Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 54

This is an extract from: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 54 Editor: Alice-Mary Talbot Published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C. Issue year 2000 © 2000 Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University Washington, D.C. Printed in the United States of America www.doaks.org/etexts.html Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople ALBRECHT BERGER his paper will mainly address the question of whether Constantinople was planned Tand built with a regular street layout. The existence of such a layout has frequently been doubted. In fact, the surviving evidence is very scanty. We have only the trace of a single street, the Mese, longer than some hundred meters. Moreover, we should not for- get that for a long time scholarship about Byzantine Constantinople was influenced by the appearance of Turkish Istanbul. The Islamic street system, with its irregular blind and winding alleys, was considered to be the symptom of a decadent culture, and since Byzantine culture itself was widely thought to be decadent, the Islamic layout, projected backward in time, served as a proof for the inferiority of Byzantine town planning com- pared to that of ancient Greece. In Griechische Sta¨dteanlagen, published in 1924, Armin von Gerkan wrote the famous words: Constantinople was not a Greek city any more, it ceased to be a Roman one, and did not become a medieval one. It was an accumulation of imperial license without organic development, which was upset more than once by the excessive growth of the popula- tion, a pattern without any structure, without roots and without the possibility of inner development. Despite its unique situation in the world, it wasted away because of the basic evil of the Byzantine Empire, it died without ever having lived, and it continued to die on through the Turkish period until the present day. Von Gerkan ends by declaring Constantinople a “densely settled landscape” rather than a real city.1 Since most Byzantine street alignments are unknown, the only way to ascertain a possible street system is to check such surviving structures as churches, cisterns, the aqueduct, and city walls. If a number of monuments lie along an imaginary line and are oriented in the same way, a street may have led along them. However, this can serve as a basis for reconstruction only if the monuments are sufficiently distant from each other, since such alignments, where we can still see them, tend to be rather inexact. The churches of Hagia Sophia and Eirene illustrate this difficulty. The old street that was detected in 1935 during excavations in front of Hagia Sophia2 runs exactly perpendicular to the main axis of the building. Hagia Eirene, however, is turned a little more to the Parts of this paper correspond to a more detailed study, “Regionen und Straßen im fru¨hen Konstanti- nopel,” IstMitt 47 (1997): 349–414. 1A. von Gerkan, Griechische Sta¨dteanlagen (Berlin-Leipzig, 1924), 168. 2A. M. Schneider, Die Grabung im Westhof der Sophienkirche zu Istanbul (Berlin, 1941), 3 f. 162 STREETS AND PUBLIC SPACES IN CONSTANTINOPLE south, so that between its narthex and the street a slightly irregular wing had to be inserted to fill the space. If this wing had not been preserved, the difference in orientation, which is only a few degrees, would have distorted our attempt to establish the road path. Nevertheless, by bringing together all available information, it is possible to get a fairly clear image of early Byzantine town planning in Constantinople. Nine years after the publication of von Gerkan’s book, Knut Olof Dalman’s study on the Valens Aqueduct, which appeared posthumously in 1933, made some more positive remarks about the street system of Byzantine Constantinople. He wrote: “In the town plan of present-day Constantinople, three zones can still be clearly identified that evidence discernible differences in their street layouts. The first corresponds to the old town within the Severan wall. In it no consistent street network can be recognized. The second zone is Constantine’s town, whose systematic layout can still be made clear....Inthe third zone, which extends to the walls of Theodosius II, we again miss the continuous axes of a uniform system.”3 This concept of dividing Constantinople into the old, the Constantinian, and the Theodosian town is a useful base for further investigation. How- ever, in later remarks Dalman was sometimes led astray by the modern street system of Istanbul, which was developing as he was writing, and he was certainly wrong when he assumed that there was no consistent street layout in the old town.4 It is clear that when the areas of the Constantinian and Theodosian enlargements were incorporated into the city, a number of overland roads already existed there. The most important of these is the Mese; actually, it formed the eastern end of the old Roman road that extended the Via Egnatia through the Balkan peninsula, ending at the gate of old Byzantium, and was subsequently provided with porticoes on both sides. Another road branched off to the northwest at the place where the Capitol was built under Con- stantine.5 It is usually referred to in modern literature as the northern branch of the Mese, but wrongly, since—as it seems—the name Mese, which means “middle street,” was only applied to the part east of the Capitol, where the road actually lay in the middle of the peninsula.6 It is also probable that the two coast roads along the shores of the Sea of Marmara and the Golden Horn go back to the time before the refoundation.7 These streets will not be treated here, but it should be mentioned that they often crossed the street grids that were established later, following the lines of topography, and that they retained greater importance as continuous axes than any of the newly established roads. All public places of Constantinople outside the old town, for example, were built along the Mese or along the southwestern or northwestern streets. 3K. O. Dalman, Der Valens-Aqua¨dukt in Konstantinopel (Bamberg, 1933), 53. 4E.g., regarding the hypothesis that the Roman overland road to the northwest followed the modern S¸ehzadebas¸ı Caddesi. 5See C. Mango, Le de´veloppement urbain de Constantinople (IVe–VIIe sie`cles), TM, Monographies 2, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1990), plans; A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Poiki´la Buzantina´ 8 (Bonn, 1988), 330 f. 6Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883–85; repr. Hildesheim, 1963), 102.9, 369.29, 442.11, and Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB (Bonn, 1832), 1:693.22; De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. J. Reiske, CSHB (Bonn, 1829), 439.3 f; see also A. Berger, “Die Senate von Konstantinopel,” Boreas 18 (1995): 136 n. 35. 7Mentioned in Pa´tria Kwnstantinoupo´lew", 1.68 in Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. T. Preger (Leipzig, 1907), 2:148; cf. Berger, Untersuchungen, 226 f. ALBRECHT BERGER 163 Another problem is posed by the old retaining walls, which divided most slopes into terraces and do not conform to the reconstructed street system as proposed below. Ernest Mamboury and Raymond Janin believed that these walls were mostly of Byzantine origin and that where their construction appeared to be Ottoman, it was the result of later repairs.8 Many of these walls are now lost as a result of modern building activity; however, at the only place where major parts do survive, in the area around the former Old Sera- glio, it is clear that they belong to its substructures and have no Byzantine predecessors. Let us now turn to the street layout of Byzantium and early Constantinople. In the old town of Byzantium, a street grid can be recognized quite easily (Fig. 1). It took into account the shape of the major hills in such a way that streets ran either along slopes or perpendicular to them, so that they were either reasonably flat or very steep and equipped with stairs. For this reason, the streets were not always exactly parallel. Street E ran along the northwest side of the Hippodrome and beside Hagia Sophia and Hagia Eirene to the Acropolis. The exact line of the Acropolis walls is unknown, but it is probable that the walls of the inner courts of the Topkapı Sarayı use them as founda- tions.9 The only gate in these walls that leads to the northeast is the so-called Fil Kapısı, the “Door of the Elephants.” It lies in the line of the supposed Street E and may well have had a predecessor in the Acropolis walls that was used as an exit leading to the Gate of St. Barbara at the Seraglio Point. Street E existed at least until the tenth century10 and may be the one called Pelargoi, or “the Storks.”11 We can guess from the position and orientation of the palace hall, now the Mosaic Museum,12 that a parallel street existed some 120 meters to the southeast. This Street F ran along the atrium of the palace hall, then along the east side of Hagia Sophia, ending, perhaps after a small turn to the west, on the Acropolis. It is interesting to note that in the Byzantine period it was impossible to leave the Acropolis by using this street: in 1264, when the patriarch Arsenios was sent into exile, he left the Great Church on the east side, but then apparently used the street called E to reach the Gate of St. Barbara, where he embarked upon the boat that took him to Asia Minor.13 The terraces of the old emper- or’s palace extended behind Street F to the southeast, and another Street G may be assumed below these terraces leading to the Mangana gate.

Load more