Durostorum Dorostol Drastar Silistra The

DUROSTORUM – DOROSTOL(OS) –
DRASTAR/DRISTRA – SILISTRA
The Danubian Fortress from the Beginning
of the 4th to the Beginning of the 19th c.
Georgi Atanasov
Drastar
І. Durostorum in the age of the Principate economic, cultural and spiritual centre, yet
(short historical review) its military strategic position on the Lower
Danube remained dominant (Иванов, Р., Г.
With the stationing of the 11th Claudian Атанасов, П. Доневски 2006:180–182). Unlike
Legion (legio XI Claudia) in 106 AD (or a lit- the other Roman centres along the Danubian
tle later?) on the Lower Danube, the history limes, it was always the main camp of legio XI
of Roman Durostorum began (Иванов, Р., Г. Claudia from the beginning of the 2nd c., and
Атанасов, П. Доневски 2006:59–98 and ref.). it guarded large sectors between Sexaginta
Its fortiied camp was raised over an area of Prista (Ruse, Rouse) and Аppiaria (Ryahovo
22 hectares on the plain ield 800-900 m south by Ruse) to the Danubian Delta, and even the
of the bank of the Danube River (Donevski, Chersoneses on the Crimean Peninsula. With
P. 1990:236-245) (Fig. 1). It is at the core of a the intensifying barbarian invasions from the
classic antique urban agglomeration which mid-3rd c. (the capture of Durostorum by the
endured development during the 2nd-4th c. In Goths of Kniva in 250 or 251 AD, and espe-
fact, during this age Durostorum got the rank cially after the great Gothic invasion of 377-
of municipium Aurelium Durostorum, and 378 AD), it became obvious that the camp of
showed its worth as an administrative, trade, the legion was not suicient fortiication, and
493
Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses
Гроб с трупополагане, I–III в.

Burial with inhumation, 1st-3rd c.
Късноантичен гроб, IV-V в.

Burial from Late Antiquity, 4th-5th c.
Начало на пътя Дуросторум–

Марцианопол
Beginning of Durostorum–
Marcianopolis road
Катедралната базилика
на Дръстър (края на IX–Х в.)
Cathedral basilica of Drustar 9th-10th c.
Fig. 1. Plan of Late-antique Durostorum after P. Donevski. A. Camp of legio XI Claudia. В. Canabae. С.
Vicus. D. Castellum on the Danubian bank. FG. Necropolis. H. Episcopal basilica. L. Episcopal residence
that the numerous population of the canabae tention (Атанасов, Г. 2012:32–33, обр. 1, 11:
spread over an area of 90 ha (?) was not pro- Атанасов, Г. 2013b:52–70). Not only in design
tected suiciently. Thus, at the beginning of and realization was it unique, but its use for
the 4th c. the construction of a new fortress be- the same purpose without any drastic changes,
gan; it was built on the very bank of the Dan- from the beginning of the 6th to the beginning
ube (Ангелова, C. 1973:83–93; Angelova, S., of the 19th c., is no less striking (Ангелова, С.
I. Buchvarov 2007:61-87; almost the same text 1973:83–93; Иванов, Р., Г. Атанасов, П. Донев-
has been retold in Bulgarian in: Ангелова, C., ски 2006:180–182; Angelova, S., I. Buchvarov
И. Бъчваров 2008:82–101). Thus, the district 2007:61-87; Ангелова, С., И. Бъчваров 2008:
was fortiied and a reliable rеfugium for the 82–101; Атанасов, Г. 2012:32–33, обр. 1, 11).
civilian population of the city and the subur- The start of fortiication activity along the
ban setlements was formed (Fig. 1).1 Danubian bank in Silistra is related to the
In the 6th c. it was fundamentally reconstruc- large-scale building program of Emperor Dio-
ted using an innovative design, without ana- cletian (284 – 305) along the Danubian Limes.
logue in the late-antique and medieval forti- He also inspected personally the right bank of
ication, and therefore it deserves special at- the major European river, and on October 21-
1
In my view, regarding the location of this “refuge” I have a certain diference of opinion with the
author – see note 15. – note of the scientiic editor Prof. R. Ivanov.
494
D U R O S T O R U M – D O R O S T O L (O S) – D R A S T A R / D R I S T R A – S I L I S T R A
22, 294 and June 8, 304, he visited Durostorum dated respectively to the beginning of the 4th
(Velkov, V. 1960:212-214; Велков, В. 1988:25– and the 6th c. (Ангелова, С. 1973:83–93; Ата-
31). On the large-scale building program dur- насов, Г. 2013b:52–54). (Figs 2 – 1, 3). Sixty-ive
ing his age two inscriptions give information. meters of the earlier wall have been revealed.
The irst one, dated a litle after AD 302, men- The superstructure is of smaller stone blocks,
tions that the fortress of Durostorum (obvious- about 0.45 × 0.60 m, on light pink mortar, 2.20-
ly the camp of legio XI Claudia) was restored, 2.60 m thick. There was a narrow gate in the
and the fortiication of the city was completed shape of an ordinary arched entrance with a
(Russu 1936:210-212; Velkov, V. 1960:215). This width of 2 m on the western end. The foun-
additional fortiication may date namely to the dation has wider plinths of 0.18-0.10 m and it
construction of the castellum on the Danubian is 3.10 m deep. It is built of quarry stones on
bank. The second inscription, dated in 297 AD pink mortar. In some locations this wall over-
and discovered in the fortress of Теgulicium laps heavily eroded earlier walls (more accu-
(Vetren, Silistra reg.), next to Durostorum, rately substructure) of quarry stones on white
also gives evidence of the fortress newly built mortar around which a cultural stratum from
at that time (Герасимова, В. 2009:329–331). the 2nd-3rd c. has been recorded. Small sections
It is not clear whether Теgulicium or Duro- of the late-antique wall have been discovered
storum is concerned, but as far as we know at the north-western corner of the fortress and
Теgulicium had been a fortiication as early as the south-east one where it was used as the
the 2nd c. and the fortiication in Silistra on the foundation for the Early Byzantine wall from
river bank was newly built at the end of the 3rd the 6th c. This practice was registered by the
– the beginning of the 4th c., so probably it is the rescue excavations in 2004. Then, during the
one referred to by the author of the inscription. construction of “Drastar” Hotel, a new sec-
The inscription from Vetren conirms an ambi- tion of the northern wall was revealed – sector
tious building programme for the fortiication east, about 15 m long. The wall from the 6th c.
of the district of Durostorum under Diocletian. lies on the substructure, and in superstructure
Of course, the basic factor in clariication of the four rows of stone blocks on light-pink mortar
history of the fortiication facility on the Danu- with dimensions of 0.55 × 0.45 m are preserved
bian bank in Durostorum is the archaeologi- (Бъчваров, И., Д. Боева 2005:198–199) (Figs
cal research that started as early as 1969 and, 2 – 15, 4). In this section, as well as in other
with small interruptions, has continued until sectors, the wall from the 6th c. uses them as
today. a foundation. It is supposed that to the north,
as well as westwards and eastwards, the bor-
ІІ. The Predecessor or the Late-Antique ders of the fortiication from the 6th c. some-
Danubian Fortress of the 4th-5th c. times coincide with the fortiication from the
4th c., and that has been documented during
In fact, study during 1969-1971 marked the the study of the eastern gate from the 9th c. It
beginning of the archaeological excavations is not clear what area was enclosed by the late-
at the Danubian fortress of Durostorum – antique fortress, because traces have not been
Dorostol(os)– Drastar – Dristra – Silistra. Best found to the south; however, it is certain that
studied in the initial phase was the western at some stage it was destroyed, probably by
sector along the river bank where two paral- the Hun invasion in the mid-5th c. (Velkov, V.
lel walls have been discovered; they have been 1960:212).2
2
The fact that coins are missing from the second half of the 5th c., i.e. after Theodosius II (402-450), is
indicative.
495
R
VE
E RI
B
NU
DA
Fig. 2. Plan of the Danubian castellum of Durostorum – Dorostol during the 6th c. after G. Atanasov: 1.
Defensive wall from the end of the 3rd – the beginning of the 4th c. with a postern at the western end; 2.
Postern on the northern wall from the 6th c.; 3. North-western angular pentagonal tower No 1; 4. Eastern
gate and triangular tower No 1 with postern; 5. Pentagonal tower No 2 on the southern wall; 6. Small
thick pentagonal tower No 2; 7. Triangular tower No 3; 8. Pentagonal tower No 3; 9. Triangular tower
No 4; 10. Pentagonal tower No 4; 11. The western wall registered at sounding in 2008; 12. Small thick
pentagonal tower No 5; 13. Southern gate; 14, 14а. Sample reconstructions of the Eastern gate in the 6th
c.; 15. Layout of the northern wall under “Drustar” Hotel, studied in 2004; 16. Section of the Eastern
wall, recorded at the construction of a swimming pool in 1985 (?); 17. Partly explored walls of buildings
from the 6th c.
ІІІ. The Early Byzantine destroyed in connection with the construction

and Medieval Danubian Fortress of the new fort (castellum), studied for four
decades already by teams under the guidance
In terms of stratigraphic features and build- of Associate Professor Steka Angelova (An-
ing technique it dates to the 6th c. The fact that gelova, S., I. Buchvarov 2007, 61-87) and Prof.
in some sectors the late-antique wall from the Georgy Atanasov (Атанасов, Г. 2008:253–256;
4th-5th c. is used for the substructure is indica- 2009:433–435; 2010:235–237; 2012:32–33, обр.
tive. Obviously, around the beginning of the 6th 1, 11; 2012с:270–272; Атанасов, Г. 2013b:55–
c. the late-antique wall had been almost fully 66) (Fig. 2). It was established that the new
496
Fig. 3. The northern defensive wall from the 4th c. in front of the inner face of the wall from the 6th c.
fortress on the Danubian bank covered a po- reused in the new masonry (Figs 2, 3, 5). In
lygonal area of about ive hectares (Ангелова, most cases the new wall is situated 1.00-2.00
С. 1973:83–93; Иванов, Р., Г. Атанасов, П. m north of the old wall. It has been studied
Доневски 2006:180–182; Angelova, S., I. Buch- along the Danubian bank for 95 m and in the
varov 2007:61-87; Ангелова, С. И. Бъчваров section under Drastar Hotel (ifteen more me-
2008:82–1013; Атанасов, Г. 2012:32–33, обр. 1, ters since 2004) it reaches 110 m (Бъчваров,
11). We mentioned that in some sectors (north, И., Д. Боева 2005:198–199; Ангелова, С.
north-west and east) it reuses parts of the late-
2007:419–420). While its western end is indis-
antique wall for substructure. In most cases, putably marked with pentagonal tower No
however, especially southwards, the fortress 1, the eastern end can be established with a
was built ad fundamentum to a new plan. fair degree of accuracy. Its foundation has
been discovered during digging works for
ІІІ/1. T h e N o r t h e r n W a l l the aforementioned swimming-pool about 30
m from the Danube (Fig. 2 – 16). On the basis
It was built along the river bank after the of these benchmarks, its total length has been
demolition to the substructure of the late-an- calculated to a signiicant distance of 350 m.
tique wall. The preserved stone blocks were Its substructure is partly consistent with the
3
In the referred publications S. Angelova mentions an area of 0.5 hectares, which is obviously a tech-
nical error.
497
Fig. 4. The wall from the 4th c. under “Drastar” Hotel in Silistra as a foundation of the wall from the 6th c.
lie of the land. Due to the fact that it is often m, and in sections they have been illed with
exposed to water currents, the foundation is fragments of bricks, and almost everywhere
built much more sturdily than the late-an- they are coated with red mortar plaster. An-
tique wall as well as the substructure of the other narrow gate towards the river has been
simultaneous southern, eastern and west- located; it is lanked by two inner trapezium-
ern walls. Here the foundations are built of shaped wall piers but, unlike the gate from the
stone blocks on red mortar over piles, covered 4th c., the one designed in the 6th c. is displaced
with a thick layer of about 0.30 m of identi- about 80 m eastwards (Fig. 2 – 2).
cal mortar. The foundations are thicker than
the superstructure, respectively 0.20 m wide III/2. A n g u l a r P e n t a g o n a l
at the inner face and 0.50 m wide at the outer T o w e r No 1 a n d t h e W e s t e r n W a l l
face, where the foundation is at a lower level.
Along the bank the superstructure in the cen- It was studied after 1970 at the north-
tral section is 4.20 m thick which returns to western corner of the fortress (Ангелова, Cт.
3.60 m in the excavated section. It is preserved 1973:83–93) (Figs 2 – 3, 6). It is rectangular in
up to 3.50 m high and the masonry is only of shape, with a cylindrical interior with a diam-
large stone blocks with dimensions of around eter of 3.40 m, which is reached through a pas-
1.05 × 0.70 × 0.50 m. An atempt to follow the sage with undeined sizes. The reason is that
binder-leufer system along both faces is vis- the facility is mostly preserved in substructure
ible, while the implectum is of quarry stones and only a few stone blocks have remained
on red mortar. The reused spolia from late- from the superstructure. The walls in the
antique buildings and marble architectural foundation are 6.39 m long (northern one) and
elements and reliefs from the 2nd-4th c. are 6.10 m (southern wall), and they join the main
multiple. The gaps in most cases are 0.04-0.08 wall at angles of 110° and 98° respectively. The
498
Fig. 5. Northern wall of Dorostol – Drastar by the Danube River
been studied south of the tower; afterwards it

makes a turn of 120°. No small thick triangular
tower has been recorded by the turn, but the
studies here have not been inished.
During a geological sounding in 2007 for
the laying of the foundation of a column-
monument in honour of 1,900 years of Duro-
storum – Drastar – Silistra, the western wall
was located once again, about 50 m south of
tower No 1 (Fig. 2 – 11), which testiies to the
fact that its orientation was towards the south-
ern gate.
ІІІ/3. T h e S o u t h e r n D e f e n s i v e
Wall
Its excavation started in 1986-1987 when,

during rescue excavations, it was located 250
Fig. 6. North-western pentagonal tower No 1 m south of the bank of the Danube (Figs 2 –5,6;
7-9) Over ifty meters of it were studied then,
walls at the top are respectively 6.42 m and respectively a small thick triangular? (more
6.54 m, and they make angles of 125° and 115°; likely pentagonal) tower No 2, a big pentago-
the angle at the top is 89°. A 12.90 m long and nal tower No 2, the main wall between them
3.60 m thick passage of the western wall has and a part of the wall west of the lerge pen-
499
Figs 7, 8. Southern defensive wall of Dorostol, raised in the 6th c.
500
tagonal tower. According to the director of the ished in the western and eastern directions,
excavations, at the eastern end of the newly and the cultural strata were not completely
found outline there is a gate, lanked by a exhausted. At that time this led to hasty con-
small triangular tower No 2 and a round tow- clusions regarding the plan and building his-
er. The excavations in 1986-1987 were not in- tory. The director of the research, due to his
Basement
18th-19th c.
Triangular
tower No 4
th c.
6 -7
th
ment
Wall Basthe 9th c. Pentagonal
- 1
18 tower No 4
Triangular tower No 3
Pentagonal
tower No 3
o2
wer N
tagonal to
Southern gate Pen
Fig. 9. Plan of the southern defensive wall (after G. Atanasov)
501
at the eastern gate which

will be discussed later
(Figs 2-4, 28, 29). It has
been described as trian-
gular, but in fact it is pen-
tagonal with two short
sides towards the main
wall of 0.60 m. The tri-
angular walls are respec-
tively 3.12 m (the east-
ern one) and 3.32 m (the
western wall). The angle
is 64°. At 0.60 m from the
border substructure – su-
Fig. 10. Ancient relief on the small pentagonal tower No 2 perstructure, there is a
plinth (0.54 m high and
about 0.13 m wide). It is
early demise, was not able to present in de- preserved up to a height of 2.40 m – four rows
tail the results in a publication with complete of block masonry, 2.06 m high and 6 rows of
documentation, with detailed archaeologi- brick-masonry above it, 0.34 m high. On the
cal and architectural survey with sections of western side a big ancient relief from the 2 -
nd
proiles (see thesis descriptions in: Angelova, 3 c. is walled in as spolia (Fig. 10).
rd
S., I. Buchvarov 2007:61-87; Ангелова, С., И.

Бъчваров 2008:82–101). A new phase of re- III/5. T h e W a l l b e t w e e n t h e
search was carried out in 2007-2011 (Атанасов, T r i a n g u l a r (M o r e L i k e l y
Г. 2008:253–256; 2009:433–435; 2010:235–237; t h e S m a l l P e n t a g o n a l) T o w e r No 2
2012:32–33, обр. 1, 11) when a new passage a n d t h e P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 2
of the southern defensive wall, more than 70
m long, was excavated, along with two new It was also explored in 1986 (Figs 2, 7-9).
pentagonal and two triangular towers (Figs 2, The distance between the two towers here
9). Important observations about the horizon- is the biggest – 13.30 m, and the thickness of
tal and vertical stratigraphy were made and the wall just like everywhere along the south-
the actual plan of the fortiication was estab- ern outline, is 3.56-3.60 m. In superstructure
lished, respectively the actual location and there is a plinth of four rows of block mason-
plan of the southern gate.4 ry, about 1.90 m high. Pseudo-brick masonry
starts above it and from three to twelve rows
ІІІ/4. T h i c k T r i a n g u l a r of it have survived with maximum height of
(S m a l l P e n t a g o n a l) T o w e r No 2 1.35 m, and thus the total height reaches 3.25
m. Generally, the southern wall is built on a
It was studied in 1986 (Figs 2 – 6, 9). That slightly elevated in the north-west to south-
is the second explored tower of this type after east terrain. In order to level the brick ma-
the small triangular tower with the postern sonry, the fourth row of smaller stone blocks
4
In the surveys directed by Prof. PhD G. Atanasov between 2008 and 2011, the following team took
part: Kr. Mihaylov, Sv. Ivanova and D. Kolev from RHM – Silistra, PhD Candidate Y. Yotov from RHM
– Dobrich, PhD S. Mihaylov from RHM – V. Tarnovo, as well as students, assistants and post-graduate
students at the Higher Anthropological School – Chisinau and the State University of Terakli, with Bul-
garian participation under the guidance of Prof. Dr Habil. Nikolay Russev.
502
Fig. 11. Inner face of the southern wall between pentagonal tower No 2 and triangular tower No 3
at the eastern end is 0.35 m high and 0.12 m length is respectively 6.00 m and 7.58 m. The
at the western one. Above the irst rows of walls are respectively 7.25 m (the western one)
square blocks, at 0.93 m above the substruc- and 5.15 m (the eastern one), and the angle
ture, there are traces of a ire. It is heavily pro- they make is 95.8°. In the middle the tower
nounced at the western half where in some is hollow (with a diameter of 3.45 m), faced
areas it has eroded the limestone blocks. At with specially shaped arched stone blocks
the western half of this section two cesspits in preserved in three rows, and the fourth row
the implectum have been studied to a depth is of small blocks with constantly decreasing
of 1.80 and 0.70 m; illed with organic mate- height (to 0.12 m). The passage to the tower is
rial and potery fragments from the 18th-19th c. partly preserved here, with a width of 1.05 m
The square blocks are well polished and the and length of 4.90 m, faced with large stone
largest ones measure 1.92 × 0.57-1.10 × 0.52 m. slabs. It was entered by a doorstep from the
Where the gaps are wider, they are illed with northern, since it was about 0.60 m above the
fragments of bricks and coated entirely with loor level. At the western side by the entrance
red mortar; the medium-sized are 0.75 × 0.55 there is a groove which suggests a door. At the
m and the smaller ones are 0.45 × 0.55 m. In top the tower has been completely destroyed,
the corner between the wall and the pentago- and has been traced only in substructure. The
nal tower No 2 a test trench was dug to clarify western wall is tilted eastwards which is due
the substructure. It is 3.05 m deep, of medi- to artillery ire, and here pieces of detonated
um-sized quarry stones on red mortar, and it canon-balls have been discovered, and the
is dug 0.75 m. into the sterile loess. In this and stones are also heavily burnt.
the other sections the foundation is 0.20-0.40
m thicker than the superstructure. ІІІ/7. T h e M a i n W a l l b e t w e e n
P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 2
ІІІ/6. P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 2 a n d T r i a n g u l a r T o w e r No 3
It was also studied in 1986 (Figs 2 – 5, 7-9). It It was studied in 1987, 2007 and 2008 (Figs
has a plinth row 0.55 m high, and about 0.12- 2, 7-9). The length of the wall in this section
0.14 m wide. The angles at which the tower is 12.03 m, and does not have a plinth either.
meets the wall are respectively 98° in a west- The structure of the masonry is identical with
ern direction, and 116° to the east, and their the wall east of the pentagonal tower, but here
503
ІІІ/8. T r i a n g u l a r T o w e r No 3
It was studied in 2007 and 2008

(Figs 2 – 7, 9). During the resumed
research it was established that the
wall continues to the east, and in
substructure a small thick triangular
tower was revealed that angles at 90°
to the main wall to the west and at 91°
with the main wall to the east, and
the length of the walls is respectively
4.40 m. In superstructure the walls
were shorter by about 0.20 m, which
Fig. 12. Structure of the southern wall between pentagonal tow- we judge by the carefully hewn pre-
er No 2 and triangular tower No 3 served eastern corner block.
the fourth stone row is replaced with very ІІІ/9. T h e M a i n W a l l b e t w e e n

small stone slabs. The total height of the stone T r i a n g u l a r T o w e r No 3
base and the pseudo-brick masonry (here it is a n d P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 3
preserved up to eighteen rows) reaches 3.60
m (Fig. 11). It is noteworthy that the exterior It was studied in 2008, and its length is
face of this wall is also heavily burnt, but only 11.80 m (Figs 2, 9). At the eastern third of the
above the irst two rows of stone blocks, i.e. wall only the irst row of stone blocks from
at 1.20 m above the foundation. Similar to the the superstructure is preserved, because here
western side of the pentagonal tower, there the wall was cut for the construction of a base-
have been found many fragments of cannon- ment in the 18th-19th c. To the west the entire
balls here – one inside the stone masonry at stone base of three rows of stone blocks is pre-
the western half, and another in the brick ma- served, and in some areas even the fourth lev-
sonry at the eastern half. At a height of 9.20 m elling row of small stone blocks and 3-4 rows
east of the pentagonal tower the superstruc- of the pseudo-brick masonry above them have
ture, and even a part of the substructure, have
been completely demolished and removed,
and that is why in 1987 the surveys were ter-
minated.
This peculiar section provides an opportu-
nity for detailed observations on the building
technique in this area, as well as of the fortress
in general (Figs 2, 12). The stone base has two
faces built of two rows vertically arranged and
a row of horizontally laid stone blocks, and
the implectum (illing, TN) is of quarry stones
of all sizes on red mortar with brick broken in
big pieces. The pseudo-brick masonry above
them has two faces with two brick rows again
and the implectum is the same. At every 0.50
cm a third brick row can be noticed, but no-
where along the width of the wall is a running Fig. 13. Cornice from the 2nd-3rd c. walled in the
brick belt (opus mixtum) extant. foundation of the southern wall
504
Figs 14-15. Pentagonal tower No 3
505
Sondage
Fig. 16. Plan of pentagonal tower No 3 (after G.

Atanasov)
Black soil mixed with loess

and pottery fragments
Sterile loess
Layer with inds from the 4th-5th c.

Layer with traces of ire, small lumps
of lime and pottery from the 6th c.
Coals
Burned layer
Mortar
Figs 17, 18. Sounding for the foundation of pentagonal tower No 3 (after G. Atanasov)
506
Fig. 19. Rising of the level of the plinth east of pentagonal tower No 3
survived. At a sounding next to the corner but due to the heavy destruction the diam-
with the triangular tower No 3 we established eter cannot be revealed. In front of the south-
that an ancient marble relief from the 2nd-3rd western face a sounding was laid measuring
c. is walled in as spolia in the substructure 2.00 × 1.00 m, and it established that the solid
(Fig. 13). loess is at 1.25 m below the border between
substructure and superstructure (Figs 16, 17).
ІІІ/10. P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 3 Above it there are traces of ire, building rub-
ble and potery fragments from the 4th c. After
It was studied in 2007 and 2008 (Figs 2 – 8, the burnt stratum, a homogenous dark stra-
9, 14-16). There is a plinth row 0.15 m wide tum, about 1.00 m thick, with small fragments
and 0.47-0.56 m high. Two rows from the su- of kitchenware and tiles from the 4th-5th c., fol-
perstructure along the western face, and three lows. Above it, a burnt level with building
rows of the eastern face with a height up to rubble, about 0.20 m thick containing frag-
1.95 m, have survived. The angle it makes ments of household potery from the 6th and
with the wall to the west is 114°, and to the the 10th-11th c. has been recorded. Above the
east – 100°, and their length is respectively border between the superstructure up to the
5.95 m and 6.00 m. The walls at the top are plinth, potery from the 10th-11th to the 14th c.
respectively 6.70 m (the western one) and 6.74 is mixed. In front of the southern face of the
m (the eastern one) and the angle they make tower we came across four graves with jewel-
is 90°. In the middle the tower was round, lery from the 11th-12th c.
507
Fig. 20. Triangular tower No 4
ІІІ/11. T h e M a i n W a l l b e t w e e n ІІІ/12. T r i a n g u l a r T o w e r No 4
P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 3
and Triangular It was studied in 2008 (Figs 2 – 9, 9, 20). That
(S m a l l P e n t a g o n a l) T o w e r No 4 is the only triangular tower with a preserved
superstructure. The angle it makes with the
It was studied in 2008 to a length of 11.64 m wall to the west is 96°, and to the east it is
(Figs 2, 9, 18, 19). At the corner with the pen- 100°. The hypotenuse is 3.80 m, and the angle
tagonal tower No 3 the wall makes a turn and is 65°. The plinth at the level of the irst row of
the superstructure is raised by 0.55 m above square blocks is 0.58 m high and 0.13 m wide.
the level of the other sections to the east. Un- The eastern face at the joint with the main
like the wall to the east, here and to the end wall is preserved to a height of 2.21 m, respec-
of the excavated sector of the southern wall, tively the three rows of square blocks and the
it has a plinth row which, similar to the tow- six rows of bricks above them. At the western
ers, is about 0.46-0.52 m high and 0.12-0.15 m face they are preserved only in two rows of
wide. At the same time the stone base here stone blocks, and in one area they have been
and to the end of the studied section consists extracted to the substructure.
of just three rows of blocks (along with the
plinth one) with a height of about 1.60 m. At ІІІ/13. T h e M a i n W a l l b e t w e e n
the eastern and western ends along the wall T r i a n g u l a r T o w e r No 4
in this section, pseudo-brick masonry of three a n d P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 4
to ive rows is preserved. It was mostly de-
stroyed in the middle, and the square blocks It was explored in 2009 to a length of
extracted. 12.40 m. At the eastern part at a length of ap-
508
Fig. 21. Structure of the wall east of triangular tower No 3 (after G. Atanasov)
proximately 3.15 m the main wall is preserved ern one), and they angle at 87°. The interior of
to a height of 3.13 m, respectively the three the tower is round with a diameter of 3.40 m.
rows of stone blocks with the plinth row in The western half of the tower was destroyed
superstructure to a height of 1.65 m and sev- to the substructure by the basement of the
enteen rows of pseudo-brick masonry above 18th-19th c.
them to a height of 1.39 m. Afterwards, the
main wall is cut at the level of the substruc- ІІІ/15. T h e S o u t h e r n G a t e
ture to pentagonal tower No 4. Thanks to this
section (Fig. 21) we have established that the At the very end of the western sector of
structure of the wall is analogous with the sec- the wall, an elliptic (almond-shaped) tower
tion east of pentagonal tower No 2. A large A was studied in 2008 (Figs 24, 25). It is ori-
basement and inds of potery from the 18th- entated south-north with the length of 9.80
19th c. have been discovered inside it. m and maximum width of 6.80 m. The sub-
structure was partly revealed at a depth of
ІІІ/14. P e n t a g o n a l T o w e r No 4 1.70 m and by sounding it was established
that it reaches up to 2.95 m. Two limestone
It was excavated in 2009 (Figs 2 – 10, 9, 22, blocks at a height of 0.40 cm, i.e. at the level
23). There is a plinth row 0.14 m wide and 16.12 are preserved from the superstructure.
0.50 m high. The angle the tower makes with The substructure here is once again of medi-
the wall to the west is 100°, and the one to the um-sized semi-polished stones on red mor-
east is 108°, and their length is respectively tar and the superstructure is of well polished
6.40 m and 5.78 m. The walls are respectively square blocks. Five meters north-west of the
5.79 m (the western one) and 6.08 m (the east- tower a midden from the 18th-19th c. partly dug
509
Fig. 22. Pentagonal tower No 4
into its western wall was

explored. The connection
between the tower and
the wall has completely
destroyed in superstruc-
ture and partly in sub-
structure. It has been
established at a depth of
1.20 m under the border
Basement between the substructure
th
18 -19 c.
th
and the superstructure.
The width of the wall is
3.90 m and its length is
7.90 m. It makes a turn
in the direction north-
northeast and connects
with pentagonal tower
No 2 on the Southern
defensive wall. The ex-
plored section is entirely
in substructure and it
Fig. 23. Plan of pentagonal tower No 4 and the basement from the 18th- lies at level 14.87 m. It
19th c. west of it (after G. Atanasov) was established by soun-
510
a depth up to 1.20 m beneath the level of the

border between the substructure and super-
structure. At the sounding which was made at
the northern part of the western section it was
established that before it was raised, this part
of the building had been periodically looded
by the Danube. The alluvial dark soil is sterile
in terms of potery and inds.
NG
LDI
BUI
EET
STR
Fig. 24. Eastern arm and tower of the southern gate
dings that the foundation is only preserved in

the irst two rows of quarry stones on mortar.
In this section the building material was ex-
tracted not only from the superstructure, but
also from the substructure and the wall is re-
vealed only as a negative illed with building
T
rubble and small lumps of red mortar. At the

E
RE
inner corner of the turn of the wall the pylon

ST
and a part of the pavement known from 1986

was revealed once again. West of it, at the lev-
el of the pavement, three water-mains of ce-
ramic pipes were recorded in the section (Figs
26, 27). The shape of the tower, the pavement
and the water-main pipes lead to the hypoth-
esis that the revealed almond-shaped tower
lanks from the east the central gate of Doros-
tol – Drastar, built in the 6th c. In the 18th or at
the beginning of the 19th c. the wall and the
tower were destroyed, and became a source
for the extraction of stones. This is clearly vis-
ible in the western section (Figs 26, 27), as well
as from inds and potery from the 18th c. at Fig. 25. Plan of the southern gate (after G. Atanasov)
511
Grey-yellow soil Black earth

Yellow soil Greyish layer with fragments of tiles
Mortar Yellowish-grey layer with bricks, tiles and coals
Burned layer with fragments of bricks Grey-black layer
Yellowish layer Burned layer
Greyish-brown layer Clay
Figs 26, 27. Section west of the eastern arm of the southern gate (after G. Atanasov)
ІІІ/16. T h e S o u t h-e a s t e r n W a l l, the beginning of the 9th c., with the restoration
T r i a n g u l a r T o w e r No 1 of the fortiication of the Early Byzantine for-
and the Eastern Gate tress, it was built entirely of square blocks and
a pair of rectangular towers lanking the sec-
As a result of the studies after 1970, a section ended with two gates – a double one and a
tion of the defensive wall with a plinth and falling cataract (Figs 28, 29, 50 – 1) (Ангелова,
a small triangular tower No 1 with a postern Ст. 1973:88–89). The gates of Pliska and later
from the 6th c. were revealed (Fig. 2 – 4); a gate those ones of Preslav are raised in a similar
was discovered east of it. It follows closely the way (Рашев, Р. 2008:119). We suppose that
building technique of Pliska of the 8th-9th c. By this gate from the 9th c. could be in the place of
512
Fig. 28. Plan of the eastern gate; after St. Angelova with supplements by G. Atanasov
a gate from the 6th c., completely destroyed at

the end of the 7th c. (Fig. 2 – 14, 14а). The pres-
ence of a postern also suggested this; it is logi-
cal that it was used for the defense of the en-
trance to the fortress, and another thing lead-
ing to this idea is the strange position of the
tower. All four small thick triangular (or pen-
tagonal) towers from the 6th c. studied so far
are located at the inner corners of the zigzag
section with shape W-M, while the triangular
tower with the postern in this section only lies
at the vertex where by pentagonal towers are
raised. This could mean that there was a small
gate here during the construction of the wall
in the 6th c. lanked by two triangular towers,
as for example in Odessos, Serdica or Kyus-
tendil (Fig. 2 – 14). However, the gates are a
vulnerable section which can hardly be de-
fended with two small towers which jut only
3 m out in front of the wall. Especially against
the perfect fortiication of Dorostol (Doros-
tolos) of the 6th c. and the powerful towers
which defended the southern entrance and jut
out about 10 m in front of the main wall. That
is why I am suggesting another possibility –
for example, the gate in this section to have
been identical with the southern gate but rein-
forced with two small triangular towers with
posterns for lanking atacks by the assaulting
enemy (Fig. 2 – 14а). Unfortunately, at the
studies of the gate built in the 9th c. the site
was not explored in depth and only future ex- Fig. 29. Eastern gate (photo by St. Angelova from
cavations can reveal the actual situation. the archives of RHM – Silistra)
513
remained incompletely explored.

Despite all, thanks to the pre-
served photographs with a scale
and one not quite precise geo-
desic survey, we can reconstruct
to a great extent the actual condi-
tion of the structure (Атанасов,
Г. 2012:33, обр. 1, 8). The wall,
0.60 m long, which makes an ob-
tuse angle of approximately 140°
and goes on for four more meters
where it stops, is clearly visible
juting out in front of the main
wall. The measurements, location
at the inner turn of the wall, and
the presence of a plinth stone row
are identical with the small thick
pentagonal tower at the southern
gate. The fact that while the small
thick towers at the inner turns
of the wall are triangular, and in
both cases at the gates they are
pentagonal, is indicative. Moreo-
ver, the distance of about 14 m is
comparable with the distances
between the towers at the south-
ern wall and especially with
those 13.30 m between the big
Fig. 30. Small pentagonal tower west of the eastern gate (photo pentagonal tower No 2 and the
by St. Angelova and R. Georgieva) small thick pentagonal tower No
2 by the southern gate. Heavily
ІІІ/17. T r i a n g u l a r destroyed and eroded walls can be observed
(S m a l l P e n t a g o n a l) T o w e r No 5 westwards of the eastern face of the newly dis-
covered small pentagonal tower; I guess they
At rescue excavations in 2006, about 20 m belong to the defensive wall that turns to the
west of the south-eastern gate and about 14 south-east.
m from the triangular gate with the postern, a
small section of the defensive wall with a plinth ІV. Vertical Stratigraphy
(?) and masonry identical with that of the other and Date of the Fortress
sectors, was revealed (Ангелова, Ст. 2007:419–
420) (Figs 2 – 12, 28, 30). Three rows of stone Due to stratigraphic data and building tech-
blocks in superstructure and a few rows of the nique, the Danubian fortress has been dated to
pseudo-brick masonry have survived. The di- the 6th c. The fact that in a few areas the de-
rection to the east completely coincides with fensive walls use the late-antique wall from
the wall west of the postern which has an anal- the 4th-5th c. for foundation, is indicative. Ob-
ogous structure (Ангелова, Ст. 1973:88, обр. viously, around the beginning of the 6th c. the
6). A structure juting out in front of the main late-antique fortiication was mostly destroyed
wall was established by the study; however, it in connection with the construction of the new
514
castelum. However, in most cases, especially 9th-10th c. the site was cleared to the level of the
in a southern direction, the fortress was built irst builders. The fact that the inds from the
ad fundamentum. Almost everywhere the 17th-18th c. are on the level around and above
foundations are dug into a cultural stratum, the plinth, i.e. only at 0.60-1.10 m above the
with potery and coins from the 2nd-4th c. be- building level of the 6th c., is noteworthy.
ing discovered, and the building level is full of Another important benchmark is the exca-
potery from the 6th c. The masonry is of large vated space behind the southern gate, where
stone blocks, often following the “Binder-Läu- at about 0.70 m above the level of the pave-
fer” system, characteristic for the buildings ment some collapsed stone blocks were re-
of the time of Justinian. The mass use of spo- corded; at the destruction of the wall they fell
lia from the ancient sites of the 2nd-4th c. also into a stratum with various materials includ-
points to the age of Justinian the Great. We ing potery from the 18th-19th c. This suggests
must recall the work Dе aediiciis, IV, 7, 118-119 that the gate was used until the demolition of
by Procopius of Caesarea, who explicitly notes the wall, i.e. until the 18th-19th c. The most cer-
that Justinian carefully repaired the fortiications tain arguments for the use of the wall from the
of Dorostol. 4th to the beginning of the 19th c. are the traces
The soundings made to trace the founda- of direct artillery ire, and especially the frag-
tion at pentagonal towers No 2 and No 3, as ments of cannonballs we discovered in situ in
well as at the southern gate, provided a pro- a cavern east of pentagonal tower No 2. Here
nounced vertical stratigraphy which once the cannon shell entirely broke the front stone
again puts the construction of the castellum in blocks and a part of the illing at a height of
the 6th c. (Figs 17, 26, 27). Beneath the border 1.10 m from the border between the sub- and
substructure-superstructure a building level of superstructure. Fragments of spherical can-
approximately 0.20 m was established; it con- nonballs have been discovered over the en-
tains traces of mortar, coal and potery from tire area before the southern defensive wall.
the 6th c.5 Afterwards, a homogenous stratum This is conirmed by the records of the Rus-
follows; it is about 1.00 m thick and consists sian General Staf which states that during the
of dark dirt with small fragments of kitchen- siege of the fortress of Silistra, General Lanz-
ware and tiles from the 4th-5th c. Underneath, heron ordered, on May 26, 1810, the cannons
a thin burnt stratum with potery from the 4th to be moved 400 m towards the defensive line
c. has been recorded and then the sterile loess at which 5,000 shells were ired (Петров, A.
follows. From the borderline between the sub- 1887:47–52). Silistra laid down arms, but the
structure and the superstructure and up to the fortress was not entirely demolished, because
plinth there is mixed potery from the 10th-11th on July 26 that year once again General Lan-
c. until the 14th c., and above the plinth there zheron once and for all destroyed the castle
is mixed potery from the 14th c. to the 18th c. of Silistra completely with direct artillery ire
This is a crucial argument of an archaeologi- and direct hits on the fortiication (Петров, A.
cal nature that conirms the literary sources, 1887:139–140; Кутузов, M. 1952:387, № 470;
documenting the reuse of the fortiication of Кузев, A. 1981:195).
the 6th-7th c. with no drastic changes, in the 9th- Last but not least, we have to mention two
15th and the 16th-19th c. In fact, the presence of basements of houses with materials from the
potery fragments from the 10th-11th c. on the 18th-19th c., which were dug into the southern
borderline of the substructure-superstructure defensive wall; their extensions to the north
from the 6th c. is indicative that at the restora- and south have walls built over the defensive
tion of the Early Byzantine fortiication in the walls at the level around the plinth.
5
Material identical with that used for the masonry at the inner face of the wall west of triangular tow-
er No 3 was discovered at this level; it is cut by a wall dated to the second half of the 6th-7th c. (Figs 2, 17 )
515
V. The Design and the Analogies thought that he worked at the time of Em-
of the Danubian Fortress of Silistra6 peror Justinian I, i.e. he was a contemporary
of the founding of the castellum in Dorostol
We should mention once again that the cas- (Велков, В. 1961:148; Кучма, B. 1980:68–71;
tellum7 (the citadel) Dorostol – Drastar – Sil- Zuckermann, C. 1990:209-224). Besides the
istra has no analogue among the monuments towers, we can include more elements of the
of the late-antique and medieval fortiications fortiication of Dorostol which are in harmony
(Атанасов, Г. 2009:246–248; 2012:32–33, обр. with his prescriptions for fortresses raised ad
1, 11). This is valid for the indented outline of fundamentum. Thus, for instance, he suggests
the defensive wall in a system resembling W the fortresses by the rivers and the sea be no
– M, as well as the location of the towers at less than 20 cubits8 (12.5 m), in order to make
approximately equal distances of about 12 m it impossible for the enemy to atack directly
from one another. from the water.
In this context we must mention a late-an- Today, the northern wall of the fortress of
tique fortiication system that follows strictly Dorostol during the normal low of the Danube
the system of Philo and Vitruvius (Велков, В. is at 4-8 m from it, but it has been established
1961:147–149), that the walls laid at angle like that during the last 1,200 years the river has
saw teeth are considerably more resistant to moved about 5-10 m northwards. Evidence of
the rams and the stone balls than the straight that is the fact that all the northern walls of the
ones (this is especially true for the gates and Early Byzantine and medieval fortresses from
towers) and that is namely the castellum of the 4th-5th and the 9th-11th c. have been carried
Dorostol, raised ad fundamentum in the 6th c. away by this process (Рашев, P. 1982:109–115,
Its fortiication is a triumph of Flavius 145, табл. ХХХVІІ, 6–7, ХХХVІІІ, 1–2, XLVІІІ,
Vegetius Renatus, who worked in the irst half 4–6; Атанасов, Г., И. Йорданов 1994:8-10,
of the 5th c.; his instructions required that the табл. 1-А.). The author believes the thickness
walls of a fortress should not be raised straight of the defensive walls to be no less than 5 cu-
but angular (broken or toothed), and thus not bits, i.e. no less than 3.125 m, and the thickness
be exposed to the direct atacks of the rams. of the walls in Silistra is 3.60 m. At a thickness
Additionally, he continues, at each corner of of the walls of 5 cubits the Anonymous Byz-
the wall a tower must be raised which gives antine ordains that the minimum height can
the opportunity for the enemies assaulting the reach 20 cubits – 12.5 m, which is an important
city to be ired on, not only along the front, benchmark for the reconstruction of the fortii-
but also on the wings and even in the rear. cations. In the spirit of his predecessors, he rec-
Moreover, triangular towers are concerned ommends that the towers be situated along the
(Veget. Epit. Rei Militaris, IV. 1, 2. Referred broken layout of the curtain wall. Generally, we
after: Jerphanion, G. 1928:158-160; Велков, are left with the impression that the architect
В. 1961:148). The pentagonal and triangular of the Danubian castellum in Silistra follows
towers are also recommended by the so called strictly the prescriptions of his contemporary
Anonymous Byzantine who borrowed many and leading expert in fortiication construction
ideas from Flavius Vegetius Renatus, but rein the Empire during the 6th c. Recently argu-
vised them somewhat. Until recently it was ments have been raised that his work dates to
6
For this paragraph I used the most recent studies on this topic given kindly by Assoc. Prof. PhD S.
Torbatov, Assoc. Prof. PhD V. Dinchev and PhD D. Rabovyanov, for which I am very grateful and owe
them special thanks.
7
In my opinion, the term castellum is hardly the most suitable for such a late age. Procopius of Cae-
sarea uses a diferent term. – Note of the scientiic editor R. Ivanov.
8
The large Byzantine cubit is 62.46 cm, and the small one is 46.8 cm (Schilbach, Е. 1970:20-22)
516
Fig. 31. Plan of the northern wall of Salona (after E. Diggve and N. Duvall)
the end of the 8th c. (Rance, 2007:701-737), but pentagonal, rectangular or is entirely missing.
this does not mean that he hasn’t summarized It is thought that their construction took place
the achievements of the Byzantine fortiication after the mid-5th c. as towers from the age of
of the previous centuries, and especially from Theodosius II (408-450) are cited in Constan-
the age of Justinian I when it was most popular. tinople, the so called Haemus Gates in the East-
If we look carefully at the layout of the walls ern Balkan Mountains, Theodosipolis in Arme-
and the towers of the castellum of Silistra, we nia, Rome, Ephesus, Serdica (?), Resafa, Anti-
can see that during a frontal atack no straight och, etc. (full reference on the issue, including
section is exposed where at right angles stone the most recent studies in: Foss, C., O. Wiield
shells from the batering rams could fall. In- 1986:29-31, 212-217, 242, 287-288; Динчев, В. и
deed, when it was raised during the 6th c. the др. 2007:112–115; Rizos, Е. 2011:461), but most
towers were both triangular and pentagonal; were built during the 6th c. In general, the great-
however, they were never at such a small dis- est bloom of the pentagonal (this applies to the
tance and at an absolute equal intervals from triangular ones, too) towers is associated with
each other. If the small triangular (which next the reign of Justinian I, when their widespread
to the gates in superstructure in two cases are use in the fortresses across the Bulgarian lands
pentagonal) thick towers have numerous anal- is dated – Shumen, Nesebar, Dolna Kabda,
ogies in the 6th c. in Bulgaria, as well as in the Dyadovo, Madara, Kramolin, Varna, Pautalia,
other lands occupied by Byzantium (Бобчев, С. Philippopolis, Tarnovo, Kaliakra, Dionysopo-
1961:103–145; Овчаров, Д. 1982:46–49; Rizos, lis, etc. (Бобчев, С. 1961:103–145; Овчаров, Д.
Е. 2011:461 with the most recent reference on 1982:46–49; Торбатов, С. 2002:228–232, 263–
the topic)9, the large pentagonal towers with 270; Динчев, В. 2006:11, обр. 20, 29, 35, 52, 81,
hollow cylindrical interiors are an unusual 85-89 with the most complete catalogue of ex-
phenomenon. As a general rule, the pentago- amples). The list regarding the neighbouring
nal towers we are aware of have parallel walls, Balkan lands is also extensive – Atira, Skopje,
perpendicular to the base; the interior space is Iustiniana Prima, Salona10, Dyrrachium, Gal-
9
The earliest example of the use of triangular towers is the fortress of Amorium, dated to the time of
Emperor Zeno (475-491) (Lightfoot, С. 1998:60-62; Rizos, Е. 2011:461)
10
In the 6th c. in Salona the rectangular towers situated at about 7 m from one another along the
northern defensive wall were transformed into pentagonal ones. However, here the pentagonal towers
are combined with rectangular, square, and triangular ones, and are at diferent distances along the oth-
erwise linear layout of the defensive wall. (Diggve, E. 1928:17-19; Salona, III, 2000:207, ig. 87) (Fig. 31).
517
Fig. 32. Gate of Dorostol; after G. Atanasov. – A. Version Ancyra. B. Version Serdica
lipoli, Didymóteicho, Medea, Zvechen, Ribni- Dorostol are unique in their design and the
ca, Haydushka Vodenitsa, etc. (Procopius. De hollow cylindrical interior where probably a
aediiciis, IV 11; Diggve, Е. 1928:17-19; Бобчев, wooden staircase of the type “snail” was de-
С. 1961:103–145; Овчаров, Д. 1982:46–49; По- veloped. Usually during the 6th c pentagonal
повиђ, В. 1988:219–222; Динчев, В. и др. towers along the front of the defensive wall
2007:112–115; Динчев, В. 2011, обр. 20, 29, 34, were thick bastions (especially at their low-
35, 40, 52, 81, 85, 86, 89; Rizos, Е. 2011, 461, ig. est part) while all those discovered in Silistra
17; Микулчиќ, И. 1999:277-377, обр. 174, 180, have hollow interiors. In actual fact, these are
217, 255, 263, 267, 270). There are numerous the only late-antique towers which follow the
examples from Asia Minor and Syria – Sergi- prescription of the Byzantine Anonym from
opolis, Amorium, Martiropolis, Amasya, Ami- the 6th c., who recommends that the polygonal
da, Niksar, Atalia, Alania, Corycus (Бобчев, С. towers have hollow cylindrical interiors, and
1961:103–145; Lawrence, А. 1983:187, 192,199- be covered with a dome above which the bat-
200; Foss, C., O. Wiield 1986:29-31; Динчев, В. tle platforms must be situated.
и др. 2007:112–115; Rizos, Е. 2011:461 ig. 17). For the time being, besides the castellum
Obviously they were still built and repaired of Dorostol, a pentagonal tower with hollow
during the 7th c. as was the case with Аncyra cylindrical insides has been recorded only at
(today’s Ankara) (Jerphanion 1928, 145, 213; the north-eastern corner of Aquileia. The for-
Restle 1966, 174-176, Abb. 4; Foss, 1977, 61-62; tiication dates to the time after the demolition
Lawrence 1983, 204-207; Foss, Winield 1986, of the city by Atila in 451 AD, and before the
30, 133-135, ig. 9-10) and even during the 8th- Langobard invasion of 568 – more precisely
9th c. if we judge by the fortiications of Pliska around AD 552 (Bertacchi, L. 2003:19-26; Buo-
(Рашев, P. 2008:83–86, табл. ХХІХ, ХХХ-7). ra, M., V. Roberto 2010:329). The tower in Aq-
Sometimes in castles of the crusaders, in Spain uileia is a corner tower, similar in terms of lo-
and France of the 12th c., pentagonal towers cation to the north-western corner tower No 1
were built (Foss, Wiield 1986:31), but without of Durostorum. However, in Aquileia it stands
a connection to the Byzantine monuments of isolated against the other U-shaped, round,
the 6th-7th c. rectangular and symmetrical pentagonal tow-
Unlike all the aforementioned examples, ers located at diferent distances and built at
the pentagonal towers of the castellum of diferent times along the straight lines in the
518
northern section of defensive walls of this re- the wall. They resemble the late-antique gates
markable late-antique city. lanked by two towers with inner staircases
It is also impressive that the entrances to the and shallow propugnaculum, but in the 3rd-4th
pentagonal towers in Silistra are only thirty c. (as well as their copies until the 6th c., and
meters away from one another and no less than in Pliska and Drastar even until the 9th c.) they
sixteen entrances assured access to the plat- are almost always rectangular, and do not jut
form with a length of approximately 500 m. out more than 15 m in front of the curtain wall.
This is not characteristic of the age of construc- Even their late successors of the 6th c., are also
tion of the castellum, because during the 6th- “barbarized” (Serdica – eastern gate, Nesebar,
7th c. access was mainly by exterior staircases Shumen, Madara, Dolna Kabda, etc.), never
and only in isolated cases are staircases in the reproduce such a shape, and such juting out
towers by the gates recorded. Perhaps there has never been recorded. As a single analogue
were exterior staircases only by the northern I can only point to the northern gate of Serdica,
wall where there are no towers; however, the studied and published recently (Шалганов,
revealed layout exceeds 120 m. The gates of K. 2008:9–16, обр. 1–3, 7) (Fig. 33). Similar to
Dorostol do not have an analogue either (Fig. Durostorum, we see a gate lanked by two jut-
32). Their pronounced juting out in front of ting out in front of the curtain wall polygonal
the wall is unusual, as well as the extraordi- towers (at 9 m) with hollow interiors, cylindri-
nary almond-shaped towers with a round cy- cal in the centre. The two side walls (peculiar
lindrical form for a staircase, similar to that “moustaches”), to which the two-leaved doors
of the pentagonal towers along the front of are atached, are about 4 m long and 2.50 m
Ekza
rh Yo
sif St
r.
Str.
gton
ashin
ge W
d
a Blv
Geor
Louis
Maria
Fig. 33. Gate of Serdica (after K. Shalganov)
519
ers in front of the gate. If the thickness of the re-

garded wall to which the door is ixed has been
established, its length, respectively the width
of the propugnaculum, has only been theo-
retically determined at about 5 m in the base
and about 4 m at the turn of the tower. Bearing
in mind that the width of the gates in this age
was about 2.50-3.50 m with two walls on both
sides (the peculiar moustaches) of about 4 m,
then the width of the propugnaculum becomes
approximately 10-12 m – an unusual phenom-
enon in the design of the gates for the long pe-
riod from the 4th to the 7th c. There is only one
exception and that is the gate of Аncyra (An-
kara) (Jerphanion, G. 1928:145, 213; Restle, H.
1966:174-176, Abb. 4; Foss, C. 1977:61-62; Law-
rence, A. 1983:204-207; Foss, C., O. Winield
1986:30, 133-135, ig. 9-10). Similar to Dorostol,
it is lanked by two pentagonal towers situ-
ated at a comparatively big distance of about
12 m, and juting out about 11 m in front of the
curtain wall (Fig. 34). Thus, a spacious propug-
Fig. 34. Gate of Ancyra after G. Jerpharion and M. naculum is formed, 11 × 20 m, which had two
Restle
gates. The irst one, connecting the fortress
with the propugnaculum, is 5 m wide and the
wide. The gate in this case is an important ana- second one, leading from the propugnaculum
logue because it was also built under Emperor out of the fortress, is designed in the left side of
Justinian I and, just like in Silistra, the lower the wall and it is 3 m wide. After which of the
four rows are of block masonry with spolia two variants, conventionally called Ancyra’s
above which brick masonry follows to the (Fig. 32A) and Serdica’s (Fig. 32B), the gate of
platform. Thus, the gate in Dorostol seems to Dorostol was completed can be found out only
be similar to that of Serdica. As a continuation after a study to the north-west where (current-
of the late-antique tradition, there may have ly under the main alley to the park) the second
been a two-leaved door behind the two tow- lanking tower is situated.
ers, but almost always the doors are atached The building technique used in the con-
to the side walls of the towers or in very short struction of the fortiication in Durostorum in
side walls (“moustaches”), usually on the axis the 6th c. is also unusual. Judging by the pre-
along the lengths of the curtain wall. served high section, the wall along the Danube
In Durostorum, similarly to Serdica, the was built entirely of stone blocks, 3.60 m wide,
mounting of the two-leaved door (or cataract) and at the turn up to 4.20 m wide. Towards
was obviously carried out in a special wall (a the mainland the design is again unusual. The
pair of “moustaches”) starting from the base of lower part of the wall up to a height of 1.60-
the towers, perpendicular to the walls connect- 2.05 m is completed with four rows of large
ing the curtain wall to the almond-shaped tow- stone blocks11 in a system resembling “Binder-
11
Between triangular tower (small pentagonal tower) No 2 and the large pentagonal tower No 2,
where the ground is lower and there is a ifth row, but of much smaller ashlars.
520
Fig. 35. Walls of Thessaloniki – sector “west”
Läufer” and implectum of medium-sized and sometimes even 0.385 × 0.380 × 0.07 m. Rec-
small quarry stones on red mortar with bricks tangular bricks with measurements of 0.32 ×
broken in large pieces. The great amount of 0.13 × 0.04 and 0.42 × 0.29 × 0.05 m occur very
reused material (spolia) from early buildings rarely. The gaps between them are approxi-
of the 2nd-5th c. is impressive (cornices, inscrip- mately as wide as their thickness – from 0.025
tions, columns, capitals, tombstone stelae, to 0.045 m; eighteen brick rows at a height of
etc.) in the ashlar masonry on the facades as 1.75 m are preserved, which suggests that the
well as inside the implectum. masonry up to the platform was of that type.
A similar building technique using spolia is During the 5th-6th c. various building tech-
common in the defensive building of the 6th niques with red mortar of brick broken in
c.12, while the masonry above this stone base large pieces have been recorded, but such
of 1.60 up to 2.06 m has no analogue. Above pseudo-brick masonry is not known to me
the fourth row of ashlars, the superstructure (Bartlet, J. 1958:16-21; Mango, C. of al 1976:9-
once again has two faces, but already of two- 10; Овчаров, Д. 1982:62–76; Foss, C., O.
row brick masonry on the same red mortar, Wiield 1986:25-28; Hof, C. 2009:813-820). In-
and analogous implectum with quarry stones deed, at the defensive walls of Thessaloniki
and spolia. The bricks are of various formats – and Serdica (?) dated to the 5th c., we observe
square with measurements of 0.37 × 0.37 × 4.5 brick masonry over a stone base. In Thessa-
m (these are the most common parameters), loniki it is of about ten rows of ashlars – spo-
0.32 × 0.32 × 0.042 m, 0.29 × 0.29 × 0.04 m, and lia from the ancient theatre (Fig. 35), while
12
Here I refer as the closest analogue the newly raised in the 6th c. western wall of the Chersoneses
in Crimea. There, the foundations is also of quarry stones on red mortar, the arrangement of the stones
on the faces is “Binder-Läufer”, the implectum is of quarry stones on mortar, identical with the single-
row plinth along the exterior face, as well as the use of spolia from ancient buildings (Антоновa, B.
1963:60–67; 1990:21).
521
Fig. 36. Walls of Serdica around the northern gate (after K. Shalganov)
it is diferent in Serdica. There in some areas Aurelius and repaired under Constantine I, a
only a plinth row is of ashlars (Станчева, M. new wall was atached in the mid-5th, or more
1989:19) at the lower section and in other ar- likely at the beginning of the 6th c.13; it is a pe-
eas they are four or ive rows – for instance culiar brick shell, entirely of brick with trian-
at the eastern gate (Шалганов, K. 2008:9–16, gular towers and new gates.14 This manner of
обр. 3, 4, 7) (here Fig. 36). At the fortiication building has been recorded again at the walls
of Thessaloniki, mostly at the western sector, of the acropolis of Philippopolis (Plovdiv),
the additional brick wall with triangular tow- where, according to S. Bobchev, to the 2.10 m
ers, literally atached to the Roman wall raised – wide ancient wall, in the 6th c. a brick wall
as early the age of Marcus Aurelius, is asso- 1.80 m wide was atached with the triangular
ciated with the reign of Theodosius I and his towers characteristic for this age (Бобчев, C.
successors (Tafrali, O. 1912:52-78, Pl. XII-XIV; 1961:113–115, обр. 12). Deinitely the Early
ΒΕΛΕΝΗΣ, Γ. 1998: 89-135, 172-175, Εχ. 17; Byzantine masons and architects noticed the
Crow, J. 2001:93-98; Rizos, E. 2011, 451-459, advantages of these brick shells in Thessalon-
ig. 1, 4-8). As a mater of fact, that is masonry iki, Serdica and Philippopolis, built addition-
of alternating layers of stones and bricks (4-5 ally above a stone base or plinth. It is known
rows), resembling opus mixtum and only at that, unlike the stone masonry, the brick con-
the visible exterior face three rows of bricks on struction allows perfect levelling and softens
mortar were built which create the allusion of the damage from the ired shells or batering
an entirely brick wall (Fig. 35). rams (Овчаров, Д. 1982:62–76). Unlike the
In the uppermost area there are arches as- stone blocks which come out of place during
sociated with some additional building at the shell-ire, the brick masonry with its plastic-
age of Heraclius. The case in Serdica is simi- ity reduces this danger. Its only weakness is
lar; to the wall there, also raised under Marcus that in the case of constant humidity the brick
13
The idea that the reconstruction with the brick shell and the addition of new towers and gates
took place in the 5th c. belongs to Architect St. Boyadzhiev, but his arguments are mostly of a histori-
cal nature (Бояджиев, Ст. 2000:96–119). Beter sustained and grounded on the archaeological facts is
the statement of Shalganov that these reconstructions took place during the age of Emperor Justinian I
(Шалганов, К. 2008:9–16).
14
Other fortresses with brick shells from the 6th c. are not known to me, with the exception of an ad-
ditionally raised section of the wall of Odessos in the 6th c., which, however, has not been thoroughly
studied and published (Бобчев,С. 1961:111–113, обр. 10)
522
starts to crumble away; how-

ever, in this case this issue was
solved with the stone plinths or
stone base. At the same time, it
is not very high (in Dorostol it
is about 1.80 m) and thus the Fig. 37. Plan of the western wall of Thessaloniki (after G. Velenis)
possibility of damage from the
stone missiles is excluded. All
these advantages of the walls with brick shells respect a more direct analogue can be drawn
and stone plinths are applied in full force at with the broken layout of the fortiication of
the construction of the castellum of Dorostol. Thessaloniki (especially phase C and C – D af-
Unlike Thessaloniki, Serdica and Philippopo- ter G. Velenis) dated by diferent authors most
lis, where we have repeated building and re- often within the framework of the 5th c. (Tafra-
construction of one and the same fortiication li, O. 1912:52-78, Pl. XII-XIV; ΒΕΛΕΝΗΣ, Г.
for ive centuries, in Dorostol this was per- 1998:89-135, 172-175, Εχ. 39; Crow, J. 2001:93-
formed ad fundamentum. 98, ig. 3; Rizos, E. 2011, 451-459, ig. 1, 4-7)
Not only the building technique and the (Fig. 37).
single elements of fortiication (curtain wall, The most widely accepted dating of phases
towers, gates), but the design of the Danubian C and D is the reign of Theodosius I (379-395),
castellum of Dorostol in Silistra, in general has or the last years of the rule of Theodosius II
no analogues. Only to some extent the broken (408-450). According to G. ΒΕΛΕΝΗΣ (G. Vele-
layout of the walls resembles the design of the nis) (based only on epigraphic data), the west-
fortresses of Miletus and Mystras. The broken ern wall of Thessaloniki was not reconstruct-
layout of Miletus was planned as early as the ed earlier than the age of Theodosius I, and
3rd c. at the great reconstruction of the 6th c. the other sections were completed before the
but the walls were planned and completed in mid-5th c. According to M. Vickers, the marble
the same spirit (Foss, C., O. Winield 1986:126, seats used in the construction of the western
128, 284, ig. 2). As far as Mystras is concerned, wall were extracted from the hippodrome of
the state in which its defensive system has sur- Gallerius (even though it is possible that they
vived until today belongs to the age of Ville- belonged to another building, for example to
hardouin, i.e. to the 13th c. According to Claus the stadium) where the massacre of AD 390
Foss, the great expert in Roman-Byzantine was recorded (Vickers, M. 1969:113-118 after:
fortiications, this design had been set as early Rizos, E. 2011:451-459). Therefore, the west-
as the 6th-7th c. during the construction against ern wall should be later than this event. On
the Slavic-Avar incursions in the Peloponnese the basis of this and other arguments, he sug-
(Foss, C., O. Winield 1986:18, 16, 38, ig. 20). gests it to be dated around the mid-5th c. – a
Lastly, the similarities are rather formal chronology, accepted in general terms by E.
because the turns in the walls of Miletus and Rizos in the latest study on the topic (Rizos,
Mystras are located at diferent intervals with- E. 2011:451-459, ig. 1, 4-8). Indeed, above the
out systematization and bound with the tow- south-eastern corner tower, and most of all
ers; the elegancy and rhythm of the broken at the southern half of the western section,
layout of Dorostol – Drustar is missing en- we see a symmetrically toothed layout with
tirely. We notice such thing for the irst time length of the triangular walls around 15 m,
in the fortress of Aquincum raised during the which resembles triangular towers situated at
age of Emperor Zeno (475-491) (Lightfoot, C. every 25 m (Fig. 37).
1998:60-62; Rizos, E. 2011:458, ig. 10). How- However, in other sections they are rectan-
ever, the layout of the wall there is not W – M gular, mixed with triangular or square turns
– toothed, but is arched and folded, and in this in the defensive wall and the intervals vary
523
no exceptions, was de-

signed that way.
This symmetric in-
dentation of the fortii-
cation is not a result of
reconstruction and lat-
er additions as it is in
Thessaloniki and Aq-
uileia, but was realized
as a result of a prelimi-
nary project around
the second quarter of
the 6th c. In the sections
of Thessaloniki and
Aquileia where there
are similarities with
Dorostol, there are no
pentagonal towers and
as a rule the towers
are not situated at pre-
cisely measured inter-
vals, and the regarded
indented layout does
not have the elegancy
of that of Dorostol. The
gates are completely
diferent. Last but not
least, the defensive
walls of Thessaloniki
and Aquileia protect
almost the entire Early
Byzantine city with an
area of more than 250
hectares, while the for-
tiication of Dorostol
Fig. 38. Plan of Ancyra after G. Jerphanion and Kl. Foss is only a military cas-
tellum with an area of
around 5 hectares.
in the diferent sections. A similar layout is The similarity between Thessaloniki and
characteristic of the southern defensive wall Dorostol – Drastar – Silistra is the stregnth
of Aquileia, as we mentioned earlier, and it is of the fortiication, used for more than 1400
dated around AD 552 (Bertacchi, L. 2003:19-26; years, i.e. from the 6th to the 19th c. Moreover,
Buora, M., V. Roberto 2010:329). In general, if as having isolated and formal similarities of
only in isolated sections, the defensive walls of the castellum of Dorostol – Silistra as far as the
Thessaloniki and Aquileia with their symmet- indented layout, the small size, the presence of
ric W – M indentation follow the prescriptions triangular and polygonal towers is concerned,
of Philo – Fl. Vegetius – the Anonymous Byz- the two small citadels built by the Turks in
antine, then in Dorostol the entire layout, with the mid-15th c. near Constantinople (Istan-
524
bul) called Rumelihisarı and Yedikule can M indented layout, the pentagonal towers
be pointed to (Gurlit, C. 1912:46-50; Бобчев, pinched at the base, the alternating of pentag-
C. 1961:120, обр. 20; Тулешков, K. 2000:265, onal and triangular towers at the curtain wall
обр. 11, 12). The last one in particular im- and the isolated pockets they form, extreme-
presses with the indented pentagonal W – M ly eicient at defense, were used in the Eu-
layout of the curtain wall and the thick trian- ropean fortiications. However, that did not
gular towers at the base of the inner turns, but take place until the mid-16th c. and endured
this is the only similarity with the castellum its greatest bloom during the 17th-18th c. – i.e.
of Silistra. The diferences (shape of the for- almost a thousand years later.
tress, distances between the towers, the gates, There are hundreds of examples from Italy,
the shapes and sizes of the other towers, the Austria, France and England, across Central
building technique, the chronology and so Europe to Sweden and Sankt Petersburg to
on) are too fundamental for us to speak of an the East, and the Mediterranean to the south,
analogue in the full meaning of this term. where in the 17th c. and even during the 18th
Another analogue which can be discussed c. and the beginning of the 19th c. we can note
is the fortress of Аncyra and more accurately fortiication systems of thick pentagonal (al-
the upper citadel of the city (Jerphanion, G. most always pinched at the base like in Sil-
1928:145, 213; Restle, M. 1966:174-176, Abb. istra) bastions and triangular ravelins of po-
4; Foss, C. 1977:61-62; Lawrence, A. 1983:204- lygonal fortresses which formally resemble
207; Foss, C., O. Winield 1986:30, 133-135, ig. the castellum of Dorostol on the Danubian
9-10) (here Fig. 38). What makes it similar to bank in Silistra (Tait, A. 1965:9-24; Dui, Ch.
Dorostol is the area of about 5 hectares, the 1979:4-6, 23-37, 39 sq.; Dui, Ch. 1985:2-25,
walls about 3.70 m thick with many reused 63-97, 150-163, 218-221, 229-231; Тулешков,
ancient spolia, and the gate to some extent. K. 2000:287–290; Arnold, T. 2001: 35-40; Ste-
It is remarkable for the forty-two pentagonal phenson, Ch., S. Noon 2004, 7-15; Jörgensen,
towers situated at equal distances of about 16 C., M. Pavković, B. Rice, F. Sehneid, C. Scot
m from one another with dimensions simi- 2006:171-209; Lepage, J. 2009:59-285; Lepage,
lar to those of the towers in Dorostol – width J. 2010:46-54, 114-267). In this context I can
of 6-8 m and length of an average of 12 m. now return to the “prophetical” supposition,
In general, this is where the similarities end. shared twenty-ive years ago by C. Foss and
However, the diferences are much more fun- О. Wiield in their analysis of the Early Byz-
damental. The fortress of Ancyra, built en- antine pentagonal towers (Foss, C., O. Win-
tirely of stone blocks, is opus incertum, the ield 1986:30).
towers are not pinched at their base and their Recording their use during the Middle
interior is not cylindrical with a staircase in Ages, when they sporadically occur with no
the base; the W – M indentation of the cur- connection to the Byzantine prototypes of the
tain wall of Dorostol here is missing. It is clear 5th-7th c., they saw their revival in the pen-
that Ancyra was built at least a century after tagonal bastions in the European fortresses
Dorostol, but there are disputes about the of the 17th c. The indented lines of these po-
dating – under Heraclius against the Persian lygonal fortresses and the pentagonal fan-
invasion of Khosrau, at the time of Khosrau shaped bastions, so eicient for defense, in-
himself (the wall contains ancient spolia from luenced the fortiication projects even of the
Ancyra which was destroyed by the Persians leading experts of architectural thought in
in 620), under Constance II against the Arabs the 16th-18th c. such as Francesco di Giorgio,
after their invasion in 654, or even under Leo Michele Sanmicheli, Albrecht Dürer, Tartag-
III around AD 740. lia, Schwalbach, Veronese, and in particular
The unusual speciications of the castel- Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban and Michelan-
lum of Dorostol in Silistra, such as the W – gelo Buonarroti himself (Dui, Ch. 1985:2-25,
525
2a
ideas for their extraordinary shapes came in

the 16th-18th c.
1 If we set as a benchmark the new fortiica-
tions in Europe, then their only analogue (ac-
tively functioning as a defensive system even
during the 15th-18th c. – i.e. on the eve of their
construction) is the castellum of Dorostol –
Drastar on the Danubian bank in Silistra. More-
over, this fortress often atracted the atention
of the European military commanders and en-
gineers during the 14th-16th c. In 1389 and 1404
it was the domain of the Wallachian voivode
Mircea the Elder, whose suzerain was the Ger-
man Emperor (Атанасов, Г. 2009a:192–205);
Fig. 39. Plan of the fortress of Nis from the 17th- in 1397, after the batle at Nikopol on the Dan-
18th c. ube, the German Emperor Sigismund passed
by with his entire entourage on the board of a
ship (Гюзелев, В. 2001:164–166; Острогорски,
63-97, 150-163, 218-221, 229-231; Wallace, W. Г. 1998:692); two years later another eminent
1987:119-134; Dechert, M. 1990:161-180; Lew- representative of the German imperial court,
is, M. 1994:24-36; Тулешков, K. 2000, 287–290; Hans Schiltberger, saw the Danubian fortress
Lepage, J. 2009: 5-29; Lepage, J. 2010:46-54). (Шилтбергер, X. 1971:84). In 1425 the united
These innovative fortiication designs have Christian army, led by the Hungarian knight
analogues on the Balkans, too; here I will illus- Pippo Spano – the Florentine, the Wallachi-
trate only the fortress of Nis from the 17th-18th an voivode Dan II and Fruzhin, son of Tsar
c. (Fig. 39) with its W – M indented polygonal Ivan Shishman, fought near Silistra (Kuzev,
design and alternating pentagonal bastions Аl. 1987:527-533), and in 1445 the eminent
and triangular ravelins. Nevertheless, there Western nobleman and military commander
are some pronounced diferences between Wallerand de Wavrin was active around the
the mentioned examples from the 17th-18th c. city (Атанасов, Г. 2009a:192–205). In 1462,
to the castellum of Dorostol raised more than 1592 and 1603 Silistra was atacked with vary-
a thousand years earlier. These late fortiica- ing success by the voivodes of Wallachia who
tions are particularly efective and suitable became personally acquainted with the for-
for defence against gunire for which pur- tress (Кузев, Ал. 1969:144–147; 1981:188–195;
pose they were designed and executed. The Липчев, P. 1991:66–77). It therefore becomes
pentagonal bastions and the triangular rave- obvious that in Europe during the 14th-16th c.
lins there are thick with stone facing behind there was information about the extraordinary
which the 10 m wide earthwork lies. At the design and efective defenses of the Danubian
same time they are much shorter than the me- fortress of Silistra. Even if its unusual plan
dieval towers, and unlike them their walls are did not inluence directly the architects of the
inclined outwards. They are also much larger new European fortiication of the 16th-18th c.,
and accommodate seven cannons. The ques- it undoubtedly its the new requirements for
tion remains whether these parallels between an indented layout of the type “Vauban” with
the Early Byzantine and the medieval castel- pentagonal bastions and triangular ravelins.
lum of Dorostol – Drastar – Silistra and the That is why it was not destroyed but periodi-
aforementioned later castles are accidental, cally reconstructed and used from the 6th to
what their prototypes are and from where the the 19th c.
526
VI. The History of the Fortress Dorostol was burnt to death and on this site,
and the Buildings within its Territory worshipped as sacred, there are constructions
from the 4th-6th c., and after the mid-9th c. the
VI/1. D o r o s t o l d u r i n g t h e 4th-7th c. medieval cathedral basilica was built here
(Атанасов, Г. 2004а:203–218; 2007:31–41). In-
Between the second half of the 4th and the deed, during excavations at the basilica and
end of the 7th c. the Dobrudzha and Durosto- north of it ruins of late-antique walls have
rum were subject to frequent invasions and been discovered (Angelova, S., І. Buchvarov
were the arena of the clash of the late-antique 2007:61-87), but they can hardly be associated
civilization with the barbarian world. In con- with a particular building.
nection with the impending Gothic threat in In 376, not far from the city, thousands of
367, Emperor Valens (364-378) stayed at Duro- Goths invaded and in two years they devas-
storum; there he inspected the defensive facil- tated the Eastern provinces of the Empire,
ities and issued decrees (Velkov, V. 1960:215; and reduced Durostorum to ashes (Wolfram,
Велков, B. 1988:28). At the beginning of the H. 1990:133-138). Traces of ires have been re-
4th c. twelve martyr saints are recorded and at corded in the area of the southern gate and
the end of the century Durostorum obtained they are best dated by coins found during a
a Bishop’s Chair, led by the adherent of Wul- study of the Early Christian basilica revealed
ila – Auxentius Mercurinus (Атанасов, Г. between the Danubian castellum and the le-
2007:15–46, 79–85). In the 5th-6th c. the bish- gionary camp (Атанасов, Г. 2007:96–100). Ac-
ops Yakov, Monophilos, Joan and Dulcisimus cording to the archaeological surveys, the city
were active here; there are martyria in the ne- recovered fast but some changes in the ethnic
cropolis, and at the south-east of the Danu- composition and the iniltration of foederati
bian fortress toward the legionary camp ba- of German origin took place. Also of mixed
silicas and a Bishop’s Palace have been exca- ancestry was Flavius Aetius, born here in 390
vated (Атанасов, Г. 2007:47–123: Atanasov, G. AD, son of a centurion from legio XI Claudia
2008:27-52). However, within the framework – Gaudentius (later a general in Rome) who
of the Danubian fortress there are no monu- married the Gothic princess, a granddaugh-
ments related to the Early Christian cult and ter of King Fridigern. Not without reason
the Early Christian construction of the 4th- the ancient chroniclers call him “the last Ro-
7th c. There are indirect clues that along the man” (Иванов, Р., Г. Атанасов, П. Доневски
northern defensive wall in 362 St. Emilian of 2006:399–407).
Fig. 40. Seal of the military commander Priscus from the area of Silistra
527
Fig. 41. Wall by the inner face of the southern defensive wall behind pentago-
nal tower No 2 and triangular tower No 3
More pronounced is the destruction around pire against the Avars and Slavs. According to
and inside the city in the mid-5th c. caused by the literary sources and seals, it seems that the
the Hun invasions (Velkov, V. 1960:212). After military commanders Peter and Priscus were
them the monetary circulation in the castel- active and resided here (Fig. 40); they guarded
lum, as well as in the other structures of Du- the Lower-Danubian lands from the invading
rostorum, stops for half a century. At the end barbarians (Тъпкова-Заимова, В. 1966:42,
of the 5th c., however, the city revived again 48–49). However, in 578 the city was seized
and prospered under Justinian the Great and destroyed by the Avars and Slavs. Obvi-
(527-565)15. As we noted earlier, at that time ously it was then that some of the residents
the fortiications were restored and extended deserted it and they took with them the relics
as life concentrated mainly behind the pow- of St. Dasius and the saints Maximus, Dadas
erful walls of the polygonal castellum on the and Quintilianus (Атанасов, Г. 2007:27, 70).
Danubian bank (Ангелова, Ст., И. Бъчваров According to the monetary inds and other
2008:82–101). After Justinian the Great, during sources, at the end of the 4th c. Dorostol (in the
the 6th and the beginning of the 7th c., Dorostol 6th c. the Greek form of the name Durostorum
became the principal fortress post of the Em- – Dorostol established itself) was restored
15
The coins from the 6th-7th c. are distributed as follows: Anastasius I (491-518) – 4, Justin I (518-527)
– 5, Justinian I (527-565) – 14 (and 6 more diicult to determine?), Justin II (565-578) – 25, Tiberius II (578-
582) – 1, Mauricius Tiberius (582-602) – 7, Phocas (602-610) – 3, Constantine IV (668-685) – 1. The coins
deinitely show that the life in the castellum have been activated during the time of Justinian I. There is
a crisis after the invasion of the Avars and Slavs in 585. Traces of ires have been registered in other parts
of Dorostol, including burned coins and hoards from the time of Justin II (Иванов, Атанасов, Доневски
2006:340). At the end of the 6th c. the life was restored and it continued not too intensively until the end
of the 7th c. (Атанасов, Г. 2012:28-31).
528
once again to continue its existence

as a stronghold of Byzantium on the
Lower Danube until the arrival of the
Old Bulgarians at the end of the 7th c.
led by Khan Asparuh (680-701).
The results from the archaeologi-
cal excavations so far testify that
originally in the 4th-5th as well as in
the 6th-7th c., the Danubian fortress
of Durostorum – Dorostol was used
rather as a refuge (refugium)16 and
no solid buildings over a large area
have been recorded inside it. Station-
ary structures from the 4th c have not
been established yet, despite the well
pronounced cultural stratum from
this period. Ruins of walls from the
6th-7th c. have been recorded under
the foundations of the basilica from
the 10th c. by the northern defensive
wall, as well as north of it (Ангелова,
Ст., И. Бъчваров 2008:82–101) (Fig.
2 – 17). Usually they are about 0.60
m thick with foundations of quarry
stones on mud. There are also traces
of adobe structures characteristic of
this age. Most likely, the solid wall
ran for about 10 m along the southern Fig. 42. Archaeological structures in the centre of the Danu-
defensive wall east of the southern bian castellum after Ch. Kirilov and R. Koleva
gate and only about 0.30-1.00 m next
to the inner face of small triangular
tower No 3, and the large pentagonal tower fortress. A curious structure studied almost
No 3 belongs to the Early Byzantine era.17 It in the centre of the fort has also been associ-
is preserved only in substructure of medium- ated with the Early Byzantine age. Two strips
sized and small quarry stones on yellow clay crossing each other at a depth of about 1.15
with a thickness of 0.90 m (Fig. 2 – 17b). Its m are dug into the thick loess at a level of
exploration is still not complete and the work- 13.44 m (Figs 2 – 17a, 42). One of them, ori-
ing hypothesis is that it was once a barracks entated northwest–southeast, is 5.00 m wide
by the southern gate at the end of the 6th – the and the other one is 2.60 m wide and orien-
beginning of the 7th c. It is deinitely later than tated southwest– northeast. Two knurls about
the defensive wall, because its substructure 2.0 m wide and long come out from the wider
continues up to 0.50 m above the plinth of the strip to the east. The illing everywhere is of
16
In my opinion, refuges are built at secret and inaccessible places. This site on the Danube is the easi-
est one to ind and atack in the whole surrounding area (both along the road along the Danube and by
water). – Note of the scientiic editor R. Ivanov.
17
Studies of G. Atanasov (Атанасов, Г. 2012с:270–272, обр. 1–3)
529
stones, dirt and pink mortar, characteristic of of the Emperors Constans, Constantine and
the 6th c. (Kirilov, Ch., R. Koleva 2008:232-233, Anastasius (Йорданов, И. 2011:102) and of
Abb. 2-2). This structure is unclear – founda- Constantine IV Pogonatus himself (Barnea,
tions on solid masonry with extracted build- I. 1971:149-172, no. 9; Jordanov, И. 2009,
ing material or something else, but according no. 73).18
to шге stratigraphy and the material, it should In the irst century after the foundation of
be referred to the Early Byzantine age. Danubian Bulgaria, i.e. from the end of the 7th
to the end of the 8th c., no restoration of life and
VI/2. P a g a n D r u s t a r reuse of the structures (mainly the fortiica-
tions) of Durostorum and the aforementioned
Medieval Drustar is a unique case in the Roman cities have been recorded. In general,
early history of Danubian Bulgaria during the during the 8th-9th c. the Bulgarians built their
8th-9th c. where a part of the structures of the setlement network and system of fortresses
big ancient city of Durostorum were restored without conforming to the late-antique her-
and reused for habitation and defense (details itage or showing any inclination to reuse it.
in: Атанасов, Г. 2012:28–45, обр. 1, 11). At the That is why the Khans’ residences (the auls),
same time, dozens of ancient cities and hun- the fortiications, fortresses and setlements,
dreds of fortresses were left in ruins in the 4th- were constructed ad fundamentum at sites
7th c. (Димитров, Хр. 1993:3–19; Madgearu, А. which had been uninhabited before. To this
1997:18-19; Атанасов, Г. 2001:185–87). When background Durostorum – Drastar indeed
Khan Asparuh setled at the Ongal around the emerges as an exception, without analogue,
Danubian Delta and conquered North-eastern because the literary sources and the archaeo-
Bulgaria in 681, there were only a few surviv- logical studies testify to intense life and reuse
ing centres of Byzantine presence between the of the late-antique fortress as early as the pa-
Danube, the Balkan and the Black Sea (except gan era of the First Bulgarian Kingdom. An
for Durostorum these were Noviodunum, Old Bulgarian source such as the Bulgarian
Histria, Kalatis and perhaps Odessos) which Apocryphal Chronicle even connects the re-
were deserted. Indeed, the latest coins in Silis- vival of life in Drustar with the foundation of
tra belong to the age of the Byzantine Emperor Danubian Bulgaria by Khan Asparuh: “Ispor
Constantine IV Pogonatus (668-685), defeated (Asparuh) ... founded great cities: on the Danube
by Khan Asparuh at the Ongal (Oberländer- the city of Drustar” (Дуйчев, Ив. 1940:154–156;
Târnoveanu, E. 1995: 158-159; Chiriac, Ch. Иванов, Й. 1970:280–284). The work of the
1995:133-135; Ангелова, Ст. 2003б:245–251). Byzantine chronicler Genesius from the 10th
We must add to that the ten seals of Byzantine c. is in a similar spirit; on the basis of earlier
dignitaries and private persons discovered in sources he gives information about the Bul-
Silistra and dated generally in the 6th-7th c.; garian ruler “who was left by the Romans to set-
among them noteworthy is the molybdobul tle in Dorostol and Moesia” (ГИБИ 1961:334–
18
In the area of Silistra (more accurately around the city of Călăraşi, Romania) seals of the strategus
Phokas and the turmarchos Aetolius (?) have been discovered. The last two are dated to the 8th c. (Mi-
titelu, I., I. Barnea 1966:43-45; Mаdgearu, А. 1997:146; Mаdgearu, А. 2007:13). According to Prof. Iv.
Yordanov, the seal of Phokas dates to the 10th-11th c. while that of Atolius is disputable, but it may belong
to the 9th c. It struck me that the seals in the collection of Mititelu are of uncertain location of discovery
and he himself writes that they are from the area of Călăraşi. During the 45 years of excavations in Sil-
istra, such seals have never been discovered. If they were actually from Drustar, then obviously they
are related to its position as a ruler’s residence after the beginning of the 9th c. where the Bulgarian ruler
periodically received correspondence from abroad (Атанасов, Г. 2012:28–45).
530
Fig. 43. Drastar (Silistra). Slavic potery from the 6th-7th c. (after St.
Angelova)
335). Finally, here is what the Byzantine Em- 2009а:20–23) – i.e. it is a compilation to a great
peror Romanos Lekapenos (920-944) himself extent. Genesius’ work is also too late and is
claims in a leter to the Bulgarian Tsar Sime- also a compilation, which can be seen by the
on: “Dorostol and the other mentioned sites were replacement of the name of Khan Asparuh
under the power of the former Emperors and to- with the ethnonym “Bulgar”. Besides, dur-
day they are ruled by Simeon” (ГИБИ 1961:304). ing 45 long years of archaeological research
The direct and indirect association of Drustar at Silistra, there are not enough inds and
with the building activity of the irst Bulgar- coins that can be connected with a Bulgar-
ian ruler – Asparuh, at the end of the 7th and ian presence here between the end of the 7th
the beginning of the 8th c. has not been prov- and the second half of the 8th c. Indeed, dur-
en yet. The frequently referred to Bulgarian ing archaeological excavations around the
Apocryphal Chronicle has come to us in an southern gate and at sites near the Danubian
edition from the mid-13th c., and not from the bank a certain amount of Slavic potery and
11th c. (Diaconu, P. 1993:301-305; Атанасов, Г. potery of the “Penkovka” type was discov-
531
9th c. This is mostly potery

fragments (Fig. 44), discov-
ered under the foundations of
the cathedral basilica on the
Danubian bank and west of it.
According to the researchers,
two types of potery are con-
cerned; they generally date
to the end of the 8th – the irst
half of the 9th c. (Angelova,
S., R. Koleva 2004:29, Abb. 5).
These are fragments of prism
Fig. 44. Drastar (Silistra). Potery from the 9th c. (after St. Angelova) spheroid pots of inely reined
clay of grey-black color with
traces of polishing on the sur-
ered, but they are dated to the last decades of face (Fig. 45) and tall pots made of clay with
the 6th and the 7th c. (Fig. 43), and more likely admixtures with brownish colour whose ex-
are connected to the inal age of life at the Ro- terior surface is thickly covered with parallel
man-Byzantine Durostorum – Dorostol in the and wavy indented lines. In this part of the
second half of the 7th c. (Ангелова, Ст. 2002, explored territory fragments of lat-botomed
12; 2003, 184; 2003а:245–251; Angelova, S., R. Byzantine amphorae, round amphora seals
Koleva 2004:20-21, 28; Detailed in: Атанасов,
Г. 2012:28–30, обр. 3).
In fact, this potery was found in strata
mixed with fragments of Early Byzantine
potery from the 6th c. and this indicates that
probably Slavs who inhabited Durostorum
and its surroundings for a while in their sta-
tus of foederati limitanei at the end of the 6th c.
are concerned (Ангелова, Ст. 2003а:245–251;
Angelova, S., R. Koleva 2004:20, 29). It is also
indicative that the traces of ires and the latest
coins refer to the age of Constantine IV Pog-
onatus (668-685). This suggests that Drustar
was not built but rather destroyed by Khan
Asparuh and the last inhabitants (perhaps a
small Byzantine garrison), bearers of the Late
Roman urban tradition, were banished. It is
remarkable that in the hinterland closest to
Drastar – Silistra no early Old Bulgarian or
Slavic pagan necropolises have been regis-
tered, which are usual for the districts of the
other Old Bulgarian military-administrative
centers during the 8th c. The earliest evidence
testifying to activity in the area of the ancient
city of Durostorum by the Bulgarians dates Fig. 45. Drastar (Silistra). Pot with polished deco-
from the end of the 8th – the beginning of the ration
532
and luxurious Constantinople white clay pot-

tery have been documented and the earliest
ones have also been referred by the research-
ers to the irst half of the 9th c. (Ангелова, С.
2003:194, табл. VІ ).19 An accidental ind from
Silistra is also a jug of grey-black clay with an
indented sign YІI under the neck (Fig. 46) –
a type widespread in the pagan necropolises
from the second half of the 8th – the begin-
ning of the 9th c. (Манчева, О. 1986:103, табл.
ІІ–14, ІІІ–14).20 The described potery does
not enable a precise dating, nor does it help
to establish the precise lower limit of revival
of life in Durostorum – Drastar after the foun-
dation of Danubian Bulgaria. Moreover, as I
already mentioned, these are limited quanti-
ties – most often small fragments which do
not allow special typology and classiication
or more precise conclusions about chronol-
ogy. This gap is illed by a few inscriptions
of Khan Omurtag (814-831) discovered in Si-
listra. Fig. 46. Jug from the 9th c. from Drastar
From the irst chronicle inscription in Greek
(Бешевлиев, В. 1979, №3), writen on a large
marble slab broken into three pieces (Fig. few Greek leters have been found and pub-
47), on the basis of the partly preserved text lished by Veselin Beshevliev. The irst three
one can assume that events between AD 807 – NoNo 91а, 91b, 91с – were probably writen
and 813 are concerned: Emperor Nikephoros’ in the Old Bulgarian language with Greek let-
campaign in 811; Khan Krum’s victory (803- ters. The fourth fragment, No 92, was discov-
814) at Versinikia, and his campaign against ered in the village of Popina, Silistra region,
Constantinople (813) when he performed and could have been in Greek as well as the
an act of sacriice in front of the gates of Con- ifth one – No 94 (Бешевлиев, В. 1979:239–
stantinople (Бешевлиев, В. 1979:115–120, 241).21
№ 3). The inscription is fr om the end of Khan Finally, in 1997, during the study of a build-
Krum’s reign (after AD 813), yet V. Beshev- ing south of the medieval cathedral church
liev, on the grounds of paleographic spe- of Drastar by the bank of the Danube River
ciicities and its resemblance to inscription a fragment of a column moulded of Sicilian
No 56 of Omurtag, assumes that it might breccias was found (Figs 48, 49) (Ангелова,
have been writen under Khan Omurtag. С. 2003:191; Атанасов, Г. 2012а:453–460); let-
Furthermore, in and around Silistra small ters from the irst three lines of an inscription
fragments of ive more inscriptions with a can be read on it:
19
In my opinion (G. A.), these vessels cannot be referred earlier than the beginning of the 10th c.
20
The author dates this vessel in the second half of the 10th c., numbering it among pitchers type I after
L. Doncheva-Petkova (Дончева-Петкова, Л. 1977:86–87). However, in my view, jug type III after the
same classiication is concerned, dated generally in the 9th c. (Дончева-Петкова, Л. 1977:71–72).
21
On the disputes about the interpretation, see: Рашев, Р. 2005:159-162.
533
Fig. 47. Three fragments from an inscription of

Khan Krum from Drastar
///////̣BГІОМОРТАГ ated under M, and the third one is П under

///////ІГОС////̣.П̣ ///// О (Атанасов, Г. 2012а:453–460). However, that
//////С̣/////////////////////// is not enough for deciphering the name of the
Κανα συ]β(ι)γι Ομορταγ strategus. A few strategi are known from liter-
ary sources; all are Romans who deserted from
- – – στρατ]η̣γòς. Ο̣П̣- – –
the Byzantine army and served Khan Krum,
- – – – – – – -С̣------------- and some continued their service in the Bul-
Translation: The Yuvigi Khan Omurtag garian administration even at the beginning
Strategus О̣.П̣ of Khan Omurtag’s reign (Рашев, Р. 2004:155–
С 157). The names of most of them are Greek
In line 2, after the leter complex ІГОС, the but among the ones we know there are Leo,
stone is broken. Bearing in mind the size of the Vardan, Yani, Kordil and Grigora (Бешевлиев,
leters and the distance between them, we can В. 1979:173–174, 179, № 47) and Konstantin
assume that the irst leter from the next word Patsik (Scriptor incertus 1842:343, 78; Рашев,
is broken of while the second and third ones Р. 2004: 155–157); a name is missing with the
are partly preserved: the second one is O, situ- second leter “O” and third leter “П”.
534
These lapidary monuments are of funda-

mental importance for research into the pro-
cesses of restoration of life in Drastar under
the pagan Khans. Even though indirectly,
they imply that this did not take place earlier
than the last years of Khan Krum’s rule. The
chronicle inscription from Silistra tells about
his greatest triumph – the victory over Byzan-
tium, the siege of Constantinople, and the sac-
riice he performed in front of the central gate
of the Byzantine capital, accompanied by the
victorious driving of a spear into its gates. On
the other hand, on the column of Drastar the
form στρατηγός can be reconstructed with a
great degree of certainty, and it is well known
that exactly and only under Khan Krum a few
Byzantine strategi were atracted to serve in
the Bulgarian army; perhaps they originated
from the eastern provinces around the Cauca-
sus. I guess that one of them was appointed to
the post of governor of Drastar. In light of ar-
chaeological proof of habitation at the fortress
from the end of the 7th to the end of the 8th c., it
is not to be excluded that namely the Byzantine
strategus was entrusted with the restoration of
the Early Byzantine structures of Durostorum, Figs 48, 49. Column with the name of Khan
and its transformation into a principal mili- Omurtag from Drastar
tary strategic and administrative centre of the
Bulgarian state on the Lower Danube. Indirect illed with bricks, which makes the impres-
evidence of that is the renovated Danubian sion of pseudo-cell masonry, non-characteris-
fortress which has no analogue across the Bul- tic of the walls of the 6th c. Niches were formed
garian lands or in the Roman-Byzantine for- in this section, perhaps for ropes (Figs 50 – 7,
tiication building. It was comparatively well 51). According to the performed dendrologi-
preserved which required only reconstruction cal surveys on the wooden piles (Ангелова,
work at the beginning of the 9th c. (Fig. 50). С. 2003:193)22, and the berme-like designed
Such have been documented at the northern wharf similar to the harbour of the neighbour-
defensive wall at the turn behind the harbour ing Danubian fortress of Păcuiul lui Soare (Di-
(Figs 5, 50 – 7, 51). Here the inner face with the aconu, P., D. Vilceanu 1972), this facility must
implectum were destroyed, and a new wall be dated to the 9th c. It was evidently built
was required; it was 2.80 m thick, atached to during the restoration of the defensive wall in
the destroyed section and the total thickness this section under Khan Omurtag (Атанасов,
reached 4.20 m (Ангелова, С. 1973:87). The Г. 2012:41, обр. 11 – 7; 41), for whom there is
masonry is of large ashlars (including spolia) evidence in the literary sources that he kept a
on red mortar with wide gaps between them Danubian leet (Кузев, Ал. 1979:30–32) .
22
According to the studies of the wooden piles and beams performed by the Institute of Prehistory
and Early History in Berlin, the construction dates to the year 780 (± 220).
535
R
IVE
BER
NU
DA
Fig. 50. Drastar (Silistra). Plan of the fortress in the 9th c. after G. Atanasov. 1. Eastern gate; 2.
Southern gate; 3. Northern defensive wall; 4. Three-section solid building (Glorious home on the
Danube?); 5. Baths; 6. Southern wall; 7. Harbour; 8. Pagan temple
The clearest and most certain evidence of Byzantine gate. It is entirely built of ashlars
the reconstruction works at the Danubian and a pair of rectangular towers lank the pas-
fortress after the beginning of the 9th c. is the sage, ending in two gates – a double one and
building of the new eastern gate of Drastar a falling cataract (Ангелова, Ст. 1973, 88–89;
(Figs 28, 29, 50 – 1). By the beginning of the Атанасов, Г. 2012:33, обр. 7, 8). The gates of
9th c., with the reconstruction of the fortiica- Pliska were designed in a similar way, and
tion of the Early Byzantine castellum, it was afterwards also those of Preslav. As already
built on the location of the demolished Early mentioned, the closest analogue to the gate of
536
the Danubian bank in a comparatively good

condition. That predetermined its restoration
in the shape and the design it had had in the
6th c. Obviously, the walls destroyed during
the 7th-8th c. were reconstructed (Fig. 52). At
some areas along the defensive walls the sign
ІYІ is engraved; it probably is the family sym-
bol of the new governing Old Bulgarian fam-
ily, initiated by Khan Krum in AD 803 (Fig.
53) (Атанасов, Г. 1992:163–172). This suggests
that the construction (more accurately the res-
toration) of the fortress of Drastar was started
by order of Khan Krum at the end of his rule.
Evidence of this is the recently discovered
Fig. 51. Medieval harbour of Drastar coin of the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros I
Genikos with his son Staurakios23, minted be-
tween 803 and 811 AD (Пенчев, Вл. 2011:209–
Drastar are the gates of Pliska before their re- 211) (Fig. 54).
construction – i.e. from the beginning of the 9th Bearing in mind the comparatively well pre-
c. when they had not yet been provided with served late-antique fortiication, it is possible
an additional exterior (second) two-leaved that by the end of Khan Krum’s rule and the
door (Рашев, Р. 2008:119). beginning of Khan Omurtag’s rule one of the
In the other sections of the fortress of group of Byzantine strategi who came to serve
Drastar, the interventions at the beginning of the Bulgarian Khan (Рашев, Р. 2004:155–156)
the 9th c. are hardly noticeable, because the Bul- at the beginning of the 9th c., more precisely
garians found the late-antique castellum on between 809 (the seizure of Serdica) and 812
Fig. 52. Lid of a pinnacle with graiti from the Fig. 53. The “IYI” sign on the southern defensive
northern defensive wall of Drastar wall
23
The coin was discovered during systematic archaeological surveys by Rumyana Koleva and
Chavdar Kirilov at the fortress of Drastar between the pagan sanctuary which is to be discussed later
and the southern defensive wall (Fig. 42).
537
AD, was stationed at Drastar. Only an ex-

pert in Byzantine fortiication could organize
in the most eicient way the restoration of a
late-antique castellum from the 6th c. It is not
to be excluded that the building work was car-
ried out with the participation of the numer-
ous Byzantine captives. They were banished
from Hadrianopolis and Debelt to the Danube
after AD 813 when Khan Krum devastated
Thrace and took control over most Byzantine
fortresses from the border to Constantinople
(Златарски, В. 1970, 374–375).
If the beginning of the restoration of Drastar
can be associated with the name of Khan Krum,
then the actual building and transformation of
the fortress into a leading administrative, reli-
gious and military strategic centre obviously
took place during the age of his successor –
Khan Omurtag. The presence of Omurtag’s
name on the column raised by the strategus
of Drastar on the occasion of some important
event is indicative. Most likely this event was
the construction of a residence of the Bulgar-
ian rulers by the bank of the Danube River in
Drastar. We learn indirectly of that through an
inscription of Khan Omurtag on another col-
umn which was later walled into the church
“Holy Forty Martyrs” in Tarnovo (Fig. 55). It
says: Khan Yuvigi Omurtag, living in his old home
(i.e. Pliska, author’s note), made a glorious home
on the Danube… (Бешевлиев, В. 1979:192–200,
№ 56). It has long been disputed where exact-
ly on the Danubian bank the new residence of
the Khan was raised. At irst it was supposed
Fig. 54. Coin of the Byzantine Emperor Nike- Fig. 55. The text on the column of Khan Omurtag
phoros I Genikos with his son Staurakios from from the church “Holy Forty Martyrs” in Veliko
Drastar, minted in the period 803-811 Tarnovo
538
that it was the fortiication at the village of

Kadakyoy (it was renamed Malak Preslavets
after 1940), located on the Danubian bank
about 40 km west of Silistra (Шкорпил 1905,
551–553; Златарски, B. 1970:421–422). The
large-scale archaeological excavations held
there in 1949, however, established only a
small Old Bulgarian setlement from the 9th-
10th c. within an earthen fortiication and no
traces of solid stone buildings (Миятев, Кр.
1952:243–258). Subsequently, atention turned
to the island Danubian fortress of Păcuiul lui
Soare (Миятев, Кр. 1965:44–47; Ваклинов,
Ст. 1977:129–131; Кузев, Ал. 1981:96–200), lo-
cated about 20 km east of Silistra (Diaconu, P.,
D. Vîlceanu 1972; Diaconu, P. 1976:410-477).
The long years of surveys, and in particular
the potery inds and coins, testify to a fortii-
cation raised no earlier than the beginning of
the 10th c. with no traces of habitation during
the 8th-9th c. (Атанасов, Г. 2009б:248–251, обр.
91–93).24
In the context of the last studies and dis-
coveries, Prof. V. Beshevliev’s suggestion that
the Glorious Palace on the Danube mentioned
in the Inscription of Omurtag from Tarnovo,
is actually Drastar, appeared most realis-
tic (Бешевлиев, В. 1979:120–121, 198–200;
Ангелова, Ст. 2003а:191; Рашев, Р. 2008:118– Fig. 56. Columns with IYI from the north-eastern
119). It is noteworthy that the Inscription from part of the fortress of Drastar
24
All inds and particularly the potery ensemble from Păcuiul lui Soare, ofered in the studies of P.
Diaconu and kept mostly at the funds of the museum in the city of Călăraşi (I got acquainted with it on
site in 1996 thanks to Prof. Diaconu himself and PhD Marian Niagu) indicate the beginning of habita-
tion around the beginning of the 10th c. There are no potery types and shapes known from the pagan
necropolises and the Early Bulgarian setlements and fortiications from the 8th-9th c. Finally, a number
of potery types from Păcuiul lui Soare (Diaconu, P., D. Vîlceanu 1972:71 f.) have direct analogues
among the potery at the Old Bulgarian fortresses in Dobroudzha of the type Skala – Ruyno – Tsar Asen
from the irst half of the 10th c. (Атанасов, Г. 2007:220, бел. 44; Рашев,Р. 2008:120). This called into ques-
tion the idea of Kr. Miyatev, St. Vaklinov (Миятев, Кр. 1965, 44–47; Ваклинов, Ст. 1977:129–131) and
many other Bulgarian scholars that this is the palace raised by Khan Omurtag at the beginning of the 9th
c. Furthermore, I cannot accept statements that Păcuiul lui Soare is a fortress built ad fundamentum by
Byzantium and in particular under Emperor John I Tzimiskes (969-976). Some obvious diferences in the
masonry of the southern wall with the harbour of smaller ashlars are noticeable (this facility may also
belong to the end of the 10th c.) and the eastern wall with the gate of large ashlars similar to those from
the defensive facilities of the 9th – the beginning of the 10th c. in Pliska and Preslav. In addition, at Păcuiul
lui Soare there is a pronounced potery complex which, in correlation with the potery ensemble from
the fortress of Skala (Йотов, В., Г. Атанасов 1998:64–77), should be dated to the irst half of the 10th c.
539
Fig. 57. Three-section solid building (Glorious home on the Danube?) by the northern defen-
sive wall (photo by St. Angelova, archives of RHM – Silistra)
Tarnovo of Khan Omurtag is dated to the be- dences of the Khans. During the 1970s, in the
ginning of his rule, which indirectly atests to immediate vicinity and to the west of the old
the fact that the start of the building work in “Dunav” Hotel, on the very bank of the Dan-
Drastar may be set in the age of his predeces- ube, a partly preserved building was excavat-
sor – Khan Krum. Indeed, the ive inscriptions, ed (Figs 50 – 4, 57, 58). It is literally atached to
the ІYI signs on the defensive walls, marble the northern defensive wall and, according to
column and building materials (Figs 53, 56) the studied section, it was almost certainly a
(Атанасов, Г. 1990, 193–215), some small inds, three-section construction. The massive walls,
and some of the potery testify to large-scale about 0.80-1.10 m, built of ashlars and mortar,
building in the city at the beginning of the 9th are impressive (Ангелова, Ст. 2003а:183–191;
c. It is noteworthy that after the capital Pliska, Angelova, S., R. Koleva 2004:22-23, Abb. 1-1d;
Drastar is the Old Bulgarian center where the 2-1; 8-3 and especially in: Атанасов, Г. 2012:38–
most oicial inscriptions left by Khan Krum 39, обр. 13, 14; Атанасов, Г., Кр. Михайлов
and Omurtag have been found. Furthermore, 2013а). With justiication, atention has been
such monuments, especially inscriptions with paid to the similarity of this building with the
chronicle contents, were placed in the resi- imposing building in Khan Omurtag’s Aul
540
Fig. 58. Plan of three-section solid building (Glorious home on the Danube?) (after St. Angelova; with
supplements to the plan and measures by G. Atanasov and K. Michailov)
(Антонова, В., Цв. Дремсизова 1981:42–45), bath next to the imposing building (Ангелова,
with a few three-section imposing buildings Ст. 2003а: 183–191; Angelova, S., R. Koleva
in Pliska, and most of all with the three-section 2004:22-23, Abb. 1-1c; 2-2; 8-5; Атанасов, Г.
court building (later – archbishop’s palace) 2012:28-45) (Figs 50 – 5, 59, 60). As a mater of
in pagan Preslav, the construction of which fact, it is known that as a rule baths in medi-
is convincingly dated after AD 811 (Рашев, eval Bulgaria were built only at the royal and
Р. 2008:89–96, 110–111, табл. ХХХV, ХХХІХ, bishop’s residences (Георгиев, П. 1980:99–
XLII, XLV – 4, 5 ). Unfortunately, the explored 106). Given the fact that the baths in Drastar
site in this part of the fortress is limited and were built at a signiicant distance from the
the three-section building has only been thor- cathedral basilica and even more isolated
oughly revealed in width, which is about 15 from the patriarch’s residence (Figs 65 – 5, 59,
m. How it developed southwards in length we 60), it is logical that it is related to some oth-
don’t know so far. er high representative institution. This could
It is remarkable that, similar to Pliska and be the royal residence, for instance. It is ob-
Khan Omurtag’s Aul (a ruler’s residence from vious from the inscription from Tarnovo that
the beginning of the 9th c.), in Drustar there is a the royal residence was raised much earlier,
541
Fig. 59. Baths by the three-section building along the northern defensive wall (photo by St. Angelova,
archives of RHM – Silistra)
at the beginning of the 9th c., while, according Finally, the similarity in the design, di-
to P. Georgiev’s typology, the baths belong to mensions and arrangement of the baths from
the end of the 9th – the 10th c. (Георгиев, П. Drastar with that at Omurtag’s Aul makes it
1980:99–106). However, it is known that the possible that its foundations were laid after
royal residence in Drastar was also used dur- the beginning of the 9th c. Indeed, if we look
ing this age. It is certain that Tsar Simeon the carefully at the plan and disposition of the
Great (889-927) stayed there during his wars palace toward the baths in Drastar, we estab-
against the Magyars in 894-895, an event I will lish once again a similarity with the planning
discuss later. of Khan Omurtag’s Aul by the village of Han
Fig. 60. Plan of the baths with reconstruction (after St. Angelova)
542
Fig. 61. Pagan shrine in the centre of the fortress (photo by Ch. Kirilov and R. Koleva)
Krum, Shumen region, and to some extent the fortress (Fig. 50 – 8). Similar to the other
even with the early court complex of Pliska pagan shrines in Pliska and Preslav, the one
and pagan Preslav (Рашев, Р. 2008:89–96, 111, revealed in Drastar is a representative mono-
табл. ХХХV – 1, 2, 3, 8, ХХХVІІІ–2, ХХХІХ, lithic structure with two inscribed squares,
XLІІ–2, XLІХ–2 ). Furthermore, the three-sec- and the walls of the inner one are 1.40 m thick
tion imposing buildings in Pliska, Omurtag’s and these of the outer one 1.20 m thick. By
Aul, and pagan Preslav are similar to that in way analogous with the temples in Pliska and
Drastar (it is around 15 m wide, while the oth- Preslav, in the irst half of the 9th c., the foun-
ers are between 12-18 m), but in Drastar the dations of the pagan sanctuary in Drastar are
site has not been entirely studied.25 laid over a grid of wooden piles driven into the
The most certain evidence of building in ground. The masonry in superstructure was
Drastar during the pagan age, i.e. after the be- of monolithic hewn stone blocks, of which in
ginning of the 9th c., is the pagan sanctuary (ka- situ only a few have survived. After the Chris-
pishte) revealed in 2006 (Kirilov, Ch., R. Kole- tianization of the Bulgarians in the mid-9th c.
va 2008:231-250, Abb. 3, 4) (Figs 50 – 8, 61-65). the temple was destroyed. The entire building
It is located south-west of the baths and the material was dismantled and probably used
royal residence, approximately in the center of for the construction of the cathedral Episcopal
25
It is noteworthy that the plan of the three-section building in Drastar lay over the 4.20 m thick Dan-
ubian defensive wall. Most likely, this was realized by square or rectangular towers, and it had an outlet
on the curtain wall through a peculiar balcony between them (Fig. 58). I will pay atention to the even-
tual reconstruction in a special study, moreover there are contradictions between the published plan
(Angelova, S., R. Koleva 2004:22-23, Abb. 1-1d; 2-1; 8-3) and the geodetic surveys, kept at the Museum of
Silistra. Here I am only going to mention that one of the royal palaces of Constantinople, Bukelion, raised
under Theodosius II (408-450), rearranged under Nikephoros II Phokas (963-969) and used until the 13th
c., soars above the defensive walls by the sea and has an imperial box with a view over the water tract
(Janin, R. 1950:101-102, 120-121; Guilland, R. 1949, 16-27; Guilland, R. 1950: 61-71; Mango,C. 1997:42-44).
543
Fig. 62. Plan of the pagan shrine (after Ch. Kirilov and R. Koleva)
basilica, raised north of it on the bank of the gan sanctuary were about 21 × 21 m and that
Danube (Figs 65 – 8, 69-71). Unlike most pa- makes it into the second largest pagan shrine
gan shrines, the one revealed at Drastar was ever revealed in Bulgaria (Fig. 63), after the
not turned into a Christian basilica. The expla- pagan shrine in the capital Pliska (Рашев, P.
nation that only the pagan shrines with a rec- 2008:89-96, табл. XLVI, 3). A large pagan cen-
tangular plan were transformed into churches tre is atested to by the four sacriicial altars of
after the Christianization of AD 864, is contro- diferent sizes (the largest one is 117 × 60 × 51
versial (Kirilov, Ch., R. Koleva 2008:231-250). I сm), (Fig. 64), discovered during a survey of
will only mention that the square temple next the fortress (Атанасов, Г. 2012:28-45).
to the southern gate of Preslav was also turned Thanks to a series of large-scale archaeolog-
into a single-nave church (Рашев, P. 2008:89– ical surveys in Silistra between 2006 and 2009,
96, табл. XLVI, 3). The pagan shrine in Drastar when the pagan sanctuary and the southern
was not transformed into a church for another defensive wall of Drastar were studied, some
reason. When after the Christianization, and observations on the horizontal stratigraphy of
more particularly after AD 870, the cathedral the fortress in the irst half of the 9th c. became
Episcopal basilica had to be built in Drastar, possible. It emerged that around the pagan
the prelates decided that it would not be built sanctuary, which is approximately in the cen-
over the pagan shrine, as it is in Pliska, but on tral area of the fortiication, there was a large
another site – on the Danubian bank. Howev- undeveloped area of 16,000 m2 until the be-
er, this will be discussed later. ginning of the 11th c. (Kirilov, Ch., R. Koleva
According to the reconstruction, the ex- 2008:237-238). Given that the citadel occupies
terior dimensions of the building of the pa- an area of about 50,000 m2, this means that
544
Fig. 63. Relative reconstruction of the pagan shrine (after G. Atanasov)
“the square” around the pagan shrine occu- Danubian palace of the Bulgarian rulers, the
pies approximately 1/3 of the fortiied area, royal baths, and the pagan sanctuary (Fig.
which seems surprising. Moreover, around 50). There could have been other service fa-
the cathedral basilica from the second half of cilities, such as barracks for a small garrison,
the 10th c. and the Episcopal/patriarch’s resi- and warehouses, but that does not change
dence west of it, another 8,000 m2 have been the overall outlook. Obviously, Drastar was
explored archaeologically (Angelova, S., R. “an enclosed city” with limited access, meant
Koleva 2004:22-23, Abb. 1). for the ruler, his court and the local governor
However, there are no traces of building with his entourage, and only in times of en-
during the pagan age, respectively the irst emy atacks did it become a refugium, pro-
half of the 9th c. In actual fact, this means that viding shelter for the surrounding population
after the restoration of the fortress at the very and for larger military contingents (Атанасов,
beginning of the 9th c. and until the adoption Г. 2012:28-45).26 However, there is no doubt
of Christianity, accompanied by the construc- that Drustar is the site where we should look
tion of the cathedral basilica and the complex for the Glorious home on the Danube, the con-
around it, at the citadel of Drastar only three struction of which was probably started un-
monolithic structured had been built – the der Khan Krum, but deinitely inished under
26
Obviously this situation did not change drastically even in the second half of the 9th and the irst
half of the 10th c. when the monolithic structures in the citadel continued to be the royal palace with the
adjacent baths and perhaps some other insigniicant service buildings. But instead of a pagan sanctuary,
a cathedral temple and an Episcopal/patriarch’s residence were raised (Fig. 65 – 8).
545
Fig. 64. Four pagan sacriicial altars from Drastar – the 9th c.
Khan Omurtag.27 It seems that this royal fam- centre. Under Khan Krum, however, Bulgaria
ily, of which there is a suspicion that it was permanently occupied vast territories to the
related to the Bulgarians in Pannonia who north beyond the Danube and they needed ef-
inhabited the Middle Danube, present-day icient control. That is one of the reasons why,
Hungary and Transylvania in the end of the namely during his rule and that of his succes-
7th-8th c., was inclined to innovations in the sor’s, on the bank of the Danube in Drastar a
state system, legislation, religious practices, new citadel of Bulgarian power needed to be
building and architecture. built and become a state residence.
Among the innovations was the restoration
of the fortress of Drastar, and the transforma- VІ/3. C h r i s t i a n D r a s t a r
tion of the city into a royal residence of the (t h e m i d-9th a n d t h e 10th c.)
Bulgarian rulers in the irst half of the 10th c.
The reasons for that can be sought in a few di- After the adoption of Christianity, Drastar
rections. Between the end of the 7th c. and the kept its position as a state administrative and
mid-8th c., along with the capital city of Pliska, military centre (Fig. 65). This is undoubtedly
most likely a second state centre functioned, proven by the events of AD 894-895 when Tsar
related to the Khazar threat, and that was Simeon entered into a severe conlict with the
the Old Bulgarian fortiication by Nikulitsel, Magyars who devastated North-eastern Bul-
near the Danube. Khan Asparuh’s and Khan garia. The reasons why in this most diicult
Tervel’s actions there are indicative (Атанасов, period in his military career he deserted the
Г. 2004:13–20; Атанасов, Г., Н. Руссев 2011:15- capitals of Pliska and Preslav for about a year
34). With the reduction in the Khazar threat in and, along with his army, retired to Drastar,
the 8th c. and the new priority in Bulgarian ex- are still unknown (Fig. 66). Indeed, the Mag-
ternal policy directed towards Byzantium, it yars, despite their numerical superiority and
is logical that Pliska became the leading state increased self-conidence after a series of sieg-
27
If we rely on the dating of the Inscription from Tarnovo, this obviously took place as early as the
irst years of his reign by a high state dignitary, perhaps a strategus whose name we don’t know yet.
546
R
IVE
B ER
NU
DA
Fig. 65. Drastar (Silistra). Plan of the fortress with monolithic structures from the 9th c. after G. Atanasov.
1. Eastern gate; 2. Southern gate; 3. Northern defensive wall; 4. Three-section solid building (Glorious
home on the Danube?); 5. Baths; 6. Southern wall; 7. Harbour; 8. Patriarch’s temple; 9. Patriarch’s residence
es, did not manage to seize Drastar. This is ex- new information on the issue by calling the
plicitly testiied to by Theophanos’ Successor, fortress “Mundraga” (De administrando im-
Leo the Grammarian and Skilizes (Божилов, perio. London, 40: 176). Thanks to this clari-
И. 1983:91). Constantine VII Porphyrogen- ication, it became clear that the castellum/
netos also states the same, yet he introduces citadel on the Danubian bank where the army
547
Fig. 66. Tsar Simeon the Great enters the fortress of Drastar in 894/5 according to a miniature in the
Manuscript of Madrid of Skylizes’ Chronicle
of Tsar Simeon the Great was besieged28 had fact that after the Christianization of Bulgaria
its own name, Mundraga, respectively it was in 864, Drastar, ancient Durostorum, is the
established that it is an isolated structure only big centre of the First Bulgarian King-
with more special status within the limits of dom with a remarkable paleo-Christian past.
the medieval city of Drastar (Бешевлиев, В. In the 4th c. twelve martyr saints are recorded
1985:17–20). This testiies to the fact that the and from the end of the 4th to the 7th c. it was an
city had reliable fortiications and indirectly Episcopal chair. The revealed martyria in the
implies that the rank of state residence was late-antique necropolis, the Early Christian
retained even after the mid-9th c. That is why Episcopal basilica, and bishop’s residence
I suppose that the royal court centre, which in- situated between the Danubian fort and the
cludes the large three-section building raised legionary camp, are also testimony to this
under Khan Omurtag and the baths next to it, (Атанасов, Г. 2007:47–72, 96–107). Against
continued to be used during the second half of this background it is easy to understand why
the 9th and the 10th c.29 Drastar once again became an Episcopal cen-
At that time the legitimacy of Drastar grew tre as early as AD 870. By the way, besides in-
due to its transformation into a religious cen- direct arguments, we have at our disposal an
tre, at irst in Dobrudzha and afterwards in undoubted archaeological monument such
Bulgaria as a whole. This is supported by the as the funerary inscription of an archdeacon,
28
There is indirect evidence that after the end of the Bulgarian-Magyar war, and after the death of his
irst wife, Tsar Simeon married for a second time; his new wife was a noble boyar lady from Drastar, a
daughter of the local lord Georgy Sursuvul (Атанасов, Г., Сн. Генчева 2008:130–150).
29
Obviously, the baths were not destroyed until the 30s of the 11th c. because on their loor Pecheneg
potery has been discovered. Most likely at that time the palace next to them was also demolished
(Ангелова, Ст. 1993:52–53).
548
nephew of Bishop Nikolay, who died on Oc- Drastar, then the bishop mentioned would
tober 5, 870; the inscription says: Here rests have resided here as early as the year 870.
the monk and archdeacon of Bishop Nikolay, his The inscription discovered in Silistra sug-
uncle. He passed away in the year 6379, 4th in- gests that Nikolay was the irst bishop of
diction, on October 5, Friday, at the time of Mi- Drastar after the Christianization, who held the
hail, the famous pious archon. (Grégoire, Н. position in the spring of 870. This hypothesis
1939:227-234; Beševliev, V. 1964:35-36, No 51; can be supported by two lead seals (bulls), one
Атанасов, Г. 2007:139–140) (Fig. 67). of which was discovered during systematic ar-
Obviously, the deceased archdeacon-monk chaeological excavations of the large basilica in
was buried in Drastar which implies that Pliska (Fig. 68), and the second one comes from
before his death he had served at the local the medieval fortress by the village of Voyniko-
temple. It seems that not only was he a close vo, Dobrich region. On the obverse of the seals
relative, but also the position of archdeacon the image represents St. Nicholas in prelatic
which he occupied testiies to the fact that he robes and around him the text is engraved: †
was among the irst assistants in the liturgies Αγιε Νικωλαιε βοηθη τον δουλον – St. Nicholas,
and church deeds of Bishop Nikolay. Logic help your slave. On the reverse, under a cross of
dictates that after the archdeacon resided in tendrils, the following text is writen: Νικολαω
Fig. 67. Inscription from Silistra from AD 870 with the name of Bishop Nikolay
549
outside and semi-rounded from the inside. In

front of the central apse there are traces of a
low marble altar barrier in front of which a
reliquary is inlaid. A burial of a bishop has
Fig. 68. Seal of Bishop Nikolay discovered in Pliska been revealed in front of the altars holy gates
(Figs 71, 73, 74). The narthex is single-section
with three entrances to the naos. Inside it and
επισκοπω θεοβουλείας – Nicholas, God elect- at the eastern part of the naos ive cist graves
ed bishop (Йорданов, Ив. 1992:292–293, № 28; were designed with slabs; perhaps high repre-
Атанасов, Г. 2007:140–141). sentatives of the spiritual and worldly aristoc-
We cannot be sure until when Nikolay was racy are buried inside them.
in charge of the Bishopric of Drastar. Thanks North of the church by the prothesis there
to the archaeological surveys in Silistra, we al- is a baptistery from which a fragment of the
ready know that the irst (after the Christiani- baptismal font and the water-supply system
zation in 864) episcopal basilica was raised on have survived. The loor of the temple is paved
the bank of the Danube River inside the forti- with marble slabs which lie on a bedding of
ied area of Drastar (Figs 65 – 8, 70-72). When pink mortar. The walls are plastered with a
after the Christianization a cathedral temple ine pink coat. The church is carefully built
had to be raised, it was well known by the Syn- with limestone blocks. Its foundations reach a
axarium of the Patriarchate of Constantinople depth of 1.80 m, and are of quarry stones on
and Theophanos’ Successor, that namely on pink mortar.
the Danubian bank in AD 362 in Durostorum Under the foundations of the church there
– Drastar, St. Emilian of Dorostol died a mar- are fragments of late-antique, Early Byzantine
tyr (Атанасов, Г. 2004:215–217; Атанасов, Г. and Old Bulgarian potery from the pagan era
2006:31–41). After the mid-9th c. when new which gives a hint that it was raised after the
large-scale building started, the ruins of late- mid-9th c. By design, size, construction, build-
antique and Early Byzantine structures were ing technique and design of the pilasters on
visible on this site. This probably induced the the façade, the basilica in Drastar (at the irst
arrived Byzantine clerics and builders to build stage) has its closest parallels among monu-
the Episcopal basilica namely on the Danubi- ments from the end of the 9th and the begin-
an bank instead of at the central part of the ning of the 10th c. and in particular – the ba-
fortress of Drastar where the pagan sanctu- silica at site No 31 in Pliska, the court church
ary had been (Атанасов, Г. 2006:179–196; in Preslav, and the church at the princely
Атанасов, Г. 2012). monastery by the village of Ravna, near Pro-
The church was on the bank of the Dan- vadiya (Чанева-Дечевска, Н. 1984:46, фиг.
ube by the northern defensive wall of Drastar 21; Георгиев, П. 1985:71 сл. табл. ІХ.). Their
and represented a three-nave three-apse ba- existence as well as the thickness of the walls
silica with a narthex and sizes of 25.40 × 14.70 and the depth of the foundations suggests a
m (Ангелова, Ст. 2002:12–19; Атанасов, Г. basilica with a cope ceiling.
2007:169–176) (Figs 65 – 8, 70-72). The central At a certain stage during the 10th c. the tem-
nave is 5 m wide, the northern one is 2.80 m ple in Drastar was reconstructed and that was
and the southern one is 3 m. They are divid- a result of the transformation of the city into
ed by deep stylobates on which two pairs of the Patriarchate’s metropolis of Bulgaria. Af-
massive rectangular piles lie. They support ter Tsar Simeon the Great’s death (†927), Bul-
a system of arches which carry the vaulted garian society and state endured fundamental
ceiling of the roof. The three naves end to the changes. For good reasons greatest atention
east with apses which are triangular from the is paid to the recognition by Constantinople
550
Fig. 69. Episcopal basilica in Drastar raised in the third quarter of the 9th c. and reconstructed into a
patriarchal temple after AD 927
of the royal (imperial) title of the new ruler I Lekapenos, he was proclaimed Patriarch by the
Petar I (927 – 970) and his marriage to the Imperial Synklētos (Senate – note by G. A.), and
Byzantine princess Maria-Irina (Златарски, then he was deposed by John Tzimiskes. (Иванов,
В. 1971:501 f; Атанасов, Г. 1999:96–98). It has Й. 1970:564–566.). In the other basic source –
been stressed that according to the Christian The Second Charter of Emperor Basil II from
doctrine, There cannot be a king without a patri- AD 1020 on the organization of the Bulgarian
arch, which naturally raises the question about Autocephalous Church (The Archbishopric of
the status of the head of the Bulgarian church Ohrid), we read that the Bishop of Dristra is
during and after AD 927. given paroikoi and clerics as much as the Arch-
After Byzantium made the irst step by rec- bishop of Ohrid because under Tsar Petar: …
ognizing the imperial title of the young Bul- this eparchy was shining with archbishop’s dignity
garian ruler, then the patriarch’s rank of the (see Грамоти на Василий 1963:4–45). On the
head of the Bulgarian Church had to be also basis of these authentic sources, ever since the
recognized. However, it seems that not the age of E. Golubinski and V. Zlatarski the ma-
Archbishop of Preslav was declared Patri- jority of historians are inclined to accept that
arch (perhaps the same patriarch appointed in 927 Damyan, the Bishop of Drastar, became
by Simeon?), but the Bishop (Metropolitan the irst Bulgarian patriarch and Drastar be-
Bishop?) of Drastar. This conclusion is im- came the irst Patriarch’s residence of the Bul-
plied by the two authentic literary sources garian Orthodox Church (Голубинский, Е.
which directly refer to the issue. In the so 1871:37; Златарски, В. 1924:70 f.; Златарски,
called Du Cange List from the 12th c. it is writ- В. 1970:215–216; Мутафчиев, П. 1973: 40 f;
ten: Damyan (testiied – TN) at Dorostol, today’s Снегаров, Ив. 1995:8–9; Dujcev, I. 1971:241–
Dristra. Under him Bulgaria was honored as au- 250; Пириватрич, C. 2000:189; Атанасов, Г.
tocephalous. By the order of Emperor Romanos 2007:149–157.).
551
Fig. 70. Episcopal basilica in Drastar raised in the third quarter of the 9th c. and reconstructed into patri-
archal temple after AD 927 (Reconstuction after G. Atanasov)
Moreover, with this act Drastar became state and church administration of Bulgaria
the seat of the irst national patriarch across and Byzantium during the 9th-10th c. has al-
the Christian world because the patriarchs at ready been discussed. Remarkable is the fact
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch that nowhere across the Bulgarian lands, if we
and Jerusalem administrated speciic territo- don’t count the capital of Preslav, there have
ries, and were not bound to a nation or a state. so many Bulgarian and Byzantine royal bulls
Moreover, there is other evidence that namely been discovered (Атанасов, Г. 2011:286–293)
Drastar was the Patriarch’s residence between (Figs 75-77). While the lead bulls of Knyaz Bo-
927 and 971 AD. In the Bulgarian historical lit- ris I and Tsar Simeon can be explained by their
erature the issue of the numerous lead seals correspondence with the Bishop of Drastar or
(bulls) in Silistra of oicials from the highest the governor of Drastar, the manner in which
552
the bulls of Romanos I and Constantine Por- ground, it is more likely that the correspond-
phyrogennetos came here in the mid-10th c. is ence of Philotheos to Drastar must rather
curious (Figs 78, 79). be associated with the events of AD 969 de-
As a rule, in Bulgaria the Byzantine Em- scribed by Leo the Deacon than the events of
peror can only communicate with the Bulgar- AD 971, as Iv. Yordanov has assumed on the
ian Tsar or the Bulgarian Patriarch. Given that basis of the writing of Skylizes and Nestoros.
during the irst half of the 10th c. the royal capi- If we accept that in AD 969 Philotheos headed
tal was in Preslav, then the possibility remains the important imperial delegation on the occa-
that the correspondence was addressed to the sion of the signing of the peace treaty with the
Patriarch in Drastar. In this regard, the seal of Bulgarians, and the arrangement of the mar-
the Metropolitan Bishop of Euchaita – Philoth- riage of the Byzantine princes to the Bulgar-
eos, discovered in Silistra and published by Iv. ian princesses, then it is natural that approval
Yordanov, is very interesting (Йорданов, Ив. was sought from the Bulgarian Patriarch. I am
1992а:120–125) (Fig. 80). Against this back- only going to add that, according to Constan-
Mi tatorion
Ambo
Fig. 71. Episcopal basilica in Drastar raised in the third quarter of the 9th c. and reconstructed into a pa-
triarchal temple after AD 927. Archaeological plan after St. Angelova with supplements by G. Atanasov
553
graves 10th c.
belfry 14th c.
ambo
bishop’s tomb mitatorion

grave 14th c. 10th-11th c.
rood screen
altar
sintron
Fig. 72. Patriarchal basilica in Drastar after 927 (reconstruction after G. Atanasov and
St. Doncheva)
554
tine Porphyrogennetos, namely the patriarchs

performed the royal marriage ceremonies.
This is added conirmation of the idea that
some bulls from Silistra are important evi-
dence that the residence of the Bulgarian Pa-
triarch at that time was in Drastar. As a mat-
ter of fact, in this regard I would question the
claim that the head of the church of a state
must invariably establish himself at the royal
metropolis. It has already been mentioned that
the Armenian and Serbian high priests never
resided at the capital cities (Мутафчиев, П.
1973:45). The situation in the German Empire
and especially in England is similar; there the
Archbishopric in Canterbury is located about
70 km away from the royal capital of London.
Finally, the royal capital does not always co-
incide with the Patriarch’s residence in the so
called Bulgaria of Samuil, the natural succes-
sor of the Kingdom of Preslav (Пириватич, С.
2000:192–198.).
However, the essential question remains:
why in 927 AD the Patriarch was accommo-
dated in Drastar, but not in the metropolis of
Preslav instead? As mentioned, from an eccle-
siastical and historical point of view, Drastar
had no equal within the borders of the First
Bulgarian Kingdom. However, in AD 870 Byz-
antium gave its approval for the newly estab-
lished Archbishop of Bulgaria to have his seat
at the royal capital; at irst in Pliska and then
in Preslav, but in both cases in new cities with
no Christian past. In AD 927, however, the
situation was diferent and the roles reversed.
While between 866-870, desiring to win Bul-
garia over on their side, Constantinople and
Rome were inclined to make some compro-
mises, including with the seat of the church
head, in 927 it was just the opposite. Willing to
obtain the title of Tsar and a Patriarch’s chair, Fig. 73. Bishop’s burial in front of the holy gates of
Petar I and his councilors yielded some sec- the altar of the cathedral of Drastar (after St. An-
gelova
ondary issues, including that concerning the
location of the residence of the Bulgarian Pa-
triarch. Moreover, they realized that not only
a bishopric or archbishopric was concerned, extent. Indeed, between the 4th and the 10th
but a patriarch’s throne. In this case the de- c., hundreds of bishop’s, archbishop’s and
mand for an ancient holy (marked with mar- metropolitan bishop’s chairs were founded,
tyr’s blood) city was valid to an even greater often in cities with no Christian past. How-
555
ever, a Patriarchate was established for the survived. An altar

irst time outside the sacred circle of the barrier, the marble
ive ancient thrones. In 927 the situation cancellus of which has
was such that in fact Drastar was the only been preserved, was
city in the Kingdom entirely designed in front of
inhabited by Bulgarians, the synthrone of the
which enjoyed the di- basilica of Drastar
vine blessing of receiv- (Ангелова, Ст. и др.
ing the patriarch’s 1997, 64–74, обр. 1–3.).
chair. Moreover, dur- The indented signs – ІYІ
ing Khan Omurtag’s – on the reverse of the
and Tsar Simeon’ s cancellus, suggest a ter-
age, the town served as minus ante quem for it
a second royal metropolis, – the second half of the
which made the price of 10th c. (Fig. 82).
compromise comparative- I already mentioned
ly bearable (Атанасов, Г. that this sign – a totem
2012:28–45). of the ruling family of
Important indica- Krum, Boris I, Simeon
tors for the patriarch’s and Petar, does not occur
chair in Drastar are on monuments dated after
the archaeological the fall of the North-Eastern
surveys of the cathed- lands under Byzantine rule in AD 971.
ral church, built on According to my observations, the temple
the bank of the Dan- has a pulpit in front of the presbyterium in
ube River by Bishop the centre of the church. It is of the type of
Nikolay after the Fig. 74. Cross of rock- two-step representative pulpits known from
Christianization in crystal in the hand of many Episcopal churches on the Balkans
864 AD. It is rightly the buried bishop and in Asia Minor during the Early Byzan-
assumed that the tine period, and more rarely in the early me-
church was reconstructed as early as the irst dieval shrines from the 8th-9th c. (Delvoye, І.
half of the 10th c. when probably it was rede- 1966:123-125; Kazdan, А. 1987:423-425). It is
signed from a short vaulted basilica into a ba- not impossible that the pulpit in the temple of
silica with a dome supported by four round Drastar was built during the second construc-
piles (Ангелова, Ст. 2002:13–14; Атанасов, Г. tion stage (after the beginning of the 10th c.)
2007: 170–171) (Figs 65 – 8, 71, 72). This plan because in its substructure there is a fragment
resembles the cruciform temples of Preslav of reused stone cornice with dentils, charac-
from the 10th c. in Avradaka, Mostich’s church, teristic of the churches in Preslav during the
etc. (Чанева-Дечевска, Н. 1984:78–83, фиг. 9th-10th c. The structure formed in front of the
36–40). The loor is raised at about 0.60 m presbyterium at the northern nave, which
and paved with limestone and marble slabs, has been missed in the architectural plans of
in some areas it is shaped in opus sectile and the temple published so far and their com-
the exterior walls have brick niches. The bap- mentaries, also dates to the second construc-
tistery was destroyed during this reconstruction stage. The most serious indication for the
tion. At the same time, in the prothesis a three- transformation of the basilica from Episcopal
step synthrone was built; its southern half has into Patriarchal is the isolated structure in
556
nicon was used by the emperor, and there are

indirect clues that the left mitatorion in front
of the prothesis was designed for the patri-
arch. Identical rooms in front of the prothesis
and diaconicon have been documented in the
Fig. 75. Royal seal of Knyaz Boris I Mihail from large basilica in Pliska which between AD 870
Drastar and 893 was a cathedral temple of the head
of the Bulgarian Church – the Archbishop of
Pliska (Мавродинов, H. 1939:246–252).
The residence of the patriarch with its ac-
companying administrative, farming and rep-
resentative premises obviously must be iden-
tiied with the complex west of the church
(Ангелова, Ст. 2002:14–16; Атанасов, Г.
2007:171–175) (Figs 69 – 9, 81). It is remark-
able that the church is not an isolated architec-
Fig. 76. Royal seal of Tsar Simeon the Great from

Drastar
Fig. 77. Royal seals of Tsar Petar I with Maria from Fig. 78. Royal seals of Emperor Romanos I from
Drastar Drastar
front of the prothesis. One of the possibilities

is that it is a mitatorion, characteristic for the
Patriarch’s cathedrals and especially for “St.
Sophia” at Constantinople (Мавродинов, Н.
1939:246–252; Papadopoulos, J. 1948; Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium 1991:1353-1354). Ac-
cording to the description by Constantine Por-
phyrogennetos from the mid-10th c., the mita-
toria were designed for the Emperor as an ec-
clesiastical ceremonial theatre (Vogt, A. 1939,
I. 46 (37):65). There is undoubted evidence Fig. 79. Royal seals of Emperor Basil II from
that the right mitatorion in front of the diaco- Drastar
557
tural complex and it is only the the stratigraphic observations,

centre of a vast architectural they were probably built at the
ensemble composed of two (or time or after the reconstruction
three?) complexes or yards, di- of the temple in the irst half
vided by chain premises. The of the 10th c. Most likely they
central complex is the yard continued to develop south-
where the church was built. wards and isolated the church
To the north it is limited by from the western complex of
Fig. 80. Seal of Philotheos,
the northern defensive wall of Bishop of Euchaita, found in chain buildings, bordering on
Drastar. From the west, in front Drastar all sides a second yard. One of
of the narthex, chain premises the seven revealed premises
start; they develop in a north-south direction in this part is vast, with a length of 13 m and
and deliniate the western end of the central width of 7.50 m. Perhaps above these prem-
yard. They are built of well-shaped small lime- ises a second loor developed, covered with
stone blocks with gaps coated with pink mor- roof-tiles on which signs (very often ΙΥΙ) have
tar, just like those of the temple. According to been discovered. As a mater of fact, these
Fig. 81. Patriarchal residence in Drastar from the 10th c.
558
Fig. 82. Signs IYI on the marble cancellus of the altar barrier of the patriarchal temple in Drastar (after
St. Angelova)
signs are inscribed on stone blocks on the east- for three months, unlike Preslav, for example.
ern chain premises and on the reverse of the There, the exterior wall was taken by assault
marble cancellus of the altar barrier of the Pa- by the Byzantines on the very irst day, and the
triarch’s temple (Ангелова, Ст., Р. Колева, Е. citadel fell in two days. The chroniclers even
Ангелова, Р. Иванова 1997:64–74, обр. 1–3). pay atention to the fact that the advanced
technology and multiple batering rams of
VІ/4. D r a s t a r (D r i s t r a) u n d e r the Byzantines did not manage to cause seri-
B y z a n t i n e R u l e – t h e e n d o f t h e 10th ous damages or holes in the defensive wall of
– t h e e n d o f t h e 12th c. Drastar. Skylizes adds that from inland the
city had two gates – the eastern and western
The end of the First Bulgarian Kingdom ones. Indeed, according to the archaeological
in the eastern territories came with the Bul- surveys, two gates in the interior have been
garian – Russian – Byzantine war of 968-971 recorded for the time being – the southeastern
when Drastar became the arena of one of the and southwestern ones (Fig. 65 – 1, 2).
most important military conlicts in medieval What is writen by Skylizes is curious – that
European history. In the summer of 971 the at the peak of the siege Svetoslav ordered the
Russian-Varyag Knyaz Svetoslav, who had fortress to be encircled with a moat connected
seized the city (the tough Moesian fortress – the with the Danube, and that this was realized in
words of the Byzantine historian Leo the Dea- one night. In this case what is most important
con) two years earlier, was forced to defend is the statements of all the chroniclers that the
it from the army of the Byzantine Emperor fortress of Drastar managed to give refuge to
John Tzimiskes (Мутафчиев, П. 1973:56–61; the entire army of Svetoslav. Obviously the
Атанасов, Г. 2013:69-82) (Fig. 83). airmations by Leo the Deacon, Skylizes and
However, there is no detailed description Zonaras that the Russian Knyaz led an army
of the fortress by the contemporary of the of 300,000 (?), 30,000 or 60,000 men are exag-
events Leo the Deacon or afterwards by Sky- gerated, because the fortiied area of Drastar
lizes, Zonaras or the Russian Chronicles. It is is undoubtedly about 5 hectares or 50,000
only mentioned as a strong fortiication which sq. m. This limited territory obviously can-
could not be overcome through military ac- not provide for three months for more than
tions by the elite imperial army and a leet about 8,000 soldiers, because one of them
559
Fig. 83. Emperor John Tzimiskes in front of the fortress of Dristra in 971 according to a miniature in the
Manuscript of Madrid of Skylizes’ Chronicle
would need a living space of about 8-10 sq. military strategic city of Drastar. On the ba-
m. At this rate, if an army of 30,000 men had sis of the so called Escorial Taktikon and some
been concentrated in Drastar – the most mod- lead bulls, it can be judged that around AD
est igure mentioned by the Byzantine chroni- 975 John Tzimiskes undertook a new mili-
clers, then one person (including the built-up tary administrative reform. He divided the
areas) would have had a litle more than 1 sq. strategy Yoanopolis and Dorostol into two.
m which is an absurdity for living for ninety The southern part with Yoanopolis – Preslav
days. In these conditions actually 8,000-10,000 was added to Strategy Thracia and the lareg
men is the maximum Drastar could accommo- Strategy Thracia and Yoanopolis was found-
date (Атанасов, Г. 2013:69-82). As a mater of ed; it may have survived until the seizure of
fact, this number is mentioned in the Hypa- north-eastern Bulgaria by Tsar Samuil (997-
tian Codex (Мутафчиев, П. 1973:56–61). 1014) around AD 986. Dobrudzha and the en-
Judging by the literary sources and multi- tire Paradunavon were added to the katepano
ple lead bulls (Figs 84-86), the administrative of Western Mesopotamia, where the Strategy
organization at Drastar and the region, after it Dristra was situated. The common metropolis
came under Byzantine control in AD 971, can of the katepano and the strategy from around
be reconstructed to a great extent (Йорданов, AD 975 to 986 was Drastar.
Ив. 1993:117 f.; Madgearu, А. 1999:421-430). It is a subject of discussion when exactly
At irst John Tzimiskes founded two strate- this happened, but most likely it was after the
gies – Yoanopolis – Preslav and Dorostol. A great victory at Trayanovi Vrata in AD 986
litle later the two strategies were united in when Tsar Samuil annexed North-eastern Bul-
one large administrative unit, covering the garia and Dobrudzha, respectively Drastar, to
entire north-eastern Bulgaria and Dobrudzha, the Bulgarian state.
called Strategy Yoanopolis and Dorostol. The During the Byzantine ofensive in the
legal capital was Yoanopolis – Preslav, but if years 1000-1001, the Byzantine military com-
we judge by the movement of seals, de facto manders Nikephoros Xiphias and Theodoro-
the strategus resided at the more important kan once again restored the control of the
560
Empire over the lands between the Danube, bled. The city was seized twice and after the
the Balkan Mountain and the Black Sea, and mid-11th c. the barbarians setled for decades
were stationed at Drastar. Administratively in this area. The Pechenegs setled perma-
these territories were united with Thrace and nently at Drastar, and turned it into the main
formed the Strategy Thracia and Dristra, ad- base for their invasions to the south (Тъпкова-
ministered by Protospatharios David who re- Заимова, В. 1976:55–75; Diaconu, Р. 1979:44-
sided at Drastar. When, in 1018, Basil II inally 49, 62-76, 100-121). In order to restore its con-
destroyed the Bulgarian Kingdom, a new ad- trol, the government in Constantinople sent
ministrative reform took place. Perhaps at that the military commander Nestoros (a Bulgar-
time the entire area of northern Bulgaria was ian from Macedonia) here in AD 1074, but he
included in the vast theme of Paristrion, and joined the local leader of the Pechenegs – Ta-
Drastar became the military-administrative tush. These events provoked Emperor Alexi-
centre of it once again (Литаврин, Г. 1987:195– os Komnenos (1081-1118) to personally lead
201; Йорданов, Ив. 1993:143 f.; Madgearu, А. a campaign by land and by sea against the
1999:422-423, 430). A series of Pecheneg inva- restless Drastar (Мутафчиев, П. 1973:82–85).
sions followed; during some of them, in 1036 In 1088 he appeared with his entire imperial
and 1048, Drastar was captured by the barbar- might before the fortress of Drustar. He man-
ians, and during the 70s of the 11th c. Byzan- aged to overcome the irst defensive belt, but
tine power in this area was heavily weakened could not enter the two citadels – the castel-
(Тъпкова-Заимова, В. 1976:55–65; Diaconu, Р. lum on the Danubian bank, and the former
1979:100-120). According to Michael Ataliatos, camp of legio XI. The threat of encirclement
…the local residents (a mixed population-mixobar- forced him to withdraw to Vetrini (the village
baroi, including Bulgarians, Pechenegs, Torkils, of Vetren), and from there he escaped to the
etc. – G. A.) paid very litle or no atention at all south of the Balkan Mountain.
to the Byzantine Emperor and put the control over After the dislodgement of the Pechenegs
the fortress (Drastar – G. A.) in the hands of their and restoration of Byzantine control over
chieftain Tatush. (Михаил Аталиат 1965:183).
At the end of the 11th and during the 12th c.,
Byzantium restored its domination over Paris-
trion and Drastar, but it was forced to endure
Cuman and Russian invasions from time to
time. I would like to pay special atention to
the fact that during the events of 968-971 al-
most all unfortiied setlements in inland Do-
brudzha and north-eastern Bulgaria were de-
serted by their inhabitants, but the majority of Fig. 84. Seal of Romanos Diogenes – bestarches of
fortresses continued functioning. During the Dristra
Pecheneg invasion of AD 1036, however, they
were also destroyed and deserted (Атанасов,
Г. 1999a:33–53). Thus, by the end of Byzantine
rule (and even until the 16th c.) there was no
setlement network in inland Dobrudzha or
the Ludogorie region.
Life continued only at the cities and set-
tlements by the Danube and the Black Sea
(Атанасов, Г. 2001:185–214).
The history of Drastar after the Pecheneg in-
vasions of 1036 and 1046 is particularly trou- Fig. 85. Seal of Demetrios Katakalon from Dristra
561
Besides being a regional military adminis-

trative centre during the whole age of Byzan-
tine rule, Drastar (Dristra) also functioned as
a religious centre for the north-east (Атанасов
2007, 232 f.). Temporarily after AD 971 it was
a bishopric within the borders of the Metro-
Fig. 86. Seal of Joahn (Kagena), vest and katepano politan Bishopric of Preslav, headed by Ste-
of Dristra fan. After the administrative reforms of AD
976, the prelatic throne was moved to Drastar.
After the year 1000 Byzantium once again for
a long period occupied north-eastern Bulgaria
and Dobrudzha, respectively Drastar (Byz-
antines usually call it Dristra), and a bishop
obviously resided here again; his diocese co-
inciding with the newly founded strategy.
This is implied by the Second Charter of Basil
II from AD 1020; it becomes evident from it
that the bishopric of Drastar was added to the
Archbishopric of Ohrid as an active bishopric.
Fig. 87. Seal of Leontios, Bishop of Dristra After the mid-11th c., the eparchy of Drustar
was taken away from the diocese of the Arch-
bishopric of Ohrid, raised to the rank of Met-
ropolitan Bishopric, and put under the juris-
diction of Leontius, a prelate of Drastar. On
a seal discovered in Silistra (Fig. 87) we can
read: Leontios, monk and bishop of Dristra and
in a record of the Synode of the Constantino-
ple Patriarchate from November 6, 1071, he
signed as: Leontios, metropolitan bishop of Dris-
tra (Атанасов, Г. 2007:250–259). It is assumed
that during the leadership of Leontios after
Fig. 88. Seal of Christophoros, Mitropolit Dristra the Schism of 1054, and the changes that came
in the Byzantine Church, Drastar was raised
from bishopric to a metropolitan bishopric.
Paristrion at the end of the 11th c., Drastar de- The successor of Leontios was probably the
cayed for a while but it rose again at the end metropolitan bishop Christophoros, known
of the 12th c. This is conirmed by the multi- from a few seals (Fig. 88) and a record of the
ple archaeological monuments (in particular Patriarchate of Constantinople from AD 1082.
I should mention the bulls of Byzantine dig- The position of Dristra as a metropolitan bish-
nitaries and governors of Drustar and the re- opric at the end of the 11th and the beginning
gion – Figs 84-86) and literary sources. This of the 12th c. is recorded in two eparchial lists.
is what the Arabian traveller Idrisi wrote Especially detailed are the sources about the
about Drustar in 1153: This is a city with vast work of the metropolitan bishop of Dorostol
areas, with crowded markets, plenty of resources named Leo Chrisianit, enthroned around AD
for living, with marvellous buildings and perfect 1145 and the head of the eparchy until the 70s
houses. (Кендерова, Б. Бешевлиев 1990:91; of the 12th c. From his correspondence with the
Коновалова, И. 1981:151–153) famous metropolitan intellectual John Tzez-
562
Fig. 89. Inscription aftVIII about reconstructions of the cathedral temple in Drastar
es, and from records of the Synode of Con- the 10th – the irst half of the 11th c. have been
stantinople, we learn interesting details about recorded (Ангелова, Ст. 1988:42–43; 1993:52-
religious life in Drastar (Dristra) and the epar- 54). The situation with the invasion of the Pech-
chy. At his time the metropolitan bishopric of enegs was particularly dramatic; they resided
Drastar obtained ive bishops – sufragants in even in the rooms of the prelatic residence and
some of the biggest cities such as Păcuiul lui they dug ireplaces even in the stone loors. In
Soare, Axiopolis (Cherna voda), Isaccea, Nu- fact, around the mid-11th c. the western half of
faru, Varna etc. (Атанасов, Г. 2007:250–259). the residence stopped functioning and it was
After the fall of Drastar under Byzantine reduced to the premises in front of its central
rule and especially after the year 1000, cardi- entrance. At that time the royal residence and
nal changes took place in the urban agglom- the baths were destroyed and stopped func-
eration. By the end of the 10th c. the fortiied tioning; dwellings from the 11th c. were also
territory of the Danubian fortress had been built inside the baths. In general, there is evi-
built-up with imposing structures such as the dence that the entire fortiied territory of the
royal residence with the baths and the patri- Danubian fortress was densely populated by
arch’s temple with the patriarch’s residence. the end of the 10th c. and especially after the
There are no traces of frame-built structures beginning of the 11th c.
with materials from the 10th c.; this suggests Besides the great amount of potery, inds
that Drastar was still “an isolated city”, a cita- and coins from this age, across its entire ter-
del intended for civil and ecclesiastical admin- ritory this is illustrated by the excavations
istration and the nobility. At the end of the 10th of 2006 over an area of about 16,000 sq. m at
c., and especially after the Pecheneg invasion the central part around the pagan sanctuary
of AD 1036, this picture changed drastically. (Kirilov, Ch., R. Koleva 2008:29-35) (Figs 42,
In the explored areas in and around the resi- 65, 91 – 9). That is where a series of dwellings
dence of the patriarch, the royal palace (The and pits with materials from the 11th c. were
Glorious Home on the Danube), the baths and documented. Dwellings with coins and pot-
the southern defensive wall, dozens of pits tery from the 11th c. were also revealed by the
with potery, inds and coins from the end of southern defensive wall (Атанасов 2009:435),
563
which suggests changes in the urban agglom- peror Alexios I Komnenos (Annae Comninae,
eration. Moreover, besides the dense popula- 1884:234-236 = ГИБИ, VІІІ, 1971:60–61). On
tion in the fortress, an urban necropolis has the occasion of her father’s campaign against
been recorded inside it, around the cathe- Drastar in 1087, as a well informed contem-
dral church, where hundreds of graves from porary of the events, she wrote that the city of
the 11th-14th c. have been excavated. Another Drastar had two citadels situated on two hills,
large necropolis has been explored in front of or acropolises as she calls them. Already sug-
the southern defensive wall (Ангелова, Ст. gested by arguments of a topographical and
1993:64). archaeological nature, it has been established
It is clear that during the constant barbar- that one of these fortiied acropolises is the dis-
ian invasions throughout the entire 11th-12th cussed fortress on the Danubian bank, and the
c. the population preferred to live inside the second acropolis is located at the site where
fortiied area rather than in the lower town. A during the 2nd-6th c. the fortiied camp of legio
great proportion of the inhabitants of the re- XI Claudia lay (Fig. 1). One is left with the im-
gion deserted the unfortiied setlements at the pression by the context that the regarded forti-
end of the 10th c. and the fortresses in AD 1036, ied acropolises were not large, but were well
obviously looking for reliable shelter behind fortiied, because even the elite imperial army
the thick walls of Drastar – the best fortiied could not capture them.
Danubian fortress. At the end of the 11th c., af-
ter the campaign of Alexios I against Drastar, VІ/5. T h e F o r t r e s s o f D r a s t a r
a serious crisis has been recorded; it is visible during the Age of the Second
in the drastic reduction of monetary circula- Bulgarian Kingdom
tion in the 12th c. (Ангелова, Ст. 1993а:52–57). and the Despotate of Dobrudzha
The cathedral domed basilica on the bank of
the Danube deserves special atention. Thanks After the war of liberation of Petar and
to an inscription (Fig. 89) and the results of the Asen in 1185-1188, Drastar occupied the rank
archaeological research, it has become clear that it deserved as a centre of military, political,
during the rule of Basil II (after the year 1000 or administrative, economic and spiritual life
in 1020) it was restored, painted and re-sancti- in Dobrudzha during the age of the Second
ied as an Episcopal temple of the Byzantine Bulgarian Kingdom (Мутафчиев, П. 1973:86–
prelates (Ангелова, Ст. 2002:14–16; Атанасов, 100) (Figs 90, 91). The important political
Г. 2007:268–271). Severe destruction has been events on the Balkans at the end of the 12th c.
documented during the Pecheneg invasions in and the irst half of the 13th c. took place be-
1036 and 1048 when the residence west of the yond the area of the Lower Danube, and that
temple (especially its western half) was left in is why the city rarely entered the annals of the
ruins, and the temple endured serious damage. chroniclers of the time. According to the ar-
After the mid-11th c. the temple and the eastern chaeological surveys, Drastar and the nearby
section of the residence (exactly in front of the fortresses endured severe destruction during
central entrance of the church) were restored, the Tartar invasion of 1242 (Atanasov, G., Pl.
and continued to be used. Evidence of that is Pavlov 1995:239-241). Over the next decades,
the bishop’s burial from the second half of the however, the city was restored and the fortress
11th c. in front of the holy gates of the altar bar- was strengthened. According to the Byzantine
rier (Angelova, S., G. Prinzing 2002:726-732 chroniclers Pachymeres and Manuel Philes, in
and corrections: Атанасов, Г. 2007:158–161, AD 1279 the Bulgarian Tsar Ivaylo (1277-1280)
271) (Figs 71, 73, 74). kept his army safe behind the thick walls of
Another important source about the citadel Pristria (Dristria – Drastar), and from here
of Drastar on the Danubian bank is the Byzan- he undertook a successful campaign against
tine writer Anna Komnene, daughter of Em- the Tartars and Byzantines (Божилов, Ив., В.
564
Fig. 90. The fortress of Drastar according to the Chronicle of Manasses from the 14th c.
Гюзелев 2004:203–204). There are serious rea- Tsar of Tarnovo – Ivan Alexander a lot in his
sons to assume that before he was dethroned atempts to liberate his son, the Tsar of Vidin
in AD 1292, the Bulgarian Tsar Georgy Terter – Ivan Sratsimir, from Hungarian captivity,
I (1280-1292) had proclaimed his son Theo- and to reinstate Vidin to Bulgarian control.
dore Svetoslav as Despot of Drastar (Diaco- In 1369-1370 Ivan Alexander handed Drastar
nu, Р. 1995:242-256). Here he minted emis- and the surrounding fortresses to the Des-
sions of copper coins with his portrait (Fig. pot Dobrotitsa. He established as governor of
92). From Drastar, in 1299, Theodore Sveto- the city and the region his son Terter. There
slav headed for Tarnovo in order to occupy are no reasons to think that after he was sta-
his royal throne. The relations between the tioned at Drastar in 1370 Terter started to act
noble Bulgarian-Tartar family of the Terters independently from his father Dobrotitsa. He
with Drastar is conirmed by the fact that the knew that Drastar, and in particular the nobil-
nearby city of Tutrakan (former Transmarisca) ity and clergy of Drastar, had the conidence
was named after it (Terter-Khan), and that the to emancipate local leaders who would main-
distant relative of Theodore Svetoslav, Terter tain a policy independent from the central
(John – Ivanko ?) established himself as gover- government (Атанасов, Г. 2009а:133–142).
nor of Drustar around AD 1371 (Атанасов, Г. The fact that at the mint of Drastar his father’s
2009a:26–28, 133–142). This happened peace- coins were minted, including the engraved ti-
fully after successful diplomatic maneuvers tle Δ(εσπότου) (Despot) and the monogram
between 1366 and 1370 by his father, the Des- Іω(αν) Τ(ομπροτίτζα) (Joan Tomprotitsa
pot of Kaliakra – Dobrotitsa. He helped the = Dobrotitsa) (Fig. 93), is indicative enough
565
R
VE
E RI
B
NU
DA
Fig. 91. Plan of the fortress of Drastar in the 14th c.: 1. Eastern gate; 2. Southern gate; 3. Northern defen-
sive wall; 4. Southern wall; 5. Cathedral temple; 6. Metropolitan residence; 7. Harbour; 8. Local church
from the end of the 13th-14th c.; 9. Residential quarter with houses inhabited actively in the 11th-14th c.
566
(Атанасов, Г. 2009a:288–290; Атанасов, Г.

2010а:61–65).
However, a conlict broke out at the end
of 1376 when, according to the Mesamvrian
Chronicle and a short Byzantine chronicle (No
22), in Drastar Terter killed his brother-in-law
Michael Palaiologos. In the course of these
Fig. 92. Coin of Theodore Svetoslav minted in
events, with suicient international support
Drastar before 1299
and strong positions, Terter (Joan?) probably
separated Drastar from the Despotate of Dob-
rudzha and declared himself gospodin (Fig.
94). A manifestation of that is his own coin-
age (Атанасов, Г. 2009a:281–302 Атанасов,
Г. 2010а:66–68). On his emissions with a two-
headed eagle, we see his own monogram ΤΕ/Ρ/
ΤΕ/Ρ/Ι (Fig. 95) or an inscription +АΦΝΤΟΥ
ΤΕΡΤΕΡΙ (Of gospodin Terter) (Fig. 96).
The territory of the Feudal Principality of
Drastar covered the area along the Danube
from Tutrakan to Cherna Voda (Axiopolis),
Fig. 93. Coin of Despot Dobrotitsa minted in
including the fortresses of Vetren, Păcuiul lui Drastar after 1370
Soare, Garvan, and the surrounding setle-
ments of the type Kokoni. To the south, west,
north-east and south-east, a vast uninhabited under the scepter of Tsar Ivan Shishman. The
territory extended, separating the Principal- numerous coins of Shishman (Fig. 98), sug-
ity of the Tarter (Joan?) from the centres of the gest that he rulled Drastar long enough after
Kingdom of Tarnovo, as well as from the Dan- 1376. (Атанасов, Г. 2009a: 297-299; Атанасов,
ubian Delta and from the inhabited territory Г. 2010а:70-71)
of the Despotate of Dobrudzha. This relative If we accept the idea that Terter (Joan?) is
isolation to a great extent advanced the sepa- identical with Dobrotitsa’s son – Ivanko, and
ratism of Terter from the Kingdom of Tarnovo as it is known that the later succeeded him at
and his father Dobrotitsa’s Despotate. Still, in the end of 1385-1386, it seems that this is the
order to keep his independence with his lim-
ited resources, he needed a strong patron with
an actual presence in the region. Judging by
the countermarks on his own coins which were
minted after AD 1376 in Drastar with a dou-
ble-headed eagle and monogram Т/Е/Р/ТЕ/Р
(Fig. 97), that probably was the strong Tartar
Emir Kutlubuga (Атанасов, Г. 2009a:291–285;
Атанасов, Г. 2010а:66–68, обр. 5).
The question remains open when and un-
der what circumstances Terter (Joan?) was
forced to surrender Drastar to Ivan Shishman.
We know for sure that in 1388, on the eve of its
fall under Otoman rule, Drastar was within Fig. 94. Seal with a double-headed eagle of Terter,
the borders of the Kingdom of Tarnovo – i.e. ruler of Drastar after 1370
567
date when Terter deserted Drastar and estab-

lished himself at Kaliakra. It is even unclear
whether forcibly, by some treaty, or voluntar-
ily, he yielded Drastar to the Bulgarian Tsar.
Bearing in mind that as early as 1388 Drastar
fell under Otoman rule, and afterwards it was
within the borders of Wallachia, then it is not
Fig. 95. Coin of Terter, ruler of Drastar, minted af-
likely that such a large amount of the coinage
ter 1374/5
of Ivan Shishman should be represented for
these two years. That is why it is not impos-
sible that, against the background of bad re-
lations between Dobrotitsa and Terter (Joan?)
after 1376, on one hand, and the permanent
tension between Dobrotitsa and Ivan Shish-
man, on the other hand, the axiom “the ene-
my of my enemy is not my enemy” was put in
motion. In this respect, it is logical that Dobro-
titsa’s opponents – the Tsar of Tarnovo and the
Feudal of Drastar – should have established
contacts.
The conlict between Tarnovo and Drastar
Fig. 96. Silver coin of Terter minted in Drastar obviously did not start until 1384. Perhaps at
that time the Tsar of Tarnovo purposefully ini-
tiated a policy toward restoration of the status
quo from 1370, which included the restoration
of the power of Tarnovo over Drastar. As a re-
sult, it is possible that coins of Ivan Shishman
spread in Drastar in the region between 1376
and 1384, and especially intensely between
1386 and 1388 г. (Атанасов, Г. Атанасов,
2009a:299; Атанасов, Г. 2010а:71). However,
very soon afterwards, cornered by the Turkish
Emir Murad, according to the clauses of the
Peace Treaty of Yambol from 1388, Tsar Ivan
Fig. 97. Copper coin of Terter with countermarks Shishman (1371-1396) yielded the fortress of
Drastar to the Otoman Turks. Before this de-
cision, the Byzantine chronicler Leunklavius
atributes the following words to the Bulgari-
an ruler: Silistra outdoes all my cities by its size as
well as by the splendour of its buildings, the wealth
of the citizens and its fortress, which is the best and
the most famous one (Leunklavius, J. 1591:273-
274). In this source the Otoman-Turkish name
of the city – Silistra – is mentioned for the irst
time; it is actually a transcription of the Old
Bulgarian and Greek names of the city – Dor-
ostol – Drastar – Dristra – Teristria. According
Fig. 98. Coins of Tsar Ivan Shishman from Drastar to the chronicler Hussein, Emir Murad was
568
Fig. 99. The cathedral of Drastar in the 14th c. Archaeological plan after
S. Angelova, reconstruction after G. Atanasov and S. Doncheva
After the war of liberation of the Asenevtsi

in 1185-1188, the territory of the Metropoli-
tan Bishopric of Dorostol, which covered the
entire area of north-eastern Bulgaria and ex-
tended to the area of the Yantra River at that
time, was gradually reduced with the foun-
dation of Metropolitan chairs at Preslav (the
end of the 12th c.), Vichina (the mid-13th c.) and
Varna (after AD 1321). Obviously, until 1235,
when Bulgaria was oicially in a Union with
the Roman Church, the Metropolitan Bishop
of Drastar did not become Uniate and was for-
mally subordinate to the Patriarch of Constan-
tinople (Атанасов, Г. 2007:231–235). After the
recognition of the independent Bulgarian Pa-
triarchate at the Council of Lapseki in 1235, the
Metropolitan Bishopric of Drastar entered de
jure into its framework. Thanks to the Synodi-
con, we know the names of the prelates from
1235 to the end of the 14th c. – Kiril, Averkiy,
Teodul, Yosif, Dionikiy and Kalinik. They are
complemented by the name of Zahariy, who
took part in the Council against the heretics in
Tarnovo in 1360 (Атанасов, Г. 2007:326–328).
Political events at the Despotate of Dobrud-
zha in 1368-1369 relected the fate of Drastar
pleased with an acquisition such as Silistra, and the Metropolitan Bishopric of Dorostol. It
and ordered the Grand Vizir Ali Pasha him- has already been discussed how, in exchange
self: Rule it, establish yourself there (Мутафчиев, for political support which he received from
П. 1973:96–98; Атанасов, Г. 2009a:191–195). the Despot Dobrotitsa, the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan
569
Fig. 100. Sgraito vessels from Drastar and Păcuiul lui Soare with two-headed eagles – emblem of Terter
Alexander ceded Drastar to him. As a result practice widespread in Byzantium during the
of that, Dobrotitsa’s son (Ivanko – Joan?) Ter- 14th c. We know this from a decision of the Syn-
ter setled here (Атанасов, Г. 2009а:80–150). od of Constantinople from July 24, 1370, which
These changes led to the addition of the Dan- forbids the Bishop of Varna from ascending
ubian city to the diocese of the Metropolitan the holy synthrone in Drastar. Obviously, af-
Bishop of Varna. This is illustrated by two lists ter Terter (if he is identical with Ivanko) suc-
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from ceeded Dobrotitsa or he was banished, or he
1370, where Drastar is listed among the for- died, about AD 1385, the city once again fell
tresses administrated by the prelate of Varna within the borders of the Kingdom of Tarno-
(Атанасов, Г. 2007:328–336). The Eparchy of vo. After this change, it seems that the met-
Drastar, however, was not abolished, but was ropolitan throne was restored and once again
temporarily put under the control of Varna – a made subordinate to the Bulgarian Patriarch.
Fig. 101. Golden open-work earrings, discovered in graves of two ladies in the cathedral temple; the
women were relatives of Terter; the monograms T/e/R/te/R and double-headed eagles known from his
coins are engraved on the earrings
570
With the inal closure of the Patriarchate of temple was restored and by its northern façade
Tarnovo and its reduction in rank to Bishopric a belltower was built (Fig. 99). (Ангелова, Ст.
around 1417, Drastar must have been placed 2002:16; Атанасов, Г. 2007:341–343). It is a large
under the control of the Patriarchate of Con- square structure (exterior dimensions around
stantinople (Атанасов, Г. 2007:333–336). 7 × 7 m) with solid walls, about 1.50 m thick,
Throughout the entire era of the Second Bul- which by its level, stratigraphy and building
garian Kingdom, the old cathedral temple on technique (of polished stones with piles and
the bank of the Danube continued to function wooden props), is dated no earlier than the
(Атанасов, Г. 2007: 341–344). During the great 13th c. The numerous inds and coins also tes-
Tartar invasion in 1242, the city was destroyed tify to the intense use of the temple during the
and also the cathedral church. This is illustrat- 13th c. By analogue with the patriarch’s cathe-
ed by the burnt stratum over the loor, dated dral in Tsarevgrad Tarnov, the cathedral tem-
by coins and a coin hoard (mostly of Latin ple in Melnik, and church No 4 in the fortress
and Bulgarian imitations) from the mid-13th c. of Shumen, we assume that this is a bell-tower.
Shortly afterwards the loor was removed, the The thick walls founded on piles indeed sug-
gest a high building. At the same time, the the
exterior measurements (around 5 × 5 m) allow
the development of a staircase of the “snail”
type to the upper loors. In fact, it has already
been noticed that during the 13th-14th c. the bel-
fry became an obligatory element especially
for the architecture of the Episcopal temples
and catholicons of the big monasteries.
In the 14th c. around the church, and in par-
ticular in the diaconicon, burials of the nobil-
ity of Drastar with rich golden and silver jew-
ellery were performed (Fig. 99). Impressive
with their Constantinople-style workmanship
of 23 carats are the golden open-work earrings
of two ladies, relatives of Terter, on which the
already famous from his coins monogram Т(е)
Fig. 102. Belt with gilt appliqués discovered in a grave of an eminent nobleman next to the cathedral of
Drastar
571
Plan
Section A–A1
Fig. 103. Local church in Drastar from the second half of the 13th-
14th c. Plan from the archives of RHM – Silistra
Р(те)Р and a double-headed eagle30 are en- (Fig. 102) (Atanasov, G. 2011:87-98). On anoth-
graved (Fig. 101). (Ангелова, Ст. 2002а:593– er belt, discovered again in a grave next to the
398). A curious ind is also the belt with gold- temple, the inscription ALDOM(ir) is found.
plated appliqués, discovered in the grave of The ruins of the old patriarchal and Episco-
an eminent nobleman by the cathedral church pal residence in front of the western façade of
30
Similar eagles are depicted on ceramic vessels from Drastar and Pacuiul lui Soare (Fig. 101).
572
Plan reconstruction Perspective North-East
Fig. 104. Reconstruction of the cathedral church in Drastar from the second half of the 13th-14th c. after
G. Atanasov and S. Doncheva
the church were levelled after 1242. In this lo- struction has been set after the Tartar invasion
cation an imposing two-section building was of 1242. It belongs to the type of cruciform
raised; it has been identiied with the new met- churches with a tight cross without a narthex,
ropolitan residence (Атанасов, Г. 2007:342) with a length of 6.50 m and widths of 5.30 m.
(Figs 91-98). Against this background, the as- The apse is tricuspid from the outside and
sumption cannot be accepted that the church semi-round from the inside, with a diameter
lost its position of a cathedral temple and be- of 1.70 m, and on both sides semi-round pro-
came an ordinary local church. Indeed, the thesis and diaconicon niches are formed (Figs
ancient canon law ordains that the Episcopal 103, 104). The masonry is of small limestone
residence must be in the immediate vicinity of blocks on mortar welding, and for vertical and
the cathedral temple. horizontal levelling, and often for framing,
After the Tartar invasion of 1242, the city was bricks are also used. The walls are about 0.85-
built anew, and facilities with stone plinths 0.90 m thick and foundations are at a depth
and stone basements have been documented of about 0.50 m. This suggests a monolithi-
inside the citadel as well as to the south of it. cally constructed ceiling which could support
Approximately in the centre of the fortress a dome through a cupola drum. Its size has
of Drastar, not far from the eastern gate, an- been determined thanks to the four inner pi-
other small church was raised (Атанасов, Г. lasters with a length of 1.00 m and thickness
2007:344–347). According to the stratigraphic of 0.55 m, enclosing a cupola square where a
observations in this area of Drastar, its con- circle with a diameter of 1.70 m is inscribed.
573
VІ/6. T h e D a n u b i a n F o r t r e s s Sultan Mehmed I defeated his enemies on the

of Drastar – Silistra during Balkans and arrived on the bank of the Dan-
Ottoman Rule ube. This forced Mircea the Elder to accept
complete vassalage and to yield Silistra and
After 1388 an eventful age followed, and Danubian Dobrudzha to the sultan once and
it was natural that Drastar – Dristria – Silis- for all (Атанасов, Г. 2009а: 202–207).
tra was always in the eye of the late medi- In 1425 the united Christian army under
eval chroniclers (Атанасов, Г. 2009a:183 f.). the command of Sigismund and with the ac-
After the conclusion of the Peace Treaty of tive participation of the Wallachian Voivode
Yambol in the fall of 1388, the Grand Vizir Dan II (1423-1437), the famous knight Pippo
Ali Pasha headed for Drastar. However, at Spano the Florentine, and the Bulgarian Tsar
the same time, Tsar Ivan Shishman realized in exile Fruzhin (son of Tsar Ivan Shishman),
what a military-strategic and psychologial managed to defeat an Otoman army of 40,000
loss the city would be to his kingdom, and men at the ield between Eristria (Silistra) and
thus he hurried to fortify Drastar, and refused Vitrini (Vetren) and were temporarily sta-
to yield it to the Grand Vizir. The answer of tioned at Silistra and the surrounding fortress-
the Otoman army was to seize the surround- es of Vitrini and Gravitini (Garvan) (Kuzev,
ing fortiications, among which was the im- Al. 1987:127). Sultan Murad II himself led an
portant fortress of Tutrakan. In the end Ivan ofensive against them and Fruzhin and Dan
Shishman was forced to surrender once again II withdrew to the west. In 1445, the Venetian-
and voluntarily handed over Drastar to Ali Burgundy leet of the famous knight and mili-
Pasha. An Otoman garrison was stationed tary commander Valerie de Wavrin arrived
at the fortress led by the military command- before Silistra; he was in an alliance with the
er Timurtashogly Yahshu Bei (Атанасов, Г. Wallachian Voivode Vlad Dracul. Despite the
2009а:190–193). unquestionable experience he had acquired
Taking advantage of the problems of Baye- in besieging fortresses and his great poten-
zid I in Asia Minor, after the batle at Kosovo tial, Wavrin did not try to atack the fortress
Pole in 1389 the Wallachian Voivode Mircea of Silistra because his scouts had reported
the Elder temporarily captured Drastar (Fig. the mighty defensive system and the strong
105), but with the appearance of the Otoman garrison (Wavrin, J. 1927:52-53; Цветкова, Б.
army in 1391 he abandoned it. The citizens 1975:66–67; Кузев, Ал. 1981:192). There were
of Drastar decided that they could not resist severe consequences for the city during the
the superior forces of the enemy on their own campaign of the Wallachian Voivode Vlad IV
and entered into negotiations with represent- (1456-1462). In 1461 he invaded Dobrudzha
atives of Sultan Bayezid. An agreement was along the frozen Danube and seized Silistra,
reached that they would open the gates of Vetren and the neighbouring setlements and
the fortress, and withdraw towards Tarnovo randomly killed about 7,000 Bulgarians and
under guard of a Turkish armed detachment. Turks (Божилов, Ив., В. Гюзелев 2004:266).
However, the Turkish commander pro- A new campaign towards Silistra in 1595
voked a conlict during which the unarmed was undertaken by the Wallachian Voivode
Bulgarians were slaughtered (Мутафчиев, Michael Viteazul (the Brave, TN) who cap-
П. 1973:99–100). After the great defeat of the tured Silistra, but could not take possession
Otomans at Ankara in 1402, anarchy reigned of the citadel (das Kastell) (Hurmozaci, Е.
in the Balkan provinces of the Empire. Tak- 1880:231; Кузев, Ал. 1969:144–147; Кузев, Ал.
ing advantage of the situation, the Wallachian 1981:193). Obviously, the citadel was much
Voivode Mircea the Elder once again seized smaller than the city, but also heavily forti-
Drastar and the surrounding Danubian for- ied. However, it becomes clear from anoth-
tiications. At the beginning of the year 1417, er record that Viteazul managed to seize the
574
Fig. 105. Inscription of Mircea the Elder from Drastar
citadel of Silistra which had never been captured erary sources, even though scanty, testify to
before (Кузев, Ал. 1969:146–147; Кузев, Ал. the existence of spiritual and cultural life in
1981:193; Липчев, Р. 1991:66–67). The con- the Bulgarian society of Silistra during the 17th
temporary of these events, Balthasar Walther, c. – the beginning of the 18th c. The Eparchy of
remarks that: Derstor (across the West that is a Dorostol played a certain part in that; it con-
popular medieval form of the name of Drustar) is tinued the medieval Christian traditions and
the seat of a baglerbeg and it is a big splendid city, practices. At the beginning of the 15th c., the
famous for its trade and its fortiications (Кузев, eparchy was led by Metropolitan Bishop Ka-
Ал. 1969:146). It is assumed that as early as list who took part in the Council of Florence,
the age of Sultan Murad II (1421-1451) Silis- and signed the Union between the Catholic
tra became the centre of a Sandzhak – a large and Orthodox Churches (Quien, М. 1740:1095-
administrative unit which covered almost the 1096). The names of eighteen bishops of Silis-
entire area of Eastern Bulgaria from the Dan- tra who were primates of the eparchy from the
ube’s Delta to Strandzha (Атанасов, Г. 2009 16th to the mid-19th c. are preserved in literary
а:224–225). By the end of the 16th c., to Silistra sources (История на Добруджа 1988:100–
Sandžak were added the transdanubian con- 103). The activities of Metropolitan Makariy
quests of the Otoman Empire to the Dniester, deserve special atention; at the end of the
and at the beginning of the 16th c. the city be- 17th c. he built the new cathedral church “The
came the capital of a vast eyalet including eight Beheading of John the Baptist” (Атанасов, Г.
sancak and a massive territory – almost the en- 2005:323–325); the work of the Metropolitan
tire area of Moesia, Eastern Thrace, the west- Hieorotey Komnenos is also noteworthy. He
ern and part of the northern Black Sea area is believed to have been a descendent of the
(История на Добруджа 1988:10–13). Byzantine imperial family, and worked as a
Despite that, Silistra retained its Bulgarian writer, translator, theologian and eminent in-
ethnicity because, according to tax records tellectual. Perhaps one of the centres of liter-
from 1570, 633 Christian and 477 Muslim ary activities was the monastery “St. George”
families lived here (Кузев, Ал. 1969:146). Lit- on the nearby outskirts of the city, atested to
575
in records from the 16th-17th c. (История на city on the Danube … located not far from the ru-
Добруджа 1988:105–106). In the second half ins of a wall raised by the Greek emperors in order
of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th c., the to stop the atacks of the barbarian peoples (Mik-
metropolitan bishops of Silistra were given hof, N. 1929:43). Evliya Çelebi gives a com-
exarchic rights over the entire area of North- paratively detailed description of the same
ern Bulgaria, Wallachia and Moldova, which fortiication: It is a strong fortress in the shape
raised the authority of the city as an ecclesias- of a bow; it lies on the Danubian bank and is built
tical centre. of ashlars. Comparing it to a bow, the thread (bow
Indeed, the majority of bishops were Greek, string) is located on the Danubian bank and at the
but the rank of Silistra as a leading Christian two ends strong towers face the Danube… From
centre emancipated the Bulgarian Christians. inland (to the south) the fortress can be compared
This is illustrated by the biography of the in- with the round part of a bow (the arch). It is built
tellectual born in Silistra, theologian and irst of large stones and has a big broad moat through
Bulgarian worldly writer Parteniy Pavlovich which the Danube River lows, lowing from the
(История на Добруджа 1988:110–112). He re- western side and coming out from the eastern one.
ceived his elementary education in his home- There are eleven strong towers and ive hundred
town at the beginning of the 18th c. Here, as he pinnacles with two rows of loopholes each. It has
himself writes, teachers from Constantinople two doors, of which one is small and is located on
were invited to teach at the local school. This the western side, by the Danube; it usually re-
indicates the authority of the city as a Chris- mains locked. Through it one can go down by the
tian spiritual and educational centre during two stone steps to the Danube. The other door is
the 17th c. At the end of the 18th – the begin- located on the southern wall and opens toward the
ning of the 19th c. Silistra was the main thea- city. It is double, iron and very strong. This door is
tre of the Russian-Turkish wars of 1768-1774, located at the botom of the bow-like wall. Over the
1806-1812, 1829-1830. The city was assaulted moat there is a wooden bridge by which one enters
iercely by the Russian army in 1774 and cap- the fortress. Every evening the soldiers from the
tured in 1810 and 1829, with all the resulting garrison lift the bridge with pulleys and close the
consequences. door. Then the fortress becomes a peculiar Danu-
Valuable information about the fortress of bian island. The height of the fortress is 80 arshins
Silistra during the Otoman age is provided (about 60 m!?). The fortress is strong but small; its
by two Polish travelers from 1636 and 1640 whole circle is exactly 770 heroic steps and if one
(Кесяков, Х. 1886:64; 1887:343). One of them makes ordinary steps, it measures 1000 steps. The
writes that the city had just one stone-built fortress is really splendid (Гаджанов, Д. 1909:
castellum on the bank of the Danube, while 660–664).31 Just about a decade later, a simi-
the second one writes about the fort of Silistra, lar but much shorter description was given by
once raised by the Greeks (obviously meaning an unknown Russian traveller: “…the city of
Byzantium) and a palace inside this fort. The Silistra. There is a small stone fortress there. It is
term castellum used by both authors deinitely located by the Danube on a high bank…” (Руски
suggests it was not large. The connection of пътеписи 1986:14). In another Russian source,
the fortress with the Byzantine building tradi- a print of Silistra at the time of the siege of
tion is mentioned by A. Büsching, who visited the city by General Rumyantsev in 1773 (Fig.
the city in 1760: Silistra … a large and fortiied 106), a small stone castellum is clearly visible
31
A description of the exterior defensive line follows; it protects the entire city (varosha) and is the
subject of atention of many other authors from the 17th to the mid-19th c. (Липчев, Р. 1991:66–75). How-
ever, it is not the topic of our study because its foundation was not initiated until the end of the 16th c.,
perhaps after the devastations caused to the citadel by Michael the Brave in 1595.
576
Fig. 106. The Danubian fortress of Silistra according to a Russian print from the end of the 18th c.
on the river bank with at least four turns in (both were painted approximately from the
the northern stone wall, which has pinnacles same angle – around the island toward the for-
and towers at the corners. Its area looks in- tress), the fortiication by the river is missing.
signiicant against the overall background of However, a few fragments of the destroyed
the city. This is conirmed in a plan of Silistra wall at the north-western corner are depicted
from 1774 kept at the Library of Vienna; Fe- (Fig. 108). In contrast to that it can be seen that
lix Kaniz has writen about it. In his opinion, the territory of the citadel is occupied by just
the fortress (or castle, as it is described), had a few buildings and vast empty areas which
a polygonal shape (Kaniz, F. 1882:267). The impress against the background of the city.32
design of this fortress is also polygonal after a Following these sources, a few essential
plan made by a Russian cartographer during conclusions may be reached. Against this
the sieges of the city in 1809, 1810 and 1811. background, a correlation with the evidence
There, on the river bank, a polygonal citadel from the archaeological surveys from the last
is depicted with an area of only about 5% of four decades is enabled.
the entire territory of the city (Fig. 107). At A. The fortress was actually on the Danu-
the same time it was described by the Russian bian bank.
General Lanjeron on the occasion of the siege B. Its dimensions were small, only 5 hec-
of Silistra in 1809: “In the interior of the city, tares. The circumference from the eastern to
on the bank of the Danube, there is a stone castle the western Danubian bank along the wall
or citadel, litle suitable for long defense” (Hur- was 670 m, which almost coincides with 1000
mozaci, Е. 1889:238-239; Кузев, Ал. 1969:149; steps (by standard a pedestrian step is 70 cm),
Кузев, Ал. 1981:193). In the next year, 1810, equal to 700 m after Evliya Çelebi. Even the
during a new siege, the Russians blew the am- number of the pinnacles coincides – Evliya
munition dump up and it destroyed one of the Çelebi writes about 500 and, according to the
walls of the citadel, and at the atack on May reconstruction made, along the established
6, 1811 Silistra was seized and the fortress was medieval layout there were 480.33
blown up (Петров, А. 1887:47-52, 139–140). C. The fortress undoubtedly had many tow-
It is assumed that at that time the citadel was ers. Evliya Çelebi claims that during the 17th c.
completely destroyed. Indeed, on an engrav- there were 11 and, according to the archaeo-
ing from 1826, unlike in the print from 1773 logical reconstruction of the castellum from
32
By the way, from Evliya Çelebi’s description one is left with the impression that the citadel was
sparsely built-up – a small mosque by the main gate, a donjon, an ammunition depot, a food storage
facility and a barracks with twenty rooms for soldiers.
33
The reconstruction was made on the basis of the tops of turrets discovered by excavations, with a
width of 0.75 m (Ангелова, Ст. 1973:92, обр. 13).
577
Fig. 107. Plan of the fortress of Silistra and the castellum on the Danubian bank in accordance with a
Russian record from the beginning of the 19th c.
the 6th c., there were 16. It is not impossible city centre with public buildings constructed
that between the 7th and the 16th c. some tow- between 1880 and 1962 when there were no
ers were destroyed and that the reconstruction observations by well qualiied archaeologists,
of the layout in the 6th c. at the eastern section lies here. However, it is signiicant that such a
is still valid. moat is mentioned independently by Skyliz-
D. According to the chroniclers, an ex- es on the occasion of events from the end of
tremely strong fortress is concerned. The for- the 10th c., and Evliya Çelebi in the mid-17th c.
tress studied archaeologically is actually very and it is marked on maps from the 19th c. The
strong and hard to seize with foundations statement that it was dug in one night by or-
about 3.00 m, thickness of the walls of 3.60 der of Knyaz Svetoslav in 971 is exaggerated.
m (along the bank they are 4.20 m thick), in- It is more likely that an earlier moat around
dented layout in the system W – M, with large the fortress was cleaned out, but when exact-
pentagonal and triangular towers. ly it was dug is still hard to establish without
E. The fortress really had a polygonal de- archaeological surveys. It is noteworthy that
sign, if it is observed in detail, but viewed almost all Old Bulgarian earthen fortiica-
from a distance it may have looked like the tions from the 9th c. and stone fortresses from
arc of a bow. the beginning of the 10th c. in Dobrudzha and
F. While the moat of the outer fortress from North-eastern Bulgaria have moats. That is
the 18th-19th c. has been established by rescue why I assume that with the restoration of the
archaeological excavations, a moat in front of fortress of Drastar at the beginning of the 9th
the citadel has not been registered so far, be- c. under Khan Omurtag or not later than the
cause excavations have not been undertaken time of its reinforcement under Tsar Simeon
in this part of the city. The densely built-up on the occasion of the wars against the Mag-
578
Fig. 108. Silistra according to a print from 1826
yars, a moat was dug around it, reused later H. It has been established by archaeologi-
by Knyaz Svetoslav and periodically cleaned cal surveys that the northern wall along the
throughout the Late Middle Ages so it could Danube makes small turns, following the lie
be preserved until the beginning of the 19th c. of the land (at the revealed section there are
G. According to the archaeological surveys, three turns for certain), which give the op-
the interior of the citadel was sparsely built- portunity to shelter ships at a special wharf.
up during Late Antiquity, at the time of the Such was archaeologically recorded in 1970
First Bulgarian Kingdom as well as during the and 2011 between the second and the third
Late Middle Ages. Indeed, there is litle trace turns of the wall from west to east (Figs 51,
of buildings by the Danube, in the centre and 65-67, 91-97). A small door toward the har-
by the southern wall from the 6th c. During bour, which is mentioned by Evliya Çelebi,
the pagan era, after the beginning of the 9th c., was actually situated on the wall from the 4th
a three-section palace on the river bank with c. as well as on that from the 6th c., but it was
small three-section baths and a pagan sanc- more to the west.
tuary in the centre have been documented so I. The evidence from Leo the Deacon that
far. After Christianization and until the mid- the fortress was built under Constantine the
9th c. the pagan sanctuary was destroyed and Great at the beginning of the 4th c., no mat-
a cathedral church and the patriarch’s palace ter how curious it looks prima facie, is true
west of it were built on the bank. Thus, until to a great extent according to the archaeo-
the end of the 10th c. the citadel of Durostorum logical surveys. Indeed, the irst fortiica-
– Drastar was “an isolated fortress” with lim- tion has been dated to the beginning of the
ited access. It was designed for the local gov- 4th c. and the fortress raised in the 6th c. and
ernor (sometimes even for the ruler himself, as used until the 19th c. in some areas follows
it was established for Khan Omurtag and Tsar the layout of the late-antique fortiication.
Simeon the Great) and the garrison; only un- Greater atention should be paid to the state-
der enemy atacks did it become a refugium, ments of the western travellers who visited
providing shelter to the surrounding popula- the fortress in the 17th-18th c.; they associate it
tion and to greater military contingents. After with the Greek emperors, respectively with
Evliya Çelebi’s description and an engraving Byzantium. Obviously, until then the citadel
from 1826, the situation during the Otoman had preserved characteristic elements and
age was similar. In the 11th, and especially in constructions from the Early Byzantine forti-
the 13th-14th c., the situation was quite difer- ication, and that is why it was recognized as
ent, but that is another subject. a building of the Byzantine emperors.
579
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ангелова, Ст. 1973: Ст. Ангелова. Крепостната стена на Дуросторум – Дръстър – Силистра.
(Предварително съобщение). – Археология, № 3, 1973:83–93.
Ангелова, Ст. 1988: Ст. Ангелова. Археологическото проучване на средновековния Дръстър
(резултати и переспективи). – In: Дуросторум – Дръстър – Силистра. Силистра 1988.
Ангелова, Ст. 1993: Ст. Ангелова. Към топографията на средновековния Дръстър през ХII в. – In:
Приноси към българската археология, 2, София 1993:52–57.
Ангелова, Ст. 1993а: Ст. Ангелова. Средновековен некропол край южната стена на Дръстър
(Силистра). – ГСУ – ИФ, 86, 1993:34–64.
Ангелова, Ст. и др. 1997: Ст. Ангелова и др. Знаци върху канцела на църква № 2 в Дръстър. – In:
Българите в Северното Причерноморие. Т. 6. 1997:64–74.
Ангелова, Ст. 2002: Ст. Ангелова. Разкопки на църква № 2. Археологическо проучване на Дръстър
(14 години по-късно). – Добруджа, 20, 2002:12–39.
Ангелова, Ст. 2002а: Ст. Ангелова. Един тип средновековни обици от Силистра. – In: Πιτύη.
Изследвания в чест на проф. Иван Маразов. София 2002:593–398.
Ангелова, Ст. 2003а: Ст. Ангелова. Отново за локализацията на “преславния дом” на Омуртаг на
Дунав. – In: Studia protobulgarica ej mediaevalia europensia в чест на проф. Веселин Бешевлиев.
София 2003:183–185.
Ангелова, Ст. 2003б: Ст. Ангелова. Етническият състав на населението в ранновизантийския
Доростол през VІ–VІІ в. – In: Studia Archaeologica, I. Сборник в памет на д-р Петър Горбанов.
София 2003:245–251.
Ангелова, Ст. 2007: Ст. Ангелова. Спасителни разкопки на част от крепостната стена на Доростол
– Дръстър. – АОР през 2006 г. София 2007:419–420.
Ангелова, Ст., Р. Колева, Е. Ангелова, Р. Иванова 1997: Ст. Ангелова, Р. Колева, Е. Ангелова,
Р. Иванова. Знаци върху канцела на църква № 2 в Дръстър. – In: Българите в Северното
Причерноморие. Т. 6. 1997:64–74.
Ангелова, Ст., Ив. Бъчваров 2008: Ст. Ангелова, Ив. Бъчваров. Дуросторум през Късната
античност (ІV–VІІ век). – In: (Р. Иванов, ред.) Римски и ранновизантийски селища в България.
Том 3. София 2008:82–101.
Антонова, И. 1963: И. А. Антонова. Западный фланг обороны Херсонеса. – Сообщения
Херсонесского музея, 3. Симферополь 1963:60–67.
Антонова, И. 1990: И. Антонова. Рост территории Херсонеса (по данным изучения
оборонительных стен). – In: Византия и Сопредельный мир. Античная древность и Средние
века. Свердловск 1990:18–27.
Антонова, В., Цв. Дремсизова 1981: В. Антонова, Цв. Дремсизова. Аулът на хан Омуртаг при
Чаталар. София 1981.
Атанасов, Г. 1990: Г. Атанасов. Ранносредновековни рисунки-графити от крайдунавска Добруджа.
– Добруджа, 7, 1990:193–215.
Атанасов, Г. 1992: Г. Атанасов. За датировката, разпространението и семантиката на медальоните
с ΙΥΙ и двоен кръст. – In: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. В чест на професор
Веселин Бешевлиев. Велико Търново 1992:163–172.
Атанасов, Г., Ив. Йорданов 1994: Г. Атанасов, Ив. Йорданов. Средновековният Ветрен на Дунав.
Шумен 1994.
Атанасов, Г. 1996: Г. Атанасов. Етнодемографски и етнокултурни промени по Добруджанското
Черноморие през Средновековието. – ИПр, № 2, 1996: 13–31.
Атанасов, Г. 1999: Г. Атанасов. Инсигниите на средновековните български владетели. Корони,
скиптри, сфери, оръжия, костюми, накити. Плевен 1999
Атанасов, Г. 1999a: Г. Атанасов. Откога започва сеченето на анонимните византийски фолиси клас
В и кога печенегите опустошават Добруджа. – Нумизматични изследвания, № 3–4, 1999:33–53.
580
Атанасов, Г. 2001: Г. Атанасов. Нов поглед към демографските и етнокултурните промени в

Добруджа през Средновековието. – In: Изследвания в чест на чл.-кор. професор Страшимир
Димитров. Studia balcanica, 23, Soia 2001:185-187.
Атанасов, Г. 2004: Г. Атанасов. Тервел – хан на България и кесар на Византия. Силистра 2004.
Атанасов, Г. 2004a: Г. Атанасов. Св. Емилиан Доростолски († 362 г.) – Последният раннохристиянски
мъченик в Мизия. – In: Civitas divino-humana в чест на професор Георги Бакалов. София
2004:203–218.
Атанасов, Г. 2005: Г. Атанасов. За локализацията на късносредновековна църква № 3 и за
датата на спредновековна църква № 1 в Дръстър – Силистра. – In: Българските земи през
Средновековието (VII–ХVIII в.). Международна конференция в чест на 70-годишнината на
проф. Александър Кузев. (= Acta musei Varnaensis, III-2), Варна 2005:323–336.
Атанасов, Г. 2007: Г. Атанасов. Християнският Дуросторум – Дръстър. Доростолската епархия
през Късната античност и Средновековието. История, археология, култура, изкуство. Варна –
Велико Търново 2007.
Атанасов, Г. 2008: Г. Атанасов. Петоъгълна кула № 3 на Дуросторум – Дръстър – Силистра. – АОР
през 2007 г. София 2008:253–256.
Атанасов, Г. 2009: Г. Атанасов. Южната крепостна стена на Дуросторум – Дръстър – Силистра. –
АОР през 2008 г. София 2009:433–435.
Атанасов, Г. 2009а: Г. Атанасов. Добруджанското деспотство (Към политическата, църковната,
стопанската и културната история на Добруджа през ХІV в.). Велико Търново 2009.
Атанасов, Г. и др. 2010: Г. Атанасов. Южната крепостна стена на Дуросторум – Дръстър –
Силистра. – АОР през 2009 г. София 2010:235–237.
Атанасов, Г. 2010a: Г. Атанасов. Монети, монетарници и монетно обращение в Добруджанското
деспотство през втората половина на ХІV век. Част 2. Местни, чужди и български монети. –
Археология, № 1–2, 2010:61–76.
Атанасов, Г., Н. Руссев 2011: Г. Г. Атанасов, Н. Д. Руссев. ОНГЛОС: Первая резиденция болгарских
ханов на Нижнем Дунае и болгарское присутствие севернее Дуная в VІІ–Х в. – В: Болгарский
форум, 1. Материалы международного болгарского Форума 19–21 июня 2010 г., Болгар. Казань,
2011:15–34.
Атанасов, Г. 2011в. Г. Атанасов. Печатите на българските владетели от ІХ–Х в. в Дръстър
(Силистра). – От тука започва България. Шумен 2011:286–293.
Атанасов, Г. 2012: Г. Атанасов. Дръстър (Силистра) и дунавската резиденция на българските
ханове през първата половина на ІХ в. – Археология, № 1, 2012:28–45.
Атанасов, Г. 2012а: Г. Атанасов. Колона с името кан Омуртаг от Дръстър (Силистра). – In: Василка
Герасимова-Томовa. In memoriam. София, 2012: 453–460.
Атанасов, Г. 2012с: Г. Атанасов. Южната крепостна стена на Дуросторум – Дръстър – Силистра.
– АОР през за 2011 г. София 2012:270–272.
Атанасов, Г. 2013: Г. Г. Атанасов. О численности русско-варяжской армии князя Святослава во
время его походов в Болгарию и о битве под Дрыстром в 971 г. – Византийский временник, 72
(97), 2013:69-82.
Атанасов, Г., Кр. Михайлов 2013а: Г. Атанасов, Кр. Михайлов. Нови данни за двореца на хан
Омуртаг в Дръстър (Силистра) (= ˆπέρ5õìïí ûêïíéò ôüí Äáíïˆâçí). – В: Трети международен
конгрес по българистика. София, 2013 (под печат).
Атанасов, Г. 2013b: Г. Атанасов. Римо-византийския кастел на Дуросторум – Доростол върху
Дунавския бряг в Силистра. – Археология, № 1, 2013, с. 52–70.
Атанасов, Г., Сн. Генчева 2008: Г. Атанасов, Сн. Генчева. Народна песен за строителството на
път между Преслав и Дръстър от Симеон Велики. – In: Пътищата в Средновековна България.
Шумен 2008:130–150.
Атанасова, Г. 2009: Г. Атанасова. Монетите на Никифор І Геник (802–811), намерени в България.
– In: Пътуванията в средновековна България, Велико Търново 2009:323–327.
581
Бешевлиев, Г. 1979: В. Бешевлиев. Първобългарски надписи. София 1979.

Бешевлиев, В. 1985: В. Бешевлиев. Мундрага и Тича-Вичина. – ИНМВ, 21, 1985:17–24.
Бобчев, С. 1961: С. Бобчев. Крепостните кули с издаден остър ръб и значението им за укрепването
на античните градове. – ИАИ, 24, 1961: 103–145.
Божилов, Ив. 1983: Ив. Божилов. Цар Симеон Велики (893–927). Златният век на средновековна
България. София 1983.
Божилов, Ив., В. Гюзелев 1999: Ив. Божилов, В. Гюзелев. История на средновековна България
VІІ–ХІV век. София 1999.
Божилов, Ив., В. Гюзелев 2004: Ив. Божилов, В. Гюзелев. История на Добруджа. Том 2, Велико
Търново 2004.
Бъчваров, Ив. Д. Боева, 2005: И. Бъчваров, Д. Боева. Археологически проучвания на обект
„Северна крепостна стена в НИАР „Дуросторум – Дръстър – Силистра”. – АОР през 2004 г.
София 2005:198–199.
Ваклинов, Ст. 1977: Ст. Ваклинов. Формиране на старобългарската култура. София 1977.
Велков, В. 1961: В. Велков, Исторически извори за крепостните кули с издаден връх. – ИАИ, 24,
1961:147–151.
Велков, В. 1988: Античният Дуросторум. – In: Дуросторум – Дръстър – Силистра. Силистра
1988:25–31.
Гаджанов, Д. 1909: Д. Гаджанов. Пътуване на Евлия Челеби из българските земи през средата на
ХVІІ в. – Периодично списание, 70, 1909:658–664.
Георгиев, П. 1980: П. Георгиев. Към въпроса за градоустройството на аулите от ІХ в. – In:
Средновековния български град. БИД. Научни конференции, 2. София 1980:99–106.
Георгиев, П. 1985: П. Георгиев. Манастирската църква при село Равна, Провадийско. – ИНМВ,
21, 1985:71–85.
Герасимова, В. 2009: В. Герасимова. Два латински надписа от с. Ветрен, Силистренско. – In:
Сборник в памет на професор Велизар Велков. София 2009:326–331.
Голубинский, E. 1871: E. Е. Голубинский. Краткий очерк истории православных церквей.
Болгарской, сербской, румынской или молдаво-влашкой. Москва 1871.
Грамоти на Василий 1963: Грамоти на Василий ІІ. – ГИБИ, 6. София 1963:44–45.
ГИБИ 1960: Гръцки извори за българската история, 3. София 1960.
ГИБИ 1961: Гръцки извори за българската история, 8. София 1961.
Гюзелев, B. 2001: В. Гюзелев. Венециански документи за история на България и българите от
ХIII–ХIV в. София 2001.
Димитров Хр. 1993: Хр. Димитров. Аварите в Малка Скития (565–626). – ИПр, № 8–9, 1993:3–19.
Динчев, В. и др. 2007: В. Динчев и др. Археологическо проучване на Хемските порти (в м. Гермето
при с. Голица, Варненска област) през 2005 г. – РП, 37, 2007.
Динчев, В. 2011: В. Динчев. Ранновизантийските крепости в България и съседните страни (в
диоцезите Thracia и Dacia). – РП, 35, 2006.
Дончева-Петкова, Л. 1977: Л. Дончева-Петкова. Българската битова керамика през Ранното
средновековие. София 1977.
Дуйчев, Ив. 1940: Ив. Дуйчев. Из старата българска книжнина, № 1. София 1940.
Евлия Челеби 1972: Евлия Челеби. Пътепис. (Превод от османотурски, съставителство и редакция
– Стр. Димитров). София 1972.
Златарски, В. 1924: Български архиепископи-патриарси през Първото църство до падането на
източната му половина. – ИБИД, 6, 1924.
Златарски, В. 1970: В. Златарски. История на българската държава през средните векове. Том 1,
1. София 1970.
Златарски, В. 1971: В. Златарски. История на българската държава през средните векове. Том 1,
2. София 1971.
Иванов, Р., Г. Атанасов, П. Доневски 2006: Р. Иванов, Г. Атанасов, П. Доневски. История на
Силистра. Т. 1. Античният Дуросторум. София – Силистра 2006.
582
Иванов, Й. 1970: Й. Иванов. Богомилски книги и легенди. София 1970.

История на Добруджа 1988: История на Добруджа. Том 3. София 1988.
Йорданов, Ив. 1992: Ив. Йорданов. Византийски оловни печати от Плиска. – Плиска-Преслав, 5,
1992:292–293, № 28.
Йорданов, Ив. 1992а: Ив. Йорданов. Печат на Филотей, синкел и митрополит на Евхаита –
Приноси към българската археология. Ч. 1. София 1992:120–125.
Йорданов, Ив. 1992: Ив. Йорданов. Печатите на стратегията в Преслав. София 1993.
Йорданов, Ив. 2011: Ив. Йорданов. Средновековният Дръстър. Според данни от сфрагистиката
(VІІ–ХІІ в.). – Античная древность и средние века, 40, 2011:79–120.
Йотов, В., Г. Атанасов 1998: В. Йотов, Г. Атанасов. Скала. Крепост от Х–ХІ век до с. Кладенци,
Тервелско. София 1998.
Кендерова, Ст., Б. Бешевлиев 1990: Ст. Кендерова, Б. Бешевлиев. Балканският полуостров
изобразен в картите на Ал Идриси. София 1990.
Кесяков, Х. 1886: Х. Кесяков. Пътуване през Българско в 1636 г. – Периодично списание, 19–20,
1886.
Кесяков, Х. 1887: Х. Кесяков. Стари пътувания през България. – Периодично списание, 21–22,
1887.
Коновалова, И. 1981: И. Г. Коновалова. „Описание Восточной Европы” 1308 как источник по
истории Карпато-дунайских земель. – Вопросы источниковедения и историографии истории
СССР. Москва 1981.
Кузев, Ал. 1966: Ал. Кузев. Приноси към историята на средновековните крепости по Долния
Дунав. 1. Тутракан и Русе. – ИНМВ, 2, 1966.
Кузев, Ал. 1969: Ал. Кузев. Приноси към историята на средновековните крепости по Долния
Дунав. 4. Силистра и Хърсово. – ИНМВ, 5, 1969:138–155.
Кузев, Ал. 1979: А. Кузев. Стратегическата роля на крепостите по Долни Дунав през ІХ–ХІІ в. –
ИНМВ, 15, 1979:25–41.
Кузев, Aл. 1986: Ал. Кузев. Дръстър. – In: Български средновековни градове и крепости. Варна
1981.
Кузев, Ал. 1981а: Ал. Кузев, Островната крепост до Дръстър. – In: Български средновековни гра-
дове и крепости. Варна 1981:196–200.
Кутузов, М. 1952: М. И. Кутузов. Сборник документов. Т. 3. Москва 1952.
Кучма, В. 1980: В. В. Кучма. „Византийский аноним VІ в.” Основные проблемы источников и
содержание. – Византийский Временник, 41, 1980: 68–91.
Лазаренко, И. 1998-1999: И. Лазаренко. Нумизматични данни за датиране опожаряването на
Одесос по времето на император Ираклий. – ИНМВ, 49-50, 1998–1999:150–166.
Липчев, Р. 1991: Р. Липчев. Укрепителната система на Силистра през периода на османското
владичество. – Добруджа, 8, 1991:66–77.
Литаврин, Г. 1987: Г. Литаврин. България – Византия (ХІ–ХІІ век). София 1987.
Мавродинов, Н. 1939: Н. Мавродинов. Базиликата в Плиска и българският дворцов церемониал.
– ИБАИ, 13, 1939:246–252.
Манчева, О. 1986: О. Манчева. Седновековни керамичини съдове от фонда на Окръжен исто-
рически музей – Силистра. – Добруджа, 3, 1986:100–106.
Микулчиќ, И. 1999: И. Микулчиќ. Средновековни градови и тврдини во Македония. Скопje 1999.
Михаил Аталиат 1965: Михаил Аталиат. История. – ГИБИ, 6, София 1965.
Миятев, К. 1952: К. Миятев. Предварителни проучвания на Кадъкьойското градище. – Известия
на Археологическия институт, 18, 1952, 243–258.
Миятев, Кр. 1965: Кр. Миятев. Архитектурата в средновековна България. София 1965.
Мутафчиев 1973: П. Мутафчиев. Съдбините на средновековния Дръстър. – In: Избрани произ-
ведения, 2. София, 1973.
Острогорски, Г. 1998: Г. Острогорски. История на византийската държава. София 1998.
583
Пенчев, Bл. 2011: Вл. Пенчев. Фолис на византийския император Никифор І Геник със сина му
Ставраки, намерен при археологически разкопки в Силистра. – HCE, 7, 2011:109–112
Петров, A. 1887: А. А. Петров. Война Россiи с Турцией 1806–1812, ІІІ. Санкт-Петербург 1887.
Пириватрич, C. 2000: С. Пириватрич. Самуиловата държава. Обхват и характер. София 2000.
Поповиђ, B. 1988: В.Поповиђ. Aлбаниja у касноj античи. – In: Илирии и албанци. Београд 1988:201-
230.
Рашев, P. 1982: Р. Рашев. Старобългарски укрепления на Долен Дунав (VІІ–ХІ в.). Варна 1982.
Рашев, P. 2004: Р. Рашев. Византийците в България до покръстването. – In: Civitas divino-humana
in honorem annorum LX Georgi Bacalov. Coфия 2004:151–162.
Рашев, Р. 2005: Р. Рашев. За една група „прабългарски надписи”. – In: Професор Станчо Ваклинов
и средновековната българска култура. Велико Търново, 2005:159–162.
Рашев, Р. 2008: Р. Рашев. Българската езическа култура VІІ–ІХ век. София 2008.
Руски пътеписи 1986: Руски пътеписи за българските земи ХVІІ–ХІХ век. София 1986.
Снегаров, Ив. 1995: Ив. Снегаров. История на Охридската архиепископия. Том 1. София 1995.
Станчева, М. 1989: М. Станчева. Археологическото наследство на София. Формиране, състояние,
проблеми. – Сердика, 2, 1989:4–32.
Торбатов, С. 2002: С. Торбатов. Укрепителната система на провинция Скития (края на ІІІ–VІІ в.).
София 2002.
Тъпкова-Заимова, В. 1966: В. Тъпкова-Заимова. Нашествия и етнически промени на Балканите
през VІ–VІІ в. София 1966.
Тъпкова-Заимова, В. 1966: В. Тъпкова-Заимова. Долни Дунав – гранична зона на византийския
запад. Към историята на северните и североизточните български земи в края на Х–ХІІ в. София
1976.
Тулешков, К. 2000: К. Тулешков. Крепостното строителство по време на Османското владичество.
В: П. Балабанов, Ст. Бояджиев, К. Тулешков. Крепостното строителство по българските земи.
София 2000:255–340.
Цветкова, Б. 1975: Б. Цветкова. Френски пътеписи за Балканите ХV–ХVІІІ в. София 1975.
Чанева-Дечевска, Н. 1984: Н. Чанева-Дечевска. Църковната архитектура на Първата българска
държава. София 1984.
Чобанов, Т. 2008: Т. Чобанов. За шарапташите-жертвеници и ролята им в култовите практики
на българското езичество. – Археология, № 1–4, 2008:160–170.
Шалганов, К. 2008: К. Шалганов. Нови данни за укрепителната система на римския град Сердика.
– In: София и нейното културно-историческо наследство. София 2008:9–16.
Шилтбергер, Х. 1971: Х. Шилтбергер. Пътепис. София 1971.
Шкорпиль, К. 2005: К. Шкорпиль. Укрепления Абобской равнины. – ИРАИК, Х, 1905.
Angelova, S., G. Prinzing 2002: S. Angelova, G. Prinzing. Das mutmabliche Grab des Patriarchen Da-
mian: zu einem archäologischen Fund in Dristra/Silistra. – In: Средновековна християнска Европа:
Изток и Запад. София 2002.
Angelova, S., R. Koleva 2004: St. Angelova, R. Koleva. Der frühmitelalterliche Drăstăr (Silistra). – In:
Zbornik na počest Darini Bialekovej, Nitra 2004:19-30.
Angelova, S., Iv. Buchvarov 2007: St. Angelova, Iv. Buchvarov. Durostorum in Late Antiquity (fourth to
seventh centuries). – In: Post-Roman Towns. Trade and Setlements in Europe and Byzantium. Vol.
2. Byzantium, Pliska and Balkans. Berlin-New York 2007:61-87.
Annae Comninae 1884: Annae Comninae, Alexias, I. (ed. A. Reiferscheid). Lipsiae 1884 (= ГИБИ, 8,
София)
Arnold, T. 2001: T. Arnold. The Renaissance at War. London 2001.
Atanasov, G., Pl. Pavlov 1995: G. Atanasov, Pl. Pavlov. Sur l’itineraire de l’armée tartare a traverse de la
Bulgaria du Nord et Dobrudja en 1242. – Dobrudja, 12, 1995:233-241.
Atanasov, G. 2008: G. Atanasov. Zur topographie des frühchristlichen Durostorum (Silistra) im IV-VI
Jahrhundert. – Miteilungen zur Christlichen Archäologie, 14, Wien 2008:27-52.
584
Atanasov, G. 2011: G. Atanasov. Two Belts from the 14th-Century Male Burials in Drastar (now Silistra
– NE Bulgaria). – Archaeologia Bulgarica, No. 2, Soia, 2011:87-98.
Barnea, I. 1971: I. Barnea. Sceaux des empereurs byzantins decouverts en Roumanie. – BYZANTNINA,
3, 1971:149-172.
Bartlet, J. 1958: J. Bartlet. Masonry. – In: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15. Chicago 1958:16-21
Beševliev, V. 1964: V. Beševliev. Spätgriechische und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien. Berlin
1964.
Bertacchi, L. 2003: L. Bertacchi. Nuova archeologica di Aquileia. Associazione Nationale per Aquileia
2003:19-26.
Buora, M., V. Roberto 2010: M. Buora, V. Roberto. New work of the plan of Aquilleia based on aerial
photography and GIS platform. – Journal of Roman Archaeology, 23, 2010:320-334.
Chiriac, C. 1995: C. Chiriac. About the Presence of Byzantine coins in Dobroudja During the 7th Cen-
tury. – Dobroudja, 12, 1995, 133-135.
Crow 2001: J. Crow. Fortiications and urbanism in the late antiquity Thessaloniki and other eastern
cities. – In: Recent research in late- antique urbanism. Ed. L. Lavau, Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Supplementary Series, Nr. 42. Partsmontey, Rhode Island, 2001, 89-105.
Dechert, M. 1990: M. Dechert. The Military Architecture of Francisco di Giorgio in Southern Italy. – The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 49, 2, 1990, 161-180.
Delvoye, I. 1966: I. Delvoye. Ambo. – RLBK, І. Stutgart 1966.
Diaconu, P., D. Vîlceanu 1972: P. Diaconu, D. Vîlceanu. Păcuiul lui Soare. Vol. I. Bucureşti 1972.
Diaconu, P. 1976: P. Diaconu. Păcuiul lui Soare – Vicina. – Byzantina, 80, 1976: 410-477.
Diaconu, P. 1979: P. Diaconu. Les petchénègues au Bas Danube. Bucarest, 1979.
Diaconu, P. 1993: P. Diaconu. Carbona, Cavarna, la contrée de Carvouna. – Dacia, N. S. XXXVII,
1993:301-305.
Diaconu, P. 1995: P. Diaconu. A propos des soi-disant monnaies de Jakov-Sviatoslav. – Dobroudja, 12,
1995:242-256
Dewing, H. 1954: H. B. Dewing (ed.) Procopius. De aediiciis. Procopius with an English Transation,
VII, Harvard 1954.
Diggve, E. 1928: Е. Diggve. Recherche à Salona, I. Paris 1928:17-19.
Donevski, P. 1990: P. Donevski. Zur Topographie von Durostorum. – Germania, 68, No. 1, 1990:236-245.
Dui, Ch. 1985: Ch. Dui. The Fortress in the Age of Vouban and Frederick the Great 1660-1789. Lon-
don 1985.
Dui, Ch. 1979: Ch. Dui. Siege Warfare. The Fortress in the Modern World 1494-1660. London 1979.
Dujcev, I. 1971: I. Dujcev. Patriarcato bulgaro del secolo X. – Medioevo bizantino-slavo. Roma 1971:241-
250.
Foss, C. 1977: C. Foss. Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara. – DOP (Dumbarton Oaks Papers), 31,
1977:29-87.
Foss, C., O. Wiield 1986: C. Foss, O. Wiield. Byzantine Fortiication. – Unisa studia, 22, Oxford 1986.
Guilland, R. 1949: R. Guilland. Le Boucoléon, la plage du Boucoléon. – Byzantinoslavica, 10, 1949:16-27.
Guilland, R. 1950: R. Guilland. Le Palais du Boucoléon. – Byzantinoslavica, 11, 1950:61-71.
Gurlit, C. 1912: C. Gurlit. Die Baukunst Constantinoples. Berlin 1912.
Grégoire, H. 1939: Н. Grégoire. Une inscription datée au nom du roi Boris-Michel de Bulgare. – Byzan-
tion, XIV, 1939 :227-234.
Hof, C. 2009: C. Hof. Masonry Techniques of the Early Sixth Century City Wall of Resafa, Syria. – In:
Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction History. Cotbus 2009:813-820.
Hurmozaci, E. 1880: E. Hurmozaci. Documente privitore la istoria românilor. Vol. III, 1 (1576-1599),
Bucureşti 1880.
Hurmozaci, E. 1889: E. Hurmozaci. Documente privitore la istoria românilor. Sup. 1, Vol. III (1709-
1812), Bucureşti 1889.
Ioannes Scilizes: Synopsis historiarum. Editio princes, rec. I. Thurn. Berolini et Novi Eboraci 1973 (=
ГИБИ, 6, София 1965) .
585
Janin, R. 1950: R. Janin. Constaninople byzantine. Paris 1950.

Jerphanion, G. 1928: G. de Jerphanion, Mélanges d’archeologie anatolienne. Beyrouth 1928:113-293.
Jordanov, I. 2009: I. Jordanov. Corpus of the Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria. Volume 3, parts one and
two, Soia 2009.
Jörgensen, C., M. Pavkovic, B. Rice, F. Sehneid, C. Scot 2006: C. Jörgensen, M. Pavkovic, B. Rice, F.
Sehneid, C. Scot. Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World 1500-1763 AD. New York 2006.
Kanits, F. 1882: F. Kanits. Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan. Bd. III. Leipzig 1882.
Karaiska, C. 1998: C. Karaiska. Die Militärische Architectur von 6. Jh. Bis 7. Jh. In Albanien die neurun-
gen des 6. Jh. – In: Radovi XIII medunarodnog kongresa za starokoŝéansku arheologiju. Split-Poreć
(25.09.-01.10. 1994), Vol. II. Split 1998:867-874.
Kazdan, A. 1987: A. Kazdan. Note of the ‘Milde Byzantine‘ Ambo. – Byzantion, 57, 1987:423-425.
Kirilov, Ch., R. Koleva 2008: Ch. Kirilov, R. Koleva. Durostorum-Drăstăr zwischen Antike und Mit-
telalter: Einige Resultate der Retungsgrabung 2007. – Cultură şi civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos, XXIV,
Călăraşi 2008:231-250.
Kornapp, W. 1976: W. Kornapp. Die Stadtmauer von Resafa in Syrien. – In: Archäologisches Institut.
Denkmäler antiker Architektur. Bd. II. Berlin 1976.
Kuzev, Al. 1987: Al. Kuzev. Drei falsche topographische Identiizierungen. – In: Studia in honorem
Veselini Beševliev. Soia, 1987:527-533.
Lawrence, A. 1983: A. Lawrence. A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortiications. – Papers of the British
School at Athens, 78, 1983:171-227.
Lepage, J.-D. 2009: J.-D. Lepage. Wauban and the French Military Under Luis XIV. An Illustrated His-
tory of Fortiications and Strategies. Jeferson- North Carolina-London 2010.
Lepage, J.-D. 2010: J.-D. Lepage. French Fortiications 1715-1815. Jeferson-North Carolina-London
2010.
Leunklavius, J. 1591: J. Leunklavius. Historiae musulmanae Turcororum. Francofoforti 1591.
Lightfoot, C. 1998: C. Lightfoot. The survival of cities in Byzantine Anatolia: the case of Amorium. –
Byzantion, 68, 1998:60-72.
Lewis, M. 1994: M. Lewis. Utopia and the Well-Ordered Fortress: J. M. von Schwalbach’s Town Plan of
1635. – Architectural History, 37, 1994:24-36.
Madgearu, A. 1997: A. Madgearu. Continuitate şi discontinuitate culturală la Dunărea de Jos în secolele
VII–VIII. Bucureşti 1997.
Madgearu, A. 1999: A. Madgearu. The Military Organization of Paradunavon. – BSl, XL, 1999:421-430.
Madgearu, A. 1997: A. Madgearu. Organizarea militară bizantină le Dunăre Jos în secolele X–XII.
Bucureşti 2007.
Mango, C. 1997: C. Mango. The Palace of the Boukoleon. – Cahiers Archéologiques, 45, 1997:42-49.
Mănucu-Adameştesnu, G. 1991: G. Mănucu-Adameştesnu. Томis-Constantina-Constanţa. – Pontica,
XXIV, 1991:299-303.
Mango, C. et al. 1976: C. Mango et al. Byzantine Architecture. History of World Architecture. Milan
1976.
Mikhof, N. 1929: N. Mikhof. Bulgarien und die Bulgaren im Urteil des Auslandes, II. Soia 1929.
Mititelu, I., I. Barnea 1966: I. Mititelu, I. Barnea. Sigilii de plomb bizantine din regiunea Dunăre Jos. –
SCIV, 17, No. 1, 1966:43-50.
Moravcsik, G., R. Jenkins 1967: (G. Moravcsik, R. Jenkins, eds.) Constantinus Porphyrogenitus. De
administrando imperio. London, 1967 (ГИБИ, 5, София, 1964) .
Oberländer-Târnoveanu, E. 1995: E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu. Monnaies Byzantine de VII-e – IX-e siè-
cles découvertes da Silistra et le probleme du commenecement de l’économie monnetaire le premier
royame Bulgare. – Dobroudja, 12, 1995:137-172.
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1991: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Gen. Ed. Al. Kazdan). New
York – Oxford, 3, 1991.
Papadopoulos, J. 1948: J. Papadopoulos. Le mitatorion des eglises bzantines. – In: Memorial Louis Petit:
Melanges d’histoire et d’archeologique byzantines. Bucharest 1948.
586
Quien, M. 1740: M. le Quien. Cristianus in quatuor patriarchatus digestus, quo exihentur ecclesiae,
patriarchae, cactercritque praesules totius Orientis, I. Parisiis 1740:1095-1096.
Restle, M. 1966: M. Restle. Ankira – RLBK (Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst), I. Stutgart, 1966,
169-177.
Rizos, E. 2011: E. Rizos. The late-antique walls of Thessalonica and their place in the development of
eastern military architecture. – JRA (Journal of Roman Archaeology), 24, 2011:450-468.
Russu, I. 1936: I. Russu. Inscriptii latine din Durostorum. – Anuarul Institutului de Studii clasice II,
1933/35. Cluj, 1936, 210-212.
Salona, III 2000: Salona III. Recherches archéologiques franco-croates à Salone dirigées par N. Duval, E.
Martin et C. Mezger. – Collection de l’écile Française de Rome, 194/3. Rome-Split 2000.
Schilbach, E. 1970: E. Schilbach. Byzantinsche Metrologie. München 1970.
Scriptor incertus 1842: Scriptor incertus. Historia de Leone Bardae ilio apud & Leonis gramatici Chron-
ographia. Ed. I. Bekker. Bonnae 1842.
Stephenson, Ch., S. Noon 2004: Ch. Stephenson, S. Noon. The Fortiications of Malta 1530-1945. Oxford
2004.
Tafrali, O. 1912: O. Tafrali. Topographie de Tessalonique. Paris 1912.
Tait, A. 1965: A. Tait. The Protectorate Citadels of Scotland. – Architectoral History, 8, 1965:9-24.
Theophanes 1883: Chronographia. Ed. C. de Boor. Lipsiae 1883 (= ГИБИ, 3, София, 1960).
Velkov, V. 1960: V. Velkov. Durostorum – Drâstar – Silistra. Antike und Mitelalter in Bulgarien. Berlin,
1960.
Vickers, M. 1969: M. Vickers. The Date of the Walls of Thessalonica. AAM, Istanbul, 15-16, 1969:313-318.
Vogt, A. 1939: A. Vogt. Constantin VII Porphyrogénète. Le livre de cérémonies. II, Paris 1939.
Wallace, W. 1987: W. Wallace. „Dal disegno allo spazio”: Michelangelo for the Fortiications of Florence.
– The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 46, No 2, 1987:119-134.
Wavrin, J. 1927: Jean de Wavrin. La campane de croisès sur le Danube (1445). (Ed. N. Jorga). Paris 1927.
Wolfram, H. 1990: H. Wolfram. Die Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Mite des sechsten Jahrhunderts.
Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie. München 1990.
Zuckermann, C. 1990: C. Zuckerman. The Compendium of Syrianus Magister. – Jahrbuch Österreichis-
chen Byzantinistik, 40, 1990:209-224.
ΒΕΛΕΝΗΣ, Г. 1998. Γ. ΒΕΛΕΝΗΣ. ΤΑ ΤΕΙΧΗ ΤΗΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ. ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ ΚΑΣΣΑΝΔΡΟ ΩΣ
ΤΟΝ ΗΕΡΑΚΛΕΙΟ. ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ 1998.
587

Durostorum Dorostol Drastar Silistra The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durostorum Dorostol Drastar Silistra The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durostorum Dorostol Drastar Silistra The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DUROSTORUM – DOROSTOL(OS) –

Гроб с трупополагане, I–III в.

Късноантичен гроб, IV-V в.

Начало на пътя Дуросторум–

ІІІ. The Early Byzantine destroyed in connection with the construction

Fig. 5. Northern wall of Dorostol – Drastar by the Danube River

been studied south of the tower; afterwards it

Its excavation started in 1986-1987 when,

Figs 7, 8. Southern defensive wall of Dorostol, raised in the 6th c.

Fig. 9. Plan of the southern defensive wall (after G. Atanasov)

at the eastern gate which

S., I. Buchvarov 2007:61-87; Ангелова, С., И.

It was studied in 2007 and 2008

the fourth stone row is replaced with very ІІІ/9. T h e M a i n W a l l b e t w e e n

Figs 14-15. Pentagonal tower No 3

Fig. 16. Plan of pentagonal tower No 3 (after G.

Black soil mixed with loess

Layer with inds from the 4th-5th c.

Fig. 20. Triangular tower No 4

Fig. 22. Pentagonal tower No 4

into its western wall was

a depth up to 1.20 m beneath the level of the

Fig. 24. Eastern arm and tower of the southern gate

dings that the foundation is only preserved in

rubble and small lumps of red mortar. At the

inner corner of the turn of the wall the pylon

and a part of the pavement known from 1986

Grey-yellow soil Black earth

a gate from the 6th c., completely destroyed at

remained incompletely explored.

Fig. 33. Gate of Serdica (after K. Shalganov)

ers in front of the gate. If the thickness of the re-

Fig. 35. Walls of Thessaloniki – sector “west”

starts to crumble away; how-

no exceptions, was de-

ideas for their extraordinary shapes came in

once again to continue its existence

9th c. This is mostly potery

and luxurious Constantinople white clay pot-

Fig. 47. Three fragments from an inscription of

///////̣BГІОМОРТАГ ated under M, and the third one is П under

These lapidary monuments are of funda-

the Danubian bank in a comparatively good

AD, was stationed at Drastar. Only an ex-

that it was the fortiication at the village of

Fig. 63. Relative reconstruction of the pagan shrine (after G. Atanasov)

outside and semi-rounded from the inside. In

bishop’s tomb mitatorion

tine Porphyrogennetos, namely the patriarchs

ever, a Patriarchate was established for the survived. An altar

nicon was used by the emperor, and there are

Fig. 76. Royal seal of Tsar Simeon the Great from

front of the prothesis. One of the possibilities

tural complex and it is only the the stratigraphic observations,

Fig. 81. Patriarchal residence in Drastar from the 10th c.

Besides being a regional military adminis-

(Атанасов, Г. 2009a:288–290; Атанасов, Г.

date when Terter deserted Drastar and estab-

After the war of liberation of the Asenevtsi