Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:31:28.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Golden Gate at Istanbul

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

O. Davies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars have long discussed whether the Golden Gate is a monument of Theodosius I, as the inscription which formerly adorned it strongly suggests, or whether if was built at the same time as the walls under Theodosius II. The inscription must in the latter case apply to a minor rising of the Primicerius Iohannes in 423. However, Schneider, the last scholar who has examined the walls, points out that they were nearly complete in 422, when a rescript assigned to travelling soldiers the lower stories of the towers. Iohannes' rising was not crushed until 425; and not even Schneider has maintained that the Golden Gate was built later than the walls.

It seems more natural to suppose that the inscription refers to the conquest of Maximus by Theodosius I. In this case the gate may be assumed to have been comparable to the triumphal arches of Roman colonies, and to have stood on the original pomerium. Its existence may account for the line of the wall, which joins the Sea of Marmara after the shore has turned south-west; for the line of the fortifications is thus made considerably longer without much gain of interior space.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 1-2 , November 1944 , pp. 74 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © O. Davies 1944. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Strzygowski's view that the gate was originally a free-standing triumphal arch is stated in Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archäologischen Instituts viii, 1893, 3 ffGoogle Scholar. Against, Wiegand in Mitt. des k. d. Arch. Instituts, Athen. Abt. xxxix, 1914, 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 CIL iii, 735; H. Lietzmann ‘Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel: Vorbericht 1928’ Abh. der preussischen Akad. des Wissenschaften, 1929 Phil.-Hist. Klasse no. 2, p. 20, no. 9; Schneider, and Meyer, , ‘Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel: Zweiter Vorbericht (1929–33) Szb. der preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse xxx–xxxii (1933), 1168, no. 8Google Scholar:

‘Haec loca Theudosius decorat post fata tyranni. Aurea saecla gerit qui portam construit auro.’

3 Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel. Erster Teil: Zeichnerische Wiederherstellung. Text Krischen, von F., Lüpke, Lichtbilder von T. von (Denkmäler antiker Architektur, Bd. 6, Berlin, 1938Google Scholar). Zweiter Teil: Aufnahme Beschreibung und Geschichte von B. Meyer Platte und A. M. Schneider (Denkmäler antiker Architektur, Bd. 8, Berlin, 1943Google Scholar).

4 Cod. Theod. 7, 8, 13.

5 Szb. d. preussischen Akad. d. Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl. (1933), p. 1171.

6 Also mentioned by Casson, S., Archaeologia lxxxi, 1931, 68, pl. xxxivGoogle Scholar, in the report of his excavations at the Gate.

7 I have not found inscriptional evidence for this style on the walls; it was used in a number of Turkish buildings in the city. I am, however, doubtful if this style was used on the walls as late as the Turkish period, at which time most repairs were carried out in rough stone without bricks.