I 1997 3

ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA
L

OF CONENTS

Articles
Slavchev, V.: The Links between Dobrudja and the Forest-Steppe Zone of Eastern
Europe during the Middle Eneolitblc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Nenov, V.: Roman Military Diploma from Mauretania Tingitana Foun-d in Northern
Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sto_.."anov,

1 Stoyanova, D.: The Tolos of Odessos

15

22

Gevrgiev, .: Klinedeckel aus Tlacia und Moesia- stilistische Einfli.iesse und

Prohleme der Produktion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . 34

Andreeva, L.: Petrographische Untersuchung der Marmore aus dem Grabgewolbe

beim Dorfe Banja, Bezirk Pazardshik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .

. . 46

Cherneva-Tilkian, S. : Little Known Bust-Weight ofPulcheria from Philippopolis

(present-day Plovdiv), Southern Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

Dintchev, V.: Zikideva - an Example of Early-Byzantine Urbanism in the Balkans

54

Torbatov, S.: Quaestura Exercitus : Moesia Secunda and Scyt11ia under Justinian

78

Kondova, N. 1 Cholakov, S.: Europeidity and Mongoloidity on the Territory of

Medieval Bulgaria . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . .. . . . . 88
Reviews
Poulter, .: Nicopolis ad Istrum: Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City
(Excavations 1985-1992). London 1995. (Dintchev, V.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Ncws
Kabaktschieva, G.: XVII.

Li~s-Kongress

in Salau, Rumiinien

105

Editor: Dr. Lyudmil Ferdinandov VAGALINSKI

ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA is four-monthjournal (thrice year) which presents publishing forum for research in archaeology in the widest sense ofthe word. There are no restrictions for time and territory.
Objective: interdisciplinary research of archaeology.
Contents : articles, reviews and news.
Languages: English, German and French.
Intended 1eaders: Scholars a11d students of the following fields: Archaeology. Nun1ismatics.
Epigraphy, Ancient History, Medieval History, Oriental Studies, Pre- and Early History, Byzantine Studies, Anthropology, Palaeobotany, Archaeozoology, History of Religion, Architecture, Technology, Medicine, Sociology etc.
011 the cover: Artificial deformed skull from Vidin (NW Bulgaria), 8th

AD . Photo Svetomir Rusev.

ISSN 1310-9537

Arch. Bulgarica

1997

54-77

Sofia

ZIKIDEVA - AN EXAMPLE OF EARL BYZANTINE URBANISM

IN BALKANS
VENZISLAV DINTCEV

The main objective of the long years of ar- hances its prestige of centre of first-rate imchaeological excavations at the Tsarevets Hill portance in the norther part of the Peninsula.
near the preset-day town of Veliko Turnovo The town Tsarevets is also one of the t'e\v
(Fig. 1) has been the unearthing ofthe remains .c entres i this large territory whose fuction
of the medieval Bulgaria capital . The re- ig in the 7th cetury has been prove.
mais of the Early Byzantie town centre lying below have still in the periphery of
EARLIEST DA ING OF EARL
the research interest here. The results of their
BYZANINE TOWN
investigatio for the time being boil down to
After the d of the Iron Age, life on the
just few pulications individual sections
Tsarevets
Hill resumed in the 4th cetury. The
of the fortress and on separate monuments or
late
Roman
cetre of population l1ere was
finds from the interior. few generalising articles have also been pulished, but they are common village (vicus, kome). Its fate during
relativ.ely limited i volume and i the rage the 5th century up ntil the rule of Emperot
of prolems they cover ( 1986, 35- Anastasius 1 has not been clarified so t'at ,
since information and material from tl1at pe58; Pissarev 1990, 875-882; 1994,
riod, generally, are still extremely scaty. The
21-28).
earliest finds with precise dating in tl1e variThe excellent defence i terms of nature
ous compounds and buildings of tl1e l
and fortificatio structures, the cosiderale
Byzantine urban structure have been cois ot
populatio for the Early Byzantine Age
Emperor Aastasius 1. Therefore today
(; late 4th - early 7th century) and the
agree to the reseachers' view, wl refet
great nr of samples of represetative
the emergence ofthe fortified town to tl1e late
pulic d housig architecture define the
5th-early 6th century ( 1973, 332- 333;
town on top the Tsarevets Hill as important
1980, 13; 1986, 43, 57; 1974, 179;
cetre t only within the Moesia Inj'erior
1977, 48; / 1978, 12,36;
province of the Thracia diocese, but also for
/
1986, 9; Pissarev 1990, 876/
the Balkan domais ofthe Empire, in geeral.
Among the ewly estalished towns i the
here, the one on top the Tsarevets Hill
TOPOGRAPHY, AREA AND
was amog the largest in terms of space and
FORIFICATJON
demography. When compared, for instance,
Tsarevets is in the eastern part of \Vhnt is
with the well-kown Iustiniana Prima,
founded Emperor Justinian 1 to capital today Veliko Turnovo. lt is rocky elevation
of the Illyricum Prefecture 1 , it has nearly - 252 m above sea level, with peninsula
three times larger area within its protective situation among the meanders of tl1e t
River (Fig. 2). It l1as well delineated tocky
fortificatios. The circumstance that the town
was also the ucleus of large-scale agglo- ridge in irregular shape reselig ttia
meration of cetres of population further - gle, and vertical slopes. lt is accessile l
1

Iust. Nov., Xl , CXXXI ; Proc., Dc acdif., IV, 1 ( 1959,47-49,71, 156- 157). The area of lustiniana 1i
protectcd solid fortification- tltc so-callcd "uppcr to\vrt", including tltc acropolis d tltc bislp 's
corpollnd artd thc so-called "lower town"- anunts to total of 7,25 ltectares (Bavartt 1984, 273- 285 ).
rcliay

Tlte characteristic fcatllres oftlte Late Roman settlerertt artd the qtrestions concerning tlte initial date oftltc EarJy
Byzantine towrt 011 Tsarevets we have been discussed in greater detail in another study handed for pLriicatiort
(rrr, n n).

54

Zikideva-

Example oj'Ear/y Byzantine Urbanism ...

from the south-west arrow rocky isthmus (Fig. 2, 3). lts crest extends from the top
to its norther sectio, know as Lobnata
Skala. The crest has flat surface d getle
slope to tl1e orth. The rest of the e1evatio to
the periphery of its rocky ridge is terrai of
well-expressed 1owering to the west, east d
south. exceptio is the rock p1atform i its
south-wester sectio t to the conectio
with the isthmus. Be1ow the vertica1 s1opes
there are river terraces, 1imited i area.
d the opposite k ofthe Yatra river e1evatios with simi1ar geomorpho1ogy to that of
Tsarevets rise i all directios (Fig. 2).
build on terrain of an express disp1acement, as the terrain of Tsarevets is in its
ajor part, requires pre1iminary preparatory
work d the use of back-up techiques. During the costructio of the tow of the ,
the cutting and artificia1 terracing ofthe rocky
groud was extesive1y app1ied; supportig
walls were built, as well as flyig buttresses,
etc. The terrai determied the kid of fortress d the etwork of streets, the ature of
the water supp1y d sewerage systems. The
desig so1utios of the idividua1 architectural compouds had coformed to the
terrai. The coditions of the terrai also
large1y predetermied the space patter ofthe
tow from the . lt should poited out,
however, that the selectio of Tsarevets to
the site of w tow was deliberate, made i
coformity with the w treds i urbaism.
The tow on Tsarevets Hill is the ideal example
illustratig these treds, icludig the tred of
paramout importace - the requiremet of
atural defesibility d iaccessibi1ity.

The area of the fortified Tsarevets durig

the Bulgaria Middle Ages has been calcu1ated to have covered 21,4 hectares (
1979, 48-49). I view of the overlapping of
the Early Byzatie fortress wall d the Medieval fortress wall, estaiished i various
sectios, with the exceptio of the sectio of
the w medieval gates, erected i frot ofthe
Early Byzatie gate, it assumed that
the fortified area of the tow from the
was about 21 hectares.

The fortress wall follows throughout

the periphery of the rocky ridge of Tsarevets
and rests on the rock itself (Fig. 3, 4, 5, 13).
lt was built ofbroke stoe d ortar. There
are differeces i the layout of the frots d
i the thickess of its idividual sectios:
from opus quadratum d thickess of 2,4 m
at the mai gate to the s of specific
face masory d thickness of 1,25 m at the
souther sectio of the easter curtain
( 1936, 390; /
1962,66-67; 1966,12-13, 16; 1986,
47,50; 1984, 132-133; 1985, 203204; Pissarev 1990, 876; 1992, 39-48,
53-54, 70; 1992, 160;
1994, 23-24). No later periods of costruction
or repair have idetified i the remains
ofthe fortress wall that have survived. 'Consequetly, the differeces idicated have been
due to the locatio d importace of the individual sectios, d to the edeavous fot
the faster completio of the fotification system as whole. It assumed, however,
that the costructio of the fortress had been
loger process, whereby it was precisely the
edeavour for its faster comp1etio d for
makig savigs i fuds d materials tl1at
had the cause uderlyig the differences
i the costructio ofthe sections built last. Jt
assumed, for istace, that the souther
sectio ofthe easter curtai \vas ofthose
built last.
The mai tow gate of the was i the
south-western part of the fortress, the side
of its l accessible part (Fig. 3/1 ). 11 gate
has prqpugnaculum with dimesions of 11
6 m the iside and with two etrances. The
exteral tr was with cataract, and the
interal with two-leafed door. Risig above
the propugnaculum was gate tower, accessible via exteral staircase, leaig onto the
souther fortress wall (Fig. 4). strog tower
i irregular shape approximatig triagle
was built to the north i direct proximity to
the gates. The tower butted out about 16 in
front of the face of the gates (Fig. 4). The
faces of the tower walls, in the same way as
those of the gates, are also of quadratum
sr. The thickess of the tower wall most
55

Ventzislav Dintchev
vulnerale

in case of an attack reaches 2,85 m

1966, 12-14, 17; 1986, 47;
1982, 40; 1992, 51-62).
point of special importance for the defence
ofthe town was also the south-eastern corner of its fortification system (Fig. 3/2). The
rocky ridge of Tsarevets is lowest there. For
that reason an angular tower was built here,
an insignificant part of which has survived to
this day. Alongside the internal face of the
southern fortress wall, the foundation has
unearthed of the staircase (Fig. 5) securing access to the tower ( 1992, 20, 39,
41; cf. also 1936, 382-383;
1994, 23).
town gate from the has also
t"ound at the cetral section ofthe wester fortress wall, alongside the gate described above.
It "had one door and was probaly locked
horizontal wooden beam" ( 1992,
160). So far there has been no further information about any other gates. smaller entrace- postern gate - is supposed to have
existed in the orthern sectio of the western
fortress wall ( 1977, 116). Poster
gates may also have existed i other sectors of
the fortress.
(

NETWOR

OF STREETS, W TER
SUPPL AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS

In pulications about Tsarevets that have

come out so far there are data of square
from the . Such square may have existed in the south-easter part of the fortified
area, on the rock platform directly behind the
main gates d the basilica next to it (Fig. 3, 4).
Had that square existed ideed, however, it
would have been quite limited in size and
\vould have had importace for 1ocal commuicatios l .

Tl1e s of sizeale representative

square is indicative ofthe tow discussed and
of the trends i provincial Early Byzantine
tow-planing, i geeral . The Romanforum,
d the Greek agora, respectively was notjust
elemet of commuicatios, but ucleus
of the it town structure, where pulic
life concetrated and which was the symbol
ofthe town's autoomy. In the town from the
56

on Tsarevets precisely the need ot" sucl1

structural nucleus had dropped out.
Orthogonal planning is not characteristic
of the town Tsarevets, eithei". Elements of such planning have only been tound
i its religious centre. \\' streets wide "up to
7 m" cross at right angle and set apart the monastery compound to the north and to the west
(Fig. 8). Another street with north-south orientation and width of 1,55 m separated the
church with its mortuary from the peristyle
building and reached, probaly at right angle,
to the street north of the monastery (Fig. 9).
These streets have been followed only around
the representative compounds mentioned
(Fig. 3/4-6). Their lengths did not probaiy
exceed consideraly the lengths ofthe facades
of the former, i.e. the streets referred t.o had
loca1 importance and cottld not assumed to
have been major compoets of the town et
work of streets. The streets t to the o
astery compound were paved with "smaJJ
stoes and great number of particles f'ro
bricks and tiles". The street between the peristyle building and the compound with the
mortuary was covered stone slabs
( 1962, 25; 1973, 274; 1986, 46, 51,
53, 56).
One of the more importat communications i n the was no doubt "the alley ,
leading to the gates" in the centra1 sectol" of
the western fortress wall. The orientation ot
that "alley" or street in its section at the gate
does t coicide with the logitudinal axis ot
the latter. the north, the street reached tl1e
building housing the setries at the gate.
the east, the street was restricted " scparate wall", constructively linked to the soutller facade of the buildig and contiued f'or
further 26 m southwards (Fig. 12). The waJJ
quoted "is parallel to the fortress \val\ and encloses space 13 m wide, leading from the
central parts of the hill to the gate" (
1992, 160, 161). For the time being there ls
not other iformation regarding the
layout of the street.
There are mostly indirect data about the
etwork of streets i the other sectors of thc
fortified area. For instance, i the \vestern pal"t

Zikideva-

Example oj'Early Byzantine Urbanism ...

of Tsarevets agai, the existece has assumed of streets, approximately parallel to the
fortress wall, built various heights the
separate rock terraces. The width of of
them has detennied to "from 7 to 8 m".
idicatio of their existece has the
geeral arragemet of the buildigs u
earthed here (Fig . 14). Sice the location of
the buildigs has coformed to the horizotal lies of the ti, the roadways follow their outlines {-
1983, 20-21 ). aalogous arragemet of
buildigs has also foud i the souther
part of Tsarevets ( 1984, 129-130;
1986, 13 7; 1986, 145). Similar streets therefore expected here.
The buildigs terrace are at some
distance from the other (cf. Fig. 3, 13, 14).
This, in tur, presupposes the existece of
streets or passages, located crosswise to the
horizotals of the terrai, which were
tig buildigs from differet terraces. I
the sectios with steeper icliatio, stairs
were probaly cut ito the rock. Such staircase, "shaped out oflarge flat stoes", 2,90 m
wide, has uearthed i the orth-wester
part of Tsarevets. lt is assumed to have seced the access to the supposed poster gate
i the respective sectio of the fortress \Vall
( 1977, 116). Most of the streets
alog the built slopes of the fortified area
have pavemet, their surface beig the
atural rock. At some places stoe slab pavemets have also uearthed {
1989, 156; - 1983,
16). It is 110t sure, however, whether they covered fully the respective street roadways, or
were l limited to the etraces of the
bi1digs d aroud them.
J view of the priciple of ftctioig d
the scheme of the lig, the street etwork
of the top Tsarevets Hill teta
tively described as cocetric-radial. lts
look d specific features have fully determied the terrai coditios. What is
characteristic of the tow uder discussio at
its very emergece, is the s of intervallum, of uiterrupted rigroad alog its
fortress wall.

No water supply systems from the

have so far idetified withi the fortified
area of Tsarevets. Water reservoirs, built of
masory or faced with bricks d plastered
with hydrophobic morta1 have been foud at
some of the more represetative buildigs in
the cetral d orthern part of the elevation
(Fig. 3/4, 3/l d Fig. 8). They are small i
size d had served l tl1e buildigs to
which they had built ( 1973,
303-305, 307-308; 1977, 114).
exceptio is vaulted cistern, approximately
sized 11 5,5 m, foud at the architectural
compoud i the orther part of Tsarevets
(Fig. 3/7 d Fig. 7/1). lt was probaty used
t l those livig i the compoud . lts
presece is evidence of the latter' s pulic
character ( 1979, 34-35 , 40 ;
1986, 54).
For the time beig the question ofthe
water supply of the ordiary housig districts
withi the fortified tow area remains .
I view of the closeess of the Yatra River
(Fig. 2) it may assumed that tl1eir ihabi
tats had used its waters for household p
poses, probaly fetchig water in vessels
d water bags.
Caals of limited 1egth have unearthed at various places on Tsarevets Hill,
liked with individual buildigs or architecutral compounds from the . They all lve
defied as "water-catchment canals ",
which served to lead the atmospheric waters
to the nearby street ( 1973, 277, 300301, 318; 1982, 82;
1983, 18) . For the time being
there is no avai1able data about any main
water catchment canals. Such canals had
probaiy not been built. Their functions in the
Eearly Byzantine town were taken over the
steep radial streets. Their use as open air caals presupposes the existece of openigs in
the fortress curtains for the draiage ofwater.
The simplified sewerage system created problems for those living in the lower altitude sectors ofthe fortified area. That is why measures
were applied here to protect the buildings
from flooding. lt has been found out, for i
stance, that the exteral walls of the n
57

Ventzis/av Dintchev

houses in the southern part ofTsarevets "were

faced with upright stone slabs" with the purpose of protecting their foundations from
flooding ( 1986, 137).
PUBLIC AND PRIVA

ARCHIECTURE

Remains of an Early Byzantine basilica

with narthex and semicircular apse have
been unearthed on top Tsarevets Hill, below
the medieval patriarchy. The basilica has dimensions of 22,8 12m (Fig. 3/3 and Fig. 6).
lts foundations are of broken stone and mortar.
Their thickness in front is 1,15 m and 1,25 m in
the apse. They are reinforced flying buttreses from the outside. The walls were probaly
in opus mixtum. foundation of staircase
l~ading to "the gallery over the narthex" has
been unearthed in the western end of the
northern v. staircase is supposed to have
existed in front ofthe western facade, leading
to the main entrance and cut into the steep
slope. The brick floor of building has been
uncovered next to the southern facade, which
has been assumed to have been baptistry
(Fig. 6). The grave of high-ranking clergyman has been found outside, close to the apse.
The construction of the basilica has been
dated to the period of emergence ofthe Early
Byzantine town ( 1980, 10-15; 1986,
54-55).
The researcher of the above-mentioned
church describes it as " small three-nave basilica, servicing those living in the highest
part of the town" ( 1980, 1 0- 15;
1986, 54). In our view, this is not an ordinary
neighbourhood church. In size it can referred to the medium-sized Early Byzantine
religious buildings of the respective type. But
what is more iportant in this case is that the
basilica on top Tsarevets Hill could not have
possily been made larger, because of the terrain conditions. The same refers, the way,
also to the medieval patriarchal church which
generally coincides in its outside outlines and

dimensions with the Early Byzantine one

(Fig. 6). lts central location dominating the
whole town predetermines the special importance ofthat basilica (Fig. 3/3 ). proof ofthis
is also its extremely solid constrttction. Another proof is also its impressive volume,
which has been evinced the considerae
width of its central nave3 . In charge of the
church service here was probaly high-ranking clergyman in the town's church hierarchy .
In view of the justified assumption that the
town ofthe on top Tsarevets had been
bishopric, that person must have been the
ishop.

The largest architectural compound of the

Early Byzantine town (Fig. 3/4) has been investigated approximately in the geometrical
centre ofTsarevets. lts total area is about 3,54 decares. In its final appearance it included
religious building, premises and installations, functionally connected and grouped
around it, as well as big housing building. lt
was set apart to the north and to the west
the streets, earlier described, intersecting at
right angle, and its facade was laid out with
colonnades. the south and to the east its
boundaries were determined the situation
of the buildings included in it. Their overall
planning is assymetrical, determined the
terrain conditions (Fig. 8). Two basic periods
have been estalished in the development of
the compound. At first one-nave church with
narthex and pentagonal apse was built in
the late 5th and early 6th century, with dimensions of 27,85 10,60 m. lt was built with
mortar. Soon afterwards most of' the premises
and installations, connected with and grouped
around the church were also built. They were
made out of stone and clay solution and md
bricks. Construction seems to have carried out in that period in the sot1th-eastern
group of the compound, too. The latter acquired its final appearance with the reconstruction ofthe religious building into threenave basilica and with the construction of the

3 Whercas the width of the basilica's central nave is 6,40 m, the width of its lateral naves are just 0,90 m \1
( 1980, 10). The sma\1 width of the \ateral aves is challenge to their ormal usagc during churcl1
scrvice. ln any case, this dcsign solution had definite\y been condicive to the monumental vicw of the basilica,
because it is precisely the central nave that makes up the basic volume ir\ this kind of buildings.

58

Zikideva ig

Example oj" Ear/y Byzantine Urbanism ...

two-storied building south of it (Fig. 8),

i.e. during the second main period in its development4. The basilica has narthex and
semi-circular apse and is with dimensions 35
18,5 m. lt has colonnade-architrave design.
The naves in the naos had been divided
marle banisters. The apse was with threestep synthrone and presbitery. In front of it
rose ciborium and an alter fence . The floor
ofthe basilica was ofbricks, arranged in various geometrical patterns. The housing building was designed in the shape of rhombus
with dimensions 31 15m. lt consisted offive
rooms arranged in chain and covered corridor to the west , inbuilt in whose northern
end was water reservoir. The ground floors
ofthe premises were valted. There is courtyard i 11 front of the western facade of the
building with the entrance, confined fen cing wall and probaly farm premises. There
is common space of stone-flagged courtyard
between the housing building and the basilica.
The walls ofthe two buildings are in opus mixtum with mortar. later period of construction without any alterations in the design has
also been identified in the basilica (
1973 , 271 - 337; 1986, 50-53 ; /
1978, 15, 36; Pissarev 1990, 878).
The interpretation of the compound described arouses induitaie interest. Some
authors define it as ishop's seat, and the
three-nave churcl1 as ishopric church, respectively, the two-storied housing building
is thought to have been the dwelling of the
ishop ( 1973, 319, 332, 336; 1986, 53;
1974, 58; Pissarev 1990, 878). According to another researcher's view, this is
nnastery compound, which had at the same
time served as tl1e residence of the bishop
( 1988, 21 - 22).
Those upl10lding the thesis identifying the
compound with "the seat of the ishop" bring
forward as evidence the cl1aracteristics of the
4

1ater basilica: its great size, the existence of

synthrone, presitery, ciborium, etc. The
elements listed, however, are not always
indication directly associating given religious building with the bishop. ln our view, of
determining importance in the elucidation of
the character of the entire compound is the
two-story housing building. According to the
above thesis, precisely this must have been
the residence ofthe ishop. But lacking in this
building are number of components, typical
of representative residence from the hall for formal receptions, section with
baths, etc. The rooms arranged in chain here
are rather testimony of inhait.ants who were
with identical social status (Fig. 8). Therefore
the design of the buiJding corresponds better
to the requirements of monastery hostel than
to the requirements of representative residence. This more likeJy interpretation presents the greater Jikelihood ofthe entire co
pound as being monastery. Since there was
bishop in the town, the monastery would ,
naturaHy, have been under his subordinatio ,
whereas the monastery church - the basilica,
would have been attended and suited to
correspond to the visits of the ishop .
the north ofthe monastery and the street
flanking it, another religious compotd frorn
the has also been unearthed (Fig. 3/5).
Occupying pride of place in it is one-nave
church and semicircular apse - dimensions
12,8 7,7 m, and building with cross-like
pJan - dimensions 14 13,35 m, conecte d
with the southem facade ofthe church (Fig. 9).
The cross-shaped building, where " sma\1
hiding place of two chambers" has uncovered has been identified with martyrium .
The foundations ofboth buildings are ofstoe
and clay mixture.Their walls are in opus mixtum, but whereas mortar has been usecl in the
church, in the martyrium the inding rnixture
is of clay. There are collonades with Corin-

According to thc rescarcher, thc compound "had been conceived and planned as an intcgral constructio11 i11 thc.:
centrc of the Early Byzantinc town " , whereas " the reconstruction had affected only " its religiou ~ building
( 1973, 334, 336; 1986, 52). The thesis of the emergence of thc compound in final form i 011 go ,
however, ls not 11 borne out the concrete data prescnted and runs co11ter to some private inferenccs d
the author about thc chronology of its individual components. We have dwelt i grcatcr dctail tl1i s mattcr
i study in print (, n n) .

59

Ventzislav Dintcllel'

thian capitais i front of the wester facades

of the buiidings, and with floor of bricks,
arranged in \'arious geometricai patterns. The
compound includes courtyard space with
fecing waH, whose outlines have not been
specified. The courtyard is paved "with large
limestone slabs" . Other buildings are expected to ucovered around the two central
buildigs . premise, defied as baptistry, has
been studied betwee the church's southern
waH and the western shoulder of the martyrium. The building of the compound has
geeraHy been dated to the iate 5tl1- 6th century ( 1962, 23- 25; 1973, 274; 1986, 53).
The mortuary function of the cross-shaped
buildig predetermines the specific nature of
the compound and its special place in the
tow ' s religious and sociallife. There seem to
have been separate stages in its costruction
d functioig, too. For instance, later reconstructio of the church on earlier foundatios may assumed.
represetative peristyle building (Fig.
3/6) has been investigated west of tl1e compound with the mortuary and orth and northwest ofthe monastery. lt had been built on the
site ofan earlier building from the , about
which there is information. For the time
being, there has not yet been an exhaustive
pulication the peristyle building itself,
either. lts entrance "built out of monolithic
limestoe \ocks" faces east, from the side of
t-he street in front of the monumental western
facade of the compound with the mortuary
(Fig. 9). An impluvium with colonnade has
beenappointed i its inner courtyard connected with the etrance corridor (Fig.
10). The building had been two-storied. Some
of the ground floor rooms seem to have been
vaulted. Buildings with rooms arranged in
chai are situated to the nortl1 and to the south
of the peristyle building, separated from it
with passages (Fig . 3/6 and Fig. 9). They were
built out of stone and clay, mudbricks and "
great quantity of timber" ( 1962, 25;
1986, 53; 1972, 183; /
1978, 12).
Literature presets different views regarding the assignment of the peristyle building.
60

Some authors define it in nst general ters

as representative civil building (/
1978, 12). In one ofthe generalising publications about the town, it is associated with the "city council" and " the defence offices" ( 1986, 53- 54) . Soe
wl1ere else it is identified with "the palace of
the town governor" (/ 1986, 9 ).
The peristyle buildings were generally bilt
for housing purposes. The buildings of the
city councils belong to aother architectural
type. The representativc peristyle buildin g
from Tsarevets had obviously been the dwel.Iing of high-ranking official in the local administration. The flanking buildings wit\1
chains of rooms were probaly functionally
connected with it . They could have
dwellings of subordinates or auxiliary premises. An indication of the destination of tl1e
residential compound is its location a nd its relation to the neighbourig arcl1itectural compounds within the context ofthe overall urba
structure and layout. Its close proximity to the
two religious compounds and its obviou s connection with them, achieved the comon
planning solution ofthis zone ofthe tow give
indications of its belonging. lt is precisely
here that the bishop's residence should
sought.
And so, the central zone of Tsarevets best
suited to construction was occupied major religious centre, including three different ,
but closely interconnected architectural co
pounds: the monastery, the cornpound with
the mortuary and the bishop's residence,
whose stages of development had siilar
chronology (Fig. 3/4, 5, 6). lt is prec isely tl1i s
religious centre which is the nucleus in tl1 e
structure of the early Byzantine town .
Another zone of representative costr c
tion is the northern part of the to\vn ,
which is best protected nature. ajor architectural compound has been located close
to and north of the ishop's residence (Fig .
3/7 and Fig. 7). Situated around " fairly i g
quadrangular building", built with mortal',
were other buildings, "functionally connected
with it, but built using comon bilding
technique" . great water reservoir with

Zikideva -

oi Ear/y Byzantine

cross-shaped vaults carried pilasters and columns with "cone-shaped capitals" (Fig. 7/1) has
been unearthed under the floor of one of the
ooms of the central building. Right to the
west, building with "small-sized rooms" has
partially been unearthed (Fig. 7).1t st have
been baths ( 1979, 34- 35, 40~
1986, 54 ) 5. The poor state of preservation of the remais of the compoud as
whole does t allow greater precisio i the
elucidatio of its desig. The existence ofthe
cistern - the largest i the town fortified
area, is idicatio of its pulic, probaly
residential purpose. Its precise idetificatio
is questionable. view has been voiced that
"the military governor of the tow may have
lived" here (Angelov 1986, 54).

Remains of representative construction

have also been found to the orth-west of the
compoud described, and approximately in
the middle of the norther zone (Fig. 3/8).
Three periods of costruction have n differentiated here. big quadrangular buildingabout 50 20 m was initially put up, \Vith
\Vest-east orientation d apse to the south.
lt was built with mortar. Later new structure
with quadrangular shape, oriented northsouth, with "internal dimensios of 8,60
19,55 m" was built i the eastern part of the
earlier buildig. lt consists of three rooms,
differing in size. " apse was added trom the
east to the northern one". The building technique was again with mortar. There is " spacious courtyard" in front ofthe western facade
ofthe building. What is kown about the third
period of construction is only that there had
new reconstructio ( 1977, 1 18;
1978, 124; 1977, 119; 1978, 125).
Data about the earlier t;ildig assig it
place as one of the most significat structural
uits i the tow i the period of its upsurge 6.
The reduced size d the new design solution
ofthe building from the second period ofconstructio imply new functions. This change
5

Urbanism ...

had probaJy set in after the middle ot' tl1e 6th

century.
The foundations "of two big buildings the first one next to the north-western fortress
wall, the second one - to the eastern" h<1ve
been unearthed in the northern end ofthe fortified area, terrace next to the Lobnata
Skala. The buildings consist of several premises each (Fig. 3/9, /10). They were built with
mortar and had two floors. What is known
aout the first one is that "it had undergone
restructuring, which had entailed partial
modification of its initial design". collective find of iron implements of labour h<ts
unearthed in it. The second building " is
larger, oriented from east to west". masonry
water reservoir has been eartht:d in one of

its premises (

J97,

33-37; I976b,

70; 1977, 114; 1978, 121 ; 1979, 152).

No\v concise data is also availablc t'or
other bui1dings of the in the orthern
part ofTsarevets. Some ofthem were built ot'
stone and mudbricks ( 1973, 336;
1986, 54; n 1973, 78~ 1977,
116; 1977, 119; 1978, 125;
1979, 156). When compared with the buildings within the other housing districts, however, they are distinguished their larger
size and greater number of rooms. For instance, one of the buildings in the northern
part of Tsarevets, in which mortar was
used, has n defined as " big building \vith
four rooms" (n 1977, 1 ) 7).
The individual buildings and arcl1itectural
compounds in the northern prt of the to\vn
cannot identified for sure yet. Obviously,
some of them wcre pulic buildings, inc1uding also residences of p~rsons from the higl1
levels ofthe town administratio. Others were
probably private dwellings ot' wealthier citizens, who could afford to settle in the town
district of best protection a11d highest prcstige .
Apart from the public building in tl1e cel1tral d northern part of Tsarevets, public

1 gratcfully acknowledge rcceiving additional information about the compound from

. Nikolova.

The np\tiished data t tl1e carlier building arc duc to Z.Genova, who had passed a\vay before her ti111t:. 1
hercby ackowledge hcr respon!;iveness.

61

Ventzislav Dintchev

construction from the has also been estaished in its south-western part, t to
what has assumed to have square
the main city gates d the big tower (Fig.
3/11, 12). Remais of three-ave, sigle
apse basilica with three-part narthex and dimesios of 20 14,5 m have uearthed
opposite the entrace ofthe tower (Fig. 4). Its
walls are i opus mixtum with mortar. The
naos is divided two rows ofmasonry bases,
rising on top of which were marle colums
with "pyramidal" capitals. The floor ofthe basilica was covered bricks. vaulted grave,
cut into the rocky ground has uearthed
below the floor of the central nave. The constructio of the basilica is referred to the first
half of -the 6th century. building of stone
and mudbrick masonry and with " heating
furnace" i one of the rooms has studied
next to the fortress wall, between the tower
and the basi1ica (Fig. 4). There is courtyard,
covered stone slabs between that bui1dig,
the entrance facades of the tower and the basilica and the northern wall of the propugnaculum ( 1936, 391 - 392;
1982, 40; 1986, 55; Pissarev 1990,
877; 1992, 62--{)9; 1994, 24).
An opinion has been expressed in literature, that the basi1ica described above served
the popu1ation from the vicinities, who were
not admitted to the interior of the town
( 1992, 69-70; cf. also Pissarev 1990,
877). But religious bui1dig designed for
"the neglected popu1ation" shou1d sought
in the outskirts rather tha behind the main
gate. The 1ocation ofthe basilica and the common courtyard i frot of its main entrance
and the entrace to the tower c1early proves
its fuctional link-up with the fortification
compoud ofthe main tow gate. The basilica
served its defenders. It also "secured" divine
protection of that key poit i the town defences, which comes to exp1ain its solid construction and monumental look.
Three large quadragular buildings with
north-south orietatio (Fig. 3/12) have been
added on the general l, t to the souther
fortress wall d in direct proximity east of
the assumed square. An idepedet buttress62

ig

wall has been unearthed i the passage between the western d the central building . Jt
is supposed to "have borne \voode staiway
betwee the two buildigs". The data pulisl1ed
about the buildings reflect 1 the iitial stage
of their ivestigatio ( 1992, 50- 51).
These may very likely have barracks.
mobile military unit r\ lived i tl1em ,
which secured the defeces of t11e ain tow
gate, if any such d arose.
It is precisely the place d iportance of
the latter that have the cause uderlying
the formatio ofthe z ofthe strongest ili
tary presece i the area of the town i the
south-western part of Tsarevets. Within tl1is
broader context, the functional and ideologica1 tie-up of the basilica, located here, \vith
the defence of the tow, stands out still i
clearly.
Buildings of greater dimensions and nre
so1id costruction have uearthed also
t to other sectors of the fortification system. For instace L-shaped buildig \vith
two rooms (Fig. 3/13) has studied at tl1e
cetral sectio of the \vester fortress \va 11 .
The smaller room is almost rectag1 e. The
bigger is quadragu1ar 7 m wide d probaly more than 10m log (Fig. 11 ). The buildig has two storeys. lts walls of the grod
floor were ofbroke stone and 1, from 0,9
to 1,1 m thick. The upper storey is of ud
bricks. The floor ofthe groud t1oor is of compressed clay. The floor of the second story
was "of closely arraged beams, p1aced
which were big bricks he1d together wit11
clay" (/ 1962, 67- 68).
Aother building, quite simi1ar as building
techique d desig with the one described ,
has studied i the s section oftl1e fortification system, close to tl1e gate oftl1e
estalished here. lt is rectangulat", sized 12
9,6 m, d orieted according to the line of
the Early Byzatine fortress wall (Fig. 12). lt
has three entrances and had upper floor .
Presumaly, "this has been dwelling ot' the
military, who defended one of the most vtiinera l sections of the fortress". The flan ki g
eastern "wall" of "the alley, leading to tl1 e

Zikideva -

Example

. Early

gate" is connected with the southern wall of

the building ( 1992, 160-161).
At the western fortress wall of the
again, south of the remains described above,
the remains of two buildings with several
rooms in cl1ain and stone-mudbrick construction have been partially unearthed. Several bronze objects have been found in one of
the buildings, including " arm of hanging
bronze balance" ( 1992, 71 ).
Remains of"big buildings linked ajoint
to the fortress wall and put up close one to the
other" have been unearthed next to the southern section of the eastern fortress wall. Their
foundations "are of broken stone, and the
walls of mudbricks" (n-
1985, 204).
N ext to the eastern fortress wall again,
north ofthe above-mentioned buildings, parts
have been unearthed of other "at least t\vo or
three Early Byzantine buildings". They were
probaiy built with mortar. Their stratigraphic position makes it possile to refer
them "to second period of construction, probaly during tl1e time of Emperor Justinian 1"
( 1985, 207).
Parts ofbui1dings from the built with
stone and mudbricks have also been found
along tl1e eastern and central sections of the
southern fortress wall (Fig. 13). The floors of
s of them are covered stone slabs
( 1988, 152, 153; 1992, 48-51).
Tl1ere has a1so been short announcement
about building next to the central sector of
the southern fortress wall, whose walls are in
opus mixtum ( 1982, 87).
Some oftl1e buildings listed above are barracks or buildings for the sentry next to more
iportant points of the fortification system.
Along with the building next to the western
gate, the L-shaped building, for instance,
also assumed to have been of military purpose at the central section of the western fortress wall again. Pulic links of economic purposes - \Varehouses and workshops, are also
1ocated a1ongside the fortress walls. The finds
of one of the mentioned buildings with chain
rooms next to the western fortress wall point

Byzantine Urbanism ...

to such purpose. There is also indirect evidence supporting this conclusion. With the
exception of one "workshop processing
bone", unearthed in the south-western part of
the town ( 1982, 82), today otl1er
similar buildings or facilities have
known in the interior of the fortified area, i . .
they shou1d have been concentrated alongside
the fortress walls.
Other buildings have also been unearthed
in the fortified area, outside the zones and districts already discussed, and, judging theii"
size and planning these were not common
households. Such is the building, st1.1died i
close proximity south-west of the onastei"y
compound (Fig. 3/14). lt consists of sevei"al
rooms, grouped in two locks - housing and
economic probaly. lts total area has calcu1ated to about 250 sq. . The construction
is ofbroken stones tied together clay ix
ture and mudbricks. Two columns bui1t in the
same manner have been found i the central
room of the housing section. They are assumed to have carried an upper floor
( 1962, 27-29).
The situation fou11d in one of the southeastern sectors of Tsarevets is important i
view ofthe development ofthe tow strcture
and scheme. " big overhauled b1.1ilding \Vitll
the planning of basi1ica" has unearthed
here. lt has been dated to the late 5th :t the
ear1y 6th century. It had probaly been built
in stone with clay and mudbricks. "Three
buildings ofthe 6th century, destroyed t'i1e
at the beginning ofthe 7th century" have been
pointed out as next stage of construction i
that sector ( 1985, 200; 1986, 145;
1987, 190). In this case there is evidence that
the area occupied ordinary houses was expanded in the 6th century, at least i the southeastern part of Tsarevets, at the expense of
buildings of another type and witl1 other functions.
Households of common folks t'rom tl1e
have studied in the western, soutllern and south-eastern parts of Tsarevets7 . ln
the overall plan, in the central part of tl1e hi 11
between the basilica on the top and the n-

7 Most of the sectors not studied to date are in the easter part of Tsarevcts.

63

Ventzislal' Dintchev

astery, buildings have been indicated, which

were probaly also houses ofthe common folk
( cf. Fig. 3 ). However, no pulished information is availale for them. The domestic buildings of which we have data the terraced slopes between the ridge of the elevation with the representative componds and
the bildings located here, d the western
and sothern fortress walls with the bildings
erected next to them. Thc houses are located
in i11dividual strips on the separate terraces . In
grond plan they are the bildigs with one,
two three parts with qadranglar, often irreglar sltape. Their dimensions vary. The
Jengths of some ofthem in the western part of
Tsarevets, for instance, reach 15 m (Fig. 14).
The foundations and lower walls are ofbroken
stone bond mud or clay. Higher the
walls are of mdbricks . Qite few of the
houses were two-storied. The floors of the
ground rooms were paved with bricks or stone
slabs, or trampled clay. Sometimes the rocky
ground served as floor. "Heating ovens"
have been unearthed in some of the houses.
The roofs and the r floors in the two-storied bildings had wooden constrction. The
roofs were covered tegulae and imbrices.
Bases of columns have been found in some of
the bildings next to their entrances or oter
walls. In this case, this was probaly matter
of wooden columns supporting the upper
floors. Often there are staircases in front of
the entrances. Tl1e walls, exposed to the greatest pressure owing to the sloping terrain, were
reinforced flying bttresses. The step-like
profile of the terrain was skilfully made s
of: the bildings on the lower terrace lean onto
the bank ofthe r terrace and s it as natura1 wall on the respective side (Fig. 14). Part of
the rooms - for instance the grond floors of
the two-storied bi1dings - had economic
functions. In some of the hoses , 1ater bi1d
ing periods have been identified or it has been
estalished that they had been bi1t on top earlier bui1dings of similar plan and similar constrction ( 1976, 72 ; 1984, 129- 130;
- 1978, 118; 1979, 153;
1982,86; 1979, 157-158; 1980,
186; 1981, 109; 1982, 83; 1982, 82;
- 1983, 15-21;
1986, 55; 1986, 137; 1994, 24 ;
1986, 145; Pissarev 1990, 876-877).
64

As this has already been pointed out, th~.:

town ofthe on Tsarevets came into beig
in the late Stlt and early 6th centry. 11 co
ing into being itself covered period of at
least one or two decades and fond expressio
in the constrction of the fortifications, of th~.:
earliest pulic buildings and of part ot' tl1c
houses. In the early years of its existence, the
town had quite few free p1ots of land without
any bildings on them within its fortifie()
area. Even at tltat time, however, zones and
regions of different fnctions and of differet
weight in li life became differentiated .
Sch important components ot its structe
came into being as tlte religios centre, the
district with more represetative administa
tive and private bildings, part oftlte links of
military purpose, etc.
Within the first ha1f of the 6th centy , as
res1t of the growing urban poplatio and
the prosperity ofthe town itself, tl1e free plots
within the fortifications were gradally bt1ilt
. Some ofthe componds and buildigs e
lier t were used without any essential
changes, whereas others were entirely overha1ed. In this way, the middle of the 6tl1
century, nder tl1e rule of Emperor Jstinia 1,
the structre and spatial scheme ot the tO\VIl
acqired their final appearance. The specificity in the fnctiona1 characteristics of tl1e
main town zones and regions became reaffirmed. Commnications within and betweer1
them were carried out via network ot streets,
which owing to the coditions of the terrain
resemled concentric-radial system. An exception is the zone on the levelled out ridge in
the central part ofTsarevets. Here major religious centre took shape after thorogh
overhal, partially conformed to the principles of orthogonal planning, which included
monastery, an individal religios l
with martyrium and bishop's residence
(Fig. 3/4-6). The northern, innermost part of
Tsarevets best protected nature also became established as zone of representative
construction. Most of the bigger compon<ls
here are pulic buildigs, inclding residences of high-ranking representatives of the
local administration (Fig. 317-l 0). The soutl1-

Zikidevawester corer

oj'Ear/y Byzantine Urbanism ...

ofthe fortified area took shape

as the most importat mi1itary zone within the
urban structure (Fig. 3/l, 3/12). The basilica
bui1t here was designed to service the military
and to secure "divine protection" of the main
gate d of t1te city fortress i geeral (Fig.
3/11). Another basilica ofa solid constructio
occupies the top of Tsarevets and a1so p1ayed
an importat role in the spiritua1 1ife of the
town (Fig. 3/3). lt can assumed that the
middle of the 6th century, all fami1iar re1igious buildings were already functioig in
sychrony: the basilicas at the main gate and
on top Tsarevets, the large moastery basilica
d tl1e church with martyriutn 8 . These were
religious liks ofspecific fuctions wit1Ii the
structure d in the spiritual 1ife of the town.
At the same time it may well assumed that
they had been in certai iterrelationship
durig the common re1igious processions each with its place d importace within
the course and order of the latter. The terrai
up to the iteral side of the fortress walls outside of the zoes listed above, was gradually occupied buildigs of primarily military or ecoomic purpose: barracks, sentinel
posts, warehouses, \\'orkshops (Fig. 3, 5, 11,
12, 13). the middle ofthe 6th century, the
terraced slopes of the western, souther d
south-eastern parts of the fortified area were
finally tured into zoes for residential districts ofthe commo folks. Probably, the sector i the central part of Tsarevets, between
the tow's religious centre and the basilica
the top of the hill (Fig. 3) was also occupied
similar households.
l tl1e period followig the rule of emperor
Justiian 1 up util tl1e end ofthe existece of
the town from the , certain changes and
alterations were carried out in individual architectural compounds and buildings. There is
justification to cosider, however, that any
essential cltanges had set in in the town structure and planing as whole.

SUBURBS, NECROPOLISES AND

SA TELLIE SIES

Remains of buildings dated to the

have been partially unearthed in the wester
foot of Tsarevets. These have not received
convincing interpretation so far ( 1980,
95; 1985, 6; 1985, 214; 1988, 42).
For the time being it can only assumed that
with the construction of the fortified town on
Tsarevets, an unfortified suburb emerged i
its western foot.
In the south-eastern foot ot the hi\1, tl1e
foundations have been uneartlted of solid
building from the . lt is assned to have
been Christian basilica, and respectively,
suburb or necropolis of thc town 9 . vaultt::d
"child's tomb" from the ( 1992,
41-43) has been found in this region, close to
the south-eastern angular tower of the fo
tress. The existence of the tomb is proof of
Early Byzantine necropolis i the sot11eastern foot of Tsarevets.
Materials from the 6t1t-7th centuries "scattered in individua1 spots and in the late embankments" ( 1992, 119) have been
found south-west ofTsarevets, in the southern
foot of the rocky strip of lad . Their character
has not been elucidated so far.
the south-east of Tsarevets, located
the opposite bank of the atra River is tl1e
Momina Krepost Hill, familiar also as Devin
grad (Fig. 2). At the end of the 5th - the beginning of the 7th century, there was fortified settlement in the western part of this l1i 11,
satellite of the town on Tsarevets Hill . 1ts
fortification system was similar to that of tl1e
town. The area within the fortifications was
no less than 4- 5 hectares. During limited i
vestigations, foundations and lower parts of
walls of certain nr of housing and economic buildings have been found, built ofbroken stone and mud ( 1910, 124- 127;
1943, 64-70; 1946, 97-10 l;
1982, 40-41; 1986, 43 ). The necropolis of the fortified settlement fro the

8 The istcnce of other cult buildings frotn the Tsarcvcts cannot cxcluded either during frther ivcs
tigations.
9 The iformation is also due to Z.Genova, and 1 again gratefully acknowledgc ltcr contributio .

65

Ventzislav Dintchev
has been investigated on the south-western slope of the Momina Krepost Hill (
/ 1963, 36-38; 1964,
13-14).
the west of Tsarevets, the Trapezitsa
p1ateau-shaped elevation is located on the opposite bank ofthe Yantra River (Fig. 2). Materials from the have also been found
l1ere (/ 1978, 32, 34;
1986, 56), but the nature of the structure from which tltey come l1as not been elucidated for the time being 10.
It can summed up that in the region of
what is today the town of Veliko Turnovo,
there had been major settlement agg1omeration in the . lt incorporated the town centre on Tsarevets Hill \Vith the expected unfortified suburbs at its foot and satellite structures on top the Momina Krepost and Trapezitsa Hills, the former being major fortified
settlement.

PROBLEM CONCERNING FINAL

DATE OF TOWN FROM

It has been assumed historiography that

"the middle of the 7th century was the terminus ante quem to life" of the town on
Tsarevets Hill ( 1973, 271; 1986, 57;
1974, 179; 1977, 48;
1976, 65; 1994, 24; /
1978, 12; Velkov 1995, 494). Ajustificatio
of that is the fact that the latest finds with exact datig, unearthed in different buildings
and at different places in the cu1tural
stratum, are coins ofEmperor Heraclius (610641)11. In the specific pulications and announcements, however, there is no data about
the emissions of these coins.
Several decades ago, collective find was
accidentally unearthed in the vicinities of the
present-day town of Gorna Oryahovitsa, consisting of " dozen or so solids" of "Herac1ius
with Heraclitts Constantine" (

1959, 361). There are no t'urther data about tl1e

find in the short announceent, but in anotl1er
pulication of another nutnismatist, the sol i<ls
are referred to "the first quarter ofthe 7th century" (Jurukova 1969, 263). The hiding ot' the
gold coins at distance of several kilomet1es
away from Tsarevets was caused evet,
which had no doubt exerted influence on the
life of the town itself, too. I view of the political situation in the Balkans i the early l1alf'
ofthe 7th cetury, it can assumed that tlt
event had been one of the two devastating it1vasions of Avars and Slavs in Thrace i11
619 and year 626.
Within the context ofthe data an<l delibcrations presented here, it would logical to associate the abandoning of the town
Tsarevets with one of the above-mentioned
invasions of Avars and Slavs. However, in
one of the latest pulications about Tsarevets
there is information, wltich will very likelybring about change in the tl1esis about the
chronology and more precisely about the final
date of existence ofthe Early Byzantine tow.
This infonation is about " coin of Tiberitts
with Constantine IV (663-681 )", toud in tl1e
south-eastern corner tower of the fortress
from the . lt is explicitly pointed out that
the coin had been found "amidst the ruis"
the tower, "in the upper layer of its interior-"
( 1992, 20, 183). lt therefore has definite stratigraphic position and turs out to
terminus post quem for the upper chronological boundary of the tower, as well as of the
fortress and the urban structure from the
in general on Tsarevets Hill. ln view of this,
the final abandoning of the town can referred to the end of the 7th century. The most
probaie cause for the desertion of the town
seems to have been the advent of the ProtoBulgarians of Khan Asparouh in the nort11eastern Balkan territories of tl1e Empire and

10 some rcsearchers assumed that there had been Early Byzantine Age fortifications on the Trapezitsa Hill. as \vcll
( 1980, 145, 146-147; 1986, 56). The rcgular excavations started herc , 1\0wcvcr. have failc(l
to confirm the existence of one ( 1995, 40-41 ).

11 The inforn1ation puiished about the coins in gencral in the con1pounds and buildigs ha:; been pre:;etc1l
i

66

tl1e study that is in print

(, n ).

Zikidcva -

Examplc o.f"Ear/y Byzantine Urbani:Jm ...

tl1e foundation here in the year 681 ofthe First

Blgarian State. At that time, or little while
later, life the Tsarevets Hill ceased
(/ 1986, 60-61 , 66-67, 79,
t. 25). Since relatively smalJ number of
finds from the have been unearthed during excavations on Tsarevets Hill , "the organised desertion of the town" has n assumed,
after which it had been burnt to the ground
( 1973, 337; 1986, 55; 1976,
70; 1977, 115; 1984, 129-130).
The remains ofthe Roman and Late Roman
town of Nicopolis ad Jsttum are located about
17 km north of the eastern end of what is today
Veliko Tnovo. Owing to their closeness, the
thesis has cropped up in historiography that
the town from the top the Tsarevets
Hill had been continuation ofthe latter, witl1
respect to the m, as weJJ ( 1973,
217' 332, 335-336; 1986, 42-43, 56-57;
1974, 179, not. 6; 1977, 48). Today
it is already clear tl1at the town Tsarevets
Hill has t iherited the name of the it
urba cetre . The oomastic aspect aside,
however, thc idea ot certai cotiuity between Nicopolis ad /strum and the w Early
Byzantie town is 110t groudless.
the mid-5th century, drastic changes set
in i the developmet of Nicopolis ad /strum.
The old fortificatio system was dd.
suburb of stoe and mudbrick buildings appeared amidst the remains ofthe earlier mou
mental compounds d buildings, the site
of the agora icluded. The w fortress what has referred to as castel/um or Nicopolis a(/l~trum 11, had an area of only 5, 74
hectares. Two of the most outstadig buildigs in its iterior- three-nave basilica d
one-nave church, had manner of building,
dimensions and decoration, whicl1 did not assign them place among the more representative samples of the respective architectural types. According to the dated finds, life
was discontinued here at the end of the 6th or
t the very beginnig of tl1e 7th century
(/ 1994, 40-41, ... 144, 159;

Poulter 1995, 34-45; Rousseva-Siokoska

1996, 207, 210-211).
Severa) importat coclusions stand out
from the data presented. lt is indicative that
the emergence of the town top Tsarevets
Hill follows well-neigh directly the drastic
changes in the development of Nicopo/is /
/strum. comparison betwee the to\vn on
top Tsarevets d the Early Byzatine successor of Nicopolis ad lstn1m shows, for its part.
that durig the period oftheir synchronous existece after the d ofthe 5th - the begining
ofthe 6th century, the former was muc~t .ig
ger and more imponant settlement centre than
th~ latter. Accordig to the objective characteristics, the latter was rather fonified nonurban settlement, like, for instance, the
top of the Momina Krepost Hill. Therefore,
with its very appearance, the t\\' on
Tsarevets m the most important centre
in the region ofthe earlier, the Roman and the
Late Roman tow of Nicopo/;s / Jstntm, also
as far as the fortified settlement goes, \vhicl1
was the direct successor of the latter. lt is also
worth poiting out that the town TsareYets
cotiued in existence for early century after the abandonmet of that settlement.
I some of his latest puiications, Prof.
Velkov put forward the hypothesis of identification ofthe tow on Tsarevets and the
synchronous settlement Momina Krepost
with Zikideva, mentioned Procopius (
1988, 76-82; Velkov 1995, 494-495; cf.
also 1994, 25). lte hypothesis is
based liguistic deducing tl1e n Devi
grad (Momia krepost) from tl1e name
ZJKIDEVA, d from the fact that in the list
of "the Thracian fortifications" in De aedijiciis, Zikideva comes next after Nicopolis ,/
/strum - " ... Nt).. Zttef3a . ... " (
1959, 177).
Up until now Zikideva has becn idetifie(l
with Sucida1 (Eutbafla), which is located
the right hand bank ofthe Danube, east of
Durostorum (Besevliev 1970, 141 ), or was
sought along the Yantra River between Nicopolis atllstrum and Iattus (Schreiner 1986,
67

Vcnlzis/av Dintcl1ev

27, 34). These attempts of identification d

localisation of Zikideva have not, however,
been based sure facts, whereas Prof.
Vclkov's happy idea today developed
and backed up new and reliale evidence
in terms of names.
lt is well known that with the estaish
ment of Christianity Nicopolis ad Istrum became one of the bishopric seats of the province of Moesia lnferior. The names oftwo local ishops are also known - Marcellus and
Amantius, registered, respectively for the
years 458 and 518 (Poulter 1995, 17). In its
capacity of bishopric seat, Nicopolis ad Istrum is also oate ofthe seven towns of Moesia
lnferior, registered in the well-known Synecdemus ( 1959, 90). The composition of
Hierocles, dated to the very beginning of the
reign of Emperor Justinian 1 is model and
original source - the only one that has been
preserved to our time, of the making up of tl1e
Notitiae Episcopatuum. ln this case, of particular interest is its comparison witlt the earlier Notitiae than those known today - what
has been referred to as tl1e Pseudo-Epiphanius
List, for instance, dated to tlte time of Emperor Heraclius. Among the towns of Moesia
Inferior, entered in that list, already pointed
out as bislpric centres of the eparchy -

mimontus, the names of two of the towns, il1cluded in the Synecdemus are absent, one bc12
ing that of Nicopolis ad !sflum . The only
new town in the Pseudo-Epiphanius List, not
pointed out in the work of Hierocles, is
Zikideva - presented in the form " ZeJ\el>eacov" ( 1960, 189). 1 towns of
Moesia lnferior are given in the same way with the Haemimontus Eparclty, and in the
following Notitiae Episcopatuum, up to t.hc
9tlt century included 13 . Similarly, instead ot
the name Nikopolis ad Istrum, what is preset
is that of Zikideva - " Z;l'" (
14
1961, 151, 155, 157) . The iclusion i these
lists from the 8th and 9th centuries of the
to\vns of Moesia lnferio, which had been finally lost for the Empire at tl1e end of the 7th
centy, is clear anachronism 15 . In view of
the proiem considered here, however, they
are valuaie source, since they reflect thc
state of tlte church-administratio orgaisa
tion and point out the most outstanding centres in the territory of Moesia lnfetio, in the
period directly preceding its becoming part
of the new Bulgarian state.
The name of Zikideva - in the form
"ZtttPa", is also encountered in Theopltylactus Simokatta's composition Historiae, pllt
together around the end of the reign of Em-

12 From an10ng thc towns of Moesia fn/erior mentioned in Hierocles's Synecdemus, noted in the Pseudo-Epiphai;
List for thc Haemimontus Eparclty arc: Marcianopo/is- as centre of metropolitan; Durostorum. Transmarisca.
Novae and Appiaria- as bishopric seats. The Odessos mentioncd Hieroclcs has been included i thc PsctldoEpipltanius List as ccntre of an autocepltalous arcltishop in tltc eparchy of Moesia ( 1959, 89-90;
1960, 186, 188-189).
13 11 is only i1t \vhat has been referred to as Notifia temp01e lsaurorum scripla, that alongside tlte centrcs, Zikide1:a

included, mentioned as subordinate to the metropolitan of Marcianopolis in the Haemimonlus Eparchy, thcrc is
also information about scparate eparchy of Moesia /, whose metropolitan seat \vas Odessos d whosc is\10pric
scats partially coincide with thosc pointed out for the Haemimontus Eparchy. Among tltc nantcs of the cclttcs
listed for the Moesia 1 Eparchy, the name of Zikideva is missing, but that of Nicopo/is ad /strum is preset (
1960, 194, 196). lt is obvious that the simultaneous presence in this list ofthe Marcianopo/is metropolitan ccntrc
and the Moesia 1 Eparchy, as \vell as the partial overlapping of their seats is indicative of the copilatio of
different sourccs of different date . lt is likewisc evident that the presence in this list of the Moesia 1 Eparchy i:;
due to the earlier document, like, for instance, Hyeroclcs's Synectlemus and is thercfore erroncous and supertltu~
in this case.
14 tn studies so far "v Zr.ehea%(JJ~"f'o ZeeUC(JJ\" trom Notiliae Episcopatuum is not accepted or at least i!:
not acccpted in no unccrtain terms as being identical with Zikideva and it is assumed that these are two differc1tt
centres (Bescvlic\' 1962, 62; 1966, 21 3-214; cf. v.-ith Bcsevliev 1970, 141; cf. also Schreicr 1986, 3 1, 34 ). Tlte
cottfusion is obviously the rcsult of the erroneous localisation of Zikide1a in the studies quoted.
150wing to that rcason, and respectively owing to the anyway ackno\vledged anachronism, tltesc centres wcre 1101

longer i11 the subscquent Notitiae Episcopatuum from the first half of the 1Oth century

68

1961, 158-165 ).

Zikideva -

Example

oi Early Byzantine Urbanism ...

peror Heraclius. Describing the conflict with

the vars at the end of the 6th century, or
more precisely the operations in 597, the
author informs that the Byzantine military
commander Komentiol intended to direct his
troops to Nicopolis ad lstrum - " ... Ttf Nlt ... ", and subsequently entered indeed
Moesia Inferior, but located his camp at
Ziki(/eva - " . .. t TIJ~' MtJo~ t t
Ztl{Ja GK1Jvar; atl\'JrlJ;;ao." (

1959, 345). Besides associating again Nicopolis ad lstrum and Zikideva, the passage quoted
may also accepted as an indication that at the
end of the 6th century Zikideva provided better conditions for the support of an army, i.e.
that it was the more significant centre at that
time.
And so thc order of Nicopolis ad fstrum
and Ziki(/eva in De aedificiis and thc announcement linking them up in Historiae
come to show that they were centres located
in close proximity to each other. The context
of the passage quoted Theophylactus Simokatta and especially the comparison between the Synecdemus ofHierocles and Notitiae Episcopatuum prove that Zikideva had
ousted and succeeded Nicopolis ad /strum as
the most importat cetre in the regio of the

upper d middle reaches ofthe Yantra River.

The complete correspondence ofthe infom
tion from the sources and the archaeolo-.ical
1:>
data about Nicopolis ad lstrum and the tow
from the on Tsarevets Hill, for their part,
leave place for doubt that it was precisely
the latter that was the Zikideva referred to.
The sources - the information about the
above-mentioned Amantius and Hierocles's
Synecdemus, testify to the fact that in the first
half of the 6th century, the ishop i the region still had the title of "ishop of Nicopolis". Proceeding, however, from the comparison between what has been referred to as Nicopolis ad /strum 11 and the Early Byzantie
centre on Tsarevets, assume that fot
the period after the d of the 5th and the beginnig ofthe 6th cetury, the bishops ''"ofNicopolis" had their seat t i the direct topographical successor ofthe anciet Nicopolis ad
lstrum, but i Zikideva. Aroud the middle ot
the 6th cetury durig the decades after d
up to the beginig ofthe 7th century, the title
of the local ishop was conforrned to the realities d durig the reign of Emperor Hcracleus, accordig to the Pseudo-Epiphay
List, it was already "ishop of Zikideva".

69

Ventzislav Dintchev

Fig. 1. h \ocation ofthe Early Byzantine town on the ofthe Balkan Peninsula.

Fig. 2. The region of thc Tsarevets Hill (. to t 986, 20).

70

Zikideva -

Example of Early Byzantine Urbanism ...

50

100

~=:::11- lortress wal

Fig. 3. General map ofthe Early Byzall'----------------------~----_j tine town ( . to 1986, 45).

Fig. 4. The main city gatc and the basi\ica next

to it ( . to 1982, 40, fig. 20).

...............5

ndlng
- - mortar ndlng
~----------------------------~
-

- mud

71

Ventzis/av Dintchev

10

Fig. 5. The
fig. 21 ).

E~rtv Byzantine Age ()

south-easter

corner ofthe fortress

(.

to

1992,40,

--

- rick-covered floor of the uaumed bapti81ery from the

Fig. 6. The basilica below the medieval patriarchal seat

annex 1).

72

(.

to

11r

1980, 8,

Zikideva -

Examp/e

.r/

Byzantine Urbanism .. .

__ _j.
N

:~

tl

,1

'

1-

...............5

Fig . 9 . The religious compound \Vitll tl1c nrtllary atl

thc south-castcrn part of tl1c bisl1opric scat ( . to
1962, 21, pla11 1).

wat reNoir

Fig . 7. Thc i11vcstigatcd parts of tl1e architectural compound with tl1c vaulted \Vatcr reservoir ( . to
1979, 35).

1V

Fig. 1. Thc bishopric scat ( . to / I:ttt

1978, 12).

g-

Ist maln

of constnoc1ion

- - 2nd main d of construc1ion

10

1 - wllt resetVoirs

Fig. 8. Thc Monastery compound (. to 1986, 48).

--

Fig. 11 . One of the buildings ncxt to thc cet1tral sectio11

ofthe western fortress wall ( . to ttr/:t

1962, 65, fig. 12).

73

Ventzislav Dintchev

. _- _1

:_-~

-.

~- .

N
: 1

:
~

1 1
1 1

[1

----

..,.._ .

..

:'fg
'1

1 1

'

li

cr

1 1

!l

11

11
1 1

.~

..

fi

);..-(-1

10

Fig. 12. Tl1e building next to the wcstcrn

town ' s gate and part of thc strcet to the
lattcr ( . to 1992, . 3).

Fig. 14. Hoses in the western part of the fortified to,vn

( . to - \983, 16, . 1).

Fig. 13 . The central part ofthc southern fortress \vall and the buildings unearthed here
50-51 ' fig . 33).
LIST OF

LIERATURE

In:

-, .

et \. (ed.).

r1 . - 11. .

21-28.

, . 1986.
-

34. ln:

, .

r n
r .

et al. (ed.).
1985 .

13 7-138.
, . 1979.
13 .
111 : , ./r, . (ed.).
1978 . . 152-153.
, . 1978. n : 13
- . ln: , ./-

74

( .

to

\992 .

, .

USED

, . \994 .
.

10

(ed.). t 11
1977 . 1. 120-122.
. . 1977. : 13.
ln: , ./ r, . (ed.). Apxeoortrccrt
1976 . . 114- 115 .

, . 1976/ .
.

11

n1111 11

2, 33-37.

, . 1976/ . n -

13-

n n 11.

./, .
n

(ed.). 11
1975 . . 70-71.

In:

11

, . 1976/.
11 ,."
,

4, 65-69.

(VIII-XI 11 . ). -

Zikideva , .

, .

1980.
XII-XJV . . . 3.

1973.

ln:

, .

et al. (ed.).

. . .

1.

259-353.

1966.

. . . u n

1963

oqn.J~rn '

111 , 1- 20.
. . 1962. m
1961 . - 4, 4, 20-30.
. .!, . 1962.

m.

Jt

oqn.Jiffiu

. .

1986.

-...

, .!s, . 1986. 11
. .

ln: , . {ed.).
1. Cotu . 59-81 .

~~

. .

1982. n XXXI . ln:

et aJ. (ed.). opwnt
n 1981 . . 8Cr87.
111. . 1979. D : XXIV.
In: . J. . (ed.). Apxeo.1ontecot
nm 1978 . . 155-156.
. . J 986. - oerr . ln: ln:
, . et al. (ed.). opiiIU
1985 . . 145.
. . 1977.
, .

. .
r. .

1974.

CltJJOH. ln: 015:,

(ed.). Apxeoorotec~CJ~ mpwru
1978 r . - l.S7-15S.

1978.

:t n: ~

r'Jt.

l: J,. J, .

. .

1959. Koen~~RJ~ w 1\I

1956 n 1957 .- nn..,. -r.
, XXJI, 356-366.

. .
.

~:nJ 11 , !t1'

(ed.). 0r~tt
r;n t977 r . - 123-124.
, . 1977. ~D~. ~ : > J'JI.
ln: ., ./,. f'. ted.). ~-:~J
" pa31t"ODDI 1916 . :. r F7- t f R.

1, 57- 72.

. .!, .

1979.

paii 11 n:

11 11 &

f'.)9f r.

./ J'JJi, .

&lt

. .

et al. ted. }.

119.

. .

XXVI,

, .

1992. 0111 . ,.

'\ J -... J: ~ -

ApxeonoreC'JI - pa:coniCII

. .
n

Byzantine Urbanism .. .

1986.

In: , ..(d.) .
l . . 3Cr59.

. .

/ ,r/

rr

Vl .
-
XXIX, 177- 188.
t, . 1972. 11 n 11
. -
XXXIII, 183-187.
. . 1946. . J
1942-1943 .-
(\945/1946) 11 , 1, 9Cr102.
, . 1943.
. - 11 Vll
(1942), 61-71 .
. . 1988 . ZIKIDEBA < SYIDABA = .
? ln: , . ct \. (ed.).

1961. i"',. . et al. (cd.). )!1i

fV . .
! 960. yirle,. . et al. (ed..). prwtt

:!tt

&. "t- .

33 -r IICOpiiJI. .

111. +- J 959. yiiote, . et al. ted.). fpi.DIIDOpl

u IICopu. . 11. +- t 195S).
, . n n. ii:tn

.' . 080. l :
n. ..
JJD, .

1995.

q:n t

: ,.,n.. ( }.

37, 3, 36-42.

1985.
et al. (ed.).
r; 1984 . .

".,-fSt>, .

LXI. ln:

opiiI'I

t, .

203-204.
, . 1984. J 11 , I
LXI. ln: , . et al . (ed.). Jt
1983 r . n. 132-133.
. . 1982.
- XXVIII. ln: , . et al. (cd.).
rJ n 1981 . tl
. 85-86.
-,;, . 1979.
n - XXI . ln: .
./, .

(ed.).

1978. .

. .

153-154.
1978.
: J XXI - . ln: (),
./, . (ed.). 1
1977 . . 118-119.
-. . 1983.
IX . - . 1110m1 . ln: , . et al. (ed.).

1.. . .

ll

76-82.
1992.

11

1969

.). . .

5. 11.

( 196Cr

-. .

. .

11.

, .!.

. .

1.

15-22.
. \994 .

11

\1

75

Ventzis/av Dintchev

1987. 39 tta
ct al. (cd.).
-n 1986 . . 189-190.
111w. . 1986. palltOIIK
39. 1n: , . ct al. (cd.).
~: 1985 .
"1.[1110 . 144-145.
z. . 1985. : ccrrop
XXXIX. ln: , . et al . (ed.).
t 1984 . . 200.
. 1982.
- XXVII . ln: , . et al . (cd.).
: n 1981 .
. 82- 83.
Ko1nzo. 198 1. -
XXVII. ln: . . et al . (ed.).
-ns ~:: -. 1980 . . 108-109.
. . 1980. XXVII. ln:
, ./ l<, . (cd.).
!! : 1979 . . 185- 186.
., . 1980. 11
IIOBJte . ln : n , .
(ed. ). ttn.- . -
u . . 2. . 145- 153.
..1. . 1964.
. - 6, 1,
10- 15.
.f. .!z. . 1963.
K."_,tmo.

~. ln : , .

lt.

5, 1, 34-41.
1982.

(V-X

11

). .

. .

1974.

11

: 11

(1944-1974).-

16, 4, 51-65.

, ./, .

1978. tl
((V-VII ) . .
, . 1988. 38 . 111 :
, . & al. (ed.).
1987 . . 152-153.
. . 1992.

12- 11 .
11 11

Yll, 159-168.
1982.
XXXII . ln: , . et al. (ed.) .
1981 .
. 8\-82.
. . 1977. 11 : 14.
l : , ./ , . (cd.).
1976 . . 1 16.
, . 1985/ . 11 " "
.- 4, 5-1 .
u. .

. . 1985/. "
" .

ln:

""

, .

, .

1980.

et al. (ed.).
1984 . 11. 213-214.

" " .

XXXIII, 83- 98.

76

, .

1977.

1:i.
(ed.). 11
: 1976 . . 1 17.
, . 1973 . 15. 111 :
:, ./ , . (ed .).
1972 . . 77-7 .
, . 193 6. -
"" . - li Yl ( 19321934 ), 381-400.
, . 1988. n
ln:

, ./ , .

1.. -

30, 4, 38-45.
. .

XXXVI . ln:

1984.

, .

et

\. (ed.). 11l\
1983 . . 129-130 .

.-t, .

1978. : .
(cd.). t''
1977 . . 124- 125 .
.", . 1977. : 20.
ln: , ./ u, . (cd .).
nsr 1976 . . 119.
.f'l, . 1976. - 17.
ln: , ./ , . (ed.). 1
n 1975 . . 72-73 .
, . \986. r-
~t . l : , . (cd.). 11
. . 1. . 19- 21.
, . 1979.
.- 24, 2, 34-41.
. . \985 . -
XLIII. ln: , . et \. (ed.).
1984 r. . 206- 207.
t, . 1988. n~1
ln:

, ./ , .

1. .

. .

1979. .- ll
(XIII-XIV ) . .
nu, . 191 . 11 <t r<t

11.-

1, 121-154 .
Bavant, . 1984. La villc d1s de nord dc 1' lllyricum (Pannonic, Mcsie 1, Dacic et Darda11ic). ln: Ville~
et peup\eme11t dans 1' lllyricum protobyzantin. Col\cctio
de 1' Ecole francaisc dc Ronte 77. Paris. 245- 28'1. .
Besevliev, V. 1970. Zur Deutung dcr Kastell11amc11
in Prokops Werk "De aedificiis". Amsterdam.
Besevliev. V. 1966. Les citcs antiqtJes cn Mesic et 11
Tl1racc et \eur sort \' epoque du Haut Moyen agc . Etudes balkaniques 5, 207-220.
Bese1/ie1', V. 1962. Zur Geographic Nordost-Otlgaricns in der Spaetantike td im Mittclaltc- <lii JV, 59-80.
Jurukova. J. 1969. Les i11vasios slavcs <I sud d11
Danube d'apres les tresors monetaires cn Bulgie . Byzantinobulgarica 111, 255-265 .
Pissarev, . 1990. Le systeme de fortificatio 1111
le Danube et les vcrsants nord des Balkans pendat 1'
antiquite tardive. ln: Vettcrs, ./ Kandler, . (cti .). Akten des 14. lnternationa\en Litneskongresses 19~6 i11
Carnuntum. Der roemischc Limes in Oestcrrcich . Hclt
36/2. Wiett. 875-882.

Zikideva -

Example

/ Early

Polllter. . 1995. Nicopolis ad lstrum : Roman ,

Late Roma and Early Byzantine City. London.
Rousseva-Siokoska. L. \996 . Les recherches archeologiques Nicopolis ad lstrum - resultats et proemes
( 1985-1994 ). ln : Petrovi, . (ed.). Roman Limes on the
Middle and Lo"ver Danube . Belgrad. 205-211.
Schreiner. . \986. Staedte und Wegenetz in
Moesicn, Dakien und Thrakien nach dem Zeugnis dcs
Thcophylaktos Simokates. ln : Pillinger, R. (ed.).
Spactantike und fruehbyzantinische K11ltur Bulgaricns
Z\vischen Orient nd Okzidcnt. Wien. 25 - 35 .
Ve/kov. V. 1995. Der Wohnsitz der Gothi minores
(der Wulfilagoten) in Moesien. ln : Fol, . et al . (ed.}.
Studia in honorem Georgii Mihailov. Sofia. 491-496.
Velkov, V. 1977. Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Latc
Antiquity (St11dics and Matcrials). Amstcrdam.
ZIKIDEYA

IIII
I>I

(r)

r113 ()
ll
tt 11

VJ

V-

Jtaanoo 11

VJ

u 11

.,

11 n ,
r n

tta VJ

. CHHXpoHIIO I H'IUC:C'fHH

npxa

nl>p'fa ~t Hi.l

. JJ : Q.~
rr lfiW'l'

. nR. "' ' ~ tf

n J'"-3 no~y 11 011 uu r\:;~

n.c caoe-ro Mllc-to

noc.neiie.

TeJ".'"tttrre

r;n - -.
Jt -

! to

m
o-r

n n" nrrr
- , u. u. ~""f11

( . 3, 5, 1 1, 12. 13).

Vl

..

-rcpat:"f"w

11 :. JQfaa aottrr~;na
-w JI .'tHWHt!

J . 14 ~-

""" ntr n~> n. 8.tt-

:&

OT1>;r;ecsatre-ro 01

~ :rr:.~

81

VJ

- iD np11 tt:

otttntoaroo aceettttc j.

- JI

JIA

Byzantine Urbanism ...

Zilideva. ~ 11 n: 11:1 1\'kl>po/is ad lstrum ZiAit/eva De utttkiis ~JUfH 11..

Historiae rr ~~;:rr L'1, tc- '11:'\
n:&ti J 11 )10 ; 1.

11

naca:&a n11:

11:r.t

n !l -~_." ,._

demus

Notitiae

Epist:opat11m n.

NicOJlis

aJ

Ziloitle-vu

Jstr

G 11 ; \."

'

. .. 1. '-nm nr. ''" tt

. ~ tt

u ~'-- Jl::IHHJJ

r 11

. '

: u :1, ~11

r t , n epe

tta

11n 1- .

Nit:opo/is ad /stru"'

' <~

Zikideva.

n t ,

lr 11

1111 11 ::&

. , 11

11 , 11 r

u, tn

. n

rr nt. ,

, 11

martyriunz
9, 10).

n (.

3/4-6, . 8,

Zikitleva 11 .:
Moesia lnj'erior 11 11J

Thracia,

Zikide,,a

11 r u

11 .

. 1111 n lu .i

tt11 n

niana Prima, tr It
1 11 /vricum , Zikitlcva

11 npcraltatee,
n 11

( .

317-1 ,

7).

R tt

11 n-r11 ,
II<ICTaHT pCCTIIIIII

CCTCCTRetiO

11l1-1 piCKit . n11

11 -
n : i. (.

3/1,3/12, . 4).

3/J 1,

tt

ll<l

.. "

( .

4) . ,

110 tt,

( .

3/3, . 6).

n - . n
, u 11 II
n 11 ,

11 11 11r

u.

Zikille,,a

11

11

rllc.:

1111 ()

.r :.~ 11
n

Vll

Dr. Vetzislav Dintchev

Archaeological lnstitute
2 Saborna str.
BG - 1 Sofia

ud

Mt1scur11

77