The maritime cultural landscape of Roman Epirus

The coastline as a maritime cultural landscape is possibly the most dynamic geographic space related with human activity, an ever-changing natural and anthropogenic landscape and the main interface between the land and the sea. This study, which was generously supported by the Center of Hellenic Studies, deals with a very important and yet hardly studied such landscape, the coasts of Roman Epirus, a region that forms a nodal point along sea and land networks connecting Italy and the Adriatic with Greece and the Levant. It tackles the subject in an interdisciplinary way, bringing together data on seaborne trade, the original configuration of harbors and their ability to accommodate ships, as well as the development of coastal settlements. This study is limited, for practical reasons only, within the borders of modern Greek Epirus, covering the areas between the deltas of Thyamis and Arachthos rivers in the Ambracian gulf (Fig. 1). The time period discussed stretches from the Roman conquest in the early 2nd century BCE until the late Roman Empire in the early 4th century CE. [1]

The beginning of the Roman period in Epirus is marked by the dramatic events of the conquest by the armies of Aemilius Paulus. Ancient historians vividly document the extent of destruction and subsequent desolation of the Epirotan settlements and countryside. [2] The coastline appears to have initially faced a better fortune, since both the Chaonian tribes in the north and the Cassopaeans in the south did not take part in anti-Roman coalitions and were not punished. But despite this and the fact that new political entities were quickly formed and local coins were re-issued, [3] the impact of the punitive handling of Epirus, as well as the continuous conflicts that took place there in the 1st century BCE (the Mithridatic and Roman Civil Wars), [4] eventually brought their toll on the coastline too. Strabo, writing in the Augustan period, underlines the desolation that prevailed in Epirus in his time. [5]

With the battle of Actium and establishment of the pax romana the need to re-organize urban life in Epirus was evident and Augustus founded Nicopolis, which soon became the biggest city of the region and the province’s capital in the 2nd century CE. Archaeological remains and written evidence also verify the development of new settlements and the foundation of several villas, some belonging to wealthy Roman landowners, like Titus Pomponius Atticus. [6] Nicopolis was frequently visited by Roman emperors such as Nero and Hadrian, who would actively support the city and its hinterlands by funding public works. [7] In 267 CE the Erulians crossed Epirus and besieged Nicopolis, [8] but there is little evidence for extensive destructions. Under Diocletian Epirus was divided into two different provinces, Epirus Vetus with Nicopolis as a capital and Epirus Nova with Dyrrachium as a capital. [9] The end of the Roman period is not marked by any substantial disruption of life in Epirus and especially its coasts.

The coast of Epirus can be divided into two distinctive geomorphological areas: a) Plains and lowlands created by alluvial deposits from large or small rivers and b) steep and relatively high limestone ridges that prevail in the coastline. [10] Alleviation is a great factor of change, especially for the alluvial coasts, whose soil also accelerates subsidence, balanced partly by the constant siltation. In contrast the limestone coasts have remained relatively stable. The issue of sea-level change, which is very important concerning the operation of ancient harbors in general, remains largely unexplored in the region. An average of 2 m rise has been verified in other regions of Greece between the Roman period and today. [11] The general tectonic rise of the limestone areas of the coast has partly balanced this rise, whereas in the alluvial areas subsidence has accelerated it. [12] Archaeological finds, can shed some light on this problem. No fully submerged antiquities have yet been documented in the region, even in areas with antiquities right by the shoreline like Igoumenitsa bay, indicating a rather limited rise. In the case of a Hellenistic fortification wall in the Lygia peninsula, only the bottom row of blocks is partly submerged today, indicating a relative sea-level rise of no more than one meter. [13] The situation is much more complicated in the deltaic and alluvial areas where siltation has considerably affected the development of the coast, as well as the depth of the harbour of anchorages. [14]

Within the region studied here several geographical units have been distinguished, according mainly to the local geomorphology, which had an important impact in the development of human activities and settlements on the coast (Fig. 1).

This region forms part of the end of the Akrokeraunia mountains, which fall steeply into the Ionian Sea, forming a series of promontories and deep but small bays, some of which were inhabited in antiquity. Ftelia bay is such a small bay that could offer anchorage to some ships, as also mentioned in recent navigational guides, but there are no reports for any Roman remains. [15] The same stands for the steep, conical Strovili promontory further to the south, which also formed a naturally fortified landmark but does not appear to have been used in the Roman period or earlier. [16]

The delta of Thyamis/Kalamas was an area densely populated in the Roman period, as a series of settlements and cemeteries show (Fig. 2). [17] Most of the settlements, however, were not built on the actual coast and were related with agricultural production. Although it is possible that coastal settlements were covered by the ever-changing seafront of the plain, [18] the lack of any more recent settlements, with the exception of Sagiada, also indicates that it was not a favorable area for habitation. A series of bays probably existed along the Roman coast, [19] but these would have likely been shallow and constantly affected by siltation, something that would make them precarious anchorages, as highlighted also by early-20th century navigation manuals. [20]

Nevertheless, the delta gave easy access to the immediate hinterland, where the city of Gitana and other settlements existed. It is unknown whether ships of medium or large capacity could enter the meanders of Thyamis, but lighter and riverboats could easily be employed, as it happened in Roman Tiber. [21] Merchant ships would most likely use the area of the ancient delta north of the Torone peninsula, [22] an area that would have been much more spacious in antiquity and described as a good anchorage by modern navigation manuals. [23] The Hellenistic forts of Pyrgos Ragiou and Lygia were restored during the Roman period, operating most likely as guard posts for the nearby harbour.

The bay of modern Igoumenitsa was most probably the best anchorage of the region in antiquity, since it was spacious, well-protected, and deep bay (it covers an area of 592 hectares and it was at least 25 m deep and its center in antiquity) with low siltation rates and long beaches along its coast (Fig. 3). The main anchorage was located at the bay’s southern half, the northern one being shallower and muddier due to the proximity of the Thyamis delta. The examination of the bathymetry of the bay shows that a relatively shallow underwater ridge existed between the Drepano sand-spit and the Antimourto cape. [24] This ridge would reach a depth of only 4 m in antiquity and would hinder the entrance of ships of large and very large capacity that would, when loaded, had a draft of 3.5 to 5 m. [25] On the other hand, it would protect the harbor by depleting the force of high incoming waves due to the refraction principle. [26]

The area around the bay of Igoumenitsa flourished during the Roman and Late Roman period. At Nea Seleukeia a Roman villa and a warehouse close to the sea (1st century BCE) indicates that local products were gathered and ships from there, [27] whereas further south, at the Archaeological Museum and the Venetian castle, tombs and architectural remains of the 3rd and 4th century CE show that the main settlement of the area was located there, [28] before it was moved to the most extensive settlement of Ladochori. [29] Ladochori had direct access to the sandy beaches of the bay and buildings of commercial character and workshops have been located in close proximity to the modern waterfront. A series of Norway spruce and maple logs (species common in shipbuilding) preserved by the sea thanks to the waterlogged environment could have been employed for ship construction or repair. [30]

Another important site of Igoumenitsa bay was the 2nd-century CE Zavali villa maritima and its mausoleum (Fig. 4). [31] Located at the bay’s south end it was a relatively small building, standing on a seaside hillock with a portico overlooking the sea, typical characteristics of Roman villas around the Mediterranean (a close parallel is the Strongyli villa near Nicopolis). The imposing brick mausoleum with its high-quality Attic sarcophagi point towards a wealthy individual, possibly a Roman landowner.

The basic characteristic of the coastal region is its steep limestone ridges, interrupted only by small streams and plains and the general lack of ancient settlements, with the exception of the ancient city of Elina (Dymokastro), which stands on a high ridge overlooking the bay of Karavostasi. The Hellenistic settlement, which was inhabited during the Roman period too, [32] had direct access to the open sandy bay below. The existence of an ancient quay in continuation of the city’s fortification walls has been suggested by Dakaris [33] but no actual remains have been observed to confirm this.

The steep coastline south of Elina offered few natural anchorages [34] and was most likely uninhabited in the Roman period (as it is largely today) and population was gathered in hinterland sites like Agia and Anthousa. [35] The most convenient location for the operation of a harbour was Valtos bay, west of the modern city of Parga, where an ancient stone jetty has been reported, but its existence has not been confirmed. [36] Pottery and commercial amphorae have also been collected by fishermen from the sea. [37] This is probably the bay of Toryne (ladle), which, according to Plutarch, the fleet of Octavian occupied as they came swiftly from Italy in order to face Antonius at Actium later. [38] The sandy bay is well protected thanks to the two natural capes and would offer enough depth and space (c. 28 hectares) for the 200 heavy warships employed by Octavian, as well as access to fresh water. [39]

Fanari bay, commonly referred by ancient texts as Glykes Limen (sweet harbour, due to the inflow of fresh water from the Acheron river) is today a small sandy bay enclosed by the Agia Eleni and Agios Ioannis ridges. The site was by Cassius Dio as one of the harbours where Octavian sheltered his ships on his way to Actium. [40] Geophysical researches in the region have shown that the actual bay was much larger during the Roman period, covering a total of 1,256 hectares and offering adequate space Octavian’s 200 ships (Fig. 5). [41] Even if the bay was not deep enough for merchant vessels, it was still adequate for galleys whose draft was by definition no more than 1.5 m. [42] The bay communicated with Acheron river, which was most probably navigable in antiquity, at least by small ships and lighters. It remains uncertain whether the Acherusian Lake, which was located very close to the bay, could accommodate any seagoing vessels through the river mouth, which would, more likely, however, avoid venturing into a fresh-water lake whose depth could have been easily affected by siltation.

This part of the Epirus coast is formed by steep limestone with small deep bays opened between them and long stretches of pebble beaches and shoals towards the south. There are few harbours and anchorages there and modern navigation manuals do not mention it as an ideal area for anchoring. An important attribute, however, of the area is the presence of two Roman villas on the hilly coastline facing the sea, located most likely along the ancient coastal road. The villas at Frangokklisia [43] and Agia Pelagia [44] were luxurious establishments equipped with monumental baths and adorned with mosaics and in the case of Agia Pelagia a mausoleum too, similar to the one at Zavali (Fig. 6). Although the two villas cannot be considered villae maritimae, since they are at a distance of 1-2 km from the shore, they form part of the maritime cultural landscape, since they were built with a clear view towards the sea in an idyllic landscape that reminds contemporary frescoes and mosaics. [45] There are no indications of any harbour works related to the villas and it seems probable that only small ships could use the open coastline and be hauled on the long beaches.

The Nicopolis or Agios Thomas peninsula is a large alluvial area that extends after the end of the limestone coastal ridges. The main characteristic of this area is the low hilly relief and the long sandy beaches on the coast (Fig. 7). The peninsula was densely populated during the Roman period, since, apart from the foundation of Nicopolis in 30 BCE, numerous farmsteads, villas, and settlements were founded around it, whereas the whole area was thoroughly centuriated by the Roman authorities. [46] Naturally the most important settlement was Nicopolis, which was, according to Strabo, served by two harbours, Comarus and Vathy. [47] Comarus is identified with the long open beach that extends north of cape Mytikas to the west of the ancient city (Fig. 8). Despite references to ancient submerged moles there, [48] no actual remains have been located. It appears that Comarus was an open beach where ships would be beached or use lighters and cargoes would enter the city via its monumental western gate, which communicated with the seafront through a paved esplanade adorned with numerous mausolea. [49] Although the choice of Comarus as a harbor seems strange, as it was not protected by any natural or artificial features, it was sheltered by the western and north-western winds that blow in the winter months and allowed ships to avoid the tedious task of passing through the straits of Actium in order to use the other two harbours.

Although not mentioned by Strabo, Nicopolis’ second harbour was most likely the lagoon of Mazoma, immediately to the north-east of the city. Geophysical research has shown that it was much larger and deeper in antiquity (up to 8 m), whereas the sand-spit closing its entrance did not exist (Fig. 7). [50] The calm waters of Mazoma and its proximity to the city made it an ideal anchorage, provided mariners had the time and will to enter the gulf through the straights of Aktion. The importance of this harbor within the urban life and planning of Nicopolis is indicated by the existence of the nearby proastion, an area outside the city walls that accommodated the great theater, the gymnasium, and Augustus’ victory monument on the nearby hill. [51] During the Hadrianic period a massive and luxurious bathhouse was added, its semi-circular facade facing the harbor, [52] which would add to the creation of a proper “harbour scenography”, but would also supply some important infrastructures, including the necessary bathhouse that travelers could visit. No harbour works have been found in the area, apart from possible remains of a stone and concrete quay to the west of the harbor basin, recently located by the author, which appear to correspond to the orientation of the centuriation plan of the area. The calm and protected lagoon would likely not have required any further improvements and mariners could easily drop their anchors onto the muddy seabed and use the soft soil beached around it to unload cargoes.

Nicopolis’ third harbour was Vathy (deep), mentioned by Strabo as an excellent anchorage, [53] located at a distance of 3 km southeast of the city. This was a deep and long bay facing south (Fig. 9). The harbor was well-protected from the northern winds, as well as from any ways coming from the south thanks to its narrow entrance [54] and reached a depth of 8 m. [55] The surrounding coasts were generally steep, allowing for the approach of vessels of great draft. Its northern end was a salty marsh, unfit for merchantmen. The bay would have been preferred by the ancient mariners, especially when they needed to spend relatively long periods of time there. Human activity in the area has been confirmed by field survey and has shown that apart from a series of farmsteads and villas a large Roman settlement covered the bay’s western shore (Fig. 7), whereas fishermen have reported pottery finds from the seabed. [56] A large bath complex, possibly dating in the 2nd century CE, is still visible at the harbor’s entrance, at Margarona. [57] The presence of such an impressive building there shows the importance of Vathy as a harbour and the bath was most likely built there to welcome travelers, mariners, and pilgrims who would have arrived there from the south on their way to the city. An additional asset of this specific area is the presence of a fresh-water spring. [58]

The area between Nicopolis and Louros river is an extended deltaic wetland, affected heavily by sedimentation from the Louros and Arachthos. Geophysical research has shown that the sea was much further north in antiquity, [59] reaching up to the feet of the limestone ridges and the city of Bouchetion to the north, with several hills being islands in that time. [60] The fertile soil was ideal for cultivation and pasture and a series of farmsteads and villas were built there in the Roman times, the most important of which was the Strongylli villa (1st-3rd century CE). [61] The villa, which stands on a hill overlooking the plain, was similar to the Zavali villa in plan and was also equipped with a large warehouse and a bath that stood nearby (Fig. 10). Even, however, if the sea was much closer in antiquity and the Strongylli hill was an island the villa itself cannot be considered a villa maritima, since it does not face the sea but the nearby hills. It is unlikely that merchantmen would easily approach the above-mentioned zone to load and unload cargoes, due to the small depth and siltation fluctuations of the coast. Smaller vessels would most likely travel and coast and carry agricultural products and people to and from Nicopolis.

The coasts of Epirus presented a series of natural harbors of various types that could offer protection to the ships traveling along the coasts, from large and well-protected ones like the bay of Igoumenitsa, Toryne, Fanari, Mazoma and Vathy, which were, however, affected by siltation and were often tedious to approach, to open, silt-free, but less protected bays like Comarus, which, however, allowed for an easy approach and did not force ships to be entangled in secluded spaces. River estuaries were also important in ship traffic along the coasts of Roman Epirus, as indicated by the density of settlements around them, but it is very likely that the mariners would prefer to anchor at their mouths and employ smaller, specialized vessels, as happened between Ostia and Rome. [62] Large part of the coasts belonged to what can be called “opportunistic harbours”, i.e. small natural anchorages with no artificial protective works nor any other infrastructure and serving small communities or villas. [63] In general the coasts of Roman Epirus were far from the deserted country described by Strabo. The number of settlements constantly being documented by archaeological finds shows a dense occupation of various kinds (settlements, forts, villas, cities), especially during the years of the pax romana, which would, inevitably use the sea for trade and transportation and were, not surprisingly, concentrated in areas which combined fertile lands with an easy access to the sea, such as Igoumenitsa bay and the Nicopolis peninsula.