BYZANTINISCHE FORSCHUNGEN Internationale Zeitschrift für Byzantinistik herausgegeben von WALTER E. KAEGI, Jr. BAND XXX VERLAG ADOLF M. HAKKERT - AMSTERDAM 2011 BYZANTINISCHE FORSCHUNGEN BAND XXX 4th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THRACIAN STUDIES CONTENTS Byzantine Thrace Evidence and Remains Komotini, 18-22 April 2007 PROCEEDINGS Edited by Charalambos Bakirtzis, Nikos Zekos and Xenophon Moniaros VERLAG ADOLF M. HAKKERT - AMSTERDAM 2011 CONTENTS In memory of Angeliki Laiou CONTENTS CONTENTS PREFACE by Charalambos Bakirtzis 1 INAUGURAL LECTURE Angeliki E. Laiou, Introversion and extroversion, autarky and trade: urban and rural economy in Thrace during the Byzantine period. 11 I. EXPLORING THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE: NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN TOWN AND COUNTRYSIDE; HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY AND MONUMENTAL TOPOGRAPHY Engin Akyürek, Seventeen years of experience in archaeological inventory: TAY Project completed Byzantine period of Thrace and Bithynia. 43 Peter Soustal, Σα γλαεδεΪ παλΪζδα κυ κλ έκυ δΰαέκυ σππμ παλδ Ϊθκθ αδ παζδκτμ ξΪλ μ εαδ πκλ κζΪθκυμ (The Aegean coast of the southwestern part of Thrace as reflected in old maps and portolans). 57 Henry Maguire, The Philopation as a setting for imperial ceremonial and display. 71 Eftelpa Theoklieva-Stoycheva, Η τ λ υ β βμ Μ βηίλέαμ κυ υι έθκυ Πσθ κυ: Ϋλΰκ βμ ε θ λδεάμ ικυ έαμ βμ Bυααθ δθάμ αυ κελα κλέαμ (L’alimentation en eau de la ville de Mésembrie, sur le Pont-Euxin: un ouvrage de l’administration centrale de l’empire byzantin). 83 Eugenia Chalkia, Άΰθπ β γΫ β ίυααθ δθάμ ηκθάμ (;) Ίηίλκ (Unknown site of a monastery (?) on Imbros). 93 βθ CONTENTS II. CHANGES IN TOWNS AND DEFENSIVE FORTIFICATIONS Petros Georgantzis, ΢βηαθ δεσ λ μ ΢ευγδεὲμ πδ λκηὲμ ὴ ΘλΪεβ εα ὰ κὺμ 5κ εαδ 6κ η.Χ. α ῶθ μ (Les incursions majeures des Skythes en Thrace aux Ve et VIe siècles). 111 Giannis Vassiliadis, Σκ εΪ λκ βμ Κκηκ βθάμ: αλξδ ε κθδεά αθΪζυ β εαδ εηβλέπ β (L’enceinte byzantine de Komotini: Analyse architecturale et documentation). 139 III. RURAL ECONOMY, LAND AND SEA COMMUNICATIONS; EVERYDAY LIFE Ioannis Touratsoglou, Diamantis Triantaphyllos, Θβ αυλσμ Ϊ πλπθ λαξΫπθ απσ ελΪηα Ϊφκ βμ πλυδηβμ πκξάμ κυ ΢δ άλκυ β Ρκτ α (Un trésor d’aspra trachéa de billon dans une tombe du premier âge de Fer à Russa). 157 Andreas Kuelzer, The Byzantine road system in Eastern Thrace: some remarks. 179 Manolis G. Varvounis, Όο δμ βμ εαγβη λδθάμ απάμ κυ 12κυ αδυθα β ΘλΪεβ η ίΪ β κ Συπδεσθ βμ ηκθάμ βμ Κκ ηκ π έλαμ (Aspects of daily life in the 12th century in Thrace based on the Typikon of the Kosmosoteira monastery). 203 Maria Tziatzi-Papagianni, δμ πκ ’ θ ίκτζκδ κ ηαγ ῖθ ὴθ ΘλΪεβθ: Η ΘλΪεβ ηΫ α απσ κυμ έξκυμ κυ πκδβ ά Μαθκυάζ Φδζά ( δμ πκ ’ θ ίκτζκδ κ ηαγ ῖθ ὴθ ΘλΪεβθ: Thrakien nach den Versen des Dichters Manuel Philes). 245 CONTENTS IV. RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS, COMMUNITIES AND MONASTICISM Monk Moeses Hagiorete, Ο δὰ ῶθ ΰέπθ ξΫ δμ ΰέκυ λκυμ εαὶ ΘλΪεβμ, 9κμ-15κμ α υθαμ (Les saints hommes reliant le Mont Athos à la Thrace aux IXe – XVe siècles). 265 Monk Patapios Kavsokalyvites, ΰδκλ έ δε μ ὁ δαεὲμ ηκλφὲμ ὴ ΘλΪεβ κῦ 14κυ α υθα (Saintly Athonite figures in Thrace in the 14th century). 277 Monk Kosmas of Simonopetra, Ἡ ηαλ υλέα θὸμ ΰθυ κυ ηκθαξκῦ κῦ Παπδεέκυ ὄλκυμ, Ϋζβ 13κυ ἢ λξὲμ 14κυ α υθα (The account of an unknown hieromonk of Mount Papikion at the end of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th century). 327 Konstantinos P. Charalampidis, Η κ δκηΪλ υμ Γζυε λέα β Θλαεδυ δ α: αΰδκζκΰδεΫμ εαδ δεκθκΰλαφδεΫμ ηαλ υλέ μ (The Thracian martyr Glykeria: hagiological and iconographical observations). 345 Rossitsa Gicheva-Meimari, Chest crossbands: Realia of religious belief and practice in Ancient and Byzantine Thrace. 359 V. ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION AND MILITARY ORGANIZATION Jacek Wiewiorowski, “Vicarius Thraciarum” in the 4th and 5th centuries: some remarks. 385 Nektarios Dapergolas, Problems concerning the administrative organization of Byzantine Thrace: the “theme of Macedonia” and the misinterpretations of the recent research. 411 CONTENTS VI. THE ARRIVAL OF THE OTTOMANS Suna ÇaΏaptay, The road from Bithynia to Thrace: Gazi Evrenos’ Imaret in Komotini and its architectural framework. 429 Argyres P. P. Petronotis, Χλδ σ κυζκμ, κ ζ υ αέκμ αλξδ Ϋε πθ κ υαΪθ δκ, εαδ πμ Atik Sinan [Hoca Sinanüddin] bin Abdullah, κ πλυ κμ κυζ αθδεσμ η ρηΪλβμ βθ Ι αθηπκτζ (Christodoulos, der letzte Baumeister in Konstantinopel, und auch mit dem Namen Atik Sinan, der erste Mimar (= Architekt) des Sultans in Istanbul). 443 VII. ARTISTIC TRADITION, EXPRESSION, EFFECTS AND INFLUENCES Robert Ousterhout, The Byzantine architecture of Thrace: the view from Constantinople. 489 Stavros Mamaloukos, Ioannes Perrakis, The church of Theotokos Chrysopege at Ainos (Enez). 503 Nikos Zekos, Μαιδηδαθκτπκζδμ – Μκ υθσπκζδμ: αθα εαφά π λέε θ λκυ θακτ (Maximianoupolis – Mosynopolis: mise au jour d’une église byzantine plan centré). 537 Ioannis Iliadis, Σκ φυμ κ θασ βμ Κκ ηκ υ δλαμ (The light in the church of the Panagia Kosmosoteira). 571 Ioakeim Ath. Papaggelos, Angeliki Strati, Σλ ῖμ ηφδπλσ ππ μ εσθ μ πὸ ὴθ θα κζδεὴ ΘλΪεβ (Trois icônes byzantines bifaces en provenance de Thrace orientale). 589 Sophia Doukata-Demertzi, ζ φαθ κ Ϋδθα υλάηα α απσ βθ «Παζβσξπλα» Μαλπθ έαμ (Ivoires provenant de la basilique de ‘Paliochora’ à Maronnée). 611 CONTENTS VIII. PROSOPOGRAPHY Ivan Jordanov, Thrace (VIth-XIth centuries) according to the data of the Byzantine seals from Bulgaria. 643 Ioanna Koltsida-Makri, Η η κίυααθ δθά λδαθκτπκζβ ηΫ α απσ β φλαΰδ δεά ηαλ υλέα (Middle Byzantine Adrianople from the sigillographic evidence). 653 Georgios Chr. Charizanis, Ο πλπ κ λΪ κλαμ ζΫιδκμ ικτξκμ, κ ία κελΪ κλαμ ζΫιδκμ Κκηθβθσμ εαδ κ ηκθα δεσ εΫθ λκ κυ Παπδεέκυ Όλκυμ (ί΄ ηδ σ κυ 12κυ αδυθα): πλκ ππκΰλαφδεΪ εαδ Ϊζζα αβ άηα α (The protostrator Alexios Axouchos, the sebastokrator Alexios Komnenos and the monastic centre of Mount Papikion (2nd half of the 12th century): Profile questions and other tasks. 671 Athanasios I. Gouridis, Παλα βλά δμ πέ πθ ηκθκΰλαηηΪ πθ πθ πτλΰπθ κυ δ υηκ έξκυ (Observations on the monograms of the towers of Didymoteichon). 695 CLOSING REMARKS Robert Ousterhout, Thrace: the final frontier. 725 INTROVERSION AND EXTROVERSION, AUTARKY AND TRADE THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE: THE VIEW FROM CONSTANTINOPLE Robert Ousterhout For Charalambos Bakirtzis in honor of his retirement As the heartland of the Byzantine Empire and the hinterland of Constantinople, the region of Thrace preserves a rich and varied architectural heritage that both reflects and deviates from that of the capital.1 While Thrace offers many parallels for the buildings of the Constantinople, at the same time, it presents a variety of unique architectural solutions. In this paper, I will offer a brief overview of the Byzantine architecture of Thrace, emphasizing how the monuments of region both broaden and challenge our traditional picture of architectural developments in the Byzantine capital. It is worth remembering at the outset that Constantinople preserves less than 10% of the churches and monasteries known from the Byzantine period, and that for Thrace, the survival rate is much lower. Very little is preserved from the Early Christian centuries, but the plan of Hagia Sophia in Adrianopolis (Edirne), insofar as it may be reconstructed, is instructive (figs. 1, 2). Known only from two schematic plans by Choisy, published in 1876 and 1913, augmented by a single photograph taken in 1888, by 1902, the church was said to be completely destroyed.2 The plan published by Choisy included four 1. See Ousterhout, Bakirtzis 2007, for a recent assessment; also Soustal 1991; Ousterhout 1991:75-91. 2. Choisy 1883: 131; Mavrodinov 1951: II.277-98. 489 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT freestanding columns, which would have been anachronistic in such an early building. As an aisled tetraconch with a central square ca. 15.20 m in width, the spatially complex, double-shelled plan employed here was widely disseminated throughout the Mediterranean from the late fourth century onward.3 Other examples are known in Milan, Athens, Antioch, Syria, Armenia, and at Ohrid and Perustitsa (Bulgaria) in the Balkans. With the exception of S Lorenzo in Milan, these date to the fifth or early sixth centuries, and the example in Adrianopolis most likely dates to the late fifth or early sixth centuries.4 The proximity of our example to the Byzantine capital has important implications for the development of the innovative architectural forms of the sixth century, as at HH. Sergios kai Bakchos (Küçük Ayasofya Camii) and at Hagia Sophia, which similarly employed columnar screens and developed sophisticated interior spatial relationships.5 As a Byzantine city, Adrianopolis was both strategic and cosmopolitan, and probably it was from Adrianopolis that the plan was transmitted to Perustitsa. A second early example presents a few challenges. The rockcut monastic complex just outside Midye (Kiyiköy) on the Black Sea includes a church, an hagiasma, and a burial chamber (fig. 3).6 The church is a three-aisled basilica with lateral aisles, all covered by barrel vaults – including the nave, which is banded where it joins the sanctuary. On the basis of its elaborate sculptural decoration it may be dated to the sixth century – in fact, the details of the basket capitals and transenna panels should place the complex within close proximity of the capital. However, no examples of barrel-vaulted basilicas survive from Constantinople. Similarly problematic, the hagiasma is covered by a shallow dome, but it rises not above pendentives but springs directly from 3. Kleinbauer 1973: 89-114. 4. Ousterhout, Bakirtzis 2007: 167-72. 5. Krautheimer 1986: 214-49. 6. Eyice, Thierry 1970: 63-76. 490 THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE a flat ceiling. Again, nothing like this is to be found in Constantinople, although both vaulting solutions are found among the pre-iconoclast architecture of Cappadocia. We might compare the Midye church to the DurmuΒ Kadır Kilise at Avcılar, which has a similar barrel vault and rock-cut liturgical furnishings, and the hagiasma to Church 1 in the Balkan Dere, in which the dome similarly springs from a flat ceiling.7 Are these simply features characteristic of rock-cut architecture, or should they recall lost monuments from Constantinople? For the critical Transitional Period (late sixth through ninth centuries), very few buildings survive in Constantinople, and scholars have traditionally looked to Bithynia for supplementary examples. Thrace also provides some compelling transitional churches. The domed basilica known as Ayasofya in Vize is one of the best preserved examples from this period, dated by dendrochronology to sometime after 833, recently reexamined by Holger Klein and Franz Alto Bauer.8 To this building, I believe we may add two additional transitional monuments. The first is the rebuilding of Hagia Sophia in Adrianopolis.9 In a second construction phase, heavy supports were introduced into the corners of the central area to support arches and pendentives, and a dome with a diameter of approximately 7.20 m above the central area (fig. 2). As it is evident in the photograph, the rising walls, the pier supports, and the dome were made of brick. It is unclear if the aisled tetraconch plan was maintained in this phase, if the church was reduced to a cruciform core, or if the colonnades of the exedrae were filled with solid walls. The cluster piers are penetrated by narrow passageways on two levels, and the dome is raised above a cylindrical drum, pierced by large windows, with setbacks in each opening. The construction and detailing of the drum can be compared to the dome of the Fatih Camii in Trilye, built 7. For comparisons, see Thierry 2002: 81-82; eadem 1968: 53-59. 8. Ousterhout 1998: 127-28; Klein, Alto Bauer 2004: 31-40; eiusdem 2006. 9. Ousterhout, Bakirtzis 2007: 170-72. 491 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT ca. 800.10 Moreover, the forms of the cluster piers at the corners of the naos are similar to those in Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki (late sixth century), and the lower cornice profiles are similar as well.11 During the 1980s, the University of Istanbul's excavation at Ainos (Enez) uncovered the remains of a large church near the lagoon to the southeast (fig. 4).12 The so-called Kral Kızı Kilisesi preserved portions of the eastern end of the church are finely constructed of brick and stone, with highly articulated corner piers in the nave and particularly distinctive in the pastophoria, with multiple setbacks at the corners. There were both annexed chapels flanking the eastern end of the building, and lateral aisles flanking the nave. The main apse and the apses of the annexed chapels are slightly greater than semicircular on the interior and three-sided on the exterior. The western portion of the building, still buried by the rising slope, was never excavated. The construction technique of the Kral Kilisesi, combined with the unusual plan, would suggest an earlier date, perhaps in the Transitional Period of the late sixth-to-ninth centuries, and this is encouraged by a comparison with the masonry of buildings of the period, such as Hag. Sophia in Thessaloniki. Moreover, there would appear to be at least two phases to the construction of the Kral Kilisesi, with the parts of the lateral wall of the naos enclosing the bases of two large masonry piers. This detail encourages me to reconstruct the building as a domed basilica, with a dome diameter of ca. 7.60 m, and a plan similar to that of church at Vize. During the Middle Byzantine period, Thrace had clear architectural connections with Constantinople. The monastic church at Kerasia on Mount Papikion, for example, has the facet apse, atrophied cross plan, recessed brick detailing, and interior decoration we may 10. Mango, ŠevΗenko 1973: 236-38; Ousterhout 1999b: 17-19. 11. Theocharidou 1988: esp. fig. 51. 12. Erzen 1986: 603-618; idem 1986: II: 273-91; Ousterhout, Bakirtzis 2007: 4244. 492 THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE associate with the capital.13 Similarly, two well-known examples, the church of the Kosmosoteira at Pherai (fig. 5) and the ruined church now known as the Fatih Camii at Ainos (Enez) (fig. 6), both correspond in terms of technique, scale, and spatial disposition with the twelfthcentury monuments of Constantinople.14 They would appear to have been constructed and probably decorated by workshops composed at least in part by Constantinopolitan artisans. With the Kosmosoteira, the presence of the Sebastokrator Isaakios Komnenos, emphasizes the connections with the capital, and even in his exile, Isaakios was not without resources, as his typikon attests. We might imagine a similar scenario for the construction of the Fatih Camii – that is, built by a wealthy patron with close ties to Constantinople. Its well-preserved portico façade offers an excellent example of a building component now missing from most of its contemporaries. Nevertheless, both churches preserve features unknown in Constantinopolitan architecture. For example, should the elongated plan and engaged columns beneath the dome at Enez or the coupled columnar supports and open corner compartments at the Kosmosoteira be regarded as Constantinopolitan or as features of local derivation? At Pherai, I have argued, the innovative design of the western domed bays reflects the growing concern for the commemoration of the dead, which resulted in a variety of new building types in Constantinople. The open interior provided a unique position for Isaakios’ tomb, with a clear visual relationship to the setting of the liturgy.15 Although the Kosmosoteira finds no exact parallel in the capital, its design is experimental in precisely the same ways we find in Constantinople in the same century. The Fatih Camii church, on the other hand, parallels the increased 13. Zekos 1993: 442-44; idem 2001: 47, fig. 15. 14. Ousterhout 1985: 261-80; Sinos 1985; Ousterhout, Bakirtzis 2007: 23-31, 49-85. 15. See discussion Ousterhout 1999b: 122-25. 493 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT scale and sense of openness that characterizes the great twelfth-century endeavors in Constantinople, such as at the Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane Camii). As with the coupled columns at the Kosmosoteira, the engaged columns at Enez may have resulted from the employment of marble spolia to their best advantage. At the same time, the elongated “domed basilica” design is unusual and perhaps reflects older prototypes. The discovery of the Kral Kilisesi at Enez offers a potential local prototype from the Transitional Period, as does the church at Vize. Limited soundings along the south side of the Fatih Camii suggest that the building may in fact rest on older foundations. That is to say, while Thracian patrons and builders looked to the capital for architectural ideas, they also could find a similarly rich architectural heritage within their own backyard. The now destroyed church of Hag. Spyridon at Selymbria (Silivri) presents another compelling Middle Byzantine example. It is known from a photograph taken in 1878, when the building was in a ruinous condition, and another taken after its subsequent restoration, which was completed in 1905. The poor quality photographs may be supplemented by a description and measurements of the building, provided by the restoration architect.16 Based on this information, Horst Hallensleben convincingly proposed a reconstruction of the now lost church as a domed-octagon design, similar to that of the Nea Moni or Panagia Krina on Chios.17 The appearance of this church type, known to a previous generation of scholars as an “island octagon,” was thus not limited to the Greek islands. Another photograph dating to 1903 recently came to light, confirming these observations.18 The building measured just over 14 x 9 m overall, with a dome 16. Stamoules Ant. K.P.1926: 62-66; Stamoules M.A 1938: 37-44. 17. Hallensleben 1986: I, 35-46 and pl. 8. 18. The photograph was recently published in the exhibition catalogue ThraceConstantinople: Giorgios Lampakis’s Journey (1902) (Athens: Byzantine Christian Museum, 2007), 74-75. 494 THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE diameter of 5.20 m, its cornice 6.70 above the floor level. The naos was lined with the pilaster and coupled-column projections supporting arches and corner conches at the transitional level. Investigating the site, Hallensleben discovered bases for the coupled columns of the naos – and thus encourages the close relationship with Nea Moni. An unpublished panorama of Selymbria, dated 1776/77 by the Polish architect Johann Christian Kamsetzer, shows the church from the southeast, with the arcading of the south façade and the brick and window details of the apses clearly delineated (fig. 7). He depicts the dome as collapsed, but with portions of the drum surviving.19 From this, we get a sense of the surface treatment suggested by the grainy photograph, although Kamsetzer seems to have regularized the arcading of the south façade. The wall construction was described as having exceptionally thick mortar beds, and Hallensleben concluded from this – probably correctly – that the church was constructed in the recessed brick technique – a detail confirmed by the 1903 photograph. All of this sounds very much like the Panagia Krina, from Chios, which is dated either toward the end of the twelfth century or slightly later – it follows the model of Nea Moni and is constructed in the recessed brick technique.20 A detail evident on the apses of Kamsetzer’s view encourages this comparison: the facets of are topped by a band of meander pattern. The apse forms are simpler and lower, however, the windows broader, following the facets, although it would appear they were blocked. In his analysis, Hallensleben considered two possibilities: either the building was constructed in the Middle Byzantine period, 19. Uniwersytet Warszawski, Gabinet Rycin Biblioteki Uniwersyteckiej, Zb. Krol., T 173 no. 206a. I thank Tadeusz Zadrozny for his assistance locating the photograph. 20. Bouras 1982; Orlandos 1930: II; Bouras 1977-79: 21-34. For a late twelfthcentury date for the Panagia Krina, see Pennas 1991: 61-66; a tomb in the narthex dated by inscription to 1197 provides a terminus ante quem for the construction of the church. 495 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT with direct connections to Constantinople, or that it was erected in the thirteenth century, when the region had been reconquered by the Laskarids. However, both surviving views of the ruined building contrast dramatically the low form of the apses against the rising remains of the ruined dome, a detail corresponding more closely to Nea Moni than to any of its successors. This, combined with the simple façade articulation, lack of elaborate ceramoplastic decoration, and the use of the recessed brick technique all encourage me to place Hag. Spyridon closer chronologically to Nea Moni, and closer to the place where its design originated – that is, eleventh-century Constantinople.21 Possibly related is the no longer surviving church of Hag. Nikolaos at Babaeski, seen by John Covel in 1675.22 He described it as a small building, but resembling Hagia Sophia, as it was covered by a large dome (fig. 8). For Covel, the most distinctive aspect of the building was its brick construction, with tooth-shaped projections on the exterior, which he illustrated in plan, his fig. 1. The construction itself was unusual and he described it in detail: bricks courses 1.5 inches thick, alternated with mortar beds of equal thickness, illustrated in his fig. 2; however, alternating brick courses are set back from the wall surface and covered by mortar, which appear to be 4.5 inches thick, indicated in his fig. 3. This is, I believe, our first description (and illustration) of the recessed brick technique, popular in and around Constantinople in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.23 Indeed, the tooth-like projections he attempts to draw – perhaps the faceted exterior surface of the apse – look curiously similar to the elaborate pilasters of Hag. Georgios ton Manganon in Constantinople.24 In fact, at Selymbria and Babaeski, we may have our best evidence that the innovative forms of eleventhcentury Constantinopolitan architecture appeared in Thrace as well. 21. See Ousterhout in press. 22. Germanos Thyateiron 1939: 23-25. 23. Ousterhout 1999: 174-79, with older bibliography. 24. Demangel, Mamboury 1939: figs 20-21. 496 THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE This is not to say all Thracian architecture in this period depended on the capital. The tenth-century church of Hag. Ioannes at Nesebar has a distinctive non-Constantinopolitan appearance, and the ruined church at Genna (near Saranda Ekklesias) seems to have been similar.25 Both had short cross-in-square plans, with simply arcaded exteriors and domes with tall, cylindrical drums. Thus, already in the Middle Byzantine period, we have evidence of distinctive regional workshops, apparently building in a more conservative style. Distinctive regional workshops become more apparent in the Late Byzantine period. The Late Byzantine churches of Didymoteichon and Ainos reflect to a certain degree the architecture of Constantinople, but they are replete with technical and stylistic details that suggest the growth of regional workshops in the final centuries of Byzantium.26 The churches of Hag. Ioannes and Hag. Gregorios at Ainos, known from the 1902 photographs of Lambakis, have attenuated domes quite unlike those of the capital and which find better comparison further to the west – as for example among the Palaiologan churches of Thessaloniki. The details of Hag. Gregorios may be clarified by photographs of Hasluck taken in 1908 (fig. 9). Although it may have been constructed in the middle Byzantine period, the dome is clearly later in its form.27 Moreover, it was excavated by Istanbul University and appears in their publications as the “Mosaic Church.”28 It preserves a portion of an opus sectile floor (fig. 10). At Hag. Aikaterini in Didymoteichon and elsewhere, wall construction is a simple facing on a rubble core, quite unlike the building technique of Constantinople. The plan of the simple, single-aisled churches like Hag. Aikatherini (fig. 11) find no comparison 25. For Nesebar, see Mijatev 1974: 101-02; for Genna, see Christides 1935-36: 119-30; and most recently Mamaloukos 2004: 69-92. 26. Papazotos 1992-94: 89-125; Ousterhout 1989: 430-43; idem 1999a: 195-207; Ousterhout, Bakirtzis 2007: 34-40, 102-41, 181-82. 27. I thank Stavros Mamaloukos for sharing his observations on this building. 28. Erzen 1985: 603-18; idem 1986: II: 273-91. 497 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT in the capital, although similar examples are found throughout Thrace – as for example at Pranghi or Asenovgrad.29 On the other hand, cultural and political connections with Constantinople certainly continued, as the Late Byzantine churches at Mesembria (Nesebar) on the Black Sea attest.30 The odd building excavated by Hag. Athanasios in Didymoteichon may in fact have been the aisle of a larger church, and as such would reflect the development of ambulatory plans with accommodation for burials, as at the Monastery tou Libos or the Chora in Constantinople.31 The mysterious images of winged emperors and the exceptional quality of the painting would also indicate close relationships with the art of the capital. The church of Hag. Ioannes in Selymbria (Silivri), built ca. 1328, is similar in this respect.32 Unpublished photographs from the Bulgarian archives indicate that the church underwent several periods of repair but that in its initial phase it fits quite closely technically and stylistically with the churches of the capital (fig. 12).33 A comparison of the unusually narrow apse window with that of the Chora suggests to me that the two buildings may have been built by the same workshop.34 The important political role played its founder, Alexios Apokauchos, underlies its Constantinopolitan features.35 In sum, the architectural developments of Byzantine Thrace add important nuances to the growing picture of architecture in and around the Byzantine capital. At the same time, it is important to realize that there were local workshops of builders, whose style and construction techniques differed significantly from those of Constantinople. These 29. Ousterhout 1989. 30. Mijatev 1974: 145-50 and passim; Rachénov 1932. 31. Ousterhout 1999b; Ousterhout, Bakirtzis 2007: 111-41. 32. Eyice 1964: 77-104; Feld 1967: 57-65; Eyice 1978: 406 -16. 33. Ousterhout in press. 34. Ousterhout 1991: 80. 35. Nichol 1972: esp. 159-216; Talbot 1991: I, 134-35. 498 THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE local workshops became considerably more important in the final centuries of Byzantium. Unfortunately, the “Thrace of Ares” (as our colleague Danuta Gorecki once called it) continued through much of the history of the region.36 Often a battleground in the Byzantine period, the historical record is filled with accounts of destruction. Although we may blame the Goths or the Avars or the Pechenegs, the twentieth century has been just as cruel. Many of the monuments known a century ago have vanished without a trace, lost in the turbulence of the Balkan Wars, the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Population Exchange, and the Turkish War. Now, with serious scholarly and archaeological activity taking place on both sides of the border, we hope that new discoveries, exchanges of ideas, and collaborations will yield a richer and more nuanced picture of Thrace during the Byzantine period. 36. Gorecki 1989: 221-35. ABBREVIATIONS ByzF Υ JÖB ODB TIB Άλξαδκζκΰδε θ ζ έκθ Byzantinische Forschungen ζ έκθ Υλδ δαθδε μ λξαδκζκΰδε μ αδλ έαμ Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium Tabula imperii byzantini BIBLIOGRAPHY Bouras, Ch. (1977-79) “Twelfth and Thirteenth Century Variations of the Single Domed Octagon Plan,” Χ 9: 21-34. ― (1982) Nea Moni on Chios: History and Architecture, Athens: Commercial Bank of Greece. 499 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT Christides, A. (1935-36) “Genna,” Archeion tou Thrakikou Laographikou Glossikou Thesaurou 2: 119-30. Choisy, A. (1883) L’art de bâtir chez les byzantins, Paris: Société anonyme de publications périodique. Demangel, R. ‒ Mamboury, E. (1939) Le quartier des Manganes et la première region de Constantinople, Paris: de Boccard. Erzen, A. (1985) “1984 Enez Kazısı ÇalıΒmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 7: 603-18. ― (1986) “1984 Enez Kazısı ÇalıΒmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 8, II: 273-91. Eyice, S. (1964) “Alexis Apocauque et l’église Byzantine de Sélymbria (Silivri),” Byzantion 34: 77-104. ― (1978) “Encore une fois l’église d’Alexis Apocauque à Selymbria (=Silivri),” Byzantion 48: 406-16. Eyice, S. ‒ Thierry, N. (1970) “Le monastère et la source sainte de Midye en Thrace turque,” Cahiers Archéologiques 20: 63-76. Hallensleben, H. (1986) “Die ehemalige Spyridonkirche in Silivri (Selymbria) – eine Achtstützenkirche im Gebiet Konstantinopels,” in O. Feld ‒ U. Peschlow (eds.), Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann gewidmet, Mainz: R. Habelt, I, 35-46 and pl. Feld, O. (1967) “Noch Einmal Alexios Apokaukos unde die byzantinische Kirche von Selymbria (Silivri),” Byzantion 27: 57-65. Germanos, Thyateiron (1939) “To taxeidi tou John Covel apo Kon/poleos eis Adrianoupolin to 1675,” Thrakika 12: 23-25. Gorecki, D. (1989) “The Thrace of Ares during the Sixth and Seventh Centuries,” ByzF14: 221-35. Klein, H. ‒ Alto Bauer, F.A. (2004) “Die Hagia Sophia (Süleyman PaΒa Camii) in Vize. Bericht über die Arbeiten in Jahre 2003,” 22. AraΒtırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm BakanlıΏı, II, 31-40. ― (2006) “The Church of Hagia Sophia in Bizye (Vize): Results of the Fieldwork Seasons 2003 and 2004,” DOP 60: 249-70. Kleinbauer, W. E. (1973) “The Origins and functions of the Aisled Tetraconch Churches in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia,” DOP 27: 89-114. Krautheimer, R. (1986) Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 3rd paperback edition, Harmondsworth: Pelican. Mijatev, K. (1974) Mittelalterliche Baukunst in Bulgarien, Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Science. Mango, C. ‒ ŠevΗenko, I. (1973) “Some Churches and Monasteries on the South Shore of the Sea of Marmara,” DOP 27: 236-38. Mavrodinov, N. (1951) “L’origine de la construction et du plan de Sainte Sophie à Constantinople,” in Actes du VIe Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Paris, II, 277-98. 500 THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE Nichol, N. (1972) The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453, London. Orlandos, A.K. (1930) Monuments byzantins de Chios, Athens: Hestia. Ousterhout, R. (1985) “The Byzantine Church at Enez: Problems in Twelfth-Century Architecture,” JÖB 35: 261-80 ― (1989) “The Palaeologan Architecture of Didymoteichon,” ByzF14: 430-43. ― (1991) “Constantinople, Bithynia, and Regional Developments in Later Byzantine Architecture,” in Sl. ΔurΗiΕ ‒ D. Mouriki (eds.), The Twilight of Byzantium, Princeton: Dept. of Art and Archaeology, Program in Hellenic Studies, Princeton University, 75-91. ― (1998) “Reconstructing ninth-century Constantinople,” in L. Brubaker (ed.), Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive, Aldershot: Ashgate, 115-30. ― (1999a) “A Late Byzantine Chapel at Didymoteichon and Its Frescoes,” in A. Iacobini ‒ M. della Valle (eds.), L’arte di Bisanzio e l’Italia al tempo dei Paleologi 1261-1453, (published as Milion 5 [Rome, 1999]), 195-207. ― (1999b) Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton: Princeton University Press. ― (in press) “Two Byzantine Churches of Silivri/Selymbria”, in M. Johnson, R. Ousterhout, and A. Papalexandrou (eds), Appraoches to Byzantine Architecture and Its Decoration: Studies in Honor of Slobodan ΔurΗiΕ, (Aldershot: Ashgate, in press). Ousterhout, R.‒ Bakirtzis, Ch. (2007) The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, Thessaloniki: European Center for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Monuments. Papazotos, Th. (1992-94) “Schediasma peri ton mnemeion tes Ainou eos tis arches tou parontos Ainos,” Thrakike Epeteris 9: 89-125. Pennas, Ch. (1991) “Some Aristocratic Founders: The Foundation of Panagia Krina on Chios,” in Women and Byzantine Monasticism, Athens, 61-66. Rachénov, A. (1932) Églises de Mesemvria, Sofia: Institut bulgare d’archéologie, Sinos, St. (1985) Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira), München: Beck. Soustal, P. (1991) Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē, Haimimontos), TΙ 6, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Stamoules, A. K. P. (1926) “Anekdota Byzantina Mnemeia en Thrake,” Χ ser. 2, 3: 62-66. Stamoules, M.A. (1938) “Ho en Selymbria byzantinos naos tou Hagiou Spyridonos,” Thrakika 9: 37-44. Talbot, A.-M. (1991), “Alexios Apokaukos”, ODB I, 134-35. Theocharidou, K. (1988) The Architecture of Hagia Sophia, Thessaloniki from its erection up to the Turkish conquest, [BAR International Series 399], Oxford. Thierry, N. (1968), “Peintures paléochrétiennes en Cappadoce: l’église no. 1 de Balkan Dere,” Synthronon 2: 53-59. 501 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT Thierry, N. (2002) La Cappadoce de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, [Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive 4], Turnhout: Brepols. Zekos, N. (1993) “Kerasia,” 43, Chronika: 442-44. ― (2001) Papikion Oros, Athens: Periphereia Anatolikis Makedonias kai Thrakis. 502 ΛΟΡ ΝΣ Ι ΢ FIGURES ROBERT OUSTERHOUT ̶ THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE Fig. 1. Adrianopolis (Edirne), church of Hag. Sophia, plan (author, after Choisy). Fig. 2. Same, photograph by Léchine, 1888, before its complete destruction. Fig. 3. Midye (Kiyiköy), monastery of Hag. Nikolaos, plan (after Eyice and Thierry). 839 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT ̶ THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE Fig. 4. Ainos (Enez), Kral Kızı Kilisesi, plan (author, after Ersen). 840 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT ̶ THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE Fig. 5. Vera (Pherai), Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior, looking to northeast (author). Fig. 6. Ainos (Enez), Fatih Camii, view from southwest (author, 1979). 841 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT ̶ THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE Fig. 7. Selymbria (Silivri), Hag. Spyridon seen from southeast, detail of drawing by J. C. Kamsetzer, 1776-77. Fig. 8. Babaeski, masonry details of the church of Hag. Nikolaos, drawn by John Covel, 1675. Fig. 9. Ainos (Enez), Hag. Gregorios seen from northeast, photograph by Hasluck, 1908. Fig. 10. Same, detail of opus sectile floor (author) photograph by Hasluck, 1908. 842 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT ̶ THE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE OF THRACE Fig. 11. Didymoteichon, Hag. Aikaterini, plan (A. Bakirtzis). Fig. 12. Selymbria (Silivri), Hag. Ioannes, seen from southeast, 1912-13, photograph by Stéfane Tchaprachinkov. 843