Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία

1. Topography-Location in the urban context

The palace of Antioch occupied the south part of the city, on the island¹ formed by the two branches of the Orontes River. It was preceded by a monumental propylon and it was close to the wall of the city’s fortifications.² It is estimated that it covered ¼ of the island and that it occupied its central part, looking on the Orontes River.

The topography, location and inner arrangement of the palace of Antioch have been merely the object of assumptions of the researchers, since the island of Orontes has not been excavated. Thus, the main sources on which the description of the palace is based are textual and not archaeological. However, despite the lack of archaeological evidence, the palace of Antioch holds a special place in modern theories concerning the evolution of the palatial model of Late Antiquity in the East.³ As far as the location of the palace in the city is concerned, we follow the topographical plan of D.N. Wilber⁴ as re-established by G. Downey⁵ , which is based on Libanius’s Oration on Antioch (356-360),⁶ as well as references made by Evagrios (6^th c.)⁷ and Theodoretus of Cyrrhus (1^st half of the 5^th c.).⁸ As regards the appearance of the palace, we have drawn some information from two representations of the structure: the first is found in the mosaic floor of Megalopsychia, from a house in the Yakto village, in the suburb Antioch called Daphne;⁹ the second representation is on the apse of Galerius in Thessalonike.¹⁰ On the mosaic floor of Yakto, which depicts the itinerary from the suburb of Daphne to Antioch, the palace is presented next to a small hippodrome, (the hippodrome of Antioch?) and possibly close to the Golden Octagon of Constantine the Great. On the apse of Galerius the palace forms the background in a sacrifice scene.

Based on textual sources, the main entrance of the palace to the south was accessible through a majestic tetrapylon, and its back face is adjoined to the external wall of the city. This emplacement of the palace allowed two views of different character to be formed. The main façade, which aimed to accentuate the palace inside its context, employed elements of urban and architectural planning (grandiose streets with colonnades, tetrapylon in their crossroad). On the contrary, the back side emphasized more on the protection of the private sectors of the complex and less on the monumental arrangement. Apart from the beauty of the landscape, the choice of location co close to the river added to its protection by possible intruders. Hoepfner¹¹ argues that the palatial complex was a ‘city in the city’ since it comprised palaces, administration buildings, libraries, an academy, temples, gathering spaces, theatres and a stadium.

Several scholars have suggested topographical plans of the ancient city of Antioch, based on the very little archaeological evidence, the textual references and today’s topography (which has changed considerably because of embankments and deviations of the river’s flow); their suggestions vary on quite a few significant points.¹² Two recent studies have posed new questions and arguments regarding the location of the palace, which is placed somewhat more to the East than what Wilbur had suggested.¹³

2. Architectural description

Little is known on the architecture of the palace. According to the mosaic floor of Yakto, the front face of the palace was monumentally articulated, arranged in two floors; on the ground floor there was a large entrance, while on the first floor there was an arch. The entrance was preceded by a magnificent propylon that played the role of monumental access to the palace.¹⁴ This tetrapylon towered over the crossing of four streets provided with a number of porticoes: three of these streets ended led to the fortifications and the fourth one, ‘the widest and most beautiful’¹⁵ led to the palace. On floor level, on the back (north) side, a gallery was formed – but only in the portion attached to the walls; a portico opened up to the Orontes river and the countryside. The north side was flanked by two elevated towers.

According to the typology of Duval, the palace of Antioch had many of the basic features of Late Antique palaces.¹⁶ The main entrance of the palace on the south marks the end of the main street which crossed the city. The back side was adjoined to the walls, which at this point were crowned by a colonnade instead of ramparts, thus forming a porticoed gallery for these apartments on the floor level. As far as the interior arrangement of the palace is concerned, Libanius¹⁷ informs us that it was of great beauty. He says that it had interior peristyles with courtyards and porticoes around which the private quarters were arranged ont he one side and halls for the reception and public gathering (andron) on the other side. Euagrius informs us that the complex comprised many buildings, two of which collapsed in the earthquake of 458.¹⁸ The plan of the palace, as it is described in the sources, seems to be very similar to the palace of Galerius in Thessalonike and that of Diocletian in Split, sharing the features of the palaces of the Tetrarchy.¹⁹

3. Chronology

The foundation of the palace dates to the period of Seleucids,²⁰ but it was built anew, like the hippodrome and several baths, in the late 3rd century, in the years of Diocletian (284-305).²¹ In this period the island received the name New City. Changes in the arrangements of the buildings were made by Gallienus (253-268) and Provus (276-282).Constantine the Great (306-337) reorganised the city of Antioch.

4. Contemporary condition and relative bibliography

Today, nothing survives of the palace. Like the Golden Octagon, it has probably been covered by embankments which have modified the topography of the city and have made the archaeological work difficult.

Based on the existing sources, many scholars (P. Lauffray, G. Poccardi)²² have attempted to reconstruct the topography of the ancient city of Antioch. Until today, the prevailing view is the one proposed in the plan of D.N. Wilber with the corrections of G. Downey. The topographical plan was included in the exhibition «Antioch. The lost ancient city» in 2000 by the curator of the exhibition Kondoleon.²³ However in 1999 Hoepfner presented a modified version of Antioch’s topography, in which many aspects of the urban planning and the location of important monuments was reconsidered.²⁴

1. The city on the island that is formed by the branches of Orontes is called New City by Libanius, in contrast to the Old City on the right bank of Orontes. The island was fortified and communicated with the Old City through five bridges; see Festugière, A.J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne. Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie (Paris 1959), pp. 23-26.

2. See the plan of the city of Antioch in Downey, G., A history of Antioch in Syria, from Seleucus to the Arab conquest (Princeton – NewJersey 1961), fig. 11.

3. Observation by Duval, N., “Les résidences impériales: leur rapport avec les problèmes de légitimité, les partages de l’empire et la chronologie des combinaisons dynastiques”, in Paschoud, F. – Szidat, J. (ed.), Usurpationen in der Spätantike. Akten des Kolloquiums Staatsstreich und Staatlichkeit 6-10 März 1996 Solothurn/Bern Heft 111 (Stuttgart 1997), p. 140. See also Lavin, I., “Antioch hunting mosaics and their sources”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), p. 271.

4. D.N. Wilber drew this topographical plan in the context of American and French excavations before the War; the plan was published by C.R. Morey, see “The excavations of Antioch on the Orontes”, Proceedings of the American Philological Society 76 (1936), p. 638.

5. Downey, G., A history of Antioch in Syria, from Seleucus to the Arab conquest (Princeton – New Jersey 1961), pp. 140, 259-260, 318-323, 346-347, 384, 393-394, 398, 477-478, 514, 640-647, 661. Downey modifies the topographical plan of D.N. Wilber and compares it with that of C.O. Müller (fig. 9) which however contains certain mistakes regarding the orientation.

6. The text has been translated by Festugière, A.J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne. Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie (Paris 1959), pp. 24-28, 44-46.

7. Evagrius, Ecclesiastical history, Bidez, J. – Parmentier, L. (ed.), The ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the scholia (London 1898), ΙΙ, 12.

8. Theodoret of Cyrrhus,Ecclesiastical History, Parmentier, L. (ed.), Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, Berlin 1998), IV, 26, 1-3.

9. The mosaic has been published by Lassus, J., “La mosaïque de Yakto”, Antioch on-the-Orontes I: The excavations of 1932 (Princeton 1934), pp. 114-156, esp. 49, and was reprinted by Levi, D., Antioch mosaic pavements I (Princeton 1947), pp. 323-345, pl. XXV-LXXX.

10. Downey, G., “The palace of Diocletian at Antioch”, Les annales archéologiques de Syrie 3 (1953), pp. 106-116.

11. Hoepfner, W., Geschichte des Wohnens. 5.000 v.Chr. – 500 n.Chr. Vorgeschichte – Frühgeschichte – Antike (Stuttgart 1999), p. 482.

12. We use ,as stated, the representation of D.N. Wilber, see Morey, C.R. (ed.), “Τhe excavations of Antioch on the Orontes”, Proceedings of the American Philological Society 76 (1936), p. 638, but J. Lauffray has suggested a totally different plan.See Lauffray, J., “L’urbanisme antique en Proche Orient”, Acta congressus M. Hafniae 4 (Kopenhagen 1958), pp. 7-26.

13. Poccardi, Ο.G., “Antioche de Syrie. Pour un nouveau plan urbain de l’île d’Oronte (ville neuve) du IIIe au Ve siècle”, Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome: Antiquité 106:2 (1994), pp. 993-1023, estimates that the hippodrome would cover an area attributed to the palace. W. Hoepfner (1999) who made a topographical analysis of the city of Antioch in Late Antiquity and the Early Byzantine period gives us a plan with the following characteristics: the city plan develops according to two patterns. The first one pertains to the main city and follows a direction parallel to the mountain, while the second one, which pertains to the island of Orontes and the royal complex, follows the direction of the river. These two patterns are intersected and this according to Hoepfner is symbolic. Moreover the palace is located next to the river, but more to the East of the location that Wilber suggested, since similarly to Poccardi, Hoepfner estimates that the hippodrome must have had extended to an area of the assumed location of the palace. See Hoepfner, W., Geschichte des Wohnens. 5.000 v.Chr – 500 n.Chr. Vorgeschichte – Frühgeschichte – Antike (Stuttgart 1999), pp. 473-483.

14. Festugière, A.J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne. Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie (Paris 1959), p. 45.

15. Festugière, A.J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne. Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie (Paris 1959), p. 24.

16. The main characteristics of Late Antique palaces have been collected by Duval in his article “Palais et cité dans la pars orientis”, Corso di cultura sull’arte ravennate et bizantina 26 (1979), pp. 41-51.

17. See Festugière, A.J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne. Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie (Paris 1959), pp. 25, 45, 46, 272.

18. Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, Bidez, J. – Parmentier, L. (ed.), The ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the scholia (London 1898), ΙΙ, 12.

19. Poccardi, G., “Antioche de Syrie. Pour un nouveau plan urbain de l’île d’Oronte (ville neuve) du IIIe au Ve siècle”, Mélanges de l'Ecole Française de Rome: Antiquité 106:2 (1994), pp. 1.008-1.009. See also Duval, N., “Les résidences impériales: leur rapport avec les problèmes de légitimité, les partages de l’empire et la chronologie des combinaisons dynastiques”, in Paschoud, F. – Szidat, J. (ed.), Usurpationen in der Spätantike. Akten des Kolloquiums Staatsstreich und Staatlichkeit 6-10 März 1996 Solothurn/Bern Heft 111 (Stuttgart 1997), p. 140.

20. The royal residence must have existed since the time of the Seleucids (Hellenestic period), but on another location; it was built on the island under Antiochus III the Great (223-187 b.C.), a century after the foundation of the city of Antioch by the first king of the Seleucids.

21. The years of Diocletian (284-305) marked a new building phase for the island. Downey believes that the palace had been built before 298, see Downey, D., “The palace of Diocletian at Antioch”, Les annales archeologiques de Syrie 3 (1953), pp. 110-111.

22. Lauffray, J., “L’urbanisme antique en Proche Orient”, Acta congressus M. Hafniae 4 (Kopenhagen 1958), p. 7-26· Poccardi, G., “Antioche de Syrie. Pour un nouveau plan urbain de l’île de l’Oronte (ville neuve) du IIIe au Ve siècle”, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome: Antiquité 106:2(Rome 1994), pp. 993-1023.

23. Kondoleon, C. (ed.), Antioch. The lost ancient city (Princeton N.J. 2000).

24. Hoepfner, W., Geschichte des Wohnens. 5.000 v.Chr – 500 n.Chr. Vorgeschichte – Frühgeschichte – Antike (Stuttgart 1999), n. 13.