BAKTELCOVER44.6x22:BAKTELCOVER44.6x22 7/20/11 9:57 AM ������ 1

lefki

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

i

The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·1

ii

© 2007 by the European Center for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Monuments

2, Leoforos Stratou

GR-546 40 Thessaloniki

tel.: +30.2310.88 98 30

e-mail: ekbmm@the.forthnet.gr

ISBN: 978-960-88423-4-2

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·2

iii

The Byzantine Monuments of the

Evros/Meriç River Valley

Robert Ousterhout & Charalambos Bakirtzis

Thessaloniki 2007

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR BYZANTINE AND POST-BYZANTINE MONUMENTS

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·3

lefki

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

v

In memoryof our friend and colleague

Thanasis Papazotos (1951-1996)

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·5

vi

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·6

vii

Contents

INTRODUCTION (R.O. – C.B.) 1

CHAPTER 1. The Evros/Meriç valley in Byzantine times (R.O. – C.B.) 9

CHAPTER 2. Ainos (Enez) and its monuments (R.O.) 17

CHAPTER 3. Vera (Pherai) and its monuments (C.B.) 49

CHAPTER 4. Didymoteichon and its monuments (R.O. – C.B.) 87

CHAPTER 5. Pythion and Pranghi (R.O. – C.B.) 145

CHAPTER 6. Adrianopolis (Edirne) and its monuments (R.O.) 161

CONCLUSION (R.O. – C.B.) 179

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·7

viii

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

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·8

1

Introduction

The river dividing Thrace between Greece and Turkey today was known in antiquity as theHebrus River – the Evros in Modern Greek, the Meriç in Modern Turkish, and the Maritsa inSlavic languages. A sleepy backwater today, its appearance gives no hint of its historic vitality.In contrast to its current, liminal situation, throughout the Byzantine period (330 -1453 CE), thevalley maintained close cultural connections with the nearby Byzantine capital Constantinople,for which it figured as an important hinterland. Until the nineteenth century, in fact, the riverfunctioned as a thoroughfare, the major transportation artery from the north Aegean Sea intoThrace, connecting to the chief regional city, Adrianopolis (now Edirne, Turkey), with river-going vessels traveling as far inland as Philippopolis (now Plovdiv, Bulgaria).

Historical disjunction. The advent of the railroad in the 1890s signaled the demise of the rivernetwork and dramatically altered the economy of the valley. Entire towns were abandoned orshifted as the population moved into closer proximity to the railroad. The port town ofAinos/Enez, for example, had been a transportation hub throughout the Byzantine and Ottomanperiods, but when bypassed by the railroad, it declined into a virtual ghost town. Most of itspopulation moved across the river to the previously insignificant village of Dedeagaç (nowAlexandroupolis, Greece), the final station stop before the railroad turned northward, bypassingthe lower river valley.

The demise of the river system was completed with the establishment of the modern internationalborder along the Evros/Meriç with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, as Western Thrace passed to

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·1

2

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

Edirne (Adrianopolis) at the end of the Ottoman period

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·2

3

The separation of the river valley was exacerbated by the population exchange that followed theGreek-Turkish War in 1922-23. The displacement of more than 2.5 million Greeks and Muslimsfrom Anatolia and the Balkans resulted in a loss of cultural continuity and recurring conflictsbetween groups that had previously cohabitated. With the dramatic political and demographicchanges, a visitor to the Evros/Meriç valley today – on either side of the river – comes away withno sense of its historic vitality.

Scholarly disjunction. For the Byzantine history of the Evros/Meriç valley, modern scholarshipbegan in the late nineteenth century, as historians and epigraphers, such as Lampakes,Lampousiades, Samothrakes, Kourtides, Papadapoulos-Kerameus, Hasluck, and numerousdedicated Thracian hommes de lettres explored the region to record its Classical and Byzantine past.In doing so, they noted much incidental information concerning the survival of historic monuments(into which inscriptions were set) and their context at that time. Their pioneering work was cut shortby the outbreak of hostilities in the Balkan Wars, World War I, the Greek- Turkish War, and WorldWar II. Active scholarly exploration only began again in the late twentieth century. By that time,however, the border had become a psychological barrier, encouraged by political, religious, andlinguistic differences. Displaced Greeks from the eastern side of the river often preserve a nostalgicmemory of their lost heritage, as place names, bishoprics, even icons and church furnishings wererelocated (as is the case in Ainos/Enez) to the western side. Among the resettled villages on theTurkish side, the inhabitants have no historical memory and often little curiosity about the historicalartifacts in their midst, which are dismissed as “Greek.”

In the 1970s, the Greek Archaeological Service began a series of surveys and excavations in WesternThrace to determine its historical character and its cultural position. Although they were aware ofthe earlier regional investigations, their efforts were hampered by lack of access to the monumentsin Eastern Thrace and to Turkish scholarship. Moreover, they labored against numerous prejudices.Modern Greece is Classically-oriented and Athens-centered, and in this cultural configuration, theEvros valley is a distant, provincial backwater; its major historical monuments may be viewed aslate, decadent, and impure, contaminated by proximity to the Turks and the Bulgarians.

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·3

4

In the same period, Turkish Classical archaeologists began explorations at Enez (Ainos).Although their interests were in the ancient city, they uncovered the remnants of numerousByzantine monuments. Most of the excavated buildings had been standing into the latenineteenth century and had been noted in the epigraphic studies, but without access to the Greekscholarship, the Turkish archaeologists were unable to identify them. Moreover, as in modernGreece, the privileging of the Classical period was combined with a general suspicion of the laterconstructions. In modern Turkey, Byzantine monuments are invariably associated with OrthodoxChristianity and with Greece, and thus may be viewed as both religiously and politicallycontaminated. At Adrianopolis/Edirne, on the other extreme, the Byzantine city has been entirelyovershadowed by its Ottoman successor, which played a critical role in the history of Ottomanconquest and the construction of Turkish national identity. New excavations at Edirne may beginto redress this imbalance, but at the time of this writing, they remain unpublished. In both Greeceand Turkey, then, the international border forms a psychological barrier, which few Greek orTurkish scholars were willing to cross.

Byzantine monuments reclaimed. In contrast to the epigraphical studies of a century ago, whichprivileged the text, more recent studies recognize the value of archaeology and studies ofmaterial culture to the writing of history. This is particularly important in the examination ofperiods and regions for which the written record is incomplete. In our attempt to reclaim whathas become a marginalized borderland as a vital area of cultural production in its historicalsetting, this study examines the Byzantine architecture of the Evros/Meriç River valley. Becauseof the limitations of the written record, we will take the architectural monuments of the regionas the primary “documents” for constructing a cultural history of the region. In addition to thehistoric buildings that survive, we include those that no longer survive but were recorded beforetheir destruction and those known from archaeological investigations.

The monuments included in the following study form an important regional grouping, fromwhich a better picture of the significant historical culture of the valley may be derived, bringing

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

5

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

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·5

6

together the evidence from both sides of the river for the first time. Although this area is littleknown today, and many sites have fallen off the map, the architecture is both sophisticated anddistinctive. Until the twelfth century, there were close associations with the Byzantine capital.For example, the now destroyed Hagia Sophia at Edirne (Adrianopolis) parallels the betterknown structural experimentation of sixth-century Constantinople. New discoveries at Enezbroaden our understanding of construction during the poorly documented Transitional Period ofthe seventh through ninth centuries. The two large twelfth-century churches in Enez and Pheraiclearly were been built by Constantinopolitan workshops, emphasizing the continued relationswith the capital. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, however, technical and stylisticdevelopments throughout the valley testify to the growing importance of local workshops, andthey parallel the cultural fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire in its last centuries. Takentogether, the monuments of the Evros/Meriç valley tell a remarkable story of a vital area ofcultural development during the Byzantine period.

In many ways, national identity, and current national boundaries shape our worldview today;they also affect the ways in which scholarship is written and how “regional studies” are defined.The dramatic events of the early twentieth century described above redefined the internationalfrontier and created a scholarly barrier between Greece and Turkey. They pose challenges to themodern historian, but at the same time, they may offer differing ways of interpreting the culturalremains of the region. The overview of the monuments presented in the following chaptersrepresents the long-standing interests of its two authors. Our assessment of the monuments ofEastern Thrace depends to a large part on the reports of the Turkish archaeologists and arthistorians working in that region, rather than on new surveys. In deference to our Turkishcolleagues, we refer to their ongoing research efforts but limit our discussion to what has beenpublished. For Greek Thrace, we are able to include to information from surveys and excavationsconducted by the authors under the auspices of the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities atKavala. By viewing the Evros/Meriç River valley from both sides, in effect, we hope to offer anew perspective on an important region of Byzantine cultural development.

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·6

7

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

Bibliography

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

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·7

8

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

001 OS 008.qxd 27-03-07 12:47 ™ÂÏ›‰·8

9

CHAPTER 1

The Evros/Meriç Valley in the Byzantine Period

Routes of Transportation. Throughout the Byzantine period, the Evros/Meriç River was strategicto transportation in Thrace and the Balkans. The river was navigable by large boats from itsmouth inland as far as Adrianopolis, and further inland by smaller boats to Philippopolis.Communication from one bank to the other was effected in a variety of ways. Boats of varioussizes could ferry passengers across and several points. For example, the abbot of theKosmosoteira at Vera had the privilege of owning a vessel for ferrying the monks across theriver, and the port at Vera is mentioned as late as the sixteenth century. Pontoon bridges could beerected for the movement of army troops, as Anna Komnena related in the Alexiad. Crossingcould be made by foot or by horse in places when the river was low or where the water wasshallow, as for example at the “Ford of Philokalos,” also mentioned by Anna, on the easternshore near the mouth of the river. There was a masonry or wooden bridge across the river atAdrianopolis, mentioned by Akropolites. Another bridge or another sort of crossing must havebeen located on the route of the Via Egnatia as it traversed the river near Vera. There wereoccasional years when the river not only carried down ice from the Rhodope mountains, but italso froze solid, permitting a crossing by foot, as happened, for example, in the harsh winter of1208/9, when the Latin army of King Henry was able to march across the ice near Kypsella.

Although the alluvial deposits have altered the positions of the river’s estuaries, during theByzantine period there were three harbors in the delta that formed at the mouth of the river.These connected the overland routes with the sea: near Traianopolis, inland on the western bank;

009 OS 086.qxd 27-03-07 13:09 ™ÂÏ›‰·9

10

at Vera, on the western bank near the innermost reaches of the delta; and at Ainos, by the sea onthe eastern shore. The first two of these were also stations on the Via Egnatia, the great Romanroad that connected Constantinople to the Adriatic, while Ainos served the main harbor for shipsarriving by sea. At some point on the Egnatia, near Vera and before the crossing of the river,began one of the well-established land routes that led northward along the narrow western bankof the Evros, through Didymoteichon and Pythion, to Adrianopolis. This route continued furtherto the north to connect the Aegean to the Danube. The route to Didymoteichon also connected toa road that led into the valley of the Arda, a tributary of the Evros, and continued through theRhodope mountains to link the Propontis and Constantinople with the cities of the Balkans andwith the harbors of the northern Adriatic. Another overland route passing through Adrianopoliswas the major road connecting Constantinople with Central Europe.

History. The transportation networks clearly indicate the strategic geopolitical position of Thracein general and of the Evros Valley in particular during the Byzantine period. It formed quite literallythe crossroads of the Byzantine world, the bulwark and hinterland of Constantinople. Throughoutits history, the region maintained close contacts with the Byzantine capital, for better or worse. Therelationship of Byzantine capital and Thracian hinterland began dramatically: Constantine defeatedhis rival Licinius at Adrianopolis in 324, giving him sole rule of the Roman Empire and

A traditional flat-bottomed river boat of the EvrosValley

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

11

precipitating the transfer of the capital fromRome to the site of Byzantion on theBosphorus. Others leaders found theirbeginnings or met their fates in the same area.In 378, Emperor Valens was routed and killedby the Goths in the Battle of Adrianopolis.Alexios I Komnenos proclaimed himselfemperor in Adrianopolis in 1081. John VIKantakouzenos did the same in Didymo-teichon in 1341 and was subsequentlycrowned in Adrianopolis. Others importanthistorical figures found their exile in the rivervalley: the Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenosfounded and retired to the Kosmosoteiramonastery at Vera, following his banishmentfrom the capital. The statesman and scholarTheodore Metochites was exiled toDidymoteichon following the palace revolt of1328.

As the hinterland of the capital, Thraceserved as its breadbasket and its bulwark, itsagricultural lands supplying both grain and

other foodstuffs, its towns and villages providing soldiers. With any mention of Thrace, “therecomes to mind some thought of courage, masses of soldiers, war, and battle, for these things areinnate and hereditary in that province,” noted Justinian in 535 [Novel 26], who fortified or re-fortified many cities in the region. Justinian’s concerns were justified, for any land-based attackon the capital by necessity came through Thrace. Adrianopolis played a particularly significantrole. During the second half of the sixth century, Slavs and the Avars besieged the city and its

Didymoteichon, funeral innscription of the komesDiogenes, end of the 5th c.

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

12

surroundings. With the subsequent rise of Bulgaria as a political power, the city became animportant military outpost. Throughout the ninth and tenth centuries, Adrianopolis,Didymoteichon and the upper river valley felt the brunt of the conflicts between the Byzantinesand the Bulgars. The kastron at Didymoteichon was besieged, and Adrianopolis fell briefly toboth Krum and Symeon.

Less of the early history is recorded for the lower river valley, although Ainos, at the mouth ofthe river, must have suffered similar threats. According to Procopius, Justinian strengthened itsdefensive walls, but prior to the late eleventh century the harbor town rarely appears in thehistorical record, except for its participation in church councils. Toward the end of the eleventhcentury, the nomadic Pechenegs entered the region. In 1078 they raided the area aroundAdrianopolis and in the following decade, allied with the Cumans and Uzes, they penetrated asfar as the sea of Marmara, in the region of Ainos. There Alexios I confronted them in battle, asAnna Komnena recounts, soundly defeating them at the Mt. Lebounion, near the mouth of theEvros.

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

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

13

During the later twelfth and thirteenthcenturies, the region was a major point ofcontention between the Byzantines,Crusaders, and Bulgars, with the majortowns and fortresses changing hands severaltimes. Prior to the Latin conquest ofConstantinople in 1204, both the Crusadersand Venetian merchants had establishedthemselves in the region, and their presenceis noted from Ainos to Adrianopolis.Bulgaria was on the rise in this same period,and led by Kalojan, the Bulgariansplundered the countryside around Adria-nopolis and Didymoteichon, fighting bothByzantine and Latins. The Byzantinesgradually regained control of the region, andby 1225, both cities came under the controlof Laskarids of Nicaea, although Adrianoplefell once again to the Bulgars in 1230. TheLaskarids subsequently used both cities asbases for a campaign against the Bulgars.Cumans and Tatars both appear in theregional conflicts of the thirteenth century.

With the reestablishment of Byzantine rule in Constantinople in 1261, Adrianopolis became thestrategic center on the border with Bulgaria.

The Catalan Grand Company, Spanish mercenaries hired by Andronikos II, turned against theByzantines following the murder of their leader Roger de Flor at Adrianople in 1305, by Alanmercenaries probably at the instigation of Michael IX. Using Kallipolis (Gelibolu) as their base,

View from the Pythion fortress looking the road toEdirne/Adrianopolis

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

14

they raided throughout Thrace during 1305-07, laying siege to Ainos, Adrianopolis, and othercenters. Michael IX used the kastron Didymoteichon as a base and a staging post in his campaignagainst them.

Didymoteichon appears frequently in the accounts of the civil wars of the fourteenth century. Inthe conflict between Andronikos II and his grandson Andronikos III, the latter used the town ashis military base and residence after his flight from Constantinople in 1321. In the second civilwar, after the death of Andronikos III in 1341, John VI Kantakouzenos was proclaimed emperorin Didymoteichon, and the city became his de facto capital during the civil war of 1341-47. Hisresidence and treasury was located nearby at the fortress of Pythion. In early 1344/5, JohnKantakouzenos brought the fleet of Umur of Aydın to Ainos to assist him, and in 1348, Orhandispatched Turkish troops to his aid. Following the victory of John V Palaiologos and theabdication of Kantakouzenos in 1347, Thrace underwent a sort of feudal subdivision. In 1352,Didymoteichon became an apanage of John V Palaiologos, while Adrianopolis was given toMatthew Kantakouzenos, leading to further conflicts and interventions by Orhan. Control of theport town of Ainos regularly was contested in this period, and the unstable situation there led toan invitation to Genoese freebooter Francesco Gattilusio to rule the city, sometime around 1384.The Gattilusi family maintained control of Ainos until it fell to the Ottomans in 1456. With theItalian presence, the subsequent history of the coastal region and north Aegean islands differssomewhat from that of areas further inland.

Orhan’s participation in the civil war of 1341-47 is often viewed as the introduction of theOttomans onto European territory. In 1354, the Ottomans occupied Kallipolis (Gelibolu) andused the fortress as a base of operation for expansion into the Balkans, with Orhan’ sonSüleyman Pasa gaining control of much of southeastern Thrace. Orhan, married to a daughter ofJohn VI, was often entangled with Byzantine politics. Although he was on occasions bothsupportive and conciliatory, his expansion of Ottoman control of Thrace resumed after 1359 andcontinued unabated. Didymoteichon was probably conquered twice by Orhan, first in 1359 and

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

15

Bulgarian troops before Edirne, 1912-13

decisively in 1361. His son and successor Murad I established his residence in Didymoteichon(Dimitoka) ca.1373-77 and continued his father’s expansionist policy.

Adrianopolis seems to have been seized by the Turks in or around 1369, and ca. 1376-77, MuradI established his residence there. The city subsequently was developed as the Ottoman capital.Slightly more than a millennium Constantine’s decisive battle over Licinius, much of the regionhad been conquered by the Ottoman Turks, and, like Constantine, they set their sights on theBosphorus. It was from the new Ottoman capital in Adrianopolis/Edirne that the final siege ofConstantinople was launched, ending with the fall of the city in 1453.

Bibliography

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

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

16

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

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

17

CHAPTER 2

Ainos (Enez) and its Monuments

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

History

As the ongoing Classical excavations of the University of Istanbul are demonstrating, Enez is asite of great antiquity. Mentioned in the Iliad, the city flourished in the fifth and fourth centuriesBCE, from which time its coinage is distinctive. Its position was strategic, as it connected byland and water routes to Adrianople/Edirne to the north, and eastward to both Kallipolis/Geliboluand Constantinople/Istanbul.

In the Byzantine period, Ainos was the capital of the province of Rhodope. Procopius included

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

18

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

Enez, plan of present city (after Ersen)Enez, map of area by Choisseul-Gouffier (1808),showing the mouth of the Evros/Meriç

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

19

The 1152 typikon of the Panagia Kosmosoteira at Vera situates the monastery in relationship toAinos. The typikon instructs the monks to purchase olive oil directly from the ships that dockedat Ainos rather than from the town merchants - suggesting something of the role played by thecity in regional trade and commerce. In addition to its port, the prosperity of Ainos was based onsalt production, as well as the wealth of fish and other animals in its vicinity. At the time of thefoundation of the Kosmosoteira monastery, numerous villages in the vicinity of Ainos wereturned over to it.

From the Komnenian period onward, Ainos appears both as a military headquarters and a site ofcontention. In 1090/1, Alexios I Komnenos headquartered his troops in Ainos before battlingwith the Pechenegs nearby, on the opposite bank of the river. In 1189, Duke Friedrich ofSchwaben plundered the city, and its inhabitants fled. The city and its storehouses subsequentlyfell to the armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. With the Cuman influx following the Mongolinvasion, the Cumans penetrated and plundered Thrace as far as Ainos in 1237. In 1264,Byzantine troops were besieged at Ainos by Constantine Tich and the Tatars. Following anagreement of June 1265 with Michael VIII, Venetian business establishments were maintainedin the vicinity of the town, although in 1320 the doge complained about the mistreatment ofVenetians by the imperial officials at Ainos. The Catalan Grand Company besieged the cityunsuccessfully in 1307.

During the Second Civil War, in early 1344/5, John Kantakouzenos accompanied the fleet ofUmur of Aydın to Ainos. The port town was subsequently contested between John Palaiologos(margrave of Montferrat), John V Palaiologos, John VI Kantakouzenos, Nikephoros II of Epiros,and the rebellious commander of the fleet, Limpidarios. The instability of Ainos during thisperiod may have led its citizens to invite the family of the Genoese freebooter FrancescoGattilusio to rule the city, ca. 1384. The Gattilusi maintained control of the city until it fell to theOttomans in 1456, when Mehmet II beieged the city by land, while his captain Yunus Pasaattacked it from the sea. In 1462 Mehmet briefly turned Ainos over to Demetrios Palaiologos,

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

20

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

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

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

21

Monuments

For Greek scholars, the Byzantine monuments of Enez are known primarily from the 1902 visitby G. Lampakes, who recorded the inscriptions evident at that time, and by a later, lesssystematic account by Mystakides. The first study of the architecture came from the Turkishscholar Semavi Eyice, published in 1969, whose conclusions may be refined and expanded bythe subsequent excavations conducted by the University of Istanbul, which are ongoing at Enez.Combining the published information from the archaeological investigations with the olderGreek epigraphical record yields a much richer portrait of the town, however, as ThanasisPapazotos demonstrated, matching the descriptions of Eyice with the buildings visible in theunpublished photographs of Lampakes. Although much of Enez was already abandoned andderelict at the time of Lampakes’ visit, he nevertheless called the town a “mega mouseion tesChristianikes technes” - a great museum of Christian art.

Fortifications. Excavations within citadel have produced Greek, Roman, Byzantine, andOttoman remains, and a reused ancient inscription in the fortress gate mentions a praetorium.The fortifications of the citadel have not been properly studied. The rebuilding by Justinian notedby Procopius presupposes an ancient circuit. Unfortunately, the walls were heavily restored inthe 1990s, precluding a proper archaeological examination. The recorded inscriptions may givesome idea of their history, as well as of the military significance of the site. Most date from thethirteenth through fifteenth centuries. These include two marking a reconstruction following anincursion of the “Tataro-Bulgars” toward the end of the thirteenth century, another markingpartial reconstruction in 1307/8, and several from the period of the Gattilusi rule. The latter arethe most impressive. One, marking the construction of a tower, may be dated 1 May 1382 or1385, by its Latin inscription, which is embellished with emblems of Gattilusi (or possiblycrowned eagle of Doria family), in the south ramparts. Another, also marking the construction ofa tower, is dated 1 August 1413; the Latin inscription is accompanied by the armorial plaque ofGattilusi, set in south face of a square tower of fortress. A third provides only the date, 1416/7.

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

22

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

Enez, inscription of the Gattilusi in fortifications,dated 1413

Enez, inscriptions of the Gattilusi (Hasluck)

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

23

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

Byzantine Churches

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

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

Enez, Fatih Camii, plan (Ousterhout, redrawn afterEyice)

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

24

Ottoman period by a shallow dome without a drum. There is also evidence of much repair to thebuilding in the Ottoman period - notably the resurfacing areas of along the apses and therepositioning of windows. Portions of the south walls of the narthexes collapsed between 1979and 1982. Some attempts were made to repair the western portico façade ca. 1990, and the teamfrom Istanbul University recently cleaned the interior, but this important building still standsderelict. On the south side, the walls still stand to the height of the dome cornice. With thephotographs published by Eyice and observations made on site by Ousterhout in 1979-82, it ispossible to reconstruct the original form of the building.

The design of the church is unusual, and it might be termed a domed basilica. The large naos iscruciform in plan, preceded by two narthexes. The eastern arm of the cross comprises the bema,which is flanked by large, barrel-vaulted pastophoria. All three chambers of the sanctuaryterminate in apses that are semicircular on the interior and polygonal on the exterior. The westerncross arm is attenuated, flanked by abbreviated side aisles, which are separated from the nave byarcades. The crossing was covered by a broad dome - greater than 7 m. in diameter - supportedon piers. The piers are L-shaped, each accentuated at floor level by two engaged columns, which

Enez, Fatih Camii, seen from north, ca, 1960 (Eyice) Enez, Fatih Camii, seen from south, 1979 (Ousterhout)

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

25

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

Enez, Fatih Camii, interior, looking southeast, 1979

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

26

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

Enez, Fatih Camii, brick pattern on the prothesis apse Enez, Fatih Camii, detail of wall construction

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

27

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

Enez, Fatih Camii, view into prothesis, looking east Enez, Fatih Camii, reused stones in dome cornice

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

28

churches in the capital. The arches of the west façade are highly stilted, as were the windows ofthe north cross arm, recorded in Eyice’s photograph. The form is tripartite, with a tall thin lightat the center, flanked by lower, broader lights - an unusual form found at the TheotokosKyriotissa (Kalenderhane Camii) in Constantinople and nowhere else. The south crossarmwindows were altered in Ottoman times, perhaps with the conversion of the church to a mosque,when the south wall became the qibla. Similar lunette windows may have appeared on the lateralwalls of the western naos as well, where the arch is still evident on the south façade, but thesewere altered on Ottoman times as well.

The plan of the church is unusual, with the standard Greek cross unit of the naos extendedwestward to form a sort of domed basilica with a transept. The scale of the building and thecruciform plan of the naos encourage comparison with the church now known as the Gül Camiiand with the Kyriotissa in the capital, both twelfth-century buildings. At the same time, the planmay appear closer to that of churches of the Transitional Period, such as Hagia Eirene ofConstantinople in its eighth-century form, or the ninth-century church at Vize in eastern Thrace.The attenuated plan and the domed basilica design of the Enez church may have been influencedby older regional examples, and it may have followed the plan of an older building. Soundingsalong the south façade conducted in 1986 revealed older foundations below the lateral wall,although the soundings were not extended to other parts of the building. At the same time, theFatih Camii relates closely to developments in twelfth-century Constantinople. Along withrelated buildings in the capital, it may represent a revival of older architectural forms, reflectingthe conservative milieu of the Komnenian court.

The graceful portico façade of the exonarthex remains the most attractive portion of the building,with a central triple arcade flanked by double arcades, rhythmically alternating piers andcolumns. Although it was assumed to be a Palaiologan creation, Ousterhout has demonstratedthat the portico façade must be contemporaneous with the main block of the building and thustwelfth-century in date. Recessed brick is employed throughout, and the masonry courses were

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

29

aligned from the narthex to the exonarthex,even though the two units we not bonded.The lack of bonding may be explained bythe fact that the exonarthex was lighter andmore open in character than the main blockof the building. It was most likely coveredby a wooden roof rather than heavy,masonry vaulting. The two units would haverequired different foundation systems, andthe lack of bonding would have allowed fordifferential settlement.

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

Enez, Fatih Camii, capital of exonarthex

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

30

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

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

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

31

dedication to her, rather than to eitherConstantine or Hagia Sophia, as the Greektradition would have it. The Virgin wears adark blue garment with a purple robe over it.The bishop to her left wears a plain dark bluesticharion (tunic) with a green and brownphelonion (cape) over it. The omophorion(bishop’s scarf, embroidered with crosses)hangs down his front. He holds a book in hisleft hand and gestures toward the Virgin withhis right. Neither his face nor his inscriptionsurvives

Above and to the right of the lunette, an areaof paint survives, including the uppermostportion of the wall panel, with bluebackground and part of a halo. Above this, ared line separates this panel from a narrativescene that extended onto the barrel vault. Ofthis, the feet of at least three figures appearon a green ground, but not enough toidentify the scene.

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

Enez, Fatih Camii, fresco in prothesis, showingstanding saint

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

32

Theotokos Chrysopege. Located inside the fortifications, a marble inscription once built into thewall of the church named Demetrios Xenos as founder of the Theometor Chrysopege, dated1422/3, under Palamede Gattilusio, styled Palamedes Phrantzesos Gateliousios Palaiologos. The

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

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

33

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

Enez, Theotokos Chrysopege, excavation plan byErzen, 1971

Enez, Theotokos Chrysopege, excavation photographby Erzen,1971, looking east

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

34

In addition to the several local names notedabove, the informative dedicatory inscription,photographed by Lampakes in 1902, is signedby KOCT O MACT: that is, Maistor Kostasor Konstantinos. The name of the samemaster mason appears in another lostinscription, which Lampakes photographed inthe church of H. Vlasios, but which camefrom a church of St. Nicholas, dated 1420/1.A second inscription, recorded by Lampakesinside the Chrysopege and dated 1423/4, issimilarly informative, naming the reigningemperor Manuel II, his wife Eleni, a bishopJohn, and the patriarch Joseph.

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

Enez, Theotokos Chrysopege, inscription photographedby Lampakes 1902

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

35

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, seen fromnortheast, photographed by Hasluck in 1908

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, seen fromsouthwest, photographed by Hasluck in 1908

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, plan, redrawnafter Erzen

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

36

extra setback, this does not continue into the pilasters - this system of arcading was known inConstantinople in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. The eastern façade appears to havebeen heavily reworked and is unarticulated, with traces of an arched (perhaps triple-arched)window in the apse, where the photographs shows a single, tiny opening. The tall dome of Hag.Gregorios is noteworthy; it billows at the crown, suggesting a pumpkin dome inside. Theoctagonal drum is detailed with pilasters and half-columns at the corners. The attenuated form,with the tall drum rising well above the springing of the dome proper, makes the dome morecomparable to those of early Palaiologan Thessaloniki, rather than to anything in the Byzantinecapital. Partially blocked windows appear in the facets on the cardinal axes, with niches in thediagonal facet, although the niches may represent the blocking of windows in the drum. Theregularity of the wall construction and the details of the pilasters suggest that Hag. Gregoriosmay be Middle Byzantine in date, while the dome must have been rebuilt in the Palaiologanperiod.

Excavations at Enez partially uncovered the remains of the church of Hag. Gregorios in 1985. Itwas published as the “Area G Chapel”; it is here identified as Hag. Gregorios for the first time.The excavators cleared the interior of the church, but they did not expose the exterior of thewalls. From the details of the plan, it was clearly a small cross-in-square church. Column basesare still visible toward the east wall, and the stylobates to either side may mark the position ofthe templon. The corner compartments must have been quite small, with rectangularterminations. A tiny, semicircular niche appears in the north wall of the prothesis. Rectangularstone foundations (but not in situ column bases) mark the positions of the western two supportsfor the dome. A tomb was set into the north aisle; this may have been a later insertion, as it doesnot correspond with the spatial divisions of the building. Another tomb was set on axis, into thefloor of the narthex. Some abraded Post-Byzantine tombstones were also found at the site, theiroriginal positions unclear. The excavators also noted evidence of several layers of frescodecoration and architectural fragments found in the area of the apse.

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

37

The church preserves elements of a marble floor with an impressive hexagonal inlay of opussectile in one large marble block of pavement, ca. 1.65 in length. The marble panel forms a solidmatrix for a curvilinear hexagon set within a circle, its segments filled with colorful opus sectileof triangular, square, and circular tesserae. The panel appears to have been in second use in thechurch, with additional cuttings at the corners and to one side. Curiously, the opus sectile wasnot mentioned by any of the early visitors to the town, and it must have been covered at the timesof their visits.

As noted by the early visitors, the original building was expanded to the south and west, and thearchaeological evidence corresponds to that visible in Hasluck’s photograph. Lampakes recordedan inscription on the lintel of a window (yperthyro), a dedication by Hadji-Thordores Nakasesof 1807, and this may be related to the expansion.

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

Enez, Hagios Gregorios Neokaiserias, opus sectilepattern from floor (1987)

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

38

Hag. Ioannes Prodromos. In Lampakes’ general view of the lower town (Kato Machala) of Enez,Papazotos identified the small domed church as Ag. Ioannes, which had served as the metochionof the monastery of Ag. Panteleimon. He was also able to associate this church with a ruinedbuilding published by Prof. Eyice in 1969, who called it simply the “Yenimahalle’de kilise” - thechurch in the new district. The church is clearly Byzantine, of the cross-in-square type, with atall dome above gabled cross arms, and arched setbacks within the cross arms. The form ofinternal supports is not known; nor is the exterior form of the apses; Eyice indicated the interiorsas semicircular. There was a slight setback in the interior north wall at the cross arm, and arectangular niche in the prothesis.

Lampakes dated the church in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, but Papazotos favored atwelfth-century date for Hag. Ioannes, because of the similarity of the “recessed brick” masonry

Enez, Photograph by Lampakes 1902, showing view tonew district, looking northeast

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

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

39

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

Enez, plan of Hagios Ioannes (after Eyice)

Enez, Hagios Ioannes, surviving wall (1987)

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

40

Lampakes’ photograph does not allow a more detailed examination of the masonry, but it showsthe form of the dome, which has long since vanished. It has a billowing, pumpkin-like form onthe exterior, with scalloped eaves above a tall, octagonally faceted drum, with pilasters and half-columns at the corners - that is, very similar to the dome of Hag. Gregorios, and similar to thoseof Palaiologan Thessaloniki. Tall, thin windows appear on the cardinal axes but not on thediagonal facets - although it is unclear if perhaps there were windows in the diagonal facets thatwere blocked prior to the time of the photograph. As Lampakes originally suggested, a date inthe thirteenth or fourteenth century seems most likely. Fragments of wall painting were oncevisible on the interior, which probably date to a restoration of 1680. Lampakes recorded that hecould detect an older layer beneath these.

Panagia Phaneromene. Located outside the walls in the rocky slopes to the south of the FatihCamii are the remains of a rock-cut chapel, published by Eyice in 1969. It can be identified asthe Panagia Phaneromene, based on the description by Mystakides. The rock-cut chambermeasures 8.65 x 4.5m internally and is barrel-vaulted, with a single apse and a prothesis nichein the northeast corner. To the south, the chapel was expanded with masonry construction

forming the south wall and extendingbeyond it into a space not destroyed whichserved as a sort of narthex. There is also adoor to the west and roughly cut passagewayto the north. The southern entrance openswith a vault within which was a marbleplaque roughly inscribed: Epi ton ydatonfone K[yrio]u. As it was recorded by Eyice,it was decorated with crosses, interspersedin the single line of text.

Enez, Rock-cut church of the Panagia Phaneromene(after Eyice)

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

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

41

Enez, Yunus Bey Türbesi (Hagios Evplos) Enez, Yunus Bey Türbesi, photograph by Lampakes,1902

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

42

The reasons for associating the chapel withHag. Evplos are not clear. An inscriptionrecorded by Lampakes in the nineteenth-century church of Hag. Blasios came from achurch of Hag. Nikolaos, built 1420/1 byAugoustarikes Kanaboutzes. Because of itsharbor-side location - common for dedicationsto St. Nicholas - and presumed late date, wemight also consider Hag. Nikolaos as apossible original dedication for the Yunus BeyTürbesi.

Kral Kilisesi. Perhaps the most exciting Byzantine discovery of the University of Istanbul’sexcavation was the so-called Kral Kızı Mevkii Kilisesi (which we shorten here to the KralKilisesi), located outside the citadel, near the lagoon to the southeast. Only incompletelyexcavated in the 1980s, the preserved portions of the eastern end of the church are finelyconstructed of brick and stone, with highly articulated corner piers in the nave and particularlydistinctive in the pastophoria, with multiple setbacks at the corners. There were both annexedchapels flanking the eastern end of the building, and lateral aisles flanking the nave. The mainapse and the apses of the annexed chapels are slightly greater than semicircular on the interiorand three-sided on the exterior. The western portion of the building, still buried by the risingslope, was never excavated.

Numerous small crosses were carved on the piers, suggesting that the church was the object of localveneration. In addition, the excavators found an important hoard of 10 gold coins of the Komnenian

Enez, Yunus Bey Türbesi, plan (after Eyice)

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

43

period near one of the piers, as well as 86silver coins. Within the area of the apse, theexcavators found a large marble fragment ofwhat was probably a closure panel from thetemplon. Finely profiled, its upper surface hascuttings for two inset metal crosses. Traces ofglass mosaic and fresco were also noted, andthe original building seems to have beenrichly appointed.

As to the chronology, the excavators hadsuggested a twelfth-century date based onthe coin findings, but the constructiontechnique of the Kral Kilisesi is distinctive,considerably more careful than that of theFatih Camii, and the church must beconsiderably older. The stone is more evenlysquared, the brick more evenly laid, withoutthe recessed courses. The constructiontechnique, combined with the unusual plan,would suggest an earlier date, perhaps in theTransitional Period of the late sixth-to-ninth

centuries, and this is encouraged by a comparison with the masonry of buildings of the period,such as Hag. Sophia in Thessaloniki. Moreover, there would appear to be at least two phases tothe construction of the Kral Kilisesi, with the parts of the enclosing wall of the naos much cruder,and presumably later in date, than the eastern portions of the building. The state of the churchwhen excavated would suggest that it had been out of use for quite some time and was thusunknown to scholars of the last century.

Enez, Kral Kilisesi, hypothetical plan (Ousterhout,after excavation plan by Ersen)

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

44

Some suggestions can be made for its reconstruction. The bases of two large masonry piers areimbedded in the later rubble masonry between the south nave piers. This detail encourages areconstruction of the building as a domed basilica, similar in plan to the ninth-century church atVize. A domed, basilican plan for the Kral Kilisesi would also be similar to the domed church atAmorion, which had been transformed from a standard basilica perhaps in the ninth century.Within the nave of the Kral Kilisesi, a dome with a diameter of ca. 7.60 m may be positionedbetween the large piers, with barrel vaults to the east and west.

Post-Byzantine churches. Lampakes listed a total of 26 churches in Enez. The other recordedbuildings would all appear to date from the Ottoman period.

Three monasteries in the hinterland of Enez are regularly mentioned during the Ottoman period.The nearby monastery of the Theotokos tes Skalotes (or Skaloti) was probably the mostimportant. It preserved a tradition of a Komnenian foundation. An inscribed cross, once recordedat the monastery and now in London, gives the names of Manuel I and Patriarch Michael III.

Enez, Kral Kilisesi, remains of northeast nave pier Enez, Kral Kilisesi, fragment of templon panel(?) withcuttings for inset crosses

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

45

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

Enez environs, Skaloti Monastery, courtyard lookingsouth, photograph by Lampakes 1902

Enez environs, Skaloti Monastery from west, photo-graph by Lampakes 1902

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

46

Because of the Komnenian tradition, Petit once suggested that Skaloti might be identified withthe Kosmosotiera monastery, and this suggestion is occasionally repeated in print. But thephotographs of Lampakes and the identification of the site by Ötüken and Ousterhout put thissuggestion to rest. The site lies above the village of Amigdalia/Cavusköy, where the rock-cutfeatures are still preserved and traces of the walls can be ascertained. The apse of the mainchurch was cut into the rock, and chambers to its south were cut in a step-like manner. Themonastic enclosure appears fortress-like in Lampakes’ photograph, with a machicolation abovethe entrance and traces of a lower, outer enclosure. In the views of the interior, the buildingsforms appear rather simple; the church was single-aisled and unvaulted. Nothing photographedor evident on site gives the slightest suggestion of a Byzantine date, and we suspect thefoundation is entirely from the Ottoman period. Lampakes recorded a date of 1632 on theentrance façade of the monastery, and this may be the date of its construction.

The sites of the Post-Byzantine monasteries of Hag. Panteleimon, and Hag. Athanasios may alsobe identified, although virtually nothing is preserved at the sites.

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

47

Bibliography

Asdracha, Catherine. La région des Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Athens, 1976), 120-24____________. “Inscriptions byzantines de la Thrace orientale et de l’ile d’Imbros (XIIe-XVe siècles).

Présentation et commentaire historique,” Archaiologikon Deltion 43/ A (1988), 219-291; 44-46 part A (1989-91), 239-334

Basaran, Sait. “Enez (Ainos) 1995 Yılı Kazı ve Onarım Calismaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 18 (1996),489-514; and subsequent reports; NB: 26 (2004), II, 115-28

Erzen, Afif. “Enez (Ainos) 1972 Kazıları,” Güney-Dogu Avrupa Arastırmaları Dergisi 10-11 (1981-82),348-51

___________. “Enez Kazısı Calısmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 5 (Ankara, 1983), 297-300; 6 (1984),213-34; 7 (1985), 603-618; 8 (1986), II, 273-91; 9 (1987), II:279-98; 14 (1992), II, 205-21;15 (1993), 455-94

Eyice, Semavi. “Trakya’da Bizans Devrine ait Eserler,” Türk Tarih Kurumu Belleten 33 (1969), 325-58.____________. “Les monuments byzantins de la Thrace turque,” Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate 18

(1971), 293-308 Hasluck, F.W. “Monuments of the Gattelusi,” Annual of the British School at Athens15 (1908-09), 248-57Lampakes, G. “Periegeseis,” Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Etaireias 8 (1908), 3-41Lampousiades, G. “Hodoiporikon,” Thrakika 15 (1941), 99-134Mystakides, B.A. “Enia-Ainia,” Thrakika 2 (1929), 47-62; 3 (1932), 44-54Ousterhout, Robert. “The Byzantine Church at Enez: Problems in Twelfth-Century Architecture,”

Jahrbuch der Österriechischen Byzantinistik 35 (1985), 261-80Ötüken, Yıldız, and Robert Ousterhout. “Notes on the Monuments of Turkish Thrace,” Anatolian Studies

39 (1989), 121-49Papazotos, Thanasis. “Schediasma peri ton mnemeion tes Ainou eos tis arches tou parontos aionos,”

Thrakike Epeteris 9 (1992-94), 89-125Samothrakes, A. “He Ainos kai hai ekklesiai tes,” Thrakika 19 (1944), 11-38Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake-, Rodope- und Haimimontos), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6 (Vienna, 1991),

170-72

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

48

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

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

49

CHAPTER 3

Vera (Pherai) and its Monuments

Situated in the middle of the town of Pherai (Greece), known in Ottoman times as Ferecik, on ahill overlooking the valley of lower Evros River some 4 km away, is a large and impressiveByzantine church set within the remains of a fortified enclosure. The site was first identified byTh. Uspensky as the Byzantine Vera, where in 1152 the Sebastokrator (crown prince) IsaakiosKomnenos founded the monastery of the Panagia Kosmosoteira, with the unusual dedication tothe Virgin as the savior of the universe. Isakios describes the site thus:

And so I think that the charms of the monastery and the site will draw many men tothem. There is the spot itself - even if previously it was the dwelling of snakes andscorpions - the river Ainos, the sea with its surf and its calms, the pasturage and grazingland of evergreen meadows to nourish horses and cattle. There is the site on the crestof the hill, with its easy access. There is the fine temperance of the currents of air andthe power of strong breezes with the everlasting reeds rustling in tune with them aboutthe mouth of the river. There is the immense plain, and the panoramic view, especiallyin summertime, of corn in flower and in ear, which impresses great gladness on thosewho gaze there. There is the grove of lovely saplings growing so near the monastery,and bunches of grapes are entwined among them. As a joy to the throats of the thirsty,water gushes forth wonderfully beautiful and cold. [Typikon, ¨74]

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

50

The monastery’s abbot had the privilege to own a vessel in the river for fishing and transferringmonks to Ainos on the opposite bank, only 20 km to the south. Alluvial deposits have altered themorphology of the river’s estuaries, but the port of Vera, mentioned by John VI Kantakuzenosand later by Pierre Belon (1550), was probably not on the sea but on the river, at the spot wherethe river’s width necessitated the transfer of travelers from its one bank to the opposite.

History. Much of our information about the Kosmosoteira comes from the monastic charter, ortypikon, drawn up by Isaakios in 1152. Following the example of his mother Eirene Doukaina,who founded the Monastery of Kecharitomene and drew its charter, and his brother John, whofounded the Monastery of Pantokrator and drew its charter, Isaakios prepared his own typikon

Pherai, view from the south, 1906 (Uspensky)

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

51

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

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

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

52

Among those wise men who restored holy monasteries and assigned monks to them tosing praise to God, there were many who preferred the Typikon of the Evergetis to the[typika] used in other monasteries. I, too, following their [example], prefer this one,and I wish the monks to join in using it for all instructions ... [¨8]

The typikon of the Kosmosoteira nevertheless contains plenty of unique information concerningthe site and the region, as well as Isaakios’ personal opinions on administrative and economicmatters. Petit describes the author’s style as fiery, subtle, and decked with Homeric expressions.In 1994, Georgios Papazoglou published a critical edition of the typikon, accompanied by atranslation in Modern Greek and extensive annotations. An English translation by Robert Jordanappeared in 2000, with notes by John P. Thomas.

As the typikon relates, Isaakios had his tomb moved from its original location at the Choramonastery in Constantinople to his new foundation at Vera. He seems to have died shortly afterwriting the charter in 1152, and the more personal sections of the document read like a last willand testament. In 1183/4, Isaakios’ son Andronikos I stopped at Vera to visit his father’s gravewhile hunting in the vicinity of the monastery. In subsequent decades, the monastery figured inthe struggles between the Latins, Bulgarians, and Byzantines for control of the region; it is oftenmentioned in relationship to its river crossing. The area was plundered by the Turks in 1329/30,as the region became a focus of the civil wars. In 1343, John VI Kantakuzenos camped his troopsnear Vera, by which time the monastery was fortified. John III Vatatzes subsequently tookpossession of it. In the severe winter of 1342/43, Umur Pasa anchored his fleet at the mouth ofthe river, and 300 of his soldiers froze to death. John V Palaiologos took control of the fortressin 1355, by which time the monastery was no longer functioning, and he found the enclosure wasinhabited by peasants. Vera probably fell to the Turks under Lala Sahin and Evrenos, first in 1371and again in 1373. In 1433, Bertrandon de la Broquière noted that Vera was an important town,with a mixed population of Greeks and Turks, its fortress partially destroyed, and its churchconverted into a mosque.

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

53

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

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

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

54

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, south façade elevationdrawn by P. Xydas

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

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, plan drawn by P. Xydas

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

55

The spacious interior has a tripartite sanctuary to the east, with the bema separated from theprothesis and diakonikon by thick walls pierced by arched openings. On the west side, the cornerbays are separated from the naos by thin coupled columns. The column pairs are set parallel tothe main axis of the church, and combined with the elongation of the western bays, suggests theaxiality of a three-aisled basilica, while in its elevation, an inscribed cross is expressed in thevaulting, with three arms of equal length (north, south and east), while the western arm isattenuated.

The walls of the church up to the height of the cornice are built in local stone alternating withcourses of brick. These are built in the recessed brick technique, in which alternating courses ofbrick are concealed behind what appear to be exceptionally broad bands of mortar. The masonryis reinforced with internal wooden chains.

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

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

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

56

The vaulting begins above the level of thecornice, some 5 m above floor level. Widebarrel vaults cover the four arms of thecross, while small domes, raised on eight-sided drums, cover the corner compart-ments, and conches cover the apses of thesanctuary. All the vaulting is built in therecessed brick technique. The main domerises above a dodecagonal drum pierced bywindows, about 7 m in diameter and risingto a height of 11 m. All of the domes are“pumpkin domes,” scalloped on the interiorsurfaces, and compare to contemporaryexamples in Constantinople.

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

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, axonometric plandrawn by M. Korres

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

57

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

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

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

58

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

All walls of the church are pierced with openings. The main entrance appears in the west façade.Probably there were secondary entrances to either side, opening into the western domed bays,but these were subsequently blocked. The present north entrance to the nave is not original. Itand the blocked doorway in the south façade belong to the Ottoman period when the churchserved as mosque, from the end of fourteenth century until the early twentieth century. The westwindow in the southwest corner dates from this period as well.

The number, size and placement of the windows results in the sense of great height within thechurch and the abundant natural light pervades its interior during the daytime.

The lunettes of the west, north, and south cross arm contain large, distinctive tripartite windows.The middle light of each is topped by a semicircular arch, while the two lights culminate in half-arches so that as a unit, the windows appear to be framed by the curvature of the barrel vaults.Along the north and south facades, the triple windows are augmented by three additional archedwindows, which are set below the cornice and aligned with the three lights above, enhancing theheight of tall triple window.

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

59

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

The domes are raised on windowed drums.The main dome has twelve tall archedwindows, one in each facet. The four smallerdomes have simple arched windows only ontheir external facets but not in the sidestowards the base of the main dome, wherethey abut the rising walls of the cross arms.At the sill of the south window of thesoutheastern corner dome, part of theoriginal window has been preserved, madeof cast mortar with pieces of yellowish glasspanes set into alternating circular openings,with the triangular openings in the corners.

Pherai, Panagia Kosmososteira, northeast cornerdome, detail of construction in recessed bricktechnique

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

60

The façades of the building remain relatively plain below the level of the lunette windows. Thewalls are constructed of alternating bands of stone and brick, the latter built in the recessed bricktechnique where the mortar beds measure three times that of the brick thicknesses, following thestandard Constantinopolitan technique of the day, as in the south church of the PantokratorMonastery (1118-1124), and in the church now known as the Fatih Camii nearby at Enez(Ainos). The arches of the windows have been built using the same technique. Several areas havebeen repaired in rough rubble masonry, most notably on the east and west façades.

The lunettes of the crossarms are framed by two concentric arches. The surface of the lunette issteps back from the arches, while the windows add a fourth setback. The great size of thewindows combines with the consecutive setbacks of their arches to offer considerable variety tothe upper façades of the church.

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

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

61

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

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

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, southeast corner dome

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

62

In addition to the curious letters on the dome drum, several areas of ornamental brickworkenliven the exterior of the building. Between the middle and the eastern lower window of thesouth façade, there is a stepped fret pattern in brick. The shallow niches on the upper level ofapses have either flat or concave fields that include brick patterning. On the main apse, onesurviving niche has a W-shaped chevron pattern in the lunette; the other a reticulate pattern. Asimilar W-shave chevron appears in a niche of the diakonikon apse, while the southeast cornerniche is filled with the unusual image of an eagle. The plasticity of the apses and the ornamentalbrickwork is similar in the twelfth-century phase of the Chora monastery (Kariye Camii) inConstantinople, probably also built by Isaakios Komnenos.

Repairs and transformations occurred during the Ottoman period when the building wasconverted to a mosque and the orientation was shifted so that the south wall became the qibla.The building suffered from numerous structural problems. Most critically, the great thrust of the

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

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, detail of masonry at thesoutheast corner

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

63

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior lookingsouthwest, 1906 (Uspensky)

main dome resulted in the vertical deviation of the western supports. Consequently, the barrelvaults on which the base of dome rests have sunk up to 0.50-0.70 m, a process exacerbated bythe aging of the masonry and the deterioration of the wooden reinforcement in the base of thedome. This may have motivated raising the eight-sided base by ca. 0.50 m. Additionalinterventions in the roof probably were intended to address the same problem, notably withchanges to the roofline and the added bracing at the springing of the large arches. It is unclearwhat motivated the refacing of much of the eastern façade. On the interior, half of the arch thatconnects the south pair of columns to the southern wall was reconstructed as well. Damage mayhave been the result of an unrecorded calamity, such as an earthquake.

In recent years, during the 1920s the Service for the Restoration of Monuments under thedirection of A. Orlandos intervened to stabilize the building. They constructed the four largebuttresses on the south and north sides of the church in order to prevent the further outwardrotation of the lateral façades. A metal ring was inserted in the base of the dome, and the southernpair of columns were given additional bracing. During the years 1973-1998, the 12th Ephoreiaof Byzantine Antiquities committed a series interventions in order to strengthen the monument’ssolidity: the lead cladding of the domes and arches was replaced, the masonry was repointed;

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

64

additional reinforcing rods were added to thesouthern columns; and the columns wereprovided with steel braces. A system tomonitor vertical movement was installed atthat time.

Built by a member of the imperial familywho had patronized the arts through hiscareer, the Kosmosoteira fits squarely withinour picture of Constantinopolitan churcharchitecture. The scale, great volumes, therhythmical repetition and variation ofarchitectural shapes and forms, and theaustere ornamentation all correspond to thecharacteristic style of the Komnenian era, asevident in the twelfth century at the Chora(Kariye Camii) and the Pantokrator (ZeyrekCamii).

Although the Kosmosoteira is sometimesconsidered as a combination of the five-domed cross-in-square type with the two-column cross-in-square church, the lattertype is unknown in Thrace and rarelyapplied on such a large scale. On the other

hand, the five-domed cross-in-square is a type of church that comes certainly fromConstantinople, perhaps originating at the Nea church in the Great Palace (881), and also seenat the north church of Constantine Lips (907). The Constantinopolitan prototype probably

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, southwest corner bay.Additional reinforcing rods are added to the columns;the columns are provided with steel braces (S.Mavromates)

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

65

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

The coupled columns of the westernsupports, however, find no parallels in thecapital. It may be that the unusual solutiondeveloped in response to the availablematerials. The columns are too thin to havesupported the central dome in standard four-columned cross-in-square church of thisscale. The need to structurally stabilize thegreat dome may account for the presence ofthe two eastern piers and the coupling of thecolumns to the west. A second considerationis the mortuary character of the church.Opening the western bays allowed founder’stomb to be visible from the naos and allowthe tomb closer proximity to the liturgy,while still indicating that this was a separatefunctional area. A final possibility is that thecoupled columns reflect a Western influence- the fashion in the culture of the Komneniancourt. Coupled columns also appear inCrusader architecture at the same time.

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

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

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

66

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior looking south(1990)

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior looking north(1990)

possible. In many ways, the paintings fit squarely within the developing picture of Byzantinepainting of the twelfth century, while including several unique features in their iconography andarrangement.

In the central dome it is unclear whether any of the mural paintings are preserved beneath the

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

67

Turkish plaster. In the upper zone of thenorth and south walls of the cross arms,busts of two hierarchs are depicted in each.Beneath them, between the tall lights of thetriple window, we find two full-lengthfigures of prophets holding scrolls. Below,between the three arched windows, we havebusts of military saints. In the lower zone ofthe wall paintings, processions ofconcelebrant hierarchs face toward thesanctuary. Above the pairs of columns in theeastern faces of the walls have a two-partcomposition of the Annunciation, with theAngel to the north and Virgin to the south.On the north face of the wall above thesouthern pair of columns, the Presentation inthe Temple is depicted. On the easternintrados of the southern barrel vault is theNativity of Christ.

In the inner arch of the southeast bay is thePentecost. A bust of Christ originallyappeared in the crown of the southwest

dome above. In the inner arch of the northwest bay, the scene of the Holy Women at the Tombis represented. In the northwest minor dome, the Virgin Mary appears orans in medallion, withstanding figures (perhaps prophets) in the drum. In the prothesis, the Communion of the Apostlesappears on the south wall, while in the dome an Archangel appears in medallion, and unidentifiedfigures appear in the conch of the apse. In the diakonikon dome, another Archangel appears in

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Angel of theAnnunciation

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

68

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, six-winged angel Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, hierarch

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

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Presentation in theTemple

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

69

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, St Romulus and SaintVincent

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, St Gregory of theDecalogue and St Sylvester

The hierarchs (holy bishops) in the diakonikon are identified by the accompanying inscriptions:St. Gregory of the Decalogue, Roman pope (d. 604), and St. Sylvester, Roman pope (c. 314-355),in the northern wall; St. Vincent, bishop of Capua (4th c.) in the southern wall, and St. Romulus,student of Apostle Paul, bishop of Fiesole in the eastern wall; and St. Onesiphorus, bishop ofColophon, in the smaller dome’s drum. They are therefore mainly hierarchs of the RomanPatriarchate. Onesiphorus, bishop of Colophon in Ionia is related to Rome through the ApostlePaul. Hierarchs of the Roman Patriarchate are depicted assembled in Saint Sophia in Ohrid(1040-1045), where they are joined with hierarchs of all other four patriarchates: Constantinople,Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and thus this grouping in the diakonikon may have beenpart of a larger program.

In the lower zone of paintings along the north and south walls of the cross arms, processions offull-length hierarchs are partially preserved, six on each side, turned to face the sanctuary. Theyhold scrolls and appear as concelebrants, participating in the liturgy. As such, they are unique in

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

70

their placement; normally concelebrating bishops are depicted in the bema, as for example at thechurch of the Virgin in Veljusa (ca. 1080). Moreover, when hierarchs are represented outside thesanctuary area, they are normally depicted frontally, in full length.

We do not know the iconographical program of the bema. The scene of the Communion of the

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, celebrating hierarch Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Communion of theApostles

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

71

Apostles was sometimes represented in the main apse, but at the Kosmosoteira the scene hasbeen shifted into the prothesis, the space where the Eucharist was prepared. Similarly, the sceneof the Annunciation was usually represented on the wall surfaces flanking the arch leading intothe bema, but here it has been transferred to the opposite arch beneath the main dome, so that thescene faces toward to the sanctuary.

Set prominently on the north and south walls of the cross arms, between the small archedwindows, are haloed male figures in bust-length with military attire, two on each side. Although

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

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

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

72

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

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

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

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

73

As for the dating of the wall paintings, it is generally accepted that they are not far removed fromthe year 1152, when the monastery’s typikon was written, although the document makes nomention of the wall paintings. The charter notes only a mosaic of the Koimesis, possibly aportable icon, which was to appear on the west wall, above the entrance. Stylistically, in the wallpaintings of the Kosmosoteira, the linearity that characterizes the figural art of the eleventhcentury has been replaced by the solidity of fully modeled figures. The scale and restraint conferrigor, grandeur, and a classical sense of calmness to the whole. For example, the folds of theangel’s garment in the Annunciation are not turned into decorative flourishes, as occurs in laterKomnenian art, as at the church of Saint George in Kurbinovo (1191), while the plasticity of thebody suggests graceful movement in space. Due to these characteristics, the wall paintings of theKosmosoteira could be called conservative. Because of this, Djuric and Mouriki have attemptedto date them around the year 1200 or at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless,compared to the wall paintings of the chapel of the Virgin in the Monastery of St John theTheologian on Patmos (late twelfth-early thirteenth century), where the lights and shadows in thefleshy faces are more intense and result in an otherworldliness, the paintings of the Kosmosoteiraappear much closer to the human condition. Their grand rigor and classical calm may be relatedto the princely background of the founder and to the contemporary court culture ofConstantinople.

Architectural sculpture. Although Isaakiosprided himself on the gleaming marbles andgold of the interior decoration of the church,today its adornment seems to be ratheraustere. The coupled columns of the naos arenevertheless noteworthy. The four shafts are

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

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

74

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

of white polished marble, set on stepped bases. Both the shafts and the bases are spolia, whichthe founder acquired, but not without difficulties, as he explained in the typikon. The fourcapitals with their abaci are also spolia, but they were worked anew in the present setting,probably because they did not have the right ornaments. In their original form, the capitals havetheir surfaces covered with alternating lotus and spiky acanthus leaves. The beveled surfaces ofthe abaci are covered with frieze of spiky acanthus leaves.

Both capitals and abaci subsequently were covered with plaster and recarved, with surfacesornamented with wreathes in high relief, framed by leafy branches, with floral rinceaux in the

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

75

abaci. The plaster covering survived in poor condition only on the south capitals but werepartially removed during recent conservation. It was noted that the plaster corresponded with thatof the wall above, where the scene of the Presentation in the Temple is located, indicating thatplaster coverings of the capitals date are from the Byzantine period and must be the same dateas the wall paintings. Most likely, the capitals were resurfaced to cover imperfections in thereused capitals or to enhance their volume to better fit with the massive wall above.

Similar plaster coverings were applied to the marble cornice that extends around the interior ofthe church at the springing of the vaults, and to the dome cornices. These have not beenpreserved, but the dimensions of the plaster cornices must have been sizeable, if we judge by theempty bands that extend into wall paintings below and above the cornice. The thin marblecornice must have served as an anchor for the fixing of the plaster cornice to the wall. The sizeof the plaster cornice and its detailing must have been similar to that of the capitals.

The marble chancel screen of the bema is also part of the architectural sculpture. Fragments ofthe epistyle 0.19 m in height carry in their front decoration consisting of a frieze of three-leavedacanthus above a torus molding, with decorative bosses. Other fragments of the epistyle are0.15m in height and carry simpler decoration, a frieze of alternating lotus and acanthus; theycome from the epistyles of the prothesis and the diakonikon. These are now incorporated into themodern chancel screen of the church which imitates screen a Byzantine style. The lintel abovethe main entrance is decorated with a similar spiky acanthus frieze. The door frame itself isreused and probably not in its original position.

The founder’s tomb. The monastery typikon (¨ 89 and 90) provides much information about thetomb Isaakios had prepared for himself at the Kosmosoteira:

It was once my intention to have my humble remains interred in the monastery ofChora, and I set up a tomb there [to contain] them, in accordance with the wishes Iexpressed to the Chora monks. But now that I have renewed, with God’s help, this holy

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

76

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

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

77

conscience and his character-will not deem me unworthy of such a just appeal, but, forthe sake of God, will return with [his] imperial hand the things that are being requested,that have been deposited in Chora for safekeeping.

But since the degradation of an unfortunate life has nursed me from infancy, and, in thecourse and flow of this life of ill-luck, [I have] been separated from my sweetfatherland for most of the years of my existence, a stranger to my kinsmen’s renownand [since] of course I did not heedlessly choose the tomb here [to house] my remains,having run through in my mind and reckoned up all the things in life that togetherturned out badly for me, as I lie on a bed in a dark corner, alas grievously ill, by God’swill, and already falling into Lethe, and of the memory . . . . .instead of any other kindof adornment of fantastic glory for my tomb, [I want] the icon from Rhaidestos of theMother of God as the Kosmosoteira, [which was] sent down to me from heaven, andwhich I framed with an ornament of gold and silver. [I want it] to be placed at one endof my tomb in its projected form. It should remain resting in that spot throughout alltime, preserved without change, to mediate for my wretched soul. Furthermore, I wish[the icon of] Christ, which is the same size, to rest alongside it, the placement of theseicons being appropriate for them, and pleasing as well, and the illumination suitable.Indeed if he fails to carry out this wish of mine, the superior and the rest of the monkswill be judged along with me on the Day of Judgment. After my tomb is set up I needno other great expenses for it, as I will be insensible to the sight of the sensible andvisual [world]. At any rate, I wish the tomb to be divided from the entire narthex by thebronze railing that I mentioned earlier, but access to the tomb [should be] through [thisrailing].

From the text we learn the following: Isaakios earlier had founded his tomb at the Choramonastery in Constantinople. The tomb’s founding may be dated between his two exiles in 1136and 1143. After his permanent removal from Constantinople and the founding of the

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

78

Kosmosoteira monastery, Isaakios decided to be interred in the katholikon of this monastery “onthe left side of the narthex, there where I made an extension to the building on account of thetomb.” Locating the exact placing of the tomb depends on the meaning attested by Isaakios tothe two architectural terms of narthex and extension (parekvole). The term narthex mightindicate the now-destroyed vestibule to the west of the church. However, Isaakios also mentionsan exonarthex, where the tombs of his secretary Michael and his servant Leon Kastamoniteswere to be buried in marble sarcophagi set in frescoed arcosolia (¨ 107). The lost westernvestibule was more likely the exonarthex, and to the east of this, in the west part of the mainchurch, was the narthex.

Nancy Sevcenko proposed that extension (parekvole) means a sort of structure, a small funeraryroom attached in the north wall of the katholikon. She wondered whether the wall of anadditional structure that seems to be protruding from the north wall of the Kosmosoteira in an

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, Holy Women at theTomb of Christ

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

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

79

old picture is the extension. In contrast,Robert Ousterhout has suggested that thenarthex is the elongated western part of thechurch - that the extension is the northwestcorner compartment, which was separatedwith a bronze railing from the rest of thenaos. Isaakios specifies that no other burialswere to be “inside the church and itsnarthex,” and the major icon of the churchwas to be at his tomb and not in the naosproper. The dome above this bay contains animage of the Virgin, whom Isaakios

implores fervently for the salvation of his soul, and the arch contains a scene of the Holy Womenat the Tomb, a common funerary theme. In the latter, the Angel seated on Christ’s tomb, pointsdownward toward the proposed location of the founder’s tomb.

The form of Isaakios’s tomb is not known. Since marbles are being mentioned we can assumethat it was a sarcophagus made up of four marble slabs with a lid on which there was a specialplace for the founder’s enkolpion of the Virgin. From the area around the Kosmosoteira, Ch.Bakirtzis has collected pieces of carved marble that were originally mounted on a wall and maycome from the founder’s tomb.

Several articles were to be brought from the founder’s tomb at the Chora monastery: (a) a bronzerailing; (b) paintings of his parents, the imperial couple Alexios I Komnenos and EireneDoukaina; and (c) an icon stand with the mosaic icon of the Virgin Kosmosoteira, which thefounder acquired in Radestos, and an icon of Christ. The position of the icons suggests that thevisible part of the tomb monument was freestanding under the corner dome.

At the same time, Isaakios specifies that his own portrait from the Chora monastery, “done in my

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, northwest dome withthe Theotokos in roundel (S. Mavromates)

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

80

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, inscription from the tombof Isaakios Komnenos (?). Now in the EcclesiasticalMuseum of Alexandroupolis

youth in the vanity of boyhood,” was to remain at the Chora. Elsewhere in the charter he askedthat his portrait should not be depicted anywhere inside the monastery (¨77). The strictness ofthe order suggests either great humility on the part of Isaakios, or that such orders as this werenot obeyed. Nevertheless, Isaakios adds the following as an expression of the utmost humility:“For my wretched body, which worms will tear apart, will not need to be honored with a likenessafter its dissolution” (¨89).

Th. Uspensky noted the existence of a funerary inscription, which he saw in the middle of thechurch, and he rightly supposed that it came from another part of the building. It is a reusedmarble slab with dimensions 0.95 X 0.97 m, its upper part missing. It bears seven lines ofcouplets, the uppermost incomplete. It is not know whether it bore more.

... embittering feeling and the heart. But thou who dispenseth the blessings in thisworld and withdraweth them again according to thy will, preserve him as an ear ofcorn, as a pearl, as sweet honey in your storehouses. Plant your worshiper, the despotesas a flourishing tree in the valley of bliss.

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

81

The writing is elegant in capital letters with correct orthography and punctuation. The carving isshallow, with capital letters terminating in drill holes. Each line ends with a decorative scroll.The form of the letters can be securely dated to the twelfth century. The despotes (“lord,” or“master”) who is the object of the inscription may be Isaakios himself, and it is possible that theslab formed the lid covering his tomb. It should be noted that Isaakios refers himself indirectlyas despotes in the typikon (¨107).

Of course there were other graves as well, either inside or outside of the church, of notables andplain people. In addition to the information about burials provided in the typikon, an undergroundchamber, perhaps a tomb, was found beneath the floor of the diakonikon. In addition, the Frenchtraveler Robert de Dreux, who visited in 1669, wrote, “We stayed at Vera/Feredjik and we hadthe chance to visit the mosque that is very beautiful. The imam who is the minister of themosque, showed us many graves with inscriptions, which led me to the conclusion that themosque was once a church.”

Other monuments. In the typikon, Isaakiosmentions the outer and inner walls of themonastery, gates, towers, and otherbuildings inside and outside the enclosure:cells of the monks, the refectory, baths,storerooms, a treasury, a library, cisterns, adwelling for his secretary Michael, a hospicefor the elderly, a hostel for visitors, aresidence for the founder, stables, mills,chapels, and oratories. In addition to the

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, proposed plan offortifications (Orlandos)

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

82

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

83

buildings of the monastery, he mentions villages and rural settlements of the area, and twobridges that connected the monastery to its estates, as well as to the main road (Egnatia).

Today sections of the fortification wall and towers survive. They are built of cut stone with bandsof brick or not. However, it is uncertain if the surviving sections of the enclosure are thosementioned by Isaakios, for they may represent a later work, perhaps of the first half of the

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, fortification tower tosoutheast of the church

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, aerial view, two towers of the fortification are visible south of the church

Pherai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, fortification tower tosouthwest of church

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

84

fourteenth century, when the monasteryserved as a fortress. At that time, thepeasants of the area, together with themonks, defended the fortress against theincursions of the Bulgars and the Turks. Inthe middle of the fourteenth century, Vera ismentioned by Kantakouzenos as a fortressbut not as a monastery.

The deep gorge, to the west of themonastery, leads the water from springs in

the neighboring hills into the plain and ultimately to the Evros River. On its banks were the millsnoted by Isaakios once, as well as one of the bridges. From the springs, the monastery also drewwater by means of an underground channel. The line and the slope of the gorge necessitated anacqueduct, from which rectangular foundations constructed of stones and two arches constructedof bricks survive. The aqueduct was established to carry water to a lower settlement thatdeveloped on the edge of the plain to the east and south of the fortress of Vera after its conquestby the Ottomans in 1371/1373. This extensive agricultural settlement, known as Ferecik, hadbaths, fountains, ceramic workshops and tfirbes.

Bibliography

Asdracha, C. - Ch. Bakirtzis. “Inscriptions byzantines de la Thrace (VIIIe-Xve siècles). Édition etcommentaire historique,” 35/A (1980) [=1986], 261-3

Avdes, Thales - Ch. Bakirtzis, “Parakolouthese mikrometakineseon tou naou tes Kosmosoteiras, PheraiEvrou,” Mnemeion kai Perivallon 3/I (1995), 90-101

Pherai, remains of the Early Ottoman aqueduct

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

85

Bakirtzis, Ch. “Ho esoterikos choros kai to mystiko noema tes toichodomias sten Kosmosoteira,”Gnorimia 18 (1977), 6-11

Bakirtzis, Ch. “W. Thrace in the Early Christian and Byzantine Periods,” Byzantinische Forschungen XIV(1989), 41-58

Bakirtzis, Ch. “Warrior Saints or Portraits of Members of the Family of Alexios I Komnenos ?” Mosaic,Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw, ed. J. Herrin, M. Mullet, C. Otten-Froux, British School atAthens, 2001, 85-7

Konstantinide, Ch. “Paratereseis se parastaseis hierarchon sto katholiko tes mones PanagiasKosmosoteiras ste Vera”, Byzantinische Forschungen XIV (1989), 303-28

Koundourakis, D. - Tsouris, K. “He hydreuse tou oikismou ton Feron kata ten Tourkokratia,” Thrace Post-byzantine (XVe - XIXe s.), Actes du 3e Symposium International des Études Thraciennes, éd.K. Manaphis, Komotini, 2005, 549-69

Orlandos, A.K. “Ta byzantina mnemeia tes Veras,” Thrakika 4 (1933), 3-34Ousterhout, R. “Where was the Tomb of Isaak Komnenos?” Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts 11

(Toronto, 1985), 34_____________, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999), 119-27Papazoglou, G. Typikon Isaakiou Alexiou Komnenou tes Mones Theotokou tes Kosmosoteiras (1151/52),

Komotini, 1994 Petit, L. “Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Ainos (1152),” Izvestiia Russkago

Arkeologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopole 13 (1908), 17-75 Sevcenko, Nancy P. “The Tomb of Isaak Komnenos at Vera/Ferecik.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review

29 (1984), 135-40Sinos, S. Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira) (Munich, 1985)Skawran, K.M. The Development of Middle Byzantine Fresco Painting (Pretoria, 1982)Thomas, J. P., and A. Hero, eds. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents (Washington, D.C., 2000),

II:782-858 (with translation by R. Jordan)Tsouris, K. “Neapolis-Christoupolis-Kavala,” Archaiologikon Deltion 53/A (1998)[=2002], 436-7Uspenskij, Th. “L’octateuque de la Bibliothèque du Sérail à Constantinople,” Izvestiia Russkago

Arkeologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopole 12 (1907), 21-2Varzos, K. He genealogia ton Komnenon (Thessaloniki, 1984), I:238-54

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

86

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

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

87

CHAPTER 4

Didymoteichon and its Monuments

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·87

88

History

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·88

89

It was long believed that Didymoteichon was the successor, mentioned as a bishopric for the firsttime in the ninth century - that is, after the demise of Plotinopolis. Excavations of the walls ofDidymoteichon have uncovered large areas of Early Christian construction, with bands of brickand carefully squared stone, which must date from before the eighth century at the latest. Similarconstruction has been found between the two citadels, for which the ceramic evidence provideda sixth-century date. Consequently, it is clear that the two hills were occupied at the same time,with the major overland road passing between them. Presumably as the urban role ofDidymoteichon diminished, the less secure of the two hills was abandoned. The excavationsconfirm the 1937 conjecture of N. Vapheides that the name Didymoteichon meant “twin castles,”rather than twin walls, referring to the coexistent fortified citadels.

The name Didymoteichon appears for the first time in 591 or 592, when it was mentioned as astopping place for the troops of Priskos during the war with the Avars. The “castle ofDidymoteichon” is one of the cities refounded in Thrace by the emperor Constantine V in 751.Plotinopolis continued to be listed as a suffragan of the metropolitan of Adrianopolis from theseventh through the ninth centuries; the town is still named as Plotinopolis in the Council of 787.

Didymoteichon, funeral inscription of Britannia,September of 501

Didymoteichon, excavated remains between two hills

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·89

90

In 813, Didymoteichon was besieged by Krum, and an inscription of about this time on anboundary stone, now in the Sofia Archaeological Museum, identifies it as kastronDidymotychou. The name is mentioned frequently after that time, and by the thirteenth century,its ecclesiastical status had risen to Metropolis without suffragans. A kommerkiarios ismentioned already in the ninth century, and the kastron is noted as a post during several militarycampaigns.

Didymoteichon served as a place of refuge when the crusaders took Adrianopolis in 1189. In thesubsequent siege by Friedrich von Schwaben, the inhabitants were killed and the town destroyed,although a well-built tower below the town was spared. In the Byzantine-Venetian agreement of1198, the districts of Didymoteichon and Adrianopolis were connected to form a province.

The town was taken by Baldwin and the crusader forces in 1204, although they were driven outthe following year, and the town welcomed the population of the surrounding countryside, whichhad been plundered by the Bulgarian Kalojan. The Latin siege was brought to an end by theflooding of the river in the fall of 1205. In 1206 Kalojan plundered the town and countryside,damaging the water system and the fortifications to the extent that the Frankish lords ofConstantinople considered its rebuilding an unviable proposition: “and he [Henry of Flanders] andhis noblemen saw that there was no possibility of rebuilding Didymoteichon, such was its state,”as Villehardouin relates.

Didymoteichon fell to Theodore of Epiros in 1225 and subsequently to the Laskarids of Nicaea.The town became a military post in the Bulgarian campaign of Theodore II Laskaris in 1255/56,and the Laskarids seem to have undertaken its refortification. Michael IX used the kastron as abase and staging post in his campaign against the Catalans in 1306.

The town appears frequently in the accounts of the civil wars of the fourteenth century. In theconflict between Andronikos II and his grandson Andronikos III, the latter used Didymoteichonas his military base and residence after his flight from Constantinople in 1321. Following the

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·90

91

conclusion of hostilities with the retirement of the elder Andronikos in 1328 and the accessionof his grandson to the throne, the old Prime Minister Theodore Metochites was exiled toDidymoteichon. During his two years of exile, Metochites complained about the meanness of theinhabitants, the vegetables that gave him indigestion, and the wine that went sour in no time.

Didymoteichon also figured in the second civil war. A few months after the death of AndronikosIII in 1341, John Kantakouzenos was proclaimed emperor (known historically as John VI) in thepalatial church of Saint George Palaiokastrites in Didymoteichon on 26 October 1341, and thecity became his de facto capital during the disastrous civil war of 1341-47, and the town becamethe base from which he launched his campaigns. His personal hideout and treasury was locatedat the castle of Pythion, about 15 km. outside the town. During the conflict, a ditch was dug toprotect the suburbs (exo synoikia) of Didymoteichon. In the proskynetarion of Saint Demetriosinside the old town there is a plaque bearing four monograms of Andronikos Raoul AsanesPalaiologos, the son of the Commander of Didymoteichon (1342) and nephew of the wife ofJohn VI Kantakouzenos. Pressed by both Byzantine and Bulgarian forces during the winter of1343, John VI Kantakouzenos called for assistance from the Emir of Aydin, who brought Turkishtroops into Thrace.

With the victory of John V Palaiologos and the abdication of Kantakouzenos in 1347, the citywas joined to the territory ruled by the Palaiologoi. In 1352, Didymoteichon was given as anapanage to John V Palaiologos, who quickly came into conflict with Matthew Kantakouzenos,who ruled in Adrianopolis. The city was probably conquered twice by Orhan, first in 1359 and

Didymoteichon, plaque with Late Byzantine monogramsof Andronikos Raoul Asanes Palaiologos

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·91

92

decisively in 1361; later it was besieged by John Ugljesa. In September 1373, Murat I took thecity and made his residence there until at least 1377. His grand-son Mehmed I built a largemosque in the lower city. Bertrandon del la Broquière visited the town in 1433.

Following his defeat by Peter the Great in the Battle of Poltava in 1709, Charles XII of Swedenfled into Ottoman territory, was taken captive, and subsequently in 1713, he was imprisoned inDimitoka (Didymoteichon). A popular local tradition identifies a Byzantine cistern near thechurch of Hag. Athanasios as the Philakes Karolou (Prison of Charles).

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·92

93

Monuments

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

Didymoteichon, fortifications on east slope

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·93

94

Fortifications

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

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·94

95

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

Didymoteichon, Neroportes

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·95

96

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

Didymoteichon, Neroportes, inner arched gate, LateByzantine period

Didymoteichon, Neroportes, outer triumphal gate,Early Ottoman period

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·96

97

Didymoteichon, tower on south wall with brickdecoration

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

Didymoteichon, tower at southeast corner of citadel;

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:25 ™ÂÏ›‰·97

98

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

Didymoteichon, inscription in walls readingKOMNHNOY

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·98

99

Didymoteichon from south

Settlement

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·99

100

Didymoteichon, rock-cut storerooms

Didymoteichon, area of Byzantine settlement onsoutheast slope of citadel

Didymoteichon, Byzantine cistern excavated on southslope of citadel

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·100

101

cut cisterns, storerooms, and the foundations of houses - in fact, entire neighborhoods of houses,most evident in an area cleared along the western slope of the citadel. Foundations identifiedtentatively as “the palace” at the top of the hill remain to be explored. Due to the lack of waterat Didymoteichon, cisterns were excavated in the soft rock stratum beneath the houses: “theyhollow underground cellars and wells to receive rainwater,” as Gregoras relates [I, 357].

The houses of Didymoteichon had a characteristic form. Set onto a slope, the superstructure wasapparently constructed of wood and rubble above a rock-cut storage area: the cuttings that

Didymoteichon, rock-cut storerooms

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·101

102

remain are primarily the storerooms below the dwelling. Many of the surviving, post-Byzantinehouses still exhibit this form. Excavated neighborhoods appear dense in their settlement, withindividual units separated by narrow alleys and stairs leading up the grade. There is arandomness to the organization, and the positioning of the dwellings appears to have beensubject to the variations in the topography. Similar rock-carved features extend around thecitadel, often with circular indentations to anchor pithoi, or large storage jars.

A Byzantine cistern, finely constructed in the recessed brick technique, was excavated on thesouth slope of the citadel. Unlike the often crude rock-cut cisterns, the construction may suggesta Middle Byzantine date.

Byzantine Churches

Hagia Aikatherini. The small funeral chapel now dedicated to Hag. Aikaterini lies on the northslope of the citadel of Didymoteichon. The 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities excavatedand studied the building in two campaigns during in 1986-87. Clearly a work of the LateByzantine period, the chapel was surrounded on all sides by tombs cut into the bedrock, and thebuilding seems to have served as a funerary chapel. A substantial burial area was uncovered tothe south.

The plan of Hag. Aikaterini measures slightly less than 5 x 9 meters on the exterior. It has asingle-aisled interior, measuring slightly greater than 3 x 7 m. along the same walls. More thanhalf of the standing walls survive from the Byzantine period. The north wall is preserved inrelatively good condition, although some parts are missing or damaged, particularly in the upperportion. The west wall is also surviving, but in poor condition: the position of the portal has beenaltered, and the upper termination is unclear. On the east façade, the Byzantine construction ispreserved only along the north side and in the foundations. The shallow curvature of the apse is

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:26 ™ÂÏ›‰·102

103

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, seen from north

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·103

104

The exterior façades originally were decorated with blind arcades, best seen on the north façade,where the wall was articulated with stepped pilasters, and radial patterns in brick appear in thelunettes of the arches. Judging from the excavated foundations of the south façade, it must havebeen similar. On the west façade, the portal was flanked by shallow segmental niches, asapparently was the apse on the east façade, where only the north niche survives.

The single-aisled interior was lined with three pilasters along each of its lateral walls, the stubs

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·104

105

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

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, east façade

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·105

106

The curvature of the apse is exceptionally shallow and flanked by setbacks, beginning only about26 cm. above the Byzantine floor level. The original masonry in this area is about a meter inheight. The Byzantine masonry rises the full wall height in the northeast corner, where theprothesis niche is located. Actually a double niche, it is formed by a tall, round-headed niche,rectangular in plan, set into the north wall, and an apsidal niche in the east wall, it contained astone table. An area of brick paving was preserved adjoining the northeast pilaster, beginningalong its western face and extending into the nave; it may have formed the stylobate for thetemplon.

Evidence of original portals may be observed in the wall areas between the western and centralpilasters, and these may help to explain the irregular rhythm of the pilasters. In the north wall, aportal, now blocked, began at the juncture with the western pilaster. Along the south wall adistinct break appears in the masonry of both the interior and exterior foundations. The break iscentrally positioned within the bay, and coordinated with the articulation of the exterior. Theposition of the south portal seems to have corresponded with an open area between several rowsof tightly spaced burials.

The construction technique is best evidenton the north façade. The walls areconstructed of irregular bands of stone andbrick, utilizing the so-called recessed bricktechnique. The stone is irregular and thebrick appears to be reused, but much of theirregularity would have been disguised by

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·106

107

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, detail of masonry oneast façade

the mortared finish, which has deteriorated. Large putlog holes appear at two levels below thearches, and another appears close to the roof level at the west end. There is no evidence offenestration in the surviving Byzantine masonry. Along the north façade, the three eastern archesare identical in form, and each is topped by two concentric arches of brick, enclosing a radiatingbrick pattern in the lunettes. The upper arches were originally outlined by a row of ceramicrosettes framed in brick. This detail may be observed in two of the spandrels, although the upperportion of the wall has been extensively reconstructed. The rosettes were cylindrical andunglazed, pinched to form a quatrefoil at the exposed end. Several more or less complete

examples were found in the excavation. Thisdetail stopped after the third arch, where theportal was positioned, and did not continuefurther westward. The lunette of thewesternmost arch includes a chevron patternflanked by radiating brick, and theconcentric arches are constructed ofalternating brick and stone voussoirs,outlined in brick.

Original portions of the east façade survivein the foundations and in the north section ofthe wall. The shallow curvature of the apseis visible in the foundations. The northsection of the façade includes a shallow,segmental niche with setbacks, similar in

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·107

108

form and dimension to those on the west façade. It terminated with a shallow conch of radiatingbrick, now only partially preserved. Below the conch is a horizontal band of brick, a dogtoothcourse, another horizontal band, and below this a row of ceramic rosettes, all partially preserved.These details may have continued directly from the outlining of the arches on the north façade.Several of the bricks in the curvature of the niche were carved specifically for use here.

The construction technique is similar on the interior, but with single courses of small stonesalternating with single courses of brick. The mortar beds are normally sloped downward. Thedifferences in banding between the interior and exterior indicate that the wall was conceived astwo faces with a rubble fill between, without regular bonding.

Although many stylistic and technical features evident in the architecture of Hag. Aikaterinisuggest a proximity with the Byzantine capital, they also indicate that the workshop responsiblefor the chapel was not from Constantinople. However, the style of the capital may have exertedan influence, and with limited resources, the builders of Didymoteichon seem to havesuccessfully mimicked the features of a more cosmopolitan architecture. The building may alsoreflect the continued influence of a Laskarid workshop in the region, paralleling thedevelopments in Constantinople. There are also numerous stylistic similarities with Bulgarianand Serbian monuments. Standing along an important overland route from the Byzantine capitalinto the Balkan peninsula, Didymoteichon could draw inspiration from both directions.

In terms of the date of the building, our best chronological indicators may be the architecturalstyle and the construction technique. Certain features, such as the shallow niches and thetreatment of the banded voussoirs, suggest a late date, probably toward the middle of thefourteenth century. The generally impoverished nature of the architecture would support a latedate: there is no indication of marble decoration or of any other luxury materials, all constructionmaterials are spolia, the scale is diminutive, and the form is simple. Moreover, in the early Post-Byzantine period, the elongated, single-aisled naos, whether covered by a barrel vault or by awooden roof, became one of the most common church type in the Balkans.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·108

109

Wall Painting. Several areas of painted plaster are preserved along the lower portion of the dadoat the eastern end of the building, rising to a height of only about 30 cm. above the bedrock floor.The patterns are simple and linear, and the colors are limited to red, dark blue, and grey on aplain white background. The white plaster continued to floor level, and a broad red band definesthe lower edge of the design, extending upward at the corners. The lower wall areas to either sideof the apse were accentuated by a dark blue frame enclosing a reticulate pattern. Within eachdiamond was a red circle accentuated with four red dots forming a cross. Traces of the samepatterning may be detected on the lateral walls immediately adjacent to the east wall. The patternseems to be that of a textile: similar designs appear on the garments of figures in late Byzantineart, and imitative textiles commonly appear in the dado zones of late Byzantine church interiors.Below the apse, the step was decorated with a rough rinceau in dark grey on a white background.

Burials outside the chapel. The burial area to the south of the church was framed to the west bya masonry niche, perhaps the remnant of a covered burial area. Ten tombs were cut into thebedrock, organized in three irregular rows, probably added over a period of time. Several cavitiescontained multiple burials. Tomb C, on axis with the niche, may have been the original burial, and

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, detail of wallpainting on lower northeast corner

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini during excavations(1986)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:27 ™ÂÏ›‰·109

110

the skeleton was found with corroded copper buttons and two simple gold earrings. Tomb D, thelargest of in the western range, was covered by an inscribed slab, which measured 0.70 x 1.83 x0.08 m. Its inscription, turned downward, indicates that the slab came from the tomb of a certainmonk Dionysios, and it names the reigning emperor Manuel Komnenos and the empress Maria.The date is given as 1173, and the inscription ends with a curse on anyone who disturbed themonk’s tomb. The inscription is the oldest from Didymoteichon but was clearly reused here tocover a rather modest Late Byzantine or early Post-Byzantine tomb. Another row of tombs extendsalong the north wall of the church; the long western tomb may have been originally two cavities.

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, burial area to southof chapel, looking east

Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, burial slab withinscription, found in second use

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:28 ™ÂÏ›‰·110

111

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

Nothing found in the excavation of the tombs could help to clarify the chronology of the chapel,although on general stylistic grounds a mid-fourteenth-century date seems likely. Eighteenburials were identified in the 1987 excavation. An additional six had been found in 1930.Although none was found on the interior of the chapel, these should indicate the function of thebuilding as a funeral chapel, perhaps with the occupant of Tomb C as its donor.

Chapel by Hagios Athanasios. The remains of a second Byzantine building survive along thenorth flank of the metropolitan church of Hag. Athanasios, located on the south slope of thecitadel of Didymoteichon. The 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities excavated and studied the

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·111

112

site in 1990-92, with support from the Municipality of Didymoteichon. Prior to the investigation,the surviving north wall and a portion of the east façade of the building could be seen betweenthe north wall of the nineteenth-century church of Hag. Athanasios and the rock cliff that risesslightly further to the north. The foundations of the Byzantine building rest on level bedrock, andother features of the site were carved from the bedrock. A small, trapezoidal courtyard betweenthe north (exterior) façade of the ruin and the rock cliff allows access to a series of rock-cutrooms, including a large apotheke (storeroom). One cistern is known locally as the PhilakesKarolou (Prison of Charles): according to local lore the site where Charles XII of Sweden wasimprisoned. Several additional cisterns and storerooms were cut into the bedrock further to theeast.

The original building was long and narrow, perhaps representing the aisle of a larger building.The single-aisled space extends more than 17 m in length and was divided into two distinct

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·112

113

sections. A long western nave was lined with arcades, and originally covered by a barrel vault,reinforced with diaphragm arches, the remains of which are visible at the springing of the vault.Following the collapse of the vault, the height of the wall was raised with an irregular stoneconstruction. A separate sanctuary bay to the east was covered by a dome or domical vault raisedabove a tall arch, which had been blocked its full height. The remains of pendentives were visibleimmediately above. The exterior of the eastern end of the wall was enlivened with arcading anddecorative niches, which continue around the corner onto the remains of a faceted east façade.In several places in the nave and sanctuary, the ruinous remains of fresco decoration were visible.Stylistic considerations of the architecture suggest a dating in the early fourteenth century for thebuilding.

Although numerous decorative features ofthe building fit well within architecture ofthe Palaiologan period, the long and narrowplan is unique in Byzantine architecture anddemanded further investigation. The easternend was detailed like the apse of a church,and the interior terminated in a sanctuary,but the plan did not conform to knownexamples of Byzantine church architecture,which normally have more centralizedplans. Several possibilities were considered.The building could have been the north aisleof a large, ambulatory-plan church.

Alternatively, if the remains were of a long, thin building, lined with arcades, it could haveserved as either a funeral chapel or a trapeza, a Byzantine monastic refectory. In any case, itwould appear that the building was part of a larger establishment, perhaps monastic, which alsoincluded the rock-cut storerooms. It should be noted that the metropolitan church, constructed in1834, was said to have been built on the site of a “very old church,” although it is not clear if

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios,archaeological plan at floor level showing positions oftombs, crypts, and beams supporting foundations(drawing by Anne Marshall)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·113

114

this reference is to the building in question or to a separate structure, now buried beneath thenineteenth-century foundations of Hag. Athanasios.

The building was discovered to considerably more unusual than was suggested prior toexcavation. Like the north wall, the south wall of the building consisted of a series of arches,however, these were built against a solid bedrock wall. The foundations of the nineteenth-century church were laid directly against the opposite face of the bedrock wall, preventing

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

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, afterexcavation, nave looking east

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·114

115

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, archaeolo-gical plan at crypt level, showing positions of tombs andossuary crypts (drawing by Anne Marshall)

further exploration in that direction. The piers of the south arcade were set farther apart thanthose of the north arcade, and thus the arches were wider than their northern counterparts. Inaddition, their springing point was lower, and they were set asymmetrically to the arcadeopposite. A plastered floor was uncovered about a meter below the concrete terrace, extendingthroughout the nave and sanctuary. It stopped short of the arcades, and beneath each arch, a tombwas found, cut into the bedrock. Two barrel-vaulted burial crypts were discovered below theplastered floor, accessible only by means of trap doors in the nave floor. A door opened in thenorth wall of the building provided access to the small courtyard and storerooms. Additionaltombs were discovered cut into the bedrock of the courtyard floor, as well as one to the east ofthe building.

Prior to the Palaiologan period, the area may have served as an open cemetery. Numerous tombswere cut into the level bedrock surface, organized into three rows on an east-west axis (see planat crypt level). All but one measured just less than 2 m. in length, and the common form istrapezoidal, narrowing toward the eastern end. Whereas most of the tomb cavities clearly predatethe Late Byzantine building, which sits awkwardly on the irregular bedrock surface, a more exactdating was not possible.

The first construction phase consisted of the south nave wall, not including the sanctuary. Piersof brick and stone were added to a bedrock wall above a floor level approximately 40 cm. belowthe present plastered floor. Tombs were positioned within each arch, below the floor level, and

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·115

116

the size of the individual tombs correspondedto the dimensions of the arches. The buildingwas decorated with fresco, substantialportions of which survive, extending belowthe level of the plaster floor. The piers wereconstructed in the recessed brick technique,with etched mortar beds. Because of thelimited survival of this building phase, it wasnot possible to determine its overall form,although it must have been similar to the finalform of the building. The construction may bedated to the early Palaiologan period, basedon the limited evidence of its frescodecoration and its numerous similarities withthe subsequent construction phase.

The building subsequently underwent areconstruction, incorporating the south wallarcade and adding the sanctuary and thepresent north wall. The two phases areclearly distinguished by the differences inmaterials, notably the sizes of bricks and thethickness of the mortar joints. The resulting

building was completely asymmetrical, with apparently six arches along the south wall (of whichfour were excavated) and seven along the north wall, and the sanctuary bay set off-axis with thenave. The floor level of the building was raised about 40 cm. and vaulted funeral crypts wereadded below the nave floor. The construction of the sanctuary and of the north wall rises aboverows of tombs, but the relationship is not as regular as in the earlier construction. In severalplaces, timber baulks were laid across the tomb cavities, and the superstructure was build directly

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, pier ofsouth wall, detail of masonry

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·116

117

on wooden supports. The sanctuary bay is set off-axis to the nave. The arcades of the north wallare taller and less regular than their southern counterparts, and their functional relationship to thetombs below is unclear. It is also unclear how the diaphragm arches of the barrel vault related tothe supports of the south wall.

Construction details suggest a chronological closeness between the two phases that is difficult toexplain. The masonry of both phases was of alternating brick and stone courses, and bothemployed the recessed brick technique, although the mortar beds of the north wall are slopeddownward rather than etched. The arches of the later construction have banded voussoirs, andthe eastern exterior surfaces are lavishly articulated. Based on stylistic details, this phase ofconstruction should be dated approximately to the 1320s or 1330s.

During the Ottoman period, the building underwent several transformations. It continued to beused for burials perhaps as late as the nineteenth century, and the eastern portion continued to beused as a chapel or proskynetarion into the early twentieth century. At an unknown date, thebarrel vault of the nave collapsed, and the north wall was raised in height, forming a two-storiedbuilding with a wooden floor to the upper level. Post-Byzantine frescoes in the sanctuaryindicate the functioning of at least part of the building as a church as late as (perhaps) theseventeenth century. The south wall was apparently destroyed at the time of the construction ofHag. Athanasios, and a terrace was subsequently laid over the site.

The bema was defined by two tall arches that broadened its space to the north and south, and ashallow apse extended the space to the east. An arch separated the bema from the nave, possiblywith a narrow templon. The central area was covered by a dome or domical vault raised abovependentives. The north arch survives almost its full height, rising about 4 m. above floor level.Along the north wall, a prothesis niche appears to the east, and a second niche is set into the westwall. The outline of the apse could be discerned in the plaster floor of the bema, which had beenoverlaid with square ceramic tiles.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·117

118

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·118

119

Fragmentary frescoes were found on the upper north sanctuary walls as well, representingstanding saints in liturgical garb, but these probably date from the 17th century. The frescoes andnumismatic finds in this area of the building indicate its continued Christian usage well into thePost-Byzantine period - indeed, as recently as 1913. Visitors noted paintings of holy figures inthe building, and they must have been referring to these frescoes.

The central area of the nave was about 15 m. long, but it is only about 2.5 m. wide, expandedabout 50-70 cm on either side by the arcades. Its curious asymmetry may be attributed to thedifficulties encountered in building above the irregular pattern of tombs cut into the bedrock. Thecentral area is covered by a plastered floor, which rises gradually from east to west and does notcontinue into the arcades.

The south arcade was constructed against a bedrock wall, about 71-75 cm. thick, which isabutted and partially overlapped by the rubble foundations of the 19th-century church. Squarepiers were built against the wall, their lower portions cut from the bedrock, and their upperportions built of brick and stone. The springing of the arches is evident in the brick construction.Each of the piers measures about 70 cm. square, and each of the intervening arches has adiameter of 1.80-1.85 m. The piers related to a floor level about 40 cm. below the plastered floor,roughly corresponding to a bedrock ledge. The springing of the arches appeared at about a meterabove the original floor level, and the height of the original arches may be reconstructed as about1.90-1.95 m. With the raised floor of the nave, these would have risen only about 1.5 m. abovefloor level and would have appeared awkward when contrasted to the taller and thinner archesof the north arcade.

Evidence of painting appears throughout the area, notably geometric patterning in the dado zone,meant to imitate marble. Enthroned figures survive on the rear walls of the second and fourthrecesses, of which the lower portions survive. Within the third recess, the bedrock wall is neatlycut away along one side, and the opening was blocked with a rough rubble fill.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·119

120

The north wall and arcade are substantially preserved, rising to just above the springing of thebarrel vault that once covered the nave. The high arch of the sanctuary rises to a springing about4 m above floor level, and the arched recesses of the north wall rise about 2.25 m above the navefloor. Fragments of painted decoration may be noted in several places on the upper wall surface.The vault was reinforced by diaphragm arches of brick, with putlog holes for tie beams at thespringing. Another irregular line of putlog holes appears approximately at the springing of thebarrel vault. A small aperture appears above the third pier, extending through the thickness of thenave wall, positioned immediately below the springing of the barrel vault. Its upper surface isformed by reused stone pieces, perhaps from a templon.

The north arcade is considerably more irregular than its southern counterpart, and the dimensionsof both the piers and the recesses vary: the eastern two recesses measure ca. 1.30 in length whilethe western five are closer to 1.70 in length. The second recess originally formed a portal openinginto the north courtyard, and at the western end, the arcades intersect the rock face and becomeirregular. Remains of the western wall of the building may be seen about 60 cm beyond thewesternmost recess. All of the arches are constructed with alternating brick and stone voussoirs.

Although the spacing and the positioning of the piers were apparently dependent on the location of

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, northeastcorner

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·120

121

tombs cut into the bedrock below, the relationship of the tomb cavities and the walls above is muchmore irregular than that of the south arcade. In several places, the tombs extend into the nave,beyond the width of the piers, and the piers commonly overlap the tombs. Where the walls extendover the cavities, a system of corbelling was improvised. The small area of north wall, which joinsto the first recess, extended above a tomb cavity, over which three wooden beams were laid beforethe wall was constructed. A similar wooden support was used beneath the second pier.

The entire north wall is set back about 70 cm. from the arched entrance to the sanctuary, and thiscreated a small area of the wall at the east end of the nave. This was once decorated with fresco;a small patch representing jeweled drapery suggests a royally-clad saint was depicted here.Remains of figural frescoes survive in both reveals of the first recess as well, of standing saintswith yellow haloes against a dark blue background.

The east façade of the building was faceted and lavishly detailed, but most of it is now destroyed.Two facets survive, which formed the transition to the north façade. They were divided intozones by chamfered stringcourses, with the lower stringcourse appearing at the foundation leveland the upper mid-way up the wall. The east facet is articulated with niches at two levels, theupper framed by colonnettes. The northeast facet contains a shallow niche in its lower surface.

The north façade exhibits remarkable variety, with each exposed bay articulated differently. Itdoes not appear to have been coordinated with that of the east façade, although the greatestdegree of detail appears on its east bay, where it would have been most visible. The east baycorresponds to the sanctuary and is defined by a tall arcade, with broad pilasters to either side.Within the arcade, the wall surface is divided into two levels by a chamfered stringcourse, set ata noticeably higher level than that of the east façade. The lower wall area steps back to asegmental niche, with the conch of the niche composed of wedge-shaped stones. Above thestring course is a centrally positioned window, now blocked, framed by a setback. The arches areconstructed of stone voussoirs, with the outer arch framed in brick. Above the tall arcade, theoriginal saddle-shaped roofline of the sanctuary is visible.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·121

122

Beyond the sanctuary bay, the roof level dropped dramatically to the lower barrel vault over thenave. In the Post-Byzantine period, the nave was transformed into a two-storied hall, and thewall surface was raised. A setback stone arch corresponds to the first recess in the north wall ofthe nave interior. It includes setbacks to a flat wall surface, and the arches are composed of stonevoussoirs. Although slightly narrower than the lower arch of the first bay, it is identical in height.The next bay was originally a portal, its arch topped by banded voussoirs. It is approximately thesame width as the second arcade, but both its sill and the arch above are lower. Immediately tothe west of the portal was a small niche, topped by an arch of banded voussoirs. Further to thewest, the facade disappears behind the rubble fill.

The soft stonework of the north facade has been inscribed with a variety of graffiti. Some ismodern, but many appear to be quite old. Notably, graffiti did not appear on the areas of repairto the building, such as the blocking of the portal. Thus, the graffiti may predate thesemodifications. Two kinds of graffiti are most common: images of vulvae or female genitalia, anddepictions of sailing ships. These may be interpreted as visual prayers, inscribed by the faithfulin request of fertility or of safe passage for travelers.

In sum, the excavations revealed a building - or a part of a building - of unique design but clearlyfunerary in function. The combination of asymmetrical, elongated plan and domed bema finds

no direct comparisons, and it might be betterinterpreted as the aisle of a larger buildingthat once stood on the site of Hag.Athanasios. Unfortunately, this area couldnot be investigated, and no connectionthrough the south wall of the chapel was

Didymoteichon, chapel by Hag. Athanasios, northwall, graffiti

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·122

123

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·123

124

at Didymoteichon, the most important view of the building was from the east, where the façadereceived its greatest articulation. In the final analysis, the unique combination of forms atDidymoteichon reflects a variety of Late Byzantine architectural and funerary concerns inresponse to an unusual site.

In spite of the fragmentary and damaged nature of the building’s exterior, its sophisticated formalarticulation is noteworthy. Compositional principles and many details recall the architecture ofConstantinople, although there are some features for which no exact parallels may be found. Forexample, the use of arcades with stepped pilasters was standard in the architecture of the capitaland elsewhere from the middle Byzantine period onward. As is common in Palaiologanarchitecture, the details of the exterior do not correspond with the interior, and the purpose of theexternal arcading must be understood primarily as decorative. Moreover, there is also little attemptto coordinate the individual features of the facade into a unified system of organization. In addition,the relationship between the north facade and the flanking surfaces of the east facade is poorlyresolved. A similar lack of visual coordination around corners was evident at the church of Hag.Ioannes in Selymbria, now destroyed but thought to be the product of a Constantinopolitanworkshop, ca. 1325.

Much in the brick and stone construction corresponds to standard Late Byzantine practices in theregion, although several features are noteworthy. Both brick and stone were apparently used inthe vaulting as well: the pendentives of the sanctuary were of brick, but the barrel vault of thenave seems to have been of stone. The use of stone in vault construction as well as the sole useof stone in arches appears in distinct contrast to standard Byzantine practice. The unusualselection of materials at Didymoteichon is likely the result of the easy availability of stone at thesite. Moreover, brick was not used decoratively on the surviving portions of the exterior, nor dodogtooth cornices appear. With a single exception, exterior arches are constructed entirely withstone voussoirs. In addition, the conches of niches are formed by means of stone wedges, ratherthan brick. This may be unique in the Byzantine architecture of the region, but it may represent

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·124

125

an attempt to translate standard brick construction into the more readily available stone. Stonearches and conches also appear at Hag. Ioannes at Selymbria, but on a much smaller scale, withconches of the individual niches carved from a single stone.

In spite of numerous unique features, the chapel is best viewed within the sphere of influence ofConstantinople. On the other hand, the uniqueness of the plan and of certain constructionaldetails emphasizes the distance from the Byzantine capital, and these features are bestunderstood in a local context - taking into consideration the limitations of the site and theavailability of materials. The building may be the product of a local workshop, indebted to thestylistic influence exerted by the architecture of Constantinople, and aware of developmentselsewhere in Thrace and the Balkans. The builders were experienced, and they were able toaccommodate the functional requirements of the chapel to a restricted and irregular site, as wellas to adjust the formal articulation to an unusual building.

Formal concerns and particular decorative details help to position the building squarely in theearly Palaiologan period. Although we must rely on stylistic considerations to date the building,a date in the 1320s or 1330s seems most likely for the second Palaiologan phase. This is also aperiod of increased contact with Constantinople and the imperial family. As discussion of thefrescoes will suggest, an association of the building with one or more members of the imperialfamily seems likely, although it is not clear with whom.

North courtyard and adjacent spaces. The small, trapezoidal courtyard to the north of thebuilding measures just under 10 m in greatest length and about 2.5 m at its greatest width. Alongits north side, the courtyard is bounded by a rock cliff and two cisterns, one of which projects tothe east. Several drainage channels were cut into the rock. The western cistern, partially enclosedin rubble masonry, is known locally and certainly incorrectly as the Filakes Karolou, the so-called Prison of Charles - where the King of Sweden is said to have been imprisoned by theOttomans following the Battle of Poltava (1709).

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:33 ™ÂÏ›‰·125

126

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

Didymoteichon, apotheke interior, looking north

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·126

127

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, eastburial crypt

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, westburial crypt

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·127

128

Although very nearly identical, the construction of the crypts differs, with brick vault of thewestern crypt employing the recessed brick technique, while the brick vault of the eastern is ofstandard brick construction, with thin mortar beds. The latter is distinct from the constructionevident in either phase of the superstructure. All four tombs flanking the western crypt haveholes bored into the bedrock that correspond with rectangular openings in the haunches of thebrick vault. The purpose of these is not entirely clear.

Tombs. In addition to the mass burials in the crypts below the nave floor, eighteen tombs wereidentified in the course of the excavation, all cut into the bedrock. Nine were found in the archedrecesses flanking the nave and sanctuary; three in the courtyard to the north of the building; oneto the east, extending below the foundations of Hag. Athanasios; one in the east crypt; and fourin the west crypt. All but the east tomb were cut on an east-west alignment. The standard shapeis slightly trapezoidal with rounded corners, wider on the west side. The burials uniformly hadthe head of the deceased in the west; normally the arms were folded across the abdomen. Manyof the cavities contained multiple burials. With one exception, the burials were modest, and thefinds were minimal, primarily assorted potsherds, fallen fresco plaster, buttons, and nails. Theevidence suggests that burials continued well into the Post-Byzantine period.

Wall Paintings. Traces of Byzantine wall painting survive throughout the building. Mostimpressive are two large areas on the walls of the second and fourth south niches of the nave.The first, uncovered in 1990, shows a life-size figure from the knees down. The painting runs thefull length of the recess - ca. 1.80 m, with a total height of ca. 60 cm. It shows the lower portionof a figure, wearing a gold and jeweled robe and red buskins, with feet resting on a redhypopodion placed on a footstool. Elements of a throne may be discerned behind the figure. Thebackground is dark blue with a green ground area, and the whole is outlined with a red and whiteborder. The lower edge corresponds to the height of the bedrock ledge, indicating that thepainting must have been part of the first Palaiologan phase. It cannot be later, because the raisedfloor is about 40 cm. higher than the lower border of the fresco. The lower edge curls outward,suggesting that it once overlapped the floor. A small patch of similar fresco - dark blue and green

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·128

129

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, fresco inniche 2

with brown drawing - is visible in the southeast corner, continuing from the south wall, wherepale, finger-like projection appears on a small preserved surface. Based on the analogy of thefigure in the fourth south nave recess, this is probably the tip of a wing.

The figure is likely male because of the size and prominence of the feet. The off-centerpositioning of the figure and his relationship to the throne - shown in a sort of perspective -suggest that he is sitting. Both the throne and the footstool are rendered in shades of brown,imitating wood. The throne has prominent legs and is detailed with an arcade across its frontsurface. The footstool appears tipped upward, overlapping the lower portion of the throne. Thecolor employed in the shoes and in the cushion is a rich red; it is identical in both, and the twoare distinguished only by the black outlining of the shoes. The cushion is also outlined in black,and both cushion and shoes have white striped decoration. The shoes include a three-lobedpattern at the toes and a row of white pearls across the ankles. A circle decorated with dotsappears on the cushion between the feet.

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, figure inniche 2 reconstructed

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·129

130

The robe worn by the figure is painted in a pale ochre, and the area remaining is framed byhorizontal bands at the top and bottom. The bands are decorated with two rows of white pearls,with red and blue rectangular jewels at the center and ends of each. The field is filled with adiaper pattern formed by rows of white pearls, with two rows of round red jewels and one rowof round blue jewels. The few surviving traces indicate that a similar field appeared above theupper decorative band. To the left of the figure, at ground level, is a curious, light brown object.It is shaded in darker tones, and the coloration is similar to the adjacent footstool. Set at adiagonal, the object is curved at the top, and the curve is emphasized in the dark band on theupper edge. It is unclear if a strap of some sort appears further to the left of the object, or if thisis damage to the painted surface. The identity of the object in not certain: it may be a purse orsome sort or a quiver, although neither can be confirmed.

The composition in the fourth south recess is virtually identical to that just described, althoughthere are a few differences in detail and coloration. Notably, a greater portion of the figuresurvives, and its condition is considerably better. The fresco extends the full width of the recess,

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, fresco inniche 4

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, figure inniche 4 reconstructed

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·130

131

about 1.85 m., and it rises just over a meter to its maximum height at the east corner. The paintedsurface is continuous with smaller fragments on the east and west reveals, where fragments ofred fresco representing drapery are visible. The lower border conforms to the first Palaiologanfloor level, but, unlike the previous example, the plaster surface for the fresco was laid flatagainst the wall, and it was apparently overlapped by the floor. The area not meant to be exposedhas been left white, and there are several places where the paint has dripped onto the whitesurface.

As in the previous example, the field is blue with a green ground, with red and white borders. Inthis instance, the figure is preserved almost to waist height, and it is clear that he was both regallydressed and seated on a throne. A bend at the knee is evident, and the figure holds a scepter withhis right hand. A bit of a cushion is visible on the upper surface of the throne. Curiously, wingsappears to either side of the figure, fragmentary on his left side but clearly preserved on his right.

The throne and footstool are rendered in brown tones resembling wood. They occupy the samepositions as in the previous composition: the throne is shown in perspective with the right sideshaded, whereas the footstool appears to fly in front of the throne, with its front face contiguousto the lower edge of the fresco. The throne is raised on prominent legs, which are rendered three-dimensionally with shading. Its surfaces are articulated with two rows of arcading, highlightedwith white. Three horizontal bands of rinceaux divide the surfaces, detailed with white on a darkbrown. A similar rinceau band appears on the front of the footstool.

The red buskins rest on a red hypopodion. Both are rendered in the same tone of red,distinguished by the black outlining of the footwear. The cushion is detailed with wavy lines inpale white and black. The red tone here is closer to a cadmium red, differing from the slightlydeeper red employed in the previous example. The cushion on the throne is a similar red, detailedwith two dark stripes.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·131

132

The costume worn by the figure also differs from that of the previous example. The lower portionis a field of ochre with some white highlights, covered with a diaper pattern of maroon lines.Inside each diamond-shaped segment is a smaller diamond with discs at the four corners, all inmaroon. Above this is a horizontal band decorated with two rows of white pearls, punctuated bylarge rectangular jewels in red and blue. Above this, the drapery surface is patterned with a paleochre on a maroon background. A vertical band rises on the axis of the figure. Its left-hand portionrepeats the pattern of the horizontal band just described, whereas the larger right-hand portionincludes diamond-shaped and rectangular jewels surrounded by white pearls on an ochre field. Aswatch of drapery hangs down to the right—apparently over the figure’s left arm, turned so thatthe red inner lining of the costume is visible. The cuff of the sleeve is just visible on the figure’sright wrist; it also has an ochre background, decorated with pearls and jewels. The wings, spreadinto individual feathers, are rendered in tones of brown, shaded in black with white highlights.

Several general comments may be made about the two paintings. First, because of the limitedheight of the recesses, whatever the identity of the figures, in order for them to be depicted nearlylife-size, it was necessary to represent them as seated and to begin the composition at floor level.Thus, if the paintings were meant to be understood in relationship to the tombs below, it was notpossible to include a sarcophagus above floor level, as was standard in an arcosolium grave.Although the two compositions are quite similar, the technical differences - such as choice ofpigments and the treatment of the lower surface - suggest that they may not have been paintedat exactly the same time. On the other hand, the iconographical similarities are noteworthy andrequire further discussion. The upper portions of the figures must have been positioned frontally,along the central axis of the recess, with the legs turned to one side and the flank of the thronevisible on the other.

The details of the costumes and regalia - jeweled robes, red buskins, red hypopodion, scepter,elaborate thrones - indicate imperial nature of the figures. They must be either emperors, orsomeone, such as Christ or an archangel, in imperial garb. The fact that there are at least two

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·132

133

similar compositions, and that both frescoes included wings limits the possibilities. Threepossible identifications should be considered: enthroned archangels, emperors with angelicattendants, or winged emperors.

Large, individual figures of archangels appear frequently in Byzantine churches, perhapsintended as guardians of, but in such instances, their costume is more military than imperial.Moreover, in Byzantine art angels are never represented as seated unless the narrative requiresthem to do so, as for example, in scenes of the Old Testament Trinity or of the Holy Women atthe Tomb. No iconic, seated figures of angels have come down to us from Byzantium. Thus, inspite of the prominent wings, the identification of the figures as angels should be ruled out.

Rulers are sometimes represented with attendants: flying angels with crowns and symbols ofoffice, or attendants positioned behind the throne; both appear at Ljubostinja in Yugoslavia. Amanuscript portrait of Nicephorus III Botaniates shows personifications crowded behind histhrone. However, in the surviving images, flying angels invariably flank standing rulers, whereasthe standing attendants that appear behind seated rulers are invariably wingless. Considering thesize of the unfurled wings in our frescoes, it is difficult to imagine them attached to what wouldhave to have been tiny angels. It would be a tight fit, even if angels are immaterial beings.

The third possibility is that the figures represent winged emperors. Actually, such images areknown on Byzantine coinage from the late thirteenth century onward. The image may have beenpopularized because of the association of Michael VIII with St. Michael, but it may haveoriginated earlier, as Bertelè suggests. In fact, the association of emperors and angels has a longhistory in Byzantine rhetoric and art. It was a rhetorical convention to compare emperors toangels, as in the curious texts of panegyric poems written by the court rhetorician Holobolos inpraise of the emperor Michael VIII. The poems were used in the Prokypsis ceremony, in whichthe emperor and members of his family were dramatically presented to the acclamations of thepeople. Curtains were parted to reveal the rulers brilliantly illuminated, and then they were

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·133

134

lauded with heavenly comparisons. In one of Holobolos’ verses, the emperor and his two sonsbecame the three angelic messengers entertained by Abraham. In another, the emperor wasdescribed as seated between Michael and Gabriel, who were called upon to protect him with theirwings. Another poem called the emperor the “crown-bearing angel” and compared the two sonsto his wings. The inclusion of wings thus reflected court rhetoric, emphasizing the comparisonof emperors with angels.

In another sense, the wings can be seen as symbols representing divine or divinely bestowedpower. It is interesting that in the last Byzantine centuries, as the emperor’s actual powerdecreased, the sacerdotal nature of his rule was given greater emphasis. The appearance of theimages of winged emperors may be seen as a visual reflection of this transformation.

Wall painting fragments. Hundreds of fragments of wall painting came to light during theexcavation, often clustered together as fill in the tombs. They may have been buried intentionallyand represent a range of dates, from the late Komnenian to the Post-Byzantine. Unfortunately,their original positions within the building - or, indeed, if they belonged to the building - couldnot be determined.

A reconstructed niche. Numerous fragments found along the south side of the nave in the vicinityof the second recess may be reassembled, at least in part. These fragments came from a nichewhose reveals were decorated with a rinceau pattern executed in black silhouette on a whitebackground. The pattern includes multi-lobed white leaves set into a vine scroll, of a typecommon in late Byzantine decoration. Portions of two different reveals could be reconstructed,one 12 cm. deep, the other 10 cm. deep. For both, the inner and outer borders were clearlydefined. The outer corner is marked with a broad pink stripe on the convex surface and a thinblack stripe on the flanking wall, which was left white. The inner corner has a similar, broad pinkstripe on its concave surface, and then a fragment of the niche is preserved. The last is painted adeep maroon speckled with ochre to imitate the stone porphyry.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:34 ™ÂÏ›‰·134

135

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, frescofragments of figure standing on porphyry; reveal ofniche adjoining same image

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, inscriptionfrom same

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·135

136

drapery outlined and highlighted in white, with the toes of pink shoes joining to both the borderof the drapery and the porphyry. On a few fragments, the blue-grey drapery is next to a deep reddrapery. The ten fragments of an inscription in white minuscule on a yellow-green backgroundappear to have come from the same grouping as well: several fragments have the same yellow-green field bordering the deep red fabric. The inscription seems to begin with the mention of anempress, her name lost.

A hypothetical reconstruction of the niche decoration may be proposed, with a female figurestanding on the left side, turned slightly to the right. She was clad in a blue-grey robe, wearingpink shoes, and standing on a porphyry floor. To the right was a red curtain and the inscription -apparently the dedicatory inscription for the Phase II building. Because of the porphyry floor, theother frescoes of emperors, and the reading of the inscription, it would thus appear that thefounder of the building was a late Byzantine empress.

Unfortunately, it is not clear where exactly within the building the niche was located. Theexisting recesses are clearly larger than the 10-12 cm. depth of the niche. Because the south wallappears to have been destroyed when the 19th-century church was built, the niche may have beenlocated higher up in the south wall - although this is simply a guess. A piece of a half-columnwith a diameter of 12 cm was found in the central area of the nave, molded in white plaster andstriated to resemble marble. The unpainted, white ground matches that of the wall surfaceflanking the niche. We may speculate that the niche was framed by half-columns.

Other niche reveals. In addition to the reveal patterns just discussed, several patterned fragmentsof a second niche were found in the area in front of the third south nave recess. Again, theoriginal location of the niche is not clear. The pieces include both the convex outer border andthe concave inner border, detailed with a broad pink stripe. The maximum width of the piecesand the depth of the niche is approximately 10.5 cm. The field of the reveals is white with blackoutlining forming a series of large triangles. Within each is a series of chevrons of wavy lines in

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·136

137

brown, blue-grey, pink, and ochre, perhapsbased on marble patterning. There areseveral fragments that once joined theconcave inner border of this niche. Threefragments preserve a pale ochre halooutlined in dark blue and white against adark blue background. One fragmentpreserves a small white cross on a dark bluebackground, perhaps the beginning of aninscription. These details suggest that theniche contained the image of a saint.

The face of Christ. The most impressive ofthe figural fragments come from a life-sizeportrait of Christ, found in the excavation ofthe tomb in the first north nave recess(estimated height of head: 30 cm.). The face

is seen frontally. One large piece represents the mouth, chin, and beard; another the nose; stillanother part of the forehead with the forelocks and the beginning of the hair; and yet another theright ear with hair and part of the halo. Unfortunately the eyes are missing. The amount of detailin the rendering of the facial features is remarkable, and much must have been done with asingle-haired brusHag. The face has an ochre cast with olive shading. There is a highlighting ofthin white lines on the forehead, face and lips, and a strong red is used in the lips, nose, andcheeks. The modeling is very subtle, with a wide range of colors. The lips are small but full,curving upward, countering the downward curves of the moustache. The nose is long and thin,outlined in a maroon-brown and red, with white highlights. Along the cheek and chin, the oliveshadows blend into the maroon-brown of the moustache and beard, all executed with very finelines. The hair is separated from the face by a double line of thick ochre-white and dark brown.

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, paintedpattern from reveal of niche

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·137

138

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·138

139

The figure’s right earlobe is delicately modeled but not clearly detailed. The hair is outlined indark brown and striated with ochre and white. The halo is now reddish with a greenishoverpainting for the bar of the cross-nimbus; perhaps it was originally gold.

The exceptional quality of this image is evident even in its fragmentary condition, and it suggestsan artist of the first rank, probably from Constantinople. The highlighting with thin, parallelwhite lines and the multicolored outlining of the facial features corresponds to early Palaiologanmosaics and frescoes in the Byzantine capital, such as the Christ from the Deesis in Hag. Sophiaor the paintings of the Chora. On the other hand, the indistinct treatment of the earlobe, notseparated from the cheek, may be unique in such representations of Christ. In addition, the mouthof the Didymoteichon Christ differs from the Constantinopolitan examples: although the lips arecharacteristically narrow, the moustache extends outward to either side and does not droop,giving the face a less severe expression. It remains unclear where within the building the frescowas originally located.

Numerous related fragments of drapery were also found, painted in a purplish brown with paleochre hatching meant to resemble chrysography. The drapery pieces have darker, concentricovals to define the underlying form. Tonal gradations are within a single color, and darker,thicker lines represent the folds in the drapery.

Objects found with burials. A single burial preserved significant grave goods. In the third southnave tomb, a skeleton was found beneath a disturbed layer and above another burial. It was indeteriorated condition but accompanied by fragments of cloth, including a braided border and asilk ribbon, copper buttons, a perfume sprinkler, a ring and one earring. Around the skeleton were16 nails with fragments of wood attached, indicating that the body had been buried in a woodencoffin.

The glass perfume sprinkler, or myrodocheion, is a good example of an omon-shaped vessel,popular in Islamic (Syrian or Egyptian) glass manufacture during the 12th-15th centuries, with

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·139

140

a conical base, a doughnut-shaped body, and a tall neck; trailed handles appear a the joining ofthe body and neck. The vessel measures 24 cm. tall by 10 cm. across its body. The translucentblue glass preserves traces of a rough decoration of red and white paint.

The jewelry found in same burial fits generally within the picture of the development ofByzantine metalwork, although Late Byzantine jewelry is neither well published nor oftenstudied. The ring is made of a gold alloy and measures 1.55 cm. exterior diameter and 1.35 cm.interior diameter. The thin metal band is engraved with a Solomonic knot or basket weavepattern on its rectangular bezel and with scrollwork on its hoop. The bezel decoration may beread either as a common Christian apotropaic motif or perhaps as one with particular

Didymoteichon, Chapel by Hag. Athanasios, gravegood from tomb in niche 3: glass bottle, ring, andearring

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:35 ™ÂÏ›‰·140

141

monogrammatic or familial associations. Similar emblems with four crossed bars appears inassociation with members of the imperial family during the Late Byzantine period. An almostidentical motif appears on the walls of Didymoteichon, executed in brick, flanking themonogram of the Protostrator Constantine Tarchaniotes, who was archon of the city ca. 1351-1352. The motif might thus have been associated with the Tarchaniotes family.

A gold earring from same burial has a pouch-like body and a hinged hook. It measures 1.54 cm.in height, 1.4 cm. wide and 0.7 cm. thick. The unusual, long closing pin measures 1.23 cm. Thebody is hollow, and its lower surface is covered with an openwork foliate design that resemblesfiligree. A bead pattern appears on the sides, and the upper surface is plain. The body wasprobably made in two pieces with the loops for the hook later soldered to it. The decoration wasprobably executed before the pieces were joined, using a stamping and punching technique,

judging from the three-dimensional qualityof the design.

Post-Byzantine churches. The Post-Byzan-tine churches in Didymoteichon include thecathedral of Hag. Athanasios (1834), thechurch of the Koimesis of Panagia (1843), aparish church outside the walls constructedon the site of an older church of 1806, and thechurch of Christ (1846). All are three-aisledbasilicas with pi-shaped narthexes. Theirelaborated wooden iconostases were carvedby Stamates from Madytos, and exhibit

Didymoteichon, icon of the Panagia Didymotei-chitissa, 14th c.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·141

142

Western influences. The nineteenth centuryicons on the iconostases were dedicated bythe guilds of Didymoteichon, and most ofthem are signed “by the hand of Nikolaosfrom Adrianopolis”. The church of Hag.Georgios (Surp Kevork) was the centre ofworship for the Armenian community duringthe nineteenth century. It was built probablyon the site of the Byzantine church known asHag. Georgios Palaiokastrites, where John VI

Kantakouzenos said prayers after his coronation on 26th October 1341. Kantakouzenos himselfrelated (III, 167): “As after the applause the emperor, mounted on his steed, and whith all hisretinue on horseback, proceeded to the church of the holy martyr Saint George Palaiokastrites”.

Bibliography

Asdracha C. La région de Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Études de géographie historique (Athens,1976), 130-37

__________ and Ch. Bakirtzis. “Inscriptions byzantines de Thrace (VIIIe-XVe siècles) Édition etcommentaire historique,” Archaiologikon Deltion 35/A (1980) [= 1986], 263-71

Bakirtzis, Ch. “Didymoteichon: un centre de céramique post-byzantine,” Balkan Studies 21 (1980), 147-53Bertelè, T. L’imperatore alato nella numismatica bizantina (Rome, 1951)Euthymiou, Gr. “To Didymoteichon kata tous byzantinous chronous,” Archeion Thrakikou Laografikou

kai Glossikou Thesaurou 22 (1957), 349-78Giannopoulos, F. Didymoteichon: Istoria enos byzantinou Ochyrou (Athens, 1989) [Greek translation of

Id., Didymoteichon: Geschichte einer byzantinischer Festung, diss. Köln, 1975]Gouridis, A. To historiko Didymoteicho (Didymoteicho, 1999)Lampousiades, G. “Didymoteichon,” Thrakika 2 (1929), 87-93

Didymoteichon, Glazed plates, early 19th c.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·142

143

Manakas, D. “Sylloge afegeseon, thrylon, paradoseon kai historikon gegonoton Didymoteichou,”Thrakika 37 (1963), 12-39

Meimares, I. - Ch. Bakirtzis Hellenikes epigrafes hysterorromaikon kai palaiochristianikon chronon apote Dytike Thrake (Komotini, 1994)

Ousterhout, R. “Observations on the ‘Recessed Brick’ Technique during the Palaeologan Period,”Archaiologikon Deltion 39 (1984) [=1990], 163-170

_________. “The Palaeologan Architecture of Didymoteichon,” Byzantinische Forschungen, 14 (1989),Acts of the First International Symposium for Thracian Stuidies “Byzantine Thrace: Imageand Character”, Komotini, May 28th-31st 1987, 430-443

_________. Unpublished excavation reports, on file with the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities,Kavala, 1990-92

__________. “Hag. Aikaterini at Didymoteichon,” Archaiologikon Deltion 42, B2 Chronika (1987), 471-474___________. “A Late Byzantine Chapel at Didymoteichon and Its Frescoes,” in L’arte di Bisanzio e

l’Italia al tempo dei Paleologi 1261-1453, eds. A. Iacobini and M. della Valle (published asMilion 5 [Rome, 1999]), 195-207

___________ and Th. Gourides. “Ena Byzantino Kterio dipla ston Agio Athanasio Didymoteichonu,” ToArchaiologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake, 5 (Thessaloniki, 1994), 517-121

Papadopoulos, S. Didymoteicho (Didymoteicho, 1990)Papatheophanous-Tsoure, E. and Tsouris, K. “Palaiologeio monydrio sto kastro Didymoteichou,”

Archaiologikon Deltion 44-46/A (1989-1991),12-39Samothrakes, A. “He phylake tou Karolou XII, Vasileos tes Souedias en Didymoteichon,” Thrakika 20

(1944), 87-92 Tsouris, K. “Anaskafike erevna sto Didymoteicho,” Athens Annals of Archaeology 20 (1987), 43-65_________. “Nea evremeta apo to Didymoteicho,” Athens Annals of Archaeology 23 (1989), 89-110_________. “Ta kineta evremata tes anaskafes dyo byzantinon spition sten Arta kai sto Didymoteicho.

Prote prossegise,” Praktika Diethnous Synedriou “To Despotato tes Epirou”, Arta 23-31.5.1990 (Arta, 1992), 495-504

Vapheides, N. “Hai Ekklesiai Didymoteichou,” Thrakika 13 (1940), 228-241_________. “ Byzantinon parekklesion tes Agias Aikaterines en Didymoteicho tes Thrakes,” Archeion

Thrakikou Laografikou kai Glossikou Thesaurou 22 (1957), 165-8

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·143

144

Pythion, fortress seen from south (1987)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·144

145

CHAPTER 5

Pythion and Pranghi

Located about 15 km east-northeast from Didymoteichon and 32 km south of Edirne, themassive, ruined fortress of Pythion (Greece) sits on the edge of a plateau, above the plain of theEvros/Meriç River valley, about 2 km west of the river itself. The fortress may be identified withthe tameion or treasury and residence of John VI Kantakouzenos, called by him Empythion orPythion. From the Historiai of Kantakouzenos, we know that the fortress existed already at thebeginning of the second civil war in 1341 and that it was built during the reign of Andronikos III- that is, either his joint rule with Andronikos II, 1321-28, or his sole rule, 1328-41.Dendrochronological examination of wood beams from the larger tower indicates a felling date1331 and thus a date in the later period is likely. The historian Nikephoros Gregoras indicatesthat there may have been an older, ruined fortress on the site. Gregoras wrote that“Kantakouzenos undertook expensive works in the castle of Pythion .... and managed to make itlook as if suspended in the air.” In 1342 Kantakouzenos was besieged at Pythion by AlexiosApokaukos, and in 1352 by the Bulgarian supporters of the Palaiologues. The fortress fell to theOttomans under Hacı Ilbeyi around 1359, as the region from Didymoteichon to Adrianopoliscame under Ottoman control, and the fortress assumed his name.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·145

146

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·146

147

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·147

148

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

Pythion, large tower, vaulted staircase

Pythion, the entrance of the large tower beforerestoration (1974)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·148

149

also connects to a vaulted staircase, set into the thickness of the wall and covered by a series oframping barrel vaults, and this provides access to the upper floors.

Indicative of its defensive nature, few windows opened to the interior. The ground floor mayhave been windowless originally. Immediately above the main entrance, the window includes arectangular “murder hole” in its sill. On the upper levels, only thin slit windows open in thesouthwest wall, which was the most exposed, with small arched windows on the other facades.Those of the upper level are the largest, and as this level included both a fireplace and a built-incupboard, we may assume it was the residential floor of the tower.

Most distinctive of the tower’s features are thecontinuous stone machicolations preserved atits summit. These once supported battlementsto protect the defenders, and they provided“murder holes” from which the walls could bedefended from attackers at close range. Thelarger windows on the upper levels were alsoequipped with at least four defensivebalconies of similar form, rising above stonecorbels on the northeast and northwestfaçades.

Some strengthening of the central pier andpilasters seems to have occurred at a latertime. In spite of its massiveness, the fragility

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·149

150

of the construction is evident by the perilous state of the vaulting. In its fragmented condition, itprovides and inner aspect suggestive of a Piranesi engraving of Roman ruins. A cistern wasadded subsequently as well, by walling in one-quarter of the ground floor. It seems to have beensupplied by rainwater through pipes that led from the roof.

A study of the masonry indicates that the larger tower was constructed first and may have beenfreestanding originally. Courses of brick appear within the rough stone masonry of the exterior

Pythion, large tower, detail of masonry

Pythion, large tower, first level, showing technique ofvaulting (1974)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·150

151

to mark the transitions between the levels of the interior. The recessed brick technique appearsconsistently in these courses. A variation of the recessed brick technique appears in the domicalvaults of the interior, with large fragments of bricks in the mortar joints. This technique appearsin none of the other, presumably later, components of the fortress. The four-bayed plan, withbrick vaulting at all levels, and the extensive use of stone machicolations mark the tower asunique among Byzantine fortifications and at the cutting edge of military technology in thefourteenth century. It must have been costly to build, as Gregoras implies, and with its greatheight and in its dramatic situation, it would seem to have been “suspended in the air.”

The smaller tower and the arched gateway were constructed later, simultaneously with the wallof the inner enceinte. The tower is almost square in plan, measuring ca. 7.4 m on each side,preserved to a maximum height of 20 m. Although it does not rise to height of the larger tower,its foundations begin at a considerably lower level, set onto the slope of the hill. In addition, thewalls of the tower are battered, exhibiting diminution as they rise. As in the larger tower, its fourfloors are marked on the exterior by courses of brick, although the recessed brick technique isnot employed here. On the interior, the floors are all single chambered, each covered by adomical vault of brick. The ground floor was only accessible from above and has no windows;it was probably used as a dungeon, entered by ladder from above. There is no communication

Pythion, towers seen from west (1986)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·151

152

between the upper floors, each of which was entered separately from the exterior. Windows openon the upper levels; that on the southeast façade, now damaged, may have connected to amachicolated balcony. The small tower may have terminated in another level topped bymachicolations, similar to the larger tower.

The two towers are joined by a wall 2.65 m thick with a portal leading to the inner courtyard.The walkway at its top connected to a window on the third floor of the larger tower. The passageis covered by a barrel vault ca. 4.6 m in length over an opening 3.3 m wide. On the lateral walls,

Pythion, the fortified gateway before restoration(1974)

Pythion, courtyard during restoration, looking westtoward the entrance (2005)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·152

153

there is evidence for attaching an outer and an inner two-valve door, as well as for bars to securethem in place. A small chamber covered by a domical vault appears above the passageway. Thiswas accessible by an internal staircase, which, however, does not extend to the ground level.Above this rose a corbelled balcony.

The inner courtyard is surrounded by a wall 2.20-2.40 m thick. To the south, the wall is preservedfor a length of 28.5 m, with a maximum height of 9 m. To the north, slightly more than 10 m ofthe length is preserved. The curtain walls were reinforced internally with wooden chains andbuilt with blind arches on their inner surface. Perhaps there were also lightweight buildings setagainst them around the interior of the enclosure.

Based on its construction technique, the outer enceinte seems to have been built separately,apparently in a final phase. Certain problems are posed by the three-phased chronology of thefortress. If the main tower was built after 1331, the two enceintes must have appeared shortlythereafter. We may credit these to Kantakouzenos’ need for better defenses during the period ofthe civil wars, although this is nowhere stated in his history. When he mentions the fortress

Pythion, plain greenish glazed cup, 14th c. Pythion, bottom of a glazed bowl with brown andgreen sgraffito decoration, 14th c.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·153

154

during the period of the civil war, he writes of it as if it had existed for some time. On the otherhand, the fortress is known in early Ottoman sources as Ilbeykülesi, and it may be that it wasstrengthened by Gazı Ilbeyi after he captured it in 1359. This would explain why the fortresscame to bear his name.

Since 1993, the fortress has been the subject of extensive study and restoration under thedirection of the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities.

Pranghi. Located between Didymoteichon and Pythion, the village of Pranghi or Prangion(Greece) is known from the fourteenth century as the site of the tomb of the father of GaziEvrenos. According to a defter dated to the period of Süleyman the Magnificent, “the father ofEvrenos is said to have been Isa Beg, later called Prangi, because he died in the village of thatname; his son Evrenos had a mausoleum built there and established a waqf.” According to thedefter, an alternative name for village of Prangi is Karye-i Sırcık.

Just south of the village, by the present road from Didymoteichon to Pythion, at the site knownas Panokklisi (“Upper Chapel”) or Gnematoudia (“Tombs”), the remains of a small churchcomplex were discovered. The site was excavated by the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquitiesin the early 1980s.

The main feature at the site was a single-aisled church, very similar in type to Hag. Aikatheriniat Didymoteichon. The church measures 13.23 x 7.47 m overall, with exterior articulation ofpilasters and blind arcades. Access to the narthex was by means of an axial western portal andby a secondary doorway to the north. A single entrance, with bivalve doors, led into the naos.Heavy internal pilasters reinforce the lateral walls, aligned with two on each side. On the basisof these, we may suggest that the chapel was covered by a banded barrel vault. The floors of thenaos and narthex were covered with large stone slabs, which had been carefully worked. Closeto the center of the naos is a well for drinking water. A slab has been cut to form a wellhead witha circular well, whose walls were constructed of stone laid without mortar.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·154

155

The apse of the bema is three-sided on the exterior and semicircular on the interior, extendingalmost the full width of the naos. The stylobate for the templon extends across the eastern partof the interior, between the setback of the apse and the eastern pilasters. The upper surface of thestylobate preserves cuttings for the templon piers.

To the south of the church, about 1.25 m away and on the same alignment, is a small chapel,measuring 3.15 x 2.95 m, with a semicircular apse and a west entrance. Its floor was foundcovered with a layer of plaster, beneath which was a layer of stone slabs, apparently its first floorcovering. During the first phase at the chapel, there was an arcosolium tomb of an importantperson in the lateral wall, which was removed in the second phase.

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·155

156

To the west of the chapel and adjacent to the southwest corner of the church, a second chapelwas found at a lower level and at a slightly different orientation. Perhaps older, it measured ca.4 x 4 m overall, with a west entrance and a semicircular apse. The floor is covered with stoneslabs. A masonry templon separates the bema, whose floor is raised slightly. On the exterior, thewalls of the chapel were covered with mortar, with straight and cruciform (horizontal andvertical?) incisions. The chapel was extended to the west with two connected rectangular spaces,which served as narthex and exonarthex, and which were also paved with stone slabs.

To the west of the church a floor of stone slabs forms a sort of courtyard bounded to the westand south by piers and closure slabs, as indicated by the cutting in the stone pavement. Theorganization of the courtyard pavement appears more similar to the flooring of the southwestchapel than to that of the church, and may belong to the second phase of use at the site.

The complex is enclosed on the south side by a wall. After the destruction of the church andchapels, the area was used as a cemetery. About 20 m south of the church five tombs wereexcavated: four were cist tombs of children, two of which each contained a glazed pottery vessel.

Pranghi, the main church Pranghi, the south chapels

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·156

157

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

Several carved stone pieces were found during the excavation: closure planels, piers, the epistyleof the templon, pieces of a window frame and glass. The excellent quality of the sculpture echoesthat of Constantinople, with which nearby Didymoteichon had close connections. The erectionof the church above a well, known as a custom from ancient times, fixes the position of theByzantine road from Didymoteichon to Pythion, which is mentioned the fourteenth century as80 stadia in distance.

The details of the building, such as the lack of alignment of the façade arcades with the interiorsupports, as well as the architectural sculpture, suggest a date in the second half of 13th century.

Pranghi, the epistyle of the templon found in theexcavation Pranghi, Basket capital found in the excavation

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·157

158

Pranghi, closure panels found in the excavation

Pranghi, closure panel found in the excavation Pranghi, fragments of window frames found in theexcavation

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:42 ™ÂÏ›‰·158

159

Bibliography

Asdracha, Catherine. La région des Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles (Athens, 1976), 120-24Bakirtzis, Ch. Archaeologikon Deltion 33(1978), B2, Chronika, 327-29Bakirtzis, Ch. - D. Triandaphyllos, Thrace, ETB∞ Cultural Guides (Athens, 1990), 74Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “Osmanlı Imparatorlugunda Bir Iskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu olarak Vakıflar ve

Temlikler,” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942), 342Gregoras, Nikephoros Byzantina Historia, ed. L. Schopen, II:708Hetherington, Paul. “Pythion: A Thracian Frourion of John VI Kantakouzenos,” Jahrbuch der

Österreichischen Byzantinistik 45 (1995), 307-12Kantakouzenos, Ioannes. Historiai, ed. Schopen, II:184, 195Korres, M. “The Architecture of the Pythion Castle,” Byzantinische Forschungen 14 (1989), 274-78Kuniholm, P.I., and C.L. Striker, “Dendrochronological Investigations in the Aegean and Neighboring

Regions, 1977-1982,” Journal of Field Archaeology 10 (1983), 411-420; “1983-1986,”Journal of Field Archaeology 14 (1987), 385-98

Nichol, D. The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Washington, D.C., 1968), 35-103Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake-, Rodope- und Haimimontos), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6 (Vienna, 1991),

414, 419-20Tsouris, K and A. Brikas To frourio tou Pythiou kai to ergo tes apokastaseos tou. Prokatarktike anakoinose

(Kavala, 2002)Vocotopoulos, P. “The Concealed Course Technique: Further Examples and a Few Remarks,” Jahrbuch

der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28 (1979), 247-60

087 OS 178 29-03-07 07:49 ™ÂÏ›‰·159

160

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·160

161

CHAPTER 6

Adrianopolis (Edirne) and its Monuments

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

History

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·161

162

As the major stronghold and administrative center of the region, Adrianopolis played asignificant role in all conflicts between the Byzantines and their Balkan neighbors, protecting thecapital from invasions from the north. Valens was routed by the Goths in 378 in the Battle ofAdrianopolis. During the second half of the sixth century, Slavs and the Avars besieged the city.Throughout the ninth and tenth centuries, the city witnessed the conflicts between the Byzantinesand the Bulgars, falling briefly to both Krum and Symeon. The city was a base for JohnTzimiskes’ war against the Russians in 971, as well as a center for resistance against thePechenegs in the eleventh century. Adrianopolis was also a major commercial center; Venetiantraders are noted in the city as early as the late eleventh century. Alexios I Komnenos wasproclaimed emperor in Adrianopolis in 1081.

During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the city was a major point of contention between the

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·162

163

Byzantines, Crusaders, and Bulgars. Frederick Barbarossa occupied the city in 1190 and fromthere negotiated a treaty with Constantinople. The Bulgarian Kalojan defeated the Latins atAdrianopolis in 1205, although the conflict continued for several subsequent years, with theLatins evidently maintaining control of the city. In 1225, Adrianopolis passed from the Latins toJohn III Dukas Vatatzes of Nicaea but fell in the same year to Theodore of Epiros. In 1230, theBulgarians once again took the city, but John III reestablished Nicaean rule in 1242-46. In 1255-56, Theodore II Laskaris used Adrianopolis as his base for a campaign against the Bulgars. Withthe reestablishment of Byzantine rule in Constantinople in 1261, Adrianopolis became thestrategic center on the border with Bulgaria. The Catalan Grand Company besieged the cityduring their westward march in 1307.

Adrianopolis played an important role during the civil wars of the fourteenth century. In 1346,John VI Kantakouzenos was crowned in Adrianopolis by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Shortlythereafter, the city and its district were given as a fiefdom to his son Matthew Kantakouzenos.In the subsequent conflict with John V Palaiologos, John VI brought Turkish troops to his aid.The city seems to have been seized by Turkish begs in or around 1369, and in 1376-77, MuradI established his residence there. The city subsequently was developed as the Ottoman capital,serving as such prior to the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies witness major architectural investment in the city by the Ottomans.

Monuments

Little survives in modern Edirne to bear witness to the important Byzantine history of the city.Continually ravaged by war during the Byzantine period and dramatically rebuilt in the earlyOttoman period, the historic core of the city was devastated by fire and earthquake and sufferedadditional damage during the Russian siege and occupation of 1877-78 in the Balkan Wars of1912-13. An inventory compiled by I. Saraphoglou in 1929 lists one Byzantine church, ten post-Byzantine churches, four churches that had burned in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries,

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·163

164

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

and three churches converted to mosques but in ruins or destroyed by the time of his writing. In1907, C. Gurlitt sought the Christian buildings of the city with little success. Only two Byzantinechurches are known from physical remains, recorded a century or more ago, both had disappearedby the early twentieth century.

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·164

165

Fortifications

The lines of the ancient city walls are no longer visible, but they were described by EvliyaCelebi, Lampousiades, and others. The ancient wall was laid on a parallelogram plan, runningapproximately 800 meters on the east and west sides, and 600 meters on the south and northsides, enclosing an area of about 0.36 square kilometer. Round towers appeared at the corners,with a barbican at the river’s edge, joined to the southwest corner tower. Each stretch of wallsincluded several gates; Evliya Celebi named eight gates and claimed that in former times thewalls were surrounded by a moat. Areas of the north wall are preserved, along with the northeasttower, now known as the Macedonian Tower, which has been much rebuilt and recently restored.

Called by Evliya Celebi the Makeduna Kullesi, the tower is round, about 10 m in diameter, andconstructed of alternating bands of brick and squared stone. It was altered and heightened in1884 and again in 1894 with the addition of several stepped stages to serve as the Clock Tower(Saat Kulesi), and it became a distinctive landmark in the city. The upper stages were removedfollowing damage in the earthquake of 1953.

Edirne, Remains of the fortification wall

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·165

166

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

Edirne, Clock tower, early 20th century, showingremains of Byzantine inscription

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·166

167

The formulaic inscription gives the name of an emperor John, although it does not specify whichone. K. Kyriazes once proposed that the tenth-century emperor John Tzmiskes was responsiblefor its construction, and, indeed, the tower is sometimes called the Tower of John Tzimiskes. Butthe inscription more likely belongs either to either John V Palaiologos or John VIKantakouzenos; as E. Siderides suggested, it probably records the reconstruction of thefortifications following the devastating earthquake that struck Thrace in 1353.

Other recorded inscriptions from the walls give the names of Basil II, Nikephoros Bryennios,John II Komnenos, and Michael VIII Palaiologos.

The area behind the northeast tower was excavated in 2002 under the direction of Sahin Yıldırım,but the results are not yet published. The excavation revealed the lower courses of thefortification walls, built of large squared stone, and well as evidence of later repairs andmodifications. Parts of a small Byzantine church, were also unearthed, dated by the excavatorsto the tenth century, and an industrial area with several ceramic kilns. Finds are on display in thearchaeological museum.

Byzantine Churches

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

Edirne, Clock tower, early 20th century, detail of theinscription

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·167

168

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·168

169

designation; the original dedication is unknown. Lady Wortley Montagu visited a ruined churchwhen she passed through Adrianopolis in 1717, and perhaps confusing it with its namesake inConstantinople, she wrote: “I was in haste to see the ruins of Justinian’s church, which did notafford me so agreeable a prospect … being little more than a heap of stones.” Certainly by thenineteenth century, when it was photographed and cursorily studied, it lay in ruins. Located inthe Old City, the church seems to have been converted into a mosque but used as such only fora short period of time. During the reign of Murad II (1421-1451) a medrese building was addedto its one side, and a certain instructor by the name of Omeri Halebi was assigned to it, fromwhich its Ottoman name derives (Halebi Medresesi Camii). Ignatios Nazianzou, writing in 1760,records that the building, known both as the Ai-Sophia Camii and as the Halebiye, had beenconverted to a mosque but paintings were still visible, including a Pantokrator in the dome. Thebuilding seems to have been destroyed in the earthquake in 1751 and left a ruin. According toBadı Ahmet Efendi, writing ca.1888-98, the building had a dome, which was positioned on fourarcades and was accompanied by a wooden minaret. By the end of the nineteenth century,however, there was almost nothing left of the building due to the removal of the masonry forreuse in new construction.

A. Choisy published two schematic plans of the building in 1876 and 1913. In 1888, the Russianconsul Gh. Léchine took a photograph of the ruined building, seen from the south, which is nowin the archives of the Institute of Bulgarian Archaeology in Sofia. By 1902, the church was saidto be completely destroyed. A second photograph, of poor quality and of uncertain date, waspublished in 1928 and shows a single standing pier.

Mateev, Mavrodinov, Eyice, and Papazotos have discussed the church, based on Choisy’s plansin combination with the 1888 photograph. Choisy claimed that the building had two constructionphases, and this seems likely. The building was cruciform on the exterior, measuring some 32.40m in width and length, with the square core measuring about 15.20 m across, or approximately48 Byzantine feet. On the interior, the core was expanded by cross-arms of equal measurement,

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·169

170

projecting about 8.50 m on each side, each apparently terminating in an apse enveloped by anambulatory. The plan of the building in the first phase may be reconstructed as an aisledtetraconch, similar to that of S. Lorenzo in Milan, which dates from the second half of the fourthcentury, and to numerous examples in Athens, Syria, and elsewhere, built during the subsequenttwo centuries. The innovative, open design would also suggest a comparison with Hagia Sophiain Constantinople, and this resemblance may account for its designation.

Many details of the first phase remain unclear. Choisy’s plan includes four piers or columns setinto the central area to support a dome with an estimated diameter of 7.20 m. Based on otherexamples of the aisled tetraconch building type, however, this seems unlikely, and more probablythe central area was completely open. In addition, the plan does not indicate how theambulatories were separated from the tetraconch core of the building, but, again, based oncomparable examples, this was most likely accomplished by means of columnar screens, whichwould have allowed dynamic spatial relationships in the double-shelled design. None of theother examples of early tetraconch buildings are squared off on the exterior, but this detail isindicated clearly on Choisy’s plan, with niches and corner compartments accessible from theambulatory. It is unclear if at this phase the building had a gallery above the ambulatory,although it its second phase, the building seems to have included a gallery. Because of the scale

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

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·170

171

of the building and the relative thinness of the supports, the central area may have been coveredby a pyramidal wooden roof or possibly by a dome of light construction. Choisy dated the firstphase to the seventh century, but most other scholars have suggested a fifth-century date, whichseems more likely.

In a second construction phase, heavy supports were introduced into the corners of the centralarea to support arches and pendentives, and a dome with a diameter of approximately 7.20 mabove the central area. As it is evident in the photograph, the rising walls, the pier supports, andthe dome were made of brick. It is unclear if the aisled tetraconch plan was maintained in thisphase, if the church was reduced to a cruciform core, or if the colonnades of the exedrae werefilled with solid walls. The cluster piers are penetrated by narrow passageways on two levels; inthe photograph the lower arcades are almost completely buried, but their presence is clearlyindicated by a lower cornice, and it would appear that in this phase at least the church had agallery. The lower cornices are detailed with an astragal and a heavy fascia, while the upperappear to have been champfered. The dome raised above a cylindrical drum, pierced by largewindows, with setbacks in each opening. The springing of the dome was concealed behind therising cylinder of the drum on the exterior. Each cross-arm seems to have ended in an apse orexedra, perhaps vaulted with a half-dome.

Eyice saw the dome as the only feature that belonged to the second phase, which he attributedto the Late Byzantine period. However, the construction and detailing of the drum can becompared to the dome of the Fatih Camii in Trilye, built ca. 800. Moreover, the forms of thecluster piers at the corners of the naos are similar to those in Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki (latesixth century), and the lower cornice profiles are similar as well. In contrast to Eyice,Mavrodinov had dated the second phase to the eighth century, and based on the details of thepiers, dome, and cornices, a date in the Transitional Period seems most reasonable. Papazotosbelieved the church to be of a single phase in the seventh or eighth century; he suggested atripartite sanctuary with pastophoria in the place of the eastern conch and ambulatory, but thereis no clear evidence of this. Although there must have been some sort of accommodation for the

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·171

172

later Byzantine liturgy, the corner compartments of the original plan may have utilized aspastophoria.

Sinaitikon. A small tetraconch chapel has also been documented, known as the Sinaitikon.According to Ignatios Nazianzou, writing in 1760, the church of Hagios Ioannes Theologosserved as the metochion of Sinai. Saraphoglou situates it inside the palace ton Blachon, by whomit was given to the monks of Sinai. The building survived into the early twentieth century, when

Edirne, Sinaitikon. Old photograph, seen from south Edirne, Sinaitikon. Plan, elevation, section, and domeplan by C. Gurlitt

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·172

173

its plan and elevation were recorded by Gurlitt in 1907. A single photograph of the building alsosurvives, published by Saraphoglou in 1928-29, but there are notable differences between it andGurlitt’s drawings. In his analysis of the building, Eyice suggests that Gurlitt had attempted torepresent the building as it looked in the Byzantine period, rather than recording itscontemporary appearance.

The chapel measured only 7.70 m in length, with a dome with a diameter of 3 m. The outer wallsfollowed a tapered cruciform outline while inner layout formed a tetraconch. The west nicheincludes a door, the one opposite is lined with small niches set into the thickness of the wall.There is no evidence whether two of the other arms had similar arrangement. Certaindiscrepancies are immediately evident between the photograph and Gurlitt’s plan: the diagonalwalls are faceted in the photograph, rather than concave as Gurlitt drew them; in addition, thewindows as photographed are positioned lower in the walls and are both larger and differentlyspaced that those in Gurlitt’s drawing.

Eyice compared the plan of the Sinaitikon to that of a Roman tomb at Side, thus implying anearly date, while suggesting that the tall drum reflecting a remodeling of the twelfth century,based on its similarities with the dome of St. John of Trullo (Hirami Ahmet Pasa) inConstantinople. However, the plan and the attenuated proportions of the elevation resemble moreclosely those of the Theotokos Mouchliotissa in Constantinople, as Gurlitt suggested. The latterwas probably constructed in the late thirteenth century and includes a dome of similar externaldesign. The proportions and details of the dome would suggest a likely date in the period of thetwelfth-to-fourteenth centuries.

Yıldırım Camii. Gurlitt interpreted the cruciform plan and odd orientation of the Yıldırım Camiias Christian in origin, and consequently in his publication he termed it the “Kirchenmoschee.”His opinion that the building was originally a church was shared by the 1914 Baedecker’s Guideand later by Semavi Eyice. Gurlitt proposed that the building was originally built in the thirteenthcentury, converted ca. 1400, and remodeled in the eighteenth century. Despite its considerably

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·173

174

larger scale, both Gurlitt and Eyice compared the plan to that of the mausoleum of Galla Placidiain Ravenna. The mixed brick and stone masonry, with banded voussoirs in the arches, followsthe Byzantine system, but it resembles more closely the wall system of the early mosques ofBursa than that of Byzantine monuments. Although Byzantine foundations might have beenreused, the building is undoubtedly of early Ottoman origin, probably constructed as a zaviye.

Byzantine spolia were incorporated into the building, including two cubic in the arcaded entry.One remains atop its column; the other sits in the mosque garden. Both have trapezoidal fieldswith herringbone at the corners and must date from the Middle Byzantine period. In the south

Edirne, Yıldırım Camii, plan by C. Gurlitt

Edirne, Yıldırım Camii, reused templon architrave Edirne, Yıldırım Camii, reused templon architrave

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·174

175

convent room, or tabhane, a fragment of a templon architrave is reused as the window lintel. Itsinner face is decorated with a scene of the Ascension of Christ, with a small, seated Christ in amandorla carried by two flying angels. A lotus-and-palmette motif appears to either side, inwhich a six-winged seraph appears. The lower surface is decorated with a geometric pattern ofoverlapping circles and rhomboids. The piece must also be Middle Byzantine in date.

Other monuments. Byzantine spolia and disjecta membra appear throughout the city, and aninventory of these would be a useful undertaking. Within the Bayezid II Camii, for example, theHünkâr Mahfili (imperial loge) is carried on fifteen marble supports, composed of squarepedestals surmounted by octagonal colonnettes. Of these, possibly eleven (of three differentkinds of stone) are originally Byzantine pieces, a type of pier colonnette used in chancel barriers

Edirne, Selimiye Camii, outer enclosure, eagle capital Edirne, Archaeological Museum, Capital no. 30

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·175

176

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

Bibliography

Asdracha, Catherine. “Inscriptions byzantines de la Thrace orientale et de l’ile d’Imbros (XIIe-XVesiècles). Présentation et commentaire historique,” Archaiologikon Deltion 43 part A (1988),219-291; 44-46 part A (1989-91), 239-334

Baedecker, K. Konstantinopel, Balkanstaaten, Kleinasien, Archipel, Cypern (Leipzig, 1914), 50-55Eyice, Semavi. “Bizans Devrinde Edirne ve bu Devre ait Eserler” in Edirne Edirne’nin 600. Fethi

Yıldönümü Armagan Kitabı (Ankara, 1965) 39-77________. “Edirne Saat Kulesi ve Üzerindeki Bizans Kitabesi,” Güney-Dogu Avrupa Arastırmaları

Dergisi 8-9 (1979-80), 1-22Gökbilgin, M.T. “Edirne,” Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden, 1965), II, 683-86Gregory, T.E. and N.P. Sevcenko. “Adrianopolis,” Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York, 1991), I,

23 Gurlitt, C. “Die Bauten Adrianopels,” Orientalisches Archiv 1 (1910-11), 1-4, 51-60_______. Die Baukunst Konstantinopels (Berlin, 1912)Kreiser, K. Edirne in 17. Jahrhundert nach Evliya Celebi. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der

osmanischrennStadt (Freiburg, 1975)

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·176

177

Lampousiades, G.I. Peri ton teichon tes Adrianoupoleos (Orestias-Komotini, 1923. second edition withintroduction and notes by Thanasis Papazotos, Komotini 2007)

Mavrodinov, N. “L’origine de la construction et du plan de Sainte Sophie à Constantinople,” Actes du VIeCongrès International des Études Byzantines (Paris, 1951), II, 277-98

Ötüken, Yıldız, and Robert Ousterhout. “Notes on the Monuments of Turkish Thrace,” Anatolian Studies39 (1989), 121-49

Papazotos, Thanasis, “ Scolio pano se mia fotografia tes Hagias Sophias Adrianoupoleos,” ThrakikeEpeterida 9 (1992-94), 29-35.

Peremeci, O.N. Edirne Tarihi (Istanbul, 1939)Saraphoglou, I. (unsigned notes). “Apo ta byzantina mnemeia tes Thrakes,” Thrakika 1 (1928), 349, 392Saraphoglou, I. “Peri tes Adrianoupoleos,” Thrakika 2 (1929), 66-82Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake-, Rodope- und Haimimontos), Tabula Imperii Byzantini 6 (Vienna, 1991),

161-67

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·177

178

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

087 OS 178 27-03-07 15:43 ™ÂÏ›‰·178

179

Conclusion

The systematic examination of the surviving and documented monuments of the Evros/Meriçvalley yields a new understanding of the cultural role the region played throughout the Byzantineperiod. As the heartland of the Byzantine Empire and the hinterland of the capital, the region ofThrace preserves a rich and varied architectural legacy that both reflects and deviates from thatof the capital. While Thrace offers many parallels for the buildings of Constantinople, at thesame time, it presents a variety of unique architectural solutions. The monuments examined hereboth broaden and challenge our traditional picture of architectural developments in theByzantine capital.

Very little is preserved from the Early Christian centuries, but the plan of Hagia Sophia inAdrianopolis/Edirne, insofar as it may be reconstructed, is instructive. As an aisled tetraconch,the double-shelled plan employed here was widely disseminated throughout the Mediterraneanfrom the late fourth century onward, attesting to the cosmopolitan nature of the Late Antiqueworld. Perhaps the best known example is S Lorenzo in Milan of the third quarter of the fourthcentury, where a sense of the spatial complexity of the original building is still evident. Otherexamples are known in Athens, Antioch, Syria, Armenia, and at Ohrid and Perustica (Bulgaria)in the Balkans. With the exception of S Lorenzo, these date to the fifth or early sixth centuries.The proximity of our example to the Byzantine capital has important implications for thedevelopment of the innovative architectural forms of the sixth century, as at HH. Sergios kaiBakchos (Küçük Ayasofya Camii) and at Hagia Sophia, which similarly employed columnarscreens and developed sophisticated interior spatial relationships. As a Byzantine city,Adrianopolis was both strategic and cosmopolitan.

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·179

180

For the critical Transitional Period (late sixth through ninth centuries), very few buildingssurvive in Constantinople, and scholars have traditionally looked to Bithynia for supplementaryexamples. Thrace also provides some compelling transitional churches. The church known asAyasofya in Vize is one of the best preserved examples from this period, securely dated bydendrochronology to the ninth century. Until the excavations at Enez, it stood in virtual isolation.If our restoration and dating of the Kral Kilisesi are correct, we can offer another example of adomed basilica from the Transitional Period, as well as a building of exceptional quality. Thecentral domed area of the Ayasofya in Edirne (now destroyed) seems to have been rebuilt aroundthe same time, with a moderately sized dome raised above cluster piers. While none of thesebuildings finds an exact parallel in the capital, they suggest more broadly-based developmentsfor a poorly documented period.

For the Middle Byzantine period, two well-known examples, the church of the Kosmosoteira atPherai and the ruined church now known as the Fatih Camii at Enez, both correspond in termsof technique, scale, and spatial disposition with the twelfth-century monuments ofConstantinople. They would appear to have been constructed and probably decorated byworkshops composed at least in part of artisans from the capital. With the Kosmosoteira, thepresence of a crown prince, the Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos, emphasizes the connectionswith the capital, for even in his exile, Isaakios was not without resources – and not withoutconnections in the capital, as his typikon attests. We might imagine a similar scenario for theconstruction of the Fatih Camii at Enez – that is, built by a wealthy patron with close ties toConstantinople. Its well-preserved portico façade offers an excellent example of a buildingcomponent now missing from most of its contemporaries. In addition, both buildings offerspacious, light-filled interiors, capable of housing sizeable congregations, as one finds in thegreat twelfth-century churches of the capital.

Nevertheless, both churches preserve features unknown in Constantinopolitan architecture. Forexample, should the elongated plan and engaged columns beneath the dome at Enez or the

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·180

181

coupled columnar supports and open corner compartments at the Kosmosoteira be regarded asConstantinopolitan or as features of local derivation? At Pherai, the innovative design of thewestern domed bays reflects the growing concern for the commemoration of the dead, whichresulted in a variety of new building types in Constantinople. The open interior provided aunique position for Isaakios’ tomb, with a clear visual relationship to the setting of the liturgy.Although the Kosmosoteira finds no exact parallel in the capital, its design is experimental inprecisely the same ways we find in Constantinople in the same century.

The Enez church, on the other hand, parallels the increased scale and sense of openness thatcharacterizes the great twelfth-century endeavors in Constantinople, such as the Pantokratorchurches (Zeyrek Camii), the Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane Camii), and the church now known asthe Gül Camii. As with the coupled columns at the Kosmosoteira, the engaged columns at Enezmay have resulted from the employment of marble spolia to their best advantage. At the sametime, the elongated “domed basilica” design is unusual and perhaps reflects older prototypes.The discovery of the Kral Kilisesi at Enez offers a potential local prototype from the TransitionalPeriod, as does the church at Vize. Limited soundings along the south side of the Fatih Camiisuggest that the building may in fact rest on older foundations. That is to say, while Thracianpatrons and builders looked to the capital for architectural ideas, they also could find a similarlyrich architectural heritage within their own backyard.

The Late Byzantine churches of Didymoteichon and Enez reflect to a certain degree thearchitecture of Constantinople, but they are replete with technical and stylistic details thatsuggest the growth of regional workshops in the final centuries of Byzantium. The churches ofHag. Ioannes and Hag. Gregorios at Enez have attenuated domes quite unlike those of the capitaland which find better comparison further to the west. At Hag. Aikaterini in Didymoteichon andelsewhere, wall construction is a simple facing on a rubble core, quite unlike the buildingtechnique of Constantinople. The plans of the simple, single-aisled churches like Hag.Aikatherini or the church excavated at Pranghi find no comparison in the capital.

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·181

182

On the other hand, cultural and political connections with Constantinople continued. The oddbuilding by Hag. Athanasios in Didymoteichon may in fact have been the aisle of a larger church,and as such would reflect the development of ambulatory plans with accommodation for burials,as at the Monastery tou Libos (Fenarı Isa Camii) or the Chora (Kariye Camii). The mysteriousimages of winged emperors and the exceptional quality of the painting would also indicate closerelationships with the art of the capital. The fortress at Pythion similarly stands out as a uniqueexample of defensive architecture. Whereas it reflects the sad state of affairs in the fourteenthcentury as Byzantium descended into civil war and was gradually overtaken by the Ottomans, atthe same time, it demonstrates the continued possibility for innovation in the regionalarchitecture until the very end of the Byzantine period.

In sum, the architectural developments of Byzantine Thrace add important nuances to thegrowing picture of architecture in and around the Byzantine capital. At the same time, it isimportant to realize that there were local workshops of builders, whose style and constructiontechniques differed significantly from those of Constantinople. These local workshops becameconsiderably more important in the final centuries of Byzantium.

Unfortunately, the “Thrace of Ares” (as our colleague Danuta Gorecki once called it) continuedthrough much of the history of the region. Often a battleground in the Byzantine period, thehistorical record is filled with accounts of destruction. For the period before the sixth century,virtually nothing has survived. Although we may blame the Goths or the Avars for this lacuna,the twentieth century has been just as cruel. Many of the monuments known a century ago havevanished without a trace, lost in the turbulence of the Balkan Wars, the breakup of the OttomanEmpire, the Population Exchange, and the Greek-Turkish War. Now, with serious archaeologicalactivity taking place on both sides of the border, we hope that new discoveries, exchanges ofideas, and collaborations will yield a richer and more nuanced picture of the Evros/Meriç valleyduring the Byzantine period. We offer this book in hope that scholarship can transcend nationalboundaries, for Byzantium represents the common heritage on both sides of the border.

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·182

183

View of Didymoteichon from northeast

179 OS 184 27-03-07 16:39 ™ÂÏ›‰·183

184

The authors on the roof of the Kosmosoteira, 2005

Acknowledgements

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

179 OS 184 29-03-07 07:50 ™ÂÏ›‰·184

lefki

eisagogi.qxd 27-03-07 12:41 ™ÂÏ›‰·4

BAKTELCOVER44.6x22:BAKTELCOVER44.6x22 7/20/11 9:57 AM ������ 1