In this chapter, the highway networks and harbors of Constantinople during Byzantine times will be discussed. The roads linking the Anatolian and European parts of the city will also be examined. Traditionally, during Roman times, roads were divided into two - public roads (viae publicae) and private roads (viae privatae). The Byzantines inherited this division and only altered them slightly to keep up with the changing times. They preserved the Roman road system with local extensions. Unlike the Romans, the Byzantines classified roads under different names according to purposes, usage or quality - such as public roads, basiliki (imperial) roads, dimosia or dimosiaki (state) roads, megaloi (major), mikroi (minor), estenomenoi (lane), palaioi (old), katholiki (highway), xylophoriki (lumber roads), amaxigi (wagon roads), plakotoi (cobbled roads) and monopation (paths). The width of cobbled, straight and state roads in Byzantine reached a width of 6.5 meters in some places. The location of settlements, as well as soil structure, determined the formation of the road network. When the capital of the Roman Empire was transferred to Byzantion in the East (324-330), linking the roads from the shores of Anatolia in the west to the borderland in the east lost importance; new routes from Constantinople to Syria became prominent. One of them was the Pilgrimage Road, which connected Europe to Constantinople and Palestine.
An important road that started from Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, was Via Egnatia and was used to travel to Byzantion via Kypsela. In 330, the capital of the empire was transferred to Byzantion, and from then on the route after Herakleia was moved to the coastal area via Selymbria, Athyras, Region and Hebdomon to Chrysi Pyli, thus reaching the new capital. In addition, there is another road, Via Militaris or Via Traiana, which was built parallel to the coastline, going from Belgrade to the Black Sea via the Danube River; from here the road goes south, to the Bosphorus.
Oxys Dromos (Οξύς δρόμος) was the road that connected Constantinople to Anatolia from Khalkedon; it continued to Anatolia via Prainetos, Hellenopolis and Pylai. Another road started from Trapezous and reached the Byzantine capital via Euchaita at one end, and Paflagonia at the other.
Main Streets of Constantinople
Constantinople, the capital, expanded during the reign of Emperor Constantine and Emperor Theodosios; the city had a range of main roads within this expanded area. The most popular main street, Mese (Μέση), was primarily an eastern wing of an old Roman military road known as Via Egnatia, which crossed the Balkan Peninsula. Both sides of the road were ornamented with porticos and connected the capital from end-to-end. Mese, meaning “midway”, branched northwest to the Capitolium, which had been established during the reign of Constantine.1
However, the history of the two coastal roads along the Marmara Sea and Golden Horn is thought to date back before the establishment of the capital.2 These roads generally followed the topographic features of the city, while the additional streets and main streets created afterwards were developed as a grid plan. All the public spaces on the Historical Peninsula in Constantinople were along Mese Avenue, and the city spread out on streets to the southwest and northwest of this main road.3 The old retaining walls, which are not in keeping with the reconstructed main street system which terraced the slopes, are thought to date from the Byzantine era; these were repaired during the Ottoman era.4 The original city walls which had remained standing surrounded the Old Palace. In the Byzantine era, the city had a main street network. The main streets by the slopes did not always run parallel to each other.5
E Avenue was on the northwest side of the Hippodrome, and it passed Hagia Sophia and Hagia Irene to the Acropolis, ending by the northeast coast. Although the Acropolis walls have not been confirmed, the wall footings are thought to have been used as the interior walls of Topkapı Palace.6 The only door on these walls is to the northeast, and is called the Filler Kapısı (Elephants’ Gate). The city walls that run parallel to E Avenue are thought to be the continuation of the Acropolis walls, leading to St Barbara Gate in Sarayburnu. E Avenue existed until at least the tenth century7 and is thought to be the same street mentioned in a Byzantine source as Pelargoi (storks).8
From the location and positioning of the palace, it can be estimated that there was another main street running parallel to E Avenue, 120 m. southeast of the present day Mozaik Müzesi9 (Mosaic Museum). In A. Berger’s sketch, this street is “F Avenue”, and it continues to the atrium of the palace, the eastern side of Hagia Sophia, (maybe slightly turning to the west) and ends at the Acropolis.10 The terraces in the old imperial palace were expanded to the southeast, behind F Avenue. In the sketch, G Avenue is under these terraces, and it stretches to Mangana Gate. Recent research has shown that the Yedigen (heptagonal) Church, believed to have been dedicated to Hodegetria,11 was not on this main street, but on a higher hill in a different location. On the western side of the Hippodrome, D Avenue travelled to the northwest;12 this main street, which ran past the walls of the Hippodrome, turned to the east shortly before the palace of Antiochos.13 D Avenue was thought to have ended by Mese Avenue. The remains of the Basilica (Yerebatan Sarnıcı - Basilica cisterns) and Khalkoprateia were discovered in 1929; with these, indications of a columned main street to the east were also found.14
C Avenue marks where D Avenue changed direction; this is also true for D Avenue and the northwest parallel main streets, A and B. According to experts, the arrangement of main streets in this area must have occurred after the construction of the Hippodrome. Although there are no archeological finds on B Avenue, this was added to A. Berger’s sketch. In addition, it is thought that this main street touched the abscissas of a church, the floor mosaics and ruins of which have been discovered.15 When the corner of a building near the ancient Byzantium city walls was found in 1964, the location of A Avenue could be determined.16 Regarding the main streets on the right of Berger’s city sketch, archeologists are of the opinion that the corner of a building that was discovered in 1964 determines the direction of 4th Avenue; clearer indications of 1st Avenue and 3rd Avenue were also discovered. Some parts of 1st Avenue are still apparent today; these are thought to be very old, as they travel parallel to the Valens Aqueduct by the southern wing of Tahtakale and Mısır Çarşısı (spice market) and form T junctions with the northwestern wall of the Acropolis.17
2nd Avenue and its route can be determined from the position of an early Byzantine structure which had a mosaic foundation and was known as Botaneiates Palace, as well as the remains of a church and Khalkoprateia Church. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd main streets intersected with the E, F and G main streets on the east of the peninsula, making a slight turn to the north of Hagia Sophia and then travelling east. Although these three main streets continued to the northwest, to the Byzantine structure that stands in the location of Balkapanı Han, where they culminated is still a mystery.18 It can be deduced that 3rd Avenue started around the southernmost part of Balkapanı Han and traveled to the Basilica, making a sharp turn to reach the western part of the building. The greatest problem with the reconstruction of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Avenues is that in Byzantine times they all started from the same point– at the Draoungarios Gate (Odunkapı).19 At the time, such a radial street design was very unusual, and no other Byzantine city had such streets. If these main streets, including Odunkapı, had been built by the old Byzantine city walls and continued to the ancient settlement in the city, it is possible that great renovations were carried out to the main streets when the city was reorganized in the reign of Constantine. The only main street that is not in keeping with the rectangular model is the one which starts from the western gate and proceeds to the center, closer to the Hippodrome; it is thought that this existed before the reign of Constantine. In ancient times, there were no dense settlements by the Golden Horn, on the side of the hills or in the southern parts. In other words, the Hippodrome and the palace next to it had been established on almost an empty land. Archeologists think that the main street followed the Roman cemeteries to the east of the old Thracian Road, following the route that formed the Mese over the hills; they suggest that there must have been an avenue which connected the gate to the old center near the harbor; this could have been B Avenue. It is also thought that main square, Strategion, was at the lower end of this main street.20
Recent research supports the thesis that Mese Avenue emerged when the city center moved towards the Hippodrome. This change is tied closely to the construction of the Hippodrome and other structures related to it. Although it is generally believed that the Hippodrome was built during the reign of Emperor Septimus Severus, the view that Severus was the founder of Byzantium is no longer accepted;21 most probably the city walls were not reconstructed before 260 or 270,22 but the construction of the Hippodrome started before Constantine, in the era of Licinius (d. 53 BC). Augustaion, which is the name of the large area in front of Hagia Sophia, was believed to be much smaller, and included only the western half of the area.23 Another problem caused by the dislocation of the uphill line was that there was no clear main street going from the new city center, renovated by Constantine, to the harbor region. The foundations found near the Basilica, Khalkoprateia Church and Hagia Sophia are connected to these buildings. If one was to reach Strategion from Hagia Sophia, the main street by Khalkoprateia (on which the church with the mosaic floor) must have been placed until the junction of the old main arterial and B Avenue.24
When Hagia Sophia was rebuilt and expanded during the reign of Justinian I, as the entire traffic flow from the harbor to the center was via this main street, a new atrium was extended beyond E Avenue. Later, as a precaution, a new main street was constructed in the capital, starting from Khalkoprateia Church, and continuing directly towards the Milyon (million) stone.25 According to Berger, who ascertains that the areas adjacent to Mese Avenue were reconstructed, the upper end of the old B arterial road was abandoned and a new main street (H Avenue) was opened. Berger attributed this arrangement to the presence of the three cisterns in the region: Binbirdirek Sarnıcı to the south of the Mese, 26 Şerefiye Sarnıcı, which was under the old Eminönü City Hall, and Büyük Sarniç, to the north of the Mese. 27
Between 324 and 330, on the orders of Emperor Constantine, construction began outside the old Byzantine city walls, thus building the new capital to the east. In the first phase, two new districts were built. One was above the hills, outside the old Byzantine city walls, facing the Golden Horn, while the other was around Constantine’s mausoleum.28 One of the districts on the western side of the city was within the walls of Eski Saray shortly after the Ottoman conquest; the eastern district was completely buried under the Grand Bazaar. The only Byzantine monument in the area was Irini Tower, which dates back to the middle Byzantine era.29 If the main street system of the old city extended to this area, (instead of to the northeast), then it was located precisely on the north-south axis. The same is also true for the number of cisterns which were discovered in 1893, but none of which exist today.30 Uzunçarşı Avenue continues to cover the famous columned main street, Makros Embolos, which dates from the Byzantine times. There is a group of churches on the western side of this main street; it continues towards the Mese on a south-north axis at a right angle while the lower end turns slightly to the east;31 this demonstrates that the main street remained on the same route during Early Byzantine times.32
A second area in which this type of street arrangement can be seen dates back to the first years of the establishment of Constantinople; this is around Hagioi Apostoloi (Havariyyun) Church. Currently, nothing remains to show the location or orientation of the original church, however experts tried to establish the location by examining the position of Valens Aqueduct (Bozdoğan Cistern). Completed in A.D. 368, Valens Aqueduct ran parallel to the old Byzantium street, and the southeastern part of it ended at the main entrance of the Grand Palace (the Mosaic Museum today). Valens Aqueduct was planned to have a relationship with the main street system of ancient Byzantium, and some arches were wider than others– such as the 26th, 27th and 52nd arches, demonstrating that these were possible transition points on the main street.33
The authenticity of the structure seems to have been spoilt by these wider arches. For example, the northwest corner of the aqueduct, towards Hagioi Apostoloi (Havariyyun) Church was completely renovated during Ottoman times. The old highway to the northwest was another triangulation point for following the road network to the city. According to Berger, Mese Avenue branched out to the Capitol and passed the Aetios Cistern, which had been built in the part of the city that was established during Theodosios’ time; this road followed a straight route. It was supposed to intersect with the city walls at Kharisios Gate (Edirnekapı) and run perpendicular to the aqueduct towards the yard of Haioi Apostoloi (Havariyyun) Church (where Fatih Mosque stands today) (Image 2). 34 It is thought this was the reason why the main streets ran through the aqueducts at an oblique angle.35 If these main streets continued at a 30 degree deviation from the north (Image 3), the two streets would meet at the gates on the shore, for example Cibali Gate or Unkapanı at the Golden Horn.36 In this case, the main streets would have been in contact with some Early and Middle Byzantine era monuments and structures, for example, Markianos Column, Isa Pantepoptes, Pantokrator Monastery and St. Polyeuktos Church. 37
Another main street, closer to the east, passed by where the modern Rum chapel and the tomb of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine38 stood; neither of these are standing today. It is probable that both structures were built on top of Byzantine churches.39 Another main street must have gone to the southern entrance of St Prokopios Church (Vefa Kilise Mosque today).40 The main streets facing the city gates on the sea walls also provide a great deal of insight about the construction of the city walls in 438-439.41 Experts believe that the same main street systems were present to the south, facing the Marmara Sea. The main streets must have headed towards the five gates in the sea walls during the reign of Constantine.42 Of the city gates on the Marmara Sea walls, only Kumkapı is known to have existed in Byzantine times as Demirkapı (Iron Gate).43 Older maps are needed to locate the other three gates.
What Kumkapı looked like at this time is virtually unknown, and since no historical sources provide any information about it, it is still a mystery. The exterior of the structure is covered in plaster from the Ottoman era; as the main street level rose in time, it can only be distinguished from the other components by the support arches.44 Experts believe that the main street towards Homonoia/Panteleemon Church, mentioned in the tenth century work, Book of Ceremonies, passed through another gate, near Ta Kanikleiou Gate.45 It does not seem plausible that the entire street network was rebuilt during Byzantine times, as there is no trace of any street on the right side of the sketch. If we consider that many monuments in Constantinople were built based on Roman examples, in large triangular forms,46 it can be seen that the streets in the city area on the map in the era in which Constantine carried out the reconstruction, are similar to the central triangular plan produced by Brun. Between 408 and 413, during the reign of Theodosios, with the building of city walls further to the west, an area was added to the city; however this area was not perceived as being part of the city due to the fact that it was not densely settled, but was rather mostly deserted, consisting primarily of monasteries, gardens, fields and cemeteries.47
Harbors of Constantinople
The heart of the Byzantine Empire marine transportation was in the capital Constantinople. The harbors by the Marmara shores were the areas in which the main marine trade and transportation took place. The names and locations given in Byzantine sources vary a great deal. These harbors were in constant need of maintenance as they were open, and filled with sand quite quickly. Thus, in an encomium written for Emperor John Palaiologos VIII in 1427, the order to remove the sand from a harbor named Kontoskalion and expand the harbor mouth is mentioned.48
Among the harbors along the east and west shores of the Marmara Sea, the Boukoleon Harbor was a renowned private harbor reserved for the use of the dynasty and their close circle. From Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, the two oldest military and commercial harbors of the fifth century can be ascertained. The first of these was Julian Harbor, located in the third region on the western side of Boukoleon Harbor. As is evident from its name, this harbor was built in the reign of Emperor Julian (361-363);49 the docks were added in the reign of Emperor Anastasius I (491-518), and then they were expanded and deepened during the reign of Justinianus II (565-578); the name of this harbor was changed to Limen tis Sophias (Sophia’s Harbor) or Sophianon to honor Empress Sophia.50 The Byzantine historian Theophanes mentioned the same harbor as Limen Ioulianou and Ioulianisios limen ton Sophias; Dukas stated that the harbor was used until the collapse of the state.51
The second harbor was in the twelfth region, closer to the west. Historical sources show that this harbor was called Limen Eleutheriou, and it is believed to be the same harbor that was referred to as portum Theodosiacum in Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae.52 Byzantine sources state that the soil taken away when digging Tauros Agora filled this harbor; the harbor was then cleaned and deepened. It can be assumed that the soil taken from here in 386 was used for the construction of the pedestal of the column of Theodosius I;53 54 however, in following periods the interior part of the harbor was filled with soil carried by the Lykos (Bayrampaşa) Stream; this area became covered with the famous gardens that were known as Blanga.
From sources dating back to the sixth and seventh centuries, we learn of the existence of a harbor called Limen ton Kaisariou. Again, the sources state that in 610, when the capital was organized to resist Herakleios, Emperor tyrant Phokas left the defense of Ormisda to the Blues, and the defense of Sophia and Kaisario harbors to the Greens. 55 The second harbor is shown as being distinct from the first, thus allowing us to determine its importance. Theophanes writes about Kaisarios Harbor in relation to the precautions by Emperor Constantine IV to push back the Arabs trying to come to Constantinople in 673.56
Byzantine sources also relate how the Anatolian harbors were connected to the capital. According to Gregorios Dekapolites’s work on the topic, entitled Vita, in 832-833 Ephesus Harbor was home to a large number of mercantile ships on their way to Constantinople. In addition, wheat and agricultural products from Anatolia were also shipped there. At the other end of this seaway was Alexandria. In the middle of the ninth century, Jewish merchants also shuttled back and forth between Spain and the Far East, bringing musk, amber and cinnamon to Ephesus. During the second half of the eleventh century, there was an extraordinary amount of traffic between Ephesus and Constantinople.
1 . C. A. Mango, Le developpement urbain de Constantinople (IVe–VIIe siècles), Paris: De Boccard, 1990. For city plans see. A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Bonn: R. Habelt, 1988, p. 330 ff.
2 Patria Konstantinoupoleos, vol. 1, p. 68, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. T. Preger, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1907, p. 2, line 148; Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 226 ff.
3 A. Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 54 (2000), p. 162.
4 R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine: Developpement urbain et repertoire topographique, Paris: Institut Français d’Etudes Byzantines, 1964, p. 7 ff.
5 Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 162.
6 For the condition of the Acropolis in Byzantine times, see: Hülya Tezcan, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeolojisi, Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 1989.
7 H. Delehaye, Les saints stylites, Brussels: Société des bollandistes, 1923, p. 218.
8 Janin, Constantinople byzantine, p. 405; Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, p. 401 ff.
9 W. Jobst, “Der Kaiserpalast von Konstantinopel und seine Mosaike”, Antike Welt, vol. 18, no: 3 (1987), pp. 2-22.
10 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations Historiques, ed. A. Failler, Paris: Belles Lettres, 1984, p. 2, line 353 et al.
11 R. Demangel and E. Mamboury, Le quartier des Manganes et la premiere region de Constantinople, Paris: E. de Boccard, 1939, pp. 93-111. For the location of Hodegetria see. Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 378.
12 Berger, Untersuchungen, pp. 125, 159; K. Ciggaar, “Une description de Constantinople traduite par un pèlerin anglais”, REB, vol. 34 (1976), p. 256 ff.
13 A. Berger’s opinions on the matter (Berger, “Die Alstadt von Byzanz in der vorjustinianischen Zeit”, Varia 2 Poikila Byzantina 6, Bonn: R. Habelt, 1987, pp. 8-10) are not shared by C. A. Mango (Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople, Paris: De Boccard, 2004, p. 71).
14 M. Schede, “Archaiologische Funde”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1929, p. 358; A. M. Schneider, Byzanz: Vorarbeiten zur Topographie und Archaologie der Stadt, Berlin 1936, p. 92, footnote 8, 9. For the Basilica and Khalkoprateia Church see. T. Mathews, “The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy” (Ph. D.), New York University, 1971, pp. 28-33.
15 W. Kleiss, Topographisch-archaiologischer Plan von Istanbul, Tübingen: E. Wasmuth, 1965, p. 8, footnote 35; R. M. Harrison and G. R. J. Lawson, “The Mosaics in Front of the Vilayet Building in Istanbul”, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi Yıllığı, 1967, vol. 13-14, p. 216 et al.; N. Fıratlı, “Recent Important Finds in Istanbul”, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi Yıllığı, 1969, vol. 15-16, p. 193 ff.; G. Hellenkemper and Salies, “Konstantinopel”, Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, 1990, vol. 4, p. 615 ff.
16 For the archeological site plans found in the German Arhceology Institute in Istanbul, see: Kleiss, Plan, 12, no. 112; Berger, “Streets”, p. 164; N. Fıratlı, “Brief Archaeological News”, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi Yıllığı, 1967, vol. 13-14, p. 226 ff., table 63.
17 C. Güren, Türk Hanlarının Gelişimi ve İstanbul Hanları Mimarisi, Istanbul: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 1985, p. 85; A. Berger, “Zur Topographie der Ufergegend am Goldenen Horn in der byzantinischen Zeit”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, issue 45, (1995) p. 162.
18 W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1977, p. 41; Berger, “Ufergegend”, p. 162.
19 Berger, “Zur Topographie der Ufergegend”, p. 159; Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 164.
20 Janin, Constantinople byzantine, pp. 13, 431 ff.; Berger, Untersuchungen, pp. 406-11. See also Zosimus, Nea Historia, 2.31; Pseudo-Hesychius, Scriptores originum Constan-tinopolitanarum including, ed. T. Preger, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1901, p. 1, line 16.
21 G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1974, p. 15 ff.; Mango, Developpement urbain, p. 19; Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 165.
22 Mango, Developpement urbain, p. 15. It can be understood that the chronicler Herodianus saw the city in ruins around 240 (Herodianus, Historiai de imperio post Marcum, 3rd Book, Chapter 1, passage 7: “ἔτι γοῦν καὶ νῦν τὰ μένοντα αὐτοῦ ἐρείπια καὶ λείψανα ἰδόντι θαυμάζειν ἔστι καὶ τὴν τέχνην τῶν τὴν ἀρχὴν κατασκευασάντων καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν τῶν ὕστερον καθῃρηκότων.” http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/indiv/browser). Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 165.
23 Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 165.
24 A. Berger identifies this structure as Theotokos Urbicius. See Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 165. For Theotokos Urbicius Church, see: R. Janin, La geographie ecclesiastique de l’Empire byzantin I; Le siege de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecumenique, Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1953, plate 3; Les eglises et les monasteres, Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1969, p. 207; Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 404 ff.
25 Miracles of St. Photeine, Hagiographica inedita decem, ed. F. Halkin, Turnhout-Leuven: Brepols, 1989, p. 117 ff.; A. M. Talbot, “The Posthumous Miracles of St. Photeine”, Analecta Bollandiana, 1994, issue 112, p. 93 ff.
26 For the structure that is generally mistakenly identified as Philoxenos Cisterns see J. Bardill: “The Palace of Lausus and Nearby Monuments in Constantinople”, American Journal of Archaeology, 1997, issue 101, pp. 69-83. A. Berger, thinks that this structure might have been part of Illus Palace, close to Hippodrome and Antiochus Palace (Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 166). For this imperial church see Janin, Eglises et les Monasteres, p. 416; Berger, Untersuchungen, pp. 560-562. For the cistern, see: P. Forchheimer and J. Strzygowski, Die byzantinischen Wasserbehalter von Konstantinopel, Vienna: Verlag der Mechitharisten-Congregation, 1893, p. 180 ff.
27 A. Berger thinks this structure might be the real Philoxenos Cisterns. According to him, this structure must be investigated here rather than in the southern section of Mese Avenue, as it was much closer to Lausos Palace. (“Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 168). For Lausos Palace, see: Bardill, “Palace of Lausus”, pp. 83-89.
28 Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 166.
29 Berger, “Zur Topographie der Ufergegend”, p. 158.
30 Forchheimer ve Strzygowski, Die Byzantinischen Wasserbehalter, pp. 21, 25, 30, 37.
31 According to A. Berger, Makros Embolos started from the bronze Tetrapylon and ended with Zindankapı, which was known as Azize Barbara Gate in Byzantine times. (Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 315). A. M. Schneider, “Mauern und Tore am Goldenen Horn zu Konstantinopel”, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1950, issue 5, p. 86, footnote 53. Compare: Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 446.
32 N. Fıratlı, “Decouverte de trois eglises byzantines à Istanbul”, Cahier d’archeologie, 1951, issue 5, pp. 163-178. About Diaconissa Church, see: J. Bardill, “A Catalogue of Stamped Bricks in the Ayasofya Collection”, Anatolian Archaeology: Reports on Research Conducted in Turkey, 1995, vol. 1, p. 28 ff.
33 Mango, Developpement urbain, p. 20; Knut Olof Dalman, Der Valens-Aquadukt in Konstantinopel, Bamberg: J. M. Reindl, 1933, p. 45.
34 Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 330 et al.
35 The only study of this structure belongs to M. Restle. Restle comments on the directions of the present main streets, built in the twentieth century. (Reclams Kunstführer: Istanbul, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1976, p. 256).
36 About this sea, see: Schneider, “Mauern und Tore”, p. 77. Schneider identifies Cibali Gate with Porta Putea or Porta al Pozzo in Italian sources. Berger thinks this might be Ayakapı (“Ufergegend”, p. 152), and he thinks the names of the most of the sea walls in Byzantine times are not known, and therefore Turkish names would be helpful on the matter. See also: Schneider, “Mauern und Tore”, pp. 65-107; Berger, “Ufergegend”, pp. 149-165.
37 R. M. Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Princeton-Washington: Princeton University Press and Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, vol. 1, (1986), p. 16, 24.
38 A. Berger claims that this cemetery structure was honored with visits until the nineteenth century; however, it was lost during renovations in the 1960s (“Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 170). About his structure, see; D. M. Nicol, The Immortal Emperor: The Life and Legend of Constantine Palaiologos, Last Emperor of the Romans, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1992, p. 92 et al.
39 According to A. Berger, it is impossible to make a firm determination on this matter. St. Stephanus Konstantianai Church might be in either of these two places which stood until 1453 (“Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 170; See also Janin, Eglises et les Monasteres, p. 474 et al.; Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 471 ff.).
40 Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 463.
41 Paschalion Chronicon, ed. L. Dindorf, Bonnae: Weber, 1832, vol. 1, p. 583, line 3 et al. The sea walls in the city region before the Byzantine times were built in Roman times (C. Barsanti, “Note Archeologiche su Bisanzio Romana”, Milion, 1990, issue 2, p. 14 et al.). There is no sign of sea walls in the city that were built by Emperor Constantine before 438-439 (Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 170; Schneider, “Mauern und Tore”, p. 65).
42 Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 171.
43 A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople the Walls of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites, London: J. Murray, 1899, p. 248 et al.; F. Dirimtekin, Fetihden Önce Marmara Surları, Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1953, p. 32 ff.
44 This is across from house no. 121 in Alişan Street; Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 171).
45 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae, edited by J. J. Reiske, II vol., Bonn: E. Weber, 1829-30, vol. 1, p. 560, line 12, 17, p. 561, line 3. For information about Ta Kanikleiou Gate, see: Janin, Constantinople Byzantine, p. 365 ff.; Berger, Untersuchungen, p. 645 ff.
46 R. Brun, “An Urban Design Imported from Rome to Constantinople-New Rome”, Bysans och Norden, akta for nordiska forskarkursen i bysantinsk konstvetenskap 1986, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989, p. 213 ff.; A. Brun, “A System of City Design in the Ancient World Based on Equilateral Triangles”, International Congress for the History of Art Washington 1986, World Art: Themes of Unity in Diversity, ed. I. Lavin, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989, p. 199 et al.
47 In the early times, there were beautiful buildings such as Helena Palace, Saturninus and Aurelianus villas (Janin, Constantinople, pp. 317, 355, 422; V. Tiftixoglu, “Die Helenianai nebst einigen anderen Besitzungen im Vorfeld des frühen Konstantinopel”, Studien zur Frühgeschichte Konstantinopels, ed. H.G. Beck, Munich: Institut für Byzantinistik und Neugriechische Philologie der Universität, 1973, pp. 79-83; Berger, Untersuchungen, pp. 362, 605 ff., 629-631). A. Berger presents an example of a mosaic found during the excavations in 1994 under the supervision of Alessandra Ricci in Pulcu Street; this is thought to date to a villa from before Constantine’s reign. (“Streets and Public Spaces”, p. 171).
48 Engomion eis ton autokratora Ioannes ton Palaiologon, Palaiologeia kai Peloponnissiaka, ed. Sp. Lampros, Atina 1926, vol. 3, p. 298, lines 8-14.
49 Patria Konstantinopoleos, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Th. Preger, Lipsiae: B. G. Teubner, 1901 à New York: Arno Press, 1975, vol. 3, p. 232, line 6; Prokopios, De aedificiis (About Structures), p. 1, line 5 et al.; Euagrios, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, London: Methuen and co., 1898 àAmsterdam: A.M. Hakkert, 1964, vol. 2, p. 13, p. 65, line 7.
50 Konstantinopoleos, Scriptores, vol. 2, p. 184, line 11; Leon Grammatikos, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae: Impensis Ed. Weber, 1842, p. 135, lines 4-7; Michail Glykas, Annales, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae: Impensis Ed. Weberi, 1836, p. 506, lines 1-6.
51 Dukas, Historia byzantina, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae: Weber, 1834, p. 283, lines 3-5, p. 619.
52 Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, Notitia dignitatum accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae et Latercula prouinciarum, ed. O. Seeck, Berlin: Weidmannos, 1876, à Frankfurt/Main: Minerva, 1962, p. 239, line 13.
53 Konstantinopoleos, Scriptores, vol. 2, p. 184-185.
54 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. I. Classeni, II vol., Bonnae: Impensis E. Weberi, 1839-41, vol. 1, p. 70, line 10.
55 Paschalion Chronicon, edited by L. Dindorf, Bonnae: E. Weber, 1832, vol. p. 700, line 8-9, 17.
56 Theophanes, Chronographia, vol. 1, p. 353, line 2 et al.