CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
63
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL
OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES
B RYAN W ARD -P ERKINS
At the same time as the early barbarian sedes regiae were
being established in the West, Constantinople became the preeminent and unchallenged imperial city of the East.1 It had already
been given special privileges during the fourth century, particularly under Constantius II, which raised it to a position parallel to
that of Rome and differentiated it from other imperial residences.2
But it was in the early fifth century, above all under the young
and unwarlike emperors Arcadius (395-408) and Theodosius II
(408-50), that it became the more-or-less constant residence of
the emperors; in the fourth century the emperor with his comitatus had very often been on the move, or had been resident in
another city, such as Antioch.3
1. I am very grateful to Kate Ward-Perkins for helping to tighten up the thinking and wording of this article.
2. DAGRON, 1974. Specifically, the city was given a Senate, a praefectus urbi,
and (in 379) patriarchal status for its bishop. It also became, with Constantine, the
usual burial-place for emperors (at the church of the Holy Apostles).
3. Even before Arcadius’ accession, the Gothic crisis in the Balkans, following
the disastrous battle of Adrianople in 378, had already drawn Theodosius I (379-95)
to spend most of his reign in Constantinople. (I am grateful to Terry Brown for this
point.)
64
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
For over two centuries, between the accession of Arcadius
(395) and that of Heraclius (610-41), who again assumed the habit
of campaigning in person, Constantinople had an emperor in
residence almost without interruption; and even after the emperors returned to campaigning, it remained their sole stable base
–seventh-century and later emperors did not revert to the fourthcentury habit of moving between different cities.4 After 395, Constantinople became a fixed imperial capital for the East, of a type
unknown in East or West during the fourth century; and from
476, with the deposition of the last western emperor, it assumed
the nominal headship of the entire post-Roman Commonwealth.
After Justinian’s invasions of Africa, Italy and southern Spain,
this nominal headship was of course converted into very real
power over great swathes of western territory.
In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Constantinople was built up as an imperial city of extraordinary wealth
and splendour during the fifth and sixth centuries –with an outstanding collection of buildings, both secular and ecclesiastical;
a hugely expensive and complex water– and food-supply; and a
unique system of defences able to guarantee the security of the
city against the turmoil of the Balkans (fig. 1).5
Moreover, Constantinople’s rise as a political capital and
as the sole focus for imperial and court display came at a time
when the economy of the eastern Mediterranean was booming.
Rural surveys in the Aegean region and in the Near East, and
urban excavation in cities like Corinth, Athens, Ephesus, Gerasa
and Caesarea, all point to the fifth and at least the early sixth
century as a time of considerable prosperity. Constantinople ruled over, taxed, and benefited from this wealth.6
4. There is one exception, Constans II (641-68), who at the end of his reign
seems to have seriously contemplated shifting the imperial residence to Syracuse in
Sicily (then much less troubled by the Arabs than Constantinople and the Aegean).
5. Here, and for much of what follows, I am heavily dependent on MANGO,
1985, and on the learned and evocative lectures on the city that Cyril Mango has
given in Oxford. See also (for water, food and defences): MANGO, 1995; DURLIAT, 1990,
p. 185-278; and CROW, 1995.
6. WARD-PERKINS (forthcoming) for a general survey, with further references.
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
Fig. 1. The city of Constantinople in the later fifth century (from Ward-Perkins, 1998, p. 387).
65
66
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
Because it was a ‘Second Rome’ and imitated its predecessor
in some of its buildings, we tend to think of Constantinople as
a much smaller and less impressive imitation of the older city.
However, a comparison of the outline plans of the two (fig. 2)
shows that, while it was indeed smaller, Constantinople was by
no means dwarfed by Rome. In terms of population, Rome in
its heyday may have held close to a million inhabitants, but this
number perhaps decreased during the third and fourth centuries,
and certainly fell dramatically during the fifth and sixth, down
to a probable figure of under 100,000 by AD 600.7 On the other
hand, Constantinople in about 500 may have housed a population
of around half a million.8 Exactly when Constantinople achieved
demographic sorpasso over an ever-diminishing Rome cannot be
known; but few, I think, would doubt that by the late fifth and
throughout the sixth century, the eastern capital was the most
populous city of the whole Roman world.mmmmmmmmmmmmm
In the visual impact of its site –set on a ridge overlooking
the Golden Horn and Bosphorus– Constantinople had a considerable advantage over the low-lying, valley-bottom city of Rome.
Indeed it is possible that as a site chosen at will by Constantine,
the location of Constantinople was in part selected precisely for
its scenographic potential; by contrast, Rome had evolved as a
centre of power over the centuries, with the result that each of
its rulers had to make the best of an inherited and established
site. The new capital however never quite matched Rome in the
number and size of its buildings. Rome contained the largest
building of the ancient world, the Colosseum, and an extraordinary
array of huge imperial fora and thermae, such as those of Caracalla and Diocletian. Nevertheless the Theodosian land-walls of
7. DURLIAT, 1990, p. 112, argues for a first- to fourth-century population of
Rome of ‘600,000 comme nombre minimum vraisemblable.’ KRAUTHEIMER, 1980,
p. 65, hazards a guess for the population of the city in c. 600 as ‘perhaps 90,000’
(DURLIAT, 1990, p. 160, while pointing out that this figure cannot be substantiated,
agrees that it is a reasonable guess). This is still a very large city in medieval terms.
The persistence of a substantial population (and of a relatively complex economy)
during the seventh century and later, is confirmed by recent archaeological research:
see the papers collected in PAROLI and DELOGU 1993.
8. MANGO, 1985, p. 51, estimates the size of Constantinople’s population at
its highest as 300 to 400,000. DURLIAT, 1990, p. 259-261 & 269, argues for a higher
figure, of over 500,000 (perhaps 600 to 650,000).
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
Fig. 2. Fifteen cities of the Late Empire and Early Middle Ages compared.
(Based on Ward-Perkins, 1998, p. 374, with Recopolis added.)
67
68
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
Constantinople, though considerably shorter than those of Rome
(some five-and-a-half kilometres in length, as opposed to circa
twenty), are undoubtedly the most impressive (and successful)
defences ever erected in the Roman period. They consisted of
a wide water-filled ditch, engineered across the top of the ridge,
a triple line of walls of increasing height, and huge closely-spaced
towers dominating it all from above (fig. 3). Equally, Justinian’s
Hagia Sophia is considerably larger than any other church of
the late antique world, even including the huge fourth-century
imperial basilicas in Rome of St. Peter and St. Paul (fig. 7).9mmm
With the exception of the Land Walls, Hagia Sophia, and
a few other churches, the ancient monuments of Constantinople
have generally fared much less well than those of Rome, and it
is hard to recapture their original impressive size from the broken
bits and partial drawings that survive. For example, I had always
assumed, knowing it only from the recorded drawings and its
surviving but badly-battered base, that the early-fifth-century
column of Arcadius that stood in his forum in Constantinople until
its demolition in 1715, was a smaller imitation of the columns
of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius in Rome (fig. 4). However, in the
sixteenth century it was measured with care by the admirable
Pierre Gilles, who was unable to take a straight measurement by
plumb-line on the outside (because of the suspicion of the Turks),
but succeeded in measuring and recording the height of the
massive individual blocks, as he ascended the internal spiral
staircase. Because the exact length of the foot that Pierre Gilles
was using is uncertain, the total height of the column of Arcadius
can only be estimated. It is clear nevertheless that far from being
a smaller imitation of the two columns in Rome, it was as large,
or even larger than either of them.10 Arcadius’ spiral column was
also accompanied in Constantinople by a similar but earlier
9. Hagia Sophia is shorter and a little narrower than Old St. Peter’s and
S. Paolo fuori-le-mura, but it is much taller and encloses a larger cubic space.
10. GYLLIUS, 1561, p. 207-211. From this account KOLLWITZ, 1941, p. 25
calculates the height of Arcadius’ column as c. 50 m; GIGLIOLI, 1952, p. 11-12 as 42.5
m. The heights of the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius are 38.88 m and 41.15m
respectively. Giglioli reproduces (in his fig. 1) a sixteenth-century drawing of Cons-
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
69
Fig. 3. The land-walls of Constantinople in their heyday, as reconstructed by
Krischen 1938, Tafel 1.
column of Theodosius I. Sadly nothing of this monument survives
except a few fragments of the spiral frieze, and it disappeared
at the very beginning of the sixteenth century before any detailed
descriptions or measurements of it were made; but there is every
tantinople, that shows the column of Arcadius dominating the skyline of the city to
the west. Arcadius’ column had 13 (broad) spirals to its narrative frieze, as opposed
to the 23 and 21 narrower spirals of the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.
The lesser number of bands probably make the Constantinopolitan column look
smaller in reproduction than the columns in Rome.
70
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
reason to assume that it was on a scale similar to that of Arcadius,
and therefore also similar to its predecessors in Rome.11
As in imperial Rome, it is sometimes the size rather than
the impeccable good taste of Constantinople’s monuments that
impresses us. The giant Gorgon heads which survive reused in
Justinian’s Basilica Cistern (fig. 5), and the huge Proconnesian
columns of the Forum of Theodosius (393), each carved to look
like a gigantic wooden club (fig. 6), both smack more of Cecil
B. DeMille than of Phidias. The clubs come complete with loppedoff side-shoots and crudely-executed hands grasping them around
the top (fig. 6).
More obviously than in Rome, the monuments of Constantinople were arranged in a linear fashion along a triumphal
route into the city, culminating in a grandiose central square,
the Augusteion (fig. 1). Sixth-century visitors coming by land from
the West would enter the city through the great gilt doors of the
‘Golden Gate’, flanked by marble towers and surmounted by
imperial statues; and then proceed some five or six kilometres
down a monumental street, the Mese, much of it flanked by
colonnaded marble porticoes. Along the way they would pass
through a series of forum-squares, of which the most spectacular
were the fora of Arcadius, of Theodosius and of Constantine
–each built around a monumental column crowned with a bronze
statue.12 Finally they would arrive at the Augusteion, itself containing a gigantic bronze statue of the mounted Justinian, and
flanked by the Basilica, the Senate-House, the Baths of Zeuxippus,
the entrance to the Great Palace, and last but not least, by the
Great Church (Hagia Sophia).13
Constantinople, then, was a city with individual monuments
and a cityscape to match indeed occasionally even to surpass,
11. The surviving fragments are visible in the partially-exposed foundations
of a sixteenth-century bath-building, and it is likely that much more of the column
lies broken-up, reused and hidden in the same place. If so, they could at some future
date be extracted, and Theodosius’ Column might even be reconstructable.
12. Those entering by the Adrianople Gate joined the Mese halfway along
and missed the Forum of Arcadius; but passed instead the Column of Marcian (which
was probably set in its own forum-square) and Constantine’s Holy Apostles, built
on the highest point of the city.
13. For an account of many of these squares and monuments, see BAUER, 1996,
p. 143-268.
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
71
Fig. 4. The column of Arcadius in Constantinople, as recorded in a drawing (now
in the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris), executed before the demolition of all but
its base in 1715.
72
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
Fig. 5. Giant marble Gorgon-head, reused (upside-down) as the base for a column
in the Basilica Cistern. The original location of these heads –of which two are reused in the cistern, and one is in the garden of the Archaeological Museum– is unknown;
but their reuse in the Basilica Cistern might mean that they came from nearby, just
possibly from Constantine’s Forum.
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
73
Fig. 6. Top of one of the columns from the Forum of Theodosius, in the form of
a huge wooden club, with lopped side-shoots, grasped by the fingers of a giant hand.
those of the old capital, although in terms of overall size and
overall numbers of huge monuments, it was never the equal of
Rome. However, in the fifth and into the sixth century Constantinople was a city that was expanding in both size and splendour,
whereas in Rome the city’s monuments were no longer being
added to in any substantial way, while some of them seem to
have been already in a serious state of decay.14 Moreover the size
of buildings, which in Rome’s case was often inherited from
earlier days, was not the only thing to impress contemporaries.
They were also interested in artistic and architectural innovation;
and there is no doubt that by the later fifth century it was
Constantinople, not any western centre, that was the style-leader.
For example, the churches of Constantinople made the marble
carving of nearby Proconnesos –whether simple chancel-screens
or elaborate basket-work capitals for prestige projects– fashionable throughout the eastern Mediterranean, and even ensured that
14. For limited new work and for decay in Rome: WARD-PERKINS, 1984, p.
38-48; MENEGHINI and SANTANGELI VALENZIANI, 1996, p. 78-80. The last known major
secular building-project in Rome was the Honorian strengthening of the walls.
74
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
they were exported as far afield as Ravenna, Rome and North
Africa.15
If we shift the focus of comparison away from imperial
Rome and towards the capitals of the fifth- and sixth-century
West, Constantinople is in a league all of its own, both in terms
of size, and in terms of splendour. The most obvious comparison
is with Ravenna, the residence of a western co-emperor through
most of the fifth century and then the capital of the powerful
Ostrogothic kingdom. Because of the excellent state of preservation
of its late antique churches, and even more importantly of their
wall-mosaics (whereas those of Constantinople were all destroyed by Iconoclasm), Ravenna now occupies a unique position in
the study of fifth- and sixth-century art and architecture. But
Ravenna, magnificent though it was in western terms, did not
begin to match the splendours of Constantinople. By comparison
it was a small town (fig. 2), and it had only a very low city-wall
–its main defence being its unpreposessing site within the marshes and water-ways of the Po delta. Its churches are splendid,
but even at their most magnificent, they are dwarfed by Justinian’s Hagia Sophia (fig. 7). In the case of secular public monuments, we know that Constantinople possessed imperial thermae,
fora, a massive circus, and other imposing buildings, and that
these were being added to in the fifth and early sixth centuries.
In Ravenna the documentary and (so far) the archaeological
evidence for secular public buildings is far less impressive, and
it is possible that this is because they never existed here on an
imperial scale.16 Ravenna was established by Honorius as a western imperial residence at the very time that his brother Arcadius
was building his forum and column in Constantinople (fig. 4);
15. SODINI, 1989.
16. It is of course tempting fate to argue from absences in the archaeological
record. The most obvious secular building currently ‘missing’ in Ravenna are imperial
thermae on a grand scale, comparable to the fourth-century examples known in Rome,
Milan, Arles, Trier, and elsewhere. The archaeological deposits at Ravenna are buried
particularly deep, but huge structures like thermae normally leave bits of themselves
standing above ground. On the other hand, no remains of the circus at Ravenna
(which is known for certain to have existed) have yet been identified –so perhaps
massive thermae and other monuments still await discovery. For a summary of the
late antique archaeology of Ravenna, see GELICHI, 1991.
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
75
but it is extremely unlikely that a monument on anything like
this scale was ever erected by Honorius in Ravenna.17
Furthermore, in at least one aspect of its artistic production,
marble carving, Ravenna was heavily dependent on Constantinople, from which chancel-screens, basket-work capitals and other
fine pieces, all in the marble of Proconnesos, were imported.
Moreover we do not find in the columns and marbles of Ravenna
either the range of stones regularly deployed in Constantinople
(where porphyry, Thessalian and Docimian marbles are all frequently used alongside Proconnesian), or the exceptional and
innovative quality of carving, displayed for instance in the frieze,
peacock-niches and inscription of Constantinople’s St. Polyeuktos.18
A fifth-century visitor to Ravenna who had previously seen
Constantinople would have been in no doubt as to which imperial
partner was the most powerful and wealthy ruler within the Roman
world; and, similarly, an observer of both cities in the early sixth
century would have rapidly formed the correct impression that
Ravenna was an impressive but scaled-down version of an imperial capital, that often imitated the style of what was by then
the great city of the Mediterranean.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Unsurprisingly, the western barbarians in their sedes regiae
were well aware of the splendours of Constantinople, and sought
to emulate them. In Paris, Clovis built a church of the Holy
Apostles, in which he was subsequently buried, in clear imitation
of the identically-named imperial burial-church of Constantinople;
and later Chilperic built circuses at both Paris and Soissons.19
This was an act that provoked the scorn of Gregory of Tours,
and only makes sense in the context of wishing to emulate Constantinopolitan practice. The broad topic of post-Roman ceremonial has been very effectively explored by Michael McCormick,
17. The lack of evidence (so far) for traditional secular monuments in
Ravenna might be explained by particular circumstances. It is possible that such
buildings were going out of fashion faster in the troubled West than in the East;
and it is also possible that the western emperors regarded Ravenna more as an
emergency residence than as a imperial city, worthy of the emperor’s munificence.
18. For St. Polyeuktos: HARRISON, 1986, and HARRISON, 1989.
19. Gregory of Tours, Libri Historiarum II. 43 (Holy Apostles, Paris), and V.17
(circuses at Paris and Soissons).
76
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
Fig. 7. Hagia Sophia (Constantinople) and S. Vitale (Ravenna), compared by being
reproduced to the same scale. A = Section through S. Vitale superimposed on a section
through Hagia Sophia. B = Plan of S. Vitale. C = Plan of Hagia Sophia. (Based on
Fletcher, 1961, p. 281 and 285.)
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
77
Fig. 8. Coin-finds from excavations at St. Polyeuktos, Constantinople, expressed
as numbers of coins per year of reign. Figures from Ephesus are shown below for
comparison. (Based for St. Polyeuktos on the figures given in Hendy 1986; and
for Ephesus on those in FOSS 1979, p. 197, and Vetters 1982, 1983 & 1986.)
78
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
and his research has shown that Germanic rulers in the West
based their royal ceremonies more on contemporary practice in
Constantinople than on any dim memories of what had once
occurred in the Roman West.20
When barbarian rulers in the Latin-speaking West named
or renamed cities after themselves, they gave them names with
the Greek suffix ‘polis’. This is linguistically surprising, and must
be because the imperial foundation Constantinopolis dominated
even the western barbarian imagination. We know of a ‘Hunericopolis’ in Vandal Africa, a ‘Theodericopolis’ in the Ostrogothic
kingdom, and, most famously, of ‘Recopolis’ in Visigothic Spain
(for which, see fig. 2).21 From our perspective, knowing as we
do that in the seventh centuries Byzantine power was to suffer
a series of disastrous and irreversible blows, it is hard to appreciate quite how strong was the political and cultural influence
of the Byzantine Empire within the sixth-century Mediterranean.
But the evidence is quite sufficient to show that the sedes regiae
of the West did indeed exist under the shadow of the great imperial city of Constantinople.
What happened to Constantinople after the sixth century
is much less clear, and falls beyond the main scope of this article.
As is well known, the Byzantine Empire suffered a series of
military reversals at the end of the sixth and through the seventh
centuries, leading to the loss of most of its Balkan territories to
the Slavs, and (much more seriously) of Egypt and the Near East
to the Arabs. Moreover the Arab onslaught in the seventh and
eighth centuries brought war into Asia Minor and to the Aegean,
indeed to the very gates of Constantinople. These troubles were
accompanied by a dramatic fall in the prosperity of those territories that remained Byzantine.
Just as Constantinople had benefited from the expansion
of eastern prosperity and power during the fifth and sixth
20. McCORMICK, 1986, esp. chaps. 7-9.
21. These are discussed by MUSSET, 1978, p. 27-28. Recopolis was a foundation ex novo; Hunericopolis was probably a renaming of Hadrumetum; and
Theodericopolis, which was apparently located north of the Alps, is something of
an enigma. It is never mentioned in the abundant contemporary sources for the
Ostrogothic kingdom, and is only ever referred to once (in the early eighth-century
Ravenna Cosmography).
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
79
centuries, so inevitably it suffered as a result of their decline
during the seventh –the loss of the corn-supply from Egypt being
a particularly devastating blow. The population unquestionably
fell dramatically; and all record, whether literary or archaeological,
of imperial building-projects in the city virtually ceases for almost
two centuries. In debate amongst scholars is not whether Constantinople declined markedly in both population and splendour,
but exactly how far it declined.22 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
In the absence of good archaeological evidence from the city,
it is currently impossible to resolve this uncertainty. Probably the
truth is that, like Rome, the city declined dramatically from its
antique heyday, but that in medieval terms (and in particular in
seventh-century terms) it remained a great city. Excavations at
St. Polyeuktos, for instance, have shown that unlike other cities
of the Empire, Constantinople had an abundant copper coinage
(fig. 8), and continuing trading contacts in both amphorae and
fine tablewares.23
It is widely accepted that in both the eastern and western
Mediterranean, except in the areas conquered by the Arabs, the
seventh century was a low point for urbanism. Within the Byzantine world almost all local cities declined so markedly that the
relative importance and status of the imperial capital of Constantinople was in fact enhanced, despite its own undoubted decline.24
Quite where Constantinople stood in the eyes of seventh-century
westerners is less certain, but of course no city whose cathedral
was Hagia Sophia could ever fade entirely from the western imagination.
Trinity College. Oxford
22. MANGO, 1985, p. 54, thinks that the population in the seventh and early
eighth centuries did not exceed 40,000. DURLIAT, 1990, p. 273-275, does not hazard
a figure, but thinks Mango is broadly correct. Others (e.g. MAGDALINO, 1996, p. 18)
are less pessimistic.
23. HAYES, 1980, p. 379; HAYES, 1992. These features are reminiscent of the
situation in Rome, revealed in the papers published in PAROLI and DELOGU, 1993.
There is even less evidence of church-building in Constantinople than in Rome; but
this may be because Constantinople has no Liber Pontificalis and because the
iconoclasts destroyed all seventh-century mosaics in the city.
24. WHITTOW, 1998, p. 94-95.
80
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS
Bibliography
BAUER, F.A. (1996), Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike (Mainz).
CROW, J.G. (1995), “The Long Walls of Thrace”, in MANGO and DAGRON (ed.),
p. 109-124.
DAGRON, G. (1974), Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions
de 330 à 451 (Paris).
DURLIAT, J. (1990), De la ville antique à la ville byzantine. Le problème de
subsistance, Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 136 (Rome).
FLETCHER, B. (1961), A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method,
17th edition (revised by R.A. Cordingley) (London).
Foss, C. (1979), Ephesus after Antiquity: A late antique, Byzantine and Turkish
City (Cambridge).
GELICHI, S. (1991), “Il paesaggio urbano tra V e X secolo”, in CARILE, A. (ed.)
Storia di Ravenna, II.1 (Dall’età bizantina all’età ottoniana) (Ravenna),
p. 153-165.
GIGLIOLI, G.Q. (1952), La colonna di Arcadio a Costantinopoli, Memorie
dell’Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli (Napoli).
GYLLIUS, P. [= Pierre Gilles] (1561), De Topographia Constantinopoleos, et
de illius Antiquitatibus (Lugdunum/Lyon).mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
HARRISON, R.M. (1986), Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Vol. I (The
Excavations, Structures, etc.) (Princeton and Washington).
HARRISON, R.M. (1989), A Temple for Byzantium. The Discovery and Excavation of Anicia Juliana’s Palace-Church in Istanbul (London).
HAYES, J.W. (1980), “Problèmes de la céramique des VIIème-IXème siècles
à Salamine et à Chypre”, in Salamine de Chypre, histoire et archéologie:
État des recherches, Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique, 578 (Paris), p. 375-387. mmmmmmmmmmmmm
HAYES, J.W. (1992), Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Vol. 2 (The Pottery)
(Princeton and Washington).
HENDY, M.F. (1986), “The coins”, in HARRISON, p. 278-373.
KOLLWITZ, J. (1941), Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen Zeit (Berlin).
KRAUTHEIMER, R. (1980), Rome, Profile of a City, 312-1308 (Princeton).
KRISCHEN, F. (1938), Die Landmauern von Konstantinopel, I (Berlin).
MAGDALINO, P. (1996), Constantinople médiévale. Études sur l’évolution des
structures urbaines, Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de Recherche
d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies, 9 (Paris).
MANGO, C. (1985), Le Développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe-VIIe siècles),
Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation
de Byzance, Monographies, 2 (Paris).
MANGO, C. (1995), “The water supply of Constantinople”, in MANGO and
DAGRON, p. 9-18.
CONSTANTINOPLE, IMPERIAL CAPITAL (FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES)
81
MANGO, C. and DAGRON, G. (eds.) (1995), Constantinople and its Hinterland
(Variorum).
McCORMICK, M. (1986), Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity,
Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge).
MENEGHINI, R. and SANTANGELI VALENZIANI, R. (1996), “Episodi di trasformazione
del paesaggio urbano nella Roma altomedievale attraverso l’analisi di
due contesti: un isolato in Piazza dei Cinquecento e l’area dei fori
imperiali”, Archeologia Medievale, 23, p. 53-99.mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
MUSSET, L. (1978), “Les villes baptisées du nom d’un souverain au haut Moyen
Age”, Revue du Moyen Age Latin, XXV-XXXIV, p. 27-38.
PAROLI, L. and DELOGU, P. (eds.) (1993), La storia economica di Roma nell’alto
Medioevo alla luce dei recenti scavi archeologici (Firenze).
SODINI, J.-P. (1989), “Le commerce des marbres à l’époque protobyzantine”,
in Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, (IVe - VIIe siècle) tome I
(Paris), p. 163-86.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
VETTERS, H. 1982, 1983 & 1986, [Reports of coin-finds in] “Ephesos.
Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht”, Anzeiger der Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, vols. 119, 120 & 123.
WARD-PERKINS, B. (1984), From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Urban
Public Building in Northern and Central Italy AD 300-850 (Oxford).
WARD-PERKINS, B. (1998), “The cities”, in CAMERON, A. and GARNSEY, P. (ed.),
The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. XIII (The Late Empire, A.D. 337425) (Cambridge), p. 371-410.
WARD-PERKINS, B. (forthcoming), “Specialised production and exchange”, in
CAMERON, A., WARD-PERKINS, B. and WHITBY, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. XIV (A.D. 425-600) (Cambridge).mmmmmmmmmm
WHITTOW, M. (1996), The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025 (London).
82
BRYAN WARD-PERKINS