ARCAEOLOGIA

IV 2000 No2

BULGARICA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Articles
Menkova,

.:

Time and Space in Ezero Culture Interrelations: the Early Bronze Age ....................... 1

Preshlenov, Chr.: Die antike Stadt der bulgarischen Schwarzmeerkiiste:

Geopolitik und Urbanitat .......................................................................... .......................................... 18
Yourukova, /.: Contribution to Odessus Coinage New Medallion from the Age of Gordian I (238-244) .................................................................. 30

Volling, Th. (D): Befestigte Villae Rusticae oder militarische leinkastelle?

Anmerkungen zu drei Fundplatzen im bulgarischen Binnenland ...................................................... 33
Popova, ./Marinova, .: Archaeobotanical and Anthracological Analisys of the Roman and
Early Byzantine Castle Abritus in North-eastem Bulgaria: Some Palaeoethnobotanical and
Environmental Aspects ....................................................................................................................... 49
Magomedov, . (UA): The Tradition of Ritual Feats as Part of Burial Customs in
Chemyakhov-Sintana Culture ............................................................................................................ 59
Dintchev, V.: The Limit of Urban Life in the Late Antique Dioceses of Thracia and
Dacia: the Overestimated Centers ................................................................. ...... ............. .................. 65
Kouzov, Chr.: Find of Medieval Iron Objects from Fortress Near the
Village of Dolishte, Vama District ..................................................................................................... 85

Reviews
Boteva, D.: Lower Moesia and Thrace in the Roman lmperial System.
Sofia 1997. (Ferjancii:, S. YU) .......................................................................................................... 92
Bikii:, V.: Medieval Pottery from Belgrade. Belgrade 1994. (Borisov,

.)

......................................... 94

Editor-in-Chief: Lyudmil F. Vagalinski, Ph.D., Sofia, Bulgaria.

Lang\iage Editors: Diana Gilliland Wright, Ph.D. (English), Washington, DC, USA; Sven Conrad,
Ph.D. (German), Frankfurt /, Germany; Jean-Luc Guadelli, Ph.D. (French), Bordeaux, France.
ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA is four-month joumal (thrice year; 20 28 cm; . 100
pages and . 80 illustrations per number; coloured cover) which presents pulishing forum
for research in archaeology in the widest sense of the word. There are restrictions for time
and territory but Southeastern Europe is the accent.
Objective: interdisciplinary research of archaeology.
Contents: articles, reviews and news .
Languages: English, German and French.
lntended readers: Scholars and students of the following fields: Archaeology, Numismatics,
Epigraphy, Ancient History, Medieval istory, Oriental Studies, Pre- and Early History,
Byzantine Studies, Anthropology, Palaeobotany, Archaeozoology, History of Religion, of Art,
of Architecture, of Technology, of Medicine, Sociology etc.
On the cover: reverse of Roman bronze medallion; see the paper of 1. Youroukova in this issue.

ISSN 1310-9537

Archaeologia Bulgarica

IV

2000

65-84

Sofia

niE LIIT OF URAN LIFE IN L ANIQUE DIOCESES OF

THRACIA AND DACIA: OVERESIAED CENERS
VENTZISLA V DINTCHEV
Changes in the conditions of social development in Late Atiquity led to lower stad
ards for urba status d obscured to certai
extet the boudary betwee tows d the
other settlemets i cotemporary mids, as
reflected i the sources. Aalysis of the sources demostrates the ucertaity existig in the
views of the Late Atique authors the urba
status of various settlements, on the character of the urban status, and raises questions
about the limit of the urban way of life at
that time ( 1998).
Relyig such analysis, some authors go
too far i claimig that Late Atique authors
and sources, particularly after the late 5th ce
tury, loger distiguished betwee castra or
u, the had, d civitas or
1tOAtts, the other (Ravegai 198, 12-24;
Schreier 1986, ; Suceveau/amea 1991,
179; Suceveau/amea 199, 17-174). Such
claim is uacceptaJe for at least three reasos. First, various defiitios- castra, civitas,
(poupta, 1tOAets) - do exist i the sources.
Secod, such statemet replaces source
aalysis d presupposes that Late Atique authors had firm defiition of the character of
urban life at the time. Third, the statemet implies coclusio about steadily icreasig
umber of tows i Late Atiquity, d great
number of tows i the 6th d early 7th ce
turies which cotradicts historical realit/.
his cotradictio becomes absurd if we talk
about the border areas of the Empire - the border provices of the dioceses of hracia d
Dacia - sice the coclusio that at the d of
the Late Atiquity only or predomiatly
tows existed i these provices stems from

idetity

of "castra" with "civitates"

("poupta" with "1toAets").
Readig Late Atique authors today
feel their ucertainty about the character of urban status d there is clear idetity of
"castra" with "civitates" ("poupta" with
"1tOAets"). Because of this uncertaity, questios about the limits of urban defiitio i
Late Atiquity t studied with the help
of the sources l. Further iformatio is
ecessary particular - still ucertaily ide
tified - ceters relatig to their demographic
d area parameters, d their ecoomic, admiistrative, religious ad/or military sigifi
cace. It is ecessary to have objective classificatio system for Late Antique tows and
cotemporary -ur settlements.
Bearig i mid the tedencies of Late Antique urba developmet d the preset state
of archeological ivestigatio, classificatio of
Late Atique tows should based data
about the size of their fortified areas, recogiz
ig also other idexes of their size and sigifi
cance ( 1998 ). Three groups of
towns can differentiated in the dioceses of
hracia d Dacia: 1. large tows, with fortified areas over ha; 2. medium-size tows,
with fortified areas betwee 1- ha; . small
tows, with fortified areas uder 1 ha. Sice
certai exceptios or deviatios are typical
with such classificatio, wider demarcated
zoes betwee particular groups should
used, d the groups themselves should defied permissile tolerace toward the
fixed limits (Ditchev 1999, 41-42). Most
tows of it origi i hracia and Dacia
were of large or medium-size, that is, most of
the

1 Several decades ago in his anempt to "rehailitate" uran definition in Byzantium during the so-called Dark Ages, the 7th9th century, G. Ostrogorsky used this approach to the relevant sources (Ostrogorsky 1959). Taking into account the objective laws goveming the development of science, Ostrogorsky's passion is easy to explain and may even necessary from
historiographic point of view. There is no excuse however for the statement mentioned v, which is based not only on
an uncritical acceptance of uran definitions in Late Antique sources, but adds confidently the mentioned castra (povpta)
to the Late Antique towns.

65

Ventzislav Dintchev

them remained significant provincial centers

into Late Antiquity. The new Late Antique
towns here were most often small or mediumsize and mainly of local significance (Dintchev
1999, 55-60). As rule, these small and medium-size towns were alien to the organization
and the relations of the polis type, as well as to
most ancient town-planning principles.
h development of other settlement forms
in Late Antiquity also contributes to the issue.
h fortified non-urban settlements of the Balkans were almost unknown in the Roman provinces of Moesia superior, Moesia inferior and
Thracia in the time of the Principate. Their
number was consideraly small here and in the
newly established provinces of the dioceses of
Thracia and Dacia during the initial or Late
Roman period. From the end of 4th century on,
or during the early Byzantine period of Late
Antiquity, fortified non-urban settlements became the main form of settlement life for the
local population. h prolem of their recognition in historiography is related mainly to the
lack of specific terms for their designation in
the sources. However, the non-urban fortified
settlements in the provinces of Tllracia and
Dacia were the majority of the numerous
castra,. castelli, po'Upta or OX\>PJ.Lata,
known from the sources.
The criteria for classification of Late Antique towns is applicale to the classification
of contemporary non-urban fortified settlements as well. Two main groups of these have
to distinguished: those with protected area
over 1 ha, and those with protected area under
1 ha. Those in the first group were important
local centers and can identified as fortified
2
semi-urban settlements
Late Antique fortified semi-urban settlements do not differ essentially in their structures from towns-, especially from the small
towns predominantly of Late Antique origin.

Both have massive defenses, Christian cult

buildings and representative administrativeresidential complexes. The dominant house
types of the household substructures of both
semi-urban fortified settlements and small
towns are comparatively moderate in size and
simple in construction. In both, protected areas
are densely built-up, and spatial relationships
frequently create the impression of chaotic
planning and poorly organized street networks.
Late Antique sources are uncertain about
urban and the settlement definitions as whole
because of the similarity of the structural characteristics of fortified semi-urban settlements
and small towns. Additionally, fortified semiurban settlements and small towns differ in
their size and significance - fact, which
should not ignored in study of settlement
life in Late Antiquity. This is the meaning of
the question of the limits of urban definition.
The correct approach to this prolem involves objective criteria for comparing and
differentiation between Late Antique non-urban fortified settlements and contemporary
towns. The same criteria will used for the
classification of the two settlement fon11s: the
size of the protected area and the various objective indexes for particular structural units.
It is accepted that protected area of 5 ha is
the real limit for the definition of urban status
in hracia and Dacia in Late Antiquity. This
size results from the interpolation of relevant
data about both real towns (including the small
ones) and indisputaly non-urban fortified settlements (including the more significant ones).
Thus defined size is the principal conceptual
solution for the prolem. The border zone between the semi-urban fortified settlements and
the small towns - covering normal variations in
size for the protected area and providing possiility for using other objective criteria for
identification of the particular centers - can

2 ln several puiications 1 have discussed the development, importance, characteristics and classification of the non-uran
fortified settlements from Thracia and Dacia primarily in the territory of Bulgaria ( 1996, 23-32; Dintchev
1997; Dintchev \998; Dintchev, in print). ln view of the recent pu\ications of . Dunn aout settlement life in the Balkans during the transitional period to the Dark-Age (Dunn \994; Dunn \997; Dunn 1998), 1 would like to point out that
there are certain structural differences etween the 6th century fortified non-urban settlement centers and the 8th century
Byzantine rv and therefore we should not regard the former as direct prototype of the Jatter.

66

Fig. 1. Fortified settlements in the dioceses of Thracia and Dacia, overestimated as towns the
ancient sources andlor modern historiography. Legend: --- - border between dioceses;---- border
between provinces; D- fortified Late Antique center mentioned Hierocles;?- an uncertain loca1ization; 1- Province of Moesia superior; 11- Province of Praevalitana; 111- Province of Dacia ripensis;
IV- Province of Dacia.mediterranea; V- Province of Dardania; Vl - Province of Moesia inferior; VIIProvince of Scythia; VI - Province of Thracia; IX - Province of Haemimontus; - Province of
Rhodopa; XI- Province of Europa; 1 - Sa1dum (Gratiana?); 2- Kula (Castra Martis?);
3 - Montana; 4 - Iatrus; 5 - Gabrovo; 6 - Storgosia; 7 - Axiopolis; 8 - Troesmis; 9 - Halmiris ;
10- Capidava; 11- Dinogetia; 12- Salsovia; 13- Ulmetum; 14- Bizone;
15 - Shurdhah; 16 - Kamenica (Armonia?); 17 - Germania;
18 -Carassura; 19 - Cabyle (Diospolis?).

, ....... ....." ,
1

, ,.'

.....

'1
1..,.

......
, '
1

' ...

'' .

IV

?lj()l

,... ,........
,

',,

.\

~~: 11 ,_./

,,..

'-'

,,/

.
VI

,-.t'6

.,/"'

'-,

/
...... i

"

1
1

....,.......-- - ,

. . -- ._,......

111

~,,____

..
,,,;

1!11 t ...-""
,,.---....
,:_,J...
,
)

---------~-9-,1-

VIII

18

'....

...,

...,
...\

67

50

lOOkm

Black Sea

(0?}/
,
'

IX

' , _ - ......... __ , - - ..... _ _ _ _ _'1,

'

,_,. .,......_,,,,.. ,

"1 .... ,
(,/

,..,' _ ,
(

,'

Ventzislav Dintchev

defined tolerance up to 1 ha towards the

fixed limit of 5 (1 ha), i. ., the defined zone
includes settlement centers with protected
area varying between 4 and 6 ha (Dintchev
1999, 41-42).
his model proposed for sol ving the question about the limit of the urban Jife in hracia
and Dacia is thus based on objective criteria.
If directly appJied, however, it directly negates
the urban definitions of certain settlement
centers mentioned in the sources. The modeJ
needs to clarified with the apparent source
conflict in mind. I will not discuss the possibility of gross subjective lunders the part
of Late Antique authors, and I will not challenge the accuracy of their definitions. I intend
to identify and explain the discrepancies between the definitions and the reaJ characteristics of the centers they describe.
In this context, my only reservation is related to the well-known Cosmographia of the
so-called Ravennas Anonymus, often mentioned where Thracia and Dacia are concemed. h names of number of centers in
the two dioceses are listed there, and the only
definition used for them is "civitas"f'civitates"
( 1958, 391-400). Thus we can assume
that in this case "civitates" is used not only for
towns but for the more important centers as
whole.
There are many examples of towns in the
Iower level of criteria for urban status in the
dioceses of hracia and Dacia. For example,
the characteristics of Late Antique Remesiana
in the province of Dacia mediterranea, or of
Bargala which was in the same province until
the late 4th century, or Tzoides in the province
of Haemimontus do not fit spatial and structural concepts of the classical ancient town .
Nevertheless, given Late Antique realities in
urban development, these centers could defined as small towns (Dintchev 1999, 54-55).
h definition of the early Byzantine Nicopolis
ad lstrum in the province of Moesia inferior is
more problematic. The size of its so-called
castellum ("Nicopolis ad Istrum II"), like the
centers mentioned above, falls below the border classification between towns and non-urban fortified settlements. Other objective cri68

teria for this center are not enough strong to

support an urban character. For that reason, to
define it as real town, to accept the sources,
although conventional, must done with reservations (Dintchev 1999, 48-49).
The centers listed above are not the most
typical examples of lower criteria for urban
status in Thracia and Dacia. We cannot find
correspondence between the actual characteristics of certain settlements in the two dioceses
and their definition as towns in Late Antique
sources. These settlements provide the main
obstacle to an objective definition relying on
the sources as solution for the limits of urban
life in Thracia and Dacia. These centers are the
main subjects of our study.
In some cases, the proposed model for solving the question for the limit of urban life
confronts the inertia of modern historiography. These are the cases when the Jack of urban definition in the sources - with the exception of Cosmographia, already mentioned does not contradict the objective data from the
relevant centers, but they are defined as "Late
Antique towns" in modern historiography or
at Jeast in some puiications. Data analysis of
such centers, such as I propose here, results
from application of the model and is part of
the discussion of the prolem . I hope it will
contribute to the characterization of these cities.
Hierocles's Synecdemus mentiones five
towns for the province of Moesia superior. h
third one in the Jist is Gratiana ( 1959,
94). place of the same name is also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum as camp
for an auxiliary unit ( 1958, 246). No
information in Late Antique sources aJJows
the assumption of two centers with the same
name in Moesia superior. h specific origin
of the name (after 383 other Gratian govems the Empire) is an additional argument for
identifying Hierocles' Gratiana with that in the
Notitia Dignitatum. After the Jarge-scale excavations of the Iron Gate area, the Upper
Moesian part of the Danublan Jimes, Gratiana
was identified with the fortified site Saldum,
situated near the estuary of small Jeft tributary of the Danube (Petrovic 1980, 766, 770-

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

771, not. 23; h 1984, 132-133;
PetroviC/Vasic 1996, 22) 3 . The site cotais
la(ers d costructio periods dated from the
1s util the late 6th cetury AD, d its mai
re-costructio is dated to the secod half of
the 4th cetury. The unusual plan of the
northeastern tower suggests that it also
probaly functioned as church (<;>h
1984, 131-133; Kodic 1984, 143). The data
for the protected area of the site is more uu
sual whe compared with Hierocles's urba
defiitio for Gratiana. The average dimensions ofthe fortress are "43.50 31.20 m",
which means that its area is smaller than
0.15 ha (Ji 1984, 129; h
1974, 56; Kodic 1984, 142-143). lf Saldum
is really Gratiana, it would of the most
strikig examples of discrepacy betwee
sources d real settlemet value for Late
Atiquity as whole.
Accordig to Hierocles's Synecdemus,
Castra Martis was of the five tows of the
provice of Dacia Ripensis ( 1959, 94).
This center is known also from other sources
as ishop's seat iclusively (Velkov 1977,8788, t. 308, 317). Besides Hierocles, it is give
urba defiitio also Sozome " ... t
Kacr-rpaJlap-rtcr po.tv ... " ( 1954, 67)
and Jordanes
ad Castramartenam
urbem ..." ( 1958, 94). Procopius calls it
v" but together with Oescus- " ... -ra xopta.. .. " ( 1959, 167-168), i. . the settle-

ment definition has also an implication ofurban. Today Castra Martis is cosidered to
the site Iyig uder the modem tow of Kula.
Its Iocality d the iclusio amog the Late
Atique tows accordig to this locality do t
raise objectios amog the specialists. The site
cosists of two parts - quadriburgium d
"castellum". The costructio of the
quadriburgium is dated to the late 3rd or very
early 4th century, d the costructio of the socalled castellum to the secod quarter of the 4th
cetury ( 1974, 339-342; Atanasova 1974; 1981, 3-4; Atanasova 1987). The former covers an area of0,16
ha, and the latter an area of 1,25 ha (Atanasova 1987, 122): thus the whole protected
area is . 1,4 ha. Accordingly, the main index of the site is far d the real, icludig
the small tows of the diocese of Dacia. What
is more, the quadriburgium, as explored so far,
is of a-purely military character, as demostraed
t l the l d costructio of the fortress but also the structural uits withi the
protected area. So it meas that the supposed
settlemet structure is restricted to withi the
4
so-called castellum . There are other disturblg
facts about the site related to the Castra Martis
data i the sources. h quadriburgium d the
castellum were destroyed fire durig the i
vasios of the Hus i the mid-5th cetury. h
Iack of clear culturallayer d cois related to
the followig period idicate obvious col-

3 Gratiana is not one of the towns and fortifications of Moesia superior listed Procopius ( 1959, 164-165). Bearing in mind the location of Saldum and the quoted text from De aedificiis, it has n suggested that the site mentioned
Procopius is Kamabaza (h 1974,55-56, 57; Kondic 1984, 142, not. 15; h 1984, 129, eJI. 3; Vasic
1995, 44, 45).
4 According the excavator, the igger fortress is also of military character (Atanasova 1974, 168; 1981, 4;
At.a nasova 1987, 122). The area it protected has not yct been excavated and its identification with military casrellum
is still unproved. military identification of this fonress would mean that there is no place for settlement structure in the
site. If the site under the modcm town of Kula is Castra Martis, the settlement center and the ishopric mentioned in the
sources should within the igger fortress.
5 The later traces of life found within the quadriburgium are simple constructions of stone and mud as well as the re-use
of the earlier architectural remains. Some of the new buildings are situated outside and efore the earlier fonification
structures, . g. the rectangular "room", built of stone and mud, situated efore the southeast tower. The cultural layer
related to the new inhabitants is thin and yielded small numer of finds. The arrival of new people, ethnically diffcrent, is
assumed (Atanasova 1974, 170; Atanasova 1987, 124-125). Judging from the text written Procopius, the excavator
assumes this last occupational period as "re-estaiishment" of Castra Martis, and the quadriburgium in particular
(Atanasova 1974, 170-172; Atanasova 1987, 125). ln view of the data already mentioned, the thesis of re-estaiishment is
doubtful . Occupation of space among the ruins is possiie without re-building the defenses. The chronology of the occupation has yet to settled.

69

Ventzislav Dintchev

Iapse, if not break, in life there . Therefore in ( 1958, 394). latrus is defined as
the second half of the 5th and early 6th century, Late Antique town number of modern
in the period of urban definition for Castra authors as well ( 1961, 23, 25;
Martis, the features of the site lying under the 1976, 19, 20; / 1979, 429;
modem town of Kula differ widely from param- Schreiner 1986, 28; 1987, 191, 193).
eters needed for urban life. In view of the obvi- Its protected area, damaged erosion, was
ous discrepancy, rehabllitation of the sources . 2,5-3 ha ( 1963, 9; Doehle 1995,
should considered if we question the com- 24-25). latrus was military camp early in
Late Antiquity but the third quarter of the
monly accepted localization of Castra Martis.
Ancient ontana at the modern town of 4th century was transformed into settlement
Montana is municipium or at least vicus center. The so-called basilica D was the indiswith quasi-municipal organization dating putaie heart of the site in the 6th century, at
from the 2nd century ( 1987, 9-10). the time of the urban definitions in the
The site lies within the territory of Dacia sources. The third and the largest basilica in
ripensis. The name ontana is not found in the site, it is neither representative of the arLate Antique sources. Nevertheless it has been cbitectural type, nor impressive in dimenstated that "Montana remained the most sig- sions or decoration ( 1976, 19;
nificant town in the interior" of the province of Ivanov 1979, 32-33; Gomolka 1995, 114Dacia ripensis ( 1987, 12; Velkov 115). The "stone" buildings XXI and XLV,
1977, 89). Recent archeological information contemporary with the basilica, with their
about Late Antique Montana comes from foundations and walls made of stone and
excavations of the castle on Gradishteto hill mud, should also mentioned (Doehle
and the Christian basilica over the remains 1991, 40, 53; Buelow 1991, 59-62, 64-67;
ofthe pagan cult complex in the lower slopes Buelow 1995, 63; et al. 1995,
112). All other buildings from this period ( 1985, 136;
1986, 82; 1987; Alexandrov period D 2, are "small huts" made "of light
1987; - et al. 1987; wooden materials, reed, straw and clay"
1988, 28, 37). lf it is true that
(- 1968, 22-23; Wachtel
in Late Antiquity - early in the 4th century 1991, 18; Buelow 1991, 62; Buelow 1995,62and/or after - the protected area coincided 64). Thus, according the size of the protected
with tbe area of the castle, an area not exceed- area and other indexes for size and importance,
ing 1 ha and dominated components of mili- latrus is also below the real parameters of urtary character, it is clear that we could not put ban life.
An excavated site in the locality of
this center among the towns as well as among
the semi-urban fortified settlements of this Gradishteto near the modern town of Gabrovo
time 6 Thus is not surprising that the site is not was fortified centers of Moesia inferior. The
among the centers of Dacia ripensis listed in site has not yet been identified, but it is not
the sources.
among those mentioned Hierocles and
latrus in Moesia inferior has been exca- Notitiae Episcopatuum. It has been dated to the
vated and investigated as Late Antique early 4th century. It has been suggested that the
center. It is mentioned as town - " ... 1tOAts, site was estalished as military camp. The
... Iatpov t11V 1tO.tv ... ", Teophylactus most significant building is 5th century threeSimokatta ( 1959, 333, 345) and is nave basilica constructed of stone and mud.
among the" civitates" on the right bank of the Subsequently baptistery was attached to the
Lower Danube, listed Ravennas Anonymus building. Workshops and number of houses
5

6 It has n said that . 140m to the west from the castle on Gradishteto hi\1 " second fortification wa\1 was erected",
1,30 m thick ( 1987, 72), but this is the whole information about the wa\1. There is no data on the
chrono\ogy of this "second fortification wa\1".

70

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

were a1so excavated. The protected area of the

site is 2,4 ha. second, smaller church, re1ated
to the necropo1is, has been excavated outside
the castle (/ 1978;
1986; 1986; 1990; Kojceva 1990; 1992; 1994).
This center has been defined as " fortified
settlement similar to the smaller towns (civitas)" or as " fortified Late Antique town"
( 1986, 153, 154, 155;
1986, 22; 1990, 36; Kojceva 1990,
164; 1992, 41). The presented data,
however, refutes the site's identification as
urban.
Late Antique Storgosia, situated in the 1oca1ity of Kaika at the modem town of Pleven
is another center of oesia inferior that has
been excavated. Although the name Storgosia
is not found in Late Antique sources, this
center is defined some authors as " Late
Antique town" (Velkov 1977, 102, 105;
- 1979, 56, 57; /
1979, 429). The excavations of Storgosia's
protected area, still unpulished in details,
brought to light various buildings, among
which the most notaie are impressive
Christian basilica and large horreum, situated nearby (- 1979, 57;
1980; / 1982,
58; 1987; 1988, 134-135).
representative, probaly administrativeresidential complex, one more Christian cult
building and various graves and tombs were
unearthed outside the protected area (
1910; 1914; 1943, 275;
- 1979, 57-58;
1981 ). All we know about the structure of
Late Antique Storgosia defines it as an important loca1 center of Moesia inferior, which
does not mean that it should numbered
automatically among the urban centers of
the province. According to the da ta on the
size of its protected area, . 2 ha, (
1979, 57; 1980, 21;
1988, 134); Late Antique Storgosia
could defined as significant, semi-urban
fortified settlement.
In view of the lower criteria for urban status and the overestimated significance of cer-

tain settlements because of urban definitions in

the sources and/or in modern historiography,
the province of Scythia obvious1y "exce1s" the
rest of the border provinces of the dioceses of
Thracia and Dacia. According to Synecdemus,
the greatest number of towns in the 6th century
was in the province of Scythia - fifteen (
1959, 90). The centers enumerated
Hierocles are also regarded as JJate Antique
towns in modern historiography (Vulpe/
Barnea 1968, 421-429; Popescu 197 5, 17 5182; Velkov 1977, 107 -112; /
1979, 429; 1984, 166-172; Popescu
1988, 84-92; Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 178205, 223, 266, 290; Suceveanu/Barnea 1993,
174-177; Sampetru 1994, 105-115, 120).
review of the archeological investigations reveals however that considerale number of
these centers remain below the real limit of urban.Jife in Late Antiquity.
As example, Axiopolis is below this limit
notwithstanding the urban suffix in its name.
According to the basic classification (and in
this case, identifying) criterion, AxiopoUs
could not numbered even among the small
Late Antique towns since its protected area,
inc1uding the enlargement, is larger than 3
ha. Only trench excavations in small area
have been made there to date, bringing to 1ight
an early Christian cu1t building of moderate
size (Scorpan 1980, 39, pl. XI; Zahariade 1988,
122-123; Suceveanu/arnea 1991, 180-181).
Troesmis had the rights of municipium
from the 2nd century , but obviously declined in Late Antiquity: its urban definition in
contemporary sources, except as an indication
of Iower and vague criteria of urban status, is
also resonance of bygone days. The real reflection of the size and the significance of
Troesmis at that time are the dimensions of the
two fortresses at lgliza in present Northern
Dobruja. eventual Late Antique date for the
earthen ramparts, as surveyed aerial photographs, would not increase its standing. It is
obvious that if dated within the Late Antique
period, these ramparts would outlines Troesmis suburbs. The area of Troesmis, well-protected strong defenses, defined the
area of the two fortresses, is also . 3 ha71

Ventzislav Dintchev

3,5 ha at most (Scorpan 1980, 31-33, pl. VIIIX). In additio, the structure of the larger,
eastem fortress, accordig to the so-called restored plan made i the 1860s (Tocilescu 1902,
73, 75) is pointedly military one. lf we accept
military idetification for this fortress, the
other, the westem, one would the Late Antique settlement center Troesmis, with an area
t exceeding 1,5 ha 7 .
Hierocles mentions Halmiris among the
towns of the province of Scythia. In view of the
main criterion however, Late Antique Halmiris
does not have the size and significance of urban centers in the Balkas at that time. Its late
3rd/early 4th century fortification protected an
area of 2,45 ha (Zahariade 1996, 229-230); it
defended the site until the late 6th-early 7th
century and has priority in present archeologica1 excavations 8 .
Capidava in the province of Scythia is another example of the discrepancy betwee
sources and real data. It is mentioned
Hierocles and is defined modern historiography as Late Antique urban center. The
archeological excavations, aimed mainly at the
defenses, revealed several phases during the
4th-6th century, which could focused two
mai periods. Capidava's protected area was
1,3 ha during the first period. At the beginning
of the second period the initial fortification
system was abandoned and new, smaller castle erected, covering area of only 0,36 ha

(Florescu et al. 1958; Florescu 1975; Scorpan

1980, . 34-39, pl. ; Covaceff 1980; Covaceff
1989; Zahariade 1988, 123-125; Suceveanu/
Bamea 1991, 181-182; Zahariade 1996, 225226). Earlier pulications date the demolition
of the earlier castle to the mid-5th century, and
the estalishment of the later one to the late
5th/early 6th century, or just before or at the
time when ierocles's Synecdemus was written
(Fiorescu et al. 1958, 72; Florescu 1975, 372;
Covaceff 1980, 268; Zahariade 1988, 125) 9 .
According to later pulications, the earlier castle of Capidava was abandoned in the second
half of the 6th century, and the estaiishment
of the later one to the late 6th-early 7th century
(Covaceff 1989, 195-196; Suceveanu/Bamea
1991, 182; Zahariade 1996, 226).
Other Scythian centers mentioned
ierocles, still unstudied or in the initial phase
of study, certain1y also remain below the real
. . . 10
parameters f ur an d f tt .
Modern historiography also defines as towns
number of centers in the same province, not
mentioned in the Synecdemus. Such is the definition for Dinogetia and Salsovia, named in the
Notitia Dignitatum as camps for auxiliary units.
The camp in Salsovia is evidenced also
early 4th century epigraphic monument -"in
castris Salsoviensibus." The names of
Dinogetia and Salsovia are mentioned later
Ravennas Anonymus, and Salsovia is present in
the Notitiae Episcopatuum 11 . An urban affilia-

7 There have n no new cxcavations at Troesmis since the ones in consideraiy small area in the previous century. For
analysis and comment on the availaie data on Late Antique Troesmis see: Poulter 1984, 117 (not. 33}, 122; Zahariade
1988, 128-130; Suceveanu/Bamea 1991. 184-185, 268; Sampetru 1994, 98.
8 For Halmiris, inc1uding he data from the sources see also: Zahariade et al. 1987, 97-106; Zahariade 1988, 139-141;
Suceveanu!Bamea 1991, 190-191.
9 The opinion of . Scorpan is an exception among the carlier puiications (Scorpan 1980, 36-37) and it coincides with the
referenccs in the following tcxt.
10 Archaeological excavations at Carsium, for example, are still in the initian stages. The area of its Late Antique castle, the
so-called castrum, is not larger than 1,5 ha (Nicolae 1993, 215-219; Panait et !. 1998, 122-127, fig. 1). Another fortification wall, surrounding area at least ten times larger, \\'as partially excavated to the east of the castle mentioned v . It
is supposed that this wall dates from the 61}, century. The 4th-5th century - and "even later" - necropolis in the arca surrounded the wall is presented as argument (Nicolae 1993, 217, 220-222, 229). It is clear that the chronological frame
of the necropolis is still uncertain and there are no firrn data, either constructional or stratigraphic, on the date of the wall.
Such enlargement of the protected area in the 6th century would unpreccdented for the province and for the Balkans as
whole. In view of the proiematic dating of the wall we should mention the source data on the significance ofHar~ova
thc descendant of Carsium, during the Ottoman period ( 1981 , 208-21 0).
11 For the definition of Di11ogetia and Salso~ia as Late Antique towns see: Popescu 1975, 175; / 1979, 429;
Suceveanu/Bamea 1991, 185, 187, 190, 275; Sampetru 1994, 110. See also the references on the sources.

72

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

tion is ascribed also for Ulmetum (Velkov

1977, 112, 187; / 1979, 429;
Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 179, 203, 204, 223),
described Procopius as fortress - " ...
oxupro~a, Ou~t'trov ovo~a ..." (
1959, 170). Late Antique Bizone is also defined some authors as town (
1981 , 276; 1982, 27;
1984, 86, 87). Its name is mentioned with an
urban definition in the Iexicon Ethnika of
Stephanus from Byzantium - " ... Bt~rov)
po.ts 7tOV'tt1C) ... "" and Ravennas Anonymus ( et al. 1962, 22, not. 3, 4).
The protected area of Dinogetia is . 1,2
ha. The followig structures were excavated
together with the common houses: basilica of
moderate size, igger residential complex,
the so-called domus and square building with
four pylons iside, the so-called principia
(Barnea 1969; Scorpan 1980, 23-31; Barnea
1984; Barnea 1986; Zahariade 1988, 132-134;
Zahariade 1996, 227-228; Suceveanu/Barnea
1991, 185-187, 275-276; Sampetru 1994, 5354, 81, 112). The unstudied area of Salsovia is
. 1,8 ha (Zahariade 1988, 138-1 39; Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 189-190). Ulmetum's protected area is t larger tha 2 ha; the archeologica1 excavations made in the beginig of
the cetury revealed commo houses d
buildig, which is probaiy admiistrative
residetial complex (Vulpe/Barnea 1968, 422423; Scorpan 1980, 43-44; Suceveau/Barea
12
1991, 202-204) . The protected area of Bizone
is . 2,5 ha. commo houses, Christia
basilica and an administrative-residetial buildig, supposed to " seat of the governor
of the fortress" were ueanhed there (
et al. 1961, 21-31, 48-56, 103; Vasilev 1981;
1985; n 1984, 64-67;
et al. 1991, 156).
Accordig
to their typical features
Dinogetia, Salsovia, Ulmetum d Bizone, like

12

Capidava d the above-mentioned centers in

the provice of Scythia, or like Castra Martis
d the other centers i the rest of the border
provinces of hracia and Dacia, remain below
the real limits of urban life in Late Antiquity.
The overestimation in the sources and in
modern historiography of urban defiitios is
t major proiem as far as the ir provinces of the dioceses of lzracia and Dacia are
concerned. of the reasos is the geerally
unsatisfactory state of archaeological investigations there as whole. Archaeological data
for most of the towns i the provice of
Europa, for example, mentioned in the
sources is extremely scarce. This province
would an interesting subject for study
because of its small territory and the large
number of towns - fourteen according to
Hierocles ( 1959, 88).
The fonified ceter at Shurdhah in onhem
Alb.ania is described i modern historiography
as example of w Late Atique town of
the provice of Praevalitana ( 1976, 48,
70, tab. 2/3; Popovic 1984, 200-201, 203;
nh 1988, 216-217). The excavatios revealed two defesive walls - iner and outer.
The outer wall surrounds an area of . 4,8 ha,
d the iner one surrouds an area approximately three times smaller. The construction of
the iner wall is dated to the 6th cetury and
the outer to the 12th or 13th century
(Spahiu/Komata 1975, 267, 272-281, 320-321,
323). There is necropolis between the walls,
contemporary with the inner wall (Spahiu/
Komata 1975, 298-302, 321 ). Therefore the
Late Antique or, the early Byzantine, center at
13
Shurdhah could not defined as town .
Additionally, not single building among those
excavated, residential or religious one, is dated
1
firmly to the 6 h century (Spahiu/Komata 1975,
281-298) 14 .
The Late Antique center at Kameica in

see also the pulications of V. Parvan cited there.

13 The fonified centcr at the modern Shurdhah is identified as Sarda. However, this name is found only in mediaeval sources
(Spahiu/Komata 1975, 322-323).
14 Late Antique finds are sparsc; for example, only 11th-12th century coins have n uneanhed (Spahiu/Komata 1975, 313-

315).

73

Ventzislav Dintchev

northeastem Macedonia is also defined as

town (Miku1cic 1974, 204-206;
1974, 364-366; Miku1cic 1976, 67). It is situated in the border area between three provinces
- Dardania, Dacia mediterranea and Macedonia secunda, and in the 4th century at least was
15
part of Dacia mediterranea According to
one hypothesis it is identical with Armonia,
mentioned in the Hierocles's Synecdemus (Mikulcic 1974, 206; 1974, 366) 16 ,
which in the 6th century belonged to the second province of the diocese of Macedonia,
bearing the same name ( 1959, 92). The
site area is defined . 5 ha, but it includes
the suburb as well as the 1ower town. In the
upper town there is cast1e, but without
towers and its walls are "not very thick."
protected area is not Iarger than 2,5 ha,
judging from tbe dimensions and the plans
availaie (Mikulcic 1974, 205-206;
1974, 364-365; Mikulcic 1976, 67). o
viously this center could not also defined as
town or small town. The three Christian cult
buildings unearthed within the fortress, in the
suburb and in the surrounding area 17, could not
considered arguments for site's urban defiitio sice churches are the most representative pulic buildings to found in non-urban
fortified settlements in Late Antiquity in the
Balkans as well (Dintchev, in print).
The third town in Hierocles's list for the
province of Dacia mediterranea is Germania
( 1959, 93). Procopius writes that during the reign of Justinian there were one
riewly-stalished and severa1 re-constructed
fortresses (\>) in the region of Germania, which he metioed as tow "'Y1to
1t0A1V EpJlEVVE... " ( 1959, 161-162).
Identified with the ruins under the modern

town of Sapareva j, Germania is example of the trasformatio of military camp, as

it was i the 2d-rd ceturies, ito settle1
ment ceter, as it became from the 4 h cetury
. Its Late Atique defesive system kept the
outlies of the earlier military fortress. It is
rectagular i shape, measuring 180 140 m,
i. . its area is . 2,5 ha ( 1973, 2526; 1980, 211. 1982, 125;
-/ 1978,
27). The small-scale excavations made
within the protected area thus far have revealed bui1dings, most of which were residentia1 ( 1957; et 1. 1979;
1980; et 1. 1981;
et 1. 1982). Part of building with mosaic
tloor, probaly of religious character, was
accidentally unearthed to the west ofthe fortress. Late Antique necropolis was found
a1so to the west of the fortress (
1911, 185-189).
The source data proves the significace of
Germania as Jocal admiistrative ceter but
its objective features are not enough to defie
it as real tow. The protected area of Germania is more tha ten times smaller than neighbouring Pauta/ia for example. According to
the size of the protected area and the number
and the type of the unearthed buildings, Germania is similar to the contemporary fortress
Hissarlaka hill at the modern town of Kjustendil, which could regarded an isolated part
of Pauta/ia structure but is not duplicative
urban center (Dintchev 1997, 47, not. 1; Dintchev 1999, 46, not. 19). Therefore Germania
is among the examples of administratively-defined settlement centers without the real size
and the significance of Late Antique urban life.
Carassura in the province of the same name

15 This center is situated . 35 km to the nonheast from Bargala. which in 371 elonged to Dacia mediterranea (Velkov
1977,93, 98). Thus the Kamenica region in nonheast Macedonia also elonged in the 4th century to the same province

(see fig. 1).

16 See also the puiication of . cited there.
17 h cult building uneanhed in the subur is " sma\1 church". The church in the protected area is bigger but has not yet
n excavated. 1t seems that the most representative and significant building is the 5th-6th century basilica unearthed
several hundred meters to the wcst ofthe fortess (ikul~ic 1974, 205-206; 1974, 364-365; Mikul~ic 1976,
67; see also the earlier puiications mentioned there). ln view of the rough terrain of the region, this basilica probaiy
marks an iso1ated cult complex.

74

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

in the Diocese of hracia is mentioned in ltineraries Burdigalense as mutatio, situated on

the via diagonalis. It is called as castle - " ...
ao'tprottvt Kapaooupa, ... " in thePassio
S. Alexander. Procopius writes about it in
similar way ( 1934, 127). Contemporary scholars define Carassura as " Late
Antique town" ( et al. 1988, 8). The
unearthed defensive ~y~tem of Carassura was
1
erected no earlier than the mid-4 h century 18 .
The protected area is 3,2 ha ( et al.
1995, 118). Various buildings, most of them
houses made of stone and mudbrick, date
from the late 4th-early 5th and the 6th-early
7th century. Christian basilica of moderate size and two construction periods was
unearthed on the hill in the northern part of
the fortress ( et al. 1987, 223-224;
et al. 1988, 5-7; et al. 1990,
136; et al. 1994, 91-92). Another
Christian basilica, bigger and more representative, was excavated outside the fortress,
. 60 m from the western gate. It also consists of two construction periods from the 4th
1
a11d 6 h centuries ( et al. 1988, 7-8;
Schoneburg 1992). This basilica is said to
"an episcopal" one ( et al. 1988, 8).
This assumption probaly influenced the
opinion about the urban character of
Carassura.
However the episcopal affiliation of this
basilica and the existence of local episcopa1
institution are not proved archeologically and
are not supported the sources 19 . For
Carassura, both written sources and archeological data, including that for the protected
area, are not adequate for urban definition. Of

course, classifying Late Antique Carassura as

semi-urban fortified settlement does not contradict its value as loca1 administrative and
economic center 20.
The last center, which will described and
deserves special attention, is Cabyle, situated
in the province of the same name of the Diocese of hracia. On the eve of the Roman expansion the old Thracian town suffered hard
times. military camp functioned there during
the Principate, and the neighbouring settlement had no an urban status ( 1991 ~
1
17). Cabyle was ishop's seat at the mid-4
century. ]] ishop, participating in the
Council of Serdica in 343, is known. Cabyle is
mentioned Ammianus Marcellinus and
several later authors, including Ravennas
Anonymus ( 1982, 14-16). Modern
historiography assumes that Cabyle became
town again in Late Antiquity (
1991, 17; 1982, 150;
1992, 26, ; -
1994, 205-206). particular, specific variant of this thesis is the statement that Cabyle
was town from the late rd century until
the late 4th century, and " small colonate
settlement" in the 5th-6th century (
1990, 15, 29). We theorize that the name
Diospolis, mentioned Hierocles, was the
new name of the same center (Velkov 1977,
130-13 1).
The presence of ishop is not an indisputaie argument in favour of the urban
character of the center ( 1998, 1920), but the archeologica1 evidence attests
that Cabyle flourished in the late rd-first half
of the 4th century. The camp on Hissarlaka hill

18 Unti\ recently the esta\ishment of the fortress of Carassura was dated to the eginning of Late Antiquity (Herrmann

et !. 1986, 87; et al. 1988, 4). The new excavations reveal however that revision is necessary ( et al.
1990, 136). milestone column re-used at the gate in the north sector of the eastem defensive wa\1 is fixed tenninus
post quem. The column dates to "the time ofConstantine 1 and his sons" (J< et !. 1994, 91).
19 The arguments of the excavators rest on grave containing no grave goods, found under the r of the diaconicon of the
extra muros basilica, and the fact that it looks more representative in comparison with the basilica in the castle
( et al. 198&., 8). Obviously it is not enough to define the former as an episcopal church. The fact that the
new excavations revealed other early Christian burials (J< et al. 1994, 92), is an indication that the v
mentioned grave should not overestimated.
20

h thesis of Late Antique Ca,.assura eing "one ofthe numerous co1onate vi1\ages in hrace" ( 1992, 94) is
unacceptae. lt is incoJect if we consider the principles of the settlement classification. ln \riew of its "colonate" character, it is untrue.

75

Ventzislav Dintchev

was no longer only military site and turned

into settlement center. Its protected area is
. 3 ha or little larger ( 1982,
154) 21 . Puhlic d private buildigs were excavated in the camp area as well as outside to
the southwest. represetative Christia basilica, large horreum, thermae, and otber
buildings were unearthed outside the camp
area ( et al. 1979, 67-68; et al.
1980; 70-71; et al. 1981, 52;
et al. 1982, 27; 1982, 115, 131150; - 1986;
1990, 15-28; - 1992;
- 1994; -

1994).

The existence of second defensive system surrounding these buildings, or

at least some of them, would unexpected
for this period 22 The data for the developmet
of Cabyle at the begiig of Late Atiquity
regarded idicatio of process of
urbaizatio. It is clear that i the late 4th-early
5th cetury the protected area of Cabyle did not
exceed the outlies of the earlier camp. Most
of the significant Late Roma buildigs withi
or d the limits of the fortress did t
fuctio at that time. The area just to the south
of Hissarlaka, between the two main zoes of
Cabyle's Late Roman structures, was occupied in the 5th-6th centuries ecropolis,
in which more than 160 graves were -

vated ( et al. 1973, 26; 1982,

40). It is no accident that the reliale
Ammianus Marcellinus defied Cabyle as
oppidum at the end of the 4th century
( 1958, 177). In fact this is also the
last authentic information about this center.
I spite of its "successful start," Late A
tique Cabyle did t become rea1 tow . If
confirmed, the hypothesis for its idetity with
Diospolis would provide aother example of
admiistratively distinct settlemet ceter that
is uder the real parameters of urba life for
Late Atiquity. This does t m however
that i the 5th-6th ceturies Cabyle (Diospolis?) was " small coloate settlemet." Util
the early 7th cetury it was importat local
center, which defied as significat
semi-urba fortified settlemet 23 .
aalysis of the data presented suggests
that some of the most striking examples of the
discrepancy between sources and real settlement value are probaly due to the incorrect
identification of the location of relevant
centers. It is difficult to believe that Gratiana
i Moesia superior is identical with such
isignificant site as Saldum. We must not discount probaie new location for Castra
Martis in Dacia ripensis as well. The identification of the site at Kamenica with Armonia
and of Cabyle with Diospolis are still unsup-

21 The camp area as we\1 as the Late Antique settlement's one is estimated as 5 ha in some puiications (-
1986, 124; - 1994, 14). This figure seems too high ifwe look at the lengths ofthe defensive walls.
Actually, according to the general plan ( 1982, fig. 1; 1995, 135) this area is just . 3 ha .
22 The dry masonry fonrcss in Cabyle, partially exca\ated and covering an area of . 21 ha is dated to thc Hellenistic
period most specialists ( 1986, 4-6; 1991, 54-60). The hypothesis for late Roman date for
this fortress ( 1990, 29) is groundlcss. town fortification ofsuch size and construction would unprecedented within the limits of the Late Roman Empire. J regard most unlikely the assumption that the remains from
the Hellenistic fortress were re-uscd in the 4th century A.D. ( 1982,165-166). The r cxistence of
second late Roman defensive system to the south of Hissarlaka hill could assumcd on the base of shon information about"an excavated pan of an eastem fonification wal\" "''ith "an entrance, flanked two bastions", madc of stone
and mortar ( et al. 1973, 25-26). The area to the south of Hissarlaka is thought to the place of the ear1iest
" true Hadrian's military camp" ( et al. 1991, 72). 1facccpted such variant would mean that the sccondary
use of thc relevant defenses in the late rd-early 4th century "''as not impossiie.

23 The two Christian basilicas excavated within and out of the fonress functioned in the 5th-6th centuries. number of new
buildings of smaller size and worse construction appear at thattime on the sites of abandoned larger Late Roman buildings
and in the free spaces. Similar processes are recorded beyond the limits of Hissarlaka, for example, on and around the
ruins ofthe lrreum and the Late Roman rlu!m1ae (see the refcrences above). These developments indicate the changes in
the structure and in the architecture of early Byzantine Cabyle and also suggest consideraie demographic potential. Jn
fact the changes in Cabyle are no different from the development of the other fonified settlements in 17~racia and Duciu in
the early Byzantine period.

76

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

ported evidence (fig. 1).

Still, the majority of the centers under
study, mentioned as towns in the sources, have
been located with certainty. heir urban definitions indicate an administrative function.
They are most numerous in the province of
Scythia (fig. 1) where specific features of public life created the basis for the administrative
distinction of number of settlements not
meeting the real urban definition. The most
significant feature is the presence of considerale military population.
h changes in the organization of the socalled limitanei result in their gradual transformation from regular military units into militarized population. This process, attested in
number of sites on the limes on the Lower Danube the transformation of the relevant military camps into fortified settlement centers, took
place in the late 4th-early 5th century. The second main category of the military population
consisted of the so-called foederati - Goths and
other "barbarians" of northem or eastem origin.
Settled in various regions, they adopted local
provincial culture efficiently and in their tum
contributed to formation of its specific character. The significance of the "barbarians-confederates" for the defense of the Balkan borders of
1
the Empire increased gradually after the late 4 h
century (Dintchev 1998, 99-101). Both
limitanei, and foederati, apart from the differences in their military duties and the circumstances related to their performance, were people who enjoyed privileges - they paid no taxes
but received subsidies. The privileges granted to
the militarized population obviously included
certain administrative autonomy as well.
The presence of large military population
could an explanation for peculiarity of the
administrative and settlement organization of
the province of Scythia in comparison with the
interior provinces of hracia. All centers of the
interior provinces of the diocese, already mentioned as towns in the Late Antique sources, and
already located and studied to certain extent,
"deserve" their uran definitions. Current inves-

tigations in the interior provinces are unsatisfactory but the prolem about the discrepancy between sources and real settlements value has
never n ig prolem there 24
However, large military population lived
not only in Scythia but also in the rest of the
border provinces of hracia and Dacia. Why
then are the most administratively distinct
centers, not meeting real urban definition,
found in Scythia? This prolem is usually modified and presented modem historiography
within the context of discussion on church organization of the province, fact quite indicative of the sense of relevant urban definitions.
well-known law of emperor Zeno from
480 states "every town ... is oliged to have its
own ishop." The only exception mentioned
explicitly is related to "the most holy churches
under the rule of Tomis in the province of
Scythia" which were to "keep their status"
( 1959, 21-22). According to most specialists, the presentation of the ishop of
Tomis as Metropolitan in the participants'
lists of the Council of Constantinopolis in 520,
is an indication that this exception wasalready
history at the time of Emperor Anastasius 1
when new ishoprics were estalished in
Scythia. It is accepted that the towns of the
province mentioned about ten years later in
Hierocles's Synecdemus were centers for the
new ishoprics. The comparatively late date of
their estaishment is explained the specific character of the local church organization (Popescu 1975, 178, 181-182;
1979, 148-149; Duval/Popovic 1980, 388389; 1984, 165-166; Popescu 1988,
84-86, 91-92; Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 288290; Suceveanu/Bamea 1993, 174-176; Sampetru 1994, 105-11 , 120, 180).
I share the opinion that the new ishoprics
in Scythia were estaished during the reign
of Anastasius 1. In view with the objective
characteristics of some centers - the abovementioned Axiopo/is, Troesmis, Halmiris and
Capidava for example, 1 think they are defined
Hierocles as towns because they are ish-

24 For reasons aln:ady mentioned v, exceptions cou\d assumed for the province of . The eventua\ discrepancies etween sources and real settlement may related somehow to the proximity of the capital Constantinople.

77

Ventzislav Dintchev

op's seats. The estalishmet of the w bishoprics is an importat chage in the church
organizatio of the province but, bearig i
mind the sigificance of the istitution of
ishop i Late Atiquity, this chage should
not regarded only as act of chage i the
church organizatio. lt also bears certai political meaig. aalysis of the situatio in
the provice durig the reig of Anastasius 1
suggests that the most r political reason for estaishment of new ishoprics was
the major revolt in 513 of the foederati, settled uder the leadership of their comes Vitalian25. 1t is logical to assume that the grat of
additioal admiistrative rights, icludig the
estalishmet of w ishoprics, was part of
the precautios take the empire to suppress
the revolt, which lasted years, as well as to prevet such evets i the future.
The actual administrative sigificance of
centers such asAxiopo/is, Troesmis, Halmiris,
Capidava or Salsovia, after they became blshop's seats, was proportioate to their size: they
were still not equal to the real tows in the
provice of Scythia. The blshoprics of these
ceters were t equal in sigificat to the
blshopric (metropolitan) of Tomis, or to the i
shoprics of Dionysopolis or Tropaeum Traiani,
or v to the blshopric of lstros which was
obviously i declie in Late Atiquity, but still
. ur pattem 26.
k ept 1ts
These coclusions are also valid for the
above-metioed ceters of the other provices
of the two dioceses, oted as blshop's seats. It
is difficult to assume that the admiistrative
significace of Castra Martis, as presetly lo-

cated, is similar to that of Ratiaria, Aquae,

Oescus or Bononia i Dacia ripensis (Ditchev
1999, 44, 46-47, 48). It is unlikely that the
blshops of Germania exercised the same influece as their colleagues in Serdica, Pautalia,
Naissus d Remesiana i Dacia mediterranea
(Ditchev 1999, 42-43, 46, 49, 54). This applies also to Cabyle (Diospolis?) i compariso with
Philippopolis, Augusta Traiana
(Beroe) d Diocletianopolis in the provice of
hracia (Dintchev 1999, 42, 43, 45-46, 62).
The cosiderale discrepacy betwee
sources d real settlement values for the provice of Scythia stimulates the urba partiality
of moder historiography for settlemets t
metioed as tows the more reliaie Late
Atique authors. Dinogetia, Ulmetum and Bizone (fig. 1) are few examples for such settlemets metioed moder autors amog the
tows of Scythia 27 . The urba partiality or
iertia is however t ukw i puiicatios
the rest of the provices of the two dioceses.
Montana, latrus, Storgosia, Carassura and the
ceters at Gabrovo, Shurdhah and Kamenica
(fig. 1) are examples of this 28.
Ulmetum and Bizone, as well as /atrus,
Storgosia, Carassura and the fortified settlemets at Gabrovo d Kameica, are importat
local ceters. They are still not equal to the
ceters at Obzor and Vojvoda i ortheastem
Bulgaria (the provice of Moesia inferior) or
the s at Konjuh, Cucer and Markovi Kuli in
orthem Macedonia (the province of Dardania)2~ It may that some of the eumerated
ceters, t yet idetified, were t blshop's
seats but evertheless would have real urba
value i Late Atiquity.

25 For this revo\t see for example, 1980.

26 For data and puiications Tomis, Dionysopo/is, Tropaeum Traiani and lstros see in Dintchev \999, 42, 45, 52, 53-54.
27 See for example, Suceveanu!amea 199\, 179-204, where the numer of the centers in Scythia mentioned as "villes et
ourgs" is more than 40.
28

w sites are recorded in Naissus region, and it has been written that "they could defined as small fortified towns"
(DuvaVPopovi( 1980, 378). Additional information is presented only for the site at Balajanac. Its fortified area is quadrangular in shape and measures ". 200 \ m", i. . it is . 2 ha (Iid.). Therefore it cannot considered real
small town. The same is applied to the most of the Late Antique fortified centers on the territory ofthe Repuiic of
Macedonia (Mikul~ic 1986, 108-109, 112-114), which elonged to the provinces of Dardania and Dacia Mediterranea.
These and other centers with similar definitions from the territory of the two dioceses are not presented here in details,
since their real archeological investigation has either not started or has just egan.

29 Data and puJications aout the centers at Obzor, Vojvoda, Konjuh, Cu~er and Markovi Kuli see in: Dintchev 1999,43,
48, 50, 52.

78

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

BILIOGRAPY

, .

1988.

ln: , ./, . (ed.). -

- . . 25-28.
, . 1982. . ,

30, 4, 28-

n, .

38.
, .

1987. n
nr (1971-1982). ln: , .
(ed.). . . 1. . 54-85.
, . 1986. n . ln:
, . et al. (ed.).
n n 1985 r . . 82.
, . 1985. n . ln:
, . et al. (ed.).
n n 1984 . . 136.
, . 1980. n (n
n ). ln: , ./, .
(ed.). n n
1979 . . 97-98.
, . 1981. n
, . 1974. n

Dacia ripensis. - Thracia 3, 337-344.

, . 1980.
-
16 (31), 121-126.
, ./, ./, ./w.10,
. /,

ln:

, .

(ed.).

1. . 7-17.
, ./, ./, .!,

K.l

-, ./, ./, ./
, .

et

1 .

1991.

(ed.).
1990 . . 71-74.

ln:

, .

, ./, ./~<.-, ./
, ./-, ./, ./
, ./. .

1982.

, .

In:

et

1.

(ed.).
1981 .

26-28.

, ./, ./, ./
, ./, ./-, ./
, ./. ./, .

n r . .

./,

1995.

1981.
et 1 . (ed.).
n n 1980 . . 50-53.

ln:

, .

./,

.!,

./,

.!

~<.-, ./-, ./, ./

-, ./, ./, .
.

ln:

(ed.).
1979 . . 69-72.
,

./,

1980.

, ./, .
n

./,

.!,

./

. n, n .

, ./-, ./11

ln:
1994 . .

117-118.
, ./, ./, ./, .

1994.

"" n

1993

ln:
1992-1993 .

91-92.

Baau/lc~<.-u, ./, ./. ../,

./11,

./-.,

1995. In:
1994 . .

(- ).

111-113.
, .

1985.

14, 3, 13-

24.
, .
.

(ed.).

1991.

. .

2.

ln:

7-53.

, .

1987. - .
(ed.). . . 1. . 9-\3.
, . 1986.
: 1982-1986 . ln: , . et 1. (ed.).
. . 11. . 1-15.
, . 1984.
(IV-VI .). ln: , ./, . (ed.).
. . 1. . 156-173.
In:

, .

, . 1982. .

./,

In: ,

1979.

./, .

(ed.).
1978 .

66-69.

, ./, ./, ./, .

1973. n r ().
In: , ./, . (ed.).
1972 . . 24-26.
, . 1943.
. -
14 (1940-1942), 265-281 .
, . 1988.
. -
7, 134-153.
. 1982. n
. In: , . (ed.).
. . 1. . 40-78.
1959. -, . et 1 . (ed.).
. . 11. (1958).
1954.- , . et 1. (ed.).
. . 1. .
, . 1984. (XIV- .). ln: , . et
1. (ed.).
. . 85-107.

79

Ventzis/av Dintchev
uumpott, .

1934.

.r

8, 116-161 .
N1
ln: , . (ed.). . . 1. .

uwnpotta, .
.

1982.

WNett, . 1998. r

JI .r. -

13, 161-170.
,

, . 1998.

- ,
. - 39, 3-4, 25-33.
tt, . 1996.

(IV VI

.)

( } .

JI. .r.

k'U .
r .

1991 .
In: , . (ed.}. . . 2.

, ./, .
.

r. .

1982.

r.

In:

, .

.r. .

ct al. (ed.).
125-126.

. .

1980. . . 1. .
tt, . 1976. .r
. - .r 18, 3, 6-22.
, . 1973.

.} . -

1963.

5, 3, 9-18.
1961 . 11.-
. - 3, 3, 18-26.
, . 1957.
.
21, 211-232.
t1, ./, ./, . 1982.
.

ln:

et al. (ed.).
1981 . . 53.
, ./-, ./, .

1981. ( . }. ln:
et al. (ed.).
1980 . JI . 58-59.
, .

, ./-, .! , .!

. .

1979.

ln:

, ./, .

80-81.

1911 . r

212, 175-190.
1987.

. .

80

(ed.).
1978 .

et

1 .

(ed.).
1984 .

58.
1994.
. In: , . (ed.).
. . 111. . 212220.
, . 1992. IV-VI . .
.

18, 41-54.
1990.
32, 4, 36-46.

, .

(ed.).
149-158.

. .

In:
11.

. . 1986.

r.

18, 4, 22-26.
11. . 1974. Cantabaza, Smoma, Campsa. 22 (1971), 53-58.
, . 1981. ,
.

15, 4, 24-34.

, .

Kaapott. .

, . 1986.

, .

, .

In:

, .

(V-VI

1982.

In:

, .

r.

20..24.

1978.

1962 .

1980.

54-82.

tu-, .!, .

r.

39, 1-2, 16-23.

. .

115-157.

n .

(ed.).
. .

In:

, ./, .

1.

201-210.

, . 1981. .

In: ,
(ed.). J< r
. . 1. . 272-285.
1958. , . et al. (ed.).
. . I. .
. . 1974.
r j. - j 1, 2,
347-368.
MWiett, ./ , . 1978.
. .
r.r 20, 4, 25-33.
, ./~, ./, . 1962.
.!, .

- .-

13, 21-111.
1979.

-~. .

. .
//, .

1968.

1, 3, 13-23.

He~tta, ./~. ./u, ./., ./

. ./tt, . ./, ./, ./

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

, ./, .

In:

1990. n .
et al. (ed.).
n 1989 . , 135-137.

, .

, ./, ./, ./, ./

, ./, . .

1987.

ln:

, .

. .

, .

et al. (ed.).
11. . 123-140.
1995.

. .
, .

1984.

"" n . n,

(- n).

(V-VI .) (VII-XI .).

In: , . et al. (ed.).
. . 62-84.
., . 1914.
. -
4, 252.
., . 1910. .
-
1, 159-161.
,
./,
.
1979.

et al. (ed.).
1986 . . 222-225.
, . 1992.
. In:
, . et 1. (ed.). , n
In:

, .

n n

85-
. .
,

1990.

89-98 .

r .

-,

-
13, 15-30.

./:,

./

, .

1987. n n
n (1968-1978) . In: , . (cd.).
. . I. . 14-19.
1i, . 1984. ,
j ~ h n .

33-34 (1982-1983), 129-134.

1988. j j . In:
, . (ed .). .
n 39. j 10.
r. 201-251.
, . 1979. nn
1i, .

(IV-VI

.) . -

Thracia antiqua 5,

143-157.
, ./, ./, .

n
, .

1991.
In:

rp.

(ed.).
1990 . . 156-157.
, . 1982. n
. In: , . et al.
(ed .). . . 153-169.
et

1.

n n

-., . 1994.

111
IV . . . In: , . (ed.).
. . III. . 205-211.
-,

1994.

In:

, .

et al. (ed.).

- n

n. - . .

13-

19.
-..'l,

1992.

.
, .

(ed.).
. . 1. . 26-30.
-, . 1986.

In:

In: , . et 1. (ed.).
1. . 426-429.
, . 1987. r
. ln: , . et al.
(ed.). r
. . . 6. . 189-200.
, ./, ./, . 1988,
)"! . -
. 4, 1-12.
, . 1981. .
. . -
3, 102-185.
Alexandrov, G. 1987. Montana und regio Montanensium. Untersuchungen. - Ratiariensia 3-4, 143-153.
Atanasova, J. 1987. castelum Castra Martis Kula.
- Ratiariensia 3-4, 119-126.
Atanasova, J. 1974. Le quadriburgium de ! forteresse
Castra Martis en Dacia Ripensis. In: Actes de IX-e
congres intemational d'etudes sur les frontiers romaines
(Mamaia 1972). Koeln-Wien. 167-172.
, . 1976. Fortifikimet antikitetit te vone ne
vendin tone (Fortifications de la Basse Antiquite en
Albanie). - Monumentet 11, 45-74.
Barnea, . 1986. La fortresse de Dinogetia la
Jumiere des demieres fouilJes archeologiques. ln: Studien
zu den Militaergrenzen Roms. Bd. . Stutgart. 447-450.
, . 1984. Dinogetia . Precizari cronologice.
- Peuce 9, 339-345.
Barnea, /. 1969. Dinogetia. Bucuresti.
Buelow, v. G. 1995. Die Siedlungsperiode D 2 in
Iatrus. In: Iatrus- rivina . Bd. V. Berlin. 61-66.
Buelow, v. G. 1991. Die Bebauung des 6. Jh. ueber
dem ehemaligen Zentrum des Kastells. In: latrus rivina. Bd. IV. Ber1in. 59-68.
Covaceff, Z. 1989. Capidava in secolul VI . n. Citeva
oobservatii baza cercetarilor din sectorul V al cetatii. Pontica 21-22 ( 1988-1989), 187-196.
. .

81

Ventzislav Dintchev
Covaceff, Z
1980. Raport preliminar asupra
cercetarilor archeologice din sectoru\ V \ cetatii
Capidava (campaniile din anii 1975, 1976, 1978 si 1979).
- Pontica 13, 254-275.
Dintchev, V. in print. GesellschaftHche Komponenten
der Struktur frilhbyzantinischer befestigter Siedlungen
auf dem Territorium des heutigen Bulgarien. In: Wende\,
. (ed.). Karassura. Bd. . Leipzig-Halle.
Dintchev, V. 1999. Classification of the Late Antique
Cities in the Dioceses of hracia and Dacia . Archaeologia Bulgarica 3, 3, 39-73.
Dintchev, V. 1998. Ueber die Veraenderungen in der
Militaerdoktrin des Imperiums an der unteren Donau
waehrend des V.-VI. Jhs. In: Zahariade, M./Opris I. (ed.).
h Roman Frontier at the Lower Danue, 4th-6th centuries. h second Intemational Symposium (urighioV
Halmyris, 18-24 August \996). Bucharest. 95-113.
Dintchev, V. \997. Household Substructure of the
Early-Byzantine Fortified Settlements on the Present Bulgarian Territory.- Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 1, 47-63.
Dohle, . 1995. Die Siedlunsperiode in latrus. In:
Iatrus - rivina. Bd. V. Berlin. 9-28.
Dohle, . \991 . Die Principia (Objekt XX/XXI). In:
Iatrus- Krivina. Bd. IV. Berlin. 35-58.
D. . 1998. Heraclius "reconstruction of cities"
and their sixth-century Balkan antecedents. ln: Acta
congressus intemationalis archaeologiae christianae.
Citta de\ Vaticano - Split 795-806.
Dunn, . 1997. Stages in the transition from the Late
Antique to the Middle Byzantine uran centre in S. Macedonia and S. Thrace.- Pararthma Makedonikwn 7, 137150.
D. . 1994. h transition from polis to acrtpov
in the Balkans (-V .): genera\ and regional perspectives.- Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies 18, 60-80.
Duval, N./Popovic, V. 1980. Urbanisme et
topographie chretienne dans les provinces septentrionales
de 1' U\yricum. In: Rapports presentes au congres intemational d' archeo\ogie chretienne. Thessalonique. 369402.
Florescu, R. 1975. Date noi cu privere \ cronologia
Capidavei romane tirzii.- Pontica 8, 361-375.
Florescu, G./Florescu, R/Diaconu, . 1958. Capidava.
Monograhie archeo\ogica. . I. Bucuresti.
Gomolka, H.-J. 1995. Zum fruehen Christentum in
Iatrus. In: Iatrus- rivina. Bd. V. Berlin. 108-115.
Herrmann, J.!Nikolov, D./Wendel. . 1986. Karasura
- antike Strassenstation und mittelalterliche Siedlung i
Rupkite (VR Bulgarien).- Das Altertum 32, 2, 85-91.
lvanov, . 1979. Die neuentdeckte dritte Basilika. In:
Iatrus- Krivina. Bd. 1. Berlin. 27-33.
Kojceva, . 1990. Settlement development in Lower
Moesia in Late Antiquity. - Terra Antiqua Balcanica 5,
162-165.

82

Kondic, V. 1984. Les formes des fortification

protobyzantines dans \ region des Portes de Fer. In:
Villes et peuplement dans \' Illyricum protobyzantin. Collection de \' Ecole franca.ise de Rome 77. Roma. 131-161.
Mikulcic, !. 1986. Kasnoanticka utvrdenja u SR Makedoniji - pokusaj klasifikacije. In: Medovic, . (ed.).
Odbrameni sistemi u praistoriji i antici na tJu JugosIavije. Materijali 22. Novi Sad. 101-123.
Miku/Cic, /. 1976. In: Tabula Imperii Romani 34.
Sofia (Na.issus- Serdica- Thessalonike). Ljuijana.
MiJ.:u/Cic, !. 1974. Ueber die Groesse der spaetantiken
Staedte in Makedonien.- Ziva antika 24, 191-212.
Nico/ae, . 1993. Despre topografia anticului Carsium. - Pontica 26, 215-229.
Ostrogorsky, G. 1959. Byzantine Cities in the Early
Midd\e Ages. - Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13,47-66.
Panait, P./Radulescu, A./Stefanescu, A./Flaut, D.
1998. Cercetarile arheologice de \ cetacea Harsova.
Campania 1995.- Pontica 28-29 (1995-1996), 121-134.
Petrovic, . 1980. Les forterresses du Bas-Empire sur
le limes danublen en Serie. In: Hanson, W./eppie, L.
(ed.). Roman Frontier Studies. Actes of the 12th Intemational Congres (BAR, Intem. Series 71). Oxford. 757775.
Petrovic, .Nasic, . 1996. The Roman Frontier in
Upper Moesia: Archaeo\ogical lnvestigations in the Iron
Gate Area- Main Results. In: Petrovic, P.(ed.). Roman
Limes on the Middle and Lower Danue. Belgrade. 1526.
Popescu, . 1988. Die kirchliche Organisation der
Provinz Scythia Minor vom vierten is sechste Jarhundert. - Jahruch der oesterreichischen Byzantinistik
38, 75-94.
Popescu, . 1975. Zur Geschichte de Stadt in leins
kythien in der Spaetantike. Ein epigraphischer Beitrag. Dacia 19, 173-182.
Popovic, V. 1984. Byzantins, slaves et autochtons
dans Jes provinces de Prevalitane et Nouvelle Epire. In:
Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. CoiJection de \' Ecole francaise de Rome 77. Roma. 181-243.
Poulrer. . 1984. Roman Towns and the Proiem of
Late Roman Urbanism: the Case of the Lower Danube. Hephaistos 5-6 ( 1983-1984), 109-132.
Ravegnani, G. 1983. Castelli citta' fortificate nel VI
secolo. Ravena.
Sampetru, . 1994. Orase si cetati romane tarzii Ja
Dunarea de Jos. Biiiotheca Thracologica 5. Bucuresti.
Schoneburg, . 1992. Die Basilika extra muros vor
dem Kaleto-Huegel von Karasura.- Zeitschriften fuer
Archaeologie 26, 251-259.
Schreiner; . 1986. Staedte und Wegenetz in Moesien,
Dakien und Thrakien nach dem Zeugnis des
Theophylaktos Simokates. In: Pillinger, R. (ed.).
Spaetantike und fruehbyzantinische Kultur Bulgariens

The Limit of Urban Life in the Late ...

zwischen Orient und Okzident. Wien. 25-35.
Scorpan, . 1980. Limes Scythiae: Topographical and
stratigraphica\ research on the late Roman fortifications
on the Lower Danue. BAR, lntemational Series 88. Oxford.
Spahiu, ./t, D. 1975. Shurdah (Sarda). La cite
albanaise medie,a\e fortifiee. - Iliria 3, 265-323.
Suce veanu, A.!Barnea, /. 1993. Contribution \'
histoire des villes romaines de \ Dobroudja.- Dacia 37,
159-179.
Suceveanu, ./Barnea, . 1991 . La Dobroudja
romaine. Bucarest.
Tocilescu, Gr. 1902. Monumentele epigrafice si
sculpturali \ museului national antichitati din
Bucuresci. . 1. Bucuresci.
Vasic, . 1995. Le limes protobyzantin dans \
province de Mesie premiere. - 45-46 (19941995), 41-45.
Vasilev, V. 1981. Forteresse medievale au
Cirakmana pres de Kavarna.- Byzantinobulgarica 7, 333337.
Velkov, V. 1977. Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Late
Antiquity (Studies and Materials). Amsterdam.
Vu/pe, R.!Bamea, /. 1968. Din istoria Dobrogei. . .
Romanii ! Dunarea de Jos. Bucuresti.
Wachtel, . 1991. Zum Stand und zu einigen Problemen der Erforschung von latrus nach den Grabungskampagnen 1975- 1981. In: Iatrus- Krivina. Bd. IV.
Berlin. 15-18.
Zahariade, . 1996. The Roman Frontier in Scythia
Minor (1980-1994). In: Petrovic, . (ed.). Limes the
Midd\e and Lower Danue . Belgrad. 223-234.
Zahariade, . 1988. Moesia secunda, Scythia si
Notitia Dignitatum. Bi\ioteca de arheologie 49.
Bucuresti.
Zahariade, M./Suceveanu, A.!Opait, A.!Opait, ./
Topoleanu, F. 1987. Ear\y and Late Roman Fortification
at Independenta, Tulcea country. - Dacia 30, 1-2, 97106.

5 (1 ha)

, . .

4 6 .

Hierocles
- Gratiana Moesia superior Castra Martis Dacia ripensis

.
Scythia -
Axiopolis, Troesmis, Ha/m iris, Capidava .
Germania Dacia mediterranea,
,

IV

Hieroc/es Armonia.
Cabyle

Thracia
( Hieroc/es Diospolis?). Cabyle
-

IV

Thracia

Dacia,
~

/atrus

Moesia inferior,

Teophylactus Simokatta;
Scythia Salso via, Notitiae Episcopatuum; Dinogetia, U/metum Bizone
; Carassura
hracia.

Montana Dacia ripensis Storgosia Moesia lnferior

()

Shurdhah (
Praevalitana)
( Moesia inferior).

Thracia

Dacia

- -

83

Ventzislav Dintchev

Moesia superior
Sa1dum.
Castra

nus

Martis

Gratiana

Scythia

1 ,

Dacia ripensis.

513

comes Vitalia-

. ,

. -

()

Scythia (. 1), .

- , n

dava

Axiopolis, Troesmis, Halmiris, CapiSalsovia

, . .

Scythia

hracia

Dacia.

Scythia.

()

Dionysopolis

-.

Tomis,
Tropaeum Traiani,
/stros ,

Europa).

Castra Martis

n

.

480

. n

Scytllia

Scythia.

Tomis

n-

Hierocles

84

Ratiaria, quae, Oescus

Bononia Dacia ripensis.
Germania
Serdica, Pautalia, Naissus Remesiana Dacia
mediterranea. Cabyle (Diospolis ?)
Philippopolis, Augusta Traia11a
(Beroe) Diocletianopolis Tl1racia.

n.

, ,

Scythia,
Thracia Dacia.
Scythia -

Dr. Ventzislav Dintchev

Archaeological Institute and Museum
2 Saborna St.
BG- 1 Sofia
veanide@mail.bol.bg