The discovery of an ancient harbour wall in the year 1819 is an important event in the study of Constantinople’s maritime history. Our knowledge of this discovery comes from a single authoritative source: Patriarch Constantius. Although limited to one informant, his testimony is detailed and valuable, especially because it is supported by his direct involvement in examining the remains. However, his statements must be read carefully, as his earlier and later accounts do not fully agree and can easily cause confusion The Authority of the Patriarch’s Later Testimony.
The Patriarch as the Sole Source
Patriarch Constantius refers to the discovery of the harbour wall on two separate occasions. The first reference appears in his book Ancient and Modern Constantinople, published in 1844. The second reference is found in a letter dated April 12, 1852. This letter is included in a later collection of his shorter writings and was addressed to Mr. Scarlatus Byzantius, following the publication of that scholar’s work on the history and antiquities of the city.
In the 1852 letter, the patriarch openly corrects several errors found in his earlier book. He also provides additional details that were missing or unclear before. This later document is therefore essential for understanding his true position and for interpreting the discovery correctly.
The Earlier and Misleading Account
The patriarch’s first mention of the discovery is very brief and appears in the section of his book that discusses Koum Kapoussi, which was the ancient Gate of the Kontoscalion. In this passage, he expresses the opinion that the Neorion of the Kontoscalion stood at that gate. He then quotes the description given by the historian Pachymeres of the wall surrounding the harbour.
Immediately after this quotation, Patriarch Constantius adds a short remark stating that a portion of this circular enclosure appeared in the year 1819. He describes it as consisting of three layers of very large stones placed one upon another. When read on its own, this statement strongly suggests that the wall discovered in 1819 was located at Koum Kapoussi and belonged to the Kontoscalion Sofia Day Trips.
However, when this passage is compared with the patriarch’s later explanations, it becomes clear that the earlier account is misleading. It lacks important details about the exact location of the discovery and gives the impression that the remains were found directly at the gate of Koum Kapoussi, which was not the case.
Clarifications in the Later Letter
In his 1852 letter, Patriarch Constantius clarifies several points that were left vague in his book. He explains that the discovery took place in the area of Yeni Kapou, not precisely at Koum Kapoussi. The wall was revealed after a major fire destroyed part of the surrounding neighborhood, allowing the ancient structure to be seen and examined.
He also explains that the enclosed area had the appearance of a filled-in basin, consistent with what one would expect from an ancient harbour that had gradually been silted up and later built over. These clarifications significantly change how the discovery should be understood.
Description of the Wall
The patriarch describes the wall as circular in form and built of massive stone blocks arranged in three horizontal layers. The stones were carefully cut and fitted, showing high-quality construction. Such workmanship is consistent with imperial harbour works described by Byzantine historians like Pachymeres.
This description matches well with known methods used to enclose and protect harbours in Constantinople, especially those that required strong defenses and controlled access.
The harbour wall discovered in 1819 is a key piece of evidence in identifying the ancient harbours of Constantinople. While Patriarch Constantius’ early reference suggests a connection with Koum Kapoussi, his later letter clearly places the discovery near Yeni Kapou. This discrepancy shows the importance of consulting all available sources and giving priority to later, more detailed explanations. When read together, the patriarch’s writings provide a clearer and more accurate understanding of where the ancient harbour wall was found and how it should be interpreted.
