Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 43 (1) 1–23 Questioning Late Antique prosperity: the case of Lycia (southwest Turkey)1 Kristina Terpoy University of Oxford [email protected] The concept of a prosperous late antique eastern Mediterranean has become well-established in scholarship. Lycia (Turkey) is considered to be one such prosperous region in particular. This article questions the notion of ‘prosperity’ and its application to the Lycian region and argues that only certain coastal areas experienced what might be considered ‘prosperity’ in this period. Moreover, it is argued that some settlements, specifically those of the interior, did not experience ‘prosperity’, but may have even declined. Thus, a generalized application of ‘prosperity’ should be approached with caution as it masks nuances in the settlement development and economy of micro- regions. Keywords: Lycia; Anatolia; Late Antiquity; historiography; prosperity Introduction In recent years, the concept of a prosperous late antique eastern Mediterranean has become widely established and accepted in scholarship. Thanks to archaeological survey and excavation work, evidence has revealed expanding rural settlement across this broad territory in the period between circa the fourth and seventh centuries.2 1 This article derives from research conducted for my DPhil thesis: K. Terpoy, ‘Mountain and Sea: Settlement and Economy in Late Antique Lycia, Isauria and North Central Anatolia’ (University of Oxford 2018). 2 For example, see contributions in S. Kingsley, M. Decker (eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean During Late Antiquity. Proceedings of a Conference at Somerville College, Oxford - 29th May, 1999 (Oxford 2001); W. Bowden, L. Lavan, C. Machado (eds.), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside (Leiden and Boston 2004); L. Lavan (ed.), Local Economies? Production and Exchange of Inland Regions in Late Antiquity (Leiden and Boston 2015); B. Ward-Perkins, ‘Land, labour and settlement’, in A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 14. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A. D. 425–600 (Cambridge 2000) 315–45; B. Ward-Perkins, ‘Specialized production and exchange’, in A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 14. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A. D. 425–600 (Cambridge 2000) 346–91; G. Deligiannakis, The Dodecanese and the Eastern Aegean Islands in Late © Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek, University of Birmingham, 2019 DOI: 10.1017/byz.2018.22 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 02:47:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/byz.2018.22 2 Kristina Terpoy Expanding rural settlement, usually identified by datable ceramic scatter, terracing, and architectural remains in the rural landscape, has been interpreted as evidence for ‘prosperity’ in the late antique countryside. Moreover, evidence, such as ceramics, together with oil or wine presses, has added to our knowledge of the ways in which geographical areas were tapping into local, regional and inter-regional economic networks and the impact such connectivity had on rural settlement. Acknowledgement of such evidence has essentially normalized the idea of ‘prosperity’ for the eastern Mediterranean region in Late Antiquity. Evidence of expanding rural settlement cannot be denied in certain regions of the eastern Mediterranean in the late antique period. However, applying such a blanket- statement to the entire geographic territory should be approached with caution.3 The generalized application of a notion of prosperity to the eastern Mediterranean as a whole has masked the importance of recognizing divergent settlement development on micro-regional levels in this vast and varied geographic area and hinders a more refined understanding of the economy of the eastern Mediterranean in this period.4 By taking Lycia as a case study, the following article will question the generalizing notion of late antique prosperity and demonstrate that this narrative may skew nuances of settlement development, if variation is not recognized. I will first discuss methodological challenges in pursuing a regional study of settlement development and will briefly present historiography concerning Lycia. I will then analyse available archaeological evidence for settlement in the province, with a focus on interior areas. I will argue that, contrary to previous theories of Lycian settlement development, an examination of the available archaeological evidence reveals that the province in its entirety did not experience ‘prosperity’ in this period. With the exception of restricted pockets of coastal areas, some settlements, particularly those of the interior, did not experience prosperity, but rather the opposite occurred. This may have been due to population migration; inhabitants may have moved outside of urban centres to rural locations or perhaps migrated to coastal areas, although this remains an open question. Defining prosperity As alluded to above, terms such as ‘wealthy’, ‘prosperous’,or‘flourishing’, are often used synonymously to describe settlement expansion. Terminology surrounding the Antiquity, AD 300–700 (Oxford 2016), especially 41–97; for a southern Anatolian example, G. Varinlioǧlu, ‘Rural habitat in the hinterland of Seleucia ad Calycadnum during Late Antiquity’, in M. C. Hoff, R. F. Townsend (eds.) Rough Cilicia. New Historical and Archaeological Approaches (Oxford and Oakville 2013) 199–209. 3 For a critical evaluation of the Near East, Z. T. Fiema, ‘City and countryside in Byzantine Palestine. Prosperity in question’, in A. S. Lewin, P. Pellegrini (eds.), Settlements and Demography in the Near East in Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Colloquium, Matera 27–29 October 2005 (Pisa, Rome 2006) 67–88. 4 On the concept of micro-regions, P. Horden, N. Purcell, The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford 2000). Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 01 Oct 2021 at 02:47:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/byz.2018.22 Questioning Late Antique prosperity 3 development of settlement, such as expansion, growth, intensification, as opposed to decline, decrease, or abatement (which is somewhat intrinsically linked with broader debate concerning the empire) as well as the scale on which ‘wealth’ is measured in primary sources is currently being re-evaluated in scholarship.5 Nevertheless, terms often used to describe development are subjective and do not necessarily give clear meanings as to what they are describing and how they are qualified. Their meanings are essentially left to be determined by the value-judgements of the reader. On a similar yet contrary note, the term ‘ruralization’ generally used to describe a move away from urban monumental building and ordered site planning, need not imply an economic decline of a settlement, but may be interpreted as such. How ‘wealth’ is identified and evaluated in archaeological material has received much attention. The identification of churches in urban and rural areas alike has led scholars to conclude that inhabitants were able to generate surplus wealth that was invested in the construction of religious structures. Thus, churches have been viewed as potential indicators of settlement prosperity.6 While this view has its supporters, it also has its critics as churches were inherently new in the landscape in Late Antiquity.7 It has been argued that churches do not accurately reflect settlement wealth, but merely the proliferation of Christianity.8 References to high-quality craftsmanship or materials in the descriptions of religious remains, such as marble, may point towards degrees of investment, but such material does not survive often in its original context in the archaeological record. Churches are also frequently studied in isolation and lack settlement context. Nevertheless, churches are sometimes the only evidence mentioned for late antique occupation of sites in publications when other archaeological data is unavailable or is simply not the interest of scholars. As a result, we are somewhat forced to focus on church construction when analysing settlement development when other categories of evidence are lacking. Nonetheless, no matter how large or small the structure, the construction of a church would have required some sort of investment, planning and workforce. Thus, to an extent the presence of churches ought to be considered in an evaluation of a settlement’s building activity.9 It is difficult to resolve issues of terminology or settle on appropriate replacement terms for describing settlement change that do not carry value-based implications. Nevertheless, a combination of a comparative study of construction works across centuries and/or a comparison of settlement architecture micro-regionally when 5 A vast debate with many voices. For an overview, see contributions in L. Lavan (ed.), Recent Research in Late-antique Urbanism (Portsmouth 2001). See also Ward-Perkins, ‘Specialized production and exchange’, 365–9. 6 For a brief discussion on interpreting churches, Deligiannakis, Dodecanese, 51–3. 7 C. Foss, ‘The Lycian coast in the Byzantine age’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48 (1994) 45. 8 For example, concerning a nearby region, H. Elton, ‘Late Roman churches in the upper Göksu valley, Isauria’,