At first sight, the language used by Patriarch Constantius seems to have only one possible meaning. It appears to say clearly that the ancient enclosure he mentioned stood beside the harbour at Koum Kapoussi. This interpretation naturally led many readers to believe that the wall discovered in 1819 belonged to the harbour located at that gate. However, when this statement is compared with the physical facts on the ground, serious difficulties arise.
The main problem is that the harbour at Koum Kapoussi is already surrounded by an enclosure that remains largely intact. This enclosure is formed by the ordinary city walls, standing at their normal height and following their usual line. There has never been enough space at this location for another circular enclosure of the kind described by the patriarch. Therefore, the early statement, taken literally, does not fit the known topography of the site Sofia Day Tour.
The Conflict Between Language and Physical Evidence
This contradiction between the written description and the physical remains has long puzzled scholars. If the wall discovered in 1819 truly stood beside the harbour at Koum Kapoussi, then there should be some trace of a second enclosure, or at least signs that the existing walls had been altered. Yet no such evidence exists. The walls at Koum Kapoussi show no indication of a separate circular structure built of massive blocks arranged in three tiers, as described by Patriarch Constantius.
This difficulty makes it necessary to turn to the patriarch’s later and more detailed statements. Fortunately, these later explanations shed light on the matter and help to resolve the apparent contradiction.
The Importance of the Later Letter
In his later letter, preserved in his minor writings, Patriarch Constantius provides a much fuller and clearer account of the discovery. Although this letter exposes an inaccuracy in his earlier book regarding the exact location, it is of great value because it corrects the earlier misunderstanding.
According to this later account, the wall was not discovered at Koum Kapoussi at all. Instead, it was found on the stretch of coast between Koum Kapoussi and the gate of Yeni Kapou at Vlanga. More precisely, the site lay closer to Yeni Kapou than to Koum Kapoussi. This new information immediately resolves the difficulty, as there is ample space in that area for such an enclosure Note on the Location of the Ancient Harbour Wall Discovered in 1819.
Evidence from the Turkish Quarter
The patriarch adds another important detail: the discovery took place in a Turkish quarter. This fact strongly supports the new location. Along the shore between Kadriga Limani, east of Koum Kapoussi, and Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, west of Vlanga, there was only one Turkish quarter close to the sea. This was the quarter of Tulbenkdji Djamissi, situated near Yeni Kapou.
This geographical detail fits perfectly with the patriarch’s revised description and makes it highly unlikely that the discovery could have been made at Koum Kapoussi itself.
The Described Route to the Site
To remove any remaining doubt, Patriarch Constantius carefully describes the route taken to reach the site of the discovery. He and his companions first passed through Kadriga Limani and the parishes of St. Kyriake and St. Elpis. They then went beyond Koum Kapoussi, keeping inside the line of the city walls, and continued toward the gate of Yeni Kapou at Vlanga. It was in this area that the ancient wall was exposed.
This detailed route description leaves little room for uncertainty. It clearly places the discovery between Koum Kapoussi and Yeni Kapou, and much closer to the latter.
When all the evidence is considered, it becomes clear that the patriarch’s early statement was inaccurate in its implication. His later and more precise account shows that the ancient enclosure discovered in 1819 was not beside the harbour at Koum Kapoussi, but farther west, near Yeni Kapou at Vlanga. This corrected understanding brings the written evidence into harmony with the physical facts and allows a more accurate identification of the ancient harbour remains.
