¹ I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Mrs E. Marki and her colleagues in the Byzantine Ephoria, who were ever prepared to answer our questions and provide practical assistance and also to Dr. A. Mentzos, at whose suggestion, the survey was carried out. I would also like to thank the farmers who willingly gave permission for surveying in their fields. The efforts of the team working in often difficult circumstances, must be acknowledged; Dr P. Strange, geophysicist, Catherine and Robin Faulkner, also the undergraduate and postgraduate students from the University of Nottingham; R. Sweetman (senior supervisor), N. Penna (surveyor), I. Brosch, H. Myers, D. Baxter, K. Rochester, T. Mandal, J. Taylor, and G. Nixon. Dr T. Mandal deserves particular thanks for her work on preparing most of the survey maps for publication and for her careful quantification of the intensive survey results. David Taylor, draughtsman in the Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, produced the drawings with his usual skill and attention to detail. Funding was provided by The University of Nottingham, The British School at Athens, The British Academy, The Society of Antiquaries, The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, and the EEC. The Hellenic Foundation paid for the costs of the ceramic analysis. Of particular note was a generous grant of 1,109,087 drachmas from the village of Korinos thanks to the personal support of the mayor, Mr Voinisios, without whose help the project could never have been undertaken. My colleague Dr W. G. Cavanagh offered much needed advice in the preparations for the expedition and in helping with the translation of Greek reports. I am also grateful to Ms J. Reynolds and especially to Dr J. Bardill for reading my report on the monograms and their helpful comments. Where appropriate, their important observations are acknowledged in the footnotes.

Copies of the survey archive are held by the Ninth Ephoria of Byzantine Antiquities in Thessaloniki, by the British School at Athens and by the Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham. The finds are in the Ephoria's store.

² Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The Battle of Pydna’, JHS 104 (1984), 31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Hammond's location map for the battle (map 3), the quadriburgium lies c. 200 m south-west of the position occupied by the Macedonian army's left wing. The precise location of ancient Pydna still remains a matter of conjecture although Hammond's identification is reasonable and has here been accepted (FIG. I); ibid. 31–2. See also Pritchett, W. K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Part II: Battlefields (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 153–6Google Scholar.

³ Since the areas available for intensive survey were defined by field boundaries, area codes were allocated to fields subject to intensive survey and in the sequence in which the work was carried out; A (field 14), B (field 15), C (field 16), D (field 17), E (field 6), F (field 19), G (field 23), H (field 22).

⁴ All pottery was washed and rebagged during the field season. The analysis was carried out by Mr M. Beckmann during the late spring of 1996. See below, section V.

⁵ A brief inspection of the site was carried out in the spring of 1994. It was evident then that it would be impossible to predict which fields would be accessible during the study season. It had been hoped, optimistically as it turned out, that geophysical and intensive surveys could be carried out in the same areas. This proved impossible. Only stubble fields could be surveyed by resistivity and here pickup was fruitless. Equally, it was clearly impractical to carry out geophysical prospection within standing crops.

⁶ Naturally, care was taken to ensure that the cotton was not damaged by field-walking or by the strings used to establish the grid.

⁷ A few fragments of roof tile were also found but were too few to merit separate quantification. Where fragments were very small, the distinction between tile and brick was, in practice, not easily established. Accordingly, a small portion of the material described as brick may actually be roof tile.

⁸ See below, section III, no. 19.

⁹ Exceptionally, the sequence for the transect numbers starts on the west side of the field, number 2 was on the east side and the third transect was midway between transects 1 and 2 (FlG. 2).

¹⁰ See below, section IV small finds.

¹¹ See below, section V.

¹² See below, section III.

¹³ This small field was the only one which could have been surveyed systematically but which was omitted for lack of time at the end of the field programme. A trial click survey in the most promising location which was obscured by stubble (field 5) produced no meaningful results.

¹⁴ Here the actual data from the click surveys are not published. However, the results are available for consultation in the site archives. See above, n. 1.

¹⁵ For further discussion of this and the other geophysical areas, see below, section II.

¹⁶ Within the quadriburgium, no paving survives but the presence of an open drain running between the megaron and the basilica indicates that the road must have been covered originally with limestone slabs which were subsequently robbed.

¹⁷ A conspicuous high-resistance anomaly at the north eastern end of the defences suggests, as would be expected, that there was another tower there, replicating the position of the tower at the south-eastern corner.

¹⁸ See further, section II.

¹⁹ Given the uncertainties as to the precise date of construction, it is here considered unwise to invoke Procopius' Buildings in an attempt to identify the site. Book iv, which discusses Justinian's activity in northern Greece, is sketchy and probably written in haste; Cameron, Averil, Procopius and the Sixth Century (London, 1985), 94Google Scholar. Moreover, the evidence for rebuilding on the lower Danube, also described in book iv, finds no support in the archaeological and epigraphic record, whereas there is good evidence that it was Anastasius and not Justinian who was responsible for reconstruction in this period; Poulter, A. G., ‘The use and abuse of urbanism in the Danubian provinces during the Later Roman Empire’, in Rich, J. (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society, 3; London and New York, 1992), 131Google Scholar. An Anastasian date for the construction of the fortification at Louloudies can be excluded and a justinianic context seems improbable.

²⁰ See Hammond (n. 2), 34 and ibid., map 2 although here the road is presumed to lie to the south of the railway line as it passes through Louloudies, which would seem perhaps too close to the limit of ancient occupation.

²¹ The section of the itinerary from Pydna to Dion appears corrupt and the total distance between these two cities is excessive although the distance between Pydna and Anamum has not been challenged; Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Macedonia, i (Oxford, 1972), 131–4Google Scholar; Pritchett, W. K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, iii: Roads, (Los Angeles and London, 1980), 211–13Google Scholar.

²² Hammond (n. 21), 134. Against the identification of Gannokhora with Anamum see Pritchett (n. 21), 212.

²³ Pritchett (n. 21), 213.

²⁴ Hellenkemper, H., ‘Die byzantinische Stadtmauer von Nikopolis in Epeiros. Ein kaiserlicher Bauauftrag des 5. oder 6. Jahrhunderts?’, Nicopolis I: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Nicopolis (23–29 September 1984) (Preveza, 1987), 243–251Google Scholar.

²⁵ For Nicopolis, see Poulter, A. G., Nicopolis ad Istrum: A Roman, Late Roman and Early Byzantine City (London, 1995Google Scholar). For Justiniana Prima, see id. (n. 19), 124.

²⁶ Hammond (n. 2), 35, id. (n. 21), 128.

²⁷ Pydna is rarely mentioned in sources of the Roman and late Roman periods and its continued status as a city remains uncertain; Papazoglou, F., Les Villes de Macédoine á l'époque romaine (BCH supp. 16; Paris, 1988), 106 and 108Google Scholar.

²⁸ An impressive result, using resistivity surveying under ideal conditions was carried out by Emerick, K. and Wilson, K. at Fountains Abbey, where the complete plan of the Guest Hall has been recovered; ‘Fountains Abbey: some interim results of remote sensing’, English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, 18 (1992), 7–9Google Scholar. For a similarly successful use of magnetic gradiometer surveying, see Casey, P. J., Noel, M., and Wright, J., ‘The Roman fort at Lanchester: a geophysical survey and discussion of the garrison’, Arch. J. 149 (1992), 69–81Google Scholar.

²⁹ Clark, A., Seeing beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology (2nd edn; London, 1996), 48–56Google Scholar.

³⁰ See e.g. Wilson, R. J. A., ‘Rural life in Roman Sicily’, in Wilson, R. J. A. (ed.), From River Trent to Raqqa (Nottingham, 1996), 37Google Scholar, quoting a report on geophysical work carried out at Campanaio where ‘the overall dryness of the Sicilian soil in September removed completely the distinctions in moisture levels between those above a buried wall or a pit or a ditch, and those elsewhere, familiar from resistivity surveys in northern Europe.’ At Mytilene, even in November, ‘the hard dry soil required frequent wetting of the probes to ensure good contact’, Williams, C. and Williams, H., ‘Excavations on the acropolis of Mytilene, 1985’, Classical Views 30 n.s. 5 (1986), 146Google Scholar. At Stymphalos, over parts of the on site, it again proved necessary to wet the electrodes; Williams, H., ‘Investigations at Stymphalos, 1984’, Classical Views 29 n.s. 4 (1984), 215–16Google Scholar. Gaffney and Gaffney, in their case study proposing the integration of geophysics into rural field surveys in Boeotia, comment that ‘geophysical survey in Boeotia has not been used extensively as it has rarely produced coherent geophysical anomalies‘, Gaffney, C. F. and Gaffney, V. L., ‘From Boeotia to Berkshire: an integrated approach to geophysics and rural field survey’, Prospezioni archeologiche 10 (1986), 65–70Google Scholar.

³¹ P. Strange, ‘The geophysical survey’, in A. G. Poulter (n. 25), 259–69.

³² Strange, P., unpublished report for the Institute of Archaeology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1991Google Scholar.

³³ Work in progress.

³⁴ A. G. Poulter and P. Strange, see in this volume, ‘Philippi; the Results of a Geophysical Survey’.

³⁵ P. Strange and R. Falkner, ‘The geophysical survey’, in Herrmann, G., Kurbansakhatov, K. et al. , ‘The international Merv project. Preliminary report on the second season’ Iran, 32 (1994), 58–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The results of the geophysical survey are compared with those from the ensuing excavations in eid., ‘The international Merv project. Preliminary report on the third season’, Iran, 33 (1995), 37–41Google Scholar.

³⁶ See further below, section III.3.

³⁷ This reading was proposed first by Soteriou, G., ‘Ἐκθεσιϛ περὶ τῶν έρϒασιῶν’, A. Delt. 4 (1918), 21Google Scholar and has been accepted by Mentzos, A., who noted examples of this type which came from Dion: ‘Σϕραϒίσματα σε πλίνθουϛ απο Δίο και τη Θεσσαλονίκη,’ Istorikogeographika, 2 (Thessaloniki, 1988), 196–7Google Scholar. The name is well attested in the early Byzantine period and an example (though the feminine form, Έπιϕανία) is known for the fifth/sixth century and associated with Thessaloniki; Feissel, D., Recual des inscriptions chrétiennes de Macédoine du III^e au VI^e siècle, (BCH Supp. 8; 1983), no. 288Google Scholar. The same monogram occurs on lead seals; Zacos, G. and Veglery, A., Byzantine Lead Seals (Basle, 1972), iGoogle Scholar, pl. 232 no. 128. (I am grateful to J. Bardill for drawing my attention to this last reference).

³⁸ As far as I am aware, no other monograms of this type have been published. Άπολλώνιοϛ is a common enough name in the Greek world but is admittedly rare in the early Byzantine period. However, an Apollonius was magister militum in Sicily in 598; PLRE iiiA, 100.

³⁹ Soteriou, G. A., Ἡ Βασιλική τοῦ Ἁϒίου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκηϛ (Athens, 1952), pl. 948Google Scholar (top right). As in the example from Louloudies, a circle is traversed by a vertical which ends below in an Ω. I am grateful to Dr Bardill for drawing my attention to this parallel and for suggesting that this may be the same form, which he would read as Phocas. However, perhaps because of the damage to this example from Louloudies, I can see no clear evidence for a K, which, in the example from the Basilica, has its vertical incorporated into the central vertical bar and its diagonal arms extending left.

⁴⁰ Zacos and Veglery (n. 37), pl. 242 no. 482 on seal 472, p. 442. Here, in addition to the Ω. (bottom) and central Φ, the monogram has a K incorporated into the vertical (facing right) and an A (top), clearly ϕωκᾶ. I am grateful to J. Bardill for the reference.

⁴¹ A. Mentzos (n. 37), pl. 20ß.

⁴² I am most grateful to J. Bardill for pointing out the A in ligature with the K and for proposing the identification of the personal name. On these monograms and ΦΩΚΑ, see further below, discussion.

⁴³ Theocharidou, K., ‘Συμβολή στη μελέτη της παραγωωής οικοδομικών κεραμικών προϊόνων στα βυζαντινά και μεταβυζαντινά χρονιά’,Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 4th ser., xiii (Athens, 1988), 97–112Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ The type C monogram (no. 13, FIG. 21.7), as noted above, is similar to examples of complete monograms which contain this name but, the lack of any clear sign of a K incorporated in the central vertical arm, though admittedly perhaps due to damage, leaves the interpretation uncertain. No. 15 (FIG. 22.1) is too poorly preserved to resolve the issue. In no. 16 (FIG. 22.2), the two diagonal lines (top right) do not form an A as they clearly do in no. 19 (type E, FIG. 22.3).

⁴⁵ G. Soteriou (n. 37), plate 24.

⁴⁶ Box type monograms alone were used on the bricks and sculpture in the construction of St Polyeuktos in Constantinople, dated to shortly after 518 but the earliest cruciform monograms appear on capitals in the churches of St Sophia (532–7), St. Eirene (after 532), and St John of Ephesus (completed by 565), pers. comm. J. Bardill.

⁴⁷ PLRE iiiB, 1556–73, Zacos and Veglery (n. 37), 367.

⁴⁸ Grierson, P., Byzantine Coins (London, 1982), 33–4Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ e.g. Zacos and Veglery (n. 37), seal 472, p. 442. Dr Bardill has pointed out that the first firmly dated bar monograms belong to the 7th c.

⁵⁰ Spieser, J.-M., Thessalonique et ses monuments du IV^e au VI^e siècle, contribution à l'étude d'une vill paléochrétienne (Paris, 1984), 212Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Adam, J-P., Roman Building: materials and techniques (London, 1994), 227Google Scholar, Ginouvès, R., Dictionnaire méthodique de l'architecture grecque et romaine (Rome, 1985) vol. 1, 144Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professor G. B. Waywell for confirming this identification.

⁵² See above, section I. 3.

⁵³ I should like to thank Dr A. G. Poulter for providing both the permission and the means to study this pottery, Mrs E. Marki for cheerfully facilitating my work in Pydna, and R. Sweetman for helping me out in Athens.

⁵⁴ The following abbreviations are used here: AfRS = African Red Slip, PhRS = Phocaean Red Slip, LRA = Late Roman Amphora, following the Carthage typology, see Riley, J. A., ‘The Pottery from Cisterns 1977-1, 1977.2 and 1977.3’, Excavations at Carthage 1977, conducted by the University of Michigan, ed. Humphrey, J. H., vi, (Ann Arbor, 1981), 55–78Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ A number of other much less common wares were also noted, some of which are mentioned either in the text or in the catalogue. Three of these were included in the preliminary quantification (fine grey ware, fine brown ware, and LRA 4) but they were so rare that they were of no help either chronologically or with regard to distribution; they are grouped in the ‘unidentified category’ (TABLE 6). for the purpose of quantification. In addition, a number of sherds of Classical to Roman date and a few Byzantine glazed sherds were found, and these are noted in the distribution study below.

⁵⁶ Wares are described by colour, inclusions and break, following the terminology outlined by Sanders, G. D. R. in ‘Excavations at Sparta: The Roman Stoa, 1988–91 Preliminary Report, Part 1c. Medieval Pottery’, BSA 88 (1993), 252–86Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Throughout this report, references to illustrated examples are in bold within brackets.

⁵⁸ These and all following fine ware dates are derived from Hayes, J. W., Late Roman Pottery (London, 1972Google Scholar) and A Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (London, 1980Google Scholar).

⁵⁹ Squares B1. 16, 27, 29; B2. 17(×2), 20; B3. 16.

⁶⁰ Squares B1. 14; B2. 6, 12; E1. 12(×2).

⁶¹ Squares A1. 5, 7; A2. 8; A3. 1, 6, 12; C2. 2, 8, 9, 10, 15; F. 18.

⁶² Squares A2. 8; A3. 1; B1. 6; E1. 2, 4, 5, 9; B3. 11.

⁶³ Squares A1. 5, 6.

⁶⁴ See Riley (n. 54) and Bonifay, M. and Pieri, D., ‘Amphores du V^eau VII^es. à Marseille; nouvelles données sur la typologie et le contenu’, JRA 8 (1995), 94–120Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Bonifay and Pien (n. 64). 108. Examples from the survey are similar to 46, fig. 6 from context 2 (late 6th–7th cc. AD).

⁶⁶ See Tomber, R., ‘Quantitative approaches to the investigation of long distance exchange’, JRA 6 (1993), 147Google Scholar for amphora sources, 161 for conclusions regarding the distribution of eastern amphorae.

⁶⁷ See Tomber (n. 66), 160–1.

⁶⁸ Hayes, J. W., Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, ii. The Pottery (Princeton and Oxford. 1992), 63–4Google Scholar for LRA 1 (Hayes's Type 5), 64–5 for LRA 4 (Hayes's Type 6).

⁶⁹ Note that Roman occupation has been found on the site before the construction of the late Roman defences. See above. section I.

⁷⁰ See above, section 1.7.

⁷¹ Note that the two sherds from area H probably arrived with dumped debris used in modern land reclamation, see above, section I.7.

⁷² Hayes (n. 16), 94.

⁷³ Ibid. 54; also cf. 14:30.