From the ISLES of the NORTH Early Medieval Art in Ireland and Britain Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Insular Art held in the Ulster Museum, Belfast, 7-11 April 1994 EDITED BY CORMAC BOURKE BELFAST ;: HMSO 1995)-Bourke; Belfast HMSO 1995 19 Tue JewkLLep Cross AND Irs CANOPY Hilary Richardson The imitation of metal in stone carving The north cross at Ahenny, Co Tipperary (Fig 1), be longs to. localised early group of crosses that are carved in stone but cfeated in the image of metal. Its designis conceived in terms of the precious metalwork of the period. ‘The link with metal has long been recognised by scholars and it may seem a repetition of well worn ideas to draw attention ta it again, However, it needs to be stressed more forcibly in order to bring out its full implications. The importance of this curious phe. nomenon has been strangely overlooked. Many writ ers have carefully described the features showing the trait and have drawn close comparisons between sur face patterns carved on stone with those created, for example, in cast bronze objects. It is rather add that the real significance of the concept has largely escaped notice. Yet the sculptor had a strang motive for his preoccupation with metal forms, It is my purpose to examine his motivation and to explore the reasons for the particularly impressive shape and treatment that he gave to the free-standing crass. The evidence pre- sented here consolidates an earlier study based on a different range of material (Richardson 1984). First of all it most be stressed that the jewelled cross, the crix gemmara, was in widespread use in Christen dom as an early type of cross, long before the Cruci- fixion image had begun to establish itself. The Slievenamon group fits within a far-reaching context therefore. The overall appearance of the Ahenny cross suggests a large wooden cross covered with ornamen- tal plates of gold or gilded metal. The general impres- sion is confirmed by the detail which leaves no doubt of the intention. Elaborate patterns of spirals and in- terlace repeat Irish motifs frequently found in cast bronze or enamelwork. The Ahenny group reflect the magnificence of jewelled crosses made from silver or gold, encrusted with gems, pearls and enamels, A skeuomorph ts normally the result of obsoles- cence. A feature remains frozen in its original form when it has lost its meaning and applies to a set of circumstances that are no longer relevant. In this case, however, the sculptor had a very special model in mind which accounts for the extraordinary way he dealt with the stone. The bosses in high relief on the ring lead 177 Fig 1 Ahenny, Co Tipperary, north cross.Hilary Kicherels one to suppose that they fnide ar cover 1 purpose is (o hold metal plates (gether, forming case to protect » wooden cross in the interior. In the nature of stone the bosses can have no practical role Similarly the hatched mouldings copy 4 metal bind that covers the edges of the plates (Fig2). In metal the hatching plays with light to give added sparkle and brilliance. In stone it cannot make this effect so that it has no more function on the cross in the imitation binding itself Mock cnamel stucls match contempo- rary matits on shrines and vessels One surviving metal-covered cross of Lnsular work manship dates probably from the 8th century. Tt is the Rupertus Cross al Bischofshofen, Salzburg, Austria, an ornate processional crass of large dimensions with glass discs approximating jewels, The glittering look lends credence to the image attempted in stone at Ahenny (Richardson 1984, pl 11). The Ahenny group are foremost among the high crosses to exhibit this peculiarity but many oth crosses have similar features to a lesser degree. The Fig 2 Ahenny, Co Tipperary, north cross: detail ng paralleled on moun e bo! ver. The decorati at Clonm the int Jerusalem The theme of Jerusalem where was set up accounts of Roe (1955) who first identified the crosses with the model at Jeru: ‘crosses are not just haphazard imita ui butrepre True Cross itself. Thus t perspective in an international setting field of early Christian bble works pears in the view of of § Pudenziana in Re Fig 3 5 Pudenziona, Rome, apse mosaic: der Meer & Mohrmann 1958) 178y True Cross by his mother, St Helena, in 326. It was a story that gripped popular attention and spread rap- idly. Liturgical feasts and hymns were introduced in honour of the cross, a commemorative cross was scl up on Golgotha, the relic was exposed und fragments were distributed far and wide, while pilgrimage to the Holy Places increased dramatically. The Marirology of Oengus the Culdee, written about 800, records for March 10; To the angels has been summoned Constantine the fait (and) luminous, by whom way found the angelical shat the tree of the Lord's Cross. For May 3 it says: The first finding of Christ's Cross with its many virtues ‘The gloss adds; The prime finding of the wood of the cross ic. authentic finding of Christ’s Cross in the tine 0! Constantine son of Helena (Stokes 1905, 81,122, 129) In the § Pudenziana mosaic the great jewelled cross, behind the figure of Christ enthroned, dominates the view, It is erected on the mount at Golgotha and the buildings that surround it represent actual structures in the vicinity of the Holy Sepulchre following the activities of Constantine and Helena at Jerusalem. The essentials of the history of the finding of the True Cross are readily available in a number of authorities and it is inappropriate to dwell on them here (Stylianou & Stylianou 1971; Swanton 1987; Drijvers 1992), Enamels from east and west illustrate the story. The Stayelot triptych of the 12th century is itself a reli- quary of the True Cross and has six scenes depicting episodes in the True Cross legend. Helena is pictured as she directs the exhumation of the three crosses at Calvary (PML 1980, pls 1-8). From the east, an cnemel of 10th- or 11th-century date in the Khakhuli triptych shows Constantine and Helenain theact ofsetting up the newerosson Golgotha (Fig 4e). Dressed in imperial rabes they stand on ei- ther side of the crass holding the transom with both hands. The composition bas a central significance in the scheme of the Khakhuli triptych. [cis the lowest of ‘three cnamels that are placed in the vertical axis imme- diately above the main icon, the Virgin in Prayer, The lopscene represents Christ in Majesty enthroned, while the middle subject is the /etimasia or Preparation of the Throne (Fig 4a). The Hetimasia, frequently por- trayed in Byzantine art, has clear parallels with the message of the Irish high crosses, The throne prepared for judgement appears with the instruments of the Passion, and the cross, ringed by the crown of thorns, is. an instant visual link with the shape of the Celtic cross. A book with ajewelled cover rests on thethrone. ‘The position of these three enamels within the whole Programine of the triptych demonstrates the unity of the theme (Khuskivadze 1984, 18-19), 179 TheJewelled Cross and tts Canopy Fig 4 Khakhull wnptych: (a) The Hetimasia (ciao 25mm): (b) Constandine and Helena Three elements are usually associated with the mo- Lif of the jewelled cross although they may not all be present together: (i) the cross decorated with gems; (ii) the pyramidal or stepped base; (iii) the canopy. The canopy is linked to the building that Constan- tine put up over the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. In turn this relates more widely to Sion and the heavenly , The stepped or pyramidal base indicates Golgotha, the place of the skull, where steps led up to the great cross according to the reports of early pil- grims. It is represented in art at an carly date. The Golgotha cross can be seen in the mosaic decoration of the monastery near Kartmin believed to be the work of craftsmen commissioned by the emperor Anastasius in S12 (Hawkins & Mundell 1973, 286, figs 19-21). In Syriac manuscripts the €arliest crass of thisFig 5 Armenian kita Si Sophia Jerusalem, the special focus of Christian devation, provided 2 common inspiration for works of art right across the Christian world. The most revealing varia- tionson the theme are found in Ir¢land.in the extreme west on the one hand, and in the Caucasus region, cast ‘of Byzantium. on the other. It seems that the geo- graphical extremes preserved an early tradition, for in these two regions early free-standing crosses sur- vine (Richardson 1987; 1992). The kernel of the idea may be seen midway in Byzantitim itself in a very inv portant location. It is nat a carving because sculpture poner us: \ was out of favourin Byzantine art except a ental adjunet to architects inthe above tt eath aca a icated in 537 contri 0 of St Sophia. Door through which the emperor and the entered the church (Fig 6) iat WW uilt by Justinian to dominate not snstantinople (named afler Constantine) but the whole eastern empire. Adamnan calls it ‘the vory tert round stone church in that city’ (Meehan 9). ‘The inner face of the west w in fr ong ther the nave ed panels of marble of different ine five panels of opus sectid One panel is arrange coloursand above the bron of the entrance, shows a punted by a domectike canopy. A jewelled cross stands inside the little building 2 7), Major restoration dating from 1957 freed the from its deliberate disguise of the Ottoman period (Underwood 1960). The richly jewelled cross rests of id base and a bitd perches on either side of the baldacchir from each of the transverse arms of the cross and cur tains hang on either side, A small equal-armed cross adorns the centre of the ribbed canopy. The panel in Constantinople imitates the galden cross set up on the summit at Golgotha by Theadosius 1 (408-30) in the Sth century, not to be confused with the silver cross: which replaced it after the Persians had ravages arly in the 7th century, Lt will be rem pyr Three peurls are suspended Fig 6 $1 Sophia, Istanbul, west wat dewit of paneds (after Kahler 1967). 180Fig StSophia, Istanbul, opus sectle panel representing an nedicula (after Underwood 1960) that Arculf told Adamndn and the monks on Tona that there was ‘a large eross of silver, erected in the seli- same place where once the wooden cross stood em- bedded, on which suffered the Saviour of the human race’ (Mechan 1958, 49), The cross opus sectile panel, measuring 150cm high, can be seen immediately below the cornice on the inner face of the west wall where itis ina direct line with the apse far away to the east, across the vast interior ef the building (Figs 8,9). Itis conspicuous, attracting the gaze of a person facing west or departing by the Imperial Door, The adjoining panels of dark porphyry thraw the crs panel into special prominence. The two pancls below bear inlaid designs of dolphins arranged in pairs around discs of red porphyry. The whole i a setting of unsurpassed splendour. The Imperial Door is the most imposing of the three central doors leading from the narthex and is suitably furnished with a magnilicent bronze frame and linte], formerly gilded, It is higher than the other doors and very large. The bronze cornice above iton the outer side, as one enters the nave, is remark- able for possessing the only composition in refief from Justinians's original foundation. Itshows the dove of the Holy Spirit poised above the throne on which rests an open book, bearing texts from St John’s gospel (10,7, 9). “Christ is the door, and the good shepherd’ is the passage concerned, going on further: ‘Land the Father 181 aie its ¢ translation, is a brilliant counterpart to early western literature venerating the cross, such as Venantius Fortunatus or the Dream of the Rood. Fig 8 St Sophia, Istanbul, interior yiew facing west (after Kithier 1967),Hilary Richardson Fig 9 St Sophia, fstanbul, section E-W te shaw position of cross panel (after Kédair-et af 1987), Crosses in Georgia In Georgia the symbol of the cross is paramount in art it was an emblem of victory and the triumph of the faith. The sien (signtom) of Constantinc’s vision ‘was soon followed:in Georgia by the eross set up by St Nino in the first part of the 4th century to mark the conversion af the country and the triumph of Christ. Her cross was of wood, erected high above the old capital of Mukheta, on & craggy ridge soaring over the surrounding landscape, The cross motif came to permeaic every aspect of building and design and free- Standing monuments are part of this tradition. ‘Numbers of stone stelae survive that were cross- bearing orginally, The 6th-century stele from Khandisi is outstanding: its individual compositions on all four sides arc arranged in panels of delicate precision (Chubinashvili 1972; Richardson 1984, pl 19). There are also representations of irce-standing crosses in) a variety of sources. Often they have a stepped base and in some cases a cnp is depicted. Huge ornate crosses. sarved in relief, dominate church fagades such as Samtavisi cathedral (1030), or are sunken in brick 182 facades us at the 16th-century monastery of Akhali Shuamta, A complete model is carved on the east wall of Edsani Sioa (6th century), clearly showing the base ima series of steps, rope mouldings on the shaft anda miniature building just below the cross-head (Fig 10), A group of three crosses can be seen in a striking de- sign on a stele trom Gounia Kala (th or th century}, ow in the Georgian Museum of Fine Arts, Tbilisi (Fig 11), The central jewelled crossis flanked by twosmaller erosscs on steps, and two birds are stationed above, reminiscent of the birds on the St Sophia inlay orevent on the slab from Pahan Mura, Co Donegal, The base is carved in an unsophisticated but lively manner: a figure holding a cross on high is probably St Nino. It is moteworthy that the Irish crosses share the stepped base with Caucasian carvings (Figs 12,13). The Killamery, Co Kilkenny, cross, for example, with its pronounced steps is very close in uppearance to the model in relief at Edsani Sion, especially in the view from the south of the nurrow side of the shaft, A re- muarkable similarity also ¢xistsin the caps covering the crosses, especially between the caps of Georgian pre-Fig. 10. Edeani Siem, relief in east wall (ajier Chubinashvité 1972) afiar crosses an the one hand aid the Slievensmon group of crosses on (he other. The domed bec-hive sbupe of the eapstones at Abenay and al Kilkieran, Co Kilkenny, is distinctive. [( probably represents a canopy or a domed building like the actual building erected above the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem (Hichardson 1984, 140-3), The more usual shape of capstone on Irish crosses is modelled on a miniature id Crass an 183 Fig 11 Gounia Kala, ele church with 2 shingled roof. Probably the two types are interchangeable in meaning. Crawford (1926, 4) considered that the Ahenny crosses are evidently the carliest, placing them in the mid Sth century, He ob- served that the scale of proportions afterwards used had not then been fixed or the shrine-shaped cap evolved’. ‘The cap is clearly part of the whole ensemble andis duplicated on Georgian crosses of a specific type Large pre-altar crosses that stood in front of the altar ‘on special wooden or stone bases are a peculiarity of the Georgian church, going back to the beginning of Christianity in Georgia with St Nino's cross. They are wooden crosses usually encased in metal plates of sif- sometimes gilded, on which scenes or individual figures of saints are portrayed, Occasionally they areHilary Richardson Fig 12. Bolnisi, Georgia, small base with eros in reef Fig 14 Sadgert, Georgia, pre-altar cress: repousré canopy Sea Fig 13. Khozhorrni, fragntent of eariy Christian stele batt into wall of medieval church. painted. ‘They were at one time widespread but now remain in sit chiefly in remote mountainous regions The tradition of placing a cross in the interior of @ church was preserved down the centuries in Svanetia and Ruleha where the lifestyle of the people was left undis- lurbed: Pre-altar crosses dominate the interior of tiny churches, sometimes richly decorated with wall, paint ings. They face the congregation and almost hide the sanctuary, They farm a distinct aspect of Georgian art, unparalleled elsewhere. Caps crown the general com Position OF the erases and may be pointed, Some are decorated with hanging bells and are called ‘a hat with skint’, like the cross cap at Lagurka (Richardson & Searry 1990, p| 1x). Caps may also’ be reliquaries and suich crosses are given special veneration (Kenia 1986). Many pro-nltar crosses today are in muscums in Mestia and ‘Tbilisi, The large silver-pilt cross from Sadgeti, in the Georgian Museum of Fine Arts, is cov- ered with scones illustrating the life of Christ and the life of St Gearge, The named master craftsman took three years to complete the task (Beridze et al 1984, 1206). The cap, with a brim, is decorated in repoussé with a Deesis (fig 14).Hie Fowuited Crosy aed tts Canepy The Tree of Life Foliaye is seldom used in early Irish art, although Roe discusses the influence of ‘the crocs as Tree of Life’ on the Irish high crosses (1965, 223). The leaved cross was 4 fayourite emblem in Byzantium and elsewhere. Certainly in Armenia and Geargia in the early centuries of Christianity free-standing leaved crosses existed. ie not just carved in relief bul actually created in three dimensions. Among 6th-century carvings found in the excavations at Dvin there is a large leaved cross which was made to surmount a capital (Richardson 1987, fig 2b) (Fig 15). Similar 6th-century crosses come from Lamazi Gora (Mepisashvili & Tsintsadze 1979, pl 236) and Bolnisi (Fig 16). There seems lo be no explanation for the double mouldings on the narrow sides of the Ahenny proup fof erosses anid it is passible that they may have had & practical function. Muybe they provided a support for separate attachments, of wood for instance. The Tree of Life is apposite in this context. If there were side picees fixed to a crass, perhaps they represented the growth of foliage like the leaved cross elsewhere. It can be ne more than a siggestion in the light of present Knowledge, but certain crosses evidently were fur pished with additional pieces, witness the slots in the short arms of St Martin’s eross on Jonu o1 the projec: ions on the Fahan Mura slab. It is curious that there Fig 15. Dyin. Aemienta, top of sete: capital and Teaved cross. 185 Fig 16 Rotnisi, Georgia, fragment of unfinished leaved cross are literary references in Ireland to the Tree of Life and yet no reference to it pictorially. To quote from Saltaér na Rann: King of the Tree of Life with its Nowers, the space around which noble hosts were ranged, its crest and its showers on every sidespread over the fields and plains nf Heaven. ‘Oni ong of pulres! grace; without withering ( hounty rather) of fruit and leaves. ts a glorious flock of birds and sings a perfect ith choice Lovely ig the flock of birds which keeps it; on every bright and goodly bird a hundied feathers, and with- out sin, with pure glory, they sing a hundred (nes for every feather (Stokes 1883, 9-10). Conelusion ‘The same fundamental themes linked to the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre wnd to the True Cross were shared, in common aver a wide arca among different Chris- tian communities. The same motifs were used and understood in Byzantium, Georgia and Ireland. They were individual in their own way yel their presence shows the same hasic outlook, although so far-flung. Fashions changed and early belivfs and ideas were submerged and were totully forgotten in time. New circumstances affected every section of Christendom ina different way, Yet the underlying strata of the early centuries of Christian culture still remained, enough to show the dimensions of a wide, interconnecting ‘world of the same religious values.Liters Bre Acknowledgements I should like to thank Blinor Wiltshire, Dr Patrick Donabédian, Dr @ Skhirtladze and Dr Bernard Meehan for generous help with illustrations. Marina Tordia of the Georgian Museum of Fine Arts gave me valuable assistance, both with photographs and information. | am alsa indebted to Dr Erzsébet ‘Tompos and to Istviin Balogh, especially for his draw: ing of St Sophia Ii is opportune at this time to record my constant gratitude to colleagues in Erevan and Tbilisi for their unstinting help and encouragement over the years, References y BERIDZE, ¥, ALIBEGASVILI, G, VO! KALA, A & XUSKIVADZE, L 1984 The Treasures of Georgia Londen CHUBINASHVILI, N 1972 Rhandisi. Tbilisi (in Rus- sian with German summary), CRAWFORD, HS 1926 Handbook of Carved Orna ment from Irish Montintents of the Christian Period Dublin DRIVERS, J W 1992 Helena Augusta, Leiden, HAWKINS, E J W & MUNDELL, M C 1973 The Mosaics of the Monastery of Mar Samiwel, Mar Simeon, and Mar Gabriel near Kartmin (= Dumbarton Ouks Papers 27}, Washington DC. KADAR, Z, NEMETH, G & TOMPOS, Hagia Szophia, Budapest. KABLER, H 1967 Hagia Sophie, London. KENIA, R 1986 Usitgull. Tbilisi (in Georgian), KHUSKIVADZE, L 1984 Medieval Cloisonne Enamels at Georgia State Museum of Fine Aris Thilisi. LEROY, J 1464 Les Monuscvits Syrinques a Peiniures, Paris MEEHAN, D (ed & trans) 1958 Adanmnan’s De Locis Sanctis (= Scripiares Latin) Hiberniae 3). Dublin = 1987 A 186 Xx ‘scat MBPISASHVILI & TSINTS. 1979 The Are af Ancient Georgia, London. PML 1980 = Pierpont Me Library The Suave Triptych. New York RICHARDSON, H 19%4 The co) in Ni Chathdin, P & Richter Europa, Die Kirche im Frihmie Europe, The Early Church, 127-34. Stuttg: RICHARDSON, H 1987 Observatic: art in early Ireland, Gc M (ed) Fretancl aad In Dublin RICHARDSON, H 1992 Christia early Trish and Armenian art, In Zeki Aiti del Quinto Simposio Internazionale de menie, 575-93, Veni RICHARDSON, H & SCARRY, J 1990 An Introduc: tion to Trish High Crosyes. Cork ROE, H M1965 The Irish high cross iconography. f Roy Soc Aalig Ir 95 SANIIAN, A K (ed) 1986 David Anha; vincible Philosopher. Atlanta. STOKES, W (ed & trans) 1883 The Sattair na Rann. Oxford. STOKES, W (ed & trans) 1905 Félire Oengu Dé, The Mortyrology of Oengus the Culdee (= He Bradshav Society 29). London STYLIANGU, A & STYLIANOU,J 4 I Conquer. Nicosia, SWANTON, M (ed) 1987 Tlie Dream ofthe Rood. Ex- eter, UNDERWOOD, P A 1960 Notes on the Work of the Byzantine Insuitute in Istanbul: 1957-1959 (= Dumbar- ton Oaks Papers 14), Washington D C. VAN DER MEER, F & MOHRMAN? of tie Early Christian Wortd. London. lai 1 Ay This C1958 AtlasFig StSophia, Istanbul, opus sectle panel representing an nedicula (after Underwood 1960) that Arculf told Adamndn and the monks on Tona that there was ‘a large eross of silver, erected in the seli- same place where once the wooden cross stood em- bedded, on which suffered the Saviour of the human race’ (Mechan 1958, 49), The cross opus sectile panel, measuring 150cm high, can be seen immediately below the cornice on the inner face of the west wall where itis ina direct line with the apse far away to the east, across the vast interior ef the building (Figs 8,9). Itis conspicuous, attracting the gaze of a person facing west or departing by the Imperial Door, The adjoining panels of dark porphyry thraw the crs panel into special prominence. The two pancls below bear inlaid designs of dolphins arranged in pairs around discs of red porphyry. The whole i a setting of unsurpassed splendour. The Imperial Door is the most imposing of the three central doors leading from the narthex and is suitably furnished with a magnilicent bronze frame and linte], formerly gilded, It is higher than the other doors and very large. The bronze cornice above iton the outer side, as one enters the nave, is remark- able for possessing the only composition in refief from Justinians's original foundation. Itshows the dove of the Holy Spirit poised above the throne on which rests an open book, bearing texts from St John’s gospel (10,7, 9). “Christ is the door, and the good shepherd’ is the passage concerned, going on further: ‘Land the Father 181 aie its ¢ translation, is a brilliant counterpart to early western literature venerating the cross, such as Venantius Fortunatus or the Dream of the Rood. Fig 8 St Sophia, Istanbul, interior yiew facing west (after Kithier 1967),Hilary Richardson Fig 9 St Sophia, fstanbul, section E-W te shaw position of cross panel (after Kédair-et af 1987), Crosses in Georgia In Georgia the symbol of the cross is paramount in art it was an emblem of victory and the triumph of the faith. The sien (signtom) of Constantinc’s vision ‘was soon followed:in Georgia by the eross set up by St Nino in the first part of the 4th century to mark the conversion af the country and the triumph of Christ. Her cross was of wood, erected high above the old capital of Mukheta, on & craggy ridge soaring over the surrounding landscape, The cross motif came to permeaic every aspect of building and design and free- Standing monuments are part of this tradition. ‘Numbers of stone stelae survive that were cross- bearing orginally, The 6th-century stele from Khandisi is outstanding: its individual compositions on all four sides arc arranged in panels of delicate precision (Chubinashvili 1972; Richardson 1984, pl 19). There are also representations of irce-standing crosses in) a variety of sources. Often they have a stepped base and in some cases a cnp is depicted. Huge ornate crosses. sarved in relief, dominate church fagades such as Samtavisi cathedral (1030), or are sunken in brick 182 facades us at the 16th-century monastery of Akhali Shuamta, A complete model is carved on the east wall of Edsani Sioa (6th century), clearly showing the base ima series of steps, rope mouldings on the shaft anda miniature building just below the cross-head (Fig 10), A group of three crosses can be seen in a striking de- sign on a stele trom Gounia Kala (th or th century}, ow in the Georgian Museum of Fine Arts, Tbilisi (Fig 11), The central jewelled crossis flanked by twosmaller erosscs on steps, and two birds are stationed above, reminiscent of the birds on the St Sophia inlay orevent on the slab from Pahan Mura, Co Donegal, The base is carved in an unsophisticated but lively manner: a figure holding a cross on high is probably St Nino. It is moteworthy that the Irish crosses share the stepped base with Caucasian carvings (Figs 12,13). The Killamery, Co Kilkenny, cross, for example, with its pronounced steps is very close in uppearance to the model in relief at Edsani Sion, especially in the view from the south of the nurrow side of the shaft, A re- muarkable similarity also ¢xistsin the caps covering the crosses, especially between the caps of Georgian pre-Fig. 10. Edeani Siem, relief in east wall (ajier Chubinashvité 1972) afiar crosses an the one hand aid the Slievensmon group of crosses on (he other. The domed bec-hive sbupe of the eapstones at Abenay and al Kilkieran, Co Kilkenny, is distinctive. [( probably represents a canopy or a domed building like the actual building erected above the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem (Hichardson 1984, 140-3), The more usual shape of capstone on Irish crosses is modelled on a miniature id Crass an 183 Fig 11 Gounia Kala, ele church with 2 shingled roof. Probably the two types are interchangeable in meaning. Crawford (1926, 4) considered that the Ahenny crosses are evidently the carliest, placing them in the mid Sth century, He ob- served that the scale of proportions afterwards used had not then been fixed or the shrine-shaped cap evolved’. ‘The cap is clearly part of the whole ensemble andis duplicated on Georgian crosses of a specific type Large pre-altar crosses that stood in front of the altar ‘on special wooden or stone bases are a peculiarity of the Georgian church, going back to the beginning of Christianity in Georgia with St Nino's cross. They are wooden crosses usually encased in metal plates of sif- sometimes gilded, on which scenes or individual figures of saints are portrayed, Occasionally they areHilary Richardson Fig 12. Bolnisi, Georgia, small base with eros in reef Fig 14 Sadgert, Georgia, pre-altar cress: repousré canopy Sea Fig 13. Khozhorrni, fragntent of eariy Christian stele batt into wall of medieval church. painted. ‘They were at one time widespread but now remain in sit chiefly in remote mountainous regions The tradition of placing a cross in the interior of @ church was preserved down the centuries in Svanetia and Ruleha where the lifestyle of the people was left undis- lurbed: Pre-altar crosses dominate the interior of tiny churches, sometimes richly decorated with wall, paint ings. They face the congregation and almost hide the sanctuary, They farm a distinct aspect of Georgian art, unparalleled elsewhere. Caps crown the general com Position OF the erases and may be pointed, Some are decorated with hanging bells and are called ‘a hat with skint’, like the cross cap at Lagurka (Richardson & Searry 1990, p| 1x). Caps may also’ be reliquaries and suich crosses are given special veneration (Kenia 1986). Many pro-nltar crosses today are in muscums in Mestia and ‘Tbilisi, The large silver-pilt cross from Sadgeti, in the Georgian Museum of Fine Arts, is cov- ered with scones illustrating the life of Christ and the life of St Gearge, The named master craftsman took three years to complete the task (Beridze et al 1984, 1206). The cap, with a brim, is decorated in repoussé with a Deesis (fig 14).Hie Fowuited Crosy aed tts Canepy The Tree of Life Foliaye is seldom used in early Irish art, although Roe discusses the influence of ‘the crocs as Tree of Life’ on the Irish high crosses (1965, 223). The leaved cross was 4 fayourite emblem in Byzantium and elsewhere. Certainly in Armenia and Geargia in the early centuries of Christianity free-standing leaved crosses existed. ie not just carved in relief bul actually created in three dimensions. Among 6th-century carvings found in the excavations at Dvin there is a large leaved cross which was made to surmount a capital (Richardson 1987, fig 2b) (Fig 15). Similar 6th-century crosses come from Lamazi Gora (Mepisashvili & Tsintsadze 1979, pl 236) and Bolnisi (Fig 16). There seems lo be no explanation for the double mouldings on the narrow sides of the Ahenny proup fof erosses anid it is passible that they may have had & practical function. Muybe they provided a support for separate attachments, of wood for instance. The Tree of Life is apposite in this context. If there were side picees fixed to a crass, perhaps they represented the growth of foliage like the leaved cross elsewhere. It can be ne more than a siggestion in the light of present Knowledge, but certain crosses evidently were fur pished with additional pieces, witness the slots in the short arms of St Martin’s eross on Jonu o1 the projec: ions on the Fahan Mura slab. It is curious that there Fig 15. Dyin. Aemienta, top of sete: capital and Teaved cross. 185 Fig 16 Rotnisi, Georgia, fragment of unfinished leaved cross are literary references in Ireland to the Tree of Life and yet no reference to it pictorially. To quote from Saltaér na Rann: King of the Tree of Life with its Nowers, the space around which noble hosts were ranged, its crest and its showers on every sidespread over the fields and plains nf Heaven. ‘Oni ong of pulres! grace; without withering ( hounty rather) of fruit and leaves. ts a glorious flock of birds and sings a perfect ith choice Lovely ig the flock of birds which keeps it; on every bright and goodly bird a hundied feathers, and with- out sin, with pure glory, they sing a hundred (nes for every feather (Stokes 1883, 9-10). Conelusion ‘The same fundamental themes linked to the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre wnd to the True Cross were shared, in common aver a wide arca among different Chris- tian communities. The same motifs were used and understood in Byzantium, Georgia and Ireland. They were individual in their own way yel their presence shows the same hasic outlook, although so far-flung. Fashions changed and early belivfs and ideas were submerged and were totully forgotten in time. New circumstances affected every section of Christendom ina different way, Yet the underlying strata of the early centuries of Christian culture still remained, enough to show the dimensions of a wide, interconnecting ‘world of the same religious values.Liters Bre Acknowledgements I should like to thank Blinor Wiltshire, Dr Patrick Donabédian, Dr @ Skhirtladze and Dr Bernard Meehan for generous help with illustrations. Marina Tordia of the Georgian Museum of Fine Arts gave me valuable assistance, both with photographs and information. | am alsa indebted to Dr Erzsébet ‘Tompos and to Istviin Balogh, especially for his draw: ing of St Sophia Ii is opportune at this time to record my constant gratitude to colleagues in Erevan and Tbilisi for their unstinting help and encouragement over the years, References y BERIDZE, ¥, ALIBEGASVILI, G, VO! KALA, A & XUSKIVADZE, L 1984 The Treasures of Georgia Londen CHUBINASHVILI, N 1972 Rhandisi. Tbilisi (in Rus- sian with German summary), CRAWFORD, HS 1926 Handbook of Carved Orna ment from Irish Montintents of the Christian Period Dublin DRIVERS, J W 1992 Helena Augusta, Leiden, HAWKINS, E J W & MUNDELL, M C 1973 The Mosaics of the Monastery of Mar Samiwel, Mar Simeon, and Mar Gabriel near Kartmin (= Dumbarton Ouks Papers 27}, Washington DC. KADAR, Z, NEMETH, G & TOMPOS, Hagia Szophia, Budapest. KABLER, H 1967 Hagia Sophie, London. KENIA, R 1986 Usitgull. Tbilisi (in Georgian), KHUSKIVADZE, L 1984 Medieval Cloisonne Enamels at Georgia State Museum of Fine Aris Thilisi. LEROY, J 1464 Les Monuscvits Syrinques a Peiniures, Paris MEEHAN, D (ed & trans) 1958 Adanmnan’s De Locis Sanctis (= Scripiares Latin) Hiberniae 3). Dublin = 1987 A 186 Xx ‘scat MBPISASHVILI & TSINTS. 1979 The Are af Ancient Georgia, London. PML 1980 = Pierpont Me Library The Suave Triptych. New York RICHARDSON, H 19%4 The co) in Ni Chathdin, P & Richter Europa, Die Kirche im Frihmie Europe, The Early Church, 127-34. Stuttg: RICHARDSON, H 1987 Observatic: art in early Ireland, Gc M (ed) Fretancl aad In Dublin RICHARDSON, H 1992 Christia early Trish and Armenian art, In Zeki Aiti del Quinto Simposio Internazionale de menie, 575-93, Veni RICHARDSON, H & SCARRY, J 1990 An Introduc: tion to Trish High Crosyes. Cork ROE, H M1965 The Irish high cross iconography. f Roy Soc Aalig Ir 95 SANIIAN, A K (ed) 1986 David Anha; vincible Philosopher. Atlanta. STOKES, W (ed & trans) 1883 The Sattair na Rann. Oxford. STOKES, W (ed & trans) 1905 Félire Oengu Dé, The Mortyrology of Oengus the Culdee (= He Bradshav Society 29). London STYLIANGU, A & STYLIANOU,J 4 I Conquer. Nicosia, SWANTON, M (ed) 1987 Tlie Dream ofthe Rood. Ex- eter, UNDERWOOD, P A 1960 Notes on the Work of the Byzantine Insuitute in Istanbul: 1957-1959 (= Dumbar- ton Oaks Papers 14), Washington D C. VAN DER MEER, F & MOHRMAN? of tie Early Christian Wortd. London. lai 1 Ay This C1958 Atlas