Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-h5th4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T20:02:19.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 The archaeology of Byzantine Thrace: The state of research (2015–2025) and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2025

Georgios Makris*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Canada
Fotini Kondyli
Affiliation:
The University of Virginia, United States
*
Corresponding author: Georgios Makris; Email: georgios.makris@ubc.ca

Abstract

This article offers a critical synthesis of recent archaeological research on Byzantine Thrace (seventh–fourteenth centuries), emphasizing work undertaken in Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye over the past decade. Drawing on systematic excavations, regional surveys, and interdisciplinary projects, we highlight how new discoveries and re-examinations of legacy data have significantly reshaped our understanding of the landscape, settlements, and modes of connectivity in this strategically vital region. Key themes include long-term human–environment interactions, settlement hierarchies, and the interplay between urban and rural landscapes.

Case studies of fortified centres such as Skopelos, Philippopolis, and Karasura reveal Thrace’s integration into imperial defence and trade networks, while investigations of port landscapes at Firuzköy, Ainos, and sites along the Black Sea coast underscore the centrality of waterways in structuring economic and social life. Research on monastic landscapes, from Mount Papikion to the Kosmosoteira monastery at Bera, demonstrates how religious communities functioned as hubs of economic production and aristocratic patronage. Parallel studies of rural and rupestrian sites highlight the dynamism of the countryside, challenging urban-centric models and foregrounding the adaptability of local populations to political and environmental change.

Beyond individual sites, these findings reframe Thrace not as a peripheral hinterland but as a mosaic of interconnected microregions, each shaped by distinct ecological, cultural, and geopolitical conditions. They reveal both resilience and innovation in the face of shifting imperial borders, foreign incursions, and long-term environmental transformation. Yet the study also underscores the need for greater cross-border collaboration, as modern political boundaries continue to fragment the region’s archaeological record. By integrating diverse datasets and advocating for a transnational approach, this review situates Byzantine Thrace within broader Mediterranean discourse and highlights its potential to illuminate processes of connectivity, resilience, and change across the Byzantine world.

Information

Type
Archaeology in Greece 2024–2025
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and The British School at Athens
Figure 0

Map 4.1. 1. Karasura; 2. Sveti Ivan Island; 3. Skopelos (modern Polos Kalesi); 4. Kuzulu Kalesi; 5. Erikler Hisar Kalesi; 6. Yündalan (Böyük) Kalesi; 7. Keçikale Kalesi; 8. Poroi; 9. Koumoutzena (modern Komotini); 10. Xantheia (modern Xanthi); 11. Peritheorion; 12. Bizye (Vize); 13. Philippopolis (Plovdiv); 14. Malkoto Kale; 15. Firuzköy; 16. Ainos (modern Enez); 17. Mount Papikion; 18. Linos; 19. Mount Ganos; 20. Bera (modern Feres); 21. Molyvoti; 22. Maroneia; 23. Abdera/Polystylon.

Figure 1

Fig. 4.1. Plan of the Skopelos fortifications, including different masonry techniques, as cited in Fildhuth and Ar 2016: fig. 3. Courtesy of The Skopelos Survey Project.

Figure 2

Fig. 4.2. Skopelos: large cistern seen from the north, as cited in Fildhuth and Ar 2016: fig. 7. Courtesy of The Skopelos Survey Project.

Figure 3

Fig. 4.3. Excavated church, view toward the east, Poroi, Xanthi. Photo © G. Makris/courtesy of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Xanthi.

Figure 4

Fig. 4.4. Küçükçekmece Lagoon with relevant sites. Photo © Alkiviadis Ginalis.

Figure 5

Fig. 4.5. Plan of the monastery of St John the Forerunner with the excavated structures after 2008, as cited in Popkonstantinov, Drazheva and Kostova 2015 (reproduced with permission).

Figure 6

Fig. 4.6. The marble reliquary found in the old church of the monastery, as cited in Popkonstantinov and Kostova 2020: fig. 13 (reproduced with permission).

Figure 7

Fig. 4.7. Monastic settlement in Asmakayalar valley near Bizye (Vize), hermitage north of the monastic core, as cited in Günay 2021: fig. 1 (reproduced with permission).