1

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.

2

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 programs—are 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

3

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 churches—whether 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

4

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

1 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.

5

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 objects—such 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.

6

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 itself—stone walls, wooden supports, and

ceramic tiles—become 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

church’s 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

7

of Agios Stefanos near Potamos in Kythera is an example of this type—this 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 tile pottery glazed other size Artifacts/m2 x 1000 1870 9 2 0 0 119.17 92.3 1871 19 17 0 6 glass 39.34 1067.6 1872 5 8 0 0 74.67 174.1 1873 2 4 0 0 29.04 206.6 1874 9 38 0 4 glass 305.93 166.7 1875 1 0 0 0 26.71 37.4

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

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

8

Artifact Sub-class No. Period No. Kitchen Ware 13 Roman 1 Medium Coarse Ware 23 Roman, Late 2 Pithos 3 Medieval 2 Tile 11 Medieval, Late 6 Glass 3 Medieval, Venetian 1 Medieval-Modern 26 Modern 3 Modern, Early 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 2001 units 1999 units

mean 290.80 216.26 30.19

median 170.40 47.54 4.69

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 1999—when survey took place

9

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.

10

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

11

mean 30.19 290.80 93.48

median 4.69 170.40 79.25

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 1 Classical-Hellenistic 3 Semi-fine Ware 1 Roman 1 Kitchen Ware 2 Medieval, Early 1 Medium Coarse Ware 24 Medieval, Late 2 Pithos 1 Medieval-Modern 9 Tile 8 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 Chrono-diagnostic artifacts*

Pre-medieval

Med, Early

Med, Late

Med, Venetian

Med Med-Mod

5001 31 (4) 1 0 0 1 0 2 5002 4 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 1 5006 82 (56) 0 0 7 25 10 14 5011 219 (198) 13 0 0 10 2 173 5013 254 (219) 110 0 4 1 0 4 5014 48 (35) 0 0 1 8 0 26 5015 16 (16) 4 1 2 0 0 9 5016 28 (6) 4 0 1 0 0 1 5017 30 (5) 0 0 0 0 0 5 5018 53 (38) 3 0 6 1 2 26 5019 44 (29) 1 0 0 0 28 0 5020 24 (13) 1 0 1 3 0 8

12

5024 60 (58) 2 0 3 0 3 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 % medieval* 5001 3.1% 5002 0% 5006 48.8% 5011 5.5% 5013 2.0% 5014 64.3% 5015 18.8% 5016 3.6% 5017 0% 5018 17.0% 5019 63.6% 5020 16.7% 5024 10.0% Overall 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

13

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 high-

prestige 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 we’ve 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 Tile Pottery Artifact subclass

No. Period No.

1643 25 98 Fineware 2 Ancient 6 Kitchen Ware 4 Prehistoric 11 Medium Coarse 24 Ancient Historic 1 Pithos 1 Archaic-Classical 1 Tile 6 Roman 1 Roman, Late 1 Modern 1 1644 22 151 Fineware 11 Ancient 34 Kitchen Ware 7 Prehistoric 13 Medium Coarse 40 Ancient Historic 27 Pithos 11 Ancient-Medieval 2 Tile 2 Archaic-Classical 11 Obsidian 2 Classical 1 Roman 3 Roman, Late 3 Modern 2 1646 25 98 Medium Coarse 21 Ancient 14 Pithos 7 Prehistoric 1

14

Tile 27 Ancient Historic 8 Classical-Hellenistic 1 Roman, Early 1 Roman, Late 3 Modern 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

Korinthia—around 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

15

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 church’s existence on the landscape. Although this may

not be a consistent signature of churches—many 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

16

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 here—had 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

17

fineware (including Sgraffito Ware), kitchenware, amphorae, and medium-coarse ware.

In addition to these artifacts, the survey team also documented architectural debris—large

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 children’s

summer camp just above it. No structures are standing above the ground. The following

table summarizes the finds from this site:

DU Tile Pottery Artifact subclass No. Period No. 3079 29 14 Kitchen Ware 1 Archaic-Classical 1 Medium Coarse 1 Roman 2 Tile 9 Roman-Modern 1 3080 15 3 Medium Coarse 5 Roman 1

18

Tile 2 Roman, Late 1 Millstone 1 3081 231 250 Fineware 3 Archaic-Classical 2 Medium Coarse 83 Archaic-Hellenistic 1 Kitchen Ware 16 Classical-Hellenistic 1 Pithos 1 Roman 21 Tile 22 Roman, Late 21 Roman-Medieval 12 Medieval, Late 10 Modern, Early 5 Modern, Present 1 3084 216 417 Fineware 8 Ancient Historic 13 Kitchen Ware 8 Roman 8 Medium Coarse 124 Roman, Early 6 Pithos 2 Roman, Late 24 Tile 29 Roman-Medieval 1 Medieval, Early 2 Medieval, Late 1

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.

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