Anatolica XLII, 2016 A RELIQUARY CROSS FROM NORTHWEST ANATOLIA: Reflections on Mortuary Practice, Literacy, and Spelling Variants Tasha Vorderstrasse* Abstract This paper will examine a Middle Byzantine reliquary cross found in a cemetery at Barcın in the western Marmara region and try to examine the significance of reliquary crosses in their archaeological and linguistic contexts. Byzantine reliquary crosses represent an important aspect of the material culture of the medieval period, not simply in the Byzantine world, but also in the lands beyond its borders, where such reliquary crosses were viewed as a desirable luxury object. Despite their clear importance within and without Byzantine culture, however, reliquary crosses have received less attention than one might expect. Further, they are generally not analyzed except as objects denoting the spread of Byzantine culture amongst its neighbors or as signs of a Christian population in an archaeological record otherwise devoid of such signs of religious affiliation. Introduction The reliquary cross under discussion here is made from bronze and reliquary crosses of this type have been discussed thoroughly by Pitarakis (2006a). Her study, although com- prehensive, is not exhaustive and there are various aspects of reliquary crosses that she does not discuss. In particular, she does not address the issue of the inscriptions on the crosses, except to note when they are particularly “retrograde.” Therefore, the significance of the small inscriptions on this and other crosses for Byzantine literacy and spelling variants has not been addressed. She is not alone in her lack of treatment of these short inscriptions, however. Byz- antine literacy remains an understudied topic in general and the significance of short inscrip- tions on objects such as reliquary crosses for the study of literacy has remained unexplored. This article argues that further study of short inscriptions such as these can provide us with insights into the use of these objects in funerary contexts and the literacy of the low level elites in Asia Minor. The reliquary cross from Barcın is not a unique small find, rather it is a good representative of crosses found throughout Anatolia and therefore can be said to be typical of certain types of inscribed jewelry which were used amongst the Middle Byzantine population. This article will begin by discussing the site of Barcın in the Middle Byzantine pe- riod and examining its cemetery, which has one particularly interesting feature, a skull pit. * The author would like to thank J.J. Roodenberg for granting permission to publish the cross from Barcın. This paper was presented to the Late Antique and Byzantine Studies Workshop at the University of Chicago and thanks are also due to the members of the audience and their feedback on the ideas outlined here, as well as to Brian Muhs, Lynn Welton, and Kristine Larison with whom certain aspects of this paper were discussed. I would also like to thank Sophie Moore for providing me with a copy of the Korsvoll Honors Thesis. 172 Tasha Vorderstrasse Although the reliquary cross was found next to an inhumation grave and not the skull pit itself, determining how the cemetery functioned remains problematic and has interesting im- plications for Byzantine mortuary practice. The reliquary cross will then be discussed with its short inscription before turning to a discussion of Byzantine literacy and spelling variants. It concludes with several suggestions for future research on burial practices and the use of short texts to provide us with information about literacy. Middle Byzantine Barcın The site of Barcın is located in northwest Anatolia in the Marmara region in what is now Turkey (Fig. 1). The major cities in this region during the Byzantine period were Nicom- edia (Izmit/Kocaeli), Prusa (Bursa), Nicaea (Iznik), and the Byzantine capital Constantinople, which were located on the trade routes between Europe, Asia Minor, and the Levant. Other urban centers were also present, as well as villages that cannot now be located (Lefort 1995; Foss 1996: 1, 13; Bondoux 2003: 380-408; Lefort 2003; Beker-Nielsen 2008: 18-19; Korsvoll 2008: 6; Belke 2010: 48-52, 59; Belke 2013: 87-95; Grünbart 2013. For the region in the Roman period and the inscriptions, see Guinea Díaz 1997: 57-130). In the Byzantine period, this region was part of Bithynia, which was part of the Opsikion theme (province), which was the largest and most important of the early themes, thanks in part to its close proximity to Constantinople. The capital of the theme was originally Ancyra (modern Ankara) but after being the base of many revolts, the theme was broken up into three separate themes in the 8th century to prevent it from being the center of further revolt against the empire. The capital was subsequently moved to Nicaea, which was clearly the largest center of the region and a center of administration and trade, but the revolts continued. Its great rival was the city of Nicomedia which was the capital of the Optimatoi theme. The importance of the Marmara area as an im- portant Middle Byzantine monastic center is indicated by the fact that the records of over 60 monasteries have survived, some of which were founded by Constantinopolitan nobility (Janin 1921: 180-182; Mango and Ševčenko 1973; Lefort 1966: 367-369; Auzepy 2003; Belke 2013: 95-96. For the region in general see Janin 1921: 169-173, 178-179; Belke 2013: 84-85), archaeolog- ical sites have been iden- tified (Auzepy et al. 2005; Auzepy 2006; Auzepy et al. 2007, 2008, 2009) and fortifications have been documented in the region (Giros 2003). Some Mid- dle Byzantine graffiti have been located on the coast in the region and a possible Fig. 1. Part of Ancient Bithynia with Byzantine Middle Byzantine bounda- cemetery sites of Barcın and Ilıpınar. Anatolica XLII, 2016 173 ry stone on the northern shores of Lake Ascania (now Lake Iznik) (Kiortzian 2003: 60, 63). The main geographical feature of the region was the lake, where a Byzantine church was recent- ly located under water (Powell 2014). Protected by a series of fortresses (Giros 2003: 215-218), the lake was renowned for its fish and the hinterland of Nicaea for its vineyards, gardens, and other agricultural riches (Lefort 1996: 366-367; Foss 1996: 31-35). Despite all this prosperity, however, the region was not so peaceful in the 10th and 11th centuries. At that time, Nicaea was fought over in a number of revolts and it then became the capital of the Seljuk Turks possessions in Asia Minor in 1081. It was retaken in 1097 by the Byzantines with the aid of the First Crusade, whose travails in Asia Minor were described viv- idly in the sources. In order to reach Nicaea, the Crusaders had to also capture other towns and fortresses so that they should not be surrounded by enemy territory as they marched forward. Further, they happily killed the populations they met along way, both the local Christians as well as the Turks, destroying churches, and committing various atrocities. The Turks were equally unpleasant in the way that they treated both the Crusaders as well as the local popula- tion, apparently marauding the countryside when it was under their control. As the Crusaders besieged the city of Nicaea, the Crusaders found themselves encamped in the countryside for seven weeks, which caused them difficulties in obtaining supplies and inflicted suffering on the population in the countryside. Most notoriously, however, in order to demoralize the Turks holding Nicaea, the Crusaders cut the heads off of the dead Turkish soldiers and threw them into the city (Foss 1996: 17-49; Cheynet 2003: 320-321, 324-330; Albu 2005: 5; Frankopan 2012: 122-123, 139-145; Grünbart 2013: 117; Harris 2014: 64; Peacock 2015. For trans- lations of Middle Byzantine sources for this period see Kravari 2003: 73-82). All the armies and violence doubtless had a deleterious effect on the countryside although the exact impact remains unclear archaeologically. Material remains of Barcın and its Byzantine cemetery While there have been a number of architectural surveys in the region that have doc- umented different types of building remains and inscriptions, the amount of archaeological work on Byzantine sites in the countryside outside of Nicaea, which has been the subject of many excavations, remains small. The work of the Netherlands Institute for the Near East (NINO) and the Netherlands Institute in Turkey (NIT) has uncovered Byzantine remains at the sites of Ilıpınar and Barcın. This lack of study is not surprising given the generally small number of Byzantine sites excavated outside of major urban centers such as Ephesus and Sard- is. Understanding of the Byzantine countryside still remains problematic although there have been attempts to understand the regions better (see, for instance, Vorderstrasse and Rooden- berg 2009). The site of Barcın is located near the town of Yenişehir. Despite the commonly held assumption that Yenişehir was an Ottoman foundation, it seems more likely that was oc- cupied at least by the Byzantine period. This has been suggested because of the large number of Byzantine settlements (Lindner 2007: 103, no. 1) and a Christian inscription (Pargoire 1906: 217) found in the area. Thanks to architectural surveys, however, Byzantine remains had already been known at Barcın prior to its excavation. Ötüken reported that embedded in the ground next to the 174 Tasha Vorderstrasse fountain of the mosque was a fragment of a decorated part of a chancel which he seems to date to the Middle Byzantine period on the basis of its width (Ötüken 1996: 57, 69-71, Taf. 5,3) although it has been suggested by Pralong that it dates to the Early Byzantine period on the basis of a parallel with Salamis in Cyprus.