Mediterranean prototype of the regular plan of so-called "Roman Citadel" of Tauric Chersonesus: school of hippodamos the miletus or roman military camp

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

MEDITERRANEAN PROTOTYPE OF THE REGULAR PLAN OF SO-CALLED "ROMAN CITADEL" OF TAURIC CHERSONESUS: SCHOOL OF HIPPODAMOS THE MILETUS OR ROMAN MILITARY CAMP

Tetiana Oliynyk

The “citadel” of Chersonesus of Taurica is traditionally considered to had been built during the Hellenistic period in response to escalation of an armed conflict between Chersonesus and Scythia in the second half of the 3^rd century BC (the period to which construction of the bulk of its fortifications is dated, including the XVII, XVII and XIX towers, 19^th, 20^th and the “Hellenistic” 21^st curtain walls) С.Б. Сорочан, В.М. Зубарь, Л.В. Марченко, Жизнь и гибель Херсонеса, Х. 2001, с. 513514, 529; В.М. Зубарь, И.А. Антонова, О времени и обстоятельствах возникновения так называемой цитадели Херсонеса, Бахчисарайский историко-культурный сборник, вып. 2, Симферополь 2001, с. 51; И.А. Антонова, Юго-восточный участок оборонительных стен Херсонеса. Проблемы датировки, ХС 7 (1996) 49. (Fig. 2). Construction of this fortress helped reorganize the army in order to establish a permanent garrison whose commanding officers could be stationed in that fortress. Most likely, this garrison consisted of mercenaries who were not citizens of Chersonesus and, therefore, had no right to own immovable property in the city “due to their occupation and origin” А.В. Буйских, Пространственное развитие Херсонеса Таврического в античную эпоху, МАИЭТ 5 (Supplementum) (2008) 170.. A. Buiskikh believes that continuous presence in the city of a certain formation consisting of people who had nothing to do with the city's daily life is corroborated by the very fact of its stationing outside the city walls Ibid., c. 170..

In the second half of the 2^nd - first half of the 3^rd century AD the city was protected by the Roman garrison consisting first of a vexillatio of the Legio V Macedonica and later Legio I Italica and Legio XI Claudia С.Б. Сорочан, В.М. Зубарь, Л.В. Марченко, Op. cit., c. 531; В.М. Зубарь, И.А. Антонова, Херсонес и римское военное присутствие в Таврике во второй половине II - третьей четверти IIIвв., Херсонес Таврический в середине I в. до н.э. - VI в. н.э. Очерки истории и культуры, Х. 2004, c. 81-90 sq.. However, the citadel was not intended for quartering of the main body of troops. The principal points where the Roman military contingent was stationed were the fortresses of Balaclava (as a number of archeological discoveries convincingly prove) Т. Єарновский, О.Я. Савеля, Две латинских надписи из Балаклавы и Херсонеса, ВДИ 1 (1999) 44.; В.М. Зубарь, По поводу интерпретации и датировки некоторых памятников, связанных с римским военным присутствием в Херсонесе Таврическом, ВДИ 2 (2002) 85-91. and

Charax (on the cape of Ai-Todor) В.М. Зубарь, По поводу интерпретации и датировки некоторых памятников.., c. 8591; И.А. Антонова, В.М. Зубарь, Некоторые итоги археологических исследований римской цитадели Херсонеса, ХС 12 (2003) 63.. Only the headquarters of the commander-inchief of all Roman troops in Taurica - praepositus (holding the rank of a military tribune) and the centurion's staff accompanied by a small number of lower-ranked officers were quartered in the city itself, within the citadel И.А. Антонова, В.М. Зубарь, Некоторые итоги археологических исследований.., 63.. (In this respect, it is rather the fortification in Balaclava that falls under the definition of “camp”.) С.Д. Крыжицкий, В.М. Зубарь, К вопросу об архитектурной реконструкции и интерпретации строительных остатков римского опорного пункта, открытых на территории современной Балаклавы, ВДИ 3 (2002) 92-103; Т. Сарновски, О.Я. Савеля, Балаклава. Римская военная база и святилище Юпитера долихена, Warszawa 2000.

Chersonesus has regular orthogonal layout typical for urban settlements of the classical period in general and the school of Hippodamus in particular Л.В. Марченко, Топография и планировка Херсонесского городища, XC 8 (1997) 64-65.. The city's inner layout, together with fortifications, comprised a single urban- planning ensemble¹⁰Ibid., c. 66; А.В. Буйских, Op. cit., c. 179.. The citadel, as the whole Chersonesus, had also had characteristic regular layout А.В. Буйских, Op. cit., c. 225-226. of its inner part closely interconnected with the outer defensive walls. Moreover, the defensive system erected back in the Hellenistic era imposed limitations upon the city's inner development during its subsequent history (in the Roman period and Middle Ages). It became especially vivid during the Roman era when a Roman military contingent had to be quartered within the existing “Hellenistic” boundaries. Thus, a number of items Ibid., c. 225-226. typical for Roman military camps С.Б. Сорочан, В.М. Зубарь, Л.В. Марченко, Op. cit., c. 536. are yet to be found within the citadel (although it cannot be unconditionally associated with camp) В.М. Зубарь, И.А. Антонова, Херсонес и римское военное присутствие в Таврике.., c. 78.. We will go over it in detail below.

According to I. Antonova and V. Zubar, the citadel represented nothing else but one (although separately-standing) of Chersonesus's numerous districts which from the very beginning was intended for stationing of the city's army И.А. Антонова, В.М. Зубарь, Некоторые итоги археологических исследований.., с. 62. and, therefore, was fortified. citadel сhersonesus roman taurica

However, the question of probable prototype of the citadel's inner layout during the Roman period still remains open: was it a Roman military camp or the regular layout of Chersonesus itself? А.В. Буйских, Op. cit., c. 225-226. To answer this question, we should take a look, first of all, at the origins of both hypotheses. There were several urban planning schools which used geometrical principle of regularity when planning city street network (which, perhaps, is explained by the common middle-eastern origin of these schools) A. v. Gercan, Griechische Stadteanlagen. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des Stadtebaues im Altertum, Berlin; Leipzig 1924, S. 30-31; F. Castagnoli, Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity, 2 ed., English trans, Oxford 1971, p. 37.. One of them was the so-called “(Western Greek or Southern Italian) urban planning school of Greater Greece” which was typical for Greek cities in Sicily and Southern Italy and a number of Etruscan urban settlements. Another one was the school of Hippodamus the Miletus which extended onto the territory of mainland and insular Greece and Asia Minor А.В. Буйских, Op. cit., c. 88. Ibid..

It is commonly accepted that the Western Greek school gave birth to the Italian system per strigas on which typical planning of Roman cities and military camps was based (castrum romanum)¹⁹. The latter were distinguishable for strict division of the inner space into zones (praetentura and retentura) A. Johnson, Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD in Britain and the German Provinces, London 1983, p. 160-161; M. Biernacka-Lubanska, The Roman and Early-byzantine Fortifications of Lower Moesia and Northern Thrace, Wroclaw; Warsawa; Krakow; Gdansk; Lodz 1982, p. 27-35. В. Кох, Энциклопедия архитектурных стилей. Классический труд по европейскому зодчеству от античности до современности, пер. с нем., Москва 2005, с. 293, 393. and sectors by two (sometimes several) main thoroughfares (cardines and de- cumanus)²¹ something that we don't see in the citadel despite the existence there of a regular street network. The origin of this urban planning type also remains disputable. It became widespread during the Greek colonization period, but whether it was borrowed by Etruscan architects from Greek colonists or the other way round the scholars have no common opinion about E.J. Owens, The City in the Greek and Roman World, London; New York 1991, p. 29-31; F. Castagnoli, Op. cit., p. 54; W. Hoepfner, E-L. Schwander, Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland (Wohnen in der klassischen Polis I), Munchen 1994, S. 1 ff., Abb. 2; G. Shipley, Little Boxes on the Hillside: Greek Town Planning, Hippodamos, and Polis Ideology, M.H. Hansen (Ed.), The Imaginary Polis. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, vol. 7, Copenhagen 2005, p. 242 ff.. It is also worth noting that in the Italian urban planning model and in the Roman military camp public centers (forums) were placed on main intersections В. Кох, Op. cit., с. 293, 393; A. Johnson, Op. cit., p. 27-35., whereas in Hippodamus-planned cities (and in Chersonesus's Roman citadel) public centers never spread beyond the areas allocated for them А.В. Буйских, Op. cit., c. 89..

The similarity of the Roman camp to the city is noted in a number of the Greek written sources. So, Polybius wrote that “its streets and other arrangements are similar to a real city” “The result of these arrangements is that the whole camp is a square, with streets and other constructions regularly planned like a town ” [Polyb. 6.31.10]. “Moreover as each soldier knows precisely on which via, and at what point of it, his quarters are to be, because all occupy the same position in the camp wherever it may be, it is exactly like a legion entering its own city” [Polyb. 6.41.11].. Flavius Josephus drew also attention to the straight streets, central location of the military commanders' tents, and the presence of the square (ayopa): “The camp is conveniently planned with its separate parts. There are tents of the leaders in the middle, all the rest of the space is kind of an improvised city provided with something like a market, craftsmen quarters and a special place for judicial seats where the leaders dismantle arising disputes” “As for what is within the camp, it is set apart for tents, but the outward circumference hath the resemblance to a wall, and is adorned with towers at equal distances, where between the towers stand the engines for throwing arrows and darts, and for slinging stones, and where they lay all other engines that can annoy the enemy, all ready for their several operations. They also erect four gates, one at every side of the circumference... They divide the camp within into streets, very conveniently, and place the tents of the commanders in the middle; but in the very midst of all is the general's own tent, in the nature of a temple, insomuch, that it appears to be a city built on the sudden, with its market-place, and place for handicraft trades, and with seats for the officers superior and inferior, where, if any differences arise, their causes are heard and determined” [В. Iud. 3.5.2].. As in any city, there was a forum in the camp “When the Roman army first reached the lake Timavus, the Istrians took post behind a hill” [Liv. 41.2.1]. “The Istrians having made an attack on the empty camp, after that no other had met them in arms, came upon him while he was drawing up and encouraging his men at the general's quarters” [Liv. 41.2.9]. “The enemy then, tearing down the general's tent, and seizing on all they could find, went on to the quaestor's quarters, and the adjoining forum, called Quintana” [Liv. 41.2.11]. Th. Mommsen, Praetorium, Hermes 55 (1900) S. 437-442. R. MacMullen, The Legion as a Society, Historia 33, 4 (1984) p. 455., where the staff rooms (principia andpraetorium)²*, sanctuaries of the marks (aedes), the speaker's tribune (tribunal or suggestus)²⁹ and the space for divination by birds were located (auguratorium) [[Hygin.] Munit, cast. 11-12]. At the camp forum there were also basilica and tabernae. The permanent camp (castra stativa) had such mandatory attributes of the comfortable antique city as baths and latrines А.В. Махлаюк, Армия римской империи. Очерки традиций и ментальности, Нижний Новгород 2000, c. 62; H., von Petrikovits, Die Innenbauten romischer Legionslager warend der Prinzipatszeit, Opladen 1975, 227 S., 12 Taf. (Fig. 1).

Some researchers tend to see Roman military camp as a prototype of “the Roman citadel” (I. Antonova, R. Karasevich-Shchepersky). R. Karase- vich-Shchepersky has even provided the streets of the citadel names applied in the camps: to the longitudinal one - Via Praetoria, to the transverse - Via Principalis³¹. Others, such as V. Zubar, believe, that “we cannot mechanically transfer the principles of military camps planning that have been established in the practice of military construction in the provinces to Chersonesus” but generally they do not reject this analogy. A. Buiskikh tends to explain the regular plan of the citadel rather as borrowing “from the practice of civil and military construction, common to the Roman Empire as a whole”. But she doesn't deny the possibility of “inheritance” of the plan from the town-planning tradition of Chersonesus.

Fig. 1 The principal features of an auxiliary roman fort (by A. Johnson): 1 - The headquarters (principia); 2 - Commander's house (praetorium); 3 - Granaries (horrea); 4 - Barracks (centuriae); 5 - Storebuildings or stables; 6 - Latrine; 7 - Rampart ovens

It's probably worth to dwell on the similarities and differences between the “Roman” citadel in Chersonesus and typical Roman military camp, to understand why they often draw a parallel between them. What was the reason for such a comparison?

From original, Hellenistic planning, Roman citadel inherited only the outer defensive walls (curtain walls 18, 19, 20) with towers (XVI, XVII) and, according to I. Antonova, tracing of two longitudinal streets, one of which led to the gate in the curtain wall 18, connecting the city with the necropolis, the other - to the gate at the XVI tower И.А. Антонова, Административные здания херсонесской вексилляции и фемы Херсона (по материалам раскопок 1989-1993 гг.), ХС 8 (1997) с. 19; А.В. Буйских, Op. cit., c. 225.. In preparation for the new building, this entire plot, apparently, was, according to Roman custom, cleared of buildings and aligned “Nor can their enemies easily surprise them with the suddenness of their incursions; for as soon as they have marched into an enemy's land, they do not begin to fight till they have walled their camp about; nor is the fence they raise rashly made, or uneven; nor do they all abide ill it, nor do those that are in it take their places at random; but if it happens that the ground is uneven, it is first leveled: their camp is also four-square by measure, and carpenters are ready, in great numbers, with their tools, to erect their buildings for them” [В. Iud. 3.5.1]..

Taking into account that the entire internal construction of the citadel, dating from the Roman period, was inserted into the limited by the earlier (Hellenistic) defensive walls space, and was calculated for a small enough contingent, it saves effort of waiting for a complete set of facilities, mandatory for a military camp. Space shortages had an impact on the absence of some necessary facilities (for example, a hospital and tabularium were not found) С.Б. Сорочан, В.М. Зубарь, Л.В. Марченко, Op. cit., c. 536.. Although, even in the Roman camp of “full value” (to which the citadel cannot be referred to) plan, in detail, could vary (depending on the time and location), generally adhering to the usual for such objects, normative canon. According to the observation of C. Hopkins and G. T. Rowell, rarely later development gets “full adaptation of the basic planning principles of the Roman camp” in the conditions of the existing building (these include, in particular, Dura-Europos) C. Hopkins, H.T. Rowell, The Praetorium, M.I. Rostovtzeff (Ed.), Excavations at Dura-Eu- ropos. Preliminary Report of Fifth Season of Work. October 1931 - March 1932, New Haven 1934, p. 203; А.В. Буйских, Op. cit., c. 226..

Therefore, from a more or less standard set of buildings inherent from Roman camps and fortresses, in the citadel there are only certain elements of building: the thermae (bath-house) И.А. Антонова, В.М. Зубарь, Некоторые итоги археологических исследований.., 59., principia, praetorium, barracks and furnace for firing building ceramics Ibid., c. 61., separated by three longitudinal and three transverse intersecting streets (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Citadel of Tauric Chersonesus. The roman period (by A. Antonova): 1 - Thermae (the end of the 2^nd - the beginning of the 3^rd century AD - the second half - the end of the 3^rd century AD); 2- Buildingat the curtain 18 (the 2^nd - the beginning of the 4^th century AD); - Principia (the second half of the 2^nd - the end of the quarter of the 3^rd century AD; second quarter of the 3^rd - the last third of the 3^rd century AD); - Thermae (the 3^rd - the 9^th century AD); - Furnace for firing building ceramics (the third quarter of the 3^rd century AD); - Capacity for water; - Commander's house (the last third of the 3^rd century AD - middle ages); - Barracks

As for the defensive structures erected in the citadel during the Roman period (represented by the new 21^st curtain wall and the XLI, XX and XVIII towers), they feature certain fortification techniques that were used in earlier field camps and later became common in fortification of Roman provinces. They include, in particular, the tradition to erect towers in the rear of curtain walls: in this case, the XLI tower is adjacent to the 21^st curtain wall. (Examples of this practice are described in detail in the works by M. Bernadska-Lyuban- ska M. Biernacka-Lubanska, Op. cit., p. 149-168, 198-222., C. Henderson C. Henderson, The Planning of the Fortress at Exeter, Roman Frontier Studies, Exeter 1989, p. 73-83, fig. 13-11., A. Johnson A. Johnson, Op. cit., p. 72-77..) However, according to I. Antonova who oversaw excavations in that sector of defense, this technique is a deviation from the standard Roman construction practice И.А. Антонова, Отчет о раскопках цитадели в 1998 г., НА НЗХТ, 1998, спр. № 3389, арк., 7.. V. Zubar believed that this fact represents an additional proof of the dating of the XLI tower's erection to not later than the second half of the 2^nd century AD, because the Romans began “placing” the tower's main body outside the defensive wall only in the 3^rd - 4^th century AD at the earliest В.М. Зубарь, С.Б. Сорочан, Основные этапы археологического изучения памятников на территории цитадели Херсонеса Таврического, БИ 19 (Симферополь; Керчь 2007) 198-199..

Plan of the Roman towers of the citadel (XLI tower has a rectangular shape, and XVIII tower has extended semicircular shape), except the rare cruciform tower XX, is characteristic for the Roman tradition of fortress building and has a number of well-attributed analogies among the objects of fortification (including those in the camps) on the territory of provinces of the Roman Empire A. Johnson, Op. cit., p. 160-161; M. Biernacka-Lubanska, Op. cit., p. 51-109. (Fig. 2).

Since the “Roman citadel” of Tauric Chersonesus is, on the one hand, military object and on the other - after all, the area of the city, its integral part, then, along with the methods of military construction, civil engineering practice, anyway, has influenced the organization of its internal space. On the one hand, it was direct influence: the citadel has inherited certain outside defensive walls with portals and the path of two out of its three longitudinal streets from the original Hellenistic development of Chersonesus's hill-fort designed under Hippodamus's system. On the other hand, it was indirect, because the Roman camp also borrowed the main space organization principles, as well as the set of facilities indispensable for normal functioning of the society, from the civil construction sphere as numerous written and archeological sources prove.

R. Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski, Cytadela Chersonesu Tauridskiego w okresie rzymskim. Proba rozwarstwiennia chronologicznego i rekonstrukcji planu zabudowy wewngtrznej, Swiatowit, t. III (XLIV), fasc. A (2001) 63, obr. 2.