Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite: VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni)
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Language: | Bulgarian |
| Published: |
Sofija
Nacionalen Archeologičeski Inst. s Muzej
2009
|
| Series: | Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite
4 |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Item Description: | PST: The Byzantine town and Bulgarian. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Physical Description: | 211 S. Ill., Kt. |
| ISBN: | 9789549388299 |
Staff View
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV037299425 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20140403 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 110324s2009 ab|| |||| 00||| bul d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789549388299 |9 978-954-9388-29-9 | ||
| 020 | |z 9879549388299 |9 987-954-9388-29-9 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)711874076 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV037299425 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a bul | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-Re13 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 6,15 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Aladžov, Andrej |d 20./21. Jh. |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1049558200 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite |b VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) |c Andrej Aladžov |
| 264 | 1 | |a Sofija |b Nacionalen Archeologičeski Inst. s Muzej |c 2009 | |
| 300 | |a 211 S. |b Ill., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite |v 4 | |
| 500 | |a PST: The Byzantine town and Bulgarian. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 600-900 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Stadt |0 (DE-588)4056723-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Bulgarien |0 (DE-588)4008866-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Byzantinisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4009256-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Byzantinisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4009256-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Stadt |0 (DE-588)4056723-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Bulgarien |0 (DE-588)4008866-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Geschichte 600-900 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 810 | 2 | |a Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite |t Disertacii |v 4 |w (DE-604)BV022862779 |9 4 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 307.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09021 |g 398 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 307.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09021 |g 499 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021211858 | |
Record in the Search Index
| _version_ | 1806960786983092224 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
УВОД
.7
ГЛАВА ПЪРВА
.11
Византийският град в диоцезите Тракия и Дакия от края на
VI
век до
681
г. Паметници,
състояние на проучванията.
Континуитет и хиатус
между късноантичната и ранносредновековната
култура в българските земи
ГЛАВА ВТОРА
.85
Културни контакти на прабългарите в Северното Черноморие и Кавказ
ГЛАВА ТРЕТА
.107
Градовете на Балканския полуостров под българска власт
III.
1.
Столицата, аулите и завладените на юг от Балкана градове
.107
III.
2.
Произход на ранносредновековното монументално строителство в България
.139
ГЛАВА ЧЕТВЪРТА
.148
Формиране на ранносредновековната градска култура в България
IV.
1.
Сходства и разлики между градовете на България и Византия. Характерни белези
.148
IV.
2.
Проблемът за града
-
проучвания и теории
.151
ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
.159
SUMMARY
.162
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
.181
СПИСЪК НА ИЛЮСТРАЦИИТЕ
.208
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
.7
CHAPTER 1
.11
The Byzantine town in the Diocese Thrakia and Dakia from the end of the 6th century to
681.
Monuments, state of studies. Continuity and hiatus between Late Antiquity culture and Early Medieval
culture in the Bulgarian lands.
CHAPTER II
.85
Cultural contacts of the Proto-Bulgarians in the Northewrn Black Sea coast and Cauacasus
CHAPTER III
.107
Towns in the Balkan Peninsula under Bulgarian rale
III.
1.
The capital, auls and towns conquered to the south of the Balkan Range
. 107
III.
2.
Origins of Early Medieval monumental constructions in Bulgaria
.139
CHAPTER IV
.148
Formation of Early Medieval urban culture in Bulgaria
IV.
1.
Similarities and differences between towns in Bulgaria and Byzantium. Characteristic
features
.148
IV.
2.
Problems of towns studies and theories on them
.151
CONCLUSION
.159
SUMMARY
.162
BIBLIOGRAPHY
.181
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
.210
THE BYZANTINE TOWN AND BULGARIAN
IN THE 7th -9th CENTURY
(Summary)
INTRODUCTION
The beginnings of medieval urban culture in Bulgaria were laid in the period between
the late 7th and 9th century. It was accompanied by similar urban processes in all territories
of the former Roman Empire. The period when these processes took place has been
described as the transition between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. On the
Balkans the transition was characterized by the end of most towns from Late Antiquity and
the emergence of the first early medieval towns.
The subject of this work is to examine part of the issue of continuity and the hiatus
between the two periods, placing the question of the raise and development of the early
medieval Bulgarian town. In spite of numerous studies of sites of towns from the First
Bulgarian Kingdom, this question has not been examined in particular. Priority in theoretical
studies of monuments from the
8Љ-9Ш
century has been the question of the origins of
monumental early medieval Bulgarian architecture, subject to numerous interpretations.
Regardless of the main concern, shown to
Proto
Bulgarians in the transfer of construction
traditions, none of the expose theses do not touch the subject matter of concrete monuments
of Proto-Bulgarian culture. Publications, which summarize the appearance of the medieval
town, deal above all with sites from the 10th century on, subject to generally accepted
classification, where the town from the 9th century is rarely mentioned with no connection
with the characteristics of the concrete monuments. This has led to the view of the existence
of the non-urban nature of superior settlement units from the 9th century. A detailed analysis
of the final phase in the development of towns in Late Antiquity with a view of the idea
of continuity or absence of continuity between urban town planning in antiquity and the
Middle Ages is also absent in literature.
This study aims to trace the initial stages of the formation of the early medieval town
in Bulgaria. The necessity of such a study stems from the state of research both from a
subject point of view and a theoretical one. The discussion of an absence of continuity
between ancient and medieval towns has also run at a level of a generalized panorama,
where the connection with concrete monuments is somewhat forgotten. In order to avoid
a discrepancy, an overall review of the final phase in the development of towns in Thrace
and
Dacia,
based on field studies has been offered. At the current stage of studies much
information, necessary for the raising of the question of succession has been acquired.
Such aspects vary according to territory and chronology. With a view of the main
parameters of the subject, the principal attention is drawn by monuments, situated in the
territory between the Danube and the Balkan Range, the area where the sense of belonging
162
to a state began, with the rise of new towns towards the end of the 7th century, as a main
emblem. In order to note the elements of the cultural traditions they stand for, above all we
have to establish the absence of continuity with towns, which functioned in the previous
period in the lands, falling in the initial borders of the First Bulgarian Kingdom. After
the beginning of the 9th century these boundaries also expand south of the Balkan Range
(Hemus). The approach to towns in the territories attached additionally was different.
The analysis of the towns in the lands of present day South Bulgaria aims at establishing
separate monuments which could serve as characteristic samples for the approach of
Bulgarians to the heritage they found. This is one of the reasons for the selective approach
in the selection of sites. An overall examination of towns in this territory would alter the
emphasis of the study, which is essential; the emphasis here is above all on the formation
of the first early medieval Bulgarian towns and the environment where they arose.
A new moment in the analysis of the results is their placing in the context of present day
theoretical studies in the subject of the transformation of the Roman world.
One of the greatest difficulties in the search for the origins of Old Bulgarian architecture
is the constant resorting to Old Bulgarian building traditions, with an unclear nature.
Therefore in chapter two an attempt is made to offer concrete formal characteristics of
architectural monuments, associated with the
Proto
Bulgarians. The problems of cultural
influences, exerted over the
Proto
Bulgarians from neighboring cultures are associated
with this problem. The subject is comparatively well studied. Its inclusion here is based on
the necessity of introducing it in the problematic referring to early medieval monumental
architecture in Bulgaria. The subject matter has been examined in numerous theoretical
studies, which so far have not been subjected to a comparative analysis. Namely this
analysis is the main motivation of carrying out this study. The gathering and critical
analysis of ideas already published allows the building up of a broad theoretical basis,
which could be used in future studies on the problem.
The influence of Byzantium on the construction practice and culture of the First Bulgarian
Kingdom has been noted on many occasions. A parallel analysis of the spatial, structural
features of Pliska, the first Bulgarian town, and some well studied contemporary Byzantine
towns have been done in search of proof for this thesis. In this connection an attempt has been
made in clarifying the concept of the town as such, as seen in the first half of the
9*
century,
differing from the idea of the ancient
polis
and the shaped medieval town.
The territorial and chronological framework of this study has been chosen considering
the main aim, to trace the formation of the early medieval town in Bulgaria. The town as a
form of settlement ceased to exist in the
7*
century in the territories, included in the initial
boundaries of the First Bulgarian Kingdom, and reappeared in the beginning of the 9th
century as a product of another culture. The idea of the character of a Bulgarian seat of the
state emerged in the 9th century. In many sections the temporal limits are not kept, owing to
the need of an outline of the events, which had occurred in connection with the subject. This
is also due to the fact that a great part of the period (from the end of the 7th to the end of the
8th century) still remains unconfirmed. The lower chronological limit successively passes
in the first part, as
m
order to describe the final phase of the existence of towns in Late
163
Antiquity and point out the main changes which had set in them during the Early Middle
Ages, their development in the preceding period has to be traced. The period between
the 7th and 9th century is seen as a final stage of the 'Great Migration Period'. The culture
of the
Proto
Bulgarians developed in these conditions and was a substantial part in the
creation of early Bulgarian towns. For Byzantium these are the Dark Ages, when the final
transformation of the Late Antique culture took place. The most important distinguishing
feature of the studied period is its adoption as a border between two historical periods.
From the point of view of territory included are basically the lands of present day
Bulgaria or the diocese of Thracia and
Dacia
from Late Antiquity. The diocese of Thracia
spread from the mouths of the
Vit
Rivers and the Danube, along the Black Sea coast, the
Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea, to the west to the mouth of the
Mesta
River and the
Souki pass. The study examines monuments from the following provinces of the diocese:
Moesia Inferior, Scythia, Haemimontus, Thracia and Rhodopa; and from the diocese
Dacia
-
Dacia Ripensis
and
Dacia Mediterranea,
which include the present day western
Bulgarian lands to the west of the Souki pass. As the present day boundaries were artificial
for the Eastern Empire, in the description of separate towns of Late Antiquity adjacent
sites or sites at a greater distance with similar features have been examined. Parallels
of monuments over the entire Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor and Syria have been cited.
Special attention has been shown the town in the province of Scythia, in connection with
initial settling of
Proto
Bulgarians in this territory. The territorial framework is expanded
in the second part, dealing with the issue of cultural contacts with
Proto
Bulgarians in the
Caucasus and the Northern Black Sea.
The main subject is the study of towns; hence it is necessary to dwell in brief on
the definitions of the concept of 'town', valid respectively for the various periods. In
Late Antiquity the town was a supreme centre of social, political and cultural life, with
commercial, religious, administrative and fiscal functions, and with autonomy, realized by
civil institutions. One of the classifications of towns in the diocese of Thracia and
Dacia,
based on V. Dinchev, follows a form feature the size of the defended area. Through this
criteria they fall in large ones (over
30
ha) medium sized (between
30
and
10
ha) and small
10
and
5
ha). The overall reformation of the Roman world also affected the character of the
towns, with a military administrative and defensive function after the 6th century. Thus the
change in the content of the town remains the same in the Early Middle Ages.
The frequent use of the chronological terms 'Late Antiquity' and 'Early Byzantine'
inevitably requires a more concrete use, according to definitions accepted by historians. The
period between the reign of Emperor Diocletian
(284-305)
and the reign of Emperor Heraclius
(610-641)
is accepted as the period 'Late Antiquity'. This period in line is divided in two,
respectively 'Late Roman' and 'Early Byzantine' the border being
395,
when the Roman
Empire was legally divided in the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.
The methods used are determined by the concrete subject matter, depending on the
physical appearance of the site. Leading are the spatial and structural elements of the
type of settlements. Their formal characteristics are most suitable to be applied in the
comparative and analytical approach. TJie analysis is only based on sufficient data from
164
completely studied archeological monuments. The basic criteria determining the presence
or absence of continuity between settlements from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle
Ages are three concerning topography, structure and urbanization. The decree of concrete
material allows
a stratigraphie
analysis.
CHAPTER I. THE BYZANTINE TOWN IN THE DIOCESES THRACIA AND
DACIA
FROM THE END OF THE 6th CENTURY TO
681
Part one of the chapter traces the development of towns in Late Antiquity within the
period between the 6th and 7th century, based on archeological studies. The summarized
information is seen in the context of contemporary studies of the transformation of the
Roman world.
It is clear from the final analysis, that many similar characteristics can be traced in the
development of the Early Byzantine towns in the Balkan Peninsula throughout the
5Љ-6Ш
century. Round the mid 5th century the natural urbanization process ceased by the invasions
of the Huns. Many of the towns were partially or completely destroyed. One of the towns
which suffered most was Nicopolis ad Istrum, which had been abandoned for a certain
period after particularly destructive inroads of the Huns. The fate of Tsoida, the town of
Late Antiquity at present day Sliven, was similar, where for the time between the mid and
end of the 5th century there was a stratigraphical hiatus in life at the fortress. A break of
life for about
halfa
century has been established in the last strata of period
С
in the Yatrus
castle. The towns in Scythia suffered comparatively less from the inroads of the Huns.
In the subsequent period, between the mid 5th and the beginning of the 6th century,
several tendencies are visible in the construction period of towns in Thracia and
Dacia.
The fortification system began to achieve primary importance. The walls were repaired and
changed; the shape of towers was modified, according to the criteria for effective defense.
Destroyed fortresses were rebuilt, almost without exceptions, according to the established
plan. In many places additional walls were built or proteichisma. In Serdica, after repairs
to the partially destroyed wall, a new one was raised, entirely made of bricks, attached to
the old one. At Ratiaria the wall from the second period was raised higher and repaired.
At Mesambria a new fortification system was built. A little before the mid
5*
century the
fortification system of Constantinople was strengthened by the construction of a new wall,
known as 'Theodosius' wall, which became a model of a new defensive system, whose
efficiency was tested on many occasions over the successive
1000
years. Towards the
middle of the century a new defensive wall was also raised in
Thessaloniki.
What was also
characteristic for the period was the creation of a defended core, citadels in the towns or
small fortifications at the bases of the main fortified area, situated on a naturally defended
relief. In Pautalia, over the Hisarluka hill top, naturally dominating the plain, the site of
the town from the Late Antiquity, a new fortification belt, enclosing the top of the hill was
raised. A new wall was built at Philipopolis within the town from Late Antiquity. Its course
can partly be traced along the wall from Late Hellenistic and from Antiquity, making use
of the favorable configuration of the rocks of the three hills. A citadel was raised in the
165
interior
of Amphipolis. A new fortified core was created at
Thessaloniki
towards the mid 5th
century. Indicative are the new tendencies of town planning adopted in Late Antiquity, as
is the case of Nicopolis ad Istrum, where a large part of the ancient town was abandoned,
without any attempt to restore it. The new fortified area is situated beyond the outlines of
the old town. The wall includes a considerably smaller area, and takes into account above
all the naturally defended sections of the terrain.
There is a decline in the construction of private and public buildings, both in the use
inferior building materials and as a rule the construction of more modest buildings.
After the crisis in the second part of the 5th century, at the end of 5th century and
the beginning of the
б*,
under Anastasius I some towns show an improvement in town
planning. This was the period when the fortress at Sliven was built. At
Istria
this was a
period of flourishing, whose beginnings are noted by the restoration of the fortifications
of the town. At the beginning of the 6th century wide scale construction work also began
at Sakidava. The reign of Athanasius I is also associated at Ratiaria with the restoration
of the residence of the ruler of the province of
Dacia Ripensis.
This was the period of the
rebuilding of the western gate of the city and the brick proteihisma. Several proteihismas
were also built at Sozopolis, Montana, Augusta Traiana, Diocletianopolis, Philippi,
Thessaloniki
and elsewhere. Probably under Anastasius I the defensive wall of the Shumen
fortress was rebuilt. The first coins of Anastasius I have been found on the early Byzantine
town of Tsarevets, hence the foundation of the town, considered a successor of Nicopolis
ad Istrum, is placed during his reign.
Relative flourishing of the towns in the Balkan Peninsula also continued during the
reign of Justinian I
(527-565).
Written sources provide abundant information on the
wide construction activities undertaken by the Emperor. The so called Justinian wall at
Philipopolis is an example of construction periodization. Construction work in connection
with the defensive system was undertaken at Montana. Under Justinian I the towns of Felix
Romuliana
and Naisos were restored. At Singidunum,
Tomi
and Yatrus the fortification
walls were restored. The walls of Sozopolis, Pautalia and elsewhere were changed.
A second wall was raised at
Germania.
One of the large scale building projects under
Justinian was the founding of Justiniana
Prima.
However as a whole, town planning in the
6*
century shows a general decline. Small,
flimsy buildings (half-timbered, frame-built etc.) were constructed; the use of
spolia
is wide spread. Many representative buildings are no longer monumental, some have
been abandoned, or the spaces are partitioned for the uses of dwellings or commercial
purposes. Baths and theatres cease to function and their remains served used as quarries
for construction material. Streets become narrower and parts of their surface become the
ground for the foundation of new buildings, as is the case with Deultum. The strategically
area along the interior face of the wall was turned into a terrain for dwellings, military
structures and storerooms. A good example in this respect is the densely built up fortress at
the Shumen plateau. The same phenomenon is found at Abritus, Sozopolis, and Yatrus.
In this period we find a positive upsurge in the construction of Christian cult buildings.
Churches remain one of the few stractures, which continue to be raised with quality materials
166
and keep their appearance of a representative building, becoming a basic element of the
urban core. There are numerous examples, which need not be enumerated, above all as their
emblematic nature have been subject of detailed studies and theoretical summaries.
The decline in towns of Late Antiquity is subject of considerable discussion in
academic circles. The majority of views are based above all on data from written sources
and comparatively few of the summarizations have been used as part of the arguments
and data, stemming from archeological excavations of concrete sites. Interest towards the
development of towns in Late Antiquity also stems from the fact that they are linked with
the fate of the Empire as a whole. Specialists in the Roman Empire see it as a geographical
mosaic of urban territories. Generally views are grouped around two counter posed points
of view. According to one, in the 7th century there was a total collapse of the ancient urban
organization, which was a logical outcome of the decline, which had already begun as early
in the 5th century of towns. The opponents of this theory express the view, that in spite of the
reduction of urban territories, towns retained their role as administrative seats and centers
of trade and artisans. The position where both cross is quite simple: The Byzantine town
differed from its predecessor, the ancient town. The divisive line was drawn in the reign
of Heraclius, when towns of Late Antiquity, and what remained were fortified villages and
settlements, the most fortified subsequently becoming military and administrative seats,
the core of future medieval towns. Constantinople alone has the identity of a town, yet it is
that of a medieval town, not
a polis
of Late Antiquity.
Among the reasons for the destruction of towns are the natural process of their internal
development, outlining the cycle of birth, flourishing, and death, the decline of the curia in
towns, natural disasters, epidemics, barbaric inroads, and the overall state of the empire.
One of the contemporary supporters of the thesis for the disappearance of ancient urban
civilization is A. P. Kazhdan. His main conclusions are based on observations of coin
circulation from the period, which lead to a conclusion to a total turn to an agrarian
economy, turning towns into villages. In the Balkans the only town which could be
recognized as such a case is
Thessaloniki.
The remaining ones either disappear or lose their
character of a town. According to V. Dinchev the reduction of the distance between urban
centers and the remaining settlements from a juridical, administrative socio-economic
and cultural point of view, it is possible to trace the process of the turning of towns into
agrarian centers. The main factors for the cessation of development of towns established
by G. L. Kurbatov are several. In his opinion the internal development of the ancient
polis
leads to the break up of a relationship of slavery and respectively to the decline of towns,
fortresses and bishoprics ceased to exist, as the disappearance well as the civilian strata,
different from the agrarian strata. The subject of the decline of the town in Late Antiquity
is analyzed in the work of J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz. The main physical features of the end
of towns follow a succession in the decline of monumental centers of towns, namely timber
replaces stone and brick in construction of all buildings, with the exception of churches,
while the population in towns falls, thus vast parts of their areas remain empty. The new
appearance of towns does not have the characteristics of the Graeco-Roman town. The
de-urbanization of the Balkans which set
жФ^таМйх^стШу
was basically
. · - .■ ■■■
.V.
'/·
і-:·
' ■:., : .'. .,. ' . . . 167
connected with the inroads of Avars and the Slavs. Generally the events in the area pass
through a growth, followed by a declined. For many researchers the accelerated decline of
Byzantine towns after the 6th century was an undoubted fact, absolutely confirmed through
changes in their appearance. The fullest archeological evidence on the deterioration and
loss of the urban appearance and final disappearance many towns of Late Antiquity in Asia
Minor are given by C.
Foss.
The first reaction against A. P. Kazhdan's views came from G. Ostrogorsky, who notes
that namely during the 7th century the quantity of gold coins grew considerably. He draws
the conclusion, based on written sources, in particular on bishoprics, that the old towns
not only continued to exist, were fortified and restructured, yet moreover new ones were
built in that period. According to M. Whittow many of the towns of Late Antiquity in the
Near East continued to improve, in spite of the disappearance of the colleges of the Curia,
however replaced in that activity by the church. Successive supporters of the thesis of
continuity of the existence of Byzantine towns from the Russian school are E. E. Lipshits,
and M. Y. Sjuzjumov. The main argument in support of this is the existing continuity in
Government, which leads to the juridical status of towns, which continue to function as
centers of commerce and artisans. In Byzantium there is continuity of urban culture from
Late Antiquity and this is its main characteristics, thus differing from the West. One of the
clearest proofs of the existence of any forms of continuity in urban life is the surviving
street network from antiquity to this day, a phenomenon found in some towns in Italy,
Spain and the Near East.
In tracing the development of towns in the transition period we find a wide emergence of
the formula 'from
/ю/и
to kastron\ summarizing the basic differences between the classical
ancient town, the town in Late Antiquity and fortified early medieval towns. The theoretical
argumentation of this transformation was published by A. Dunn, based on studied sites in
the Balkans. This transition runs through an era which dominates the system of civilian
settlements, namely polises, based mainly on the Graeco-Roman model, from another period,
when military-administrative and defensive functions became a priority for the settlements,
thus contributing to a new definition of the highest units of the system of settlements, changed
under the influence of economic, cultural and political factors. These factors were not directly
controlled by the state. Graeco-Roman towns, situated in the plains were replaced by new
church, administrative, military and fiscal seats, raised over heights, without planning,
surrounded by a wall, which define the period of the 'Dark Ages', as
kostra.
Between the 6th and 8th century most Byzantine towns continued their existence,
however their urban area became considerably smaller. The Hellenistic and Roman
principles of monumental construction were abandoned, there were no wide streets, large
baths, gymnasia and theatres, aqueducts no longer functioned, many towns moved from
the fields to the mountains and became castle. The transformation of the urban space was
summarized in three main points
-
the dying out of monumental construction, the raising
of walls, marking the identity of the town and the reduction of the urban area.
Regardless of the position of defended on the matter of continuity or hiatus in me
development of towns during the transition period between Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages, all authors are unanimous that the urban form of life on the Balkans was
almost completely destroyed.
С
Fosse's study on the transition period in the development of
urbanism
in Syria
is a suitable model of the analytical representation of the state of towns in the territory
of the Eastern Roman Empire throughout the period from the end of the 6th century and
the end of the 7th century. The review begins with the early Byzantine strata found at
excavations, which reveal the level of
urbanism
during the 5th and 6th century. The town
planning of Antioch and Apamea, Bosra, Epiphania and others reveal towns with a
monumental appearance, built precisely, with well selected and worked material, keeping
architectonic and aesthetic norms. These towns have a regular plan in their building. They
have a drainage system and water supply, the streets are with a stone cover, and the larger
one flanking colonnades, situated in the town centre. Squares, theatres, baths and other
public buildings function according their original function. In the 7th century according to
archeological studies, the situation changed. The large towns of
Normern
Syria-Antioch
and Apamea become half villages
-
half towns. Large sections of the urban territories were
abandoned and consisted of ruins. On the site of earlier monumental structures we find
remains of dwellings with walls made of broken stone, made with no plan, often over the
earlier street cover, making use of remains of earlier buildings. The appearance of public
buildings from Late Antiquity changed greatly. The spacious chambers of the older baths
and theatres were partitioned by flimsy walls and the premises created served as dwellings.
In Southern Syria the state of towns is different. Some, such as Bosra and Epiphania retain
their urban appearance and even flourish, regardless being conquered by the Arabs. They
however are themselves in the heart of the Omayad state. The large polises to the North,
on the contrary, are in a boundary, a buffer zone, the scene of constant fighting. Above all
they had military functions.
In general the development of towns in Syria in the 7th century was similar to those
in the Byzantine provinces in the Balkan Peninsula in the early Byzantine period. Here
the border zone of Byzantium consisted of invading tribes from the North, where towns
were abandoned and destroyed, while to the south of Hemus (the Balkan Range), in the
interior of the Empire, towns remained and developed under the conditions of the transition
or the so called 'Dark Ages' in the history of Byzantium. The most important difference
between both compared territories is that while in Syria the Arab invaders conquered
live towns, in the Balkans the
Proto
Bulgarians found as an inheritance towns, abandoned
for several decades prior to their arrival. Two main differences stem from these. The live
urban culture of Byzantium was immediately accepted and became one of the models of
the culture of the Chaliphate which was being shaped At the same time however, in the
Balkan Peninsula the construction of new towns, as well as building in the old towns ceases
for about a century. The last quarter of the
6*
century is a period characterized by incessant
raids of Avars and Slavs. For the lands to the north of the Balkan Range, these events are a
final phase in the development of urban culture from Late Antiquity. The abandonment and
end of Early Byzantine towns in me territory between me Balkan Range and me Danube,
as well as
Äe
raise of medieval towns aftera comparativelylong period of a hiatus in toe
169
same territory can best be traced on the ground of archeological data.
The results of field studies well illustrate the substantial changes which set in the
appearance of towns from Late Antiquity in Thracia and
Dacia
during the second half of
the 6th century. Nicopolis ad Istrum is one of the best examples of characteristic features of
the transformation of a town. Studied structures prove the thesis of the transformation of the
ancient
polis
into an early Byzantine castle, above all with military and religious functions.
The situation with Amphipolis from Late Antiquity, with its newly built citadel above all
to protect the basilicas in it, is similar. Probably the additionally fortified area of Justiniana
Prima
had the same functions. In many of the cited cases the settlements lose their appearance
of a town towards the end of the 6th century. Examples in this respect are
Tropeum Trajani,
Istria,
Sakidava etc. In some towns such as Philipopolis, Athens, Corinth the urban area is
greatly reduced, reaching less than half of the previous area. Considerable sections of the
protected urban area remain desolate land, as was the case even with Constantinople. The
physical features of decline in
urbanism
in the Balkan Peninsula are numerous. The chief one
as follows: breaking with the regular planning, a reduction of protected area and abandoned
sections in them, the absence of other representative buildings besides the churches, the
raising of flimsy buildings, the secondary use of building material not only of architectural
details, but also monuments of art, an overall reduction of the level of material culture and as
the final outcome in many places, the final abandoning of towns.
The troubled times towards the end of the 6th century and the beginning of the 7th
century were a transitional point in the development of towns in the Balkan Peninsula.
When the state of towns after this period is considered three groups can be outlined:
1.
Towns, which continued to function in the previously.
2.
Towns where the development of
urbanism
had been disrupted for a certain
period, after which they developed in some forms.
3.
Towns which no longer exist.
The towns which continued to exist in the present day Bulgarian lands are situated
along the Western Black Sea coast at the earlier Greek colonies
-
Mesambria and Sozopolis,
in Thracia
-
the town of Philipopolis, Serdica in
Dacia Mediterranea.
On the Balkan
Peninsula the town of
Thessaloniki
and Olynthus on the Khalkidhiki peninsula, Abdera
and Maronea in Western Thracia, Athens in Central Greece, Corinth at Peloponnesus and
elsewhere survived. Also the capital Constantinople survived, in spite of a succession of
major sieges in the 7th and 8th century.
The second group of towns is also situated to the south of the Balkan Range
(Stara
Planina).
At Pautalia, the beginnings of the medieval town emerged in the second half of the
9th century, succeeding the ancient Pautalia. Later, the medieval town grew over Nicopolis
ad Nestum, after the second half of the
10*
century. According to written sources Augusta
Trajana was restored by Empress Irene in
778.
The case with the medieval Deultum, of
which we have sparse and unreliable information from excavations, is unclear, yet it too
could be seen as falling in the group of restored towns after a certain hiatus.
All towns from Late Antiquity to the north of the Balkan range as a rale were destroyed. The
towns along the
Danubian
Limes were the earliest to cease to exist The attacks of Avars, Slavic
170
л
tribes, Kutrigures and others from the end of the 6th century brought the final end of Novae,
Ulpia Oescus, Ratiaria, Sirmium, Singidunum and others. The territory between the Danube
and the Balkan Range towards the end of the 6th century and beginning of the 7th century saw
the end of Abritus, Montana, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Martianopolis, Zaldapa, Dinogetia,
Tropeum
Trayani,
Tomi
and Kalatis. Life also came to an end at the castle at the village of
Voivoda
and at
cape Kaliakra, as well as Yatrus. The situation was similar in the territories west of the present
day Bulgarian lands, where the towns of Naisus, Felix
Romuliana,
Justiniana
Prima
and Stobe
also ceased to exist. According to field studies the longest ones to survive were
Istria, Sacidava,
Durostorum and the Late Byzantine town on the Tsarevets hill. The destruction of the town
ön
the Tsarevets hill, as well as Durostorum, is considered to have occurred in connection with the
invasion of the
Proto
Bulgarian in the last quarter of the 7th century.
CHAPTER II. CULTURAL CONTACTS OF THE
PROTO
BULGARIANS IN THE
NORTH BLACK SEA AND CAUCASUS
The elements of a foreign cultural influence in the sphere of material culture in the
above regions are traced in connection with the problem of the roots of newly found
architectural monuments in the territory of the First Bulgarian state in the 9th century.
The influence of Byzantine culture over the Bulgarians in the Crimea can be traced
along several lines. Coming on the peninsula, the Bulgarians from the second migration
wave built their settlements on earlier ancient and Byzantine settlements. Such is the
case with Tepsen, Kordon-Oba, Sudak,
Mangup,
Inkerman. Bulgarian dwellings covered
the previous structures in some cases frequently making use of their foundations. This
should be seen as a case of topographical continuity, which is a logical consequence of
the objective criteria of the Byzantines in their choice of site for settlement. Nevertheless
there was no structural continuity in the settlements, as neither of the reused Byzantine
units had been used according to its initial purpose. An illustration in this respect is the
early medieval settlements which had arisen over the ruins of Tiritaki, Mirmeki and Ilurat,
which occupy only parts of the territory of towns. Later structures are oriented counter to
ancient planning and are built with technique, unknown so tar in Crimea. The absence of
continuity are indicative above all in a semi dug out, built on the rains of a stone house at
Kordon-Oba, two dwellings consisting of two premises, raised on the stone floor of a water
cistern at Tepsen, as well as dwellings, raise over the marble floor of a basilica, dated from
Justinian I's reign at Bosporus.
Towards the mid 8th century a great migration of population form Asia Minor occurred
in connection with the iconoclastic policy of the Byzantine Emperors. From that time on a
number of provincial Byzantine settlements arose in Southeastern Taurus. The settlers from
the eastern provinces brought the tradition of building houses with two premises, which not
much later, during the second half of the
8*
century
abo
emerged in the settlements of the
Bulgarians. Tracing changes in the architecture of dwellings in early medieval settlements
begins with the semi dug in house, running through the single premise buildings above
ground with stone walls, reaching the two premise houses with a court-yard for farm
171
functions. These are the most characteristic features of the direct influence of Byzantine
culture over the Bulgarians. Besides the manner of building dwellings, the Byzantine
practice of land cultivation was also followed. Above all the influence of standard Byzantine
pottery over the more primitive pottery tradition of the Bulgarians is traceable.
The review of the foreign elements Bulgarians adopted points to the conclusion of the
direct influence of their contemporary medieval provincial Byzantine culture, made easier
by the two peoples living side by side. It categorically does not denote continuity between
the early medieval culture of the Bulgarians and the preceding culture of Late Antiquity.
Derbent is among the examined monuments from the Early Middle Ages from the
Caucasus, which alone can be defined as a town. Established by the Sassanids towards
the mid
6*
century Derbent was the seat of the spread of Iranian culture amidst the tribes
inhabiting Northern Caucasus in the Early Middle Ages. However this influence was
established above all among the 'mobile' archeological monuments, while it was not
yet noted in the sphere of architecture and town planning. In the
7Љ
century multi-spatial
buildings began to be built with a stone plinth at the Verhnechirjurtov fortress. This
new construction phase probably appeared under Iranian influence or from countries of
Transcaucasia, in spite of the 'herring bone' masonry, without the angles being attached
constructively. The numerous fortresses from the Terek-Sulaksks area between the rivers
Terek and Sulaksk and the western Caspian coastal area differ alone in their fortification
systems. No traces of infrastructure or representative buildings have been found in their
interior. The only solid structures are walls and towers made of relatively crude construction
of unprocessed stones, without mortar, which could not be compared with those from at
Derbent or the fortresses of Transcaucasia.
In the analysis of spatial and structural elements of the fortresses on the right banks of
the river, namely the Tsymlyansk fortress, the Mayatsk and Semikarakorsk fortress of the
Don course, as well as the Humarinsk fortress on the Kuban river, which functioned in the
mid 8th century and the first half of the 9th century we come to the following conclusions:
the construction with quadrics, in spite of its crude workmanship were borrowed from
provincial Byzantine culture, hence the building of fortresses could be seen as an influence
of Byzantine fortification practices over
Proto
Bulgarian practices. The architectural
influence from Iran can be established at the fortress at Humarinsk.
CHAPTER III. THE TOWNS ON THE BALKAN PENINSULA UNDER
BULGARIAN RULE
Described here are the spatial and structural characteristics of the earliest Bulgarian
towns, as well as a critical review of the theories of the origins of early medieval Bulgarian
monumental architecture.
An analysis is offered of the elements of the spatial schemes of Pliska,
Presláv,
Drustur,
the
aul
of Khan Omourtag, and the fortress on the island of Pakuiul
lui Soare.
The views
on the varied content of the term
auł
are cited, reaching the important conclusion that
the concept 'fortified settlement centre' is fully valid for Pliska and
Presláv.
The analysis
172
of studies for Drastar show that in the search for continuity between towns from Late
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages probably here we find the only example of partial
continuity in town planning at sites from both periods, situated to the north of the Balkan
Range (Hemus). A review of the development of towns to the south of Hemus points to
Serdica and Philipopolis as characteristic examples of continuity between towns from Late
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.
Some of the conclusions stem from the review of the theories of the origins of early
medieval monumental construction work. In spite of the fact that Middle Asia is one of the
geographic areas cited as the source of early Bulgarian architecture, the question of the
possible influence of these towns on the
Proto
Bulgarians has not being examined, owing to
the absence of archeological material for their presence in Middle Asia in the early Middle
ages, i.e. there is no object or site which could be subject of investigation. From here on
we cross the limits of archeological analysis and we enter the sphere of assumptions. V.
A. Lavrov's and V. L. Voronina's classification of towns in Middle Asia, accompanied by
fine illustrations offers attractive sites for comparison, however it can only be seen as a
culturological factor. In the Caucuses the earliest emergence of the
Proto
Bulgarians is
dated in the 4th century in connection with the changes in pottery characteristic for local
Late-Sarmatian. Settlement structures which could be identified as
Proto
Bulgarian (not
entirely
Proto
Bulgarian, at least partially
Proto
Bulgarian) are to be found in the Terek-
Sulaksk area as well as Coastal Dagestan. Studies have revealed comparative primitive
earth ramparts or walls of broken stone with mud binding, surrounding stranding areas
built up only with semi dug dwellings and rarely with buildings above ground. The traces
of representative monumental architecture or any kind of infrastructure are absent. Thus
the architectural heritage can hardly exert any influence on the process of the formation of
early Bulgarian town in the Balkan Peninsula.
The first Bulgarian wave of settlers in the Crimea peninsula arrived in
lhe
mid
7*
century.
It should be noted that this wave was part of a mass movement of
Proto
Bulgarians, also
resulting in the settlement of another part of them on me Balkans. This should be taken in
the consideration when we seek possible elements of Byzantine influence over the Crimean
Proto
Bulgarians, as the further transmission of these elements in the region of the Lower
Danube depended to a great extend on these circumstances. The first settlements of the
Proto
Bulgarians
-
the so called ails are situated far away from towns from Late Antiquity
(in particular Chersoneses being the only one that existed without any break) and there are
no traces in their structural and spatial characteristics of provincial Byzantine culture. The
situation with the founding of settlements of the second
Proto
Bulgarian wave of settlement
in the 8th century is different The new settlements are frequently raised on abandoned
towns from Late Antiquity. A strong provincial Byzantine influence can be traced in the
construction of dwellings in
tías
period, due to the appearance of two premises dwelling
with stone walls The influence in the field of architecture ends here. Even in the 9th century
Bulgarians in Taurus did not build representative building due to their low level of urban
development Two courses of penettation of Byzantine influence over the local population
ia the Crimean Peninsula ttaeeabte in early Bulgarian architecture in the Balkans were
■ ' ■■· ■■ ·■·' ■■■ . · . ■■■■ . ' .'-.· . ■ . . 173
respectively connected with the phases of Bulgarian settling. Parts of the settlements from
the first wave were destroyed in the first half of the 8th century. The probability that their
inhabitance had settled in Bulgaria is small. Never the less it could also be confirmed as
the characteristics of their own style of construction. Hence they were by no means those
who stood for a Byzantine influence. The cultural development of the second category of
bearers of Byzantine traditions, namely the
Proto
Bulgarians of the second wave of settlers,
demonstrates different roads of formation in comparison with those from early medieval
Bulgarian culture in the Balkans; thus the possibility of an exchange and adoption of cultural
elements between the two regions is excluded.
Several fortresses partially associated with
a Proto
Bulgarian population within the
Khazars Khaganate, arose within the basin of the Don and Kuban rivers at the end of the
8th century and the beginning of the 9th century. Chronologically being the synchronous
with the building of the First Bulgarian Kingdom, they are sites suited for comparisons;
however they cannot contribute greatly to the question of the origins of urban architecture
in Bulgaria from the Early Middle Ages. The comparative analysis between settlement
structures in both areas beyond doubt demonstrates superiority of monuments in Bulgaria
in the field town planning.
The question of supposed influences over
Proto
Bulgarian culture, coming from Armenia,
Asia Minor and Syria, namely from territories frequently cited as basic for the formation of
monumental Bulgarian architecture, is too vast and is beyond the scope of this study. Hence
it shall be only mentioned in passing. The examined monuments represent cultural zones,
where the intertwining of building traditions from a Late Roman period and those from
the East have yielded a rich architecture, expressed above all in churches, which are even
influenced by Western Europe. It is well know that Armenians and Syrians were itinerant
master-builders in the Early Middle Ages. The architectonic analysis of cult structures point
to close cooperation between Armenian master builders and master builders from Asia
Minor, in particular
Cilicia
and Isauria, and the absence with master builders from Syria. One
of the main differences is in vaulting
-
in Armenia and flat roofing of churches in Syria. In
this connection we should drawn attention to plans of the Throne chamber at Pliska with the
Syrian church at It-Tuba, built in
583,
as well as the parallel of the palaces from Pliska with
Armenia, cited by A. L. Yakobson. The cited parallel between separate sites is insufficient
to provide a solution of the problem. They may only serve as elements in the search for
complex comparisons, concerning town planning as a whole. With sites in Armenia such
parallels are more difficult, as prior to the 5th century towns as a way of life were abandoned
until the Muslim conquest of the country, when new towns began to be built. In Syria there
was urban continuity in the Omayad period. These, as well as some common elements in the
cultural and historical development of the First Caliphate and the First Bulgaria Kingdom,
determine the leading role of this region in the search of similar processes in town planning
between them. It has already been noted that contrary to the Arabs, who had conquered
towns from Late Antiquity,
Proto
Bulgarians inherited in their primary territory only towns
destroyed and abandoned for decades. In this case it is worthwhile to turn to towns newly
founded in Syria, where we find the undoubted influence of
urbanism
from Late Antiquity.
174
The beginning of 8th century saw the construction of the first palaces of the Omayads, which
in their first construction period represented square buildings with an inner courtyard, with
all premises, while the outer facade had the appearance of a fortress. 'Anjar, built in the
eighth century as a ruler's residence, is a fine example. The town is protected by a stone wall
(370
by
310
m), made of well worked ashlars for the face masonry and emplekton of broken
stones, bound with mortar and bricks from buildings from Late Antiquity, from other sites.
The fortification is rectangular with gates, situated at the middle of each wall, flanked by two
semicircular towers each, circular towers at the comers and two semicircular towers between
the curtain walls and the gates and the comers. In the interior a large palace and small palaces
with interior courtyards, baths, a mosque, barracks etc were built Evidently the plan and
structure characteristics of'Anjar, compared with Roman towns, recalls in general lines those
of the
aul
at Pliska. Preconditions for the cited parallel should be sought in the circumstances
that both towns were situated in former imperial territories, were built as ruler's residences,
political and administrative centers, as well as that they both had experienced a universal
early Byzantine influence.
At this stage the studies of the theory on the contemporary Byzantine influence as a basis
of the rise of the architectural style of the monuments of the First Bulgarian Kingdom should
be accepted as most probable, as it alone allows a possible study of these issues, which do not
exceed the limits of archeological analysis, based on concrete sites. No doubt mis influence
would also reflect to a certain degree on the formation of the Bulgarian town in the Early
Middle Ages. An analogy to the cultural choice, made by barbarian kings in the West, an
explanation on the archaic elements in appearance of Pliska, could presuppose the desire of
the Bulgarian rulers to become legitimate, by adopting classical architectural models.
CHAPTER IV. THE FORMATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL URBAN CULTURE IN
BULGARIA
Compared are urban town planning models of the first town of Pliska with those of
some well studied Byzantine towns. The concept of 'town' has been defined, in line with
the concept of town accepted in the studied period.
Several parallels can be drawn in the spatial-structural characteristics of Pliska with
Constantinople. The central core in town layout is the residence of the ruler, which in both
towns is surrounded by a wall. Field studies at the palace centre of Pliska reveal several periods
of restructuring, which many of the Byzantine emperors have also done with their palaces.
In Constantinople the main street
Messe,
leading to the palace, as well as probably one more
crosswise artery continued to be used. At Pliska there is also a supposition of the use of two
crossing communicative arteries, connected above all with the palace centre. Concerning the
water-supply system, in both instances it was supplied via a principal water main and water
was stored in several cisterns. The fortification systems as a whole included an enormous
territory, not densely built up, and mass dwellings have a marked primitive appearance.
The main emphasis of town planning fell on the churches, which are among the few solid
structures. The interior of the both towns also contain necropolises. A large part of the area
175
of Pliska inadvertently was used for agricultural land. Probably after the abandonment and
silting of Theodosius' harbour in Constantinople, the area was used for horticultural gardens.
In search of more concrete similarities the Throne chamber built over a vaulted underground
chamber, could be cited, to a certain extent similar to the Krateros palace and the Magnaura
palace, which however are known only through descriptions in written sources.
Simultaneously new palace structures were built, probably by foreign master builders
working in an architectural style, unfamiliar in monuments of a proceeding period. In
the case of Constantinople this style is considered to have been characteristic for Arabic
architecture. The possibility of such a characteristic could also be applied to building in
Pliska, this of course remaining in the sphere of suppositions.
Beyond the concrete analysis we should above all note that both towns were founded
as regular residences of rulers and chief political centers of their states. It is interesting to
note that from its very foundation Constantinople became a model for the construction of
new towns not only within the limits of the Empire, but also
sedes regiae
of barbarians in
Western Europe.
The Plan of Pliska could also be compared with other Byzantine towns not only with the
capital. In this respect it is interesting to analyze the plan of the town of Amorium, which is
one of those from the "Dark Ages" studied in the greatest detail. A fortified citadel assumes
a central position among the structures of the town in the center. The remaining territory,
defended by walls from the previous Roman town, was inhabited by small settlement
communities, grouped around churches. The inhabitants of this settlement are referred to
as "citizens" as their settlements are included within a framework of a surrounded urban
area. An analogical structure from this period is also found at Ephesus, which is separated
in several different zones, including the citadel.
The main difference between Pliska and contemporary Byzantine towns is the
circumstance that it was founded on a site which was not occupied previously by a town and
hence it's new planning of the urban territory which had no need to take in consideration
any ancient heritage, so important in the development of Byzantine towns.
Studies of towns from Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium demonstrate variation of
the definition of the concept of "town", caused above all by the general transformation
accruing in a transitional period, characterized by the respective spatial and structural
features of the settlements. The complex of the main constituent elements make up the
concept of an ancient
polis on
one hand, and on the other the final shaping of the feudal one,
thus loosing concrete features in the chronology between the types of towns mentioned.
The dogmatic idea of the town as such, for instance the town in Antiquity or in the Middle
Ages, denies the urban nature of the prevailing part of settlements of the transition period.
Nevertheless there are other definitions applied with the view of the concrete ideas of the
concept of "town" which existed in this period.
The starting position in the search of the features of a town in the Early Middle Ages is
not to define it as such as it is, but as what it should be. It should be drawn from generally
valid criteria, criteria as what it has been in the past. The Roman concept of the town as a
principal center of social, political and cultural life was practically destroyed and people
176
from the Early Middle Ages, who had inherited in part the powerful ideology of the past,
had to work to synchronize with quite different circumstances and realities of their times.
Contrary of the centralized rale of towns in the Early Middle Ages, an ancient town had
its autonomy and was ruled by civil institutions. Their functions of commercial, religious,
administrative and fiscal centers were confirmed in the material equivalents constituting the
classical appearance of towns. However towards the beginning of 7th century this classical
apprearance had almost disappeared and they had lost their autonomy. The emphasis of town
planning moved to the building of cult structures at the expense of civil institutions, and the
plan scheme looses it regular character, however towns continue to exist as fortified centers
of fiscal and administrative life. One of the new models for the shaping of the urban space of
the Early Middle Ages both in the East and the West, are represented by small communities
surrounded around churches, situated at a distance from one another within the framework of
the Roman walls. The necropolises also situated in the interior of the town.
At the beginning of the
9*
century urban processes in Byzantium once again become more
active, initiated in this period entirely from the central authorities. This was above all felt in
Constantinople, owing to its status of a capital. At the same time or a little earlier in Bulgaria
the foundations of a new urban culture represented for the first time by Pliska, the seat of
government were laid. Here we find the basic elements characteristic for the early medieval
towns in Byzantium and Western Europe. The urban model consists of a fortified center, known
as the inner town and separated from cultivated areas with settlements, situated in the defensive
rim of the outer town. Between the two basic components
-
the town and the outskirts, there is
an opposition depending of the differences between their functional characteristics. The town,
planned and raised according to the will and the funding of central state authority, in the name of
the Khan, was to provide political, administrative, military, fiscal, cult functions and to a limited
extent dwelling functions. In accordance with this role was its architectural appearance with
representative character of buildings. This was the center of the urban territory, the zone where
the ruler exercises his authority and where his seat of government was situated. The remaining
urban elements were placed structurally, according to this center. The outskirts in opposition
to the center were not built systematically according to any plan. They were inhabited by
commoners, indicated by the character of the buildings, both civil and cult buildings, which
were not monumental. Not only dwellings, but also artisan's dwellings, commercial dwellings,
temples and necropolises etc. all fell within me outer town. Thus the thesis of the empty space
in the way of architecture at Pliska can no longer be maintained. In mis respect proof has
come from the active archeological excavations of several teams which continuously find new
monuments, filling the scene of an urban settlement The instances of the absence of buildings
at a numerous excavations are rare and this is indirect evidence against
ite so
called "empty
space". Direct evidence of the existence of numerous buildings with a variety of purposes,
found in the territory of Pliska is the catalog of sites. One of the most characteristic urban
processes in towns from the Medieval Middle Ages is found in Pliska, namely the concentration
of construction initiatives above all in the central
шЬап
part, attte expense of tte outskirts. In
the court centerseveralconstruction periods have been established, where new bmldings were
erected, the older buildings repaired and given other functions, as well in tte outer town with
'■••:
·■ ' . , .-·■
: :- V ^'.■■■■■"•■■■;.--,l·
■ ■■ ' . ' '■ :.- ·. ·.' . ■■
:
:" . ■ ■ · . ■ · 177
few exceptions the architecture remains unchanged. From a chronological aspect the town
passes through several main transformations, based once again with the requirements of central
authority. At the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century Pliska saw the beginning of the
process of an overall change of the architectural and special appearance reaching its peak in
the reign of Khan Omourtag. The so called stone
aul
found in this period is an example of new
architectural concepts in early medieval construction in Bulgaria. The next period of change is
connected with the requirement of the Christian cult, initiating the building of numerous church
structures after the mid 9th century, which from its very foundation assumed the most important
town planning part.
The shift in construction is from civilian structures to cult monuments. The territory
of the inner town is based on a second urban core; the architectural complex of the large
basilica and the archbishops' palace surrounded by a wall. The growth of the religious
center led to the building of the first stone road in the town. In this way Pliska realized the
Christian idea of a town. The transformation which set after the end of the 9th century was
connected with the change of the status of the town as a capital, resulting in the further
planning and building up of the settlements with no fixed plan and no clear features. When
the boundaries between the separate elements of town planning could no longer be traced,
thus Pliska was loosing its appearance of a representative political center with thriving
trade and assuming the features of a production center. Many researchers on the problem
of town namely take this aspect as basis for the rise of Pliska as a town. The analysis gives
ground for exactly the opposite. After the end of the 9th century the urban development of
Pliska is lacking the powerful resource of central authority.
CONCLUSION
The establishment of the early medieval Bulgarian town is a complex process which by
no means was an isolated phenomenon, without its connections with the growth of towns
in neighboring cultures contemporary to early Bulgarian culture. This process ran in the
conditions of the transition period between Antiquity and the Middle Ages, a circumstance
determining to a great extent the appearance of the first town of the Bulgarian states. On
the one hand their formation was part of the overall transformation of culture in the lands
of the former Eastern Roman Empire; on the other hand they are a product of a new culture,
based beyond the territory of the First Bulgarian Kingdom. This is why the first part of the
study is devoted to the final stage in the development of towns from Late Antiquity in the
dioceses of Thracia and
Dacia,
while the second part is devoted to the cultural context with
the
Proto
Bulgarians, realized prior to their settling the Balkan Peninsula.
The main tendencies in the development of town planning in the period between the
6th and 7th century, a period preceding the immediate creation of the Bulgarian state can be
summarized in a several points.
1.
Fortifications assume primary significance in urban elements. Walls were
repaired and altered, additional walls or protechismas are erected, the forms of the
towers were modified;
178
2.
New fortified cores were created, citadels, most often over naturally defended
ground;
3.
A decline was noted in the sphere of general structures, expressed in a break
in the regular planning of the urban area. The strategically area along with the inner
face of the wall became a ground for construction; streets became narrow and part of
them were built-over by new buildings; small light buildings appear frequently in the
interior of public buildings, which had lost their representative character, with the use
of
spolia
appears etc;
4.
A rise in the construction of Christian cult buildings is noticeable;
5.
Churches become the main core of the town.
In the 7th century old towns between the Danube and the Balkan range (Hemus) were
destroyed with no exception. The mass disappearance of towns set the beginning of the century,
which produced the strata with traces of destruction. When the
Proto
Bulgarians settled in
these lands they brought the final end of urban life, destroying the town of Durostorum and
the town on the hill top of Tsarevets which ceased to exist,
ш
the subsequent formation of the
Bulgarian medieval town there is no trace from a town from Late Antiquity.
Messambria, Sozopolis, Philipopolis and Serdika continued their existence to the south
of the Balkan range. In their changed appearance we find the basic elements characteristic
for the early medieval Byzantine town. Their inclusion in the territory of the First Bulgarian
Kingdom at the beginning of the 9th century provided the conditions necessary for the
adoption of the Byzantine model of town planning in Bulgaria; however the appearance
of the earliest Bulgarian towns differed to a certain extent. This was due above all to the
character of the original Bulgarian town, designed to function as a political center of the
state, hence the idea of its monumental appearance. Parallels with contemporary towns
in Byzantium are difficult to find. Their development in the period of the "Dark Ages"
is noted by the striving to survive and namely here we find the compromised nature in
the construction work. This new urban form which stemmed from this could hardly be
accepted by Bulgarians as a model to be followed in the building of their first capital.
The crisis of the Byzantine town in the 8th century was one of the basic reasons for the search
for a more advanced architectural model in the building of Pliska, which led to the established
elements of anachronism in its appearance. Hence come one of the basic problems concerning
the originsofthe early medieval monuments of monumental architecture in the First Bulgarian
Kingdom. There are several lines in the quest ofthe roots of the new architecture in the Balkans.
It is most logical to accept it as a continuation ofthe preceding architecture from Late Antiquity
in these lands, prior to the settling of the
Proto
Bulgarians. The circumstance that no such
continuity could be accepted is only a formal however convincing argument-the presence of
ästratigraphical
hiatus between monuments ofthe two periods.
Thus we come to the next approach in tracing an architectural tradition, which, as
they have not been found, must have been brought here. The most probable carriers are
considered to have been the
Proto
Bulgarians. The formation of their culture was realized
iu territories neighboring the Eastern Roman Empire and Sassanid Iran, which was a
-■
:
;'■'■:. . ■
лу .
■ 179
prerequisite of the tracing of cultural requisite of more advanced cultures. The studies of
Proto
Bulgarian settlements in the Crimean Peninsula indicate an overall direct influence
of the present provincial Byzantine culture, which in the field of architecture took the form
above all in the adoption by the Bulgarian two chamber stone houses above ground with
a court yard. The example of ashlar construction applied at construction of the fortress at
Khumarinsk was also borrowed from provincial Byzantine traditions. Large and special
building with a stone plinth in the fortresses along the Terek-Sulak rivers and the Caspian
coast as well as the plan of the temple at the Khumarinsk fortress appear to have been the
outcome of the influence from Iran or the countries from Trans-Caucasia in the 7th century.
Evidently elements of foreign cultural influence have been established, however not in the
sphere of representative monumental architecture. No monumental representatives
ofthat
architecture have been found in the territories inhabited by
Proto
Bulgarians prior to their
resettlement into the Balkans. In spite of that the possibility of the Bulgarians adopting
ideas, which at a later stage led to a common direction in the realization of construction
initiatives by the central authorities in the First Bulgarian Kingdom can not be denied.
The creation of the first medieval town was connected with the foundation of Pliska.
Its special and structural characteristics were determined by its main purpose of a political
center of the state. This center was the supreme settlement unit with an organizational
function, connected with all other settlements. The town planning scheme of the capital is
where we find the application of the latest models of the shaping of urban space in the Early
Middle Ages, both in the West and in the East. The main constituent element in this model
are churches grouped around small communities, situated at a distance one from another,
within a fortified unit, thus within the urban space we find necropolises, zones of artisans
workshops etc. The central principal of town planning appears within the main settlement
core
-
the representative residence of the ruler, where urban life was concentrated.
The process of a formation of a new culture began after the foundation of the Bulgarian
state in the former north-eastern territories of the Empire. The main tendencies in its
development were the outcome of their joining of the Mediterranean cultural circle in the
wider context. Above all this new cultural medium emerged in the appearance of monuments
of representative architecture. Their monumental character is a reflection of the idea of
the town seen by those who had the initiative to start building it. The desire to have a
representative element was the basic motive in the quest of a suitable architectural shape.
Namely this is what can be found in the architectural tradition of Late Antiquity. The building
of the first Bulgarian towns was preceded by the first Arab structures which in turn had
inherited live urban structures from Late Antiquity. This determined the development of then-
own architecture, which was a carrier of the heritage in construction of the Eastern Roman
Empire. In the 7th and 8th century Byzantine architects fiorn the eastern provinces of the
Empire had the chance to apply their skills in the Omayad ealiphate, after the 8th century these
architects found a new field for their monumental appearance in the first Bulgarian capital.
180 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Aladžov, Andrej 20./21. Jh |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1049558200 |
| author_facet | Aladžov, Andrej 20./21. Jh |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Aladžov, Andrej 20./21. Jh |
| author_variant | a a aa |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV037299425 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)711874076 (DE-599)BVBBV037299425 |
| era | Geschichte 600-900 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 600-900 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV037299425</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20140403</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">110324s2009 ab|| |||| 00||| bul d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789549388299</subfield><subfield code="9">978-954-9388-29-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z">9879549388299</subfield><subfield code="9">987-954-9388-29-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)711874076</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV037299425</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">bul</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Re13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,15</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aladžov, Andrej</subfield><subfield code="d">20./21. Jh.</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1049558200</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite</subfield><subfield code="b">VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni)</subfield><subfield code="c">Andrej Aladžov</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Sofija</subfield><subfield code="b">Nacionalen Archeologičeski Inst. s Muzej</subfield><subfield code="c">2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">211 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., Kt.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite</subfield><subfield code="v">4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PST: The Byzantine town and Bulgarian. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 600-900</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Stadt</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4056723-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bulgarien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008866-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Byzantinisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4009256-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Byzantinisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4009256-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Stadt</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4056723-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Bulgarien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008866-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 600-900</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="810" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite</subfield><subfield code="t">Disertacii</subfield><subfield code="v">4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV022862779</subfield><subfield code="9">4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">307.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09021</subfield><subfield code="g">398</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">307.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09021</subfield><subfield code="g">499</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021211858</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 gnd Byzantinisches Reich (DE-588)4009256-2 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Bulgarien Byzantinisches Reich |
| id | DE-604.BV037299425 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-08-10T01:08:12Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789549388299 |
| language | Bulgarian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021211858 |
| oclc_num | 711874076 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| physical | 211 S. Ill., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publishDateSearch | 2009 |
| publishDateSort | 2009 |
| publisher | Nacionalen Archeologičeski Inst. s Muzej |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite |
| spelling | Aladžov, Andrej 20./21. Jh. Verfasser (DE-588)1049558200 aut Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) Andrej Aladžov Sofija Nacionalen Archeologičeski Inst. s Muzej 2009 211 S. Ill., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Disertacii / Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite 4 PST: The Byzantine town and Bulgarian. - In kyrill. Schr., bulg. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Geschichte 600-900 gnd rswk-swf Stadt (DE-588)4056723-0 gnd rswk-swf Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 gnd rswk-swf Byzantinisches Reich (DE-588)4009256-2 gnd rswk-swf Byzantinisches Reich (DE-588)4009256-2 g Stadt (DE-588)4056723-0 s Bulgarien (DE-588)4008866-2 g Geschichte 600-900 z DE-604 Nacionalen Archeologičeski Institut s Muzej na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite Disertacii 4 (DE-604)BV022862779 4 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Aladžov, Andrej 20./21. Jh Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) Stadt (DE-588)4056723-0 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4056723-0 (DE-588)4008866-2 (DE-588)4009256-2 |
| title | Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) |
| title_auth | Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) |
| title_exact_search | Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) |
| title_full | Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) Andrej Aladžov |
| title_fullStr | Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) Andrej Aladžov |
| title_full_unstemmed | Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) Andrej Aladžov |
| title_short | Vizantijskijat grad i bălgarite |
| title_sort | vizantijskijat grad i balgarite vii ix vek po archeologiceski danni |
| title_sub | VII - IX vek ; (po archeologičeski danni) |
| topic | Stadt (DE-588)4056723-0 gnd |
| topic_facet | Stadt Bulgarien Byzantinisches Reich |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021211858&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV022862779 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT aladžovandrej vizantijskijatgradibalgariteviiixvekpoarcheologiceskidanni |