Two Examples of the Reconstruction of the Main Defense Line of Mangup Fortress in the Theme Period of Its History

Abstract

The Theme Period in the history of Mangup dates from 841 to the mid-eleventh century. For the first time in many years of archaeological researches at the site, recent excavations revealed two major repairs of the defensive structures of the fortress. These works date from the periods far from each other, and namely the mid-ninth century and the late tenth century; therefore, one may assume that the local Byzantine administration permanently paid attention to the defence capacity of the fortress. The mid-ninth century repair, which traces have been documented by the studies of the fortification A.XI in Tabana-dere ravine, occurred as a consequence of the inclusion of Mangup fortress into the Byzantine theme, established in Taurica in no later than 841. There was a significant reconstruction of the original defensive line, which was erected in the final years of Emperor Justinian I (527–565). The late tenth-­century repair was of a larger scale and had an exact date, no later than 994–995. It is mentioned in the building inscription showing the name of Topoteretes Tzoulas, which survived in situ in the masonry of a fortification tower in Tabana-dere ravine. These works resulted in the radical reconstruction of at least two key fortifications at the northern front of the fortress defence, fortifications A.XI and A.XIV located on the slope of Chufut-­Cheargan-­burun promontory. The reconstruction of two important fortifications of Mangup in the late tenth century was not an accident: it fit well into the general context of the military and political history of the Crimea in the period under study. Most likely, it was the case of the purposeful strengthening of Mangup fortress after the establishment of the tourmarchia of Gothia in the mountainous Crimea and as the centre of the military-­administrative unit. In this connection, Topoteretes Tzoulas, mentioned in the 994–995 inscription, who supervised the fortification works, should be considered both the commandant of a remote Byzantine fortress and also an officer of importance, who was directly subordinated to the tourmarches of Gothia, thus following the widespread administrative practice of tenth-­century Byzantium.