Field survey at louloudies: A new late roman fortification in pieria

The Annual of the British School at Athens

Volumn 93, Issue , 1998, Pages 463-511

  Poulter, A G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009548633     PISSN: 00682454     EISSN: 20452403     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0068245400003580     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Mrs E. Marki and her colleagues in the Byzantine Ephoria, who were ever prepared to answer our questions and provide practical assistance and also to Dr. A. Mentzos, at whose suggestion, the survey was carried out. I would also like to thank the farmers who willingly gave permission for surveying in their fields. The efforts of the team working in often difficult circumstances, must be acknowledged; Dr P. Strange, geophysicist, Catherine and Robin Faulkner, also the undergraduate and postgraduate students from the University of Nottingham; R. Sweetman (senior supervisor), N. Penna (surveyor), I. Brosch, H. Myers, D. Baxter, K. Rochester, T. Mandal, J. Taylor, and G. Nixon. Dr T. Mandal deserves particular thanks for her work on preparing most of the survey maps for publication and for her careful quantification of the intensive survey results. David Taylor, draughtsman in the Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, produced the drawings with his usual skill and attention to detail. Funding was provided by The University of Nottingham, The British School at Athens, The British Academy, The Society of Antiquaries, The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, and the EEC. The Hellenic Foundation paid for the costs of the ceramic analysis. Of particular note was a generous grant of 1,109,087 drachmas from the village of Korinos thanks to the personal support of the mayor, Mr Voinisios, without whose help the project could never have been undertaken. My colleague Dr W. G. Cavanagh offered much needed advice in the preparations for the expedition and in helping with the translation of Greek reports. I am also grateful to Ms J. Reynolds and especially to Dr J. Bardill for reading my report on the monograms and their helpful comments. Where appropriate, their important observations are acknowledged in the footnotes.
2. N. G. L. Hammond, ‘The Battle of Pydna’, JHS 104 (1984), 31-47 10.2307/630278. On Hammond's location map for the battle (map 3), the quadriburgium lies c. 200 m south-west of the position occupied by the Macedonian army's left wing. The precise location of ancient Pydna still remains a matter of conjecture although Hammond's identification is reasonable and has here been accepted (FIG. I); I would also like to thank the farmers who willingly gave permission for surveying in their fields. 31-2. See also W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Part II: Battlefields (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 153-6.
3. Since the areas available for intensive survey were defined by field boundaries, area codes were allocated to fields subject to intensive survey and in the sequence in which the work was carried out; A (field 14), B (field 15), C (field 16), D (field 17), E (field 6), F (field 19), G (field 23), H (field 22).
4. All pottery was washed and rebagged during the field season. The analysis was carried out by Mr M. Beckmann during the late spring of 1996. See below, section V.
5. A brief inspection of the site was carried out in the spring of 1994. It was evident then that it would be impossible to predict which fields would be accessible during the study season. It had been hoped, optimistically as it turned out, that geophysical and intensive surveys could be carried out in the same areas. This proved impossible. Only stubble fields could be surveyed by resistivity and here pickup was fruitless. Equally, it was clearly impractical to carry out geophysical prospection within standing crops.
6. Naturally, care was taken to ensure that the cotton was not damaged by field-walking or by the strings used to establish the grid.
7. A few fragments of roof tile were also found but were too few to merit separate quantification. Where fragments were very small, the distinction between tile and brick was, in practice, not easily established. Accordingly, a small portion of the material described as brick may actually be roof tile.
8. See below, section III, no. 19.
9. Exceptionally, the sequence for the transect numbers starts on the west side of the field, number 2 was on the east side and the third transect was midway between transects 1 and 2 (FlG. 2).
10. See below, section IV small finds.
11. See below, section V.
12. See below, section III.
13. This small field was the only one which could have been surveyed systematically but which was omitted for lack of time at the end of the field programme. A trial click survey in the most promising location which was obscured by stubble (field 5) produced no meaningful results.
14. Here the actual data from the click surveys are not published. However, the results are available for consultation in the site archives. See above, n. 1.
15. For further discussion of this and the other geophysical areas, see below, section II.
16. Within the quadriburgium, no paving survives but the presence of an open drain running between the megaron and the basilica indicates that the road must have been covered originally with limestone slabs which were subsequently robbed.
17. A conspicuous high-resistance anomaly at the north eastern end of the defences suggests, as would be expected, that there was another tower there, replicating the position of the tower at the south-eastern corner.
18. See further, section II.
19. Given the uncertainties as to the precise date of construction, it is here considered unwise to invoke Procopius’ Buildings in an attempt to identify the site. Book iv, which discusses Justinian's activity in northern Greece, is sketchy and probably written in haste; Averil Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century (London, 1985), 94. Moreover, the evidence for rebuilding on the lower Danube, also described in book iv, finds no support in the archaeological and epigraphic record, whereas there is good evidence that it was Anastasius and not Justinian who was responsible for reconstruction in this period; A. G. Poulter, ‘The use and abuse of urbanism in the Danubian provinces during the Later Roman Empire’, in J. Rich (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society, 3; London and New York, 1992), 131. An Anastasian date for the construction of the fortification at Louloudies can be excluded and a justinianic context seems improbable.
20. See Hammond (n. 2), 34 and Given the uncertainties as to the precise date of construction, it is here considered unwise to invoke Procopius’ Buildings in an attempt to identify the site., map 2 although here the road is presumed to lie to the south of the railway line as it passes through Louloudies, which would seem perhaps too close to the limit of ancient occupation.
21. The section of the itinerary from Pydna to Dion appears corrupt and the total distance between these two cities is excessive although the distance between Pydna and Anamum has not been challenged; N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia, i (Oxford, 1972), 131-4; W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, iii: Roads, (Los Angeles and London, 1980), 211-13.
22. Hammond (n. 21), 134. Against the identification of Gannokhora with Anamum see Pritchett (n. 21), 212.
23. Pritchett (n. 21), 213.
24. H. Hellenkemper, ‘Die byzantinische Stadtmauer von Nikopolis in Epeiros. Ein kaiserlicher Bauauftrag des 5. oder 6. Jahrhunderts?’, Nicopolis I: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Nicopolis (23-29 September 1984) (Preveza, 1987), 243-251.
25. For Nicopolis, see A. G. Poulter, Nicopolis ad Istrum: A Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City (London, 1995). For Justiniana Prima, see id. (n. 19), 124.
26. Hammond (n. 2), 35, id. (n. 21), 128.
27. Pydna is rarely mentioned in sources of the Roman and late Roman periods and its continued status as a city remains uncertain; F. Papazoglou, Les Villes de Macédoine á l'époque romaine (BCH supp. 16; Paris, 1988), 106 and 108.
28. An impressive result, using resistivity surveying under ideal conditions was carried out by K. Emerick and K. Wilson at Fountains Abbey, where the complete plan of the Guest Hall has been recovered; ‘Fountains Abbey: some interim results of remote sensing’, English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 18 (1992), 7-9. For a similarly successful use of magnetic gradiometer surveying, see P. J. Casey, M. Noel, and J. Wright, ‘The Roman fort at Lanchester: a geophysical survey and discussion of the garrison’, Arch. J. 149 (1992), 69-81.
29. A. Clark, Seeing beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology (2nd edn; London, 1996), 48-56.
30. P. Strange, ‘The geophysical survey’, in A. G. Poulter (n. 25), 259-69.
31. P. Strange, unpublished report for the Institute of Archaeology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1991.
32. Work in progress.
33. A. G. Poulter and P. Strange, see in this volume, ‘Philippi; the Results of a Geophysical Survey’.
34. P. Strange and R. Falkner, ‘The geophysical survey’, in G. Herrmann, K. Kurbansakhatov, ‘The international Merv project. Preliminary report on the second season’ Iran, 32 (1994), 58-910.2307/4299905. The results of the geophysical survey are compared with those from the ensuing excavations in eid., ‘The international Merv project. Preliminary report on the third season’, Iran, 33 (1995), 37-41.
35. See further below, section III.3.
36. A. Mentzos (n. 37), pl. 20ß.
37. The type C monogram (no. 13, FIG. 21.7), as noted above, is similar to examples of complete monograms which contain this name but, the lack of any clear sign of a K incorporated in the central vertical arm, though admittedly perhaps due to damage, leaves the interpretation uncertain. No. 15 (FIG. 22.1) is too poorly preserved to resolve the issue. In no. 16 (FIG. 22.2), the two diagonal lines (top right) do not form an A as they clearly do in no. 19 (type E, FIG. 22.3).
38. G. Soteriou (n. 37), plate 24.
39. Box type monograms alone were used on the bricks and sculpture in the construction of St Polyeuktos in Constantinople, dated to shortly after 518 but the earliest cruciform monograms appear on capitals in the churches of St Sophia (532-7), St. Eirene (after 532), and St John of Ephesus (completed by 565), pers. comm. J. Bardill.
40. PLRE iiiB, 1556-73, Zacos and Veglery (n. 37), 367.
41. P. Grierson, Byzantine Coins (London, 1982), 33-4.
42. e.g. Zacos and Veglery (n. 37), seal 472, p. 442. Dr Bardill has pointed out that the first firmly dated bar monograms belong to the 7th c.
43. J.-M. Spieser, Thessalonique et ses monuments du IVe au VIe siècle, contribution à l'étude d'une vill paléochrétienne (Paris, 1984), 212.
44. J-P. Adam, Roman Building: materials and techniques (London, 1994), 227, R. Ginouvès, Dictionnaire méthodique de l'architecture grecque et romaine (Rome, 1985) vol. 1, 144. I am grateful to Professor G. B. Waywell for confirming this identification.
45. See above, section I. 3.
46. I should like to thank Dr A. G. Poulter for providing both the permission and the means to study this pottery, Mrs E. Marki for cheerfully facilitating my work in Pydna, and R. Sweetman for helping me out in Athens.
47. The following abbreviations are used here: AfRS = African Red Slip, PhRS = Phocaean Red Slip, LRA = Late Roman Amphora, following the Carthage typology, see J. A. Riley, ‘The Pottery from Cisterns 1977-1, 1977.2 and 1977.3’, Excavations at Carthage 1977, conducted by the University of Michigan, ed. J. H. Humphrey, vi, (Ann Arbor, 1981), 55-78.
48. A number of other much less common wares were also noted, some of which are mentioned either in the text or in the catalogue. Three of these were included in the preliminary quantification (fine grey ware, fine brown ware, and LRA 4) but they were so rare that they were of no help either chronologically or with regard to distribution; they are grouped in the ‘unidentified category’ (TABLE 6). for the purpose of quantification. In addition, a number of sherds of Classical to Roman date and a few Byzantine glazed sherds were found, and these are noted in the distribution study below.
49. Wares are described by colour, inclusions and break, following the terminology outlined by G. D. R. Sanders in ‘Excavations at Sparta: The Roman Stoa, 1988-91 Preliminary Report, Part 1c. Medieval Pottery’, BSA 88 (1993), 252-86.
50. Throughout this report, references to illustrated examples are in bold within brackets.
51. These and all following fine ware dates are derived from J. W. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery (London, 1972) and A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (London, 1980).
52. Squares A1. 5, 7; A2. 8; A3. 1, 6, 12; C2. 2, 8, 9, 10, 15; F. 18.
53. Squares A2. 8; A3. 1; B1. 6; E1. 2, 4, 5, 9; B3. 11.
54. Squares A1. 5, 6.
55. See Riley (n. 54) and M. Bonifay and D. Pieri, ‘Amphores du Veau VIIes. à Marseille; nouvelles données sur la typologie et le contenu’, JRA 8 (1995), 94-120.
56. Bonifay and Pien (n. 64). 108. Examples from the survey are similar to 46, fig. 6 from context 2 (late 6th-7th cc. AD).
57. See R. Tomber, ‘Quantitative approaches to the investigation of long distance exchange’, JRA 6 (1993), 147 for amphora sources, 161 for conclusions regarding the distribution of eastern amphorae.
58. See Tomber (n. 66), 160-1.
59. J. W. Hayes, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, ii. The Pottery (Princeton and Oxford. 1992), 63-4 for LRA 1 (Hayes's Type 5), 64-5 for LRA 4 (Hayes's Type 6).
60. Note that Roman occupation has been found on the site before the construction of the late Roman defences. See above. section I.
61. See above, section 1.7.
62. Note that the two sherds from area H probably arrived with dumped debris used in modern land reclamation, see above, section I.7.
63. Hayes (n. 16), 94.
64. Hayes. 54; also cf. 14:30.