Download PDF | Download PDF | Nicopolis ad Istrum III: A late Roman and early Byzantine City: the Finds and the biological Remains (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London) , 2007.
331 Pages
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without the continuous and generous support provided by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Archaeology, Sofia and the Veliko Turnovo Historical Museum, this volume could never have been completed. The unswerving assistance offered by the British Academy and the Society of Antiquaries of London were essential to the success, not just of the excavations, but the progress towards its full publication. Thanks Jane. The British Council and the Bulgarian Ministry of Education provided Scholarship Grants for members of the team between 1985-1991.
Special thanks are due to the contributors to this volume, all of whom persevered, without financial help from the excavation fund. I wish to acknowledge, in particular, the contribution made by Tom Blagg who finished the final revisions to his manuscript shortly before his untimely death. As a good friend and a great scholar, he is missed by many and with good reason. Mark Beech not only contributed reports to this volume but also co-ordinated the environmental programme as a whole.
The illustrators, who produced the publication drawings during the field-seasons in Bulgaria, worked in often difficult conditions and merit special commendation for their achievement; Paul Stroud, Helen Jeffries and Kirsty Norman. In Britain, Jane Goddard added to the corpus of final drawings for publication and more than matched the high standards set by those who had joined the field team. David Taylor also drew finds. Moreover, he successfully organized and assembled the large number of drawings and contributed the advice and practical knowledge which underpins the publication of the illustrations. Dr A. Jones has spent a year working with me on the final revisions of the texts. Her painstaking attention to detail and determination have contributed enormously to the final publication.
To all the above and the others who have offered advice and assistance in the preparation of this volume, I offer my heartfelt thanks. As in all successful outcomes, it is the combination of team-work and individual responsibility which achieves the best results.
PREFACE
This, the third and final monograph completes the description of the excavations carried out by the British team on the site of the Roman city of Nicopolis ad Istrum in northern Bulgaria. The reports which follow detail the results from two key aspects of the research programme; providing a full description of finds assemblages (including 6,231 finds records) from well-dated deposits and reconstructing the ancient site’s natural setting and changing economic fortunes based upon a comprehensive archaeobiological programme, using primarily archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains.
Included also are studies on the molluscs and the evidence for metallurgical activity in the ancient city. Apart from the importance of these studies for the immediate region, very little research of this kind — and on this scale — has taken place within the Balkans as a whole. These reports therefore offer a rare insight into the palaeoeconomy and material culture of an urban centre in the Roman, late Roman and early Byzantine periods.
The reports are intended both for specialists working within the region, and for those seeking comparative information on aspects of the economy or site-finds from this part of the Roman Empire. Since such information is rarely available for the Balkan provinces, it is necessary to publish as full an account as possible. Of particular importance is the inclusion of dating and context descriptions for all finds and the publication with the specialist reports of sufficient data (in the form of tables and figures) to allow the reader to judge the validity of the overall conclusions. Those who require additional information (archive data sets for the specialist reports or context and small-find records from the excavations) may consult the full electronic archives held by the Archaeology Data Service. Those who wish to gain on-line access should apply to help @ads.ahds.ac.uk.
For the ancient city of Nicopolis, the historical interpretation of the excavations and the significance of the site rely heavily upon the conclusions contained in this volume. Already in print is the first volume on the excavations, geophysics, frescoes, coins and inscriptions (Poulter 1995), published by the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, and the second on the pottery by R. K. Falkner and on the glass by J. D. Shepherd (Poulter 1999), published by the Society of Antiquaries of London.
THE STRUCTURE AND PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT
The material here presented falls into two main sections: the finds from the excavations, and the archaeobotanical remains, followed by a contribution on slag deposits and metal-working. The evidence is presented for all periods of occupation, from the Roman to early Byzantine period, and including the early medieval and post-medieval settlements.
The compilation and writing of these reports involved lengthy and often complex discussion and exchanges of information between the director and specialists. It is to the credit of all of the contributors that they persevered in the task of producing final reports even though, after the conclusion of the excavations in 1991, there were no funds to support staff and only modest help was available for expenses. Although some of the specialists have been fully involved with the original fieldwork, the task of analyzing the results was especially difficult for those who had not participated in the excavations and who had to undertake additional study in order to understand the recording methods used, the process of the excavation and the character of the site; Zlatozar Boev, Johnna Buysse, Helen Bush, John Chapman, Martin Henig, Simon Parfitt and Chris Salter.
The director was responsible for providing the dating evidence for all finds and the interpretation of the contexts from which they came. In addition to editing the following contributions, the director has added new relevant sources of information which have appeared since the original reports were submitted. Rarely, in the finds sections, the director has added a comment after the description of the object by the primary author. In these cases and where a particular find is discussed by a contributor who is not the principal author of the report (for example, William Manning on the locks in metal finds) the second contributor’s name appears in brackets at the end of the additional note.
The objective, in the case of the finds reports, is not to include detailed discussion of particular types of find. However, where there exist local catalogues — which may not be known by a reader unfamiliar with the Balkans — these works are cited when appropriate. Each find record includes the date of the context and the circumstances of deposition.
Nevertheless, these reports do not pretend to represent an exhaustive account of the object’s significance and distribution across the Empire. Rather they fulfil the more modest aim of presenting the evidence in a concise format, as a resource for further study by specialists seeking information about the character and range of finds from this ancient city and this part of the Roman and early Byzantine Empire. Exceptionally, where a category of finds is of direct relevance to the interpretation of the site, this is noted and cross-references are made to the excavation report (Poulter 1995).
In the archaeobiological sections, sufficient data is included to allow the reader to consider the evidence upon which the essential conclusions are based. However, for those who wish to gain access to archive records for specialist reports or to consult the full electronic copy of the primary finds records and excavation documentation, this information can be obtained from Archaeological Data Service (Arts and Humanities Data Service) at info@ads.ahds.ac.uk.
Allillustrations and catalogued objects are numbered in sequence within each report, prefixed by the appropriate chapter number. For example, following the introduction, the first report, the metal-work, has figure and catalogue numbers prefixed by the number 2 (eg, Fig 2.7, catalogue number 2.42). For the finds reports, the description of objects follows the same order. The simple description or name of the object is on the first line alongside the catalogue number (omitted only if a group of objects is listed by type, cf, straight shafted bone pins). There follows the description, material (if appropriate), measurements (mm), then its small-find number (SF), the area from which it came, its context number, the context description and then the date of that context. Where a find is unstratified (u/s) this is noted.
Occasionally, an object comes from an ‘undated’ context: a context which belonged to a short string in the matrix which provided insufficient evidence for it to be assigned with confidence to a single period. In the case of the metal-work report, all but a few finds (listed in the introduction) are illustrated so there was no need to identify which finds in the catalogue are drawn. In all other finds reports, however, all illustrated finds have a star symbol (*) immediately after the catalogue number.
In the archaeobiological reports, numbers on their own within round brackets are context numbers. Where the excavation area is not indicated in the text, it is included within the brackets immediately before the context number.
The illustrations of small-finds vary slightly in style. Although the Director was responsible for the overall guidance of illustrators, many of the final publication drawings were completed during the 1980’s and early 90’s, others later during preparations for final publication and by different illustrators. Consequently, styles inevitably vary although the general principle of producing realistic, rather than schematic drawings, has been invariably applied.
INTRODUCTION
by
Andrew Poulter
The Aims of the Excavations at Nicopolis
The primary objective of the joint Anglo-Bulgarian research programme (1985-92) was to examine the character of a well-preserved Roman city in Bulgaria: to identify how it changed and developed from its origin as a Trajanic foundation (established c AD 109) through the Roman, late Roman and early Byzantine periods down to its final destruction and abandonment in the late 6th century AD (Fig 1.1 and 1.2). Whereas the Bulgarians continued excavations within the Roman city, the British team investigated the smaller fortified enclosure of 5.6 ha, immediately to the south, which had been identified as the site of Nicopolis in Late Antiquity (Poulter 1983, 90-97), built after the original Roman city had been abandoned (Fig 1.3). It was anticipated that a combined programme of geophysical research and area excavation would offer a unique opportunity to explore the physical layout of the city in the late Roman period. Few sites exist for such an extensive study of late Roman urbanism, either because the remains have been extensively robbed or else because the Late Roman city overlies its Roman predecessor, making it difficult to disentangle the general character of the site in just the late Roman period. Nicopolis, with its two separate sites, one Roman and the other late Roman, appeared not to have been significantly affected by later occupation. Research therefore offered every prospect of uncovering the character of this particular city which would serve as a case study to be compared with other, generally less well understood cities of Late Antiquity. The traditional view for the Balkans, and for the Eastern Empire as a whole, has been that there was no fundamental change in the organization and character of ancient cities down to the 6th century and that it was only after a last period of prosperity ‘in the Age of Justinian’ that the basis of urbanism was fatally weakened and finally extinguished, first by the Slav and Avar invasions in the northern Balkans and then, in the Near East, by the arrival of the Arabs in the 7th century. It has been the results from Nicopolis and the reinterpretation of the evidence emerging for other cities within the early Byzantine Empire that this view has been modified to reveal a much more complex picture with striking regional variations but also a more general and radical decline in the traditional nature of classical urbanism from the onset of the late Roman period (Liebeshuetz 2001). Even before the excavations at Nicopolis begun, there were indications, in the Balkans at least, that the cities had abandoned their classical form at a much earlier date. The only cities which appeared to still offer some of the amenities and private investment characteristic of urban life in the Roman period were centres of imperial administration where these signs of modest recovery were probably a response to imperial investment for the benefit of the new provincial administration, rather than representing a local revival of civic prosperity (Poulter 1992).
Although the physical development of the city was of importance and might provide clues as to functional continuity or change, the excavations were planned from the outset to include a large scale programme of archaeobiological analysis, aimed at providing evidence for the economy of the city, especially its role in the exploitation of its rich agricultural hinterland. Also, because there exist few sites in the Balkans which have produced a full and reliably dated sequence of occupation, a second objective was to reconstruct a largely site-based ceramic chronology, using coins, imported fine-ware and amphorae, but not relying upon other published corpora from the region. Although this potentially produces a more robust sequence, as well as more reliable dating for finds and biological evidence, it is an approach which is not without its own drawbacks, as will be described below (pp. 4-5). Circumstances also conspired to significantly widen the scope of the enquiry. The original agreement presupposed that our Bulgarian colleagues would be working on the Roman site and that the British excavations would be confined to the late Roman to early Byzantine periods. However, within the British sector, well-preserved Roman and late Roman levels were encountered and this allowed the British programme to be expanded to include a study of the Roman city from its foundation down to its eventual destruction in the late 6th century. At the other extreme, because it was discovered that the site had been reoccupied, if sparsely, in the ninth to tenth centuries, and extensively in the eighteenth to early nineteenth, the research was further extended to include both the early medieval and post-medieval periods.
The Publication of the Excavations
The results of the first three years of excavation were published as an interim report in the Antiquaries Journal (Poulter 1988). Field-work was completed in 1992 and research commenced on the analysis of the results of the excavations, the finds and archaeobiological evidence. The task was made easier because the recording, analysis and drawing of the finds to publication standard had continued during each field season and was largely completed by the final year in Bulgaria. All specialist reports were available in first draft before the excavations, geophysics, inscriptions, coins and wall-plaster were published in the first monograph (Poulter 1995). Preparations then continued for the second volume which contained the pottery report by Falkner and the analysis of the glass finds by Shepherd (Poulter 1999). Since then, the original finds and archaeobiological reports have been revised and, in some cases, radically rewritten for publication in this volume although the general conclusions, summarized in the excavation report, remain essentially the same as those presented here.
Producing three separate volumes over a decade is not an ideal method of publishing a major excavation. The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies published the first volume on the excavations (with substantial financial assistance from the excavation fund) but declined to continue its support. I and my team are therefore much indebted to the Society of Antiquaries of London for taking on the task of publishing the second monograph and now overseeing the publication of the final volume. In part, this explains the long delay in completing the task. It also accounts for the fact that there is a difference in format between the three books. Nevertheless, we hope that this does not unduly detract from the value of the material which is now all finally available in print.
Dating
It was recognized at the start of the excavation that, because there was no agreement as to the exact dating of ceramics and finds from the region, it was safer to construct and to rely upon a site-based chronology. The method and its more obvious disadvantages have been described (Poulter 1999, 6— 7). The most significant of the problems are those presented by residuality which, as on all urban sites, proved to be high. In the case of the pottery, it was clear that in post-medieval contexts, as much as 95% of the ceramic assemblage was residual. Only for the very earliest period in the history of the site, was residuality of negligible significance. Recent work at Dichin has confirmed that residuality at Nicopolis has artificially extended the life of the local fine wares which, though they occur in early Byzantine contexts in the city, we can now demonstrate ceased production before the end of the 4th century. Clearly, in the case of small-finds, the terminal context date provides only a terminus ante quem for the use and manufacture of the object. Even so, the nature of the context should indicate whether there is a high or low probability that the find is residual. For example, a pit-fill may include objects of earlier date than the digging of the pit but finds from a destruction deposit, as in the case of the destruction of the Roman city c 450, are likely to have been in use at that time.
Despite these caveats, the provision of dating for all the small-finds is here considered of importance for researchers in the region as well as those interested in the dating of finds which occur broadly across the Roman Empire. In a few cases the date of the contexts can be relatively precise (as above, c 450). More often, a date range can be provided, based upon the associated finds from that context and its stratigraphic position within the sequence (eg, 300-350). All the dates listed are taken directly from final matrices, drawn up by the director for each area of the site and checked against associated material, notably coins and the final ceramic chronology.
The quantitative Assessment of the Data by Period
The essential breakdown of the history of the site falls into five distinct periods; Roman c 110-296, late Roman c 296-450, early Byzantine c 450-600, Slav c 800-1000, post-medieval c 1750-1850. For the most part, this chronology provides the framework into which the sequence can be most appropriately described. However, the reader should also be aware of the nature of the excavations and how this can affect — and may possibly distort — the validity of the results described below. The most obvious is the accuracy of the site dating: a problem deserving particular explanation and is discussed below. The other, less obvious, but equally important qualification concerns the relative representation of data in each of the periods. True, the quantities of bones, seeds and finds constitute major corpora but they are not evenly distributed. The Roman period was only examined in restricted areas in the centre of the site and along the northern defences. However, the late Roman period was by far the best represented period with deep, well-stratified deposits from all excavation areas except for area E. Although the early Byzantine period was well-understood in terms of buildings, there were relatively few areas which produced good occupation surfaces, partly because many of the structures were unlikely to have acquired domestic debris (the churches in areas F and K) and partly because the deposits were close to the surface and often contaminated or disturbed (area M). An additional complication is the failure of the excavations to identify major areas of intensive domestic occupation in this period — although, this probably accurately reflects the nature of the site at that time. For the Slav period, pottery indicated occupation close to area K, but only one building was found and excavated (area F). The evidence from the post-medieval period was abundant. Inevitably, this bias in the availability of data by period must be taken into account when judging the significance of the results. For example, Boev argues that the most extensive range of birds belongs to the late Roman period. This is true. What is less certain is whether this is significant in terms of the importance of, say, domestic fowl in the 4th century AD or whether it simply reflects the obvious fact that he had more material available for study from this period than from any other. The problem is of direct relevance to any attempts to accept, at face value, the conclusions based on the quantification of data, a difficulty that is rarely stated explicitly though it applies as much to Nicopolis as it does to any major excavation (Poulter 1999, 28-9).
The Excavations (Fig 1.4) Excavations took place in fourteen areas (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, P, R, S).
High banks of spoil followed the line of the tower walls and curtain but only the occasional irregular hole indicated spasmodic robbing across the interior of the site. Consequently, it was anticipated that a resistivity survey over the full extent of the interior would guide the choice of areas for excavation. Because the early Byzantine level survived just below the modern ground surface, the survey proved remarkably successful and did locate structures and provided a clear distribution of buildings across the site, the majority of which were of early Byzantine date: earlier Roman and late Roman structures, even when surviving as upstanding walls, were so deeply buried that their existence was masked by the early Byzantine occupation level. Only in the case of the paved Roman road coming out from the south gate, did a prominent early feature appear clearly in the geophysical survey (Strange in Poulter 1995, 259-267). Despite the fact that internal floors remained mostly intact, the robbing of mortared structures in the post-medieval period had been so extensive that the walls of major buildings, such as the two basilicas (areas F and K), had been reduced to their lower foundations. However, earlier structures, built of stone with earth bonding, survived remarkably well. None must have been visible on the surface, even where the walls survived almost to the modern turf line (especially D and K). The post-medieval settlement was extensive and five of the excavation areas produced buildings of this date but the structures were flimsy and consequently rarely appeared in the geophysical survey.
Although, in the central area, all excavation areas were selected to investigate positive anomalies visible in the resistivity survey, the mounds of spoil, immediately inside the line of the defences, masked all buried features. Here, the selection of sites was dictated by upstanding visible remains or by the negative plan of structures which had been robbed, notably the sites of towers and the east gate. All were, from the outset, area excavations except for H, K, L, M and N. These cuttings examined the stratigraphy at key points across the site. All were recorded in plan and section but were not subsequently extended, apart from K and M which were enlarged into full area excavations. None of the cuttings were carried down below the early Byzantine occupation level so neither the extent nor the character of earlier occupation is known for these sites.
Area A was an area excavation, located where it was anticipated that the south gate of the Roman city would be found, at the end of the cardo running along the east side of the agora and which terminated at its northern end with a well-preserved town gate. This presumption proved to be mistaken: the south gate was found further west (area C). Instead, finds included an early Roman house, destroyed by fire in the late 2nd century, the berm of the city defences immediately south of the wall (here robbed to its lowest foundations) and the Roman defensive ditch, replaced in the early 5th century by a larger ditch and an outwork or proteichisma on the edge of the berm which had been destroyed by fire, then collapsed into the ditch when the city was destroyed c 450. After the subsequent backfilling of the ditch (largely with spoil and destruction debris from the latest levels within the abandoned city), the only evidence for occupation in the area during the 6th century was a hearth and one side of a building preserved in the east section and extending further east.
Area B was positioned to intersect both the strong north/south positive anomaly which turned out to be the paved surface of a Roman road, partly dismantled in the 3rd century and then repaired with an extensive cobble surface, used for the slaughtering of cattle and industrial activity during the 4th to early 5th centuries. Apart from isolated finds in the subsoil, there was no sign of occupation in the 6th century or in the post-medieval period.
Area C investigated a number of large stone blocks which survived above ground and which appeared to be in situ. These proved to be the remains of a well-preserved Roman gate. The area was subsequently extended south to join with area B. Some slight traces of early 2nd century occupation were found as well as the massive, central slabs of a mid 2nd century Roman road which continued in use after the construction of the defences c 175. During the 3rd century, road slabs were removed and the defensive ditch was extended across in front of the gate, presumably to increase security for the city. Since the gate was no longer in use, it was probably blocked. During the 4th century, the road across the ditch was reinstated and repaired with a cobbled surface. A guard-chamber was added to the outside of the Roman gate-tower. As in area B, this surface produced numerous finds of iron and copper-alloy, including coins, perhaps because this area, was used for commercial transactions. Clear evidence for the destruction of c 450 covered the inside of the gate and lay across the roadway. With the early Byzantine reconstruction of the site, the gate was blocked, the curtain-wall thickened and a tower was attached the outer face of the new defences. A single building was identified, built up against the inside of the curtain-wall. Following a subsequent destruction, towards the end of the 6th century, the area was abandoned until its reoccupation in the post-medieval period when a roughly cobbled surface continued south of the gate and another building, like its early Byzantine predecessor, abutted the inside face of the curtain-wall which consequently must have been still standing in the late 18th century.
Area D produced the earliest evidence for occupation, dating to the early 2nd century, following the clearance of tree cover, no doubt carried out when the city was first founded. During the late Roman period, a structure with a tiled roof but walls bonded with earth was erected, probably the back range of a large building extending north of the area. The excavated rooms served as an agricultural store, an area for crop processing and was used for the manufacture of bone tools. The complex was destroyed by fire and the area was subsequently used for the dumping of refuse in pits during the first half of the 5th century. After the early Byzantine reoccupation, there was just one simple earthbonded building, a two roomed structure, open to the south, perhaps workshops. After its late 6th century destruction, the site was abandoned until the post-medieval period when a house occupied the eastern side of the area. Its life also terminated in destruction by fire.
Area E was selected because a small portion of clearly late Roman wall (with mortared tile courses) was visible before excavation. This turned out to be the top of a very well-preserved early Byzantine gate and a section of curtain-wall. Slight traces of a cobbled surface indicated that the site, as its topographic situation suggests, had provided access down to the river and probably harbour installations. Two periods of occupation were identified along the inside of the early Byzantine wall and significant finds came from the silty primary fill of the large drain constructed beneath the tower gate.
Area F, as the geophysical survey suggested, was the site of a Christian basilica of early Byzantine date, commanding the central and most elevated location within the defences. Beneath, late Roman levels were examined. They included successive buildings and a cobbled road surface of 4th to early 5th century date. Although the interior of the basilica with its tiled floor was well-preserved, robbing had removed most of the wall foundations. The church had been destroyed by fire at the end of the early Byzantine period and was subsequently abandoned although a Slav grubenaus, still with jars full of grain in situ on its floor, was found immediately to the north. Evidently, at least in this area, occupation in the 9th—-10th centuries had occurred and was terminated abruptly by fire. Two grubenhduser occupied this site in the post-medieval period.
Cutting H located another early Byzantine building, one which formed part of the line of structures, roughly aligned east/west, which crossed the centre of the enclosure.
Area K was examined by a cutting, followed by area excavation where the resisitivity survey indicated the presence of a building. This proved to have been a small early Byzantine church. Beneath, a late Roman structure was excavated above successive dumps of domestic and industrial waste belonging to the late 3rd to early 4th century AD. Slav pottery suggests medieval occupation in the vicinity and slight remains of several post-medieval houses were found.
Cutting L was made to examine one of the few sizeable structures which had been robbed in recent times and which clearly indicated the presence of a large, roughly square building close to the southern defences. It proved to be of early Byzantine date and appears to have been reused in the post-medieval period.
Area M was first a cutting, positioned to intersect the line of massive buildings, the foundations of which were clearly visible in the geophysical survey. Although no occupation surface survived, the massive earth and stone foundations of the early Byzantine building were identified. Totally unexpected, however, was the discovery that they cut the well-preserved upstanding remains of a Roman house, constructed c 200 and destroyed by fire about the middle of the 3rd century. Because the excavation uncovered substantial quantities of frescoes and moulded stucco cornices, only the north-west corner of the house was uncovered, leaving the remainder of the structure undisturbed. Even so, a large main room and two side chambers were excavated and the adjoining section of a central court where one of the columns and its stone column base were found lying where they had fallen when the house was systematically demolished, immediately after its destruction by fire. Subsequently, during the 4th century and probably on into the early 5th, the abandoned area was used for the dumping of domestic waste in pits. After the end of early Byzantine occupation, the area was only subsequently disturbed by more post-medieval houses. As elsewhere, occupation ended with destruction by fire.
Cutting N transected the interior of a building, destroyed by fire and probably of early Byzantine date. This was identified at the southern end of the excavation and no structures were found in the central and northern ends of the cutting.
Area P examined the interior of tower 1, immediately north of the gate on the west side of the early Byzantine defences. Although the walls of the fortifications had been badly robbed, internal stratigaphy survived intact. The earliest occupation surface contained an in situ column-base which presumably belonged to a public building, flanking the cardo which must have passed immediately to the east of the area, at least until the construction of the city’s defences c 175. It was covered by a dump of redeposited destruction debris, dating to the late 3rd century. Thereafter, the area was abandoned and perhaps used for cultivation, as is suggested by a deep build-up of organic rich soil. With the early Byzantine reoccupation, the foundations were cut for an externally projecting, rectangular tower. The interior was then backfilled with successive dumps of soil, rich in finds and destruction material, surely barrowed in from the last level within the abandoned Roman city to the north. This was used to level up for a simple clay floor. Two periods of occupation were identified, both early Byzantine in date.
Area R investigated a massive prow-shaped tower (tower 8) on the eastern curtain. The interior was rather more impressive than that in area P: it had a tiled floor beneath which was a levelling deposit of earth and destruction debris, similar in character but lesser in quantity to that used as make-up during the construction of tower | (area P). Probable is it that this dump of soil, rich in finds, was also taken from the final occupation level within the Roman city to the north. There was no sign that the tower was reused or that occupation existed in the immediate vicinity after the early Byzantine period.
Area S lay at the mid point along the eastern defences and, as expected, proved to be the main gate on this side of the early Byzantine enclosure. The earliest occupation included the remains of a building destroyed by fire. Its date remains uncertain: it may have burnt down in the 3rd or 4th centuries AD. Thereafter, skeletons suggest that the area formed part of a late Roman cemetery before the defences were built. Large stone blocks, taken from the Roman city, were used in the construction of this tower gate which had two periods of use, both early Byzantine. During the second phase, it probably served only as a tower and the gate was blocked. There was no sign of later occupation although Slav pottery suggested that there had been early medieval settlement close by.
The Results of the Excavation: a Summary
What emerged was a very different and more complex history of the site than had been anticipated. The rapid development of the city in the provision of fine, paved roads and civic amenities during the first half century of its existence was matched by an immediate and rapid economic development: local fine wares were being produced to supply the city’s needs before c 130 and the exploitation of the fertile territory was soon underway, resulting in the provision of a wide range of agricultural goods (Fig 1.5). Native involvement in the city’s affairs would seem to have been limited: only in the very early years was local Thracian pottery in use and then only in small quantities, before being completely supplanted by Roman wares. In the city’s inscriptions there is equally no suggestion that natives were involved in civic administration, at least not until the Severan period. The majority of the citizens, artisans and craftsmen, as well as high ranking members of the city elite, came from Asia Minor and, in particular, from the two cities of Nicaea and Nicomedia. Nicopolis, rather than representing a native community which gained civic status, would seem to have been an artificial creation, attracting immigrants, especially from western Asia Minor. To what extent this was a spontaneous initiative or whether it was part of an official policy to foster urban growth in the hinterland of the Danubian frontier, now partly demilitarized after the conquest of Dacia, remains uncertain. Nevertheless, the city’s growth is attested by further, if still sporadic, development across the plateau, including agricultural buildings and some civic structures.
That the peaceful development of the city was abruptly, perhaps violently interrupted, is suggested by the excavation of a fine town house, destroyed by fire and then immediately buried in the berm inside a defensive ditch which was dug at the same time as the urban defences were erected c 175. Quite possibly Nicopolis was sacked by the Costobocci in 170 when they crossed the Danube and inflicted devastation upon the open settlements of Thrace and Greece. The city walls, built of large limestone blocks and some reused architectural fragments, formed part of a general programme of refortification in the 170’s and 180’s, protecting for the first time the urban centres of Moesia and Thrace, a measure carried out under imperial orders and probably with military assistance.
The effects of the barbarian invasion were short-lived. Although the defences were maintained, urban development resumed outside the walls. Indeed, an extramural quarter, by c 200, included wellappointed town houses, one of which was excavated (area M). This contained rooms decorated with frescoes, including architectural scenes of some pretension and fine moulded stucco freezes. This, to judge from the building inscriptions and the number of statue bases erected in the agora, was a still more prosperous period than the 2nd century, a picture reflected in the range of agricultural supplies available in the city. It did not last. Before the middle of the 3rd century, the fine extramural town house had been abandoned by its occupants and the rooms were used for agricultural and industrial purposes: what must have been fine marble floors were removed and replaced by simple clay surfaces and rough stone steps. Finally, the house burnt down and, after its tiled roof had collapsed across the floor and the marble colonnade in the courtyard had fallen down, the remains were systematically demolished and the site levelled. For the next quarter century, the region suffered from the Gothic invasions and the city was probably besieged by Goths on at least two occasions. Perhaps, the demolition of the extramural houses was a measure taken by the citizens themselves to deny cover to an enemy in the event of an attack. Certainly, the south gate (area C) was blocked and the defensive ditch was extended, cutting through the roadway which had previously provided the only means of access to the city on the south side of the fortifications. The extramural area would seem to have been abandoned until the closing years of the 3rd century when the frontier was restored during the reign of the emperor Diocletian.
The fate of Nicopolis in the 4th century is of especial interest since the intramural situation was very different in character from that existing on the plateau to the south of the city walls. Thanks to intensive robbing of upstanding walls of buildings in the 18th to early 19th centuries AD, it proved possible to draw up a remarkably full plan of the city as it must have appeared in the last years of its existence, in the late 4th to early Sth century AD (Fig 1.1). It seems that, apart from the obviously civic development in the centre of the city, and probably also in the northern insulae, there is remarkably little sign of modest housing. Some small, two-roomed buildings along main streets may well have been shops but the most striking feature of the city plan, especially the outer insulae, is the existence of town houses. These well-built structures of brick and mortar are conspicuously large although, in number, they would appear to represent residences for only some thirty to forty families. This suggests a very small intramural population of several hundred, mostly members of the elite with their dependants but certainly not thousands. On the other hand, some of the finds, including the glass, suggest that there was still wealth in the city, at least in the hands of some of those who were privileged to own a substantial dwelling. The variety of agricultural produce reaching Nicopolis in this period appears greater than ever before and there is no hint either, in animal husbandry, that Nicopolis was in any way short of money. Still, the preservation of the same primitive Roman fortifications is some indication that the city was no longer the important centre it had been in the Severan period. Many other contemporary communities, such as Tropaeum Traiani, were embellished with large and impressive defences in the early 4th century (Fig 1.2). The fact that it was not a city used by the imperial administration as a provincial capital may well be the reason: there was no additional source of imperial funding to pay for new defences and the construction of new public buildings (Poulter 1992).
The extramural area was quite different. It was a hive of activity. Immediately south of the defences, the area was kept free of buildings, not doubt to maintain a free-fire zone within bowshot of the walls. But even here, the open space was used for industrial purposes, metal-working and the slaughter of cattle, apparently brought to the city on the hoof. The substantial number of 4th to early 5th century coins from the cobbled area outside the gate also suggests that it may have served as a market. Further south, there were large buildings (D and F), some serving as accommodation, others as agricultural buildings and workshops. Small cobbled streets criss-crossed the plateau. It would seem that there existed a substantial community, certainly on the south side of the city. But it differed from the houses within the city in that these were made simply of stone, bonded with earth and not with mortar and brick — although they did have tiled roofs. So, although the extramural area would seem to have been occupied by a large number of people, they would appear to have been of a lower status and could not aspire to the quality of the housing provided for those fortunate enough to reside within the city walls. In metal-work and other finds, this settkement was no different from what one would expect of any Roman site in the region in the late Roman period. However, one perhaps significant development was the appearance, from the middle of the 4th century, of new types of pottery similar to that produced by the Sintana-de-Mures/Chernyachov Culture beyond the Danube. In some cases, the forms are traditional and Roman but others are new and unparalleled in earlier Roman assemblages. In either case these black wares with their characteristic burnished decoration are new to the region and have been linked with the arrival of the Goths (Falkner in Poulter 1999, 111-112 ). This would not be an improbable explanation. In 347/8 Constantius II permitted Ulfila and his Gothic followers to cross the Danube and they were settled in Nicopolis’ territory. That some should be attracted to Nicopolis and settle outside the city would not be at all surprising. Moreover, the use of massive walls, but built of stone, bonded only with earth, is not a building style which existed in the region in the 2nd or 3rd centuries and it is tempting to suggest that this change in construction technique, especially for domestic buildings, and which becomes dominant in the 4th to 5th centuries, was introduced by new immigrants.
By the late 4th century, this extramural settlement had declined and perhaps had been totally abandoned. At least one building (area D) was burnt to the ground and never rebuilt. Part of the plateau (area S) may well have been used as an extramural cemetery. This retreat, perhaps behind the security of the fortifications, may well have occurred during the turbulent years immediately proceeding and following the revolt of the Goths which culminated in the death of the emperor Valens and the destruction of his army at the battle of Adrianople in 378.
There is no sign of any revival in the city’s fortunes during the first half of the 5th century. On the contrary, the extramural area would seem to have been totally abandoned and the only activity was concentrated on the defences. The defensive ditch was widened and deepened while a second line of defence, a mudbrick outwork (proteichisma), was constructed outside the main walls: measures taken to strengthen the defences. About the middle of the 5th century, the city was destroyed by fire. A date c 450 is most likely and it would seem probable that the destruction of Nicopolis was carried out by the Huns. No attempt was made to restore the Roman defences and the city was abandoned.
How long the site was left derelict it is impossible to say. It may have been only a few years. A reoccupation during the reign of Marcian is the earliest historical context but it could have been later in the 5th century. Certainly, Nicopolis was rebuilt and reoccupied by the beginning of the 6th century. The new fortifications were located south of the city, reusing the eastern portion of the old south wall as its northern side and extending south so that its opposing wall could command the steep river cliff, overlooking the river Rositsa (Fig 1.1). When compared with the now abandoned Roman city (25ha), the new site of 5.7ha would seem small but it nevertheless required impressive new defences.
The interior was surprisingly open and lacked the organized layout characteristic of early Roman cities and of Nicopolis itself. Indeed, there was hardly any sign of roads at all. Only at the east gate, was a cobbled surface identified (area S). A range of buildings crossed the centre of the site, almost certainly two stories in height, perhaps barracks or storebuildings. A main basilica occupied the highest point in the centre of the enclosure (area F) and a second, smaller church (area K) existed towards the south-eastern corner. In the middle of the site there was a small open-ended, two-roomed building, possibly workshops but with no other structures in the immediate vicinity. Especially on the northern side, there were very few buildings but instead large open areas. The economy also appears to have changed. There was little evidence for the large-scale cultivation of crops such as wheat, so characteristic of the Roman and even the late Roman period. Instead, Spring grown crops and pulses appear more important, suggesting a greater dependence upon a ‘market garden’ form of farming, producing food which could be grown close to or even within the defences. The increasing importance of pork over beef may also be explained by the need to keep animals that could be quickly and easily brought within the protection of the defences. Instead of relying upon its own territory, there is a notable rise in the proportions of imported amphorae from North Africa and the Aegean. But the most surprising feature of this ‘city’ was that it contained, apparently, so few people. It was no longer a centre of civilian population; there is more evidence for the existence of settlement outside, within the ruins of the Roman city. In general terms, it seems that the city acted as an ecclesiastical and probably military centre, almost certainly maintained by central authority and no longer, as in the past, supported by the exploitation of its rich agricultural hinterland.
Occupation ended with destruction by fire, perhaps as early as the 580’s, although Nicopolis is recorded for the last time in 598 during the last major campaign waged by Byzantine forces in the region. The end of the city may not have been violent. There are suggestions that the main basilica (Area F) and the roof of at least one tower (area P) had been systematically dismantled before the site was set on fire and abandoned. Thereafter, there is no evidence of renewed occupation until the medieval period when the site was occupied in the 9th or 10th century by a small community. The next and final period of occupation dates to the 18th to early 19th century when the ancient site would seem to have been on the edge of a substantial post-medieval settlement which, in its turn, was burnt to the ground and hastily abandoned; the numerous finds of military equipment, including grenades and cannon-balls, indicate that this event involved a violent assault. Thereafter, the only activity attested is the extensive robbing of buildings and even the foundations of the curtain-wall and towers which had been completed before the site of Nicopolis was first identified by Felix Kanitz in 1871.
The Transition to Late Antiquity programme (1996-2005)
One of the most striking results of the excavations at Nicopolis was the dramatic change in the nature of the site, in its physical character and apparently in its economic base during the early Byzantine period. Far from remaining essentially unchanged for the five hundred years of its existence, the city of the 6th century was clearly very different, not just in appearance, but also in function from the Roman city it replaced in the 5th century. But the excavations could offer no explanation as to why this should have occurred. Clearly, one possibility was that it followed a catastrophic collapse of the regional economy, evidently based in the Roman period on the exploitation of its rich agricultural hinterland. Alternatively, it was possible that the reasons for this change were more general, perhaps promoted by central imperial policy. In which case, the changes at Nicopolis might be an indicator of change in the nature of cities in the 6th century and applicable more widely to the Byzantine Empire. It seemed that the best and most practical way of approaching this question was to explore the character of the landscape around the city and to try and ascertain if there had been a change in the economy or settlement pattern which could explain the demise of the classical city of Nicopolis in the 5th century. If, however, no such temporal connection could be found then it would seem more plausible that the explanation was not regional but of more general significance for the Eastern Roman Empire.
Consequently, the second Anglo-Bulgarian research programme (The Transition to Late Antiquity), 1996-2005) was set up to answer this major question posed by the excavations at Nicopolis. It involved two distinct but related projects.
The first was to explore a sample area of 2,000 square kilometres, extending from the Danube (the late Roman and early Byzantine frontier) south as far as the Stara Planina (Haemus mons) in north central Bulgaria (Fig 1.6). This involved developing a new method of site-specific survey which examined a selection of thirty-five sites within the survey region, chosen from the 500 known Roman to early Byzantine settlements identified by members of the Veliko Turnovo Museum, lead by Mr Ivan Tsurov. The aim was to explore the character of these sites, to identify their function and date. As they had all been identified by non-intensive survey methods, it seemed likely that the majority would belong to the upper levels in the settlement hierarchy. This proved to be so: all but one can be confidently identified as having been Roman villas. The fact that smaller settlements were excluded does not prejudice the results of the fieldwork. Since the fate of the city rested upon the success or otherwise of the wealthy landowning class, it was sufficient for the aims of the project to concentrate on this category of site. If there was any radical dislocation of the villa economy in the late 4th or 5th century then that could account for the radical down-turn in Nicopolis’ fortunes, evident from the excavations of the first programme.
The second element was to be the excavation of a typical ‘village’ in the countryside, some 15km west of ancient Nicopolis. The primary aim of the excavation was to provide good zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical evidence for the late Roman and early Byzantine periods and in this the project was remarkably successful. The site selected, Dichin, proved to have been built c 400, and to have suffered its first destruction c 485. It was then rebuilt but finally destroyed and abandoned c 585. The two destruction levels, and in particular the first, produced a considerable quantity of archaeobotanical material, recovered from granaries and buildings which had been destroyed by fire. What was not expected was that the site proved not to have been a humble village but an impressive stronghold with well-built defences. From the finds, it seems to have contained in the 5th century a community of soldier/farmers and storage facilities for local agricultural produce.
Now that this programme has terminated, some provisional conclusions have been published. An interim report (Poulter 1999) has been followed by reviews of the implications of the programme (Poulter 1999a, 1999b, 2002). Particularly important is the new archaeobotanical evidence (Dr P. Grinter), the archaeozoology (A. Hammon, C. Johnstone and R. Parks) and the ceramic analysis (Dr V. Swan). These results from Dichin will be of singular importance for placing the results at Nicopolis in a broader economic context. The process of post-excavation analysis is well advanced and the results should soon be available in print.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق