ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA

111 1999 No 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Articles
Niko/ova, L.: Dubene-Sarovka 1181-3 in the Upper Strya Valley (towards
the periodization and chronology of Early Bronze 11 in the Balkans) ... ...... ....... ... .. .... .......... ... ... ... 1
Golubovic, S.: (YU):

Grave in the Shape of Well from the Necropolis ot

Boteva. D. : Two Notes on D. Clodius

AIinus

Yiminacin ........

............................................. ..... ...... .. ................ ..... 23

Ku/lef, 1./Djingova. R./Kabakcltieva. G.: On the Origin ot' the Roman Pottery

from Moesia lnferior (North Bulgaria) ................. .. ...... ...... ... .................. .......... ... .... ..... .. .. ... .. ... ..... 29
Dinrchev, V.: Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thr.:ia

Dacia .......... 39

Daskalov, M./Dimitmv. D.: Ein Paar lthropozoomorphe Bugelt'ibeln (des. sog. Dnjeprtyps)

aus Sudbulgarien ...... ... ... ..... ..... .... ......... ..... .... .................. ..... .. .... .. ....... .. ...... .. .. ........ ... ... .. .. ....... .. ...... . 7'5
Atanasov, G.: On the Origin, Function and the Owner of the Adornments of

the Preslav Treasure from the 10''' Century ............................................... ..... .. .. ... ............ ....... .......... 81
Reviews
Ha,./toiu, R.: Die fruhe Yolkerwanderungszeit ir1 Rumaie.
Bukarest 1998. (. F USA) ... ....... ........................... .. .............. ...... .. ... ..... ...... .......... ........ ......... 9'5

Editor: Mr. Lyudmil

Ferdiandov

VAGALINSKI Ph.D.

(lstitute

ot Archaeology at Sof'ia)

ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA is four-th jorrl (thricc : 20 28 cm: . 1

pages 1d . 80 illustratios per nurber: colotJred cover) \VI1ich presers pisl1i11g tor-m
for research in archaeology i thc widest sese ot' the word. Tl1ere r restrictio; t"or time
and territory btrt Sot1tl1easterr1 r is the r.
Ohjecti,,e: interdisciplinary research of archaeology.
Contents: articles. revicws and cws.
La~ua.~es: Eglish. Gerran d Frech .

Scholars and studers of the followig fields: Archaeology. Numismatics,

History, Medieval History, Oriental Studies, Pre- ar.J Early History.
Byzine Studies. Anthropology, Palaeobotany. Archaeozoology. History of Religion. ot Art.
of Architecture. ot Techrlogy. of' Medicine. Sociology etc .
/nte/1(/etl

l'elas :

Epigraphy.

Acient

011 lhc t"O\'Cr:

~1t111c

porlrail ot Rurna

cpcror Di; lclia ("!)

121.(4-.:'i ). Naliorral M1r~CIII1J ot rt IJacolo~ y-S ot la .

JSSN 1310-9537

Archaeo\ogia Bulgarica

III

1999

39-73

CLASSIFICATION OF LATE ANTIQUE CITIES IN

DIOCESES OF THRACIA AND DACIA

Sofia

VENTZISLA V DINTCHEV
Notwithstanding that the classification of
the late antique cities has not been central
point of interest for the modern historiography,
in the puiications certain division has been
suggested, or at least presumed. Differences in
the aspects of studies reflect on the classification purposes, criteria and models. Sometimes
when there is wider researclting interest as
proiems, in one d the same pulication definitions coming from different in purpose and
criteria classification models are used.
The analysis of the late antique sources displays certain insecurity in the definitions of
cities used, and respectively - in the views of
corresponding authors and their contemporaries concerning the city statute of particular
settlement, concerning the essence itself of the
city statute and the city way of living in general (Ciaude 1969, 10-14, 201-202;
1971, 5-6, 60; Velkov 1977, 73; Ravegnani
1983, 12-24; Dagron 1984, 7-9; Schreiner
1986, 26-30; Suceveanu/Barnea 1993, 174;
Dunn 1994, 60-67, 77-78; 1998, 1623). For that reason the classification of the
towns of the Late Antiquity, including the dioceses of Thracia and Dacia, can not established only or primarily on the base of the differences in the definitions, i.e. on the terms
used in the sources to denote them.
One of the classification models for the late
antique cities is based on their origin (Ciaude
1969, 203-223; Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 179).
modern classification of the late antique
centers must reflect mainly the differences in
their demographic and size parameters, d in
their real importance as economic, administrative, cult and/or military centres.

Definitions of size and importance can

found in almost every pulication for the city
life in the Late Antiquity. They are most often
with two major meanings -"small" cities and
"large" cities represented in different variants
1
and nuances . Towns of "middle importance"
(Bavant 1984, 286) or "middle" towns are mentioned (/ 1986, 103, 113).
The definitions, however, are not always precise from the point of view of the criteria used
and are usually without concrete classification
parameters
basic requirement for the classification of
the late antiquity towns is the presence of objective criteria, which can estalished
through studies, and are applicale for the differentiation itself. part of the criteria used in
the literature- administrative statute for example ( 1971, 80-115, 211-212; Dunn
1994, 60, 66; Poulter 1996, 118) demographic
potential (/ 1986, 114) do
not meet that requirement. Referring only to
administrative statute reproduces the situatio
with the town definitions in the sources to
certain extent, while it does not provide possiility to classify the towns, which '''ere t
provincial capitals. The demographic potential
itself is important and objective index, but the
actual state of the archeological research does
not provide enough information to apply it directly as basic criterion.
The town fortification was known, but not
uiquitous case during the Principate. In the
Late Antiquity, however, it became necessary
condition for town life, or eYen its main symbol in almost all areas of the empire, including
the Balkans (Ciaude 1969, 15-41,102,200-201,

1 F example"new... small" towns (Ostogosky 1959, 59); "small and ig" "small ... and igge", "igge... and smalle",
"smaii, ... igge... and most important", or as we\1 "not big", "standad" and 'iggest" cities ( 1971, 7-9,
50-56, 61-71, 80-84, 98, 207-208); "small", "smaller'', "elatively ig", "ig" "main"to....ns (Velkov 1977,73, 85, 133,
219, 283-286); "gandes villes" and "petites ' 'illes" (Duvai/Popovic 1980, 374, 378, 381, 396); "majo" and "sma\1"
towns (Potter 1995, 63, 66); "larger" and "largcst" towns, "other" and "ncw"- for the rest ofthe towns (
1986, 21, 23, , 34-36); "major", "great", "big", "little", "small", "little country" or "modest towns" (Jones 1994,
238-239, 242, 249); "major", "geat", "largest", "smaller" and "small" cities (Lieeschuetz 1996, 10, 31, 32) and so on.

39

Ventzislav Dintcl1ev

226; Velkov 1977,201 -220; Ravegai 1983,

7 -46; Dagro 1984, 6; Bavat 1984, 246;
/ 1986, 135-137; Liebeschuetz 1996, 7-8; La Roca 1996, 163-165;
Du 1997, 140-142). The measuremets of
the late atique city fortresses are partly depedet the importace d the potetia1 of
2
the correspodig cetres . These dd
was due t l d t maily to the more
pragmatic spirit of the time - cosiderig the
great expeses for solid d tactically soud
fortificatio, d the ecessity for safer defece, which had become imperative for the
fuctioig of the cities. Exceptios, cosider
ig probale presece of m t built up
spaces i the protected area respectively - provided certai discrepacy between larger
area built d more modest ecoomic d admiistrative fuctios d demographic pote
tial could assumed l for some cetres,
whose aturally protected terrai allow "savig" the surroudig tow walls. The fact
t missed, however, that similar situatio
was stimulus for developmet of these tows
maily because of the better possiilities for
defece that it provided.

Therefore, the size of the defeded area of

certai late atique tow is objective i
dex for the umber of its populatio d for its
importace as ecoomic, cult ad/or mili4
tary cetre The size of the area defeded is
t the l d thus uiversal idicator but
it is commo , which cosiderig the actual state of the study of the late atique cities
has to basic criterion for their classification as well.
Hence the actual classificatio of the late
atiquity tows should estalished the
data for the size of their defeded areas, d
when possile the other objective idicators
for their scale d their importace, as well as
data from the sources to cosidered.
The next prolem after choosig and subordinatio of the criteria is the of specifying
the parameters I some epitomizing pulica
tions the cities i the dioceses of Thracia
and Dacia there are classificatio suggestions,
based the size of their defeded territory. I
one of them is noted that " part Sirmium, les
cites les plus vastes t une enceinte qui
egale ou depasse legerement 40 ha (Augusta
Trajana, Odessos, Nicopolis ad Istrum,

2 During lhe Principale in some parts of 1he empire - in Gaul for example, there are cases when the prolecled areas consideraiy oulweigh lhe areas bui\1 in facl if lhe cily cenlres (e.g. Pellelier 1982, 37, 39, 44, 104) ln lhe Balkans and especia\ly
in 1he easl pan of lhe peninsula lhe 1owns fonified during lhe Principate are wilh areas complelely bui\1 and prolected, and
their size coresponds 10 lheir demographic scale and 10 their imponance as administrative, economic and cultural centres.
Among lhese whose fonress walls are wilh eslaiished routes, namely Philippopolis - 1he cull and cultural cenlre of the
Roman lrracia, and Marcianopolis - lhe capilal of 1he Roman Moesia lnferior, are wilh largesl areas. An exceplion could
A11clrialos, bul lo prove il as such an exception unqueslionaic dala are needed. See lhc delails later in the texl and ir.
111
fl .37. lhe end of 3ns -4 century, actually in Gaul as we\1, lhe size of 1he prolected areas was already prccise ref1ec1ion
of 1he demographic slandard and imponance of lhe lowns lhemselvc:s (Johnson 1983, 82-117; Maurin 1992, 365-370,
379-380; Harries 1996, 79-82).
3 ln lhat respecl lhere hard1y can more proper example lhan Acrae in the province of Scytlria. The terain of Accrue-

in lhe sea wilh rocky coasts a\1owed barrage wa\1 of 1ill1e more lhan 400 m longiludc an area of 15 ha to de111
fended . This lhird wall of Acrae refers 10 the second half of lhe 4 century ( et \. 1990, 24-69). The s1udies of
lhe area prolecled it, especially in lhe area belween it and lhe second wall of Acrae are limiled for lhe lime eing.
Anyway, il seems lhat in lhe first decades afler building the extemal wa\1, in the area ehind il lhere rea\ly were large
spaces nol buill up. ln 1he course of lime, however, lhis area. has n cullivated and built for sleady inhabitancy. An
argumenl for lhis is provided nol only 1he remains of buildings discovered here, bul also the fact thal the early
111
111
Chrislian necropolis here sludied partly was left afler 1he building of 1he extemal wall. The necropolis from 5 - 6 century is localized 10 have been several hundred melres away in fronl of lhe exlema1 wall ( 1979, 217-223;
n 1984, 67-71; el \. 1990, 69-70, et \. \995, 145-146; / 1996,
105). Therefore, lhe possibility for igger extending and proteclion of 1he area slimulaled lhe increase of the population
111
and 1he imponance of 1he lale anlique cenlre as whole. Due lo this possiilily afler 1he middle of 1he 5 cenlury Acrae
\\as already one of lhe imponanl cilies of the province of Scythia.
4 ln some puiicalions cenain reservalions have n expressed conceming 1he using of 1he size of the defended area as an
index for the size and lhe imponance of the lale antiquily 1own (e.g. Gregory 1982, 55-56). The examples studied themsel\'es refule these and suppon lhe dependence poinled already (Gregory 1982,44-45,62-64, fig. 1-3).

40

C/assification of rhe Late Antique Cities in tl1e Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

Scupi); Ulpiana est un peu plus modest (5.5

ha); la plupart des cities ont un peu plus de
20 ha (Oescus, Bononia, Stoi, Heraclea,
Serdica, sans doute Naissus); avec ses 14 ha
environ, Horreum Margi est une petite ville, et
Remesiana (5.5 ha) est qualifie par Procope
de 1tOAtXVtov" (Bavant 1984, 28, n. 113).
The quotation gives the impression of Iarge
classification model, but leaves the impression
for unspecified c1assifications groups and/or
unspecified parameters of the different groups.
An idea of reduced classification model is
suggested in another pulication. Outlining
1
that in the 4 h century the size of the town
centers in the Danuian provinces depends on
their administrati ve functions, the author accepts that in defended area of about 1 ha
"seem to closer to he norm for cities which
do not act as provincia1 capitals" (Poulter
1996, 120). While in the first case there is incorrect information about the defended territory of part of the pointed cities, in the second case the data for the cities which are not
provincial capita1s and which are far over the
defined standard are missed.
It is clear that when specifying the c1assification parameters modern standards should t
startig point. 5 It should take in consideration the regioal specificity of the town
d settlement life in genera1 in the different
parts of the empire. In that sese, the identical
princip1e of the c1assification of the late antique cities from differet regios - from the
Balkas and North Africa for example, does
not ecessari1y suggest identica1 parameters lt
also has to oted that in the dioceses
ltracia d Dacia there were t cities of the
rank of Antiocltia (Liebescuetz 1972;
d 1996, 181-195) or Thessalonica (Avramea 1976, 139-14 7; Spieser 1984 ), whose
defeded areas are calculated i square kilome1
1
.
tres . th 4 h - 6 h cetury, d w hose Importace

in the socia1 life of the empire competes

with that of Constantinopolis.

1 cosider that today it accepted
three-stage c1assification model for the city
centres in Thracia and Dacia: large cities, middle cities, small towns or centres of city type.
The classificatioi1 parameters 1 am suggestig for the different groups d which are connected with the main criterion, are the following; defended area of over ha for the ig
city; defeded area betwee d 10 ha for
the middle city; defended area between 1
d 5 ha for the small tow. These parameters
are t occasiona1. They are result of the i
terpolation of the data for the area of the cities
and express the concept of the classificatio itself. ln defining the Jower limit the data for the
non-urba fortified settlements are considered,
which are of the most characteristic pheomena in the settlement 1ife in the late atique
dioce~es of Dacia and Thracia in general
(Ditchev 1997 47-63; Dintchev, im Druck).
As far as exceptions are usual for every
classification model, it is expedient to itro
duce larger distinguishing zones between the
differet groups.6 1 define the parameters of
these zones through an acceptale deviatio in
two directios- tolerace, from the precisely
fixed borders. The tolerance has different \'alues ascendig for differet zoes . Thus 1 defie
the border zone between the non-urba or
semi-urban fortified sett1ements and the small
towns usig tolerace up to 1 ha from the
above mentioned border- 5( +1-1) ha, e.g. from
4 to 6 ha. The border z between the small
and the middle towns comes out usig to1erance up to 1.5 ha- 1 ( +/-1.5) ha, i.e. from 8.5
to 11.5 ha. The border zone between the middle
d the large towns comes out usig tolerance up to ha- (+/-3), i.e. from 27 to 33 ha.
When the territory of certain cetre falls
into the border zone, its referring to one of the
correspodig groups happes with the help of
the other objective criteria for size d im-

5 It is clear that according to modem standards almost alllate antique cities can defined as sma\1 (e.g. Cameron 1996,
152-153).
6 The exceptiuns here do not inc1ude the specia1 cases, which ha,e n discusscd v. See ft.#. Hcre 1 mcan the usual
exccptions or deviations allowed for any simi1ar c1assification - for example relating Bergala or Tz:oides to the group of
the small towns, although the defended territories of these centres are under 5 ha. Conceming the moti ves for defining
Bargala and Tzoides as small towns see funher in the text

41

Ventzislav Dintchev
portace.

Namely itroducig larger differe

tiatig zoes provides the techology of usig
of other objective criteria: the umber d the
type of the architectura1 comp1exes d buildigs with puic d private destiatio, d
the ature d the amout of the movae stock
foud i excavatios.

1 have metioed that the ig cities i

Thracia d Dacia are t amog the iggest
imperia1 cetres. From it does t follow, however, that the defiitio of the former must
chaged. It shou1d specified i that case the
mai provicia1 tows i Thracia d Dacia
are cosidered. I what other way except as
ig city cou1d defied Philippopolis, for examp1e, whose defeded area is (at 1east uti1
th
the secod quarter of the 6 cetury) "1"
about 80 ha ( 1993, 91 ), whose popu1atio is estimated to have about 100
1 ( 1985, 119), d whose importace registered i the sources (Velkov
1977, 128) is categorically cofirmed the
archeo1ogical fids (Botoucharova/Kesjakova
1983, 264-273;

1987, 169-177;
1989, 113-126; 1994,
192-204; 1993), or Odessos whose
territory is "l just" of 43 ha, d whose
1
1
popu1atio icreases i 5 h - 6 h . with the i
flux of immigrats from the easter provices
of the Empire (Ve1kov 1961, 655-659;
1983, 19-35; 1986, 3143), d whose importace cu1miates i the
1
6 h cetury with its e1ectio for capita1 of the
pecu1iar questura exercitus, ic1udig territories from the 1k peisu1a, Asia Mior,
and a1so Cyprus d the Cyc1adic Is1ads
(Szadeczky-Kardos 1985, 61-64; Torbatov
1997, 78-87).
Together with Philippopolis and Odessos,
Marcianopolis - the capita1 of the province
Moesia lnferior, is a1so ig tow in the 1ate
Antiquity. The fortification system of Marcianopolis i the iitia1 part of its research
bears witess for that. The preset informatio
about its defended area - about 70 ha, correspods to greatest extet to the d of the 3rd

- 4 h . whe, accordig to the sources, its importance icreased extreme1y (Gerov 1975, 6668, 70-72; Ve1kov 1977,99, Micev 1987,297299). evidece for this are the iitia1 datig
of the most represetative bui1digs and comp1exes discovered there. However, the archeo1ogica1 research demostrates that the city remais sigificant cetre i the followig ce
turies as well (Gerov 1975, 49-55; v
1981, 138-143; Michev 1987, 299-306;
1990, 202; / 1991,
111-112; 1996, 61)
Tomis is undoubted1y ig city too - it is the
capital d the metropo1ita's cetre of the
provice of Scythia. lts importace is registered not 1 in the 1ate atique sources
(lorgu 1961, 271-274; Velkov 1977, 107;
Harreither 1987, 197-210; Barnea 1991, 277282; Suceveau/Barea 1991, 195-197, 289290). I Tomis 1ot of 1ate antique bui1digs
have studied - Christia basi1icas, representative bui1dings with mosaics, thermae etc.
lts defeded area, which was increased consideray i compariso with the previous period,
may have reached 55 ha. It is assumed that the
southwest sector of the fortress is an additio
1
from the begiig of the 6 h . (Bucova1a
1977; Che1uta-Georgescu 1977, 253-260;
Radulescu 1991, 23-35; Succeveavu/Barnea
1991, 270-271, 274-275, 283; Sampetru 1994,
74-76; Radu1escu 1998, 83-93). 7
The developmet of Serdica is of interest.
In the 2nd . its defended area was about 18 ha.
1
the d of the 3rd - the begining of the 4 h
century Serdica, which was a1ready the capita1
of the new provice of Dacia Mediterranea,
had sigificant upheava1 c1ear1y reflected in
its representative architecture (Velkov 1977,
93-94; Stanceva 1989, 107-122; 1989,
23-26; 1989, 17-20; 1989,
1
37-58). A1so at the end of the 3rd_ 4 h ipe
ria1 mint court functioned in
Serdica
( 1977, 3-1 , 1983). Now
the town received new fortress as well, whose
territory is much larger than the one of the Roman fortress ( 1959, 38-41, 45;
1

7 The figure given for the defended area of the late antiquity Tomis is result of approximate calculations after the plans in
the quoted puiications. In the latter precise data for the territory are not given.

42

Classificarion of rhe Late Antique Cities in rhe Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

1983, 24; 1989, 18-19).

the magitude of its whole protected territory i the 4th . - about 84 ha (
1995, 102). Serdica exceeds Tomis, Marcianopolis d v Philippopolis. It is t
h Ammianus Marcellinus, who is reliaie
i his iformatio, calls Serdica together with
Philippopolis "kown and vast cities"
(, 1958, 133). Such city was in fact
Serdica, but t for log - at latest i the middle of the 5th cetury the fortificatio system of
the late Roma elargemet is left d the city
shriks agai to the limits of its defeded territory from the 2nd .
similar chage happes to the capital of
the late atique provice of Thracia -Philippo1lis, but durig the reig of Justiia 1. The
w fortress wall, which was moved to the
Three-Hills, i.e. to the old acropolis ofthe city,
reduces its defeded area with over 50%. The
remais of the agora complex - the ucleus of
the it structure of Philippopolis, d a1so
its episcopal basilica from the first half of the
5th . are 1eft out of the new city fortress
(8otusarova/Kesjakova 1983, 271-273;
1988, 130-138; 1993, 92-93;
1989, 122-124). v after co
sideraie reductio the defeded territory of
Philippopolis is t less tha 35 ha 8 .
ig tow i the provice with the same
m i the diocese of Thracia is Augusta
Traiana. Its walls take area of about 48.5 ha
v i the 6th cetury, d the umber of the
r~presetati\1 e, private d puiic uits i its
late atique structures is two-figure (Niko1ov
1987, 96-1 07; 1992, 49-69;
/ 1992, 29-44; 1993, 139143, 145-148; et 1. 1994, 89-90,
Kaltscl1ev 1998, 88-1 07).
Scupi - the capital of the provice of
Dardania, whose defeded territory goes
d 40 ha, referred as well to the ig
Cosiderig

atique tows. The represetative puiic

private buildigs foud durif its excavatios, cofirm its importace i 4t d 5th ce
tury. After the begiig of the 6th ., however,
Scupi lost t l its privileged admiistrative
positio, but a1so it town character. It is assumed that the reason is an earthquake in
518 (Miku1Cic 1973, 29-33; Micu1cic 1974,
208-210; 1977, 143-177;
/ 1984, 79-97;
1988, 155-164 ). lf that is the date of the fatal
turig poit, the the defiitio of Hiocles
- I:ou1tOIJ.)'!p01tOAt~ ( 1959, 94) is
reminiscece t correspoding to rea1ity.
Probaly part of the fuctios of the o1d
town were inherited the ew1y-built ce
tre i the 6th . the t far hill of Markovi
Kuli. The 1atter impresses with its powerfu1
fortification ic1uding citade1, itera1 d
externa1 fortress (Miku1cic 1973, 33-34;
Mikuicic 1974, 210-212; 1982,4853, 129-135; /j 1984, 205221 ). Its defeded area cou1d have hardly
outstood 6-7 ha 9 .
The data for the south wall of the late a
tique fortress of Scodra, studied recetly, are
i fact the first more sigificat archeological
data for the capital of the provice of
Praevalirana. I the construction of the wall
two periods have been distinguished: from the
end of the 4th- the beginning of the 5th .; from
the time of Justinian I (Hoxha 1994, 23124 7).10 The layout of the wall and the topographical plan presented (Hoxha 1994, 232,
fig.l) allow to assumed that the defended
area of the late antique town was not less than
35-40 ha.
Messembria, although Hierocles did not
mention it, was possiiy the most prosperous
centre of the provice of Haemimontus in 5th
and 6th century. Today at least one-third of tl1e
territory of the town, which is Black Sea -

late
d

8 The layout of the cxtemal early Byzantine wal\ of Pllilippopolis has not been esta\ished everywhere.

9 The layout of its intemal wall has not becn csta\ishcd completely, but it can assumed from the sectios studied and
from the configuration of the terain (e.g. Mikulcic 1974, 211, fig.8) that this wal\ does not encompass tcritory iggcr
than the above mentioned.
10 The dating of the two pcriods are after al\ based on common building analogics and historical presumptions, i.e. they are
not

unquestiona\e.

43

Ventzislav Dintchev

ninsula, is under the sea level, but the preserved parts of the town itself are about 25 ha.
In Messembria solid walls and fortresses, several large Christian basilicas, pulic thermae
and many other buildings and appurtenances
th th
.
from the 5 -6 century have been studted
(Bojadziev 1961, 321-349; Venedikov et al.
1969; Velkov 1981, 137-141;
1988, 577-585, 1988, 585-593;
Ognenova 1988, 5700-573; OgnenovaMarinova 1992, 243-246).
Ulpiana in the province of Dardania, whose
defended area is 35.5 ha, is also among the ig
Balkan centres of the late antiquity. During the
reign of Justinian I it was renamed in
lustiniana Secunda (Duval/Popovic 1980,
381-382; h- 1982, 57-72;
Bavant 1984, 247). Considering its characteristics the so-called castrum - fortress with
an area of about 16 ha in close proximity to
the city wall, is of special interest. The studies
confined so far to the castrum in question give
certain reasons for its dating to the 6th century
(lj- 1982,59,61,71-72). The
synchronous function of the old and the new
fortress in the 6th . could mean that Ulpiana
increased the number of its population as well
as its importance as settlement and pulic
centre in general. However, it seems to me

that the possibllity the new fortress to have appeared as consequence of abandoning the
previous, i.e. for replacing and reducing the
12
defended town area is more proper.
The fortress of the Roman Colonia Ulpia
Ratiaria is supposed to have been with measurements of 426 284 m (Giorgetti 1987, 40-42),
i.e. with an area of about 12 haP In the end of
the rd- the beginning ofthe 4th . when Ratiaria
is already the capital of the province of Dacia
Ripensis, new and much igger town fortress
was built. Apart from the rectangle of the earlier fortress, it also includes new territory southwards and eastwards, and its walls follow the
configuration of the terrain here.14 The area of
the late antique town defended in that way is
about 30-35 ha.15 Most of the studied building~
in Ratiaria, including representative residence
.
th th
tn the town centre, are also from 4 -6
.
(Velkov 1985, 886-889; Atanasova/Popova
1987, 85-96; Giorgetti 1987, 33-85;
1988, 30-38; Kuzmanov, in print).
Among the most important new centres in
the Balkans in the beginning of the Late Antiquity is the town near Grazhdani (in Albania
now) unidentified so far. It is near the border
between the Dacian province of Praevalitania
d the province of Epirus Nova of the diocese
16
of Macedonia . Its defended area is 34 ha. Its

11 The hypothesis that the castrum at issue "whose remains are 80-1 m eastwards from the walls of U/piana" (h
, 1982, 61) could identified with /ustianopolis mentioned Procopius ( !\ -, \982, 72),
i.e. the hypothesis for two different city centres -U/piana/lustiniana Secunda and /ustianopolis in such "close proximity,
is definitely unaccepta\e.
12 Such possibility could supported the interpretation of Pricopius' information that Justinian 'pulled down most of
the ring wall" of U/piana, as "it was almost completely ruied and entirely useless" ( 1959, 157). The chronology
of the few buildings exposed in Ulpiana, as well as the studied northem gate of its older fortress has been proiematic so
far. (Bavant 1984, 247-248, n.l4).
13 So far only the central area of the west \\all and the main gate (Atanasova/Popova 1987, 85-96) have been studied. The
measurements suggested v are result of the analysis of air photos (Giorgetti 1987, 40).
14 Confined parts of remains of the south and east late antique wall have n found accidentally. 1 received the information
from . Atanasova, for which 1 am deeply grateful. 1 also did personal observations of the terrain during my participation
in the excavations of Ratiaria from \987 to 1989.
15 ln the earlier pu\ications the territory of the Iate ancient Ratiaria \\as defined to have been 1,5 0,3 km, i.e. 45 ha (Velkov
1966, 173; Claude 1969, 18, n.42; Moscy 1970, 101; Biemacka-Lubanska 1982, 226). These data, however, are from
before the starting the regular excavations. Considering the Iayout of the central part of the west town wall and the position
51
111
ofthe main gate, which had not n changed from the end of \ to the end ofthe 6 . (Atanassova/Popova \987, 85-96),
and in view of the configuration of the terrain the maximum of the defended territory of the Jate antiquc town was about 35
ha. The assumption of separate late antique military camp within an area of 0,6 ha in northwest direction from the I0\\'11
fortress (Georgetti 1987, 45-56, tav. ) has not becn confirmcd so far.
16 The hypothesis for the name of this town to have been Dober ( 1976, 49, n.21) is not based on the late antique
sources. The frontier etween the two provinces and between the two dioceses in the region is uncertain.

44

Classification ofthe Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses ofThracia and Dacia

2760 m long wall is in opus mixtum with

courses of three or four rows of bricks. The 40
towers found alongside it are U-shaped (
1976, 48-49, 70, tab. 3; Popovic 1984, 201).
These peculiarities allow admitting that in the
1
middle of the 4 h century this centre was functioning or at least it was being built. Due to the
limited so far studies its destiny in the next
centuries is unknown.
An ald urban centre in the province of
Scythia, mentioned in the sources, as after its
capital is Dionysopolis. The archeological data
. state f g
. . 41h - 51h .,
.
1ud"g 1ts
.
f or 1ts
area are scarce ( 1986, 95-98), but
they prove its importance and suppose its
classification as major city. In the first half
1
of the 6 h Dionysopolis suffered great
earthquake. the middle of the century the
town was rebuilt on new territory and was
provided with powerful fortification
(, 1985; 1985, 123124; 1988, 71-74). As for the area
of the new town the figure of 26 ha has been
pointed (1985, 14;
1985, 124), or even 36 ha ( 1988,
72, 75). In view of the irregular shape of the
fortress and the overalllongitude ofits walls
- 1730 m or 1735 m ( 1985, 14;
1985, 124) the defended territory
of the new town could have hardly exceeded
16-17ha.
The studies of Viminacium - municipium
from the 2"d . and capital of the late antique
province of Moesia Superior are based mostly
on written and epigraphic sources (h
1967, 29-41; Mirkovic 1968, 56-73; h
1988, 31-35; Mirkovic 1997, 44-50). Anyway, today the localization of the military
camp and of the Roman Municipium Aelium
Viminacium is known. According to some information from the beginning of the century,
quoted in the later puiications (h
1967, ; Petrovic 1986, 93) the military
camp is with measurements of 442 385 m,
i.e. with an area of 17 ha. wall built or at

least reconstructed in the Late Antiquity, is

now have been known in the east part of he city
structure as wellP According to the known
plans (h 1967, 33, 39, fig. 4, 5;
h 1988, 2, fig. 1) the area of the town
structure as whole is at least twice as ig as
the one of the camp. The latter, in analogy with
the other Roman legionary camps in the
Danuian region must have borne significant
transformations in the end of the rd - the beginning of the 4th ., and should accepted as
part of the city structure in the 4th century.
Having this addition it is sure that the whole
defended area of Viminacium in the 4th . exceeded ha. The city was badly affected ~
1
the Hunic invasions in the middle of the 5
century. In the literature the thesis that in the
first years of ruling of the emperor Justinian 1
its fortified nucleus was moved to about 1km
westwards from the previous town fortress
has been maintained (h 1988, 1, 3235). Another object connected with the des1
tiny of Viminacium in the 6 h . is settlement
of foederati, localized at several hundred metres northwards from the old town fortress
(h 1988, 1-31, 33-35). The new fortress which is identified with the early Byzantine Viminacium is with an area of "only
2 ha" (li 1988, 33). Due to it the thesis itself about the moving and reducing the
capital of Moesia Superior up to his fortress
together with the above mentioned settlement
fortified weakly does not seem acceptaie to
me. At least part of the old town fortress
1
probaiy must have been used in the 6 h century. Otherwise Viminacium would have been
one of the drastic examples of discrepancy between sources and real parameters of size and
importance at that time.18
According to the accepted classification
parametres in the bordering zone between the
ig and the middle towns is Diocletianopolis in
the province of Thrace. The defended territory
of the town built in the end of the rd - the be1
ginning of the 4 h is about ha. The many

17 The thickness of 3.40 m of this wall (l\ 1967, 33-34) was hard1y reached efore the end of the 3nJ .

18 Apart from Hierocles, who points Vimi11acium as JlE'tp07tO.; of Moesia Superior ( 1959, 54), Procopius a11d
Theophilactus Simokatta ( 1959, 164, 293, 348-350) inform as well aout the importance of the town in the 6111

century.

45

Ventzislav Dintchev

studies i Diocletianopolis, icludig i the

suburbs d i its ecropolis, complexes d
buildigs-resideces, Christia basilicas, thermae, barracks etc. prove its importace d
are argumet for its defiig as ig late
atique city (Gorbaov 1987, 293-296;
1988, 27-30; 1993;
1995, 99-1 ; et al.
1996, 57-58).
Pautalia i the provice of Dacia Mediterranea is i the border z betwee the two
groups too. The defeded still i the 2nd ce
tury area of this city is calculated to have
little more tha 29 ha. Here m late atique
buildigs with differet fuctios also have
studied. Some of them impress with their
costructio d decoratio (RusevaSlokoska 1987, 82-96; 1989;
1989, 157-173; 1990,
147-153; 1991, 120-121;
1996, 57-58). the r hill of Hissarluka
1
i the 4 h . fortress was built with area of
2.1 ha ( 1970, 233-254;
1989, 13, 33-34; et al. 1991, 178179). lt also cotributes to the classificatio
assessmet of Pautalia as ig city 19 ewly
discovered wall, hov.-ever, which divides the
defeded tow area (n et al. 1996, 3947), sets i questio such assessmet ofthe last
period of the Late Atiquity d directs towards the assumptio for chages i the developmet of Pautalia, similar to the chages i
Serdica or Pbllippopolis for example 20.
Singidunum i the provice of Moesia Superior, Aquae d Oescus i the provice of
Dacia Ripensis are i the border z betwee
the two classificatio groups as well. The -

istig iformatio

about these cetres does not

allow, however, their defiig as ig cities in
the Late Antiquity.
The mai fortress of the late atique
Singidunum keeps the outlies of the earlier
Roma military camp. It circles about 20 ha.
With the defeded extesio i northwest directio - the so-called dow tow, the entire
defeded area must have reached ha. The
more represetative buildigs estaiished earlier are, however, relatively few, and most of
them are from the2nd - the first half of 3rd .
(nl) 1982, 27-37; Bojovic 1996, 53-68;
Popovic 1997, 1-19; Vujovic 1997, 169-178).
Singidunum was seriously damaged i the i
1
1
vasios i the d of 4 h- the middle 5 h . (BjelajC/Ivaisevic 1993, 123-139). It is supposed
that durig the reig of the emperor Justiia 1
its defended area was cofied l to the
northwest third of the earlier major fortress,
i.e. to 6-7 ha (nh 1982, 34-35; Bojovic
1996, 68; Popovic 1997, 17-18). It means
1
that the middle of the 6 h . Singidunum is
already under the parameters of v middlesize and middle importat tow.
The assumed outlines of the walls of the late
atique Aquae circle area of about 29 ha.
The researches there have cofied so
far (J h 1981, 43-45, 81; 121-128;
n 1997, 123-125). As indication for the
limited importance of Aquae - considering the
1
general classificatio, the 11 h novela the
emperor Justiian should iterpreted. Accordig to it the local ishop was uder the
guardiaship of the ishop of Meridium util
535 ( 1959, 49)? 1 reductio of the

th
th
protected area of Aquae the late 5 - 6 . -

19 Although it was separated from the town fonifying system - to several hundred meters southwards, this military fonress
r\ '"'as in unquestioned connection with the defence and \\'ith life in Pautalia in general. ln the opinions if the
researchers of the fonress on the hil\ of Hissarluka tendency has n noticed to an early dating of its appearance "the
111
111
end of the 4 - the beginning of the 5th ." ( 1970, 252); "in the 4 ." ( \989, 34);" the eginning of
111
4 ." ( et \. \991, 179).

20 ln the puiication the wal\ in question has n related to the period from 5111 to 9111 . in general (n et \. 1996, 4445). There is stated again that the remains registered in the excavated sector '"'hich preceded the development of the wa\1
111
are dated "not earlier than 4 -5"' ." (n et \. 1996, 44-45). According to oral infonnation R. Spasssov, for
111
which 1 am grateful, the most r\ date for the appearance of this wall is etween the cnd of the 5 - the cginning of
111
the 7 . With the appearance of the latter the east half of the town area defended ear\ier \\'S abandoned.
21 similar indication is the dcfinition of Aquae Procopius -1tOAtXV\OV ( \959, 166). However, in Pcopius
Aquae is ccntre of rcgion whcre many fonifications were reconstructed ( 1959, 163).

46

Classificarion of rhe Lare Anrique Ciries in rhe Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

similar to Viminacium and Singidunum, would

not surprising.
the end of the rd - the beginning of the
4th . the defended area of Oescus had been enlarged and reached 28 ha. The archeological excavations have long history, but their results
are connected mostly with the Roman period of
the development of that centre - with Colonia
Ulpia Oescensium (lvanov 1987, 7-60;
Kabakcieva 1996, 95-117;/
1998). The little number of representative buildings, constructed and after the beginning of
the 4th . in the sectors studied, tips the balance
toward ranking the late antique Oescus among
the middle in their size and importance towns.
There are some facts that set under question the
preserving the above mentioned area of Oescus
until the end of the Late Antiquity 22 .
Among the most important centres belonging to the group of the middle towns is Novae
in the province of Moesia lnferior. the end
of the rd century its defended area was extended to about 26 ha. 23 The extensions indicate the transformation of the old military
camp into urban centre. The known so far
about the late antique structure of Novae, includinf the impressive episcopal complex from
1
1
5 h - 6 ., confirms its role in the region of the
Lower Danube (Press/Sarnowski 1991, 229,
240-243; Cicikova 1994, 127-138;
1994, 83-87; Parnicki-Pudelko 1995; Bier-

nacki/Medeksza 1995, 9-23; Kalinov.rski

1995, 25-35; Kudeva 1995, 27-61; Miltscheva/Gen tscheva 1996, 190-193; Dyczek 1997,

87-94).
Among the most important centres of this
group is also Doclea in the province of Preavalitana. According to the general plan presented in pulications (e.g. jh/
h 1975, 43 fig. 37) its defended territory was about 25 ha. The research shows that
Doclea was important centre - with representativeforum and different pulic buildings,
still in the time of the Principate. The representative Christian buildings of cult prove its
importance in the Late Antiquity (jh/
h 1975, 42-46, 64-65; Duval/Popovic
1980, 379-380; Popovic 1984, 193, 207).
Hierocles did not mention Sozopolis, like
Messembria, but it also was prosperous town
1
1
of the province of Haemimontus in the 5 h-6 h
century (Dimitrov 1988, 497-501 ). Sozopolis
(the old Apollonia) has similar disposition on Black Sea peninsula, encompassed
wall. Its territory was apprimately as the preserved parts of Messembria today - i.e. about
25 ha.24 The limited so far researches in
Sozopolis found remains of fortification and
1
Christian cult architecture from the late 4 h 1
6 . ( 1964, 43-54; /

1987, 232-233;
1994, 11 0)? 5

22 The area of Oescus 1, i.e. of the main fortress is delineated circle ditch (/ 1998, 58, . 25). Today
traces of this ditch can c\early seen from the east part of Oescus 1 (/ 1998, 70), i.e. from the side of the
late Rornan extension Oescus 11. This is reason for supposition that the ditch was made after abandoning the fortress of
Oescus 11. ln two of the t0\\1ers of the fortress of Oescus 11 Iarge numer of coins from the second half of the rd - 4\h .,
inc1uding from the \ate 41h . was found. ln one of these towers coin of Justinian 1 was found (/ 1998, 71,
76, 80). The latter, however, was not found in definite Iayer, which connected with the functioning of the corresponding tower. The absence of Iater reconstruction and corrections of its appurtenances ears witness for the relatively short
period of using the fortress of Oescus 11. These data direct us to the assumption that the early Byzantine Oescus, like Serdica,
abandoned its fortified Iate antique extension, whose area is aout 10 ha. There has n hypothesis that the ditch mentioned v dates back to 10\h - 12\h . (Poulter 1983, 76). E''en such possibllity could not refute the v mentioned
assumption.lfthe ditch "''as medieval, it obviously \\'as conforrned to the remains ofthe fortress visiie at that time (!
1998, 58, fig. 25), i.e. with the fortress of Oescus functioning in the last period of the Late Antiquity.
23 Some puiications define the defended area of the Iate antique No,,ae to have been aout ha (e.g. icikova \980, 57;
icikova 1994, 127). According to the known general plan (icikova 1980, 56, . 1) the area of Novae 1 and No,ae 11,
i.e. the late antique N\' is definitely smaller: Novae /, i.e. the earlier military camp, does not exceed 18 ha, and No vae
11, i.e. the extension, is about 8 ha.

24 h peninsula of Sozopolis, in difference with the one of Messembria has not changed significant1y its configuration after

lh . (Dimitrov 1988, 497-498).

25 Remains of the late antiquity Christian basilica are studied on the island of St. lvan, severa1 hundred metres \\ from
Sozopolis ( et al. 1990, 194-195).

47

Ventzislav Dintchev

lblda i the provice of Scythe also is missig i Hierocles, but it was metioed as .;
i Procopius ( 1959, 170). The defended area of this w cetre was also calculated to have 24 ha the whole, d the
proportio of its two td fortresses is
approximately 7:1. The s so far of excavatios causes certai dissesios amog the
researchers rig the sequece i the fortificatio costructio, but at least cosiderig
the r of ig fortress it is agreed that
1
it dates back to the earlier or middle 4 ce
tury (Scorpa 1980, 40-41; Suceveau/Barea
1991, 204 ). I that fortress the remais of
represetative, three-apse Christia basilica
1
from 6 were foud accidet. I the surroudigs late atique moastery complex
has studied (Lugu 1997, 100-1 1, 105).
w tow, probaly successor of ear1ier military camp, is Bononia i the provice
of Dacia Ripensis (Susii 1975, 425-429;
Velkov 1977, 88), metioed Hierocles. The
fortress of Bononia kw todayJ whose co
1
structio dates back to the late 3r - early 4 h .,
ecompasses area of about 23 ha. The researches here are cofied, but still they prove
itesive life i the late atiquity, d espe1
cially i the 4 . ( 1974, 337-338,
343; 1990, 71; , i
print).26 brief umt about studied
1
ecropolis from 6 . in the north-east corner
of the fortress ( 1961, 4), however, leaves the question of the fate of the fortress at that time .
The yet uidetified cetre, whose remais
are uder today's tow of Obzor, is the most
importat poit the Black Sea coast of the
diocese of Thracia betwee Odessos d

MessembriaP Accordig to the data d 1

kown (n 1930, 205-206, fig. 6), its
defended area with the shape of trapezium,
is about 22 ha.28 The costructio of the fortress, which actually marks the begiig of
the tow period i the developmet of that ce
tre, was i the late Atiquity. The shape of the
1
1
towers directs to the late 3 -4 . The coec
tion of the fortress with the so-called Balkan
barrier line ( 1930, 204-207) supposes the functioning of that cetre v i
lh
lh
the late 5 - 6 . Its water supp1y was secured
through external masoned waterpipes
(n /n 1892, 40-41 ;
n 1930, 206). An indication for its town
image are the late antique representative remains and finds discovered in the excavatios which have been limited so far to its
defended area, or found chance (
n/n 1892, 39-40; /
1978, 32-33, 37; /
1979, 94-95) 29 .
The fortress of Traianopolis - of the
main towns of the province of Rhodopa (Velkov 1977, 125), is of irregu1ar shape similar to
pentangle, d the overall length of its walls
about 2 km (Pantos 1983, 173). From this information it concluded that the defended area of the late antique Traianopolis
was approximately as the of Bononia in the
4 1 . or as the i the centre of today's
Obzor.
1
I the 4 1 and the first half of the 5 . Nicopolis ad Istrum i Moesia Inferior keeps its defended territory of about 21.5 ha, outlined still
its first wall from the 2nd . In the first half
1
of the 4 c.most of the importat pulic units
of the urban structure icluding the agora

26 1 would like to thank Mrs.Atanassova for giving me to use her article under print.

27 The only hypothesis concerning the identitication of that centre belongs to brothers Shkorpil: it is with the road station of
/ Jovis known from Tabula Peingeriana (/ 1890, 14; / 1892, 36;
111
1958, 17). It can hardly assumed that the name / Jovis was used and after the middle of the 4 . lf
the order etween Moesia /nferior and Haemimontus was the main ridge of Haemus, then this centre should have been
the farthest southeast point in the province of Moesia lnlerior.
28 The data K.Shkorpil are in feet. The calculations are done my in the following proportion foot : metre
the perimeter of the fortress of this centre, which is 2700 feet ( 1930, 206), makes 2025 m.
29

=3:4. Thus

concluding report, yet unpuiished, for the building remains and architectural details from the Late Antiquity found
111
here was delivered Zh. Chimbuleva during the sessions of the 4 conference Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi, held in
1988.

48

Classification of rhe Late Antique Ciries in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

complex functioned. At that time new representative residential buildings appear, and
the suburbs extended (/
1994; - 1994, 171-181;
Poulter 1995, 28-33; Rousseva-Slokoska,
lh
205-211). f ter the 4 , and mostly after the
1
middle of the 5 h . , however, i the developmet of Nicopolis ad lstrum drastic chages
occur. They fid their expressio i the removig d reductio of its defeded area to 5.74
ha.30 The most importat uits i the structure
of the w cetr~ are two buildigs of cult -
three-aves basilica d -v church
(Poulter 1995, 35-47). Their constructio ,
measurements and decoratio, however, do t
provide them place among the more represetative exemplars of the correspodig architectural types. I that case the defiig of
the early Byzatine Nicopolis ad lstrum as
tow is proiematic, or will conditional
with lot of reserves .
Naissus, whose tow status probaiy dates
back to the d of the 2nd . is the most important centre of the \vester part of the provice
of Dacia Mediterranea . Apart from the sources, proof in that respect are the buildigs,
appurteaces d fids of the Late Atiquity
discovered here (h 1976, 9-88;
Petrovic 1993, 57-69; Gusic 1993, 164-168;
Mirkovic 1997, 51). The outlines of the walls
have not been surely estalished so far, but
it is supposed that its defended area was
about 20 ha (n 1976, 49; Petrovic
1993, 66)
The localizatio of the Zaldapa metioed
Hierocles was specified recently (e .g.
1962, 1-3). The information
about the corresponding site proves Zaldapa
to have been the most significat w centre i
the south part of the provice of Scythia. Accordig to iformation d to l from the
beginning of the century ( 1905,

493-499, pl. CXI/c), the area defended

31
strong fortress is about 20 ha. It assumed from the iformatio about the walls
d towers that the begining of the tow was
1
not later tha the middle of the 4 h . According to unpulished researches .
Shkorpil here the remains of represetative
buildig, 1 m log, d of Christia basilica are found ( 1961, 66). The
water supply of Zaldapa was safely provided
( 1951, 99-102).
Durostorum is well-kow cetre of the
provice of Moesia lnferior d of the Lower
Daube i geeral (Velkov 1960, 214-218;
Tapkova-Zaimova 1997 , 109- 114; Sousta1
1997, 115-119). It is supposed that the measuremets of the Roma mi1itary camp here
were about 480 400 m, i.e. territory of 19
ha. The explored southwest sectio of the camp
111
fortre$S was kept d rebuilt to the 6 . The
trasformig of the camp i settlemet centre has also proved, i.e. the situatig of
the tow i the area of the ear1ier camp. I the
1
beginnig of the 4 h . i the place of the Roma canabae suburb with represetative
buildigs is estalished (Donevski 1987, 239243; Doevski 1994, 153-158;
1995, 259-270). At the same time r the
Danubian k - few hundred metres
northwest from the former camp, w
(military ?) fortress was built. In the sixth
cetury this fortress was generally reco
structed ( 1980, 5-8;
1988, 33-36), lts walls so far have t been
outlied, but it assumed that its area
is not less than 3-4 ha.
old tow centre in the provice of RIJOdopa is Maroneia . It is mentioed Hierocles
( 1959, 88). Accordig to the plas
pulished (~tJ<; 1972, fig.37 ; Bakirirtzis 1989, fig . 16) its defeded area i the
1
1
4 h-6 h . should have been about 19 ha32 . In

30 According to the researcher the new fortress was built in 453 (Poulter 1995, 37). 1 think that later date of its building -
111
111
the end of the 5 or the beginning of the 6 . , is more acceptaie (Dintchev 1997, 102).
31 Shkorpil's data are in feet. Cf. above ft. # 28.
32

his area and the corresponding walls are assumed for later period (Bakiritzis 1989, 47), but hardly the late antiquity
town of Maroneia was defended the walls over 10 km long of the old Greek colony (~\'l~ 1972, fig .37;
Bakirirtzis 1989, fig. 16).

49

Ventzislav Dintchev

Maroneia and in the near territory some representative late antique buildings have been explored (Pantos 1983, 168-169; Bakiritzis 1989,
46-47).
Zikideva appeared as town centre of the
1
province of Moesia lnferior in the late 5 h 1
early 6 h. The many complexes and buildings
studied here with different pulic purposes,
as well as the impressive number of the residential buildings exposed, bear witness for its
meaning. Zikideva is mentioned Procopius
and Theophilactus Simokatta, as well as in
Notitiae Episcopatuum in the place of
Nicopolis ad lsrrum (Dintchev 1997, 54-77).
The data pulished about the area of the hill,
on which the main fortress of Zikideva is, are
controversial. Anyway, this area is not less
than 12-13 ha. 33 According to the latest researches the fortress which surrounds the river
terrace at the west foot of the hill and which is
directly connected with the fortress of the hill
lh
also refers to the 6 . The water supply of the
town on the hill was guaranteed with the lower
fortress. In some of the towers of this fortress
wells were made. The most significant is in the
south corner tower. The approach to it from the
hill is secured in an impressive way - through
the passage staircase in the south wall of the
lower fortress (/ 1997,
143-155). Tl1e area of this fortress is about
2.5 ha (/ 1997, 150), i.e.
the defended territory of Zikideva is no less
than 15 ha in general. At about 250 m crow
flight, westwards from the main fortress of
Zikideva is the east end of the fortress of synchronous satelite settlement, whose area is not
less than 4-5 ha (Dintchev 1997, 65-66).
The yet unidentified town near Konjuh in
today's Macedonia seems to have been the
most important late antique centre in the east
part of the province of Dardania. It is assumed

that its fortification and urbanization in general

1
were done in 4 h . In its defended area, which
is about 17, ha remains of different buildings
were registered, including representative
Christian basilica. Many premises and appurtenances are cut into the rocky ground of its
higher central part ( 1974, 366368; Miculcic 1974, 207-208;
1996, 73-74l.
1
In the 4 in Acrae in the province of
Scythia probaly did not have town status
yet. Together with the external wall built not
1
earlier than the second half of the 4 h . the entire defended territory of that centre reached up
to 15 ha, and after the middle of the 5th . it
was already one of the important centres of the
province.34 In that case the third place of Acrae
among the sea towns of Scythia in the
Hierocles' list ( 1959, 90) corresponds
to the archeological data.
significant late antique centre is the one
near Chomakovtsi in today's northwest Bulgaria - in the east part of the province of Dacia
Ripensis. Its fortress was built not earlier than
the end of the 3rd century. Most of the late antique bui1dings, appurtenances and finds discovered during the incidental excavations are
from the end of the 3rd- 41h (n 1905.
480-481, pl. CVII 1, 2; Vetters J 9 50. 13- J 4:
1961, 255-269; <1/
1990, 81-83). According to the d<1ta and the
plan of . Skorpil, the defended area of that
centre is about 13 ha,35 and according to
T.lvanov- about 15 ha ( 1961, 257).
An assumption has been made that this is
Zetllokortou (Velkov 1977, 89-90). The latter
\vas mentioned only Procopius as xropv ,
but together with Oescus and Cas11a Martis
( 1959, 167-168), i.e. in city context.
One of the five, according to Hierocles,
towns of the province of Moesia Superior is

33 In monograph of an author-architectthe territory of thc hill is defined to have n more than 21 ha ( 1979, 30,
48-49). This information was reflected in my first anicle about Zikide,,a (Dintchev 1997, 55). According to panicipant
in the archeological excavations the area of the hill is about 12 ha ( 1986, 235). lf wc procced from the known
plan (Dintchc:v 1997, 71, fig. ), the second figure looks more reliale. Precise calculations aftcr that and the other published plans ofthe hill ofTsarevcts, which are also without horizontals and elevations, cannot done. The reason is in the
fact that the terrain of the hill above its rock crown is not nat but pyramida1.
34 See v ft.# 3

35 Skorpil's data arc in feet. See abovc ft.#28.

50

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

Horreum Margi ( 1959, 94). The supposed outlines of its fortress walls surround an
area of about 14 ha (Piletic 1969, 9-57). The
researches confined so far do not allow better idea of the late antique structure of this old
city centre. The coins finds suggest per1
turbations ~~ the end of the 4 h and the middle of the 5 . (Bacuh 1990, 5-8, 89-92).
Of the availaie data about the fortress of
Eudoxiopolis (the old Selymbria) it can assumed that the defended area of the capital of
the province of Europa is about 12 ha (Dirimtekin 1957, 127-129). These data, however,
bear witness for later dating of the registered
fortification remains, which could mean that
Eudoxiopolis was also reduced in its area or
1
after the end of the 5 h . - the beginning of the
1
6 h ., i.e. that the number pointed is the size of
the reduced area of the city in the 6 rh .
Abritus is among the new towns of the province of Moesia lnferior. lt was mentioned
Hierocles ( 1959, 90). The building of
its fortress, which has been thoroughly researched, refers to the end of the 3rd- the be1
ginning of the 4 h . ( 1980). lts defendcd area is ctbout 12 h. 6 Different public and private buildings have been studied in
it: ig and representative administrative and
residentia1 complex, large horreum, Christian basilica with three naves etc. (/
1985; et al. 1994, 74-75).
The present archeological information
about number of significant centres, according to the sources and to the modern historiogr<lphy, is rather scarce and insufficient for

methodologically correct classification and

assessment. Adrianopolis - the capita1 of the
province of Haemimontus, Ainos - the capital
of the province of Rhodopa, and Heraclea (the
former Perinthus - the capital of the Roman
Thracia) in the province of Europa must have
been among the iggest cities of the diocese of
Thracia (Velkov 1977, 115, 120, 125). Its real
archeological search has not started yet
(Otuken/Ousterhout 1989, 121-131, n.l, 3, 4).
For the defended area of Anhialo in the province of Haemimontus figure is given, which
exceeds lot the corresponding figures of all
mentioned above towns in the two dioceses about 120 ha ( 1989, 37-40). The data
about the walls of Anchialos- result of geophysical researches - are not unquestionale
and are not archeologically precised37 . It has
been announced as well about the walls of
Panion in the province of Europa that they surround ig territory (Outgun/Ousterhout 1989,
145-146), but precise data about the area and
the chronology of the fortification remains visile on the terrain have not been pulished yet.
The results of the started researches in
Deultum give certain idea about this old urban centre in the province of Haemimontus
( 1982, 234-23 5; 1984, 2328; et al. 1987, 128-129;
et al. 1994, 93), but are not enough for
more precise assessment and characteristics.
The comparison, however, of this results
with the data of the brothers Skorpil from
the end of the last century (/
1891, 133-138, fig. 46) suggests

36 The defended area mentioned in the puications . about 15 ha ( 1980, 29; / 1985, 10) is exaggerated. There is a1so cenain inaccuracy in the metric data. For the who1e 1ength of the fonress Vialls was pointed that "it
was about 1400 m" < 1980, 30), but the sum of the 1engths of the four walls ( 1980, 31, 66, 83, 122) is
\347m. At the same time the 1ength of the nonh wa11 is pointed to have n 295 m ( 1980, 31 ), but it turns out
from the sum of the ligures for the corresponding towers and sections of the cunain ( 1980, 33-63) that the 1ength
of this wall is no 1ess than 302m. About 12 ha is the defended area according to the p1an given ( 1980, 30, fig.
10).
37 On1y sma\1 section of the east wall has been confirrned archeo1ogically ( 1980, 105; 1989, 39, fig. 5).
The ear1iest remains of studied section in the south pan of the assumed defended area of Ancllialos are 1ate antique: they
are from ig farm hui1ding and of furnace for bui1ding ceramic (/ 1989, 86-87; 1990, 9394). 1t can assumcd from the presence of the furnace that the surrounding terrain was not in the defended city area,
\\'hich confronts thc data from the data from the geophysica1 rcsearches. Apan from the section at issue, saving excavations were made in the centra1 zone of Anclrialos. Small pans of so1id bui1ding and of street with representative architectura1 design ha,e bcen found ( 1983, 300, 304; Sase1ov 1985. 138-143). They are proof for de,e1opcd
tovm structure, but are not enough for its characteristil:s.

51

Ventzislav Dintchev

significant reduction of the defended area of

Deultum to about 5-6 ha still before the end of
1
the 4 h . 38 Probaly Ammianus Marcellinus
was right to call the o\d Roman colony ogpidum
( 1958, 174) in the end of the 4 .
Nicopolis ad Nestum in the province of
Rhodopa belongs to the border classification
zone between the midd\e and the sma\1 towns.
Its defended area is about 11 ha. In the first two
centuries. of its existence, i.e. unti1 the begin1
ning of the 4 h . this town does not \ook quite
fortified, and its walls built at that time are
1
kept as outline unti1 the end of the 6 h .
(- 1992, 257-270). The
representative pu\ic and private bui1dings
from the Late Antiquity discovered in or near
the fortress allow the referring of Nicopolis ad
Nestum to the group of the middle urban centres (Vaklinova 1984, 641-649;

1987, 61-62;
1992, 268, 1994, 24-34).
The old town centre Tropaeum Traiani in
the province of Scyrhia referred to this
group. Its defended area in the Late Antiquity
was (with its south-east extension) about 10.5
ha (Barnea et \. 1979, 16). testimony for its
importance and demographic potentia1 are the
big pulic buildings, including severa\ Christian basilicas, as we\l as the numerous, different in their plan and type private buildings,
found in its research hitherto (Barnea et \.
1979; Suceveanu/Barnea 1991, 199-202;
Sampetru 1994, 18-53, 72-73, 84-85, 112-114;
Poulter 1996, 116-117; Lungu 1997, 99-104;
Cataniciu 1998, 201-214).
Two centres which are not identified Gradishteto near the Yillage of Voyvoda in today's northeast Bulgaria, i.e. in the province of
Moesia lnferior,39 and Davina near the village
of Chucher in today's North Macedonia, i.e. in
38

the province of Dardania are in the border zone

between the middle and sma\1 towns as well.
The defended area of Gradishteto near
Voyvoda is about 1 ha. Its fortress was bui\t
in the beginning of the 41h century. At that time
in the near surroundings there was intensive
manufacturing of building ceramics. The results of the excavations made prove the func1
tioning of this centre until the end of the 6 h .
1
Unti1 the middle of the 5 h . in front of its
westem wall proteichisma was built. In the
researched small part of its defended area several residential buildings with stone-mudbrick
construction have been found. Narrow
roadpaths were discovered. The presence of
unfortified suburbs is supposed (/
1972, 263-277; 1978,
139-173; / 1984, 43-84;
1985, 253-259). The data given
above prove the settlement character of that
centre, but are not enough it to included in
the c\assification group of the middle towns.
The situation is analogous with the data for the
mentioned late antique centre near the vil\age
of Chucher. Its defended area is defined to have
been 9 ha. In it and in the suburbs remains of
many buildings are registered (Mikulcic 1986,
107, 109). The absence of real archeologica\
researches in that case does not give possiility the chronology of that centre to
precised.
special \ in the classification and in
the characteristics in general of the late antique
Balkan town stakes lusriniana prima, identified now with Tsarichin grad at about 45 km
south from the city of Nish ( Naissus) 40 . According to the novelas from 535 and 545, and
according to the data of Procopius (
1959,47-49,71, 156-157), lustiniana Prima is
rt only one of the new\y-built towns, but it

An earlier and more signiticant as an area fonress here has not n found so far, but in analogy with the most cities in the
Roman J1racia it can assumed that also Colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium was fonitied in the end of the 2nd .

39 It is supposed that the Gradishteto near the village of Voyvoda is the fonress of Diniskarta, mentioned Procopius,
111
" 'hich is identified with the to"'" of Dineia known from the 10 ( 1962, 13-14; Velkov 1977, 106). However, this assumption has its opponents ( 1988, 117-122).
4
From the two known no,ellas of the emperor Justinian aout the rights of the archblshop of lustiniana Prima (
1959, 47-49, 71) it can concluded that initially, i.e. 535 the town was in the territory of the province of Dacia
Mediterranea, whereas later, i.e. in and after 545, the town and the territory around it were already in the province of
Dardania.

52

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

the emperor Justiia 1 to

cult capital of the whole
orthem lllyricum, icludig the provices of
the diocese of Dacia. The log lastig archeological researches also give argumets for the
special destiatio of this tow. l its t
and in its initiallook the structure of lustiniana
Prima icluded maily units of representative
character, among which the umerous Christia buildings d complexes are outlied
(Bavant 1984, 272-285; Duval 1984, 399-481;
Guyon/Cardi 1984, 1-90; DuvaUJeremic 1984,
91-146; Bavant 1990, 123-125, 154-160; Vasic
1990, 307-315; Poulter 1996, 124-126). The
results of the researches categorically refute,
however, the statement of Procopius that it is
"town big and with many people" d that "i
its size it is first" among "the other cities" of
lllyricum ( 1959, 156). The area of
lustiniana Prima defended through solid fortification - the so-called upper tow, including
the acropolis with the episcopal complex, and
the so-called down tow, is about 7.25 ha
(Bavant 1984, 273-275). Having that structure
and area the populatio behind the walls
clearly was t at all fiUmerous. Probaiy it
was selected according to certai social criteria. The fact i that respect is sigificant that
still with the foudig of the tow r two of
the churches of its defeded area fuerals were
d. (Guyo/Cardi 1984, 40-46, 89; Jeremic
1995, 182-187). Today it is supposed that the
tow was surrounded suburbs. For some of
them defece with groud fortificatios has
been assumed. These suggestions, which have
not been supported rea1 data 41 , canot
change essentially the notion of lustiniana
Prima. Every late antique town had suburbs.
The possiie presence of exteral ground fortifications, considerig their capacities t as
well refute the discrepancy betwee the structure and the safely protected tow territory, respectively- between the ig administrative importance and the limited demographic and ecoomic potential. In that sense defiig
was created

admiistrative d

41

/ustiniana Prima as artificia1 creatio or

artificial tow is quite acceptaie (Duval/
Popovic 1980, 396; Bavat 1984, 272, 286;
Popovic 1990, 303). The discrepacy betwee
the size d the importace of the city, the
way, seems to have valid for about
years, i.e. util the d of the rule of Justiia 1. The chages i the urba structure durig the reig of the Justiia I's successors:
abadoing most of the large buildigs d the
mass r of modest houses d workshops amog their remais (Bavat 1984, 285;
Bavat et al ., 1990, 8-9;Popovic 1990, 269,
292-300, 305) idicate clearly without the support of its powerful protector the tow lost its
privileged status d that its admiistrative
importace at that time is i sychroous with
its real size d potetial of small tow.
The fortified late atique cetre of Augusta
i the provice of Dacia Ripensis has kept the
outlies of the precedig Roma camp there.
Augusta is missig i Hierocles, but it was
metioed as .~ Procopius. According
to the latter only "the foudatios remaied"
from Augusta, but the emperor Justiia 1
tured it ito " completely new and intact
town with quite nnber of inhabitants"
( 1959, 167). The data from the researches, including the specified magnitude
of the defended area - about 8 ha (
1991, 21-43; Mashov 1994, 21-36;
1996, 71-72; lvanov 1997, 31-34) do not allow the referrig of Augusta to the more importat late atique urba cetres.
The late antique lstros from the provice
of Scyrhia should referred to the group of
the small tows as well. lt was seriously damaged durig the ivasios i the rd cetury. ln
the following ceturies this old tow cetre
lost lot of its previous size d importance. lt
is t chance that Ammianus Marcellinus i
1
the d of the 4 h . defines it as "the very
powerful city oflstros" ( 1958, 143). lt
is not h that its defeded area was reduced several times d was decreased to about

necropolis at aout 150m southwest from the down fonress has been found, which functioned synchronically \\'ith the
town (Jeremic 1995, 187-195). Consequently in southwest direction there \\as not suburb at all, it was too small and
near the town fonress.

53

Ventzislav Dintchev

7 ha. w, m of the late antique buildings studied, includig the puiic buildings
with differet fuctions d more represeta
tive housigs - i the defeded area and i the
suburbs as well, are uquestionaie proof
for the urban character of /stros even after the
rd
d f the 3 cetury (Suceveau 1982, 85-92;
Suceveau/Barnea 1991, 192-195; Sampetru
1994, 54-69, 88-89, 113-114; Suceveau/
Agelescu 1994, 204-208; Lungu 1997, 99100, 104).
From the data availaie about the fortress of
Bizye (Dirimteki 1963, 30-34, pl. 2; Pralong
1988, 194-197, fig.18) it assumed that
the defeded area of this tow of the province
42
of Europa is approximately as that of lstros .
The episcopa1 character of medieval church
i Bizye suggests the same fuction of the late
antique basilica, which remais it was built
(Otuken/Ousterhout 1989, 138-139).
The 1ate atiquity cetre of Transmarisca as
well seems to have small tow in the
province of Moesia lnferior. It was t me
tioed Hierocles, but was known from other
sources (Ve1kov 1973, 263-268). The data published about the sectios of its walls foud accidetally assume its defended area to have
been 6 -7 ha ( 1969, 46-49).The excavatios which g of alog the outline of the
orth wall prove its buildig to have been in
the end of the 3rd- the beginig of the 4th .
d its fuctioig util the beginnig of the
th
7 . (r 1990, 76-78; / 1996, 68-69).
Remesiana is the last of cities of the province of Dacia Mediterranea listed Hierocles
( 1959, 93). The defended area of

Remesiana was about 5 ha. I view of the accepted classificatio parametres, this centre is
in the border zone betwee the small towns
and the non-urban fortified settlements. The
estaiished presence of representative units
in its late antique structure, including in the
suburbs ( 1976, 94-102; Duval/
Popovic 1980, 375; Petrovic 1993, 80-81; Gusic I993b, 184-187) proves its urba character,
but canot refute the defiitio of Procopius1tOAtXVtOV, in that case ( 1959, 93).
Bargala and Tzoides of the centres me
tioed Hierocles, about which today there
is more archeological iformatio, belong as
well to the border z betwee the small
tows d the non-urba fortified settlements.
At the time of Hierocles Bargala belongs to the
provice of Macedonia Secunda in the diocese
of Macedonia ( 1959, 92). At least uti1
371 Bargala was, however, in the provice of
Dacia Mediterranea (Velkov 1977, 93, 98).
The defeded area of that centre i the Late
Atiquity was about 4.7 ha, but the known
componets of its structure d especially the
representative episcopal complex prove its urba character (Aleksova!Mago 1971, 265277; Mikulcic 1974, 202-204; 1986,
29-38; Aleksova 1996, 275-276).
The case with Tzoides is similar. It is the
last of the tows of the province of Haemimontus listed Hierocles ( 1959, 92).
lt was localized recently near today's tov.'n
of Sliven ( 1982, 42; 1993,
16-17). The defended area of this new centre,
fortified in the beginning of tl1e 4th is about
4.5 ha44 . Havig, however, well built fortifyig system equipped V.'ith external under43

42 Comparing the data from the text (Dirimtekin 1963, 30-34) wiJh the plan (Dirimtekin 1963, pl . 2; see also Pralong 1988,
194, fig. 18) makes clear that the scale of the plan was not exact. lnstead of 1/2000 the scale should 1/4000. The chro
nology of the two main constructing periods of the town wall suggested the author is as well questionaie: "d'avant
l'epoque byzantine" and " la fin de l'epoque byzantine" (Dirimtekin 1963, 35; see also Pralong 1988, 195-197). Even
with this chronology of construction the outline of the fortress of Byzie in 4th - 6th . shou1d have been the same as they are
in the mentioned plan.
43 The announcements in the puiications about the defended area of Remesiana vary: little over 6 ha (Duva11Popovic
1980, 375); about 5,5 ha (Bavant 19843, 283 , n.113); about 6 ha (Petrovic 1993, 81 ). Considering the exact data for the
longitude of the walls 200 214 200 273 m ( l\ 1976, 96; Gusic 1993, 185), and the trapezium shaped plan
of the fortress (Gusic 1993, 187), the defended area of Remesiana cannot exceed 5 ha. The linear scale of the mentioned
plan was obviously mistaken.
44 In the puiications the defended area of Tzoides was defined to have n about or " little more" than 4 ha (e.g.
1993, 15). According to the plan presented ( 1993, 1, fig. 1) it defendcd territory Yias a1most 4,5 ha.

54

Classification of rhe Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

ground passage, having representative complex of cult and other Iarge and solid buildings in the inside partly studied so far, ha ving Iarge suburbs, including the Christian
basilica explored there, and furnaces for
building ceraics etc. ( 1973, 65-69;
1987, 27-35; 1993, 7-17;
Stereva 1995, 7-13) Tzoides maintains its
reputation of an urban centre.
Near Simeonovgrad in today's southeast
Bulgaria - the province of Thracia, Jate antique and medieva1 fortified centre has been
localized. It is identified with Constantia -
town known from the medieval sources. In the
late antique sources Constantia cannot
found, but the name itself, as well as the context of its mentioning in some medieval
sources give reason to assumed that it was
already used still with the appearance of the
1
centre in question in 4 h . ( 1981, 918; r 1995, 178-180). Its defended
was about 5 ha. small part of it has been
studied, in which, however, the remains of
an early Christian basilica with baptistery
and number of other synchronous buildings
and appurtenances, including solid building
with puiic importance, water-reservoir, craftsman workshops were found. The fortress itself
must have had an impressive look. An external
underground passage was added to it. There are
also data about Jate antique suburbs (
1981, 253-256; 1985, 15-17, 36-43;
A1adzov 1987, 74-75). In the vicinity of it
very precious finds from the 4th . and the
th
6 . were found ( 1961, 4 7-50;
Aladzov 1987, 73, . 1; GerassimovaTomova 1987, 307-312). Therefore, according to its size and importance the late antique
Constantia is quite similar to Remesiana,
Bargala, or Tzoides and defined as
centre of an urban type.
Some of the localized, but yet unstudied
centres, mentioned as towns in the Jate antique
sources might prove to urban type centres
too. The classification group most probaly
will filled with centres which are not mentioned with town definitions in the late antique
sources, but which, similar to Constantia, for
example, have the size and the importance of

the urban form of life in the Late Antiquity.

* * *
The review presented so far makes us draw
certain conclusions concerning the state and
development of the urban life in the late antique dioceses of Thracia and Dacia. Two main
tendencies are clearly drawn: reducing of the
number of the ig towns and general reduction of the size and importance of the urban
form of life; increasing of the number of the
urban centres through appearance of new,
mostly small and middle towns.
The ig towns of Dacia and Thracia are
mainly in old urban centres originating in Antiquity - Serdica, Philippopolis, Marcianopolis, Tomis, Augusta Traiana, Odessos, Scupi,
Scodra, Ulpiana, Ratiaria, Dionysopolis,
Viminacium, Pautalia etc. In their development
the period of the end the 3rd to the 70-es of the
4th . as whole was period of prosperity. At
that time some of them - for example Serdica ,
Tomis, Ratiaria - capitals of new provinces enJarged significantly their defended area and belong to this classification group (fig.l ). After
the end of the 4th and especially during the 6th
, however, many of these towns stagnated and
even regressed. Not Jater than the middle of the
5th . Serdica reduced its defended area and
thus drops out of the group of the middle
towns. similar development cannot excluded for Viminacium (first reduction of the
defended area the middle of the 5th . ?).
the middle of the 6th . this had already happened to Ulpiana, Dyonisopolis, Pautalia
(fig.2). Until the second half of the 6th .
Pbllippopolis remained ig city, but its area
is half smaller. Meanwhile still in the end of
the first quarter of the 6th . Scupi probaly lost
its urban character. Probaiy the defended area
of Eudoxiopolis known today which places
about the down borderline of the group of the
middle towns is also consequence of sig1
nificant reduction in the 6 h .
Two new urban centres, dating back to the
beginning of the Late Antiquity the one near
Grazhdani in today's Albania and Diocletianopolis (fig.l ), are among the ig cities but
also near the borderline with the next classifi-

55

56

Fig. 1. Town centres in the dioceses

50

TIJacia

and Dacia 350:

100 km

-,

~-...
.,-

C/assifi"cation of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

57

Legend:

--r- frontiers between diocescs; ---

fronticrs

ctwccn two provinces;

or not cxplorcd cnough town;8-provincial capital;8-impcrial capital

until the end of the

3rd

. ;

t-

0- ig

town;@- middle town;@- small town; -located, but not explored

(ConstJtinopolis);t-

increasing thc dcfcnded area-in comparison with the pcriod

decreasing the defended area in comparison with thc pcriod until the 3rd .; t? -

t?-a possiility for smaller defended area;

possiility for igger defended area;

*- new town foundcd in the end ofthe rd- the fist half ofthc 4th .;

1 - the province of Moesia Superior, II- the province of Praevalitana;

- the province of Dacia Ripensis; IV - the province of Dacia Mediterranea;

V- the province of Darthmia; VI - the province of Moesia lnferior, VII - the province of Scytllia; VIII- the province of Thracia;
IX - the province of Haemimofllus;

1 -Singidunum; 2 - Tricomium; 3 -

Vimi1cium;

- the province of Rhodopa; XI - the province of ;

4 - Margi; 5 - Doclea; 6 - Scodra; 7 - Lissus; 8 - Grazhdani; 9 - Aquae; 10 - Bononia;

11 - Ratiaria; 12 - Augusta; 13 - Oescus; 14 - Chomakovtzi (Zetnoukortu ?); 15 - Naissus; 16 - Remesiana; 17 - Serdica; 18 - Pautalia; 19 - Ulpiana; 20 - Scupi;
21 - Bargala; 22- Novae; 23 - Nicopolis ad lstrum; 24 - Appiaria; 25 - Transnrisca; 26 - Durostorum; 27 - Abritus; 28 - Voivoda; 29 - Marcipolis ;
-

Odessos; 31 - Obzor; 32 - Noviodunum; 33 - /ida; 34 - /stros; 35 - Tomis; 36 -

TraiJi;

37 - Zaldapa; 38 - Callatis; 39 - Dionysopolis;

40- DiocletiJopolis; 41 - Augusta Traiana; 42- Philippopolis; 43- ConstJtia; 44- Tzoides; 45- Anchialos; 46- Deultum; 47- AdriJopolis;
48 - Plotinipolis; 49 - Nicopolis ad Nestum; 50- Maximianopolis; 51 - Maroneia; 52- TraiJopolis; 53 - Ainos; 54 - Bizye; 55 - Bergule; 56 - Selymbria;
57- Heraclea; 58- Panion; 59- Apri; 60- Aplrrodisia; 61 - Callipolis.

C/assification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

cation group. There are no data about changes

in their defended areas until the end of the 6th
. (fig.2).
special case is the development of the old
Greek colony Messembria. After estaiishing
the Roman rule on the west Black Sea coast
Messembria lost its town status. h archaeological data about that centre in 1st - 4th . AD
are scarce as well. In its development after the
th
end of the 4 ., however, there was an upheaval in its development and in the 6th . it
was among the iggest cities of the diocese of
Thracia (fig.2).
In the group of the middle towns of Thracia
and Dacia the old centres ancient origin prevail, but the number of the new town centres is
significant. Singidunum, Aquae, Oescus, Novae, Doclea, Traianopolis, Nicopolis ad lstrum, Naissus, Durostorum, Maroneia, Horreum Margi, Nicopolis ad Nestum, Tropaeum
Traiani etc. belong to the first group. Generally
in their development the period from the late
rd to the 70s of the 4th . was also period of
prosperity. At that time some of them increased
their defended area - for example Oescus and
th
Novae (fig.l ). After the end of the 4 ., however, for many of them period of recession
came, accompanied in some cases with drastic reduction of the defended areas. the end
of the 5th . Nicopolis ad 1strum, for example,
degraded to centre, which objective criteria, including the size of its defended territory,
is in the border zone of urban and of semi-urban fortified settlements. Singidunum was already small town the middle of the 6th .
too. The development of these and other centres ancient origin, for which reduction of
the defended territory is allowed - for example
Aquae and Oescus (fig.2), is also an argument
for the first tendency mentioned above.
The new representatives of the group of the
middle towns are usually heirs to Roman military camps or to smaller, non-urban settlements. Most of them were transformed in
towns, or were estaiished as such in the late
rd - the beginning of the 4th .: !ida, Bononia, the centre near Obzor unidentified so far,
Zaldapa, Abritus, the late antique centre
(Zetnoukortou ?) near Chomakovtsi (fig.l ).
57

58

Fig.2. The town centres in thc dioceses of Tlzracia and Dacia 550.

50

100 km

.,

~~
,-

C/assifi.cation of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

59

Legend:
-1-1-

frontiers between diocescs; --- fronticrs

ctwccn two provinces;

0-

big town;@- middle town;@- small town; -located, but not explored

or not explorcd cnough town; 8- provincial capital; - capital of quaestura exercitus;

limits of the classification group;

t? - possiility

for

8 -Constanitnopolis; t -reducing thc dcfended arca within the

increasing tltc defended area;

t?- possiility

for reducing thc defcnded area;

*- new town appcared in the period from the middle 4th to the middle 6th .;

1 - the province of Moesia Superior, 11 - the province of Praevalitana; 1 - the province of Dacia Ripensis; N - thc province of Dacia Mediterranea;
V- the province of Dardania; VI- the province of Moesia lnferior; VII- the province of Scytbla; VIII- the province of Thracia;
IX - the province of Haemimontus;

- the province of Rhodopa; XI - the province of Europa;

1 - Singidunum; 2- Tricomium; 3- Viminacium; 4- Horreum Margi; 5- Doclea; 6- Scodra; 7- Li~sus; 8- Grazhdani; 9- Aquae; 10- Bononia; 11 - Ratiaria;
12- Augusta; 13- Oescus; 14- Chomakovtzi (Zelnoukortu ?); 15- Naissus; 16- Remesiana; 17- Serdica; 18- Pautalia; 19 -lustiniana Secunda (Ulpiana);
21 - Bargala; 22 - Novae; 23 - Nicopolis ad J~trum; 24 - Appiaria; 25 - Transmarisca; 26 - Durostorum; 27 - Abritu~; 28 - Voivoda; 29 - Marcianopolis;

- Odessos; 31 - Obzor; 32 - Noviodunum; 33 - /d; 34 - lstros; 35 - Tomis; 36 - Tropaeum Traiani; 37 - Zaldapa; 38 - Callatis; 39 - Dionysopolis;
40- Diocletiropolis; 41 - Augusta Traira; 42- Plrilippopolis; 43 - Constantia; 44 - Tzoides; 45 - Anchialos; 46 - Deultum; 47 - Adrianopolis;

48- Plotinipolis; 49- Nicopofis ad Nestum; 50- Maximianopolis; 51 - Maneia; 52- Trairopoli~; 53 - Ainos; 54- izye; 55 - Arcadiopolis (Bergule);
56- Eudoxiopolis (Selymbria); 57- Heraclea; 58- Panion; 59- Apri; 60- Aphdisia; 61 - Callipolis; 62 -Justiniana Prin; 63- Chucher;
64- Markovi Kuli; 65 - Konjuh; 66- Asamus; 67- Zikideva; 68 - Acrae; 69- Messenrbria; 70- Sozopolis; 71 - Topirus; 72- Anastasiopolis.

Classification of the Late Amique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

The rule of the emperor Valet (364-378) is

terminus post quem for turig Acrae casrellum ito city cetre . Probaiy the r
of the late atique tow r Kojuh i
today's North Macedoia dates back after the
1
1
middle of the 4 h . I the d of the 5 h - the
1
begiig of the 6 h . the walls d part of
the other mai structural compoets of
Zikideva were built (fig .2).
Cosiderig the iformatio availaie of the
w middle tows, later reductio of the defeded area durig the Late Atiquity
assumed l for Bononia (fig .2).
Similar to Messembria, the old Greek
51
l of Apollonia degraded as well i the 1 lh
lh
4 . AD . After the d of the 4 ., however,
this cetre revived agai uder w m Sozopolis, d tumed ito of the importat
Black Sea tows of the diocese of Thracia
(fig.2).
Despite the tows which regressed d
1
after the d of the 5 h cetury - like Singidunum d Nicopolis ad /strum for example,
several more urba cetres 9f it origi /srros, Bizye, Remesiaa, Bargala (fig .2) fall
ito the lower classificatio group. lstros has
also area reduced sigificatly, but it was already from the rd . Cocemig Bizye, Remesiana d Bargala there have t
foud sure data about such developmet, i.e.
their size d importace seem to have
reduced i geeral (fig.l ).
New city cetres, however, prevail i the
group of the smaller tows of Thracia d
Dacia. part of them appeared i the begi
ig of the Late Atiquity as result of the
trasformig of early military camps - for example Augusta d Transmarisca. The r
of the cetre, uidetified so far r
Voyvoda i today's ortheast Bulgaria, of
Tzoides, d probaiy of Constanria i today's
southeast Bulgaria (fig.l) is referred to the first
lh
.
lh
half of the 4 , Perhaps after the m1ddle 4 .
the late atique cetre r Chucher (i today's
North Macedoia) appeared. I the early years
of emperor Justiia I's reig lustiiana Prima
was built. At that time or earlier the po\verful
fortress of Markovi Kuli r Skopie was built.
(fig.2).
59

Ventzislav Dintchev

The presented review delineates the initial,

later Roman period of the Late Antiquity - from
the end of the rd to the Jast quarter of the 4th .
as period of prosperity of the urban Iife in
lzracia and Dacia. What is more, according to
all objective criteria this century and especially
the years of the beginning of the rule of the
emperor Diocletian until the end of the rule of
the emperor Constantine the Great are peak
moments in the development of both dioceses
not only in the Late Antiquity but regarding the
previous epoch, i.e. for the time from the estaiishing the Roman rule until the end of the
Late Antiquity in general. In the Jate rd - the
first half of the 4th . the percent of the increasing number of the city centres here is the ig
gest, and many of the new centres are significantly middle - lblda, Bononia, the one near
Obzor, Zaldapa, or even igger - the one near
Grazhdani and Dioclerianopolis, in classification aspect towns (fig.l) The old towns prosperous at that time are definitely more than the
towns of earlier origin, which mark decline
in their development in comparison with the
pre\ious time - lstros, and possily, Deul11tm
(fig.l ). Most characteristic examples of prosperous old towns are among the capitals of the
new provinces of the Late Antiquity - Serdica,
Marcianopolis, Tomis, Ratiaria, but they are
not the only examples in that respect- Augusra
Traiana,
Pautalia,
Novae,
Naissus,
Durostorum etc. The upheaval in part of the
cases is expressed in direct increasing of the
defended area - Serdica, Tomis, Rariaria, No\ae etc., .or in the appearance of satellite fortresses with possible military functions Pautalia and Durostorum (fig.l ). These statements need the specification that the main tendencies mentioned above, and especially the
first of them were manifested in the early Byzantine period of the Late Antiquity - from the
th
th
end of tl1e 4 . to the end of the 6 c./the beginning of the ih . The more significant examples of tl1e rising town de\elopment after
the end af the 4th . like Messembria, whose

upheaval probaly started still in the first half

of the 5th . , or like Zikideva, whose building
started in the late 5th - the early 6th . in that
case are already exceptions, which confirm the
rule (fig.2).
The main reason for the general upheaval of
the town life in ltracia and Dacia the end
of the rd - the first half of the 4th . is the
change in the geopolitical priorities of the Empire as result of the new territory and administrative reforms and the appearance of the new
capital of Constantinopolis.
Most new towns from the late rd and the
first half of the 4th . are in the frontier provinces of the two dioceses - in Dacia Ripensis,
Moesia Jnferior and Scythia, but the most significant new towns are in the intemal provinces
- in Praevalitana and in l1racia (fig.l ). part
of the new towns in the frontier provinces appeared as result of the evolution of earlier
military camps and ob\iously inherited their
functions of defending the Lower Danublan
limes. The other founded at that time towns
seemed to have been as well with certain military functions in the frontier and in the internal
provinces.
more significant regional specificity in
the development of the towns of the dioceses
lzacia and Dacia was estaiished after the
end of the 4th . The scarce so far data about
the main centres of Praevaliraa - the southwest province of the diocese of Dacia with
outlet on the Adriatic coast, do not show
changes in their size in the 5th and 6th . The
actual information about the towns of the two
south provinces of the diocese of Thracia Rhodopa and Europa (fig . l d 2) is almost
analogous as degree and possibllity for interpretation.
the middle of the 6th . the only town in
the other four provinces of the diocese of
Dacia, which could ha\'e ig was
Rariaria. It could have been, since its study is
at an early stage, so reduction of its defended area cannot excluded (fig.2).45 the

45 The central scction of the wcst wall of Ratiaria, where the town gate was had not been changed as an outline until the end
111
of the 6 . (Atanasova!Popova 1987, 85-96), but this was the only section of the town fortifying system studied through
excavations.

60

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia
middle of the 6th . even the presence of middle size urban centres is in question in the farthest northwest province of Moesia Superior
and in the west part of the province of Dacia
Ripensis (fig .2). The south province of
Dardania is good example of the comined
action of two tendencies in the early Byzantine
period - reduction of old town centres and appearance of new, mostly small town centres
(fig.l and 2). What is more, while the old capital of that province - Scupi , probaiy dropped
out of the city form of life in general, its new
capital - Justiniana Prima, which should have
the capital of the whole orth lllyricum,
accordig to the t of its creator, was i
fact small i its size d demographic pote
tial tow.
I the diocese of l1racia, i differece from
the diocese of Dacia, most of the ig and middle cities were preserved as such i the 6th .
(fig.l d 2). I the two frotier provices Moesia lnferior d Scythia the ig tows i
the 6th . were either the Black sea coast Tomis d Odessos, or near it- Marcianopolis
(fig.2) 46 . There were t ig tows removed
from the Black Sea coast initially (fig.l ). Reductio of the size and importance of
Dionysopolis i the south part of the provice
of Scythia was partly compensated or due to
the rising of the eighbourig cetre of Acrae
(fig. 1 and 2). The situation with Nicopois ad
lstrum and Zikideva i the central part of the
provice of Moesia lnferior is aalogous with
the difference that the new tow of Zikideva
excels significatly the reduced Nicopolis ad
Istrum (fig. 1 d 2). The Black Sea cetres
Messembria and Sozopolis from the provice

of Haemimontus regaied its urban character

exactly in the early Byzatine period, d the
first of them defined as ig city (fig.2).
Probaiy there was influx of population
from the iteral part of the province, iclud
ing Deultum, which was in stagnacy the, to
them. In the 6th . there were ig cities not l
the sea coast, but also in the internal parts
of the diocese of Thracia - Augusta Traiana
d Diocletianopolis in the same province (fig.
2). Its capital Pbllippopolis remaied ig city,
despite its cosideraie reduction the middle of the 6th . (fig.2)
The town plannig itself in the Late Atiq
uity i 11racia and Dacia does not cocern the
theme of that paper, but some conclusios d
specificatios in that respect are necessary too.
There has t been found so far unquestionaie example of tow of anciet origin, which
had lost its ancient structure the last quarter
of the 4th .47 I the older centres where the
archeological researches are at more advanced stage - Philippopolis, Augusta Traiana,
or Nicopolis ad lstrum for example, the
dig of the representative puiic squares, of
the buildings connected with the town autoomy and of other typical compoets of its
it structure happened between the late 4th
d the middle 5th . At that time the first ig
episcopal basilicas appeared - Pbllippopolis,
Marcianopolis, Tomis, Odessos, Messembria,
Novae etc.48 Therefore, the d of the 4 th- the
middle of the 5th . is the turnig point in the
urbanization developmet of the old centres of
l1racia d Dacia. Most cases of reducig the
defeded area, however, are after the middle 5th
. Thus it concluded that in geeral the

46 ln view of the considera\e defended territory of Marcianopolis in the 4"' . - aout 70 ha, and in view of the fact that. it
was continental town in frontier province, 1 do not exclude the possiility for its reduction the end of the s"' - "'
century. Even twice reduced, however, Marcianopolis, similar to Pltilippopolis, could have n representati ve of the
classification group of the ig towns. The data and literature about Mmcianopolis see in the \ review.

47 The cataclysm, for example, which /sti"OS had experienced the middle nl . , is "good" prerequisite for such de,elopment in the 4"' . In the explored southwest part of the fortified town in the 4"' . there " 'ere changes in the street system
and in architecture. The main reason, however, for these changes, including for the increased density of building, laid in
the defended area of the late Roman /stros reduced several times. Besides, not few of the new buildings in the southwest
part of the town are with representative pulic character (Suceveanu 1982, 86-89, 215, fig .52; Suceveau/Angelescu
1994, 204). Today it can not assessed to what extent lstros kept changed its ancient structure in the 4"' . , as the
igger part of its territory, including the complex of the agora has not been studied yet.
48 The pu\ications retlecting the abandoning of the representative ancient complexes and buildings and/or the n of
the first ig ishopric basilicas in the v listed towns have been mentioned in the foregoing survey.

61

Ventzislav Dintchev

change of the structures of the more significant

old towns here was not synchronous, but preceded the restriction of their size and their importance.
Of certain interest is the type of structuring of the new city centres in Thracia and
Dacia from the late rd - the first half of the
1
4 h . However, the archaeological data for
them, and precisely for the early periods of
their developing are still scarce. Dioclerianopolis, for example, which is at most advanced stage of research of these centres, does
not differ from the towns of ancient origin concerning its street system, drainage and water
supply system 49 . There, however, have not
been estalished the complexes and buildings
typical of the ancient muicipality, i.e. there
are data about polis organization 50 . In
Diocletianopolis representative complexes
rd
1h
f rom t h 1ate 3 - early 4 . have been studied, but they are of residential character. Several pulic baths have been found, "'hich can
explained the presence of mineral waters.
Another typical feature of the town is the
strong military presence in it still at the time
ofits establishing ( 1993,96-124,
141-151). The structure context of its mi1itary components- for example the placing of
the barracks along the town walls
( 1993, 70, fig.1 0), does not remind at all the scheme of the classical Roman
military camp. Thus it can only pointed that
Diocletianopolis was town and military centre of new type - synthesis of the changes in
the organization of the urban and military life
in the beginning of the Late Antiquity. Probaly this conclusion is valid about the other
newly-estalished at that time city centres.
1
the middle of the 5 h ., however, significant
differences between these centres and the
towns ancient origin regarding the structure,
respectively - the administrative organization
and social characteristic did not exist anymore.

The advanced archaeological researches in

Zikideva and in lustiniana Prima provide
possibility for complete notion of the character of the newly-built in the end of the 5th - the
first half of the 'h . towns of Dacia and
Thracia. The structures of these two centres
include pulic components of military and economic importance, as \\'ell as private households. The ordinary population in lustiniana
Prima, in difference from Zikideva, initially
was not much in the deferend area, but thereafter it increased. In the structures of both centres, however, dominate the buildings of the
Christian cult and the residences of the superior representatives of the local clerical and !
administration. They reflect in most clear
way the tendencies in the urbanization in the
late Byzantine period of the Late Antiquity.
They are the models for which the earlier
their origin towns of the two dioceses at that
time they strove.
The suggested cJassification model reflects
the differences in the size and in demographic
potential of the late antique towns of l1racia
and Dacia, as well as the differences in their
real importance as economic, administrative,
cult and/or military centres. 1 would outline
again that the choice of the main criterion - the
size of the protected area, is not occasional and
is not only due to the unsatisfactory state of the
archaeological excavations. From the moment
when the fortifying of the towns turned into
conditio sine qua for their existence, the
size of their area defended safely becomes
rather precise index of their real value as centres of the settlements and pulic life in general. In the defended areas there were the most
important units of the late antique urban structures and there the main part of the town population lived. In the Balkans, in Thracia and
Dacia esrecially, that momet came in the end
of the r ., i.e. in the very beginning of the
Late Antiquity. The exceptions, for example -

49 Diocletianopolis was not founded on an empty space. Its predecessor - the unfortified setlement from the time of the
Principate, however, had not been town centre. The appearance of the big fortified town in the Jate nJ - the early years of
the 4th . was consequcnce not so much of the prosperity of this settlement as of the will of the imperial administration
supported with the corresponding means.
50 The written and cpigraphic sources do not pro,ide as well data for the presence of an autonomous administrative organization of polis-type in Diocletianopolis.

62

C/assijication of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

lusriniana Prima in the first period of its existence, can explained within the frame of the
suggested classification model. What is more,
as long as these exceptions are an expression
of real discrepancy of the size and the administrative specificity of the corresponding
towns, the suggested classification is exactly
the means for their estaiishing. The example
of lustiana Prima, which, depending on the
point of view is the best or the most drastic
one, is not the only one. Similar exceptions,
considering their unchanged status of provincial capitals and the really reduced size and
importance of their inhaitancy, are
1
Viminacium and Serdica after the middle 5 h .,
Pltilippopolis the middle and in the second
1
half of the 6 h . as well as Eudoxiopolis - at
least for the same period. Existing of such exceptions presumes reinterpretation of the role
of the other town centres, which their objective criteria do not defer and even excel the
corresponding provincial capitals - for example the role of Pautalia in the province of
Dacia Mediterranea in the second half of the
1
5 h . , the role of Augusta Traiana in the province of lmzcia the middle and in the second half of the 'h . etc.
Besides its relation to the more significant
city centres, the suggested classification model
allows outlining the discrepancies between the
real value and administrative rank concerning
the other fortified settlement centers from the
Late Antiquity in general. In that context of
s pecial interest seems to the question
whether all the settlements, denoted with urban
terms in the late antique sources, had the size
and the real importance of the urban form of
life. 51 This question, which in fact focuses the
proiem of border of the town form of life i
the Late Antiquity, will the theme of another
paper. Therefore, in the above review not all
the centres of Thracia and Dacia which were
mentioed in the sources as towns and about

which there is more archaeological information

were surveyed. 52
BILI OG RAPHY
, .

1985.

In:

, .

(ed.).

.
n . ,

5-49.
, .

1981. n
(1967-1977). -
3, 253-264.
, . 1961.
n . - 3, 1,
47-50.
, . 1991 . n
n n " ". In: , . et al. (ed.).
n 1990 . , 120-121.
, . 1986. .
. In: n, .
(ed.). . n,
29-38.
, . 1996. . In:
n 1995 .
, 61.
, . 1990. n .
. In: , . et 1. (ed.).
n 1989 .
, 202.
,
.
1988.

n (

nn).

ln:

, .

. ,
, .

1980.

et al. (ed .).

90
34-53.

20, 6,

5-11.
, . 1974.

Dacia Ripensis. - Thracia 3, 337-345.

, . , . .

(ed .).
. (1999).
, . 1973. .- 2,
5, 65-69.
,
.
1983.
In:

, .

51 Here 1 am delierately ignoring the possibllity for subjective mistakes in the sources. The suggested classification could

have lhe meril 10 correclion of 1he sources lhemsclves when lhere are such mislakes.
52 discrepancy belween 1he real indexes and lhe lown definitions in the sources is nol impossiie for some of the menlioned here as localized. but not studied, or little studied ccnlres (fig. l and 2). Cerlainly, 1he queslion of real belonging 10
lhe cily forrn of life does nol concem cenlres like Adrianopolis, Ancbla/os, Heraclea or Ainos.

63

Ventzislav Dintchev
.

19(34), 19-

35.
Ui .

1962.

apaUiall, ./, .

1984.
1978-1981 . - Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 7-8 (1981-1982), 79-97.
11, . 1989.
.

25,

, .

l-18.
, .

1989.

, .

- In:
37-58.

, .

et al. (ed.). . . Il . ,
1977.
III-IV . -
9, 4, 3-10.
, . 1990.
. - . . In:
, . (ed.).
1989 . , 93-94.
, . 1984.
.- 18, 3, 23-28.
, . 1959.
. - 1, 34, 35-45.
, ./, ./, . 1994.

-
l, 157-173.
1996.

, n~
. -

37, 2-3, 73-78.

, ./, ./, ./.

" "

1994.
In:
n n 1992-1993 . , 74-75.
1959.- , . et al. (ed.).
t . . II . (1958).
, . 1970. n . " "
. . -
27, 233-254.
. 1983. n
. - 25, 9, 24.
, . 1981.
n . -
3, 9-20.
.\tu, . 1985. n

"

n . ,

, .

-
In:
1992-1993 . , 89-90.
., . 1990.
(). In:
, . (ed.).
1989 . , 76-78.
, ./, . 1996.
".

().

Bacli, .

1990.

In:

1995

. ,

68-70.

- VI .
. . ( ) . In:
, . et al. (ed.). . . I.
, 14-26.
, . 1982. EJ.i.pOptov eou1&xs-
n . - 24,
3-4, 40-43.
, . 1964.
1989.

-I

. . . .

.-
,

27, 43-54.
1961.

n .

(ed .).

, ./,

./ ,

(ed .).

253-259.

.\!ll, .

.
,

1982.

. -

1, 234-243.

.lt, .

1978.

n . ,

2, 139-173.

.tll, ./, ./, ./,

.

1987.

In:

, .

(ed.).

1989

128-129.
, . 1987.

nn

. In: , ./, . (ed.).

.

6.

169-

177.
11, .

1989.

. .

l . .
, . 1988.

n .

63-71.
1995.

. .

64

In:

, .

In:

, ./, ./, . 1990.

. .

,1

.
, .

n .

IV V
Horreum Margi (Cuprija).

, ./, ./, ./, .

30, 3, 30-38.
t, . 1994.

Classification of the Late Antiqe Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia
2 ( 1992), 83-87.

. .

u.\tumpo, .

1988.

.-

.\fm, .

1986.

5, 71-86.

J", .

n.

3,

90-99.

VI

1981.

VII

. r.

, ./, . 1996.
n .
n n

.w, . 1985. n n
n n

(IV-VII

. ).

. .

105.
, ./, ./, 1995.
n .

n n

u.\fumpo, . 1985. n
n

(V-VII

. ).

2, 120-128.

u.\tu-, .

1992.

145-146.
1992.

, .
"

n.

ln:

In: Studia Aegea

Balcanica in honorem Lodovicae Press. Warszawa,
257-270.
u.\, B.IU-\fmpo, ./, ./

I, . 1990. n ".
" n n.

In:

, .

J.J n

et al. (ed.).
n 1989 .

".

et al. (ed.).

85-

49-69.

, .

1983.

n n . .
, .!, .

1989.

n . , .
.

ln:

, .

n n
n

ln:
1994 .

, .

194-195.
. 1998.

In:
1995 . ,

(ed .).
1988 r. , 86-87.

, ./, ./, ./

1994.
nn. In: , . (ed.).
. . III. , 192-204.
, . 1989.
nn. -
15, 113-126.
, . 1985.
nn n . ln:
, . (ed.). 100
. . 11. , 114-126.
, ./10, . 1990. n

, ./, . 1994. n "

n . ,

. -
, .

1995.

39, 3-4, 16-23.

I-

.-

Balcanica Posnaniensia 7,

259-270.
, .!, .

1994. n
In:
1992-1993 . , 110-

n.
n n

111.

- ".

ln:
n n 1992-1993 . , 93
-, . 1987.

n . .

, .

1969. .-
1, 4, 45-55.
, . 1988.

n " "
n. - ,

3, 27-30.
, . 1980. . . 1. .
, . 1961. n
n . ln: , ./
, . (ed.) . n
n. , 255-269.
, ./, .
1998. Ulpia Oescus.
. . 1. .
, ./, . 1994.
. . 1. .
, ./, . 1985. Abritus.

, .

1989

ln:

, .

et al. (ed.).
1989 r.

n n
,

81-83.
1988. ,
1982 . - Macedoniae Acta
Archaeologica 9 ( 1983-1984), 155-164.
, . 1977. j
n . - Macedoniae
Acta Archaeo1ogica 3, 143-180.
, . 1994.
n . - 36, 2, 24-34.
, . 1979. n
( ) . - Thracia Antiqua 5,
217-223.
, . . 1971. n
IV-VII
, .

. .

, . ./, . .

1986.

n n

65

Venrzis/av Dintchev
.

(ed .).

In:

, . .

. ,

100-197.
1972. MaprovE t .
Ancient Greek Cities 16. Athena.
. . 1983. . -
. - , 1, 298-307.
1958. - , . et 1. (ed.).
. . I. .
. . 1993. . . I.
<~<1.11s. ~-

1995.
. In:
n n 1994 . , 99-100.

et

n . -

3,

1-8.

1993.

1996.

In:
1995 . , 71-72
, . 1991.

. ,

(,

n ).

-
16, 21-43.

. .

1996.
-
3 (1991), 57-58.
jli. ./lj, . 197 5.
.

h j . -.

. .

1982.

Conje

. j.
,

-
14, 129-141,

1990. . In:
(ed.).
1989 . , 71.
. ./ . 1992.
, .

et

1.

- .-
.

. .

1988.

. .

1.

. .

1974.

j .
j

, .

57-58.

(ed.).
1990 . , 111-112.
. . 1951. n
n . -
8, 99-102.
. . 1961.
In:

n .

1996.
. In:
n 1995 .

, ./. .!, .

1991.

()- . "".

, .

. .

, ./, .

et al.

10, 2, 347-368.

. ./j. .

1984. ,
, j, 1979 1980. - Macedoniae Acta Archaeo1ogica 7-8 (1981-1982), 205-221.
. . !, . 1984.

15, 29-44.
1986.
. In: , . (ed.).
. . 1. , 231-282.
. ./, . 1987.
n. In: , . et 1.
(ed.).
1986 . , 232-233.
, ./. . 1978.
(IV-VII .). .
li-tt, . 1982. j
ut . -
32 ( . . ), 57-72.
li. . 1997. . In:
h, . (ed.). j j .
, 115-129.
li. . 1976. . . .
li, . 1967. j ~
j.- 18 (. .), 29-53.
li. . 1988. .,
j j. - 38
(1987), 1-35.
li. . 1982. ~ .
, .

, .

1988.

n .

In:

, .

et

1.

. -

(ed.). - - . 90
. , 117-132.
-, . 1994.
n . In: , .
(ed.). . . III. ,
171-181.
. 1989. . . 1. .
, ./. ./. .
1996.

, ,
n

66

1972.

, .
, .

1, 43-84.

. .!. .

1970 . -

1986.

-
32, 263-277.

22 (37), 31-43.

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia
"

- - ".-

502.

, ./, .

3 (1991), 39-47.

, ./, ./, .

1991.

, .

et

!.

(ed.).
1990 . , 178-

. "" .

In:

1892.

1, 443-

8, 3-58.

opnWl, ./, .

1890.

179.

( ) .

. , ,

3, 3-40.

In: ,
6-36.
,. 1989.

1989.
.

et

!.

(ed.).

. .

11.

, ./, .

1891.

( ) .

~ .

- 31, 4, 37-40.
, 1980. .
- . In: , ./,
. 1979
. , 105-106.
~1,. 1988.

V-VI . In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.).

Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. . 11. Sofia, 585-593.
, . 1995.
. .
, .

1984.

(V-VI

. ) .

, .

et

! .

(ed.).

In:

. ,

62-84.

, ./, .

1997.

12, 143-155.

3. . 1986.

, .

46, 20-51.

1990.

-
2, 147-195.

, .

1979.
(XIII-XIV ). .
, . 1988.
. In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica
Medii Aevi. . 11. Sofia, 577-585.
, ./, . 1979.

. ,
. In: , ./, .
(ed.).
1978 . , 94~95.
. 1930.

- Byzantinoslavica 2, 197-230.
. 1905.
. - -

4, 102-146.
1993.
. In: , . (ed.).
IV-XIV . , 7-23.
, . 1987.
(1982-1986 .).-
10, 27-35.
, . 1993.
, .

-
16, 139-153.
Aladzov, D. 1987. Die archaeo1ogischen Denkmae1er
im Bezirk Haskovo (4.-11. Jahrhundert). - Miscellanea
Bu1garica 5, 71-82.
Aleksova, . 1996. Bregalnica martyrion great macedonian piligrimige center.-
4 (1992), 275-277.
Aleksova, B./ango, . 1971. Bargala: preliminary
Report. - Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25, 265-277.
Atanasova, J.!Popova, . 1987. 11 muro di cinta di
Ratiaria. Lato occidentale. Ricerche archeologiche 19761985. - Ratiariensia 3-4, 85-96.
Avramea, . 1976. Thessalonike (topographie). In:
Tabula Imperii Romani 34. Sofia (Naissus - Serdica Thessalonike). Lju!jana, 139-14 7.
, . 1976. Fortifikimet antik.itetit te vone ne
vendin tone (Fortifications de ! Basse Antiquite en
Albanie). - Monumentet 11, 45-74.
Bakiritzis, Ch. 1989. Westem Thrace in the early
christian and byzantine periods: results of archaeological
research and the prospects, 1973-1987.- Byzantinische
Forschungen 1411-2 (Amsterdam), 41-58.
Barnea, /. 1991. Noi date despre Mitropolia Tomisului. - Pontica 24, 277-282.
Bamea, 1./Barnea, A./Cataniciu, 1./MargineanuCarstoiu, M./Papuc, G. 1979. Tropaeum Traiani. . 1.
Cetatea. Bucuresti.
Bavant, . 1990. ldentification et fonction des
.'I

67

Ventzislav Dintchev
batiments. In: Bavant, . et al. (ed.). Caricin grad. . .
Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75. Roma, 123160.
Bavant, . 1984. La ville dans de nord de 1' Il\yricum
(Pannonie, Mesie 1, Dacie et Dardanie). In: Villes et
peuplement dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. Collection de
1' Ecole francaise de Rome 77. Roma, 245-288.
Bavant, B./Kondic, V./Spieser, J.-M. 1990. Introduction. In: Bavant, . et al. (ed.). Caricin grad. . 11. CoJiection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75. Roma, 1-11.
Biemacki, A./edeksz, . 1995. An attempt at spatial reconstruction of the columnar haJI in the episcopa1
residence at Novae. - Nove. Studies and Materials 1, 923.
Biercka-Lubanska, . 1982. The Roman and Early
Byzantine Fortifications of the Lower Moesia and Northem Thrace. Wroclaw.
Bjelajc, L/lvanisevic, V. 1993. Les temoignages archeo1ogiques des Grandes lnvasions Singidunum. 42 (1991), 123-139.
Bojadziev, St. 1962. L' ancienne eglise metropole de
Nesebar. - Byzantinobulgarica 1, 321-349.
Bojovic, D. 1996. Le Camp de Ja Legion IV Flavia
Singidunum. In: Petrovic, . (ed.). Roman Limes on the
Mid(:lle and Lower Danube. Belgrad, 53-68.
Botoucharova, L./Kesjakova, . 1983. Sur Ja topographie de Ja ville de Philippopolis 1' epoque de la Basse
Antiquite. - PulpoudeYa 4, 264-273.
Bucovala, . 1977. Marele edificiu roman cu mozaic
de la Tomis. Constanta.
Cameron, . 1996. The Mediterranean World in Late
Antiquity AD 395-600. London and New York (2nd edn).
CataniCiu, /. . 1998. Semnificatia ultimelor schimbari in urbanismul de \ Tropaeum Traiani. - Pontica 2829 (1995-1996), 201-214.
Cheluta-Georgescu, N. 1977. Contributii Ja
topografia Tomisului in sec. VI e.n.- Pontica 10, 253-260.
Cicikova, . 1994. Novae 1' epoque du Bas-Empire.
In: Susini, G. (ed.). Limes ( cura di Giancarlo Susini).
Studi di storia 5, Bologna, 127-138.
Citikova, . 1980. Forschungen in NoYae (Moesia
Inferior). - lio 62, 1, 55-66.
Claude, D. 1969. Die byzantinische Stadt im 6.
Jahrhundert. Byzantinische Archiv 13. Muenchen.
Dagron, G. 1984. Les villes dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. In: Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 77.
Roma, 1-20.
Dimitrov, . 1988. La citta medieva1e di Sozopo1. In:
Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. . . Sofia, 497-522.
Dintchev, V. 1997. Househo\d Substructure of the
Early-Byzantine Fortified Settlements on the Present Bu1garian Territory.- Archaeo1ogia Bulgarica 1, 1, 47-63.

68

Dintchev, V. 1997. Review: Poulter . Nicopolis ad

Istrum: Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City.
Excavation 1985-1992. - Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 3, 97104.
Dintchev, V. 1997. ZIIDEVA- an Example of Early
Byzantine Urbanism in the Balkans. - Archaeologia
Bulgarica 1, 3, 54-77.
Dintchev, V., im Druck. GeseJischaftli che Komponenten der Struktur fruhbyzantinischer befestigter
Siedlungen auf dem Territorium des heutigen Bulgarien.
In: Karasura. Bd. . Leipzig-Halle (1999).
Dirimtekin, F. 1963. Vize et ses antiquites. - Annua1
of Sofya Museum 5, 26-36.
Dirimtekin, F. 1957. La forteresse byzantine de
Se1ymbria. In: Actes du - congres intemational des
etudes byzantines. lstambul, 127-129.
Donevski, . 1994. Die Canabae der Legio XI Claudia
von Durostorum (Silistra, Bulgarien). ln: Susini , G. (ed.).
Limes ( cura di Giancar\o Susini). Studi di storia 5, Bologna, 153-158.
Donevski, . 1987. Scavi neJI' area del campo deJI'
XI 1egione Claudia Durostorum. - Ratiariensia 3-4, 239243.
Dunn, . 1997. Stages in the transition from the Late
Antique to the Middle Byzantine urban centre in S. Macedonia and S. Thrace. - J.L MatovtK(J)V 7,
137-150.
Dunn, . 1994. The transition from polis to kasrron
in the Balkans (- . ) : genera1 and regional perspectives. - Byzantine and Modem Greek Studies 18, 60-80.
Duval, N. 1984. L' architecture religieuse de Tsaritchin grad dans le cadre de 1' Illyricum orienta1 au VI-e
siecle. ln: Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. CoJiection de 1' \ francaise de Rome 77.
Roma, 399-481 .
Duval, N./Jeremic, . 1984. L' eglise ' ', sud de la
ville dit "basilique une nef'. In: Duva\, N.!PopoYic, V.
(ed.). Caricin grad. . 1. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise
de R 75. Roma, 91-146.
Du val, N.!Popovic, V. 1980. Urbanisme et topographie chretienne dans les provinces septentrionales de
1' Illyricum. In: Rapports presentes au congres international d'archeologie chretienne. Thessalonique, 369402.
Dyczek, . 1997. New Late Roman horren from sector IV at Novae. In: Biemacki, A.!Pawlak, . (ed.). Late
Roman and Early Byzantine Cities on the Lower Danube.
Poznan, 87-94.
Gerassimova-Tomova, V. 1987. Ein Silberkelch aus
dem Dorf Nova Nadezda, Bezirk Haskovo, aus der Zeit
des Kaisers Justinian 1. (527-565). - Miscellanea
Bulgarica 5, 307-312.
Gerov, . 1975. Marcianopo1 im Lichte der historischen Angaben und der archaeo1ogischen, epigra-

C/assification of the Late Antique Cities in rhe Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia

phischen und numismatischen Materialien und Forschungen. - Studia Balcanica 1, 46-72.

Giorgetti, D. 1987. Res ad topographiam veteris uris
Ratiariae peninentes. Prolegomeni all' urbanistica della
citta romana. - Ratiariensia 3-4, 33-85.
Gusic, S. 1993. Naissus. In: Srejovic, D. (ed.). Roman Imperial Towns and Palaces in Seria - Sirmium,
Romuliana, Naissus. Belgrad, 164-168.
Gusic, S. I993b. Remesiana. Iidem, 184-187.
Guyon, 1./Cardi, G. 1984. L' eglise "", dite
"basilique cruciforme". In: Duval, N./Popovic, V. (ed.).
Caricin grad. . 1. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de
Rome 75. Roma, 1-90.
Gorbanov, . 1987. Die antike und fruehmittelalteriche Stadt Diocletianopolis im Lichte der neuen
archaeologischen Forschungen. - Miscellanea Bulgarica
5, 293-296.
Gegory, . 1982. Fonification and urban design in
Early Byzantine Greece. ln: Hohlfelder, R. L. (ed.). City,
Town and Countryside in the Early Byzantin Era. New
York, 43-64.
Harreither, R. 1987. Die Bischoefe von Tomi/Consatanta is zum Konzil von Nikaia. - Miscellanea Bulgarica 5, 197-21 .
Hanies, 1. 1996. Christianity and the city in Late Roman Gaol. In: Rich, J. (ed.). h City in Late Antiquity.
London and New York (2nd edn), 77-98.
Hoxha, G. 1994. Muri rrethues i periudhes se vone antike ne qytetin Shkores (L' enceinte de la Basse Antiquite dans ls ville de Skoder).- Iliria 24, 1-2,231-247.
/orgu, S. 1961. La citta pontica di Tomis. - Dacia 5
(N. s.), 231-274.
lvanov, R. 1997. Das Befestungssystem von Augustae 11 an der Unterdonau. In: Biernacki, A./Pawlak, .
(ed.). Late Roman d Early Byzantine Cities on the
Lower Danue. Poznan, 31-34.
/vanov, . 1987. Der Fonuna- l in der Colonia
Ulpia Oescesium in Moesia Inferior (heute VR
Bulgarien). In: Ivanov, . ct al. (ed.). Recherches sur la
culture en Mesie et cn Thrace (ulgarie), Ie- IVe siecle.
Bulletin de 1' Institut d' archeologie 37. Sofia, 7-60.
1eremic, . 1995. The Caricin Grad Necropolis. NoMefM 45-46 (.1994-1995), 181-195.
1ones, : . . 1994. The Declin of the Ancient
\\'orld. London and New York (12th edn).
1onson, St. 1983. Later Roman Fonification. London.
KabakCiel', G. 1996. Fruehroeische Militaerlager
in Oescus (Nordbulgarien). Ergebnisse dcr Ausgrabungen
1989-1993. - Germania 74, 1, 95-117.
Kalinowski, Z 1995. Baptistery in the episcopal basilica at Novae. - Nove. Studies and Materials 1, 25-35.
Kalrschev, . 1998. Das Befestigungssystem von Augusta Traiana- Beroe im 2. - 6. Jhs. nah Chr. - Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 3, 88-107.

Ketmedy, . 1996. Antioch: from Byzantium to lslam

and back again. In: Rich, J. (ed.). The City in Late Antiquity. London and New York (2nd edn), 181-198.
Kudeva, W. 1995. Willa miejska w Novae. Architektura, podzial wewnetrzny, przemiany.- Novensia 7, 27-61.
Kuvnanov, G., im Druck. Eine spaetantike Residenz
von Ratiaria. - Archaeologia Bulgarica 4, 1, 2000.
La Roca, Cr. 1996. Pulic buildings and urban change
in nonhem Italy in the early mediaeval period. ln: Rich,
J. (ed.). h City in Late Antiquity. London and New York
(2nd edn), 161-180.
Liebeschuerz, W. 1996. h end of the ancient city.
ln: Rich, J. (ed.). h City in Late Antiquity. London and
New York (2nd edn), 1-49.
Liebescletz, W. 1972. Antioch: City and Imperial
Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford.
Maurin, L 1992. Rempans et sites dans les trois provinces du Sud-Ouest de la Gaole au Bas-Empire, demier
quan du siecle - debut du V - siecle. ln: Maurin, L.
(ed.). Villes et agglomerations uraines antiqes du SudOuest de la Gaole. Bordeaux, 365-389.
Mascl10v, S. 1994. Das spaetantike Kastell und die
fruehbyzantinische Stadt Auguste bein Dorf Har1etz,
Nord-West Bulgarien. In: Susini, G. (ed.). Limes ( cura
di Giancarlo Susini). Studi di storia 5, Bo\ogna, 21-36.
Lungu, V. 1997. L' evoluzione tipologica delle
basiliche della Scythia Minor. - Miscellanea Bulgarica 11,
99-108
Miku/Cic, /. 1986. Kasnoanticka utvrdenja u SR
Makedoniji - pokusaj k\asifikacije. In: Medovic, . (ed.).
Obdrambeni sistemi u praistoriji i antici tlu
Jugoslavije. Materijali 22. Novi Sad, 101-123.
Miku/Cic, /. 1974. Ueber die Groesse der spaetantiken
Staedte in Makedonien. - Ziva antika 24, 191-212.
Miku/Cic, /. 1973. From the Topography of Scupi. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 14, 29-35.
Miltscheva, A.!Genrsclreva, . 1996. Die Architektur
des roeischen Militaerlager und der fruehbyzantinischen Stadt Novae (Erkundungen 1980-1994). ln: Petrovic, . (ed.). Roman Limes on the Middle and Lower
Danue. Belgrad, 187-193.
Mincev, . 1987. Marcianopolis christiana. - MiscelIanea Bulgarica 5, 297-306.
Mirko1ic, . 1997. Die christliche irche und das
Christetum in den zentralillyrischen Provinzen im 4. und
6. Jahrhunden. In: Biemacki, A./Pawlak, . (ed.). Late
Roman d Early Byzantine Cities on the Lower Danue.
Poznan, 39-56.
Mirko vic, . \968. Rimski gradovi na Dunavu u
Gomjoj Meziji. Beograd.
Mocsy, . 1970. Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der
roemischen Provinz Moesia Superior. Budapest.
Nikolov, D. 1987. L' ensemle du forum de Augusta
Traiana- Beroe. In: Ivanov, . et \. (ed.). Recherches sur

69

Ventzislav Dintchev

la culture en Mesie et en Thrace (Bulgarie), Ie- IVe siecle.

Bulletin de 1' lnstitut d' archeologie 37. Sofia, 96-107.
Ognenova-Marinova, L 1992. La contribution de 1'
archeologie susmarine dans 1' etude de vi11e medievale de
Nessebre. In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii
Aevi. . . Sofia, 243-246.
Ognenova, L. 1988. La datation des edifices
medievales Nessebre d' apres les donnes des fouilles.
In: Gjuzelev, V. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica Medii Aevi. . .
Sofia, 570-576.
Ostrogorsky, G. 1959. Byzantine Cities in the Early
Middle Ages.- Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13,47-66.
Oken, Y.!Ousterhout, R. 1989. Notes on the Monuments of Turkish Thrace. - Anatolian Studies 39, 121149.
Pantos, . 1983. The present situation of the studies
in archaeological topography of Western Thrace. Pulpudeva 4, 164-179.
Pamicki-Pudelko,S. 1995. The Episcopal Basilica in
Novae: Archaeological Research 1976-1990. Poznan.
Pelletier, . 1982. L' urbanisme romain sous 1' Empire. Paris.
Petrovii:, . 1993. Naissus- Foundation of Emperor
Constantine. In: Srejovic, D. (ed.). Roman lmperial
Towns and Palaces in Seria - Sirmium, Romuliana,
Naissus. Belgrad, 55-81.
Petrovii:, . 1986. Odbrambeni sistemi u antici
(jugoistocni sektor). In: Medovic, . (ed.). Odbrameni
sisterni u praistoriji i antici na tlu Jugoslavije. Materijali
22. Novi Sad, 91-100.
Piletii:, D. 1969. Rimski castrum Cuprija - Horreum
Margi.- Vestnik Vojnog muzeja 15, 9-57.
Popovii:, /. 1990. Les activites professionelles Caricin grad vers la fin de Vle siecle et le debut du V
siecle, d' apres les outils de fer. In: Bavant, . et 1. (ed.).
Caricin grad. . . Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de
Rome 75. Roma, 269-306
Popovii:, . 1997. Anticki S~ngidunum : dosadasnja
otkrica i mogucnost daljih istrazivanja. In: Popovic, .
(ed.). Singidunum. . 1. Beograd, 1-20.
Popovii:, V. 1984. Byzantins, slaves et autochtons
dans les provinces de Prevalitane et Nouvelle Epire. In:
Villes et peuplement dans 1' Illyricum protobyzantin. Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 77. Roma, 181-243.
Potter, . 1995. Towns in Late Antiquity: Iol Caesarea
and its context. Oxford.
Poulter, . 1996. The use and abuse of uranism in
the Danublan provinces duing the Later Roman Empire.
In: Rich, J. (ed.). The City in Late Antiquity. London and
New York (2nd edn), 99-135.
Poulter, . 1995. Nicopolis ad lstrum: Roman, Late
Roman and Early Byzantine City. Excavation 1985-1992.
London.
Poulter, . 1983. Town and country in Moesia Infe-

70

rior. In: Poulter, . (ed.). Ancient Bulgaria. Papers presented to the Intemational Symposium on the Ancient
istory and Archaeology of Bulgaria. . 2. Noninham,
74-118.
Pralong, . 1988. Remarques sur les fortifications
byzantines de Thrace Orientale. In: Ahrweiler, . (ed.).
Geographie historique du monde mediterraneen. Byzantina Soronensia 7. Paris, 180-200.
Press, L.!Sarnowski, . 1991. Novae. Romisches
Legionslager und fruehbyzantinische Stadt an den
unterren Donau.- Antike Welt 21, 4, 225-243.
Radulescu, . 1998. Zidul de aparare al Tomisului, de
tarzie, in reconstiturea sa actuala. - Pontica 28-29
( 1995-1996), 83-93.
Radulescu, . 1991. Recherches archeologiques
recentes dans le perimetre de la cite de Tomis. Jn:
Popescu, . et al. (ed.). Etudes byzantines et post-byzantines. V. . Bucarest, 23-45.
Raveg11ani, G. 1983. Castelli citta' fortificate nel VI
secolo. Ravena.
Rousseva-Siokoska, L 1996. Les recherches archeologiques Nicopolis ad lstrum - resultats et proiemes
(1985-1994). ln: Petrovic, . (ed.). Roman Limes the
Middle and Lower Danube. Belgrad, 205-211.
Ruseva-Siokoska, L 1987. Certains aspects de 1' urbanisation de Pautalia. In: Ivanov, . et al. (ed.).
Recherches sur la culture en Mesie et en Thrace
(Bulgarie), Ie - IVe siecle. Bulletin de 1' Institut d'
archeologie 37. Sofia, 82-96.
Sampetru, . 1994. Orase si cetati romane tarzii la
Dunarea de Jos. Biiiotheca Thracologica 5. Bucuresti.
Saselov, D. 1985. Roemische Stadtstrassen von
Anchialos.- Thracia 7, 138-143.
Schreiner, . 1986. Staedte und Wegenetz in Moesien,
Dakien und Thrakien nach dem Zeugnis des Theophylaktos Simokates. ln: Pillinger, R. (ed.). Spaetantike und
fruehbyzantinische Kultur Bulgariens zwischen Orient
und Okzident. Wien. 25-35.
Spieser, J. -. 1984. Thessalonique et ses monuments
du IV - au VI-e siecle. Contribution 1' etude d' une ville
paleochretienne. Paris.
Stanceva, . 1978. Serdica aux confins de deux
epoques (IVe - Vie s. ). - Etudes historiques 8, 107-122.
~tereva, 1. 1995. Baptistere paleo-chretien Sliven.
In: Ovcarov, D. et !. (ed.). La culture materielle et 1' art
dans les terres bulgares VIe-XVIIe s. - Bulletin de 1'
Institut d' archeologie 38. Sofia, 7-13.
Suceveanu, . 1982. istria. . VJ. Les thermes
romains. Bucarest-Paris.
Suceveanu, A.IA11gelescu, . 1994. Nouvelles donnees concemant istria 1' epoque romaine. - tema 19,
195-208.
Suceveanu, A./Bamea, . 1993. Contribution 1'
histoire des villes romaines de la Dobroudja. - Dacia 37

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia
(N. s.), 159-179.
Suceveanu, A.!Barnea, . 1991 . La Dobroudja romaine. Bucarest.
Susini, G. 1975. Bononia su1 Danublo. - Epigrafica
(Rivista italiana di epigraph.ia) 7, 425-429.
Sousta/, . 1997. Dorostolon - Silistra. Die Donaustadt im Lichte neuerer Forschug. - Miscellanea Bulgarica
11, 115-126.
SZdec;ky-Kardoss, S. 1985. Bemerkungen ueberden
"Questor lustinianus Exercitus" zur Frage der Vorstufen
der Themenverfassung. In: Vavrinek, V. (ed.). From Late
Antiquity to Early Byzantium. Praha, 61-64.
Tapkova-Zaimova, V. 1997. Durostorum et 1' hagiographie de 1 haute epoque. - Miscellanea Bulgarica 11,
109-114.
Tonceva, G. 1981. L' amph.itheatre de Marcianopolis.
In: Danov, Ch./Fo1, . (ed.). Spartacus. Symposium rebus
Spartaci gestis dedicatum 2050 . Sofia, 18-14.
Torbatov, S. 1997. Quaestura exercitus: Moesia Secunda and Scythia under Justinian. - Archaeologia
Bulgarica 1, , 78-87.
Vak/inova, . 1984. Ateliers de decoration
architecturale au Ve et Vle siecle dans la region de
Nicopolis ad Nestum (Bulgarie). In: Actes de congres
intemational d'archeologie chretienne. . . Thessalonique, 641-649.
Vasic, . 1990. Le plan d' urbanisme de la ville haute:
essai de reconstitution. In: Bavant, . et al. (ed.). Caricin
grad. . . Collection de 1' Ecole francaise de Rome 75.
Roma, 7- 15.
Ve/kov, V. 1985. Fruehbyzantinische Inschriften aus
Dacia Ripensis.- Byzantina (essalonike) 1, 88-891.
Velkov, V. 1981. Die Bedeutung von Nesebar in der
Uebergangsperiode von der Antike zum Mittelalter. Byzantinobulgarica 7, 17-141.
Velkov. V. 1977. Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Late
Antiquity (Studies and Materials). Amsterdam.
Ve/kov, V. 197. Die Stadt Transmarisca (Moesia Inferior).- Archeologia Polona 14, 26-268.
Velkov, V. 1966. Ratiaria (Eine roemische Stadt in
Bulgaricn). - Eirene. . V. Praha, 155-175.
Velkov, V. 1961. Das Schicksal einer friihbyzantinischen Stadt zur Zeit der Voelkerwanderung (Odessos Vama). In: Akten des XI. Intern. Byzantinisten Kongresses. Muenchen, 655-659.
Velkov, V. 1960. Durostorum- Drastar- Silistra. Kurze
historische Bemerkungen. - Berliner Byzantinistische
Areiten 21, 214-218.
Venedikov, l.Nelkov, V./Ognenova-Marinova, L!Cimbuleva, 1./Petrov, / Cango,,a, /. 1969. Nessebre. . 1.
Sofia.
Vetters, . 1950. Dacia Ripensis. sterreichische
Akademie der Wissenschlaften - Schriften der BalkanKomission. Antiquarische Abteilung XI, 1. Wien.

Vujovic, . 1997. Prilog proucavanju antickog zidnog

slikarstva i stuko dekoracije na tlu Singidunuma. In:
Popovic, . (ed.). Singidunum. . 1. Beograd, 169-179.

()

, / .

,
,

. r

.
, " ",
.

,
,

,
.

hracia

Dacia:

; ;

.

:

;
;

1
5

.

,

17~racia

Dacia.

71

Ventzislav Dintchev
,

n n

Vl

. (.

(.

Diocletianopolis

1).

2).

n . n n

. 1

5 (+/- 1) ,

..

4 6 ;

:>.i

( +/- 1.5)

, . .

8.5

11 .5 ;

:-.t - (+/..

- 1

3)

Messembria

IV

n n

Vl

171i ( .
n

27 33 .

Messembria.

Dacia

2).

111racia

n n

. n

n n

Singidumm;,

Aquae, Oescus, No1ae, Doclea,

Traianopolis, Nicopolis ad lstrum, Naissus, Durostorn, Maroneia, Horreum Margi, Nicopolis ad Nestum, Tropaeum Traiani . .

n n

.
n-

IV

n,

n n

n-

171i

Dacia

IV

111

. 70-

. n nn.

Oescus No1ae ( . 1).

. n

n,

n .

Serdica, Pbllippopolis, Marcianopolis, Tomis, Augusta

Traiana, Odessos, Scupi, Scodra, Ulpiana, Ratiaria,
Dionysopolis, Viminacium, Pautalia . .

n .

, n

70-

. n .

IV

, n

Ratiaria-

111

Serdica, Tomis,

n,

n nn

n (.

V . Nicopolis ad lstrum n

Singidunum.

Vl

JL1o

V-Vl

. n

- (.

2).

, ,

. -

n -, .

! .

Viminacin.

IV

. n

1).

Vl

V . Serdica

Vl .
Ulpiana, Dionysopolis, Pautalia (. 2).
n Vl . Pllilippopolis

111- n n
IV . -Iblda, Bononia,

n ,

Zaldapa, Abritus,
(Zetnoukortu ?) (.

, n n

1). n

. :.! n

t_erminus post quem n Acrae castellum .

Vl

Scupi

Eudoxiopolis,

IV . n
Kojux .

ZikMe1a (. 2).

Vl

(364-378)

V -

Vl

. n

, n-

n,

72

Grazhdani

Bononia (. 2).
Messembria,

Classification of the Late Antique Cities in the Dioceses of Thracia and Dacia
1rn

Apollonia 1-IV . . .
IV . ,
- Sozopo/is,
hracia (. 2).

V . - Singidunum

Nicopolis ad Istrum

. ,

.

, -

Istros, Bizye, Remesiana, Bargala (. 2).

lstros

Remesiana

Bargala

111

Bizye,

, ..

(.

hracia

Dacia

IV

).

Scytllia,

IV

1).

(1-III

VII .
III -

Dacia Ripensis, Moesia Inferior

(.

1).

- Augusta
IV .

Trai/Smarisca.

Tzoides,

Coi!Stantia

,1 (.
:~

IV

1).

IV

Dacia

(.

2).

111racia

Dacia,

, / .

lustiniana Prima.

( .

Iustinna

Prima

2).

Tl1racia

Dacia

,
.

111racia

Dacia

Dr. Ventzislav Dinthcev

Archaeological Institute and Museum
2 Saboma str.
BG-1 Sofia

73