¹ Poulter, A. G., ‘Town and country in Moesia Inferior’, in id. (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria (Nottingham, 1983), 74–8.Google Scholar

² Id., ‘Roman towns and the problem of late Roman urbanism: the case of the Lower Danube’, Hephaistos, v–vi (1983–1984), 109–32Google Scholar.

³ Id., op. cit. (note 1), 94–6. Our Bulgarian colleagues have identified roughly built structures of late Roman date overlying the remains of public buildings within the town: Slokoska, L., Georgiev, P. and Tsurov, I., Arheologicheski otkritiva: razkopki prez 1986 (Sofia, 1987), 121–4. If, as argued below, the castellum does represent the site of the late Roman city then this evidence for continued occupation within the ruins of the early Roman city denotes extensive extramural development during the late Roman period.Google Scholar

⁴ Zeiller, J., Les Origines chrétiennes dans les provinces danubiennes (Paris, 1918), 167.Google Scholar

⁵ Theophylact Simocatta, Hist., VII.2, 16; 13, 8. The city is also mentioned as an important centre in the sixth century by Hierocles, Synec, 636, 1–8.

⁶ The coin was sealed beneath the north clay face of the large ditch, and within a horizontal band of clay which may have been backfilled into the early ditch when the large ditch was first dug or during a subsequent repair: the north side of the large ditch would here be susceptible to subsidence into the backfilling of the earlier ditch.

⁷ cf. Popescu, E., Inscripiiile din secolele IV–XIII descoperite în România (Bucharest, 1976), nos. 104–6 from Callatis (Mangalia).Google Scholar

⁸ A fifth-century date is possible although this final period of occupation, which ended in destruction by fire, is more likely to be later and contemporary with the final period of occupation attested in areas D, E and F which can be reasonably ascribed to the sixth century.

⁹ A Trajanic date has been assumed for the layout of the paved streets of Nicopolis: Ivanov, T., ‘Gra-dooustroistvoto prez rimskata i kusnoantichnata epoha v Bulgaria’, Arheologiva, IX (4) (1967), 10–29.Google Scholar However, the limestone paving of the streets of Philippopolis (Plovdiv) dates to the late second century, replacing an original cobbled surface; Botoucharova, L. and Kesjakova, E., ‘Sur la topographic de la ville de Philippopolis dans la province Thrace’, Pulpudeva, III (Plovdiv, 1980), 122–48. Since inscriptions suggest that the principal public buildings at Nicopolis were being erected under Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, it seems probable that the paving of the streets with these massive slabs, itself a considerable engineering achievement, dates to the same period.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ninety coins came from the cobble surfaces in B of which the majority date to the House of Constan-tine and seven issues to the first half of the fifth century, reflecting the pattern of coin-loss for the site as a whole. However, the comparative rarity of sixth-century coin finds from Lower Danubian sites, known to have been occupied in that period, is an added complication: the roadway may still have been used during the sixth century when occupation is attested in areas D, E and F.

¹¹ This road slab fits with the other slabs but it is not in its original position: a lens of soil, which covers the latest fill of the robbed-out drain, also overlies the north sides of the drain and continues under this slab. Although not in situ, the limestone block may perhaps have only been levered out of position to allow for the insertion of the culvert.

¹² This cardo within the early Roman city varies in width. Excluding the curb stones, it was 5․11 m. in width where it joins the decumanus immediately south of the agora but mid-way between the agora and area C the road is 5․43 m. wide.

¹³ The defences of Nicopolis are ascribed to the late second century, after the invasion of the Costoboci in 170, when a programme of urban fortification was certainly carried out in Thrace and Lower Moesia; Ivanov, T., Abritus (Sofia, 1980), 197.Google Scholar

¹⁴ 166 coins came from the cobble road surfaces. With the exception of a few residual second- to third-century coins, all date to the fourth to fifth centuries and the pattern of coin-loss follows that in area B.

¹⁵ At the end of the 1987 season, an occupation level, containing Roman pottery, was discovered below the surface outside the south wall of this building.

¹⁶ The amphora stamp is paralleled by finds from the Athenian agora and may well originate from Kos and date to the first half of the first century B.C. (pers. comm. Dr V. Grace).

¹⁷ The belt-buckle has exact parallels in finds from Sucidava (Celei) where they can be dated to the second half of the sixth century: Tudor, D., Oltenia Romanǎ (Bucharest, 1968)Google Scholar, fig. 142.1–4. Still better dating is provided by the discovery of ‘Sucidava type’ buckles at Tsaritchin Grad (Justiniana Prima), a city founded by the Emperor Justinian which was abandoned by the early seventh century: Kondich, V. and Popovich, V., Tsarichin Grad (Belgrade, 1977), pl. XI, nos. 26–8.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The identification was carried out by Dr C. Salisbury. On the rarity of this oak in present-day Bulgaria and its former widespread distribution, see Gerasimov, I. P. and Gulubov, Dj. S. (eds.), Geografiva na Bulgaria, I: Fizicheska geografiva (Sofia, 1966), 460.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The earliest-dated church in the Balkans with this form of polygonal apse is that of St John Studios in Istanbul, completed in c. 450. In the south-east Balkans, this form is reasonably securely dated to the sixth century or, at earliest, the late fifth century: cf. Chaneva, N., ‘Starohristiyanskata i rannovizantiiskata bazilika ot IV–VIv. v Bulgaria’, Arheologiva, X (2) (1968), 13–26.Google Scholar The polygonal apse is also well represented amongst the churches in and around Tsaritchin Grad which can be dated to the second half of the sixth century: cf. Duval, N., ‘L'Architecture religieuse de Tsaritchin Grad’, Villes et peuplement dans l'Illyricum protobyzantin. Collections de l'École française de Rome, LXXVII (Rome, 1984), 399–481.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ovcharov, D., ‘Bazilika no. 1 pri krepostta “Kroumovo Kale” krai Turgovishte’, Arheologiva, XII(3) (1970), 16–22.Google Scholar

²¹ cf. Rashev, R. and Stailov, St., ‘Starobulgarskoto oukrepeno selishte pro s. Houma, Razgradski okrug’, Razkopki i proouchvaniva (Sofia, 1987), 23–58.Google Scholar

²² The maxillar left first premolar and mandibular premolar allowed the age of the child to be determined. There was incomplete closure of the roots of these teeth although they had erupted into the mouth. Pers. comm. Gill Stroud, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.

²³ For the evidence of a third-century destruction see Poulter, op. cit. (note 1), 114, n. 19.

²⁴ A series of fortifications were constructed during the fourth century to protect urban centres on the Lower Danube. The best dated is Tropaeum Traiani (Adamklissi) where the building inscription from the east gate records the refoundation of the city and the erection of the new fortifications during the joint reign of Licinius and Constantine (A.D. 315–18): Popescu, op. cit. (note 7), no. 170.