Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)Shaping of Public Spaces

BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, XLIV, 2018 Proceedings of the First International Roman and Late Antique Thrace Conference “Cities, Territories and Identities” (Plovdiv, 3rd – 7th October 2016)

Hristo PRESHLENOV

Abstract: From the 5th c. BC to the 9th c. AD three defensive walls were built in Mesambria between the slope of the Young Karangatian marine terrace, bordered by a steep abrasion-type shore, and the underwater terrace which corresponds to the Phanagorian regression around the city-peninsula. They defended the Classical and Hellenistic city of Mesambria, the Roman city, and the Early Byzantine Mesembria. The course of the fortifications did not follow the antique coastal line, but was rather attempted to stay close to the base of the peninsular slope. In the Early Hellenistic period on the terraced northwestern slope of the peninsula, south of the supporting wall a temple in antae was built dedicated to Zeus Hyperdexios. During the construction of the Northwestern Early Christian basilica, the pagan buildings were destroyed. In the center of the Late antique Mesambrian entrance square the two main urban streets meet; traditionally they connect the country roads with the central and the harbour zone. Between them, to the southwest of the temple of Demeter, is another basilica. The street running along the north of the basilica leads to the central urban area, where the basilica St. Sophia was probably built in the temenos of Apollo’s temple. From the trade and administrative center along the orthogonal, west-east oriented street network one reaches the highest eastern part of the peninsular terrace. The medieval church St. George the Oldest inherited topographically an Early Christian basilica. Another basilica was built in the northeastern urban zone, with adjoining necropoleis from the 7th, 12th and 13th–14th c. AD.

Key words: urban design, urban planning, architecture, public spaces, liturgical architectural environment.

Approach The political municipality is typical for the antique civilization. Its material medium is the city. The planning and spatial composition, infra- structure, architectural types and ensembles are formed according to its specific rules and norms. They provide conditions for the realiza- tion of its functions, while giving it a unique face and monumentality. The material remnants of the Roman and Early Christian culture that survived throughout the years preserved the memory of their creators and act as mediators between generations and cultures and the material code of their traditions and development. In this regard, the public spaces of Late antique and Early Christian Mesembria are understood as a material representation of a city’s facts of life, in a period when the fight for physical survival and spiritual ascension to God dominated. The study focuses on the historical topography of the public urban spaces, which were shaped again into a different spatial form and used for the same or other public purposes during Late and Post-Antiquity in Mesembria: the fortifying devices used to protect and decorate that town center and dependent on the withdrawing coast of abradant type; historically formed street network, defined by the topography of the 394 Hristo PRESHLENOV city-peninsula; emblematic Christian Holy Heights – the basilicas, which reshaped the traditional sacred topoi. The mapped archaeological and historical evidence reveal a “mov- ing” spatial development and transformations of streets, plots and buildings. As the town was neither systematically razed, nor rebuilt in the Greek-Roman period, certain elements (streets, plots, public buildings) of the “plan units” survived and must have been re-used. Thus, if the street lay-out did not evolve too drastically, still following the lines of the Hellenistic and Roman grid-pattern, then other sites may have survived, and a reconstruction of the public physiognomy of the city inside the walls is thus possible. Utilized public topoi and artefacts City walls “… to be beautiful as well as militarily adequate...” (Arist. Pol. 7.11.1331a10)

The west fortifications of Mesambria were meant to reinforce the peninsula, vulnerable from the isthmus connecting it to the land, and to protect the Northern and Southern Bays of Nesebăr where the har- bours of the polis were situated (fig. 1). From the 5th c. BC to the 9th c. AD three defensive walls were built. They defended the Classical and Hellenistic city of Mesambria in the 5th–1st c. BC, the Roman city in 1st–4th c. AD, and the Early Byzantine Mesambria in the 5th–8th c. AD from the west (fig. 2). The ruins of the pre-Roman fortification have been revealed under the Roman and the Early Byzantine walls, either in front of their curtain walls or crossed by them (Venedikov 1980, 37-39, fig. 17) (fig. 3). The Western gate was to the north of the northern end of the Early Byzantine gate which reused its place (Venedikov 1980, 38, 39). During the construction of the new fortifications in the Roman and Early Byzantine period, the pre-Roman wall was preserved slightly above its substructure for the additional reinforcement of the ground (Venedikov et al. 1969, 37; Venedikov 1980, 51, 52, 53). North and south of the entrance three rows from the Roman fortified wall have been preserved. Rectangular blocks from the pre-Roman fortifica-

Fig. 1. Nesebăr Peninsula during the third quarter of the 20th c. (from the photo archive of L. Ognenova-Marinova) Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)shaping of Public Spaces 395

Fig. 2. Western fortifications: 1 Antiquity; 2 Late Antiquity; 3 Middle ages; 4 present-day city quar- ters; 5 coastline of the 20th c., Baltic System; 6 present-day strengthening of the seashore (after Venedikov 1980; Шкорпил А 457; Кожухаров 2003 and H. Preshlenov)

tions were being reused (Venedikov et al. 1969, 88, 91, 94; Venedikov 1969a, 125, 126; Venedikov 1969b, 155). The walkway of the Roman entrance was preserved in Late Antiquity and the new pentagonal gate towers are built on the foundations of Roman, probably rectangular, towers. The construction of the Roman walls dates to Marcus Aurelius’ rule (Venedikov 1969a, 130, 131, 144-145, 148; Venedikov et al. 1969, 39-40, 46). After the collapse of the town walls, an Early Byzantine curtain in opus mixtum was built around the second half of the 5th c. AD (Venedikov 1969b, 155-156, 159). The ditch for the substructure of the wall touches the eastern face of the pre-Roman curtain. Some of its dismantled blocks were reused (Venedikov et al. 1969, 85). The pentagonal gate towers and the two circular towers were added in the corners of the new wall. The wall expanded to the east of the Roman foundations (Venedikov et al. 1969, 83; Venedikov 1969a, 144- 145, 149, 150-151). Repair work and reconstruction of already existing towers had been carried out, and perhaps two solid interval towers had been built before the destruction of the fortress by the Bulgars in AD 812 (Venedikov 1969a, 152-154; 1969b, 158). The ruins of the fortifications, which once protected the peninsula from attacks by sea, were discovered between the shelf terrace at 4-5 m and the sea terrace 12 m above sea level, where the Classical and Late antique city is situated. The tracing of the fortifications did not follow 396 Hristo PRESHLENOV

Fig. 3. Pre-Roman fortification wall by the Southern Late antique gate tower (photo: H. Preshlenov) the ancient coastal line, but rather was attempted to be close to the base of the peninsular slope (fig. 4). The wall in opus mixtum was built on the northeastern shore of the peninsula and in the bay north of the present-day coastline (Венедиков 1960, 9; Велков / Кехлибаров 1961, 5-7; Огненова 1975, 43, 44; Ognenova-Marinova 1980, 98). It was a continuance of the Late antique wall in opus mixtum, building up on land the pre-Roman wall (Venedikov 1980, 26-37, fig. 13; Огненова 1975, 44; Ognenova- Marinova 1980, 105, fig. 14) (fig. 4/1; fig. 5.1). The northern end of the wall was probably accessible for shallow draught boats, but their basic purpose was related to the defense of the peninsula by land. According to bathymetric data, by the end of the Early Byzantine period at least 87 m of these walls had been built on land. They can be defined as dia- teichismata, meant to block the skirting of the fortress from the north. The coastline west and east of the Early Byzantine diateichisma was also included in the fortified urban zone. A fortification wall was built in opus mixtum. Access to the newly defended territory was via an arched doorway in the diateichisma (Venedikov 1980, 26-27, 33, 73, fig. 7, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 19). Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)shaping of Public Spaces 397

Fig. 4. Location plan- scheme of the urban spaces mentioned in the text: 1 strengthening of the seashore, beginning of the 21st c.; 2 coastal line, third quarter of the 20th c.; 3 coastal line, first quarter of the 20th c.; 4 sea terrace (8-12 m), mid-20th c.; 5 sea bottom, 20th c.; 6 fortifications, mid-1st millennium BC – mid- 1st millennium AD (after Шкорпил А 457; Venedikov 1980; Ognenova-Marinova 1980; НEK Юнеско A / 1984; Sasselov 2005 and H. Preshlenov)

A supporting terrace wall was constructed at the end of the 5th – the beginning of the 4th c. BC of irregular pseudo-isodomic masonry east of the pre-Roman diateichisma along the 1st and the 2nd isohypse. Its construction overcomes the displacement and supports the slope of the peninsula also in Late Antiquity (Venedikov 1980, 41, 51, 67, 74) (fig. 4/2; fig. 5/2). Solid walls and towers were built of stone, brick or opus mixtum masonry on the upper part of the cliff slope. Obviously they mark the permanent course of the city defenses during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages along the northeastern cliff slope of the peninsula (Шкорпил А/165/457, 17, 18) (fig. 4/3). The dimensions and the construction of one of the wall-sections are identical to those of the sea-walls by the Southern Mesambrian harbour (Шкорпил А/165/457, 9, 11, 18; Sasselov 2005, 127, 129, 130-132, 154-156, fig. 9). Hypothetically, it is possible that some of the fortification facilities along the northern shore of Nesebăr Peninsula were a result of medieval repair works and reconstruction of the Early Byzantine defences, established at other fortress sections during the 6th–7th c., in AD 879, 1064-1067, and in the 14th c. Reconstruction a fundamentis of the Late antique walls has not been recorded (Venedikov 1969а, 158, 160, 162; Прешленов 2011, 313-314). In the southeastern territorial waters of the peninsula the sections of the three ancient fortifications was investigated. Between the fifth and the sixth isobath the crescent-line wall, built of large roughly processed blocks leveled by oak timber, was associated with the Thracian presence on the peninsula before the Dorian settlement (НЕК Юнеско А 1977, 6, фиг. 8-13, прил. [1]; НЕК Юнеско А 1978, 17-21, фиг. 9-14, прил. 1 and 2; Огненова-Маринова 1980, 28; Ognenova-Marinova 1990, 128, Tav. VI) (fig. 4/4; fig. 6). A section of the Classical wall was discovered above the 4th isobath, northeast of the crescent-line wall (fig. 4/5; fig. 7). It is built mainly of rectangular-shaped blocks (НЕК Юнеско А 1984, 9-10, фиг. 1, 6 and 9-14; 398 Hristo PRESHLENOV

Fig. 5. 1 Northern Late antique diateichisma and 2 the pre-Roman supporting wall (photo: H. Preshlenov)

Fig. 6. Crescent-line wall (photo: B. Zhablenski)

прил. 1 and 3; Трифонова 1985, 50, 53). A few pieces of the Late antique curtain in opus mixtum were discovered west of the Classical wall, brought down in an arc-like way at a depth of 2.50 m (fig. 4/6; fig. 8). Part of the substructure of the wall section has visible traces of reinforcement by piles and a wooden grille (НЕК Юнеско А 1979, 11, фиг. 4-7, прил. 1, 3 and 4). The southwestern fortification has similar chronological and topographical characteristics to that of the northwestern coastline of the peninsula. During the end of the 5th – the beginning of the 4th c. BC the front part of the peninsular terrace in the direction of the 11th isohypse, was fortified by a wall of coarse stone blocks (Кияшкина / Димова 2007, 312-313, обр. 2) (fig. 4/7). To the northwest, a section of a “zig- zag (?) line-terrace-wall” was built during the second half of the 4th– the first half of the 3rd c. BC of gray stone blocks (Огненова-Маринова et al. 1986, 80) (fig. 4/8; fig. 9). A part of the foundations of a thick wall between the 7th and the 8ht isohypse was registered to the northeast (unpublished observation by D. Kozhuharov in 1993) (fig. 4/9). A part of the wall with the same orientation, which belonged to the Hellenistic Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)shaping of Public Spaces 399

defenses, was discovered in front of the foundation. It is built of coarse limestone blocks (Кияшкина / Димова 2007, 313, обр. 3) (fig. 4/7). During the construction of the Late antique fortified wall in opus mixtum during the 5th c. AD the new fortification was shifted south- wards at the foot of the peninsular slope between the 1st and the 5th isohypse. During the Middle Ages and the 19th-20th c. the approach toward the southern harbour topographically inherited the passage space of the Greco-Roman and Early Byzantine harbour gate (fig. 4/10; fig. 10). The Mesambrian section shares some similarities with the Theodosian sea-walls in Constantinople (Sasselov 2005, 127, 129-132, 154, 156, fig. 9). The masonry corresponds to the walls in opus mixtum used at the large-scale fortification works in Mesambria from the second half of the 4th to the end of the 6th c. BC, as well as to the repair and reconstruction works till the end of the 9th c. AD (Venedikov 1969a, 126-127, 138; Venedikov 1980, 34-35, 36). Perhaps the "sea"-walls follow closely the Late antique coastline and join the western fortified wall by its southern round tower. In the beginning of the 20th c. to the southwest of the Fig. 7. Southeastern pre-Roman bay the ruins of the southern diateichisma were still visible (Шкорпил fortified wall (photo: B. Zhablenski) А 165/457, 16, 17). Similar to the northern diateichisma, it hindered movement along the walls toward the Southern harbour gate. The medieval Mesambria was politically and militarily contested by Bulgars and Byzantines during the the 9th, the 11th, and the 14th c. AD, only reconstructions and repairs were made and some new towers were added to the already existing Late antique defensive system. After the capture of the city by the Turks in the 15th c., the fortress was left without maintenance and only partial repairs were made (Venedikov 1969a, 160-162; Ognenova-Marinova 1969, 96-97, 102, 106-107; Ognenova 1988, 573-574). Public places “… The city – this is the people ...“ (Thuc. 7.77.7)

In conformity with the urban planning traditions of east Mediterranean poleis centers erected on steep slopes, some buildings in Mesambria were constructed on artificially formed terraces (fig. 11). In the Early Hellenistic period on the terraced northwestern slope of the peninsula, south of the supporting wall, a temple in antae was built in Doric order dedicated to Zeus Hyperdexios (Ognenova-Marinova 1994, 141; Velkov 2005, # 17) (fig. 4/11; fig. 12). Perhaps during the construc- Fig. 8. Southeastern Late antique tion of the Northwestern Christian basilica the temple of Zeus was de- fortified wall (photo: B. Zhablenski) stroyed. Two rows of blocks from the southern wall of the temple were used to fill the substructure of the apse of the basilica (Прешленов forthcoming/A). Epigraphic, iconographic and semantic evidence supports the ex- istence of a heroon in this urban zone; inside the tombs the founders of the polis were honored as heroes, and during the Late Hellenistic period heroized citizens were buried here (Маразов 2004, 20, 25) (fig. 4/11). During the construction of the Northwestern Early Christian basilica the Hellenistic-Roman buildings were destroyed, probably in the beginning of the 5th c. AD. The initial construction stage of the basilica, based on stratigraphic data, took place from the end of the 4th till the last quarter of the 7th c. AD. Fragments of marble altar plates 400 Hristo PRESHLENOV were reused as spolia during its reconstruction in the third quarter of the 7th c. AD when it was transformed into a cross-dome church. Among its ruins in the 10th–11th c. a small cemetery was located. In the construction of one grave, a frieze block with metopes and triglyphs from the Zeus temple was reused. In the nave of the abandoned basilica, a single-cell church was erected (Кожухаров 2003, 372, 373, 374 ; Прешленов forthcoming/B).

Fig. 9. Southwestern pre-Roman supporting wall (photo: H. Preshlenov)

Fig. 10. Byzantine fortifications by the Southern harbour (photo: H. Preshlenov)

Fig. 11. Western topographic profile of the Nesebăr Peninsula: 1 present-day deepening sea bottom; 2 supposed coastline, 5th c. BC; 3 present-day quay territory; 4 southern diateichisma; 5 coastline, 20th c.; 6 Late antique round tower; 7 Late antique portico, supposed location; 8 floor level of the Early Christian basilica, reconstruction; 9 early Christian crypt, staircase; 10 apse of the Northwestern basilica, 5th – beginning of the 9th c. AD; 11 temple of Zeus Hyperdexios, Northern wall; 12 supporting wall, 5th – 4th c. BC; 13 Late antique fortified wall; 14 present-day strengthening of the seashore (by H. Preshlenov) Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)shaping of Public Spaces 401

Fig. 12. Northwestern urban zone: 1 northern diateichisma; 2 northern supporting terrace wall; 3 Dorian temple of Zeus Hyperdexios; 4 Late antique fortified wall; 5 northern arc of the city square-vestibulum; 6 Early Christian crypt; 7 northwestern Early Christian basilica; 8 single-cell Medieval church (after Venedikov 1980; Кожухаров 2003; Прешленов forthcoming/A)

A cruciform vaulted single-chamber subterranean building, fragments of marble sarcophagi and a reliquary were discovered in the altar space of the basilica (Чимбулева 1991, 76; Кожухаров 2003, 372) (fig. 11; fig. 13). The 10th-century Byzantine Synaxarion of the Church of Constantinople contains data about a legendary martyrium of St. Irene in Mesambria, which attracted many pilgrims in the 4th c. AD (Soustal 1991, 355; Дражева 2002, 206). Undoubtedly the building in the altar area of the Northwestern Early Christian basilica served as a crypt which was preserved during the Middle Ages. The approach from the south towards the narthex of the basilica, which inherited topographically the square area by the heroon and Zeus’ temenos, was through the northern arc of the oval entrance to the city square vestibulum (measurment by H. Preshlenov; for the lat- est excavations, see Божкова / Кияшкина 2015, 294-297) (fig. 11; fig. 4/12). A street paved with stone slabs was built during the second half of the 12th c. over the ruins of the northern arc of the portico (Чимбулева 1990, 191). In the center of the Mesambrian entrance square the two main urban streets meet; traditionally they connect the country roads with the central and the harbour zone (Иванчев 1957, 49). Between them, to the southwest of the temple of Demeter, under the foundations of the demolished mosque, is another basilica from the 5th–6th c. AD (fig. 4/13). A more plausible identification is the basilica St. Apostles Petrus and Paulus, which is topographically localized under the mosque (Огненова 1963; Ognenova-Marinova 2005b, 51, 53; Прешленов forthcoming/B). The street delineating the basilica from the north leads to the central urban area. A few limestone and andesitic blocks formed a pave- ment, under which parts of fluted Doric columns were found (unpublished investigation of D. Kozhuharov and S. Dimova in 2002). The basilica St. Sophia was probably built in the area of the temenos of Apollo’s temple, where some of the lapidary copies of the city de- crees have been preserved (IGBulg I2 307 bis, 308 bis, 308 undecies, 312) (fig. 4/14). An inscription in the basilica’s foundations contained the names of Αδα and Δουτουβεη, whose liberation in the 4th–3rd c. 402 Hristo PRESHLENOV

Fig. 13. Early Christian crypt (measurment by L. Marinov) Fig. 14. The St. Sophia basilica (after Bojadžiev 1962)

BC was mediated by the priest of Apollo. In conformity with com- mon practice, the inscription with their names was put on some of the walls of the sanctuary (Velkov 2005, # 25). The single-apse basilica was built between the first half and the beginning of the last quarter of the 5th c. AD (Bojadžiev 1962, 322-323, 333-334) (fig. 14). The initial plan was preserved during the renovation of the church which was burnt down after AD 618, according to the interpretation of two graffiti from the 2nd period of the basilica (Stanev 2009, 87- 89, 94, 95, 99). The preserved part of the walls was built upon, the colonnades were replaced by mortar-and-tile pillars, and the atrium was abandoned (Bojadžiev 1962, 324-325, 327, 328, 330, 332, 334- 335; Бояджиев 1996, 13). During the renovation, materials from the demolished church were reused. The pilasters at the eastern wall were walled in the small pillar of the initial chancel (Bojadžiev 1962, 325, 327; Станев 2007, 62-65) and also a marble cornice with the inscribed Psalm 101:2, paleographically dated to the 4th–5th c. (Velkov 1992, 20) or to the 5th–6th c. AD (Beševliev 1964, # 166) (fig. 15). St. Sophia was a liturgical church at least until the 17th c., since fragments of its wall painting from that time have been preserved (Шкорпил А 165/734, 2, 3, 5-8, 10-12; Bojadžiev 1962, 334-335). From the trade and administrative center along the orthogonal, west-east oriented street network one reaches the highest eastern part of the peninsular terrace (Младенова 1986, 34). The church St. George the Oldest was located in the southeastern urban zone (fig. 4/15; fig. Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)shaping of Public Spaces 403

Fig. 15. Mortar-and-tile renovation of the basilica St. Sophia Fig. 17. Monastery basilica St. Virgin Eleusa (photo: H. Preshlenov) (after Velkov 1946)

Fig. 16. Eastern topographic profile of the Nesebăr Peninsula: 1 supposed coastline, 5th c. BC; 2 present-day mole; 3 Late antique fortification wall; 4 present-day strengthening of the seashore; 5 coastline, 20th c.; 6 Early Christian basilica, supposed location; 7 St. George the Victorious (“The Oldest”), 18th-20th c.; 8 the house of Artemidoros; 9 St. Virgin Eleusa; 10 pre-Roman fortification wall; 11 stonebed (by H. Preshlenov)

16). A commemorative inscription announces its renovation in 1704 (Κωνσταντινίδης 1945, 97-98). During its demolition in 1958, spolia from an Early Christian church were discovered inside its walls – parts of marble columns and bases, a capital (6th c. AD), part of a chancel, a brick with a stamp of Justinian I, three Early Christian inscriptions and graves from the 5th–6th c. AD under its foundations, as well as from the 13th–14th and 18th–19th c. AD (Ognenova-Marinova 2005a, 12-14). 404 Hristo PRESHLENOV

The medieval church inherited topographically an Early Christian basilica. It was built in a sparsely built-up area in the Roman period, over a stratum of ruins of Hellenistic houses and furnaces. With the abrasion of the cliff slope of the peninsular terrace, the remains of the Early Christian basilica collapsed into the sea. Another Early Christian basilica was built in the northeastern urban zone, on the territory of the Monastery St. Virgin Eleusa (Прешленов 2009, 197-198, 199) (fig. 4/16; fig. 16). Along with its adjoining necropoleis from the 7th, 12th and 13th–14th c. AD, it was located between the 9th and 10th isohypse of the leveled front part of the peninsular terrace. Chronologically related to its initial construction are the graves in the necropolis west of the monastery which date to the first half of the 7th c. AD – cist-graves constructed of and covered with stone slabs, and simple pit graves, some surrounded by stones (Божкова et al. 2007, 250; 2008, 307) and perhaps the vaulted and tombs at the narthex (Велков А 83/65, 32-35). The two renovations of the church date before the 15th c. AD (fig. 17). Traces of the first along the southern wall and at the southern section of the narthex can be related to the Iconoclastic period in Byzantium after AD 754 or to the conquest of the city by the Bulgars in AD 812 (Velkov 1946, 67; Прешленов 2009, 198-199). During the second change in the basilica, most spaces between the mortar-and- tile pillars in the nave were blocked up and obviously the southern aisle was most often used for liturgies. In stone graves at the northern aisle and the nave coins of the Komnenian dynasty and pottery from the 13th–14th c. AD were discovered (Velkov 1946, 68; Велков А 83/65, 35, 37, 42, 44-45). The changes in the composition-plan were not ex- ecuted later than AD 1341/1342, whence the donation inscription about the renovation of the monastery-church dates. After the Turkish conquest, the church was burnt down. As a result of the withdrawal of the cliff, which continued during the Middle Ages, the northern nave of the monastery basilica St. Virgin Eleusa collapsed into the sea. The increase of the sea level from the mid-2nd millennium and the earth- quakes of 1688, 1778 and 1855 seemingly prevented attempts at res- toration of the liturgy in the abandoned church as well (Прешленов 2009, 199-200; Preshlenov 2008, 54-55). Conclusion The (Late) antique structures of Mesambria are located on the Young Karangatian marine terrace, bordered by a steep abrasion-type shore. The city plan and spatial composition inherit the compact structure of the antique polis, which traditionally was oriented along a west-east axis, and was laid out regardless of the topographical conditions. The Mesambrian fortifications also take advantage of the characteristics of the local topography. Destructions of the “sea”-walls are observed between the slope of the marine and the underwater terrace, which corresponds to the Phanagorian regression. The course of the curtain wall often sought the proximity of the cliff slope, which is also justified by the step-by-step rise in the sea level. The topography of the city-peninsula determines the direction of the city traffic. The importance of the two main axes in the west-east and north-south directions remains till the end of Late Antiquity and later. They traditionally connected the country roads, the central, the Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)shaping of Public Spaces 405

northern and the southern harbour zones where the main gates of the polis were situated. The composition of public buildings and squares along the main directions of the street network are also preserved. The elongated peninsula with degraded marine erosion cliffs, as well as the older urban pattern, probably forced the Roman-Byzantine town planners to use grids of different orientations. The morphological structure of this city network is succeeded by Nessebar’s contemporary one, which is similar to that of every historically formed city and combines elements of rectangular-linear, axial, and free network. As the town was neither systematically razed nor rebuilt, certain public elements of the city have survived. A “vestibule-type” square is constructed by the Western gate. It is tangent to the Northwestern basilica to the south, which takes up the space of a former pagan heroon and a temple of Zeus Hyperdexios. The oval of the square’s porticos is a vanishing point of the three radiating streets. The southern one runs along the city reservoir and leads to the main harbour through the Southern gate. The central one passes by the basilica known as the Holy Apostles and connects with the southeastern residential area. The northern street reaches the central square with the Episcopal basilica, which takes up the space of a former temple of Apollo and the Southeastern basilica that was brought down into the sea in the Middle Ages. Short branches divide the traffic to the north – one leads to the northern harbour, between the basilica, succeeded by the church St. John the Baptist, and the public bath, and another – to the monastery basilica St. Virgin Eleusa, whose northern nave collapsed in the sea in the Middle Ages.

Bibliography cuites de Messambria. In: Velkov, V. coasts. Geomorphology, bathymetry and (ed.). Nessebre ІІІ. Burgas. 51-90. archeological cartography in Nessebar. Beševliev, V. 1964. Spätgriechische In: Karayotov, I. (ed.). Bulgaria Pontica und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1994. medii aevi VI-VII. Mesambria Pontica. Bulgarien. Berlin. Mesembriacos portus. In: Lazarov, M. / International seminar Nessebar, May Angelova, Ch. (eds.). Thracia Pontica 5. 28-31, 2006. (= Studia in honorem Bojadžiev, S. 1962. L’ancienne Varna. 139-142. Professoris Vasil Guzelev). Бургас. église métropole de Nesebăr. – 51- 67. Byzantinobulgarica 1, 321-346. Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1990. Nesebăr: trenťanni di ricerche di terra e subac- Sasselov, D. 2005. Secteur du mur ďen- IGBulg I2 = Mihailov, G. Inscriptiones quee. –Bollettino ďarte del Ministero ceinte sud de Messemvria médiavale. Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Vol. I2. per i beni culturali e ambientali 59, In: Velkov, V. (ed.). Nessebre III. Burgas. Serdicae 1970. 125-129. 127-158.

Ognenova, L. 1988. La datation des Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1980. Le Soustal, P. 1991. Tabula Imperii édifices médiévales à Nessebre ďaprès système de défense hellénique de Byzantini 6. Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē les données des fouilles. In: Gjuzelev, Mesambria du côté nord à la lumière und Haimimontos). Wien. V. (еd.). Bulgaria Pontica medii aevi II. des recherches sous-marines. In: Velkov, Sofia. 570-576. V. (еd.). Nessebre II. Sofia. 96-109. Stanev, S. 2009. The Old Metropolitan church in Nessebar/Mesembria after Ognenova-Marinova L., 2005a. Ognenova-Marinova, L. 1969. Dernières new epigraphical 7th century evidence. – Ľarchitecture domestique à Messambria transformations des remparts ro- Archaeologia Bulgarica 13/1, 87-101. IVe-IIe s. av. J.C. In: Velkov, V. (ed.). mano-byzantins. In: Ivanov, T (еd.). Nessebre ІІІ. Burgas. 11-29. Nessebre І. Sofia. 95-107. Velkov, I. 1946. An Early Christian basilica at Mesembria. – The Bulletin of Ognenova-Marinova, L. 2005b. Terres Preshlenov, H. 2008. Withdrawing the Byzantine Institute 1, 61-70. 406 Hristo PRESHLENOV

Velkov, V. 2005. Inscriptions antiques de Кияшкина, П. / Даскалов, М. 2007. експедиция – Несебър 1984. София. Messambria (1964 – 1984). In: Velkov, V. Спасителни археологически раз- (unpublished report). (ed.). Nessebre III. Burgas. 159-193. копки на ул. „Крайбрежна“ в ААР „Старинен Несебър“ през 2006 го- НЕК Юнеско А / 1979. Научно- Velkov, V. 1992. Mesembria zwischen дина. – Археологически открития и експедиционен клуб – клуб Юнеско. dem 4. und dem 8. Jahrhundert. разкопки през 2006 г., 247-250. Археологическа подводна експе- In: Pillinger, R. / Pülz, A. / Vetters, H. диция – Несебър 1979. София. (eds.). Die Schwarzmeerküste in der Бояджиев, С. 1996. Първичният архи- (unpublished report). Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter. тектурен образ на Старата митропо- Referate des dritten, vom 16. Bis 19. лия в Несебър и въпросът с нейното НЕК Юнеско А / 1978. Научно- Oktober 1990 durch die Antiquarische наименование. – Арх&Арт борса експедиционен клуб – клуб Юнеско. Abteilung der Balkan-Kommission 5/49, 12-13. Археологическа подводна експе- der Österreichischen Akademie der диция – Несебър 1978. София. Wissenschaften und das Bulgarische Велков, В. / Кехлибаров, T. 1961. (unpublished report). Forschungsinstitut in Österreich Подводна експедиция “Несебър”. – veranstalteten Symposions. Наука и техника за младежта 9, 5-7. НЕК Юнеско А / 1977. Научно- Wien. 19-22. експедиционен клуб – клуб Юнеско. Велков, И. А 83/65. Новооткрити Отчет за участието на групата за под- Venedikov, I. 1980. Les fortifications базилики в Месемврия. – Архив на водна дейност при НЕК в археоло- dans la partie nord-ouest de Nessèbre. БАН, ф. 83, а. е. 65. гическата леководолазна експедиция In: Velkov, V. (ed.). Nessebre II. Sofia. – Несебър 1977. София. (unpublished 23-80. Венедиков, И. 1960. Експедиция report). “Несебър”. – Подводен спорт 11-12, 9. Venedikov, I. 1969a. La datation des Огненова, Л. 1975. Подводна археоло- remparts romano-byzantins de Nessèbre. Дражева, Ц. 2002. Епископските гия в Несебър. – Векове 4/3, 43-48. In: Ivanov, T. (ed.). Nessebre I. Sofia. центрове на Южното българско 125-154. Черноморие V-ХV в. – центрове на Огненова, Л. 1963. Разкопките християнската култура. – Известия на в Несебър през 1963 г. София. Venedikov, I. 1969b. Histoire des rem- Народния музей Бургас 4, 203-211. (unpublished report). parts romano-byzantins. In: Ivanov, T. (ed.). Nessebre I. Sofia. 155-163. Иванчев, И. 1957. Несебър и неговите Огненова-Маринова, Л. 1980. Подводни къщи. София. проучвания в Несебър. – Музеи и па- Venedikov, I. / Ognenova-Marinova, L. метници на културата 3, 26-29. / Petrov, T. 1969. Disposition, fouilles Кияшкина, П. / Димова, С. 2007. et remparts de Nessèbre. In: Ivanov, T. Спасителни археологически проучва- Огненова-Маринова, Л. / Рехо, (ed.). Nessebre I. Sofia. 29-94. ния в гр. Несебър, обект: елинисти- М. / Илиева, П. / Чимбулева, Ж. / чески и късноантичен зид, ул. Мена Кожухаров, Д. / Тотешев, А. 1986. Κωνσταντινίδης, M. 1945. Η Μεσημβρία № 16. –Археологически открития и Разкопки и проучвания в Несебър. г., του Ευξείνου. Αθήνα. разкопки през 2006 г., 311-314. Археологически открития и разкопки през 1985 г., 80. Божкова, A. / Кияшкина, P. 2015. Кожухаров, Д. 2003. Базилика в се- Археологическо проучване на обект верозападной части Несебра. In: Прешленов, Х. Forthcoming/A. „Археологически комплекс при Gjuzelev, V. (еd.). Bulgaria Pontica medii Теменосите на Зевс в Месамбрия Западна порта – Северозападен сек- aevi 4-5¹. Sofia. 371-382. Понтика. Историческа топография и тор“ в резерват „Старинен Несебър“. архитектура. In: Минчев, A. / Роков, T. – Археологически открития и раз- Маразов, И. 2004. „Ойкистите“ в ре- (eds.). Богове и хора. Международна копки през 2014 г., 294-297. лефите на стратези от Месамбрия. – археологическа Проблеми на изкуството 1, 19-28. конференция, Варна, 18-20.09.2008 Божкова, A. / Кияшкина, Р. / Даскалов, (= Acta Musei Varnaensis 9). Варна. М. / Maрваков, Т. / Tрендафилова, Младенова, А. 1986. Многовековно К. 2008. Спасително археологиче- единство на природа и архитектура. Прешленов, Х. Forthcoming/B. (Ранно) ско проучване на ул. „Крайбрежна“ – Музеи и паметници на културата 3, -християнски църковни простран- в ААР „Старинен Несебър“. – 31-34. ства в Несебър. In: Карадимитрова, Археологически открития и разкопки К. (ed.). Сборник в чест на Мария Рео. през 2007 г., 304-307. НЕК Юнеско А / 1984. Научно- София. експедиционен клуб – клуб Юнеско. Божкова, А. / Прешленов, Х. / Отчет на археологическа подводна Прешленов, Х. 2011. Фортифика- Late Antique Mesembria: (Re)shaping of Public Spaces 407

ционни съоръжения в Несебър (севе- Станев, С. 2007. Старата митропо- Чимбулева, Ж. 1990. Редовни археоло- рен сектор). In: Станев, С. / Григоров, лия в Несебър в контекста на литур- гически проучвания – Несебър’89. – В. / Димитров, В. (еds.). Изследвания гичното планиране на константи- Археологически открития и разкопки в чест на Стефан Бояджиев. София. нополските църкви. – Годишник на през 1989 г., 191. 295-312. Департамент История 1, 2006, 50-83. Шкорпил А/165/457. Описание, Прешленов, Х. 2009. Манастирската Трифонова, М. 1985. Търсим те, планове, скици и рисунки на крепо- базилика “Св. Богородица Елеуса” Месамбрия. – Наука и техника за сти в Еминската част на Стара в Несебър: топография, архитектура, младежта 11, 48-53. планина. – Архив на БАН, ф. 165, а. обновяване”. In: Димитров, Д. et al. е. 457. (eds.). България, българите и Европа Чимбулева, Ж. 1991. Месемврия – мит, история, съвремие. Т. 3. – Несебр. In: Велков, В. / Огненова- Шкорпил А/165/734. Рисунки, скици (в памет на д-р Иван Велков и проф. Маринова, Л. / Чимбулева, Ж. (eds.). на орнаменти и надписи от Старата Велизар Велков). Велико Търново. Месамбрия – Месемврия – Несебър. Митрополия в Месемврия. – Архив 197-204. София. 72-91. на БАН, ф. 165, а. е. 734.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hristo Preshlenov Department of Classical Archaeology National Archaeological Institute with Museum Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2 Saborna Str. BG-1000 Sofia [email protected]