Some of the information presented here comes from the Reverend H. O. Dwight, LL.D., who knew the quarter of Yeni Kapou well in the year 1854 and lived there for many years. His long familiarity with the area makes his observations especially valuable. Other references confirm that certain structures mentioned in earlier studies were still standing in the nineteenth century and could be examined directly by scholars and church officials at that time.
Ancient historians also play a central role in this discussion. Among them, Pachymeres is particularly important because he provides a clear description of imperial building activity connected with the harbour known as the Kontoscalion Scholarly Opinions on the Identity of the Harbours.
Pachymeres’ Description of the Kontoscalion
According to Pachymeres, a Byzantine emperor surrounded the Kontoscalion with very large stones. He also states that the entrance to the harbour was closed with iron gates fixed into the stonework. This description is precise and vivid. It refers not only to the existence of a strong enclosure but also to a controlled and fortified entrance, designed to protect the harbour and regulate access.
Such details are significant because they allow historians to compare written sources with archaeological remains. When a text describes construction materials, layout, and defensive features, it becomes possible to test its accuracy against physical evidence found on the ground.
The Discoveries of 1819
The remains uncovered in 1819 fit Pachymeres’ description remarkably well. The wall discovered at that time was made of massive stone blocks arranged with great care. These stones match the scale and strength implied by Pachymeres’ words. Furthermore, the phrase “the entrance in the stones” applies very well to the wide gap found in the stone mole offshore. This gap clearly functioned as an entrance into the harbour basin and could easily have been fitted with iron gates, as the text suggests.
This combination of a stone enclosure and a defined entrance is not found at the harbour in front of Koum Kapoussi. That harbour lies within a broad curve formed by the regular city walls and is protected by a different type of mole. There is no evidence there of an entrance cut directly into massive stonework in the same manner Walking Guided Tours Sofia.
A Strong Argument for the Patriarch’s View
Because of these facts, the argument put forward by Patriarch Constantius deserves serious consideration. His claim that the harbour uncovered in 1819 was the Kontoscalion is strongly supported by the close match between Pachymeres’ description and the physical remains he examined. The size of the stones, the form of the enclosure, and the nature of the entrance all align with the historical account.
This evidence forms one of the strongest arguments in favor of identifying the site near Yeni Kapou as the Kontoscalion.
The Case for Koum Kapoussi
At the same time, there are also powerful arguments supporting the view that the Kontoscalion was located at Koum Kapoussi. Earlier discussions have shown that many historical references associate the Kontoscalion with that area. Its position, long use, and prominence among the southern harbours of Constantinople make it a natural candidate for the famous name.
Because both sides of the argument rest on solid evidence, the problem cannot be resolved easily.
A Possible Explanation
One possible solution is that the name Kontoscalion originally referred specifically to the harbour at Koum Kapoussi but was later used more loosely. As the most important harbour in the area, its name may have been extended to nearby harbours as well. In this way, different writers may have used the same name to describe different, but closely related, harbour installations.
The evidence from Pachymeres, the discoveries of 1819, and the observations of later scholars presents a complex picture. The stone enclosure and gated entrance strongly support the patriarch’s identification of the Kontoscalion near Yeni Kapou. Yet the traditional association of the Kontoscalion with Koum Kapoussi remains persuasive. It is likely that the name was applied flexibly over time, reflecting the changing use and importance of Constantinople’s harbours rather than a single fixed location.
