Archaeological Signatures of Byzantine Churches: Survey Archaeology and the Creation of a Byzantine Landscape T. E.

Gregory (Ohio State University) William R. Caraher (Ohio State Univeristy) David K. Pettegrew (Ohio State University) Delivered at the 27th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference Notre Dame University, South Bend, IN November 8-11, 2001 Introduction: Churches are certainly the most common and most important architectural source for our understanding of the Byzantine Empire. Churches have been intensively studied for their architectural development and their relationship to liturgical and social development. Nonetheless, it is clear that we do not have a good understanding of the broader role of church buildings in the Byzantine countryside. Questions such as the relationship between churches and settlements (cities, villages, hamlets, and monasteries) and the symbolic, prophylactic, and even military importance of churches are clearly in order but have only rarely been expressed, let alone investigated. One of the reasons for this is the sheer scope of the evidence: unlike many other kinds of evidence for Byzantine society, the churches are extraordinarily numerous, spread broadly across the territories dominated by Byzantine culture. The churches, of course, often continue to play a cultural role, either as ongoing places of worship, or as archaeological sites, or places of cultural controversy. Thus, the first step in any discussion of the role of church buildings in Byzantine society must begin with the laborious task of cataloguing, categorizing, and dating the buildings in a particular area, ideally with consideration of all their features (paintings, additions, rebuildings, etc.) associated with them over time.

Archaeological survey is an ideal means for the investigation of churches for such historical purposes. Modern archaeological survey is based on a landscape approach to the past, which assumes that there are fundamental relationships between human use of the land (for settlements, agriculture, industry, religion, etc.) and the changing environment itself. Thus, the environment places certain constraints on human use, as well as offering many situations that can be exploited by humans. Archaeological survey seeks to record and explore the relationships between human society and the environment, as both change over time. The techniques of archaeological survey intensive pedestrian survey, geomorphological study, and the use of sophisticated computer-based recording and analytic programsare ideally suited for the identification and study of churches in their geographical setting across time. Various survey projects in Greece have taken special note of churches in their study areas. One might especially note the ambitious work of Theodore Koukoules for the Methana survey, a detailed recording of some 27 churches, along with plans, photographs, and discussion of each. The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey and the Australian Palaiochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey, two projects that are currently underway, have sought to make the churches one of the major foci of their investigation, and they have drawn up a special protocol for the complex problem of recording diachronic evidence about churches in their two very different areas. The problem that we would like to discuss in this paper, however, regards the problem of vanished churches, buildings that once existed but which are no longer standing. This issue is particularly important in the context of a landscape approach to churches, because we very much want to know the location of all the churches in a given

area, since our analysis and the interpretation of the role of churches will depend on this knowledge. This has led us to a consideration of the question of the archaeological signature of vanished churcheswhether we can identify certain characteristics (types and quantities of finds on the surface, location) that will suggest to us the probable identification and location of a church at some time in the past (with chronology perhaps defined by the date of the surface finds). To address this question, we conducted archaeological survey around standing churches in two regions of Greece just mentioned: the Korinthia (the countryside of Ancient Korinth), and the island of Kythera. Our studies of the churches in both of these areas were done in the context of broader surveys of these regions carried out over the last three years. The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey and Australian Paliochora Kythera Archaeological Survey Projects have now documented a group of 50 churches that date as early as the Middle Byzantine Period. Before we turn to the churches from these surveys, let us briefly consider the assemblages of churches and the formation processes that affect these assemblages.

Comparanda and Background: Both archaeological and written sources provide basic information concerning the assemblages associated with a church as either a functioning building or an abandoned feature on the landscape. The best-known literary accounts of church buildings tend to focus on large, wealthy buildings brimming over with valuable prestige goods associated with liturgy. Hagiography and monastic typika, however, can occasionally present another view removed somewhat from the flashing shine of elite foundations and

liturgical implements. The Life of Theodore of Sykeon, for example, described the liturgical vessels at his monastery as made of marble as they were too poor for silver vessels (42), and mentions a wooden box used for the storage of grain (69). The monastic typika, recently collected and translated in the Byzantine Foundation Documents series, give a picture of the more practical features associated with a church such as storerooms, which would undoubtedly contain vessels of a more utilitarian nature, as well as the valuable prestige goods associated with a monastery.1 The archaeological evidence from churches that have been excavated, documented, or subjected to intensive survey is extensive and varied. The material found in excavated contexts bronze and silver crosses, glass lamp fragments, window glass, and ceramic fine ware has tended to confirm the presence of prestige goods mentioned in literary sources.2 Cooking and Storage vessels are also common, although associating them with strata dating to the use of the church, rather than later or earlier phases is sometimes difficult. The two surveys in Greece most notable for their work around church buildings, the Methana and the Laconia surveys, have also reinforced a strong link between churches and prestige goods. Most of the church buildings subjected to intensive survey, even those of relatively recent date, produced ceramic fine ware from the Byzantine period and later, and on occasion glass. While a certain amount of coarse ware and cooking ware is also found associated with a church, the most characteristic

see for example Nikon Metanoeite: Testament of Nikon the Metanoeite for the Chruch and Monastery of the Savior, the Mother of God and St. Kyriake in Lakedaimon. trans. A. Bundy: After 997. Pages 313-322; Provision 10 which describes the storing of produce at the church 2 See for example: Aliki on Thasos for bronze crosses (and elsewhere, of course!), glass from the basilicas at Stobi, fineware from Aliki, Sarachane, Chios. The Damokratia basilica at Demetrias has been well published (Demetrias IV (1989)) and huge quantities of utilitarian ware have been recorded along with the typical fineware.

feature of a church assemblage, in both the ancient literature and in the archaeology, remains the presence of prestige goods.

Site Formation Processes: It should be apparent, however, that the objectssuch as prestige goods associated with a functioning church do not always survive the cultural and natural processes that affect an assemblage during and after the use of the church. Indeed, archaeologists recognize the role of formation processes in altering the composition and amount of artifacts originally associated with a church building, and in creating the signature of a church. There are two processes, in particular, that we should briefly consider here. First, during their main period of use, churches generate rubbish. It may seem odd to think of churches in terms of the garbage they produce, but the ceramic and glass containers that worshippers bring with them to their buildings do occasionally break on site or they are left as gifts, and ultimately they must be dumped somewhere. Moreover, church buildings themselves wear out over time or undergo natural traumas such as earthquakes, necessitating the discard of broken tiles and artifacts at the time of repair. The importance of these behaviors for our study is that discard practices transfer the assemblages associated with a living church into an archaeological context. Over time, continual discard tends to disperse rubbish outside the church that mirrors the types of objects found within the building as well as the chronological periods of use of the church.

The second important cultural process to consider is that which occurs when the building falls out of use and ceases to function as a liturgical and religious center. The abandonment of a church affects the building and its assemblage in several important ways. As the use of the building declines, so does the investment in upkeep and repair, often resulting in the deterioration and collapse of the structure. Another possible outcome for abandoned churches is their reuse for secondary purposes, such as animal pens. In either case, the church during abandonment loses its most valuable high-status goods, as well as other items within the church that can be reused in other churches or in domestic residences. The parts of the building itselfstone walls, wooden supports, and ceramic tilesbecome an importance source of reusable construction material for local building needs. The result of these processes is that items associated with an active church do not always survive in the archaeological remains of the church. Behaviors of discard and abandonment are fundamental for understanding the archaeological signature of a church. Ultimately, the types and amounts of material left by a church is a product of not only how much material was originally associated with the church, but also the extent to which specific processes reduced or transformed the churchs assemblage during and after its use.

The Data: Let us now turn to an examination of some of the churches themselves, starting first with a consideration of what we can observe about existing churches. The predominant number of these buildings can be characterized as active. That is, they retain their liturgical and religious function, even if used only on occasion. The Church

of Agios Stefanos near Potamos in Kythera is an example of this typethis church is selected not because it is particularly important or even well-dated. It is, however, simple, and its investigation easy. It is perched on the rounded end of a long ridge, looking out over a long valley toward the long north-south ridge that runs down the center of the island. Table 1 provides summary information about the artifacts found in the area of A. Stefanos and the overall densities are shown in Figure 1. Unit 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 tile 9 19 5 2 9 1 pottery 2 17 8 4 38 0 glazed 0 0 0 0 0 0 other 0 6 glass 0 0 4 glass 0 size 119.17 39.34 74.67 29.04 305.93 26.71 Artifacts/m2 x 1000 92.3 1067.6 174.1 206.6 166.7 37.4

Table 1. Surface finds, APKAS LOCA 5018: Agios Stefanos Potamos

Figure 1. Densities, APKAS LOCA 5018: Agios Stefanos Potamos

Artifact Sub-class Kitchen Ware Medium Coarse Ware Pithos Tile Glass

No. 13 23 3 11 3

Period Roman Roman, Late Medieval Medieval, Late Medieval, Venetian Medieval-Modern Modern Modern, Early

No. 1 2 2 6 1 26 3 12

Table 2. Analysis of Finds, APKAS LOCA 5018: Agios Stefanos Potamos Table 2 displays the artifacts that were subject to special study from this site, and includes qualitative (description of the objects by class and period) and quantitative data. Obviously, these raw figures need considerable interpretation. Most obviously, one should note the figures for density, since one might reasonably assume that a church would produce a high artifact density. These are naturally only a relative indicator and one needs to compare them with overall densities in the study area. This may be done through examination of the mean and median values for density (artifacts/sq. m. x 1000), shown in Table 3: LOCA 5018 mean 290.80 2001 units 216.26 47.54 1999 units 30.19 4.69

median 170.40

Table 3. Comparison of Densities (note that units with 0 value for density have been eliminated from consideration What these figures show is that the artifact densities for 5018 are not significantly higher than those for units investigated in 2001; on the other hand areas with churches were specifically targeted this year and the overall figures should resemble those for a single church. More meaningful is comparison with figures for 1999when survey took place 8

across the whole of the landscape, and where the mean and median densities are decidedly lower than those for Agios Stephanos. The same can be seen by looking at figures for some 12 other known church locations on Kythera where investigations have taken place. This means that not surprisingly high artifact density may alert the investigator to the possible location of a lost church. This, however, does not tell us very much. More significant are the indications that might allow us to distinguish a church from, say, a classical temple, a Roman villa, or an early-modern industrial establishment. At Agios Stefanos we notice nothing particularly unusual in the distribution data, with the exception of the moderate numbers of (certainly modern) glass and the relative parity of tile and pottery fragments, certainly an indication that a tile-roofed building exists in the vicinity. To be sure, in a Mediterranean context churches would virtually always have been roofed with permanent material such a rooftiles, and counts of standing small churches yields a number of between 700 and 1500 each, certainly a significant observation in seeking to determine the kind of finds one might associate with an ecclesiastical structure. More detailed examination of the analyzed finds indicates a surprising absence of finewares, but tantalizing evidence of Roman and Late Roman use of the site. Most significantly, one should note the items that have been assigned to the medieval (2), Late Medieval (6), and Venetian (1) periods. To be sure, these sherds do not represent a large percentage of the whole of the material encountered at the site, but it is a reality of survey archaeology that relatively few artifacts actually do provide strongly chronologically diagnostic information, and we normally have to rely on evidence such as this for the analysis.

Let us look at the evidence of another church, to see how it compares, and contrasts with that of Agios Stefanos. One example is the church of Agios Onoufrios, located on the main ridge that runs west from Paliochora to the central spine of the island (LOCA 5015). This church is in very bad condition, but it contains frescoes that may be assigned to the 13th century, providing us with one firm chronological point on which to base our analysis.

Figure 2. APKAS LOCA 5015: Agios Onoufrios The area around the church did not produce densities as high as those of Agios Stephanos, although these are certainly noticeably higher than the overall background of the study area (Table 4). 1999 units LOCA 5018 LOCA 5015

10

mean

30.19

290.80 170.40

93.48 79.25

median 4.69

Table 4. Comparison of Densities (note that units with 0 value for density have been eliminated from consideration More detailed examination of the finds shows a similar pattern to that at Agios Stephanos, with a smattering of classical and Roman material (Table 5). Fineware Semi-fine Ware Kitchen Ware Medium Coarse Ware Pithos Tile 1 1 2 24 1 8 Classical-Hellenistic Roman Medieval, Early Medieval, Late Medieval-Modern 3 1 1 2 9

Table 5. Analysis of Finds, APKAS LOCA 5015: Agios Onoufrios Here again we see among the relatively few chronologically diagnostic artifacts, a small number of sherds that can be confidently dated to the medieval period, in this case one dark-age amphora and a highly-diagnostic Late Medieval sgraffito bowl. Some of the information concerning identified artifacts from the churches on Kythera is summarized in Table 6:
LOCA 5001 5002 5006 5011 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 Chronodiagnostic artifacts* 31 (4) 4 (1) 82 (56) 219 (198) 254 (219) 48 (35) 16 (16) 28 (6) 30 (5) 53 (38) 44 (29) 24 (13) Premedieval 1 0 0 13 110 0 4 4 0 3 1 1 Med, Early 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Med, Late 0 0 7 0 4 1 2 1 0 6 0 1 Med, Venetian 1 0 25 10 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 3 Med 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 28 0 Med-Mod 2 1 14 173 4 26 9 1 5 26 0 8

11

5024

60 (58)

50

Table 6. Pre-Modern artifacts, APKAS churches LOCAs. * figure in parenthesis is the total nmber of artifacts assigned to the pre-modern periods To be sure, the number of medieval artifacts is always low when compared to the total of artifacts originally seen on the surface and even those assigned to a specific period: LOCA 5001 5002 5006 5011 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5024 Overall % medieval* 3.1% 0% 48.8% 5.5% 2.0% 64.3% 18.8% 3.6% 0% 17.0% 63.6% 16.7% 10.0% 13.5%

Table 7. Percents of Medieval artifacts, APKAS churches LOCAs (percents of chronologically identified objects), not counting Medieval-Modern as medieval Overall, this means that 13.5% of all chronologically identified objects from these LOCAs can be assigned to the medieval period, a far higher percentage than that found at non-church sites (need to get figures here!). Since by far the great majority of non-visible churches will have been constructed either during Late Antiquity or in the Middle Ages (i.e., up to AD 1800 in our chronological scheme), the identification of medieval artifacts, even in small numbers, will serve as a useful indication of the presence of a church. Naturally, the same characteristics noted here would identify a medieval building other than a church, so we are forced to seek further differentiation for the identification of an ecclesiastical structure. Key to this is likely to be the combination of a number of

12

factors, including the reasonably well-defined nature of the scatter, the presence (in Kythera at least) of above-expectation quantities of schist, and the presence of highprestige items, including the glazed pottery. In addition, of particular significance is the location of churches, something that can be reasonably easily determined by the projects GIS programs, which are able easily to compare church location to other factors such as elevation, relation to road networks, and known phenomena such as population figures (e.g., from the 18th-century Venetian censuses on Kythera). So far weve looked almost exclusively at known churches on Kythera. Let us turn our attention to the mainland and to the Eastern Korinthia, in part to see whether the same characteristics seem to hold for churches there. One example is the church of Agios Athanasios, just north of the two prehistoric sites of Gonia and Yiriza. Results of survey in the area of Agios Athanasios can be summarized as follows: DU 1643 Tile Pottery Artifact subclass 25 98 Fineware Kitchen Ware Medium Coarse Pithos Tile No. 2 4 24 1 6 Period Ancient Prehistoric Ancient Historic Archaic-Classical Roman Roman, Late Modern Ancient Prehistoric Ancient Historic Ancient-Medieval Archaic-Classical Classical Roman Roman, Late Modern Ancient Prehistoric No. 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 34 13 27 2 11 1 3 3 2 14 1

1644

22

151

Fineware Kitchen Ware Medium Coarse Pithos Tile Obsidian

11 7 40 11 2 2

1646

25

98

Medium Coarse Pithos

21 7 13

Tile

27

Ancient Historic Classical-Hellenistic Roman, Early Roman, Late Modern

8 1 1 3 15

Table 8. Summary Data, Agios Athanasios Korinthias Detailed analysis of these data is hardly necessary, since there is virtually no evidence that can be chronologically connected with the church, except if we imagine that the Late Roman material was connected with a predecessor of the present church. There is, remarkably, no medieval, and virtually nothing from the modern period. In this case the evidence from the Korinthia is remarkably different from that in Kythera. Time does not allow detailed discussion of this phenomenon, but it can suffice at this point to say that artifact distributions similar to those on Kythera are very unusual in the central Korinthia, but can be found in the upland areas of the southeastern Korinthiaaround Sofiko and Korfos. Assessing the Signature of Churches Having made these observations about behaviors of abandonment and discard, what can be said about the material signature of a church? Clearly, the examples should demonstrate that the signature of churches can be variable, with the types and amounts of objects corresponding to the degrees to which formation processes affected assemblages. Yet, it is possible to discuss the range of characteristic features of churches. First, at a basic level, churches are going to be marked by significant amounts of construction material, namely stone and tile. Even when some of the construction materials have been removed from their buildings as the structures have fallen into a state of disuse, most are marked by a noticeable quantity of stone (such as fieldstones) and

14

roof tiles. The ceramic tiles or schist are either those used for roofing the building, or if these have been removed, the smaller fragments of tiles used as chinking or filler objects in the walls of the church. Larger and more impressive churches will undoubtedly leave greater amounts and variety of stone in the archaeological record, occasionally including marble columns, revetment and paving stones, and larger cut stone blocks. Secondly, the objects regularly found within churches during their use can sometimes be indicators of the churchs existence on the landscape. Although this may not be a consistent signature of churchesmany of the items often thought to be associated with the use of churches either never existed originally, were perishable and therefore decayed, or were carried away as valuable objects during the period of the abandonment of the church. Nonetheless, there may be periods in history where the abandonment of churches did not lead to the exhaustive removal of items from the buildings. The presence of nicer small finds in surface assemblages will strengthen the identification of the building as a church Thirdly, churches generate rubbish, and the presence of Late Roman and Byzantine pottery, especially different kinds of fineware, should be seen as another signature of churches. Moreover, because churches tend to be used for longer durations of time than ordinary domestic structures, the presence of fineware from successive periods, even if in low quantities, should strengthen the identification of a surface assemblage as that of a church. As we have seen, this rubbish will not necessarily be found in the immediate area of the site of the building, but may be scattered over a wider area, representing secondary discard piles outside of the churchyard. It is, of course, impossible to know whether pre-modern discard practices were similar to what is

15

observed for the modern period, and at best, we can be confident that activities in church buildings in antiquity, as in the present, used, broke, and dispersed pottery and glass. In addition to the purely artifactual character of churches, there are other features that can be said to be part of a signature. These would naturally include phenomena such as location (something we are actively pursuing and wished to discuss herehad time allowed) and literary and documentary sources: one such source is the 18th century Venetian censuses of Kythera which forced us to search for churches we had not known existed.

Application and Conclusion Can we use these generalizations to actually identify churches through surface survey? We feel positive that we can do this with some care. In the spring of 2001, a fallow field lying just below a ridgetop called Rachi Boska, six kilometers east of Ancient Korinth, was deeply plowed, and bulldozed on its edges, exposing significant quantities of reasonably well-preserved artifacts and architecture. During the following summer season of the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey of 2001, a field team surveyed this field as well as adjacent vineyards and orchards in order to characterize the nature of the scatter and determine the extent of material debris. Survey showed that there were high artifact densities throughout the area, with a variety of types of cultural material present: tiles, fineware, many kinds of coarse ware, storage/transport vessels (amphorae), kitchenware, pithoi; glass, and a marble basin fragment. Although the area was a multi-component site with use phases dating from the Archaic period, the most significant component was Late Roman and Medieval, ceramic finds including glazed

16

fineware (including Sgraffito Ware), kitchenware, amphorae, and medium-coarse ware. In addition to these artifacts, the survey team also documented architectural debrislarge tiles, scattered cut stone blocks, a couple of column fragments, marble revetment, marble architectural mouldings, and the rubble outline of a rectangular structure (on a roughly east-west orientation). Although the erection of these monumental architectural pieces cannot be specifically dated, we are confident that they were used during the Medieval phase, since the abandonment of the area at a previous date would certainly have led to the reuse of these pieces elsewhere, a phenomenon widely attested in the area and archaeology in Greece in general. Altogether, this suggests that an impressive building, modest in size and ornately dressed, stood in the area during the Byzantine period. It is difficult to claim with certainty that this scatter represents a church, but the high quality of the material, the diversity of objects, the impressive architecture, and diachronic nature of the ceramics rule out other interpretations such as simple domestic architecture. A church, the most common kind of public building during the Byzantine period, remains the best of only a few possible interpretations for the scatter Another example of an attempt to discover a church in a survey context is the site of Agia Paraskeve, on the northern slope of Mt. Oneion between Kenchreai and Xylokeriza. The site today is under sporadic cultivation and there is a large childrens summer camp just above it. No structures are standing above the ground. The following table summarizes the finds from this site: DU 3079 Tile 29 Pottery Artifact subclass 14 Kitchen Ware Medium Coarse Tile 3 Medium Coarse No. 1 1 9 5 Period Archaic-Classical Roman Roman-Modern Roman No. 1 2 1 1

3080

15

17

Tile Millstone 3081 231 250 Fineware Medium Coarse Kitchen Ware Pithos Tile

2 1 3 83 16 1 22

Roman, Late Archaic-Classical Archaic-Hellenistic Classical-Hellenistic Roman Roman, Late Roman-Medieval Medieval, Late Modern, Early Modern, Present Ancient Historic Roman Roman, Early Roman, Late Roman-Medieval Medieval, Early Medieval, Late

1 2 1 1 21 21 12 10 5 1 13 8 6 24 1 2 1

3084

216

417

Fineware Kitchen Ware Medium Coarse Pithos Tile

8 8 124 2 29

Table 9. Summary Data, Agia Paraskeve Korinthias Discovery Units 3079 and 3080 do not look at all like the artifact distribution of a church, but DUs 3081 and 3084 very much do. Tentatively, we may suggest that this is the location of a church, perhaps already from the period of Late Antiquity. This is a hypothesis that we seek to test with other explorations during the 2001 season. Ultimately, the signature of a church is the package of all of the various characteristic features discussed above. Some churches leave behind a less complete package than others, and it will be more difficult to confidently identify these scatters as churches. Others, such as the Rachi Boska scatter, may more clearly suggest religious architecture. In all this, we are hopeful that survey archaeological can potentially shed light on the ecclesiastical landscapes of the Early Christian and Byzantine Periods.

18

Archaeological Signatures of Byzantine Churches: Survey Archaeology and the Creation of a Byzantine Landscape
William Caraher Timothy E. Gregory David Pettegrew The Ohio State University

Data-entry form, church database Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey

Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey; Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey

Agios Stephanos

Agios Stefanos, Potamos Densities

Agios Stefanos, Potamos APKAS LOCA 5018

A. Onoufrios

Agios Onoufrios

Agios Onoufrios

A. Onoufrios, APKAS LOCA 5015

Pre-modern artifacts from churches in APKAS study area

Percent of Medieval artifacts at APKAS church sites

A. Athanasios

A. Athanasios

A. Athanasios Korinthias

A. Paraskeve