CITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE

Continuity and Transformation

CITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN THRACE
Continuity and Transformation

Edited by
Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, Ivaylo Lozanov

ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI UNIVERSITY PRESS

SOFIA • 2017
Publication of the Center of Excellence in the Humanities “Alma Mater” (Regional Studies
Program), Sofia University “St Kliment Ohridski”, funded by the Scientific Research Fond
of the Bulgarian Ministry of Education, Youth and Science.







Image Cover: Bronze medallion of Philip I the Arab (244–249) from Bizye (Jurukova, J.)
Die Münzprägung von Bizye. Griechisches Münzwerk. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kul-
tur der Antike 18., Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1981, 73, Taf. 23, Abb. 137.

© 2017 Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, Ivaylo Lozanov – editors

© 2017 Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, Ivaylo Lozanov – introduction
© 2017 Borislav Kiosseff – cover design
© 2017 Alexandra Milanova, Danaila Grudeva, Daniela Stoyanova,
Dessislava Lyubenova, Dilyana Boteva, Dragomir Tochev, Georgi Sengalevich,
Hristo Hristozov, Kostadin Rabadzhiev, Mariya Kiprovska, Mustafa H. Sayar,
Philip Kolev, Stoian Terziev, Teodora Nedyalkova, Totko Stoyanov, Vladimir Staykov
© 2017 St. Kliment Ohridski University Press

ISBN 978-954-07-4275-5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Poleis and Harbours in Southeastern Thrace and Thracian Chersonesos from the
Archaic Period until the End of the Principate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mustafa H. Sayar
The Toponyms in the Inscriptions from Rogozen and the Historical Geography of
Southeastern Thrace in the Classical and the Hellenistic Periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Totko Stoyanov
Doors of Tombs in Southeastern Thrace in the Pre-Roman Period.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Daniela Stoyanova
Dionysos in Propontis. The Numismatic Evidence in Pre-Roman times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Teodora Nedyalkova
Hunting in Paradise.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Kostadin Rabadjiev
The Kline from the Tomb at Naip and its Parallels in Northeastern Thrace. . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Danaila Grudeva
Kypsela through its History and Coinage (4th–3rd century BC).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Dessislava Lyubenova
Notes on Hadrianopolis in Thrace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Dragomir Tochev
“Under cover of carrying succour to the Byzantines”. King Philip V of Macedon
against Thracian chiefs (analysis of Liv. XXXIX, 35, 4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Dilyana Boteva
Bizye: From Tribal Residence to Roman City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Filip Kolev
The cities in Southeastern Thrace and the central government under the last
Thracian Kings (27 BC–AD 45).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Stoyan Terziev
Southeastern Thrace in the Late Antiquity. Ethnic Changes and
Settlement Transformations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Vladimir Staykov
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa.

The Case of Komnenos’ Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Georgi Sengalevich
The Ottoman Town of İpsala
from the Second Half of the 14th to the Еnd of the 16th Century.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Hristo Hristozov
Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century.
The Mihaloğlu Family Vakf Possessions in the Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Mariya Kiprovska
In the shadow of Constantinople: The unpublished memoirs of
Adrianople by F. Pouqueville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Alexandra Milanova
Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
 Cities in Southeastern Thrace
Continuity and Transformation
™

INTRODUCTION

T he City in history has always been a central topic in studying collective human
behaviour. The idea of studying cities on the Balkan Peninsula in diachronic per-
spective emerged as major research-project launched by researchers from the Faculty of
history at the University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski” in 2011. Shaped as an interdis-
ciplinary seminar “The Balkan City”, funded by the Center of Excellence in the Human-
ities “Alma Mater”, the project was conceived to bring together distinct methodologi-
cal and theoretical approaches into a holistic and interdisciplinary one. Various themes
and branches of historical studies were to contribute towards better understanding of the
urban phenomenon. We were also extremely privileged to extend the academic discourse
beyond our own intra-academic community in Sofia since our efforts were supported by
eminent researchers from abroad who accepted our invitation and regularly delivered
lectures in the seminar on specific topics within the area of their own expertise.
In result our project went far beyond its initial frame as it also focused on a variety of
particular problems of urban history. One of the chief research issues that concentrated
a great deal of research attention, namely the continuity of urban structures and their
transformations, proved over time to be conclusive in explaining wider political, eco-
nomic and social processes in the Balkans. Concurrently we began to develop regional
research-strategies aiming to achieve in-depth analysis of relatively well recorded areas
and sites where balanced information on each major historical period appeared to be read-
ily at hand. At this stage it proved necessary to expand our own resources by mobilising
particular research-teams for each period. Research-fellows were recruited amongst the
departmental staff and graduate students who’s own studies and expertise were closely
in alignment with project’s general objectives.
Our first case-study area was South Eastern Thrace (mod. Greece and Turkey) where
some of the earliest and most vital urban structures emerged. The choice was perfectly
in accord with our main focus to give a historical cross-section, as thorough as possi-
ble, in a region where political, economic and geo-strategic considerations eventually
led to the establishment of several superior administrative units, or actual capitals, of
renowned state- or sub-state formations – the Odrysian kingdom; the Roman province of
Thrace (Perinthus); the Byzantine (Constantinople) and the Ottoman (Edirne and Istan-
bul) empires.
In the meantime we were encouraged to adjust matters of vision and perspective and
to deepen our research-efforts by organising travelling seminars in areas previously
8 

defined as potential case-studies. Some main study areas have been already selected and
with the beneficial co-operation of our partners in Turkey we were mostly facilitated in
realizing the first travelling seminar in Propontic Thrace. The highly encouraging results
that came out from our Eastern Thrace field research and seminar on the spot pave the
way for establishing a tradition of interdisciplinary travelling seminars that were gener-
ously supported by the Center of Excellence in the Humanities “Alma Mater”.
This volume is a direct outcome from our first travelling seminar in Eastern Thrace
that took place in the Fall of 2013. Within the present volume the reader is invited to look
through different sections where the papers are organised chronologically starting from
the 1st millennium BC until the Ottoman period. The thematic scope is not strictly focused
on material remains: it tackles questions of identification and historical geography; reli-
gious identities and self-expression; problems of relations between centre and periphery;
the changing functions performed by certain cities; ethnicity and urban culture; social
transformations, symbols of status and self-representation; “the other’s view” etc.
Last but not least it is our pleasant duty to express warm gratitude to our colleagues
form the Center of Excellence in the Humanities “Alma Mater”, Prof. Ivan Ilchev,
Assoc. Prof. Ivan Parvev, and Assist. Prof. Maria Baramova who undertook the burden-
some task in promoting this project, in supervising and encouraging every step of its fur-
ther development. We are much obliged to Prof. Mustafa Sayar (Istanbul University) for
welcoming the project’s general idea and for being of immense help in securing logistic
support and guidance all through our stay in Turkey. Our gratitude also goes to our col-
leagues at the Trakya University in Edirne for their immense hospitality and understand-
ing of our research needs. We also thank to each of the participants for their passionate
work and attitude towards successful completing of our joint task.

From the editors

Sofia, November 2016.
 Cities in Southeastern Thrace
Continuity and Transformation
™

ARISTOCRATISM AND PIETY ALONG

THE BANKS OF MARITSA
The Case of Komnenos’ Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira
Georgi Sengalevich

P heres (also Ferres, Pherrai) is a town in the region of Thrace in Greece, located north-
east of Alexandroupoli and along the border with Turkey. Its visitors could quite eas-
ily distinguish a large and impressive Orthodox church, located on a fortified hill in the
middle of the town, overlooking the valley of lower Maritsa/Evros/Meriç River some
4 km away. Following the description, given into a medieval monastic document – the
charter or typikon of Theotokos Kosmosoteira, Fyodor Uspensky first identified the site
as the Byzantine Vera, where in 1152 a monastery with the unusual dedication to the
Virgin as the saviour of the world was founded. The founder Isaac Komnenos (1093–
after 1152) was the third son of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118)
and also the father of emperor Andronikos Komnenos (1183–1185). During the reign of
his elder brother emperor John II (1118–1143) and of the later Manuel Komnenos (1143–
1180), Isaac, a scholar and patron of learning, was elevated to the dignity of sebastokra-
tor, but later was exiled a couple of times, the last after 1150, when he found final rest-
ing place at his residence along the banks of Maritsa River in Thrace1. This somehow
explains the unusual location of his monastic foundation, on the bustling crossroad of
two major routes – the Via Egnatia in the section between Kypsela and Traianoupolis,
and the Maritsa River2. The port of Vira/Vera or Bera/Bira (Βήρα), mentioned in several
sources, was most probably located some 20 km to the north of Ainos, right in the area
of today’s Pheres3. As we know from the typikon, drawn up by Isaac in 1152, the monas-

1 See Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God
Kosmosoteira near Bera. In BMFD: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders΄ Typika and Testa-
ments. Ed. by J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero. Washington, D.C., 2000, 782.
2 Andreas Külzer, “The Byzantine Road Rystem in Eastern Thrace: some remarks.” Byzantinische Forschun-
gen, 30 (2011): 186–187, 190–191.
3 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley. Thes-
saloniki, 2007, 50.
148 Georgi Sengalevich

tery was in control of a bridge over Maritsa and its abbot even had the privilege to own a
vessel in the river for fishing and transferring people4.
In addition to the typikon, the other major source about Kosmosoteira is what has left
of the monastery as material evidence. At first place, the main church, the 12th-century
katholikon, is well preserved. Measuring 15 x 20 m, it is a variation of the five-domed,
cross-in-square type (Fig. 2). The eastern side ends in three apses, of which the central
is five-sided with a large three-light window (partially blocked) and the rest were origi-
nally four-sided with two-light windows. The sanctuary to the east is tripartite with the
three spaces separated by thick piers that support the main dome. On the other side, the
dome is supported by two pairs of elegant columns. This obvious asymmetry, which is
also a constructive one, forced the insertion of iron tie rods – something unusual as a sup-
portive measure in the Byzantine architecture5. The walls of the church up to the height
of the cornice are built in stone alternating with courses of bricks, accomplished in the
recessed brick technique (with broad bands of mortar)6. The vaulting begins above the
level of the cornice, with the wide barrel vaults that cover the four arms of the cross being
stabilized at their springing by wooden tie beams. The main dome rises above a dode-
cagonal drum pierced by windows, about 7 m in diameter and rising to a height of 11
m. The remaining four domes over the corner bays that rise on eight-sided drums assign
the Kosmosoteira church to a list of similar five-domed cross-in square churches such as
the St Sophia of Kiev (1046) or the St Panteleimon church in Nerezi (1164), a type cer-
tainly originating in Constantinopolitan monuments, such as the Nea church at the Great
Palace (881) and the north church of Constantine Lips (907)7. As mentioned in the typ-
ikon8, the church had also an exonarthex that is not preserved. However, traces of such an
ambulatory are well visible on the north, south and especially the west façade.
The walls of the church are pierced by openings according to the standards of the con-
temporary Constantinopolitan architecture. The symbolism of the Holy Trinity was real-
ized through the three entrances on the western façade, with the main entrance flanked
by two large tripartite windows, of which the middle one is topped by a semicircular arch
while the two side lights are designed as half-arches. The main apse contains a triple
window composed of three semi-circular openings, separated by marble mullions, while
in the apses of the diakonikon and the prothesis are placed smaller two-light windows.
The main dome is illuminated by 12 arched windows that interrupt the drum. The four
smaller domes also have such windows, but only at the visible sides. In the southeast cor-
ner dome, there is a part of the original window preserved, with its frame of cast mortar
and small yellowish glass pieces9. Smaller arched windows are placed also in the north
and south lunette, just under the tripartite windows. In fact, the exterior of the church is
not as segmented and complicated as the examples of the later Palaeologian Period and

4 Isaac Komneno, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152). Ed. L. Petit. Известия Рус-
скаго Археологическаго Института в Константинополе, 13 (1908): 50–51 (§66, 67).
5 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 56.
6 Ibid., 60.
7 See Νικόλαος Γκιολές, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία (600–1204). Αθήνα, 1992, 82–90, 105–107; Vojislav Korać, Mar-
ica Šuput, Arhitektura vizantijskog sveta. Beograd, 2010, 138–166.
8 Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 69–70 (§107).
9 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 59–60.
 Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa 149
the facades below the windows remain relatively plain, thus approaching the rather aus-
tere decoration of the synchronous Chora and Pantokrator monasteries in Constantino-
ple (Fig. 1). Nevertheless in addition to the windows, the exterior is moved by a series of
blind niches on the upper level of the apses. They have flat or concave fields that include
brick patterning (W-shaped pattern; reticulate pattern) and are very similar to the Chora
church in Constantinople, rebuilt at the same time by the same man – Isaac Komnenos10.
The southeast corner niche of the diakonikon apse is filled with the unusual image of an
eagle (Fig. 3). Similar types of royal, imperial images however became popular since
the late 10th century, but were depicted on expensive fabrics and in illuminated manu-
scripts, or engraved on stone reliefs, not made of bricks as ornamental brickwork. There
is another interesting design – the decorative pilasters of the main dome drum bear orna-
mental brick letters, composing most probably a cryptogram of a prayer.
But let us move towards the interior of the Kosmosoteira’s katholikon. First of all, the
coupled columns of the western supports attract our attention (Fig. 4). The only parallels
we could find are in the contemporary Romanesque architecture, thus a Western influ-
ence seems possible11. The reason for such a solution might be the presence of suitable
material: the shafts and the bases of the columns appear to be spolia, as the founder him-
self acknowledges in the typikon12. The capitals, also spolia, were reworked in order to
express the fashion. They were covered with plaster and recarved13. Similar plastic cov-
erings of considerable dimension were applied to the marble cornice that extends around
the interior of the church and to the dome cornices. They are not preserved. We could
now proceed to the architectural sculpture. Several pieces of the original marble templon
are incorporated into the modern chancel screen of the church: fragments of an epistyle
consisting of torus and freeze of acanthus leaves and pieces of another, simpler epistyle
that bears a frieze of alternating lotus and acanthus, most probably from the chancels of
the pastophoria14. The most important feature of the interior however are the wall paint-
ings, preserved in fragments. It is generally accepted that they are not far removed from
the 1152, when the monastery’s typikon was written15. They represent the aesthetics of
the 12th century mature Komnenian art – the compositions lack the passion and the dyna-
mism of the later frescoes from, for example, Nerezi or Kurbinovo16. In Kosmosoteira,
the faces with their lights and shadows appear much closer to the human condition. The
figures are elongated but not weak and express aristocratic tranquility that may be related
to the contemporary court culture in Constantinople. Perhaps that is the reason for some
researchers to date our frescoes by mistake at the beginning of the 13th century17. There
are several unique features in the iconographical program of our church. It is unclear

10 Νικόλαος Γκιολές, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία (600–1204), 94, 106.

11 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 65.
12 Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 63 (§89).
13 See Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira).” Byzantinisches Archiv, 16 (1985):
98–101.
14 Ibid., 114.
15 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 73.
16 Myrtalē Acheimastou-Potamianou, Greek Art. Byzantine Wall-Paintings. Athens, 1994, 22.
17 A date suggested by V. Djuric and D. Mouriki, see Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine
Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 73.
150 Georgi Sengalevich

whether any wall paintings are preserved in the dome, under the Turkish plaster. Stefan
Sinos indeed correctly reminds that the surface of the dome is not flat but faceted, except
of a small circular medallion in its center18. A large image of Christ Pantokrator simply
is not possible. The visual effect was strengthened through the mentioned decorative
faceting, which had to imitate the divine light with its rays (Fig. 5). Similar solutions can
be seen in numerous Constantinopolitan monuments, like the late 11th century Christ
Pantepoptes church (Eski Imaret mosque), the 12th century Pantokrator monastery (Zey-
rek mosque), the late 12th century Theotokos Kyriotissa church (Kalenderhane mosque)
or the domes of the Chora complex, covered with mosaics during the 14th century, but
also in some provincial monuments, such as the late 10th century Panaxiotissa church
near the Greek village of Gavrolimni or the late 11th century Veljusa monastery close to
Strumica in the Rebublic of Macedonia. Faceted domes can be found also in Palaeolo-
gian masterpieces like the Pammakaristos chapel (Fethiye mosque) in Constantinople
and the Metropolis of Mystras. In contrast with the most of these examples, the faceting
of the Kosmosoteira domes is done just like at Chora and Pammakaristos by ribs alter-
nating with concave fields and not in the manner of flat relief rays that stand out against
the background. In the upper zone of the north and south walls of the cross arms, we see
busts of hierarchs and, beneath them, full-length images of Old Testament prophets hold-
ing scrolls. Between the small arched windows, we can see four haloed male military fig-
ures, two on each side. Are they military saints and nothing more? The diadems that they
wear, along with the total absence of inscriptions and the unusual and personified facial
features, have led researchers like Charalambos Bakirtzis to the conclusion that mem-
bers of the Byzantine royal family were depicted19. In the north side, they recognize
Andronikos, a brother of the founder Isaac, with their father – Emperor Alexios I, and
Emperor John II (also Isaac’s brother) with Isaac Komnenos himself on the south side
(Fig. 6). Although this hypothesis sounds attractive, I would like to stress the uncondi-
tional will of Isaac, expressed in his typikon, not to be depicted in the church20. At the
same time it seems highly unusual to me for members of the royal family, including two
emperors, to be featured not full-length and scattered between the windows. The repre-
sentation of the already mentioned people disguised as saints and the game with the
images can be acceptable for the art of the Renaissance, but not for the middle 12th cen-
tury Byzantine painting. In the lower zone of the walls, a procession of hierarchs “heads”
towards the sanctuary – something rather unusual as well. Normally the hierarchs out-
side the sanctuary are depicted frontally. In our case, their procession forms unified com-
position with the scenes in the sanctuary – the fresco in the main apse, which is not pre-
served, and the scene of the Communion of the Apostles in the prothesis, where the
Eucharist was prepared. Most strikingly, the depicted over there are mainly hierarchs of
the Church of Rome21. Two archangels crown the domes over the pastophoria. In an

18 Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 111.

19 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 72.
The paper of Charalambos Bakirtzis, “Warrior Saints or Portraits of Members of the Family of Alexios I Kom-
nenos?” In Mosaic. Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw. Athens, 2001, 85–88, was not accessible to me.
20 Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 63 (§89).
21 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 69.
 Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa 151
attempt to explain the odd elements in the fresco program, Nancy Ševčenko constructs a
hypothesis that the interior of the church was planned to be carved in marble up to the
level of the cornice, but only the sanctuary area was completed in that fashion, thus cre-
ating anomalies in the placement of the frescoes that were added somewhat later22. How-
ever, traces of such carving are not apparent and the lowest zone of the walls was actu-
ally painted to imitate a marble dado. At Kosmosoteira, there are several other scenes
preserved: a two-part composition of the Annunciation above the pairs of columns in the
eastern faces of the walls, with the Archangel Gabriel to the north and the Virgin Mary
to the south. On the north face of the wall above the southern pair of columns, the Pre-
sentation in the Temple is depicted. The Nativity of Christ is placed on the eastern intra-
dos of the southern barrel vault. In the inner arch of the southeast bay is the Pentecost. A
bust of Christ appears in the southwest dome, while the northwest minor dome is filled
with the image of the Virgin Orans. The arch over there contains a scene of the Holy
Women at the Tomb of Christ, a common funerary theme. That is why Robert Ouster-
hout suggests that this is the exact place of the founder’s tomb23. From the typikon we
know that Isaac Komnenos at first had prepared his burial place at the Chora monastery
in Constantinople, but later changed his mind and ordered all the marbles to be trans-
ferred to Kosmosoteira, as he writes, “on the left side of the narthex, there where I made
an extension to the building on account of the tomb”24. This passage is especially prob-
lematic because of the meaning of two terms – “narthex” and “extension”. The narthex
might be the now-destroyed ambulatory to the west of the church. However, this struc-
ture was most probably the exonarthex, mentioned by Isaac as well, where his secretary
Michael and his servant Leo Kastamonites were to be buried in marble sarcophagi set in
frescoed arcosolia25. Nancy Ševčenko proposed that “extension” means an additional
structure attached to the north of the church26. During excavations in 1970, remains of a
small wall, water draining system and a vast stone fundament were uncovered there. Ste-
fan Sinos argues as well that they might belong to Isaac’s ‘Mausoleum’27. In fact, they are
more likely to be the remains of an attachment to the northern wall of the church, still
visible next to the remains of the Ottoman minaret on a photo, taken in the 1920s28. Most
researchers assume that the “narthex” is the western part of the naos with the “extension”
being its northwest corner, where the already mentioned funerary scenes are depicted29.

22 See Nancy Ševčenko, “Revisiting the frescoes of the church of the Kostmosoteira at Pherrai (1152).” In
ΣΥΜΜΕΙΚΤΑ. Collection of Papers Dedicated to the 40th Anniversary of the Institute for Art History, Faculty
of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Beograd, 2012, 85–91.
23 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 79;
Robert Ousterhout, “The Byzantine architecture of Thrace: The view from Constantinople.” Byzantinische
Forschungen, 30 (2011): 493.
24 Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kos-
mosoteira near Bera, p. 838 (§89); Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos
(1152), 63 (§89).
25 Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 69–70 (§107).
26 Nancy Ševčenko, “The Tomb of Isaak Komnenos at Pherrai.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 29 (1984):
138.
27 Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 74.
28 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 51.
29 Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 58.
152 Georgi Sengalevich

In fact, such spaces are not unusual in the Middle Byzantine architecture30. Such sepa-
rate chapels with funerary functions, situated in the northwestern bay of the naos, are
evident at Hosios Loukas monastery and at Nerezi31. Unfortunately, nothing has left in
place from Isaac’s tomb (bronze railings, portraits, icons, gifts)32. Some attribute a mar-
ble slab that bears an epitaph to be a part of the founder’s tomb33. It was found by Uspen-
sky at his visit to Kosmosoteira, but unfortunately the name of the deceased despot is not
preserved, and other dignitaries have been buried there as well.
In addition to the church, there were several other buildings that formed the whole
complex. The typikon informs us about the existence of a refectory, cells for the monks,
baths, cistern, a treasury, a library, a hospice for the elderly, a hotel for pilgrims, a res-
idence of the founder, storerooms, stables, mills, etc. The details, given in the typikon,
make possible a sample reconstruction of the general outlook of the whole complex. The
buildings were organized into two spaces34, with the katholikon and the cells forming
the inner fortified area35. The refectory with the cistern36, the dwelling of Isaac’s sec-
retary Michael37, the treasury and the library must have been there too. The second,
“external” court, enclosed with a fence38, incorporated the old age home, the outbuild-
ings39, presumably one of the baths40, etc. Isaac’s residence41 and the public bath next to
the monastic cemetery42 should be traced outside the enclosures. All of these structures
are not preserved and no major archaeological research has been conducted yet. In fact,
Isaac ordered his residence, the despotikon, and his bath to be destroyed under certain
circumstances after his death43. Despite this egalitarian measure and the fact that the typ-
ikon follows the rules of the Evergetis monastery as a model, there are some elitist trends

30 Ida Sinkević, “Western chapels in Middle Byzantine churches: Meaning and significance.” Starinar, 52
(2002): 79 – 92.
31 Ibid., 82 – 84.
32 For a detailed description of the tomb, see Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près
d’Aenos (1152), 63 – 64 (§89 – 90); transl. Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the
Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 838 – 839 (§89 – 90).
33 See Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God
Kosmosoteira near Bera, 782; Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the
Evros/Meriç River Valley, 80 – 81; Nancy Ševčenko, “Revisiting the Frescoes of the Church of the Kostmoso-
teira at Pherrai (1152)”, 86.
34 “I tightly enclosed everything within a double wall”, writes Isaac in Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokra-
tor Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera, 799 (§2); Isaac Komne-
nos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 20 (§2).
35 Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 74 (118).
36 Ibid., 72 (§113).
37 Ibid., 69 (§107).
38 Called „the sigmoid wall” (σιγματοειδές τεῖχος) in Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmos-
otira près d’Aenos (1152), 68 (§101), translated by Nancy Ševčenko as “the S-shaped wall” in Kosmosoteira:
Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near
Bera, 843 (§101). In fact the palaeography of the Greek letter “sigma” as С by that time could lead us to a
semicircular shape of the external enclosure, limited by a “sigmoid” fence, attached to the main core of the
complex.
39 Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 53 (§70), 68 (§101).
40 Ibid., 73 (§113).
41 Ibid., 73 (§115).
42 Ibid., 66 (§97), 74 – 75 (§118).
43 See Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 73 (§113, 115).
 Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa 153
in the text. After all, Kosmososteira is a private foundation. For example, the 50 monks
were to be assigned to the performance of hymnody in the church. The manual labour
was to be responsibility of the 26 servants. The founder endorses the cenobitic life-
style that means common services, common meals, and communal supply of clothes, but
authorizes the abbot and the “more important” monks with a great power44. In fact, the
monastery was an enterprise that possessed a list of immovable properties and lands, had
the right to organize annual fairs, and also possessed a marketplace and 12 ships. The
monastery was unusually open to laymen also through the bathhouse, available to pub-
lic, or through the old age house and other means of philanthropy45. There were several
villages in the territory, donated by Isaac, whose peasants became dependents of Kosmo-
soteira. Among them had to be several soldiers and privileged armed dependents to pro-
vide protection for the monastery’s possessions46 – very interesting details that remind
more of the Western than of the Eastern monastic tradition. Today, sections of the forti-
fication wall and parts of three rectangular towers survive (Fig. 7). They are built of cut
stone blocks with bands of bricks in some sections. It is still disputable if they are the
“strong enclosure wall” mentioned by Isaac Komnenos47. According to some, they might
be a later work, from the period after the beginning of the 14th century, when the monas-
tery already served as a fortress48. In fact only one tower is mentioned in the typikon49,
as well as three entrances: the main on the south side and two additional on the east and
on the west50. As an architectural solution, Kosmosoteira’s fortification reminds of the
enclosures of St John the Baptist monastery in Kardzhali, Bulgaria51, or of Daphni mon-
astery near Athens in Greece52, both of the 11th century, but even more with its polygo-
nal plan of the Ravanica53 and Manasija54 monastery fortresses in Serbia of the late 14th –
early 15th century, with the last being a much more monumental facility (Fig. 8). At the
same time, the building technique at Kosmosoteira is different, more elaborate and rather
archaic. It is evident that the exact date and chronology of the walls and the localization
of the gates and the early tower have to be clarified through excavations.

44 See Ibid., 37–38 (§31, 32).

45 See Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God
Kosmosoteira near Bera, 794–795; Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos
(1152), 22 (§6), 24 (§9), 25 (§10), 53–56 (§70, 71), 72–73 (§113).
46 Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 71–72 (§110, 112).
47 Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmo-
soteira near Bera, 799 (§2); Isaac Komnenos, Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152),
20 (§2).
48 Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, 83–84.
49 The tower, mentioned in Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 23 (§9),
26 (§11), possibly served not only for the protection of the enclosure’s main entrance, but also as a bell tower and
a place of last refuge; see Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 46–47.
50 Isaac Komnenos: Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152), 50 (§65), 61 (§84).
51 See Николай Овчаров, Даниела Коджаманова, Перперикон и околните твърдини през средновекови-
ето. Крепостното строителство в Източните Родопи. София, 2003, 32–42.
52 Gabriel Millet, Le monastère de Daphni. Histoire, architecture, mosaiques. Paris, 1899, 4–6.
53 Александар Дероко, Средњевековни градови у Србиjи, Црноj Гори и Македониjи. Београд, 1950, 133–134.
54 Александар Дероко, Средњевековни градови у Србиjи, Црноj Гори и Македониjи, 136–140; Slobodan
Nenadović, Građevinska tehnika u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji. Beograd, 2003, 561–564.
154 Georgi Sengalevich

What was the subsequent history of this site, after the monastery’s foundation in 1152?
It is known that in 1183 the then Emperor Andronikos Komnenos, while hunting in the
vicinity, stopped at the monastery to pay tribute at his father’s grave55. It is the same
place where his enemy and next emperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) was arrested and
blinded in 119556. Vera is mentioned as abbey also by the knight historian of the Fourth
Crusade Geoffrey of Villehardouin57. Later the whole region became an arena of strug-
gles between the Byzantines, Latins and Bulgarians, and the location of Vera was always
crucial because of the river crossing. It was the Kosmosoteira monastery and its vicin-
ity, where the emperor of Nicaea John III Doukas Vatatzes (1222–1254) met the news of
Bulgarian tsar Kaliman Asen’s death in 124658. The area was plundered for the first time
by the Turks in 1329–133059, as the whole region of Thrace became a focus of the Byz-
antine civil wars. In 1343, John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354) camped his troops near
Vera, and by that time Kosmosoteira was already fortified. The future emperor found
the monastery defended by monks and peasants60. When John V Palaiologos (1341–1391)
took control of the fortress in 1355, the monastery was already defunct and the enclo-
sure was inhabited by peasants61. It most probably fell to the Turks in 1371/137262. In
1433, the French pilgrim Bertrandon de la Broquière reported that Vera was an impor-
tant town with a mixed population, while its fortress was partially destroyed and Kosmo-
soteira church – converted into a mosque63. The urbanization process may have started
even earlier64, but for sure the changed political and demographic landscape, combined
with the excellent location, stimulated the transformation of the “deserted area”, as Vera
was called in the typikon65, into a flourishing town, consolidated around our complex,
with an aqueduct, baths and ceramic workshops, that is the Turkish Ferecik. The repairs
of the façades of the church in rough rubble masonry can be attributed to the Ottoman
period. During that time, many of the windows, including most of the dome openings,
the apse windows and the south entrance were blocked due to the changed orientation
(qibla) of the mosque. New entrance was open in the north façade. The west window in
the southwest corner dates from this period as well. In the Ottoman period, the drum of

55 Nicetae Choniatae Historia. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 35. Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 1835, 363.
56 Ibid., 595.
57 Geoffroy de Villehardouin. Chronique de la prise de Constantinople par les Francs. In Collection des Chro-
niques Nationales Francaises, III. Paris, 1828, 149.
58 Γεωργίου του Ακροπολίτου Χρονική Συγγραφή. In Georgii Acropolitae Opera, 1. Ed. Heisenberg. Leipzig,
1903, 72 (§43).
59 Ioannis Cantacuzeni Historiae. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 5. I. Ed. Schopen, Bonn, 1828, 390
(ІІ.13.).
60 Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 26. II. Ed. Schopen, Bonn,
1830, 797 (ХVІ.1.).
61 Ioannis Cantacuzeni Historiae. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 7. III. Ed. Schopen, Bonn, 1832,
310 (ІV.42.).
62 Stefan Sinos, “Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)”, 26.
63 See ibid., 7, 28–29.
64 Δέσποινα Ευγενίδου, Κάστρα Μακεδονίας και Θράκης. Βυζαντινή Καστροκτισία. Αθήνα, 2003, 36; Δέσποινα
Ευγενίδου writes that the village next to the monastery developed in the course of 13th–14th century. It should
not be forgotten that a settlement at Vera already existed when Isaac Komnenos founded his monastery
ca. 1152, and this is evident from many passages in the typikon.
65 Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God
Kosmosoteira near Bera, 798–799.
 Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa 155
the main dome was raised and the cornice which originally followed the arches of the
windows was leveled. The frescoes were plastered and the walls – overpainted in Islamic
fashion. The building was reconverted into a church after the Balkan War by the Bulgar-
ian authorities. The minaret was demolished. During the 1920s, some restoration work
has been undertaken under the guidance of A. Orlandos66. The building suffered from
numerous structural problems, e.g. the vertical deviation of the western supports of the
dome, the sinking of the barrel vaults, etc. Four large flying buttresses were constructed
to stabilize the construction and a metal ring was inserted in the base of the dome. Dur-
ing the last 30 years, the 12th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities committed a series of
interventions: the lead covering was replaced, the southern columns – reinforced, and a
system to monitor the vertical movement was installed in order to strengthen the Kosmo-
soteira church, which is undoubtedly one of the most important and best preserved Byz-
antine monuments in Thrace.

66 See Robert Ousterhout, Charalambos Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley,
62–63. The article of Αναστάσιος Ορλάνδος, “Τα Βυζαντινά μνημεία της Βήρας.” Θρακικά, 3 (1933): 3–34,
was not accessible to me.
156 Georgi Sengalevich

Fig. 1. The katholikon of Theotokos Kosmosoteira Monastery.

Fig. 2. Plan of the church (after Sinos).

 Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa 157

Fig. 3. Image of an eagle from the southeast corner niche of the diakonikon apse.

Fig. 4. The northwest pair of columns.

158 Georgi Sengalevich

Fig. 5. The main dome.

Fig. 6. The alleged portrait of Isaac

Komnenos from the south wall of
the south cross arm, identified as St
Merkurios by Acheimastou-Potamianou.
 Aristocratism and Piety along the Banks of Maritsa 159

Fig. 7. Proposed plan of Kosmosoteira‘s fortifications (after Orlandos).

Fig. 8. The Manasija or Resava monastery in Eastern Serbia.