Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia II: Nicomedia 1898249075

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Maps and plans
List of illustrations
Map of the Gulf of Nicomedia
1. Nicomedia in Late Antiquity
Capital of the Roman Empire
The Age of Constantine
Julian and Libanius
The Great Earthquake
Religious Controversies
The Age of Justinian
The Visit of Theodore of Sykeon
The Archaeological Record
The Late Antique City
2. Byzantine Nicomedia
The Dark Ages
The Macedonian Age and its Aftermath
The Comneni, Turks and Crusaders
Lascarid Nicomedia
The Final Years
The First Ottoman Centuries
3. The Fortifications of Nicomedia
The Walls of Diocletian
The Citadel
The Outer Wall
Types of Masonry
Dating the Walls
History of the Walls
4. Castles of the Gulf
Philokrene (Bayramoğlu)
Ritzion (Darica)
Dakibyza (Gebze)
Niketiaton (Eskihisar)
Libyssa (Dil Iskelesi)
Charax (Hereke)
The Southern Shore
Kibotos, Xerigordos (Coban Kale) and the First Crusade
The Defences of the Gulf
Bibliography
Plates

Citation preview

■

SURVEY OF MEDIEVAL CASTLES OF ANATOLIA II

BRITISH INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ANKARA Monograph 21

SURVEY OF MEDIEVAL CASTLES OF ANATOLIA II

NICOMEDIA

Clive Foss

Published by THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ANKARA

1996

British Institute ofArchaeology at Ankara c/o British Academy, 20-21 Cornwall Terrace London NW1 4QP

This book is available from Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford 0X1 1HN

ISBN 1 898249 07 5 ISSN 0969-9007 © British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 1996

All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

The cover shows a view ofthe castle of Niketiaton, near Nicomedia, seen from the north. (Photo Clive Foss)

Typeset by Bronwen Campbell, Lymm, Cheshire Printed by Stephen Austin, Hertford, Great Britain

CONTENTS PREFACE

v

LIST OF MAPS, PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

vii

1 NICOMEDIA IN LATE ANTIQUITY Capital of the Roman Empire The Age of Constantine Julian and Libanius The Great Earthquake Religious Controversies The Age of Justinian The Visit of Theodore of Sykeon The Archaeological Record The Late Antique City

1 1 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14

2. BYZANTINE NICOMEDIA The Dark Ages The Macedonian Age Comneni, Turks and Crusaders Lascarid Nicomedia The Final Years The First Ottoman Centuries

16 16 18 19 22 24 26

3. THE FORTIFICATIONS OF NICOMEDIA The Walls of Diocletian The Citadel The Byzantine Walls The Outer Wall Types of Masonry Dating the Walls History of the Walls ,

29 29 31 33 38 38 39 .41

4. CASTLES OF THE GULF Philokrene (Bayramoğlu) Ritzion (Danca) Dacibyza (Gebze) Niketiaton (Eskihisar) Inner Fortress Lower Walls The Outer Wall Chronology and Function Libyssa (Dil Iskelesi) Charax (Hereke) The Southern Shore Kibotos, Xerigordos (Qoban Kale) and the First Crusade The Defences of the Gulf

44 46 49 50 50 52 55 57 57 59 59 61 63 68

ABBREVIATIONS & BIBLIOGRAPHY

71

ILLUSTRATIONS

77

iii

PREFACE This second volume of the Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia reports work carried out under the auspices of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara in the vilayet of Kocaeli, whose capital is tzmit, the ancient Nicomedia. It attempts to record all the remains of medieval fortifications in the province, and to note those which, though once attested, no longer exist. In this, foe survey follows the model set down in the first volume of its publications, MECAS l:Kutahya (BIAA Monograph 7, BAR International Series 261, Oxford 1985) whose description of the project and its aims may be repeated here: "The present survey proposes to deal with the medieval fortifications of Anatolia by regions, which may most practically be defined by the boundaries of the modem Turkish provinces, or vilayets. In each region, we attempt to study all relevant fortifications constructed or rebuilt between the third and fifteenth centuries. The majority of these will naturally be Byzantine, but castles or walls of the Seljuks, the emirates, or the early Ottomans will also be included, leaving aside only those which were founded in the fifteenth century or later. These, by reflecting the age of gunpowder, present different problems and are no longer medieval. "In each case, the report will present an historical and geographical outline, a detailed account of the surviving remains, an analysis of the types of construction and methods of defence, and a discussion of chronology. These will be accompanied by plans and photographs. Well preserved and complicated walls demand long description; they will be treated tower by tower, following the model of A. M. Schneider in his works on Nicaea and Constantinople. Others will have a more summary treatment. The castles will be presented in geographical order, with that of the provincial capital first." The first volume dealt with a huge castle with 84 towers, most of them well preserved, overlooking a town in the remote hills of Phrygia whose history was poorly known. We decided, for the second survey, to attempt something radically different, by considering a famous city which played a major role in history, but whose fortifications, though substantial, were in varying states of delapidation. In this case, it seemed that the history, which was relatively well attested, would serve to illuminate the fortifications, and that study of a metropolitan area near the capital would throw some light on the defences of Constantinople itself and on its relation with its hinterland in Anatolia. Nicomedia, the modem tzmit, is a city which has attracted remarkably little attention. Everyone passes through it on the way from Istanbul to the east, but few stop. At first sight, it seems an unlikely place to want to stop, since the centre of the town is plagued by a large and busy highway passing directly through it, while the main Anatolian railway runs down the middle of the main street. In addition, the air is foul, even nauseous fi-om local industry, especially since the town lies directly downwind from the large paper mill at its western edge. Nevertheless, working in Izmit was a delight, and the scientific rewards were great. The Acropolis is far from the noise of the city, an agreeable residential district where ruins, houses and gardens comfortably share the hilltop and slopes. At KUtahya, where the formidable and uninhabited castle stands on a hill above the town, the commonest noise was that of military formations practising in the fields below. Here, the main disturbance was from the cries of children playing in the neighbourhood. The inhabitants of the Orhan Mahallesi, as this district is called, were invariably friendly and hospitable, making the work a real pleasure. Our team will remember all of them with great affection. This survey first dealt with the remains ofNicomedia, which produced many surprises, notable among them a long gap in the medieval chronology. We turned from there to the region, where we found a series of castles along the Gulf, but none elsewhere. The remains were often in poor condition - hardly surprising in an area which has always been well populated and whose location on a major shipping route makes it easy for ruins to be dismantled for building material - but most could be planned and studied. Two of them turned out to be of far greater interest than we had anticipated. Niketiaton on the north shore of the gulf contains an elaborate dwelling, or palace, which was evidently the home of the blinded prince John Lascaris in the late thirteenth century, while Xerigordos, above the south

V

shore, played a real role in history when the first bands of the First Crusade came to disaster there. In both cases, the remains can be correlated with the historical sources to illuminate both. The other castles, though less imposing, still provide valuable information about the Gulf, its defences, and the relations between Nicomedia and the capital. Since the historical record of Nicomedia is remarkably abundant for a Byzantine city, this volume will treat it in detail, both for its own sake, and as essential material for understanding the fortifications. In all cases, we have attempted to treat the fortresses in the complete context of their history and the historical geography of the region. Since this was a well-known and well travelled district, the integration of texts and remains can be done far more effectively here than in many regions. The survey was carried out under my direction by Robin Fursdon who worked with tireless skill together with his wife Diana and daughter Rebecca, and his extremely effective student, Michael Williams. Without them, none of this would have been possible. Mr Fursdon eventually produced almost complete plans of Nicomedia, and sketches of the rest. These were put into final form by Elizabeth Wahle, who, as in the previous volume, worked quickly and efficiently to produce work of very high quality. Although surveys like this can produce substantial results with relatively little money or manpower, they still need material and practical support. It is therefore a great pleasure to recognize those who helped the project in its various stages. First thanks go to David French, then director of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. He first conceived of the general project, and supported it in every way - in this case, by offering hospitality and practical assistance at every turn. A generous grant from the British Academy made it possible to bring the surveyors and their equipment to Turkey, and a subsidy from the University of Massachusetts helped with preparation of the plans. The Turkish Department of Antiquities granted the relevant permits, and Mehmet Can, director of the Izmit Museum, provided practical and good-natured assistance on the spot. My final thanks go to Professor Cyril Mango of Oxford whose kind invitation to address the Byzantine symposium on Constantinople and its Hinterland in April 1993 provided the inspiration to return to this long-delayed project and bring it to completion. My sincere thanks to all. Clive Foss Cambridge, Mass. February 1995.

vi

MAPS AND PLANS Map of the Gulf of Nicomedia

x

Plan I. Nicomedia: the Walls of Diocletian and the Byzantine Walls

30

Plan II. Nicomedia: the Byzantine Walls and Citadel

32

Plan III. Nicomedia: Citadel, detail of the north wall

34

Plan IV. Philokrene

47

Plan V. Niketiaton

51

Plan VI. Libyssa, after Wiegand (1902) 324, fig. 3

59

Plan VII. Charax

60

Plan VIII. Xerigordos

66

ILLUSTRATIONS (All photographs are by the author)

Nicomedia Fig. 1. Walls of Diocletian: tower at highest point. Masonry G Fig. 2. Walls of Diocletian, at Turgut Mahallesi. Masonry G Fig. 3. Walls of Diocletian detail of facing. Masonry G Fig. 4. Citadel, Tl. Masonry D Fig. 5. Citadel, T2. Masonry D Fig. 6. Citadel, T4, inner facing. Masonry L, cloisonne Fig. 7. Citadel, T5. Masonry H, alternating brick and cloisonne Fig. 8. T6. Masonry I, cloisonne Fig. 9. W6/7. Masonry B, reused limestone blocks Fig. 10. T7. Masonry J, regular cloisonne Fig. 11. T8 (on left), W8/9. Masonry J Fig. 12. T9 (on left), W 9/10. Masonry J, A Fig. 13. Projection under T9. Masonry G Fig. 14. Tl 0, outer face. Masonry O Fig. 15. T10, inmost face. Masonry A Fig. 16. T11, detail of facing. Masonry M Fig. 17. T16. Outer face in Masonry O, inner face in Masonry K Fig. 18. Tl 6, lower part of inner face. Masonry K Fig. 19. Tl 5. Masonry M, rough cloisonne Fig. 20. T16, upper part of inner face. Masonry K Fig. 21. W18/19. Masonry N Fig. 22. South Gate, left pier. Masonry A Fig. 23. South Gate, base of right pier. Masonry A Fig. 24. T20, detail of facing. Masonry C Fig. 25. Outer Wall, below T10. Masonry E Philokrene Fig. 26. South comer tower Fig. 27. Wall below tower

vii

Ritzion Fig. 28. Tower, ' from south Fig. 29. Tower, from east Fig. 30. Facing of wall Niketiaton Fig. 31. Castle, from the north Fig. 32. TI, from the NW Fig. 33. TI, masonry Fig. 34. TI, embrasure Fig. 35. TI, fireplace Fig. 36. Wl/2 Fig. 37. Palace, from NW Fig. 38. Palace, west face Fig. 39. Palace, interior, from east Fig. 40. Palace, NW face, with rosette Fig. 41. Palace, west wall with windows and vaults supporting ground floor Fig. 42. Palace, consoles ofN wall Fig. 43. T5, from NE Fig. 44. T3, from E Fig. 45. W4/5; note two phases Fig. 46. T5, from NW Fig. 47. T5, chamber and staircase, from W Fig. 48. T5, upper part of S face, with brick rosette Fig. 49. W7/8, modem restoration Fig. 50. T9, embrasure Fig. 51. TI1, from NW Fig. 52. TI1, detail of masonry Fig. 53. TI I, stairway to upper platform Fig. 54. Outer Wall, below Palace Fig. 55. Outer Wall, NE comer tower

Charax Fig. 56. Outer wall, facing Fig. 57. Inner wall, facing Fig. 58. Inner wall, cross-section

Ihsaniye Fig. 59. Caravansaray, interior Fig. 60. Caravansaray, reused blocks Xerigordos Fig. 61. View from castle to north Fig. 62. View from castle to south Fig. 63. Hilltop with ring walls Fig. 64. T4, outer face Fig. 65. T4; inner face visible on upper right. Fig. 66. T3, brickwork

viii

X

Map of the Gulf of Nicomedia

CHAPTER 1

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity

other periods. The troubles of the late third century may form a prelude. In 258, a large force of Goths descended from the Black Sea, crossed the Bosporus and took Chalcedon without meeting any resistance. From there, they moved on Nicomedia, described as large and pros­ perous, famed for its wealth and abundance in all things. Although the inhabitants fled with all the goods they could carry when they heard the rumour of attack, the barbarians were still amazed at the wealth which they found. They then proceeded to devastate other cities of Bithynia until they reached the Rhyndacus which they could not cross. Thereupon, they returned to Nicomedia, burnt it, loaded their plunder on wagons and ships, and sailed away. Their success was owed to the confusion which then prevailed in the Empire, the wealth to accumu­ lation during long centuries of peace in a provincial metropolis long famed for its resources and extrava­ gance.3 A decade later, the city suffered another blow, one which frequently recurred, when it was devastated by an earthquake. And in 272, its strategic importance was revealed as the army of Aurelian passed through on the way to the east, an event attested by the tomb of a protec­ tor, or member of the imperial bodyguard, who died there on the campaign.4 The wealth of the city, the earthquakes which afflicted it, and the armies which visited it, will be frequent subjects of the following narrative.

When the new age of Late Antiquity began, Nicomedia was the capital of the Roman Empire, a distinction it only maintained for half a century. It nevertheless remained the capital of the rich and strategic province of Bithynia and continued to flourish through the sixth century in spite of a series of natural disasters, the greatest of them the earthquake of 358. In Late Antiquity, the city was a centre of pagan and Christian learning and of the church, the army and trade. The Byzantine period saw it as a major fortress, the bulwark of Constantinople against enemies coming from the east, and of such strength that it was one of the last cities of Asia Minor to fall to the Turks.1 Nicomedia owed its prominence to a strategic location at the head of a long gulf which allows ships to penetrate far into Bithynia. The depression which the gulf fills continues through lake Sophon to reach the plain of the Sangarius, and from there relatively easy passes lead directly east through Paphlagonia and Pontus to the Roman frontier. The city thus stood on a major route and served as well for transhipment of goods from sea to land. The greatest highway to the east, however, was not the direct route to the frontier, but led from Nicomedia south to its ancient rival Nicaea, then eastward into the moun­ tains. Much traffic passed along these routes through the city which was a scene of considerable economic activity and frequently appears in history. In addition, it con­ trolled the broad and fertile plain to the east and the complementary hill country on the north, enabling it to prosper from agriculture, and by its wealth from all sources to develop into one of the largest cities of Late Antiquity.2 Literary sources, rather than remains, provide the history of late antique Nicomedia, casting some vivid light on the fourth century and giving an impression of

1

Capital of the Roman Empire The distinctive age of Late Antiquity had its beginning in Nicomedia itself. In 283, shortly after the Romans had won a signal victory by capturing the Persian capital Ctesiphon, the emperor Carus was suddenly struck down, it seems, by lightning. His son and succes­

For a shorter version of this history (which contains nothing not included here), dealing with Nicomedia in relation to Constan­

3

tinople, see Foss (1995). 2

Zosimus 1.35; the phrases he uses to describe the city are

remarkably similar to those of the Expositio (see below) and

For geographic conditions, see Ruge (1937), Sblch (1920) 263ff.

probably part of a standard encomium of it. For the history of

(in more detail but to be used with caution; see the comment of

Nicomedia through the sixth century, see the excellent article of

Ruge [1937] 470f.), and Magie (1950) 305; cf. Robert (1987)

W. Ruge (1937) in RE, with full references.

104-124. For the Roman road to the east, see French (1981).

4

1

Earthquake: Malalas 198f; protector. C1L III.323.

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia sor Numerian led the army back to Asia Minor but, suffering from an eye ailment, had to be transported in a closed litter. The praetorian prefect Aper, it is said, took advantage of the circumstances to murder the young emperor, an event betrayed eventually by the stench issuing from the litter. By now the army had approached Nicomedia and its officers, disregarding the hopes of Aper, chose the protector Diodes to avenge the em­ peror. As the prefect sat on the tribunal, Diodes struck him down with his sword, inaugurating the new age in blood. He was then proclaimed emperor, and took the name Diocletian. These events took place on 20 No­ vember 284 on a hill three miles outside Nicomedia, where a column bearing an image of Jupiter was erected in commemoration.5 Under Diocletian, Nicomedia became the capital of the empire, perhaps a reflection of his accession, more probably an appreciation of its convenient location on sea and land, with good access to the eastern and northern frontiers. It also received an antique honour, perhaps the last of its kind, when it was now given the status of a Roman colony. It was here that Diocletian created the Tetrarchy: Maximianus was proclaimed co-emperor in 286, Galerius and Constantius Caesar in 293; and here that he abdicated, on 5 May 305, at the very spot where he had been proclaimed, naming Severus and Maximinus Daia to carry on the imperial line.6 He frequently resided in Nicomedia and always returned there, bestowing on the city all the benefits of a capital, adorning it with sumptu­ ous buildings of local and imperial significance, making it a centre of learning and of other activities with which his name is indelibly associated. The querulous writings of the rhetorician Lactantius, an ardent Christian who was bitterly opposed to the policies of Diocletian, are a major source for his reign. Lactantius, together with a colleague called Fabius, was invited to Nicomedia by the emperor to give instruction in Latin. Since he found little enthusiasm for Latin latters, he could devote himself to writing and, having been con­ verted to Christianity, had much to say. He arrived in the city before 303 and was teaching at the beginning of the Great Persecution; among his pupils was the future emperor Constantine who had been sent to the capital to be educated. Lactantius then resigned or lost his chair, but

5

probably returned in more peaceful times, in 313, and composed his de Mortibus Persecutorum which reveals many of the dramatic events taking place in the city.7 After the Goths and the earthquake, Nicomedia doubtless needed rebuilding. Diocletian undertook the task with extravagant enthusiasm. Lactantius reports that he erected a palace (or basilicas), a circus, a mint, a weapons factory, and houses for his wife and daughter. To accomplish this, large parts of the city were knocked down; the population moved out, as if the place had been occupied by an enemy. The provinces, it is claimed, were ruined to finance the reconstruction of the new capital, and, even worse, Diocletian failed to be satisfied with the quality of the construction and ordered everything done over. In all this, the emperor was attempting (reasonably enough, since the city was the capital) to make Nicomedia the equal of Rome.8 The description was not exaggerated, but is amply confirmed by other sources which mention the palace, circus, and basilica and add the important detail that the emperor was responsible for the erection of a new circuit of.walls.9 The walls were an evident necessity, for the city appears to have been unfortified in the time of the Gothic attack; they were also a symbol of the splendour of an imperial capital. Their remains will be presented in detail below. Beside these, Diocletian restored and enlarged the Antonine baths, which had completely collapsed, paid for the work himself, and presented the building to the public. It is probable that he was also responsible for the con­ struction of the basilica in which emperors sat in judge­ ment, notably on Christians.10 The mint and weapons factory were elements of con­ siderable importance for the army and the economy of the city and the entire region. The factory, part of a network of such establishments set up by the Tetrarchic govern­ ment to guarantee the supply of essential goods, produced shields and heavy armour; it was still functioning in the early seventh century.11 The mint, which opened in 294,

7

For Constantine, see Photius, Bibliotheca 1.61.24, a notice from

8

Praxagoras of Athens, who wrote in the mid-fourth century. Lactantius, MP 7.8-10, cf. n.9 below.

9

Palace: Socrates 1.6, built by Diocletian; palace and basilica; see

below, n.9; circus: Expositio totius orbis 49, Lactantius, MP 17: dedicated by the emperor in person in 304; walls: Aurelius Vic­ tor, Caes. 39.45.

Accession of Diocletian: Historia Augusta, Carus 12-24: site:

Lactantius, MP 19. 6

Barnes (1981) 13f.; P.E s.v. Lactantius with further references.

Colony: CJL III.326 = ΤΑΜ IV. 1.31; co-emperors: ChronPasch

10 Baths: CIL 111.324 (= 7WIV.1.29). Basilica: AASS Aug.lV.523:

51 If., abdication: Lactantius, MP 19. For the actual dates on

St. Agathonicus tried before Galerius; Philostorgius 171: St. Ar­

which Diocletian, his colleagues and successors through Con­

temius brought before Julian. Both texts call the building

stantine are attested at Nicomedia, see Barnes (1982) 49-87. Al­ though late antique sources mention Nicomedia as the place where Maximinus was proclaimed co-emperor (Lactantius, MP

basilike. It is thus probably to be distinguished from the basileia or palace of Eusebius, HE 8.6.6, and to be identified with the basilica destroyed by lightning in time of Constantine: see n.29

19.2) and Galerius and Constantius as Caesars (ChronPasch

below. Presumably, therefore, the basilicae of Lactantius, MP

521), the latest research suggests that they were mistaken: Barnes (1982) 62 n. 73; but cf. the comments ofCreed 100 (in his edition

7.8, built by Diocletian, would include this and similar buildings.

In all cases, however, the terminology is somewhat ambiguous.

of Lactantius).

11 Notitia Dignitatum, Or. 11.25ff; see also below, 12.

2

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity should order it burned. Diocletian, however, urged caution since the church was surrounded by large build­ ings and the fire might spread; instead, the praetorians were sent in armed with tools. They tore the church down to the ground in a few hours, even though it stood very high.15 The persecution thus begun was immediately confirmed by the posting of an edict against the Chris­ tians. It was soon tom down by a certain Euetius, a man of some rank, who was tortured and executed to become the first martyr of the campaign.16 Before the end of February, a fire broke out and de­ stroyed part of the imperial palace (the Christians blamed it on their enemy Galerius). The emperor was naturally infuriated, held the Christians responsible, and began what the highly unsympathetic sources describe as a reign of terror. Diocletian presided personally over the tribunal, ordering many executions, while judges and magistrates got special powers which resulted in much torture and killing. The victims were legion: among the first were Dorotheus and Gorgonius, members of the imperial household, and Anthimus, bishop of the city. Two weeks later, the palace was struck by another fire, and Galerius left the city, fearing that he would be burned alive. Persecution now raged in earnest. People of all classes imperial eunuchs, priests, palace slaves - were arrested and questioned, many of them executed. Judges presiding in the temples forced everyone to sacrifice, while those engaged in law suits were forced to go through the ritual at altars specially set up in tribunals and audience halls.17 Not long after, Diocletian left for Rome to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of his reign. He returned to Nicomedia in the summer of 304, a sick man. That winter, he was carried to his new circus to preside over its dedication, and in the following spring, he abdicated on the spot where he had been acclaimed as emperor.18 He was succeeded at Nicomedia by Galerius, who carried on the persecution until he was struck seriously ill in 311; in late April of that year, he issued an edict which abrogated the persecution and restored tolerance. Prisons were opened and the Christians freed.19 Galerius died soon after, and the East fell to Maximi­ nus Daia, a bitter enemy of the Christians. Maximinus at first followed the edict of Galerius, but soon, when staying at Nicomedia, received a delegation of citizens who came with images of the gods and requested that no Christians be allowed to live in their city. The emperor readily agreed, and renewed the persecutions. The city was again the scene of trials and executions, the most prominent victim the scholar Lucian of Antioch. But by now the influence of Constantine, newly triumphant in the West, was making itself felt and Maximinus revoked the

provided coinage for the whole diocese of Pontus. It struck considerable quantities, in gold, silver and bronze through the reign of Valens; thereafter, in bronze only. Its issues from the reform of Anastasius (498) through the reign of Heraclius were especially abundant.12 The strategic location of Nicomedia, on the main highway and the sea, made it a suitable place for the production of goods of such importance for the military and the civilian population; dissemination from such a location was naturally easy, and thus continued through the entire period. This extensive reconstruction gave Nicomedia the ap­ pearance of an imperial capital, with its two essential buildings, the palace and the circus, and other imposing public structures. The city was surrounded by a wall, the only element which has survived even in part. It stretched for about four miles to encompass the acropolis, the steep hillsides and the shoreline. The other buildings have disappeared, but descriptions, to be considered below, enable an image of the late antique city to be recon­ structed.13 In fact, the new capital was the centre of a vast net­ work of trade. Diocletian’s notorious edict on Maximum Prices lists the main sea routes of the empire and the cost of transporting goods along them. It shows that shipping routes led to Nicomedia from all parts of the Empire. In the Mediterranaean, Rome, Salona, Thessalonica, Achaea, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Alexandria are spe­ cifically mentioned, while the Black Sea ports of Sinope, Trebizond and Tomis also appear.14 Nicomedia in the time of Diocletian and his succes­ sors is famous, or notorious, as a scene of the Great Persecution of the Christians. Agitation and the publica­ tion of an anti-Christian polemic by Hierocles, the gover­ nor of Bithynia, preceded the main activity. The emperors decided that the time had come to put an end to the Christian religion and chose as the most appropriate date the festival of the Terminalia, 23 February 303. At dawn on that day, the praetorian prefect, accompanied by generals, officials and a body of troops, arrived at the cathedral. They tore down its doors, plundered the church and burned the scriptures. Diocletian and Galerius watched from the palace - for the church was in a high and prominent position - and debated whether or not they

12 For the coin issues, see RIC VI.543-568; VII.597-635; VIII.466-

485; IX.248-263. These cover the period from Diocletian through Theodosius. For the fifth century, Grierson (1992) 64 and index,

s.v. (p.496), and for the sixth, DOC 1.27-31, 48-51 and index 377; cf. the tables in Hendy (1985) 379, 401, with attendant dis­ cussion. For the mint in the reign of Heraclius, see below 16. 13 For Nicomedia as a Tetrarchic capital, with comparison with the

other capitals, see Hanfmann (1975) 75-87, esp. 78ff; cf. Millar

15 Lactantius, MP 12.

(1977) 5Iff.

16 Lactantius, MP 13; Eusebius, HE 8.5. 17 Lactantius, MP U, 15; Eusebius, HE 8.6,13.

14 For the Black Sea ports (which are not specifically associated with Nicomedia in the published text), see Robert (1987) 120

18 Lactantius, MP 17,19.

n.105.

19 Lactantius, MP 35; Eusebius, HE 8.17.

3

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

persecution, writing that he preferred that persuasion take its place. This was at the end of 312; in May 313, the emperor was defeated by Licinius and on his return to Nicomedia attempted to conciliate the Christians further by proclaiming general toleration. In June, Licinius entered the city, which Maximinus had evacuated. He thereupon published a general edict of toleration, in terms agreed jointly with Constantine at Milan.20 In spite of this beginning, Licinius, who ruled from Nicomedia, eventually turned against the Christians as allies of his rival Constantine and begin to harass them, but the persecution did not repeat the severity of earlier campaigns. Only two victims are associated with the city. Auxentius the notary was brought by Licinius into the courtyard of the imperial palace where there were a large vine and a statue of Dionysus. When he refused to offer a bunch of grapes to the god, he was cashiered, but sur­ vived to become bishop of Mopsuestia in the time of Constantius II. The other confessor was the Persian Arsacius, who was in charge of the emperor’s lions. When the persecution broke out, he left the imperial service and shut himself in a tower of the citadel walls. He was still there in 358, when a vision appeared saving him from the catastrophic earthquake. Neither of these suffered more than loss of office, itself a severe enough punishment, but indicative of the moderation which had replaced the earlier fury.21

Like his predecessors, Constantine resided in Ni­ comedia, where he learned of the doctrinal disturbances which the preaching of Arius had stirred in the church. Among the partisans of Arius was Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, a distant relative of Constantine and a figure of considerable influence. He was deeply involved in the debates which now reached such a pitch that the emperor decided to achieve a resolution by summoning a general council to meet in Nicaea, conveniently close to his residence in Nicomedia. He presided over the meetings, and at the end of the council, invited its members to Nicomedia to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of his accession, on 25 July 325, an occa­ sion for a feast and presents, as well as exhortations to the bishops.24 The council brought peace by declaring the teach­ ings of Arius heretical; as a consequence, his supporter Eusebius was deposed from Nicomedia, an event announced to the local church by an imperial letter. Nevertheless, peace was of a short duration, Arius had many friends, and soon saw himself reinstated at a council in Nicomedia in 327; Constantine again took an active part.25 Not long after, as the disputes continued, many charges were proffered against Athanasius, the great adversary of Arius. Constantine investigated them at a suburb of Nicomedia called Psamathia, no doubt the site of one of his residences.26 It was about this time that Constantine built at his. own expense a magnificent church dedicated to the Saviour in gratitude for his victories; it was probably intended to replace the cathedral destroyed by Dio­ cletian.27 But by now, the fate of the city was sealed, for the emperor had already determined to build a new capital to be called by his name not far away, on the site of Byzantium. In 330, Constantinople was inaugurated, and Nicomedia gradually waned. As a sign of the change, a great many statues, including one of Dio­ cletian, were transported from the old capital to the new, to be set up in the Hippodrome.28 Nicomedia, of course, was not abandoned overnight, nor was it re­ duced to insignificance. When the basilica was burnt down by lightning in 332, for example, Constantine had it rebuilt, and it was still regarded as an impressive monument a generation later.29 Constantine returned to Nicomedia for the last time in 337 when, mortally ill, he left his new city for the hot springs of Helenopolis on the opposite shore of the Sea of Marmora. From there, he proceeded to a suburb of Nicomedia called Achyron where he evidently had a residence and, realising that the end was near, called on

The Age of Constantine Finally, in September 324, Licinius was defeated by Constantine near Chrysopolis and withdrew to Ni­ comedia whence he sent the local bishop Eusebius to convey his offer of abdication and his request for clemency. Constantine acceded and entered Nicomedia ‘the greatest and most famous of all the cities there.’ The persecutions were ended, and a new era was about to begin.22 It is difficult to assess the persecutions here or any­ where else. The church preserves the memory of a vast host of local martyrs - dozens are named individually and more than thirty thousand are honoured as anonymous groups - but the number of executions cannot be deter­ mined. The persecution no doubt raged more severely here than elsewhere, since Nicomedia was the imperial capital for its entire course and thus more subject to direct control, but it is hardly likely ever to have reached the catastrophic proportions attributed to it.23

20 Eusebius, HE 9.9A; Lactantius, MP 47, 48.

21 Suda, s.v. Auxentius; Sozomen 4. 16. 22 Philostorgius 18, 183.

24 Eusebius at Nicomedia: Socrates 1.6; vicennalia: Sozomen 1.25. 25 Letter: Barnes (1981) 242f„ council: ibid. 26 Socrates 1.26.

23 For Nicomedia, see the succinct account of Barnes (1981) 24,

but for a general appraisal of the Great Persecution, consider the

27 Eusebius, Pita Constantini 3.50.

comments of Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman

28 ScrOrigCP69, 189.

Empire, cap. XVI adfin.

29 Theophanes 29; Expositio 49 (quoted below, 7).

4

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity after his death in 337.33 The two probably met in Constantinople, where Julian spent his early years. Soon, however, he began to attract too much favourable comment, and his jealous cousin, Constantius II, had him removed to Nicomedia. There he met and was greatly influenced by the most distinguished rhetorician of the age, Libanius, whose works make frequent mention of the city and give vivid glimpses of local conditions. Julian spent about a year in Nicomedia, in 344 and 345. He was sent to study with the Christian sophist Hecebolius, and gave every appearance of being a good Christian: he affected a monastic life, read the Scriptures in public, and was made a reader in the local church. Yet it was here that his conversion to paganism began, in spite of the influences on him and the specific injunction to have nothing to do with Libanius. The rhetorician was at the beginning of his career, but had already achieved the reputation of one of the greatest speakers and teachers in the empire. He had not planned to come to Nicomedia, but was established in Constantinople, on his way to a distinguished career in the capital, when a cabal of rival teachers, and apparently of Christians, attacked him and forced him to leave. Libanius first accepted an invitation to Nicaea, where he stayed a short while in 342-343, but was lured from there by a decree of the senate of Ni­ comedia, confirmed by the authority of the governor of Bithynia. With such backing, he could feel secure from his enemies, and took up residence in the provincial capital, which he called the city of Demeter. Julian naturally had no intention of missing the speeches and teaching of such a famous figure. Since he was not allowed to attend the lectures, he had copies of the speeches brought him every day, and applied himself diligently to their study. He so successfully imitated the master’s style that Libanius could consider him the best of his pupils. He thus became an expert stylist and speaker, while pursuing his interest in paganism. In Nicomedia, Julian first met the pagan philosopher and thaumaturgist, Maximus of Ephesus, a man destined to have even greater influence of him. His stay in the city, however, was short, for Constantius, perhaps hearing the dangerous influences to which he was exposed, ordered Julian sent off to a remote imperial estate in Cappadocia.34 Libanius later recalled his five years in Nicomedia as the springtime of his life, a happy time when he had good health, peace of mind, much applause for his frequent declamations, and great numbers of students and friends. His teaching was so successful that Nicomedia began to attract students from many regions, becoming a rival to Athens and diverting students from there. He was so popular that he had to give his lectures in the public baths (the largest building in a city) rather than the normal halls;

Eusebius, long since reinstated as bishop, to baptise him. He then expired, on Pentecost, 22 May 337.30 The circumstances of the death and baptism of such a great and orthodox figure caused much confusion for contemporary and later writer, not least because the baptizer was a notorious Arian. Eusebius the church historian, like his continuators Socrates and Sozomen, discreetly omits naming the bishop, while later tradition maintained that Constantine was actually baptised at Rome by the Pope or that he was on his way from Nicomedia to fight the Persians or even to be baptised in the River Jordan. A darker rumour had him poisoned by his brothers, but the truth seems to have been more prosaic.31 The Arian bishop Eusebius who baptised Constan­ tine was one of the leading figures of his age, dominant in the church because of his relationship with the emperor and his charge of the ecclesiastical affairs of the capital. He was intimately involved in the Arian controversy, as a friend and supporter of Arius, with whom he had been a fellow-student. Consequently, his memory is generally reviled by the surviving orthodox sources. He became bishop of Nicomedia in about 320, and immediately showed his sympathies, for when Arius was deposed, he gave him refuge and called a council in Bithynia (no doubt in Nicomedia) for his defence. Since he failed to support the condemnation of Arius at Nicaea, he was exiled from his see in 325, but managed to return three years later after a recantation whose sincerity may be doubted. Thereafter, he gained great influence at court and engaged in a long struggle to rehabilitate Arius. His work was crowned with success in 335 when Arius was readmitted to the church, and his enemy Athanasius sent into exile. He maintained his influence after the death of Constantine, finally rising to become bishop of Constantinople in 340. When he died two years later, he had successfully led the opposition to Athanasius and managed to install Arians into many sees.32

Julian and Libanius Eusebius is supposed to have been entrusted with the education of the young prince Julian, one of the few survivors of the slaughter of Constantine’s relatives

30 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4.62, Malalas 324. 31 Eusebius, loc.cit:, Socrates 1.39, Sozomen 2.34; Pope. Theo­

phanes 17, cf. 33; Persians: ChronPasch 532; Jordan: Theo­ phanes 17; poison: Philostorgius 26. For Zonaras (13.4.25), Constantine was poisoned after taking the waters at Pythia

Therma, the resort famous in the Middle Ages when Helenopolis 33 Amm. Marc. 22.9. 34 Julian at Nicomedia: Libanius, Orat. 18. 13-17, cf. Orat. 13.10f.,

had fallen into obscurity; cf. Cedrenus 1.519.

32 See the detailed summary of his career, with full reference to the

Socrates 3.1; Libanius: Orat. 1.44-48.

sources by M. Spannout in DHGE 15.1466-1471

5

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia the audiences so great that the whole city seemed to become a philosophical school.35 In an age when rivalry between cities was as intense as it had been in earlier centuries, acquisition of a distin­ guished speaker was highly valued, for he would attract students and increase municipal renown. It was thus no idle (or modest) boast when Libanius claimed that his speeches were the glory of the city: ‘Indeed, this city, which had grown to such size and beauty and possessed every other blessing provided by land and sea, in any recital of its glories would have prided itself on none of these in preference to my compositions: this was the comparison it drew with the prosperity of Constantinople nearby, that there they revelled in the delights of the stage, here, in Nicomedia, in the fruits of learning’.36 In this, Nicomedia not only had the standard attributes of a great city, but an added distinction that enabled it to surpass the upstart capital, for which the local citizens can have had little admiration. Great speeches brought glory to the city, and wealth as well as fame to the speaker. On one occasion, just as Libanius was to make a speech before the governor, one of his slaves stole 1500 solidi from him, an enormous sum which indicates a very high economic standing. Nevertheless, he continued calmly with his speech, and even refused the collection taken up for him in the province, which produced an even larger sum; he was evidently sure that he could soon regain the amount lost.37 Libanius also had his troubles in Nicomedia, stirred by a rival professor. The local council had invited him not only because of his fame, but to spite the professor they already had, a man whom Libanius, totally free of objec­ tivity, describes as eccentric to the point of being quite mad. He was presumably the Hecebolius with whom Julian had studied, but Libanius never names him in the account of their disputes which provide many insights into local life. When the wife of the rival professor fell sick and died, he blamed Libanius and entered into a suit. At the insistence of Libanius, who knew the charge was ridiculous, a trial was held (the rival was ready to with­ draw). There the professor finally pled for mercy from the governor; he received it, but was ostracised by the popu­ lation.38 Worse was to come. Since he had lost his following, the professor began to hire students, an easy effort since he had great wealth from his estates. When the students failed to attend his lectures, he had a case for breach of promise in which Libanius could be involved. A friend contacted Philagrius, the vicar of Pontus, who agreed to hear the case. Libanius and several students were arrested and brought under guard to Nicaea; their friends followed

half-way, then waited the results at a distance. Libanius and a fellow pagan sophist, Alcimus, were imprisoned in a perfume-shop awaiting trial. At this point, the vicar received the unwelcome news that his superior, Philip the praetorian prefect, was about to arrive on a tour of in­ spection, and promptly decamped for his capital. Philip now met Libanius, apologised to him for the trouble which had been caused and asked as a special favour to be allowed to attend one of his speeches in Nicomedia. When the speech was about to begin, the rival profes­ sor appeared, demanding his turn to speak. When this was granted, he gave an incoherent speech, and finally rushed out, filling the marketplace with meaningless cries. On the next day, when a great crowd was assembled at the Bouleuterion, as Libanius was exercising his voice and the governor was about to enter, the professor suddenly came rushing armed from the Acropolis. Libanius was only saved by the doors of the temple of Fortune, where he was seated. After the commotion had subsided, Li­ banius sat next to the prefect for protection (as he said, but the most privileged seat in the house can hardly have been unwelcome), and gave a highly successful speech. Philip now became his admirer and sent his relatives to study with him. Soon after, he arranged for Libanius to be invited to Constantinople by imperial order, and the sophist left the city with, it seems, genuine regret.39 The image of the mad professor rushing sword in hand through the market place finds a curious parallel in a miracle of the Christian holy man, Arsacius, who had been living in a tower of the citadel since the time of Licinius. On one occasion, a man possessed by a demon came rushing with sword drawn to the Agora. Everyone fled and the city was in a state of disturbance until Ar­ sacius encountered him, called on the name of Christ and cast out the demon by his words. The man was thereupon cured and restored to his senses. Since Libanius and Arsacius were contemporaries, and madmen rushing through the market with drawn swords can hardly have been a normal occurrence, it seems likely that both accounts refer to the same event. If so, the difference in treatment is noteworthy, although Libanius’ silence regarding the actions of a Christian is hardly surprising.40 This narrative of Libanius shows professional rivalry at a high level of development. Whatever his defects, the rival professor was a man of wealth and evidently of such great influence that he could have the vicar summoned from afar. The attention of such a high official does not merely indicate that office holders of the day were willing to drop important work in favour of local squabbles to do their friends a favour, but may suggest that there was a real case. Whatever its merits, it could not stand up to the authority of the prefect whose arrival caused the vicar’s disappearance, evidently because he seemed to be ne­ glecting his duties. But the details are impossible to

35 Libanius, Orat. 1. 51,53,55; cf. Ep. 31, 654; in the words of .Libanius, the whole city became a Mouseion. 36 Libanius, Orat. 1.52, tr. A.F. Norman. 37 Libanius, Orat. 1.61.

39 Libanius, Orat. 1.65-74.

38 Libanius, Orat. 1.49, 62-64.

40 Sozomen 4.16.12.

6

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity determine from such a partial account. In any case, it is evident that teachers had networks of influence which reached to the highest levels, and that their disputes were of more than local importance. The topographical details of this account will be considered below. The other encounter which Libanius had with a rival was far simpler and more successful. It also reflects the involvement of high officials in what might seem to be purely literary matters. The local governor, Pompeianus, who much admired and patronized Libanius, summoned another great speaker to contest with him in declamation. Himerius, a distinguished and successful orator from Bithynia, was then one of the leading sophists of Athens, still a centre of education. When he declaimed before the governor in Nicomedia, though, he was completely bested by Libanius, and returned in humiliation to Athens. His speech has not survived, but in letter of 362, written long after he had left Nicomedia, Libanius mentions the governor with whom he was still in contact, and still gloats over his early triumph.41 Libanius frequently looked back on his sojourn in Ni­ comedia with considerable nostalgia, and attempted to revisit the city after his departure. In 350, he was pre­ vented by plague which was raging there, and returned to the capital on medical advice when he fell ill; the next year, it was the turn of a local famine (the natural follower of plague) to prevent a visit. On that occasion, he had come as far as Libyssa, the site of the tomb of Hannibal, when a thunderbolt struck from a clear sky. Taking this as an omen, he turned back, and later reflected that Fortune had saved him from disaster, for he was prevented from being in the city during the devastating earthquake of 358. Thereafter, he never returned. His pupil, Julian, however, did manage to renew his sojourn in Nicomedia in 351 for a short time; he was continuing his studies there when his brother Gallus, just made Caesar, passed through on his way to the capital and stopped for a discussion.42 A text from these very years, the Expositio totius mundi et gentium, gives a brief description of Nicomedia on the eve of the major disaster from which it never really recovered:

was afterward restored by Constantine. It also has a circus.

The first part reproduced, no doubt, the terms of a standard encomium of the city, in phrases not very different from those applied by Zosimus to the city of the late third century. The basilica and the circus, construc­ tions of Diocletian, were still considered the greatest local monuments. The city was plainly in a flourishing state. A bronze relief, once the covering of a cedar chest found in Croatia, also reflects the importance of the city at this time. It has been dated to the usurpation of Magnentius in 351, when Rome once more became, briefly, the principal imperial residence, and shows allegorical figures representing five great cities of the empire. Rome is portrayed in the centre, flanked by Constantinople and Nicomedia, who, in this view at least, could be considered as equals.44

The Great Earthquake Disputes between the various parties of Christians over doctrinal issues continued to disturb the emperor Con­ stantius. In 358, in an effort to have them resolved, he called a council of a large number of bishops from all parts of his dominions to assemble in Nicomedia. Most were on the way when suddenly the news came that the city had been shaken to its foundations by God. The bishops halted their progress and were assailed by rumours. They heard that Nicaea, Perinthus and even Constantinople had been involved in the catastrophe, while pagans exaggerated the situation to claim that the cathedral had fallen down and had crushed a great many people, including several bishops who had fled to the church for safety. Although these rumours were false, the reality was serious enough.45 The catastrophic events were graphically described by Ammianus Marcellinus, in a passage which clearly reveals the magnitude of the disaster:

On the twenty-fourth of August, at the first break of day, thick masses of darkling clouds overcast the face of the sky, which had just be­ fore been brilliant; the sun’s splendour was dimmed and not even objects near at hand or close by could be discerned, so restricted was the range of vision, as a foul, dense mist rose up and settled over the ground. Then, as if the supreme deity were hurling his fateful bolts, and raising the winds from their very quarters, a mighty tempest of raging gales burst forth; and at its on­ slaught were heard the groans of the smitten moutains and the crash of the wave-lashed shore; these were followed by whirlwinds and water-

Nicomedia eminens et admirabile est in om­ nia abundans et habens opus publicum basilicam antiquam quam divinam ignem de caelo ... combusisse dicunt, et condita est postea a Constantino. Habet autem et circenses.43 Nicomedia is outstanding and admirable, and has everything in abundance. It has a public building, an ancient basilica which is said to have been burnt by divine fire from heaven, and 41 See Libanius, Ep. 742 and Himerius, Orat. 53 (title only); nothing further is known of the governor: see PLR.E s.v. Pompe­

ianus 3. 42 Libanius, Orat. \.1T, Julian: Libanius, Orat. 18.17.

44 Toynbee(1947) 142.

43 Expositio 49.

45 Sozomen 4.16.

7

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

spouts, which, together with a terrific earth­ quake, completely overturned the city and its suburbs. And since most of the houses were car­ ried down the slopes of the hills, they fell one upon another, while everything resounded with the vast roar of their destructon. Meanwhile, the highest points re-echoed all manner of outcries, of those seeking their wives, their children, and whatever near kinsfolk belonged to them. Fi­ nally, after the second hour, but well before the third, the air, which was now bright and clear, revealed the fatal ravages that lay concealed. For some, who had been crushed by the huge bulk of the debris falling upon them, perished under its very weight; some were buried up to their necks in heaps of rubbish and might have survived had anyone helped them, but died for want of assis­ tance; others hung impaled upon the sharp points of projecting timbers. The greater number were killed at one blow, and where there were just now human beings, were then seen confused piles of corpses. Some were imprisoned unhurt within slanting houseroofs, to be consumed by the agony of starvation. Among these was Aristaenetus, vicar of the recently created diocese which Constantius had named Pietas in honour of his wife Eusebia; by this kind of mishap he slowly panted out his life amid torments. Others, who were overwhelmed by the sudden magnitude of the disaster, are still hidden under the same ruins; some who with fractured skulls or ampu­ tated arms or legs hovered between life and death, imploring the aid of others in the same case, were abandoned, despite their pleas and protestations. And, the greater part of the tem­ ples and private houses, and of the population as well, might have been saved, had not a sudden onrush of flames, sweeping over them for five days and nights, burned up whatever could be consumed.46

quake occurred, and many perished. Those who were spared fled into the country and the desert. And as happens in a prosperous and large city, there were fires in the brasiers and extinguishers of every house, and in the ovens of the baths, and in the furnaces of all who use fire in the arts; and when the framework fell in ruin, the flame was hemmed in by the stuff, and of course there was dry wood commingled, much of which was oily, - this served as a contribution to the rapid con­ flagration, and nourished the fire without stint; the flame creeping every where, and attaching to itself all circumjacent material, made the entire city, so to speak, one mass of fire. It being im­ possible to obtain access to the houses, those who had been saved from the earthquake rushed to the citadel. Arsacius was found dead in the unshaken tower, and prostrated on the ground, in the same posture in which he had begun to pray.47 Arsacius and the vicar were not the only distinguished men to die in the calamity. Although the rumour about bishops in the church was proved false, the bishop of Nicomedia and a bishop from the Bosporus were both killed outside the cathedral. In fact, the quake happened in an instant, so that people could not save themselves by seeking refuge in the church or anywhere else; they either died on the spot or were saved. When the news of the tragedy reached Libanius, he was struck with grief as he remembered the city where his great reputation had begun, and where he had spent such pleasant times. He composed a speech of lament on the disaster which includes a brilliant description of the city before the catastrophe:

What city was more beautiful? I will not say larger, for in size it was exceeded by four, but contemned all that increase of extent, which would have wearied the feet of its citizens. In beauty also it yielded to these, and was equalled, not excelled, by some others: for, stretching forth its promontories, with its arms it embraced the sea. It then rose from the shore and was divided by two pairs of colonnades extending the whole length. Its public buildings were splendid, its private contiguous, rising from the lowest parts to the citadel, like the branches of a cypress, one house above another, watered by rivulets, and surrounded with gardens. Its council-chambers, its schools of oratory, the multitude of its tem­ ples, the magnificence of its baths, and the com­ modiousness of its harbour I have seen, but cannot describe. This only I can say, that, fre­ quently travelling thither from Nicaea we used

The church historian Sozomen gives a fuller and more circumstantial account, which begins with the holy man Arsacius who lived in the citadel. Here a vision from heaven appeared to him, and he was commanded to quit the city immedi­ ately, that he might be saved from the calamity about to happen. He ran with the utmost earnest­ ness to the church, and besought the clergy to of­ fer supplications to God that His anger might be turned away. But, finding that far from being be­ lieved by them, he was regarded with ridicule, and as disclosing unlooked-for sufferings, he re­ turned to his tower, and prostrated himself on the ground in prayer. Just at this moment the earth­

47 Sozomen 4.16, tr. C. D. Hartranft in Nicene and Post-Nicene 46 Amm.Marc. 17.7; tr. J. E. Rolfe.

Fathers (New York 1890) 2. 31 Of.

8

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity

seizing the rafters, added to the concussion a conflagration; and some wind, it is said, fanned the flames. Much of the city, much of the ram­ parts, still remains. Of those who have escaped, a few still wander about wounded.... Where are now thy winding walks? Where are thy porticoes? Where are thy courses, thy fountains, thy courts of judicature, thy libraries, thy temples? Where is all that profusion of wealth? Where are the young, the old? Where are the baths of the Graces and of the Nymphs, of which the largest, named after the prince, at whose expense it was built, was equal in value to the whole city? Where is now the senate? Where are the people? Where are the women? Where are the children? Where is the palace? Where is the circus, stronger than the walls of Babylon? Nothing is left standing; nothing has escaped; all are involved in one common ruin. O numerous streams, where now do you flow? What mansions do you lave? from what springs do you issue? The various aqueducts and reser­ voirs are broken. The plentiful supply of the fountains runs to waste, either forming whirl­ pools, or stagnating in morasses; but drawn or quaffed by no one, neither by men nor birds. These are terrified by the fire which rages every rages every where below, and, where it has a vent, flames into the air. This city, once so populous, now in the day time is deserted and desolate, but at night is possessed by such a multitude of spectres, as I think must crowd the inhabitants of the infernal regions after they have passed Acheron.49

on the road to discourse on the trees, and the soil, abundant in all productions, and also of our families, our friends, and ancient wisdom. But after we had passed through the intricate wind­ ings of the hills, when the city appeared, at the distance of a hundred and fifty stadia, on all other subjects a profound silence instantly en­ sued, and no longer engaged either by the tower­ ing branches of the gardens or by the fruitfulness of the soil, or by the traffic of the sea, our whole conversation turned on Nicomedia. And yet mariners, or those who labour at the oar, and en­ snare the fish with nets, or hooks, naturally at­ tract the observation of travellers. But the form of the city, much more fascinating, by its beauty tyrannised over our eyes, and fixed their whole attention on itself. Similar were the sensations of him who had never seen it before and of him who had grown old within its walls. One shewed to his companion the palace, glittering over the bay; another the theatre embellishing the whole city; others various other rays darted from vari­ ous objects: which surpassed it was difficult to determine. Revering it as a sacred image, we proceeded; in our way to Chalcedon, it was nec­ essary to turn, till the nature of the road deprived us of the sight. This seemed like the cessation of a feast.48

Later in the speech, Libanius reveals the circum­ stances of the quake, and the extent of the destruction. Even allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, it is clear that the devastation was extensive and that little remained standing after the combined effects of earthquake and fire:

Four years later, Julian, who had by then become emperor, stopped in the city on his way to campaign against the Persians. Nicomedia, in the words of Ammi­ anus, had long been famous, and had been enlarged by previous emperors at great expense; those who judged such matters considered it as one of the regions of Rome, since it had such a mulitude of public and private buildings. Julian saw the vast destruction wrought by the earthquake and fire, with the buildings collapsed into piles of ashes, and proceeded sadly to the palace. There, a deputation of the senate and people, who had formerly been very prosperous, came to meet him in mourning. Because he had heen educated there, he received them and made a generous gift for reconstruc­ tion. He also took the opportunity to revive local pagan­ ism by setting up a gilded statue of Apollo.50 His work was largely in vain, for on 2 December 363, after Julian had been killed in Persia, another quake struck and flattened what was left of the city.51

The day had almost advanced to noon; the tutelar deities of the city abandoned the temples, and she was left like a ship deserted by its crew. The lord of the trident shook the earth, and con­ vulsed the ocean; the foundations of the city were disunited; walls were thrown on walls, pil­ lars on pillars, and roofs fell headlong. What was hidden was revealed, and what had appeared was hidden. Statues, perfect in beauty, and complete in every part, were blended by the concussion in one confused mass. Artificers, working at their trades, were dashed out of their shops and houses. In the harbour was much destruction, and also of many worthy chosen men collected about the prefect. The theatre involved in its ruins all who were in it. Some buildings, which had long stood tottering, and others which had yet es­ caped, with all who were in them, shared at last the general fate. The sea, violemtly agitated, del­ uged the land. Fire, which abounded everywhere,

49 Ibid., 14-18, trans/237-240.

50 Amm.Marc. 22.9.3-5; statue: ScrOrigCP 53. 48 Libanius, Orat. 61.7-10, tr. Duncombe (1784) 11.233-235.

51 Amm.Marc. 22.13.5.

9

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

Religious Controversies

memory of this gruesome act is still preserved in the calendar of the Greek church.55 Religious problems afflicted virtually all the cities of the period. Nicomedia apparently had its share, though few details are known. The prefect just mentioned not surprisingly feared sedition, for the city had a population not only of orthodox and Arians, but in the reign of Valens was considered one of the four main centres of the Novatian heresy (along with Constantinople, Nicaea and Cotyaeum). Riots did break out at the end of the fourth century, when the partriarch attempted to depose the local bishop, Gerontius. This worthy was a physician who had originally been ordained deacon by Ambrose of Milan. After he began announcing fantastic encounters with demons, however, he was ordered into seclusion and repentance. Ignoring this, Gerontius went to Constan­ tinople where his medical and rhetorical skills soon gained him influence and the appointment to Nicomedia. When Ambrose protested, the patriarch attempted to have Gerontius removed, but failed owing to the determined resistance of the population. Finally in 401, John Chrysos­ tom appointed a new bishop who, in spite of his obvious virtues, could not attract the affection of the Nicomedians. Instead, they rose in constant sedition, praising Gerontius, and the benefits which rich and poor alike derived from his science and generosity. They went round the streets, as if an earthquake or plague had occurred, singing psalms and clamouring for their beloved bishop. This was all to no avail, for they were compelled to take leave of him with great sadness, and accept his successor.56 This account reveals a typical phenomenon of the time. Urban populations took an active part in religious controversies, and expressed strong feelings for and against their bishops, easily translated into violence. Gerontius was obviously a man of great value to the city, where his medical skills were needed and his openhand­ edness appreciated. The latter, like his swift rise to influence in the highest quarters, suggests that he was a man of considerable means, prepared to use them for his own advancement as well as for the benefit of his flock. John Chrysostom, who deposed Gerontius, soon himself fell into disfavour, and was exiled to Cappadocia in 404, and his supporters scattered. One of them, Heraclides of Ephesus, was sent to the prison of Nicomedia, where he remained for more than four years.57 During these years, Nicomedia once again became an imperial residence, though only for short periods, as the peripatetic court stopped there on its way from the capital to spend the summer in the cooler country of Ankara. Stays are attested in 397, 398, and 426, when Theodosius II spent at least a month there; since the court frequently moved along the route which passed through the city, it is probable that imperial parties stopped far more frequently

Natural disasters could not deprive Nicomedia of its strategic location. It was evidently rebuilt and continued to appear in history with at least some degree of its old importance. After the sudden death of Julian’s successor Jovian, the Roman army continued its westward march and appointed Valentinian as the new ruler. When he reached Nicomedia, on 1 March 365, he in turn ap­ pointed his brother Valens as tribunus stabuli, the first step to making him co-emperor. Valens soon had occasion to return when the capital and much of the surrounding area were seized by the usurper Procopius. It was from Nicomedia that the emperor directed opera­ tions against Nicaea which had been taken by the rebel.52 After his victory, Valens returned again, this time as a partisan of the Arians, summoning the bishop of Cyzicus to the city in an unsuccessful attempt to force him to follow the heresy.53 Valens soon moved to take revenge of the partisans of Procopius, among them the citizens of Chalcedon. As special punishment, he ordered that their walls be demolished, a drastic act which could diminish the security of other cities of the region. In spite of local rivalries, therefore, a deputation from Nicomedia joined those of Nicaea and the capital in beseeching the emperor not to carry out his vow; their appeal was successful.54 The most notorious act of Valens added to the city’s already long list of martyrs. After leaving the capital in 370 on his way to the eastern frontier, the emperor reached Nicomedia, where he received news of the death of the Arian patriarch and of the bitter disputes which followed. He quelled the distrubances by sending troops to the capital and exiling the leaders. The Arian party thereupon became bolder and persecuted the orthodox, who attempted to seek redress by sending an embassy to the emperor. A party of eighty clerics, led by Urbanus, Theodore and Menedemus thus arrived in Nicomedia with a petition giving details of their afflic­ tions. Valens, an Arian, was infuriated, but concealed his feelings, giving a secret order to the praetorian prefect to arrest the lot, and put them to death. The prefect, afraid that a public execution of so many would cause riots, pretended to send them into exile. The clerics were loaded onto a boat, accepting their sup­ posed fate with equanimity. The prefect, however, had arranged that the sailors should set the vessel on fire and escape, which they did. A strong east wind blew the ship into the harbour of Dacibyza, where it was finally consumed together with its luckless prisoners. The

52 Amm.Marc. 26.4.2; 26.8.2.

53 Socrates 4.6; but cf. Sozomen 6.8, who appears to assign this

55 Socrates 4.14-26; Synaxarium 19ff.

event to Nicaea. 54 Socrates 4.8.

57 George of Alexandria 60, p.240 in Halkin (1977).

56 Sozomen 8.6.

10

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity than surviving sources suggest, and that facilities, perhaps the old imperial palace, were maintained for them.58 Religious problems were not only local but often re­ flected the ancient rivalries between cities, one of the most notorious of which had long poisoned relations between Nicaea and Nicomedia.59 In 451, an entire day of the proceedings of the ecumenical council of Chal­ cedon were occupied by a dispute between the two. It opened with a complaint by Eunomius, bishop of Ni­ comedia, that Anastasius of Nicaea had been unjustly claiming jurisdiction over the see of Basilinopolis, and had excommunicated the priests sent there from Ni­ comedia. Anastasius replied that Basilinopolis had been made a city by Julian ‘or someone before him’ and had taken its councillors from Nicaea, and that if their number were ever deficient that city supplied additional members. He cited a letter which John Chrysostom is supposed to have written to the bishop of Nicaea on the subject, but could not produce the text. The debate was bitter, with both bishops calling each other liars. Eunomius claimed that Basilinopolis was canonically in his diocese. A letter of Valentinian and Valens was read giving metropolitan status to Nicaea, but with it was a letter of Valentinian stating that the promotion the Nicaea was not intended to infringe on the rights of Nicomedia (which was the ecclesiastical, as it was the civil, capital of Bithynia), but that Nicaea was to be a metropolis of the second rank. The council agreed that Nicomedia was the older, real metropolis; Nicaea was to be superior to other bishoprics in honour only. In this dispute, they concluded, Nicomedia had the canons on its side; it should have the authority while Nicaea had the name of metropolis alone. Eunomius thanked the assem­ bled bishops for what must have been regarded as a signal victory over a real threat to his authority.60 Such a dispute is of interest not so much for the ecclesiastical issues involved, but as a reflection of the local patriotism and pride in a city and its rights which continued to character­ ise Late Antiquity as it had earlier ages. By this time, however, the city had undergone yet another disaster, an earthquake which the chronicler Malalas calls the fifth. As a result, repairs were needed to the baths, the colonnaded streets, the harbour and circus. This happened in the reign of Theodosius II (402-450); the sixth followed under Zeno (474-491). It caused unspecified damage, which was repaired at imperial expense.61 In both cases, it appears that the city rose from its ruins but, one might imagine, in an increasingly dilapidated state. Another natural disturbance occurred at about the same time when a great series of rainstorms

brought down so much silt and debris that small islands were formed in the nearby lake Boane (better known as Sophon).62 These, too, would have had an effect on the city, especially as it was built on steep slopes susceptible to mud slides.

The Age of Justinian The reign of Justinian typically brought further changes, some less disastrous than they may at first sight appear. Nicomedia had always stood on the greatest highway from Constantinople to the East. A fast public post, intended for the convenience of the government in transmitting news and taxes, followed the highway which had stations every few miles (between five and eight per day’s journey) offering food, fresh horses or accommodation. The system provided an important source of income for local farmers who could sell their surplus crops for the maintenance of the stations, as well as for the people who would work there. Justinian, some time before 548, abolished the public post between Chalcedon and Dacibyza, west of Nicomedia, ordering messengers instead to proceed directly across the Gulf to Helenopolis and thence straight to Nicaea, a saving of a considerable distance. Procopius, who reports this in his Secret History, naturally claims that the action was disastrous for the local economy, with surplus crops rotting unsold.63 The effect of this change on Nicomedia may be doubted. Certainly, it was not to the benefit of the city and its territory to lose the business generated by the post (especially since the new route went directly to its rival Nicaea), but the highway which passed through the city was by no means abandoned. In fact, it remained in official use. As part of the reception of Persian ambassa­ dors, who would be escorted from the eastern frontier to the capital, a text of the mid-sixth century specifies arrangements to be made in the region of Nicomedia. The ambassador would travel along the great highway across Anatolia which led to Nicaea, then descend directly to the Gulf at Helenopolis. There, the imperial officials were ordered to have both boats and mounts ready, so that the ambassador and his party could either cross directly to the north shore of the Gulf, or proceed by land via Nicome­ dia. In either case, the road from Dacibyza to Chalcedon opposite Constantinople would be in active use.64 Movements of troops would naturally also pass by land, through Nicomedia, which retained its importance in the road network. Consequently, Justinian made major improvements to the highway which led to the east. He

58 Cod.Th. VI.4.32 (397), Cod.Just. XI.62.9 (398), Cod.Th. XII. 12.16 and VIII.7.21-23 (426); on these, see Seeck (1919) ad

62 Evagrius65.

locc. For the movements of the court, see Foss (1977) 50f.

63 Procopius, HA 30.8-11.

64 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Ceremoniis 1.89, a text taken

59 On this rivalry in antiquity, see Robert (1977).

60 ACO II I.3.417-421.

from the work of Peter the Patrician, written between 548 and

61 Malalas 363, 385.

565.

11

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia built a monumental bridge which still stands over the Sangarius and paved a long stretch of road which had previously been difficult to pass because the soil often became waterlogged. The benefits conferred by these improvements probably balanced the loss of the postal service.65 Disasters, however, continued to strike. In 554, yet another earthquake levelled part of the city, including the martyrium of Saint Anthimus and other churches; many were buried alive in the ruins. The quake is supposed to have lasted forty days; that is presumably the period during which aftershocks occurred. It is probably because of this earthquake that Justinian rebuilt the great baths of Antoninus whose most important part had collapsed. The structure was so huge that no one had expected it to be restored. Once again, the city rose from its ashes. Finally, in 563, Justinian ordered the detachment of scholarian troops stationed in the city transferred to Thrace, another event which probably diminished the prosperity of the city.66

The Visit of Theodore of Sykeon For most late antique cities, the historical record ends with the reign of Justinian, but Nicomedia was fortunate in receiving the visit of Saint Theodore of Sykeon in 612, at the very end of the period, on the eve of the Persian invasions which left their mark on the country for centuries to come. The narrative of the saint’s life and miracles provides many glimpses into the life of the city.67 Theodore arrived in Nicomedia to be met by a great crowd. More throngs greeted him where he was staying at Optatianae, in a suburb outside the east gate beyond the church of St. Anthimus, which had evidently been restored since the earthquake of 554. Among them was a deacon from the port of Calleon, near the church of St. Autonomus, on the south side of the gulf, some 15 miles to the west. At Optatianae, Theodore healed a merchant who had his shop in the city opposite the church of the Apostles, as well as the cantor of the poorhouse called Geragathis. He then went to the church of St. Anthimus, where he celebrated the liturgy, met the abbot of the monastery of Persea (near the emporium, or commercial port, of Amareon) and cured the scholarius Kostos who suffered from hydropsy. As he returned to Optatianae, Theodore crossed a canyon where he encountered a Jew from the city who was waiting in hopes of having his

65 Procopius, Aed. 5.3.8-15. For the bridge, see also Whitby (1985).

The notion of SOlch (1920) 270f., that Justinian actually de­ stroyed the highway from Chalcedon to keep an enemy from ap­ proaching the capital, does not merit serious consideration.

baby cured. No sooner had Theodore returned to his base than the archivist of the poorhouse came with news that its director was ill. The saint accompanied him into the city, staying in a house near the church of Virgin of the Spring. Much of Theodore’s activity took place in the sub­ urbs and outlying towns which stretched along the south side of the Gulf; the account of Theodore’s visit to the famous monastery of St. Autonomus there will be discussed below in connection with the Gulf and its remains.68 When the saint returned to Nicomedia, a great crowd awaited him on the route to Optatianae. There, he encountered the scholarius Martin, leatherworker of the city, and received the scholarius Theodore, Father of the City, who, because he was possessed by a demon, had to be brought in by his two brothers-in-law, both fabricenses. The local hermits, who lived shut up in buildings and along the walls, sent a message requesting a visit. The saint obliged, meeting among others a Syrian monk who was shut in the chapel of the Archan­ gel in the district of Chortocopia, and a virgin who dwelt in the church of the Virgin in the Walnut-tree quarter. He also accompanied Stephen, director of the poorhouse, to his wine cellar which was in a tower near the church of the Virgin. After all this, Theodore left Nicomedia by the high­ way leading east. At Hebdomon, a station named for the seventh milestone from the city, he stayed in the chapel of St. Dionysius, where another great procession of leading men of the metropolis came to bid him farewell. A more humble visitor was a camel-driver one of whose beasts had been possessed, with symptoms remarkably human; Theodore cured her. He moved from there to the inn at Dekaton, the station at the tenth milestone, where a girl slave of the innkeeper of Hebdomon came to him with a broken leg. From there, Theodore left the territory of Nicomedia. This circumstantial narrative has all the marks of authenticity, and tells much of conditions in the city and the surrounding region. The dominating class in Ni­ comedia was composed of scholarii, a designation now primarily ceremonial, corresponding to the protectores found in similar positions elsewhere. The local admini­ stration had at its head the pater, an official responsible for public works and finances. The ‘first men’ of the city included the fabricenses, officers of the imperial weapons factory and usually men of considerable power and influence. Their presence, incidentally, attests the continu­ ing activity of the factory which, like the mint (itself active into the reign of Heraclius), was an important imperial centre of production with a large staff of officers and workers. The ptochotrophos, or head of the local poorhouse, a great charitable establishment with a large

66 Quake: Malalas 487; Baths: Procopius, Aed. 5.3.7; troops: Theophanes 236. 67 For what follows, see Vie de Theodore de Sykeon 156-160.

68 See below, 61-2.

12

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity

staff and church, was also one of the leading men of the city.69 Although such major civic officials, along with priests and monks, appear, the absence of others is striking: St. Theodore seems never to have encountered the governor of Bithynia or any of his staff, nor local senators, nor the metropolitan bishop - but he was unlikely to be the friend of a miracle-working monk, who operated largely independent of the church authorities. Other citizens were more humble: a sharpener of tools, a shopkeeper, hermits, and a Jew. The letter attests the continuing existence of the Jewish community, whose synagogue is known from the inscriptions of the third century.70 The hermits represent a characteristic aspect of urban life, living scattered through the city, but especially along the walls, where they may have been following the example of the holy man Arsacius, or more probably were taking advantage of the empty land outside the circuit. Beside the walls, the only buildings mentioned are churches: Those of the Virgin in the Walnut-tree district, the Virgin of the Spring, the ‘Apostle’, the church in the poorhouse, and the chapels of the Virgin, and of the Archangel in Chortocopia.7172The most important, the church of St. Anthimus and the monastery of Optatianae lay outside the city to the east. The life of Theodore gives the impression of a popu­ lous and busy metropolis, yet without sufficient detail to enable the city to be visualised. The countryside, how­ ever, seems clearer, full of villages and market towns and with a flourishing agriculture. Wherever Theodore went, he was met by great crowds, and found churches and chapels. Among these, the monastery of St. Autonomus was evidently sizable and rich enough to send a deputa­ tion with horses to escort the saint from the metropolis, a distance of some 25 km. Likewise, the presence of inns at the seventh and tenth milestones from the city show that the highway to the east was still functioning, with full provision for travellers, despite the bleak picture of Procopius. Plainly, the region, and with it the city, was flourishing at the very end of Antiquity.

and archaeology. The inscriptions are surprisingly few: of 394 published from the city and region, only 28 are late antique. They are nevertheless of value. Surviving bases show that statues of Diocletian and his colleagues were set up, one in the Antonine baths, another dedi­ cated by a rationalis or financial official, others in unknown locations. Constantine would thus have had no trouble finding statues to transport to Constantinople. Christian acclamations inscribed on columns are plainly later. Epitaphs are the most informative; they include memorials of a protector, of an ex-consul Theodore, of the bishop Leontius who held office nine years, and of the son of a scutarius or shield maker, Flavius Maximi­ nus, an officer of the weapons factory who held the military rank of senator In addition, tombs were restored by a deacon at public expense, another by the secretary of the tribe Dia, and a third by the poor of Geragathis.73 Each of these is signifi­ cant: the first shows that the municipality was concerned with the maintenance of the graveyards, and that a deacon had the power to disburse public funds; the second that the ancient division of the population into tribes was still maintained in a Christian period; and the third names the great metropolitan poorhouse, called Geragathis, whose activities ćvidently extended far into the countryside.74 Nicomedia, which preserves its name as izmit (from the Ottoman Iznikmid, derived from eis Nikomedeiari), is a large and flourishing port and centre of industry. The entire area within the walls is covered with buildings, as it has been for centuries. Little, therefore has survived from the past, and systematic excavation has been impossible, but many remains have been uncovered while excavating foundations for large buildings. Georges Perrot, in 1861, reported the discovery of numerous architectural frag­ ments of all kinds, along with statues in mediocre Roman style (by which he may have been meant late antique), when the palace of Abdul Mejid was being constructed near the city.75 No details, however were available. Another occasion arose when a paper mill was con­ structed near the harbour in the western part of the city just before the Second World War. Archaeologists managed to survey the area and to report on the remains before they were demolished. The results are suggestive of what might have been lost elsewhere. The excavations involved an area of about 300 x 200 metres, and revealed four groups of buildings. On the

The Archaeological Record The literary sources thus provide a remarkably rich variety of information. They may be supplemented by the far sparser, yet still significant, record of epigraphy

72 Statues: ΤΑΜ IV. 1.28 {rationalis}, 29 (baths = CIL 111.324), 30,

69 Scholarii'. Jones (1964) index, s.v.·, pater. Roueche (1979);

31 (tetrarchy); acclamations 369, 371; protector 118 (undated,

fabricenses: Jones (1964) 834ff., cf. Foss (1979), and below 13-

but cf. 137 of Aurelian); ex-consul: 356; bishop: 358; scutarius'.

14.

367 (= CIL III. 14188).

70 ΤΑΜ IV. 1.373-377, cf.364; cf. L. Robert, Hellenica 11/12.

73 Ibid., 368 (deacon), 366 (secretary, cf. 327 for the tribe), 355

386-398.

(poor); other epitaphs are uninformative: ibid., 357, 360, 362.

71 According to Janin (1975) 87, the presence of a cantor in the

74 For late antique remains (often indicating the presence of

poorhouse indicates the existence of an important church. See

churches) in the villages north of Nicomedia, see D0rner(1941)

ibid. 77-104 for the churches and monasteries of the city and

27-32.

region.

75 Perrot (1862) 3f.

13

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia monumental public buildings, to emerge. The city, then as now, was built on the steep hillsides which drop to the Gulf, and, according to Libanius, contained a densely-packed network of public and private buildings, descending the slopes like groves of cypresses. The whole area was surrounded by the walls of Diocletian, still standing in the sixth century, when they were the abode of hermits. It was crowned by a citadel, probably contemporary with the rest. The most prominent build­ ings, in the eyes of Libanius, were the palace and theatre. The former, built by Diocletian, survived the great earthquake and occupied a district near the har­ bour, while the Theatre rose high above the centre of the city. The circus, whose massive walls did not prevent serious damage in 368, probably adjoined the palace. Equally prominent was the cathedral church destroyed by Diocletian; it stood on a height and was surrounded by other buildings; the new church of Constantine presumably occupied the same site. One of the greatest structures was the Antonine Baths, restored by Diocletian, damaged by earthquakes and last rebuilt by Justinian. Their location is unknown, as are those of the palaces of Diocletian’s wife and daughter. A Hellenistic city like Nicomedia had its market place and civic buildings in the centre. The narrative of Li­ banius shows that this was indeed the case, with the Bouleuterion, as well as the Temple of Fortune, adjacent to the Agora. Other temples, apparently including one dedicated to Demeter, still adorned the city in the late fourth century. By the time of Theodore of Sykeon, these would have disappeared, replaced by the numerous churches which he visited. The poorhouse, probably a large complex of buildings including a church, was the product of a Christian period, but the equally important weapons factory and mint remained from the time of Diocletian throughout the whole period. The basilica, or judgement hall, notorious in the Persecutions, stood in the district of Lausus, apparently near the east gate; it was probably built by Diocletian, and was restored by Con­ stantine after being struck by lightning. Its location is indicated by the Acta of St. Agathonicus which relate that Maximian, coming from the northeast, entered Nicomedia by the public highway, passed through the gate, and arrived at the basilica.81 But neither this quarter nor any of those of the late sixth century can be more closely identified. The city was characteristically divided by two great colonnaded streets, probably meeting at right angles in the centre; these were damaged in 368 and again in the reign of Theodosius II, and restored on both occasions. Likewise, the harbour suffered on both occasions, and continued to rise from its ruins. Some parts however, were not rebuilt, for the monumental buildings, residences and baths of the western district appear to have been

north were baths, with walls of large ashlar blocks cov­ ered on the interior with plaques of marble. Further south was a residential district, with numerous rooms floored in brick or stone. A monumental structure adjoined it on the west. This consisted of a large square paved with marble and surrounded with colonnades, with a fountain in the centre. In addition, there were substantial structures, probably commercial, near the sea; their heavy founda­ tions could only be removed by dynamite. The whole complex was bounded on the west by the new city walls of Diocletian.76 Finds from the site included a larger than life portrait head of Diocletian, the base of the statue dedicated to him by the rationalis, and a portrait head of a woman of the early fourth century.77 They reflect the active imperial interest in the area, and raise the possibility that the buildings may have been constructions of Diocletian. They lay just inside the city walls (which he built) and apparently covered an earlier graveyard. Yet the find of undated, but apparently late antique tombstones may suggest that the buildings soon went out of use.78 It is thus possible that these are works of Diocletian destroyed in the great earthquake of 368 and thereafter abandoned. Another find of great interest was made just outside the walls. It consisted of a hoard of 55 gold solidi of the fifth century, most of them issued by Zeno (474-491) and still new when buried, probably toward the end of the century. Most of them were struck in the same officina of the mint in the capital, and probably formed part of a purse of new coinage despatched from there. Unfortunately, the circumstances of the find were not recorded in any detail.79 The coins, therefore, like the inscriptions, keep their secrets; and the lack of a detailed account of the site makes it unlikely that the history of this sole excavated district of the city will ever be written. There has been one other small excavation, in the ne­ cropolis which stretches east of the city walls. This revealed a valuted tomb of three levels built into the ground. Its walls were decorated with floral frescoes. The structure, which was plainly Christian, belonged to the fourth or fifth century.80 The walls of Diocletian, the sole remaining monument of this period, will be discussed below.

The Late Antique City In spite of the lack of physical evidence, the sources enable a picture of late antique Nicomedia, with its

76 Bittel eia/. (1939) 156-165.

77 Dorner (1941)46-48, nos.3 and 7. 78 Tombstones: ΤΑΜ IV. 1.118 (protector, possibly earlier than

Diocletian; in any case, pagan), 357, 360, 362. 79 The coins were published by Ebcioğlu (1966); cf. Grierson

(1992)285 and Hendy(1985) 342.

81 AASS August IV.522; cf. Acta Agathonici 103, with the variant

80 Alkim (1970) 76f.

Lampso as the name of the district.

14

Nicomedia in Late Antiquity abandoned. They may suggest that many parts of the city never recovered from the disaster. Nicomedia was surrounded by cemeteries with sub­ urbs stretching beyond them, far along the shore. The cemetries contained the great churches of the martyrs, notably those of Saint Anthimus, east of the city, and St. Panteleemon to the west. The latter had been built in the suburb of Adamantius, and apparently stood on the site later occupied by a church with the same dedication. When that was rebuilt in 1858, numerous inscriptions and a mosaic pavement were discovered.82 Other suburbs included Achyron, where Constantine was baptised and died, and Psamathia, where he investi­ gated charges against Athanasius. Both of these probably contained imperial residences. Two hills outside the city had some importance: one saw the proclamation and abdication of Diocletian, who adorned it with a statue of an eagle, while the other, called ad Martyres, was the site of the martyrdom of the imperial servants Dorotheus and Gorgonius and later a graveyard.83 The monastery of Optatianae lay east of the city, beyond the church of St. Anthimus and a canyon, but still within walking distance. The further suburbs, as already noted, contained numer­ ous commercial ports, all evidently prosperous in the sixth century. Late antique Nicomedia was a large and flourishing place, which reached its peak under Diocletian and his

immediate successors, yet continued to function as a major provincial capital, and the site of the imperial factory and mint throughout the period. In spite of the vivid flashes provided by Libanius and the Life of St. Theodore, it is not possible to reconstruct its develop­ ment in any detail. For that, the archaeological record would be necessary, it seems probable, however, that the appearance of the city became more and more delapidated as the period advanced, bringing one disaster after another. The quake of 368 and the fire after it caused extensive devastation; but extensive repairs were evidently made, for there was still much to be knocked down in later occurrences, and to be re­ stored after them, at least through the time of Justinian. Through all this, the city was never abandoned, but constantly rose from its ruins, but the magnitude of successive disasters cannot fail to have left major traces on its fabric. Yet the greatest disaster was man-made, the founda­ tion of Constantinople. This not only deprived Ni­ comedia of its brief glory, but created an overwhelmingly powerful rival, attracting trade and no doubt much population from the Bithyniąn capital. There is every reason to believe that the city was in decline in the sixth century, and that the surprise of the population when Justinian restored the Antonine baths was quite natural.

82 AASS Jul. VI.420B = Migne, PG 115.477A; Kleonymos &

Papadopoulos (1867) 67- 70, 165: the inscriptions had nothing to do with the church or the cult; they included the tomb of the protector of Aurelian: Perrot (1862) 6.

83 Ad martyres'. ΤΑΜ IV. 1.367 = CIL III. 14188.

15

CHAPTER 2

Byzantine Nicomedia

Nicomedia, already in decline by the sixth century, suffered from the invasions and turmoil of the Dark Ages, and shrank to become a place noted for its ruins, a powerful fortress on a high hill overlooking the sea. It nevertheless remained a major port and road station. Because of its strategic location, it is frequently men­ tioned in the history of the Middle Ages. Yet its impor­ tance was not only military: until the end of the Byzantine period, Nicomedia remained the seat of the metropolitan archbishop of Bithynia, one of the great officials of the church, ranking eighth in its entire hierarchy. During the last centuries of Byzantine rule, the city’s importance increased with the shrinkage of the Empire: it was a bulwark against enemy attack, and the frequent goal of their expeditions. In these years, the fortifications played a major role in preserving the city and defending the approaches of the capital.

back to the safety of the capital before advancing east­ ward.2 Heraclius’ campaigns were eventually successful, the empire was saved and, as the war came to an end, it underwent considerable reorganization. Part of the changes involved an increased fiscal centralization in which provincial mints were closed. Consequently, Nicomedia struck its last coins in around 630, after more than three centuries of active production.3 This event, as much as any other, signals the end of the late antique city and the beginning of a very different age. This is the last mention of Nicomedia for almost a century, a silence typical of the Dark Ages which fol­ lowed the devastating Persian invasion. This period, which lasted into the ninth century, was marked by the incessant and destructive attacks of the Arabs, and problems compounded by civil war, plague and internal dissention. Even in the worst times, however, Nicomedia retained the strategic role which nature had given it, but its development is difficult to perceive until later centu­ ries, when a drastic change had taken place in its size and appearance. Nicomedia first appears in the Dark Ages on the oc­ casion of the visit of an Emperor and a Pope. The Pope, Constantine (708-715), was summoned to the capital by Justinian II, probably in an effort to have the acts of the recent Quinisext council accepted in the west. When he arrived, he received a message urging him to continue to Nicomedia. There, the emperor received his guest with great honour, taking communion from his hands and asking forgiveness for his sins.4 Justinian at this time was probably using Nicomedia as a base against the Arabs who had taken the major frontier fortress of Tyana in 709 and were making serious inroads into Asia Minor. Troubles reached a climax in the early eighth century. The empire was plunged into civil war just as the Arabs were preparing to attack Constantinople. Leo III, who ultimately defeated them, was proclaimed emperor at Amorium in 716, and thereupon advanced to Nicomedia, where he captured the son of the reigning emperor along

The Dark Ages

A new age began with the reign of Heraclius, when the Persians overran the eastern provinces of the Empire, and so devastated Asia Minor that most of its cities never recovered. In 615, Persian forces appeared at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople, a feat they re­ peated in 626. They could hardly have got there without passing Nicomedia, but these raids appear to have been a tour-de-force. Nicomedia remained in imperial hands, and continued to function as a mint for bronze coins until 619. Thereafter, it struck no coins until 626/6, a gap probably to be explained by the disturbed condi­ tions in the country rather than any Persian capture of the city.1 The city, probably still defended by its long walls of Diocletian, served as a main rallying point for the Byzan­ tine forces during these years. In March 623, Heraclius left Constantinople on the campaign which led him deep into Armenia to strike an unexpected and successful blow against the Persians. He celebrated Easter with his army at Nicomedia, and from there sent his wife and children 1

2

ChronPasch 714.

3

See Hendy (1985) 417f.; for the last issues, see DOC Π. 137f,

4

315-320. Liber Pontificalis I.390f.

For the Persian war and its effects, see Foss (1975); and for the mint, Hendy (1985) 416-418.

16

Byzantine Nicomedia

with the whole imperial retinue and the leading men of the palace.5 Their presence probably shows that the city was being used as an advanced base for organizing resistance against the Arab onslaught. The Arabs moved on to beseige the capital for almost a year; during the last stage of their campaign, they sent an army along the southern shore of the gulf to attack Nicaea and Nicomedia. When these forces were am­ bushed by men hidden in the adjacent mountains of Libon and Sophon (respectively south and east of the city), this effort, like the greater attack, failed.6 In 740, a devastating earthquake struck the whole region, leaving the city badly damaged.7 Under the circumstances of the time, Nicomedia could hardly have risen from its ruins, but it retained much strategic importance. In 743, the city was a base for the usurper Artavasdus, whose general Nicetas was defeated and captured there; and from there the victori­ ous Constantine V advanced to recapture the capital.8 Four years later, the emperor came to take refuge in the city while the capital was suffering from an outbreak of the plague; on his return to Constantinople, he convened the council which proclaimed iconoclasm the official doctrine of the empire.9 These years also saw the visit of Saint Cosmas, a monk of the Holy Land and champion of the icons. He encountered the local bishop, the iconoclast Eusebius, and predicted a bad end for him. Shortly after, the bishop was killed in a hunting acci­ dent. During his stay in Nicomedia, the saint restored to life a young man who was about to be buried outside the city.10 Most sources of the period which mention Nicomedia deal with its military role - as in 803 when the rebel Bardanes advanced on it unsuccessfully before surrender­ ing at Malagina, or sixty years later when the Paulicians of the eastern frontier made a spectacular raid deep into Asia Minor, reaching Nicomedia, Nicaea and Ephesus.11 A few sources, however, also attest the peaceful activities of trade, charity and construction. Seals of the eighth and ninth centuries show that the city had a commerciarius, an official in charge of the imperial warehouse for the storage of goods collected in taxes and thus responsible for commerce and taxation in the province.12 In commer­ cial terms, the city no doubt continued to profit from its location on the main approach to Constantinople, a site which would be highly advantageous for the collection of taxes.

5

Theophanes 390.

6

Theophanes 397.

7

Theophanes 412. The quake also struck Nicaea and Prainetos, on

8

Theophanes 420; Nicephorus 62.

The situation within the medieval city is first revealed in a source of a different kind. The pious bishop Theophylact, who held office from about 800-815 was a noted champion of the icons and, unusually for the time, a builder. He adorned his see with a church of Saints Cosmas and Damian as well as a two-storey building which he furnished with beds, blankets and generous endowment. He was also responsible for a famous monas­ tery where he installed doctors, nurses and, as in the first case, all that the poor needed. This hospital was still functioning in the late ninth century when the life of the saint was written. The bishop’s concern with charity was exemplary and systematic: he kept a register of the poor with name, family and place of origin, and distributed food to them every month. He visited the sick daily, and on Sunday gave them a hot bath with his own hands. These practices still continued at the time of the biogra­ pher. In 815, Theophylact was exiled to the remote fortress of Strobilos for his opposition to iconoclasm and died there in 840. After the restoration of the icons, his body was brought back to the church he had built, and there, according to the legend, provided healing for the sick, encouragement for the healthy, and warded off the attacks of the enemy.13 This account not only reveals construction within the city - evidently a complex of church, poorhouse and monastery, which fuctioned as a hospital - but shows the typical role of the church, and particularly of the local bishop, in providing needed charity. At this time, or perhaps a little later, Nicomedia be­ came the site of an imperial charitable establishment, the xenodocheion, administered by an offical who bore the high rank of spatharios and was subordinate to the Great Curator, one of the highest dignitaries of the state. Such officials are known from a seal of the ninth century, and from the list of dignitaries compiled by Philotheus in 899.14 Strictly speaking, a xenodocheion was a hospice for travellers, but it often had the additional functions of hospital, poorhouse and centre for almsgiving.15 The relation between this establishment, one of a network which the imperial government set up along the main highways, and the foundation of Theophylact is not stated, but they appear to have been separate, one centred on a monastery, the other an. imperial structure. Likewise, the connection of either with the earlier poorhouse, a major feature of the sixth-century city, cannot be deter­ mined. This place, or at least the church it contained, still existed in 787, when monks from ‘Hieragathe’ (evidently a form of the ancient name Geragathis) attended the council of Nicaea.16 The fate of the poorhouse itself, though, is unknown. Perhaps it fell into disuse, or was

the Gulf of Nicomedia.

13 Vita Theophylacti caps. 8, 9, 18. 14 Zacos and Veglery 1995; Philotheus 720 = Oikonomides (1972)

9 Georgius Monachus 754. 10 Papadopoulos-Kerameus (1891-1898) IV.287f. 11

123.

15 Constantelos (1968) 185-221.

Theophanes Continuatus 9; Genesius 121.

16 Janin (1975) 87.

12 Zacos and Veglery 1411A, 1599.

17

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia even one of the buildings restored by Theophylact. In any case, the presence of such charitable works indicates the continuing existence of a civic life independent of the military. The famous hermit Isaias was apparently a contem­ porary of Saint Theophylact. He lived in the ‘tower’of Saint Diomede’ and is supposed to have told the future to the empress Theodora and to have received a visit from the iconodule saint Joannicius. The account of his life, however, is so vague that serious doubts have been cast on his existence.17 The ‘Tower of Diomede’, though, most probably was real, for that saint eventually became the patron of the city (he had originally been associated with Nicaea) and had a church on the Acropolis. The tower was probably one of those of the Diocletianic walls, where holy men already dwelled in the sixth century. In this age civil life was strictly subordinated to the military, and the country was divided into provinces commanded by generals. Its strategic location brought Nicomedia the distinction of becoming capital of one of the new militarised provinces, the theme of the Optimati, in the eighth century. This region, originally named for a corps of imperial guards, embraced the small but critical area of northwest Anatolia which controlled the ap­ proaches to Constantinople. Its general, who took the title of domestic, apparently had his headquarters in Nicome­ dia which thus retained its role as a provincial capital, while remaining the seat of the metropolitan bishop of Bithynia.18 The first account of this province comes not from a Byzantine, but from an Arab writer, Ibn Khordadbeh, who in about 845 described it as containing three forts and the city of Nicomedia, ‘now ruined’. He also men­ tioned the city as a station on the main highway to Con­ stantinople.19 Similarly, in the Byzantine account of the themes, written by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in about 930, Nicomedia appears as the first city and metropolis of the province.20 The passage of Ibn Khordadbeh is extremely reveal­ ing in its description of the city as being in ruins, an image which will recur in later writers. This probably means that the ancient districts on the harbour and the slopes above, which a traveller would naturally encoun­ ter, were ruined by the ninth century, and that the city had withdrawn to its acropolis. No remains of the period, however, have been found there or elsewhere.

The Macedonian Age and its Aftermath Nicomedia appears in varying contexts during the two centuries of peace which followed the great Byzantine advances eastward in the late ninth century. In 866, for example, the high imperial offical Castor, who had read in public the document which justified the murder of the Caesar Bardas, uncle of Michael III, came to Nicomedia to stay in a monastery in a field, where he fell in the well and drowned.21 At this point, Michael elevated a local man, the patrician Basilicinus of Nicomedia to the rank of Caesar to be a rival of his co-emperor Basil I who, however, soon disposed of both emperor and Caesar.22 The most notable local worthies were the bishops, some of whom achieved prominence. The metropolitan George, who attended the council of 879, was an ardent supporter and correspondent of the patriarch Photius. He was also a famous preacher; some of his sermons have been preserved.23 Typically, none of George’s works deals with his diocese, but a letter of a later patriarch to the metropolitan Ignatius does treat a local situation. He requested that the workers on any land which monasteries acquired be replaced by state employees, apparently in an effort to provide for the unemployed.24 Otherwise, the city only appears in the late tenth century as the site of a church dedicated to the Holy Children martyred under Maximian, the scene of many miracles.25 These years were so peaceful that Leo VI (886-912) could even have two warships converted into pleasure yachts for his trips to such places as the hot springs of Pythia, Mount Olympus, or Nicomedia.26 The land route to the capital, of course, never lost its importance, but was so routinely used that it only casually appears in the sources, as in about 930 when the admiral Constantine, sent on an embassy to Georgia from Constantinople, was met at Nicomedia by a famous monk.27 It was also known to the Arabs, whose merchants and ambassadors passsed through the city, which finds a place in an itinerary of the late tenth century describing the northern route from the frontier to the capital.28 A generation later, however, peace was harshly inter­ rupted by a new enemy, the Russians, whose fleet ap­ peared before the capital in 944. Since they had no hope of taking the city, they plundered the Asiatic suburbs. During the summer, after a defeat in the Bosphorus, their bands moved eastwards, ravaging the Bithynian coast as

21 Symeon Magister 680.

22 Theophanes Continuatus 250. 23 Letters from Photius: Grumel, Regestes 549-551; sermons: PG 100.1336-1528; cf. Beck (1959) 542f,

17 Stiernon (1977).

24 Grumel, Regestes 694.

18 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Thematibus 69f., with the

25 Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita Luciani, cap.7, PG 114.405

comments of Pertusi 130-133. 19 Ibn Khordadbeh in BGA VI. 106, 113.

26 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de administrando Imperio 51.

27 Ibid., 46. 28 Honigmann (1936) 270.

20 De Thematibus 70.

18

Byzantine Nicomedia far as Nicomedia. They burned everything in their path monasteries as well as villages - but there is no indication that they took the city.29 Apart from this isolated incident, peace reigned and Nicomedia is rarely mentioned. It appears once in a rhetorical context, when the historian Michael Psellus, complaining of the decline of letters in the late eleventh century, writes that neither Athens nor Nicomedia, nor several other ancient centres, were in his time distin­ guished.30 This suggests not that the city had recently been a centre of learning, but that antiquarian taste enjoyed showing off knowledge of the ancient days of Libanius. Peace brought a prosperity which can only rarely be glimpsed or inferred from the sources. Two, however, do reveal something of the economic life of the city. The Book of the Eparch, compiled around 895, gives many insights into the capital and its guilds. One of them was that of the butchers, who, like the others were subject of many regulations. The Book specifies that they should not buy their meat in Nicomedia from the sheep dealers who brought their flocks there, but continue across the San­ garius, where they could get it for a lower price.31 In other words, the city was a centre of food distribution, a natural role for a place in such a strategic location. The sheep­ raisers could easily follow the great route from the east to bring their beasts to the city where they would not surpris­ ingly expect a higher price. Two centuries later, Psellus narrates a series of mira­ cles performed by St. Michael. One of them affected a native of the region of Nicomedia.32 His home (which has not been identified) is described as an ancient and well populated village, evidently one of many around the city. The occasion for the miracle was a business trip, which he and several others made to Nicomedia for trade. On his return, he was caught in a storm and paralysed. A vision of St. Michael cured him. This homely incident reveals the city as the centre of a prosperous district, the natural market for the villages around, a role it had no doubt constantly played. This age has left no trace in the archaeological record, but an excavation in a suburb does something to illustrate the prosperity of the time.33 It uncovered a small (10 x 7 m.) cross-in-square church at Bekir Dere, 3 km. north­

east of the city. The building, which used many spoils including funerary inscriptions probably brought from the necropolis of Nicomedia, was richly decorated. It had a marble iconostasis and chancel plaques bearing crosses and geometric designs, and a floor in marble and elabo­ rate opus sectile. It appears to have been built in the eleventh century, and may be taken as a hint of the wealth of the city in these peaceful years. Another hint is a bit more enigmatic. A novel group of coloured glazed terracotta revetment plaques, decorated with human figures, often of such saints as George and Panteleemon, has been identified and assigned to the ninth/tenth century.34 Some apparently came from Ni­ comedia, which may have been the centre of their pro­ duction, and perhaps the home of a real artistic innovation. If so, the city would gain another dimension in this age. Nicomedia appears more frequently as the empire sank into turmoil and collapse in the late eleventh century. Its location within easy reach of the capital, and its control of the main approach by land, made it a valuable goal of the conflicting sides in the civil wars of the time. Isaac Comnenus was proclaimed emperor in Paphlagonia in 1057. His ally Cecaumenus advanced to Nicomedia where he found an agent of the imperial post by whom he sent a message to Constantinople announcing the revolt. Comnenus then advanced to Nicaea which he captured, while imperial forces were sent to Nicomedia and ordered to break down the bridge across the Sangarius (a task they were quite incapable of accomplishing; in fact, it still stands) and to occupy the heights of Mt. Sophon. The rebel then moved toward Nicomedia where an emissary of the emperor met him and offered the rank of Caesar, thus signalling his success.35 This campaign was to be typical of the new age in which the importance of Ni­ comedia grew as imperial power in Asia Minor con­ tracted.

The Comneni, Turks and Crusaders The fatal defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071 left all Anatolia open to the Turks. Their main thrust followed the northern route to the capital which led through Nicomedia. In 1073, for example, when the future emperor Alexius Comnenus and his brother were trying to reach Constantinople from Ancyra they had to pass through a countryside infested by the enemy. As they approached Nicomedia, they were attacked by a band of 200 Turks who were raiding the district, not far from the city.36 In the following year, the Norman rebel Roussel, attempting to carve out a kingdom for himself

29 Events summarized in Vasiliev (1968) 292-4. The Byzantine source, Theophanes Continuatus 423-5 gives the impression that the events took place in the immediate vicinity of the capital, but

the Russian Primary Chronicle, p.72, adds convincing details

about the devastation of Bithynia. A letter of Alexander, bishop of Nicaea, to Ignatius of Nicomedia, which mentions the aid which the former gave to the Nicomedians during the attack,

probably refers to these events: Darrouzes (1960) 75. 34 See most recently Mason and Mango (1995), with reference to

30 Psellus, Hist. 1.138.

earlier discussions. The place of manufacture remains uncertain.

31 Book of the Eparch, cap. 15.

32 Psellus, Scripta minora 1.132f.

35 Scylitzes 490-496, Attaliates 54.

33 Duyuran (1951).

36 Bryennius II.9, p.157.

19

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia in Asia Minor, seized the cities along the Sangarius and established his base at Malagina, where he held two children of the imperial family hostage. They managed, however, to make their escape over rough mountain tracks to Nicomedia, where they were safe in an impe­ rial city.37 Shortly after, though, the city fell to the rebel who advanced as far as the Bosphorus before returning to Nicomedia, where he proclaimed the Caesar John, whom he had captured, as emperor. This usurper lasted only a moment before both he and his protector fell into the hands of the Turks.38 The Turks took advantage of this time of confusion to establish themselves far in the west of Asia Minor. In 1078, when Nicephorus Botaniates revolted, Nicomedia and the adjacent cities willingly joined him as most likely to protect them, and the general in command of Nicome­ dia even went outside the walls to welcome him. Botani­ ates then entered Nicomedia with his troops, most of them Turks.39 Two years later, when Nicephorus Melissenus revolted, he called on the various Turkish leaders for their support, and opened to them the cities which they might otherwise have been unable to capture. In these circum­ stances, Nicaea became Turkish, and the centre of their Anatolian sultanate.40 This left Nicomedia as the only major Byzantine bastion in the whole region. Although virtually all the information about the city involves the military, a stray notice reveals that there was still a civil government, administered in 1078 by a monk Michael.41 His role presumably reflects the dominance of the church in local administration at a time when the regular hierar­ chy had broken down. When Alexius Comnenus came to the throne in 1081, the Turks controlled most of Asia Minor. Assuring the security of the region opposite Constantinople, with the Gulf of Nicomedia, was therefore his first priority. To accomplish this at a time when his own forces were minimal, he began a stealthy campaign against the Turks of Nicaea who had ravaged Bithynia as far as the Bosporus and terrorized its inhabitants. The emperor’s small bands ambushed and drove back Turkish raiding parties, and then began to spend the night in villages and buildings which the Turks had occupied. These measures of harassment brought swift results. Within two months of his accession, Alexius had forced the Turks away from the coast and ensured imperial control of the vital Gulf of Nicomedia.42 His gains were recognised by the Sultan in a treaty which set the frontier at the Drakon river in Bithynia. Further advance proved more difficult. In 1086, an imperial expedition against Nicaea failed and was forced

to withdraw to Nicomedia. Worse was to come: the Turks finally captured Nicomedia in 1087, leaving the roads to the capital open. Alexius responded by building a new fort at Kibotos, on the southern shore of the Gulf, to control its entrance (no traces of this fort survive).43 These efforts led to the recapture of Nicomedia by 1090, for in that year it was again attacked by the Turks. The emperor responded by sending 500 heavy armed knights supplied by Count Robert of Flanders. Although they were soon withdrawn, the city remained Byzantine.44 In 1095, Alexius answered another Turkish attack by building another fort, this time at the end of Lake Baanes east of Nicomedia, to provide an advanced post and bulwark for the city.45 The situation now appeared to be stabilizing just as a new complication appeared in the form of the First Crusade. Peter the Hermit led the advance party of the Crusade, a motley band which crossed the Bosporus and arrived at Nicomedia in 1096. There, Lombards and Germans separated from the Franks, to follow the various routes to the East. Nicomedia, as always, was the main junction point for these routes, either directly to the Sangarius, or southwest to Nicaea, and then via the old imperial high­ way across central Anatolia. The crusaders, who at­ tempted to follow both, met with complete disaster.46 The main crusading army started on the same route in 1097. They stayed three days in Nicomedia, where they learned that the Turks were in control of all the imperial territory beyond the city, and that their march also faced problems of another kind. In order to proceed to Nicaea, they had to send an advance party of 3000 men, equipped with swords and axes, to widen the road so that the main army could pass. The route they then followed had been part of the main Roman highway across Asia Minor, but had long been abandoned in favour of routes which led directly across the gulf to Nicaea. As they left Nicomedia, the crusaders were dismayed by the sight of severed heads and bones of their predeces­ sors lying in fields by the sea, where they had been slaughtered by the Turks.47 In Nicaea, however, they gained the first of their great victories, in this case one which led to the restoration of imperial control. One of their number, Stephen of Blois, reported that Nicomedia, the place where the holy martyr Pantaleon had suffered, was an ‘urbem desolatam a Turchis’.48 Once again, the ruined state of the city made an impression. After the successful conclusion of the First Crusade, another set out, this time against the Turks of Paph­ lagonia in north central Anatolia, in 1101. It, too,

43 Ibid.,Vlx.

37 Bryennius 11.16, p.173.

44 Ibid., Vll.vii, VUI.iii. 45 Ibid.X.v.

38 Attaliates 189. 39 Attaliates 268.

46 Albert of Aix I.xv; Gesta francorum 1.2.

40 Bryennius IV.31, p.301. 41 Attaliates 296.

47 Fulcher of Chartres 332. 48 Gesta francorum II. 7; Fulcher of Chartres 332; Stephen of Blois

42 Anna Comnena Ill. 11.

886.

20

Byzantine Nicomedia In 1179 Manuel Comnenus set out from Nicomedia with a force of cavalry to relieve Claudiopolis threatened by the Turks, who were taking advantage of their over­ whelming victory at Myriokephalon three years earlier.53 After Manuel’s death in 1180, the situation deteriorated drastically, as the empire fell yet again into a morass of civil war when the Turks were constantly advancing. Under the circumstances, the local populations often expressed their discontent at bearing the brunt of the fighting and the taxation needed to support the wars. Consequently, when Andronicus Comnenus raised the standard of revolt in 1182, most of the inhabitants of the region around Nicomedia, and especially those who lived near the highway to the east, joined his cause and helped him achieve rapid success. The city, though, was con­ trolled by an imperial garrison and did not join; Androni­ cus simply left it behind, taking the risk of having a powerful fortress in his rear, since he felt (correctly) assured of success in the capital.54 By the end of this period, perhaps as part of a reor­ ganization of defenses after the disastrous defeat of Myriokephalon, which seriously weakened the defenses of the Anatolian frontier, Nicomedia appears as the seat of a separate province, rather than capital of the Optimati. The province is named in a document of 1198 beside the province of Mesothynia, a Byzantine term for the penin­ sula west of Nicomedia. The Partitio Romaniae, the treaty which divided the empire after the Fourth Crusade, lists the province of Nicomedia between the Optimati and Tarsia, east of the Sangarius. Neither text enables the extent of the province or its exact relation with its neigh­ bors to be determined.55 Most sources of the period deal with wars and have little to say of the city itself. The narrative of Odo of Deuil, historian of the Second Crusade, forms a valuable exception, by revealing the condition of the city, though in the context of a narrative highly unfavorable to the Byzantines. The Crusade reached Asia Minor in 1147, an unwelcome presence at a time when the emperor Manuel was about to attack the Turks. These adversaries resolved their problems, so that the new force, which might threaten them both, could be faced. Their apparent collaboration stirred the hostility of the Crusaders, and Odo’s account of Asia Minor, opens with a characteriza­ tion of the Byzantines as inert, always losing territory to their enemies, yet still with much to lose, and dependent on foreign mercenaries. These facts were made manifest by Nicomedia:

stopped in Nicomedia, which served as a meeting point and source of supplies. Its location on the sea meant that the city could always provide goods which might be hard to find in the interior where imperial (and virtually any other) authority had collapsed. In fact, as they advanced to what was to be their destruction, only those who had brought supplies from Nicomedia had enough to eat.49 Despite considerable discord between the two Chris­ tian parties, the passage of the Crusaders enabled the Byzantines to reestablish their control over the coastal regions of Asia Minor. The Turks, however, did not go away, and. Alexius was constantly obliged to campaign against them. In his last great effort, in 1116, he found the enemy near Nicaea, and was forced to withdraw to Nicomedia, preparatory to a major advance. The city was described as a highly suitable base, since the army could find ample fodder for their horses and pack animals on the adjacent plains, and it was well suited for receiving supplies from the capital. The troops were quartered in the neighboring villages, guards were posted along the roads and a long stay was planned. During this time, Alexius enrolled new troops and taught them the new tactics which were to prove of great value in the following campaign which penetrated far into the interior.50 This all reflects the perennial importance of Nicomedia in times of trouble; like Alexius, Heraclius, five hundred years earlier, also used the city as a base at a time when the empire had virtually collapsed before the onslaught of an enemy from the East. Despite the impressive efforts of the Comnene gov­ ernment in reorganizing defences and constructing fortresses, there was virtually no time in the century of their rule (1081-1185) when the Byzantine territories in Asia Minor were free from enemy attack. Nicomedia was therefore in constant use as a military base and bulwark for the capital. In 1123, the area received welcome reinforcement when captive Serbs, defeated in a revolt, were settled there, some enrolled in the army, others becoming tax payers, that is, farmers.51 Fighting continued, though with many interruptions. A decree addressed by the synod in Constantinople to the metro­ politan of Nicomedia in March 1169 provides a curious illustration. The bishop had asked whether a priest who had bloodied his hands fighting courageously against the enemy could continue to be a priest. The answer was negative, for he was held to have defiled his hands with human blood.52 Although neither place nor circum­ stance are given, it would appear that even the local clergy took part in defence; one might suppose here, perhaps, a priest in a village, rather than the city where normal forces should have been available.

Quod nobis Nichomedia prima mostravit, que, sentibus et dumis consita, ruinis subliminibus anti­ quam suam gloriam et praesentium dominorum 53 Choniates 197. 54 Choniates 245. 55 Texts: 1198: Tafel and Thomas 1.270, with the discussion of

49 Albert of Aix VIII.5-7, 11,37.

50 Anna Comnena XV.ii-iii.

Zakythenos (1949) 3f.; 1204: Carile (1965) 217, with discussion 234.

51 Choniates 16. 52 Grumel, Regestes 1078.

21

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

probat inerciam. frustra iuvabat eam quidam maris profluvius que de Bracchio consurgens post dietam terciam in ea terminatur.

When Odo of Deuil saw Nicomedia, it was a place largely overgrown with splendid ruins of a distant past. His second passage, though not specifically naming Nicomedia, provides a description which accords per­ fectly with the remains: a well-defended castle on a high hill, where the city was established after it withdrew from its extensive site by the sea. Since by all accounts, it continued to function as a port, it would have had ships in the sea, and, quite probably, a fort by the shore to protect the commerce they represented. By the twelfth century, then, the ancient city had been completely transformed to become a lofty fortress; but the earlier passages, though they do no mention the castle, suggest that this situation existed already in the ninth century if not before. The city can be visualised in the Comnene period, but little is known of its surroundings. The immediate vicinity was agricultural, and contained the lands worked, among others, by the soldiers settled by John Comnenus, perhaps ancestors of the local taxpayers who joined the revolt of Andronicus against the feeble administration which had been suffering defeats. It also contained many monaster­ ies, for a chrysobull of Manuel issued in 1158 to confirm monasteries in possession of lands to which they held deeds, mentions those of Nicomedia, the Gulf, and the region as far as the capital.58

Nicomedia first revealed this situation to us; overgrown with thorns and brambles, it reveals by its lofty ruins both its ancient glory and the idle­ ness of the present rulers. In vain does a certain estuary of the sea, which terminates in the city three days after rising in the Arm, offer her the ad­ vantage of good transportation.56 This description should probably be taken in conjuction with another passage where Odo describes the route through Asia Minor to Ephesus:

ibi multas urbes destructas invenimus et alias quas ab antiqua latitudine supra mare Graeci re­ strinxerant, munientibus eas muris et turribus... illi turres habebant et muros duplices ad tutelam et in mari naves ad fugam.

We found many destroyed cities there, and others which the Greeks had withdrawn from their ancient broad sites by the sea, strengthening them with walls and towers...they had towers and dou­ ble walls for protection and ships in the sea for flight.57 The first of these passages reveals the situation which struck Ibn Khordadbeh in the ninth century and Stephen of Blois in the eleventh: the city was a ruin. Stephen attributed this to recent attacks of the Turks, perhaps with some reason, but the basic phenomenon is surely much more ancient. In Late Antiquity, Nicomedia had been a great city, stretching along the coast and up the slopes of the hills, adorned with numerous imposing public build­ ings. Many of these had succumbed to the earthquake of 368, to be rebuilt partially or entirely later in the period. The city was already in decline after the foundation of Constantinople, and would have had diminishing re­ sources to support its ancient magnificence. With the advent of Persians and Arabs, the decline probably became more precipitous, as constant attack compounded by frequent natural disasters accompanied the general weakening and impoverishment of the whole empire. Nicomedia would no longer have been in a position to rise from its ruins, or even to maintain much of its old area. The ruins which impressed the informant of Ibn Khordadeh were doubtless those of the lower city along the shore and the slopes; so, probably were those which Stephen of Blois mentioned. That is, he could have seen a city which had long lain in ruins and attributed the devas­ tation to the Turks; but they had, of course, recently taken the place and no doubt caused much damage to the parts which still occupied.

Lascarid Nicomedia The turmoil which followed the battle of Myriokephalon was a mere prelude to the complete chaos brought by the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Suddenly, the decapitated empire had to find a new orientation and a new base for its survival. Of the several states formed of its ruins, the most important, and ultimately succesful, was the so-called empire of Nicaea, named for the city where the Patriarch and the would-be emperor Theodore Lascaris took up residence. Nicomedia thus found itself midway between the new and old capitals at a time when the rulers of both were struggling for control of northwest Asia Minor. The location of Nicomedia became even more strategic than ever: it was an equally essential base for the Latin emperors if they wanted to secure Asia Minor, or for the Greeks in order to protect their holdings and to hope for future advances. It appears frequently therefore in the annals of this period of exile, between the fall of Con­ stantinople in 1204 and its recapture in 1261. In the treaty which divided the Byzantine empire among the Crusaders, Nicomedia had been assigned to the Latin emperor, but for the moment it was in the hands of Lascaris. Late in 1204, therefore, the Latin emperor sent 100 knights to ‘Nichomie’. They occupied the city after the Greeks withdrew, and repaired the fortress which had fallen into ruin. The knights’ control only lasted until

56 Odo of Deuil 88.

57 Ibid., 106.

58 Zepos, lus III. 450-454; cf DOlger, Regesten 1418.

22

Byzantine Nicomedia

revolted when they learned of the earlier Latin defeat. While he was there, he received an embassy from Las­ caris, who was well aware of the international situation. Because the Latins were seriously threatened by the Bulgars, Henry and Lascaris came to terms. The Latins agreed to evacuate Nicomedia in exchange for a truce of two years. When this was agreed, the knights demolished the fortress of Saint Sophia, and withdrew.63 It did not take long, however, for the Latins to return to the attack. In 1211, Henry defeated Lascaris on the Rhyndacus river in Mysia, and advanced far to the south. It was probably at this time that he recaptured Nicomedia which, as always, was essential for defending the ap­ proaches to Constantinople.64 In 1224, however, the new Greek emperor, John Vatatzes, inflicted a major defeat on the Latins, leaving them in control only of the northern area around the capital and near Nicomedia, which he evidently recovered.65 In any case, it was certainly in his hands by 1241, when he used it as a base for attacking the forts which lay to the west along the shore of the Gulf. Nicomedia thus resumed its old rule of base of opera­ tions, as it was in 1247 when Vatatzes prepared a cam­ paign against Constantinople from there.66 The Latin occupation, which lasted twenty years or more, has left few certain traces (as in the walls, which will be discussed below). One relic, though, did survive until modem times. The crypt of the orthodox monastery of St. Panteleemon contained what was claimed to be the tomb of the saint.67 Closer investigation has shown that it was in fact the sarcophagus of a Latin knight, decorated with his image and coat of arms. The image was last seen in the sixteenth century after which it was removed, apparently to make the tomb more appropriate for an early Christian saint. The life of the city in this period is poorly known, but it did produce at least one famous native son. The great scholar, translator and editor of the Greek Anthology, Maximus Planudes, was bom here around 1255, as was his elder brother Michael, whose panegyric on the city will appear below. Their father was a landowner in the district.68 The presence of this family probably indicates

the following Spring, when they had to be withdrawn to help the Latins face a new threat from the Bulgars, who inflicted a crushing defeat on them.59 The Latins tempo­ rarily ceased to be a threat, and Lascaris could attempt to consolidate his position. Theodore Lascaris was only one of several pretenders to the Byzantine succession; even in Asia Minor he had to face serious rivals. The most immediate danger came from the Empire of Trebizond, ruled by the brothers Alexius and David Comnenus. David’s control of the western part of the Black Sea coast, with the powerful fortress of Heraclea, made him the neighbour of Lascaris. Already in 1204, he attempted to advance westward, but was defeated by Lascaris who, two years later, moved on the offensive. He in turn came close to capturing Hera­ clea, but was forced to withdraw by a Latin attack on Nicomedia. The emperor had sent 300 knights in a coordinated movement by land and sea in support of David against his more immediate adversary, but Lascaris managed to defeat them in the rough country near the city.60 Even this victory gained the Greeks no respite as the Latins launched a major attack in 1206. Their main thrust was against Mysia, where they secured control of the whole coast of the Sea of Marmara, but they also sent an expedition to Nicomedia.61 Thierry of Loos siezed the place, described as one day’s journey from Nice, capital of Lascaris. Since Thierry found the fortifications in ruins, he took over the large church of Saint Sophia and con­ verted it into a fortress, planning to carry on the war from there. In the following year, the Latins secured their position by building forts at Charax and Civetot which gave them control of the Gulf, with the vital sea lanes to Constantinople.62 As the enemy was closing in on his domains, it was essential for Lascaris to respond. His attack of May 1207 reveals the importance of Nicomedia to both parties. The knights, unable to survive on their own, appealed to the emperor, who led a force in person. Thereupon, Lascaris withdrew to Nicaea and the Latins strengthened their garrisons. The Greeks had not gone away, though; in the same month, Thierry of Loos was surprised and captured, and the rest of his men retreated to the fortified church of St. Sophia. Since they had only five days supplies, they again appealed to the emperor Henry, who returned, this time for a longer campaign. Lascaris withdrew across the mountain to Nicaea, and the emperor camped in the fields opposite Nicomedia. He stayed five days, ravaging the countryside in anger at the local population who had

63 Villehardouin 481-89. 64 Nicomedia is not specifically mentioned in the account of this

campaign, but when Acropolites describes the lands in Asia Mi­ nor controlled by the Latins and Greeks, he does not include the

city in the northern Lascarid territory where it would be ex­

pected. Since it was in Latin hands a few years later, the cam­ paign of 1211 seems the most probable occasion for its capture. 59 Villehardouin 312 (occupation), 342 (withdrawal), 347 (return of

65 Treaty: Acropolites 38, not very clear on Nicomedia; but cf. his

knights to Constantinople). 60 Choniates 626, 640f.; cf. his Oratio 14 on the deeds of Lascaris,

Epitaph on Vatatzes 15f.,where he states that Nicomedia and all the surrounding territory was in the hands of the Latins when Vatatzes came to the throne, but that he soon recovered it.

p,144f., which deals with the same events in more rhetorical

terms.

66 Acropolites 59, 86.'

61 For the territories gained by the Latins, see Acropolites 12.

67

62 Villehardouin 455 (Nicomedia), 460 (forts).

68 See Planudes, Epistulae 191 f.

23

See the very interesting discussion of Dallegio-d'Alessio (1951).

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia the return of a Byzantine aristocracy with the reestablish­ ment of settled conditions John Vatazes did not live to see the recapture of Con­ stantinople for which he had laid the groundwork. Soon after his death in 1254, his dynasty succumbed to the machinations of Michael Palaeologus, whose general entered the former capital in 1261. The news reached Nicomedia during the feast of one of its greatest saints, Pantaleemon. When it was told to Şennacherim, a high imperial official who happened to be in the city, he responded gloomily that this was a calamity and won­ dered what the Greeks had done to deserve it.69 As far as Asia Minor was concerned, he was right. Although the recapture of Constantinople was a glorious achievement for which the Greeks had long fought, it brought a fatal involvement in the affairs of the West, and neglect of the Anatolian heartland without which the empire was destined soon to collapse.

2000 Byzantines and Alans commanded by the hetairiarch Mouzalon. In the ensuing combat, the general barely escaped falling into a Turkish ambush, while some of his men were killed and most fled. Many sought refuge in the nearby walls of Nicomedia, from which the battle appar­ ently could be seen. The defeat was a real disaster. It not only introduced a new power to the area, but revealed the weakness of the empire to all. As a result, refugees flooded from Bithynia into the capital while the Turks devastated the country. It was especially calamitous for the villagers that the defeat came in mid-summer when they were in the fields harvesting their crops. Many were killed; others fled to the security of nearby fortresses. Not just Nicomedia, but the whole of northwest Asia Minor suffered in the aftermath of the battle.72 For the moment, however, Osman and his allies did not advance further west, fearing the danger of leaving a powerful fortress in their rear. Their hesitation was only momentary: in the summer after the battle, the Turks were already ravaging the lands as far as the Bosporus. Under the circumstances, the emperor, whose forces were too weak to face an open battle, turned to Kuzim Pasha, a Mongol who had converted to Christianity. Kuzim was named governor of Nicomedia, and married his daughter to the emir of Kastamonu, head of a powerful state in Paphlagonia, east of the frontier. The emir then became more friendly to the empire, but his ally Amour continued his raids.73 The effects of this arrangement did not last long, for in 1304 the Turks were once again raiding as far as the Bosporus and the Black Sea. Nicomedia began to suffer from lack of food and water, as it became a fortress isolated in territory constantly exposed to enemy attack.74 A series of decisions by the Patriarch of Constantino­ ple illustrates prevailing conditions. The metropolitan bishop of Apamea in Bithynia had asked that the diocese of Nicomedia be assigned to him, evidently because its bishop was residing in the capital and neglecting his duties. The Patriarch, in agreeing, requested him to govern his flock and defend it from the Turks, and ordered the local church to receive him. The new metro­ politan was to stay in his diocese, even to martyrdom, to care for his congregation, who were cowering behind their walls.75 These documents show that the situation was desperate: the population was in a state of total insecurity, the civil government was powerless, and only the church seemed to offer any hope. This twilight period of Byzantine rule produced the last formal eulogy of the city, so soon to pass forever from Greek and Christian hands. It is included in the life of Diomedes, its patron saint, written by Michael

The Final Years For the first years of the new Palaeologan dynasty, Nicomedia was at peace, protected by the powerful fortresses of the Sangarius. At the beginning of this period, (1283 to about 1285), its spiritual welfare was assured by a distinguished scholar, courtier and political figure, the bishop John, later metropolitan of Bithynian Heraclea.70 He is best known as uncle of the historian Nicephorus Gregoras, who wrote his biography in 1329, at a time when Nicomedia could still be described as ‘the strongest fortress of Bithynia’. A text of these years, an encomium of Constantinople by George Karbones, praises Nicomedia as the leading city of Bithynia, the storehouse for the capital.71 The city ensured that all its neighbours would willingly send the necessary supplies to Constantinople; the journey, which is described with some charm, took three days. This text makes clear something that was always true, but too obvious to mention: that the capital depended heavily on the food brought in from the fertile shores of Bithynia, easily transported along the Gulf from Nicomedia and the other ports. This is the last period when the peaceful navigation between the two cities would be the subject of discussion. The new century, however, brought a new enemy, one destined to leave a permanent mark on the whole region, and to establish a great empire which began in Bithynia. Osman, founder of the Ottoman dynasty, first appears in history in 1302, when he and his allies inflicted a major defeat on the Byzantines at Bapheus just outside Ni­ comedia. On 27 July, the Turkish force, gathered from much of western and northern Anatolia, faced a mere

72 Pachymeres 11.327, 333f., 336 (Bonn). For a clear account, see Arnakis (1947) 128f., and for the circumstances, Lindner (1983)

69 Pachymeres 1.245 (Failler).

25f. 73 Pachymeres 11.345 (Bonn).

70 Laurent (1934).

74 Pachymeres 11.412 (Bonn).

71

Fenster (1968) 349f. The text is translated below, 44.

75 Grumel, Regestes 1742-1746.

24

Byzantine Nicomedia Planudes, who was bom in Nicomedia around 1250. The saint lived in the time of Diocletian.76 The panegy­ ric opens with the statement that Diomedes guards the megalopolis Nicomedia like one established on an acropolis - that is, most probably, his church stood in the hilltop fortress. The praises of the city occur when the author has to present the persecutor Diocletian; they have two aspects, religious, and formal: The palace of this tyrant, or rather the base from which he marched out to overrun and ravage the whole world, was the city Nicomedia. Rather than metropolis of the cities over which it pre­ sided, it might more rightly be called metropolis of the martyrs, since it was entirely washed in the blood of martyrs, and was therefore a light shining to the whole world under the sun...The city was the capital of the tyrant, as it was the chief orna­ ment of all Asia. It lies in a recess of the northermost gulf of the Propontis (the gulf is called the Astacene), in a fine location on the land and sea. It dwells with them in a most advantageous situation, abundantly served with the benefits of sea and land. It is admired for its mild climate; it is not wanting in safe harbours for those who sail in; it embraces the plains which lie above it and the es­ tuaries of the rivers; and it has all other praises of a city that can be mentioned.

These words reflect the ancient glory of the city as the scene of the Great Persecution of Diocletian, who had his capital there, as well as the many advantages of its location. The second part basically lists the main elements of an encomium on a city, such as could be produced about any place. In this case, though, they were all true. This the last appearance of the city in a civilian context, and the last reference to its classical greatness. The Byzantines managed to maintain their position in Bithynia for another twenty years, but by then Osman had been succeeded by his son Orhan, whose first act was the capture of the great fortified city of Prusa, which became the Ottoman capital. As Orhan moved swiftly to strengthen and expand his position in Bithynia, Nicome­ dia, now one of the empire’s last outposts, was soon under attack. Its fate was sealed in 1329, when the emperor, learn­ ing that the Turks were besieging Nicaea, led a major campaign to relieve it. This turned out to be the last serious Byzantine effort in Asia Minor. The force ad­ vanced as far as Pelekanon, some 30 miles west of Nicomedia; it could go no further because the Turks controlled the heights and the rough country to the east. Here, thanks to poor discipline, the army met total defeat

and fled in panic to the nearby fortresses.77 After this, there was no hope of maintaining communication with Nicomedia by land, and little possibility that the city could hold out. Nevertheless, the Byzantines did what they could to maintain control of such a vital outpost, for once it was lost, the enemy would be at the gates of Constantinople. In the autumn of 1330, the emperor Andronicus III learned the distressing news that Orhan had surrounded Nicomedia and set up seige machines for a major assault. He promptly embarked footsoldiers and cavalry on the fleet and set sail. As he was about to reach Nicomedia, he received a message from Orhan proposing peace. Gifts were exchanged, and an agreement made by which Orhan promised to be a friend of the empire and not attack its possessions in the East. Andronicus then visited the city (which he had never seen), brought in supplies, and stayed a week.78 This agreement, like others, lasted only a moment. In the following spring (1331), Andronicus was about to leave for a campaign against the Bulgars when he got the news that Orhan was again preparing to attack. ‘Nicomedia’, wrote John Cantacuzene, the chronicler of these events who was virtually running the empire at the time, ‘could not be taken by weapons or force because of its circuit of extremely strong walls and the extremely strong nature of the site. It feared only lack of provisions. The barbarians, who understood this, ignored the walls, which they could not capture by siege, and hastened to occupy the approaches by which the city was fed’. There­ fore, when the emperor learned that the Turks were camped outside the city, he sent in provisions, abandoned his plans against Bulgaria, loaded men, horses and grain on battleships and freighters, and set out. Once again, the Turks withdrew; Orhan, in fact, had not yet appeared on the scene. Andronicus spent two days in the city, un­ loaded the grain, and encouraged the defenders by his speeches.79 These accounts reveal a desperate situation: the walls were adequate to defend the city, but the garrison needed supplies which could only be brought by sea, since the Turks controlled the overland route. The imperial gov­ ernment could send supplies, and drive away the Turks (who evidently wanted to avoid a pitched battle), but as soon as their forces were gone, the city would again be blockaded. Nicomedia could not hold out for long, especially as the empire was plunged into civil war which made it impossible to face external threats. Its only hope was treaties and bribes, but these, as usual proved of short

77 See the detailed narrative of John Cantacuzene, who participated in the battle: 11.6 (Bonn ed.1.341-363); cf. the summary account of Gregoras 11.433-7. For the events in the context of the area

where they took plaice, see below, 46.

76 See Westerink (1966) 161-227. For the passages quoted, see

78 Cantacuzene I.446ff.

secs. 1,40 and 41 of the life, pp. 209f.

79 Ibid., I.459f.

25

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia effect. In August 1333, the emperor Andronicus III went to Nicomedia where he made yet another treaty with Orhan, this time promising an annual payment of 12000 gold pieces for the remaining fortresses of Bithynia.80 Four years later, however, after a long siege during which the defenders suffered tremendously from hunger, the city finally surrendered.81 This change was permanent: when the Turks of Orhan entered Nicomedia in 1337, a new period of its history began.

city which was then ruled by a woman called Yalakonya or Belkonda. She finally surrendered on terms when her brother, the ruler of Yalova, was killed. Orhan gave the inhabitants the choice of staying or leaving. Some chose to depart. In their place, he brought in the garrison of a fort to the east, and settled other Turks in the city. The Turkish sources put the capture of izmit in 1326, before that of Nicaea, an anomaly which cannot be reconciled with the more precise evidence of the Byzantine chroni­ cles.8485 The Turkish accounts contain some undisputed facts, though: that Orhan built mosques and medreses (theological schools) in izmit, and that he entrusted the city to the administration of his son Suleyman. Whether or not he turned the churches into mosques or destroyed then, as is also stated, is not certain. In any case, there is still a mosque of Orhan within the castle walls; although it 85 is a modem building, it may occupy the original site. Likewise, a document establishes that Suleyman endowed a bath in the city.86 In other words, whatever the circum­ stances of its capture, izmit rapidly assumed the character­ istics of a Turkish, Islamic city. The new Moslem community evidently flourished as the Christian declined. Although the local Christians are not mentioned directly, it is clear that they had no head after the conquest. No metropolitan of Nicomedia appears in the acts of the Greek church between 1327 and 1356, and after that date, his place is filled by holders of various other sees.87 It would appear that the local church no longer had the resources to support a regular establish­ ment, and that it had, at least in important official ways, lost contact with the patriarchate. Because of its important location in easy reach of Constantinople, izmit seems to have played a significant role in the time of Orhan. It was here that the emperor John Cantacuzene sent an embassy in 1354 to negotiate for the return of some territory seized by the Turks in Europe. When they returned to report that the sultan was ill, Cantacuzene himself came to check, only to find that the report was true.88 By a remarkable coincidence another text deals with the same events. Gregory Palamas, a leading theologian, was captured by the Turks and held

The First Ottoman Centuries To study the entire Ottoman history of iznikmid, whose name was later simplified to Izmit, would not be appro­ priate to the present subject, which needs only to consider that period so far as it relates to the remains of its fortifications. Since the latest stage of those appear to date to the fifteenth century, the narrative, such as can be reconstructed, will end there.82 The Byzantine perspective of the last years of their rule is one of increasing difficulty and the constant encroachment of an enemy who could not be subdued or even successfully bribed. For the Ottomans, though, this was the heroic, epic age of their formation, an age of fabulous heroes, great conquests and edifying stories. The earliest sources recount the conquest of Izmit as the sequel of a long series of attacks which brought the warriors of the faith far into the Bithynian peninsula toward Constantinople. Their leaders were such fabulous heroes as Konur Alp and Akęa Koca, after whom towns of the region are now named. Taking advantage of the approaches from the east which they had long controlled, the Turks advanced on izmit under the leadership of their new Sultan Orhan. The story of the actual conquest of the city is confus­ ing, and contains many fabulous elements.83 It appears that there was a two-pronged attack, with one force gaining control of Yalova, on the coast west of the entrance of the gulf, and the other directly attacking the

80 See Laurent (1949). 81 Gregoras 1.545; no details given. For the date, see Lemerle

(1957) 109.

84 There have been various attempts: von Hammer (1827) 2.580

82 There is a full account of the entire Ottoman period in Ozttire

supposed that there were actually two conquests a decade apart,

(1981) 81-168. When it deals with the early centuries, however,

while Danişmend (1947) 14 suggested that the Turkish date rep­

it includes much general Ottoman history, and seems remarkably unreliable. Since references are rarely given, it is not often pos­

resented the beginning of a long blockade of the city. In fact, the

sible to check the information, but where that is possible, the

caea, for the coast would be difficult to reach, let alone control, if

results are discouraging, to say the least. Nevertheless, this is a

such a major fortress (with its road to the sea) were still in Byz­

valuable work for its account of the antiquities and more recent history of the city. 83 It appears in various forms in Ashikpashazade cap. 30, Anony­

85 For this, and other buildings attributed to Orhan's son Suleyman, see Ayverdi (1966) 153-159.

mous Giese 2If, and with much embroidering in Sadeddin 58-

86 See Beldiceanu-Steinherr (1967) 90f, with a discussion of

63. In all cases, the conquest of Izmit is associated with the battle of Koyunhisar (a serious problem in itself) and with stories about

Suleyman's position. 87 Vryonis (1971) 300f.

Yalova. The problems cannot be resolved here.

88 C antacuzene III.281.

association of Izmit with Yalova presupposes the capture of Ni­

antine hands.

26

Byzantine Nicomedia for a year in Asia Minor. He was eventually brought to Nicomedia (which he does not name), where there was a residence for imperial ambassadors.89 He made their acquaintance and visited them often. He also reported that Orhan was suffering from a liver complaint, just as he had told Cantacuzene. If ambassadors came here often enough to have a special building, the place was obviously of great importance, though the main residence of the sultan is generally considered to have been in Nicaea.90 The city seemed to have flourished until the end of the fourteenth century, when the Byzantines, barely surviving the attacks of the aggressive sultan Beyazid, received rare help from the West. In 1399, the French king Charles VI sent a force of 1200 men under one of his greatest fighters in answer to an appeal from the emperor Manuel II. Their commander, Marshal Boucicault, had a great desire to fight the Turks, hoping to gain revenge for the fateful defeat of the last crusade at Nicopolis only three years before. His troop set out by sea from Constantinople toward the Gulf, where they ravaged Dacibyza, then moved on ‘Nycomede’ itself.91 They easily defeated the Turkish force which tried to keep them from landing and assaulted the fortress. They hoped to capture it by setting fire to the gates, but since they were fortified with plates of iron, they had no success. Next they brought up ladders to scale the walls, described as marvelously strong and fine and too tall for the ladders. Finally, they killed all the Turks they could find, burned the suburbs and villages around and sailed off. Fortunately for the Turks, this was an isolated inci­ dent. Marshal Boucicault returned to France with the Byzantine emperor, hoping to raise money for another expedition, but was sent instead to Genoa, where he had great success. He was finally captured at the battle of Agincourt and died in England. His narrative shows that the city still possessed a powerful fortress, maintained in full defensive condition, and capable of resisting a wellequipped attacker. Bayazid’s ambitions, which led him to annex much of Asia Minor, stirred up numerous enemies who appealed to the most powerful ruler of the time, Tamerlane. This great conqueror entered Anatolia, crushed the Ottomans at Ankara in July 1402, captured Beyazid, and restored the dispossessed rulers to their domains. He advanced westward, sending parties in all directions to devastate and loot the Ottoman territories, One of them, under his grandson Muhammed Sultan, ravaged Nicaea and Ni­ comedia soon after the battle, and carried away all the treasures stored in them.92 Whether (as seems likely) this involved substantial destruction is not stated. The aftermath of the battle produced enormous con­ fusion in Asia Minor, as the sons of Beyazid struggled for

supremacy. The first to bid for control of Bithynia was Isa, who gained Bursa, the major Ottoman city of the region before the end of 1402. Early in the next year, he was defeated by his brother Mehmed, and fled to Ni­ comedia. Here, the inhabitants (who had evidently profited from the confusion to gain some freedom of action) refused to admit him, and he took refuge with the Emperor.93 By 1404, however, a third brother, Suleyman, succeeded in establishing his supremacy in western Anatolia and the Balkans. It was this brother who surrendered much of the gulf to the Byzantine emperor, in a treaty which he made to gain support of the western powers. This final occupation, which lasted from about 1403 to 1420 apparently did not involve Izmit.94 Otherwise, the history of early Ottoman Izmit, which became the capital of a large province, seems to have been uneventful, except for a devastating earthquake in 1509 that destroyed a great part of the city including the walls along the shore.95 By the early modem period, when more information becomes available, Izmit was a major centre for shipping, especially of wood, and contained many caravansarays. Passengers with light loads would proceed to Istanbul by sea, reaching it in 7-8 hours; while caravans followed the ancient land route taking two or three days, izmit was a station on the main military highway across Anatolia, as it had been for other great empires. It also had a shipyard where the craft used in the sea of Marmara were built.9697 Numerous travellers passed through izmit, especially in the seventeenth century and later, but few of them have much to say about it. Since the city contained no antiqui­ ties of interest, and was mostly convenient as a place to halt, it was rarely explored. The observant ambassador of the Austrian emperor, Busbecq, however, did produce a brief description, which sounds remarkably like several of those already considered from the Middle Ages. He saw the city in 1555. For him it was ‘an ancient city of great renown; but we saw nothing in it worth looking at except its ruins and rubbish, which contained, in the remnants of column and architrave, all that is left of its ancient gran­ deur. The citadel, which stands on a hill, is in a better 97 state of preservation.’ The indefatigable Turkish traveller Evliya Qelebi, who visited the city a century later, gives a more optimis­ tic description.98 He also mentions the fortress which, he claims, was partially destroyed by Orhan so that the infidels could not make use of it. The account of Marshal

93 ByzKleinchr 1.113, with commentary, 11.377f. 94 Oztilre (1981) 94-96 presumes that the Byzantines did regain the

city, and even gives details of its recapture by Mehmed Qelebi. I

have been unable to locate the source of this information. 95 Ozttlre (1981) 98f. 96 There is a convenient summary of Ottoman Izmit, with bibliog­

89 See Philippidis-Braat (1979) 148.

raphy, in Darkot (1952).

90 See Beldiceanu-Steinherr (1967) 90f.

97 Busbecq 1.134f. 98 Evliya Qelebi 11.63, a surprisingly brief account.

91 Le livre des fais 141. 92 Ducas 103.

27

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia Boucicault’s expedition shows that that was not true, though the fort may well have been ruined by the seven­ teenth century. For him, the city’s defences consisted of a square fort on the sea; it had a commander and garrison, and was full of wood for shipbuilding. Such a fort, which surely existed in earlier times, especially in the last Byzantine age when the place had to be supplied by sea, seems not to have been reported by anyone else. This narrative, which has covered a thousand years from the glorious campaign of Heraclius to the accounts of early modem travelers, reveals a city very different from that of Late Antiquity. Gone are the magnificent public buildings, the broad streets, the colorful variety of an active civic life. Instead, the image is of a military base, a place more important as a bulwark for the capital and the scene of battles, a powerful fortress which kept an enemy coming from the east at bay, or provided a post for imperial advances. Nicomedia also had a major economic

role, rarely stated explicitly in the sources, of providing much of the food for the capital, as well as a market for the immediate region. The civic life of this period of poorly known. Only the activities of bishop Theophylact in the ninth century and Orhan in the fourteenth give some indication of activity other than military, with construction of buildings of general public utility. Otherwise, the overwhelming impression is that of ruin: from Ibn Khordadbeh in the ninth century through Busbecq in the sixteenth, descrip­ tions stress the remains of antiquity. The ancient and late antique city (at least until 368) was extremely large, built on a scale far exceeding anything in the Middle Ages, and occupying a much vaster site than did Byzantine Ni­ comedia. That city seems to have been largely confined to the harbour (about which nothing is revealed) and its acropolis, which forms the subject of the following discussion.

28

CHAPTER 3

The Fortifications of Nicomedia

The Walls of Diocletian [Plan I]

The description and analysis which follow reflect the specific information gathered by the survey. The first part simply describes the standing remains of the various parts of the circuit, beginning with the long Walls of Diocletian that surrounded the entire city, then presenting the Citadel, the Byzantine Walls that pro­ tected upper Fortress, and finally the fragmentary Outer Wall or proteichisma. In the description of the Citadel and Byzantine Walls, the material is arranged as follows:

Nicomedia was once surrounded by massive and very long walls which stretched from the shore to a hill high above the city, encompassing the circuits of all later fortifications. With a length of over six kilometers, they were on a vastly larger scale than any other part of the fortifications. Unlike the Hellenistic and Byzantine fortress described below, they were not a refuge or citadel, but the defences of a great city, appropriate to the capital of the Roman Empire. Their long circuit was intended to cover the hills which dominated the city and the approaches from the north, as well as securing important sources of water. Only the upper parts, at and above the level of the Fortress, survive, the rest having succumbed to the expansion of the modem town.2 The examples of Constantinople and Thessalonica suggest that the walls would have continued along the shore, but if so, they have long disappeared. The most extensive remains are on the hill northeast of the Fortress, where a long trace, mostly dilapidated and heavily overgrown, survives. It culminates in a large square tower which still stands to a height of over ten meters (Fig.l). Presently occupied by a radar station, it is inaccessible. Its external masonry, however, conforms to that of the rest of this section, which is built in a completely consistent style. Other towers, none well preserved, appear to have been both round and square. The core of the wall is a mass of rough fieldstones set in a white mortar with large brick and smaller stone inclusions. It is interrupted at regular intervals of about a meter by bands of brick which run through the whole body of the wall. They consist of four rows of bricks 30 cm. square and 3 cm. thick, closely set side-by-side in neat parallel rows (Fig.3). Where visible, the bricks display a diagonal raking, designed to make the mortar adhere more easily. The wall is faced with roughly coursed smaller fieldstones, their flat sides set facing outward. Occasional traces of a whitish surface mortar

1) General description 2) Facing 3) Interior, rarely described here because most of the of towers have been filled or survive only as an outer shell. The towers of the Citadel and Byzantine Walls are numbered from T1 to T21, as indicated on Plan II, and the intervening curtains are identified by the towers (or other features) at each end, so that Wl/2 is the curtain between T1 and T2. Technical vocabulary has been kept to a minmum; only two terms may be unfamiliar:

‘Cribwork’ denotes a system of bonding the core together by means of a network of joined wooden beams, usually just behind the facing;1 ‘Alternating brick’ is a masonry in which rows of brick (usually single) alternate with rows of fieldstones. The descriptive part is followed by a classification of the types of masonry, exceptionally important here because of the dearth of historical information. This forms the basis for a discussion of relative and absolute chronology. The section ends with a discussion of the history of these walls.

2

1

See the long and ihteresting description of Pogodin and Wulff

See the illustrations in FW 240, figs. 93 and 94; and the refer­

(1897) 155-160. The walls were in better condition when they

ences in the index.

visited, with more towers and longer sections than now visible.

29

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

NICOMEDIA

Plan I. Nicomedia: the Walls of Diocletian and the Byzantine Walls

30

The Fortifications ofNicomedia show that the wall originally had a far smoother and brighter appearance. The masonry of this entire section, where visible, is of the same style. Since no trace of wallwalk or battlements has survived, the height of the wall cannot be determined; it was consistently about three meters thick. The second standing section of this wall is in the Turgut Mahalle, along the ridge west of the Fortress. It employs the same masonry, but here the lower courses consist of large well-cut limestone blocks, evidently reused (Fig.2). These reach deep into the wall, often arranged as headers and stretchers. At one point, the masonry is entirely of brick, as if a tower were attached to the wall. The tower, if such it were, would have projected inward, not outward from the wall; it was therefore probably a structure to support stairs leading to the wallwalk. There are similar traces near the radar station at the highest point of these walls. Another section, now vanished, stood above the monastery of St. Panteleemon. A photo in the report of Pogodin and Wulff shows that this was of the same masonry as the rest. Finally, the excavations at the paper mill revealed traces of the wall west of it, stretching down to the shore.3 It would appear from all this that the long walls formed a consistent rampart, with towers at undeter­ mined intervals, designed to protect the entire city and its landward approaches. They were evidently the product of one period of construction, and appear to have undergone relatively little repair or modification.

of a meter or more which are strengthened with a network of large round beams. The tower was apparently entered from the wallwalk and had a lower chamber, perhaps used for storage. Its defences were evidently situated at the topmost level only. Masonry as exterior, but less regular.

T2

The Citadel [Plans II and III] Tl-5 constitute an inner citadel at the northeast comer of the Fortress. T4 and T5 were evidently part of the original outer wall, while Tl and T2, which face inward toward the rest of the Fortress, were added in a later stage to define a separate defensive area. This forms a triangle of about 50 x 60 x 70 meters. Tl

3

Visible adjacent to Tl to a height of about 5 m. Its outer masonry is identical to that of the tower, to which it is bonded. Another similar piece survives adjacent to T2, also bonded. Masonry D.

Wl/2

1) Square open-gorge tower with inner chambers. 2) Masonry of unsorted mortared rubble in rough courses, some defined by partial brick courses. Much scattered brick, almost all horizontal, but several inserted vertically near the top of the north face form a small section of cloisonne. Except for the lack of brick, the core is virtually identical with the facing. Larger stones, which include several spoils, are used as quoins. Bonded with Wl/2 and Wl/5. Masonry D (Fig.4). 3) The internal chamber contains no embrasures or entrances to the outside (the present opening appears to be fortuitous). It has very thick walls

1) Square open-gorge comer tower with inner chamber, as Tl. 2) In general, masonry as Tl, of roughly coursed rubble with much brick and a core which hardly differs from the facing. The wellpreserved south face, visible on the street, em­ ploys large limestone blocks as quoins and as a facing to a height of about 2 m. The lowest course, which projects about 5 cm. from the rest, may represent a foundation course, espe­ cially since it is mixed with large broken spoils. Above it, a row of fairly regular large blocks is followed by one of small spoils and fieldstones which conceals a cribwork of large round beams. The upper part of the facing contains a good deal of brick, usually in rough , levelling courses, but occasionally forming a crude cloisonne. The west face, mostly con­ cealed by a house built close against it, shows a band of four bricks above the topmost row of large spoils. This, too, covers the cribwork which in these towers was inserted at fairly regular intervals of about a metre. Bonded with Wl/2 and W2/3. Masonry D (Fig.5), 3) The lower part of the interior was solid, and serves as a useful base for a chicken coop. As in Tl no openings or embrasures are visible.

W2/3

Bonded with T2, which projects from its line. Traces may be followed along the street at pre­ sent ground level for about 15 m. toward the east. Masonry D

(T3)

Now vanished; according to the map of Po­ godin and Wulff, it was a round tower.

(W3/4) Nothing survives.

T4

Pogodin and Wulff, fig. 4; DOmer (1941) Beilage 1, facing p.26.

31

1) Semicircular tower, with two faces 2) Inner face’. Foundation of mixed rubble in much mortar; above it, two rows of large lime­ stone blocks and spoils, mostly broken. This is followed by two rows of smaller spoils with a good deal of brick, some in a rough cloisonne.

Plan II. Nicomedia: the Byzantine Walls and Citadel

The Fortifications ofNicomedia

The Byzantine Walls (Plans II and III)

The whole lower face is separated from the upper facing by a double row of bricks which enclose a row of broken bricks set at an angle like a dentil frieze. Most of this, like much of the facing, is covered with a thick layer of pink surface mortar. The upper part of the facing is a consistent but not very regular cloisonnć with, in some places, a double row of brick following two rows of cloisonnć. The bricks are apparently all reused; there is some extra filling of brick. Masonry L (Fig.6). Outer face·. The masonry just described was once covered with another facing, now barely visible on the north side where a house is closely built against the tower. This consists of closely-set bricks, with mortar bands of 2-3 cm., equal in thickness to the bricks. The mor­ tar is hard, pinkish-grey and granular, with a moderate proportion of inclusions, among them some large fragments of brick. Masonry O. 3) Interior filled and inaccessible W4/5

T5

W5/6

T6

Core only survives, mostly buried.

1) Round tower, now solidly filled 2) Foundation and lower courses buried. Most of the visible facing is in alternating brick, with some cloisonnć of rubble and broken spoils in fairly regular courses. The brick courses are occasionally double. Stone and brick are set in a great deal of mortar with a heavy coating of rough pink surface mortar. Small round beam­ holes (average about 8 cm.) appear at regular intervals between the brick bands which them­ selves include some bricks set back at an acute angle as if in a kind of dentil frieze. The north face is marked by a large crack, with a some­ what different masonry to the right of it. This uses much larger blocks, some of them set on end. These, too, are separated by bricks in a rough cloisonnć and have double or triple brick bands at intervals. This section appears to be a repair not very different in nature from the original. Masonry H (Fig.7); repair in Masonry M. 3) Interior filled with rubble

W5/1

1) Heavily reinforced comer of the fortress, evidently a tower, though its defensive func­ tions are no longer visible 2) Foundation of roughly coursed mortared rubble about 1.20 m. deep; above it, a row of large blocks mostly broken at the edges, with some filling of stone and brick. These project about 20 cm.; above them is a double brick band which conceals a cribwork of large round beams. The facing, visible near the foundation and in the upper part of the east face, consists of large squared blocks, many of them spoils, set in a regular cloisonnć that occasionally employs thin stones in place of vertical bricks. These are interrupted at irregular intervals by bands of three bricks covering a cribwork of large round beams. The lower part of the west side, where the facing has fallen away, shows a cribwork of large round and squared beams about a metre behind the surface. The tower thus had an elaborate system of reinforcement. Masonry I (Fig.8). 3) No trace of an inner chamber survives, but the inner face at the comer consists of a curving surface of plain mortared rubble with large round beamholes. The smoothness of the lower parts indicates that a facing (or a structure) once stood against it.

W6/7

A small section visible in a shed north of TI shows the same masonry as the tower and a similar projecting ledge immediately above present ground level. Masonry D.

33

Traces of this wall visible in nearby under­ growth include many large reused blocks, none of which still form part of a standing wall.

This wall is slightly set back immediately after T6, where the joint shows a great deal of crib­ work. In the following section, the foundation, which includes large broken blocks among the rubble, supports a fine facing of large lime­ stone blocks set in regular courses without brick and with very little mortar. Their ar­ rangement suggests an irregular alternation of headers and stretchers. The blocks may be in situ as part of a early facing of Masonry A. Their chipped and broken edges, however, suggest that they were replaced in position af­ ter some damage, such as an earthquake, or (less probably since the characteristic brick of these walls is absent) that they are spoils. The facing above them, almost completely over­ grown, is of broken spoils and rubble. The large blocks continue a short distance after a second, angular projection. Beyond, core alone survives. Masonry B (Fig.9).

Plan III. Nicomedia: Citadel, detail of the north wall

The Fortifications of Nicomedia T7

1) Solid rectangular tower 2) The facing of the north side, the only one not completely overgrown, is in an extremely regular cloisonne with double bands of bricks closely set side-by-side and vertical bricks which usually do not touch the horizontal. These are set in a good deal of mortar B with a frequent coating of pink surface mortar. The core is of mortared rubble with some broken spoils. It had a cribwork of massive square beams set behind the facing to consolidate and strengthen its mass and another of small round beams which bonded the surface to the core. Holes for the latter are sometimes visible in the brick bands of the face. Masonry J (Fig. 10). 3) The mortared rubble of the core continues through to the inner face which has mostly been left rough. The east part, however, is smooth, as if built against a pre-existing struc­ ture.

building. Adjacent to T9, this wall is built over a projection similar in masonry and mortar to that under T8: see the following discussion. Masonry J (Fig. 11). T9

(W7/8) nothing survives T8

1) Solid rectangular tower, built over an earlier structure 2) Facing of cloisonne somewhat less regular than T7, with strong horizontal courses of one to three closely-set bricks and single or double vertical bricks sometimes set at an angle. It employs a pink surface mortar which varies from quite smooth to rough, with brick frag­ ments. A cribwork of large square beams ran behind the face, which was anchored to the core by square or round beams. Masonry J (Fig. 11). The northwest comer of the tower is built over a projecting wall now visible to about a metre above ground level at the comer and at the junction of the tower and the adjacent wall. This appears to have been a wall of mortared rubble with an indeterminate number of brick bands. Masonry G (?). 3) The inner face of the wall reveals further evidence of overbuilding. The eastern part pre­ serves the projecting face of an earlier tower of mortared rubble with bands of four bricks (Masonry G), while the western has evidently been built over an arch now completely filled with the rubble characteristic of the inner face of the tower.

W8/9

Bonded with T8 and preserved as high as the tower at the joint. Basically, facing of the same style with a good deal of pale pink surface mortar and large square beamholes just above the brick bands. The wall is twice set back by about 20 cm., but shows no evidence of re­

35

1) Apparently a U-shaped tower with at least three periods covering an earlier projecting structure; possibly transformed into a much larger, massive semicircular tower in a final period. This is the most complicated structure in the whole wall; its exact development could only be determined by excavation. 2) Outer face (visible on the west side): The lower part of the facing consists of four layers of large rectangular limestone blocks, some laid without mortar, but elsewhere displaying a filling of mortar and broken brick, so evidently reused. Above them, the wall is faced in cloi­ sonne, with single and double courses of bricks closely set side-by-side forming long rectangles around fieldstones set in much mortar. The ma­ sonry appears to be a rough version of that of the adjacent towers T7 and T8. It was anchored to the mortared rubble core by a cribwork of medium sized round beams. The tower rested on a foundation of mortared rubble and brick laid over more of the large limestone blocks. Its southwestern comer was built against the adjacent wall W9/10. Masonry J (Fig. 12). The central and eastern parts of this facing are missing, but surving masses of mortared rubble indicate that it extended around to the eastern side of T8, covering that and incorpo­ rating it into a massive semicircular tower which would have been the largest in the entire circuit. Inner face'. The small section visible in the central part of the tower shows a base of reused limestone blocks set in mortar supporting a facing of fairly rough cloisonne. This was ex­ tensively covered by a surface coat of mortar, which surviving traces of paint suggest was decorated to give the appearance of a much more regular cloisonne masonry. The upper parts appear to be in a poorer mixture of brick and rubble with some cloisonne; they were an­ chored to the core by large square beams. Masonry M. Third face'. Another face is visible on the inside of the tower adjacent to the projection described below. Although most of this has been robbed, surviving traces show a base of the usual reused limestone blocks and a facing in cloisonne, perhaps somewhat better than the previous. ·* Masonry K. (?).

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia Projection·. Visible behind W8/9 and evidently covered by all three stages of T9, this seems to have been a pier projecting from the wall, built in mortared rubble with triple bands of brick which ran throughout the structure. Masonry G (Fig. 13).

Wil/12 Little of the external face is preserved: it

includes large reused blocks and regularly ar­ ranged small spoils set in mortar without brick. The inner face is of fairly regular mortared rubble with no brick. Masonry B (?).

W9/10 The section immediately adjacent to T9 con­

T12 1) Round comer tower with two faces.

sists of well-cut limestone blocks carefully laid without mortar; the rest of the facing is miss­ ing, leaving only a core of mortared rubble. Masonry A (Fig. 12).

2) The inner face is of a regular cloisonne with small mostly squared stones. The vertical bricks vary in arrangement; some are slanting. It contains double bands of brick, some irregu­ lar. Most of the outer face is covered, but visible traces suggest that it resembled the in­ ner, with the same cloisonne and double bands of brick. Masonry L. Another face is visible at a lower level, about 2.50 m. below the base of the tower. It contains large limestone blocks; above them mortared rubble and rows of seven or more bricks were set side-by-side. The bricks are broken but laid in straight lines. Masonry F. The present T12 was apparently built directly behind this structure, which may repre­ sent the end of the Outer Wall, since this is the point where it joined the Byzantine Walls.

T10 1) Horseshoe-shaped tower with double face

covering an earlier structure. 2) Outer face·, this is made entirely of brick, closely set in regular rows, with the mortar joints equal in thickness to the bricks (average about 3.5 cm.). It contains regularly spaced medium round beamholes which connected with a cribwork of beams parallel to the sur­ face and about 50 cm. behind it. The bricks run throughout the facing to its full depth of about 2 m. The lower courses are in cloisonne. A section of the base on the northeast comer, however, has traces of brick bands and em­ ploys a different mortary (see below). Masonry O (Fig. 14). Inner face·, mostly concealed by the outer face. The facing was of rough cloisonne with bands of one to three bricks, and a base of large reused limestone blocks. In this period, the tower may have been more circular, since the masonry and mortar of the inner face corre­ spond to those visible at the base of the outer face. Masonry M. Inmost face·. Visible only in part on the west side of the tower, this consisted of regular limestone blocks carefully fitted in a fine ash­ lar. It has two projecting piers of the same ma­ terial set on a plinth. This structure may have been a gate, later buried in the inner face. Masonry A (Fig. 15).

W12/13 Almost entirely missing; only its line can be

followed in the present scarp. T13 1) Poorly preserved round tower.

2) Only the side faces are preserved. They contain lower courses of large limestone blocks. Above them, the facing consists of a poor cloisonne of irregular stones with much mortar filling and bands of one to three bricks; the vertical bricks are often missing. Masonry M. W13/14 Most of this has disappeared, leaving only

scattered bits of core. About two thirds of the way to T14, the wall has a foundation of lime­ stone blocks, apparently reused, and contains two projections of mortared rubble with bands of four bricks. They are separated by a gap of 30 m. filled with earth over which a core of 1. mortared rubble was built. The structure was apparently a postern, later blocked. Masonry G (?).

W10/11 Crudely built against the fine ashlar of inmost

T10, little of the facing is preserved. It em­ ployed reused limestone blocks and rubble with some irregular alternating brick, occa­ sional cloisonne and much brick filling. Masonry M (?). Til 1) Round tower, only partially preserved.

T14 1) Fragmentary tower, apparently round.

2) Facing of poor cloisonne with fieldstones and irregular, not straight bands of brick of varying numbers; vertical brick often missing, some­ times slanting. Medium round beams of crib­ work were set at intervals of about a meter. Masonry M (Fig.16).

2) The back face alone is partially preserved; it consists of large rubble in mortar with brick, possibly arranged in in alternating brick. Masonry H (?). (W14/15) Not preserved.

36

The Fortifications ofNicomedia Small round surface beams connected with an inner cribwork of large squared beams. Masonry M. 3) Traces of an upper U-shaped chamber survive; its inner face is of mortared rubble with brick in no evident pattern. The lower part was solid.

T15 1) Round tower.

2) Over a foundation of large regular limestone blocks stands a facing of poor cloisonne with irregular bands of one to three bricks; the ver­ tical bricks are often slanting or missing. This was anchored to the rubble core by medium round beams connected to an inner cribwork of larger squared beams. Masonry M (Fig. 19).

W17/18A small trace of facing contains a rough

cloisonne with small round beam holes. Masonry M (?)

W15/16 Bonded with T15, and of the same style,

T18 1) Comer tower of uncertain shape.

though the cloisonne is even less regular, with some filling of small fragmentary bricks piled between the stones. The wall runs behind the outer face of T16. Masonry M (?; cf. C, G).

2) The tower survives only as a mass of core. 3) The only facing preserved is that of the trape­ zoidal inner chamber which extends to a height of about 5 m. Poor cloisonne, Masonry M (?).

T16 1) Large prominent round comer tower with two

W18/19 The configuration of surviving core adjacent to

faces. 2) Outer face·. Above a foundation of mortared rubble are two courses of rough cloisonne with large reused blocks, followed by five to seven bands of small broken brick. These contain medium round beamholes which connect with a cribwork of large round beams just behind the surface. Above them are two more rows of somewhat neater cloisonne with similar large blocks. The superstructure is entirely of brick, both whole and broken, set fairly close together with mortar joints equal in width to the bricks. Masonry O (Fig. 18). Inner face·. This employs a consistent cloisonne above a foundation of broken lime­ stone blocks. The rows of fieldstones are sepa­ rated by single, double or triple (most often single) bands of brick. The vertical bricks of the cloisonne are generally regular, but some are set at an angle. The lower parts, where the outer face has more recently fallen away, pre­ serve a great deal of whitish surface mortar, giving a much more regular appearance than the rest. The upper parts, which seem rougher, often employ double bands of brick. Small round beamholes appear consistently in the brick bands. The central section is marked by two long cracks which probably explain the necessity for building the outer face. Masonry K (Figs. 17, 18, 20).

T18 suggests that the wall forked here in nearly opposite directions. The southern, of which no continuation was found, apparently represents the beginning of a section of the Outer Wall. Only a lump of mortared rubble in a garden indicates the line of the Byzantine Wall north of T18; locals report that the old wall was de­ stroyed to build new garden and terrace walls. A bit of core of brick and rubble, perhaps the foundation of a wall or tower, at a higher level below the adjacent street indicates the further line of the wall. A final section of this wall has a facing of regular cloisonne with mixed fieldstones of all sizes and shapes. It employs a fair amount of brick fill in the interstices around the stones, and some brick inserted diagonally. It also has a brick dentil frieze. This section contains a buttress with the same facing and large reused limestone blocks in its lower courses. Masonry N (Fig.21). T19 1) Fragmentary projecting tower of uncertain

shape. 2) The outer face employs many reused large blocks, while the inner is of mortared rubble with irregular brick courses. The tower is bonded with W18/19. Masonry C (?). W19/SG Built of large blocks reused when badly

broken; the gaps are loosely plugged with small stones. Masonry C (?).

W16/17 Bonded with the inner face of T16; the few

surviving traces of facing suggest that it was of the same Masonry K as inner T16.

South Gate (SG) Both flanks are of fine limestone

T17 1) Round tower.

blocks well fitted without mortar; some are broken away on the comer as if clamps had been removed. These walls stand about 2.50 m. high, and bear a brick arch. In this, the surface bricks are closely set in regular rows; the mor-

2) Most of the outer face is missing but where preserved it consists of a poor mortared rubble and fieldstones with bands of one to three bricks and an irregular cloisonne in which some of the vertical bricks are set at an angle.

37

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia tar is pointed parallel to the courses. The inte­ rior, however, consists of broken brick of vari­ ous sizes, some of which may represent repairs. The gate was later blocked with spoils and rubble. Masonry A (Figs.22, 23).

masonry, which appears to be Lascarid, would favour a later date. Masonry O. II A wall about 20 m. long with a right angle turn stands in gardens above W19/20. It is built en­ tirely of good limestone blocks laid without mortar, and has a thickness of two blocks or about 2.50 m. It cannot be related to the wall, about 25 m. away, and 10 m. lower. Masonry A.

WSG/20 This consists of large broken limestone blocks

roughly reused as in W19/SG. Masonry C. T20 1) Square tower, with house built over.

2) Facing of reused large rectangular limestone blocks, many chipped or broken, arranged in regular courses with much filling of broken brick in no regular pattern, but frequently con­ sisting of small broken pieces piled together in the interstices. It preserves traces of rough pink surface mortar. Masonry C (Fig.24).

The Outer Wall (Plan III) The Outer Wall, or proteichisma, reinforced the Byzan­ tine Walls in at least two vulnerable points. The most important section ran along the scarp immediately below the north face of the circuit, an area where the hill could most easily be approached. It stretched eastward from T12 at least as far as T7; its course beyond that point could not be traced. Likewise, part of the southern trace was doubled, at a point where the wall makes a bend to take advantage of the contours of the land. This section apparently stretched from T18 to the Gate between T19 and T20. Except at the point where it began, it has completely disappeared. Only a small section of the north Outer Wall has been preserved, though remains of core allow its course to be followed for some 175 metres. No towers are preserved. Where the facing is visible (most clearly below T10), it consists of mixed fieldstones, with their flat faces facing outward, set in rough rows with an irregular filling of brick which often forms short courses or even some cloisonne. Masonry E (Fig.25).

W20/21 Little survives. Facing of irregular alternating

brick with some vertical bricks which make a narrow cloisonne. Masonry M. (T21)

Destroyed by widening of the road. According to the locals, this was a round tower built of small stones.

Walls beyond T21: (a) A small section with a facing of mortared

rubble with irregular brick bands and some cloisonne. (b) A long straight stretch with a facing of mor­ tared rubble in an irregular cloisonne and with some reused limestone blocks in the lower courses. Masonry M.

Types of Masonry

Isolated wall fragments.

I

Two significant stretches of wall stand within the Byzantine Walls, but in such isolation that their relation with each other or with the rest of the circuit remains unclear. A straight section of wall about 15 m. long in the open area south of T9 uses brick in both facing and core. The bricks are closely set in regular courses, with joints of varying width. The foundation appears to have been of mor­ tared rubble. Whether this represents a struc­ ture standing within the circuit, or walls of an inner fortification cannot be determined. The size of the wall may favour the latter possibil­ ity. In that case, it is tempting to suppose that this represents part of the fortification of the otherwise unknown church of St. Sophia, which provided a bastion for the crusaders in 1206-7; but there is no evidence for it, and the

Stone A. Well-cut limestone blocks laid in fine ashlar without mortar. W9/10, T10 inmost, South Gate. B. Same blocks, reset in courses with mortar. W6/7.

C. Same blocks, partly broken, laid in courses; intersti­ ces filled with small stones or broken brick, often set in small piles T19 (?), W19/SG (?), WSG/20, T20. Mortared rubble D. Plain, laid in courses, sometimes with leveling courses of brick, and occasional cloisonne; facing and core hardly distinguished. Large round beam­ holes. Tl, Wl/2, T2, W5/1.

38

The Fortifications of Nicomedia E. Mixed fieldstones with outer face smoothed set in rough rows with an irregular brick filling which sometimes forms courses or cloisonne. Outer Wall.

W18/19. All brick O. Bricks closely set, with mortar bands equal in thickness to the bricks, which run through the wall. Cribwork of large round (T16) or square (T10) beams. T4 outer; T10 outer (cloisonne above base); T16 outer (with rows of spoils near base and some cloisonne).

F. With brick: coursed rubble with piles of seven or more broken bricks laid in straight lines. Face below T12.

G. With brick bands: rubble laid in regular courses, with flattened sides facing outward; bands of four new bricks which run through the whole thickness of the wall; the bricks bear diagonal striations. Sections in this masonry sometimes have a foundation of limestone blocks arranged as headers and stretchers. Walls of Diocletian; tower undet T8, projection in W8/9, postern in W13/14.

Dating the Walls The walls contain no inscriptions which might help to establish their chronology, nor has any mentioning them survived elsewhere in the city. Likewise, the literary sources rarely provide specific information. Dating of the walls, therefore, depends heavily on stylistic criteria. First, a relative chronology may be established by grouping similar styles of masonry together, and by determining which must precede or postdate others by their position in the walls. Then, conclusions from this may be used in a stylistic analysis, by relating the types of masonry to similar examples elsewhere whose date is known. The obvious walls for comparison are those of the greatest fortresses of the region, Constantinople and Nicaea, both far larger than Nicomedia and the subject of considerable analysis. The work is complicated here, though, because the Byzantine walls, unlike those of the capital or Nicaea, are almost universally executed in a sloppy and ambiguous style.4 In some cases, it is difficult to distinguish one type of masonry from an­ other, or to make accurate comparisons. Nevertheless, stylistic analysis may, ideally, help to, determine an absolute chronology so that these fortifications can be integrated with the historical record to provide an archaeological component to the narrative of Byzantine and early Ottoman Nicomedia. In studying the walls of Nicaea, it was possible to use mortar as a criterion for dating. The various phases there employed distinct types of mortar which helped to associate walls and towers together. In Nicomedia, however, dating is not significantly helped by that kind of analysis. At least 18 types of mortar can be distin­ guished, but some have so many varieties, and often so closely resemble others that it has not been possible to devise a clear and useful classification. Mortar, there­ fore, will normally not appear in this discussion. According to their masonry, position in the wall, or relation with other types of facing, some towers and

Alternating brick H. With some extra brick and occasional cloisonne; small round beamholes between the brick bands (T5). T5, T14 (?). Cloisonne I. Large squared blocks surrounded by cloisonne of brick (occasionally, stone), with bands of three bricks. Extensive cribwork of large round and squared beams. T6.

J. Extremely regular cloisonne with bands of one to three bricks, most often single, in which the bricks are closely set side-by-side. The vertical bricks often do not meet the horizontal. Internal cribwork of massive square beams, with the facing anchored to the core by small round beams. T7, T8, W8/9, T9. K. Regular cloisonne around small fieldstones and spoils, covering entire face. Small round beamholes in the brick bands (T16). T9 inmost face (?), T16 inner, W16/17 (?). L. Cloisonne of small stones, with bands of 2 bricks, all of varying regularity. T4 inner, T12. M. Irregular cloisonne, with extra brick, inconsistent bands of 1-3 bricks and large stones. Where visible, these towers use round beams to anchor the facing to the surface (TH, W17/18) and a cribwork of large square beams (T15, T17). T5 repair, T9 inner, T10 inner, W10/11 (?), TH, T13, T15, W15/16 (?), T17, W17/18 (?), T18 (?), T19, W20/21, W beyond 21 (b).

N. Extensive cloisonne, as regular as possible in the context of mixed unfinished fieldstones, some very large. Some brick fill and slanting brick. Dentil frieze.

4

Note the long discussion of Pogodin and Wulff (1897) who

concluded from the'low quality of their masonry that the walls were Turkish. Ironically, the Ottoman work here turns out to be

far superior to the Byzantine.

39

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia walls can be assigned to relatively early or late periods, or associated together.

Relative chronology: • Masonry A and B are early, since they are often overbuilt, but never themselves appear in secondary phases. • Masonry A is apparently the earliest of the Fortress circuit since its blocks are frequently used as spoils in the walls, notably in Masonry B, C, N, and probably G. • Masonry J is later than G, over which it is built. • Masonry L may have been used over a period of time since it appears in both faces of T12. • Masonry M is later than H, since it appears in a repair to T5 in that style. • Masonry O is later than the cloisonne of K, L, or M since it is used in facings built over them. • Masonry D is late, since it appears in the towers of the Citadel, which was evidently added to the Byz­ antine circuit. • The rest offer no indications.

Absolute chronology: Establishment of absolute chronology has to depend heavily on stylistic analysis and comparison. The historical texts offer only a few guideposts: one alone specifically mentions construction. The history of Nicomedia shows that Diocletian built walls for his capital; these must be the long circuit here called the Walls of Diocletian. They were appar­ ently out of use already by the early seventh century when hermits were living in the towers. They may have been disused as early as the mid-fourth, when St. Arsacius was dwelling in a tower. No other sources deal with the fortifications until Odo of Deuil (1147) men­ tions the city in ruins and implies, in his general state­ ment about the Greek cities the Second Crusade encoutered, that it had a fortress on a hilltop. On the other hand, since most information about the interven­ ing period relates to the role of Nicomedia as a military base, the subject of constant attack, it was necessarily fortified many centuries before the time of Odo. In 1204, the Latins found the walls in ruins and repaired them. But soon after, they concentrated their defences on the church of Saint Sophia alone, presumably be­ cause the walls could not be sufficiently restored in the time available, or by their limited manpower; the location of that church is unknown. The city was strongly fortified when Cantacuzene visited it in 1331, as it was when marshal Boucicault attacked in 1399. The walls were still standing - though not necessarily in use - in the mid-sixteenth century, but seem to have been abandoned a century later. Lacking more specific information, investigation must necessarily turn to stylistic analysis which in most cases is extremely helpful, and allows much chronology

to be established with some degree of plausibility. Some types of masonry, however, offer so few distinguishing characteristics, or appear in such small quantity, that they cannot be dated. Evidence for each type of ma­ sonry may be considered. Masonry A, with its neat ashlar construction without mortar should belong to a period when careful isodomic masonry was the rule. Walls in this masonry are there­ fore most probably Hellenistic, dating to the foundation of the city by Nicomedes I of Bithynia (261 BC) Masonry B: no dating possible, since these blocks of Masonry A could have been reused at almost any time. Carefully laid marble spoils are a characteristic of Dark Age fortifications, but there is too little material in this style to determine whether it formed an entire facing (as in the Dark Ages) or whether it represents casual reuse. Masonry C, which occurs around the South Gate, offers ambiguities. The section west of the gate is evidently contemporary with Masonry N, for W18/19 in that style is bonded with T19, which appears to be in Masonry C. Since the inner face of T19, unlike other examples of this style, uses some brick courses, the association seems plausible. T20, however, the most complete example of this masonry, uses little piles of broken brick between the stones, a technique which also appears in Masonry F, on which see below. Masonry D finds its closest analogy in the Lower City Wall of Kutahya which shares all its characteris­ tics.5 The towers there employ the same roughly coursed rubble (though without any brick) and the same large blocks as quoins. They, too, have a cribwork of large round beams. Architecturally, both walls use open-gorge towers with solid bases of a kind not ap­ pearing elsewhere in their circuits. A text dates the Kutahya wall to the time of Mohammed the Conqueror (1451-1481); its style conforms to other works of his in and around Istanbul. Since the relevant section of the walls of tzmit was added to the existing circuit to form a small citadel, a date as late as the fifteenth century would be suitable. Masonry E has a close counterpart in the Outer Wall at Nicaea, which uses a similar rough masonry of fieldstones and brick, though the brick is somewhat more regular, usually forming a kind of alternating brick.6 In general, though, the walls of Nicaea are far more carefully constructed and elegant than these, which seem often to be the product of hasty construc­ tion, with little attention to aesthetic aspects. The analogy is close enough to put these in the same period, the mid-thirteenth century. The walls at Nicaea are dated by a contemporary source to the reign of John Vatatzes (1222-1255). Masonry F seems in some ways close to the walls of Metropolis in Ionia which use similar little piles of

40

5

Foss(1985) 54-56, 85.

6

FW97, 103

The Fortifications of Nicomedia broken brick among the rubble, but no pattern of brick decoration.7 Those appear to be post-Byzantine, per­ haps of the emirate of Aydin which ruled Ionia in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century. On the other hand, the distinctive piles of broken brick also appear in T20, in Masonry C, and, in a variant form, in Masonry N, dated to the Comnene period. It is possible, then, that all three are contemporary, or that some of them are post-Byzantine. Masonry G may be assigned to the time of Dio­ cletian since it appears universally in the Walls of Diocletian, which enclose the entire Roman city. This circuit is the most appropriate to identify as the walls which Diocletian is known to have built as part of his reconstruction of his new capital. In addition, they employ masonry virtually identical to that of the origi­ nal walls of Nicaea (even to the detail of using new bricks with diagonal striations).8 Those were completed in 269. Masonry H, alternating brick: this style appears fre­ quently in the walls of Constantinople, usually in contexts difficult to date, but which appear most often to belong to the twelfth century. Likewise, at Nicaea, examples (far less common) are of the same period.9 In Anatolian fortresses whose date is established, alternat­ ing brick is used at Lopadion, a work of John Comnenus (1118-1143), but in a simple form, without extra brick, and not in conjunction with cloisonne. Somewhat closer to the masonry of Nicomedia is that of Pergamum, where the alternating brick is irregular and used with cloisonne.10 It seems likely, therefore, that this masonry can be assigned to the mid-late twelfth century. T5, the clearest example of this very scarce style, also has a dentil frieze; it thus closely resembles T83 at Nicaea, which has been assigned to the Comnenian period, possibly to the reign of Manuel.11 Masonry I: see the discussion below of Masonry K, L, and M. Masonry J: this extremely regular cloisonne finds its closest parallels not in Byzantine work at all, but in Turkish architecture of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, where it is frequently employed. The earliest dated example, of 1333, appears in Iznik (Nicaea).12 Many early buildings there and in Bursa, the Ottoman capital, use this style. It may thus be attributed to one of the latest periods here. Masonry I, K, L, and M: cloisonne. This masonry, which includes the most common in the circuit (M) is

Ί

FW 157.

8

FW 129, 275 fig. 38.

one of the most difficult to date. It is not even certain that the four variations really represent distinct periods. Masonry K is certainly much more careful work than the others, but that could simply reflect the common Byzantine phenomenon of prominently located towers being more elaborately decorated than the rest. K, L and M, in any case, are earlier than N which (see below) can safely be assigned to the mid-thirteenth century. Cloi­ sonne appears rarely at Constantinople, where one datable example (of very regular cloisonne with bands of brick, quite different from the styles used here) is from the end of the twelfth century. At Nicaea, where it is often used, again more carefully than here, it dates to the twelfth-thirteenth century, with good dated examples of the time of Theodore Lascaris. The walls of Achyraous, built by John Comnenus, also use cloisonne, but in an elaborate decorative style, with brick bands.13 Since the work at Nicomedia is almost invariably sloppy compared with other fortifications, it is especially difficult to date. These walls, then, could represent twelfth century work, or possibly, a rebuilding of the circuit during the brief time when it was held by Las­ caris, from 1207 until about 1211. Given the frequency of the masonry and the shortness of the Lascarid occu­ pation, it seems probable that these styles represent the Comnenian period. Masonry N: This finds a close analogy in the walls of Telmessus in Lycia, which have been attributed to the late Comnenian period.14 The use of broken brick suggests an association with Masonry C and G; see above. Masonry O: this style is most probably Lascarid. Close parallels are found at Nicaea, using the same closely-set bricks, in towers dated by inscriptions to the early part of the reign of Theodore Lascaris (12051222). It continued in use during the reign of John Vatatzes (1222-1258), appearing in his fortresses of Pegae and Magnesia.15 In the latter, it stands above a base of spoils, as here in the outer faces of T10 and T16. Like those, the towers at Magnesia use a system of small round beamholes to anchor the face to the core. Since Nicomedia was in the hands of the Latins during most of the reign of Lascaris, it is most probable that this masonry is the work of Vatatzes after he recaptured the city.

History of the Walls Analysis of the masonry establishes allows the history of the defences of Nicomedia to be traced from the earliest days of the city until Ottoman times. It shows several periods of special activity, which can be corre-

9 Constantinople: FW 76; Nicaea: FW 120. 10 Lopadium: FW 145f.; Pergamum: FW 147.

11 Foss (1982) 198f. 12 See the numerous illustrations in Goodwin (1971), and especially

13 Constantinople: FW 65f.; Nicaea FW 120; Achyraous: FW 146.

Kuran (1968); for the greatest detail, see Ayverdi (1966 and

14 Foss(1982)193-195.

1953).

15 Nicaea: FW 120; Magnesia: FW 152; Pegae: FW 154f.

41

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

lated with the general history of the city, but also contains some unexpected and inexplicable long gaps. The earliest defences were those of the Hellenistic city, built in a fine limestone ashlar which finds no counterpart in later work. They included a citadel on the hilltop whose walls apparently followed a circuit very similar to that of the later Byzantine fortress. Standing remains were incorporated into the north wall, where they survive as W9/10 and as the innermost part of T10, which may have contained a gate. Even more striking is the South Gate, where the original structure has been almost completely preserved, and where the adjacent walls and tower make extensive use of the blocks from this wall. Elsewhere, the well-cut limestone blocks appear in almost all parts of the later circuit, as well as in one section of the Walls of Diocletian. They indicate the original size and shape of the Hellenistic citadel, and reflect the mass of material used in its construction. Whether the original fortification had other parts, or extended down to the seashore has not been determined. The appearance of blocks which appear to be taken from these walls as far away as Ihsaniye, above the southern shore of the Gulf (see below, 62), however, may suggest that such masonry was used in the lower town, perhaps as part of a fortification on or along the sea front. The greatest defenses, in terms of length and sheer volume of material, were the long walls whose tech­ nique identifies them as the Walls of Diocletian, when Nicomedia was capital of the empire. They stretch in a vast circuit from the shore to the heights above the city, and are consistently built in a masonry of rubble and brick bands which much resembles that of the slightly older walls of Nicaea. Surviving traces, buried in later construction at T8, W8/9 and T9 indicate that this circuit coincided with the Byzantine Walls, whose face it presumable incorporated into its circuit. It is possible that the entire Hellenistic citadel was also used, for W13/14 contains traces of what may be a postern in the same masonry. Since that was out of the line of the Walls of Diocletian, a gate there would not have formed part of them. If the Diocletianic system did have a citadel as well as the city walls, however, it has left no other identified trace. The evidence already noted suggests that the long Walls of Diocletian did not have a long life. They appear to have been abandoned by the seventh century, and perhaps as early as the mid-fourth. Once the capital was moved to Constantinople it would no longer have been necessary to maintain such a vast circuit for a city which was now only provincial, and being far from the frontiers under no special threat. It is also likely that the great earthquake of 358 brought more damage to these walls than could justifiably be repaired. It thus appears that Nicomedia was without functioning defences by the early seventh century, when it was exposed to serious attack for the first time in five hundred years.

The history of the next five hundred years leaves no doubt that Nicomedia was a major military base and an important bulwark for the defence of the capital. Yet no source before the twelfth century mentions the walls, nor have any sections survived which bear the certain characteristics of the Dark Ages or the Macedonian period. Only two small sections, W6/7 and perhaps Wll/12 use a facing of regularly arranged spoils which could belong to the seventh-eighth century. If these are indeed from such a period, it is possible that the Byzan­ tine Walls saw some rebuilding at a time when they certainly would have been needed. In any case, it seems necessary to suppose that the defences of early medieval Nicomedia made extensive use of the standing circuit, and that whatever this period contributed was almost completely obliterated by later construction. Alterna­ tively, the defences of the city could have moved down to the shore, where nothing survives.16 The most abundant remains, visible virtually in every part of the Byzantine Walls, are in styles of masonry which seem appropriate to the age of the Comneni. They witness the most thorough restoration of the walls attested at any time in their history. Unfortu­ nately, their chronology is impossible to determine with any precision. The careless cloisonne which they employ manifests varieties which may reflect several periods of construction and rebuilding. In one case, T6, the most common type of cloisonne masonry, M, appears as a repair to an alternating brick which would also be appropriate to the twelfth century. W18/19 exhibits a quite different cloisonne, which can be dated by close analogy to the Comnene period, perhaps the reign of Manuel. This wall is bonded with T19, built in an anomlaous masonry, which may be type C. It is quite possible that the different types of cloisonne (I, K and L) may simply be variations of one general type, M, in which case there would have been one massive recon­ struction of the entire Byzantine Walls, probably in the twelfth century, and perhaps by Manuel Comnenus who was especially concerned with the defence of his Ana­ tolian territories. The account of Odo of Deuil, who saw the city in 1147, suggests that it (and perhaps its walls) was then ruined. If so, the rebuilding - possibly due to an earthquake - could be more certainly assigned to the reign of Manuel. Some of the rebuildings could have been due to the crusaders who repaired the ruined walls in 1204. If they used local artisans, their work would probably have been similar to that of the Comneni. It is possible that some of the anomalous styles which appear on sporadi­ cally, might be their work, but there is no evidence to identify it. In any case, the regular square ashlar which the westerners seem generally to have favoured in the

16 The coastal defences of Nicomedia, which would have been a

necessity at all times, remain a mystery. Their only certain ap­ pearance is in the account of Evliya Qelebi (see above, 28).

42

The Fortifications ofNicomedia Levant is entirely lacking here. The crusaders, however, may actually have done very little, for their defences soon retreated within the walls of the church of St. Sophia, probably because their manpower was too small to defend the entire circuit. The Lascarids were responsible for the next identifi­ able stage of rebuilding, limited surprisingly to outer shells added to towers T4, T10 and T16. In each case, a masonry of brick, such as is found in castles of Lascaris and his successor Vatatzes, was built over an existing facing in variant kinds of cloisonne. In addition, the anomalous long wall within the circuit, south of T9, is in the same masonry. In this case, the dating seems clear enough: since Lascaris only held the city for four years, 1207-1211, while it was in the hands of Vatatzes for about twenty (c. 1230-1254), the latter seems the most appropriate time for such work. Yet it is hard to corre­ late this with the evidence of the texts, which clearly state that the fortress was ruined when the crusaders held it in 1204-1207. More extensive repairs, therefore, would be expected, especially since this was generally a great age for fortress construction, as evident in every part of the empire of Nicaea. The natural solution would be to attribute various of the cloisonne styles to this period, but the fact that the brick masonry envelops them speaks in favour of an earlier, probably Comnene, date for that work. Until better evidence can be found for dating these types of masonry, then, such an hy­ pothesis will have to stand, and the greatest problem of these walls remain without an entirely satisfactory solution. Finally, two and quite probably three periods of construction may be assigned to the early Ottomans. The first is in a masonry characterized by the use of small piles of broken brick, of a kind which elsewhere may be assigned to the fourteenth/fifteenth century. The most important section is around the South Gate, with another piece possibly below T12. These are perhaps to be attributed to the reign of Orhan, who captured the city after a siege, when there could naturally have been much fighting around the gates, and perhaps consider­ able damage. A more likely occasion for repairs, though, might have been after the siege by Marshall Boucicault, which certainly represented a determined assault on the gates. On the other hand, it is also possi­ ble that this masonry simply represents a variation of one of the many styles of the Byzantine walls. The first certainly Ottoman period is represented by extensive reconstruction of the north wall, with rebuild­ ings of T7, T8 and T9 and the apparent conversion of the latter into a massive semicircular tower, the largest in the entire circuit. The exceptionally neat masonry the finest in the entire post-Hellenistic circuit - finds its

analogy in civil buildings of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This substantial rebuilding may represent work as early as the time of Orhan, or have been occa­ sioned by the attack of 1399 or the civil wars that afflicted the Ottoman domains after the invasion of Tamerlane. The last period of rebuilding could also belong to the fifteenth century, most probably to the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror. This consisted in adding the triangular citadel to the northeast comer of the fortifica­ tions. No historical information is available to explain the circumstances of this construction. Since dating by analogy is never as precise as might be desired, the work could perhaps be a half century later and thus associated with the devastating earthquake of 1509. After that, as under the Roman empire, Nicomedia was again far. from the frontiers, and its defences could be allow to decay, until a new age of warfare eventually made them obsolete. The walls of Nicomedia, them, exhibit several dis­ tinct periods of construction, during the 1700 years from Nicomedes to Mehmet the Conqueror. During that vast time, except for the brief centuries of Roman peace, they were constantly rebuilt, usually along the original lines. As originally conceived, the walls were a citadel for a new city which prospered from trade and so spread down to the shore of the gulf and the road into the interior. This situation continued into the Roman age, when the fortifications were apparently neglected. The long Walls of Diocletian, which surrounded the entire city and a large area above it (and perhaps the original citadel also), mark a major change reflecting the short interlude when the city was not a mere provincial centre, or even the capital of a small kingdom, but the headquarters of a mighty empire. Although that lasted only a moment, the city remained large and prosperous for another century, until the devastating earthquake of 358, and still flourished, on a smaller scale, until the beginning of the seventh century. During that age, the walls fell into decay. Their fate is unknown until the age of the crusades when they once again surrounded the hill on which the city was founded, and to which it had apparently long retreated. Their numerous repairs attest the strategic importance of the place to both Greeks and Latins, as well as the continuing efforts of the Byzan­ tines to maintain what eventually became an outpost against the Turks. The conquerors also strengthened the fortifications during the first century or more of their rule, but the stability which followed the conquest of Constantinople brought an end to the active period of fortification, and allowed the city once again to descend to the shore, where it has flourished until the present day.

43

CHAPTER 4 Castles of the Gulf

progress because they will soon be taken away, while the country is pulling them in the opposite direction by its delights. It is not possible for anyone who pays attention to have enough of them, when the sea gently plays against the shore, stirred by the close-packed waves. They have not finished seeing this when another mar­ vel comes upon them, and as far as the vision reaches, they see it while the ship is borne by the waves: the fields. You would say they belong to the Nymphs and Graces as they touch the edge of the shore, and you would see the ripe clusters of grapes hanging, and the churches: it is fine thing to sail by them in silence, all of different forms, one on the shore, another set back...and all of them fit for a festival. It is possible with such pleasure during the whole (journey)...they can be so attracted by the entire journey from Nicome­ dia, their minds so occupied with pleasure, that they do not even notice that it is time to land.2

The survey investigated all the remains of medieval fortresses it could find in the province of Izmit. As it turns out, they were all on or near the Gulf of Nicome­ dia, the ancient Astacene Gulf. This is now considered to begin where the sea first narrows between Capes Yelkenkaya (the ancient Leukatas) and Qatal. For the ancients, the Gulf was more strictly defined to begin at the narrowest point between Libyssa (Dil tskelesi) and Dil Bumu, the long promontory north of Helenopolis (Hersek).1 In modem times, the vilayet of Izmit (Kocaeli) comprises both shores of the gulf, to points west of Capes Yelkenkaya and Dil; virtually the whole shore of the gulf, therefore, will be included in this study. This gulf played a major role in the history of Byz­ antium, since it provided easy access to Nicomedia and the interior and, perhaps most important, to the agricul­ tural wealth of Bithynia. Much of the food supply of the capital travelled over these waters, whose role was still appreciated at the very end of the Byzantine era. The panegyric of Constantinople by George Karbones written at the beginning of the fourteenth century, stresses this role and provides a rare (and charming) example of praise for a landscape, surely as deserved then as now:

The two shores of the gulf are very different: on the north, the high wooded hills of the interior drop steeply into the sea, obliging the modem road and railroad to make frequent use of tunnels. There is a small plain between Gebze (Dakibyza) and the coast, and a some­ what larger one closer to Nicomedia, between Yanmca and Derince (whose ancient names, if any, are un­ known). Between Dil (Libyssa) and the suburbs of izmit, settlement tends to be concentrated in a few places, of which the most important is Hereke, the ancient Charax. This shore, however, had an enormous strategic im­ portance because it was the site of the main highway between Constantinople and the eastern frontier. From the time of Constantine until that of Justinian, imperial armies and messengers, as well as travellers and traders, followed this route to Nicomedia, from which they could continue east to the Sangarius and the northern

Furthermore, there are the cities of Bithynia, which one not unreasonably could call the store­ house given to the City by the Almighty, for it is possible, as it were, to take whatever they give simply by stretching out the hand. The city of Nicomedes, which presides over all Bithynia, which collects tribute for the City, never stops enjoining all her neighbors to please her, per­ suading them in every season to contribute of their own to the City, sending their freighters through the Astacene gulf. From there, the City receives them in three days after they get under­ way, if the wind - the filler of sails and compan­ ion, as Homer says - blows softly. As they sail to the city, they are a feast to those who watch them; they are annoyed by their

2

Text in Fenster (1968) 349f.; my translation, with the help of

Mr. Jacob Tulchin. In several instances, it has been difficult to grasp the exact meaning of this highly rhetorical passage, with its

1

lacunae and rather cavalier syntax.

e.g. Pliny, NH V 149.

44

Castles ofthe Gulf parts of Anatolia, or diverge southwest to Nicaea, following roads from there into the interior.3 Although Justinian reduced the amount of public business on this road by diverting the imperial post from Dakibyza (Gebze) to cross the gulf directly to Helenopolis and thence to Nicaea, the old route continued in importance for the armies.4 As the previous narrative has shown, it retained this military strategic value throughout the entire Byzantine period. Consequently, it is the north shore which bears most of the fortifications here studied. They occupy the western part of the gulf, from Philokrene north of cape Leukatas to Charax, with a particular concentration around Dakibyza, protecting the road and the ports for transit to the south shore. They will be considered in geographical order, from west to east: Philokrene, Ritzion, Dakibyza, Niketiaton, Libyssa and Charax. The south shore offers a very different aspect. The hills, though high, are not so precipitous, but slope down to the coast bearing a thick blanket of innumer­ able olive trees. The whole aspect is subtropical, with abundant vegetation, numerous small plains and almost constant habitation, much of it in small resort towns, interrupted by the larger naval bases of Golciik and Karamiirsel (the ancient Prainetos). In antiquity, this was a land of emporia, small trading ports which provided the fruits of their land to the capital, and outlets for the densely populated countryside behind.5 It also contained the only actual cities, Prainetos and Helenopolis, both of which stood at the heads of roads leading to Nicaea, and had bishops throughout the period. The most important place in the Middle Ages was Helenopolis, founded by Constantine in honour of his mother on the site of the ancient Drepanon, and one of the main points of transit between the capital, Nicaea and the east from the sixth century through the Middle Ages.6 Because of its less strategic and more commercial role, and also because dense modem construction has obliterated many remains, this coast has far fewer castles than the north. Four sites will be considered here, moving westward from Nicomedia, but only one of them has remains of significance: Eribolos, Prainetos, Helenopolis (the medieval Kibotos), and finally Qoban Kale or Xerigordos, a standing fortress whose strategic

3

importance gave it a role in the initial stages of the crusades. Despite the many vicissitudes brought by its location on the major highway across Anatolia, the gulf re­ mained in Byzantine hands until the confusion which followed the battle of Manzikert. Within a few years, Turkish bands were harassing the towns of the shore and their hinterland had become desolate and unap­ proachable. Although the revolt of Nicephorus Botaniates in 1078 raised hopes that imperial resistance would gain in organization and strength, Nicaea itself fell to the Turks in 1080. They menacingly made it capital of their new state in Asia Minor, posing an immediate threat to Constantinople and the whole region. When Alexius Comnenus came to the throne the next year, virtually nothing remained to the empire in Bithynia. His daughter and historian wrote (with considerable exaggeration) that the Empire, which in ancient times had been bounded by the Pillars of Hercules in the west and those of Dionysus near India in the east, now had its limits at Adrianople and the Bosporus.7 In fact, Alexius still had a major foothold in the form of Nicomedia and made every effort with the limited resources at his disposal to control the vital gulf. He enjoyed a rapid success which led to an agreement fixing the frontier at the Drakon river.8 Soon after, though, in 1087, Nicomedia itself fell to the Turks. Alexius responded by building a fort at Kibotos, at the outer entrance to the Gulf, to prevent further expansion, and in a short time regained Nicomedia. These actions, combined with the successful recapture of Nicaea by the First Crusade ensured a further two and a half centuries of imperial rule. By the early fourteenth century, most of Bithynia, including the peninsula which stretches to the capital, was under active attack. The weak governments of the day, plagued by civil war, made every effort to maintain control of the gulf, but the fall of Nicomedia in 1337 brought Byzantine rule to an end. The towns of the shore were rapidly overrun, and the whole region became Turkish. The conqueror Orhan parcelled it out to his followers, and began construction of ships for further advance against the Byzantines. In 1399, however, when the empire had lost even more territory, and had nothing left opposite the capital, its ally Marshal Boucicault managed to defeat the Turks and ravage Nicomedia and Dakibyza, though he made no attempt to hold them. If the situation had returned to normal, that would have been the last sign of Byzantium in this part of Asia Minor, but the sudden appearance of Tamerlane, and his crushing defeat of the Ottomans at Ankara in July 1402, changed everything. In the after­ math of his victory, the conqueror returned most of the Ottoman domains in Asia to their former rulers, and left

For the road system of this region, with summary histories of

most of its sites, see Lefort (1995).

4

Reference to the events summarised here, unless otherwise

5

Emporia were market towns, usually but not necessarily on the

indicated, will be found in chapters 1 and 2 above. coast, which had a status between a village and a city. They were especially common on the coasts of Bithynia: See Robert (1980)

75f., with further references.

6

See Mango (1994), which also treats Pylai, the major port of the

7

Anna Comnena Vl.xi.

Byzantine age, located just to the west of the area studied here.

8

On this, see below, 64.

45

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

emperor, and took up a strong position in the hills of Mesothynia, as the Byzantines called the peninsula between the capital and Nicomedia. The imperial forces, led by the emperor in person and his Grand Domestic and later successor John Cantacuzene, reached the plain of Pelekanon on 10 June. According to the detailed (if self-serving) account of Cantacuzene, the Byzantines were successful in the initial skirmishes, but could gain no decisive victory because of the mobility of their enemy and the configu­ ration of the land: the Turks, who occupied the hills, were hidden everywhere for ambushes, and their main camp was protected by ravines. Nevertheless, the Byzantines managed to drive back a major attack led by Orhan’s brother Pazarlu. Since they could not follow up this advantage, Cantacuzene urged that the force return to the capital, unless the Turks came down from the heights. This was agreed, and the Byzantines celebrated a victory. But more fighting followed, and the emperor was wounded when his horse fell in a ditch. At the end of the day, Andronicus sent a message to Constantino­ ple asking ships for transport, and the Grand Domestic brought the troops back to the camp in order. Orhan then debated withdrawing, apparently not wanting to meet the enemy on even ground, but was urged to stay on. Fortunately for him, a rumor that the Emperor had been fatally wounded spread in the camp together with the news of his departure. Although Can­ tacuzene tried to restrain them, the panic-stricken troops decided to withdraw to the neighbouring fortresses for safety. The army, which was too large for any one fort, was divided into four parts, to camp in the fortresses of Philokrene, Niketiaton, Dakibyza and Ritzion. The Turks knew nothing of this until the morning when Pazarlu approached Philokrene to find the Roman force outside the gates, for which they did not have the key. When the gate was finally opened, the men rushed in chaotically and many, including high commanders, were killed outside. The Byzantines then rallied and attacked Orhan, who returned to his camp, realizing he could accomplish nothing more. On the next day, the remaining forces assembled at Philokrene, and the entire army withdrew westward to the capital. At first sight, it appears that the Byzantines actually won the battle, in that they could march this far and beat off the Turks, but in fact they accomplished nothing. However superior their infantry may have been to that of the Turks, they could not drive them out of the region, or secure an imperial position outside the fortified places. Lack of discipline, or panic, caused the army to break up; it was never reassembled in full strength. As soon as the army was gone, the Turks returned to harass the country, block the routes, and achieve their goal of capturing Nicaea, in 1331. With that, all hopes of maintaining a position in Asia Minor were at an end. The Empire could provision Nicomedia only by sea, and even then could not prevent the Otto-

the sons of Beyazid to fight each other for supremacy in the rest. One of them, Suleyman, crossed into Europe a month after the battle and entered into negotiation with the Emperor and the main Christian powers. The result was a a treaty signed in March 1403, which restored much of the north coast of the Marmora and the west coast of the Black Sea, along with Thessalonica and some islands to the Byzantines.9 Although the surviving accounts of the treaty make no mention of Asia Minor, it appears that the Byzantines made significant gains there, too, either at this time or in the confusion of the immediately succeeding years. The Turkish historian Ashikpashazade, who was bom around 1400 and wrote a half century or more after these events, records that in 1421 Mehmet Qelebi, who had triumphed over his brothers to restore Ottoman rule, was urged by his followers to liberate some coastal towns from the infidel.10 They complained that these towns, though in Muslim territory, actually belonged to Byzantium. Mehmet thereupon sent an army and re­ ceived the submission of Hereke, Old Gebze, Danca, Pendik and Kartal, that is, the whole northern shore of the gulf (not including Nicomedia) and the coast as far as the suburbs of Constantinople. Of this last Byzantine interlude, which lasted for close to twenty years, noth­ ing further is known.

Philokrene (Bayramoğlu, Plan IV) The location of Philokrene, which preserved its medie­ val name until modem times, is not in doubt: it stands on the small promontory Kale Bumu, about a mile north of Cape Leukatas. The place, now called Bayramoğlu, is the site of a resort hotel. The castle, of which only fragments are standing, appears but once in history, though in a very significant context. It was involved in the battle of Pelekanon, the last Byzantine hope and effort to retain a position in Asia Minor.11 In May 1329, the Byzantine emperor Andronicus III, frustrated by the constant Turkish attacks on his terri­ tory and anxious to relieve Nicaea which was then under attack, decided to make a campaign into Bithynia. Although his advisers warned him that the Turks, being nomads, would simply withdraw into a good defensive position in the heights, he decided to proceed. In fact, Orhan, who knew the country well from long years of raiding, advanced with a much larger force than the

9

Terms in Ducas XVIII.2; see also Dtilger, Regesten 3201, with

further references. 10 Ashikpashazade, cap. 80. 11 For the battle, see Cantacuzene 1.341-363, with the summary of Gregoras 433-437. The short chronicle edited by Laurent (1949)

210 gives the exact date and some further details. Imber (1990)

20f provides a clear, skeptical modern account.

46

Castles of the Gulf

Nicaea, which they approached from Nicomedia.12 It had the advantage of offering space for an army and easy access to Constantinople. The district contained a monastery, of St. George at Mesampelos, which has been plausibly identified with remains between Danca (Ritzion) and Eskihisar (Niketiaton). Such a location, with its proximity to the four castles, well suits the text of Cantacuzene.13

man blockade which resulted in the fall of the city in 1337. This narrative sets the stage not only for Philokrene, where much of the action took place, but also for the other forts whose remains will be considered below. Pelekanon itself was not a fortress, but a plain by the coast. It was the place where the crusading army of Godfrey of Bouillon camped in 1096 - its first stage in Asia Minor - and soon after formed the base for Alexius Comnenus during the crusaders’ siege of

12 Anna Comnena X. ID, 11; XL 1 13 See Dirimtekin (1954) 49-52 and Mirmiroğlu (1949); for the monastery, though not its location, see Janin (1975) 88.

47

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia The construction of a luxury resort, with a beach hotel, has left nothing of the castle of Philokrene but one round tower and a stretch of wall below it. When Dirimtekin visited the site some forty years ago, how­ ever, much of the circuit still stood. It seems most useful, therefore, to reproduce his description, and to add to it comments on the existing structures.

The south comer tower stands about 7 m. high. Subsequently, when the outer gate was built, a wall, which at the same time was a retain­ ing wall, was attached to this tower. This wall, 2.10 m. thick, continues to the east; the outer gate stood over its extension. But further from the level of the tower, this wall is ruined and its remains have rolled toward the sea. It is possible to estimate its length from the remains at ground level. Immediately to the east of a place which appears to be the site of a gate toward the end of the south wall of the main castle, a wall stretches straight to the south, but its continuation is ru­ ined. This wall probably formed the east side of the walls of the gate, and afterward turned to the west to join the wall which was coming from the south comer tower. The remains of two walls which stretch paral­ lel to each other toward the east, beside the tower and casemates of the east wall reveal the presence of a building here; it was eventually used as a residence. The construction technique of the castle re­ sembles the style of the Palaeologan period. The careless construction, the single and double brick bands and the single courses of stone and the bricks inserted vertically in the standing tower and casemates are characteristic of that period. The mortar is white, with small inclusions. The size of the castle, its style of construction and its walls only a metre thick show that it was built as a fort for detention or as a base of resis­ tance for a short time. It was built on the hill dominating the inlet in order to protect the inlet which could shelter a fleet of small ships against all winds but the west. The haghiasma [Ayazma on Plan IV] immediately beside the castle could ensure the water requirements of a small garri­ son, while the castle could ensure the security of those coming to visit the haghiasma.^

Philokrini is some 1800 m. north of Cape Yelkenkaya [the ancient Leukate]. It was built in a dominant position over a small inlet between Cape Kaletepe on the north and the somewhat smaller cape in the south on which the castle stands. The eastern and southern slopes of the castle hill descend very steeply to the sea. The ‘haghiasma of Christ’ is on the southeast side of the hill on the shore of the inlet. The castle forms a very regular pentagon with sides of approximately 29 x 51.7 x 29.25 x 34.25 x 59 m. Although there are no traces of the castle walls on the west side which descends steeply to the sea, rounded wall remains are encountered on the edge of the sea. The first section of the south wall is in the same condition. It is 29.25 m. long and overlooks the inlet. Construction of a wall here was not considered necessary because of the impossibility of an attack from these directions. In the middle of the south face, there is a round tower with an interior diameter of 6.5 m. and an adjoining section which must have been the site of a gate. The walls continue from the tower about 26 m. in an east-west direction until they encounter a round tower which is ruined to the level of the foundations; here they join the east (land) walls. The east walls run about 22.7 m. toward the north, then join a round tower, and an adjacent casemate. The front (east) face of the tower is ruined, but the beginnings of a dome are present. The wall stands a meter high here; after the casemate, which rises about 2 m. above the level of the ground, it drops to a height of 15-20 cm., and so continue to a ruined tower which marks the junction of the south and east walls. After this tower, the walls turn west for 29 m. to end in the steep precipice above the shore. Judging by the present appearance and the remains, there was not a tower here. The walls are presently in a very ruined state. The parts which can give an idea of the manner of construction are the comer tower of the south wall, and the tower and casemate which partially stand on the east side. There are also traces of an outer gate in the form of a retaining wall attached to the comer tower of the south wall as well as remains of a section of its wall.

The surviving remains consist of Dirimtekin’s south comer tower and a wall in front of it (Figs 26, 27). The round tower is faced with roughly coursed rubble with some brick filling and occasional spoils (there are a few Byzantine columns and capitals preserved on the site). This was attached to the core by a cribwork of large square beams whose openings are visible high on the tower. It employs a white surface mortar, most of which appears to be covered with a modem cement. The wall below the tower displays the same characteristics, but appears rougher because it has not received the same coat of surface mortar. It is now used as the base of a modem stairway; it may originally have had a similar function, as retaining wall for the entrance to the castle from the harbor below. The large tower would have 14 Dirimtekin (1954) 52f.; my translation.

48

Castles of the Gulf

been designed to protect this approach. A short stretch of wall west of the tower, preserved only to a very low height, employs a grey mortar with some shells among the inclusions (the mortar of the tower is not visible). Dirimtekin’s assignment of these walls to the Palaeologan period seems quite plausible, especially since the place is mentioned only in the fourteenth century. There is also an alternative which would suit the history of the region equally well. That is the reign of Alexius Comnenus, when the empire was struggling to maintain a foothold in Asia Minor after the disastrous battle of Manzikert. As part of his efforts, Alexius was especially concerned to secure the region opposite Constantinople, with the Gulf of Nicomedia, even more strategic now that Nicaea was in the hands of a Turkish sultan. This would have been an appropriate time to construct a fortress to control a useful small harbour near the entrance to the gulf, and at the edge of a fertile plain. Stylistic analysis is less helpful here than elsewhere, because the forts of Alexius, like those of the Palaeologi, are simply built, evidently in haste by a govern­ ment faced with urgent necessity. The early Comnenian forts which have been identified employ a facing of rough coursed stone with little or no brick. They tend to use rather large stones, and often have cribwork.15 The Palaeologan walls are at first sight very similar, but in general appear to use smaller stones, with varying amounts of brick and small round beams in the facing.16 If conclusions may be drawn from the small sample of fortresses dated to these periods, they might indicate the early Comnenian period for the walls of Philokrene.

Ritzion (Danca) A monastery of Aritzion is mentioned in 1078 and may appear as early as 787 under a slightly different name.17 For the period of interest here, the place is called Ritzion in the few sources that mention it. Beside Cantacuzene’s account of the battle of Pelekanon, it appears as the port where Manuel Comnenus met his wife in 1160 on his way to an expedition to the east along the main highway; he had earlier crossed there from Pylai.18 It was one of the places regained by the Byzantines in the aftermath of the Ottoman debacle of 1402, and held until 1421. The fortress of Ritzion stands on a rise immediately above the shore at the entrance of the Gulf of Nicome­ dia, in the middle of the modem town of Danca (which preserves the ancient name, preceded by the definite article). Nothing remains but a horseshoe shaped tower and an adjoining wall which stretches 48 metres to the

east. According to Evliya ęelebi, this was a square fort­ ress with a gate facing the harbour. In his day, it had no garrison, but contained some twenty houses with tile roofs.19 The tower (Figs 28, 29) stands on a base of large rectangular blocks, not obviously spoils, laid with a good deal of filling of broken brick and small stones. The stones of the facing become smaller as the tower rises, until they reach a band of four bricks, reused and closely set side-by-side, with wide mortar bands be­ tween them (the bricks are 3 cm. thick, the mortar 6 cm., the entire band 30 cm.). The rest of the facing consists of small coursed fieldstones with much brick filling and mortar, and similar brick bands at intervals of about 4 m. Large beam holes, most of them square, located below the brick bands attest to the presence of cribwork. On the east side, where some of the mortar has bro­ ken away, the explanation for the wide mortar bands becomes obvious: this is in fact recessed brick, a tech­ nique where alternate rows of brick are set back and covered with mortar. In several places, there are traces of a dark reddish surface mortar. The tower was hollow, with a large round inner chamber entered through a passage with a brick vault. It was divided into two levels with a floor supported by large round wooden beams. Embrasures set in arches in the upper chamber faced north and south to cover the adjacent walls. The interior walls are of large mortared rubble with a good deal of grey surface mortar. The arches of the embrasures, however, are more carefully built in alternating brick with large stones. A short spur projects from the tower to the adjacent wall, where there is a definite break. The wall, which is 1.85 m. thick and has a base of large stones (not spoils), is faced with roughly coursed rubble with a good deal of brick filling. (Fig.30) The brick occasionally forms short courses or is inserted vertically, but constitutes no regular or decorative pattern. The inside face of the wall consists of casemates, with buttresses projecting 75 cm. to separate the individual embrasures. Several blocks at the comer of the street beyond the end of the wall suggest that a comer tower stood here and that the present street pattern represents the original square shape of the castle. This fortress evidently has two periods, both of which may be identified by analogy. For the first period, the use of recessed brick sets a wide limit: it came into general use in the eleventh century, and is notable in the walls of Constantinople built by Manuel Comnenus and in eleventh-century and Lascarid walls at Nicaea.20

19 Evliya 2.61, cited by Dirimtekin (1954) 57, where some further references will be found. Dirimtekin saw no more of the fort than

15 Foss (1982) 154-159; summary in FW 145, 163.

is now visible.

16 FW 158f.

20 See Vocotopulos (1979) and FW 57f (Constantinople) and 106f

17 Janin (1975) 83f.

(Nicaea).

18 Cinnamus IV.23

49

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia continuing role for the town. When they arrived at Helenopolis, they would either cross the gulf directly or - presumably in the case of stormy weather - follow the long route through Nicomedia. In either case, they would stop at Dakibyza where they could find mounts and provisions, and escorts to take them to the capital.27 In the Byzantine period, Dakibyza rarely appears in history. It evidently formed part of the territory of the Latin empire, from the conquest of Constantinople until 1241, when John Vatatzes captured it.28 It subsequently played a role in the battle of Pelekanon, as one of the four fortresses where the imperial army retreated.29 These texts show that there was a castle here, but it has left no trace, nor is its site even apparent.

Within this period, banded masonry like the present often appears in walls built by Manuel Comnenus.21 Considering that the site first appears in a civil context in the reign of Manuel, when it had a strategic impor­ tance as a place for crossing the gulf, it seems most reasonable to assign the first period to his time. The long wall was plainly built after the tower, to which it is not bonded. Its style, insofar as it has one, points to the Palaeologan period, with the closest analogy perhaps in the walls of Nymphaeum.22 The large stones on which it rests may be a survival from the original wall, contemporary with the tower.

Dakibyza (Gebze) Niketiaton (Eskihisar, Plan V)

Because of its location on the main road, halfway between Constantinople and Nicomedia, Dakibyza, the modem Gebze, was and remains the most important town of the district.23 Although not far from the coast, its landscape is very different from that of the other sites here considered.24 The coastal zone, especially on the north shore of the gulf, is very narrow. Behind it are high wooded hills and some open rolling country, suitable for flocks and herds. Dakibyza stands in such a land, but is in easy communication with the sea. Its port was about four miles away, in the small cove of Eskihisar. In antiquity, both town and port were called Dakibyza. It was never a city, but formed part of the territory of Nicomedia, which stretched westward to Potamoi, a place on the coast about two miles north of Philok­ rene.25 Dakibyza appears in history when it was devas­ tated by an earthquake in the reign of Claudius Gothicus (268-270) and gained a certain notoriety a century later when the shipload of eighty orthodox clerics persecuted by the emperor Valens burned in its harbour.26 When Justinian suppressed the imperial post between Chal­ cedon and Dakibyza, the town lost the business that now passed directly to Helenopolis on the south shore of the gulf, but at the same time continued to prosper as a station on the route between the capital and the east. Justinian’s construction of the magnificent bridge over the Sangarius shows that the land route through Ni­ comedia was still of great importance, and the instruc­ tions for the reception of Persian ambassadors reflects a

21

Niketiaton was the name of a monastery founded in the ninth century by the magister Sergius, who came form Niketia in Paphlagonia. It was on the gulf of Nicomedia between the emporia of Kalos Agros and Dorkon, neither of which has been located.30 The name reappears in 1241, when the castle of Niketiaton was taken by Vatatzes in his campaign against the Latins.31 The next mention is under extremely notorious circum­ stances. On Christmas day 1261, after his successful capture of Constantinople and celebration of a second coronation there, the usurper Michael Palaeologus had the young prince and legitimate emperor, John IV Las­ caris, blinded. He sent him to perpetual confinement, under guard, but with a guaranteed supply of food, to the ‘castle on the sea, Niketiaton of Dakibyza’.32 As a result, he was excommunicated a few months later by the patriarch Arsenius. Only in February 1267, with a new patriarch on the throne, was the excommunication lifted. On that occasion, the contrite emperor ordered food, clothing and provisions sent to the prince. Mi­ chael showed him good will thereafter, according to the contemporary historian Pachymeres, but never released him from confinement.33 John IV was still there in 1284, when Palaeologus’ son and successor, Androni­ cus II, not long after his accession, came seeking recog­ nition from the blinded prince, whose legitimacy still had an important following.34 Although these sources deal only with a fortress, there was also a civil settle-

FW 147f.

27 For all this, see above, 11-12.

22 FW 158f., but note than some of the more careless styles of the

28 Acropolites 59.

walls of Nicomedia, attributed to an earlier period, might also be

29 See above, 46.

comparable.

30 See Janin (1975) 94. Kalos Agros is actually mentioned in

23 YUcel and Soyhan (1976) provide a pleasing account of the

several sources, as early as the Roman period: see the article of W. Ruge in RE 10.1759 (1919).

history and antiquities of the town and district. 24 See the description of this district in Robert (1987) 428f.

31 Acropolites 59.

25 See the milestone of Gordian III published by Domer (1941)

32 Pachymeres 1.257 (Failler).

43f.;cf. Ruge (1937) 488.

33 Pachymeres 1.399 (Failler).

26 Malalas 299; clerics: see above, 10.

34 Pachymeres II. 103 (Bonn).

50

Castles of the Gulf

Key

NIKETIATON

-ύώ’^·

Wall facing missing

111111

Steep slope

Plan V. Niketiaton

ment, for in 1315 a priest of the kastron of Niketiaton was defrocked for spreading slanderous propaganda against the emperor.35 The place appears for the last time in history in association with the battle of Pe­ lekanon when it served as one of the refuges of the Byzantine army.36

Niketiaton has generally, but not universally, been identified with Eskihisar, a fortress on the coast south of Gebze overlooking the small harbour which was the port for Dakibyza.37 The only reservations have arisen from the text of Pachymeres, who seems at one point to 37 Described, with sortie attention to the village and its Ottoman

35 Grumel, Regestes 2050.

remains, notably the house of Osman Hamdi Bey, founder of the

36 See above, 46.

Istanbul Museum, by Yiicel and Soyhan (1976) 45-54.

51

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

place the imprisonment of John IV in Dakibyza, leaving the impression that Niketiaton was to be sought else­ where. The printed text of Pachymeres does indeed name Dakibyza, but two of the three manuscripts used actually have the name Niketiaton; and when Pachymeres refers to the visit of Andronicus II, he names the ‘fort of Niketiaton of Dakibyza’.38 This would be the natural way to refer to a site which de­ pended on another, as the port did on the town. Other texts, in any case, make it clear that Niketiaton was a fort and that it lay on the sea. The reference of Pachymeres closely associating it with Dakibyza leaves no doubt that it was in fact at Eskihisar.39 The fort doubtless fell to the Ottomans in the after­ math of the capture of Nicomedia in 1337. It was certainly in their hands in 1399, when Marshal Boucicault attacked it. His force sailed two leagues along the coast from Constantinople to ‘un gros village qui siet sur le gouffre de Nycomede, appellć Dyaquis’.40 There they found a Turkish force of foot and horse arrayed to oppose them, but they were quickly dispatched. The village had many fine manors and a rich palace which belonged to Beyazid. After setting fire to the village and the whole country around, the French embarked and sailed all night to Nicomedia. This text shows that the palace was still functioning; it had evidently been taken from one ruler by another, and continued to be a royal residence. A few years later, the Byzantines were more suc­ cessful, when they regained this coast after the battle of Ankara in 1402. In his account of its recapture by Mehmet I in 1421, Ashikpashazade lists Eski (Old) Gegbiize. The latter is the Turkish form of Dakibyza (which is now simplified to Gebze); the ‘old’ refers to the coastal village, for in the Ottoman period, the centre of the district was definitely the inland town, which was a major station on the highways across Anatolia and was richly adorned with appropriate monuments. Notable among them is the mosque of Sultan Orhan, built soon after the conquest, and the sixteenth-century complex of Qoban Mustafa Pasha, with its richly decorated caravansaray.41* By comparison with such a prospering

town, the seaside village with its Byzantine palace would certainly have seemed old. The fortress of Niketiaton (Fig.31) is in some ways the most impressive of this region, not because of its size (it is much smaller than the Byzantine fortress of Nicomedia), but because it is relatively well preserved and offers some unusual features. The entire fortress measures about 120 x 80 m., and consists of two main parts, the original inner fortress, or bailey, and an outer circuit (called here the Lower Walls).42 There was also an outer wall and ditch along the north face. The inner fortress contains a remarkable element, a high fortified residential block or palace of four storeys with large windows. This was evidently the site where the unfortu­ nate John Lascaris was confined. The walls will be described by circuits, working out from the inner fortress, which comprises a rectangular block of 30 x 62 m., with large projecting square towers on its north face, where the castle was most vulnerable, and less impressive towers on the comers of the south wall. The northwest quarter is occupied by the ‘Palace’, which will be treated in detail. Towers and curtains are identified in the same way as those of Nicomedia (see above p.29). These walls are built in a homogeneous style, with a facing of alternating brick, sometimes with added brick which forms a cloisonnć. They use two kinds of mortar, one white with a high proportion of inclusions, mostly brick; and a grey mortar with many inclusions, almost all small stones. Many sections of the walls preserve a shelter coat of a rough grey mortar. The walls were reinforced by a system of cribwork of large square beams. Where the openings for the beams appear on the surface, they often have unusual small lintels of brick or stone. The Inner Fortress 1) Rectangular comer tower with inner chambers at two levels (Fig.32). 2) The tower is faced with an alternating brick with closely-set bricks in regular, usually single rows. There are many bricks inserted vertically or diagonally between the courses to produce an irregular and inconsistent cloisonnć (Fig.33). An extensive shelter coat of grey mortar still covers much of the unsorted rubble between the brick courses to produce a rela­ tively smooth surface. Large square beam holes, often with small stone lintels, indicate that a substantial cribwork anchored the facing

TI

38 See notes 33 and 34 above.

39 The issue was confused by a decree of the Greek patriarch in 1730 mentioning Niketiaton as opposite the island of St. Andrew

in the bay of Tuzla, which lies outside the gulf. See Janin (1975) 94. 40 Boucicault 140. With its mention of the gulf of Nicomedia and the palace, the text leaves no doubt that 'Dyaquis’ is a deforma­ tion of Dakibyza. The editor identifies it with Daskylion, a small

place on the coast northwest of Bursa; but that is not on the gulf

the identification of Eski Gebze, based on an Ottoman tax regis­

of Nicomedia and does not appear in the Byzantine period; see

ter, but the site they propose has no castle.

Corsten (1988).

42 See the admirable description and plan of Dirimtekin (1954) 61-

41 See respectively Kuran (1968) 37 and Goodwin (1971) 189ff.

64; a few of his observations have been incorporated here. Yiicel

For a full account of the Ottoman monuments, see Yiicel and

and Soyhan (1976) 46-48 have a shorter description, though with some good analysis.

Soyhan (1976) 25-44. They choose a different solution (12f.) for

52

Castles of the Gulf

to the core of mortared rubble. Some sections of the facing, notably on the west side, have been repaired with squarish flat stones that in­ terrupt the brick courses. 3) The tower was entered at ground level by a passageway arched in brick and set at a 45 de­ gree angle within the wall. It led to a rectangu­ lar chamber with splayed embrasures (narrowing from 88 to 7.5 cm.) deeply set in brick arches facing west and east (Fig.34). They provided covering fire over the adjacent wall and the eastern approach to the fortress. The arches employed new rather than reused brick. On the north side is a large fireplace (Fig.35), with a flue flanked by regular courses of closely-set small bricks. The interior ma­ sonry is in a rough alternating brick, heavily plastered with whitish mortar. The tower had an upper level, entered from the wallwalk, which probably contained similar embrasures, as well as one facing south over the adjacent wall. Most of it has disappeared, but large square beam holes indicate the level of the floor. A brick arch bonded into the ma­ sonry at the back of the tower evidently sup­ ported the wallwalk. Wl/2

T2

rest of this circuit, approached by a stairway built into the northwest wall of the ‘Palace’. The ‘Palace’ (P)

1) The main feature of this castle, towering above the rest, is a massively fortified but welllighted rectangular residential hall of four sto­ reys, perhaps impressive enough to be classed with other late Byzantine palaces. It occupies the northwest comer of the enceinte (Fig.37). 2) The outer walls of the palace, best preserved on the north and west, consist of a core of mortared rubble faced on both sides in alternat­ ing bricky. (Fig.38). The average thickness of the wall was 2.80 m. The solid north wall is reinforced by two buttresses, bonded with the facing and of the same material. They are 95 cm. (E) and 80 cm. (W) wide, and project 1.20 m. from the wall. West of them, a narrow pos­ tern, arched in brick, reaches through the wall at ground level. The west and south walls con­ tained large windows which will be described below. The main entrance to the palace was at the southeast comer; it appears to have been a simple arched opening about 2 m. wide and 4.40 m. high. The external facing shows a regular alter­ nation of single courses of thick brick (average 4 cm.) and large fieldstones. In some cases, extra brick has been added to compensate for the use of smaller stones. Square beam holes, often with brick or stone lintels, appear throughout, usually just below the brick bands, to indicate an extensive system of cribwork. At the level of the lower windows this facing contains a band, 60 cm. wide, of large well cut limestone blocks, evidently spoils. This band is doubled at the northwest comer. The masonry below it contains a good deal of neat cloisonnć, more evident on the north than west face, where much of it is covered with a shelter coat. High on the northwest face is a large and elaborate rosette in brick (Fig.40). The south wall has a similar facing, heavily plastered in the lower parts, and much less regular in the upper, where there may have been considerable repairs. It bears an occasional brick decoration in a vertical herring-bone pattern. Where the east wall is visible (most of it has collapsed; the rest is heavily overgrown), it corresponds to the others. 3) The inner walls of the ‘palace’ are also faced in alternating brick, but the single courses of thick closely-set brick often run only a short dis­ tance, to be replaced by another at a slightly different level. Less care was taken with this facing, since it was heavily plastered with a surface mortar.

Facing similar to Tl with which it is bonded. The brick courses (sometimes double or triple) are generally regular, with bricks of all sizes and shapes mixed sometimes with flat stones. The facing shows the same square beam holes with small lintels. (Fig.36)

1) Badly ruined rectangular tower with inner chambers at two levels. 2) Facing in good alternating brick, with closelyset bricks and much surface mortar over the rubble between the courses; large square beam holes. 3) The inner chambers, now buried, were entered through brick arches, one above the other, at ground level and from the wallwalk.

W2/P and Upper Gate: Facing of the usual alternat­

ing brick with thinner bricks and smaller stones than those so far described, but with the same shelter coast and beam holes. This wall is bonded with the ‘Palace’, which rises high above it (its smooth upper face shows that this was always the case), and contains the Upper Gate, built into it adjacent to the east wall of the Palace. The gate, or postern, consists of a tall brick arch set back about 1 m. in the wall. Its outer faces, which rose to a triple arch of apparently new bricks, rested on large squared blocks which have disappeared. It supported a wall somewhat thinner than the

53

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia appears also to have had windows in the east wall, where a brick arch survives next to the north wall and immediately below the consoles of the fourth floor. It almost appears that this window stretched the full height of the room. There may have been others in this wall, which has mostly collapsed. A row of stone consoles indicates the presence of a fourth level, which may have been a defensive rooftop platform. The various levels were entered by a staircase built into the east wall. It began in a small domed antechamber at the northeast comer.

The interior, (Fig.39) which measures 15.2 x 10 m., contained a basement, three residential floors and a rooftop platform. The ground floor, 2.54 m. high, was supported by a series of brick vaults, now filled but presumably once covering unlighted chambers suitable for stor­ age. The postern mentioned above leads into the second vault from the west. The ground floor also appears to have been unlighted (except from the entrance door at the south­ east). Its roof, the floor of the level above, was supported by a series of stone consoles, evi­ dently spoils, set into the walls (Fig.41). These could not have provided the sole base for beams as long as the 10 m. width of the hall, which presumably contained additional up­ right wooden beams or columns to support the ceiling. This second floor was lighted by large windows in the west (Fig. 42) and south faces, set in the middle of the walls in pairs. In the west wall, the windows were inset about 50 cm. from the outer face, so that they were 2.50 m. deep. The north window was splayed toward the interior: it was a metre wide at the wall face, but 1.35 m. on the inside. The adjacent window, though, was splayed in the other di­ rection, so that it was wider at the wall face than at the interior. In this way, the windows would actually face somewhat toward the southwest, to take full advantage of the sun­ light. They were both 2.15 m. high, and termi­ nated in brick arches. The well-built inner face of these arches employed a good deal of sur­ face mortar, pink on the inner face, and white in the arches. The windows of the south face were of the same height and construction, but splayed outward, so that their width contracted from 1.30 m. to 1.0 m. on the inner face. As a result, this level would have been very well lighted. The third floor was evidently the piano nobile, rising to a height of 4.3 m. Large pro­ jecting spoils apparently formed the base for long beams laid parallel to the wall; they in turn supported cross beams which rested in square sockets about 30 cm. above the level of the consoles. The ceiling would also doubtless have had internal supports in the form of pillars or piers, presumably of wood. This hall was lighted by windows similar to those of the sec­ ond floor, but no trace of them, beside the re­ mains of the brick arches in the west wall, have survived. These arches fill a wider inset (5.75 m. instead of 5.10 m.) than those of the second floor, suggesting perhaps that the windows here were triple rather than double. This floor

Main Gate: Surviving remains do not allow this gate,

which stood adjacent to the southwest comer of the palace, to be described in detail. Like oth­ ers in this fortification, it was apparently a simple entrance 1.80 m. wide, without bends or flanking towers. It would, however, have been well covered by fire from T3. A projection on the inner face of the wall south of it probably represents the gatehouse. WP/3

T3

Facing in fairly regular alternating brick with some cloisonne and occasional double bands of brick. Bonded with T6.

1) Rectangular comer tower with inner chamber (Fig.44),

2) Facing in the usual alternating brick with large square beam holes. Much of the facing, espe­ cially on the south, is poorly constructed, probably because of repairs. 3) The upper parts have been destroyed, and the lower largely filled, but traces of an opening on the north side indicate that there was an embra­ sure here, as no doubt on the other sides. W3/4

T4

54

Towers T3 and T4 barely project from this long stretch of wall, which probably represents a rebuilding and perhaps thickening of an original wall. It has a very poor facing of small stones and broken brick in irregular courses. The brick is exceptionally superficial, and has often rotted away (this side is exposed to salt air from the gulf), leaving projecting bands of mortar. Hollowed stones have been used for drainage channels. The interior is missing; here, massive fragments of the wall have been tossed about, evidently by earthquakes. This wall contains a narrow postern set against T4.

1) Rectangular comer tower, like T3, but in very poor condition. 2) Very rough alternating brick, with thick bricks sometimes in double bands. This masonry is in places as poor as that of W3/4. The east face

Castles of the Gulf

preserves a good deal of smooth pink surface mortar where the Outer Wall abuts it. Although this wall is badly damaged and its facing completely missing, surviving traces on the interior indicate a series of arches which would have supported the wallwalk.

W4/1

The upper part of the tower, above the level of the wallwalk, has a much less regular ma­ sonry, with poorly sorted fieldstones, inconsis­ tent courses of brick and much surface mortar. It generally uses much less brick than the lower part. On the south side, just below the parapet, is a rosette decoration in brick. 3) The large and very tall trapezoidal inner chamber was originally divided into two levels, as indicated by large beam holes at the level of the wallwalk of W5/6. It is covered with a bar­ rel vault, but traces of pendentives, which nar­ row the chamber toward the top, indicate substantial rebuilding. The western entrance of this chamber led to the wallwalk with a parapet of about 1.50 m., then into a tiny domed ante­ chamber, the entrance to a covered stairway which ran through the inner face of the tower (it is now exposed), making two right angle turns to provide access to the platform on its top (Fig.47). 4) This tower has been raised by about 3 m. In its first period, it had a domed inner chamber with a stair leading directly to the top platform (cf. T10 and Tl 1 below), and a consistent masonry, comparable to that of T10 and TH. The rais­ ing, in poorer masonry, was reinforced by a cribwork of large beams inserted at the level where the present stairs now turn back toward the platform. The brick decoration of the south face, in the form of a rosette like that of the outer palace wall (Fig.48), suggests that the second period is still Byzantine.

The Lower Walls The second circuit represents an expansion of the original castle by adding a large ward of about 115 x 65 m. on the west and south of the Inner Fortress. It had seven towers. Four of them are semicircular and much larger than the rest: they occupy the comers and protect a gate in the north wall. The south wall, overlooking the gulf, was reinforced by two solid square towers and four small square bastions. The walls are homogeneous in structure and masonry, evidently the product of one period. They underwent some rebuilding, most obvious in the southeast wall and tower. These walls have a shallow facing - usually about 30 cm. deep - in an alternating brick which differs from that of the Inner Fortress in that the stone courses are usually narrower, the bricks thinner, and the brick bands often double or triple. Cloisonne is almost entirely absent. They consistently employ a white mortar with many small black pebbles and almost no brick as inclusions. Cribwork of large round and square beams reinforces the interior, and was often joined to the surface by smaller round beams. W4/5

T5

This wall abuts T4, against which it was plainly built, but is bonded with T5. Its lower parts are faced in a rough alternating brick, often with double brick courses, but the upper is in a much different masonry of roughly coursed fieldstones and very little brick. (Fig.45) This facing was anchored to the core by small round beams. The wall, like T5 (see below) has evi­ dently been raised.

1) Large semicircular comer tower with inner chamber, connecting walls at two distinctly dif­ ferent levels (Fig.46), 2) The tower is faced with an alternating brick in which single rows of fieldstones, many of them roughly squared, are separated by double or often single rows of brick (Fig.43). Some of the bricks appear to have been new, not reused. The facing, here as in most of this circuit, is superficial, rarely more than 30 cm thick. It was anchored to the inner rubble core by an extensive cribwork of large round and squared beams just behind the surface. Additional small round beams seem not to have been part of this system, but to have provided an additional re­ inforcement and bonding. There are consider­ able traces of a shelter coat of rough grey surface mortar.

55

W5/6

This has been extensively rebuilt with a mod­ em facing of cut stone and courses of brick. Since the restorers failed to use cribwork or anything corresponding, much of this facing, though apparently very recent, has fallen away. This poor work clearly reveals the practical value of the cribwork so favoured by the Byz­ antine builders. Where the original facing may be observed, it is of alternating brick, usually with single courses of brick, some cloisonne and much surface mortar. The gate in this sec­ tion appears to be modem; the two buttresses on the outside of the wall, though faced with new stone, are apparently original.

T6

Solid rectangular bastion, surviving only at ground level

W6/7

Heavily and poorly restored, with a modem stone facing (Fig.49). Where this has col­ lapsed, the original core ironically reveals traces of the essential cribwork just behind the surface. This section was reinforced externally with two buttresses, bonded with the original wall.

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Niconiedia

T7

Solid rectangular bastion, heavily restored

W7/8

The little original facing left in this restored section was in the usual alternating brick of this circuit. Two large square openings about 80 cm. above the ground were apparently for drainage.

T8

1) Horseshoe-shaped tower with inner chamber, heavily restored. 2) The original masonry, visible in the lower part of the tower, is of the usual alternating brick; behind it is a cribwork of large round beams. 3) Facing of alternating brick with much surface mortar, and cribwork of round beams.

W8/9

T9

This wall contains a gate, immediately adjacent to T8. It appears to have been a relatively simple postern, but all details are obscured by modem restoration.

1) Rectangular tower with well-defended inner chamber. 2) Facing of the usual alternating brick 3) The most remarkable aspect of this tower, which distinguishes it from all others in the cir­ cuit, is its system of defence, with three well constructed embrasures in an upper chamber at the level of the wallwalk (Fig.50). These provi­ ded cover for the entire west face of the wall, as well as the main approach from the west. The tall, narrow openings are splayed and arched, and set into elaborately constructed arches. The openings of the north and south embrasures are of 60 x 10 cm. at the wall face, widening to 70 cm. at the inner face of the en­ closing arches, which are themselves 2.25 m. high and 1.80 m. wide, large enough to accom­ modate a seated or standing archer comforta­ bly. The west embrasure is somewhat larger. The arches are of brick supported by a masonry in which two bricks alternate with a single field-stone. The floor rested on beams set into openings in the walls. There was evidently also a chamber at ground level, but its entrance is no longer visible.

W9/10 Masonry of alternating brick with occasional

bricks inserted vertically and small round beam holes. Much of this section, where the Outer Wall probably joined this circuit, has been re­ stored.

are often irregularly inserted at an angle be­ tween the bands. This facing appears to have been anchored to the rubble core by a cribwork which has almost entirely disappeared. 3) The lower parts of the tower, which appear to have been solid, have been obscured by mod­ em rebuilding. The main defensive level con­ tained a large rectangular chamber covered by a brick dome on pendentives. Its walls resem­ ble the rough alternating brick of the exterior, but here much smooth grey surface mortar has been preserved. A small domed antechamber on the west led to the wallwalk and southward to a stairway or rubble with some brick which turned at a right angle to give access to the platform on top of the tower. On the southeast, a tall narrow vaulted antechamber led to the wallwalk which continued above the adjacent gate. Til 1) Large horseshoe-shaped tower with rectangular inner chamber (Fig. 51).

2) Facing in alternating brick with double, and triple and some single brick bands and occa­ sional vertical bricks (Fig.52). The bricks av­ erage about 2.5 cm. in thickness. Where the whitish surface mortar has survived, especially in the lower parts of the exterior, the masonry has a much more regular appearance. Else­ where, it is fairly rough. The facing, which is quite superficial (it is only about 30 cm. deep) was anchored to the core by a cribwork of small round beams in rows above the brick bands. Low on the west side is an inverted tri­ angle outlined with a double course of brick; its function, if not merely decorative, could not be determined. 3) The lower part of the tower, much restored on the inner face, was evidently solid. It supported a large rectangular chamber covered by an el­ liptical brick dome on pendentives. A small antechamber led to the wallwalk from which the upper platform could be reached by a stairway covered by a brick vault (Fig.53). On the east, the wallwalk was reached by a flight of steps about 1.50 m. high Wll/P: This section is preserved as a stub bonded to

ΤΙ 1 and pointing northeast. Its outer face ap­ pears to have risen to the full height of the tower, protecting a wallwalk entered directly from the tower chamber. The wall became thinner as it left the tower. Most of it has col­ lapsed, but a mass of rubble west of the win­ dows shows where it abutted against the palace wall.

tower with large interior chamber; the west side of the horse­ shoe is interrupted by the adjacent wall W6/7. 2) The facing is in a complicated alternating brick, with inconsistent single, double and tri­ ple bands of fragmentary and usually thin bricks. There is no real cloisonne, but bricks

T10 1) Large horseshoe-shaped

56

Castles of the Gulf The Outer Wall A low outer wall, for the most part a simple barrier, runs along the north and east sides of the Inner Fortress. Its main face is parallel to the north wall of the fortress (Fig.54) and only about 4 m. in front of the projecting towers Tl and T2. Much of this section is heavily overgrown, and a good deal of the facing is missing. Northwest of the palace, it bends back at an obtuse angle to continue in front of Tl 1. According to the plan of Dirimtekin, it had a roundish tower in front of T10 and joined the Lower Wall at its northwest comer, just west of T10. These sections are no longer visible, but traces of mortared rubble 11 m. north of T10 suggests that the wall did project here. Its northeast comer was marked by a projecting tower set at an acute angle to the main fortress (Fig. 55). A gap immediately to the south may represent a gate, of which nothing has survived. The east face also ran parallel to the fortress wall. It terminated in a square tower whose south face abutted the east face of T4. This wall is remarkably homogenous and evidently the product of one period of construction. It is built on the usual principle of a mortared rubble core strength­ ened by a cribwork of large round beams (visible in the face below Til) and attached to the facing by abundant use of small round beams, whose openings are fre­ quently visible, regularly spaced in rows. The facing, though, differs from any other in the walls. It consists simply of fieldstones of various sizes, laid in moderately regular rows, their flat sides facing outward. Although occasional brick fragments appear, the wall makes no regular use of brick. It consistently employs a grey sandy mortar with inclusions of all sizes, of a type which does not appear elsewhere. There is only one exception to this general picture, a rectangular chamber buried in the face of this wall below the northeast comer of T2. It is carefully con­ structed in brick, and employs the white mortar with many brick inclusions characteristic of the Inner for­ tress. Although little remains to be studied, its presence suggests that the present Outer Wall replaced an earlier one, contemporary with the fortress. The Outer Wall was intended to add strength to the fortress on its most vulnerable side, the north, where an easy slope would enable a force to approach without difficulty. An additional obstacle was provided in the form of a steep-sided ditch which ran along the north face, below the Inner Fortress. With the exception of the brick chamber mentioned above, the wall seems to be later than the other two circuits, since it is plainly built against the inner walls and apparently also abutted the lower wall.

obvious from the construction, that the castle was built in three periods. They also suggest that two of them are certainly Byzantine, and not far removed from each other in time. Dating, as usual, is difficult, since it must depend on analogy, but similar masonry from Constan­ tinople and Nicaea is helpfill. Both places have exam­ ples of the regular alternating brick of the inner Fortress, and in both places they appear to be of the Comnene period, particularly of the reign of Manuel.43 The more complicated alternating brick, with thinner courses and extra layers of brick, can be found in Nicaea in towers dated to the reign of John Vatatzes.44 The rough stonework of the Outer wall, however, is not diagnostic. Yet some of it corresponds to the masonry of the rebuilding of W4/5 and T5. The latter bears a rosette in brick which appears to be Byzantine. In that case, the final stage of the fortifications may be attrib­ uted to the Palaeologi, perhaps as late as the beginning of the fourteenth century. An Ottoman date, though perhaps after the attack and devastation of Marshal Boucicault in 1399 - cannot be excluded. The rosette introduces a problem. These walls ex­ hibit a fair amount of brick decoration, of a kind which often appears in fortifications of the twelfth and thir­ teenth centuries, none of it with an obvious meaning. The most striking example is the rosette which appears on the west face of the palace. It closely resembles similar decoration on an enigmatic section of the sea walls of Constantinople where part of a church has been incorporated into the walls. There, however, it forms part of an exuberant decoration typical of the date assigned to it, 1308. Such a date might suit the latest stage of the walls here, but would be inappropriate to the rest. It seems, therefore, either that such decoration was used over a long period, or that it was inserted into the palace wall in a secondary stage. In any case, the motif seems definitely to be Byzantine and therefore helpful in dating the last stages of the wall here. Far more important is the palace, which needs a longer treatment than can be undertaken here. The structure at Niketiaton corresponds well with two far better known late Byzantine palaces, at Nymphaeum and in the walls of Constantinople, the so-called Tekfur Saray.45 Although those have more windows and a far more elaborate masonry, they resemble Niketiaton in size and shape. Both are simple rectangular structures of three or four storeys, and only somewhat larger (Niketiaton: 15 x 10 m.; Nymphaeum 26 x 11.5 m.; Tekfur Saray, 20 x 10 m.). Tekfur Saray, like this example, is built directly onto a fortification, while Nymphaeum, which stood in an open plain, also has no windows in its ground floor, but only arrow slits. In

Chronology and Function Typically of this region, these walls bear no inscription or any evidence for dating beside the styles of their masonry. Those show immediately, as was already

43 FW 76, masonry J2 (Constantinople), 120 (masonry DI).

44 FW 118, 120 (masonry D2), with 275 fig. 39. 45 Nymphaeum: see most recently Kirova (1972); Tekfur Saray:

Milller-Wiener(1977) 244-247.

57

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

residence, rather than the headquarters of a local administrator (none of whom is attested outside Nicomedia in any case). It was certainly used as such by Michael Palaeologus, and was still a royal palace under the Ottomans in 1399. Its views of the gulf and its easy access to Constantinople would have made it an extremely attractive retreat, but its function was surely more practical than that. With its location near the main highway and at an easy crossing of the gulf, Niketiaton could have served as a convenient base for operations in the east, a place from which an emperor could easily move against a threat in Bithynia, or receive news of problems in the interior. Alexius Comnenus first exploited the immediate area by establishing his camp at Pelekanon, only a few miles away, during the First Crusade. From there, he could remain in easy reach of the capital but still follow the opera­ tions of the crusaders at close quarters. His example may have shown the value of such a location, so that a fortified residence which added the convenience of a location on the shore, could have been seen as highly advantageous. A base here could have been of great value in the Comnene period, when Turkish raids penetrated far into western Asia Minor. John Comnenus had frequent occasion to campaign in northern Asia Minor, particularly in Paphlagonia, but he tended to use Lopadium in Mysia, where he had con­ structed a large fortress, as his base of opera­ tions.49 In the first years of his reign, Manuel Comnenus also had to face a direct Turkish threat near the capital. He found it necessary to campaign in Bithynia, where he restored or constructed several fortresses. Most important among them was Malagina above the Sangarius, east of Nicome­ dia.50 For that activity, the route by land or sea along the gulf was of great strategic value. The threat from the Turks never diminished, and in fact grew more serious as nomads moved into the frontier regions and began to raid imperial territory more frequently. Manuel responded by increased fortification, most evident in his new district of the Neocastra around Pergamum, but also in direct campaigns. For these, the routes by the gulf re­ tained great importance. Consequently, although Niketiaton is mentioned in no text of this time, the historical circumstances provide a plausible reason for its existence, and show that such a base would have been of great value in the reign of Manuel, the period suggested by the style of its ma­ sonry.

these cases, though, the ground floor has a vaulted ceiling to provide stronger support for the upper levels. The palace at Nymphaeum has been dated to about 1250, while the Tekfur Saray is Palaeologan, of the late thirteenth century. This simple type of palace, which also appears in Mistra (where the structure may be Frankish or Byzan­ tine) has been attributed to western influence on the Byzantine empire, because it seems so much less sophisticated than the complex plans of Late Antiq­ uity.46 There is, however, another comparable example of a much earlier date. The acropolis of Syllaion in Pamphylia, a place important in the Dark Ages as a major base of the Cibyrrhaiot theme, contains a rectan­ gular three-storey building of about 10 x 15 m. built directly over the city walls. It has doors on the ground floor, narrow arrow-slits in the intermediate level, and large arched windows on the upper floor, which con­ tains the main chamber. The building was probably the praetorium, or headquarters of the local governor, mentioned in a ninth-century saint’s life. Its masonry would be appropriate to such a date.47 This structure suggests that such ‘palaces’ were a native form which had long been in use in the Empire. In any case, the present building certainly deserves further research to place it into the context of Byzantine architecture. It appears, then, that the fortress of Niketiaton was built in three stages: The Inner Fortress by the Com­ neni, probably Manuel, in the twelfth century; the Lower Walls perhaps by Vatatzes between 1241, when he captured it, and his death in 1254; and the Outer Wall with the rebuilding of the southeast comer of the circuit in the Palaeologan period, perhaps around 1300. Strictly speaking, the second stage could as well belong to the Latins of Constantinople if they em­ ployed local masons who worked in a typical Lascarid style. The only example of their architecture which has been even tentatively identified in this region, how­ ever, is in a much different style, so that at best the question may remain open.48 Similarly, these walls could belong to the early years of Michael Palaeologus (1259-1282), perhaps representing an expansion when the fortress became the prison of the John Lascaris or after Palaeologus’ contrition in 1267. Stylistic analysis will rarely allow such walls to be dated to an exact decade. Whatever their date, the three periods seem to represent a span of a century and a half at the most. The fortified palace of Niketiaton is on such a substantial scale that it seems intended as an imperial

46 See the remarks of Krautheimer (1979) 474f. 47 For the site, see Ruggieri & Nethercott (1986), which does not discuss this building. There is a good view of it in Bean (1968) fig. 15. I shall discuss it in its local context in “The Cities of

Pamphylia in the Byzantine Age” (forthcoming).

49 For this fortress, see FW 145f., with further references. 50 Foss (1990).

48 See below, 59-61, on Charax.

58

Castles of the Gulf

Plan VI. Libyssa, after Wiegand (1902) 324 fig.3

Libyssa (Dil Iskelesi, Plan VI)

Shores’; she mentions it as the place for crossing from Kibotos, the medieval Helenopolis.53 Wiegand did not describe the castle in any detail, except to note that its walls were of rubble. He pub­ lished a sketch plan, reproduced here. It shows a pentagonal structure some 50 m. wide, with round towers at the comers. Such a plan would be appropriate to the Byzantine period. When Arif Milfit Mansel repeated Wiegand’s researches in 1964, he found only traces of the foundations remaining.54 The photos he published do not provide any further evidence for the date or nature of the fortress, but they are now the only visual evidence that remains. For on his return in 1968, Mansel found that the ruins, along with the hill they stood on, had disappeared as the result of quarry­ ing. Likewise, nothing was left of the harbour installa­ tions below the castle. This fortress is included, then, for the sake of completeness; it is unlikely to yield any further conclusions.

The obscure small town of Libyssa gained its only fame by being the site of the death and tomb of Han­ nibal, who killed himself when it appeared that his host, the king of Bithynia, was about to betray him to the Romans.51 The general location of the site, though not the tomb itself, was discovered by Theodore Wiegand at the beginning of this century in the vicin­ ity of Dil iskelesi at the narrows which marks the entrance to the true gulf of Nicomedia.52 He found harbour installations and evidence for settlement on the coast between a stream and a hill which bore the remains of a medieval castle. This site was one of enormous and constant strategic value, for it lies opposite the peninsula of Helenopolis, the easiest place to cross the gulf. A castle here would have the joint function of protecting the crossing and obstructing entrance into the gulf. The site, however, rarely appears in history, and then under changing names. In Late Antiquity, Libyssa was a station on the highway to Nicomedia. By the tenth century, it had taken the name Boution: it was here that the emperor Leo VI, attending the dedication of a monastery, re­ ceived news of an Arab attack on Constantinople. For Anna Comnena, however, it was simply Aigialoi, ‘the

Charax (Hereke, Plan VII) Charax, another small and known by the modem form was an important site for carpets in the nineteenth

obscure place, is far better of its name, Hereke, since it the manufacture of luxury century. In the periods of

51 For this and other references, see the article of W. Ruge in RE

13.203 (1926).

53 Road station: Mansel (1972) 259-261; Leo VI: Theophanes

52 Wiegand (1902); cf. Mansel (1968) or his shorter treatment in German, (1972).

Continuatus VI.20; Aigialoi: Anna Comnena XIV.v.2, XV.i.3. 54 Mansel (1968) 550f, with figs. 40 and 41.

59

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

chorion of Charax in 1182 during his attempt to gain the imperial throne.55 In 1207, in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, Macaire de Ste. Menehould built a fortress at ‘Caracas, on the gulf six leagues from Nicomedia’ at the same time as another knight built a counterpart in Helenopolis on the opposite shore. Macaire stayed posted there in

concern here, it rarely appears in the historical record, but often enough to give an idea of its nature and remains. In Late Antiquity, it was noted as a large emporion on the gulf near Nicomedia. It also had a role as a road station, a convenient place to stop between Nicomedia and Constantinople. An Arab geographer at the end of the tenth century includes it in his list of stations on the great route across Anatolia; and the usurper Andronicus Comnenus won a battle at the

55 Emporion'. Steph. Byz. 668; Arab: Honigmann (1936) 270; Andronicus: Choniates 245.

60

Castles of the Gulf May, when Lascaris attacked Nicomedia.56 The aim of these forts was to ensure Latin control of the sea lanes between the capital and Nicomedia. The effort was apparently successful, with the crusaders holding the place until its capture by Vatatzes in 1241, who restored it to imperial control.57 Hereke, as the Turks called it, fell to the forces of Orhan soon after the capture of izmit. After seeing the bravery of the Turkish commander, who fought on though he had taken an arrow in his eye, the garrison surrendered on terms and was allowed to withdraw.58 The civil population chose to stay. After the battle of Ankara, the town returned to Byzantine rule, to become definitively Turkish in 1421. The remains of the castle of Charax, which stands on a hill set back from the shore, are hardly more impres­ sive than the sources. Its walls, poorly built in the first place, are now badly dilapidated, as they were already in the sixteenth century.59 Although they preserve few distinctive features, their outline can be followed and planned. The fortress, which measured about 150 x 80 m., consisted of an outer wall with round and square towers on the side toward the shore, and a trapezoidal inner circuit in the northeast quarter, of which little is standing. The south wall has a facing of coursed spoils and fieldstones, the interstices filled with small stone; it uses virtually no brick (Fig.56). Immediately behind the surface was an extensive cribwork of large round and square beams. The one section of the inner wall still standing displays similar characteristics, but the facing is rougher, and the cribwork more abundant. The masonry here has no spoils, much broken brick and a small stones in rough courses with a great deal of mortar (Fig.57). Large round beam holes run throughout the core and just behind the surface (Fig.58). A large crack indicates damage, perhaps by an earthquake, and repair, in a masonry very similar to the rest. These walls offer hardly any diagnostic characteris­ tics. The masonry resembles the latest parts of the walls of Niketiaton, but could have been built at almost any time when appearance was not a factor. In fact, it has all the hallmarks of hasty work, with a core heavily de­ pendent on tree trunks to hold it together, and a facing rapidly made up of whatever materials were at hand. Its present state attests to the mediocrity of construction. It seems possible, therefore, that these are actually the remains of the castle of the crusaders of 1207. They appear to have worked in haste to hold the area against an immediate threat, and never disposed of enough manpower to carry out any elaborate construction. The castle would thus offer a nice example of correlation

between texts and remains. If any walls in this survey can be attributed to the Latin Empire of Constantinople, these are the most likely candidate. But a later date, at the end of the Palaeologan or beginning of the Ottoman period cannot be excluded, though there are no texts to support it.

The Southern Shore The south coast of the gulf had less strategic value than the north shore because no great road passed along it. Although its numerous small towns or emporia, had a certain commercial importance, this was not primarily a military district. Consequently, few remains of castles exist or have been reported in it. Our survey heard of two, one near the shore and one inland. We investigated both only to find that one was not a castle at all (though we did discover remains of a fortification nearby), but the other was a fort with real historical significance. Consideration of the historical geography of the area will help to put these and one other which once existed in perspective. The life of St. Theodore of Sykeon, discussed above in the context of the history of Nicomedia, offers the best introduction.60 In 612, the saint was invited by the monks of St. Autonomus to visit and bless their monas­ tery. The assistant abbot and a large party with horses and equipment led him from the suburban monastery of Optatianai along the coastal route to Astakos, site of the original Greek settlement which Nicomedia replaced. This has been identified with Başiskele, immediately opposite the city at the beginning of the south shore. They then arrived at the emporion of Eribolos, a place substantial enough to have a colonnaded street, where the saint cured a young man possessed by demons and sent him off to the local church of Saint Theodore to recover. This town was the home of an important official, the first advocate of the cathedral of St. Sophia in the capital. As the local authority, he sent his men to invite the saint, whom they brought back to spend the night in the chapel of their house. The next day, they arrived at Latomion, ‘the Quarry’, where the administrator of the chapel of St. George met them. The Saint had notified him of Theo­ dore’s approach in a dream and told to clean the chapel and light candles. After praying there, Theodore contin­ ued to Myrokopion, prayed in the local chapel of the Virgin and continued to the emporion of Herakleion. On his way, he encountered a mad cleric coming from the bath with his bottle of oil and towels who, at the sight of Theodore, tore off his turban and rushed away. As he continued to the shrine of St. Autonomus, Theodore was met by a great procession from the monastery and the

56 Villehardouin 460,481. 57 Acropolites 59.

58 Reported only by Sadeddin 64.

60 For what follows, see Vie de Theodore de Sykeon caps. 157-158;

cf. Foss (1987) for the monastery of St. Autonomus.

59 As reported by Sadeddin 64.

61

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia port carrying candles and censers and singing psalms. He then entered the monastery and kissed the relic of the saint (a martyr of the Great Persecution). As news of Theodore’s sojourn spread, great crowds came to the monastery from the coastal and hill regions of Helenopolis and Pylai (both some distance to the west). They brought their sick, as well as oil and water to be blessed and used for healing men and beasts; they sought productivity for their trees, vineyards and gar­ dens and liberation of haunted places from evil spirits. For three days, the place was in great confusion from the crowds. After that, Theodore returned to Nicomedia, escorted by a party from the monastery and the emporia of the region; everywhere they passed, they were met by processions. At the ferry of Diolkides, Theodore was persuaded by a local fisherman whom he met in the church of the Virgin to continue by sea rather than land. He agreed, and crossed the gulf to Elaia, blessing a great crowd of fishermen in their boats. He then entered the nearby church of the martyr Heraclius and continued back to Nicomedia, making constant detours on his way to bless the vines and other crops. In themselves, names of villages and churches might mean little, and the size of the crowds could easily be exaggerated. Yet two details are significant: the small town of Eribolos had a colonnaded street, and there was a bath in one village near Herakleion. Such structures, uncharacteristic of villages, indicate the wealth and importance of the local ports, the emporia, which flourished from trade with the city and especially the capital. This unusually vivid account reveals the nature of the district, with its prosperous ports, numerous settle­ ments and large population. The first place where Theodore spent the night, Eribolos, is also known in another context. It was a station on the road from Nicomedia to Nicaea, which led from the ancient site of Astakos southwestward into the mountains, not along the coast where St. Theodore passed. The solution has recently been fund: Eribolos consisted of two parts, one on the coast at the modem Seymen Iskelesi, the other some 4 km. away in the hills at Ihsaniye.61 Ihsaniye was of potential interest for this survey because the admirable Col. von Diest who visited it in 1900, described a ‘Schlossruine’ near the village.62 It measured 80 by 25 paces, had a foundation of large blocks without mortar, long arrow slits in its walls, and towers. This plainly was worth investigating, but turned out to be a surprise. Instead of a castle, we found a Turkish caravansaray which closely matched von Diest’s description (Figs 59, 60). It did indeed have large limestone blocks in its lower courses; they bore such a close resemblance to the blocks in the walls of Nicomedia that they must surely have been

brought from there: not such a difficult effort, since they could be transported most of the way by water. The walls did have arrow slits, as often found in such buildings, but lacked any other kind of defensive system. The building therefore does not fit into the present subject, but may serve to illustrate the continu­ ing importance of the road. The visit to this district was not wasted, though, for the villagers showed us the remains of another, appar­ ently unreported fortification in the same district. Its remains occupy a hilltop about a kilometer below the village of Hisareyn, on the opposite side of the valley and about two kilometres from Ihsaniye. According to the locals, the fortress had been substantial, occupying an area of about six donums (an acre and a half), but its remains were completely dilapidated and far too overgrown even to allow a sketch plan to be made. Its circuit was evidently built of mortared rubble with very little brick, and included at least one round tower, but nothing survived of the facing. The villagers did report, though, that they had found a long solid wall of large blocks while digging for treasure. Perhaps these walls once had a good facing, or used limestone blocks like those in Ihsaniye in their foundations. Its construction suggests that the fort was Byzantine, but no more precise evidence of chronology was forth­ coming. This fort occupied a strategic location, with a broad view over the plains and surrounding mountains. It stood immediately above the course of the Roman and Ottoman road. It was therefore probably built to protect the road as it emerged from the hills, and to block passage of any enemy along it. It would thus have fulfilled the function we had expected of the ‘fort’ at Ih­ saniye. Its role finds a close analogy in Xerigordos, the next fortress to be discussed. The Roman road between the two great cities of Bithynia led in an arc around Mt. Sophon. Its course is well established, and it was plainly of great importance in Antiquity.63 Libanius followed it in the fourth cen­ tury, but it seems to have fallen into disuse later, probably by the time of Justinian, when traffic shifted to the roads through Helenopolis and Pylai.64 When the crusaders arrived in Nicomedia in 1096, they found this road completely overgrown, and had to send a large party to clear it and set up crosses as markers so that they could march along it directly to Nicaea.65 No further use is recorded in the Byzantine period, but for the Ottomans it was once again a major highway. The armies of the Sultan followed this Roman road, while caravans crossed the Gulf at Gebze, proceeding directly to Iznik by the Byzantine route. Extensive remains of

63 See the excellent description of von Diest (1903) who discovered and followed its route.

61 See Oğtit-Polat and Şahin (1985) 104f.

64 See the comments of Mango (1994) 144.

62 Von Diest (1903) 189.

65 Gesta francorum II.7.

62

Castles of the Gulf Ottoman paving as well as the fort and caravansaray attest to the long continuing importance of the road.66 In Late Antiquity, another road led from this coast to Nicaea.67 It started at Prainetos, four miles west of Herakleion and about twenty from Nicomedia. This place, which is frequently mentioned in the sources, was the most important between Nicomedia and Helenopolis. Like them, it was a city and had a bishop. It thus appears in the notitiae of the eastern church, in the sixth-century list of cities of Hierocles, and as a city of the Optimate theme in the tenth-century catalogue of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. When John Chrysostom was banished there in 403, however, it was called ‘an emporion opposite Nicomedia’.68 Its main role in history, however, was as a point of transit between Constantinople and Bithynia. The road to Nicaea appears on the late antique map, the Peutinger Table, but figures most often in accounts of the Middle Ages.69 Constantine Porphyrogenitus landed here in 969, when he felt his end approaching and wanted the blessing of the monks of the Bithynian Olympus. Prainetos opened its gates to Nicephorus Botaniates during his revolt in 1078, and when Michael VII abdi­ cated in his favour, the delegation from the capital sailed to Prainetos to fetch the now successful rebel from his headquarters in Nicaea. He joined them on the return voyage, which followed the same route. In 1085, Alexius Comnenus’ general Tatikios returned from here to the capital in 1085 after a successful campaign against the Turks of Nicaea.70 In other words, this road continued to function as an alternate route to Nicaea. Otherwise, Prainetos rarely figures in history. One Byzantine text, though, does reveal another reason for its prosperity. The tenth-century poet John the Geome­ ter named it together with Nicaea and Athens as one of the cities most renowned for its olives.71 The hills of this coast are in fact still covered with olive trees. After the fall of Nicomedia, this shore was entrusted by Osman to Kara Milrsel, a brave warrior about whom nothing else is known. The town now bears his name, as it did when Texier passed it in 1835. He reported that Kara Milrsel built a castle which became the center of

the village.72 Since no trace of it remains, there is no way to tell whether it was actually built in the fourteenth century or, (as seems likely) was of the Byzantine age, constructed to defend the port and roadhead.

Kibotos, Xerigordos (Qoban Kale) and the First Crusade (Plan VIII) The final castle of this survey turns out to be a place which played a real role in history, at least for a mo­ ment. To understand that, it is necessary to establish its identification, and for that, to consider the history of the immediate region. Consequently, the standing remains will be considered together with the neighbouring site of Kibotos or Helenopolis (modem Hersek), whose fortifi­ cations have disappeared. ęoban Kale, as the surveyed castle is now called, occupies an exceptionally strategic location. It stands above the valley of the Drakon and the road from Helenopolis to Nicaea which follows the stream. It is at the point which marks the junction between the coastal plain and the hills of the interior, about five miles south of the promontory of Helenopolis. The road, which rises gradually from the coast, runs directly beneath the fortress, for the river here passes through a gorge. Up to this point, the landscape is subtropical, with vines, olives, fields and fruit trees in the valley and stretching up the slopes (Fig.61). Beyond it, everything changes: the country becomes more rugged, with much thick maquis and less cultivation (though that is changing in recent years) (Fig.62). The land rises and becomes wilder toward the south, where the road follows the only reasonably accessible basin through a tangle of high hills that culminate in peaks of 700-900 metres. These separate the Gulf from the lake and plain of Nicaea.73 A site in such a location was necessarily closely connected with Helenopolis and the road into the interior, which has appeared many times already. That city, one of three in the region, was founded by Con­ stantine and named in honour of his mother on the site of the small ancient town of Drepanon.74 It became much more important under Justinian, who had much traffic shifted to the crossing of the Gulf between there and Dakibyza. He seems to have rebuilt the place entirely, endowing it with an aqueduct, a new public bath (a rare construction at that time), churches, a palace and other buildings. He also cleared the mouth of

66 Ottoman paving: French (1981) 15; routes: see the article

' Anadolu’ by W. Taeschner in El2.475 and map. 67 There was also a road from the place variously called Neon Korne, Neakomis or Nemikome, but the sources (all late) do not

give an exact location. It could have been on the gulf, or just outside it to the west, between Helenopolis and Pylai. See Mango

(1994) 156. 68 Socrates VI. 16.

72 Texier (1862) 70. 73 See the description of this route by von Diest (1903) 172f; cf.

69 Peutinger Table: Miller (1916) 694. For full references, see the

Perrot (1862) 3. Both stress the ease with which the castle blocks

article of F. K. DOmcr oddly called Preietos’ in RE 22 (1954)

the road to the interior.

1832-4.

74 For the early history of Helenopolis (apparently not the birthplace

70 969: Theophanes Continuatus 464; 1078: Bryennius 249,

of the Empress), and its relation with Pylai, see Mango (1994).

Attaliates 268, 272; 1085: Anna Comnena VI.x.4.

The history is surveyed, with full references, in the article of D.

71 See Foss (1995) 43 n.20.

Stiemon in DHGE23.877-884

63

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia the river, built bridges over the Drakon and improved the road to Nicaea.75 In the Byzantine period, Hele­ nopolis is mentioned less often, since Pylai, some 15 miles to the southwest, beyond the limits of the Gulf, became the favoured station for transport to the east.76 Pylai is more easily accessible by sea from Constan­ tinople, but heavy goods and armies would still have preferred the land route, with only a short ferry crossing to Helenopolis or other points on the gulf. Helenopolis reappears, though, as a major port of transit at the time of the First Crusade, to which this account will now necessarily turn in some detail, in order to establish the identification of the castle. On his way to the diastrous battle of Manzikert in 1071, Romanus IV sailed from Constantinople to Helenopolis, a place the chronicler considered of evil omen, since its name sounded like ‘Eleeinopolis’, ‘City of Misery’.77 In the following 25 years, before the arrival of the First Crusade, the Turks overran virtually all of Asia Minor. Their rapid success, which followed the collapse of the Byzantine frontier defences, was aided by a series of revolts and civil wars which af­ flicted the empire. In one of them, in 1080, Nicephorus Botaniates sent a force against the rebel Nicephorus Melissenus, who had gained the support of several important Turkish chiefs. The expedition, which failed, retreated from Nicaea to the capital via Helenopolis.78 In other words, this route long remained in active use. The Turks paid especial attention to the northern route which led to Constantinople, and occupied or ravaged most of Bithynia in the decade after the battle. The new emperor Alexius Comnenus made it his im­ mediate business to regain the area opposite the capital and, as already noted, to send out a series of small expeditions which restored imperial control over the Gulf of Nicomedia. In June 1081, within two months of his accession, he made a treaty with the Sultan, whose headquarters were now at Nicaea, setting the frontier between them at the River Drakon.79 Consideration of the topography will show that this is not likely to mean that the river, which runs from the hills above Nicaea to the gulf at Helenopolis, actually separated the two adversaries. In that case, the Byzan­ tines would have controlled the area further from Constantinople - while the Turks held the coast to the

west, further from Nicaea. Alexius would indeed have gained his objective, the gulf, but it would be of limited value if the coast immediately outside it were still in the hands of the Turks. More probably, the text should be taken to indicate that the frontier was on the river - that is, that the coast was in the hands of the emperor, while the Turks retained the high ground, which begins at the gorge, some five miles from the coast. Helenopolis was in any case in the hands of Alexius in 1087, when Nicomedia temporarily fell to the Turks. The emperor responded by building a fortress at the entrance of the Gulf, to block any further advance. Distracting the Turkish ruler by inviting him to Con­ stantinople and showering him with gifts and honours, he rapidly had the new fortification erected at Kibotos, a name which now first appears in history. According to the French chronicler Ordericus Vitalis, who wrote around 1123, Alexius attempted to fortify ‘Chevetof (as the Latins called Kibotos) some years before the First Crusade, planning to station in it Anglo-Saxon refugees from the Norman conquest of Britain (many of whom served in his guard), but had been prevented by the Turks, and had left the fort unfinished.80 This account seems more accurate, since the crusaders in fact found the place unfortified, as will be seen. In her account of these events, Anna Comnena con­ sistently uses the ancient name Helenopolis, but her subsequent narrative calls the place interchangeably Kibotos or Helenopolis.81 Kibotos may, of course, have been the name of the fort while Helenopolis referred to the civil settlement and port, but no text so specifies. In any case, there is only one place for a settlement in this low marshy land, and the new and old sites lay side-byside if they were not identical.82 On 1 August 1096, the first troops of the Crusade, the irregular forces of Peter the Hermit and Walter Sans-Avoir, arrived in the Byzantine capital.83 Five

80 Orderic Vitalis V.38.

81 In her account of these events, she always refers to Helenopolis; then calls it Kibotos when dealing with the main army of the First Crusade and the Crusade of 1101 (Xl.i.l, viii.2). When dis­

cussing the later campaigns of Alexius against the Turks, she

uses both Helenopolis (XV.ii.2) and Kibotos (XIV.v.2, XV.i.3). The only plausible conclusion to draw from all this is that the site was known equally by the old (and ecclesiastical) name and by

75 Procopius, Aed. V.ii.6-13.

the new. The narrative of the crusade makes it clear that both

76 Helenopolis appears in the list of Constantine Porphyrogenitus as

Anna, writing of Helenopolis and the western sources, which call

one of the cities of the theme of the Optimati (de Thematibus

it Civetot, are disussing the same place. I therefore find it diffi­

70), but that list, which includes two long-vanished places, was

cult to share the doubts of Professor Mango (1994) 156 n.76

clearly abstracted from an earlier work. 77 Attaliates 144.

about the location of Kibotos. The article of E. Faral, “Kibotos-

Civetot”, CRAl 1940. 112-130, despite its promising title, is of

78 Bryennius 310. 1 believe that Professor Mango (1994) esp. 150,

no use for this question.

rather exaggerates the decline of Helenopolis as a crossing point

82 For the site, see von Diest (1903) 153.

on a major route.

83 For what follows (up to and including the capture of Xerigordos),

79 Anna Comnena lIl.xi.4-5; for the date, see DOlger, Regesten

see Albert of Aix 283f; Gesta 6f; Anna Comnena X.vi.1-2. For

1065.

an excellent narrative, see Runciman (1953) 127-133.

64

Castles of the Gulf

days later, after they had caused innumerable nuisances, the Emperor had them ferried across the Bosporus. They proceeded to Nicomedia, devastating the country­ side on their way. During their short stay there, the Lombard and German contingents quarreled with the French and split from them, but both groups continued along the south coast of the gulf. They pitched camp at Civetot, where merchants constantly supplied them with all they needed in good quantity and at fair prices, according to the order of the Emperor. Anna literally states that the ‘planted their palisade’ in the small town of Helenopolis, leaving no doubt that the place did not have a functioning fortress at the time.84 Alexius had advised these crusaders to await the ar­ rival of the main armies before attempting to move away from the coast because of the danger from the Turks then established in Nicaea. After two months of inactivity, however, the men became restless and began to make expeditions into the hills, looting villages and bringing sheep and cattle back to the camp. Some even reached the walls of Nicaea, carrying off huge herds of cattle and inflicting horrible cruelties on the villagers. After a Turkish riposte was driven back into the city, the crusaders returned to Civetot, where they celebrated a great banquet and sold he remaining beasts to the Greek merchants and the emperor’s sailors. These actions had been accomplished by the Nor­ mans. When the Germans saw their success, they too advanced into the hills. With a force of 300 foot and 200 knights they attacked and easily captured the fort of Xerigordos. At this point, which is of greatest concern for the present subject, the sources diverge. Anna simply recounts that the crusades took Xerigordos in the first assault. Albert of Aix does not name the castle, but specifies that it was three miles from Nicaea, ‘ubi montana terminantur et silva’. He writes that the Ger­ mans defeated the garrison, expelled the inhabitants and were delighted to find an abundance of provisions. They hoped extravagantly to use the castle as a base for defeating Suleyman, the Turkish sultan of Nicaea, and taking over his lands. The Gesta more soberly reports that the castle of ‘Exerogorgo’ was deserted, but full of provisions; it was situated 'iiii dies ultra Nicenam urbem’.85 Reality soon intruded in the form of a powerful Turkish army, reinforced with skilled archers. The sultan had been absent, but when he returned to Nicaea two days after the Germans had occupied his fort, he wasted no time in attacking them. His whole army arrived on 29 September and proceeded to blockade the castle. The defenders suffered tremendously from thirst, for the main water supply came from a well outside the gate and a spring below the castle. Their resistance only lasted eight days. When the Turks piled wood up by the

gates and set them and some buildings inside the castle on fire, the Germans surrendered on terms. Those who accepted Islam were spared; the rest were massacred or sold into slavery. The Latin sources report that the crusaders were now determined to avenge this, their first defeat by the Infidel.86 Their full force of 25,000 foot and 500 horse set out on the road to Nicaea, leaving only the sick, the weak and the women behind in the camp. Anna Com­ nena more cynically reports that the Sultan spread the rumour that the Germans had actually captured Nicaea, and were dividing up all its treasures; and that the rest of the crusaders, with their usual greed for loot, rushed pell-mell up the valley toward the city. In any case, Suleyman had laid his plans with great skill. When the crusaders had marched three miles from Civetot, ‘per praedictam silvam et montana’ they suddenly came face to face with the main Turkish army, by the Drakon river. Even worse, as the battle proceeded, other Turk­ ish forces which lay in ambush in the woods and moun­ tain paths, came out with devastating effect. It was more of a massacre than a battle; 3000 of the Latins were killed, and the rest went rushing down the road to the coast. The Turks followed immediately behind and pushed their way into the camp of tents where they slaughtered everyone they found except the girls and good-looking boys; they carried all the loot off to Nicaea. Fortunately for some of the crusaders, there was an ancient deserted fort on the seacoast next to Civetot.87 The door and windows were long since gone, but about 3000 men managed to take refuge there, blocking the openings with their shields and using their lances, bows and stones to hold off the Turks until an urgent message could reach Constantinople and summon the forces of the Emperor to their rescue. The Turks retired in tri­ umph to Nicaea, and the first episode of the Crusade, with its first actual fighting against the enemies of the Cross, came to an end. Anna Comnena adds a curious detail: so many cru­ saders were slaughtered by the Drakon river that the piles of their bones formed not a hill but a mountain. Later, other Latins built a fort as large as a city, using the bones to make mortar and to fill the chinks in the masonry. That fort, she says, with its stones and bones still existed in her day. This suggests that the fortress was rebuilt before the middle of the twelfth century, when Anna was writing. It could hardly have been the work of the Latins, though, for they did not linger long in this district. Nor would it have been built by the Turks who had been forced out with the capture of Nicaea and returned only to raid. Most probably, such a

86 Albert of Aix 286-289 gives the most detailed account of these

events; Gesta lOfis very summary; Anna Comnena X.vi.3-5. 87 This could actually have been the fort begun, but apparently not

84 Anna Comnena X.vi.l.

completed, by Alexius in 1087.

85 See the references in n.83 above.

65

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

Key

XERIGORDOS

vmaamm

Wall facing intact

•ύώίώ·

Wall facing missing

111 T T T

I 11 ! '

Unsurveyed overgrown walls Steep slope

50 m

Plan VIII. Xerigordos distance would seem to suggest that it was in the pass east of Nicaea, where the land rises sharply from the lake. The statement of the Gesta that it was four days beyond Nicaea adds to the confusion, and commentators have generally been content to suppose that these crusading actually crossed the mountains, followed the lake shore (where they could hardly escape notice), passed beneath the walls of the Turkish capital, and then managed to capture a fortress at least two, and possibly

rebuilding would have been the work of Anna’s hated brother John Comnenus (1118-1143), who made de­ termined efforts to secure and expand his possessions in Asia Minor. This account gives some valuable, though at first sight contradictory, topographical indications. Accord­ ing to Albert of Aix, who provides the most detailed account, Xerigordos was three miles from Nicaea, at the place where the mountains and woods end. Such a short

66

Castles of the Gulf as much as six days journey from the coast where they had their base and from which they drew their supplies. That plainly makes no sense, especially since the account seems to be describing topography in the vicinity of Civetot. In fact, the circumstantial narrative of Albert of Aix makes it clear that the fortress and the site where the crusaders were massacred was the same. In his description of that fight, Albert notes that the crusaders advanced three miles from Civetot through 'the previously mentioned mountains and woods’ to a place where the Turks could easily ambush them. This corresponds with the site of Xerigordos, at the place where the woods and mountains end; in other words, where the fertile and open coastal strip meets the rough and wooded mountainous interior. Anna Comnena, who gives the name of the river, notes that there was a fort on the site in her day, built by the same Latins, but she does not call it Xerigordos. The most probable solution, then, is to identify the site of the battle with Xerigordos, and both of them with Qoban Kale. This still leaves some problems with the texts. These could be resolved by two small corrections: in Albert, by reading ‘three miles from Civetof instead of ‘from Nicaea’ in the account of Xerigordos, and in the Gesta by changing ‘four days beyond Nicaea’ to ‘four days beyond Nicomedia’, the place the crusaders had just left. Neither of these does violence to the texts, but allows them to fit better into the local topography and to be consistent with each other (three miles is not the same as four days journey in any case). As for Anna, her story of the castle built with bones may be just that, a local legend associating the piles of bones with the known castle. Qoban Kale, despite its excellent location, is a sub­ stantial but not very informative ruin (Fig.63). It occu­ pies the top of the hill which rises about 70 m. above the road and drops steeply off to the river, forming an ovoid of some 180 by 120 m. Most of its circuit was too overgrown to be surveyed closely, but the south face, toward the road, could be studied. It was reinforced by four semicircular towers, which appear to be solid platforms (Fig.64). Three more stood on the western side, two of them, T5 and T6, so close together that they probably flanked a gate. There were traces of unidenti­ fiable buildings within the circuit. The masonry of the towers is undistinguished, con­ sisting of flat stones in rough courses, set in a good deal of rather soft sandy mortar with large inclusions. Small round beams anchored the facing to the core and joined a cribwork of much larger square beams. T4 has been rebuilt, with a new face added in very similar masonry, but employing a hard grey mortar, and both round and square beams in the cribwork (Fig.65). All the facing is of plain stone except for T3, which employs a small amount of brick, with a band of very rough cloisonne (Fig.66). Although this could point to the twelfth or

thirteenth century, there is hardly enough of it to be diagnostic. Examples of analogous masonry are not very help­ ful, either, for this plain stonework is notoriously difficult to date. The closest parallel is the fortress of Sefiler, also in Bithynia.88 It occupies a similar location on a river some five miles from the sea, in this case at the junction of the Sangarius and a tributary. Its towers and walls are faced with rectangular-cut fieldstones set in regular courses and connected to the rubble core by a cribwork. The resemblances between it and Qoban Kale are close, but unhelpful, for this fortress also is undated. It seems, then, that there are no secure elements for dating the present castle, beyond the cribwork and traces of brick which suggest at least that it is Byzan­ tine. Since a fortress at this crucial point on the route would be a necessity at all times from the Roman through the Ottoman, general historical circumstances are not helpful either. The only evidence, then, comes from the texts which show that a castle already existed here in 1096, and that it was rebuilt by the middle of the twelfth century. The fact of rebuilding is significant, for the remains show a second phase, which may be taken to confirm the identification with Xerigordos, and to provide a date for the outer face of T4 and whatever other parts may have been involved. Anna’s statement that bones were used in its construction, though, finds no modem confirmation; the locals specifically stated that none had ever been discovered in the structure. Of course, she may (even probably) mean that bones were used for making lime for the mortar, in which case no traces of them would survive. As for the original construction, only speculation is possible. The text of Anna Comnena about the frontier between Byzantium and the Turks in 1081, as already noted, may have reference to a place on the Drakon river such as the site of Xerigordos. It is possible that a fort was built here to secure the new frontier. Its size, however, makes it an unlikely candidate for the work of Alexius, whose resources were extremely limited and who was much occupied with other threats.89 Alterna­ tively, it could have been built by the Sultan as a bul­ wark against further Byzantine aggression; it was in any case in his possession in 1086. Neither the sources nor the unhelpful style of masonry, however, offer support for dating the walls. In any case, since the fortress existed at a crucial time, and played a significant role in the very first stage of the first Crusade, it is well worthy of attention. Although Xerigordos never reappears (at least not under that name), Kibotos continued to play a role in history. When the main crusading army crossed in Asia

88 See Foss (1990) 176, with illustrations.

89 Qoban Kale is about four times the size of Philokrene, which might have been built by Alexius: see above,46-9.

67

Survey ofMedieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

Minor on its way to Nicaea, it was so large that it had to divide into two parts so that it could pas along the local roads and ensure adequate supplies. According to Anna Comnena, one section crossed to Kibotos, then moved on to Nicaea, evidently following the Drakon valley. The rest proceeded through Nicomedia.90 Likewise, the ill-fated crusading expedition of 1101, followed the same route into Anatolia.91 When Alexius campaigned against the Turks, who were often struck deep into his territories, he again crossed the gulf at Kibotos on his way to Nicaea and the east. He also used the town as a convenient point for communication with the capital.92 During Alexius’ reign, Kibotos remained an important place, and the highway from it to Nicaea continued in active use. Kibotos reappears in the narrative of another cru­ sade, the Fourth. After the Latins seized Constantinople, they moved to establish control of the opposite coast. In 1206, they took Nicomedia, and in the following spring ensured their grasp of the region by fortifying Charax and Civetot, on the opposite sides of the entrance to the gulf. Guillaume de Sains directed the operations here, which were never completed. On the last day of March, Theodore Lascaris attacked the place with a large force before the work was completed. The few knights there sent an urgent message to the Latin emperor and man­ aged to hold out through the day and night. The next morning, a large Latin force arrived, but not so large as that of Lascaris. Nevertheless, when it was reinforced, the Greeks gave up the effort, burned their shops and fled. When the emperor Henry saw what state the fort­ ress was in, and how weak its defences were, he decided that it was not worth the trouble of holding, so evacu­ ated the knights and abandoned the site.93 This seems to be the last event of any consequence that took place at Kibotos, but it did not disappear, nor did the road through it lose all importance. The last evidence consist of casual mentions toward the end of the Byzantine period. In 1260, the patriarch Nicephorus travelling from Nicaea, sailed from Helenopolis to Constantinople which Michael VIII was then attacking. Twenty years later, John Bekkos, one of his successors, made the same journey in the opposite direction.94 In

that case, the place is called Kibotos, indicating that both names continued in use. Xerigordos is mentioned only in connection with the First crusade, but a later text raises the possibility that the fortress might have continued to exist under a different name. In 1283, the new government of An­ dronicus II banished several high churchmen who had supported Michael VIII’s policy of union with Rime. Among them was George Metochites, whose son Theodore became a leading statesman of the day. In 1284, Metochites was exiled to the Fort of St. Gregory, which lay on the right of one sailing into the Gulf of Nicomedia.95 Six years later, the future patriarch Athanasius crossed into Asia at Helenopolis and sent an emissary with money for some of the prisoners and brought Metochites, who was ill, back to his home. The Fort of St. Gregory has never been located, nor is there any obvious candidate in the region, if not Qoban Kale. That is certainly well suited as being on the south shore of the gulf, easily reached from Helenopolis. On the other hand, the location does not fit the description of Metochites himself, who complained that the fort was on a steep mountain like a star in the sky, invisible to those who pass, inaccessible to people on the road, and hard to reach even if one wanted to.96 Qoban Kale could be described as being on a steep hill, but it is hardly remote. If however, Metochites was indulging in a favored Byzantine technique of rhetorical exaggera­ tion, it would be possible to suppose that Xerigordos had in fact acquired a new name and a new function, as a prison.

The Defences of the Gulf This survey has studied the remains of several castles which show clearly that the Byzantines maintained an extensive defensive system along the shores of the gulf. The remains, however, share a peculiarity with those of Nicomedia itself, in that they all relate to a late period. Nothing here can be dated before the late eleventh century, and most of the castles appear to be of the twelfth or thirteenth.97 Unlike Nicomedia, though, there is no trace here of earlier work, and no suggestion that such walls might have been incorporated into later structures. The earliest of these fortresses appears to be Philo­ krene, which could have been built by Alexius Com­ nenus (1081-1118) as part of his effort to reassert an imperial presence opposite the capital at the very

90 Anna Comnena XI. 1.1; the crusading sources, however, simply

describe the whole army as moving via Nicomedia (as discussed above, 20), making no mention of Cibotus. 91 Anna Comnena XI.viii.2 92 Ibid., XIV.v.2, XV.i.3, XV.ii.2, 4. In the last two passages, which deal with travel from Constantinople by sea, the town is called Helenopolis; when it is a question of simply crossing the gulf, Anna uses the name Kibotos. It is difficult to conclude from this, though, that there were actually two separate though neighboring

95 Pachymeres II. 103 (Bonn). 96 George Metochites, Historia dogmatica 175. For the distinction

between this castle and the better known Fort Saint George on

places. 93 Villehardouin 460-471.

the 1 ake of Nicaea, see Laurent (1933)311-13. 97 The castles of Hisareyn and Libyssa, which cannot be dated at

94 Pachymeres I. 165f, 623 (Failler).

all, will not enter into this discussion.

68

Castles of the Gulf

beginning of his reign. Kibotos was part of the same effort, but seems never to have been completed. Xerigordos may be contemporary, though more proba­ bly built by Alexius’ adversary, the sultan of Nicaea. But neither this nor Philokrene offers conclusive evi­ dence for dating. The sources only reveal that Xerigor­ dos was standing in 1096; the masonry in both cases is difficult to date. The rebuilding of Xerigordos might be assigned to Alexius’ son and successor, John (11181143), by a combination of textual and stylistic evi­ dence. The greatest activity here seems to have taken place in the reign of Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180). He apparently was responsible for the fortified palace of Niketiaton, as well as the castle of Riztion. The Latin empire (1204-1261), which was deeply involved in this region, may have been responsible for the fort at Charax, whose apparently rapid con­ struction could suit the circumstances of the years immediately after the capture of Constantinople. The Latins also took an interest in Kibotos, but they, too, seem not to have competed any construction there. The Lascarids, generally great castle builders in their domains, only controlled the gulf late in the reign of John Vatatzes (1222-1253). He may have expanded Niketiaton into a much more substantial fortress, but Michael Palaeologus (1261-1282), who used it as the prison of the deposed John IV, could also have ordered the work. In default of texts, only stylistic evidence is is available and it rarely allows a structure to be assigned to a specific decade or reign. The successors of Michael seem to have strength­ ened the local defences by rebuilding Ritzion and perhaps adding the outer wall at Niketiaton. It is also possible that they were responsible for the construc­ tion of Philokrene. No work here has been attributed to the Ottomans. The reign of Orhan was supposedly the time when Prainetos (Karamursel) was fortified, but no trace of it survives. It is also possible that the Turks were responsible for the outer wall at Niketia­ ton, which suffered the attack of Marshal Boucicault. In addition, there were fortresses at Dakibyza and Libyssa, both of which appear to have been Byzantine, and may be considered as part of the local defensive system. Kibotos, if it was ever actually completed, would also be a product of this period. The defensive system appears to have been straight­ forward and consistent through the period for which it provides evidence. The fortresses were all relatively small, and all on or near the coast. They were not intended as city walls or as refuges, but were built to protect shipping and communications. One primary aim was to protect the entrance to the gulf. Philokrene and Niketiaton, which lie slightly outside, could have served that function (as well as protecting their own small harbors and plains), which

was most directly fulfilled by the opposite forts of Libyssa and Kibotos. Charax, too, although slightly to the east of the entrance, might be included in the same category. A fort at Charax would also have had another func­ tion, that of protecting the highway which led from Constantinople to Nicomedia. Dakibyza presumably also served this purpose, as did Libyssa. The existence of that strategic route meant that the north shore was more heavily fortified than the south. On the south shore, Xerigordos plainly existed to protect the route from the coast to Nicaea and the interior. The fort at Hisareyn, which probably represnts the ancient Eribolos, evidently served a similar function. These seem to be the only castles of the region which defend routes leading inland from the coast, even though there were three or four such roads. Xerigordos may have been Turkish rather than Byzantine, but its utility was recognised by the Byzantines who rebuilt it. Prainetos, if its castle really were Turkish, would have served to protect the harbour where ships were being constructed for raiding or conquering Byzantine pos­ sessions. All the forts may thus be brought into connection with the gulf and its defences. Only one certainly offers an additional element, in the palace at Niketia­ ton. This is far more luxurious than any of the func­ tional structures studied here, but it too, as seen above, had a strategic value, apparently as an impe­ rial base for campaigns against the Turks in Asia Minor. These fortresses then, may be taken as clear indica­ tion of the seriousness of Byzantium in protecting communications with its Anatolian territories in the last centuries of their existence, most especially under the Comneni and Palaeologi. They also incidentally offer some illustration of the aims of imperial rivals, the crusaders and Turks, the former, like the Byzantines, operating from Constantinople and trying to protect the approaches to their capital, while the Turks, if Xerigor­ dos is indeed their work, were taking a defensive stand, trying to keep the Byzantines out of the territory they occupied. The castles also, however, leave many questions unanswered. The most obvious among them relates to the periods before the eleventh century: how was this area defended during the long centuries of threats from the Arabs - or was it simply left without de­ fence? The same question already arose in the case of Nicomedia, whose walls bear no certain trace of work between Diocletian and the Comenni, even though the place was certainly important (and surely fortified) during the Dark Ages. There is no reason to suppose that the Gulf of Nicomedia had no strategic value in, say the seventh or eighth centuries, when it should

69

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia have been central to the theme of the Optimati.98 Neither texts nor remains, though, give any informa­ tion about that period. It is possible that the resources of the empire were then so strained that they were necessarily concentrated on areas under the most immediate threat - that is, the eastern frontier and the plains of central Anatolia - while the relatively remote coast of Bithynia could have been protected by its distance from the enemy. Likewise, it is also possible that this area came into prominence both in texts and remains in the Comnene period because that was the time when the frontier was shifted far to the west, and

the gulf became more crucial for the defence of the capital. In broad historical terms, the remains raise virtually as many questions as they answer. This is often the case with material from the Byzantine Dark Ages. The questions, though, can only be raised here. Any real discussion, let alone an attempt to answer them, would go far beyond the present work. Its aims have been simply to present the material investigated by the survey, and to put it into the context of Byzantine history and historical geography.

98 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Thematibus 70, does actually list two cities of the gulf, Helenopolis and Prainetos, as ranking

second and third among the cities of the Optimate theme, but this

indication is of no value for the Middle Ages, since the list

(which includes two long-forgotten sites) was plainly abstracted

from a much earlier document.

70

Bibliography Abbreviations

Ashikpashazade Tevarih-i Al-i-Osmandan Aşikpaşazade Tarihi, ed. Ali Bey. Istanbul 1332AH Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, in ę.N. Atsiz, Osmanh Tarihleri 1.77-319. Istanbul 1949

Abbreviations of periodicals,series etc. are those used in the American Journal of Archaeology (see AJA 95 [1991] 4-16), with the following additions:

AASS ACO BGA

CSHB DHGE

DOC

EEBS El FW

GOTR Migne PG PLRE RHC

RIC TAM

Acta sanctorum, ed. J.Bollandus et al. Antwerp 1643- (volumes are cited by month of the year) Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum, ed. M.J. de Goeje. Leiden 1906 Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae, ed. B.G.Niebuhr. Bonn 1828-1897 Dictionnaire d’histoire et geographic ecclesiastiques, ed. A.Baudrillart et al. Paris 1912Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, ed. A. R. Bellinger and P. Grierson. Washington, DC. 1968Epeteris Hetairias Byzantinon Spoudon Encyclopedia ofIslam C. Foss and D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications, an Introduction. Pretoria 1986 Greek Orthodox Theological Review Patrologiae cursus completus: series graeca, ed. J.P.Migne. Paris 1857-1904 Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed. A.H.M.Jones etal. Cambridge 1971 Recueil des historiens des croisades. Paris 18411906 The Roman Imperial Coinage, ed. H. Mattingly and E. Sydenham. London 1923Tituli Asiae Minoris

Attaliates, Michael, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB). Bonn 1853

Aurelius Victor de Caesaribus, ed. F. Pichlmayr. Leipzig 1961 Book of the Eparch, ed. I. Dujcev. London 1970

Boucicault Le livre des fais du bon Messire Jehan le Maingre, dit Bouciquaut, ed. D. Lalande. Paris 1985 Bryennius, Nicephorus Historiae, ed. P. Gautier. Paris 1975 Busbecq The Life and Letters of Ogier Ghiselain de Busbecq, tr. C. T. Forster and F. Daniell. London 1881.

Die byzantinische Kleinchroniken [= ByzKleinchr], ed. P. Schreiner. Vienna 1975

Cantacuzene, John Historiae, ed. L. Schopen (CSHB). Bonn 1828 Cedrenus, George Historiarum compendium, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB). Bonn 1838 Choniates, Nicetas Historia, ed. J.A. van Dieten. Berlin 1975 Orationes et Epistulae, ed. J.A. van Dieten. Berlin 1972 Chronicon Paschale [= ChronPasch] ed. L. Dindorf (CSHB). Bonn 1832

Sources

Cinnamus ed. A. Meineke (CSHB). Bonn 1836 Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, tr. C. Brand. New York 1976

Acropolites Opera, ed. A. Heisenberg. Leipzig 1903 Acta Agathonici, ed. G. van Hoof, AnalBoll 2 (1883) 99115

Codex Justinianus [= Cod. Just], ed. P. Krueger. Berlin 1929

Albert of Aix Liber Christianae Expeditionis, in RHC Occ. IV

Codex Theodosianus [= CodTh.}, ed. Th. Mommsen and P. Meyer. Berlin 1905

Ammianus Marcellinus [= Amm.Marc.], ed. and tr. J. Rolfe. London 1935

Constantine Porphyrogenitus de Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik. Budapest 1949 de Ceremoniis, ed. I. Reiske (CSHB). Bonn 1829 de Thematibus, ed. A. Pertusi. Vatican 1952

Anna Comnena Alexiade, ed. B. Leib. Paris 1945

Anonymous Giese'. Die altosmanischen Chroniken, ed. F. Giese. Leipzig 1925

anonymen

71

Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia II: Nicomedia Dolger, F. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Reiches. Berlin-Munich 1924-1965

Notitia dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck. Leipzig 1876

ostromischen

Ducas, ed. V. Grecu. Bucharest 1958 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica, ed. K. Lake. London 1926 Vita Constantini, ed. J. Winkelmann (= Eusebios’ Werke 1.12). Berlin 1975

Evagrius Historia ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier. London 1898

Evliya Qelebi Seyahatname. Istanbul 1314AH Expositio totius orbis et gentium, ed. J. Rouge. Paris 1966 Fulcher of Chartres Historia Hierosolymitana, in RHC Occ. Ill.313-485

OdoofDeuil De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem, ed. V. Berry. New York 1948

Ordericus Vitalis The Ecclesiastical History, ed. M. Chibnail. Oxford 1969-80. Pachymeres, George ed. I. Bekker (CSHB) Bonn 1835 [= Pachymeres (Bonn)] Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler and V. Laurent. Paris 1984 [= Pachymeres (Failler)]

Philostorgius Historia ecclesiastica in Migne, PG 65.455-638 Photius Bibliotheca, ed. I. Bekker in Migne, PG 103, 104

Planudes, Maximus Epistulae, ed. M. Treu. Breslau 1886

Genesius, ed. A. Lesmueller and I. Thum. Berlin 1978

Georgius Monachus, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig 1904

Pliny Naturalis historia, ed. L. Ian, C. Mayrhoff. Leipzig 1909

Gesta francorum [= Gesta], ed. L. Brehier. Paris 1924

Gregoras, Nicephorus, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB). Bonn 1855

Procopius de Aedificiis, ed. J. Haury. Leipzig 1913 Historia arcana [= HA], ed. J. Haury. Leipzig 1906

Grumel, V. Les Regestes des Actes du Patriarchat de Constan­ tinople, I: Les Actes des Patriarches [= Regestes]. Paris 1932-

Psellus, Michael Chronographia, ed. E. Renauld. Paris 1926-28 Scripta minora, ed. E. Kurtz and F. Drexl. Milan 1941

Himerius Declamationes et Orationes, ed. A. Colonna. Rome 1951

Russian Primary Chronicle, tr. S. H. Cross, Cambridge, Mass. 1930

Historia Augusta, ed. E. Hohl. Leipzig 1927

Sadeddin Tacil’t Tevarih, ed. I. Parmaksizoğlu. Istanbul 1974

Ibn Khordadbeh Kitab al-Masalik wa’l Mamalik, ed. M. de Goeje, in Bibliotheca Geographorum arabicorum VI. Leyden 1889

Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum [- Scr OrigCP], ed. Th. Preger. Leipzig 1907 Scylitzes Synopsis historiarum, ed. J. Thum. Berlin 1973

Lactantius de Mortibus Persecutorum [= MP], ed. J. L. Creed. Oxford 1984

Socrates Historia ecclesiastica, in Migne, PG 67

Libanius, ed. R. Foerster. Leipzig 1903-1927

Sozomen Historia ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez and G. Hansen. Berlin 1960

Libanius’ Autobiography (Oration I), ed. A. F. Norman. Oxford 1965 Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne. Paris 1955

Stephanus of Byzantium, ed. A. Meineke. Berlin 1849

Malalas, Johannes Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf (CSHB). Bonn 1832

Stephen of Blois Epistolae, in RHC Occ. III.885-90

Metochites, George Historia dogmatica, in A. Mai, ed., Nova patrum bibliotheca VIII. Rome 1871. ii. 1-228

Suda = Suidas Lexicon, ed. A. Adler. Leipzig 1928-38 Symeon Magister, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB). Bonn 1838

Nicephorus Opuscula historica, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig 1880

Symeon Metaphrastes, in Migne, PG 114-116

72

Bibliography Synaxarium ecclesiae constantinopolitanae (= Propylaea ad AASS Novembris) [= Synax.}, ed. H. Delehaye. Bruxelles 1902

Bittel, K., A.M.Schneider and F.K.Domer 1939 “Archaologische Funde aus der Tiirkei”, AA 1939: 94-207

Tafel, G. and G. Thomas Urkunden zur alteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig. Vienna 1856

Carile, A. 1965

Theophanes, ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig 1883

Constantelos, D. 1968 Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare. New Brunswick, NJ.

Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB). Bonn 1838

Corsten, Th. 1988 “Daskyleion am Meer”, EpigAnat 12: 53-71

Vie de Theodore de Sykeon, ed. and tr. A.-J. Festugičre (= Subsidia Hagiographica 48). Bruxelles 1970

Dallegio-d’Alessio, E. 1951 “Le tombeau de Saint Panteleemon a Nicomedie”, Actes du Vie congres inter­ nationale d’etudes byzantines II. 95-100. Paris

Villehardouin La conquete de Constantinople, ed. and tr. E. Faral. Paris 1961.

Vita Theophylactv. A. Vogt, “S. Theophylacte de Nicomedie”, AnalBoll 50 (1932) 67-82

Danişmend, I.H. 1947 Izahh Osmanh Tarihi Kronolojisi. Istanbul

Zepos, J. and P. lus greco-romanum [= Ius\. Athens 1931

Darkot, B. 1952 “Izmit”, in Islam Ansiklopedisi 4.1251-1257

Zonaras Epitome historiarum, ed. T. Buttner-Wobst. Bonn 1897

Darrouzes, J. 1960 Epistoliers byzantins du Xe siecle. Paris

Zosimus, ed. L. Mendelssohn. Leipzig 1887

Dirimtekin, F. 1954 “Pelekanon, Philokrini, Nikitiaton, Ritzion, Dakibyza”, Fatih ve Istanbul: Istanbul Fethi Derneği 2:45-78

Modern Works Alkim, B. 1970

Domer, F.K. 1941 Inschrifien und Denkmaler aus Bithynien. Berlin

“Explorations and Excavations in Turkey, 1967 and 1968”, Anatolica 3 (1969/70): 1-92

Duncombe, J. 1784 Select Works of the Emperor Julian and Some Pieces of the Sophist Libanius, translatedfrom the Greek London

Amakis, G. 1947 Hoi Protoi Othomanoi. Athens

Ayverdi, E.H. 1953 Fatih Devri Mimari Eserleri. Istanbul 1966 Osmanli Mi ’marisinin Ilk Devri. Istanbul

Duyuran, R. 1951 “izmit ve Silivri’de yapilan arkeolojik araştirmalar 1947-48”, Belleten 15: 213-18

Barnes, T. 1981 Eusebius and Constantine. Cambridge, Mass. 1982 The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, Mass. Bean, G. 1968

“Partitio terrarum imperii romaniae”, Studi venezianiT. 125-305

Ebcioğlu, I. 1966 “izmit Definesi”, Annual of the Archaeo­ logical Museums ofIstanbul 13-14: 166-76

Fenster, E. 1968 Laudes Constantinopolitanae. Munich Turkey's Southern Shore. London

Beck, H.-G. 1959 Kirche und theologische Literatur byzantinischen Reich. Munich

Foss, C. 1975 im

1977

Beldiceanu-Steinherr, I. 1967 Recherches sur les actes des regnes des sultans Osman, Orkhan et Murad I. Munich

1979

1982

73

“The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity”, EHR 90: 721-747 “Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara”, DOP 31:27-87 “The Fabricenses Ducenarii of Sardis”, ZPE 35: 279-83 “The Defences of Asia Minor against the Turks”, GOTR 2T. 145-205

Survey of Medieval Castles ofAnatolia II: Nicomedia

1985

1987 1990 1995a 1995b

Kuran, A. 1968

Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia I: Kutahya. Oxford: BAR International Series 261 “St. Autonomus and his Church in Bithynia”, DOF 41: 187-198 “Byzantine Malagina and the Lower Sangarius”, AnatStAO: 162-83 Nicaea: A Byzantine Capital and its Praises. Brookline, Mass. “Nicomedia and Constantinople”, in Mango and Dagron (1995) 181-90

Laurent, V. 1933 “Mćlanges de gćographie ecclćsiastique”, Echos d’Orient 32: 311 -24 1934 “La vie de Jean, mćtropolite d’Hćraclće du Pont”, Archeion Pontou 6: 3-63 1949 “Le chronique anonyme du cod. Mosquensis gr. 426 et la pćnćtration turque en Bithynie au dćbut du XlVe sičcle”, REByzT. 207-12

French, D. 1981 Roman Roads and Milestones ofAsia Minor I: The Pilgrim’s Road. Oxford: BAR International Series 105

Lefort, J. 1995

Goodwin, G. 1971 A History ofOttoman Architecture. London

Lindner, R. 1983 Nomads and Ottomans Anatolia. Bloomington

Douze recits byzantins sur Saint Jean Chrysostome (Subsidia Hagiographica 60). Bruxelles

Magie, D. 1950

Hendy, M. 1985 Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy. Cambridge

Medieval

Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton

Mango, C. and G. Dagron 1995 Constantinople Aidershot

Honigmann, E. 1936 “Un itinćraire arabe a travers le Pont”, Annuaire de I ’Institut de Philologie et Histoire orientales et slaves 4: 261-271

Janin, R. 1975

in

Mango, C. 1994 “The Empress Helena, Helenopolis, Pylae”, Travaux et Memoires 12: 143-58

Hanfmann, G. 1975 From Croesus to Constantine. Ann Arbor

Imber, C. 1990

“Les communications entre Constantinople et la Bithynie”, in Mango and Dagron (1995) 207-18.

Lemerle, P. 1957 L’emirat d’Aydin, Byzance et Γoccident. Paris

Grierson, P. 1992 Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. Washington Halkin, F. 1977

The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture. Chicago

and

its

Hinterland.

Mansel, A.M. 1968 “Hannibal’m mezan”, Belleten 32: 527-51 1972 “Zur Lage des Hannibalgrabes”, AA 1972: 257-75

Mason, R.B. and M.M. Mango 1995 “Glazed ‘Tiles of Nicomedia’ in Bithynia, Constantinople and elsewhere” in Mango and Dagron (1994) 313-31

The Ottoman Empire 1300-1481. Istanbul

Les eglises et les monasteres des grands centres byzantins. Paris

Millar, F. 1977

Jones, A. Η. M. 1964 The Later Roman Empire. Oxford

Kirova, T. 1972 “Un palazzo ed una casa di eta tardobizantina in Asia Minore”, Felix Ravenna 103/4: 272-305

Miller, K. 1916

The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca, NY

Itineraria romana. Stuttgart.

Kleonymos, M. and C. Papadopoulos 1867 Bithynika. Constantinople

Mirmiroğlu, V. 1949 “Orhan Bey ile Bizans imparatoru III. Andronikos arasmdaki Pelekano Muharebesi”. 5e//ete/7 13: 309-21

Krautheimer, R. 1979 Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. Harmondsworth

Muller-Wiener, W. 1977 Bildlexikon Tubingen

74

zur

Topographic

Istanbuls.

Bibliography Oğiit-Polat, S. and S. Şahin 1985 “Katalog der bithynischen Inschriften im archaologischen Museum von Istanbul”, EpigAnat 5: 97-124

Stiemon, D. 1977 “La vision d’Isaie de Nicomćdie”, REByz 35: 5-42 Texier, Ch. 1862 Asie Mineure. Paris (editio minor)

Oikonomides, N. 1972 Les listes de preseance byzantines. Paris 1972

Toynbee, J. 1947 “Roma and Constantinopolis in Late Antique Art from 312 to 365 AD”,J&$37: 135-44

OztUre, A. 1981 Izmit Tarihi. Istanbul

Vasiliev, A. 1968 Byzance et les Arabes II: La dynastie macedonienne. Bruxelles

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. 1891-98 Analekta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias. St. Petersburg

Perrot, G. 1862

Vocotopulos, P. 1979 “The Concealed Course Technique”, JOB 28: 247-60

Exploration archeologique de la Galatie. Paris

von Diest, W. 1903 “Die Landschaft zwischen Nicaea und Nicomedia”, Asien 2: 149-53, 172-75, 18992

Philippidis-Braat, A. 1979 “La captivitć de Palamas chez les Tures”, TravMemT. 109-222 Pogodin, P. and O. Wulff 1897 “Nikomidiya”, Izvestiya russkago archeologicheskago institut v Konstantinopolie 2: 77-184

von Hammer, J. 1827 Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches. Pest Vryonis, S. 1971 The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor. Los Angeles

Robert, Louis 1977 “La titulature de Nicće et Nicomćdie: la gloire et la haine”, HSCP 81: 1-39 1980 A travers TAsie Mineure. Paris 1987 Documents d’Asie Mineure. Paris

Westerink, L. 1966 “Trois textes inćdits sur saint Diomćde de Nicće”, AnalBoll 84 161 -227 Whitby, M. 1985 “The Sangarius Bridge and Procopius”, JHS 105: 129-48

Rouechć, C. 1979 “A New Inscription from Aphrodisias and the Title 'Pater tes Poleos", GRBS 20: 17385. Ruge, W. 1937

Wiegand, Th. 1902 “Zur Lage des Hannibalgrabes”, AM ΊΤ. 321-6

“Nikomedeia”, ΛΕ XVII.468-92

YUcel, E. and C. Soyhan 1976 Gebze ve Eskihisar. Istanbul

Ruggieri, V. and F. Nethercott 1986 “The Metropolitan City of Syllion and its Churches”, JOB 36: 133-56

Zacos, G. and A. Veglery. 1982 Byzantine Lead Seals. Basel

Runciman, S. 1953 A History of the Crusades I: The First Crusade. Cambridge

Seeck, O. 1919 SOlch, J. 1920

Zakythenos, A. 1949 “Peri tes dioiketikes diaireseos kai tes eparchikes dioikeseos en to Byzantino kratei”, EEBS 19: 3-25

Regesten der Kaiser und Papste. Stuttgart “Historisch-geographische Studien liber bithynische Siedlungen”, Byzantinischneugriechische Jahrbucher 1: 263-337

75

1. Tower at highest point. Masonry G

2. Walls at Turgut Mahallesi. Masonry G

1-2. Nicomedia: Walls of Diocletian

3. Tower in Fig. 1, detail of facing. Masonry G

4. Tl. Masonry D

5. T2. Masonry D

6. T4, inner facing. Masonry L, cloisonne

3. Nicomedia: Walls of Diocletian. 4-6. Nicomedia: Citadel

7. T5. Masonry Η, alternating brick and cloisonne

8. T6. Masonry I, cloisonne

9. W6/7. Masonry B, reused limestone blocks

7. Nicomedia: Citadel. 8-9. Nicomedia: Byzantine Walls

10. T7. Masonry J, regular cloisonne

11. T8 (on left), W8/9. Masonry J

12. T9 (on left), W9/10. Masonry J, A

10-12. Nicomedia: Byzantine Walls

13. Projection under T9. Masonry G

14. T10, outer face. Masonry O

15. T10, inmost face. Masonry A

13-15. Nicomedia: Byzantine Walls

16. TH, detail of facing. Masonry M

17. T16. Outer face in Masonry O, inner face in Masonry K

18. T16, lower part of inner face. Masonry K

16-18. Nicomedia: Byzantine Walls

19. T15. Masonry M, rough cloisonne

21. W18/19. Masonry N

20. T16, upper part of inner face. Masonry K

22. South Gate, left pier. Masonry A

19-22. Nicomedia: Byzantine Walls

23. South Gate, base of right pier. Masonry A

25. Outer Wall, below T10. Masonry E

24. T20, detail of facing. Masonry C

23-25. Nicomedia: Byzantine Walls

26. South corner tower

27. Wall below tower

26-27. Philokrene

29. Tower, from east

28. Tower, from south

30. Facing of wall

28-30. Ritzion

31. Castle, from the north

32. Tl, from the NW

31-32. Niketiaton

33. Tl, masonry

34. Tl, embrasure

33-34. Niketiaton

35. Tl, fireplace

36. Wl/2

37. Palace, from NW

35-37. Niketiaton

38. Palace, west face

39. Palace, interior, from east

38-39. Niketiaton

40. Palace, NW face, with rosette

41. Palace, west wall with windows and vaults supporting ground floor

42. Palace, consoles of N wall

43. T5, from NE

40-43. Niketiaton

44. T3, from E

45. W4/5; note two phases

46. T5, from NW

44-46. Niketiaton

47. T5, chamber and staircase, from W

48. T5, upper part of S face, with brick rosette

49. W7/8, modern restoration 47-49. Niketiaton

51. Til, from NW

50. T9, embrasure

52. Til, detail of masonry

50-52. Niketiaton

53. TH, stairway to upper platform

55. Outer Wall, NE corner tower

54. Outer Wall, below Palace

53-55. Niketiaton

56. Outer wall, facing

57. Inner wall, facing

58. Inner wall, cross-section

56-58. Charax

59. Ihsaniye. Caravansaray, interior

60. ihsaniye. Caravansaray, reused blocks

61. Xerigordos, view from castle to north

59-60. ihsaniye. Caravansaray. 61. Xerigordos

62. View from castle to south

63. Hilltop with ring walls

64. T4, outer face

62-64. Xerigordos

65. T4; inner face visible on upper right

66. T3, brickwork

65-66. Xerigordos

recent BIAA Monographs: Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia I: Kiitahya by Clive Foss (British Archaeological Reports S261) 1985. ISBN 0 86054 338 2

18

The Aşvan Sites 3: The Early Bronze Age by A.G. Sagona with C. Sagona 1994.

ISBN 1 898249 02 4 19

Studies in the History and Topography of Lycia and Pisidia: In Memoriam A.S. Hall edited by D.H.French 1994. ISBN 1 898249 03 2

20

Roman Baths of Lycia by A.Farrington 1995. ISBN 1 898249 04 0

Nicomedia (modern Izmit in northwest Turkey) was vital for the defence of Constantinople, and this volume presents not only the walls of Nicomedia itself, but also the smaller fortresses along the gulf of Nicomedia, which provided a significant waterway to and from the capital at all periods. These fortresses range in date from the third to the fifteenth century, and six of them could be studied in detail, including the important, but so far almost unknown, late Byzantine palace at Niketiaton (illustrated on the front cover), where in 1261 the young emperor John IV Lascaris was imprisoned after being blinded by his guardian Michael Vlll Palaeologus.

This volume provides a complete record of medieval fortifications in the district, with detailed descriptions of the standing remains, new plans, and numerous photographs. All available written sources are used to present the fortresses in their full historical and geographical context, with special attention paid to the relations between Byzantines, Crusaders and Turks. The combination of written sources and physical remains makes the volume important for historians, as well as those more specifically interested in military and architectural history. In addition to Survey of Medieval Castles in Anatolia 1: Kiitahya, Clive Foss is author of Byzantine and Turkish Sardis, Ephesus after Antiquity and Byzantine Fortifications (with David Winfield), and of numerous other works on Byzantine Asia Minor. He is currently professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.

ISBN I 898249 07 5 ISSN 0969-9007