principate. In the Late Antiquity, however, it became а necessary condition for а town life, or eYen its main sym­bol in almost all areas of the empire, including the Balkans (Ciaude 1969, 15-41,102,200-201,

1 Fог example"new ... small" towns (Ostгogoгsky 1959, 59); "small and Ьig" ог "small ... and Ьiggeг" , "Ьiggeг ... and smalleг", ог "smaii, ... Ьiggeг ... and most important", or as we\1 "not big", "standaгd" and 'Ъiggest" cities (Курбатов 1971, 7-9, 50-56, 61-71, 80-84, 98, 207-208); "small", "smaller'', "гelatively Ьig", "Ьig" ог "main"to .... ·ns (Velkov 1977,73, 85, 133, 219, 283-286); "gгandes villes" and "petites ' 'illes" (Duvai/Popovic 1980, 374, 378, 381, 396); "majoг" and "sma\1" towns (Potter 1995, 63, 66); " larger" and "largcst" towns, "other" and "ncw"- for the rest ofthe towns (Удальцова 1986, 21, 23, ЗО, 34-36); "major", "great", "big", "little", "small", "little country" or "modest towns" (Jones 1994, 238-239, 242, 249); "major", "gгeat", "largest", "smaller" and "small" cities (LieЬeschuetz 1996, 10, 31, 32) and so on.

39

Ventzislav Dintcl1ev

226; Velkov 1977,201 -220; Ravegпaпi 1983, 7 -46; Dagroп 1984, 6; Bavaпt 1984, 246; Курбатов/ Лебедева 1986, 135-137; Liebe­schuetz 1996, 7-8; La Roca 1996, 163-165; Duпп 1997, 140-142). The measuremeпts of the late aпtique city fortresses are partly de­peпdeпt оп the importaпce апd the poteпtia1 of the correspoпdiпg ceпtres 2 . These dерепdепсе was due поt опlу апd поt maiпly to the more pragmatic spirit of the time - coпsideriпg the great expeпses for а solid апd tactically souпd fortificatioп, апd the пecessity for а safer de­feпce, which had become ап imperative for the fuпctioпiпg of the cities. Exceptioпs, coпsider­iпg а probaЬle preseпce of mапу поt built up spaces iп the protected area respectively - pro­vided а certaiп discrepaпcy between а larger area built апd more modest ecoпomic апd ad­miпistrative fuпctioпs апd demographic poteп­tial could Ье assumed опlу for some ceпtres, whose пaturally protected terraiп allow "sav­iпg" the surrouпdiпg towп walls. The fact сап­поt Ье missed, however, that а similar situatioп was а stimulus for developmeпt of these towпs maiпly because of the better possiЬilities for defeпce that it provided.З

Therefore, the size of the defeпded area of а certaiп late aпtique towп is ап objective iп­dex for the пumber of its populatioп апd for its importaпce as ап ecoпomic, cult aпd/or mili­tary ceпtre4 • The size of the area defeпded is поt the опlу апd thus а uпiversal iпdicator but it is а commoп опе, which coпsideriпg the ac­tual state of the study of the late aпtique cities has to Ье а basic criterion for their classifica­tion as well.

Hence the actual classificatioп of the late aпtiquity towпs should Ье estaЬlished оп the data for the size of their defeпded areas, апd when possiЬle the other objective iпdicators for their scale апd their importaпce, as well as data from the sources to Ье coпsidered.

The next proЬlem after choosiпg and subor­dinatioп of the criteria is the опе of specifying the parameters Iп some epitomizing puЬlica­tions оп the cities iп the dioceses of Thracia and Dacia there are classificatioп suggestions, based оп the size of their defeпded territory. Iп one of them is noted that "а part Sirmium, les cites les plus vastes опt une enceinte qui egale ou depasse legerement 40 ha (Augusta Trajana, Odessos, Nicopolis ad Istrum,

2 During lhe Principale in some parts of 1he empire - in Gaul for example, there are cases when the prolecled areas consid­eraЬiy oulweigh lhe areas bui\1 in facl if lhe cily cenlres (e.g. Pellelier 1982, 37, 39, 44, 1 04) ln lhe Balkans and especia\ly in 1he easl pan of lhe peninsula lhe 1owns fonified during lhe Principate are wilh areas complelely bui\1 and prolected, and their size corтesponds 10 lheir demographic scale and 10 their imponance as administrative, economic and cultural centres. Among lhese whose fonress walls are wilh eslaЬiished routes, namely Philippopolis - 1he cull and cultural cenlre of the Roman Тlrracia, and Marcianopolis - lhe capilal of 1he Roman Moesia lnferior, are wilh largesl areas. An exceplion could Ье A11clrialos, bul lo prove il as such an exception unqueslionaЬic dala are needed. See lhc delails later in the texl and ir. fl .37. Ву lhe end of 3ns -4

111 century, actually in Gaul as we\1, lhe size of 1he prolected areas was already а prccise ref1ec1ion

of 1he demographic slandard and imponance of lhe lowns lhemselvc:s (Johnson 1983, 82-117; Maurin 1992, 365-370, 379-380; Harries 1996, 79-82).

3 ln lhat respecl lhere hard1y can Ье а more proper example lhan Acrae in the province of Scytlria. The terтain of Accrue- а саре in lhe sea wilh rocky coasts a\1owed а barrage wa\1 of 1ill1e more lhan 400 m longiludc an area of 15 ha to Ье de­fended . This lhird wall of Acrae refers 10 the second half of lhe 4

111 century (Джингов et а\ . 1990, 24-69). The s1udies of

lhe area prolecled Ьу it, ог especially in lhe area belween it and lhe second wall of Acrae are limiled for lhe lime Ьeing. Anyway, il seems lhat in lhe first decades afler building the extemal wa\1, in the area Ьehind il lhere rea\ly were large spaces nol buill up. ln 1he course of lime, however, lhis area. has Ьееn cullivated and built for sleady inhabitancy. An argumenl for lhis is provided nol only Ьу 1he remains of buildings discovered here, bul also Ьу the fact thal the early Chrislian necropolis here sludied partly was left afler 1he building of 1he extemal wall. The necropolis from 5111

- 6111 cen­tury is localized 10 have been several hundred melres away in fronl of lhe exlema1 wall (Кузманов 1979, 217-223; Тоnтанов 1984, 67-71; Джингов el а\. 1990, 69-70, Йосифова et а\. \995, 145-146; Йосифова/Радичков 1996, 1 05). Therefore, lhe possibility for а Ьigger extending and proteclion of 1he area slimulaled lhe increase of the population and 1he imponance of 1he lale anlique cenlre as а whole. Due lo this possiЬilily afler 1he middle of 1he 5

111 cenlury Acrae

\\•as already one of lhe imponanl cilies of the province of Scythia. 4 ln some puЬiicalions cenain reservalions have Ьееn expressed conceming 1he using of 1he size of the defended area as an

index for the size and lhe imponance of the lale antiquily 1own (e.g. Gregory 1982, 55-56). The examples studied them­sel\'es refule these and suppon lhe dependence poinled already (Gregory 1982,44-45,62-64, fig. 1-3).

40

C/assification of rhe Late Antique Cities in tl1e Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

Scupi); Ulpiana est un peu plus modest (З5.5 ha); la plupart des cities ont un peu plus de 20 ha (Oescus, Bononia, StoЬi, Heraclea, Serdica, sans doute Naissus); avec ses 14 ha environ, Horreum Margi est une petite ville, et Remesiana (5.5 ha) est qualifie par Procope de 1tOAtXVtov" (Bavant 1984, 28З, n. 113). The quotation gives the impression of а Iarge classification model, but leaves the impression for unspecified c1assifications groups and/or unspecified parameters of the different groups. An idea of а reduced classification model is suggested in another puЬlication. Outlining that in the 4

1h century the size of the town

centers in the DanuЬian provinces depends on their administrati ve functions, the author ac­cepts that in а defended area of about 1 О ha "seem to Ье closer to he norm for cities which do not act as provincia1 capitals" (Poulter 1996, 120). While in the first case there is in­correct information about the defended terri­tory of а part of the pointed cities, in the sec­ond case the data for the cities which are not provincial capita1s and which are far over the defined standard are missed.

It is clear that when specifying the c1assifi­cation parameters modern standards should поt Ье а startiпg point.5 It should Ье takeп in con­sideration the regioпal specificity of the town апd settlement life in genera1 in the different parts of the empire. In that seпse, the identical princip1e of the c1assification of the late an­tique cities from differeпt regioпs - from the Balkaпs and North Africa for example, does not пecessari1y suggest identica1 parameters lt also has to Ье пoted that in the dioceses Тltracia апd Dacia there were поt cities of the rank of Antiocltia (Liebescпuetz 1972; Кеппеdу 1996, 181-195) or Thessalonica (Av­ramea 1976, 139-14 7; Spieser 1984 ), whose defeпded areas are calculated iп square kilome-

. h 41h 61h d h . tres ш t е - ceпtury, ап w ose Impor-taпce in the socia1 life of the empire competes

with that of Constantinopolis. 1 coпsider that today it сап Ье accepted а

three-stage c1assification model for the city centres in Thracia and Dacia: large cities, mid­dle cities, small towns or centres of city type.

The classificatioi1 parameters 1 am suggest­iпg for the different groups апd which are con­nected with the main criterion, are the follow­ing; а defended area of over ЗО ha for the Ьig city; а defeпded area betweeп ЗО апd 10 ha for the middle city; а defended area between 1 О апd 5 ha for the small towп. These parameters are поt occasiona1. They are а result of the iп­terpolation of the data for the area of the cities and express the concept of the classificatioп it­self. ln defining the Jower limit the data for the non-urbaп fortified settlements are considered, which are опе of the most characteristic phe­пomena in the settlement 1ife in the late aпtique dioce~es of Dacia and Thracia in general (Diпtchev 1997а 47-63; Dintchev, im Druck).

As far as exceptions are usual for every classification model, it is expedient to iпtro­duce larger distinguishing zones between the differeпt groups.6 1 define the parameters of these zones through an acceptaЬle deviatioп in two directioпs- а toleraпce, from the precisely fixed borders. The tolerance has different \'al­ues ascendiпg for differeпt zoпes . Thus 1 defiпe the border zone between the non-urbaп or semi-urban fortified sett1ements and the small towns Ьу usiпg а toleraпce up to 1 ha from the above mentioned border- 5( +1-1) ha, e.g. from 4 to 6 ha. The border zопе between the small and the middle towns comes out Ьу usiпg а to1-erance up to 1.5 ha- 1 О ( +/-1.5) ha, i.e. from 8.5 to 11.5 ha. The border zone between the middle апd the large towns comes out Ьу usiпg а toler­ance up to З ha- ЗО (+/-3), i.e. from 27 to 33 ha.

When the territory of а certain ceпtre falls into the border zone, its referring to one of the correspoпdiпg groups happeпs with the help of the other objective criteria for а size апd im-

5 It is clear that according to modem standards almost alllate antique cities can Ье defined as sma\1 (e.g. Cameron 1996, 152-153).

6 The exceptiuns here do not inc1ude the specia1 cases, which ha,•e Ьееn discusscd аЬоvе. See ft .#З . Hcre 1 mcan the usual exccptions or deviations allowed for any simi1ar c1assification - for example relating Bergala or Tz:oides to the group of the small towns, although the defended territories of these centres are under 5 ha. Conceming the moti ves for defining Bargala and Tzoides as small towns see funher in the text

41

Ventzislav Dintchev

portaпce. Namely iпtroduciпg larger differeп­tiatiпg zoпes provides the techпology of usiпg of other objective criteria: the пumber апd the type of the architectura1 comp1exes апd build­iпgs with puЫic апd private destiпatioп, апd the пature апd the amouпt of the movaЫe stock fouпd iп excavatioпs.

1 have meпtioпed that the Ьig cities iп

Thracia апd Dacia are поt amoпg the Ьiggest imperia1 ceпtres. From it does поt follow, how­ever, that the defiпitioп of the former must Ье chaпged. It shou1d Ье specified iп that case the maiп proviпcia1 towпs iп Thracia апd Dacia are coпsidered. Iп what other way except as а Ьig city cou1d Ье defiпed Philippopolis, for ex­amp1e, whose defeпded area is (at 1east uпti1

th the secoпd quarter of the 6 ceпtury) "оп1у"

about 80 ha (Матеев 1993, 91 ), whose popu-1atioп is estimated to have Ьееп about 100 ООО реор1е (Кесякова 1985, 119), апd whose im­portaпce registered iп the sources (Velkov 1977, 128) is categorically coпfirmed Ьу the archeo1ogical fiпds (Botoucharova/Kesjakova 1983, 264-273; Данов 1987, 169-177; Кесякова 1989, 113-126; Кесякова 1994, 192-204; Матеев 1993), or Odessos whose territory is "опlу just" of 43 ha, апd whose popu1atioп iпcreases iп 51

h - 61h с. with the iп­

flux of immigraпts from the easterп proviпces of the Empire (Ve1kov 1961, 655-659; Бешевлиев 1983, 19-35; Минчев 1986, 31-43), апd whose importaпce cu1miпates iп the 61

h ceпtury with its e1ectioп for capita1 of the pecu1iar questura exercitus, iпc1udiпg territo­ries from the Ва1kап peпiпsu1a, Asia Miпor, and a1so Cyprus апd the Cyc1adic Is1aпds (Szadeczky-Kardos 1985, 61-64; Torbatov 1997, 78-87).

Together with Philippopolis and Odessos, Marcianopolis - the capita1 of the province Moesia lnferior, is a1so а Ьig towп in the 1ate Antiquity. The fortification system of Mar­cianopolis iп the iпitia1 part of its research bears witпess for that. The preseпt informatioп about its defended area - about 70 ha, corre­spoпds to а greatest exteпt to the епd of the 3rd

- 41h с. wheп, accordiпg to the sources, its im­

portance iпcreased extreme1y (Gerov 1975, 66-68, 70-72; Ve1kov 1977,99, Miпcev 1987,297-299). Ап evideпce for this are the iпitia1 datiпg of the most represeпtative bui1diпgs and com­p1exes discovered there. However, the archeo-1ogica1 research demoпstrates that the city re­maiпs а sigпificant ceпtre iп the followiпg ceп­turies as well (Gerov 1975, 49-55; Топсеvа 1981, 138-143; Miпchev 1987, 299-306; Ангелов 1990, 202; Минчев/ Ангелов 1991, 111-112; Ангелов 1996, 61)

Tomis is undoubted1y а Ьig city too - it is the capital апd the metropo1itaп's ceпtre of the proviпce of Scythia. lts importaпce is regis­tered not оп1у опее in the 1ate aпtique sources (lorgu 1961, 271-274; Velkov 1977, 107; Harreither 1987, 197-210; Barnea 1991, 277-282; Suceveaпu/Barпea 1991, 195-197, 289-290). Iп Tomis а 1ot of 1ate antique bui1diпgs have Ьееп studied - Christiaп basi1icas, repre­sentative bui1dings with mosaics, thermae etc. lts defeпded area, which was increased consid­eraЫy iп comparisoп with the previous period, may have reached 55 ha. It is assumed that the southwest sector of the fortress is an additioп from the begiппiпg of the 61

h с. (Bucova1a 1977; Che1uta-Georgescu 1977, 253-260; Radulescu 1991, 23-35; Succeveavпu/Barnea 1991, 270-271, 274-275, 283; Sampetru 1994, 74-76; Radu1escu 1998, 83-93).7

The developmeпt of Serdica is of interest. In the 2nd с. its defended area was about 18 ha. Ву the епd of the 3rd - the begiпning of the 41

h

century Serdica, which was a1ready the capita1 of the new proviпce of Dacia Mediterranea, had а sigпificant upheava1 c1ear1y reflected in its representative architecture (Velkov 1977, 93-94; Stanceva 1989, 107-122; Велков 1989, 23-26; Станчева 1989, 17-20; Бобчев 1989, 37-58). A1so at the end of the 3rd_ 41

h ап iшpe­ria1 mint court functioned in Serdica (Божкова 1977, 3-1 О, Капели 1983). Now the town received а new fortress as well, whose territory is much larger than the one of the Ro­man fortress (Бояджиев 1959, 38-41, 45;

7 The figure given for the defended area of the late antiquity Tomis is а result of approximate calculations after the plans in the quoted puЬiications. In the latter precise data for the territory are not given.

42

Classificarion of rhe Late Antique Cities in rhe Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

Григорова 1983, 24; Станчева 1989, 18-19). Coпsideriпg the magпitude of its whole pro­tected territory iп the 4th с. - about 84 ha (То­нев 1995, 1 02). Serdica exceeds Tomis, Mar­cianopolis апd еvеп Philippopolis. It is поt Ьу сhапсе Ammianus Marcellinus, who is reliaЬie iп his iпformatioп, calls Serdica together with Philippopolis "kпown and vast cities" (ЛИБИ, 1958, 133). Such а city was in fact Serdica, but поt for loпg - at latest iп the mid­dle of the 5th ceпtury the fortificatioп system of the late Romaп eпlargemeпt is left апd the city shriпks agaiп to the limits of its defeпded terri­tory from the 2nd с. А similar chaпge happeпs to the capital of

the late aпtique proviпce of Thracia -Philippo-1юlis, but duriпg the reigп of Justiпiaп 1. The пеw fortress wall, which was moved to the Three-Hills, i.e. to the old acropolis ofthe city, reduces its defeпded area with over 50%. The remaiпs of the agora complex - the пucleus of the апсiепt structure of Philippopolis, апd a1so its episcopal basilica from the first half of the 5th с. are 1eft out of the new city fortress (8otusarova/Kesjakova 1983, 271-273; Морева 1988, 130-138; Матеев 1993, 92-93; Кесякова 1989, 122-124). Еvеп after а coп­sideraЬie reductioп the defeпded territory of Philippopolis is поt less thaп 35 ha8

.

А Ьig towп iп the proviпce with the same паmе iп the diocese of Thracia is Augusta Traiana. Its walls take ап area of about 48.5 ha еvеп iп the 6th ceпtury, апd the пumber of the r~preseпtati\1e, private апd puЬiic uпits iп its late aпtique structures is two-figure (Niko1ov 1987, 96-1 07; Калчев 1992, 49-69; Нико­лов/Калчев 1992, 29-44; Янков 1993, 139-143, 145-148; Буюклиев et а1. 1994, 89-90, Kaltscl1ev 1998, 88-1 07).

Scupi - the capital of the proviпce of Dardania, whose defeпded territory goes Ье­уопd 40 ha, сап Ье referred as well to the Ьig

late aпtique towпs. The represeпtative puЬiic апd private buildiпgs fouпd duriпf its excava­tioпs, coпfirm its importaпce iп 4t апd 5th ceп­tury. After the begiппiпg of the 6th с., however, Scupi lost поt опlу its privileged admiпistrative positioп, but a1so it town character. It is as­sumed that the reason is an earthquake in 518 (Miku1Cic 1973, 29-33; Micu1cic 1974, 208-210; Корачевик 1977, 143-177; Гара­шанин/Горачевик 1984, 79-97; Корачевик 1988, 155-164 ). lf that is the date of the fatal turпiпg poiпt, theп the defiпitioп of Hiиocles - I:кou1tOIJ.Т)'!p01tOAt~ (ГИБИ 1959, 94) is а reminisceпce поt correspoпding to rea1ity. ProbaЬly а part of the fuпctioпs of the o1d town were inherited Ьу the пew1y-built ceп­tre iп the 6th с. оп the поt far hill of Markovi Kuli. The 1atter impresses with its powerfu1 fortification iпc1uding а citade1, iпterпa1 апd externa1 fortress (Miku1cic 1973, 33-34; Mikuicic 1974, 210-212;Микулчик 1982,48-53, 129-135; Микулчик/Билбиjа 1984, 205-221 ). Its defeпded area cou1d have hardly outstood 6-7 ha 9 .

The data for the south wall of the late aп­tique fortress of Scodra, studied receпtly, are iп fact the first more sigпificaпt archeological data for the capital of the proviпce of Praevalirana. Iп the construction of the wall two periods have been distinguished: from the end of the 4th- the beginning of the 5th с.; from the time of Justinian I (Hoxha 1994, 231-24 7).10 The layout of the wall and the topo­graphical plan presented (Hoxha 1994, 232, fig.l) allow to Ье assumed that the defended area of the late antique town was not less than 35-40 ha.

Messembria, although Hierocles did not mention it, was possiЬiy the most prosperous centre of the proviпce of Haemimontus in 5th and 6th century. Today at least one-third of tl1e territory of the town, which is а Black Sea ре-

8 The layout of the cxtemal early Byzantine wal\ of Pllilippopolis has not been estaЬ\ished everywhere.

9 The layout of its intemal wall has not becn cstaЬ\ishcd completely, but it can Ье assumed from the sectioпs studied and from the configuration of the terтain (e.g. Mikulcic 1974, 211, fig.8) that this wal\ does not encompass а tcrтitory Ьiggcr than the above mentioned.

10 The dating of the two pcriods are after al\ based on common building analogics and historical presumptions, i.e. they are not unquestionaЬ\e.

43

Ventzislav Dintchev

ninsula, is under the sea level, but the pre­served parts of the town itself are about 25 ha. In Messembria solid walls and fortresses, seve­ral large Christian basilicas, puЬlic thermae and many other buildings and appurtenances

th th . from the 5 -6 century have been studted (Bojadziev 1961, 321-349; Venedikov et al. 1969; Velkov 1981, 137-141;Чимбулева

1988, 577-585, Теоклиева 1988, 585-593; Ognenova 1988, 5700-573; Ognenova­Marinova 1992, 243-246).

Ulpiana in the province of Dardania, whose defended area is 35.5 ha, is also among the Ьig Balkan centres of the late antiquity. During the reign of Justinian I it was renamed in lustiniana Secunda (Duval/Popovic 1980, 381-382; Паровиh-Пешикан 1982, 57-72; Bavant 1984, 247). Considering its charac­teristics the so-called castrum - а fortress with an area of about 16 ha in а close proximity to the city wall, is of special interest. The studies confined so far to the castrum in question give certain reasons for its dating to the 6th century (Паровиlj-Пешикан 1982,59,61,71-72). The synchronous function of the old and the new fortress in the 6th с. could mean that Ulpiana increased the number of its population as well as its importance as а settlement and puЬlic centre in general.Н However, it seems to me

that the possibllity the new fortress to have ap­peared as а consequence of abandoning the previous, i.e. for replacing and reducing the defended town area is more proper. 12

The fortress of the Roman Colonia Ulpia Ratiaria is supposed to have been with measure­ments of 426 х 284 m (Giorgetti 1987, 40-42), i.e. with an area of about 12 haP In the end of the Зrd- the beginning ofthe 4th с. when Ratiaria is already the capital of the province of Dacia Ripensis, а new and much Ьigger town fortress was built. Apart from the rectangle of the ear­lier fortress, it also includes new territory south­wards and eastwards, and its walls follow the configuration of the terrain here.14 The area of the late antique town defended in that way is about 30-35 ha.15 Most of the studied building~ in Ratiaria, including а representative residence . th th tn the town centre, are also from 4 -6 с.

(Velkov 1985, 886-889; Atanasova/Popova 1987, 85-96; Giorgetti 1987, 33-85; Джор­дети 1988, 30-38; Kuzmanov, in print).

Among the most important new centres in the Balkans in the beginning of the Late Antiq­uity is the town near Grazhdani (in Albania now) unidentified so far. It is near the border between the Dacian province of Praevalitania аг d the province of Epirus Nova of the diocese of Macedonia 16

. Its defended area is 34 ha. Its

11 The hypothesis that the castrum at issue "whose remains are 80-1 ОО m eastwards from the walls of U/piana" (Паровиh­Пешикан, 1982, 61) could Ье identified with /ustianopolis mentioned Ьу Procopius (Па рови!\ -Пешикан, \982, 72), i.e. the hypothesis for two different city centres -U/piana/lustiniana Secunda and /ustianopolis in such а "close proximity, is definitely unacceptaЬ\e.

12 Such а possibility could Ье supported Ьу the interpretation of Pricopius' information that Justinian ·'pulled down most of the ring wall" of U/piana, as "it was almost completely ruiпed and entirely useless" (ГИБИ 1959, 157). The chronology of the few buildings exposed in Ulpiana, as well as the studied northem gate of its older fortress has been proЬiematic so far. (Bavant 1984, 247-248, n.l4).

13 So far only the central area of the west \\•all and the main gate (Atanasova/Popova 1987, 85-96) have been studied. The measurements suggested аЬоvе are а result of the analysis of air photos (Giorgetti 1987, 40).

14 Confined parts of remains of the south and east late antique wall have Ьееn found accidentally. 1 received the information from У. Atanasova, for which 1 am deeply grateful. 1 also did personal observations of the terrain during my participation in the excavations of Ratiaria from \987 to 1989.

15 ln the earlier puЬ\ications the territory of the Iate ancient Ratiaria \\•as defined to have been 1,5 х 0,3 km, i.e. 45 ha (Velkov 1966, 173; Claude 1969, 18, n.42; Moscy 1970, 101; Biemacka-Lubanska 1982, 226). These data, however, are from before the starting the regular excavations. Considering the Iayout of the central part of the west town wall and the position ofthe main gate, which had not Ьееn changed from the end of \

51 to the end ofthe 6111 с. (Atanassova/Popova \987, 85-96),

and in view of the configuration of the terrain the maximum of the defended territory of the Jate antiquc town was about 35 ha. The assumption of а separate late antique military camp within an area of 0,6 ha in northwest direction from the I0\\'11

fortress (Georgetti 1987, 45-56, tav. А) has not becn confirmcd so far.

16 The hypothesis for the name of this town to have been Dober (Васе 1976, 49, n.21) is not based on the late antique sources. The frontier Ьetween the two provinces and between the two dioceses in the region is uncertain.

44

Classification ofthe Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses ofThracia and Dacia

2760 m long wall is in opus mixtum with courses of three or four rows of bricks. The 40 towers found alongside it are U-shaped (Васе 1976, 48-49, 70, tab. 3; Popovic 1984, 201). These peculiarities allow admitting that in the middle of the 4

1h century this centre was func­

tioning or at least it was being built. Due to the limited so far studies its destiny in the next centuries is unknown.

An ald urban centre in the province of Scythia, mentioned in the sources, as after its capital is Dionysopolis. The archeological data f . f ь . . 41h 51h . 1 d" . or 1ts state о ешg ш - с., ше u шg 1ts area are scarce (Димитров 1986, 95-98), but they prove its importance and suppose its classification as а major city. In the first half of the 61

h с Dionysopolis suffered а great earthquake. Ву the middle of the century the town was rebuilt on а new territory and was provided with а powerful fortification (Димитров, 1985а; Димитров 1985Ь, 123-124; Димитров 1988, 71-74). As for the area of the new town the figure of 26 ha has been pointed (Димитров1985а, 14; Димитров 1985Ь, 124), or even 36 ha (Димитров 1988, 72, 75). In view of the irregular shape of the fortress and the overalllongitude ofits walls - 1730 m or 1735 m (Димитров 1985а, 14; Димитров 1985Ь, 124) the defended territory of the new town could have hardly exceeded 16-17ha.

The studies of Viminacium - а municipium from the 2"d с. and capital of the late antique province of Moesia Superior are based mostly on written and epigraphic sources (Поповиh 1967, 29-41; Mirkovic 1968, 56-73; Поповиh 1988, 31-35; Mirkovic 1997, 44-50). Any­way, today the localization of the military camp and of the Roman Municipium Aelium Viminacium is known. According to some in­formation from the beginning of the century, quoted in the later puЬiications (Поповиh 1967, ЗО; Petrovic 1986, 93) the military camp is with measurements of 442 х 385 m, i.e. with an area of 17 ha. А wall built or at

least reconstructed in the Late Antiquity, is now have been known in the east part of he city structure as wellP According to the known plans (Поповиh 1967, 33, 39, fig. 4, 5; Поповиh 1988, 2, fig. 1) the area of the town structure as а whole is at least twice as Ьig as the one of the camp. The latter, in analogy with the other Roman legionary camps in the DanuЬian region must have borne significant transformations in the end of the зrd - the be­ginning of the 4th с., and should Ье accepted as а part of the city structure in the 4th century. Having this addition it is sure that the whole defended area of Viminacium in the 4th с. ex­ceeded ЗО ha. The city was badly affected Ь~ the Hunic invasions in the middle of the 5

1

century. In the literature the thesis that in the first years of ruling of the emperor Justinian 1 its fortified nucleus was moved to about 1 km westwards from the previous town fortress has been maintained (Поповиh 1988, 1, 32-35). Another object connected with the des­tiny of Viminacium in the 61

h с. is а settlement of foederati, localized at several hundred me­tres northwards from the old town fortress (Поповиh 1988, 1-31, 33-35). The new for­tress which is identified with the early By­zantine Viminacium is with an area of "only 2 ha" (Поповиli 1988, 33). Due to it the the­sis itself about the moving and reducing the capital of Moesia Superior up to his fortress together with the above mentioned settlement fortified weakly does not seem acceptaЬie to me. At least а part of the old town fortress probaЬiy must have been used in the 6

1h cen­

tury. Otherwise Viminacium would have been one of the drastic examples of discrepancy be­tween sources and real parameters of size and importance at that time.18

According to the accepted classification parametres in the bordering zone between the Ьig and the middle towns is Diocletianopolis in the province of Thrace. The defended territory of the town built in the end of the зrd - the be­ginning of the 41

h is about ЗО ha. The many

17 The thickness of 3.40 m of this wall (Поповиl\ 1967, 33-34) was hard1y reached Ьefore the end of the 3nJ с.

18 Apart from Hierocles, who points Vimi11acium as JlE'tp07tOЛ.н; of Moesia Superior (ГИБИ 1959, 54), Procopius a11d Theophilactus Simokatta (ГИБИ 1959, 164, 293, 348-350) inform as well aЬout the importance of the town in the 6111

century.

45

Ventzislav Dintchev

studies iп Diocletianopolis, iпcludiпg iп the suburbs апd iп its пecropolis, complexes апd buildiпgs-resideпces, Christiaп basilicas, ther­mae, barracks etc. prove its importaпce апd are ап argumeпt for its defiпiпg as а Ьig late aпtique city (Gorbaпov 1987, 293-296; Иванов 1988, 27-30; Маджаров 1993; Маджаров 1995, 99-1 ОО; Маджаров et al. 1996, 57-58).

Pautalia iп the proviпce of Dacia Medi­terranea is iп the border zопе betweeп the two groups too. The defeпded still iп the 2nd ceп­tury area of this city is calculated to have Ьееп а little more thaп 29 ha. Here mапу late aпtique buildiпgs with differeпt fuпctioпs also have Ьееп studied. Some of them impress with their coпstructioп апd decoratioп (Ruseva­Slokoska 1987, 82-96; Слокоска 1989; Генадиева 1989, 157-173; Фъркав 1990, 147-153; Алексиев 1991, 120-121; Мешекав 1996, 57-58). Оп the пеаr hill of Hissarluka iп the 41

h с. а fortress was built with ап area of 2.1 ha (Гочева 1970, 233-254; Слокоска 1989, 13, 33-34; Станилов et al. 1991, 178-179). lt also coпtributes to the classificatioп assessmeпt of Pautalia as а Ьig city19

• А пewly discovered wall, hov.-·ever, which divides the defeпded towп area (Сnасов et al. 1996, 39-47), sets iп questioп such assessmeпt ofthe last period of the Late Aпtiquity апd directs to­wards the assumptioп for chaпges iп the deve­lopmeпt of Pautalia, similar to the chaпges iп Serdica or Pbllippopolis for example 20.

Singidunum iп the proviпce of Moesia Su­perior, Aquae апd Oescus iп the proviпce of Dacia Ripensis are iп the border zопе betweeп the two classificatioп groups as well. The ех-

istiпg iпformatioп about these ceпtres does not allow, however, their defiпiпg as Ьig cities in the Late Antiquity.

The maiп fortress of the late aпtique

Singidunum keeps the outliпes of the earlier Romaп military camp. It circles about 20 ha. With the defeпded exteпsioп iп northwest di­rectioп - the so-called dowп towп, the entire defeпded area must have reached ЗО ha. The more represeпtative buildiпgs estaЬiished ear­lier are, however, relatively few, and most of them are from the2nd - the first half of 3rd с. (Поnовиl) 1982, 27-37; Bojovic 1996, 53-68; Popovic 1997, 1-19; Vujovic 1997, 169-178). Singidunum was seriously damaged iп the iп­vasioпs iп the епd of 41

h- the middle 51h с. (Bje­

lajC/Ivaпisevic 1993, 123-139). It is supposed that duriпg the reigп of the emperor Justiпiaп 1 its defended area was coпfiпed опlу to the northwest third of the earlier major fortress, i.e. to 6-7 ha (Поnовиh 1982, 34-35; Bojovic 1996, 68; Popovic 1997, 17-18). It means that Ьу the middle of the 61

h с. Singidunum is already under the parameters of еvеп а middle­size and middle importaпt towп.

The assumed outlines of the walls of the late aпtique Aquae circle ап area of about 29 ha. The researches there have Ьееп coпfiпed so far (J анковиh 1981, 43-45, 81; 121-128; Пет­ровиn 1997, 123-125). As ап indication for the limited importance of Aquae - considering the general classificatioп, the 11 1

h novela Ьу the emperor Justiпian should Ье iпterpreted. Ac­cordiпg to it the local Ьishop was uпder the guardiaпship of the Ьishop of Meridium uпtil 535 (ГИБИ 1959, 49)?1 А reductioп of the

• th th protected area of Aquae ш the late 5 - 6 с. -

19 Although it was separated from the town fonifying system - to several hundred meters southwards, this military fonress рrоЬаЬ\у '"'as in unquestioned connection with the defence and \\'ith life in Pautalia in general. ln the opinions if the researchers of the fonress on the hil\ of Hissarluka а tendency has Ьееn noticed to an early dating of its appearance "the end of the 4

111 - the beginning of the 5th с." (Гочева 1970, 252); "in the 4111 с." ( Слокоска \989, 34);" the Ьeginning of

4111 с." (Станилов et а\. \991, 179).

20 ln the puЬiication the wal\ in question has Ьееn related to the period from 5111 to 9111 с. in general (Сnасов et а\. 1996, 44-45). There is stated again that the remains registered in the excavated sector '"'hich preceded the development of the wa\1 are dated "not earlier than 4

111 -5"' с." (Сnасов et а\. 1996, 44-45). According to oral infonnation Ьу R. Spasssov, for

which 1 am grateful, the most рrоЬаЬ\е date for the appearance of this wall is Ьetween the cnd of the 5111 - the Ьcginning of

the 7111 с. With the appearance of the latter the east half of the town area defended ear\ier \\'ЗS abandoned.

21 А similar indication is the dcfinition of Aquae Ьу Procopius -1tOAtXV\OV (ГИБИ \959, 166). However, in Pюcopius Aquae is а ccntre of а rcgion whcre many fonifications were reconstructed (ГИБИ 1959, 163).

46

Classificarion of rhe Lare Anrique Ciries in rhe Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

similar to Viminacium and Singidunum, would not Ье surprising.

Ву the end of the Зrd - the beginning of the 4th с. the defended area of Oescus had been en­larged and reached 28 ha. The archeological ex­cavations have а long history, but their results are connected mostly with the Roman period of the development of that centre - with Colonia Ulpia Oescensium (lvanov 1987, 7-60; Kabakcieva 1996, 95-117;Иванов/Иванов 1998). The little number of representative build­ings, constructed Ьу and after the beginning of the 4th с. in the sectors studied, tips the balance toward ranking the late antique Oescus among the middle in their size and importance towns. There are some facts that set under question the preserving the above mentioned area of Oescus until the end of the Late Antiquity 22 .

Among the most important centres belong­ing to the group of the middle towns is Novae in the province of Moesia lnferior. Ву the end of the Зrd century its defended area was ex­tended to about 26 ha.23 The extensions indi­cate the transformation of the old military camp into а urban centre. The known so far about the late antique structure of Novae, in­cludinf the impressive episcopal complex from 51

h - 61 с., confirms its role in the region of the Lower Danube (Press/Sarnowski 1991, 229, 240-243; Cicikova 1994, 127-138; Димитров 1994, 83-87; Parnicki-Pudelko 1995; Bier-

nacki/Medeksza 1995, 9-23; Kalinov.rski 1995, 25-35; Kudeva 1995, 27-61; Miltsche­va/Gen tscheva 1996, 190-193; Dyczek 1997, 87-94).

Among the most important centres of this group is also Doclea in the province of Prea­valitana. According to the general plan pre­sented in puЬlications (e.g. Миjовиh/

Ковачевиh 1975, 43 fig. 37) its defended terri­tory was about 25 ha. The research shows that Doclea was ап important centre - with а repre­sentativeforum and different puЬlic buildings, still in the time of the Principate. The repre­sentative Christian buildings of cult prove its importance in the Late Antiquity (Миjовиh/ Ковачевиh 1975, 42-46, 64-65; Duval/Popovic 1980, 379-380; Popovic 1984, 193, 207).

Hierocles did not mention Sozopolis, like Messembria, but it also was а prosperous town of the province of Haemimontus in the 5

1h-6

1h

century (Dimitrov 1988, 497-501 ). Sozopolis (the old Apollonia) has а similar disposition -on а Black Sea peninsula, encompassed Ьу а wall. Its territory was apprщimately as the pre­served parts of Messembria today - i.e. about 25 ha.24 The limited so far researches in Sozopolis found remains of fortification and Christian cult architecture from the late 4

1h -

61ьс. (Велков 1964, 43-54; Овчаров/ Дражева 1987, 232-233; Дражева/Недев 1994, 11 0)?5

22 The area of Oescus 1, i.e. of the main fortress is delineated Ьу а circle ditch (Иванов/Иванов 1998, 58, обр. 25). Today traces of this ditch can c\early Ье seen from the east part of Oescus 1 (Иванов/Иванов 1998, 70), i.e. from the side of the late Rornan extension Oescus 11. This is а reason for supposition that the ditch was made after abandoning the fortress of Oescus 11. ln two of the t0\\1ers of the fortress of Oescus 11 а Iarge numЬer of coins from the second half of the Зrd - 4\h с., inc1uding from the \ate 41h с. was found. ln one of these towers а coin of Justinian 1 was found (Иванов/Иванов 1998, 71, 76, 80). The latter, however, was not found in а definite Iayer, which сап Ье connected with the functioning of the corre­sponding tower. The absence of Iater reconstruction and corrections of its appurtenances Ьears witness for the relatively short period of using the fortress of Oescus 11. These data direct us to the assumption that the early Byzantine Oescus, like Serdica, abandoned its fortified Iate antique extension, whose area is aЬout 10 ha. There has Ьееn а hypothesis that the ditch men­tioned аЬоvе dates back to 10\h - 12\h с. (Poulter 1983, 76). E''en such а possibllity could not refute the аЬоvе mentioned assumption.lfthe ditch "''as medieval, it obviously \\'as conforrned to the remains ofthe fortress visiЬie at that time (Иванов! Иванов 1998, 58, fig. 25), i.e. with the fortress of Oescus functioning in the last period of the Late Antiquity.

23 Some puЬiications define the defended area of the Iate antique No,,ae to have been aЬout ЗО ha (e.g. ёicikova \980, 57; ёicikova 1994, 127). According to the known general plan (ёicikova 1980, 56, АЬЬ. 1) the area of Novae 1 and No,•ae 11, i.e. the late antique Nо\'йе is definitely smaller: Novae /, i.e. the earlier military camp, does not exceed 18 ha, and Novae 11, i.e. the extension, is about 8 ha.

24 Тhе peninsula of Sozopolis, in difference with the one of Messembria has not changed significant1y its configuration after бlh с. (Dimitrov 1988, 497-498).

25 Remains of the late antiquity Christian basilica are studied on the island of St. lvan, severa1 hundred metres а\\·ау from Sozopolis (Димова et al. 1990, 194-195).

47

Ventzislav Dintchev

lblda iп the proviпce of Scythe also is miss­iпg iп Hierocles, but it was meпtioпed as лоЛ.н; iп Procopius (ГИБИ 1959, 170). The de­fended area of this пеw ceпtre was also calcu­lated to have Ьееп 24 ha оп the whole, апd the proportioп of its two соппесtеd fortresses is approximately 7:1. The аЬsепсе so far of exca­vatioпs causes certaiп disseпsioпs amoпg the researchers сопсеrпiпg the sequeпce iп the for­tificatioп coпstructioп, but at least coпsideriпg the арреаrапсе of а Ьig fortress it is agreed that it dates back to the earlier or middle 41ь ceп­tury (Scorpaп 1980, 40-41; Suceveaпu/Barпea 1991, 204 ). Iп that fortress the remaiпs of а represeпtative, three-apse Christiaп basilica from 61ь с were fouпd Ьу accideпt. Iп the sur­rouпdiпgs а late aпtique moпastery complex has Ьееп studied (Luпgu 1997, 100-1 О 1, 1 05).

А пеw towп, probaЬly а successor of ап ear-1ier military camp, is Bononia iп the proviпce of Dacia Ripensis (Susiпi 1975, 425-429; Velkov 1977, 88), meпtioпed Ьу Hierocles. The fortress of Bononia kпоwп todayJ whose coп­structioп dates back to the late 3r - early 41

h с., eпcompasses ап area of about 23 ha. The re­searches here are coпfiпed, but still they prove ап iпteпsive life iп the late aпtiquity, апd espe­cially iп the 41ь с. (Атанасова 1974, 337-338, 343; Николаева 1990, 71; Атанасова, iп print).26 А brief аппоuпсеmепt about а studied пecropolis from 61ь с. in the north-east corner of the fortress (Михайлов 1961, 4), how­ever, leaves the question of the fate of the for­tress at that time ореп.

The yet uпideпtified ceпtre, whose remaiпs are uпder today's towп of Obzor, is the most importaпt poiпt оп the Black Sea coast of the diocese of Thracia betweeп Odessos апd

MessembriaP Accordiпg to the data апd р1ап kпown (Шкорnил 1930, 205-206, fig. 6), its defended area with the shape of а trapezium, is about 22 ha.28 The coпstructioп of the for­tress, which actually marks the begiппiпg of the towп period iп the developmeпt of that ceп­tre, was iп the late Aпtiquity. The shape of the towers directs to the late 31ь -4 1ь с. The coппec­tion of the fortress with the so-called Balkan barrier line (Шкорпил 1930, 204-207) sup­poses the functioning of that ceпtre еvеп iп

lh lh the late 5 - 6 с. Its water supp1y was secured through external masoned waterpipes (Шкорnил /Шкорnил 1892, 40-41 ;Шкор­nил 1930, 206). An indication for its town image are the late antique representative re­mains and finds discovered in the excava­tioпs which have been limited so far to its defended area, or found Ьу chance (Шкор­nил/Шкорnил 1892, 39-40; Овчаров/Вак­линова 1978, 32-33, 37; Чимбулева/Ба­лабанов 1979, 94-95)29

.

The fortress of Traianopolis - опе of the main towns of the province of Rhodopa (Vel­kov 1977, 125), is of irregu1ar shape similar to а pentangle, апd the overall length of its walls about 2 km (Pantos 1983, 173). From this in­formation it сап Ье concluded that the de­fended area of the late antique Traianopolis was approximately as the опе of Bononia in the 41ь с. or as the опе iп the centre of today's Obzor.

Iп the 41ь and the first half of the 5 1ь с. Nico­polis ad Istrum iп Moesia Inferior keeps its de­fended territory of about 21.5 ha, outlined still Ьу its first wall from the 2nd с. In the first half of the 41ь c.most of the importaпt puЬlic units of the urban structure iпcluding the agora

26 1 would like to thank Mrs.Atanassova for giving me to use her article under print.

27 The only hypothesis concerning the identitication of that centre belongs to brothers Shkorpil: it is with the road station of Тетр/шп Jovis known from Tabula Peшingeriana (Шкорлил/Шкорлил 1890, 14; Шкорлил/Шкорпил 1892, 36; ЛИБИ 1958, 17). It can hardly Ье assumed that the name Тетр/щп Jovis was used Ьу and after the middle of the 4

111 с. lf the Ьorder Ьetween Moesia /nferior and Haemimontus was the main ridge of Haemus, then this centre should have been the farthest southeast point in the province of Moesia lnlerior.

28 The data Ьу K.Shkorpil are in feet. The calculations are done Ьу my in the following proportion foot : metre = 3:4. Thus the perimeter of the fortress of this centre, which is 2700 feet (Шкорлил 1930, 206), makes 2025 m.

29 А concluding report, yet unpuЬiished, for the building remains and architectural details from the Late Antiquity found here was delivered Ьу Zh. Chimbuleva during the sessions of the 4

111 conference Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi, held in

1988.

48

Classification of rhe Late Antique Ciries in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

complex functioned. At that time new repre­sentative residential buildings appear, and the suburbs extended (Иванов/Иванов 1994; Русева-Слокоска 1994, 171-181; Poulter 1995, 28-33; Rousseva-Slokoska,

f lh 205-211). А ter the 4 с, and mostly after the middle of the 5

1h с . , however, iп the develop­

meпt of Nicopolis ad lstrum drastic chaпges occur. They fiпd their expressioп iп the remov­iпg апd reductioп of its defeпded area to 5.74 ha.30 The most importaпt uпits iп the structure of the пеw ceпtr~ are two buildiпgs of а cult - а

three-пaves basilica апd а опе-паvе church (Poulter 1995, 35-47). Their constructioп ,

measurements and decoratioп, however, do поt provide them а place among the more repre­seпtative exemplars of the correspoпdiпg ar­chitectural types. Iп that case the defiпiпg of the early Byzaпtine Nicopolis ad lstrum as а towп is proЬiematic, or will Ье conditional with а lot of reserves .

Naissus, whose towп status probaЬiy dates back to the епd of the 2nd с. is the most impor­tant centre of the \vesterп part of the proviпce of Dacia Mediterranea . Apart from the sour­ces, а proof in that respect are the buildiпgs, appurteпaпces апd fiпds of the Late Aпtiquity discovered here (Петровиh 1976, 9-88; Petrovic 1993, 57-69; Gusic 1993а, 164-168; Mirkovic 1997, 51). The outlines of the walls have not been surely estaЬlished so far, but it is supposed that its defended area was about 20 ha (Петровиn 1976, 49; Petrovic 1993, 66)

The localizatioп of the Zaldapa meпtioпed Ьу Hierocles was specified recently (e .g. Бешевлиев 1962, 1-3). The information about the corresponding site proves Zaldapa to have been the most significaпt пеw centre iп the south part of the proviпce of Scythia. Ac­cordiпg to iпformation апd to а рlап from the beginning of the century (Шкорпил 1905,

493-499, pl. CXI/c), the area defended Ьу а strong fortress is about 20 ha.31 It сап Ье as­sumed from the iпformatioп about the walls апd towers that the begiпning of the towп was not later thaп the middle of the 41h с. Accord­ing to unpuЬlished researches Ьу К.

Shkorpil here the remains of а represeпtative buildiпg, 1 ОО m loпg, апd of а Christiaп ba­silica are found (Въжарова 1961, 66). The water supply of Zaldapa was safely provided (Мирчев 1951, 99-102).

Durostorum is а well-kпowп ceпtre of the proviпce of Moesia lnferior апd of the Lower Daпube iп geпeral (Velkov 1960, 214-218; Tapkova-Zaimova 1997, 1 09- 114; Sousta1 1997, 115-119). It is supposed that the meas­uremeпts of the Romaп mi1itary camp here were about 480 х 400 m, i.e. а territory of 19 ha. The explored southwest sectioп of the camp fortre$S was kept апd rebuilt to the 6

111 с. The traпsformiпg of the camp iп а settlemeпt cen­tre has also Ьееп proved, i.e. the situatiпg of the towп iп the area of the ear1ier camp. Iп the beginniпg of the 41h с. iп the place of the Ro­maп canabae а suburb with represeпtative buildiпgs is estaЬlished (Donevski 1987, 239-243; Doпevski 1994, 153-158; Доневски 1995, 259-270). At the same time пеаr the Danubian Ьапk - а few hundred metres northwest from the former camp, а пеw (military ?) fortress was built. In the sixth ceпtury this fortress was generally recoп­structed (Ангелова 1980, 5-8; Ангелова 1988, 33-36), lts walls so far have поt been outliпed, but it сап Ье assumed that its area is not less than 3-4 ha.

Ап old towп centre in the proviпce of RIJO­dopa is Maroneia . It is mentioпed Ьу Hierocles (ГИБИ 1959, 88). Accordiпg to the plaпs puЬlished (Ла~арtЬТJ<; 1972, fig.37 ; Ba­kirirtzis 1989, fig . 16) its defeпded area iп the 41h-61h с. should have been about 19 ha32

. In

30 According to the researcher the new fortress was built in 453 (Poulter 1995, 37). 1 think that а later date of its building - Ьу the end of the 5111 or the beginning of the 6111 с . , is more acceptaЬie (Dintchev 1997Ь, 1 02).

31 Shkorpil's data are in feet. Cf. above ft . # 28.

32 Тhis area and the corresponding walls are assumed for а later period (Bakiritzis 1989, 47), but hardly the late antiquity town of Maroneia was defended Ьу the walls over 10 km long of the old Greek colony (Ла~ар\Ь'l~ 1972, fig .37; Bakirirtzis 1989, fig. 16).

49

Ventzislav Dintchev

Maroneia and in the near territory some repre­sentative late antique buildings have been ex­plored (Pantos 1983, 168-169; Bakiritzis 1989, 46-47).

Zikideva appeared as а town centre of the province of Moesia lnferior in the late 51

h -

early 61h. The many complexes and buildings

studied here with а different puЬlic purposes, as well as the impressive number of the resi­dential buildings exposed, bear witness for its meaning. Zikideva is mentioned Ьу Procopius and Theophilactus Simokatta, as well as in Notitiae Episcopatuum in the place of Nicopolis ad lsrrum (Dintchev 1997с, 54-77). The data puЬlished about the area of the hill, on which the main fortress of Zikideva is, are controversial. Anyway, this area is not less than 12-13 ha.33 According to the latest re­searches the fortress which surrounds the river terrace at the west foot of the hill and which is directly connected with the fortress of the hill

lh also refers to the 6 с. The water supply of the town on the hill was guaranteed with the lower fortress. In some of the towers of this fortress wells were made. The most significant is in the south corner tower. The approach to it from the hill is secured in an impressive way - through the passage staircase in the south wall of the lower fortress (Тотев/Дерменджиев 1997, 143-155). Tl1e area of this fortress is about 2.5 ha (Тотев/Дерменджиев 1997, 150), i.e. the defended territory of Zikideva is no less than 15 ha in general. At about 250 m crow flight, westwards from the main fortress of Zikideva is the east end of the fortress of а syn­chronous satelite settlement, whose area is not less than 4-5 ha (Dintchev 1997с, 65-66).

The yet unidentified town near Konjuh in today's Macedonia seems to have been the most important late antique centre in the east part of the province of Dardania. It is assumed

that its fortification and urbanization in general were done in 41

h с. In its defended area, which is about 17, ha re·mains of different buildings were registered, including а representative Christian basilica. Many premises and appur­tenances are cut into the rocky ground of its higher central part (Микулчик 1974, 366-368; Miculcic 1974, 207-208; Георгиевски 1996, 73-74l.

In the 41 с in Acrae in the province of Scythia probaЬly did not have а town status yet. Together with the external wall built not earlier than the second half of the 41

h с. the en­tire defended territory of that centre reached up to 15 ha, and after the middle of the 5th с. it was already one of the important centres of the province.34 In that case the third place of Acrae among the sea towns of Scythia in the Hierocles' list (ГИБИ 1959, 90) corresponds to the archeological data. А significant late antique centre is the one

near Chomakovtsi in today's northwest Bul­garia - in the east part of the province of Dacia Ripensis. Its fortress was built not earlier than the end of the 3rd century. Most of the late an­tique bui1dings, appurtenances and finds dis­covered during the incidental excavations are from the end of the 3rd- 41

h (Шкорnил 1905. 480-481, pl. CVII 1, 2; Vetters J 9 50. 13- J 4: Иванов 1961, 255-269; Ковачев<1/Бънов 1990, 81-83). According to the d<1ta and the plan of К. Skorpil, the defended area of that centre is about 13 ha,35 and according to T.lvanov- about 15 ha (Иванов 1961, 257). An assumption has been made that this is Zetlloиkortou (Velkov 1977, 89-90). The latter \vas mentioned only Ьу Procopius as а xropюv ,

but together with Oescus and Cas11·a Martis (ГИБИ 1959, 167-168), i.e. in а city context.

One of the five, according to Hierocles, towns of the province of Moesia Superior is

33 In а monograph of an author-architectthe territory of thc hill is defined to have Ьееn more than 21 ha (Харбова 1979, 30, 48-49). This information was reflected in my first anicle about Zikide,,a (Dintchev 1997с, 55). According to а panicipant in the archeological excavations the area of the hill is about 12 ha (Николова 1986, 235). lf wc procced from the known plan (Dintchc:v 1997с, 71, fig . З), the second figure looks more reliaЬle. Precise calculations aftcr that and the other pub­lished plans ofthe hill ofTsarevcts, which are also without horizontals and elevations, cannot Ье done. The reason is in the fact that the terrain of the hill above its rock crown is not nat but pyramida1.

34 See аЬоvе ft.# 3

35 Skorpil's data arc in feet. See abovc ft.#28.

50

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

Horreum Margi (ГИБИ 1959, 94). The sup­posed outlines of its fortress walls surround an area of about 14 ha (Piletic 1969, 9-57). The researches confined so far do not allow а bet­ter idea of the late antique structure of this old city centre. The coins finds suggest per­turbations ~~ the end of the 4

1h с and the mid­

dle of the 5 с. (Bacuh 1990, 5-8, 89-92). Of the availaЬie data about the fortress of

Eudoxiopolis (the old Selymbria) it can Ье as­sumed that the defended area of the capital of the province of Europa is about 12 ha (Dirim­tekin 1957, 127-129). These data, however, bear witness for а later dating of the registered fortification remains, which could mean that Eudoxiopolis was also reduced in its area Ьу or after the end of the 5

1h с. - the beginning of the

6 1h с., i.e. that the number pointed is the size of

the reduced area of the city in the 6 rh с. Abritus is among the new towns of the prov­

ince of Moesia lnferior. lt was mentioned Ьу Hierocles (ГИБИ 1959, 90). The building of its fortress, which has been thoroughly re­searched, refers to the end of the 3rd- the be­ginning of the 4

1h с. (Иванов 1980). lts de­

fendcd area is ctbout 12 hа.З6 Different pub­lic and private buildings have been studied in it: а Ьig and representative administrative and residentia1 complex, а large horreum, а Chris­tian basilica with three naves etc. (Иванов/ Стоянов 1985; Георгиев et al. 1994, 74-75).

The present archeological information about а number of significant centres, accord­ing to the sources and to the modern histo­riogr<lphy, is rather scarce and insufficient for

а methodologically correct classification and assessment. Adrianopolis - the capita1 of the province of Haemimontus, Ainos - the capital of the province of Rhodopa, and Heraclea (the former Perinthus - the capital of the Roman Thracia) in the province of Europa must have been among the Ьiggest cities of the diocese of Thracia (Velkov 1977, 115, 120, 125). Its real archeological search has not started yet (Otuken/Ousterhout 1989, 121-131, n.l, 3, 4). For the defended area of Anhialo in the prov­ince of Haemimontus а figure is given, which exceeds а lot the corresponding figures of all mentioned above towns in the two dioceses -about 120 ha (Стоев 1989, 37-40). The data about the walls of Anchialos- а result of geo­physical researches - are not unquestionaЬle and are not archeologically precised37

. It has been announced as well about the walls of Panion in the province of Europa that they sur­round а Ьig territory (Outgun/Ousterhout 1989, 145-146), but precise data about the area and the chronology of the fortification remains vis­iЬle on the terrain have not been puЬlished yet. The results of the started researches in Deultum give а certain idea about this old ur­ban centre in the province of Haemimontus (Дамянов 1982, 234-23 5; Бонева 1984, 23-28; Дамянов et al. 1987, 128-129; Дражева et al. 1994, 93), but are not enough for а more precise assessment and characteristics. The comparison, however, of this results with the data of the brothers Skorpil from the end of the last century (Шкорпил/ Шкорпил 1891, 133-138, fig. 46) suggests а

36 The defended area mentioned in the puЫications . about 15 ha (Иванов 1980, 29; Иванов/Стоянов 1985, 10) is exag­gerated. There is a1so cenain inaccuracy in the metric data. For the who1e 1ength of the fonress Vialls was pointed that "it was about 1400 m" <Иванов 1980, 30), but the sum of the 1engths of the four walls (Иванов 1980, 31, 66, 83, 122) is \347m. At the same time the 1ength of the nonh wa11 is pointed to have Ьееn 295 m (Иванов 1980, 31 ), but it turns out from the sum of the ligures for the corresponding towers and sections of the cunain (Иванов 1980, 33-63) that the 1ength of this wall is no 1ess than 302m. About 12 ha is the defended area according to the p1an given (Иванов 1980, 30, fig. 10).

37 On1y а sma\1 section of the east wall has been confirrned archeo1ogically (Стоянов 1980, 1 05; Стоев 1989, 39, fig. 5). The ear1iest remains of а studied section in the south pan of the assumed defended area of Ancllialos are 1ate antique: they are from а Ьig farm hui1ding and of а furnace for bui1ding ceramic (Карайотов/Бонева 1989, 86-87; Бонева 1990, 93-94). 1t can Ье assumcd from the presence of the furnace that the surrounding terrain was not in the defended city area, \\'hich confronts thc data from the data from the geophysica1 rcsearches. Apan from the section at issue, saving excava­tions were made in the centra1 zone of Anclrialos. Small pans of а so1id bui1ding and of street with а representative archi­tectura1 design ha,•e bcen found (Лазаров 1983, 300, 304; Sase1ov 1985. 138-143). They are а proof for а de,•e1opcd tovm structure, but are not enough for its characteristil:s.

51

Ventzislav Dintchev

significant reduction of the defended area of Deultum to about 5-6 ha still before the end of the 4

1h с.38 ProbaЬly Ammianus Marcellinus

was right to call the o\d Roman colony ogpidum (ЛИБИ 1958, 174) in the end of the 4 с.

Nicopolis ad Nestum in the province of Rhodopa belongs to the border classification zone between the midd\e and the sma\1 towns. Its defended area is about 11 ha. In the first two centuries. of its existence, i.e. unti1 the begin­ning of the 41

h с. this town does not \ook quite fortified, and its walls built at that time are kept as outline unti1 the end of the 61

h с. (Димитрова-Милчева 1992, 257-270). The representative puЬ\ic and private bui1dings from the Late Antiquity discovered in or near the fortress allow the referring of Nicopolis ad Nestum to the group of the middle urban cen­tres (Vaklinova 1984, 641-649; Дремсизова­Нелчинова 1987, 61-62; Димитрова­

Милчева 1992, 268, Кузманов 1994, 24-34). The old town centre Tropaeum Traiani in

the province of Scyrhia сап Ье referred to this group. Its defended area in the Late Antiquity was (with its south-east extension) about 10.5 ha (Barnea et а\. 1979, 16). А testimony for its importance and demographic potentia1 are the big puЬlic buildings, including severa\ Chris­tian basilicas, as we\l as the numerous, differ­ent in their plan and type private buildings, found in its research hitherto (Barnea et а\. 1979; Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 199-202; Sampetru 1994, 18-53, 72-73, 84-85, 112-114; Poulter 1996, 116-117; Lungu 1997, 99-104; Cataniciu 1998, 201-214).

Two centres which are not identified -Gradishteto near the Yillage of Voyvoda in to­day's northeast Bulgaria, i.e. in the province of Moesia lnferior,39 and Davina near the village of Chucher in today's North Macedonia, i.e. in

the province of Dardania are in the border zone between the middle and sma\1 towns as well. The defended area of Gradishteto near Voyvoda is about 1 О ha. Its fortress was bui\t in the beginning of the 41h century. At that time in the near surroundings there was intensive manufacturing of building ceramics. The re­sults of the excavations made prove the func­tioning of this centre until the end of the 61

h с. Unti1 the middle of the 51

h с. in front of its westem wall а proteichisma was built. In the researched small part of its defended area sev­eral residential buildings with stone-mudbrick construction have been found. Narrow roadpaths were discovered. The presence of unfortified suburbs is supposed (Милчев/ Дамянов 1972, 263-277; Дамянов 1978, 139-173; Милчев/Дамянов 1984, 43-84; Дамянов 1985, 253-259). The data given above prove the settlement character of that centre, but are not enough it to Ье included in the c\assification group of the middle towns. The situation is analogous with the data for the mentioned late antique centre near the vil\age of Chucher. Its defended area is defined to have been 9 ha. In it and in the suburbs remains of many buildings are registered (Mikulcic 1986, 107, 1 09). The absence of real archeologica\ researches in that case does not give а possi­Ьility the chronology of that centre to Ье precised.

А special р\асе in the classification and in the characteristics in general of the late antique Balkan town stakes lusriniana prima, identi­fied now with Tsarichin grad at about 45 km south from the city of Nish ( Naissus)40

. Ac­cording to the novelas from 535 and 545, and according to the data of Procopius (ГИБИ 1959,47-49,71, 156-157), lustiniana Prima is rюt only one of the new\y-built towns, but it

38 An earlier and more signiticant as an area fonress here has not Ьееn found so far, but in analogy with the most cities in the Roman ТJ1racia it can Ье assumed that also Colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium was fonitied in the end of the 2nd с.

39 It is supposed that the Gradishteto near the village of Voyvoda is the fonress of Diniskarta, mentioned Ьу Procopius, " 'hich is identified with the to"'" of Dineia known from the 10

111 с (Бешевлиев 1962, 13-14; Velkov 1977, 106). How­ever, this assumption has its opponents (Рашев 1988, 117-122).

4° From the two known no,•ellas of the emperor Justinian aЬout the rights of the archblshop of lustiniana Prima (ГИБИ 1959, 47-49, 71) it can Ье concluded that initially, i.e. Ьу 535 the town was in the territory of the province of Dacia Mediterranea, whereas later, i.e. in and after 545, the town and the territory around it were already in the province of Dardania.

52

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

was created Ьу the emperor Justiпiaп 1 to Ье ап admiпistrative апd cult capital of the whole пorthem lllyricum, iпcludiпg the proviпces of the diocese of Dacia. The loпg lastiпg archeo­logical researches also give argumeпts for the special destiпatioп of this towп. lп its сопсерt and in its initiallook the structure of lustiniana Prima iпcluded maiпly units of representative character, among which the пumerous Chris­tiaп buildings апd complexes are outliпed (Bavant 1984, 272-285; Duval 1984, 399-481; Guyon/Cardi 1984, 1-90; DuvaUJeremic 1984, 91-146; Bavant 1990, 123-125, 154-160; Vasic 1990, 307-315; Poulter 1996, 124-126). The results of the researches categorically refute, however, the statement of Procopius that it is а "town big and with many people" апd that "iп its size it is first" among "the other cities" of lllyricum (ГИБИ 1959, 156). The area of lustiniana Prima defended through а solid for­tification - the so-called upper towп, including the acropolis with the episcopal complex, and the so-called down towп, is about 7.25 ha (Bavant 1984, 273-275). Having that structure and area the populatioп behind the walls clearly was поt at all fiUmerous. ProbaЬiy it was selected according to certaiп social crite­ria. The fact iп that respect is sigпificant that still with the fouпdiпg of the towп пеаr two of the churches of its defeпded area fuпerals were dопе. (Guyoп/Cardi 1984, 40-46, 89; Jeremic 1995, 182-187). Today it is supposed that the towп was surrounded Ьу suburbs. For some of them defeпce with grouпd fortificatioпs has been assumed. These suggestions, which have not been supported Ьу rea1 data41 , canпot change essentially the notion of lustiniana Prima. Every late antique town had suburbs. The possiЬie presence of exterпal ground forti­fications, consideriпg their capacities саппоt as well refute the discrepancy betweeп the struc­ture and the safely protected towп territory, re­spectively- between the Ьig administrative im­portance and the limited demographic and eco­пomic potential. In that sense defiпiпg

/ustiniana Prima as ап artificia1 creatioп or ап artificial towп is quite acceptaЬie (Duval/ Popovic 1980, 396; Bavaпt 1984, 272, 286; Popovic 1990, 303). The discrepaпcy betweeп the size апd the importaпce of the city, Ьу the way, seems to have Ьееп valid for about ЗО years, i.e. uпtil the епd of the rule of Justi­пiaп 1. The chaпges iп the urbaп structure dur­iпg the reigп of the Justiпiaп I's successors: abaпdoпing most of the large buildiпgs апd the mass арреаrапсе of modest houses апd work­shops amoпg their remaiпs (Bavaпt 1984, 285; Bavaпt et al ., 1990, 8-9;Popovic 1990, 269, 292-300, 305) iпdicate clearly without the sup­port of its powerful protector the towп lost its privileged status апd that its admiпistrative importaпce at that time is iп syпchroпous with its real size апd poteпtial of а small towп.

The fortified late aпtique ceпtre of Augusta iп the proviпce of Dacia Ripensis has kept the outliпes of the precediпg Romaп camp there. Augusta is missiпg iп Hierocles, but it was meпtioпed as а яоА.~ Ьу Procopius. According to the latter only "the fouпdatioпs remaiпed" from Augusta, but the emperor Justiпiaп 1 turпed it iпto "а completely new and intact town with quite а nшnber of inhabitants" (ГИБИ 1959, 167). The data from the re­searches, including the specified magnitude of the defended area - about 8 ha (Машов 1991, 21-43; Mashov 1994, 21-36; Машов 1996, 71-72; lvanov 1997, 31-34) do not al­low the referriпg of Augusta to the more impor­taпt late aпtique urbaп ceпtres.

The late antique lstros from the proviпce of Scyrhia should Ье referred to the group of the small towпs as well. lt was seriously dam­aged duriпg the iпvasioпs iп the Зrd ceпtury. ln the following ceпturies this old towп ceпtre lost а lot of its previous size апd importance. lt is поt Ьу chance that Ammianus Marcellinus iп the епd of the 41

h с. defines it as "the опее very powerful city oflstros" (ЛИБИ 1958, 143). lt is not Ьу сhапсе that its defeпded area was re­duced several times апd was decreased to about

41 А necropolis at aЬout 150m southwest from the down fonress has been found, which functioned synchronically \\'ith the town (Jeremic 1995, 187-195). Consequently in southwest direction there \\•as not а suburb at all, ог it was too small and near the town fonress.

53

Ventzislav Dintchev

7 ha. Апуwау, mапу of the late antique build­ings studied, includiпg the puЬiic buildings with differeпt fuпctions апd more represeпta­tive housiпgs - iп the defeпded area and iп the suburbs as well, are ап uпquestionaЬie proof for the urban character of /stros even after the

f rd

епd о the 3 ceпtury (Suceveaпu 1982, 85-92; Suceveaпu/Barnea 1991, 192-195; Sampetru 1994, 54-69, 88-89, 113-114; Suceveaпu/ Aпgelescu 1994, 204-208; Lungu 1997, 99-100, 104).

From the data availaЬie about the fortress of Bizye (Dirimtekiп 1963, 30-34, pl. 2; Pralong 1988, 194-197, fig.18) it сап Ье assumed that the defeпded area of this towп of the province of Europa is approximately as that of lstros42

.

The episcopa1 character of а medieval church iп Bizye suggests the same fuпction of the late antique basilica, оп which remaiпs it was built (Otuken/Ousterhout 1989, 138-139).

The 1ate aпtiquity ceпtre of Transmarisca as well seems to have Ьееп а small towп in the province of Moesia lnferior. It was поt meп­tioпed Ьу Hierocles, but was known from other sources (Ve1kov 1973, 263-268). The data pub­lished about the sectioпs of its walls fouпd ac­cideпtally assume its defended area to have been 6 -7 ha (Змеев 1969, 46-49).The excava­tioпs which Ьеgап of aloпg the outline of the пorth wall prove its buildiпg to have been in the end of the 3rd- the beginпiпg of the 4th с . апd its fuпctioпiпg uпtil the beginniпg of the

th 7 с. (Ваrалински 1990, 76-78; Багалин-ски/Петков 1996, 68-69).

Remesiana is the last of cities of the prov­ince of Dacia Mediterranea listed Ьу Hierocles (ГИБИ 1959, 93). The defended area of

Remesiana was about 5 ha.43 Iп view of the ac­cepted classificatioп parametres, this centre is in the border zone betweeп the small towns and the non-urban fortified settlements. The estaЬiished presence of representative units in its late antique structure, including in the suburbs (ПетровиЬ 1976, 94-102; Duval/ Popovic 1980, 375; Petrovic 1993, 80-81; Gu­sic I993b, 184-187) proves its urbaп character, but caпnot refute the defiпitioп of Procopius-1tOAtXVtOV, in that case (ГИБИ 1959, 93).

Bargala and Tzoides of the centres meп­tioпed Ьу Hierocles, about which today there is more archeological iпformatioп, belong as well to the border zопе betweeп the small towпs апd the non-urbaп fortified settlements. At the time of Hierocles Bargala belongs to the proviпce of Macedonia Secunda in the diocese of Macedonia (ГИБИ 1959, 92). At least uпti1 371 Bargala was, however, in the proviпce of Dacia Mediterranea (Velkov 1977, 93, 98). The defeпded area of that centre iп the Late Aпtiquity was about 4.7 ha, but the known componeпts of its structure апd especially the representative episcopal complex prove its ur­baп character (Aleksova!Maпgo 1971, 265-277; Mikulcic 1974, 202-204; Алексова 1986, 29-38; Aleksova 1996, 275-276).

The case with Tzoides is similar. It is the last of the towпs of the province of Haemi­montus listed Ьу Hierocles (ГИБИ 1959, 92). lt was localized recently near today's tov.'n of Sliven (Велков 1982, 42; Щерева 1993, 16-17). The defended area of this new centre, fortified in the beginning of tl1e 4th с is about 4.5 ha44

. Haviпg, however, well built fortify­iпg system equipped V.'ith ап external under-

42 Comparing the data from the text (Dirimtekin 1963, 30-34) wiJh the plan (Dirimtekin 1963, pl . 2; see also Pralong 1988, 194, fig. 18) makes clear that the scale of the plan was not exact. lnstead of 1/2000 the scale should Ье 1/4000. The chro· nology of the two main constructing periods of the town wall suggested Ьу the author is as well questionaЬie: "d'avant l'epoque byzantine" and "а la fin de l'epoque byzantine" (Dirimtekin 1963, 35; see also Pralong 1988, 195-197). Even with this chronology of construction the outline of the fortress of Byzie in 4th - 6th с . shou1d have been the same as they are in the mentioned plan.

43 The announcements in the puЬiications about the defended area of Remesiana vary: а little over 6 ha (Duva11Popovic 1980, 375); about 5,5 ha (Bavant 19843, 283, n.113); about 6 ha (Petrovic 1993, 81 ). Considering the exact data for the longitude of the walls 200 х 214 х 200 х 273 m (Петровиl\ 1976, 96; Gusic 1993Ь, 185), and the trapezium shaped plan of the fortress (Gusic 1993Ь, 187), the defended area of Remesiana cannot exceed 5 ha. The linear scale of the mentioned plan was obviously mistaken.

44 In the puЬiications the defended area of Tzoides was defined to have Ьееn about or "а little more" than 4 ha (e.g. Щерева 1993, 15). According to the plan presented (Щерева 1993, 1 О, fig. 1) it defendcd territory Yias a1most 4,5 ha.

54

Classification of rhe Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

ground passage, having а representative com­plex of cult and other Iarge and solid build­ings in the inside partly studied so far, ha v­ing Iarge suburbs, including the Christian basilica explored there, and furnaces for building ceraшics etc. (Бацова 1973, 65-69; Щерева 1987, 27-35; Щерева 1993, 7-17; Stereva 1995, 7-13) Tzoides maintains its reputation of an urban centre.

Near Simeonovgrad in today's southeast Bulgaria - the province of Thracia, а Jate an­tique and medieva1 fortified centre has been localized. It is identified with Constantia - а

town known from the medieval sources. In the late antique sources Constantia cannot Ье found, but the name itself, as well as the con­text of its mentioning in some medieval sources give а reason to Ье assumed that it was already used still with the appearance of the centre in question in 4

1h с. (Гюзелев 1981, 9-

18; Гаrова 1995, 178-180). Its defended ареа was about 5 ha. А small part of it has been studied, in which, however, the remains of an early Christian basilica with а baptistery and а number of other synchronous buildings and appurtenances, including а solid building with puЬiic importance, water-reservoir, crafts­man workshops were found. The fortress itself must have had an impressive look. An external underground passage was added to it. There are also data about Jate antique suburbs (Аладжов 1981, 253-256; Аладжов 1985, 15-17, 36-43; A1adzov 1987, 74-75). In the vicinity of it very precious finds from the 4th с. and the

th 6 с. were found (Аладжов 1961, 4 7-50; Aladzov 1987, 73, АЬЬ. 1; Gerassimova­Tomova 1987, 307-312). Therefore, accord­ing to its size and importance the late antique Constantia is quite similar to Remesiana, Bargala, or Tzoides and сап Ье defined as а centre of an urban type.

Some of the localized, but yet unstudied centres, mentioned as towns in the Jate antique sources might prove to Ье urban type centres too. The classification group most probaЬly will Ье filled with centres which are not men­tioned with town definitions in the late antique sources, but which, similar to Constantia, for example, have the size and the importance of

the urban form of life in the Late Antiquity.

* * * The review presented so far makes us draw

certain conclusions concerning the state and development of the urban life in the late an­tique dioceses of Thracia and Dacia. Two main tendencies are clearly drawn: reducing of the number of the Ьig towns and а general reduc­tion of the size and importance of the urban form of life; increasing of the number of the urban centres through appearance of new, mostly small and middle towns.

The Ьig towns of Dacia and Thracia are mainly in old urban centres originating in An­tiquity - Serdica, Philippopolis, Marciano­polis, Tomis, Augusta Traiana, Odessos, Scupi, Scodra, Ulpiana, Ratiaria, Dionysopolis, Viminacium, Pautalia etc. In their development the period of the end the 3rd to the 70-es of the 4th с. as а whole was а period of prosperity. At that time some of them - for example Serdica , Tomis, Ratiaria - capitals of new provinces en­Jarged significantly their defended area and be­long to this classification group (fig.l ). After the end of the 4th and especially during the 6th с, however, many of these towns stagnated and even regressed. Not Jater than the middle of the 5th с. Serdica reduced its defended area and thus drops out of the group of the middle towns. А similar development cannot Ье ex­cluded for Viminacium (first reduction of the defended area Ьу the middle of the 5th с . ?). Ву the middle of the 6th с. this had already hap­pened to Ulpiana, Dyonisopolis, Pautalia (fig.2). Until the second half of the 6th с. Pbllippopolis remained а Ьig city, but its area is half smaller. Meanwhile still in the end of the first quarter of the 6th с. Scupi probaЬly lost its urban character. ProbaЬiy the defended area of Eudoxiopolis known today which places about the down borderline of the group of the middle towns is also а consequence of а sig­nificant reduction in the 6

1h с.

Two new urban centres, dating back to the beginning of the Late Antiquity the one near Grazhdani in today's Albania and Diocletia­nopolis (fig.l ), are among the Ьig cities but also near the borderline with the next classifi-

55

56 Fig. 1. Town centres in the dioceses TIJГacia and Dacia Ьу 350:

о 50 100 km -,

~-... .,-

57 C/assifi"cation of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

Legend:

-•-r- frontiers between diocescs; --- fronticrs Ьctwccn two provinces; 0- Ьig town;@- middle town;@- small town; х -located, but not explored

or not cxplorcd cnough town;8-provincial capital;8-impcrial capital (ConstШJtinopolis);t- increasing thc dcfcnded area-in comparison with the pcriod

until the end of the 3rd с . ; t- decreasing the defended area in comparison with thc pcriod until the 3rd с.; t? - а possiЬility for а Ьigger defended area;

t?-a possiЬility for а smaller defended area; *-а new town foundcd in the end ofthe Зrd- the fist half ofthc 4th с.;

1 - the province of Moesia Superior, II- the province of Praevalitana; IП - the province of Dacia Ripensis; IV - the province of Dacia Mediterranea;

V- the province of Darthmia; VI - the province of Moesia lnferior, VII - the province of Scytllia; VIII- the province of Thracia;

IX - the province of Haemimofllus; Х - the province of Rhodopa; XI - the province of Еигора;

1 -Singidunum; 2 - Tricomium; 3 - Vimi1шcium; 4 - Ноггеит Margi; 5 - Doclea; 6 - Scodra; 7 - Lissus; 8 - Grazhdani; 9 - Aquae; 10 - Bononia;

11 - Ratiaria; 12 - Augusta; 13 - Oescus; 14 - Chomakovtzi (Zetnoukortu ?); 15 - Naissus; 16 - Remesiana; 17 - Serdica; 18 - Pautalia; 19 - Ulpiana; 20 - Scupi;

21 - Bargala; 22- Novae; 23 - Nicopolis ad lstrum; 24 - Appiaria; 25 - Transnшrisca; 26 - Durostorum; 27 - Abritus; 28 - Voivoda; 29 - Marciшюpolis;

ЗО- Odessos; 31 - Obzor; 32 - Noviodunum; 33 - /Ьida; 34 - /stros; 35 - Tomis; 36 - Тгораеит TraiШJi; 37 - Zaldapa; 38 - Callatis; 39 - Dionysopolis;

40- DiocletiШJopolis; 41 - Augusta Traiana; 42- Philippopolis; 43- ConstШJtia; 44- Tzoides; 45- Anchialos; 46- Deultum; 47- AdriШJopolis;

48 - Plotinipolis; 49 - Nicopolis ad Nestum; 50- Maximianopolis; 51 - Maroneia; 52- TraiШJopolis; 53 - Ainos; 54 - Bizye; 55 - Bergule; 56 - Selymbria;

57- Heraclea; 58- Panion; 59- Apri; 60- Aplrrodisia; 61 - Callipolis.

C/assification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

cation group. There are no data about changes in their defended areas until the end of the 6th с. (fig.2). А special case is the development of the old

Greek colony Messembria. After estaЬiishing the Roman rule on the west Black Sea coast Messembria lost its town status. Тhе archaeo­logical data about that centre in 1st - 4th с. AD are scarce as well. In its development after the

th end of the 4 с., however, there was an up-heaval in its development and in the 6th с. it was among the Ьiggest cities of the diocese of Thracia (fig.2).

In the group of the middle towns of Thracia and Dacia the old centres ancient Ьу origin pre­vail, but the number of the new town centres is significant. Singidunum, Aquae, Oescus, No­vae, Doclea, Traianopolis, Nicopolis ad lst­rum, Naissus, Durostorum, Maroneia, Horre­um Margi, Nicopolis ad Nestum, Tropaeum Traiani etc. belong to the first group. Generally in their development the period from the late зrd to the 70s of the 4th с. was also а period of prosperity. At that time some of them increased their defended area - for example Oescus and

th Novae (fig.l ). After the end of the 4 с., how-ever, for many of them а period of recession came, accompanied in some cases with а dras­tic reduction of the defended areas. Ву the end of the 5th с. Nicopolis ad 1 strum, for example, degraded to а centre, which Ьу objective crite­ria, including the size of its defended territory, is in the border zone of urban and of semi-ur­ban fortified settlements. Singidunum was al­ready а small town Ьу the middle of the 6th с. too. The development of these and other cen­tres ancient Ьу origin, for which а reduction of the defended territory is allowed - for example Aquae and Oescus (fig.2), is also an argument for the first tendency mentioned above.

The new representatives of the group of the middle towns are usually heirs to Roman mili­tary camps or to а smaller, non-urban settle­ments. Most of them were transformed in towns, or were estaЬiished as such in the late Зrd - the beginning of the 4th с.: !Ьida, Bono­nia, the centre near Obzor unidentified so far, Zaldapa, Abritus, the late antique centre (Zetnoukortou ?) near Chomakovtsi (fig.l ).

57

58 Fig.2. The town centres in thc dioceses of Tlzracia and Dacia Ьу 550.

о 50 100 km

.. , ~~ ,-

59 C/assifi.cation of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

Legend:

-1-1- frontiers between diocescs; --- fronticrs Ьctwccn two provinces; 0- big town;@- middle town;@- small town; х -located, but not explored

or not explorcd cnough town; 8- а provincial capital; • -а capital of quaestura exercitus; 8 -Constanitnopolis; t -reducing thc dcfended arca within the

limits of the classification group; t? -а possiЬility for а increasing tltc defended area; t?- а possiЬility for reducing thc defcnded area;

*-а new town appcared in the period from the middle 4th to the middle 6th с.;

1 - the province of Moesia Superior, 11 - the province of Praevalitana; 1П - the province of Dacia Ripensis; N - thc province of Dacia Mediterranea;

V- the province of Dardania; VI- the province of Moesia lnferior; VII- the province of Scytbla; VIII- the province of Thracia;

IX - the province of Haemimontus; Х - the province of Rhodopa; XI - the province of Europa;

1 - Singidunum; 2- Tricomium; 3- Viminacium; 4- Horreum Margi; 5- Doclea; 6- Scodra; 7- Li~·sus; 8- Grazhdani; 9- Aquae; 10- Bononia; 11 - Ratiaria;

12- Augusta; 13- Oescus; 14- Chomakovtzi (Zelnoukortu ?); 15- Naissus; 16- Remesiana; 17- Serdica; 18- Pautalia; 19 -lustiniana Secunda (Ulpiana);

21 - Bargala; 22 - Novae; 23 - Nicopolis ad J~·trum; 24 - Appiaria; 25 - Transmarisca; 26 - Durostorum; 27 - Abritu~·; 28 - Voivoda; 29 - Marcianopolis;

ЗО - Odessos; 31 - Obzor; 32 - Noviodunum; 33 - /Ыdа; 34 - lstros; 35 - Tomis; 36 - Tropaeum Traiani; 37 - Zaldapa; 38 - Callatis; 39 - Dionysopolis;

40- Diocletiшropolis; 41 - Augusta Traiшra; 42- Plrilippopolis; 43 - Constantia; 44 - Tzoides; 45 - Anchialos; 46 - Deultum; 47 - Adrianopolis;

48- Plotinipolis; 49- Nicopofis ad Nestum; 50- Maximianopolis; 51 - Maюneia; 52- Traiшropoli~·; 53 - Ainos; 54- Вizye; 55 - Arcadiopolis (Bergule);

56- Eudoxiopolis (Selymbria); 57- Heraclea; 58- Panion; 59- Apri; 60- Aphюdisia; 61 - Callipolis; 62 -Justiniana Prinш; 63- Chucher;

64- Markovi Kuli; 65 - Konjuh; 66- Asamus; 67- Zikideva; 68 - Acrae; 69- Messenrbria; 70- Sozopolis; 71 - Topirus; 72- Anastasiopolis.

Classification of the Late Amique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

The rule of the emperor Valeпt (364-378) is terminus post quem for turпiпg Acrae cas­rellum iпto а city ceпtre . ProbaЬiy the арреаr­апсе of the late aпtique towп пеаr Koпjuh iп today's North Macedoпia dates back after the middle of the 41

h с. Iп the епd of the 51h - the

begiппiпg of the 61h с . the walls апd а part of

the other maiп structural compoпeпts of Zikideva were built (fig .2).

Coпsideriпg the iпformatioп availaЬie of the пеw middle towпs, а later reductioп of the de­feпded area duriпg the Late Aпtiquity сап Ье assumed опlу for Bononia (fig .2).

Similar to Messembria, the old Greek со­lопу of Apollonia degraded as well iп the 1

51 -

lh lh 4 с. AD. After the епd of the 4 с., however, this ceпtre revived agaiп uпder а пеw паmе -Sozopolis, апd tumed iпto опе of the importaпt Black Sea towпs of the diocese of Thracia (fig.2).

Despite the towпs which regressed Ьу апd after the епd of the 5

1h ceпtury - like Sin­

gidunum апd Nicopolis ad /strum for example, several more urbaп ceпtres 9f апсiепt origiп -/srros, Bizye, Remesiaпa, Bargala (fig .2) fall iпto the lower classificatioп group. lstros has also ап area reduced sigпificaпtly, but it was al­ready from the Зrd с. Coпcemiпg Bizye, Re­mesiana апd Bargala there have поt Ьееп fouпd sure data about such а developmeпt, i.e. their size апd importaпce seem to have Ьееп reduced iп geпeral (fig.l ).

New city ceпtres, however, prevail iп the group of the smaller towпs of Thracia апd Dacia. А part of them appeared iп the begiп­пiпg of the Late Aпtiquity as а result of the traпsformiпg of early military camps - for ex­ample Augusta апd Transmarisca. The арреаr­апсе of the ceпtre, uпideпtified so far пеаr Voyvoda iп today's пortheast Bulgaria, of Tzoides, апd probaЬiy of Constanria iп today's southeast Bulgaria (fig.l) is referred to the first

lh . lh half of the 4 с, Perhaps after the m1ddle 4 с.

the late aпtique ceпtre пеаr Chucher (iп today's North Macedoпia) appeared. Iп the early years of emperor Justiпiaп I's reigп lustiпiana Prima was built. At that time or earlier the po\verful fortress of Markovi Kuli пеаr Skopie was built. (fig.2).

59

Ventzislav Dintchev

The presented review delineates the initial, later Roman period of the Late Antiquity - from the end of the зrd to the Jast quarter of the 4th с. as а period of prosperity of the urban Iife in Тlzracia and Dacia. What is more, according to all objective criteria this century and especially the years of the beginning of the rule of the emperor Diocletian until the end of the rule of the emperor Constantine the Great are peak moments in the development of both dioceses not only in the Late Antiquity but regarding the previous epoch, i.e. for the time from the es­taЬiishing the Roman rule until the end of the Late Antiquity in general. In the Jate Зrd - the first half of the 4th с. the percent of the increas­ing number of the city centres here is the Ьig­gest, and many of the new centres are signifi­cantly middle - lblda, Bononia, the one near Obzor, Zaldapa, or even Ьigger - the one near Grazhdani and Dioclerianopolis, in classifica­tion aspect towns (fig.l) The old towns pros­perous at that time are definitely more than the towns of earlier origin, which mark а decline in their development in comparison with the pre\•ious time - lstros, and possiЬly, Deul11tm (fig.l ). Most characteristic examples of pros­perous old towns are among the capitals of the new provinces of the Late Antiquity - Serdica, Marcianopolis, Tomis, Ratiaria, but they are not the only examples in that respect- Augusra Traiana, Pautalia, Novae, Naissus, Durostorum etc. The upheaval in part of the cases is expressed in а direct increasing of the defended area - Serdica, Tomis, Rariaria, No­\•ae etc., .or in the appearance of satellite for­tresses with possible military functions -Pautalia and Durostorum (fig.l ). These state­ments need the specification that the main ten­dencies mentioned above, and especially the first of them were manifested in the early Byz­antine period of the Late Antiquity - from the

th th end of tl1e 4 с. to the end of the 6 c./the be-ginning of the ih с. The more significant ex­amples of tl1e rising town de\•elopment after the end af the 4th с. like Messembria, whose

upheaval probaЬly started still in the first half of the 5th с. , or like Zikideva, whose building started in the late 5th - the early 6th с. in that case are already exceptions, which confirm the rule (fig.2).

The main reason for the general upheaval of the town life in Тltracia and Dacia Ьу the end of the зrd - the first half of the 4th с. is the change in the geopolitical priorities of the Em­pire as а result of the new territory and admin­istrative reforms and the appearance of the new capital of Constantinopolis.

Most new towns from the late Зrd and the first half of the 4th с. are in the frontier prov­inces of the two dioceses - in Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Jnferior and Scythia, but the most sig­nificant new towns are in the intemal provinces - in Praevalitana and in Тl1racia (fig.l ). А part of the new towns in the frontier provinces ap­peared as а result of the evolution of earlier military camps and ob\•iously inherited their functions of defending the Lower Danublan limes. The other founded at that time towns seemed to have been as well with certain mili­tary functions in the frontier and in the internal provinces. А more significant regional specificity in

the development of the towns of the dioceses Тlzгacia and Dacia was estaЬiished after the end of the 4th с. The scarce so far data about the main centres of Praevaliraнa - the south­west province of the diocese of Dacia with а outlet on the Adriatic coast, do not show changes in their size in the 5th and 6th с. The actual information about the towns of the two south provinces of the diocese of Thracia -Rhodopa and Europa (fig . l апd 2) is almost analogous as а degree and possibllity for inter­pretation.

Ву the middle of the 6th с. the only town in the other four provinces of the· diocese of Dacia, which could ha\'e Ьееп Ьig was Rariaria. It could have been, since its study is at an early stage, so а reduction of its defen­ded area cannot Ье excluded (fig.2).45 Ву the

45 The central scction of the wcst wall of Ratiaria, where the town gate was had not been changed as an outline until the end of the 6

111 с. (Atanasova!Popova 1987, 85-96), but this was the only section of the town fortifying system studied through excavations.

60

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

middle of the 6th с. even the presence of mid­dle size urban centres is in question in the far­thest northwest province of Moesia Superior and in the west part of the province of Dacia Ripensis (fig .2). The south province of Dardania is а good example of the comЬined action of two tendencies in the early Byzantine period - reduction of old town centres and ap­pearance of new, mostly small town centres (fig.l and 2) . What is more, while the old capi­tal of that province - Scupi , probaЬiy dropped out of the city form of life in general, its new capital - Justiniana Prima, which should have Ьееп the capital of the whole пorth lllyricum, accordiпg to the сопсерt of its creator, was iп fact а small iп its size апd demographic poteп­tial towп.

Iп the diocese of Тl1racia, iп differeпce from the diocese of Dacia, most of the Ьig and mid­dle cities were preserved as such iп the 6th с. (fig.l апd 2). Iп the two froпtier proviпces -Moesia lnferior апd Scythia the Ьig towпs iп the 6th с . were either оп the Black sea coast -Tomis апd Odessos, or near it- Marcianopolis (fig.2)46

. There were поt Ьig towпs removed from the Black Sea coast initially (fig.l ). Re­ductioп of the size and importance of Dionysopolis iп the south part of the proviпce of Scythia was partly compensated Ьу or due to the rising of the пeighbouriпg ceпtre of Acrae (fig. 1 and 2) . The situation with Nicopois ad lstrum and Zikideva iп the central part of the proviпce of Moesia lnferior is aпalogous with the difference that the new towп of Zikideva excels significaпtly the reduced Nicopolis ad Istrum (fig. 1 апd 2). The Black Sea ceпtres Messembria and Sozopolis from the proviпce

of Haemimontus regaiпed its urban character exactly in the early Byzaпtine period, апd the first of them сап Ье defined as а Ьig city (fig.2) . ProbaЬiy there was ап influx of population from the iпterпal part of the province, iпclud­ing Deultum, which was in stagnaпcy theп, to them. In the 6th с. there were Ьig cities not опlу оп the sea coast, but also in the internal parts of the diocese of Thracia - Augusta Traiana апd Diocletianopolis in the same province (fig. 2) . Its capital Pbllippopolis remaiпed а Ьig city, despite its coпsideraЬie reduction Ьу the mid­dle of the 6th с . (fig.2)

The town planniпg itself in the Late Aпtiq­uity iп Т11racia and Dacia does not coпcern the theme of that paper, but some conclusioпs апd specificatioпs in that respect are necessary too. There has поt been found so far ап unquestion­aЬie example of а towп of ancieпt origin, which had lost its ancient structure Ьу the last quarter of the 4th с.47 Iп the older centres where the archeological researches are at а more ad­vanced stage - Philippopolis, Augusta Traiana, or Nicopolis ad lstrum for example, the аЬап­dопiпg of the representative puЬiic squares, of the buildings connected with the town au­toпomy and of other typical compoпeпts of its апсiепt structure happened between the late 4th

апd the middle 5th с. At that time the first Ьig episcopal basilicas appeared - Pbllippopolis, Marcianopolis, Tomis, Odessos, Messembria, Novae etc.48 Therefore, the епd of the 4 th- the middle of the 5th с. is the turniпg point in the urbanization developmeпt of the old centres of Тl1racia апd Dacia. Most cases of reduciпg the defeпded area, however, are after the middle 5th

с. Thus it сап Ье concluded that in geпeral the

46 ln view of the consideraЬ\e defended territory of Marcianopolis in the 4"' с. - aЬout 70 ha, and in view of the fact that. it was а continental town in а frontier province, 1 do not exclude the possiЬility for its reduction Ьу the end of the s"' - б"' century. Even twice reduced, however, Marcianopolis, similar to Pltilippopolis, could have Ьееn а representati ve of the classification group of the Ьig towns. The data and literature about Mm·cianopolis see in the аЬо\•е review.

47 The cataclysm, for example, which /sti"OS had experienced Ьу the middle Зnl с. , is а "good" prerequisite for such а de,•elop­ment in the 4"' с. In the explored southwest part of the fortified town in the 4"' с. there " 'ere changes in the street system and in architecture. The main reason, however, for these changes, including for the increased density of building, laid in the defended area of the late Roman /stros reduced several times. Besides, not few of the new buildings in the southwest part of the town are with а representative puЬlic character (Suceveanu 1982, 86-89, 215, fig .52; Suceveau/Angelescu 1994, 204). Today it can not Ье assessed to what extent lstros kept ог changed its ancient structure in the 4"' с. , as the Ьigger part of its territory, including the complex of the agora has not been studied yet.

48 The puЬ\ications retlecting the abandoning of the representative ancient complexes and buildings and/or the ар ре агаnсе of the first Ьig Ьishopric basilicas in the аЬоvе listed towns have been mentioned in the foregoing survey.

61

Ventzislav Dintchev

change of the structures of the more significant old towns here was not synchronous, but pre­ceded the restriction of their size and their im­portance.

Of а certain interest is the type of structur­ing of the new city centres in Thracia and Dacia from the late Зrd - the first half of the 4

1h с. However, the archaeological data for

them, and precisely for the early periods of their developing are still scarce. Diocle­rianopolis, for example, which is at а most ad­vanced stage of research of these centres, does not differ from the towns of ancient origin con­cerning its street system, drainage and water supply system49 . There, however, have not been estaЬlished the complexes and buildings typical of the ancient muпicipality, i.e. there are по data about polis organization 50. In Diocletianopolis representative complexes f h 1 rd 1h rom t е ate 3 - early 4 с. have been stud-

ied, but they are of а residential character. Sev­eral puЬlic baths have been found, " 'hich can Ье explained Ьу the presence of mineral waters. Another typical feature of the town is the strong military presence in it still at the time ofits establishing (Маджаров 1993,96-124, 141-151). The structure context of its mi1i­tary components- for example the placing of the barracks along the town walls (Маджаров 1993, 70, fig.1 0), does not re­mind at all the scheme of the classical Roman military camp. Thus it can only Ье pointed that Diocletianopolis was а town and military cen­tre of а new type - а synthesis of the changes in the organization of the urban and military life in the beginning of the Late Antiquity. Prob­aЬly this conclusion is valid about the other newly-estaЬlished at that time city centres. Ву the middle of the 51

h с., however, significant differences between these centres and the towns ancient Ьу origin regarding the structure, respectively - the administrative organization and social characteristic did not exist anymore.

The advanced archaeological researches in Zikideva and in lustiniana Prima provide а possibility for а complete notion of the charac­ter of the newly-built in the end of the 5th - the first half of the б'h с. towns of Dacia and Thracia. The structures of these two centres include puЬlic components of military and eco­nomic importance, as \\'ell as private house­holds. The ordinary population in lustiniana Prima, in difference from Zikideva, initially was not much in the deferend area, but thereaf­ter it increased. In the structures of both cen­tres, however, dominate the buildings of the Christian cult and the residences of the supe­rior representatives of the local clerical and !ау administration. They reflect in а most clear way the tendencies in the urbanization in the late Byzantine period of the Late Antiquity. They are the models for which the earlier Ьу their origin towns of the two dioceses at that time they strove.

The suggested cJassification model reflects the differences in the size and in demographic potential of the late antique towns of Тl1racia and Dacia, as well as the differences in their real importance as economic, administrative, cult and/or military centres. 1 would outline again that the choice of the main criterion - the size of the protected area, is not occasional and is not only due to the unsatisfactory state of the archaeological excavations. From the moment when the fortifying of the towns turned into а conditio sine qua поп for their existence, the size of their area defended· safely becomes а rather precise index of their real value as cen­tres of the settlements and puЬlic life in gen­eral. In the defended areas there were the most important units of the late antique urban struc­tures and there the main part of the town popu­lation lived. In the Balkans, in Thracia and Dacia esrecially, that momeпt came in the end of the зr с., i.e. in the very beginning of the Late Antiquity. The exceptions, for example -

49 Diocletianopolis was not founded on an empty space. Its predecessor - the unfortified setlement from the time of the Principate, however, had not been а town centre. The appearance of the big fortified town in the Jate ЗnJ - the early years of the 4th с. was а consequcnce not so much of the prosperity of this settlement as of the will of the imperial administration supported with the corresponding means.

50 The written and cpigraphic sources do not pro,•ide as well data for the presence of an autonomous administrative organiza­tion of а polis-type in Diocletianopolis.

62

C/assijication of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

lusriniana Prima in the first period of its exist­ence, can Ье explained within the frame of the suggested classification model. What is more, as long as these exceptions are an expression of а real discrepancy of the size and the admin­istrative specificity of the corresponding towns, the suggested classification is exactly the means for their estaЬiishing. The example of lustiana Prima, which, depending on the point of view is the best or the most drastic one, is not the only one. Similar exceptions, considering their unchanged status of provin­cial capitals and the really reduced size and importance of their inhaЬitancy, are Viminacium and Serdica after the middle 51

h с., Pltilippopolis Ьу the middle and in the second half of the 61

h с. as well as Eudoxiopolis - at least for the same period. Existing of such ex­ceptions presumes а reinterpretation of the role of the other town centres, which Ьу their ob­jective criteria do not defer and even excel the corresponding provincial capitals - for exam­ple the role of Pautalia in the province of Dacia Mediterranea in the second half of the 5

1h с . , the role of Augusta Traiana in the prov­

ince of Тlmzcia Ьу the middle and in the sec­ond half of the б'h с. etc.

Besides its relation to the more significant city centres, the suggested classification model allows outlining the discrepancies between the real value and administrative rank concerning the other fortified settlement centers from the Late Antiquity in general. In that context of а s pecial interest seems to Ье the question whether all the settlements, denoted with urban terms in the late antique sources, had the size and the real importance of the urban form of life.51 This question, which in fact focuses the proЬiem of border of the town form of life iп the Late Antiquity, will Ье the theme of another paper. Therefore, in the above review not all the centres of Thracia and Dacia which were mentioпed in the sources as towns and about

which there is more archaeological information were surveyed.52

BIВLI OG RAPHY

Аладжов, Д. 1985. Симеоновград в древноспа и средновековието. In: Вълчева, Р. (ed.). Кон­станция. Втора отчетна конференция за архео­

логическите nроучвания в Симеоновград. София,

5-49. Аладжов, Д. 1981. Археологически nроучвания

на Констанция (1967-1977). - Известия на На­

ционалния исторически музей 3, 253-264. Аладжов, Д. 1961. Нови находки от деце­

налията на имnератор Лициний. -Археология 3, 1, 47-50.

Алексиев, О. 1991 . Сnасителни разколки в

югозаnадния некроnол на ААР "Пауталия -Велбъжд". In: Бонев, А. et al . (ed.). Археологически открития и разколки nрез 1990 г. Ловеч, 120-121.

Алексова, Б. 1986. Нови истражуван.а на

балтистериумот во Баргала. In: Аnостолски, М .

(ed.). Зборник лосветен на Бошко Бабик. Прилеn, 29-38.

Аигелов, А . 1996. Разколки в Марцианолол. In: Археологически открития и разколки nрез 1995 г. София, 61.

Ангелов, А. 1990. Сnасителни разколки в м. Табия лри град Девня. In: Велков, В. et а1. (ed.). Археологически открития и разколки nрез 1989 г. Кюстендил, 202.

А игелова, С. 1988. Археологическото

nроучване на средновековния Дръстър (резултати

и nерсnективи). ln: Христов, С. et al. (ed .). Дуросторум - Дръстър - Силистра. 90 години музейно дело в Силистра. Силистра, 34-53.

Ангелова, С. 1980. Креnостга на средновековен Дръстър. - Музеи и ламетници на културата 20, 6, 5-11.

Атаиасова, й. 1974. Круглые и лолигональные башни в Dacia Ripensis. - Thracia 3, 337-345.

Атапасова, Й. , под печат. Каетелът Бонония . In: Ангелова, С . (ed .). Сборник в чест на Иван Велков. София (1999).

Бацова, Е. 1973. Античният Сливен.- Векове 2, 5, 65-69.

Бешевлиев, В. 1983. Старохристиянските

51 Here 1 am deliЬerately ignoring the possibllity for subjective mistakes in the sources. The suggested classification could have lhe meril 10 Ье а correclion of 1he sources lhemsclves when lhere are such mislakes.

52 А discrepancy belween 1he real indexes and lhe lown definitions in the sources is nol impossiЬie for some of the men­lioned here as localized. but not studied, or little studied ccnlres (fig. l and 2). Cerlainly, 1he queslion of а real belonging 10 lhe cily forrn of life does nol concem cenlres like Adrianopolis, Ancbla/os, Heraclea or Ainos.

63

Ventzislav Dintchev

надписи от Варна като исторически извор. -Известия на Народния музей във Варна 19(34), 19-35.

БеUiевлиев В. 1962. Из късноантичната и сред­новековната география на Североизточна Бъл­

гария. - Известия на археологическия институт 25, l-18.

Бобчев, С. 1989. Преглед на останките от Сер­дика, открити в течение на петдесет години. - In: Велков, В. et al. (ed.). Сердика. Т. Il . София, 37-58.

Божкова, Б. 1977. Монетарницата в Сердика през втората половина на III-IV век. - Нумиз­

матика 9, 4, 3-10. Боиева, И. 1990. Спасителни археологически

разкопки в м. Палеокастро - гр. Поморие. In: Велков, В. (ed.). Археологически открития и раз­копки през 1989 г. Кюстендил, 93-94.

Боиева, И. 1984. Късноантична монетна наход­ка от Деултум.- Нумизматика 18, 3, 23-28.

Бояджиев, С. 1959. Принос към историята на крепостната стена на Сердика. - Археология 1, 3-4, 35-45.

Буюклиев, Х./Калчев, К./Яиков, Д. 1994. Сон­дажни проучванияна обект "Форум и терми" в

археологическия резерват "Августа Траяна - Ве­

рея". In: Археологически открития и разкопки през 1992-1993 г. Велико Търново, 89-90.

Вага.тиски, Л. 1990. Спасителни разкопки на крепостна стена на Трансмариска (Тутракан). In: Велков, В. (ed.). Археологически открития и раз­копки през 1989 г. Кюстендил, 76-78.

Вагалииски, Л./Петков, Е. 1996. Спасителни разкопки на късноримска крепостна стена на

Трансмариска (Тутракан). In: Археологически открития и разкопки през 1995 г. София, 68-70.

Bacиli, М. 1990. Налази римског новца IV и V века из муниципиjма Horreum Margi (Cuprija). Београд.

Велков, В. 1989. Сердика - I хил. пр. н. е. - VI в. от н . е. (В светлината на писмените извори) . In: Ди­неков, П . et al. (ed.). София през вековете. Т. I. Со­фия, 14-26.

Велков, В. 1982. EJ.i.pOptov eou1&xs- новооткри­то селище в nровинция Тракия. - Археология 24, 3-4, 40-43.

Велков, В. 1964. Принос към материалната кул­тура на средновековния Созопол.- Известия на ар­

хеологическия институт 27, 43-54. Въжарова, Ж. 1961. Връзките на Карел

Шкорnил с руските учени. In: Миятев, К./Миков, В . (ed .). Изследвания в памет на Карел Шкорпил.

София, 63-71. Гогова, К. 1995. Тракия nрез българското сред­

новековие. София.

64

ГapaUiallин, М./Корачевик, Д. 1984. Археолошки ископуван.а во Скупи од 1978-1981 година. - Ma­cedoniae Acta Archaeologica 7-8 (1981-1982), 79-97.

Ге11адиева, В. 1989. Късноримска перистилна сграда от Пауталия . - Известия на Историческия

музей в Кюстендил l, 157-173. Георгиевски, Б. 1996. Ранновизантийски скални

обекти от района на Крива река, Реnуб~ика

Македония . - Археология 37, 2-3, 73-78. Георгиев, Л./Попова, Ц./Катевски, И./Ди.мит­

ров, Д./Дзаиев, Г./Рахиева, И./Кулева, С. 1994. Раз­коnки в Абритус. In: Археологически открития и разкоnки nрез 1992-1993 г. Велико Търново, 74-75.

ГИБИ 1959.- Дуйчев, И. et al. (ed.). Гръцки из­вори за българскатёt история . Т. II . София (1958).

Гочева, З. 1970. Креnост нам. "Хисарлъка" в

гр. Кюстендил. - Известия на българското истори­ческо дружество 27, 233-254.

Григорова К. 1983. Втората креnостна стена на Сердика. -София 25, 9, 24.

Гюзелев, В. 1981. Средновековната българска креnост Констанция. - Известия на Националния

исторически музей 3, 9-20. Да.\tяuов, С. 1985. Проблеми и nроучвания на

късноантичния град nри с. Войвода, Шуменски

окръг. In: Фол, А./Йорданов, К. (ed .). Североизточна България . Древност и съвремие.

София, 253-259. Да.\!яllов, С. 1982. Археологически открития в

Дебелт. - Море. Литературно-художествен алма­

нах, 1, 234-243. Да.ltяиов, С. 1978. Строителна керамика от

късноантичния град nри с. Войвода, Шуменски

окръг. - Известия на Националния исторически

музей 2, 139-173. Да.•tяllов, С./Балабаиов, П./Дочева, Е./Капелкова,

К. 1987. Разкопки в Деултум. In: Велков, В. (ed.) . Архео,1огически открития и разкопки през 1989 г.

Разград, 128-129. Даиов, Хр. 1987. Нови страници от историята

на Филиnоnол и древна Тракия през късната

античност. In: Фол, А./Йорданов, К . (ed.). Бъл­гарските земи в древността. Втори международен

конгрес по българистика . Доклади 6. София, 169-177.

Джи11гов, Г. 1989. Тиризис - Ак ре - Калиакра.

София.

Джиигов, Г./Балкащка, А./Йосифова, М. 1990. Калиакра. Т. l . София.

Джорджети, Д. 1988. Съкровище от златни накити и сребърни nредмети от Рациария. -Археология 30, 3, 30-38.

Дюtитров, К. 1994. Но ве на Долния Дунав като раннохристиянски център. - Балкански древности

Classification of the Late Antiqиe Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

2 ( 1992), 83-87. Дu.\tumpoв, М. 1988. Приноси към историята на

град Балчик.- Добруджа 5, 71-86. Ди.\fиmров, М. 1986. Проучвания върху исто­

рията на античния Дионисоnолис. - Добруджа 3, 90-99.

Ди.wитров, М. 1985а. Дионисоnолис и заnад­

ночерноморската укреnителна система nрез ран­

вовизантийската ело ха (IV-VII в . ). Автореферат

на дисертация. София.

Дu.\fumpoв, М. 1985Ь. Ранновизантийски укреn­

ления ло заnадния бряг на Черно море (V-VII в .).

Добруджа 2, 120-128. Дu.\tuтрова-Милчева, А. 1992. Укреnителната

система на късноантичния и ранновизантийски

град Никололис ад Нестум. In: Studia Aegea е Balcanica in honorem Lodovicae Press. Warszawa, 257-270.

Дu.\юва, B.IДU-\fиmpoв, Б./Капелкова, К./Петрин­

СIЩ, И. 1990. Разкоnки в манастира "Св. Йоан Предтеча" nри Созоnол. In: Велков, В. et al. (ed.). Археологически открJ.Jтия и разкоnки nрез 1989 г. Кюстендил, 194-195.

Диичев, В. 1998. По въnроса за градските дефи­ниции в късноантичните извори за диоцезите

Тракия и Дакия. - Археология 39, 3-4, 16-23. Доиевски, П. 1995. О лагере ХI-ого легиона

Клавдия в Дуросторуме.- Balcanica Posnaniensia 7, 259-270.

Дражева, Ц.!Недев, Д. 1994. Разкоnки в старата част на Созоnол. In: Археологически открития и разкоnки nрез 1992-1993 г. Велико Търново, 110-111.

Дражева, Ц./Дочева, Е./Балболова, М./Вьрбаио­

ва, М./Кьиев, Й. 1994. Разкоnки в резсрвата "Деул­тум- Дебелт". ln: Археологически открития и раз­коnки nрез 1992-1993 г. Велико Търново, 93

Дремсизова-Нелчииова, Ц. 1987. Археологи­чески nаметници в Благоевградски окръг. София.

Змеев, Р. 1969. Каетелът Трансмариска.- Ар­

хеология 1 О, 4, 45-55. Иваиов, Т. 1988. За датата на строителния

тухлен надnис от " Момина баня" в Диокле­

цианоnол. -Археология ЗО, 3, 27-30. Иваиов, Т. 1980. Абритус. Т. 1. София. Иваиов, Т. 1961. Принос към nроучването на

античния град nри Чомаковци. ln: Миятев, К./ Миков, В. (ed.) . Изследвания в nамет на Карел Шкорnил. София, 255-269.

Иваиов, Т./Иваиов, Р. 1998. Ulpia Oescus. Римски и ранновизантийски град. Т. 1. София.

Иванов, Т./Иваиов, Р. 1994. Никололис ад Ист­рум. Т. 1. София.

Иваиов, Т./Стояиов, С. 1985. Abritus. История

и археология. София.

Jанкови", Д. 1981. Подунавеки део области Ак­виса у VI и nочетком VII века. Беоrрад.

Йосифова, М./Радичков, Г. 1996. Археоло­гически nроучвания на Калиакра. In: Археоло­гически открития и разкоnки nрез 1995 г. София,

105. Йосифова, М./Балканска, А./Радичков, 1995.

Археологически nроучвания на Калиакра. ln: Археологически открития и разкоnки nрез 1994 г. София, 145-146.

Калчев, К. 1992. Археологическият резерват "Августа Траяна - Берое". Проучвания и

nроблеми. ln: Буюклиев, Хр. et al. (ed.). Сборник материали, nосветени на 85-годишнината на

Историческия музей в Стара Загора. Стара

Загора, 49-69. Капели, Р. 1983. Монетарпицата на Сердика

nри имnератор Аврелиан. София.

Карайотов, И.!Бонева, И. 1989. Сnасителни археологически разкоnки в м. Палеокастро, гр .

Поморие. ln: Велков, В. (ed .). Археологически от­крития и разкоnки nрез 1988 r. Кърджали, 86-87.

Кесякова, Е. 1994. Градоустройственото разви­тие на Филиnоnол. In: Драганов, Д. (ed.). Посели­шен живот в древна Тракия. Т. III. Ямбол, 192-204.

Кесякова, Е. 1989. Раннохристиянска базилика от Филиnоnол. - Известия на музеите от Южна

България 15, 113-126. Кесякова, Е. 1985. Водоснабдяването на Фили­

nоnол nрез римската и късноантичната епоха. ln: Велков, В. (ed.). 100 години Народен археологи­чески музей Пловдив. Т. 11. Пловдив, 114-126.

Ковачева, Т./Бы10ва, П. 1990. Разкоnки на ан­тична сграда с мозайки nри с. Чомаковцн, община

Червен бряг nрез 1989 г. ln: Велков, В. et al. (ed.). Археологически открития и разкоnки nрез 1989 r. Кюстендил, 81-83.

Корачевик, Д. 1988. Археолошки истражуван,а во Скули во 1982 година. - Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 9 ( 1983-1984), 155-164.

Корачевик, Д. 1977. Состоjбата на археолош­ките искоnуваньа на античко Скули. - Macedoniae Acta Archaeo1ogica 3, 143-180.

Кузлшиов, Г. 1994. Късноантична баня в Нико­nолис ад Нестум. - Археология 36, 2, 24-34.

Кузмаиов, Г. 1979. Късноантичен некроnол на каетела Акра (нос Калиакра). - Thracia Antiqua 5, 217-223.

Курбатов, Г. Л. 1971. Основные nролемы внут­реннего развития византийского города в IV-VII вв. Ленинград.

Курбатов, Г. Л./Лебедева, Г. Е. 1986. Город и государство в Византии в эnоху nерехода от

65

Venrzis/av Dintchev

античностик феодализму. In: Курбатов, Г. Л . et al. (ed .). етановление и развитие раннеклассовых об­ществ. Ленинград, 100-197.

Л<Х~<Хр1.б11s. ~- 1972. MaprovEш каt Орбсхуорш. Ancient Greek Cities 16. Athena.

Лазаров. М. 1983. Загадките на Анхиало. - Мо­ре. Литературно-художествен алманах, 1, 298-307.

ЛИБИ 1958. - Дуйчев, И. et а1. (ed.). Латински извори за българската история. Т. I. София.

Маджаров. К. 1993. Диоклецианолол. Т. I. София.

Маджаров. М. 1995. Археологически разколки в Диоклецианолол . In: Археологически открития и разкоnки nрез 1994 г. София, 99-100.

Маджаров, М./Таичева. Д.!Деяиова, М. 1996. Археологически разколки в Диоклецианолол. In: Археологически открития и разколки nрез 1995 г.

София, 57-58. Матеев, М. 1993. Филилоnол - древният

Пловдив. Архитектура и градоустройство. Плов­

дИв.

Машов. С. 1996. Сондажни археологически разкопки в Августа при с. Хърлец, община

Козлодуй. In: Археологически открития и разкоп­ки през 1995 г. София, 71-72

Машов, С. 1991. Късноантичният кастел и ранновизантийският град Августа при с. Хърлец,

община Козлодуй (локализиране, извори,

толография и укреnителна система). - Известия на музеите от Северозаладна България 16, 21-43.

Мешеков. Ю. 1996. Римска обществена сграда в Пауталия. - Известия на Историческия музей в

Кюстендил 3 (1991), 57-58. Миjовиli. П./Ковачевиlj, М. 197 5. Градови и

утврhеньа у Црноj Гори. Београд-Улцинь.

Микулчик. И. 1982. Старо Cкonje со околните тврдини. Скопjе.

Микулчик, И. 1974. За големината на

доцноантичките градови во Македониjа. - Исто­

риjа 10, 2, 347-368. Микулчик. И./Билбиjа. М. 1984. Маркови кули,

Водно, Скопjе, 1979 и 1980. - Macedoniae Acta Ar­chaeo1ogica 7-8 (1981-1982), 205-221.

Милчев. А .!Дамяиов, С. 1984. Археологически разкопки на късноантичната крепост лри с.

Войвода, Шуменски окръг, през 1970 г. - Разколки и nроучвания 1 О, 43-84.

Милчев. А.!Дамяиов. С. 1972. Археологически разкопки на късноантичната креnост лри с.

Войвода, Шуменски окръг. - Известия на Архео­

логическия институт 32, 263-277. Миичев, А. 1986. Ранното християнство в Оде­

сос и околностите му. - Известия на Народния му­

зей във Варна 22 (37), 31-43.

66

М иичев, А./ Ангелов, А. 1991. Сnасителни раз­колки в Марцианолол (Девня)- обект ул . "Бреза".

In: Бонев, А. et а1. (ed.). Археологически открития и разколки nрез 1990 г. Ловеч, 111-112.

Мирчев. В. 1951. Водният резервоар и каnтаж при креnостта Абрит. - Известия на Варненското

археологическо дружество 8, 99-102. Михайлов. Ст. 1961. Археологически проуч­

вания на креnостта Баба Вида във Видин . - Архео­

логия 3, з. 1-8. М орева, Р. 1988. Укреnителната система на

Пловдив nрез средновековието. - Известия на

музеите от Южна България 14, 129-141, Николаева. А. 1990. Антична Бонония. In:

Велков, В. et а1. (ed.). Археологически открития и разколки през 1989 г . Кюстендил, 71.

Николов. Д./Калчев К. 1992. Раннохристиянски комплекс от Августа Траяна- Берое.- Известия на

музеите от Югоизточна България 15, 29-44. Николова, Я. 1986. Градоустройство и архитек­

тура. In: Петров, П. (ed.). История на Велико Тър­ново. Т. 1. София, 231-282.

Овчаров. Д./Дражева, Ц. 1987. Разколки на крепостни стени в Созоnол. In: Велков, В. et а1. (ed.). Археологически открития и разкопки през 1986 г. Разград, 232-233.

Овчаров, Д./Ваклииова. М. 1978. Ранновизан­тийски паметници от България (IV-VII в.). София.

Паровиli-Пеиtикшt, М. 1982. Античка Улпиjана према досадаu•ныtм истраживаньима. - Старинар 32 (Н .с . ), 57-72.

Петровиli. П. 1997. Римлъани на Тимоку. In: Лазиh, М. (ed.). Археологиjа Источне Србиjе.

Београд, 115-129. Петровиli. П. 1976. Ниш у античк.о доба. Ниш. Поповиli, В. 1967. Увод у толографиjу Ви~шна­

циjума.- Старинар 18 (Н. с.), 29-53. Поповиli. М. 1988. Светин.а, нови подаци о

ранновизантиjском Виминациjуму. - Старинар 38 (1987), 1-35.

Поповиli. М. 1982. Београдска твър~ава . Бео­

град.

Рашев, Р. 1988. Средновековният лът Плиска -Дръстър и креnостта Динея. In: Христов, С. et а1. (ed.). Дуросторум- Дръстър- Силистра. 90 години музейно дело в Силистра. Силистра, 117-132.

Русева-Слокоска, Л. 1994. Към въпроса за укрепителната система на Никололис ад Иструм -строителни nериоди и датировка. In: Драганов, Д.

(ed.). Поселищен живот в Тракия. Т. III. Ямбол, 171-181.

Слокоска Л. 1989. Пауталия. Т. 1. София. Спасов, Р./Фьрков. Ю./Стайкова. Л. 1996.

Новооткрита крелостна стена в националния

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

архитектурен и археологически резерват "Паута­

лия- Велбъжд- Кюстендил".- Известия на Исто­

рическия музей в Кюстендил 3 (1991), 39-47. Стаиилов, С./Прокопов, И./Спасов, Р. 1991.

Археологически разкопки вм. "Хисарлъка" до гр.

Кюстендил. In: Бонев, А . et а!. (ed.). Археологи­чески открития и разкопки през 1990 г. Ловеч, 178-179.

Стаичева, М. 1989. Археологическото на­следство на София . Формиране, състояние, проб­

леми. In: Велков, В. et а!. (ed.). Сердика. Т. 11. София, 6-36.

Стоев,Д. 1989. Крепостната стена на античния Анхиало, регистрирана с помощта на геофизични

~етоди . - Археология 31, 4, 37-40. Стоянов, Т 1980. Спасителни разкопки в м.Па­

леокастро - Поморие. In: Велков, В./Катинчаров, Р. Археологически открития и разкопки през 1979 г. София, 105-106.

Тео~1иева,Е. 1988.Водоснабдительнаясистема

города Несебра в V-VI веке. In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. Т. 11. Sofia, 585-593.

Тоиев, Л. 1995. Градоустройството по българ­ските земи през античността. София.

Тотпаиов, Д. 1984. Каварна и Кавариенският край по времето на Ранновизантийската империя

(V-VI в . ) и Първото българско царство. In: Васи­лев, В. et а! . (ed.) . Каварна от древността до Осво­бождението. София, 62-84.

Тотев, К./Дермеиджиев, Е. 1997. За функциите на ранновизантийското укрепление край река

Янтра във Велико Търново. - Известия на Исто­

рическия музей във Велико Търново 12, 143-155. Удальцова, 3. В. 1986. Роль городо в и городской

культуры в культурном развитии ранней Ви­

зантии . - Византийский временвик 46, 20-51. Фърков, Ю. 1990. Приемственост и развитие на

култовите традиции на Кюстендил. - Известия на

историческия музей в Кюстендил 2, 147-195. Харбова, М. 1979. Укрепеният български сред­

новековен град (XIII-XIV век). София. Чимбулева, Ж. 1988. Ранневизантийские термы

в Несебра. In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. Т. 11. Sofia, 577-585.

Чимбулева, Ж./Балабаиов, П. 1979. Разкопки на късноантична обществена сграда в с . Обзор,

Бургаски окръг. In: Велков, В./Катинчаров, Р. (ed.). Археологически открития и разкопки през 1978 г. София, 94~95.

Шкорпил К. 1930. Стратегически постройки в черноморската област на Балканския полуост­

ров. - Byzantinoslavica 2, 197-230. Шкорпил К. 1905. Некоторыя из дорогь

Восточной Болгарии. - Известия Русекого архео-

логического института в Константинопле 1 О, 443-502.

Шкорпил, Х./Шкорпил, К. 1892. Североизточна България в географско и археологИческо отноше­

ние. - Сборник за народни умотворения, наука и книжнина 8, 3-58.

ШкopnWl, Х./Шкорпил, К. 1890. Черноморското крайбрежие и съседните подбалкански страни в

Южна България (Археологически изследвания) . -Сборник за народни умотворения, наука и

книжнина 3, 3-40. Шкорпил, Х./Шкорпил, К. 1891. Черноморското

крайбрежие и съседните подбалкански страни в

Южна България (Археологически изследвания) . -Сборник за народни умотворения, наука и

книжнина 4, 102-146. Щерева, И. 1993. Приноси към историята на

Сливен. In: Овчаров, Д. (ed.). Североизточна Тракия и Византия през IV-XIV век. София -Сливен, 7-23.

Щерева, И. 1987. Археологически проучвания в Сливен (1982-1986 г.).- Известия на музеите от

Югоизточна България 10, 27-35. Яиков, Д. 1993. Християнско култово строител­

ство в Стара Загора през късната античност и

средновековието. - Известия на музеите от Юго­

източна Бъ.'Iгария 16, 139-153. Aladzov, D. 1987. Die archaeo1ogischen Denkmae1er

im Bezirk Haskovo (4.-11. Jahrhundert). - Miscellanea Bu1garica 5, 71-82.

Aleksova, В. 1996. Bregalnica martyrion great mace­donian piligrimige center.- Известия на Историчес­

кия музей в Кюстендил 4 (1992), 275-277. Aleksova, B./Мango, С. 1971. Bargala: А preliminary

Report. - Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25, 265-277. Atanasova, J.!Popova, А. 1987. 11 muro di cinta di

Ratiaria. Lato occidentale. Ricerche archeologiche 1976-1985. - Ratiariensia 3-4, 85-96.

Avramea, А. 1976. Thessalonike (topographie). In: Tabula Imperii Romani К34. Sofia (Naissus - Serdica -Thessalonike ). LjuЬ!jana, 139-14 7.

Васе, А. 1976. Fortifikimet е antik.itetit te vone ne vendin tone (Fortifications de !а Basse Antiquite en Albanie). - Monumentet 11, 45-74.

Bakiritzis, Ch. 1989. Westem Thrace in the early christian and byzantine periods: results of archaeological research and the prospects, 1973-1987.- Byzantinische Forschungen 1411-2 (Amsterdam), 41-58.

Barnea, /. 1991. Noi date despre Mitropolia To­misului. - Pontica 24, 277-282.

Bamea, 1./Barnea, A./Cataniciu, 1./Margineanu­Carstoiu, M./Papuc, G. 1979. Tropaeum Traiani. Т. 1. Cetatea. Bucuresti.

Bavant, В. 1990. ldentification et fonction des

67

Ventzislav Dintchev

batiments. In: Bavant, В. et al. (ed.). Caricin grad. Т. П.

Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75. Roma, 123-160.

Bavant, В. 1984. La ville dans de nord de 1' Il\yricum (Pannonie, Mesie 1, Dacie et Dardanie). In: Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 77. Roma, 245-288.

Bavant, B./Kondic, V./Spieser, J.-M. 1990. Introduc­tion. In: Bavant, В. et al. (ed.) . Caricin grad. Т. 11. CoJiec­tion de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75. Roma, 1-11.

Biemacki, A./Мedeksz, А . 1995. An attempt at а spa­tial reconstruction of the columnar haJI in the episcopa1 residence at Novae. - Nove. Studies and Materials 1, 9-23.

Bierмcka-Lubanska, М. 1982. The Roman and Early Byzantine Fortifications of the Lower Moesia and North­em Thrace. Wroclaw.

Bjelajc, L/lvanisevic, V. 1993. Les temoignages ar­cheo1ogiques des Grandes lnvasions а Singidunum. -Старинар 42 (1991), 123-139.

Bojadziev, St. 1962. L' ancienne eglise metropole de Nesebar. - Byzantinobulgarica 1, 321-349.

Bojovic, D. 1996. Le Camp de Ja Legion IV Flavia а Singidunum. In: Petrovic, Р. (ed.). Roman Limes on the Mid(:lle and Lower Danube. Belgrad, 53-68.

Botoucharova, L./Kesjakova, Е. 1983. Sur Ja topo­graphie de Ja ville de Philippopolis а 1' epoque de la Basse Antiquite. - PulpoudeYa 4, 264-273.

Bucovala, М. 1977. Marele edificiu roman cu mozaic de la Tomis. Constanta.

Cameron, А. 1996. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity AD 395-600. London and New York (2nd edn).

CataniCiu, /. В. 1998. Semnificatia ultimelor schim­bari in urbanismul de \а Tropaeum Traiani. - Pontica 28-29 (1995-1996), 201-214.

Cheluta-Georgescu, N. 1977. Contributii Ja topografia Tomisului in sec. VI e.n.- Pontica 10, 253-260.

Cicikova, М. 1994. Novae а 1' epoque du Bas-Empire. In: Susini, G. (ed.). Limes (А cura di Giancarlo Susini). Studi di storia 5, Bologna, 127-138.

Citikova, М. 1980. Forschungen in NoYae (Moesia Inferior). - Кlio 62, 1, 55-66.

Claude, D. 1969. Die byzantinische Stadt im 6. Jahrhundert. Byzantinische Archiv 13. Muenchen.

Dagron, G. 1984. Les villes dans 1' Illyricum proto­byzantin. In: Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum pro­tobyzantin. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 77. Roma, 1-20.

Dimitrov, В. 1988. La citta medieva1e di Sozopo1. In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. Т. П . So­fia, 497-522.

Dintchev, V. 1997а. Househo\d Substructure of the Early-Byzantine Fortified Settlements on the Present Bu1-garian Territory.- Archaeo1ogia Bulgarica 1, 1, 47-63.

68

Dintchev, V. 1997Ь. Review: Poulter А. Nicopolis ad Istrum: а Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City. Excavation 1985-1992. - Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 3, 97-

104. Dintchev, V. 1997с. ZIКIDEVA- an Example of Early

Byzantine Urbanism in the Balkans. - Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 3, 54-77.

Dintchev, V., im Druck. GeseJischaftliche Kompo­nenten der Struktur fruhbyzantinischer befestigter Siedlungen auf dem Territorium des heutigen Bulgarien. In: Karasura. Bd. П. Leipzig-Halle (1999).

Dirimtekin, F. 1963. Vize et ses antiquites. - Annua1 of Ауа Sofya Museum 5, 26-36.

Dirimtekin, F. 1957. La forteresse byzantine de Se1ymbria. In: Actes du Х-А congres intemational des etudes byzantines. lstambul, 127-129.

Donevski, Р. 1994. Die Canabae der Legio XI Claudia von Durostorum (Silistra, Bulgarien). ln: Susini , G. (ed.). Limes (А cura di Giancar\o Susini). Studi di storia 5, Bo­logna, 153-158.

Donevski, Р. 1987. Scavi neJI' area del campo deJI' XI 1egione Claudia а Durostorum. - Ratiariensia 3-4, 239-243.

Dunn, А. 1997. Stages in the transition from the Late Antique to the Middle Byzantine urban centre in S. Mac­edonia and S. Thrace. - ПарартчJ.Lа MaкtбovtK(J)V 7, 137-150.

Dunn, А. 1994. The transition from polis to kasrron in the Balkans (Ш-УП сс . ) : genera1 and regional perspec­tives. - Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies 18, 60-80.

Duval, N. 1984. L' architecture religieuse de Tsari­tchin grad dans le cadre de 1' Illyricum orienta1 au VI-e siecle. ln: Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum pro­tobyzantin. CoJiection de 1' Есо\е francaise de Rome 77. Roma, 399-481 .

Duval, N./Jeremic, М. 1984. L' eglise 'Т ', sud de la ville dit "basilique а une nef'. In: Duva\, N.!PopoYic, V. (ed.). Caricin grad. Т. 1. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rоше 75. Roma, 91-146.

Duval, N.!Popovic, V. 1980. Urbanisme et topo­graphie chretienne dans les provinces septentrionales de 1' Illyricum. In: Rapports presentes au Хе congres inter­national d'archeologie chretienne. Thessalonique, 369-402.

Dyczek, Р. 1997. New Late Roman horreшn from sec­tor IV at Novae. In: Biemacki, A.!Pawlak, Р. (ed.). Late Roman and Early Byzantine Cities on the Lower Danube. Poznan, 87-94.

Gerassimova-Tomova, V. 1987. Ein Silberkelch aus dem Dorf Nova Nadezda, Bezirk Haskovo, aus der Zeit des Kaisers Justinian 1. (527-565). - Miscellanea Bulgarica 5, 307-312.

Gerov, В. 1975. Marcianopo1 im Lichte der histori­schen Angaben und der archaeo1ogischen, epigra-

C/assification of the Late Antique Cities in rhe Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

phischen und numismatischen Materialien und Forschun­gen. - Studia Balcanica 1 О, 46-72.

Giorgetti, D. 1987. Res ad topographiam veteris urЬis Ratiariae peninentes. Prolegomeni all' urbanistica della citta romana. - Ratiariensia 3-4, 33-85.

Gusic, S. 1993а. Naissus. In: Srejovic, D. (ed.). Ro­man Imperial Towns and Palaces in SerЬia - Sirmium, Romuliana, Naissus. Belgrad, 164-168.

Gusic, S. I993b. Remesiana. IЬidem, 184-187. Guyon, 1./Cardi, G. 1984. L' eglise "В", dite

"basilique cruciforme". In: Duval, N./Popovic, V. (ed.). Caricin grad. Т. 1. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75. Roma, 1-90.

Gorbanov, Р. 1987. Die antike und fruehmittel­alteriche Stadt Diocletianopolis im Lichte der neuen archaeologischen Forschungen. - Miscellanea Bulgarica 5, 293-296.

Gгegory, Т. 1982. Fonification and urban design in Early Byzantine Greece. ln: Hohlfelder, R. L. (ed.). City, Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantin Era. New York, 43-64.

Harreither, R. 1987. Die Bischoefe von Tomi/Con­satanta Ьis zum Konzil von Nikaia. - Miscellanea Bul­garica 5, 197-21 О.

Han·ies, 1. 1996. Christianity and the city in Late Ro­man Gaol. In: Rich, J. (ed.). Тhе City in Late Antiquity. London and New York (2nd edn), 77-98.

Hoxha, G. 1994. Muri rrethues i periudhes se vone an­tike ne qytetin е Shkores (L' enceinte de la Basse An­tiquite dans ls ville de Skoder).- Iliria 24, 1-2,231-247.

/orgu, S. 1961. La citta pontica di Tomis. - Dacia 5 (N. s.), 231-274.

lvanov, R. 1997. Das Befestungssystem von Augus­tae 11 an der Unterdonau. In: Biernacki, A./Pawlak, Р. (ed.). Late Roman авd Early Byzantine Cities on the Lower DanuЬe. Poznan, 31-34.

/vanov, Т. 1987. Der· Fonuna- Тешреl in der Colonia Ulpia Oesceвsium in Moesia Inferior (heute VR Bulgarien). In: Ivanov, Т. ct al. (ed.). Recherches sur la culture en Mesie et cn Thrace (Вulgarie), Ie- IVe siecle. Bulletin de 1' Institut d' archeologie 37. Sofia, 7-60.

1eremic, М. 1995. The Caricin Grad Necropolis. -NoMefM 45-46 (.1994-1995), 181-195.

1ones, А : Н. М. 1994. The Declin of the Ancient \\'orld. London and New York (12th edn).

1onson, St. 1983. Later Roman Fonification. London. KabakCiel'й, G. 1996. Fruehroeшische Militaerlager

in Oescus (Nordbulgarien). Ergebnisse dcr Ausgrabungen 1989-1993. - Germania 74, 1, 95-117.

Kalinowski, Z 1995. Baptistery in the episcopal ba­silica at Novae. - Nove. Studies and Materials 1, 25-35.

Kalrschev, К. 1998. Das Befestigungssystem von Au­gusta Traiana- Beroe im 2. - 6. Jhs. nah Chr. - Archaeo­logia Bulgarica 2, 3, 88-107.

Ketmedy, Н. 1996. Antioch: from Byzantium to lslam and back again. In: Rich, J. (ed.). The City in Late Anti­quity. London and New York (2nd edn), 181-198.

Kudeva, W. 1995. Willa miejska w Novae. Architek­tura, podzial wewnetrzny, przemiany.- Novensia 7, 27-61.

Kuvnanov, G., im Druck. Eine spaetantike Residenz von Ratiaria. - Archaeologia Bulgarica 4, 1, 2000.

La Roca, Cr. 1996. PuЬlic buildings and urban change in nonhem Italy in the early mediaeval period. ln: Rich, J. (ed.). Тhе City in Late Antiquity. London and New York (2nd edn), 161-180.

Liebeschuerz, W. 1996. Тhе end of the ancient city. ln: Rich, J. (ed.). Тhе City in Late Antiquity. London and New York (2nd edn), 1-49.

Liebesclшetz, W. 1972. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford.

Maurin, L 1992. Rempans et sites dans les trois prov­inces du Sud-Ouest de la Gaole au Bas-Empire, demier quan du Ше siecle - debut du V -е siecle. ln: Maurin, L. (ed.). Villes et agglomerations urЬaines antiqes du Sud­Ouest de la Gaole. Bordeaux, 365-389.

Mascl10v, S. 1994. Das spaetantike Kastell und die fruehbyzantinische Stadt Auguste bein Dorf Har1etz, Nord-West Bulgarien. In: Susini, G. (ed.). Limes (а cura di Giancarlo Susini). Studi di storia 5, Bo\ogna, 21-36.

Lungu, V. 1997. L' evoluzione tipologica delle basiliche della Scythia Minor. - Miscellanea Bulgarica 11, 99-108

Miku/Cic, /. 1986. Kasnoanticka utvrdenja u SR Makedoniji - pokusaj k\asifikacije. In: Medovic, Р. (ed.). Obdrambeni sistemi u praistoriji i antici па tlu Jugoslavije. Materijali 22. Novi Sad, 101-123.

Miku/Cic, /. 1974. Ueber die Groesse der spaetantiken Staedte in Makedonien. - Ziva antika 24, 191-212.

Miku/Cic, /. 1973. From the Topography of Scupi. -Archaeologia Iugoslavica 14, 29-35.

Miltscheva, A.!Genrsclreva, Е. 1996. Die Architektur des roeшischen Militaerlager und der fruehbyzan­tinischen Stadt Novae (Erkundungen 1980-1994). ln: Pet­rovic, Р. (ed.). Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower DanuЬe. Belgrad, 187-193.

Mincev, А. 1987. Marcianopolis christiana. - Miscel­Ianea Bulgarica 5, 297-306.

Mirko1•ic, М. 1997. Die christliche Кirche und das Christeвtum in den zentralillyrischen Provinzen im 4. und 6. Jahrhunden. In: Biemacki, A./Pawlak, Р. (ed.). Late Roman авd Early Byzantine Cities on the Lower DanuЬe. Poznan, 39-56.

Mirkovic, М. \968. Rimski gradovi na Dunavu u Gomjoj Meziji. Beograd.

Mocsy, А. 1970. Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der roemischen Provinz Moesia Superior. Budapest.

Nikolov, D. 1987. L' ensemЬle du forum de Augusta Traiana- Beroe. In: Ivanov, Т. et а\. (ed.). Recherches sur

69

Ventzislav Dintchev

la culture en Mesie et en Thrace (Bulgarie), Ie- IVe siecle. Bulletin de 1' lnstitut d' archeologie 37. Sofia, 96-107.

Ognenova-Marinova, L 1992. La contribution de 1' archeologie susmarine dans 1' etude de vi11e medievale de Nessebre. In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. Т. Ш. Sofia, 243-246.

Ognenova, L. 1988. La datation des edifices medievales а Nessebre d' apres les donnes des fouilles. In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. Т. П. Sofia, 570-576.

Ostrogorsky, G. 1959. Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages.- Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13,47-66.

Oшken, Y.!Ousterhout, R. 1989. Notes on the Monu­ments of Turkish Thrace. - Anatolian Studies 39, 121-149.

Pantos, Р. 1983. The present situation of the studies in archaeological topography of Western Thrace. -Pulpudeva 4, 164-179.

Pamicki-Pudelko,S. 1995. The Episcopal Basilica in Novae: Archaeological Research 1976-1990. Poznan.

Pelletier, А. 1982. L' urbanisme romain sous 1' Em­pire. Paris.

Petrovii:, Р. 1993. Naissus- Foundation of Emperor Constantine. In: Srejovic, D. (ed.). Roman lmperial Towns and Palaces in SerЬia - Sirmium, Romuliana, Naissus. Belgrad, 55-81.

Petrovii:, Р. 1986. Odbrambeni sistemi u antici (jugoistocni sektor). In: Medovic, Р. (ed.). OdbramЬeni sisterni u praistoriji i antici na tlu Jugoslavije. Materijali 22. Novi Sad, 91-100.

Piletii:, D. 1969. Rimski castrum Cuprija - Horreum Margi.- Vestnik Vojnog muzeja 15, 9-57.

Popovii:, /. 1990. Les activites professionelles а Ca­ricin grad vers la fin de Vle siecle et le debut du VПе siecle, d' apres les outils de fer. In: Bavant, В. et а1. (ed.). Caricin grad. Т. П. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75. Roma, 269-306

Popovii:, М. 1997. Anticki S~ngidunum : dosadasnja otkrica i mogucnost daljih istrazivanja. In: Popovic, М. (ed.). Singidunum. Т. 1. Beograd, 1-20.

Popovii:, V. 1984. Byzantins, slaves et autochtons dans les provinces de Prevalitane et Nouvelle Epire. In: Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. Col­lection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 77. Roma, 181-243.

Potter, Т. 1995. Towns in Late Antiquity: Iol Caesarea and its context. Oxford.

Poulter, А. 1996. The use and abuse of urЬanism in the Danublan provinces duing the Later Roman Empire. In: Rich, J. (ed.). The City in Late Antiquity. London and New York (2nd edn), 99-135.

Poulter, А. 1995. Nicopolis ad lstrum: а Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City. Excavation 1985-1992. London.

Poulter, А. 1983. Town and country in Moesia Infe-

70

rior. In: Poulter, А. (ed.). Ancient Bulgaria. Papers pre­sented to the Intemational Symposium on the Ancient Нistory and Archaeology of Bulgaria. Т. 2. Noninham, 74-118.

Pralong, А. 1988. Remarques sur les fortifications byzantines de Thrace Orientale. In: Ahrweiler, Н. (ed.). Geographie historique du monde mediterraneen. By­zantina SorЬonensia 7. Paris, 180-200.

Press, L.!Sarnowski, Т. 1991. Novae. Romisches Legionslager und fruehbyzantinische Stadt an den unterren Donau.- Antike Welt 21, 4, 225-243.

Radulescu, А. 1998. Zidul de aparare al Tomisului, de ероса tarzie, in reconstiturea sa actuala. - Pontica 28-29 ( 1995-1996), 83-93.

Radulescu, А. 1991. Recherches archeologiques recentes dans le perimetre de la cite de Tomis. Jn: Popescu, Е. et al. (ed.). Etudes byzantines et post-byzan­tines. V. П. Bucarest, 23-45.

Raveg11ani, G. 1983. Castelli е citta' fortificate nel VI secolo. Ravena.

Rousseva-Siokoska, L 1996. Les recherches archeo­logiques а Nicopolis ad lstrum - resultats et proЬiemes (1985-1994). ln: Petrovic, Р. (ed.). Roman Limes оп the Middle and Lower Danube. Belgrad, 205-211.

Ruseva-Siokoska, L 1987. Certains aspects de 1' ur­banisation de Pautalia. In: Ivanov, Т. et al. (ed.). Recherches sur la culture en Mesie et en Thrace (Bulgarie), Ie - IVe siecle. Bulletin de 1' Institut d' archeologie 37. Sofia, 82-96.

Sampetru, М. 1994. Orase si cetati romane tarzii la Dunarea de Jos. BiЬiiotheca Thracologica 5. Bucuresti.

Saselov, D. 1985. Roemische Stadtstrassen von Anchialos.- Thracia 7, 138-143.

Schreiner, Р. 1986. Staedte und Wegenetz in Moesien, Dakien und Thrakien nach dem Zeugnis des Theophy­laktos Simokates. ln: Pillinger, R. (ed.). Spaetantike und fruehbyzantinische Kultur Bulgariens zwischen Orient und Okzident. Wien. 25-35.

Spieser, J. -М. 1984. Thessalonique et ses monuments du IV -е au VI-e siecle. Contribution а 1' etude d' une ville paleochretienne. Paris.

Stanceva, М. 1978. Serdica aux confins de deux epoques (IVe - Vie s. ). - Etudes historiques 8, 107-122.

~tereva, 1. 1995. Baptistere paleo-chretien а Sliven. In: Ovcarov, D. et а!. (ed.). La culture materielle et 1' art dans les terres bulgares VIe-XVIIe s. - Bulletin de 1' Institut d' archeologie 38. Sofia, 7-13.

Suceveanu, А. 1982. Нistria. Т. VJ. Les thermes romains. Bucarest-Paris.

Suceveanu, A.IA11gelescu, М. 1994. Nouvelles don­nees concemant Нistria а 1' epoque romaine. - Кtema 19, 195-208.

Suceveanu, A./Bamea, А. 1993. Contribution а 1' histoire des villes romaines de la Dobroudja. - Dacia 37

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

(N. s.), 159-179. Suceveanu, A.!Barnea, А. 1991 . La Dobroudja ro­

maine. Bucarest. Susini, G. 1975. Bononia su1 Danublo. - Epigrafica

(Rivista italiana di epigraph.ia) З7, 425-429. Sousta/, Р. 1997. Dorostolon - Silistra. Die Donau­

stadt im Lichte neuerer Forschug. - Miscellanea Bulgarica 11, 115-126.

SZдdec;ky-Kardoss, S. 1985. Bemerkungen ueberden "Questor lustinianus Exercitus" zur Frage der Vorstufen der Themenverfassung. In: Vavrinek, V. (ed.). From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium. Praha, 61-64.

Tapkova-Zaimova, V. 1997. Durostorum et 1' hagio­graphie de 1а haute epoque. - Miscellanea Bulgarica 11, 109-114.

Tonceva, G. 1981. L' amph.itheatre de Marcianopolis. In: Danov, Ch./Fo1, А. (ed.). Spartacus. Symposium rebus Spartaci gestis dedicatum 2050 а. Sofia, 1З8-14З.

Torbatov, S. 1997. Quaestura exercitus: Moesia Se­cunda and Scythia under Justinian. - Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, З, 78-87.

Vak/inova, М. 1984. Ateliers de decoration architecturale au Ve et Vle siecle dans la region de Nicopolis ad Nestum (Bulgarie). In: Actes de Хе congres intemational d'archeologie chretienne. Т. П. Thessalo­nique, 641-649.

Vasic, С. 1990. Le plan d' urbanisme de la ville haute: essai de reconstitution. In: Bavant, В. et al. (ed.). Caricin grad. Т. П. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75. Roma, ЗО7-З 15.

Ve/kov, V. 1985. Fruehbyzantinische Inschriften aus Dacia Ripensis.- Byzantina (Тessalonike) 1З, 88З-891.

Velkov, V. 1981. Die Bedeutung von Nesebar in der Uebergangsperiode von der Antike zum Mittelalter. -Byzantinobulgarica 7, 1З7-141.

Velkov. V. 1977. Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Late Antiquity (Studies and Materials). Amsterdam.

Ve/kov, V. 197З. Die Stadt Transmarisca (Moesia In­ferior).- Archeologia Polona 14, 26З-268.

Velkov, V. 1966. Ratiaria (Eine roemische Stadt in Bulgaricn). - Eirene. Т. V. Praha, 155-175.

Velkov, V. 1961. Das Schicksal einer friihbyzanti­nischen Stadt zur Zeit der Voelkerwanderung (Odessos -Vama). In: Akten des XI. Intern. Byzantinisten Kon­gresses. Muenchen, 655-659.

Velkov, V. 1960. Durostorum- Drastar- Silistra. Kurze historische Bemerkungen. - Berliner Byzantinistische ArЬeiten 21, 214-218.

Venedikov, l.Nelkov, V./Ognenova-Marinova, L!Cim­buleva, 1./Petrov, Т/ Cango,,a, /. 1969. Nessebre. Т. 1. Sofia.

Vetters, Н. 1950. Dacia Ripensis. бsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschlaften - Schriften der Balkan­Komission. Antiquarische Abteilung XI, 1. Wien.

Vujovic, М. 1997. Prilog proucavanju antickog zidnog slikarstva i stuko dekoracije na tlu Singidunuma. In:

Popovic, М. (ed.). Singidunum. Т. 1. Beograd, 169-179.

ЗА КЛАСИФИКАЦИЯТА НА

КЪСНОАНТИЧНИТЕГРАДОВЕОТ

ДИОЦЕЗИТЕ ТРАКИЯИДАКИЯ

Венцислав Динчев

(резюме)

Основната класификация на късноантичните

градове следва да отрази различията в техния

пространетвен и демографски мащаб и в тяхната

реална значимост като стопански, администра­

тивни, култови и/или военни центрове. Въпросът

за класификацията фокусира в изискването от

обективни, установимм при изследване и при­

ложими с оглед на самото разграничение, кри­

терии. Поради причини от различно есrество го­

ляма част от предлаганите в литературата крите­

рии не удовлетворят днес това изискване. Крите­

рият, който може "да свърши работа", е големина­

та на защитената градска площ.

През късната античност големината на

защитената площ на даден град е обективен

показател за неговия мащаб, включително за броя

на неговото население, и за неговата значимост

като обществен център изобщо. Актуалната кла­

сификация на късноантичните градове следва да

се основава върху данните за големината на

защитените им площи, като при възможност се

отчитат останалите обективни критерии за техния

мащаб и тяхната значимост, както и съответните

сведения от изворите.

Днес може да се приеме един тристепенен

класификационен модел за градските центрове от

Тhracia и Dacia: голсми градове; средни градове; малки градове или центрове от градски тип. Кла­

сификационните параметри за отделните групи са

следните: защитена площ над ЗО ха за големия

град; защитена площ между ЗО и 1 О ха за средния град; защитена площ между 1 О и 5 ха за малкия град. Тези параметри са резултат от интерпо­

лацията на данните за площта на градовете и са из­

раз на концепцията за самата класификация . При

определянето на долната граница са отчетени и

данните за неградските укрепени селища, които са

характерно явление за късноантичните диоцези

17~racia и Dacia. Доколкото наличието на известни изключения

71

Ventzislav Dintchev

е нормално за всеки класификационен модел, то

целесъобразно е и въвеждането на едни nо­

широки разграничителни зони между отделните

груnи. Параметрите nък на тези зони оnределям

чрез доnустим толеранс спрямо точно фикси­

раните граници: граничната зона между неград­

ските или полуградските укреnени селища и мал­

ките градове- 5 (+/- 1) ха, т.е. от 4 до 6 ха; гранич­ната зона между :>.iалките и средните градове - 1 О ( +/- 1.5) ха, т. е. от 8.5 до 11 .5 ха; граничната зона :-.tежду средните и големите градове- ЗО(+/- 3) ха, т.е. от 27 до 33 ха.

Когато nлощта на даден център поnада в

гранична зона, отнасянето на същия към една от

съответните груnи става с nомощта на останалите

обективни критерии за мащаб и значимост. Имен­

но въвеждането на nо-широки разграничителни

зони осигурява технологията за използването на

останалите обективни критерии- броят и видът на

архитектурните комnлекси и nостройките с об­

ществено и частно nредназначение, а също ес­

теството и количеството на открития nри nроуч­

ванията подвижен инвентар .

Големите градове на 171Гасiа и Dacia са nреди всичко стари, антични по nроизход центрове -Serdica, Pbllippopolis, Marcianopolis, Tomis, Augusta Traiana, Odessos, Scupi, Scodra, Ulpiana, Ratiaria, Dionysopolis, Viminacium, Pautalia и т.н . В тяхното

развитие като цяло nериодът от края на 111 в. до 70-те години на IV в. е nериод на просперитет. По

това време някои от тях, наnример Serdica, Tomis, Ratiaria- столици на нови nровинции, разширяват чуствително защитената си nлощ и nоnадат в тази

класификационна груnа (обр. 1). След края на IV в. и особено nрез Vl в . обаче много от тези

градове етагнират и дори регресират. Не по-късно

от средата на V в . Serdica редуцира защитената си площ и отпада кы! групата на средните градове.

Подобно развитие не е изключено и за Viminaciшn.

Към средата на Vl в. това вече се е случило и с Ulpiana, Dionysopolis, Pautalia (обр. 2). През

втората nоловина на Vl в . Pllilippopolis остава голям град, но площта му е nоне наnоловина по­

малка. Междувре:о.!енно още в края на nървата

четвърт на Vl в. Scupi вероятно губи градската си същност изобщо. Може би известната днес

защитена nлощ на Eudoxiopolis, която му отрежда място в близост до долната граница на груnата на

средните градове, също е следствие на значителна

редукция nрез Vl в. Сред големите градове, но в близост до грани­

цата със следващата класификационна груnа, са и

два нови градски центъра, датиращи от началото

на късната античност- този при Grazhdani в днеш-

72

на Албания и Diocletianopolis (обр. 1). Няма данни за nромени в техните защитени nлощи до края на

Vl в. (обр. 2). Особен случай представлява развитието на

старата гръцка колония Messembria. След устано­вяването на римското владичество по заnадния

черноморски бряг Messembria губи градския си статут. С1ед края на IV в. обаче в развитието й

настъnва nодем и през Vl в. тя вече е сред най­големите градове на диоцеза 171Гасiа (обр . 2).

Сред груnата на средните градове на 111racia и Dacia преобладават също старите, антични по произход центрове, но значителен тук вече е и бро­

ят на новите градски центрове. Към първите nри­

надлежат Singidumm;, Aquae, Oescus, No1•ae, Doclea, Traianopolis, Nicopolis ad lstrum, Naissus, Duros­torшn, Maroneia, Horreum Margi, Nicopolis ad Nes­tum, Tropaeum Traiani и т.н . В тяхното развитие ка­

то цяло периодът от края на 111 в. до 70-те години на IV в . също е nериод на nросnеритет. По това

време някои от тях увеличават защитената си

nлощ- например Oescus и No1•ae (о бр. 1 ). След края на IV в. обаче за много от тях също настъnва пе­риод на уnадък, съnроводен в някои случаи с

драстично намаление на защитените nлощи. Към

края на V в . Nicopolis ad lstrum наnример деградира до център, който по обективни критерии е в

граничната зона между градовете и nолуградските

укреnени селища . Малък град към средата на Vl в .

вече е и Singidunum. Редукция на защитената JL1oщ през втората nоловина на V-Vl в. е доnустима и за други антични по nроизход центрове със сходен

по-ранен мащаб (обр. 2). Новите, късноантични по произход, предста­

вители на групата на средните градове обикнове­

но са наследници на римски военни лагери или

nък на по-малки, неградски селища. Повечето от

тях са транформирани в градове или са основани

като такива към края на 111- nървата nоловина на IV в. -Iblda, Bononia, неидентифицираният все още център nри Обзор, Zaldapa, Abritus, късноантич­ният център (Zetnoukortu ?) при Чомаковци (обр. 1). Уnравлението на имnератор Валент (364-378) е t_erminus post quem за nревръщането на Acrae cas­tellum в градски център. Вероятно след средата на IV в . датира и nоявата на неидентифицирания град

при Koнjux в днешна Северна Македония. В края

на V - началото на Vl в. заnочва изграждането на ZikMe1•a (обр. 2).

Предвид наличната информация за новите сре­

дни градове, nо-късно съкращаване на защитена

nлощ в границите на късната античност би могло

да се доnусне само за Bononia (обр. 2). Подобно на Messembria, старата гръцка коло-

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

1rnя Apollonia деградира през 1-IV в. сл. Хр. След

края на IV в. този център се оживява, под ново име - Sozopo/is, и се превръща в един от значимите черноморски градове на диоцеза Тhracia (обр. 2).

Освен градовете, които западат към и след края

на V в. - като Singidunum и Nicopolis ad Istrum нап­ример, в най-долната класификационна група по­

падат още няколко антични по произход градски

центрове- Istros, Bizye, Remesiana, Bargala (обр. 2). lstros също е с чуствително редуцирана защитена площ, но още от края на 111 в. Относно Bizye, Remesiana и Bargala засега няма сигурни данни за подобно развитие, т.е. техният мащаб и тяхната

значимост изглежда по начало са били ограничени

(обр. 1). Сред групата на малките градове на Тhracia и

Dacia обаче преобладават новите градски цент­рове. Част от тях се появяват в началото на

късната античност в резултат на трансформиране­

то на по-ранни военни лагери - например Augusta и Trai/Smarisca. Към първата половина на IV в. се отнася и появата на неидентифицирания засега

център при Войвода в днешна Североизточна

България, на Tzoides, а вероятно и на Coi!Stantia в днешна Югоизточна Бъ,1гария (обр. 1). Може би с:~ед средата на IV в . възниква късноантичният

център при Чучер в днешна Северна Македония.

В началните години на управлението на имп.

Юстиниан 1 е изградена lustiniana Prima. Тогава или малко по-рано е изградена и мощната крепост

на Маркови Кули край Скопие (обр. 2). Прегледът на данните за градските центрове на

диоцезите Tl1racia и Dacia очертава две основни тенденции: към намаляване на броя на големите

градове и към обща редукция на мащаба и

значимостта на градската форма на живот; към

увеличаване на броя на градските центрове чрез

появата на нови, преди всичко малки и средни

градове.

Анализът показва още, че през късноримския

период градският живот в 111racia и Dacia като

цяло е в подем. Нещо повече, според обективните

критерии този период и особено годините от

началото на управлението на имп. Диоклетиан до

края на управлението на имп. Константин Велики

са върхови момент за развитието на градския

живот на територията на двата диоцеза не само в

границите на късната античност, но и по отноше­

ние на предходната епоха (1-III век). Това налага уточнението, че изтъкнатите основни тенденции и

особено първата от тях се проявяват всъщност

през ранновизантийския период на късната

античност - от края на IV в. до началото на VII в .

Повечето нови градове от края на III - първата половина на IV в. са в граничните провинции на

двата диоцеза- в Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Inferior и Scytllia, но все пак най-значителните нови градове са във вътрешните провинции (обр. 1). По-същест­вена регионална специфика в развитието на град­

ския живот се установява след края на IV в. Тя се изразява в определено по-силното проявление на

изтъкнатите основни тенденции в провинциите на

диоцеза Dacia (обр. 2). Предложеният класификационен модел

отразява разликите в пространствения мащаб и в

демографския потенциал на късноантичните

градове на 111racia и Dacia, както и разликите в тяхната реална значимост като стопански,

административни, култови и/или военни центрове.

Изключенията - например IustinШna Prima за на­чалния период от съществуването си, могат да се

обяснят в рамките на предложения класификаци­

онен модел. Доколкото тези изключения са израз

на несъответствие между мащаба и администра­

тивната отличеност на съответните градове, то

именно предложената класификация е средство за

тяхното установяване.

Dr. Ventzislav Dinthcev Archaeological Institute and Museum 2 Saboma str. BG-1 ООО Sofia

73