Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation 9540742757, 9789540742755

Citation preview

CITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE Continuity and Transformation

CITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE Continuity and Transformation Edited by Daniela Stoyаnova, Grigor Boykov, Ivaylo Lozanov

ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI UNIVERSITY PRESS SOFIA • 2017

Publication of the Center of Excellence in the Humanities “Alma Mater” (Regional Studies Program), Sofia University “St Kliment Ohridski”, funded by the Scientific Research Fond of the Bulgarian Ministry of Education, Youth and Science.


    

 

a

Image Cover: Bronze medallion of Philip I the Arab (244 – 249) from Bizye (Jurukova, J. Die Münzprägung von Bizye (Griechisches Münzwerk. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 18.), Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981, 73, Taf. 23, Abb. 137.

© 2017 Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, Ivaylo Lozanov – editors © 2017 Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, Ivaylo Lozanov – introduction © 2017 Borislav Kiosseff – cover design © 2017 Alexandra Milanova, Danaila Grudeva, Daniela Stoyanova, Dessislava Lyubenova, Dilyana Boteva, Dragomir Tochev, Georgy Sengalevich, Hristo Hristozov, Kostadin Rabadzhiev, Mariya Kiprovska, Mustafa H. Sayar, Philip Kolev, Stoian Terziev, Teodora Nedyalkova, Totko Stoyanov, Vladimir Staykov © 2017 St. Kliment Ohridski University Press ISBN 978-954-07-4275-5-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Poleis and Harbours in Southeastern Thrace and Thracian Chersonesos from the Archaic Period until the End of the Principate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Mustafa H. Sayar The Toponyms in the Inscriptions from Rogozen and the Historical Geography of Southeastern Thrace in the Classical and the Hellenistic Periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Totko Stoyanov Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Daniela Stoyanova Dionysos in Propontis. The Numismatic Evidence in Pre-Roman times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Teodora Nedyalkova Hunting in Paradise.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Kostadin Rabadjiev The Kline from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace. . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Danaila Grudeva Kypsela through its History and Coinage (4th–3rd century BC).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Dessislava Lyubenova Notes on Hadrianopolis in Thrace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Dragomir Tochev “Under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines”. King Philip V of Macedon against Thracian chiefs (analysis of Liv. XXXIX, 35, 4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Dilyana Boteva Bizye: From Tribal Residence to Roman City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Filip Kolev The cities in Southeastern Thrace and the central government under the last Thracian Kings (27 BC–AD 45).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Stoyan Terziev Southeastern Thrace in the Late Antiquity. Ethnic Changes and Settlement Transformations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Vladimir Staykov

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa. The Case of Komnenos’ Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Georgi Sengalevich The Ottoman Town of İpsala from the Second Half of the 14th to the Еnd of the 16th Century.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Hristo Hristozov Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century. The Mihaloğlu Family Vakf Possessions in the Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Mariya Kiprovska In the shadow of Constantinople: The unpublished memoirs of Adrianople by F. Pouqueville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Alexandra Milanova Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

INTRODUCTION

T

he City in history has always been a central topic in studying collective human behaviour. The idea of studying cities on the Balkan Peninsula in diachronic perspective emerged as major research-project launched by researchers from the Faculty of history at the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski” in 2011. Shaped as an interdisciplinary seminar “The Balkan City”, funded by the Center of Excellence in the Humanities “Alma Mater”, the project was conceived to bring together distinct methodological and theoretical approaches into a holistic and interdisciplinary one. Various themes and branches of historical studies were to contribute towards better understanding of the urban phenomenon. We were also extremely privileged to extend the academic discourse beyond our own intra-academic community in Sofia since our efforts were supported by eminent researchers from abroad who accepted our invitation and regularly delivered lectures in the seminar on specific topics within the area of their own expertise. In result our project went far beyond its initial frame as it also focused on a variety of particular problems of urban history. One of the chief research issues that concentrated a great deal of research attention, namely the continuity of urban structures and their transformations, proved over time to be conclusive in explaining wider political, economic and social processes in the Balkans. Concurrently we began to develop regional research-strategies aiming to achieve in-depth analysis of relatively well recorded areas and sites where balanced information on each major historical period appeared to be readily at hand. At this stage it proved necessary to expand our own resources by mobilising particular research-teams for each period. Research-fellows were recruited amongst the departmental staff and graduate students who’s own studies and expertise were closely in alignment with project’s general objectives. Our first case-study area was South Eastern Thrace (mod. Greece and Turkey) where some of the earliest and most vital urban structures emerged. The choice was perfectly in accord with our main focus to give a historical cross-section, as thorough as possible, in a region where political, economic and geo-strategic considerations eventually led to the establishment of several superior administrative units, or actual capitals, of renowned state- or sub-state formations – the Odrysian kingdom; the Roman province of Thrace (Perinthus); the Byzantine (Constantinople) and the Ottoman (Edirne and Istanbul) empires. In the meantime we were encouraged to adjust matters of vision and perspective and to deepen our research-efforts by organising travelling seminars in areas previously

8



defined as potential case-studies. Some main study areas have been already selected and with the beneficial co-operation of our partners in Turkey we were mostly facilitated in realizing the first travelling seminar in Propontic Thrace. The highly encouraging results that came out from our Eastern Thrace field research and seminar on the spot pave the way for establishing a tradition of interdisciplinary travelling seminars that were generously supported by the Center of Excellence in the Humanities “Alma Mater”. This volume is a direct outcome from our first travelling seminar in Eastern Thrace that took place in the Fall of 2013. Within the present volume the reader is invited to look through different sections where the papers are organised chronologically starting from the 1st millennium BC until the Ottoman period. The thematic scope is not strictly focused on material remains: it tackles questions of identification and historical geography; religious identities and self-expression; problems of relations between centre and periphery; the changing functions performed by certain cities; ethnicity and urban culture; social transformations, symbols of status and self-representation; “the other’s view” etc. Last but not least it is our pleasant duty to express warm gratitude to our colleagues form the Center of Excellence in the Humanities “Alma Mater”, Prof. Ivan Ilchev, Assoc. Prof. Ivan Parvev, and Assist. Prof. Maria Baramova who undertook the burdensome task in promoting this project, in supervising and encouraging every step of its further development. We are much obliged to Prof. Mustafa Sayar (Istanbul University) for welcoming the project’s general idea and for being of immense help in securing logistic support and guidance all through our stay in Turkey. Our gratitude also goes to our colleagues at the Trakya University in Edirne for their immense hospitality and understanding of our research needs. We also thank to each of the participants for their passionate work and attitude towards successful completing of our joint task.

Sofia, November 2016.

From the editors

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

THE POLEIS AND HARBOURS IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE AND THRACIAN CHERSONESOS FROM THE ARCHAIC PERIOD UNTIL THE END OF THE PRINCIPATE Mustafa H. Sayar

G

elibolu is named after the district of Gelibolu, which is a derivative of the ancient name Kallipolis. On the Gelibolu Peninsula, no Paleolithic materials have been discovered so far, but around the village Galata, Neolithic remains have been detected. There are no traces from the Chalcolithic Period either. The settlement density in the area started to increase at the beginning of 3rd millennium BC and these settlements continued to exist until the beginning of the Iron Age, around 1200 BC1. The Bronze Age settlements in the area are Madytos (Eceabat)2, Paktye (Maltepe), and Kalanora.

1 About prehistorical surveys on the Gelibolu Peninsula, see Mehmet Özdoğan, “Prehistoric Sites in Gelibolu”,

Anadolu Araştırmaları (Istanbul) 10 (1986): 51 – 66.

2 For Madytos, see Dietram Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Historien Herodots. Wiesbaden,

1997, 876 – 877.

10

Mustafa H. Sayar

Limnai3, Klazomenai, and Kardia4 were colonies of Miletos established in the last quarter of the 7th c. BC on the Thracian Chersonesos5. Herodotos mentions a Thracian tribe called Dolonki that inhabited the Thracian Chersonesos in the 6th c. BC6. Aeolians coming from the northwest were the founders of Alopekonesos7, Madytos8, and Sestos9. The Athenian Phorboon (Ps.-Skymnos 707 – 708) or Phrynon (ATL I, 289 n. 75) established the settlement of Elaious at the eastern end of Morto Bay, in the area of the village of Eski Hisarlık, in the last quarter of the 7th c. BC10. Around mid-6th c., it is known that Miltiades the Elder left Athens with his political supporters and migrated to the Thracian Chersonesos11. The first precaution that Miltiades took was to build a wall at the narrowest part of the peninsula in order to protect the cities on the peninsula from the Thracian threat12. The wall began from Kardia on the shore of Melas Gulf and went to Paktye13 on the shore of Propontis14. After 527 BC, Miltiades was captured during a war against Lampsakos and was released through the intervention of King Kroisos of Lydia. Miltiades the Elder died soon after that childless. His nephew Stesagoras took his place. Stesagoras when hit to the head with an axe in 516 BC, during a war against Lampsakos15. 3 Ps. Skymnos 705; Louisa Loukopoulou, “Thracian Chersonesos”, In Mogens H. Hansen, Thomas. H. Nielsen,

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13

14 15

(eds.) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford, 2004, 908. Ps. Skylax 67; Strabo 7 fr. 51; Plin., Nat. Hist 4. 48; Dietram Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar, 852 – 855; Louisa Loukopoulou “Thracian Chersonesos”, 2004, 907; Julia Tzvetkova, “The Coinage of Kardia”, Archaeologia Bulgarica (Sofia) 13 (2009): 33–54. For the settlements on the Thracian Chersonesos that are mentioned in Historiai of Herodotus, see Dietram Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar, 802 – 807; for the colonisation of the Thracian Chersonesos, see Louisa Loukopoulou “Thracian Chersonesos”, 2004, 900 – 911; see also Michael Zahrnt, “Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE)” In Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, Denver Grainger (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Chichester, 2015, 35 – 36. For the Dolonki, see Hdt. VI 34; 35, 2 – 3; 36, 1; 40, 2; Dietram Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar, 816. Ps. Skymnos 706; Louisa Loukopoulou “Thracian Chersonesos”, 904. Ps. Skym. 709; Louisa Loukopoulou “Thracian Chersonesos”, 908. Ps. Skym. 709; Dietram Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar, 927 – 932; Louisa Loukopoulou “Thracian Chersonesos”, 909. Ps.-Skylax 67; Louisa Loukopoulou “Thracian Chersonesos”, 906; Christian Igelbrink, Die Kleruchien und Apoikien Athens im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Klio Beihfet Band 25. Berlin, 2015, 110 – 113. Hdt. VI 33 – 36; Christian Igelbrink, Die Kleruchien und Apoikien Athens, 119f.; Nikola Theodossiev, “An Introduction to Studying Ancient Thrace.” In Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, Denver Grainger (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Chichester, 2015, 3. Hdt. VI 36; Ulrich Kahrstedt, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thrakischen Chersones”, Deutsche Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 6 (1954): 9 – 19. For the localization of Paktye, see Louisa Loukopoulou, Contribution à l’histoire de la Thrace Propontique. MΕΛΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ 9. Athens, 1989, 72, 82; Mustafa H. Sayar, “Zur Lage von Lysimacheia: eine hellenistische Hauptstadt auf der thrakischen Chersones.” In Athena Iakovidou (ed.). Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, Komotini – Alexandroupolis 18–23 October 2005, Athens, 2007, 514–517; Mustafa H. Sayar, “Lysimacheia. Eine hellenistische Hauptstadt zwischen zwei Kontinenten und zwei Meeren: Ein Ort der Interkonnektivität.” In Victor Cojocaru, Altay Coşkun, Mӑdӑlina Dana (eds.) Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Cluj-Napoca, 2014, 363 – 382; Jochen M. Randig, “Die erste bekannte Münze der Stadt Paktye auf der thrakischen Chersones.” Gephyra 7 (2010): 149 – 158. Hdt. VI 36; Christian Igelbrink, Die Kleruchien und Apoikien Athens, 420. Hdt. VI 38; Karl-Wilchem Welwei, Griechische Geschichte. Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des Hellenismus. Schöningh, Paderborn, 20112; Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes towards Thrace and Macedonia. Leiden – Boston, 2015, 53; Nikola Theodossiev, “An introduction to Studying Ancient Thrace”, 3.

The Poleis and Harbours in Southeastern Thrace and Thracian Chersonesos

11

Receiving the news of his assassination, Miltiades the Younger, the brother of Stesagoras, arrived in 516/515 BC in Thracian Chersonesos with 500 mercenaries; he arrested the leaders of the local communities and took control over the peninsula16. Moreover, he married Hegesipyle, daughter of the Thracian King Oloros, and strengthened his position17. The Persian King Darius I stepped onto European soil, after he crossed the Bosphorus for the Scythian Expedition on 512 BC18. The Persians quickly took control over the whole Thrace, including the Philaid communities under the sovereignty of Miltiades the Younger19. Miltiades joined to the Scythian Expedition of Darius and was entrusted with the defense of the bridge over the river Danube20. For a while, Miltiades felt safe under Persian control; he took over the islands of Lemnos and Imbros and gave them as gift to Athens21. In 499 BC, during the Ionian Revolt, he supported the revolting Hellenic city-states and took no precautions. Thus, he started falling from grace22. In 494  BC, after winning the Battle of Lade, the Persian navy sailed forth to the Hellespont, and Miltiades ran away to the island of Imbros and then to Athens in 493 BC23. The Persians sacked Chersonesos24 and Persian garrisons were deployed at Kardia, Sestos, and Elaious25. One year after Miltiades left the Thracian Chersonesos, in 492 BC, the Persian army under the command of Mardonios came to Europe, crossing the Hellespont26. Then, in 481 BC, the Persian army of 210,000 soldiers under the command of Xerxes crossed to Thracian Chersonesos in one week through the bridge built over the Hellespont27. The Persian army passed through Agora, which is located between Kardia28 and

16 Hdt. VI 39; Hermann Bengtson, Griechische Staatsmänner des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., München:

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27

28

Beck, 1983, 25; Karl-Wilchem Welwei, Griechische Geschichte, 26. For the date of the escape of Miltiades the Younger from Chersones, see Jack M. Balcer, The Persian Conquest of the Greeks 545 – 450 BC. Konstanz 1995, 157; Karl-Wilchem Welwei, Griechische Geschichte, 31; Nikola Theodossiev, “An introduction to Studying Ancient Thrace”, 3 – 4. Hdt. VI 39; Louisa Loukopoulou, Contribution a l’histoire de la Thrace, 217. Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes, 58 – 82. Hdt. IV 85 – 89. Hdt. IV, 137 – 139. Hdt. VI 136 – 140. Hdt. VI, 5, 26; Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes, 224 – 225. Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes, 133 – 138; Nikola Theodossiev, “An introduction to Studying Ancient Thrace”, 4. Hdt. VI, 33; Louisa Loukopoulou, Contribution a l’histoire de la Thrace, 94. Hdt. VII, 22 and IX, 115; Thukydides VIII, 62; Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes, 140 – 141. For the expedition of Mardonios on Hellespontos and Thrace, see Michael Zahrnt, “Der Mardonioszug des Jahres 492 v. Chr. und seine historische Einordnung.” Chiron 22 (1992): 237 – 239; Jack M. Balcer, The Persian Conquest of the Greeks 545 – 450 BC, 203; Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire Perse de Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris, 1996, 168 – 169; Dilyana Boteva, “Re-reading Herodotus on the Persian Campaigns in Thrace.” In R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg, R. Bichler (eds.). Herodot und das persische Weltreich. Akten des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen. Innsbruck 24 – 28 November 2008. Wiesbaden 2011, 751 – 753; Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes, 142 – 161. Hdt. VII, 33 and 58; about the bridges on the Hellespont, see Nicholas G. L. Hammond, L. J. Roseman, “The Construction of the Xerxes’ Bridge over the Hellespont.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 116, 1996, 88 – 107; Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire Perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, 210 f. For Kardia, see Ulrich Kahrstedt, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thrakischen Chersones”, 6 f. 23, 25, 26 f.,31 f., 36, 37 f., 39f., 41 ff., 53 f., 56, 68; Benjamin Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden: Brill, 1986, 187 f.; Louisa Loukopoulou, Contribution a l’histoire de la Thrace, 62 – 72;

12

Mustafa H. Sayar

Paktye29, advanced to the shore of the Gulf of Melas, turned west and arrived to Ainos30. However, the unsuccessful result of this campaign caused the loss of control over Thracian Chersonesos. In 479 BC, the Athenian navy defeated the Persian navy at the offshore waters of the harbour of Mykale and Persians took refuge at Sestos31. However, they escaped from Sestos during the siege. The Persian satrap Artayktes32, who had plundered the sanctuary of Protesilaos, was caught in the territory of Aigospotamoi and he was killed by Xanthippos, the commander of the Athenians33. Oibazes34 who was responsible of Kardia, was caught by the Apsinthians and sacrificed to the god Pleistoros35. However, the Persian domination over Thracian Chersonesos continued for some time – until Kimon, the son of Miltiades, pushed them away on 460 BC36. Until the end of Peloponnesian war in 404 BC, the city-states of the Thracian Chersonesos continued to be members of Delian League. However, Athens was not able to protect the peninsula from the Thracians as Persians did. In 447 BC, Athens took over the Thracian Chersonesos37. Perikles settled 1000 Athenians in different parts of the peninsula, constructed a wall in the isthmus area and stopped the Thracian invasion38. An inscription regarding the activities of Perikles in the area and the men, who died during the assaults, was found in Athens39. In the middle of 5th c. BC, the tribute paid by the Thracian Chersonesos citystates decreased due to the Thracian invasions and also because they met the needs of Delian League’s navy. Thracian Chersonesos witnessed important battles at the end of Peloponnesian Wars of 411 – 404 BC. During the siege of Chalkedon in 409 BC, Alkibiades sailed to Chersonesos in order to support the troops with Thracian cavalry40. The satrap of Daskyleion thought that Athens would prevail as long as it holds the Bosphorus, which was the route of grain supply and, in order to prevent that, he suggested moving the battle to Bosphorus area. Thus, Spartans sent a navy under the command of Mindaros to Hellespont. The Athenians also sent their navy towards Hellespontos and the two navies met in the offshore waters of Kynossema, near Abydos. The Athenian navy was victorious and imposed a temporary control over Hellespontos and Propontis. However, Christoph Schäfer, Eumenes von Kardia und der Kampf um die Macht im Alexanderreich. Frankfurt am Main, 2002, 39 – 43. 29 Hdt. VI 38. 30 For the history of Ainos and for the results of the new excavations at the city, see Sait Başaran, Enez (Ainos). Enez, 2011. 31 Hdt. IX 114 – 121; Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire Perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, 552; Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes, 212 – 215. 32 Hdt. VII, 33, 78, 120 and IX 116; Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire Perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, 565. 33 Hdt. IX 120. 34 Hdt. IX 115. 35 Hdt. IX 118 – 119. 36 Plut. Cim. 14.1. 37 Christian Igelbrink, Die Kleruchien und Apoikien Athens, 230 – 234. 38 Plutarch, Perikles 19, 1; for the date of the expedition of Perikles to the Thracian Chersones, see The Athenian Tribute Lists III. Cambridge, 1939, 59 and 289; IG I2, 1162; Russell Meiggs, The Athenian Empire. Oxford, 1972, 159; Gustav Adolf Lehmann, Perikles: Staatsmann und Stratege im klassichen Athen: eine Biographie, München: Beck, 2008, 145; Michael Zahrnt, “Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE), 40. 39 IG I 260.10.6; The Athenian Tribute Lists I, 440 f.: The Athenian Tribute Lists III, 28. 40 Xen., Hellenika I, 3, 8 and 10; Bruno Bleckmann, Athens Weg in die Niederlage. Die letzten Jahre des Peloponnesischen Krieges. Stuttgart, Leipzig, 1998, 80, 134; Herbert Heftner, Alkibiades. Staatsmann und Feldherr. Darmstadt 2011, 158.

The Poleis and Harbours in Southeastern Thrace and Thracian Chersonesos

13

it was temporary because the Persians were supporting the Spartans. Sparta realized that the Hellespont was the weak point of Athens and appointed Lysandros to go there. Spartan navy reached Lampsakos, seized the city and gained the upper hand in the control of sea traffic. The Athenian navy pursued Lysandros, stationed at Aigospotami in front of Lampsakos, and tried to prevent Lysandros’ blockade. In 406/405 BC, Alkibiades was still in Chersonesos41. However, in 404 BC the Spartan navy defeated the Athenian navy with wise manoeuvres at Aigospotamoi42. The battle of Aigospotamoi put an end to the Athenian domination over the Thracian Chersonesos. Lysandros expelled the Athenians from the regions of Hellespontos and Propontis43. Before he left the Hellespont, he drove out from Sestos the local community, and replaced it with his victorious soldiers44. However, Sparta deemed this action unsuitable and sanctioned the return of the people of Sestos back to their city45. Since Sparta has not made any investments, Thracians advanced again to the region46. As a result, Klearchos of Sparta came to the peninsula to confront the Thracians47, and later Kyniskos was sent to the region by Sparta48. However, they could not prevent the abduction of people by Thracians and the plundering of the fields. Therefore, Sparta sent Derkylidas to the peninsula and constructed a wall in the narrowest part of the northern peninsula in five months49. In addition to the geostrategic importance of the Gelibolu Peninsula, the fertility of the land led to the continuous foundation of city-states in the region. Xenophon mentions that in the last quarter of 5th c. BC, there were eleven or twelve city-states in Gelibolu peninsula and refers to the fertility of the land50. After the defeat of the Spartan navy by the Persians in the waters of Carian Chersonesos in 394 B.C, their domination over Thracian Chersonesos and western Asia Minor was substantially weakened. Konon of Athens and the Persian satrap Pharnabazos who were victorious in this battle arrived immediately at the Hellespont. Derkylides came to Sestos from Abydos, summoned the people who received land by courtesy of Sparta and also gathered in Sestos the harmosts who were expelled from other Thracian city-states. Thus, Pharnabazos could not capture Sestos despite his great efforts and went back to his palace, leaving Konon in charge of surveillance of the Hellespont51. It is not known whether or not Konon fulfilled that duty, but the fact that the Athenian general Thrasyboulos was not prevented by the Spartan military force indicates that the Spartan troops of

41 Herbert Heftner, Alkibiades. Staatsmann und Feldherr, 178; Michael Zahrnt, “Early History of Thrace to the

Murder of Kotys I (360) BCE, 42.

42 Xen., Hellenika II, 1, 20 – 21; Bruno Bleckmann, Athens Weg in die Niederlage. Die letzten Jahre des Pelo-

ponnesischen Krieges, 115 – 128.

43 Xen., Hellenika II, 2, 1; Plut., Lysandros 13. 44 For Sestos, see Louisa Loukopoulou, Contribution a l’histoire de la Thrace, 63, 65, 73; Dietram Müller, Topo45 46 47 48 49 50 51

graphischer Bildkommentar, 927 – 932. Plut., Lysandros 14.2. Xen., Anabasis 2.6.2. Xen., Anabasis 2.6; 2.5. Xen., Anabasis 2.6; 2.5. Xen., Hellenika IV, 8.5. Xen., Hellenika III 2, 10; Xen., Anabasis, V 6, 25. Xen., Hellenika III 2, 10; Xen., Anabasis, V 6, 25.

14

Mustafa H. Sayar

Derkylides were out of the Hellespont by 393 BC52. The control of Thrasyboulos over the Hellespont preoccupied the Spartans and they sent Anaxibious to the region. He established himself in Abydos, started seizing the ships sailing the Hellespont, and plundered the lands of Pharnabazos. In consequence, Athens sent Iphikrates to the region. While Iphikrates and Anaxibios were attacking each other’s lands, Anaxibious was captured and killed along with 12 harmosts53. Thus, Athens regained its domination over Thracian Chersonesos in 393 BC. Therefore, Sparta sent Antalkidas to the Persian King in 388 BC. The parties agreed on a peace treaty that affected the entire Hellenic world and removed the Athenian navy commanded by Iphikrates from the Hellespontine region. Thus, they blockaded the sea route. Due to this course of events, Athens was obliged to sue for peace54. According to the peace treaty, the Hellenic city-states were declared autonomous. Thus, the cities in the Thracian Chersonesos also gained their freedom55. After that, the Odrysian King Seuthes seized the Thracian Chersonesos56. There is no detailed information about the length and the results of this siege. The Second Delian League, formed by Athens in 379/378 BC had only one Thracian Chersonesos city, Elaious as a member57. Ariobarzanes who revolted against the Persian King, occupied Sestos and Krithote in 367 BC for his aid. A few year later, the Athenian general Timotheos ensured the Athenian control over the Thracian Chersonesos. In 363 or 362 BC, the Odrysian King Kotys again attacked the Chersonesos58. Although the oration of Demosthenes refers to the Thracian Chersonesos as Athenian land, except for Kardia in 360 BC, another part of the same oration suggests that Athens only had the control of Krithote and Elaious after 360 BC59. In the meantime, the sudden death of King Kotys changed the balance on the peninsula. The heirs of Kotys reached a compromise on the subject of the Thracian Chersonesos and decided that all the city-states should be allied to both Athens and the Thracian kings and should pay tribute to both parties. However, Athens was not pleased with the outcome and continuously tried to find ways to end the agreement. In 353 BC, the Athenian general Chares was appointed to the Hellespont in order to capture Sestos. Chares seized the city after a short siege, slaughtered all the adult men and sold the rest into slavery60. In the meantime, the Thracian King Kersebleptes, overwhelmed by the pressure of King Philip II of Macedonia, was obliged to accept Thracian Chersonesos as Athenian

Xen., Hellenika 4. 8. 26. Xen., Hellenika 4. 8. 35 – 39; 5. 1. 25 – 29. Xen., Hellenika 5. 1. 25 – 29. Xen., Hellenika 5. 1. 31. Zosia Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford, 1998, 219. IG II2 438.27; Michael Zahrnt, “Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE)”, 44. Julia Tzvetkova, „The War over the Chersonese. Zur Chronologie und Periodisierung des athenisch-odrysischen Konfliktes um die Thrakische Chersones.” In Athena Iakovidou (ed.), Thrace in the GraecoRoman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology. Komotini-Alexandroupolis 18 – 23 October 2005, Athen 2007, 659; Michael Zahrnt, “Early History of Thrace to the Murder of Kotys I (360 BCE)”, 44. 59 Demosth. 23. 166; 23. 149 – 160. 60 Diod. 16. 34.3 – 4. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

The Poleis and Harbours in Southeastern Thrace and Thracian Chersonesos

15

territory, except for Kardia . After the capture of Sestos by Chares and Kersebleptes’ acceptance of their domination, Athens sent new immigrants (klerouchoi) to the region. After the capture of Thracian kingdoms by the king of Macedonia Philip II, Thracian Chersonesos and Macedonia became neighbours. However, Philip II was preparing a campaign against the Persian Empire and did not want to oppose Athenians. Therefore, he did not make any military interventions in the Thracian Chersonesos. In 346 BC, the Athenian domination over the Thracian Chersonesos, except for Kardia, was once again confirmed with the treaty of Philokrates62. Despite that, the emigration of the peninsula’s inhabitants suggests that the Kingdom of Macedonia started to be a threat for the Thracian Chersonesos63. Due to the changes in the population structure, Athens sent new immigrants to the region in 343 BC. The city-states, except for Kardia, welcomed the newcomers and assigned to them fields and houses. However, the Athenian Diopeithes, leader of the new immigrants, attacked Kardia and Kardians asked for help Philip II64. He sent a warning letter to Athenians. Since they ignored his warnings, he sent troops to Kardia in order to prevent the Athenian attacks and protect Kardians. Diopeithes razed the cities of Tristasis65 and Kobyle at the coast of Propontis. In the summer of 340 BC, Philip II set foot on Thracian Chersonesos with the excuse of protecting his navy while campaigning against Perinthos and Byzantion on the northern coast of Propontis. However, he did not attack the city-states and sent a letter to Athens, explaining the situation. After that, while sieging Byzantion, he sank Athenian ships with grain crossing the Bosphorus and caused Athens to declare war. Philip II returned empty-handed from Byzantion, entered again the Thracian Chersonesos and plundered the city-states66. He formed a Panhellenic alliance after defeating Athens and its allies in the Battle of Chaironeia in 338 BC. Most probably, the city-states of the Thracian Chersonesos became members of this alliance. Thus, the Athenian domination that continued with interruptions since the 6th c. BC came to an end. After the assassination of Philip II at his court in Pella, his son Alexander III, who inherited the throne, constructed a bridge between Sestos and Abydos to transfer his army from Europe to Asia in order to pursue his father’s project of conquering the Persian Empire. Meanwhile, he visited the grave of the hero Protesilaos, which is believed to be around Elaious, and built sanctuaries for Zeus, Athena, and Heracles near the harbour of Elaious where he embarked his ship, in order to provide a safe disembarkation. 61

Jörg Fündling, Philipp II. von Makedonien, Darmstadt, 2014, 66 and 68. Demosth. 19.78. Aisch. 2. 72; Demosth. 19.79. Peter Delev, “Thrace from the Assasination of Kotys I to Koroupedion (360 – 281 BCE).” In Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, Denver Grainger (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Chichester 2015, 50. 65 Tristasis or Teiristasis was the successor of Tyrodiza on the northern shore of Propontis, see The Athenian Tribute Lists I, 481; Pseudo Skylax, Periplus 67; Ulrich Kahrstedt, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thrakischen Chersones”, 21; Benjamin Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest., 201; Louisa Loukopoulou, Contribution à l’histoire de la Thrace, 57; Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire Perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, 169, 544; Dietram Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar, 969 – 970; Mustafa H. Sayar, Perinthos – Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, Griechische und Lateinische Inschriften. Veröffentlichungen der Kleinasiatischen Kommission 9. Vienna, 1998, 62, 88 – 89; Miroslav I. Vasilev, The policy of Darius and Xerxes, 163 – 165. 66 Demosth. 18.139. 61 62 63 64

16

Mustafa H. Sayar

After the death of Alexander the Great, one of the last Thracian kings, Seuthes III, revolted against the Diadoch that controlled the region, Lysimachos. The latter sought to end the continuous harassments of the Thracian Chersonesos’ city-states by Thracian king, founded the city of Lysimacheia, named after himself, around the settlement of Agora (today Bolayır67). He relocated the inhabitants of Paktye (present-day Maltepe) and Kardia (present-day Bakla Burnu) by means of synoecism in 309/308 BC68. Since Lysimacheia was located at the most strategic point of the peninsula, it was attacked many times while Lysimachos was still alive. The first great destruction of Lysimacheia took place due to the attack of Demetrios Poliorketes, son of Antigonos Monophtalmos, after the death of Antigonos in the Battle of Ipsos, Phrygia, in 301 BC, against Lysimachos and Seleukos. Demetrios arrived with his navy and plundered Lysimacheia and its surroundings69. In 286 BC, Lysimacheia and the other cities of the peninsula were greatly affected by a destructive earthquake70. In 281 BC, Lysimachos died in battle against Seleukos at Koroupedion in western Asia Minor71. In 280, Seleukos himself was assassinated near Lysimacheia by Ptolemaios Keraunos72. Two years after this event, in the 67 On the localization of Lysimacheia at Bolayır, see Habbo G. Lolling, “Hellenische Landeskunde und Topogra-

68

69 70 71 72

phie.” In Iwan von Müller (ed.) Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft III, Nördlingen, 1889, 99; G. P. Oikonomides, Epigraphai tes Makedonias, Athen (Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Hetaireias 17), 1915, 2; The Athenian Tribute Lists I, 565; Ulrich Kahrstedt, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thrakischen Chersones”, 42; Johannes Krauss, Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones (IvSestos). Bonn, 1980, 91; Mustafa H. Sayar, “Zur Lage von Lysimacheia: eine hellenistische Hauptstadt auf der thrakischen Chersones.”, 514 – 517. For the foundation of Lysimacheia by Lysimachos, see Marmor Parium (FGrH 239) B 19 [= 120]; Diod. 20, 29, 1; Euseb. Chron. 117. Olymp. (ed. I. K. Fotheringham 208, 26); Paus. 1, 9, 8; Str. 7, fr. 21 and 53; Walther Hünerwadel, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Königs Lysimachos von Thrakien. Diss. Zürich, 1900, 37; J. Weiss, “Lysimacheia”, RE XXVVI (1927): 2552–2556; Victor Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Städtegründungen von Alexander dem Großen bis auf die Römerzeit. Leipzig, 1927, 156, 162, 164; 195; Ulrich Kahrstedt, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Thrakischen Chersones, 39f.; Giovanna Saitta, “Lisimaco di Tracia.” Kokalos 1 (1955): 72f.; Daphne Hereward, “The Site of Lysimacheia.” Archaeology (New York) 11 (1958): 129; Frank W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybios, II, Oxford, 1967, 478; Edouard Will, “The Formation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms”, The Cambridge Ancient History VII, 1. The Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 19842, 110; Nicholas G. L. Hammond, The Macedonian State, The Origins Institutions and History. Oxford, 1989, 288, 294; Kai Brodersen, “Zur Lage von Lysimacheia.” In H. Kalyck et al. (eds.) Studien zur Alten Geschichte. Siegfried Lauffer zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. August 1991 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, I, Rom, 1986, 69, Anm. 2; Helen S. Lund, Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship. London, 1992, 174; Wolfgang Orth, Die Diadochenzeit im Spiegel der historischen Geographie. Wiesbaden, 1993, 17; Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands and Asia Minor, Berkeley – Los Angeles, 1995, 82–84; Dietram Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar, 766–770; John D. Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Leiden – New York – Cologne, 1997, 747; Iris von Bredow, “Lysimacheia I”, Der Neue Pauly,  7, 1999, 603; Петър Делев, Лизимах. София, 2004, 170; Peter Delev “Thrace from the Assasination of Kotys I to Koroupedion (360 – 281 BCE).”, 55; Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес (от Троянската война до времето на римското завоевание). Велико Търново, 2008, 10; Andreas Külzer, Ostthrakien (Eurōpē) (= Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Band. 12 = Denkschriften. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Bd. 369), Wien, 2008, 499, s. v. Lysimacheia. Plut., Demetrios 31. Just. 17. 1. 1 – 3. Paus. 1. 9. 5 – 10. App., Syr. 62; Memnon FGrH 434 F 8. 3; Str., 13. 4. 1; Pausanias 1, 16, 2, 10. 19. 7; Peter Delev, “From Koroupedion to the Beginning of the Third Mithridatic War (281 – 73 BCE).” In Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, Denver Grainger (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Chichester 2015, 59.

The Poleis and Harbours in Southeastern Thrace and Thracian Chersonesos

17

winter of 278/277 BC, the Celts that invaded Macedonia and Hellas sacked Lysimacheia. Due to the disagreements between the Celtic leaders, Leonnorios went to Byzantion. As for Luterios, he allied with the Macedonian governor of the Hellespont and crossed to Asia with ships73. In the summer of 277 BC, another Celtic tribe was preparing to invade Thracian Chersonesos, but Antigonos Gonatas defeated them in a battle near Lysimacheia74. The influence of Seleucid Kingdom decreased after the Third Syrian War and the Thracian Chersonesos went under the hegemony of Ptolemaic Kingdom, beginning with Ptolemy III Euergetes. The inscription, erected in 208 BC in the Samothracian sanctuary at Sestos for Ptolemy Philopator and his sister and wife Arsinoe, is a very important proof of the Ptolemaic presence in the region75. Another inscription, found in the territory of Alopekonessos and documenting the consecration of a sanctuary to the Egyptian gods of Sarapis, Isis, Anubis, and Harpokrates also provides epigraphic evidence about the Egyptian influence in the region76. During the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator, the central authority weakened, especially in the lands overseas. Thus, the cities of the Thracian Chersonesos were able to become autonomous. In this period, Lysimacheia was a member of Aetolian League77. In 201 BC, Lysimacheia was forced by the king of Macedonia Philip V to quit the Aetolian League and was consequently dependent on him78. In 200 BC, Philip V campaigned against Kallipolis, Madytos, Alopekonnesos, Elaious, and Sestos79. After his defeat in the Battle of Kynoskephalai against Rome 197 BC., Philip had to give up his power over the Thracian Chersonesos80. After the end of Macedonian domination, the Thracian tribes once again invaded the peninsula and plundered Lysimacheia81. After Philip V gave up his rights over Thrace and the Bosphorus, the Seleukid King Antiochos III invaded Thracian Chersonesos and justified his campaign with the fact that Seleukos defeated Lysimachos82. When Antiochos III arrived in the Thracian Chersonesos, some city-states such as Madytos and Sestos recognized his sovereignty. He rebuilt Lysimacheia as a residence for his son Seleukos83. In 195 BC, Antiochos III signed alliances with Perinthos and Byzantion. In 192 – 191 BC, he attacked the Aetolia and started a war with Rome. After he was defeated at Thermopylai, Antiochos III had to retreat from Thrace and Chersonesos and came to Asia Minor. In 190 B.C., he retreated 73 Liv. 38. 16. 6. 74 Pomp. Trog., Pol. 25; Justin, Epitom. 25. 1 – 2; Diog. Laer. 2. 141 – 2; William S. Greenwalt, “Macedonia,

75 76 77 78

79 80 81 82 83

Illyria and Epirus.” In Joseph Roisman, Ian Worthington (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden  – Oxford 2010, 299; Peter Delev, “From Koroupedion to the Beginning of the Third Mithridatic War (281 – 73 BCE).” 60. Habbo G. Lolling, “Altar aus Sestos.” Athenische Mitteilungen 6 (1881): 209 – 212. Mustafa H. Sayar, “Ein Heiligtum für Ägyptische Gottheiten auf dem thrakischen Chersones.”, (forthcoming). Polyb. 15. 23. 7 – 9; 18. 3. 11; Liv. 32. 33. 15. Polyb. 15. 23. 8 – 9: On the marble shield with the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥ]Σ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ found in Lysimacheia; see L. Robert, “Inscriptions des Dardanelles. I. Monument de Lysimacheia.” Hellenica 10 (1955): 267, pl. XXXV. Liv. 31. 16.5; 32.33; Polyb. 16.29; 17, 2; 18. 2.4. Polyb. 18.44; Livius 33. 30. Polyb. 18. 34; App., Syr. 1; Liv. 33. 38. Polyb. 18. 51; Liv. 33. 41; Appian, Syr. 1, 3; Peter Delev, “From Koroupedion to the Beginning of the Third Mithridatic War (281 – 73 BCE).”, 65. Liv. 33. 40. 6; Liv. 33. 38. 8 – 41.4; Polyb. 18. 49. 2 – 52.5; Diod. 28. 12.1; App., Syr. 1b – 4a, 38b, Oros. 4. 20. 12; Zon. 9. 18 f – g.

18

Mustafa H. Sayar

to the south of Taurus Mountains, after a defeat by Rome and its allies Pergamon and Rhodes at Magnesia ad Sipylum. In 188 BC, the Treaty of Apamea left to the Seleucid Kingdom the eastern parts of Cilicia Tracheia and Cilicia Pedias, and forbade the passage of Seleukid navy to the west of Sarpedon. Thus, the Seleukid Kingdom’s relation to Thracian Chersonesos was ended. The Thracian Chersonesos was given to one of the allies of Rome – Eumenes II, king of Pergamon84. The most important event of this period was the plunder of Lysimacheia in 144 BC by the Thracian king Diegylis85. After this heavy destruction, Lysimacheia was not reconstructed. The plunder of Diegylis put an end to an important Hellenistic capital. Then, Diegylis was expelled from the peninsula by Attalos II86. In 133 BC, Attalos III bequeathed the territories of Pergamon to Rome, and afterwards the Thracian Chersonesos was considered ager publicus. However, one of the speeches of Cicero indicates that the Thracian Chersonesos was included to the province of Macedonia in 148 BC87. In 88 BC, the Pontic King Mithridates invaded the Thracian Chersonesos88. It is known that Brutus and Cassius who assassinated Julius Caesar at the end of the Republican Period, made a count of soldiers around Lysimacheia89. In the beginning of the Principate, the Thracian Chersonesos belonged to the close friend of Augustus, Marcus Agrippa90. After his death in 12 BC, Augustus assigned a financial procurator to govern these vast lands91. In 11 BC, a Thracian priest became king of the Thracian tribe of the Bessi and plundered the Thracian Chersonesos. Augustus appointed the governor of Pamphylia, Lucius Piso, to prevent this turmoil and he accomplished this mission with great success92. An important event of the Early Imperial Period in the Thracian Chersonesos was the foundation of Coela between Sestos and Madytos. In the 2nd c. AD, during the reign of Hadrian, Coela was raised to the statue of municipium and emphasized its new status on its proudly issued coins. When Thrace was turned into a Roman province by Emperor Claudius in 46 AD, the Thracian Chersonesos was most probably still managed by a procurator.

84 It is understood from the inscriptions found in Bisanthe that the northern coast of Propontis also belonged to

85 86

87 88 89 90

91 92

Pergamon. Mustafa H. Sayar, “Pergamon und Thrakien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Thrakiens in der hellenistischen Zeit anhand von Ehreninschriften aus Bisanthe für Eumenes II, Attalos II und Stratonike.“ In Peter Scherrer, Hans Täuber, Hilke Thür (eds.) Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag. Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften Band 32. Wien, 1999, 245–251; Peter Delev, “From Koroupedion to the Beginning of the Third Mithridatic War (281 – 73 BCE).”, 66. Diodoros 33. 14 For Elaious honouring Attalos for defeating Diegylis, see Gilbert Norwood, “A Greek inscription from Gallipoli.” The classical Quarterly, 11. 1 (1917): 1 – 2; Peter Delev, “From Koroupedion to the Beginning of the Third Mithridatic War (281 – 73 BCE).”, 68. Cic., In Pisonem 86. App., Mithr. 13. Appian, Bel. Civ. 4. 11. 82, 87 – 88. Ivaylo Lozanov, “Roman Thrace.” In Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, Denver Grainger (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Thrace. Chichester, 2015, 81; Mustafa H. Sayar, Thracian Chersonesos under Roman Rule, (forthcoming). Cass. Dio 54. 29. Cass. Dio 54. 34. 5 – 7.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

THE TOPONYMS IN THE INSCRIPTIONS FROM ROGOZEN AND THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHEASTERN THRACE IN THE CLASSICAL AND THE HELLENISTIC PERIODS Totko Stoyanov

A

mong the wealth of new evidence about the Thracian culture in its heyday in the Classical and the Early Hellenistic periods, the Rogozen Hoard added also a group of inscriptions on some of the vases (mainly phialai) that “communicate” the offering as gifts (as a kind of tribute) of these vases for feasting to the Odrysian rulers Kotys and Kersebleptes – by settlements (?) with names Beos, Argiske/Ergiske, Geisto(a)i, Apros, and Sauthaba. Prior to the discovery of the hoard, such inscription with the name of Kotys were known from the rich graves in Mogilanskata Tumulus (3 phialai from Beos),1 from Alexandrovo near Pleven (one phiale from Geistoi),2 from Agighol (one phiale from Beos),3 and from Borovo Hoard (two rhyta and a jug-rhyton from Beos).4 Together with two new “chance” finds from the region of Pleven – two phialai, one for Kotys from Geistoi5 and another for Kotys from Beos6 – the total of these inscriptions reached 22. The table below provides the main data about the vessels. Table: The new names in the inscriptions from Rogozen are Apros and Sauthaba. №

Possession of:

Donor:

Vase / Shape

1

Kotys

Geistoi

phiale

2

Kotys

Beos

phiale

Find Spot Аlexandrovo, Pleven district Аgighiol

Context / comments rich grave rich grave

1 Иван Венедиков, Съкровището от Враца. София, 1975, 9–11, № 1–2, ил. 1–3; Нарцис Торбов, Могиланската могила във Враца. Враца, 2005, 74, обр. на с. 75, 101, кат. № 64–66, табл. Х/1, ХХІІ/1. 2 Bogdan Filow, Die Grabhügelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Südbulgarien. Sofia, 1934, 18–181, 185, Abb. 202, 208. 3 Dumitru Berciu, „Das thrako-getische Fürstengrab von Agighiol in Rumänien.” Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommision 50 (1969) 1971: 222–223, Abb. 5, Taf. 117.1, 118.3. 4 Dimitar Ivanov, “Le trésor de Borovo.” In Actes du IIe Congrès International de Thracologie, Bucarest 1976. Bucuresti, 1980, vol. I, 396, fig. 5, 8–9. 5 Спас Машов, „Надписите върху съдовете от Рогозенското съкровище.“ Изкуство 6 (1986): 41, бел. 1; Georgi Mihailov, “The inscriptions.” In Alexander Fol (ed.), The Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, 1989, 47, No 18. 6 L’or des Thraces. Trésors de Bulgarie. Palais des Beaux –Arts, Bruxelles. Europalia Bulgaria 2002, 146, Cat. No 214.

20

Totko Stoyanov

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys

Beos Beos Beos Beos Beos Beos Geistoi Beos

phiale phiale phiale rhyton / protome of a horse rhyton / protome of a sphinx jug-rhyton phiale phiale

Vratsa Vratsa Vratsa Borovo Borovo Borovo unknown Rogozen

11

Kotys

Beos

phiale

Rogozen

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys Kotys

Beos Apros Аpros Argiske Argiske Ergiske Geistoi Geistoi Sauthaba

phiale phiale phiale phiale phiale phiale phiale phiale phiale

Rogozen Rogozen Rogozen Rogozen Rogozen Rogozen Rogozen Rogozen Rogozen

21

Kotys

Beos

phiale

Аsparouhovo, Pleven district

22

Kersebleptes

Еrgiske

phiale

Rogozen

rich grave rich grave rich grave hoard (?) hoard (?) hoard (?) private collection hoard, № 28 hoard, № 29 Disloias made it hoard, № 40 hoard, № 30 hoard, № 31 hoard, № 42 hoard, № 46 hoard, № 43 hoard, № 45 hoard, № 47 hoard, № 41 Nat. Hist. Museum Sofia, № 39513, unknown context hoard, № 44

The inscription on phiale No. 29 – which also was the first one to explicitly name the craftsman that made the vase: ΚΟΤΥΟΣ ΕΓ ΒΕΟ ΔΙΣΛΟΙΑΣ ΕΠΟΙΗΣΕ (“To Kotys from Beos, Disloias made it”) – prompted the interpretation that the names that were mentioned are toponyms (settlements, residences), and not personal names of craftsmen (read comprising the preposition: EtBeo, EnGeiston, etc.). The inscriptions on the two phialai from Rogozen that mention the name Apros (in the form “from Apros”) once and for all tipped the scales in favour of the interpretation that this is a toponym (respectively toponyms),7 and not a craftsman (who made the vase for Kotys or offered it as a gift), as it was presumed about the previously known inscriptions.8 Apros was unanimously identified as the Thracian settlement, where the first Roman colony in the province of Thrace was founded – Apri (Colonia Claudia Aprensis), localized on the route of the later Via Egnatia, to the west of Bizanthe, known from the sources in the context of events from the 4th c. BC onwards9 at Kestrice near present-day

7 Маргарита Тачева, „Проблеми и становища по историческата интерпретация на Рогозенското съкро-

вище.“ Исторически преглед 12 (1986).

8 Иван Венедиков, „Надписите върху тракийските фиали.“ Археология 14.2 (1972): 5; Венедиков, Съкро-

вището от Враца, 9–11, № 1–2, ил. 1–3. In the initial publication I. Venedikov (Иван Венедиков, „Новооткрито тракийско могилно погребение във Враца.“ Археология 8.1 (1966): 12) writes: „On three of the phialai, there are inscriptions ΚΟΤΥΟΣ ΕΤΒΕΟΥ ...”, but in the publication from 1975 ( Иван Венедиков, Съкровището от Враца, 10), he writes: „While there are no inscriptions on the third and the fourth phialai, the same text is engraved on the first and the second that are identical...” 9 Dimiter Detschew, Die Thrakishen S‚prachreste. Wien, 1957, 20; Georgi Mihailov, „The inscriptions“, 67.

21

The Toponyms in the Inscriptions from Rogozen...

Inecik, according to some authors, or at the village of Germeyan or between the villages Develivenice и Yürük (several kilometrs to the west of Kermeyan), according to others12 (see the map here). In the sources, the name of Apros is related to the campaign of Antipater against the rebellious strategos of Thrace, Memnon.13 This made the scholars search for the location of the settlements (residences?), named in the inscriptions, in Southeastern Thrace – based on the fact that in the time of Kotys the political centre and the ambitions of the Odrysian ruler and his heir Kersebleptes were focused on the hinterland of Chersonesos and the Propontis. In the meantime, unknown so far bronze coins of Apros were published, dated to the second half of the 3rd c. BC. 14 The legend ΑΠΡΗΝΩΝ confirms the urban character of the settlement in the Hellenistic Period. According to M. Tacheva: 10

11

It is beyond doubt that the great Thracian king Kotys I (384/3—360/359) was the owner of all these vessels from the above-listed sites. The Rogozen collection reveals that the vessels were made for the king in the settlements that he controlled – Apros, Ergiske, Beos, Geistai, and Sauthaba, located in Southeastern Thrace. Three inscriptions, also engraved with a punch, differ in their content; they are on the rims of various vases and I have related them to the manufacturers Kotys, slave of Apollo, Didykaimos, and Satokos. Unlike Disloias, however, they were not related to the communities, on which behalf were offered the vases from the first group. Equally important are the observations that the juglet of the slave (?) Kotys is not only the heaviest vase in the hoard, but is also from a later date. Besides, it is cast, which fact suggests a mass production. Therefore, if Disloias – by mentioning his name as a manufacturer – wanted to distinguish himself from the other metalworkers in Beos that manufactured half of the known vases for Kotys, and if Kotys, presumably a slave of the king, actually made, like Disloias, vases on his own behalf, then there are grounds to assume the existence of monetary relations in some Thracian communities. Differentiation of the grown rich toreuts leaves no doubt about the appearance of a new stratum in the Thracian society – that of craftsmen related to the developing of commodity exchange.

10 Dimiter Detschew, Die Thrakishen Sprachreste, 20; Александър Фол „Опит за локализация на селищата

11

12

13 14

от Рогозенските надписи.“ Археология 28.3 (1987): 1; Alexander Fol, “Odrysische Siedlungsorte unter Kotys I und Kersebleptes.” Thracia, 13 (Studia in memoriam Velizari Velkov) 2000: 92; John Hind, „The Inscriptions on the Silver Phialai and Jug from Rogozen.” In Brian F. Cook (ed.) The Rogozen Treasure: Papers of the Anglo-Bulgarian Conference, 12 March 1987, London, British Museum Publications for the Trustees of the British Museum. London, 1989, 40, fig. 4: “to the north of “Sacred Mauntain”(Hieron Oros Louisa Loukopoulou, Adam Laitar, “Propontic Thrace.” In Mogens H. Hansen, Thomas. H. Nielsen (eds.) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford, 2004, 913; Kermian at Dimitar Draganov, “Coins of the Unknown Mint of Apros in Thrace.” In XIII Congresso International de Numsimática, Madrid, 15.–19.9.2003. Madrid, 2005, 339 with bibliography in note 3. Andreas Külzer, „Die thrakische Propontisküste. Beobactungen zum Siedlungsbild in byzantinischer Zeit.“ Kölner Jahrbuch, 43 (2010): Abb. 1 /Ausschnitt aus TIB 12, Anhang: Ostthrakien, thematische Karte 1:800.000/; cf.  the map here. Probably in 331 г. – cf. Dimiter Detschew, Die Thrakishen Sprachreste, 20; Йорданка Юрукова, Монетите на тракийските племена и владетели. София, 1992, 81. Dimitar Draganov, “Coins of the Unknown Mint of Apros” , 339–343; cf. Димитър Драганов, „Неизвестни монети на град Апрос в Тракия.“ Нумизматика и Сфрагистика, 8:1–2 (2001): 14–21.

22

Totko Stoyanov The remaining inscriptions are almost exclusively graffiti (below the rims or on the bottoms from the outside) – names, individual letters and signs that were engraved after the manufacturing of the vessels. In my opinion, the names should be related to transfers of the ownership of the vases, and the letters and signs served to denote quantity (number or weight). The latter were placed in a manner not to be seen when the vessel was used. This most probably happened when the vessels were delivered to the royal treasury as a tax on the produce of communities or individuals. They served as a tax register and the king’s envoy used them to mark the quantity of the collected tax.15

The above-quoted opinion of M. Tacheva was part of the discussion on Rogozen Hoard that “erupted” in the first years after its discovery. I. Marazov had other ideas regarding the manufacture of the inscribed and non-inscribed vases from Rogozen, the socalled “Odrysian share”, and the ones that were known before that. According to him, the inscribed and non-inscribed vessels with similar characteristics were manufactured in the Odrysian royal workshop that was related to the treasury. The differences between the phialai and the jugs resulted from the work of different craftsmen. He does not accept the notion of a free status of these craftsmen (as well as he rejects the idea that Disloias was an artisan!?!). The high quality of some of the inscribed vases (e.g. the ones from Borovo) reveals that not all of them were made by artists working in the royal atelier. They were imported and kept in the royal treasury until it became necessary to use them in a ritual situation. Marazov suggests a complex mechanism, according to which, the phiale intended for a gift was submited to the respective town from the royal treasury and was inscribed as given by the name of that settlement. In this sense, the bowl was in fact property of Kotys, and in the same time it symbolizes the affiliation of the town that only inscribed its name on the vase, before its supplement to the royal property.16 What could be the logic of inscribing names of settlements on vases that already belonged to the king, and giving them on his behalf to political partners? It seems to me that M. Tacheva’s opinion is more logical. However, it is unlikely that all vases were made by (Thracian) craftsmen in these settlements. The discrepancy between the highquality workmanship of the vessels (especially the rhyta and the jug from Borovo) and the botched inscriptions, as they are in this case, as well as the vigorous punching of the dots that deformed the wall of the vase – and sometimes pierced it, as in the case of the horse-protome rhyton from Borovo17 – could hardly support Marazov’s hypothesis. A recapitulation would reveal that Kotys offered to his political partners18 in Northern Thrace, as follows: 11 vases from Beos19 – eight phialai, two rhyta and one jug-rhy15 Марагарита Тачева, „Археологически данни за датиране на Рогозенското съкровище. Проблеми и ста-

новища.“ Археология 28:4 (1987): 2–3.

16 Ivan Marazov, The Rogozen Treasure. Sofia, 1996, 20–23. 17 Cf. Тотко Стоянов, „Съкровището от Борово в археологически и исторически контекст.“ Seminarium

Thracicum 3. Първи академични четения в памет на акад. Г. Кацаров (1998): 79–80.

18 It is possible that the two phialai from Tomb II in Mogilanskata Tumulus were not gifts from Kotys, but part

of the Triballian loot after their clash with Philip II on his way back to Macedonia in 339 BC – cf. Маргарита Тачева, „Проблеми и становища“, 27–28, 30; Нарцис Торбов, Могиланската могила, 75–76. 19 Because of the graffito ΚΑΙΝΟ on the base of Phialе No. 40, Al. Fol (Александър Фол, „Опит за локализация“, 2; Alexander Fol, “Odrysische Siedlungsorte”, 93–94) suggested that in this case the name of the settlement could also be Beos, but in the lands of the Caeni.

The Toponyms in the Inscriptions from Rogozen...

23

ton (Aleksandrovo – one phiale; Agighol – one phiale; Vratsa – two phialai; Borovo – two rhyta, one jug-rhyton; Rogozen – two phialai; Asparuhovo near Pleven – one phiale); three phialai from A(E)rgiske (Rogozen); four phialai from Geistoi (one from Alexandrovo, one from the region of Pleven?, and two from Rogozen); two phialai from Apros (Rogozen); and one phiale from Sauthaba (Rogozen). One phiale (from Rogozen) was involved in a political gift exchange by Kersebleptes. Is it accidental that we have such an outstanding number and variety of vases, somehow related to Beos? Unfortunately, due to the absence of sufficient specific, especially archaeological evidence about these settlements, at present two important groups of questions in the context of the debate remain unanswered: 1. the geographical and historical identification of the toponyms in the inscriptions; and 2. whether in these settlements (residences) there were workshops (and craftsmen like Disloias) that manufactured for the Odrysian king (mostly for Kotys) the inscribed, and according to many scholars, the majority of the non-inscribed vases from Rogozen, Borovo, Vratsa, and other sites. There are different, and in some cases widely differing ideas about the localizations of Beos, Ergiske/Argiske, Geistoi, and Sauthaba. The evidence from the written sources about the settlements or possible residences in the time of Philip II’s invasion in Thrace – Onokarsis, Drongilon, Kabyle, Masteira, etc. – was also implicated in the discussions on the identification of these Odrysian settlement/urban centres. I will discuss the suggested localizations of these settlements in the order they were listed above (Apros was already commented upon) (see the Map).

Beos

Many authors consider the toponym to be a settlement in the hinterland of Perinthos, where the road station Beodizos was located in the Roman and Late Antique times.20 Others accept the localization at Beodiza, between Apri and Bisanthe.21 Unfortunately, we do not have any additional evidence about the two localizations, in order to relate them to the best-known centre in the Rogozen inscriptions.

Ergiske/Argiske

Ergiske is known from the speeches of Aischines (ІІІ. 82) and Demosthenes (ХVІІІ. 27), in connection with the campaigns of Philip in Southeastern Thrace in the time of Kersebleptes between 346 and 341 BC.22 Demosthenes calls it a horion, which provides grounds for some scholars to consider it a fortified royal residence.23 On the grounds of 20 Cf. Александър Фол, „Опит за локализация“, 1; Калин Порожанов. Одриското царство, полисите по

неговото крайбрежие и Атина от края на VI в. до 341 г. пр. Хр. Благоевград, 2011, 84 and the map.

21 John Hind, “The Inscriptions”, 40, fig. 4; Zosia Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus

Unmasked. Oxford, 1998, fig. 4. 4; Louisa Loukopoulou, Adam Łajtar, “Propontic Thrace”, 913.

22 Cf. Dimiter Detschew, Die Thrakishen Sprachreste,170; Александър Фол, „Опит за локализация“, 2;

Кирил Йорданов, Политическите отношения между Македония и тракийските държави (359–281 г. пр. Хр.). София, 1998, 52–53, 57. 23 Александър Фол, „Опит за локализация“, 2; Кирил Йорданов, Политическите отношения, 52–53, 57; Калин Порожанов, Одриското царство, 84.

24

Totko Stoyanov

the name’s similarity to the river Erginos, the large left tributary of Hebros, many scholars propose a localization of the toponym along the upper course or near the sources of the river, on the southern slopes of Strandzha mountain.24 Others think that the mention of Ergiske by Aischines and Demosthenes along with Ganos and Serreion Teichos that are on the coast of Hieron Oros allows localization also in this area.25 On another occasion, I already had the opportunity to present the hypothesis about the localization of Ergiske in the area of the present-day town of Kirklareli.26 In favour of that idea speak the five monumental tombs and complexes that were discovered at Kirklareli (Lozengrad) and the nearby villages of Eriklice (Raklitsa) and Karakoç, as well as the rich warrior’s grave at the village of Yündolan (in Tumulus C from a large necropolis at about 5 km to the northwest of the village) that unequivocally indicate the existence of an important political and economic centre at Kirklareli or in its surroundings.27 The intact domed tomb at Eriklice dates from about the middle of the 4th c. BC, while some the finds are earlier.28 The architecture and the artifacts from the domed tomb at Karakoç indicate a construction date in the second half of the 4th c. BC and use until the early decades of the 3rd c. BC.29 The domed tomb in Tumulus B at Kirklareli could be dated to the last decades of the 4th c. BC.30 The two barrel-vaulted tombs in tumuli A and C at Kirklareli31 could be dated at earliest in the last quarter of the 4th c. BC. Having in mind the similarities between the layout and the construction of the tomb in Tumulus A and some of the tombs in the necropoleis of Odessos and Kallatis,32 and the more complex ground-plan of the tomb in Tumulus C, indicating more than one construction phase, a date in the first quarter or the first half of the 3rd c. BC seems more probable. It is not without importance 24 Cf. Александър Фол, „Опит за локализация“, 2; Georgi Mihailov, „The inscriptions“, 67; John Hind,

25 26

27 28

29

30

31 32

„The Inscriptions ”, 40, fig. 4; Zosia Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom, 224–225, fig. 4. 4; Кирил Йорданов, Политическите отношения, 52–53, 57; Antigoni Zurnatzi, „Inscribed Silver Vessels of the Odrysian Kings: Gifts, Tribute, and the Diffusion of the Forms of “Achaemenid” Metalware in Thrace.” American Journal of Archaeology, 104 (2000): 689, fig. 8. Калин Порожанов, Одриското царство, 84–85, map on the inside of the cover. Totko Stoyanov, “Late Classical and Early Hellenistic pottery imitations of metal tableware from Thrace.” In Athena Iakovidou (ed.) Thrace in the Greco-Roman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology. Komotini-Alexandroupolis 18–23 October 2005. Athens, 2007, 562, n. 8. Cf. Тотко Стоянов, „Бизия като център на тракийската култура.” In II Интердисициплинарен научен симпозиум Странджа – Сакар 1980 г. София, 1984, 41. Cf. the references and the discussion in Nikola Theodossiev, “The Thracian Tholos Tomb at Eriklice Reconsidered.” In Валери Йотов, Игор Лазаренко (ред.) Terra Antiua Balcanica et Mediterranea. Miscelanea in Honour of Alexander Minchev (Acta Musei Varnaensis VIII–1). Варна 2011, 67–84; Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace – Questions of the Chronology and the Cultural Context.” In Olivier Henry, Ute Kelp (eds.), Tumulus as Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC. Berlin, 2016, vol. I, No 4, Pl. IІІ. 2. Cf. Nezit Firatli, “Short Report on Finds and Archaeological Activities Outside the Museum.” IstArkMüzYill 121:12 (1964): 211–212, Pl. 42. 1–5; Totko Stoyanov “Late Classical and Early Hellenistic pottery imitations of metal tableware from Thrace”, 562, n. 8; Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace”, No 4, Pl. IV. 1. Cf. Arif M. Mansel, Trakya – Kirklareli Kubbeli mezarlari ve sahte kubbe ve kemer problemi. (Kuppelgräber von Kirklareli in Thrakien). Ankara, 1943, 38–39, 51, Abb. 1–4; Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace”, No 4, Pl. VІІ. 2. Arif M. Mansel, Trakya, 51–52, Abb. 32–36. Cf. Даниела Стоянова, „Гробници с полуцилиндричен свод в Североизточна Тракия.“ In Светът на гетите, Известия на Регионален Исторически музей Русе, ХІІ (2008): 116–123, фиг. 2, 20, 22

The Toponyms in the Inscriptions from Rogozen...

25

that to the east (at about 15–20 km), on the slopes of Strandzha, at the villages of Akviran and Evçiler, there are two more tombs, respectively one that resembles the one at Karakoç and another one with corbelled dome.33 The rich tumular grave at Yündolan dates from about the middle of the 4th c. BC.34 This picture, and especially the appearance of barrel-vaulted tombs, supports the opinion that the lands that Philip conquered in Southeastern Thrace were given to noblemen in the king’s suite.35 A. M. Mansel points out that to the southeast of Kirklareli, in the area of tumuli A–C, where the above-mentioned tombs were discovered, in the locality Aşaği Pınar, villagers discovered during agricultural work ancient coins, remains of graves and buildings, and items of bone, stone, gold, silver, bronze, and iron.36 Field surveys in the 1980s and the 1990s discovered a Neolithic settlement mound. During excavations there, from 1993 onwards, Early and Late Iron Age ritual pits were investigated in the topmost layers, as well as the remains of a tumulus with crepis (diameter about 33 m), and parts of Hellenistic tumular necropolis in its vicinity. Some of the pits contained large quantities of Chian amphorae, fragments of black-figure and black-glaze vases, and local wheel-made pottery. Some of the complexes contain materials from the 4th–3rd c. BC.37 This evidence raises questions about the early emergence of a settlement or agglomeration in the area of Kirklareli, about its economic relations with the Aegean already in the 6th c. BC, and about probable continuity until Late Hellenistic and Roman times. In the absence of epigraphic or other written evidence supporting this hypothesis, not only Ergiske, but any other important centre in Southeastern Thrace, known or unknown from the sources, could be localized here. One of the candidates could be Drongilon. The logic of the listing, in Aischines and Demosthenes, of the fortified settlements (choria) taken by Philip during his campaigns in the 350s and 340s BC, indicates conquering of subsequent “portions” of Southeastern Thrace, from west to east – from Mesta to Maritsa, then to Propontis, and finally (in 342/341 BC) from this area to the north, following Maritsa and Tundzha.38 Then, Drongilon, Kabyle, and Masteira were conquered and reorganized as outposts of the Macedonian control.39 33 Nezit Firatli, “Short Report”, 212. 34 Inci Delemen, Sedef Çokay-Kepçe, Zülküf Yilmaz, „A “warioor” burial of the mid-fourth century BC in

35 36 37

38

39

Southeastern Thrace: Tumulus C at Yündolan near Kirklarel.“ Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 13 (2010): 91–106. Кирил Йорданов, Политическите отношения, 57. Arif M. Mansel, Trakya, 37. Nemci Karul, Zeynep Eres, Memet Özdoğan, Hermann Parzinger, Aşağı Pınar I. Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Statigraphie und Architektur. (Studien im Thrakien-Marmara-Raum Band 1, Archäologie in Eurasien 15), Mainz, 2003, 182–183, Аbb. 2, Taf. 3. 1–2; 32–33. The idea that in 341 BC the direction of Philip’s campaign was via Pulpudeva that he renamed Philippopolis, then to Kabyle and from there to the maritime residences of Kersebleptes (Калин Порожанов, Одриското царство, 118–119) is in my opinion poorly grounded. Venturing in the Thracian heartland, before he held in firm control Propontic Thrace, would have exposed him to serious risks. The idea that in 335 BC Alexander entered Thrace through the Rhodopes and then went via the region of Philippopolis along Stryama to the central parts of Haimos, which is proposed in the literature (Христо Попов, „Отново за тракийския поход на Александър III Македонски през 335 г. пр. н. е.“ In Стипендианти на фондация „Отворено общество 1995”, София 1996, 7–36, with references and discussion), is better grounded, as before him his father already established his control on Southeastern Thrace. Кирил Йорданов, Политическите отношения, 55–57.

26

Totko Stoyanov

Drongilon, however, could be a settlement that was located immediately on Maritsa or Tundzha. Its identification on the map is still more than uncertain.40 It is related to the location of Masteira. K. Boshnakov even attempted to back with arguments the idea that the latter was the site at Adzhijska Vodenitsa locality near Vetren, generally accepted to be Pistiros.41 Numerous authors regard as certain the localization of Masteira at the village of Mladinovo, proposed by B. Dimitrov.42 A field survey in the surroundings of the village, carried out by the Department of Archaeology of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” in 1993,43 established that there are no archaeological remains and materials in Masteyren locality,44 supporting such hypothesis. The local toponym is of Turkish origin and the suffix –eyren/ -iren/ -eren means “cultivated field”; by that time, the place was cultivated by the local cooperative farm. The ditch and the rampart that according to the hypothesis blocked the most accessible approach to the settlement, turned out to be trenches from the Balkan War (1912–1913). The small castellum on a hill to the northeast of the “settlement” was too far away and too small to be an additional strategic point of defense of a fortified centre, and besides it dates from the Late Antiquity, indicated both by the finds and the specifics of the walls. Boshnakov did not refute the “archaeological” localization of Masteira at Mladinovo, but points out that if this was the location of the settlement, then Philip would have reached (conquered) the middle course of Maritsa ten years before he vanquished Kersebleptes’ kingdom in 342/341 BC. He suggests that Drongilon should be identified as the fortress Dingion, presumably located in the area of the middle course of Maritsa or to the east-southeast of Pizos.45 On his map, however (on page 321), Dingion-Drongilon is located to the east of Tundzha, close to its confluence with Maritsa.

Geistoi

Before the inscriptions on the vases, this toponym was virtually unknown in the sources. The hypotheses are rather uncertain. The logical assumption that this settlement was probably somewhere in Southeastern Thrace led to the idea that the toponym was preserved in the name Gestistyrum/ Gestystyrum/ Gestistirum – a Late Antique estate to the south of Hadrianopolis.46 Other scholars refrain from suggesting localizations.47

40 Cf. Aлександър Фол, „Проучвания върху гръцките извори за древна Тракия. IV. Теопомп: „Гръцка

история” и „История на Филип (II Македонски)”. Годишник на Софийския Университет, Исторически Факултет 69 (1980): 18–19; Калин Порожанов, Одриското царство, 118–119, 121. 41 Кonstantin Bosnakov, “Identification archéologique et historique de l‘emporion de Pistiros en Thrace.“ Bulletin dе Correspondence Hellénique 123 :1 (1999): 326–329. See the discussion in Zosia Archibald. “Inland Thrace.” In Mogens H. Hansen, Thomas. H. Nielsen (eds.) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, Oxford, 2004, 887–890, 895–896. 42 Божидар Димитров, „Тракийското селище Мастейра.“ Векове, 4: 4 (1975): 56–68. 43 The materials from the expedition are kept in the Department of Archaeology’s archives. 44 Божидар Димитров, „Тракийското селище Мастейра“, 56. 45 Ibid., 56. 46 Кonstantin Bosnakov, „Identification archéologique“, 327. 47 Cf. Dimiter Detschew, Die Thrakishen Sprachreste,103; Александър Фол, „Опит за локализация“, 2.

The Toponyms in the Inscriptions from Rogozen...

27

A possible localization in the area of Hebros’ lower course directed my attention to the increasing number of archaeological indications about an important Thracian settlement that evolved into an economic centre because of its propitious location on the hills of present-day Didymoteichon (the Roman Plotinopolis), on the bank of Maritsa at its confluence with the river Erithropotamos (former Byala Reka) that flows from the Eastern Rhodopes. Construction works and rescue excavations in the last few decades yielded numerous data about an Early Iron Age settlement that from the 6th–5th c. BC onwards apparently acquired commercial functions, as indicated by amphorae, red-figure and black-glaze pottery, and coins of Kypsela, Perinthos, the cities in the Northern Aegean, Amadokos, Philip II, Alexander III, and Antiochus II.48 The existence of a thriving political and economic centre in the Hellenistic Period is revealed by the tombs and rich tumuli that were investigated at the villages Rhegio, Elaphochori, Patagi, etc.49

Sauthaba

Before its appearance on Phiale No. 41 from Rogozen Hoard, Sauthaba was also an unknown Thracian toponym. Here again, the logic was to search for similar later names in Southeastern Thrace and the hinterland of Propontis. Many scholars opted for the toponym Sauadam, mentioned in Synedekmos of the Early Byzantine author Hierocles. Its location is uncertain, but it is presumably in the area to the south of the river Ergene, between Ainos and Kardia.50 Some authors, among them G. Mihailov, analyzed the name from a linguistic point of view and due to the lack of close parallels refrained from identifying later names and specific locations.51 Apparently, before undertaking intentional field surveys and archaeological investigations of specific sites in present-day European Turkey and Northeastern Greece as well, many of these toponyms will remain of uncertain localization and interpretation. It is a matter of chance that new regular or rescue excavations of certain centres like the ones at Kirklareli and Didymoteichon would yield epigraphic monuments, providing information about their names in the Classical and the Hellestic Period, as it was the case of Seuthopolis or Pistiros.

48 Еvi Skarlatidou, „Plotinopolis: problèmes de la ville préromaine.“ Pulpudeva 6 (1993): 194–205; Ματθαίος

Κουτσουμάνής, „Η αρχαιολογική έρευνα στην Πλωτινόπολη Διδυμοτείχου.“ Το αχαιολογκό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη. 15 (2001) 2003, 24–25, Σχ. 6, εικ. 31–34. 49 David Blackman, „Archaeology in Greece 1999–2000.“ Archaeological Reports 46 (1999–2000): 109; Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογικές μαρτυρίες για την παρά τον Έυρο και τον Άρδα χώρα των Οδρυσών.“ In Athena Iakovidou (ed.) Thrace in the Greco-Roman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology. Komotini-Alexandroupolis 18–23 October 2005. Athens, 2007, 628–632, εικ. 1–5, 16–20; cf. the map here. On the reconstructions of the tombs at Elaphochori and Regio, see Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου.“ In Γεωλογικές και Γεωφυσικές έρευνες στο δήμο Τριγώνου, Έβρου. Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στο Β. Έβρο. Πετρωτά ο Β. Έβρο. Πετρωτά, 2010, 27–28, εικ. 15–17. 50 Cf. Dimiter Detschew, Die Thrakishen Sprachreste, 427; Александър Фол, „Опит за локализация“, 2–3; John Hind, “The Inscriptions”, 40–41, fig. 4; Калин Порожанов, Одриското царство, 90–91, map; Louisa Loukopoulou, Adam Łajtar, “Propontic Thrace”, 914 – Late Classical settlement of the 4th c. BC, with no suggested localization. 51 Georgi Mihailov, „The Inscriptions“, 67.

28

Legend to the Map Kabyle – ancient toponym Vratsa – modern toponym 1. Eriklice 2. Karacoç 3. Yündolan 4. Regio 5. Elaphochori 6. Patagi

Totko Stoyanov

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

DOORS OF TOMBS IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE IN THE PRE-ROMAN PERIOD Daniela Stoyanova

1. Introduction

I

n the region of Southeastern Thrace, there is already evidence of more than 25 tombs1 (Fig. 1) that indicate the existence of smaller or larger settlement centres in pre-Roman

1 The evidence of tombs on the territory of present-day Turkish Trace is summarized in Şahin Yildirim, Doǧu

Trakya’da Mezar Tepelennin Ortaya Çikişive Geleşimi Ankara Üniversitesi, Basilmamiş Doctora Tezi, Ankara, 2008. Two more recent articles discuss the same subject: Inci Delemen, “Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace: On the Periphery?” In Oliver Henry, Ute Help (eds.), Tumulus as Sema. Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC, Berlin, 2016, 221–231 and Şahin Yildirim, “The Emergence and the Development of Tumuli in Eastern Thrace.” In Oliver Henry, Ute Help (eds.), Tumulus as Sema. Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC, Berlin, 2016, 362–367. For obtaining a more complete picture of the development of the settlements and the funerary architecture in Southeastern Thrace, one should add to the tombs in Turkish Thrace also the tombs in the area of Mezek and the village of Valche Pole (Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“ Известия на Археологическия Институт, 11 (1937): 1–116; Иван Велков, „Няколко крепости и стари селища по Средна Арда “Известия на Българското Географско Дружество (Сборник в чест на Атанас Т. Иширков по случай 35 годишната му професорска дейност), 1 (1933): 150) and at the village of Brodilovo (Даниела Агре, Деян Дичев, „Аварийно-спасителни разкопки на две могили разположени в м. Св. Богородица, край с. Бродилово, Царевска община“ В Археологически открития и разкопки за 2008 г., София, 2009, 277–279, обр. 3), both in present-day Bulgaria, and those at Rhegio and Elaphochori-Daphni in Greece (Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογικές μαρτυριές για την παρά τον Έυρο και τον Άρδα χώρα των Οδρυσών“ In Athena Iakovidou (еd.) Thrace in the Greco-Roman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology. Komotini-Alexandroupolis 18–23 October 2005). Athens, 2007, 628–632, εικ. 1–5, 16–20). Here, an alphabetical list is presented of the tombs in Southeastern Thrace with the main references: 1. Akören (Akviran) (Nezih Firatli, „Short Report on Finds and Archaeological Activities Outside the Museum“ Istanbul Arkeologi Müzeleri Yilligi, 11–12 (1964): 212); 2. Batkin, tumulus A, near Malkara (Şahin Yildirim, Doǧu Trakya’da Mezar, 81, Lev. LXXXIII; Şahin Yildirim, “The Emergence and the Development of Tumuli”, 366, fig. 23); 3. Beyoǧlu, Askertepe tumulus (Şahin Yildirim, Doǧu Trakya’da Mezar, 81, Lev. LXXXIII; Şahin Yildirim, “Askertepe tümülüsü.” Anatolia, 36 (2010): 149–178); 4. Bolayir (Theodore Macridy, “Boulair.” Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1910, 145; Theodore Macridy, „Un tumulus a Langaza“ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 26 (1911): 209, 211, Fig. 24; Gustave Mendel, Cataloque des Sculptures Grecques, Romaines et Byzantine. Constantinople, I, 1912, 354–355, № 139 (2175)); 5. Brodilovo, Tumulus 2 (Даниела Агре, Деян Дичев, „Аварийно-спасителни разкопки на две могили“, 277–279, обр. 3); 6. Bizye, Tumulus A (Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien.” Известия на Българския археологически институт 13 (1939): 155–172, Abb. 177–224; Arif M. Mansel, “Trakya Hafriyati (Les Fouilles de Thrace).”, Belleten 4 (1940): 94–114, 120–139, res. 1–10; Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung im östlichen Thrakien.”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1941, 151–183, Abb. 17–34; 7. Elaphochori-Daphni (Γεώργιος Μπακαλάκης, Αρχαιολογικές έρευνες στη Θράκη 1959–1960, Θεσσαλονίκη, 1961, 26–27; Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογικές μαρ-

30

Daniela Stoyanova

times (Fig.1). The evidence about six of these centres has become increasingly explicit: 1. In the region of Mezek2; 2. In the region of Lozengrad/ Kırklareli; 3. In the region of

τυριές για την παρά τον Έυρο και τον Άρδα χώρα των Οδρυσών“, 628–629, εικ. 3–5; Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου.“ In Γεωλογικές και Γεωφυσικές έρευνες στο δήμο Τριγώνου, Έβρου. Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στο Β. Έβρο. Πετρωτά ο Β. Έβρο. Πετρωτά, 2010, 27, εικ. 15); 8. Enez (Ainos), Ҫataltepetumulus (Sait Başaran, “Enez (Ainos) 2006 Yili Kazisi ve Onarim-Koruma Çalişmalari.” 29.Kazi Sonuçlari toplantisi, 3.Cilt, Ankara, 2008, 193–195, res. 11–12; ŞahinYildirim, Doǧu Trakya’da Mezar, 73, Lev. LXIV); 9. Eriklice tumulus (Nikola Theodossiev, “The Thracian Tholos Tomb at Eriklice Reconsidered.” In Валери Йотов, Игор Лазаренко (ред.) Terra Antiqua Balcanica et Mediterranea. Miscelanea in Honour of Alexander Minchev (Acta Musei Varnaensis VIII–1), Варна, 2011, 67–84; Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace – Questions of the Chronology and the Cultural Context.” In Olivier Henry, Ute Kelp (eds.), Tumulus as Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC. Berlin, 2016, 316, Pl. 132, fig. 6), 10. Evҫiler (Nezih Firatli, „Short Report“, 212); 11. Karakoҫ (Nezih Firatli, „Short Report“, 211–212, Pl. 42. 1–5; Totko Stoyanov, “Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Pottery Imitations of Metal Tableware from Thrace.” In Athena Iakovidou (еd.) Thrace in the Greco-Roman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology. Komotini-Alexandroupolis 18–23 October 2005. Athens, 2007, 562, n. 8; Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace”, 316, Pl. 132, fig. 7); 12. Kiniklar, Höyükbayiri (ŞahinYildirim, Doǧu Trakya’da Mezar, 74, Lev. LXV; Şahin Yildirim, “The Emergence and the Development of Tumuli”, 365, fig. 20); 13. Kirklareli, Tumulus A (Arif M. Mansel, Trakya-Kirklareli Kubbeli Mezarlari ve Sahte Kubbe ve Kemer Problemi. (Kuppelgräber von Kirklareli in Thrakien). Ankara, 1943, 31, 51–52, res. 32–33), 14. Kirklareli, Tumulus B (Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, 2–3, 38–39, 51, res. 1–5); 15. Kirklareli, Tumulus C (Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, 31, 52, res. 34–36); 16. Kurt Kale (Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек.“, 79–83, обр. 89–97; Nikola Theodossiev, Daniela Stoyanova, “The Beehive Tomb at Kurt Kale Reconsidered.” In Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Stephcae Angelova, Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. V, София, 2010, 179–198); 17. Mezek, Mal Tepe (Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, 7–79, обр. 2–88; Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-tepe Complex at Mezek.” In Jan Bouzek, Lidia Domaradzka (eds.) The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table “Archaeological Map of Bulgaria”, Kazanlak 1999, Oxford, 2005, 123–128; Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-Tepe Tomb at Mezek and the Problem of the Celtic Kingdom in South-Eastern Thrace.” In Lyudmil F. Vagalinski (ed.), In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III C BC). Sofia, 2010, 115–119; Julij Emilov, Vincent Megaw, “Celts in Thrace? A Re-Examination of the Tomb of Mal-tepe, Mezek with Particular Reference to the La Tène Chariot Fittings”, Archeologia Bulgarica 16:1 (2012): 1–32; ChavdarTzochev, “The Hellenistic Tomb of Mal Tepe in Thrace: A Reconsideration of Burial Sequence and Dating”, Ancient West & East 13, (2014): 49–62; Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace”, 317–318, Pl. 133, fig. 9; Totko Stoyanov, “Le tombeau de Mezek et la presence celte”, Dossiers d’Archéologie, Exposition au Louvre. L’Épopée des rois Thraces. Splendeurs archéologiques de Bulgarie, № 368, Mars /Avril, (2015): 62–65); 18. Mezek, Tumulus 1 (Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, 84–89, обр. 98–101); 19. Naip (Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü. Istanbul, 2004; Inci Delemen, “An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on Ganos Mountain in Southeastern Thrace.” American Journal of Archaeology, 110:2 (2006): 251–273), 20. Ortaca tumulus (Şahin Yildirim, Doǧu Trakya’da Mezar, 70, Lev. LXа), 21. Ortaköy (unpublished fragment of a door of a tomb – I am grateful for the information to Prof. Mustafa H. Sayar); 22. Pinarhizar Islambey А Tumulus (Zülküf Yilmaz, “Pinarhisar Islâmbey A Tümülüsü.” IV. Müze Kurtarma Kazilari Semineri, Milli Kütüphane Basimevi, Ankara, 1994, 165–184; Şahin Yildirim, Doǧu Trakya’da Mezar, 69–70, Lev. LIX); 23. Rhegio, Tumulus А (Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογικές μαρτυριές για την παρά τον Έυρο και τον Άρδα χώρα των Οδρυσών“, 630–631, εικ. 17–18; Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου”, 27, εικ. 16); 24. Rhegio, Tumulus Г (Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογικές μαρτυριές για την παρά τον Έυρο και τον Άρδα χώρα των Οδρυσών“, 631, εικ. 19–20; Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου”, 27–28, εικ. 17); 25. Tatarli (Inci Delemen, “Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace”, 223–224, Pl. 85, fig. 6a, 7); 26. Üsküp, Kumtepeler Tumulus B (Şahin Yildirim, Doǧu Trakya’da Mezar, 74, Lev. LXVI; Şahin Yildirim, “The Emergence and the Development of Tumuli”, 365); 27. Вълче поле (Иван Велков, „Няколко крепости и стари селища по Средна Арда“, 150). 2 For an overview of the evidence about the residence in the area at the village of Mezek, see Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-tepe Complex at Mezek”, 123, n. 7–8. Fig. 1b.

31

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

Bizye/Vize; 4. In the region of Tekirdağ-Naip; 5. In the region of Didymoteicho ; 6. In the region of Bolayir–Lysimachia4. The tombs display various plans, with rectangular and round burial chambers. The roofing constructions include variants of the corbel vault and dome, lantern vault, and barrel-wedged vault. A variety of building materials and construction techniques is also observed. 3

Fig. 1 1. Akören (Akviran); 2. Batkin, Tumulus A, near Malkara; 3.Beyoǧlu, Askertepe Tumulus; 4.Bolayir; 5. Brodilovo, Tumulus 2; 6. Bizye, Tumulus A; 7. Elaphochori-Daphni; 8. Enez (Ainos), Ҫataltepe Tumulus; 9. Eriklice Tumulus; 10. Evҫiler; 11. Karakoҫ; 12.Kiniklar, Höyükbayiri; 13. Kirklareli, Tumulus A, 14. Kirklareli, Tumulus B; 15. Kirklareli, Tumulus C; 16. Kurt kale; 17. Mezek, Mal tepe; 18. Mezek, Tumulus 1; 19. Naip; 20. Ortaca Tumulus; 21. Ortaköy; 22. Pinarhizar Islambey А Tumulus; 23. Rhegio, Tumulus А; 24. Rhegio, Tumulus Г; 25. Tatarli; 26. Üsküp, Kumtepeler Tumulus B; 27. Valche pole.

3 For a discussion about the identification of important settlement (urban or residential) centres in Southeastern

Thrace, among them those in the area of Lozengrad (Ergiske) and Didymoteicho (Geistoi), see the article of Totko Stoyanov in the present volume. 4 For an exhaustive bibliography on the localization of Lysimachia in the area of Bolayir, see Mustafa H. Sayar, “Lysimacheia. Eine hellenistische Hauptstadt zwischen zwei Kontinenten und zwei Meeren: Ein Ort der Interkonnektivität.” In Victor Cojocaru, Altay Coşkun, Mӑdӑlina Dana (eds.) Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Cluj-Napoca, 2014, 363–382 and the article of Mustafa H. Sayar in this volume.

32

Daniela Stoyanova

2. Aim The present paper aims to present the various means of closing or sealing the entrances to the tombs in Southeastern Thrace, respectively with ashlar masonry, stone slabs, and stone or metal doors.

3. Tombs in Southeastern Thrace with evidence about the closing of the entrances Not all tombs are preserved in sufficiently good condition to offer enough evidence about how the entrances were closed. The structures with positive evidence are discussed below. There is evidence from nine tombs, and the information about one of them, the tomb at Bolayir, is limited only to its marble door5. 3.1. The closing of the entrances of the tomb in Mal Tepe tumulus at the village of Mezek. From the tomb, there is evidence about the closing of all four entrances (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

3.1.1. The entrance on the tomb’s façade that led to the dromos was closed with well dressed ashlars (Fig. 3, 4a).The doorjambs and the closing of the entrance were shaped by the blocks of the façade and its roofing with step-like corbel vault. This fact predetermines the shape of the entrance. In its lower part, it is rectangular, while the upper part is step-like. The upper part is built of three courses of blocks, while a fourth course closes off the entrance. The width of the lower part of the entrance is 1.55 m, the height of the entire entrance is 2.62 m, of which the rectangular opening is 1.60 m, and the narrowing upper part is 1.02 m high. When the tomb was discovered in 1931, only the upper part of the entrance was opened by breaking and removing a stone slab. The rest of the entrance was sealed with stone blocks that were documented in situ6. On the threshold of the entrance, made of a single block, 1.55 m long, 0.85 m wide, and 0.28 thick, three smaller blocks were mounted, 0.26 m high, 0.30 m thick and respectively 0.60 m, 0.40 m, 5 The door of a tomb from Ortaköy is not published and will be used only as a parallel. 6 Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, 10, обр. 7, 8, 9.

33

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

34

Daniela Stoyanova

and 0.54 m long. Above them, the second course consisted of only two blocks, 0.36 m high and respectively 0.43 m and 1.07 m long. The third course was of a single upright slab, 1.50 m long, 0.84 m high, and 0.18 m thick. In the middle of its upper part, there is an irregular hollow that predates the discovery of the tomb. The broken stone slab that sealed the upper, narrowing part of the entrance, was tightly wedged between the blocks of the first and the second course of the step-like corbel vault. For the purpose, there was a lateral cut in the blocks, 0.21 m wide7. The groove is 0.19 m deep in the blocks of the vault’s first course that are less protruding, and is 0.40 m deep in the blocks of the second course that protrude with 0.22 m above the first course. Thus, the inner edges of the grooves in the two courses were aligned8. According to B. Filov, having in mind the above-described construction of the entrance, the sealing slabs were mounted before the courses of the corbel vault. “… That is to say that these four courses of blocks were placed at the very end, after the entire tomb was built and it was already used for the first burial. In order to reenter the tomb, it was necessary to break into pieces the uppermost slab of the entrance, as it was not possible to remove it otherwise. Possibly, then the underlying larger slab that is still preserved was also damaged. It was already impossible to close the upper part of the entrance in the same solid manner, as for this it would have been necessary to dismantle the four courses of the stone blocks in the upper part of the entrance”9. Several specifics should be noted and commented upon. On the published photographs, the upper end of the slab that made the third course of the closing of the entrance touches the lower side of the blocks that make the first course of the corbel vault, and at its base there is a gap and filling of earth (Fig. 5)10. This could explain the difference in the graphic

Fig. 5 7 8 9 10

Ibid.,10–11, обр. 8–9. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 11–12. Ibid., обр. 7, 9.

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

35

documentation, where the upper end of the slab and the lower end of the blocks of the corbel vault’s first course are not aligned. This difference occurs when one adds together the heights of the three closing courses. Their combined height is 1.46 m. Thus, there is difference of 0.16 m, compared to the height of 1.60 m of the rectangular opening of the entrance. The description of the shattered upper slab does not mention any specific shaping of the upper part, in order to seal tightly the entrance at the third course of the vault. The suggested reconstruction of the closing of the entrance with courses of blocks and slabs after the first burial, the breaking of the uppermost slab and the damaging of the upper end of the one beneath during later visits to the tomb in ancient time contradict the information that the uppermost slab was broken when the tomb was discovered in 193111. First K. Rabadjiev suggested another possible way of removing the blocks to provide access to the tomb’s dromos. He thinks it was possible to pull out the slab that forms the third course, which would make possible to slide down the upper slab, wedged in the masonry of the vault. Thus, one could enter the tomb without removing the uppermost two courses. This is supported by the carving of the upper end of the lower slab12. The above-presented observations about the dislocation of the lower slab and the presence of earth beneath it also support this hypothesis.The regular visits to the tomb led to the dislocation of the blocks and the penetration of earth between them. The construction of the entrance to the burial chamber of Belevi Mausoleum also supports Rabadjiev’s hypothesis. There, the entrance was disguised as part of the masonry that faced the rock and formed the first floor of the mausoleum13. This fact suggests that entering the chamber was possible only for persons that knew where the entrance was and how to open it. The solution at Belevi that presupposes the parallel construction of the mausoleum and the closing structure provides grounds to offer positive conclusions about the time and the mechanism of the closing of the entrance to the dromos of Mal Tepe at Mezek. The presence of closing mechanism, consisting of the slabs and the grooves in the blocks, indicates that it was designed along with the construction of the dromos14and was not meant to seal it for good. On the contrary, it provided the possibility of regular visits for the people who knew. The fine treatment of the blocks and the specific shaping especially for the entrance to the dromos also supports the above-said. One could adduce as an example the closing of the façade of the royal Caryatids Tomb at Sveshtari. The latest analyses indicate that 11 Ibid., 10. 12 Костадин Рабаджиев, „Гробницата на тракийския владетел (опит за нова интерпретация). “Годишник

на Софийския Университет, Исторически Факултет, Studia Archaeologica 2 (1995): 133, бел. 106.

13 Сamillo Praschniker, Мax Theuer, Wilhelm Alzinger, Robert Fleischer, Das Mausoleum von Belevi.

Forschungen in Ephesos, VI, 1979, 55–58.

14 On the construction phases of the complex in Mal Tepe tumulus and especially that the façade and the part

of the dromos behind it were a second construction phase in the use of the complex, see Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace”, 317. For an analysis of the stages of use of the complex, see also: Мечислав Домарадски, Валентина Танева, Тракийската култура в прехода към елинистическата епоха. Емпорион Пистирос ІІ. Септември, 1998, 50–53; Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-tepe Complex at Mezek”, 123–127; Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-Tepe Tomb”, 115–119. Recently, new intriguing interpretations were published of the burials in the complex, supported by a more precise chronology of some of the finds; in my opinion, they do not provide a satisfying explanation of the evidence about several construction phases of the complex: see Julij Emilov, Vincent Megaw, “Celts in Thrace?“, 4–14; Chavdar Tzochev, “The Hellenistic Tomb of Mal Tepe in Thrace”, 52–60; Athanasios Sideris, Metal Vases & Utensils in the Vassil Bojkov Collection. Achaemenid, Greek, Etruscan and Thracian, Vol. I, Sofia 2016, 236–238.

36

Daniela Stoyanova

the blocks of the first four courses, sealing the entrance, were carefully selected and fitted. Those of the topmost course are an exception, as there are visible traces of dislocation and damage15.This makes me believe that in the Caryatids Tomb the sealing of the entrance with masonry was also part of the initial design. The tomb in Golyama Kosmatka tumulus at Shipka near Kazanlak clearly testifies that the sealing of the entrances with stone slabs, among them the remains of the marble door that closed the round chamber, was the result of later measures to prevent the access to the tomb16. Certainly, this cannot exclude the possibility that the blocks sealed the entrance to the first antechamber from the very beginning, while the round chamber was closed with marble door17. I would also refer to S. Miller’s summarizing work on the tombs in Macedonia, where she notes that ashlar masonry was one of the options for closing the entrances and that the masonry was dismantled and then restored when it was necessary to visit the tomb or add another burial18. The analysis of the closing of the entrance to the dromos of Mal Tepe tomb at Mezek, and the adduced examples clearly indicate that this type of closing should be part of the initial design, but there are other possible options that need to be analyzed carefully in every separate case19. 3.1.2 The stone slab. The entrance from the dromos to the first antechamber was closed with a large stone slab, 1.70 by 1.00 by 0.21 m (Fig. 4b, 6). The dimensions of the entrance are as follows: lower width 0.83 m, upper width 0.78 m, height 1.66 m, depth 0.60 m. When the tomb was documented, the slab was at the very entrance, set on the short side and propped against the northern wall of the dromos20. Eyewitnesses state that when the tomb was discovered, the slab was lying on the dromos’ floor, in front of the entrance. In front of it, there was a thick rotted wooden beam, 0.81 m long and 0.10 m thick 21. It is possible that it served to fix the slab22. In the publication, there is no information on the type of 15 Maria Chichikova, Daniela Stoyanova, Totko Stoyanov, The Caryatids Royal Tomb near the Village of Sveshtari.

Sofia, 2012, 10, fig. 5–7.

16 Георги Китов, Долината на тракийските владетели. Варна, 2005, 68–69, 74, 76, 89; Даниела Стоянова,

17

18

19

20 21 22

„За хронологията на гробницата в могила Голяма Косматка“ В Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура, ІІІ, Казанлък, 2008, 93–94, 96–97, 101–102; Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III in Golyama Kosmatka Tumulus, Sofia, 2015, 65–69, 75–77, fig. 56–58, 66–68. In the monograph on the tomb in Golyama Kosmatka tumulus, it is suggested that a granite door preceded the marble one, but there is no positive evidence about it: Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III in Golyama Kosmatka Tumulus, Sofia, 2015, 87–88. For different opinions about the construction phases of the tomb in Golyama Kosmatka tumulus, see: Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III in Golyama Kosmatka Tumulus, Sofia, 2015, 101–111, 220–227, 231–233; Totko Stoyanov, Daniela Stoyanova, “Early Tombs of Thrace”, 318–322, as well as Консуело Манетта, Даниела Стоянова, Джанпаоло Лульо, „Нови наблюдения върху архитектурата и живописта на саркофаговидната камера в могила Оструша, гр. Шипка“ В Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура, Казанлък, 8 (2016): 34, бел. 3. Stella Miller, The Tomb of Lison and Kallikles: A Painted Macedonian Tomb. Mainz am Rhein, 1993, 9, n. 44. See also the sealing with stone blocks of the facades of the tombs at Phinikas and Agios Athanasios III: Mαρία Τσιμπίδου-Αυλωνίτη, Μακεδονικοί Τάφοι στον Φοίνικα και στον Άγιο Αθανάσιο Θεσσαλονίκης. Αθήνα, 2005, εικ. 3, 18, πίν. 16–17, 46. For discussion and other examples of tombs in Thrace with entrances that were closed with blocks, see: Костадин Рабаджиев, Елински мистерии в Тракия (опит за археологически прочит). София, 2002, 109–111, бел. 256. Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, 17–18, обр. 11, right. Ibid., 18, обр. 26, left. Compare the reconstruction of the propping of the stone slab that closes the entrance of the tomb in Tumulus A at Rhegio: Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου”,

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

37

Fig. 6

stone, but it could be presumed that the slab was made of gray-whitish rhyolite or of light green rhyolitic tuff 23. From what we know so far about tombs is Thrace, there is evidence of sealing entrances with stone slabs from Kazanlak Tomb24and the tombs in Tumulus A at Rhegio25and Tumulus A at Bizye26, to be discussed below. We will also examine the marble slab from the tomb at Naip, decorated as a double-leaf door27.The practice to seal the entrances of tombs with stone slabs is also attested in Asia Minor28. 3.1.3. Stone leaf of a door. The entrance between the first and the second antechambers was closed with one-leaf stone door (Fig. 4c, 7a–b). The entrance measures as follows: lower width 0.78 m, upper width 0.72 m, height 1.34 m, and depth 0.60 m. The stone leaf was found reused in the flooring of the dromos. It was broken in three large pieces. The dimensions of the leaf are as follows: preserved height 1.36 m, lower width 0.83 m, upper width 0.81 m29 (there is no information about the thickness). There is no information on the type of stone, but it could be presumed that the leaf was made of gray-whitish 27, εικ. 16.

23 Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек.“, 8. 24 Васил Миков, Античната гробница при Казанлък. София, 1954, 3. The dimensions of the slab are as fol-

lows: height 1.63 m, width 0.72 m, thickness 0.15 m.

25 Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου”, 27, εικ. 16. 26 Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, 155–156, Abb. 182, 184. 27 Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü, 25–27, res. 22; Inci Delemen, „An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on

Ganos Mountain“, 253, fig. 3.

28 Cf. e.g. the tomb TO1 at Mylasa: Aşkidil Akarca, “Mylasa’da Hellenistik Birmezar”, Belleten 16 (1952),

Pl  LXXVI.

29 Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек.“, 14–15, 19, обр. 10.

38

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 7

rhyolite or of light green rhyolitic tuff. Based on the published photographs, some additional observations could be made. On the face of the leaf, there are two narrow vertical relief bands and two broad horizontal bands. The four bands in relief enclose a rectangular coffer. The lower band is not preserved in its entire height. Most probably, it was equal to the height of the upper band. The leaf opened outwards. The back side of the leaf is roughly treated, with uneven and badly damaged surface. The narrow side of the leaf, where it was attached, is shaped as a semioval, in order to shape cylindrical axles at the upper and the lower ends, for mounting in the lintel and the threshold. Lengthwise along the opposite side the leaf is carved to become thinner. This carved strip enabled the leaf to adhere tightly to the doorframe. In the publication, there is no information on the presence/absence of sockets or mounted rings in the threshold and the lintel that would enable the mounting and swinging of the door30. This door leaf is an exception among the stone doors with relief decoration, discovered so far in Thrace (and elsewhere). Usually, the leaves have two/four coffers31, and here there is only one. It cannot be excluded that the decoration of this single-coffer door imitated wooden specimens. 3.1.4. Bronze door. The entrance between the second antechamber and the round chamber was closed with a solid bronze double-leaf door (Fig. 4d, 8–10). The entrance mea30 Unfortunately, during several visits to the tomb I did not pay attention to these important details. 31 Даниела Стоянова, „“Гръцката врата” в Тракия.“ В Πιτύη. Изследвания в чест на проф. Иван Мара-

зов, София, 2002, 534–539; Даниела Стоянова, „Фрагмент от каменна врата на гробница от с. Изгрев, Шуменско.“ В Тракия и околният свят, МИФ 9, София, 2005, 252–257, фиг. 3; Daniela Stoyanova, “The Greek Door in the Tomb Architecture of Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor.” In Macedonia from the Iron Age to the Death of Philip II. Papers Read at the VII International Symposium in Thessaloniki 14th – 18th October 2002, Ancient Macedonia 7, Thessaloniki, 2007, 532–535, Pl. II.

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

Fig. 8

39

Fig. 9

sures: lower width 0.73 m, upper width 0.69 m, height 1.42 m, depth 0.55 m32. When the tomb was documented, the two leaves were still in situ, mounted on the inner side of the entrance to the round chamber33. The leaves swung on cylindrical axles, 4.8 cm thick. The lower axles fitted in round sockets in the threshold, and the upper were mounted in large bronze rings, wedged in the lintel of the door frame. The bronze rings were 4 cm thick and 9.5 cm in diameter. According to the description in the publication, the front side of the each of the leaves, turned to the second antechamber, was divided by means of narrow relief bands into two identical fields34. The back side of the leaves, facing the round chamber, was smooth35. Based on the published photographs, the description could be corrected and complemented. The northern leaf opened first; it has three wider horizontal relief bands and a narrower vertical one, immediately next to the narrow (lateral) side of the leaf that touched the entrance frame. On the southern leaf that opened after the northern one, there are three horizontal and two vertical bands. The vertical bands were next to the two narrow (lateral) ends of the leaf. On both leaves, the horizontal bands were in the lower and upper ends and just above their middles. Thus, on each leaf there were two rectangular fields of different size, the smaller ones above and the larger beneath. On the relief bands, there are traces of round fittings – in two rows on the three horizontal bands and in one row on the middle vertical band. None of them was preserved in situ, but several were found in the round chamber: hemispheric fittings (“buttons”), c. 4 cm in diam32 33 34 35

Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек.“, 21, обр. 17. Ibid., 21, обр. 18–20. Ibid., 21, обр. 18. Ibid., 21, обр. 19.

40

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 11

PLATE II Fig. 10 Fig. 1. A fragment of a door of the tomb from Izgrev. eter. With these fittings, the face of the door seemed to be “studded with large nails along Fig. 2. Reconstruction of a door of the tomb from Izgrev. the sides”36. TheFig. presence of vertical along sides(reconstruction). makes it possible that they 3. The metal door in bands the tomb fromthe Mezek

were also decorated with hemispheric bosses (Fig. 11)37. Other, larger traces of soldering on the leaves indicate that they had other decorations as well but they were either removed already in ancient times, or fell down because of the humidity. Part of these decorations was a round bronze fitting, 11 cm in diameter, with a lion’s head in high relief, holding a ring in its mouth38 (Fig. 12a–c). When the tomb was opened, this fitting was found in the 36 Ibid., 21. 37 When there is decoration of hemispheres/bosses (in relief, carved, or painted) on the relief frames of the cof-

fers on stone doors of tombs in Thrace and Asia Minor, normally they were also added on the lateral vertical bands – cf. the tombs in Tumulus 12 at Sveshtari, Tumulus 4 at Borovo, at the village of Izgrev, at the village of Parvenets, and in Chetinyova Tumulus at Starosel, as well as the stone doors of the tombs at Mylasa, Gemlik, Kaunos and other sites in Asia Minor (Даниела Стоянова, „Гръцката врата” в Тракия“, 536–540, табл. III. 1, IV. 1, 3, 5; Даниела Стоянова, „Фрагмент от каменна врата на гробница от с. Изгрев”, 252–253, 256– 257, фиг. 2–3). The marble door in the tomb in Golyama Kosmatka tumulus is also coffered, but has decoration of bosses only on the horizontal bands and the middle vertical band (Даниела Стоянова,„За хронологията на гробницата в могила Голяма Косматка.“, 95–96, фиг. 1–2; Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III, 81–87, fig. 73–76). The first variant is more widespread than the second, but this fact does not offer a conclusive solution in the case of the bronze door from Mal Tepe. For the graphic reconstruction, a variant is chosen with decoration also on the lateral vertical bands (fig. 11). Unfortunately, the Inventory Book of the National Archaeological Institute with Museum, BAS, where the finds from Mal Tepe at Mezek are kept, does not contain any information about the bronze door and the hemispherical fittings. 38 Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, 21, обр. 21.

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

Fig. 12a

Fig. 12b

41

Fig. 12c

inner chamber. According to B. Filov, it probably served as door handle, but it is actually a knocker. Another bronze fitting, 11 cm in diameter, was found immediately next to the door and also belonged to its decoration39. It carries an image in high relief, depicting a male head with long hair and large beard40 (Fig. 13a–c). Parts of the shield and the face were severely damaged by corrosion. Both the lion head and the male head were separately made and soldered to the shields. Until now, the bronze door from Mal Tepe tumulus at Mezek is the only one known from Thrace41. There are no bronze doors from more than a hundred tombs, discovered in Macedonia. As far as I know, no bronze doors have been documented in tombs in Asia Minor. This fact makes the double-leaf bronze door from Mezek unique. Undoubtedly, its crafting from solid bronze required a substantial investment by the person who commissioned it and is an appropriate addition to the monument’s imposing appearance. The shaping of the coffers on the leaves and the decoration relates the bronze door from Mezek both to designs known from doors of tombs in Thrace and Asia Minor and to

39 Ibid., 21, обр. 22. 40 Ibid., 21–22, обр. 22. According to B. Filov, two more bronze fittings, 12.5 cm long, also belonged to the dec-

oration of the door, but it was impossible to specify their finding place (Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, 22, обр. 23). He thought that their shape suggested they were meant to be soldered symmetrically on a flat surface – probably in horizontal position on the two wings of the door. Later, the analysis revealed that these two identical fittings belonged to the decoration of the Celtic chariot, parts of which were placed in the tomb (Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-TepeTomb at Mezek“, 115–117, fig. 1.8–9; Julij Emilov, Vincent Megaw, “Celts in Thrace?”, 15, fig. 4a–b). 41 According to V. Mikov, the round chamber of Kazanlak Tomb was closed on the inside with a single-leaf metal door; he refers to the bronze door from Mal Tepe at Mezek (Васил Миков, Античната гробница при Казанлък, 3, бел. 4). There is no positive evidence to support this hypothesis, and the size of the sockets for the door’s axles indicate it was wooden. The latter is also suggested by the documented remains of metal plating and the decayed wood from a double-leaf door in the tomb at the village of Dolno Izvorovo near Kazanlak (Георги Нехризов, Меглена Първин, „Надгробна могила със зидана гробница при с. Долно Изворово, общ. Казанлък.“ Be-JA, Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology (http://be-ja.org), 1 (2011): 46–49, 57, 63, бел. 8, обр. 7, 17). Inci Delemen presumes that the tomb in Tumulus B at Kirklareli also had bronze door (Inci Delemen, „Tumuli in SoutheasternThrace”, 223), but A. М. Mansel only mentions that the two entrances were most probably closed with large stone slabs/blocks (Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, 38). In the publications of A. М. Mansel, the entrance and the closing slab of the tomb in Tumulus A at Bizye are also commented upon (Inci Delemen, „Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace”, n. 24; Arif M. Mansel, “Trakya Hafriyati”, 95, res. 7, 10; Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung im östlichen Thrakien”, 165.).

42

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 13a

Fig. 13b

Fig. 13c

examples from Macedonia42. The relief bronze fittings also attest a high level of artistic craftsmanship. There are few examples of doors of tombs with bronze knockers shaped as lion’s head with a ring in its mouth. These are the following: the wooden door of the tomb at Langada (late 4th c. BC)43, the limestone door from Pydna (Korinos A or Heuzey, late 4th or early 3rd c. BC)44, the wooden door from Pydna (Kitros, second quarter of the 3rd c. BC), on the marble door of the tomb at Eukarpia/Serres (not preserved, late 4th – early 3rd c. BC), on the marble door of the Palmettes Tomb at Lefkadia (late 4th c. BC)45, and on the wooden door of a wooden oikos from the cremation burial of a queen in the Tomb of Eurydice46. Relief metal fittings, depicting Medusas, are also known. The examples are from the wooden and marble doors of the tomb at Langada47, and the wooden door from Pydna (Kitros)48. There are more examples of relief depictions of Medusas carved in stone. Such are known from Tomb Δ at Pella (c. 322 BC), the tomb at Nea Kerdylia (late 4th c. BC), the Tomb with Corinthian Columns at Veroia (second quarter of the 3rd c. BC), and the Palmettes Tomb at Lefkadia49, and, in Thrace, on the marble door from Bolayir and on the marble door of the tomb in Golyama Kosmatka tumulus (Fig. 14a–b)50. The depiction of a male head on the other fitting is known only from Mezek. B. Filov tentatively identifies it as a head of Zeus51, which remains the most probable interpretation. 42 Даниела Стоянова, „“Гръцката врата” в Тракия“, 536, 540; Daniela Stoyanova, “The Greek Door in the 43 44 45 46

47 48 49

50 51

Tomb Architecture“, 531–535. Thеodore Macridy, „Un tumulus à Langaza“, 203, 209, fig. 17, 23. Léon Heuzey, Honoré Daumet, Mission archéologique de Macédoine. Paris, 1876, 247–248, pl. 17. Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, 59, Anm. 344. Angeliki Kottaridi, “Burial Customs and Beliefs in the Royal Necropolis of Aegae.”, In Heracles to Alexander the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of Macedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Democracy, Oxford, 145, fig. 167). The cremation took place c. 344/343 BC. Thеodore Macridy, „Un tumulus à Langaza“, 203, fig. 19; Berthild Gossel, Makedonische Kammergräber. Berlin, 1980, 149, 151. Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, Anm. 346. Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, 59–60, Anm. 346, Beil. 15, 17.3, Taf. 9.1. Παύλος Χρυσοστόμου, “Οι μακεδονικοί τάφοι”, In Μαρία Λιλιμπάκη-Ακαμάτη, Ιωάννης Μ. Ακαμάτης, Αναστασία Χρυσοστόμου, Παύλος Χρυσοστόμου, Το αρχαιλογικό μουσείο Πέλλας, Αθήνα, 2011, 268, 273–275, 279–281. Даниела Стоянова, „За хронологията на гробницата в могила Голяма Косматка“, 98–101; Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III, 84–85, fig. 73, 75. It is difficult to accept the similarity, suggested by I. Venedikov, between the image on the fittings and that on the coins of the Thracian King Medokos (404 – c. 390 BC) – not only because of the very different chronology of the artifacts (Ivan Venedikov, “Thracian Royal Tomb.” In Ivan Marazov (ed.) Ancient Gold: The Wealth

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

Fig. 14b

43

Fig. 14c

Fig. 14a

The depicted adult man with thick and long hair and beard conforms to the iconography of the deity, although in Hellenistic times the same iconography was also used for Poseidon, Asclepius, Serapis, etc.52. The absence of specific attributes hampers a positive identification, but the combination with a lion’s head53 in this monumental funerary complex is another argument in favour of the interpretation as a head of Zeus. This identification is also supported by the depiction of attributes, related to Zeus, in another funerary context in Thrace – the royal Caryatids Tomb at Sveshtari. Two eagles with lightning bolts in the beaks are carved in relief on the corbels of the burial chamber54. The relief depiction of a of the Thracians. Treasures from Republic of Bulgaria (Exhibition Catalogue). New York, 1998, 82–83.). See comments in: Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-tepe Complex at Mezek”, 127, n. 16. On Medokos, see: Маргарита Тачева, Царете на Древна Тракия. Книга първа, София, 2006, 88–96, 107–112. Based on the distribution of the coins of this Odrysian ruler in the region of Pazardzhik and Plovdiv, it would be logical to presume that his residence was somewhere in this area, and not around Mezek, as presumed by I. Venedikov. 52 Iphigeneia Leventi, Vassiliki Machaira, “Zeus (Hellenistic period)”, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), VIII.1, Zürich-Düsseldorf, 348–350. Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек.“, 80–81, обр. 89–91, 92. 53 I would like to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Olga Palagia and Prof. Totko Stoyanov for consulting me about the bronze fitting. 54 Maria Chichikova, Daniela Stoyanova, Totko Stoyanov, The Caryatids Royal Tomb, 33–34, fig. 48–49. Here, it is not possible to comment on another aspect of the door in the context of Thracian tombs – as a symbolic entrance to the afterlife. This aspect is clearly visible and has been commented upon in the Tomb of Eurydice at Vergina (Stella Miller, The Tomb of Lison and Kallikles, 19, n. 3). The same subject is emphasized also by the presence of painted images of Hades and Persephone in three tombs in Macedonia: the Tomb of Persephone at Vergina (Manolis Andronikos, Vergina II. The “Tomb of Persephone”. Athens, 1994, 8, 60, 100– 109, VII, fig. 19, 21–22), on the throne from the Tomb of Eurydice at Vergina (Angéliki Kottaridou, “Couleur et sens: l’emploi de la couleur dans la tombe de la reine Eurydice.”, In Anne-Marie Guimier-Sorbets, Miltiade B. Hatzopoulos, Yvette Morizot (eds.) Rois, cités, necropolis. Institutions, rites et monuments en Macédoine. MEΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 45, Actes des Colloques de Nantèrre (Decembre 2002) et d’Athènes (Janvier 2004),

44

Daniela Stoyanova

head of Helios in the tomb in Golyama Kosmatka tumulus55 (Fig. 14a, c) also supports the interpretation as a head of a deity. Undoubtedly, the bronze door belonged to the original design of the tomb, the date of which has been widely discussed in recent years. Whether it dates from the late 4th c. BC or the from the transition between the first and the second quarter of the 3rd c. BC, the tomb and its decorated bronze door belongs to a small group of tombs in Macedonia and Thrace that had richly decorated exceptional doors, apparently commissioned by/for exceptional people. 3.2. The entrance to the antechamber of the tomb at the foot of Kurt Kale, to the west of Mezek. In B. Filov’s publication on the tomb at the foot of Kurt Kale (Fig. 15) there is a description of the entrance to the antechamber and a detailed drawing of the lintel’s external side (Fig. 16a–c). The dimensions of the entrance are as follows: width 0.66 m at the base and 0.64 m at the top, height1.17 m. When the tomb was discovered, some of the slabs that sealed the entrance were still in situ56. A visit in 2004 enabled new observations on the tomb and they suggest the presence of double-leaf door that sealed the entrance to the antechamber57. A fragment has been identified, consisting of two parts, of the back part of the lintel (Fig. 17a–b). It is 29.4 cm high, 38 cm wide and with a maximum preserved length of 103.6 cm. The overall height of the block was reduced by 4.6 cm to carve a field that is limited along the short side by a border that is 30 cm long and has the width of the block (38 cm); the border is 8 cm wide along the long side. Immediately next to this strip, at 8.8 cm from the end of the lateral rim, there is a socket for door axle, about12–14 cm in diameter and 6 cm in depth, cut into its lower horizontal side. The size of the socket suggests the use of a stone door. An identical feature could be observed on the internal lintel of the entrance in the façade of the beehive tomb in the south-eastern periphery of Zhaba Mogila tumulus near Strelcha58. The cross-sections of the entrance and its detailed dimensions that were published by B. Filov, as well as the parallel with the tomb at Strelcha allow for a reconstruction of its size and structure59. The overall length of the block is 1.69–1.70 m and the 30-cm-long borders were placed upon the jambs that shaped the internal frame of the door. The rectangular field on the lower horizontal base with the sockets for door axles was c. 1.09 m long. The stone wings were c. 45.6 cm in width and c. 1.20 m high. One could only guess the decoration of the double-leaf door. The fine construction technique, the decoration of the façade with acroteria and a Doric door frame60, and the parallels with the tomb at Strelcha61, cannot exclude the possibility that it was coffered with decoration of hemispheric buttons in relief.

55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Athènes, 2006, 163–164, Pl. 61.5, 62.3), and on the façade of the Palmettes Tomb at Lefkadia (Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, 74–75, 79–80, Farbtaf. 9–10). Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III, 85, fig. 76. Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, 80–81, обр. 89–91, 92. Nikola Theodossiev, Daniela Stoyanova,“The Beehive Tomb at Kurtkale“, 182–183, fig. 10–12. Ibid., fig. 13. Ibid., fig. 12. Ibid., 180–182, fig. 4–9. On the fragments of a stone door, decorated with shields/discs from the tomb in the southwestern periphery of Zhaba Mogila tumulus near Strelcha, see: Еmilian Teleaga, “Vorbericht über die Untersuchungen des Wagengrabes in einer Kragkuppelkonstruktion der frühhellenistischen Zeit unter der Žaba Mogila (bei Strelča, Zentralbulgarien) (unter Mitarbeit von Adrian Bălăşescu)”, Archaeologia Bulgarica, 18.2 (2014): Taf. 7.6. Еmilian

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

45

Fig. 15

3.3. The marble door from Bolayir. In 1910, Theodore Makridy published marble door from the village of Bolayir, kept in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul62 (Fig. 18a–b). Somewhat later, the door was included in the museum’s catalogue with a description and drawing by G. Mendel63. The door is a marble slab with three horizontal relief bands and one vertical band carved in relief on the front side, imitating a double-leaf door. When the door was found, the lowest horizontal band and part of the lower panels were missing; it is possible that they were intentionally removed for the purpose of a later reuse of the slab. The relief decoration of the door follows the scheme that was usual for the Macedonian Teleaga, “Neue Untersuchungen zu der Kragkuppelkonstruktion der frühhellenistischen Zeit unter der ŽabaMogila.”, CAĬETE ARA (Architecturá, Restaurare, Archeologie), 5 (2014): 60, Taf. 6. 10–16. The parallels with the tomb in Zhaba Mogila serve as argument for the proposed date of the tomb at Kurt Kale in the last quarter of the 4th c. BC. 62 Thеodore Macridy, “Boulair”, 145; Thеodore Macridy, „Un tumulus à Langaza“, 209, 211, fig. 24. 63 Gustave Mendel, Catalogue des Sculptures, 354–355, № 139 (2175).

46

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 16a

tomb architecture64. The middle horizontal band divides the leaves into two uneven fields, the upper one smaller and the lower one bigger. The door has preserved height 1.835 m, width 1.04 m at the base and 0.99 m at the top, and thickness of the slabs 0.08–0.09 m, height of the relief horizontal bands 0.12 m, preserved height of the lower panels 1.06 m, height of the upper panels 0.53 m65. Most probably, the door was made of Proconnesian marble. On the horizontal bands, there are two rows of five relief bosses (in form of round shield) each, imitating the heads of metal nails. On the vertical band, the same decoration is in only one row. Based on the preserved number of bosses along the height of the lower and the upper field, it could be presumed that a 1:2 ratio was followed, with three bosses/ disks in the upper field and six bosses/disks in the lower one. This observation provides an opportunity to reconstruct the entire height of the door, approximately 2.15 m. In addition, in both upper fields there was an ornament in relief: a Medusa on the right leaf and a boss with a ring, on the left leaf, imitating a knocker66. The diameter of the disks on the 64 Даниела Стоянова, „“Гръцката врата” в Тракия.“, 540, табл. II; Daniela Stoyanova, “The Greek Door in the

Tomb Architecture”, 531–532, Pl. 1; Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, 57–59. 65 Gustave Mendel, Catalogue des Sculptures, 355. There are certain discrepancies between the dimensions, given by G. Mendel and by T. Macridy. The ones published by Macridy are as follows: height 1.82 m, width 1.03 m, and thickness of the slabs 0.10 m (Thеodore Macridy, “Boulair”, 145). 66 Doorknockers in the shape of a shield, but with actual metal rings, are known from the following tombs in Macedonia: Vergina III (the so-called “Tomb of Philip”), Vergina IV (the Tomb of the Prince), Vergina/Palatitsa (Heuzey, the last third of the 4th c. BC), Agia Paraskevi/Thessaloniki (late 4th c. BC, on the marble door

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

47

Fig. 16b–c

upper panels is 0.12 m. The backside of the slab is smooth and well dressed. On the upper and the lateral side, there are beds for clamps, most probably related to the fastening of the door. In the analysis of the doors of tombs of Macedonia, В. Gossel established that the size of the nail heads, carved in relief, could reveal the chronology of this type of decoration, respectively the time of construction of tombs and the construction/installing of the doors67. Smaller disks were typical of the earlier doors and only later they became bigger. The disks on the door from Bolayir are small, indicating an early date of its manufacture and use.68 It has parallels in the tombs at Vergina69 and Langada70, dated to the late 4th –

67 68 69 70

of the antechamber); Pella, Tomb Δ, on the marble door of the antechamber; Langada/Lete, on the marble door to the burial chamber; Vergina, Tumulus Bella II (early 3rd c. BC) (Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Barbara SchmidtDounas, Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, Anm. 344). See the important discussion on the dates of the tombs Vergina III and IV in the last quarter of the 4th c. BC in: Eugene N. Borza, Olga Palagia, “The chronology of the Macedonian Royal Tombs at Vergina.”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 122 (2007): 81–118. Berthild Gossel, Makedonische Kammergräber, 54–55. For another opinion, see: Katerina Rhomiopoulou, Barbara Schmidt-Dounas, Das Palmettengrab in Lefkadia, 58–59. T. Macridy dated the door to the 1st c. BC (Thеodore Macridy, “Boulair”, 145). G. Mendel dated it generally to the Hellenistic Period (Gustave Mendel, Catalogue des Sculptures, 355). ManolisAndronicos, Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Athens, 1997, 101, 199, fig. 57, 160. Thеodore Macridy, „Un tumulus à Langaza“, 205–209, fig. 4–5, 20–23, Taf. 5–6.

48

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 16d

early 3 c. BC. The relief images of Medusa of the so-called “beautiful” type, attested on a limited number of tombs in Macedonia and Thrace, also from the late 4th – early 3rd c. BC, were discussed above. The closest analogies of the door from Bolayir is the unpublished fragment of a marble door from the village of Ortaköy71 and the marble door of the tomb at Tatarli72. Only recently, the close similarities between the doors from Bolayir and Golyama Kosmatka tumulus near Shipka were noted – in terms of dimensions and the depictions of Medusas73. 3.4. The stone door of a tomb from Tatarli, in the area of Tekirdaǧ. In the lapidarium of Tekirdag’s Archaeological museum, there is a stone kline, a step and a leaf of doubleleaf stone door (Fig. 19) from the tomb at Tatarli74, near Tekirdaǧ. The door was probably made of Proconnesian (?) marble. On the leaf, there are three relief bands, decorated with bosses, arranged in two rows of four. The inner long side is decorated with vertical relief band with bosses in one row. The middle horizontal band divides the leaf in into two fields, the upper smaller than the lower. The height of the fields follows a 2:3 ratio, i.e. the upper field has two bosses, and the lower one has three. The distances between the bosses on the horizontal and the vertical bands differ, the ones on the vertical being farther apart. The outer long side is carved to an oval shape, with an axle preserved at one end of the leaf, while the other is broken. The decoration is similar to tombs in Macedonia and is identical to the doors from Bolayir, Ortaköy and Naip. The most probable date rd

71 72 73 74

I am grateful to Prof. M. Sayar for sharing this information. Inci Delemen, „Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace”, 223–224, Pl. 85, fig. 6a. Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III, 85–87, fig. 73–76. Inci Delemen, „Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace”, 223–224, Pl. 85, fig. 6a.

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

49

Fig. 17

of the door, respectively of the construction of the tomb at Tatarli, based on the parallels with the doors from Bolayir, Naip and Ortaköy, should be placed in the very end of the 4th or the first quarter of the 3rd c. BC. 3.5. The marble door of the tomb at Naip. The tomb at Naip consists of an almost square burial chamber and a dromos. The latter has two constructively separate parts. The first one is 6.10 m long, 1.00–1.10 m wide, and 2.10 m high. It was built of roughly hewn blocks and covered with asymmetrical corbel vault. The floor was left without pavement. The second part of the dromos is 2.90 m long and 1.04–1.15 m wide. In this part, there are seven steps that lead to the arc-shaped entrance of the burial chamber. The walls are vertical and carry a flat roof of large slabs. The difference in the levels between the lower and the upper end of this part of the dromos is 1.85 m. An entrance was shaped between the

50

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 18a

Fig. 19

Fig. 18b

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

Fig. 20

51

Fig. 21

two parts, 1.20 m high and 0.845 m wide (Fig. 20). The entrance was framed with monolithic marble jambs/antae and lintel75. The antae are decorated with the Attic-Ionic antae capitals, consisting of fillet, ovolo, and fascia. Lintel displays a plain epistyle and dentils. This frame was partly concealed by a slab of grayish white Proconnesian marble with darker bands, roughly hewn on its inner face with margins to fit the doorway76 (Fig. 21). The height of the marble slab is 1.50 m, the lower width is 0.96 m, and the upper width is 0.87 m. It is 0.10 m thick, 0.15 with the decoration. On the outer face are four panels bordered by one vertical and three horizontal bands in relief, bearing a single row of bosses/ disks in imitation of double-leaved wooden doors77. I. Delemen notes two peculiarities of the slab – the asymmetrical tapering of its sides and the off-centre position of the vertical band. One could add that in the place of the usual two rows of disks on the horizontal bands there is only one. Cruder workmanship on the left lateral face indicated that the symmetrically finished slab was recut on the site to fit the doorway. I. Delemen suggests, in its original form, this side could have provisions for metal fittings for fixing to the southwest jamb. The oblong indentation in the jamb was probably made for this pur-

75 Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü, 11, res. 11–12, 14–15; Inci Delemen, „An Unplundered Chamber

Tomb on Ganos Mountain“, 253.

76 The door, along with the furnishings and the finds from the tomb, are kept in the museum in Tekirdaǧ, The

door’s Inventory No. is 1958.

77 Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü, 25–27, res. 22.

52

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 22

pose . The reasons for the transformation of the real door into a false one remain unclear. The rich inventory from the chamber provides very good evidence for dating the complex in the very end of the 4thor the beginning of the 3rd c. BC79. However, the remodeled door offers the possibility to pay attention to two more specifics of the tomb at Naip, indicating more than one construction phase of the complex. The first part of the dromos is very crudely built, obviously without taking into account the frame of the entrance to the second part. This seems to be an unusual solution for simultaneously built parts and the first part should have been added later. The documented traces of white plaster in the chamber are another peculiarity80. The quality of the stone and the treatment of the surfaces also suggest that the plastering of the chamber happened at a later stage. 3.6. Tomb at Beyoǧlu, near Şarköy. The entrance from the open antechamber to the chamber with corbel vault of the tomb in Askertepe tumulus, Beyoǧlu, near Şarköy, has a threshold, two monolithic doorjambs, and a lintel (Fig. 22). It was closed with four blocks that perfectly imitate a masonry of alternating high and low course81. The tomb is dated to the second half of the 4th c. BC, based on what has remained from the inventory, most of all several East Greek amphorae82. 78

78 Inci Delemen, „An Unplundered ChamberTomb on Ganos Mountain“, 253–255, fig. 3. According to I. Dele-

79 80 81 82

men, the closest parallel of the door of the tomb at Naip is the one of the tomb at Gemlik in Bithynia, where two leaves were depicted on the facial side of a single-leaf door (See: Arif M. Mansel, “Gemlik Tümülüs Mezari”, Belleten 38 (1974): 183–84, res. 9–10). Inci Delemen, „An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on GanosMountain“, 259–268. See the comments in the article of Danaila Grudeva in this volume. Inci Delemen, „An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on Ganos Mountain“, 253, n. 27. Şahin Yildirim, “Askertepe tümülüsü.”, 152, Ҫizim 2, res. 7a–b. Ibid., res. 8–9, 22–24.

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

53

Fig. 23

3.7. Tomb in Tumulus А at Rhegio. The entrance of the open antechamber/dromos to the burial chamber of the tomb in Tumulus A at Rhegio consists of two monolithic doorjambs and a monolithic trapezoidal block, the lower part of which is shaped like a lintel, and the upper – like a triangular pediment (Fig. 23). The entrance was closed from the outside with a slab, propped with a smaller block83. Possibly, the entrance of the tomb in Tumulus Г at Rhegio was also closed with a slab84. The tomb is dated to the second half of the 4th c. BC. 3.8. Tomb in Tumulus C, Kirklareli. The multi-chambered tomb in Tumulus C at Kiriklareli also offers evidence about the closing of the entrances, consisting of monolithic doorjambs and lintels. The entrances to the first and the second antechambers were sealed with large slabs/blocks. They were partially preserved in situ, when the tomb was documented (Fig. 24–25)85. The presence of a funerary couch in the burial chamber and of benches in both antechambers86 indicate that it was a family tomb, and the ashlar masonry most probably belongs already to the initial use of the complex. There is no positive evidence about the chronology of the tomb, but a date in the late 4th and the first half of the 3rd c. BC seems very probable87. 3.9. The stone door of the tomb in Tumulus A at Bizye. Several specifics of the tomb at Bizye suggest it was built at an earlier date than the one of the impressive burial from the first half of the 1st c. AD88. First, these are the ground plan of the tomb and the barrel83 Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογικές μαρτυριές για την παρά τον Έυρο και τον Άρδα χώρα των

84 85

86 87

88

Οδρυσών.“, 630–631, εικ. 17–18; Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου”, 27, εικ. 16. Ibid., εικ. 19; Ibid., εικ. 17. Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, 31, 52, res. 34–35. Arif M. Mansel presumes that both entrances of the tomb in Tumulus B at Kirklareli were closed with large slabs/blocks (Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, 2, 38). Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, 31, 52, res. 36. See the article of Totko Stoyanov in this volume and Даниела Стоянова, „Гробници с полуцилиндричен свод в Североизточна Тракия.“ In Светът на гетите, Известия на Регионален Исторически музей Русе, ХІІ (2008): 116–123. Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, 155–156.

54

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 24

Fig. 25

wedged vault (Fig. 26) that have very good parallels in the tombs of “Macedonian” type from Odessos and Kallatis90. Second, the very precise isodomic masonry of limestone blocks with smooth edges (Fig. 27) does not correspond with the wall-paintings on top of it91. A third peculiarity is the fact that the tomb is dug into the ground to the base of the vault92 – a practice that is typical of the toms in Macedonia and the similar tombs at Odessos and Kallatis93. The discussed specifics indicate a date of the tomb in the first half of the 3rd c. BC94. These circumstances provide grounds to offer here some comments on the closing of the entrance to the single-chamber tomb. The entrance is on the eastern short wall of the tomb and is framed by monolithic marble door jambs and lintel. Its dimensions are as follows: width 1.40 m, height 1.17 m. The entrance was closed by means of a sin89

89 Ibid., Abb. 178–183. 90 Даниела Стоянова, „Гробници с полуцилиндричен свод в Североизточна Тракия“, 118–120, фиг. 3,

91 92 93 94

11–13, 20; Maria-Magdalena Ştefan, Valeriu Sîrbu, “Early-Hellenistic Barrel-vaulted tombs from Kallatis.”, In Fernando Coimbra, Davide Delfino, Valeriu Sîrbu, Cristian Schuster (eds.) Late Prehistory and Protohistory: Bronze Age and Iron Age. Proceedings of the XVII UISPP World Congress (1–7 September 2014, Burgos, Spain), Vol. 9 (Sessions A3c and A16a), Oxford, 2016, 211–221; Maria-Magdalena Ştefan, Valeriu Sîrbu, Dan Ştefan, “Tumuli, Roads and Plots. Decoding the monumental funerary Space of the 4th–3rd centuries BC Kallatis”, Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 4.1 (2017): 52–84. Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, Abb. 179, 185. Ibid., Abb. 179–180. Даниела Стоянова, „Гробници с полуцилиндричен свод в Североизточна Тракия“, 119. Тотко Стоянов, „Бизия като център на тракийската култура.” In Странджанско-сакарски сборник ІІ, кн. 2 (Доклади от Втория Интердисциплинарен Симпозиум “Странджа”, Бургас, 1980), Малко Търново, 1984, 41; on Bizye, see also the article of Filip Kolev in this volume.

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

Fig. 26

55

56

Daniela Stoyanova

Fig. 27

gle monolithic slab, 1.45 m wide and 1.70 m high that was attached to the lintel with three large iron pegs95 (Fig. 28). For this purpose, a protruding band was shaped on the lower edge of the lintel’s outer side. When the entrance was unearthed, the slab was found with cracked upper end96. From the publication it remains unclear what kind of stone was used for the slab, marble or limestone. There is no information about its thickness, but according to the longitudinal cross-section it was some 0.15–0.18 m. The slab is considerably taller than the entrance and overlapped both the lintel and the threshold97.

4. Conclusions In conclusion, one could say that despite their scarceness, the available data about the closing of the entrances of tombs in Southeastern Thrace reveal a variety of solutions: with stone masonry, slabs, or doors. Sealing with slabs/blocks was used both independently and supplementary to closing with doors. Also, it is observed both in tombs that most probably were used only once (Askertepe, probably Kurt Kale) and in tombs that provide positive evidence of repeated entering/use (Mal Tepe at Mezek;Tumulus B, Kirklareli). 95 Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, 155–156, Abb. 182, 184; Arif M. Mansel, “Trakya

Hafriyati”, 95, 121, res. 7, 10; Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung im östlichenThrakien”, 163.

96 Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, Abb. 184. 97 Ibid., Abb. 180.

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

57

Fig. 28

There are few examples of closing with slabs (Mal Tepe, Mezek; Tumulus A at Rhegio; Tumulus A at Bizye). These observations support the view that this manner of sealing was part of the initial design of the entrance. The slab from the tomb at Naip was a reshaped door, i.e. its function as slab was secondary. Doors were made of stone and metal. There is no evidence of using wooden doors. Stone doors were of single or double-leaf. The single-leaf doors are with one coffer (Mezek) or imitate the double-leaf doors (Bolayir, Naip). Their decoration follows either the scheme that was typical of Thrace and Asia Minor (Mezek?), or the doors in Macedonia (Bolayir, Ortaköy, Tatarli, Naip). The bronze door at Mezek is without parallels and reveals the impressive financial means of aristocratic/ dynastic centers and artistic skills of the workshops in Southeastern Thrace98. When decorated, the horizontal and the vertical bands had relief bosses. In two cases, there is evidence of additional relief decoration – shields, Medusae, lion’s heads, head of Zeus. This decoration is of high artistic quality. It should be noted that four of the discussed doors were made of marble, following the scheme that was usual for the tombs in Macedonia. Having in mind the unequivocal evidence of the use of another scheme in the Thracian interior, it is beyond doubt that this fact was due to the foundation of Lysimachia and the Macedonian presence. The metal door from Mezek with its fittings reveals a very strong influence from the trends in Macedonian tombs, which makes it very probable that it was made in a workshop in Lysimachia. In this respect, one of the most impressive doors of 98 The evidence of the funerary beds from the region perfectly adds to the impression of the artistic potential of

the workshops in the region – see the article of Danaila Grudeva, in this volume.

58

Daniela Stoyanova

tombs in the Thracian interior, the one from Golyama Kosmatka tumulus, was most probably also crafted in Southeastern Thrace. My arguments in support of this hypothesis are the material that was used (marble), the differences with other doors from the area of Kazanlak, and the high artistic quality of the ornaments.

List of figures: Fig. 1. Map of Southeastern Thrace with the locations of tombs or doors of tombs. Fig. 2. Plan and cross-section of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 5). Fig. 3. The entrance on the façade of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 7). Fig. 4. The entrances of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek: a) the entrance on the façade; b) the entrance to the first antechamber; c) the entrance to the second antechamber; d) the entrance to the round burial chamber (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 8, 12, 14, 17). Fig. 5. The entrance on the façade of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek, detail (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 9). Fig. 6. The stone slab closing the entrance from the dromos to the first antechamber of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 11). Fig. 7. The stone door closing the entrance from the first to the second antechamber of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek: a) front side; b) back side (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 10). Fig. 8. The bronze door of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek, view from the outside (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 18). Fig. 9. The bronze door of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek, view from the inside (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 18). Fig. 10. Elevation and plan of the bronze door of the tomb in Mal Tepe, Mezek (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 20). Fig. 11. Graphic reconstruction of the bronze door from Mal Tepe, Mezek. Fig. 12. Bronze knocker with lion’s head in relief from the bronze door: a) at the moment of discovery (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 21); b) after restoration (photograph: Krasimir Georgiev); c) drawing (by Krasimir Nikov). Fig. 13. Bronze fitting from the door with male head (Zeus) in relief: a) at the moment of discovery (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 22); b) after restoration (photograph: Krasimir Georgiev); c) drawing (by Krasimir Nikov). Fig. 14. a) The marble door of the tomb in Golyama Kosmatka tumulus; b) depiction of Medusa on the western leaf; c) depiction of Helios on the eastern leaf (after Diana Dimitrova, The Tomb of King Seuthes III, fig. 73, 75–76). Fig. 15. Plan and cross-section of the tomb at Kurt Kale, Mezek (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 89). Fig. 16. The entrance to the antechamber of the tomb at Kurt Kale, Mezek: а) photograph; b) elevation; c) the lintel and the Doric frame of the entrance; d) axonometric projection of the antechamber with evidence of the entrance from the inside (after Богдан Филов, „Куполните гробници при Мезек“, обр. 90, 91, 93, 96). Fig. 17. The inner lintel of the entrance to the antechamber: а) photographs; b) drawings (after NikolaTheodossiev, Daniela Stoyanova,“The beehive tomb at Kurtkale“, fig. 10–12). Fig. 18. The marble door from Bolayir: а) photograph (after Inci Delemen, „Tumuli in SoutheasternThrace”, pl. 85, Fig. 6.c); b) drawing (after Gustave Mendel, Catalogue des Sculptures, 355, with

Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period

59

additions by the author). Fig. 19. The marble door from the tomb at Tatarli (after Inci Delemen, „Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace”, pl. 85, Fig. 6.а). Fig. 20. The entrance from the first to the second part of the dromos of the tomb at Naip (after Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü, res. 15). Fig. 21. The marble door of the tomb at Naip (after Inci Delemen, „Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace”, pl. 85, Fig. 6.b). Fig. 22. The entrance of the tomb at Beyoǧlu, near Şarköy (after Şahin Yildirim, “Askertepe tümülüsü”, res. 18). Fig. 23. The entrance of the tomb in Tumuls A at Rhegio (after Διαμαντής Τριαντάφυλλος, „Αρχαιολογική εκπαιδευτική έκθεση Σπηλαίου Δήμου Τριγώνου”, 27, εικ. 16). Fig. 24. The entrances of the tomb in Tumulus C at Kirklareli, sealed with blocks (after Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, res. 34). Fig. 25. The sealing with blocks of the entrance from the dromos to the first antechamber of the tomb in Tumulus C at Kiriklareli (after Arif M. Mansel, Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari, res. 35). Fig. 26. a) Plan, b, d) longitudinal cross-section, and c) façade of the tomb in Tumulus A at Bizye (after Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, Abb. 178–179, 181–182). Fig. 27. Isodomic masonry of the walls and the vault of the tomb in Tumulus A at Bizye (after Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, Abb. 185). Fig. 28. The entrance of the tomb in Tumulus A at Bizye (after Arif M. Mansel, “Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien”, Abb. 184).

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

DIONYSOS IN PROPONTIS The Numismatic Evidence in Pre-Roman times1

Teodora Nedyalkova

R

egardless of the official character of coins and their important role as a historical source, numismatic evidence alone is not enough for the reconstruction of the religious background at a particular time and space. The present study is an attempt to analyze the territorial and the chronological span of the cult of Dionysos in the areas surrounding the Sea of Marmara (the ancient Propontis) and the Thracian Bosporos during the pre-Roman age, based on numismatic evidence. This study is a part of the author’s dissertation Dionysos in Thrace: Artifacts and Cult, which will put together the conclusions drawn here with the epigraphic, figurative, and architectural monuments from the Hellenic apoikiai discussed here, as well as from their Thracian hinterland. This predefines the non-conclusive character of the deductions in the paper, since the cult evidence has to be either proven true or rejected after the future juxtaposition with the other types of artifacts, epigraphic data, and literary texts. Both geographically and historically, the littoral of the straits and of the Propontis could be divided in four major regions: 1. The Hellespont, including the Thracian Chersonese, Mysia, and Troas; 2. The Propontis; 3. The Thracian Bosporos; and 4. Bithynia.

1. The Hellespont: Thracian Chersonese, Mysia and Troas In this area, Dionysos himself appears on coins of Alopekonnesos, Sestos, Kyzikos, Priapos, Lampsakos, and Ophrynion. Of course, symbols that may be associated with Dionysos or at least with viticulture and wine production, as well as the ivy-leaf, appear on the coins of more cities on the Thracian Chersonese, such as Kardia and Madytos. The “bunch of grapes” symbol appears on silver hemidrachmae of Chersonesos, also thought to have been minted in Kardia, during the period of 480–350 BC. On the common type 1 I would like to thank the organizers from the Seminar for Regional and National History for the wonder-

ful opportunity to visit interesting sites in European Turkey, to meet colleagues, and to share ideas about our fields of study. I am very grateful that I was a part of this seminar and I hope that this exciting way of study and collaboration will become a tradition.

62

Teodora Nedyalkova

with the obverse representing the forepart of a lion with his head turned back, the reverse is always a quadripartite incuse square with a pellet in one of the sunken quarters. In the opposite sunken field, the symbols vary and, in some cases, a bunch of grapes or an ivyleaf appears. The symbols dominating the coinage of Kardia, such as the lion, have been associated with the Milesian origin of the first colonists2. However, there is no certain argument regarding the meaning of the additional symbols on the reverse; they could be related to some agricultural activities, or to rituals or beliefs that were popular among the population of the city3. As far as Madytos is concerned, its minting started in the middle of the 4th c. BC, when the coinages of most Chersonesian cities emerged. The coin types are not particularly diverse, the main one being „bull/dog“4, which fact suggests the short period of the coinage and respectively the limited economic potential of the city5. However, there is a coin of this type bearing the symbol of the ivy-leaf on the reverse, dated to the mid-4th century BC6. Sestos was another ancient town on the Thracian Chersonese, the modern Gallipoli Peninsula in European Turkey. Situated on the Hellespont opposite Abydos, it was an Aeolian colony, founded by settlers from Lesbos. There is a coin type of Sestos, from before the time of Alexander the Great, with obverse type “female head wearing ivy-leaf wreath” and reverse type “thyrsus, bound with fillet, letters Σ, Η, and Σ”7. In the later coinage of Sestos, after 150 BC, the head of Dionysos appears on the obverse, but it is not a dominant type. The thyrsus occurs on the reverse during this period8. The other city where the cult of Dionysos is attested in the coinage is Alopekonnesos. According to the coin finds, epigraphic monuments and ancient remains, the city is located on Küçük Kemikli Burun Cape. Alopekonnesos was the next big city on the northwestern coast of the Thracian Chersonese. It was founded as an Aeolian colony in the period of the Greek colonization, either in the second half of the 7th, or in the first half of the 6th c. BC. Here, the deity seems to be very important, since Dionysos, a maenad, and a kantharos – the ritual vessel of the god – occur on most pre-Roman denominations minted by the city. A very persistent type is that with Dionysos’ head as a young man on the obverse and a kantharos with various symbols on the reverse (Fig. 1). It was minted from the 4th c. until the very end of the 3rd c. BC9. The ritual character of the kantharos depicted on the reverse certainly speaks of the presence of the deity’s festivals in the cal2 More about the coinage of Kardia: Julia Tzvetkova, “The Coinage of Kardia.” Archaeologia Bulgarica, XIII,

1 (2009): 33–54.

3 More about these symbols: Francois de Callataÿ, “Beauté et sublimité des monnaies grecques.” In Monnaies

4 5 6 7 8 9

grecques, monnaies celtes: 13 janvier au 2 février 2007/préf. Yves Mersch. Luxembourg, Banque Centrale du Luxembourg, 2007. Reginald Poole, ed. A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Thrace, etc. London, 1877, 197. Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес (от Троянската война до времето на римското завоевание). Велико Търново, 2008. Reginald Poole, A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, 197. Ibid., 199. Никола Мушмов, Античните монети на Балканския полуостров и монетите на българските царе. София, 1912, n. 5533. Ibid., n. 5458, 5459; Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Copenhagen: The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, Thrace, 2, n. 856, 860; Ural Yarkin, “The Coinage of Alopeconnesus in Thracian Chersonesus”, In Numismatic Chronicle, 1978, n. 80.

63

Dionysos in Propontis

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

endar of the city of Alopekonnesos. It seems that Dionysos was very important for the citizens and I consider his representation on the coins a sufficient clue that he was worshipped in the city and that probably he even was the principal deity there. Still, the earliest coins in the regions surrounding the Sea of Marmara are those of Kyzikos, a city located in Mysia10. Dionysos is attested in the coinage on the obverse of electrum staters. He is represented reclining to the left on a rock, holding kantharos in his extended right hand and with a tunny below (Fig. 2). Dionysos is shown as a handsome young man reclining on the skin of a panther, an animal often associated with the god. The image is of high artistic quality. This early type belongs to 460–400 BC. On these early staters, there are also representations of satiric masks and of a satyr holding a tunny. In the third period of coinage (450–400 BC), heads of deities, including that of Dionysos, appear. During this period, there are representations of the infant Dionysos, of a satyr filling a wine-cup, of a satyr drinking from an amphora, and of a satyr holding in each hand an unidentified object11. The kantharos appears as a symbol on the reverse of Kyzikos’ coins during the 4th c. BC. However, there are no Dionysiac images attested in the first period of coinage – the 7th–6th c. BC. The representations start to occur in the second period – from the beginning of the 5th to the mid-4th c. BC. Dionysos appears on 10 Detailed studies of this coinage: Hans Von Fritze, „Die Elektronprägung von Kyzikos“, Nomisma 7 (1912), 1 –

37, Taf. I – II; William Greenwell, The electrum coinage of Cyzicus. London, 1887; Silvia Mani Hurter, “Die frühesten Typen der Elektronprägung von Kyzikos.” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 85 (2006), etc. 11 Warwick William Wroth, A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Mysia, 1892, n. 68.

64

Teodora Nedyalkova

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

the coins of Priapos, colony of Kyzikos – autonomous bronzes from the 3rd and the 1st centuries BC. There is a head of Dionysos on the obverse, while on the reverse there is an amphora – another vessel that may be associated with the deity, as well as with wine production. Another city in Mysia that displays Dionysian symbols on its coins is Lampsakos12. On gold staters from 394–350 BC, he appears on the obverse in the following types: Dionysos bearded; a bacchante with flowing hair; bacchante with hair in sakkos and with hair falling on her neck; and a female satyr. After the battle of Magnesia, Lampsakos was one of the cities that was granted autonomy by the Romans. Lampsakos was one of the principal centers of the worship of Priapos, who had there the attributes of Dionysos (like the ivy-wreath) (Fig. 3). This is obvious by some coin types from 190–85 BC. The iconography here is interesting, because in the same period (190–85 BC) there are obverse types with both the head of Priapos and an ivy-wreath, an archaic iconography of Dionysos himself, and with the head of the young Dionysos (Fig. 4), very typical of the Classical and the Hellenistic periods. Perhaps, these representations of the two characters are 12 On the coinage of Lampsakos: Agnes Baldwin Brett, The electrum coinage of Lampsakos. New York, 1914;

Agnes Baldwin Brett, “The gold staters of Lampsakos.” In American Journal of Numismatics 53.3 (1924): 1–76, pl. 1–10; etc.

65

Dionysos in Propontis

the result of some mythological commitment between them, different from the general perception of Priapos as the son of Dionysos. In Troas on the Propontic littoral, there was a small town, Ophrynion (Renkioi), located between Dardanus and Rhoeteium13. Around 350–300 BC, it issued bronze coins with head of Hector in a crested helmet, facing on the obverse; on the reverse, there is a legend and an image of the infant Dionysos holding grapes14.

2. Propontis In the Propontic area, there are two cities issuing coins with Dionysiac images at some time of their existence. Two types15 attributed to Bisanthe show Dionysos’ head with an ivy wreath to the right on the obverse. In the first instance on the reverse, there is a legend BI and a bunch of grapes, in the second - kantharos16. Perinthos, an ancient Ionian colony of Samos, is situated between Bisanthe and Selymbria on the northern shore of the Propontis. Its earliest coins belong to the middle of the 4th c. BC. One bronze issue from the mid-4th–3rd century BC shows on its obverse the bust of Dionysos to the right with a thyrsus over his shoulder. On the reverse, there is a legend EΠΠATΡΩNOS ΠEΡINΘIΩN, a kantharos and conjoined foreparts of two horses17 (Fig. 5). Dionysos is still represented on the later coinage of Perinthos, during the Roman Imperial Period18, and is complemented with inscriptions and finds from the surrounding area19, so we can suppose the deity was worshipped in this part of Ancient Thrace.

Fig. 5 13 Warwick William Wroth, A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Troas, 1894. 14 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Copenhagen: The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National

Museum, Troas, n. 456.

15 Никола Мушмов, Антични монети на Балканския полуостров, n. 3197. 16 Edith Schönert-Geiss, Die Münzprägung von Bisanthe – Dikaia – Selymbria (Griechisches Münzwerk, Schrif-

ten zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 13), Berlin, 1977, 5–6, 11 nos. 52–57, 58

17 Edith Schönert-Geiss, Die Münzprägung von Perinthos (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin,

Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 45), nos. 60–66.

18 Schönert-Geiss, Die Münzprägung von Perinthos, 118–119, nos. 76–86; 161–168, nos. 777–779. 19 Mustafa Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung, Wien, 1998, 68, Anm. 115; 309–402.

66

Teodora Nedyalkova

3. Thracian Bosporos In the immediate vicinity of the Thrachian Bosporos, three cities minted coins with images associated with Dionysos. The first one is Byzantion. Rare silver coins, dated to around 221 BC, have an obverse type that is identical with the one that occurs on the coins of Kalchedon on the opposite shore of the Bosporos. The obverse shows the head of the young Dionysos. The reverse is occupied by the legend ΒΥ[ΖΑΝ]ΤΙΩΝ, an image of Poseidon standing, holding small Nike, and the magistrates’ names ΕΠΙ ΑΣΩΠΙΟΥ20. Another type from the 1st c. BC represents on the obverse the head of young Dionysos, wreathed with vine leaves, with a thyrsus at his shoulder, and the legend BYZANTIΩN and a bunch of grapes on a stem on the reverse21 (Fig. 6). However, according to more recent studies, this is actually an image of Artemis with a bow on her back. Nonetheless, the reverse with the representation of grapes, even not that directly, remains related to Dionysos. The next series of coins of Byzantion belong to the pseudo-autonomous times and to the Imperial Period22. But the persistent occurrence of Dionysos in later periods is indicative of the worship of the god in this area. The coins of nearby Bizye, displaying Dionysos, a kantharos and Silenos, also belong to later Imperial times, mostly to the 2nd c. AD23. However, they, along with a relief with Dionysiac scenes and a marble torso of the god, discovered in the immediate vicinity, are an indication of the presence of this cult in the surroundings of Byzantion and the Bosporos area. Around 400 BC, Kalchedon, the Megarian apoikia on the Asiatic side of the Bosporos, opposite Byzantion, issued silver coins (triobols), on the obverse of which there is a beardless male head (perhaps Apollo). On the reverse, the legend KAΛ stands next to an ivy-leaf between the four spokes of a wheel. The ivy-leaf is usually considered a symbol of Dionysos’ role in the underworld, the vegetation and rebirth of nature. Thus, the head on the obverse, usually interpreted as a head of Apollo, could be actually associated with Dionysos.

Fig. 6 20 Alfred von Sallet, Beschreibung der antiken Münzen d. k. Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, 1888, Bd. I, 148; Edith

Schönert-Geiss, Die Münzprägung von Byzantion (Griechisches Münzwerk, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 2), Berlin, 1970, Bd. 1, nos. 1103–1136. 21 Никола Мушмов, Античните монети на Балканския полуостров, n. 3234. 22 Schönert-Geiss, Die Münzprägung von Byzantion. 23 Йорданка Юрукова, Монетосеченето на градовете в Долна Мизия и Тракия ІІ–ІІІ в. Хадрианопол, София, n. 165, 166.

67

Dionysos in Propontis

4. Bithynia Most of the cities in Bithynia minted coins with Dionysiac images during the so-called “Proconsular Period” of the region. During the 1st c. BC, Apamea issued coins with legends ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΜΥΡΛΕΑΝΩΝ or ΑΠΑΜΕΩΝ and the names of Proconsuls C. Papirius Carbo and C. Vibius Pansa, with dates from the “Proconsular Period”24. The types vary and one of them displays the head of Dionysos on the obverse and Roma seated on the reverse. Some Dionysiac symbols such as the cista mystica and the ivy wreath appear earlier (160–140 BC) on the coins of Apamea, and these symbols may attest for mysteries of the deity performed here (Fig. 7). A bronze type with similar images was minted by Bithynium or Claudiopolis (Eskihisar near Bolu) during 1st c. BC, under the same C. Papirius Carbo, with the head of Dionysos on the obverse and, on the reverse, the inscription ΕΠΙ ΓΑΙΟΥ ΠΑΠΙΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΡΒΩΝΟΣ, ΡΩΜΗ and Roma seated. To the time of the same C. Papirius Carbo belongs a bronze coin type issued by Nicaea. It dates to 62–59 BC and displays on the obverse the image of a youthful Dionysos’ head to the right, wreathed with ivy. The city of Kios/Cius, later renamed Prusias on the Sea (Prusias ad Mare) after king Prusias I of Bithynia, was an ancient Greek city bordering the Propontis colonized by the Milesians. It lies near the modern city of Gemlik in Turkey. There are no early coins of this town, its first issues dating from the time of Alexander the Great. To 302–202 BC belongs a bronze type showing a young male head in Persian headdress (probably Mithras) to the right on the obverse, and the legend KIA, a kantharos, grapes, and ears of corn on the reverse.

Fig. 7

The ancient site of Tios (modern Filyos) lies at the mouth of the river Billaios (Filyos Çayı), towards the western end of the southern Black Sea coast. In ancient sources, the city is spelled in various ways, including Tios, Tieion, Teion, and Tion. In the second half of the 7th c. BC, it was founded as a Milesian apoikia by a priest named Tios. It was dependent to various kingdoms throughout the Hellenistic period and then fell under 24 Théodore Reinach, “Monnaies inédites d’Asie Mineure: (supplément à la numismatique des royaumes de Cap-

padoce, de Bithynie et de Pont).” In Revue Numismatique 3e sér. 9, 1891, 374.

68

Teodora Nedyalkova

Roman control in AD 70. In the Roman Imperial Period, it is understood from inscriptions and coins that Roman emperors and proconsuls encouraged the development of the city. The inscriptions also give us some information about the religious history of Tios. Among them, there are two dedications to Dionysos, suggesting a Dionysiac association in the city, as Dionysos is accepted as the deity-founder of Tios. The god can be seen on the Roman Period coins as ktistes of Tios, related to the cultivation of grapes and wine production, and is attested in the Geoponica, an agricultural almanac compiled in the 10th century AD. Both these dedications depict cista mystica, a well-known symbol of the Dionysiac cult25. However, there are no coins from the pre-Roman period with images of Dionysos or any of his symbols or attributes. The situation is the same in another Bithynian city, Creteia (Flaviopolis), which issued a type with laureate head of Antoninus Pius and a satyr seated on a rock to the left, holding a syrinx and a pedum on the reverse. The only city with clear pre-Roman tradition of representing Dionysos on its coins in Bithynia is Heraclea Pontica. According to the ancient authors, the city was founded about 560 BC by Megarians and Beoitians, known as Dorian tribes26. In addition to coastal site feature, with its powerful policy, based on tyranny in the 4th c. B.C., the city became one of the most important political powers in the region until 70 AD, when it fell under Roman sovereignty. This important Bithynian city attained its greatest prosperity in the latter part of the 4th c. BC, under its tyrants Klearchos, Satyros, Timotheos, and Dionysios. The standard in use at Heraclea is the same as that of Sinope, and is identical with the Aeginetic in weight, although perhaps not of the same origin27. During the tyranny of Timotheos and Dionysios (whose theophoric name is another indication of the worship of Dionysos in the city), there are a few monetary types with the image of Dionysos, minted by Heraclea. The first type was issued in 345–337 BC. The obverse shows the head of the young Dionysos, ivy-crowned, with thyrsus at his shoulder. On the reverse, the two tyrants’ names, ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΥ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ, and Heracles erecting a trophy could be seen (Fig. 8). The coins are of various denominations – staters, triobols, and drachms. Similar types, but without the name of Timotheos, were issued by Dionysios alone during 337–335 BC. Dionysios was succeeded in the tyranny by his two sons, Klearchos and Oxathres. To their time (305–302 BC) may be attributed silver staters with head of young Dionysos, as above28, on the obverse, and legend ΗΡΑΚΛΕΩΤΑΝ and Heracles standing facing, leaning on club and crowned by Nike, on the reverse. During the time of Lysimachos, in 302–281 BC, three types of coins with the image of Dionysos were minted in Heraclea: 1. Head of young Heracles in lion-skin/ ΗΡΑΚΛΕΩΤΑΝ, Dio25 Bülent Öztürk, „Kuruluşundan Bizans Devri Sonuna Kadar Tios Antik Kenti“, Arkeoloji Sanat 128 (2008),

63–78; Bülent Öztürk, “The History of Tieion/Tios (Eastern Bithynia) in the Light of Inscriptions.” In Exploring the Hospitable Sea: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September 2012, Oxford 2013, 147–163. 26 More about the recent finds and the history of Heraclea Pontica: Bülent Öztürk, “Heraklea Pontica Antik Kenti Epigrafik Araştirmalari ve Tarihsel Sonuçlari”, In Nuray Türner, Gülgün Köroğlu, Önder Deniz (eds.), I. Kluslararasi Karadeniz Kültür Kongresi Bildirileri, 6–9, Ekim, Sinop, 2011, Karabük 2013, 505–527. 27 M. J. P. Six, “Sinope.” In Numismatic Chronicle, 1885, 51; Warwick William Wroth, A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia. London, 1889; William H. Waddington, Théodore Reinach, Ernest Babelon, Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure, Paris, 1904, 343 f. 28 M.J.P. Six, “Sinope”, 59.

69

Dionysos in Propontis

nysos seated, holding a kantharos and a thyrsus (Fig. 9); 2. Head of young Dionysos29/ same inscription and similar type; 3. Head of young Heracles in lion-skin30/ ΗΡΑΚΛΕΩ, Dionysos seated to the left on diphros, holding kantharos and thyrsos, bound with ivy.

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

*** To summarize, the earliest coins with images of Dionysos, satyrs, bunches of grapes or ivy leaves were minted in the discussed area during the 5th c. BC. The first two cities to issue coins with either Dionysos, characters from his thiasus, or symbols of wine production, were Chersonesos (or Kardia) on the Thracian Chersonese, and Kyzikos in Mysia. During the 4th c. BC and especially in the middle of the century, already numerous cities minted coins with Dionysiac images. On the Thracian Chersonese these were Madytos, Sestos, and Alopekonnesos; Lampsakos in Mysia started in the beginning of the 4th c. BC, and Ophrynion in Troas started in the middle of the century. Also in the 4th c. BC, coinage with images that are associated with Dionysos appered in Perinthos (Propontic area), Kalchedon (Bosporos area), and Kios and Heraclea Pontica (Bithynia). During the 3rd c. BC, the cities of Priapos (Mysia) and Bisanthe and Byzantion (Bosporos) issued coins with images of Dionysos. Later, in the 2nd c. BC, such emissions were 29 William H. Waddington, Théodore Reinach, Ernest Babelon, Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie

Mineure, No. 46.

30 Barclay Head, Guide to the Principal Gold and Silver Coins of the Ancients from circa BC 700 to AD 1, 1881,

Pl. XXIX. 26.

70

Teodora Nedyalkova

issued during the “Proconsular Period” of Bithynia and especially in the 1st c. BC, under the rule of the proconsuls C. Papirius Carbo and C. Vibius Pansa: the cities of Apamea, Nicaea, and Bithynium minted coins, on the obverse of which Dionysos is represented. Some cities in the discussed area did not mint such coins until the Roman Imperial times, among them Tios and Creteia/Flaviopolis. This, however, indicates the vitality of the cult of Dionysos in the region from the 5th c. BC until at least the end of the 2nd c. AD. In the pre-Roman period, the images of Dionysos and his thiasus or symbols of his cult appeared most frequently and for long periods of time in Alopekonnesos, Kyzikos, and Heraclea Pontica. These are the three cities where the cult is beyond doubt, at least according to their coinage. The god himself occurs on most examples, and his iconography as a young beardless wreathed man with feminine features is preferred. He is less frequently represented in full-length and, in these cases, he is always either reclining on a rock or sitting on a diphros. During this period, the rarest image of Dionysos is that of the infant god. The satyr, his constant companion, occurs early, on the 5th c. BC coins of Kyzikos and on the 4th c. ones of Lampsakos (both in Mysia), while the maenad appears even more rarely, for example on the coins of Alopekonnesos. The god’s ritual vessel – the kantharos – is probably the most common symbol associated with Dionysos and his gift, the wine. The coinage we are dealing with is not an exception in this respect31. The kantharos is always represented on the reverse of coins or even as a secondary symbol. The thyrsus, the ivyleaf, and the bunch of grapes also occur, even though they are rarely represented as the dominant images on the reverse. While the grapes and the amphora may be explained as symbols of local production and trade, the images of the deity, those of the thyrsus and of the kantharos should bespeak of the presence of a cult of Dionysos in the respective cities and their surroundings. There could have been festivals honouring the god and, if we believe the artistic expressions on the coins, the citizens were involved in them and were proud to be identified as Dionysos’ followers. However, these images may also be representative of some political intentions. Clear examples are the representations of Dionysos on the coins of Hellenistic rulers such as Lysimachos and Prusias II. According to some interpretations, the latter was even represented in the iconography of Dionysos himself on the obverse of some of his coins. In the Hellenistic times, this “fashion” and political propaganda can easily be traced back to Alexander the Great and one of his images – that of “the new Dionysos”. The Dionysiac representations can also be explained by some personal relation of the magistrates to the cult of the god, and such an example is perhaps the coinage of Heraclea Pontica under the tyrant Dionysios. The early coinage of Kardia, as noted earlier, is closely related to the coinage of its mother city of Miletos. This is clearly seen by the emblem of the two cities – the lion’s head. However, on Milesian coins Apollo, the lion, and the sun are the dominating symbols and this, in addition to archaeological, epigraphic, and written evidence has singled out Apollo as the main deity of Miletos. Still, there was also a temple of Dionysos, and it is not surprising that in most Milesian apoikiai the cult of Dionysos is also attested as a 31 Benedetto Carroccio, “Why is Dionysus and Wine Found on the Coins of Magna Graecia and Sicily?” In G. Lillo

Odoardi, N. Russo (eds.) Wine Universe through Science, Culture and Economy, Rende, 2008, 125–148.

Dionysos in Propontis

71

significant one. This is obvious for the other Milesian colonies, discussed in this paper – Kyzikos, Lampsakos, Kios, and Tios. Phokaia and Kolophon, other Ionian metropoleis, also worshipped Dionysos, as indicated by some theophoric names of coin magistrates and citizens, mentioned in written sources, such as the famous Dionysios, a Phocaean, who commanded the Ionian fleet in the battle of Lade in 494 BC. The Lesbian apoikiai Madytos and Sestos may have been more influenced by the religion of their mother city, since Lesbos is a place with proven Dionysiac worship. According to Pausanias, the citizens of Methymna, after asking Pythia about the origin of an olive-wood face dragged out of the sea, started to worship this image as one of Dionysos Phallen. There are also written sources mentioning a priest of Dionysos in Mytilene and Tenedos. The bunch of grapes and the head of Silenos also appears on Lesbian coins from the 5th and the 4th c. BC32. The Samian apoikiai and the presence of Dionysian images on their coins can also be associated with the religious tradition of their mother city. Notwithstanding that Hera was the main goddess of Samos, mythological tradition relates this island and its famous wine to Dionysos. Due to this cult or perhaps also due to the tradition of viticulture at Samos, Dionysian symbols appear on the coinage of the island – krater or amphora are often included in the reverse pattern of issues from different periods. The apoikiai of Megara were also influenced by the cults of their mother city. As far as the Dionysian tradition is concerned, sometimes scholars associate the dolphin on Megarian coins with this deity, but more often this symbol is linked to Apollo, and Apollo is believed to be the chief deity of Megara. Still, Pausanias gives information that once again includes a wooden image of Dionysos which could indicate an archaic cult in Megara. Epigraphic evidence about celebration of the Dionysia was found in Megara, as well as in some of its apoikiai. The presence of Dionysos, members of his thiasus, or symbols of his cult either on the obverse or on the reverse side of coins is related to understanding the meaning of the emblems on coinage in general. Usually, chief deities of communities were chosen to be represented on the obverse. Since Dionysos appears on the obverse of coins of Sestos, Alopekonnesos, Kyzikos, Priapos, Lampsakos, Bisanthe, Perinthos, Byzantion, Apamea, Bithynium, Nicaea, and Heraclea Pontica, it is very likely that Dionysos, although possibly not the chief deity of these cities, at least played a major role in their pantheon and their festive calendars. The symbols of the god usually appear on the reverse of the coins and, just like other symbols in numismatics, they cannot be as clearly associated with cult as the images of the deities themselves. Their secondary role on the “back side” of the coins may be an additional sign of cult, when present on the same coin with Dionysos. However, when they appear independently, symbols such as the bunch of grapes or the ivy leaf may have other meanings, whether commercial and economic or in association with another deity or local mythological tradition.

32 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland, Sammlung Hans Von Aulock. Berlin, 1957–1967, n. 1765; 1732;

Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Denmark, The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum. Copenhagen, 1942–1979, n. 333.

72

Teodora Nedyalkova

It is worth noting that there are three major periods of greater frequency of the representations of Dionysos or members of his thiasus, as well as Dionysiac symbols in these regions. The first is around the mid-4th c. BC when most of the Chersonesean cities start to strike coins. This is due to the need to pay taxes after the treaty between Athens and the three Thracian kings Berisades, Amadokos, and Kersebleptes, when it was settled that the cities had to pay taxes to both Athens and the Odrysians. The cities were also declared free and autonomous, but at the same time allies of Athens. Later, after Athens strengthened its position on the peninsula, its influence became significant among the citizens of the Chersonesean cities (353 BC)33. This could be another reason why Dionysos, a deity with great influence and an inseparable part of the Athenian festive calendar, became popular on the emissions of the cities on the Chersonese at that time. Soon after that, around 346 and finally in 337 BC, Philip II established his control in the area and the poleis on the peninsula entered the Korinthian League34. The second period coincides with the dominance of the Hellenistic rulers in this area in the late 4th and the 3rd c. BC. The third period is after the Roman expansion in these lands. The dates given by scholars for the establishment of Rome on the Thracian Chersonese vary, but it is beyond any doubt that it happened before the end of the 2nd c. BC. The occurrence of Dionysos after these events and the imposition of the Roman influence here becomes more and more frequent over the centuries.

33 Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес, 300. 34 Ibid., 302.

Dionysos in Propontis

73

List of Images Fig.1. Coin of Alopekonnesos, bronze, 4th–3rd c. BC (photo: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/alopeconnesus). Fig.2. Coin of Kyzikos, electrum stater, 460–400 BC (photo: https://www.cointalk.com). Fig.3. Coin of Lampsacos, bronze, 190–85 BC (photo: http://www.asiaminorcoins.com). Fig.4. Coin of Lampsacos, bronze, 190–85 BC (photo: http://www.asiaminorcoins.com). Fig.5. Coin of Perinthos, bronze, mid-4th – 3rd c. BC (photo: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/perinthos/t.html). Fig.6. Coin of Byzantion, bronze, 1st c. BC (photo: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/byzantium/t.html). Fig.7. Coin of Apamea, silver tetradrachm, 160–140 BC (photo: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/phrygia/apameia/t.html). Fig.8. Coin of Heraclea Pontica, silver didrachm, 345–337 BC (photo: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/bithynia/herakleia_pontika/t.html). Fig.9. Coin of Heraclea Pontica, silver didrachm, 302–281 BC (photo: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/bithynia/herakleia_pontika/t.html).

74

Teodora Nedyalkova

Mint

5th c. BC

4th c. BC

Kardia

480 -

350

Madytos

3rd c. BC

2nd-1st c. BC

Dionysos

Satyr

Maen

c.350

Fema head weari ivy-le wreat obv.

Before 336

Sestos

After 150

Head of Dionysos, obv. Head of young Dionysos, obv.

Alopekonnesos

Dionysos, young, reclining on a rock with kantharos and panther skin, obv.; 460-400 Kyzikos Head of Dionysos, Infant Dionysosobv.

Satyr holding tunny; satiric masks; satyr filling a wine-cup; satyr drinking from an amphora; satyr holding objects; obv.

nad

ale

ing eaf th,

Dionysos in Propontis

Thyrsos

Ivy leaf

Grapes

Ivy-leaf, rev., symbol

Bunch of grapes-rev., symbol

Kantharos, amphora, kotyle

Ivy-leaf, rev., symbol

Thyrsus, bound with fillet, rev. Thyrsus, rev. Kantharos with symbols, rev. 302

Kantharos, rev., symbol

Cista mystica

75

76

Teodora Nedyalkova

Head of Dionysos, obv.

Priapos

Dionysos bearded, obv.;

394-350

Priapos with attributes of Dionysos, obv., bearded;

Lampsacos

190-85 Dionysos, young, obv.

Orphynium

Infant Dionysos holding grapes, rev.

350-300 280

Bisanthe

Laureate head of Apollo or Dionysos, obv. Head of Dionysos, ivy-wreathed, obv. Bust of Dionysos with thyrsus, obv.

Perinthos

221 Byzantion

Head of young Dionysos, obv. Head of young Dionysos, vine wreath, thyrsus, obv. / Artemis?/

A female satyr, obv.

Dionysos in Propontis

Amphora, rev. Bacchante with flowing hair, obv.; Bacchante with hair in sakkos and falling on her neck., obv.

Kotyle, rev. Bunch of grapes, rev. Kantharos and horses, rev.

Bunch of grapes, rev.

77

78

Teodora Nedyalkova

Chalcedon

Apollo/Dionysos? Obv.

c.400

1st c.

Head of Dionysos, obv.

Apamea 160-140

Bithynium

1st c.

Head of Dionysos, obv.

Nicaea

62-59

Head of Dionysos, young, obv.

302202

Kios

Head of young Dionysos, thyrsus, obv.

345-337 337-335 305-302

Heraclea Pontica 302281

302281

Dionysos, seated, kantharos and thyrsus, rev.

Head of young Dionysos, obv,

Dionysos in Propontis Ivy-leaf between spokes, rev.

Cista mystica, rev.

Ivy-wreath, rev.

Grapes, rev.

Kantharos, rev.

79

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

HUNTING IN PARADISE Kostadin Rabadjiev

T

he present paper concerns the hunting scenes in burial context and is a discussion on the function of images, the embodied ideas and the possible interpretations1. Hunting scenes were among the earliest depicted in arts, since hunting was the fundamental activity of the early man to ensure food and safety, an inherited behaviour from a series of ancestors in the animal world. Therefore, the symbolic treatment of scenes concerned mainly the action as a guarantee for food and survival. There was an obvious change in farming societies, where hunting was a connection between two realms, the wild outside and the domestic inside2, understood as a domination of Man (Culture) over Chaos in the Wild (Nature). Thus, the image was overcome by social structure to express ideas about masculinity, authority and even royalty. This could explain the popularity of hunting scenes in the arts of hierarchal societies, where its subject could be a competition between men, even probation of values for leadership. This could be the reason to see mythological scenes with hunters on foot in Greek art that however rejected the riders and the aristocratic implications they embody after 508 BC and before Alexander the Great3. Thus, the popularity in Anatolia of scenes with horsemen fighting various beasts should be explained as an Eastern inspiration, although their style is somewhat Greek and many of them were products of Greek artists4. The question is about their meaning – an aristocratic contest and a sign of noble rank, which is certainly so for the golden rings and probably for the grave monuments, in which it was like testimony for the highborn status of the deceased in Beyond (1), or could it be charged with even more sense as a glorious victory over Death (2)? And in burial context, it can be interpreted as a manifestation of past glory and bliss in gaming, things to be remembered by the successors

1 The discussed problem is very difficult and needs a more thorough analysis than the present text could offer,

and my intention was just to initiate a debate on it.

2 Yannis Hamilakis, “The sacred geography of hunting: wild animals, social power and gender in early farm-

ing societies.” In E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble, P. Elefanti (eds.) Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, British School at Athens Studies (London), 9 (2003): 240. 3 Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander.” In A. B. Bosworth, E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. Oxford – New York 2000, 177. 4 John Boardman, The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton, 1994, 40.

82

Kostadin R abadjiev

(3a), or even as gaming in the World Beyond and a belief in the post-mortal activities of the dead as a hero (3b). The symbolic interpretation of the scene in Anatolian cultures is beyond any doubt – it is proved by its popularity in burial context: in tombs5 and heroa6, on sarcophagi7 and stelae8. However, was it a scene from one’s biography, a past bliss to signify his status and victory, or it was a narrative about his present activities in Beyond? Interpreting the scene as nothing other than “memorials of the dead man’s glorious sport and prowess” is a simple approach based on Greek literature where any “idea of hunting as a triumph over death” is absent, and this is verified in the individual details observed in its compo-

5 Hunting scenes, together with procession and battle scenes, are painted on the wooden construction of a cham-

ber tomb in Tatarli, dated in 478 BC (Latife Summerer, “From Tatarli to Munich. The Recovery of a Painted Wooden Tomb Chamber in Phrygia.” In Inci Delemen, Olivier Casabonne (eds.) The Achaemenid Impact on Local Population and Cultures in Anatolia. 6th – 4th B.C. Proceedings of the International Workshop in Istanbul, May 19–22, 2005. Istanbul, 2007, 129–156). 6 Riders hunting a boar, panther and bear on the eastern frieze of the Nereid Monument, a heroon in Xanthos; equestrian hunters on the northern frieze of the heroon in Trysa; free-standing group including a boar and panther on the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus and a mounted Persian hunter from the same monument (after Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander”, 178), all from the first half to the middle of the 4th century BC. 7 The so-called Lycian sarcophagus has hunting scenes on both long sides: a group of riders attacking a boar and two chariots attacking a lion, dated to the end of the 5th century BC (Olga Palagia,“Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander.”, 178, Figs. 6, 7); mounted hunters and two stags and a boar, divided by a tree on the long side, and a battle between a horseman and a defeated warrior, kneeling under a tree, on the short side of a painted marble sarcophagus from Çan (Hellespontine Phrygia), from the first quarter of the 4th century BC (N. Sevinç, R. Körpe, M. Tombul, C. B. Rose, D. Strahan, H. Kiesewetter, J. Wallrodt, “A New Painted GraecoPersian Sarcophagus from Çan.” Studia Troica 11 (2001): Fig. 4); the Satrap Sarcophagus from Sidon with mounted Persians hunting a panther and a stag, dated to the last quarter of the 5th century (Jürgen Borchhardt, “Epichorische, gräko-persisch beeinflußte Reliefs in Kilikien. Studien zur Kunst an den Satrapenhöfen Kleinasiens.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 18 (1968): Taf. 54–1); the frieze around the bottom ledge of the Mourning Women Sarcophagus from Sidon with Persians, some of them mounted, hunting a boar, a bear, a panther and a dear among dead trees, dated to the middle of the 4th century (Jürgen Borchhardt, “Epichorische, gräko-persisch beeinflußte Reliefs in Kilikien”, Taf. 56–1, –2); close to this time is the Payava Tomb (a raised sarcophagus) in the necropolis of Xanthos with riders hunting wild animals, including a deer, a boar and a bear, carved on the west side of the roof ridge, and a battle between cavalry and foot-soldiers (Ian Jenkins, Greek Architecture and its Sculpture in the British Museum. London, 2006, 179–184; Fig. 177); the so-called Alexander Sarcophagus, a royal funerary monument from Sidon with battles between Macedonians and Persians, and Persians hunting a panther on one of the narrow sites, and Macedonians and Persians, Alexander among them, hunting a lion and a stag on one of its long sides, dated to about 325 BC (Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander”, Figs. 9, 10); the frieze on the Centaurs Sarcophagus from Limyra, dated about 350–320 BC (Jürgen Borchhardt, “Epichorische, gräko-persisch beeinflußte Reliefs in Kilikien”, Taf. 55–2). 8 Grave stele from Çavuşköy with horseman hunting a boar beside a tree, and a “heroic banquet” in the lower register, from the second half of 5th century BC (Jürgen Borchhardt, “Epichorische, gräko-persisch beeinflußte Reliefs in Kilikien”, Taf. 53–1); a grave stele from Barbaros (on the Propontis) with two riders hunting a boar, dedicated to two brothers with Greek names, dated to the end of 4th century BC (Inci Delemen, “A Grave Stele from Barbaros on the Propontis.” Epigraphica Anatolica 37 (2004): fig. 4); grave stelai: one from Istanbul museum, dated in the 2nd century BC (Ernst Pfuhl, Hans Möbius, Die Ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. II, 1979, Mainz am Rhein, No. 111), and two from Mustafakemalpaşa from the 1st century BC, with reliefs in two/ three tiers: a funeral/ heroic banquet with a reclining man, woman/ women and slaves; a soldier with his horse led by a slave; a rider with his slave hunting a boar with spear in hand (Ernst Pfuhl, Hans Möbius, Die Ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. II, 1979, Nos. 1399, 1402).

Hunting in Paradise

83

sition . However, is it possible at all to apply a Greek idea to the discussed monuments in Anatolian cultural context? The idea about hunting as pleasure game could be traced in the Persian paradeisoi (παράδεισος, παράδεισοι), enclosed gardens in the Empire – places full of all the good and beautiful things that the soil produced, where the King could spend most of his time10. The significance of these gardens has been demonstrated in the Sidonian revolt against Persians, when the hostile rebels destroyed the royal paradeisos (βασιλικὸς παράδεισος), in which the Persian kings used to take their recreation11. Some of them were full with wild animals for hunting, and this could be an old Median tradition, since such paradeisos is mentioned for the young Cyrus (the Great) who had exhausted the supply of animals while hunting by shooting and killing them, so the king, his grandfather Astyages, was no longer able to collect animals for him and permitted him to hunt in the wild12. Although Cyrus experienced himself the difference between hunting in parks and in the wild, the animals that were “lean and mangy, often lame and maimed, they all seemed as tied up in the enclosure, and large and sleek out, and the boars were charging at one, as brave men do in battle”13. Another paradeisos is mentioned next to Cyrus’ (the Younger) palace at Kelainai in Phrygia, wherein he used to hunt on horseback14; there were also paradeisoi with wild animals close to the residence of Pharnabazos in Daskyleion15, and such was the one prepared for Demetrius (Poliorcetes) with animals to hunt in his exile on Syrian Chersonese after he lost the war with Seleucus in the winter of 286/28516. The paradeisos, as an enclosed place for pleasure, was used as a name also for the Garden of Eden, or the Garden of God17 in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, thus creating the idea of the heavenly garden, the Paradise, for centuries on18. The question is about any similar meaning of it as an image in the Persian, or rather in Anatolian societies, since many hunting scenes in burial context could be interpreted as images of such gardens? The garden as an image of the Nature could be recognized like a human imitation of the divine world, or just a human model of the Harmony in opposition to the natural Chaos, a beautiful and pleasant place against the weary outside world. And if the second interpretation as a practical design could be an Eastern tradition, since this dichotomy between the unfavourable nature (hot and dry) and the manmade delight (shady and moist), is observed clearly there, the first one is much different. It was a “piece” of heaven in the human world, the same as sanctuaries and temples in the Hellenic world, and probably much similar to the sacred groves (ἄλσος)19 there. Sim9

9 Robin Lane Fox, “Ancient hunting: from Homer to Polybios.” In Graham Shipley, John Salmon (eds.) Human 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Landscapes in Classical Antiquity. London and New York, 2003, 140. Xen. Oec., 4.13. Diod. 16.41.5. Xen. Cyr., 1.4.5–7. Xen. Cyr., 1.4.11. Xen. Anab., 1.2.7. Xen. Hell., 4.1.15–16. Plut. Demet., 50.5–6. See also Christopher Tuplin, Achaemenid Studies. Stuttgart, 1996, 100; 80–131. Genesis 2:8–25. Christopher Tuplin, Achaemenid Studies, 81. On the origins of Greek sacred groves, see: Darice E. Birge, Sacred Groves in the Ancient Greek World. Ph. D. thesis, Berkeley, 1982, 44–62.

84

Kostadin R abadjiev

ilar were the religious ideas of the Achaemenian model, where the terrestrial paradeisos was meant to offer a foretaste of the delight for the righteous in the celestial realm20. One of the indicative signs is the tree in the composition, usually without foliage – a dead tree, a trunk (Fig. 1), interpreted as a stock-motif and a symbol of Nature21. However, we can recognize another type of a leafy tree, a popular motif, usually with a snake in its branches on the votive relieves from the 4th century BC onward on the Aegean coast of Thrace and Anatolia22 (Fig. 2). It could be a symbol of the sanctuary23 as a ritual space where the hero’s epiphany in the image of a horseman took place24. Thus, the question is about the place depicted on the scenes in burial context, with mounted hunters and rarely with dead tree trunks – was it an image of past bliss in the world of mortals (3a) – and what for were the dead trees there (?); or it was believed to happen in Beyond, as a post-mortal activity of the dead as a hero (3b)? And should we distinguish two different ideas in the depicted symbol – a dead trunk in Beyond, and a foliated one with branches and leaves in the hero’s sanctuary as an embodiment of ideas of recreation, emphasized with a snake coiled in its branches? The difference, according to some scholars, was the result of chronologically discernible motifs – the leafless one in the Classical Period, and the foliated from the Hellenistic Period onwards25. Even this, however, cannot explain the meaning, and one should bear in mind that the votives with Heros Equitans were to appear in the 4th century and were popular long after, thus suggesting differences in ideas, not preference in style. In a much similar way, the cypress in the Netherworld is white in the instructions for the Orphikoi, to distinguish it from the green one in the world of the living26. This is a difficult question and it concerns a discussion on eschatology, having in mind the funeral connotation of the scene, since such images are mainly found in burial context. And the monuments are all within the limits (spatial and temporal) of the Persian domination, some of them later, a clear sign of Eastern inspirations for hunting with riders27. Hunting in Beyond, however, could hardly be an Achaemenian idea, since Dareius in his appeal from the tomb concerned only his past glory, as we read in the epitaph on the entrance there: “I was friend to my friends; as a horseman and bowman I proved myself superior to all others; as a hunter I prevailed; I could do everything”28. And no break in religion from Cyrus to Dareius could be proposed with the dynastical change29. 20 Bruce Lincoln, Religion, Empire, and Torture. The Case of Achaemenian Persia. Chicago, 2007, 78–81. 21 Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander”, 177. 22 Aleksandra Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Haido Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Vassiliki Machaira, Manfred Opper-

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

mann, Pantos A. Pantos, Ivana Popović, Heros Equitans. In Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, VI, München, 1992, 1068–1069. Maureen Carroll-Spillecke, Landscape Depictions in Greek Relief Sculpture. Development and Conventionalization. Frankfurt am Main, 1985, 42, 117–118. Костадин Рабаджиев. Конят, колесницата и конникът. Към интерпретацията на образа в тракийската култура. София, 2014, 377–380. Maureen Carroll-Spillecke, Landscape Depictions in Greek Relief Sculpture, 163. Alberto Bernabé, Ana Cristóbal, Instructions for the Netherworld. The Orphic Gold Tablets. Leiden, 2008, 25–27. The earliest images are from the wooden tomb in Tatarli near the Achemenian residence in Phrygia, early 5th century BC (here note 5). Strab. 15.3.8. Bruno Jacobs, “From Gabled Hut to Rock-Cut Tomb: A Religious and Cultural Break between Cyrus and Darius?” In John Curtis, St. John Simpson, (eds.). The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and Ancient Near East. London – New York, 2010, 91–101.

Hunting in Paradise

85

Such ideas about a delightful existence without death in an enclosed area at the far end of the inhabited world30 were known among the Greeks – Menelaus was promised a bliss in the “Elysian Fields” by the gods, the same happened to the heroes of fourth generation who inhabited the “Island of the Blest” at the far end of earth, Achilles was taken by Thetis, his mother, to the “White island” in Pontos Euxeinos, Croesus – by Apollo to the Hyperboreans. All these heroes had their connections to the East – those from the fourth generation were the same who fought at Troy (Menelaus was one of them), and some lost their lives there like Achilles, and Croesus was the last Lydian king. But these eschatological concepts in the Greek world could be traced back to the time of Homer and were already exotic during the lifetime of Pindar, to all fade away with the emergence of politeia31. And the idea about post-mortal activity could be local in Anatolia, Thracian perhaps, since we can trace it in Thrace, and the Early Hellenistic burial structures (chamber tombs) as a testimony for such interpretation had their close parallels in Anatolia32. But not in a single one of the known Greek myths we could find a notion about such pleasure game in Beyond as hunting was. So this could be the merging of two ideas – the Greek one (and Thracian too) about a post-mortal bliss in a different Beyond for the heroes/ aristocratic elite, and the Persian (Eastern) about the paradeisos as a place for delight here and an image of Beyond, and hunting as a pleasure game. And Anatolia was the most suitable place for such mutual impact. Thus the dead trees (trunks) could represent the Beyond – the “paradeisos” of the dead heroes/ aristocrats as seen on grave monuments, while the trees with leaves could be the paradeisos for the living – the sacred grove where one could communicate with a hero or god through ritual, or just a place to spend one’s life in harmony and pleasure games. These ideas we could trace in the time of Alexander, who was fond of lion hunting himself as a king’s privilege33, and in 328 BC he killed a huge animal in the paradeisos of Bazeira (Sogdiana) in a risky way34. Similar is the scene with lion hunt on the socalled Alexander Sarcophagus where the presence of the Macedonian king was recognized due to the depression for the addition of his royal diadem35. And his figure is recognized in the fresco on the façade of the royal tomb II in Megali Toumba near Vergina, in the center of the composition with the lion hunt (Fig. 3). Wreathed and isolated among dead trees in the center, he probably was presented as a hero at the royal hunt organized for Philip III Arrhidaeus, the possible owner of the tomb36. So, was this a depiction of his 30 About the Indo-European idea of paradise, see Bruce Lincoln, Death, War and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology

and Practice. Chicago, 1991, 23–31.

31 For the discussion see Kostadin Rabadjiev, “The Thracian Tombs as Ritual Space of Beyond.” In Olivier Henry,

32

33 34 35 36

Ute Kelp (eds.) Tumulus as Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC, Topoi Berlin Studies of the Ancient World, 27, Berlin/Boston, 281–312 in part I, (with plates 110–128 in part II). Костадин Рабаджиев, „Гробниците в Тракия: мавзолеи, храмове, хероони? Част І.“ Археология LII.1 (2011): 44–60; Костадин Рабаджиев, „Гробниците в Тракия: мавзолеи, храмове, хероони? Част ІІ.“ Археология LII. 2 (2011): 25–31. Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander”, 183–184. Curt 8.1.18. Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander”, 188. Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander”, 194–195; Eugene N. Borza, Olga Palagia, “The chronology of the Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 122 (2007): 81–125.

86

Kostadin R abadjiev

post-mortal activity – hunting in the world beyond (?), and can we guess even a fusion in one of the two paradeisoi – the one Beyond with its dead trees and the other in the real world with the trees thick with leaves37, and even a third one – the sacred grove indicated by the votive tablet and ribbons hung from a tree and a high pillar among them, topped with a tripod or three statuettes38. And in Thrace, we can study this idea in elite burials with horses in the chamber tomb – the dead man was laid on a cline, in a heroic banquet shining in golden jewelry and weapons, with precious tableware and his horse close to him – a horseman and warrior (and hunter) in Beyond, who spent his lifetime in idleness (feast) and warfare (hunt) as the noble Thracians were used to do by the witness of Herodotus (5:6–7). This is to explain the title of this text and the murals in the chamber-tomb in Alexandrovo, where the four riders are too much similar in behaviour, in their dress, arms and horses, and neither of them is defined as the only victor39. The hunt as a probation of values had its significance only in the world of living, and in the burial chamber, which was a space of Beyond, they represent only the post-mortal bliss, the same as the banquet arranged in the interior and depicted also on its walls40

37 The seasonal interpretation of the trees is unacceptable as well as the historical specifics of the landscape

(Maureen Carroll-Spillecke, Landscape Depictions in Greek Relief Sculpture, 153–154).

38 Olga Palagia, “Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander”, 193–194. 39 Only the trees were absent, but this could be a result from a simplification of the composition, as well as a

distinction from Persian ideas and practices. Thus, the attempt to explain the behaviour of king Cotys, who chose “places shaded with trees and watered by flowing streams” for his symposia, where he feasted and sacrificed to gods (Athen. 12.531e), as an imitation of the Persian fashion (Pierre Briant, „Chasses royals macédoniennes et chasses royales perses: le thème de la chasse au lion sur la chasse de Vergina.“ Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 17.1 (1991): 235) proves to be insufficient since the king’s desire was for natural places (Christopher Tuplin, Achaemenid Studies, 126). 40 See the chamber tombs in Kazanluk, Sveshtari, and Alexandovo. Костадин Рабаджиев. Конят, колесницата и конникът, 373–375; 405–409.

Hunting in Paradise

87

Figure 1: Grave stele from Çavuşköy, Istanbul Archaeological museum No. 1502 (a photo after: Ernst Pfuhl, Hans Möbius, Die Ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. I, 1977: Taf. 19, No  73).

Figure 2: Marble votive relief from Miletus, Museum in Bursa, No. 4291 (a photo after: Ernst Pfuhl, Hans Möbius, Die Ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. II, 1979, Taf. 200, No. 1377).

Figure 3: Painted frieze on the façade of tomb II in the Megali Toumba near Vergina (a drowing after: M. Andronicos. Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Ekdotike Athenon S.A. Athens, 1997, fig. 59).

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

THE KLINE FROM THE TOMB AT NAIP AND ITS PARALLELS IN NORTHEASTERN THRACE Danaila Grudeva

1. Introduction

T

he examination of tomb furniture is one of the focus points when studying the monumental tombs in Thrace. Despite the fact that many tombs have been plundered already in ancient or in more recent times, currently enough data on the furniture used in tomb architecture has been accumulated to enable further analysis. It should be pointed out that installing furniture within the burial chamber of the tombs in Thrace is a common trend throughout the entire Mediterranean region. The furniture of the Thracian tombs corresponds largely to the types used in domestic context. Klinai, tables, diphroi, benches, naiskoi, etc. are found in the interior of the tombs. Undoubtedly, the most popular type of furniture installed in tombs is the kline. So far, 24 examples have been found in Thracian tombs, enabling the creation of a more precise typology of klinai. They could be divided into the following types, based on their construction: 1. monolithic; 2. built; 3. composite: 3.1. of side slabs and a horizontal slab; 3.2. of side slabs, front slab, and horizontal slab(s); and 4. sarcophagi1. Widely accepted and used in the academic literature is also the typology of Helmut Kyrieleis, who distinguishes three main types of funerary beds – A, B, and C, based on the decoration of their front side2. Examples of all three types of klinai are found in Thrace as well3.

1 Daniela Stoyanova, “Tomb Architecture” In Julia Valeva, Emil Nankov, Denver Graninger (eds.) A Compan-

ion to Ancient Thrace, Chichester, 2015, 173–175.

2 Helmut Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen. Studien zur Formgeschichte altorientalischer und griechischer Sitz-

und Liegemöbel vorhellenistischer Zeit. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 24, Berlin, 1969. 3 For type A furniture in Thrace, see Danaila Grudeva, “Furniture with Type A Decoration from Thrace”, in print; for type B furniture in Thrace, see Danaila Grudeva, “Furniture with Type B Decoration from Thrace”, in print; for type C furniture in Thrace, see Консуело Манетта, Даниела Стоянова, Джанпаоло Лульо “Нови наблюдения върху архитектурата и живописта на саркофаговидната камера в могила Оструша, гр. Шипка” В Проблеми и изследвания на тракийската култура 8 (2016): 38–44, обр. 9, 12, 14, 18–20; Даниела Стоянова, “Гробни легла с декорация тип С в Тракия”, in print.

90

Danaila Grudeva

The present paper aims to discuss the klinai from the tomb at Naip4 and from the tomb at Varbitsa5, as they share similar elements and chronology.

2. The Tomb at Naip and its kline The tomb at Naip is located in the southeastern quarter of the homonymous tumulus Naip, situated at 15 km southwest of Tekirdağ. The tumulus is 18 – 21 m high and has a diameter of 84 m6. Rescue excavations carried out in the period 1984–1985 brought to light a single-roomed chamber tomb with a dromos, constructed entirely of local limestone (Fig. 1). The dromos is 6.10 m long and between 1.00 and 1.10 m wide. It is built of roughly worked blocks and is roofed with a corbel vault reaching to a height of 2.10 m7. The dromos terminates in a doorway framed with marble jambs and lintel. The doorway is partly concealed by a marble slab, the decoration of which imitates the double-leaved wooden doors – there are three horizontal and one vertical bands with a single row of bosses that imitate the nail-heads on the wooden doors. An interesting peculiarity of the decoration of the marble door is the off-center position of the vertical band. According to Inci Delemen, the door slab was re-cut on the site to fit the doorway8. There are seven steps with a total length of 2.9 m right after the doorway, leading to the burial chamber.

Fig. 1. Chamber tomb at Naip (after Delemen 2006). 4 Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü. Istanbul, 2004; Inci Delemen, “An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on

Ganos Mountain in Southeastern Thrace.” American Journal of Archaeology, 110:2 (2006): 251 – 273.

5 Георги Атанасов, „Тракийската гробница при град Върбица, Варненска област.“ Годишник на музеите

от Северна България, 16 (1990): 23–29.

6 Inci Delemen, An Unplundered Chamber Tomb, 252. 7 Ibid., 252. 8 Ibid., 252.

The K line from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace

91

Fig. 2. Furniture in the burial chamber (after Delemen 2004).

The burial chamber is square in plan and measures 3.06 x 3.10 m9. The walls are built of ashlar blocks. The roofing begins at the fifth course – the gradual offsetting of the ashlar blocks creates a corbel vault with semi-cylindrical section, probably imitating a barrel vault of wedge-shaped blocks. The apex of the chamber is at 2.65 m10. The burial chamber is furnished with a kline, a footstool, a table, and two diphroi (Fig. 2). All items are carved from Proconnesian marble and imitate wooden models. The table is rectangular in form and is placed in front of the kline. It is 1.52 m long, 0.61 m high, and 0.57 m wide. The tabletop that connects the uprights is 0.037 m thick11. It is decorated with nine plates and bowls in relief, which are almost equally spaced. They are of different sizes and are interpreted as three fish plates, two phialae, a pair of salt cellars, and a plate12. Due to the similarity of the table with examples from Egypt dated during the Fourth Dynasty (2613 – 2494 BC), I. Delemen suggests that the model of the table could be associated with the Macedonian conquest of Egypt, with a terminus post quem in 320 BC13. A footstool made of three marble slabs is placed between the table and the kline. It has the following dimensions: length – 1.192 m, width – 0.485 m, and height – 0.30 m14. The legs of the footstool are shaped as lion’s hindquarters. The two diphroi installed in the burial chamber are also carved out from monolithic marble blocks; there are only slight differences in their dimensions. The first one is placed in the northern corner, and the second one – in the southern corner of the tomb. The diphroi represent models of stools with 9 10 11 12 13 14

Ibid., 252. Ibid., 252. Ibid., 252. Ibid., 257. Ibid., 258. Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü, 44.

92

Danaila Grudeva

Fig. 3. Kline from the tomb at Naip (after Delemen 2004).

turned legs protruding above the seat. Each leg consists of two parts of about the same height, widening in their upper and lower ends. A thin ring is shaped in the middle of the leg where the two parts connect. The way the legs are rendered proves that the diphroi should be included in the group of furniture with Type A decoration after the typology of H. Kyrieleis15, which is characterized by legs with a broader upper and a narrower lower cone-shaped parts, separated by a swelling16. After the brief review of the tomb features and part of its furniture, we should turn our attention to the kline from the tomb at Naip (Fig. 3). Constructively, it belongs to the subtype of the composite klinai of side and horizontal slabs. The kline is built up of six blocks. A horizontal marble bedslab is placed over two marble legs. Another slab is placed vertically and connects the legs. Two more marble blocks shaped in the form of headrests surmount the legs. The kline itself is placed against the northwestern wall of the burial chamber across the entrance and is situated in the corner formed by the northwestern and the southwestern walls. It is 0.80 m high, 0.97 m wide, and 2.18 m long17. As mentioned earlier, the marble bed is carved after wooden models. This can be clearly seen in the shaping of the legs that follow the form of the legs with Type B decoration18. The legs of furniture with Type B decoration are usually rectangular in section, with semicircular incisions on each side, volutes at the four ends of the cutouts, small circular discs resembling volute eyes in the middle of the cutout sections, and palmettes above and below the incisions. The legs of the kline at Naip (Fig. 4) are carved from monolithic blocks with the following dimensions: height 0.615 m, length of the side – 0.972 m, and 15 16 17 18

Helmut Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen., 116–150. Danaila Grudeva, Furniture with Type A Decoration. Dimitra Andrianou, The Furniture and Furnishings of Ancient Greek Houses and Tombs. Cambridge, 2009, 49. Danaila Grudeva, Furniture with Type B Decoration.

The K line from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace

93

Fig. 4. Uprights of the kline (after Delemen 2004).

Fig. 5. Capitals of the legs (after Delemen 2004).

width of the front face – 0.43 m19. The rendering of the decoration is typical of Type B. Each leg consists of a base with moldings, the topmost of which is carved in the form of a torus decorated with two incised volutes at both ends. The base is followed by the shaft, which is deeply carved out on either side just below the middle. The so-formed cutout sections are decorated with two volutes, both at the top and bottom ends, and there are also small circular ornaments resembling volute eyes carved right in the middle of the incisions. The part of the shaft between the base and the cutouts has an arched profile. The shafts are surmounted by the capitals that are worked separately and are part of the headrests (Fig. 5). They consist of cavetto and listel topped by two torus moldings of 19 Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü, 27.

94

Danaila Grudeva

equal height separated from one another by a pointed element. They are followed by a listel, ovolo, and fascia forming the crowning moldings of the capital. A single relief rosette is carved between the two torus moldings. Traces of painted black and red egg-and-dart can be seen on the ovolo, and there are traces of red paint on the rosette20. The headrests, on the short sides of which the described capitals are rendered, are carved from monolithic marble blocks, 0.20 m high, 0.24 m wide, and 0.972 m long21. On their inner sides, the blocks are cut out in the form of an elliptical hollow. The outside of the blocks is also plastically shaped and follows the elliptical form of the inner hollow. The horizontal slab, which is placed over the two legs, has a smooth upper surface. The front face of this slab is decorated with four phialai in relief, which can be seen also on the klinai from Amphipolis I and Mesolakkia22. This leads to the conclusion that this type of decoration was popular in the Aegean region. The finds from the tomb and its architectural features suggest a date in the late 4th – early 3rd c. BC. I. Delemen believes that the single interment there can be dated in the last two decades of the 4th c. BC23. This date is based on two finds in the tomb – an Attic unguentarium dated to 325–300 BC, and a Thasian stamped amphora dated to 325–310 BC24. The latest studies on Thasian amphora stamps indicate that the eponym Πολυνείκης should be placed within the period 308–298 BC25, which means that the tomb can be convincingly dated to the last decade of the 4th or the very beginning of the 3rd c. BC. This date should be also accepted regarding the furniture of the tomb, including the kline discussed in this paper, the closest parallels of which are the klinai from the tomb in Poteidaia, dated to 315–300 BC26, and from the Tomb with Doric Facade at Vergina, which is dated in the second half of the 3rd c. BC27. Differences could be seen in the way the capitals are rendered. The legs of the klinai at Poteidaia and Vergina have the typical for Type B decoration capitals with two volutes and a palmette between them. Such details are not present in the kline at Naip – the profile of the capital consists of two torus moldings with a pointed element between them and a rosette in relief in the middle. The funerary bed at Naip also lacks palmettes depicted above and below the cutout sections on the shaft, while all other mentioned examples have such decoration. An interesting feature of the kline from the tomb at Naip is the form of the headrests which is not very popular in Thrace. An exact parallel of these headrests is the headrest of the funerary bed from the tomb at Varbitsa in Northeastern Thrace (Fig. 6) 28.

Inci Delemen, An Unplundered Chamber Tomb, 256. Inci Delemen, Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü, 28. Inci Delemen, An Unplundered Chamber Tomb, 256 with ref. Ibid., 267. Ibid., 267. Chavdar Tzochev, “Notes on the Thasian Amphora Stamps Chronology.” Archeologia Bulgarica, 13:1 (2009), 65, Tab. 3. 26 Κώστας Σισμανίδης, Κλίνες και κλινοειδείς κατασκευές των μακεδονικών τάφων. Aθήναι,1997, 30–35. 27 Manolis Andronikos, Vergina: The Royal Tomb and the Ancient City. Athens, 1984, 34–35. 28 Георги Атанасов, Тракийската гробница, 25. 20 21 22 23 24 25

The K line from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace

95

Fig. 6. Sketch of the block with headrest from the kline in the tomb at Varbitsa (after Атанасов 1990).

3. The tomb at Varbitsa and its kline The tomb is located at about 3 km northern from Varbitsa near Shumen and is situated in the eastern part of the tumulus. It consists of a facade, an open, not very deep antechamber, and a burial chamber. The tomb is oriented east-west, with the entrance from the east. The entrance leading to the antechamber is flanked by two monolithic antae with capitals above them. The architrave-lintel that was placed above them is not preserved. The antechamber is rectangular in form and has the following dimensions: 1.10m length, 0.75m width, and 2.10 m height. The corbel vaulting of the antechamber begins from the fourth course, at 1.50 m above the floor29. The walls of the facade and the antechamber are built up of well-dressed stones of different height, placed in horizontal courses and tied with metal clamps, sealed with lead. The wall that separates the antechamber from the burial chamber is built of ashlar blocks with well-dressed faces, 0.40 m wide30. The entrance on that wall has an Ionic doorframe, which consists of threshold, jambs, and lintel. The threshold is with two fasciae, while the jambs and the lintel have three fasciae each31. The burial chamber, which is also rectangular in form, is 1.90 m wide and 2.00 m long. Its construction is identical with the construction of the facade and the antechamber32. The floor is covered with slabs. The burial chamber is spanned by a corbel vault, which begins from the fourth course. A stone funerary bed is placed in the burial chamber. Constructively, the kline belongs to the type of the built klinai, the three/four (?) walls of which are built of well-hewn stone blocks, with a filling of river stones. The kline is placed against the rear west wall of the tomb and according to the excavator is constructively (?) connected with it. The south side of the kline is 1.73 m long, 0.57 m high and 0.82 m wide. The height of the

29 Ibid., 24. 30 Ibid., 25. 31 For the distribution of this type Ionic doorframes in Thrace, see Даниела Стоянова, “Йонийски рамки за

врати от елинистическата епоха в Тракия.” In Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Ludmili Getov, Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. IV, 2005, 654–670. 32 Георги Атанасов, Тракийската гробница, 25.

96

Danaila Grudeva

north side of the kline is reduced stepwise by 0.15 m. This side has a length of 0.22 m33. Unfortunately, no photographs are published of the remains of the funerary bed that would provide more information about its workmanship. It could be suggested that the lower northern side of the bed is actually a leg, on which the profiled block found during the excavations was mounted. Based on its parallels with the kline at Naip, the block can be identified as a headrest (Fig. 6). The inner part of it is carved in the form of an elliptical hollow, as it is the case of the headrest of the bed at Naip. Unlike the headrest of the kline at Naip, the outside of the block is not carved in an elliptical form but has a straight profile. There are also differences in the workmanship of the visible short side of the block, which serves as a capital over the shaft of the leg. The smooth shaft is followed by a torus, cavetto, and fascia. The way the capital of the kline is rendered implies that its legs followed the model of furniture with Type B decoration, an excellent example of which is the kline at Naip. It could be suggested also that the klinai at Naip and Varbitsa were similar not only in terms of workmanship of the headrests but also in the decoration of their front sides. Because of the condition of the kline at Varbitsa at the moment of discovery and its incomplete publication, it is not certain whether there was a headrest only on the northern side. A symmetrical headrest could have been placed on the southern side of the kline, as demonstrated by the example from the tomb at Naip. Examples of klinai with two raised ends or capitals of equal height are found in many Macedonian tombs, as well as in Lydian tombs34. Most probably, the bed at Varbitsa was covered with one or two horizontal bedslabs. Despite the above-mentioned differences, the headrest of the kline at Varbitsa is the most exact parallel of the headrest of the kline at Naip because of the similarities in their workmanship. The discoverer dated the tomb at Varbitsa broadly between the end of the 5th and the middle of the 4th c. BC35. The parallels with the kline from the tomb at Naip, however, allow us to date the tomb at Varbitsa to the end of the 4th – the beginning of the 3rd c. BC. This date is also supported by the similarities in the form and the construction of the corbel vaults of the two tombs36. The dating of the tomb at Varbitsa to this period is also confirmed by its similarities with another tomb – Tomb 1 at Ivanski, near Shumen, which has the same roofing. The Thasian amphora stamps found in the deposit that sealed the tomb are dated to 314–305 BC37.

4. Summary The parallels established between the kline in the tomb at Naip in Southeastern Thrace and the one in the tomb at Varbitsa in Northeastern Thrace suggest contacts between 33 Ibid., 25. 34 Elizabeth Baughan, Couched in Death. Klinai and Identity in Anatolia and Beyond. Wisconsin, 2013, 269–270

with ref.

35 Георги Атанасов, Тракийската гробницa, 29. 36 Daniela Stoyanova, Greek Orders in the Tomb Architecture in Thrace, in print. 37 Георги Атанасов, Станимир Стойчев, “Гробничен комплекс край с. Ивански, Шуменско.” In Иван Мара-

зов (ред.), Тракия и околният свят. Сборник с доклади от национална научна конференция. Шумен, 2016, 103–104, обр. 5–6; Chavdar Tzochev, “Notes on the Thasian Amphora Stamps Chronology.”, 65, Tab. 3.

The K line from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace

97

Fig. 7. Kline in the lapidarium of the Archaeological museum in Tekirdağ (photo by the author).

the two regions and show that the same trend in tomb furnishing influenced the construction and the decoration of the funerary beds in these two tombs. It is worth taking a look at the other examples of klinai from Southeastern and Northeastern Thrace in order to discuss their similarities and differences in both construction and decoration, as this would offer a clearer picture of the distribution of certain types of klinai in the respective regions. The first example of a kline, to which we should point our attention, is a funerary bed from the tomb at Tatarli38, which is currently on display in the lapidarium of the Archaeological Museum in Tekirdağ (Fig. 7). Constructively, it belongs to the subtype of the composite klinai of side and horizontal slabs. The two upright slabs that represent the legs protrude above the horizontal bedslab. There is incised decoration on the front side of each leg (Fig. 8), representing the main features of the legs with Type B decoration after H. Kyrieleis. The capital is followed by the shaft, which is carved out on either side in its lower part. Two volutes are molded at the top and the bottom of the so-formed cutout sections, and there are two pairs of disc-like ornaments on the middle of the cutouts. The inclusion of one additional pair of disk ornaments is very peculiar – the canonical Type B decoration is characterized by one pair of ornaments only. Unfortunately, the condition of the decoration does not allow for a more detailed description. There is no information whether separate headrests were made. The workmanship of the kline in the Museum of Tekirdağ shows, however, a number of similarities with the kline from the tomb at Naip. These two klinai are similar in their construction – both of them belong to the type of the composite klinai, built from separate slabs. Considera38 Inci Delemen, “Tumuli in Southeastern Thrace: On the Periphery?” in Oliver Henry, Ute Help (eds.), Tumulus

as Sema. Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC., Berlin, 2016, 224, pl. 86, fig. 7.

98

Danaila Grudeva

ble similarities can be seen also in the rendering of the capitals of the legs – even though the components of the capital at the kline in the museum of Tekirdağ are not distinguishable, it is evident that the profile of the capital is similar in terms of shape to the profile of the kline at Naip. Very close in terms of silhouette are also the capitals of the klinai in the Caryatids Tomb at Sveshtari39 (especially kline No. 1) and the capital of Throne B from the Tomb of the Erotes in Eretria40. The furniture of the tomb at Tatarli includes also a table and a footstool, which is to a great extend the same pattern we saw in the tomb at Naip. The table is partially damaged – only the tabletop and one of the uprights serving as legs is preserved. The footstool, which was placed in front of the kline, is carved out from a monolithic block and has legs shaped as lion’s hindquarters, similarly to the legs of the footstool at Naip. Another example for a footstool with legs in the form of lion’s hindquarters, which bend sideways and end up as lion’s paws, can be seen in the tomb at Potidaia41. In Potidaia, however, the footstool is not a freestanding one but is carved in relief on the front slab of the main kline in the burial chamber. Klinai were found in two more tombs in Southeastern Thrace: the tomb in the Tumulus C at Kirklareli42 and the tomb Kirklareli-Eriklice43. The only available information about the kline Fig. 8. Right-hand upright of the kline in the lapidarium of the Archaeological museum in Tekirdağ (photo by the author).

39 For complete bibliography on the tomb at Ginina Mogila, see Maria Chichikova, Daniela Stoyanova, Totko

Stoyanov, The Caryatids Royal Tomb. Isperih, 2012, 53 – 56.

40 Caroline Huguenot. La Tombe aux Erotes et la tombe d’Amarynthos. Architecture funéraire et présence macé-

donienne en Grèce centrale. Gollion, 2008, 67, pl. 1.

41 Консуело Манетта, Даниела Стоянова, Джанпаоло Лульо, „Нови наблюдения“, бел. 69. 42 Arif Mansel, Trakya – Kirklareli. Kubbeli Mezarlari. Ve sahte kubbe ve kemer problemi. / Die Kuppelgräber

von Kirklareli in Thrakien. Ankara, 1943, 52.

43 Frederick Hasluck, “A Tholos Tomb at Kirk Kilisse.” The Annual of the British School at Athens, 17 (1910/1911):

77; Nikola Theodossiev, “The Thracian Tholos Tomb at Eriklice Reconsidered” In Valeri Jоtov, Igor Lazarenko (eds.), Miscellanea in Honour of Alexander Minchev. Terra Antiqua Balcanica et Mediterranea. International Conference, Varna, February 23th, 2007, Acta Musei Varnaensis 8.1, Varna, 2011, 69.

The K line from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace

99

Fig. 9. Klinai from the tomb in Ginina tumulus near Sveshtari (after Чичикова, Стоянова, Стоянов 2012).

Fig. 10. Kline from the tomb at Ivanski (photo Stanimir Stoychev).

in the tomb in Tumulus C at Kirklareli concerns the legs, which were decorated with palmettes in relief44. The decoration with palmettes on the legs is one of the main characteristics of Type B furniture, as shown by numerous examples of klinai from Macedonia45 and Anatolia46. This suggests that the legs of the kline in Tumulus C were rendered in the typical for the Type B way and this funerary bed should be included in the group of furniture with Type B decoration. Not much is known about the kline from the tomb at Kirklareli-Eriklice – it is mentioned only that the funerary bed had headrests in relief, 44 Arif Mansel, Trakya – Kirklareli, 52. 45 Caroline Huguenot. La Tombe aux Erotes, 68, pl. 16. 46 Elizabeth Baughan, Couched in Death, 105ff.

100

Danaila Grudeva

similarly to the klinai in Hellenistic Macedonian tombs47. Unfortunately, there is no further data about the exact appearance of these two beds, their construction and decoration, the shape of the headrests, etc., which makes their thorough analysis impossible. It could be suggested that the two beds belong to Type B furniture – based on the palmette decoration, which is one of the main characteristics of the type. The proximity to the Naip tomb also speaks in favour of this. When discussing the tomb furniture in the area of Naip, we also need to mention that a sarcophagus was found in the tomb in Tumulus B at Kirklareli48. Two more sarcophagi were found in the tomb at Enez, dated to the end of the 4th c. BC49. The available information about the klinai in Northeastern Thrace, where the tomb at Varbitsa is situated, shows, on the other hand, that various types of klinai occur over the territory of Northeastern Thrace. They differ in their construction, decoration, workmanship of the headrests, etc. Examples of stone klinai from this region are the two funerary beds from the Caryatids Tomb near the village of Sveshtari, which constructively belong to the subtype of the composite klinai of side, front, and horizontal slabs (Fig. 9). These klinai should be assigned to the group of furniture with Type B decoration, based on the workmanship of their legs. As already mentioned, the silhouette of capitals of these klinai is very similar to the rendering of the capitals of the legs of the kline from Naip. Differences could be seen in the details – the decoration of the kline at Naip is more precise and the individual parts of the leg are clearly outlined, while at the klinai in Sveshtari they are only shaped in profile. The two headrests found in the tomb also display significant differences compared to the headrests from Naip and Varbitsa – they are rectangular, with smooth, rounded and slightly budging sides. Another kline from Northeastern Thrace is the funerary bed from the tomb at Ivanski, near Shumen50 (Fig. 10). It belongs to the type of the built klinai from separate stone blocks. The workmanship and the decoration of this kline imitate these of wooden models. The legs of the kline are carved in relief on the front side of the bed and have the typical for the Type A decoration rendering – they consist of narrower lower and broader upper coneshaped parts, which are separated from one another by a ring-like element. The headrests of this bed are shaped on the two outer ends of the monolithic stone blocks – the blocks raise in height and are plastically rendered in the form of headrests with a slightly turned S-shaped profile. Their workmanship and form are completely different from those of the headrests in the tombs at Naip and Varbitsa. On the other hand, the Type A legs of the kline in the tomb at Ivanski find parallels with the legs of the two diphroi in the tomb at Naip. This is another evidence for the distribution of the same models in the tomb furniture in Southeastern and Northeastern Thrace. The examples discussed above show that klinai from various types and with diverse decoration were distributed all over the territory of Southeastern and Northeastern 47 Nikola Theodossiev, The Thracian Tholos Tomb at Eriklice Reconsidered, 69. 48 Arif Mansel, Trakya – Kirklareli., 39. 49 Şahin Yildirim, “The Emergence and the Development of Tumuli in Eastern Thrace” In Oliver Henry, Ute

Help (eds.), Tumulus as Sema. Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC., Berlin, 2016, 364, pl. 164, fig. 16. 50 Георги Атанасов, Станимир Стойчев, „Гробничен комплекс край с. Ивански“, 103, 118, обр. 8.

The K line from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace

101

Thrace. Based on the available information, we can conclude that the kline from the tomb at Varbitsa is the only example from Northeastern Thrace, the headrest of which is worked similarly to the headrests of the kline in the tomb at Naip. There are no other examples of klinai from the discussed regions, with capitals of the legs shaped separately from the shafts and molded on the headrest of the funerary bed. Based on the similarities in the workmanship of the headrests of the two funerary beds, we can suggest that they were also similar in their construction. The rendering of a capital on the side of the headrest at Varbitsa implies that the kline had the characteristic features of the furniture with Type B decoration – a type to which the kline at Naip also belongs. This way of molding the headrests separately from the leg of the kline speaks for the diffusion of the same model in the two regions, which led to the emergence of the same type of headrests in the tombs at Naip and Varbitsa.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

KYPSELA THROUGH ITS HISTORY AND COINAGE (4TH–3RD CENTURY BC) Dessislava Lyubenova

K

ypsela (Κύψελα) was located near the left bank of the river Hebros (Fig. 1). The site is identified with the present-day Ipsala (Turkey), located as border-town to the neighbouring Greece. Nevertheless, we still do not have sufficient evidence concerning the origins of the city. It is not known who founded it and when. At present, there are no visible archaeological remains on the terrain and whatever has been discovered in the past is now kept in the Edirne Museum1. The strategic location of Kypsela, with its key position on the major trade-route on the river Hebros coming from the Thracian Chersonese, determined its significance as a political centre and residence of the eastern branch of Odrysian kingdom during 4th and 3rd century BC. The river provided easy access to the uppermost reaches of the Thracian Plain and hinterland.

Figure 1: Location of Kypsela 1 Sümer Atasoy, “Ancient Greek Settlements in Eastern Thrace”. In Dimitrios Grammenos and Elias Petropou-

los (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea. Vol. II, Thessaloniki, 2007, 1179–1194.

104

Dessislava Lyubenova

Our knowledge about the history of Kypsela is limited and is based solely on literary sources and coins2. Apart from Stephanus Byzantius, there is no other evidence on the city-ethnic. He calls Kypsela a Thracian polis next to the Hebros River: „Κύψελα πόλις Θράκης πλησίον τοῦ Ἓβρου ποταμοῦ”3. Kypsela is classified as a polis only in later sources. Polyaenus narrates about Antiochus II Theos who besieged the Thracian city of Kypsela in 254 BC: „Άντίοχος έπολιόρκει Κύψελα, Θρᾷτταν πόλιν”4. There is no doubt that considerable number of Kypsela’s inhabitants in the 3rd century BC were Thracians. Strabo gives more details. He mentions once Kypsela and the Hebros River as eastern border of Macedonia, which is related to a previous passage, where the town is terminal point of the Roman Via Egnatia5. The last passage is quoted from Polybius, referring to the situation in the third quarter of the 2nd century BC. Then he lists Doriskos and later Hebros, saying that the distance to Kypsela was 120 stadia (c. 21 km) and adding that “some called Odrysae all who lived above the sea coast between the Hebros and Kypsela and Odessos”6. Apparently, here Strabo is drawing also from an earlier source. Livy lists the fortresses Kypsela, Doriskos and Serrhaion, occupied by Philip V in 200 BC after the siege of Aenos: “…alia castella Cypsela et Doriskon et Serrheum”7. This is confirmed by Pliny as well, who speaks about the fortified places (oppida) Cypsela and Bisanthe8. In his 2nd century AD Geography Ptolemy, when refering to mainland cities in Thrace, mentions Kypsela on the track between Plotinopolis and the Roman colony of Aprus9. Finally, Kypsela is interpreted as a lasting Odrysian royal residence in that region of strategic importance in Southeastern Europe and Thrace10, on the future road Via Egnatia. According to a recent view, if we consider the source given by Pliny among the other ethnic names we can associate the tribe of the Hypsalti with city of Kypsela and they can accordingly be placed tentatively next to the Kainoi and Korpiloi in the area between Ipsala and Uzunköprü11. The polis status of Kypsela is known exclusively from its short-lived bronze coinage (Fig. 2). Stylistic and iconographic parallels and chronology (415–387 BC) seem to suggest a former dependency on Ainos and a short period of self-government12. In most studies, the conical vessel with two handles on the reverses was identified mainly as kypsele (vessel for cereals). Due to its presence among the coin-types of Kypsela, it 2 Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands and Asia Minor. Berkley & Los Ange-

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

les, 1995, 132; Louisa Loukopoulou, “Thrace from Nestos to Hebros.” In Mogens H. Hansen and Thomas H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford, 2004, 878. Stephani Byzantii, Ethnicorum quae supersunt, s.v. Κύψελα (ed. A. Meineke, Berlin, 1849). Polyaeni, Strategematon libri octo, 4.16 (edd. E. Woelflin et I. Melber, Leipzig, 1887). Strabonis, Geographika VII, fr. 9 – 10 and C 322 (ed. A. Meineke. Leipzig, Vol. II, 1907²). Strabo, VII. fr. 48. Titi Livii, Ab urbe condita, 31.16 (Livy, History of Rome, vol. IX, 1935, transl. by E.T. Sage, Loeb Classical Library). Plinii, Naturalis Historia, IV.11.43 (Pliny, Natural History, vol. II, 1961³, transl. by H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library). Claudii Ptolemaei, Geographia, III.11.7 (ed. C. Müler, Paris, 1883). Kalin Porozhanov, “The Residences of the Odrysian Rulers.”, Thracia 18 (2009) In memoriam Alexandri Fol, 255 – 270. Plinii, Naturalis Historia, IV.11.40; Петър Делев, „Някои проблеми на етнонимията в Централна и Югоизточна Тракия.” В Румяна Георгиева, Димчо Момчилов, Тотко Стоянов (ред.), Югоизточна България през II – I хил. пр. Хр. Варна, 2010, 96–110. Loukopoulou, “Thrace from Nestos to Hebros.”, 878.

Kypsela through its History and Coinage (4th–3rd century BC)

105

Figure 2: Bronze coin of Kypsela (415 – 387 BC) (after Топалов 2000, 45, 1.2) Obverse: Head of Hermes with a petasos hat decorated with pearls Reverse: Κ/Υ/Ψ/Ε around a conical vessel (kypsele) with two handles

was considered a symbol of its urban mint. The period of self-government, attested by the bronze coinage, was followed by an Odrysian rule at least since 390–380 BC. During the first half of 4th century BC, Kypsela became a permanent residence of the Odrysian kings Hebryzelmis (386–383 BC), Kotys I (383–359 BC), and Kersebleptes (359–341 BC). This is attested by the coinage of the Odrysian rulers who minted their coins in the mint of Kypsela13. Significant change occurred in later coin emissions of the Odrysian ruler Hebryzelmis. They were united by a common type for the reverse. This is the depiction of the kypsele. The introduction of the kypsele in the iconographic repertoire of Hebryzelmis’ coinage shows that its organization and deployment occurred in the mint of Kypsela, a city that was located in the territories he possessed14. Even if it was not necessarily one of his residences, there is no doubt that he moved his starting point close to Propontis and the Thracian Chersonese with the clear intention to exercise control over the local towns and to strengthen his positions on the Aegean coast. Coins of Hebryzelmis display the typical signs for the autonomous coins of Kypsela. The first letters Κ Ψ, are replaced by the letters Ε Υ. Υ Ε Β Ρ The depiction of kypsele as a constant device for the reverse of Hebryzelmis’ coins is accompanied by the introduction of new images. These are head of Kybele (Fig. 3) and head of Apollo, which are unusual for Kypsela and the iconographic repertoire of the Thracian coinage15. On the reverses of six pieces from the collection of National Archaeological Institute with Museum (NAIM) in Sofia, there is a kypsele with ear of corn beneath. This is an additional symbol that suits well the constant type of the mint – kypsele. Later, it was replaced by a large barley grain on the coins of the Odrysian ruler Kersebleptes. According to Y. Yurukova, this symbol is very important as it indicates possible countemarks which Kypsela would use on its own or foreign coins16. Two bronze-coin series of Kotys I display two different stages of his coinage. The first one, of the initial years of his reign, is connected with the mint of Maroneia, whereas the second one is struck in Kypsela. The second period is much later. Although there is a 13 Йорданка Юрукова, Монетни съкровища от българските земи. Т. 1. Монетите на тракийските пле-

мена и владетели. София, 1992, 57–58.

14 Ibid., 58. 15 Ibid., 232–233, № 45–47. 16 Ibid., 59–60.

106

Dessislava Lyubenova

Figure 3: Bronze coin of Hebryzelmis (c. 390/387–383 BC) (after Юрукова, 1992, 233, 46; Corpus Nummorum Thracorum 3213) Obverse: Turreted head of Kybele to r.; countermark H on the neck Reverse: Ε/Β/Ρ/Υ around two-handled conical vessel (kypsele) with two handles, under it corn-ear. In the kypsele countermark – head of Gorgon.

depiction of kypsele, some bronze coins can be attributed to the mint of Maroneia. There are several reasons for this statement. The thickness of the flan is related to series of coins of the Odrysian rulers Amatokos I, Amatokos II, and Teres II, minted at Maroneia. Similar flan-thickness is unusual for the mint of Kypsela. The coins show similarities through another interesting mark. The depiction of the kypsele and the legend on their reverses lay within concave square frame (Fig. 4). It is a technological device typical for the mint of Maroneia. Linguists connect the name of Kotys I with the name of the Thracian goddess Κότυς or Κοττυτώ. Strabo identifies her with the Phrygian Great Mother Goddess17. Hence the vessel with two handles – kotyle, as “speaking attribute” of the goddess, can perform the same function for the king Kotys I. Similar idea can explain the presence of kotyle on the bronze coins minted by Maroneia18. The quality of the Kotys’ silver coins is not an argument per se to search for other mint than Kypsela19. After the death of Kotys I, the Odrysian Kingdom was divided in three parts between Kersebleptes (son of Kotys I), Amatokos II (probably son of Metokos/Amatokos I), and Berisades, whose ancestry is unknown. Kersebleptes continued the main political line of his father. He was keen to strengthen his positions to the east of the river Hebros, over Propontis and the reaches to the Thracian Chersonese. This area as the core of his dominion could be defined more properly by the regal coins, minted in Kypsela. Kersebleptes allowed the issuing of bronze coins. On the reverse, there is a depiction of kypsele and a barley-grain. The letters Κ Ε Ρ are engraved symmetrically around the kypsele (Fig. 5). Even in these later issues, the coins retain the characteristic symbol of the Kypselitan mint20. In the time of Kersebleptes, the activity of Kypsela was reduced. During his conquest in Southern Thrace, the Macedonian King Philip II directed his attacks against the Odrysian rulers. They controlled the main coastal route and some of the most important 17 18 19 20

Strabo, 10.3.16 Юрукова, Монетни съкровища, 62–63. Ibid., 65. Ibid., 72.

Kypsela through its History and Coinage (4th–3rd century BC)

107

Figure 4: Bronze coin of Kotys I (c. 384/382–359 BC) (after Юрукова 1992, 236, 53; ; Corpus Nummorum Thracorum 3208) Obverse: Horseman with waving chlamys galloping to r. The right hand is raised in a sign of greeting Reverse: Κ/Ο/Τ/Υ around the kotyle within incuse square.

Figure 5: Bronze coin of Kersebleptes (c. 359–346/341 BC) (after Юрукова 1992, 245, 70; Corpus Nummorum Thracorum 3161) Obverse: Diademed female head (Demeter?) to r. Reverse: Κ/Ε/Ρ around kypsele and corn grain below.

Greek poleis there. The Thracian dynasts retreated deeper into their dominions, located in the valleys along the middle and upper reaches of Hebros and Tonzos21. This situation is supported by numismatic finds. Three rare silver coins with a depiction of kypsele on their reverses could help localizing their centre of minting. Above the kypsele, we see the letters ΦΙ, ΦΙΛ, or monogram. These pieces were struck at Kypsela soon after Kersebleptes’ production was put to an end, when the urban mint still preserved its traditional symbol. The coins were tentatively associated with the triumphant Philip II22. Kypsela is often connected with the activity of the dynast Adaios. Our knowledge about his person is limited, based solely on coins and literary evidence. The name Adaios/ Adaeus is mentioned twice in the ancient sources, although it is not certain to whom exactly they were referring to. Justin, in his Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, included con21 Ibid., 80 22 Ibid., 75.

108

Dessislava Lyubenova

Figure 6: Distribution of coins of Adaios

cise remark on a certain Adaeus put to death by Ptolemy23. This Ptolemy must well have been Ptolemy III Euergetes and the respective assassination of Adaios should be placed around 230 BC. A fragment of the New Attic Comedy refers to Adaios who lived in Kypsela. Some scholars believe Adaios ruled at the turn of the 4th century BC, others – in the period between 270/260–245/240 BC, and finally still others – at the end of 3rd century BC. Eventually, both sources could have described one and the same person, the ruler Adaios who lived in Kypsela and was murdered around 230 BC24. Adaios’ dominion was sought within Southeastern Thrace due to the large number of his coins found there. These have been found in Abdera, Maroneia, and MesambriaZone, in the village Pelektiti, located close to the area of Xanthi, in Seuthopolis and Kabyle, in the area around Burgas and in the valley of Tonzos (Fig. 6). According to K. Dimitrov, Adaios was of Macedonian origin and struck his coins at Kypsela at the end of 4th century BC/ beginning of the 3rd century BC25. The Macedonian origin of Adaios makes D. P. Dimitrov believe he was governor of some of the Thracian dominions of Lysimachus. After his death (281 BC), Adaios declared himself independent dynast and started to strike his own coins. In this case, the monetary emissions of Adaios should be dated to the second quarter of 3rd century BC26. According to Y. Yurukova, the coinage of Adaios in Kypsela should be connected with the political situation in this area. In 309/308 BC, 23 Iustini, Historiarum Philippicarum ex Trogo Pompeio libri XLIV, Prol. Libri XXVII: “Vt Ptolomaeus Adaeum

denuo captum interfecerit” (ed. Fr. Duebner. Leipzig, 1841).

24 See the discussion with relevant sources and bibliography in Ulrike Peter, Die Münzen der thrakischen

Dynasten (5.–3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.): Hintergründe ihrer Prägung. Berlin, 1997, 245–246.

25 Камен Димитров, „Античните монети на Севтополис.“ В Севтополис. Т. 2, София, 1984, 5–136. 26 Димитър П. Димитров, „Бронзови монети на династа Адей от разкопките в Севтополис.“ Археология

14:3 (1972): 6–13.

Kypsela through its History and Coinage (4th–3rd century BC)

109

Lysimachus founded a new city – Lysimacheia, and made it his political centre. Controlling one of the main routes from Macedonia and Thrace to Asia Minor, Lysimacheia’s position makes it hard to believe that Adaios minted his own coinage at the same time in the nearby town of Kypsela27. The distribution of Adaios’ coins in Seuthopolis is attested in the second quarter of 3rd century BC, together with bronze coins of Lysimacheia (270–260 BC), a coin of Antiochus II and some bronze coins of Ainos28. Countermarked coins of Adaios (type head of Apollo/tripod) and the coins of Antiochus II Theos with the countermark K A B present another interesting case. All overstrikes are placed on the same place (on the obverse of the coin on the face of Apollo), which speaks of one and the same technological process, meant to have taken place in 250–245 BC29. Obviously, these pieces entered countermarking together with the coins of Antiochus II. In any case, they could not be countermarked before 250 BC and this is terminus ante quem for their minting. During the excavations of Maroneia, coins of Adaios were found together with a coin of Antiochus II (261–246 BC), a coin of Seleukos II (246–226 BC), and a coin of Philip V (220–179 BC).30 Five coins of Adaios came to light in the course of a rescue excavation conducted by Chr. Karadima in the area of Kambana in Maroneia31. The deposits (stamped amphora handles and coins of Maroneia) are dated to the end of the 4th and the 3rd century BC. Based on the context, the dating of Adaios’ coins to the end of the 3rd century BC does not seem possible, although no final conclusion can be drawn until the typological study and the chronological classification of the pottery is completed32. An already mentioned passage in Polyaenus (2nd century AD) gives important evidence about the siege of Kypsela by Antiochus II Theos33. The exact time of his campaign is not securely established. Droysen suggested that the siege of Kypsela and the attack on Byzantion happened simultaneously (in 259 BC). According to Wilcken, it took place in the beginning of Antiochus’ reign. Other scholars suggested a date around 255 BC or the last years of his reign34. Coin circulation of Antiochus II in Thrace outlines the route of his actions. Most probably, the king’s army followed the route from the Thracian Chersonese and Kypsela, passed through Kabyle and reached Apollonia on the road connecting the Aegean coast with the Western Ppontic cities. One of the supposed participants in these actions in Thrace around the middle of the 3rd century BC was Adaios. The presence of his coins at Seuthopolis and the coins with countermark of Kabyle and Byzantion could date the reign of Adaios around 270/260–245/240 BC35. The analysis 27 28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35

Юрукова, Монетни съкровища, 143–144. Ibid., 142. Ibid., 146. Christos Gatzolis, Vasilis Poulios, Domna Terzopoulou, “Coins of Thracian Kings and Rulers from Western Thrace, Eastern and Central Macedonia (5th–3rd c. BC).”, In Athena Iakovidou (ed.) Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology. Komotini-Alexandroupolis 8–23 October 2005. Athens, 2007, 178. Chrissoula Karadima, “Αρχαιολογικές εργασίες στη Μαρώνειας και τη Σαμoθράκη.” Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 16 (1998), [2002]: 487–488. Christos Gatzolis, Vasilis Poulios, Domna Terzopoulou, Coins of Thracian Kings, 179. See p. 72, note 4. Discussion in Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements, 132. Йорданка Юрукова, Монетни съкровища, 151–152.

110

Dessislava Lyubenova

and interpretation of the Mal-Tepe tomb-complex near Mezek (Svilengrad Municipality) made by T. Stoyanov indicates a chronology of the second and the third phases within the frames of the first half to the middle of the 3rd century BC. Consequently, it was suggested that the tomb was designed for Adaios’ burial36. In another publication, the same author offered further arguments on the function and date of the Celtic-type chariot, parts of which were found in the dromos of the tomb. The remains were interpreted as war-trophy of the deceased, taken during his presumed participation in the defeat of the Celtic troops near Lysimacheia in 277 BC37. The ambitions of Ptolemaios III Euergetes towards the Aegean Thrace were detrimental for Adaios. After his death, his territories became Egyptian possession. Further details on Kypsela’s history and archaeology could be uncovered only through systematical excavations. The available evidence suggests its primary role as residence of the Thracian rulers in the first half of the 4th century and continuing well into the Early Hellenistic period under the Diadochs and their dependants in Southeastern Thrace.

36 Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal-tepe Complex at Mezek.” In Jan Bouzek and Lidia Domaradzka (eds.), The Culture

of the Thracians and their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki with a Round Table „Archaeological Map of Bulgaria“. Oxford, 2005 (=BAR International Series 1350), 127. 37 Totko Stoyanov, “The Mal Tepe Tomb at Mezek and the Problem of Celtic Kingdom in South-Eastern Thrace.” In Lyudmil Vagalinski (ed.), In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III C BC). Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Colloquium arranged by the National Institute of Archaeology with Museum at Sofia, and the Welsh Department, Aberystwyth University, 8 May 2010, Sofia. Sofia, 2010, 115–119.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

NOTES ON HADRIANOPOLIS IN THRACE Dragomir Tochev

F

rom epigraphic, numismatic or literary sources we know about several cities founded or “refounded” by Emperor Hadrian. For some of them, there are fairly abundant data, for example Cyrene and Hadrianopolis in Cyrenaica that suffered damage during The Second Jewish Revolt, and Hadrian founded/refounded them at the beginning of his reign. Other instances are Antinoopolis in Egypt, founded on October 30, 130, and Colonia Aelia Capitolina established in Judea in a lenghty and disastrous process from before 132 AD. There is no evidence about others, such as Colonia Aelia Mursa in Panonia Inferior (133?), some presumed foundations of Hadrian, e.g. Forum Hadriani in Lower Germany, and most cities called Hadrianopolis (such as modern Edirne). Hadrian’s motivation for founding/refounding most of the cities remains unclear. There is some truth in the assumption of urbanization and infiltration of the GrecoRoman urban culture in some isolated areas1, but it is not always reliable. One thing is certain – like the other selected cities, the new ones were transfigured to include unmistakable references to the Roman Emperor. One of these new creations was Hadrianopolis in Thrace, modern-day Edirne. The settlement is bounded by the river Tonzos (Tunça) on its north, south, and west sides and has expanded on the hills rising from west to east (Fig. 1). According to Aelius Lampridius in Historia Augusta, the foundation of the city took place during the reign of Hadrian, and therefore bears his name: And after he (Orestes) purified himself at the three Rivers in the Hebrus region in obedience to a divine response, he founded the city of Oresta – a city destined to be often stained with human blood. As for this city Oresta, Hadrian, after he had begun to suffer from madness, ordered that it should be called after his own name – also acting in obedience to a divine response, for he had been told to steal into the house or into the name of some madman. Thereupon, they say, he recovered from his madness, which had caused him to order the execution of many senators, all

1 Such as Mysia in Asia Minor and the cities of Stratonicea-Hadrianopolis, Hadrianoutherai, Hadrianoi and

Hadrianeia.

112

Dragomir Tochev

of whom, however, were saved by Antoninus for he won the surname of Pius by leading them into the senate after all supposed that they had been put to death by the Emperor‘s order.2

There are two opinions on when the town received the name of Hadrian. According to the first and more popular one3, this has happened during his first grand tour of the eastern provinces. Polemo suggests that in the summer of AD 124, before entering Asia, Hadrian crossed the Sea of Marmara to Thrace. It has been argued that the purpose was an inspection of the Danube limes, but no reliable data support this view4. The exact reasons why Hadrian visited Thrace and the aim of his visit remain speculative. According to the opposing view, this happaned during his second trip in this region (128–134 AD), when in the spring of 132 Hadrian left Athens and headed north. This hypothesis is not unlogical, considering the ill health of the emperor at the end of his reign and the text quoted above5. Of course, the years when the emperor is known to have been near the future Hadrianopolis offered the most likely, but not the only possible occasion. It is worth paying attention to the fact that renaming/ founding of a city is not necessarily related to the physical presence of the emperor. He may be represented by a deputy or the act to be the result of a local initiative. In addition to written sources, the role of Hadrian can be evaluated based on two coin series of Hadrianopolis where the portrait of the emperor is accompanied by inscription KTICTHC AΔPIANOC. In this case, there is no contradiction with the statement of Lampridius, but it is rather a confirmation, as the inscription does not necessarily mean that Hadrian is the real founder of the city. Such epithets are often used for persons associated with urban development, or rebuilding of a village, or acts of propaganda6. For example, the same epithet is used for Hadrian in the dedication of a statue in StratoniceaHadrianopolis and in one inscription from Hadrianoi7. The very legend on the coins is an indirect argument for the existence of a settlement structure, often identified with Uskudama, Orestia and Odroza, renamed or promoted in status by Emperor Hadrian. Some researchers suggest that the foundation or reorganization of the city occurred during the time of Trajan. In her monograph on the coinage of Hadrianopolis, Y. Yurukova indicates that there are several inscriptions naming the city as Ulpia Hadrianopolis8. In fact, these monuments are praetorian laterculi from Rome, dated mostly in the first half of the 3rd century AD, listing soldiers by their origin (origo) and tribe (tribus). Seven of all indicated as birthplace Hadrianopolis, and for two of them9 it is the only pre2 Historia Augusta: Elagabalus 7.6. (ed. D. Magie) 3 Şahin Yıldırım, “The Salvage Excavation of the Hadrianopolis City Wall and the Archaeologycal Park

4 5 6 7 8 9

Project.” Поселищен живот в Тракия IV (2006): 293–304; Tulay Canitez, Ilker Salih Canitez, Nevzat Ilhan, “Edirne Historical Center: Evolution and Preservation Values”. Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 7, Suppl. 2, (2009): 215–220; Йорданка Юрукова, Монетосеченето на градовете в Долна Мизия и Тракия II–III в. Хадрианопол. София, 1987, 8. Anthony Birley, Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. London & New York, 1997, 161. There are no data about the date of the incident with the senators, but it was more likely in the second half of his reign. Such is the case of Odessus during the reign of Tiberius (Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria Repertae I2, 57). Both cited in Mary Boatwright, Hadrian, 188–189. CIL VI 894c, 13.14; 894d, 11; 895, 17.21. CIL VI 892, 26. 19.

Notes on Hadrianopolis in Thrace

113

served information. Five persons are named M(arcus) Aur(elius), belonging to the tribe Ulp(ia). In fact, it does not mean that the city had the original name Ulpia Hadrianopolis, but that the soldiers belonged to the tribe or rather pseudo-tribe Ulpia. By the middle of the 2nd century BC, all Roman citizens and soldiers were recorded in one of the 35 original tribes. After his victory in the civil war (193–195 A.D.), Septimius Severus disbanded the old Praetorian Guard, and filled its ranks mainly with people from the Danubian legions that were loyal to him10. The influx of soldiers born in peregrine communities seemingly caused confusion in the office-administration of the Praetorians, where the tribe records were duly preserved. For example, soldiers from Colonia Ulpia Oescus declared as their original tribe Papiria, but also the pseudo-tribe Ulpia. The same situation is particularly typical for the colonies in Pannonia. For cities with perigrine status, there is a tendency to use as pseudo-tribe the nomen gentile of the founding Emperor11. Interestingly, in this case Hadrianopolis is not named Aelia, as we might expect for a Hadrianic foundation, but Ulpia. One could look for an earlier urbanizing attempt in the time of Emperor Trajan (98–117 AD). Y. Yurukova made further assumptions ​based on coins countermarked with the legend TONZOY12. Three already published specimens are described as follows: the first one, of Augustan date, has been discovered in Asia Minor, the second one coming from Thrace is attributed to Trajan, and the third one (unspecified) is registered in the Museum of Ajtos (SE Bulgaria). Yurukova also pointed to six other countermarked coins with the same legend – one of Augustus, one of Nero, and two of Trajan (sic!)13. Two of them are found in the vicinity of Harmanli (SE Bulgaria). Today we know about a few more countermarked examples with TONZOY. A coin from Maroneia is attributed to Nero14, another, probably of a Flavian date, comes from unknown location15, and two more are Domitianic – from Nicaea in Bithynia16 and Thrace17. Identifying Hadrianopolis with Tonzos finds indirect support in the literary sources. Ptolemy, having described the situation after the Dacian Wars of Trajan, mentioned Tonzos among the inner cities of Thrace18. He did not mention Hadrianopolis, Uscudama, or Oresteia, which Yurukova took as argumentum ex silentio to identity Tonzos with the later Hadrianopolis. According to Ptolemy, Tonzos is located between Arzus (Simeonovgrad) and Kabyle. Judging by the name, it was to be located on the eponymous river, which is a major argument for T. Gerassimov to search for the city somewhere upstream in the vicinity of Kabyle19. Unfortunately, these countermarked coins of the type TONZOY are hardly indic10 Sandra J. Bingham, The Praetorian Guard: A History of Rome’s Elite Special Forces. London & New York,

2013, 45–46.

11 Иво Топалилов, „Върху една група преторианци от Филипопол“. Историкии, 4 (2011): 262 и цит. там 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

литература. Йорданка Юрукова, Монетосеченето, 8. Йорданка Юрукова, Монетосеченето, 8. http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=71969 (04.06.2014) http://www.romancoins.info/countermark-Richard-Baker.html (04.06.2014) Ibid. http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=67677 (04.06.2014) Ptol. III, 11, 7. (ed. C. Müller). Тодор Герасимов, „Принос към античната география на Тракия. Град Тонзос.“ Известия на Българското географско дружество 3 (1935): 181.

114

Dragomir Tochev

ative on the city’s location, having been scarce in number and covering larger territory. On the other hand, it must be remembered that geographical locations of Ptolemy are far from being unquestionable. Interesting for the discussion is a tombstone found in the catacombs of Santi Marcellino e Pietro in Rome20. It belonged to a Roman soldier (eques singularis) of Thracian origin, from Ulpia Tonzus, who died at the age of thirty. Terminus ante quem for the monument is 193 A.D., but I. Topalilov is prone to date it back to 148–151 (i.e. the soldier was born in 118–120, and joined the army around 138)21. According to Topalilov, reference to the city Tonzos in the middle of the second century provides evidence against its identification with Hadrianopolis. Although plausible, this logical connection can not be taken as an argument for rejecting the earlier thesis. The assumption that Ulpia Tonzus is a predecessor of Hadrianopolis could easily explain the use of the pseudo-tribe Ulpia in Praetorian laterculi. Unfortunately, the present level of archaeological research can not help much in understanding the early history of Hadrianopolis. The remains of the Roman city beneath the modern town are largely unknown. Most significant is the northeastern corner tower with parts of the fortress wall. By the beginning of the 2nd century, the walled city of Hadrianopolis had an area of approximately 50 ha. The original wall was built in isodomic masonry with large square blocks (two courses of sandstone at the base and local limestone above) without mortar, fastened by iron clamps in swallow-tale-shaped beds. On some of the blocks, masons’ marks in Greek letters are still visible. The wall may have been built either in the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius, when most of the fortifications of the cities of Thrace could be securely dated. Hadrianopolis city walls were built in the shape of rectangle, with a strong round tower at each corner. During rescue excavations in 2002–2003, several pottery kilns were uncovered dating to Roman, Late Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman times (Fig. 3). The Roman poterry kiln is located outside the fortress, while the Late Roman is inside, adjacent to the wall. According to Ş. Yildirim, the pottery is similar to that found in Pavlikeni and Butovo22. The absence of significant structures from the period before Hadrian may be due to several reasons – the small excavated area (in the periphery of the settlement) or the lack of topographic continuity. It is possible that the earlier village was located close to the hills of Roman Hadrianopolis. The situation could be similar to other Thracian settlements reorganized by the Roman government in order to become legitimate urban communities23.

20 Silvio Panciera, “Ulpia Tonzus” In Scritti sul mondo antico in memoria di Fulvio Grosso. Roma, 1981, 471.

Michael Speidel, Die Denkmäler der Kaiserreiter. Equites singulares Augusti. Köln 1994, 158, nr. 168.

21 Иво Топалилов, „За датата на надгробния надпис на T. Aurelius Secundus”. In Acta Musei Varnaensis

VII–2, Нумизматични, сфрагистични и епиграфски приноси към историята на Черноморското крайбрежие. Варна, 2008, 247–252. 22 Şahin Yildirim, “The salvage”, 298. 23 Discussion in Христо Попов, „Тракийски градове и римски градове. Има ли приемственост?“ In Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Prof. L. Getov (Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. IV), Sofia 2005, 610–617.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

“UNDER COVER OF CARRYING SUCCOUR TO THE BYZANTINES” King Philip V of Macedon against Thracian chiefs (analysis of Liv. XXXIX, 35, 4)*

Dilyana Boteva

I

n book 39 of his Ab urbe condita, Livy reports of an intriguing event, connected with the military activity of Philip V of Macedon in the southeastern part of Thrace. The information in question reads as follows: Liv. XXXIX, 35.4: interim per speciem auxilii Byzantiis ferendi, re ipsa ad terrorem regulis Thracum iniciendum profectus, perculsis iis uno proelio et Amadoco duce capto in Macedoniam rediit1.

An English translation of this ancient text has been offered by Evan T. Sage: Meanwhile, under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines but really to intimidate the Thracian chiefs, he advanced against the latter and completely defeated them in a single battle, taking Amadocus, their leader, prisoner2.

Modern historians are focused mainly on two issues when analyzing the report, one of them being the year of the Macedonian campaign against the Thracian reguli, undertaken “under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines”. The dating varies most frequently between 1853 * I am grateful to my colleague Ivaylo Lozanov for his editorial remarks and help with needed literature. Of

course, all responsibility for any errors or misinterpretation is my own.

1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+39+35&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0209. 2 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+39+35&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0144. 3 185 BC – Иван Тодоров, Неизвестните тракийски владетели 542–798 a.u.c. Велико Търново, 1998,

24–26; 184 BC – Benedictus Niese, Geschichte der Griechischen und Makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea, 3. Teil: Von 188 bis 120 v.Chr. (Handbücher der Alten Geschichte. II. Serie, Erste Abteilung, 3. Teil). Gotha, 1903, 28; Miltiades Hatzopoulos, “La politique thrace des dernier Antigonides.” Pulpudeva 4 (1983): 86, n. 46; Frank W. Walbank, “Philip’s foreign policy 188–179 B.C.” In A History of Macedonia, Vol. 3: 336–167 B.C. Oxford, 1988, 468; Маргарита Тачева, “Странджа от ІІІ в. пр. н. е. до ІІІ в. от н. е.” В Димитър Попов, Панто Колев, Атанас Орачев, Странджа древност и съвремие. Книга  І. София, 1990, 395; Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи в древността през елинистическата и римската епоха. 2-ро доп. изд. София, 1997, 61; Пламен Петков, Военно-политически отношения на тракийските владетели в Европейския Югоизток между 230/229 г. пр. Хр. и 45/46 г. сл. Хр. Велико Търново, 2011, 58; Димитър Митов, Кратките сведения за Тракия и траките от края на ІІІ и първата

116

Dilyana Boteva

and 184 BC, however earlier (187/6) and later (180 BC) years have also been advocated or just mentioned. There are no indisputable reasons to insist on any of these years. In my opinion, it would be correct enough if one dates this military activity to ca. 185/4 BC. As part of the attempts to identify the Thracian antagonists of the Macedonian king, much attention has been paid to the tribal origin of Amadocus who was taken prisoner by Philip V. Historians who either do not touch this issue4 , or just do not try to specify the origin of Amadocus5, are exception. The majority of the researchers accept him to be of Odrysian origin due to his very emblematic name6, and respectively insist that Philip in ca. 185/4 BC waged war against the Odrysian Kingdom. Amadocus’ position within the later state has been defined differently: М. Tacheva speaks of him as a dux7, strictly following Livy’s text, while according to F. W. Walbank „Amadocus was king of the Odrysae, who controlled the lower Hebrus valley, inland of Aenus” 8. Another opinion identifies him as an Astaean regulus who had a leading position among the Thracians of the region but with limited military and political possibilities in that specific historical moment9. Back in 1903, B. Niese was the first to suggest that in 184 BC Philip V waged a war against the Kainoi and that Amadocus was their chief (“Fürst”)10. Only after a century, this idea was revived in a more detailed version, based on the correct observation that the ancient historian speaks not about a single regulus, but about “Thracian reguli”, who were defeated in a single battle. According to the new conjecture11, the Macedonian king clashed with the four allied Thracian tribes (Astai, Kainoi, Maduateni, and Koreli) mentioned by Livy in connection with the Thracian attack against Manlius Vulso not far from Kypsela in 188 BC.

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11

половина на ІІ в. пр. Хр. в изцяло запазените книги на Тит Ливий. In https://independent.academia.edu/ DimitarMitov (02.01.2015); 187/6 BC – Юрий Кабакчиев, Summa Thracologiae I. Наблюдения върху тракийската държавност. София, 2000, 122 с бел. 31 на с. 133; 180 BC – Христо Данов, “Към историята на Тракия и Западното Черноморие от втората половина на ІІІ век до средата на І век преди н. е.” Годишник на Софийския университет, Философско-Исторически факултет, 47: 2 (1952): 147. Christo Danov, „Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zur Gründung Konstantinopels.“ In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II, 7(1). Berlin, 1979, 89; Miltiades Hatzopoulos, “La politique,” 86, n. 46. Христо Данов, “Към историята,“ 147 („a Thracian prince”), similarly in Христо Данов, Тракийско изворознание, Велико Търново, 155; Dimiter Detschew, Die thrakische Sprachreste (Schriften der Balkan Kommission, Linguistische Abteilung, XIV), Wien, 1957, 16, s. v. Amadokos (“4) Thrakischer Teilfürst”); Peter Delev, “From Corupedion towards Pydna: Thrace in the Third century.” Thracia 15 (2003): 119. Brunhilde Lenk, „Thrakien (Geschichte).“ In Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft II, 11. Hlb., 1936, col. 436. Christo Danov criticizes this opinion (Христо Данов, “Към историята,” 147, n. 1). Маргарита Тачева, “Странджа,” 395; Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи, 61. Frank W. Walbank, “Philip’s foreign policy,” 468. Иван Тодоров, Неизвестните тракийски, 25. Benedictus Niese, Geschichte, 28, n. 4. Юрий Кабакчиев, Summa Thracologiae, 122.

“Under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines”

117

Totally different historical picture is drawn by Chr. Danov : in his opinion, Philip V wanted to intimidate the numerous insignificant Thracian chiefs in the hinterland of Byzantion, where the Thracian tribes were again disunited. Due to the great variety of interpretations of this important evidence on Philip’s military activity in Thrace, here I would like to reason my reading of Livy XXXIX 35.4. The following main points are to be outlined: 1. Undoubtedly, Philip’s campaign was located to the east of the Lower Hebros River; only in such a case, the pretext “of carrying succour to the Byzantines” would have been logically grounded. 2. Chr. Danov is obviously wrong when insisting that the Thracian tribes in the hinterland of Byzantion were again disunited. If this were the case, they would not have been a serious threat to the city on the Bosphoros. Noteworthy on one hand is the diminutive form of the word rex – regulus, and on the other hand – the word’s plural form – reguli. Obviously, Philip V waged a war against at least two, but most probably against more than two Thracian reguli. Each of them had, it seems so, restricted political and military potential, and this is why they were reguli, not reges. However, their united forces were already a considerable factor, most probably causing or expecting to cause some troubles to the Byzantines and it was necessary to be intimidated by the Macedonian king. Because of this, more acceptable to me seems the opinion that the Macedonian king confronted the united Thracian forces of the tribes, engaged in the attack against the army of Manlius Vulso more or less in the same region in 188 BC, i.e. only three to four years earlier. As Livy’s information on this event is of a high importance for the present analysis, I am citing here the relevant part of it: 12

Livy XXXVIII, 40: [4] inde per Chersonesum modicis itineribus grave praeda omnis generis agmen trahens Lysimachiae stativa habuit, ut quam maxime recentibus et integris iumentis Thraeciam, per quam iter vulgo horrebant, ingrederetur… [7] ita cum per saltum iret, Thraecum decem haud amplius milia ex quattuor populis, Astii et Caeni et Maduateni et Coreli, ad ipsas angustias viam circumsederunt13. [4] Then, leading a column heavily laden with every sort of booty by short stages through the Chersonese he [Manlius Vulso, note mine, D. B.] established a base at Lysimachia, in order that with his pack-animals as far as possible fresh and in good condition he might enter Thrace, the journey through which was generally feared… . [7] As they were marching in this order through the defile, not more than ten thousand Thracians, of four tribes, the Astii and the Caeni and the Maduateni and the Coreli, blocked the road at the narrow point…” (English translation by Evan T. Sage)14.

12 Христо Данов, „Към историята,“ 147: „Philip V wanted to daunt those numerous insignificant Thracian

princes active in Byzantion‘s hinterland. In other words around 180 BC the Thracian tribes northwest of Byzantion were again as it seems in a state of deep disunion”. 13 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0209%3Abook%3D38%3Acha pter%3D40. 14 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.+38+40&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0144.

118

Dilyana Boteva

3. If the reasoning offered above in point 2 is correct, Philip’s campaign must have been against the united forces of the Thracian tribes Astai, Kainoi, Maduateni, and Koreli. Of these, only the Astai and the Kainoi were relatively more significant, as suggested by their more frequent presence in the ancient tradition referring to the early 2nd century BC. The leading position of the Astai and Kainoi within the Thracian tribal union is hinted also on formal grounds, as these two ethnonyms appear in the first two places in Livy’s list of the four tribes that attacked Manlius Vulso near Kypsela. It remains however unclear which of the two tribes (the Astai or the Kainoi) was more affected by the military might of the Macedonian king in ca. 185/4 BC. 4. There is an important detail in Livy’s report that has so far never been explicitly emphasized: it seems that Amadocos who was taken prisoner was not one of the reguli, attacked by Philip V in order to intimidate them15. In fact, the Roman historian titles him as a “dux”. This Latin word has several meanings, but here it is most likely used in the sense of “a leader in war, commander, general”16. If so, Amadocos is positioned by the ancient source as the chief commander of the united armies of the Thracian reguli. 5. The name Amadocos marks undoubtedly a connection with the Odrysian royal house. Here, however, it is to be reminded, that the inter-dynastic binds could have been of a various character. Because of this it is impossible to offer a full list of the possibilities that could explain the connection between the dux Amadocos, who – it seems so – was a representative of the Odrysian royal dynasty, and the Thracian reguli, who most probably were ruling over the four tribes that attacked Manlius Vulso in 188 BC. In any case, it seems highly symptomatic that Philip’s activity in the hinterland of Byzantion of ca. 185/4 BC was followed immediately by a military campaign against the Odrysai (Polyb. 23.8.1 – 7; Liv. 39.53.12 – 14), dated to ca. 184/3 BC17. 6. Such a “reading” of the exiting evidence allows a new reconstruction of the historical events in the hinterland of Byzantion during the second decade of the 2nd century BC. It seems that the bold attack of the united Thracian tribes of Astai, Kainoi, Maduateni, and Koreli against the Roman army of the consul Manlius Vulso near Kypsela in 188 BC had a great impact throughout Thrace. Most probably, the potential of the united Thracian forces was estimated by the Odrysian king, who remains anonymous for us, but who – it seems so – offered an Odrysian support for the alliance of the four Thracian tribes. The leading position within this larger coalition was taken by the Odrysae, whose hegemony had marked the development of ancient Thrace for centuries. Accordingly, the Odrysian Amadocos might have become the chief commander (dux) of the united Thracian army during the battle against Philip V in 185/4 BC, but lacked a military fortune and was taken prisoner by the Macedonian king. This Odrysian engagement with the anti-Macedonian activity in the hinterland of Byzantion resulted in Philip’s campaign against the Odrysian kingdom in the following years (ca. 184/3 BC). 15 For a different opinion, see Wilhelm Tomaschek, Die alten Thraker. Eine ethnologische Untersuchung. II. Die

Sprachreste. 2. Hälfte: Personen und Ortsnamen (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 131) (1894): 6, s.v. Amadokos; Иван Тодоров, Неизвестните, 25. 16 Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford, 1968, s.v. 17 Christo Danov, „Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan,“ 88 – 90. On this campaign, however without a date, see also Peter Delev, “From Corupedion towards Pydna,” 119.

“Under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines”

119

If the above reasoning is correct, we have to pay more attention to the four ethnonyms, reported by Livy in XXXVIII, 40. 7: the Astai, the Kainoi, the Maduateni, and the Koreli.

The Astai The earliest testimony on the ethnonym of the Astai (Astii)18 has come down to us in a fragment of Polybios, who asserts that the city of Kabyle was situated not far from the territory of the Astai19. More specific location is to be found in Strabo’s report of the Astai as a Thracian tribe living “above” Salmydessos – a Black Sea rocky coastal territory of “about 700 stades”, “without inhabitants … without harbours … extending as far as the Cyanea”20, i.e. as far as Bosphoros, where in fact Byzantion was situated. Strabo himself specifies elsewhere that the tribe of the Astai is “above Byzantion”21 and also that Bizye was the citadel of the Astaean kings22. These data allow locating the territory of the Astai in the Strandzha Mountain, which is, as a matter of fact, confirmed by Tabula Peutingeriana, where this mountain appears as Asticus23. A further precision is possible thanks to the description handed down to us by Pliny the Elder – his information on Astice regio lists geographical names situated only in the easternmost part of the present Strandža Mountain24, where also Bizye belongs. Such a location of the Astai is hinted also by Claudius Ptolemy, who specifies that the Roman strategia Astikē was “in the coastal region from the city of Perinthos25 to Apollonia”26.

18 About the Asti, see Christo Danov, “Pontos Euxeinos”. Paulys Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertums-

19 20 21 22 23 24

25

26

wissenschaft, Suppl. IX (1962), col. 1013, where, in my opinion, the territory of the Astai is not correctly defined; Александър Фол, Тракия и Балканите през ранноелинистическата епоха. София, 1975, 87–88; Маргарита Тачева, “Странджа от ІІІ в. пр.н.е. до ІІІ в. от н.е.,” 389–390; Georgi Mihailov, “Thrace before the Persian entry into Europe.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, Second Edition, vol. III–2. Cambridge, 1991, 604; Jan Stronk, “Wreckage at Salmydessos.” Talanta (2013): 64–65; Маргарита Тачева, Власт и социум в римска Тракия и Мизия. София, 2000, 39–41; Konstantin Boshnakov, Die Thraker südlich vom Balkan in den Geographika Strabos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen. Palingenesia, 81. Stuttgart, 2003, 190–194; Peter Delev, “Once more on the Thracian Strategies оf Claudius Ptolemy.” In Сборник в памет на професор Велизар Велков. София, 2009, 247. See also George Seure, „Inscriptions grecques du pays des Astiens.“ Revue des Études Anciennes 31 (1929): 297–313. Polyb. 13. fr. 10: Καβύλη, πόλις Θρᾴκης οὐ πόρρω τῆς τῶν Ἀστῶν χώρας. Πολύβιος τρισκαιδεκάτῃ Strabo 7.6.1. See Jan Stronk, “Wreckage,” 64–65 with further literature. Strabo 7.6.2. Strabo 7, fr. 47 (48). Tab. Peut. 8.2.4–5. See also Georgi Mihailov, “Thrace,” 604. Plin. NH 4.11.47: “The region of Astice formerly had a town called Anthium; at the present day Apollonia occupies its site. The rivers here are the Panisos, the Riras, the Tearus, and the Orosines; there are also the towns of Thynias, Halmydessos, Develton, with its lake, now known as Deultum, a colony of veterans, and Phinopolis, near which last is the Bosporus.” (English translation by John Bostock). The connection of the region of Perinthos with Astikē is attested also by two inscriptions – Mustafa Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung, Wien, 1998, 294; Petar Popović, Fanoula Papazoglou, Inscriptions de la Mésie supérieure. Vol. III/2, Timacum Minus et la vallée du Timok, Beograd, 1995, 101. Ptol. 3.11.6.

120

Dilyana Boteva

The Kainoi The reliable information about the territory of the Kainoi (Caeni) is more then limited. The earliest evidence on this issue is the famous Knidian inscription dated to ca. 100 BC, where “the Caeneic Chersonese”, conquered by Titus Didius, appears as “a province” of the governor of the province of Macedonia27. The authors who published this important monument identified the Caeneic Chersonese “presumably” with “the peninsula running down to the Bosporus”28. Louisa Loukopoulou reasons the idea that the definition “the Caeneic Chersonese” is a result of an incorrect translation in Greek of the Latin Chersonesum Caenicamque or Chersonesum atque Caenicam and insists that in fact these are two different administrative units – Chersonese and Caenica, the later being situated in the hinterland of the Thracian Chersonese in the tribal territory of the Kainoi29. This idea is now universally accepted30. Further information about the land of the Kainoi is provided by Pliny the Elder who, on one hand, mentions them among the tribes inhabiting the banks of the River Hebrus (NH IV.11.46) and, on the other, lists regio Caenica as being, together with Bizye (preceding Caenica in the list)31 and “the colony of Flaviopolis, where formerly stood a town called Caela” (following Caenica in the list), in the interior of the Propontic coast described by him in this case between Byzantion and Perinthos; the respective list continues with “the colony of Apros” (“at a distance of fifty miles from Bizye”), the river Erginus (“upon the coast”) and “Lysimachia in the Chersonesos” (NH IV.11.47). At first reading, Pliny’s description of the region between Byzantion and Lysimachia seems quite chaotic32, but with a map at hand the inner logic of the text starts to emerge: the regio Caenica, the colony of Flaviopolis (former Caela), the colony of Apros, and Lysimachia belonged to the territory lying to the west of the line marked by Perinthos on the coast and Bizye in the interior. Erginos was obviously the main river in this territory, flowing according to Pliny “upon the coast”. Taking into consideration these two Pliny’s 27 Mark Hassall, Michael Crawford, Joyce Reynolds, “Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the Second

28 29 30

31

32

Century B.C. (The so-called ”Piracy law” and a new inscription from Cnidos).” The Journal of Roman Studies 64 (1974): 208; Louisa Loukopoulou, „Provinciae Macedoniae finis orientalis: the Establishment of the Eastern Frontier.“ In: Miltiades Hatzopoulos, Louisa Loukopoulou, Two Studies in Ancient Macedonian Topography. (MEΛETHMATA 3). Athens, 1987, 74–78; Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес (от Троянската война до времето на римското завоевание). Велико Търново, 2008, 22; 238. Mark Hassall, Michael Crawford, Joyce Reynolds “Rome and the Eastern Provinces”, 213. Louisa Loukopoulou, „Provinciae Macedoniae finis orientalis,“ 77 – 78; Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес, 22. See also Маргарита Тачева, Власт и социум, 43. See for instance Michael H. Crawford, Joyce M. Reynolds, Jean-Louis Ferrary, Philippe Moreau, “Lex de provinciis praetoriis.” In Michael H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes. Vol. I. (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. 64). London, 1996, 264. Pliny’s information on Bizye appears in the work of Solinus (3rd century AD) edited in a way that changes its meaning incorrectly. Thus, according to Solinus, the city of Bizye belonged to Caenica (Solin X. 18 – 20), which hardly was true. On Plin. NH IV.11.47 see Юлия Цветкова, „Флавиополис на Тракийския Херсонес (към Plin. nat. 4.11.47 – 48.).” In Jubilaeus V: In honorem Prof. Dr. Margaritae Tacheva. Sofia, 2002, 394 – 398 with lit.; Louisa Loukopoulou, “Provinciae Macedoniae finis orientalis,” 77 – 78; Marie-Gabrielle G. Parissaki, “Étude sur l’organisation administrative de la Thrace à l’époque Romaine: l’histoire des strategies.” REG 122: 2 (2009): 337 – 338; 343 – 344.

“Under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines”

121

reports allows the conclusion that the Kainoi inhabited the region between the left bank of the Lower Hebros (in the west) and Perinthos (in the east)33. Caenica is mentioned as a strategy by Claudius Ptolemy (III.11.6), who informs explicitly only that it is neighbouring Corpilica34, obviously to the east. This author’s evidence on Astica allows placing Caenica “between Corpilica and Astica”35. These meager ancient data on the Kainoi explain the controversial opinions when defining their tribal territory. Some assert that the Kainoi inhabited the length of the Propontis36, others – that Caenica comprised the lands in the basin of the river Erginos/ Agrianes (modern Ergene)37. It has been supposed that “the main centre of the Caeni could have been Apros”38; the later however is considered alternatively as marking a border of the regio Caenica39. As the available information on this tribal territory is really scanty, the sole sure landmarks are the banks of the River Hebrus to the west, Perinthos to the east and the Thracian Chersonese to the south. The north border could have been the river Erginos/Agrianes, although there is no evidence so far that might confirm such a supposition.

The Maduateni The third ethnonym listed by Livy is the one of the Maduateni40, which appears to be a hapax. Because of this, the attempts to identify the people denoted by the Roman author in such a way are in three different directions: Some of the researchers connect the Maduteni with the Thracian population in the hinterland of the city of Madytos, situated on the southeastern coast of the Thracian Chersonese41. This idea, however, is accepted with skepticism42, or is even severely criticized43. 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40

41

42

43

Александър Фол, Тракия и Балканите, 86. Маргарита Тачева, Власт и социум, 43. See for instance Peter Delev, “Once more,” 247–248. Georgi Mihailov, „Thrace,“ 604. Александър Фол, Тракия и Балканите, 86; Тошо Спиридонов, „Кени.“ In Кратка енциклопедия Тракийска древност. София, 1993, 139; Маргарита Тачева, Власт и социум, 43; Peter Delev, „Once more,“ 247–248. Peter Delev, “Once more,” 248. See also Marie-Gabrielle G. Parissaki, „Étude sur l’organisation,“ 343–344. Тошо Спиридонов, „Кени,“ 139. On the Maduateni in more details, see Диляна Ботева-Боянова, Античните текстове и тяхното четене днес: Акценти от осем века фрагментарна история на древна Тракия (IV в. пр.Хр. – IV в. сл.Хр.). София, 2014, 83–84. Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri. Erklaert von W. Weissenborn. Achter Band: Buch XXXV – XXXVIII. Zweite verbesserte Auflage. Berlin, 1873, 343; Wilhelm Tomaschek, Die alten Thraker, 66; Dimiter Detschew, Die thrakische Sprachreste, 279–280, s.v. Madytos; Маргарита Тачева, „Странджа,“ 395; Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи, 1997, 55. On Madytos see Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес, 68–70. See for instance Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri. W. Weissenborns erklärende Ausgabe. Neu bearbeitet von H. J. Müller. Acter Band, Zweites Hedt. Buch XXXVII – XXXVIII. Dritte Auflage. Berlin, 1907, 197: „Maduateni vielleicht (aber nicht wahrscheinlich) die Einwohner von Madytos” Benedict Niese, Geschichte der Griechischen und Makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea, 2. Teil. Gotha, 1899, 761, note 2: “Die Maduatener bringt man mit der hellespontischen Stadt Madytos zusammen: davon kann aber im Ernst keine Rede sein.”

122

Dilyana Boteva

Other researchers are locating the Maduateni “to the north of Chersonese”44, or “along the River Hebrus”45. In these cases, not a single argument is being put forward; a logical reasoning is also missing. The third direction of the studies concerning the Maduateni regards this ethnonym as a corruptela and tries to find out the tribal name46 that was incorrectly transformed into Maduateni. Drakenborch, in the edition of Livius’s text dated to 1743, is inclined to read Maedobithyni47 instead of Maduateni. This idea is repeated in the index of the Livy’s work, published in Stuttgart in 1828 (p. 124). However, one has to admit that this significant modification of the ethnonym makes such a reading improbable. A different possibility could be offered thanks to the codex Bambergensis where we find the name Mandatueni48, which could be connected more easily with the Thracian Thynoi located by all ancient sources in the hinterland of Byzantion. If this supposition is correct, then the ethnonym here discussed could have been Maduathyni (? Mandathyni), and we should look for the territory of this tribe not in or close to the Thracian Chersonese, as is the traditional view, but in the vicinity of Byzantion49.

The Koreli The forth ethnonym listed by Livy is the one of the Koreli (Coreli), which is also a hapax. Back in 1893, Wilhelm Tomaschek was the first to suggest that here the ethnonym Koreli stays in fact for the Korpiloi. Six years after Tomaschek, Benedict Niese also wrote that “die Coreli sind vielleicht die Korpiler”50. Even more: in the article „Thrakien (Geschichte)“ published in the “Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft” in 1936, Brunhilde Lenk simply replaces the ethnonym Koreli with the ethnonym Korpiloi (col. 436). Due to this very influential text, a new historiographic tendency started insisting that in some codices of Livy’s text actually the ethnonym Korpiloi is attested, obviously trying in such a way to reason the replacement of Koreli with Korpiloi in Lenk’s article. An even further step followed – without any research of the codices, it was stated that they as a rule give the ethnonym Korpiloi and only one gives Koreli51.

44 Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес, 69. 45 Цвете Лазова, „Мадуатени” In Кратка Енциклопедия Тракийска древност. София, 1993, 166. 46 See for instance Пламен Петков, Военно-политически отношения на тракийските владетели в Евро-

пейския Югоизток, 2011, 50.

47 See also Юрий Кабакчиев, Summa Thracologiae I. Наблюдения върху тракийската държавност, 121

with note 24 on p. 133.

48 Livius (Weissenborn, Müller), 294; noteworthy here is also the observation that in one of the codices the Caeni

and Maduateni are not listed among the Thracian tribes that attacked Manlius in 188 BC.

49 Georgi Mihailov, Thrace, 604–605; Тошо Спиридонов, „Тини.” In Кратка енциклопедия Тракийска древ-

ност. София, 1993, 276. A localization of the tribal territory of the Thyni in the hinterland of the Chersonese is offered by Peter Delev, „Once more,“ 248; I find this idea unacceptable. 50 Benedictus Niese, Geschichte der Griechischen und Makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea, 2. Teil, 761, note 2. 51 Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи, 55; Димитър Попов, Тракология. София, 1999, 132.

“Under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines”

123

What is the real situation? The Weissenborn’s edition of Livy published in 1873 informs that in the relevant place one finds “in mehreren Handschriften Corneli”52 . More details on this issue appear in the edition that was reworked by H. J. Müller and published in 1907, where two codices with Corneli and only one with Coreli are explicitly indicated53. The appearance of Corneli should be regarded in view of the conflict between Manlius Vulso and the two brothers Cornelii Scipiones in the early 2nd century BC, reported by Livy. This conflict could easily produce an association that the Cornelii were part of the attack against Vulso’s army. As a matter of fact, these tense relations between the Manlii and the Cornelii Scipiones have a long tradition during the Republic and escalated to hostility especially during the Second Punic War due to the different views of the Roman military tactics against Hannibal. The war against Antiochus III of Syria further deepened this already traditional hostility. It is however absolutely certain that no Cornelii took part in this Thracian ambush against the Manlius’s army in 188 BC. Serious efforts are invested in attempts at identifying the real Thracian tribe that should be recognized behind this corrupted ethnonym. The readiness to replace Coreli with Corpili is only one of the solutions proposed in the literature. The second solution tends to read Coeletae instead of Coreli and is first mentioned as early as 1842 in the edition of Arnold Drakenborch (p. 172, note “y”). Similarly, in the Index to the Livy’s work, published by Weissenborn in 1892, one finds only Coeletae (p. 23) and no Coreli (p. 25). This identification is referred to by the Digital library “Perseus”54; it however remained undiscussed in details. A third possibility has also been mentioned in the literature, which was also first put forward by Benedict Niese. His full comment on the Coreli in the Livy’s text reads as follows: “Letztere (die Coreli – note mine, D.B.) sind vielleich die Korpiler, wenn man nicht lieber an die Koraller (Strabo VII 318) denken will“55. This possibility has been referred to again in the Livy edition of Weissenborn and Müller (Berlin 1907) 56; despite this, it never received a proper attention. An adequate analysis is however needed because these two ethnonyms – Coreli and Coralli (Latin)/Koralloi (Greek) – show the closest graphic and phonetic similarity. Contrary to the hapax Coreli, the name of the Coralli/Koralloi57 is reported by three different ancient authors: Ovid (Ex P. IV, 2; IV, 8), Strabo (7, 5, 12) and Appianus (Mithr. 69). The Latin transcription Coralli is transmitted by Ovid, while both Strabo and Appianus used the Greek form Koralloi. Very indicative is the evidence provided by Appianus concerning the time of the Third Mithridatic War (74/73–63 BC); according to it, the Pontic king managed to gain the Koralloi as allies against Rome. The report itself gives ground for some hesitations whether these Koralloi should be regarded as a Thra52 Livius (Weissenborn), 343. 53 Livius (Weissenborn, Müller), 294. 54 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0198:letter=3:entry=coeletae-teub-1

(11.12.2013).

55 Benedictus Niese, Geschichte der Griechischen und Makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea,

2. Teil, 761, note 2.

56 Livius (Weissenborn, Müller), 294. 57 On the Coralli/Koralloi in more details, see Ботева-Боянова, Античните текстове, 79 – 83. See also

Dimiter Detschew, Die thrakische Sprachreste, 253

124

Dilyana Boteva

cian or as a Sarmatian tribe, or whether there were actually two tribes (one Thracian and another one – Sarmatian) with a common name58. Noteworthy is however that Appianus speaks in this context about the Thracian tribes from the Danube region, and the mountains Rhodope and Haemus. More information on the Koralloi is provided by Strabo (7, 5, 12 = VII 318), who places them, together with the Bessi, in the region of the Haemus mountain. An explanation is here needed that the ancient oronym Haemus obviously included not only the modern Stara Planina Range and the Sredna Gora Range but also, most probably, the northern part of the Strandja mountain as clearly indicated by the name Haemimontus of the Diocletianic province, part of which were the cities of Hadrianopolis and Anchialos (Amm. Marc. XXVII 4, 10–11). Because of this, it seems possible to connect the ethnonym Coralli / Koralloi with the events of 188 B.C. reported by Livy, especially when we consider their certainly attested anti-Roman stand. Accordingly, I tend to accept the identification of Livy’s Coreli with the Coralli and to be highly sceptical about the traditional opinion which sees in these Coreli the Corpili.

*** If the reconstruction, reasoned above, is correct it would mean that the Thracians threatening Byzantion in the early 2nd century BC inhabited not only the immediate hinterland of the city on the Bosporus, but the entire Propontic region as far as the Hellespont. In the Antiquity, this territory was obviously thought about as an integral unity as clearly reported by Polybios when informing that in ca. 278 BC the Gauls under Comontorius “reached the Hellespont, where … they remained on the spot as they took a fancy to the country near Byzantion”59. It remains however unclear if the Thracians that according to Polybios (IV.45.9) were waging war to the Byzantines prior to the Celtic invasion in Thrace should be sought in the entire Propontic region (as in the case here under discussion) or in the early 3rd century BC the city on the Bosphoros was menaced mainly by its immediate neighbours.

58 See Konstantin Boshnakov, Die Thraker, 201–202. Wilhelm Tomaschek, Die alten Thraker. Eine ethnologi-

sche Untersuchung. I. Uebersicht der Stämme. (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 128), 1893, 97 regards the Coralli as Sarmatians who have reached the Haemus mountain. 59 Polyb. IV.46.1 (English translation by W. R. Paton).

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

BIZYE: FROM TRIBAL RESIDENCE TO ROMAN CITY Filip Kolev

T

he significance of Bizye as one of the most important cities in Thrace in the Hellenistic Period has been repeatedly emphasized in the existing literature. Emerging as a centre of the Astai, most probably in the late 3rd c. BC, Bizye established itself as an important urban centre in the interior of Southeastern Thrace. This is one of the reasons the city to become the capital of the clientelistic Thracian kingdom in the Late Hellenistic Period. After the annexation of the Thracian state, Bizye entered in the newly created Roman province of Thrace and continued its existence in the new circumstances, dominated by the Romans1. After the collapse of the kingdom of Lysimachos after 281 BC, there was a political vacuum in the former Thracian domain of the Diadoch. This situation did not last for long and already after the victory of Antigonos II Gonatos at Lysimacheia in 277 BC some of the Celtic survivors, led by Komontorius, created their state in Southeastern Thrace. Despite its strong positions in the region, the new political entity had relatively short life. About 212 BC, the Celtic Kingdom fell to the Thracians2. Thus, a new political situation emerged, in which the absence of a “dominant player” led to the ascent of so far latent powers, the Astai presumably being among them. The territories under their control encompassed generally the region of Strandzha and down to the river Ergene to the south. Despite their proximity to the Greek cities on the northern coast of Propontis and in the Western Pontic region, the first evidence about them is dated as late as the 4th c. BC and comes from the ancient geographer Artemidoros and the historian Theopompos,

1 Velizar Velkov, „Die thrakische Stadt Bizye“, In Studia in honorem Veselini Besevliev. Sofia 1978; Тотко

Стоянов, „Бизия като център на тракийската култура.“ In Странджанско-сакарски сборник ІІ, кн. 2 (Доклади от Втория Интердисциплинарен Симпозиум “Странджа”, Бургас, 1980), Малко Търново, 1984, 35–44. 2 On the history of the Celtic presence in Southeastern Europe, see: Dilyana Boteva, “The Ancient Historians on the Celtic Kingdom in South-Eastern Thrace” In Lyudmil F. Vagalinski (ed.), In search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III C BC). Sofia, 2010, 33–50 and Julij Emilov, “Ancient Texts on the Galatian Royal Residence of Tylis and the Context of La Tène Finds in Southern Thrace. A Reappraisal.” In Lyudmil F. Vagalinski (ed.), In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III C BC). Sofia, 2010, 67–87.

126

Filip Kolev

quoted in Stephanos of Byzantion3. The absence of earlier evidence about the Astai most probably indicates their insignificance in the region before 3rd–2nd c. BC. The role of the Astai in Southeastern Thrace gradually gained strength and was noted in the sources in the joined attack with the Kainoi, the Maduateni, and the Koreli against the baggage train of the army of the Roman Consul Cn. Manlius Vulso, as it was marching through Thrace, not far from Kypsela (188 BC)4. Based on Strabo’s text, it is presumed that Bizye emerged as a tribal centre of the Astai5. The city was located on a hill that is one of the last ridges of Strandzha Mountain, beneath the present-day Turkish town of Vize. To the southwest lies the fertile valley of the river Anadere (or Vize deresi). This location facilitated its defense and in the same time enabled it to control the fertile area to the south. The emergence and the consolidation of this centre could be dated most probably to the 3rd c. BC. A hypothetical earlier date would contradict the specifics of the settlement patterns in Southern Strandzha that in the 4th c. BC was dominated by the centre at Lozengrad6. One should also note the absence of Bizye among the toponyms in the vases of Rogozen Hoard7. This omission could be considered a circumstantial indication of the emergence of the settlement after the 4th c. BC. The archaeological investigations of Bizye are at an initial stage and at present there are no archaeological data about the development of the city in this period. There is more information about the time of 1st c. BC–1st c. AD. Pliny the Elder described the city as “fortress of the Thracian kings”8, hinting at the central role of Bizye in the last Thracian kingdom. In the existing literature, it is accepted that it was ruled by an Odrysian-Astaean dynasty9. This is also supported by epigraphic monuments from the city. The two earliest are dated to the middle of the 1st c. BC and are related to the Thracian king Kotys. In the first one, Kotys, son of Sadalas, is mentioned as a benefactor10, and the second is a dedication to the paternal gods by Kotys in honour of his parents Sadalas and Polemokratia11. Later inscriptions are already related to the presence of the Sapaean dynasty in Bizye. In the latest publications on the subject, it is suggested that the 3 Stephani Byzantii, Ethnica, Vol. I: alpha-gamma, ed. M. Billerbeck, Berlin, 2006, 496, s.v. Ἀσταί. For a dis-

4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11

cussion on the ethnonym, its appearance in the sources, and the localization of the Astai, see Петър Делев, „Надгробните могили при Симеоновград, Одриското царство и тракийските племена в долината на Хеброс“, In Спасителни археологически разкопки по трасето на железопътната линия Пловдив-Свиленград през 2005 г. Велико Търново, 2008, 222. Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, XXXVIII, 40. On the consequences of this attack, see the article of D. Boteva in the present volume. Strabo, Geographia, VII, frg. 48 (ed. H. L. Jones, London, 1961). Тотко Стоянов, „Топонимите от рогозенските надписи и историческата география на Югоизточна Тракия през класическата и елинистическата епоха“, In Мария Дончева-Петкова (съст.), Тракийската култура – неделима част от европейската цивилизация. Враца, 2013, 88–91; cf. the article of T. Stoyanov in the present volume. Ibid., 83–84. C. Plinius Secundus, Naturalis historia, X, 70 (ed. C. Mayhoff, 1892–1909). Пламен Петков, „Военно-политическите отношения на тракийските владетели в европейския Югоизток между 230/229 г. пр. Хр. – 45/46 г. сл. Хр.“. София, 2011, 49. SEG 34:701. Albert Dumont, Théophile Homolle, “Inscriptions et monuments figurés de la Thrace.” In Mélanges d‘archéologie et d‘épigraphie, par Albert Dumont. Réunis par Th[éophile] Homolle et précédés d‘une notice sur Albert Dumont par L[éon] Heuzey. Paris 1892, 365, 62a.

Bizye: From Tribal R esidence to Roman City

127

establishing of the new dynasty happened after the battle of Actium, when the Thracian king Sadalas II of the Odrysian-Sapaean dynasty was deposed and replaced by Octavian with the Sapaean rulers that were loyal to him12. The new dynasty quickly strengthened its positions and created a relatively large kingdom on the Balkans that entered into client relations with Rome. Three inscriptions that could be related to this dynasty were found in Bizye. According to P. Delev, the first one is about Kotys, son of Rhaiskouporis, who was honoured by the Romans. Probably, this dedication marks the ascendance to the throne of the Sapaean rulers, supported by the Romans13. The second inscription is a dedication to Apollo, made by Apollonios, son of Eptaikenthos14. The former is a strategos of the strategy Anchialos in the reign of Rhoimetalkes II. Two more inscriptions, one from Abritus15 and one from Burgas16, are also related to him. In them, he is also mentioned as strategos of the strategies Seletike and Roussike. The third inscription is dated to immediately after the end of the uprising of Koilaletai, Odrysai, and Dii in 21 AD, known also as the Koilaletan War. In the inscription, C. Julius Proclus expresses gratitude for the salvation of Rhoimetalkes II and Pythodoris in the Koilaletan War17. Already with the ascension of the Sapaean dynasty in Bizye, the Thracian state became highly dependent on Rome and in the time of Rhoimetalkes I it was already in client relations with the Roman state18. The political crisis in the Thracian kingdom after the death of Rhoimetalkes led to the active interference of Rome in its internal affairs, in order to stabilize the state. Most energetic were the Roman actions after the murder of Kotys, son of Rhoimetalkes, ca. 19 AD. Tacitus relates that the underage heirs of Kotys were entrusted by Emperor Tiberius to the care of the Praetor Trebellenus Rufus19. It would seem that by that time there was Roman administration in Bizye that took care of the government of the patrimony of Kotys’ heirs. As a royal residence in the Late Hellenistic Period, Bizye probably had Hellenistic appearance. In topographic terms, the city had an acropolis and an urban part to the south of it. Unfortunately, there is only scarce archaeological evidence from this very significant period. The fortress, mentioned by Pliny the Elder, suggests that Bizye as fortified at latest in the Late Hellenistic Period20. The city’s fortifications are known from two medallions of Philip II Arab (244–249) with identical reverses, minted in Bizye21. In the centre of the device, there is a gate flanked by two round towers. The entrance is protected by portcullis and statues are depicted on both sides. One of the statues depicts the Thracian Horseman, and the other – the Three Nymphs. Above them, there is an arched 12 Петър Делев, История на племената в Югозападна Тракия през I хил. пр. Хр., София 2014, 425. 13 Ibid., 424 – 425; R. M. Dawkins, F. W. Hasluck “Inscriptions from Bizye.” The Annual of the British School

at Athens, 12 (1905/1906): 177–178; SEG 34:702. R. M. Dawkins, F. W. Hasluck “Inscriptions from Bizye.” 175–177. Georgi Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, Vol. II, 743. Georgi Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, Vol. I2, 378. Albert Dumont, Théophile Homolle, “Inscriptions et monuments”, 377, 62е. Margarita Tačeva, “The Last Thracian Independent Dynasty of Rhascupotids” In Studia in honorem G. Mihailov. Sofia 1995, 459–467. 19 Tacitus. Annales, III, 38 (ed. P. Wuilleumier, Paris, 1990). 20 Plin., Naturalis historia, X, 70. 21 Jordanka Jurukova, „Die Münzprägung von Bizye (Griechisches Münzwerk. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 18)“, Berlin, 1981 n. 135, 137 (see also an enlarged representation on the front cover). 14 15 16 17 18

128

Filip Kolev

gallery and, on the top, a monumental sculptural group of a quadriga with two human figures. The rich decoration and the central place on the reverse indicate that this is probably the main gate of the city. To the left of the gate, four intermediate round towers are depicted, and three more to the right. In the background of the scene, there is another gate, also flanked by two towers. In the existing publications, the depiction is regarded as a realistic representation of the fortifications “from a bird eye’s view”22. The fact that these are the fortifications constructed in the Hellenistic Period is confirmed by the city’s coinage in the time of Emperor Hadrian (117–138) that depicts a gate that is similar to the one of the medallions of Philip the Arab23, and by a construction inscription from the time of Antoninus Pius. The latter, dated to 155 AD, reports that the city authorities, represented by three epimeletai, are building a tower with the consent of the provincial governor C. Julius Commodus24. The inscription probably attests repairs of the fortifications and not the construction of a new defensive facility. The information that it was a project of the city’s authorities, and not of the central government, indicates a limited scope of the construction works. The need of repairs of the fortifications in the time of Antoninus Pius renders less probable their initial construction in the early 2nd c. AD, while the coins from the time of Hadrian could depict the earlier Hellenistic fortifications. There is also limited evidence from the necropoleis of the city. There was a necropolis to the south of the city. Unfortunately, it is not systematically investigated and the information about it is very scarce. According to K. Škorpil’s observations, the tumuli in the necropolis were mostly isolated, rarely in groups25. In 1938, A. Mansel excavated three tumuli to the south of the city. In the first one, named by him Tumulus A, he discovered a barrel-vaulted tomb. It was built in isodomic masonry of local yellow limestone. The walls of the burial chamber were richly decorated. In the tomb, there was a stone sarcophagus with the cremated remains of the deceased. The rich grave goods also deserve attention. Among the most sumptuous finds, there are 60 golden laurel leaves, probably from more than one wreath, two gold rings with intaglios, five silver cups and a silver ladle. There were also numerous bronze items – two casseroles, pitchers, two candelabra, two lamps, a candlestick, etc., as well as ceramic vases. Weapons and armour are also an important part of the inventory, among them a Roman ceremonial mask-helmet, intact scale armour, a sword, and two spearheads26. A. Mansel dates the burial in the tomb to the 1st c. BC and relates it to one of the latest Thracian rulers27. The specifics of the tomb’s 22 Тодор Герасимов, „Нумизматически принос към религията на Тракия“, Известия на Българския архе-

23

24 25 26 27

ологически институт, 8 (1934): 167–168; Тотко Стоянов, „Бизия като център на тракийската култура.“ 36–37. Jordanka Jurukova, Die Münzprägung von Bizye, n. 1–4, 5–7. The same gate is depicted on coins, minted in the times of the emperors Septimius Severus (Ibid., n. 30) and Philip I (Ibid., n. 94–95), as well as in the pseudo-autonomous coinage of the type Poseidon/city gate (Ibid., n. 172,173), dated by J. Jurukova to the time of Emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161 AD) (Ibid., 14–17). Zafer Taşliklioğlu,  Trakya’da Epigrafya Araştırmaları. Recherches épigraphiques en Thrace et en Chersonèse. 2, Istanbul, 1971, n. 67, 1. Карел Шкорпил, „Археологически бележки от Странджа планина“, Известия на Българското археологическо дружество, 3 (1912–13): 241. Arif M. Mansel, „Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien“, Известия на Българския археологически институт 13 (1939): 160–173. Arif M. Mansel, „Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien“, 173–176.

Bizye: From Tribal R esidence to Roman City

129

construction, the use of isodomic masonry and the rustification of the stone blocks on top of which the painted stucco was applied, indicate that the tomb is earlier and probably should be dated to the first half of the 3th c. BC28. At about 50 m from Tumulus A, Mansel excavated another one, named Tumulus B. There, he discovered two cremation graves. During the investigations of the first one, 58 gold leaves from a wreath were discovered, as well as a small gold earring, two gold finger rings with glass intaglios, bronze vases, etc. The inventory of the smaller grave consisted of several terracotta figurines (child’s toys). The finds from the two tumuli and their proximity made the investigator consider them the burials of the wife and the child of the Thracian ruler, buried in Tumulus A29. In the third investigated tumulus (C) that was smaller than Tumulus B, the remains of hides of horses were discovered. According to A. Mansel, this is an indication that the horse that was buried here was related to the Thracian ruler in Tumulus A30. After the murder or Rhoimetalkes III, Emperor Claudius annexed the Thracian kingdom (45/46 AD). The province of Thrace was created on the territory of the clientelistic state, with Perinthus as its capital. Initially, the new authorities preserved the old partition of the region in strategies, the number of which seems to be considerably enlarged in order to provide for a better administration of the province. In the existing publications, it is accepted that in this period Bizye was centre of the strategy of Astike31. It seems that already with the establishing of the province of Thrace (45/46 AD), Bizye was granted the status of civitas stipendiaria. It gave the city the right to elect its authorities – magistrates, city council (βουλή) and assembly (δῆμος)32, as well as to have its own coinage33. This degree of autonomy involved mandatory taxation and enlisting soldiers for the Roman army from the city’s territory34. With the emergence of numerous cities in the early 2nd c. AD, the old administration of the province by means of strategies became obsolete and was replaced by the urban centres with their respective territories. The territory of Bizye spread to the north in the area of the valley of Veleka that separated it from the territory of Deultum. To the east, the natural border was the Black Sea, and to the south it reached the river of Ergene that separated it from the territory of Perinthus. To the west the territory of Bizye bordered the

28 Тотко Стоянов, „Бизия като център на тракийската култура.“ 41; Cf. the articles of T. Stoyanov and

29 30 31 32 33 34

D. Stoyanova in the present volume; Даниела Стоянова, „Гробници с полуцилиндричен свод в Североизточна Тракия.“ In Светът на гетите, Известия на Регионален Исторически музей Русе, ХІІ (2008): 116 – 123, фиг. 2, 20, 22. Arif M. Mansel, „Grabhügelforschung in Ostthrakien“, 173–176. Ibid., 176. Георги Михайлов, „Към въпроса за стратегиите в Тракия.“, Годишник на Софийския университет – Факултет по Западни филологии, 61.2 (1967): 29–50. The city council and the assembly of Bizye are known only from one inscription from Malko Tarnovo (Georgi Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, Vol. V 5659). A mint was established in the city that struck coins from the last quarter of the 1st to the middle of the 3rd c. AD. On the coinage of Bizye, see: Jordanka Jurukova „Die Münzprägung von Bizye“. Борис Геров, „Земевладението в римска Тракия и Мизия (I–III в.)“, Годишник на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски“, Факултет по Нови и Класически филологии, 72.2, (1977 (1980): 18.

130

Filip Kolev

one of Hadrianopolis. The border probably followed one of Ergene’s tributaries between Burtudizum and Bergule35. The limited evidence about Bizye in ancient times severely impedes the reconstruction of an integral picture of its development. Probably, already in the 3rd c. BC Bizye established itself as a tribal centre of the Astai and became the most important Thracian settlement in Southeastern Thrace. This is one of the reasons for the city to become a capital of the Thracian Kingdom in the Hellenistic Period. Despite the scarce data at our disposal, it would not be an overstatement to presume that this was the heyday of the city. After the province of Thrace was creates, Bizye became part of the new administrative entity, but its urban status became discernible only with the reforms in the time of the emperors Trajan and Hadrian. Future archaeological investigations of Bizye would fill many of the gaps in the history of this important Thracian city.

35 On the limits of the territory of Bizye, see: Ibid., 103; Velizar Velkov, „Die thrakische Stadt Bizye“, 181.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

THE CITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE AND THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAST THRACIAN KINGS (27 BC–AD 45) Stoyan Terziev

1. Southeastern Thrace in the second half of 1st century BC

T

he Roman influence in Southeastern Thrace increased constantly from the beginning of 2nd century BC. In the middle of 1st century BC, the region was already under Roman control, which was without any serious alternative, as none of the local political entities was strong enough to oppose it and no foreign power was capable to intervene. After the defeat of Mithridates VI, there was no serious opponent to the Roman Republic in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Getic king Burebista created a strong state in the Lower Danube region and spread his influence along the Western Pontic coast. However, his powerful kingdom was short-lived and disintegrated before clashing with Rome. Even at its greatest expansion, Burebista failed to impose control over Southeastern Thrace, despite his short presence in Messambria and possibly Apollonia. In 27 BC, the Civil War was over and Augustus had the opportunity to organize the Roman possessions on the Balkans. One of the problems for the Roman foreign policy in the region was what to do with the Thracian lands. Some actions had been undertaken before Augustus’ coming into power, other were completed by him as part of his vision for the Roman state. In the first place, we can point out M. Crassus’ campaigns in 29 BC and 28 BC, which crushed the resistance of the hostile Thracian tribes and subdued them at least temporarily. Not very long after that, in the north, the legions created permanent bases and established permanent Roman presence on the Lower Danube. In the south, the Thracian Chersonese had been a Roman possession since late 2nd century BC and Byzantium was among the allied cities. The Thracian Aegean coast was very important because of the land route to Asia and the Roman possessions there. According to L. Loukopoulou, this territory had been supervised by the governor of Macedonia since 2nd century B.C.1 She even believes that all lands covering the entire road to Byzantion, including Chersonese, were included within the boundaries of the province of Macedonia in 1 Louisa Loukopoulou, “Provinciae Macedoniae finis orientalis: the establishment of the eastern frontier” In

Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos (ed.), Two Studies in Ancient Macedonian Topography. ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 3. Athens, 1987, 81.

132

Stoyan Terziev

the first half of 1st century BC2. In the middle of the 1st century BC, Thrace was divided between rival tribes and dynastic centers. Noteworthy is that the Odrysai and the Sapaioi are attested as Roman allies, while most modern scholars consider the Bessoi to be enemies. Caesar however reports Bessoian mercenaries in Pompey’s army3. This evidence and the information from Cicero’s speech against Piso4 show us that also the Bessoi tried to come to an agreement with Rome. At this point, I am not inclined to assume that this Thracian tribe was adamant Roman enemy from the start; it seems that their clashes with Rome arose in time mostly as a result from the Roman support for the Odrysai and the Sapaioi. Romans’ actions in the case of Rabocentus’ death and during Crassus’ campaign in 29–28 BC were in favour of the Odrysai at the expense of the Bessoi. This policy, having been started before the creation of the Thracian client kingdom at the end of 1st century BC, was continued when the Sapaioi received direct Roman military support against the Bessoi. During the Roman civil wars, written sources describe different dynastic houses in the second half of 1st century BC and their participation in the conflicts is relatively well documented5. However, their number dropped down in the years immediately following 27 BC. Traditionally, towns and dynasts in Thrace used to exploit the rivalries between the great powers in the Mediterranean to protect their independence and to achieve political goals. This strategy served well during the Hellenistic Period, but after the defeat of Mithridates VI, in the new situation where Rome remained the only major international power, it was no longer applicable. The conflicts between the leading Romans in 1st century BC could be seen as a variant of the earlier international clashes, but they provided less freedom of action and in any case did not diminish the cities’ overall dependence on Rome. The best a city could get was a more favoured status within the frame of the Roman political system. With the Augustan transformations that possibility tended to disappear. Now every city’s prosperity depended on its particular connections with the ruling family and the Princeps’ favour.

2 Ibid., 86. 3 C. Caesaris., Bellum Civile III 4. 4 Cicero, In L. Pisonem Oratio, 34.84 (M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica

instruxit Albertus Curtis Clark. Oxonii. e Typographeo Clarendoniano. 1909.): Idemque tu Rabocentum, Bessoicae gentis principem, cum te trecentis talentis regi Cotyi vendidisses, securi percussisti, cum ille ad te legatus in castra venisset et tibi magna praesidia et auxilia a Bessois peditum equitumque polliceretur, neque eum solum sed etiam ceteros legatos qui simul venerant; quorum omnium capita regi Cotyi vendidisti. Denseletis, quae natio semper oboediens huic imperio etiam in illa omnium barbarorum defectione Macedoniam C. Sentio praetore tutata est, nefarium bellum et crudele intulisti, eisque cum fidelissimis sociis uti posses, hostibus uti acerrimis maluisti. Ita perpetuos defensores Macedoniae vexatores ac praedatores effecisti. After that, you are put to death by the hand of the executioner, Rabocentus, a prince of the Bessoic tribe, having sold yourself to do this to king Cottus, for three hundred talents. And you did not murder him alone, but all the other ambassadors also who had come with him, all whose lives you sold to king Cottus. You waged a wicked and cruel war against the Denseletae, a nation which has at all times been obedient to this empire, and which even at the time of that general defection of all the barbarians, preserved Macedonia for us, when Caius Sentius was praetor. And though you might have had that people for your most faithful allies, you preferred to treat them as our most bitter enemies. Thereby you made those who might have been the perpetual defenders of Macedonia, desirous to harass and destroy it. 5 C. Caesaris., Bellum Civile III 4; Appiani, Bella Civilia, IV. 10.75; 11.87; 13.104.

The cities in Southeastern Thrace and the central government

133

One question still expects a reasonable answer: what were the relations of the cities on the Thracian coast and in the interior with the local kings?

2. The last Thracian kings The political situation in Thrace, during most of the 1st century BC, is often described with the notion decentralization, which implies an existing tradition of unified Thracian state. However, available evidence contradicts such an idea and shows that the periods of unification are quite rare. The Odrysian kingdom of the 5th and 4th century BC ruled over most of the Thracian tribes on the peninsula, but never incorporated all of them. Later, during the Hellenistic Period, neither a tribe nor a local dynast was able to impose control over the greater part of Thrace. Intervention of foreign powers like Macedonia and the Pontic kingdom hardly facilitated the unification of the Thracian lands. Local dynasts were trying to prevail over their opponents with foreign aid, but the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean was such that any external intervention was usually blocked by the involvement of another major player. In the second half of 1st century BC, Rome remained the sole great power in the region. None of the Thracian neighbors could match its might and influence in a similar way. Neither the Burebista’s state, nor the Scordisci’s raids caused serious and long-term effects. The contacts between Rome and Thrace in that time were characterized by both cooperation and conflict. The safety of the Roman province of Macedonia required the governors to undertake a number of incursions in Thrace, although sometimes they act not in interest of the state, but on their own. M. Tacheva believes that Rome applied strategy of gradual invasion. It slowly dulled the local opposition and provided governors and generals with opportunity to earn military glory and booty6. In his speech against Piso, Cicero gives us good example of the relations between Thracians and Romans in the first half of 1st century BC. We cannot be certain about the correct reporting of the details connected with Rabocent(h)us’ death, due to the nature of the source and the personal bias of the author. Nevertheless, the speech is a very revealing testimony about Rome’s intervention in the internal Thracian affairs and dynastic struggles. It is highly unlikely that this happened only during L. Calpurnius Piso’s mandate in Macedonia between 57 and 55 BC. The civil wars of the Late Roman Republic changed the situation in two directions. On one hand, they delayed the imposing of a direct Roman rule over Thrace. On the other hand, the establishing of the Principate enabled the Princeps to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for the Roman possessions and foreign policy. Part of this new strategy was the new arrangement introduced in Thrace. Here one could point out M. Crassus’ campaigns7. They were not only governor’s effort to ensure the safety of Macedonia and achieve personal glory, but also a necessary step towards creation of a new political reality in the region. In 29–28 BC, Rome once again demonstrated its might in 6 Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи в древността през елинистическата и римската

епоха. София, 1997², 65.

7 Cass. Dio, 51.25. 4–5 (Dio’s Roman History. Earnest Cary, Herbert Baldwin Foster, William Heinemann, Lon-

don, New York, 1914).

134

Stoyan Terziev

the Balkans and for a while dulled the Thracian resistance. The next step came some time later with the establishment of Roman military presence along the Lower Danube. It is not clear when Augustus came out to with the idea to unite most of Thrace under one rule. This establishment came as a second important aspect of Rome’s strategy in dealing with the Thracian lands that remained outside of its direct rule. The problem was settled by the creation of a kingdom, led by a local dynasty. Although we do not have detailed information on the various rulers of Thrace, the whole picture presents the local dynasties as typical Roman allied (client) kings. The new Thracian kingdom was entrusted to rulers whose genealogy is not yet clearly understood8. M. G. Parissaki stress out Rome’s role for the creation of the new political realities in Thrace and wonder about the role Rome could have played in the marriage alliances between leading Thracian dynasties9. No matter whether the incentive came from outside or from Thrace itself, Roman approval is evident in the dynasty’s fate in the decades to come. Several questions need an answer here: Why was the kingdom created at this moment and not earlier? Why were the Sapaioi chosen as rulers? Why was a large state created in the beginning and why was it later divided? Prior to 27 BC, the Romans were too preoccupied with their internal political problems to pay much attention to the situation in Thrace. The existence of allies ensured to a considerable extent their interests and prevented creation of a big local power, which could have been a potential threat. The attitude of the Macedonian provincial governors toward Thrace was too often dependent on their own aspirations rather than on a general state policy. They also did not have the power and authority to re-shape dramatically the political map of the region. Rome had to decide carefully whom to entrust with the rule of the new large Thracian kingdom. The Sapaioi were probably chosen due to the fact that they were longterm Roman allies in the strategic territories along the Aegean coast. Since the early 2nd century BC, they had proven both their loyalty and leadership qualities. The location of the Sapaean tribal lands seems to be an important argument for clarifying this question. Ancient authors attest that during the Roman civil wars in 1st century BC, Sapaean possessions included strategic passages connecting Macedonia and the eastern provinces10.

8 Herrmann Dessau (Miscellanea Epigraphica I and II, Ephemeris Epigraphica 9 (1913): 691–705) proposed the

idea about the unification of the Odryssian-Astaean dynasty and the Sapaean dynasty. It is supported by some modern researchers (cf. Richard D. Sullivan, “Thrace in the Eastern Dynastic Network” In Hildegard Temporini (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Band II.7.1., 1979, 186–211). Bulgarian historians like M. Tacheva oppose the proposed genealogy of the last Thracian kings and provide different genealogies (cf. Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи в древността) [see also commentary with stemma by Georgi Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria Repertae, vol. I² (1970): 97–98 ad n. 43, and vol. V (1997): 77–79 ad n. 5410=399]. 9 Maria-Gabriella Parissaki, “Thrace under Roman Sway (146 BC–AD 46). Between warfare and diplomacy” In Aliénor Rufin Solas (éd.), Armées grecques et romaines dans le nord des Balkans: conflits et integration des communautés guerrières (Akanthina 7). Gdansk, 2013, 109. 10 App., Bel. Civ. 4.11.87: Δεκίδιος δὲ καὶ Νωρβανός οὓς ὁ Καῖσαρ καὶ Ἀντώνιος μετὰ ὀκτὼ τελῶν ἐς Μακεδονίαν προεπεπόμφεσαν, ἐκ Μακεδονίας ἐχώρουν ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης τῆς ὀρείου χιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους σταδίους, μέχρι πόλιν ὑπερβάντες Φιλίππους τὰ στενὰ Κορπίλων καὶ Σαπαίων, τῆς Ῥασκουπόλιδος ὄντα ἀρχῆς, κατέλαβον, ᾗ μόνῃ διελθεῖν ἔστιν ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας τὴν γνώριμον ὁδόν.

The cities in Southeastern Thrace and the central government

135

The first evidence of the Sapaean rulers’ allied relations with Rome comes from 2nd century BC11, when the conflict between Abrupolis and king Perseus is attested. This conflict is even seen by Pausanias as one of the reasons why Rome conquered Macedonia12, although many modern historians like M. Tacheva renounce his view13. The creation of a client kingdom of a significant size in Thrace was not an exception in the Roman policy of managing the Mediterranean world. The situation in Judea, for example, was arranged in a similar way and it could be argued that this was an experiment conducted by Augustus. It is noteworthy that in both regions there was a significant Roman military force nearby. In the case of Thrace, this was the military prefecture, led by Poppaeus Sabinus, while the situation in Judea was under the control of the governor of Syria. The later partition of the newly established vast kingdom in Thrace was not unique also. Roman Judea was divided after the death of Herod the Great14. The impression is that due to some reason Rome started reducing the size of these new establishments.

3. Relations between the cities in Southеastern Thrace and the central government Some explanations are needed when speaking about the relations between cities and central government in Thrace: the meaning of “central government”, the type of cities under discussion, and the type of relationships. Rome was of course the supreme authority at that time and any diplomatic agreements between cities and kings in the region must have been approved by her. The Aegean coast of Thrace came under Roman control after the Second Macedonian War. The question is whether it was incorporated later within the province. Kahrstedt believes that Thracian Chersonese was not entrusted to the governor of Macedonia, but this view is contested by Loukopoulou who is supported by Bulgarian historians such as J. Tzvetkova15. The Greek researcher, relying on the Knidos inscription, referred to as Lex de provinciis praetoriis, and the information on the activities of the Macedonian governors, insists that, in the first half of 1st century BC, the province included not only Macedonia itself, Illyria and part of Greece, but also the entire Thracian south coast and even Chersonese. According to her, cities like Byzantion, Ainos, and Abdera were placed within the province, but were treated as independent enclaves outside of the jurisdiction of the gover-



11

12 13 14 15

Decidius and Norbanus, whom Octavius and Antony had sent in advance with eight legions to Macedonia, proceeded from that country a distance of 1500 stades toward the mountainous part of Thrace until they had passed beyond the city of Philippi, and seized the passes of the Corpileans and the Sapaeans, tribes under the rule of Rhascupolis, where lies the only known route of travel from Asia to Europe (Appian’s Roman History. The Civil Wars, Trans. by H. White. Loeb Classical Library, London, 1961). Polybii, Historiae 22.18 (Polybius, Histories. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. transl. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962.); T. Livii, Ab Urbe condita, 42.13.6 (Livy, Books XL–XLII. With An English Translation by Evan T. Sage. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., London, William Heinemann, 1938). Pausanii, Descriptio Graeciae, VII. 10.6–7. Тачева, История на българските земи в древността, 57. Flavii Josephi, Antiquitates, 17. 224–249; 299–323 Юлия Цветкова, История на Тракийския Херсонес: от Троянската война до времето на римското завоевание. Велико Търново, 2008, 238.

136

Stoyan Terziev

nor16. In such a way, Loukopoulou explains Cicero’s accusation of Piso’s treatment of cities and the neglecting of the land route to Asia. In the middle of the 1st century, the border of Macedonia was withdrawn to the west and the Romans granted control over most of the coast to the Thracian client kingdom. An alternative opinion is reasoned by M. Tacheva, who insists that the eastern border of the province of Macedonia reached as far as Kypsela from the very beginning17. If this was the case, then the Sapaean state might have been used as a buffer, needed to protect the province from hostile Thracian tribes. The coastal lands and the Roman interests in the southeastern part of the Balkan Peninsula were undoubtedly under the supervision of the Macedonian governor. The coastal cities remained probably Roman allies and were not included into the Sapaean state. Surviving sources indicate that by the mid-1st century BC the territory between Kypsela and Chersonese was outside of the direct Roman rule. The Sapaean’s possessions, as mentioned by the ancient sources18, included the strategic Korpilian and Sapaean passes through which the land connection between Rome and Asia was running. The coastal cities could have been left outside of Sapaean control as a security measure in case of a Thracian disloyalty. L. Loukopoulou believes that the cities along the coast became Roman allies in 2nd century BC and received legal status according to the Roman laws. This status did not remain unchanged over time. It depended on many factors, including the settlements’ position during the Mithridatic military campaigns and Roman civil wars. A new change in cities’ status could have occurred after 27 BC with the new reality within the Roman state and the Mediterranean world. Based on the prosopography and the onomastics of Aegean Thrace, M. G. Parissaki concludes that during the period under consideration both the Thracian and the Roman presence in the ancient coastal cities like Abdera and Maroneia was limited19. Evidence exists that the Thracian (Sapaean) kings had possessions in at least one of the coastal cities. These are inscriptions in honor of Rhoemetalkes, son of Kotys; Eutychos, servant of the king and overseer of quarry, set one of them up: Διὶ ͑ Υψίστωι εὐχαρισ[τή]|ριον ὑπὲρ κυρίου | βασιλέος {sic} Θρᾳκῶν | Ῥοιμητάλκα Κότυος ||καὶ τῶν τέκνων αὐτοῦ, | Εὔτυχος ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν | λατόμων καὶ οἱ | ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν πάντες.20

Another inscription honors the Thracian ruler as a benefactor of the city: ͑ Ο [δῆμος] | [βασι]λέα Θρᾳ[κ]ῶν Ῥοιμη[τάλ|κην Κ]ότυος υἱὸν τὸν | [ἐκ προ]γ ̣όνων εὐεργέτην.21

Louisa Loukopoulou, Provinciae Macedoniae, 86. Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи в древността, 64. App., Bel. Civ. 4. 87. Maria-Gabriella Parissaki, Prosopography and Onomasticon of Aegean Thrace. ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 49 (2007): 296–298. 20 From Neapolis (Kavala), cf. Georgios Bakalakis, „Θρᾳκικὰ εὐχαριστήρια εἰς τὸν Δία“, Θρᾳκικά 6 (1935): 302–313, fig 1–2. 21 From Abdera (?), cf. Louisa Loukopoulou, Maria-Gabriella Parissaki, Selene Psoma, Antigone Zournatzi (edd.), Inscriptiones antiquae partis Thraciae quae ad ora maris Aegaei sita est. Athens-Paris, 2005, E83. 16 17 18 19

The cities in Southeastern Thrace and the central government

137

However, these inscriptions could not be regarded as an evidence that Abdera and its neighbours along the coast were part of the Sapaean state, which existed before 27 BC, or of the later united Thracian kingdom. It was not unusual Greek cities to provide Thracian royalties with different privileges, including the right of ownership. It was also common for the kings to help cities and to be celebrated as benefactors. Such a case is attested in Athens regarding members of a Thracian dynasty22. Loukopoulou assumes that the cities had some obligations, not only to Rome, but also to the Sapaean kings, after the creation of the large Sapaean state in the end of 1st century BC23. Thus, there was a similarity to the situation of the 5th and the 4th century BC. The major difference lies in the unequal power of Rome and the local kings. As a result, this is not an agreement between two strong states about shared control over the Greek cities. We are seeing element of the Rome’s settlement on the peninsula’s affairs. The cities’ obligations to the kings were part of the Roman methods to exercise control over both of them. It is not unusual for Rome to grant territories or certain rights to its allied rulers, and in this way to share with them the burden of defense and administration. This policy is well attested in Asia Minor24. Thracian Chersonese was put under Roman control at the end of 2nd century BC, obviously under Rome’s direct rule. Later this territory was a personal possession, consecutively of Agrippa and Augustus. Apparently, Rome was ready to entrust part of the land route between Europe and Asia, but not the strategic peninsula, to the allied kings. Perinthos and Byzantion are situated further to the east. Similar to Abdera and the other neighbours to the west, they had status of allies, according to Rome’s regulations. It changed over time according to the current political situation. Pliny describes Byzantium as oppidum liberae condicionis25, and Tacitus writes that it signed a treaty with Rome around 148–146 BC26. The question is what was their legal status during the regarded period and whether they were dependent on any foreign power. Evidence exists that both coastal cities were not outside the reach of the provincial governors. Cicero’s speech against Piso testifies that the cities had certain obligations towards Rome. Apparently, Piso’s actions in the cities went much further than what law allowed. His actions remind us about Verres’ behaviour in Sicily and his treatment of allied towns. Some Thracian royal coins, issued obviously a few decades after Piso’s mandate in Macedonia, bear images indicating that they were struck by the mint of Byzantion27. There are different views concerning the dating of these coins and the precise nature of the towns’ obligations towards the Thracian kings. The dominating opinion is that they were issued after 12 BC, when Rhoemetalkes I was entrusted with the rule of the united Thracian state. The epigraphic evidence linking this royal dynasty with the Greek cities in the extreme southeastern part of the penninsula is scarce. One example is a dedication from Perinthos:

22 23 24 25 26 27

Dessau, op. cit. (note 1) 700 = Inscriptiones Graecae, vol. III, 552=II/III² 3442. Louisa Loukopoulou, Provinciae Macedoniae, 90. Strabonis, Geographica 14. 5.6. Plinii, Naturalis Historia 4.46. Cornelii Taciti. Annales 12. 62–63. Йорданка Юрукова, Монетите на тракийските племена и владетели. Монетни съкровища от българските земи Т. 1. София, 1992, 187.

138

Stoyan Terziev

Ῥεσκουπόρεως υἱὸν [ὁ] δῆμος καὶ οἱ σύνε-|δροι τὸν ἑαυτῶν σωτῆρα καὶ εὐεργέτην.28

M. Sayar relates the inscription to Gaius Julius Rhoemetalkes, son of Rhescuporis. If this supposition is correct, the inscription would attest continuous royal involvement in the region. However, the evidence of this epigraphic monument is not enough to suggest Thracian rule over Perinthos. Another very important inscription is a votive stele from Byzantion, dedicated to Isis and Sarapis by Artemidoros: Ἴσιδι καὶ Σαράπιδι |βασιλεύοντος Ῥοιμε-|τάλκου, μεραχοῦν{Ρ}-|τος δὲ Ἀρτεμιδώ-||ρου τοῦ Φιλοστρά|του, ἔτους λβʹ, Ἀρτε-|μίδωρος υἱὸς ναυαρχή-|σας τὰ μεγάλα Πλ[οι]- ||αφέσια τὸν τελα-|μῶνα ἀνέθηκεν.29

It attests the presence in the city of Artemidoros, son of Philostratos, a merarch, appointed by king Rhoemetalkes. The inscription is dated around AD 1/2 by A. J. Reinach and R. D. Sullivan and therefore was erected during the reign of Rhoemetalkes I. If this is correct, it would be an important evidence about the period when Byzantium could have been under Thracian control. It is noteworthy that during Germanicus’ visit to Byzantion in AD 18 he was not greeted by a Thracian king. Although this was a private trip, according to Tacitus, the absence of the allied ruler at least raises questions. One possible explanation might be the political turmoil in Thrace at the time. It is also possible, however, that Byzantion was placed under the supervision of the Thracian kingdom of Rhoemetalkes I for a specific period of time only; after the division of the allied state, this supervision was canceled by Rome. The coastal cities existed in very different situation compared to the towns in inner Thrace. It is attested that Kabyle and Uscudama were conquered by Lucullus30; therefore it should not have been much of a problem for Rome to include them into the newly established Sapaean kingdom. The information about the location of the Thracian strategies, provided by Strabo31 and Pliny32, suggests that these towns were part of the state. Among the towns in the Thracian interior, Philippopolis is best known. It is attested many times in the surviving ancient sources, both narrative texts and epigraphic data. Y. Youroukova believes that coins of Rhoemetalkes II were struck in this city33. I. Topalilov, relying on different sources – including the terminology used by ancient authors – tries to determine the development of the legal status of Philippopolis according to the Roman laws. He concludes that at the time of Augustus Philippopolis had its own territory and city officials34. He also assumes that the town was recognized as Roman ally and was used 28 Mustafa Sayar, Perinthos–Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlİsİ) und Umgebung. Geschichte, Testimonien, Griechi-

sche und Lateinische Inschriften (Veröffentlichungen der Kleinasiatischen Kommission 9). Wien, 1998, n. 5.

29 Adam Łajtar, Die Inschriften von Byzantion (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Klein­asien 58), Bonn, 2000, 30 31 32 33 34

n. 324. Eutopii, Breviarium ab urbe conditia 5.10. Strab., Geogr. 7. 6.2 Plin., NH. 4.19 Йорданка Юрукова, Монетитe, 200. Иво Топалилов, „Приноси към историята на Филипопол през І в. – началото на ІІ в.“. Годишник на Археологическия музей–Пловдив 10 (2001): 68.

The cities in Southeastern Thrace and the central government

139

as a stepping stone for Rome’s penetration further into Thrace. So far, however, there is no direct evidence of an alliance. Philippopolis was probably put under the control of the Sapaean dynasty after the creation of the united Thracian state in the end of 1st century BC. Tacitus describes it as a royal stronghold, where king Rhoemetalkes II sought refuge during the rebellion of Koilaletai, Odrysai and Dii in AD 2135. This is an eloquent evidence for the ruler’s secure control over the town. After the rebellion, Rhoemetalkes II expanded the city and turned it into even more important center for the Thracian lands. On earlier inscriptions, Rhoemetalkes II appears as a dynast, while on later he is labeled basileus. He might have been successful in receiving the Roman approval, as it is highly unlikely that he pronounced himself a king without a permission from Rome. The construction activities attested in Philippopolis during the third decade of 1st century AD could be seen as part of ruler’s efforts to increase his prestige and win Rome’s favor. Some of the existing inscriptions were probably changed and the new title was added, but not all of them. This is regarded by some scholars as testimony for the location of Rhoemetalkes’ II possessions and center of power36. An example is the following inscription from Bizye: [Ἀπόλλ]ωνι Πα[κτυ]ηνῷ ἀνέ|θηκεν Ἀπολλώνι|[ος Ἐ]πταικένθου [Βιζυη]νὸς στρατη[γὸς τ]ῶν περὶ Ἀνχ|ίαλο]ν τόπων ἐπ[ὶ Ῥοι]μητάλκου Θρᾳ[κῶ]ν δυνάστου||[βα]σιλέως Κότ[υ]ος υἱωνοῦ κα[ὶ | β]ασιλέως ͑ Ροιμητάλκου | θυγατριδοῦ|| Ῥησκουπόρεως δὲ Θρᾳκῶν δυνάστου υἱοῦ.37

This document is regarded as evidence that Rhoemetalkes II did not have control over the old dynastic center. The opposition to his power could have been led by local aristocracy, hostile to his policy, or by the supporters of King Kotys’ children. The importance of Byzie during this period is beyond doubt. There are inscriptions connecting the city with the Thracian kings and dynasts, one of them is the already mentioned inscription about Rhoemetalkes II. Among the preserved epigraphic monuments is a dedication, made by Kotys in honor of his parents Sadalas and Polemokratia38. The town passed in Sapaean hands probably after 42 BC, when King Sadalas died39. Uscudama is barely mentioned in the ancient literary sources as oppidum of the Bessoi. The information about Kabyle is scarce as well. During the 2nd century BC, the later gradually declined and its connections with the Mediterranean trade centers almost ceased40. Most probably, the town retained trade contacts with the West Pontic coast and the colony of Mesambria in particular. Kabyle is mentioned as one of the settlements captured by Lucullus in 72 BC, but without any word for its political affiliation. Based on this, I. Lozanov assumes that the town probably preserved some form of autonomy until Lucullus’

35 Tac. Ann. 3. 38–39. 36 Иво Топалилов, Римският Филипопол, Т.1, Топография, градоустройство и архитектура. Велико

Търново, 2012, 11.

37 Richard Dawkins, Frederick Hasluck, “Inscriptions from Bizye.” The Annual of the British School at Athens,

12 (1905/1906): 175–177, n. 1.

38 René Cagnat, Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. Paris, Vol. I, 1911, n. 775. 39 Маргарита Тачева, История на българските земи в древността, 72. 40 The development of Kabyle has been studied by numerous Bulgarian researchers. For the city’s trade relations,

seе Людмил Гетов, Амфори и амфорни печати от Кабиле: ІV–ІІ в. пр. н.е. София, 1995.

140

Stoyan Terziev

campaigns41. Following the latter, the life faded in the city center, but did not vanished completely from the region, where archaeological investigations revealed habitation of a much smaller scale. These observations correspond to the whole picture of urban life in Thrace in the period 2nd century BC – 1st century AD42. Due to the limited information about the administrative structure of pre-Roman Thrace, it is difficult to decide with certainty whether the cities in the Thracian interior were part of the strategies or enjoyed extraterritoriality. Much disputed is Strabo’s information that Kabyle was situated in the land of the ethnos of the Astai43. A number of researches, including G. Mihailov, Al. Fol, M. Tacheva, and I. Lozanov, discussed the administrative organization of the Thracian lands. According to B. Gerov44, in Strabo’s text the definition ethnos corresponds to the administrative unit of a strategy. The relations between the cities in Southeastern Thrace and the supreme authority, to whom they owed allegiance and relied for protection, varied depending on their location. For those in the interior, the central government might have been the Thracian king. Contacts between the two sides could have been direct or indirect, in case the urban centres were included into the strategies. Regarding the coastal cities, we can assume that Rome and, starting with Augustus, the Princeps in particular was the supreme authority. These urban centres had certain legal status according to the Roman juridical practice. Each of the existing treaties specified their obligations and privileges. The foreign policy of the cities reached as far as the Roman state allowed. At any given moment, it could intervene and change the status quo. Their neighbours, the Thracian rulers, were among the Roman allied kings (defined also as client kings). Obviously, this was a system of at least three elements, created for the needs of the Roman state and defending its possessions in the region.

41 Ивайло Лозанов, „Кабиле през късноелинистическата и римската епоха: проблеми на селищното раз-

витие. II в. пр. Хр. – IV в. сл. Хр.“ In Поселищен живот в Тракия ІV, 2006, 151. For a different view obtained from coin assemblages, see recently Евгени Паунов, „Монети и монетна циркулация в Кабиле и неговия хинтерланд, ~100 г. пр. Хр.–98/117 г. сл. Хр.“ In Evgeni Paunov, Svetoslava Filipova (eds.) ΗΡΑΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΘΑΣΙΩΝ. Studia in honorem Iliae Prokopov sexagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata. Tirnovi, 2013, 441–488. 42 Христо Попов, „Тракийски градове и римски градове. Има ли приемственост?“ In Stephanos Archaeologikos. Studia in honorem Prof. L. Getov (Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis. Suppl. IV) (2005): 614. 43 Strab. Geogr. 7. 6.2. 44 Борис Геров, „Плиний Стари като извор за тракийските земи.“ Филология 3 (1978): 9. For more information on the administrative organization of the Thracian lands, see Boris Gerov, „Zum Problem der Strategien in römischen Thrakien“ Klio 52 (1970): 123–132; Георги Михаилов, „Към въпроса за стратегиите в Тракия“ Годишник на Софийския Университет–Факултет по Западни Филологии 61:2 (1967): 29–50; Александър Фол, „Още веднъж (и за последен път!) към въпроса за стратегиите в древна Тракия“ В: Studia in honorem Chr. M. Danov (=Terra Antiqua Balcanica 2, Годишник на Софийския Университет–Исторически Факултет 77, 1985): 142–144; Маргарита Тачева, „Към историческата география на древна Тракия“ Векове 12:6 (1983): 5–8. Cf. most recently Maria-Gabriella Parissaki, „Étude sur l’organisation administrative de la Thrace á l’époque romaine: L’histoire des stratégies“ Rеvue des Études Grecques 122 (2009): 319–357.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

SOUTHEASTERN THRACE IN THE LATE ANTIQUITY Ethnic Changes and Settlement Transformations

Vladimir Staykov

I

t is no coincidence that the Southeastern Balkans were among the earliest settled areas of the entire European continent. Since prehistoric times, the region was one of the first in which groups of settlers arrived, crossing from Asia Minor into Europe. The mild climate and fertility of these lands were a prerequisite for their development since ancient times and determined the important role they would play in the demographic, social, and economic processes that led to the formation of European civilization. The negative aspect of such geographical position lies in the fact that it made Southeastern Thrace too desirable for various invaders whose historical destiny in one way or another guided them through the Balkans. Certainly, the different realities in any given historical moment led to changes in the diplomatic relations between various political parties. The topic of this paper will be tracing the political relations in Southeastern Thrace between, on one hand, the Eastern Roman Empire as the sovereign of this lands, and various barbarian tribes on the other that for the period from the 3rd to the 6th c. AD repeatedly penetrated the region either as allies or as enemies of the Empire. The problem of the presence of non-Romanized population in Southeastern Thrace is not among the main questions regarding the Late Antiquity. The most complex review of the ethnical and political situation in the region was offered by V. Velkov in his study The Cities in Thrace and Dacia in the Late Antiquity (Studies and Materials), Amsterdam, 1977, and his work will be basic for this text as well. One of the main obstacles in solving this issue is the fact that it is extremely hard to identify separate barbarian raids, which are the leading reasons for barbarian presence in Southeastern Thrace. This is the case of the barbarian settlements that consisted mainly of makeshift wooden dwellings that did not leave archaeological traces. The most widespread finds that attest foreign presence are various metal items – earrings, fibulae, belt fittings. They are most often chance finds or were found in fortresses and dated to the last periods of their occupation. This is the case of the some finds from the close vicinity of Edirne, to the northwest of it, in present-day Haskovo Region1. 1 Методи Даскалов, Боян Думанов, „Метални предмети от периода VІ–VІІ в. във фонда на ИМ –

Хасково“, Известия на Исторически музей – Хасково, 2 (2003): 198–199.

142

Vladimir Staykov

At the very beginning of this period, the Balkan Roman provinces, like other parts of the Empire, underwent serious transformations. The period of Soldier Emperors led to destabilization and crisis in economic, military and political terms. The inability to manage the vast imperial territories provided excellent conditions for marauding raids by various barbarian tribes. This was the reason for the reforms of Emperor Diocletian (285–305), whose rule is considered a turning point in the history of Rome and the actual beginning of Late Antiquity as a period2. Diocletian introduced the Tetrarchy as a form of government and divided the empire into four prefectures governed by tetrarchs. Suddenly the remote eastern provinces of the Balkan territories became hinterland of Constantinople, the new capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, and their role rapidly increased. The region of Adrianople and Eastern Thrace became part of Prefecture Orient (per Orientem) in the Diocese of Thrace. The latter was divided into six provinces and the area under consideration here forms two of them – Haemimontus (Greek: Αἱμίμοντος) and Europa. The Haemimontus Province reached to the north to the slopes of Haemus Mountain. The western border followed more or less the river Tondzos, turning east to the south of Plotinopolis (present-day Didymoteicho); then it passed to the north of Bizye and reached the Black Sea coast. Adrianople was the capital of the province, and its territory included also the city of Plotinopolis and several cities along the coast of the Black Sea. To the southeast of Haemimontus, reaching to Constantinople, Diocletian created the Province of Europa. The largest city in it was Heracleia (former Perinthos, today Marmara Ereğlisi), but the main city was Selimbria, later renamed Eudoxiopolis (present-day Silivri); the province included also Arkadiopolis (Lüleburgaz), Bizye (Viza), Rhaedestus (Tekirdag), etc. The location of the Southeastern Thrace, the “entrance of Europe”, figuratively speaking, predetermined its important role in the Empire, but from the 3rd c. onwards increased its importance in a number of other aspects, such as economy and trade, foreign policy, defense etc. The local population experienced permanent problems with various invaders from Central Europe and the northern coast of Black Sea in Thrace, which were attracted, apart from the fertile lands, to the wealth of the new capital of the Eastern Empire. In the course of the 3rd c., the written sources report repeatedly the presence in Thrace of various barbarian groups – Sarmatians, Goths, Carps, Heruls, Gepids, etc. Since this was often the result of their predatory raids and victims among the local population, two effects could be distinguished from demographic point of view: first, some of these groups settled in Thrace as federates of the Empire, and second, the local population gradually decreased or at least melted among the newcomers in the Diocese. Such was the fate of the prisoners of war in the Empire – they were settled within it, including in Southeastern Thrace. There is evidence that in 290, Diocletian settled in Thracian provinces Saracens, captured when pillaging in the far east. Such seems to be the result of the unsuccessful invasion of Carps and Bastarns in the Balkans in 295. We could say that 2 Венцислав Динчев, Поселищно развитие през Късноантичната епоха (ІV–VІ в.) в Тракия и Дакия (по

археологически данни). Автореферат на дисертация за присъждане на образователна и научна степен доктор, София, 1996, 3.

Southeastern Thrace in the Late Antiquity

143

Sarmatians too were settled here in the same manner – in De aedificiis, Procopius mentions the fort Sarmathon (Greek: Σαρμαθών) somewhere in the province of Haemimontus3. In the 4th c., the foreign policy of the Eastern Roman Empire in the Balkans was aimed mainly at the Gothic tribes. In some cases, it led to peaceful solutions and problematic Gothic communities were settled to the south of the Danube as federates – for example this happened to the Goths of Wulfila, who settled near Nicopolis ad Istrum in 3484. Not always, however, diplomacy provided the required result. This is most clearly seen in the 370s and 380s, when a number of events – the rebellion of Procopius in 364–3665, the first Gothic War of 366–3696, and the reluctance of Emperor Valens to allow the settlement of Gothic groups to the south of the Danube – led to the Gothic rebellion in 376– 378. It was gradually reinforced by groups of various barbaric tribes, especially Huns. At the end of 376, the rebels came to the walls of Adrianople, but were repelled. Nevertheless, their main efforts were concentrated in Southeastern Thrace and the valleys of Hebros and Tonzos. This led to the Battle of Adrianople on August 9, 378, in which the barbarian troops inflicted serious damage to the Empire. The defeat led to the death of Emperor Valens and to the reduction of imperial military strength and potential in the Balkans7. However, the successor of Valens, Theodosius I, was able to make peace with the Goths and prevent their future campaigns against Constantinople8. The consequences of this rebellion in Eastern Thrace in demographic and ethnographic aspects are indisputable: while the larger and fortified towns survived without much damage, smaller villages, as reported by Amian Marcellinus, were looted and largely depopulated, and the land was ravaged. However, taking into account the information provided by Procopius and Theophylact Simocatta and the archaeological evidence, some of the villages managed to recover after the events. A certain role into that process could be attributed to groups of the invading Goths, whose primary aim, however, was exactly to settle in Thrace9. In the 5th c., the Empire focused on the Hunnic state and its population of different origins. After its dissolution, certain groups were directed towards the interior of the Balkans with the intention to settle there. Jordanes states that in the middle of the century one of these tribes – the Rugii, wanted to settle near Bizye and Arcadiopolis. There is no evidence, however, that it happened, for most of the Hunnic tribes eventually settled in Illyricum and the northern areas of the peninsula. A little earlier, about 409, the majority of them, led by their chief Uldis, were defeated while trying to plunder the land and

3 Velizar Velkov, The Cities in Thrace and Dacia in the Late Antiquity (Studies and Materials), Amsterdam, 1977,

118, 275.

4 Румен Иванов, „Никополис ад Иструм“ In Румен Иванов (ред.), Римски и ранновизантийски градове в 5 6 7 8 9

България. София, 2002, 86. Velizar Velkov, The Cities in Thrace and Dacia, 128, 250–251. Ibid., 33. Ibid., 34–35. Ibid., 36. Ibid., 35.

144

Vladimir Staykov

were settled in Asia Minor. These are the limited reports of Hunnic displacements in the territory of Byzantium in this period10. Regarding Arcadiopolis, the opinion of V. Dinchev is that no barbarians were settled there, while V. Velkov believes that Rugii lived in the city’s surroundings in the middle of the 5th c.11. In 441–442, however, the army of the empire was busy on other fronts, which allowed the Huns to penetrate deep to the south. There is evidence that large cities like Adrianople suffered damage in these attacks, and eventually Emperor Theodosius II was forced, as part of the peace treaty, to give lands to the Huns. Therefore, it is clear that certain groups settled in other parts of the Balkans, including Thrace12. After the beginning of the 6th c., several invasions of Slavs, Avars, Bulgars and other tribes took place, some of them for pillaging and others with the idea to settle on the Balkans. In De aedificiis, Procopius reports that in this period Langobards too lived near Apri in the Province of Europa13. In this period, the Empire continued its internal policy of strengthening urban centers in the Balkans, with the idea to be able to confront the numerous barbarian invasions. V. Velkov, however, mentions something else – the tendency of the local population to support the barbarian invaders, dissatisfied with the imperial administration and operation in the region14. Perhaps, this was one of the reasons why many attacks were able to reach deep into the peninsula, down to modern Greece or Southeastern Thrace. This happened with the Slavic incursion in 550, when the invaders managed to get down to the Province of Europa, before being defeated at Tzurulum, and especially the in next year when, after defeating the Byzantine army, the Slavs managed to devastate huge areas around Adrianople15. There is evidence for other incursions in the course of these two decades – of Bulgarian “Huns” in 540 and 544, and of Kutrigurs in 551.16 Such was the result of the Kutrigur invasion in 558, described by Agathius, which caused damages in the Province of Europa, near Constantinople In the same time, another group of Kutrigurs tried to reach by sea the Thracian Chersonesus, probably aided by Slavs, in the opinion of V. Velkov, but were defeated by the Byzantine navy17. Somewhere at this point in history another barbarian threat emerged – the Avars, more advanced than the other nomadic tribes in administrative and political terms. Their appearance caused Justinian and his successors to focus their diplomatic efforts on establishing good relations with them. After the initial success of the Byzantine diplomacy, which led to a temporary alliance and victories over some potential threats, such as the Kutrigurs, the Antes and the Slavinians, the Avars directed their interest towards the southern Balkans, and their relations with Byzantium gradually deteriorated. There were several Avar embassies to Constantinople that led to the establishment of a temporary peaceful status quo, but it was soon broken. In this period, Byzantine troops were 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Ibid., 39–40. Ibid., 119–120. Ibid., 40–41. Ibid., 196, 266. Ibid., 47. Ibid., 50–51. Walter Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567–822 n. Chr. München, 1988, 19. Velizar Velkov, The Cities in Thrace and Dacia, 50–51.

Southeastern Thrace in the Late Antiquity

145

scattered in various parts of the Empire – Asia Minor, Northern Africa, Italy, Spain, leaving the Balkans poorly defended18. The Avars took advantage from this opportunity and undertook bolder actions to the south. They enlisted in their ranks other barbarian groups and in the last decades of the 6th c., the Empire was subjected to continuous attacks. About 584, a campaign of Avars and Antes reached the Province of Europa – its goal was Heracleia, but during the siege of Tzurulum, on their way to the Sea of ​​Marmara, the imperial commanders succeed, apparently using some stratagems, to repel the attackers. Another great Avar incursion was attested in 587, which also ended in looting numerous unfortified settlements, but without much success against large fortified cities as Adrianople and Panion; the invaders were stopped by Byzantine troops, led by John Mystacon19. Several years later, in 593, Avar troops reached the shores of Marmara again, but were stopped again, most probably in result of a truce. Despite the almost constant attacks of the barbarians during the Late Antiquity, it could be claimed that the major urban centers in Thrace did not suffer severe damage. In general, this was due to two factors: on one hand, Haemimontus and Europa were far enough from the northern part of the peninsula that were usually invaded by foreign armies. In most cases, the Empire managed to neutralize the threat before it became imminent for the cities in Southeastern Thrace20. Certainly, there were exceptions, such as the Gothic invasion of 378, the Avar-Slavic campaign of 584, etc. There is, however, something else – even when they reached these important areas in the very hinterland of Constantinople, the barbarians failed to succeed against the larger cities. The reason for this was the internal policy of the Empire in the Balkan provinces during the Late Antiquity. Fully aware of the growing threats for the weakened state after the Soldier Emperors, Diocletian and his successors focused much of their efforts on strengthening this already key region. This led to a significant reconstruction of urban centers in the Balkans and the cities were consolidated within smaller fortified areas. A good example is the capital of Europa, Eudoxiopolis, whose fortified territory seems to have been significantly reduced in the 5th and 6th c.21. Such centres as Adrianople, Panion, Heracleia, etc. could still be considered large cities. On the other hand, the invaders, inexperienced in the siege and assault of well-fortified cities, failed to overcome their strong defences22. Certainly, there are reports of some towns being conquered by the Huns, for example, but they were all smaller settlements. On the other hand, those that suffered the most damage in this situation were exactly the smaller towns and villages23. They were not the principal goals of the campaigns and barbarian troops just passed through them, ravaging everything in their path. During the siege of the cities, the attackers provided themselves with supplies precisely from the surrounding villages. Walter Pohl, Die Awaren, 19–20. Velizar Velkov, The Cities in Thrace and Dacia, 53. Ibid., 53–54. Ventzislav Dintchev, “Classification of the Late Antiques Cities on the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia”, Archaeologia Bulgarica 3 (1999): 60. 22 Velizar Velkov, The Cities in Thrace and Dacia, 37. 23 Ibid., 252. 18 19 20 21

146

Vladimir Staykov

This scenario was repeated again and again for more than three centuries and led to the inevitable demographic decline and disappearance of villages and small towns. Regarding the general demographic changes in Southeastern Thrace, based on the above-discussed evidence, the following conclusions could be drawn: in the Late Antiquity, to the south of the Haemus Mountains and particularly in the provinces of Haemimontos and Europa, there was a relatively high percentage of preserved Romanized and local Thracian population in the large urban centres24, but the villages and small towns were in decline and display larger presence of newly arrived barbaric population. This could be glimpsed in law, issued by Theodosius in the early 370s, which expressly prohibited intermarriage between barbarians and the inhabitants of the Empire, regardless of their origin or class25. Obviously, at that time, such marriages were no longer something exceptional. Still, one could say that the southern Balkan provinces managed largely to avoid the fate of the northern ones. V. Velkov outlines the following picture of the population in the Balkan provinces: “... a very strong mixing of ethnic groups, but in varying degrees: in coastal towns – with a predominance of Microasiatic element, in Northern Bulgaria – dominated by barbaric element, and in Southern Bulgaria – by the presence of Thracians”26. It would appear that it was with this ethnical configuration that the Balkan lands entered the Middle Ages, which brought with it new peoples and new changes.

24 Ibid., 252. 25 Roger Blockley, “Roman – Barbarian Marriages in the Late Empire”, Florilegium 4 (1982): 63–79; Ralph

Mathisen, “Provinciales, Gentiles, and Marriages between Romans and Barbarians in the Late Roman Empire”, The Journal of Roman Studies 99 (2009): 140–155. 26 Velizar Velkov, The Cities in Thrace and Dacia, 249.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

ARISTOCRATISM AND PIETY ALONG THE BANKS OF MARITSA The Case of Komnenos’ Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira

Georgi Sengalevich

P

heres (also Ferres, Pherrai) is a town in the region of Thrace in Greece, located northeast of Alexandroupoli and along the border with Turkey. Its visitors could quite easily distinguish a large and impressive Orthodox church, located on a fortified hill in the middle of the town, overlooking the valley of lower Maritsa/Evros/Meriç River some 4 km away. Following the description, given into a medieval monastic document – the charter or typikon of Theotokos Kosmosoteira, Fyodor Uspensky first identified the site as the Byzantine Vera, where in 1152 a monastery with the unusual dedication to the Virgin as the saviour of the world was founded. The founder Isaac Komnenos (1093– after 1152) was the third son of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) and also the father of emperor Andronikos Komnenos (1183–1185). During the reign of his elder brother emperor John II (1118–1143) and of the later Manuel Komnenos (1143– 1180), Isaac, a scholar and patron of learning, was elevated to the dignity of sebastokrator, but later was exiled a couple of times, the last after 1150, when he found final resting place at his residence along the banks of Maritsa River in Thrace1. This somehow explains the unusual location of his monastic foundation, on the bustling crossroad of two major routes – the Via Egnatia in the section between Kypsela and Traianoupolis, and the Maritsa River2. The port of Vira/Vera or Bera/Bira (Βήρα), mentioned in several sources, was most probably located some 20 km to the north of Ainos, right in the area of today’s Pheres3. As we know from the typikon, drawn up by Isaac in 1152, the monas-

1 See Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God

Kosmosoteira near Bera. In BMFD: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders΄ Typika and Testaments. Ed. by J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, D.C., 2000, 782. 2 Andreas Külzer, “The Byzantine Road Rystem in Eastern Thrace: some remarks.” Byzantinische Forschungen, 30 (2011): 186–187, 190–191. 3 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley. Thessaloniki, 2007, 50.

148

Georgi Sengalevich

tery was in control of a bridge over Maritsa and its abbot even had the privilege to own a vessel in the river for fishing and transferring people4. In addition to the typikon, the other major source about Kosmosoteira is what has left of the monastery as material evidence. At first place, the main church, the 12th-century katholikon, is well preserved. Measuring 15 x 20 m, it is a variation of the five-domed, cross-in-square type (Fig. 2). The eastern side ends in three apses, of which the central is five-sided with a large three-light window (partially blocked) and the rest were originally four-sided with two-light windows. The sanctuary to the east is tripartite with the three spaces separated by thick piers that support the main dome. On the other side, the dome is supported by two pairs of elegant columns. This obvious asymmetry, which is also a constructive one, forced the insertion of iron tie rods – something unusual as a supportive measure in the Byzantine architecture5. The walls of the church up to the height of the cornice are built in stone alternating with courses of bricks, accomplished in the recessed brick technique (with broad bands of mortar)6. The vaulting begins above the level of the cornice, with the wide barrel vaults that cover the four arms of the cross being stabilized at their springing by wooden tie beams. The main dome rises above a dodecagonal drum pierced by windows, about 7 m in diameter and rising to a height of 11 m. The remaining four domes over the corner bays that rise on eight-sided drums assign the Kosmosoteira church to a list of similar five-domed cross-in square churches such as the St Sophia of Kiev (1046) or the St Panteleimon church in Nerezi (1164), a type certainly originating in Constantinopolitan monuments, such as the Nea church at the Great Palace (881) and the north church of Constantine Lips (907)7. As mentioned in the typikon8, the church had also an exonarthex that is not preserved. However, traces of such an ambulatory are well visible on the north, south and especially the west façade. The walls of the church are pierced by openings according to the standards of the contemporary Constantinopolitan architecture. The symbolism of the Holy Trinity was realized through the three entrances on the western façade, with the main entrance flanked by two large tripartite windows, of which the middle one is topped by a semicircular arch while the two side lights are designed as half-arches. The main apse contains a triple window composed of three semi-circular openings, separated by marble mullions, while in the apses of the diakonikon and the prothesis are placed smaller two-light windows. The main dome is illuminated by 12 arched windows that interrupt the drum. The four smaller domes also have such windows, but only at the visible sides. In the southeast corner dome, there is a part of the original window preserved, with its frame of cast mortar and small yellowish glass pieces9. Smaller arched windows are placed also in the north and south lunette, just under the tripartite windows. In fact, the exterior of the church is not as segmented and complicated as the examples of the later Palaeologian Period and 4 Isaac Komneno, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152). Ed. L. Petit. Известия Рус-

скаго Археологическаго Института в Константинополе, 13 (1908): 50–51 (§66, 67).

5 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 56. 6 Ibid., 60. 7 See Νικόλαος Γκιολές, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία (600–1204). Αθήνα, 1992, 82–90, 105–107; Vojislav Korać, Mar-

ica Šuput, Arhitektura vizantijskog sveta. Beograd, 2010, 138–166.

8 Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 69–70 (§107). 9 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 59–60.

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa

149

the facades below the windows remain relatively plain, thus approaching the rather austere decoration of the synchronous Chora and Pantokrator monasteries in Constantinople (Fig. 1). Nevertheless in addition to the windows, the exterior is moved by a series of blind niches on the upper level of the apses. They have flat or concave fields that include brick patterning (W-shaped pattern; reticulate pattern) and are very similar to the Chora church in Constantinople, rebuilt at the same time by the same man – Isaac Komnenos10. The southeast corner niche of the diakonikon apse is filled with the unusual image of an eagle (Fig. 3). Similar types of royal, imperial images however became popular since the late 10th century, but were depicted on expensive fabrics and in illuminated manuscripts, or engraved on stone reliefs, not made of bricks as ornamental brickwork. There is another interesting design – the decorative pilasters of the main dome drum bear ornamental brick letters, composing most probably a cryptogram of a prayer. But let us move towards the interior of the Kosmosoteira’s katholikon. First of all, the coupled columns of the western supports attract our attention (Fig. 4). The only parallels we could find are in the contemporary Romanesque architecture, thus a Western influence seems possible11. The reason for such a solution might be the presence of suitable material: the shafts and the bases of the columns appear to be spolia, as the founder himself acknowledges in the typikon12. The capitals, also spolia, were reworked in order to express the fashion. They were covered with plaster and recarved13. Similar plastic coverings of considerable dimension were applied to the marble cornice that extends around the interior of the church and to the dome cornices. They are not preserved. We could now proceed to the architectural sculpture. Several pieces of the original marble templon are incorporated into the modern chancel screen of the church: fragments of an epistyle consisting of torus and freeze of acanthus leaves and pieces of another, simpler epistyle that bears a frieze of alternating lotus and acanthus, most probably from the chancels of the pastophoria14. The most important feature of the interior however are the wall paintings, preserved in fragments. It is generally accepted that they are not far removed from the 1152, when the monastery’s typikon was written15. They represent the aesthetics of the 12th century mature Komnenian art – the compositions lack the passion and the dynamism of the later frescoes from, for example, Nerezi or Kurbinovo16. In Kosmosoteira, the faces with their lights and shadows appear much closer to the human condition. The figures are elongated but not weak and express aristocratic tranquility that may be related to the contemporary court culture in Constantinople. Perhaps that is the reason for some researchers to date our frescoes by mistake at the beginning of the 13th century17. There are several unique features in the iconographical program of our church. It is unclear 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Νικόλαος Γκιολές, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία (600–1204), 94, 106. Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 65. Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 63 (§89). See Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira).” Byzantinisches Archiv, 16 (1985): 98–101. Ibid., 114. Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 73. Myrtalē Acheimastou-Potamianou, Greek Art. Byzantine Wall-Paintings. Athens, 1994, 22. A date suggested by V. Djuric and D. Mouriki, see Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 73.

150

Georgi Sengalevich

whether any wall paintings are preserved in the dome, under the Turkish plaster. Stefan Sinos indeed correctly reminds that the surface of the dome is not flat but faceted, except of a small circular medallion in its center18. A large image of Christ Pantokrator simply is not possible. The visual effect was strengthened through the mentioned decorative faceting, which had to imitate the divine light with its rays (Fig. 5). Similar solutions can be seen in numerous Constantinopolitan monuments, like the late 11th century Christ Pantepoptes church (Eski Imaret mosque), the 12th century Pantokrator monastery (Zeyrek mosque), the late 12th century Theotokos Kyriotissa church (Kalenderhane mosque) or the domes of the Chora complex, covered with mosaics during the 14th century, but also in some provincial monuments, such as the late 10th century Panaxiotissa church near the Greek village of Gavrolimni or the late 11th century Veljusa monastery close to Strumica in the Rebublic of Macedonia. Faceted domes can be found also in Palaeologian masterpieces like the Pammakaristos chapel (Fethiye mosque) in Constantinople and the Metropolis of Mystras. In contrast with the most of these examples, the faceting of the Kosmosoteira domes is done just like at Chora and Pammakaristos by ribs alternating with concave fields and not in the manner of flat relief rays that stand out against the background. In the upper zone of the north and south walls of the cross arms, we see busts of hierarchs and, beneath them, full-length images of Old Testament prophets holding scrolls. Between the small arched windows, we can see four haloed male military figures, two on each side. Are they military saints and nothing more? The diadems that they wear, along with the total absence of inscriptions and the unusual and personified facial features, have led researchers like Charalambos Bakirtzis to the conclusion that members of the Byzantine royal family were depicted19. In the north side, they recognize Andronikos, a brother of the founder Isaac, with their father – Emperor Alexios I, and Emperor John II (also Isaac’s brother) with Isaac Komnenos himself on the south side (Fig. 6). Although this hypothesis sounds attractive, I would like to stress the unconditional will of Isaac, expressed in his typikon, not to be depicted in the church20. At the same time it seems highly unusual to me for members of the royal family, including two emperors, to be featured not full-length and scattered between the windows. The representation of the already mentioned people disguised as saints and the game with the images can be acceptable for the art of the Renaissance, but not for the middle 12th century Byzantine painting. In the lower zone of the walls, a procession of hierarchs “heads” towards the sanctuary – something rather unusual as well. Normally the hierarchs outside the sanctuary are depicted frontally. In our case, their procession forms unified composition with the scenes in the sanctuary – the fresco in the main apse, which is not preserved, and the scene of the Communion of the Apostles in the prothesis, where the Eucharist was prepared. Most strikingly, the depicted over there are mainly hierarchs of the Church of Rome21. Two archangels crown the domes over the pastophoria. In an 18 Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 111. 19 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 72.

The paper of Charalambos Bakirtzis, “Warrior Saints or Portraits of Members of the Family of Alexios I Komnenos?” In Mosaic. Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw. Athens, 2001, 85–88, was not accessible to me. 20 Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 63 (§89). 21 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 69.

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa

151

attempt to explain the odd elements in the fresco program, Nancy Ševčenko constructs a hypothesis that the interior of the church was planned to be carved in marble up to the level of the cornice, but only the sanctuary area was completed in that fashion, thus creating anomalies in the placement of the frescoes that were added somewhat later22. However, traces of such carving are not apparent and the lowest zone of the walls was actually painted to imitate a marble dado. At Kosmosoteira, there are several other scenes preserved: a two-part composition of the Annunciation above the pairs of columns in the eastern faces of the walls, with the Archangel Gabriel to the north and the Virgin Mary to the south. On the north face of the wall above the southern pair of columns, the Presentation in the Temple is depicted. The Nativity of Christ is placed on the eastern intrados of the southern barrel vault. In the inner arch of the southeast bay is the Pentecost. A bust of Christ appears in the southwest dome, while the northwest minor dome is filled with the image of the Virgin Orans. The arch over there contains a scene of the Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ, a common funerary theme. That is why Robert Ousterhout suggests that this is the exact place of the founder’s tomb23. From the typikon we know that Isaac Komnenos at first had prepared his burial place at the Chora monastery in Constantinople, but later changed his mind and ordered all the marbles to be transferred to Kosmosoteira, as he writes, “on the left side of the narthex, there where I made an extension to the building on account of the tomb”24. This passage is especially problematic because of the meaning of two terms – “narthex” and “extension”. The narthex might be the now-destroyed ambulatory to the west of the church. However, this structure was most probably the exonarthex, mentioned by Isaac as well, where his secretary Michael and his servant Leo Kastamonites were to be buried in marble sarcophagi set in frescoed arcosolia25. Nancy Ševčenko proposed that “extension” means an additional structure attached to the north of the church26. During excavations in 1970, remains of a small wall, water draining system and a vast stone fundament were uncovered there. Stefan Sinos argues as well that they might belong to Isaac’s ‘Mausoleum’27. In fact, they are more likely to be the remains of an attachment to the northern wall of the church, still visible next to the remains of the Ottoman minaret on a photo, taken in the 1920s28. Most researchers assume that the “narthex” is the western part of the naos with the “extension” being its northwest corner, where the already mentioned funerary scenes are depicted29. 22 See Nancy Ševčenko, “Revisiting the frescoes of the church of the Kostmosoteira at Pherrai (1152).” In

23

24

25 26 27 28 29

ΣΥΜΜΕΙΚΤΑ. Collection of Papers Dedicated to the 40th Anniversary of the Institute for Art History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Beograd, 2012, 85–91. Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 79; Robert Ousterhout, “The Byzantine architecture of Thrace: The view from Constantinople.” Byzantinische Forschungen, 30 (2011): 493. Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, p. 838 (§89); Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 63 (§89). Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 69–70 (§107). Nancy Ševčenko, “The Tomb of Isaak Komnenos at Pherrai.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 29 (1984): 138. Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 74. Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 51. Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 58.

152

Georgi Sengalevich

In fact, such spaces are not unusual in the Middle Byzantine architecture30. Such separate chapels with funerary functions, situated in the northwestern bay of the naos, are evident at Hosios Loukas monastery and at Nerezi31. Unfortunately, nothing has left in place from Isaac’s tomb (bronze railings, portraits, icons, gifts)32. Some attribute a marble slab that bears an epitaph to be a part of the founder’s tomb33. It was found by Uspensky at his visit to Kosmosoteira, but unfortunately the name of the deceased despot is not preserved, and other dignitaries have been buried there as well. In addition to the church, there were several other buildings that formed the whole complex. The typikon informs us about the existence of a refectory, cells for the monks, baths, cistern, a treasury, a library, a hospice for the elderly, a hotel for pilgrims, a residence of the founder, storerooms, stables, mills, etc. The details, given in the typikon, make possible a sample reconstruction of the general outlook of the whole complex. The buildings were organized into two spaces34, with the katholikon and the cells forming the inner fortified area35. The refectory with the cistern36, the dwelling of Isaac’s secretary Michael37, the treasury and the library must have been there too. The second, “external” court, enclosed with a fence38, incorporated the old age home, the outbuildings39, presumably one of the baths40, etc. Isaac’s residence41 and the public bath next to the monastic cemetery42 should be traced outside the enclosures. All of these structures are not preserved and no major archaeological research has been conducted yet. In fact, Isaac ordered his residence, the despotikon, and his bath to be destroyed under certain circumstances after his death43. Despite this egalitarian measure and the fact that the typikon follows the rules of the Evergetis monastery as a model, there are some elitist trends 30 Ida Sinkević, “Western chapels in Middle Byzantine churches: Meaning and significance.” Starinar, 52

(2002): 79 – 92.

31 Ibid., 82 – 84. 32 For a detailed description of the tomb, see Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près

33

34

35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

d’Aenos (1152), 63 – 64 (§89 – 90); transl. Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 838 – 839 (§89 – 90). See Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 782; Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 80 – 81; Nancy Ševčenko, “Revisiting the Frescoes of the Church of the Kostmosoteira at Pherrai (1152)”, 86. “I tightly enclosed everything within a double wall”, writes Isaac in Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 799 (§2); Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 20 (§2). Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 74 (118). Ibid., 72 (§113). Ibid., 69 (§107). Called „the sigmoid wall” (σιγματοειδές τεῖχος) in Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 68 (§101), translated by Nancy Ševčenko as “the S-shaped wall” in Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 843 (§101). In fact the palaeography of the Greek letter “sigma” as С by that time could lead us to a semicircular shape of the external enclosure, limited by a “sigmoid” fence, attached to the main core of the complex. Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 53 (§70), 68 (§101). Ibid., 73 (§113). Ibid., 73 (§115). Ibid., 66 (§97), 74 – 75 (§118). See Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 73 (§113, 115).

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa

153

in the text. After all, Kosmososteira is a private foundation. For example, the 50 monks were to be assigned to the performance of hymnody in the church. The manual labour was to be responsibility of the 26 servants. The founder endorses the cenobitic lifestyle that means common services, common meals, and communal supply of clothes, but authorizes the abbot and the “more important” monks with a great power44. In fact, the monastery was an enterprise that possessed a list of immovable properties and lands, had the right to organize annual fairs, and also possessed a marketplace and 12 ships. The monastery was unusually open to laymen also through the bathhouse, available to public, or through the old age house and other means of philanthropy45. There were several villages in the territory, donated by Isaac, whose peasants became dependents of Kosmosoteira. Among them had to be several soldiers and privileged armed dependents to provide protection for the monastery’s possessions46 – very interesting details that remind more of the Western than of the Eastern monastic tradition. Today, sections of the fortification wall and parts of three rectangular towers survive (Fig. 7). They are built of cut stone blocks with bands of bricks in some sections. It is still disputable if they are the “strong enclosure wall” mentioned by Isaac Komnenos47. According to some, they might be a later work, from the period after the beginning of the 14th century, when the monastery already served as a fortress48. In fact only one tower is mentioned in the typikon49, as well as three entrances: the main on the south side and two additional on the east and on the west50. As an architectural solution, Kosmosoteira’s fortification reminds of the enclosures of St John the Baptist monastery in Kardzhali, Bulgaria51, or of Daphni monastery near Athens in Greece52, both of the 11th century, but even more with its polygonal plan of the Ravanica53 and Manasija54 monastery fortresses in Serbia of the late 14th – early 15th century, with the last being a much more monumental facility (Fig. 8). At the same time, the building technique at Kosmosoteira is different, more elaborate and rather archaic. It is evident that the exact date and chronology of the walls and the localization of the gates and the early tower have to be clarified through excavations.

44 See Ibid., 37–38 (§31, 32). 45 See Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God

46 47

48 49

50 51 52 53 54

Kosmosoteira near Bera, 794–795; Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 22 (§6), 24 (§9), 25 (§10), 53–56 (§70, 71), 72–73 (§113). Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 71–72 (§110, 112). Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 799 (§2); Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 20 (§2). Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 83–84. The tower, mentioned in Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 23 (§9), 26 (§11), possibly served not only for the protection of the enclosure’s main entrance, but also as a bell tower and a place of last refuge; see Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 46–47. Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 50 (§65), 61 (§84). See Николай Овчаров, Даниела Коджаманова, Перперикон и околните твърдини през средновековието. Крепостното строителство в Източните Родопи. София, 2003, 32–42. Gabriel Millet, Le monastère de Daphni. Histoire, architecture, mosaiques. Paris, 1899, 4–6. Александар Дероко, Средњевековни градови у Србиjи, Црноj Гори и Македониjи. Београд, 1950, 133–134. Александар Дероко, Средњевековни градови у Србиjи, Црноj Гори и Македониjи, 136–140; Slobodan Nenadović, Građevinska tehnika u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji. Beograd, 2003, 561–564.

154

Georgi Sengalevich

What was the subsequent history of this site, after the monastery’s foundation in 1152? It is known that in 1183 the then Emperor Andronikos Komnenos, while hunting in the vicinity, stopped at the monastery to pay tribute at his father’s grave55. It is the same place where his enemy and next emperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) was arrested and blinded in 119556. Vera is mentioned as abbey also by the knight historian of the Fourth Crusade Geoffrey of Villehardouin57. Later the whole region became an arena of struggles between the Byzantines, Latins and Bulgarians, and the location of Vera was always crucial because of the river crossing. It was the Kosmosoteira monastery and its vicinity, where the emperor of Nicaea John III Doukas Vatatzes (1222–1254) met the news of Bulgarian tsar Kaliman Asen’s death in 124658. The area was plundered for the first time by the Turks in 1329–133059, as the whole region of Thrace became a focus of the Byzantine civil wars. In 1343, John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354) camped his troops near Vera, and by that time Kosmosoteira was already fortified. The future emperor found the monastery defended by monks and peasants60. When John V Palaiologos (1341–1391) took control of the fortress in 1355, the monastery was already defunct and the enclosure was inhabited by peasants61. It most probably fell to the Turks in 1371/137262. In 1433, the French pilgrim Bertrandon de la Broquière reported that Vera was an important town with a mixed population, while its fortress was partially destroyed and Kosmosoteira church – converted into a mosque63. The urbanization process may have started even earlier64, but for sure the changed political and demographic landscape, combined with the excellent location, stimulated the transformation of the “deserted area”, as Vera was called in the typikon65, into a flourishing town, consolidated around our complex, with an aqueduct, baths and ceramic workshops, that is the Turkish Ferecik. The repairs of the façades of the church in rough rubble masonry can be attributed to the Ottoman period. During that time, many of the windows, including most of the dome openings, the apse windows and the south entrance were blocked due to the changed orientation (qibla) of the mosque. New entrance was open in the north façade. The west window in the southwest corner dates from this period as well. In the Ottoman period, the drum of 55 Nicetae Choniatae Historia. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 35. Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 1835, 363. 56 Ibid., 595. 57 Geoffroy de Villehardouin. Chronique de la prise de Constantinople par les Francs. In Collection des Chro-

niques Nationales Francaises, III. Paris, 1828, 149.

58 Γεωργίου του Ακροπολίτου Χρονική Συγγραφή. In Georgii Acropolitae Opera, 1. Ed. Heisenberg. Leipzig,

1903, 72 (§43).

59 Ioannis Cantacuzeni Historiae. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 5. I. Ed. Schopen, Bonn, 1828, 390

(ІІ.13.).

60 Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 26. II. Ed. Schopen, Bonn,

1830, 797 (ХVІ.1.).

61 Ioannis Cantacuzeni Historiae. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 7. III. Ed. Schopen, Bonn, 1832,

310 (ІV.42.).

62 Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 26. 63 See ibid., 7, 28–29. 64 Δέσποινα Ευγενίδου, Κάστρα Μακεδονίας και Θράκης. Βυζαντινή Καστροκτισία. Αθήνα, 2003, 36; Δέσποινα

Ευγενίδου writes that the village next to the monastery developed in the course of 13th–14th century. It should not be forgotten that a settlement at Vera already existed when Isaac Komnenos founded his monastery ca. 1152, and this is evident from many passages in the typikon. 65 Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 798–799.

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa

155

the main dome was raised and the cornice which originally followed the arches of the windows was leveled. The frescoes were plastered and the walls – overpainted in Islamic fashion. The building was reconverted into a church after the Balkan War by the Bulgarian authorities. The minaret was demolished. During the 1920s, some restoration work has been undertaken under the guidance of A. Orlandos66. The building suffered from numerous structural problems, e.g. the vertical deviation of the western supports of the dome, the sinking of the barrel vaults, etc. Four large flying buttresses were constructed to stabilize the construction and a metal ring was inserted in the base of the dome. During the last 30 years, the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities committed a series of interventions: the lead covering was replaced, the southern columns – reinforced, and a system to monitor the vertical movement was installed in order to strengthen the Kosmosoteira church, which is undoubtedly one of the most important and best preserved Byzantine monuments in Thrace.

66 See Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley,

62–63. The article of Αναστάσιος Ορλάνδος, “Τα Βυζαντινά μνημεία της Βήρας.” Θρακικά, 3 (1933): 3–34, was not accessible to me.

156

Georgi Sengalevich

Fig. 1. The katholikon of Theotokos Kosmosoteira Monastery.

Fig. 2. Plan of the church (after Sinos).

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa

Fig. 3. Image of an eagle from the southeast corner niche of the diakonikon apse.

Fig. 4. The northwest pair of columns.

157

158

Georgi Sengalevich

Fig. 5. The main dome.

Fig. 6. The alleged portrait of Isaac Komnenos from the south wall of the south cross arm, identified as St Merkurios by Acheimastou-Potamianou.

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa

Fig. 7. Proposed plan of Kosmosoteira‘s fortifications (after Orlandos).

Fig. 8. The Manasija or Resava monastery in Eastern Serbia.

159

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

THE OTTOMAN TOWN OF İPSALA FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE 14TH TO THE END OF THE 16TH CENTURY Hristo Hristozov

S

ome of the most significant changes in the social and economic life in Southeastern Europe after the Ottoman conquest affected the urban development of the cities. Certain Balkan towns continued to exist not much altered, but the urban space of other important administrative, economic, and military centers was modified due to the Islamic traditions brought by the new conquerors.1 Architectural and charitable initiatives of Ottoman dignitaries and the influx of Muslim colonizers from Asia Minor played an active role in the transformation of the cultural image of the towns. Thus, the studies on the development of towns during the Early Ottoman rule are able to reveal the models that the Ottomans implemented in shaping the urban space and also could trace the continuity of urban life from the Middle Ages to the Modern Time. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the transformation of the Byzantine Kypsela into the Ottoman İpsala and to trace the history of the town from its conquest in the second half of the 14th to the very end of the 16th century. In this respect, the surviving Ottoman sources, both chronicles and administrative documents, give a good opportunity to trace the details about the conquest of the town. Moreover, they present the fluctuations of İpsala’s population and the place of religious and public buildings in the urban development and their patronage. The latter is particularly important since in modern İpsala there are no standing monuments from the Early Ottoman Period.2

1 Ömer L. Barkan, Quelques observations sur l’organisation èconomique et sociale des villes ottomans, des

XVIe et XVIe siècles – in: La Ville. Recueils de la sociètè Jean Budin, 7, Buxelles, 1955, 289–311; Nikolay Todorov, The Balkan town, 1400–1900, Seatle, 1983, 15–41; Machiel Kiel, “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: the Place of Turkish Architecture in the Process.” International Journal of Turkish Studies, 4:2 (1989): 79–158 2 I am grateful to Dr. Grigor Boykov who shared with me a lot of Ottoman sources regarding this topic and offered useful suggestions during the work on this paper.

162

Hristo Hristozov

The Ottoman conquest of the Byzantine town of Kypsela, its earliest Muslim settlers and the construction of the “Old Mosque” The town of Kypsela faced the Ottoman conquest in the mid-14th century as a small fortress located near the east banks of the Evros River (Maritsa, Meriç) – a crossroad of the Via Egnatia road and the road that connects Adrianopolis (Edirne) to the Aegean coast.3 The contemporary sources are very controversial about the details of its seizing. The earliest preserved Ottoman source İskendername, which represents an apology of the first sultans written by Ahmedi in the beginning of the 15th century, attributed the conquest of Kypsela to the activities of the Ottoman prince Süleyman, son of sultan Orhan (1326–1362). Thus, Colin Imber suggests that the date of the conquering of the town lies between 1352 – the conquest of Çimpe (Tzympe) on the Gallipoli Peninsula, and 1357 – the year of Süleyman’s death. According to Ahmedi’s account, the Ottoman prince conquered a significant part of Eastern Thrace, which along with Kypsela included the important cities of Malkara (Megale karya) and Vize (Bizye).4 Having in mind the purpose of Ahmedi’s work to glorify the life and deeds of the early Ottomans with highly religious connotation, it bears a lot of criticism in the historiography, which fact requires a more careful reading of this source.5 Perhaps, this was not a permanent conquest and most probably these towns were only targets of plundering army raids – akın. The Byzantine historian Nichephorus Gregoras, a witness of these turmoil times, notes that the two oldest sons of Orhan (Süleyman and Murad) devastated vast areas of Eastern Thrace before 1357, but they established permanent control with certain tax burden only over the cities on the Gallipoli Peninsula.6 This testimony coincides with the statement that connects the permanent conquest of Eastern Thrace by the Ottomans with the name of sultan Murad I (1362–1389) and the campaigns of his military commanders before the conquest of Edirne.7 A more reliable account of Kypsela’s capturing was provided by the early Ottoman chronicles. Written in the second half of 15th century, “The Histories of the House of Osman” by Âşıkpaşazâde and the so-called “Anonymous of Giese” linked the conquest of Kypsela to the name of the renowned march lord Evrenos Bey. These sources are also not very clear about the date of that event, placing it in the time before or after the con3 Andreas Küelzer, “The Byzantine Road System in Eastern Thrace: Some Remarks.” Byzantinische Forschun-

gen 30 (2011): 170–201, 800–801

4 Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1481, Istanbul, 1990, 28. The author also expresses doubts on Ahme-

di’s statement of the year and a conqueror of the town of İpsala.

5 Pal Fodor, “Ahmedi’s Dasitan as a Source of Early Ottoman History.” In Pal Fodor, In Quest of the Golden

Apple: Imperial Ideology, Politics, and Military Administration in the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul, 2000, 9–22; Kemal Silay, “Ahmedi’s History of the Ottoman Dynasty,” Journal of Turkish Studies 16 (1992): 129–200; Kemal Silay Ahmedi’s History of the Kings of the Ottoman Lineage and Their Holy Raids against the Infidels. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures Series. Massachusetts: Harvard University, 2004, VII– XIX; Heath Lowry, The nature of Early Ottoman State, New York, 2003, 15–54 6 Nicephori Gregorae, Historiae Byzantinae, libri postremi ab Immanuele Bekkero, Vol. 3, Bonnae, 1885, 117– 119; Nikephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte, Fünfter teil (Kapitel XXIV, 3–XXIX) 108–109. 7 Halil İnalcık, “Polunya (Apollunia) – Tanrı-Yıkdığı Osmanlı Rumeli Fetihleri Kronolojisinde Düzeltmeler.” In Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ (ed.), Prof. Dr. Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, İstanbul, 2006, 27–57; Halil İnalcık, “The Conquest Of Edirne (1361).” Archivum Ottomanicum 3 (1971): 185–210;

The Ottoman town of İpsala

163

quest of Adrianopolis (Edirne). They give an impression that Evrenos led raids against İpsala twice. The first raid of the troops of Evrenos took place after the conquest of Keşan, but before the fall of Edirne.9 The second raid against İpsala happened after the conquest of the metropolis of Thrace, when Murad I ordered Lala Şahin to seize Filibe (Plovdiv) and Eski Zağra (Stara Zagora) and entrusted Evrenos with the conquest of İpsala.10 Perhaps, the garrison of the town offered resistance and its conquest lasted some time. Thus, if one follows the thesis that proposes 1361 as the date of Edirne’s conquest, the fall of İpsala in Ottoman hands could be placed between 1358 and 1362.11 Very little is known about the further development of the town under the new rule in the period after İpsala’s annexation by the Ottomans. In the Ottoman chronicles, the town was mentioned after 1389 as a place where Bayezid I (1389–1402) imprisoned for a while one of his Anatolian rivals – the ruler of the Germiyan principality Yakub Bey and his vizier Hisar Bey. According to Âşıkpaşazâde, “he [Bayezid I] firmly bound [them] with chains and imprisoned [them] in the İpsala’s fortress”12 – a statement which reveals the fate of the town citadel. Likely, after the conquest of İpsala some of its fortifications were still standing for a certain time and were used as prison and perhaps as a temporary local residence. Tahtakale pazarı, one of the surviving early Ottoman local spots in the town, gives an idea of the position of İpsala’s stronghold. The translation from Arabic tahtü’l-ka’la positions the pazar – marketplace, “below the fortress” and suggests that the Byzantine fortress of the town was situated on the nearby hill in the east. Moreover, this marketplace could be the first economic area organized by the Ottomans outside the citadel in the neighbourhood Bayram Bey, a name which appears in the documents from the 16th century and is preserved in the local toponymy today.13 8

8 There is a debate in the historiography concerning the exact year of the fall of Adrianople (Edirne) in Otto-

9

10

11

12

13

man hands. The problem is based on the different dates of this event given by the Byzantine and Ottoman sources. On the basis of variety of sources, Halil İnalcık suggests the year 1361: Halil İnalcık, The Conquest of Edirne,185–210; Analyzing an poem devoted to emperor John V Paleologos (1332–1391), Elizabeth Zahariadou claims that in the 1366 Adrianople was still in Byzantine hands. She accepts the year 1269, given in the Byzantine anonymous chronicles, as a date of the Ottoman conquest of the town: Elizabeth Zachariadou, “The Conquest of Adrianople by the Turks.” Studi Veneziani 12 (1970): 211–217; Hristo Matanov also agrees with the year 1369 as a date of the Ottoman seizure of Adrianople: Христо Матанов и Румяна Михнева, От Галиполи до Лепанто. Балканите, Европа и Османското нашествие 1354–1571 г., София, 1998, 47. Friedrich Giese, Die altosmanische Chronik des ‘šıkpašazâde, Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929, 49; idem, Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, in Text und Übersetzung herausgegeben von Dr. Friedrich Giese. Teil I: Text und Variantenverzeichnis, Breslau, 1922, 21; Aşık Paşazade, Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi, eds. Kemal Yavuz and M.A. Yekta Saraç, İstanbul, 2003: 113, 381. “Thus, Evrenos gazi arrived and conquered İpsala.” [“Evrenez Gazi dahı vardı, İpsala’yı feth itdi.”]: Friedrich Giese, Die altosmanische Chronik des ‘šıkpašazâde, 50; idem, Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, 21; Aşık Paşazade, Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi, 114, 382. Heath Lowry reached this conclusion by analysis of several editions of different manuscripts of Âşıkpaşazâde’s history and other sources as Oruç’s history. See: Heath Lowry, “The Role of İmârets (Soup Kitchens) & Zaviyes (Dervish Lodges) in the Settlement of the Greek Lands.” In Heath Lowry, Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550. The Conquest, Settlements, Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece, Istanbul, 2008, 79. “Muhkem bend-ile İpsala hisarında mahbus itdi”, Aşık Paşazade, Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi, 135, 402; the same story was presented also in the manuscript published by Giese: Friedrich Giese, Die altosmanische Chronik des ‘šıkpašazâde, 49; and also in idem, Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, 63. See the Map.

164

Hristo Hristozov

The temporary captivity of Germiyanoğlu Yakub bey and his vizier in İpsala clearly points to the presence of some Ottoman officials in the town, perhaps both military and administrative, who inhabited the stronghold. Together with them in İpsala there must have been some clergymen and other residents shaping the first Muslim community of the town. The vast plain of Thrace was the territory where the Ottomans first applied their policy of sürgün: forced relocation of Anatolian Muslims into newly conquered territories in Eastern Europe. This practice was utilized into other areas of the Balkans as well as in towns where the urban life had been damaged.14 İpsala was a part of Eastern Thrace, which had been an arena of continuing military plundering and war conflicts for several decades before the arrival of the Ottomans.15 This turmoil in combination with the natural disasters such as the outbreak of the bubonic plague during that time16 caused a great reduction of the population and consequently a desertion of vacant rural and urban spaces in the plain of Thrace.17 Due to these calamities, it is very likely that İpsala’s population had shrunk at the dawn of the Ottoman conquest of the town. The destructive nature of the Ottoman conquest must have had an even further negative effect upon local demographic processes. The exact amount of the first Muslim colonists in İpsala is unclear, but the earliest known Ottoman survey of the town, which dates between 1460 and 1478, represents its population as entirely Muslim with 618 households.18 This suggests that the surviving residents of the pre-Ottoman town were relocated, a common practice used by the Ottomans when towns were captured by a raid assault. In the other cities which had surrendered to the Ottomans, the local Christian population preserved their lives and homes. The town of Filibe is a good example of this Ottoman policy. It surrendered to Lala Şahin Paşa and its Christian residents preserved their former place in the urban space – in the area of the late medieval stronghold.19 14 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler”, İstan-

15

16

17 18 19

bul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 11 (1949–1950): 524–569; idem, “Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 13 (1951– 1952): 56–79; idem, “Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15 (1953–1954): 209–237. In the dawn of the 14th century, there were mercenaries of the Catalan Company who undertook raids in Thrace from their base in Gallipoli around 1305 – 1307: Ramon Muntaner, Chronicle, translated by Lady Goodenough, Catalan Series, Cambridge-Ontario, 2000, 420–461; Kenneth Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311–1388, Variorum, London, 1975, 4; Kenneth Setton, “The Catalans in Greece, 1311–1380.” In Kenneth Setton and Harry Hazard (eds.), A History of Crusades. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Vol. 3, Madison, 1975, 169; Donald Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453, Cambridge, 1993, 131–134. Furthermore, during the first half of the 14th century, there were several civil wars between different claimants of the Byzantine throne which were destructive for the urban and rural life in Thrace: Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 150–250. Христо Матанов, „Чумни пандемии и история. “Юстиниановата чума” и “Черната смърт”: два повратни периода в историята на средновековните Балкани.“ В Civitas humano-divina, сборник в чест на проф. Георги Бакалов, София, 2004, 339–347. Петър Ников, „Турското завладяване на България и съдбата на последните Шишманвци.“ Известия на Българското историческо дружество, 7–8, 1928, 42. The summary register is housed in Muallim Cevdet collection at the İstanbul Belediye Kütüphanesi (Atatürk Kitaplığı) (herein IBK, MC) 0.89, f. 49a. Graphic 1. For the development of the early Ottoman Filibe: Grigor Boykov and Mariya Kiprovska, “The Ottoman Philippopolis (Filibe) during the Second Half of the 15th century.” Bulgarian Historical Review 3–4 (2000): 113–114.

The Ottoman town of İpsala

165

For the daily necessities of İpsala’s earliest Muslim inhabitants, several public and religious buildings had to be erected – at least one mosque and a bath-house. The four known Ottoman inventories of the town from the 16th century clearly named one of the town quarters as “the Old Mosque.”20 Registrars of the two detailed surveys from 1570 and 1596 distinguish clergymen in the “Old Mosque” from those in the other Muslim shrines in the town21 and also from attendants serving at sultan Murad II’s shrine22 – a circumstance which suggests the existence of a mosque in İpsala even earlier than those built by the Ottoman sultan in the mid-1430s. The “Old Mosque” of İpsala could be one of the earliest Muslim shrines after the conquest of the town in the mid-14th century. The sources do not specify whether it was a converted church or a newly built mosque. In the latter case, one could assume that the edifice was constructed between the 1360s and the mid-1430s, before the construction of Murad II’s mosque. The conqueror of the town – Evrenos Bey, could be pointed out as a possible commissioner of İpsala’s Old Mosque, but the accurate date of the erection of the building and the name of its exact benefactor could be revealed only after the study of more historical sources. The town of İpsala and its population were probably affected during the period of the Interregnum in the Ottoman state, in the opening decade of the 15th century.23 In 1433, when the Burgundian knight Bertrandon de la Broquière traveled from Didymoteichon (Didymoteicho) to Enez (Ainos), he crossed Evros (Maritsa) River at İpsala and passed close to the town. His account of the current state of the town is very brief: “…it has been a tolerable town, but it is totally destroyed…,”24 and clearly depicts the negative effect of the Ottoman civil war on its urban development. Since De la Broquière did not have a stay in İpsala, he did not give any detailed information about the public buildings in the town. Perhaps, he was also not able to distinguish certain important edifices if they had been damaged. During this turmoil time, the Old Mosque of the city must have been affected and after the recovery of the city the building must have undergone some reconstructions. Since there are no old pictures yet or traveler accounts of the building, it is very difficult to guess its shape and its exact place in the urban tissue of İpsala.

The construction of İpsala’s Friday Mosque by sultan Murad II in the 1430s A significant role for the development of the damaged İpsala played the building policy of sultan Murad II (1421–1444, 1446–451). Around the mid-1430s, he commissioned a 20 As Cami-i köhne the quarter is named in the registers from 1516 and 1530: BOA, TD 77, ff. 342–343 and BOA,

21

22 23 24

TD 370, f. 78; With the synonymous name Cami-i atik the same neighbourhood is enlisted in the registers from 1570 and 1596: BOA, TD 494, f. 332 and BOA, TD 1001, ff. 334–335. While in 1570 there was a “Mustafa, son of Mehmed, muezzin of the Old Mosque” (“Mustafa bin Mehmed, müezzin-i cami’-i atik,” BOA, TD 494, f. 332.),” in 1596 together with him there was an “Osman halife, son of Hamza, imam of the Old Mosque” (“Osman halife [bin] Hamza, imam-i cami’-i atik,” BOA, TD 1001, f. 336.) See note 26. For the period of civil war between the sons of Bayezid see: Dimitris Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid. Empire Building and Representations in the Ottoman civil war of 1402–13, Leiden, 2007. Bertrandon de la Broquière, The travels of Bertrandon de la Broquière counsellor & first esquire-carver to Philippe le Bon, duke of Burgundy, to Palestine and his return from Jerusalem overland to France, during the years 1432 & 1433, translated by Thomas Johnes, Hafod Press, 1807, 237.

166

Hristo Hristozov

Friday Mosque in the town, whose maintenance was supported by his charitable foundation, dedicated to his Muradiye T-shaped imaret/zaviye in Edirne.25 Besides, in the register from 1460–1478, it was appointed that “wages to the persons from the mosque in İpsala which had to be dispatched from the salt-works in İnöz (Enes).” These clergymen who were four persons had “a royal patent with the sacred seal from His Majesty our sultan in their hands.”26 Although the name of the sultan is not specified, the wages must have been for the personnel of the sultan’s only mosque in the town – that of Murad II.27 In 1490, the edifice of sultan Murad II’s mosque in İpsala already needed a repair and the work was supervised by the kadı of the town Abdüsselam and the architect Savcı.28 From the list of repairs, it is obvious that the building had a square plan with a side approximately 30 m long. Its roof was domed and its minaret was circa 22 m high. The mosque was situated on the central square of the town at the marketplace in Bayram Bey neighbourhood but its exact location is difficult to determine because of the destruction of its structure in a later period. It was “the mosque at the marketplace” mentioned very briefly by Evliya Çelebi who distinguished it from the other Muslim shrines in the town described only as “mescids” – small neighbourhood mosques.29 The construction of Murad II’s mosque in İpsala, like the realization of a similar project by him in Filibe,30 must have given impetus to the development of the town after its devastation during the period of the Interregnum. The sultan’s mosque must have dominated the surrounding area with its size and marked the newly appropriated urban space outside the former Byzantine fortress. In all probability, the project of sultan Murad II stimulated the influx of new population into the town and the resettlement of administrative officials and clergymen. The Ottoman survey of 1460–1478 gives the highest figures for İpsala’s residents – 618 Muslim households,31 and even registers from the 16th century show a certain decrease of the population of the town. 25 Mustafa Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV. ve XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası. Vakıflar-Mülkler-Mukataalar,

26 27

28

29 30 31

İstanbul, 1952, 220–222. The Murad II’s mosque in Filibe (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) is also maintained by the pious foundation of his Muradiye in Edirne. Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Edirne ve civarındaki bazı imâret tesislerinin yıllık muhasebe bilânçoları.” Belgeler, 1:1–2 (1964), 372; Machiel Kiel. “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353–1453.” in Kate Fleet (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey. Volume I: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453, Cambridge, 2009, 176. “Vazife-i hodan-i cami’-i İpsala, vazifeleri İnöz tuzlasından salınmış, ellerinde sultanımız hazret tevki’-i şerif var, berat.” IBK, MC 0.89, f. 56b. Its clergies are clearly noted in the inventory from 1570: “Mevllana Ramadan halife, imam of the sacred mosque of sultan Murad Han,” “Piri havaci, muezzin of the sacred mosque of sultan Murad Han,” both in the neighbourhood of Bayram Bey and “Halil son of Nasuh, muezzin of the mosque of sultan Murad Han” in the neighbourhood of Kapucu: BOA, TD 494, f. 333. One of the two counted hatibs in the register also had to be engaged in Murad II mosques: “Mahmud fakıh son of Ahmed, hatib and imam” dweller of the neighborhood Mubarek şah or “Mevlana Muslihuddin, halife, imam and hatib” also resident in the neighborhood of Kapucu: BOA, TD 494, f. 330, 334 IBK, MC 0.91, 291; the document was published and commented by Mustafa Tayyib Gökbilgin and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi: Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 221–222; Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarısının İlk Devri, İstanbul, 1966, 307–308. Hakan Karateke, Evliya Çelebi’s Journey from Bursa to the Dardanelles and Edirne, Leiden-Boston, 2013, 136. Grigor Boykov, Mastering the Conquered Space: Resurrection of Urban Life in Ottoman Upper Thrace (14th– 17th c.), PhD dissertation, Ankara, 2013, 48–55. IBK, MC 0.89, f. 56a. Graphic 1.

The Ottoman town of İpsala

167

Pious deeds and architectural patronage of high ranking Ottoman officials in İpsala during the second half of the 14th–16th centuries Except for the construction of the earliest Old Mosque and the significant project of sultan Murad II’s mosque in İpsala, there are other examples of architectural patronage undertaken by different high ranking Ottoman officials in the town. The conqueror of İpsala – Evrenos Bey, is suggested as the first benefactor of public buildings in İpsala. Exploring the development of the network of imârets/zaviyes on the Balkans, Heath Lowry presumes that Evrenos Bey also constructed such an institution in İpsala between 1358 and 1364. According to him, this was the first endowment of the renowned commander, known for his charitable activities on the Balkans. Lowry makes his assumption solely based on the account of the Ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi who passed through the town some 300 years later.32 When Evliya visited İpsala in 1659, he described an imaret but did not specify that the patron of this institution was Evrenos Bey.33 This fact allows Lowry to suggest a probable connection between Evrenos and the construction of an imâret/zaviye in İpsala. His argumentation relies on a comparison with other charitable activities of the warlord in several Balkan towns conquered by him, such as Gümülcine (Komotini) and Siroz (Serres). This case poses two questions regarding Lowry’s assumption and Evliya’s testimony: was Evrenos Bey really a patron of an imâret/zaviye in İpsala and who was the benefactor of the imaret in the town accounted by Evliya? Indeed, the tax registers – tapu tahrir defterleri, of the 15th- and 16th-century İpsala provide several clues for the existence of a dervish lodge in the town. The dervish lodge represents a Muslim convent which gives sanctuary to different Islamic mystical brotherhoods and is mentioned by a variety of terms, such as tekke, zâviye or hânekâh. Such religious institutions were often constructed together with soup kitchens, offering free meals and shelter for the poor and travelers as an expression of the Islamic charity.34 The Ottoman account from 1460–1478 contains a summary description of some of İpsala’s religious and public officials and reveals the two distinctive groups representing the core of the Islamic mysticism in the town. The first one is only of “two dervishes” and the second one is of “three [dervishes] who dwell in a convent” (“tekiye nişin – 3”).35 In the part of the same register, where pious foundations (waqf ) and private possessions (mülk) 32 Lowry, The Role of İmârets, 79–80. 33 “Ve ‘imāret-i dārü’ż-żiyāfesi birdir, ammā wâhidun ka-alf dir. Ḫuṣūṣan eyyām-ı şitāda bir menzil-i cāy-i

menāṣ-1 rāḥat-efżādır kim içine giren ādem ḥayāt-ı cāvidan bulur. Zīrā şeb-ü rüz bay u gedā-yu pīr ü cevān ve muġān u gebr ü tersāya birer sini içre birer tas gendüm şorbası ve her ādeme birer nān ve her leylde her ocaq başına birer şem‘-i revgan ve her at başına birer ṭobra arpa ve her leyle-i Cum’ada birer sini yaḥni ve pilav-zerde ile ṣofra-i bī-imtinām mebzūldür. El-hāṣıl maṭbāḫ-ı Keykāvūsī, maṭbaḫ-ı Selçuqiyān gibi dārü’żżiyāfedir.” – “There is but one soup kitchen, but it is as good as a thousand. It is such a comfortable shelter, especially in the winter, that anybody who enters is revitalized. For they offer a gratis cup of wheat soup to everyone, whether it is night or day, whether they are rich or poor; old or young; a fire-worshipper, a Zoroastrian, or a Christian. There is bread for every man and a tray of meat stew with saffron-rice every Friday night. There is an oil lamp ready by each hearth and a bag of barley for each horse. In short, this soup kitchen is like a kitchen of Kaikavus or a Seljukid kitchen.” Karateke, Evliya Çelebi’s Journey from Bursa, 70 (transliteration), 136 (translation), 230 (facsimile). 34 Amy Singer, Constructing Ottoman Beneficence. An Imperial Soup Kitchen at Jerusalem, New York, 2002. 35 IBK, MC 0.89, 49a. Table 2.

168

Hristo Hristozov

are described in İpsala, a tekke is enlisted whose location is not specifically placed in the town. However, its spiritual leader was Ahi Beytullah who was granted with a religious endowment from sultan Murad II. For the maintenance of his dervish lodge, an income from a cooking-house (başhane) was collected whose annual amount was 95 akçes.36 It is very likely that this başhane was located in the town, which suggests also that the tekke must have been somewhere in the urban space of İpsala. The convent of Ahi Beytullah must have been established in the town during the first or the second reign of sultan Murad II – its actual well-doer, between the periods 1421–1444 or 1446–1451. The chronologically following Ottoman account of İpsala, a detailed register from 1516, relates of a community of dervishes in the quarter “Mevlâna Muslihüddin halife” inhabited by 21 households and 5 bachelors. The neighbourhood was named after Sheikh Mevlâna Muslihüddin halife whose community of dervishes was exempted from extraordinary taxes and custom dues with imperial decree by sultan Bayezid.37 Bayezid II (1481– 1512) was the sultan who reaffirmed the tax exemptions and the fiscal immunity granted to the religious foundations and institutions after their confiscation by Mehmed II (1446– 1481). Furthermore, the note of the registrar refers to an earlier order given to this dervish lodge by sultan Murad, but the document does not reveal who of the two earlier sultans was behind that name. It is not clear if the dervishes led by the Sheikh Mevlâna Muslihüddin halife in the beginning of Bayezid II’s rule were related to the convent of Ahi Beytullah in the register from 1460–1478. It is obvious that the İpsala’s dervishes had already certain fiscal immunity and maintenance granted by the central authorities and the documents from 1460–1478 and 1516 do not indicate Evrenos Bey as their benefactor. The existence of Muslim brotherhoods in İpsala is well documented on the pages of Ottoman registers of population and taxation during the whole 16th century, where the religious titles of sheikh and dede – a leader of a dervish lodge, were appended to the names of some of the inhabitants of the town. Moreover, in the register of 1570 a person named “Muslihüddin son of Mahmud” ‍was a leader “of the dervish lodge of Evrenos Ağa”.38 In the light of this information, Lowry’s hypothesis, which portraits Evrenos Bey as a patron of an imâret/zaviye in İpsala, is particularly appealing. Nevertheless, this indication does not connect explicitly some of İpsala’s dervish lodges with the personality of the fourteenth century mighty marcher lord who held the rank of bey: commander of autonomous forces. On the other hand, the term ağa could be given to Evrenos in order to belittle his name and his acts during the 16th century, a time of state centralization and establishing the Islamic orthodoxy.39 Perhaps, by involving more Ottoman sources the personality of Ahi Beytulah, Mevlâna Muslihüddin halife and the patron and founder of the “convent of Evrenos Ağa” in İpsala could be studied in more details. Undoubtedly, in the 15th and the 16th century İpsala dervish brotherhoods had a certain place in the urban 36 The name of sultan Murad II (1421–1444; 1446–1451) as a benefactor of Ahi Beytullah’s tekke in İpsala is

obvious from the note in the document: “vakf-i tekye-i Ahi Beytullah elinde sultanımız hazret-i babası tevki’-i şerif var” – “A religious endowment of Ahi Beytulah. He has in his hands a sacred order by our sultan’s exalted father”. The sultan during whose reign the defter was compiled, between years 1460–1478, is Mehmed II (1444–1446; 1451–1481) and his father is Murad II; IBK, MC 0.89, f. 56b. 37 BOA, TD 77, f. 343. 38 “Muslihüddin bin Mahmud, şeykh zaviye-i Evrenos ağa,” BOA, TD 494, f. 331. 39 Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600, Phoenix Press, 2000, 176–181.

The Ottoman town of İpsala

169

space. Perhaps, their presence in the town was very firm in the whole Ottoman Period since nowadays the hill in the north-eastern edge of the town is named “Tekke bairi” – “the convent hill”.40 As mentioned above, the travelogue of Evliya Çelebi also provides an account of some of the significant urban facilities in İpsala. The Ottoman traveler passed through İpsala in the autumn of 1659, during his journey from Bursa to Edirne across the Dardanelles, undertaken between September 27 and October 25.41 He described an imâret in the town, but did not mention Evrenos Bey as its benefactor.42 Before that, the attention of Evliya was attracted by the most impressive of the town inns, the caravanserai built by Hüsrev kethüda. He gives an indicative comparison for this building: “This is a caravanserai beyond description, an equivalent of which in Anatolia would be the Makbul, or Maktul İbrahim Paşa inn in Tatar pazarcığı.”43 This account clearly speaks for the scale of Hüsrev ketüda’s inn comparing it to one of the largest caravanserais constructed by the Ottoman officials on the Balkans – those of İbrahim Paşa in Tatar Pazarcık (modern Pazardzik, Bulgaria) built in the end of the 16th century.44 Hüsrev kethüda, a steward of the Sokolu’s household, was an active benefactor during the end of Suleyman’s reign (1520– 1566) and Selim II’s rule (1566–1574). The earliest register of incomes and expenditures of Hüsrev kethüda’s charitable foundation in İpsala known to the author and covering the years between 1682 and 1687 reveals that he constructed several buildings in the town. The main edifice and the beneficiary institution of his vakf was the imâret that he built in İpsala. This soup kitchen was endowed with incomes from a han (the caravanserai described by Evliya Çelebi), a bedestan (a covered market) and several dükâns (shops) constructed also by Hüsrev kethüda in the town. According to this document, the pious foundation collected also revenues from other profitable facilities such as a bath-house in İnöz (Enez), a water-mill in Çirmen, a çiftlik (a homestead), and a şema’ hane (a candle workshop) in Edirne.45

See Map. Hakan Karateke, Evliya Çelebi’s Journey…, 1–17. Note 32. The whole description is as follows: “Ve cümle ‘a-ded kārbānsarāy var. Ammā cümleden Sultân Süleymān ‘aşrında binā olu-nan Ḫusrev Kethudānın kārbānsarāyın Süleymān Ḫān mi’mārı Mi’mār Sinān ibn Abdü’lmennān bir mihmān-sarāy-ı kārbān binā etmiş-kim gūyā bir rabāṭ-ı ḥıṣn-ı ḥaṣīn-i üstüvārdır. Cemī’i qıbābları ve ḥaremleri ve ıṣṭablları ve deveḫāneleri serāpā raṣāṣ-ı nīlgūn ile örtülidir. Üstād-ı mermer-bür bu ‘imāretin der-ü dīvārlarına eyle ferhādī tīşeler urmuş— kim vaṣfında lisān qāṣır olup ta’bīr ü tavṣīfinden müberrā bir āyende vü revendegān [qonar] mihmān-sarāydır kim diyār-ı Rūmda miṯli meger Tatar bazarcıġında maqbūl iken maqtūl İbrahim Paşa ḫānı ola.” – “The best of all is the Khusrev Kethüda caravanserai, which was built by the sultan’s architect Sinan ibn Abdü’l-mennan during the time of sultan Süleyman. It is a hospice reminiscent of a lofty and strong castle. All of its domes, rooms, stables, and camel stalls are roofed with dark lead. The master marble-cutter chiseled the doors and the walls of this soup kitchen so expertly that one remains powerless to describe them. This is a caravanserai beyond description, an equivalent of which in Anatolia would be the Makbul, or Maktul İbrahim Pasha Inn in Tatar bazarcıgı.” Karateke, Evliya Çelebi’s Journey from Bursa, 69–70 (transliteration), 136 (translation), 230 (facsimile). 44 In his book on the early Ottoman Tatar Pazarcık, Grigor Boykov points the significance of the caravanserai of İbrahim paşa in town’s urban development. Moreover, the author argues that the benefactor of the Tatar Pazarcık’s caravanserai was not Maktul İbrahim Paşa, the Grand Vizier of sultan Süleyman, but the Grand Vizier of sultan Mehmed III, Damad İbrahim Paşa: Григор Бойков, Татар Пазарджик…, 70–76. 45 BOA, EV. HMH. d. 384, ff. 1b–3b. 40 41 42 43

170

Hristo Hristozov

In 1685, the vakf’s annual revenues amounted to 64,864 akçes46, as part of them were spent for the supply of the Hüsrev’s imâret, and 27,300 akçes were detached for the salaries of the personnel of the soup kitchen and caravanserai.47 In the first place among the attendants of the imâret was its head – a sheikh, who was followed by a kâtip-i kilâr – a pantry keeper and recorder of foodstuffs, a vekil-i harç – an expenditures agent, an aşçı – a cook, a kapucu-i vekil – a supervisor of gates, a ferraş – a sweeper of the imâret and its premises, habbaz – a baker, a kâse keş – a washer of utensils, an yangıncı – a fireman, a kendim küp – a supervisor of the caldrons with wheat, a bevvab-i imâret – a gate-keeper of the soup kitchen, a nakib – an inspector of bread and food. There were also an imam and a müezzin which indicates that a mosque was attached next to Hüsrev kethüda’s complex in İpsala, which served the religious necessities of its attendants and visitors.48 Furthermore, money from the incomes of this pious foundation funds were dispatched for the wage of an imam and a müezzin in Malkara, which suggests that Hüsrev kethüda commissioned the construction of a mosque in this town, too.49 It is more likely that the imâret in İpsala, which impressed Evliya Çelebi as “one soup kitchen, but it is as good as a thousand”50 and whose description immediately follows the account of the aforementioned caravanserai, is that of Hüsrev kethüda’s complex, which must have been one of the largest charitable institutions in İpsala built in the 16th century. Providing accommodation and free meals for merchants, travelers and local inhabitants, the construction of a caravanserai, an imaret attached to it and a covered market in the town stimulated the development of the town after the population drop in 1520s.51 The well-developed commercial area impacted also the local economy and made the town a participant in the trans-regional trade – one of the important towns along Via Egnatia and the road from Edirne to the Aegean coast. Back in the 15th century, there were two other individuals who had contributions with their architectural patronage to the urban development of the town of İpsala. The register compiled between 1460 and 1478 provides the information that soon before its compilation one public bath had been constructed in the town. It was a private property (mülk) of “Ali Paşa son of Cemal Efendi” with an annual income of 12,555 silver coins (akçe).52 It is not clear who was that person, but one could suggest that he might have been Ali Cemali (Zenbilli) Efendi who occupied the office of şeyhülislam (chief muftu) during the reign of sultan Bayezid II.53 It could also be presumed that apart from this bath-house, “Ali Paşa” also commissioned a mosque nearby. Although only a speculation, this could be identified as the mescid of Ali bey in the Kazgani quarter known from registers of 1570 and 1596.54 These assumptions could be accepted or rejected utilizing more Otto-

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

BOA, EV. HMH. d. 384, f. 3a. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Karateke, Evliya Çelebi’s Journey from Bursa, 136 See below “The demographic features of İpsala’s population during 16 century” IBK, MC, 0.89, f. 56a. Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 38, 319. Tables 4 and 5

The Ottoman town of İpsala

171

man sources and, more specifically, different inventories of pious foundations or detailed traveler accounts. Süleyman Paşa, a Grand Vizier of sultan Bayezid II, commissioned the construction of two more bath-houses in İpsala around the end of the 15th century. The incomes of these baths were bestowed to Süleyman Paşa’s mosque in Edirne and since his endowment deed (waqfiya) dates from 1493, he must have built them prior to this year.55 The exact location of Süleyman Paşa’s baths is unknown but they could have been erected near some of the mosques around the town quarters. The Ottoman inventory of İpsala from 1516 provides information for a bath-house known as “hamam-i Muradiye”.56 According to its name it, was situated near the sultan’s mosque and served its congregation. This hamam must have been built after the construction of Muradiye and probably by another benefactor who is unknown. It is possible that one of the bath-houses of Süleyman Paşa and that of Muradiye were one and the same construction but the sources do not reveal more information.

Endowments of local notables in İpsala: the network of quarter mescids in the town The documents from the 15th and 16th century also reveal the religious deeds in İpsala, made by local leaders and notable persons among the Muslim community in the town. Their pious acts are visible in the development of the Muslim shrine network through the construction of mescids – neighborhood mosques, spread across the town quarters. The register compiled between 1460 and 1478 reveals the distribution of İpsala inhabitants in fourteen mahalles – neighborhoods, whose names are not provided. The number of 13 imams and 15 muezzins, among all 34 religious attendants in the same inventory, points that about a century after İpsala’s conquest there were several quarter mosques in the town apart from the Old Mosque and those built by sultan Murad II. Their number and most of their benefactors are still unknown, and their exact location in the urban space is not easily indicated. The following register from 1516 shows an increase of the religious attendants in İpsala to 53 persons.57 The number of imams and muezzins also rose – 22 and 18 respectively, which perhaps suggests an increase of the Muslim sanctuaries. All clergymen were distributed in each of the fourteenth mahalles, suggesting the presence of mescids in every quarter of the town.58 Moreover, the summary register from 1530 reveals thirteen mescids in the town in addition to the Friday Mosque. The total number of Muslim shrines in İpsala – 14, coincides with the number of the neighbourhoods which attests that by the beginning of the 16th century there was a very well-developed sacral network as a constituent part of the urban tissue.

55 For the Süleyman paşa’s endowment in Edirne see: Abdulkadir Şener, “Edirne’de Süleyman Paşa Camii Vakfi-

yesi.” Vakıflar Dergisi 11 (1978), 7–17.

56 An employee of this bath was a “Mehmed son of Yusuf,” BOA, TD 77, f. 341. 57 Table 2. 58 Table 3.

172

Hristo Hristozov

Ottoman surveys from the second half of the 16th century shed more light on the Muslim sacral network in İpsala and its condition during that century. In 1570, in the same fourteen town nighbourhoods there was the same number of mescids, already described with their names. In each one of the mahalles Kazgani, Serraç İlyas, Cami-i Atik, and Kapucu, two mosques are described.59 It is likely that the Muslim temples were more than fourteen, because the 19 imams and 22 muezzins are allocated in each quarter and some of them were not appointed specifically to the described mosques.60 Furthermore, in the surveys from the second half of the 16th century the officials did not register the mosque and its attendants attached to the Hüsrev kethüda’s complex, as they belonged to the pious foundations. In the registration from 1596, the allocation of mascids and mosques in İpsala is the same and the number of town imams and muezzins is 23 and 20 respectively.61 The Ottoman inventories of İpsala from the second half of the 16th century reveal also some of the names of the mosque founders, which points to the time of their construction.62 The mascids of Serraç İlyas, Hasan halife and müderris Sinan kadı bear the same names as the quarters where they were located. The town neighborhoods did not change their names during the entire 16th century and were still fourteen in the document from 1460–1478. This explicitly places the construction of these three mascids prior to 1516, and perhaps even before 1460. The mosques named after their founders provide a good direction for further study of their early history. This could also determine their establishment in the historical timeline of the town, and consequently the development of a Muslim sacral network could be traced more accurately.

The demographic features of İpsala’s population during the 16th century İpsala’s 16th century is better documented in the Ottoman registers of population and taxation, revealing the fluctuations of demographic processes and providing an idea of its religious affiliations for approximately eighty years.63 The survey of İpsala from 1516 is the earliest known detailed account of the town, which presents the following situation: all of the residents were Muslims, distributed in 527 households and 166 bachelors, who lived 59 60 61 62 63

Table 4. Tables 2 and 4. Tables 2 and 5. Tables 4 and 5. The demographic figures given in Table 1 are based on the smallest unit in Ottoman tax registers – hane (household), provided for the town from the four tapu tahrir registers: TD 77 for the year 1516; TD 370 for 1530; TD 494 for 1570; TD 1001 for 1596. A number of studies discuss the size of the households in the Ottoman tax registers from 15th to early 17th centuries, as the multiplier offered by researchers varies between 3 and 5 members: Ömer L. Barkan, “Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys.” In Michael A. Cook (ed.), Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East from the rise of Islam to the Present Day, London, 1970, 168; Leyla Erder. “The Measurement of Preindustrial Population Changes: The Ottoman Empire from the 15th to the 17th Century.” Middle Eastern Studies 11:3 (1975), 294–295; Heath Lowry, “Changes in Fifteenth-Century Ottoman Peasant Taxation: The Case Study of Radilofo.” In Antony Bryer and Heath Lowry (eds.), Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society, Birmingham, 1986, 28–29; Mariya Todorova, Balkan family structure and the European pattern: demographic development in Ottoman Bulgaria, Budapest, 2006, 112–116.

The Ottoman town of İpsala

173

in fourteen neighbourhoods. Despite the absence of a non-Muslim community in the town, there are high rates of conversion to Islam in İpsala as 135 tax payers, or more than 19% of the total population, were defined as “sons of Abdullah” – an evidence of Islamic proselytism.65 Moreover, since the summary register from 1460–1478 presents the town as entirely Muslim, it is probable that the converts migrated to the town from its adjacent rural vicinity. A similar process is observed in other towns in the Southeastern Balkans as Eski Zağra (Stara Zagora),66 Tatar Pazarı (Pazardzik)67 and Filibe (Plovdiv)68, and was determined by different factors: the alteration of social status of non-Muslims through religious conversion; the better economic opportunities in the cities; the cultural exclusion from the previous non-Muslim community, etc. Moreover, the number of İpsala’s Muslim clergymen enabled the good integration of the converts into the Muslim community of the town. The next Ottoman inventory of İpsala, the summary register from 1530, reveals dramatic demographic processes. The town was still Muslim but within less than fifteen years its population had decreased to 406 Muslim households, or a drop of 23%, and 88 bachelors, or minus 50%. The town dwellers were distributed into the fifteen neighbourhoods, fourteen of them being the same mahalles as in the previous registration. The registrar clerk added the village of Kulak Ali with 3 households within the account of the town.69 In the following registers of İpsala this village is not enlisted as a part of the town. There is also one Christian resident in the neighbourhood Köprü,70 but in the next registers no Christian or other non-Muslim comunity exsisted in the town. 64

64 Table 1 65 Altogether 123 heads of households and 12 unmarried are noted in the registers as converts to Islam: Graphic 2. 66 According to the same registers converts to Islam in Eski Zağra, a town conquered by the Ottomans during

67

68

69

70

1360s, was 25,6 % from the population of the town which was as a whole Muslim: Милена Петкова-Енчева, Демографско развитие и аграрна икономика в източния дял на Тракийската низина през XVI век. Софийски университет “Св. Климент Охридски,” 2009 (PhD dissertation), 83. The author also presumes that a part of the converts was local citizens. The town of Tatar Pazarı was a town in Upper Thrace established by the Ottomans in the very end of the 14th century. The same Ottoman inventory from 1516 presents the town as entirely Muslim, but around 16 % of its population consisted of converts to Islam which clearly speaks for migration of population its surrounding rural area: Григор Бойков, Татар Пазарджик. От основаването на града до края на XVII век. София, 2008, 46. The case of Filibe was a bit different. Although the town had preserved its Christian population, the registers from 1489 and 1516 present it as a predominantly Muslim town. While the inventory from 1489 the converts was only 3.3 % from Filibe’s inhabitants, in the survey from 1516 their number was higher took 21,3 % of the whole population – an increase that was result primary of the influx of converts to Islam form the town’s adjacent vicinity: Grigor Boykov, Maria Kiprovska, “The Ottoman Philippopolis (Filibe) during the Second Half of the 15th c.” Bulgarian Historical Review 3–4 (2000): 123; Григор Бойков, “Етно-религиозният облик на османския град Филибе – края на XV – началото на XVI век.” В: Евгени Радушев, Стефка Фетваджиева (съст.) Балкански идентичности, част 3, София, 2003, 142–144. Table 1. In the recapitulation of the town’s demographic figures, the Muslim households are 477, or minus 9,5%, and 108 bachelors, or minus 35%. The non-Muslim resident is still one. The reason for this anomaly is not very clear. Even the dwellers of the neighbourhood of Mevlana Müslihuddin halife, which were exempted from extraordinary taxes and were not marked, are doubtful to give such difference of 70 household and 20 unmarried. Their number moves between 21 and 34 households in the earlier and the following two registers. Without any clues in the sources, the differences in the numbers of the synopsis register from 1530 could not be explained. Graphic 3.

174

Hristo Hristozov

The obvious shrinking of the population of İpsala between the registrations from 1516 and 153071 is also evident in other Ottoman towns during the 1520’s such as Tatar Pazarı,72 Filibe,73 Edirne,74 and Yenice-i Vardar.75 Most likely, this is a result of the colonization policy of the Empire towards the new conquered territories in Central Europe in the beginning of sultan Süleyman I’s reign.76 Like elsewhere, the process of a sudden drop of Muslim population is accompanied by a drastic decrease of Muslim clergymen in İpsala, who according to the data in the register from 1530 included only 1 hatip, 3 imams, and 2 muezzins.77 The relocated religious attendants took active participation in the cultural adaptation of the new lands and in establishing the Islamic institution there.78 А reliable information about the overall condition of İpsala during the second half of the 16th century is provided in the two detailed Ottoman surveys for its population and taxation from 1570 and 1596. The registration from 1570 shows that the town population rebounded after the decrease 40 years earlier. Heads of households counted 551 and 116 bachelors,79 all Muslims, and 89 of them or 13% were converts who reveal a process of population influx into the town.80 According to the last detailed account of population and taxation of İpsala from 1596, during the last 26 years the development of the town dwellers was stagnating. There were 535 Muslim households and 55 bachelors, distributed in the same 14 neighbourhoods known from the previous registrations.81 Besides, there were also three households of Muslim Gypsies who certainly had migrated into the town before 1596. An indication for the population movement towards the town is again the rate of converts. Their number was 90 heads of households or 15% of the total inhabitants.82 A further study could reveal the population fluctuations in the beginning of the 17th century, a time of severe climatic changes which affected the social life in different parts of the Ottoman Empire.83 Moreover, the Ottoman tax registers provide information about the entire rural vicinity of the town – kaza-i İpsala, and thus the data from 71 Graphic 1. 72 Grigor Boykov reveals the process of forced relocation of Muslim settlers from Filibe and Tatar Pazarcik to the

73 74

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

west according to two registers: BOA, MAD 519 and BOA, TT 370, compiled respectively in 1525 and 1530: Бойков, Татар Пазарджик, 48–55. The process affected also other towns like İpsala, which demonstrated the scale of the range of the process. Grigor Boykov, Mastering the Conquered Space, 108–116. Between 1516 and 1530 the Muslim community of Edirne decreased drastically with more than 1000 households: Стефан Димитров. Население и селища в Сакар планина и прилежащия ѝ район през XV–XVI в. София, Българска академия на Науките, Институт по История, 2013 (PhD dissertation), 102. Heath Lowry and İsmail Erünsal. Notes & Documents on the Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar (Giannitsa), Istanbul, 2010, 120–122. Grigor Boykov, Mastering the Conquered Space, 108–116. Table 2. Grigor Boykov, Mastering the Conquered Space, 108–116. Table 1. There are 85 households and on 4 unmarried new Muslims: Graphic 4. Table 1. The new Muslims are distributed to 87 households and 3 unmarried men: Graphic 5. William Griswold, “Climatic Change: A Possible Factor in the Social Unrest of the Seventeenth Century Anatolia.” In Heath Lowry and Donald Quataert (eds.), Humanist and Scholar. Essays in Honor of Andreas Tietze. Istanbul – Washington, 1993, 37–57; Sam White, “Climate Change and Crisis in Ottoman Turkey and the Balkans, 1590–1710.” In Proceedings: International Conference on Climate Change in the Middle East – Past Present and Future, 20–23 November 2006, Istanbul, 2006, 391–409; idem, The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Ottoman Empire. New York, 2011.

The Ottoman town of İpsala

175

the rural hinterland could be put together with that of the town itself for an overall picture of the region.

Conclusion The information from historical sources from the mid-14th century until the end of the 16th century allows the conclusion that the Ottoman İpsala was amongst those Byzantine cities which were transformed by the Ottomans soon after its conquest with the construction of the first religious and public buildings and the relocation of state officials and Muslim citizens.84 After the political turmoil in the beginning of the 15th century, its development was stimulated by the architectural patronage of sultan Murad II with the erection of İpsala’s Friday mosque around the mid-1430s. Besides, during the 15th and the 16th century affluent local residents and high ranking Ottoman officials also took an important part in the shaping of the urban space. Until 1596, at least 15 mosques and several bath houses functioned in the town. İpsala had very well developed commercial area with all architectural and economic facilities supporting local and regional trade. The town was populated only by Muslims as the absence of non-Muslim inhabitants in the town was a result of different factors such as the Byzantine civil wars in the first half of the 14th century, the Ottoman conquest of the region and the accompanying relocation of population, the religious conversion, natural disasters, etc. Some of the 16th-century İpsala neighbourhood names such as Serraç İlyas, Bayrâm bey, Kapucu, and Köprü have survived to the present day. Other smaller mahalles were probably absorbed by their larger neighbors.85 This clearly speaks for the continuity of the urban life and the modifications in the urban space through the centuries of the Ottoman Period and the time of Modern Turkey. The fate and the condition of the architectural monuments of the Classical Ottoman Period in İpsala are a bit different. There are neither standing buildings, nor are there remains of buildings constructed between the 14th and the 16th centuries. A number of factors contributed to “the present state” of the Ottoman architectural heritage in the town and their study will take into account the calamities during the conflicts between Balkan national states in the beginning and the first half of the 20th century, the attitude towards the Ottoman past in the time of modernization and secularization of Turkey, etc. One is certain – by exploring more historical sources from the investigated period it is possible to enrich the knowledge for the development of the Ottoman İpsala and other Balkan towns and the models of their urban transformation.

84 Machiel Kiel, “Urban Development”, 83. 85 See the Map.

176

Hristo Hristozov

Table 1. City quarters of İpsala during the 16th century

Muslim households

Muslim bachelors

Muslim households

Muslim bachelors

Muslim households

Muslim bachelors

1596

Havacı Hamza/ Camilü Saraç İlyas Cami-i Kühene (Cami-i Atik)

28 61 26

10 18 8

33 58 22

1 6 3

24 64 27

4 24 6

17 81 22

12

Mevlana Müslihuddin halife

21

5

-

-

23

3

34

3

Debagin

26

14

24

4

7

20

4

Bayram bey Köprü Müderris/ İdris

32 54 21

16 21 9

29 31 21

10 1 6

32 7 35 53 29

10 11 4

34 51 32

1 5 5

Hacı İbri/ Aşıklar Hasan halife Kazancı

47 10 31

17 9

26 6 21

13 1 6

34 16 40

8 1 9

33 14 29

5

Mubarek şah Akaraca/ Kurşunlu

47 48

14 7

35 29

13 9

49 25

13 2

50 21

10 1

Kapucu Kulak Ali

75

13

68 3

15

100

14

97

10

Total

527

166

406

88

551

116

535

55

1

1

Gypsy households

1570 Non-Muslim households

1530

Muslim bachelors

1516

Muslim households

Quarter (Mahalle)

1

Table 2. Religious attendants in İpsala during the 15th and the 16th centuries 1460/78 İmam – 13 Müezzin – 15 Mu’arrif – 1 Derviş – 5

Total 34

1516 Halife – 2 Hatip – 2 İmam – 22 Müezzin – 18 Havacı – 3 Dede – 1 Şeykh – 1 Kayyım – 2 Mu’arrif – 2 Derviş – 1 Total 53

1530 Hatip – 1 İmam – 3 Müezzin – 2

Total 6

1570 Halife – 3 Hatip – 2 İmam – 19 Müezzin – 22 Şeykh – 1 Kayyım – 1 Mu’arrif – 1 Derviş – 3 Seyid – 6 Total 58

1596 Halife – 2 Hatip – 1 İmam – 23 Müezzin – 20 Havacı – 7 Dede – 1 Derviş – 8 Total 62

2

3

177

The Ottoman town of İpsala

Table 3. The distribution of imams and muezzins in Ipsala’s quarters in 1516 Quarter

Imam

Kazancı

Ali son of Mustafa

Mubarek şah

Ahmed fakıh

İrmi

Hacı Hasan

Ali son of Bali

Hasan fakih

Hacı Mehmed

Hacı Sali son of İne Hoca1

Şakir-şah son of Alagöz

Serraç İlyas

Muezzin

Hasan halife

(?) son of Memi

Cami-i Kühne (Atik)

Ali fakıh

Hasan son of Ali

Evrenoz son of Sule

Memi Karaca

Havacı Hamza

Mehmed son of Tursun

Süleyman son of Hacı Yunus

Debagin

Bayazit son of Mehmed

Kasım son of Perhan

Köprü

Mehmed son of Yakub

Halit son of Hadır

Hamza Müderris

Yahya son of Hamza

Mehmed son of Ali

Akaraca/ Kurşunlu

Ömer fakıh

Mustafa

Bayram bey

Ali son of Mehmed

Hüseyn son of (?)

Haşam son of Hacı fakıh Hacı İbri

Kapucu Mevlana Müslihuddin halife

Yusuf son of Hamza

Yahya son of Abdullah

Hasan son of İlyas

Mustafa son of İbrahim

Ali son of Şahin

(?)

Mustafa son of Mehmed

Aşık

Durmuş

Nesmi

Mehmed son of Yavuz

Mustafa son of İbrahim

Table 4. The distribution of İpsala’s religious buildings and their attendants1 in 1570 İpsala Quarter Kazganı Mubarek şah

1570 Mosque Mascid-i imamzade Mascid-i Ali bey Mascid-i Acem kadı (efendi)

Serraç İlyas

Mascid-i Serraç İlyas Mascid-i Kara Yusuf

Hasan halife

Mascid-i Hasan halife

Imam Ahmed fakıh Murad fakıh Muslihüddin

Muezzin Dede Hüseyn Hacı Ali Ramadan son of Aydın

Mahmud fakıh son of Ahmed 3

Nasuh son of Yusuf

Mustafa son of Abdi Piri son of Abdullah

Veli son of Ali Piri

İsa fakıh son of Ramadan

Durbali, his brother

1 Imam at the quarter Yusuf Sinan (?) 2 Some of them were not appointed specifically to some of the named mosques. 3 Imam and hatib.

178 Cami-i Atik Havacı Hamza Debagin

Hristo Hristozov Cami-i Atik Mascid-i Hacı Hasan

Mustafa Mehmed Ahmed Recep

Mascid-i Hacı Yavus Yakub fakıh Mustafa son of Mahmud

Köprü Müderris

Mascid-i müderris Sinan kadı

Akaraca/ Kurşunlu

Mascid-i Bakal Hadır

Bayram bey Cami’-i sultan Murad han Aşıklar/ İbri Kapucu

Sule son of Hacı Abdi Cemal hoca

Sait

Perhan Baki son of Hacı Mustafa İbrahim son of Abdullah

Muslihüddin son of Ali

Sule son of Vais

Mevlana son of Ali Mevlana Mehmed Çelebi son of sheikh Sefer Mevlana Ramadan halife

Hadır Mehmed

Hüseyn son of pir Ahmed

Yusuf son of Ali

Mevlana Muslihüddin halife4

Mehmed son of Mustafa Halil son of Nasuh5 Mustafa Musa son of Mustafa

Piri hoca

Мascid-i İbrahim Мascid-i diğer şeyh

Mevlana Müslihuddin halife

İbrahim halife

Table 5. The distribution of religious buildings and their attendants6 in İpsala in 1596 İpsala Quarter Kazganı Mubarek şah

Mosque Mascid-i imamzade Mascid-i Ali bey Mascid-i Acem kadı (efendi)

Serraç İlyas

Mascid-i Serraç İlyas Mascid-i Kara Yusuf

Hasan halife

Mascid-i Hasan halife

Cami-i Atik

Cami-i Atik Mascid-i Hacı Hasan

1596 Imam Ahmed fakıh Mehmed Yavus Halil Süleyman Ramadan halife7

Muezzin Hüseyn Yusuf Hacı Ali Osman Yusuf Hüseyn Turgud

Mustafa Abdi Hacı Sinan Ömer havacı Mustafa8

Pri son of Abdullah Hadır son of Hacı Sinan

İsa fakıh son of Ramadan

Durbali his brother Mustafa

Sule son of Ali Ahmad

4 5 6 7

Imam and hatib. Muezzin at the mosque of sultan Murad han. Some of them were not appointed specifically to some of the named mosques. Imam and hatib.

179

The Ottoman town of İpsala Havacı Hamza Debagin

Mehmed son of Mansur

Hasan son of Memi

Yakub son of Hacı Berhan Alaeddin Halil son of Hamza

Turhan son of Ali Baki Hacı son of Mustafa Bayram son of Abdullah

Mascid-i Hacı Yavus

Köprü Müderris

Mascid-i müderris Sinan kadı

Mustafa Karaman Mustafa son of Osman8 Osman halife son of Hasan8 Akaraca/ Kurşunlu

Mascid-i Bakal Hadır

Bayram bey Cami’-i sultan Murad han Aşıklar/ İbri Kapucu

Mustafa son of Osman Mustafa son of Ahmed Mevllana Mustafa halife Mustafa

Ali Derviş Piri Havacı (?) havacı Piri son of Mehmed

İbrahim Musllihüddin Ömer Sinan (?) halife İbrahim

İbrahim Musllihüddin Osman Yusuf Mustafa Ahmed

Мascid-i İbrahim Мascid-i diğer şeyh

Mevlana Müslihuddin halife

Graphic 1. The fluctuation of population in İpsala during the 15th and the 16th centuries 700

618

600 500 Poulation

551

527

535 407

400 Households

300 116

88

100 0 1440

Bachelors

166

200

55 1460

1480

8 Imam at the Old mosque.

1500

1520 1540 Year

1560

1580

1600

1620

180

Hristo Hristozov

Craphic 2. Religious structure of İpsala's population in 1516 Muslims 58.30%

New Muslims 17.75%

New Muslims unmarried 1.73%

Muslims unmarried 22.22%

Craphic 3. Religious structure of İpsala's population in 1530 Muslims 82.02%

Christians 0.20%

Muslims unmarried 17.78%

181

The Ottoman town of İpsala

Craphic 4. Religious structure of İpsala's population in 1570 Muslims 69.87% New Muslims 12.74%

New Muslims unmarried 0.60%

Muslims unmarried 16.79%

Craphic 5. Religious structure of İpsala's population in 1596 Muslims 75.55%

New Muslims 14.67%

Gypsy Muslims 0.51%

New Muslims unmarried 0.51%

Muslims unmarried 8.77%

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

PINARHISAR’S DEVELOPMENT FROM THE LATE FOURTEENTH TO THE MID-SIXTEENTH CENTURY The Mihaloğlu Family Vakf Possessions in the Area

Mariya Kiprovska

I

n 1938, the Bulgarian scholar Georgi Ayanov published an article dealing with the land ownership in the Northeastern Strandža region (Tr. Yıldız Dağları or İstranca Dağları). Having a chance to examine the Ottoman-period private documents (tapu and sened) of some of the Bulgarian immigrants who left the Ottoman Empire after the Balkan Wars, Ayanov discovered that they were all coming from a location known as Gazi Mihal toprağı, i.e. “the land of Gazi Mihal”.1 Apparently, the documents that the Bulgarian scholar explored referred to the landed properties of the large charitable foundation (vakf ) of Gazi Mihal’s fifteenth-century zaviye complex in Edirne. This endowment comprised a considerable number of villages in Eastern Thrace, primarily around the town of Pınarhisar, and by the beginning of the twentieth century was still in the hands of Gazi Mihal’s descendants. Although historians have acknowledged the existence of Gazi Mihal’s building complex in Edirne,2 no specific research was dedicated to the lands and incomes which pro1 Георги Аянов, „Привилегировани области в Североизточна Странджа: а) вакъф на султан Мехмед

Хан; б) Хасекия; в) владенията на Одринските Гаази Михаловци (Гаази Михал топраа),“ Архив за поселищни проучвания 2 (1938): 26–37, 34. Using the information provided by Ajanov, Franz Babinger also mentions the pious foundation of Gazi Mihal and its large territorial spread in the environs of Pınarhisar, adjacent to the Strandža Mountain slopes. Cf. Franz Babinger, Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.–15. Jahrhundert), Brünn–München–Wien, 1944, 59–61. 2 Gazi Mihal’s complex in the then Ottoman capital Edirne included a zaviye, a soup-kitchen (‘imaret), a double bath and a bridge. For a general assessment and further details on the vakf foundation in support of Mihal Beg’s complex in Edirne, see M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı. Vakıflar– Mülkler–Mukataalar, İstanbul, 1952, 244–246 and Sedat Emir, “Edirne Mihal Bey Zaviyesi,” Arredamento Mimarlık 265 (2013): 98–105. The zaviye/‘imaret building of the complex is discussed at length by Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi‘mârîsinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), İstanbul, 1989, 386–393. The dedicatory inscription of the complex was published and analyzed in detail by Fokke Theodoor Dijkema, The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne, Leiden, 1977, 17–18. The double bath of Gazi Mihal, part of his complex in Edirne, is studied by Doğan Kuban, “Edirne’de Bazı İkinci Murat Çağı Hamamları Mukarnas Bezemeleri Üzerine Notlar,” in İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı’ya Armağan, Ankara, 19882, 447–459 ff.; Sabih Erken, “Edirne Hamamları,” Vakıflar Dergisi 10 (1973): 403–419 ff.; İlter Büyükdığan, “İkinci Murad Çağı Edirne Hamamlarında Üst Örtü ve Aydınlatma Düzenleri,” in Emin Nedret İşli–M. Sabri Koz (haz.), Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht, İstanbul, 1988, 389–411. Cf. Mustafa Özer, “Edirne’de

184

Mariya K iprovska

vided for its sustenance. Today, the town of Pınarhisar (the nucleus of the pious foundation) and the villages around it, which were once endowed to the zaviye of Gazi Mihal in Edirne, bear little trace of their Ottoman past. The aim of the present paper therefore will be to shed as much light as possible on the history of this region prior and after the Ottoman conquest. With one question in mind, namely how this area appeared to be remembered as Gazi Mihal toprağı up until the twentieth century, I will try to sketch out the history of the region during the period preceding the Ottoman conquest and to amplify additionally on its subsequent development, when it ultimately came under the administrative control of the Mihaloğlu family.

Eastern Thrace and the Black Sea ports at the eve of the Ottoman conquest The region of Eastern Thrace, where the Mihaloğlus’ pious foundation (vakf ) was founded, was a widely disputed area from the restoration of the Byzantine rule to Constantinople by the Palaeologan dynasty in 1261 until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, when Byzantium practically ceased to exist and a more or less firm Ottoman control over the Balkans was established. It occurs that the traditional province (thema or theme) of Thrace (with the capital of Arcadiopolis/mod. Lüleburgaz) from the Middle Byzantine period, which basically formed the most contested region of the Byzantino-Bulgarian frontier for centuries, took the shape of the newly formed Vizyeteikon mega allagion in the Palaeologan period.3 Apparently, the center of the so-called provincial military unit was the town of Vizye (ancient Bizye and modern Vize, Turkey) and similarly to the other two known megala allagia, centered on Tessaloniki and Serres respectively, included the soldiers stationed in and assembled from the cities and fortresses within the quasi-thematic region in the European provinces of the Byzantine Empire.4 Geographically, the mega allagion of Vizye included the town and the fortress of the latter and the Black Sea coast north to Mesembreia (mod. Nesebăr) and then west inland in the direction of Sliven, and probably Eastern Thrace up to the suburbs of Constantinople and as far west as Arkadiopolis. Thus, except for the small towMihaloğulları’nın İmar Faaliyetleri ve bu Aileye Ait Mezar Taşlarının Değerlendirilmesi,” in I. Edirne Kültür Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 23–25 Ekim 2003, Edirne, n.d., 317–325; Orlin Sabev, “The Legend of Köse Mihal–Additional Notes,” Turcica 34 (2002): 241–252. 3 The military divisions megala allagia from the Late Byzantine period, which basically encompassed the territory of the administrative theme, are discussed by Mark C. Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 1204–1453, Philadelphia, 1992, 194–196; idem, “The Megala Allagia and the Tzaousios: Aspects of Provincial Military Organization in Late Byzantium,” Revue des études byzantines 47 (1989): 183–207. Excellent discussion on the previous scholarship involved in the debate on the essence of the megala allagia and a further argument as to their function and status of the soldiery they consisted of, based on late Byzantine texts, is presented by Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204–1453, Leiden–Boston, 2011, 82–93. 4 Due to the insufficient information and the inconsistence of the military terminology used by the late Byzantine authors, it is hard to state with certainty what exactly the megala allagia meant. The identification of the military units with the provinces in the sources, however, implies that these squadrons were not the garrison troops of the respective town, but were rather pronoia soldiers and frontier guards that were stationed in the entire province known by the name of its administrative and military center respectively. It appears that the megala allagia were found primarily in the European provinces of the Byzantine Empire, as three such districts could be safely identified so far and are attested by the sources as early as Michael VIII’s reign: the Thessalonikaion, the Serriotikon, and the Vizyeteikon mega allagion. See the works cited in the previous footnote.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 185

ers (pyrgos) that formed a line of defenses running from Mesembreia to Sliven on the sub-Balkan border of Byzantium and Bulgaria, it also encompassed the inland fortresses of Saranta Eklesias (mod. Kırklareli), Brysis (mod. Pınarhisar), and Vizye, as well as, most importantly, the much disputed port cities of Anchialos (mod. Pomorie), Mesembreia, and Agathoupolis (mod. Ahtopol).5 The latter three seaports were the traditional apple of discord between the Bulgarian Kingdom and the Byzantine Empire and together with their immediate hinterland and other inner fortresses in Eastern Thrace remained a much-disputed area up until the ultimate conquest of the region by the Ottoman Turks. Moreover, not only were the ports and inland cities of this particular area used by the Bulgarians and the Byzantines as a bargaining chip in the diplomatic relations between the two, when the Black Sea ports were constantly changing hands according to the dowry contracts during the numerous dynastic marriages between the two courts, but the fortresses on the territory of this specific bordering region were seized by each of the sides whenever an opportunity opened up and became the actual cause for several military conflicts.6 Besides, before its ultimate Ottoman conquest, this part of Eastern Thrace was subjected to multiple other threats posed by the Allans, Tatars, Vlachs, and Catalans. The latter mercenaries from the Catalan Grand Company occupied its territory and ravaged its towns and countryside, bringing it down to the level of “a Scythian desert” at the beginning of the fourteenth century.7 Additionally, Eastern Thrace became a battlefield during the hostilities in the period of the Byzantine Civil Wars (1321–1354), torn by rebellions and marked once more by ensuing territorial disputes between Bulgaria and Byzantium.8 The actual matter of contention between the latter were yet again the Black Sea port cities to the south of the Balkan range, a dispute that likewise sparked the last Byzantino-Bulgarian war before the two belligerents seized to exist after being ultimately subdued by the newly emerged regional master–the Ottoman emirate. Oddly enough, the non-compliance with the terms of a treaty, initially concluded as a military alliance against the Turks, actually eased the Ottoman conquest of the Black Sea ports and the territory of Eastern Thrace respectively. It is by now commonly accepted by modern historiography that in 1355 the Byzantines and the Bulgarians concluded a treaty, forming an anti-Ottoman alliance and aiming at joint military operations against the Turkish invaders, which was further strength-

5 Bartusis, “The Megala Allagia and the Tzaousios,” 190–191. 6 A brief chronological overview of the Byzantino-Bulgarian conflict for control over the Black Sea port cit-

ies to the south of the Balkan range during the second half of the thirteenth and throughout the fourteenth century is presented by Vassil Gjuzelev, “Der letzte bulgarisch-byzantinische Krieg (1364),” in Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit: Referate des Internationalen Symposions zu Ehren von Herbert Hunger (Wien, 30. November bis 3. Dezember 1994), ed. Werner Seibt, Wien, 1996, 29–34, and its Bulgarian translation: Васил Гюзелев, „Последната българо-византийска война и заговорът срещу България,“–В: Гюзелев, В. 3 етюда върху българския ХІV век, София, 2009, 77–97. 7 Angeliki E. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins: The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282–1328, Cambridge, 1972, 158–199; Donald M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261–1453, Cambridge, 19932, 122–140. 8 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 284–300; Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 85–102; Александър Бурмов, „История на България през времето на Шишмановци (1323–1396),“ Годишник на Софийския университет, Историко-филологически факултет 43 (1947), свезка 1: 1–58, свезка 2: 1–22.

186

Mariya K iprovska

ened with a dynastic marriage between the two crown courts.9 The latter must be perceived in a direct connection with the Ottoman advance in Thrace during the preceding year, when they gained a foothold in Europe by occupying the strategic fortress of Gallipoli in 1354. It is therefore somewhat surprising to find out that less than a decade later, in 1364, the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologos (1341–1391) personally laid siege to the Bulgarian Black Sea port cities of Anchialos and Mesembreia.10 Some authors argue that this attack has to be apprehended as a public utterance to the Byzantine aspirations for control over the Black Sea ports south of the Balkan range. There exists also a possibility that these port cities were part of the dowry of the Bulgarian Princess Maria, which had to be given by her father Tsar John Alexander (1331–1371) when she married the Byzantine Crown Prince Andronicus IV Palaeologos in 1355. It is thus plausible to suggest that because the Bulgarians failed to deliver the seaports to Byzantium, the latter attacked them in hopes to assure their possession in accordance with the previously concluded agreement. Another possible, and more credible, reason for the Byzantine attack from 1364 is implied by some narrative sources, which clearly remark that John Alexander has secretly concluded an alliance with the Turks and hence has not adhered to the conditions of the pact with the Byzantine Emperor, which stipulated actions to the common benefits of the Christians.11 Whether such a secret agreement existed or not, it is not possible to state with absolute certainty, though it should be considered plausible, since the Bulgarian Tsar has indeed used Ottoman mercenaries to oppose the Byzantine siege of Mesembreia in 1364.12 The ultimate outcome of this particular military engagement proved disadvantageous for the Bulgarians, who could not take back the seaports occupied by the Byzantine army and had to make numerous concessions to Byzantium, including reimbursing the amount spent by the Empire to fund this military engagement.13 Although it is practically impossible to affirm with any certainty, on the basis of the available sources, whether the assumed Bulgarian-Ottoman alliance was the genuine reason for or a consequence of the Byzantino-Bulgarian war of 1364, it is evident from the chronology of the following events that good diplomatic relations between the two states were not restored to harmony with the treaty of 1355. Apparently, the Bulgarians were quick in organizing a counter attack and regained control of the Black Sea ports, possibly with Ottoman help, most probably in 1365.14 9 Гюзелев, „Последната българо-византийска война,“ 84–85; Христо Матанов, Румяна Михнева, От

10 11

12

13 14

Галиполи до Лепанто: Балканите, Европа и османското нашествие, 1354–1571 г., София, 1988, 38, 45; Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300–1481, Istanbul, 1990, 28; Halil İnalcık, “Polunya (Apollunia)–TanrıYıkdığı Osmanlı Rumeli Fetihleri Kronolojisinde Düzeltmeler (1354–1371),” in Prof. Dr. Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, ed. Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ, İstanbul, 2006, 27–57. Гюзелев, „Последната българо-византийска война,“ 77–97 and idem, “Der letzte bulgarisch-byzantinische Krieg (1364),” 29–34. Петър Ников, „Турското завладяване на България и съдбата на последните Шишмановци,“ Известия на историческото дружество в София 7–8 (1928): 58–60; Матанов–Михнева, От Галиполи до Лепанто, 45; Гюзелев, „Последната българо-византийска война,“ 86. Гюзелев, „Последната българо-византийска война,“ 80; Васил Гюзелев, „Очерк върху историята на град Несебър в периода 1352–1453 г.,“ Годишник на Софийския университет, Философско-исторически факултет 64:3 (1972): 58–59. Ibidem. Гюзелев, „Последната българо-византийска война,“ 89.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 187

The events from the following year indicate explicitly that they were taking hold of the disputed territories, since, during his 1366 expedition against the Black Sea ports, Amadeo VI of Savoy had to retake them from the Bulgarians.15 The expedition of the Green Count against the then Bulgarian-held Black Sea fortresses should be regarded as a punitive action against the Bulgarian Tsar John Alexander who meanwhile has impeded the return of John V Palaeologos to Constantinople from the Hungarian capital Buda, where the latter negotiated a joint crusade against the Ottomans and possibly an anti-Bulgarian military alliance.16 Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the Byzantine diplomacy was acting openly against the political integrity of the Bulgarian kingdoms, as it was most probably supporting the Hungarians in their military invasion of the lands of John Sracimir with Vidin at their center. The denial of a safe passage for the Byzantine Emperor by John Alexander must be understood within the context of the Hungarian occupation of Vidin by King Louis the Great (1342–1382) in the spring of 1365 and should be apprehended as a clear objection against the Byzantine approval of such a move on the part of their Hungarian allies, or possibly as a diplomatic pressure on the Byzantine Emperor to negotiate the lifting of the Hungarian occupation of Vidin.17 Nevertheless, the punitive campaign of the Green Count against the Bulgarian-held Black Sea ports was highly successful. After capturing swiftly the fortresses of Agathoupolis, Sozopolis (ancient Apollonia, mod. Sozopol), Scafida (on the shore of today’s Lake Mandrensko, near modern Burgas), Mesembreia, Anchialos, and Lemona (on Cape Emine) in a short period during October 1366, the fleet of the Green Count besieged Varna, but to no avail.18 It seems that almost immediately negotiations regarding the safe passage of John V Palaeologos were advanced between Amadeo VI of Savoy, on the one hand, and the ruler of the Kingdom of Tărnovo John Alexander, as well as with the Despot of Northeastern Bulgaria Dobrotica, on the other. An agreement was reached for the unimpeded passing of the Byzantine Emperor through the Bulgarian territories; it was also agreed that the Emperor would give 180,000 florins to the Voivode of Wallachia Vladislav I Vlaicu to repel the Hungarians from Vidin and give it back to John Alexander, as in exchange the latter promised to give to the Byzantines three of the Black Sea 15 Eugene L. Cox, The Green Count of Savoy: Amadeus VI and Transalpine Savoy in the Fourteenth Century,

Princeton, 1967; Kenneth Meyer Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571). Vol. 1: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Philadelphia, 1976, 285–326. 16 Oskar Halecki, Un empereur de Byzance à Rome. Vingt ans de travail pour l’union des églises et pour la défense de l’empire d’Orient, 1355–1375, Warszawa, 1930, 135–137; Гюзелев, „Последната българовизантийска война,“ 91–92; Halil İnalcık, “Polunya (Apollunia)–Tanrı-Yıkdığı,” 27–57. 17 Vasil Gjuzelev, “La guerre bulgaro-hongroise au printemps de 1365 et des documents nouveaux sur la domination hongroise du royaume de Vidin (1365–1369),” Byzantinobulgarica 6 (1980): 153–172; idem, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Königreiches von Vidin im Jahre 1365,” Südost-Forschungen 39 (1980): 1–16; Васил Гюзелев, Очерци върху историята на българския Североизток и Черноморието (края на ХІІ – началото на ХV век), София, 1995, 49–87; Христо Димитров, Българо-унгарски отношения през Средновековието, София, 1998, 235–236; Георги Атанасов, Добруджанското Деспотство: към политическата, църковната, стопанската и културната история на Добруджа през ХІV век, Велико Търново, 2009, 101–102. 18 Sandra Origone, “Una spedizione militare del tardo Medioevo: Amedeo VI di Savoia in Oriente,” in Columbeis, 5: Relazioni di viaggio e conoscenza del mondo fra Medioevo e Umanesimo: atti del 5. Convegno internazionale di studi dell’Associazione per il Medioevo e l’Umanesimo Latini (AMUL), Genova, 12–15 dicembre 1991, ed. Stefano Pittaluga, Genova, 1993, 451–464; Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), 301–303.

188

Mariya K iprovska

ports–Mesembreia, Anchialos, and Varna. It seems that the last agreement was not fulfilled, since only a few years later Varna, along with several smaller fortresses, appear to be part of the Dobrotica Despotate, which might indicate that they were given to him by John Alexander in exchange for his diplomatic role during the negotiations for the repulse of the Hungarians from Vidin.19 On the other hand, as part of the deal between the Byzantine court at Constantinople and Amadeo VI of Savoy, the latter handed in the Black Sea cities of Mesembreia, Anchialos, Scafida, Sozopolis, and Agathoupolis to the Emperor John V Palaeologos.20 The whole sequence of events from 1364 to 1369, with the Byzantine attack against the Bulgarian Black Sea ports (1364), the Hungarian occupation of the kingdom of Vidin (1365–1369), the detention of John V Palaeologos in Vidin by John Alexander of Tărnovo (1366), and the subsequent campaign of Amadeo VI of Savoy against the Bulgarian Black Sea port cities (1366–1367), as well as the following diplomatic negotiations and territorial exchanges, were highly disadvantageous for the further history of the region. Entangled in their own political and territorial disputes, all of the parties involved seem to have underestimated the potential of the Ottoman newcomers, who regularly plundered these very same territories on a yearly basis, but ultimately took hold of strategically important fortresses along the main war routes, which facilitated their further advance in the Balkans.

The Ottoman conquest of Eastern Thrace: the fall of Saranta Eklesiai, Brysis, and Vizye The Ottoman conquest of Eastern Thrace is far from being illuminated sufficiently by modern historians. The difficulty in establishing a descent chronological framework of the Ottoman conquests is mainly explained by the lack of contemporary sources, both Byzantine and Ottoman. The otherwise extremely rich in accurate information writings of the Byzantine authors John VI Kantakouzenos and Nicephorus Gregoras suddenly interrupt their texts after the mid-fourteenth century. On the other hand, the earliest Ottoman chronicles, which have apparently used some earlier sources now lost, were composed almost a century after the described events and have thus a variety of problems in terms of truthfulness, as well as regarding their chronological reliability. One should also not forget that the early Ottoman conquests in the Balkans were rather chaotic in nature, since they were mostly plunder incursions launched almost simultaneously by different raiding groups under the command of different begs and indeed did not aim at a firmly established control in the fortified settlements. The chronology of the Ottoman advance in Thrace is complicated even further when one takes into account that this territory was a highly contested ground by a multitude of Balkan independent or semi-independent rulers and its towns and cities changed hands between the contestants more than a few times in the course of several decades.21 The Byzantine Civil War from 19 Гюзелев, Очерци върху историята на българския Североизток, 57–59. 20 Гюзелев, Очерци върху историята на българския Североизток, 58. 21 Матанов–Михнева, От Галиполи до Лепанто, 11–51; Toni Filiposki, “Before and after the battle of Maritsa

(1371): the significance of the Non-Ottoman factor in the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans,” in The Otto-

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 189

1341–1347 and the ensuing wars for the control of the Black Sea coast in the 1360s prominently showcase this state of affairs. During the military clashes, one party or another used the forces of the Ottoman Turks, which actions soon brought about more firm foothold of the latter on European soil. Even though the exact course of action of the Ottoman armed groups is difficult to trace, there could be little doubt that their advance was facilitated by the Balkan rulers’ own battles and that it was precisely at this juncture that the Ottomans seized the opportunity for a firm establishment in Eastern Thrace. It seems the Ottomans saw such a prospect immediately after the events around the territorial exchange along the Black Sea coast during and after the expedition of Amadeo VI of Savoy (1366–1367). The area of Eastern Thrace and the southern slopes of the Strandža Mountains in particular appear to have been subjected to severe plundering ever since the 1350s under the leadership of the Ottoman prince Süleyman Paşa, to whom some Ottoman chroniclers attribute the devastation of the area and the taking of some fortresses, including Vizye and Brysis, sometime prior to his death at the end of 1357.22 Indeed, it could be supposed that the area around Vizye was ravaged in the late 1350s, since a Byzantine chronicle also seems to support the information of the Ottoman sources and dates a depopulation of Vizye to 1358, although the exact date is to be regarded with caution.23 It is all the more likely to ascribe the first, although apparently temporary taking of Vizye to Süleyman Paşa, as the Byzantine cathedral church-turned-mosque was named after him– Süleyman Paşa Cami‘i.24 Whatever the case with these invasions, it might be supposed man Conquest of the Balkans: Interpretations and Research Debates, ed. Oliver Jens Schmitt, Vienna, 2016, 63–76. 22 The earliest mention of Vize we find in the history of Ahmedi (1334/5–1412), who ascribes it to Süleyman Paşa. See Tace’d-Din Ibrahim Bin Hızır Ahmedi, History of the Kings of the Ottoman Lineage and Their Holy Raids Against the Infidels, ed. Kemal Silay (Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 65), Harvard, 2004, 9. Şükrullah, who writes his history during the second half of the 1450s, also places the taking of Vize under the command of Prince Süleyman; cf. Şükrullah, Behcetüttevârîh, in Osmanlı Tarihleri I, Osmanlı Tarihinin Anakaynakları olan Eserlerin, Mütebassıslar tarafından Hazırlanan Metin, Tercüme veya Sadeleştirilmiş Şekilleri Külliyatı, ed. Çiftçioğlu N. Atsız, İstanbul, 1925–1949, 54. Neşri also attributes the taking of Vize, Mıgalkara, and İpsala to Süleyman Paşa, cf. Mehmed Neşri, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ, Neşrî Tarihi, I. cilt, yayınlayanlar Faik Reşit Unat, Mehmed A. Köymen, Ankara, 19953, 181. Finally, İbn-i Kemal dates the conquest and pillaging of Çorlu, Vize, and Pınarhisar in the last years of Şehzade Süleyman and he also narrates that his troops pillaged the mentioned fortresses and their environs and took away many people as booty. Cf. Kemal Paşa-Oğlu Şemsüddin Ahmed İbn-i Kemal, Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, II. Defter, ed. Şerafettin Turan, Ankara, 1991, 176–181. 23 A. Bakalopulos, “Les limites de l’empire byzantine depuis la fin du XIVe siècle jusque’à sa chute (1453),” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 55:1 (1962): 59, fn. 1. 24 There exists a long debate in the historiography as to the person who converted the Byzantine cathedral in Bizye into a mosque. Some authors argued for an early conversion under Süleyman Paşa, the son of Orhan Gazi; some others suggested that the conversion is connected to Hadım Süleyman Paşa, the governor of Rumeli; and certain scholars have also advanced the possibility that it must have been Mihaloğlu Süleyman Paşa who converted the church into a mosque, since the conquest of Vize (in 1368/69) is associated with a member of this illustrious family of raider commanders. The latter assumption, as logical as it sounds, is not supported by any narrative or archival sources, nor there exists explicit architectural material supporting such an assumption. Although certain Mihaloğlu appears to have played a role in the conquest of the area in the 1368/69 campaign, there is no satisfactory evidence to suggest with any certainty that it was indeed a member of the family, a certain Süleyman Paşa, who converted the cathedral into a mosque. The so far known genealogies of the Mihaloğulları do not enlist a member with the name Süleyman from this period. Moreover, as it will become apparent in the following pages of the present study, there are reasons to believe that the name of

190

Mariya K iprovska

that they were rather pillage incursions in nature and did not indeed establish a permanent control over the Byzantine strongholds, since the Ottomans led another campaign against these fortresses in the course of the following decade. It seems that the principal steps in gaining firmer foothold over the southern part of the Vizyeteikon mega allagion of the Palaeologan period (the former Byzantine thema of Thrace) were undertaken by the Ottomans in the late 1360s,25 when they launched an offensive against three Byzantine strongholds located at the southern slopes of the Strandža Mountain. The three fortresses, namely Saranta Eklesiai (Kırkkilise/Kırklareli), Brysis (Pınarhisarı), and Vizye (Vize), evidently formed a defensive line safeguarding the Thracian Plane from possible Bulgarian attacks from the north, as well as protecting from land attack the port cities on the southern Black Sea coast lying behind the Strandža Mountain to the east. This particular campaign is described in detail only in the texts of İdris-i Bitlisî and Hoca Sadeddin, who have obviously used a common source that remains unidentified for the time being. In their works, both Bitlisî (first quarter of the sixteenth century) and Sadeddin (second half of the sixteenth century) place the campaign in the year 770 H. (1368/69).26 According to the narrative tradition presented by the two authors, Murad I attacked first the fortress of Kırkkilise, which was taken fairly easily and from which the soldiers acquired rich spoils. Thereafter, the army besieged Pınarhisarı, but since it was a very strong fortress, the Byzantine garrison held off the Ottoman attack for some time. When the Ottomans finally took the castle, all its defenders were taken captive and those who had resisted were ruthlessly slaughtered.27 While the sultan was still besiegthe Mihaloğlu who took part in the campaign of 1368/69 is most probably Hızır Beg, who commissioned the building of a complex in the neighboring Kırkkilise. I am rather inclined to think that it was indeed Şehzade Süleyman, the son of sultan Orhan, who converted the church into a mosque as an act of celebration for his successful incursions in the region during the last years of his life. On the Byzantine church in Vize and the historiographical debate on the personality of its converter, see Franz Alto Bauer and Holger A. Klein, “Die Hagia Sophia in Vize: Forschungsgeschichte–Restaurierungen–neue Ergebnisse,” Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. 1 (2004): 409–439, esp. 414–418, and idem, “The Church of Hagia Sophia in Bizye (Vize): Results of the Fieldwork Seasons 2003 and 2004,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60 (2006): 251–253. 25 The chronology of these events is discussed at length by Halil İnalcık, “Murad I,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 31 (2006), 156–164, 157; idem, “Polunya (Apollunia)–Tanrı-Yıkdığı,” 27–57. İnalcık argues that this campaign followed an Ottoman attack on Sozopolis in 1366, when the city was in the hands of Amadeo VI of Savoy. This, however, is highly unlikely, because the Ottoman sources, which indeed place the attack on Polunya/Bolunya (identified as the ancient Apollonia, mod. Sozopol by İnalcık) more than a decade after the campaign against Kırkkilise, Pınarhisar and Vize, also speak of a long-lasting blockade, which considerably diverges from the European sources describing Amadeo’s conquest of Sozopolis. Besides, all Ottoman sources use the name Süzebolu for Sozopolis and therefore it is more logical to search for another toponym that corresponds to the Polunya/Bolunya in the Ottoman narratives. Since the narrative tradition describes its conquest in the context of the sultan’s march to İncügez (modern-day İnceğiz in Turkish Thrace), it might well be identified either as the Byzantine Skopelos (later Eski Polos, today Yoğuntaş on the Strandža Mountain slopes), or as the Byzantine Plagia. Cf. Georgios C. Liakopoulos, “The Ottoman Conquest of Thrace: Aspects of Historical Geography,” unpublished M.A. thesis (Ankara: Bilkent University, 2002), 79 – 81 and the bibliography cited there. It is also admissible to suggest that the Ottoman sources may well refer to a fortress in the immediate vicinity of İnceğiz and Çatalca. 26 İdris-i Bitlisî, Heşt Bihişt, ed. Mehmet Karataş, Selim Kaya and Yaşar Baş, vol. 1, Ankara, 2008, 327–331; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tacü’t Tevarih, vol. 1, İstanbul: Tab’hane-i Amire, 1279 [1862/63], 85–86. 27 Bitlisî’s and Sededdin’s texts diverge in this part of the narrative, as the former does not include the capture of the fortress of Pınarhisar, whereas the latter describes it briefly and places it between the capture of Kırkkilise and Vize. İdris-i Bitlisî, Heşt Bihişt, 329; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-Tevârih, 86.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 191

ing Kırkkilise, he sent an army led by a certain Mihaloğlu to lay siege to the fortress of Vize, which held off the blockade until the above-mentioned castles were captured. When Kırkkilise and Pınarhisarı were finally seized, Murad arrived with his army at the already-besieged Vize and joined the troops of Mihaloğlu. After a month of blockade, the fortress surrendered.28 The story presented by Bitlisî and Sadeddin agrees nicely with the fact that in 1368 the metropolitan of Vizye, certain Neophytos, was transferred to Mesembreia and later (in 1369) was given additionally the administration of Anchialos and Varna.29 The fact that the archbishopric of Vizye disappeared from the records of the Patriarchate of Constantinople after 1368 definitely indicates that by that time the region was highly unsecure owing to the frequent Turkish attacks and to the establishing of a steadier foothold of the Ottoman troops in the area. The Ottoman territorial acquisitions in Eastern Thrace did not endure long, as these territories became once again a bargaining chip in the entangled Balkan diplomatic relations–only this time it was the Ottomans who traded it over to the Byzantines in exchange for a support on the part of the Emperor for one of the pretenders for the Ottoman throne during the succession wars among the sons of Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402) after his defeat from the army of Timur (Tamerlane) in the battle of Ankara (1402). It was almost immediately after Bayezid’s son Emir Süleyman crossed over to the Balkans and reached Gallipoli that he began peace negotiations with the Balkan Christian powers. In the beginning of 1403, he concluded a treaty, whose most advantageous beneficiary was Byzantium as it regained a considerable amount of its former territories from the already well entrenched in the Balkans Ottoman state. Besides Tessaloniki and a large portion of land around it, extending from the river Vardar to the river Struma, it also received the entire peninsula of Chalkidiki, a number of Aegean islands, as well as a large strip of land in Eastern Thrace, stretching from Panidos on the Sea of Marmara to the port of Mesembreia on the Black Sea.30 It appears that shortly after Emir Süleyman’s defeat by his brother Musa in the beginning of 1411, the latter ceased control over the strategically important fortress of Vizye. When the ultimate victor of the Ottoman succession struggle, Mehmed Çelebi, combatted against prince Musa, one of the principal battles was fought outside Vize, an area that was then apparently under Musa’s control.31 When finally Mehmed came off victorious after ultimately defeating his brother in 1413, he acknowledged the support of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II by giving him back the territories previously contained within the treaty of 1403 and later occupied by

28 İdris-i Bitlisî, Heşt Bihişt, 329–330; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-Tevârih, 56. 29 Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz: Ein Verzeichnis der Metropoliten und Bischöfe

des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel in der Zeit von 1204 bis 1453., Saarbrücken, 2008, 31–32; 67–68.

30 Bakalopulos, “Les limites de l’empire byzantine,” 59–60; George T. Dennis, “The Byzantine-Turkish Treaty

of 1403,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 33 (1967): 72–88; Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Süleyman Çelebi in Rumili and the Ottoman chronicles,” Der Islam 60:2 (1983): 268–290; Halil İnalcık, “Mehemmed I,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2, 975; Dimitris Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402–13, Leiden–Boston, 2007, 50–56. 31 Kastritsis, Sons of Bayezid, 191.

192

Mariya K iprovska

Musa, including the Black Sea port cities and the eastern Thracian territories together with Vizye.32 After the death of Manuel II in 1425, the then Ottoman sultan Murad II (1421–1444 and 1446–1451) launched an offensive against Thessaloniki and Zitouni and ravaged their environs. According to a peace treaty between the Ottomans and the Byzantines signed soon after, Murad II acquired the Black Sea port cities of Mesembreia and Derkos and a substantial yearly tribute from Byzantium.33 It must be accepted that some of the fortresses at the south slopes of Strandža Mountain were also obtained by the Ottomans at that time, because Vize was definitely in Ottoman hands in 1443/44, a date which is confirmed by the building inscription on the façade of Şarabdar Hasan Beg’s mosque in the city, indicating that the building was completed during this year.34

An enduring lordship in Eastern Thrace: the Mihaloğlu domain However scarce and fragmentary the sources for the Ottoman conquest of Eastern Thrace and the Strandža Mountain slopes might be, it is evident that this territory was a highly contested region, which has changed multiple rulers in the course of the second half of the fourteenth and the first decades of the fifteenth century. Apparently, the bid for control over the southern Black Sea ports and the metropolis Vizye lied at the center of the power struggles over the area. Vizye, undoubtedly the strongest inland fortress, metropolitan seat and administrative center of this territory was naturally mentioned in the narrative sources and therefore one is able to ascertain more or less accurately its fate at the eve of the Ottoman conquest. It is essentially impossible, however, to determine whether the neighboring two fortresses, Saranta Eklesiai (Kırkkilise/Kırklareli) and Brysis (Pınarhisarı), shared the fate of Vizye or they were retained by the Ottomans after the campaign of 1368/69. It is plausible to suppose that unlike Vizye, although conquered in the course of one military operation, the strongholds of Saranta Eklesiai and Brysis, or at least the former, remained under Ottoman control. Recalling the accounts of İdris-i Bitlisî and Hoca Sadeddin that described Murad I’s campaign of 1368/69, ascribing a leading role to a certain commander of the Mihaloğlu family, one finds with no surprise that a member of that noble household has indeed left a mark in the region. The erection of a monumental complex, comprising a mosque, a bath-house and a covered market (bedesten), in the city of Kırkkilise bears testimony to Mihaloğulları’s control over this border area. On the porch of the single-domed mosque, an early-nineteenth-century repair inscription reveals the name of its founder, Mihaloğlu Hızır Beg, and the date of its construction, 1383/84, suggesting that this might have been the person mentioned in the narratives simply as Mihaloğlu who played an important role during the conquest of the area.35 The monumentality of the complex not only bespeaks a relatively peaceful period following 32 Bakalopulos, “Les limites de l’empire byzantine,” 61. 33 Bakalopulos, “Les limites de l’empire byzantine,” 62. 34 Machiel Kiel, “A Note on the History of the Frontiers of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th Century,” Byzan-

tinische Zeitschrift 66 (1973): 351–353.

35 Özcan Mert, “Kırklareli Kitabeleri,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 25 (1971), 155–162.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 193

the Ottoman conquest, but also reveals the considerable wealth and authority of the person who commissioned it (Figs. 1–2). More proof for Mihaloğlu family’s control over the region and the best expression of their authority were their private landed properties in the very same area. Although according to Ottoman narrative tradition a member of the Mihaloğlu family played a decisive role in the Ottoman conquest of the region in 1369, it was only during the first half of the fifteenth century that the family became well entrenched in the area. In 1421/22 another prominent member of the family, namely Gazi Mihal Beg, completed the construction of a monumental complex in the then Ottoman capital Edirne. The complex comprised a T-shaped zaviye/‘imaret, a large double bath and a bridge over the river Tundja36 (Figs. 3 – 5). Gazi Mihal Beg was none other than Mihaloğlu Mehmed Beg, who was one of the most vigorous military leaders during the Ottoman dynastic struggles after the battle of Ankara (1402). He must had acquired great authority and power in the Balkans, since the ultimate success of one Ottoman prince or another indeed depended largely on Mehmed Beg’s choice of taking a certain pretender’s side. Musa Çelebi acknowledged his authority by appointing him beglerbegi (commander in chief) of Rumeli (the Balkan provinces).37 It appears that shortly afterwards Mehmed Beg became alienated from Musa and pledged his support to the would-be sultan Mehmed Çelebi, as undoubtedly his defection tipped the balance to the latter’s advantage and finally brought him victorious over his opponent in 1413.38 Mihal Beg rose to prominence once again during the reign of Murad II (1421–1444 and 1446–1451), who essentially relied on the support of Mihal Beg and his troops to defeat yet another claimant to the Ottoman throne, Düzme Mustafa, in 1423.39 Undoubtedly, the erection of an ostentatious complex in the capital Edirne by Mihal Beg should be regarded as a display of his own power and influence in early fifteenth-century Ottoman political and military order. The functioning of Mihal Beg’s monumental complex was assured by the funding from a pious foundation (vakf ), established to maintain the buildings and to sustain the charitable functions of the complex. Apparently, large tracts of lands in the region of Eastern Thrace were bestowed on the benefactor in full proprietorship, which were later on endowed by its owner for the upkeep of the compound. The original charter (vakfiye) that stipulated the founding and the functions of the charitable foundation is not preserved, therefore it is difficult to ascertain when exactly it was established. According to a sultanic deed ( ferman) from 1514, ratifying the land possessions of Gazi Mihal’s pious foundation, the ownership of several villages in Edirne surroundings–Pınarhisarı,40 36 The dedicatory inscription of the complex was published and analyzed in detail by Dijkema, Monumental

37 38 39

40

Inscriptions in Edirne, 17–18. Details about the vakf foundation in support of the complex are presented by Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 245–246. Cf. Emir, “Edirne Mihal Bey Zaviyesi,” 98–105. Halil İnalcık, “The Rise of the Ottoman Empire,” in A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730, ed. M. A. Cook, Cambridge, 1976, 33–34; Kastritsis, Sons of Bayezid, 137–142, 161–162. For Mihaloğlu’s defection to Mehmed Çelebi cf. Kastritsis, Sons of Bayezid, 162–163, 170–171. Friedrich Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken Tevârih-i Âl-i Osmân. Teil I: Text und Variantenverzeichnis, Breslau, 1922, 57; idem, Die Altosmanische Chronik des ‘šıkpašazâde, Leipzig, 1929, 86 – 87; Mehmed Neşri, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ, Neşrî Tarihi, yayınlayanlar Faik Reşit Unat ve Mehmed Köymen, 2. Cilt, Ankara, 1957, 559–561; Franz Babinger, Die Frühosmanischen Yahrbücher des Urudsch, Hannover, 1925, 46–47, 112–113; Colin Imber, The Ottoman Emirate, 1300–1481, Istanbul, 1990, 91–95. Modern town of Pınarhisar, Kırklareli District.

194

Mariya K iprovska

Gerdelü,41 Poryalu,42 Urum-beğlü,43 Sazara,44 and Manastır45–were previously granted to Mihal Beg by sultan Mehmed. These villages were later endowed to Mihal Beg’s pious foundation and their right of possession was subsequently reaffirmed by the sultans Bayezid II (1481–1512) and Selim I (1512–1520).46 The content of the document does not make it clear who exactly the mentioned sultan Mehmed is, making it most logical to suggest that it was Mehmed II, who reigned immediately before Bayezid II. However, taking into consideration that Mihal Beg died in 1435/3647 and that Mehmed II reigned for a short time in 1444–1446 and then again in 1451–1481, it is likely that the document actually refers to sultan Mehmed I (1413–1421), who essentially secured himself on the Ottoman throne during the intestine war with the help of Mihal Beg. What could be positively ascertained, based on the evidence at hand, is that at some point during the fifteenth century a charitable foundation was established by a member of the Mihaloğlu family for the maintenance of the complex of Mihal Beg in Edirne. The vakf must have been founded prior to 1481, since at that date another village, Havaroz,48 in the province of Edirne, was enlisted in the taxation records of the sancak as part of the vakf of Mihal Beg’s ‘imaret as well. Furthermore, the same registers attest to substantial landholdings in the province of Edirne, which were not part of the pious foundation of Mihal Beg in Edirne, but were held hereditarily by members of that family. Hence, one finds half a dozen villages, which apparently were granted in full proprietorship to Mihaloğlu İskender Beg in his lifetime by sultan Bayezid II and their right of possession was thereafter inherited by his two sons–Yahşi Beg and Mahmud Beg.49 Although seemModern village of Büyükgerdelli, Edirne District. Modern village of Poyralı, Kırklareli District. Modern village of İslambeyli, Kırklareli District. Modern village of Çukurpınar, Kırklareli District. Modern village of Çayırdere, Kırklareli District. The document is published by Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 246. The original ferman, whose content Gökbilgin reveals, is kept in the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi in İstanbul. At the time Gökbilgin was writing, it was kept in the Fekete collection under number 57. The archival collections of the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi underwent a new cataloguing and are currently organized largely in accordance with the Ottoman state department that issued the document (with some notable exceptions). My own search in various archival collections was unsuccessful in tracking the original document and therefore I refer to its contents as presented by Gökbilgin. 47 Mihal Beg was buried in Edirne next to his zaviye/‘imaret in what was to become a family graveyard. The epitaph indicates that he died in H. 839 (1435/36). The inscription of Mihal Beg’s tombstone was a subject of controversial readings by a number of authors. A short discussion of the different readings and interpretations could be found in Mariya Kiprovska, “Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Köse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland,” in Defterology: Festschrift in Honor of Heath Lowry, ed. Selim Kuru and Baki Tezcan (= Journal of Turkish Studies 40 (2013): 259, fn. 65. 48 The modern village of Avarız köyü is situated less than 10 km to the north of Edirne, on the bank of the river Tundža. It was part of Mihal Beg’s foundation and its incomes were spent for the upkeep of the ‘imaret in Edirne, as it becomes apparent from the sixteenth-century Ottoman tax records (tapu tahrir defterleri), where it is registered with the following heading: vakf-i ‘imaret-i Mihal Beg. Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi [hereafter: BOA], Tapu Tahrir [hereafter: TT] 20 (890 H. / 1481), p. 66; BOA, TT 73 (925 H. / 1519), p. 14; BOA, TT 77 (925 H. / 1519), p. 97; BOA, TT 370 (1530), p. 12; TT 498 (978 H. / 1570), p. 567. Cf. Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 245. 49 The two brothers inherited from their deceased father the following villages: karye-i Gülmez Halil (nam-i diğer Kara Yiğit, tabi’ Kızıl Ağaç), karye-i Derviş Mehmed (tabi’ Kara Beğlü), karye-i Demurcu Hızır (nam-i diğer Kara Beğlü, tabi’ Kızıl Ağaç), karye-i İbrahim (tabi’ Kara Beğlü), karye-i Pomaklu (tabi’ Kara Beğlü), karye-i Komari (nam-i diğer Sufiler ve Kazıklu), bölük-i Kazıklu (tabi’ karye-i Komari ki Sufiler ve 41 42 43 44 45 46

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 195

ingly these landed properties were not directly linked to the vakf estates of Mihal Beg’s foundation around Kırkkilise and Pınarhisarı, it is plausible to suggest that it was precisely İskender Beg who was in charge of Gazi Mihal’s pious foundation in Edirne in the course of the fifteenth century, since his two sons–Yahşi Beg and Mahmud Beg–appear to have subsequently administered the vakf properties east of Edirne. The first preserved Ottoman tax registers (tapu tahrir defterleri) of Vize sancağı, where all but one50 of the villages pertaining to the Mihal Beg’s vakf were located, date to the first half of the sixteenth century.51 These records reveal that Pınarhisarı, mentioned as a village at the beginning of the fifteenth century, when it was donated to Mihal Beg, was chosen as a center of the Mihaloğulları domain and quickly developed into a small town.52 The town and its immediate environs received a boost in their development in the course of the sixteenth century, with the erection of a number of public buildings under the patronage of two members of the Mihaloğlu family, Yahşi Beg and Mahmud Beg, the two sons of Mihaloğlu İskender Beg, who possessed plots of land (mülk) in the neighboring Edirne sancağı, undoubtedly granted to him as a reward for his loyalty and successful military achievements. İskender Beg was one of the most active raider (akıncı) commanders during the reigns of Mehmed II (1444–1446 and 1451–1481) and Bayezid II (1481–1512) and together with his brother Mihaloğlu ‘Ali Beg distinguished himself mainly during the military campaigns on the northern Ottoman borders; he was a leader of numerous incursions in Bosnia and across the Danube River.53 At least two of his sons, Yahşi Beg and Mahmud Beg, followed the career path of their father. In 1521/22 Yahşi Beg was a district governor (sancakbegi) of Tarsus,54 while immediately after this appointment, in 1522, he took the post of a district governor of Vidin,55 a position that he held again during the period between 152656 and 1527.57 Similarly, Mahmud Beg held the position of sancakbegi of Çirmen between 1521 and 1522.58 It seems that, like his more famous brother Alaeddin ‘Ali Beg, who created the biggest pious foundation of the fam-

50 51

52

53

54 55 56 57 58

Kazıklu dahi dirler), mezra’a-i Behadır. BOA, TT 73 (925 H. / 1519), pp. 83–84; BOA, TT 77 (925 H. / 1519), pp. 327 – 328; BOA, TT 370 (1530), p. 62. The aforementioned village of Havaroz to the north of Edirne. Volkan Ertürk, “Osmanlı Devrinde Vize Sancağındaki Selâtin ve Ümera Vakıfları (1530–1613),” Turkish Studies–International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic 8:5 (2013): 296–297. 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937/1530) I: Paşa (Sofya) ve Vize Livâları ile Sağkol Kazaları (Edirne, Dimetoka, Ferecik, Keşan, Kızıl-ağaç, Zağra-i Eski-hisâr, İpsala, Filibe, Tatarbâzârı, Samakov, Üsküb, Kalkan-delen, Kırçova, Manastır, Pirlepe ve Köprülü), Ankara, 2001, 262. The military campaigns, in which İskender Beg participated along with his more famous brother, Alaeddin ‘Ali Beg of Plevne, are discussed by Agâh Sırrı Levend, Gazavât-nâmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’in Gazavâtnâmesi, Ankara, 20002, 181–196. Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “H. 933–934 (M. 1527–1528) Malî Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe Örneği,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15:1–4 (1953–1954): 303–307, 306. Enver Çakar, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kanun-nâmesine Göre 1522 Yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun İdarî Taksimatı,” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 12:1 (2002): 247–294, 279. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Kanunî Sultan Süleyman Devri Başlarında Rumeli Eyaleti, Livaları, Şehir ve Kasabaları,” Belleten 20 (1956): 247–294, 252. Metin Kunt, The Sultan’s Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550–1650, New York, 1983, 105. Barkan, “Bir Bütçe Örneği,” 304.

196

Mariya K iprovska

ily in the region of Plevne (mod. Pleven, Bulgaria) and consequently established there an ancestral residence, where his progeny resided for centuries, İskender Beg and his descendants chose the town of Pınarhisarı as the center of their ancestral domain and developed it into yet another family seat. A third branch of the family established a large pious foundation to the southeast of Sofia and created another ancestral residence in the town of İhtiman.59 It is not clear why the two sons of Mihaloğlu İskender Beg did not invest in their father’s mülk estates but rather preferred to develop the neighboring Pınarhisarı. It is quite probable that they were indeed the managers (mütevelli) of Gazi Mihal’s vakf, from the incomes of which they received revenues and therefore invested in the foundation’s estates to make them more profit-yielding. It is also conceivable that the two brothers gave preference to Pınarhisarı as their residence because of its former past of comparatively important regional urban settlement, part of whose fortifications could be seen even today. In other words, Pınarhisarı must have appeared far more prestigious a place for developing a residence than the almost depopulated small villages in the environs of Edirne. Besides, Pınarhisarı lies at an important route linking Eastern Thrace and Istanbul to the Black Sea ports and it is in close proximity to the iron mines of the Strandža Mountain. Whatever the actual reason, clearly the two brothers were the ones who developed the previously deprived area and brought about prosperity to the region. Yahşi Beg appears to have been the biggest architectural patron of the town of Pınarhisarı who built the necessary social and religious buildings (he sponsored a mosque, built a bath-house and a zaviye/‘imaret) for the emerging urban center, which not only promoted the settlement, but also became a natural choice for dwelling of his descendants. Among the identifiable members of the family, who settled in Pınarhisarı, were the sons of Yahşi Beg. One of them, Hüseyin Beg, held in full proprietorship plots of land within the town itself and a mill in the village of Küçük Gerde located in Pınarhisarı’s vicinity.60 Three individuals of Hüseyin Beg’s closest entourage, recorded as merdüm-i Hüseyin Beg (Hüseyin Beg’s trusted men), also settled in the town of Pınarhisarı and were respectively listed in the tax registers.61 Another son of Yahşi Beg, who in all probability resided in the town, Hızır Beg, must have died prior to the registration of 1569, since only the names of his wife (zevce-yi Hızır Beg), one of his manumitted slaves (‘atîk-i Hızır Beg), and several of his associates (merdüm-i Hızır Beg) were explicitly mentioned in the register as residents of Pınarhisarı.62 Likewise, a third son of Yahşi Beg, certain Ahmed Beg,63 must have also 59 Cf. Mariya Kiprovska, “Shaping the Ottoman Borderland: the Architectural Patronage of the Frontier Lords

60

61 62 63

from the Mihaloğlu Family,” in Bordering Early Modern Europe, ed. Maria Baramova, Grigor Boykov and Ivan Parvev, Wiesbaden, 2015, 185–220. BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 134, 164; Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara [hereafter TKGM], Kuyud-u Kadime Arşivi [hereafter KuK] No. 548 (from 1569) (an exact copy of TT 541, kept in BOA), fols. 70b – 71b and 85b. BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 135; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fol. 71b. BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 134–136; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fols. 70b –71b. It is certain that Yahşi Beg had at least three sons, whose names are enlisted in the defters. The three brothers Hızır Beg, Ahmed Beg, and Hüseyin Beg appear to have inherited from their father and held jointly the ancestral mülk properties north of Edirne, which were bequeathed by their initial owner, Mihaloğlu İskender Beg. It is clear that the private domain of İskender Beg was passed down from father to son at least for three

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 197

lived in Pınarhisarı. Although his name does not appear among the registered taxpayers, the ownership of his son, another Yahşi Beg (most likely named after his grandfather), over a small plot of land in one of Pınarhisarı’s quarters64 is a clear indication for the connection of this branch of the family to the town. The presence of people of such a noble descent in the provincial town must have brought a relevant stability in Pınarhisarı’s development. In 1530, the date of the earliest tax register, in which Gazi Mihal’s vakf possessions in the region of Pınarhisarı were registered, one clearly observes a growth in the landed estate. Compared to the previous century, when the pious foundation comprised only six villages,65 now it included the town of Pınarhisarı and thirteen villages around it.66 Pınarhisarı, which according to the Ottoman narratives was violently seized in the course of the conquest of 1368/69 and its Byzantine populace was either enslaved or killed,67 has slowly recovered during the fifteenth century and in 1530 was inhabited by roughly 407 people (77 households and 12 unmarried men), all Muslims. Some of these people undoubtedly were part of the extended household of the family members, as were the above-mentioned manumitted slaves (‘atîk, mu’tak, or azad)68 of the Mihaloğlus, or were part of their closest military entourage (denoted as merdüm).69 Others must have settled out of their own will, searching for new opportunities in the developing urban center. In 1530 Pınarhisarı had three distinct quarters–mahalle-i Cami‘; mahalle-i Silâhdar ‘Ali, nâm-i diğer Aşağı mahalle; and mahalle-i Yahşi Beg. It clearly possessed a main Friday Mosque, whose name is not mentioned but whose location and patron could be ascertained with the help of circumstantial evidence. The mosque is known by the name Cami‘-i Şerif in the tax registers from the second half of the sixteenth century70 and its functioning during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was assured by the revenues of a pious foundation in the names of Yahşi Beg, Hüseyin Beg, and Hundi Hatun.71 generations, when at least one part of it was sold out to a third individual. Thus, in the second half of the sixteenth century at least one of the three shares of the property was sold to the vizier Ferhad Paşa. Cf. BOA, TT 498 (from 1570), pp. 623–624; Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 432; Yaşar Gökçek, Türk İmparatorluk Tarihinde Akıncı Teşkilâtı ve Gazi Mihal Oğulları, Konya, 1998, 25. 64 BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 136; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fol. 71b. 65 Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 246. 66 Except for Pınarhisarı, the vakf of Gazi Mihal comprised 13 more villages in the region: Poryalu (mod. Poyralı, Kırklareli District), Ayvaciklü (mod. Evciler, Kırklareli District), Küçük Gerede (vanished), Büyük Gerede (Büyükgerdelli, Edirne District), Saka Şeyh (unidentified), Ali Beg (Akpınar?), Rum-beğli (İslambeyli, Kırklareli District), Manastırcık (Çayırdere, Kırklareli District), Sazara (Çukurpınar, Kırklareli District), Büyük Üyüğü (unidentified), Yenice köy (Yeniceköy, Kırklareli District), Küçük Üyüğü (unidentified), and Glori (unidentified). Cf. 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937/1530) I, Ankara, 2001, 262. 67 Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-Tevârih, 86. 68 BOA, TT 286 (from 1541), pp. 70–72; BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), pp. 134–136; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fols. 70b –71b. 69 BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 135–136; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fols. 71a–71b. 70 BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 134; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fol. 70b. 71 In several documents from the eighteenth and nineteenth century concerning the appointments of personnel for the mosque, the pious foundation is referred to as vakf-i cami-i şerif merhum Gazi Yahşi Beg ve Hüseyin Beg ve Hundi Hatun. Cf. BOA, Cevdet Evkaf [hereafter: C.EV.], dosya 80, gömlek 3970 (from 1727); BOA, C.EV. dosya 204, gömlek 10166 (from 1785); BOA, C.EV. dosya 157, gömlek 7822 (from 1795); BOA, Cevdet Belediye [hereafter: C.BLD.], dosya 30, gömlek 1488 (from 1819); BOA, C.EV. dosya 137, gömlek 6832 (from 1819); BOA, C.BLD, dosya 60, gömlek 2989 (from 1829); BOA, İradeler, Evkaf Kayıtları [hereafter: İ.EV.], dosya 10, gömlek 10 (from 1895).

198

Mariya K iprovska

This indication makes it secure to suggest that the main Friday Mosque of Pınarhisarı, around which a town quarter emerged (which kept its name even at present, Cami-i Kebir Mahallesi), is indeed the Hundi Hatun Mosque of the modern town, which is situated just below the fortifications of the medieval settlement (Fig. 6). Although today it is known simply as Hundi Hatun Camii,72 it is more than clear that it was not built by her, but was rather supported by several family members in all likelihood connected in a descending family line–the father Yahşi Beg, the son Hüseyin Beg, and the granddaughter Hundi Hatun.73 Moreover, it is plausible to suggest that the mosque was initially erected by neither of the mentioned sponsors, but was already built by another prominent member of the family and was only later on bestowed with revenues by Yahşi Beg, then by his son Hüseyin Beg, and then by Hundi Hatun.74 Moreover, it may be safely supposed that the person who built the mosque was indeed Yahşi Beg’s father, İskender Beg. Since his two sons settled in the town, it is reasonable to suggest that it was the father İskender Beg who initially chose it as a place of residence and built the first mosque there. That it was not Yahşi Beg who initially erected the main mosque in Pınarhisarı is substantiated by the fact that he himself sponsored a whole complex (zaviye) in the town, which included a zaviye-mosque, an ‘imaret (soup kitchen), and a hamam (bath-house). The complex is recorded for the first time in the Ottoman tax register of 1541, which makes it plausible to suggest that it was erected in the interim period between this and the previous registration, i.e. in the period 1530–1541.75 It included a mosque, which had its own imam, hatibs, and a müezzin. According to the seventeenth-century traveler Evliya Çelebi, one of the mosques in the town, most probably the one built by Yahşi Beg, was a relatively small building, whose congregation however was numerous.76 The most important edifice in Evliya’s words was the ‘imaret–it was lead-covered and there was no other build72 It is unclear what was the original plan and appearance of the mosque. The present structure dates from the

73

74

75

76

nineteenth century, when it was completely rebuilt due to its falling into disrepair. An Ottoman document allowing the repair of the mosque by the vakf of Yahşi Beg, Hüseyin Beg and Hundi Hatun dates to 1895. Cf. BOA, I.EV. dosya 10, gömlek 10 (from September 19, 1895). Apart from the fact that Hundi Hatun obviously added to the vakf of the Friday Mosque in Pınarhisarı, nothing more could be revealed as to her personality. In the genealogy of the family prepared by M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, Hundi Hatun is presented as a granddaughter of Plevneli Ali Beg, but the author does not indicate his sources for this identification. Cf. his “Mihal-oğulları,” İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 8 (1960), 290–291. I was unable to find Hundi Hatun’s name in any other sources among the already cited in the previous footnote, which may reveal more of her family lineage. This phenomenon is not unique. One notable example is the mosque of Hacı Evrenos Beg in Yenice-i Vardar (mod. Giannitsa, Greece), which became known by the name İskender Beg Camii after the name of its later sponsor. Cf. Heath W. Lowry and İsmail Erünsal, “The Evrenos Dyansty of Yenice Vardar. Notes & Documents on Hacı Evrenos & the Evrenosoğulları: A Newly Discovered Late-17th Century Şecere (Genealogical Tree), Seven Inscriptions on Stone & Family Photographs,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 32 (2008): 9–191, esp. 54–67. In the registration of 1530 (BOA, TT 370), the zaviye/‘imaret of Yahşi Beg is not enlisted. It was put on record for the first time during the next registration of the pious endowments (vakf ) in the region, which could be dated to April 17–26, 1541. BOA, TT 286, p. 86. Later, it is enlisted in the following registration from 1569: BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 165; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fol. 86a. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 6. Kitap, hazırlayanlar: Seyit Ali Kahraman–Yücel Dağlı, İstanbul, 2002, 71. Kâtib Çelebi, who also described the small town at approximately the same time, mentioned only one mosque and one public bath and he did not give any further details on the buildings. Rumeli und Bosna. Geographisch Beschrieben von Mustafa Ben Abdalla Hadschi Chalfa, translated and edited by Joseph von Hammer, Wien, 1812, 20.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 199

ing of such monumentality in Pınarhisarı.77 The public kitchen of the so-formed complex of Yahşi Beg was preparing and distributing free food to the poor townspeople and undoubtedly was also offering meal and shelter to the travelers, who passed through the town, as was typically done by these institutions in the Ottoman realm.78 The running and maintenance of the complex, including the salaries of the servants at the mosque, as well as the money spent for food served in the soup kitchen, were partially supported by the income from the small bath-house (hamam), which yielded an annual revenue of 1,500 akçe.79 According to Evliya, it was a very small building, which was not frequented by the locals, because almost everyone in Pınarhisarı had a bath at his own house.80 Other buildings the incomes from which must have also supported the upkeep of the zaviye were the inns in the town. In the seventeenth century, Evliya Çelebi testifies to the existence of three hans, whose capacity was to shelter 100–150 horses and mules.81 It might be supposed that some of these inns were also built by members of the Mihaloğlu family. It is apparent that Yahşi Beg exerted huge efforts in providing the town with all needed public buildings and charitable services. Its inhabitants, however, did not increase much over time. During the sixteenth century one observes a demographic growth in the settlement only between the years 1530 and 1541, when the population rose from 89 to 117 households,82 but by the time of the next registration in 1569, it has dropped again to 110 hanes.83 On the other hand, the register from 1541 presents the earliest documentary evidence for Christian residents of the Ottoman Pınarhisarı. At that time there were four Christian households listed in the formerly entirely Muslim quarter mahalle-i Yahşi Beg, as the presence of 26 households of newly converted Muslims in the town suggests that the number of the Christians living in Pınarhisarı might well have been higher before the date of that registration. Be it as it may, obviously the Christian element in Pınarhisarı did not gain firm ground in the course of the sixteenth century. In the next registration of 1569, there was only one Christian hane84 and the number of Christian converts dropped to 14 households. Thus, it seems that the town of Pınarhisarı retained its Muslim appearance from the beginning of the sixteenth century and did not witness a considerable population growth, which the building activities in the town clearly aimed at. The Muslim villages surrounding the town followed similar demographic development. Thus, from among the six entirely Muslim settlements in Mihaloğulları’s domain, four continued their existence and there was no drastic change in their population 77 Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 6. Kitap, p. 71. 78 A list of the foodstuffs used for cooking in Yahşi Beg’s soup kitchen with the daily amounts of money spent for

79 80

81 82 83 84

them is preserved in the Ottoman registers. Cf. BOA, TT 286, p. 86; BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 165; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fol. 86a. Generally on the ‘imarets cf. Feeding People, Feeding Power: Imarets in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Nina Ergin, Christoph K. Neumann and Amy Singer, Istanbul, 2007. BOA, TT 286, p. 86; BOA, TT 541 (from 1569), p. 165; TKGM, KuK 548 (from 1569), fol. 86a. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 6. Kitap, p. 71. A photograph of the building before its demolition is kept in the Municipal Archives in Pınarhisar. It was published by Mustafa Özer, “Pınarhisar Çevresindeki Osmanlı Dönemi Yapıları,” Yöre Dergisi 8:86–87–88 (2007): 57. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 6. Kitap, p. 71. 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri, p. 262 and BOA, TT 286, pp. 70–72. BOA, TT 541, p. 134–136; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 70b –71b. BOA, TT 541, p. 136; KuK 548, fol. 71b.

200

Mariya K iprovska

growth, but the residents of two villages have entirely vanished and they seized to exist prior to 1569.85 Interestingly, in the only ethnically mixed settlement around Pınarhisarı, namely the village of ‘Ali Beg, the Muslim inhabitants followed the identical demographic trend observable in the rest of the Muslim settlements, whereas at the same time the Christians from the same village were steadily increasing in numbers.86 It is notable that this phenomenon is discernible in all of the Christian settlements, which saw unprecedented population increase in the course of the sixteenth century. These were the settlements from which the Mihaloğlus collected the largest income for their pious endowment. The inhabitants of the Christian villages doubled in numbers in the mid-sixteenth century, as it seems that they received a serious boost from outside.87 Many of the new Christian inhabitants were previously unregistered peasants who were not paying taxes (haymane),88 thus suggesting that the economic conditions in the vakf villages and 85 The village of Poryalu, the inhabitants of which were rice-growers, had 34 households in 1530, 48 in 1541,

and 47 in 1569 [370 Numaralı, p. 262; BOA, TT 286, pp. 82–83; BOA, TT 541, pp. 150–151; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 78b –79a]. The village of Ayvaciklü had 29 Muslim hanes in 1530, which rose to 37 in 1541 and dropped again to 32 in 1569 [370 Numaralı, p. 262; BOA, TT 286, pp. 83–84; BOA, TT 541, pp. 136–137; TKGM, KuK 548, fol. 71b]. The village of Büyük Gerde had 26 households in 1530, only 17 in 1541, and 19 in 1569 [370 Numaralı, p. 262; BOA, TT 286, pp. 84–85; BOA, TT 541, p. 164; TKGM, KuK 548, fol. 85b]. In the village of Rum-beglü, there were 16 hanes in 1530, 20 in 1541, and 39 in 1569 respectively [370 Numaralı, p. 262; BOA, TT 286, pp. 85–86; BOA, TT 541, p. 151; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 79a–79b]. Although the other two Muslim villages, Küçük Gerde and Saka Şeyh, retained relative stability in their demographic development until the mid-sixteenth century [370 Numaralı, p. 262; BOA, TT 286, pp. 84–85], they could not escape the big plague (ta‘un-i ekber); all of their villagers disappeared and in result these two settlements never recovered and gradually vanished [BOA, TT 541, p. 164 and TKGM, KuK 548, fol. 85b]. 86 In 1530, the Muslims in the village of ‘Ali Beg were 18 households, in 1541 they were 25, and in 1569 they dropped again to 19. Contrary, the Christian hanes amounted to 15 in 1530, to 18 in 1541, and to 27 in 1569. See 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri, p. 262; BOA, TT 286, pp. 81–82; BOA, TT 541, pp. 140 – 141; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 73b –74a. 87 Although after the registration of 1530 [370 Numaralı, p. 262] the village of Glori disappeared, it is plausible to suggest that its 52 households moved to some of the other Christian villages in the area, since the latter grew in size considerably. Thus, the village of Manastırcık had only 10 hane in 1530 [370 Numaralı, p. 262], 12 in 1541 [BOA, TT 286, p. 86], and 40 in 1569 [BOA, TT 541, pp. 139–140; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 73a–73b]. In 1530, there were 38 households in the village of Küçük Üyüğü [370 Numaralı, p. 262]; they rose to 95 in 1541 [BOA, TT 286, pp. 80–81], and were already 132 in 1569 [BOA, TT 541, pp. 137–139; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 71b –73a]. The village of Büyük Üyüğü saw even greater demographic change: in 1530 it comprised 132 households [370 Numaralı, p. 262], and although it shrunk to 100 hane in 1541 [BOA, TT 286, pp. 72–73], its inhabitants more than tripled in number in 1569, when there were 326 registered households [BOA, TT 541, pp. 152–156; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 79b –81b]. The village of Sazara was inhabited by 215 hane in 1530 [370 Numaralı, p. 262], which remained the same in 1541 [BOA, TT 286, pp. 73–76], but augmented rapidly and in 1569 reached the amazing number of 509 [BOA, TT 541, pp. 156–163; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 81b –85a]. The largest Christian village in the pious endowment of the Mihaloğulları was Yeniceköy: in 1530, it had 230 residents [370 Numaralı, p. 262]; in 1541, they were 277 [BOA, TT 286, pp. 76–80]; and in 1569, 623 households were registered [BOA, TT 541, pp. 141–150; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 74a–78b]. 88 Previously unsettled peasants have been registered in four villages from the Mihaloğulları’s domain in the registration from 1569: in the village of Küçük Üyüğü there were 9 [BOA, TT 541, pp. 137–139; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 71b –73a], in Büyük Üyüğü–28 [BOA, TT 541, pp. 152–156; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 79b –81b], in Sazara–30 [BOA, TT 541, pp. 156–163; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 81b–85a], and in Yeniceköy–63 [BOA, TT 541, pp. 141–150; TKGM, KuK 548, fols. 74a–78b]. Indeed, these four villages were the biggest and the most rapidly growing settlements in the area, which suggests that exactly the newly registered peasants were the source for their unexpectedly fast demographic development. It is notable that this method of settling previously unregistered semi-nomadic peasants on their private lands by offering them certain tax exemptions, which evidently aimed at reviving previously deprived areas, was applied by the Mihaloğulları in their vakf properties else-

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 201

the general lifestyle were attractive for new settlers. Moreover, not only was the population in the Christian villages growing, but also an entirely new settlement was included within the borders of the pious foundation. Although comprising only twelve households in 1569, the newly incorporated village of Paspala89 clearly indicates the prosperity of the vakf villages under the administrative control of the Mihaloğlu family. Besides being closely involved in the rebuilding of their ancestral residence in the town of Pınarhisarı and the actual revitalization and repopulation of their family domain’s countryside, it seems that the Mihaloğlu patrons also dominated the sacred site of a dervish hospice (tekke) near the urban center90 (Fig. 7). The Ottoman tax records from the sixteenth century enable the identification of the architectural patron of the zaviye of Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba as Yahşi Beg’s brother, Mahmud Beg.91 The convent must have been erected in the period between 1542 and 1569, when it appears for the first time in the registers.92 It is explicitly mentioned as zaviye-i Ahmed Baba and was part of the endowment of Mahmud Beg ibn-i Mihal Beg, who had donated the income from one village to the dervish convent. Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that the patron saint of the convent was not originally a holy man of the Bektashi (or any other dervish order’s) cult of venerated saints, but was in fact a historical figure, a member of the Mihaloğlu family, certain Ahmed Beg.93 It seems that the convent has developed around the mausoleum (türbe) of Ahmed Beg, around which a family graveyard also appears to have existed. Ahmed Beg/Baba was only later on canonized in the saintly pantheon of the Bektashis and was worshiped as such by his own descendants and venerated as a saint by the locals.94 Clearly dominated by members of one noble family of Ottoman military commanders, Pınarhisarı’s development is by no means exceptional, but should rather be regarded

89 90 91

92

93 94

where as well. This process can be best illustrated by the enlargement of the Plevne family vakf. See BOA, TT 382, p. 675, 714, 717, 723. This phenomenon is already addressed by Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Türk-İslâm Toprak Hukuku Tatbikatının Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Aldığı Şekiller. III: İmparatorluk Devrinde Toprak Mülk ve Vakıflarının Hususiyeti,” in idem, Türkiye’de Toprak Meselesi–Toplu Eserler 1, İstanbul, 1980, 256–260, 267–270 and idem, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakıflar ve Temlikler,” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942): 341, 360–361. Cf. Machiel Kiel, “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: The Place of Turkish Architecture in the Process,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4:2 (1989): 108–109; Orlin Sabev, “Osmanlıların Balkanları Fethi ve İdaresinde Mihaloğulları Ailesi (XIV.– XIX. Yüzyıllar): Mülkler, Vakıflar, Hizmetler,” OTAM (Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi) 33 (2013): 235; Ayşe Kayapınar, “Kuzey Bulgaristan’da Gazi Mihaloğulları Vakıfları (XV.–XVI. Yüzyıl),” Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 1:10 (2005): 172–173. Modern village of Armutveren, Demirköy. The türbe (mausoleum) of Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba, which was once the nucleus of a bigger dervish convent, is situated in the modern village of Erenler, about 15 km east of Pınarhisar. Further details in Mariya Kiprovska, “Legend and Historicity: the Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba tekkesi and its founder,” in Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel, ed. Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz, Leiden, 2010, 29–45. As the registration from 1569 is the first, in which the zaviye of Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba appears, it is likely that it was built sometime between 1541, when the convent was not included in the tax records of the province (i.e. in BOA, TT 286), and 1569, when its existence was already put on record in the defters from that year. BOA, TT 541, p. 14; TKGM, KuK 548, fol. 8a. Kiprovska, “Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba tekkesi,” 33–38. The legends and the historical evidence of Ahmed Baba/Beg’s existence are discussed at some length in Kiprovska, “Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba tekkesi,” 30–38.

202

Mariya K iprovska

as a typical example of a region developed under the patronage of the Ottoman nobility. Initially entrusted with the lead of the military operations in the bordering regions, these frontier lords (uc begleri) were in very many cases the actual conquerors of the frontier areas. Subsequently, they have been entrusted with the administration and governing of these regions. To understand the scale of their impact on the urban development in the territories they controlled and administered, one needs to look no further than the biggest modern Balkan cities. It suffices to note that two of them, originally created as powerbases of the frontier lords along the Ottoman periphery by members of these noble families, have emerged as the present-day capitals of Balkan countries–namely Skopje (Ott. Üsküb) and Sarajevo (Ott. Saray Bosna). The first developed in result of the building enterprises of its conqueror, Paşa Yiğit Beg, and thereafter of his descendants, İshak Beg and İshakoğlu İsa Beg,95 while the latter was virtually founded by İsa Beg and later patronized by members of other noble families.96 Like the abovementioned examples, several other Balkan cities have developed largely in result of the extensive architectural patronage of the frontier lords. The Evrenosoğlu family left their mark on the development of Gümülcine (mod. Komotini),97 Siroz (mod. Serres),98 Selânik 95 Gliša Elezović, Turski spomenici u Skoplju, Beograd, 1927?; idem, “Skopski Isaković i Paša Yigit beg,”

Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva 11:5 (1931–1932): 159–168; Eran Fraenkel, “Skopje from the Serbian to the Ottoman Empires: Conditions for the Appearance of a Balkan Muslim City” (PhD diss., University of Pennsyvania, 1986); Dragi Gjorgiev, Skopje od turskoto osvojuvanje do krajot na XVII vek, Skopje, 1997; Mustafa Özer, Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi (XIV.–XIX. yüzyıl), Ankara, 2006; Lidiya Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç, Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri, İstanbul, 2008; Maximilian Hartmuth and Ines Tolić, “Turkish Coffee and Béton Bruit: An Architectural Portrait of Skopje,” European Architectural History Network Newsletter 40 (2010): 22–36; Grigor Boykov, “Reshaping Urban Space in the Ottoman Balkans: a Study on the Architectural Development of Edirne, Plovdiv, and Skopje (14th–15th centuries),” in Centres and Peripheries in Ottoman Architecture: Rediscovering a Balkan Heritage, ed. Maximilian Hartmuth, Sarajevo, 2011, 32–45. 96 Hazim Šabanović, “Dvije najstarije vakufname u Bosni,” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 2 (1951): 7–29; idem, “Postanak i razvoj Sarajeva,” Radovi naučnog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 13:5 (1960): 71–89; Mehmed Mujezinović, “Musafirhana i tekija Isa-Bega Ishakovića u Sarajevu,” Naše Starine 3 (1956): 245–52; Behija Zlatar, Zlatno Doba Sarajeva (XVI. Stoljeće), Sarajevo, 1996, 24–79; Ines Aščerić, “Neke napomene o problemima iz historije Isa-Begove tekije,” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 52–53 (2002–2003): 339–350; York Norman, “An Islamic City? Sarajevo’s Islamization and Economic Development, 1461–1604” (PhD diss., Georgetown University, 2005); idem, “Imarets, Islamization and Urban Development in Sarajevo, 1461– 1604,” in Feeding People, Feeding Power: Imarets in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Nina Ergin, Christoph K. Neumann, Amy Singer, Istanbul, 2007, 81–94. 97 Machiel Kiel, “Observations on the History of Northern Greece during the Turkish Rule: Historical and Architectural Description of the Turkish monuments of Komotini and Serres, their Place in the Development of the Ottoman Turkish Architecture, and their Present Condition,” Balkan Studies 12 (1971): 415–444; idem, “The Oldest Monuments of Ottoman-Turkish Architecture in the Balkans: The Imaret and the Mosque of Ghazi Evrenos Bey in Gümülcine (Komotini) and the Evrenos Bey Khan in the Village of Ilıca/Loutra in Greek Thrace (1370–1390),” Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı 12 (1983): 127–133; Heath W. Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructura Development of Northern Greece, İstanbul, 2008, 41–47, 80–84; Ayşegül Kılıç, “Guzât Vakıflarına Bir Örnek: Gümülcine’de Gazi Evrenos Bey Vakfı,” in Balkanlarda Osmanlı Vakıfları ve Eserleri Uluslararası Sempozyumu, İstanbul–Edirne, 9–10– 11 Mayıs 2012, ed. Mehmet Kurtoğlu, Ankara, [n.d.], 259–276; Ayşegül Kılıç, Bir Osmanlı Akıncı Beyi Gazi Evrenos Bey, İstanbul, 2014, 116–125. 98 Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 84–85; idem, Fourteenth Century Ottoman Realities: In Search of Hâcı-Gâzi Evrenos, İstanbul, 2012, 25–44; Evangelia Balta, Les vakıfs de Serrès et de sa region (XVe et XVIe s.), Athènes, 1995, 251–273; Zeki Salih Zengin, “İlk Dönem Osmanlı Vakfiyelerinden Serez’de Evrenuz Gazi’ye Ait Zâviye Vakfiyesi,” Vakıflar Dergisi 28 (2004): 103–120; Kiel, “Observations on the History of Northern Greece,” 415–444; Kılıç, Gazi Evrenos Bey, 125–136.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 203

(mod. Thessaloniki),99 but most outstandingly of Yenice-i Vardar (mod. Giannitsa),100 which became the family’s ancestral residence. In the same way, the Turahan family promoted the development of Thessaly, where the towns of Yenişehir (mod. Larissa) and Tırhala (mod. Trikala) saw the greatest architectural patronage on the part of family members.101 The same patronage of urban centers is to be observed in the Mihaloğlu family, who dominated the architectural and historical development of several towns in the Balkans. Branches of the Mihaloğlu family have established themselves in and built anew the towns of Pınarhisar (Eastern Thrace, Turkey), İhtiman (modern Central Bulgaria), and Plevne (modern Pleven in Danubian Bulgaria).102 Granted to the Mihaloğlus in full proprietorship and retained as their ancestral domains for centuries, the development of these settlements in fact not only mirrors the administrative skills of the frontier lords in governing the border areas, but also reveals the true nature of their authority over the farthest Ottoman frontiers, their place in and impact on the Ottoman social order as a whole. Pınarhisar and its region could thus be regarded as an illustrative example of the development of the Ottoman frontiers and their domination by one noble family of frontier lords. Members of the Mihaloğlu family undoubtedly dominated the development of Pınarhisar and its immediate vicinities. Their names had been associated with this place ever since the first Ottoman conquest of the region and subsequently Mihaloğlu family members were responsible for the repopulation and the revival of the town after its violent conquest. Being practically owned by the family for centuries and chosen as their place of residence, the town of Pınarhisar and its immediate surroundings became a natural stage for the architectural patronage of family members, who were responsible for the erection of the public buildings in the area–an act which should be regarded as an expression of both their power and influence in the region and of their endeavors to revitalize it as the actual local rulers. Moreover, the family possessed as a hereditary holding large parts of the rural environment as well, and has engaged in the repopulation of the area, which additionally helped them become well-entrenched in the region for centuries. This further strengthened the sentiment that the Mihaloğulları were the practical sovereigns in the region and led to the latter’s popular designation as Gazi Mihal toprağı, which was retained well until the twentieth century. 99 Heath W. Lowry, The Evrenos Family & the City of Selânik: Who Built the Hamza Beğ Câmii & Why?, Istan-

bul, 2010; Kılıç, Gazi Evrenos Bey, 136–147.

100 Machiel Kiel, “Yenice-i Vardar (Vardar Yenicesi–Giannitsa): A Forgotten Turkish Cultural Center in Mace-

donia of the 15th and 16th Century,” Studia Bizantina et Neohellenica Neerlandica 3 (1971): 300–329; Heath W. Lowry and İsmail E. Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: Notes & Documents, İstanbul, 2010; Ayşegül Çalı, “Bir Osmanlı Vakıf Şehri: Yenice-i Vardar,” in Balkanlarda Bıraktıklarımız, II. Ulusal Mübadele ve Balkan Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları Kongresi, 22–23 Kasım 2008, Samsun, 2009, 32–47; Kılıç, Gazi Evrenos Bey, 150–160. 101 Machiel Kiel, “Das türkische Thessalien: etabliertes Geschichtsbild versus osmanische Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur Entmythologisierung der Geschichte Griechenlands,” in Reinhard Lauer and Peter Schreiner (eds.), Die Kultur Griechenlands in Mittelalter und Neuzeit: Bericht über das Kolloquium der Südosteuropa-Kommission, 28.–31. Oktober 1992, Göttingen, 1996, 109–196; Levent Kayapınar, “Teselya Bölgesinin Turahan Bey Ailesi ve XV.–XVI. Yüzyıllardaki Hayır Kurumları,” Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 1:10 (2005): 183–195; Mustafa Özer, “Turhanoğulları’nın Balkanlar’daki İmar Faaliyetleri,” in Balkanlar’da İslâm Medeniyeti II. Milletlerarası Sempozyumu Tebliğleri, Tiran, Arnavudluk, 4–7 Aralık 2003, Istanbul, 2006, 247–279. 102 Cf. Kiprovska, “Shaping the Ottoman Borderland,” 185–220 and the literature cited there.

204

Mariya K iprovska

Figure 1. Hızır Beg’s complex in Kırklareli. The mosque (left) and the bath-house (right). Photograph: Mariya Kiprovska.

Figure 2. Hızır Beg’s complex in Kırklareli. View from the covered market (bedesten) adjoining the bath-house. Photograph: Mariya Kiprovska.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 205

Figure 3. Gazi Mihal’s complex in Edirne. The bridge and the zaviye/‘imaret at the rear. Photograph: Mariya Kiprovska.

Figure 4. Gazi Mihal’s complex in Edirne. The bath-house (hamam). Photograph: Mariya Kiprovska.

206

Mariya K iprovska

Figure 5. Gazi Mihal’s complex in Edirne. The mosque (zaviye/‘imaret) of Mihal Beg. Photograph: Mariya Kiprovska.

Figure 6. Hundi Hatun mosque in Pınarhisar. Photograph: Mariya Kiprovska.

Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century 207

Figure 7. The türbe of Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba in the village of Erenler, east of Pınarhisar. Photograph: Mariya Kiprovska.

Cities in Southeastern Thrace Continuity and Transformation

™

IN THE SHADOW OF CONSTANTINOPLE: The unpublished memoirs of Adrianople by F. Pouqueville Alexandra Milanova

T

he long period during which the Balkans were part of the Ottoman Empire left a lasting imprint on the history of the region, on the people and their culture. This undoubtedly affects the external appearance of the Balkan cities and especially the way they are perceived by foreign travelers. The decline, which according to Westerners is the main feature of Balkan cities, is mostly attributed to the physical and intellectual decay of the Ottoman ruling class1, as well as to the spiritual and intellectual degradation, inherited from Islamic religious hostility and inadaptability to cultural development2. However, was this the only point of view about the Balkan cities and why was that? The main objective of this study is to present the impressions of the French diplomat, physician, writer, and traveler François Pouqueville (1770–1838) about Adrianople/ Edirne in the early nineteenth century. An attempt was made to analyze these observations without evaluating the expressed views therein, and in the same time to look for reasons why they do not find place in the published works of the author, dedicated to the Balkans, but can only be found in his unpublished memoirs and letters. It is important to point out that Pouqueville was not just one of the Western travelers who visited Balkans during this period. His impressions actually show a different perspective on Adrianople/Edirne and its inhabitants – the perspective of a Frenchman, captured by the Ottomans, who arrives as a medical specialist to help his seriously ill compatriots who are also prisoners in the Ottoman Empire. This study makes no claim to offer an exhaustive picture of the state of the Ottoman city in the early nineteenth century. Moreover, the cited descriptions cannot be regarded as final verdicts. They simply represent the impressions of Pouqueville about this particular Ottoman city, which are directly affected by his nationality, background, condition

1 Edmund Spencer, Travels in European Turkey in 1850, volume II, reprint, BiblioBazaar, Charleston, South

Carolina, 2009, 74.

2 Ármin Vambéry, Western Culture in Eastern Lands, London, 1906, 281 at: https://archive.org/stream/

westernculturei00vmgoog#page/n8/mode/2up, 15.10.2013, 15:20.

210

Alexandra Milanova

and attitudes, as well as by the specific historical period. Thus, an attempt was made to encourage future thoughts and interpretations on the theme. François Charles Hugues Laurent Pouqueville was born on 4 November 1770 in Le Merlerault, France3. After graduating with honors from the college of Caen4 and the Lisieux seminary (Lower Normandy), he returned to his hometown, where he was ordained for deacon and soon afterwards for vicar. After the French Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution of 1791 that separated church and state5, Pouqueville left the church and in 1794 became a teacher in the local school. A year later, in 1795, he was appointed Vice-President of the Municipal Council in Le Merlerault6. Impressed by the abilities of Pouqueville, the town’s physician Dr. Nicolas Cochin (who had been his colleague at the college of Caen) took him as student-surgeon. In 1796, Pouqueville left Le Merlerault for Paris and began to study medicine under Dr. Antoine Dubois – a close friend of Dr. Cochin and Professor in the Faculty of Medicine in Paris, who was later Empress Marie-Louise’s doctor when she gave birth to Napoleon’s only son, Napoleon II, in 18117. In 1798, when then General Bonaparte’s expedition to Egypt was decided upon, François Pouqueville was one of the surgeons in the accompanying commission of sciences and arts of Egypt. Due to unfavorable weather conditions in the Orient, however, the health of Pouqueville soon aggravated and, having caught a bad fever that restrained him from continuing his scientific research, he was advised to return to France to receive better medical attention8.

3 Le Merlerault is a small town located in the Orne department in Lower Normandy, Northwestern France,

4

5

6

7 8

169 km from Paris. At the end of the eighteenth century, the city’s population numbered 1,198 people. According to data from the last census in 2010, the townspeople are 906. (Source: Ldh/EHESS/Cassini. Des villages de Cassini aux communes d’aujourd’hui sur le site de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales: http://cassini.ehess.fr/cassini/fr/, 18.08.2013, 14:20). Not to be mixed with the festival city Cannes, but Caen – town in northwestern France, located 238 km northwest of Paris, the center of the Lower Normandy region. (Source: INSEE sur http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/ nomenclatures/cog/, 18.08.2013 г., 14:40). When the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the Constitution of 1791 was adopted, in France was established a so-called “laïcité”. The translation of this term in another language is not easy as there is no direct match. The notion “secularization” is probably the closest, but still does not transmit the full sense of the French concept. In fact, it is a principle denoting the absence of religious involvement in the government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in the religious affairs. The official position of the French Republic is that religion is a matter of personal choice and preference, which, however, must not impair the rights of others. This effectively defines France as a country without a state religion. Thus, the Catholic Church lost much of its influence and prestige, as it has no definite status in the French Republic. This caused a large number of priests (including Pouqueville) to renounce their spiritual dignity and to focus on public service. Cf. Catherine Kintzler, Qu’est-ce que la laïcité ?, Vrin collection Chemins philosophiques, 2007, 128. In the biography of Pouqueville by L. J. N. Monmerqué, it is only mentioned that Pouqueville graduated from the Lisieux seminary. More clarity about this period of his life provides Joseph Rombault: Joseph Rombault, “François Pouqueville membre de l’Institut, par l’abbé J. Rombault”. Bulletin de la Société historique et archéologique de l’Orne, 1887, 10. Louis-Jean-Nicolas Monmerqué, “Notice historique sur Pouqueville par M. de Monmerqué”. Biographie universelle, Volume LXXVII, Paris, 1845, 4. Jules Auguste Lair, “La Captivite de Francois Pouqueville en Moree”. Recueil des publications diverses de l’Institut de France, Paris, 1902, 650.

211

In the shadow of Constantinople

On 14 Brumaire, Year VII of the French Revolutionary Calendar (4 November 1798), Pouqueville boarded the Italian merchant ship Madona di Monte Negro in Alexandria. It was sailing to Italy and approaching Calabria when it came under attack by Barbary (North Africa) coast pirates. François Pouqueville was among those taken prisoner. Brought to Navarino, and then to Tripolitza, the capital of Peloponnese, he remained in custody of the Pasha of Morea, Mustafa, as the Ottoman Empire was at war with France10. The French prisoners spent seven months (including the harsh 1798–1799 winter) in Tripolitza and enjoyed the goodwill of the pasha. In the spring of 1799, the sultan ordered his transfer over land and sea with his co-prisoners to Constantinople, where they were incarcerated in the Fortress of the Seven Towers (Yedikule)11. Pouqueville was a captive in the Ottoman capital for 25 months. Soon after arriving in Constantinople, François Pouqueville gained some liberty of movement, as his jailers learned about his medical skills. On occasions, he convinced his guards to let him travel through the City of Constantinople and along the Bosphorus, all the way to the Black Sea, to attend to other French prisoners who were gravely ill and held in a distant jail. While jailed, Pouqueville studied Modern Greek. Years later, he was explaining to his friends that both in Tripolitsa and the Seven Towers he was visiting Greek schools, where, together with the Greek children, he was studying their native language12. Pouqueville was released on 5 Thermidor, Year IX (24 July 1801), and returned to Paris in the fall of the same year. Upon his return to the French capital, he submitted his doctorate thesis “De febre adeno-nervosa, seu de peste orientali dessertatio” – a work on the oriental plague that caused him to be nominated for the awards of the decade. In 1805, François Pouqueville published his first book “Travels in Morea, Constantinople, Albania, and in many other parts of the Ottoman Empire in 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801” (“Voyage en Morée, à Constantinople, en Albanie, et dans plusieurs autres par9

9 Brumaire (from French brume, “fog”) is the second month of a new revolutionary calendar, which covers the

period from 22 October to 21 November. The French Revolutionary Calendar replaced the Gregorian Calendar in French First Republic. The new calendar was created and implemented during the French Revolution, and used by the French government for about 12 years from late 1793 until 1805, and for 18 days by the Paris Commune in 1871. In this calendar, the first day of the French Revolution – September 22, is considered the beginning of the year. (Source: Philippe-François-Nazaire Fabre d’Églantine, Calendrier de la république française, une et indivisible, au nom de la commission chargée de sa confection, Paris, 1794, exemplaire de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France, 4). 10 Monmerqué, Notice historique sur Pouqueville, 5. 11 The Fortress of Seven Towers (in Turkish: Yedikule, in French: Sept Tours, in Greek: Ἑπταπύργιον) is located in the Yedikule neighbourhood of Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey. The first walls were built during the reign of Constantine the Great, and another wall was erected under Emperor Theodosius II in the 5th century. Thus, Constantinople became the best fortified city in the world then. The walls were pierced during the capture of the city by the Ottomans in 1453. Sultan Mehmed II restored the fortress in 1458. By adding three larger towers to the four pre-existing ones (towers 8 to 11) on the inner Theodosian wall, he formed the Fortress of Seven Towers. During the Napoleonic Wars, the fortress was the prison of many French prisoners, including the writer and diplomat Francois Pouqueville, who was detained there for more than two years (1799 to 1801) and who presents an extensive description of the fortress in his “Voyage en Morée, à Constantinople, en Albanie, et dans plusieurs autres parties de l’Empire Othoman, pendant les années 1798, 1799, 1800 et 1801”, Gabon, Paris, 1805, Volumes 1–3. According to the current management of the fortress, the last prisoner was held in the Seven Towers as late as 1837. (Source: Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü’ne Bağlı Müzeler, İstanbul İli Müzeleri, İstanbul Hisarlar Müzesi Müdürlüğü, Yedikule Zindanları: http://www.kulturvarliklari. gov.tr/TR,43844/yedikule-zindanlari/, 24.08.2013, 12: 30. 12 François Pouqueville, Prisonnier chez les Turcs, Paris: Librairie illustrée, 1893, 38.

212

Alexandra Milanova

ties de l’Empire Othoman, pendant les années 1798, 1799, 1800 et 1801”) in three volumes. It was dedicated to the Emperor Napoleon I and was a huge international literary success. The Emperor himself read the book and appreciated it not just as travelogue in which Pouqueville describes the places he visited, but “he found the author accurate and wise observer who knows the difficult nature and inherent suspicion of the Turks”13. His knowledge of the region and the local languages made him the ideal diplomatic agent for Napoleon and his foreign minister Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, who nominated him as Napoleon’s General Commissioner (i.e. consul general) to the court of Ali Pasha of Ioannina14. Pouqueville accepted the post that would also enable him to pursue his studies about Greece, left Paris and in March 1806 met for the first time the governor of the sancak of Ioannina. Ali Pasha, who, driven by the desire to win over Napoleon I for his ideas of independence from the Sublime Porte, was extremely benevolent to the new French Consul and allowed him to move freely within his domain. Thus, the diplomatic status of Pouqueville enabled him to explore Greece in its entirety as far as Macedonia and Thrace. After Napoleon’s abdication in 1815, the Consulate General of Ioannina has been abolished. François Pouqueville left Ioannina and was sent as French Consul to Patras until 1816, soon to be followed by his brother Hugues Pouqueville, who replaced him as Consul15. In 1835, the health of Pouqueville aggravated sharply. Aged 68, he died peacefully on 20 December 1838 at his residence at 3 Rue de l’Abbaye in Paris. In the period from 1798 to 1816, Pouqueville spent almost 13 years (about 3 of them in captivity – first in Morea, thereafter in Constantinople) in different parts of the Balkans. After his last return to France, he published his numerous studies, memories and impressions about the everyday life in the Balkans in: “Travels in Epirus, Albania, Macedonia, and Thessaly” (1820)16, “History of the rebirth of Greece” (“Histoire de la régénération de la Grèce”, 1824)17, and his fundamental work “Travels in Greece” (“Voyage de la Grèce”) in six volumes – the first five of them were published in the period 1820–182218, and the sixth – in the period 1826–182719. Two of his books were dedicated to the character and the life of Ali Pasha of Ioannina. These are: “Prisoner of the Turks and the Tigre 13 Rombault, François Pouqueville membre de l’Institut, 3. 14 Ali Pasha of Tepelena or of Yannina (Ioannina), surnamed Aslan (“the Lion”) or the “Lion of Yannina”, was

15 16 17 18 19

born between the years of 1740 and 1750 in the village of Beçisht, near the Albanian town of Tepelenë. In 1787, he was awarded the Pashaluk of Trikala in reward for his services at Banat during the Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791). In 1788, he seized control of Ioannina. He took advantage of a weak Ottoman government to expand his territory still further until he gained control of most of Albania, western Greece and the Peloponnese. Gradually he established almost autonomous state, the center of which was in Ioannina, and thus he had a strong resistance to the central authorities. Ali Pasha of Tepelena died in 1822 fighting against the Ottoman army in the Monastery of St Panteleimon on the island in Lake Pamvotis in Epirus. Cf. Katherine Elizabeth Fleming, The Muslim Bonaparte: diplomacy and orientalism in Ali Pasha’s Greece, Princeton University Press, 1999. Monmerqué, Notice historique sur Pouqueville, 9. François Pouqueville, Travels in Epirus, Albania, Macedonia, and Thessaly, London: Printed for Sir Richard Phillips and Co, 1820. François Pouqueville, Histoire de la régénération de la Grèce, Paris, 1824, 4 Volumes. François Pouqueville, Voyage de la Grèce, Paris, 1820–1822, Volumes 1–5. François Pouqueville, Voyage de la Grèce, Paris, 1826–1827, Volume 6.

213

In the shadow of Constantinople

of Ioannina” (“Prisonnier ches les Turcs & Le Tigre de Janina”, 1820) and “Notice of the tragic end of Ali Teleben” (“Notice sur la fin tragique d’Ali-Tébélen”, 1822)21. Several years later, Pouqueville wrote “Historical and diplomatic memoirs about trade and French institutions in the Levant from 500 to the end of the XVII century” (“Mémoire historique et diplomatique sur le commerce et les établissements français au Levant, depuis l’an 500 jusqu’à la fin du XVII siècle”, 1833) 22, “Greece in the picturesque Universe” («La Grèce, dans l’Univers pittoresque”, 1835)23, etc. Along with the three volumes of “Travels in Morea, Constantinople, Albania, and in many other parts of the Ottoman Empire in 1798, 1799, 1800, and 1801”, the total number of his published works exceeds 15 – over 4,000 pages, dedicated to various aspects of life of the Balkan people (political, economic, social, cultural, etc.), their traditions, customs, and daily life. Deep knowledge of the region and the Greek language allowed Pouqueville to communicate directly with the native Balkan people and to collect genuine information on various topics, which he summarized and analyzed in diaries and notes. Without sufficient grounds, the name of the French diplomat, physician and writer, was associated only with the Greek national independence movement. Indeed, during his travels across the Ottoman Empire, Pouqueville not only studied and described the daily life of the Greek people, but he also became one of the first Philhellenes24, who spoke out in favor of the restoration of the Greek state. However, his works contain much information (as a result both of his personal observations and rumors or information from other authors) about the everyday life and customs of Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, and, last but not least, Turks. Along with a wealth of information about the everyday life of the local population, Pouqueville also described towns and places visited by him in different parts of the Balkan Peninsula – Morea, Albania, Epirus, Thrace, and Constantinople, focusing on buildings and facilities which most impressed him. Because of the enormous contribution and the international popularity of his works, in 1827 Pouqueville was invited to become an honorary member of Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres25. He was also elected member of Institut d’Égypte, honorary 20

20 François Pouqueville, Prisonnier ches les Turcs & Le Tigre de Janina, Romans et Aventures Celebres — Edi-

tion Illustree — La Librairie Illustree Paris, 1820.

21 François Pouqueville, Notice sur la fin tragique d’Ali-Tébélen, Paris, 1822. 22 François Pouqueville, Mémoire historique et diplomatique sur le commerce et les établissements français au

Levant, depuis l’an 500 jusqu’à la fin du XVII siècle, Paris, 1833.

23 François Pouqueville, La Grèce, dans l’Univers pittoresque, Paris, 1835. 24 Philhellenism (“the love of Greek culture”) and Philhellene (“the admirer of Greeks and everything Greek”),

from the Greek φίλος philos “friend, lover” + ελληνισμός hellenism “Greek”, was an intellectual fashion prominent mostly at the turn of the 19th century. In antiquity, the term ‘philhellene’ (Greek: φιλέλλην, from φίλος – philos, “dear one, friend” + Έλλην – Hellen, “Greek”) was used to describe both non-Greeks who were fond of Greek culture and Greeks who patriotically upheld their culture. The Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon defines “philhellen” as “fond of the Hellenes, mostly of foreign princes, as Amasis; of Parthian kings[...]; also of Hellenic tyrants, as Jason of Pherae and generally of Hellenic (Greek) patriots. Liddell, H. G. & Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie, Oxford, 1940 at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/, 06.10.2013, 12:15). 25 L’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres is a French learned society devoted to the humanities, founded in February 1663 as one of the five academies of the Institut de France. The other four are: Académie française (French Academy, concerning the French language) founded in 1635, during the reign of Cardinal Riche-

214

Alexandra Milanova

member of Paris’ Academy of Medicine, associate member of the Royal Academy of Marseille, member of the Ionian Academy of Corcyre, member of the Society of Sciences of Bonn, and Knight of the Legion of Honor26. A careful reading of the published works of François Pouqueville would reveal that in these over 4,000 pages the author offers little information about the vilâyet of Edirne. Moreover, its largest city Edirne/Adrianople is not mentioned even once. This is a particularly intriguing fact that deserves more attention. The curious thing is that Pouqueville, who described in his works almost all the settlements he visited or went through (for example Psara27, Farsala28, and Trikala29), including villages like Kiafa (Κιάφα), Perichati (Περιχάτι), Milos (Μύλος), Tzagari (Τζαγάρι), Agia Paraskevi (Αγία Παρασκευή), etc., which are far smaller than Edirne in size and population density and equally unknown to foreigners, gave no information about the largest and most famous city of Eastern Thrace. The lack of information can be easily explained if the French diplomat had never visited Edirne, but this was not the case. As mentioned above, during his prolonged captivity in Constantinople, Pouqueville gained some liberty of movement in and around the Fortress of Seven Towers, and sometimes he had the possibility to travel outside the Ottoman capital to provide medical care for his seriously ill countrymen. It was during this period that he visited twice Edirne30, which suggests that there might be another reason for the lack of any information about the city in his writings. It is not also relevant to state that Edirne was a small, rural Balkan town, which was not famous among foreigners, so that was the reason Pouqueville did not give any information about it in his books. Furthermore, almost all Western travelers that passed through the Balkans from the end of the fourteenth to the early twentieth century, did not miss the opportunity to visit the main city of the Vilayet of Edirne, which was also

26 27

28 29 30

lieu and consisting of 40 members, known as “immortals” (in French: “immortels”); Académie des sciences (Academy of Sciences) founded in 1666 by the Sun King (le Roi-Soleil) Louis XIV; Académie des Beaux-Arts (Academy of Fine Arts) created in 1816 and Académie des sciences morales et politiques (Academy of Moral and Political Sciences) founded in 1795, suppressed in 1803, reestablished in 1832. The Academy was founded in 1663 as Royal Academy of Inscriptions and Medals, bringing together specialized experts in the field of the history of antiquity. Its co-founder and patron was the French Finance Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert. The primary objective of the Academy was to compose or obtain Latin inscriptions to be written on public monuments and medals issued to celebrate the events of King Louis’ reign. In 1692, the Academy was located at Versailles, and in 1701 it has been given the status of a state institution. The name Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres was given in 1716. Its goal is the study of the monuments, documents, languages, ​​and cultures of the civilizations of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Era of Classicism, and of the non-European civilizations. Prominent members of the Academy are: Charles Perrault, François Pouqueville, Franc Miklošič, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, etc. (Source: Histoire de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres sur http://www. aibl.fr/presentation/histoire-de-l-academie/, 10.09.2013 г., 07:50). Rombault, François Pouqueville membre de l’Institut, 7. Psara (Greek: Ψαρά) is the only city in the Greek Aegean island of this name, which in the end of eighteenth – beginning of the nineteenth century was inhabited by less than 800 people. Διονύσιος Σολωμός, Άπαντα τὰ εὑρισκόμενα, Αθήνα, 1901, 99 in Anemi digital library). Farsala (Greek: Φάρσαλα) is a small town located in the south of Thessaly, Greece. Trikala (Greek: Τρίκαλα) is a city in northwestern Thessaly, Greece. It is located to the east of Ioannina and Metsovo, to the south of Grevena and to the southwest of Larissa. Henri Dehérain, «Une correspondance inédite de François Pouqueville, consul de France à Janina et à Patras sous le premier Empire et la Restauration». Revue de l’histoire des colonies française, Volume XI/ 1921, 3e trimestre, Paris, 1921, 38.

In the shadow of Constantinople

215

the capital of the Ottoman Empire from the reign of sultan Murad I (1362–1389) to the capture of Constantinople in 1453. As a possible reason, one could also suggest the ethnic composition of the population in Edirne. It is well known that the interests of Pouqueville were primarily related to the fate of the Greek people and their liberation. The philhellenism of the French diplomat explains why his books focus chiefly on various aspects of the everyday life of Greeks living in the Ottoman Empire, but it does not explain why Pouqueville’s writings contain no information about Edirne. Furthermore, it should be noted that both in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century and today the population of this city is not ethnically homogeneous. According to the statistics, presented by Evangelia Balta in her article “La communauté grecque d’Andrinople, milieu du XIXe siècle-1922”, in 1831 in Adrianople there were 8,313 Muslim households, about 6,197 Rums households, 1,541 Jews, 1,443 Armenians and about 750 Gypsy31. In 1858, the Greek consul in Edirne K. Phoibos mentioned that 45,000 Greeks, 35,000 Turks, 5,000 Bulgarians, 5,000 Armenians, 4,000 Jews, 6,000 Albanians and about 30 “European” families lived in the city32. The data indicate that the highest share was of Muslims, but the Greek population living in the city was almost equally numerous or even greater, at least in the middle of nineteenth century. It is no coincidence that most of the Western travelers, as well as most of the local population still called the city Adrianople instead of Edirne (as it is the Turkish name), even after its conquer by the Ottomans33. In fact, the reason why Edirne is not even mentioned in the works of François Pouqueville is indicated in one of the letters he sent to his friend Pierre Ruffin in December 1809: ... After the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, this city [Adrianople – my note], was constantly in its shadow, like a little child hiding behind the skirts of his mother. And though it has been always a capital, now it has lost its greatness and it is nothing but a muddy, dirty city. Perhaps that is why the local people are nothing but gossipers, drunks, bums, and informers; perhaps it has always been and it is just amazing how they do not spray the skull from the sublime qualities that have inside. But let us not bother you, my dear Ruffin, with description of this dirty town and its people34.

The extremely negative, even rude attitude of Pouqueville, which is clear from the quoted text, might determine his decision not to include information about Edirne and its inhab31 Evangelia Balta, «La communauté grecque d’Andrinople, milieu du XIXe siècle-1922». I kath’imas Anatoli,

Volume 4, Athens, 1998, 40.

32 Ibid. 33 During the presentation of this paper, delivered in Edirne as part of the Cities in South Eastern Thrace: Conti-

nuity and Transformation seminar, a suggestion appeared that Pouqueville was not just a diplomat, physician, writer and traveler, but he was also a spy of Napoleon. Therefore he brought information about the situation in Adrianople/Edirne and its inhabitants, but this information was confidential to the general public and thence remained unpublished and covered. Although this assumption is reasonable, a research made by the author of this paper at the French National Archives and the National Library of France before and after the seminar, shows that there are no other documents than those referred to in this paper (at least accessible to the public) relating to Edirne. 34 Edouard Champion, Une Correspondance inédite de François Pouqueville, Paris, 1921, 25

216

Alexandra Milanova

itants. This choice is largely determined by the desire of the author to describe the places he visited and the people he met objectively and fairly, without being influenced either by the historical context, or the occasion of the visit and his current condition. In this case, it is obvious that he failed to adhere to these principles and therefore he prefered not to give any information about the city, rather than impose his emotionally charged, biased impressions to the readers. Of course, this is a speculation. There may be other reasons, much more plausible, explaining why the published works of Pouqueville do not contain any information about Edirne, but at present they have not been proven in any way. The fact that the books of François Pouqueville lack even brief information about Edirne and its region does not mean that this city did not impressed the French explorer. On the contrary. A deeper study of the epistolary heritage of Pouqueville shows that his unpublished memoirs, reflected in the numerous letters sent to his longtime friends, the French diplomat Pierre Ruffin35 and Colonel (later Lieutenant General) Joseph Claude Marie Charbonnel36, as well as to his younger brother Hugues, contain information about Edirne (or Adrianople, as the city is called in the authentic papers). The city is mentioned for the first time in a letter to Pierre Ruffin from December 1809. A more detailed description follows in the letter that Pouqueville sent to his brother Hugues a year later, on 8 October, 1810: ...Nothing impressive in Adrianople, on the contrary, it is like all other Turkish cities. Everywhere we see low houses, the majority of them wooden, dirty and without any hint of style. There is nothing impressive, even in the houses of the local notables, regardless of the welfare of their inhabitants. The streets are too narrow and uneven, making the transportation of goods and people very difficult. The city has no museums or theaters, but only huts, cottages and cafes where men gather to drink coffee and smoke. The only imposing building is the sultan Mosque [the Selimiye Mosque of sultan Selim II – my note] which stands as a bright spot in this dirty city37.

This description of the city is no surprise to readers, because, compared to some large western European cities during this period, the Ottoman cities looked very different. The Western travelers saw low, dirty houses, mostly wooden anywhere. Such was the architecture of western European cities centuries ago. Many travelers tried to find a plausible explanation of this retrograde outlook. Some of them suggested that since the Ottomans were military people who were used to living in camps and barracks, they were not interested in building a stately home. This people considered towns to be temporary settle35 Pierre Ruffin is a French diplomat, called Nestor of the Orient by his countrymen. He met Pouqueville during

Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign and then he acquainted him with his observations on daily life in the East.

36 Joseph Claude Marie Charbonnel was born on March 24, 1775, in Dijon and died on March 10, 1846 in Paris.

He is a French military man who took part in the French Revolution, the Egyptian Campaign of Napoleon and the military campaigns of the Grand Army (La Grande Armée). For his bravery and merit in the victories of the French troops, General Sharbonel was honored with many awards and honorary degrees. His name was engraved on the western part of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Charles Mullié, “Joseph Claude Marie Charbonnel”. Biographie des célébrités militaires des armées de terre et de mer de 1789 à 1850, Volume 1, Paris, 1852, 752–756. 37 Dehérain, Une correspondance inédite de François Pouqueville, 47.

In the shadow of Constantinople

217

ments that they would have to abandon after a short time, and they used their own homes only to avoid thieves, cold, heat, and rain, i.e. for the same reasons that made travelers staying at inns38. This behavior, however, were inherent not only to the Ottoman Turks, but also to the Greeks, Jews, and Armenians who avoided any architectural ostentation. As far as Lady Montagu can be trusted, the real explanation was much more different. Upon the death of the owner, each house was available to the sultan. That’s why no one was willing to invest in a home from which his family may not benefit. The only wish of local men was to build a house that will stand for the rest of their lives and they were indifferent whether it will collapse or not a year later39. Other authors argue that Turks were afraid to show their wealth, because in a country in which all men except one were slaves, riches and property can be dangerous. The final result was that while the interior of the house was full of “all luxury which vanity may have and money may obtain”, the exterior of the buildings was “pathetic and mediocre view”40. The impressions of Pouqueville about the local people were even more negative. They find place in the letter from February 1811, addressed to General Joseph Claude Marie Charbonnel: They [the people of Edirne – my note] do not like anyone, and upon learning that you come from Constantinople, for whatever reason, become more evil... A population of Turks, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Jews live in town but the Turks are most numerous, followed by the Greek population. The Turks always appear calm; there are among officials obsequious and arrogant, the Janissaries are fierce and the owners of inns – drunk and quarrelsome. As for the merchants of the Bazar, they are so lazy that buyers do not dare to disturb them. Greeks, on the other hand, are the exact opposite – slick, liking grain, servile, never worried about their independence. Higher Greek clergy profess the Christian doctrine of obedience and submission to the ruler and I must admit that the Turks have given complete freedom for the priests. The same pertain to bankers, traders and other mobile populations. Against this tolerance, showed by Turkish authorities, the impressive building of the largest mosque stands and constantly reminds of the population which is the dominant religion41.

The information given by Pouqueville is extremely indicative of the policy of the conquerors regarding the religion of the subjugated local population – an issue that has long been and still remains subject of many discussions among historians. The quoted text allow us to conclude that the Ottomans gave to the local people the possibility to choose their future place in society, namely: to continue living in their established communities and to pay taxes, or to become part of the ruling Ottoman administration, taking advantage of its benefits. These are the last impressions of Adrianople/Edirne that Pouqueville shares with his closest persons. The city has never been mentioned in the correspondence which he had with his friends and his younger brother for years before Pouqueville’s death in 1838. It 38 Božidar Jezernik, Wild Europe: The Balkans in the Gaze of Western Travellers, London: Saqi in association

with the Bosnian Institute, 2004, 234–235.

39 Mary Wortley Montagu, Lettres,Volume II, Paris, 2010, 60–70. 40 Jezernik, Wild Europe, 236. 41 Champion, Une Correspondance inédite, 39–40.

218

Alexandra Milanova

could be assumed that some letters, diaries, notes or other documents of the French diplomat containing information about Edirne are not preserved today, i.e. over time they have been lost or destroyed. This is however very unlikely, given the significant quantity of primary and secondary, published and unpublished documents of and about Pouqueville, which are kept in the National Library of France. Despite these circumstances, despite the extremely small number of preserved letters and memoirs of François Pouqueville on Adrianople/Edirne, they provide very picturesque description of the city and its residents in the early nineteenth century. This information, presented through the eyes of a Frenchman, a prisoner in Constantinople, is certainly interesting and curious reading material. But the most important information given by this Westerner is associated primarily with the policy of the conquerors regarding the religious affiliation of the subjugated local population. Despite its status of a prisoner, despite the short stay in the city and his highly negative attitude caused by the two visits to Edirne, Pouqueville witnessed the free choice of denomination that existed in the town. This statement becomes even more important considering the fact that he described in another of his books how in Elbasan (one of the largest cities in Central Albania) “...the Raia stoops as the Aga walks, with his eyes on the ground, in the presence of the lordly Turks; he halts when they approach, dismounts as they pass by; he is happy if the tyrant content himself with disdaining to notice him. Such is the condition of the Christians, in their original native land, in which they can acquire no real property, whom the vilest Turk may insult, and outrage with impunity”42. Of course, it is possible that the impression of choice and freedom of denomination existing in Edirne should be attributed to the influence of other people, although this is unlikely. The only people Pouqueville spoke to during his stay in the city were two Turks who accompanied him during his journey from Constantinople to Adrianople and who cared about his safety, and the seriously ill Frenchmen, whom he helped. There is no reason to believe that the Turks wanted to suggest anything of Pouqueville, and his compatriots were in such a bad condition that even if they had the greatest desire, they were unable to communicate with him, since almost all the time they were unconscious and raving. To prove that a religious autonomy within the Ottoman Empire was fictitious or actual was not a purpose of this study. But this was the impression of a Westerner, an Ottoman prisoner, who has graduated with honors from the Lisieux Seminary and for several years was a vicar in Le Merlerault. All this underlines the reliability of his conclusions. The above facts allow us to assume that, in fact, the travelogues of Pouqueville do not contain any information about Edirne not because of his desire to describe the places he visited and the people he met objectively and fairly, but precisely because of the presence of choice and freedom of denomination existing in the city. This speculation might sound implausible, even ungrounded, but it is very likely to be true. While writing about Ancient Greece in the numerous major works and articles he published, François Pouqueville mostly invested himself in denouncing the state of oppression crushing the non-Muslims (and Greeks in particular) under Ottoman domination. All along he 42 François Pouqueville, Travels in Epirus, Albania, Macedonia, and Thessaly, London: Printed for Sir Richard

Phillips and Co, 1820, 24.

In the shadow of Constantinople

219

described the daily life, the usages and customs, and the traditions of the Greeks of the Peloponnese surviving under their appalling economic and political conditions. In this context, the policy of the conquerors regarding the religious affiliation of the subjugated local population, witnessed by Pouqueville in Edirne, just did not fit. Why to support the Greek rebellion and the liberation movements of other non-Muslim communities, if their situation in the Ottoman Empire was not so dramatically bad? And what is this oppression if the Christians outnumber the Muslims in Edirne, if there is choice and freedom of denomination? The religious autonomy (according to his observations) surely was not a prove of welfare but maybe that was the reason why Pouqueville chose to include no information about Edirne and its population in his books – not to contradict his many descriptions of appalling conditions and tyranny in which the local people were living in other parts of the Balkans under Ottoman domination. And in fact, that is another way he created biases – without changing the facts, but without presenting the whole information to the readers.

CONTRIBUTORS

Dilyana Boteva is a Professor in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Grigor Boykov is a Research Fellow in the Center for Regional Studies and Analyses at the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Danaila Grudeva is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Hristo Hristozov is a Doctor of History from the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Mariya Kiprovska is a Research Fellow in the Center for Regional Studies and Analyses at the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Filip Kolev is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Ivaylo Lozanov is an Assistant Professor in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Dessislava Lyubenova is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Alexandra Milanova is a Doctor of History from in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Teodora Nedyalkova is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”. Kostadin Rabadjiev is a Professor in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Mustafa H. Sayar is a Professor in the Department of History of Istanbul University, email: [email protected].

Georgi Sengalevich is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Vladimir Staykov is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Totko Stoyanov is a Professor in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Daniela Stoyanova is an Assistant Professor in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Stoyan Terziev is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email: [email protected]. Dragomir Tochev is a PhD candidate in the Department of History of the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”, email:

CITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE CONTINUITY AND TRANSFORMATION Edited by Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, Ivaylo Lozanov ‚ English First Edition English Editing Margarit Damyanov Layout Maria Baramova Book format 70х100/16 Book size 14 St. Kliment Ohridski University Press www.press-su.com