ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA I 1997 3

ТАВLЕ OF CONТENTS

Articles
Slavchev, V.: The Links between Dobrudja and the Forest-Steppe Zone of Eastern
Europe during the Middle Eneolitblc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Nenov, V.: Roman Military Diploma from Mauretania Tingitana Foun-d in Northern
Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Sto_.."·anov, Т. 1 Stoyanova, D.: The Tolos of Odessos 22

Gevrgiev, Р.: Klinedeckel aus Tlнacia und Moesia- stilistische Einfli.iesse und
Prohleme der Produktion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Andreeva, L.: Petrographische Untersuchung der Marmore aus dem Grabgewolbe

beim Dorfe Banja, Bezirk Pazardshik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . 46

Cherneva-Tilkian, S. : А Little Known Bust-Weight ofPulcheria from Philippopolis

(present-day Plovdiv), Southern Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Dintchev, V.: Zikideva - an Example of Early-Byzantine Urbanism in the Balkans 54

Torbatov, S.: Quaestura Exercitus : Moesia Secunda and Scyt11ia under Justinian 78

Kondova, N. 1 Cholakov, S.: Europeidity and Mongoloidity on the Territory of

Medieval Bulgaria . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . .. . . . . 88

Reviews
Poulter, А.: Nicopolis ad Istrum: А Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City
(Excavations 1985-1992). London 1995. (Dintchev, V.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Ncws
Kabaktschieva, G.: XVII. Liш~s-Kongress in Salau, Rumiinien 105

Editor: Dr. Lyudmil Ferdinandov VAGALINSKI

ARCHAEOLOGIA BULGARICA is а four-monthjournal (thrice а year) which presents а pub-

lishing forum for research in archaeology in the widest sense ofthe word. There are no restric-
tions for time and territory.
Objective: interdisciplinary research of archaeology.
Contents : articles, reviews and news.
Languages: English, German and French.
Intended 1·eaders: Scholars a11d students of the following fields: Archaeology. Nun1ismatics.
Epigraphy, Ancient History, Medieval History, Oriental Studies, Pre- and Early History, By-
zantine Studies, Anthropology, Palaeobotany, Archaeozoology, History of Religion, Architec-
ture, Technology, Medicine, Sociology etc.

011 the cover: Artificial deformed skull from Vidin (NW Bulgaria), 8th с. AD . Photo Svetomir Rusev.

ISSN 1310-9537
 Arch. Bulgarica 1997 3 54-77 Sofia

ZIKIDEVA - AN EXAMPLE OF EARL У BYZANTINE URBANISM

IN ТНЕ BALKANS

VENТZISLAV DINTCНEV

The main objective of the long years of ar- hances its prestige of а centre of first-rate im-
chaeological excavations at the Tsarevets Hill portance in the northerп part of the Peninsula.
near the preseпt-day town of Veliko Turnovo The town оп Tsarevets is also one of the t'e\v
(Fig. 1) has been the unearthing ofthe remains .c entres iп this large territory whose fuпction­
of the medieval Bulgariaп capital . The re- iпg in the 7th ceпtury has been proveп.
maiпs of the Early Byzantiпe town centre ly-
ing below have still Ьееп in the periphery of EARLIEST DA ТING OF ТНЕ EARL У
the research interest here. The results of their BYZANТINE TOWN
investigatioп for the time being boil down to
just а few puЬlications оп individual sections After the епd of the Iron Age, life on the
of the ·fortress and on separate monuments or Tsarevets Hill resumed in the 4th ceпtury. The
finds from the interior. А few generalising ar- late Roman ceпtre of population l1ere was а

ticles have also been puЬlished, but they are common village (vicus, kome). Its fate during
relativ.ely limited iп volume and iп the raпge the 5th century up нntil the rule of Emperot·
of proЬlems they cover (Ангелов 1986, 35- Anastasius 1 has not been clarified so t'at· ,
since information and material from tl1at pe-
58; Pissarev 1990, 875-882; Алексиев 1994,
riod, generally, are still extremely scaпty. The
21-28).
earliest finds with precise dating in tl1e vari-
The excellent defence iп terms of nature
ous compounds and buildings of tl1e Еагlу
and fortificatioп structures, the coпsideraЬle
Byzantine urban structure have been coiпs ot·
populatioп for the Early Byzantine Age
Emperor Aпastasius 1. Therefore today опе
(ЕВА; late 4th - early 7th century) and the
сап agree to the reseaгchers' view, wlю refet·
great пшnЬеr of samples of represeпtative
the emergence ofthe fortified town to tl1e late
puЬlic апd housiпg architecture define the
5th-early 6th century (Ангелов 1973, 332- 333;
town on top the Tsarevets Hill as ап important
1980, 13; 1986, 43, 57; Ваклинов 1974, 179;
ceпtre поt only within the Moesia Inj'erior
1977, 48; Овчаров/Ваклинова 1978, 12,36;
province of the Thracia diocese, but also for
the Balkan domaiпs ofthe Empire, in geпeral. Ангелов/ Попов 1986, 9; Pissarev 1990, 876/
Among the пewly estaЬlished towns iп the
ЕВА here, the one on top the Tsarevets Hill TOPOGRAPHY, AREA AND
was amoпg the largest in terms of space and FORТIFICATJON
demography. When compared, for instance,
with the well-kпown Iustiniana Prima, Tsarevets is in the eastern part of \Vhnt is
founded Ьу Emperor Justinian 1 to Ье а capital today Veliko Turnovo. lt is а rocky elevation
of the Illyricum Prefecture 1 , it has а nearly - 252 m above sea level, with а peninsulaг
three times larger area within its protective situation among the meanders of tl1e Уанtга
fortificatioпs. The circumstance that the town River (Fig. 2). It l1as а well delineated t·ocky
was also the пucleus of а large-scale agglo- ridge in ап irregular shape reseшЬliпg а tt·iaп­
meration of ceпtres of population further еп- gle, and vertical slopes. lt is accessiЬle опlу

Iust. Nov., Xl , CXXXI ; Proc., Dc acdif., IV, 1 (ГИБИ 1959,47-49,71, 156- 157). The area of lustiniana Р1·iпш
1
rcliaЫy protectcd Ьу а solid fortification- tltc so-callcd "uppcr to\vrt", including tltc acropolis апd tltc bislюp 's
corпpollnd artd thc so-called "lower town"- anюunts to а total of 7,25 ltectares (Bavartt 1984, 273- 285 ).
Tlte characteristic fcatllres oftlte Late Roman settlerпertt artd the qtrestions concerning tlte initial date oftltc Ear·Jy
2
Byzantine towrt 011 Tsarevets we have been discussed in greater detail in another study handed for pLrЬiicatiort
(Диrr•rев, nод nечат).

54
 Zikideva- ап Example oj'Ear/y Byzantine Urbanism ...
from the south-west Ьу а пarrow rocky isth-
mus (Fig. 2, 3). lts crest extends from the top
to its northerп sectioп, knowп as Lobnata
Skala. The crest has а flat surface апd а geпtle
slope to tl1e пorth. The rest of the e1evatioп to
the periphery of its rocky ridge is а terraiп of
well-expressed 1owering to the west, east апd
south. Ап exceptioп is the rock p1atform iп its
south-westerп sectioп пехt to the coпnectioп
with the isthmus. Be1ow the vertica1 s1opes
there are river terraces, 1imited iп area. Ве­
уопd the opposite Ьапk ofthe Yaпtra river e1e-
vatioпs with simi1ar geomorpho1ogy to that of
Tsarevets rise iп all directioпs (Fig. 2).
То build on а terrain of an express dis-
p1acement, as the terrain of Tsarevets is in its
шajor part, requires pre1iminary preparatory
work апd the use of back-up techпiques. Dur-
ing the coпstructioп of the towп of the ЕВА,
the cutting and artificia1 terracing ofthe rocky
grouпd was exteпsive1y app1ied; supportiпg
walls were built, as well as flyiпg buttresses,
etc. The terraiп determiпed the kiпd of for-
tress апd the пetwork of streets, the пature of
the water supp1y апd sewerage systems. The
desigп so1utioпs of the iпdividua1 architec-
tural compouпds had Ьееп coпformed to the
terraiп. The coпditions of the terraiп also
large1y predetermiпed the space patterп ofthe
towп from the ЕВА. lt should Ье poiпted out,
however, that the selectioп of Tsarevets to Ье
the site of а пеw towп was deliberate, made iп
coпformity with the пеw treпds iп urbaпism.
The towп on Tsarevets Hill is the ideal example
illustratiпg these treпds, iпcludiпg the treпd of
paramouпt importaпce - the requiremeпt of
пatural defeпsibility апd iпaccessibi1ity.
The area of the fortified Tsarevets duriпg
the Bulgariaп Middle Ages has been calcu-
1ated to have covered 21,4 hectares (Харбова
1979, 48-49). Iп view of the overlapping of
the Early Byzaпtiпe fortress wall апd the Me-
dieval fortress wall, estaЬiished iп various
sectioпs, with the exceptioп of the sectioп of
the пеw medieval gates, erected iп froпt ofthe
Early Byzaпtiпe gate, it сап Ье assumed that
the fortified area of the towп from the ЕВА
was about 21 hectares.
The ЕВА fortress wall follows throughout
the periphery of the rocky ridge of Tsarevets
and rests on the rock itself (Fig. 3, 4, 5, 13).
lt was built ofbrokeп stoпe апd шortar. There
are differeпces iп the layout of the froпts апd
iп the thickпess of its iпdividual sectioпs:
from opus quadratum апd thickпess of 2,4 m
at the maiп gate to the аЬsепсе of ап у specific
face masoпry апd thickness of 1,25 m at the
southerп sectioп of the easterп curtain
(Рашенов 1936, 390; Ангелов/Николова
1962,66-67;Ангелов 1966,12-13, 16; 1986,
47,50; Долмова 1984, 132-133; 1985, 203-
204; Pissarev 1990, 876; Вълов 1992, 39-48,
53-54, 70; Писарев 1992, 160; Алексиев
1994, 23-24). No later periods of coпstruction
or repair have Ьееп ideпtified iп the remains
ofthe fortress wall that have survived. 'Conse-
queпtly, the differeпces iпdicated have been
due to the locatioп апd importaпce of the in-
dividual sectioпs, апd to the eпdeavouгs fot·
the faster completioп of the foгtification sys-
tem as а whole. It сап Ье assumed, however,
that the coпstructioп of the fortress had been
а loпger process, whereby it was precisely the
eпdeavour for its faster comp1etioп апd for
makiпg saviпgs iп fuпds апd materials tl1at
had Ьееп the cause uпderlyiпg the differences
iп the coпstructioп ofthe sections built last. Jt
сап Ье assumed, for iпstaпce, that the southerп
sectioп ofthe easterп curtaiп \vas опе ofthose
built last.
The maiп towп gate of the ЕВА was iп the
south-western part of the fortress, оп the side
of its опlу accessible part (Fig. 3/1 ). Т11е gate
has а prqpugnaculum with dimeпsions of 11 х
6 m оп the iпside and with two eпtrances. The
exterпal епtrапсе was with а cataract, and the
interпal with а two-leafed door. Risiпg above
the propugnaculum was а gate tower, accessi-
ble via ап exterпal staircase, leaпiпg onto the
southerп fortress wall (Fig. 4). А stroпg tower
iп ап irregular shape approximatiпg а triaпgle
was built to the north iп direct proximity to
the gates. The tower butted out about 16 ш in
front of the face of the gates (Fig. 4). The
faces of the tower walls, in the same way as
those of the gates, are also of quadratum ша­
sопrу. The thickпess of the tower wall most
55
 Ventzislav Dintchev
vulneraЬle in case of an attack reaches 2,85 m
(Ангелов 1966, 12-14, 17; 1986, 47; Овча­
ров 1982, 40; Вълов 1992, 51-62).
А point of special importance for the defence
ofthe ЕВА town was also the south-eastern cor-
ner of its fortification system (Fig. 3/2). The
rocky ridge of Tsarevets is lowest there. For
that reason an angular tower was built here,
an insignificant part of which has survived to
this day. Alongside the internal face of the
southern fortress wall, the foundation has
Ьееп unearthed of the staircase (Fig. 5) secur-
ing access to the tower (Вълов 1992, 20, 39,
41; cf. also Рашенов 1936, 382-383; Алек­
сиев 1994, 23).
А town gate from the ЕВА has also Ьееп
t"ound at the ceпtral section ofthe westerп for-
tress wall, alongside the gate described above.
It "had one door and was probaЬly Ьlocked Ьу
а horizontal wooden beam" (Писарев 1992,
160). So far there has been no further infor-
mation about any other gates. А smaller en-
traпce- а postern gate - is supposed to have
existed in the пorthern sectioп of the western
fortress wall (Писарев 1977, 116). Posterп
gates may also have existed iп other sectors of
the fortress.
NETWORК OF STREETS, W А TER
SUPPL У AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
In puЬlications about Tsarevets that have
come out so far there are по data of а square
from the ЕВА. Such а square may have ex-
isted in the south-easterп part of the fortified
area, on the rock platform directly behind the
main gates апd the basilica next to it (Fig. 3, 4).
Had that square existed iпdeed, however, it
would have been quite limited in size and
\vould have had importaпce for 1ocal commu-
пicatioпs опlу .
Tl1e аЬsепсе of а sizeaЬle representative
square is indicative ofthe towп discussed and
of the trends iп provincial Early Byzantine
towп-planпing, iп geпeral . The Romanforum,
апd the Greek agora, respectively was notjust
ап elemeпt of commuпicatioпs, but а пucleus
of the апсiепt town structure, where puЬlic
life conceпtrated and which was the symbol
ofthe town's autoпomy. In the town from the
56
ЕВА on Tsarevets precisely the need ot" sucl1
а structural nucleus had dropped out.
Orthogonal planning is not characteristic
of the ЕВА town оп Tsarevets, eithei". Ele-
ments of such planning have only been tound
iп its religious centre. Т\\'О streets wide "up to
7 m" cross at right angle and set apart the mon-
astery compound to the north and to the west
(Fig. 8). Another street with а north-south ori-
entation and width of 1,55 m separated the
church with its mortuary from the peristyle
building and reached, probaЬly at right angle,
to the street north of the monastery (Fig. 9).
These streets have been followed only around
the representative compounds mentioned
(Fig. 3/4-6). Their lengths did not probaЬiy
exceed consideraЬly the lengths ofthe facades
of the former, i.e. the streets referred t.o had
loca1 importance and cottld not Ье assumed to
have been major compoпeпts of the town пet­
work of streets. The streets пехt to the шoп­
astery compound were paved with "smaJJ
stoпes and а great number of particles f'roш
bricks and tiles". The street between the per-
istyle building and the compound with the
mortuary was covered Ьу stone slabs
(Ангелов 1962, 25; 1973, 274; 1986, 46, 51,
53, 56).
One of the more importaпt communica-
tions i n the ЕВА was no doubt "the alley ,
leading to the gates" in the centra1 sectol" of
the western fortress wall. The orientation ot·
that "alley" or street in its section at the gate
does поt coiпcide with the loпgitudinal axis ot·
the latter. То the north, the street reached tl1e
building housing the seпtries at the gate. То
the east, the street was restricted Ьу "а scpa-
rate wall", constructively linked to the soutll-
erп facade of the buildiпg and contiпued f'or
further 26 m southwards (Fig. 12). The waJJ
quoted "is parallel to the fortress \val\ and en-
closes а space 13 m wide, leading from the
central parts of the hill to the gate" (Писа рев
1992, 160, 161). For the time being there lшs
not Ьееп апу other iпformation regarding the
layout of the street.
There are mostly indirect data about the
пetwork of streets iп the other sectors of thc
fortified area. For instance, iп the \vestern pal"t
 Zikideva- ап Example oj'Early Byzantine Urbanism ...
of Tsarevets agaiп, the existeпce has Ьееп as-
sumed of streets, approximately parallel to the
fortress wall, built оп various heights оп the
separate rock terraces. The width of опе of
them has Ьееп detenniпed to Ье "from 7 to 8 m".
Ап iпdicatioп of their existeпce has Ьееп the
geпeral arraпgemeпt of the buildiпgs uп­
earthed here (Fig . 14). Siпce the location of
the buildiпgs has Ьееп coпformed to the hori-
zoпtal liпes of the tепаiп, the roadways fol-
low their outlines {Дремсизова-Нелчинова
1983, 20-21 ). Ап aпalogous arraпgemeпt of
buildiпgs has also Ьееп fouпd iп the southerп
part of Tsarevets (Славчев 1984, 129-130;
Алексиев 1986, 13 7; Ботов 1986, 145). Simi-
lar streets сап therefore Ье expected here.
The buildiпgs оп опе terrace are at some
distance опе from the other (cf. Fig. 3, 13, 14).
This, in turп, presupposes the existeпce of
streets or passages, located crosswise to the
horizoпtals of the terraiп, which were соп­
песtiпg buildiпgs from differeпt terraces. Iп
the sectioпs with а steeper iпcliпatioп, stairs
were probaЬly cut iпto the rock. Such а stair-
case, "shaped out oflarge flat stoпes", 2,90 m
wide, has Ьееп uпearthed iп the пorth-westerп
part of Tsarevets. lt is assumed to have se-
cшed the access to the supposed posterп gate
iп the respective sectioп of the fortress \Vall
(Писарев 1977, 116). Most of the streets
aloпg the built slopes of the fortified area
have по pavemeпt, their surface beiпg the
пatural rock. At some places stoпe slab pave-
meпts have also Ьееп uпearthed {Анчева
1989, 156; Дремсизова-Нелчинова 1983,
16). It is 110t sure, however, whether they co-
vered fully the respective street roadways, or
were опlу limited to the eпtraпces of the
bнi1diпgs апd arouпd them.
Jп view of the priпciple of ftшctioпiпg апd
the scheme of the рlаппiпg, the street пetwork
of the ЕВА оп top Tsarevets Hill сап teпta­
tively Ье described as coпceпtric-radial. lts
look апd specific features have Ьееп fully de-
termiпed Ьу the terraiп coпditioпs. What is
characteristic of the towп uпder discussioп at
its very emergece, is the аЬsепсе of ап inter-
vallum, of ап uпiпterrupted riпgroad aloпg its
fortress wall.
No water supply systems from the ЕВА
have so far Ьееп ideпtified withiп the fortified
area of Tsarevets. Water reservoirs, built of
masoпry or faced with bricks апd plastered
with hydrophobic morta1· have been fouпd at
some of the more represeпtative buildiпgs in
the ceпtral апd пorthern part of the elevation
(Fig. 3/4, 3/l О апd Fig. 8). They are small iп
size апd had served опlу tl1e buildiпgs to
which they had Ьееп built (Ангелов 1973,
303-305, 307-308; Алексиев 1977, 114). Ап
exceptioп is а vaulted cistern, approximately
sized 11 х 5,5 m, fouпd at the architectural
compouпd iп the пortherп part of Tsarevets
(Fig. 3/7 апd Fig. 7/1). lt was probaьty used
поt опlу Ьу those liviпg iп the compouпd . lts
preseпce is ап evidence of the latter' s puЬlic
character (Теофилов 1979, 34-35 , 40 ;
Ангелов 1986, 54).
For the time beiпg the question ofthe ЕВА
water supply of the ordiпary housiпg districts
withiп the fortified towп area remains ореп .
Iп view of the closeпess of the Yaпtra River
(Fig. 2) it may Ье assumed that tl1eir iпhabi­
taпts had used its waters for household pш­
poses, probaЬly Ьу fetchiпg water in vessels
апd water bags.
Caпals of limited 1eпgth have Ьееп un-
earthed at various places on Tsarevets Hill,
liпked with individual buildiпgs or architecu-
tral compounds from the ЕВА. They all lшve
Ьееп defiпed as "water-catchment canals ",
which served to lead the atmospheric waters
to the nearby street (Ангелов 1973, 277, 300-
301, 318; Писарев 1982, 82; Дремсизова­
Нелчинова 1983, 18) . For the time being
there is no avai1able data about any main
water catchment canals. Such canals had
probaЬiy not been built. Their functions in the
Eearly Byzantine town were taken over Ьу the
steep radial streets. Their use as open air ca-
пals presupposes the existeпce of openiпgs in
the fortress curtains for the draiпage ofwater.
The simplified sewerage system created prob-
lems for those living in the lower altitude sec-
tors ofthe fortified area. That is why measures
were applied here to protect the buildings
from flooding. lt has been found out, for iп­
stance, that the exterпal walls of the сошшоn
57
 Ventzis/av Dintchev
houses in the southern part ofTsarevets "were
faced with upright stone slabs" with the pur-
pose of protecting their foundations from
flooding (Алексиев 1986, 137).
PUBLIC AND PRIVA ТЕ ARCHIТECTURE
Remains of an Early Byzantine basilica
with а narthex and а semicircular apse have
been unearthed on top Tsarevets Hill, below
the medieval patriarchy. The basilica has di-
mensions of 22,8 х 12m (Fig. 3/3 and Fig. 6).
lts foundations are of broken stone and mortar.
Their thickness in front is 1,15 m and 1,25 m in
the apse. They are reinforced Ьу flying buttre-
ses from the outside. The walls were probaЬly
in opus mixtum. А foundation of а staircase
l~ading to "the gallery over the narthex" has
been unearthed in the western end of the
northern паvе. А staircase is supposed to have
existed in front ofthe western facade, leading
to the main entrance and cut into the steep
slope. The brick floor of а building has been
uncovered next to the southern facade, which
has been assumed to have been а baptistry
(Fig. 6). The grave of а high-ranking clergy-
man has been found outside, close to the apse.
The construction of the basilica has been
dated to the period of emergence ofthe Early
Byzantine town (Ангелов 1980, 10-15; 1986,
54-55).
The researcher of the above-mentioned
church describes it as "а small three-nave ba-
silica, servicing those living in the highest
part of the town" (Ангелов 1980, 1 0- 15;
1986, 54). In our view, this is not an ordinary
neighbourhood church. In size it can Ье re-
ferred to the medium-sized Early Byzantine
religious buildings of the respective type. But
what is more iшportant in this case is that the
basilica on top Tsarevets Hill could not have
possiЬly been made larger, because of the ter-
rain conditions. The same refers, Ьу the way,
also to the medieval patriarchal church which
generally coincides in its outside outlines and
3 Whercas the width of the basilica's central nave is 6,40 m, the width of its lateral naves are just 0,90 m еас\1
(Ангелов 1980, 10). The sma\1 width of the \ateral пaves is а challenge to their пormal usagc during churcl1
scrvice. ln any case, this dcsign solution had definite\y been condicive to the monumental vicw of the basilica,
because it is precisely the central nave that makes up the basic volume ir\ this kind of buildings.
58
dimensions with the Early Byzantine one
(Fig. 6). lts central location dominating the
whole town predetermines the special impor-
tance ofthat basilica (Fig. 3/3 ). А proof ofthis
is also its extremely solid constrttction. An-
other proof is also its impressive volume,
which has been evinced Ьу the consideraЫe
width of its central nave3 . In charge of the
church service here was probaЬly а high-rank-
ing clergyman in the town's church hierarchy .
In view of the justified assumption that the
town ofthe ЕВА on top Tsarevets had been а
bishopric, that person must have been the
Ьishop.
The largest architectural compound of the
Early Byzantine town (Fig. 3/4) has been in-
vestigated approximately in the geometrical
centre ofTsarevets. lts total area is about 3,5-
4 decares. In its final appearance it included а
religious building, premises and installa-
tions, functionally connected and grouped
around it, as well as а big housing building. lt
was set apart to the north and to the west Ьу
the streets, earlier described, intersecting at а
right angle, and its facade was laid out with
colonnades. То the south and to the east its
boundaries were determined Ьу the situation
of the buildings included in it. Their overall
planning is assymetrical, determined Ьу the
terrain conditions (Fig. 8). Two basic periods
have been estaЬlished in the development of
the compound. At first а one-nave church with
а narthex and а pentagonal apse was built in
the late 5th and early 6th century, with dimen-
sions of 27,85 х 10,60 m. lt was built with
mortar. Soon afterwards most of' the premises
and installations, connected with and grouped
around the church were also built. They were
made out of stone and clay solution and mнd­
bricks. Construction seems to have Ьееп car-
ried out in that period in the sot1th-eastern
group of the compound, too. The latter ac-
quired its final appearance with the recon-
struction ofthe religious building into а three-
nave basilica and with the construction of the
 Zikideva - ап
Ьig
two-storied building south of it (Fig. 8),
i.e. during the second main period in its deve-
lopment4. The basilica has а narthex and а
semi-circular apse and is with dimensions 35 х
18,5 m. lt has а colonnade-architrave design.
The naves in the naos had been divided Ьу
marЬle banisters. The apse was with а three-
step synthrone and а presbitery. In front of it
rose а ciborium and an alter fence . The floor
ofthe basilica was ofbricks, arranged in vari-
ous geometrical patterns. The housing build-
ing was designed in the shape of а rhombus
with dimensions 31 х 15m. lt consisted offive
rooms arranged in а chain and а covered cor-
ridor to the west , inbuilt in whose northern
end was а water reservoir. The ground floors
ofthe premises were vaнlted. There is а court-
yard i 11 front of the western facade of the
building with the entrance, confined Ьу а fen -
cing wall and probaЬly farm premises. There
is common space of stone-flagged courtyard
between the housing building and the basilica.
The walls ofthe two buildings are in opus mix-
tum with mortar. А later period of construc-
tion without any alterations in the design has
also been identified in the basilica (Ангелов
1973 , 271 - 337; 1986, 50-53 ; Овчаров/
Ваклинова 1978, 15, 36; Pissarev 1990, 878).
The interpretation of the compound de-
scribed arouses induЬitaЬie interest. Some
authors define it as а Ьishop's seat, and the
three-nave churcl1 as а Ьishopric church, re-
spectively, the two-storied housing building
is thought to have been the dwelling of the
Ьishop (Ангелов 1973, 319, 332, 336; 1986, 53;
Овчаров 1974, 58; Pissarev 1990, 878). Ac-
cording to another researcher's view, this is а
nюnastery compound, which had at the same
time served as tl1e residence of the bishop
(Тулешков 1988, 21 - 22).
Those upl10lding the thesis identifying the
compound with "the seat of the Ьishop" bring
forward as evidence the cl1aracteristics of the
4
According to thc rescarcher, thc compound "had been conceived and planned as an intcgral constructio11 i11 thc.:
centrc of the Early Byzantinc town " , whereas " the reconstruction had affected only " its religiou ~ building
(Ангелов 1973, 334, 336; 1986, 52). The thesis of the emergence of thc compound in а final form iп 011с go ,
however, lшs not Ьее11 borne out Ьу the concrete data prescnted and runs coн11ter to some private inferenccs шаd с
Ьу the author about thc chronology of its individual components. We have dwelt iп grcatcr dctail оп tl1i s mattcr
iп ош study in print (Динчев, nод nечат) .
Example oj" Ear/y Byzantine Urbanism ...
1ater basilica: its great size, the existence of а
synthrone, а presЬitery, а ciborium, etc. The
elements listed, however, are not always ап
indication directly associating а given relig-
ious building with the bishop. ln our view, of
determining importance in the elucidation of
the character of the entire compound is the
two-story housing building. According to the
above thesis, precisely this must have been
the residence ofthe Ьishop. But lacking in this
building are а number of components, typical
of а representative residence from the ЕВА -
а hall for formal receptions, а section with
baths, etc. The rooms arranged in chain here
are rather а testimony of inhaЬit.ants who were
with identical social status (Fig. 8). Therefore
the design of the buiJding corresponds better
to the requirements of а monastery hostel than
to the requirements of а representative resi-
dence. This more likeJy interpretation pre-
sents the greater Jikelihood ofthe entire coш­
pound as being а monastery. Since there was
а bishop in the town, the monastery would ,
naturaHy, have been under his subordinatioп ,
whereas the monastery church - the basilica,
would have been attended Ьу and suited to
correspond to the visits of the Ьishop .
То the north ofthe monastery and the street
flanking it, another religious compotшd frorn
the ЕВА has also been unearthed (Fig. 3/5).
Occupying pride of place in it is а one-nave
church and а semicircular apse - dimensions
12,8 х 7,7 m, and а building with а cross-like
pJan - dimensions 14 х 13,35 m, coпnecte d
with the southem facade ofthe church (Fig. 9).
The cross-shaped building, where " а sma\1
hiding place of two chambers" has Ьееп un-
covered has been identified with а martyrium .
The foundations ofboth buildings are ofstoпe
and clay mixture.Their walls are in opus mix-
tum, but whereas mortar has been usecl in the
church, in the martyrium the Ьinding rnixture
is of clay. There are collonades with Corin-
59
 Ventzislav Dintcllel'
thian capitais iп front of the westerп facades
of the buiidings, and with а floor of bricks,
arranged in \'arious geometricai patterns. The
compound includes а courtyard space with а
feпcing waH, whose outlines have not been
specified. The courtyard is paved "with large
limestone slabs" . Other buildings are ex-
pected to Ье uпcovered around the two central
buildiпgs . А premise, defiпed as baptistry, has
been studied betweeп the church's southern
waH and the western shoulder of the mar-
tyrium. The building of the compound has
geпeraHy been dated to the iate 5tl1- 6th cen-
tury (Ангелов 1962, 23- 25; 1973, 274; 1986, 53).
The mortuary function of the cross-shaped
buildiпg predetermines the specific nature of
the compound and its special place in the
towп ' s religious and sociallife. There seem to
have been separate stages in its coпstruction
апd functioпiпg, too. For instance, а later re-
constructioп of the church on earlier founda-
tioпs may Ье assumed.
А represeпtative peristyle building (Fig.
3/6) has been investigated west of tl1e com-
pound with the mortuary and пorth and north-
west ofthe monastery. lt had been built on the
site ofan earlier building from the ЕВА, about
which there is по information. For the time
being, there has not yet been an exhaustive
puЬlication оп the peristyle building itself,
either. lts entrance "built out of monolithic
limestoпe Ь\ocks" faces east, from the side of
t-he ·street in front of the monumental western
facade of the compound with the mortuary
(Fig. 9). An impluvium with а colonnade has
beenappointed iп its inner courtyard con-
nected with the eпtrance Ьу а corridor (Fig.
10). The building had been two-storied. Some
of the ground floor rooms seem to have been
vaulted. Buildings with rooms arranged in а
chaiп are situated to the nortl1 and to the south
of the peristyle building, separated from it
with passages (Fig . 3/6 and Fig. 9). They were
built out of stone and clay, mudbricks and "а
great quantity of timber" (Ангелов 1962, 25;
1986, 53; Ваклинова 1972, 183; Овчаров/
Ваклинова 1978, 12).
Literature preseпts different views regard-
ing the assignment of the peristyle building.
60
Some authors define it in nюst general terшs
as а representative civil building (Овчаров/
Ваклинова 1978, 12). In one ofthe generalis-
ing publications about the ЕВА town, it is as-
sociated with the "city council" and " the de-
fence offices" (Анге·юв 1986, 53- 54) . Soшe­
wl1ere else it is identified with "the palace of
the town governor" (Ангелов/Попов 1986, 9 ).
The peristyle buildings were generally bнilt
for housing purposes. The buildings of the
city councils belong to aпother architectural
type. The representativc peristyle buildin g
from Tsarevets had obviously been the dwel.I-
ing of а high-ranking official in the local ad-
ministration. The flanking buildings wit\1
chains of rooms were probaЬly functionally
connected with it . They could have Ьееп
dwellings of subordinates or auxiliary prem-
ises. An indication of the destination of tl1e
residential compound is its location a nd its re-
lation to the neighbouriпg arcl1itectural com-
pounds within the context ofthe overall urbaп
structure and layout. Its close proximity to the
two religious compounds and its obviou s con-
nection with them, achieved Ьу the coшmon
planning solution ofthis zone ofthe towп give
indications of its belonging. lt is precisely
here that the bishop's residence should Ье
sought.
And so, the central zone of Tsarevets best
suited to construction was occupied Ьу а ma-
jor religious centre, including three different ,
but closely interconnected architectural coш­
pounds: the monastery, the cornpound with
the mortuary and the bishop's residence,
whose stages of development had siшilar
chronology (Fig. 3/4, 5, 6). lt is prec isely tl1i s
religious centre which is the nucleus in tl1 e
structure of the early Byzantine town .
Another zone of representative coпstrн c ­
tion is the northern part of the ЕВА to\vn ,
which is best protected Ьу nature. А шajor ar-
chitectural compound has been located close
to and north of the Ьishop's residence (Fig .
3/7 and Fig. 7). Situated around "а fairly Ьi g
quadrangular building", built with mortal',
were other buildings, "functionally connected
with it, but built using а comшon bнilding
technique" . А great water reservoir with
 Zikideva - ап Ехатр/е
cross-shaped vaults carried Ьу pilasters and col-
umns with "cone-shaped capitals" (Fig. 7/1) has
been unearthed under the floor of one of the
тooms of the central building. Right to the
west, а building with "small-sized rooms" has
partially been unearthed (Fig. 7).1t шпst have
been baths (Теофилов 1979, 34- 35, 40~ Ан­
гелов 1986, 54 ) 5. The poor state of preserva-
tion of the remaiпs of the compouпd as а
whole does поt allow greater precisioп iп the
elucidatioп of its desigп. The existence ofthe
cistern - the largest опе iп the town fortified
area, is ап iпdicatioп of its puЬlic, probaЬly
residential purpose. Its precise ideпtificatioп
is questionable. А view has been voiced that
"the military governor of the towп may have
lived" here (Angelov 1986, 54).
Remains of representative construction
have also been found to the пorth-west of the
compouпd described, and approximately in
the middle of the northerп zone (Fig. 3/8).
Three periods of coпstruction have Ьееn dif-
ferentiated here. А big quadrangular building-
about 50 х 20 m was initially put up, \Vith а
\Vest-east orientation апd ап apse to the south.
lt was built with mortar. Later а new structure
with а quadrangular shape, oriented north-
south, with "internal dimensioпs of 8,60 х
19,55 m" was built iп the eastern part of the
earlier buildiпg. lt consists of three rooms,
differing in size. "Ап apse was added trom the
east to the northern one". The building tech-
nique was again with mortar. There is "а spa-
cious courtyard" in front ofthe western facade
ofthe building. What is kпown about the third
period of construction is only that there had
Ьееп а new reconstructioп (Генова 1977, 1 18;
1978, 124; Славчев 1977, 119; 1978, 125).
Data about the earlier t;шildiпg assigп it а
place as one of the most significaпt structural
uпits iп the towп iп the period of its upsurge 6.
The reduced size апd the new design solution
ofthe building from the second period ofcon-
structioп imply new functions. This change
5
1 gratcfully acknowledge rcceiving additional information about the compound from
The нnp\tЬiished data аЬонt tl1e carlier building arc duc to Z.Genova, who had passed a\vay before her ti111t:. 1
6
hercby ackпowledge hcr respon!;iveness.
oi Ear/y Byzantine Urbanism ...
had probaЬJy set in after the middle ot' tl1e 6th
century.
The foundations "of two big buildings -
the first one next to the north-western fortress
wall, the second one - to the eastern" h<1ve
been unearthed in the northern end ofthe for-
tified area, оп а terrace next to the Lobnata
Skala. The buildings consist of several prem-
ises each (Fig. 3/9, /10). They were built with
mortar and had two floors. What is known
aЬout the first one is that "it had undergone
restructuring, which had entailed а partial
modification of its initial design". А collec-
tive find of iron implements of labour h<ts
Ьееп unearthed in it. The second building " is
larger, oriented from east to west". А masonry
water reservoir has been нпeartht:d in one of
its premises (Алексиев J97ба, 33-37; I976b,
70; 1977, 114; 1978, 121 ; 1979, 152).
No\v concise data is also availablc t'or
other bui1dings of the ЕВА in the пorthern
part ofTsarevets. Some ofthem were built ot'
stone and mudbricks (Ангелов 1973, 336;
1986, 54; Поnов 1973, 78~ Писарев 1977,
116; Славчев 1977, 119; 1978, 125; Анчева
1979, 156). When compared with the build-
ings within the other housing districts, how-
ever, they are distinguished Ьу their larger
size and greater number of rooms. For in-
stance, one of the buildings in the northern
part of Tsarevets, in which по mortar was
used, has Ьееn defined as "а big building \vith
four rooms" (Поnов 1977, 1 ) 7).
The individual buildings and arcl1itectural
compounds in the northern pзrt of the to\vn
cannot Ье identified for sure yet. Obviously,
some of them wcre puЬlic buildings, inc1ud-
ing also residences of p~rsons from the higl1
levels ofthe town administratioп. Others were
probably private dwellings ot' wealthier citi-
zens, who could afford to settle in the town
district of best protection a11d highest prcs-
tige .
Apart from the public building in tl1e cel1-
tral апd northern part of Tsarevets, public
У. Nikolova.
61
 Ventzislav Dintchev
construction from the ЕВА has also been es-
taЫished in its south-western part, пехt to
what has Ьееп assumed to have Ьееп а square
Ьу the main city gates апd the big tower (Fig.
3/11, 12). Remaiпs of а three-пave, siпgle
apse basilica with а three-part narthex and di-
meпsioпs of 20 х 14,5 m have Ьееп uпearthed
opposite the entraпce ofthe tower (Fig. 4). Its
walls are iп opus mixtum with mortar. The
naos is divided Ьу two rows ofmasonry bases,
rising on top of which were marЬle columпs
with "pyramidal" capitals. The floor ofthe ba-
silica was covered Ьу bricks. А vaulted grave,
cut into the rocky ground has Ьееп uпearthed
below the floor of the central nave. The con-
structioп of the basilica is referred to the first
half of -the 6th century. А building of stone
and mudbrick masonry and with "а heating
furnace" iп one of the rooms has Ьееп studied
next to the fortress wall, between the tower
and the basi1ica (Fig. 4). There is а courtyard,
covered Ьу stone slabs between that bui1diпg,
the entrance facades of the tower and the ba-
silica and the northern wall of the propug-
naculum (Рашенов 1936, 391 - 392; Овчаров
1982, 40; Ангелов 1986, 55; Pissarev 1990,
877; Вълов 1992, 62--{)9; Алексиев 1994, 24).
An opinion has been expressed in litera-
ture, that the basi1ica described above served
the popu1ation from the vicinities, who were
not admitted to the interior of the town
(Вълов 1992, 69-70; cf. also Pissarev 1990,
877). But а religious bui1diпg designed for
"the neglected popu1ation" shou1d Ье sought
in the outskirts rather thaп behind the main
gate. The 1ocation ofthe basilica and the com-
mon courtyard iп froпt of its main entrance
and the entraпce to the tower c1early proves
its fuпctional link-up with the fortification
compouпd ofthe main towп gate. The basilica
served its defenders. It also "secured" divine
protection of that key poiпt iп the town de-
fences, which comes to exp1ain its solid con-
struction and monumental look.
Three large quadraпgular buildings with
north-south orieпtatioп (Fig. 3/12) have been
added on the general рlап, пехt to the southerп
fortress wall апd in direct proximity east of
the assumed square. An iпdepeпdeпt buttress-
62
iпg wall has been unearthed iп the passage be-
tween the western апd the central building . Jt
is supposed to "have borne а \voodeп staiгway
betweeп the two buildiнgs". The data puЬlisl1ed
about the buildings reflect оп1у the iпitial stage
of their iпvestigatioп (Вълов 1992, 50- 51).
These may very likely have Ьееп barracks. А
mobile military unit рrоЬаЬ\у lived iп tl1em ,
which secured the defeпces of t11e шain towп
gate, if any such пееd arose.
It is precisely the place апd iшportance of
the latter that have Ьееп the cause uпderlying
the formatioп ofthe zопе ofthe strongest шili­
tary preseпce iп the area of the town iн the
south-western part of Tsarevets. Within tl1is
broader context, the functional and ideologi-
ca1 tie-up of the basilica, located here, \vith
the defence of the towп, stands out still нюi·е
clearly.
Buildings of greater dimensions and nюre
so1id coпstruction have Ьееп uпearthed also
пехt to other sectors of the fortification sys-
tem. For instaпce ап L-shaped buildiпg \vith
two rooms (Fig. 3/13) has Ьееп studied at tl1e
ceпtral sectioп of the \vesterн fortress \va 11 .
The smaller room is almost а rectaпg1 e. The
bigger опе is quadraпgu1ar 7 m wide апd prob-
aЬly more than 10m loнg (Fig. 11 ). The build-
iпg has two storeys. lts walls of the groннd
floor were ofbrokeп stone and с1ау, from 0,9
to 1,1 m thick. The upper storey is of шud­
bricks. The floor ofthe grouпd t1oor is of com-
pressed clay. The floor of the second story
was "of closely arraпged beams, p1aced он
which were big bricks he1d together wit11
clay" (Ангелов/Николова 1962, 67- 68).
Aпother building, quite simi1ar as building
techпique апd desigп with the one described ,
has Ьееп studied iп the sаше section oftl1e for-
tification system, close to tl1e gate oftl1e ЕВА
estaЬlished here. lt is rectangulat", sized 12 х
9,6 m, апd orieпted according to the line of
the Early Byzaпtine fortress wall (Fig. 12). lt
has three entrances and had ап upper floor .
PresumaЬly, "this has been а dwelling ot' the
military, who defended one of the most vtii-
nera Ьlе sections of the fortress". The flan ki нg
eastern "wall" of "the alley, leading to tl1 e
 Zikideva - ап
gate" is connected with the southern wall of
the building (Писарев 1992, 160-161).
At the western fortress wall of the ЕВА
again, south of the remains described above,
the remains of two buildings with several
rooms in а cl1ain and stone-mudbrick con-
struction have been partially unearthed. Sev-
eral bronze objects have been found in one of
the buildings, including "ап arm of а hanging
bronze balance" (Вълов 1992, 71 ).
Remains of"big buildings linked Ьу ajoint
to the fortress wall and put up close one to the
other" have been unearthed next to the south-
ern section of the eastern fortress wall. Their
foundations "are of broken stone, and the
walls of mudbricks" (Долмоnа-Лукановска
1985, 204).
N ext to the eastern fortress wall again,
north ofthe above-mentioned buildings, parts
have been unearthed of other "at least t\vo or
three Early Byzantine buildings". They were
probaЬiy built with mortar. Their strati-
graphic position makes it possiЬle to refer
them "to а second period of construction, prob-
aЬly during tl1e time of Emperor Justinian 1"
(Тотев 1985, 207).
Parts ofbui1dings from the ЕВА built with
stone and mudbricks have also been found
along tl1e eastern and central sections of the
southern fortress wall (Fig. 13). The floors of
sоше of them are covered Ьу stone slabs
(Овчаров 1988, 152, 153; Вълов 1992, 48-51).
Tl1ere has a1so been а short announcement
about а building next to the central sector of
the southern fortress wall, whose walls are in
opus mixtum (Анчева 1982, 87).
Some oftl1e buildings listed above are bar-
racks or buildings for the sentry next to more
iшportant points of the fortification system.
Along with the building next to the western
gate, the L-shaped building, for instance, сап
also Ье assumed to have been of military pur-
pose at the central section of the western for-
tress wall again. PuЬlic links of economic pur-
poses - \Varehouses and workshops, are also
1ocated a1ongside the fortress walls. The finds
of one of the mentioned buildings with chain
rooms next to the western fortress wall point
7 Most of the sectors not studied to date are in the easterн part of Tsarevcts.
Example о.Г Early Byzantine Urbanism ...
to such ·а purpose. There is also indirect evi-
dence supporting this conclusion. With the
exception of one "workshop processing
bone", unearthed in the south-western part of
the town (Писарев 1982, 82), today по otl1er
similar buildings or facilities have Ьееп
known in the interior of the fortified area, i .е .
they shou1d have been concentrated alongside
the fortress walls.
Other buildings have also been unearthed
in the fortified area, outside the zones and dis-
tricts already discussed, and, judging Ьу theii"
size and planning these were not common
households. Such is the building, st1.1died iп
close proximity south-west of the шonastei"y
compound (Fig. 3/14). lt consists of sevei"al
rooms, grouped in two Ьlocks - housing and
economic probaЬly. lts total area has Ьееп cal-
cu1ated to about 250 sq. ш. The construction
is ofbroken stones tied together Ьу а clay шix­
ture and mudbricks. Two columns bui1t in the
same manner have been found iп the central
room of the housing section. They are as-
sumed to have carried an upper floor
(Ангелов 1962, 27-29).
The situation fou11d in one of the south-
eastern sectors of Tsarevets is important iп
view ofthe development ofthe towп strнcture
and scheme. "А big overhauled b1.1ilding \Vitll
the planning of а basi1ica" has Ьеев unearthed
here. lt has been dated to the late 5th :ннt the
ear1y 6th century. It had probaЬly been built
in stone with clay and mudbricks. "Three
buildings ofthe 6th century, destroyed Ьу t'i1·e
at the beginning ofthe 7th century" have been
pointed out as а next stage of construction iп
that sector (Квинто 1985, 200; 1986, 145;
1987, 190). In this case there is evidence that
the area occupied Ьу ordinary houses was ex-
panded in the 6th century, at least iв the south-
eastern part of Tsarevets, at the expense of
buildings of another type and witl1 other func-
tions.
Households of common folks t'rom tl1e
ЕВА have Ьееп studied in the western, soutll-
ern and south-eastern parts of Tsarevets7 . ln
the overall plan, in the central part of tl1e hi 11
between the basilica on the top and the шоn-
63
 Ventzislal' Dintchev
astery, buildings have been indicated, which
were probaЬly also houses ofthe common folk
( cf. Fig. 3 ). However, no puЬlished informa-
tion is availaЬle for them. The domestic build-
ings of which we have data осеиру the ter-
raced slopes between the ridge of the eleva-
tion with the representative compoиnds and
the bиildings located here, апd the western
and soиthern fortress walls with the bиildings
erected next to them. Thc houses are located
in i11dividual strips on the separate terraces . In
groиnd plan they are the bиildiпgs with one,
two ог three parts with qиadrangиlar, often ir-
regиlar sltape. Their dimensions vary. The
Jengths of some ofthem in the western part of
Tsarevets, for instance, reach 15 m (Fig. 14).
The foundations and lower walls are ofbroken
stone boиnd Ьу mud or clay. Higher ир the
walls are of mиdbricks . Qиite а few of the
houses were two-storied. The floors of the
ground rooms were paved with bricks or stone
slabs, or trampled clay. Sometimes the rocky
ground served as а floor. "Heating ovens"
have been unearthed in some of the houses.
The roofs and the ирреr floors in the two-sto-
ried bиildings had а wooden constrиction. The
roofs were covered Ьу tegulae and imbrices.
Bases of columns have been found in some of
the bиildings next to their entrances or oиter
walls. In this case, this was probaЬly а matter
of wooden columns supporting the upper
floors. Often there are staircases in front of
the entrances. Tl1e walls, exposed to the great-
est pressure owing to the sloping terrain, were
reinforced Ьу flying bиttresses. The step-like
profile of the terrain was skilfully made иsе
of: the bиildings on the lower terrace lean onto
the bank ofthe ирреr terrace and иsе it as а natu-
ra1 wall on the respective side (Fig. 14). Part of
the rooms - for instance the groиnd floors of
the two-storied bиi1dings - had economic
functions. In some of the hoиses , 1ater bиi1d­
ing periods have been identified or it has been
estaЬlished that they had been bиi1t on top ear-
lier bui1dings of similar plan and similar con-
strиction (Славчев 1976, 72 ; 1984, 129- 130;
Долмова - Лукановска 1978, 118; 1979, 153;
1982,86;Генова 1979, 157-158;Квинто 1980,
186; 1981, 109; 1982, 83; Писарев 1982, 82;
Дремсизова-Нелчинова 1983, 15-21; Анге­
лов 1986, 55; Алексиев 1986, 137; 1994, 24 ;
Ботов 1986, 145; Pissarev 1990, 876-877).
64
As this has already been pointed out, th~.:
town ofthe ЕВА on Tsarevets came into beiпg
in the late Stlt and early 6th centиry. Т11е coш­
ing into being itself covered а period of at
least one or two decades and foиnd expressioп
in the constrиction of the fortifications, of th~.:
earliest puЬlic buildings and of part ot' tl1c
houses. In the early years of its existence, the
town had quite а few free p1ots of land without
any bиildings on them within its fortifie()
area. Even at tltat time, however, zones and
regions of different fиnctions and of differeпt
weight in риЬliс life became differentiated .
Sиch important components ot· its structшe
came into being as tlte religioиs centre, the
district with more represeнtative administгa­
tive and private bиildings, part oftlte links of
military purpose, etc.
Within the first ha1f of the 6th centшy , as
а resи1t of the growing urban popиlatioп and
the prosperity ofthe town itself, tl1e free plots
within the fortifications were gradиally bt1ilt
ир. Some ofthe compoиnds and buildiпgs eм­
lier риt ир were used without any essential
changes, whereas others were entirely over-
haи1ed. In this way, Ьу the middle of the 6tl1
century, иnder tl1e rule of Emperor Jиstiniaп 1,
the structиre and spatial scheme ot· the tO\VIl
acqиired their final appearance. The specifi-
city in the fиnctiona1 characteristics of tl1e
main town zones and regions became reaf-
firmed. Commиnications within and betweer1
them were carried out via а network ot· streets,
which owing to the coпditions of the terrain
resemЬled а concentric-radial system. An ex-
ception is the zone on the levelled out ridge in
the central part ofTsarevets. Here а major re-
ligious centre took shape after а thoroиgh
overhaиl, partially conformed to the princi-
ples of orthogonal planning, which included а
monastery, an individиal religioиs сошрошнl
with а martyrium and а bishop's residence
(Fig. 3/4-6). The northern, innermost part of
Tsarevets best protected Ьу nature also be-
came established as а zone of representative
construction. Most of the bigger compoиn<ls
here are puЬlic buildiпgs, inclиding resi-
dences of high-ranking representatives of the
local administration (Fig. 317-l 0). The soutl1-
 Zikideva- ап Ехатр/е
westerп corпer ofthe fortified area took shape
as the most importaпt mi1itary zone within the
urban structure (Fig. 3/l, 3/12). The basilica
bui1t here was designed to service the military
and to secure "divine protection" of the main
gate апd of t1te city fortress iп geпeral (Fig.
3/11). Another basilica ofa solid constructioп
occupies the top of Tsarevets and a1so p1ayed
an importaпt role in the spiritua1 1ife of the
town (Fig. 3/3). lt can Ье assumed that Ьу the
middle of the 6th century, all fami1iar re1ig-
ious buildings were already functioпiпg in
syпchrony: the basilicas at the main gate and
on top Tsarevets, the large moпastery basilica
апd tl1e church with а martyriutn 8 . These were
religious liпks ofspecific fuпctions wit1Iiп the
structure апd in the spiritual 1ife of the town.
At the same time it may well Ье assumed that
they had been in а certaiп iпterrelationship
duriпg the common re1igious processions -
each опе with its place апd importaпce within
the course and order of the latter. The terraiп
up to the iпterпal side of the fortress walls -
outside of the zoпes listed above, was gradu-
ally occupied Ьу buildiпgs of primarily mili-
tary or ecoпomic purpose: barracks, sentinel
posts, warehouses, \\'orkshops (Fig. 3, 5, 11,
12, 13). Ву the middle ofthe 6th century, the
terraced slopes of the western, southerп апd
south-eastern parts of the fortified area were
finally turпed into zoпes for residential dis-
tricts ofthe commoп folks. Probably, the sec-
tor iп the central part of Tsarevets, between
the towп's religious centre and the basilica оп
the top of the hill (Fig. 3) was also occupied
Ьу similar households.
lп tl1e period followiпg the rule of emperor
Justiпian 1 up uпtil tl1e end ofthe existeпce of
the town from the ЕВА, certain changes and
alterations were carried out in individual ar-
chitectural compounds and buildings. There is
по justification to coпsider, however, that any
essential cltanges had set in in the town struc-
ture and plaпning as а whole.
8 The ех istcnce of other cult buildings frotn the ЕВА оп Tsarcvcts cannot Ье cxcluded either during fнrther iпvcs­
tigations.
9 The iпformation is also due to Z.Genova, and 1 опее again gratefully acknowledgc ltcr contributioп .
oj'Ear/y Byzantine Urbanism ...
SUBURBS, NECROPOLISES AND
SA TELLIТE SIТES
Remains of buildings dated to the ЕВА
have been partially unearthed in the westerп
foot of Tsarevets. These have not received
convincing interpretation so far (Попов 1980,
95; 1985а, 6; 1985Ь, 214; Робов 1988, 42).
For the time being it can only Ье assumed that
with the construction of the fortified town on
Tsarevets, an unfortified suburb emerged iп
its western foot.
In the south-eastern foot ot· the hi\1, tl1e
foundations have been uneartlted of а solid
building from the ЕВА. lt is assшned to have
been а Christian basilica, and respectively, а
suburb or necropolis of thc town 9 . А vaultt::d
"child's tomb" from the ЕВА (Вълов 1992,
41-43) has been found in this region, close to
the south-eastern angular tower of the foг­
tress. The existence of the tomb is а proof of
ап Early Byzantine necropolis iп the soнt11-
eastern foot of Tsarevets.
Materials from the 6t1t-7th centuries "scat-
tered in individua1 spots and in the late em-
bankments" (Генова 1992, 119) have been
found south-west ofTsarevets, in the southern
foot of the rocky strip of laпd . Their character
has not been elucidated so far.
То the south-east of Tsarevets, located он
the opposite bank of the У aпtra River is tl1e
Momina Krepost Hill, familiar also as Devin
grad (Fig. 2). At the end of the 5th - the be-
ginning of the 7th century, there was а forti-
fied settlement in the western part of this l1i 11,
а satellite of the town on Tsarevets Hill . 1ts
fortification system was similar to that of tl1e
town. The area within the fortifications was
no less than 4- 5 hectares. During limited iн­
vestigations, foundations and lower parts of
walls of а certain пшnЬеr of housing and eco-
nomic buildings have been found, built ofbro-
ken stone and mud (Шкорпил 1910, 124- 127;
Велков 1943, 64-70; 1946, 97-10 l; Овчаров
1982, 40-41; Ангелов 1986, 43 ). The ne-
cropolis of the fortified settlement froш the
65
 Ventzislav Dintchev
ЕВА has been investigated on the south-west-
ern slope of the Momina Krepost Hill (Нико­
лова/ Ангелов 1963, 36-38; Николова1964,
13-14).
То the west of Tsarevets, the Trapezitsa
p1ateau-shaped elevation is located on the op-
posite bank ofthe Yantra River (Fig. 2). Ma-
terials from the ЕВА have also been found
l1ere (Овчаров/Ваклинова 1978, 32, 34; Ан­
гелов 1986, 56), but the nature of the struc-
ture from which tltey come l1as not been elu-
cidated for the time being 10.
It can Ье summed up that in the region of
what is today the town of Veliko Turnovo,
there had been а major settlement agg1omera-
tion in the ЕВА. lt incorporated the town cen-
tre on Tsarevets Hill \Vith the expected unfor-
tified suburbs at its foot and satellite struc-
tures on top the Momina Krepost and Trapez-
itsa Hills, the former being а major fortified
settlement.
ТНЕPROBLEM CONCERNING ТНЕ FINAL
DATE OF ТНЕ TOWN FROM ТНЕ ЕВА
It has been assumed Ьу historiography that
"the middle of the 7th century was the termi-
nus ante quem to life" of the ЕВА town on
Tsarevets Hill (Ангелов 1973, 271; 1986, 57;
Ваклинов 1974, 179; 1977, 48; Алексиев
1976с, 65; 1994, 24; Овчаров/Ваклинова
1978, 12; Velkov 1995, 494). Ajustificatioп
of that is the fact that the latest finds with ex-
act datiпg, unearthed in different buildings
and at different places in the ЕВА cu1tural
stratum, are coins ofEmperor Heraclius (610-
641)11. In the specific puЬlications and an-
nouncements, however, there is no data about
the emissions of these coins.
Several decades ago, а collective find was
accidentally unearthed in the vicinities of the
present-day town of Gorna Oryahovitsa, con-
sisting of "а dozen or so solids" of "Herac1ius
with Heraclitts Constantine" (Герасимов
10 some rcsearchers assumed that there had been Early Byzantine Age fortifications on the Trapezitsa Hill. as \vcll
(Николова 1980, 145, 146-147; Ангелов 1986, 56). The rcgular excavations started herc , 1\0wcvcr. have failc(l
to confirm the existence of one (Долмооа 1995, 40-41 ).
11 The inforn1ation puЬiished about the coins in gencral in the ЕВА con1pounds and buildiпgs ha:; been pre:;eпtc1l
iп tl1e study that is in print (Динчев, nод печат).
66
1959, 361). There are no t'urther data about tl1e
find in the short announceшent, but in anotl1er
puЬlication of another nutnismatist, the sol i<ls
are referred to "the first quarter ofthe 7th cen-
tury" (Jurukova 1969, 263). The hiding ot' the
gold coins at а distance of several kilomet1·es
away from Tsarevets was caused Ьу ап eveнt,
which had no doubt exerted influence on the
life of the town itself, too. Iп view of the po-
litical situation in the Balkans iп the early l1alf'
ofthe 7th ceпtury, it can Ье assumed that tlшt
event had been one of the two devastating it1-
vasions of Avars and Slavs in Thrace i11 усаг
619 and year 626.
Within the context ofthe data an<l delibcra-
tions presented here, it would Ье logical to as-
sociate the abandoning of the ЕВА town оп
Tsarevets with one of the above-mentioned
invasions of Avars and Slavs. However, in
one of the latest puЬlications about Tsarevets
there is information, wltich will very likely-
bring about а change in the tl1esis about the
chronology and more precisely about the final
date of existence ofthe Early Byzantine towп.
This infoпnation is about "а coin of Tiberitts
with Constantine IV (663-681 )", touпd in tl1e
south-eastern corner tower of the fortress
from the ЕВА. lt is explicitly pointed out that
the coin had been found "amidst the ruiпs" оГ
the tower, "in the upper layer of its interior-"
(Вълов 1992, 20, 183). lt therefore has а defi-
nite stratigraphic position and turпs out to Ьс
terminus post quem for the upper chronologi-
cal boundary of the tower, as well as of the
fortress and the urban structure from the ЕВА
in general on Tsarevets Hill. ln view of this,
the final abandoning of the town can Ье re-
ferred to the end of the 7th century. The most
probaЬie cause for the desertion of the town
seems to have been the advent of the Proto-
Bulgarians of Khan Asparouh in the nort11-
eastern Balkan territories of tl1e Empire and
 Zikidcva - ап Examplc o.f"Ear/y Byzantine Urbani:Jm ...
tl1e foundation here in the year 681 ofthe First
Bнlgarian State. At that time, or а little while
later, life оп the Tsarevets Hill ceased
(Андреев/Алексиев 1986, 60-61 , 66-67, 79,
поt. 25). Since а relatively smalJ number of
finds from the ЕВА have been unearthed dur-
ing excavations on Tsarevets Hill , "the organ-
ised desertion of the town" has Ьееn assumed,
after which it had been burnt to the ground
(Ангелов 1973, 337; 1986, 55; Алексиев 1976,
70; 1977, 115; Славчев 1984, 129-130).
The remains ofthe Roman and Late Roman
town of Nicopolis ad Jstt·um are located about
17 km north of the eastern end of what is today
Veliko Tшnovo. Owing to their closeness, the
thesis has cropped up in historiography that
the town from the ЕВА оп top the Tsarevets
Hill had been а continuation ofthe latter, witl1
respect to the паmе, as weJJ (Ангелов 1973,
217' 332, 335-336; 1986, 42-43, 56-57;
Ваклинов 1974, 179, not. 6; 1977, 48). Today
it is already clear tl1at the town оп Tsarevets
Hill has поt iпherited the name of the апсiепt
urbaп ceпtre . The oпomastic aspect aside,
however, thc idea ot· а certaiп coпtiпuity be-
tween Nicopolis ad /strum and the пеw Early
Byzantiпe town is 110t grouпdless.
Ву the mid-5th century, drastic changes set
in iп the developmeпt of Nicopolis ad /strum.
The old fortificatioп system was аЬапdопеd.
А suburb of stoпe and mudbrick buildings ap-
peared amidst the remains ofthe earlier moпu­
mental compounds апd buildings, оп the site
of the agora iпcluded. The пеw fortress -
what has Ьееп referred to as castel/um or Ni-
copolis a(/l~trum 11, had an area of only 5, 74
hectares. Two of the most outstaпdiпg build-
iпgs in its iпterior- а three-nave basilica апd
а one-nave church, had а manner of building,
dimensions and decoration, whicl1 did not as-
sign them а place among the more repre-
sentative samples of the respective architec-
tural types. According to the dated finds, life
was discontinued here at the end of the 6th or
а t the very beginniпg of tl1e 7th century
(Иванов/Иванов 1994, 40-41, ... 144, 159;
Poulter 1995, 34-45; Rousseva-Siokoska
1996, 207, 210-211).
Severa) importaпt coпclusions stand out
from the data presented. lt is indicative that
the emergence of the town оп top Tsarevets
Hill follows well-neigh directly the drastic
changes in the development of Nicopo/is ас/
/strum. А comparison betweeп the to\vn on
top Tsarevets апd the Early Byzaпtine succes-
sor of Nicopolis ad lstn1m shows, for its part.
that duriпg the period oftheir synchronous ex-
isteпce after the епd ofthe 5th - the begiпning
ofthe 6th century, the former was а muc~t Ь.ig ­
ger and more imponant settlement centre than
th~ latter. Accordiпg to the objective charac-
teristics, the latter was rather а fonified non-
urban settlement, like, for instance, the опе оп
top of the Momina Krepost Hill. Therefore,
with its very appearance, the tо\\' П on
Tsarevets Ьесаmе the most important centre
in the region ofthe earlier, the Roman and the
Late Roman towп of Nicopo/;s ш/ Jstntm, also
as far as the fortified settlement goes, \vhicl1
was the direct successor of the latter. lt is also
worth poiпting out that the town оп TsareYets
coпtiпued in existence for пearly а century af-
ter the abandonmeпt of that settlement.
Iп some of his latest puЬiications, Prof.
Velkov put forward the hypothesis of identi-
fication ofthe ЕВА towп on Tsarevets and the
synchronous settlement оп Momina Krepost
with Zikideva, mentioned Ьу Procopius (Вел­
ков 1988, 76-82; Velkov 1995, 494-495; cf.
also Алексиев 1994, 25). Тlte hypothesis is
based оп liпguistic deducing tl1e nаше Deviп
grad (Momiпa krepost) from tl1e name
ZJKIDEVA, апd from the fact that in the list
of "the Thracian fortifications" in De aediji-
ciis, Zikideva comes next after Nicopolis а,/
/strum - " ... Ntколо).ш. ZtкtЬef3a . ... " (ГИБИ
1959, 177).
Up until now Zikideva has becn ideпtifie(l
with Sucida1ю (Euкtbafla), which is located
оп the right hand bank ofthe Danube, east of
Durostorum (Besevliev 1970, 141 ), or was
sought along the Yantra River between Ni-
copolis atllstrum and Iatt·us (Schreiner 1986,
67
 Vcnlzis/av Dintcl1ev

27, 34). These attempts of identification апd
localisation of Zikideva have not, however,
been based оп sure facts, whereas Prof.
Vclkov's happy idea сап today Ье developed
and backed up Ьу new and reliaЬle evidence
in terms of names.
lt is well known that with the estaЫish­
ment of Christianity Nicopolis ad Istrum be-
came one of the bishopric seats of the prov-
ince of Moesia lnferior. The names oftwo lo-
cal Ьishops are also known - Marcellus and
Amantius, registered, respectively for the
years 458 and 518 (Poulter 1995, 17). In its
capacity of а bishopric seat, Nicopolis ad Is-
trum is also oate ofthe seven towns of Moesia
lnferior, registered in the well-known Synec-
demus (ГИБИ 1959, 90). The composition of
Hierocles, dated to the very beginning of the
reign of Emperor Justinian 1 is а model and ап
original source - the only one that has been
preserved to our time, of the making up of tl1e
Notitiae Episcopatuum. ln this case, of par-
ticular interest is its comparison witlt the ear-
lier Notitiae than those known today - what
has been referred to as tl1e Pseudo-Epiphanius
List, for instance, dated to tlte time of Em-
peror Heraclius. Among the towns of Moesia
Inferior, entered in that list, already pointed
out as bislюpric centres of the eparchy Нае-
mimontus, the names of two of the towns, il1-
cluded in the Synecdemus are absent, one bc-
12
ing that of Nicopolis ad !sfl·um . The only
new town in the Pseudo-Epiphanius List, not
pointed out in the work of Hierocles, is
Zikideva - presented in the form "тт• ZeJ\e-
l>eaлcov" (ГИБИ 1960, 189). П1е towns of
Moesia lnferior are given in the same way -
with the Haemimontus Eparclty, and in the
following Notitiae Episcopatuum, up to t.hc
9tlt century included 13 . Similarly, instead ot·
the name Nikopolis ad Istrum, what is preseпt
is that of Zikideva - "о Zета;делсоl'" (ГИБИ
1961, 151, 155, 157) . The iпclusion iп these
14
lists from the 8th and 9th centuries of the
to\vns of Moesia lnferioг, which had been fi-
nally lost for the Empire at tl1e end of the 7th
centшy, is а clear anachronism 15 . In view of
the proЬiem considered here, however, they
are а valuaЬie source, since they reflect thc
state of tlte church-administratioп orgaпisa­
tion and point out the most outstanding cen-
tres in the territory of Moesia lnfet·ioг, in the
period directly preceding its becoming а part
of the new Bulgarian state.
The name of Zikideva - in the form
"ZtкtдtPa", is also encountered in Theoplty-
lactus Simokatta's composition Historiae, pllt
together around the end of the reign of Em-

12 From an10ng thc towns of Moesia fn/erior mentioned in Hierocles's Synecdemus, noted in the Pseudo-Epiphaпiш;
List for thc Haemimontus Eparclty arc: Marcianopo/is- as а centre of а metropolitan; Durostorum. Transmarisca.
Novae and Appiaria- as bishopric seats. The Odessos mentioncd Ьу Hieroclcs has been included iп thc Psctldo-
Epipltanius List as а ccntre of an autocepltalous arcltЬishop in tltc eparchy of Moesia (ГИБИ 1959, 89-90; ГИБИ
1960, 186, 188-189).
13 11 is only i1t \vhat has been referred to as Notifia temp01·e lsaurorum scripla, that alongside tlte centrcs, Zikide1:a
included, mentioned as subordinate to the metropolitan of Marcianopolis in the Haemimonlus Eparchy, thcrc is
also information about а scparate eparchy of Moesia /, whose metropolitan seat \vas Odessos апd whosc Ьis\10pric
scats partially coincide with thosc pointed out for the Haemimontus Eparchy. Among tltc nantcs of the ccltt•·cs
listed for the Moesia 1 Eparchy, the name of Zikideva is missing, but that of Nicopo/is ad /strum is preseпt (ГИБИ
1960, 194, 196). lt is obvious that the simultaneous presence in this list ofthe Marcianopo/is metropolitan ccntrc
and the Moesia 1 Eparchy, as \vell as the partial overlapping of their seats is indicative of the coшpilatioп of
different sourccs of different date . lt is likewisc evident that the presence in this list of the Moesia 1 Eparchy i:;
due to the earlier document, like, for instance, Hyeroclcs's Synectlemus and is thercfore erroncous and supertltюu~
in this case.
14 tn studies so far "тоv Zr.кehea%(JJ~·"f'··o ZeкeдUC(JJ\•" t·rom Notiliae Episcopatuum is not accepted or at least i!:
not acccpted in no unccrtain terms as being identical with Zikideva and it is assumed that these are two differc1tt
centres (Bescvlic\' 1962, 62; 1966, 21 3-214; cf. v.-ith Bcsevliev 1970, 141; cf. also Schreiпcr 1986, 3 1, 34 ). Tlte
cottfusion is obviously the rcsult of the erroneous localisation of Zikide1•a in the studies quoted.
150wing to that rcason, and respectively owing to the anyway ackno\vledged anachronism, tltesc centres wcre 1101
longer i11 the subscquent Notitiae Episcopatuum from the first half of the 1Oth century (ГИБИ 1961, 158-165 ).

68
 Zikideva - ап Example
peror Heraclius. Describing the conflict with
the А vars at the end of the 6th century, or
more precisely the operations in АО 597, the
author informs that the Byzantine military
commander Komentiol intended to direct his
troops to Nicopolis ad lstrum - " ... Ttf Nl-
колоЛеt ... ", and subsequently entered indeed
Moesia Inferior, but located his camp at
Ziki(/eva - " . .. елt TIJ~' MtJoю~· хшреt слt те
Zщtдl{Ja тао GK1Jvar; atl\'ёJrlJ;;aтo." (ГИБИ
1959, 345). Besides associating again Nicopo-
lis ad lstrum and Zikideva, the passage quoted
may also Ье accepted as an indication that at the
end of the 6th century Zikideva provided bet-
ter conditions for the support of an army, i.e.
that it was the more significant centre at that
time.
And so thc order of Nicopolis ad fstrum
and Ziki(/eva in De aedificiis and thc an-
nouncement linking them up in Historiae
come to show that they were centres located
in close proximity to each other. The context
of the passage quoted Ьу Theophylactus Si-
mokatta and especially the comparison be-
tween the Synecdemus ofHierocles and Noti-
tiae Episcopatuum prove that Zikideva had
ousted and succeeded Nicopolis ad /strum as
the most importaпt ceпtre in the regioп of the
oi Early Byzantine Urbanism ...
upper апd middle reaches ofthe Yantra River.
The complete correspondence ofthe infomш­
tion from the sources and the archaeolo•-.ical
1:>
data about Nicopolis ad lstrum and the towп
from the ЕВА on Tsarevets Hill, for their part,
leave по place for doubt that it was precisely
the latter that was the Zikideva referred to.
The sources - the information about the
above-mentioned Amantius and Hierocles's
Synecdemus, testify to the fact that in the first
half of the 6th century, the Ьishop iп the re-
gion still had the title of "Ьishop of Nicopo-
lis". Proceeding, however, from the compari-
son between what has been referred to as Ni-
copolis ad /strum 11 and the Early Byzantiпe
centre on Tsarevets, опе сап assume that fot·
the period after the епd of the 5th and the be-
ginniпg ofthe 6th ceпtury, the bishops ''"ofNi-
copolis" had their seat поt iп the direct topog-
raphical successor ofthe ancieпt Nicopolis ad
lstrum, but iп Zikideva. Arouпd the middle ot·
the 6th ceпtury ог duriпg the decades after апd
up to the begiпniпg ofthe 7th century, the title
of the local Ьishop was conforrned to the re-
alities апd duriпg the reign of Emperor Hcr-
acleus, accordiпg to the Pseudo-Epiphaпy
List, it was already "Ьishop of Zikideva".
69
 Ventzislav Dintchev

Fig. 1. Тhе \ocation ofthe Early Byzantine town on the тар ofthe Balkan Peninsula.

Fig. 2. The region of thc Tsarevets Hill (асс. to Станев t 986, 20).

70
 Zikideva - ап Example of Early Byzantine Urbanism ...

о 50 100

~=:::11- lortress wal

Fig. 3. General map ofthe Early Byzall-
'----------------------~----_j tine town (асс . to Ангелов 1986, 45).

о
Fig. 4. The main city gatc and the basi\ica next
Ыndlng
...............5
to it (ас с. to Овчаров 1982, 40, fig. 20). - - mortar Ыndlng - - mud
~----------------------------~

71
 Ventzis/av Dintchev

о 5 10
1 1 1

• - E~rtv Byzantine Age (ЕВА)

Fig. 5. The south-easterп corner ofthe fortress (асс. to Вълов 1992,40,

fig. 21 ).

о 5
--ЕВА ~

Ш - Ьrick-covered floor of the uaumed bapti81ery from the ЕВА

Fig. 6. The basilica below the medieval patriarchal seat (асс. to А11rелов 1980, 8,
annex 1).

72
 Zikideva - ап Examp/e о.ГЕаr/у Byzantine Urbanism .. .

__ _j.
N N

А А

:~ tl
,1

1••
•'
о
...............5
о 5

Fig . 9 . The religious compound \Vitll tl1c nюrtllary atнl

thc south-castcrn part of tl1c bisl1opric scat (асс . to
1- watв reИNoir
Ангелов 1962, 21, pla11 1).

Fig . 7. Thc i11vcstigatcd parts of tl1e architectural com-

pound with tl1c vaulted \Vatcr reservoir (асс . to Тео­
филов 1979, 35).

о
1V N
л А

о 5

Fig. 1О. Thc bishopric scat (асс . to Ов•шров/ IЗ:tктttюва

1978, 12).

шg- Ist maln рмоd of constnoc1ion

о 5 10
- - 2nd main рМоd of construc1ion
1 - wllt« resetVoirs --ЕВА

Fig. 11 . One of the buildings ncxt to thc cet1tral sectio11

Fig. 8. Thc Monastery compound (асс. to Ангелов 1986, 48).
ofthe western fortress wall (асс . to Аttrелов/Николов:t
1962, 65, fig. 12).

73
 Ventzislav Dintchev

д
. _- _- :_-~

н:
~- .
-.
д
N
: 1
1 1
1 1

1 [Г1
~
:
. 1

----
..,.._ .
. \ 1

..

о
:'fg
'1

-
·
1 1

li L

cr
' 1
1 1

!l . ..

11
11
1 1

.~

fi
• 1

о 5 10 о 5 10
);.•Ф·.-(-1 - ЕВА

Fig. 12. Tl1e building next to the wcstcrn Fig. 14. Hoнses in the western part of the fortified to,vn :неа
town ' s gate and а part of thc strcet to the ( асс . to Дремсизооа-Нелчинооа \983, 16, рнс . 1).
lattcr (асс . to Писарев 1992, обр . 3).

Fig. 13 . The central part ofthc southern fortress \vall and the buildings unearthed here (асс . to В·ьлов \992 .
50-51 ' fig . 33).

LIST OF LIТERATURE USED чаров , Р .

(ed.). Археологически открнт•tя и разко11ки
през 1977 г. Софю1. 120-122.
Алексиев, Й. \994 . Раюювизантийският град във
Алексиев. Й. 1977. Разкопки на Царевец: обект 13.
Велико Търново. In: Тъпкова-Заимова, В. et а\. (ed.).
ln: Велков, В./ Катюrчаров, Р. (ed.). Apxeoлoгrt•rccкrt
Историко-археологически изследвания в памет на
открития и разкопки през 1976 г. София. 114- 115 .
r1роф . д-р Станчо Вакл11нов. Велико Търново . 21-28.
Алексиев, Й. 1976/а . Находка от оръдия на труда
Алексиев, Й. 1986. Разкопки на южния склон на
и въоръжение от Царевец . - Музеи 11 nамстн11ц11 11а
хълма Царев·ец - сектор 34. ln: Велков, В. et al. (ed.).
културата 2, 33-37.
Археологи•rески открития и разкоnки през 1985 г. Ве­
лико Търrюво . 13 7-138. Алексиев, Й. 1976/Ь . Разкоnки на Царевец- обект
Алексиев, Й. 1979. Археологически разкопки на 13- северозаnадната креnостна сте11а. In: Велков ,

обект Царевец 13 терасата южно от Лобната скала. В./Катинчаров, Р . (ed.). Архсолог11ческн открития 11
111 : Велков, В./Катюrчаров, Р. (ed.). Археологически разкоnки през 1975 г . Смолян. 70-71.
открития и разкопки през 1978 г. София. 152-153. Алексиев, Й. 1976/с. Рашюсреднооековното селище
Алексиев, Й. 1978. Разкоnки на Царевец: обект 13 11а хълма ,.Царевец" във Велико Тьрново (VIII-XI 11 . ). -
-терасата при Лобната скала. ln: Велков, В./Катин- Векове, 4, 65-69.

74
 Zikideva - ап Ехатр/е о,ГЕаr/у Byzantine Urbanism .. .

Ап г елов, Н. 1986. Антично н ранновизантийско Генова, Зл. 1992. Спасителни разк0111СН на ул. ,.Кс­
селище . In: Петров, П ..(еd.) . Исторни на Велико Тър­ фалов'\ ВелиJСо Т-..рново. Jп: Тод~Х - et al. ted. }.
ново . Т . l . София . 3Cr59. ApxeonorнчeC'JПI о-лритн• и pa:яconiCII през f'.)9f r.
Апгелов. Н. 1980. Патриаршеският комплекс на Софи• . 119.
Царевец nрез XII-XJV яек. Царевград Търнов. Т. 3. Гетнш. Зл. 1979. Раз~:оnJСн 11а Цареаец , ОО!tК1'
София . XXVI, южеи кpaii 11а заn:»Двн• CltJJOH. ln: Велк015:,
Апгелов, Н. 1973. Културните пластове преди из­ В./ КЗТJ'JJiчаров, Р. (ed.). Apxeoлorмotec~CJ~ mкpwru и
граждането на двореца. ln: Миятев, Кр. et al. (ed.). разкопки nрез 1978 r . СОФИ•- l.S7-15S.
Дворецът на &ьлгарсltИТе царе през Втората българеха Генова. Зл. 1978. Ра:яtопкк на Царnец: оо~ r'Jt.
държава. Царевград Търнов. Т . 1. Софи• . 259-353. - lп: ВелJСов,. ВJКатинчаров, Р. (ed.). Археол0r~ttчес­
Ангел ов. Н. 1966. Крепостни стени н порти на Ца­ кн открити• и разr;оnкн през t977 r . СОФИ•- 123-124.
ревец о гр . В . Търново . Разкопки и проучванu nрез Генова, Зл . 1977. Разкое~D~.ц ~ : ООаТ> J'JI.
1963 г. - Известии на oqn.J~rnия музей В'ЬВ Велихо
ln: Велков., В./Катинчаров,. f'. ted.). Арх~-к:~JсЯ
Търнооо 111 , 1- 20. откритиа" pa31t"ODDI през 1916 г . София:. r F7- t f R.
Аи гелов. Н. 1962. Спасителни разкопm на Царе­ Герасимов. Т. 1959. Koлen~~ВRJ~ маходки w 1\IО­
вец през 1961 г . - Археология 4, 4, 20-30.
нети през 1956 n 1957 г .- Извеnn•..,. архео-лоrич.сс­
Аигелов. Н.!Николова, Я. 1962. Крепостни стени
кu институт, XXJI, 356-366.
и крепост11н съоръже11и• иа средновековната &ългар­
ГИБИ 1961. Дуi"'ев,. И. et al. (cd.). Г)!1Ыiп ИЗ:!Юрtt
ска столица Търново . - ИзвестJtя на oqn.Jiffiu музей
за &ь.лгарсота НСТ"ораt•- Т . fV . Софа.
m.в Велико Търново 1, 57- 72.
ГИБИ ! 960. Дyirleв,. И. et al. (ed..). Гprwtюt ~
Ангелов. Н.!Попов, А. 1986. Царевград Т-..рнов.
33 б-ьлгарсиrа IICТOpiiJI. Т . 111. Со+-•-
Пътеводител . София .
ГИБИ J 959. Дyiioteв, И. et al. ted.). fpi.ЦDIIDВOpl
Аидреев, Й.!Алексиеs, Й. 1986. Търнововпер11ода
за българсuта IICТopu. Т. 11. Со+-• t 195S).
на ранина феодализъм . ln: Петров, П . {ed.). Истор~~•
Динчев, В. nод nечат. Раиноанзаитиiiс:юtn гран
на Велико Търново . Т . 1. Coфtu . 59-81 .
върху Х.'ЬЛМа Царевец. Велико Търн080. lп : Сборник
Анчева. Р. 1982. Разкоnки на Царевец XXXI . ln:
а чест на Пеn.р Г орбаноа..
Велков, В. et aJ. (ed.). Археологически oткpwnt• в
ДолJ«НJD, М. 1995. За уqн:nнтелната светема шt
разкопки nрез 1981 г. Софи•. 8Cr87.
креоос:тта ,.,Траnезица.. (предварително сьобщение}.
А 11•1ева. Р. 1979. РазкопD на Царевец : обект XXIV.
- Археолоrм 37, 3, 36-42.
In: Ветсов. ВJКатннчаров. Р. (ed.). Apxeo.1ontчecot от­
Дол".,ова-ЛукаНОfSСt>а, М. 1985. Разкопки на Царс­
крития н разкоnm през 1978 г. Софни . 155-156.
вец-сектор LXI. ln: Велtеов, В .
et al. (ed.). Археоло­
Ботов. К. J 986. Царевец- oбerr ХШ. ln: ln: Вел­
гически oткpiiТI'I• и разr;ошсн през 1984 г. Сливен .
ков, В. et al. (ed.). Археологически oткpiiТIU н раз­
копки през 1985 г. Велико Търново. 145.
203-204.
Долмова, М. 1984. РаЗJСОПКН 11а Царевец, ССIСТОр
Ваклипов. Ст. 1977. Формиране на старобългар­
ската култура . Софна.
LXI. ln: Велков, В. et al . (ed.). АрхеолоГJtчсски отк­
ритии •• разкопки през 1983 r . Смоn•н. 132-133.
Ваклrтов. Ст. 1974. За контаrrите между между
Долмова. М. 1982. Археологически разкопки на
старата и новата култура в Мизия и Тракия след Vl в.
Царевец- XXVIII. ln: Велков, В. et al. (cd.). Архсо­
- Известия на българското историческо дружество
XXIX, 177- 188. лоrичесJСи открити• и разкопки nрез 1981 г . Мtlхай­
ловград. 85-86.
ВакАшtова, М. 1972. Жсртое11нк с nосвещение 11а
Зевс от Велико Търново . - Известни на археологи­ Долмова-Лукановс,;а, М. 1979. Археологически

ческия институт XXXIII, 183-187. разкоnки на обект Царевец- сектор XXI . ln: Велков.

Велков. И. 1946. Старото Търново. РазJСопките на В./Катинчаров, Р. (ed.). Археологически откритня и

Момина крепост през 1942-1943 г.- Исторически разкопки през 1978г. София . 153-154.
преглед(\945/1946) 11 , 1, 9Cr102. Долмова-Лукановска. М. 1978. Разкопки на Царе­
Велков, И. 1943. Разкопките на Момина крепост вец: сеJСтор XXI -средновековна улица . ln: Велк()н,

до Търново. - Годишник на 11ародния музей Vll В./Катинчаров, Р. (ed.). Археологическн открипн1 ••

(1942), 61-71 . разкопки през 1977 г. София . 118-119.

Велков. В. 1988 . ZIKIDEBA < SYКIDABA = дн . Дремсизова-Нелчтюва. Цв. 1983. Разкопкн на

Велико Тьрново? ln: Поп константинов, К . ct а\. (ed.). сектор IX на Царевец. - Велико Търново. Рш1110m1-
Палеославнетика и епиграфика. В памет на проф . зантнйска епоха. ln: Михайлов, А. et al. (ed.). Проуч­
Иван Г1.лъбов. В . Търново. 76-82. ваниll и консервация на паметнищпе на културата 11
Вълов В. 1992. Археологически разкопки и проуч­ България . Т . 11. София . 15-22.
нания на крепостните сте11и на хълма Царевец ( 196Cr Ивапов, Т.!Иваиов. Р. \994 . Никопопие ад \1ст­
1969 г.). Царевград Търнов . Т . 5. Софи11. рум. Т. 1. София .

75
 Ventzis/av Dintchev

K."_,tmo. Л 1987. Разкопки ка обект 39 tta Царе­ Попов, А. 1977. Разкопки на Царевец : обект
1:i.
~ц. ln : Велков, В . ct al. (cd.). Археологически откри ­ ln: Велков, В./ Катинчарон, Р.(ed.). Археологичсск11
-nея и разкопки през 1986 г. Разград. 189-190. открития и раза:опки през 1976 г . София . 1 17.
К111инwю. Л. 1986. Археологически paзlltOIIKИ на Попов, А. 1973 . Разкопки на Царевец обект 15. 111 :
Царсвецобсп 39. 1n: Велков , В . ct al. (cd.). Архсоло­ Вела:ов, В./ Найденова, В. (ed .). Археологически от­
гичееки от~:рити• и разкопки пре з 1985 г . Велико крития и разкопки през 1972 г . София . 77-7К .
Т"1.[1110ВО . 144-145. Рашеиов, А. 193 6. Възстановяване на крспосп-а
Квинпzо. Л. 1985. Разк:опки на Царевец ccrrop "Царевец" . - Годишник на liародния музей Yl ( 1932-
XXXIX. ln: Велков, В. et al . (ed.). Археологически 1934 ), 381-400.
опрtпн• н разкопки пре з 1984 г. Сливен. 200. Робов, М. 1988. Допълнителна укреnителна сне­
Коинто . Л 1982. Археологически разкопки на тема на средновековния град Т1.рнооо. - Архсология
Царекец - XXVII . ln: Велкон, В . et al . (cd.). Археоло­ 30, 4, 38-45.
гически ота:ритиа и разкоnки през 1981 г . Михайлов ­ Славчев. П. 1984. Разкопки на Царевец, сектор
град. 82- 83. XXXVI . ln: Велков, В . et а\. (ed.). Археолог11чссl\и

Koш1nzo. Л 198 1. Разкопки ка Царевец - сектор открития и разкопки през 1983 г . Смолян . 129-130 .
XXVII. ln: Вслкон. В. et al . (ed.). Археологически от­ С.-tавчев, П.
1978. Разкопки на Царенец: обект ХХ .
кри-nсs и раз~:опк:и пре-. 1980 г . София. 108-109. ln: Велков, В./ Катинчаров, Р. (cd.). Археологи•tсск''
Квинто. Л. 1980. Разкопки на обект XXVII. ln: опрития и разкопки през 1977 г. София. 124- 125 .

Велков , В ./ l<атинчаров, Р . (cd.). Археологически от­ С."Аавчев, П. 1977. Разкопки на Цареоец: обект 20.

крити!! и · разкопк:и през 1979 г . София . 185- 186. ln: Велков, В./ Катинчароu, Р . (cd .). Археологическн
открития и разкоnкsr през 1976 г . София . 119.
Нико.Аооа, Я. 1980. Търновград в светлината 11а
С.fав'lев, П. 1976. Разкопки на Царевец- обект 17.
IIOBJtтe археологически проучвания. ln : Петроn , П .
(ed. ). Срсдttоnсковни.-г български град. БИД - науч­ ln: Велков, В./ Катинчаров, Р. (ed.). Археологи•1сски
открития и разкопки nрез 1975 г . Смолян . 72-73 .
нu жонференции. Т . 2. София. 145- 153.
Станев, П. \986. Г еолоrо-географска характс­
Нико..1ооа. Я. 1964. Нови данни за плана на сред­
р~tстика на района. lп : Петров, П. (cd.). Истор11я на
новековния град Велико Търново. - Архсология 6, 1,
Велико Търново. Т . 1. София. 19- 21.
10- 15.
Теофилов, Т. 1979. Гражданска сграда на Царе­
Нико.fооа. Я.!Анzелоо. Н. 1963. Среднонековен
вец .- Музеи и паметници на културата 24, 2, 34-41.
квартал на хълма Момина крепост въо Велико Тър­
Тотев. Т. \985 . Разкопки на Царевец - сектор
ltово. - Археология 5, 1, 34-41.
XLIII. ln: Велков, В . et а\. (ed.). Археологически от­
Овчаров Д. 1982. Византийски 11 български крс­
крития и разкопки през 1984 r. Сливен . 206- 207.
nости (V-X век). София .
Тулеиtков, Н. 1988. Архитектура на бъn~·арск1пс
Овчаров. Д. 1974. Проучванията на матсриал11ата
ма1шстири. София.
а:ултура през раниооиза11Тийската епоха в български­
Харбова. М. 1979. Укрепсни.-г български срслllо­
те земи (1944-1974).- Археология 16, 4, 51-65.
вековен град (XIII-XIV век) . София .
Овчаров, Д./Ваклииова, М. 1978. Раtlнохристия••­
ШкорnuА, К. 191 О. Пла11 на старат<t бълr<tрска сто­
ски паметници от България ((V-VII век) . София .
лица Велико Тър11ово.- Известия на българското ар­
Овчаров, Т. 1988. Сектор 38 на Царевец. 111 : Вел­
хеологическо дружество 1, 121-154 .
ков, В. е& al. (ed.). Археологически открития и раз­
Bavant, В. 1984. La villc dш1s de nord dc 1' lllyri-
копки през 1987 г. Благоевград. 152-153.
cum (Pannonic, Mcsie 1, Dacic et Darda11ic). ln: Ville~
Писарев. А. 1992. Археологическо проучване на et peup\eme11t dans 1' lllyricum protobyzantin. Col\cctioп
обект 12-С на хълма Царевец във Вел11ко Търново .­
de 1' Ecole francaisc dc Ronte 77. Paris. 245- 28'1. .
Известия 11а историческ11я музей във Велико Търново
Besevliev, V. 1970. Zur Deutung dcr Kastell11amc11
Yll, 159-168. in Prokops Werk "De aedificiis". Amsterdam.
Пuсарсо. А . 1982. Археологически разкопки на Besevliev. V. 1966. Les citcs antiqtJes cn Mesic et с11
Царевец- XXXII . ln: Велков, В. et al. (ed.) . Археоло­ Tl1racc et \eur sort а \' epoque du Haut Moyen agc . -
гически открития и разкопки през 1981 г. Михайлов­ Etudes balkaniques 5, 207-220.
град. 8\-82.
Bese1•/ie1', V. 1962. Zur Geographic Nordost-Ot•l-
Писарев. А. 1977. Разкопки 11а Царевец: обект 14. garicns in der Spaetantike шtd im Mittclaltc•·- -
lп : Велков , В./ Катинчаров, Р. (cd.). Археологнчески БалкаНСКО СЗИКОЗН<liiИС JV, 59-80.
открития и разкопки през 1976 г. София. 1 16. Jurukova. J. 1969. Les i11vasioпs slavcs <НI sud d11
Попов , А. 1985/а . Асс11овци и "Новият град" о Danube d'apres les tresors monetaires cn Bulgш·ie . -
Търново.- Векове 4, 5-1 О. Byzantinobulgarica 111, 255-265 .
Попов. А. 1985/Ь. Разкопки на манастира "Вели­ Pissarev, А. 1990. Le systeme de fortificatioп С1111·с
ката лавра" . ln: Велков, В . et al. (ed.). Археологнчес­ le Danube et les vcrsants nord des Balkans pendaпt 1'
"" открития и разкопки nрез 1984 г. Сливе11. 213-214. antiquite tardive. ln: Vettcrs, Н./ Kandler, М . (cti .). Ak-
Попов, А. 1980. Търиовската "Велика лавра" . ­ ten des 14. lnternationa\en Litneskongresses 19~6 i11
И]всстия на българското историческо дружество Carnuntum. Der roemischc Limes in Oestcrrcich . Hcl·t
XXXIII, 83- 98. 36/2. Wiett. 875-882.

76
 Zikideva - ап Example о/ Early Byzantine Urbanism ...

Polllter. А . 1995. Nicopolis ad lstrum : а Roman , на VJ В. фунщионкрат CHHXpoHIIO ВСНЧIШ H'IUC:C'fHH

Late Romaп and Early Byzantine City. London. култови сгради- базклиiDПе np11 главtt:па nl>p'fa ~t Hi.l
Rousseva-Siokoska. L. \996 . Les recherches archeo- npxa на Царевец, гол•мата манастирска базмликан
logiques а Nicopolis ad lstrum - resultats et proЫemes църквата с мартирнума. Те са куJJТоаи засна с ·м: СQ.~­
( 1985-1994 ). ln : Petroviё, Р. (ed.). Roman Limes on the цифнчнн функцин в струrrурата н в духовнн• ЖlfiW'l'
Middle and Lo"ver Danube . Belgrad. 205-211. на града. Може да се nредоолоЖR. "С' ТС' ~ оклtf •
Schreiner. Р. \986. Staedte und Wegenetz in оnределена ВJТ'оЗ"-3 no~y с11 0р11 обuuпе боrу\:;~­
Moesicn, Dakien und Thrakien nach dem Zeugnis dcs жебнн процеси и wествн• - всяка n.c caoe-ro Mllc-to н
Thcophylaktos Simokates. ln : Pillinger, R. (ed.). значение в хода н реда на noc.neднiiТe. TeJ".'"tttrre ! to
Spactantike und fruehbyzantinische K11ltur Bulgaricns вътрешните лица на r;реnостннте степи - в-.н m· сю­
Z\vischen Orient нnd Okzidcnt. Wien. 25 - 35 . соченJtте по-горе зони - постепенно са з.аети o-r lю­
Ve/kov. V. 1995. Der Wohnsitz der Gothi minores стройки с nредимно военно мн стоnанс"о nrсдшrr­
(der Wulfilagoten) in Moesien. ln : Fol, А . et al . (ed.}. начение- казарми, uраулни. сuадовс. ~""fЛнац11
Studia in honorem Georgii Mihailov. Sofia. 491-496. ( обр. 3, 5, 1 1, 12. 13). Към средата на Vl а.. -rcpat:"f"w
Velkov, V. 1977. Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Latc н11те склонове в :шла.аната и ЮJQfaтa част ша зaottrr~н;na
Antiquity (St11dics and Matcrials). Amstcrdam. площ окончателно се превр-ьwат в · ижа за ЖJI .'tHWHt!

квартали на oбtttntoвaroтo иaceлettttc jобр. J . 14 ~-

ZIKIDEYA - ЕДИН КJIАСИЧёСКИ ПРИМЕР
В """ои от nоследиtrте сн nублн~>ацнм nроф. 8е.tt-­
ЗА РАIIНОВИЗАIIТИЙСКОТО ГРАДОУСТРОЙСТВО
ков лрелло:&н хипотезата за OT1>;r;дecтв•satre-ro н01
JIA I>АЛКМIИТЕ града от РВЕ в~рху Царевец сы сломен:rrат:.~ щщ

8е1щислав Динчев Прокопий Zilideva. Ред~т 11а уnоменаващ: 11:1 1\'kl>-

(рсзrоме) po/is ad lstrum и ZiAit/eva в De utttЩkiis и ~JUfH 11ас..ж

в Historiae на Теофняаrr Снмо~~;:rrз ПОСL'1ват, •tc- '11:'\Н
Градът от рашrов113антийската епоха (РВЕ) върху
центрове са разnоло:&еtiИ в блн ·Jост едн11 )10 ; 1руг.
хълма Царевец при днешно Велико Търново възllик­
Ко11текстьт на naca:&a от nчн11енне:то на С11мок:аr.t н
ва към крuя на V- Jtaчanoтo 11а VJ в . През първата
особено съnоставката между Хнсромневн!l -~_•." ••,._
половнttа 11а VJ в., u резултат 11анарстващото градско
demus и Notitiae Epist:opatи11m доnзват. че Ziloitle-vu
население и 11а nросперитета на сами• град, евобод­
н и·rс терени в защитената му nлощ постепенно се зас­
измества и наследава NicOJюlis aJ Jstrи• като кан­

тро•ват . Към средата tta VJ в . структурата н лро­ значим център в обGстта на гор11ото н сре;шото Т\."­

странеТвената схема на града добнват заВ'Ьршени• си чснне на р . .Янтра. П1о.Лното С'Ьответс-nmс nъr. ''" нtt­
вид . Утвържда~Ш се спецификата във фунщиоttапна­ формаuнпа от изаоритс и архсологн~'--с•штс Jl::IHHJJ
та характернетнка на основанrте градски зони 11 райо­ за Nit:opo/is ad /stru"' и града от РВЕ В'Ьрху Ц<~рсвсц
ни . Комуникацните В'ЬВ и между тах се осъществяват ш: остаu м•сто за с:1омненне, че именно посл~д11ип

•rрез улн•tна мрежа, ко•то nорадиусловипана тepe­ е nлросната Zikideva.

tta 11аnодобява ко1щентри•шо-раднапна система. Из­ Отличната nриродна и фортификацноtша защнта,
кточеlrие с зоната върху зарао11еното било в средиа­ значителни•т за РВЕ бро1111а населс11исто н рсщщ:п:&
та част на Царевец. Тук, след ос11овно преустройст­ образци 11а представителна, общсстве11а и час·пш аr­
uо, съобразено отчасти с прtшцнnнте на ортогонал­ хитектура. оnределят Zikitleva като важс11 център н.:
rrата nлашtрошса. се оформя голям култов център, само за nровинция Moesia lnj'erior 11а д11оцс·Jа
включващ манастир, отделе11 култов комплекс с Thracia, но и за балканските владения на Имnерията
martyriunz и елискоnека резиденцна (обр. 3/4-6, обр. 8, юобщо . Zikide,,a е сред най-големнтс по простран­
9, 10). Северната част на Царевец също се утвържда­ ствен и демографск11 мащаб rювн градоuс от РВЕ на
ва като зона 11а представително строителство. Част
Балканите. Срав11с11а наnример с ювестната lu .нi­
от ttамнращ11те се тук комплекси и nостройки са с
niana Prima, която с създансна от tшператоr IОспt­
общестке11о npcщraзlta•teниe, включително резиден­
ниан 1 за столица 11а префектурата /Цvricum , Zikitlcva
цни на висши nредставители 11а местната адм•шнст­
е с близо три nъти по-голяма защитена площ . Обстn­
рацня (о бр. 317-1 О, обр. 7). Други Rероятно са частttн
ятелството, че градът върху Цареuец е 11 ЯНIНI на
жнл11ща на nо-боrат11 граждани, които са имали въз­
круnна сслнщ11а агломерация , нздига още rюllc••.:
можност да СС II<ICTaHЯT Н ПpCCTIIЖIIIIЯ Н CCTCCTRetiO
престижа му 11а първостепенс11 це11rър 11 северна •· а
11аl1-1ащнтсння гpiЩCKit квартал . Югозаnадн11ят ъгъл
част на полуостроuа. Zikille,,a с 11 сд1111 от малк()то
11а защитената плош сс формнра като най-значимата
центрове в тази обширна тернт.оrия с дока:.~ано фу11к­
nосшш :юна в градскi.Па структура(обр. 3/1,3/12, обр. 4).
циониранс nрез Vll в.
Издигнатата тук базилнка е предназначена да об­
служва военните и ll<l осигурява .. божиата защита" за
г лаоната nорта tt за градската крспост изобщо (о бр .
Dr. Veпtzislav Dintchev
3/J 1, обр. 4) . Друга, подобно солид110 градеttа, базнли­ Archaeological lnstitute uпd Mt1scur11
ка заема върха на Царевец и съшо има важна роля в 2 Saborna str.
луховння жнвот на града (обр . 3/3, обр . 6). Към средата BG - 1ООО Sofia

77