Untitled

EASTE RN M EDI EVAL
A RC H I T E C T U R E
EASTERN
MEDIEVAL
ARCHITECTURE
THE BUILDING
TRADITIONS
OF BYZANTIUM AND
NEIGHBORING LANDS
Robert G. Ousterhout
1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2019
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with
the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978–0–19–027273–9
Publication was made possible with the

generous support of the Onassis
Foundation USA.
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Quad/Graphics, Inc., Mexico
ONASSIS SERIES IN HELLENIC CULTURE
,
The Age of Titans: The Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies
William M. Murray
Sophocles and the Language of Tragedy

Simon Goldhill
Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature

Henry Maguire
Adventures with Iphigenia in Tauris: A Cultural History of Euripides’ Black Sea Tragedy
Edith Hall
Beauty: The Fortunes of an Ancient Greek Idea

David Konstan
Euripides and the Gods

Mary Lefkowitz
Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium: Monks, Laymen, and Christian Ritual
Claudia Rapp
The Treasures of Alexander the Great: How One Man’s Wealth Shaped the World
Frank L. Holt
The Serpent Column: A Cultural Biography

Paul Stephenson
Anna Komnene: The Life and Work of a Medieval Historian

Leonora Neville
Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade
Anthony Kaldellis
Dirty Love: The Genealogy of the Ancient Greek Novel

Tim Whitmarsh
Eastern Medieval Architecture: The Building Traditions of Byzantium and Neighboring Lands
Robert G. Ousterhout
TABLE OF CONTENTS
,
Maps xi
Author’s Preface xiii
INTRODUCTION xix
Historical Architecture East and West
PART ONE: LATE ANTIQUITY

Third to Seventh Centuries
CHAPTER ONE 3
Rome, the Domus Ecclesiae, and the Church Basilica
CHAPTER TWO 21
A Tale of Two Cities: Constantinople and Jerusalem in the Time of Constantine
CHAPTER THREE 37
Ritual Settings I: Liturgy, Initiation, Commemoration
CHAPTER FOUR 61
Ritual Settings II: Pilgrimage, Relics, and Sacred Space
CHAPTER FIVE 81
Makers, Methods, and Materials
CHAPTER SIX 101

Regional Developments, East and West
CHAPTER SEVEN 137

Secular Architecture: Cities, Houses, and Fortifications
CHAPTER EIGHT 175

Innovative Architecture
CHAPTER NINE 199

The Basilica Transformed: Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
CHAPTER TEN 219

Justinian’s Building Program and Sixth-Century Developments
vii
PART TWO: THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
Seventh to Ninth Centuries
CHAPTER ELEVEN 245
The Transitional Period within Byzantium
CHAPTER TWELVE 267

Transformation at the Edges of Empire
PART THREE: THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE CENTURIES

Ninth to Twelfth Centuries
CHAPTER THIRTEEN 303
New Church Architecture and the Rise of Monasticism
CHAPTER FOURTEEN 333

Secular Architecture and the Fate of the City
CHAPTER FIFTEEN 353

Constantinople as an Architectural Center
CHAPTER SIXTEEN 381

Master Builders and Their Craft
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 405

Development of Regional Styles I: Middle Byzantine Greece and Macedonia
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN 431

Development of Regional Styles II: Middle Byzantine Anatolia
CHAPTER NINETEEN 455

Development of Regional Styles III: The Caucasus: Armenia and Georgia
CHAPTER TWENTY 479

Contested Lands: Architecture at the Time of the Crusades
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 507

The Exotic West: Venice, Southern Italy, and Sicily
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 531

Exporting a Culture/Importing a Culture: Bulgaria, Kievan Rus’, and Serbia
viii EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

PART FOUR: THE LATE BYZANTINE AND
POST-BYZANTINE CENTURIES
Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE 561
The Difficult Thirteenth Century
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR 595

Palaiologan Constantinople and a New Architectural Idiom
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 621

Old and New: Greek Cities and Landscapes
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 649

Regional Diversity: Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania
CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN 679

Rival Powers: The Ottomans and Russia
EPILOGUE 705
An Enduring Legacy
Glossary 714
Abbreviations 723
For Further Research 725
Bibliography 727
Index 757
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
MAPS
[Map 1] The Roman Empire, ca. 390 (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, xx
2002, p. 33)
[Map 2] Justinian’s empire in 565 (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 52) 103
[Map 3] The Byzantine Empire in 780 (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 246
2002, p. 130)
[Map 4] The Byzantine Empire in the mid-eleventh century (Oxford History of Byzantium, 304
ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 178)
[Map 5] The Byzantine Empire in the twelfth century (Oxford History of Byzantium, 305
ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 188)
[Map 6] The Byzantine Empire and surrounding territories in the second half of the 596
fourteenth century (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 264)
xi
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
I n many ways, this book began in 1978, with my

lecture notes from Slobodan Ćurčić’s course
“Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture” at
perspective of its builders, with a focus on the
workshops of Constantinople. When the book
appeared, many of my colleagues mistook it for a
the University of Illinois. It was the first time he’d textbook, as some of the reviews suggest. It wasn’t—
taught the course, and I was in my first year as his in fact, a suitable textbook on the subject did not
first PhD student. Following the approach of his appear during the thirty-six years of my profes-
mentor, Richard Krautheimer, my mentor provided sional career. I’ve continued to use Krautheimer’s
order, structure, and clarity to a field of study I Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, with
found fascinating, although I still hadn’t made occasional nods to Cyril Mango’s Byzantine
sense of it. Under Ćurčić’s guidance, I shifted my Architecture. Both have appeared in print long
dissertation topic from my first interest, the Church after their expiration date. More critically, neither
of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, to the Kariye author appears to have liked his subject very much,
Camii in Istanbul, in effect leaping from the and their prejudices have trickled down into a
fourth to the fourteenth century—that is, almost variety of other scholarly assessments.
the entire period covered in this book. For much In the early 1980s, Ćurčić joined forces with
of my career, I’ve been filling in the millennial gap Krautheimer to update Early Christian and
between the two monuments. Byzantine Architecture. This resulted in the fourth
In 1983, shortly after I’d finished my disserta- revised edition, which appeared in 1986, and
tion, I succeeded my mentor at the University Ćurčić, whose interests were clearly chronologically
of Illinois when he accepted a professorship at later than Krautheimer’s, was able to defuse some
Princeton, and for the next decades, I had the priv- of Krautheimer’s negative opinions. This was, how-
ilege and challenge of teaching “Early Christian ever, still in the pre-computer era, and to facilitate
and Byzantine Architecture” to generations of typesetting, the publisher specified that any altera-
architecture students. Making the distant past tions to the text had to conform to the original
accessible to aspiring practitioners inspired my line length and page length. Accordingly, the two
1999 book, Master Builders of Byzantium, an at- eminent scholars made adjustments in pencil on
tempt to approach Byzantine architecture from the graph paper, counting the letters as they went. Not
Constantinople, Chora Monastery (Kariye Camii), inner narthex, interior looking south (author)
xiii
surprisingly, beyond an enhanced and updated with some suggestions for further reading and re-
bibliography, modifications were limited. search at the end of the volume.
I mention this to emphasize that the textbooks With the multiple languages represented by the
or handbooks we have been using were written in monuments, I’ve tried to reconcile the orthogra-
a different era—before computers, before the phy to what is most familiar, often choosing the
internet, before Google, before JSTOR, before Latinized names rather than the Greek—thus, Sts.
ARTSTOR, before any number of new research Sergius and Bacchus and not HH. Sergios kai
tools were at our disposal. The world has changed, Bakchos; Procopius and not Prokopios. I’ve left
and so has the way we study it. This fact has both Hagia Sophia and Hagia Eirene with their hagias
invigorated and intimidated me. Ten years ago, intact, since they are concepts and not people, but
I organized a methods course for graduate students in dedications to people I’ve opted for St., with the
at the University of Pennsylvania (where I taught exception of a few familiar Italian monuments,
from 2007 to 2017) called “How to Write a which are better known as S. (i.e., San, Santa, or
Textbook.” We read and critiqued a variety of Santo). For toponyms, I’ve usually opted for the
books; we dissected our favorites; we wrote mock Anglicized historical name with the current name
tables of contents and introductions; we even de- in parentheses—thus, Constantinople rather than
signed book covers. In the end, we came up with Istanbul of Konstantinoupolis. But it’s hard to
all sorts of ways not to write a textbook, but not a balance common usage with consistency, and I
good single way to do it. apologize for whatever offenses my choices might
Ultimately, it took the persuasive powers of cause. As I ventured further afield, I attempted to
Stefan Vranka at OUP, backed by the kind folks follow the simplified Library of Congress system,
at the Onassis Foundation, a book contract, and often with unfamiliar diacritical marks. I’ve also
a few publication subventions, to force my hand. attempted to codify the architectural drawings in
My decision was that if I were to undertake this a consistent manner, with meter scales and north
book project, it had to be engaging, evocative, and arrows.
well illustrated, with a narrative that showcases As the book gradually came together, beginning
both the monuments and the intellectual currents in 2014, I was aided and abetted by any number
behind them in a positive way. I thus alternate of friends, colleagues, assistants, and institutions,
chapters that are thematic with those that are as well as readers and suppliers of illustrations and
period or region focused. They are arranged financial and moral support. Several colleagues
more or less chronologically, but because of the graciously agreed to read all or part of the book.
changes in focus, some of the monuments will Mark Johnson, Vasileios Marinis, Stefan Vranka,
crop up in several different chapters. The twenty- and Ann Marie Yasin read the whole thing and
seven chapters (plus introduction and epilogue) offered a variety of valuable comments. Leslie
were written following my lesson plan for a semes- Brubaker and her seminar at the University of
ter’s worth of lectures, but I suspect few will use Birmingham read and commented on the first
the book in the same way. It could also be used as half of the book, which helped me immensely as
a handbook, from which the reader (or the in- I tackled the second half. Megan Boomer, Ivan
structor assigning readings) can pick and choose, Drpić, Derek Krueger, Christina Maranci, and
as the chapters are written to be self-contained Alice Sullivan also read and commented on perti-
narratives. And although I am an information nent sections of the text. Engin Akyürek, Demitris
junkie (as Master Builders surely indicates), I’ve Athanasoulis, Charalambos and Demetra Bakirtzis,
tried not to clutter the narrative with too much Elizabeth Bolman, Suna Çağaptay, James Crow,
data. The same goes for the footnotes. My first Sofia Georgiadou, Sarah Guérin, Anne D. and
readers, Leslie Brubaker and her students, insisted John Hedeman, Ayşe Henry, Jane Hickman,
they were necessary, but rather than overburden an Michalis Kappas, Armen Kazaryan, David Kim,
already-long text, I’ve limited my references to a Young Kim, Dale Kinney, W. Eugene Kleinbauer,
mix of useful recent scholarship and old standbys— Ann Kuttner, Lynne Lancaster, Henry and
that is, where to begin to find more information, Eunice Maguire, Stavros Mamaloukos, Mikael
xiv EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

Muehlbauer, Robert Nelson, Rory O’Neill, Jordan illustrations, all of whom are acknowledged in the
Pickett, Scott Redford, Brian Rose, Nancy credits. Of these, let me single out Bettina Smith
Ševčenko, Kaja Silverman, Anna Sitz, Deb Stewart, and her excellent staff at the Image Collection
Tasos Tanoulas, Tassos Tantsis, Ann Terry, Tolga and Fieldwork Archives at Dumbarton Oaks;
Uyar, and Charles K. Williams II offered advice, Michael Waters, Tayfun Öner, Nektarios Zarras,
bibliography, guidance, and reassurance. Ali and Elka Bakalova, who went above and beyond
Harwood assisted with the illustrations; Kaelin the call of duty; and Danica Ćurčić, who made her
Jewell edited the text and prepared the bibliogra- late father’s photographs and drawings available
phy and index. Financial support and the excel- to me.
lent libraries of the University of Illinois, the Professor Slobodan Ćurčić—who inspired my
University of Pennsylvania, and Dumbarton Oaks lifelong “church itch”—sadly passed away shortly
have facilitated my research through several de- before my manuscript was completed, but an at-
cades. I also gratefully acknowledge the publica- tentive reader will find his presence throughout
tion subventions provided by the Williams Fund its pages. I humbly dedicate this book to him—
at Penn and the 1984 Foundation of Philadelphia, my teacher, mentor, and friend.
as well as the support of the Onassis Foundation.
I am also indebted to the many institutions RGO, March 2019
and individuals who generously assisted with Philadelphia
AUTHOR’S PREFACE xv
EASTE RN M EDI EVAL
A RC H I T E C T U R E
INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE
EAST AND WEST
T he rich and diverse medieval architectural

traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and
adjacent regions are the subject of this book. The
known contemporaries in Western Europe. Viewed
through an Orientalist lens, scholars of the past two
centuries saw the East (broadly construed) as exotic,
focus is the Byzantine (or East Roman) Empire distant, and only vaguely connected to Western civ-
(324–1453 ce), with its capital in Constantinople, ilization. Nevertheless, they often looked to the
although the framework expands chronologically to East as a never-ending generator of architectural
include the foundations of Christian architecture in ideas, which were called upon at critical moments
Late Antiquity and the legacy of Byzantine culture to invigorate and inspire European masons. Their
after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Because sweeping generalizations are usually discounted
Late Antiquity has become a burgeoning field of today: the twin-towered façade, the alternating
study in its own right, I have limited my discussions support system, ribbed vaults, pointed arches, and
of Western Europe to Italy and have opted to the like seem to have developed independently in
emphasize the later developments. Geographically both West and East, and one doesn’t need to be
broad as well, this study includes architectural modeled on the other. And while there was certainly
developments in areas of Italy, the Caucasus, the cultural interchange across the Mediterranean, ar-
Near East, the Balkans, and Russia, as well as related chitecture is most often regionally based, following
developments in early Islamic architecture—that is, established workshop practices, and determined by
areas connected culturally or politically to the local concerns and devotional habits. But the view
Byzantine Empire (see Map 1). The term “the East” of the East as a source of inspiration has encouraged
is used here to refer inclusively to this large and the notion that developments there must necessar-
diverse area. The title of the book, Eastern Medieval ily precede those in the West. Still following this
Architecture, is intended to reflect its breadth—that outdated view, most textbooks on Western art or
is, covering more than just the Byzantine Empire architecture are unsure where to place the Byzantine
and more than just the Eastern Mediterranean. Empire: it appears either as the end of Antiquity or
This book might have been titled Architecture of as the beginning of the so-called Dark Ages.1 Later
the Forgotten Middle Ages, for it addresses the lesser
known and understudied monuments of the East, 1
See my comments, R. G. Ousterhout, “An Apologia for
which often stand in sharp contrast to their better Byzantine Architecture,” Gesta 35, no. 1 (1996): 21–33; and those
Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, view from the west (author)
xix
[Map 1] The Roman Empire, ca. 390 (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 33)
FIGURE 0.1
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
view from the
west (author)
Byzantine developments—those coeval with the nant, and dull. Rather than developing from tiny
Romanesque and Gothic—are usually omitted, not Dark Age basilicas into the towering cathedrals of
fitting into a neatly encapsulated, linear view of the Gothic era, church architecture in the East
European cultural history. In fact, most textbooks seems backward by comparison. The great Hagia
stop with Hagia Sophia in Constantinople or San Sophia (Fig. 0.1)—taller and broader than any
Marco in Venice, and the vibrant architectural de- Gothic structure (Fig. 0.2)—appeared already in
velopments in the Caucasus, the Balkans, and else- the sixth century, when very little was happening
where are omitted altogether. in Western Europe. Subsequent centuries in the
Recent scholarship is more willing to see the East witnessed a significant reduction in architec-
cultures of the East as parallel and coeval to those tural scale. Indeed, most of the church buildings
of the West. From this perspective, the differences in the East tend to be small, centralized, and
in architectural traditions stand as the cultural ex- domed (Fig. 0.3); rather than a move toward
pressions of polities in similar stages of develop- monumental forms and unified spaces, we find
ment, with common concerns manifest in differ- instead increasing compartmentalization and
ent ways. That said, it is nevertheless difficult to complexity on a small scale. Because of the dra-
view Byzantine and other Eastern architectures matic difference in form and scale, it is easy to
without preconceptions based on our greater forget that the two lines of development—East
familiarity with Western medieval monuments. and West—are contemporary.
Consequently, we expect something like a linear Why did medieval architecture in the East
pattern of evolution, new structural achievements, follow a different trajectory than that of the West?
and buildings on the grandest of scales. Byzantine This is a critical question and one this book at-
architecture fails to live up to such great expecta- tempts to answer. Several suggestions have been
tions and is all too often dismissed as small, stag- put forward, such as economic factors (i.e., limited
scale represents limited skill) or notions of sacred
by R. S. Nelson, “The Map of Art History,” ArtB 79 (1997): 28–40. presence, with the centrally planned memorial
INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE EAST AND WEST xxi

FIGURE 0.2 where buildings continued to be the product of
Beauvais, individual patronage rather than communal effort.
Cathedral of Even with our vision narrowed to just monu-
St. Peter, view
ments within the Byzantine Empire, a full under-
from the east
standing of the architectural history is fraught with
(Andrew Tallon,
courtesy of the
challenges: to paraphrase one recent critic,
Archmap Project, Byzantine architecture is “an elusive concept built
Columbia upon evidence that would be thrown out in any
University) court of law.”2 The Byzantine Empire lasted for
more than a millennium, and if we take into
consideration areas under its influence, such as
Russia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans, it can be said
to have lasted even longer (Fig. 0.4). Its geographic
scope is similarly broad, now spanning modern na-
tion-states not always friendly with one another and
not always easy for foreign scholars to access. Both
the historical languages and those of modern schol-
arship are rich and varied, and there seem to be
more than any single human being could possibly
master in a lifetime. The student of Byzantine archi-
FIGURE 0.3 tecture is challenged to be intrepid as a diplomat, an
Kitta (Mani), Sts. explorer, an archaeologist, and a linguist, not to
Sergius and mention a scholar with a discerning eye.
Bacchus, view The study of historical architecture is full of
from the east challenges, not the least of which is learning it
(author) from a textbook. Buildings are three-dimensional
entities, whereas our systems of representing
them are two dimensional, and the reader is called
upon to assemble these entities in the mind’s eye,
to imagine the experience of the forms and spaces
in three dimensions. How big is it? How does the
plan relate to the elevation? How is space defined
or modulated? Does the external articulation
structures (martyria) guiding the developments in relate to interior space? Thinking more experien-
the East. The differences may lie more in worship tially, what happens when you pass through a
practices: although corporate worship never dis- door? How do the qualities of sound and light
appeared in Byzantium, private devotion grew in change? How do construction materials or deco-
popularity, more conveniently housed in smaller rative details affect our response to the building?
buildings. Even the nature of monasticism dif- These are all questions that the close analysis of a
fered: rather than the grand establishments of building might answer but that are harder to un-
Western Europe, with a regularized typology derstand from a short description and a few select
(e.g., a basilica flanked by a cloister), a fixed rule images.
(e.g., the Order of St. Benedict), and hundreds of The standard approach to Byzantine architec-
monastics in residence, Byzantine monasteries ture—indeed, to most historic architectures—
tended to be small, family-sized units, less for- begins with formal analysis, establishing the
mally organized, and without an established archi- basic typology and taxonomy of buildings, and
tectural typology. Moreover, from the twelfth cen-
tury onward in Western Europe, the cathedral 2
S. Melikian, “‘Byzantium Art’: A Fit-All Category Defeated by
dominates the architectural scene, representing a Its Elusiveness,” International Herald Tribune (24–25 January
concept of urbanism all but unknown in the East, 2009), 11.
xxii EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

FIGURE 0.4
Moscow, Cathedral
of the Virgin of the
Intercession, also
known as
St. Basil’s, seen
from the east
(author)
resulting in the description of planning schemes, rian, whose concerns are often at odds with estab-
formal solutions, structural features, or decorative lished approaches to Byzantine art or architec-
details. Although a variety of texts survive, build- ture. Traditional art history, for example, relies on
ings often constitute our primary surviving evi- stylistic and iconographic analysis of visual images
dence for reconstructing or re-imagining the and has only in recent decades become concerned
culture that produced them.3 We are thus obliged with issues of patronage, context, and social his-
to learn all we can about them, beginning with tory. Because the vast majority of the surviving
their physical structure, closely observed—that is, architecture is religious, it is often read in reli-
to “read” the fabric of the building with the same gious terms only, as manifestations of the belief
insight and nuance that a philologist would apply system of the period, rather than as windows onto
to the study of a text. If we are to understand the society that produced it. Historians of material
what buildings mean and how they communi- culture, however, tend to shy away from “high”
cate, we must begin with their grammar, vocabu- art and architecture that reek of elitism or religi-
lary, and syntax. osity. And yet, the churches are hard to ignore, as
The approach adopted in this book begins they stand in sharp contrast to the paltry remains
with formal analysis as a first step toward under- of urban and residential architecture, which were
standing the cultural context: how does a build- less carefully constructed and often built of
ing reflect the concerns of the society that produced ephemeral materials. That is, the religious build-
it, symbolically or ideologically? How does it re- ings represent the concerns that were most im-
flect the social or economic situation of its day? portant to the society that built them. They have
How was it used on a daily basis? These questions survived for a reason.
may move us into the world of the social histo- Writing an architectural history depends on
surviving buildings, and because the majority of
3
See comments by C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York, them are ecclesiastical structures, medieval archi-
1974), 7–9. tecture, both East and West, is often dismissed as
INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE EAST AND WEST xxiii

“all about churches.” As I shall argue, a church is it: this is my body and my blood. It was
never just a church. It may stand as a manifestation prefigured by the table of the law, on which was
of piety and the spiritual aspirations of its age, and the manna, which cometh down from heaven,
we would be remiss not to recognize it as such. But i.e., Christ.
it is also a social construct, an emblem of power,
prestige, and identity; it represents the combined The text continues to associate the ciborium
efforts of artisans of varying backgrounds and (canopy) with the Crucifixion, the presbytery
social statuses; it is the product of intention, a with Christ’s tomb, the bema with a footstool and
social contract orchestrated within a hierarchy of a throne, the ambo with the stone rolled away at
command, technical knowledge, and labor. the Resurrection, and so on. While the symbol-
At all levels of society, Eastern medieval people ism might seem inconsistent and might not add
looked at, inhabited, and responded to their up to a coherent whole, the text gives a sense of
architectural environment, for buildings were the how architecture could resonate with and rein-
visual manifestations of human enterprise in the force the ceremonies it housed.
world around them. They also wrote about build- A different view of architecture is provided by
ings in texts ranging from theological exegeses to the Inventory of the So-Called Palace of Botaniates,
legal documents to ekphraseis. These texts often a legal document that records the contents of an
concentrate on the defining features of a building estate in Constantinople, given to the Genoese in
at the expense of general description, but they can 1192. Its description of the palace church reads in
inform us of what was important to the contem- part,
porary viewer and provide a personal, emotional
response to the experience of architecture. For ex- The holy church is domed with a single apse
ample, the Historia mystagogica, a theological and four columns—one of Bithynian marble.
treatise attributed to the eighth-century patriarch The frieze and the curve of the apse are revetted
Germanos I of Constantinople, outlines the sym- with marble, along with the vaults. The
bolism of the church and its parts, offering many L-shaped spaces to the west are incrusted with
overlapping meanings and associations:4 Nikomedian tiles, along with the cornice.
Above there are images in gold and colored
The church is a heaven on earth wherein the mosaic, as with the dome and the four vaults—
heavenly God “dwells and walks.” It typifies the three with windows. The partition of the
Crucifixion, the Burial and the Resurrection of sanctuary consists of four posts of green marble
Christ. It is glorified above Moses’s tabernacle with bronze collars, two perforated railings, a
of testimony. . . . It was prefigured by the marble entablature, and a gilded wooden
Patriarchs, foretold by the Prophets, founded by templon.
the Apostles, and adorned by the Hierarchs.
The conch is after the manner of the cave of As a legal document, the text says nothing of
Bethlehem, where Christ was born, and that of symbolism or sanctity but concentrates on the ex-
the cave where he was buried. . . . The holy table pensive materials and surface coverings, noting,
is the place where Christ was buried, and on later in the document, where the terrace is de-
which is set forth the true bread from heaven, cayed and where window panes are missing.
the mystic and bloodless sacrifice, i.e., Curiously, it says nothing of the construction or
Christ. . . . It is also the throne upon which God, the size of the church, and even some details of its
who is borne up by cherubin, has rested. At this plan remain unclear.
table, too, he sat down at his last supper in the A description in the form of an ekphrasis
midst of his apostles and, taking bread and offers yet another perspective, one that is experi-
wine, said unto them, “Take, eat and drink of ential and impressionistic, a rhetorical exercise
known from classical antiquity.5 More than
4
C. Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453: Sources and
Documents (Englewood Cliffs, 1972), 140–43, 185–86, 239–40, for 5
See, among others, H. Maguire, “Truth and Convention in
the texts presented here. Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art,” DOP 28 (1974):
xxiv EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

simply a literary description, an ekphrasis was expanded our knowledge of aspects of daily life,
a form of evocative writing, meant to conjure the urbanism, and military technology, there is a
image of its subject in the mind’s eye of the reader. concomitant danger of Eastern medieval archi-
The ninth-century patriarch Photios’s well-known tecture becoming a subset of archaeology or of
ekphrasis of the Pharos Church at the Great social history. To utilize the terminology of the
Palace in Constantinople, for example, offers a Roman architectural theorist Vitruvius (first cen-
visual experience that is both vertiginous and tury bce), utilitas (function) becomes our main
distracting: concern, with firmitas (structure) a distant
second and venustas (aesthetics) not at all. As the
It is as if one has entered heaven itself, with no texts often emphasize, a Byzantine viewer under-
one barring the way from any side and was stood a great building as a work of art and re-
illuminated by the beauty in all forms shining sponded to it accordingly. Thus, an emphasis on
all around like so many stars, so is one utterly the aesthetics of architecture, an approach that
amazed. Thenceforth it seems that everything is has fallen out of favor, remains valid to our dis-
in ecstatic motion, and the church itself is cussions. At the same time, new areas of investi-
circling round. For the spectator, through his gation have considerably broadened the field of
whirling about in all directions and being study, and they allow a discourse on architecture
constantly astir, which he is forced to experience that addresses all levels of society. In short, a
by the variegated spectacle on all sides, imagines more integrated approach is necessary if we are
that his personal condition is transferred to the to understand historical architecture in its many
object. contexts. To this end, the book includes chapters
with differing approaches, both those that dis-
As Photios describes it, movement attributed to cuss architectural developments by period or
architectural features may be a way of suggesting region and thematic essays on topics ranging
the experience of the visitor, for whom the view- from urbanism to ceremonies to construction
ing of the church transforms the building into an technology.
intricate and ever-changing pattern of forms. Finally, an examination of its architecture em-
While he says nothing about the plan or scale of phasizes that the Eastern medieval world was
the building, and elsewhere his description con- neither static nor isolated. It was both fluid and
centrates on selected details, he provides a sense dynamic, regularly invigorated by the movement
of a viewer’s response to a work of architecture. of people and ideas. Areas of cultural interchange
We are much better informed about religious are particularly instructive in this respect, as
architecture, although recent decades have seen planning types, structural solutions, and architec-
increased interest in secular architecture, with ar- tural details were disseminated across great dis-
chaeological studies bringing a range of forms tances. The architecture of the Crusaders or of
and new building types into the discussion: Norman Sicily, for example, makes no sense with-
urban entities, fortification systems, fortresses, out an understanding of both regional and inter-
citadels, towers, palaces, houses, public build- national architectural traditions. There is also the
ings, public baths, and water supply systems. The element of time to consider. In architectural stud-
state of research varies for these topics, and none ies, we tend to focus on the moment of inception,
of the secular examples is as well preserved as the but most buildings have long histories, replete
churches. While archaeology has dramatically with additions, modifications, changes in func-
tion, or changes in demographics. Buildings are
forever in the process of becoming. To isolate
113–49; R. Webb and L. James, “‘To Understand Ultimate Things
and Enter Secret Places’: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium,” AH 14
them at a single moment in their rich histories
(1991): 1–17; R. Webb, “The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: limits what we might learn from them. In sum,
Narrative, Metaphor, and Motion in ‘Ekphraseis’ of Church buildings have lives of their own, and taken to-
Buildings,” DOP 53 (1999): 59–74; R. G. Ousterhout, Master gether, Eastern medieval architecture has a fasci-
Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999), 33–38. nating story to tell.
INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE EAST AND WEST xxv

PART ONE
LATE ANTIQUITY
Third to Seventh Centuries
CHAPTER ONE
ROME, THE DOMUS ECCLESIAE,

AND THE CHURCH BASILICA
L et us begin with a few words on context

and terminology: first, the period we are
considering in the first several chapters is often
world, through the medieval, and into the early
modern.
Second, change does not happen overnight.
called “Late Antique” (roughly the third through The Roman Empire did not suddenly become
seventh centuries), referring to a period of trans- extinct with the introduction of Christianity.
formation marked by social, political, and religious Rather, Christianity inserted itself into a well-
upheaval across the Mediterranean. The same established framework, characterized by urbanism,
period is also termed “Early Christian,” referring wide-scale trading networks, diverse belief sys-
specifically to the religious transformations of the tems, and—for our purposes—a thriving build-
Roman Empire, which lie at the heart of our ing industry, with large-scale construction and
study. The term “Byzantine” has also been used, established building types to serve the utilitarian
since at least the seventeenth century, to refer to needs and pleasures of a thriving cosmopolitan
an empire with its capital in Constantinople population. Thus, how Christianity found its way
(formerly known as Byzantium or Byzantion), into the existing Roman social and urban fabric is
thus spanning the epoch 324/330 ce (the a fascinating story.
refoundation of the city by Constantine) to 1453 Third, we must consider the nature of religion.
ce (its fall to the Ottoman Turks). This period Participation in a religion presupposes ritual acts
may be divided into early Byzantine (the fourth of symbolic significance; architecture in the service
through seventh centuries), the transitional of religion is similarly symbolically charged. More
period (the seventh through ninth centuries), than simply functional (in the modernist sense),
middle Byzantine (the late ninth through twelfth religious buildings stand as public markers in the
centuries), and late Byzantine (the thirteenth landscape, signifiers of human activity at all levels.
through mid-fifteenth centuries). Like the term The dramatic changes in Roman belief systems
“Eastern medieval,” none of these terms is very during Late Antiquity find physical manifestations
exact, and they depend on which specific historical in the architecture of the period. Designing and
events one takes as markers. In a broader perspective, planning a setting for worship demanded both
we are tracking cultural change from the classical theoretical and practical considerations: for the
Rome, Capitoline Museums, marble fragments from a colossal statue of Constantine found in the Basilica
of Maxentius, early fourth century (author)
3
former, the nature of the divinity and the relation- Late Antique Judaism, sanctity was invoked by the
ship between divinity and worshipper; for the latter, congregation—the ecclesia—coming together in
the existing architectural practices and building common prayer, symbolically representing the
vocabulary. Rather than being characterized by an body of Christ. This form of worship was encour-
abrupt transition, however, the rise of Christianity aged by the apostle Paul, among others, and was
is marked by a gradual transformation of both the gradually formalized into the liturgy. With the rec-
society and its architecture—that is, more evolu- itation of prayers and reading of scripture, but no
tion than revolution. animal sacrifice, such a spiritualized ceremony re-
Religion was practiced on several levels within quired no special setting—or rather, its setting was
the Roman Empire. Partaking in official religion not imbued with meaning. In the second model,
was both a personal manifestation of belief and a more in line with older, pagan attitudes, sanctity
visible sign of allegiance to the state. Worship of was represented by physical presence, the sacraliza-
the Greco-Roman pantheon, including sacrifices tion of place and space, often through relics or the
to the gods, was the duty of every Roman. Behind tombs of martyrs and saints. At Rome, the early
this official veneer, however, we find a variety of churches reflect the distinctions between these two
other religious practices emerging, those that models: practices taking place inside the walls were
served the spiritual needs of the individual. Private primarily liturgical, for the regular gatherings of
religion could take many forms, including per- the ecclesia; those taking place outside the walls
sonal devotion to a particular deity or the adoption were commemorative, set in relationship to the
of a foreign cult. By the second century ce, so- tombs of Christian heroes and the surrounding
called mystery cults, often originating in the East, catacombs and cemeteries—in accordance with
gained in popularity. This is dramatically evident Roman law, the dead were buried outside the
from the late second century onward, with the pomerium (city limit).³ Subsequent centuries wit-
construction of temples dedicated to Eastern dei- nessed a collapsing of the two categories.
ties in the Forum Romanum and by the often-bi- The beginning of Christian architecture is usu-
zarre religious practices of the Severan imperial ally assigned to Constantine’s recognition of
family.¹ For the lower strata of society, however, Christianity, but the seeds for its development were
these religions promised salvation in the next sown at least a century before the Edict of Milan in
world to a select few who followed strict guidelines 313 ce (discussed further below). Although limited
in their daily lives, professed their faith, and had physical evidence survives, a combination of ar-
undergone initiation rites; they offered comfort chaeology and texts may help us to understand the
and reassurance to those living in difficult times; formation of architecture in service of the new reli-
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth gion. The domus ecclesiae, or house-church, most
where moth and rust consume and where thieves often represented an adaptation of an existing Late
break in and steal,” instructs the Gospel according Antique residence to include a meeting hall and
to Matthew (6:19 NRSV), for example, encourag- perhaps a baptistery. Most examples are known
ing a shift of concern from this world to the next. from texts; while there are archaeological remains of
How did the church building become sacred such buildings in Rome, usually called tituli, most
space? Early Christians understood two models of early sites of Christian worship were subsequently
sacred presence.² In the first, perhaps following rebuilt and enlarged to give them a suitably public
character, thus destroying much of the physical ev-
1
For the background, see, among many others, J. Curran, Pagan idence of their original forms. Indeed, most of the
City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century (Oxford, churches of Rome have long and complex histories,
2000). For the bizarre religious practices, see pp. 8–17. as well as prehistories of archaeological complexity.
2
P. Corbey Finney, “Early Christian Architecture: The
Beginnings,” HTR 81, no. 3 (1988): 319–39; L. M. White, The Social Antiquity (Cambridge, 2008); A. M. Yasin, Saints and Church
Origins of Christian Architecture (Valley Forge, 1996–97); Spaces in the Late Antique Mediterranean: Architecture, Cult, and
L. M. White, Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Community (Cambridge, 2009).
Adaptation among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Baltimore, 1990); 3
J. M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World (Baltimore,
K. Bowes, Private Worship, Public Values, and Religious Change in Late 1971, 1996).
4 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

FIGURE 1.1
Dura Europos,
aerial view from
the south, 1932.
The Palmyrene
Gate is at the
center, left, with
the residential areas
discussed here
immediately inside
the wall, in the
shadows (Yale
University Art
Gallery, Dura
Europos
Collection)
Synagogues and Mithraia (shrines for the mystery them, the Christian House was initially built ca.
cult of the god Mithras) from the period are consid- 200 on a typical courtyard plan, with rooms facing
erably better preserved. inward and a vestibule opening to the street.5
An exceptional area of survival has been stud- Modified ca. 230, two rooms were joined to form
ied at Dura Europos, on the banks of the a longitudinal meeting hall; another was provided
Euphrates in Syria (Fig. 1.1). A prosperous town with a piscina (basin) to function as a baptistery
on the caravan route to the east, Dura was con- for Christian initiation (Figs. 1.2 and 1.3). Since
quered by the Sasanians in 256 ce and subse- the early days of Christianity, baptism had marked
quently abandoned, thus preserving in time cap- the transition of the initiate, who entered the font
sule–like fashion the basic elements of a provincial of “living water” as if entering the tomb of Christ,
town, which were rediscovered at the end of the to be cleansed of sin and spiritually reborn. At
nineteenth century and excavated in the 1930s.4 Dura, the rectangular basin is covered by an arched
In addition to the various temples at the city canopy and suggests the common form of the ar-
center, representing official religion, assembly cosolium tomb. This, along with the painting of
halls for several unofficial cults were discov- the Holy Women at the Tomb of Christ on the
ered, tucked away in residential neighborhoods. flanking wall, indicates the symbolic association of
Converted from domestic complexes, they were baptism with the death and Resurrection of Christ,
inconspicuous but certainly not secret. Among a theme further developed in monumental bap-
tisteries after the official acceptance of Christianity,
4
M. I. Rostovtzeff et al., eds., The Excavations at Dura Europos a subject discussed further in Chapter 3.
Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions
and Letters, Preliminary Reports (New Haven, 1928–52); and 5
C. H. Kraeling, The Christian Building: The Excavations at Dura
L. R. Brody and G. L Hoffman, eds., Dura Europos: Crossroads of Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of
Antiquity (Boston, 2011), for recent bibliography. Inscriptions and Letters, Final Report VIII, 2 (New Haven, 1967).
CHAPTER ONE: ROME, THE DOMUS ECCLESIAE, AND THE CHURCH BASILICA 5
FIGURE 1.2 hall, with an elaborated niche to indicate the di-
Dura Europos, rection of Jerusalem. Designed to hold the Torah
Christian House, scrolls, the niche was decorated with images asso-
ca. 200 and 230
ciated with the Temple. The Mithraeum was sim-
ce, isometric
ilarly located at the edge of Dura. Initially en-
cutaway (Yale
University Art
closed within a private residence, the Mithraeum
Gallery, Dura was expanded to form a long hall, destroying
Europos much of the residence.7 All three—domus eccle-
Collection) siae, synagogue, and Mithraeum—were decorated
with painted programs of scenes that address spe-
cifically the belief systems of the respective con-
gregations, who were quite possibly both familiar
and in competition with one another.
In Rome itself, remnants of tituli have been ex-
cavated beneath a variety of churches. Beneath San
Clemente, for example, Roman houses of the first
century are traditionally associated with a titulus
Clementis, and it is only in the third century that
the renovations indicate Christian usage. Similarly,
the titulus Byzantis (or Pammachii), excavated in the
nineteenth century beneath the Church of SS.
Giovanni e Paolo on the Caelian Hill, displays ad-
aptation from the late second or third century, as
the Christian community took over the entire
insula. Christian-themed paintings, with scenes of
martyrdom, were added in the fourth century.
Both of these tituli were replaced by basilicas in the
FIGURE 1.3 fifth century, but the evidence at both sites indi-
Dura Europos, cates that the domus ecclesiae phase represented
Christian House, ca. adaptation within the domestic sphere.8
200 and 230 ce, The excavations at Dura and earlier discoveries
reconstruction of the
in the East raised the tantalizing notion that
baptistery (Yale
Christian architecture had its beginnings in the
University Art Gallery,
Dura Europos
Eastern Mediterranean, just as the religion had.
Collection) But this has not been supported by archaeology.
Christianity took hold only gradually, and our
best early evidence comes from Rome, where the
religion was introduced by the apostles Peter and
Paul. The fundamental problem for the archaeol-
ogist is how to recognize an unofficial presence—
The Dura Synagogue was situated nearby, in a that is, when is a house a domus ecclesiae? Without
residential block at the edge of the city. Tucked archaeological finds of a specifically Christian
away within the insula, it was entered not directly character, it may be impossible to determine, and
from the street, but through the rear of a rarely can we make a distinction on the basis of
preexisting house (Fig. 1.4).6 Preceded by an architecture alone. At Dura, for example, the bap-
atrium, the synagogue consisted of an oblong tistery clinches the deal; without it, we might have
6
C. H. Kraeling, The Synagogue: The Excavations at Dura Europos
Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions
7
White, Social Origins, 261–72.
and Letters, Final Report VIII, 1 (New Haven, 1956). 8
White, Social Origins, 209–42, with additional bibliography.

FIGURE 1.4
Dura Europos,
synagogue, before
256 ce; plan
showing its
insertion into a
city block (Yale
University Art
Gallery, Dura
Europos
Collection)
overlooked the house altogether. At Rome, the St. Callixtus on the Via Appia, ca. 230 ce (Figs. 1.5
continued layers of construction above specific and 1.6).¹0 Originally well organized with a series
domestic spaces speak to their early religious as- of parallel corridors carved into the tufa, the cata-
sociations; without the later constructions, prob- combs expanded and grew more labyrinthine
ably we would be in the dark there as well. over the subsequent centuries. Within, the most
Better evidence survives for burial customs, common form of tomb was a simple, shelf-like
which were of prime concern to a religion that loculus cut into the walls of the corridors and or-
promised salvation after death. Unlike Roman ganized in multiple tiers (Fig. 1.7). Small cubicula
polytheists, who practiced both cremation and (chambers) surrounded by arcosolium tombs
inhumation, Christians insisted upon inhuma- provided a setting for wealthier burials and reveal
tion because of the belief in the bodily resurrec- evidence of social stratification within the
tion of the dead at the end of days. In addition to Christian community. Above ground, a simple
areae (sing. area: above-ground cemeteries) and covered structure provided a setting for the refri-
catacombs (underground cemeteries), Christians geria, such as the triclia (pergola) excavated
required settings for commemorative banquets or beneath San Sebastiano, by the entrance to the
refrigeria (sing. refrigerium), a carryover from catacombs (Fig. 1.8). Little more than a simple
pagan practices.9 The earliest Christian burials at picnic shelter opening onto an irregular court-
the Roman catacombs were situated amid those yard, its painted walls bear graffiti invocations to
of other religions on the main routes outside the
city walls, but by the beginning of the third cen-
tury, exclusively Christian cemeteries are known
10
G. B. de Rossi, Roma sottorranea (Rome, 1857); O. Marucchi, Le
catacombe romane (Rome, 1933); A. Nestori, Repertorio topografico
to have existed, beginning with the Catacomb of
delle pitture delle catacombe romane (Rome, 1967); and more
recently L. Spera, “The Christianization of Space along the Via
9
R. M. Jensen, “Dining with the Dead: From the Mensa to the Appia: Changing Landscape in the Suburbs of Rome,” AJA 107,
Altar in Christian Late Antiquity,” in Commemorating the Dead: no. 1 (2003): 23–43; L. Spera, Il paesaggio suburbano di Roma
Texts and Artifacts in Context: Studies of Roman, Jewish, and Christian dall’antichità al Medioevo: il comprensorio tra le vie Latina e Ardeatina
Burials, eds. L. Brink and D. Green (Berlin, 2008), 107–44. dalle Mura Aureliane al III miglio (Rome, 1999).
FIGURE 1.5
Rome, city plan,
showing the
cemeteries along
the major roads
leading outside the
city walls (after
L. Reekmans,
RAC, 1968; from
R. Krautheimer,
Rome: Profile of a
City, 1980, with
the author’s
modifications)
Peter and Paul—dated ca. 258, when a festival modated veneration within close proximity of
commemorating the saints was instituted. The the deceased.¹¹ Although inconsistent in form,
nearby triconch, or cella trichora, was similar in archaeological evidence abounds for simple
function and may also be pre-Constantinian (Fig. martyria from the period after the persecutions of
1.9). Its triple-apsed interior repeats a common the 250s ce, ranging from expanded spaces in the
form of a Roman triclinium, or ceremonial dining Roman catacombs (the so-called Chapel of the
hall, with apses to house the couches of the diners. Popes) to elaborate funerary installations, as in
The development of a cult of martyrs within Bonn and Salona. Among those in Rome, the
the early church led to the development of com- most important was the tropaion marking the
memorative monuments, usually called martyria
(sing. martyrium), but also referred to in texts as 11
A. Grabar, Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art
tropaia (sing. tropaion: “trophies”) and heroa chrétien antique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1943–46), remains fundamental;
(sing. heroon: “heroes’ shrines”), which accom- more recently, Yasin, Saints and Church Spaces.

FIGURE 1.6
Rome, Catacomb
of St. Callixtus,
plan and section of
main passageway,
showing loculi
(author, redrawn
after H. Gardner,
Art through the
Ages, 1975)
tomb of St. Peter on the Vatican Hill, identified site became the focus of Constantine’s monu-
by archaeologists in the mid-twentieth century mental Basilica of St. Peter, to be discussed below.
(Fig. 1.10A).¹² Set within an upscale necropolis By the time of the governmental restructuring
dating to ca. 120–160 on the Via Cornelia, across known as the Tetrarchy, established by Diocletian
the Tiber and outside the walls of the city, the (293–313 ce), Christian buildings had become
tomb of St. Peter lay in a small open area, close to more visible and more public, confidently an-
the site of his martyrdom (ca. 64) at the Stadium nouncing their presence, but without the scale
of Nero. By 200, faithful Christians were visiting and lavishness of their official successors. In Rome,
the modest tropaion that marked his tomb, a sort the meeting hall of San Crisogono seems to have
of table resting on colonnettes, about 1.5 meters been founded ca. 300 as a visible Christian mon-
tall, with a niched aedicula (small shrine) above it, ument. Similarly, in Nicomedia at the same time,
set against a brick wall. A hole in its base allowed the Christian meeting hall was prominent enough
libations to be offered by the faithful, and graffiti to be seen from the imperial palace and was de-
prayers confirm Christian usage at least by the stroyed by Diocletian in 303, at the beginning
third century. The tropaion must date to the late of the last great persecution of the Christians.
second century. It was subsequently buried, as the Clearly, the administrative structure of the church
and the basic character of Christian worship were
well established before the time of Constantine.
12
For a summary and assessment, see J. M. C. Toynbee and J. B. Ward These early buildings laid the groundwork for
Perkins, The Shrine of St. Peter (New York–London, 1956). later architectural developments, housing the
FIGURE 1.7
Rome, Catacomb
of Priscilla, interior
showing loculi and
view into the gallery
(G. Cargagna, De
Agostini Picture
Library, courtesy of
AKG Images)
FIGURE 1.8 basic functions that would be of prime concern

Rome, San in later centuries: communal worship, initiation
Sebastiano, into the cult, burial, and the commemoration of
reconstruction of the dead. In architectural terms, these early devel-
the triclia
opments represent the adaptation of existing
excavated beneath
structures and practices, and they find useful con-
the church, ca. 258
ce (after P. Styger,
temporary parallels in the creation of synagogues
Römische and Mithraia.
Märtyrergrüfte,
1935) ,
Diocletian’s idealistic and flawed attempt to re-
structure Roman rule across a sprawling and dis-
jointed empire came to an end when Constantine
arrived on the scene. Unlike the image of harmo-
FIGURE 1.9 nious joint leadership portrayed by the art of the
Rome, Catacomb period (such as the statue group now in Venice),
of St. Callixtus, it was a period of mistrust, suspicion, and changing
cella trichora,
allegiances.¹³ Although Constantine was raised in
fourth century (?),
the court of Diocletian in Nicomedia, he was more
view ca. 1850 (after
G. B. de Rossi,
or less a political hostage to keep his father in line.
Roma Sotteranea
III, 1877) 13
J. Bardill, Constantine: Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age
(Cambridge, 2015); D. Potter, Constantine the Emperor (Oxford,
2012).

FIGURE 1.11
Rome, Capitoline
Museums, marble
fragments from a
colossal statue of
Constantine found
in the Basilica of
Maxentius, early
fourth century
(author)
away from polytheism. By 310 he had changed

his religious allegiances to Sol Invictus as the su-
preme god—the unconquered sun, traditionally
FIGURE 1.10 Rome, St. Peter’s, (A) Vatican Necropolis, Campo P
identified with Apollo, who continues to appear
with the aedicule marking the tomb of Peter, late second century,
on Constantine’s coinage as late as 324 or 325.
showing its relationship to the apse of the Constantinian basilica
(after B. M. Apollonj Ghetti et al., Esplorazioni sotto la confessione
However, legend attributes Constantine’s victory
di S. Pietro, 1951); (B) reconstruction of the fourth-century over his rival Maxentius in the Battle of the
canopy marking the tomb of St. Peter (after J. Toynbee and Milvian Bridge of 312 to the miraculous interven-
J. B. Ward Perkins, The Shrine of St. Peter, 1956) tion of the Christian God. In Constantine’s vision,
he was instructed to “delineate the heavenly sign
on the shields of his soldiers.”¹4 Placing the sign—
And he was regularly overlooked for advancement. probably the chi–rho monogram (☧), the first two
By 306 ce he had had enough, and with the death letters of Christ’s name in Greek—on their armor,
of his father, Constantine had the army proclaim Constantine was rewarded by a total rout, the col-
him emperor. But his authority and his title were lapse of the bridge beneath the retreating army,
questioned by Galerius, Maximian, Maxentius, and the drowning of Maxentius. Shortly after-
and the rest of the old guard. The subsequent de- ward, in 313, Constantine met Licinius, his co-
cades of Constantine’s career may be seen as a emperor from the east, in Milan, and they jointly
gradual dismantling of the Tetrarchic system. issued an edict of religious tolerance—in effect
Constantine’s early career had been devoted to recognizing Christianity as an accepted religion
maintaining Roman authority in the unruly prov- within the Roman Empire (Fig. 1.11).
inces along the northern frontier, but by 310 ce
Constantine was at war with his co-rulers. He
marked this shift religiously as well by moving 14
Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum (Oxford, 1984), 44.
FIGURE 1.12
Rome, Arch of
Constantine, ca.
315 ce (author)
The foregoing is a simplified and abbreviated Curiously, the Arch of Constantine in Rome
history of a very complex period of political and (Fig. 1.12), raised by the senate in 315 ce to com-
personal history for Constantine, which scholars memorate Constantine’s victory over Maxentius,
continue to debate and which we may never fully makes no mention visually or verbally of his reli-
understand. Suffice it to say, Constantine used re- gious conversion. Among the various spolia (reused
ligion as part of his political identity to distance marble pieces) decorating the monument, the
himself from the Tetrarchy, but his personal com- Hadrianic roundels depict pagan sacrifices, and
mitment is not entirely clear. He may have con- the image of the sun god appears several times.¹5
flated the Christian God with Sol Invictus as the The friezes that depict events from Constantine’s
supreme deity—as we see occurring elsewhere, campaign against Maxentius are traditional in
such as in the famous mosaic in the Vatican their themes, distinctive for the abstractness of
Necropolis—or perhaps he thought the solar the- their style. Taken together, the sculptural decora-
ology would be attractive to the Christians, since tion emphasizes the emperor’s continued partici-
it used much the same imagery. Or perhaps he pation in official Roman ceremony and the grad-
continued to make a distinction between public ual transformation of the Roman Empire.
and private religion as had been common in When Constantine accepted Christianity, he
Rome—with worship of Sol Invictus to satisfy committed himself to the patronage of buildings
the needs of the state and worship of the Christian meant to compete visually with the grandeur of
God to address his personal, spiritual concerns. their pagan counterparts. In major centers like
In any case, by 314 ce at the latest, he was profess- Rome, this meant the construction of huge basili-
ing himself to be a Christian, but however he un-
derstood the religion, it was very different from 15
E. Marlowe, “Framing the Sun: The Arch of Constantine and
how we understand Christianity today. the Roman Cityscape,” ArtB 88, no. 2 (2006): 223–42.

FIGURE 1.13
Rome, Lateran
Basilica, ca. 313 ce,
isometric
reconstruction (after
H. Brandenburg,
Ancient Churches of
Rome, 2005, with the
author’s
modifications)
cas, capable of holding congregations numbering ship was conducted out of doors. The church ba-
into the thousands. Although there is much vari- silica was essentially a meeting house, not a sacred
ation in the building type, the basilica is essentially structure; the people, not the building, comprised
a large, longitudinal assembly room, or nave, usu- the ecclesia—although the two gradually became
ally terminating in an apse and flanked by side conflated. The Lateran Basilica, originally dedi-
aisles, all covered by timber trussed roofs, with cated to Christ, was begun ca. 313 ce to serve as
the nave lit by clerestory windows in the upper Rome’s cathedral (Fig. 1.13). Also known as the
walls. Most familiar to the Roman viewer of the Basilica Constantiniana (and now dedicated to
fourth century were forum basilicas, like the St. John the Baptist, St. John the Evangelist, and
Basilica Ulpia at the Forum of Trajan, which Christ), it was built on the grounds of an imperial
came with the stamp of imperial presence, as well palace, donated to be the residence of the
as the audience halls of the aristocracy, like that of bishop.¹7 Huge in scale, covering an area approx-
Junius Bassus in Rome. Although the symbolic imately 55 by 95 meters, it could have held a
associations of the Christian basilica with its congregation numbering into the thousands.
Roman predecessors have been debated, it repre-
sented power and opulence in ways comparable
to well-known, imperially sponsored, public
17
For the early churches of Rome, see the documentation in
R. Krautheimer et al., Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae:
buildings.¹6 Formally, the basilica also stood in
The Early Christian Basilicas of Rome (IV–IX cent.), 5 vols. (Vatican
sharp contrast to the pagan temple, at which wor- City, 1937–77); S. De Blaauw, Cultus et Décor. Liturgia e architettura
nella Roma tardoantica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae
16
D. Kinney, “The Church Basilica,” ActaIRNorv 15 (2001): 115– Mariae, Sancti Petri (Vatican City, 1994); H. Brandenburg, Ancient
35; R. Krautheimer, “The Constantinian Basilica,” DOP 21 (1967): Churches of Rome from the Fourth to the Seventh Centuries (Turnhout,
115–40. 2005).
Organized on a five-aisled plan, covered by wooden that could expand or contract according to the
trussed roofs, it was entered from the east and ter- functions it housed. Probably the best comparison
minated in a western apse. The basilica’s tall nave in terms of scale and opulence for the Lateran
was illuminated by clerestory windows in the Basilica is the Basilica Ulpia in the Forum of
upper walls, which rose above doubled side aisles. Trajan, completed before ca. 112, which was en-
Fifteen red stone columns supported a horizontal veloped by double side aisles and terminated in
entablature on either flank of the nave, while the exedrae. We might also consider the single-aisled
side aisles were divided by twenty-two smaller Aula Palatina at Trier, built as an audience hall
green marble columns on tall bases, supporting in Constantine’s residence ca. 300 (Fig. 1.14).¹9
arcades. The side aisles terminated in low, project- While both were imperial constructions, it was
ing sacristies—sometimes mistakenly identified probably not the imperial associations of the ar-
as a transept. Notably, many, if not all, of the chitectural form that led to the selection, but
marble pieces were spoliated, with the capitals mis- rather that the building projected an image of au-
matched, mixing Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite thority, power, and opulence. We should also
orders. Within the apse were seats for the bishop note that the basilica could be used for purely
and the clergy, and before the apse, the altar was utilitarian functions as well—for example, the
preceded by a fastigium—a magnificent silver warehouses (horrea) at Trier.²0
façade, decorated with statues of Christ and the In addition to congregational churches, among
apostles. Parapets marked a ceremonial route down which the Lateran stands at the forefront, a second
the center of the nave. functional type of basilica appeared in Rome at
Much of what we know about the church the same time, set within the cemeteries outside
comes from either the archaeological record or the the city walls, several of them associated with the
careful scrutiny of texts, as the Lateran continued venerated graves of martyrs, providing special
throughout its history to be the cathedral, the ad- places of veneration near their tombs in the cata-
ministrative seat of the Bishop of Rome—that is, combs. These cemetery basilicas (or ambulatory
the pope—and was thus the site of repeated ar- basilicas) were also substantial constructions—
chitectural investment. Dramatically remodeled between 80 and 100 meters in length—indicative
in the seventeenth century, the present interior nev- of both their prestige and their popularity. San
ertheless gives a sense of the scale and ostentation, Sebastiano on the Via Appia is the best-preserved
while the Liber Pontificalis (the collected biogra- example (Fig. 1.15). It rose on the site of the ear-
phies of early popes) enumerates the luxurious lier triclia, in which graffiti testify to the special
furnishings of the early church.¹8 The exterior was veneration of Peter and Paul at the site. Although
presumably plastered, covering the construction there is some suggestion that their graves may
of opus listatum (alternating courses of brick and have been relocated here during a period of perse-
stone, facing on a concrete core), its plainness cution, later traditions suggest that their resi-
contrasting dramatically with the opulence and dences were here. Originally known as the Basilica
color of the interior. Apostolorum, it was begun ca. 312 or 313 ce. The
Simple, large basilicas were also erected at opus listatum construction technique corre-
Aquileia in northern Italy (313–19 ce), at Trier in sponds to buildings built by Maxentius and en-
Germany (after 326), and elsewhere during the courages an early dating, although probably not
time of Constantine to serve as cathedrals for before the Peace of the Church. Essentially a cov-
their respective communities—all known from ered burial ground, the floor was paved with
texts or archaeology. Why was the basilica se- graves, and the walls were lined with loculi and
lected as a building type? Perhaps most impor- enveloped by mausolea. In plan, the nave is
tantly because it was not a temple and could never separated from the side aisles by heavy rectangu-
be mistaken for one. The basilica had no previous
religious associations but provided a flexible form
19
Kinney, “Church Basilica.”
18
The Book of the Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), trans. R. Davis 20
G. Rickman, Roman Granaries and Storage Buildings (Cambridge,
(Liverpool, 1989), 14–26; for Pope Sylvester (314–35). 1971), 265.

FIGURE 1.14
Trier, Aula
Palatina, exterior
from the west
(author)
FIGURE 1.15
Rome, San
Sebastiano, ca. 312
ce, plan (after
H. Brandenburg,
Ancient Churches of
Rome, 2005)
FIGURE 1.16
Rome, SS.
Marcellino e Pietro
with the
Mausoleum of
Helena, early
fourth century,
plan and elevation
(after R. Bianchi
Bandinelli, Rome:
The Late Empire,
1971, with the
author’s
modifications)
lar piers, with a clerestory zone above the arcades, martyria, and these commemorations of the spe-
beneath the wooden trussed roof. An altar was set cial dead often intersected with standard Christian
up near the center of the nave, to accommodate burials. Most important in the west was St. Peter’s
eucharistic memorial liturgies, and the internal Basilica in Rome, begun ca. 324 ce, originally
divisions allowed services of both public and pri- functioning as a combination of cemetery basilica
vate commemoration. Here and in the other and martyrium, sited so that the focal point was
cemetery basilicas, the aisle continued into an the marker at the tomb of Peter (Figs. 1.17 and 1.18).
ambulatory surrounding the apse at the west end. The construction of the present St. Peter’s Basilica,
To the east, an atrium originally joined the basil- which began in the sixteenth century, eliminated
ica to the Via Appia. or obscured the evidence of the site’s first fourteen
Among the handful of other examples, the centuries of history, but it was shaped in scale,
Basilica of SS. Pietro e Marcellino on the Via location, form, and meaning by its predecessor.
Labicana is the most important (Fig. 1.16). Built The tomb of the apostle was the most popular
on land owned by Constantine’s mother, Helena, pilgrimage destination in medieval Europe, and
its narthex was joined to the Mausoleum of correspondingly the church enshrining it was the
Helena, an enormous domed rotunda of heavy most important and influential work of architec-
construction that may have originally been ture, which Petrus Mallius, a twelfth-century
intended as the tomb of Constantine himself canon at St. Peter’s, described as “the source and
(see Chap. 3). The complex was completed by ca. mirror of all churches.”²¹
324–26 ce, when the mausoleum was decorated.
In addition to cemetery basilicas, Constantine
also supported the construction of monumental 21
Petrus Mallius, Basilicae veteris vaticanae descriptio (Rome, 1646).

FIGURE 1.17
Rome, St. Peter’s,
reconstructed plan
and view, ca. 320
ce, showing
adjacent mausolea
and the post-
Constantinian
atrium (after
R. Krautheimer,
ECBA, 1986)
Sometime presumably before 324 ce—the a level site. The nave followed the model estab-
exact date is not recorded—Constantine decided lished at the Lateran, with the 90-meter-long,
to monumentalize the site of the heroon by 23.6-meter-wide central vessel flanked by doubled
adding an enormous five-aisled basilica, approxi- side aisles, illuminated by clerestory windows. On
mately 120 meters long, oriented with an apse either side, twenty-two closely spaced columns
and transept in the west, so that the building was supported an architrave, and another twenty-two
aligned with the tomb. Larger by far than any smaller ones separated the aisles, those raised on
of the other Christian buildings in the city, the pedestals and supporting an arcade. Shafts, capi-
undertaking required the destruction of the ne- tals, and other marbles were spoliated, with both
cropolis, as well as the construction of massive sub- Corinthian and Composite capitals and shafts of
structures, up to 8 meters high along the south different materials and hues (including green ser-
side, and earth removal along the north, to create pentine, giallo antico, and both red and gray
FIGURE 1.18
Rome, St. Peter’s,
reconstructed
views of the nave,
looking west, and
the transept,
looking north
(T. Bannister,
JSAH, 1968)
granite), and significant variations in size. Wall but related functions, both with the tomb of the
construction was of opus listatum, as at the apostle as their visual focus.
Lateran. By the end of the fourth century, church fathers
The transept—an unusual feature in Early had suppressed the celebration of the refrigeria—
Christian churches—formed a separate space, es- which apparently had become more festive than
sentially a transversally positioned, single-aisled spiritual in nature. They were celebrated in
basilica, awkwardly juxtaposed with the nave. It St. Peter’s as late as 396 ce, but with the increas-
also functioned separately as a martyrium, offering popularity of pilgrimage to the tomb, the
ing a special space for venerating the tomb of building was equipped with a permanent altar,
the martyr, with separate entrances in its east set above the tomb of Peter, and staffed by a per-
wall. St. Peter’s tomb monument rose on the axis manent clergy. The combined focus on the altar/
of the nave, at the entrance to the apse, covered tomb by both pilgrims and celebrants led to traf-
by an open baldachin (canopy) supported by four fic problems within the transept, and ca. 590,
spoliated columns with spiral shafts covered with Pope Gregory the Great reorganized the west
vine scrolls; two additional columns extended end, with an elevated sanctuary above a crypt, so
the baldachin’s architrave to frame the apse (see that pilgrims could visit the grave of the apostle
Fig. 1.10B). During commemorative services, an without disturbing the liturgy. While unusual
altar could have been set up beneath the balda- within an Early Christian context, both the
chin, and the apse could have housed the clergy. transept and the two-level sanctuary were repli-
Both clergy and congregation would have used cated in many medieval churches in Western
the transept for all rites. Europe.
As conceived in the fourth century, Constan- Unlike most later churches, St. Peter’s had its
tine’s church was not a normal parish church for focal point in the west, rather than the east, fol-
the regular celebration of the liturgy; it had no lowing the standard orientation of temples—and
permanent clergy and no congregation and possi- specifically the Temple of Jerusalem. This also fa-
bly no permanent altar. The nave functioned as a cilitated access from the city, which lay to the east
cemetery basilica, its floor paved with tombs, and of the church. A colonnaded atrium, appar-
its vast interior provided a setting for the refrige- ently not part of the original design, was added,
ria, commemorative banquets at the tombs of the providing a transition from exterior to interior. In
deceased, while the transept functioned as the subsequent centuries, a bronze pinecone-shaped
martyrium—that is, two distinct but connected fountain was added to the atrium, as well as
architectural components housed two distinct reception rooms, oratories, a gatehouse, and a

belfry. Two Late Antique mausolea to the south of the city, with all but the Lateran lying outside
of the basilica were converted to chapels of the walls; the center of the city conservatively
St. Andrew and St. Petronilla. retained its pagan character, with its festivals and
While there is quite a bit of variety in the temples. In contrast, Constantine’s presence at
design of the Christian building projects associ- the center—his triumphal arch and the appro-
ated with Constantine in Rome, they share sev- priated Basilica of Maxentius—emphasized his
eral common features, beyond the large-scale right to rule in a traditional Roman visual and
and basilican format. First, all were constructed architectural vocabulary, with virtually no refer-
on imperial properties, the Lateran even retain- ence to Christianity. Thus, while Constantine
ing the existing imperial palace as the episcopal had put Christianity on the stage in Rome, it was
residence. Second, they were located at the edge not at center stage.
CHAPTER TWO
A TALE OF TWO CITIES

Constantinople and Jerusalem
in the Time of Constantine
I n 313 ce, Constantine and his eastern co-

emperor Licinius issued jointly the Edict of
Milan, recognizing Christianity as an official
on the Bosporus, had been founded as a Greek
colony a millennium earlier, and it had been de-
stroyed and rebuilt in the late second century by
religion of the state. Soon, however, relations Caracalla and Septimius Severus, who had real-
between the two rulers deteriorated, and they ized its strategic location. But it had never figured
were at war with each other. By 320 Licinius had prominently in the affairs of ancient Greece or
reneged on the edict and reinstituted persecutions Rome. While provided with a hippodrome, public
of Christians. In the civil war of 324, the two baths, and other Roman amenities, it was, in
met on the battlefield at Adrianople, in a pitched effect, a city without a history.
naval battle on the Hellespont, and ultimately at Jerusalem was the exact opposite—it was
Chrysopolis on the Bosporus, from which Con- barely a city, but had too much history, which
stantine emerged victorious, as the sole emperor figured prominently in the religion of the Jews
of the Roman Empire.1 As a consequence, Cons- and Christians; it was a touchstone and a power-
tantine’s interests shifted eastward after 324, both ful symbol in their scriptures. But Jerusalem had
politically and religiously, to the foundation of a also been destroyed in the rebellions of the first
new imperial capital, which he dedicated in 330, and second centuries ce and rebuilt as a Roman
and to the commemoration of the sites associated city by Hadrian, with a Roman name, Aelia
with the life of Christ. Capitolina, and a Roman identity. Even its temple
Constantinople and Jerusalem (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2) had been rebuilt and rededicated to the Capitoline
loom large in the medieval Christian imaginary— Jupiter. In short, both cities were desperately in
so large, in fact, that it is difficult to realize what need of makeovers to situate them politically,
insignificant places they were at the beginning of religiously, and ideologically at the heart of
the fourth century, immediately before Constantine Constantine’s evolving concept of empire.
came onto the scene. Both were provincial cities Recovering Constantine’s contributions to Jeru-
infused with a modicum of romanitas. Byzantion, salem and Constantinople is not an easy task, for
we have limited archaeological remains and con-
1
Bardill, Constantine, for a recent overview. tradictory written testimony. His contemporary
Istanbul (Constantinople), the historic peninsula seen from the north, with the Golden Horn in the foreground.
Topkapı Palace and Hagia Sophia stand where once the center of Byzantion lay (author)
21
FIGURE 2.1
Istanbul
(Constantinople),
the historic
peninsula seen
from the north,
with the Golden
Horn in the
foreground.
Topkapı Palace and
Hagia Sophia
stand where once
the center of
Byzantion lay
(author)
FIGURE 2.2
Jerusalem, the old
city, seen from the
east, with the
Temple Mount
(Haram al-Sharif )
in the foreground,
with the Dome of
the Rock on the
site of the temple.
In the background,
where the ground
rises from the
Tyropoeon Valley,
lies the Holy
Sepulchre
(A. Shiva,
Wikimedia
Commons)
biographer Eusebius is often annoyingly unspe- to clarify Constantine’s project to reinvent both
cific or omits critical details for both cities, while cities. As the chapter argues, although his contri-
later historians, writing after the fact, may give butions were substantial, in the end they were
Constantine too much credit. This chapter attempts more symbolic than actual.

FIGURE 2.3
Constantinople,
plan of the fifth-
century city
(author, based on
Cyril Mango,
Développement
urbaine de
Constantinople,
1985)
Constantinople. No contemporary descrip- As to Constantine’s contribution, his biogra-

tion comes down to us of Constantine’s new city pher Eusebius in the Life of Constantine is proba-
(Fig. 2.3). Its predecessor, Byzantion, was founded bly purposefully vague.3 What exactly did
in 660 bce as a colony of the Greek city Megara, Constantine do? He expanded the old city, more
by the eponymous Byzas, and was known in an- than tripling its size, adding a new line of walls
tiquity for its bad wine. While Hadrian is cred- more than 2 kilometers beyond the old ones;
ited with a water system and a bath complex, he extended the main street system to meet
Septimius Severus added the Augustaion (a porti- the new walls. He enlarged and decorated the
coed square), the Hippodrome (a chariot race- Hippodrome, adding a royal residence next to it
course), the Baths of Zeuxippos, and the Basilica and an imperial box. Where the old and new
(a commercial and legal center)—that is, the be- parts of the city came together, he constructed a
ginning of an urban armature.2 grand circular forum, surrounded by two-storied
colonnades, and at its center, he raised a colossal
bronze statue of himself atop a porphyry column.
2
C. Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople (Paris, 1985);
G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions At the junction of the main street he built
(Paris 1974); G. Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire (Paris, 1984); the Capitol—that is, a temple to the Capitoline
W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tübingen,
1977); T. Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A 3
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, trans. A. Cameron and S. Hall
Photographic Survey (University Park, 1976). (Oxford, 1999).
CHAPTER TWO: A TALE OF TWO CITIES 23

Jupiter. At the Basilica, he added temples to the expressed through mimesis—a combination of
goddesses Fortuna and Cybele. He decorated the physical imitation and literary testimony.5 Like
colonnaded streets and public spaces with statues Rome, the city of Constantine was built on seven
and works of art brought from all parts of the hills and divided into fourteen districts; its impe-
empire. All were necessary parts of the expression rial palace lay next to its hippodrome, which was
of romanitas. As Constantine was a professed similarly equipped with a royal viewing box. As in
Christian, we should expect churches as well, but Rome, there were a senate house, a capitol, great
only a few may be associated with his patronage. baths, and other public amenities; imperial fora
Hagia Eirene was the first cathedral, built on the provided its public spaces; triumphal columns,
location of a Christian house; St. Mokios outside arches, and monuments, including a colossus of
the walls was a martyrium honoring an obscure the emperor in the guise of the sun god, and a
local saint, set within a cemetery. There may have variety of dedications imparted mimetic associa-
been another martyrium inside the walls dedicated tions with the old capital. Constantine’s mauso-
to another local martyr, Akakios.4 The Church of leum, a rotunda, lay inside the walls, on the main
the Holy Apostles was constructed at the highest avenue leading out of the city to the north, just
point inside the walls, to serve as the mausoleum like Augustus’s mausoleum in Rome. And like
of Constantine. Hagia Sophia came later. Augustus, who celebrated bringing peace to the
Much of Constantine’s refounding of the city empire after a period of civil war by building the
represented a symbolic expansion. Although he Ara Pacis (the altar of peace), Constantine built a
extended the urban armature, functional spaces cathedral dedicated to the Holy Peace (Hagia
were still concentrated in the old city. He left it to Eirene).
his successors to fill out the grand plan and to As refounded by Constantine, the city was a
provide necessary amenities. It is worth empha- new creation. Novelty allowed its founders free-
sizing that the character of the city was not mark- dom in the deliberate crafting of a ritual site, but
edly Christian: Roman public buildings, statues, at the same time, the city lacked the sort of signif-
and even temples still dominate. But the city icance that the resonance of old and new might
was to be the imperial capital, not specifically provide. Physically, the armature did not connect
Christian or pagan. It was important to establish in the same way Rome’s did; even its reliance
its Roman identity in terms of appropriate monu- on colonnaded streets appeared very different.
ments, civic décor, and ceremony, to ground the Symbolically, much of Constantinople’s identity
new city in the empire’s pan-Mediterranean was by necessity imported—in the form of stat-
cultural history. ues and monuments and the legends that came
For Constantine, the new capital was important with them. The collections of public sculpture,
both for what it was and for what it was not. The brought from all parts of the empire, were con-
city had no significant Roman history; more imme- ceived largely in historical terms to express ideas
diately, unlike imperial residences at Serdica, of empire.
Thessalonike, or Nikomedia, it had no strong asso- At the Hippodrome, for example, the decora-
ciations with the Tetrarchy, from which Constantine tion emphasized the position of Constantinople
sought to distance himself. And unlike Ephesus, as a successor to Rome (Figs. 2.4 and 2.5). A set-
Alexandria, or Antioch, it had no previous Christian ting for both entertainment and imperial cere-
associations, no apostolic connections. The city was mony, the Hippodrome was the largest and most
tabula rasa—a blank slate on which Constantine important place where the emperor and the
could inscribe his new vision of empire. But to be people interacted. Thus, statues displayed at the
an imperial capital, the city had to participate in Hippodrome would have had a particular reso-
Roman history and legend. nance, reflecting both the spirit of the events
Most importantly, Constantinople was to be a that took place there and ideas appropriate to
New Rome or a Second Rome, and this idea was
5
B. Ward-Perkins, “Old and New Rome Compared: The Rise of
4
Mango, Développement; S. Bassett, The Urban Image of Late Constantinople,” in Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late
Antique Constantinople (Cambridge, 2004). Antiquity, ed. L. Grig and G. Kelly (Oxford, 2012), 53–80.

FIGURE 2.4
Constantinople,
ruins of the
Hippodrome in an
engraving of ca.
1560, by Étienne
Dupérac, for
Onofrio Panvinio,
De ludis circensibus,
1600, probably
based on a late
fifteenth-century
drawing
(Wikimedia
Commons)
FIGURE 2.5
Constantinople,
three monuments
on the spina of
the Hippodrome
as seen in 1574.
From left, the
obelisk erected by
Theodosius I; the
Serpent Column;
and the masonry
obelisk, probably
erected by
Constantine.
From the
Freshfield Album,
attributed to
Lambert de Vos
(Trinity College,
Cambridge)
Constantinople. Although almost all have disap- Aeneas, the She-wolf, Augustus, Julius Caesar,
peared, the sources mention at least twenty-five and Diocletian.6 Taken together, these would
statues or monuments. The collection included
images of victory from the Roman past, both 6
C. Mango, “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder,”
mythical and imperial, such as the Dioscuri, DOP 17 (1963): 55–75.

have evoked memories of the golden age of impe- circular forum, the column marked the point
rial greatness. at which the new city joined the old city. The
Two imported monuments are noteworthy in column, originally topped by a colossal gilded
the context of the new capital: the Serpent Column bronze statue of Constantine, would have been
from Delphi, formed by three intertwined serpents, one of the most visible monuments in the city
and the statue group of the Ass and Its Keeper, and one that served to identify the city with
taken from Nikopolis.7 The column, which survives the emperor. Indeed, if we look for traces of
as a brazen stub in a pit, celebrated the Greek vic- Constantine in Istanbul today, this is just about
tory over the Persians at the Battle of Plataea in 479 all there is remaining. The column was the signa-
bce; the statue group, known only from descrip- ture monument that established the city’s iden-
tions, was part of a monument that celebrated tity; its forum was the forum par excellence, the
Augustus’s victory over Anthony and Cleopatra at setting of civic rituals and a ceremonial setting for
Actium in 31 bce. Both battles had been inter- almost all stational liturgies. Many of the rites to
preted as the triumph of the civilized West over the inaugurate the new capital were held at the base
barbaric East, and both monuments would have of the column.
effectively reminded the spectator of Constantine’s The Column of Constantine still stands,
recent victory over Licinius, while situating it known by its Turkish name, Çemberlitaş (“the
within the millennial history of the Mediterranean. banded stone,” referring to the rings added to sta-
Of the public monuments erected by Con- bilize the column’s shaft), although the forum
stantine, the Column of Constantine was the that once surrounded it has disappeared com-
most significant and is worth a short digression pletely. Similarly, the statue of Constantine has
(Figs. 2.6 and 2.7).8 The centerpiece of a grand been lost, felled in a violent windstorm in 1105/6,
after which it was replaced by a cross. The current
FIGURE 2.6 bulbous base, like that of a minaret, was added
Constantinople,
following damage in 1779. The platform origi-
the Column of
Constantine, now nally had a stepped stylobate topped by a pedes-
known as tal, rising about 8.4 meters above the paved level
Çemberlitaş, ca. of the Forum, above which the column itself had
1870 in a a separate base, with a shaft consisting of seven
photograph by
solid drums of porphyry, 2.9 meters in diameter,
Pascal Sébah (Kıraç
Foundation, weighing about 63 tons each, banded with laurel
Istanbul) wreaths at the joins. From the details of its base,
the column was probably of the Corinthian order
and thus should have had a Corinthian capital, on
which or above which stood the colossal statue.
With the tall base shaft and capital, the monu-
ment rose about 36 meters above the Forum.
With its prominent position at the crest of a hill,
it was the tallest and probably the most visible
monument in the early city and is still prominent
on the skyline.
Unfortunately, we have no contemporary text
to tell us about the monument from the time of
Constantine. Eusebius mentions neither the
statue nor the column, perhaps embarrassed by
their odor of lingering paganism. While he notes
7
P. Stephenson, The Serpent Column: A Cultural Biography (Oxford, that Constantine decorated the city with pagan
2016). statues, his pious perspective makes it difficult for
8
R. Ousterhout, “The Life and Afterlife of Constantine’s him to explain why. His rather lame justification
Column,” JRA 27 (2014): 304–26. is that Constantine set them up so that the good

FIGURE 2.7
Constantinople,
Forum of Constantine,
hypothetical
aerial view
(reconstruction by
Tayfun Öner) and a
hypothetical
missing statue (author,
based on Öner)
Christians could mock them; he could hardly but all of this comes later. More interesting is the
have applied the same reasoning to the statue of only non-Christian relic enclosed within the
his emperor. From the limited references to it, we monument, the Palladion, an ancient cult image
can conclude that the colossal bronze statue was of Athena. According to tradition, it was removed
likely reused and represented Constantine, “shin- from the Temple of Athena at Troy by Aeneas at
ing like the sun god,” with the attributes of Sol the end of the Trojan War and carried to the West,
Invictus, including a solar crown with seven rays. an emblem of the mythical foundation of Rome.
He carried a spear and orb. Most likely he was In Rome it had been housed, or so we are told, in
heroically nude—later commentators are oddly the Temple of the Vestals. Other relics mentioned
silent about dress (or lack of it), but they recog- are Christian, and these sorts of associations,
nized the statue as Apollo and attributed it to whether real or imagined, may derive from the
Pheidias. They also report it was the object of a Christian practice of incorporating relics beneath
barely disguised pagan cult. Philostorgius wrote the altar in the consecration of a church. Com-
in the early fifth century, “Our enemy of God ac- bined with the belief that the statue had been
cuses the Christians of worshipping with sacri- brought from Troy, the presence (real or imag-
fices the image of Constantine set up on the por- ined) of the Palladion participated in the con-
phyry column, of paying homage to it with struction of a legendary past for a city that had no
lamp-lighting and incense or praying to it as to a significant prehistory. The intention was to situate
god, and of offering to it supplications to avert Constantinople within the millennial narrative of
calamities.”9 There were also attempts to reinter- Roman history, as the last link in a chain of des-
pret the monument in a Christian vein by associ- tiny leading from Troy to Rome, and then back
ating Christian relics with it: pieces of the cross, to its legendary birthplace in the East, as Con-
the nails of the Crucifixion, a vial of myrrh, bas- stantinople was reimagined as the New Troy.
kets from the Miracle of the Loaves, Noah’s axe; The famous Colossus of the sun god in
front of the Colosseum in Rome was probably
9
Philostorgius, Church History, II.17, trans. P. R. Amidon (Atlanta, Constantine’s point of reference for the monu-
2007), 35. ment. We know Constantine was interested in it,

FIGURE 2.8
Jerusalem, plan in
the fourth through
seventh centuries
ce (author, based
on Yoram Tsafrir,
in O. Grabar and
B. Z. Kedar, eds.,
Where Heaven and
Earth Meet, 2009)
since his triumphal arch framed the view toward Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a different story, for
it along the Via Triumphalis.10 While Constantine’s it was there, and not in Constantinople, that
colossus was smaller, its column matched the Constantine affirmed the empire’s new Christian
height of the Roman Colossus. His colossal statue identity (Fig. 2.8). Dating back to the fourth mil-
upped the ante, rising higher still. But like the lennium bce, ancient Jerusalem was at its height
Colossus in Rome, Constantine’s statue greeted under Herod the Great in the early first century
the processions where its ceremonial route joined ce. Herod’s rebuilt temple dominated the skyline,
the Forum. Standing at the point where old joined standing atop a massive platform (Fig. 2.9).11
new, Constantine’s statue faced his new city, Following the great Jewish Revolt of 66–70 ce,
along the axis that led ultimately back to Rome. however, the city was destroyed, the temple dis-
Redolent with its multiple associations with Rome mantled, and the surviving Jewish population ex-
and Troy, with imperial greatness and legendary pelled. A Roman garrison occupied the site, but
foundations, the column was a critical compo- until Hadrian’s interventions following the
nent in forging a new identity for Constantine’s second Jewish revolt of 132–35 ce, there is little
capital city.
11
O. Grabar and B. Z. Kedar, eds., Where Heaven and Earth Meet:
10
Marlowe, “Framing the Sun.” Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade (Austin, 2009).

FIGURE 2.9
Jerusalem, Temple
of Herod,
hypothetical plan
(after Joan Comay,
Temple of
Jerusalem, 1975,
with the author’s
modifications)
evidence of cultural investment. As a Roman FIGURE 2.10

colony, the city was renamed Aelia Capitolina Bethlehem, Church of
and provided with a few triumphal monuments, the Nativity, interior
looking east (author)
a colonnaded Cardo, and a Roman grid plan,
although this was limited to the northwest part of
the city. There is no evidence it was fortified.
A Capitolium temple was built on the site of the
Jewish Temple and a smaller Temple of Aphrodite
was erected on the site of Christ’s tomb—although
it is unclear if the latter siting was intentional. In
short, despite its long history, at the time of
Constantine, Jerusalem was a Roman provincial
city of little consequence and no strategic value.
Perhaps the theological discussions at the
Council of Nicaea in 325 ce kindled Constantine’s
interest in the Holy Land. His mother, Helena, had
traveled there in 327–28, identifying a variety of
holy sites, apparently initiating the construction
of churches to commemorate Christ’s birth in
Bethlehem (Figs. 2.10 and 2.11) and Ascension on
the Mount of Olives.12 But Constantine alone is
credited with the most important building proj-
ect, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Figs. 2.12
and 2.13). Curiously, the earliest Christian sites
officially recognized with the construction of
churches are signaled by distinctive topographical features, either natural or manmade: the rock-
hewn cave that formed the Tomb of Christ in the
12
Bardill, Constantine, 338–95. Holy Sepulchre; the natural cave on the Mount

FIGURE 2.11
Bethlehem,
Church of the
Nativity, plan and
isometric
reconstruction, as
of 333 ce (after
J. W. Crowfoot,
Early Churches in
Palestine, 1937; and
R. Krautheimer,
ECBA, 1986)
of Olives, where Christ instructed the Apostles; Eusebius’s account of the project begins with the
that of Bethlehem, where he was born; his foot- removal of the Roman temple, which he dismisses
prints preserved in the rock on the site of the
Ascension. Natural features testified to supernat-
ural events. (London, 1974). For an analysis of their findings and brief
The initial construction of the Holy Sepulchre discussion of methodology, see S. Gibson and J. E. Taylor, Beneath
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem: The Archaeology and Early
complex was undertaken in 326 ce, and the basil-
History of Traditional Golgotha (London, 1994); and J. Patrich, “The
ica was dedicated in 336, although construction Early Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Light of Excavations
continued long after Constantine’s death in 337.13 and Restoration,” in Ancient Churches Revealed, ed. Y. Tsafrir
(Jerusalem, 1993), 101–17. V. Shalev-Hurvitz, Holy Sites Encircled.
13
V. Corbo, Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, The Early Byzantine Concentric Churches of Jerusalem (Oxford,
1981); C. Coüasnon, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem 2015), should be used with caution.

FIGURE 2.12
Jerusalem, Church
of the Holy
Sepulchre, restored
plan and
hypothetical
section, as of ca.
350 ce (author and
Tayfun Öner, with
the author’s
modifications)
1. Atrium;
2. Basilica, called
Martyrion;
3. Inner
Courtyard;
4. Calvary;
5. Anastasis
Rotunda;
6. Tomb of Christ;
7. Patriarch’s
residence;
8. Baptistery (?)
as “a terrible and truly genuine tomb, one for by facts louder than any voice to the resurrection
souls, for dead idols.” The site was cleansed of all of the Savior.
its pagan defilement, and the subsequent excava-
tion revealed the rock-cut tomb:14 Constantine’s letter to Macarius, bishop of
Jerusalem, orders the construction to spare no ex-
As stage by stage the underground site was pense so that it should surpass all other churches
exposed, at last against all expectation the in the world in its beauty. What Eusebius describes
revered and all-hallowed Testimony (martyrion) actually sounds like a rather ordinary five-aisled
of the Savior’s resurrection (anastasis) was itself basilica with galleries, dressed up with rhetorical
revealed, and the cave, the holy of holies, took flourishes. For example, Eusebius writes that its
on the appearance of a representation of the external surface shone “with polished stones ex-
Savior’s return to life. Thus after its descent into actly fitted together, exhibited a degree of splen-
darkness it came forth again to the light, and it dor in no respect inferior to that of marble,”
enabled those who came as visitors to see plainly which is to say it was not marble. An atrium was
the story of the wonders wrought there, testifying connected to the Cardo, and the basilica had its
apse in the west. He calls the latter the hemi-
14
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III.27, 133. sphaeron (hemisphere) “which rose to the very

FIGURE 2.13
The Tomb of Christ,
hypothetical plan,
showing the process of
isolation and
monumentalization, as
the original rock-cut
tomb was freed from
the living rock by
quarrying around it,
regularized and given
an architectural form,
and decorated with
columns (after
J. Wilkinson,
Archaeology, 1978)
summit of the church,” encircled by twelve col- to west. The original tomb was cut into the slope,
umns bearing silver bowls, splendid gifts of the and it had to be freed from the bedrock around it
emperor. What the hemisphaeron looked like is (Fig. 2.13). We can imagine the complex con-
anyone’s guess—most scholars have tried to force structed from east to west, with the basilica under
too many columns into a rather ordinary apse, construction while the courtyard around the
but it might have been some sort of ciborium.15 tomb was cleared—perhaps even using the stone
Further to the west was a paved courtyard sur- quarried on-site in the construction. The excava-
rounded by porticoes, with the isolated and em- tors found no clear distinction between the two
bellished tomb monument at its center. parts of the complex, and the rotunda may have
Eusebius’s account is problematic, both for been intended from the beginning. In the leveling
what it describes and for what it omits. He makes of the area, however, the rocky outcropping iden-
no mention of Calvary or the True Cross—both tified as Calvary was left standing, and the basil-
of which were certainly there and certainly im- ica terminated where it rose, in a corner of the
portant. The reason may be that Constantine’s courtyard. The other noteworthy discovery of the
mother, Helena, is reputed to have discovered the excavators was the extensive reuse of older foun-
True Cross; she also goes unmentioned. Eusebius dations and walls at the east and west ends of the
was writing to honor Constantine. Eusebius complex, indicating that Constantine’s masons
also fails to mention the Anastasis (Resurrection) had not fully cleared the site before beginning the
Rotunda, which rose above the tomb. Most schol- new construction, and the reused elements ac-
ars now agree that this part of the Holy Sepulchre count for a variety of irregularities in the plan.
complex was constructed slightly later—presum- The excavations confirmed the dimensions of
ably the completion of the project begun by Con- the various components, as well as the changes of
stantine. Like the church in Bethlehem, finished axis as one moved through the complex. The
somewhat earlier, the Holy Sepulchre included atrium was short and trapezoidal, while the basil-
a basilica for congregational worship and a cen- ica measured approximately 40 by 58 meters, its
trally planned edifice that was primarily com- limited sized amplified by spacious galleries. As
memorative. the limited excavations indicated, the original
The archaeological investigations of the 1960s apse was semicircular but not expressed on the
and 1970s clarify Eusebius’s description.16 Perhaps exterior. Similarly, space for the construction of
most significant is the fact that the site was not the rotunda was limited, since the position of
level, extending over a quarry and rising from east Christ’s tomb was fixed and immovable. Rather
than being fully rounded, its plan is D-shaped,
G. Downey, “On Some Post-Classical Architectural Terms,”
15
with the ambulatory terminating in transept-like
TAPA 77 (1946): 22–34. wings to the sides. The tomb stood free within the
16
Corbo, Santo Sepolcro. fully rounded central area, separated from the

ambulatory by alternating columns and piers.17 The date when the church on Golgotha (called
Since at least the eleventh century, these were Martyrium) was consecrated to God is called
reused Roman columns cut in half, set on high Encaenia. . . . You will find in the Bible that
pedestals, although the original building likely the day of Encaenia was when the House of
had tall, spoliated columns. Whether it had a gal- God was consecrated, and Solomon stood in
lery, as did its eleventh-century reconstruction, is prayer before God’s altar, as we read in the book
unclear. The whole was covered by a wooden of Chronicles.
dome. In sum, the Holy Sepulchre was an awk-
ward and irregular complex from the beginning, An association seems to have been formed on the
limited by its urban setting and by preexisting foun- basis of function; the timing and organization of
dations, with spoliated architectural elements. Its the individual celebrations, as well as the ordering
walls were of local stone, not marble; Constantine’s of the liturgical calendar, reflect Jewish worship.
gift vessels were silver, not gold. The reality stands at Parts of the early liturgical celebration at the Holy
odds with Eusebius’s grandiose description. Sepulchre may have been structured following
Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of the the model of the ceremonies at the Temple. A li-
complex far outweighed its appearance, and here turgical reflection of the Temple would accord
Eusebius got it right. He calls the Holy Sepulchre with the exegetical emphasis of fourth-century
“the New Jerusalem, facing the far-famed Christian apologists; that is, it mirrors the desire
Jerusalem of olden time,” and he calls the Tomb of writers like Eusebius to ground the recently ac-
of Christ the “Holy of Holies.” He thus invites us cepted faith on the signs and prophecy of the Old
to contrast Constantine’s new church complex to Testament. In fact, the symbolic association of
the ruins of the Temple.18 In the fourth century the Temple and the Holy Sepulchre may have
ce, the two stood in visual opposition, facing been initiated by Eusebius himself. His purpose
each other across the Tyropoeon Valley. An im- was to demonstrate the continuity from temple
posing new work of architecture could testify to to church and to show the fulfillment of Haggai’s
the success of the New Covenant, just as the prophecy that “the latter glory of this House shall
empty and abandoned remains of the Temple op- be greater than the former” (Hag. 2:9). Moreover,
posite it could represent the failure of the Old the language used by Eusebius to describe the dis-
Covenant. Although it is easy in retrospect to covery of the site of the Tomb of Christ and the
jump to the conclusion that the Holy Sepulchre subsequent Constantinian building project at
became the New Temple, Eusebius’s rhetorical the Holy Sepulchre follows the same pattern.
strategy is a bit subtler, for he is simultaneously From the beginning, he refers to the site as the
comparing and contrasting the two buildings. martyrion (the Greek form of martyrium) of the
While the two buildings lacked almost all Savior’s Resurrection. By the end of the fourth
formal similarities, they shared a few common century—and in modern scholarship—the term
features. Both were oriented toward the east, with martyrion is used in a somewhat different sense.
the entrance facing the rising sun, and according But Eusebius must have intended it in the same
to the late fourth-century pilgrim Egeria, the way St. Cyril explains a few decades later, namely,
dedications were related, as she explains:19 in reference to the prophecy of Zephaniah:
“Therefore, says the Lord, wait for me at the mar-
17
M. Biddle, The Tomb of Christ (Thrupp, 1999), 69; J. Wilkinson, tyrion on the day of my resurrection (anastasis).”
“The Tomb of Christ: An Outline of Its Structural History,” The Tabernacle is called the skene tou martyriou
Levant 4 (1972): 83–97. in the Septuagint; the “place of witness” imply-
18
R. G. Ousterhout, “New Temples and New Solomons: The ing a witness to divine presence. While this verse
Rhetoric of Byzantine Architecture,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, could be translated in a variety of ways, Cyril has
P. Magdalino and R. Nelson, eds. (Washington, 2010), 223–53. subtly altered its meaning to suit his own ends, as
19
Egeria, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land, trans. J. Wilkinson both Anastasis and Martyrion were toponyms at
(Warminster, 1981), 48.1, 146; R. G. Ousterhout, “The Temple, the the Holy Sepulchre.
Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior,” Gesta 29, no. 1 (1990): Eusebius also preached at the dedication of the
44–53. basilica at the Holy Sepulchre in 336. The sermon

has not survived, although he noted in the Life of been no attempt to replicate the forms of the
Constantine that he “endeavored to gather from Temple.
the prophetic visions apt illustrations of the sym-
bols it displayed.” Here and elsewhere, Eusebius ,
interpreted the “martyrion of the Savior” as the
New Temple of Jerusalem in the dedicatory It is unclear how much beyond church construc-
sermon. tion Constantine did in Jerusalem, but he did
The connection of the Holy Sepulchre with enough. With the construction of the Holy
the Temple, then, seems to have existed from its Sepulchre, he gave Jerusalem a visible Christian
inception, and it is seen most clearly in the shap- identity, both building upon the rich past of the
ing of the liturgy and in the language of Eusebius. city and standing in sharp opposition to it. As in
Neither seems to have had a clear, architectural Constantinople, the city was fleshed out by his
manifestation—except possibly in the articula- successors, and even the centerpiece of his build-
tion of the tomb aedicula, which looks suspi- ing program, the Holy Sepulchre complex, was
ciously similar to the representations of the completed after his death. Nevertheless, the
Temple on coins from the period of the inde- symbolism, the Christian identity established by
pendent Jewish state, following the Bar Kochba Constantine and Eusebius, persisted throughout
rebellion (132–35 ce). But verisimilitude was not the Middle Ages and beyond.
critical here, for the Holy Sepulchre was replac- Constantinople, as New Rome and New Troy,
ing, not replicating, the Temple. was firmly grounded with a Roman imperial
What is fascinating about the early situation identity and a legendary past. The city gradually
at the Holy Sepulchre is the combination of an- assumed a Christian character as well. But like its
tithesis and assimilation. Eusebius clearly intends history and legend, its religious identity was im-
us from the beginning to contrast the two build- ported, beginning with the translation of the
ings—for the glory of one to stand in meaningful relics of Andrew, Timothy, and Luke into the
opposition to the ruin and abandonment of the Church of the Holy Apostles. Ultimately, more
other. At the same time, the repetition of key- than 3,600 relics are recorded, representing at
words, such as Anastasis, Martyrion, and Holy of least 476 different saints. To its epithets of New
Holies, the ordering of the service, and the orien- Rome and New Troy, Constantinople eventually
tation of the building encourage a comparison. added another—“New Jerusalem”—as a meta-
Moreover, with the possible exception of some phor for the increasingly sacred character of the
details of the tomb aedicula, there seems to have city. But that, as they say, is another story.

CHAPTER THREE
RITUAL SETTINGS I
Liturgy, Initiation, Commemoration
A rchitecture is often discussed according to the

Modernist dictum “form follows function”—
that is, buildings are shaped around and reflect
initiation, commemoration, and other ritualized
activities, architectural form took a largely symbolic
role.
human movement. To a certain extent, this is true The church basilica developed as a setting for
for the periods we are discussing, but we should the rituals of worship that we know as the liturgy.
also consider the possibility that the interaction At the same time, the building vocabulary ex-
goes both ways: architecture can be an active panded and new planning types were introduced,
agent in shaping human movement and behavior. with little impact on the shape of the liturgy.
A building does not simply house events; its form Functionally the vocabulary expanded as well:
may amplify, sanctify, comment upon, and interact baptisteries developed as symbolic settings for the
with the functions it houses, and both function and initiation rite; mausolea appeared as special set-
meaning may be empowered by the interaction.¹ tings for privileged burials; and shrines emerged
This is particularly true of ritual settings, in which for the commemoration of the saints and their
the architecture takes on symbolic significance. The relics, as the idea of pilgrimage took hold. We also
shape of a church, for example, is usually analyzed find building complexes developed to house groups
in terms of the shape of the liturgy, and in this as monasticism grew in popularity. Thus, the offi-
respect, we will find a very general correlation between cial acceptance of Christianity demanded new
ritual movement and architectural design. All the building types, as well as the adaptation of older
same, it is important to keep in mind that buildings ones to suit the requirements—both functional
have symbolic as well as functional purposes and that and symbolic—of a Christian population.
these purposes were expressed in the language of Liturgical Settings. Although reconstructing the
architecture. This is true for all ceremonial settings, detailed movements of the liturgical celebration is
not simply the church basilica, for in places of often a matter of guesswork, by the fifth century, the
liturgy had become standardized, but with some re-
1
See the essays in B. Wescoat and R. G. Ousterhout, Architecture gional variations, evident in the planning and fur-
of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to nishing of basilicas. In Constantinople, for exam-
Byzantium (Cambridge, 2012). ple, the longitudinal axis of the nave framed a
Rome, Santa Sabina, view from the southeast (author)
37
FIGURE 3.1
Rome, Santa
Sabina, view
from the
southeast
(author)
service that was marked by processions, or “en- examination of two representative examples should
trances,” of the congregation and the clergy, who illustrate.
would assemble in the atrium and pass through In Rome, the three-aisled basilica of Santa Sabina
the narthex before entering the nave, where the on the Aventine Hill stands as a remarkably well-pre-
congregation would assemble, with the men on served example of a fifth-century church (Figs. 3.1
one side and the women on the other.² In general, and 3.2). Built in 422–32, between the two great
the area identified as the sanctuary, or bema, which sacks of the city—in 410 by the Visigoths and in 455
contained the altar, was enclosed by a templon, or by the Vandals—there is little evidence of “decline”
chancel barrier, that projected into the eastern in the monument, carefully constructed of brick-
portion of the nave, immediately before the apse, faced concrete, with a tall apse and large windows in
which was set aside for the seating of the clergy.³ the clerestory.4 Although smaller than the great
As the focal point of the services, the altar could churches of Constantine—the nave measures a mere
be marked by a canopy of sorts, called either a bal- 46.8 meters in length by 14.3 meters across—the
dachin or a ciborium. Many of these features ap- three-aisled basilica is nevertheless remarkably spa-
peared already in the time of Constantine, accord- cious and well illuminated. Remains of Roman
ing to early descriptions of the Lateran Basilica. But buildings have been examined to the west and
several differences emerge between the furnishings south of the church, although it is unclear if these
and liturgical practices of the East and West, and an represent a pre-existing titulus. The west wall of
the narthex predates the basilica, the remains of
an older domus. There was apparently no atrium,
2
T. F. Mathews, “An Early Roman Chancel Arrangement and Its with the narthex entered laterally from streets to
Liturgical Uses,” RACr 38 (1962): 71–95; T. F. Mathews, The Early the north and south. While its columns and
Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (University
Park, 1977).
3
For terminology here and elsewhere, see the glossary at the end 4
H. Brandenburg, Ancient Churches of Rome, 167–77;
of the volume. R. Krautheimer, CBCR 4 (1976), 69–94.

FIGURE 3.2
Rome, Santa
Sabina, interior
looking east
(author)
capitals are spolia, they are carefully selected, late 27 meters long, and the side aisles and narthex are
second-century pieces, twelve to each arcade. Inlaid surmounted by a U-shaped gallery, providing ad-
marble work, or opus sectile, in the spandrels, gypsum ditional space for worshippers. The interior was
window grilles (now replaced), traces of mosaic and similarly covered by a wooden trussed roof. Green
wall painting, and even the wooden doors are pre- marble columns supported a horizontal entabla-
served. The sanctuary furnishings, including the ex- ture rather than an arcade, with all marble compo-
tensive schola cantorum, have been restored from nents newly carved rather than reused. Windows
ninth-century marbles, and while they might pro- opened on two levels into the side aisle and galler-
vide an impression of the original sanctuary, they ies, although it is unclear if the nave had a clerestory.
represent later usage, as will be discussed shortly. In both churches, a longitudinal axis controls
A counterpart in the East is provided by St. the space and reflects the patterns of movement
John Stoudios, founded in the mid-fifth century during the worship service, terminating in the east-
by the Consul Stoudios in the Psamatia district of ern apse, which forms the visual focus of the
Constantinople, the oldest surviving church in the interior and the functional focus of the liturgy
capital, which subsequently became the center of (Fig. 3.5). For most churches after the time of
one of the city’s most important monastic commu- Constantine, the orientation is to the east, because
nities (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4).5 Although in poor condi- Scripture tells us that Christ’s Second Coming will
tion today, much of the basilica’s original appear- be from the east, and the altar represents the throne
ance can be reconstructed. The central nave was prepared for him. Like a throne, the altar was cov-
flanked by side aisles and preceded by a narthex ered by a ciborium. Normally a relic was enshrined
and atrium on the west side, providing a gradual at the altar as part of the consecration ceremony.6
transition from the street. Shorter in plan than
Santa Sabina, the nave measures approximately
6
V. Marinis and R. G. Ousterhout, “‘Grant Us to Share a
Place and Lot with Them’: Relics and the Byzantine Church
5
Mathews, Early Churches, 19–27; Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, Building (9th–15th Centuries),” in Saints and Sacred Matter:
147–52. The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. C. Hahn and
CHAPTER THREE: RITUAL SETTINGS I 39

FIGURE 3.3
Constantinople, St.
John Stoudios
interior looking
northeast (courtesy
of Koç University
Center for Late
Antique and
Byzantine Studies
photographic
archive)
FIGURE 3.4
Constantinople, St.
John Stoudios plan
(author, redrawn
after
T. F. Mathews,
Early Churches of
Constantinople,
1977)
FIGURE 3.5
(A) Diagram of an
early Christian
Roman sanctuary;
(B) diagram of an
early Christian
Constantino-
politan sanctuary
(after T. F.
Mathews, RAC,
1962, and R.
Naumann and H.
Belting, Euphemia-
Kirche, 1966, with
the author’s
modifications)

At the Stoudios, it was placed in a small, inacces- and the singing of the Psalms, conducted by lec-
sible cruciform crypt. Rather than being an object tors and psalmists from the ambo. The bishop
of special veneration, the consecration relic func- would normally deliver his sermon from his seat
tioned to create a sacred presence within the in the apse. In late fourth-century Constantinople,
church. Along the curvature of the apse was a St. John Chrysostom chose to deliver his sermons
bench for the seating of the clergy, with a cen- from the ambo, in the midst of the congregation,
trally positioned throne for the bishop. In Rome although this was regarded as unusual.8 After the
and the West, this was usually referred to as the sermon, the catechumens (initiates) were dismissed,
presbyterium—that is, where the presbyters, or and the doors to the church were closed. The Liturgy
priests, would sit. Known in the East as a synthro- of the Faithful began with the Great Entrance, or
non, from the Greek syn (with) plus thronos Entrance of the Mysteries, in which the bread and
(throne), this was often stepped, like an ancient wine of the Eucharist were carried to the altar.
theater, to provide greater visibility for the clergy, Subsequently, members of the congregation joined
who sat on the uppermost step. The throne served in a recitation of the Nicene Creed, a profession
as the symbol of the bishop’s office, and he would of faith, followed by the Anaphora (Eucharistic
deliver his sermon from there, taking advantage prayer).9 The clergy and then the congregation par-
of the acoustics provided by the curved surfaces took of the sacrament, which was administered at
of the apse and its conch. the chancel barrier. In Rome, the barrier closed
The bema was enclosed by the chancel barrier off areas to the ends of the side aisles, from which
(later called the templon), usually Π-shaped, pro- men and women were administered communion,
jecting into the eastern portion of the nave. In the on opposite sides. With a final prayer of thanks-
West, this was often simply a low screen, but in giving, the congregation was dismissed. The cere-
the East, it was surmounted by an architrave or mony ended with the clergy, followed by the con-
epistyle raised above columns or pier colonnettes. gregation, exiting the nave in procession.
The openings below the architrave were not screened, The preceding description describes the lit-
so the congregation would have a good view of the urgy in broad strokes, and there were many varia-
parts of the service conducted in the sanctuary. A tions, regional and otherwise. For example, many
passageway called either a solea or schola projected basilicas across the empire had parapets closing
into the nave, forming the final processional off the side aisles, although it is unclear how to
route for the celebrants entering the sanctuary. At interpret this: was the congregation relegated to
the Stoudios, somewhere toward the middle of the side aisles and the nave set aside for the clergy?
the nave, a raised pulpit or ambo was positioned, Or was the congregation divided in some way? St.
from which readings were conducted. Common John Studios had parapets while Hagia Sophia
in the East, the ambo seems to have been slowly did not. In parts of Syria, a large platform, called
introduced in the West. a bema, or Syrian bema—not to be confused (al-
The liturgical ceremony began with the First though it often is) with the sanctuary proper,
Entrance, in which a procession of clergy, fol- filled the center of the nave and was connected to
lowed by the congregation, entered the nave from the sanctuary by a ceremonial walkway (see Fig.
the narthex. Prayers and singing occurred through- 6.36). It seems to have functioned similar to the
out the ceremony.7 The clergy moved solemnly into ambo described above, although its exact liturgi-
the sanctuary, and the Gospels were ceremonially cal use remains disputed. Its presence would have
placed on the altar. Once everyone reached their certainly affected the shape of the liturgy. In
proper positions, the Liturgy of the Word began, Constantinople, the ambo was usually positioned
with readings from the Old and New Testaments on an axis, while in mainland Greece it was more
often set to one side of the nave. In Syria and
H. Klein (Washington, DC, 2015), 153–72; R. Taft, The Byzantine
Rite: A Short History (Collegeville, 1992); R. Taft, “Women in
the Byzantine Church: Where, When—and Why,” DOP 52 8
Ibid., 13.
(1998): 27–87. 9
V. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople:
7
Mathews, Early Churches, 138–46. Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries (Cambridge, 2014), 209.

Egypt, the main entrances were sometimes from the baptistery to the Holy of Holies at the Temple
the side, thus downplaying the longitudinal axis. of Jerusalem, opened only once a year. The bishop
What is apparent, in spite of regional varia- and his staff would enter the baptistery on Holy
tions in both the architecture and the liturgical Saturday to exorcize the font and sanctify the
practices, is a very general coherence between the water in preparation for the arrival of the initi-
church space and the ceremonies it housed. But ates. Before they entered the building, a priest
this is not to say that one depended on the other. would “open” them by touching their ears and
Rather, the liturgy could expand or contract to fit nostrils, although not their mouths. Upon enter-
the spaces in which it was celebrated. A small vil- ing, the neophytes would reject Satan and bind
lage church and the great Hagia Sophia might themselves contractually to Christ. This could in-
have used the same liturgy, but the character of volve turning toward the west to renounce Satan
the space would have mediated its performance— and to the east to face Christ. The initiates would
shorter and more intimate in a village church, but then take off their old garments and be anointed
slower, lengthened by the distances the celebrants with exorcising oil, before entering the font naked
must cover—and monumentalized in the great (or perhaps minimally garbed). The officiant would
cathedral. then immerse the initiate in the font three times,
Baptisteries and baptism. Necessary for the recalling the three days Christ spent in the tomb.
elaborate initiation rites, baptisteries also appear as This was followed by a second anointing, sealing
prominent buildings throughout the empire in the the initiate unto the Lord, with a cross marked on
fourth through sixth centuries.¹0 The ceremony as the forehead. The initiates would then put on a new
it was formulated was originally addressed to adult white garment, “the chaste robes of innocence,”
converts, who as catechumens had undergone a as a symbol of their spiritual rebirth. Ambrose
period of preparation. Baptism was performed at included a ritual foot washing as a part of the
Easter time, to emphasize the association with ceremony, although this does not seem to have
Christ’s Resurrection, as the initiates were symbol- been a universal practice. Presented with candles,
ically “reborn” in Christ. Because the initiate was the initiates would finally go in procession to
“born again” and had all sins washed away, many the cathedral, where they would take communion
chose to put off baptism until late in life. In major for the first time. The light-filled procession in
urban centers, hundreds of neophytes were initi- the predawn darkness of Easter morning must
ated in ceremonies on Easter eve. The earliest bap- have been a particularly meaningful conclusion
tistery buildings lay adjacent to the cathedrals, as to the ritual.
the bishop performed the rite. Gradually, however, Most baptistery buildings were centrally planned
baptisteries were added to other churches, and the and would have stood out in the civic landscape,
ceremony was performed on other feast days. emphasizing the bishop’s role in the community.
In spite of variations, the basic elements of Most common among the architectural settings
the baptismal ceremony appear relatively stable. was a symbolically resonant, octagonal building,
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (374–97), composed a with a font set into its floor, situated close to the
series of sermons that outline the ritual and its es- cathedral. At the Lateran Basilica in Rome, it was
chatological meaning. From his writings, as well as an independent octagonal building to the north
those of Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Cyril of the apse, connected to the church by ceremo-
of Jerusalem, and others, we can gain an impres- nial processions, but without a formal architectural
sion of the ceremony. Enrollment took place at relationship (Fig. 3.6).¹¹ The Liber Pontificalis
the beginning of Lent, after which the catechu- (Book of the Popes) erroneously claims this to be
mens underwent a rigorous program of fasting, the site of Constantine’s own baptism, although
instruction, and exorcism. Ambrose compared his biographer Eusebius relates that the event only
occurred on his deathbed. Originally part of
10
R. M. Jensen, Living Water: Images, Symbols, and Settings of Early Constantine’s building program, the baptistery was
Christian Baptism (Leiden, 2011), esp. 127–78; S. Ristow, Frühchristliche
Baptisterien, JbAC 27 (Münster, 1998), provides a useful catalog of 11
Brandenburg, Ancient Churches, 37–54; Jensen, Living Water,
known examples. 184–88.

FIGURE 3.6
Rome, Lateran
Baptistery,
reconstruction, ca. 1650
(engraving A. Lafréry,
from R. Krautheimer,
Rome, 1980, fig. 46)
expanded in the early fifth century under Pope Known only from excavations, the building was
Sixtus III, with an ambulatory separated from the octagonal, with niches set into the thickness of
central structure by eight porphyry columns, ap- the wall and covered by a dome. The inscription
parently donated by Constantine. A lengthy in- that once decorated the interior may have been
scription on the marble architrave emphasized the composed by Ambrose himself; it clarifies the
meaning of the ceremony, through which the in- symbolism of the building in its opening lines:
itiate was spiritually reborn. It reads, in part,
The eight-sided temple has risen for sacred
You who wish to be innocent, wash in the purposes
bath, The octagonal font is worthy for this task.
Whether you are burdened by ancestral sin or It is seemly that the baptismal hall should
your own. arise in this number
This is the fountain of life, which cleanses the By which true health returns to people
whole world.¹² By the light of the resurrected Christ.¹4
At the Cathedral of Santa Tecla at Milan, the bap-

tistery, added by Ambrose ca. 380, lay to the east
and was set at a slightly different angle (Fig. 3.7).¹³
(New York, 1969), 115–50; more recently, Markus Löx,
Monumenta sanctorum: Rom und Mailand als Zentren des frühen
12
Liber Pont. 46.7. Christentums: Märtyrerkult und Kirchenbau unter den Bischöfen
13
Jensen, Living Water, 195–98; R. Krautheimer, “Introduction to Damasus und Ambrosius (Wiesbaden, 2013).
an ‘Iconography of Medieval Architecture,’” JWarb 5 (1942), 1–33; 14
Opera omnia di sant’Ambrogio. Inni, iscrizioni, frammenti, ed. S. Banterle
reprinted in Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art et al. (Milan, 1994), 145–66.

FIGURE 3.7
Milan, Santa Tecla
and baptistery,
plan (after
R. Krautheimer,
ECBA, 1986, with
the author’s
modifications)
The form of the building drew its symbolic mean- stantially remodeled in the middle of the fifth cen-
ing from two sources: numerology and building tury by Bishop Neon, with a dome of light con-
typology, as Ambrose’s text suggests. Christians struction inserted into the octagonal structure. The
associated the number eight with rebirth, re- walls are constructed of reused brick, while the
newal, and resurrection: Christ was resurrected dome is formed by layers of hollow ceramic tubes
on the eighth day after his entry into Jerusalem; (for the technology, see Chap. 5). Its elaborate dec-
and on the eighth cosmic day, creation will be re- orative program in opus sectile, stucco, and mosaic
newed: it is the number “by which true health re- is substantially preserved and has attracted consid-
turns.” The baptistery’s form also may be associated erable attention. Hindering a full appreciation of
with Late Roman mausolea (although not di- the interior, the floor level has been raised about
rectly with the mausoleum of Christ, the Anastasis 3 meters above the original; the raised font is not
Rotunda). Emphasizing the typological relationship, original, and the external walls and roof have also
the mausoleum (now the Chapel of Sant’Aquilino) been raised—all in response to the subsidence
attached to San Lorenzo in Milan has a plan identical of the building. The octagonal plan alternated
to the Santa Tecla Baptistery, similarly octagonal niches and doorways on the lowest level, with en-
with alternating rectangular and semicircular niches gaged columns at the corners, suggesting a re-
set into the thickness of its walls (see Figs. 6.24 and markable degree of openness. The interior is a
6.25); there were also Tetrarchic-era mausolea of sim- mere 12 meters wide, with the vault rising 14.6
ilar design in Milan, Split, and elsewhere. For baptis- meters high. The dome mosaic dominates the in-
tery design, symbolic form takes precedence. terior impression—a magnificent stage set for a
The Orthodox (or Neonian) Baptistery at ceremony of both civic and religious significance.
Ravenna, begun at the end of the fourth century or Here and elsewhere we must ask, how much of
beginning of the fifth, lay immediately to the north the decoration would the initiate have under-
of the cathedral (Figs. 3.8 and 3.9).¹5 It was sub-
Living Water, 198–204; D. Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity
15
S. Kostof, The Orthodox Baptistery of Ravenna (New Haven, (Cambridge, 2010), 88–100. Fifth-century Ravenna had both
1965); A. J. Wharton, “Ritual and Reconstructed Meaning: The Orthodox and Arian congregations and, thus, two cathedrals and
Neonian Baptistery in Ravenna,” ArtB 19 (1987): 358–75; Jensen, two baptisteries.

FIGURE 3.8
Ravenna, Orthodox
Baptistery, interior
view (Mark J.
Johnson)

FIGURE 3.9
Ravenna,
Orthodox
Baptistery, plan at
ground level and
section, showing
gradual raising of
the floor level and
roof (after
W. Deichmann,
Ravenna, 1976; and
S. Kostof,
Orthodox
Baptistery, 1965,
with the author’s
modifications)
stood? Normally closed, the interior would have Africa, the architecture framework remained simple
been seen only fleetingly during the rite. On a and usually rectangular, while the form of the font
basic level, however, the luxurious interior would was elaborated. The sixth-century Vitalis Baptistery
have called to mind the heavenly reward prom- at Speitla, Tunisia, for example, is undulating and
ised to the faithful, while the superimposed zones lip shaped, covered with mosaic decorations and
of the decorative program would reflect the hier- originally surmounted by a canopy (Fig. 3.10).¹7
archical structure of Christian belief: Old Testament The Baptistery of Clupea, Kébilia, Tunisia (now in
figures below, New Testament above, and Christ’s the Bardo Museum), is similar in date, with a four-
divinity recognized at the crown. Individual images lobed, stepped font encrusted with colorful mosa-
might have found a more specific resonance as ics, which include an elaborate dedicatory inscrip-
well: verses and scenes of watery salvation would tion.¹8 In all, the splendid decoration, sparkling
emphasize that the living waters of baptism were beneath the rippling water and the feet of the initi-
the fountain of life; an image of Christ trampling ates, would have emphasized that the font was
the basilisk might underscore the renunciation of indeed “living water.” With the gradual change to
Satan. But there were also mimetic resonances: a infant baptism, however, the ceremony was simpli-
nude Christ stands in the waters of baptism im- fied, and monumental baptisteries ceased to be
mediately above the head of the initiate in the constructed after the sixth century.
font; the ceremonial foot washing would take Burials. The desire for privileged burial perpet-
place before the image of Christ washing the feet uated the tradition of Late Antique mausolea, which
of the apostles; the candlelit procession that cul- were often octagonal or centrally planned, and the
minated the ceremony resembled the procession setting for commemorative services.¹9 At an impe-
of white-garbed apostles in the dome. rial mausoleum, the ceremony of consecratio would
Variations abound in both architectural form
and decoration: at the sixth-century baptisteries of Battistero di Canosa nel quadro dell’archittetura dell’Europa
Canosa and Butrint, for example, the central space bizantina,” Puglia Paleocristiana 3 (1979): 163–76.
is enveloped by multiple ambulatories.¹6 In North 17
Jensen, Living Water, 211–12.
18
Ibid., 213–16.
16
Ristow, Frühchristliche Baptisterien, 175, 186; J. Mitchell, The Butrint 19
M. J. Johnson, The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity
Baptistery and Its Mosaics (London, 2008); D. de Bernardi Ferraro, “Il (Cambridge, 2009).

FIGURE 3.10
Sbeitla, Vitalis Basilica
Baptistery, baptismal font
(author)
FIGURE 3.11
Rome, Mausoleum of
Helena, exterior view
(Mario1952, Wikimedia
Commons)
have honored the apotheosis of the emperor; in walls. Two early examples are particularly signifi-
Christian terms, this became the commemoration cant: the Mausoleum of Helena at the cemetery ba-
of the dies natalis or the day of death, when the de- silica of SS. Pietro e Marcellino on the Via Labicana
ceased was born into a new life. And unlike pagan is an enormous, domed rotunda, its thick walls
mausolea, which relegated the burials to a crypt lined with niches, joined nearly axially to the nar-
level, Christian mausolea were single storied. In thex of the basilica (Fig. 3.11; and see Fig. 1.16).²0
Rome, several imperial mausolea were constructed
connected to the cemetery basilicas outside the 20
Ibid., 110–18; Brandenburg, Ancient Churches, 55–60.

FIGURE 3.12
Rome, Sant’Agnese
site plan: cemetery
basilica with
attached
Mausoleum of
Constantina
(S. Costanza);
medieval Basilica of
Sant’Agnese above
the catacombs (in
gray) (author,
redrawn after
A. Frutaz,
Complesso
monumentale di
Sant’Agnese, 1969;
A. Grabar, Early
Christian Art, 1969;
M. J. Johnson,
Roman Imperial
Mausoleum, 2009)
Measuring just over 20 meters in diameter, the cophagus was positioned in the axial niche, with
upper walls opened with eight large windows. In the altar at the center of the rotunda.
ruins today, there is evidence of lavish decoration, The Mausoleum of Constantina (S. Costanza),
and the Liber Pontificalis mentions a silver altar. Constantine’s daughter, was built ca. 350, shortly
Moreover, the original porphyry sarcophagus sur- after the construction of the cemetery basilica of
vives, now in the Vatican Museums. Decorated St. Agnes (S. Agnese) on the Via Nomentana, at-
with scenes of military conquest—odd for a saintly tached to its side (Figs. 3.12–3.14).²² Circular in
empress—it has been argued that the mausoleum plan, the building originally included both an ex-
was originally intended for Constantine, but fol- terior colonnade and an interior ambulatory, the
lowing his move to the East it was used to inter his latter with twelve sets of coupled columns envel-
mother, who died ca. 327.²¹ Most likely, the sar- oping the domed central space 11.5 meters in di-
ameter. The ambulatory, covered by an annular
21
F. W. Deichmann and A. Tschira, “Das Mausoleum der Kaiserin
Helena und die Basilika der Heiligen Marcellinus und Petrus an 22
Johnson, Mausoleum, 139–56; Brandenburg, Ancient Churches,
der Via Labicana vor Rom,” JDAI 72 (1957): 44–110. 69–86.

FIGURE 3.13
Rome, S. Costanza,
interior, looking south
(Michael Waters)
barrel vault, is interrupted by a baldachin-like bay some sort), thus apparently equating the first
on the axis. A porphyry lozenge set into the floor Christian emperor with the apostles, or possibly
of the axial intercolumniation may mark the site with Christ himself. At the same time, in a cul-
of Constantina’s sarcophagus and, as at St. Helena’s ture brimming with solar symbolism, burying the
mausoleum, the building likely had an altar at the emperor at the center of the twelve apostolic
center. The overall design is considerably more so- cenotaphs would have brought to mind the image
phisticated, however, with the layering of spaces of the unconquered sun surrounded by the signs
culminating at the central dome, which rises above of the zodiac or the months of the year. In 336,
a clerestory of twelve large windows. relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy were brought
Once he shifted the capital eastward, Con- into the church, in effect transforming the build-
stantine constructed the Church of the Holy ing into a full-fledged martyrium. Constantine’s
Apostles in Constantinople as his mausoleum. The son Constantius II added a cruciform church, into
building is of utmost significance as the first (and which the relics of the apostles were transferred,
unprecedented) mausoleum of a Christian em- leaving the rotunda to function as an imperial
peror.²³ Constructed to be both a church dedi- mausoleum, probably moving his father’s sarcoph-
cated to the apostles and an imperial mausoleum, agus to the axial niche to allow room for his and
its intended function as a mausoleum was not im- his successors’ burials. As it developed, the combi-
mediately evident, according to Eusebius. It has nation of buildings serving two separate but re-
disappeared without a trace, save the collection of lated functions followed Constantinian precedents.
porphyry sarcophagi that once filled it, and is Whatever its exact form, Constantius’s addition
known only from textual references, whose inter- seems to have introduced a new building type
pretation continues to be hotly contested. Perhaps that was imitated in subsequent decades for both
similar in design to Santa Costanza, it held both mausolea and martyria.
the altar and the emperor’s tomb at its center, en- In Ravenna, the Empress Galla Placidia (392–
veloped by twelve thekai (stelae or markers of 50) constructed the Church of Santa Croce ca.
425, along with a mausoleum, connected to the
23
Johnson, Mausoleum, 119–29, with a survey of older literature.

FIGURE 3.14
Rome, S. Costanza,
plan and section
(after Mark J.
Johnson, Roman
Imperial
Mausoleum, 2009)

FIGURE 3.15
Ravenna, Mausoleum of
Galla Placidia, view from
the southwest (Megan
Boomer)
south end of the narthex (Figs. 3.15–3.17).²4 It is space close to 4 meters square. The floor level has
unclear if it was intended to house her mortal re- been raised more than 1.4 meters in the sixteenth
mains, for she died in Rome and was buried in St. century to compensate for the rising ground level,
Peter’s. Dedicated to the Holy Cross, both the and this alters the appearance of the interior.
church and the mausoleum are cruciform, per- At the opposite end of the social spectrum, the
haps reflecting the Church of the Holy Apostles dead were also commemorated. The catacombs
in Constantinople. But it is constructed of brick, and above-ground cemeteries of Rome, already
its exterior façades detailed with blind arcades, all discussed, continued to be used for Christian
in line with northern Italian architecture. Most of burials and refrigeria. A parallel example is found
the original mosaic and marble decoration is pre- at Bagawat in the Kharga Oasis of Egypt.²5 A ne-
served in the minuscule interior, centered on cropolis of predominately Christian burial pre-
the apparition of a golden cross in a starry sky at serves 263 mudbrick tomb chapels, dating from
the crown of the dome. Entered from the north, the second through the seventh century, as well as
the interior measures approximately 10 by 12 hundreds of humbler graves (Figs. 3.18 and 3.19).
meters overall, the cross arms each outfitted with Most of the chapels are relatively simple rectan-
a marble sarcophagus—not unlike a cubiculum gular rooms with architectonically decorated fa-
in the catacombs. At the crossing, a domical vault çades; many are domed or barrel vaulted, with
(or pendentive dome) rises 10.7 meters above a
25
P. Grossmann, “Bagawat, al-,” The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed.
24
Deliyannis, Ravenna in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 2010), A. S. Ativa (New York, 1991), 2:326–27; A. Fakhry, The
70–84, M. David, ed., La basilica di Santa Croce. Nuovi contributi per Egyptian Deserts: The Necropolis of El-Bagawat in Kharga Oasis
Ravenna tardoantica (Ravenna, 2013). (Cairo, 1951).

FIGURE 3.16
Ravenna, Church of
S. Croce, reconstructed
plan and view ca. 450
(after D. Deliyannis,
Ravenna, 2010; and
M. David, La Basilica
di Santa Croce, 2013)

FIGURE 3.17
Ravenna, Mausoleum
of Galla Placidia, interior looking
south (from M. David, Eternal
Ravenna, 2013)
FIGURE 3.18
Bagawat
Necropolis, Kharga
Oasis, general view
(Elizabeth Bolman)

FIGURE 3.19 or chapel for communal worship. Evidence is pre-
Bagawat served in the desert communities of Egypt and
Necropolis, Kharga Palestine, where monasticism had its roots.²6
Oasis, Chapel 180,
Leading figures for Egyptian monasticism came
plan of the first
from Upper Egypt, but our best evidence for early
two phases (after
P. Grossmann,
monastic communities comes from the northern
Coptic desert, west of the Nile, near Alexandria, at Nitria,
Encyclopedia, 1991) Kellia, and Scetis.²7 Here early hermit monks found
the solitude to encourage their spiritual practices,
without being entirely cut off from civilization. The
solitaries gradually attracted an early form of faith-
based tourism, and some were simply overrun by
well-meaning outsiders. This resulted in either the
abandonment of the early settlements or reorgan-
ization into a more communal form of monasti-
cism. Nitria, founded in 330, attracted thousands
of aspiring hermits but has left few remains.
Kellia, founded toward the middle of the fourth
century, attracted similarly large crowds. Initially
a random grouping of isolated cells and commu-
nal dwellings, archaeologists have identified more
than 1,500 individual structures covering an area
of 125 square kilometers (Fig. 3.20). Many of the
eremitic habitations were equipped with painted
painted interiors. Some are preceded by a court- chapels or oratories.
yard or portico. Tombs were cut into the floor, The White Monastery (Dayr al-Abiad) at Sohag,
some with a low superstructure. The chapels were with its fortified church complex, reflects the
used for the funerary meals and other rites com- greater organization of a male ascetic community
memorating the dead. Many were equipped with of the fifth century (Figs. 3.21 and 3.22).²8 Best
klinai, or semicircular couches, with masonry known for its third leader Shenoute (ca. 348–
tables. One chapel (no. 180) was expanded into a 465), it was part of a larger monastic federation,
three-aisled basilica and enveloped by a peristyle including the smaller men’s monastery (the Red
with multiple klinai apparently for use by those Monastery) to the north and a nunnery to the
who could not afford their own chapel. south in the village of Atripe, as well as cave her-
Monasticism. By the fifth century, monasti- mitages in the nearby cliffs, comprising several
cism began to play an increasingly important role thousand monastics. Built ca. 440, with battered
in society, but from the perspective of architec- walls of limestone, the church resembles an an-
ture, early monasteries lacked systematic planning cient pylon temple and in fact reused a variety of
and were dependent on site-specific conditions.
Two systems of organization prevailed: the laura 26
D. J. Chitty, The Desert a City (Oxford, 1966); A. Veilleux,
(or lavra) was a community of monks, each living “Monasticism, Pachomian,” The Coptic Encyclopedia 5:164–66;
in a separate cell or cave, who spent most of the A. Guillaumont, “Monasticism, Egyptian,” The Coptic Encyclopedia
week in solitude but came together for common 5:161–64.
worship, while the coenobium had monks living a 27
D. L. Brooks Hedstrom, The Monastic Landscape of Late
communal life, with a shared daily routine of Antique Egypt: An Archaeological Reconstruction (Cambridge,
prayer, work, and meals. Not surprisingly, the 2017).
laurae left little of architectural distinction, while 28
R.-G. Coquin et al., “Dayr Anba Shinuda,” The Coptic
the order of the coenobitical system found archi- Encyclopedia 3:761–70; J. McKenzie, The Architecture of
tectural expression, with cells for the monks, as Alexandria and Egypt 300 BC—AD 700 (New Haven, 2007),
well as a refectory for common dining and a church 271–79.

FIGURE 3.20
Kellia, aerial view
of the site (Geo24,
Wikimedia
Commons)
FIGURE 3.21
Sohag, White
Monastery, view
from the south
(Elizabeth Bolman)
inscribed pharaonic stones in its construction. beated colonnades and galleries and now un-
The building proudly announces its presence in roofed, originally terminated in a triconch sanctu-
the landscape in a monumentality unknown to ary, now walled in (discussed further in Chap. 6).
early monasticism. The three-aisled nave, with tra- It was preceded by a narthex with stairs leading to

FIGURE 3.22
Sohag, White
Monastery, plans
of (A) White
Monastery and (B)
Red Monastery
churches, to scale
(Nicholas Warner,
courtesy of the
American Research
Center in Egypt.
Reproduced by
permission of the
American Research
Center in Egypt.
This project was
funded by
U.S. Agency for
International
Development
[USAID])
the gallery, flanked by a long apsed hall. Other astery’s duties. Many began as the simple hermit’s
monastic buildings, including residences, kitchen, cave of a revered monk who attracted a following,
refectory, and tomb structures, stood independ- who also settled into caves and were gradually for-
ently outside the main block. malized. The Great Lavra of St. Sabas developed in
In Palestine, monasticism also developed early this way from his cave hermitage in the Wadi
in both urban and rural locations, often associated Kidron after 483, when he began to attract disci-
with holy sites. It flourished in the area of the ples (Figs. 3.23 and 3.24). Another cave was con-
Judean Desert, immediately to the east of verted to a church; by the end of the century it had
Jerusalem, extending toward Jericho.²9 Neither as a hospice, bakery, and reservoir. By the sixth cen-
harsh nor as isolated as the Egyptian setting, most tury it had as many as three hundred monks.
communities were within a day’s walk of Jerusalem. While the architecture was without distinction and
Because of regular contact with outsiders—partic- the monastery grew in a haphazard way, the Rule
ularly pilgrims—a cenobitic model was favored, (or Typikon) composed by Sabas, meant to regulate
often with the care of pilgrims as part of the mon- the activities of the monks and prescribe the order
of worship services, proved highly influential for
29
Y. Hirschfeld, The Judean Desert Monasteries of the Byzantine Period later Byzantine monasticism.
(New Haven, 1992); J. Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: In contrast to the ad hoc laurae and reflecting the
A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries growing desire for formal organization evinced by
(Washington, DC, 1995). Sabas’s Typikon, the Monastery of Martyrius,

FIGURE 3.23
Wadi Kidron,
Great Lavra of St.
Sabas, aerial view
(Hedva
Sanderovitz, Israeli
PikiWiki)
founded ca. 478–86, exhibits a systematic architec- Once recognized as an official religion, Christianity
tural arrangement, within a walled enclosure roughly rapidly developed a vision of the sacred presence
70 square meters. Known from excavation, the site that could be manifest both in architectural form
preserves the ground plan almost in its entirety (Fig. and in the ceremonies it housed. At the same
3.25).³0 The church and chapels, refectory, kitchen, time, a standardization of the liturgy and initia-
storerooms, a residential area, cisterns, bathhouse, tion rites (and their settings) placed the profes-
and a burial cave were organized around a central sion of faith within a larger community and its
courtyard, while the stables and a pilgrims’ hostel lay social hierarchy. Commemoration of the special
outside the walls, near the gatehouse. The architec- dead adapted traditional Roman practices to
tural forms are relatively simple—the main church the new religion, with the expanded presence of
is a single-aisled basilica—but many of the spaces Christianity as a public religion. At the same
were enlivened with floor mosaics. time, it recognized the potent force of holy places
and persons, something that developed into the
, notion of “pilgrimage.” With the latter, we begin
to move into the realm of the private—that is,
30
Y. Magen and R. Talgam, “The Monastery of Martyrius at aspects of Christianity that addressed the spiritual
Maale Adumim (Khirbet el-Murassas) and Its Mosaics,” needs of the individual, as will be discussed in the
Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: Essays in Honor of next chapter.
Virgilio C. Corbo, eds. G. C. Bottini, L. di Segni, E. Alliata
( Jerusalem, 1990), 91–152.

FIGURE 3.24
Wadi Kidron,
Great Lavra of St.
Sabas, Complex 45
(“Tower of
Arcadius, son of
Xenophon”),
reconstructed
exterior, plan, and
cross-section
looking north
(after L. Ritmeyer,
from J. Patrich,
Sabas, Leader of
Palestinian
Monasticism, 1995)

FIGURE 3.25
Maale Adumim,
Monastery of
Martyrius, plan
and hypothetical
reconstruction
(after Y. Magen
and R. Talgam,
“Monastery of
Martyrius and Its
Mosaics”)

CHAPTER FOUR
RITUAL SETTINGS II
Pilgrimage, Relics, and Sacred Space
T he popularity of the refrigerium in the fourth

century provides ample testimony to the
attraction of the tombs of saints and martyrs to
believed to become concrete in the form of holy
persons, places, and objects. The tomb or relic of
a saint could thus provide the faithful a direct
the early church. And although the official access to heaven, for the saint was believed to be
celebrations ad sanctos were terminated by the simultaneously present in both places, and thus
end of the century, the cult of saints continued, prayers at holy sites could be expedited to their
finding an outlet in the practice of pilgrimage and ultimate destination. At the same time, the
the veneration of relics. While both were accepted powers of heaven could be channeled, as the in-
customs, neither was officially sanctioned by scription at the tomb of St. Martin of Tours
the church. They may be best understood as (d. ca. 397) indicated: “Here lies Martin the
manifestations of popular piety or of private Bishop, of holy memory, whose soul is in the
devotion, satisfying the spiritual needs of the hand of God; but he is fully here, present and
individual. made plain in miracles of every kind.”² Similarly,
The concept of pilgrimage is based on the as- the image of the translation of the relics of
sumption that there is a relationship between the St. Luke into the Church of the Holy Apostles
physical world and the spiritual world—that depicts him in the fullness of flesh, rather than as
these two worlds come together at special nodal a casket of bones (Fig. 4.1).³
points, holy sites or loca sancta, where the powers A holy site, or locus sanctus, could also offer
of heaven were more immediately accessible for confirmation to the validity of the events that had
aid in salvation or for benefit upon this earth.¹ At once occurred there. St. Jerome told of the efficacy
these sites, the numinous spiritual presence was of worship within the holy places of Jerusalem,
1
G. Vikan, Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, rev. ed. (Washington,
2
P. Brown, The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Early
DC, 2010); Yasin, Saints and Church Spaces; R. G. Ousterhout, ed., Christianity (Chicago, 1981), 4.
The Blessings of Pilgrimage (Urbana, 1990), among others. 3
Menologion of Basil II, Bib. Vat. Ms. gr. 1615, f. 121 r.
Translation of the relics of St. Luke to the Church of the Holy Apostles, Constantinople, from the Menologion of
Basil II, ca. 1000. NB: the image shows the five-domed Justinianic church in the background, Vatican ms. gr.
1613, f. 121 r, © 2018, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (by permission of Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, with all
rights reserved)
61
FIGURE 4.1
Translation of the
relics of St. Luke to
the Church of the
Holy Apostles,
Constantinople,
from the
Menologion of
Basil II, ca. 1000.
NB: the image
shows the five-
domed Justinianic
church in the
background,
Vatican ms. gr.
1613, f. 121 r, ©
2018, Biblioteca
Apostolica
Vaticana (by
permission of
Biblioteca
Apostolica
Vaticana, with all
rights reserved)
where the events commemorated could be made displays remarkable resilience and variety, as
spiritually present through ritualized veneration: monumental churches were constructed, embel-
“Whenever we enter [the Tomb of the Lord],” he lished, reconstructed, and changed over time—
wrote, “we see the Savior lying in the shroud. And that is, architecture was part of the political con-
lingering a little we see again the angel sitting at struction of sanctity. This may be better understood
his feet and the handkerchief wound up at his from site-specific examples, rather than in the de-
head.” Similarly, when Jerome’s friend Paula came velopment of a recognizable typology.
before the relic of the True Cross at Golgotha, “she The term martyrium or martyrion is used in
fell down and worshipped . . . as if she could see modern scholarship to denote sites that bear wit-
the Lord hanging on it.” As Jerome relates, fol- ness to the Christian faith, following the pioneering
lowing Psalm 132, it is the Christian obligation to study of André Grabar, who borrowed the term
worship “where his feet have stood.”4 from Early Christian texts.5 Martyrion derives from
Although a holy site could provide the direct the Greek martys, meaning “witness” or “evidence”
link between the ritual of veneration and the his- in a legal sense. By the second century, the term
torical event it commemorated, the architectural martyr came to denote someone whose testimony
formalization of the holy site was another matter. of faith was sealed with suffering and death, and by
Although novelty may not have been possible in ca. 350, martyrion or martyrium was commonly
terms of the locations or distinctive natural used to refer to a martyr’s tomb or the commemo-
features of the loca sancta, their architecture rative shrine constructed over it. Broadly speaking
(and in Grabar’s terminology), a martyrium could
4
Jerome, Ep. 46 and 108; R. G. Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic mark a significant event in the life of Christ or the
and the Construction of Sanctity: The Stones of the Holy
Sepulchre,” JSAH 62, no. 1 (2003): 4. Jerome implies a strong
connection between the biblical text and the site; one reinforces 5
Grabar, Martyrium; and Ousterhout, “The Temple, the
and validates the other through the religious imagination. Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior,” 44–53.

Theotokos, the tomb of a saint or a martyr, or the commemoration of the Crucifixion took place in
place of his or her suffering or testimony. As with the courtyard, not in the basilica, and the relic of
pilgrimage architecture in general, the designation the wood of the True Cross was kept at Calvary.
of a building as a martyrium is functional rather Gradually the basilica came to be associated with
than typological, encompassing a great variety of ar- the place where Helena had discovered the True
chitectural plans and building types. Cross. Calvary and the life-giving tomb remained
Monuments housing holy sites underwent an the foci of pilgrims’ devotions. Visitors to the Holy
almost constant process of elaboration and modifi- Sepulchre took home souvenirs in the form of am-
cation throughout the Middle Ages. The dynamic pullae of oil taken from a lamp burning inside the
interplay between place and architecture speaks of Tomb of Christ; these flasks were subsequently
more than just changes in the liturgy, devotional touched to the relic of the wood of the True Cross
practices, or architectural styles. Ultimately, the for a doubled blessing. Often the ampullae were
medieval understanding of the sanctity of the site decorated with images of the holy women at the
and the shaping of the ritual experience may have tomb, with the biblical event set against the back-
been as much a matter of the formal character of its drop of the contemporary building—attesting to
monumental setting as of the fundamental associa- the fundamental role the architectural setting
tions of the place itself. The vibrant interaction of played in the pilgrims’ experience.7
site and setting must be understood on a symbolic The distinctions evident at the fourth-century
level: in the imaginations of the faithful, the archi- Holy Sepulchre—two architectural elements con-
tectural frame became identified with and thus instructed to house two different functions, sepa-
terchangeable with the site itself. rating the sites of regular worship from those set
The site of the Tomb of Christ in Jerusalem il- aside for special commemoration—have been
lustrates the complex role played by architecture noted at other Constantinian sites as well. At
throughout the Middle Ages. The fourth-century Bethlehem (completed ca. 333), for example, a
Holy Sepulchre complex, begun by Constantine five-aisled congregational basilica was joined by a
ca. 326, was introduced and described in Chapter 2 great octagon at its head, enshrining the cave of
(see Figs. 2.12 and 2.13). In its fourth-century ar- the Nativity, set at a lower level but apparently
chitectural configuration, the primary setting for visible through a wide circular opening in the
the liturgical service (the basilica) and the primary floor (see Fig. 2.11). In Rome, the Basilica of St.
commemorative space (the rotunda) were distinct, Peter (begun ca. 320) joined a huge five-aisled ba-
although, to be sure, the distinctions were by no silica to a transept at its western extreme, with the
means absolute. The basilica, courtyard, and ro- tomb monument at its center.8 In both building
tunda all played special roles in the Jerusalem lit- complexes, the significance of the holy site and its
urgy, as the late fourth-century pilgrim Egeria ex- ritual veneration led to notable modifications by
plains, with the congregation moving between the sixth century. At St. Peter’s, the transforma-
spaces in stational services. However, although tion of the building to a congregational church,
originally it had no special commemorative asso- with permanent clergy and a permanent altar
ciations, the basilica (and not the rotunda) was fixed within the tomb enclosure, created func-
known as the Martyrion. In this instance, the term tional conflicts, as the goal of pilgrims’ visits in-
must come from Old Testament references to the tersected the path of liturgical processions. By the
Temple, and this is how the term was understood end of the sixth century, the sanctuary floor had
by Eusebius and St. Cyril (see Chap. 2). The name been raised, giving the liturgical performance
may have been given to the basilica because this greater visibility, with an annular crypt beneath it
was where the congregation gave testimony of their providing the pilgrims access to the tomb, out of
faith. By the end of the fourth century, the pilgrim sight of the liturgy. Throughout the transforma-
Egeria explains the application of the term to the tions of St. Peter’s, the site of the tomb remained
basilica because the site of Calvary lay at its head,
where Christ’s martyrdom had occurred.6 But the 7
Vikan, Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, 36–40.
8
B. M. Apollonj Ghetti et al., Esplorazioni sotto la confessione di San
6
Egeria, 30.1; Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, 132. Pietro in Vaticano (Vatican, 1951), fig. 141.
CHAPTER FOUR: RITUAL SETTINGS II 63

FIGURE 4.2 Burning Bush—lay outside, immediately to the
Rome, St. Peter’s, east of its apse.¹² Once the bush had been plucked
reconstruction of out of existence by souvenir-seeking pilgrims,
the late sixth-
however, a chapel was built over the site. In these
century state of the
and other examples, there is virtually nothing in
sanctuary, with a
raised floor above
the architectural form to signal the special status
an annular crypt of the building as a pilgrimage church.
(after B. M. By the later fourth century, the custom of the
Apollonj Ghetti translation of relics had developed. The Church of
et al., Esplorazioni the Holy Apostles in Constantinople played a criti-
sotto la confessione di cal role in the process, although both its early archi-
S. Pietro, 1951) tectural history and the date of the arrival of relics
at the site are highly contested. By mid-century,
the church consisted of a cruciform basilica,
fixed and immutable as the focal point of activity, added after the death of Constantine, adjoining
while the architectural framework around it was the older, centrally planned mausoleum contain-
transformed as the special requirements of vener- ing the tomb of Constantine (see Chap. 3).¹³ The
ation demanded (Fig. 4.2). The rearrangement of mortal remains of Timothy, Andrew, and Luke,
St. Peter’s set the model for subsequent centuries brought in from different locations, lay close to
of pilgrimage churches in Western Europe, with the altar within the cruciform basilica. Although
tombs or relics isolated in a crypt beneath the the basilica was rebuilt under Justinian and de-
high altar, although this configuration was rare in stroyed in the fifteenth century, one important
the Eastern Mediterranean. At Bethlehem, the message of the early building remains clear: with
building was transformed in the sixth century, the possession of relics, any church could be a
with the octagon replaced by a triconch termina- martyrium; any church could become the goal of
tion to the basilica. In this arrangement, the pilgrimage—a point to which we shall return.
altar was positioned directly above Cave of the The influence of the great Constantinian com-
Nativity, which was still accessible but no longer plexes, centrally planned martyria, and of the cru-
visible, as at St. Peter’s, isolated in a crypt.9 ciform Church of the Holy Apostles is almost im-
At other sites, a less formal approach was ad- mediately evident. At Qausiyeh (Kaoussié) outside
opted, with a basilica of standard design situated Antioch, the remains of St. Babylas were trans-
in relationship to the sacred topography. At lated ca. 351–54, and a cruciform church was
Constantine’s Eleona on the Mount of Olives, for built ca. 379 at his tomb, with four single-aisled
example, a simple basilica was constructed above arms of equal length converging on a ciborium-
the cave where Christ had taught the apostles.¹0 like square at the center (Fig. 4.3).¹4 A similar
A similar arrangement appeared in the martyrium building appeared above Jacob’s Well at Shechem.
of St. Thekla at Meryemlik in Asia Minor, ca. The tomb of St. John the Evangelist at Ephesus
480, with a great three-aisled basilica added above was similarly monumentalized on a cruciform
her holy cave (see Fig. 6.15).¹¹ At Sinai, the sixth- plan. Apparently, before 300, a large tetrapylon
century basilica was augmented by subsidiary was built above his grave, on a hill outside the
chapels along its sides, but the holy site—the ancient city, and this was extended ca. 400 with
four basilican halls (with side aisles) to create a
9
M. J. Johnson, San Vitale in Ravenna and Octagonal Churches in cruciform plan, with the altar set above the
Late Antiquity (Wiesbaden, 2018), 26–31; D. Pringle, The Churches
of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus (Cambridge, 1993),
1:137–57. 12
G. H. Forsyth, “The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount
10
H. Vincent and F. M. Abel, Jérusalem: Recherches de topographie, Sinai: The Church and Fortress of Justinian,” DOP 22 (1968), 1–19.
d’archéologie, et d’histoire (Paris, 1912–26), 337–60. 13
Johnson, Mausoleum, 119–29.
11
S. Hill, The Early Byzantine Churches of Cilicia and Isauria 14
J. Lassus, “L’église cruciform de Antioche-Kaoussié,” in Antioch
(Aldershot, 1996), 208–34. on the Orontes, vol. 2, ed. R. Sitwell (Princeton, 1938), 114–56.

patron of the monumental pilgrimage complex.¹8
But this was not begun until long after Symeon’s
death in 459—and after his mortal remains had
been forcibly removed to the Cathedral of Antioch.
The ambitious design combined a great octa-
gon, originally covered by a wooden dome, with
four three-aisled cross arms, the complex measur-
ing ca. 80–90 meters overall. The column stood
at the center of the octagon, and only the eastern
basilica was equipped for the liturgy, terminating
in three apses, while the other three basilicas ac-
commodated the hordes of visiting pilgrims. The
FIGURE 4.3 Antioch-Kaoussié (Kapısuyu), Church of
church itself was entered through the south basil-
St. Babylas, recontructed plan (after J. Lassus, Antioch-on-
ica, with its façade treated like a three-arched
the-Orontes II, 1933)
triumphal arch. In addition to a monastery south-
east of the church, a village of pilgrims’ hostels
developed at the base of the hill, with a ceremo-
tomb (see Fig. 8.26).¹5 Like its prototype in nial route leading up the hill from it, marked by
Constantinople, the Church of St. John was re- a triumphal arch at its base and a second arch
built by Justinian, its crossing and cross arms cov- and the baptistery at the entrance to the complex
ered by domes. According to tradition, John was (Fig. 4.8). The saint’s asceticism was celebrated in
sleeping in his tomb, and on his feast day, a holy the visual language of imperial victory.
dust, called manna, was blown up from his rest- The tremendous scale of the undertaking re-
ing place and collected by pilgrims.¹6 quired leveling of the ridge on which it was con-
A similar monument developed around the structed, as well as the construction of artificial
column of the stylite St. Symeon at Qal’at Sem’an, terracing for the western basilica. The stone was
atop a hill in northwest Syria, ca. 480–90, in the quarried locally, with evidence of quarrying still
hinterland of Antioch (Figs. 4.4–4.7). Its focus visible to the north of the complex. While the ar-
was the 40-foot column upon which the eccentric chitectural details accord with the stylistic devel-
hermit spent the last thirty-three years of his life opments in Syrian architecture (discussed further
in one of many increasingly bizarre acts of ascetic in Chap. 6), much in the design of the complex
piety, as he was determined to become a martyr recalls Constantinian precedents: the separation
by choice.¹7 During his lifetime, and long after, of the center of veneration from the liturgical
the site attracted pilgrims, just as the saint attracted center (as at the Holy Sepulchre); the combina-
a variety of imitators. Both the ascetic and the pil- tion of cruciform (as at Holy Apostles) and octa-
grimage center found imperial support from gon (as at Bethlehem). Even the leveling of the
Constantinople, probably as a way to counter the site has reminiscences of the foundation of
non-Chalcedonian leanings of the Antiochene St. Peter’s in Rome. The complex seems to have
Church; the emperor Zeno (r. 474–91) likely was grown incrementally, beginning with the cruci-
form and the baptistery, followed by the U-shaped
15
N. Karydis, “The Evolution of the Church of St. John at Ephesos monastery and cloister, with its own chapel, to
during the Early Byzantine Period,” ÖJh 84 (2016): 97–128. the south of the eastern basilica; annexes to the
16
M. Duncan-Flowers, “A Pilgrim’s Ampulla from the Shrine of baptistery were also built, with construction in
St. John the Evangelist at Ephesus,” in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. other parts of the complex extending into the
R. G. Ousterhout (Urbana, 1990), 125–39. sixth century. The roof of the octagon seems to
17
See most recently J.-P. Sodini, “Saint Syméon, lieu de pélerinage,”
Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa 38 (2007), 107–20; 18
The patron might have been his predecessor Leo I; see R. L. Fox,
G. Tchalenko, Villages antiques de la Syrie du Nord: le massif du Bélus “The Life of Daniel,” in Portraits: Biographical Representation in the
à l’époque romaine, 3 vols. (Paris, 1953), I: 223–76; Johnson, San Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, eds. M. J. Edwards
Vitale, 78–83. and S. Swain (Oxford, 1997), 175–225, esp. 193–95.

FIGURE 4.4
Qal’at Sem’an,
Church of
St. Symeon, view
from the northeast
(Frank Kidner,
Frank Kidner
Photographs 1983–
1999, Dumbarton
Oaks Image
Collection and
Fieldwork
Archives)
FIGURE 4.5
Qal’at Sem’an,
Church of
St. Symeon, plan
and reconstruction
(redrawn after
G. Tchalenko and
J.-C. Biscop)

FIGURE 4.6
Qal’at Sem’an,
Church of
St. Symeon, south
façade (Bernard
Gagnon,
Wikimedia)
FIGURE 4.7
Qal’at Sem’an,
Church of St.
Symeon, interior
of the octagon
with the remains
of the column
(Bernard Gagnon,
Wikimedia)

FIGURE 4.8
Plan showing the relationship of Deir
Sem’an settlement (Telanissos) and
Qal’at Sem’an (author, redrawn after
G. Tchalenko and
J.-P. Sodini–J. C. Biscop)
have been short lived, probably destroyed in the pilgrimage experience—that is, as part of personal
earthquakes of 526–28 and never replaced. Thus, devotion rather than official religion.
when the complex was imitated by St. Symeon The nearby pilgrims’ village, now known as
the Younger at Samandağ, just south of Antioch, Deir Sem’an, ancient Telanissos, was originally a
after 541, the central octagon was left unroofed small agricultural establishment, to which a mon-
(Figs. 4.9 and 4.10).¹9 astery was appended toward the beginning of the
One difficult-to-explain component of the fifth century (see Fig. 4.8).²0 St. Symeon the Elder
complex is the baptistery. Why would a pilgrim- joined its community in 412, but seeking a more
age complex need a baptistery, and why is it so rigorously ascetic lifestyle, by 425 he had estab-
prominently positioned? A cursory glance at lished himself on a small platform atop a column,
other pilgrimage sites indicates that baptisteries set up on the neighboring hill. Almost immedi-
are common, if not standard, components: for ately he began to attract pilgrims: as a living saint,
example, Samandağ and Alahan also have baptis- he could quite literally answer their prayers, often
teries near their entrances; St. John at Ephesus sending them away with clay tokens made from the
and Abu Mena have baptisteries connected to the dirt of the hilltop and imprinted with his image.²¹
main church. Although a second baptism was As the hilltop shrine was monumentalized after
against church doctrine, one wonders if the faith- his death, so too was the village below, with three
ful were engaged in this practice as part of the pilgrims’ hostels constructed ca. 470–90, as well
as a large basilican church and a second monas-
19
A. Henry, “The Pilgrimage Center of St. Symeon the Younger: tery; expansion continued into the sixth century.
Designed by Angels, Supervised by a Saint, Constructed by
Pilgrims” (PhD diss., University of Illinois, 2015); W. Z. Djobadze,
Archeological Investigations in the Region West of Antioch-on-the-
20
Tchalenko, Villages, I:205–22.
Orontes (Stuttgart, 1986); Johnson, San Vitale, 83–85. 21
See Vikan, Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, 45–58.

FIGURE 4.9
Samandağ (Wondrous
Mountain, near Antioch),
complex of St. Symeon the
Younger (after Ayşe
Henry)
As at Qal’at Sem’an, large complexes devel- and 4.12). The first small pilgrimage church was
oped at other sites to accommodate the throngs built in 363 (or perhaps in the early fifth cen-
of pilgrims. An entire city, with church architec- tury), and the bones of the martyr were trans-
ture of increasing complexity, grew around the ferred to its crypt. The hypogeum under the so-
venerated tomb of St. Menas in the Libyan Desert called Martyr Church was the center of the cult,
of Egypt, 46 kilometers southwest of Alexandria.²² although its access and the building above it were
A martyr under Diocletian, Menas’s tomb was altered several times. The church expanded from
forgotten until miracles began to occur, and a a three-aisled to a five-aisled basilica, with an
small memorial structure was added (Figs. 4.11 extension to the east to accommodate the older
entrance to the crypt, as well as a baptistery to
22
P. Grossmann, “The Pilgrimage Center at Abu Mina,” in the west. By the end of the fifth century it was
D. Frankfurter, ed., Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt decided to transform the site and expand its scale.
(Leiden, 1998), 281–302; McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria The Great Basilica—three aisled with transept—
and Egypt, 288–95. extended the complex to the east; the baptistery

FIGURE 4.10
Samandağ
(Wondrous
Mountain,
near Antioch),
complex of St.
Symeon the
Younger, view
of central
octagon with
the remains of
the column
(author)
was renovated in the sixth century with an octag- the entire settlement. This proved ineffective in
onal plan. With the completion of the Great the Persian invasion of 619, when much of the
Basilica, the Martyr Church was replaced by a church complex was destroyed. With the arrival
tetraconch after 528, which joined to the narthex of the Arabs two decades later, much of Abu
of the Great Basilica. This was replaced in turn by Mena was abandoned, and the church complex
a five-aisled basilica in the mid-eighth century. was reduced to a single basilica.
One gets a sense of constant construction and Several pilgrimage sites adopted octagonal
transformation at the site, as the cult of Menas plans, as at the site of the Nativity in Bethlehem.²³
flourished and the local population responded to Gregory of Nazianzus describes an octagonal
the growing demands of pilgrims. The expansion martyrium he constructed to commemorate his
of the church complex was paralleled by the saintly father.²4 Another was constructed at
growing settlement around it. A large colonnaded Capernaum in the Galilee, marking the house
courtyard to the north of the church complex of St. Peter, which was visited by early pilgrims
connected to the xenodochia or pilgrims’ hostels, (Fig. 4.13).²5 Sometime in the mid-first century
further to the north. Access to the courtyard and ce, the main room of a simple house of the first
church complex came from the north, along a
processional way, lined with shops, storehouses, 23
Johnson, San Vitale, passim, emphasizes the martyrial
and bathhouses. To the south of the Martyr’s associations of the octagonal church type.
Church, a large semicircular colonnaded court- 24
Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 26–27.
yard may have provided spaces for the incubation 25
V. Corbo, The House of Saint Peter at Capharnaum (Jerusalem,
of infirm pilgrims seeking a cure from the saint.
1969); B. Arubas and R. Talgam, “Jews, Christians, and ‘Minim’:
The settlement included secular residential neigh- Who Really Built and Used the Synagogue at Capernaum—A
borhoods, several other churches, and a small Stirring Appraisal,” in Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and
community of hermits, although no monasteries Historical Essays in Honour of Leah di Segni, eds. G. C. Bottini,
have been identified. By the end of the sixth cen- L. D. Chrupcala, and J. Patrich (Milan, 2014), 237–73; Johnson,
tury, a fortification wall was begun to surround San Vitale, 63–66.

FIGURE 4.11
Abu Mena (St.
Menas), plan of
the town with the
main pilgrimage
complexes (after
P. Grossmann,
“Pilgrimage
Center,” 1998)

FIGURE 4.12.
Abu Mena (St. Menas),
development of the main
church complex: (A) Martyr
Church (late fourth or early
fifth century); (B) Martyr
Church expanded (fifth
century); (C) Martyr Church
enlarged (fifth century); (D)
Great Basilica added (before
ca. 475); (E) Great Basilica
enlarged; tetraconch replaced
the Martyr Church; baptistery
added (late fifth–early sixth
centuries); (F) Martyr Church
rebuilt as a five-aisled basilica
(mid-eighth century) (after
P. Grossmann, “Pilgrimage
Center,” 1998)

FIGURE 4.13
Capernaum,
synagogue, and
martyrium at the
House of St.
Peter, showing
site development,
fourth through
sixth centuries
(redrawn after
B. Arubas and
R. Talgam, “Jews,
Christians, and
‘Minim,’” 2014)
century bce was plastered, floor to ceiling, to be Jesus resided, its conversion to special use is thus
used for communal gatherings, and subsequent slightly different from that of the standard domus
modifications indicate it was converted to a small ecclesiae. More interestingly, the site developed in
domus ecclesiae. Dozens of graffiti confirm its concert with the nearby synagogue, and by the
Christian usage from an early date. In the fifth sixth century, the insula between them was
century, an octagonal martyrium was built on the cleared so that the two were in visual relationship
site and subsequently expanded, with the plas- with each other. Another octagon (or perhaps
tered room its central focus. Believed to be where rotunda), known only from description, marked

the Tomb of the Virgin at Gethsemane; yet another likely) or perhaps to provide additional space for
containing the Seat of the Virgin (the Kathisma incubation. Seen in a larger context, the develop-
Church), between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, had ments at Hierapolis may parallel those at St.
at its center the exposed rocky seat where the Menas. The mysterious octagon might also repre-
Virgin allegedly rested (see Fig. 8.1).²6 Probably sent an unsuccessful attempt to upgrade and reg-
all of these churches were equipped for the celebra- ularize an older venerated site.
tion of the liturgy, although the physical accom- In many examples, the relationship between
modation of both liturgical and extraliturgical the architectural setting and the position of the
worship—that is, where the altar stood in rela- venerated tomb it housed remains uncertain. At
tionship to the pilgrims’ goal—is not always clear. the popular pilgrimage sites of St. Demetrius at
Outside Hierapolis (Pamukkale) in western Thessalonike and St. Nicholas at Myra, the archi-
Asia Minor, a large, well-planned complex has tectural forms were monumental and unique, ex-
been associated with the tomb of St. Philip, a panded and elaborated over a period of several
huge octagon set within a square, much of it centuries, but the location of the holy graves is
dating from a single construction period, proba- not entirely clear. At the Church of St. Demetrius,
bly early fifth century (Figs. 4.14 and 4.15). The the vivid accounts of pilgrims tell of incubation
central octagon measures 20.7 meters across and inside the church, through which miraculous
was probably covered by a wooden dome, ex- cures were effected by the appearance of the saint
panded by deep, barrel-vaulted niches, with evi- (Figs. 4.16 and 4.17).²8 The major undertaking in
dence of a sanctuary before the eastern niche and fifth-century Thessalonike, the basilica honored
with entrances from four sides. The octagon was the patron saint of the city. Built on the site of a
set within a huge square, approximately 60 by 62 bath where the Roman soldier met his martyr-
meters, with low rooms opened to the exterior dom, the church was apparently begun in the
and perhaps quarters for visiting pilgrims. Recent second half of the century, with an elaborate plan,
excavations indicate this was part of a larger de- measuring 55 meters in length. A reconstruction
velopment, including a monumental staircase is recorded following a fire in the seventh century,
and bridge leading from the city gate, an octago- but it does not seem to have affected spatial
nal bath building at the bottom of the stairs, and organization. Devastated again by fire in 1917,
a hagiasma at the top.²7 Most important was an much of the present superstructure derives from
older basilica, which lay to the east of the octa- the subsequent “scientific” rebuilding. The plan is
gon. This had been built to include a first-century five aisled, with galleries above the aisles and an
tomb in its north side aisle, which the archaeolo- alternating support system of piers and columns
gists would like to see as the tomb of Philip. This in the nave, calling attention to the central square,
complicates the traditional view that the octagon where the hexagonal ciborium of the saint is posi-
was the martyrium, as well as the motivation for tioned. Floor levels varied, although the reason
its construction. Perhaps it was constructed to for this remains unclear; perhaps the side aisles
mark the site of the saint’s martyrdom (as seems were closed off for the incubation of the infirm.
The floor of the side aisles was close to 0.5 meters
below that of the nave, separated from it by a
26
R. Avner, “The Recovery of the Kathisma Church and Its
stylobate-like wall, approximately 0.8 meters
Influence on Octagonal Buildings,” in One Land—Many Cultures:
Archaeological Studies in Honor of S. Loffreda, eds. G. C. Bottini, L. di
high.²9 Thus, movement between the nave and
Segni, and L. D. Chrupcala (Jerusalem, 2003), 173–88; R. Avner,
“The Kathisma: A Christian and Muslim Pilgrimage Site,” ARAM 28
F. A. Bauer, Eine Stadt und Ihr Patron: Thessaloniki und der Heilige
19 (2007): 541–57; Shalev-Hurvitz, Holy Sites, passim, muddies the Demetrios (Regensburg, 2013); G. Sotiriou and M. Sotiriou, He
evidence; Johnson, San Vitale, 67–70. Vasilike tou Hagiou Demetriou Thessalonikes, 2 vols. (Athens, 1952).
27
F. D’Andria, “Il santuario e la tomba dell’apostolo Filippo a 29
See U. Peschlow, “Dividing Interior Space in Early Byzantine
Hierapolis di Frigia,” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana Churches: The Barriers between the Nave and the Aisles,” in
di Archeologia 84 (2011–2012): 1–52; F. D’Andria, “Saints and Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and
Pilgrims in the Lykos Valley (Asia Minor),” DChAE 38 (2017): Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, ed. S. Gerstel
35–55; Johnson, San Vitale, 47–51. (Washington, DC, 2006), 53–71.

FIGURE 4.14
Hierapolis
(Pamukkale),
martyrium and
burial church
complex of St.
Philip (redrawn
after d’Andria,
DChAE, 2017)
aisles was restricted, as was the view from the nave through the openings in the nave arcade.
aisles. The floor levels of the galleries were stag- The roofline of the building also reflected this
gered, with that above the outer aisle considerably staggered arrangement of levels, stepping down
lower than that above the inner aisle, so that from the nave roof and clerestory to the shed
the worshippers standing there could see into the roof over the inner gallery, which had its own

FIGURE 4.15
Hierapolis
(Pamukkale),
martyrium and
burial church
complex of St.
Philip, interior of
octagonal
martyrium, as in
1983 (author)
clerestory, to the shed roof over the outer gal- the church’s interior, however, but a verdant para-
lery—all perhaps intended to reflect the multiple dise, visually suggesting the bilocation of the
functions of the interior. saint—who is both in heaven and fully present
Elsewhere the building is just as complicated. within his martyrium. In later centuries,
The narthex and north aisles are asymmetrical, Demetrius was known as a myrobletes: an aro-
apparently to incorporate remnants of the bath, matic oil (myrrh) miraculously exuded from his
while the eastern end has a tripartite transept en- tomb and was collected by pilgrims in small am-
veloped by an aisle. The altar was positioned pullae.³0 The cult of Demetrius remained active
above a small, inaccessible cruciform crypt, which through the Byzantine period.
contained blood-soaked cloth from the martyr- The organization and history of the Church of
dom of Demetrius—presumably the dedication St. Nicholas at Myra (Demre), on the south coast
relic. Beneath the eastern end is an extensive of Asia Minor, is similarly complicated (see
crypt level with a central water feature that may Figs. 11.2 and 11.3).³¹ The origins of the cult of
also be a remnant of the bath. the fourth-century bishop-saint remain obscure,
How all these spaces related to the cult of the although his church became one of the most
saint is still contested. What is clear, however, is popular pilgrimage destinations in the Eastern
that the center of devotion was the hexagonal ci- Mediterranean and a favorite stop for sailors. By
borium on the left-hand side of the nave. Whether
or not this contained Demetrius’s remains, the ci- 30
Ch. Bakirtzis, “Byzantine Ampullae from Thessaloniki,” in
borium was regarded as the site of his holy pres- Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. R. G. Ousterhout (Urbana, 1990),
ence and was represented in the church’s mosaics. 140–49.
In one panel, for example, the saint, dressed as a 31
U. Peschlow, “Die Architektur der Nikolaoskirche in Myra,” in
civic magistrate, appears in orans pose, his healing Myra: Eine lykische Metropole, ed. J. Borchhardt (Berlin, 1975),
hands made of golden tesserae (Fig. 4.18). He 303–59; amplified by the excavations of S.Y. Ötüken, “2005 Yılı
stands before his ciborium, while a father presents Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazısı,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 28 (2006),
a young son to him. The setting of the scene is not II:157–74, and older reports in the same annual.

FIGURE 4.16
Thessalonike,
Church of St.
Demetrius, interior
of the nave looking
east, before the fire
of 1917 (British
Institute of
Archaeology,
Athens)
the sixth century, a martyrium stood on the site proof. Like Demetrius, Nicholas was a myrob-
of his tomb, a basilica that was rebuilt as a domed letes, and his tomb produced miraculous,
church in the eighth century and subsequently sweet-smelling oil. In 1087, his relics were stolen
expanded with lateral aisles and annexed chapels. by Italian sailors from Bari who, however, had
Where the tomb of Nicholas was located within to ask directions because it wasn’t immediately
this complex is not clear, although a reused apparent which tomb belonged to Nicholas. At
Roman sarcophagus in one of the southern aisles Bari, he continued to exude myrrh from his
is often said to be his, but without any definite tomb, set in the broad crypt of a large Romanesque

FIGURE 4.17
Thessalonike, Church of
St. Demetrius, plan and
reconstructed elevation
(after G. Soutiriou and
M. Sotiriou, He Vasilike
tou Hagiou Demetriou,
1952)
basilica.³² Even without the relics, however, Myra built to be a cathedral and not a martyrium,
continued to function as a pilgrimage destination. although it came to hold the relics of St. Symeon
As should be clear from the above discussion, after they were removed from his column.
there was no fixed architectural typology for a pil- As discussed in Chapter 2, Constantinople
grimage site. Without a text or significant archae- became the capital of a Christian empire, although
ological evidence, it may be difficult to identify it had no significant Christian history and no pre-
a pilgrimage site on the basis of architecture vious sacred associations. This was obviously a
alone—and even with a text, as at Thessalonike, it matter of some concern and was compensated in
remains unclear how the various spaces related to several ways—most notably by the acquisition of
the cult. While many centrally planned buildings relics, for which the city became famous. We can
might have served as pilgrimage sites, there were trace the beginnings of the city’s imported sanc-
many that did not. The famed (and now lost) tity to the Church of Holy Apostles, as noted
Golden Octagon in Antioch, for example, was above. As the mid-fourth-century translations of
relics to the church indicate, holy sites and vener-
32
R. Krautheimer, “S. Nicola di Bari und die apulische architekur ated tombs, whose locations may have been orig-
des 12. Jahrhunderts,” WJKg 9 (1934): 5–42. inally fixed and immutable, could be relocated to

the enkainia—the consecration rite—a small
reliquary would be sealed into a cavity beneath
the altar, either in the floor or in the altar table
itself. But these relics were never intended to be
the objects of devotion: access to the sanctuary
was restricted, and in most instances, the reli-
quary would have been small, sealed, and out of
reach. The prayers in the enkainia rite stress the
role of the martyrs as mediators for the congrega-
tion, and they provided a concrete element of
sanctity to the church. After the consecration
rite, they would have been all but forgotten.³4
But there was no fixed setting for those who were
venerated.
,
Pilgrimage was very much a phenomenon of the
FIGURE 4.18 Thessalonike, Church of St. Demetrius, mosaic Late Antique centuries. Following the economic
detail: a father presents his son to St. Demetrius in front of decline, retrenchment, and religious controversy
his shrine (courtesy Ch. Bakirtzis) that marked the Transitional Period of the sev-
enth through early ninth centuries, long-distance
pilgrimage became considerably less common
more advantageous situations. The importation in Byzantium than in the medieval West. Even
of apostolic remains signals the beginning of a the Byzantine terminology marks the process as
flood of holy relics into Constantinople. More something different from the familiar Western
than 3,600 relics are recorded, representing at medieval concept. The English word pilgrimage
least 476 different saints, most of which were derives from the Latin peregrinus, meaning stran-
imported.³³ ger or foreigner, and thus peregrinatio implies
Where relics were housed within the church travel to foreign lands. The equivalent Greek
varied considerably. The most common setting word for pilgrimage is proskynesis, meaning obei-
for relics was at the altar. Relics of martyrs played sance or adoration. There is ample evidence for
a fundamental role in the rite of consecration veneration of relics, healing shrines, miraculous
from early times. The Second Council of Nicaea interventions of saints, and the like, but in the
(787) stipulated that all church altars must be later Byzantine centuries, site-specific veneration
consecrated with remains of martyrs. As part of became almost entirely a local phenomenon.
33
J. Wortley, “Iconoclasm and Leipsanoclasm: Leo II, Constantine 34
Marinis and Ousterhout, “‘Grant Us to Share a Place and Lot
V, and the Relics,” ByzF 8 (1982): 253–79. with Them.’”

CHAPTER FIVE
MAKERS, METHODS, AND MATERIALS
E arly Christian architecture inherited a well-

established building industry and followed in
the tradition of Roman architecture, as defined
When we are thinking of rebuilding a city, or
founding a fort or a general’s quarters, we
shall rely on you to express our ideas on paper.
by Vitruvius in the first century bce. In terms The builder of walls, the carver of marbles, the
of both architectural design and construction caster of bronzes, the vaulter of arches, the
techniques, builders followed long-established plasterer, the worker in mosaic, all come to
traditions. With the social changes of Late Antiquity you for orders, and you are expected to have a
and the official acceptance of Christianity, the wise answer for each. . . . Study Euclid—get
church became the most significant form of his diagrams well into your mind; study
public building. As a consequence, much of the Archimedes.
surviving architectural evidence comes from the
religious sphere. The emperor or the state took a
leading role in sponsoring church construction, The emphasis on Euclid and Archimedes indi-
although there was also significant private patronage cates the continued importance of geometry and
from an early date. mathematics—and thus measurement and pro-
The role of the architect also follows the portion—to architectural design. Like Vitruvius,
Roman model. For example, writing in the court Cassiodorus viewed the architect as someone well
of Theodoric in sixth-century Ravenna, the states- educated, of high stature, and in charge of the
man Cassiodorus provides a formula for the other artisans.
palace architect that is not significantly different Terminology is also significant, for Cassiodorus
from what Vitruvius prescribed centuries earlier:1 is thinking only of the upper end of the profes-
sion. Throughout the Late Antique period, the
1
Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, esp. 1.1–1.2, trans. I. Rowland Letters of Cassiodorus, Variae, trans. T. Hodgkin (London, 1886),
and T. N. Howe (Cambridge, 1999), 21; Cassiodorus, The 7.5, 323.
Ravenna, San Vitale, apse mosaic showing Bishop Ecclesius presenting the church to Christ, who in turn offers a
crown of martyrdom to St. Vitalis (Petar Milošević, Wikimedia Commons)
81
Greek term mechanikos or mechanopoios was used Constantinople.4 The architect was a mechanikos
to denote an architect of high stature—usually named Theodore, who was responsible for the
translated “engineer,” but indicating someone building. Finances were handled by tax clerks
with an education in mechanike theoria and thus (trakteutai) at the Praetorian prefect’s office. Final
possessing a theoretical background.2 For exam- authority was given to Peter, the archbishop of
ple, Anthemius of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus, Jerusalem; and Barachos Bishop of Bakatha was
the architects in charge of Justinian’s Hagia Sophia charged with supervising the construction.
(532–37), bore the professional title mechanikos, Presumably the Constantinus mentioned in the
following in the tradition of the Roman architect: inscription succeeded Barachos, overseeing the
they had both a liberal arts education and a theo- completion of the project. Of those named, how-
retical approach to design. Anthemius was also a ever, only Theodore was directly involved in the
professor of geometry and author of a treatise on construction process, while the others served in
conic sections, while Isidorus was a teacher of various bureaucratic capacities. Those who la-
physics and a mathematician. In the same period, bored on-site are passed over in silence.
the term architekton denoted someone with a Other Greek terms related to the building in-
technical education but without an academic or dustry appear as well. Oikodomos denotes a builder,
theoretical background—a master builder, or direc- presumably without the education of the mechan-
tor of works. Either a mechanikos or an architekton ikos and architekton; the term technites indicates
could have designed buildings and directed major a skilled worker, while ergates designates an un-
construction projects. skilled worker. An ergolabos was a project man-
Between the patrons and the architect, however, ager. The term ergasterion is used for the masons’
a variety of other people were involved. Quite a workshop, with the same double meaning as the
bit of information comes from the Nea Ekklesia English, indicating the collection of workers and
(“New Church”) in Jerusalem, built toward the the building in which they labored. Occasionally
middle of the sixth century. An inscription found one finds terms for specialized workers, such as
in the impressive substructures of the ruined lithoxoos for a stoneworker or tekton or leptourgos
building records those involved in the patronage for a carpenter. Apprentices are also mentioned,
and oversight:3 either misthioi or, in later times, mathetades.
Unless the individuals are named with their
And this is the work which our most pious technical titles, sorting out their roles in an archi-
Emperor Flavius Justinianus carried out with tectural endeavor may be difficult.5 The same lan-
munificence, under the care and devotion of the guage may refer to patrons, project managers,
most holy Constantinus, Priest and Hegumenos, architects, or masons (“x built y” or “x directed
in the 13th year of the indiction. the construction of y”). Normally if a name is
mentioned, if not that of a mechanikos, it is that
To this we can add the record of Cyril of of the supervisor, who would have had a higher
Scythopolis, which gives us a sense of the chain of social standing and, as a bureaucrat, would have
command: The imperial couple Justinian and been literate. But many of our better-known writ-
Theodora were the patrons, sending funding from ings about architecture are poetic and not techni-
cal in nature. Many of these take the form of an
ekphrasis, a rhetorical exercise that is more evoca-
2
G. Downey, “Byzantine Architects: Their Training and tive than descriptive and thus easily misunderstood
Methods,” Byzantion 18 (1946): 99–118; Ousterhout, Master by the present-day reader. These usually assign
Builders, 39–85; E. Zanini, “Technology and Ideas: Architects and authority to the patron. Following the classical
Master-Builders in the Early Byzantine World,” in Technology in
Transition A.D. 300–650, eds. L. Lavan, E. Zanini, and A. Sarantis 4
Cyril of Scythopolis, “Life of Sabas,” in The Lives of the Monks of
(Leiden, 2007), 381–5. Palestine, trans. R. M. Price (Kalamazoo, 1991), Chap. 73, 185–87;
3
N. Avigad, “A Building Inscription of the Emperor Justinian and J. P. Thomas, Private Religious Foundation in the Byzantine Empire
the Nea in Jerusalem (Preliminary Note),” IEJ, 27, no. 2/3 (1977): (Washington, DC, 1987), 45.
145–51; the indiction year should be either 534/35 or 549/50. 5
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 39–57, for much of what follows.

FIGURE 5.1
Ravenna, San
Vitale, apse
mosaic showing
Bishop Ecclesius
presenting the
church to
Christ, who in
turn offers a
crown of
martyrdom to
St. Vitalis (Petar
Milošević,
Wikimedia
Commons)
model, it is a topos in Byzantine literature that a Bishop Ecclesius on the other (Fig. 5.1).8 As a
work of architecture should reflect the character pendant to the martyr, the bishop is situated
of the patron: piety, magnanimity, or even extrav- within a chain of gift-giving, sanctioned by heav-
agance and imprudence may be related through enly authority. In illustrations of construction,
descriptions of architectural patronage. In the often the donor appears directing the builders. In
words of Cassiodorus, “As is the house, so is the illustrations of the building of Hagia Sophia, as
inhabitant.”6 In his sixth-century account of the for example in the Chronicon Sanctae Sophiae,
construction of Hagia Sophia, Justinian’s court Justinian dominates the image, directing an anx-
historian Procopius credits architectural decisions ious builder atop a ladder, putting the final
to the emperor himself, guided by his divinely in- touches on a Hagia Sophia that is considerably
spired wisdom. Thus, at least in the fiction of the smaller than the image of its patron (Fig. 5.2).9
ekphrasis, Justinian was able to solve structural While scholars have attempted to mine Procopius’s
problems when the builders’ expertise failed them ekphrasis for technical information on the origi-
(see Chap. 9).7 nal building—and certainly Procopius provides a
The importance of the patron is something fairly accurate description of the building—like
that is translated into visual terms as well. In the the illustration just noted, the text is more about
apse mosaic at San Vitale in Ravenna, for exam- Justinian than it is about architecture.
ple, Christ appears centrally, offering a crown of Throughout the Byzantine period, a patron
martyrdom to Vitalis on one side, while accepting could be granted the legal status of ktetor as
a scale model of the church from its patron founder or re-founder of a religious establish-
ment, along with which came certain proprietary
rights: care in old age, a privileged place of burial,
6
Cassiodorus, Letters, 7.5, 323.
and prayers on behalf of one’s soul. The motivations
7
Procopius, On Buildings, trans. H. B. Dewing and G. Downey for such an undertaking were many: fame in this
(Cambridge, 1940) 1.1.66–78, 38–33; C. Mango, “Byzantine
Writers on the Fabric of Hagia Sophia,” in Hagia Sophia from the
Age of Justinian to the Present, eds. R. Mark and A. Çakmak
8
Deliyannis, Ravenna, 237–43.
(Cambridge, 1992), 41–56, esp. 43–45. 9
Vatican Ms. Lat. 4939, fol. 28v.
CHAPTER FIVE: MAKERS, METHODS, AND MATERIALS 83

FIGURE 5.2 good deal of coordination of workers and materi-
Chronicon Sanctae als, but this may have fallen under the oversight
Sophiae, Vatican of the project manager and not the architect.
Ms. Lat. 4939, fol.
At least until the seventh century, patterns of
28v, showing
trade and networks of exchange continued across
Justinian directing
the construction of
the Mediterranean as they had in earlier centu-
Hagia Sophia, © ries, with luxurious marbles and other building
2018 Biblioteca materials transported great distances. As the
Apostolica Vaticana famous description of Hagia Sophia by Paul the
(by permission of Silentiary indicates (see Chap. 9), the marbles
Biblioteca that decorate the building had been gathered
Apostolica from across the empire. The same holds true for
Vaticana, with all architectural ideas, particularly at the highest
rights reserved) levels of production. Similar architectural forms
may be found in far-flung locations: the aisled
tetraconch church plan of San Lorenzo in Milan,
for example, is remarkably similar to that of the
world, salvation in the next; perhaps as an act of
church at Seleucia-Pieria, near Antioch, and other
penance or thanksgiving or hope of intercession.10
Syrian examples (Fig. 5.3).12 Perhaps architectural
In the centuries under discussion here, with the
designs were disseminated through imperial cir-
increasing importance of the individual and the
cles or by traveling architects in imperial service.
family, commemoration played a critical role.
While architectural ideas could be communi-
Scholars have emphasized the significance of me-
cated by human means, they could also be trans-
moria because of the need for continuing prayers,
mitted by remote control, through the use of
in perpetuum, for the salvation of the benefactors’
drawings. Architectural drawings were regularly
souls, as well as for those of their relatives and
used in the preparatory phase, again following the
their descendants.11
Roman model: Vitruvius writes of plans, elevations,
Architectural design could have been based on
and perspectival views. Similarly, Cassiodorus’s
either theory or practice, depending on the train-
palace architect lays out his ideas on paper and is
ing of the architect in charge, whether a mechan-
thoroughly steeped in geometrical theory. In a like
ikos or an architekton. The former set the stan-
manner, Paul the Silentiary praises the architect
dards for the period and provided a constant
Anthemius the Younger (who rebuilt the dome of
source of inspiration, with new design concepts,
Hagia Sophia) as “skilled to draw a circle and set
new decorative systems, and new structural sys-
out a plan.”13 A plan is called a skariphos, as op-
tems that could have been imitated and adapted by
posed to a thesis, which was marked on the site, as
builders with more practical backgrounds. Because
noted in a document concerning the plan for a
of its relatively simple form, a wooden-roofed basil-
church in Gaza sent from the imperial court. The
ica would not have posed significant design prob-
project was overseen by Bishop Porphyry, as Mark
lems, although its large scale may have required a
the Deacon wrote in his Life of the bishop:14
10
A. Cutler and A. Kazhdan, “Patrons and Patronage,” in The
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3rd vol., ed. A. Kahzdan (Oxford,
1991), 1602–1604.
12
W. E. Kleinbauer, “The Origin and Functions of the Aisled
Tetraconch Churches in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia,”
11
J. P. Thomas, “In Perpetuum. Social and Political Consequences
DOP 27 (1973): 89–114.
of Byzantine Patrons’ Aspirations for Permanence for Their
Foundations,” in Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor
13
M. S. Briggs, The Architect in History (Oxford, 1927), 48;
der Moderne. Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und M. L. Fobelli, Un tempio per Giustiniano: Santa Sofia di Costantinopoli
Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und e la Descrizione di Paolo Silenziario (Rome, 2005), 50–51.
historischen Transformationen, ed. M. Borgolte (Berlin, 2005), 123– 14
Mark the Deacon, Vita Porphyrii, eds. H. Grégoire and
35. Note also P. Horden, “Memoria, Salvation, and Other Motives M. A. Kugener (Paris, 1930), 59–79; translated by Mango, Art of
of Byzantine Philanthropists,” in the same volume, 137–46. the Byzantine Empire, 30–32.

FIGURE 5.3
Plans of aisled
tetraconch
churches, to scale:
(A) Seleucia Pieria;
(B) Milan, San
Lorenzo; (C)
Athens, Library of
Hadrian; (D)
Resafa (after
W. E. Kleinbauer,
DOP, 1973)
The holy bishop had engaged the architect ekphraseis regularly emphasize proper propor-
Rufinus from Antioch, a dependable and expert tions. Describing another church in Gaza, the
man, and it was he who had completed the sixth-century St. Stephen’s, for example, Chorikios
entire construction. He took some chalk and writes,15
marked the outline (thesis) of the holy church
according to the form of the plan (skariphos) Starting at this colonnade, the church stretches
that had been sent by the most pious Eudoxia. far to the east. Its width is such as the length
requires, its length is dictated by the width, and
While Rufinus is credited as the architect in the height of the roof proportionate to both.
charge of the building project, the actual design was This, namely the proportion of the fabric, is its
produced by someone else entirely, unnamed, in first and greatest glory.
the court of Eudoxia, in faraway Constantinople.
The empress subsequently sent green marble col- A circle could also form the basis for the plan of a
umns from Euboea to decorate the church. centralized building, whether octagonal, hexago-
Why is drawing a circle so important? A nal, or round. In an intriguing illustration, the
circle is relatively simple to draw, either on paper
with a compass or on-site with a rope and stake. 15
Chorikios, “Encomion of Marcian,” in Choricii Gazaei, Opera,
The new dome Isidorus the Younger designed
eds. R. Foerster and E. Richsteig (Leipzig, 1929), 2.31–35, 36–37;
was circular in plan. Moreover, a circle could be
translated by Mango, Art of Byzantine Empire, pp. 68–69; see
easily subdivided to form a hexagon or an octa- A. Papaconstantinou, “Divine or Human? Some Remarks on the
gon, from which both a system of proportional Design and Layout of Late Antique Basilicas,” in The Material and
measurements and basic elements of design the Ideal: Essays in Medieval Art and Archaeology in Honour of Jean-
could be determined. While Byzantine writers Michel Spieser, eds. A. Cutler and A. Papaconstantinou (Leiden,
fail to provide specific ratios or dimensions, the 2007), 31–48.

FIGURE 5.4
Dioskorides, De
Materia Medica,
dedicatory
frontispiece with
Juliana Anicia, Codex
Vindobonensis med.
gr. 1, fol. 6v
(Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek,
Vienna)
frontispiece of a manuscript of Dioskorides’s De geometrical figure is painted as if made of ropes,

Materia Medica, now in Vienna, the noblewoman and within the outermost blue triangles are tiny
Juliana Anicia appears seated with personifica- putti engaged in building activities. In fact, the
tions of Magnanimity, Prudence, and Gratitude manuscript was presented to Juliana by the citi-
of the Arts, framed by a circle within which two zens of Honoratai, a suburb of Constantinople,
rotated squares form an octagon (Fig. 5.4).16 The to thank her for building a church. While Juliana
was a noted patron of architecture (discussed fur-
16
Vienna Dioskorides, Codex Vindobonensis med. gr. 1, fol. 6v; ther in Chap. 8), the rope-like frame repeats a
L. Brubaker, “Vienna Dioskorides,” 209–13. pattern found in the sort of geometrical treatise

FIGURE 5.5
Page from a treatise on land
measurement, the Codex
Arcerianus, showing how to
inscribe an octagon within a
circle (Herzog August
Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel,
Cod. Guelf. 36.23)
a mechanikos might have at his disposal. The sixth- suggests three ways to determine the proportions
century Codex Arcerianus now in Wolfenbüttel, of an atrium:18
for example, includes an intriguing diagram as
part of a series of explanations about how to lay out The length and breadth of the atrium is planned
multisided polygons, beginning with the octa- in three ways. The first arrangement is to divide
gon, showing it as an octagram, two rotated squares the length into five parts, and to give three of
inscribed within a circle (Fig. 5.5).17 Although the these to the width; the second divides the length
church in Honoratai no longer survives, the dia- into three parts and assigns two to the width; in
gram enveloping its patron compares favorably to the third arrangement, a square is described
the near-contemporary Sts. Sergius and Bacchus upon the width, and the diagonal of the square
in Constantinople. is drawn: whatever is the size of the diagonal
A square or a gridded square could also estab- supplies the length of the atrium.
lish a proportional system. For example, Vitruvius
18
Vitruvius, Architecture, 6.6.3; discussed in Papaconstantinou,
17
Cod. Guelf. 36.23, fol. 135v. “Divine or Human?”

The last would result in a ratio of 1:√2. Using a concrete, and opus mixtum (also called opus lista-
compass, the diagonal measurement can be added tum) became more common, with a wall con-
to the square, and the process can be repeated to struction of alternating layers of brick and
determine 1:√3, 1:√4 (= 1:2), 1:√5. The square- stone. In this system, stone—either rough or
root rectangles correspond to proportions com- squared—faced a rubble core, while the brick
monly found in early basilican church plans. courses normally extended through the thickness
Measurements are also important. Although of the wall to form leveling courses, which also
there are a variety of regional and temporal varia- served to bind the wall together (Fig. 5.7).22
tions, the Byzantine foot measured between 0.312 This is the standard construction technique in
and 0.327 meters, slightly longer than the Roman Constantinople throughout its history, and varia-
foot, which measured 0.296 meters. Byzantine tions of the system appear in many other regions
builders seem to have preferred round numbers in as well. In many areas of the Byzantine Empire,
the design.19 The internal diameter of the dome of the mixture of brick and stone facing is less regu-
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, for example, lar, without leveling courses, sometimes prone
was 100 Byzantine feet, while smaller dimensions to shear away from the rubble core. Variations
in the building’s design were calculated also in abound: the alternating courses of brick and
round numbers, fractions of 100; the domes of stone can vary in number, mortar beds can vary
Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and of Hagia Eirene are in thickness, and decorative patterns may be in-
50 Byzantine feet in diameter. Earlier centralized troduced into the wall construction. In Syria, the
buildings in Rome are similarly calculated in Caucasus, and parts of Anatolia, where good
round numbers: Santa Costanza has an internal building stone was plentiful, ashlar construction
diameter of 75 Roman feet, with an external di- predominates, often with elaborately carved ar-
ameter, including the outer colonnade, of 100 chitectural sculpture.
feet. Santo Stefano Rotondo has an internal di- Frequently stone quarries were located close to
ameter (inner ring) of 75 Roman feet and an the building site. In the Limestone Massif of
external measure of 225 feet.20 The nave of northern Syria, for example, the quarries were
the Lateran Basilica measured 64 Roman feet often quite literally at the threshold of the build-
across internally, while the whole, including the ing (Fig. 5.8).23 In larger urban centers, they
side aisles, measured 180 feet across. Its overall would by necessity be located outside the walls.
length was 360 Roman feet, including the apse— At Constantinople, the quarries of sandstone and
evidence that the architects took into considera- limestone used in the Land Walls have been iden-
tion both measurements and proportions in its tified in the region of Hebdomon, immediately
design. to the west of the city.24 In contrast to the local
Building materials depended to a large extent availability of standard construction materials,
on local or regional availability. Following estab- luxurious finishing materials were often trans-
lished practices, the walls of the early churches of ported great distances from quarries across the
Rome were constructed sandwich-like, with brick empire. Ideally, as at the islands of Proconessus
facing on a concrete core (Fig. 5.6).21 While (in the Sea of Marmara) or Thasos (in the north
brick construction persisted in Italy, during Late Aegean), marble quarries were at or near the
Antiquity mortared rubble gradually replaced seashore, so that columns, capitals, and other
decorative elements could be shipped easily,
often roughed out at the quarry and finished
19
P. A. Underwood, “Some Principles of Measure in the
Architecture of the Period of Justinian,” CahArch 3 (1948): 64.74;
E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie (Munich, 1970), 13–16. 22
J. B. Ward-Perkins, “Notes on the Structure and Building
20
M. W. Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture (New Haven, Methods of Early Byzantine Architecture,” in The Great Palace of
2000), 177–97. the Byzantine Emperors, Second Report, ed. D. Talbot-Rice
(Edinburgh, 1958), 52–104.
21
J.-P. Adam, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques
(Bloomington, 1994); L. Lancaster, Concrete Vaulted Construction in
23
Tchalenko, Villages, I: 42–44.
Imperial Rome: Innovations in Context (Cambridge, 2005). 24
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 136–45.

FIGURE 5.6
Rhegion, wall
construction
in alternating
bands of
brick and
stone (author)
FIGURE 5.7
Drawing
showing wall
construction of
brick and
stone, with
scaffolding
supported on
putlogs
(author)

FIGURE 5.8
Mushabbak (Syria),
basilica, seen from
the southwest, with
the limestone quarry
in the foreground
(Frank Kidner, Frank
Kidner Photographs
1983–1999,
Dumbarton Oaks
Image Collection
and Fieldwork
Archives)
on-site (Fig. 5.9).25 The wide-scale distribution of cooling, and unloading could take two to three
Proconessian marble capitals of identical forms weeks (Fig. 5.10). There is considerable variation
indicates that pan-Mediterranean commerce in in the size of Byzantine bricks. Bricks were formed
architectural elements survived as late as the sixth in square or rectangular molds but they would
century, with the names of the quarries remem- shrink up to 10 percent when fired. Standard exam-
bered long after they had ceased operation. ples measure 32–36 centimeters square and 3.5–5
Brick production relied on both good sources of centimeters thick. Following the Roman model,
clay and kilns. Texts mention both ostrakarioi (clay brick stamps were used to regulate production; they
workers) or keramopoioi (brickmakers).26 A single appear in Constantinople during the fourth through
kiln could produce up to fifty thousand bricks per seventh centuries, as well as in Thessalonike, but
season, allowing four thousand to five thousand they are rare elsewhere (Fig. 5.11). In Constantinople,
bricks per firing, and the process of loading, firing, up to half of the bricks were stamped during this
period.27 The earliest stamps, probably from the
period of Constantine, are in Latin and seem to
25
N. Asgari, “The Proconnesian Production of Architectural follow the systematization known from Roman
Elements in Late Antiquity Based on Evidence from the Marble imperial brick production, suggesting a transfer
Quarries,” in Constantinople and Its Hinterland, eds. C. Mango and of technology as the capital was moved eastward.
G. Dagron (Aldershot, 1995), 263–88; N. Asgari, “Roman and
By the fifth century, the stamp inscriptions are in
Early Byzantine Marble Quarries of Proconnesus,” in Proceedings of
Greek; many provide a name (in the genitive if fully
the 10th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, I (Ankara,
1978), 467–80; T. Kozelj, A. Lambraki, and J.–P. Sodini, Les spelled out), probably that of the contractor or land-
carrières à l’époque paléochrétienne, Aliki I (Paris, 1980). owner, and an indiction date, based on a fifteen-year
taxation cycle. Sometimes symbols or monograms
K. Theocharidou, “Symbole ste Melete tes Paragoges
26
Oikodomikon Keramikon Proionton sta Byzantina kai are introduced. The decipherment and exact dating
Metabysantina Chronia,” DChAE 13 (1988): 97–112; Ousterhout,
Master Builders, 128–32. 27
J. Bardill, Brickstamps of Constantinople (Oxford, 2004).

FIGURE 5.9
Thasos, Aliki
quarries,
general view,
showing areas
of stone
removal
(author)
FIGURE 5.10
Detail of an illuminated
manuscript showing the
firing of brick in a kiln,
Vatican Ms. Gr. 746, fol.
61r, © 2018, Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana (by
permission of Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, with
all rights reserved)
of Byzantine brick stamps remain problematic, al- similar to that of Roman concrete, but without
though in general, simple bar-shaped stamps with the volcanic sand, or pozzolana, that allowed it to
formulaic, single-lined inscriptions belong to the set underwater and gave it a stone-like hardness.
fifth century, while sixth-century stamps are more Lime mortar behaves somewhat differently than
varied in both the information they provide and concrete and is more resilient. When used in large
their shapes—often round or cruciform. quantities, however, lime mortar could take
A critical ingredient in most construction was months to achieve its ultimate hardness, long
lime mortar, with quicklime used as an active after it appears firm, and it could deform when
agent that could be mixed with sand, broken pressure is exerted on it. In Justinian’s Hagia
brick, or rubble.28 The recipe would have been Sophia, the phenomenon of “plastic flow of mortar”
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 133–36; J. Bardill, “Building

28
Studies, eds. R. Cormack, J. F. Haldon, and E. Jeffreys (Oxford,
Materials and Techniques,” in Oxford Handbook of Byzantine 2008), 335–36.

FIGURE 5.11 part of a visual engagement with the past.31 In the
A late fifth- or great basilicas of Rome, the columns and capitals
early sixth- are all spolia, often mismatched. However, it is
century Byzantine
easier to reuse squared stone than it is to quarry it
brick, probably
afresh. With the transformation of cities, the
from Hagia
Sophia, stamped
grand marble piles of antiquity became the quar-
+KOCTAN, ries for later construction. Brick was similarly
probably reused, and thus stamped bricks of the fifth and
Konstantinos sixth centuries often found their way into later
(Jonathan Bardill) construction.
Byzantine churches were roofed with lead
caused the building to deform because of the sheeting or tiles of slate, cut stone, or ceramic.
unequal pressures exerted by the first dome, lead- Most common throughout the period were ce-
ing to its collapse in 557. However, in smaller ramic tiles of semicylindrical, slightly conical
buildings the resilience of lime mortar could be form, with the same used both for the pan and
advantageous, allowing the building to settle the cover tiles (Fig. 5.13).32 More expensive and
without severe cracking. Under pressure, a non- more durable was lead sheeting, applied to the
hydraulic lime mortar will suffer microcracks, but roof in rectangular panels with the joints folded
upon exposure to air, they will recrystallize and and hammered together. The malleability of the
mend. material allowed lead sheeting to conform to
Wooden reinforcement also appears commonly the irregular and undulating forms of Byzantine
in Byzantine construction. Wooden beams were vaults.
set within the thickness of the wall, nailed or tog- Constructed of either brick or stone, Byzantine
gled together at the corners (Fig. 5.12).29 These foundation systems were dug to bedrock if possi-
beams would be inserted at several points in the ble and occasionally cut from the bedrock, often
rising walls and appear commonly behind cor- stepped in profile to create a solid base for the
nices. With the introduction of vaulting, they walls above them. At Old St. Peter’s in Rome, this
could also be joined to the tie beams that spanned required enormous foundations on one side and
arches and vaults. While the wood may have earth removal on the other (Fig. 5.14). Because of
deteriorated over time, during its early years the the irregularity of the terrain, the foundations for
internal skeleton would have stabilized the con- the churches of Constantinople required extensive
struction as the building settled and the lime mortar vaulted substructures to create a level platform for
set. In areas susceptible to earthquakes—and that the superstructure. Sometimes these served utili-
includes much of the Eastern Mediterranean— tarian purposes; occasionally they were used for
the system provided additional stability. For pres- burials. Because of the lack of a good natural
ent-day scholarship, dendrochronology (based on supply of water within the city, the substructures
a careful analysis of the tree ring patterns) may almost invariably included cisterns. In the area of
help to provide a date for the building in which Topkapı Palace alone, a recent study has counted
the wood survives.30 more than forty cisterns—all substructures for
Reuse of building materials was common
throughout the period. In the early centuries of
Christianity, spoliation often had symbolic over- 31
See, among others, D. Kinney, “Rape or Restitution of the Past?
tones, as sculptural elements were reemployed as Interpreting Spolia,” in The Art of Interpreting, ed. S. C. Scott
(University Park, 1995), 52–67; B. Brenk, “Spolia from
Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology,” DOP
29
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 192–94. 41 (1987): 103–09; H. Saradi, “The Use of Spolia in Byzantine
30
P. I. Kuniholm, “Dendrochronology and Other Applications of Monuments: The Archaeological and Literary Evidence,”
Tree-Ring Studies in Archaeology,” in The Handbook of International Journal of the Classical Tradition 3 (1997): 395–23;
Archaeological Sciences, eds. D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard Ousterhout, Master Builders, 140–45.
(London, 2001), 1–11. 32

FIGURE 5.12
Diagram showing the
methods of connecting
wooden reinforcement
beams at Hagia Eirene,
Istanbul (from
C. Striker-P. Kuniholm
in U. Peschlow,
Irenenkirche, 1977)
lost buildings.33 Of the building known as the of both columns and bases. Occasionally the pins
Basilica in Constantinople, which housed the are still preserved (Fig. 5.15).
courts of law, only the vaulted substructures Wooden trussed roofs were common in the
(the so-called Basilica Cistern) survive today. great basilicas of the Early Christian period.34
It was common in Greek and Roman architec- Renaissance views of the interior of Old St. Peter’s
ture to connect the bases, shafts (or drums), and in Rome show the trussing system, with smaller
capitals of columns with bronze pins set into lead, beams that reinforce both the bottom chord to
and this practice continued into the Byzantine prevent it from sagging at the center and the top
period. Molten lead was poured into a carved chords against the weight of the roof, which
channel in the upper surface of the base to secure spanned the nave width of approximately 24
the pin as the column was erected. The cuttings for
pins may be observed in the once-joined surfaces
34
A. K. Orlandos, He xylostegos palaiochristianike basilike tes
33
H. Tezcan, Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans Devri Arkeologisi mesogeiakes lekanes, 2nd ed. (Athens, 1994), 386–98 (in Greek);
(Istanbul, 1989). Bardill, “Building Materials,” 343–44.

figure 5.13
Alakent,
Byzantine
church, with
original roof
tiles in place
(Myra-Andriake
Excavations
Archive)
figure 5.14
Rome, Old St.
Peter’s, transverse
section of the nave
foundations (after
B. M. Apollonj Ghetti
et al., Esplorazioni
sotto la confessione
di S. Pietro, 1951)
meters.35 Similar images are preserved for the Church of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, which
roofing system of San Paolo fuori le mura in braces only the top chords against the weight of
Rome, before its destruction by fire in 1823, the heavy lead sheeting on the roof, but its span—
which, however, had undergone more than slightly more than 5 meters—is considerably less
twenty recorded restorations from the fifth to the than St. Peter’s (Fig. 5.16).37 Finding wood of suf-
nineteenth century.36 The only surviving roofing ficient length for roof construction seems to have
system of this type is that of the sixth-century been a concern for builders and is occasionally
mentioned in texts. In the sixth-century vita of
St. Nicholas of Sion, for example, the saint adds
R. Mark, Architectural Technology up to the Scientific Revolution
35
three cubits to the length of a broken cypress log
(Cambridge, 1993), 186; also R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the so that it can be used as a roof beam.
Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford, 1982), 255. For the large scale of early buildings, structure
N. Camerlenghi, “Interpreting Medieval Architecture through
36
was a primary concern, particularly when vault-
Renovations: The Roof of the Old Basilica of San Paolo fuori le ing was employed. The repertory of vault forms
Mura in Rome,” in Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and Its remained relatively simple: barrel vaults, groin
Decoration: Studies in Honor of Slobodan Ćurčić, eds. M. J. Johnson,
R. G. Ousterhout, and A. Papalexandrou (Aldershot, 2012),
259–76. 37
Forsyth, “The Monastery of St. Catherine,” 8–9 and fig. 21.

vaults, domes, and occasionally cloister vaults. All FIGURE 5.15
follow established Roman forms.38 Commonly, Column base with

these rise above cornices—marble bands that setting pin and
poured lead still in
form a level platform from which the vaults spring.
place, Thessalonike,
Adorned with carving and paint, cornices are
excavation near the
usually discussed as part of the decorative system Rotunda (author)
of the building, but they also played a critical role
in the construction. In fact, many cornice systems
were joined together by metal pins, forming ten-
sion rings to counter the thrusts of the vaults.39
Affected by the dead weight of materials, the
downward pull of gravity, and earth movements,
traditional building materials worked well in FIGURE 5.16
compression (pushing forces) but not in tension Sinai, Church

(pulling or bending forces). In Roman architec- of St. Catherine,
view of timber
ture, structural problems were overcome by in-
trussing over nave
creasing the mass and dead weight of the con-
(George H. Forsyth
struction—thicker walls can bear heavier loads. Jr., Michigan–
By the third century, more economical structural Princeton–
systems emerged that reduced the mass, relying Alexandria
on point support rather than wall support—con- Expedition to
centrating loads at critical points rather than on Mount Sinai)
thick, solid walls. At the Pavilion in the Licinian
Gardens in Rome (ca. 300), for example, a dome
approximately 80 feet in diameter is supported
above ten piers with either open arches or arched
niches in between (Fig. 5.17). A very similar
system appears at the hexagonal triclinium in the
Palace of Antiochos in Constantinople (early fifth
century), later converted into the Church of St.
Euphemia (see Fig. 8.10). At Justinian’s Hagia
Sophia, loads are concentrated at twelve points,
allowing large areas of wall to be opened as win-
dows (Fig. 5.18). All the same, arches and vaults
required sufficient buttressing at the haunches to
compensate for the outward thrust caused by the
dead weight and the downward pull of gravity, they experienced structural problems even before
even when their forms were reduced in mass.40 the dome was added (see Chap. 9). The great but-
At Hagia Sophia, the arches of the dome bay tresses that rise above the north and south galler-
measure slightly more than 100 feet across—a ies may seem poorly positioned with respect to
greater span than any existing Roman arch—and the dome, but they were essential to brace its east
and west arches. There was no such thing as struc-
tural theory in the Byzantine period; vaulting sys-
38
Adam, Roman Building; Lancaster, Concrete Vaulted Construction tems were based on trial and error and the success
in Imperial Rome. or failure of previous examples.
39
L. Butler, “Hagia Sophia’s Nave Cornices as Elements of Its Centrally planned buildings like Sts. Sergius
Design and Structure,” in Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the and Bacchus in Constantinople provided even
Present, eds. R. Mark and A. Çakmak (Cambridge, 1992), 57–77. support on all sides of the dome with galleries and
40
R. J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure, and Liturgy buttresses. More problematic was the introduc-
of Justinian’s Great Church (New York, 1988), 159–17. tion of vaulting into the basilica, a building type

FIGURE 5.17
Rome, Pavilion in the
Licinian Gardens, drawing
showing the original
structural system (Lynne
Lancaster)
FIGURE 5.18
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
diagram of the
structural system
(after R. Mainstone,
Hagia Sophia, 1988)

traditionally covered by a wooden trussed roof. At FIGURE 5.19
Hagia Sophia and Hagia Eirene in Constantinople Constantinople,

and Basilica B at Philippi, pendentives (spherical Hagia Sophia,
northeast
triangles) were employed to make the transition
exedra, with tie
from the rectilinear geometry of the nave to the
rods connecting
round plan at the base of the dome. The critical the arches
points in this system were the crowns of the four (author)
arches of the domed bay, where the loads were
most concentrated. All three of these sixth-cen-
tury examples lacked bilaterally symmetrical but-
tressing for their domes, and all experienced
structural failure (discussed further in Chaps. 8
and 9).41
Concrete vaults, common in Roman architec-
ture, were gradually abandoned, while stone con-
struction persisted, particularly in the East. In
western Asia Minor, brick was the most common
material for vaulting, and this is what was adopted
in Constantinople and much of the heartland of
Byzantium. Rather than as facing for concrete or
rubble, as it was used in Roman vaults, the
Byzantines used brick to construct thinner vaults.
As vaulted buildings became the norm after the
sixth century, arches and vaults were usually of
brick and normally had wooden tie beams at their
springing. These would secure the vault until the
mortar dried to its ultimate hardness, but the scale.43 A large barrel vault, for example, would
beams were normally left in place and decorated have required substantial formwork, and the
with paint or carved. Occasionally there were ad- work of carpenters would have been critical, even
ditional structural measures: at Justinian’s Hagia if no trace of their work survives today. Large
Sophia, iron tie rods are used (Fig. 5.19). At the vaults, like those of Justinian’s domed churches,
Red Church at Sivrihisar (central Turkey), rings must have required massive support during con-
of tie beams appear on the interior and exterior of struction, with bracing extending to the floor
the dome base (Fig. 5.20).42 Marble cornice level. The formwork for smaller vaults could
blocks also could be connected with metal pins or have been supported from cornices or tie beams
secured with a system of wooden beams immedi- (Fig. 5.21). In some examples, as at the Red Church
ately behind them, so that they could act as struc- at Sivrihisar, ashlar construction continues several
tural stabilizers, as was done at Justinian’s Hagia courses beyond the springing of the vault, with
Sophia and in many later examples. the courses corbelled inward, above which the
Byzantine vaults could have been constructed vault was constructed of rubble laid on formwork
with or without formwork, depending on their (see Fig. 5.20). Occasionally, as with the vaulted
cisterns of Constantinople, the pattern of the
41
Krautheimer and Ćurčić, ECBA, 4th ed., 249–54. wooden formwork is preserved in the mortar of
42
R. G. Ousterhout, “The Red Church at Sivrihisar (Cappadocia):
the vault’s intrados.
Aspects of Structure and Construction,” in Against Gravity: While arches invariably required formwork,
Building Practices in the Pre-Industrial World, eds. R. G. Ousterhout, many smaller vaults could be built without it,
L. Haselberger, R. Holod, and P. Webster (Philadelphia, 2016),
1–11, online publication of papers from the 2015 Penn Center for
Ancient Studies Conference: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/ 43
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 216–33; A. Choisy, L’art de bâtir
ancient/publications.html. chez les Byzantins (Paris, 1883), 32–47.

FIGURE 5.20
Sivrihisar, Red
Church, interior
looking east,
showing the
change from ashlar
to mortared rubble
several courses
above the
springing of the
nave barrel vault
(in the
foreground) and a
view into the
dome with a
wooden
reinforcement
beam at its base;
another timber
chain enveloped
the exterior of the
drum (author)
FIGURE 5.21 that may have had its origins in Parthia.44 In some
Reconstruction of barrel vaults, we find a combination of vertical
formwork necessary and radial courses of brick. In these cases, the ver-
for supporting a
tical brick may have strengthened the vault
Roman arch
against radial cracking.
construction
(A. Leger, Les
In Italy and North Africa, Roman imperial
travaux publics, builders experimented with tubi fittili—light-
1875, reproduced in weight, interlocking terracotta tubes (Fig. 5.23).45
Lynne Lancaster, In areas without a plentiful supply of wood, these
Concrete Vaulted tubes could be laid without formwork—or rather,
Construction, 2005) they could be the formwork, with mortared rubble
packed above them. Often in North African
vaults, the tubes have broken and fallen away,
simplifying and expediting the construction leaving little trace, while the rubble vault is pre-
process. The simplest form was of pitched brick, served. In the fully preserved system, however, the
set upright and angled, rather than radial vous- layers of tubi fittili could have done double duty—
soirs, with each course leaned against the previous providing a vapor barrier between the vault and
one (Fig. 5.22). The technique may have had its the decorated interior surface. Tubi fittili appear
roots in the domestic mudbrick architecture of in many of the vaulted buildings of Ravenna, as
Egypt. A pitched brick sail vault, built up from
four sides or four corners simultaneously, could L. Lancaster, Innovative Vaulting in the Architecture of the Roman
44
be laid without wooden centering, while a dome Empire 1st to 4th Centuries ce (New York, 2015).
or semidome could be subdivided into small seg- 45
R. J. A. Wilson, “Terracotta Vaulting Tubes (Tubi Fittili): On
ments of pitched brick. Bricks could also be laid Their Origin and Distribution,” JRA 5 (1992): 97–129; Lancaster,
vertically, with or without formwork, a technique Innovative Vaulting, 99–128.

FIGURE 5.22 Sivriada (near Istanbul), tunnel with a barrel
FIGURE 5.23 Carthage, Damous el-Karita, martyrium, vault
vault constructed of pitched brick (author)
of tubi fittili (Lynne Lancaster)
in the Orthodox Baptistery and at San Vitale.46 The formal and structural experiments of the
Here, however, they form lightweight domes, fourth through sixth centuries set the standard for
their intrados covered with mosaic, and rather later architectural developments. All the same,
than supporting rubble vaulting, they form a thin later medieval architecture in the East saw no
membrane, protected by a wooden roof. This sort major structural innovations after the sixth cen-
of lightweight shell vault is found in both Rome tury. With changes in society and worship prac-
and North Africa, notably in Christian construc- tices, most buildings were reduced in scale. As a
tions, by the early fourth century. consequence, later builders are more concerned
with construction than with structure (as will be
46
Kostof, Orthodox Baptistery, 35–43. discussed in Chap. 16).

CHAPTER SIX
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS,
EAST AND WEST
A fter the time of Constantine, a standardized

church architecture gradually emerged, with
the basilica as the customary setting for congre-
to take hold as an architectural or cultural center,
and Constantine’s successors were happy to reside
elsewhere—Antioch in particular. All the same,
gational worship. Despite the continuation of frustratingly little is preserved for the major cities
pan-Mediterranean commerce through the sixth of the East: virtually nothing remains of Late
century and contacts brought about by imperial Antique Alexandria or Antioch, and there are only
patronage and pilgrimage, distinctive styles devel- paltry remains for early Constantinople. Across
oped in the different regions of the empire. This the empire, in fact, our evidence for the first cen-
chapter examines architectural developments of tury of official Christian architecture is limited,
the West—Italy and North Africa—and those of although from the mid-fifth century onward, the
the East—Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and inland Asia evidence steadily mounts.
Minor. Both stand in contrast to developments By the fifth century, the liturgy had become
in the central areas of the empire: Constantino- standardized, but, again, with some regional vari-
ple, Greece, and the Aegean coastlands. To a large ations that are evident in the planning and fur-
extent, however, a shared culture continued, de- nishing of basilicas.1 But the shape of the liturgy
spite political disruptions and religious dissention probably had less effect on the creation of new ar-
among the Christian communities. chitectural designs than the increasing symbolism
Within this picture, Christian architecture is and sanctification of the church building—that
surprisingly slow to take root—or perhaps it is is, although form, function, and meaning were
surprising how little evidence remains for the de- closely related, they were not mutually interde-
cades immediately after Constantine. While we pendent. Some new building types emerge, such as
can track developments in Italy, particularly fol- the cruciform church, the tetraconch, octagons,
lowing the movement of the imperial residence to and a variety of centrally planned structures. Such
Milan and subsequently Ravenna, with concomi- forms may have had symbolic overtones; their
tant imperial patronage, developments elsewhere
are more difficult to track. Despite its founder’s 1
For numerous variations, see Orlandos, He xylostegos palaiochris-
intentions, for example, Constantinople was slow tianike vasilike, 438–556.
Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore, interior, looking east (Michael Waters)
101
unusual form connoted prestige, elegance, or so- pagans, who refused to accept the true divinity?
phistication in general terms—as, for example, Perhaps the most important outcome of the crisis
the design of the aisled tetraconch, which appears was Augustine’s massive tome, The City of God,
in a variety of centers, that may derive from pala- completed ca. 426, the greatest apologia (that is, a
tial buildings. In more specific terms, the cruci- defense, not an apology) for the new religion,
form plan, for example, may either be a reflection which set the tone for the development of Chris-
of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constanti- tianity through the Western Middle Ages.3 Mean-
nople or be associated with the life-giving Cross, while, the Vandals crossed into North Africa,
as at Santa Croce in Ravenna or the Church of where they established an independent kingdom
the Holy Apostles in Milan, where dedications in 429. The Visigoths eventually settled in south-
and inscriptions make the association explicit. ern France and Spain, but Rome was plundered
Religious and political background. It is again by the Vandals in 455. Italy finally fell to
tempting to think of the early centuries of official the Herulians in 476, and imperial administra-
Christianity as a time of unity, a new Golden Age, tion in the West ceased, although Ravenna was
as reflected in the writings of the church fathers: subsequently ruled by the Ostrogoths, who saw
notably Ambrose and Augustine in the West and themselves as continuators of Roman traditions.4
Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Surprisingly, through all this disruption, architecture
and Gregory of Nyssa in the East, who sought to continued, often with invaders replacing Romans as
articulate what an official Christianity actually patrons, with little visible difference.
meant, in terms of both beliefs and behaviors. Far In the East, however, with the exception of the
from unified, however—indeed, disagreements northern and eastern frontiers, political unity was
about beliefs and practices are evident as early maintained, although the period was marked by
as the writings of Paul—the period was marked religious dissension and theological debate. If
by increasing political and religious strife.2 The Christianity was to be the official religion, what
return to paganism under Julian the Apostate did that actually mean? The Bible is woefully
(r. 360–63) may have had little long-term effect, short on specifics. Central to the discussion was
but it reflects the reluctance in many circles for the nature of Christ: was he God or a human
the whole-hearted adoption of Christianity. Only being? If he was both human and divine, how
under Theodosius I (r. 379–95) did Christianity should these two terms be understood to com-
become the official religion, rather than an official bine in Jesus? Debates were heated; ecumenical
religion of the empire. Moreover, the growing dif- church councils sought to establish consensus in
ficulty of administering far-flung territories led matters of dogma but more often divided oppos-
ultimately to the renewed partition of the empire ing groups more sharply. The Council of Nicaea
under Theodosius in 395 (see Map 1). Intended of 325 asserted that Christ was both divine and
to stimulate cooperation, the division actually human and condemned the followers of Arius
led to the severing of the Eastern and Western who asserted that Christ was a superman but not
spheres. The western portions of the empire suf- God. The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned
fered from repeated invasions by migratory tribes, the followers of a certain Nestorius, who objected
from the north and east. Rome, once thought to calling the Virgin Mary the Mother of God
eternal and divinely protected, was sacked by the (Theotokos). This controversy eventually gener-
Visigoths in 410. ated a separate Christian polity, mostly within the
While perhaps less destructive than the re- Persian Empire to the east (now termed the
sponse to it suggests, the fall of Rome led to a Church of the East). The Council of Chalcedon of
crisis of confidence. How could the eternal city 451 generated a further schism among Christians
fall to barbarians? Who was to blame—the Chris-
tians, who had abandoned the old gods, or the
3
P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley, 1967, 2000).
2
P. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity (London, 1971); 4
S. J. Barnish and F. Marazzi, eds., The Ostrogoths from the
G. W. Bowersock, P. Brown, and O. Grabar, eds., Late Antiquity: A Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective
Guide to the Postclassical World (Harvard, 1999). (Woodbridge, 2006).

CHAPTER SIX: REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, EAST AND WEST
103
[Map 2] Justinian’s empire in 565 (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 52)
by declaring as official doctrine a Dyophysite (or While building technology continued unabated,
Chalcedonian) position (i.e., Christ has two na- as discussed in the previous chapter, a gradual sty-
tures). Those holding a Miaphysite or Monophy- listic change was evident, with a movement away
site position (i.e., that Christ has a single, hybrid from traditional, classical forms. And although
nature), although they were condemned at the this change cannot be directly attributed to Chris-
council, found continued support, particularly in tianity, we nevertheless find our best evidence of
Egypt and Syria. This division persisted particu- it in church construction.
larly after these regions were separated from Byz- Perhaps most obvious are the changes in the use
antine rule by the Arab conquests and generated of the classical orders. In the period of Constantine,
Syrian and Coptic Orthodox churches. While use of spolia was standard practice, resulting in col-
theological divisions and their polities often fell orful and varied interiors, with colonnades of mis-
along ethnic and eventually regional lines, the matched columns and capitals. Even in a building
controversies found their way into the capital and as significant as the Lateran Basilica, different orders
into the court. That said, the architectural reflec- appear side by side in the nave colonnades. Gradu-
tion of the controversy was minimal, with no clear ally, we see a greater uniformity to the interiors, as
distinctions evident between Miaphysite and in San Paolo fuori le mura or Santa Sabina in Rome.
Dyophysite (i.e., Byzantine Orthodox, or Chalce- While the reuse of column shafts remained rela-
donian) places of worship. tively common, a variety of new forms of capitals
Stylistic transformations. In The City of God, emerged. In this development, the central areas of
Augustine championed Christianity by retelling Constantinople, Greece, and the Aegean may have
the history of Rome, detailing the repeated errors led the way, although we find the new forms across
of the pagans, and insisting Christians must fully the empire, perhaps as a result of the marble trade.
commit themselves to the new religion: our The transformation is evident in the ubiquitous
allegiance should not be with the earthly city Corinthian capital. Its common shape has an in-
(represented by Rome) but to the heavenly city verted bell of acanthus leaves, rising with calyxes on
(represented by Jerusalem). Augustine and the the diagonals to support a four-cornered abacus—
other church fathers, East and West, were univer- effectively making a transition from circle to
sity educated and fully versed in classical culture. square.6 By the early fifth century, although a tradi-
In the East, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazian- tional vocabulary of forms was preserved, the carv-
zus, and Gregory of Nyssa were trained in the ing had become sharp, spiky, and flattened, empha-
Academy of Athens. The subtlety of their theol- sizing the contrasts of dark and light, which read
ogy was probably lost on much of their audience, more as an abstract pattern than as natural forms, as
who would have failed to realize that their com- seen in the misnamed “Theodosian” capitals (com-
munication skills depended directly on the rhe- pare Figs. 6.1A and 6.1B).7
torical tradition of their pagan predecessors and
teachers. This raises an important issue for our ar-
M. Meiss (New York, 1961), 291–302; E. Kitzinger, “The Hellenistic
chitectural analyses: how dependent was Christian
Heritage of Byzantine Art,” DOP 17 (1963), 95–115; W. Treadgold,
architecture on the classical tradition? Although Renaissances before the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity
this question may have been more central to an and the Middle Ages (Stanford, 1984); B. Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century
earlier generation of scholars, who cut their teeth Classicism in the Plastic Arts: Studies in the So-Called Theodosian Renais-
on the classics and were quick to spot renaissances sance (Odense, 1993); and more recently, A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in
or classical revivals, it still merits consideration.5 Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the
Classical Tradition (Cambridge, 2007).
5
E. Kitzinger, “Mosaic Pavements in the Greek East and the Ques-
6
E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making (Cambridge, 1977),
tion of a ‘Renaissance’ under Justinian,” in Actes du VIe Congrès Interna- 76–80; R. Kautsch, Kapitellstudien: Beiträge zu einer Geschichte des
tional d’Etudes Byzantines, Paris 1948 (Paris, 1951), 209–23; spätantiken Kapitells im Osten vom vierten bis ins siebente Jahrhundert
K. Weitzmann, Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (Princeton, 1951); (Berlin, 1936).
E. Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Stockholm, 7
A recent discussion of this transformation is found in D. Kinney,
1960); R. Krautheimer, “The Architecture of Sixtus III: A Fifth- “Architectural Sculpture,” in The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and
Century Renaissance,” in Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, ed. Asceticism in Upper Egypt, ed. E. S. Bolman (New Haven, 2016), 79–94.

FIGURE 6.1 Transformation of the classical orders: (A) Corinthian capital from Ostia; (B) so-called Theodosian capital from the
Achieropoiitos Basilica, Thessalonike; (C) two-zoned capital with griffins and impost block, from the Basilica Eufrasiana, Poreč;
(D) wind-blown capital from Qal’at Sem’an; (E) wind-blown capital with impost from Sant’Apollinare in Classe; (F) Corinthian
capital with impost, Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna (author, Wikimedia Commons, and Michael Waters)
While nevertheless maintaining the transition the result of a loss of understanding of the transi-
from round base to square abacus, many varia- tional function of the capital in the classical eleva-
tions enter the formal vocabulary. Spiky acanthus tion. Perhaps indicative (or a result) of this is the
leaves may be organized rigidly into two zones; emergence of the impost block, which sits above
animal-headed protomes—bulls, lions, eagles, grif- the capital. Already in Santa Costanza, the cou-
fins—might replace the upper zone, while retain- pled columns support radial entablatures, from
ing the basic structure—for example, diagonal which the arches spring—that is, adding an extra
heads replace the calyxes and axial heads replace element between the capital and the arch (see Fig.
the bosses (Fig. 6.1C). By the second half of the 3.13). Perhaps there was some reluctance to have
fifth century, a curious variation, the wind-blown the arches spring directly from the capital and the
capital, appears, detailed as if the acanthus leaves impost block represents a vestige of the tradi-
had been hit by a sudden gust of wind (Figs. 6.1D tional entablature. Whatever the reason for its in-
and 6.1E). Many of these variations appear inven- troduction, the impost block effectively replaced
tive, if not mannered. In other examples, the the capital as the transitional element, reducing
acanthus leaves were reduced and simplified to the capital to mere decoration.
leather-like forms, sometimes losing their natural As it became an area of carved decoration, the
appearance completely, transformed from some- impost block gradually fused with the capital
thing organic and resilient into something ab- proper. By the fifth century we find the Ionic
stract and blocky (Fig. 6.1F). The latter may be impost capital in a variety of locations; here the
CHAPTER SIX: REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, EAST AND WEST 105

FIGURE 6.2 Transformation of the classical orders, continued: (A) Ionic impost capital, Katopoliani, Paros; (B) Ionic import capital,
Lechaion Basilica, Corinth; (C) Ionic impost capital, gallery of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, Constantinople; (D) so-called melon
capital, lower level, Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, Constantinople; (E) Composite impost capital, Hagia Sophia, Constantinople;
(F) impost capital with impost, San Vitale, Ravenna (author and Michael Waters)
structure of the Composite capital seems some- early sixth century, architecture has moved well
how inverted, with the volutes at the bottom, beyond the classical vocabulary.
rather than the top. Nevertheless, the Ionic Along with the changes in architectural vocabu-
impost capital proved popular and was com- laries came the development of regional idioms
monly used in gallery colonnades (Figs. 6.2A–C). across the Mediterranean. What follows is intended
Ultimately, by the early sixth century, as in the as a survey of the regional characteristics of architec-
lower register of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, we find ture in the fifth century.
the impost capital introduced, whose melon-like Constantinople and Greece. Little remains of
shape is flattened, abstracted, and heavily under- the churches of Constantinople before the sixth
cut, but nevertheless still recalls the classical Co- century. The Church of the Theotokos of Chalko-
rinthian capital’s transition from circular base to prateia, just west of Hagia Sophia, founded some-
square abacus (Fig. 6.2D). At Hagia Sophia, time in the fifth century and famed for housing
impost capitals featured the details of the Com- the girdle of the Virgin, is known from limited re-
posite order, with the basket of spiky acanthus mains.8 It was similar in most details to St. John
leaves topped by emphasized volutes (Fig. 6.2E). Stoudios, including its construction technique
Elsewhere we find impost capitals illogically and even a cruciform crypt below the altar. An
topped by imposts (Fig. 6.2F). In short, if we can octagonal chapel off the atrium is usually identi-
take the parts to represent the whole, it would
appear that within the course of the fifth into the 8
Mathews, Early Churches of Constantinople, 28–33.

FIGURE 6.3
Constantinople,
pre-Justinianic
Hagia Sophia,
reconstruction of
propylon (A. M.
Schneider, Die
Hagia Sophia zu
Konstatinopel,
1939)
fied as a baptistery. The most important of the FIGURE 6.4
churches dedicated to the Theotokos, the Church Epidauros, basilica,

of Blachernae, located in the northern corner of plan (redrawn after
R. Krautheimer,
the city, is known only from descriptions, but it
ECBA, 1986)
must have been similar.9 The pre-Justinianic
Hagia Sophia, founded ca. 360, subsequently re-
built after a fire of 404 and rededicated in 415,
seems to have been a large, five-aisled basilica, of
which only elements of the monumental propylon
(entry gate) remain (Fig. 6.3).10
Much more is preserved in mainland Greece,
which reveals affiliations with both Constantino-
ple and the West. At Epidauros, a five-aisled basil-
ica was built, ca. 400 (Fig. 6.4). The construction
Although it is enveloped by subsidiary structures,
technique is poor—only the foundations survive—
including a baptistery, forms remain relatively
but the scale is large, approximately 60 by 46
simple. Perhaps most impressive in southern Greece
meters. Preceded by an atrium and propylon, it ter-
is the great three-aisled Basilica of St. Leonidas at
minates in a divided transept that frames the bema.
Lechaion, the western port of Corinth and the
metropolitan see of Greece, built ca. 450–60 (Fig.
9
C. Mango, “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constanti- 6.5). In many ways, it recalls the architecture of
nople,” in Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christi- Constantinople, both in its opus mixtum con-
anae, eds. N. Cambi and E. Marin (Vatican City and Split, 1998), struction technique and in its opulence, with
61–76. marble paving, revetments, and elegant capitals.
10
W. Kleiss, “Beobachtungen in der Hagia Sophia in Istanbul,” Ist- Its plan is elongated, however, perhaps reflecting
Mitt 15 (1965): 168–85; Mathews, Early Churches of Constantinople, Corinth’s connections to the West, as it was under
11–19. the jurisdiction of the pope in Rome. The complex

FIGURE 6.5
Corinth-Lechaion,
basilica, aerial view
from the northwest
(Ephoreia of
Antiquities of
Corinthia, ©
Hellenic Ministry
of Culture and
Sports, Fund of
Archaeological
Proceeds)
includes a forecourt and a semicircular atrium thus capitals surmounted by impost blocks; the
preceding the basilica, measuring 186 meters gallery has Ionic impost capitals. Although the
overall. It is unclear if it had a gallery. A tripartite roof has been altered, investigations indicate that
transept frames the bema, similar to Epidauros there was originally a clerestory. The sanctuary
but on a larger scale, with great piers at its cor- has lost its original furnishings, while cuttings in
ners, and evidence of its furnishings is preserved. the nave colonnades indicate the side aisle was
The bema included both thrones in the curvature closed off by parapets—suggesting that the nave
of the apse and lateral benches for the clergy. The was reserved for the clergy, with the congregation
baptistery was part of a freestanding complex to relegated to the side aisles and gallery—or possi-
the north. bly the congregation was subdivided for reasons
In the north of Greece, Thessalonike emerged that are unclear. The major undertaking in fifth-
as a major center, with close connections to Con- century Thessalonike was the Basilica of St. De-
stantinople. For example, the well-preserved metrius (discussed in Chap. 4). Built on the site
Church of the Acheiropoietos, built ca. 450–70, of a bath where the Roman soldier was said to
shares many similarities with the Stoudios basil- have met his martyrdom, the church was appar-
ica: three aisled with a broad nave and short pro- ently begun in the second half of the century,
portions, with a gallery above the side aisles and closely contemporaneous with the Acheiropoie-
narthex, with marble pavements and mosaic dec- tos, but with a more elaborate plan, measuring
oration and broad windows (Figs. 6.6–6.8).11 55 meters in length.
Construction is of brick, mixed with bands of Several early basilicas are preserved on the
rough stone. The lower columns have spiky acan- Greek islands. At Mastichari on Kos, a small but
elegant three-aisled basilica of the fifth century
11
Ch. Papakyriakou, “Acheiropoietos,” in Impressions: Byzantine was dedicated to St. John, its nave measuring 15.5
Thessaloniki through the Photographs and Drawings of the British by 30.5 meters (Fig. 6.9). While it is best known
School at Athens (1888–1910), ed. A. Mentzos (Thessalonike, 2012), for its floor mosaics, it preserved much informa-
64–80. tion about its liturgical usage: the eastern portion

FIGURE 6.6
Thessalonike,
Acheiropoietos,
view from the
southeast (author)
of the nave formed the sanctuary, isolated by a Egnatia, immediately to the south (Fig. 6.11).13
templon, with a ciborium above the altar and a Unusually, the cathedral at Philippi, rebuilt in
three-stepped synthronon in the apse. An ambo the early fifth century, is octagonal. Dedicated to
stood at the center of the nave. To the north, an St. Paul, who preached at Philippi, it was pre-
anteroom with benches (probably a waiting room ceded by a small church built in the early fourth
for catechumens) led to an octagonal baptistery. century, added immediately adjacent to a pagan
Rooms to the south seem to have had liturgical heroon, whose platform was apparently trans-
functions as well, equipped with benches and an formed into a Christian cult building, perhaps as-
offering table.12 sociated with Paul’s presence in the city (Fig.
Other sites in Greece are also well represented 6.12). A large complex grew around the heroon,
in fifth- and early sixth-century architecture, with including a baptistery, the bishop’s residence, a
churches almost exclusively of the basilican type, al- bath building, and a guesthouse.14 More unusual
though most are little more than excavated founda- is a centrally planned church at Amphipolis,
tions. Nikopolis, Nea Anchialos, and Amphipolis with a hexagonal core, probably from the end of
all preserve significant remains, with evidence of li- the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century
turgical furnishings, including the synthronon, (Fig. 6.13).
templon, and ambo, with slight variations (Fig. Asia Minor. The coastal cities of Asia Minor
6.10). Basilica A at Philippi measured 29 by 44 are equally productive in this period. At Ephesus,
meters overall, with a transept framing the sanc- the Church of St. Mary reused substantial por-
tuary and barriers isolating the side aisles. It was tions of the walls and foundations of an older
preceded by a double atrium and nymphaeum;
stairs connect to the main overland route, the Via 13
P. Lemerle, Philippes et la Macédoine Orientale à l’époque chrétienne
et byzantine (Paris, 1945), 281–412; Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki
and Ch. Bakirtzis, Philippi (Athens, 1995), 29–32.
12
S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman 14
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki and Bakirtzis, Philippi, 49–57; see also
the Magnificent (New Haven, 2010), 163–65. analysis by Johnson, San Vitale, 51–59.

FIGURE 6.7
Thessalonike,
Acheiropoietos, plan and
elevation (redrawn after
R. Krautheimer, ECBA,
1986)
forum building in a three-aisled basilica of sub- The Church of St. John the Evangelist (discussed
stantial length, approximately 85 meters. Usually in Ch. 4) is similar in its construction.
dated to the early fifth century, this is thought to A number of substantial basilicas are found
be where the Ecumenical Council met in 431 to along the south coast of Asia Minor as well. Little
declare the Virgin Mary Theotokos, or “she who remains of the Basilica of St. Thekla at Meryemlik,
begets God,” recognizing the hypostatic union of built ca. 480, other than a section of the apse, built
human and divine in Christ.15 Preceded by an of neatly squared ashlar. In addition to marking
atrium with an octagonal baptistery attached, the the cave of the saint, the church included two an-
church was substantially rebuilt in later centuries nexed chapels flanking the apse, joined by an
(Fig. 6.14). Construction is of coursed brick and eastern wall (Fig. 6.15).16 How these rooms func-
ashlar, with brick vaults over the minor spaces. tioned remains unclear. A number of other sites
in the region similarly elaborate the eastern end,
although the function of the chapels is also un-
15
See most recently N. Karydis, Early Byzantine Vaulted Construc-
tion in Churches of the Western Coastal Plains and River Valleys of Asia
Minor (Oxford, 2011), 4–8. 16
Hill, Early Churches, 208–25.

FIGURE 6.8
Thessalonike,
Acheiropoietos,
nave looking north
(author)
clear. The well-preserved basilica at Cambazlı, FIGURE 6.9

near Olba, probably dates from the second half of Mastichari (Kos),
the fifth century and has asymmetrical chambers Church of St. John
flanking the sanctuary (Fig. 6.16). It measures 29 (after S. Ćurčić,
by 22 meters overall with a nave 14.5 meters wide, Architecture in the
with galleries above the side aisles that are still Balkans, 2010)
preserved along the south side.17 Construction is of
finely squared stone, although the irregularities in
plan are difficult to explain. Basilica A at Perge,
which may be from the fifth or early sixth century,
terminates in an aisled transept, similar to that at
Philippi, but as was common along the south coast
of Anatolia, additional chambers flank the apse, so
that the east wall is flat (Fig. 6.17).
Italy and the Adriatic. With the shift of the
capital eastward, Italy gradually became a backwa-
ter. Because it was lacking political unity, the
papacy emerged as the unifying force. In Rome,
the major construction after the time of Constan- stantially rebuilt after the fire of 1823), apparently
tine was the Church of St. Paul’s outside the walls, with imperial benefaction (Figs. 6.18 and 6.19).18
or San Paolo fuori le mura, begun in 385 (and sub-
18
Brandenburg, Ancient Churches, 114–30; R. Krautheimer, CBCR
17
Hill, Early Churches, 106–10. 5 (1980), 93–164.

FIGURE 6.10
Two Greek basilicas. (A) Basilica B
at Nikopolis has a tripartite
transept; (B) Basilica A (St.
Demetrius) at Thebes has apsidal
rooms flanking the atrium, a
baptistery to the north, and a room
for the presentation of gifts to the
south (after S. Ćurčić, Architecture
in the Balkans, 2010)
A virtual replica of St. Peter’s, it was built above tomb and altar were at the front of the transept,
the tomb of the apostle Paul, replacing the small beneath the triumphal arch, and this allowed
Constantinian church on the site. It introduced a better access to pilgrims, behind the altar in the
number of significant modifications: the orienta- transept. The transept, narrower and deeper than
tion was reversed so that the apse is in the east, as that at St. Peter’s, is also taller and better inte-
had become common in church architecture; the grated with the nave. Like the modified St. Peter’s,
columns are matched (although spoliated), and it functioned as a combination of parish church
the capitals are original and identical, supporting and martyrium.
an arcade rather than an entablature. As at St. Pe- Santa Maria Maggiore, built ca. 432–40 under
ter’s, the altar was fixed above the tomb of the Pope Sixtus III, continued the sort of monumen-
apostle, but the siting was adjusted so that the tality found in St. Paul’s, but with a simpler

FIGURE 6.11
Philippi, Basilica
A, plan and
reconstructed
elevation (after
P. Lemerle,
Philippes et le
Macédoine
Orientrale, 1945)
FIGURE 6.12
Philippi, cathedral
complex, aerial view,
with heroon and
baptistery to the north
(top) of the octagon
(after Ch. Koukouli-
Chrysanthaki and Ch.
Bakirtzis, Philippi,
1995)

FIGURE 6.13
Amphipolis,
centrally planned
church, plan (after
S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
design (Fig. 6.20).19 It maintains the broad nave a hapax that resists interpretation (Fig. 6.21).20
and is flanked by single side aisles, and the trium- Laid out on a series of circles, with an overall di-
phal arch originally opened directly into the apse. ameter of 225 Roman feet, the central, circular
Matched columns with Ionic capitals conserva- nave measures 75 Roman feet across and is sepa-
tively carry an architrave—actually an arcade cov- rated from an ambulatory by a colonnade sup-
ered by a stucco entablature. While we are still porting an architrave, rising into a clerestory, cov-
uncertain about the interior decoration of earlier ered either by a wooden roof or a dome of light
churches, that at Santa Maria Maggiore is con- construction (for units of measure, see Chap. 5).
temporaneous with the construction, although The ambulatory extended into axial chapels on the
the present apse mosaic dates to the thirteenth cross arms and, apparently, the porticoed court-
century: pilasters extend above the entablature, yard on the diagonals—all lavishly decorated.
framing the windows and forming a grid filled Everything from centrally planned martyria in
with panels of mosaic decoration. A similar grid- general to the Holy Sepulchre and garden pavil-
ded system of wall decoration was subsequently ions in particular has been suggested as possible
introduced in St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s. prototypes. In fact, we know virtually nothing of
For the most part, church construction con- its original function: while the dedication to St.
tinued, but on a smaller scale, with the simple, Stephen is original, the church contained no
three-aisled basilica predominating. One notable
exception is Santo Stefano Rotondo, a monu-
mental, centrally planned church, built ca. 468–83,
20
Brandenburg, Ancient Churches, 200–15; H. Brandenburg, Die
Kirche S. Stefano Rotondo in Rom: Bautypologie und Architektursym-
19
Brandenburg, Ancient Churches, 176–89; Krautheimer, CBCR 3 bolik in der spätantiken und frühchristlichen Architektur (Berlin,
(1969), 1–60. 1998).

FIGURE 6.14
Ephesus, St. Mary
(Theotokos): (top)
reconstructed plan
of fifth-century
church; (bottom)
later
transformations
(after F. Knoll and
J. Keil,
Marienkirche, 1932;
and N. Karydis,
Early Byzantine
Vaulted
Construction, 2011)
relics of its namesake. It may be best viewed as an During the early fifth century, it was incorporated
experiment that found no following.21 into a much larger complex, with a three-aisled
Salona on the Adriatic coast, capital of the cemetery basilica added ca. 426, which included
Roman province of Dalmatia, provides early evi- the martyrium in its atrium. A colonnaded pre-
dence of Christianization, as well as association cinct to the north and the irregular space between
with Roman practices. This may be best seen in the the two buildings provided additional areas for
memorial complex at Marusinac, which focused burial.
on the martyrium of Anastasius, constructed ca. The main imperial residence in the West
300, a two-storied structure with distinctive but- shifted to Milan in 353, and the city saw a number
tresses on the exterior (Fig. 6.22). Its upper floor of major building projects during the second half
served for memorial services, while the crypt below of the fourth century.23 In addition to the cathe-
held the remains of the saint isolated in the apse, dral and its baptistery, several large basilicas are
with other family members buried in the nave.22 noteworthy. The Holy Apostles (Basilica Apostol-
21
R. Krautheimer, “Success and Failure in Late Antique Church Architecture in the Balkans, 59–61, 127–29; and A. M. Yasin, “Reas-
Planning,” in Age of Spirituality: A Symposium, ed. H.-G. Beck (New sessing Salona’s Churches: Martyrium Evolution in Question,”
York, 1980), 121–39. JEChrSt 20, no.1 (2012): 59–112.
E. Dyggve and R. Egger, eds., Die altchristliche Friedhof
22 23
For an overview, see R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals:
Marusinac, Forschungen in Salona, vol. 3 (Vienna, 1939); Ćurčić, Topography and Politics (Berkeley, 1983), 68–92.

FIGURE 6.15
Meyremlik, St.
Thekla, plan (after
E. Herzfeld and
S. Guyer,
Meriamlik und
Korikos, 1930)
FIGURE 6.16
Cambazlı, basilica, interior,
looking west (Anastasios
Tantsis)
orum, now substantially incorporated into San 6.23). The altar lay on axis, however, with relics of
Nazaro), begun in 382 by St. Ambrose, was large, the apostles deposited beneath it in a silver casket.
cruciform, and single aisled, close to 200 Roman San Simpliciano, originally the “Basilica Virgi-
feet long and with a nave 50 Roman feet wide, num” dedicated to virgin martyrs, was added later
but with lateral wings rather than a proper tran- in the fourth century. A variant of the cross-
sept, separated from it by tribilons (triple ar- shaped plan, it originally had a single-aisled interior,
cades), with apsidal niches to either side (Fig. with the exterior façades detailed by arcading. On

FIGURE 6.17
Perge, Basilica A (redrawn
after Krautheimer, ECBA,
1986)
FIGURE 6.18
Rome, St. Paul’s fuori
le mura, interior
looking east before
destruction (Giovanni
Battista Piranesi, from
Wikimedia Commons)
a similarly grand scale, the nave was 200 Roman the model of its namesake in Constantinople?
feet long and nearly 75 Roman feet wide. Both The answer to both questions is probably both yes
churches were constructed of brick, following and no. The cross arms at San Simpliciano may
local practice, and both were set outside the walls provide better access to the sanctuary—some-
in association with Christian cemeteries. thing we see in several Greek churches in this
The selection of cruciform plans requires some period—while those at the Holy Apostles seem to
explanation. Does San Simpliciano follow the be an extraneous addition. Symbolically, if not
model of St. Peter’s in Rome—as the original functionally, however, they may draw meaning
dedication to martyrs and position outside the from the earlier churches.
walls might suggest?24 Does Holy Apostles follow
See S. Lewis, “Function and Symbolic Form in the Basilica

24
Latin Iconography of the Single-Naved Cruciform Basilica Apos-
Apostolorum at Milan,” JSAH 28 (1969): 83–98; S. Lewis, “The tolorum in Milan,” ArtB 51, no. 3 (1969): 205–19.

FIGURE 6.19
Rome, St. Paul’s
fuori le mura,
isometric
section (after
H. Brandenburg,
Ancient Churches of
Rome, 2004)
FIGURE 6.20
Rome, Santa Maria
Maggiore, interior,
looking east
(Michael Waters)

FIGURE 6.21
Rome, Santo
Stefano Rotondo,
interior view
(Lalupa,
Wikimedia
Commons)
FIGURE 6.22
Salona-Marusinac,
funerary complex,
archaeological plan
and reconstructed
view (after
E. Dyggve and
R. Egger, Die
altchristliche
Friedhof
Marusinac, 1939)
FIGURE 6.23
Unique in Milan is the Church of San Lo- Milan, Basilica
renzo, with the attached Chapel of Sant’Aquilino, Apostolorum,
constructed sometime between 352 and 375 reconstructed plan
(Figs. 6.24–6.26).25 The church is laid out on an (redrawn after
aisled tetraconch plan, with the central quatrefoil S. Lewis, JSAH,
1969)
enveloped by aisles and galleries in an elegant
double-shell arrangement. Towers rose above the
four corners framing the central tower. Com-
25
Krautheimer and Ćurčić, ECBA, 4th ed., 78–81; W. E. Klein-
bauer, “‘Aedita in Turribus’: The Superstructure of the Early Chris-
tian Church of S. Lorenzo in Milan,” Gesta, vol. 15, no. 1/2 (1976):
1–9; D. Kinney, “The Evidence for the Dating of S. Lorenzo in
Milan,” JSAH 31, no. 2 (1972): 92–107.

FIGURE 6.24
Milan, San Lorenzo
with Chapel of
Sant’Aquilino, view
from the southeast
(author)
FIGURE 6.25
Milan, San
Lorenzo with
Chapel of
Sant’Aquilino, plan
(after
W. E. Kleinbauer,
DOP, 1977)

FIGURE 6.26
Milan, San Lorenzo
with Chapel of
Sant’Aquilino, interior
view (Michael Waters)
pletely remodeled with a new dome in the Ren- swamps.27 Following the collapse of imperial ad-
aissance, certain original elements are difficult to ministration, the city came under the control of
reconstruct. How was the space covered? By a the Ostrogoths, who followed the established
dome or a groin vault of light material or a model of patronage and leadership and saw them-
wooden trussed roof? Where was the altar? Mas- selves as part of the Byzantine oikoumene. Like
sive foundations excavated beneath the floor sug- Milan, Ravenna also acquired a cruciform church,
gest it may have been centrally positioned. More with more explicit symbolism, however, as it was
troubling are the questions of why and for whom dedicated to Santa Croce—the Holy Cross (see
it was constructed. While the elegance of its Fig. 3.16).28 It is now in ruins, made famous by
design suggests imperial benefaction, it was not a the so-called Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, em-
palace church. The octagonal chapel attached to press of the West, originally attached to its broad
the south poses similar problems. Curiously, the narthex. Also cruciform, the mausoleum’s dome
chapel has a plan identical to the baptistery at the mosaic features the apparition of the cross against
cathedral, octagonal with alternating rectangular a starry sky, emphasizing its symbolism. Like
and semicircular niches set into its walls. But it Milan, the standard construction of Ravenna is
was a mausoleum, not a baptistery, probably for brick, often reused Roman brick.
an imperial burial, and was quite similar to the Although built originally by Theodoric, the
imperial mausoleum that once stood near the Ostrogothic ruler, ca. 490, the Church of
Church of San Vittore.26 Sant’Apollinare Nuovo (originally dedicated to
With the disturbances of the fourth century, Christ) fits well into the picture of architectural
the imperial residence was shifted to Ravenna in production in fifth-century northern Italy (Figs.
402, near the Adriatic coast, with its port at 6.27 and 6.28).29 The three-aisled basilica once
nearby Classe, protected by the surrounding
27
28
26
Johnson, Roman Imperial Mausoleum, 156–67. 29

FIGURE 6.27
Ravenna, Sant’Apollinare Nuovo and
elevation, plan (after D. Deliyannis, Ravenna
in Late Antiquity, 2010; and G. Bovini,
Ravenna, 1971)
FIGURE 6.28.
Ravenna, Sant’Apollinare
Nuovo, interior, looking
southeast (Megan Boomer)
stood next to Theodoric’s palatial residence, many of its features are standard, two aspects of
which is known from limited archaeological re- its decoration are noteworthy, as they reflect the
mains and served as his palace church. While breakdown of the classical decorative system. The

FIGURE 6.29
Djémila, double
church complex, seen
from the north, with
walls of opus
africanum (Nathan
Dennis)
first is a detail that is the appearance of impost Libya, was closely connected to Italy.31 Captured
blocks above the capitals of the nave arcade, al- by the Vandals in 427 and recaptured by the Byz-
ready discussed. The other transition takes place antines in 534, neither the political fate nor the
in the mosaic decoration of the nave: along the religious controversies of the region are registered
lateral walls, the grid system—still employed in in the architecture, at least until the Arabs arrived
the window zone and above—is replaced by a in 647. Within that broad period, however, the
continuous frieze, representing processions of chronology is difficult to sort out; the Vandals
male and female martyrs moving from west to were heretical followers of Arianism and may
east. While reflecting the processional character simply have modified existing churches rather
of the liturgy, the processions are set topographi- than build new ones. The cult of the martyrs was
cally: the men march from Theodoric’s Palace strong throughout the region, with tombs often
toward an enthroned Christ; the women march beneath the altar, sometimes in accessible crypts.
from the port of Classe toward an enthroned Occasionally a counter-apse was introduced,
Virgin. While those represented are part of the re- sometimes to separate the liturgical and martyrial
placement of “Arian” imagery under Justinian, foci, but sometimes with other functions. Many
the limited physical evidence suggests that some had a sanctuary or other focus centrally posi-
sort of precession was represented there originally tioned in the nave. A variety were constructed on
as well.30 a north–south axis rather than east–west, which
North Africa. North Africa in this period, in- was standard elsewhere. Construction is com-
cluding areas of what is now Tunisia, Algeria, and monly of opus africanum, with small coursed
stone strengthened by large upright and horizon-
tal stones (Fig. 6.29).
30
A. Urbano, “Donation, Dedication, and Damnatio Memoriae:
The Catholic Reconciliation of Ravenna and the Church of 31
J. P. Burns and R. M. Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa: The
Sant’Apollinare Nuovo,” JEChrSt 12, no. 1 (2005): 71–110. Development of Its Practices and Beliefs (Grand Rapids, 2014), 87–293.

FIGURE 6.30
Carthage, plans of two
extramural basilicas:
(A) Basilica Majorum;
(B) Memoria Cypriani
(St. Monica) (after
L. Ennabli, Carthage, 1997)
Carthage was the largest city in the Western fourth century in date (Fig. 6.31).33 It was pre-
Mediterranean after Rome and the major port of ceded by a semicircular atrium with a triconch
North Africa, although it is poorly preserved in chapel on axis. A cross-axis was introduced into
the archaeological record. Moreover, it is often the basilica at a later date, with its own apse and
difficult to connect sites mentioned in the histor- entrance. Both nave and transept were lined with
ical record with excavated remains.32 Neverthe- coupled columns. Poorly excavated, the elevation
less, a number of large extramural churches seem remains unclear. Additional constructions to the
to date from the early period, including those east include a second basilica and a baptistery,
identified as the Basilica Majorum and the Me- and the ensemble terminates in a memorial ro-
moria Cypriani (or St. Monica), both cemetery tunda preceded by a sigma portico—all perhaps
churches and both sites of Augustine’s preaching comprising a pilgrimage center. In all, through-
(Fig. 6.30). The first was a huge, nine-aisled build- out North Africa, architecture remains conserva-
ing, measuring 61 by 45 meters, with an apsed tive, with regular reference to Constantinian
chapel at its center, said to contain the relics of forms.
Perpetua. The second was seven aisled, was slightly At Tebessa (Theveste), a three-aisled basilica
smaller, and had a centrally positioned sanctuary, with galleries was built ca. 390, preceded by an
although the nave terminates in an apse and is atrium with a propylon and monumental stair-
preceded by an atrium. At Damous el-Karita,
outside Carthage, the huge, 65- by 45-meter,
nine-aisled basilica seems to have been a cemetery
basilica as well, oriented to the west, perhaps late 33
H. Dolenz and H. Baldus, Damous-el-Karita. Die österreichisch-
tunesischen Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1996 und 1997 im Saalbau und
der Memoria des Pilgerheiligtums Damous-el-Karita in Karthago
32
L. Ennabli, Carthage, une metropole chrétienne (Paris, 1997). (Vienna, 2001).

FIGURE 6.31
Carthage, Damous
el-Karita, cemetery
basilica and
pilgrimage
complex (after
H. Dolenz and
H. Baldus,
Damous-el-Karita,
2001)
FIGURE 6.32
Tebessa, pilgrimage
complex at
the shrine of
St. Crispina (after
J. Lassus, CorsiRav,
1970)
case at its entrance (Figs. 6.32 and 6.33).34 A tri- Colosseum in Rome. The side aisles were sepa-
conch martyr’s chapel to the south seems to have rated from the nave by parapets, and the bema
preceded the construction of the basilica by a few projected deep into the nave. By the sixth cen-
decades, probably that of the martyr Crispina, tury, the complex had become an enormous forti-
who was martyred ca. 304 and was popular across fied monastery with facilities for visiting pilgrims.
North Africa. Piers and columns were coupled as Many sites developed large ecclesial com-
the nave supports—a feature common in North plexes. At Djémila (Cuicul), an enormous Chris-
Africa, perhaps reflecting Roman precedents, tian quarter developed in the early fifth century,
with the piers supporting arches and the columns including two basilicas side by side, one of them
bearing entablatures, not unlike the façade of the five aisled with doubled supports in the nave and
a monumental, centrally planned baptistery.35 At
34
I. Gui, N. Duval, and J.-P. Caillet, eds., Basiliques chrétiennes
d’Afrique du Nord, vol. 1 (Paris, 1992). 35
J. Lassus, “La basilique africaine,” CorsiRav 17 (1970): 217–34.

FIGURE 6.33 Sbeitla (Sufetula), a similarly elaborate cathedral
Tebessa, pilgrimage complex developed over time (Fig. 6.34).36 Of
complex at the ecclesiastical structures, the easternmost, the
the shrine of
Church of Bellator is the oldest, probably dating
St. Crispina, view
from the late fourth century. Originally, it had a
across the nave
(Nathan Dennis)
single apse to the south, with the sanctuary set at
the center of the nave; the counter-apse was added
in a later phase and subsequently became the litur-
gical focus. To the west, a small apsed baptistery
(or Chapel of Jucundus) stood in a peristyle
court; it was covered over as the complex ex-
panded to the west. The five-aisled, double-apsed
Basilica of Vitalis was added at the end of the fifth
or beginning of the sixth century, with the new
baptistery to the south of the main, south apse
(see Fig. 3.10), as well as housing and amenities
for the clergy. The main altar stood toward the
center of the nave but was subsequently shifted
southward, as a second altar was incorporated into
the northern apse, where an important tomb lay.
Both basilicas utilized doubled columnar supports;
construction throughout is opus africanum.
36
N. Duval and F. Baratte, Les ruines de Sufetula: Sbeïtla (Tunis, 1973).
FIGURE 6.34
Sbeitla, cathedral
complex, plan and
reconstructed view
(after N. Duval
and F. Baratte,
Ruines de Sufetula,
1973)

FIGURE 6.35
Qalb Lozeh, church,
view from the
southeast (Frank
Kidner, Frank
Kidner Photographs
1983–1999,
Dumbarton Oaks,
Trustees for Harvard
University,
Washington, DC)
FIGURE 6.36
Qalb Lozeh, axonometric reconstruction (from
G. Tchalenko, Églises de village de la Syrie du nord,
1979–80)

FIGURE 6.37
Qalb Lozeh, interior,
looking east (Frank
Kidner, Frank Kidner
Photographs 1983–1999,
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees
for Harvard University,
Washington, DC)
Syria, Palestine, and Jordan. Cut stone con- bracketed columns. With the exception of the
struction dominates the architecture of Syria. The pier supports in the nave, these distinctive fea-
church at Qalb Lozeh, built ca. 450, is a charac- tures also characterize the pilgrimage church at
teristic example (Figs. 6.35–6.37). Three aisled, Qal’at Sem’an, built a few decades later. These
the nave is divided from the side aisles by low characteristic details are found at a variety of sites
piers supporting broad arches. Opened by portals in the Limestone Massif: Kharab Shams and
to the exterior, the aisles terminate in chambers, Mushabbak also preserve significant late fourth-
one of which connects to the bema, perhaps a and fifth-century basilicas, but (like Qal’at Sem’an)
diakonikon; the other does not and is perhaps a with columnar supports (see Fig. 5.8).38 Resafa
reliquary chamber.37 The narthex is flanked by also preserves several basilicas and will be dis-
towers, with their lower rooms accessible from cussed in Chapter 7.
the interior. The side aisles are covered by flat Developments in Palestine and Jordan are
slabs of stone; only the nave had a timber roof, its dominated by the increasing number of holy sites
span narrowed by brackets supporting colon- associated with biblical events. Many took on
nettes in the clerestory zone. Most distinctive in central plans, as at the octagonal martyrium at
the architecture is the carved stone decoration. the House of St. Peter, already noted, or the
String courses, molded with classical profiles, Kathisma Church near Jerusalem and its copy on
form a continuous band on the exterior, wrap- Mt. Gerizim (to be discussed in Chap. 8), but the
ping around windows and doors. Doors have basilica continues to be the standard plan. At
heavy frames with carved decoration, and the ar- Taghba on Lake Tiberias, a site associated with
cades of the interior are also heavily carved. The Christ’s Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes, a
exterior of the apse is enlivened by two ranges of basilica with a transept was constructed in the late
fifth century, with the transept focusing on the
bema, rather than having a martyrium function
37
G. Tchalenko, Églises de village de la Syrie du nord (Paris, 1979–
80); H. C. Butler, Early Churches in Syria, 4th to 7th Centuries (Am-
(Fig. 6.38).39 At Scythopolis (Bet She’an), the re-
sterdam, 1969), 71–73; E. Loosley, The Architecture and Liturgy of mains of a unique round church were excavated
the Bema in Fourth-to-Sixth-Century Syrian Churches (Leiden, 2012);
A. Michel, Les églises d’époque byzantine et umayyade de Jordanie
(provinces d’Arabie et de Palestine) Ve-VIIIe siècle: Typologie architec-
38
Tchalenko, Églises; Butler, Early Churches.
turale et aménagements liturgiques (avec catalogue des monuments) 39
J. W. Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine (London, 1937),
(Turnhout, 2001). 73–77.

FIGURE 6.38
Tabgha, Church of
the Multiplication of
Loaves, plan (after
J. W. Crowfoot,
Early Churches in
Palestine, 1937)
FIGURE 6.39
Bet She’an, Round Church, plan
(after G. M. Fitzgerald, Beth-Shan
Excavations, 1931)

FIGURE 6.40
(A) Hammath
Tiberias,
synagogue,
proposed
reconstruction;
(B) Beth Alpha,
synagogue, plan
(after M. Dothan,
Hammath Tiberias,
1983; and
E. L. Sukenik,
Ancient Synagogue,
1932)
on the citadel. Perhaps dedicated to St. John, it follows the models of the Aegean. By the end of
may be dated to the latter part of the fifth century the fifth century, the complex was expanded with
(Fig. 6.39).40 As at et-Taghba, the wall construc- a second basilica, dedicated to St. Theodore (ca.
tion was of rough ashlar. The central area measures 494–96), on an axis uphill to the east, with a
approximately 27 meters in diameter—certainly fountain court in between (see Figs. 7.19–7.21).
too broad a span for the columns to support. We Synagogue architecture. In Palestine in par-
should entertain the possibility that the central ticular, synagogues developed in tandem with
area was unroofed, forming a sort of memorial church architecture. Following the destruction of
precinct, similar to that at Salona. the Jerusalem Temple in 70 ce, worship among
At Gerasa (Jerash) the cathedral was built near the Jews saw the replacement of sacrifice with
the city center ca. 400 (or slightly earlier) on a prayer and communal worship in synagogues,
three-aisled plan, accessed from the cardo to the both within Palestine and beyond. In the Late
east, and thus was provided with an eastern Antique period, synagogues developed in tandem
atrium, with stairs and a gateway leading from with church architecture. Rather than an altar,
the street and porticoes flanking the basilica.41 however, the focus was a Torah shrine, oriented
Decorated with marbles and mosaics, its bema toward Jerusalem, containing the scrolls of the
first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The service
40
G. M. Fitzgerald, Beth-Shan Excavations 1921–23: the Arab and consisted of a series of blessings and prayers, with
Byzantine Levels (Philadelphia, 1931); Crowfoot, Early Churches, congregational responses, followed by instruc-
99–100; D. Nocera, “The Round Church at Beth Shean,” Expedi- tion, with readings from the Torah and a sermon.
tion 55, no. 1 (2013): 16–20. In the early synagogue, all were performed by
41
C. H. Kraeling, Gerasa, City of the Decapolis (New Haven, 1938); members of the congregation.
B. Brenk, Die Christianisierung der spätrömischen Welt (Wiesbaden, Like the early example at Dura Europos, syna-
2003), 10–24. gogues were assembly halls, commonly rectangular,

FIGURE 6.41
(A) Antinoopolis,
south basilica,
plan; (B) Kellis
(Dakhla Oasis),
Southeast Church,
plan (after
P. Grossmann,
Christliche
Architektur in
Ägypten, 2002)
often with a forecourt, although they could take by three doors, flanking two Torah shrines (see
on a variety of forms (see Fig. 1.4).42 The fourth- Fig. 4.14). With its entrances and its orientation
century synagogue at Hammath Tiberias, for ex- on the same wall, a worshipper would have to
ample, is a broadhouse, subdivided by aisles, turn completely around upon entering. The cen-
with an extra aisle on the east side. Entered from tral nave was flanked by side aisles and galleries.
the north, its nave is oriented toward Jerusalem Lavishly decorated with sculpture, the building
to the south (Fig. 6.40A). Lavish floor mosaics also included a courtyard to its east. When it was
include a wheel of the zodiac in the nave. Imme- discovered, the synagogue was dated to the second
diately in front of the Torah shrine (which is or third century ce, but archaeology now clearly
completely destroyed) was a mosaic representa- indicates a sixth-century date—perhaps replacing
tion of the Ark of the Covenant, flanked by mean earlier building on the same site.
norahs and other ritual objects—indicating the Sometimes the examples of synagogues from
synagogue as the symbolic replacement of the the fifth and sixth centuries follow the model of
Temple. contemporary churches. The plan at Beth Alpha
The sixth-century synagogue at Capernaum synagogue, for example, resembles that of a Byz-
presents another variation, its south wall opened antine church, its three-aisled basilican nave pre-
ceded by an atrium and narthex and terminating
42
L. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New in an apse, oriented toward Jerusalem, which
Haven, 2000); M. J. White, Building God’s House; J. Magness, The contained the Torah shrine (Fig. 6.40B). Its floor
Archaeology of the Holy Land from the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple mosaics also include a wheel of the zodiac and an
to the Muslim Conquest (Cambridge, 2012), esp. 286–319. image of the Tabernacle.

FIGURE 6.42
Sohag, Red
Monastery
Church, isometric
reconstruction of
the east end
(N. Warner.
Reproduced by
permission of the
American Research
Center in Egypt.
This project was
funded by the
U.S. Agency for
International
Development
[USAID])
Outside Israel, synagogues have been exca- architectural forms and ideas through Alexandria,
vated at a variety of sites. At Sardis and Ostia, for where they blended with local traditions. The de-
example, the synagogues took on radically differ- velopments at fifth- and sixth-century Abu Mena,
ent plans, both incorporated into existing struc- discussed in Chapter 4, indicate both the popu-
tures. The synagogue at Sardis is an elongated larity of pilgrimage and the far-reaching cultural
room (80 meters long) flanking the palestra in the connections maintained in Egypt through this
bath–gymnasium complex, modified toward the period. Indeed, it would be hard to discuss the va-
end of the third century ce to serve Jewish wor- riety of architecture at Abu Mena within a solely
ship and remodeled ca. 360–80. That at Ostia regional context.43 Within Lower Egypt, Early
seems to have been a private residence, trans- Christian monuments are preserved only along
formed in the first century ce although preserved the Mediterranean coast, but there are a number
in its fourth- to fifth-century form; its main hall of important sites in Upper Egypt, both along the
is approximately 15 by 12.5 meters, augmented by Nile and in the western oases. With its sizeable
a triclinium and a kitchen. For the synagogues of Christian population, some of the largest
the diaspora, their plans were determined more churches in the Eastern Mediterranean are pre-
by local customs than by established norms. served in Egypt.
Egypt. Alexandria was the major cultural
center of Late Antique Egypt. The city was of
prime importance as the site of the martyrium of
St. Mark and as a major center of culture and com-
43
P. Grossmann, Christliche Architektur in Ägypten (Leiden, 2002);
and P. Grossman, “Early Christian Architecture in Egypt and Its
merce connected to Rome and Constantinople.
Relationship to the Architecture of the Byzantine World,” in
Although virtually nothing is preserved in the Egypt in the Byzantine World 300–700, ed. R. Bagnall (Cambridge,
city itself, we can imagine the dissemination of 2007), 103–36.

FIGURE 6.43
Sohag, Red
Monastery
Church, interior
view, southwest
lobe of the
triconch
(A. Vescovo.
Reproduced by
permission of the
American Research
Center in Egypt.
This project was
funded by the
U.S. Agency for
International
Development
[USAID])
For church architecture, the basilica domi- the carefully constructed, three-aisled North Ba-
nates, usually with rooms flanking the eastern apse silica at Abu Mena, as well as in in monastic
and a western narthex, although the entrances are churches, as at the church of the White and Red
commonly on the lateral sides. Particularly in the Monasteries near Sohag.
Upper Egyptian examples, colonnades extend across A notable feature in the churches of both the
the nave, forming aisles at the western and eastern Red and the White Monasteries at Sohag is the
ends, with an effect of enclosure not unlike that trefoil sanctuary articulated with columnar
of a forum basilica; the eastern aisle was set aside screens and niches—in effect borrowing from the
for the clergy. Similar versions are found on both language of public architecture for the most pri-
large and small scales, as in the South Church at vate interior space of the church (Figs. 6.42 and
Antinoopolis (approximately 22 by 60 meters) or 6.43; and see Fig. 3.22).44 A similar if less articu-
the Southeast Church at Kellis in the Dakhla
Oasis (Fig. 6.41). This feature is more common in 44
D. Kinney, “The Type of the Triconch Basilica,” in The Red Mon-
Upper Egypt, while the western return aisle appears astery Church: Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt, ed. E. S. Bolman
in several churches along the Mediterranean, as at (New Haven, 2016), 37–48.

FIGURE 6.44
Hermopolis
Magna, Great
Basilica, plan (after
P. Grossmann,
Christliche
Architektur in
Ägypten, 2002)
lated triconch had appeared in the church in the apse, including a rectangular baptistery in the
Hathor Temple at Dendyra, and niches or columns northeast corner. One of the largest churches in
occasionally articulate the curvature in single- Egypt, the basilica is 65 meters long, with a nave
apsed churches elsewhere. The recently restored 14.5 meters wide. A similar colonnaded apsidal
painting of the Red Monastery triconch gives transept is found at Marea in northern Egypt.
some sense of the colorful interiors.45
Scale is also an important factor. In addition to *
its sophisticated plan with an aisled transept, the
Great Basilica at Abu Mena has a nave more than Although standardized church basilicas contin-
14 meters wide, making it the largest surviving ued to be constructed across the empire, by the
church in the region (see Figs. 4.11 and 4.12). Al- end of the fifth century, two important trends
though the aisled transept is an unusual feature, a had emerged in church architecture: the central-
variation of it is found at Hermopolis Magna (al- ized plan, into which a longitudinal axis was in-
Ashmunayn) (Fig. 6.44). The episcopal church, troduced, and the longitudinal plan, into which a
probably from the early fifth century, was built on centralizing element was introduced. The first type
the remains of a third-century bce royal cult may be represented by the Church of the Theotokos
building, delimited by its surviving enclosure on Mt. Gerizim, ca. 484, which has a developed
walls. With a monumental entrance, its grand sanctuary bay projecting beyond an aisled octa-
atrium was subdivided by porticoes. The church gon with radiating chapels; the second may be
proper is a three-aisled basilica with reused gran- represented by the so-called Domed Basilica at
ite colonnades surrounding the nave, extending Mereyemlik, ca. 471–94, which superimposed a
across the western wall and into the transept arms, dome on a standard basilican nave. Both may be
which are exedral in form. Several rooms flank the attributed to the patronage of the emperor Zeno
(r. 474–91). Both trends are further developed
45
E. S. Bolman, ed., The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and Asceti- during the reign of Justinian, which we shall
cism in Upper Egypt (New Haven, 2016). return to in subsequent chapters.

CHAPTER SEVEN
SECULAR ARCHITECTURE
Cities, Houses, and Fortifications
T he two centuries following Constantine

witnessed both continuity and change in the
urban landscape, as well as in secular architecture
height, the result of urban expansion after
Constantine, who had established the basic armature
of streets and public spaces, put his personal stamp
more generally. The expansion of Constantinople on the city, and situated it within the millennial
with palaces, fora, harbors, aqueducts, cisterns, and narrative of Roman history (Fig. 7.1). It remained
an impressive system of fortifications represents for his successors to fill in the map, most notably
Byzantine urbanism par excellence. At the same adding the urban necessities. But it seems to have
time, many long-established cities, such as Ephesus, filled out quickly through the first century, ex-
reflect urban continuity from classical times. The panding outward with a new line of walls added by
empire remained predominantly urban through the Theodosius II in 412–13, 1.5 kilometers west of
sixth century, although changes were made in urban Constantine’s walls (see Fig. 2.3).1 An inventory
centers to give prominence to Christian structures. of ca. 425, known as the Notitia urbis Constantino-
Justinian’s new foundations give some sense of both politanae, itemizes the urban features: within the
the endurance and the demise of Late Antique city’s fourteen regions, there were 5 imperial palaces,
urban planning principles. Many cities were 14 churches, 8 public baths, 3 basilicas, 4 forums, 2
provided with a new set of fortifications. As will theaters, 4 harbors, 4 cisterns, 322 streets, 4,388
be discussed in Chapter 10, Justinian (and we can domus, 52 colonnades, and 153 private baths.2 The
assume other builder-emperors) was concerned paucity of church construction is noteworthy, but
not just with church construction, but also with we must recall that the city was founded to be a po-
providing for the stability of the empire and the litical center and became a religious center only
continuation of civic life. gradually.
* 1
Mango, Développement; Dagron, Naissance; Dagron, Constantinople
imaginaire; P. Magdalino, Constantinople médiévale: Études sur
Constantinople. By the late fifth century, l’évolution des structures urbaines (Paris, 1996); Bassett, Urban Image.
Constantinople seems to have achieved its peak 2
J. Matthews, “The Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae,” in Two
population of approximately four hundred Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, eds. L. Grig and
thousand—less than half the size of Rome at its G. Kelly (Oxford, 2012), 81–115.
Constantinople, hypothetical aerial view of the early city (Tayfun Öner)
137
FIGURE 7.1
Constantinople,
hypothetical aerial
view of the early
city (Tayfun Öner)
What remains of Byzantine Constantinople modern streets.3 As the Mese extended outward,
today is primarily medieval and will be discussed it was crossed by the Makros Embolos, or Portico
in a later chapter; the Late Antique city is known of Domninos, which seems to correspond to the
primarily from texts, judiciously combined with current Uzun Çarşı (in the area of the Grand
limited archaeological data. Some basic elements Bazaar). It intersected the Mese at a quadrifrons
remain elusive: for example, what did its resi- (four-faced) arch in a neighborhood known as the
dences look like? The Notitia records 4,388 Artopolia, the Breadmakers’ Quarter, west of the
domus—a term that usually means houses, but Forum of Constantine, leading down to the
here more likely refers to apartment blocks, what Harbor of Julian on the south side and the
in Rome were called insulae. Yet none of these Golden Horn on the north. Major streets were
survives. And what did the street system look paved and equipped with underground sewers;
like? Was it a Roman grid, with a cardo and de- they maintained a minimum width of 12 feet and
cumanus, or was it adjusted to the topography, a clearance of 15 feet beneath balconies and other
like a Hellenistic city? Most likely it was a combi- overhangs. As the Notitia, indicates, 52 of them
nation of both. With limited archaeological in- had colonnades—a feature more common to
formation of the Mese and a few minor streets, Eastern Mediterranean cities than to Rome itself.
one can draw some suggestions from the vagaries Minor streets in residential neighborhoods may
of topography, the orientation of churches (which have been less regular and less maintained.
tend to follow the street system rather than a true
east–west axis), cisterns, and terrace walls, as well
as the positioning of gates, openings in the aque- 3
A. Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople,” DOP
duct bridge, and even the alignment of a few 54 (2000): 167–68.

Following the model of Constantine, other FIGURE 7.2
emperors added forums to the city. In addition to Constantinople,

Constantine’s round forum and the old plazas Forum of
Theodosius I,
known as the Augustaion and Strategion, several
triumphal arch,
new public spaces were added. Most important
reconstruction
was the Forum of Theodosius I, also called Forum (after
Tauri, which was added to the Mese in 393.4 It R. Naumann, in
was framed by arches where it joined the Mese, W. Müller-Wiener,
with a basilica and a historiated column to its Bildlexikon, 1977)
north. The Forum Tauri was probably modeled
after Rome’s Forum of Trajan, to whom Theodosius
was distantly related, although on a considerably
smaller scale. Now in ruins, fragments of the his-
toriated column survive, illustrating the military FIGURE 7.3
exploits of the emperor. The unusual column Constantinople,

shafts of the arches were detailed with oak whorls, Forum of
encircled by giant hands at their top—apparently Theodosius I,
an allusion to the club of Herakles, to symbolize fragment of oak-
whorl column with
the strength of Theodosius (Figs. 7.2 and 7.3).
giant hand
Emperor Arcadius added a similar forum in the
(author)
Xerolophos district, on the southern branch of
the Mese, from which the mutilated base of its
historiated column survives (Fig. 7.4).5 The lim-
ited archaeological evidence and topographical
situations of the imperial forums indicate they
were considerably smaller than their Roman
counterparts. Moreover, they were intersected
by the main street, while those in Rome were
bypassed. FIGURE 7.4
In addition to ceremonial public spaces, the city Constantinople,

needed a ceremonial entry. Constantine’s wall had a Column of
Golden Gate, somewhere in the vicinity of İsa Kapı Arcadius, remains
of historiated shaft
Mescidi, but as the city extended outward, a new
(author)
entry was necessary. The present Golden Gate is
aligned with the Land Walls of Theodosius II, but
very different in character.6 Encased in marble, a
monumental triple arch between two projecting
towers, it combines features of a triumphal arch and
a city gate (Figs. 7.5 and 7.6). Scholars are divided
on its date: it was constructed either at the same
time as the Land Walls or slightly earlier. One sug-
gestion is that it was a freestanding monument of Theodosius I, honoring his defeat of Magnus
Maximus in 388.7 While the inscription must be to
a Theodosius (according to the dowel holes that
4
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 248–70; F. A. Bauer, Stadt, Platz und once bore bronze letters framing the central arch), it
Denkmal in der Spätantike (Mainz, 1996), 187–211. is unclear which one. It is also unclear how the
5
J. Kelly, “The Column of Arcadius: Reflections of a Roman Golden Gate connected to the Mese. If the Mese
Narrative Tradition,” in Byzantine Narrative: Papers in Honour of
Roger Scott, ed. J. Burke (Melbourne, 2006), 259–65. 7
J. Bardill, “The Golden Gate in Constantinople: A Triumphal
6
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 297–300. Arch of Theodosius I,” AJA 103 (1999): 671–96.
CHAPTER SEVEN: SECULAR ARCHITECTURE 139

FIGURE 7.5
Constantinople,
Golden Gate
(author)
FIGURE 7.6 continued on a straight line, it would have inter-

Constantinople, sected the Land Wall at the Belgrade Gate (the
reconstruction of Second Military Gate), so there must have been a
the Land Walls at
street to connect to the Mese. Imperial processions
the Golden Gate
entering the city through the Golden Gate mention
(S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in the
the public space known as the Sigma (a plaza prob-
Balkans, 2010) ably framed by a C-shaped portico) as the first
station stop, apparently still outside the walls of
Constantine, so this may be where the routes
connected.
At the opposite end of the Mese, other ceremo-
nial settings were enhanced. New monuments were
added to the Hippodrome, including an Egyptian
obelisk, erected by Theodosius, with a marble base
decorated with reliefs that illustrate the various cer-
emonies and entertainments that occurred there
(Fig. 7.7).8 The Great Palace, at least partially dam-
aged in the Nika Riots, received a monumental
8
B. Pitarakis, ed., Hippodrome/Atmeydanı: A Stage for Istanbul’s
History, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 2010).

FIGURE 7.7
Constantinople,
Hippodrome,
Obelisk of
Theodosius I, view
of base (author)
entryway, the Chalke (Bronze) Gate, a domed ves- rapidly filling. Nevertheless, it is not exactly clear
tibule decorated with mosaics.9 Behind this lay the what motivated the dramatic expansion under
imperial residence, a series of buildings and pavil- Theodosius II. Was the enlargement necessary for
ions in a park-like setting; it formed a precinct of its the expanding population? The area between the wall
own, separated from the city by the Hippodrome of Constantine (which has disappeared completely)
(see Fig. 7.1). and that of Theodosius II remained relatively
By the fifth century, the city had expanded rural, and in fact tombs were allowed here—the
from an estimated population of twenty thousand pomerium, or city limit, was still defined by the
before the arrival of Constantine to twenty times Constantinian wall. The best suggestion is that the
that, and there are increasing indications of urban expansion was to protect the city’s water system
problems. Most critical was the need to supply the for a growing and thirsty population, as well as a
growing population with food and water. protected agricultural area. Notably, the area be-
Although it was strategic in its location, the city tween the walls contained three large open-air cis-
did not have a good natural source of water, nor terns, which could hold more than 900,000 cubic
did it have an extensive hinterland to provision meters of water; within the city were more than
it—the Lykos River, which emptied into the eighty covered cisterns.10
Theodosian Harbor, was little more than a trickle. An aqueduct had been constructed by Hadrian
Moreover, the area inside Constantine’s walls was in the second century, but at a low level, follow-
9
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 229–31; for the excavation, see İ. 10
C. Mango, “The Water Supply of Constantinople,” in
Karamut et al., Gün Işığında: İstanbul’un 8000 yılı: Marmaray, Constantinople and Its Hinterland, eds. C. Mango and G. Dagron
Metro, Sultanahmet kazıları (Istanbul, 2007), 134–37. (Aldershot, 1995), 9–18.

FIGURE 7.8
Constantinople,
Aqueduct of
Valens, looking
north (author)
ing the Golden Horn.11 This would have been ad- into numerous cisterns and fountains, such as the
equate for old Byzantion, as well as for the Great Nymphaea Valens at the Forum of Theodosius.
Palace, the Basilica Cistern, and the Baths of The cisterns were probably connected by a net-
Zeuxippos, but as Constantine’s city expanded work of canals leading from the aqueduct.
westward, new areas of development, including The open-air cisterns within the walls are in
areas of elite estates, lay at a higher level. For this relatively poor condition, with many used as
reason, a new line was introduced, probably by sunken gardens, taking advantage of the allu-
Valens, in 363, at a level more than 20 meters vium. The fifth-century Fildamı Cistern in the
higher than the old system, drawing water from suburb of Hebdomon (Bakırköy) is the best pre-
springs far to the west of the city (Fig. 7.8). served, although it is unclear how it connected to
Expanded and extended over the next century, it the aqueduct system (Fig. 7.10). Measuring 127
became the ancient world’s longest water system, by 75 meters, it could contain 95,250 cubic
extending an estimated total of 592 kilometers meters of water. Constructed of alternating bands
and drawing from numerous springs in the hills of brick and stone, its walls were buttressed
of Thrace (Fig. 7.9). Much of the system ran un- against the slope on one side—necessary when
derground or in canals following the natural in- the cistern was empty—and against the pressure
cline of the landscape, with aqueduct bridges of the water on the other—necessary when full.
constructed only where absolutely necessary. Stairways allowed access on the shorter sides.
Several survive in the forests of Thrace, but the Within the city, the Philoxenos Cistern, just west
2-kilometer stretch of the so-called Aqueduct of of the Hippodrome, of the fifth or early sixth cen-
Valens may be its most visible component. tury, offers a good example of a covered cistern.
Gregory of Nazianzus called it “a subterranean Known in Turkish as the Binbirderek Sarnıcı, or
and aerial river.”12 Within the city, it debouched the “Cistern of 1001 Columns,” it actually has
only 224 columns (Figs. 7.11 and 7.12). It is
J. Crow, J. Bardill, and R. Bayliss, The Water Supply of Byzantine
11 equipped with bases and capitals, all of which are
Constantinople (London, 2008). spoliated, and the shafts are doubled in height, to
12
Or. 33.6, PG 36.221C. cover a deep area of 64 by 56 meters, capable of

FIGURE 7.9
Topographical map
of eastern Thrace,
showing the lines
of the Anastasian
Long Wall and the
long-distance
aqueduct systems
(J. Crow et al.,
Water Supply of
Byzantine
Constantinople,
2008)
FIGURE 7.10
Bakırköy, Fildamı
Cistern, general
view, looking
north (author)

FIGURE 7.11 holding 3,584 cubic meters of water. Forming a
Constantinople, modular system on the interior, the columns sup-
Philoxenos Cistern port domical groin vaults. Like the nearby Basilica
(Binbirderek),
Cistern, it did double duty as the substructure to
interior view
one of the grand buildings of the city.13
(author)
Related to the water system, baths and bathing
were part of Late Antique culture, not simply for
hygiene, but also for their social and entertain-
ment aspects. Of the nine mentioned in the
Notitia, the Baths of Zeuxippos represent the
only large bath known from archaeological re-
mains, located on the Augustaion square.14 These
included parts of a domed room and the exedra of
a courtyard, as well as a spiral staircase and a few
vaulted chambers, all sixth-century masonry, a
Justinianic rebuilding of an older bath complex.
While the plan remains incompletely known and
may have been irregular overall, the excavated fea-
tures compare to those of the great imperial baths
of Rome, although on a considerably smaller
scale. Of the 153 private baths noted in the
Notitia, a few examples are known in part: one
excavated by the Kalenderhane Camii from the
fourth or fifth century seems to have been part of
a private estate; another has been excavated on
the grounds of Topkapı Palace. We shall return to
domestic architecture shortly.
FIGURE 7.12 The development of harbors and harbor facili-
Constantinople, ties was also linked to the growth of Constantinople.
Philoxenos Cistern
Constantine does not appear to have increased
(Binbirderek),
portage, but as the population grew, the harbors
reconstructed view
(K. Wulzinger, BZ,
became increasingly necessary for the importa-
1913) tion of grain from as far away as Egypt. The
Prosphorion and Neorion harbors continued
from the old city; they lay inside the walls, at the
entrance to the Golden Horn, but they quickly
proved inadequate. Julian added a harbor in 362
on the Sea of Marmara side. Most important,
however, was the Eleutherios Harbor (Langa
Bostan), added ca. 390 by Theodosius I at the
mouth of the Lykos. With a width of approxi-
mately 700 meters, it was largest of all the urban
harbors. Two granaries are mentioned in associa-
tion with it: the Horrea Alexandrina and Horreum
Theodosianum. Excavations at the site since 2005
13
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 271–85; Crow et al., Water Supply,
125–55.
14
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 48–51.

have uncovered the remains of more than thirty- by the Church of St. Mokios—this was an extra-
five shipwrecks from the harbor floor, dating mural cemetery basilica, following the Roman
from the seventh through the tenth centuries.15 At model. Several hypogea have been excavated im-
the height of its population, the city needed an mediately outside the walls, and there is evidence
estimated 4 kilometers of port frontage for the de- for burials between two lines of the Theodosian
livery and offloading of grain shipments.16 Walls as well. The Theodosian code assigns land
In addition to enhancing the ceremonial as- around walls to its former owners, who were re-
pects and the urban amenities of Constantinople, sponsible for upkeep—are these their tombs?
the period after Constantine sees the city gradu- Byzantine fortifications will be discussed else-
ally taking on a more pronounced Christian char- where, but it is important to include Constantinople’s
acter, with the Theotokos becoming prominent Land Walls as part of our urban analysis, for they
among holy figures associated with the city.17 Her form a significant component of the city’s iden-
importance had already been signaled by the tity, just as their history of repairs and rebuildings
Council of Ephesus in 431, and for Constantinople (recorded in inscriptions) parallels the fate of the
her special importance reached a climax by 626, city they protected (Figs. 7.13 and 7.14).19 The
when she is credited with turning back the Avar Land Walls represent a major engineering feat un-
siege of the city. By the sixth century at the latest, rivaled for centuries—and not breached until
she was regarded as the patron and protectress of there were significant changes in military tech-
the city, her presence recognized in the fifth cen- nology with the acquisition of gunpowder (first
tury with the arrival of relics—her robe, kept at developed in ninth-century China). The Land
the Blachernae Church near the Land Walls, and Walls extend 5.7 kilometers between the Sea of
her girdle, kept at the Chalkoprateia Church, just Marmara and the Golden Horn, and the curtain
opposite Hagia Sophia. She is celebrated in hymns, wall is lined with ninety-six towers. The system
ceremonies, and civic processions; her presence is had two parallel lines of walls, with a total width
represented in physical form by relics and icons. of approximately 27–55 meters. The inner wall
As with the relics of the apostles at the Holy (mega teichos) was 4.8 meters thick and 11 meters
Apostles, the Marian relics represent an imported high. Its towers were spaced 70–75 meters apart,
sanctity that became part of the spiritual life and alternating rectangular and octagonal. The outer
identity of the city. wall (proteichisma, exo teichos) lay 14.5 meters far-
Related to the spiritual life of the city are its ther out and was 8 meters high, with an arcaded
cemeteries. Roman rule limited burials to outside inner surface and raised ground level; its towers
the walls of a city; pre-Constantinian burials have were staggered between those of the inner wall.
been found near the Forum of Constantine and The upper levels of the towers had arrow slits
the Beyazit district. For the Early Christian period, facing outward, so that archers had a clear shot at
the highest density of burials was outside the walls attackers—there was, in effect, nowhere to hide,
of Constantine but within the Theodosian walls.18 nowhere near the walls out of range of the ar-
A variety of hypogea and combined burials have chers. A moat added a third line of defense, al-
been found in salvage excavations. A cemetery lay though this may have been slightly later in date.
With the difference in wall heights, the city could
Karamut et al., Gün Işığında; Z. Kızıltan, ed., Stories from the
15
be defended from both walls simultaneously, and
Hidden Harbor: Shipwrecks of Yenikapı (Istanbul, 2013). if the attackers were able to breach the outer wall,
16
Mango, Développement. they would have found themselves in a con-
17
M. Vassilaki, ed., Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the stricted passage, between the two lines of fire.
Theotokos in Byzantium (Aldershot, 2005). Needless to say, the system was effective.
18
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 219–22; M. Tunay, “Byzantine
Archaeological Findings in Istanbul during the Last Decade,” in 19
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 286–96; B. C. P. Tsangadas, The
Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, Fortifications and Defense of Constantinople (New York, 1980);
ed. N. Necipoğlu (Leiden, 2001), 217–31; J. Deckers and Ü. N. Asutay-Effenberger, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel-Istanbul:
Serdaroğlu, “Das Hypogäum bein Silivri-Kapı in Istanbul,” JbAC historisch-topographische und baugeschichtliche Untersuchungen
36 (1993): 140–63. (Berlin, 2007).

FIGURE 7.13
Constantinople,
Land Walls of
Theodosius II,
partially restored,
with garden plots
in the moat
(author)
FIGURE 7.14
Constantinople,
Land Walls of
Theodosius II,
section through
walls (S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
The construction was of alternating courses building after the earthquake of 740, identified
of brick and stone, typical of Constantinople, by brick inscriptions on the towers. The inner
and this system was continued in most of the towers were multistoried and independent, not
repairs and reconstructions, so it is often diffi- connected to a curtain wall; they could thus
cult to distinguish the reconstructions from the function as separate fortresses. The city was en-
original—as, for example, in the substantial re- tered through seven large gates, each fortified

with towers, as well as four smaller gates or The triumph of the church also instituted a
posterns. The walls along the Golden Horn and new administrative bureaucracy across the
Sea of Marmara were constructed subsequently, empire that paralleled the existing administra-
ordered by Theodosius II in 439, both single tive structure, and with the gradual decline of
lines of defense, perhaps following older central authority, the role of the church in-
foundations. creased, with the bishop emerging as the most
A final element of the defensive system is less important civic leader. Thus, as churches re-
well known. The Long Walls were added in the placed temples as the signature monuments of a
late fifth century by Anastasius, 65 kilometers community, they also replaced its older adminis-
west of the city (see Fig. 7.9).20 A low wall, 45 trative buildings. Theaters and other settings for
kilometers long and lined with towers, stretched public spectacle also gradually fell out of use, as
between the Marmara and Black Seas, forming an the church gradually replaced older sites of
outer line of defense for the city. It also protected public entertainment. The visible, symbolic
significant elements of the city’s water system, transformation of the city reflected a fundamen-
which extended almost 100 kilometers into the tal shift in urban organization, as the following
hills of Thrace. examples illustrate.
Ephesus. Famed in antiquity for the Temple of
* Artemis, Ephesus became the Roman capital of
Asia in 29 bce and prospered into the third cen-
Continuity and transformation. With the offi- tury ce.22 Much of the city follows a grid oriented
cial acceptance of Christianity across the empire, to the harbor, with the exception of the so-called
and particularly after the edicts of Theodosius, we Embolos, which follows the slope of the
find a growing desire to establish a visible Christian Panayirdağ (Figs. 7.17 and 7.18). In 262 ce the
presence at urban centers at the expense of older city was hit by a violent earthquake that damaged
religious institutions. At Jerusalem, Constantine’s or destroyed much of the infrastructure, exacer-
new church complex stood in visual opposition bated by an invasion by the Goths, who burned
to the empty and abandoned Temple on the es- the Temple of Artemis. Additional earthquakes
planade opposite it. Similarly, in Athens, the followed in the fourth century, with damage so
temples on the Acropolis stood abandoned, as an severe as to necessitate imperial intervention. The
elegant new tetraconch cathedral rose in the city scale of the reconstruction is indicative of the
below (Fig. 7.15; and see Fig. 5.3C). The visual city’s importance and the wherewithal of the im-
juxtaposition of old (pagan) and new (Christian) perial purse. For Christians, the city was associ-
religious establishments would have found a ated with John the Evangelist (also known as
particular resonance with the Late Antique John the Theologian), whose tomb was on a
viewer, both in these examples and elsewhere. All nearby hill, now known as Ayasoluk (a corrup-
the same, it was rare for temple buildings, or even tion of Hagios Theologos), marked by a tetrapy-
the sites of former temples, to be reused as lon by ca. 300 ce and expanded into a cruciform
churches before the sixth century—there is no church, a popular pilgrimage destination, in the
evidence for conversion of the Parthenon before early fifth century. The Seven Sleepers, martyrs
the late sixth century, for example—and unlike under Decius (r. 249–51 ce), were commemorated
spoliation, reuse of temples often came as a matter at a cave on the Panayirdağ, which developed into
of economy rather than as a triumphal statement a martyrium and cemetery. Legend also associ-
(Fig. 7.16).21 ated the Virgin Mary with the city: the cathedral,
Parthenon from Antiquity to the Present, ed. J. Neils (Cambridge,

20
J. Crow. “The Long Walls of Thrace,” in Constantinople and Its 2005), 292–325.
Hinterland, eds. C. Mango and G. Dagron (Aldershot, 1995), 22
S. Ladstätter, “Ephesus,” in The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia,
118–24. ed. P. Niewöhner (Oxford, 2017), 238–40; C. Foss, Ephesus after
21
R. G. Ousterhout, “‘Bestride the Very Peak of Heaven’: The Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City (Cambridge,
Parthenon in the Byzantine and Ottoman Periods,” in The 1979).

FIGURE 7.15
Athens, plan
showing the area
enclosed by the
Late Antique wall
(shaded); the
cathedral in the
Library of Hadrian
is at the top of the
shaded area; the
Acropolis with
the Parthenon is at
the bottom (after
J. Travlos,
Bildlexikon, 1971)
dedicated to her, was built into the southern stoa recognized the Virgin as Theotokos, or God-
of the Olympieion, whose temple had been lev- bearer.
eled ca. 400 ce (see Fig. 6.14). The church was the Gerasa. Gerasa (Jerash in Jordan) offers a
site of the famed 431 ce Ecumenical Council that good example of a Late Antique city in which we

FIGURE 7.16
Athens, plan of the
Parthenon
converted to a
church (redrawn
after J. Travlos,
Bildlexikon, 1971,
and M. Korres, in
Tournikiotis,
Parthenon, 1994)
can chart the transformation with the arrival and Miracle at Cana was miraculously reenacted at
growing presence of Christianity (Figs. 7.19– “the fountain in Gerasa in the martyrium.”24 If
7.21).23 With a population of approximately ten this refers to a fountain in the atrium, then per-
thousand to fifteen thousand at its height in the haps an older church stood on the same site. All
second century ce, the city was laid out on a grid the same, turning water into wine seems an ap-
oriented roughly north–south, with the entrance propriate miracle at a site formerly associated
at the south through an off-axis oval forum. The with Dionysius.
cardo extends northward crossed by two major In spite of the razing of the Temple of
decumani, marked by tetrapylons at the intersec- Dionysius, the side-by-side situation of the cathe-
tions. At the city center, to the west of the cardo, dral and Artemis temple seems extraordinary,
stairs led up through a monumental propylon to both commanding presences at the urban core.
the huge esplanade of the Temple of Artemis, one Could the two have functioned simultaneously?
of the major Roman temples of the Near East, As tempting as this suggestion is, archaeology in-
impressive in its scale and architectural sophisti- dicates the Artemis temple may never have been
cation. To the south and parallel to it was a completed; its temenos had been put to industrial
smaller Temple of Dionysius, similarly accessed use, taken over by pottery kilns and metalwork-
by a monumental propylon and stairway. By the ing, before the cathedral was begun. There also
early fifth century, however, the Temple of appears to be a time lag between the destruction
Dionysius had been razed and replaced by the ca- of the Dionysius temple and the cathedral con-
thedral, a three-aisled basilica, set on the same struction, although spolia from both temples
axis and parallel to the temenos (holy precinct) of found their way into the cathedral.
Artemis next door. Accessed from the east through The cathedral complex expanded westward,
the existing propylon and stairway, the visitor with the Church of St. Theodore added on the
first confronted the apse of the church, although same axis in the late fifth century. Although aban-
porticoes flanking the building allowed the visitor doned, the memory of the temples lingered on:
to circumambulate it to reach the western atrium. an inscription of ca. 495 condemns the “stomach-
Epiphanius of Salamis reported ca. 375 that the churning stench” presumably from the temple
23
Kraeling, Gerasa; B. Brenk, Die Christianisierung, 10–24. 24
Panarion, 51.30.1.

FIGURE 7.17
Ephesus, view
down the
Embolos, looking
toward the Library
of Celsus and the
harbor (author)

FIGURE 7.18
Ephesus, plan of
the early Byzantine
city (©Austrian
Archaeological
Institute)
sacrifices, but this may be no more than a late, church authority, and the water channels were
rhetorical gesture.25 Another church, the so-called adjusted to lead to the cathedral complex, which,
Propylaia Church, was built into the pre-existing in addition to water storage and distribution, con-
structures immediately opposite the entrance to nected to several industrial installations, including
the temple. Evidence of at least ten other churches a water-powered sawmill. On the cardo, water was
from before the seventh century survives around diverted to the Propylaia Church, which has been
the city. identified as the treasury for tax collection during
The visual transformation of the urban land- Byzantine times. Although the water system con-
scape is paralleled by changes in the administra- tinued to function, it was clearly in limited quan-
tion, reflected most dramatically in the control of tity: aqueduct lines were narrowed; fountains and
its water system—a prime concern in the arid en- bathing establishments show evidence of contrac-
vironment of Gerasa.26 Water entering the city tion; abandoned buildings were retrofitted as cis-
through its aqueduct system seems to have been terns for water storage. Here we may note a shift
controlled and distributed from the area of the from a concern for water as an element of display
Temple of Artemis, whose precinct included cis- and enjoyment (with sewers for drainage) to a
terns for its storage. Control gradually shifted to more practical concern for utility and storage—all
part of the reconfiguring of the city both adminis-
25
C. B. Welles, “Inscriptions,” in Gerasa: City of the Decapolis, ed. tratively and socially.
C. H. Kraeling (New Haven, 1938), no. 299: 477–78. Thessalonike. The major city in northern
J. Pickett, “Water after Antiquity: The Afterlives of Roman
26 Greece, Thessalonike witnessed several periods of
Water Infrastructure in the Eastern Mediterranean (300–800 transformation in Late Antiquity, during which
ad),” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2015), 45–96. many of its most important monuments were

FIGURE 7.19
Gerasa (Jerash),
plan of the city
with a detail of the
Cathedral complex
(author, redrawn
after
C. H. Kraeling,
Gerasa, 1938;
B. Brenk,
Christianisierung,
2003)

constructed (Fig. 7.22).27 Situated on a gulf of the FIGURE 7.20
Aegean and passed by the Via Egnatia, the major Gerasa, propylon
Roman east–west route, it was well connected by to the cathedral
complex (author)
land and sea, and through the Axios/Vardar River
valley it connected northward into the Balkans.
The city seems to have followed an orthogonal
grid, adjusted to the sloping topography, with a
second cardo to the north. The main decumanus
was called the Mese, the main colonnaded street
of the Roman city, and its remains were excavated
directly beneath its modern-day successor, with
marble paving, its porticoes flanked by shops
(Fig. 7.23). The agora lay toward the city center,
slightly north of the Mese, where the ground level
rises noticeably. The complex was surrounded by
two-storied porticoes, two baths, and a small the-
ater. A second agora lay at a lower level to the east.
By the late third century the city was fortified; the
present walls, from the late fourth and fifth cen-
turies, follow the same line. The archaic Temple
of Dionysius lay to the west of the agora, and a
temple identified as a Serapeum lay further to the
west, both known only from limited excavation.
Under the Tetrarchy, Thessalonike became an
imperial residence for Galerius (r. 282–311), who
added an imperial residence flanked by a hippo-
drome along its eastern wall—a relationship uted to Constantine, who spent the years 318–24
noted in Constantinople and found in other in the Balkans and resided in the city in 322–23.
Tetrarchic residences as well.28 A triumphal arch Constantine may have also completed some of
was built to its north, to commemorate Galerius’s the palatial structures left unfinished at the death
296 victory over the Persians. An elaborated, of Galerius (Fig. 7.24).29
domed tetrapylon, it joined the colonnades of the In short, by the end of the third century,
Via Egnatia, while a transverse colonnade ex- Thessalonike had all the trappings of a Roman
tended the palace axis to the north to join to a city and could boast an imperial presence. As at
monumental rotunda, usually identified as an im- Gerasa, the gradual Christianization of the city
perial mausoleum and typically attributed to did not alter the Roman matrix but developed
Galerius. The mausoleum has also been attrib- within the established framework. In spite of the
preaching of St. Paul in the mid-first century
27
A. Tourta, “Thessalonike,” in Heaven & Earth: Cities and and the martyrdom of St. Demetrius (who
Countryside in Byzantine Greece, eds. J. Albani and E. Chalkia became the patron and protector of the city) in
(Athens, 2013), 75–93; Bauer, Eine Stadt und Ihr Patron; Ch. 306, Christianization was a slow process, and
Bakirtzis, “Late Antiquity and Christianity in Thessalonikē: the marking of its presence architecturally was
Aspects of a Transformation,” in From Roman to Early Christian also gradual (see Chaps. 4 and 6). Certainly, by
Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and Archaeology, eds. L. Nasrallah, the fifth century, we find the deliberate place-
Ch. Bakirtzis, and S. J. Friesen (Cambridge, 2010), 397–426. ment of churches as visible civic markers, with
28
A. Mentzos, “Reflections on the Architectural History of the
Tetrarchic Palace Complex at Thessalonikē,” in From Roman to
Early Christian Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and Archaeology, eds. 29
S. Ćurčić, Some Observations and Questions Regarding Early
L. Nasrallah, Ch. Bakirtzis, and S. J. Friesen (Cambridge, 2010), Christian Architecture in Thessaloniki (Thessalonike, 2000); Ćurčić,
333–60. Architecture in the Balkans, 53–54.

FIGURE 7.21
Gerasa, view of the
fountain court,
looking east
(author)
the church controlling major urban real estate, was constructed below the lower agora to func-
so that without a major reconfiguration, the city tion as the cathedral.
had been provided with a new identity.30 A major construction campaign probably did
Unfortunately, none of the significant buildings not significantly affect the center of the city until
is securely dated. after 441–42, however, when the city witnessed
Some construction may have already occurred an elevation in its status, replacing Sirmium (fur-
in the later fourth or early fifth century, perhaps ther to the north and threatened by the Huns) as
while Theodosius I was in residence. The rotunda the seat of the prefecture of Illyricum. A new resi-
was converted into a church and adorned with dence east of the agora may have been the palace
mosaics, although the dates and circumstances of of the prefect. The major undertaking after this
both remain hotly contested; rooms of the impe- time was the construction of the great basilica
rial residence may have been converted for dedicated to Demetrius, just above the agora, re-
Christian use as well. A huge octagonal church placing the bath where Demetrius and Nestor
was built near the west gate, identified by its exca- were martyred. It is tempting to suggest that the
vators tentatively as the Martyrium of Nestor, relics of Demetrius were translated from Sirmium
companion to Demetrius. Cemetery basilicas at that time—both cities held claims on the
arose outside the east and west gates, associated saint—but there is no evidence of this, and the
with privileged burials—either of local martyrs or vagueness in the references to his presence and
of dignitaries. By the late fourth century, a basilica even the location of his tomb would argue against
it (see Chap. 4). The great basilica seems to have
been a martyrium without a martyr. Still, significant
30
S. Ćurčić, “Christianization of Thessalonikē: The Making of elements of the bath were incorporated into the
Christian ‘Urban Topography,’” in From Roman to Early Christian church, most notably the crypt beneath the tran-
Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and Archaeology, eds. L. Nasrallah, sept, which may have been the site of martyrdom.
Ch. Bakirtzis, and S. J. Friesen (Cambridge, 2010), 213–44. The large Acheiropoietos Basilica was constructed

FIGURE 7.22
Thessalonike, plan
of the early
Byzantine city
(author, redrawn
after ninth EBS)
at more or less the same time, perhaps over the appeared decidedly Christian in character, with
remains of a public bath related to the lower great basilicas at its core, great Christian rotundas
agora (see Figs. 6.6–6.8). The cathedral was re- marking its east and west entrances, and cemetery
built in the same period—a huge five-aisled ba- basilicas outside its walls. Despite the challenges
silica, measuring 94 by 53 meters, with a nave of the Slavic invasions, the urban matrix estab-
close to 20 meters wide, preceded by a large lished in antiquity continued to define Thessalonike
atrium, with a hexagonal baptistery to the south through the Byzantine period. The fate of its
(Fig. 7.25). Known from limited remains, it was pagan sanctuaries is passed over in silence.
replaced by the surviving Hagia Sophia in the New Cities. The newly founded cities and set-
eighth century. tlements of Late Antiquity are also instructive, for
There were other constructions as well, but rather than evincing a transformation of society,
clearly by the late fifth century, Thessalonike they address the immediate concerns of a society

FIGURE 7.23
Thessalonike,
excavated area of
the Mese
(Ephorate of the
City of
Thessalonike)
FIGURE 7.24
Thessalonike, view
from the Arch of
Galerius looking
toward the
Rotunda (author)

FIGURE 7.25
Thessalonike, plan
of the cathedral
beneath Hagia
Sophia, with
baptistery to the
south (after
S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
that has already undergone transformation.31 reflects the topography, as do adjustments in the
They are as interesting for what is not there as for urban grid. Internal walls separate the acropolis,
what is. As with Thessalonike, temples and pagan the upper city, and the lower city. The main streets
sanctuaries do not enter the story. are colonnaded and lined with shops, intersecting
Founded sometime in the 530s near the birth- at a circular forum, as at Gerasa. An aqueduct
place of Justinian, Iustiniana Prima, or Caričin more than 16 kilometers long supplied water to the
Grad, provides useful evidence of what was consid- city and its public baths. Throughout, construc-
ered essential for a city at the time of Justinian (Fig. tion is of rough stone and brick, with marble in
7.26).32 By the early seventh century, however, the limited supply. Although one of the building com-
city fell victim to the Slavic invasions, as migratory plexes in the upper city may have been the military
tribes entered the Balkans. Nowadays it is known residence, many of the clearly identifiable build-
from excavated foundations. Justinian had great ings are churches, as the church seems to have
hopes for it, however, elevating its status to an replaced the civic authority. This is most clearly
archbishopric, independent from Thessalonike. evident in the prestige given to the cathedral com-
Built on a hilltop, the irregular outline of the walls plex, treated as an independently fortified acropo-
lis, on the highest point of the city, with the
E. Rizos and A. Ricci, eds., New Cities in Late Antiquity:
31 decumanus leading from the monumental east city
Documents and Archaeology (Turnhout, 2017). gate, across the circular forum, to a second gate
32
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 209–14; B. Bavant, “Caričin leading into the main street of the archbishopric.
Grad and the Changes in the Nature of Urbanism in the Central The basilica, already noted for its vaulted sanctu-
Balkans in the 6th century,” in The Transition to Late Antiquity: On ary, was preceded by an atrium, with a cistern be-
the Danube and Beyond, ed. A. Poulter (Oxford, 2007): 337–74; neath it; it is flanked by a four-lobed baptistery,
Procopius, On Buildings, 4.1.19–27. with the episcopal residence probably the cruciform

FIGURE 7.26
Caričin Grad
(Iustiniana Prima)
site plan, with
detail of the
acropolis (author,
after B. Bavant, in
Transition to Late
Antiquity, 2007;
V. Ivanišević,
“Caričin Grad
(Iustiniana
Prima),” 2016; and
S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
building just across the street. Formally and func- the pre-Christian settlement, so it may be effec-
tionally, this was clearly the most important area of tively discussed as a new city. Its organization re-
the city. flects the continuity of Late Antique urbanism,
Sergiopolis, now Resafa in Syria, had devel- with an ambitious building program that reflects
oped from a modest castrum, or military encamp- its urban aspirations. While far from haphazard,
ment, into a planned city by the end of the fifth the deviations evident at Resafa indicate growth
century (Figs. 7.27–7.29).33 Nothing remains of over a period of time, without a restrictive master
plan. Housing the Martyrium of St. Sergius, the
city was a major pilgrimage destination. Enclosed
33
E. K. Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: St. Sergius between Rome and by nearly rectangular walls with monumental
Islam (Berkeley, 1999). Kollwitz, “Die Grabungen in Resafa,”
45–70; Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, ed., Resafa, 7 vols.
(Mainz, 1984–); M. Gussone and D. Sack, “Resafa/Syrien. in New Cities in Late Antiquity: Documents and Archaeology, eds.
Städtebauliche Entwicklung zwischen Kultort und Herrschaftssitz,” E. Rizos and A. Ricci (Turnhout, 2017), 117–36.

FIGURE 7.27
Resafa, plan
(redrawn after
M. Gussone and
D. Sack, in
E. Rizos, New
Cities, 2017)
gates, the city was laid out with a fairly regular grid itself was three aisled with a curious alternating
of streets, some of which were flanked by colon- system of piers and columns, perhaps with dia-
nades, with monumental arches marking the in- phragm arches spanning the nave. A Syrian bema
tersections of major thoroughfares. Major squares lay at the center; the bema proper was flanked by
were established in the northeast and southwest a series of annexed chapels. At that time, the relics
sectors, the latter above cisterns. Highlighted in of St. Sergius were brought into the new complex,
the urban design were the three city’s major housed in the room immediately north of the
churches, the most important of which was the apse, accessible both from the church and from
enormous complex (also called Basilica A, or the courtyard. They had been previously held in
Church of the Holy Cross) dedicated to St. Sergius an “old brick church,” which was subsequently re-
in the southeast sector, which centered on a large placed by Basilica B in 518. The new Basilica B
basilica, with a baptistery, a bishop’s palace, and a was three aisled, framed by porticoes to the south
large courtyard, all completed ca. 500. The church and west, with annexed chapels flanking the bema,

situated between the new St. Sergius and the construction projects; the archaeological evidence
square above the cisterns. A large tetraconch suggests only small-scale provisional replacements
church was constructed about the same time, on a and spoliation. By the ninth century, even the
site whose importance is indicated by the angled Church of St. Sergius was in ruins. Prosperity con-
street leading from the north gate. Two other, tinued, after a fashion, into the early Islamic
smaller basilicas, situated farther to the east, were period, but with most major constructions out-
added about the same time or slightly later. All side the walls. The building to the north of the
major construction seems to date roughly between city, often identified as the audience hall of al-
470 and 530, when the city was at its economic Mundhir, is more likely a church, perhaps related
peak. When it was struck by an earthquake, some- to the pilgrimage to St. Sergius. A great suburban
time shortly after the major construction phase, development occurred under Hisham (ca. 724–
the wherewithal was no longer there for major 43), with the addition of suburban fortified pal-
aces to the south of the city. Hisham renewed the
city’s fortifications and added a mosque to the
FIGURE 7.28 north of St. Sergius. The final decline of the city
Resafa, North Gate corresponds to the shift of the power base from
(author) Damascus to Baghdad under the Abbasids.
While both Caričin Grad and Resafa indicate
the survival of Roman planning principles well
into the sixth century, at the opposite extreme,
there are also several sites that are new but with
no evidence of traditional planning forms. The
remains of Mokisos (Viranşehir), on the slopes of
Hasan Dağı in Cappadocia, also provide evidence
of urban life in the Late Antique period, but of a
FIGURE 7.29
Resafa, general
view of the site
from the
Tetraconch
Church, looking
toward the
St. Sergius complex
(author)

FIGURE 7.30
Viranşehir
(Mokisos), plan of
settlement (after
A. Berger,
“Mokisos,” 1998)
remarkably different nature (Figs. 7.30 and the formerly dilapidated frourion (fortress) from
7.31).34 Procopius relates that Justinian relocated level ground to a site where it was protected by
the steep slope. He also added churches, hospices,
34
A. Berger, “Viranşehir (Mokisos), eine byzantinische Stadt in public baths, “and all the other structures that are
Kappadokien,” BZ 48 (1998): 349–429; A. Berger, “Mokisos—
eine kappadokische Fluchtsiedlung des sechten Jahrhunderts,” in
New Cities in Late Antiquity: Documents and Archaeology, eds. Visualizing Community: Art, Material Culture, and Settlement in
E. Rizos and A. Ricci (Turnhout, 2017), 177–88; R. G. Ousterhout, Byzantine Cappadocia (Washington, DC, 2017), 273–74.

FIGURE 7.31
Viranşehir
(Mokisos),
cruciform church,
with ruins of the
settlement in the
distance (author)
the mark of a prosperous city,” elevating Mokisos before the Transitional Period—the subject of
to the ecclesiastical rank of metropolis and appar- Chapter 11.
ently renaming it Iustinianopolis.35 Nevertheless, Like Mokisos, rural and village architecture
the site presents little evidence of a Roman urban may appear less than thrilling for the uniniti-
character. There is no grid plan, and even evi- ated—small, poorly constructed, and without
dence of a street system seems elusive. Perhaps clear functional distinctions. Unlike limited pres-
because of its relocation, there was no pre-existing ervation elsewhere, however, the Limestone
street system to follow, and—like later medieval Massif of northern Syria preserves some seven
urban foundations—the organization is dependent hundred villages, dating primarily from the mid-
on the topography, with security its primary con- fourth through the mid-fifth centuries. Buildings
cern. A fortress is situated at the northwest, but were constructed of squared stone—the most
beyond this there is no indication of fortifica- readily available building material in the region.
tions, aside from the difficult slope to the west. Irregular clusters vary in size, and perhaps 95 per-
Most of the buildings are crudely built of rough cent of the village buildings are houses—public
basalt, laid without mortar, and there is no evi- buildings are rare and ceremonial spaces are non-
dence of elite housing. Instead, houses tend to be existent.36 Houses tend to be two storied and
of one or two irregular rooms. The only buildings
constructed of ashlar and with mortar are the
churches—more than twenty have been docu-
36
G. Tchalenko, Villages Antiques; J.-P. Sodini et al., “Déhès (Syrie du
mented—as well as mausolea and cisterns. nord) Campagnes I–III (1976–1978): Recherches sur l’habitat
rural,” Syria 57 (1980): 1–181, 183–301, 303–4; G. Tate, Les
Mokisos stands as a good example of the dramatic
Campagnes de la Syrie du Nord du IIe au VIIe Siècle: Un Exemple
changes experienced by Roman urbanism even d’Expansion Démographique et Économique à la Fin de l’Antiquité (Paris,
1992); G. Tate, “The Syrian Countryside during the Roman Era,” in
The Early Roman Empire in the East, ed. S. Alcock (Oxford, 1997),
35
Procopius, On Buildings, 5.4.15–18. 55–71.

FIGURE 7.32
Déhès,
reconstruction of
settlement (after
J.-P. Sodini et al.,
“Déhès,” 1986; and
H. Klengel, Syrien,
1987)
inward turning, with enclosed courtyards. Living added by Theodosius II (412–13), stand as a sin-
accommodations were on the upper level, with gular achievement, combining two lines of defen-
the ground floor and court consigned to live- sive walls with a moat. Most fortification systems
stock. Living spaces seem to have been normally a were simpler, with a single line of defense, follow-
single room, 25–30 square meters per family, ing the topography, as at Thessalonike or Gerasa,
without running water, latrines, facilities for and were part and parcel of urban development.
bathing, or privacy. Communities seem to have Critical since the early Roman imperial period,
aimed at self-sufficiency, with abundant evidence however, was the protection of the frontiers, or
of olive and wine presses, as well as orchards, limes, with fortresses and watchtowers, along the
grain, and livestock. In spite of the apparent so- Danube to the north and in the eastern desert,
phistication of the remains, living conditions regularly under threat by the Persians and Arab
were relatively simple—the evidence of wealth tribes.37
within the region comes from the churches, not Sergiopolis (Resafa), fortified in the early sixth
the houses. Déhès, one of the larger villages stud- century, was one part of a larger network of
ied in detail, had fifty-four houses, with 187
rooms (Fig. 7.32). Where earlier scholars had
identified a public plaza, a market with stoas, and
37
M. Konrad, “Roman Military Fortifications along the Eastern
an inn, more recent examination indicates all Desert Frontier: Settlement Continuities and Change in North
Syria 4th–8th Centuries,” in Residences, Castles, Settlements.
were private residences, all oriented toward agri-
Transformation Processes from Late Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad
cultural production. al-Sham, eds. K. Bartl and A. Moaz (Rahden, 2008), 533–53;
Defensive architecture. Defensive architecture fol- S. Parker, The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on
lowed Roman practices. The walls of Constantinople, the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1985 (Oxford, 1987).

FIGURE 7.33
Sinai, Monastery
of St. Catherine,
view from the
north (Joonas
Plaan, Wikimedia
Commons)
fortified outposts and a good example of an urban wall. Gates opened on four sides, all protected by
fortification system (see Figs. 7.27–7.29). As re- towers, and three were protected by outer enclo-
counted by Procopius, under the patronage of sure walls. That on the north wall, opening
Justinian, the protection of the limes took on a toward the Euphrates, is treated as a triumphal
twofold purpose, combining defense with the pro- entry, with a triple opening decorated with col-
motion of Chalcedonian Christianity—indeed, umns and arches. Construction is of square stone,
there were large non-Chaldedonian, Miaphysite the local gypsum, used in the church construc-
populations in the East. In this context, Resafa tion as well.
should be understood as both a military and a Justinian’s fortified monastery at Sinai func-
spiritual outpost. The city was surrounded by a tioned similarly, combining military and monas-
huge enclosure, nearly rectangular, measuring ap- tic functions (Figs. 7.33 and 7.34).39 Its original
proximately 549 by 411 meters overall, rising to a dedication to the Theotokos reflected the belief in
height of approximately 14 meters.38 The curtain the two natures of Christ. Like Resafa, its near-
wall is lined with towers, alternating large and rectangular enclosure follows the model of a
small ones of different shapes, with octagonal Roman castrum. Constructed in the early sixth
towers at the corners. Stairs led up to the parapet century, it predates most of the monastic building
near the gates and major towers, and an open it encloses. Representative of its dual function are
arcade on the inner side eased the movement of
troops from one area to another during the
defense of the city. A dry moat enveloped the
39
G. H. Forsyth, “The Monastery of St. Catherine,” 1–19;
G. H. Forsyth and K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of Saint Catherine
on Mount Sinai: The Church and Fortress of Justinian (Ann Arbor,
38
W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Resafa in Syrien (Berlin, 1976). 1973).

FIGURE 7.34
Sinai, Monastery of
St. Catherine, plan
of sixth-century
constructions
(George H. Forsyth
Jr., Michigan–
Princeton–
Alexandria Mission
to Mount Sinai)
the sculpted hood guards that appear above the system, diverting the Kordes River to flow through
openings on the towers, decorated with apotro- the city, supplying it with water, but exiting
paic crosses. The walls thus offered both physical through an underground channel, thus depriving
and spiritual protection to those inside. the besiegers of water. The whole was controlled
In his description of the fortifications of the by an elaborate dam. In spite of the lengthy and
eastern frontier, Procopius singled out Dara in detailed description of the dam and the fortifica-
Mesopotamia for a lengthy and detailed descriptions, most impressive at Dara today are its exten-
tion—comparable in length to his description of sive vaulted cisterns (Fig. 7.36). A few meager
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Fig. 7.35).40 towers survive, but they preserve no indication of
Critical in the Persian Wars, the fortifications had rebuilding; texts also indicate that the water chan-
been rebuilt by Anastasius in the early sixth cen- nel existed at an earlier date. Here and elsewhere,
tury at an earlier stage of the conflict. Procopius Justinian (in the voice of Procopius) seems to be
claims they were plagued by shoddy construction taking credit for the work of Anastasius, while dis-
and that Justinian was compelled to undertake ex- crediting him at the same time. Although
tensive repairs, doubling their height, raising Anastasius was a Miaphysite and the last of the old
towers, and adding a moat. The defensive system guard to rule before Justin I was elected to the
was combined with a reorientation of the water throne—thus worthy of contempt on two counts—
it is curious that Procopius devotes such a long
40
Procopius, On Buildings, 2.1.1–2.3.28; B. Croke and J. Crow,
description to this particular site. All the same,
“Procopius and Dara,” JRS 73 (1983): 143–59; E. Keser Kayaalp while Procopius credits Justinian with the system-
and N. Erdoğan, “Recent Research on Dara/Anastasiopolis,” in atic fortification of the Eastern frontier, much of
New Cities in Late Antiquity: Documents and Archaeology, eds. the work clearly belongs to his predecessors.
E. Rizos and A. Ricci (Turnhout, 2017), 153–75.

FIGURE 7.35
Dara, site plan
(redrawn after
B. Croke and
J. Crow, JRS, 1983)
FIGURE 7.36
Dara, cisterns
(Marku1988,
Wikimedia
Commons)
Indeed, it is likely that the fortification of Resafa church architecture, military architecture, and do-
was the work of Anastasius as well. mestic architecture, the residence of a provincial
The site now known as Qasr ibn Wardan, also governor, constructed ca. 561–64 (Figs. 7.37 and
on the Persian limes, falls somewhere between 7.38). As will be noted in the discussion of the

FIGURE 7.37
Qasr ibn Wardan,
church and
governor’s palace,
seen from the
south (author)
palace chapel in Chapter 10, construction is of al- FIGURE 7.38
ternating bands of brick and stone, apparently fol- Qasr ibn Wardan,
lowing the model of Constantinople, although the site plan (after
H. C. Butler, Early
brick was produced locally. The residential build-
Churches, 1929)
ing, approximately 50 by 50 meters, is inward
turning, organized symmetrically around a central
courtyard, and entered from the north, with
rooms on two levels. Stables flank the entrance,
while on the south side, an apsidal room on the
upper level seems to have functioned as an audi-
ence hall. A small bath lay in the eastern wing. The
chapel stood independently to the southeast.
Another rectangular complex stood farther south,
almost identical in dimensions to the residential
block. Now almost completely destroyed, it seems
to have been the barracks for the troops.
The Byzantine reconquest of North Africa
from the Vandals in 533–34 was followed by an
unprecedented program of fortification, both
urban and rural. In several instances, rather than
enveloping the existing urban entity, only a por-
tion of its core was fortified, creating a citadel
within the city—a model common elsewhere in
subsequent centuries. At Dougga, for example,
only the forum, the Capitolium, and a few

FIGURE 7.39
Dougga, plan of
the forum area
showing the
intrusive Byzantine
citadel (after
Karldupart,
Wikimedia
Commons)
adjacent buildings were incorporated into the for reception and dining.42 Large houses with sim-
citadel, utilizing and extending existing walls ilar features have been excavated across the Medi-
(Fig. 7.39). Here and elsewhere, urban life con- terranean. Perhaps the most significant changes in
tinued, with new construction and new churches, the Late Antique domus were the increasing size
while the citadel at its heart must have disrupted and number of ceremonial spaces (audience halls
older urban patterns.41 and triclinia), as at the famous early fourth-century
Domestic architecture. Well into the sixth cen- villa at Piazza Armerina in Sicily (Fig. 7.40).43 Also
tury, the standard elite residence was inward turn- noteworthy is the incorporation of chapels into
ing, with rooms organized around a central peri- the domestic setting.44 The latter phenomenon is
style and garden, replete with ceremonial spaces indicative of the growing importance of private
worship and was a source of growing concern in
ecclesiastical legislation. With significant economic
and social changes, however, by the end of the
period under discussion, the domus disappeared.
42
S. Ellis, “The End of the Roman House,” AJA 92 (1988): 565–
41
D. Pringle, Defense of Byzantine Africa from Justinian to the Arab
76; J.-P. Sodini, “Habitat de l’antiquité tardive,” Topoi 5, no. 1 (1995):
Conquest (Oxford, 1981); A. Leone, Changing Townscapes in North
151–218; J.-P. Sodini, “Habitat de l’antiquité tardive,” Topoi 7, no. 1
Africa from Late Antiquity to the Arab Conquest (Bari, 2007);
(1997): 435–577.
C. Fenwick, “From Africa to Ifrīqya: Settlement and Society in
Early Medieval North Africa (650–800),” Al-Masaq: Islam and the
43
R. J. A. Wilson, Piazza Armerina (London, 1983).
Medieval Mediterranean 25 (2013), 9–33 44
Bowes, Private Worship.

FIGURE 7.40
Piazza Armerina,
villa, plan (after
R. J. A. Wilson,
Piazza Armerina,
1983)
A characteristic, if not particularly innovative, façade.46 The same features appeared almost two
example is what may have been the palatial resi- centuries earlier at Piazza Armerina, although ar-
dence of Theodoric at Ravenna, for which the ad- ranged somewhat differently, with separate court-
jacent church now dedicated to Sant’Apollinare yards for the audience hall and the triclinium.
Nuovo served as palace chapel (Fig. 7.41).45 While A similar combination of peristyle court and
only partially excavated and incompletely known, audience hall characterizes one of the few exca-
it includes the signature features: rooms organized vated portions of the Great Palace in Constantinople,
around a portico enclosing a garden; a large apsi- which has been dated archaeologically to the sixth
dal hall, perhaps on axis, perhaps the audience century (Fig. 7.42).47 Known for the spectacular
hall; a triconch at one corner that may have been mosaics preserved in the portico, the identity of
the triclinium, a dining hall, equipped with sigma- this part of the palace remains elusive. Indeed, the
shaped couches. It is tempting to see the building Great Palace would have been closer to what we
identified as the palatium in the mosaics in the would call a villa—buildings and pavilions loosely
church next door as depicting the peristyle organized in a park-like setting. Many are known
from evocative texts, describing exotic, lavishly
46
M. J. Johnson, “Toward a History of Theoderic’s Building
45
Deliyannis, Ravenna, 55–58; A. Augenti, “The Palace of Program,” DOP 42 (1988): 73–96.
Theoderic at Ravenna: A New Analysis of the Complex,” in 47
W. Jobst, B. Erdal, and C. Gurtner, Istanbul. The Great Palace
Housing in Late Antiquity: From Palaces to Shops, eds. L. Lavan, Mosaic (Istanbul, 1997); T. Öner and J. Kostenec, Walking through
L. Özgenel, and A. Sarantis (Leiden, 2007), 425–54. Byzantium: Great Palace Region (Istanbul, 2007).

FIGURE 7.41 through a sigma portico enclosing formal gar-
Ravenna, so-called dens, the portico connected to a series of elegant,
Palace of geometrically shaped rooms: an octagon; suites of
Theodoric, plan
rooms organized around circular halls; and a
(partially
lobed hexagon on axis—the triclinium, or cere-
excavated) (after
Mark J. Johnson,
monial hall, in which we might imagine sigma-
DOP, 1988) shaped couches and tables set into the niches for
ceremonial dining. The neighboring palace, usu-
ally identified as the Palace of Lausus, known to
house a collection of ancient sculptures, was simi-
larly entered through a sigma portico, which
opened into a large, domed vestibule. This in turn
connected, through a narthex, to an elongated
triclinium, with seven niches for the couches of
the diners.
In both complexes, the emphasis is on the
formal spaces to the exclusion of almost every-
thing else, reflecting the ceremonialization of
daily life among the Late Antique elite, following
the model of the imperial court. Indeed, these
two palace complexes may best represent the kind
of architecture once found in the Great Palace. In
this respect, the accusation that Antiochus was
overstepping his bounds and “living like an em-
peror” is telling—his property was confiscated
and eventually turned into the Church of St.
Euphemia.49 As to the Great Palace, from de-
scriptions we know that the Chrysotriclinos (the
decorated audience halls, triclinia, and chapels— Golden audience hall) was octagonal and
the settings of imperial rituals, collected in the niched, perhaps not unlike Antiochus’s triclin-
tenth-century Book of Ceremonies. ium, while one of the ceremonial dining halls
Although little is preserved of the Great Palace, was known as the Dekaenneakoubita (the hall of
some sense of its architecture is provided by two the nineteen couches), suggesting a longer ver-
early fifth-century palaces excavated on the oppo- sion of Lausus’s triclinium.
site site of the Hippodrome, belonging to officials A similar tendency toward ceremonialization
in the imperial court. Already noted for its inno- is evident in elite housing across the empire. The
vative structure and geometry, the Palace of so-called Triconch House at Aphrodisias, built ca.
Antiochos belonged to a eunuch in the court of 400, was perhaps the governor’s residence or that
Theodosius II (see Figs. 8.9 and 8.10).48 Entered of a civic official; in its later life, it became the
from a street perpendicular to the Hippodrome bishop’s palace (Fig. 7.43A).50 Situated next to
the Bouleterion at the North Agora, it was built
48
R. Naumann and H. Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche am
Hippodrom zu Istanbul und Ihre Fresken (Berlin, 1966); R. Naumann,
“Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen zwischen Mese und
49
I. Lavin, “The House of the Lord: Aspects of the Role of Palace
Antiochos-Palast 1964 in Istanbul,” IstMitt 15 (1965): 135–48; the Triclinia in the Architecture of Late Antiquity and the Middle
identification is questioned by J. Bardill, “The Palace of Lausus and Ages,” ArtB 44, no. 1 (1962): 1–27.
Nearby Monuments in Constantinople: A Topographical Study,” 50
M. Berenfeld, “The Triconch House and the Predecessors of
AJA 101 (1997): 67–95. the Bishop’s Palace at Aphrodisias,” AJA 113 (2009): 203–29.

FIGURE 7.42
Constantinople,
Great Palace area.
(A) Archaeological
plan of the
courtyard and
audience hall; (B)
reconstructed view
of the peristyle
court with floor
mosaics (after
W. Müller-Wiener,
Bildlexikon, 1977;
and Tayfun Öner)

FIGURE 7.43
Plans of elite
houses: (A)
Aphrodisias,
Triconch House;
(B) Apollonia,
Palace of
the Dux (after
M. Berenfeld, AJA,
2009; and S. Ellis,
AJA, 1988)
on a previously occupied site, incorporating some ment or dining. On the opposite side of the peri-
older elements. Its plan includes both a large tri- style was a diminutive three-aisled basilica, the
conch hall and a rectangular apsed hall, both ad- private chapel of the dux. Similar features have
jacent to the central peristyle court. The rectangu- been noted in the Late Antique houses of Ephesus,
lar hall is more contained, connected to a public indicating that settings for private worship were
street to the west, and may have been used for gradually joining the other ceremonial spaces.52
official business, while the peristyle opened from
a private or semiprivate passageway to the south. *
The triconch opened axially onto the peristyle,
with a decorated niche set opposite; it seems more In sum, much of what we have discussed in this
likely the setting of more private entertainments chapter would not have been out of place in a
and dining. Thus, public and private ceremonial general survey of Roman architecture. Even the
functions were separated. small dwellings at Mokisos or Déhès, lacking
The Palace of the Dux at Apollonia, residence formal and functional distinction, find earlier
of the dux of Cyrenaica (Libya), is in many ways Greek and Roman analogues—and are perhaps
similar, although later in date, probably sixth cen- more interesting for the social historian than for
tury (Fig. 7.43B).51 The smaller of the two recep- the architectural historian. Even as Christianity
tion halls was immediately accessible from the enters the scene, it is but one part of a larger social
street, its vestibule provided with benches. Here and cultural transformation. While evidence of
guests were met and business was conducted. economic decline becomes apparent in the later
Those allowed into the residential core could pass sixth century, only in the subsequent centuries is
into the peristyle court, dominated by a larger there a decisive cultural break—as is addressed in
apsed hall at its head, the triclinium for entertain- Chapters 11 and 12.
51
Ellis, “End of the Roman House.” 52
Bowes, Private Worship, 104.

CHAPTER EIGHT
INNOVATIVE ARCHITECTURE
C hapter 6 concentrated on standard architec-

tural forms and building materials as they
developed across the empire, primarily during the
center, drawing upon the empire-wide experi-
mentation of the preceding century. Moreover,
design changes also reflect the growing impor-
fifth century. Parallel to the proliferation of the tance of a symbolic language, as architecture
basilica as the prevailing church type, a more became part of a political discourse.
experimental trend developed, which had reper- New directions in church planning. By the
cussions for later developments. In fact, it is difficult latter part of the fifth century, two important
to make sense of the unique scale and form of trends emerged in church architecture: the central-
Justinian’s Hagia Sophia—the subject of the next ized plan, into which a longitudinal axis was intro-
chapter—without a more theoretical perspective. duced, and the longitudinal plan, into which a
A few examples discussed already, such as Santo centralizing element was introduced. Both prefig-
Stefano Rotondo in Rome, the hexagonal church at ure Hagia Sophia to a certain extent. The first type
Amphipolis, or the round church at Bet She’an, may be represented by the Church of the Theotokos
remain unique monuments, inspiring no successors, on Mt. Gerizim, in Palestine, built ca. 484, replac-
but they indicate a desire for alternatives to the ing an older Samaritan hilltop site after a rebellion
basilica. This chapter discusses several architectural was quelled by Emperor Zeno (r. 474–91) (Fig.
themes that signal innovation during Late 8.1).¹ The church was likely modeled after the
Antiquity: (1) the juxtaposition of longitudinal and Kathisma Church outside Jerusalem, a pilgrimage
centralized plans in church architecture; (2) the site marking the Virgin’s resting point on the jour-
development of skeletal structural systems in Late ney to Bethlehem.² In both, known from excavated
Roman architecture that transform wall support foundations, the nave is octagonal, enveloped by
into point support; and (3) an increased interest in
geometry and measurement in architectural design. 1
Y. Magen, “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim,”
The innovative developments of Hagia Sophia in Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land: New Discoveries, eds.
mark a creative shift from Rome and Italy (where G. C. Bottini, L. di Segni, and A. Alliata (Jerusalem, 1990), 333–
architecture would remain conservative after the 42; Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, II. A Temple City
sixth century) to Constantinople and the East. (Jerusalem, 2008).
Surviving buildings provide dramatic testimony 2
Avner, “The Recovery of the Kathisma Church”; see also
of the vibrance of Constantinople as a cultural Johnson, San Vitale, 67–73.
Alahan Manastır, East Church, interior, looking east (Anastasios Tantsis)
175
FIGURE 8.1
(A) Jerusalem,
Kathisma Church,
reconstructed plan;
(B) Mt. Gerizim,
Church of the
Theotokos, plan
(after R. Avner,
ARAM, 2007; and
Y. Magen, in
Christian
Archaeology, 1990)
FIGURE 8.2
Jerusalem may have also been octagonal, although
Gerasa (Jerash), it has disappeared without a trace.³
Church of the Similarly juxtaposing a centralized design and
Prophets, Apostles, a longitudinal axis is the Church of the Prophets,
and Martyrs, Apostles, and Martyrs, of ca. 465 in Gerasa,
plan (after known from excavations (Fig. 8.2).4 In this case,
C. H. Kraeling, the plan is cruciform and aisled, with the central
Gerasa, 1938) square bay articulated by heavier columns at the
crossing. Four rooms of uncertain function fill
the corners. Only the semicircular apse projects
from the square block of the building. The cen-
trality of the design is emphasized by entrances
on three sides. At the same time, the longitudinal
liturgical axis is marked by a porch on the western
side, a slightly elongated western cross arm, and
the sanctuary filling the eastern cross arm, with
an aisle, with columns along the sides and piers at closure panels set between the columns. And like
the corners, but open along the east side into a Mt. Gerizim, we can only hypothesize with regard
deep sanctuary bay and apse. The centralized to the elevation, which for both churches must
nature of the design was emphasized by including have been a sort of pyramidal massing, rising to a
both a western narthex and lateral porches, as well central tower, covered by a wooden roof.
as four subsidiary chapels positioned on the diago- A third variation, briefly discussed in Chapter 5,
nals. At the Kathisma Church, the exposed rock is the aisled tetraconch, which combines geomet-
seat appeared at the center of the octagon, and the ric elegance with a centralizing focus (see Fig. 5.3).5
church might be classified as an octagonal martyr- Nevertheless, although the plan found favor at a
ium, but with its liturgical focus in the eastern number of locations, there is an evident ambiva-
sanctuary. At Mt. Gerizim, a relic of the Cross was lence toward how it might function liturgically—
housed somewhere, but there is no evidence of that is, where was the altar? At the earliest example,
anything centrally positioned. Nevertheless, the
adoption of the plan must have had symbolic over-
tones, as the site was claimed for Orthodoxy, and
3
Vincent and Abel, Jérusalem, 825–31, and fig. 349.
the association with the Theotokos physically 4
Kraeling, Gerasa, 256–60.
manifested in the church’s form. The famed 5
W. E. Kleinbauer, “The Origin and Function of the Aisled
Church of the Dormition of the Virgin in Tetraconch Churches.”

FIGURE 8.3
Seleucia Pieria,
aisled tetraconch
church, partial
axonometric
reconstruction
(James Stanton-
Abbott)
the fourth-century San Lorenzo in Milan, evidence heavy piers suggest that the central nave was
suggests the sanctuary was centrally positioned. domed, and the eastern conch has been replaced
At Seleucia Pieria, the central nave contained a by a semicircular wall, within which are remains
so-called Syrian bema (see Chap. 3), and an addi- of a synthronon and altar (and no Syrian bema)—
tional apsed bay opened through a columnar thus bringing the sanctuary closer to the central-
screen from the east wall (Fig. 8.3).6 This must izing focus of the design. At Resafa, the tetraconch
have been the sanctuary—it was equipped with a church may have been the cathedral as well; it is
templon, as the excavation drawing indicates, and elongated, and if covered with a trussed timber
there seems to be no other likely position for it. roof (as the excavators proposed), the interior
But it is an odd solution, with the liturgical focus space would have seemed like a basilica with lat-
effectively separated from the emphatically cen- eral exedrae, the centralizing element minimized.8
tralized nave. At the early sixth-century Cathedral The fifth-century tetraconch inserted in the Stoa
of Apamea, the tetraconch plan of Seleucia is re- of Hadrian at Athens (likely the cathedral) must
peated, including the apsed bay projecting to the have been similar (see Fig. 5.3C).9 In sum, the
east through a columnar screen (Fig. 8.4).7 The ambivalence in the design seems to be sympto-
matic of the inherent conflicts between the har-
6
W. A. Campbell, “The Martyrion at Seleucia Pieria,” in Antioch- mony symbolized by an ideal geometric plan and
on-the-Orontes III. The Excavations, 1937–1939, ed. R. Stillwell the functional requirements of the liturgy, which
(Princeton, 1941), 35–54; W. E. Kleinbauer, “The Church Building dictated a longitudinal axis. Indeed, the same
at Seleucia Pieria,” in Antioch: The Lost City, ed. C. Kondoleon conflicts plagued Renaissance architectural
(Princeton, 2001), 217–18.
7
J. C. Balty, “Le groupe épiscopal d’Apamée, dit ‘cathédrale de
l’est’—premières recherches,” in Apamée de Syrie. Bilan des recherches
8
J. Kollwitz, “Die Grabungen in Resafa,” 45–70.
archéologiques 1969–1971, eds. J. Balty and J. C. Balty (Brussels, 9
J. M. Camp, The Archaeology of Athens (New Haven, 2001),
1972), 187–205. 233–35.
CHAPTER EIGHT: INNOVATIVE ARCHITECTURE 177

FIGURE 8.4
Apamea, cathedral, plan
(after J. C. Balty, Apamée,
1972)
theory, as the history of design changes at New appropriately. Either we should reconstruct the
St. Peter’s in Rome illustrates.¹0 building as vaulted throughout, with a nave cov-
The second trend, in which a centralizing ele- ered by a domed eastern bay and a barrel-vaulted
ment was introduced into a basilican plan, is western bay, or alternatively with the nave covered
exemplified by the so-called Domed Basilica at by wooden roofs, with a tower of some sort above
Meryemlik in Cilicia, built ca. 471–94, at which the eastern bay. In either case, the design accorded
a dome seems to have been superimposed on a architectural distinction to the eastern bay.
standard basilican nave (Fig. 8.5).¹¹ Known from While the first alternative is enticing, the second
its excavated foundations and early travelers’ re- may be encouraged on comparison with the late
ports, it is similar in proportion to the fifth-century fifth-century East Church at Alahan Manastır,
Church of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople. which is similar in its design (Figs. 8.6–8.8).¹²
Preceded by a large atrium with a semicircular Probably part of a large pilgrimage complex in the
forecourt, the church differs noticeably in the al- mountains of Cilicia, with two churches, a baptis-
ternating supports of the nave, with heavy piers tery, and other buildings connected by a portico
isolating the eastern bay, immediately before the along the cliff face, originally accessed by a monu-
apse. The remainder of the church may have been mental staircase, much of the complex remains
vaulted as well; the barrel vaults of the aisles were standing in pristine isolation. Although the roof is
visible a century ago, and the walls are thickened missing, the South Church stands almost its full
10
S. Kostof, A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals, 2nd ed.
(New York, 1995), 500–509. 12
M. Gough, ed., Alahan: An Early Christian Monastery in Southern
11
Hill, Early Byzantine Churches, 226–34. Turkey (Toronto, 1985); Hill, Early Byzantine Churches, 68–82.

FIGURE 8.5
Meryemlik,
“Domed Basilica,”
plan (after
E. Herzfeld
and S. Guyer,
Meriamlik und
Korykos, 1930)
height, of fine ashlar construction with excellent focus—are further developed during the reign of
carved decoration. The building had three aisles, Justinian.
with galleries above the side aisles, which terminate Structural design. A second point to consider
in apses. The sanctuary extends an extra bay, flanked is the innovative trend in Late Antique architec-
by subsidiary rooms. Within the elevation, the ture, which we find manifest in Rome and subse-
nave, aisles, and subsidiary rooms are strengthened quently transferred to Constantinople by the fifth
by diaphragm arches, which may have reduced the century, as was briefly touched on in Chapter 5.
amount of timber (or reduced its length) necessary In addition to a variety of new, vaulted architec-
for roofing. Like Meryemlik, the eastern squarish tural designs, which were concerned with mold-
bay is emphasized in the support system, rising ing interior space, a variety of buildings evince a
above the level of the galleries to culminate in a desire to lighten the structural system by reducing
tower. Before the roof level, squinches appear at the the mass of construction materials—that is, moving
corners—corbelled arches rising above bracketed away from massive vaults supported by thick,
columns—to make a transition from square to solid walls toward a system of thin-shell construc-
octagon. The roofing of the area must have been an tion with point support. Such changes are evident
octagonal wooden pyramid, for the walls are too as early as the second century in the design of the
thin to support a dome. Another church of similar pavilions at Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli, notably the
date in the same area at Dağ Pazarı seems to have octagonal vestibule at the Water Court (Piazza
been similar in its design, although on a smaller d’Oro).¹5 Here a pumpkin dome rises above a
scale.¹³ Cilicia and Isauria seem to have been fruit- niched octagon, whose form is expressed on the ex-
ful areas for architectural experimentation, imme- terior of the building, while loads are concentrated
diately before the time of Justinian. Here and in at the eight piers between the niches. While it was
Syria, several buildings have been attributed to the small in scale and isolated, by the end of the third
patronage of Emperor Zeno (r. 474–91), who came century, similar skeletal structures are found in
from Isauria, a region famous for its builders.¹4 Rome itself, and on a much larger scale. The Pavilion
Both trends—the liturgically equipped cen- in the Licinian Gardens, built ca. 300, is the best-
tralized design and the basilica with a centralizing known example, with a dome approximately 25
meters in diameter (see Fig. 5.17).¹6 A garden
13
Hill, Early Byzantine Churches, 155–60.
14
C. Mango, “Isaurian Builders,” in Polychronion (Festschrift Franz W. MacDonald and J. Pinto, Hadrian’s Villa and Its Legacy (New
15
Dölger zum 75 Geburtstag), ed. P. Wirth (Heidelberg, 1966), 358– Haven, 1995), 96–99.
65. 16
Lancaster, Concrete Vaulted Construction, 161–64, 201–202.

FIGURE 8.6 Alahan Manastır, East Church, interior, looking east (Anastasios Tantsis)

FIGURE 8.7
Alahan Manastır, East Church, plan and elevation
(after M. Gough, Alahan, 1985)
pavilion—and thus without overriding func- discussed in the context of residential architecture
tional restrictions—the building is decagonal and in Chapter 7 (Figs. 8.9 and 8.10).¹7 The ceremo-
remarkably open in its design, with niches ex- nial hall of an elite administrator in the court of
posed on the exterior and open by columnar Theodosius II, the building was similarly niched—
screens. Moreover, there is considerable evidence apparently to hold the semicircular couches of the
of attempts to lighten and concentrate the struc- diners—and the niches were exposed on the exte-
tural system. It is built of brick-faced concrete, rior; the weight of the approximately 20-meter-
but structural brick ribs were built into the fabric diameter dome was countered by piers between
of the dome—not visible originally—to concen- the niches. With the exception of the axial niche,
trate the weight and thrusts at the piers, and am- others connected into circular, colonnaded porches,
phorae were built into the dome to lighten its opening into the palace garden. Known from ex-
weight. All of this stands in contrast to traditional cavation (and thus elements of the elevation are
Roman thick-walled construction, as exemplified speculative), the building is nevertheless provoca-
by the Pantheon, whose great dome rests on a cy- tive in its design; the innovative forms found here
lindrical wall more than 7 meters thick, pierced are a smaller-scale reflection of the sort of archi-
by niches. While the garden pavilion is both tecture one might have found in the Great Palace
daring and innovative, it was not without its of the Byzantine emperors, on the opposite side
problems and required additional structural brac- of the Hippodrome.
ing on the exterior. At the same time, Antiochos’s triclinium con-
By the early fifth century, the same sort of in- trasts dramatically with its next-door neighbor,
novative design appeared in Constantinople, no- sometimes identified as the Palace of Lausus and
tably in the hexagonal triclinium at the Palace
of Antiochos by the Hippodrome, which was 17
Naumann and Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche.

FIGURE 8.8
Alahan Manastır,
East Church, view
from the southwest
(Anastasios Tantsis)
close to contemporaneous in date.¹8 Here, the importance of geometry in general was discussed
palace complex was entered through a decagonal in Chapter 5. Less evident to the present-day
domed vestibule, but of very different character. viewer, however, is the importance of measure-
The building is of thick-walled construction with ment in historic architecture. At a variety of Late
niches set into the thickness of the wall, similar to Roman and Byzantine monuments, evidence of
the design of the Pantheon. That is, the rotunda round numbers has been deduced as the basis of
relied on its massive walls to support its dome. planning, which would have introduced a sort of
Archaeology suggests that the two palaces were invisible symbolism into the structure.
very close in date, indicating that the innovative One building that is often discussed in rela-
and conservative trends in architectural design tionship to Hagia Sophia is the church of St.
continued side by side in Byzantium. Polyeuktos in Constantinople, the immediate
Geometry and measure. It is perhaps belabor- predecessor to Hagia Sophia, built by the noble-
ing the obvious to note the importance of geom- woman Juliana Anicia and completed ca. 522
etry in these designs. At the Palace of Antiochos, (Figs. 8.11–8.13).¹9 Known from its excavated
even the secondary rooms are round or polygo-
nal, organized around a semicircular courtyard—
sometimes called a sigma courtyard, as the
19
R. M. Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, Vol. 1
(Princeton, 1986), 410–11; R. M. Harrison, A Temple for Byzantium:
Byzantines wrote the letter sigma as a C. Similarly,
The Discovery and Excavation of Anicia Juliana’s Palace-Church in
the design of the aisled tetraconch churches also Istanbul (Austin, 1989); J. Bardill, “A New Temple for Byzantium:
has obviously strong geometric underpinnings; the Anicia Juliana, King Solomon, and the Gilded Ceiling of the
Church of St. Polyeuktos in Constantinople,” in Social
18
Naumann, “Vorbericht,” 135–48; the identification is questioned and Political Life in Late Antiquity, eds. W. Bowden,
by Bardill, “Palace of Lausus,” 67–95. A. Gutteridge, and C. Machado (Leiden, 2006), 339–70;

FIGURE 8.9
Constantinople,
palaces of
Antiochos and
Lausus, excavation
plan (redrawn after
W. Müller-Wiener,
Bildlexikon, 1977)
foundations and opulent decorative elements, the basilica of great ostentation, with the nave flanked
building is well documented in Byzantine sources by parallel exedrae, resting atop thick founda-
and was clearly the largest and most lavish archi- tions. No evidence of a dome was found in the
tectural enterprise in the capital before Hagia excavations, and the delicate exedrae would not
Sophia. When it was excavated in the 1960s, it have provided the support necessary for a vaulted
was thought to be a domed basilica, but it seems superstructure, despite the thick foundations.
much more likely to have been a wooden-roofed The exedrae were lined with niches formed by the
sculpted tails of peacocks, the spandrels were
filled with intricately carved vine leaves, and the
J. Bardill, “Église Saint-Polyeucte à Constantinople: Nouvelle whole was enveloped by a long, adulatory dedica-
solution pour l’énigme de sa reconstitution,” in Architecture tion poem. In addition to marble, mosaic, and
paléochrétienne, ed. J.-M. Spieser (Gollion, 2011), 77–103. gilt interior surfaces, the elaborately carved

FIGURE 8.10 of ornamental networks, festoons of chainwork,
Constantinople, pomegranates, network on the capitals, and
Palace of capitals shaped like lilies, stylistically far from
Antiochos,
classical, but following Sasanian—that is, Eastern—
reconstructed plan
models.
and elevation of
the hexagonal
Why copy the Temple of Solomon? A power-
triclinium (after ful noblewoman, Juliana Anicia was one of the
R. Naumann and last representatives of the Theodosian dynasty
H. Belting, who could trace her lineage back to Constantine.
Euphemia-Kirche, When her son was passed over in the selection of
1966) emperor in favor of Justin I and subsequently
Justinian, the construction of St. Polyeuktos
became her ultimate political statement. The ded-
icatory inscription credits Juliana with having
“surpassed the wisdom of the celebrated Solomon,
raising a temple to receive God.” In this context,
Justinian’s rebuilding of the Hagia Sophia could
be seen as part of a larger, competitive discourse
between political rivals, played out in architec-
ture.²0 Ultimately, the discourse was perhaps more
about the construction of divinely sanctioned
kingship than about architecture or sacred topog-
raphy. Clearly, both Juliana and Justinian under-
stood the symbolic value of architecture, with
which they could make powerful political state-
ments. In the case of St. Polyeuktos, it was a state-
ment that could never be put into words. Divinely
sanctioned measurements here seem to be part of
that political statement.
The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in
Constantinople was likely Justinian’s immediate
capitals have unusual forms and details, and response to St. Polyeuktos, begun by the mid-520s
many of the column shafts were inlaid with glass (Figs. 8.14–8.17).²¹ As the oldest functioning reli-
paste to resemble jewels. gious institution in the city, as well as preserving
Measurements here played a critical role in the the city’s oldest dome, the building has long been
meaning of the building, for the builders of St. of interest to scholars, who have debated its date
Polyeuktos had attempted to replicate the Temple and the circumstances of its foundation; whether
of Solomon in its measurements, translated into it represents a “palace church type”; and if it served
Byzantine royal cubits (rather than Byzantine as a refuge for Monophysite (non-Chalcedonian;
feet): 100 royal cubits in length, as was the see Chap. 6) monks during the religious contro-
Temple, and 100 royal cubits in width (actually versies of the sixth century, although few have
51.45 by 51.9 meters), as was the Temple plat-
form—following both the unit of measure and 20
Ousterhout, “New Temples and New Solomons,” 223–53.
the measurements given in Ezekiel 41. The sanc- 21
C. Mango, “The Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus at
tuary of the church was to have been 20 royal
Constantinople and the Alleged Tradition of Octagonal Palatine
cubits square internally, the recorded measure- Churches,” JÖB 21 (1972): 189–93; J. Bardill, “The Church of Sts.
ment of the Holy of Holies. Similarly, the osten- Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople and the Monophysite
tatious decoration compares with that described Refugees,” DOP 54 (2000): 1–11; B. Croke, “Justinian, Theodora,
in the Temple, with cherubim (here represented and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus,” DOP 60 (2006):
by peacocks) alternating with palm trees, bands 25–63.

actually attempted to analyze the building for- FIGURE 8.11
mally or aesthetically. Constantinople,

The church was originally constructed within St. Polyeuktos,
hypothetical
the confines of the Hormisdas Palace on the Sea of
reconstruction of
Marmara, immediately south of the Hippodrome.
plan (with
The palace was the residence of Justinian before surviving
his accession to the throne, during the reign of his foundations in
uncle Justin I (r. 517–27). Of the palace, nothing gray) and elevation
remains, but the historian Procopius writes that (author, after
the construction of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus had J. Bardill, “Église
been preceded by the construction of another Saint-Polyeucte,”
church, dedicated to Sts. Peter and Paul. Built in 2011)
the form of a basilica, ca. 518/9, the first church
housed relics of the two Roman saints sent to
Justinian as a gift by the pope. Justinian’s con-
struction followed, built against its north side and
sharing a common narthex and atrium.
The Greek dedicatory inscription is carved in
raised letters on the marble cornice of the naos.
It mentions the royal couple, Justinian and
Theodora, as well as St. Sergius, but, oddly, not
his brother-saint Bacchus:
FIGURE 8.12
Constantinople,
St. Polyeuktos, a
peacock niche,
now in the
Istanbul
Archaeological
Museums (author)

FIGURE 8.13 their founders encircled the nave. The piety ex-
Constantinople, pressed in the Sergius and Bacchus epigram
St. Polyeuktos, one stands in sharp contrast to the hubris that charac-
of the so-called
terizes Juliana’s inscription. The reference to
Pilastri Acritani,
“other sovereigns” in the epigram, to those “dead
now in Venice
(Kaelin Jewell)
men whose labor was unprofitable,” may be read
as a not-so-subtle critique of Juliana, her vaunted
ancestry, and her imperial pretensions. More im-
portantly, the designs of the two buildings are
fundamentally different.
As the immediate predecessor to Hagia Sophia,
the Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus represents
one of Byzantium’s most innovative architectural
creations. The plan positioned a domed, octagonal
core within an irregular rectangle, its overall extent
limited by the pre-existing elements of the pal-
ace.²³ The octagonal naos of the church measures
50 Byzantine feet across and is defined by piers,
but the space between them billows outward with
alternating rectangular and semicircular recesses
on two levels; columnar screens open into the en-
veloping ambulatory and gallery. Corner niches in
the ambulatory and gallery give these subsidiary
spaces irregular octagonal plans. To the east, a
sanctuary bay appears in place of an eighth recess,
with the apse projecting on the exterior.
The lower colonnades are topped by a heavy
Other sovereigns, indeed, have honored dead cornice that bears the dedicatory inscription. The
men whose labor was useless. But our sceptered cornice follows the undulations of the piers and
Justinian, fostering piety, honors with a recesses, emphasizing the spatial complexity of
splendid abode the servant of Christ, Creator of the naos. The upper colonnades are arcaded, sur-
all things, Sergius; whom neither the burning mounted by conches or narrow barrel vaults over
breath of fire, nor the sword, nor other the recesses. The unique dome—the oldest to
constraints or trials disturbed; but who for the survive in the capital—is actually a combination
sake of God-Christ to be slain, gaining by his of a cloister vault and a pumpkin dome, with
blood heaven as his home. May he in all things eight flat segments alternating with eight scal-
guard the rule of the ever-vigilant sovereign loped segments, its shape more elliptical than
and increase the power of the God-crowned semicircular. The flat segments rise from the
Theodora, whose mind is bright with piety, crown of the eight arches of the octagon, while
whose toil ever is unsparing efforts to nourish the scalloped segments are set at the corners.
the destitute.²²
Begun immediately after the completion of 23

Mathews, Early Churches of Constantinople, 42–51; P. Grossmann,
St. Polyeuktos, the two churches may be usefully “Beobachtungen zum ursprünglichen Grundriß der Sergios und
viewed in relationship to each other. Both were lav- Bakchoskirche in Konstantinopel,” IstMitt 39 (1989): 153–59;
ishly decorated, and in both, epigrams concerning H. Svenshon and R. H. W. Stichel, “Neue Beobachtungen an der
ehemaligen Kirche der Heiligen Sergios und Bakchos (Küçük
Ayasofya Camisi) in Istanbul,” IstMitt 50 (2000): 389–409;
22
C. Connor, “The Epigram in the Church of Hagios Polyeuktos H. Svenshon, “Neue Überlegungen zum Grundrissentwurf der
in Constantinople and Its Byzantine Response,” Byzantion 69 Sergios- und Bakchoskirche in Istanbul,” Architectura 43 (2013):
(1999): 479–527. 113–28; Johnson, San Vitale, 110–20.

FIGURE 8.14
Constantinople,
Sts. Sergius and
Bacchus, interior
view, looking east
(author)
FIGURE 8.15
Constantinople,
Sts. Sergius and
Bacchus, plan,
with adjacent
buildings shaded
in gray (author,
redrawn after
J. Ebersolt and
A. Thiers, Les
Églises de
Constantinople,
1913)

FIGURE 8. 16
Constantinople,
Sts. Sergius and
Bacchus, interior
view, showing
capitals and
architrave (author)
FIGURE 8. 17
Constantinople,
Sts. Sergius and
Bacchus, detail of
inscription
(author)

Eight windows appear at the base of the dome, The suggestion that the minor spaces were origi-
within each of the flat segments. The ambulatory nally unvaulted is worth considering in this con-
and gallery are now covered by barrel vaults, but text, for this emphasizes the experimental character
it is likely they were originally covered by wooden of the dome—that is, it was a formal experiment,
roofs: the ambulatory vault springs illogically more concerned with design than with structure,
from the base of the cornice, and its insertion its meaning perhaps found deep within Neoplatonic
required the gallery floor level to be raised. thought.
Where exposed, the vaults are irregular, laid The discrepancies between the sophisticated
without formwork. design of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and the irregu-
Remarkably, the sophisticated spatial complexi- larities of its execution have been frequently noted.
ties of the interior are virtually invisible from the While regular and elegant, the central octagon is
exterior. Originally surrounded by other build- slightly rotated within an irregular rectangle, and
ings and preceded by a large atrium, the first view the ambulatory varies dramatically in width. One
of the interior’s intricate spatial design would suggestion is that the building was designed by a
have come as a surprise to the visitor—as it still skilled architect but executed by a less talented
does today. Only the unusual form of the dome master mason.²4 Most of the irregularities can be
can be detected when viewed from a distance. explained by the difficulty of situating the build-
However, buttresses and a false drum give the ing between two pre-existing structures. In order
dome an odd, flattened appearance. to connect the building with the openings in the
Only tantalizing fragments of the original in- flanking structures, which were not symmetrical,
terior decoration survive. The walls and floors must it was necessary to rotate slightly the octagonal
have been covered with marbles and the vaults core. That is to say, the architect made the best of
with mosaics. The columns are of verde antico a difficult situation.
and red-veined Synnada marble. The architectural Seen in relationship to St. Polyeuktos, the
sculpture is primarily of gray-veined Proconessian innovative character of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus
marble. The forms of the cornices and capitals stands out, both by its vaulting and in the subtle
appear as innovative as the architecture, all heavily geometric complexities of its design—conceptually
undercut using a drill, giving them a weightless, advanced far beyond its rival. In many ways, St.
lace-like appearance. The lower impost capitals Polyeuktos signaled the end of the road for the
have a “melon” form that echoes the billowing oc- great timber-roofed basilicas of Late Antiquity:
tagon of the church itself. The gallery capitals are while adventurous and ostentatious in its decora-
of the Ionic impost type, exhibiting a great variety tion, it was, for all intents and purposes, a con-
in their foliate patterning. These were decorated servative building, looking backward rather than
with the monograms of Justinian and Theodora forward. Its exedrae were elegant, but they were
and their titles. simply decorative, not integrated in a meaningful
In both plan and elevation, the interior offers way into the structural system. By contrast, at Sts.
a remarkable study in geometry, as the design Sergius and Bacchus, the columnar niches are
presents a subtle alternation of curvilinear and fully integrated, perhaps the driving force in the
rectilinear forms. The plan alternates rectangular development of the innovative design, signaling
and semicircular colonnaded niches; the lower the important innovations that would character-
colonnades are trabeated; the gallery is arcuated; ize Justinianic architecture at its finest. It is Sts.
the lower capitals are curvilinear and undulating; Sergius and Bacchus, not St. Poyleuktos, that set
the upper ones are rectilinear impost capitals. All the way toward Hagia Sophia and the future of
culminates in the great dome, uniquely com- Byzantine domed architecture.
posed of alternating flat and scalloped segments. Domed basilicas, modular domes, and struc-
The careful coordination of the design is reflected ture. Despite its scale, the structural stability of
in the organization of the inscription, which sets the dome was not a problem at Sts. Sergius and
Justinian’s and Theodora’s names opposite each Bacchus. As a centrally planned building with a
other to the north and south, while highlighting
other key words by their architectural placement. 24
Mango, Byzantine Architecture, 101–107.

FIGURE 8. 18
Constantinople,
Hagia Eirene, view
from the northeast,
with Hagia Sophia
in the distance
(author)
gallery, it provided even bracing on all sides, at vaults, but with clerestories opening to the north
the springing of the dome. However, the introduc- and south, with no additional bracing on the
tion of vaulting into basilican architecture posed transverse axis. The building collapsed in the
some problems, as will be discussed in detail in devastating earthquake of 740 and was substan-
the discussion of Hagia Sophia in the next chapter. tially rebuilt, and its flawed structural system was
Like Hagia Sophia, its next-door neighbor, the corrected. Although it is normally discussed as
church of Hagia Eirene (Holy Peace) was destroyed Justinianic, most of what survives represents the
in the riots of 532, and the two churches were late eighth-century reconstruction (see Chap. 11).
reconstructed simultaneously (Figs. 8.18 and 8.19). The structural problems of Hagia Eirene are re-
Built as a domed basilica with a gallery, preceded peated in several provincial domed basilicas of the
by a narthex and atrium, the sanctuary preserves sixth century. Very close to Constantinopolitan
its synthronon and even the base for the altar.²5 design, for example, is the domed basilica known as
In many ways, Hagia Eirene is a scaled-down, Basilica B at Philippi in eastern Macedonia, con-
simplified version of Hagia Sophia, and it suffered structed ca. 540 and possibly destroyed by an earth-
from the same structural flaw: the lack of bilater- quake before its completion (Fig. 8.20).²6 It follows
ally symmetrical buttressing. The 50-foot (16-meter) the plan of the nearby, timber-roofed Basilica A (late
dome of Hagia Eirene was raised above penden- fifth century), framing the bema with transept wings
tives, buttressed to the east and west by barrel (see Fig. 6.11). The short nave is preceded by a nar-
thex and exonarthex; the aisles are surmounted by
25
U. Peschlow, Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul. Untersuchungen zur
Architektur (Tübingen, 1977); Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 26
P. Lemerle, Philippes et la Macédoine Orientale, 413–513; Ćurčić,
190–92. Architecture in the Balkans, 207–209.

FIGURE 8. 19 Constantinople, Hagia Eirene, plan
and hypothetical sections of the sixth-century
building (after S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010, with the author’s modifications)
FIGURE 8. 20 Philippi, Basilica B, plan

and hypothetical section (after P. Lemerle,
Philippes et le Macédoine Orientale, 1945)
galleries, and the transept is framed by small chapels Constantinople. Vaulted throughout, it had a large
to the north and south. Construction was of alternat- groin vault above the nave, barrel vaults above the
ing bands of brick and stone, with piers of large transept arms, and a ribbed brick dome above the
marble blocks for the major supports. Even the heav- crossing. The inclusion of a barrel-vaulted transept
ily undercut carving of the capitals reflects the art of would seem to correct the lack of bilaterally

FIGURE 8. 21
Mayafarqin,
Church of the
Virgin, looking
north, in 1911
(Gertrude Bell
Photographic
Archive, University
of Newcastle)
FIGURE 8. 22 evenly braced and the western crossing piers are half
Mayafarqin, preserved, whereas the eastern piers and the apse
Church of the survive only at the foundation level. When struck by
Virgin, plan (after
an earthquake, the dome and transept vaults must
G. Bell, Churches
have toppled to the east.
and Monasteries of
the Tur ‘Abdin,
Stable structural systems existed, but they were
1913) not picked up in the capital. Two buildings from
southern Asia Minor are instructive here. The now-
destroyed Church of the Virgin at Mayafarqin (ca.
sixth century), recorded by Gertrude Bell in 1911,
and the church now known as the Cumanin Camii
in Antalya (late fifth–early sixth century) were both
wooden-roofed churches, with a central tower, but
both were planned originally with cruciform naves
and corner compartments—that is, with bilateral
symmetry along the major axes, something that is
symmetrical buttressing, but a more detailed exami- absent in the early domed basilicas noted earlier
nation indicates this was not fully understood. The in the chapter (Figs. 8.21–8.23).²7 Significantly, in
domed bay is actually trapezoidal, with a broad arch a later phase—perhaps the eighth century—the
opening into the nave, slightly narrower arches into Cumanin Camii was strengthened and vaulted in a
the transept, and a narrow arch into the apse. If it cross-domed design.
had been semicircular in profile, the eastern arch Another possible solution is the spatial unit
would have been much lower than its western coun- formed by the dome on pendentives, which could
terpart and would have failed to provide the neces-
sary support, even with the conch of the apse behind 27
G. Bell, The Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭ ur A
‘ bdin, ed.
it. Surviving remains at the site tell the story: the M. M. Mango (London, 1982), 126–27; G. Kaymak, Die Cumanin
westernmost nave piers stand—the groin vault was Camii in Antalya (Antalya, 2009).

also be used as a design module. This seems to be FIGURE 8. 23
what lay behind Justinian’s now-lost rebuilding of Antalya, Cumanin

the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople Camii, plan and
elevation, showing
(Fig. 8.24). Whatever the exact form of Constantius’s
two phases (author,
cruciform church, it was completely replaced ca.
after G. Kaymak,
536–50. Although the building was destroyed in Cumanin Camii,
1469 to make way for the Fatih Mosque (also subse- 2009)
quently destroyed and rebuilt), we may discuss
Justinian’s church in general terms based on descrip-
tions of it, as well as its reflections in the rebuilding
of St. John’s Basilica at Ephesus, completed before
565, and in the late eleventh-century San Marco in
Venice.²8 In these buildings, the modular unit is in
fact a domed cross, with the dome on pendentives,
braced on four sides by narrow barrel vaults. At the
Holy Apostles, the domes seem to have been about
40 Byzantine feet in diameter, although not all were
the same size. Only the central dome, above the
sanctuary, had windows at its base, and the others
may have been shallow, blind domes or perhaps
pendentive domes.
Procopius describes St. John at Ephesus as
“most resembling and in every way rivaling the
Temple of the Apostles in Constantinople” (Figs.
8.25 and 8.26).²9 It might thus be able to provide
Begun sometime in the second half of the elev-
us with a good impression of the lost prototype.
enth century, San Marco in Venice is also similar
When excavated, St. John’s stood to a maximum
(Figs. 21.10 and 21.11). The interior must give
height of 3 to 4 meters—that is, perhaps one
something of the impression of how the Holy
sixth of its original height. Replacing the older
Apostles may have appeared, with domes on pen-
church of ca. 450, when it was completed,
dentives, organized in a Greek-cross plan, rising
Justinian’s church had six major bays defined by
above cluster piers. A monk from San Nicolò
piers or pier clusters at the corners of each bay,
di Lido noted in the early twelfth century that
and as the analysis of the fallen masonry indi-
the church was “a skillful construction entirely
cates, it was covered by five low pendentive domes
similar to that of the Twelve Apostles in Con-
and a taller dome on pendentives at the cross-
stantinople.”³¹ But its context is quite different:
ing.³0 This gave greater prominence to the cross-
the building would have responded to the emerg-
ing dome, above the sanctuary and tomb of the
ing civic pride within eleventh-century Italy, of-
evangelist, and creates a more unified interior.
fering visual competition to Venice’s rival Pisa,
which was building its new cathedral at the same
28
N. Karydis, “The Evolution of the Church of St. John at time—a subject to which we shall return in
Ephesos,” 97–128; N. Karydis, “Justinian’s Church of the Holy Chapter 21. It also provided visual testimony of
Apostles: A New Reconstruction Proposal,” in The Holy Venice’s cosmopolitan character, its close rela-
Apostles: A Lost Monument, a Forgotten Project, and the Presentness of tions, and its growing rivalry with Constantinople.
the Past, eds. M. Mullett and R. G. Ousterhout (Washington, DC,
in press).
29
Procopius, On Buildings, 5.1.4 –6. 31
O. Demus, The Church of San Marco in Venice, History, Architecture,
30
Karydis, “Evolution,” argues, based on a close analysis of the Sculpture (Washington, DC, 1960), 90; F. Forlati, La Basilica di San
masonry, that the sixth-century church was begun on a five-domed Marco attraverso i suoi Restauri (Trieste, 1975), and E. Concina,
plan and subsequently the nave was extended, resulting in the six- Storia dell’Architettura di Venezia dal VII al XX Secolo (Milano, 1995),
domed plan. 35–36.

FIGURE 8. 24
Constantinople,
Church of the
Holy Apostles,
hypothetical plan
and elevation
(N. Karydis)
Returning to western Asia Minor and the sixth developments. Could St. John’s have served as
century, we find a variety of vaulted buildings the model for the Holy Apostles, rather than the
that employed the cross-domed unit. The enig- other way around? Anthemius and Isidorus, the
matic church of St. John at Alaşehir (Philadelphia) architects of Hagia Sophia, came from western
has a curious single-aisled plan, with a nave Asia Minor, but we can only speculate how much
covered by two domes; Church D at Sardis was local know-how they brought with them. That
similar, while two churches at Pamukkale/ said, the full integration of the cross-domed unit
Hierapolis—all probably Justinianic in date— must wait until after the time of Justinian.
seem to have employed similar modular designs
(Fig. 8.27).³² We might wonder if they (rather ,
than the Holy Apostles) set the pattern for later
What is perhaps most striking from this overview
32
H. Buchwald, “Western Asia Minor as a Generator of is the experimental nature of the dome in the sixth
Architectural Forms in the Byzantine Period, Provincial
Back-wash of Dynamic Center of Production,” JÖB 34 (1984):
199–234, esp. 209–14; reprinted in H. Buchwald, Form, Style 1999); N. Karydis, Early Byzantine Vaulted Construction, 13–
and Meaning in Byzantine Church Architecture (Ashgate, 23.

FIGURE 8. 25
Ephesus, St. John,
view looking
northwest (author)
FIGURE 8. 26
Ephesus, St. John, plan
and hypothetical isometric
section (after N. Karydis,
Early Byzantine Vaulted
Construction, 2011)
8. 27 Plans of vaulted churches from western Asia
FIGURE
Minor: Urban Basilica, Hierapolis; St. John, Philadelphia;
Building D, Sardis (after N. Karydis, Early Byzantine Vaulted
Construction, 2011)
century—not simply in terms of its structure, but same meaning? Where do we draw the line be-
also in terms of its form, placement, and meaning. tween the roles played by structure, function, and
We have pendentive domes, domes on penden- meaning in the creation of new architectural de-
tives, with and without ribs, and with and without signs? Much of the fifth-century experimentation
windows, as well as the exotic combination of might be viewed as a spatial interplay between li-
pumpkin dome and cloister vault. And where turgically appropriate longitudinal plans and sym-
should the dome be positioned—centrally over the bolically resonant centralized designs. The changes
nave or above the bema? And what does it mean? in architectural design we are discussing here may
At Hagia Sophia, Procopius presents the dome as be driven more by symbolic than by structural
the heavenly sphere—as the “dome of heaven,” concerns. This is most evident in the context of
where God dwells. Would the same apply to the imperial patronage, but as Constantinople emerges
faceted dome of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus? And if a as a powerful cultural and religious center, it sets a
church has multiple domes, do they all bear the standard to be emulated across the empire.

CHAPTER NINE
THE BASILICA TRANSFORMED

Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
T he best known and most influential of all

Byzantine churches, Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople is a unique achievement in the
The idea of a domed temple as the heavenly
abode of the divinity, as expressed in the Roman
Pantheon, lies behind Justinian’s church, and it is
history of architecture and, as such, demands a tempting to see the Pantheon as its referent.2 An
detailed analysis to understand its historical enormous dome rises above the nave of a basilica,
context, planning principles, structural systems, transforming both the spatial experience and the
aesthetics, and symbolism (Fig. 9.1; and see Fig. meaning of the interior. It served as the cathedral
0.1).1 Justinian’s “Great Church” (Megale Ekklesia) of Constantinople and the setting of important
was dedicated to the Holy Wisdom—a concept, imperial ceremonies, but more than anything it
not a person—and it may be best understood in stood as a symbol of Justinian’s dominion, for its
conceptual terms. Intended to be unique in form construction coincided with a critical point in his
and scale, the grand building was meant to reign.3 In 532, the feuds between the various po-
symbolize the dominion of the emperor Justinian litical factions in the capital culminated in a riot,
(r. 527–65), whose armies reconquered lost called the Nika Rebellion for the shouts of
territories in the East and West and in North Africa. “Victory” (= nika in Greek) by the rioters. In the
At the same time, an examination of the building’s course of a week in January 532, much of the city
details reveals unresolved design features and was set ablaze, and while Justinian attempted to
structural flaws, which indicate that the Great placate the rioters, a rival emperor was declared
Church was an experiment on the grandest of by the rabble. Ultimately the riot was ruthlessly
scales, planned and executed quickly. quelled, more than thirty thousand were said to
1
The literature on Hagia Sophia is voluminous; for an overview,
see Mainstone, Hagia Sophia; for bibliography, see Müller-Wiener,
2
K. Lehmann, “The Dome of Heaven,” ArtB 27, no. 1 (1945): 1–27.
Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, 84–96; and Kleinbauer, Early 3
For background to the period see M. Maas, ed., The Cambridge
Christian and Byzantine Architecture; for the liturgy, see Mathews, Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge, 2005), with extensive
Early Churches of Constantinople, 88–99 and passim; for bibliography; D. Potter, Theodora: Actress, Empress, Saint (Oxford,
documentation, R. L. Van Nice, St. Sophia in Istanbul: An 2011); P. Heather, Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of
Architectural Survey, 2 vols. (Washington, DC, 1965, 1986). Justinian (Oxford, 2018).
Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, view into the dome, with east at the top (author)
199
FIGURE 9.1
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia
(Ayasofya
Müzesi),
interior of the
nave, looking
east from the
gallery
(author)
have been massacred, and Justinian emerged political outsiders, who rose from the lower
secure in his imperial power. classes—he a peasant from the northern Balkans,
The colorful circumstances of Justinian’s rise she an entertainer at the Hippodrome. Their
to power and his reign with Theodora as his con- reign marked an end to the dominance of the old
sort have been the stuff of stage dramas, operas, Roman aristocracy, and in many ways, the Nika
and any number of popular novels, all dependent Rebellion was emblematic of the social upheavals
on the historian Procopius’s so-called Secret History, of the period. That said, Justinian styled himself
filled as it is with vitriol, character assassination, as an emperor of old. And like his illustrious pre-
and pornography—and quite different in tone decessors of the first and second centuries,
than his more important works of history, chroni- Justinian clearly understood the symbolic value of
cling Justinian’s military engagements and his build- architectural patronage. As the riots were quelled,
ing program.4 Both Justinian and Theodora were the old cathedral, parts of the palace, and much
of the heart of Constantinople lay in ashes.
4
Procopius, Buildings; Procopius, History of the Wars, Vols. 1–5, Justinian immediately undertook an ambitious
trans. H. B. Dewing and G. Downey (Cambridge, 1935); and building program, in effect transforming the City
Procopius, Secret History, trans. H. B. Dewing (Cambridge, 40). of Constantine into the City of Justinian.

Hagia Sophia was his first project. The old ba- Supported by arches and piers, the great dome
silica (see Chap. 6) had burned in the riots, and measures approximately 31 meters in diameter
Justinian sought to replace it immediately, hiring (100 Byzantine feet) and rises approximately 58
two mechanopoioi (architect-engineers), Anthemius meters above the floor; it forms a monumental
of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus, to create a canopy above the nave, expanded to the east and
unique monument, for which construction is said west by semi-domes. Measured from entrance to
to have begun barely six weeks after the destruc- apse, the nave preserves the greatest vaulting span
tion of the old cathedral.5 In both design and of any building to survive from antiquity or the
scale, Hagia Sophia has no antecedents and no Middle Ages.
immediate followers, testifying to the ambitions The dome is clearly the dominant theme of the
of the patron and the theoretical backgrounds of interior design and a new feature in architectural
its creators, who were the equivalent of university vocabulary of the basilica, which was normally
professors specializing in theoretical geometry. covered by a wooden roof. Indeed, large-scale
Indeed, no one with a practical background vaulting in church architecture was rare before
would have attempted such an experimental the sixth century. Most earlier domes rose above a
building on such a grand scale—or to construct it circular plan, as did the Pantheon’s dome, so that
so rapidly. The Great Church was completed the transition from rising wall to vault was fairly
within a remarkably short period of time—after simple, in spite of the complex structural require-
less than six years, the building was dedicated in ments.6 To place a dome above a rectilinear build-
December 537. ing required some sort of transition. The central
Laid out on a rectangular plan with maximum square bay is defined by four great piers, above
interior dimensions of approximately 70 by 76 which rise four arches, which support the dome.
meters, the building in fact repeats the basic ele- At the corners, spherical triangles, or pendentives,
ments and even the proportions of earlier basilicas, ease the transition from square to circle. In fact,
such as that of St. John Stoudios (see Chap. 3): in while the pendentives may appear to be an im-
plan, it has three aisles, with galleries above the portant design innovation, it is the arches that
side aisles and narthex, preceded by an atrium, bear the weight of the dome and adjust it down-
and with the longitudinal axis terminating in the ward to the corner piers.
sanctuary (Figs. 9.2 and 9.3). But it differs in sev- Rather than relying on solid walls for sup-
eral significant respects from the basilicas of the port, the daring design concentrated the weight
fifth century, most notably with the introduction of the building at twelve critical points: the four
of vaulting throughout the building. The added great piers beneath the dome, four clustered
weight of the vaulting meant that the designers piers behind them to the north and south, and
could not reuse the foundations of the old church four clustered piers flanking the exedra to the
because they needed thicker and deeper footings. east and west. With the weight of the super-
In the elevation, while columnar screens sepa- structure transferred to a point support system,
rated the nave from the side aisles and galleries, large areas of the outer walls were transformed
large piers were necessary at critical points to to non-load-bearing curtain walls—screens of
support the vaults. In terms of its design, the windows on the ground floor and gallery levels
building combines elements of a longitudinally (Figs. 9.4 and 9.5; and see Fig. 5.18). The dome
planned basilica with the centralizing features of a is similarly innovative, constructed of a thin
dome raised above the square central bay. This is membrane of brick, reinforced with forty ribs
seen most clearly in the elevation and the dramatic that concentrate the weight and allow a ring of
spatial effect created by the centrally positioned forty windows around the haunch of the dome
dome. The centralizing focus is also expressed in (Fig. 9.6). As a consequence, the interior ap-
the plan with the exedrae, or columnar screens, pears light and lofty, with light entering at many
which round off the four corners of the nave. points in the elevation.
5
Downey, “Byzantine Architects,” 99–118. 6
Lancaster, Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome, 158–61.
CHAPTER NINE: THE BASILICA TRANSFORMED 201

FIGURE 9.2 Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, plan of the sixth-century building, showing the “double square” in purple, measuring 100 and 106 Byzantine feet across, with projected
dome dimensions in blue: the innermost circle measures 100 Byzantine feet in diameter and the outermost 150 Byzantine feet (author, after V. Hoffmann, Geometrische Entwurf, 2005;
and R. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 1988)
FIGURE 9.3
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
transverse and
longitudinal
elevations of the
sixth-century
building (after
Mainstone,
Hagia Sophia,
1988)
By the most reliable Byzantine accounts, the Most scholars believe the original building was
first dome of Hagia Sophia was shallower and covered by a pendentive dome, distinct in its ge-
more daring than its replacement, with a profile ometry from the present dome on pendentives, the
about 7 meters lower than the present dome.7
Agathius, The Histories, 5.9.1–3, ed. R. Keydell, CFHB 2 (Berlin,
7
Notably J. Malalas, The Chronicle of John Malalas, trans. E. Jeffreys, 1967), 174–75; all carefully scrutinized by C. Mango, “Byzantine
M. Jeffreys, R. Scott, and B. Croke (Melbourne, 1986), 297; Writers on the Fabric of Hagia Sophia,” 41–56.

FIGURE 9.4
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
south nave
arcade and
gallery (author)
FIGURE 9.5
Constantinople, Hagia
Sophia, typical system
for gallery windows:
filling the wall area
beneath the arch, with
a parapet on the
lowest zone, on which
rest casement
windows, with two
levels of glazing
above, framed by
mullions (author)

FIGURE 9.6
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
view into the
dome, with
north at the
top (author)
latter a change of design introduced after the alternative unit of measurement, yielding a 99-foot
earthquake of 557 (Fig. 9.7).8 The difference is bay (determined using the golden section), result-
noteworthy: a pendentive dome has a curvature ing in a diameter of exactly 140 feet.9 But a 99-
continuous from the four corners—from the foot module for the central bay seems odd when
springing of the pendentives through the crown set against the even numbers employed for domes
of the vault—that is, all curved surfaces depend elsewhere during the early sixth century.10
on the same spherical geometry. By contrast, in a Another ingenious suggestion posits that the
dome on pendentives, the geometry of the hemi- planning of Hagia Sophia actually depended on a
spherical dome is based on a smaller sphere than double square, measuring 100 and 106 Byzantine
that which defines the pendentives. For both the feet across, the larger measurement defined by
original dome and its replacement, texts indicate the extra width of the central bay (see Figs. 9.2
a cornice at the transition from pendentive to the
dome proper, with a ring of windows at its
haunches. To begin the design process with a 9
R. H. W. Stichel, “Die Kuppel an der ‘goldenen Kette’: Zur
pendentive dome, the diameter of the original
Interpretation der Hagia Sophia in Konstantinopel,” in Almanach
sphere would have been the diagonal of the square Architektur 1998–2002: Lehre und Forschung an der Technischen
bay it covers (see Fig. 9.3). This would have posed Universität Darmstadt, eds. H. Svenshon, M. Bender, and R. May
a challenge to the designer, because the diagonal (Tübingen, 2003), 244–51; R. H. W. Stichel and H. Svenshon,
of a 100-foot square is an irrational number, “Das unsichtbare Oktagramm und die Kuppel an der ‘goldenen
141.4213 . . . , and even the most experienced Kette’. Zum Grundrissentwurf der Hagia Sophia in Konstantinopel
theoretician would not have begun a design with und zur Deutung ihrer Architekturform,” Bericht über die Tagung
an irrational number. One analysis proposes an für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung 2002 42 (2004):
187–205.
10
Underwood, “Some Principles of Measure in the Architecture
8
K. J. Conant, “The First Dome of St. Sophia and Its Rebuilding,” of the Period of Justinian,” 64–74; Schilbach, Byzantinische
BByzI 1 (1946): 71–78; Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, esp. 209–12. Metrologie, 13–36.

FIGURE 9.7
(A and B) Diagrams
of pendentive
domes, showing
spherical geometry
and measurements
at two different
scales; (C) Dome
on pendentives
(L. Lancaster)
and 9.7).11 In fact, the 100:106 ratio determines rushed from start to finish. The building must
the relationship of the overall length to width in have been designed in great haste, with the archi-
the building as well. For the original dome, a tects concentrating their attention on the monu-
slight expansion from a 100- to a 106-foot meas- mental spectacle of the nave vessel at the expense
urement in the calculations would allow the nec- of all else—the dome braced by half-domes
essary setback at the level of the dome cornice. framed with exedrae, rising above two levels of
Moreover, if the dome rises above a 106-foot colonnades. With a dome diameter of 100
square, the diagonal measurement would have Byzantine feet, flanked by half-domes of the same
been almost exactly 150 Byzantine feet—actually diameter, other measurements for the central
149.9066 . . . feet, close enough to be counted as space can be calculated in round numbers, frac-
a round number. The double-square solution tions of 100.13 But neither the system of measure-
thus would allow round numbers to define both ment nor the design elements continue into the
the central square at ground level and the dome secondary spaces, which have a completely differ-
diameter. ent structural organization, with groin vaults
An initial measurement of 150 feet is signifi- rising above an independent system of columns
cant because the dome diameter of the Pantheon (Figs. 9.8 and 9.9). The two systems are awk-
in Rome is 150 Roman feet—the unit is slightly wardly connected by oddly shaped barrel vaults
larger than the Byzantine foot, but the numerical and partial arches, barely disguised behind the
correspondence is noteworthy.12 We might thus nave arcades—details that perhaps only the die-
view the scale of Hagia Sophia’s dome as deter- hard architectural historian might notice.
mined by that of the Pantheon, with Justinian’s In spite of the design inconsistencies, the
Great Church participating in a competitive dis- amount of coordination and preplanning nec-
course with the Roman imperial past, played out essary for the enterprise is staggering, even by
in architectural terms. But in contrast to the today’s standards. A legendary ninth-century ac-
heavy forms and closed interior of the Pantheon, count credits the building to one hundred teams
the design of Hagia Sophia is more open, daring, of one hundred masons, each under the supervi-
and filled with light—in short, Hagia Sophia sion of a master mason.14 This is surely an exag-
does the Pantheon one better. geration, but when we take into consideration the
After the fires of the Nika Riots, Anthemius amount of stone that had to be quarried, mortar
and Isidorus quite literally had a tabula rasa on to be prepared, brick to be manufactured, and
which to build. What they didn’t have was time to hundreds of columns, capitals, and closure panels
work out the details, as the building project was to be carved, as well as hectares of mosaic to be
laid and workers to be fed and housed, the ener-
getics involved is mind-boggling, particularly
when we realize the project went from conception
11
V. Hoffmann, ed., Die geometrische Entwurf der Hagia Sophia in
Istanbul: Bilder einer Ausstellung (Bern, 2005); V. Hoffmann and
N. Theocharis, “Der geometrische Entwurf der Hagia Sophia in 13
Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 177–83.
Istanbul: Erster Teil,” IstMitt 52 (2002): 393–428. 14
Narratio de S. Sophiae; see Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire,
12
Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture, 177–97. 96–102; Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire.

FIGURE 9.8
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
gallery, looking
south (author)
to completion in less than six years. That Justinian dome were sufficiently braced on the longitudinal
could marshal the manpower and materials in such axis by the lower semi-domes, and these in turn
a short period of time is a testament to the resources were braced by the conches of the exedrae in a
and power of the state in the sixth century. cascading system of support. But no additional
Structurally, Hagia Sophia was fraught with bracing appears to the north and south: on the
problems, which became evident during the process transverse axis are clerestory windows, which orig-
of construction, even before the dome was begun. inally were much more open than they appear
The basic difficulty was the unprecedented size of today (now essentially the result of a tenth-century
the building. The increased scale meant an in- rebuilding). To be stable, the dome required a bi-
crease in weight, so that an estimated 105 tons of laterally symmetrical system of buttressing—that
pressure per square meter is exerted on the main is, something like the half-domes was necessary to
piers. The great weight would have exacerbated stabilize the transverse axis as well (compare sec-
defects in the structural system—and there were tions, Fig. 9.3).
defects. In the vaulting of the building, the points This very basic structural problem was com-
of maximum impact were the crowns of the four pounded by the construction technique. Walls
great arches supporting the dome. The weight of and vaults were built of brick laid with large
the dome and vaults would have caused both quantities of mortar. The bricks are approximately
downward and outward thrusts—that is, they 6 centimeters thick, and the mortar beds were
would have exerted both compressive and tensile slightly thicker; in other words, more mortar
stresses. Masonry structures work well in com- was used than brick. This may have expedited
pression, and the downward thrust, or dead the construction, for we know that Justinian was
weight caused by gravity, was not a problem. But in a great hurry to have his church completed.
the outward thrusts of the vaults introduced ten- But mortar takes a long time to dry properly, and
sion—bending or elongating forces—into the it will appear stable long before it has set to its
fabric of the building, and they were not properly ultimate hardness. At Hagia Sophia this allowed a
addressed on all sides. The outward thrusts of the phenomenon known as the “plastic flow of mortar”

FIGURE 9.9
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
intersection of
side aisle vaults
with the nave
arcade (author)
to occur: the walls and vaults became misshapen appropriate to this discussion.16 These appear to
when pressure was exerted on them.15 Structural have been included as a not-so-subtle way to
problems led to the permanent deformation of honor Justinian, to whom the solutions are cred-
the building. ited, when the expertise of the builders falls short.
On the exterior, imposing buttresses are posi- If properly understood, the two problems are
tioned to the north and south of the dome piers nevertheless revealing. In the first, Procopius re-
(Fig. 9.10). At first glance, they may seem improp- lates that even before it was completed, the weight
erly positioned, for they provide no bracing for of the eastern arch was too much for the supports
the clerestory arches. However, they would have beneath it, which threatened to collapse: “The
provided necessary support against the outward supports [pessoi] on top of which the structure
thrusts of the east and west arches. Indeed, with was being built, unable to bear the mass that was
diameters of 100 Byzantine feet, the four great pressing down on them, somehow or other sud-
arches of the domed bay had far greater spans than denly started to break away and seemed to be on
any surviving Roman arch. Even before the dome the point of collapsing.” The text is a bit confus-
was constructed, they would have required addi- ing: what exactly are the pessoi? Procopius uses
tional bracing. The outward thrusts of the north the same term for the great piers from which the
and south arches were braced by the lower vaults, arch springs, but these would not be adversely af-
but not those to the east and west, so the but- fected solely by the weight of the arch. More
tresses were absolutely necessary to stabilize the likely, the pessoi in question are the towers of
building during the construction process. formwork that supported the arch during its con-
Procopius’s description of Hagia Sophia tells struction—which must have been as massive as
us a great deal about the sixth-century aesthetic the piers. To solve the problem, Justinian ordered
response to the building, but it concludes with the completion of the arch, noting that it would
two rather perplexing structural problems that are bear its own weight once completed, a solution
15
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 156. 16
Procopius, Buildings, 1.i.20–78.

FIGURE 9.10
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
distant view
from the
southeast
(author)
that only makes sense if the problem was with the scale as that of Hagia Sophia. Without the structural
formwork, not the piers. theory of the present-day architect, structural
A second problem occurred with the north design was a matter of trial and error. A variety of
and south arches, which, as Procopius relates, precautionary features indicate they were well
placed so much pressure on the columns under aware of the challenges: foundations were carried
them that they began to flake. Justinian directed down to bedrock; the major piers were con-
the builders to remove the columns, let the arch structed of large limestone blocks laid with thin
set, and then replace them. Again, the solution mortar beds; lead was used instead of mortar at
might seem perplexing but begins to make sense the springing of the arches and vaults; marble
if we take into consideration the greater degree of cornices and string courses were joined with iron
openness in the original clerestory—probably a cramps to form tension rings at three levels in the
so-called thermal window, with mullions dividing elevation.17 Minor arches were braced by tie rods
the lunette into three lights, as survives in the or tie beams; and imported Roman bricks, four
western vault (see Fig. 9.5 and Fig. 0.1). The marble times larger than standard, were used in the
mullions (Procopius’s “columns”) were suffering arches below the dome. These measures proved
due to the plastic flow of mortar, which allowed insufficient against the sheer weight and resultant
the arch above them to deform. Justinian’s alleged outward thrusts. None of this was enough to
solution offered a quick fix to a more serious prob- counteract the combined forces of gravity and
lem. Taken together, these two episodes, which earth movement. Improperly braced, the dome of
were meant to emphasize Justinian’s divinely in- Hagia Sophia expanded laterally, pushing against
spired wisdom, instead indicate real structural the clerestory arches and the piers to the north
problems encountered even before construction and south. The major piers have rotated outward
on the dome had begun. and are now off vertical by more than 60 centi-
This is not to say that Anthemius and Isidorus meters each, and the columns in the gallery
were unfamiliar with structural design, but nei- lean noticeably outward as well (Fig. 9.11). Not
ther they nor any of their contemporaries had
experience with construction on such a colossal 17
Butler, “Hagia Sophia’s Nave Cornices,” 57–77.

FIGURE 9.11 They were rebuilt by 1354 under the supervision
Constantinople, of a military official named Astras and a Latin
Hagia Sophia, subject named John Peralta; the project was fi-
gallery column
nanced with Russian subventions.18 Construction
showing the
here is rough and irregular, as evident from the
effects of lateral
expansion
awkward joint in the northwest pendentive. All
(author) considered, the fact that so much of the original
building remains standing is nothing short of
miraculous.
In this respect, Procopius’s impression of the
original dome is noteworthy: it was “wonderful
to behold in its beauty yet altogether terrifying by
the apparent precariousness of its composition.
For it seems somehow not to be raised up in a
firm manner, but to soar aloft to the peril of those
who are in there.”19 His comments are addressed
not to the structural system but to the aesthetic
effect of the interior, which evokes an emotional
response, a mixture of fear and awe. The architects
consciously created a dematerialized impression
in the interior, emphasizing the transcendental.
All surfaces are lush and reflective, the vaults cov-
ered with more gold mosaic, the walls and floors
with “meadows” of many-colored stone revet-
ments and opus sectile inlays (Fig. 9.12). Unfolded
in book-matched panels, the veined Proconessian
marble flooring appears rippling and liquid, as if
surprisingly, following an earthquake in 557, the the visitor is walking on water (Fig. 9.13).20 Even
dome collapsed, along with the eastern semi-dome. the structural elements lose the appearance of
The dome we see today is essentially the re- support: the solidity of the piers hidden behind
placement, designed by Isidorus the Younger, a the lavish cladding, the colorful panels joined by
nephew of one of the original architects, dedi- dematerialized, lace-like borders. The lack of ver-
cated in 563 (see Fig. 9.6). The new dome was tical alignment in the nave and gallery colon-
close to hemispherical and thus more stable, but nades denies their structural role and reduces
in all other aspects its details correspond to the them to decorative screens (see Fig. 9.7). The
first dome, as described by Procopius. It rests on nave arcades have four columns; the galleries
an irregular base, however, with the distortions above have six. The lack of alignment was even
rendering it slightly oval in plan. Its thin-shell more dramatic in the exedrae, which have two
construction is strengthened by forty ribs, with columns below and six above, with the mass of
buttresses projecting between the windows on the the piers decreased to either side. As Paul the
exterior. The western portion of the dome fell fol- Silentiary commented in 563, “One may wonder
lowing the earthquake of 989 and was rebuilt at the resolve of the man who upon two columns
under the supervision of the Armenian architect
Trdat, who happened to be in Constantinople at
the time. He thickened the dome base to guard 18
Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 85–127.
against future deformation and added metal 19
Procopius, Buildings, 1.i.33.35.
bands to join the newer masonry to the older. 20
F. Barry, “Walking on Water: Cosmic Floors in Antiquity and
Blocked windows mark the ends of the repair. the Middle Ages,” ArtB 89, no. 4 (2007): 627–56; B. Pentcheva,
The eastern quadrant collapsed in 1346, along “Hagia Sophia and Multisensory Aesthetics,” Gesta 50, no. 2
with portions of the eastern arch and semi-dome. (2011): 93–111.

FIGURE 9.12
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
interior of the
nave, detail of
revetments
(author)
FIGURE 9.13
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
detail of floor
paving in book-
matched panels
of Proconessian
marble (author)

FIGURE 9.14
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
southeast
exedra, with
two columns
below and six
above (author)
has bravely set thrice two and has not hesitated to At a loss to understand its structural system,
fix their bases over empty air” (Fig. 9.14).21 Procopius resorts to rhetoric to explain it: “It
The carved marble details evoke a similar re- seems not to be founded on solid masonry, but to
sponse. Capitals, spandrels, and decorative borders be suspended from heaven by that golden chain,”
are heavily undercut, the vegetal patterns exe- a reference to the Iliad (VIII.19). The reference
cuted with a drill. The delicate, lace-like surface is might also be to Neoplatonic thought, for exam-
emphasized, and these pieces seem unable to sup- ple, as expressed somewhat later by the writer
port anything of substance despite the huge mass known as Pseudo-Dionysius: “the great shining
of the building. The capitals, in fact, descend from chain hanging downward from the heights of
the Roman composite type, combining a basket of Heaven to the world below,” by which we are lifted
acanthus leaves with volutes, reduced to a decora- up to its dazzling light.23 Indeed, both Anthemius and
tive screen above the core. Monograms provide Isidorus were thoroughly grounded in Neoplatonic
names and titles: Justinian, Theodora, Basileus thought, and the concept of celestial light may
(emperor), Augusta (empress) (Fig. 9.15). The heavy inform and underlie the unique design of the
undercutting extends into the spandrels of the building (Fig. 9.16).24
nave arcade and cornices. The transcendental quality of the interior re-
The ethereal impression was enhanced by flects a conceptual change in Early Christian
more than 2.8 hectares of gold mosaic on the architecture at this time: from its inception, a
vaults, all originally with nonfigural patterning.22
All conspire to disguise the solidity of the struc-
ture and to create an atmosphere of transcendence.
23
Pseudo-Dionysius, “The Divine Names,” in Pseudo-Dionysius:
The Complete Works, trans. C. Luibhéid and P. Rorem (New York,
21
Paul Silentiarius, Descr. S. Sophiae; Mango, Art of the Byzantine 1987), 68.
Empire, 81. 24
N. Schibille, Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine Aesthetic Experience
22
N. Teteriatnikov, Justinianic Mosaics of Hagia Sophia and Their (Aldershot, 2014); A. Kaldellis, “The Making of Hagia Sophia
Aftermath (Washington, DC, 2017). and the Last Pagans of Rome,” JLA 6 (2014): 347–66.

FIGURE 9.15
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
capitals from
the gallery with
monograms
reading Justinian,
Basileus,
Theodora, and
Augusta (author)
Christian church was understood as a meeting hall described in Chapter 3. The major difference was
for the congregation, not a temple—that is, not the scale of the building, which required a slower
the dwelling place of the divinity. But as paganism liturgy and less involvement by the congregation.
disappeared and churches became more lavish, the The resonance of the vaulted interior would have
church came to be regarded as the House of God. encouraged singing or chanting, rather than the
Thus, Procopius writes, “The visitor’s mind is spoken word. The scale also demanded a greater
lifted to God and floats aloft, thinking that He number of officiants. At the time of Justinian, the
cannot be far away, but must love to dwell in this church and its dependencies was staffed by
place which He himself has chosen.”25 As with the 60 priests, 100 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 90 sub-
Pantheon, the dome is the Dome of Heaven. deacons, 110 lectors, 25 psalmists, and 100 door-
Can we talk about a relationship between ar- keepers.26 Rather than responding directly to the
chitecture and liturgy at Hagia Sophia? In terms necessities of the liturgy, the architects were more
of its plan, proportions, and basic features, the concerned with the aesthetic experience of the in-
Great Church conforms to the design of earlier terior, creating a space that elevated the ceremo-
basilicas, and its liturgical features, now lost, must nies it housed, placing them on a level beyond
have been similar based on descriptions, although common experience, transforming them into a
larger in scale and more lavish, with the sanctuary symbolic, heavenly drama.
projecting into the eastern part of the nave and Hagia Sophia also created an appropriate
solea and ambo extending toward its center. The space for imperial ceremony. The emperor could
worship service would have been similar to that
26
A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Baltimore, 1964),
25
Procopius, Buildings, 1.i.60–63. 910–14.

FIGURE 9.16
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia, nave,
looking east; a study
of the effects of
natural light in the
building, 1948
(Byzantine Institute
of America and
Dumbarton Oaks
Fieldwork Records
and Papers, ca. late
1920s–2000s,
Dumbarton Oaks
Trustees of Harvard
University)
participate in the regular worship service, pre- the south colonnade. The empress and her reti-
senting his gifts to the church at the altar during nue probably observed the service from the
the First Entrance and receiving communion gallery, and if the emperor chose not to take com-
before the congregation during the Mass of the munion, he could observe the service from the
Faithful.27 A throne for him was positioned in gallery as well; the south gallery was set aside for
imperial worship. By the tenth century, the Book
27
Mathews, Early Churches, 172–73. of Ceremonies lists nineteen annual services in

which the emperor officially participated.28 Set earthly role.31 His identification and description
in the magnificent interior of Hagia Sophia, the of the marble “meadows”—stones used as revet-
exchange of the Kiss of Peace between the em- ments and columns—reads as a geography lesson
peror and the patriarch would have emphasized on the expanse of Justinian’s dominion and his
the unity of church and state. The great dome, command of resources:
the celestial canopy in which God dwelled, sanc-
tified the events and ceremonies that transpired Yet who, even in the thundering strains of
below. Homer, shall sing the marble meadows
In the final analysis, Hagia Sophia may be best gathered upon the mighty walls and spreading
understood in symbolic rather than in liturgical pavement of the lofty church? Mining tools of
terms. But this is not to suggest its meaning was toothed steel have cut these from the green
fixed and immutable. Hagia Sophia is all about flanks of Carystus [Euboea] and have cleft the
architecture—a building and the process of build- speckled Phrygian stone, sometimes rosy mixed
ing as metaphor. It was a flexible symbol that with white, sometimes gleaming with purple
could be read in a variety of ways and whose and silver flowers. There is a wealth of
meaning shifted with fundamental changes in porphyry stone, too, besprinkled with little
Byzantine society. Indeed, already in the sixth bright stars that had laden the river-boat on
century, writers offered different readings of the the broad Nile.
building. Procopius, for example, underscores the
sacred character of the building with allusions to He continues to describe the stones from Laconia,
the Temple of Solomon, where God similarly Libya, the Moorish hills, the Celtic crags, and the
chose to dwell. He emphasizes the quality of light land of Atrax [Thessaly]—all are encompassed in
in the building: “Indeed, one might say that its the vast territorial expanse of Justinian’s empire.
interior is not illuminated from without by the Seen in this light, as a symbol of dominion, the
sun, but that the radiance comes into being original, nonfigural mosaic decorations may find
within it, such an abundance of light bathes this their best comparisons in Sasanian silks: the inte-
shrine.”29 Set within the context of the general ev- rior is swathed in the luxury of the East. In purely
ocation of the Temple, this may refer to the ap- secular terms, the church reads as a microcosm of
pearance of the Shekinah, or presence of God, in wealth and power.32
the Temple. Similar themes echo in the ninth-
century, legendary Narratio, which recounts that Later viewers from both East and West re-
the bricks of the building were stamped with the sponded more toward the inherent sanctity of
verse of Psalm 45, reading “God is in her midst, the building and less toward a specific associa-
she shall not be moved”—a verse that may have tion with Justinian. In 987, for example, when
been spoken at the dedication ceremony.30 We the ambassadors of the Russian prince Vladimir
might even extend the metaphor to suggest that attended the liturgical celebrations at Hagia
as Hagia Sophia increased in prestige, it came to Sophia, they responded, “We knew not whether
be regarded as the new Temple of Solomon, we were in heaven or on earth . . . we only knew
thereby equating Constantinople with Jerusalem. that God dwells there among men . . . we cannot
Paul the Silentiary’s ekphrasis, written for the forget that beauty.”33 And on the strength of that
rededication of the building in 563, develops a experience, Kievan Rus’ converted to Orthodox
slightly different theme, emphasizing Justinian’s Christianity. It is a rare historical event when a
28
Mathews, Early Churches, 113; Constantine Porphyrogennetos, 31
The Book of Ceremonies, trans. A. Moffatt and M. Tall (Canberra, 32
M. Canepa, The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship
2012). between Rome and Sasanian Iran (Berkeley, 2009), 216–21.
29
R. G. Ousterhout, “New Temples and New Solomons,” 223–53. 33
S. Z. Zenkovsky, ed., Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales
30
Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 98. (New York, 1963), 66–67.

nation is said to be converted on the memory of a at the dedication.34 But these were never particu-
monument. The response of the Russians is all the larly important and are rarely mentioned after-
more surprising when we realize that neither the ward. The building’s significance did not depend
church nor its site had any specific sacred associa- on imported sacred matter. Instead, the sanctity
tions and the building contained no important that came to be associated with the building de-
relic—it was dedicated to a concept and not to a rived from the power of its architecture.
person. When the first Hagia Sophia was rebuilt
in 415, the relics of Joseph (son of Jacob) and 34
C. Mango, Hagia Sophia: A Vision for Empires (Istanbul, 1997),
Zacharias (father of John the Baptist) were deposited xxiv.

CHAPTER TEN
JUSTINIAN’S BUILDING PROGRAM

AND SIXTH-CENTURY DEVELOPMENTS
D escribed in detail by Justinian’s court historian

Procopius, Justinian’s building program
focused on the center (Constantinople, with Hagia
Turning to the surviving monuments, the
prestige of Constantinople is evident at far-flung
locations: in church architecture, the dome ap-
Sophia given pride of place) and the periphery (the pears as an experimental element structurally, for-
Persian limes, with a detailed description of the mally, and symbolically, as it had in the capital,
fortifications at Dara in Mesopotamia). His text, while artisans and building materials from the
known as De Aedificiis, or Buildings, has been capital appear from the northern Adriatic to the
referred to several times already. It is a remarkable Sinai. At the same time, traditional architectural
and unique work: rather than an ekphrasis inserted forms continue—indeed, Procopius notes local
into a work of history or written for a specific history and traditions as a setting for the emper-
occasion (such as the rededication of Hagia or’s interventions. At the margins of the empire,
Sophia), it constructs an imperial geography that Justinian’s program of fortification was often cou-
emphasizes the expanse of Justinian’s dominion pled with spiritual outposts—churches and pil-
through his building program. Although a pane- grimage sites—combined to spread the message
gyric focused on the emperor and apparently left of Chalcedonian Christianity.
unfinished at the author’s death (Italy is not While the innovative buildings closely associ-
included), the book emphasizes the threefold ated with Justinian in Constantinople draw upon
intention of the emperor’s architectural activity: to the empire-wide developments of the preceding
encourage Orthodox Christianity and honor the century, architecture outside the capital in the
Christian God; to fortify and defend the borders of sixth century often indicates Constantinople as
the empire; and to preserve the aspects of civic life the driving force, both in architectural design and
and urban culture that had characterized Roman in its decoration. Two well-known examples, nei-
civilization. In the context of the text, monuments ther directly connected with Justinian’s patron-
function as themes, metaphors, and signs.1 age, shall suffice to illustrate this. The first, San
1
J. Elsner, “The Rhetoric of Buildings in the De Aedificiis of (Cambridge, 2007), 33–57; A. Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth
Procopius,” in Art and Text in Byzantine Culture, ed. L. James Century (London, 1985).
Poreč, view of the sanctuary showing opus sectile (Photo by Renco Kosinožić, Henry Maguire and Ann Terry
Poreč archive, 1990–2000s, Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, DC)
219
FIGURE 10.1
Ravenna, San
Vitale, view from
the north (author)
FIGURE 10.2
Ravenna, San Vitale, plan and elevation
(after D. Deliyannis, Ravenna, 2010)

FIGURE 10.3
Ravenna, San
Vitale, interior,
looking east
(Mark J. Johnson)
Vitale at Ravenna, represents unique building for showing Justinian and Theodora offering gifts to
sixth-century Italy (Figs. 10.1–10.3).2 The closest the church, might encourage an association with
comparisons for its sophisticated design is Sts. the imperial couple, but there is no evidence for
Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople. The interest or financial backing by them; neither ever
famous mosaics in the sanctuary of San Vitale, set foot in Ravenna. More likely, their images are
included as evidence of the high status and court
2
Deliyannis, Ravenna, 223–50, F. W. Deichmann, Ravenna: connections of the founder(s).
Haupstadt des spätantiken Abenlandes I (Wiesbaden, 1969), 226–56; Texts clearly state that the local bishop Ecclesius
and F. W. Deichmann, Ravenna: Haupstadt des spätantiken undertook the project, deciding to replace a small
Abenlandes II (Wiesbaden, 1976): 47–230; Johnson, San Vitale. shrine dedicated to the martyr Vitalis with a grander
CHAPTER TEN: JUSTINIAN’S BUILDING PROGRAM 221

building. The financial backing came from a dome is similar in diameter—here just over 15.5
wealthy banker, Julianus Argentarius, who spent meters (close to 50 Byzantine feet), the central
26,000 gold solidi (sing. solidus, a gold coin weigh- space rises to 28.7 meters, topped by a hemispher-
ing approximately 4.5 grams) for its construction.3 ical dome with large windows in its haunches. At
The project was begun not during Byzantine rule, the corners of the octagon, squinches ease the
but while the Goths were still in control of Ravenna. transition to the hemisphere.
Ecclesius had come from Constantinople before A tall arch, wider than those that define the ex-
526 and thus could not have seen the grand build- edrae, opens to the sanctuary, the soaring space of
ing projects of Justinian. Ecclesius appears in the the deep bay covered by a groin vault connecting
apse mosaic, but the names of his successors, Victor to the apse. Triple arcades surmounted by lunettes
and Maximian, are also associated with the build- open into the side aisles and galleries on either side.
ing; the latter appears with Justinian in the sanctu- Justly famous for its well-preserved decoration, the
ary mosaic, and the church was dedicated under mosaics offer a visual spectacle with interconnected
him in 547 (see Fig. 5.1). The building thus took an themes of gift-giving, sacrifice, and triumph.5 In
unusually long time to complete—between fifteen the apse, Ecclesius presents a model of the church
and twenty years, but the period was marked by to Christ, who appears seated on a globe in a para-
war, plague, and other calamities that could have disiacal setting, flanked by angels. Christ offers a
slowed or even halted construction or impeded the crown to Vitalis, who waits with hands covered.
shipment of building materials. Below, in two smaller panels on either side of the
Although the design may have been imported bema, Justinian and Theodora, accompanied by
from the Byzantine capital, unlike Sts. Sergius and their retinues, offer a paten and chalice, to be used
Bacchus, the church is octagonal on both the inte- for the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Outside
rior and the exterior and was clearly designed to be the presbytery, most of the original decoration has
a freestanding structure. Curvilinear forms of the disappeared. Shocking next to the grandeur of the
narthex apses, stair towers, and chambers flanking mosaics surviving in the sanctuary is the mediocre
the apse are expressed on the exterior. The narthex eighteenth-century painting in the dome, which
and atrium are rotated 30 degrees from the main depicts the Apotheosis of St. Vitalis.
axis of the building, with odd, wedge-shaped The building construction presents a mixture
spaces between the narthex and the ambulatory. of local and Constantinopolitan features. The
The reason for this is unclear, although the change marbles used for columns, capitals, and impost
of axis may have been intended to connect the blocks are all imported and represent up-to-date
atrium to the grid of the street system. Another cosmopolitan styles. Marble revetments were
suggestion is that the doubled access from the nar- also imported from the East. And unlike stand-
thex into the octagon allowed an axial entrance to ard construction in northern Italy, the bricks
the naos proper, as well as to the exedra containing employed in San Vitale are long and thin, imi-
the relics of the saint—the focal point of the older tating the size and shape of those used in
church on the site.4 In any case, the off-axis en- Constantinople. They were, however, produced
trance emphasizes the centralized nature of the locally and appear in all the buildings financed
building’s design. Indeed, entrances appear on by Julianus. The vaults of the apse, presbytery,
seven sides. The octagonal nave is defined by eight and exedrae are of brick, but the dome itself is
piers of complex shape, with colonnaded exedrae constructed of tubi fittili, lightweight interlock-
billowing between them, with arcades on two ing ceramic tubes, approximately 20 centimeters
levels opening into the ambulatory and gallery. long, set with cement and covered with a
The proportions are taller than at Sts. Sergius and wooden roof. Tubi fittili are found in a variety of
Bacchus, and the forms appear lighter. While the
5
I. Andreescu-Treadgold and W. Treadgold, “Procopius and the
Imperial Panels at San Vitale,” ArtB 79 (1997): 768–23; C. Barber,
3
S. J. Barnish, “The Wealth of Julianus Argentarius: Late Antique “The Imperial Panels at San Vitale: A Reconsideration,” BMGS 14
Banking and the Mediterranean Economy,” Byzantion 55 (1985): 5–38. (1990): 19–43; and S. Bassett, “Style and Meaning in the Imperial
4
Johnson, San Vitale, esp. 133. Panels at San Vitale,” Artibus et Historiae 29, no. 57 (2008): 49–57.

FIGURE 10.4
Poreč, cathedral
complex, seen
from southeast,
with the Eufrasiana
Basilica to the left
and the bishop’s
palace to the right
(Photo by Henry
Maguire and Ann
Terry, Henry
Maguire and Ann
Terry Poreč
archive, 1990–
2000s, Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for
Harvard
University,
Washington, DC)
Late Antique sites in North Africa and Italy, and fifth-century complex that was rebuilt and sub-
they appear in many other Ravennate buildings, stantially updated ca. 550 by the local Bishop
notably the Orthodox Baptistery (see Chap. 5).6 Eufrasius and is consequently known as the
They are, however, unknown in Constantinople Basilica Eufrasiana (Figs. 10.4–10.7).7 Apparently
and the Eastern Mediterranean. originally a double cathedral of the fifth century,
While introducing a purely local element into the north church fell out of use, while the south
an imported design, no surviving dome of tubi church was extended eastward.8 Although it was
fittili matches the scale of San Vitale. Curiously, a rather plain, three-aisled, timber-roofed basilica
the ambulatory and gallery were originally with- of traditional design, the remodeling gave it a de-
out vaulting, covered by a system of wooden cidedly Constantinopolitan appearance. The
roofs, as was likely the case at Sts. Sergius and complex is substantial and well preserved: the ba-
Bacchus. This fact emphasizes the experimental silica is preceded by a small atrium, connecting to
nature of large-scale dome construction in the an axial baptistery of octagonal plan, with the
sixth century. Rather than growing out of prag- episcopal residence to the north of the atrium; a
matic desires for permanent or fireproof roofing,
domes appear in response to formal and aesthetic 7
A. Terry, “The ‘Opus Sectile’ in the Eufrasius Cathedral at
concerns as architects were redefining the church Poreč,” DOP 40 (1986): 147–64; A. Terry, “The Sculpture of
interior, both spatially and conceptually. In this the Cathedral of Eufrasius at Poreč,” DOP 42 (1988): 13–64;
respect, the dome of San Vitale fits well with con- A. Terry, “The Architecture and the Architectural Sculpture of
temporary experiments in Constantinople. the Sixth-Century Eufrasius Cathedral Complex at Poreč” (PhD
A second example offers a slightly different diss., University of Illinois, 1984); and A. Terry and H. Maguire,
perspective. The Cathedral of Poreč (Parentium) Dynamic Splendor: The Wall Mosaics in the Cathedral of Eufrasius at
in Istria on the northern Adriatic Coast was a Poreč (University Park, 2007).
8
I. Matejčić and P. Chevalier, “Nouvelle interpretation du
complexe episcopal pré-euphresien de Poreč,” Antiquité Tardive 6
6
Lancaster, Innovative Vaulting, 99–128. (1998): 355–65.

FIGURE 10.5
Poreč, plan of the
complex (after
A. Terry and
H. Maguire,
Dynamic Splendor,
2007)
trefoil chapel sits to the northeast of the church. it as closely related to that of Hagia Sophia, thus
All are constructed of rough local stone. Within promoting the building to a central position
the nave arcades, the columns are topped by a within discussions of Justinianic art.9 In fact, on
mixture of imported capital types, matched sym- close inspection, much is probably of local pro-
metrically across the nave, and the soffits of the duction: the opus sectile is composed of spolia—
arches preserve molded stucco panels. The low many from a nearby temple, with the panels often
synthronon is of imported marble with an ornate awkwardly composed with mismatched and het-
throne at its center, with panels of opus sectile erogeneous stones. Similarly, the mismatched
lining the wall above it and mosaics filling the capitals of the nave may be simply leftovers from
conch of the apse and upper wall. The bema floor a nearby marble yard or port—perhaps from
is of inlaid marbles as well. Ravenna, where one finds many similar imported
The apparent lavishness of the decoration pieces. In short, the local bishop seems to have
stands in contrast to its setting. Parentium was succeeded, working within a small budget and
not a great cultural center; it was small and ordi-
nary, little more than a provincial coastal town. 9
For example, Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine
An earlier generation of scholars had been im- Architecture, 2nd ed. (Harmondsworth, 1975), 293; and see Terry,
pressed with the opus sectile in particular, viewing “ ‘Opus Sectile.’ ”

of Solomon: set parallel to the Holy Sepulchre, it
faced the ruins of the Temple across the Tyropoeon
Valley. Like the Temple, the Nea was raised on a
high platform on a site with no previous religious
associations, and it was said to be roofed with
cedars of Lebanon and fronted by two majestic col-
umns—like the famed Jachin and Boaz, described
at Solomon’s Temple (II Chron., 17); Procopius
even uses the word hieron (temple) to refer to the
Nea.11 Indeed, the motivation behind the construc-
tion of a new church on virgin territory in a city
where virtually every stone is imbued with sym-
bolic significance is far from clear. One wonders if
the return to Jerusalem of the Temple’s relics, re-
covered from the Vandals in 532, might have
inspired its construction, as several scholars have
suggested. Perhaps it was simply another statement
that Justinian was the “New Solomon.”12
A second building project in the Holy Land
emphasizes Justinian’s interest in the patriarchs of
the Old Testament. At Mount Sinai, Justinian
constructed a church dedicated to the Virgin,
after 548, on the site where God had spoken to
Moses in the form of a Burning Bush (Figs. 10.8–
10.11).13 The dedication depends on Christian
FIGURE 10.6 Poreč, interior of the side aisle, looking east
typology, for the bush that burned but was not
(Photo by Renco Kosinožić, Henry Maguire and Ann Terry
Poreč archive, 1990–2000s, Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for
consumed was taken as a prefiguration of the vir-
Harvard University, Washington, DC) ginity of the Theotokos. The monastery may have
been founded in the fourth century by the em-
utilizing local artisans and regionally available ma- press Helena, who allegedly first identified the
terials to achieve impressive results. As it stands, the site, and is dedicated today to St. Catherine of
Basilica Eufrasiana speaks both to the ingenuity of Alexandria, but the Byzantine dedication must
its patron and—like San Vitale—to the cultural have been to the Theotokos.
impact of Constantinople in the sixth century. The church is a small three-aisled basilica,
Directly associated with Justinian’s patronage, built of a red local granite by a local craftsman,
the construction of the Nea Ekklesia in Jerusalem Stephen of Alia. The nave capitals are of local
(already noted in Chap. 5), dedicated in 543 to the granite as well, heavy imitations of forms known
Theotokos, reflects the emperor’s concern with the elsewhere in the empire.14 The remarkably pre-
empire’s sacred sites.10 Unlike earlier patrons, who served wooden trussed roof was introduced in
concentrated on Jerusalem’s loca sancta, the Nea Chapter 5; one of the beams preserves the dedica-
was built on a difficult site with no biblical associa- tory inscription, naming Justinian, Theodora
tions. Although the vaulted substructures survive,
the immense church itself is incompletely known 11
On Buildings, V.vi.1–23.
from limited archaeological remains; it seems to
have been a basilica of traditional design. A number
12
Ousterhout, “New Temples and New Solomons,” 223–53.
of features, however, suggest a link to the Temple 13
Forsyth, “The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai,” 1–19;
Forsyth and Weitzmann, The Monastery of Saint Catherine.
10
N. Avigad, “The Nea: Justinian’s Church of St. Mary, Mother of 14
E. Maguire, “The Capitals and Other Granite Carvings of
God, Discovered in the Old City of Jerusalem,” in Ancient Justinian’s Church at Mount Sinai” (PhD diss., Harvard University,
Churches Revealed, ed. Y. Tsafrir (Jerusalem, 1993), 128–35. 1986).

FIGURE 10.7
Poreč, view of the
sanctuary showing
opus sectile (Photo
by Renco
Kosinožić, Henry
Maguire and Ann
Terry Poreč
archive, 1990–
2000s, Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for
Harvard
University,
Washington, DC)
(noting that she is deceased), and the builder

Stephen. Barely 5 meters across, the nave is
FIGURE 10.8
flanked by a series of annexed chapels and subsid-
Sinai, Monastery
iary spaces, equal in width to the side aisles and
of St. Catherine,
view of the church,
integrated into the overall design of the church,
from the west functional components of the monastery. Two
(author) domed chapels flank the apse, originally open to
a small courtyard to the east, where the Burning
Bush grew. Plucked out of existence by eager pil-
grims, the area was subsequently enclosed.
The decoration of the bema stands in striking
contrast to the local construction: the apse walls
are revetted with imported Proconessian marble,
set in elaborate book-matched patterns, while the

FIGURE 10.9
Sinai, Monastery of
St. Catherine, plan
and longitudinal
section (George
H. Forsyth Jr.;
Michigan–Princeton–
Alexandria Expedition
to Mount Sinai)
conch of the apse and the wall above it are deco- of the emperor and the participation of artisans
rated with impressive mosaics—both materials from the capital.
and artisans were brought in from Constantinople. The fortifications of the Monastery of St.
The upper wall features panels of Moses and the Catherine on Mount Sinai were discussed in
Burning Bush and Moses receiving the Tablets of Chapter 7, as were the secular buildings at the site
the Law—the two events associated with the of Qasr ibn Wardan in Syria, although it is useful to
site—while the conch is filled with a majestic examine its church here.16 Built ca. 561–64, the
image of the Transfiguration of Christ, which church at Qasr ibn Wardan was part of the resi-
offers a New Testament theophany (appearance of dence of a provincial governor, but it reflects aware-
the divinity) to parallel Moses’s visions of the ness of Constantinople in both its design and its
Divine.15 Like, Poreč, Sinai’s sanctuary adds a construction (Figs. 10.12 and 10.13). It was a small,
Constantinopolitan caste to a provincial build- domed basilica with galleries, preserved to the level
ing, but in this instance with the direct patronage of the dome, which was flanked east and west with
16
Butler, Early Churches in Syria, 191; F. W. Deichmann, “Westlich
J. Elsner, “The Viewer and the Vision: The Case of the Sinai
15
Bautechnik im römischen un rhomäischen Osten,” MDAIRA 86
Apse,” AH 17, no. 1 (1994): 81–102. (1979): 488–93.

FIGURE 10.10
Sinai, Monastery
of St. Catherine,
interior of the
nave, looking east
(R. Nelson)
narrow barrel vaults, with clerestory windows be- older. The huge church (25 by 39 meters) is
neath the high arches to the north and south—that unique in the Greek islands, vaulted throughout
is, exhibiting the same lack of bilaterally symmetri- and laid out on an aisled cruciform plan with gal-
cal bracing as Justinian’s domed basilicas in the cap- leries, with a central dome rising above penden-
ital. Unique for Syria, where most construction was tives. Much of the lower wall and vault construc-
of ashlar, the Qasr ibn Wardan church is built of tion is marble spolia—more than two thousand
alternating bands of brick and stone, following the blocks—from ancient sites on the island and is
Constantinopolitan construction system and pro- carefully cut and finished. In the high vaults, how-
portions. The bricks were produced locally, however, construction shifts to a more lightweight
ever, and their production site has been identified poros stone from nearby islands, laid in alternat-
nearby. In contrast to the Constantinopolitan fea- ing course of different colors. Notably, the church
tures, the stonework is carefully cut, with local style has a deep bema forming the eastern arm of the
in the decoration of the lintels. Moreover, the high cross, providing symmetrical support to the cen-
arches are slightly pointed—a feature that fit better tral dome—an element not found in the surviv-
within a regional context. ing Constantinopolitan churches. Side aisles and
One impressive anomaly in this period is galleries have both groin vaults and barrel vaults.
Panagia Ekatontapyliani on Paros (Our Lady of Distinctively, the nave is separated from the side
the Hundred Gates, or alternatively Panagia Kato- aisles by columns with Ionic impost capitals,
poliani, Our Lady of the Lower City), which also while the gallery has piers with impost capitals
belongs to the period of Justinian, replacing an supporting an architrave—almost the reverse of
older basilica on the site of a Roman bath (Figs. Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. In fact, the gallery ar-
10.14 and 10.15).17 Several subsidiary structures, chitrave hides a structural arcade, immediately
including a baptistery (much rebuilt), may be behind it, on which the vault rests. Like S. Maria
Maggiore in Rome, then, the architrave is more
17
H. H. Jewell and F. W. Hasluck, The Church of Our Lady of the for appearances, a distinctive, classicizing feature
Hundred Gates (Panagia Hekantopyliani) in Paros (London, 1920). to the interior design. The furnishings of the

FIGURE 10.11
Sinai, Monastery
of St. Catherine,
view into the apse,
with mosaics and
marble revetments
(R. Nelson)
bema are impressive in their preservation, with altar may be imports from Constantinople, in
a multistepped synthronon, its throne, and a contrast to local quarrying and production of
partially reconstructed templon surviving. The those of the nave. Traces of the original painted
columns and capitals of the ciborium over the decoration survive in the gallery as well. The

FIGURE 10.12
Qasr ibn Wardan,
church, view from
the south (author)
circumstances for the construction of the build- transept and extended bema, allowing vaulting
ing remain elusive. One suggestion is that it was to be introduced throughout the building, with
built by Justinian as a votive, or thank offering, a dome at the crossing—something like the
to the island for providing the marbles for the Ekatontapyliani on Paros (Fig. 10.17).20
Blachernai Church in the capital. Indeed, the The churches of Italy and the Adriatic remain
galleried cruciform plan with associated water relatively conservative. Beyond San Vitale, there
features (in this instance a substantial baptistery) is little evidence of innovation. Sant’Apollinare in
may in some way reflect the Blachernai.18 Classe, for example, is a magnificent building,
Regional developments. While innovative but it would not have been out of place if it
trends and the shift to centralized and domed ar- appeared a century earlier—comparable to San
chitecture is evident across the empire, standard Giovanni Evangelista in Ravenna, built ca. 430.21
basilicas continued to be built. Galleried basilicas Founded ca. 532–36 by Julianus Argentarius, the
of short proportions, like the Studios Basilica or construction of Sant’Apollinare parallels that of
the Acheiropoietos in Thessalonike, continued to his other foundation, San Vitale, and was simi-
be built across the Balkans. The sixth-century Old larly dedicated by archbishop Maximian, in 549.
Metropolis at Nesebar (Bulgaria), for example, Elegantly decorated, it preserves twenty-four
seems to follow a Constantinopolitan model, built columns of imported Greek marble, as well as
of alternating bands of brick and stone, although wind-blown capitals, pedestals, and revetments
with piers rather than columns (Fig. 10.16).19 By from the Proconessian quarries (Fig. 10.18). The
contrast, the Cathedral of Sofia (Bulgaria), of sixth- apse mosaic is also from the original building.
or possibly seventh-century date, introduces a Only perhaps the apsed side chambers that termi-
nate the aisles signal something new.
18
A. Tantsis, “The So-Called ‘Athonite’ Type Church and Two
Shrines of the Theotokos in Constantinople,” Zograf 34 (2010):
3–11, esp. 7–8. 20
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 204–207.
19
A. Rachénov, Églises de Mesemvria (Sofia, 1932), 2–13; Ćurčić, 21
Deliyannis, Ravenna, 259–74, 63–70, Deichmann, Ravenna II,
Architecture in the Balkans, 229. 233–80.

Galleried basilicas begin to appear in Rome at FIGURE 10.13
this time. While similar to the basilicas of the Qasr ibn Wardan,
Aegean with U-shaped galleries, their implementa- plan and section
(redrawn after
tion in Rome seems to answer to certain functional
H. C. Butler, Early
needs. San Lorenzo fuori le mura, built ca. 579–90;
Churches, 1929)
and Sant’Agnese, built 625–38, lay adjacent to the
semi-abandoned fourth-century cemetery basili-
cas of the same dedication (Fig. 10.19; and see
Fig. 3.12).22 Both responded to the increasing pop-
ularity of pilgrims visiting the tombs of martyrs in
the cemeteries outside the walls by cutting away the
hillside above the catacombs and in effect dropping
the nave floor to the level of the martyr’s tomb, now
directly beneath the altar. Because of the lowered
floor level, the church could be entered from the
street directly into the gallery, with the martyr’s
tomb at the liturgical center. The faithful could thus
observe the services from the gallery level or choose
to descend into closer proximity with the venerated
tomb. While ingenious, in their details, both follow
older examples: San Lorenzo retains an architrave
above its lower colonnades, while Sant’Agnese in-
corporates a rich array of spolia.
While Italy remained conservative, a number
of remarkable works of architecture are to be
found in Byzantine North Africa, perhaps reflect-
ing a Justinianic flavor following the reconquest.
At El Kef in Tunisia, for example, the basilica
known as Dar el Kous (perhaps dedicated to St.
Peter) had coupled columns as elsewhere in North
Africa, but in this instance they also supported
groin vaults in the aisles, which terminate in side
chambers flanking the apse (Fig. 10.20).23 The
apse itself is covered by a half-dome composed of
alternating flat and scalloped segments, similar to
the dome of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, but also
probably similar to the half-dome described at St.
Stephen at Gaza.24 On the outskirts of Carthage,
the large complex at Bir Ftouha, perhaps a pilgrim- from recent excavation, an enormous basilica was
age site, displays a number of unusual geometric entered through a nine-sided structure, either an
flourishes (Fig. 10.21).25 Known only incompletely atrium or a roofed vestibule, and it terminated
with a round baptistery at its head, framed by el-
egant courtyards with convex colonnades. The
22
Brandenburg, Ancient Churches, 236–47; Krautheimer, CBCR contemporaneous structures in Rome seem anti-
2, 1–144; Krautheimer, CBCR 1, 14–38. quated by comparison.
23
Krautheimer and Ćurčić, ECBA, 4th ed., 275–76. Elsewhere, architecture continues with re-
H. Maguire, “The ‘Half-Cone’ Vault of St. Stephen at Gaza,”
24
gional variations. The idea of the domed basilica
DOP 32 (1978): 319–25. is developed in several churches in inland Anatolia.
25
S. Stephens, V. Kalinowski, and H. vanderLeest, Bir Ftouha: A The Church of the Panagia at Tomarza in
Pilgrimage Church Complex at Carthage (Portsmouth, 2005). Cappadocia, now destroyed, was built on a Latin

FIGURE 10.14
Paros, Panagia
Ekatontapyliani,
interior looking
east (author)
FIGURE 10.15
Paros, Panagia
Ekatontapyliani,
plan (after
H. W. Jewell and
F. W. Hasluck,
Church of Our
Lady, 1920)

FIGURE 10.16
Nesebar, Old
Metropolis, view
looking east
(author)
cross plan, ca. 500.26 Arches and the apse tend

FIGURE 10.17
toward the horseshoe in form, and the apse is Sofia, cathedral,
polygonal on the exterior (Fig. 10.22). Doors plan (after
opened from the west into the transept arms; S. Ćurčić,
there was no narthex. Tomarza’s nave measured Architecture in the
approximately 6.75 by 16.52 meters, including Balkans, 2010)
the crossing, and with cross arms extending
16.91 meters. It had a banded barrel vault over
the nave and a crossing tower covered by a
wooden roof, similar to that at Alahan. Its door
frames were elegantly carved. A monumental
column once stood before the entrance, which
may have been for a stylite, similar to Syrian
examples.
The Kızıl Kilise (Red Church) at Sivrihisar is the on a Latin cross plan sometime in the early to mid-
best preserved of the early buildings in Cappadocia, sixth century, with a nave and crossing measur-
although lacking the rich exterior detail of Tomarza ing approximately 12.5 by 5.15 meters, expanded
(Figs. 10.23–10.25; and see Fig. 5.20).27 Set in an by an extra side aisle to the north of the nave, as
isolated mountain valley above Karbala (Byzantine well as transept arms and a horseshoe-shaped
Gelveri, modern Güzelyurt), it is also constructed apse. The nave and transept had barrel vaults,
the side aisle had a quadrant vault, and the dome
over the crossing is raised above squinches and
26
M. Restle, Studien zur frühbyzantinischen Architektur an octagonal drum. With the exception of the
Kappadokiens (Vienna, 1979), 63–73; R. G. Ousterhout, Visualizing dome, the vaults are of rubble rather than ashlar.
Community, 31–35. The asymmetrical side aisle was originally sepa-
27
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community, 31–37; Ousterhout, “The rated from the nave by closure panels, as the
Red Church at Sivrihisar,” 1–11. cuttings in the piers indicate. Thus isolated, the

FIGURE 10.18
Classe, S. Apolinnare,
interior, looking east
(Michael Waters)
FIGURE 10.19
Rome, S. Agnese,
interior, looking
east (author)

FIGURE 10.20
El Kef, Dar el Kous,
looking east (author)
FIGURE 10.21
Carthage–Bir
Ftouha, plan of the
complex (after
S. Stephens et al.,
Bir Ftouha: A
Pilgrimage Church
Complex at
Carthage, Journal
of Roman
Archaeology,
Supplement 59)

FIGURE 10.22
Tomarza, Church
of the Panagia,
view from the
southeast, 1905
(Gertrude Bell
Photographic
Archive, University
of Newcastle)
FIGURE 10.23
Sivrihisar, Red
Church, view from
the southeast
(author)

FIGURE 10.24
Sivrihisar, Red Church,
plan (author, redrawn
after M. Restle, Studien,
1979)
FIGURE 10.25
Sivrihisar, Red
Church, view into
the dome (author)
aisle was likely the setting for a special burial today (Figs. 10.26–10.28).28 Of the early monu-
or venerated tomb. Scholars have suggested an ments, both basilicas and centrally planned
association with St. Gregory of Nazianzus (who churches have been documented, often with evi-
lived ca. 329–90), whose country estate lay dence of later interventions—notably the introduc-
somewhere near here, although there is nothing tion of vaulting. Church 1 is the best preserved,
to substantiate this. although sorting out its construction history is
The isolated inland site known as Binbirkilise complicated. In its final form, a barrel vault
(the Thousand-and-One Churches), perhaps to be
identified as Barata, preserved several dozen 28
W. M. Ramsay and G. L. Bell, The Thousand and One Churches
churches a century ago, although fewer survive (London, 1909).

FIGURE 10.26
Binbirkilise, Church
1, nave looking east
(author)
FIGURE 10.27
Binbirkilise, plans
of Churches 1, 32,
and 8 (after
W. Ramsay and
G. Bell, The
Thousand and One
Churches, 1908)

FIGURE 10.28
Binbirkilise,
Church 8, view
from the southeast,
1887 (John Henry
Haynes, Courtesy
of Special
Collections, Fine
Arts Library,
Harvard
University)
covered the nave and transverse vaults covered the Syria similarly continues both traditional and
bays of the side aisles, with a three-part narthex. innovative architecture into the sixth century.
Church 32 also had three aisles, with galleries and Within the Limestone Massif of northern Syria,
a broad narthex framed by chambers to the north many churches follow the basilican models of the
and south. For both, construction is of ashlar previous century. The East Church at Baqirha, for
facing on a rubble core, with arches of slightly example, was dedicated in 546 (Fig. 10.29), and
horseshoe form. Now completely destroyed, the the Church of St. Sergius at Dar Qita was dedi-
unusual Church 8 was recorded before its collapse cated in 537—both with dedicatory inscriptions
toward the end of the nineteenth century.29 It was on their west portals.31 Both are three-aisled co-
octagonal, amplified by barrel-vaulted projections lumnar basilicas, enlivened by exuberant archi-
on three sides, rose through a clerestory zone, and tectural sculpture.
was covered by a dome. It has long attracted the Two centrally planned churches in Bosra in
interest of scholars, as it appears similar to the the Hauran (southern Syria) reflect the innova-
martyrium described by St. Gregory at Nyssa.30 tions of the period. The first, dedicated to Sts.
Sergius, Bacchus, and Leontius, once thought
29
R. G. Ousterhout, “Binbirkilise Revisited: The 1887 Photo- to be the cathedral, was dedicated in 512/13
graphs of John Henry Haynes,” DChAE 34 (2013): 395–404.
30
J. Strzygowski, Kleinasien: Ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte
(Leipzig, 1903), 70–90. 31
Butler, Early Churches, 136–39.

FIGURE 10.29
Baqirha, East
Church, west
façade (Frank
Kidner, Frank
Kidner
Photographs,
1983–1999,
Dumbarton Oaks,
Trustees of
Harvard
University)
FIGURE 10.30 (Fig. 10.30).32 It measures overall 37 by 50

Bosra, Church of meters, with a tetraconch core to the nave that
Sergius, Bacchus, opens into a round ambulatory with corner
and Leontius, plan niches, set within the square outer walls of the
and elevation (after building—all probably to adjust the curvilinear
A. H. Detweiler, in forms of the tetraconch to the grid of the city.
J. W. Crowfoot, Entrances on three sides emphasize the central-
Churches in Bosra,
ity of the design, which, however, is joined to a
1937)
fully developed sanctuary to the east; the bema
is flanked by chapels. A second centrally
planned church, similar in date and scale, its
core approximately 45 by 45 meters, was recently
excavated and may be the cathedral, as it has a
baptistery attached to it.33 It is similar in its out-
ward form, with a circular ambulatory set within
a square, with niches at the corners, but the cen-
tral space is enveloped by a circular colonnade,
32
Crowfoot, Churches in Bosra; Kleinbauer, “Origin and Function,”
107–108.
33
P.-M. Blanc and P. Piraud-Fournet, “La grande église à plan
centré du quartier est de Bosra,” Hauran V: La Syrie du sud du
néolithique à l’antiquité tardive, 1st vol., eds. M. al-Maqdissi,
F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer (Beirut, 2010), 275–87.

more than 30 meters in diameter, rather than a as pastophoria and individually as the prothesis
tetraconch. Its excavators reconstructed it with (north side) and diakonikon (south side). These
coupled columns framing large axial arches, one were functional extensions of the bema and were
opening to a deep bema framed by chapels. connected directly to it by doorways, behind the
How the immense central space was covered is a templon. The appearance of the tripartite sanctu-
matter of conjecture, although both Bosran ary corresponds with the development of the
churches may have had wooden roofs. prothesis rite, documented by the eighth century.
Liturgical planning. Throughout church ar- In the Early Christian church, gifts were pre-
chitecture of the fifth and sixth centuries, we find sented at a chamber accessible from the atrium,
a variety of subsidiary spaces flanking the bema, often called a skevophylakion, and then brought
occasionally directly accessible from it, but often forward during one of the several entrance pro-
not. Their function is not easy to determine. In cessions that characterized the early service.
Syria, as at Qalb Lozeh, for example, usually one When this chamber was replaced by the pasto-
chamber opens into the bema and may have phoria, the structure of the service changed from
functioned in relationship to it, either as a store- one of linear processions by the clergy to a more
room or as a room for the preparation of the circular movement, in and out of the sanctuary.
Eucharist; the other may have housed a venerated The more circular movement parallels the de-
relic.34 Many of the early churches of Ravenna velopment of a more centralized church, the
had side chambers, although none connected di- design of which focused on a centrally positioned
rectly to the bema and their functions seem to dome. The introduction of the tripartite sanctu-
have been diverse.35 At San Vitale, the domed side ary similarly has architectural implications. Its
chambers may have functioned as mausolea or fu- earliest appearance may be at the sixth-century
nerary oratories, while the smaller spaces may cathedral at Caričin Grad in northern Serbia—
have served as storerooms for books, liturgical ob- Justinian’s new city, Iustiniana Prima, which was
jects, or other church valuables. At Sant’Apollinare discussed in Chapter 7. There, the bema and pas-
in Classe, the side spaces are provided with apses tophoria have a different character than the
and seem to have functioned as annexed chapels, wooden-roofed basilica to which they were at-
as had many of the flanking spaces at Sinai and at tached.36 Walls are thicker, and the spaces were
a variety of sites along the coasts of Anatolia. In apparently barrel vaulted. What we see is the jux-
all the instances noted here, the subsidiary spaces taposition of distinct architectural elements,
were part of the original construction, incorpo- rather than their integration into a unified built
rated into its design. form. What is curious here is that the prothesis
Changes in architecture may parallel liturgical had a clearly defined liturgical role, but the dia-
changes. Set in privileged positions flanking the konikon did not—it was more or less a glorified
most sacred part of the church, throughout the storeroom.37 Its appearance seems to be for sym-
early centuries, these chambers had a variety of metry, architecturally balancing the prothesis op-
functions. They are often erroneously called pas- posite it.
tophoria, a term that refers to chambers that relate In sum, the architectural experimentation of
specifically to the Eucharistic liturgy. Sometime the fifth and sixth century did not happen for
after the sixth century, the tripartite sanctuary purely formal reasons, but must be viewed hand
was developed, which became standard by the in hand with functional and symbolic consider-
Middle Byzantine period. The central space of the ations. As we shall see, the concerns of the
bema is flanked by spaces referred to collectively sixth-century builders set the direction for later
architectural developments.
34
G. Descourdes, Die Pastophorien in syro-byzantinischen Osten
(Wiesbaden, 1983); Mathews, Early Churches.
35
J. C. Smith, “Form and Function of the Side Chambers of Fifth-
36
and Sixth-Century Churches in Ravenna,” JSAH 49 (1990): 181–204. 37
Marinis, Architecture and Ritual.

PART TWO
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

Seventh to Ninth Centuries
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

WITHIN BYZANTIUM
T he economic downturn in the centuries after

Justinian is often termed the Byzantine Dark Ages
and is sometimes equated with the Iconoclast period
devotional practices, which often pitted imperial and
ecclesiastical authorities against each other.3 Were icons
“graven images” to be abjured and outlawed, as the
(726–843), although here I use the more neutral term Iconoclasts believed, or should they be officially
“Transitional Period” for the critical period of the sanctioned as part of Orthodox devotion, as the
seventh through mid-ninth centuries, which witnessed Iconophiles believed? The disputes that continued
permanent changes across the Byzantine Empire— through the period served to divide and ultimately
what we might view as the transition from Late redefine Byzantine society.
Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Justinian’s death in 565 The economic downturn also resulted in a
was followed by significant loss of territory, including marked decrease in pan-Mediterranean trade and
the collapse of the Balkan frontier and the loss of North a decrease in the size of cities, whose existence de-
Africa and most of Italy (see Map 3). Emblematic of pended on extended economic networks. As will
the empire’s changing fortunes, Iustiniana Prima be discussed in a subsequent chapter, many cities
(Caričin Grad), the city founded by Justinian to honor were reduced to fortified citadels, while others
his birthplace, was destroyed ca. 615 by the Avars, who, were abandoned.4 Both the social and the eco-
as they pushed further into Thrace, severed aqueducts nomic life of the empire shifted from urban to
supplying Constantinople.1 In the East, Byzantine rural, with even Constantinople reduced to a
forces continued to struggle against the Persians and, shadow of its former self—although probably not
after 634, the Arabs, whose invasions destabilized the
eastern frontier and portions of Anatolia well into the 3
L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, eds., Byzantium in the Iconoclast era (ca.
tenth century.2 At its heart, Byzantine society was 680–850): The Sources (Aldershot, 2001); L. Brubaker and
disrupted by the so-called Iconoclast Controversy J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: A History
(726–843), a debate over the role of religious images in (Cambridge, 2011); L. Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm
(Bristol, 2012).
4
G. Broglio and B. Ward-Perkins, eds., The Idea and Ideal of the
1
J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century (Cambridge, 1990). Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Leiden,
2
W. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests (Cambridge, 1999); H. Saradi, The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century (Athens,
1992). 2006).
Trilye (Zeytinbagı), Fatih Camii, seen from the east (author)
245
[Map 3] The Byzantine Empire in 780 (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 130)
as small as has sometimes been proposed: urban and permanent changes in Byzantine religious archi-
contraction doesn’t necessarily imply population tecture, in both form and scale. It also accounts for
decline.5 Sometimes characterized as a shift from significant changes in the architectural profession, to
polis to castrum, defensive walls became a signa- be addressed in a later chapter.
ture feature of a city, as markers of urbanism.6 How scholars have addressed the period reflects
Some scholars have argued that the nature of the general methodologies of their age. Scholars like
Byzantine society shifted from open to closed, Alexander Van Millingen, writing at the turn of the
from public to private: what had once occurred in last century, were dependent on texts and thus fa-
the fora, cathedrals, or monumental public spaces miliar with the architectural program of Basil I (r.
of cities now more often took place behind closed 867–86), as recounted in the Vita Basilii.10 He thus
doors, in homes or private chapels.7 It may be viewed Basil’s reign as the critical period and conse-
more correct to say that public social life and the quently dated a variety of the “transitional” churches
engagement with public space had fundamentally in Constantinople to the ninth century. None of the
changed.8 Moreover, it was a gradual change that buildings mentioned in the Vita survives, however,
began centuries earlier, with grand public spaces nor do any other of the great monuments of ninth-
losing their formal and ideological valences, while century Constantinople. The palace constructions of
the church assumed many civic roles—a subject Theophilos, breathlessly enumerated by Theo-
to which we shall return in Chapter 14.9 Although phanes Continuatus, have similarly vanished without
we may begin to find hints of a revival after the a trace, and only paltry foundations remain for the
mid-eighth century, until the late ninth century, well-documented monasteries on the Prince’s
there was limited architectural production, most Islands.11
of it on a reduced scale. Writing in the 1960s, Richard Krautheimer at-
Whatever we call it, the Dark Ages, the tempted to categorize the monuments typologi-
Transitional Period, or the age of Iconoclasm, the cally, viewing the evolution of the cross-domed
years between the seventh and mid-ninth centuries church as critical to this period, as it seems to be
were conducive to neither architectural production the transitional link between the Early Christian
nor its documentation. While most specialists and the Middle Byzantine church building.12 But
would place the monuments discussed in this chap- buildings rarely fit into neat categories, and by
ter into the period in question, frustratingly few are the last revisions of his text in the 1980s, archaeo-
securely dated. The period nevertheless accounts for logical investigations had convincingly redated
major social and political transformations within the many of his key monuments. The Gül Camii
Byzantine Empire and, for our purposes, dramatic (Hagia Theodosia?) and the Kalenderhane Camii
(Theotokos Kyriotissa) in Istanbul, for example,
5
Mango, Développement; C. Mango, “The Development of clearly belong to the twelfth century (and will be
Constantinople as an Urban Centre,” in 17th International Congress discussed later).13 The dates of two other key
of Byzantine Studies, Main Papers (New Rochelle, 1986), 117–36; monuments continue to be contested. Should the
countered by P. Magdalino, Constantinople médiévale.; P. Magdalino,
“Medieval Constantinople,” in Studies on the History and Topography A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches of Constantinople: Their
10
of Byzantine Constantinople (Aldershot, 2007), 1–111. History and Architecture (London, 1912), 333; for the Vita Basilii, see
6
L. Brubaker, “Topography and the Creation of Public Space in Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 192–99.
Early Medieval Constantinople,” in Topographies of Power in the 11
Early Middle Ages, ed. M. de Jong (Leiden, 2001), 31–43, esp. 12
Compare R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine
32–33.
Architecture (Harmondsworth, 1965), 201–13, with Krautheimer
7
Notably A. Kazhdan and G. Constable, People and Power in and Ćurčić, ECBA, 4th ed., 285–300.
Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies 13
H. Schäfer, Die Gül Camii in Istanbul. Ein Beitrag
(Washington, DC, 1982), 19–58.
mittelbyzantinischen Kirchenarchitektur Konstantinoples (Tübingen,
8
Brubaker, “Topography,” esp. 34. 1973); C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban, Kalenderhane in Istanbul: The
9
Brubaker, “Topography”; and J. Baldovin, Urban Character of Buildings (Mainz, 1997), and C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban,
Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Kalenderhane in Istanbul: The Excavations (Mainz, 2007); Marinis,
Stational Liturgy (Rome, 1987). Architecture and Ritual, 153–57; 163–67.
CHAPTER ELEVEN: THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD WITHIN BYZANTIUM 247

Hagia Sophia in Thessalonike be placed toward Thrace.17 In almost all, the dating remains inse-
the beginning or the end of the seventh century?14 cure, and in any event, the architectural forms of
Most scholars now date the Koimesis Church at these buildings tend to be simple and conserva-
Nicaea to ca. 700 or perhaps even earlier, although tive—and not indicative of the major architec-
the transformation of its apse decoration during tural changes of the period, less interesting and
and after the Iconoclast period remains central to considerably less problematic than their painting.
any discussion of the visual arts.15 While quibbles Dendrochronology may also be useful, but it is
over chronology might seem nitpicky, they raise far from foolproof.18 Wooden beams were part of
the question of whether these monuments should the standard system of structural reinforcement in
be regarded as paradigms, introducing new archi- masonry buildings, and when they survive, their
tectural forms into the building vocabulary, or pattern of tree rings can be “wiggle-matched”
whether they are simply following already estab- against other wood samples from the same region.
lished designs. As the dendrochronologists insist, the tree-ring
Lacking documentary evidence for most data must be used with caution, for their studies
building campaigns, scholars have turned to provide a date for the wood, not for the building.
other kinds of evidence for the dating of build- When bark is preserved on the wood sample and
ings. Most common has been the reliance on the when several samples from the same monument
typological analysis of building forms and on the have matching ring patterns, however, they can
iconographic analysis of monumental painting. provide a terminus ante quem within a few years of
The difficulties of the latter are amply demonstrated construction. But older beams might also be
by the burgeoning bibliography on the painted reused, while others may be the result of later re-
rock-cut churches of Cappadocia. Numerous pairs or remodeling and have nothing to do with
churches are painted with geometric patterning the initial foundation. Finally, while dendrochro-
and display prominently images of the cross. nology may seem scientific, the wiggle-matching
Does aniconic decoration indicate an iconoclast of the samples is subject to human interpretation.
date? Key monuments, such St. Basil near Sinasos, In what follows, I shall include the most recent
have primarily aniconic decoration, into which a data in the discussions of individual buildings.
few figures have been inserted. Should they be in- Returning to the problems of formal analysis,
terpreted as betraying an Iconoclasm not fully the standard approach to Byzantine architecture
absorbed or lingering Iconoclast sentiments has been typological, with buildings categorized
dating from after the Triumph of Orthodoxy? according to ground plan and spatial definition.
Or do they have anything to do with Iconoclasm Although typology provides a useful system of de-
as legislated from Constantinople?16 On similar scription, as Cyril Mango once noted, “Buildings
grounds, “Iconoclast monuments” have been are labeled and pigeon-holed like biological spec-
identified in the Pontus, Naxos, Thessalonike, imens according to formal criteria: where a re-
Cherson, Georgia, Crete, Greece, and Turkish semblance is found a connection is assumed even
across a wide gulf in time and space.”19 When
14
K. Theocharidou, The Architecture of Hagia Sophia, Thessaloniki,
from Its Erection up to the Turkish Conquest, BAR International Series
339 (Oxford, 1988); and discussion below. 17
Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, 19–36.
15
Krautheimer and Ćurčić, ECBA, 4th ed., 290, suggests early 18
Compare P. I. Kuniholm, “New Tree-Ring Dates for Byzantine
eighth century; Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York, 1977), Buildings,” Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts of Papers 21 (1995):
172 suggests late sixth century. 35; with P. I. Kuniholm, C. L. Pearson, T. J. Ważny, and C. B. Griggs,
16
M. Xenaki, “Recherches sur les églises byzantines de Cappadoce “Of Harbors and Trees: The Marmaray Contribution to a 2367-
et leur décor peint (Vie–IXe siècles),” (PhD diss., University of Year Oak-Tree-Ring Chronology from 97 Sites for the Aegean,
Paris 1, 2011), 488–543; A. Wharton Epstein, “The ‘Iconoclast’ East Mediterranean, and Black Seas,” in Istanbul and Water, eds.
Churches of Cappadocia,” in Iconoclasm, eds. A. Bryer and J. Herrin P. Magdalino and N. Ergin (Peeters, 2014), 45–90. [NB: all
(Birmingham, 1977), 103–12; N. Thierry, Haut Moyen-Âge en dendrochronological dates noted below come from this report].
Cappadoce: Les églises de la région du Çavuşin, 2 vols. (Paris, 1983– 19
C. Mango, “Approaches to Byzantine Architecture,” Muqarnas
94), I:1–33. 8 (1991): 41.

what is simple becomes simplistic, a system of expressed on the exterior by semicylindrical but-
categorization can easily misdirect scholarly in- tresses and the square naos balanced east and west
quiry. Moreover, a typological approach fails to by a tripartite sanctuary and a three-bay nar-
provide an adequate explanation of the relation- thex.24 It is tempting to see an evolutionary
ship between different types of buildings. process here, with one building type providing
Traditional scholarship presents four major the impetus for the next stage of development. In
steps of development that mark the transition be- a long process of experimentation, something like
tween the Early Christian basilica and the domed this must have occurred, but the process of trans-
Middle Byzantine church.20 The domed basilica formation was neither neat nor linear, and other
makes its appearance in the sixth and possibly al- factors must be taken into consideration.
ready in the late fifth century, marking an impor- Often omitted from the discussion is the im-
tant change from wooden-roofed to vaulted portance of scale (Fig. 11.1).25 Following the
forms, best witnessed at Hagia Sophia or Hagia changes in patronage and worship during this
Eirene in Constantinople or Basilica B in Philippi, period, churches became smaller and more cen-
discussed in a previous chapter. With the intro- tralized, accommodating smaller congregations
duction of bilaterally symmetrical bracing for the and a more static liturgy. The sixth-century Hagia
dome, as occurred in the rebuilding of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople had a dome measuring
Eirene (discussed below), a cross-domed unit was 100 Byzantine feet in diameter; almost the en-
introduced on the gallery level. This was repeated tirety of the Hagia Sophia from Thessalonike fits
in the ninth-century domed basilica at Vize in inside its domed bay: excluding the sanctuary, the
Thrace.21 A similar structural unit became the main block of the building measures almost ex-
core of the cross-domed church, as at the Koimesis actly 100 by 100 Byzantine feet.26 The Koimesis
in Nicaea or the Hagia Sophia in Thessalonike, Church was smaller still, and the dome of the
with supports defining a cruciform naos. This Myrelaion Church is barely one tenth the diam-
type, significantly, exists in two versions: the larger, eter of Hagia Sophia’s. From a practical point of
which was similar in organization to the domed view, churches of different scales demanded dif-
basilicas, and the smaller, with the cruciform naos ferent structural systems. From the sixth century
framed by four corner chambers, as at Atik Mustafa onward, the dome remained a central theme in
Paşa Camii in Constantinople.22 There are exam- church design, and the new building types
ples from the smaller version as early as the fifth resulted from the reduction in scale and simplifi-
century, as at Hosios David in Thessalonike.23 By cation of the domed basilica. Galleries and ambu-
the end of the eighth century, a more open design latories were unnecessary in a building of smaller
was developed for small churches, with the cen- scale; internal supports could be reduced to either
tral dome supported above four piers or columns piers or columns. The cross-domed church of-
and the naos divided into nine bays, in the cross- fered an effective structural design for a church of
in-square church type, as at the Fatih Camii intermediate proportions; for a church with a
(Hagios Stephanos?) at Trilye. The fully devel- dome of less than 20 Byzantine feet in diameter,
oped type appears at the Myrelaion in the early the cross-in-square format proved most effec-
tenth century, with the structural system clearly tive.27 Within the development, then, there was a
good deal of trial and error, with more than one
church type and numerous variations existing
20
R. G. Ousterhout, “Architecture of Iconoclasm,” in Byzantium side by side and at different scales.
in the Iconoclast Era (ca. 680–850): The Sources, eds. L. Brubaker and
J. Haldon, esp. 8–15.
21
F. A. Bauer and H. Klein, “The Church of Hagia Sophia in Bizye
(Vize): Results of the Fieldwork Seasons 2003 and 2004,” DOP 60
24
C. L. Striker, The Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul
(2006): 249–70. (Princeton, 1981).
22
T. F. Mathews and E. Hawkins, “Notes on the Atik Mustafa
25
As I have emphasized: Ousterhout, Master Builders, esp. 30.
Paşa Camii in Istanbul and Its Frescoes,” DOP 39 (1985): 125–34. 26
Theocharidou, Architecture of Hagia Sophia, 24–29.
23
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 109–10. 27

FIGURE 11.1
Plans drawn
to the same scale,
compared to
Hagia Sophia,
Constantinople
(right); (A)
Hagia Sophia,
Thessalonike; (B)
Koimesis, Nicaea;
(C) Fatih Camii,
Trilye; (D)
Myrelaion,
Constantinople
(redrawn by
author)
Another important consideration is that many church.29 The same seems to have happened at
of the monuments under discussion represent the the Cumanin Camii in Antalya (see Fig. 8.23).30
reconstruction or remodeling of older buildings. Although it was centrally planned in its first
That is, rather than representing a new theoretical phase, the remodeling thickened the supports to
model, they express the very real concerns of a include vaulting, probably in the eighth century.
society in transition and its builders. Hagia The reinvestment in older buildings accords
Eirene, for example, is still most often discussed the renovation program of Constantinople, re-
as a Justinianic building, although almost all of its ported in the biography of Basil I. For example, at
superstructure—and its reformulated structural the Church of the Resurrection and St. Anastasia,
system—is later. In many examples of Early Basil is said to have replaced the wooden roof
Christian basilicas, we find a reduction in scale as with a stone one.31 But it remains unclear if new
a new church was constructed on the same foun- building types emerged through the reformula-
dations, while reemploying many of the same ar- tion of existing churches or if the remodeling
chitectural elements, but with its basic design simply follows established patterns.
transformed.28 Other key buildings, such as the In this chapter, the monuments are organized
Hagia Sophia in Thessalonike, the Hagia Sophia by building type for the sake of convenience. This
at Vize, or St. Mary at Ephesus, were built on
or over the foundations of older basilicas (see
Fig. 6.14). The lower church at Amorion represents 29
E. A. Ivison, “Amorium in the Byzantine Dark Ages (Seventh
a reformulation of an older basilica (see Figs. 18.1 to Ninth Centuries),” in Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in
and 18.2), restructured to include vaulting, trans- Europe and Byzantium. Vol. 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, ed.
J. Henning, Millennium Studies, 5, no. 2 (Berlin, 2007), 25–60.
forming the older basilica into a cross-domed
30
G. Kaymak, Die Cumanin Camii in Antalya, 69–70.
28
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 86–127. 31
Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 193.

should in no way suggest an evolutionary devel- FIGURE 11.2
opment. Rather, this grouping tends to bring to- Myra (Demre), St.
gether buildings of similar scale. The distinctions Nicholas, plan and
reconstructed view
between building types reinforce the limitations
(after U. Peschlow,
of typological analysis. For example, the section
in J. Borchhardt,
on domed basilicas includes several large churches Myra, 1975)
that maintain a basilican plan on the ground level
while introducing a cross-domed unit on the
upper level. Cross-domed churches exist in two
distinct subcategories. Similarly, a distinction be-
tween cross-domed churches and cross-in-square
churches may be based not so much on the types
of support (e.g., columns vs. piers), but on
whether the corner spaces function as part of the
naos.
Domed basilicas. The domed Basilica of
St. Nicholas at Myra has been attributed to the
eighth century on archaeological grounds (Figs.
11.2 and 11.3).32 The church was built to enshrine
the tomb of the sainted fourth-century bishop
Nicholas, whose tomb exuded aromatic myrrh
(holy oil) that attracted numerous pilgrims—in-
cluding Italian merchants from Bari who stole his
body in 1087. It remains unclear where within the
rather complicated building the venerated tomb
was located (see Chap. 4). Built on the founda-
tions of an Early Christian basilica, elements of
the older building were incorporated into the
atrium and south chapels. The church was rebuilt east wall. Opus sectile pavements may be from
as a domed basilica, with a dome, approximately the eighth century, although the surviving fresco
7.70 meters in diameter, braced to the east and decoration is later.
west by narrow barrel vaults and enveloped by lat- Justinian’s Hagia Eirene in Constantinople
eral aisles and a narthex on the ground floor, with was destroyed in the earthquake of 740 and sub-
galleries above, but no clerestory. Triple arcades stantially rebuilt (Figs. 11.4 and 11.5, and see
open on three sides of the naos. Rebuilt by the Chap. 8).33 Although it is sometimes attributed to
Russians in 1862–63, the dome was replaced by a Constantine V (r. 741–75), dendrochronology
groin vault, giving the interior a truncated im- suggests a date after 799. Whatever the date, the
pression. The church also included a second aisle reconstruction maintained the scale of the sixth-
to the south, with arcosolia, joining the south century building, as well as the basilican plan at
chapel. The sanctuary preserves a multistepped ground level, but it introduced a cross-domed
synthronon, much restored. Additional construc- unit on the gallery level, providing transverse
tions expanded the building on all sides, dating barrel vaults to the north and south of the
from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. There do dome—in effect pushing the clerestory zone to
not appear to have been proper pastophoria in the outer walls, with round-headed windows or-
the eighth-century church: the bema opened to ganized into two registers above those of the gal-
double chapels on the south and to a rectangular lery. The cross-domed unit corrected a major
space to the north, originally with a door in its structural flaw in the original—indeed, one that
33
Peschlow, Die Irenenkirche; Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans,
32
Peschlow, “Die Architektur der Nikolaoskirche in Myra,” 303–59. 256–57.

FIGURE 11.3
Myra (Demre), St.
Nicholas, interior
of the nave,
looking east
(author)
had plagued most of the earlier domed basilicas. ground level, the gallery includes a cross-domed
Hagia Eirene’s dome measures close to 50 Byzantine unit, with barrel vaults bracing a dome approxi-
feet in diameter, rising above a windowed drum. mately 6 meters in diameter, raised above a win-
With the reformulation of the vaulting throughout dowed drum. The corner compartments are
the building, an elliptical domical vault was intro- isolated on the gallery level, not unlike the con-
duced over the western bay of the nave, braced by siderably later churches of Mystras. Minor vaults
transverse barrel vaults on the gallery level, quite are an admixture of groin vaults, domical vaults,
similar to the eastern bay, with two registers of and barrel vaults. An arcosolium in the south aisle
windows. Characteristic Early Christian features, appears to be original. The church was originally
such as the atrium and the synthronon, were main- built of alternating bands of brick and stone, but
tained, but the vault of the apse was given a slightly this had been much repaired in rough stonework.
pointed form and decorated with the simple, two- Built above the remains of an older basilica, the
dimensional image of a cross against a gold back- foundations are exposed to the east.
ground. Construction is often sloppy, however, and Cross-domed churches. Although its date re-
much of the marble decoration is reused. mains contested, Hagia Sophia of Thessalonike is
Hagia Sophia in Vize is similar in design and nevertheless crucial for our discussion (Figs.
may be dated sometime after 847, based on den- 11.8–11.10). Most scholars hold that the church
drochronology. It seems likely that this was the was built in two phases during the seventh cen-
episcopal Church of Byzantine Bizye, associated tury, replacing the older basilica although incor-
with events mentioned in the vita of St. Mary the porating its two-storied narthex, whose founda-
Younger (Figs. 11.6 and 11.7).34 Basilican on the tions survive to the west of the present building.35
34
C. Mango, “The Byzantine Church at Vize (Bizye) in Thrace 35
K. Theocharidou, Architecture of Hagia Sophia; Ch. Bakirtzis,
and St. Mary the Younger,” ZRVI 11 (1968): 9–13; Bauer and Klein, “Neoteres paratiriseis sten ktetorike epigrafe tou troullou tes
“Church of Hagia Sophia.” Agias Sofias Thessalonikis,” Byzantina 11 (1982): 167–80 (in Greek)

FIGURE 11.4
Constantinople, Hagia
Eirene, plan at the ground
floor and gallery levels,
with shading to show the
cross-domed unit (author,
after Ćurčić, Architecture
in the Balkans, 2010)
The construction technique evident in the lower restorations of the eighth, tenth, and eleventh
walls and apses is of alternating bands of brick centuries mostly affected the form of the galleries.
and stone, like that of Constantinople. Major In many ways, the church represents a smaller,
simpler, and heavier version of its namesake in
the capital, with a dome approximately 11 meters
for the early dating; this is accepted by Ćurčić, Architecture in the in diameter, set into a massive square drum. The
Balkans, 257–60; R. Cormack, “The Arts during the Age of dome is raised above a cruciform naos, with
Iconoclasm,” in Iconoclasm: Papers Given at the Ninth Spring Symposium
narrow barrel vaults to brace it on all sides. These
of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. A. M. Bryer and J. Herrin (Birmingham,
1977), 35, dates the building ca. 780–87; in Cormack’s notes
vaults terminate in thermal windows (the lunette
accompanying the reprint of this article in The Byzantine Eye: Studies subdivided by mullions) to the north, south, and
in Art and Patronage (London, 1989), 6–7, he is skeptical of west—perhaps following the Constantinopolitan
Theocharidou’s chronology and still prefers the later date. model, although now opening under the elevated

FIGURE 11.5 gallery roof of the eleventh century. Unlike the
Constantinople, Hagia domed basilicas just discussed, the corner piers
Eirene, interior project into the naos, creating a distinctly cruci-
looking east
form plan on the ground level. The piers are
(Thomas F. Mathews,
broken by tunnels on two levels that visually
Dumbarton Oaks,
Trustees of Harvard
lighten their rather heavy forms. A U-shaped en-
University, velope formed by the narthex, lateral aisles, and
Washington, DC) galleries surrounds the core of the building. A
tripartite sanctuary projects to the east, poorly
integrated into the building’s overall design, as
the pastophoria connect awkwardly to the side
aisles. Much of the marble decoration is reused,
and the mosaics are mostly from the eighth and
ninth century.
Closely related to the design of Hagia Sophia
in Thessalonike, the Koimesis (Dormition of the
Virgin) Church at Nicaea in Bithynia was de-
stroyed in the 1920s, although it was studied
twice before then and its remains were subse-
quently excavated (see Fig. 11.1B). Dated perhaps
ca. 700 and identified with the Monastery of
Hyacinthus, it similarly has an atrophied Greek-
cross plan with the cruciform naos enveloped by
FIGURE 11.6
Vize, Hagia
Sophia, view from
the southeast
(author)

a narthex, aisles, and a tripartite sanctuary.36 It is FIGURE 11.7
smaller in scale, however, with a dome diameter Vize, Hagia

Sophia, plan at the
of approximately 6.30 meters, and it lacks galler-
ground floor and
ies above the side aisles. The corner piers of the
gallery levels (after
naos are solid, and the overall length and width of F. A. Bauer and
the plan have been brought into balance. For its H. Klein, DOP,
analysis, we should consider the excavation of a 2006)
remarkably similar church at Kramolin, near
Lovech, Bulgaria, which the excavators dated to
the second half of the sixth century.37 It thus
encourages the early dating of the Koimesis
Church—that is, if we are to trust typology as a
guide. At Kramolin, the scale and the organiza-
tion of the pastophoria are similar to that of the
Koimesis, although the presence of a stair tower
may indicate a gallery, similar to Hagia Sophia.
Destroyed in 1921, the atrophied cruciform
core of the Church of St. Clement in Ankara
opened to enveloping spaces through triple ar-
cades on two levels (Fig. 11.11).38 Corner compart-
ments were isolated to the east and west on both
levels. Studied before its destruction, only a frag-
ment of the bema now stands, hidden behind
modern shops. A dating in the period of the sev-
enth to ninth centuries is suggested, based on the
similarities with the Koimesis of Nicaea and Hagia
Sophia in Thessalonike. A sixth-century Justinianic
date might be argued as well, based on the ma-
sonry and the fact that the pumpkin dome lacked cathedral (see Fig. 6.14).39 Dated to the eighth
a drum. A comparison of the masonry with the century or perhaps somewhat earlier, little of its
citadel walls may suggest a date closer to the mid- superstructure remains, but it was nevertheless a
ninth century; moreover, the pastophoria are fully substantial building, with a dome approximately
developed, and this would encourage a later date. 12 meters in diameter raised above corner piers.
A structure that began its life as a market basil- Aisles extend to the north and south, and what
ica, in its third phase the Church of the Theotokos appear to be pastophoria flank but do not con-
at Ephesus was transformed into a cross-domed nect to the apse.
church, a reduction in scale of the fourth-century A second, smaller version of the cross-domed
church is represented by the church now known as
Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii in Constantinople (Figs.
11.12B and 11.13).40 Here the cruciform plan of the
36
T. Schmit, Die Koimesiskirche von Nikaia (Berlin, 1927),
U. Peschlow, “Neue Beobachtungen zur Architektur und naos is brought out to square, but enclosed by cha-
Ausstattung der Koimesiskirche in Iznik,” IstMitt 22 (1972): 145–87. pels or subsidiary spaces at the corners. Its small,
compact form apparently found currency in the
37
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 234.
period, providing a setting appropriate for the wor-
38
G. de Jerphanion, “L’eglise de Saint-Clément à Angora,” in
ship of a small congregation. In this and similar
Mélanges d’archéologie anatolienne: monuments préhelléniques, gréco-
buildings, the arms of the cross are more pronounced
romains, byzantins et musulmans de Pont, de Cappadoce et de Galatie,
Mélanges de l’Université St. Joseph 13 (1928), 113–43;
U. Peschlow, Ankara: die bauarchäologishchen Hinterlassenschaften
39
Karydis, Early Byzantine Vaulted Construction, 4–8, 135–54.
aus römischer und byzantinischer Zeit, 2 vols. (Vienna, 2015), 1: 187– Mathews and Hawkins, “Notes on the Atik Mustafa Paşa
40
244, oddly reconstructs the church as single storied. Camii,” 125–34; Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 123–25.

FIGURE 11.8
Thessalonike,
Hagia Sophia, view
from the east
(author)
than in the previous examples; here the central aforementioned examples, although the cross-
dome has a diameter of approximately 5 meters. domed church had elaborated corner compartments
Although scholars continue to maintain a ninth- and a unique western apse—possibly lateral apses
century date, it has never been convincingly identi- as well (Fig. 11.14).42 The dome had a diameter of
fied. The cross arms originally opened with triple approximately 4.3 meters, supported above com-
arcades into lateral porches. The eastern chapels plex piers. Within the narthex, niches flank the
connected to the bema and must be interpreted as entrance to the naos. A dating in the ninth or
pastophoria. The function of the western corner tenth century is proposed, along with a very
spaces is not clear. Details revealed in the recent tentative association of the monastery with one
remodeling indicate that there were originally on the island of Thasios visited by St. Ioannikios
corner chambers on two levels. in 825.
The church on Büyükada, Amasra, is known Another variation has the domed bay set within
only from foundations but is similar in plan and an atrophied cross, with narrow barrel vaults rising
scale to Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (Fig. 11.12A).41 above corner piers. The Church of the Archangels
The eastern chapels, however, do not connect to at Sige (Kumyaka) preserves its core, although the
the bema. A date in the eighth century has been impression is complicated by many later additions,
proposed, based on its typology, perhaps the as it continued to be used though the Ottoman
monastery of patriarch Cyrus (705–12?). Architec- period.43 Like several of the examples from this
turally, it may represent the reconfiguration of an
older basilica. The Monastery of St. Constantine 42
M. Kappas and S. Mamaloukos, “The Church of St.
on Lake Apolyont in Bithynia is similar to Constantine on Lake Apollonia, Bithynia, Revisited,” DChAE 38
(2017): 87–104.
41
S. Eyice, “Amasra Büyükada’sında bir Bizans kilisesi,” BTTK 15 43
H. Buchwald, The Church of the Archangels in Sige near Mudania
(1951): 469–96. (Vienna, 1969).

Cross-in-square churches. Picturesquely set at
the center of the historic town of Trilye-Zeytinbağı
on the south shore of the Sea of Marmara, the
Fatih Camii (Hagios Stephanos?) has long been
recognized as a significant early example of the
cross-in-square church type (Figs. 11.15–11.17).45
It can now be securely placed in the early ninth
century by dendrochronology, with a post quem
date of 793 for the wood analyzed from the build-
ing. The naos is close to square in overall plan,
with a dome just under 5 meters (approximately
15 Byzantine feet) in diameter, raised on a tall
drum above four columns. The cross arms are
covered by barrel vaults. The corner compart-
ments are somewhat uneven, isolated by project-
ing pilasters and covered by ovoid domical vaults.
The pastophoria were quite large—the diakoni-
kon is now missing—with their lateral walls pro-
jecting beyond the width of the naos. The bema
has an extra bay before the apse, which was curved
on the interior and polygonal on the exterior,
opened by three windows. The pastophoria each
included a setback before the apse, which was
semicircular on both interior and exterior. To the
west is a broad, barrel-vaulted narthex, preceded
by a colonnaded portico.
FIGURE 11.9 Thessalonike, Hagia Sophia, plan and section
Exposed remains of architectural sculpture
(after C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, 1974)
and additional marbles littering the site suggest
that the original building was lavishly outfitted.
Much of the sculpture, including the capitals of
period, it lies on the south shore of the Sea of
the naos and closure panels, is reused from the
Marmara, opposite Constantinople, in Bithynia, a
sixth century, although some, including the capi-
region known for its monastic communities
tals of the lateral arcades and some of the cornice
during the transitional period. The dome here is
patterns, may be ninth century. The interior was
approximately 6.5 meters in diameter. The apse,
originally decorated with mosaics, the presence of
semicircular on the interior and polygonal on the
which was noted during the period of Greek oc-
exterior, extends almost the full width of the naos,
cupation in 1920–22, when the building was
with no traces of pastophoria or lateral apses.
briefly reconverted to a church. Mosaics in a
Arcades originally opened to the north and south.
simple grid of oversized tesserae survive in the sof-
A date of ca. 780 is recommended, partially on
fits of the south arcade and east windows. A resto-
stylistic grounds, partially on the interpretation of
ration of 1995–96 opened the arcades on the
a lost inscription. Although it no longer survives,
north and south sides of the naos. Fragments of
the Cathedral of Herakleia Perinthos (Ereğli), on
opus sectile were uncovered at the same time.
the Marmara coast of Thrace, appears to have
Another early example of the cross-in-square
been similar to the church at Sige, with a square
plan, the ruinous foundations of Church H at
core and a broad apse, apparently built on the site
of an older church.44 45
C. Mango and I. Ševčenko, “Some Churches and Monasteries
on the Southern Shore of the Sea of Marmara,” DOP 27 (1973):
44
E. Kalinka and J. Strzygowski, “Die Kathedrale von Herakleia,” 235–77, esp. 236–38; M. S. Pekak, Trilye (Zeytinbağı) Fatih camisi
ÖJh 1 (1898): 3–28. Bizans kapalı Yunan haçı planı (Istanbul, 2009).

FIGURE 11.10
Thessalonike,
Hagia Sophia,
interior, looking
southeast (author)
FIGURE 11.11 chapel in the Episcopal Palace at Side is similar in

Ankara, St. scale and details to Church H, also built on older
Clement, isometric foundations (Fig. 11.18B).47 Decorated marble pi-
section (after G. de
lasters are reused, built into the lateral walls. A
Jerphanion,
stepped synthronon is set into the apse; flanking
Mélanges
d’archéologie, 1928)
rooms are square, without niches. Although the
excavators would place it earlier, a date between
750 and 850 seems more likely.
The identification of the famed monastery of
Megas Agros at Kurşunlu, on the Bithynian coast
of the Sea of Marmara, is not entirely certain
(Fig. 11.18C).48 The monastic gate survives, and
the local Greek tradition associated the site with
Side exhibits a lack of coordination in its details Megas Agros. The church is only partially pre-
(Fig. 11.18A).46 Four freestanding columns would served, however, but enough to indicate a cross-
have supported a dome approximately 3.2 meters in-square plan with columns supporting a
in diameter. However, wall thicknesses vary, the dome approximately 4 meters in diameter. The
chambers flanking the apse (pastophoria?) project construction is rough, of alternating brick and
slightly outward, and the church appears to in- stone bands. Like the church at Trilye, the main
corporate older remains. While the foundations apse is polygonal on the exterior, while the pasto-
may be older, the church is likely from the ninth phoria apses are semicircular. Both pastophoria
century, as the city declined after that time. The
47
A. M. Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side (Berlin, 1963), 168–69.
46
S. Eyice, “L’église cruciforme byzantine de Side en Pamphylie,” 48
Mango and Ševčenko, “Some Churches and Monasteries,”
Anatolia 3 (1958): 34–42. 253–67.

studied the building, and the dome diameter was
estimated at 4 meters. A finely carved marble cor-
nice and capital are Early Christian spolia. The
north and south crossarms may have been opened
by tribela. These and other details recommend a
comparison with the Fatih Camii in Trilye. It may
be slightly later in date, although the ninth cen-
tury seems highly probable.
Variations on the domed basilica. Two large
churches with cruciform cores are worth includ-
ing here. St. Titus at Gortyna on Crete has been
dated variously between the sixth and tenth cen-
turies, but likely belongs to period of Bishop
Synesios, named in an inscription, shortly after
the earthquake of 796 and before the Arab con-
quest of 827 (Figs. 11.20 and 11.21).50 Constructed
of fine ashlar, the design is complex, with a three-
part sanctuary, a triconch bema, a pronounced
crossarm terminating in lateral apses, and a dome
at the crossing. Measuring 26 by 35 meters over-
all, the scale is huge for the period. Indeed, noth-
ing about the church is typical of Crete, although
it finds interesting parallels in Armenia, as at the
seventh-century church at T’alin (see Figs. 12.11
and 12.12), which is almost identical in scale. The
FIGURE 11.12 (A) Amasra-Büyükada, church plan (author, Church of the Koimesis at Skripou (Orchomenos)
after Ćurčić, JSAH, 1979); (B) Constantinople, church in Boeotia, credited to an imperial official named
known as Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, plan (after V. Marinis, Leo and dated by inscription to 873–74, is simi-
Architecture and Ritual, 2014)
larly unusual and out of character for the Greek
mainland in this period (Figs. 11.22 and 11.23).51
Measuring approximately 20 by 28.5 meters
have niches in their lateral walls, and the prothe-
overall, with a projecting transept, its heavy con-
sis has a cruciform loculus in the apse, similar to
struction includes a variety of spolia from ancient
that at the Theotokos tou Libos (ca. 907). The
Orchomenos, prominently displayed on the exte-
date is uncertain. If this were the church built by
rior, where it is mixed with newly carved sculp-
Theophanes the Confessor, it would date shortly
tures and inscriptions (Fig. 11.24). From the
before 787, although it could easily be later.
latter, we learn that the lateral chapels flanking
Similarities with the church at Trilye encourage a
the bema were dedicated to Peter and Paul. These
Transitional Period dating.
and the side aisles are isolated from the nave by
Located a few kilometers west of Trilye, the
heavy piers.
Monastery of St. John of Pelekete played a promi-
Continuation of traditional forms. Two
nent role in the Iconoclast period (Figs. 11.18D
churches at Amasra, on the Black Sea, may date
and 11.19).49 An early version of the cross-in-square
from this period but are single aisled without
plan, the eastern part of the building is preserved,
its neat, alternating bands of brick and stone en- 50
S. Mamaloukos, “Zetemata anaparastases tes archikes morphes
cased in modern masonry. The southeast naos to Naou to Agiou Tito ste Gortyna,” DChAE 34 (2013): 11–24.
column still stood when Mango and Ševčenko 51
A. Papalexandrou, “The Church of the Virgin at Skripou:
Architecture, Sculpture, and Inscriptions in Ninth-Century
49
Mango and Ševčenko, “Some Churches and Monasteries,” Byzantium,” PhD diss., Princeton University, 1998; Ćurčić,
242–48. Architecture in the Balkans, 234.

FIGURE 11.13
Constantinople,
church known as
Atik Mustafa Paşa
Camii, view from
the east (author)
domes.52 The single-aisled basilica now known as

FIGURE 11.14
Lake Apolyont/
the Fatih Camii measures about 9 by 17 meters
Apollonia, Church internally, including the nave and narthex—the
of St. Constantine, wall between the two has been removed, and
restored plan and there is no other indication of internal divisions
longitudinal section (Fig. 11.25). Most distinctive is the masonry,
(M. Kappas and which alternates bands of brick and stone, includ-
S. Mamaloukos, ing bands of reticulate stonework. The so-called
DChAE, 2017) Kilise Mescidi is smaller but also a single-aisled
basilica and must be close in date. It measures
about 5 by 10 meters, including a narthex covered
by three groin vaults. The mural masonry is also
similar, alternating brick and stone courses, in-
cluding bands of reticulate revetment.
Liturgical planning. Changes in the liturgy
also parallel the architectural changes. Sometime
after the sixth century, the tripartite sanctuary
was developed, which became standard by the
Middle Byzantine period. The central space of
the bema is flanked by pastophoria, the prothesis
and diakonikon. These were functional exten-
sions of the bema and connected directly to it.
52
S. Eyice, “Deux anciennes églises byzantines de la citadelle
d’Amasra,” CahArch 7 (1954): 97–105.

FIGURE 11.15
Trilye (Zeytinbağı),
Fatih Camii, seen
from the east
(author)
The appearance of the tripartite sanctuary corre- In terms of design, they are a separate concern. The
sponds with the development of the prothesis same is true at the Koimesis Church in Nicaea and
rite, documented in the eighth century.53 at the Fatih Camii in Trilye, where the pastophoria
The more circular movement of the processions project beyond the lateral walls of the naos. Full
during the Divine Liturgy parallels the develop- integration of the tripartite sanctuary became
ment of a more centralized church, the design of common only after the period under discussion, as,
which focused on a centrally positioned dome. The for example, at the Theotokos tou Libos (907) and
introduction of the tripartite sanctuary similarly the Myrelaion (920) in Constantinople.
has architectural implications. Its earliest appear- In addition to pastophoria, subsidiary chapels
ance may be at the sixth-century cathedral at become common in this period.55 The design of
Caričin Grad in northern Serbia—Justinian’s new small cross-domed churches like that on Büyükada
city, Iustiniana Prima. There, the bema and pasto- at Amasra encouraged the incorporation of func-
phoria have a different character than the wooden- tional spaces into the corners. At Atik Mustafa
roofed basilica to which they were attached.54 Walls Paşa Camii, these spaces apparently existed on two
are thicker, and the spaces were apparently barrel levels—as later occurs at the Theotokos tou Libos
vaulted. What we see is the juxtaposition of distinct (see Chap. 13).56 Larger churches at Ankara and
architectural elements, rather than their integration Vize had chapels on the gallery level, and the
into a unified built form. This lack of integration spaces flanking the bema of Hagia Eirene may
continued in most of the surviving churches from have been similar. Although we are uncertain how
the following two centuries. At Hagia Sophia in any of these spaces were used in the preserved
Thessalonike, the tripartite sanctuary is narrower examples, they were obviously regarded as functional
than the main block of the church, and the necessities. Here we suppose that architectural design
entrances from the aisles are noticeably off center.
S. Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in
55
53
Mathews, Early Churches; Marinis, Architecture and Ritual. Middle Byzantine Churches,” JSAH 36 (1977): 94–110.
54
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 211–12. 56
Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 123.

FIGURE 11.17 Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, interior,
looking south (author)
FIGURE 11.16 Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, plan and
isometric section (author, after S. Pekak, Trilye, 2009)
FIGURE 11.18
Plans of cross-in-
square churches: (A)
Side, Church H; (B)
Side, chapel in the
Episcopal Palace, (C)
Megas Agros
(Kurşunlu); (D) St.
John of Pelekete
(author, after
A. Mansel, Side,
1963; and C. Mango-I.
Ševčenko, DOP, 1973)

FIGURE 11.20 Gortyna, St. Titus, reconstructed plan and
section (after S. Mamaloukos, DChAE, 2013)
FIGURE 11.19 St. John of Pelekete, interior, looking

southeast (author)
FIGURE 11.21
Gortyna, St. Titus,
interior, looking
northeast (author)

FIGURE 11.22
Skripou, Koimesis, isometric cutaway (Petros Koufopoulos
and Marina Myriantheos-Koufopoulou, in Sofia Kalopissi-
Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kessisoglou, eds., Multilingual
Illustrated Dictionary of Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture
Terminology, Crete University Press, Herakleion, 2010)
FIGURE 11.23
Skripou, Koimesis,
exterior view from
the northeast
(author)
intersected with changes in worship, creating questions unanswered, they are fundamental to
smaller, annexed spaces for veneration, commem- the transformation of Byzantine architecture. At
oration, or possibly burial.57 the time of Justinian and perhaps for some time
after, we were still in the realm of Late Antiquity:
, both architects and patrons followed Roman
practices, with innovative forms carried out on a
While the changes evident in the Transitional grand scale. Lavish building materials were still
Period are poorly documented and leave many accessible, even in far-flung locations across the
Mediterranean; cities were prosperous and
57
G. Babić, Les chapelles annexes des églises byzantines (Paris, 1969). maintained a vibrant intellectual life. By the

FIGURE 11.24
Skripou, Koimesis,
detail of
inscription
(author)
FIGURE 11.25
Amasra, Fatih
Camii, view from
the northeast
(J. Pickett)
ninth century, everything had changed, includ- nature of worship. In short, we are leaving the
ing the architectural profession, the nature of world of Antiquity behind and entering the
patronage, the scale of construction, and the Middle Ages.

CHAPTER TWELVE
TRANSFORMATION AT THE
EDGES OF EMPIRE
V iewed from the perspective of Constan-

tinople, the architecture of the seventh
through ninth centuries tells a tale of decline and
often built from spolia, as at Sant’Agnese fuori le
mura (mid-seventh century) (see Fig. 10.19).2
Spoliation abounded in seventh- and eighth-
retrenchment, as the Byzantine Empire addressed century Rome, with even mosaic tesserae reused.
major political, social, and economic changes. Nevertheless, by the end of the eighth century
The edges of the empire recount a somewhat and particularly with the foundation of the Holy
different story—or rather, stories. With the break- Roman Empire under Charlemagne (in 799),
down in pan-Mediterranean trade and exchange, large-scale architecture returned. After this point,
regional developments dominate—that is, archi- however, we witness a parting of the ways, as
tecture developed in relative isolation but occa- Western European architecture charts its own
sionally with remarkable originality. And in course, distinct from the developments in the
contrast to the center of the empire, much of the Eastern Mediterranean.
“marginal” construction is well documented and Along the eastern and southern borders of the
securely dated. empire, architecture developed independent of
Italy provides a useful starting point for our the trends that characterized Constantinople and
discussion. After the sixth century, Italy was polit- areas under its direct influence. During the seventh
ically fractious but religiously coherent under the century in the Caucasus, for example, Armenia
domination of the papacy.1 When in 727 Pope and Georgia witnessed a remarkable period of archi-
Gregory II did not accept the decree of Iconoclasm, tectural production and creativity. In Mesopotamia,
the gap between Italy and Byzantium widened. Syriac Christianity flourished, notably in the Ṭ ur
Perhaps reflecting this, architecture remained ‘Abdin region, with distinctive architectural forms.
conservative, rooted in its past, with the majority Similarly, the island of Cyprus developed unique
of churches small, three-aisled basilicas reflecting vaulted architecture in relative isolation. With the
their grand Early Christian ancestors. These were emergence of Islam in the Near East and North
Africa, by the end of the seventh century, new
architectural forms were developed to serve the
1
R. Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City 312–1308 (Princeton,
1980); C. Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the
Mediterranean, 400–800 (Oxford, 2005). 2
Brandenburg, Ancient Churches of Rome, 235–55.
Vagarshapat, Church of St. Hṙipsimē, view into the dome (author)
267
new religion, dependent on the earlier Byzantine any other linguistic group; each has its own alpha-
tradition and probably executed by Byzantine ar- bet. Armenia is said to be the first state to adopt
tisans. At the same time, Christian architecture Christianity ca. 301/314 (the date of 303 is often
continued under Arab rule, often with distinctive given), although as Miaphysite, it maintained its
regional styles. own ecclesiastical hierarchy and patriarch. In con-
The Caucasus. Although faced with political trast, Georgia remained Chalcedonian, recognizing
difficulties similar to those experienced in the the religious authority of Constantinople. In spite
heartland of Byzantium, there is hardly a Dark of these significant distinctions, the borders between
Ages in the Caucasus, at least during the seventh Armenia and Georgia were fluid and permeable—
century.3 A frontier zone between warring Byzantines and indeed, the two were religiously united through
and Persians and subsequently Byzantines and much of the sixth century—and the architectural
Arabs, the architecture of the region is distinctive developments are best discussed together.
both for its quality and for its abundance. The That is no easy task, in light of the history and
remarkable flourishing of architecture in the historiography of the region.4 Modern political
Caucasus is unparalleled in contemporary Byzantium, boundaries do not reflect historical ones, with
with finely constructed stone buildings and the scholarship often entrenched along notions of na-
introduction of a variety of new and innovative tional identity, while the standing monuments
building forms. These monuments should be are spread across several modern states with less
considered alongside the main line of Byzantine than friendly borders. Indeed, it may be impossi-
developments. Although structural systems differ ble to draw a historical map of the medieval
in the details, the dome emerges as the central Caucasus on which all current stakeholders would
design feature in Caucasian church architecture, agree. The historic nucleus of both Armenia and
as it had in Byzantium. A number of vaulted ba- Georgia extends into eastern Turkey, and it once
silicas in both Armenia and Georgia incorporate included areas now within Azerbaijan or under
fully developed cross-domed units and spatial Russian control. In addition to the Armenian and
organizations similar to those discussed in the Georgian languages, much of the scholarship on
previous chapter. While there was a heightened the architecture has been in Russian. A notable
awareness of events outside the region, what is exception is the work (in German) of the Austrian
most distinctive is the coalescing of local architec- Josef Strzygowski, writing in the early twentieth
tural forms. There were, of course, some opportu- century, who viewed the monuments through the
nities for the transmission of architectural ideas, lens of race, arguing that the origins and diffusion
such as Armenian elites visiting Constantinople of the domed, centrally planned church repre-
or imperial military campaigns in the region, but sented an “Aryan” creation.5 While much of his
it may be best to view the architectural produc- formal analysis of the monuments remains valid,
tion of the seventh-century Caucasus as a parallel subsequent generations have been put off—
development to what we have observed within understandably so—by his proto-Nazi sentiments.
Byzantium. More recent scholarship maintains the approach
While their architectural forms are remarkably of formal analysis, however, while occasionally at-
similar, Armenia and Georgia were distinctive tempting to situate the monuments within their
both linguistically and ecclesiastically. Armenian political and social contexts. Nevertheless, the
is an Indo-European language somewhat similar remarkable inventiveness of the builders deserves
to Persian, while Georgian is unique, unrelated to special attention, with new elements introduced
into plans, vaulting, and surface articulation.
3
C. Maranci, “Building Churches in Armenia: Art at the Borders
of Empire and the Edge of the Canon,” ArtB 88 (2006): 656–75;
C. Maranci, Vigilant Powers: Three Churches of Early Medieval
Armenia (Turnhout, 2015); A. Kazaryan, Tserkovnaia arkhitektura
4
J. Forsyth, The Caucasus: A History (New York, 2013).
stran Zakavkas’ia VIII veka: formirovanie I razvitie traditsii, 4 vols., in 5
J. Strzygowski, Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa, 2 vols.
Russian with English summary (Moscow, 2012); A. Alpago (Vienna, 1918); C. Maranci, Medieval Armenian Architecture:
Novello, Art and Architecture in Medieval Georgia (Louvain, 1980). Constructions of Race and Nation (Louvain, 2001).

FIGURE 12.1
Ereroyk’, basilica,
view from the west
(author)
Roman heritage may be a critical component transitional zone, however, apparently following
to understanding the architecture of the region. Persian prototypes, although pendentives occa-
While few Roman monuments survive in the sionally appear, as at the large seventh-century
region today—the restored temple at Gaṙni is a churches at Aruch or T’alin. In striking contrast
notable exception—a strong Roman presence is to the Byzantine churches discussed in the preceding
documented. For most of our examples, the wall chapter, the Caucasian churches are exceptionally
construction is of finely cut ashlar facing on a well documented, with public inscriptions on
mortared rubble core, following the Roman their exteriors.
model—and distinct from the pure ashlar con- “Cross-domed basilica” may be the best term
struction of Syria, with which it is often com- to categorize many of the Armenian churches.
pared. Moreover, archaeology has revealed reused The Cathedral at Mren, for example, completed
Roman building components in the foundations before ca. 640, is remarkable for its scale and tall
of early churches, as at the Church of St. proportions (26.5 by 45.7 meters in plan, rising
Hṙip’simē, discussed below. Early churches often approximately 25 meters). Its centrally positioned
retain distinctive temple-like features. The fifth- dome rises above four compound piers and is
century basilica at Ereroyk’, for example, rises braced by barrel vaults on all four sides—that is,
above a stepped base, originally with lateral porti- it has all the characteristics of the Byzantine cross-
coes—when fully standing, from a distance, its domed church, while maintaining an elongated
profile might have been confused with that of a plan (Figs. 12.2 and 12.3).6 As is common in the
temple (Fig. 12.1). Barrel vaults and banded barrel Caucasus, there is no narthex, with portals on the
vaults also follow the Roman tradition, as at the west, north, and south façades, and the sanctuary
fifth-century (?) Kazakh Basilica at Aparan; there is flanked by lateral chapels. The dome rises above
and in a variety of other examples, cruciform or trumpet squinches and a tall drum, emphasizing
compound piers reflect the structural system.
Domes normally rise above squinches in the 6
Maranci, Vigilant Powers, 23–111.
CHAPTER TWELVE: TRANSFORMATION AT THE EDGES OF EMPIRE 269

FIGURE 12.2
Mren, cathedral,
view from the
southwest
(C. Maranci)
the height of the interior. With the exception of officiating bishop, perhaps Modestus of Jerusalem
architectural sculpture concentrated at the por- (Fig. 12.4). Neither figure is identified, however,
tals, the architecture is austere, with planar sur- and the scene could also be read as a dedication
faces and prismatic volumes and the rooflines rite and the players as Armenian. In sum, the
stepping up from the corner compartments, to church could be “read” as a nexus of negotiations
the cross arms, to the octagonal dome. between Byzantines and Armenians at a critical
Nowadays abandoned and in ruins, on the point in their history, with an imagery accessible
closed Turkish frontier with Armenia, the current to both. For our purposes, however, the building
situation of the church belies its historic impor- is a purely Armenian creation, distant from
tance. Probably constructed under the patronage Constantinople.
of the newly appointed imperial official Prince The Church of St. Gayanē at Vagarshapat (or
Dawit‘ Saharuni, the sculptural program seems to Echmiatsin, the religious center of Armenia) is
affirm allegiances to both the Byzantine emperor similar in plan, although smaller, with a centralized
Heraclius and the local Armenian lord Nerses dome on squinches (Fig. 12.5). Marking the site
Kamsarakan; all are mentioned in the dedicatory of the martyrdom of an early Armenian martyr
inscription at the west portal, along with the local (and companion of Hṙipsimē), the church was
bishop T‘eop‘ighos. These may be the three fig- constructed ca. 630 by the Katholikos Ezra I. Its
ures flanking Christ, Peter, and Paul on the lintel western portico is considerably later. The church
of the west portal. The lintel above the north at Bagavan, now destroyed, was of similar date,
portal may make a reference to the recovery of the but larger and more attenuated in length.
True Cross by Heraclius (in 630), with the In Georgia, the Church of the Ascension at
emperor kneeling before the cross flanked by an Zromi, built ca. 626–35, shares many of these

apse—distinctive features that we find in both
Armenian and Georgian churches.
Within Armenia, the large church at Aruch
maintains an elongated basilican character, with a
transept and dome at its center, supported above
piers engaged to the lateral walls, with a remarka-
bly unified and monumental interior (Figs. 12.8
and 12.9). The dome is now missing but rose
above pendentives. On the exterior, the apse is
framed by V-shaped indentations, and the window
arches are topped by decorative hood moldings.
According to inscriptions, the church was built by
Grigor Mamikonian and his wife Heghinē and
may be dated to the 660s. The large church at
T’alin must be roughly similar in date, with an
elongated interior and the dome rising above pen-
dentives, but it is considerably more complex in
form and detailing, with lateral aisles flanking
the nave (Figs. 12.10 and 12.11). In addition to the
eastern apse being expressed on the exterior,
the cross arms also terminate in apses. These, as
well the dome drum, are faceted on the exterior
and articulated by arcades with engaged coupled
colonnettes.
The small commemorative chapel near the
large church at T’alin was constructed slightly
later by the nobleman Kamsarakan, according to
inscription, for the salvation of his wife and son
(Fig. 12.12). Typical of the small-scale buildings of
the period, the chapel is cruciform on the exterior
and a triconch on the interior. The dome rises
above squinches and an octagonal drum. Similar
FIGURE 12.3 Mren, cathedral, plan and elevation (after chapels are found at Karmravor and Lmbatavank’,
T. T’oramanyan from J. Strzygowski, Baukunst, 1918; and both cruciform on the interior.
A. Kazaryan, Cerkovnaja, 2012)
The contrast between the stark simplicity of
Mren and Zromi and the elaborations evident at
T’alin indicate the variety possible in the seventh-
characteristics, with a cross-domed unit at its core century Caucasus. In addition to the decorative
(Figs. 12.6 and 12.7). The dome, now reconstructed, features, there are also significant variations in
rose above four compound piers, with trumpet plans and structural systems, many of which pres-
squinches at the transition and narrow barrel age later developments in Byzantium.
vaults on four sides. The naos is close to square, The Church of the Holy Cross at Jvari, rising
with little decoration on the façades. The design prominently on a hill above the medieval Georgian
is considerably more complex, including a nar- capital of Mtskheta, may be dated 586–604 and
thex with flanking chambers and probably lateral introduces a remarkably different architectural
arcades as well. Within the interior, a gallery ex- design (Figs. 12.13 and 12.14). The centralized
tends above the narthex and western corner bays. nave is extended by apses on four sides, with
On the east façade, the planar surface is broken small niches at the corners opening to subsidiary
by two tall V-shaped recessed that flank the spaces at the corners. Squinches at the corners

FIGURE 12.4
Mren, cathedral,
sculpted lintel
above the north
portal
(C. Maranci)
FIGURE 12.5
Vagarshapat
(Echmiatsin),
St. Gayanē,
interior view into
the dome (author)

FIGURE 12.6
Zromi, Church of
the Ascension, east
façade (author)
support an octagon drum, with sets of smaller events, as Stepanoz reversed the policies of his father
squinches transitioning to a hemispherical dome. and sided with the Persians against the Byzantines,
Small windows appear in four facets of the drum, even briefly turning away from Chalcedonian
which appears as a tall octagon on the exterior. Christianity. The return to Orthodoxy in 608 re-
The four apses project on the exterior, joined to the sulted in the rupture between the Armenian and
corner compartments by blind arcades, with figural Georgian churches. Heraclius emerged victorious,
sculpture enlivening many surfaces. Throughout however, and had Stepanoz flayed alive in 627,
there is an experimental quality to the building, with with the Georgian Church remaining in the
details not fully resolved: for example, the squinches Orthodox fold.
spring from the haunches of the arches and do not Whatever its origins and possible political im-
relate visually or structurally to the eight piers plications, the new forms seen at Jvari found
below. rapid popularity across both Georgia and
The church was built on the site where tradi- Armenia. The Sioni Church at Ateni (Georgia) is
tionally St. Nino, the Apostle of Georgia, is cred- quite similar to Jvari although probably slightly
ited with the conversion of King Mirian III of later in date. The Church of St. Hṙipsimē at
Iberia to Christianity, where she erected a huge, Vagarshapat (Armenia), dated 618–30, is similar
miraculous cross on the site of a pagan temple. in many ways, although—characteristic of the
Inscriptions mention the builders and their titles: Armenian churches—less sculptural on the exte-
Stephanos (Erismtavari Stepanoz I, Prince of Iberia) rior, which is brought out to square (Figs. 12.15–
with the title patrikios, along with Demetrius and 12.17). The positions of the apses are marked only
Adarnase, both titled hypatos. One wonders if the by V-shaped indentations, with a gable rising
unusual design of the church could reflect current above the midsection of each façade. The four

FIGURE 12.7 missing), raised above a complex transitional zone,
Zromi, Church of with stepped trumpet squinches making a transi-
the Ascension,
plan and section
tion to an octagonal drum, the latter zone articu-
(after A. Alpago lated on the interior as an octaconch, with
Novello, Art and windows in the cardinal niches. Above this, a
Architecture, 1980) second set of eight squinches appears, replete with
elegant, fanlike carving, in effect rotating the octa-
gon by 30 degrees, before, finally, minuscule pen-
dentives smooth the octagon into a circle at the
springing of the dome. Structurally, very little of
this was necessary, but the builders’ interests were
clearly more formal than structural.
Seen against these developments, the Church
of the Vigilant Powers (Zuart‘noc‘), on the out-
skirts of Vagarshapat, Armenia, is an oddity, but
like Mren, it testifies to Byzantine–Armenian rela-
tions, here expressed more architecturally than
pictorially (Figs. 12.19 and 12.20).7 Built by the
Katholikos Nersēs III ca. 645–60 as a part of his
palace complex, the church is now in ruins—it
collapsed in the tenth century. The reconstruction
of the elevation is problematic, although the plan
is clear: an aisled tetraconch, set into a circle. The
eastern conch was treated as a solid wall to frame
an elevated sanctuary, while a small circular crypt
is set centrally into the floor. The projecting space
to the east seems to have included stairs to access
an upper level. Set on a high stepped base, portals
open to the west, north and south, with secondary
portals between them, all with projecting porches.
The exterior façade was arcaded, decorated with
lavish sculpture, and rose through several levels.
Because it collapsed in the tenth century, the pro-
façades are virtually identical, differentiated only portions and exact details are unclear: the middle
by the addition of a late medieval belfry on the zone may have been cylindrical or perhaps the tet-
west side. The dome rises as a polygonal drum raconch form was expressed on the exterior.8
with a conical cap. The interior regularizes many Unique in the seventh-century Caucasus, the
of the awkward features of Jvari: squinches rise tetraconch form seems to follow variations seen a
directly from the piers, and the transition to the century earlier in Syria, as at Bosra or Apamea,
drum is marked by a cornice. The drum is pieced but which were found throughout the Byzantine
by twelve windows, organized in sets of three, and Empire. Even freestanding columns were unusual
the intrados of the dome is articulated by roun- in Armenian architecture at this time. The forms
dels and a radiating cross composed of twelve of the impost capitals with pronounced volutes
rays, aligned with the windows. seem to derive from Byzantine forms as well—
The small Armenian church at Pemzashēn they are heavier versions of those in Hagia Sophia,
gives some sense of the architectural priorities in
the seventh century (Fig. 12.18). Although par-
tially in ruins, it preserves some elegant figural and 7
Maranci, Vigilant Powers, 113–200.
architectural sculpture on its exterior. The cruci- 8
C. Maranci, “The Archaeology and Reconstruction Theories of
form interior was dominated by a tall dome (now Zuart‘noc‘,” DOP 68 (2015): 69–115.

FIGURE 12.8
Aruch, large
church, view from
the southeast
(author)
FIGURE 12.9
Aruch, large
church, interior,
looking east
(author)
and they are similarly decorated with monogram elements would have spoken clearly to Nersēs’
roundels, providing Nersēs’ name and title in political and cultural allegiance with Byzantium.
Greek—again, unique in Armenia. Taken to- Toward the late seventh century, as political
gether, the combination of unique architectural fortunes shift, architecture declines but does not

FIGURE 12.10
T‘alin, large
church, view from
the southeast
(author)
FIGURE 12.11 T‘alin, large church, plan and

elevation (after A. Kazaryan, Cerkovnaja, 2012)

Christian Edessa, however, and across most of
Mesopotamia, church construction is known
only from excavation. Most were simple basilicas
with tripartite sanctuaries, often squared off. An
example at Ctesiphon, perhaps from the seventh
century, had its nave covered by a catenary barrel
vault, similar to the famous Taq-i-Kisra at the
same site.10 The best evidence for the region is
preserved in the Ṭ ur ’Abdin: the Syriac churches
and monasteries near Midyat and Mardin in
northern Mesopotamia (now southeast Turkey).11
Several continue to function for the local
Aramaic-speaking population, with long and
complex histories. The Syriac Orthodox Church
did not accept the doctrine of the two natures of
Christ recognized by the Council of Chalcedon
in 451 and subsequently established its own eccle-
siastical authority. By the sixth century it had also
developed distinct architectural forms. While
some village churches maintain a longitudinal
plan, the development of a transversally barrel-
vaulted nave with a tripartite sanctuary is unique
to the monasteries of the region. Also distinctive
is the elaborate architectural sculpture, which, al-
though stylized, follows classical norms. Earlier
FIGURE 12.12 T‘alin, memorial chapel, plan and section
scholars had viewed the Muslim conquest of the
(after A. Kazaryan, Cerkovnaja, 2012) region in 640 as marking the end of Christian
architectural construction, but more recent anal-
yses indicate continued production into the first
disappear, with construction in the better protected century of Arab rule—that is, bridging the transi-
highlands. The two small cruciform churches at tion from Byzantine to Arab control. Indeed,
Sevanavank‘, on an island in Lake Sevan, from the Arab rule seems to have provided stability to a
eighth or ninth century, are heavy and without the region that had been a hotly contested frontier in
refinement of earlier examples. Both have triconch the preceding century.
interiors and octagonal drums above squinches. Mor Gabriel (Qartmin) is the oldest of the
According to an inscription on one of the churches, monasteries, traditionally said to have been
Marian, the daughter of Ashot I, founded the founded in 397, claiming imperial patronage
monastery in 874, but it is hard to see the rough from Arcadius through Theodora, and its main
construction here signaling the revival of Armenian church may have been the model for later monas-
culture. For this we must wait until the tenth tic churches (Fig. 12.21). Uniquely, it preserves
century. mural mosaics in its sanctuary and an opus sectile
Mesopotamia. Christianity came early to
Mesopotamia, with Edessa (Urfa, Turkey) adopting 10
U. Monneret de Villard, Le chiese della Mesopotamia, OCA 128
it as a state religion in the early third century.9 Despite (Rome, 1940).
its importance, virtually nothing is preserved of 11
Bell, The Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭ ur A ‘ bdin;
H. Hollerweger, Turabdin (Linz, 1999); E. Keser Kayaalp, “Églises
et monastères du Ṭ ur ‘Abdin: les débuts d’une architecture
9
L. W. Bernard, “The Origins and Emergence of the Church in ‘syriaque,’” in Les églises en monde syriaque, ed. F. Briquel Chatonnet
Edessa during the First Two Centuries A.D.,” Vigilae Christianae (Paris, 2013), 269–88; A. Palmer, Monk and Mason on the Tigris
22 (1968): 161–75. Frontier: The Early History of the Tur A ‘ bdin (Cambridge, 1990).

FIGURE 12.13
Jvari (Mtskheta),
Church of the
Holy Cross, view
from the west
(David Khoshtaria)
FIGURE 12.14
Jvari (Mtskheta),
Church of the
Holy Cross, plan
and section (after
A. Alpago Novello,
Art and
Architecture, 1980)

FIGURE 12.15
Vagarshapat,
Church of St.
Hṙipsimē, view
from the southeast
(author)
floor, both of which would support the later projecting from three walls, the largest in the long
claim of patronage by the emperor Anastasius and east wall. It is distinctive for its elaborately carved
a date ca. 512.12 It was constructed of rough cornices, which join to the arches framing the
ashlar; the transverse nave was covered by a barrel apses. The carving included band after band of
vault, constructed of brick, divided into three classically based moldings, replete with Christian
bays by stone arches. Both stone and brick are symbols. The funeral chapel to the south is either
used in arch construction. The three rooms that contemporary or slightly earlier. Neither space
constitute the sanctuary are treated as separated preserves its original roofing, although they were
units, with only small doors opening to them. A perhaps domed.
domed octagonal structure of uncertain purpose Mor Ya‘qub at Ṣalaḥ offers the most clarity in
immediately to the northwest seems to be con- its architectural forms, likely a conservative,
temporary with the church. eighth-century construction, according to a dated
The monastery known as Dayr al-Za‘faran, inscription incorporated into its façade (Figs.
near Mardin, became the most important in the 12.24A and 12.25). Its plan follows that of Mor
region (Figs. 12.22 and 12.23). Founded in the Gabriel, with a three-bayed, transversally bar-
late fifth century, it served as the seat of the Syrian rel-vaulted nave. As are visually articulated in the
Orthodox patriarch from 1160 to 1932. Its main gables of the lateral façades, the porch to the west
church, which may be sixth century in date, offers balances the tripartite sanctuary. Only the apse of
another model. Square in plan, it has apses the central sanctuary projects beyond the block of
the building. Compared to Mor Gabriel, the con-
12
P. Blanc, A. Desereumaux, and S. de Courtois, “Report on the
struction is much neater and the carved decora-
State of the Preservation of the Byzantine Mosaics of the Saint tion more restrained, but with decorative patterns
Gabriel Monastery of Quartamin, Tur Abdin (southwest introduced into the brick vaulting.
Turkey): October 10th–14th, 2006,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac El-‘Adhra (Church of the Virgin) at Ḥāḥ, dated
Studies 12, no. 1 (2009): 5–19. ca. 700, is perhaps the most elaborate monument

FIGURE 12.16 of the region (Figs. 12.24B, 12.26, and 12.27).
Vagarshapat, Although it maintains the transverse nave, it in-
Church of St.
Hṙipsimē, plan
troduces an octagonal brick cloister vault above
and section (after the central bay, with squinches at the transition.
A. Kazaryan, The lateral bays are covered half-domes of ashlar,
Cerkovnaja, 2012) with squinches at the corners. The central sanctu-
ary opens to the nave, its half-dome decorated
with a carved cross, rising above engaged colon-
nettes and niches. Throughout, the sculpture is
lavish, and the heavy cornices are detailed with
bands of desiccated classical motifs. On the exte-
rior, the cloister vault rose above a square base,
lined with coupled colonnettes and decorated
niches (now much altered, with the upper zone of
niches added in the twentieth century).
A variety of other buildings may be dated to
the early eighth century. At Habsenas, the local
bishop, Symeon of the Olives, constructed a pa-
rochial church on a longitudinal plan, following
earlier models, its pitched brick barrel vault
rising above wall arcades, with the narthex set
parallel to it (Fig. 12.28). Its sculptural decora-
tion compares with that of Ḥāḥ. Outside the vil-
lage, Symeon built the Monastery of Mor Lazoor,
now in ruins, with a stylite column at the center
FIGURE 12.17
Vagarshapat,
Church of St.
Hṙipsimē, view
into the dome
(author)

FIGURE 12.18
Pemzashēn, small
church, view into
the drum, showing
the complex
transition to the
dome (now
missing) (author)
FIGURE 12.19
Vagarshapat,
Church of the
Vigilant Powers
(Zvart‘nots‘), view
of ruins from the
south (author)

FIGURE 12.20
Vagarshapat,
Church of the
Vigilant Powers
(Zvart‘nots‘), plan
and possible
reconstructed
elevations
(Kazaryan); (top
right)
T‘oramanyan;
(bottom right)
Mnac‘akanyan
(after A. Kazaryan,
Cerkovnaja, 2012;
T. T‘oramanyan,
from
J. Strzygowski,
Baukunst, 1918;
and
S. Mnats‘akanyan,
Arhitektura, 1952)
of its courtyard.13 By ca. 800, however, new of churches, particularly in the northeast, were
church construction ceases in the region, perhaps barrel vaulted, such as the Panagia Chrysiotissa or
coinciding with a ban on church building, issued the Asomatos at Afentrika (Fig. 12.29).15 Most of
by al-Mutawakkil in 853. these appear to date to the eighth century and repre-
Cyprus. There are a variety of churches belong- sent the rebuilding of older, timber-roofed basilicas.
ing to the Transitional Period in Cyprus, although Another group, beginning with the Salamis
the traditional discourse has viewed the island’s ar- Cathedral of St. Epiphanius, was covered by multi-
chitecture in light of contemporaneous develop- ple domes (Fig. 12.30). Rebuilt with three domes in
ments in Constantinople.14 While this may make the early eighth century, St. Epiphanius seems to
sense for earlier and later periods when there are have set a model for other churches on the island,
strong connections with the capital, it makes more an independent regional phenomenon.16 The stand-
sense to see the Transitional Period architecture of ard design has three domes above a longitudinal
Cyprus as almost purely regional, albeit dynamic nave, as at St. Lazarus in Larnaca and St. Barnabas
within a closed group. The island was isolated for near Salamis (Fig. 12.31). It has been suggested that
much of the period under discussion, with an Arab the repetition of three domes may relate to impor-
occupation that lasted from 649 to 965. Although tant actions in the liturgy or perhaps to the Trinity,
this corresponds to the Transitional Period in but it is just as likely that the proportions of the
Byzantium, the typology is quite different. A number nave required three bays to be fully vaulted.
15
C. A. Stewart, “The First Vaulted Churches in Cyprus,” JSAH 69
13
G. Wiessner, Christliche Kultbauten im Tur Abdin (Wiesbaden, (2010): 162–89.
1981). 16
C. A. Stewart, “Domes of Heaven: The Domed Basilicas of
14
A. H. S. Megaw, “Byzantine Architecture and Decoration on Cyprus,” PhD diss., Indiana University, 2008; T. Papacostas, “The
Cyprus: Metropolitan or Provincial?” DOP 28 (1974): 57–88; Medieval Progeny of the Holy Apostles: Trails of Architectural
S. Ćurčić, Middle Byzantine Architecture on Cyprus: Provincial or Imitation across the Mediterranean,” in The Byzantine World, ed.
Regional? (Nicosia, 2000). P. Stephenson (London, 2010), 386–405, esp. 402–403.

FIGURE 12.21
Qartmin, Mor
Gabriel, plan (after
H. Hollerweger,
Turabdin, 1999;
and G. Bell,
Churches and
Monasteries of the
Tur ‘Abdin, 1913,
with the author’s
modifications)
The related five-domed churches, such as multiple-domed format was abandoned in favor
those of St. Paraskevi at Yeroskipou and Sts. of the single-domed church, more in keeping
Barnabas and Hilarion at Peristerona, maintain with Middle Byzantine standards.
the longitudinal three-domed nave, but with two Palestine and Jordan. The “Holy Land” of
smaller domes added to the side aisles, although Early Christian times had a complicated history
these are visually cut off from the nave and do not after the sixth century.17 The Byzantine–Persian
mark cross arms or transepts (Fig. 12.32). While it war of 608–28 saw Jewish revolts, Christian
is tempting to see these five-domed churches as backlash, a brief Persian occupation of Jerusalem
followers of Justinian’s Holy Apostles in Constan- (614–29), and the relic of the True Cross taken
tinople, they are spatially very different, main- hostage. Emperor Heraclius returned the relic to
taining a longitudinal character. Rather than Jerusalem at the end of the conflict in 630, but
following models developed elsewhere, the
unusual Cypriot church design seems to have 17
Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century; Kaegi, Byzantium and
developed in isolation. Notably, after the the Early Islamic Conquests; H. Evans and B. Ratliff, eds., Byzantium
Byzantine reconquest of the island in 965, the and Islam: Age of Transition (New York, 2012).

FIGURE 12.22
Mardin (near),
Dayr al-Za‘faran,
plan (after
Hollerweger,
Turabdin, 1999,
with the author’s
modifications)
Byzantine domination of the region did not last long; The rise of Islam is unprecedented historically,
in 637 Jerusalem surrendered to the Arab caliph permanently altering the nature of the political
Umar. With the rise of Islam, the followers of discourse across the Mediterranean—a topic to
Mohammed (ca. 570–632) sought religious and which we shall return in succeeding chapters. For
political cohesion. Under the Caliphs who suc- our purposes, several points are worth emphasiz-
ceeded Mohammed (632–61) and the Umayyad ing. First, Islam as a religion did not arrive with
Caliphate (661–750), who established their capi- an established set of architectural forms. Arabia
tal at Damascus, the Near East, North Africa, and did not have a strong architectural tradition, at
Spain were rapidly conquered. Persia under the least in permanent materials, although their new
Parthians and Sasanians had regularly and repeat- centers in Palestine and Jordan had a long history
edly challenged the eastern frontiers of the Roman of Roman and Byzantine construction on which
and Byzantine Empires in previous centuries, but to draw. While much of the regional population
by 651 Persia had also become part of the growing remained Christian, new architectural forms
Islamic state. were deemed necessary as part of the symbolic

FIGURE 12.23
Mardin (near),
Dayr al-Za‘faran,
interior of the
church, looking
east (author)
appropriation of the land.18 Thus begins a process FIGURE 12.24
of adoption and adaptation of existing forms, Churches of the

Ṭ ur ’Abdin: (A)
comparable to the process witnessed earlier with
Ṣalaḥ, Mor Ya‘qub,
the official acceptance of Christianity and the be- plan; (B) Ḥ āḥ,
ginnings of Christian architecture. Second, for el-‘Adhra (Church
the early centuries, Muslims remained a minority of the Virgin), plan
in the region, and church construction contin- (author, redrawn
after G. Bell,
ued, as it had in the Ṭ ur ‘Abdin and elsewhere.
Churches and
Often noted for the lavish floor mosaics, architec- Monasteries of the
tural forms remain relatively conservative, with Tur ‘Abdin, 2013)
the three-aisled basilica as the standard form.
While Christianity and Islam stand in stark
opposition in today’s political discourses, they
have much in common, and this is reflected in their
early architecture. Like Judaism and Christianity,
Islam was a monotheistic religion, with a strong
basis in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament).
Along with Abraham and the Patriarchs, Islam
recognized Jesus as a prophet, and his mother
Mary also figures prominently in the religion. For
all, Jerusalem loomed large in the religious imag-
inary as the city of the Temple. Moreover, as Islam
18
O. Grabar, The Formation of Islamic Art, rev. ed. (New Haven,
1987).

FIGURE 12.25
Ṣalaḥ, Mor Ya‘qub,
church seen from
the southwest
(author)
spread into areas that were formerly part of the represents a rebuilding of the eleventh century)
Byzantine Empire, we find a process of adaptation to and enveloped by two ambulatories, the central
create a setting appropriate to Muslim worship, prob- area filled by an exposed outcropping of rock.
ably with the participation of Byzantine artisans. Picturesquely isolated on the Temple Mount (the
Perhaps the best evidence of this is the Dome Haram al-Sharif ), the Dome of the Rock may be
of the Rock in Jerusalem, completed by the the perfect example of a Byzantine centralized
Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik in 691 (Figs. 12.33 monument. Even the columns, capitals, and
and 12.34; and see Fig. 2.2).19 Built on the site of mosaic decoration follow established Byzantine
the Roman Capitoline Temple, which superseded practices. The exterior was also decorated with
the Jewish Temple at the same site, it should be mosaics, replaced by glazed tiles in the Ottoman
understood as a commemorative building, rather period.
than a mosque. In this, the octagonal plan follows While the architectural design could not be
the model of earlier Byzantine centralized mar- clearer, the motivation for its construction remains
tyria, such as the Kathisma Church.20 Indeed, the disputed. If it is a commemorative structure, what
geometry of its design, formed by concentric oc- exactly does it commemorate? A later tradition asso-
tagrams, conforms to Byzantine design practices ciates the building with Mohammed’s Night Journey,
as well. The central octagon, 20.2 meters in diam- marking the spot from which he ascended to heaven.
eter, is covered by a wooden dome (the present Early written sources are silent on the matter.
Associations with the Jewish Temple, Mount Moriah,
19
O. Grabar, The Shape of the Holy (Princeton, 1996); O. Grabar, The and the Sacrifice of Abraham are also possible.
Dome of the Rock (Cambridge, 2006); W. A. C. Creswell, A Short Perhaps most importantly, it marked the conquest of
Account of Early Muslim Architecture (Harmondsworth, 1958), 17–40. the city, offering a monumental Islamic presence to
20
R. Avner, “The Dome of the Rock in Light of the Development compete with the Christian shrines; notably, the
of Concentric Martyria in Jerusalem: Architecture and dome diameter is almost exactly the same as that of
Architectural Iconography,” Muqarnas 27 (2011): 31–50. the Anastasis Rotunda at the Holy Sepulchre.

FIGURE 12.26
Ḥ āḥ, el-‘Adhra
(Church of the
Virgin), view from
the southwest; the
upper arcade of the
dome tower is a
modern fabrication
(author)
The Great Mosque of Damascus stands in a converted into the Church of John the Baptist in
similar dialogue with the past, on a site of previous 391. After the Umayyad conquest of the city in 634,
Christian and pagan shrines (Figs. 12.35 and a prayer hall for Muslims was added to it. Christians
12.36).21 The Roman Temple of Jupiter, surrounded and Muslims thus worshiped side by side, in sepa-
by a walled temenos (97 by 156 meters overall), was rate areas. Cohabitation seems to have been the rule
21
F. B. Flood, The Great Mosque of Damascus: Studies on the Making Account, 43–81; M. Giudetti, In the Shadow of the Church: The
of an Umayyad Visual Culture (Leiden, 2001); Creswell, Short Building of Mosques in Early Medieval Syria (Leiden, 2017).

FIGURE 12.27
Ḥ āḥ, el-‘Adhra
(Church of the
Virgin), view into
the dome (author)
FIGURE 12.28
Habsenas, Mor
Lazoor, courtyard
with stylite tower
(author)

FIGURE 12.29
Afentrika
(Cyprus), Panagia
Chrysiotissa,
reconstructed
isometric cutaway,
showing the first
two phases
(C. A. Stewart,
JSAH, 2010)
FIGURE 12.30
Salamis, Cathedral of St.
Epiphanius, plan showing
construction phases, with
eighth-century form (after
C. A. Stewart, “Domes of
Heaven,” 2008)

of the day. Under al-Walid, both structures were de-
molished in 706 to make way for a large congrega-
tional mosque. Rather than being centrally positioned,
as the earlier buildings were, the mosque was set
against the south wall of the temenos, its three aisles
filling almost half of the enclosure, with porticoes
along the other sides. In form it was a three-aisled ba-
silica, set transversally, with an axial transept, and
mihrab niches in the long south wall directed the wor-
shippers toward Mecca, the qibla, or direction of
prayer. Columns, capitals, and other construction ma-
terials were spolia taken from the earlier monuments,
and the north façade opened to the exterior by an
arcade, now closed. In addition to the reused materi-
als, the architectural forms are also repurposed—
indeed, all are familiar from Early Christian church
architecture: the timber-roofed basilica, divided into
aisles by colonnaded arcades; the transept; and the
atrium are all familiar, but rearranged here for a differ-
ent type of worship, communal prayer, with the orien-
tation across the space rather than movement along
the longitudinal axis.
The design of the Damascus mosque is followed in
FIGURE 12.31 Larnaca, St. Lazarus, interior, looking east
(domes now missing) (author)
many other early mosques, as in that constructed by
Hisham at Resafa (ca. 724–43), a large, three-aisled
FIGURE 12.32
Yeroskipou,
St. Paraskevi, view
from the northeast
(author)

FIGURE 12.33
Jerusalem, Qubbat
al-Sakhra, Dome
of the Rock.
Interior from
Qibla (© 1992
Said Nuseibeh)
transverse hall preceded by a courtyard, measuring 40

by 56 meters overall (see Fig. 7.27).22 It was inserted
into the northern courtyard, its qibla wall joined di-
rectly to the reduced courtyard of St. Sergius, with a
door in the qibla wall providing access between them.
And while building materials were reused from other
Christian shrines, the Basilica of St. Sergius was main-
tained. All of this suggests that the Muslims had em-
braced the cult of the Christian saint. Drawing on the
integrative power of the military saint, the mosque
would have been both a place of worship and a site
of mediation between potentially conflicting groups.
The Church of St. Stephen at Umm ar-Rasas
(Kastron Mefa’a, Jordan) gives some sense of the
continued Christian presence under Islamic rule
(Fig. 12.37).23 Dated by mosaic inscriptions, the con-
servative three-aisled basilica is sixth century (with a
mosaic dedication of 587), but was refurbished in
22
D. Sack, Die Grosse Moschee von Resafa (Mainz, 1996).
23
M. Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman, 1992), 238–39; FIGURE 12.34 Jerusalem, Qubbat al-Sakhra, Dome of the
R. Schick, The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Rock, axonometric, showing the design geometry (after
Islamic Rule (Princeton, 1995). A. Choisy, Histoire de l’architecture, 1903)

FIGURE 12.35
Damascus, Great
Mosque,
courtyard, looking
southeast (Jerzy
Strzelecki,
Wikimedia
Commons)
FIGURE 12.36
Damascus, Great
Mosque, plan
(redrawn after
O. Grabar, Shape
of the Holy, 1996)
785. The floor mosaics were subsequently par- local Christian community.24 There are a number
tially reset to eliminate all figural images, scram- of similar examples of Christian Iconoclasm in
bling the tesserae in the process. While in accord
with Islamic decorative practices, the Iconoclasm 24
F. B. Flood, “Christian Mosaics in Early Islamic Jordan and
seems to have been generated from within the Palestine: A Case of Regional Iconoclasm,” in Byzantium and
FIGURE 12.37 Umm
ar-Rasas, Church of
St. Stephen, view of
the mosaic floor
(author)
the region. While the growing corpus of mosaic ancient Egyptian, which came to be written in
inscriptions from the churches of the Near East Greek characters and gradually supplanted Greek
indicates continued activity by Christian artisans as the liturgical language. Under the authority of
well into the Umayyad period, most commemo- the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Egyptian Church
rate simple repairs of a secondary nature and not was Monophysite—that is, in opposition to the
major building campaigns. The evidence speaks central authority in Constantinople.
against the notion, however attractive, of a build- Basilican architecture continued from Late
ing boom that might represent a flowering of Antiquity, but post-Conquest churches tended to
Christian communities in the seventh and eighth be smaller, with brick (rather than ashlar) as the
centuries. standard construction material. The interiors
Egypt. With the Arab conquest of Egypt in grew increasingly compartmentalized, with a
642, Christian communities found themselves in transversal emphasis. Sometime in the seventh
reduced economic circumstances and cut off century, a space called the khurus (from the Greek
from developments elsewhere. Although occa- choros, choir) was introduced, an oblong, tran-
sionally called Copts, derived from the Arabic sept-like area separating the nave and the sanctu-
version of the Greek Aigyptos, Qibt, the term ary, reserved for the clergy. The sanctuary proper,
Copt refers to a Christian Egyptian, appropriate called the haikal, was flanked by sacristies and
only after the Arabization of the Christian popu- closed by a curtain, invisible to the laity in the
lation in the ninth and tenth centuries.25 The nave.26 An early example of this transformation is
Coptic language, however, was a late form of
Martyrs’ in Early Islamic Egypt,” DOP 60 (2006): 65–86; and
Islam: Age of Transition, eds. H. Evans and B. Ratliff (New York, Bolman, The Red Monastery Church, xxv–xxvi.
2012), 117. 26
E. S. Bolman, “Veiling Sanctity in Christian Egypt: Visual and
See comments by A. Papaconstantinou, “Historiography,
25
Spatial Solutions,” in Thresholds of the Sacred, ed. S. E. J. Gerstel
Hagiography, and the Making of the Coptic ‘Church of the (Washington, DC, 2006), 73–104.

FIGURE 12.38
Wadi Natrun, Church of the
Virgin (al-‘Adra’, Dayr al-
Suriān), restored plan of the
eighth-century church
(redrawn after P. Grossmann,
Mittelalterliche
Langhauskuppelkirche, 1982)
FIGURE 12.39
(A) Dayr al-Shuhadā,
church, plan and
elevation; (B) Dayr
al-Kubāniyyah,
church, plan
and elevation
(after P. Grossmann,
Mittelalterliche
Langhauskuppelkirche,
1982)
the Church of the Virgin at the Syrian Monastery architecture became the norm. In Lower Egypt,
in Wadi Natrun (Dayr al-Suriān), which dates barrel vaults were more common, while in Upper
from the early eighth century, a basilica originally Egypt, the dome was the preferred covering, often
covered by a wooden roof (Fig. 12.38).27 Dayr used in series. At Dayr Anbā Hadrā of the early
Anbā Bishoi in the Wadi Natrun, perhaps ninth eleventh century, for example, the two-bayed
century in date, was similar. After this time, older nave was covered by two octagon domes raised
churches were commonly remodeled to include a above squinches.28 The church at Dayr al-Shuhadā
khurus and a less visible sanctuary. is similar, although less regular (Fig. 12.39A). By the
In subsequent centuries, as Egypt came under twelfth century, a more centralized, single-domed
the control of the Fatamids (after 969), vaulted church type had emerged, as at Dayr al-Kubāniyyah
(Fig. 12.39B). While the octagon-domed churches
27
P. Grossmann, “Church Architecture in Egypt,” The Coptic
Encyclopedia (New York, 1991), 2: 552–55; P. Grossmann, “Dayr al- 28
P. Grossmann, Mittelalterliche Langhauskuppelkirchen und
Suryān: Architecture,” Coptic Encyclopedia, 3: 879–81. verwandte Typen in Oberägypten (Glückstadt, 1982).

FIGURE 12.40 Old Dongola, cathedral, archaeological plan
(redrawn after P. M. Gartkiewicz, Dongola II, 1990)
FIGURE 12.41 Faras, North Church, plan and elevation
(after G. S. Mileham, Churches in Lower Nubia, 1910)
may bear a superficial resemblance to a common
Middle Byzantine type—as seen in the katholikon
of Hosios Loukas (see Fig. 13.8)—the more im- from excavated remains, the details of the super-
mediate inspiration must have been Fatimid structure are unclear.
mosque architecture. That is, while maintaining Longitudinal plans were more common, with
characteristics of Byzantine architecture, later de- the development of barrel-vaulted, pillared basili-
velopments in Egypt are by and large regional, cas, such as the North Church at Faras, perhaps of
determined by local customs rather than typolo- the eighth century. Early researchers termed this ar-
gies established elsewhere. chitecture “dromic” rather than basilican, because
Nubia. Although Christianized from Egypt of the low barrel vaults, heavy supports, and ab-
and under the authority of the Monophysite sence of a clerestory (Fig. 12.41).31 Vaults are invari-
Patriarch of Alexandria, Nubia maintained signif- ably constructed of pitched brick. Entrances were
icant differences from Egypt. Greek, rather than on the north and south sides, rather than the west;
Coptic, remained the language of the liturgy. And the windows are small. The khurus, commonplace
in contrast to the developments in Egypt, the ba- in Egypt, does not enter the architectural vocabu-
silica plan prevailed in Nubia.29 Most are un- lary of medieval Nubia; the apse is sometimes
dated, placed generally between the sixth and the squared, but if it is semicircular, it is never expressed
twelfth centuries. The earlier churches often had a on the exterior. By the tenth or eleventh century,
wide central nave flanked by multiple aisles. At the dome had taken on greater importance, and a
Faras and Old Dongola (the so-called Church of four-pillared church with a central dome had been
the Granite Columns), a type of cruciform basil- developed. Occasionally the plan begins to resem-
ica had been developed by the eighth century, ble a Middle Byzantine cross-in-square church, but
which found no precedents in Egypt (Fig. more commonly, as at domed churches at East
12.40).30 With multiple aisles and a central trans- Serreh, the bays are isolated, with all but the central
verse axis terminating in apses, the origins of the bay barrel vaulted (Fig. 12.42).
building type continue to be debated. Known Ethiopia (Abyssinia). Further to the south,
Abyssinia was at the zenith of its power in Late
29
P. Grossmann, “Nubian Christian Architecture,” Coptic
Antiquity, controlling international trade through
Encyclopedia 6: 1807–11; the Red Sea. Although Abyssinia allied with the
30
P. M. Gartkiewicz, Dongola II: The Cathedral in Old Dongola and
Its Antecedents, Nubia I (Warsaw, 1990). 31
G. S. Mileham, Churches in Lower Nubia (Philadelphia, 1910).

FIGURE 12.42
East Serreh, north
and south domed
churches, plans
and elevations
(after
G. S. Mileham,
Churches in Lower
Nubia, 1910)
Byzantine Empire, it was never part of it; Byzantine increasingly isolated, and, like Nubia to its north,
writers occasionally confused Ethiopia with India. architectural developments remained localized.
Christianized from Syria-Palestine in the fourth Construction techniques and architectural details
century, the plans of early basilicas excavated at the are both regionally distinctive and conservative,
Red Sea port of Adulis may reflect this cultural making chronology difficult to determine. Building
connection.32 By the sixth century, the capital practices reflect the pre-Christian of Aksum, al-
Aksum had become the spiritual center of Ethiopia, though little is preserved in Christian Aksum itself.33
a sort of New Sion, whose churches set the model The famed church at Debre Damo, from the sixth or
for later developments. Although nominally seventh century, provides a good model of early
Monophysite, with its bishops appointed by the forms (Fig. 12.43). Dramatically isolated atop a pla-
Patriarch of Alexandria, Ethiopia never seems to teau surrounded by precipitous cliffs, the monastery
have been drawn into the theological debates of is still only accessible by climbing a 17-meter rope up
the period and remained on good terms with all the cliff face. The plan is basilican, and the nave is
factions. With the rise of Islam and the loss of con- framed by side aisles and galleries, preceded by a nar-
trol of trade routes, however, Ethiopia became thex terminating in a three-part sanctuary, with its
bays squared off. The construction is half timber,
with wooden framing exposed on the facades, alter-
32
N. Finneran, “Ethiopian Christian Material Culture: The
nating with slightly raised courses of masonry, which
International Context. Aksum, the Mediterranean, and the Syriac were originally plastered. Above each timber course,
Worlds of the Fifth to Seventh Centuries,” in Incipient
Globalization? Long-Distance Contacts in the Sixth Century, ed. 33
D. Matthews and A. Mordini, “The Monastery of Debra Damo,
A. Harris (Oxford, 2007), 75–89; R. Paribeni, “Richerche nel Ethiopia,” Archaeologia 87 (1959): 1–58; D. W. Phillipson, Ancient
luogo dell’antica Adulis,” Monumenti antichi 18 (1907): 437–72. Churches of Ethiopia (New Haven, 2009), 51–64.

its cave setting and preservation and maintains a
similar plan. Construction is also similar, although
without the exposed monkey-heads. Its well-pre-
served, timber-trussed roof is noteworthy—
indeed, the surviving timber roofs from Ethiopian
churches may significantly expand our limited
evidence from the Byzantine Empire (Fig. 12.45).
As Debra Selam demonstrates, the interchangea-
bility of building materials extends into rock carv-
ing, where features developed in wood and stone are
replicated with exactitude. Three large rock-carved
churches preserved in Tigray have multipillared in-
teriors, with carving reminiscent of masonry forms.35
Most famous in this respect are the rock-carved
churches of Lalibela, an extensive site developed
over a period of several centuries, which became a
sort of New Aksum and New Jerusalem; it remains
a popular pilgrimage destination.36 Beta Emmanuel
(thirteenth century?) stands as a good example. It
replicates the standard plan—with a narthex and
FIGURE 12.43 Debra Damo, main church, plan and nave flanked by side aisles surmounted by galleries,
elevation (redrawn after D. W. Phillipson, Ancient Churches
of Ethiopia, 2009)
terminating in a three-part sanctuary, all carved
from the living rock. Isolated within a sunken court-
crossbeams extend through the thickness of the walls yard, the exterior replicates banded masonry, stand-
as binders, exposed and rounded off on the exte- ard window and door frames, and even occasional
rior—what are known as “monkey-heads.” The nave projecting bosses (Fig. 12.46). The interior carving
piers are monolithic, with a frieze and gallery above, replicates traditional arcades and friezes. Like the
covered by a pitched, wooden-beamed ceiling, which other churches at Lalibela, Beta Emmanuel appears
was destroyed in 1984 and replaced by the present as a tour de force, challenging our expectations,
flat ceiling. Strikingly, wood and stone are used while emphasizing that the sanctity of the site is
almost interchangeably, detailed similarly in con- quite literally embedded in the landscape.37
struction and decoration; the arid climate has pre-
served much of the wood. ,
Several of the Ethiopian churches were
constructed in caves, and this has added to their From this examination of regional develop-
preservation. At Mika’el Debra Selam, for exam- ments, we may draw several conclusions. First,
ple, which may date anywhere between the sev-
enth and tenth centuries, the plan is similar to 35
Phillipson, Ancient Churches, 98–107; C. Lepage and J. Mercier,
that of Debra Damo, while the exterior preserves Les églises historiques du Tigray (Paris, 2005).
the distinctive banding of wood and plastered 36
Phillipson, Ancient Churches, 123–81; F.-X. Fauvelle-Aymar,
masonry, with the projecting monkey-heads (Fig. L. Bruxelles, R. Mensan, and C. Bosc-Tiessé, “Rock-Cut
12.44).34 Set in a cave, the upper portion of the Stratigraphy: Sequencing the Lalibela Churches,” Antiquity 84
interior is—uniquely—carved into the rock ceil- (2010): 1135–50; for the symbolism of the churches, see
ing, continuing identical architectural detailing M. Heldman, “Architectural Symbolism, Sacred Geography and
from masonry into rock carving. Although sev- the Ethiopian Church,” Journal of Religion in Africa 22 (1992):
eral centuries later—perhaps twelfth century or 222–41; M. Heldman, “Legends of Lalibela: The Development of
slightly later, the Yemrehane Kristos is similar in an Ethiopian Pilgrimage Site,” Res 27 (1995): 25–38.
37
The level of exactitude in the Ethiopian rock-carved churches
stands very much in contrast to those of Cappadocia, to be
34
Phillipson, Ancient Churches, 68–71. discussed in Chapter 18.

FIGURE 12.44
Mika’el Debra
Selam, view of the
inner church
façade
(M. Muehlbauer)
most do not depend on the larger international design of St. Titus at Gortyna on Crete, which
currents of the preceding centuries. For exam- dates to the early ninth century, before the loss of
ple, the Cypriot domed churches do not derive Crete to the Arabs in 824 (discussed in the previ-
from the Justinianic Holy Apostles, as both the ous chapter). The scale of the two buildings is vir-
spatial and the structural disposition differ. tually identical. Similarly, the octagon-domed
Indeed, the typologies of Cypriot churches are plans of the Caucasus, seen widely in the seventh
best treated as a more or less closed group. All century, are revived in the tenth and eleventh cen-
the same, they maintain a variety of features turies in Armenia and Georgia, as well as in
widespread at that time, such as the introduc- Constantinople and Greece.
tion of vaulting, often to be found in the recon- But the Transitional Period also witnessed a
struction of older buildings, and the preference decline in pan-Mediterranean trade and cultural
for domes on pendentives. We find elements of exchange. The sort of international exchange of
the universal, but the regional characteristics architectural ideas and plans that characterized
dominate. This may be comparable to the situa- Late Antiquity had ended as well. Changes in ar-
tion in the Caucasus. chitectural practices (to be discussed in a later
Second, during this period experimentation chapter) also contributed. Thus, while architec-
seems to have happened on a local level before it ture had flourished in the Caucasus in the seventh
affected wider developments. With the political century, it required several centuries and a period
decline in the Caucasus in the eighth and ninth of renewed exchange for the regional develop-
centuries, for example, many of the new developments to find their way into the mainstream.
ments there may not have found their way into Although it is distinctive, the new architectural
the mainstream until after the end of Iconoclasm developed in the Ṭur ‘Abdin remains regional,
and the Arab incursions. Thus, for example, the perhaps rooted in local liturgical practices. In
complex design of the seventh-century cathedral Cyprus, with the reconquest of the island by the
at T‘alin may lie behind the similarly complex Byzantines in 965, the “transitional” designs were

FIGURE 12.45 Yemrehane Kristos, view into the nave roofing, looking east (M. Muehlbauer)

FIGURE 12.46
Lalibela, Beta Emmanuel, view of the west
façade (M. Muehlbauer)
abandoned. Instead of multidomed, longitudi- as the Islamic state develops its own distinctive ar-
nally organized churches, renewed contact with the chitectural identity. Discussions of Egypt, Nubia,
Byzantine capital led to the adoption of the cen- and Ethiopia after the rise of Islam have taken us
trally planned naos, dominated by a single dome. well beyond the Transitional Period. The key
In contrast, under Islamic rule, Jordan and Palestine factor in all three regions is the continuation and
witness increased architectural activity, often draw- subsequent transmutation of forms established in
ing upon the models developed in the seventh and earlier periods. In all, however, with weakened in-
eighth centuries. As the center of Islamic power shifts ternational ties, architecture developed and con-
northward into former Persian territory, to Baghdad tinued in relative isolation, with local features
in 762, architectural forms become more “Persian,” dominating.

PART THREE
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE CENTURIES

Ninth to Twelfth Centuries
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
NEW CHURCH ARCHITECTURE

AND THE RISE OF MONASTICISM
B y the end of the ninth century, Byzantium

emerged from the Transitional Period as a
smaller entity, limited for the most part to Asia
Byzantine society, with monasteries also the
product of private endowment.
The new type of church architecture was per-
Minor, Greece, and the southern Balkans (see fectly suited to the private worship of a family or
Maps 4 and 5). The ninth century had witnessed a small congregation, whether lay or monastic, in
a gradual revival of culture and the emergence of dramatic contrast to the great basilicas serving the
significant patronage, stimulated by a growing large-scale public worship of earlier centuries.3
economy, fiscal reforms, and a systematization of Rather than resulting from an economic down-
the bureaucracy. With the transition from Late turn or the lack of necessary technology (as is
Antiquity into the medieval period, however, we often suggested), the churches of the era were
find the society and its institutions transformed.1 smaller to better suit the changed worship prac-
As with the scale of the empire, the scale of the tices of a changed society. Devotion became
architecture diminished. Most of the new churches increasingly private, based on the personal inter-
were small and intimate, with a centrally positioned action, often in the form of prayer, between an
dome and a lavishly decorated interior, characteristic individual and a religious image that represented
of the Middle Byzantine (843–1204) and Late the holy figure to whom the prayer was directed.
Byzantine (1261–1453) periods. Unlike the grand The private nature of Byzantine worship resulted
projects of an earlier era, new churches tended to be in the small, personal scale of most churches, as
private foundations, the result of private benefaction, well as in the addition of numerous ancillary chapels.
rather than imperially sponsored public projects, Thus, as Byzantine society changed, so too did the
situated within episcopal authority.2 In addition, art and architecture that served its spiritual needs.
many of the new constructions were monastic, as The so-called Triumph of Orthodoxy, which
monasticism emerged as a major social force in marked the end of the Iconoclast Controversy in
843, resulted in the development of a theology of
images that both established their place in
1
For background, see M. Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, Byzantine worship and informed the development
600–1025 (Berkeley, 1996).
2
J. P. Thomas, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire. 3
For what follows, see Ousterhout, Master Builders, 7–38.
Göreme, Cappadocia. Karanlık Kilise, view into the main dome (Murat Gülyaz)
303
[Map 4] The Byzantine Empire in the mid-eleventh century (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 178)
[Map 5] The Byzantine Empire in the twelfth century (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 188)
of the decorative program of the Middle Byzantine important space, the apse, is usually devoted to
church. This had profound effects on church the Theotokos, normally shown holding the Christ
design, both in terms of the development of a child to emphasize her role in the Incarnation
standardized program of decoration and in a con- and often flanked by angels. The middle zone is
comitant standardized building design, both of devoted to framed narrative scenes of major
which reflected the hierarchy of Orthodox belief. events from the lives of Christ and the Theotokos.
The legislation of the Transitional Period had in- These scenes commonly appear in the vaults and
sisted on uniformity in an attempt to maintain wall areas of the crossarms and often continue in
order through turbulent times, and this policy the narthex. While sometimes called the Feast
clearly extended into religious matters. The insist- Cycle or Dodekaorton, the scenes selected often
ence on uniformity also affected the nature of reflect the major celebrations in the annual litur-
Byzantine religious art in the period that fol- gical cycle. These scenes helped to mystically
lowed. For example, it is difficult to talk about a transform the church into an image of the Holy
standard decorative program for the Early Land that had witnessed these events. The lowest
Christian church, whereas, right or wrong, this zone comprised the Choir of Saints, frequently
has been the usual approach to Middle Byzantine grouped by type: church fathers, sainted dea-
church art. The spatial organization of the inte- cons, and patriarchs appeared in or near the
rior was thus matched by the development of a apse; the martyrs were in the naos, and the holy
standardized decorative program, in mosaic or monks were in the western part of the church.
fresco. The pyramidal massing of forms, culmi- These could be busts, half-length portraits, or
nating in the central dome, provided an ideal life-size standing figures. Often unframed, they
framework for figural imagery. New architectural seem to occupy the same space as the viewer; in
forms and new decorative programs developed in effect, they became a part of the congregation
concert—with the meaning of one enhanced by that peopled the church. Like the architectural
the other. There is a uniformity to both subject forms, the subject matter of the decoration
matter and organization that suggests a sort of could also vary, depending on its scale, context,
codification: as Orthodox belief was rethought and medium.
and redefined, so too was its visual expression.4 Following the model already developed ca.
Similarly, there is a uniformity and conservatism 800 at St. Stephen at Trilye (see Chap. 11), the
in the architecture of the period, which was built cross-in-square church emerged as the standard
to address similar spiritual concerns. church type. The Myrelaion Church (now
Reflecting the hierarchal system of Orthodox Bodrum Camii) in Constantinople is a good ex-
belief, a common church type and a standard ample (Figs. 13.2–13.5).6 Originally constructed
system of decoration seem to have been developed as the palace chapel of Romanos I Lekapenos,
simultaneously. For the organization of figural sometime before he ascended the throne in 920,
imagery, the church interior may be understood the church is worth describing in detail, for it
as having three zones, with the holiest at the top gives a sense of the potential of the building type
(Fig. 13.1).5 The dome, with its connotations of at the highest level of patronage, as it achieves a
heaven, was given to Christ, usually represented balance between the articulation of the structural
as a bust in a roundel, called the Pantokrator, system and the coordination of the interior
or ruler of all. In the drum of the dome he is spaces. Forms are massed in a pyramidal manner,
often surrounded by prophets. The second most cascading down from the high, centrally posi-
tioned dome, which rises above an octagonal
4
H. Maguire, “The Cycle of Images in the Church,” in Heaven on drum pierced by windows. Below, vaults extend
Earth: Art and the Church in Byzantium, ed. L. Safran (University outward in four directions: this forms the cross,
Park, 1998), 121–51. set within the square of the plan beneath it—
5
O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration (London, 1948), for the hence the term, which defines the building type
classic formulation; for a critique, see T. F. Mathews, “Sequel to
Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration,” Perkins Journal 41,
no. 3 (1988): 11–21, among others. 6
C. L. Striker, The Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul.

FIGURE 13.1
Göreme,
Cappadocia.
Karanlık Kilise,
view into the main
dome (Murat
Gülyaz)
spatially, in three dimensions, rather than as a private residence. The palace itself was con-
floor plan. The eastern arm extends to join the structed on a platform created by a giant rotunda,
vault of the bema. Four columns support the apparently the remains of a Late Roman palace—
dome, subdividing the naos into nine bays— and the juxtaposition of the Late Roman and the
those in the corners are the lowest and smallest, Middle Byzantine phases dramatically illustrates
their vaults corresponding in height to those of the changes in scale that architecture had under-
the narthex and pastophoria. Pilasters with heavy gone. To adjust the church to the height of the
half-columns correspond to the internal walls and palace, tall substructures had to be constructed
supports; blind arcades reflect the heights of the for it as well, creating a lower level similar in plan
vaults inside. There is a clarity and rationality to to the upper. These have provided the present,
this system, through which one can “read” the in- Turkish name for the building: Bodrum Camii
ternal disposition from the external articulation. means “Basement Mosque.” Excavations indicate
While in many ways it is typical of a Middle that the lower level served simply as a substruc-
Byzantine cross-in-square church, the Myrelaion ture throughout the Middle Byzantine period,
also has a variety of unusual features. The church but in the Late Byzantine period, the lower
was constructed as a palace chapel attached to a level was adapted to serve as a funerary chapel.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: NEW CHURCH ARCHITECTURE AND THE RISE OF MONASTICISM 307
FIGURE 13.2
Constantinople,
Myrelaion
(Bodrum Camii),
view from the
north (author)
FIGURE 13.3
Constantinople,
Myrelaion, plan
and perspective
cutaway of the
church (after
C. L. Striker,
Myrelaion, 1981)
FIGURE 13.4 Constantinople, Myrelaion, view into the

dome before restoration (Thomas F. Mathews, Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees of Harvard University, Washington, DC)

half-columns engaged to each set of stepped pilas-
ters. Although half-columns appear in other
Byzantine examples, none is as massive as this, and
it is unclear whether their primary function is
formal—that is, to visually articulate the façade—
or functional—to increase the structure at the
critical points. The small, round windows are also
unusual. Many of these features, as well as the all-
brick construction of the Myrelaion, appear in early
Islamic architecture as well, and the decorative
glazed tiles from the interior are Sasanian in flavor;
considering the fashion for Arab architecture in the
preceding century, this would not be surprising, In
short, the designer was not simply perfecting a
building type; he was also addressing special site re-
quirements and special functions, developing an
architectural vocabulary appropriate to its setting
and to the elevated status of the patron.
FIGURE 13.5 Constantinople, Myrelaion, hypothetical Bricks and mortar were only a portion of the
reconstruction of the Myrelaion Palace, showing its final product. Architecture is by its nature abstract,
relationship to the Late Antique rotunda, which was
converted into a cistern and used as the substructure
and to bring it into an understandable context, a
(C. L. Striker, Myrelaion, 1981) Byzantine church was decorated with frescoes or
mosaics. Sadly, most churches have lost their deco-
ration: in Istanbul and elsewhere in Turkey, many
A corbelled walkway extended around the church were converted to mosques, and the Christian
on the main level, and the design of the building decorations were removed. These buildings were
was remarkably open, as the reconstruction draw- also provided with prayer niches to reorient them
ings suggest. to Mecca and minarets for the call to prayer. The
Most unusually, Romanos constructed the Myrelaion was converted to a mosque after the fall
Myrelaion to house his own burial, as well as those of Constantinople to the Ottomans, and it has
of his family. Historians tell us that he had ancient subsequently been devastated by both fires and
sarcophagi brought into the building for this pur- heavy-handed restorations. The original columns
pose, but unfortunately there is no evidence as to have been replaced with stone piers and the win-
where within the building they were placed. In situ- dows have been reduced. The marbles and mosaics
ating his imperial burial within the family chapel, have vanished, although some tesserae, marble
Romanos broke with the tradition of his predeces- pieces, fragments of opus sectile, and glazed ce-
sors for entombment at the Church of the Holy ramic tiles were found in the excavations. It is dif-
Apostles, perhaps because of the insecurity of his ficult to realize the elegance of the original when all
position on the throne. He later converted the that is left is a much-altered skeleton. But origi-
palace and its chapel into a nunnery. In function nally, the Byzantine church and its decoration
and setting, then, the building was far from typical. functioned together, the one enhancing the other,
Similarly, some of the architectural forms are forming an artistic unity, a Gesamtkunstwerk, and
unusual within the context of a cross-in-square it may give a false impression if we attempt to dis-
church, as may be compared with the Fatih Camii cuss the architectural forms without considering
in Trilye. The vaulting is elaborate: the dome and the decorative surfaces.
drum have a fluted surface, what is known as a Although many other churches follow this basic
pumpkin dome, and the cross arms of the naos are configuration, the coordination of elements at the
topped by groin vaults rather than by simpler Myrelaion is noteworthy. The naos is balanced east
barrel vaults. On the exterior, the proportions are and west by a three-bayed narthex and a tripartite
tall, and the impression is dominated by the heavy sanctuary. While maintaining a longitudinal
FIGURE 13.6 celebrants at the door of the templon. At the
Reconstruction of same time, the active participation of the congre-
a Middle Byzantine
bema (author)
gation was curtailed.
A final consideration is the importance of nat-
ural light to the building’s design. Window open-
ings are large and appear at many levels: eight in
the drum, thermal windows in the cross-arm lu-
nettes, a large three-light window in the apse.
Windows appeared on two levels within each bay,
above closure panels—much of this was lost in
later restorations. The consistent use of groin
vaults allowed the development of a light, skeletal
structure with a remarkable degree of openness—
a defining characteristic of Constantinopolitan
architecture at its finest, harking back to the
innovative, open structure of Hagia Sophia. It is
curious that as the cross-in-square type was
disseminated across the empire, the importance
of natural light was not: invariably outside
Constantinople, windows are fewer and smaller,
walls more solid, and interiors darker.
The cross-in-square type is widespread, first ap-
pearing in Greece in the late tenth century at the
Panagia Church at Hosios Loukas monastery,
where the plan was slightly skewed as it was laid
liturgical axis, terminating at the altar, the dome out, resulting in a parallelogram-shaped plan rather
inserts a vertical axis, highlighting the central per- than a square (Figs. 13.7 and 13.8, and see Fig.
formance space. This architectural juxtaposition 13.23).8 The same building type appeared in central
actually conformed with the necessities of the Anatolia, southern Italy, the Balkans, and Russia,
mature Byzantine worship service. There were with many variations and serving a variety of func-
really two performance areas. More sacred activi- tions, as palatial, domestic, monastic, parish, or fu-
ties were restricted to the bema, centered at the nerary churches. The common denominator in all
altar (Fig. 13.6). The other performance area was was the small scale appropriate to small groups of
the central space of the naos, accentuated by the worshippers; scale rather than function seems to
dome.7 As the processional nature of the early have determined the choice of plan. Variations in
service was transformed, the processional axis of church design abound during the Middle Byzantine
the Early Christian church was de-emphasized, period (843–1204), and our terminology is often
and this fact helps to explain the centralized insufficient to describe them briefly. Indeed, the
design of most Byzantine churches: celebrants term used here, cross-in-square, is sometimes criti-
emerge from the sanctuary and return to it: their cized because the naos plan often isn’t exactly square
movement is circular rather than linear. The or has been merged with the sanctuary. The term
atrium, solea, and ambo were eliminated; the syn- “inscribed cross plan” also appears, as well as “four-
thronon was either reduced to a single bench or column church” and “quincunx”—the last, from
eliminated as well. The liturgy was reduced to a the pattern of five dots on a die, might better be
series of appearances, and for most of the service, applied to multidomed churches. In French, the
the templon effectively separated the clergy from
the congregation. The centrally positioned dome 8
R. Schultz and S. Barnsley, The Monastery of St. Luke of Stiris in
served to highlight the appearances of the Phokis (London, 1901); P. Mylonas, Mone Osiou Louka tou Steirote
(Athens, 2005); and Ch. Bouras, He architektonike tes Mones tou
7
Marinis, Architecture and Ritual. Hosiou Louka (Athens, 2015).

FIGURE 13.7 Hosios Loukas Monastery, Panagia Church, interior looking east (author)
FIGURE 13.8
Hosios Loukas
Monastery, Panagia
Church, isometric
cutaway of Panagia
Church (left) and
Katholikon (right)
(author, after
R. Schultz and
S. Barnsley,
Monastery of St.
Luke, 1901)
type is called an église à croix inscrite; in German, it at Amphissa (Fig. 13.10C). Piers could also replace
is a Kreuzkuppelkirche. None of these terms ad- columns, as at St. Sozon at Geraki (Fig. 13.10D).
dresses the full range of design possibilities—and The whole could even be narrowed so that the dome
the last translates as “cross-domed church,” which was supported above pilasters engaged to the lateral
in English connotes something else entirely. walls, as at St. Stephen at Rivio in Epirus (Fig.
The basic design of the cross-in-square church 13.10E).9 The critical element in all these designs, no
was flexible: columns could be replaced by piers, matter how we term them, is that the dome is braced
with varying degrees of closure. Many churches of by high vaults on four sides. The core could also be
early Rus’ follow the cross-in-square model, but the elaborated: churches could be built with or without
cruciform piers (rather than columns) isolate the narthexes or with external porticoes, galleries, and
corner compartments, as at the Holy Trinity at the subsidiary chapels. Detailed typological distinctions
Monastery of the Caves, Kiev (1106–8) (Fig. 13.9A). are the stuff of modern systems of architectural clas-
The distinction between what we would call a cross- sification, however, and may not accurately reflect
in-square church and a cross-domed church with the thinking of a Byzantine mason, who was capable
corner compartments depends on the degree of of building on a variety of scales and following a
spatial integration: if the naos is a unified space, it variety of plans. In this respect, construction tech-
is the former; if the corner compartments are archi- niques may be more characteristic to a region or to a
tecturally isolated, then it is the latter, as at the workshop than building types.
church known as Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii in The cross-in-square church in all its variations
Constantinople, of the late ninth century, or existed side by side with a variety of other church
St. Nicholas at Aulis, from the early eleventh cen- types, for which scale, rather than function, was a
tury (Fig. 13.9B). The tripartite sanctuary could determining factor. Most cross-in-square churches
be merged with the nine-bayed naos to create a have domes measuring 10 to 15 Byzantine feet in
compact plan, as happened frequently outside of
Constantinople—as, for example, at Sts. Sergius 9
M. Kappas, “E Eparmoge to Stauroeidous Engegrammenou ste
and Bacchus at Kitta in the Mani (Fig. 13.10B). Two Mese kai ten Ystere Byzantine Periodou” (PhD diss., Aristotle
of the columns could be replaced by piers, forming University, 2009); also S. Kalopissi-Verti and M. Panayiotidi-
a “two-column church,” as may be found in many Kesisoglou, Multilingual Illustrated Dictionary of Byzantine Architecture
Greek churches, for example, at the Transfiguration and Sculpture Terminology (Heraklion, 2010).

If the limited scale of the cross-in-square church
seemed too small or too plain, builders had several
options. The octagon-domed church, for which sev-
eral eleventh-century examples survive, provides
eight points of support for a larger dome, as well as
more elaborate interior designs and complex sur-
faces for mosaic decoration. With squinches pro-
viding the transition to the dome, the design may
be derived from Arab or Caucasian models, and its
origin remains much debated. The eleventh-cen-
tury katholika of Hosios Loukas monastery and
Nea Mone on Chios are elegant and sophisticated,
both probably designed by master builders from
Constantinople, and they suggest the degree of
variations possible (Figs. 13.12 and 13.13).10 At
Hosios Loukas, the tall naos is extended by tran-
sept arms and is enveloped by galleries and an-
nexed chapels on two levels; the hemispherical
dome (with an internal diameter of 8.5 meters)
rises above trumpet squinches at the corners (see
Fig. 17.15). Minor spaces are covered by groin
vaults, creating a sophisticated structural system,
with loads concentrated in a point-support system
and the external walls opened by large windows.
At Nea Mone, the footprint of a cross-in-square
church was maintained, along with low vaults to
FIGURE 13.9 (A) Kiev, Holy Trinity at the Monastery of
the Caves, Kiev, a cross-in-square church with cruciform the tripartite sanctuary and narthex, while the
piers (after H. Faensen and V. Ivanov, Early Russian naos appears tower-like, its dome rising above a
Architecture, 1975); (B) Aulis, St. Nicholas, a cross-domed tall drum.11 An octaconch makes the transition
church with corner compartments (after S. Ćurčić, from the square plan of the naos to the circular
Architecture in the Balkans, 2010)
plan of the dome. The ring of niches has conches
at the corners and recesses set into the four walls.
diameter (i.e., less than 5 meters). The south Originally, thin, coupled colonnettes marked the
church at the Pantokrator Monastery in Constan- supports along the interior walls. The unusual
tinople has a diameter of about 7.5 meters, the design and lavish decoration with marbles and
largest surviving (discussed in Chap. 14). Beyond mosaics may be the result of imperial patronage by
this scale, the system became increasingly unsta- Constantine IX Monomachos and the work of ar-
ble, with the dome resting precariously above four tisans from Constantinople. Indeed, the church
freestanding columns. If the church were on a may have been begun as a cross-in-square church,
smaller scale, the internal subdivisions would have transformed during construction to accommodate
been unnecessary. At the Church of Sts. Sergius the extensive, imperially themed mosaic program.
and Bacchus at Kitta in the Mani, the dome is less The original dome was nine sided and ribbed with
than 2 meters in diameter and seems miniaturized
by comparison. We often find free-cross plan 10
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 383–87; but see
churches on a small scale, common in the tenth M. Chatzidakis, “A propos de la date et du fondateur de Saint Luc,”
century, as at St. Basil at the Bridge, near Arta, as CahArch 19 (1969): 127–50; N. Oikonomides, “The First Century
well as more elaborate forms with triconch or tet- of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas,” DOP 46 (1992): 245–55.
raconch plans, as at the Koubelidike in Kastoria or 11
Ch. Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios: History and Architecture (Athens,
the Eleousa at Veljusa, where the dome diameters 1982); R. G. Ousterhout, “Originality in Byzantine Architecture:
are close to 2 meters (Fig. 13.11). The Case of Nea Moni,” JSAH 51 (1992): 48–60.
FIGURE 13.10 Isometric sections of variations of the cross-in-square church type, all at the same scale: (A) fully developed, with
a tripartite sanctuary (Vefa Kilise Camii, Constantinople); (B) simple, lacking an extended sanctuary and narthex (Sts. Sergius and
Bacchus, Kitta); (C) two columns (Transfiguration, Amphissa); (D) simple, with piers (St. Sozon, Geraki); (E) compact, with
engaged pilasters (St. Stephen, Rizio) (A, C, D, and E: Petros Koufopoulos and Marina Myriantheos-Koufopoulou; B: Stavros
Mamaloukos in Sofia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kessisoglou, eds., Multilingual Illustrated Dictionary of Byzantine
Architecture and Sculpture Terminology, Crete University Press, Herakleion, 2010)
scalloped segments; it had an estimated internal of the original design, the Panagia Krina offers
diameter of 6.4 meters, rising 15.6 meters above several correctives: heightening the secondary
the floor. The dome collapsed in the earthquake of spaces and extending the eastern conch of the
1881 and was subsequently replaced by a simpler transitional zone into the bema. Versions of the
dome of similar scale, while the coupled colon- same type are found on Cyprus as well.12
nettes were replaced by heavy pilasters. For churches of a scale larger than a cross-in-
There are numerous variations on this octagon- square design could maintain, the cross-domed
domed design that appear in later centuries church also could provide a more stable structural
(Fig. 13.14). In mainland Greece, the design of system and a more unified interior space, while
Hosios Loukas was adopted at the Panagia Lykode- allowing for a larger dome. Following the models
mou in Athens and at Daphne Monastery already developed in the Transitional Period, the design
in the eleventh century (see Figs. 17.16–17.19). On is again popularized in the twelfth century. The
Chios, the Nea Mone finds a following at a number
of churches, with the elegant Panagia Krina (late 12
Ch. Bouras, “Twelfth and Thirteenth Century Variations of the
twelfth century) particularly noteworthy (see Single Domed Octagon Plan,” DChAE 9 (1977–79): 21–34; Ch.
Fig. 16.19). Indicative of the experimental nature Bouras, Chios (Athens, 1974).

FIGURE 13.11
Free-cross and triconch
churches: St. Basil of the
Bridge, Arta; and the
Koubelidike, Kastoria (after
P. L. Vocotopoulos, Ekklesiastike
Architektonike, 1975; and
A. K. Orlandos, ArchBME,
1938)
FIGURE 13.12 Chios, Nea Mone Monastery,

Katholikon, isometric section of the naos,
narthex, and thirteenth-century exonarthex
(Petros Koufopoulos and Marina Myriantheos-
Koufopoulou, in Sofia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria
Panayotidi-Kessisoglou, eds., Multilingual
Illustrated Dictionary of Byzantine Architecture and
Sculpture Terminology, Crete University Press,
Herakleion, 2010)
FIGURE 13.13
Chios, Nea Mone
Monastery,
katholikon,
interior, looking
northeast (author)
FIGURE13.14 Variations in the domed-octagon

scheme seen at Nea Mone on Chios and related
churches (after Ch. Bouras, DChAE, 1977–79)

FIGURE 13.15
Atrophied Greek-
cross church plans:
(A) Chora
katholikon,
Constantinople;
(B) St. Abercius,
Kurşunlu;
(C) St. Nicholas,
Kuršumlija;
(D) ruined church
at Yusa Tepesi
(author)
katholikon of the Chora Monastery in Constan- foreign solutions, as at the churches now known as
tinople was rebuilt in the early twelfth century on an the Fatih Camii at Enez or the Gül Camii in
atrophied Greek-cross plan, with heavy piers en- Constantinople (see Figs. 15.18–15.21). Sometimes
gaged at the corners, supporting narrow barrel variations addressed specific functions. For exam-
vaults.13 The design was imitated in the suburbs of ple, the ambulatory-plan church, such as the twelfth-
Constantinople, as well as in a variety of areas under century Pammakaristos in Constantinople, may
Constantinopolitan influence, from Bithynia to have been intended to provide additional spaces for
Serbia, discussed in subsequent chapters (Fig. 13.15). burial in close proximity to the naos (see Fig 15.35).
The rebuilding of the Theotokos Kyriotissa in Variations with ambulatories appear in northern
Constantinople at the end of the century assumes Greece and Albania, apparently following the
the form of a large cross-domed church (see Figs. model of Hagia Sophia in Thessalonike (Fig. 13.16).15
14.15, 15.16, and 15.17).14 Domed basilicas also reap- Similarly, triconch churches appear in the mo-
pear in the same period, again probably attributable nastic environment of Mt. Athos, with the addi-
to the desire for larger churches in the twelfth cen- tion of lateral apses to a standard cross-in-square
tury, but also reflecting the more conservative plan (Figs. 13.17–13.19). The lateral apses, called
atmosphere of the Komnenian period (ca. 1081– choroi, provided a setting for the choirs of monks
1185)—that is, looking deep into Byzantine history who sang the liturgy. It is unclear if the new
for appropriate models, rather than exotic, possibly church type emerged by means of later additions
or modifications, but the new feature clearly
13
R. G. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul responded to the requirements of the monastic
(Washington, DC, 1987). service. At the Great Lavra, the katholikon begun
14
C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban, eds., Kalenderhane in Istanbul, The
Buildings. 15
FIGURE 13.16
Plans of cross-
domed churches
with ambulatories:
(A) Pieria,
Koundouriotissa
(ca. 800);
(B) Pydna (late
ninth century);
(C) Lambova,
Koimesis (tenth to
thirteenth
centuries?);
(D) Drama, Hagia
Sophia (tenth
century) (after
S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
in 963 was expanded gradually, with the addition Annexed chapels and more complex plans
of lateral apses to the naos, domed subsidiary cha- appear regularly in the Middle Byzantine period,
pels flanking the narthex, and an outer narthex either as additions (as in the Athonite examples just
(discussed further below).16 At Vatopedi (ca. 972– noted) or as part of the initial design. As several of
85) and elsewhere on Mount Athos, the katholika the above examples illustrate, subsidiary spaces
appear to have triconch plans from the inception, were often part of the original design and served a
although it was expanded with annexed chapels variety of functions. From their decorative pro-
shortly afterward. We may wonder if the remod- grams, Gordana Babić suggested that annexed cha-
eled Lavra provided the model for Vatopedi or pels could provide settings for additional litanies or
vice versa. In its complex form, with choroi and commemorative services, since the church would
subsidiary chapels, this is sometime called the only have one altar, and according to custom, only
“Athonite church type.” a single liturgy could be celebrated there in the
course of the day—although commemorative serv-
ices may not have required an altar.17 Chapels could
16
P. Mylonas, “Le plan initial du catholicon de la Grande-Lavra house relics or tombs, and they could provide
au Mont Athos et la genèse du type du catholicon athonite,” spaces for private devotion. Slobodan Ćurčić has
CahArch 32 (1984): 98–112; updated by S. Mamaloukos, To sorted out the various possible arrangements—
Katholiko tes Mones Vatopediou. Istoria kai Architektonike (Athens, which he classifies as satellite, compact, and gallery
2001); S. Mamaloukos, “A Contribution to the Study of the
‘Athonite’ Church Type of Byzantine Architecture,” Zograf 35
(2011): 39–50. 17
G. Babić, Les Chapelles annexes des églises byzantines.

FIGURE 13.17
Mount Athos,
Great Lavra
Monastery, view of
the katholikon
from the east
(Paul L. Mylonas,
gift to the author)
(Fig. 13.20).18 While the diagram may appear narthex provided access to the western chapels,
abstract, there are good examples to correspond while the eastern two were accessible by a cor-
with each arrangement, either planned from the belled catwalk. Too small for more than a few
beginning or developed subsequently. people to use at once, each of the upper chapels
Often a single chapel is set to one side of the had its own narthex, was elaborated as a quatre-
building, as at the Church of the Eleousa at foil, and was equipped for the liturgy. The katho-
Veljusa, ca. 1080, clearly part of the initial design likon of Hosios Loukas has eight chapels, organized
(Figs. 13.20, IA, and 13.21). In one of the most on two levels, situated at the corners of the build-
elaborate designs, the monastic Church of the ing (Fig. 13.20, IIC and IIIC; Figs. 13.8 and 13.23).
Theotokos tou Libos in Constantinople, built ca. These subsidiary spaces have been interpreted as
907 as a cross-in-square church, included six sub- settings for private devotions or possibly private
sidiary chapels from its inception, with two flank- liturgies, or as primarily commemorative spaces,
ing the bema and four tiny chapels on the gallery but they are clearly integrated into the overall
level (Figs. 13.20, IC and IIIC, and 13.22; and see design of the building. Similar in date, scale, and
Figs. 15.1 and 15.2).19 A stair tower attached to the detail to the Myrelaion, the design of the Theotokos
tou Libos demonstrates that as the cross-in-square
18
S. Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in church was being perfected, more complex varia-
Middle Byzantine Churches.” tions were developed.
19
A. H. S. Megaw, “The Original Form of Theotokos Church of
Constantine Lips,” DOP 18 (1964): 249–77; and reassessment by Panagiotide-Kesisoglou, eds. P. Petrides and V. Foskolou (Athens,
V. Marinis, “The Original Form of the Theotokos tou Libos 2014), 267–303, who reconstructs the upper chapels without
Reconsidered,” in Daskala: Apodose times sten Omotime Maire domes.
FIGURE 13.18 Mount Athos, Great Lavra Monastery,
katholikon, showing stages of enlargement (after P. L. Mylonas,
CahArch, 1984)
FIGURE 13.19 Mount Athos, Vatopedi Monastery, katholikon,

plan and section (after S. Mamaloukos, Katholiko, 2001)
FIGURE 13.20
Diagram showing
possible
arrangements of
subsidiary chapels
in Middle
Byzantine churches
(from S. Ćurčić,
JSAH, 1979)

FIGURE 13.21 Veljusa, Church of the Eleousa, plan and
section (redrawn after P. Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa, 1981)
FIGURE 13.22 Constantinople, Theotokos tou Libos, plans

at the ground and gallery levels (after Ćurčić, Architecture in
Like the churches of Mount Athos, few the Balkans, 2010)
Byzantine churches standing today represent a
single period of construction. It is common to
focus on the moment of conception and to dis-
cuss buildings in an ideal state. But buildings additional functions associated with the narthex
grew and changed, along with the society that (see Fig. 13.18). All three katholika included gal-
used them, and the process of transformation is leries above the narthex from the beginning, ap-
instructive. At the katholika of Vatopedi, Iviron, parently for the founder’s use. What is significant
and Lavra, for example, changes began almost in all of this is the additive process of design, by
immediately after the first phase of construction, which new building “types” could be created and
with major additions completed within a new functions housed, without altering the core
century.20 For the most part, there is an orderli- elements of the building.
ness to the process: chapels flank the narthex, Monasteries and monasticism. While monas-
more or less symmetrically, while the narthex is tic communities existed from the early days of
expanded westward, often with an exonarthex Christianity, their architectural settings remain
added to allow access to new spaces or to house somewhat elusive (see Chap. 3). Although there
was an attempt to regulate monastic life from an
20
N. Stanković, “At the Threshold of the Heavens: The Narthex early date—notably the early sixth-century Rule
and Adjacent Spaces in Middle Byzantine Churches of Mount of St. Benedict—in Western Europe, it did not
Athos (10th–11th Centuries)—Architecture, Function, and find a coherent architectural expression until the
Meaning” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2017). ninth century, with the “ideal plan” drawn up for
the reorganization of St. Gall monastery.21 While and small, rich and poor, well planned or ad
structuring the daily life in detail, with the clois- hoc—that is, representing all aspects of Byzantine
ter at its center, there is little surviving architec- society. Legislation indicates some concern about
tural evidence of its adoption before the eleventh what constituted a monastery (there are many in-
century. Byzantine monasteries never developed stances of houses and households, rich and poor,
into “orders” like their Western counterparts and converted to monasteries) as well as how many
were much more loosely structured and tended to monks or nuns were necessary to form a com-
be much smaller. One might argue they never munity—sometimes as few as three.24
found an architectural “ideal,” as the West did Frustratingly, few monastic buildings survive
with the St. Gall plan. In the heartland of the from the Byzantine period, and many may have
Byzantine Empire, monasteries often followed been constructed of ephemeral materials, al-
the rule introduced by Basil of Caesarea.22 This though we can reconstruct their general organiza-
encouraged monasteries of reduced size, in both tion.25 Monasteries of the Middle Byzantine
urban and rural settings. It discouraged excessive period commonly had the church as the central
acts of asceticism (as Symeon Stylites had in- element, freestanding within a walled enclosure,
dulged), with daily life structured by manual the latter lined with the monastic cells and other
labor and discipline. Within the community, the buildings. Often the refectory was set in relation-
monks observed absolute obedience to the hegou- ship to the church building, either opposite or
menos (abbot). Most that have left architectural parallel to it, as the monks would come together
remains are koinobia, organized around a ceno- for worship and dining—the latter treated cere-
bitic, or common, life. Governing the work and monially as well. With most examples, however,
worship within the community was the founda- the original church building is preserved, but the
tion charter, or typikon, usually prepared by the other buildings have either disappeared or under-
founder, which specified the organization, admin- gone numerous reconstructions—providing us
istration, behavior, and liturgical observances.23 with an “idea” of a Byzantine monastery rather
By the time of the Triumph of Orthodoxy in than the architectural or archaeological evidence.
843, monasticism was a dominant force in Because of the site specificity and long construc-
Byzantine society, as reflected in architectural tion history, it remains difficult to determine a
projects after that time. Many of the surviving “standard” Middle Byzantine monastery type.
churches were the centers of monasteries, al- Hosios Loukas is perhaps the most famous
though most were founded by private initiative. of the monasteries and a good place to start
An intimate sense of daily life and spiritual con- (Figs. 13.23 and 13.24). The monastery devel-
cerns is provided by the many surviving typika of oped gradually around the dwelling and tomb of
the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, although the holy hermit known as the Blessed Luke
they are almost exclusively aristocratic and impe- (d. 953) at Steiris in Boeotia. He had acquired
rial foundations and thus tend to represent large some fame in his lifetime for miraculous healings
monasteries at the upper echelons of society. But, and his ability to predict the future, and he con-
like Byzantine families, monasteries could be big tinued to perform miracles after his death. He
had built the first church with some local assis-
21
Visualized in great detail by W. Horn and E. Born, The Plan of tance, dedicated to St. Barbara, subsequently re-
St. Gall: A Study of the Architecture & Economy of, & Life in a placed by the Theotokos Church in the later
Paradigmatic Carolingian Monastery, 3 vols. (Berkeley, 1979); see
also W. Braunfels, Monasteries of Western Europe: The Architecture of 24
A.-M. Talbot, “A Comparison of the Monastic Experience of
the Orders (Princeton, 1972). Byzantine Men and Women,” GOTR 30 (1985): 4 and n. 15; the
22
See entries “Monastery,” and “Monasticism,” in The Oxford minimum of three was established by Novel 14 of Leo VI, in
Dictionary of Byzantium, 2nd vol., ed. A. Kazhdan (Oxford, 1991), P. Noailles and A. Dain, eds., Les novelles de Leon VI le Sage (Paris,
1391–94; A.-M. Talbot, “An Introduction to Byzantine 1944), 57–58. The minimum was later increased to eight to ten
Monasticism,” Illinois Classical Studies 12 (1987): 229–41. monks by Basil II; cf. PG 117.625D–628A.
J. P. Thomas and A. Hero, eds., Byzantine Monastic Foundation
23 25
Most examples in A. K. Orlandos, Monasteriake Architektonike
Documents, 5 vols. (Washington, DC, 2000). (Athens, 1958) are post-Byzantine.

FIGURE 13.23
Hosios Loukas
Monastery,
churches seen from
the east, near the
original entrance
(author)
FIGURE 13.24
Hosios Loukas
Monastery, plan
(redrawn after
E. Stikas,
Oikodomikon
Chronikon, 1970)
FIGURE 13.25
Hosios Meletios
Monastery,
Katholikon seen
from the southeast
(author)
tenth century—the latter with an expanded nar- The Monastery of Hosios Meletios in Attica is
thex, or lite, for monastic services. As he requested, similar in many ways, founded in 1081 by the
Loukas was buried beneath his cell. As the vita of homonymous saint (d. 1105) (Figs. 13.25 and
Loukas relates, the tomb was later raised and deco- 13.26).27 Like Hosios Loukas, the church is free-
rated and enclosed in an eukterion, a building of standing, enveloped by an enclosure of approxi-
some sort, while cells for the monks and a hostel mately 60 by 50 meters, with other monastic
for visitors were added. Sometime in the early buildings set against the enclosure wall. The
eleventh century the katholikon was constructed, church’s narthex was subsequently expanded into
incorporating parts of the eukterion into its crypt. a lite, with an accommodation for the saint’s
The relics of the saint were subsequently translated relics at the north end. A crypt below may have
upstairs (probably in 1011) and placed in a space been the original location of the saint’s tomb. The
where the two churches join together, opening off refectory is set into the west wing, while the
the north transept. As the monastery grew, it in- others are lined with cells.
cluded a refectory, set parallel to the katholikon, a One of the most important areas of monastic
gatehouse, stables, a cistern, a belfry, and other development in the period was Mount Athos, an
buildings, as well as cells for the monks along the isolated peninsula in the Chalkidike of northern
perimeter wall and a pilgrims’ hostel outside the Greece (Fig. 13.27). Although the beginnings of
monastery enclosure. The two churches were left monasticism on the so-called Holy Mountain are
freestanding to accommodate movement around unclear, an imperial document of 885 recognizes it
them. While much of what is visible at the monas an exclusively monastic territory, limiting its
astery today represents later reconstruction, it nev- population to male monastics and hermits—as it
ertheless provides a good image of a Byzantine
monastery.26 27
A. K. Orlandos, “He Mone tou Hosiou Meletiou kai ta
paralauria aute” ArchBME 5 (1939–40): 79–83; Ćurčić,
26
As above, Note 10. Architecture in the Balkans, 390–91.

FIGURE 13.26
Hosios Meletios
Monastery, plan
(redrawn after
A. K. Orlandos,
ArchBME,
1939–40)
FIGURE 13.27
Mount Athos, view,
with Stavronikita
Monastery at the
center (author)
FIGURE 13.28 Zygos Monastery, plan
(author, redrawn after S. Ćurčić, 2010;
and J. Papangelos, Pemptousia, 2015)
remains today, with twenty active monasteries. The entry to the Holy Mountain in 958, where he
foundation of the Great Lavra in 963 by Athanasios submitted himself to a holy hermit, before
the Athonite marked the beginning of coenobitic moving deeper into the peninsula to found the
monasticism, supported by the imperial benefac- Great Lavra. By the eleventh century Zygos
tion of Nikephoros Phokas and his successors and ranked as one of the most important monaster-
thus closely connected to the capital, and this ac- ies on Athos. By 1199, however, it was aban-
counts for the exceptional quality of the church doned, and its property transferred to the
architecture. Other monastic buildings were not so control of Hilandar. Subsequently occupied by
carefully built, and most of what survives is from the Franks (and thus the name Frankokastro)
the Ottoman period. Nevertheless, the ensembles and abandoned by 1211, all phases of construc-
reflect their Byzantine predecessors, and their or- tion belong to the Middle Byzantine centuries.
ganization is similar to the above examples: forti- Masonry walls, reinforced by towers, enclose a
fied, inward turning, with cells along the walls, and site of 5,500 square meters, which slopes from
often with prominent refectories and chapels. south to north, with a fortified entrance to the
Immediately outside the present confines south and a guard tower at the highest point, to
of the Holy Mountain, the remains of the the north, to which the Franks added a barbi-
Monastery of Zygos (or Frankokastro), dedi- can. The katholikon, freestanding in the lower
cated to the Prophet Elijah, add significantly to eastern area of the enclosure, was begun during
a picture of Middle Byzantine monasticism the first half of the eleventh century as a
(Fig. 13.28).28 The site marked St. Athanasios’s
2015, http://pemptousia.com/2015/08/the-holy-monastery-of-zygos/,
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 392; J. Papangelos, “The Holy
28
consulted 16 January 2018; and earlier notices on the same
Monastery of Zygos, in Athos,” Pemptousia, updated 24 August website.

FIGURE 13.29
Mount Athos,
Great Lavra
Monastery, plan
(author, after
P. L. Mylonas,
2000)
cross-in-square church following the Constanti- Fig. 13.17).29 The formal organization corresponds
nopolitan model, with a tripartite sanctuary and to that at Zigos, and we can assume it reflects the
narthex. The church expanded rapidly with the Byzantine organization. Similarly, post-Byzantine
addition of annexed burial chapels to the north records of life in the monastery, such as the draw-
and south and an exonarthex. That to the north ings by Vasilii Barskii, who visited Athos twice in
connected to a range of buildings that probably 1725 and 1744, illustrate the continuation of
included the residence of the hegoumenos at a Byzantine ceremonies: the antiphonal liturgy in
higher level, as well as a range of monastic cells. the katholikon, as well as the recessional proces-
Throughout, the church was lavishly decorated sion in the trapeza (Fig. 13.31).30 At other sites,
with architectural sculpture, opus sectile floors, for which there is no documentation, the exact
and wall paintings. A large, two-aisled trapeza function of certain spaces is a matter of specula-
stood to the west, on the opposite side of an tion. The evocative ruins at Kisleçukuru in south-
open court, as well as a kitchen with two ovens, west Anatolia, for example, are likely those of a
an olive press, a wine press, a smithy, and what Middle Byzantine monastery.31 The excavators
may have been a treasury or library to the east have tentatively identified the katholikon, trapeza,
of the church. The water source of the monas- kitchen, gatehouse, cells, storerooms, cisterns, a
tery is not certain, but a large cistern to collect funeral chapel, and the remains of an aqueduct,
rainwater lies under one of the south towers, all constructed of a rough rubble, in the moun-
with apparently laundry facilities above it. tains above Antalya (Fig. 13.32).
The Zygos Monastery uniquely combines a lim-
ited life span, historical documentation, and a care-
ful excavation. It allows us to speak with greater 29
P. Mylonas, Pictorial Dictionary of the Holy Mountain Athos
authority when examining the still-functioning (Tübingen, 2000).
monasteries on Mount Athos, for which most 30
P. Mylonas, ed., Vasili Gkregkorovits Mparski: ta schedia apo ta
components are post-Byzantine. At the Great taxidia tou sto Hagion Oros, 1725–1726, 1744–1745 (Thessalonike,
Lavra, for example, the trapeza, set facing the 2010).
Katholikon, was built in 1512; while the phiale 31
A. Tiryaki, “Kisleçukuru Manastırı: Antalya’da On İkinci Yüzlıla
(holy water font) is seventeenth century, and the Ait bir Bizans Manastırı,” in First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine
current exonarthex to which it is now attached is Studies Symposium, Proceedings, eds. A. Ödekan, E. Akyürek, and
nineteenth century (Figs. 13.29 and 13.30; and see N. Necipoğlu (Istanbul, 2010), 447–57.
FIGURE 13.30
Mount Athos,
Great Lavra
Monastery,
panorama of the
courtyard, with the
trapeza to the left
and the phiale and
exonarthex of the
katholikon to the
right (author)
FIGURE 13.31
Eighteenth-century
plans of the
katholikon and the
trapeza, with
ceremonies in
progress
(V. G. Barskii,
1885–87, from
P. Mylonas, Vasili
Gkregkorovits
Mparski, 2010)
The same system of organization is found circular plan (see Figs. 22.29 and 22.30). With a
across the Balkans and into Russia. At Studenica cruciform church at its center, the monastic plan
in Serbia, for example, founded toward the end of has been called “the cross in the circle,” and its basic
the twelfth century, the church is centrally posi- features were followed across medieval Serbia.32
tioned, and with the exception of a few freestand-
ing chapels, other monastic structures were built 32
S. Popović, Krst u Krugu. Arhitektura manastira u srednjovekovnoj
against the outer wall, which forms a roughly Srbiji (Belgrade, 1994).

FIGURE 13.32 Kisleçukuru Monastery. Left: archaeological
plan: (1) katholikon; (2) entrance; (3) courtyard; (4) cells;
(5) trapeza; (6) kitchen; (7) water tower; (8) reservoir;
(9) cistern; (10) storeroom; (11) aqueduct; (12) road;
(13) funeral chapel. Right: hypothetical reconstruction
(redrawn after A. Tiryaki, “Kisleçukuru Manastırı,” 2010)
FIGURE 13.33
Soğanlı Valley,
Cappadocia,
Geyikli Monastery,
view from the
northwest (Jordan
Pickett)
FIGURE 13.34
Soğanlı Valley,
Cappadocia,
Geyikli Monastery,
plan (author)
FIGURE 13.35
Soğanlı Valley,
Cappadocia,
Geyikli Monastery,
interior of the
trapeza, looking
south (author)
Even in the Ottoman-era monasteries in Moldavia, a cluster of small monastic ensembles developed
as at Suceviţa, the church is freestanding, at the in the Middle Byzantine period, each equipped
center of a rectangular fortified enclosure (see with its own church or chapel and a trapeza with
Fig. 26.41). a rock-cut table and benches. These seem to have
There are also numerous well-preserved exam- developed out of a cemetery at the site, with very
ples of monasteries in Cappadocia.33 At Göreme, few monks charged with tending the tombs. The
Geyikli Kilise Monastery in the Soğanlı Valley
33
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community, 371–480. includes a lavishly carved refectory, although the

other monastic spaces are irregularly disposed and is clear that neither monastic life nor the architec-
the church is single aisled, covered by a barrel ture that housed it was static, as the written
vault (Figs. 13.33–13.35). Planning in these ex- sources for Byzantine monasticism amply testify.
amples was by necessity site specific and often The systematization of church design and mo-
similar to domestic complexes, although the iden- nastic planning that emerges in the Middle
tification of individual monastic cells remains Byzantine centuries marks both as different from
problematic. their predecessors—with fixed components, small
The basic features of Byzantine monastic ar- scale, and hierarchical structure. Within both,
chitecture, established by the Middle Byzantine however, there was remarkable variation, depend-
period, continue into later centuries. In many ex- ing on siting and security, levels of patronage,
amples, the narthex was expanded and enlarged, availability of artisans and construction materials,
or new construction was added, to serve monastic and the experience of the mason in charge. Indeed,
worship. The churches on Athos witnessed a in several instances, sources note that a saintly
rapid elaboration of the narthex area, while in figure had directed the project and the construc-
Serbia, most of the churches had a large outer tion was executed by monks or villagers—hardly a
narthex added at a later date (see Chap. 22). In recipe for innovative design. Moreover, despite
Armenia, by the twelfth century, many monastic their similarity, churches could serve a variety of
churches that had no narthex originally were pro- different functions: monastic, parochial, private,
vided with a large vestibule, called a gavit or funerary. Monasteries could also serve a range of
zamatun, which would be the site of intensive missions, attended by large or small congregations.
architectural experimentation in the thirteenth In short, for both churches and monasteries, the
century (discussed in Chaps. 19 and 23). In all, it architecture was both responsive and adaptable.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
SECULAR ARCHITECTURE AND

THE FATE OF THE CITY
W ith the disruptions of the Transitional

Period, many Byzantine cities were reduced
to villages or simply abandoned. The evidence
the setting of everyday life is perhaps the most
elusive aspect of Byzantine society after the ninth
century. Although many examples of church
from across the empire indicates loss of the urban architecture survive throughout the Byzantine
infrastructure, formal spaces converted to Empire, there is frustratingly little physical
utilitarian or industrial purposes, and an emphasis evidence for houses, palaces, towns, and urban
on security. Constantinople (discussed below) architecture—that is, beyond the rudimentary
continued as a major center, thanks to a radical archaeological data, although this may be combined
restructuring and consolidation begun in the with literary descriptions, wills, and other legal
eighth century, and there are signs of urban documents to provide a picture of Byzantine
revival there and elsewhere after the ninth secular architecture.
century.1 Excavations at Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, The wide-scale social transformation of the
and elsewhere provide evidence of a vibrant daily Transitional Period cannot be overemphasized. In
life, with houses, baths, markets, fortification a process of ruralization, large centers were de-
systems, and other urban structures. Nevertheless, populated or abandoned, with a demographic
shift to the countryside. Often the inhabited area
1
For much of what follow in this chapter, see R. G. Ousterhout, of a city was reduced to its fortified acropolis or to
“Secular Architecture,” in The Glory of Byzantium: Art and a smaller fortified area at the city center—from
Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, eds. H. Evans city to citadel. At Ankara, Sardis, and Corinth, for
and W. Wixom (New York, 1997), 193–99; and example, the remainder of the ancient city was vir-
R. G. Ousterhout, “Houses, Markets, and Baths: Secular tually abandoned. Even Constantinople witnessed
Architecture in Byzantium,” in Heaven & Earth: Art of something of a cultural break in this period. Its
Byzantium from Greek Collections, eds. A. Drandaki, population had declined from perhaps four hun-
D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, and A. Tourta (Athens, 2013), 211–13.
dred thousand at its height at the end of the fifth
See also Ch. Bouras, “City and Village: Urban Design and
Architecture,” JÖB 31, no. 2 (1981): 611–53; L. Lavan, ed., Recent
century to less than one hundred thousand in
Research in Late Antique Urbanism, JRA Supplement 42 the eighth century. Following the devastating
(Portsmouth, 2001), among many others. plague of 747, Constantine V found it necessary
Ephesus, view looking eastward, with the ruins of the Temple of Artemis in the foreground and the hill of
Ayasoluk with the Church of St. John in the distance (author)
333
to resettle peasants from Greece and the Aegean smaller circuits of fortifications were constructed,
islands in the capital.2 Portions of the city fell into incorporating the standing remains of older
ruin, and public services were neglected. buildings. Texts often refer to these as kastra (for-
A cultural revival began after the middle of the tresses) rather than as poleis (cities).
eighth century, and the peaceful period of the The few new towns of the period were devel-
ninth through the eleventh and twelfth centuries oped because of their strategic location, either
witnessed an increase in urban populations and a during the Transitional Period, as at Monemvasia,
reinstitution of trade and industry, although cities or during the Latin Occupation of 1204–61 or
never achieved their former prominence. Moreover, afterward, as at Mystras (see Chap. 25).6 In all
life in the Middle Byzantine period was consider- examples, security was the primary concern, and
ably different that it had been before. Although urban development was completely dependent on
urban contraction doesn’t necessarily imply pop- the topography of the site. In Cappadocia, numer-
ulation decline, public social life and the engage- ous new settlements date from the tenth and
ment with public space had fundamentally eleventh centuries, cut into the soft volcanic rock
changed.3 Moreover, it was a gradual change that formations—again, the organization was gov-
began centuries earlier, as Byzantium was gradu- erned by the natural landforms. Whether the site
ally transformed from a Late Antique to a medieval was old or new, defense was normally the most im-
empire. Thus, although the period of the fourth to portant consideration in urban definition. Thus, at
the sixth century had been characterized by public Ephesus, the ancient center on the harbor shrank
activity in open, urban spaces, in the subsequent significantly during the Dark Ages and then was
period, Byzantine society often became more pri- gradually abandoned in favor of the more easily
vate and inward turning, with the home and the defended hill of Ayasoluk, several kilometers
extended family as the dominant social focus. inland. Its sturdy fortifications still survive, around
Architecture followed a similar course. The signif- the Church of St. John (Fig. 14.1).7 A similar pat-
icant monuments of the earlier period were public tern may be observed at Sparta, where the ancient
in their character, integrated into the larger design acropolis was reinhabited beginning in the ninth
of the city. The Middle Byzantine period is dis- century and then abandoned in the thirteenth cen-
tinguished instead by private patronage at the tury, when the entire settlement was relocated to
expense of urban unity. Public architecture was Mystras, on the steep slope of a nearby hill.
limited almost exclusively to small churches and The site of Kastro Apalirou on Naxos provides
to defensive systems. a fascinating example of a new town, founded in
Excavations are only beginning to reveal the the second half of the seventh century, indicative
changing patterns of habitation in the later of the insecurity of island and coastal sites with
Byzantine centuries.4 Some centers were appar- the naval expansion of the Arabs (Figs. 14.2 and
ently abandoned and resettled with new names— 14.3).8 The evidence indicates the decline of the
the older name forgotten, as, for example, ancient ancient harbor center (Chora) and a movement
Abdera, which became Polystylon in its medieval of the population inland to more secure sites.
incarnation, or Sparta, which was resettled as
Lacedaemonia.5 Settlements that were not aban- Prospects, 1973–1987,” Byz 14 (1989): 41–58; Bouras, “City and
doned shrank in size, and in either case, new, Village,” 621–22.
6
See Ch. Bouras, “Byzantine Cities in Greece,” Heaven & Earth:
Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, eds. J. Albani and
2
Mango, Développement urbain; Mango, “The Development of E. Chalkia (Athens, 2013), 49–73; and other essays in the same
Constantinople,” 60–87; tempered by Magdalino, Constantinople volume, notably S. Kalopissi-Verti, “Mistra: A Fortified Late
Médiévale. Byzantine Settlement,” 224–39.
3
Brubaker, “Topography.” 7
Ladstätter, “Ephesus.”
4
See, among others, P. Niewöhner, ed., The Archaeology of 8
D. Hill, H. Roland, and K. Ødegård, “Kastro Apalirou, Naxos:
Byzantine Anatolia (Oxford, 2017). A Seventh-Century Urban Foundation,” in New Cities in Late
5
Ch. Bakirtzis, “Western Thrace in the Early Christian and Antiquity: Documents and Archaeology, ed. E. Rizos (Turnhout,
Byzantine Periods: Results of Archaeological Research and 2017), 281–91.

FIGURE 14.1
Ephesus, view
looking eastward,
with the ruins of
the Temple of
Artemis in the
foreground and the
hill of Ayasoluk
with the Church of
St. John in the
distance (author)
Apalirou was built on a mountaintop, 6 kilome- In many older sites, the main streets contin-
ters from the coast, at an elevation of 485 meters, ued to function, but around them new patterns
surrounded by sheer crags and steep slopes. A of growth emerged within the rubble of the an-
visit today still requires almost an hour of hiking cient city. At Nicaea, both the cardo and the de-
up a rugged, 45-degree slope. Clearly defense was cumanus of the ancient city continued to be used,
the critical concern. The elongated enclosure, of as they are today, but this is an almost unique
about 2 hectares, slopes downward from east to example (Fig. 14.4).10 Rather than following the
west, with streets parallel to the slope, crossed by regularly defined orthogonal street systems of an-
stairways leading up. With no natural source of tiquity, the new areas of settlement in Byzantine
water, a series of channels collected rainwater in cities were characterized by growth in a dynamic,
cisterns along the lower, west wall. The adminis- ad hoc manner. Urban development was invari-
trative and ecclesiastical center was isolated in a ably the result of private endeavor. In their most
walled citadel filling out the northern portion of basic forms, streets appeared as the area between
the site, where the Church of St. George is the private properties, varying considerably in width
most prominent building today. The citadel was and direction, and they were normally unpaved
accessed by a monumental stairway from the and unmaintained. The new street systems also
street along the west wall, which connected to a responded to the topography or to the accumu-
bent entrance to the kastro. The southern portion lated debris of the ancient city. Such patterns have
of the site appears to have been residential, filled been observed in the areas of medieval settlement
with small, rectangular houses. Survey on the excavated at Corinth and Athens (Fig. 14.5).11
lower slopes beneath Kastro Apalirou are provid-
ing evidence of an agricultural hinterland.9 10
U. Peschlow, “Nicaea,” in The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia,
ed. P. Niewöhner (Oxford, 2017), 203–16.
9
J. Crow, S. Turner, and A. Vionis, “Characterizing the Historic 11
D. Athanasoulis, “Corinth,” in Heaven & Earth: Cities and
Landscapes of Naxos,” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 24 Countryside in Byzantine Greece, eds. J. Albani and E. Chalkia (Athens,
(2011): 111–37. 2013), 192–209; Ch. Bouras, “Byzantine Athens, 330–1453,” in
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SECULAR ARCHITECTURE AND THE FATE OF THE CITY 335
FIGURE 14.2 polluting industries, such as the slaughterhouses,
Naxos, Kastro were moved outside the walls. Market fairs and
Apalirou, plan
(author, redrawn
other large gatherings must have taken place out-
after Norwegian side the walls as well. Conversely, some activities
Survey 2010–14; that would have been extramural in ancient times
D. Hill, moved within the confines of the medieval city.
H. Roland, and Vegetable gardens, necessary to provide fresh pro-
K. Ødegård.
“Kastro Apalirou,”
duce, must have been close to the population: in
in E. Rizos, New Constantinople, large areas immediately within
Cities, 2017) the Land Wall were devoted to gardens.12 More sig-
nificantly, cemeteries and burial grounds, which
had been forbidden by Roman law within the city
limits, gradually penetrated the city, many of them
associated with religious foundations.
Another defining factor in the Byzantine city
was the amount of remains of the ancient city.
Standing ancient buildings could be reused, or,
more likely, given new functions, and standing
walls, foundations, and colonnades could be em-
ployed in new constructions. Even individual
building elements, such as ashlar blocks, bricks,
roofing tiles, and architectural sculptures, were
reused as spolia. At Pergamon, for example, an un-
pretentious medieval town arose within the grand
ruins of its ancient predecessor. In the eleventh
through thirteenth centuries, a dense settlement
developed on the slope of the hill, composed of
irregular rooms and constructed almost entirely of
spolia, incorporating the remains of ancient walls
(Fig. 14.6).13 When he visited Pergamon, the
Byzantine emperor Theodore Doukas Laskaris
(1254–58) was struck by the contrast of the an-
cient and the medieval monuments:
Between the [ancient] buildings are low hovels,

which appear, as it were, to be the remnants of
the houses of the departed, and the sight of them
causes much pain. For, as mouse holes are
compared to the houses of today, so one might
say the latter are compared to those that are
being destroyed.14
Similarly, public spaces—the agoras and forums 12

J. Koder, “Fresh Vegetables for the Capital,” in Constantinople and
of antiquity—were abandoned and their functions Its Hinterland, eds. C. Mango and G. Dagron (Aldershot, 1995),
replaced by streets of mixed use, with shops, work- 49–56.
shops, and residences together. Some of the more 13
T. Otten, “Pergamon,” in The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia,
ed. P. Niewöhner (Oxford, 2017), 226–30; C. Rheidt, Die
Heaven & Earth: Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, eds. Stadtgrabung 2: Die byzantinische Wohnstadt, Altertümer von
J. Albani and E. Chalkia (Athens, 2013), 168–79; and Ch. Bouras, Pergamon 15.2 (Berlin, 1991).
Byzantine Athens: 10th–12th Centuries (Routledge, 2017). 14
For text, Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 245.

FIGURE 14.3
Naxos, Kastro
Apalirou, view of
the church in the
citadel (author)
FIGURE 14.4
Nicaea (İznik),
plan showing
evidence of historic
streets and
monuments (after
U. Peschlow, in
P. Niewöhner,
Archaeology of
Anatolia, 2017)
FIGURE 14.5
Corinth, plan of
the forum area,
eleventh to
thirteenth
centuries (after
D. Athanasoulis,
“Corinth,” in
Heaven & Earth,
2013)
Another element necessary to the city was water. An essential feature of Roman urban life, public
Roman cities were well equipped with a system baths were still functioning in Late Antiquity, and
of aqueducts for the public distribution of new ones were constructed as spaces for hygiene,
water.15 With the declining urban populations, sports, and cultural entertainment. Christians
most fell into disrepair. The aqueducts supplying often were uneasy with public bathing, however,
Constantinople and Thessalonike were main- because of associations with paganism, vice, and
tained only with difficulty. A few new aqueducts superstition.16 This brought about a change in
were constructed in the Middle Byzantine period, bathing and bath construction. In fact, already in
as at Thebes, and an extensive hydraulic system Roman times small neighborhood baths or pri-
was developed in some parts of Cappadocia as vate baths were far more common than the grand
well. Elsewhere, as at Corinth and Bursa, natural imperial foundations. Issues of privacy led to the
springs solved the water problem. In most cases, demise of the common bathing pool, which was
however, public systems of waterworks were re- replaced by individual tubs. Moreover, with
placed by private ones, with wells or small cisterns
to collect rainwater. 16
See discussion by Saradi, Byzantine City, 325–43; F. Yegül,
Bathing in the Roman World (New York, 2010), 181–98; A. Berger,
15
Crow, Bardill, and Bayliss, Water Supply. Das Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit (Munich, 1982).

FIGURE 14.6
Pergamon,
reconstruction of a
Byzantine
neighborhood and
a house (K. Rheidt,
Stadtgrabungen,
1991)
changes in the economy, it grew increasingly dif- used throughout the Byzantine centuries. A small
ficult for great baths to be maintained. Most new bath excavated at Sparta, dated to the twelfth or
constructions were on a small scale. thirteenth century, measures 5.8 by 10.5 meters
The sixth-century bath building excavated in overall, resting above hypocausts, its central room
the Panagia Field at Corinth is a good example perhaps domed, expanded by recesses containing
(Fig. 14.7A).17 Measuring less than 8 by 18 meters tubs.18 A larger example of a neighborhood bath of
overall, the apodyterium or dressing room was en- similar date survives in Thessalonike, where it was
tered from the north and fills half the area. The in use until 1940 (Figs. 14.7B and 14.8).19 With a
frigidarium, or cold room, is long and thin, with ground plan measuring 12.5 by 17.5 meters, it has
bathing tubs in its apsidal ends. The heated rooms an apodyterium, tepidarium, and caldarium of two
are considerably smaller, sitting above hypocausts bays each, as well as a water storage tank. Interiors
along the southern side. The tepidarium is a simple are barrel vaulted, with the exception of the caldar-
rectangle, and the caldarium is less than 2.5 meters ium, which is covered by a dome and a groin vault.
square, with rectangular niches containing bathing
tubs. It is hard to imagine the facilities being used
by more than three or four people at once. Similar 18
Ch. Bouras, “Ena byzantine loutro ste Lakedaimonia,” ArchE
small baths have been excavated at Athens, (1982): 99–112.
Philippi, Messenia, Thessalonike, and elsewhere. 19
A. Xyngopoulos, “Byzantinos loutron en Thessalonike,” Epeteris
This type of small bath continued to be built and Philosophikes Skoles Panepistemiou Thessalonikes 5 (1940): 83–97;
R.-S. Tripsiani-Omirou, “Byzantine Baths. Thessaloniki, Greece,”
in Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its
17
G. D. R. Sanders, “A Late Roman Bath at Corinth. Excavations Preservation, eds. S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessaloniki,
in the Panayia Field, 1995–1996,” Hesperia 68 (1999): 441–80. 1997), 314–17.
FIGURE 14.7
Corinth, bath
complex in the
Panagia Field,
plans; (B)
Thessalonike,
Byzantine bath,
plan (author,
redrawn after
G. Sanders,
courtesy of
ASCSA; and
Ephorate of
Byzantine
Antiquities)
FIGURE 14.8
Thessalonike,
Byzantine bath
complex, view
(author)
Another elusive element is the administrative secure part of the city, and it might include rooms
apparatus of the city. Although it was housed in a for special purposes, such as the treasury, lodging
variety of buildings in Antiquity, by the Byzantine for troops, and the prison.20 Churches could be
period, the civic administration was normally used for civic meetings, and after the sixth cen-
concentrated in the residence of the governor, tury, standards for weights and measures were
who was often a military appointment, and kept in a church as well.
within its churches. The governor’s palace was
usually located in the acropolis or in the most 20
Bouras, “City and Village,” 645–46.

figure 14.9 figure 14.10
Armatova Athens, excavation
(Elis), recon plan of a Byzantine
struction of neighborhood near
a country the Agora (author,
house redrawn after
(S. Ćurčić, ASCSA)
Architecture
in the
Balkans,
2010)
The houses of Byzantium have left few remains.

Those of the lower classes hold little architectural
interest: Nikolaos Mesarites described village
houses made of reeds plastered with mud and difficult to distinguish one house from another or
covered with thatched roofs. A few are known to determine whether spaces were roofed or un-
from excavation, such as a simple country house roofed. At Pergamon, the houses consist of several
at Armatova in Elis (Peloponnesos), composed of rooms, often with a portico, arranged around a
small rectangular rooms and a porch (Fig. 14.9). courtyard set off the irregular pattern of alleys and
Houses of Late Antiquity reveal little difference cul-de-sacs (see Fig.14.6). Often in houses of the
from their classical predecessors. The simplest ar- period, one room is larger than the others for the
rangement had rooms arrayed around a courtyard main daily activities. Similar house forms have
or peristyle, with rooms facing inward, away from been excavated in Thebes, Athens, and Pergamon.22
the street (see Chap. 7). Similar domestic organi- Not all houses were equipped with courtyards,
zations endured into the Middle Byzantine cen- however, and others were isolated blocks or had
turies, although on more modest scales. Good their rooms organized in a linear fashion. Although
examples are found at Corinth (see Fig. 14.5, no. offering a small degree of comfort and efficiency,
23).21 Two neighboring houses of the tenth to virtually no concern for esthetics is evident. By the
twelfth centuries near the South Stoa center on fourteenth century, detached one- and two-story
courtyards with wells and ovens, surrounded by houses are common, as found at Geraki, and sim-
rooms and storerooms, which communicated ilar forms were developed at Mystras (discussed in
with the courtyard but rarely directly with each Chap. 25).23 In two-story houses, the lower level
other. Similar domestic neighborhoods have been
excavated in Athens (Figs. 14.10 and 14.11). Ch. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium,” DChAE 11 (1982–83):
22
Because of the nature of the remains, it is often 1–26; see also C. Rheidt, “Byzantinische Wohnhäuser des 11. bis
14. Jahrhunderts in Pergamon,” DOP 44 (1990): 195–204.
21
R. Scranton, Medieval Architecture in Central Corinth, Corinth 16 For Geraki, see A. M. Simatou and R. Christodoulopoulou,
23
(Princeton, 1957); D. Athanasoulis, “Corinth,” in Heaven & Earth: “Observations on the Medieval Settlement of Geraki,” DChAE 15
Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, eds. J. Albani and (1989–90): 67–88; for Mystras, see A. K. Orlandos, “Ta palatia kai
E. Chalkia (Athens, 2013), 192–209. ta spitia tou Mystra,” ArchBME 3 (1937): 3–144; also Bouras,
FIGURE 14.11
Athens, view of
current excavation
of Byzantine
houses (author)
served as stables and storage, with the upper level The courtyard complex known as Hallaç Manastırı,
usually a single room for all family activities. near Ortahisar, provides a good example of a large
Because much of its architecture was rock cut, residence, with halls, portico, kitchen, store-
the region of Cappadocia preserves a variety of rooms, dovecotes, and a chapel (Figs. 14.12 and
residential architecture, ranging from individual 14.13). Settlements with similar architectural
houses to entire villages.24 While the hovels of the complexes have been studied at Çanlı Kilise,
poor are nondescript, several settlements preserve Soğanlı Valley, Açıksaray, and Selime. In these,
upscale residences that may reflect contempora- the building block for social and community or-
neous urban architectural forms. The characteris- ganization was the oikos—that is, the elite house-
tic housing types center on a courtyard carved hold, which could form the centerpiece of a
into the cliff, with rooms organized around three neighborhood, enveloped by subsidiary struc-
sides, a portico along the main façade, and a tures, smaller residences, agricultural facilities,
chapel set to the side. Often a hall—the main and other dependencies, no doubt with land
formal room of the complex—is given special ar- holdings at some distance as well.
ticulation, and a smaller, cruciform hall may also Although middle- and lower-class residences
be included as well. The kitchen, with a conical would have included little embellishment, those
vault and a chimney, is set to one side. Many in- of the upper class could have been decorated with
clude cisterns, storerooms, stables, and dovecotes. marble floors and revetments, as well as with mo-
saics or frescoes. Wealthy estates in the country-
“Houses in Byzantium,” esp. 16–20; L. Sigalos, “Housing People in side may have been fortified, such as that de-
Medieval Greece,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 7 scribed in the twelfth-century romance Digenes
(2003): 195–221. Akritas, which was surrounded by gardens and
24
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community, esp. 271–368. defended by walls and towers and also included a

FIGURE 14.12
Ortahisar (near),
Hallaç Manastırı,
plan (author)
FIGURE 14.13
Ortahisar (near),
Hallaç Manastırı,
view looking
northeast (author)
bathhouse and a church; the main building is said For later centuries, the physical settings become
to have been decorated with biblical and classical more difficult to reconstruct. The commercial area
figures.25 The salon of a provincial magistrate at continued to be called the agora and was often
Eski Gümüş in Cappadocia was decorated with situated along the main thoroughfare. In
paintings of Aesop’s fables.26 Carpets and wall Thessalonike, it lay near the Kassandreotike Gate;
hangings were not uncommon, and there was in Rhodes, it was near the intersection of the old
sometimes a taste for Islamic decorative features. cardo and decumanus. Archaeologists have identi-
The contents of the houses would have been rel- fied shops at Corinth, Athens, Pergamon, and
atively rudimentary, except for those of the upper elsewhere, but none is well preserved. The best ex-
classes.27 Simpler residences would have had rubble ample may be at Preslav, where a commercial
or wooden benches permanently fixed against the square and eighteen modular shops were exca-
walls to provide for sitting, eating, and sleeping. vated in the southwest part of the city.29 Temporary
Only the wealthy would have had moveable furni- markets could have been organized in any open
ture, such as tables, chairs, or frame beds. Meals space, often outside the walls, as at Mystras or
were eaten while seated, from common dishes, ap- Rhodes. Trade fairs could be coordinated with the
parently with the hands—except for the upper feast days of saints, as occurred with the panegyris
classes, who had cutlery. Only at special ceremo- of St. John at Ephesus, St. Eugenios at Trebizond,
nial banquets did diners recline on couches in the or St. Demetrius in Thessalonike.30
antique manner. Bedding, particularly if it was silk, Constantinople. Throughout the period under
was often among the most valuable items in the discussion, the Byzantine capital remained
home. Chests would have provided storage for unique in its urban character, appreciated by con-
household objects, and storerooms would have temporaries for its wealth, its size, its paved
been equipped with pithoi and amphoras for the streets, and the presence of the imperial court. By
storage of foodstuffs and liquids. Legal documents the sixth century, it was both rich and evocative,
also mention bathing equipment, kitchenware and firmly grounded both as an imperial capital and
serving dishes, garments, and icons among house- as a sacred city, situated within the broader con-
hold possessions. Books were luxury items, availa- text of world history and Roman mythology.31
ble only to the well-to-do, but surprisingly, they Then things began to change. Ravaged by the
are mentioned in wills more often than weapons, plague in the sixth century, the city witnessed a
which are strikingly rare. severe decline and transformation in the Dark
Market buildings were common in Greek and Ages of the seventh and eighth centuries. In the
Roman cities, many continuing to be used into early centuries, its inhabitants had relied upon
Late Antiquity. Tabernae appeared along the Mese imported food and water—that is, a trading net-
of Constantinople; new macella, or market build- work with ships, harbors, and warehouses, as well
ings, appeared there as well.28 In many locations,
these fell out of use: in Philippi, for example, the 29
For an overview, see L. Lavan, “From Polis to Emporion? Retail
macellum had been demolished already in the
and Regulation in the Late Antique City,” in Trade and Markets in
sixth century and replaced by Basilica B. New Byzantium, ed. C. Morrisson (Washington, DC, 2012), 333–77;
shops also appear on the streets of Athens and I. Jordanov, “Preslav,” in The Economic History of Byzantium: From the
Sardis in Late Antiquity, while older shops were Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. A. Laiou (Washington,
repaired in Thessalonike, Thasos, and elsewhere. DC, 2002), 667–71, esp. 668 and fig. 2; also I. Changova,
“Tŭrgovskite pomesteniia krai iuznata krepostna stena na Preslav,”
Izvestiia na arkheologicheskiia Institut 22 (1957): 233–90.
25
E. Jeffreys, ed. and trans., Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and 30
S. Vryonis, “The Panegyris of the Byzantine Saint,” in The
Escorial Versions (Cambridge, 1998), 209.
Byzantine Saint, ed. S. Hackel (London, 1981), 196–227; A. Laiou,
26
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community, 288–93. “Händler und Kaufleute auf dem Jahrmarkt,” in Fest und Alltag in
27
N. Oikonomides, “The Contents of the Byzantine House from Byzanz, ed. G. Prinzing and D. Simon (Munich 1990), 53–70.
the Eleventh to the Fifteenth Centuries,” DOP 44 (1990): 205–14. 31
For what follows, see R. G. Ousterhout, “Constantinople and
M. M. Mango, “The Commercial Map of Constantinople,”
28
the Construction of a Medieval Urban Identity,” in The Byzantine
DOP 54 (2000): 189–207. World, ed. P. Stephenson (London, 2010), 334–51.

as aqueducts, fountains, and cisterns. The popu- concentrating trade at the Harbor of Julian, and
lation declined dramatically after the seventh cen- repopulated it following the plague outbreak of
tury, shrinking to a fraction of its former size. 746–47. Building activity in Constantinople con-
Prior to the Arab siege of 717–18, Anastasius II tinued under Constantine’s Iconoclast successors.
expelled all inhabitants who could not lay in a Further repairs to the Land Walls were carried out
three-year supply of provisions.32 under Leo IV and Constantine VI, Leo V, and
One result of the de-urbanization of the Dark Theophilos. The last is best known for the con-
Ages and one measure of the transformation is that struction of palaces and additions to the Great
the great public works characteristic of a Late Palace, but he also had the Sea Wall and Golden
Antique city either fell into ruin or were trans- Horn Wall rebuilt, as the numerous surviving
formed in function. For example, the Forum of inscriptions testify (Fig. 14.14). The number of re-
Constantine, which continued to be an important corded inscriptions from the Golden Horn alone
landmark, became the main emporium for the city, (sixteen in all) suggests the revival of commercial
surrounded by the quarters of artisans. In the ninth activity in that area. The claim of one inscription
century, Basil I built a church there, dedicated to that Theophilos had “renewed the city” might not
the Virgin, having observed that the workers be far from the truth, but it is best seen as one
lacked both a place of spiritual refuge and some- stage in a century-long program of urban revival,
where to go to get out of the rain. This suggests not beginning with Constantine V and extending
only that the church had replaced all other centers into the reign of Basil I.
of social gathering, but also that its arcades and By the twelfth century, the population of
porticoes no longer existed or had been filled in. Constantinople had rebounded and may have
Elsewhere in the city, we are told, the Forum of been as high as four hundred thousand. Clearly,
Theodosius became the market for livestock, and the city still impressed foreign visitors. Fulcher of
further fora were similarly transformed. Chartres wrote admiringly ca. 1100,
The rule of Constantine V (reg. 741–775) may
mark the turning point in the city’s fortunes—the O how great is that noble and beautiful city!
point at which Constantinople became a medie- How many monasteries, how many palaces
val city.33 Born during the Arab siege of 717–18, there are, fashioned in a wonderful way! How
he was the son of Leo III, who had instituted the many wonders there are to be seen in the squares
ban on images in 726. Constantine V was prob- and in the different parts of the city! I cannot
ably the most reviled of the Iconoclast emperors, bring myself to tell in detail what great masses
but his interventions allowed Constantinople to there are of every commodity: of gold, for
continue. He rebuilt the Land Walls immediately example, of silver . . . and relics of saints.35
following the devastating earthquake of 740, as
the numerous inscriptions testify. He also rebuilt Constantinople also retained many of the great
the aqueduct system, which had been out of monuments of the fourth through sixth centu-
service for more than a century. Completed in ries; its spacious main streets, its forums bedecked
766, the scope of the work suggests this was not with triumphal monuments, and its basilicas and
simply the so-called Aqueduct of Valens inside public buildings formed the backbone of the me-
the city, but also the long system of channels and dieval city, and they continued to function
bridges extending deep into Thrace.34 Constantine throughout the Middle Byzantine period—if per-
V also reorganized the urban core of the city, haps in a diminished capacity. Enough grandeur
survived for emperors of the ninth and tenth cen-
turies to stage imperial triumphs in the antique
32
Mango, Le développement. manner.
33
P. Magdalino, “Constantine V and the Middle Age of
Constantinople,” in Studies on the History and Topography of
Byzantine Constantinople (Aldershot, 2007), 1–24. 35
J. P. A. van der Vin, Travellers to Greece and Constantinople: Ancient
34
C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor Monuments and Old Traditions in Medieval Travellers’ Tales, 2nd vol.
(Oxford, 1997), 607–609. (Leiden, 1980), 503–504.
FIGURE 14.14
Constantinople, Sea Wall, with
a marble inscription of
Theophilos (author)
At the heart of the city, the Great Palace, the Constantinople in 1147, described elegant palaces
Hippodrome, and the church of Hagia Sophia with lavish decoration, but noted,
were maintained, although by the twelfth cen-
tury, the Blachernai Palace, located at the north- The city itself is squalid and fetid and in many
ern corner of the city, had become the primary places harmed by permanent darkness, for the
imperial residence. The area nearest the walls re- wealthy overshadow the streets with buildings
mained largely uninhabited, with the densest area and leave these dirty, dark places to the poor
of settlement toward the end of the peninsula. and to travelers; there murders and robberies
Major harbors, emporia, and the foreign trading and other crimes which love darkness are
colonies lay along the Golden Horn. committed.36
New construction of the Middle Byzantine
period was privately financed and controlled, and While his complaints sound like those of any
what might be regarded as public buildings—baths, small-town visitor to any large city, his descrip-
docks, warehouses, hospitals, and orphanages— tion suggests that many urban amenities were not
were frequently controlled by the monasteries. maintained.
Moreover, new buildings were often of wood In Constantinople, at least, multistoried resi-
rather than of stone. With the increase in prosper- dences something like the Roman insulae still ex-
ity in the period, private estates grew in size and isted. In the twelfth century, the poet John Tzetzes
prominence, and by the twelfth century, the great, describes living in a three-storied tenement, with
privately endowed monasteries and the mansions a priest, his children, and pigs above him and hay
of the wealthy—the oikoi (households)—had stored by a farmer on the ground floor below
become the distinguishing landmarks of the
city. Odo of Deuil, who visited and disliked 36
Van der Vin, Travellers to Greece and Constantinople, vol. 2, 518–21.

him. The great mansions became the urban foci official named Antiochus. The palace was confis-
of Constantinople, each housing an extended cated around 436, and its hexagonal hall was
family and their retainers in a sprawling network eventually converted into a church, dedicated to a
of buildings and social connections—and they local saint, Euphemia, whose main shrine lay in
were also the centers of vast economic networks. Chalcedon.39 In the troubled seventh century,
The oikos became the dominant social organiza- when the Asian shore was threatened by Persian
tion of the city.37 By the eleventh century, the attack, the relics of Euphemia were removed for
monumentality of early forms was commonly safekeeping, either in 615 or 626. The conversion
replaced by complexity. The mansion of the elev- of the triclinium, however, may have been as late
enth-century historian Michael Attaliates con- as the 796, when a restoration is recorded. Once
sisted of several buildings connected by a common Euphemia was established near the Hippodrome,
courtyard; it had an upper floor that projected tombs and mausolea were added around the
over the courtyard, a chapel, and a three-storied building as her cult grew in importance. In the
dwelling with a donkey-driven mill on ground late thirteenth century following the Latin
floor. Occupation, the church was restored once again
None of these oikoi, with their mansions, and redecorated with a cycle of paintings chroni-
courtyards, chapels, and gardens, survives, but cling the life of Euphemia.
perhaps some measure of their appearance can be Each step in the transformation of the site had
gained from a document detailing the 1203 con- important reflections in the transformation of the
cession to the Genoese of the Palace of Botaniates, city around it. Antiochos’s palace lay in a position
a sprawling, walled complex that included gate- indicative of his political importance. The emphasis
houses, two churches, courtyards, reception halls, on ceremonial spaces reflects the ritualization of
dining halls, residential units, terraces, pavilions, daily life among the aristocracy in Late Antiquity;
stables, a granary, vaulted substructures, cisterns, Antiochos, as the charges against him suggest, was
a bath complex, and rental properties.38 Such living like an emperor. The conversion of the palace
mansions are often described as “a city within a into a place of Christian worship reflects the rising
city” or as “resembling cities in magnitude and power of the church, which gradually took over
not at all unlike imperial palaces in splendor.” many official duties of the state administration and
Much of the above discussion relies by necessity assumed a role in civic governance. Similarly, the in-
on textual evidence, but the surviving monuments corporation of the saint’s relics reflects both the re-
may also provide some sense of Constantinople as duction in scale of the city during the Dark Ages and
a city in transition—not static and fixed in time, its increasingly sacred character. While Euphemia’s
but dramatic and changing. Although we have original martyrium in Chalcedon seems to have
little evidence for either the maintenance or the fallen off the historical record, the relocation of her
elaboration of the urban matrix, the transforma- sanctuary at the very center of the city accords with
tion of specific monuments may be seen as re- the functional and ideological redefinition of the
flecting the changing nature of the city as a whole. city in the early Middle Ages. A restoration at the
In this respect, the close analysis of surviving end of the eighth century would fit with the urban
buildings may be informative. For example, the revival under the efforts of Constantine V and his
Church of St. Euphemia at the Hippodrome has successors. The addition of burials around the
already been introduced (see Figs. 8.9 and 8.10). church marks a fundamental transformation in the
It began its life in the early fifth century as the character of the city, as intramural burials became
ceremonial hall of the palace built of a high court increasingly common, often set in relationship to
sacred space or sacred objects. Finally, the redecora-
37
P. Magdalino, “The Byzantine Aristocratic Oikos,” in The tion of the church in the late thirteenth century rep-
Byzantine Aristocracy IX–XIII Centuries, ed. M. Angold (Oxford, resents the attempt to reassert the city’s sanctity in
1984), 92–111, esp. 102–105. the wake of the Latin Occupation, when many of its
38
M. Angold, “The Inventory of the So-Called Palace of
Botaniates,” in The Byzantine Aristocracy IX–XIII Centuries, ed.
M. Angold (Oxford, 1984), 254–66. 39
Naumann and Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche.
FIGURE 14.15
Kalenderhane
Camii site plan,
showing the
development
through the
Byzantine period
(after C. L. Striker
and Y. D. Kuban,
Kalenderhane,
1997)
holy shrines were plundered. As a defender of patronage, there was often a change in scale (see
Orthodoxy whose shrine lay at the heart of the city, Fig. 13.5). From the first phase of construction on
Euphemia would have gained new resonance against the site, an enormous rotunda survives. This
the backdrop of Late Byzantine attempts for a union seems to have been the vestibule of a Late Antique
with the Church of Rome (to be discussed further in urban palace. In the early tenth century, the walls
Chap. 24). of the rotunda were filled in with a colonnaded
We can witness a similar history of transfor- cistern to form a platform for the construction of
mation at the Kalenderhane Camii (Theotokos the family palace of the emperor Romanos
Kryiotissa), thanks to its careful excavation, Lekapenos. The general plan of the palace may be
which identified six major construction phases at reconstructed as a Π-shaped building with a cen-
the site following the construction of the tral portico opening onto a courtyard. Except for
Aqueduct of Valens, which forms its northern the palace chapel, all components of Romanos’s
boundary (Fig. 14.15).40 The historical develop- palace were built on the area taken up solely by
ment represents responses to preexisting site con- the entry vestibule of its predecessor. The chapel
ditions, as older components were incorporated was built as a private family chapel; its design is
into new structures. The site developed from a elegant, and it was lavishly decorated, but the
small bath erected ca. 400 into an increasingly dome of the Myrelaion is barely 10 feet in diame-
complex agglomeration with two churches set ter—a dramatic contrast to the 100-foot dome of
side by side at different angles. It is unclear when Hagia Sophia.
the north church fell out of use; as it survives, the Shortly after it was constructed, the entire
south church represents a major period of con- Myrelaion Palace was converted into a nunnery.
struction ca. 1195–1204. Rapidly built and expen- This change corresponds to the rise of monasti-
sively furnished, it incorporated a variety of older cism, which became an essential element in
vaulted components. Thanks to its odd angle at Byzantine society. In addition, the change tells us
the connection to the aqueduct, we can begin to something about the organization of Byzantine
get some sense of an urban grid and the relation- monasticism, for no major remodeling was neces-
ship of building to it. sary. The structure within a monastic community,
The Myrelaion Palace underwent a similar it seems, was similar to that of an aristocratic
transformation through its long history.41 Here household, and the architectural setting could be
we may see that accompanying the changes in similar as well. At the upper levels of society, both
consisted of a closed social group, hierarchically
40
Striker and Kuban, The Kalenderhane in Istanbul: The Buildings, organized, with servants, retainers, properties,
32–100. and economic interests. The conversion of secular
41
Striker, Myrelaion, 13–16. properties was a matter of concern in the Middle

FIGURE 14.16 Constantinople,
Boukoleon Palace, reconstructed
plan (author, after C. Mango,
CahArch, 1997)
Byzantine period, resulting in an attempt to in the narthexes of the Chora Monastery, where
provide a legal definition of a monastery and to they began to appear within a few decades of the
protect the small property owner from the threat reconstruction by Theodore Metochites, ca.
of takeover. The Council of Constantinople of 1316–31 (discussed in Chap. 24).
861, for example, spoke against the founding of Also emphasizing the change in scale, the so-
monasteries in private houses, although it may called Boukoleon Palace represents the reduced
not have had much effect. core of the Great Palace, as it was enclosed by a
The Myrelaion Chapel was intended from the fortification wall by Nikephoros Phokas in the
beginning to be the burial place of Romanos and tenth century (Figs. 14.16–14.18).43 This area—
his family, and he had sarcophagi brought for distant from Hagia Sophia—comprised the
that purpose. Whatever his motivation, by the ceremonial core of the palace during the medieval
early eleventh century it had become de rigueur centuries and did not include the famed mosaic
for the emperor to found an urban monastery as peristyle, the Chalke Gate, the Magnaura, or many
a setting for burial. The rising importance of priv- other of the important ceremonial spaces of Late
ileged burials within the city is seen in the Late Antiquity. It enclosed the audience hall known as
Byzantine period as well, when the substructures the Chrysotriklinos and the famed Pharos Church,
of the Myrelaion Chapel were refurbished to as well as the Seljuk-style pavilion known as the
house extensive aristocratic burials.42 The ad hoc Mouchroutas. Sometimes erroneously called the
nature of the burials, set within a preexisting ar-
chitectural space, parallels the retrofitted burials 43
Müller-Wiener, Bildkexikon, 225–28; C. Mango, “The Palace of
the Bukoleon,” CahArch 45 (1997): 41–50; J. Bardill, “The Great
Palace of the Byzantine Emperors and the Walker Trust
42
Striker, Myrelaion, 29–31. Excavations,” JRA 12 (1999): 216–30.
FIGURE 14.17
Constantinople,
Boukoleon Palace,
sea façade, view of
great hall (author)
FIGURE 14.18
Constantinople,
Boukoleon Palace,
sea façade
reconstructed
(Tayfun Öner)
“Palace of Justinian,” it may follow the model of a which faced eastward. The fortification transformed
Late Antique seaside palace, but it was constructed the Great Palace from a sprawling villa to a fortified
entirely of spolia—and a very mixed batch at that. enclosure. The next step in the medievalization of
The line of the fortification wall may be traced in the imperial residence was to remove it from the
the foundations of various buildings in the neigh- center altogether at the end of the eleventh cen-
borhood, including the remnants of a fortified gate, tury, when it was replaced by the Blachernai Palace

in the northern corner of the Constantinople—a post-Antique urbanism is the nature of the remains,
citadel within the city. which are neither substantial nor particularly at-
tractive, and they often fall into the purview of the
archaeologist, the social historian, or particularly
, the text-based historian. I have attempted here to
incorporate the different types of data into a syn-
What is evident from this brief survey is that life thesis that foregrounds the physical remains—that
continued after Antiquity, on altered but neverthe- is, while considering all the evidence, suggesting
less vibrant terms. To a large extent, the difficulty ways we might use it to form a more vivid image of
faced by the architectural historian addressing cities and settlements and their component parts.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
CONSTANTINOPLE
AS AN ARCHITECTURAL CENTER
A s Constantinople emerged from the Tran-

sitional Period, it continued to be a major
center for architectural developments, although it
terms of the standardization of design, construc-
tion, and decoration within the workshops of the
capital; (2) in terms of the import of new archi-
stood as the capital of a changed empire. From a tectural ideas from foreign sources and their
purely practical perspective, it was perhaps the adaptation to Constantinopolitan standards; and
only urban center with the scale, income, and (3) in terms of the export of Constantinopolitan
patronage to maintain architectural workshops as a architectural forms, either by the direct input of
fixed part of the workforce—and one that required traveling masons or more generally by “influ-
control by the state, as the tenth-century Book of ence,” or what we might better call “prestige
the Eparch suggests.1 Architectural production had bias.” In the case of Constantinople, the promi-
continued through the previous centuries, as nence of the emperor and his court set standards
documented for the repairs to the city walls, water for patronage and for the use of symbolic forms
system, and other infrastructure projects suggest (as both within the capital and beyond, something
discussed in Chap. 14). Moreover, Constantinople perhaps most apparent in the growing signifi-
also benefitted from architectural developments in cance of privileged burials (as will be discussed
its hinterland, notably the monastic centers in below).
Bithynia. As the major entrepôt of the era, Constan- We should begin with a caveat: less than 5 per-
tinople and its architecture must be understood cent of the churches recorded in texts survive, and
from an international perspective of import and of those that do, almost all were converted to
export, its workshops adopting, adapting, devel- mosques during the Ottoman period, and many
oping, and disseminating architectural forms from fell into ruin or disappeared before they could be
across the empire. properly recorded. Many of those still standing
The role of Constantinople as a center can be have undergone radical restorations that have
approached from a variety perspectives: (1) in destroyed much of the original detail and decora-
tion. Only a very few have been studied archaeo-
1
See the discussion in Ousterhout, Master Builders, 49–50; logically. Thus, recovering the architectural “style”
J. Koder, ed. and trans., To Eparchikon Biblion (Vienna, 1991). of Constantinople remains a challenge to scholars.
Constantinople, Theotokos Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane Camii), view from the northwest (author)
353
The workshops of Constantinople established with two zones of windows below, the lowest
a distinctive architectural vocabulary, which is ev- within tall arcades, with window openings above
ident in design, construction, and details.2 As the closure panels, set between tall mullions support-
cross-in-square became the standard church type ing stilted arches. Minor bays similarly had window
across the empire, for example, the masons of the openings above closure panels. The openness of the
capital developed their own specific version of it: walls is complemented by the openness of the
Constantinopolitan churches almost invariably dome, raised on a tall drum, with a substantial
have a narthex preceding the naos and a tripartite window in each of its eight facets.
sanctuary extending to the east of the nine-bayed Much of the original openness of the Myrelaion
naos. In the elevation, a pyramidal massing of has been lost in subsequent restorations and re-
forms culminates in a tall, centrally positioned building, as window openings were blocked or
dome, raised on a drum. Numerous flourishes reduced in size. A similar system was found at the
appear in the plans, such curved recesses termi- Theotokos Church at the Monastery tou Libos,
nating the narthexes and triconch or tetraconch similar in scale, plan, and date (Figs. 15.1–15.3;
plans for the pastophoria. Two characteristics of and see Fig. 13.22). At the Theotokos Church, the
the building type are distinctive to Constantinople façade window system is two zoned, with the lu-
and may be good indicators of the impact of the nette window above an arcade with stilted arches.
capital elsewhere: (1) structural clarity and (2) the In all examples, the main apse is faceted, opened
use of natural illumination. As already discussed by a large tripartite window. Stilted arches appear
in relation to the Myrelaion Church, the exterior elsewhere as well, on the exterior and in the inte-
is articulated with supports that mark the struc- rior, part of a desire for increased verticality. By the
tural divisions of the interior, with corresponding twelfth century, several variations of tripartite
pilasters on the interior walls (see Figs. 13.2–13.5). window forms have replaced the thermal window
Combined with the massing of volumes, they in the lunette: sometimes three parallel arches, the
allow the viewer to “read” the building, with its latter two slightly lower than the central one, or
spatial organization evident from the exterior. the central arch framed by quadrant arches.
The lateral façades of the naos are detailed with the Similar details appear in churches ascribed to
large central arch of the cross arm framed by the the eleventh century, as at the now destroyed
lower, smaller arches of the corner bays. Most church known as Șeyh Murat Mescidi or that
other Middle Byzantine Constantinopolitan fa- known as the Vefa Kilise Camii (Figs.15.4–15.6;
çades have pilasters rather than half-columns, but and see Fig. 13.10A).3 The former had two zones
the system is similar; the building is strengthened of fenestration in the cross arm, with a thermal
where necessary, in a system that concentrates window in the lunette. The latter has apsidal termi-
loads at critical points rather than on solid walls. nations in the narthex and triconch plans for the
Within this system, the vaults (except for the pastophoria. It similarly preserves the lunette win-
dome) are often groin vaults, the form of which dows in the cross arms, originally above stilted ar-
similarly transfers the thrusts to the corners. cades, with a large tripartite window in the faceted
Thus, the wall surface between the piers could be apse. While the identity of the church is unknown,
reduced in thickness or opened up to large areas many of the same features appear in the Eski
of fenestration without compromising the struc- Imaret Camii, often identified as the Theotokos
ture. The lightness of the structural system and Pantepoptes, built by Anna Dalassena (mother of
concomitant openness hark back to the radically Alexios I Komnenos) before 1087, as the katho-
innovative system seen at Justinian’s Hagia Sophia likon of a women’s monastery, to which she sub-
several centuries earlier. At the Myrelaion, the lu- sequently retired (Figs. 15.7 and 15.8).4
nettes of the cross arms were originally filled by ther-
mal windows, each subdivided by two mullions,
3
E. Ivison, “The Șeyh Murat Mescidi at Constantinople,” BSA 85
2
For documentation and illustration, see Müller-Wiener, (1990): 79–87; V. Sedov, Kilise Dzhami: stolichnaia arkhitektura
Bildlexikon; T. F. Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul; and Vizantii (Moscow, 2008).
most recently Marinis, Architecture and Ritual. 4
Marinis, Architecture and Ritual.

FIGURE 15.1
Constantinople,
Theotokos tou
Libos, north
church, seen from
the southeast
(author)
At both the Theotokos tou Libos and the of Mt. Athos, where they seem to be reserved for
Pantepoptes, unusual elements in the design may the use of the founder or the hegoumenos of the
be related to its monastic function: at the former, monastery.5 The gallery at the Pantepoptes has a
the multiplication of chapels would have provided large tripartite window opening in its central bay
additional space for private devotions; at the latter, overlooking the naos, as well as small, isolated
a gallery, or katechoumena, rises above the narthex.
Similar forms appear in the tenth-century katholika 5
Stanković, “At the Threshold of the Heavens.”
CHAPTER FIFTEEN: CONSTANTINOPLE AS AN ARCHITECTURAL CENTER 355

FIGURE 15.2
Constantinople,
Theotokos tou Libos,
(A) hypothetical north
façade elevation; (B)
reconstruction with
five domes (V. Marinis,
Architecture and
Liturgy, 2014; and
A. H. S. Megaw, DOP,
1964)
FIGURE 15.4 Constantinople, ruined church known as Șeyh

Murat Mescidi, south façade (from A. G. Paspates, Byzantinai
meletai, 1877)
FIGURE 15.3
Constantinople,
Theotokos tou
Libos, prothesis,
view into the vault,
showing the
quatrefoil design
emphasized by the FIGURE 15.5 Constantinople, church known as Vefa Kilise
cornices Camii, east façade; the apse window originally had three
(V. Marinis, lights, separated by mullions, now partially blocked (author)
Architecture and
Liturgy, 2014) private devotional spaces by the founders. There is
no internal access to the gallery, although the south
window extends to the floor level and may have
provided access from external stairs or an adjacent
building. In both, the careful integration of subsid-
iary spaces into the overall design is characteristic of
Constantinopolitan architecture.
The elusive quincunx. The term quincunx has
occasionally been applied to the cross-in-square
church type.6 A quincunx is the five-spot pattern on
a die, with one central dot and four on the diagonals
(⚄). It may be more correctly associated with a
Middle Byzantine five-domed church than with a
simple cross-in-square. Much of the discussion cen-
ters on the lost Nea Ekklesia (New Church) at the
chambers above the corner compartments of the
naos, opening off the lateral bays, each with a small 6
Introduced by K. J. Conant, A Brief Commentary on Early
window into the naos. These were likely used as Medieval Church Architecture (Baltimore, 1942), 15.

Great Palace in Constantinople, built by Basil I ded- FIGURE 15.6
icated to Christ, along with Gabriel, Elijah, the Constantinople,

Theotokos, and St. Nicholas and exuberantly de- church known as
Vefa Kilise Camii,
scribed in his Vita (Life), with much attention given
east and south
to costly materials and decorative features. A single
façades in the early
sentence is devoted to its architectural form, and this nineteenth century,
has generated much discussion: “Its roof, consisting with the south aisle
of five domes, gleams with gold and is resplendent and chapel
with beautiful images as with stars, while on the out- surviving
side it is adorned with brass that resembles gold.”7 It (A. Lenoir,
has disappeared without a trace although an odd, Architecture
multidomed structure in Onofrio Panvinio’s view of monastique, 1852)
the city is often associated with it (see Fig. 2.4).8 How
should it be reconstructed? The most common sug-
gestion is as a cross-in-square, with domes above the
corner compartments.9 In this configuration, it
could have been the model for several provincial
churches, such as the Palaia Episkopi at Tegea in the
Peloponnese (Fig. 15.9A), which adds five domes
above a conservative or “transitional” cross-in square
plan, or the Cattolica at Stilo in Calabria (Fig. 15.9B),
and the multidomed churches of Kievan Rus’, dis-
cussed in later chapters.10 It could also have been a addition of four subsidiary chapels would certainly
cross-domed church with the domed naos framed by account for the Nea’s fivefold dedication. From the
four domed chapels, as, for example, at the Panagia brief description, however, it is clear that the domes
Kosmosoteira at Ferai or St. Panteleimon at Nerezi were visually prominent on both the exterior and the
(Fig. 15.9C), both of which had close connections interior—that is, like Justinian’s Holy Apostles, with
with the capital (discussed below). While in the sixth five domes covering a five-bayed, cruciform naos,
century the domed bay was used as a modular unit, with undomed chapels set at the corners. A rare
more commonly in Middle Byzantine architecture example of such a church in the orbit of the capital
a dome marked a separate functional space; the is St. Andrew at Peristerai, built 870–71 and thus
chronologically very close to the Nea (Fig. 15.9D).11
However we reconstruct the Nea, the broad dif-
7
Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Liber quo fusion of the five-domed church type suggests
Vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur, ed. I. Ševčenko (Berlin, 2011), Constantinople as the ultimate model, despite the
272–78; P. Magdalino, “Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil
fact that no Middle Byzantine example is pre-
I,” JÖB 37 (1987): 56–57; R. G. Ousterhout, “Reconstructing
Ninth-Century Constantinople,” in Byzantium in the Ninth
served in the city. Scholars have often looked to
Century: Dead or Alive? ed. L. Brubaker (Aldershot, 1998), 115–30. the Nea in relationship to the Theotokos tou
Libos, for example, following the restoration pro-
8
O. Panvinio, De Ludis Circensibus, libri II (Venice, 1600).
posed by A. H. S. Megaw with its four gallery-
9
Mango, Byzantine Architecture, 108–109; and Krautheimer and level chapels domed.12 A recent reassessment
Ćurčić, ECBA, 4th ed., 355–56.
argues convincingly that there is no evidence for
10
For Tegea, see D. Athanasoulis, “Some Notes on the Impact of domes, however, and the chapels were more likely
Constantinople on the Architecture of the Aegean and the
Peloponnese,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on City Ports from the
Aegean to the Black Sea: Medieval–Modern Networks, eds. F. Karagianni
and U. Kocabaş (Istanbul, 2015), 163–76; and P. L. Vocotopoulos,
11
H. Buchwald, “Sardis Church E—A Preliminary Report,” JÖB
“Church Architecture in Greece during the Middle Byzantine 26 (1977): 277–79; reprinted in Buchwald, Form, Style and
Period,” in Perception of Byzantium and Its Neighbors, 843–1261, ed. Meaning.
O. Z. Pevny (New York, 2000), 154–67; the other buildings will Megaw, “The Original Form of Theotokos Church of
12
be discussed in subsequent chapters. Constantine Lips.”

FIGURE 15.7
Constantinople,
Church of Christ
Pantepoptes (Eski
Imaret Camii), view
from the southwest
(author)
covered by domical vaults.13 We may be left with an

“influence” without a clear prototype (see Fig. 15.2).
Questions of scale. While the cross-in-square
church was common, there were any number of
variations in the centralized domed church, both
small and large. Cross-in-square churches of re-
duced scale could simplify the interior: at St. John
in Troullo (tenth century?), the elevation is re-
duced, with both the cross vaults and the corner
vaults springing from the capitals (Figs. 15.10A and
15.11).14 At the church known as the Sekbanbaşı
Mescidi (now destroyed, but probably eleventh or
twelfth century), the overall length is reduced, with
the tripartite sanctuary merged with the naos (Figs.
15.10B).15 The church known as the Toklu Dede
Mescidi (now destroyed, probably twelfth century)
reduces the width to a single bay, with the span of the
naos covered by a dome approximately 4 meters in
diameter (Fig. 15.10C).16 Other plans were adopted
Marinis, “The Original Form of the Theotokos tou Libos

13
Reconsidered.”
FIGURE 15.8 Constantinople, Church of Christ Pantepoptes 14
Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 158–61.
(Eski Imaret Camii), plan at the ground floor and gallery
levels (V. Marinis, Architecture and Liturgy, 2014, with the
15
author’s modifications) 16

FIGURE 15.9
Plans of Middle
Byzantine five-domed
churches: (A) Tegea;
(B) Stilo; (C) Nerezi;
(D) Peristera (redrawn
by the author)
for small churches. The Theotokos Panagiotissa (or much-altered church known as the Gül Camii
Mouchliotissa), probably of the early eleventh cen- (perhaps early twelfth century) has an atrophied
tury, was originally a domed tetraconch, measur- Greek-cross naos at its core, which opened by
ing approximately 12 by 12 meters overall, but with triple arcades into the narthex and side aisles,
its interior wall surfaces elaborated with niches and with a gallery above (Figs. 15.14 and 15.15). With
covered by a pumpkin dome (Fig. 15.12A). Similar a dome close to 10 meters in internal diameter
plans were developed at the Theotokos Kamariotissa resting on massive piers, it is the largest surviving
on nearby Chalke in the Prince’s Islands and church of the period from the capital. It has sub-
find their way into Constantinopolitan-influenced sequently collapsed, along with large areas of the
churches, as, for example, the Theotokos Eleousa main apse and lateral walls, making the recon-
at Veljusa (Fig. 15.12B; and see Fig. 13.21). struction problematic.17 Similarly, the Theotokos
By the twelfth century, the desire for larger Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane Camii), rebuilt at the
churches led to the revival of older plans. The end of the century, adopted a cross-domed plan
katholikon of the Chora was rebuilt sometime in with a dome of approximately 7.5 meters internal
the first half of the century on an atrophied diameter, braced by corner compartments on two
Greek-cross plan, with corner piers supporting a levels (Figs. 15.16 and 15.17).18
large dome approximately 7 meters in diameter A church in nearby Thrace, now known as
(Fig. 15.13; and see Figs. 13.15A and 16.10). While the Fatih Camii at Enez (Ainos), belongs to the
known from earlier examples, such as the same group, a domed basilica, with a dome ap-
Koimesis at Nicaea, the plan had not been used in proximately 7 meters in diameter and an extended
Constantinople for several centuries. Its revival at
the Chora led to its use at a variety of nearby sites,
as at St. Alberkios at Elegmi and Yuşa Tepesi on 17
the Bosphorus (see Figs. 13.15B and 13.15D). The 18
Marinis, Architectural and Ritual, 163–66.

FIGURE 15.10 western arm flanked by side aisles (Figs. 15.18 and
Plans of three small 15.19). It likely dates to the twelfth century, built
Constantinopolitan by masons from the capital. Like those just dis-
churches: (A) St. John
cussed, the Fatih Camii has a cruciform plan, a
in Troullo; (B)
wide bema, domes greater than 7 meters in diam-
Sekbanbaşı Mescidi
(reconstructed); (C)
eter, piers rather than columns as support, and
Toklu Dede Mescidi large lunette windows to the north and south. In
(reconstructed) (after all, the interiors are spacious and light filled.
V. Marinis, Architecture Construction and decoration. Moving beyond
and Liturgy, 2014) elements of design, certain details mark a build-
ing as Constantinopolitan. Construction may be
of brick or of an opus mixtum, with alternating
courses of brick and stone. After the late tenth
century, the recessed brick technique enters the
repertory of construction, with its distinctive
striped appearance (see Chap. 16). If carefully
constructed, the masonry of the façade may have
been left exposed; however, rough construction
was either plastered or covered with a thin layer
of plaster, painted to imitate a more regular ma-
sonry. Façades are articulated with pilasters, often
stepped pilasters, which correspond to the struc-
ture, but are otherwise plain; two-dimensional
decoration is restrained, controlled by the archi-
tectonic framework. Usually relegated to lunettes
and spandrels or the upper walls, a limited reper-
tory of patterns is executed in brick: meanders,
chevrons, decorative arches.19 The upper termina-
tion of walls was marked by dogtooth cornices as
well, often arched to reflect the position of vault-
ing on the interior. In other areas of the Byzantine
Empire, as in Greece, dogtooth courses may
appear as decorative bands anywhere on the wall
surface, but in Constantinople, dogtooth appears
only at the top; thus, where later modifications
have occurred, the presence of dogtooth marks
the termination of Byzantine construction.
Windows could take a variety of forms: in the
FIGURE 15.11
Constantinople,
tenth and eleventh centuries, thermal windows
St. John in Troullo, appear in the lunettes, separated into three lights by
view from the mullions. By the eleventh century we find tripartite
northeast (author) windows, with stilted arches above mullions, the
central arch round headed and framed by either
quadrant arches or round-headed arches. Sometimes
a second row of round-headed windows appears
19
P. L. Vocotopoulos, “The Concealed Course Technique:
Further Examples and a Few Remarks,” JÖB 28 (1979): 247–60;
G. Velenis, Ermeneia tou Exoterikou Diakosmou ste Byzantine
Architektonike (Thessalonike, 1984).

FIGURE 15.12
Plans of two
centrally planned
Constantinopolitan
churches: (A)
Theotokos
Mouchliotissa; (B)
Theotokos
Kamariotissa on
Chalke (Heybeliada)
(V. Marinis,
Architecture and
Liturgy, 2014; author,
redrawn after
T. F. Mathews, DOP,
1973)
below them. With multiple rows of windows and dome is exposed above that level (see Fig. 15.7).
arcades opening to the sides, it is sometimes sug- Details such as these are evidence of standard prac-
gested that porticoes of light construction flanked tice in the workshops of the capital.
the church, as apparently occurred at the Kalen- Pilasters commonly articulate the interiors wall
derhane.20 Older drawings show a portico along the surfaces as well. Vaults were similarly elaborated:
south flank of the Vefa Kilise Camii as well, termi- groin vaults were often employed when simpler
nating in an apsed chapel (see Fig. 15.6). barrel vaults could have been used. The intrados of
The apses and the drums of domes received more domes and their drums was rarely left unelabo-
elaborate treatment. Apses are faceted: in the tenth rated: ribbed domes and pumpkin domes are more
and eleventh centuries, they tend to be three sided, common. At the Pantokrator Monastery, for ex-
although more complex forms were developed in ample, the naos dome is ribbed, the gallery dome
the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Tripartite win- is a pumpkin dome, and the funeral chapel has
dows were common, the lights often separated by both types (see Figs. 15.30 and 15.32). We can only
thin rectangular mullions supporting stilted arches, begin to imagine the implications for the articu-
flanked by niches—often alternating rectangular lated and ordered surfaces of walls and vaults for
and semicircular—to either side, with an additional figural decoration, whether in mosaic or in wall
row above or even below the window level (see Figs. painting, as almost all has disappeared, although
15.5 and 15.6). The upper level of niches usually rises later examples, such as the Chora or Pammakaristos,
above the springing of the apse conch and is topped may give some idea (as will be discussed in
by a horizontal cornice, composed of two courses of Chap. 24).
dogtooth bricks, with the upper two thirds of the The interiors of Constantinopolitan churches
apse curvature exposed. The dome drums may be are most often marked by the presence of marble.
octagonal, dodecagonal, or occasionally sixteen A cross-in-square church in the capital invariably
sided, with arched windows in each facet, framed by had four columns in its naos, with bases and cap-
setbacks, with pilasters or half-columns at the corners. itals, as well as marble window mullions and elab-
Dome cornices were commonly scalloped, formed orate door frames. Columns were in high demand
by two courses of dogtooth, the arches concentric in the early Ottoman centuries, however, and
with the window arches, so that the curvature of the were quite often removed for use elsewhere. Early
travelers note columns of porphyry or Theban
20
L. Theis, Flankenräume in mittelbyzantinischen Kirchenbau granite in the churches at the Pantokrator
(Wiesbaden, 2005). Monastery, for example, although these have long

FIGURE 15.13 Constantinople, Church of Christ of the Chora (Kariye Camii), interior, looking west; note the sills of the
lunette windows have been raised (author)

FIGURE 15.14
Constantinople, Gül Camii, restored plan, partly hypothetical
(after V. Marinis, Architecture and Liturgy, 2014)
FIGURE 15.15
Constantinople, Gül
Camii, east façade; the
central portion has
been rebuilt, but the
areas to either side
with pink mortar are
original (author)
since been replaced.21 Cornices or string courses course. Marble paving was also common. Because
mark the springing of vaulting and the transition most quarries—including the nearby Proconnesus
to the dome (see, for example, Figs. 15.17 and quarries—ceased operation in the seventh century,
15.28). Rather than simply appearing at the spring- the marbled interiors often represent the reuse or
ing, string courses continue at the same levels recarving of older components, spoliated from
along the walls, dividing the interior into hori- the abandoned monuments of the city.22
zontal zones; combined with the pilasters, they Import. The role of Constantinople as an en-
create a grid that modulates interior surfaces. In trepôt is particularly evident in its adoption and
the more extravagant interiors, marble revetments adaptation of exotic architectural forms from the
cover the lower wall surfaces, with mosaic appearing East, developed from increased contacts with the
in the vaulting and wall surfaces above the string Caucasus and the Arab world through military and
political engagement. The recorded history of the
21
Petrus Gillius, De Topographia Constantinopoleos, book 4 (Venice,
1561), 195–96; K. M. Byrd, trans., Pierre Gilles’ Constantinople: A
Modern English Translation with Commentary (New York, 2008). 22
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 140–47, 234–54.

FIGURE 15.16
Constantinople, Theotokos
Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane
Camii), view from the
northwest (author)
FIGURE 15.17
Constantinople,
Theotokos
Kyriotissa
(Kalenderhane
Camii), interior,
looking north
(author)
FIGURE 15.18
Ainos (Enez), Fatih
Camii, west façade
(author)
Bryas Palace on the Asian shore is a case in point. FIGURE 15.19
It was built ca. 830 by Theophilos on the advice of Ainos (Enez), Fatih
the synkellos John (later patriarch), following the Camii, plan (author)
latter’s diplomatic mission to Baghdad. The palace
was constructed following Arab models: “in no
way differing from the latter in either form or
decoration”—with the exception of its churches,
one attached to the bedchamber and another in
the courtyard.23 While nothing survives of the
palace, the texts give some sense of the fascination
with the exotic culture of a political opponent—
akin to the Viennese Ottomania at the time of
Mozart. The interest in Arab forms is more evident ample, in the katholikon of Hosios Loukas
today in the visual arts, as, for example, in the pop- Monastery, which scholars have long noted.24
ularity of Kufesque ornament, but it may account A related aspect is the introduction of elements
for some of the architectural details of the period, derived from the architecture of the Caucasus. The
such as the use of trumpet squinches rather than now lost Church of Christ Chalkites, which stood
pendentives as the transition to dome, as, for ex- on the upper level of the Chalke Gate of the Great
Palace, is known from descriptions and a nine-
teenth-century engraving. Built by John I Tsimiskes
23
Theophanes Continuatus; for text, Mango, Art of the Byzantine (969–76) in 972 as a monument to celebrate his
Empire, 160; Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era,
421–22. The complex excavated at Küçükyalı, once identified as
the Bryas Palace, is more likely a monastery, perhaps that of 24
Most recently, with bibliography, A. Walker, “Pseudo-Arabic
Satyros; see A. Ricci, “Reinterpretation of the ‘Palace of Bryas’: A ‘Inscriptions’ and the Pilgrim’s Path at Hosios Loukas,” in Viewing
Study in Byzantine Architecture, History, and Historiography,” Inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval World, ed. A. Eastmond
PhD diss., Princeton University, 2008. (Cambridge, 2015), 99–123.

FIGURE 15.20 following the model seen at Aghtamar more than a
Constantinople, century earlier (Fig. 15.21; and see Fig. 15.12B). It
Church of Christ at was similarly constructed without a narthex. The
the Chalke Gate
Church of St. George of Mangana may have had a
(engraving by
similar structural system, as the reentrant piers of
G. Indjidjian, 1804,
reproduced in
the naos suggest (Figs. 15.22 and 15.23). Moreover,
S. Ćurčić, Architecture at the latter, the courtyard walls are articulated
in the Balkans, 2010) by bundled shafts of rectangular and triangular
responds and half-columns, as one finds across
Armenia and Georgia.27 What is critical in both
buildings is that while forms are imitated, the con-
FIGURE 15.21 struction is purely local, with both churches built
Chalke (Heybeliada), in the so-called recessed brick technique common
Theotokos to Constantinople, rather than the ashlar of the
Kamariotissa, view Caucasus. While the presence of Trdat suggests
into the dome that the city attracted talent from near and far,
(Thomas F. Mathews,
these examples demonstrate how workshops incor-
Dumbarton Oaks,
porated forms and details of foreign origin into the
Trustees of Harvard
University)
Constantinopolitan vernacular.
Export. Because of its political and religious
prestige, the new architecture developed within the
capital quickly found its way to new locations, a
practice enhanced by masons from the capital
victory over the Rus’, its unusual plan seems to have being dispatched to distant locations, as, for exam-
been a tetraconch—significant here as John was of ple, to Kievan Rus’ or the Aegean islands. In short,
Armenian origin (Fig. 15.20).25 Could it have in- and without denigrating the architectural achieve-
spired the tetraconch at the Panagiotissa, which, like ments of the period elsewhere, Constantinople de-
Armenian churches, originally lacked a narthex? veloped a distinctive architecture of its own during
Texts also relate the Armenian architect Trdat in the the Middle Byzantine period and also acted as a
capital at the time of the earthquake of 989, and he sort of clearinghouse of architectural ideas with a
was hired to intervene following the collapse of the broad reach and broad implications. In some areas,
western portion of the dome of Hagia Sophia.26 such as Bulgaria or Mount Athos, it may be virtu-
That an Armenian would be awarded this prestig- ally impossible to distinguish Constantinopolitan
ious and difficult commission suggests the respect from local production because of the great simi-
accorded Caucasian architecture at this time. larities, and this may be due to the presence of
Perhaps the best surviving indication of a rela- masons or workshops from the capital.
tionship may be seen in the unusual design of the The evidence from Kievan Rus’ offers a useful test
Panagia Kamariotissa Church on the island of case for the selective transmission of architectural
Chalke, which dates from the late eleventh cen- ideas, which will be discussed further in Chapter 22.
tury and which seems to follow closely Armenian In the late tenth century, traveling Byzantine masons
models—in plan it is a tetraconch with corner introduced an architecture in permanent materials
niches, surmounted by a dome on squinches, into a region where wooden construction had been
the norm. As with Constantinople, the architecture
was based on brick and mortar, with brick produc-
25
C. Mango, The Brazen House: A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial tion and construction techniques following the
Palace of Constantinople (Copenhagen, 1959). Constantinopolitan model and walls built in the re-
26
C. Mango, Materials for the Study of the Mosaic of St. Sophia at cessed brick technique. What is noteworthy is the
Istanbul (Washington, DC, 1962); C. Maranci, “The Architect
Trdat: Building Practices and Cross-Cultural Exchange in
Byzantium and Armenia,” JSAH 62, no. 3 (2003): 294–305. 27
Mango, Byzantine Architecture, 224–35.

FIGURE 15.22
Constantinople, plan of
foundations in the Mangana
region (after R. Demangel and
E. Mamboury, Le quartier des
Manganes, 1939)

FIGURE 15.23
Constantinople, St.
George of the
Mangana, plan,
partially hypothetical
(redrawn after
V. Marinis, 2012)
nature of the transmission with a limited selec- based on the replication of stylistic details. The
tion of planning principles, construction and church known as the Çanlı Kilise in Cappadocia of
vaulting technology, and decorative details, which the early eleventh century (to be discussed in
were repeated through many examples. Chap. 18) bears a strong but only outward resem-
Consistency may have been encouraged by the blance to the buildings of the capital. Perhaps most
relative isolation of Rus’. Plans are invariably indicative is the use of brick in its construction. In a
elaborations of the cross-in-square format, with region where cut stone architecture is the rule and
cruciform piers rather than columns. Recessed brick is rare, it was used to reflect the style of the
brick construction dominated through the eleventh capital (Fig. 15.24). Rather than continuous bands
century and lingered through the twelfth, even with extending through the thickness of the wall, the
increased contact with northern Europe. Types of brick courses are a superficial applique—they don’t
vaults were considerably more limited than they were appear on the interior or in the vaulting. Style is here
in contemporary Constantinople. The interiors of used to symbolic ends, to provide a cosmopolitan
domes are invariably unarticulated, set above aura in a provincial setting. Similarly, at the Church
pendentives; ribbed domes and pumpkin domes do of the Holy Apostles at Metochi on Naxos, the
not appear. Elsewhere on the interior, vaulting was church has details that do not belong to the local
limited to barrel vaulting; groin vaults only appear in idiom of the Cyclades.29 The plan is a complex
Kiev in the twelfth century with the introduction of cross-in-square with a tripartite sanctuary. Subsidiary
new technology. Even variants on the barrel vault are chapels appear flanking and surmounting the nar-
rare: for example, the staircase at St. Sophia in Kiev is thex, similar to those of the capital. The walls are
covered by stepped barrel vaults used in series, while articulated with stepped arcades with brick decora-
in Constantinople one would find a ramping barrel tion consisting of crosses and ceramic rosettes.
vault, following the angle of the stairs. Variety is Unfortunately, the parts do not add up to a coherent
nevertheless achieved, while working with a limited whole: construction is awkward; the external pilas-
repertory of forms and techniques (see Figs. ters do not correspond to structure and differ from
22.13–22.18).28 interior to exterior (Fig. 15.25). All betray a lack of
The direct workshop connections of Kiev and understanding of what was being imitated.
other centers of early Rus’ stand in contrast to other
areas, where the connection is more by imitation, 29
Athanasoulis, “Impact of Constantinople”; K. Aslanidis,
“Constantinopolitan Features in the Middle Byzantine Architecture
of Naxos,” in Architecture of Byzantium and Kievan Rus’ from the 9th to
28
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 257–58. the 12th Centuries (St. Petersburg, 2010), 21–34.

FIGURE 15.24
Akhisar (near),
Çanlı Kilise, east
façade, showing a
mortared rubble
core where the
facing masonry has
fallen (author)
FIGURE 15.25
Metochi (Naxos),
Holy Apostles,
south façade:
stepped arcades
with ceramic
rosettes and brick
patterning in the
spandrels (author)

FIGURE 15.26
Constantinople,
Monastery of
Christ Pantokrator,
view of the church
complex from the
east (author)
The Pantokrator Monastery. As the most im- the largest example of the standard Byzantine
portant foundation of the Middle Byzantine church type and the tallest of the later churches in
years, the Pantokrator deserves a more detailed the capital. In plan, this consisted of a monumen-
treatment, as its final form presages what is to tal block, measuring 100 Byzantine feet on each
come in later Byzantine architecture.30 Built for side (slightly more than 31 meters)—the dimen-
John II Komnenos (r. 1118–43) and his consort sions of the dome of Hagia Sophia—with the core
Eirene-Piroska (a Hungarian princess), the south of the building enveloped by a broad, two-
church was the first of the complex to be con- storied narthex to the west and lateral aisles, that
structed, the katholikon of the monastery, and is, assuming there was originally a north aisle
was dedicated to Christ (Figs. 15.26–15.32). The symmetrical to the surviving south aisle.
church is of the cross-in-square type, with a dome Lavishly decorated, the walls were originally
approximately 7.5 meters in diameter, rising ap- clad in marble, of which the sanctuary revetments
proximately 24.5 meters off the floor, making it and door frames survive. The marble cornices and
capitals were painted or highlighted in gold leaf.
The vaults were covered with mosaics and the
30
A. H. S. Megaw, “Notes on the Recent Work of the Byzantine floor with opus sectile, and the apse windows
Institute in Istanbul,” DOP 17 (1963): 333–64. For the typikon, were filled with stained glass—the last reflecting
R. Jordan trans., “Pantokrator: Typikon of Emperor John II Komnenos for the close artistic associations with Western Europe
the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople,” in Byzantine in the twelfth century. While the elements of the
Monastic Foundation Documents, eds. J. Thomas and A. Hero, 1st vol. original decoration surviving in situ are limited,
(Washington, DC, 2000), 725–81; R. G. Ousterhout, Z. Ahunbay, and the sense of its ostentation of the interior is sug-
M. Ahunbay, “Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul:
gested by the Pala d’Oro at San Marco in Venice,
First Report, 1997–98,” DOP 54 (2000): 265–70; and R. G. Ousterhout,
portions of which are alleged to have come from
Z. Ahunbay, and M. Ahunbay, “Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek
Camii in Istanbul: Second Report, 2001–2005,” DOP 63 (2010): 235– the Pantokrator’s templon.
56; S. Kotzabassi, ed., The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople, The north church, dedicated to the Theotokos
Byzantinisches Archiv 27 (Berlin, 2013), esp. P. Magdalino, “The Eleousa, was begun shortly after the completion
Pantokrator Monastery in its Urban Setting,” 33–55; and a useful of the south church; it was also of the cross-in-
bibliography, 251–54. square type but smaller, less lavishly detailed, and

FIGURE 15.27
Constantinople,
Monastery of
Christ Pantokrator,
(A) restored plan
of Phase I south
church; (B)
composite plan
(author, after
A. H. S. Megaw,
DOP, 1963)
less carefully constructed, and it is also less well

preserved. As begun, the two were meant to be
distinct elements, both physically and visually, FIGURE 15.28
and in fact, the north church is set at a slightly Constantinople,
different angle than the south church. They were Monastery of Christ
connected by a single door, where their narthexes Pantokrator, south
joined. At the connection, both the north narthex church, interior,
and the gallery above it were equipped with an looking southeast
extra bay, projecting southward to meet the nar- (author)
thex and gallery of the south church. The church
opened to a public street through a portico along
its north wall, and this connected the monastery
to the urban matrix. Four doorways—one in the
narthex and three in the naos—are now blocked,
but the north façade preserves a series of marble
brackets that once must have supported the por-
tico. Unlike the south church, which was set aside
for the exclusive use of the monks, the north
church was open to the outside community and
officiated by a lay clergy.
As construction on the north church pro-
gressed, it was decided to add a third compo-
nent, a funeral chapel dedicated to St. Michael,
whose funerary function will be discussed further

FIGURE 15.29
Constantinople,
Monastery of Christ
Pantokrator, south
church, opus sectile
floor (the Byzantine
Institute and
Dumbarton Oaks
Fieldwork Records and
Papers, ca. late
1920s–2000s,
Dumbarton Oaks,
Trustees of Harvard
University,
Washington, DC)
FIGURE 15.30 below. The chapel was sandwiched between the

Constantinople, two, and this necessitated the removal of the
Monastery of north aisle of the south church. Irregular in
Christ Pantokrator,
plan, the central chapel is covered by twin domes
interior of the
(Fig. 15.30). An outer narthex and courtyard
central chapel
(heroon), looking
were added to the south church in this final ex-
west (Andrei pansion. In short, as the complex grew, it was
Vinogradov) transformed from the mausoleum of the impe-
rial couple to a family mausoleum and ulti-
mately to a dynastic one.
While it makes sense to discuss the Byzantine
buildings as three related stages, careful analysis of
the fabric indicates many subphases; the central
chapel was undertaken shortly after the north
church was begun, with the two finished simulta-
neously. The funeral chapel was designed to be
single domed, with the east dome added only after
the west dome was completed; the exonarthex was
planned with a wooden roof but the design was
changed and vaulting added. Subsequently, the gal-
lery dome was inserted, and the floor beneath it was
eliminated to create a lightwell to illuminate the
inner narthex. While some of these alterations seem
odd by themselves, they represent a step-by-step

process of expansion and enhancement, of “build- the naos, although it was desired to have the
ings in the process of becoming”—a subject we tombs as close as possible in order to gain spirit-
shall return to in the next chapter. Moreover, tech- ual benefit from the regular performance of the
nical details indicate the same workshop was re- mass and the recital of special prayers.35
sponsible for all phases. In the course of eighteen The most common setting for burials was the
years, the Pantokrator was transformed architec- narthex or chapels annexed to it. At the earliest
turally from a single monumental block to a securely dated Middle Byzantine church to sur-
sprawling irregular complex and from a monastic vive from Constantinople, the Theotokos tou
katholikon to a multifunctioning church cluster.31 Libos, dated 907, five marble sarcophagi were
Complexity rather than monumentality would found beneath the narthex floor; others were dis-
have been the dominant visual impression, and covered beneath the narthex floor of the Vefa
this set a standard for subsequent architectural Kilise Camii.36 At St. John of Troullo (tenth cen-
developments (Fig. 15.31). tury) and Christ Pantokrator (1118), arcosolia
Funerary architecture. In the centuries under were provided in the narthex. In several instances,
discussion here, with the increasing importance the significance of privileged burials affected the
of the individual and the family, commemoration building’s design.
played a critical role, and this is often spelled out At the Zygos Monastery on Mount Athos, for ex-
in the monastic foundation documents, known as ample, the cross-in-square church is of Constan-
typika (sing. typikon).32 Because of the common tinopolitan design, perhaps executed by masons
belief that the prayers of the living could benefit from the capital, and dates from the late tenth
the souls of the departed, the significance of com- century (see Fig. 13.28). Over the subsequent de-
memoration lay in the desire for continuing prayers, cades, chapels were added to either side of the nar-
in perpetuum, for the salvation of the benefac- thex, equipped with arcosolia for honored burials,
tors’ souls, as well as those of their relatives and and an exonarthex was added with the tomb of
their descendants.33 Thus, in his Typikon for the the founder beneath its floor.37 In other examples,
Kosmosoteira Monastery at Ferai of 1152, the the building was designed to incorporate funeral
Crown Prince Isaak Komnenos (to be discussed chapels from the inception. At St. Panteleimon at
below) instructs, “Every evening, after the dis- Nerezi, dated 1164, four tiny domed chapels appear
missal of vespers, I want the superior and the rest at the corners of the naos, reflecting Constan-
of the monks to enter [his tomb chamber], and in tinopolitan church design (see Fig. 15.9C). The
front of the holy icons standing there, to pro- eastern two served as the pastophoria, while the
nounce the Trisagion and a certain number of western two, which could only be entered from
Kyrie eleisons for mercy upon my soul.”34 According the narthex, may have been funerary in function.
to Byzantine custom, burials were not allowed in The north chapel included an arcosolium tomb,
probably that of the founder, a Komnenian prince,
31
Discussed further in R. G. Ousterhout, “Contextualizing the
Alexios Angelos-Komnenos.38
Later Churches of Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies Several members of the Komnenian family
and a Few Examples,” DOP 54 (2000): 241–50. had special tombs constructed for themselves in
32
Thomas and Hero, Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents.
35
For much of what follows, see Ousterhout, Master Builders,
33
J. P. Thomas, “In Perpetuum,” 123–35. Note also P. Horden,
119–27.
“Memoria, Salvation, and Other Motives of Byzantine Philan-
thropists,” in Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Islam vor der
36
Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 73–76; V. Marinis, “Tombs and
Moderne. Auf der Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unter- Burials in the Monastery tou Libos in Constantinople,” DOP 63
schieden in religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken und historischen (2009), 147–66.
Transformationen, ed. M. Borgolte (Berlin, 2005), 137–46. 37
Papangelos, “Holy Monastery of Zygos.”
34
For the Kosmosoteira Typikon, see N. P. Ševčenko, trans., 38
See I. Sinkević, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi: Architecture,
“Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the Programme, Patronage (Wiesbaden, 2000); and for what follows, see
Monastery 782 of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera,” in R. G. Ousterhout, “Byzantine Funerary Architecture of the Twelfth
Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, eds. J. P. Thomas and Century,” Drevnerusskoe iskustvo. Rusi i stranii byzantinskogo mira XII vek
A. Hero, 2nd vol. (Washington, DC, 2000), 782–858. (St. Petersburg, 2002), 5–17.

FIGURE 15.31
Constantinople,
Monastery of Christ
Pantokrator,
hypothetical
reconstructions of the
church complex
(Tayfun Öner)
Constantinople. Most famous is the expansion of heroes’ shrine, a term used to compare it to the
the Church of Christ at the Pantokrator monas- imperial mausolea at the nearby Church of the Holy
tery, already introduced, where a unique twin- Apostles. The eastern dome is called “the dome of
domed funeral chapel was added, replacing the the incorporeal,” beneath which lay the bema
initial burials in the narthex (Fig. 15.32). In the of the chapel, equipped for the liturgy, which
Typikon, the chapel is called the heroon, or was celebrated there three days each week. The

FIGURE 15.32
Constantinople,
Pantokrator, central
chapel, plan showing
the extension of the
opus sectile floor from
the naos and the
hypothetical positions
of the imperial tombs
(author)
western part of the chapel, where the tombs were setting of Isaak’s tomb at the Chora is not known,
located, is called “the heroon of the outside,” in- it was likely in the narthex, as the tombs had in-
dicating its separation from the liturgical space.39 itially been at the Pantokrator. Following his ban-
The chapel, then, offers a significant improve- ishment from the capital, Isaak requested various
ment in the setting for burial from the initial sit- fittings from his tomb transferred to his new
uation at the church, when the tombs were iso- foundation at the Kosmosoteira.40 The church
lated in the narthex. The design of the chapel is well preserved, a spacious construction with
brings the imperial tombs into direct relationship Constantinopolitan details: recessed brick con-
with the liturgical focus. In addition to the litur- struction, pumpkin domes, faceted apses, and
gies, the Typikon specifies the daily lighting of large windows (Figs. 15.33 and 15.34). Its large
lamps and commemorative prayers at the tombs dome is framed by two smaller domes above the
of the founders, as well as special commemora- pastophoria and two additional domes above the
tions on Saturdays and on the anniversaries of western corner compartments of the naos.
their deaths. Isaak’s contributions are detailed in the Typikon
The heroon was technically a chapel and not of 1152, in which he specifies that he is to be
the katholikon, and there was thus some freedom interred in the katholikon of the monastery “on
in its design, but the desire for proximity to the the left side of the narthex, there where I made an
liturgical finds other manifestations. John’s brother
Isaak had a tomb prepared for himself about the 40
S. Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)
same time at the Chora Monastery; although the (Munich, 1985); R. Ousterhout and Ch. Bakirtzis, The Byzantine
Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley (Thessaloniki, 2007),
39
Jordan, “Pantokrator,” 756–57. 48–85.

FIGURE 15.33
Ferai, Theotokos
Kosmosoteira, view
from the southeast
(author)
extension to the building on account of the tomb,” Cuttings in the columns indicate the space
and that he wished “the tomb to be divided from could have been closed off by a railing, and inves-
the narthex by the bronze railing,” brought from tigations revealed a blocked door in the western
the Chora.41 How all this fits within the surviving wall. Thus, the monks could have passed through
building is not immediately apparent. The term the railing to recite the Trisagion and Kyrie Eleison
narthex might indicate the now-destroyed vesti- at the tomb, as specified in the typikon, before
bule to the west of the church, and the term exten- leaving through the door. More importantly, the
sion also sounds like it should be outside as well. corner bay was both part of the naos and separate
However, Isaak also mentions an exonarthex, from it. With his tomb set within visual and
where his secretary and servant were to be buried. audial range, Isaak’s soul could benefit from the
The lost western vestibule was more likely the ex- prayers and liturgies performed at the sacred
onarthex, and Isaak’s narthex must be the elon- center of the katholikon, without violating the
gated western part of the church—that is, the ex- prohibition of burial in the naos.
tension is the northwest corner compartment, Another solution is found at the katholikon of
opened up to the naos, but separated from it by the Theotokos Pammakaristos in Constantinople,
the bronze railing. Isaak specifies that no other built sometime in the twelfth century by a certain
burials were to be “inside the church and its John Komnenos, a minor member of the imperial
narthex,” and the major icon of the church was to family.42 In this church, the central dome space
be at his tomb and not in the naos proper. The was enveloped by a U-shaped ambulatory, which
dome above this bay contains an image of the contained the tombs of the founder and members
Theotokos, whom Isaak implores fervently for the of his family (Fig. 15.35). The ambulatory plan
salvation of his soul, and the arch contains a scene
of the Holy Women at the Tomb, a common fu- 42
C. Mango, “The Monument and Its History,” in The Mosaics and
nerary theme. Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul, eds.
H. Belting, C. Mango, and D. Mouriki (Washington, DC, 1978),
41
Ševčenko, “Kosmosoteira.” esp. 5–10.

first seen here proved popular and was repeated in FIGURE 15.34
several later buildings specifically designed for Ferai, Theotokos

burials, notably at the late thirteenth-century St. Kosmosoteira, plan
showing the
John’s at the Monastery tou Libos, an imperial
hypothetical
foundation (discussed in Chap. 24). While
location of the
Ottoman remodelings have obscured many of the founder’s tomb
details of both churches, it is clear that the central (author, redrawn
space was understood as the naos, while the am- after S. Sinos,
bulatory effectively replaced the narthex: indeed, Klosterkirche, 1985)
the narthex at the Pammakarsitos was likely a
later addition, as the cistern that forms the vaulted
substructure for the church extends under the
ambulatory but not under the narthex. With the
aisles separated by columnar screens from the
central domed bay, the ambulatory plan effec-
tively merged burial space and liturgical space in
a compact building of new design.
A final example of funerary concerns affecting
building design takes us far from the capital but
may nevertheless be under its influence. At the
Church of the Virgin at Studenica Monastery in
Serbia, constructed after 1183 by Stefan Nemanja,
the naos adopts the atrophied Greek-cross
plan, developed at the Chora (see Figs. 22.30 and
22.31), but with one critical change: an extra
bay is inserted between the naos and the narthex.
It was there that the royal founder chose to be
FIGURE 15.35
Constantinople,
Theotokos
Pammakaristos
(Fethiye Camii),
hypothetical plan
and elevation of
the twelfth-century
church and its
cistern (shown in
gray on the plan)
(author, after
C. Mango, in
Belting, Mango,
and Mouriki,
Mosaics and
Frescoes, 1978; and
H. Hallensleben,
IstMitt, 1963–64)

buried.43 Like the Kosmosoteira, the church at and that, once introduced, the new forms gained
Studenica was given “an extension . . . on account acceptance and were repeated. While none of the
of the tomb,” bringing it into close visual and examples represents a radical departure from estab-
audial range of the liturgical center. And as with lished architectural forms, they nevertheless dem-
the new design of the Pammakaristos, the new onstrate how architecture could respond to social
design of Studenica proved popular, with similar concerns. And while the last example, the Church
plans developed at other sites in medieval Serbia of the Virgin at Studenica, is not in Constantinople,
for founders’ tombs. it returns us to themes with which we began—
What is significant in the examples just dis- most notably the prestige of the capital. Is the
cussed is that new architectural forms were created extended plan of Nemanja’s church an example of
in order to satisfy the special requirements of burial prestige bias? One wonders if the funerary chapel
at the Pantokrator might have set the example for
43
S. Ćurčić, “Medieval Royal Tombs in the Balkans: An Aspect of the merging liturgical and burial areas within a
the ‘East or West’ Question,” GOTR 29 (1984): 175–94. royal monastic foundation.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN
MASTER BUILDERS AND THEIR CRAFT
T he architectural profession and architectural

practices changed dramatically during the
Transitional Period. As discussed in Chapter 5,
tekton or leptourgos for a carpenter, but the tex-
tual evidence of specialized skills is considerably
less after the Transitional Period than before,
before that time, architecture was often theory suggesting a lack of specialization within the
driven, following the Roman model elaborated by labor force.
Vitruvius in the first century bce. By the Middle The tenth-century Book of the Eparch gives
Byzantine period, however, architecture effectively some evidence of a guild system, although this
had become an illiterate profession, conservatively seems to be for control of profession by the civil
guided by established workshop practices: one authorities rather than for its protection.2 For ex-
learned architecture hands-on, through appren- ample, under normal circumstances, builders could
ticeship in the context of a workshop (ergasterion), not travel but were restricted to practicing within a
not by going to school. As a consequence, when fixed area. Moreover, a workshop was required to
innovation appears, it is usually small in scale, af- complete one job before taking on another, and it
fecting the details but not the overall design. While was held responsible for its works up to ten years
many design and construction practices continued after completion. It is unclear how widespread or
from earlier times, there are some significant long-lasting was its legislation. There is no men-
changes—in addition to the basic change in the tion of the size or makeup of a workshop, al-
nature of the architectural profession.1 though other evidence normally suggests a small
By the Middle Byzantine period, oikodomos team—in distinct contrast to the ten thousand
(builder) was the most common term for master workers at Justinian’s Hagia Sophia, as alleged by
mason and skilled worker. The term mechanikos the semilegendary tenth-century Diegesis.
disappears, and architekton appears only in ar- Design methodology. Design methodology
chaizing contexts. Occasionally the terms maistor had changed in a fundamental way, based on
or protomaistor are used for the master mason. A practice rather than on theory. With the stand-
skilled worker or artisan is called a technites, ardization of building types, innovation was
while an unskilled worker is called an ergates (Fig. often limited to the coordination or manipula-
16.1). Occasionally one finds terms for specialized tion of details, without affecting the basic com-
workers, such as lithoxoos for a stoneworker or ponents of the building type. Thus, design and
1
For much of what follows, see Ousterhout, Master Builders. 2
Koder, To Eparchikon Biblion.
Phokis, Hosios Loukas Monastery, Church of the Panagia, south façade with cloisonné masonry and pseudo-
Kufic patterns (author)
381
FIGURE 16. 1
Mosaic illustrating
the construction of
the Tower of Babel.
San Marco, Venice
(AKG Images)
construction could happen simultaneously. In “in accord with God’s plan” (kata gnomen Theou).
fact, no mention is made of architectural draw- Like land surveys and military camps, buildings
ings; planning seems to have been done on the site, could be laid out with rope measurements, as is

FIGURE 16. 2 Drawings based on details from treatises on siege engines showing the Ram of Hegetor: (A) Vatican Library MS
gr. 1605; (B) Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris MS suppl. gr. 607; (C) drawing based on a detail from a treatise on siege
engines showing a lookout tower, upright (i.e., the elevation) and flattened (i.e., the plan), Vatican Library, Rome, MS. Gr. 1605
(after C. Wescher, Poliorcétique, 1867)
described in the vita of St. Nikon of Sparta: “He provides similar information.5 Heron makes it
began the building having earlier delineated it clear that the source of his information was an
with a rope.”3 For most projects, it seems that ancient treatise by Apollodorus, which he claims
drawings were not used. For example, in the elev- to be following exactly, except for two aspects: he
enth-century vita of the eccentric stylite, Lazarus simplified and updated terminology that might
Galesiotes, the saint directed the construction of a be unintelligible to his reader; and he changed the
new refectory: “When the builders were about to illustrations for the same reasons. What is called a
raise our refectory, our father, standing on top of schema in the original has become a schematismos.
his column, indicating with the fingers of his right Comparing the illustrations of the surviving text
hand, delineated the length and breadth for the with those of another manuscript closer to the
builders.”4 One of the brothers complained that original, we can see that Heron has transformed
the “form of the work”—schematismos tou ergou, conceptual diagrams or technical drawings of a
occasionally translated as “blueprint”—was ab- two-dimensional character into three-dimensional
surdly large for their small community. Only narrative illustrations, including little figures to
with the plan delineated on the ground could such show how they work (Figs. 16.2A and 16.2B). The
an observation on scale be made. One gets the point is that Heron’s audience understood illus-
sense that Lazarus is pointing out the coordinates trations as representational, but they did not un-
from on high, and the brethren are scurrying derstand the diagrammatic nature of an architectural
around to mark them on the site. Taken out of drawing. Indeed, Heron himself might have had
context, the phrase schematismos tou ergou might some difficulty understanding the architectural
sound as if it were referring to a working drawing, drawings. One machine described in the treatise, a
but in context, it does not. sort of extension ladder, was not illustrated, for
The Poliorcetica, a tenth-century treatise on which Heron had to create the drawing; the text
siege engines attributed to Heron of Byzantium, calls for a plan and an elevation (to keimenon kai
to orthomenon), which Heron interpreted as the
3
D. Sullivan, The Life of Saint Nikon: Text, Translation, and
Commentary (Brookline, 1987), 118–19.
4
The Life of St. Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: An Eleventh-Century Pillar 5
D. Sullivan, Siegecraft: Two Tenth-Century Instructional Manuals by
Saint, ed. and trans. R. P. H. Greenfield (Washington, DC, 2000), “Heron of Byzantium” (Washington, DC, 2000), 26–29; C. Wescher,
201–202. Poliorcétique des grecs (Paris, 1867).
CHAPTER SIXTEEN: MASTER BUILDERS AND THEIR CRAFT 383

FIGURE 16. 3 as the diameter of the dome measured from the
(A) Sardis, Church midpoint of its supports. Measurements and ge-
E, plan, showing ometry seem to have been employed in a practical
possible use of
manner, as part of the process of laying out the
quadrature and (B)
building. The dome module could form the basis
the grid system of
the foundations
for the entire plan and for the elevation, either
(after through the application of simple geometric
H. Buchwald, relationships or with a grid system, as is evident
JÖB, 1977) at the Myrelaion in Constantinople or at Sardis
Church E. At the latter, foundations were laid in
a grid, although the excavator suggests the plan
may have been developed with a simple form of
quadrature (Fig. 16.3).6 The masons could have
laid out the plan on the site using very simple
tools, and the same may have been applied to the
elevation as well. Design and construction were
interconnected parts of the same working process,
rather than separate activities, as they are today.
In all periods, there is evidence for working out
the details on site, as, for example, the compass-
inscribed curved lines noted at the Church of the
Holy Cross at Resafa (sixth century); the same
have been observed at the Çanlı Kilise (early elev-
enth century) and at Studenica (late twelfth cen-
tury). At the Çanlı Kilise, the incisions appear on
the wall of the narthex and correspond with the
arch of the entry portal. At Studenica, they appear
on the south wall of the naos and match the de-
tails of the lateral portals (Fig. 16.4). In both ex-
amples, it appears that details of the elevation
flat and upright views—that is, folded and fully were being worked out as the building was being
raised (Fig. 16.2C). constructed.7
Instead of drawings, builders could have relied The use of architectural drawings thus might
on the accumulated experience of a master mason not have been regular practice within Byzantium.
augmented by simple geometry and standard In regions where the standard construction was of
measurements. This can explain why Byzantine brick or mortared rubble, irregularities abound, but
churches tend to be conservative in overall form they could be corrected by copious quantities of
but individualized with small-scale innovations mortar or masked by an external plaster covering.
and manipulation of the details. For example, the Nevertheless, drawings may have been used for
cross-in-square church type had a structural the transfer of plans when some exactness of
system that a builder would have known thor- measurement and detail was desired. At Mount
oughly from experience, but also one that could
be altered to the special necessities of the founda- 6
Buchwald, “Sardis Church E,” 265–99; H. Buchwald, “The
tion in response to the structural requirements, Geometry of Middle Byzantine Churches and Some Possible
liturgical practices, type of decoration, or the Implications,” JÖB 42 (1992): 293–321.
availability of materials. 7
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 64; M. Čanak-Medić and
With a Byzantine foot measuring approxi- D. Bošković, L’architecture de l’époque de Nemanja, I. Monuments de
mately 0.327 meters, many churches have a l’architecture médiévale serbe, Corpus des édifices sacraux (Belgrade,
module of 10, 12, or 15 feet that can be calculated 1986), 98–99 and fig. 12.

FIGURE 16.4
Studenica, Church
of the Virgin,
detail of the south
façade showing
incisions (author)
Athos, for example, the katholika of the Vatopedi (Fig. 16.5).10 More preplanning would have been nec-
and Iviron monasteries are remarkably similar in essary for architecture in finely cut stone and with in-
plan and measurements, suggesting that they were tricate geometry. A thirteenth-century architectural
produced from the same drawings.8 There is some drawing was found, thinly etched on the exterior wall
evidence of the use of drawing in the medieval at Astvansankal (Armenia), that seems to have been a
Caucasus—indeed, drawings may have been more scaled preparatory drawing for the construction of
common in areas where ashlar construction was the the muqarnas vault in the gavit (forehall)—indicating
norm and a greater degree of preplanning was nec- that details of the elevation were determined during
essary. Trdat, the Armenian who rebuilt the dome the construction process (Figs. 16.6 and 16.7).11
of Constantinople’s Hagia Sophia in the tenth cen- Buildings becoming. As Vasileios Marinis as-
tury, knew drawings and models; he is said to have tutely remarks, both buildings and the rituals they
presented a plan and prepared a model for the re- house are “continually in the process of becoming.”12
building of the dome.9 It is noteworthy that Trdat Those sites that have been examined archaeologi-
produced an exact scale copy of the seventh-century cally reveal a constant process of transformation, as
aisled tetraconch church at Zvart’nots’, the church discussed in the previous chapters: the Chora
of Gagkašen (1001–1005) in Ani, suggesting the use (Kariye Camii) and the Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane
of drawings (compare Fig. 12.19 and Fig. 19.11A). A
drawing (rather than a model) appears in the dedi- 10
N. Thierry, “Illustration de la construction d’une église. Les
cation image of the Georgian church at K’orogo sculptures de Korogo (Georgie),” in Atistes, Artisans, et Production
Artistique au Moyen Age, ed. X. Barral I Altet (Rennes, 1983), 1136–39.
11
A. Ghazarian (Kazaryan) and R. G. Ousterhout, “A Muqarnas
Drawing from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of
8
Mamaloukos, “Zetemata schediasmou ste byzantine Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages,” Muqarnas 18
architektonike,” 119–28. (2000): 141–54.
9
Maranci, “The Architect Trdat.” 12
Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 118.

FIGURE 16.5
K’orogo, Church
of the Virgin,
sculpted capital
depicting the
donors with the
plan of the church
(D. Khoshtaria)
FIGURE 16.6
Astvansankal,
detail of the south
wall of the gavit,
showing incisions
(highlighted)
(author)

FIGURE 16. 7 Astvansankal, drawing showing the full pattern of the incisions, with a reconstruction of the pattern, compared
to the plan and elevation of the gavit (A. Kazaryan and R. Ousterhout, Muqarnas, 2000; and Mnatsakanian, Arhitektura, 1952)
Camii) are noteworthy in this respect. The Byzan- that had been rent asunder by prior earthquakes
tine buildings of Constantinople were constantly or had entirely fallen down or were threatening
renewed, refurbished, and expanded. Basil I (r. immediate collapse on account of the fractures
867–86) may have set the tone for later develop- [they had sustained], and to solidity he added
ments with his program of renewal: [a new] beauty.13
Between his warlike endeavors . . . the Christ- The citations that follow are all too brief to deter-
loving emperor Basil, by means of continuous mine if major changes in design were effected. In
care and the abundant supply of all necessary
things, raised from ruin many holy churches 13
Vita Basilii, see Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 192–99.

one example, however, we read that he “repaired The first architect did not plan very well, and
and beautified” the Church of the Resurrection there is no need for me to write of the old
and of the martyr Anastasia at the Portico of building here, but it appears that it would have
Domninus by substituting a stone roof for a been of no great dimensions, if the preliminary
wooden one—clearly a change in design. plans had been carried out, for the foundations
Several eleventh-century churches, described by were moderate in extent and the rest of the
the historian Michael Psellos in his Chronographia, building proportionate, while the height was by
are also instructive in this respect. Romanos III (r. no means outstanding. However, as time went
1028–34), for example, is said to have exhausted by, Constantine was fired by an ambition to
the treasury on the Church of the Theotokos rival all the other buildings that had ever been
Peribleptos: “One on top of another new parts erected, and to surpass them altogether. So the
were added, and at the same time another part area of the church and its precincts was greatly
would be pulled down. Often, too, the work would enlarged. The old foundations were raised and
cease and then suddenly rise up afresh, slightly strengthened, or else sunk deeper. On these
bigger or with some more elaborate variety.”14 latter bigger and more ornate pillars were set
While reflecting the indecisiveness and megaloma- up. Everything was done on a more artistic
nia of the patron, the description suggests that the scale. with gold-leaf on the roof and precious
design of the building was altered several times green stones let into the floor or encrusted in the
during the process of construction, that the plan walls. And these stones, set one above another,
was not fixed from the beginning, and that the in patterns of the same hue or in designs of
masons were willing to reformulate the basic alternate colours, looked like flowers. And as for
design as they built. A similar situation is described the gold, it flowed from the public treasury like
with Michael IV (r. 1034–41) and the Monastery a stream bubbling up from inexhaustible
of the Kosmidion, built in an eastern suburb of springs.
Constantinople, where the emperor’s patronage The church was not yet finished, however,
arose from his hopes that the doctor-saints would and once again the whole plan was altered and
heal his afflictions. Here the description indicates new ideas incorporated in its construction.
the renovation of an older structure: “Actually, not The symmetrical arrangement of the stones was
all of the foundations were laid by Michael, but he broken up, the walls pulled down, and
threw them over a wider area. There had been a everything levelled with the ground. And the
sacred building on the spot before, although it was reason for it? Constantine’s efforts to rival other
not noted for any magnificence, nor was it remark- churches had not met with the complete success
able for its architectural style.” It is an interesting he hoped for: one church, above all, remained
example of something new created in the frame- unsurpassed. So the foundations of another
work of something old. Psellos reserves his greatest wall were laid and an exact circle described
praise and his greatest condemnation for the with the third church in its centre (I must
church of St. George of Mangana, built by the em- admit that it certainly was more artistic). The
peror Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–55); whole conception was on a magnificent and
the text is worth quoting in full: lofty scale. The edifice itself was decorated with
golden stars throughout, like the vault of
In this catalogue of the emperor’s foolish excesses, heaven, but whereas the real heaven is adorned
I now come to the worst example of all—the with its golden stars only at intervals, the
building of the Church of St. George the surface of this one was entirely covered with
Martyr. Constantine pulled down and gold, issuing forth from its centre as if in a
completely destroyed the original church; the never-ending stream. On all sides there were
present one was erected on the site of its ruins. buildings, some completely, others half-surrounded
by cloisters. The ground everywhere was levelled,
14
For texts, see E. R. A. Sewter, trans., Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: like a race-course, stretching further than the eye
The Chronographia of Michael Psellus (Harmondsworth, 1953), 72, could see, its bounds out of sight. Then came a
105–106, 250–53. second circle of buildings bigger than the

first, and lawns full of flowers, some on the FIGURE 16.8
circumference, others down the centre. There Kydna, Basilica,

were fountains which filled basins of water; showing its
transformation
gardens, some hanging, others sloping down to
into a cross-
the level ground; a bath that was beautiful
domed church
beyond description. To criticize the enormous (author, after
size of the church was impossible, so dazzling J.-P. Adam, Revue
was its loveliness. Beauty pervaded every part of archéologique,
the vast creation, so that one could only wish it 1977)
were even greater and its gracefulness spread
over an area still wider. And as for the lawns
that were bounded by the outer wall, they were
so numerous that it was difficult to see them in
one sweeping glance: even the mind could
scarcely grasp their extent.
What little remains of the lavish complex is in-

conveniently buried today beneath a military in-
stallation to the east of Hagia Sophia (see Fig.
15.22). Excavated twice in this century, the com-
plex is better known from Psellos’s description.
Two themes constantly recur in the Vita Basilii
and in the Chronographia: first, an older building
is renewed, and in the process, it is transformed.
Second, the design of a building is altered during
the process of construction to enhance its impres-
sion. I suspect that these themes were not merely
rhetorical devices because it is possible to observe
the same processes in the architecture of the Middle
and Late Byzantine periods.
Several examples may be cited that parallel the
renovations described in the Vita Basilii. At
Kydna in Lycia and at Amorion in Phrygia, ar-
chaeologists have uncovered evidence of the Middle Byzantine buildings provides several par-
transformation of an Early Christian basilica into allels for the churches mentioned by Psellos. In
cross-domed church, with the supports strength- some examples, the transformation is relatively
ened and vaulting introduced, both probably close chronologically to the initial construction
during the tenth century (Fig. 16.8; and see Figs. and in others it seems to have been undertaken
18.1 and 18.2).15 Examples such as these raise the during the construction process. That is to say,
question of what role renovations may have archaeological evidence indicates that design de-
played in the development of new architectural cisions continued to be made long after construc-
ideas or new building types.16 A look at surviving tion had begun. While Psellos gave his descriptions
a negative spin, in fact, they describe actual build-
ing practices—indeed, the construction history of
15
J.-P. Adam, “La basilique byzantine de Kydna de Phrygie,” Revue the Pantokrator church complex, described in the
archéologique 1 (1977): 53–78. preceding chapter, makes very good sense against
16
See Ousterhout, Master Builders, 86–127, for a more detailed the backdrop of the Chronographia (Figs. 15.26
discussion; see also H. Buchwald, “Retrofit—A Hallmark of and 15.27).
Byzantine Architecture?” in Form, Style and Meaning in Byzantine The archaeological evidence from the katho-
Church Architecture (Farnham, 1999), 1–22. likon of the Chora Monastery (Kariye Camii)

FIGURE 16.9 Constantinople, Church of Christ in the Chora Monastery, (A) archaeological plan: Phase 1: sixth century; Phase 2:
ninth century; Phase 3: eleventh century; Phase 4: twelfth century; Phase 5: early fourteenth century; Phase 6: later Byzantine
additions ; (B) reconstructed plans of the eleventh- and twelfth-century phases (P. A. Underwood, Kariye Djami, 1966; and author)
in Constantinople presents a useful example of larger dome. The transformation created a more
change in response to site requirements (Fig. unified and monumentalized interior. The exca-
16.9; and see Fig. 15.13).17 Excavations of the vators blamed the site for this drastic transfor-
1950s indicated not one but two phases of con- mation, so soon after Maria Doukaina con-
struction in the Middle Byzantine period, virtu- struction. The Chora was built on a slope: the
ally identical in the details of their construction, terrain continues to shift downhill, and this has
both utilizing the recessed brick technique. Based caused severe cracking in the surviving build-
on documentary evidence, the earlier phase ing. We can speculate that a large portion of
was attributed to Maria Doukaina, ca. 1077–81. the church collapsed, perhaps as a result of
Only the lower portions of the naos walls and an earthquake, exacerbating the problems of the
the foundations of the tripartite apse could be site. When rebuilt, a more stable structural
identified, but in scale, details, and propor- system was introduced, utilizing piers rather
tions, they suggest a cross-in-square church very than columns.
similar in size and appearance to the contempora- The introduction of a new plan at the Chora in
neous Church of Christ Pantepoptes. The church the twelfth century came as a direct response to
was apparently rebuilt very shortly after this, the practical necessities of the site. The resultant
by Maria’s grandson, Isaak Komnenos, who had atrophied Greek-cross plan was not new to Byzan-
been identified as the new ktetor, rendering a tine architecture, but it had not appeared in main-
date sometime either ca. 1120 or possibly in the stream architecture for at least three centuries.
1140s. The four columns were replaced by four Significantly, this church type became popular in
stout corner piers that, in turn, supported a Constantinople and in areas under its influence.
The katholikon of the Nea Mone on Chios is
17
Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye. attributed to the patronage of Constantine IX

Monomachos in the 1040s (see Figs. 13.12 and patrons were encouraged to renovate older com-
13.13). The innovative vaulting of the naos super- plexes rather than found new ones (see Chap. 24).
imposes an octaconch transition above a square Building materials and construction tech-
lower level.18 Splendidly decorated, the conches niques. The preparation and transportation of
are filled with mosaic, below the tall dome. In building materials was also a matter of great con-
spite of the innovative form, numerous inconsis- cern. A dedicatory inscription, partially preserved,
tencies are evident in the design. The tower-like from the large tenth-century Georgian church at
naos is completely out of scale with the low nar- Oshki gives some indication of the complexity of
thex and sanctuary; the low conch zone blocks the process (Fig. 16.10).19 Written in vermillion in
the view of the main apse mosaic of the Virgin, to the tympanum of the south cross arm, it provides
whom the church was dedicated; and the marble the names of the donors (Bagrat, Duke of Dukes,
revetments are often awkwardly adjusted to the and David Kouropalates) and of the building su-
architectural forms. pervisor (Grigol), the itemized yearly expenses of
The lower levels of the building, including the the monastery for masons, laborers, and oxen
sanctuary and narthex, are identical in detailing (20,000 drama), and payments in kind (5,000
to a cross-in-square church, and archaeological phisos of wine, 250 grivi of grain); although the
examination indicates a change of design in the units of measurement are unclear, the numbers
upper walls of the naos. We may speculate that are impressive. The text also itemizes the materials
with the generous donations of Constantine, a employed in the construction (sand, sandstone,
new design was introduced to create a special set- porous stone, plus 50 liters of iron); the number
ting for mosaic decoration. At Nea Mone, the of masons, laborers, and blacksmiths (seventy);
mosaic zone begins less than 6 meters above the the total numbers of men engaged in building the
floor, in the curved surfaces of the conches. This church (eighty), oxen used in transport (thirty);
may be contrasted with the slightly earlier katho- and mules and pack animals gathering porous
likon of Hosios Loukas, in which the mosaic zone stone (thirty). The unusual quantity of iron may
begins about 10 meters above floor level, and the have been used for the fabrication of tools rather
mosaics are consequently rather difficult to see. than in the building proper. Intriguingly, the text
The proposed change in the design at Nea Mone is presented in the voice of the building supervi-
and its bold new formulation are best understood sor. A visual analog is presented on the lintel of
as a direct response to aesthetic concerns, to the the church at K’orogo, which shows various as-
important mosaic program with its imperial over- pects of preparation, from quarrying, transport-
tones. Like the Chora, Nea Mone stands at the ing, and finishing of the stone to the workers
forefront of a new building type, the so-called taking refreshment (Fig. 16.11).20
island octagon church, which one finds repre- Building materials depended to a large extent
sented elsewhere on Chios—as at Panagia Krina, on local or regional availability. Wall construction
as well as on Crete, on Cyprus, and on the of alternating layers of brick and stone remains the
mainland. standard construction technique in Constantino-
In the preceding examples, standard features ple throughout its history. A typical example, the
remain: the longitudinal axis from narthex to early fourteenth-century Chora, has four courses
sanctuary, the centralized space of the naos below of stone, measuring 64–68 centimeters, alternat-
a dome. Change occurs in the details and in re- ing with four courses of brick, 42–46 centimeters
sponse to the specific requirements of the build- high (see Fig. 24.11). The bricks measure 4–5 cen-
ing: function, location, or decoration. The process timeters thick and are laid close together, whereas
of adaptation continues into the Late Byzantine the mortar joints measure 5–7 centimeters thick.
period, for which there is better evidence, as In many areas of the Byzantine Empire, the mixture
18
Ousterhout, “Originality in Byzantine Architecture”;
19
W. Z. Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic
S. Voyadjis, “The Katholikon of Nea Moni on Chios Unveiled,” Tao, Klarjet‘i, and Šavšet‘i (Stuttgart, 1992), 132–34.
JÖB 59 (2009): 229–42. 20
Thierry, “Illustration de la construction.”

FIGURE 16.10
Oški, Church of
John the Baptist,
detail of the south
portal showing the
dedicatory
inscription in the
lunette (author)
FIGURE 16.11 K’orogo, Church of the Virgin, drawing of the lintel showing the stages in quarrying and construction: (1) a
worker removes a stone from the quarry, carving a channel around the block with a pick; (2) workers with oxen transport a large
stone on a sledge; one leads the oxen while the other uses a lever to position the stone block; (3) two workers prepare mortar in
a trough; (4) workers transport mortar and water; (5) two workers transport a small stone on a sled; (6) a woman brings food
and drink to the workers; (7) two workers shape a large block of stone; (8) three workers carry blocks of stone; (9) the church is
dedicated; (10) the church is presented to the Virgin (after N. Thierry, “Illustration,” 1983)
of brick and stone facing is less regular, without as well as pseudo-Kufic ornament, with bricks cut
leveling courses. Variations abound: the alternating to resemble Arabic script, and other carved brick
courses on brick and stone can vary in number; elements (Fig. 16.12). In Syria, the Caucasus, and
mortar beds can vary in thickness, and decorative parts of Anatolia, ashlar construction predomi-
patterns may be introduced into the wall construc- nates, often with elaborately carved architectural
tion. In Greece, for example, we find cloisonné sculpture, and as a facing on a core of mortared
masonry, with individual stones framed with brick, rubble. The churches and fortifications of Armenia

FIGURE 16. 12 Phokis, Hosios Loukas Monastery, Church of the Panagia, south façade with cloisonné masonry and
pseudo-Kufic patterns (author)
FIGURE 16.13 Ani, city wall, detail of ashlar construction on a mortared rubble core (author)

FIGURE 16.14
Constantinople,
excavated wall near
Terbıyık Sokağı,
detail of recessed-
brick masonry
(author)
are distinctive in this respect; frequently the ashlar lated with arcading, stepped pilasters, and niches,
has sheared away to expose the rubble core (Fig. it would have been increasingly difficult to coor-
16.13). dinate bricks of regular measure with walls of
In Constantinople and areas under its influ- varying thickness. In other examples, the tech-
ence, a construction system known as the recessed nique is used for structural reasons. In many ex-
brick technique appears sometime in the second amples, the technique appears where the brick is
half of the tenth century, with hidden courses of used only as a facing on a rubble core, and the
brick set within wide mortar beds. In standard alternating positions of the bricks would have
practice, the technique is characterized by the recreated a roughened inner surface that would
cessing of alternate courses of brick from the wall have allowed the facing to bond more easily with
surface.21 These are consequently concealed within the core. The logic of this method would compare
the mortar bed, and the joints appear to be consid- with ancient Roman wall construction, where tri-
erably wider than the brick (Figs. 16.14 and 16.15). angular bricks were frequently employed as
Normally, recessed brick will be used in walls in facing, and the inward points similarly created a
conjunction with stone courses, alternating a single roughened surface to bond with the concrete
stone course with broad bands of recessed brick. core. Similarly, the technique could take advan-
The reason for the development of the con- tage of reused or broken bricks by concealing
struction technique may have been aesthetic, them behind the mortar finish.
structural, practical, or a combination of all three. Most likely there is not one single explanation
The characteristic striped effect, created by thin for the appearance and popularity of the tech-
bricks and wide mortar beds, seems to have been nique. Structural, aesthetic, or practical reasons
appreciated, and the technique was often contin- may be more correct in different circumstances.
ued into the arches. As surfaces became articu- But in Byzantine architecture, structure and dec-
oration were closely related. External arcading,
21
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 174–80. for example, could both strengthen the building

FIGURE 16.15 Diagram of the recessed-brick technique,
wall section and façade (author)
at critical points and articulate the façade. Simi- two to three weeks.24 As with earlier production,
larly, recessed brick may have been employed out there is considerable variation in the size of
of both structural and aesthetic considerations si- Byzantine bricks, which usually measure 32–36
multaneously. The technique is also significant to centimeters square and 3.5–5 centimeters thick.
our discussion of workshops and workshop prac- As with other building materials, there is contin-
tices. The standard technique, with broad mortar ued reuse of brick throughout the Byzantine
joints, appears primarily from the late tenth period. At the Pantokrator Monastery in Con-
through the twelfth century in Constantinople, stantinople, for example, much (if not all) of the
but also in areas associated with the capital, either brick is reused from the fifth and sixth centuries.
through the presence of traveling masons or by Stone was also common in construction, and
masons trained in Constantinople. Combined quarries were often located close to the building
with other technical details, the presence of re- site.25 At Constantinople, quarries have been
cessed brick has helped to identify masons from identified outside the walls, in the area of Bakırköy
Constantinople at work in Kiev, Chernigov, (Hebdomon). At the Çanlı Kilise in Cappadocia,
Jerusalem, and elsewhere. the quarry was less than a kilometer from the
Brick production relied on both good sources church. The lintel from the Georgian church at
of clay and kilns, for which better evidence sur- K’orogo illustrates the construction process with
vives from the later centuries.22 Texts mention the quarrying of stone and the transport of it on
both ostrakarioi (clay workers) or keramopoioi sledges to the building site (see Fig. 16.11). How-
(brickmakers): according to Theophanes, the ever, most of the marble quarries that had sup-
reconstruction of the aqueduct system of Con- plied luxury stones used as columns, capitals, and
stantinople in 766–67 required five hundred os- cladding had ceased activity during the Transi-
trakarioi and two hundred keramopoioi.23 At the tional Period. Quarries at Proconnesus Thasos,
Lavra Monastery on Mount Athos and other Dokimion, and elsewhere no longer supplied new
cited examples, the ergasteria for brick produc- marbles, but these could be replaced by the standing
tion were located by the seashore, presumably for ruins of ancient monuments, which were pillaged
ease of transport. Excavated kilns from Greece for building materials. Columns were regularly
and Kievan Rus’ have oval or rectangular plans recycled, and they could be sliced lengthwise to
and a two-level interior, with the fire below and provide revetments.
the bricks stacked above. Based on two twelfth- Reuse of building materials was common
century examples from Smolensk, it is estimated throughout the period. Unlike the early centu-
that a single kiln could produce up to fifty thou- ries when spoliation often had symbolic over-
sand bricks per season, allowing four thousand to tones, in later centuries, reuse was more a matter
five thousand bricks per firing, and the process of of practicality. With the decline of cities, trade,
loading, firing, cooling, and unloading could take and large-scale construction, most quarries for
22
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 128–32; K. Theocharidou, 24
P. A. Rappoport, Building the Churches of Kievan Russia
“Symbole ste melete.” (Aldershot, 1995), 5–53.
23
Theophanes, Chronographia; trans. Mango and Scott, 607–609. 25

FIGURE 16.16 Burgazada, Monastery of the Transfiguration, column shaft partially recarved to be used as a door frame (author)
marble and other luxury stones ceased operation is evident from the excavation of Church E at
in the seventh century, and thus when revet- Sardis (see Fig. 16.3). As with the walls above, the
ments, cornices, closure panels, and other deco- foundations were reinforced with a system of
rative elements of marble appear in later buildings, wooden beams, as have been found at Sardis and
they represent reuse, either in their original form in several sites in Bulgaria and Kievan Rus’.26
or often recarved. Often, the unexposed rear sur- Because of the irregularity of the terrain, the
faces of Middle and Late Byzantine architectural foundations for the churches of Constantinople
sculpture preserve traces of earlier decoration. required extensive vaulted substructures to create
Columns were also commonly reused, either as a level platform for the superstructure. Some-
supporting elements—after all, the standard times these served utilitarian purposes; occasion-
Byzantine four-column church required four col- ally they were used for burials. Because of the lack
umns—or sliced lengthwise to create revetment of a good natural supply of water within the city,
panels and in some rare examples recut as door the substructures almost invariably included cis-
frames (Fig. 16.16). With the depopulation of terns, as they had in earlier centuries. Almost all
cities, the grand marble piles of Antiquity became of the Middle and Late Byzantine churches of
the quarries for later construction. Constantinople were built above cisterns, as in
Constructed of either brick or stone, Byzantine the twelfth-century Pammakaristos (see Fig. 15.35).
foundation systems were dug to bedrock if possi- In some of the better-preserved examples, such as
ble and occasionally cut from the bedrock, often the cisterns below the fourteenth-century funeral
stepped in profile to create a solid base for the chapel at the Chora Monastery, conduits led from
walls above them (see Fig. 18.4). In vaulted build- the roof to collect rainwater (Fig. 16.17).
ings, it became common to lay a grid of founda-
tions that reflected the bay system of the building,
with the intervening spaces packed with rubble, as 26

Lime mortar, with quicklime as an active agent, FIGURE 16.17
continues to be used, but varied in quality.27 Mortar Constantinople,

was prepared on site, mixed in a pit, as is often rep- Chora Monastery,
(top) view into a
resented in scenes of construction (see Fig. 16.1). In
cistern beneath
some volcanic areas like Cappadocia, the use of vol-
the parekklesion;
canic sand in the mortar inadvertently resulted in (bottom) view
an exceptionally hard mortar, similar to Roman into the shaft
concrete. The quality of the mortar deteriorated showing ceramic
in some later constructions; in a few of the Late conduits to drain
Byzantine churches of Thessalonike, for example, it rainwater from
is little better than mud, although finished on the the roof (the
external surfaces with a higher-quality mortar. At the Byzantine
late thirteenth-century Church of St. Panteleimon, Institute and
for example, the mud mortar simply crumbled in the Dumbarton Oaks
Fieldwork
earthquake of 1978, creating a preservation night-
Records and
mare: the building was propped up by extensive
Papers, ca. late
scaffoldings as the mortar beds were cleaned and 1920s–2000s,
the mortar was replaced—an arduous process that Dumbarton Oaks,
took several decades.28 Trustees of
Wooden reinforcement continued to be used Harvard
in Byzantine construction.29 Wooden beams were University,
set within the thickness of the wall, joined to the Washington, DC)
tie beams that spanned arches and vaults. At the
Panagia Krina on Chios, of the late twelfth cen-
tury, wooden beams have been detected at seven
levels within the building, usually with two paral-
lel beams at each level, joined to crossbeams that
may have extended as putlogs for the external scaf-
folding (Fig. 16.18).30 The system continued into
the dome, and beams are visible at the springing
of the window arches. Churches also commonly
had tie beams extending across the interior, at the
springing of the major vaults and critical points in
the structural system, and these would have been
connected to the beams within the walls. In many
27
28
churches, they were considered permanent ele-
Anastylose ton byzantinon kai metabyzantinon mnemeion ste Thessalonike
ments, and they would have been painted and
(Thessalonike, 1985).
decorated where exposed. In a cross-in-square
29
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 184–94. church, tie beams commonly appear immediately
30
A. Koumantos, “Wooden Reinforcement in Byzantine above the capitals—as at the eleventh-century
Masonry: A Rough Guide to Their Position and Arrangement,” Panagia Chalkeon in Thessalonike—effectively
in Against Gravity: Building Practices in the Pre-Industrial World, eds. stabilizing the columns, connecting them to each
R. G. Ousterhout, L. Haselberger, R. Holod, and P. Webster
other and anchoring them to the outer walls of the
(Philadelphia, 2016), 1–32. Online publication of papers from the
2015 Penn Center for Ancient Studies Conference: http://www.
naos (Fig. 16.19). As buildings were extended in
s a s .u p en n .e d u / a n c i en t / m a s o n s / a b s t r a c t s / A g u d o / height, additional tie beams could be introduced
Athanasios%20Koumantos%20-%20Against%20Gravity%20 at the springing of the high vaults, as they appear
paper.pdf; A. Koumantos, “Xulines Domikes Enischuseis ste at the early fourteenth-century Holy Apostles in
Vyzantine Architektonike,” PhD diss., University of Patras, 2018. Thessalonike (see Fig. 25.11).

FIGURE 16.18
Chios, Panagia
Krina, plan and
longitudinal
section, showing
the positions of
wooden
reinforcements
(Athanasios
Koumantos,
“Wooden
Reinforcement,”
2016)
One curious development from the ubiquity of appearance here seems to indicate they were a
the wooden tie beam is the introduction of marble ubiquitous feature of contemporary church archi-
beams in the small Middle Byzantine churches of tecture, their structural role (and potential struc-
the Mani region of the southern Peloponnese (Fig. tural behavior) is misunderstood. In standard
16.20).31 In an isolated area where marble contin- usage, and in the examples noted above, wooden
ued to be quarried, many of the tiny cross-in- tie beams allowed give and take as the building
square churches have intricately carved marble tie settled and with minor earth movements (as dis-
beams, some bearing inscriptions. While their cussed in Chap. 4), and they would have been
connected to the building’s internal skeleton of
31
N. Drandakes, Vyzantina glytpa tes Manes (Athens, 2002). wooden reinforcement. Marble, by contrast, is

FIGURE 16.19
Thessalonike,
Panagia ton
Chalkeon,
interior,
looking east,
with restored
beams
(author)
FIGURE 16.20
Vamvaka (Mani),
Sts. Theodores,
interior looking
east, showing
marble tie beams
(author)

FIGURE 16.21
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
tenth-century
graffiti in a dome
window reveal;
most are formulaic:
“Lord help your
servant [name]”
(author)
rigid and does not work well in tension; the were embellishing the ceiling with their art
marble beams only appear in the central domed when the plank of wood on which the weight of
bay, without connecting to other reinforcement. the entire ladder (klimax) was supported
Any serious movement of the building would broke—and this ladder was skillfully made of
either cause the marble beams to break or damage many pieces of wood—and suddenly collapsed,
the masonry where it was anchored—and there is bringing the artisans down with it. And surely
evidence of both in the Mani churches. they would have been stabbed by these [pieces of
During the construction process, a variety of wood] and crushed to death had not the helping
scaffoldings were used to support the builders on [Photeine] . . . caught everything on a tiny nail,
high (see Figs. 16.1 and 5.7). Although none sur- and checked the collapse, and saved the men.32
vives, several different systems may be hypothe-
sized based on texts, illustrations (usually the con- Here the scaffolding was attached to the struc-
struction of the Tower of Babel, in painting or ture of the building rather than supported from
manuscripts with scenes from the Old Testa- below. In many examples, in fact, the supports
ment), and evidence within the surviving build- were built into the walls, leaving a telltale pat-
ings. Working on scaffolding could be dangerous, tern of putlog holes on the façades. In the scene
and construction accidents are a topos in hagio- of the construction of the Tower of Babel from
graphical literature. Accidents are recorded due to San Marco in Venice, workers ascend ladders to
the collapse of scaffolding (usually called klimax, platforms resting on putlogs, rather than sup-
or ladder). This may have motivated the masons ported from the ground. As the wall construc-
working on the tenth-century rebuilding of the tion rose, new rows of putlogs were added. In a
dome of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople to remarkable reversal of the topos, St. Athanasios
incise graffiti prayers in the damp mortar of the of Athos fell to his death when the “carpenter’s
window reveals (Fig. 16.21). The vita of St. Phote-
ine records an incident at her church in Constan- 32
A.-M. Talbot, “The Posthumous Miracles of St. Photeine,” AB
tinople, where the painters 112 (1994): 85–104.

ladder” (he technike klimax) on which he was
standing collapsed under the weight of him and
six other monks. His biographer blames the col-
lapse neither on the inexperience of the work-
men nor on the freshness of the mortar, suggest-
ing that the scaffolding was resting on beams in
putlog holes and the weight of the workers
caused the wall to break apart.33
Erecting columns could also be problematic.
In an incident related in the vita of Photeine, the
stonemason Katakalos learned the hard way:
Once when he was setting up columns on the

upper floor of a nearby building, and was
pouring lead into a wet hole, the lead was
suddenly splashed backwards by the presence of
moisture, and he suffered terrible damage to his
eyes and was blinded.34 FIGURE 16.22 Constantinople, Theotokos tou Libos, detail
of the east façade during restoration, showing the iron collar
Photeine cures him, but the incident requires beneath the cornice (the Byzantine Institute and Dumbarton
some explanation. The lead was presumably to Oaks Fieldwork Records and Papers, ca. late 1920s–2000s,
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees of Harvard University,
anchor a pin to connect the column to its base, as
Washington, DC)
had been done since ancient times (see Fig. 5.15).
But when poured by Katakalos, it splashed as it
came into contact with moisture: the water va-
porized instantly, and the sudden explosion of
steam propelled the lead upward.
For the large scale of early buildings, structure
was a primary concern, but for the smaller scale
of the later vaults the emphasis shifts to construc-
tion. As vaulted buildings became the norm after
the sixth century, arches and vaults were usually
of brick and normally had wooden tie beams at
their springing, as noted above. At the tenth-
century church of the Theotokos tou Libos in
Constantinople, an iron collar was provided around
the tall apse, buried in the masonry just behind the
cornice (Fig. 16.22). Marble cornice blocks also
could be connected with metal pins or secured with
a system of wooden beams immediately behind
them, so that they could act as structural stabiliz-
ers, as was done at Justinian’s Hagia Sophia and
in many later examples—metal pins may be de-
tected at the Chora dome cornice, as well as in the
Fatih Camii at Enez (Fig. 16.23). In addition,
33
Ousterhout, Master Builders, 186; J. Noret, ed., Vita duae antiquae
Sancti Athanasii Athonitae (Turnhout, 1982), Vita A, chap. 234; FIGURE 16.23 Enez (Ainos), Fatih Camii, detail of the dome
Vita B, chap 66. cornice, showing reused marbles joined by metal cramps
34
Talbot, “Posthumous Miracles.” (author)

FIGURE 16.24 Constantinople, St. George of Mangana, (left) cross-section of the substructure, showing the construction of
arches and vault (R. Demangel and E. Mamboury, Quartier des Manganes, 1939); (right) view into the substructures showing the
springing of an arch (author)
FIGURE 16.25 scale.35 A large barrel vault, for example, would

Kurşunlu (Elegmi), have required substantial formwork. Byzantine
St. Albercius, view masons preferred smaller vaults that could
into the apse,
be constructed of pitched and corbelled bricks
showing conch
without formwork. In the substructures of the
construction
without formwork
Myrelaion Church, the impression of the wooden
(the Byzantine formwork has been left in the mortared surface
Institute and of the vaults. The same appears in the eleventh-
Dumbarton Oaks century substructures at the Mangana in Con-
Fieldwork Records stantinople (Fig. 16.24). There the brick vous-
and Papers, ca. late soirs at the haunches of the arches were corbelled
1920s–2000s, outward, and formwork was only introduced
Dumbarton Oaks, when it became necessary: at that point in the
Trustees of Harvard construction a tie beam was inserted (not at the
University,
springing) to support the formwork for the
Washington, DC)
crown of the arch. The change is clearly evident,
as the mortared intrados preserves the imprint of
the wooden formwork.
In fact, most vaults in secondary spaces were
clearly laid without formwork, with the vaults
subdivided into smaller, interlocking segments.
Similar patterns often appear in conches and half-
domes, which were subdivided into triangular
sections (Fig. 16.25). These are sometimes (incor-
rectly) called “decorative brickwork,” but there is
a clear constructional logic to them. Because the
scale of most Byzantine churches was small, the
wooden chains that formed tension rings were vaults would have required little or no formwork.
built into virtually every Byzantine dome, often Often this was limited to the arches that divided
still evident in the dome windows. the space into smaller bays, where the bricks were
Byzantine vaults could have been constructed
with or without formwork, depending on their 35

FIGURE 16.26 Constantinople, Chora Monastery, a ribbed dome and a pumpkin dome, covering the pastophoria (the
Byzantine Institute and Dumbarton Oaks Fieldwork Records and Papers, ca. late 1920s–2000s, Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees of
Harvard University, Washington, DC)
laid in as radiating voussoirs, whereas in the groin have added the necessary stability for unsup-
or domical vaults, the courses of brick were laid ported construction.
close to horizontally—in effect, they were cor-
belled. In the substructures at the Mangana, both ,
the radiating arches and the corbelled vaults are
evident, and the rough mortar impression on the With rare exception, Byzantine church architec-
arch intrados shows exactly where the formwork ture did not enjoy the same prestige as mosaic or
appeared, supported above the tie beam (see Fig. painting. And, with rare exception, Byzantine
16.24). The packing of the dead space behind the masons remain anonymous and professionally il-
vaults with amphorae was also common. Many literate. While the Iconoclast debates produced a
of the domes were laid without formwork or significant body of literature that informs our
with minimal formwork (Fig. 16.26). A ribbed interpretation of religious art, we have nothing
dome could have been laid with formwork only similar for Byzantine religious architecture. There
for the ribs. Normally they are quite precise in is no text that addresses architectural practices
their construction, whereas the webs between directly. Nevertheless, the scattered references
them are not. A pumpkin dome—formed by a that appear in saints’ vitae, ekphraseis, and other
series of interlocking curved surfaces—could works of Byzantine literature can be augmented
have been built without any formwork. Actually, by the careful examination of standing remains to
the geometry of a pumpkin dome would have provide a glimpse into the lives of Byzantine
created a uniquely rigid form, and this would builders, their craft, and their materials.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL STYLES I

Middle Byzantine Greece and Macedonia
C ertain features in Middle Byzantine church

design are almost universal, such as the cen-
tralized, domed plan and the three-part sanctuary.
vita, the ascetic saint built the church himself
with the assistance of a few followers on a site
plagued by demons. Both the presence of demons
While some plans may have been imported from and the do-it-yourself nature of the enterprise
major centers, construction tended to be local: al- may explain the crudeness of the construction,
though we might occasionally find masons from the which is heavy, rubbly, and without ornament,
capital working on special projects in the provinces, but its sophisticated plan comes as something of a
under normal circumstances in this period, they did surprise. A five-domed church with the domes ar-
not travel. Thus, regional workshops developed dis- ranged on a Greek-cross plan, it thus replicated
tinctive techniques and styles. The architecture of the basic configuration of the Holy Apostles in
the so-called Helladic School of Athens, Attica, and Constantinople, albeit on a considerably smaller
the Peloponnese, for example, contrasts with north- scale—indeed, the entire building would have fit
ern developments around Thessalonike and into under the main dome of the Holy Apostles. More
Macedonia, areas often strongly associated with significant is the elaboration of the five bays: the
Constantinople. These developments occur side by crossing is a cross-in-square unit with tiny corner
side with less sophisticated constructions, seemingly compartments, while the arms of the cross are tre-
without influence from the major centers. foil. The western bay may have functioned as the
narthex—the building originally lacked one—
, while the eastern triconch is framed by pastopho-
ria, forming a standard Middle Byzantine tripar-
Northern Greece and Macedonia. One of our tite sanctuary. The dedication to St. Andrew (who
earliest examples remains one of the most prob- was buried at the Holy Apostles) suggests that the
lematic. The Church of St. Andrew at Peristera, in design may have come from Constantinople. But
the hills outside Thessalonike, was erected by St. if so, what was the prototype? If it followed the
Euthymios the Younger, ca. 870–71 (Figs. 17.1 Justinianic model, the five-domed design was
and 17.2; and see Fig. 15.9D).1 According to his
A.-M. Talbot, trans., “Life of Euthymios the Younger,” in Holy Men of
1
N. K. Moutsopoulos, Peristera, ho oreinos oikismos tou Chortiatē kai Mount Athos, eds. R. P. H. Greenfield and A.-M. Talbot (Cambridge,
ho Naos tou Hagiou Andrea (Thessalonike, 1986); A. Alexakis, ed. and MA, 2016), 84–97; Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 339–40.
Stiris, Hosios Loukas Monastery, katholikon, interior, looking into vaulting (author)
405
FIGURE 17.1
Peristerai, Church
of St. Andrew, view
from the north
(author)
FIGURE17.2
Peristerai,
Church of St.
Andrew, interior,
looking south
(author)

FIGURE 17.3
Thessalonike,
Church of
Panagia ton
Chalkeon,
view from
the south
(author)
dramatically updated with a standard Middle FIGURE 17.4
Byzantine cross-in-square unit at its core, framed Thessalonike,

by elaborate cross arms. Almost contemporane- Church of Panagia
ton Chalkeon,
ous with St. Andrew was the Nea Ekklesia, dis-
plans at the ground
cussed in Chapter 15, which Basil I built inside
floor and gallery
the Great Palace in Constantinople. Now lost, the levels (after S.
Nea is described as five domed. Although its Ćurčić, Architecture
plan remains uncertain, the idea of a five-domed in the Balkans,
church was clearly in the air at this time and per- 2010)
haps indicative of prestige.
As Thessalonike emerged as the second city of
the Byzantine Empire, we find good evidence of its
cultural associations with Constantinople, while at
the same time it became an architectural center in
its own right—the regional impact of Hagia Sophia
has already been noted. The only surviving Middle
Byzantine church in the city is a private founda-
tion, built by a certain Christophoros, holding the
title of protospatharios, katepan of Longoubardia.
The church known as the Panagia ton Chalkeon is
dated to 1028 by an inscription that fails to give its
dedication (Figs. 17.3 and 17.4).2 Christophoros’s
arcosolium tomb breaks through the wall on the
2
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 371–73; M. Paissidou, “Panagia Photographs and Drawings of the British School at Athens (1888–1910),
ton Chalkeon,” in Impressions: Byzantine Thessalonike through the ed. A. Mentzos (Thessalonike, 2012), 126–35.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL STYLES I 407

FIGURE 17.5
Kastoria, Church
of St. Stephen,
view from the
southeast (author)
north side of the naos. The church shares many ture seems to develop in isolation, with small, heavy,
features with its Constantinopolitan counter- vaulted basilicas. At St. Stephen, probably of the
parts: a cross-in-square plan of moderate size (11.5 tenth century, the nave is covered by a tall barrel
by 19 meters overall), with the dome rising above vault with small clerestory windows (Fig. 17.5). The
columns, domed subsidiary spaces on the gallery low side aisles join the nave through simple arcades
level, and façades articulated by stepped pilasters resting on piers. The narthex includes a gallery, cov-
that correspond to the internal divisions, brick ered by a quadrant vault, with windows overlooking
construction—including recessed brick on the the nave. Construction is of a rough cloisonné of
east façade. At the same time, forms are heavier, brick and stone. The Church of the Anagyroi, prob-
windows are smaller, and there are details unfa- ably of the middle of the eleventh century, is similar
miliar from the capital: gables atop the cross arms in plan, scale, and construction, although without
projecting above the roof, two levels of windows the narthex gallery (Fig. 17.6). While part of the ter-
in the naos dome, windows alternating with ritory the Byzantine army reconquered from the
niches in the minor domes, and minor apses sem- Bulgarians in 1018, political events seem to have had
icircular on the exterior. Painted decoration of the no effect on the architectural developments.
interior follows the Middle Byzantine program, Similarly, basilicas continued to be constructed
in a style similar to that at Hosios Loukas. long after they had gone out of fashion. At Servia
At the opposite extreme, there are a variety of and Verroia, for example, they functioned as ca-
churches in the region that evince no associations thedrals—apparently in the absence of Early
with the major currents of the period. Kastoria, pic- Christian basilicas to serve in that capacity. Servia,
turesquely set on a lake in the north of Greece, is a now in ruins, was a simple, three-aisled affair, with
case in point.3 While relatively affluent, its architec-
3
A. K. Orlandos, “Ta vyzantina mnemeia tes Kastorias,” ArchBME 4 Kastoria: Dates and Implications,” ArtB 62 (1980): 190–207; Ćurčić,
(1938): 3ff; A. Wharton Epstein, “Middle Byzantine Churches of Architecture in the Balkans, 313–15.

FIGURE 17.6
Kastoria,
Church of the
Anagyroi, view
from the
southeast
(author)
piers rather than columns as the major supports.4

Verroia was more complicated in its design and
is now much altered, although it can be recon-
structed as three aisled, with alternating supports
and a transept—features that recommend St. De-
metrius in Thessalonike as its model (Fig. 17.7).5
More indicative of the expanded Byzantine
presence is the Church of the Eleousa at Veljusa,
in North Macedonia, constructed in 1080 by
Manuel, Bishop of Strumica, who had been sent
from Constantinople (Fig. 17.8; and see Fig.
13.21).6 Intended to be his burial chapel, his tomb
FIGURE 17.7 Verroia, Old Metropolis, reconstructed plan
was set into an arcosolium in the narthex. In con-
(redrawn after A. Papazotos, Veroia, 1994)
trast to its small size—13 meters in overall
length—it is remarkably complex and sophisti-
cated in its design. The naos is a domed tet- thex is square, expanded by arcosolia to the sides,
raconch, its eastern arm forming the bema, with and is also domed. A tiny subsidiary chapel joins
tiny niches replacing the pastophoria. The nar- to the south side, part of the original construc-
tion, a reduced version of the already small naos,
similarly topped by a dome. Turning to the exte-
4
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 308–11. rior, the undulating façades are detailed with
5
Th. Papazotos, E Veroia kai oi Naoi tes (Athens, 1994), 164–69. stepped pilasters framing doorways, windows,
6
P. Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa. Manastir Sv. Bogorodica Milostiva vo and blind arcades, with both rectangular and
Seloto Beljusa krai Strumica (Skopje, 1981); Ćurčić, Architecture in semicircular recesses. The domes are uniformly
the Balkans, 406–407. tall, raised on attenuated drums, with colonnettes

FIGURE 17.8
Veljusa,
Church of
the Virgin
Eleousa,
view from
the southeast
(author)
at the corners, multiple setbacks, and tall, thin and see Fig. 15.9C).7 While laid out on a slightly
windows. The interior is decorated with elegant trapezoidal plan, the tiny building has a five-
frescoes and an opus sectile floor. Construction is domed plan, with the cruciform naos framed by
primarily of brick, laid in the recessed brick tech- domed corner compartments. Because of the
nique characteristic of Constantinople, its exte- small scale, the drums of the corner domes are
rior surface regularized with a layer of plaster square. The eastern domed compartments open
painted to replicate the masonry details. Where into the bema and are pastophoria, while the
decorative brick patterning occurs, on the lateral western corner compartments open only from
walls of the narthex, these, too, are regularized in the narthex and seem to have been funerary in
the painted plaster. What was the motivation for function—that to the north for the tomb of the
such an expensive project? Perhaps the personal founder. The construction is a rough mixture of
expression of its patron, marking his Constanti- brick and stone—presumably by local masons,
nopolitan identity in architectural form, as did although this may have been originally plastered
his near contemporary, Theophylact of Ohrid, in on the exterior; windows and arches are framed
his written letters. It may also be in part an asser- with setbacks. The wall paintings are of excep-
tion of the Byzantine presence in the region. tional sophistication and must be the work of an
An expression of a Constantinopolitan iden- imported artist, clearly indicative of Alexios’s cul-
tity may be the best explanation for two provin- tural connections. The incorporation of subsidi-
cial churches whose patrons not only came from ary chapels and the five-domed plan recall the ar-
the capital but also were members of the imperial chitecture of the capital, as does the concern for
family. At Nerezi, near Skopje (North Macedo- privileged burial.
nia), the Church of St. Panteleimon was built in
1164 by a certain Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a
minor member of the reigning imperial family, 7
I. Sinkević, “Alexios Angelos Komnenos: A Patron without History?”
about whom little is known (Figs. 17.9 and 17.10; Gesta 35 (1996): 34–42; I. Sinkević, Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi.

FIGURE 17.9
Nerezi, Church
of St.
Panteleimon,
view from the
south (author)
FIGURE 17.10
Nerezi, Church
of St.
Panteleimon,
interior, looking
southeast
(author)

The monastic Church of the Panagia Kosmo- century, spreading subsequently to northern Greece
soteira at Ferai (in Greek Thrace), dated by its and the Balkans (see Figs. 13.17–13.19).9 There
typikon to 1152, exhibits many of the same con- were also a number of cross-in-square churches
cerns (see Figs. 15.33 and 15.34).8 Although earlier constructed on Mount Athos. Most import of
than Nerezi, it is also more closely connected to these was the katholikon of the Zygos Monastery,
Constantinople, its design more sophisticated. built ca. 1000 and measuring approximately 11 by
The monastery was founded by the Sebastokrator 19 meters. Although in ruins, the church bears all
(Crown Prince) Isaak Komnenos, brother of John the hallmarks of Constantinople, including the
II, following his final exile from the capital, to be elongated plan, with the tripartite sanctuary ex-
the setting of both his retirement and his tomb. A tended from the cross-in-square unit, pilasters
variation of the five-domed, cross-in-square type, with setbacks articulating the facades, faceted
its plan measures approximately 15 by 20 meters, apses, construction in the recessed brick technique,
although the building seems originally to have and an inlaid marble floor (see Fig. 13.28). As at
had an ambulatory that no longer survives. The Lavra, a chapel connected to the narthex may have
spacious interior has a tripartite sanctuary to the contained the tomb of the founder. There are sev-
east, with the bema separated from the domed eral other cross-in-square churches at Mount Athos
pastophoria by thick walls pierced by arched as well, although smaller in scale, but quite similar
openings. On the west side, the domed corner in detail. As with the Athonite triconch, the Holy
bays are separated from the attenuated western Mountain may have played a role in the dissemi-
cross arm by thin coupled columns. nation of the building type.
Construction is in the recessed brick tech- The Helladic School. Further south in Greece,
nique, reinforced with internal wooden chains. an architectural resurgence corresponds to the
The apses are faceted, detailed with niches and period of prosperity following the Byzantine re-
brick decoration. Windows are large, with three- conquest of Crete from the Arabs in 961, closely
light windows in the cross arms and mullioned followed by the military interventions in the Bal-
windows in the apses. The domes are all pumpkin kans by Basil II, who celebrated a triumph in
domes, with scalloped interiors. Almost all details Athens in 1018. Hundreds of churches survive
in design and construction find good parallels in across Attica and the Peloponnese—more than
Constantinople. The only exception may be the two dozen in Athens alone—many of them small
curious coupled columns in the nave, but the and domed and distinctive in their architectural
shafts are spolia, too small for the capitals, prob- style. In 1916, the French scholar Gabriel Millet
ably doubled to compensate for their size. To in- published his dissertation, entitled L’école grecque
crease their stability, iron tie rods extend from dans l’architecture byzantine.10 In it, he offered an
above the column capitals to the outer walls. The assessment of the construction techniques and
use of metal in a structural capacity is unusual in stylistic features of the architecture of much of
Byzantine architecture; elsewhere in the church, mainland Greece, today often called the Helladic
wooden bracing was used. School, which he set in contrast to those of Con-
The monastic communities of Mount Athos stantinople. By “school,” he meant something
have already been introduced. Although located like a school of fish—which cluster together be-
close to Thessalonike, the monasteries on the cause of their similarities—rather than an educa-
Holy Mountain received significant patronage tional institution: architectural training came
from the capital, and in many ways the architec- through participation in a workshop and not in a
ture reflects that connection. The “Athonite type” proper school. More recently it has been termed
church, with lateral apses or “choirs”—whether a
local creation or an import—found great popu-
larity on the Holy Mountain, already evident at
Great Lavra, Iviron, and Vatopedi by the eleventh
9
Mylonas, “Le plan initial”; updated by Mamaloukos, To
Katholiko; Mamaloukos, “A Contribution.”
8
Ousterhout and Bakirtzis, Byzantine Monuments, 48–85. 10
G. Millet, L’école grecque dans l’architecture byzantine (Paris, 1916).

the “Helladic Paradigm.”11 Whatever we call it, more often they are imports from exotic locales,
there is a remarkable consistency to the architec- notably Fatimid Egypt. Carved marble detailing
ture. Major planning types, such as the cross-in- and the use of spolia are also common. Walls
square type and the domed octagon type, probably appear as flat, decorated surfaces, with little artic-
originated in Constantinople but were introduced ulation; windows tend to be small.
into Greece in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Within the Helladic paradigm, however, we
with what may be the earliest examples of both find little influence beyond the region, suggesting
types found at Hosios Loukas Monastery: the that unlike the masons of Constantinople, the
Panagia Church of the mid-tenth century and the Helladic workshops did not travel widely. All the
katholikon of the early eleventh (see Figs. 13.8 same, they remained open to new features and
and 13.23). Both types appeared shortly thereaf- planning types introduced from the outside—
ter in Athens: the cross-in-square in the late tenth they appropriated and assimilated from near and
century at Mone Petrake, for example, which has far, but they did not have a significant impact
a number of distinctively Constantinopolitan fea- beyond mainland Greece. That said, the continu-
tures, and the domed octagon in the early to mid- ity of the distinctive Helladic features into the
eleventh century, at Soteira Lykodemou.12 There thirteenth century (when the region was taken
are many varieties of both types in the Pelopon- over by “Franks” from Western Europe) and
nese, as, for example, domed octagons at Chris- beyond indicates the strength of the regional
tianoupolis and Monemvasia or the many small identity represented by these architectural forms
cross-in-square churches of the Mani. The cross- (about which, see Chap. 23).16
in-square took on a variety of forms, often chal- Within this group of monuments, there are
lenging the typological distinctions between cross- few securely dated examples. Almost all of those
in-square and cross-domed, and workshops must just mentioned are insecurely dated, with their
have been able to build following (and adapting) a chronology determined by a combination of sty-
variety of different planning schemes.13 listic features and historical circumstances, inso-
More than the typology, however, the Helladic far as they can be reconstructed.17 Millet’s analysis
churches are distinguished by their external fea- of the architecture emphasized its taxonomy, and
tures, which include cloisonné masonry in the this approach has dominated the scholarship—
wall construction, with each squared block of and perhaps rightly so, for without better evi-
sandstone outlined in brick, often combined with dence for context or chronology we have little else
dogtooth friezes—that is, with bricks set at 45- to go on. All the same, the inventiveness of these
degree angles, both as horizontal bands and as churches is best expressed in the accumulation of
window frames.14 Pseudo-Kufic masonry, dis- decorative details, rather than in larger issues of
cussed below, seems to have been introduced at design.
the Panagia Church at Hosios Loukas, and it ap- The plans and typologies of the Hosios Loukas
pears commonly thereafter (see Fig. 16.13). Other churches have been already introduced, but the
forms of carved brick decoration are also em- exceptional construction and masonry decoration
ployed. By the early eleventh century, glazed ce- of the Panagia merit a detailed examination (see
ramic bowls appear as decorative insets in the Figs. 16.13 and 13.23). With the exception of a
apse surfaces, dome drums, and gables.15 While tall arch marking the cross arm on the south
sometimes the bowls are of local production, façade, the façades are essentially flat, enlivened
with a variety of decorative patterns in masonry.
11
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 413.
Some large, reused stones appear at the base of
the walls, but much of the wall construction is of
12
13
M. Kappas, “Eparmoge.”
14
For construction techniques, see G. Velenis, Ermeneia tou 16
G. Page, Being Byzantine: Greek Identity before the Ottomans
exoterikou diakosmou. (Cambridge, 2008).
A. H. S. Megaw, “Glazed Bowls in Byzantine Churches,”
15 17
A. H. S. Megaw, “The Chronology of Some Middle Byzantine
DChAE 4 (1964): 145–62. Churches,” BSA 32 (1931–32): 90–130.

brick and stone laid in the cloisonné technique. 13 meters across, with apses on the main axis and
In the upper walls, individual courses alternate niches filling out the corners—those to the east
with dogtooth friezes, which also extend to frame functioning as pastophoria, behind the templon.
the windows. On the upper east walls are bands A narthex joins to the west side. The unique plan
of pseudo-Kufic inscription in brick, imitating a presents something of a puzzle. Perhaps it was
stylized Arabic script, and individual letters originally designed as an octagon domed church
appear framed in the cloisonné courses. Marble and subsequently modified with a smaller dome.
decoration appears throughout the building: the In this respect, comparison with Armenian mon-
interior has capitals with stylized leaves, a tem- uments, such as Vagarashapat or Aght‘amar, is
plon with carved decoration, although—oddly— useful. Indeed, without the columns, the interior
no cornices; external decoration included inlaid of Holy Apostles compares favorably with Vagar-
marble panels and colonnettes on the dome shapat and its date corresponds to the revival of ar-
drum, as well as cornices carved with pseudo- chitecture in the Caucasus (see Figs. 12.19, 12.20,
Kufic patterns, imitating a stylized Islamic script. 19.2, and 19.3). The Kamariotissa on Chalke (out-
Pseudo-Kufic decoration appears for the first side Constantinople) indicates the adoption of
time in an architectural context at Hosios Loukas, Armenian building types in the capital in this
used in the brick courses as decorative emblems period as well (see Figs.15.12B and 15.21). Perhaps
and friezes, as well as patterning on the cornices.18 it is best to see the Holy Apostles as an example of
Sometimes single words such as “Allah” may be the Helladic builders’ abilities to assimilate and
discerned, but more often than not, it is no more combine architectural elements from a variety of
than pseudo-writing, and its appearance may be disparate sources. Like the Kamariotissa, the con-
at first puzzling. Several reasons for its introduc- struction is purely regional, with cloisonné ma-
tion have been put forward: it might represent a sonry, dogtooth bands, pseudo-Kufic decoration,
triumphal appropriation of Islamic forms related carved marbles, and reused blocks in the lower
to the Blessed Luke predicting the Byzantine re- levels—details all comparable to the Panagia at
conquest of Crete; it might also be viewed as sacred Hosios Loukas. The two-columned cross-in-square
writing, either confusing Arabic with Hebrew, or church of Iosonos and Sosipatros on the island of
perhaps associated with the language of the Church Kerkyra shares these construction features as well.
of the East; it might also be understood as magical It may be the product of Attic masons, indicative
writing—indecipherable charakteres with apotro- of the strength of the regional workshops by ca.
paic power. Any or all of these might be applica- 1000.20
ble to its appearance at Hosios Loukas; in any The uniqueness and sophistication of the
case, pseudo-Kufic appears commonly in Hel- katholikon of Hosios Loukas present one of the
ladic architecture of the Middle Byzantine period great mysteries of Byzantine Greece. There is no
after this time, perhaps as nothing more potent indication of hesitancy or experimentation in
than ornament. either its design or its execution—all details are
The Church of the Holy Apostles, built in the carefully coordinated (Figs. 17.14 and 17.15; and
Athenian Agora ca. 1000, picks up on many of see Figs. 13.8 and 13.23). And yet there is nothing
the features first introduced at the Panagia at even vaguely comparable in the earlier architec-
Hosios Loukas and is an early representative of the ture in Greece.21 Measuring 16 by 28 meters over-
architectural revival in Athens (Figs. 17.11–17.13).19 all, with a dome 8.5 meters in internal diameter,
Although its central dome is supported above the katholikon is also out of scale with local pro-
four freestanding columns, it is set within a circle duction. Who were its patrons? Where did its
rather than a square, measuring approximately design come from? Its builders? Its mosaicists and
painters? Its materials? Even its foundation date
18
G. C. Miles, “Byzantium and the Arabs: Relations in Crete and
the Aegean Area,” DOP 18 (1964): 20–32; Walker, “Pseudo-
Arabic ‘Inscriptions.’” 20
19
A. Frantz, The Church of the Holy Apostles, The Athenian Agora 20 21
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 386; but see Chatzidakis, “A
(Princeton, 1971); Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 375. propos”; Oikonomides, “The First Century.”

FIGURE 17.11
Athens,
Church of
the Holy
Apostles,
view from
the south
(author)
FIGURE 17.13
Athens, Church of
the Holy Apostles,
interior, looking east
(author)
FIGURE 17.12 Athens, Church of the Holy Apostles, plan

(after A. Frantz, Church of the Holy Apostles, 1971)
goes unrecorded. While hotly debated, it seems

most likely that the design and artisans came from
Constantinople—possibly patronage as well. The
best guess on the date is either 1011 or 1022, and
perhaps the imperial presence of Basil II in 1018
could have had something to do with it—indeed,

FIGURE 17.14
Stiris, Hosios
Loukas
Monastery,
katholikon,
south façade
(author)
this is the time when connections with the impe- The project was likely overseen by a Constanti-
rial capital were the closest. The popularity of the nopolitan master, although the construction, of
tomb of the Blessed Luke as a pilgrimage destina- large stone blocks mixed with brick, finds no com-
tion could also have encouraged wide-ranging fi- parison in the capital and may be the work of local
nancial support for the project, both regional and masons. Even for local construction the use of mate-
imperial—curiously undocumented for an un- rials is unusual, but the preponderance of large stone
dertaking of this magnitude. may be attributed to structural considerations, for

FIGURE 17.15 Stiris, Hosios Loukas Monastery, katholikon, interior, looking into vaulting (author)

FIGURE 17.16
Athens, Panagia
Lykodemou, view
from the southwest
(author)
the skeletal nature of its structural system is critical

to the design of the building. With the exception of
the dome, raised above squinches, the structural
system employs groin vaults, rather than the more
common barrel vaults. Structurally, a groin vault ad-
justs the weight and thrust of the vault to the four
corners, eliminating the necessity for bearing walls.
By shifting to a system of point support—much as
the architects of Hagia Sophia had done—wall
thicknesses could be reduced or even eliminated: the
open nature of the south façade is particularly re-
vealing in this respect. Natural lighting dramatically
enhances the impression of the interior, as it shim-
mers across surfaces of mosaic and marble.
That openness and structural daring stand very
much in contrast to the other Helladic churches of
similar design. The Soteira Lykodemou in Athens,
for example, is a smaller-scale (perhaps three-
quarter scale) version of the Hosios Loukas katho-
likon, measuring approximately 13.5 by 19.3
meters overall (Figs. 17.16 and 17.17).22 Similarly,
it combined a domed-octagon core with transept
wings and subsidiary spaces on two levels. While
Ch. Bouras, “The Soteira Lykodemou at Athens. Architecture,”

22 FIGURE 17.17 Athens, Panagia Lykodemou, plan (after
DChAE 25 (2004): 11–24. Ch. Bouras, DChAE, 2004)

FIGURE 17.18
Daphne
Monastery,
katholikon, view
from the northeast
(author)
built shortly after the katholikon, it is missing Above this, a marble string course and a band of
both the structural sophistication and the degree dogtooth mark the transition to regular cloisonné
of openness. Its construction details seem to masonry. The windows, with double or triple
follow those of the Panagia instead, with an em- openings, rise above the dado as well, set within
phasis on the decorated mural surface. The katho- arches framed by dogtooth. Decoration is re-
likon of Daphne Monastery, on the outskirts of strained, limited to a meander pattern on the
Athens, built ca. 1080, follows a similar plan, and upper main apse. Like Hosios Loukas, the tran-
although it is similar in scale to Hosios Loukas sept wings are outlined by tall, projecting arches.
(approximately 14 by 27.5 meters, with a dome Small domed churches continued to be built
7.5 meters in diameter), it simplifies the interior in Athens through the tenth and eleventh centu-
to a single level.23 While the lavish decoration of ries in a similar style. At the Kapnikarea, of the
marbles and mosaics has garnered deserved atten- third quarter of the eleventh century, for exam-
tion, Daphne similarly lacks the openness of the ple, the cloisonné masonry is more regularized,
Hosios Loukas katholikon (Figs. 17.18 and 17.19). and the dogtooth is more limited in use, defining
Its construction technique is noteworthy, how- a dado, below which are large reused blocks
ever, for it systematized and regularized elements organized to form crosses. Pseudo-Kufic is lim-
seen in the earlier Helladic churches. Large stone ited to the apse and southern cross arm, while the
construction forms a dado zone on the lower dome—like that at the nearby Holy Apostles—
walls, with stones occasionally set to form crosses. follows a standard “Athenian” type.24 Unusual
23
G. Millet, Daphni (Paris, 1899); Ćurčić, Architecture in the 24
N. Gkioles, “The Church of the Kapnikarea in Athens: Remarks
Balkans, 388–90. on Its History, Typology and Form,” Zograf 31 (2006–07): 15–27.

FIGURE 17.19
Daphne
Monastery,
katholikon, view
into the vaulting
(author)
here is the addition of a porticoed outer narthex, also included new or recently carved panels. It is
probably from the early twelfth century (Fig. 17.20). unclear how we should interpret this curious
While following the church’s construction details building: does it represent the revival of interest in
and even including a few pseudo-Kufic elements, the classical past in twelfth-century Athens—com-
the curious gabled roofline and projecting porch parable, for example, to the sermons Michael Cho-
seem curiously Caucasian—comparable to the niates delivered in the Parthenon—or something
tenth-century portico and porch at Oshki in the else entirely? One recent interpretation dates the
Tao-Klarjeti (see Fig. 19.21).25 building considerably later, suggesting that it re-
The so-called Little Metropolis in Athens, prob- flects Renaissance rather than Byzantine architec-
ably dedicated to the Theotokos Gorgoepikoos tural aesthetics.27
(Mother of God Quick-to-Hear) and probably to The increasing sophistication evident in the con-
be dated in the twelfth century, stands as an struction at Daphne continued into the twelfth
anomaly in this development (Fig. 17.21).26 While century. Perhaps best representing this is the
adhering to the cross-in-square format (the four Hagia Mone at Areia outside Nauplion, founded
columns now replaced by piers), the exterior is by the Bishop Leo of Argos and dated by inscrip-
entirely clad in marble. Much of it is of antique tion to 1149 (Figs. 17.22–17.24).28 While elon-
origin, with plain blocks below and decorated panels gated in plan—measuring 18.1 by 8.35 meters ex-
on the upper walls. Some are figural and pagan, and ternally, including the exonarthex—the church has
a few are oddly Christianized with crosses framing a cross-in-square design, with a dome (3.43 meters
the figures and their genitals mutilated. The cladding
27
B. Kiilerich, “Making Sense of Spolia in the Little Metropolis in
25
Millet, École grecque, 152–53. Athens,” Arte medievale 4 (2005); 95–114.
26
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 377–78; Ch. Bouras and L. 28
Bouras and Boura, Hellenike naodomia, 81–85; A. Struck, “Vier
Boura, He hellenike naodomia kata ton 12o aiona (Athens, 2002). byzantinischen Kirchen der Argolis,” AM 34 (1909): 189–236.

FIGURE 17.20
Athens,
Church
of the
Kapnikarea,
view from the
west (author)
FIGURE 17.21
Athens, Little
Metropolis
(Theotokos
Gorgoepikoos),
south façade
(author)

FIGURE 17.22
Areia, Hagia
Mone,
katholikon,
north façade
(author)
FIGURE 17.23 Areia, Hagia Mone, katholikon,

plan and longitudinal section (after A. Struck,
AM, 1909)

FIGURE 17.24
Areia, Hagia
Mone,
katholikon,
east façade
(author)
in internal diameter) raised above columns; it is windows open above a marble string course that
exceptionally regular, emphasized by both the extends across the east façade. Below this, two
flatness of the wall surfaces and the even height of lines of dogtooth frame a band of Kufesque orna-
the roof on the central axis, without setbacks ment. Above the string course, another band of
where the naos vaults merge with those of the dogtooth wraps around the window frames. The
bema and narthex. A tiny porch, like that of the upper surfaces have more dogtooth, meander
Kapnikaria, covers the south entrance to the nar- friezes, Kufesque friezes, and individual patterns,
thex. The wall construction is impressive: above all carefully executed. The nearby Church of the
the foundation it is almost entirely uninterrupted Dormition at Chonika has many of the same fea-
courses of cloisonné. Large reused blocks form tures, although raised on a stepped base and with
crosses that mark the width of the cross arms and more flourish to the pseudo-Kufic ornament.29
correspond to pilasters on the interior. Isolated The late twelfth-century Church of the Zoo-
bands of dogtooth appear on the upper walls, at dochos Pege (Virgin as Life-giving Spring) at
the levels of the window sills, the upper band Samarina in Messenia is similarly sophisticated
coupled with a meander frieze. Most of the win- (Figs. 17.25–17.27).30 Once the centerpiece of a
dows, with double and triple openings, are framed small monastery, it was built with a two-column
in brick and outlined with dogtooth, with areas of cross-in-square plan, expanded by a narthex,
brick patterning and glazed ceramic bowls as western portico, and columnar porches to the
insets—the latter probably late eleventh-century north and south. While the southern porch has
Fatimid production. The dome is of stone, with disappeared, the northern porch joins to a lateral
colonnettes at the corners, the drum topped by a chamber that functioned as an ossuary. Carefully
brick meander frieze. Here and on the apse, the
windows have a chamfered setback cut in stone.
While the dome appears relatively sober, much of 29
Bouras and Boura, Hellenike naodomia, 325–27.
the decoration is concentrated on the apses. The 30
Bouras and Boura, Hellenike naodomia, 291–96;

FIGURE 17.25
Samarina, Church
of the Zoodochos
Pege, view from
the southwest
(author)
FIGURE 17.26 constructed, the building rests on a dado of large,

Samarina, spoliated ancient blocks. The upper eastern façade
Church of the is of neat cloisonné, although less regular on the
Zoodochos Pege,
other façades, with decoration concentrated around
plan and
the windows, framed in dogtooth. An axial belfry
longitudinal
section (after
was later added to the western portico.
Ch. Bouras and Deeper into the Peloponnese, a remarkable
L. Boura, cluster of churches survives in the Mani penin-
Hellenike sula, primarily of the Middle Byzantine period
naodomia, 2002) but continuing into the thirteenth and four-
teenth centuries, for the most part independent
of developments elsewhere.31 Continuity and sur-
vival here may be the product of relative isolation
and the fierce independence for which the inhab-
itants of the peninsula were known historically.
Most are small, presumably independent or village
foundations, their exteriors enlivened by features
characteristic of Helladic architecture. Plans may
31
A. H. S. Megaw, “Byzantine Architecture in Mani,” BSA 33 (1932–
33): 137–62; N. Drandakes, Mane kai Lakonia, ed. Ch. Konstantinide,
5 vols. (Athens, 2009); A. Mexia, “Byzantine naodomia sten
Peloponneso, He periptose ton mesovyzantinon naon tes Mesa
Manes,” PhD diss., University of Athens, 2011.

FIGURE 17.27
Samarina, Church
of the Zoodochos
Pege, interior,
looking east
(author)
vary: two columns, four columns, single aisled, dogtooth. Window arches are framed in brick;
free cross, with or without a narthex. Brick and that on the north cross arm is elaborated with
marble appear as decorative elements; vaults are quadrant arches framing inset ceramic bowls. In
simple, usually barrel vaults of rubble construc- the octagonal drum, inset bowls alternate with
tion. In many instances the original roof may have windows. More distinctive are the marble ele-
been of stone slates, but in most examples, they ments, which appear in abundance, as marble
have been replaced with modern ceramic tiles. continued to be quarried in the Mani. The tem-
The Church of Sts. Theodores at Vamvaka is a plon, door frame, window closure panels, and
typical example, although unusual because of an even tie beams are carved of marble, with much
inscription on a marble tie beam dated 1075 and decoration. The column shafts are purpose cut,
mentioning a marble carver (marmaras) named as there were not antiquities to spoliate; al-
Niketas, as well as a donor named Leo and his though, oddly, the capitals are unadorned. The
wife and children (Figs. 17.28C, 17.29, and illogic of marble tie beams has been noted, de-
17.30; and see Fig. 16.20).32 It is a simple two- spite their common appearance throughout the
column church with a narthex; the bema occu- region. Another regional feature is the relative
pies the eastern cross arm with pastophoria in the darkness of the interior: the window openings
eastern corner compartments. Construction is of were filled with carved marble panels, each con-
a regular cloisonné above a rough rubble dado, taining a single small oculus. While the cross-in-
and brick decoration is limited to the dome square church type seems to have been designed
drum and window frames, although without with natural daylight in mind, it is not a concern
here—we are reminded that most of the worship
32
N. Drandakes, “Niketas Marmaras (1075),” in Mane kai Lakonia, services would take place when it was dark out-
1st vol., 49–72. side and that the lighting of lamps and candles

the twelfth century, shares many of these features
(Figs. 17.28B and 17.31; and see Fig. 0.3).33 A
simple four-column church without a narthex,
there is more brick decoration on the exterior, in-
cluding reticulate revetments, and dogtooth friezes,
a step-pattern frieze, and ceramic bowls. Much of
the wall construction is of large blocks of stone,
mixed with brick and set upright and horizontal,
forming rough crosses on the lateral façades. Win-
dows are single light, although they have lost their
closure panels; those in the cross arms are framed in
brick, with quadrant arches enclosing ceramic ves-
sels; in the octagonal drum of the dome, windows
alternate with window-like indentations with a ce-
ramic bowl imbedded in the arch. The doorway has
a carved and inscribed marble lintel, commemorat-
ing the founder, a certain George Marasiates, for his
devotion and labor. There is also more marble dec-
oration on the interior, including cornices, octag-
onal column shafts, and capitals, as well as the
ubiquitous tie beams, although they are broken.
The Church of St. Barbara at Eremos, proba-
bly from the third quarter of the twelfth century,
is one of the most carefully constructed and
shares many decorative details with Kitta, although
the plan differs (Fig. 17.32). The two-column
naos is joined to the narthex, without an inter-
vening wall, with the western barrel vault continu-
ing without a break, while archways open between
the corner bays of the naos and the lateral bays of
the narthex. Construction is similar to Koita but
more regular, although the decoration is some-
what more elaborate, with a meander frieze on
the main apse and many of the windows bifores.
All are closed by marble panels with a single small
oculus. The south window is framed by quadrant
arches and embedded bowls, with a door below
framed by an elegant chamfered horseshoe arch,
carved in stone. Here and at Kitta, many of the
FIGURE 17.28 Plans of three churches from the Mani: (A) decorative features compare to those in the north-
Keria, St. John; (B) Kitta, Sts. Sergius and Bacchus; (C) west Peloponnese, as at Areia. The glazed bowls
Vamvaka, Sts. Theodores (after A. H. S. Megaw, BSA, 1932–33) here are not local production, perhaps from Cor-
inth or Athens—but suggest connections outside
the region.
was an act of devotion. Elsewhere in the Mani, Parallel to the construction of domed churches
we find false windows—permanently closed in- are the remarkable, understudied “megalithic”
dentations, articulated as windows, some replete
with mullions.
The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus (or St. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 426–27; Bouras and Boura,
33
George) at Kitta, perhaps from the first quarter of Hellenike naodomia, 187–90.

FIGURE 17.29
Vamvaka, Church
of St. Theodore,
view from the
northeast (author)
FIGURE 17.30
churches of the peninsula. Low, single aisled, and
Vamvaka,
barrel vaulted, these churches easily might be Church
mistaken for Mycenaean—particularly if the mortar of St. Theodore,
has fallen away. They seem to appear throughout the detail of apse
Middle Byzantine period and even later. Sometimes window (author)
they were reinforced with ashlar arches or provided
with a more elegant entry, as at the Church of Sts.
Theodores at Kafiona, perhaps from ca. 1144–45
(Fig. 17.33). It was provided with an elegant portal,
similar to that at Eremos, as well as a marble tem-
plon and the finest thirteenth-century painting to
survive in the Mani.34 Despite their crude appear-
ance, megalithic churches seem to have remained a
viable alternative to their domed contemporaries.
,
The Middle Byzantine monuments of mainland
Greece and Macedonia represent the differing ap-
proaches possible at this time. At one extreme,
we find the careful adherence to Constantinopoli-
tan practices, but this occurs side by side with
34
Bouras and Boura, Hellenike naodomia, 182–84.

FIGURE 17.31
Kitta, Sts.
Sergius and
Bacchus,
interior view,
looking east
(author)
FIGURE 17.32
Eremos, Church
of St. Barbara,
view from the
southwest
(author)

FIGURE 17.33 Kafiona, Church of Sts. Theodores, plan and
longitudinal section (after Ch. Bouras and L. Boura, Hellenike
naodomia, 2002)
“provincial” constructions, often well built, but in- unique within Helladic production in its openness
dependent of the major developments elsewhere. and structural daring. Nevertheless, both the ac-
By contrast, the Helladic developments in Attica, ceptance and the rejection of its distinctive features
Athens, and the Peloponnese represent strong local indicate the strength of the regional architectural
traditions that developed with an awareness and tradition. Moreover, continuity of the Helladic
acceptance of architectural plans and details from a style into the thirteenth century, during the Frank-
variety of locations. Although not without its prog- ish period, demonstrates how firmly it had become
eny, the katholikon of Hosios Loukas remains associated with a regional identity.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL STYLES II

Middle Byzantine Anatolia
D espite its central position in the Byzantine

Empire, Anatolia preserves fewer architec-
tural remains, and they have been less studied than
Rott and Gertrude Bell, have vanished without a
trace. For those that survive, textual sources are
almost completely absent, and their histories
their counterparts in Greece. Intrepid adventurer- must be reconstructed from the archaeological
scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth cen- evidence and historical context. Many are today
turies found great fascination in the archaeological isolated ruins, with no trace of settlement nearby
remains of the region, and their discoveries seemed and nothing to indicate why they were built; others
to hold great promise—so much so that in 1903 have been converted into mosques. Nevertheless,
Josef Strzygowski proclaimed Anatolia ein Neu- an analysis of the surviving buildings indicates an
land der Kunstgeschichte—“a new land of art interaction between Constantinople and the local
history.”1 Unfortunately, the period of intensive centers, evident in the plans, construction tech-
exploration came to an end with the turmoil of niques, and decorative details. In central and
the early twentieth century—the Balkan Wars, eastern Anatolia, contact with the Caucasus is ap-
World War I, the breakup of the Ottoman parent as well.
Empire, and the Turkish War of Independence— The dearth of surviving built structures in
and many of the monuments documented by Anatolia is amply compensated by the wealth of
Strzygowski’s students and others, notably Hans rock-cut architecture, notably in the volcanic
highlands of Cappadocia and neighboring re-
1
Among the early scholar-adventurers, the most important are gions.2 Hundreds of rock-carved churches and
Strzygowski, Kleinasien, heavily dependent on his students’ chapels are preserved, most dating from the
fieldwork; H. Rott, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler aus Pisidien, tenth and eleventh centuries—as well as monas-
Kappadokien, und Lykien (Leipzig, 1908); and Ramsay and Bell, The teries, houses, agricultural installations, and oc-
Thousand and One Churches; Bell’s photographic documentation casionally complete villages. Although the finest
from her solo travels is particularly useful; for this, see “Gertrude
of these appear to replicate masonry forms, the
Bell Archive,” Newcastle University Library, 2014, http://www.
gerty.ncl.ac.uk. See also R. G. Ousterhout, John Henry Haynes: A
inventiveness of the Cappadocian artisan is often
Photographer and Archaeologist in the Ottoman Empire, 1881–1900
(Istanbul, 2011). 2
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community.
Hallaç Manastırı, interior of the church, looking northwest (author)
431
evident in the willful deviations from a masonry to the east. Military campaigns must have brought
prototypes. Because these spaces were carved out metropolitan visitors to central Anatolia, and the
of the living rock rather than built of brick and administrative bureaucracy maintained close con-
stone, they could take virtually any form: col- nections with the Byzantine capital. We thus find
umns, pilasters, arches, barrel vaults, and domes a mixture of regional and Constantinopolitan ele-
were structurally unnecessary, if however symbol- ments in the surviving buildings.
ically appropriate. In short, within the rock-carved In the eleventh century a new power, the
environment of Cappadocia, we move into the Seljuk Turks, emerged onto the scene, making in-
realm of symbolic architecture. roads into the region. In 1071 the Seljuk Turkish
Much of Asia Minor had been destabilized by forces of Alp Arslan annihilated the Byzantine
the Arab incursions, beginning in the mid- army in the disastrous Battle of Manzikert in east-
seventh century and continuing into the tenth ern Turkey, and this allowed for the rapid con-
century, when Byzantine control was gradually quest.4 By the end of the century, the Turks, who
restored. There is very little evidence for cultural were Muslim, were in control of most of Asia
investment in the region during that period. This Minor, with their capital established at Ikonion
marks the end of the so-called Beyşehir Occupa- (Konya). For much of Asia Minor, this marked
tion Phase, a centuries-long period of intensive the end of Byzantine cultural investment. In the
agricultural activity in Antiquity observed across following century, the Byzantines gradually re-
Anatolia. Pollen and carbon analyses indicate that gained control of large areas of Western Asia
the economies of borderland areas like Cappado- Minor, but their advances ended when the Seljuks
cia and the southeast Central Plateau collapsed defeated the Byzantine army in the Battle of
and did not recover, while endangered areas like Myriokephalon (a mountain pass in Phrygia) in
the Marmara and Mediterranean coast turned to 1176. Western Asia Minor remained under Byzan-
herding and cereal production. Only relatively tine control through the thirteenth century, as the
safe areas like northern Bithynia, Paphlagonia, or Byzantine court in exile established itself in
the southwest maintained extensive cultivation.3 Nicaea following the Latin Conquest of 1204, as
In sum, the socioeconomic homogeneity of Late will be discussed in Chapter 23.
Antiquity was replaced by the diversity of the Evidence of architectural investment is clear
Middle Ages, as remarkably different patterns of by the tenth century, both with the rebuilding of
settlement, cultivation, and economy emerge across older churches and with the construction of new
Asia Minor. Change is primarily the result of ones.5 At Amorion in Phrygia, for example, a
human impact on the environment, rather than stately three-aisled basilica, probably the cathe-
climate change, and corresponds to the destabili- dral, was transformed from a wooden-roofed ba-
zation of the region. silica into a vaulted, cross-domed church with
Central Anatolia was gradually retaken from corner compartments (Figs. 18.1 and 18.2). Heavy
the Arabs, culminating in the recapture of Meli- piers were added to support the vaulting, as well
tene (Malatya) in 934. Byzantine fortunes were as pilasters to brace the lateral walls. The eastern
on the rise, and the period that followed was a compartments opened directly into the bema and
prosperous one, with strong connections with the may have functioned as pastophoria. Smaller ba-
Byzantine capital, as well as with cultures further silicas at Selçikler in Phrygia and at Kydna in
Lycia underwent similar transformations from
basilicas to vaulted, cross-domed churches at
3
For the pollen evidence and its relationship to the Arab
about the same time (see Fig. 16.8). At Myra
incursions, see J. Haldon, “‘Cappadocia Will Be Given over to
Ruin and Become a Desert’: Environmental Evidence for
on the south coast, the pilgrimage Church of
Historically-Attested Events in the 7th–10th Centuries,” in
Byzantina Mediterranea: Festschrift für Johannes Koder zum 65.
4
See inter alia S. Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia
Geburtstag, eds. K. Belke, E. Kislinger, A. Külzer, and M. Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the
Stassinopoulou (Vienna, 2007), 215–30; also A. Izdebski, A Rural Fifteenth Centuries (Los Angeles, 1971).
Economy in Transition: Asia Minor from Late Antiquity into the Early 5
For the rebuilding of older churches, see Ousterhout, Master
Middle Ages (Warsaw, 2013). Builders.

FIGURE 18.1 Amorion, basilica, view looking south, showing the footings for the templon and altar and the preserved
synthronon, as well as the large piers added in the tenth century (Amorium Excavation Project)
FIGURE 18.2
Amorium Basilica,
plan showing the
two major phases
of construction
(redrawn from
B. Arubas,
Amorium
Excavation
Project)
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL STYLES II 433

St. Nicholas had been rebuilt in the eighth cen-
tury but saw later campaigns of expansion in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, continuing after
the relics of the saint had been removed to Bari in
1087 (see Figs. 11.2 and 11.3). The reinvestment in
older buildings accords the renovation program
of Constantinople, reported in the biography of
Basil I. Similar modifications seem to have been
effected at several of the churches at Binbirkilise
in Lycaonia and elsewhere.
New construction appears across the region as
well. The cross-in-square church type appears in
Asia Minor sometime in the early tenth century
or perhaps slightly earlier. An import from the
area around Constantinople, it seems to have
originated by the end of the eighth century,
probably within the monastic communities of
Bithynia (see Chap. 11).6 Its presence may be an
indicator of increased contact with the Byzantine
capital. While popular, the cross-in-square did
not replace other church types: for example, the
domed cruciform church had appeared as early as
the sixth century, and the plan continued to be FIGURE 18.3 (A) Nicaea (İznik), Church A, near the İstanbul
used. More important than the design of the Gate, plan; (B) Seben, Byzantine church, reconstructed plan
church, however, are its general characteristics: (author)
small, centralized, and domed. These are features
we find in a variety of church types throughout Middle Byzantine cross-in-square church, with
the period, which conform to the devotional re- narthex and a tripartite sanctuary and pilasters to
quirements of small congregations, private devo- mark the spatial divisions (Fig. 18.3A). In 1081,
tion, and commemoration. Large congregational the city fell briefly into the hands of the Seljuk
churches are rare. Turks, many of whom had served as mercenaries
Bithynia in northwest Anatolia maintained in the Byzantine army, but it was recaptured
close relations with the Byzantine capital. During fifteen years later with the assistance of the
the Arab incursions of the seventh and eight cen- Crusaders.
turies, Nicaea (İznik) served as a base of defense, The Church of St. Abercius at Elegmi (Kurşunlu),
controlling the approach to Constantinople from originally a monastic church dedicated to the Theo-
the East. The impressive walls of the city were re- tokos, gives some sense of the continued investment
built and strengthened on several occasions; its in the region during the following century (see
major churches, the Koimesis and the Hagia Figs. 13.15B and 16.25).8 Built in 1162 on the
Sophia, were both rebuilt following the earthquake shore of the Sea of Marmara, utilizing the re-
of 1065.7 There were also new constructions: an cessed brick technique, the atrophied Greek-cross
unidentified church (“Church A”), known only naos was originally covered by a dome on pen-
from its excavated foundations near the Istanbul dentives, 5 meters in diameter, now fallen. The
Gate, displays all the features of the fully developed, broad bema has pastophoria that project beyond
the width of the naos, both covered by blind
6
Mango and Ševčenko, “Some Churches and Monasteries.” pumpkin domes. In both its design and its con-
struction technique, the church follows closely
7
U. Peschlow, “The Churches of Nicaea-İznik,” in İznik throughout
History, eds. A. Akbaygil, H. İnalcık, and O. Aslanalpa (Istanbul,
2003), 201–18; note also C. Foss, “The Walls of İznik 260–1330,” in 8
C. Mango, “The Monastery of St. Abercius at Kurşunlu (Elegmi)
the same volume, 249–62. in Bithynia,” DOP (1968): 169–76.

FIGURE 18.4
Seben,
Byzantine
church,
east façade
(author)
the Constantinopolitan model of the Chora, as re- setbacks—details that fit better stylistically with
built two decades earlier. The Monastery of Elegmi buildings further inland, as at the Çanlı Kilise in
had close connections with the capital, where it Western Cappadocia, discussed below. Similarly,
maintained a metochion (dependency). Similar brick is limited almost exclusively to the exterior
churches are found at Antigone (Burgaz) in the and was not used in the vaulting.
Prince’s Islands and at Yuşa Tepsi on the Bosphoros.9 The coastal regions of the Aegean and Medi-
Further inland, the ruined church at Çeltik- terranean also maintained connections with Con-
dere (near Seben-Bolu) in Phrygia is better pre- stantinople. Indicative of the close relations is
served than Church A, but similarly anonymous great domed basilica at Dereağzı, another anony-
(Figs. 18.3B and 18.4).10 Constructed of alternat- mous building located in an inland valley near
ing bands of brick and stone, stepped pilasters on Myra (Figs. 18.5 and 18.6).11 Probably constructed
the lateral façades mark the internal spatial divi- sometime in the late ninth or early tenth century,
sions. However, as is common in Asia Minor, the the church repeats the spatial configuration of the
abbreviated plan lacks clearly defined pastopho- remodeled Hagia Eirene (after 740): a domed ba-
ria, and the tripartite sanctuary must have ex- silica, with the central dome braced in a cross-
tended across the eastern bays. The lateral apses domed scheme and barrel vaults extending above
are semicircular on the exterior, rather than fac- the galleries. But many of the details are similar to
eted, and the tall, thin widows are framed by the North Church of the Monastery tou Libos
(ca. 907) and suggest a later date: projecting porches,
9
E. Akyürek and R. G. Ousterhout, “The Church of the stair towers, lobed pastophoria, faceted apses, pi-
Transfiguration on Burgazada,” CahArch 49 (2002): 5–14. lasters that correspond to the structural divisions
10
Y. Ötüken and R. G. Ousterhout, “The Byzantine Church
at Çeltikdere (Seben-Bolu),” in Studien zur byzantinischen 11
J. Morganstern, The Byzantine Church at Dereağzı and Its
Kunstgeschichte. Festschrift für H. Hallensleben, eds. B Borkopp, B. Decoration, Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 29 (Tübingen, 1983),
Schellewald, and L. Theis (Amsterdam, 1995), 85–92. suggests a slightly earlier date based on the building typology.

FIGURE 18.5
Dereağzı, Byzantine
church, view from
the south, with an
octagonal annex in
the foreground
(Jordan Pickett)
FIGURE 18.6 Dereağzı, Byzantine church,

plan (author, redrawn after J. Morganstern,
Byzantine Church, 1983)

FIGURE 18.7
Side,
Byzantine
church, south
façade
(author)
of the interior, groin vaults and a pumpkin dome, framed by setbacks (Fig. 18.8).13 On the interior, the
and construction of alternating bands of brick arches supporting the dome are slightly pointed.
and stone. The main dome originally had a scal- Several churches survive on the island of Rhodes,
loped inner surface, and traces of mosaic decoration near the south coast of Anatolia. The cross-in-
are preserved as well. In fact, with the exception square Church of St. John on the acropolis of
of the rough local stone, the church would not Lindos may also date from the twelfth century.
have been out of place in the Byzantine capital. The major seaport on the Black Sea coast was
Flanking the church are two octagonal chapels, Trebizond (Trabzon), which, like Nicaea, played a
perhaps for burials. prominent role after the Latin Conquest of Con-
New construction appears elsewhere along the stantinople in 1204.14 Connected to the overland
south coast. At Side, two cross-in-square churches routes into the Caucasus, Trebizond presents a
were built into older structures, probably early in somewhat different architectural profile, with ashlar
the period (see Fig. 11.18A and 11.18B). Another construction and a preference for banded barrel
ruined cross-in-square church, also built of spolia, vaults, possibly following Caucasian models. The
was set on the site of a destroyed Early Christian earliest securely dated church is dedicated to St.
basilica. It has pilasters and arcades on its pre- Anne, with an inscription to 884/5; three aisled,
served façade, with setback brick arches and a
band of brick with a dogtooth course at midlevel 13
V. M. Tekinalp, “Palace Churches of the Anatolian Seljuks:
(Fig. 18.7).12 This may represent a twelfth-century Tolerance or Necessity?” BMGS 33 (2009): 148–67; S. Lloyd and
reinvestment in the coastal area as it was retaken D. Storm Rice, Alanya (London, 1958).
from the Seljuks. At Alanya, the small triconch 14
For Trebizond in general, see A. Bryer and D. Winfield, The
church in the castle preserves its elegant dome, Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, Dumbarton
with a drum that alternates windows and niches Oaks Studies 20 (Washington, DC, 1985); for the churches, see S.
Ballance, “The Byzantine Churches of Trebizond,” AnatSt 10
12
Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side. (1960): 141–75.

FIGURE 18.8
Alanya, Citadel
Church, seen
from the
northeast
(author)
with a tripartite sanctuary, it lacks a narthex (Figs. struction is of the local tuff, finely cut into ashlar,
18.9 and 18.10). The nave is separated from the used as facing on a core of mortared rubble; mor-
aisle by arcades, each raised above a single spoli- tars utilizing local volcanic sand are particularly
ated column; the nave rises to include a clere- sturdy. Brick appears rarely and marble almost
story—the unique example in the city. The church never. Plans and scales vary considerably. The
now known as the Nakip Camii may be some- cross-in-square church type appears in masonry
what later but is similar: three aisled, covered by sometime in the late tenth century, although ear-
banded barrel vaults, but without a clerestory. lier surviving examples appear in rock-cut form.
Larger churches, those of St. Eugenios (Yeni Cuma Cruciform churches, rare in Constantinople
Camii), patron of the city, and the Chrysokephalos before the twelfth century, are common to Cap-
(Fatih Camii), the cathedral, seem to have been padocia. Two appear high on the slope of Hasan
rebuilt in the thirteenth century following this Dağı (Mt. Argaios). The Yağdebaş Kilisesi (appar-
model, as barrel-vaulted basilicas lacking cleresto- ently a toponym), now in ruins, may be recon-
ries; both were later transformed with the inser- structed with an atrophied Greek-cross plan
tion of domes and their midsections substantially measuring 7.5 meters across internally, with a
rebuilt (see Chap. 23). broad apse that was polygonal on the exterior (Fig.
Turning to central Anatolia, Cappadocia and 18.11A). Rather than pastophoria, niches were set
Lycaonia preserve numerous remains from the into the cross arms. The exterior was detailed with
prosperous tenth and eleventh centuries, although blind setback arches, with some elegant architec-
none may be dated with precision.15 For the ma- tural sculpture and fragments of an illegible in-
sonry buildings, the standard wall and vault con- scription in the arcade of the north wall. The
nearby Süt Kilisesi (“Milk Church”) was similar,
15
For the masonry architecture, see Restle, Studien zur although it is part of a complex, not all con-
frühbyzantinischen Architektur Kappadokiens; and Ousterhout, structed at the same time. For both, a date in the
Visualizing Community. tenth century seems likely.

FIGURE 18.9
Trebizond
(Trabzon),
Church of St.
Anne, seen from
the south, ca.
1893 (Collection
chrétienne et
byzantine,
Photothèque
Gabriel Millet,
EPHE)
FIGURE 18.10
Trebizond,
Church of St.
Anne, plan and
transverse section
(author, redrawn
after S. Balance,
AnatSt, 1960)
Three large masonry churches built on cross- measuring approximately 10.6 meters across. It
in-square plans date from the late tenth or early may be dated to the end of the tenth century on
eleventh century. The Karagedik Kilisesi (“Church the basis of its painting (Figs. 18.11C and 18.12).
of the Dark Pass”), isolated in the Belisırma The plan follows closely the Constantinopolitan
(Peristrema) Valley, had a dome approximately model, with an extended tripartite sanctuary, and
6 meters in diameter, raised on piers above a naos, the arcading of the façade reflects the disposition

FIGURE 18.11 Plans of Cappadocian
masonry churches: (A) Hasan Dağı,
Yağdebaş Kilisesi; (B) Kırşehir (near),
Üçayak; (C) Belisırma, Karagedik Kilisesi
(author)
FIGURE 18.12
Belisırma
(Peristrema),
Karagedik Kilisesi,
view from the north
(author)

FIGURE 18.13
Akhisar (near),
Çanlı Kilise,
seen from the
northeast in
1907 (Gertrude
Bell Photographic
Archive,
University of
Newcastle)
of the interior spaces. Rockfall has destroyed much rebuilding of the nineteenth century—the narthex
of the western and northern parts of the church. and north annex must date from that time—the
Barrel vaults covered the minor bays and cross naos itself preserves substantial portions of a Middle
arms. The apse is slightly horseshoe shaped, with a Byzantine church—perhaps even the dome. Simi-
polygonal exterior. Some of the façade details are lar to its function in the nineteenth century, in the
brick, with banded voussoirs in the arches. In ad- Byzantine period the church must have served as
dition, the mortar joints have been impressed with a parochial church for the community of Gelveri.
cords, a technical detail also common in the archi- Based on the comparison with the Karagedik
tecture of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the Karage- Kilisesi, a date in the late tenth century seems likely.
dik Kilisesi is not without local features, including The Çanlı Kilise (“Bell Church”) near Akhisar
some carved stone decoration on the exterior, shares many of the same features but was con-
comparable to that at Yağdebaş Kilisesi. The ma- structed on a more compact plan and subsequently
sonry is similarly stone facing on a rubble core; expanded (Figs. 18.13–18.15).16 Slightly smaller,
the vaults are entirely of stone, and brick appears the dome measured 4.65 meters in diameter, with
only as a surface decoration. There is some rock the naos 9.2 meters square. Its first phase con-
cutting around the church—mostly for burials— sisted just of the naos proper, probably dating to
but no evidence of a settlement anywhere nearby. the early eleventh century. When Gertrude Bell
The Church of St. Gregory at Güzelyurt (Kar- visited the church in 1907, the dome was still
bala, Gelveri) is similar in plan and construction standing above only two piers. Instead of the
to the Karagedik Kilisesi, with the extra sanctuary extra pastophoria bays at the east, however, the
bay and arcaded façades that reflect the interior
spatial disposition. It is also very close in scale, with 16
R. G. Ousterhout, A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia, Dumbarton
a capacious interior. Although often dismissed as a Oaks Studies 42 (Washington, DC, 2005; 2nd ed., 2011).

FIGURE 18.14
Akhisar (near),
Çanlı Kilise, south
façade (author)
FIGURE 18.15
Akhisar (near),
Çanlı Kilise,
plan and
longitudinal
section, both
partially
restored
(author)

lateral east bays terminate in apses, as occurred at FIGURE 18.16
Seben. Elegantly constructed, the façades are of Fisandon,

alternating bands of brick and stone detailed with Byzantine church,
view from the
stepped pilasters and half-columns, recalling the
southeast (author)
contemporaneous buildings of the capital, as do
the faceted apses, brick decoration in the span-
drels, and thick mortar beds in the brick courses.
Despite outward similarities with Constanti-
nopolitan architecture, a closer view emphasizes
the differences: the brick courses are simply facing
on a rubble core, rather than continuous con-
struction (see Fig. 15.24). Brick was used only on
the outer, more visible surfaces of the building and
is absent in the upper levels. The vaulting was con-
structed of stone rather than of brick. None of
the distinctive Constantinopolitan features of the
naos appear in the later additions; the narthex and
north chapel are entirely of stone and are detailed
in the local style. The Çanlı Kilise may have been
meant to call to mind the architecture of Constan-
tinople, adding an element of prestige to the set-
tlement, but it was constructed by local masons.
The dome of the Çanlı Kilise is also notewor-
thy, documented in the photographs of Bell and
Rott, from which we may estimate that it rose
almost 16 meters above the floor level. Smooth on FIGURE 18.17 Ali Hasan Dağı, Ala Kilise, south façade in 1907
the interior, the tall drum was faceted, with slit (Gertrude Bell Photographic Archive, University of Newcastle)
windows in alternating segments and a conical cap.
Similarly, the apse is elaborately detailed with set- An anomaly for the region is the double church
back niches and colonnettes. The façade arcading known as Üçayak (“Three Feet”), near Kırşehir, on
of the Çanlı Kilise also distinguishes it from the the border between Cappadocia and Galatia (Figs.
other cross-in-square churches of the region: rather 18.11B and 18.18).17 Except for courses of stone in the
than emphasize the spatial disposition of the inte- foundation walls, the church is constructed entirely
rior, it appears as a decorative applique on two of brick facing on a rubble core. The plan has two
levels, the lower level not aligned with the upper. adjoining atrophied-cross naoi, both measuring
These features, plus the stepped platform of the approximately 5.25 meters across, with extended
naos, recall the architecture of the Caucasus—a sanctuaries but no pastophoria. The construction is
point to which we shall return in the next chapter. particularly careful, with the brick courses broadly
Similar façade arcading appears on the spaced and wide mortar beds of an exceptionally
churches of Lycaonia. The cross-in-square church hard mortar. Niches with multiple setbacks enliven
at Fisandon, for example, has blind arcading the wall surfaces and apses. In terms of the use of
above a high dado, within setbacks and half-col- brick, Üçayak may offer the best technical compari-
umns, not aligned with the upper arcade (Fig. son to the Çanlı Kilise. The reason for its double
18.16). Although the external arcading appears plan and isolated location remains unclear: a dual
purely decorative, on the interior, pilasters corre- dedication, perhaps. One suggestion is that it
spond with the dome piers. Lateral apses are not
expressed on the exterior but are niches set into 17
S. Eyice, “La ruine byzantine dite ‘Üçayak’ près de Kırşehir,”
the east wall. The Ala Kilise on Ali Hasan Dağı is CahArch 18 (1968): 137–55; M. Mihaljević, “Üçayak: A Forgotten
similar in many details (Fig. 18.17). Byzantine Church,” BZ 107 (2014): 725–54.

FIGURE 18.18
Kırşehir
(near), Üçayak
Church, view
from the south
(author)
commemorated the victory of Basil II over Bardas Carved architecture begins to reappear by the
Phokas in 989. end of the ninth century, although it may rarely
be dated with precision. The earliest examples are
, barrel vaulted, similar to the churches at Trebi-
zond, with one, two, or three aisles, sometimes
The distinctive rock-cut churches and chapels of banded, sometimes plain. The cross-in-square
Cappadocia expand the range and repertory of ar- church type appears in rock-cut form sometime
chitectural forms considerably, appearing in far by the early tenth century, evidence of increased
greater numbers than masonry construction.18 contact with the Byzantine capital. Unique to
Indeed, the rock-cut environment preserves a vari- the rock-cut architecture of the region are the
ety of building types that do not survive elsewhere— carved liturgical furnishings, most notably the
houses, villages, monasteries, industrial and agricul- templons or sanctuary barriers, which can take
tural installations—making Cappadocia an many forms.
underutilized resource for understanding life and The Geyikli Kilise at the monastery already
death in Byzantium. In previous chapters, we exam- noted in the Soğanlı Valley must date from the
ined a monastery (Geyikli Kilise in Soğanlı) and a late tenth or early eleventh century. A banded
rock-carved elite residence (the so-called Hallaç barrel vault covers the naos, with a carved tem-
Manastırı) (see Figs.13.33–13.35, 14.12, and 14.13). plon isolating the bema (Fig. 18.19). The tenth-
century Saklı Kilise (“Hidden Church”), also at
Soğanlı, offers a good comparison for the Trebi-
18
For the rock-cut architecture, see N. Thierry, La Cappadoce de
l’Antiquité au Moyen Age (Turnhout, 2002); and Ousterhout,
zond churches, with three parallel vaults, but
Visualizing Community, with older bibliography; much still depends on carved on a considerably smaller scale. Occasion-
the fundamental study by G. de Jerphanion, Une Nouvelle province de ally the barrel vault is set transversally, as occurs in
l’art byzantin les églises rupestres de Cappadoce, 2 vols. with plates (Paris, the new Tokalı Kilise (“Buckle Church”) at
1925–1942). L. Giovannini, ed., Arts of Cappadocia (London, 1971). Göreme, which includes a separate aisle for the

Distinctions become more apparent in the ele-
vation. In the eastern corner bays, small domes rise
from flat ceilings, and in the western corner bays,
the ceilings are left flat. The main dome springs
directly from the cornice, without a drum. If we
compare the sections of the two buildings, the dif-
ference is dramatic. The Myrelaion has three dis-
tinct levels of vaulting, reflected in the three lines
of cornices in the interior. Kılıçlar reduces this to
two levels, with the cross arms and corner vaults at
almost the same height and the dome rising only
slightly above that level. These deviations from the
masonry prototype create a sort of shorthand ver-
sion of the cross-in-square church.
While lacking the architectural drama of its ma-
sonry prototype, the rock-cut chapel is actually
better suited to the environment. Part of the drama
of the masonry church comes from the multiple
light sources at different levels, with the windowed
drum of the central dome spotlighting the main
performance space beneath it. Lighting in a cave
chapel is extremely limited, usually entering later-
ally through a single door. By reducing the height of
the dome and equalizing the vault heights, the
FIGURE 18.19 Soğanlı Valley, Geyikli Kilise, interior looking painted surfaces of the interior become more legible
east (author) in the strafing natural light or limited artificial light.
A final element to consider is scale. The Myre-
bema and side chapels (Figs. 18.20 and 18.21).19 laion is small by masonry standards, its naos
Small, cruciform chapels are also popular. slightly greater than 8 meters square. Kılıçlar is
One of the earliest examples of the cross-in- less than 5 meters square, resulting in an interior
square chapel, the Kılıçlar Kilise (“Swords Church”) floor space about one third that of the Myrelaion.
at Göreme may be dated to the early tenth century When we consider the reduction and simplifica-
on the basis of its painting (Fig. 18.22). While relation of the elevation, the volume of interior space
tively small, its plan conforms in most details to may be perhaps one tenth that of the Myrelaion.
contemporaneous masonry churches, such as the In short, a process of miniaturization has oc-
Myrelaion in Constantinople, dated to 920. The curred, with standard forms and furnishings rep-
dome rises above columnar supports; pilasters on licated to signify sacred space.
the walls emphasize the spatial divisions of the inte- In contrast, the eleventh-century Sarıca Kilise
rior; pendentives, cornices, capitals, and bases are (“Yellow Church”) near Ürgüp represents one of
carefully carved. Rather than a tripartite sanctuary, the most exacting rock-cut examples (Figs. 18.23
however, Kılıçlar has three nonconnecting bemas, and 18.24), a cross-in-square chapel expanded by
each equipped with an altar. Liturgically, it must lateral apses.20 Details and proportions follow closely
have functioned differently from the Myrelaion. a masonry prototype, executed on a small scale,
measuring approximately 4.7 meters square. The tall
pumpkin dome rose approximately 7.75 meters
19
A. Wharton Epstein, Tokalı Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan above four columns, with pendentives, high barrel
Art in Byzantine Cappadocia (Washington, DC, 1986); and now vaults, cornices, and lower groin vaults over the corner
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community; Ousterhout, “Sightlines,
Hagioscopes, and Church Planning in Byzantine Cappadocia,” 20
J. Lafontaine, “Sarıca Kilise en Cappadoce,” CahArch 12 (1962):
AH 39, no. 5 (2016): 848–67. 263–84; Ousterhout, Visualizing Community.

figure18.20
Göreme,
Tokalı Kilise,
interior
looking
northeast
(author)
figure 18.21
Göreme, Tokalı Kilise,
plan of the complex.
Carved in several
phases, the older part
to the west includes an
irregular barrel-vaulted
chapel of the early
tenth century with a
three-aisled funeral
chapel beneath it.
Expanded a few
decades later, the
transverse naos
destroyed the apse of
the older chapel,
creating a T-shaped
plan. A separate aisle
connects to the three
bemas, and a
parekklesion was
carved to the north.
An additional chamber
near the entrance may
have been a monk’s
cell (author, redrawn
after A. Wharton,
Tokalı Kilise, 1986)

FIGURE 18.22 Göreme, Kılıçlar Kilisesi, section and plan side by side with those of the Myrelaion, drawn to the same scale
(author, redrawn after G. de Jerphanion, Nouvelle province, 1925; and C. L. Striker, Myrelaion, 1981)
bays, replicating the insistently three-dimensional Even when coherence or structural logic is
character of the fully developed cross-in-square inte- missing, however, the accumulation of architec-
rior. But the Sarıca Kilise is exceptional; most carved tonic detail—arcades, pilasters, ribbed vaults,
interiors simplify and flatten the elevation. domes—emphasizes that these spaces are architec-
In fact, the process of carving led to numerous ture. At Hallaç Manastırı, for example, the chapel
deviations from the masonry model: for example, is large—approximately 7 meters square, but the
domes may be cylindrical rather than hemispherical, details don’t quite add up to coherent structure
flattened at the crown, or reduced to simple sau- (Fig. 18.27). No properly trained Byzantine mason
cers without a drum. They also may be incongru- would ever construct anything like this; neverthe-
ously multiplied, often springing from a flat ceil- less, we read it as architecture. Similarly, the litur-
ing, without a clearly defined transition, as at the gical furnishings, carved from the living rock, may
Elmalı Kilise (“Apple Church”) in Göreme (Fig. have been more symbolic than functional. Through-
18.25). Similarly, pendentives are regularly trans- out the rock-cut environment, signification is
formed from structural transitions into decora- more important than replication.
tive flourishes (Figs. 18.26A–D). Sometimes they The symbolic (as opposed to practical) nature of
are omitted altogether. architectural detail is emphasized in the formal

FIGURE 18.23
Ürgüp (near),
Sarıca Kilise,
looking east
(author)
FIGURE 18.24
Ürgüp (near),
Sarıca Kilise,
plan and
longitudinal
section
(author)
residential spaces as well. At Hallaç, Açıksaray, and are organized around a courtyard and feature a
elsewhere, the formal spaces of elite residences were prominent arcaded façade with a ceremonial hall as
carved behind elegant façades, all presumably imi- the main axial room. Chapels are rarely situated in
tating masonry forms that no longer survive.21 Most
Inverted T-Plan,” JSAH 56 (1997): 294–315; F.G. Öztürk,
T. F. Mathews and A.-C. Daskalakis-Mathews, “Islamic-Style
21
“Açıksaray ‘Open Palace’: A Byzantine Rock-Cut Settlement in
Mansions in Byzantine Cappadocia and the Development of the Cappadocia,” BZ 107 (2014): 785–810.

FIGURE 18.25
Göreme, Elmalı
Kilise, interior
looking northeast
(author)
FIGURE 18.26 Four examples of dome transitions in cruciform churches: (A) Ortahisar, Balkan Dere, St. Basil (tenth century) has
no transition but with the dome springing directly from the ceiling; (B). Belisırma, Ala Kilise (eleventh century) has raised
triangular shields rather than proper pendentives; (C) Çat Valley, chapel (tenth century?) has something like bucrania; D. Soğanlı
Valley, chapel (tenth century?) has shapes like pinched pincushions. None attempts to replicate masonry forms (author)
FIGURE 18.27
Hallaç
Manastırı,
interior of
the church,
looking
northwest
(author)
the main cluster, and some complexes include large to reflect a long period of development. This is
stables. Probably the most obvious examples of clearly the case at the Archangelos Monastery
symbolic architecture, the carved façades advertise, near Cemil, with Byzantine elements that may be
in billboard-like fashion, the presence and signifi- dated as early as the late ninth century and as late
cance of the spaces behind them through an assem- as the thirteenth, added on the site of an older
blage of architectonic detail. Rarely does the organ- Roman cemetery and complicated by interven-
ization of external forms bear any relationship to tions of the nineteenth century.23 In contrast, the
the interior spaces. Nevertheless, they stand as visi- monastery around the Geyikli Kilise in the
ble markers of human presence in the landscape. Soğanlı Valley may represent less than a century
Monasticism seems to be a prominent feature of development (tenth to eleventh centuries) but
of the Middle Byzantine period.22 Its appearance in is also sprawling. At its core is the church, pre-
Cappadocia corresponds to the development of ceded by a small courtyard, flanked by several
monasticism elsewhere in the Byzantine Empire. utilitarian rooms, perhaps including a kitchen,
With the rise of powerful individuals and land- and an elegant refectory or trapeza. The latter is
owning families, the role of monks and monaster- carved in great detail and includes a table and
ies played a role in the commemoration of the benches set along one wall, with an elaborate
dead. Many of the monastic enclaves formed in the throne for the abbot at the head of the table (see
tenth and eleventh centuries around cemeteries Figs. 13.33–13.35). Cells for the monks seem to
that date back to the fourth century ce and earlier. have been scattered among the adjacent rock
Most monasteries are irregular in their organi- cones. A tomb at the entrance to the church pro-
zation, at the mercy of the topography, and seem vides the name of John Skepides, who held the
titles of protospatharios of the Chrysotriklinion,
22
L. Rodley, Cave Monasteries of Byzantine Cappadocia (Cambridge,
1985), does not distinguish between monasteries and secular
residences but presents a good analysis of architectural complexes. 23
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community, 390–95.

FIGURE 18.28
Göreme,
Karanlık
Kilise
Monastery,
view looking
south toward
the fallen
portico.
Traces of the
original
arcaded
façade are
visible in the
upper right
corner
(author)
FIGURE 18.29
Göreme,
Karanlık
Kilise
Monastery,
plan (author,
redrawn after
Lyn Rodley,
Cave
Monasteries,
1985)

FIGURE 18.30 Göreme, Karanlık Kilise Monastery, interior
of the church, looking south. The Archangel Michael stands
protectively above two small donors, who hold candles
(author)
Hypatos, and Strategos, presumably the founder of

FIGURE 18.31 Göreme, Çarıklı Kilise Monastery,
the monastery and local land baron. axonometric cutaway showing the relationship of the refectory
The monasteries of the Göreme Valley are on the lower level and the chapel, directly above it, now
better organized, probably carved within a short accessible by an iron staircase (after L. Giovannini, Arts of
period of time during the eleventh century. The Cappadocia, 1971)
Monastery of the Karanlık Kilise (“Dark Church”)
had an elaborately carved façade facing a raised in the narthex, as well as two unnamed pairs of
courtyard that overlooked the valley (Figs. 18.28– donors with archangels on the lateral walls of the
18.30). Behind the façade are rooms on two naos. Beyond the names provided, we have no
levels, including a large refectory below, from idea who they are or which of them was actually
which stairs led to an upper level, which may have buried inside the chapel.
provided quarters for the monks. The chapel is The isolated situation of the chapel suggests
also on an upper level but is isolated from these that it may not have been the regular setting of
spaces, entered separately by a narrow, winding monastic liturgies. However, the refectory is large
staircase. The narthex includes a tomb chamber and much more accessible and may have been
opposite the entrance. The chapel has a cross-in- used for commemorative meals. The nearby com-
square design and was carefully carved and plex at the Çarıklı Kilise (“Sandal Church”) is
painted, with eight donors represented: Nikepho- smaller but similarly organized on two levels,
ros the priest and Basianos in the apse, John En- with the chapel upstairs and the refectory below
talmatikos (perhaps a court title?) and Genethlios (Fig. 18.31). We might envision the complexes at

FIGURE 18.32
Soğanlı Valley,
Kubbeli Kiliseler,
looking west.
The so-called
domed churches
have their domes
carved and
painted on the
exteriors as well
as on the
interiors (author)
Göreme as housing small monastic communities in detail, even including the roof tiles.25 A chapel at
assigned to tend the graves of the local elite.24 Kilistra, near Konya, was similarly excavated from
Rock-cut architecture was not limited to interi- the rock. As with the Cappadocian monuments,
ors—several of the churches in the Soğanlı Valley the carved forms at Ayazin and Kilistra indicate the
were set into cones with the domes carved on the growing symbolic importance of established archi-
exterior (Fig. 18.32). Nor was rock-cut architecture tectural forms. Taking into consideration the
limited to Cappadocia. Similar settlements have rock-cut evidence—the target of much recent in-
been found in Lycaonia, Phrygia, and the Pontos. vestigation—Anatolia might still be “ein Neuland
At Ayazin, north of Afyon in Phrygia, for example, der Kunstgeschichte.”
one of the chapels appears half in, half out of the
rock, with the east façade and half the dome carved 25
C. H. E. Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia, 2 vols. (Princeton,
1971), esp. 1: 203–54; 2: pls. 425–69; 577–95; F. G. Öztürk, “Rock-
Cut Architecture,” in The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia: From
the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks, ed. P.
24
Ousterhout, Visualizing Community. Niewöhner (New York, 2017), 148–159.

454
CHAPTER NINETEEN
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL STYLES III

The Caucasus: Armenia and Georgia
A fter a period of minimal architectural activ-

ity, both Armenia and Georgia experienced a
flourishing of construction in the tenth and elev-
members of the Armenian Bagratid family—
initially as princes, but by the 880s, as kings. The
elevation in their titles corresponds with the
enth centuries, notably churches with finely weakening of Arab control in the region, which
carved ashlar construction and sculptural orna- allowed both Georgia and Armenia to become
mentation, distinct from their contemporary relatively powerful and prosperous states in the
Byzantine counterparts. Indeed, much seems to tenth century. But the region remained a series of
follow directly upon the regional construction small, semi-independent, and often feuding Chris-
techniques and building types established in the tian polities, set between the expanding power of
seventh century, almost as if the intervening three Byzantium to the west and the emerging threat of
centuries did not exist (see Chap. 12). The elegance the Seljuks to the east, with borders and political
of the architecture of the tenth and eleventh cen- alliances remaining fluid.
turies reveals little of the complex political situa- In 961, the Armenians established a new capi-
tion in the Caucasus, which can only be sketched tal at Ani, marking the beginning of a period of
here in broad strokes. The entire area was under rich cultural development, with the following
Arab domination during much of the Transitional century witnessing a building boom. In 1022,
Period, but by the ninth century, both Armenia however, facing increasing political difficulties,
and Georgia had become increasingly independ- Yovhannes-Smbat Bagratuni willed his kingdom
ent.1 Both were ruled as Arab protectorates by to the Byzantine emperor, whose claim of sover-
eignty at the king’s death in 1041 was much con-
tested. Ani subsequently fell to the Seljuks in 1064.
1
N. Garsoïan, “History of Armenia,” in Dictionary of the Middle Georgian territories were also ransacked by the
Ages, ed. J. Strayer, 1st vol. (New York, 1982), 474–88; R. Suny, Seljuk army of Alp Arslan—who had defeated the
“Georgia: Political History,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed.
Byzantine army in the Battle of Manzikert (to the
J. Strayer, 1st vol. (New York, 1982), 404–407, with additional
west of Lake Van) in 1071. Within the Georgian
bibliography; also I. Foletti and E Thunø, eds., The Medieval South
Caucasus: Artistic Cultures of Albania, Armenia, and Georgia territory, the western principalities flourished
(Brno, 2016). under David III of Tao (“the Great”; r. 966–1000),
Ani, cathedral, interior, looking southwest (author)
455
who for his assistance to the Byzantine army of square, the spatial volumes of Aght’amar are ex-
Basil II was awarded the court title of kouropal- pressed on the exterior, with niches and conches
ates. The tenth-century architecture of the west- given faceted surfaces. To the east and west,
ern regions of Tao-Klarjeti set the standard for indentations frame the apses in otherwise flat
later developments. Georgia underwent a revival façades. All surfaces are encrusted with an un-
under David II (“the Builder”; r. 1089–1125), who precedented array of sculptures, mostly of two-
expanded his domain, incorporating both Geor- dimensional character: cornices with running
gian and formerly Armenian territories, including animals; decorative bands with inhabited vine
Ani, and created a more centralized rule. He scrolls; hood moldings with fruit and vegetal pat-
fought successfully against the Seljuks, while main- terns, panels with khachkars (crosses), as well as
taining peaceful relations with the Byzantines, cre- human and animal protomes; full-length prophets,
ating a kingdom that endured under his succes- apostles, and angels; and scenes from the Old and
sors until the arrival of the Mongols in 1220. New Testaments. Flanking the window on the
Much of the architectural activity in both re- west façade, a tall Gagik presents a model of his
gions follows prototypes established in the sixth church to a slightly shorter Christ, while angels
to seventh centuries, although forms are often more hold a roundel bearing an image of the Cross. Odd
linear in their detailing, with greater vertical at- asymmetries and poor connections suggest the
tenuation. With rare exception, buildings are sculpted blocks were carved before being mounted
domed, although the Armenians show a preference on the exterior. Wall paintings once covered the
for centralized design, while the Georgians prefer interior surfaces but are poorly preserved.
domed basilicas. In both regions, the standard con- The ruins of Ani, now at the end of the road in
struction continues as carefully cut ashlar on a con- Turkey at its closed border with the Republic of
crete-rubble core, with rich external detailing, Armenia, offer a melancholy spectacle of isolated
both architectonic and with figural sculpture. monuments amid rolling pastureland (Figs. 19.4
Armenia. An impressive early example of the and 19.5). 3 The triangular plateau on which the
architectural revival in the Caucasus is the Church city rose is framed by deep ravines, with an im-
of the Holy Cross at Aght’amar, built 915–21 pressive line of walls closing the landward side. In
(Figs.19.1–19.3).2 Its founder, Gagik Artsruni, was the ninth century, the Bagratids had acquired the
a breakaway prince who had himself crowned fortress of Ani and surrounding properties, and in
king of Vaspurakan by the Sajid emir Yusuf of 961, Ashot III moved his capital there from Kars.
Azerbaijan, who was then at war with Armenia. The city grew quickly, expanding beyond the im-
Gagik established his capital on an island in Lake mediate vicinity of the fortress: Ashot had built
Van, with the Church of the Holy Cross as his his city walls at the narrowest point of the pla-
palace chapel. Although the palace no longer teau, but by 989 new walls were constructed to
survives, the church remains impressive despite the north, enclosing a much larger area. As an en-
twentieth-century vandalism and a heavy-handed, trepôt at an important crossroads, Ani controlled
twenty-first-century restoration. Its design follows caravan routes between East and West and became
long-established models, with an interior spatial a center of trade and production in its own right.
disposition quite similar to that of St. Hṙip’simē at In 992, the seat of the Armenian church was trans-
Vagarshapat: a domed tetraconch with corner ferred to Ani. At its height in the eleventh century,
niches, creating an octagonal support system for the city was renowned for its wealth and boasted
the dome. The east and west conches are extended
by extra bays, while the sanctuary is flanked by 3
For a useful website, including maps and photographs, see
narrow chapels. Unlike St. Hṙip’simē, which had “Virtual Ani,” 2004–, https://www.virtualani.org; P. Cuneo et al.,
corner compartments bringing the plan out to Ani, Documents of Armenian Architecture 12 (Milan, 1984);
N. Marr, Ani: Rêve d’Arménie, trans. P. M. Muradyan (Paris, 2001),
2
J.-M. Thierry and P. Donabédian, Armenian Art (New York, trans. of N. Marr, Ani, knizhnaya istoriya goroda i raskopki (Leningrad,
1987), 475–77; L. Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght‘amar 1934); Thierry and Donabédian, Armenian Art, 481–91; Ani:
and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership Millennial Capital of Armenia, exhibition catalogue, History
(Aldershot, 2007). Museum of Armenia (Yerevan, 2015).

FIGURE 19.1. Aght’amar, Church of the Holy Cross, west façade, with sculptural decoration; at the center, Gagik presents the
church to Christ (author)
CHAPTER NINETEEN: DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL STYLES III 457

a population of more than one hundred thousand.
Ongoing excavations are revealing significant
elements of the street system, as well as shops,
houses, and baths. Once known as the “city of
1,001 churches,” only a handful stand today.
The fortified citadel contained the palace of the
Bagratids and (presumably) their predecessors, in-
cluding several ceremonial halls, chapels, and a
bath, excavated by the Russians at the beginning of
the twentieth century, but incompletely under-
stood. The impressive fortification walls, which
guard the city on its vulnerable north side, were
built under Smbat, 977–89, following the model
of the Land Walls of Constantinople, with two
lines of defense: a tall inner wall and a lower outer
wall, both lined with towers, preceded by a dry
moat (Fig. 19.6). Like the churches, the walls and
towers were built with ashlar facing on a concrete-
rubble core, often with patterns in different colors
FIGURE 19.2. Aght’amar, Church of the Holy Cross, plan
of stone and apotropaic symbols. Inscriptions from
(redrawn after C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, 1975) subsequent centuries mark numerous repairs and
reinforcement. Unlike the Walls of Constantino-
ple, those of Ani have bent entrances, with the
gates staggered from the outer to the inner wall.
FIGURE 19.3.
Aght’amar,
Church of
the Holy
Cross,
interior, a
view into the
vaulting
(author)

FIGURE 19.4. Ani, view looking northeast from the citadel, with the cathedral at the center, between the Seljuk Mosque to the
left and the Church of the Redeemer to the right; the city walls are visible in the left distance and the remains of the medieval
bridge are in the gorge to the right (author)
The Cathedral of Ani, dedicated in 1001, was of the interior are similarly thin and elegant, ar-
the work of the renowned architect Trdat, who ticulated with multiple setbacks, the linearity of
was also responsible for rebuilding the dome of the supports emphasizing the attenuated height.
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople after its collapse The dome, 7.5 meters in diameter (or 10.4 meters
in the earthquake of 989.4 The cathedral was begun to the midpoint of the piers), rose above penden-
by Smbat II in 989 and completed by Queen Ka- tives; the central bay is proportionally larger and
tramide, wife of Gagik Bagratuni (Figs. 19.7– more prominent than its counterpart at Mren.
19.10). In its design, the cathedral harks back to the The structural clarity evident in the cathedral
plan and the proportions of the seventh-century has long intrigued Western visitors: for example,
domed basilica at Mren, which may have served as the stepped profiles of the compound piers con-
its model, while elaborated inside and out with ar- tinue into the vaulting in a way that recalls the
chitectonic detailing (compare Figs. 12.2–12.4). articulation of forms in European Romanesque ar-
The tall mass of the building rises above a stepped chitecture, seeming to clarify the structural system
base, its walls and vaults constructed of carefully in a similar way. But this view is a bit misleading,
carved facing of the distinctive reddish stone as the architectonic detailing in Caucasian build-
characteristic of Ani. As at Mren, there is no nar- ings of this period is primarily decorative and not
thex. Elegant decorative arcading lines the exte- always coordinated with the structure. In its “struc-
rior, the façades punctuated by V-shaped recesses, tural rationalism” the cathedral may be unique to
which correspond to the structural divisions of the region. While elegant and rational in the
the interior. Windows are tall and thin, with major spaces, it is somewhat less so in the side
sculpted frames. The compound piers and arches aisles, and the arcading of the exterior bears no re-
lationship to the structural system. From a West-
4
Maranci, “The Architect Trdat,” 294–305, esp. 299–301. ern perspective, we expect structural rationalism,

FIGURE 19.5.
Ani, city plan, showing
major monuments (after
J. Strzygowski, Baukunst,
1918)
but the inconsistencies indicate that within the Whether or not Trdat’s cathedral was built in
Caucasus, structure and decoration were usually dialogue with a specific monument of the Arme-
separate concerns. As a mason who traveled, nian past, this was clearly the case with another
Trdat may have observed the structural clarity of church attributed to him. The Church of Gregory
surviving Roman (as opposed to Romanesque) at Ani, known as King Gagik’s Church (or Gagk-
monuments. shen), was constructed ca. 1001–1005, clearly in

FIGURE 19.6.
Ani, Northern
Walls, looking
east across the
dry moat
(author)
FIGURE 19.7.
Ani, cathedral,
seen from the
southeast
(author)

FIGURE 19.8. Ani, cathedral, a detail of one of the decorative niches on the east façade, with both sculpted and painted
ornaments (author)
FIGURE 19.9.
imitation of the Church of the Vigilant Powers
Ani, cathedral,
(Zvart‘nots‘)—a tetraconch set within a circle,
plan and
elevation (after
built at almost the same scale (Figs. 19.11A and
J. Strzygowski, 19.12; and compare Figs. 12.19 and 12.20).5 Even
Baukunst, the architectural sculpture follows the model of
1918) Zvart‘nots‘. As at the cathedral, the area beneath
the dome is increased in prominence, and the lin-
earity of the piers was given greater emphasis.
While Zvart‘nots‘ was the most significant reli-
gious site in Armenia, it is nevertheless curious
that Trdat chose an architectural model that had
experienced structural failure—by 1001, Zvart‘nots‘
was in ruins. Was the copy meant to transfer the
sacred associations of the prototype to the new
capital city? Whatever his reasoning, despite his
successful repair of the dome of Hagia Sophia, it
seems that structural theory was not Trdat’s strong
suit. Within a decade, King Gagik’s church re-
quired structural reinforcement—massive piers
were added at the middle of each exedra, but the
building collapsed shortly thereafter. As with its
5
Maranci, “The Architect Trdat,” 297–99.

FIGURE 19.10. Ani, cathedral, interior, looking southwest (author)

FIGURE 19.11. Plans of centrally planned churches at Ani: (A) Church of St. Gregory of Gagik; (B) Church of
the Redeemer; (C) Citadel Chapel; (D) Church of St. Gregory of Grigor Pahlavuni (after J.-M. Thierry and A. Donabédian,
Armenian Art, 1987)
FIGURE 19.12. Ani, Church of St. Gregory of Gagik, view of the ruins (author)

FIGURE 19.13.
Ani, Church of St.
Gregory of Grigor
Pahlavuni, exterior
from the north
(author)
prototype, the elevation cannot be reconstructed arcading on the exterior. On the lower level of the
with any certainty. interior, niches are set into the thickness of the
A variety of centrally planned churches survive wall, lined with engaged columns, including an
at Ani. One of the older examples may be the enlarged eastern niche for the sanctuary, flanked
small Church of St. Gregory, said to have been by tiny chapels. The upper level is set back and
commissioned by Grigor Pahlavuni as a family comprises the drum of the enormous dome,
chapel in the late tenth century (Figs. 19.11D and pierced by twelve thin windows, plain on the in-
19.13). The central hexagonal space expands out- terior but detailed on the exterior by twenty-four
ward into six equal horseshoe-shaped niches and blind arches. Despite the 1912 restoration, the
is covered by a small dome, approximately 5 meters eastern half of the church collapsed in 1957, per-
in diameter. Tiny chapels, set into the wall thick- haps as a result of the reduced mass of the lower
ness, flank the eastern niche, and the entrance is walls on that side. In its present state, the church
off-axis. The exterior is dodecagonal, with the pro- dramatically provides its own cross-section.
jecting niches separated by V-shaped recesses. The The Church of the Holy Apostles at Ani, built
drum of the dome is detailed with arcading, while sometime in the early eleventh century, offers a
on the lower level, the windows are individually more complex plan, a domed tetraconch inscribed
framed. The dome itself is covered by the charac- within a square, with corner chapels, the dome orig-
teristic conical roof. inally approximately 7.6 meters in diameter (Fig.
The popularity of the centralized plan is also 19.15). Already in ruins when excavated in 1909, the
evident at the Church of the Redeemer, built by dome apparently rose above pendentives, and
the general Ablgharib in 1035 on a considerably the corner chapels may have been domed as well.
larger scale, with a dome approximately 9.5 meters The nave is rigidly symmetrical, while the chapels
in diameter (Figs. 19.11B and 19.14). Octagonal take a variety of shapes; those to the east have ad-
on the interior and nineteen sided on the exterior, ditional tiny chapels set within the wall thickness.
the church rises in two stages below the conical Entered from the north and south, the church
roof covering the dome, both stages detailed with lacked a narthex, although each of the four corner

FIGURE 19.14.
Ani, Church
of the
Redeemer,
seen from the
southwest
(author)
FIGURE 19.15. chapels was provided with one. The exterior was
Ani, Church of arcaded and punctuated by the typical V-shaped
the Holy indentations framing the four apses. The excava-
Apostles, with tions indicated that the church stood in an open
gavit added in courtyard that was gradually filled with burial
the early structures over the course of the next century.
thirteenth
Sometime before 1215 (the date of the oldest in-
century
scription), a gavit (or forehall; also called a zha-
(redrawn after
J. Strzygowski,
matun) was constructed against the south façade,
Baukunst, 1918) its roof centered on a muqarnas vault supported
above intersecting arches.
The curiously inventive form of the gavit is
characteristic of thirteenth-century developments,
which will be explored further in Chapter 23. The
gavit marks the introduction of a new architec-
tural form in the period under discussion, for
which the most important example is at the mon-
astery of Hoṙomos, located 15 kilometers north-
east of Ani (Figs. 19.16 and 19.17).6 Founded by
Abas I (943–53), following the relocation of the
capital to Ani, the monastery was adopted by the
Bagratid kings for royal burials. Largely rebuilt in
6
E. Vardanyan, ed., Hoṙomos Monastery: Art and History (Paris, 2015).

FIGURE 19.16. Hoṙomos Monastery,
Church of St. John, plan and section of
church and zhamatun (redrawn after
J.-M. Thierry and A. Donabédian,
Armenian Art, 1987)
the eleventh century, the main church is credited pyramid rising above shell-like squinches and
to Yovhannes Smbat (1020–42) and dedicated to open at the top, covered by a canopy on the exte-
St. John. The church itself is relatively simple, rior (that surviving is a later replacement). The
without decorative elaboration, its central dome wedge-shaped segments of the central vault are
on pendentives rising above engaged piers; the covered with intricate carving, both figural and
bema apse is flanked by pastophoria. The exterior decorative, perhaps intended to evoke an image of
forms are plain, with the exception of the charac- heaven. To the east and west, the axial bays have
teristic V-shaped indentations on the façades. In flattened eight-part vaults with scalloped segments,
striking contrast is the large and extravagant gavit set above squinches. The axial bay to the north is
or, as it is called in the foundation inscription, covered by a flattened barrel vault, while all the
zhamatun, which projects to the west, probably other bays have flat ceilings, detailed with carved
built as a mausoleum for Yovhannes Smbat, which crosses and decorative roundels.
can be dated by inscription to 1038 and was in- While most Armenian churches lacked a nar-
tended from the outset. Noticeably larger than thex, the gavit at Hoṙomos is often considered the
the church, the rectangular forehall measures 12.4 prototype of an increasingly popular form of fore-
by 18.8 meters internally. While relatively plain hall, which finds a particularly rich development
on the exterior, the interior is lavishly detailed. in the thirteenth century, when they were added
The structure is subdivided into nine bays by to older churches—as at the Apostles Church—
arches rising from four freestanding piers and or constructed simultaneously with the church
twelve engaged piers, all cylindrical and detailed proper—as at Hoṙomos. Scholars have long puz-
with tall bases and Doric-like capitals. The lateral zled over the specific meaning of the terms gavit
walls are broken by small ocular windows, and the and zhamatun, but for all intents and purposes,
nine bays are covered by a variety of roofing forms. they seem to be interchangeable. Functionally,
The central vault comprises a steep octagonal the space could be used as an assembly hall for the

FIGURE 19.17. Hoṙomos Monastery, Church of St. John, interior of the zhamatun, looking west (Zaven Sargsyan)

FIGURE 19.18.
Ot’ht’a Eklesia,
basilica, view
from the
southeast
(author)
monastic community, as well as for administra- ties of the areas during that time. Both the archi-
tive and legal activities, as numerous secular in- tectural developments and the religious ties of the
scriptions attest—that is, they stand in contrast tenth century and later are more distinct, reflecting
to the more sacred functions and associations of the remarkable individuality of parallel cultures.
the naos. Perhaps most important is the use of the Although construction techniques and decorative
space for burials, which were not allowed within features are often similar, the Georgians preferred
the church proper; the gavit could play an impor- the basilica, whether domed or not, to the more
tant role in the process of patronage, providing an centralized designs of the Armenians.8 Architec-
honored place of the burial for donors. In this, it ture flourished from the mid-tenth century
parallels architectural developments within Byz- onward, beginning in the western Georgian re-
antine lands, as new architectural forms provided gions, associated with the rule of David III of
spaces for privileged burials in elaborate church Tao. 9 Churches were often isolated in the rugged
designs. The gavit was thus a distinct architectural landscape, doubling as monasteries, cathedrals,
element, unique to Armenia, and not related to burial places, and administrative centers. More than
the development of the Byzantine monastic nar- anything, however, they stand as monuments to
thex, or lite, to which it is sometimes compared. their patrons, for in a land with shifting allegiances
The formal origin of the architectural design con- and frontiers, churches proved to be the most dura-
tinues to be debated.7 ble monuments—as their survival testifies.
Georgia. The church architecture of Armenia Ot‘ht‘a Eklesia (Dörtkilise, now eastern Turkey),
and Georgia remained remarkably similar through begun ca. 961–65, is a grand, three-aisled basilica,
the early period, indicative of the close religious reviving a type known in the early period (Figs.
19.18–19.20). Built in the time of David the Great
7
P. Mylonas, “Gavits armeniéns et Litae byzantines. Observations
nouvelles sur le complexe de Saint-Luc en Phocide,” CahArch 38
8
Alpago-Novello, Art and Architecture in Medieval Georgia.
(1990): 99–122. 9
Djobadze, Early Medieval Georgian, for what follows.

FIGURE 19.20. Ot’ht’a Eklesia, basilica, interior, looking
FIGURE 19.19. Ot’ht’a Eklesia, basilica, plan and section southeast (author)
(after W. Djobadze, Early Medieval, 1992)
(r. 958–1001), it is known as “the church of the articulated by blind arcades, which step up grace-
four (holy men)” as opposed to “four churches,” fully on the east and west façades, with an empha-
as the name might suggest. A “splendid monas- sis on linearity and vertical attenuation.
tery” is mentioned in a text of 965, and the Joints visible in the ashlar of the upper east
church may have been built shortly before that and west façades indicate a change in the design,
date. In addition to the church, the monastery in- either during construction or very shortly thereaf-
cludes a mortuary chapel, a refectory, a seminary, ter. The original nave roof had a shallower pitch
and a scriptorium, the latter building adjoining and was approximately 4 meters lower—that is,
the basilica to the west. While lacking a dome, following the angle of the stepped arcades, prob-
Ot‘ht‘a Eklesia is nevertheless impressive in its ably without a clerestory. An inscription at the
austere monumentality and magnificent, pristine apex of the east gable names David as kouropal-
setting. Its plan measures 28.5 by 18.6 meters, ates, a title he received in 978, and thus the mod-
with the nave vault rising 22 meters above floor ifications to the building must have occurred ca.
level. As with the Armenian churches just dis- 978–1001. The western gallery in the nave is also
cussed, the construction is of ashlar on a rubble a slightly later addition. The Romanesque-like or-
core, with the superstructure resting on a stepped derliness suggested by the architectonic detailing
base. The church itself is three aisled with the is misleading. The bays of the nave are of different
nave and side aisles covered by banded barrel dimensions; the arcading of the exterior walls
vaults, the lofty central nave rising to include thin bears no relationship to the internal structural
clerestory windows, in addition to two zones of system; even the banding of the barrel vaults
small windows in the side aisles. The exterior is doesn’t always match from the nave to the side

FIGURE 19.21.
Öşk Vank
(Oshki),
Church of St.
John the
Baptist, view
from the
southwest
(author)
aisles. As in other Caucasian examples, architec- equally complex, measuring 40.6 by 27 meters
tonic features are used as an aesthetic solution, internally, with the dome rising approximately
rather than as a visual expression of the structure. 30 meters. The cross arms of the domed basilica
Ot‘ht‘a Eklesia is unusual in its vaulting, al- terminate in apses, and all three apses are framed
though the nearby monastic Church of Parhali by chapels—those to the east pastophoria. The
(Barhal) is similarly barrel vaulted and must be single-aisled nave was covered by a banded barrel
slightly later, as it includes all of the design vault, now mostly fallen, composed of five bays of
changes of Ot‘ht‘a Eklesia in a single-phase con- different length marked by stepped pilasters along
struction. Considerably more common for Geor- the walls. The westernmost bay included a gallery,
gian architecture, however, is the domed basilica, similar to that at Ot‘ht‘a Eklesia. The dome, with
and of these, the Church of St. John the Baptist an internal diameter of 8.95 meters, rises on a tall
at Öşk Vank (Oshki) is the grandest of tenth- drum broken by twelve large windows, above
century churches, built ca. 963–73 by David the four piers that define the crossing: those to the
Great and his brother Bagrat (Figs. 19.21–19.24). east are cylindrical and those to the west com-
The site served both as a monastery and as an ad- pound, equipped with carved seats (presumably
ministrative center, although virtually nothing of for the bishop) facing east. The high arches are
the secular buildings survives, and the monastic slightly pointed, with pendentives in the transi-
buildings are in ruins. Lavishly decorated with ex- tion, decorated with shell-like insets. In addition to
terior sculpture, images of the founders appear the rich architectural sculpture, traces of painted
presenting the church at the southeast corner, and decoration survive throughout the interior.
the exterior preserves abundant inscriptions, both The nave is flanked by a long, narrow chapel of
carved and painted. The plan of the church is uncertain purpose on the north side, while the

FIGURE19.22.
Öşk Vank
(Oshki),
Church of St.
John the
Baptist, plan
(after
W. Djobadze,
Early Medieval,
1992)
FIGURE 19.23.
Öşk Vank
(Oshki), Church
of St. John the
Baptist, interior,
looking east
(author)

FIGURE 19.24.
Öşk Vank
(Oshki), Church
of St. John the
Baptist, south
porch, looking
east (author)
south opens into a portico—a marvel of unusual and 19.26).10 It is similarly a monumental domed
vaulting forms and an explosion of carved decora- basilica of fine ashlar construction, resplendent
tion, perhaps the best surviving evidence of the with relief sculpture, the masons here similarly
innovative approach of the masons coupled with delighting in variety. Rising on a stepped base,
the love of decorative variety. Each of the piers is the walls are heavily articulated with multiple set-
unique—cylindrical, quatrefoil, octagonal. The backs, detailed with pilasters and half-columns
vaults are similarly innovative—each unique and that continue into the arcades. The east and west
lavishly carved, octagonal above squinches, with a façades include V-shaped indentations, but the
central cross framed by scalloped segments. Ex- exuberant architectonic detailing bears only a
ternal decoration is similarly robust, the eastern nominal relationship to the interior structural di-
façades marked by blind arcading and V-shaped visions. The rhythm of the interior differs, with a
indentations framing the apses. Both figural and banded barrel vault (now fallen) over the nave
decorative sculpture is often asymmetrically dis- and the tall dome rising above piers similar to
posed, and the projecting south porch is covered those at Oshki, with squinch pendentives in the
by an asymmetrical gabled roof, with unfinished transition above slightly pointed arches. The unu-
sculptural decoration below—it shelters an exten- sual hemicycle in the choir is said to reuse com-
sive dedicatory inscription in red paint, which ponents of a seventh-century building that once
provides much information about its construc- stood on the site. The exuberant linearity of the
tion (see Chap. 16). The elaborated triconch plan architectural detailing is complemented by a rich
is repeated at Kutaisi and Alaverdi on a slightly painted program, partially preserved, with the
larger scale. Exaltation of the Cross, dramatically set against
Built more than a generation later, the Cathe- a background of lapis lazuli in the dome. The
dral of Ishkani (İşhan) was inaugurated in its present
form under Giorgi I (r. 1014–27) and completed 10
M. Kadiroğlu, The Architecture of the Georgian Church at Işhan
under Bagrat IV (r. 1027–72) in 1032 (Figs. 19.25 (Frankfurt, 1991).

FIGURE 19.25.
Ishkani
Cathedral,
view from the
northwest
(author)
FIGURE 19.26.
Ishkani
Cathedral, plan
(after W. Djobadze,
Early Medieval,
1992)

FIGURE 19.27.
Mtskheta,
Cathedral of the
Twelve Apostles,
view from the
southeast
(author)
western nave was walled off in the nineteenth Jerusalem,” with close connections to the intellec-
century to function as a mosque. tual circles of Constantinople.12 While the church
The picturesque city of Mtskheta was the cap- is a good poster child for the revival of Georgia
ital of Iberia until it was relocated to the more de- under David, there is little in the architecture that
fensible Tbilisi in the sixth century. It remained could not be found a century earlier, although it
an important religious center, as the Svetitskhov- is spacious and lit by large windows. The main
eli Cathedral is alleged to house the chiton of church, dedicated to the Virgin, is cruciform with
Christ (Figs. 19.27 and 19.28).11 It was built in its corner compartments, each surmounted by an
present form by the Katholikos Melkisedek in upper-level chapel or oratory, all subsequently en-
1010–29 as a domed basilica on the site of the veloped by annexes on three sides: those to the
oldest Christian structure in the kingdom. The west and south already in the twelfth century and
church was repaired and elongated to the west in those to the north in the thirteenth. Unusually, its
the fifteenth century and later, and its multiple apse preserves a mosaic of the Theotokos, indica-
phases and consequent irregularities attest to its tive of the close ties to the Byzantine capital. Sur-
continued veneration. A domed basilica with side viving from the thirteenth century is the chapel
aisles, the exuberant sculptural detailing follows to the east, dedicated to St. George, a smaller ver-
the models established in Tao-Klarjeti. sion of the main church, as well as the elevated
Set in the mountains northeast of Kutaisi, Chapel of St. Nicholas to the west, the belfry to
Gelat‘i Monastery was begun in 1106 under the the northwest, and a rectangular building usually
auspices of David IV the Builder, although it was identified as the Academy (in the sixteenth cen-
completed by his son Demetrius in 1130 (Figs. tury it became the refectory). The south gate, a
19.29 and 19.30). An important center of learn- vaulted passageway, may be from the time of
ing, it is called “another Athens” and “the second
12
Alpago-Novello, Art and Architecture, 328–31; W. Djobadze,
Alpago-Novello, Art and Architecture, 395–401; M. Bulia and
11
“Gelat‘i,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. J. Strayer, 5th vol.
M. Janjalia, eds., Mtskheta (Tbilisi, 2006). (New York, 1985), 374.

FIGURE 19.28. Mtskheta, Cathedral of the
Twelve Apostles, plan and elevation (after
A. Alpago-Novello, Art and Architecture, 1980)
FIGURE 19.29.
Gelati
Monastery,
view from the
east (David
Khoshtaria)

FIGURE 19.30.
Gelati Monastery, plan
(redrawn after A. Alpago-
Novello, Art and
Architecture, 1980)
David, but it has been subsequently modified. continued from established types. Nevertheless, the
David chose to be buried beneath the floor of the rich developments in both Armenia and Georgia of
passageway and gate of the monastery; many of the tenth and eleventh centuries offer an important
his successors chose to be buried within the mon- corrective to discussions of the period, which tend
astery precincts as well. to center innovation in Constantinople. It is worth
considering the increasing political connections
, with the Byzantine capital and court in light of the
earlier appearance of certain architectural forms in
Unlike Armenia, which experienced a revival in the Caucasus: the appearance of the triconch plan,
the thirteenth century with innovative new archi- the octagon-domed structural system, systems of
tectural forms, standardization seems to have arcading, and the stepped base in the Byzantine
been the rule within Georgian territories. External monuments of Anatolia, and even Constantinople,
façades often include an impressive array of deco- for example, may ultimately derive from the
rative forms, but the plans and structural systems monuments of the Caucasus.

CHAPTER TWENTY
CONTESTED LANDS
Architecture at the Time of the Crusades
F ollowing the successful completion of the First

Crusade and the foundation of the Crusader
States in 1099, contacts and cultural exchanges
the north and east. The Fatimid Caliphate (909–
1171), which followed the Isma’ili Shi’ite form of
Islam, was established in the Maghreb and ex-
between Western Europe and the Eastern panded across North Africa in the tenth century.
Mediterranean increased, and this is reflected in By 973 the Fatimids had set up a new capital at
the architecture. As Western European powers Cairo and eventually controlled much of the
expanded, politically and culturally, it was often Southern Mediterranean—halting Byzantine ad-
at the expense of the Byzantines and marked a vances in Syria and Iraq and claiming their former
traumatic rupture in the Muslim cultures of province of Sicily. While generally tolerant of reli-
the region. While most often discussed solely in gious minorities and able to balance the dissenting
terms of French Romanesque and Gothic, views of the majority Sunni populations, there
Crusader architecture may be better understood were exceptions. During the first decades of the
as representing local construction practices with eleventh century, the Caliph al-Hakim was openly
an overlay of Western European (or specifically hostile to Sunnis, Christians, and Jews and in 1009
French) details. This chapter attempts to set the ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy
heterogeneous architecture within the political Sepulchre in Jerusalem, ostensibly because of the
and cultural networks of the period. “fraud” practiced in the ceremony of the Descent
The story of “Crusader architecture” begins of the Holy Fire at Easter. Famines and fractions
long before 1099 and does not end with the final in the army eventually resulted in civil war and
siege of Acre in 1291.1 The growth of two Islamic decline. Saladin, originally a vizier, brought an end
states in the tenth and eleventh centuries set the to Fatimid rule and by 1174 had established himself
stage: the Fatimids to the south and the Seljuks to as sultan of the Ayyubid dynasty (1171–1260). A
great military strategist, in his first decade of rule,
Saladin reclaimed and consolidated much of the
1
For background, see J. Riley-Smith, ed., The Oxford Illustrated
History of the Crusades (Oxford, 1995); and for another perspective, Near East and North Africa and in 1187 defeated
P. M. Cobb, The Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades the Crusader armies at the Battle of Hattin.
(Oxford, 2014); K. Moore, The Architecture of the Christian Holy To the north, Turks from Central Asia had
Land: Reception from Late Antiquity through the Renaissance established the Great Seljuk Empire in Persia
(Cambridge, 2017). in 1037, capturing Baghdad in 1055. Having
Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre, south transept, showing connection to the eleventh-century arcade (author)
479
converted to Sunni Islam, they controlled large Crusader culture in isolation. Indeed, a look at
areas extending from Anatolia to Central Asia the architecture reveals a history of contestation,
and the Persian Gulf. Under Alp Arslan, the exchange, and coexistence. While not always har-
Seljuks invaded Anatolia in the 1060s, decisively monious or stylistically unified, architectural con-
defeating the Byzantine army at the Battle of struction could mark territory in overlapping
Manzikert in 1071. Pushing westward, the Seljuks spaces and demonstrate prestige and control to
of Rūm (Anatolia) established a capital briefly at local inhabitants and travelers—as well as to
Nicaea and subsequently at Konya (Byzantine other rulers in close proximity. There is also a
Ikonion). Much of Anatolia was carved into a long history of local architectural practices to
series of smaller principalities (or beyliks) by contribute to the mix, as well the standing monu-
Turkmen generals and followers of Alp Arslan; ments, representing an evocative religious past,
Syria was similarly subdivided. The twelfth cen- which could not be ignored.
tury is marked by Byzantine interventions and Before the Crusades. Jerusalem, with its rich
reconquest along the west and south coasts of and contested history, provides a good microcosm
Anatolia, while the Seljuks of Rūm gradually con- for exploring the complex nature of Crusader ar-
solidated their holdings, absorbing many of the chitecture. But it was never the major political or
beyliks (discussed further in Chap. 23). Although cultural center of the region. For this we must
the Seljuks had been nominally in control of look to Cairo and Damascus and their rich archi-
Jerusalem, the Fatimids retook Palestine shortly tectural traditions.2 There was also the regional
before the arrival of the First Crusade. architectural idiom of the Christian communi-
It is doubtful the Crusaders fully compre- ties, which might be categorized as provincial
hended the fractious ethnic, political, and reli- Byzantine, one that provided a link to the
gious landscape they were entering. In addition to Christian past.3 In addition to a massive upsurge
divisions among the Muslims, the Christians of in church construction, the Crusaders introduced
the East were far from a monolithic group, with a distinctive architectural features from Romanesque
great variety of religious beliefs and languages. Western Europe, which came to represent their
Politically, the Armenians had reestablished them- political hegemony.4 To a certain extent, there
selves (with Byzantine assistance) in Cilicia, while is a shared architectural vocabulary that may be
the Byzantines were still in control of the south impossible to disentangle. Nineteenth-century
coast of Anatolia and Cyprus, and there were large scholarship was caught up in issues of origins: For
Christian and Jewish minorities in Muslim lands. example, was the pointed arch imported from
Ostensibly invited by the emperor Alexios I Western Europe, or does it derive from regional
Komnenos to assist in the reconquest of lost Muslim or Christian usage?5 Are gadroons, or
Byzantine territories, the army of the First Crusade
arrived at the walls of Constantinople in 1096. 2
For this see, D. Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in Cairo:
While helping to restore Byzantine control in west-
An Introduction (Leiden, 1989); and R. Ettinghausen, O. Grabar,
ern Anatolia, the Crusaders viewed lands further to and M. Jenkins-Madina, The Art and Architecture of Islam
the east as fair game. After all, Palestine had not 650–1250, 2nd ed. (New Haven, 2003).
been under Byzantine control for almost half a 3
D. Pringle, “Church Building in Palestine before the Crusades,”
millennium. With Crusader victories at Antioch in Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda (Oxford, 1982),
(1098) and Jerusalem (1099), they established sev- 5–46; M. Georgopoulou, “The Artistic World of the Crusaders
eral independent states, forming a narrow strip of and Oriental Christians in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,”
land along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, Gesta 43, no. 2 (2004): 115–28.
extending into Anatolia: the Principality of 4
J. Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098–1187
Antioch (1098–1268), the County of Edessa (Cambridge, 1995), esp. 69–73.
(1098–1144), the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099– 5
See, for example, C.-J.-M. de Vogüé, Les Églises de la Terre Sainte
1187), and the County of Tripoli (1101–1289). (Paris, 1860). Note also C. Enlart, Les Monuments des croisés dans le
The fluid and permeable regional borders royaume de Jérusalem: Architecture religieuse et civile, 2 vols. (Paris,
between very different political and religious 1925–28); but see more recently D. Pringle, The Churches of the
polities emphasize the impossibility of viewing Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, for an assessment of individual

FIGURE 20.1
Jerusalem, al-Aqsa
Mosque, view into
the dome at the
crossing, looking
southeast (Ross
Burns, Manar-al-
Athar Project)
pillow voussoirs, which appear so prominently on There had been a variety of construction activi-
the façade of the Crusader Holy Sepulchre, to be ties in Jerusalem—both Muslim and Christian—
read as Eastern or Western? Both appear across in the eleventh century. Interventions in the al-
the Mediterranean during the twelfth century, in Aqsa Mosque belong to the mid-eleventh century,
Egypt, Palestine, Sicily, and France.6 The dome sponsored by the Fatimid caliph al-Zahir follow-
on pendentives, usually seen as a Byzantine fea- ing the great earthquake of 1033 (Figs. 20.1 and
ture, finds its way into Crusader architecture, 20.2). The great mosque of Jerusalem was sited
while the dome on squinches, which follows facing the Dome of the Rock on the south of
Islamic models, does not. Which of these features the Haram al-Sharif esplanade, on the site of the
should be interpreted as cultural signifiers?7 There first mosque in the city. The fifteen-aisle plan was
were certainly forms that bore specific cultural a remnant of the reconstruction by Al-Mahdi
meanings and had been consciously selected. For (775–85). The wooden dome, rising above a ma-
example, ribbed groin vaults and window tracery sonry drum and arches at the crossing, is eleventh-
appear only in Crusader monuments. Properly century work, as the mosaic inscription attests.8
read, the architecture of the period can thus Its construction has no parallels in regional Islamic
provide a window onto cultural interchange and or Christian vocabularies, placing pendentives
exclusivity. with disk-shaped recesses at their centers above
tiny squinches at the springing.
The Abbey Church of the Monastery of the
monuments, with bibliography. See also D. Pringle, Secular
Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological Cross, just outside Jerusalem, was constructed in
Gazetteer (Cambridge, 1997). the 1020–30s. It marked the site associated with
6
The earliest securely dated are those of the Bab Futuh in Cairo,
1087–91; Enlart, Monuments, 1st vol., 97–98. 8
For a summary of the scholarship, see Pringle, Churches, 3: 417–
7
B. Kühnel, Crusader Art of the Twelfth Century: A Geographical, an 34; the construction may be a remnant of eighth-century
Historical, or an Art Historical Notion? (Berlin, 1994). construction, although eleventh century seems more likely.
CHAPTER TWENTY: CONTESTED LANDS 481

FIGURE 20.2
Jerusalem, al-Aqsa
Mosque: (A)
hypothetical
reconstruction of
al-Mahdi’s mosque;
(B) plan showing
later modifications
(author, redrawn
after
K. A. C. Creswell,
Early Muslim
Architecture, 1958;
and D. Pringle, in
O. Grabar and
B. Z. Kedar, Where
Heaven and Earth
Meet, 2009)
the tree that had provided the wood for the True dome they support. Characteristically, the vaults
Cross, which seems to have been a new locus themselves are of rubble. The plan finds some
sanctus, although an older church stood on the similarity with the domed basilicas of the sev-
site. The relic was accessible through a cruciform enth-century Caucasus, but the design appears
hole beneath the altar (Figs. 20.3 and 20.4).9 elsewhere in and around Jerusalem, as at the
Although under the patronage of the Georgians, Church of John the Baptist at ‘Ein Karim, which
the plan and construction are more characteristic marked his birthplace and was probably contem-
of local practice. The basilica featured a dome on porary with the Monastery of the Cross. In any
pendentives at the crossing and groin vaults above case, the church offers a good example of local
the other bays, terminating in a tripartite sanctu- construction practices immediately prior to the
ary. The arches are slightly pointed and built of Crusades.
ashlar, much like the pilasters below and the At the center of Jerusalem, the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre represented the ultimate goal of
9
Pringle, Churches, 2: 33–40. pilgrim and Crusader alike, marking the sites

of Christ’s Crucifixion, Entombment, and FIGURE 20.3
Resurrection. Following its fourth-century founda- Monastery of the

tions, discussed in Chapter 2, the church had suf- Cross, Church of
the Holy Cross,
fered damage in the seventh and tenth centuries
plan (after
before it was destroyed in 1009 on al-Hakim’s
D. Pringle,
orders. Subsequently rebuilt with the financial sup- “Church
port of the Byzantine emperors, it was completed Building,” 1982)
by Constantine IX Monomachos ca. 1048 (Figs.
20.5–20.7).10 This phase followed Byzantine archi-
tectural ideas and was probably directed by a master
mason from Constantinople, although built by a
mixed crew of local and imported masons. The
workmanship helps to identify the builders: the
Constantinopolitan team built in alternating bands
of brick and stone, with the recessed brick tech- FIGURE 20.4
nique in the brick courses, while the local team Monastery of the
built solely in ashlar, with slightly pointed arches. Cross, Church of
Although the rotunda and the porticoed court- the Holy Cross,
yard remained much the same, neither the basilica interior looking
nor the atrium was reconstructed; at the Anastasis northwest (Megan
Boomer)
Rotunda an open, conical vault replaced the
original wooden dome, and an apse was added
on its eastern façade. Probably the south entrance
became the main point of access at this time. The
courtyard became the focal point of the complex,
enveloped by numerous annexed chapels organized
on two levels. Along its eastern perimeter, the
chapels marked events from the Passion of Christ,
including the so-called Prison of Christ, the
Flagellation, the Crown of Thorns, the Division of
the Garments, and, in an elevated position, the
Chapel of Calvary, above the so-called Chapel of
Adam. Stairs led down to a grotto beneath the
ruins of the basilica, identified as the site of the
Invention of the Cross. Another range of chapels
extended south from the rotunda. There were also
additional chapels on the gallery level, constructed
above Calvary. One, with a dome transition of
trumpet squinches, was built in the recessed brick centuries of Islamic control. The al-Aqsa and the
technique. This stands in contrast to the dome Dome of the Rock were transformed to Christian
transition on one of the south chapels, with usage and situated within the millennial narrative
Islamic-style squinches and slightly pointed arches of the city’s religious history, identified as the
(compare Figs. 20.7A and 20.7B). Temple or Palace of Solomon and the Temple of
As the Crusaders took possession of Jerusalem the Lord, respectively. These figured prominently
in 1099, they attempted to erase the previous into Crusader history, with the Dome of the Rock
administered by the Augustinians, while the al-
10
Coüasnon, Holy Sepulchre; Corbo, Santo Sepolcro di Aqsa was first the royal residence, subsequently the
Gerusalemme; R. G. Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple: headquarters of the Knights Templar.11 Although
Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre,” JSAH 48
(1981): 66–78. 11
See Pringle, Churches, 3: 417–34.

FIGURE 20.5 Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre, plan of the eleventh-century complex: (1) Patriarchate; (2) Anastasis Rotunda;
(3) Aedicule of the Tomb of Christ; (4) inner courtyard; (5) Omphalos marker; (6) Prison of Christ; (7) Chapel of the Flagellation;
(8) Chapel of the Crown of Thorns; (9) Chapel of the Division of the Garments; (10) Crypt of the Invention of the Cross;
(11) Calvary; (12) Chapel of St. Mary; (13) Chapels of St. John, Holy Trinity, and St. James (author, redrawn after V. Corbo,
Santo Sepolcro, 1981)
they were decorated with Christian inscriptions (Fig. 20.8). Both have banded barrel vaults over
and imagery, these disappeared with the recon- the nave and groin vaults over the aisles and termi-
quest of the city in 1187. At the al-Aqsa, the nate in three apses. Neither would have seemed out
Crusaders demolished large areas along the sides, of place in southern France or northern Spain.12
reducing the building to seven aisles, with new The Abbey Church of St. Anne in Jerusalem
construction added, most of which has been re- offers a more composite design (Figs. 20.9–
moved; a lone rose window along the east façade 20.11).13 Built on a site near the Pool of Bethesda
marks the location of the Templars’ chapel. The associated at least since the seventh century with
central three bays of the porch of the al-Aqsa had the house of Joachim and Anna and the location
been built by the Templars, although subse- of the Virgin Mary’s birth, the church replaced
quently reconfigured and expanded. an older monument dedicated to the Virgin, de-
Crusader Romanesque. As the Crusaders settled stroyed in the early eleventh century, probably by
in the region, some of their earliest monuments al-Hakim. The crypt below the eastern end of the
reflect their Western European origins: St. John
(now the Great Mosque), Beirut, and St. John
at Giblet (Byblos) were both begun ca. 1115 and 12
Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 69–73.
are almost purely Romanesque constructions 13
Pringle, Churches, 3: 142–56.

FIGURE 20.6
Jerusalem, Holy
Sepulchre, view in
Anastasis Rotunda,
looking east
(author)
FIGURE 20.7
church expanded from the cave associated with Jerusalem, Holy
the birth of the Virgin. In its present form, the Sepulchre,
church may be dated primarily to ca. 1131–37, transition to the
when the abbey received much support from King dome in two
Fulk and his consort, Melisende, although it was eleventh-century
heavily restored in the nineteenth century. In chapels:
plan, the building is three aisled, with a domed (A) elevated chapel
above Calvary;
crossing, terminating in triple apses. Nave and
(B) Chapel of the
side aisle bays are covered by groin vaults above
Holy Trinity
compound piers. Constructed of local stone, the (author)
forms are heavy, expressed as simple masses on the
exterior. Pilasters mark the divisions on the north
and west façades, enlarged at the southwest corner
to support a belfry that no longer survives.
Although details are carefully carved, there is quite
a bit of irregularity in the church, which is almost
2 meters wider at the west than at the east, and the
west façade is relatively plain. At the springing of
the vaults, brackets frame the piers to support the
groin vaults, suggesting that the building may
have been planned originally for banded barrel
vaults instead, similar to those in the transept.

FIGURE 20.8 last-minute nod to the structural rationalism of
Beirut, Cathedral the Romanesque compound pier.
of St. John (now Interventions at other prominent holy sites are
Mosque of Al-
more difficult to sort out, in part because of the
Omari), plan and
archaeological complexity and in part because of
transverse section
(after D. Pringle,
the continued contestation and destruction of the
Churches of the sites. New construction appeared at the Tomb of
Crusader Kingdom the Virgin, replacing an older Byzantine church
IV, 2009) that has entirely disappeared. While the Crusader
crypt was preserved, the church above is similarly
lost.16 At the site of the Ascension, too, an octago-
nal church rose on the location of the fourth-
century rotunda, although both are known only
from very limited remains.17 At Bethlehem, most
scholars have understood the Crusader architec-
tural interventions as minimal, while concentrat-
ing on the decorative details—including figural
paintings on the columns and a new program
of mosaics on the upper walls, the latter with
Although many features of St. Anne’s may Byzantine participation. But Bethlehem had been
reflect contemporary developments in French used by Baldwin I and Baldwin II as their corona-
Romanesque, the structure also compares favorably tion church, and we might expect greater interest
with the domed basilica design at the Monastery in the site. One suggestion is that the triconch east
of the Cross, suggesting perhaps the transformation end, which is usually attributed to a Justinianic
of local architectural models by Latin Kingdom reconstruction (on no firm documentation), may
patrons. The gadroon arch on the west façade be the work of the Crusaders. Indeed, the tri-
window is also noteworthy. The domed basilica conch form finds better comparisons in the
design proved popular and was repeated at a European Romanesque than in sixth-century
variety of other Jerusalem sites, as may have been Byzantium.18
at St. Mary Latin, St. Mary of the Germans, The Holy Sepulchre. The major enterprise of
St. Mary the Great, and St. Mary Magdalene, all the period was the reconstruction of the Holy
incompletely known.14 Sepulchre, whose short-lived Byzantine phase was
The Crusaders built a church at Abu Ghosh, a presented above. Following the completion of the
site with no previous biblical associations, which First Crusade in 1099, the complex was reconcep-
they identified as the biblical Emmaus, ca. 1140 tualized in accordance with Western European
(Figs. 20.12 and 20.13).15 The complex incorpo- standards, motivated by the limited scale of the
rated a Roman cistern, which became a sacred existing building (Figs. 20.14 and 20.15).19
spring, in the large crypt, as well as an Arab cara- William of Tyre noted that at the time of the First
vansary. The three-aisled church itself is enclosed Crusade,
in fortress-like outer walls, with heavy rectangular
piers, and all bays are covered by groin vaults. At
the springing of the nave vaults, curious “elbow
16
Pringle, Churches, 3: 287–306.
columns” are inserted below the transverse arches. 17
V. Corbo, Ricerche Archeologiche al Monte degli Ulivi (Jerusalem,
An invention of the Crusaders, it seems, the 1965); Pringle, Churches, 3: 72–87.
elbow columns may indicate a change in design 18
See J. Pickett, “Patronage Contested: Archaeology and the
from barrel to groin vault, introducing a sort of Early Modern Struggle for Possession at the Church of the
Nativity, Bethlehem,” in Visual Constructs of Jerusalem, eds.
B. Kühnel, G. Noga-Banai, and H. Vorholt (Turnhout, 2014), 35–44.
14
Pringle, Churches, 3: 228–61, 327–35. 19
Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic”; Pringle, Churches, 3: 6–72;
15
Pringle, Churches, 1: 7–17. Folda, Art of the Crusades, 177–245.

FIGURE 20.9
Jerusalem, Abbey
Church of
St. Anne, view
from the northwest
(author)
there was only a rather small chapel here, but plan had been developed at that early date, and
after the Christians, assisted by divine mercy, subsequent work apparently proceeded slowly.
had seized Jerusalem with a strong hand, this The Anastasis Rotunda was left in its eleventh-
building seemed to them too small. Accordingly, century form, with much of the Byzantine deco-
they enlarged the original church and added ration in place, but the Byzantine courtyard and
to it a new building of massive and lofty its subsidiary chapels were replaced by a domed
construction, which enclosed the old church transept and a Romanesque pilgrimage choir, its
and in marvelous wise included within its radiating apsidioles replacing the Byzantine cha-
precincts the holy places. pels. The Chapel of Calvary was expanded but
contained within the south transept. The choir
The chronology of the Crusaders’ construction was dedicated in 1149 to celebrate the fiftieth an-
may be outlined as follows. Begun ca. 1114 and niversary of the conquest of Jerusalem. Much of
completed ca. 1120, the Cloister of the Canons the building activity must belong to the decade
was built to the east of the Byzantine complex, on 1140–49; it was certainly not fully completed at
the site of the Constantinian basilica.20 This phase the time of the dedication. Writing ca. 1170–74,
included the subterranean Chapel of St. Helena, John of Würzburg refers to “this new church,”
an expansion of the crypt of the Invention of the emphasizing the newness and spaciousness of the
Cross; the vaulting of the chapel rests below the Crusaders’ additions.
grade level, its dome projecting into the cloister To connect the crusader transept to the ro-
(Figs. 20.16 and 20.17). It is not clear if a master tunda, the Byzantine apse was removed, and the
portals to either side were enlarged. For the first
20
For chronology, see Folda, Art of the Crusades, 177–245. time, all of the Holy Sites were housed under one

FIGURE 20.10
Jerusalem, Abbey
Church of
St. Anne, plan and
longitudinal
section (after
D. Pringle,
Churches of the
Crusader Kingdom
III, 2007)
FIGURE 20.11
Jerusalem, Abbey roof, with the monumental entrance at the south
Church of transept. While visually connected, the resulting
St. Anne, interior, building is replete with disquieting disjunctions.
looking northeast, The basic planning concepts evident in the three
showing brackets different phases stand in stark opposition to
at the springing of
each other. The centralized design of the Early
the groin vaults
Christian rotunda, for example, was subverted by
(author)
the addition of the Byzantine apse and sanctuary,
reversing the orientation from west to east, and
the unity of focus was fragmented with the addi-
tion of the numerous subsidiary chapels. In turn,
the private devotional character of the Byzantine
phase was exploded by the introduction of the
pilgrimage choir, designed to accommodate large
congregations of worshippers. As each phase
incorporated large elements of its predecessor,
the inherent contradictions in planning became
permanent elements of design—a directionally
ambivalent pilgrimage church, with a rotunda in
the place of the nave, enveloped by an array of
subsidiary spaces of varying dates.

The design of the Crusader church appears to FIGURE 20.12
have been rethought on several occasions, with Abu Ghosh,

new ideas introduced long after construction had section, ground
floor plan, crypt
begun. Several design changes are evident at the
plan (after
level of the high vaults. The crossing bay was orig-
D. Pringle,
inally intended to be covered by a tower but was Churches of the
subsequently transformed into a dome on pen- Crusader Kingdom
dentives. Quadripartite ribbed groin vaults were I, 1997)
built above the transept arms and choir, corre-
sponding to the latest fashion in French architec-
ture (Fig. 20.18). Nothing in the rising walls and
supports suggests that the ribbed vaults were in-
tended from the inception; the lower vaults are
unribbed, and the compound piers lack colon-
nettes or pilaster strips to correspond to the ribs
of the vaulting, as was common in contempora-
neous French architecture. The high vaults mark
the first instance of ribbed vaulting in the Holy
Land, and they rank among the earliest examples
of their use in the high vaults of a medieval
church. They must have resulted from the intro-
duction of new building technology from France
toward the middle of the twelfth century. Like
their French counterparts, the ribs have rebated
shelves to support the vaulting compartments
and stems that are visible in the extrados of the
vaults.
Other design afterthoughts clutter the exterior
of the Holy Sepulchre. The Crusader belfry (now
partially fallen), constructed above a Byzantine
chapel to the left of the south transept entrance,
disrupts the balance of the façade (see Fig. 20.14).
Belfries and towers were standard elements in
European Romanesque architecture, although
not in Byzantine. The so-called Chapel of the
Franks was added to the right side of the en-
trance, with stairs and a domed vestibule that
served as a second entrance to the elevated Chapel
of Calvary.
In spite of the numerous changes, there was a
clarity and openness to the crusader’s building
that is difficult to imagine today. The twelfth-cen-
tury visitor encountered a panoramic view that could rightfully claim that the new crusader build-
swept from Calvary, at the extreme right side, to ing “enclosed the old church and in marvelous
the Tomb on the left. Set next to Calvary, as if to wise included within its precincts the holy places.”
endow them with sanctity, were the tombs of the In spite of excellent workmanship, spolia and
Latin Kings. The two most sacred sites in reused columns were incorporated into the con-
Christendom were joined by the new construc- struction, and the connections between the older
tion of the Crusader transept. William of Tyre and new parts are jarring juxtapositions at best:

FIGURE 20.13 bizarre vault forms connect to the rotunda and to
Abu Ghosh, the north gallery, with completely different
interior, looking rhythms on either side (Fig. 20.19). The masons
east through the
were making every attempt to preserve as much as
nave, with “elbow
possible of the older building—and for good
columns” at the
springing of the
reason. By the high Middle Ages, the architecture
high vault (author) of the Holy Sepulchre had come to be regarded as
sacred, and through its tumultuous history the
building itself had become a venerated relic.
Visually, the historical juxtapositions appear
completely illogical, but by their very awkward-
ness, they testified to the building’s antiquity and
significance. The striking contrast of old and new
provided an immediate visual reference to the his-
toric validity of the site.
From another perspective, many of the new
features were coded “Latin.” The south façade,
with its two-level double gate, for example, com-
pares with that of the Platerias façade at Santiago de
Compostela, while the transept and choir with am-
bulatory and radiating chapels were standard fea-
tures from the great pilgrimage churches of Western
Europe from the preceding decades. But elements
also had regional resonance. There are a few details
FIGURE 20.14
Jerusalem, Holy
Sepulchre, view of
the south façade
(author)

FIGURE 20.15 Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre, plan of Crusader Church: (1) Patriarchate; (2) Anastasis Rotunda; (3) Tomb of
Christ; (4) Choir; (5) Chapel of St. Mary; (6) Chapels of the St. John, Holy Trinity, and St. James; (7) Prison of Christ;
(8) Ambulatory; (9) Chapel of St. Helena; (10) Chapel of the Invention of the Cross; (11) Calvary above the Chapel of Adam;
(12) Portal (author)
FIGURE 20.16
Jerusalem, Holy
Sepulchre, Chapel
of St. Helena,
interior looking
east (author)

FIGURE 20.17
Jerusalem, Holy
Sepulchre, Chapel
of St. Helena, plan
and section (after
D. Pringle,
Churches of the
Crusader Kingdom
III, 2007)
that may be of Islamic origin, such as the gadroons not entirely appropriate in a region troubled by
on the arches. The double gates of the south façade earthquakes.21
could find comparison with Jerusalem’s Golden At the Church of Notre Dame of Tortosa
Gate, situating the church within the monumental (Tartus, Syria), the high vault remained a banded
language of the city. Much of the new sculpture on barrel vault, although decorative aspects of the
the façade mimicked regional models, such as the building were updated (Figs. 20.20 and 20.21).
inhabited scrolls and the wind-blown capitals. One of the oldest Marian sanctuaries in the
Indeed, scholars are still at odds to determine what region, the church was an important pilgrimage
was spoliated and what was newly carved (see shrine, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem.
Fig. 20.14). In short, the Crusaders’ Holy Sepulchre Designed and built in the second half of the
participated in a variety of architectural dialogues, twelfth century, the church was apparently left
with both the past and the present. unfinished in 1188. Much of its Gothic appear-
Crusader Gothic? The new Gothic style, ance resulted from later modifications, notably its
which emerged in French architecture after the carved capitals and elegant engaged colonnettes.22
mid-twelfth century, was slow to take hold in the These details give the architecture some degree of
Crusader states, with little evidence before the fall
of Jerusalem in 1187. Combining the structural 21
R. O’Neill, “Gothic on the Edge: Light, Levitation, and Seismic
advantage of the pointed arch and the ribbed Culture in the Evolution of Medieval Religious Architecture of
groin vault, the Gothic system allowed for tall, the Eastern Mediterranean,” PhD diss., Columbia University, 2015.
lightweight, daring construction—although perhaps 22
Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 302–305.

FIGURE 20.18
Jerusalem, Holy
Sepulchre,
Crusader choir,
looking east
(author)
lightness, but thanks to the absence of a clerestory cosmetic facelift to a structurally conservative
and use of a banded barrel vault, the structure rebuilding.25
mains heavy and curiously out of date. The coastal city of Acre became the chief port
At the Cathedral of St. John at Sebaste, for for the Kingdom of Jerusalem after its conquest in
example, the ruined church preserves unique 1104 and an important entrepôt in its own right.26
evidence of a sexpartite ribbed groin-vault system The city fell to Saladin in 1187 but was retaken in
for the nave, constructed ca. 1167–79, with a 1191, after which it became the de facto capital of a
connection to the Cathedral of Sens (Fig. 20.22).23 rump kingdom. By 1228/9 the city came under the
At the Cenacle (the Upper Room at Sion) in jurisdiction of the military order of the Hospitallers.
Jerusalem, it is still hotly debated whether the Much of the city’s organization is known solely
elegant vaulting should be dated before the from the excavated substructures. The Hospitallers’
fall of Jerusalem or to a period of Western extensive compound covered an estimated 4,500
presence after 1229, as seems more likely (Fig. square meters, with great halls organized around a
20.23).24 The renovations at Tortosa are nota- large central courtyard (Figs. 20.24 and 20.25).
ble here, but they provided little more than a Construction began after 1192 on the orders of
Guy de Lusignan and expanded in several phases
23
N. Kenaan-Kedar, “The Cathedral of Sebaste: Its Western through the subsequent century. The large, eight-
Donors and Models,” in The Horns of Hattin, ed. B. Z. Kedar bayed hall closing off the southern side, often
(Jerusalem, 1992), 99–120.
24
For the early date, see H. Plommer, “The Cenacle on Mount
Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, ed. G. Stiebel et
Sion,” in Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda (Oxford,
al. (Jerusalem, 2016), 56–92.
1982), 139–66; for the later date, see Enlart, Monuments des Croisés,
2nd vol., 250; see most recently A. Re’em and I. Berkovich, “New
25
J. Folda, Crusader Art in the Holy Land: From the Third Crusade to the
Discoveries in the Cenacle: Reassessing the Art, Architecture and Fall of Acre, 1187–1291 (Cambridge, 2005), 81–83.
Chronology of the Crusader Basilica on Mount Zion,” in New 26
Pringle, Churches, 4th vol., 3–35.

FIGURE 20.19
Jerusalem, Holy
Sepulchre, south
transept, showing
connection to the
eleventh-century
arcade (author)

FIGURE 20.20
Tortosa (Tartus,
Syria), view from
the southwest
(author)
identified as the refectory, may be the most impres- FIGURE 20.21
sive space, added no earlier than the 1220s or Tortosa (Tartus,

1230s. Heavy cylindrical piers and wall consoles Syria), interior
carry quadripartite ribbed groin vaults. looking east
(author)
While adding a French identity to the space
(augmented by fleurs-de-lis on the consoles), sev-
eral of the ribs have fallen away from the vaults,
exposing the smooth arrises to which they had been
joined. The vault has remained intact, indicating
that in terms of structure, the ribs and the vault
proper functioned separately and the ribs were not
providing any structural reinforcement for the
vaults. The distinction between the rib and the web
of the vault is significant, for in French Gothic ar-
chitecture, the two functioned as a unit, either
bonded together during construction or with the
rib securely attached to the vault with mortar.27
Moreover, if the vault was damaged and suffered
27
M. Aubert, “Les plus anciennes croisées d’ogives: leur role dans
la construction,” BullMon 93 (1934): 5–67 and 137–237, for the
early development of ribbed vaulting in France; note esp. 139–45;
J. Fitchen, The Construction of Gothic Cathedrals (Chicago, 1961),
69–71.

FIGURE 20.22
Sebaste, Cathedral
of St. John, plan
(after D. Pringle,
Churches of the
Crusader Kingdom
II, 1998)
FIGURE 20.23
Jerusalem, Cenacle,
interior view
(author)

FIGURE 20.24
Acre, Hospitaller
Complex, plan
(after D. Pringle,
Churches of the
Crusader Kingdom
IV, 2009)
partial collapse, it was normally the web that fell Gothic architecture, the system of rib stems and re-
and not the rib. In French Gothic architecture, the bated shelves seems to have been gradually aban-
ribs allowed for the construction of thin vaults, and doned with the greater technical mastery of vault
under normal circumstances, the ribs were unnec- construction in the thirteenth century. Nevertheless,
essary once the mortar had set. In many twelfth- either the greater stress or perhaps the strength of
century examples, the ribs were constructed with a the mortar served to effectively unify the ribs and
rib stem flanked by rebated shelves on the backside, the vault. In contrast, the Crusader vaults are con-
into which the webs were bonded, as at the high siderably more massive, while the vault ribs appear
vaults of the Holy Sepulchre. This detail, visible in neither rigid nor firmly attached.
the extrados during recent repairs, would have been The lack of bonding is evident elsewhere, as
invisible in the completed building. In French in the knights’ hall at Crac des Chevaliers. Here

FIGURE 20.25
Acre, Hospitaller,
interior of Hall of
the Knights
(author)
the windows of the portico have elegant bar often of mortared rubble. This type of vault
tracery, and the groin vaults have thin, profiled appeared before, during, and after the Crusader
ribs (Fig. 20.26). But, like the vaults at Acre, presence in the Holy Land. Out of context, these
some of the ribs have fallen, and it is clear they vaults are almost impossible to date. In certain
were not bonded.28 Can the ribbed groin vault parts of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, for ex-
serve as a cultural signifier for Crusader architec- ample, it is impossible to tell the eleventh-century
ture? The refectory provides a very instructive Byzantine vaulting from the twelfth-century
disjunction between architectural style and con- Crusader construction. All of this points to a
struction technology. The ribs and the tracery well-developed local tradition of construction,
are elements of style, but in other aspects the capable of withstanding dramatic changes of
actual vault construction has more in common rulership and patronage.
with the traditional architecture of the Middle The ribbed groin vaults at Acre fit into this
East than with the Gothic architecture of Western picture. Except for the ribs, the vaults are for the
Europe. most part typical regional creations. Crusader
From the eleventh century onward, the standard buildings still appear massive and rough, even
vault form used in the Middle East area was a when light, skeletal elements of the Gothic are
rather heavy, unribbed groin vault, built above introduced: a continuation of local construction
slightly pointed arches. Normally, the arches and practices, onto which the signature elements of
the springers framing the vault were of ashlar French Gothic style have been superimposed, the
construction, but the vault itself was more irregular, result is a hybrid building. Obviously, there must
have been European-trained artisans present, nec-
28
R. G. Ousterhout, “The French Connection? Construction of essary for the transfer of tracery patterns and the
Vaults and Cultural Identity in Crusader Architecture,” in France rib profiles. But the bulk of the labor force must
and the Holy Land: Frankish Culture at the End of the Crusades, ed. have been local, and the defining characteristics
D. Weiss (Baltimore, 2004), 77–94. of the building remain indigenous. Gothic details

FIGURE 20.26
Crac des
Chevaliers, portico
(R. Van Oers,
Wikimedia
Commons)
may have affected the outward appearance of With the reconquest of Jerusalem by Saladin
buildings, but they did not dramatically alter the in 1187, the older Islamic shrines on the Haram
development of an architecture that remained al-Sharif were reclaimed. While the Dome of the
primarily regional. Rock and the al-Aqsa had been decorated with
The Islamic response. At Damascus, new archi- Christian inscriptions and imagery, both were
tectural forms and a new vocabulary may repre- subsequently “purified” and stripped of their
sent a more distinct attempt at the construction Christian content. Other constructions on the es-
of an Islamic identity. At the Hospital of Nur planade, such as the Qubbat al-Mi’raj, represent a
al-Din of ca. 1154, for example, the four-iwan similar practice of reclaiming the site by the
courtyard plan is preceded by a monumental Muslims. Nevertheless, the similar architectural
portal, with a distinctive half-vault of muqarnas vocabulary and the use of Crusader spolia make
on its façade and a fully developed muqarnas the ethnic and religious distinctions all but im-
dome in its vestibule (Fig. 20.27).29 The building possible to unravel today. For example, the re-
draws on forms recently developed within Islamic fashioning of the reclaimed al-Aqsa Mosque in
lands and employed (almost) exclusively in 1214 incorporated Crusader spolia into its façade.
Islamic buildings—except for a spoliated Roman Spolia are also prominent in the Gate of Divine
pediment used as the lintel. It is curious that after Presence, the Gate of the Chain, the Dome of the
the fall of Jerusalem, as the Crusaders shift their Ascension, and the Dome of the Balance.30 After
base to Acre and subsequently to Cyprus, their the fall of Acre, a variety of architectural pieces
architecture becomes more distinctively Western, found their way to Cairo, where they were reused
while the Islamic architecture of nearby centers
takes its own course.
30
Z. Jacoby, “The Workshop of the Temple Area in Jerusalem in
the Twelfth Century: Its Origins, Evolution, and Impact,” ZKunstg
29
Ettinghausen, Grabar, and Jenkins-Madina, Art and Architecture 45 (1982): 325–94; S. Auld, ed., Ayyubid Jerusalem: The Holy City in
of Islam, 304–309. Context 1187–1250 (London, 2009).

FIGURE 20.27 in the entrances of several mosques.31 Most nota-
Damascus, ble is the elegant Gothic portal from Acre, reused
Hospital of Nur in its entirety at the madrasa of Sultan al-Malik
al-Din, main
al-Nasir Muhammad, while the Mausoleum–
entrance façade
Madrasa complex of Sultan Qalawun (1294–95)
(author)
takes on distinct Gothic window forms along the
façade (Fig. 20.28).32
Fortifications. Considering their tenuous sit-
uation, it should come as no surprise that the
Crusaders excelled at defensive architecture. Their
limited survival should also come as no surprise.33
Rather than inventing new forms, however, the
contribution of the Crusaders comes from blend-
ing elements familiar from Western Europe with
what could be learned from Byzantine, Islamic,
and Armenian fortifications. Prior to the Crusades,
few of the defensive systems of Western Europe
were of permanent materials; instead, they were
earthen ramparts, topped by a wooden palisade.
Traveling overland, the participants in the First
Crusade experienced firsthand the effectiveness of
the Late Antique fortifications of Constantinople,
Nicaea, and Antioch, as well as more recent
Byzantine defenses of Anatolia built against the
Arab incursions. Strategically positioned on easily
defended hills or ridges, these usually took the
form of enclosures with massive towers, as at
Ankara.
FIGURE 20.28 For construction in the Crusader states, much
Cairo, reused is to be credited to the military orders of the
Crusader portal on Templars, Hospitallers, and the Teutonic knights,
the complex of who had been charged with the protection of pil-
al-Nasir grims and their routes of travel. The simplest and
Muhammad
most common form of fortification was the two-
(Véronique Dague,
storied stone keep (or donjon), which had been
Wikimedia)
known from Western Europe for more than a
century. Square or rectangular, more than eighty
have been identified from archaeological remains,
functioning as guard posts for routes of travel,
31
Z. Jacoby, “Crusader Sculpture in Cairo: Additional Evidence
on the Temple Workshop of Jerusalem,” in Crusader Art of the
Twelfth Century, ed. J. Folda (Oxford, 1982), 122–38.
32
Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in Cairo, 95–101;
L.-A. Hunt, “Churches of Old Cairo and Mosques of al-Qahira:
A Case of Christian–Muslim Interchange,” Medieval Encounters 2
(1996): 43–66.
33
H. Kennedy, Crusader Castles (Cambridge, 1994); Pringle,
Secular Buildings; A. Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders
(London: Routledge, 2006).

FIGURE 20.29
Plans of Crusader
fortresses:
(A) Castrum
Rubrum;
(B) Mi‘iliya (after
D. Pringle, Secular
Buildings, 1997)
places of refuge, or residences, with the upper topography. Castles set on spurs, ridges, or
level serving as a hall. Floors are barrel vaulted, promontories could take on more elaborate, ir-
often with a staircase set into the thick outer regular forms, as happened at Beaufort, where
wall. A good example is the Red Tower (Castrum the strategic position resulted in a complex his-
Rubrum; Burl al-Ahmar), built during the first tory of occupation and construction, both
half of the twelfth century (Fig. 20.29A).34 Frankish and Muslim, with multiple levels de-
Towers could be associated with other masonry pendent on vaulted substructures. Most impres-
buildings or set within an enclosure wall, and sive of the twelfth-century castles is Saone (Qal‘at
more elaborate forms of castles could develop Saladin), which greatly expanded from an older
around an early core centered on a tower, as at fortification, running along the narrow summit
Beaufort.35 of a ridge, separated from the mountain by a
Another simple type was the enclosure castle, great ditch, with a stone needle rising to extend
which depended on a fortified outer wall, usually the drawbridge across the 60-foot gap (Figs.
with fortification towers and surrounded by a 20.30 and 20.31).38 For this type of castle, the
dry ditch. The rectangular enclosure, sometimes Armenians were masters, and their constructions
called a quadriburgium, was known from early across Cilicia must have impressed the Crusaders,
Arab fortresses in the region, which ultimately as they presented an effective response to siege
developed on the model of the Roman castrum. warfare, taking advantage of strategic siting, with
The hilltop castle known as Castrum Regis strong ashlar construction rising directly from
(Mi‘iliya, first mentioned in 1160) is a simple bedrock.39
example of this type (Fig. 20.29B).36 Occasionally Of the more elaborate enclosure castles,
quadriburgia were combined with a donjon, as at Belvoir is the most impressive, although its siting
the seigneurial Castle of Giblet (Biblos).37 Most compares to spur castles (Fig. 20.32A). Built by
are twelfth century and ultimately proved less the Hospitallers (after 1169) with a rectangular
effective than castles that took advantage of the concentric plan, the outer enclosure measures ap-
proximately 100 by 110 meters, lined with pro-
jecting towers. A deep dry moat separates it from
34
Pringle, Secular Buildings, 38–39.
35
Pringle, Secular Buildings, 31. 38
Kennedy, Crusader Castles, 94–97.
36
Pringle, Secular Buildings, 71. 39
R. W. Edwards, The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia
37
Kennedy, Crusader Castles, 64–67. (Washington, DC, 1987).

FIGURE 20.30
Saone (Qal‘at
Saladin), plan of
the fortress
(author, after
IFPO-DGAMS)
FIGURE 20.31
Saone (Qal‘at
Saladin), stone
needle to support
the drawbridge
(Raki_Man,
Wikimedia
Commons)

FIGURE 20.32
(A) Belvoir, plan of
the fortress; (B)
Crac des
Chevaliers, plan of
the fortress
(author, after
D. Pringle, Secular
Buildings, 1997;
and M. Benevisti,
Crusaders, 1970)

FIGURE 20.33
Crac des
Chevaliers, distant
view from the west
(author)
the hilltop along three flanks. While much of the east gate of the outer wall to the east gate of the
superstructure has disappeared, the scale and inner enclosure. The passageway is vaulted and
symmetry are impressive. The inner ward is a guarded by murder holes. The twelfth-century
smaller version of the outer enclosure, approxi- castle had square towers, but the thirteenth-
mately 50 by 50 meters, with kitchens, stables, a century additions were built with more practical
chapel, and cisterns. Its projecting gate tower had round towers of fine ashlar, with a sloping glacis
a bent entrance.40 added to stabilize the inner enclosure. The largest
Of the topographically strategic spur castles, fortifications appear on the vulnerable south
Crac des Chevaliers is the best preserved and best side, where the castle was isolated from the ex-
known (Figs. 20.32B and 20.33).41 Constructed tension of the ridge by a dry moat. An aqueduct
by the Hospitallers after the surrounding lands connected at this point, draining into a reservoir
came into their possession in 1144, Crac was between the two lines of walls. The northwest
intended to be their headquarters in Syria. tower of the inner enclosure includes a postern
Replacing an older Kurdish fortress, it took on a gate, guarded by machicolations beneath its
concentric plan on a much grander scale, ulti- three arches. Elsewhere, the corbelled machicola-
mately approximately 150 by 210 meters overall, tions that line the walls are the work of the
carefully adjusted to the hilltop location. The Mamluks, added after the castle fell to Baybars in
twelfth-century castle included just the inner 1271. Barrel-vaulted passageways encircle the
section, but following earthquakes in 1170 and inner enclosure, whose irregular courtyard in-
1202, it was strengthened and expanded with the cludes the knights’ hall and chapel. The chapel, a
outer enclosure, all of careful ashlar construc- single aisle covered by a banded barrel vault, may
tion. An elaborate bent entrance led from the have been added after the 1170 earthquake. The
hall may be twelfth century, but its vaults were
40
Pringle, Secular Buildings, 32–33. enlivened with ribs from the thirteenth, pre-
41
Boas, Archaeology of the Military Orders, 130–33; Kennedy, ceded by an elegant Gothic portico, of ca. 1230,
Crusader Castles, 146–63. detailed with plate tracery (see Fig. 20.26).

The mostly thirteenth-century castle at Margat have conceived the design of Chateau Gaillard
similarly combines a sophisticated defensive at Les Andelys (1196), for example, without a
system with elegant Gothic detailing.42 personal knowledge of Crusader castles.43 The
developments in religious architecture had less of
, an impact. Within the Middle East, as territories
became more contested, architectural styles became
In many ways, the architecture of the Crusaders more distinct as cultural signifiers. Thus, after the
stands apart from Byzantine and other regional thirteenth century, Gothic ribbed groin vaults
architectures, but it provided an important point disappeared from the regional vocabulary along
of connection with the styles and technologies of with the Crusaders—although they continued
Western Europe. Within the region, perhaps the on Cyprus, where the Crusaders retreated. As we
greatest exchanges came in the area of military ar- shall see, the Crusaders’ experience stands in
chitecture, as both sides were fighting with the sharp contrast to that of the Normans in Sicily,
same technology—and advances on one side were discussed in the next chapter.
quickly adopted by the other. This also led to the
dramatic transformation in European fortifica-
tion architecture. Richard Lionheart could not
43
P. Ettel, A.-M. Flambard Héricher, and T. E. McNeill, eds.,
Château Gaillard: Études de Castellologie Médiévale. Bilan des
Recherches en Castellologie: Actes du Colloque International de
42
Kennedy, Crusader Castles, 163–79. Houffalize (Belgique) 2006, Château 23 (Caen, 2008).

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
THE EXOTIC WEST

Venice, Southern Italy, and Sicily
I ncreased contact between Byzantium and

Western Europe found a variety of architectural
manifestations in the Middle Byzantine centuries.
much more visible: they had entered southern
Italy as mercenaries in the early eleventh century
and by mid-century they had established a base at
Southern Italy—Apulia, Basilicata, and Calabria— Melfi, where a Norman-style castle still stands. From
had remained, with a brief interlude, part of the there, they expanded their power base, gradually
Byzantine Empire, despite the contestations of gaining control of the south, as well as of Sicily.
Lombards, Arabs, and Normans, with a Greek- Under the Normans, Sicily flourished in the
speaking Orthodox population, including mon- twelfth century, with a multiethnic, religiously
asteries following the order of St. Basil. But in heterogeneous population with its capital at
contrast to other regions discussed in the previous Palermo. In this mixed social context, a new
chapters, there was not a Byzantine hegemony in architecture developed that artfully juxtaposed
south Italy. These were the westernmost reaches Byzantine, Western European, and Islamic forms.
of the empire, and both Latin as a language In contrast, within Rome and the Papal States,
and Rome-centered Christianity held sway. Rome architecture remained conservative: most new
was much closer than Constantinople, both geo- church constructions were timber-roofed basilicas,
graphically and ideologically, and there were a va- following long-established models. In contrast, new
riety of other players in the field as well. monumental mosaic programs of the eleventh
Between 827 and 902, Sicily was conquered and twelfth centuries may reflect the influence of
by the Arabs, who held control of the island until Byzantium in medium and iconography. There are
the arrival of the Normans, 1061–91; the Arab also records of the importation of artworks and
period marks something of a rupture in the is- craftsmen, as at Montecassino under Abbot Desid-
land’s history.1 Unfortunately, there are few phys- erius, and throughout the peninsula, Italians seem
ical remains from that time. The Normans are to have been particularly fond of bronze doors fab-
ricated in Byzantium, such as those at St. Paul’s
1
For background, see S. Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Meet: outside the Walls, dated 1070.2 Nevertheless, the
Sicily in the Early Medieval Mediterranean (Ithaca, 2017); B. Kreutz,
ed., Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth 2
M. Frazer, “Church Doors and Gates of Paradise: Byzantine
Centuries (Philadelphia, 1992). Bronze Doors in Italy,” DOP 27 (1973): 145–62; H. Bloch, “The
Palermo, Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio (Martorana), view into the vaulting, looking south (Michael Waters)
507
new developments in the architecture of the East are frequently similar, with whole-hearted adoption
made little impact in central Italy. and integration of imported forms ultimately ob-
The experience of Venice also differed from that scuring the origin of specific architectural features.
of the south, as it had transformed from a Byzan-
tine protectorate into an ally and an economic ,
competitor with Constantinople. The Pax Nicephori
of 811 (between the Byzantines and the Carolin- Southern Italy. By the tenth century, Orthodox
gians) had confirmed Venice’s semi-independence, builders in South Italy had adopted the cross-in-
although it was the only north Italian city to main- square church type—one already popular across
tain an affiliation with Byzantium.3 The relation- the Byzantine Empire. Unfortunately, none of
ship is perhaps best exemplified by the ducal the handful of surviving examples is securely
Church of San Marco, which had been built as a dated; most are small, representing private foun-
full-scale copy of the imperial mausoleum Church dations.5 San Pietro at Otranto, for example,
of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. That is, which measures approximately 9 by 10 meters
rather than turning to contemporary architectural overall, follows the basic proportions and articu-
forms, Venice looked deep into Byzantine history lation of the building type in a compact design,
as it constructed a legendary past for itself. common to the region—lacking both a narthex
The varying experiences in the north and and extra sanctuary bays (Figs. 21.1 and 21.2).
south reflect the vicissitudes in the perception Constructed of a rough ashlar, the exterior is
and reception of Byzantine culture in the West. articulated by a “triumphal arch” system of blind
In addition to luxury items, often what non- arcades on three façades, corresponding to the in-
Byzantines sought from the exotic East were ternal structural divisions, which are marked by
monumental forms that connoted prestige, power, engaged columns on the interior walls. The dome
and sanctity.4 But in the Italian experience, rarely rises above pendentives and rests on four cylindrical
did Byzantine forms exist in isolation. Members piers; cross arms and corner bays are barrel vaulted.
of the religiously and ethnically heterogeneous Based on the first layer of painting, the church may
populations ultimately contributed to the formation date toward the end of the tenth century.6
of hybrid architectures that defy easy categoriza- The so-called Cattolica (the name perhaps a
tion—neither squarely Byzantine nor Roman- corruption of katholikon) at Stilo is similar in
esque, and they are often omitted from the scale but differs in its proportions (Fig. 21.3; and
canon—or as in the case of San Marco, taken see Fig. 15.9B). The four corner bays are topped
incorrectly as a solely Byzantine product. But the by domes, identical in diameter to the central
hybridity of the architecture is worth emphasizing dome, and thus the nine bays are all more or less
here, as it reflects both the mixed populations and the same measure, as are the three semicircular
the mixed workforces—not to mention the aspira- apses. The cross arms are thus oddly narrow, but
tions of the patrons. At the same time, while we the dome rises above thin, spoliated columns,
may know the names of the patrons who financed which allows a sense of openness to the interior.
the building projects, there are no written records Nevertheless, the characteristic hierarchy in the
of the identities or origins of the builders—names spatial massing of the cross-in-square church
and signatures are considerably more common in type is subverted. Walls are constructed of rough
the visual arts. Moreover, all across Italy, elements brick on a rubble core, without articulation
of Byzantine (past and present), Islamic, Norman
Romanesque, and indigenous Italian architectures 5
For an overview of developments, see A. J. Wharton, Art of
Empire: Painting and Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery (Penn
State, 1988), 127–60; also R. Bergman, “Byzantine Influence and
Origin and Fate of the Bronze Doors of Abbot Desiderius of Private Patronage in a Newly Discovered Medieval Church in
Montecassino,” DOP 41 (1987): 89–102. Amalfi: S. Michele Arcangelo in Pogerola,” JSAH 50 (1991): 421–45;
3
T. Madden, Venice: A New History (New York, 2012). C. Romano, La Basilicata, la Calabria (Milan, 1988).
4
As discussed by J. Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art 6
L. Safran, S. Pietro at Otranto: Byzantine Art in Southern Italy
(London, 1997), 309–46. (Rome, 1992).

FIGURE 21.1
Otranto, San
Pietro, seen from
the north,
showing the
façade articulation
(Mark J. Johnson)
except for a few dogtooth courses; the domes are FIGURE 21.2
more carefully built, the drums detailed with Otranto, San Pietro,
both dogtooth and reticulate revetments. The plan and transverse
section (after
odd proportions and five-domed plan of Stilo
L. Mongiello, Chiese
are repeated at San Marco in Rossano, although
di Puglia, 1988)
the construction is of a rough mortared rubble,
and the internal divisions are more pronounced.
The cross-in-square plan also finds its way into
the cave churches of the region, as at San Salva-
tore in Giurdignano.
By the eleventh century, larger vaulted basilicas
were being constructed, although it is unclear if these
emerged under Byzantine or Norman rule. While
many were timber roofed, following north Italian or
northern European models introduced into the
south by the Normans, several are vaulted, using the
domed bay as a modular unit. Multidomed basilican
churches began to appear in Apulia sometime in the
eleventh century.7 For these, the Cathedral of San
Sabino at Canosa is perhaps the most important, al-
though its date remains in question, and the church
has been much altered around its medieval core
(Figs. 21.4 and 21.5).8 Although a dedication of 1102
7
Papacostas, “The Medieval Progeny,” 395–402.
8
A. Wharton Epstein, “The Date and Significance of the Cathedral
of Canosa in Apulia, South Italy,” DOP 37 (1983): 79–90; and more
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE: THE EXOTIC WEST 509

FIGURE 21.3
Stilo, Cattolica,
seen from the
west (Mark J.
Johnson)
FIGURE 21.4 Canosa, San Sabino,

interior looking east
(Mark J. Johnson)

FIGURE 21.5 Canosa, San Sabino, plan, with shading to indicate the original portions of the church. The mausoleum of
Bohemond is attached to the south transept (after P. Belli d’Elia, Pouilles, 1987)
is recorded by inscription, this is probably the re- Holy Apostles in Constantinople, as is often
dedication of an existing church of older date. suggested, its basic plan has been transformed
The construction of alternating bands of brick and from a Greek cross to a Latin cross. The addition
ashlar in the construction finds better comparison of the curious mausoleum of Bohemond of
before the arrival of the Normans, perhaps as Antioch, who died in 1111, might follow the
early as the second quarter of the eleventh cen- model of the imperial mausolea appended to the
tury. The plan has three domed bays covering the Holy Apostles.9
nave, with an additional two domes over the Other multidomed churches in the region are
transepts, with major support piers with engaged simpler, with three domes in series above the
columns, with spoliated shafts and capitals. The nave, usually three blind domes above penden-
domes all are blind, without drums, rising above tives. The Ognissanti at Valenzano of the late
pendentives. If the model here is the five-domed eleventh century is a good example, with the side
aisles covered by quadrant vaults.10 There is
recently, G. Bertelli and A. Attolico, “Analisi delle strutture

architettoniche della Cattedrale di San Sabino a Canosa: primi dati,”
9
See, most recently, M. J. Johnson, “The Mausoleum of Bohemond
in Canosa: Richerche Storiche, ed. A. Attolico (Canosa, 2010), 723–58; in Canosa and the Architectural Setting of Ruler Tombs in Norman
E. Fernie, “The Date, Iconography, and Dedication of the Italy,” in Romaneseque and the Mediterranean: Points of Contact, eds.
Cathedral of Canosa,” in Romanesque and the Mediterranean: R. M. Bacile and J. McNeill (Leeds, 2015), 151–66.
Points of Contact, eds. R. M. Bacile and J. McNeill (Leeds, 2015), 10
L. Mongiello, Chiese di Puglia. Il fenomeno delle chiese a cupola
167–72. (Bari, 1988).

FIGURE 21.6
Torcello, cathedral
complex seen
from the west,
with the cathedral
on the left and
Santa Fosca on the
right (author)
considerable variation in the multidomed churches church of the seventh to ninth centuries, the sev-
and their original inspiration remains in ques- enth-century baptistery (now in ruins) was joined
tion. Although the Transitional Period churches on axis to the narthex façade. The lateral walls may
of Cyprus have been suggested, they are much be preserved from the older building, but the nave
smaller and less well constructed. If the model is arcade and high walls of the clerestory zone are
Justinianic, it may be simply the idea of the from the early eleventh century, all constructed of
domed bay as modular unity rather than one spe- brick, characteristic of northern Italy. Despite the
cific building. conservative nature of the building, a number of
Venice and the Lagoon. Within the Venetian features reflect contact with the Eastern Mediterra-
Lagoon, the Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta at nean—including the mosaic decoration, of which a
Torcello, rebuilt ca. 1008 under bishop Orso Orse- standing Theotokos in the apse and a monumental
olo, reflects the conservative trend in the architec- Last Judgment on the west wall are preserved. The
ture of the period (Figs. 21.6 and 21.7).11 With the apse also preserves a stepped synthronon (perhaps
exception of the campanile—a freestanding tower from the ninth century)—a feature more common
to the east of the church—there is little in the three- in the East—and the sanctuary is enveloped by a
aisled basilica that could not have appeared centu- templon with a high architrave. Finally, the interior
ries earlier, and nearby Ravenna offers some useful is reinforced by tie beams, both within the nave ar-
comparisons. Constructed on the site of an older cades and extending across the nave, above every
other column.
11
For an overview, see D. Howard, The Architectural History of In contrast, the adjacent Church of Santa
Venice (Yale, 2002), esp. 7–42. Fosca at Torcello, also from the eleventh century,

FIGURE 21.7 Torcello, cathedral, interior looking
east toward the apse (Ismoon, Wikimedia
Commons)
is an anomaly not easy to categorize (Figs. 21.8 FIGURE 21.8
and 21.9). The centralized plan is sometimes asso- Torcello, Santa

Fosca, plan (after
ciated with the martyrium function of the church,
Antonella
which housed the relics of the martyr Fosca,
Manzo)
brought to the island sometime before 1011. Its
design combines features of a cross-in-square
church and an octagon-domed church. The plan
is an atrophied Greek cross, with two freestand-
ing columns and two small groin-vaulted com-
partments at each corner, extended to the east
with a tripartite sanctuary. The central square bay
transitions in its elevation to a circle by means of
an odd combination of superimposed squinches
and pendentives. The design presupposes a dome
of approximately 9 meters in diameter, but either
this collapsed long ago or it was never constructed,
and the space is covered by a wooden roof. While
often compared to the octagon-domed churches
of Greece, it is at best a distant cousin. All trace
of interior decoration has disappeared, although features, but here (as elsewhere in the Veneto),
the detailing of the apses, with dentil courses, dog- they are combined with carved marble applique.
tooth friezes, and blind arcades with multiple set- The graceful porch of colonnades supporting
backs, recalls contemporary Byzantine decorative stilted arches is most likely twelfth century.

FIGURE 21.9
Torcello, Santa
Fosca, interior
looking east
(Michael
Waters)
Within the context of the Veneto, San Marco cross plan, rising above cluster piers, replete with
remains unique (Figs. 21.10 and 21.11). From the mosaic and marble incrustations. A monk from
limited archaeological evidence of the crypt, San Nicolò di Lido noted in the early twelfth cen-
scholars sometimes claim that the first Church of tury that the church was “a skillful construction
San Marco in Venice, begun after the furta sacra entirely similar to that of the Twelve Apostles in
(holy theft) of the saint’s relics, stolen by Venetian Constantinople.”14 The unprecedented building
merchants from Alexandria in 828, followed the would have responded to the emerging civic pride
cruciform model of the Holy Apostles in Con- within eleventh-century Italy, offering visual com-
stantinople (see Fig. 8.24).12 The relationship is petition to Venice’s rival Pisa, which was building
much clearer in the present building, begun ca. its distinctive, Romanesque cathedral at the same
1063 under doge Domenico Contarini (1042– time. It also provided visual testimony of Venice’s
71). Work progressed quickly and the church cel- cosmopolitan character, its close relations and
ebrated its first consecration in 1073 and was growing rivalry with Constantinople—both rec-
completed under doge Vitale Falier (1086–96).13 ognizing and subverting the architectural vocabu-
The interior gives something of the impression of lary of the Byzantine capital. As ducal chapel
how the Holy Apostles may have appeared, with (although not the cathedral), San Marco held a
five domes on pendentives, organized in a Greek- distinct political role, but it also expressed the re-
ligious aspirations of Venice to be the spiritual
center of the northern Adriatic (supplanting nearby
12
F. Forlati, “Il primo San Marco: nota preliminare,” Arte Veneta 5 Grado), while appropriating the all-but-extinct
(1951): 73–76; R. Cecchi, La basilica di San Marco. La costruzione authority of the apostolic see of Alexandria.
bizantina del IX secolo. Permanenze e trasformazioni (Venice, 2003).
13
Demus, San Marco. 14
Demus, San Marco, 90.

FIGURE 21.10 Venice, San
Marco, plan (redrawn after
T. Dale, “Cultural
Hybridity,” 2010)
FIGURE 21.11
Venice, San
Marco, interior,
looking east
(Michael Waters)

Triangulating between the evocative descrip- was expanded, and the exterior was redone with
tions of the vanished Holy Apostles, the ruins many additions of columns, capitals, statues, and
of the Church of St. John at Ephesus, and San revetments after the 1204 sack of Constantinople
Marco may provide an image of the famous lost by the forces of the Fourth Crusade, of which the
original and its signitive design, but it may be Venetian fleet comprised a significant element. In
more useful to examine San Marco in its own the fourteenth century, the domes were provided
right, as one of the major architectural undertak- with tall caps formed by lead sheeting over an ar-
ings of its time—for both East and West. As such, mature, to give them greater visual prominence.
the church represents an interesting mixture of The mosaics of the interior were completed
Italian Romanesque and Byzantine elements. Both only gradually, ultimately covering approximately
early and contemporary Byzantine features find 8,000 square meters, with areas easily identifiable
their way into the building. The use of the domed as Byzantine or Venetian Gothic workmanship, as
bay as an element of modular design follows well as early and high Renaissance. San Marco
sixth-century Byzantine architectural practices, as became the cathedral of the city only in 1807.
does the use of cluster piers and the hemispherical With the marshy nature of the Venetian sub-
forms of the domes, with windows around their soil, the added weight of vaulting proved to be a
bases. The decoration of marble and mosaic also challenge for builders, requiring deeper founda-
follows Byzantine practices, and many Byzantine tions, thicker walls, and a fraught later history of
spolia were subsequently incorporated into the structural repairs: the domes of San Marco were
building. encircled by iron rings in 1527 (by the Florentine
However, the construction technique reflects Jacopo Sansovino) in an effort to stabilize them.
local practices: the bricks are locally produced, laid While it was a characteristic feature in Byzantine
with thin mortar beds, used as a facing on a rubble architecture from the sixth century onward, vault-
core of poor quality; in the domes, bricks were ing proved to be a challenge in medieval Venice.
laid in concentric courses, following Western prac- While similarly cruciform, the Church of Santi
tices, rather than radially. A variety of details find Maria e Donato on the island of Murano is more
good comparison in contemporary Constantino- conservative than San Marco and more typical for
ple, such as the detailing of pilasters and niches, the medieval Venice—with timber roofs rather than
bundled triangular and semicircular shafts on the domes (Fig. 20.12). The Murano Church was
piers, and the arched “hearts” in spandrels, all built sometime before 1141 (when the date was in-
of which compare favorably to St. George of scribed in its mosaic floor) on the site of an older
Mangana.15 The presence of at least one Byzantine church. The relics of St. Donatus had been trans-
mason at San Marco seems likely, although it is lated there in 1125, and the new church must date
undocumented. Nevertheless, how the design and shortly thereafter. As at San Marco, it joins forms
measurements were transferred from Constanti- from disparate sources. With its tall transepts,
nople to Venice is anyone’s guess. The discrepan- blind arcades, and brick construction, it recalls
cies from the prototype are also noteworthy, most the early churches of Milan, with the exception of
notably the shifted orientation, with the sanctuary the elaborately decorated east façades, which face
in the east bay rather than centrally placed and the the water. These are detailed with dwarf galleries,
central and western domed bays slightly larger than coupled columns, and marble and brick dentil
the others. These changes give greater emphasis to and dogtooth courses—an effective fusion of the
the longitudinal axis, so that the building reads not Romanesque and the Byzantine. The interior fea-
unlike a Romanesque basilica with a transept and tures spoliated columns and capitals, wooden tie
was better able to serve the Latin liturgy. beams, an inlaid marble floor, and an apse mosaic
As an active and symbolically redolent monu- (the last probably thirteenth century)—all recall-
ment, San Marco received continued attention ing contemporary Byzantine forms.
and benefaction from the Venetians. The narthex Norman Sicily. Twelfth-century Sicily is often
regarded as the poster child for cultural diversity
15
M. Dalla Costa, La Basilica di San Marco e i restauri dell’Ottocento during the Middle Ages. While the court was
(Venice, 1983). Norman, the population was heterogeneous,

FIGURE 21.12
Murano, Santi
Maria e Donato,
seen from the
southeast
(Michael Waters)
ethnically, linguistically, and religiously, with many Orthodox population (Fig. 21.13).17 Of these, the
either Orthodox Greek or Muslim. Inscriptions most important is Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio
are often multilingual, and the Norman rulers in Palermo, better known as the Martorana, begun
employed titles in differing languages and alpha- by George of Antioch, an Orthodox Greek and
bets. While little survives from the period of Arab the prime minister of Roger II—both of whom
hegemony, many of the Norman buildings main- are pictured in the mosaic decoration (Figs. 21.13A
tain distinctive features that compare favorably and 21.14). Completed by 1143, it was a private
with contemporary monuments in North Africa chapel, originally attached to George’s residence,
and Egypt, and one may suspect the masons reserved by Greek clerics who were charged to pray
sponsible for many of the distinctive monument for the souls of founder and his family, who were
on the island were trained in that tradition. This subsequently buried in the church. At its core is
is particularly evident in secular architecture, as in a compact cross-in-square church, approximately
the surviving palaces known as the Ziza and the 12.5 meters square overall, slightly larger than San
Cuba.16 Although we may speak of “tolerance” be- Pietro at Otranto. Rapidly enlarged by several
tween the various religions and ethnicities, per- phases of expansion, including the narthex (before
haps “pragmatic pluralism” is a better description 1151) and an atrium, the latter was subsequently
of the state of affairs. In architectural terms, a syn- replaced by a western extension and a belfry
thesis was achieved only gradually. (by 1184); subsequent alterations affected the
Several of the smaller churches follow Byzantine appearance of the building to the east and west of
models and were built by or for the Greek-speaking the naos.18
17
In general, see G. di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia normanna,
16
See discussion by R. Di Liberto, “Norman Palermo: Architecture 2nd ed., with W. Krönig (Palermo, 1979).
between the 11th and 12th Century,” in A Companion to Medieval 18
S. Ćurčić, “The Architecture,” in The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the
Palermo: The History of a Mediterranean City from 600 to 1500, ed. Admiral in Palermo, ed. E. Kitzinger (Washington, DC, 1990),
A. Nef (Leiden, 2013), 139–94. 26–67.

FIGURE 21.13
Comparative plans
and façade
elevations for (A)
Palermo,
Martorana; (B)
Mazara, San
Nicolò Regale;
and (C)
Castelvetrano,
Santa Trinità di
Delia (after
S. Ćurčić, “The
Architecture,”
1990)
FIGURE 21.14
Palermo, Santa Maria
dell’Ammiraglio
(Martorana), view
into the vaulting,
looking south
(Michael Waters)
FIGURE 21.15
Castelvetrano,
Santa Trinità di
Delia, view from
the southeast
(Mark J. Johnson)
The original façades were arcaded with multi- In spite of the Byzantine sheen of the mosaic
ple setbacks and the arches are slightly pointed, decoration, the architectural forms are much
while the naos forms a cubic volume with an iso- closer to that of Islamic Egypt or North Africa
lated dome rising above its core. On the interior, than to that of Byzantium. As with many of the
the dome is supported by columns, but the tran- Palermitan churches, the floors are of an elegant
sition is effected by means of squinches rather opus sectile, which similarly stands between cul-
than pendentives. The barrel-vaulted cross arms tures, with a geometry common in Islamic archi-
and the groin-vaulted corner bays rise to the same tectural decoration, evidence of a shared decorative
height, so that the building lacks—both within vocabulary. A Greek dedicatory inscription crowns
and without—the spatial modulation of a con- the exterior façades, as one might find in Arabic
temporary Constantinopolitan church. Moreo- on contemporary mosques. It may be worth
ver, the squinches are formed by two setback noting that George had served in the Zirid court
arches at the corners, both of which project in Tunis before coming to Sicily; in many ways,
beyond the cornice. The transition to the dome the hybrid character of his chapel reflects his
stands in stark contrast to standard Byzantine use complex personal history.
of the pendentive, which allows a smooth transi- Similar features characterize the slightly
tion between the zones in the elevation. With this smaller churches of San Nicolò Regale at Mazara
type of squinch, common in Egypt and North and Santa Trinità di Delia near Castelvetrano
Africa, the geometry shifts abruptly from square (both from the first half of the twelfth century),
to octagon to circle.19 which lack both later additions and mural deco-
ration on the interior so that the fine construc-
tion technique is visible (Figs. 21.13B and 21.13C,
Compare to the dome added by al Hafiz (ca. 1129–49) to the al-
19 21.15, and 21.16). San Caltado in Palermo is also
Azhar Mosque in Cairo; Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in similar, a palace chapel built ca. 1160 apparently
Cairo, pl. 48. for George’s successor, Maio of Bari (Fig. 21.17).

FIGURE 21.16 Castelvetrano,
Santa Trinità di Delia, interior,
view into the dome, looking east
(Michael Waters)
FIGURE 21.17 Palermo,

San Cataldo, view from the
north (Mark J. Johnson)

FIGURE 21.18
Monreale,
cathedral, interior
view, looking east
(Mark J. Johnson)
It combines the cross-in-square plan with the tri- a combination palace chapel and audience hall—a
ple-domed format employed in some of the domed, centrally planned sanctuary joined to a
South Italian basilican churches—however, with basilica (Figs. 21.19–21.21). It provides a fascinat-
the domes all raised above squinches of Islamic ing (and instructive) example of juxtapositions—
derivation and with the extrados of the attenu- formal, functional, and symbolic, of diverse ori-
ated domes exposed, with windows placed on the gins. It is very tempting to simply dissect the
diagonals. Although lacking mural decoration, chapel into its constituent parts and to view them
the opus sectile floor is preserved. In all examples, as cultural signifiers. In this simplistic configura-
the construction is careful, of limestone ashlar, tion, the three-aisled basilica nave may be viewed
with spoliated columns and capitals. as the Norman or Italian element of the design,
The later history of the Martorana is indicative while the domed sanctuary and its rich mosaic dec-
of the dilemmas faced by Sicilian builders: a small, oration reflect Byzantine input, and the wooden
centralized church of Byzantine scale and propor- muqarnas ceiling over the nave represents the Muslim
tions may have been desirable for aesthetic or sym- contribution. However, it is never so simple. To a
bolic reasons, and while it could serve as a private certain extent, the juxtapositions may be inten-
chapel, it might not have met more complex functional, as signifiers of differing functions and cul-
tional requirements. The basilica format was more tural associations. In a multilingual society, the
conducive to large congregational worship. Thus, visual vocabulary may comprise the common
the cathedrals of Cefalù and Monreale featured tongue, and Roger seems to have been seeking
rich mosaic and marble decoration in their interi- forms that could speak to cultures of his kingdom.20
ors, following Byzantine models, while adopting
non-Byzantine basilican plans (Fig. 21.18). 20
W. Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom: Roger II and the
Most interesting in this respect is the Cappella Cappella Palatina in Palermo (Princeton, 1997); and more
Palatina in Palermo, built 1130–43 by Roger II as recently, B. Brenk et al., eds., La Cappella Palatina a Palermo,

FIGURE 21.19 Palermo, Cappella
Palatina, plan and reconstructed
south façade elevation (after S. Ćurčić,
DOP, 1987)
FIGURE 21.20
Palermo,
Cappella
Palatina, interior
view into the
sanctuary
(Wikimedia
Commons)

death, under either William I or William II. As a
consequence, the differences between the two com-
ponents would have been much more striking—
the east looking like a Byzantine church, the west
like a Fatimid palace hall—with a solid templon
at the separation. The juxtaposition of styles may
have been intended to distinguish the heavenly
and earthly realms, ruled by Christ and Roger,
respectively.
While decorated in the Byzantine manner, the
form and the construction of the dome, raised
above stepped squinches, follows Muslim proto-
types; in the nave, similarly, the arcades are dis-
tinctively stilted and slightly pointed, different
from both Byzantine and Western counterparts.
Here, as throughout Norman Sicily, much of
the workforce must have come out of the Muslim
tradition, often with the best surviving—and
closest—comparisons in North Africa. Ironically,
when the mosaic program was extended into the
nave by Western artists (with inscriptions in
Latin), this actually gave the interior a more
Byzantine character. The great image of the en-
throned Christ on the west wall above the ruler’s
throne platform, for example, corresponds to de-
FIGURE 21.21 Palermo, Cappella Palatina, interior view,
scriptions of the decoration in the audience hall
looking west into the nave (author)
known as the Chrysotriklinos at the Great Palace
in Constantinople. In short, the present appear-
ance of unity in the interior was not originally in-
The chapel was two storied, raised above a
tended; it developed only gradually. This stands
crypt—apparently an older church—with an ar-
the Cappella Palatina very much in contrast to
caded façade opening to a palace courtyard that
the Cathedral of Monreale, the grand project of
may have included a “window of appearances”—
Roger’s grandson William II, 1174–82, where
all features that might compare with Byzantine
there is a greater degree of integration of Byzan-
palaces.21 But within the chapel, much has been
tine, Western, and Islamic forms and motifs,
altered. There was originally a royal viewing box
which are consequently not as easily sorted out.
in the upper north wall of the sanctuary, with the
Although scholars have attempted to situate
mosaic program adjusted to the view and to the
the monuments of the region within a Norman
royal presence. The nave was visually dominated
context, based on patronage, the Sicilian churches
by the muqarnas ceiling, probably constructed
ultimately have little in common with the archi-
and certainly painted by artisans from Cairo.22
tecture of Normandy. The basilica design, em-
Moreover, the nave was originally without mosaic
ployed in the cathedrals at Monreale or Cefalù,
decoration—what is there was added after Roger’s
has more in common with the medieval architec-
ture of southern Italy. Indeed, the church at Mon-
4 vols. (Modena, 2010); T. Dittelbach, ed., Die Cappella Palatina reale is a copy of Cefalù, which in turn was a copy
in Palermo: Geschichte, Kunst, Funktionen (Swindoft, 2011). of the destroyed abbey church at Mileto in Cala-
21
S. Ćurčić, “Some Palatine Aspects of the Cappella Palatina in bria, built by Roger I. Roger’s brother, Robert
Palermo,” DOP 41 (1987): 125–44. Guiscard, had brought monks from Normandy
22
E. Grube and J. Johns, The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina to his foundation at Santa Maria at Santa Eu-
(Genoa, 2005). femia (destroyed) and to Santa Trinità at Canosa,

which he had enlarged.23 Although Normandy
may lie behind these churches, it is several stages
removed. At the same time, the mosaic artisans
seem to have been imported—at least initially,
coming as a part of the larger political agenda of
imitation and competition with the Byzantine
court in Constantinople. It is clear they often had
difficulty adjusting their programs to unfamiliar
spaces. At Monreale, for example, windows were
suppressed and colonnettes removed to create a
uniform surface for the mosaic decoration. The
sense of unity should be credited to the mosa-
icists, rather than to a collaborative enterprise of
artists and masons.24 Even within the Cappella
Palatina, the mosaicists struggled to organize a
Byzantine decorative program into a not-very-
Byzantine space, as evident in overlapping and
asymmetric panels on the south wall. In the final
FIGURE 21.22 Mili, Santa Maria, axonometric section
analysis, while the Byzantine elements might have
provided the buildings a sense of power, prestige, (after F. Basile, Chiese, 1938).
or opulence, they never appear in isolation.
Looking beyond the well-known churches in formed by corner conches with setbacks, similar to
and around Palermo with their mosaic decoration, Delia but set within a minaret-like tower block
the Orthodox monastic churches of the Valde- (Fig. 21.23). Both have interlace arcading along the
mone, on the east side of the island, are constructed lateral façades. The domed bemas of Norman
of brick or a colorful mixture of brick and stone. Sicily in turn impacted the architecture of Cala-
Often the churches have domed bemas, rather bria, where similar forms appeared, as, for exam-
than centrally positioned domes.25 In their pla- ple, at Santa Maria at Staiti or San Giovanni at
nning, they appear closer to the domed mihrabs in Bivongi (Fig. 21.24). The domes are raised above
the mosques of North Africa than to European or squinches in the Arab matter, unlike the domes on
Byzantine models, and the domes are consistently pendentives of the earlier cross-in-square churches
raised above squinches. The churches of Santa of the south; interlaced arcading also appears.
Maria at Mili, founded in 1091, and Santi Pietro e The grandest of the Valdemone group is the
Paolo at Itàla, founded 1093, are timber-roofed ba- Church of Pietro e Paolo at Agrò, near Casalvecchio
silicas, but with domes above their sanctuaries, Siculo, a three-aisled basilica, with both a central
both apparently founded under the auspices of dome and a domed bema (Figs. 21.25–21.27).
Roger I. At Mili, which is single aisled, the dome An inscription mentions a minor restoration of
rises above stepped squinches in brick (Fig. 21.22). 1171/72 (which names a protomaistor named
Itàla is three aisled with the dome transition Girard the Frank), and the building must date
before then, perhaps as early as the reign of Roger
23
See M. D’Onofrio, “Comparaisons entre quelques édifices II in the 1130s. The centrally positioned dome is
de style normand de l’Italie méridionale et du royaume de raised above multiple-stepped squinches, while
France aux XIe et XIIe siècles,” in Les Normands en Méditerranée the bema dome rises above muqarnas, with the
dans le sillage des Tancrède. Colloque de Cerisy-la-Salle (24–27 octagonal dome itself rotated 22.5 degrees. Both
septembre 1992). Actes, eds. P. Bouet and F. Neveux (Caen, 1994), domes are pumpkin domes, with scalloped sur-
179–201. faces. The remainder of the nave is timber roofed,
24
R. G. Ousterhout, “Collaboration and Innovation in the Arts of while the side aisles are vaulted. Unlike the muqa-
Byzantine Constantinople,” BMGS 21 (1997): 93–112. rnas ceiling of the Cappella Palatina, here the
25
C. Nicklies, “Builders, Patrons, and Identity: The Domed muqarnas of the bema dome are structural, made
Basilicas of Sicily and Calabria,” Gesta 43 (2004): 99–114. of brick. The exterior detailing is distinctive and

FIGURE 21.23
Itàla, Santi Pietro
e Paolo, view
from the
southwest
(Mark J. Johnson)
FIGURE 21.24
Bivongi, San
Giovanni, view
into the dome
(Mark J. Johnson)

FIGURE 21.26 Agrò, Santi Pietro e Paolo, plan and section
(after F. Basile, Chiese, 1938)
FIGURE 21.25 Agrò, Santi Pietro e Paolo, east façade, with portable objects, which can readily change hands
decorative arcading and polychrome masonry as they move between places and cultures, a work
(Mark J. Johnson) of architecture remains a fixed marker in the
landscape long after its builders have departed.
colorful, with pilasters and interlaced arcades All the same, contexts have changed with the his-
with banded voussoirs—features that may derive torical circumstances and demographic shifts. To
from a regional koine resulting from an intermin- situate a building within its original cultural con-
gling of Byzantine and Islamic sources. text and to glean the historical information it may
Clearly one of the most remarkable features of provide, it is necessary to ask some fairly basic ques-
this architecture is the degree of freedom with tions and to make some fairly basic distinctions.26
which their architects experimented with Islamic First, architectural style and construction tech-
forms in building intended for Orthodox worship. nique are not the same, although they are often
The hybrid monuments of Norman Sicily may rep- confused. Traditional art history, based on formal
resent the new regime’s desire to break with the old analysis and dealing with influences and appro-
divisions and prejudices and to bring a new era of priations, normally addresses style rather than
tolerance. When William II died without heir in technical concerns. The outward appearance of a
1189, however, Sicily came under the control of the building, its decorative aspects, can be discussed
German Hohenstaufens, who had their own agenda, without a specific knowledge of how it was built.
as well as stronger ties to Rome and the north.
26
R. G. Ousterhout, “Architecture and Cultural Identity in the
, Eastern Mediterranean,” in Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterliche
Europa, eds. M. Borgolte and B. Schneidmüller (Berlin, 2010),
This and the previous chapter challenge us to ex- 261–75; see also R. G. Ousterhout and D. F. Ruggles, “Encounters
amine how we might utilize architecture as a with Islam: The Medieval Mediterranean Experience,” Gesta 43,
gauge of identity and cultural interaction. Unlike no. 2 (2004): 83–85.

FIGURE 21.27 Agrò, Santi Pietro e Paolo, interior view, looking west into the nave (Mark J. Johnson)

The same holds true for medieval architectural or Constantinople that his masons came equipped
practices: formal elements could have been seen with the same knowledge. For architecture, pa-
and imitated long after a building was completed. trons could dictate certain things, such as budget,
But construction technique is a different matter, scale, appropriate materials, and liturgical neces-
for it is based on specialized knowledge that could sities, but in the end, it was up to the masons to
only be transmitted through the active participa- translate the patron’s wishes into architectural
tion in a workshop. This is not to say that build- form. A careful reading of relevant documents
ing technology was privileged information—the may thus provide us with part of the picture, but
so-called secret of the master masons—but that only a part. It can never replace the close analysis
many critical details of construction were no of the building itself.
longer visible when a building was completed, Finally, architecture is a group endeavor, rarely
and thus they could not have been learned from accomplished by a single individual. The patron,
observation alone. Medieval architectural tech- the master mason, and teams of workers, both
nology was passed on through a program of skilled and unskilled, contributed to the final prod-
apprenticeship, of “learning by doing,” and dis- uct. Sorting out their individual contributions may
seminated by traveling masons. In a professionally be difficult, if not impossible, in projects for which
illiterate society, the transfer of specialized knowl- no written records survive. Nevertheless, we must
edge required human beings as the vehicles. acknowledge that a work of architecture is the
Second, perhaps more importantly, the cul- result of the participation of numerous individuals,
tural experience of the patron is not necessarily involving negotiations and compromises, and not
the same as that of the artisan. The history of me- simply the single-minded vision of an omniscient
dieval art and architecture is often written as a patron. In this context, the cultural intersections in
history of patronage because the sources tell us south Italy, Sicily, Venice, and the Levant challenge
about the patrons, not about the artists or build- us to look beyond mainstream developments and
ers. But we should not assume that because a to situate the architectural production within its
patron was familiar with the monuments of Paris local and regional contexts.

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
EXPORTING A CULTURE/
IMPORTING A CULTURE
Bulgaria, Kievan Rus’, and Serbia
T he new political entities established in the East

during the ninth through twelfth centuries
were heavily indebted to Byzantine culture, albeit
religiously, but also from lands neighboring to the
west and north.
In none of these emerging states was the adop-
in differing ways. In each case, associations with tion of Constantinople-based Orthodox Christi-
Byzantium developed as a part of establishing a anity a given; Rome also held sway in religious
state religion in territories where the patriarch matters, with the two centers very much in com-
of Constantinople and the pope in Rome were petition. For all, their history would have been
competing for prominence. Religion thus came much different without the mission of Cyril and
as part of a political negotiation, with attendant Methodius, who were sent from Constantinople
cultural baggage—that is, as Byzantium sought to to evangelize the Slavs of Great Moravia in 862–
export its political influence, the newly emerging 63. The two translated the Bible into Old Church
states were eager to import its cultural heritage. Slavonic and devised an alphabet to represent
Following the invasions of the Avars and the Slavs the non-Greek sounds of the Slavic language. The
into the Balkan peninsula beginning in the late older Glagolitic alphabet was replaced with the
sixth century, new polities emerged, of which the Cyrillic alphabet, still used in Bulgaria, Serbia, and
Bulgarian state was the most prominent. While Russia. In terms of architecture, the “Byzantine
their territories had once been part of the Byzantine connection” may be sought in several different
Empire, the new population was in its majority ways: technically, with an established tradition of
pagan. In contrast, the Russian state emerged in construction techniques and vaulting systems; for-
eastern Slavic lands (now Ukraine and western mally, with the adoption of specific building types,
Russia), beyond the boundaries of Byzantium, notably the centralized, domed church; and sym-
but they looked to Constantinople in the creation bolically, with special meanings that were associ-
of a national identity and a religion. The Serbian ated with the appropriation of Byzantine forms.
state, which appeared following the demise of Bulgaria. The first Bulgarian state was
the first Bulgarian Empire, similarly found itself founded ca. 681 following a major defeat of the
heavily influenced by Byzantium, politically and Byzantine army; it was established on territory
Vladimir (near), Church of the Prov on the Nerl (Moscow Institute of Architecture Scientific Library)
531
once part of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria grad- Basilica at Pliska has a similarly controversial his-
ually emerged as Byzantium’s major northern toriography—it is most likely an early Byzantine
rival.1 Boris I (r. 852–89) accepted Christianity in structure, although it was still in use at the
864 and imposed the Orthodox religion on his arrival of the Bulgarians (Fig. 22.2A).4 For all, the
state, while negotiating an independent national scale and forms seem improbable for a migratory
church. Under Boris’s patronage, Cyril, Metho- people who brought with them no architectural
dius, and their disciples taught the new alphabet tradition.
and established schools. By the end of the cen- Rather than grandiose constructions reviving
tury, Old Bulgarian had become the official lan- older architectural forms, the first capital seems to
guage. What became styled as the First Bulgarian have been a rather modest affair within the cas-
Empire expanded to control much of the Bal- trum, known almost exclusively from excavated
kans, but it lasted little more than a century: its foundations. Among the earliest new construc-
army suffered a major defeat in 969, and with a tions, two residential court buildings were con-
second major defeat in 1018, the Bulgarian state structed side by side, both approximately 14 by 19
ceased to exist, its territories incorporated into meters, with large central halls, opening to the
the Byzantine Empire. south through triple doorways and flanked by
The first capital at Pliska was established under smaller rooms (Fig. 22.1C). It remains unclear
Khan Krum at the beginning of the ninth century. how the two functioned. A pagan temple lay to
Discovered in 1898, the site was immediately the south. Following the 811 burning of the city
incorporated into a Bulgarian national narrative.2 by Nikephoros I (for which the account suggests
Rather than being founded from scratch (as is wooden buildings), Pliska was rebuilt and ex-
often claimed), however, the Bulgarian capital panded. The north area was enclosed by a fortifi-
seems to have been established on the site of an cation wall, measuring 84 by 128 meters overall,
early Byzantine fortified settlement: the huge with additional court buildings to the west and a
outer enclosure of 2,300 hectares, surrounded by second pagan temple at the center (Fig. 22.1D).
earthen ramparts, was larger than Constantino- With the Christianization of Bulgaria under
ple; the inner enclosure was a castrum of 50 hect- Boris, the southern temple was rebuilt as a basili-
ares with sturdy stone walls (Figs. 22.1A and can church, perhaps to function as the cathedral,
22.1B).3 The excavated foundations within it are with the addition of apses and side chambers (Fig.
impressive for their large-scale ashlar construc- 22.1E). It was enlarged in a third phase, probably
tion, but much of what has been interpreted as in the late ninth century.5 Within the palace en-
ninth century and Bulgarian may in fact be early closure, a small chapel was added, probably also
Byzantine. The great gridded foundations within in the late ninth century, likely under Symeon
the inner enclosure, usually termed the Palace of (Fig. 22.1F). The latter is instructive, both for its
Khan Krum, are more likely the remains of a Byz- small scale (8.5 by 13 meters) and for its typology:
antine fortress. The basilican audience hall, built although known only from foundations, it was
on the same fortress site, also seems to predate the clearly a cross-in-square church, with four free-
foundation of the Bulgarian capital. The Great standing columns and pilasters along the walls
to articulate the structure—that is, following an
1
For background, see J. Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans: A up-to-date Byzantine model.
Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth (Ann Arbor, 1991); All considered, what is most striking in the ar-
Whittow, The Making of Byzantium; F. Curta, The Other Europe in chitecture of Pliska is the diminutive scale, par-
the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans (Leiden, ticularly noticeable in the church architecture.
2008), among others. Within Pliska, another nine small basilicas have
2
Aboba-Pliska, 2 vols., IRAIK 10 (Sofia, 1905); with more recent
analysis in J. Henning, ed., Post-Roman Towns, Trade, and Settlement 4
Compare the views of K. Mijatev, Die mittelalterliche Baukunst in
in Europe and Byzantium, 2nd vol., Byzantium, Pliska and the Balkans Bulgarien (Sofia, 1974), esp. 30–35; and Krautheimer and Ćurčić,
(Berlin, 2007). ECBA, 311–21; to Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans (2010), 150,
3
Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 175–78; and the cautions 175–78, 230–31, 280–85.
expressed by Mango, Byzantine Architecture, 300–306. 5
Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 283–84.

FIGURE 22.1 Pliska through its history: (A) Byzantine fortified enclosure (fifth century?); (B) Byzantine fortified site at the center of the enclosure (early sixth century?); (C) Bulgarian
residential court buildings with the gridded foundations of the early Byzantine fortress, with the foundations of an apsed audience hall superimposed; with foundations of a temple to
the left (ca. 800?); (D) palace complex under Omurtag, with new fortification and temple (early ninth century); (E) palace complex under Boris, with the temple transformed to a
church (ninth century); (F) palace complex under Symeon, with the palace chapel added and the church rebuilt (late ninth century) (after S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 2010)
FIGURE 22.2
Pliska, basilicas,
plans drawn to
the same scale:
(A) Great
Basilica,
probably fifth or
sixth century.
(B–D) Ninth-
century
basilicas: (B)
so-called Typical
Basilica; (C)
Boyar Church;
(D) Basilica No.
5 (after
S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in
the Balkans,
2010)
been excavated; all seem to be from the ninth- of the palace and cathedral complexes have been
century phase. While differing in detail, all are compared to features in Constantinople.6
relatively small and architecturally conservative A strong association with Constantinople must
(Figs. 22.2B–D). The forms of the palaces are dis- also lie behind the design of the impressive Round
tinctive, however, with a central hall or halls flanked Church, attributed to Symeon and dated 907
symmetrically by subsidiary rooms. The same form (Figs. 22.3 and 22.4). A unique creation, it finds
appears as the “episcopal palace” at the Great Ba- its best comparison with the centrally planned
silica at Pliska and is later repeated in the imperial churches of the Justinianic era, as well as subse-
and patriarchal palaces at Preslav. Similar forms quent constructions, such as the seventh-century
are known from the Byzantine palace at Rhegion St. John at the Diipion or Basil I’s Church of St.
(outside Constantinople), for example, and thus Elijah in the Great Palace (both known only
the Bulgarian examples may be following an es- from descriptions), which could have provided a
tablished Byzantine type. Nevertheless, it is diffi- model.7 Rather than serving Simeon’s court,
cult to read a distinct ideology into the limited re- however, the Round Church lay outside the cit-
mains from the first Bulgarian capital. adel and was part of a monastery, whose incom-
Things become easier to interpret under Boris’s plete remains lay to the south. The rotunda was
successor Symeon (r. 893–927), who was both twelve sided with an internal diameter of
ambitious and enterprising; he moved the capital 10 meters; the outer wall is lined with niches
from Pliska to Preslav sometime after 893, with expressed on the exterior and buttresses in be-
much new construction. A smaller settlement tween; on the interior, twelve freestanding col-
than Pliska, the outer enclosure of Preslav encom- umns of Proconnesian marble formed a narrow
passed 350 hectares, with an inner citadel of 25 ambulatory, with an enlarged bema on the east-
hectares. Schooled in Constantinople, Symeon ern side and an ambo at the center. A deep,
staged his coronation in Hagia Sophia. His strong
associations with the Byzantine capital help to ex- 6
plain much of the development in Preslav. Al- 7
P. Magdalino, “The Byzantine Antecedents to the Round
though limited to excavated foundations, details Church at Preslav,” Problemi na Izkustvoto 2 (2012): 3–5.

FIGURE 22.3
Preslav, Round
Church, plan
(after S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in
the Balkans,
2010)
FIGURE 22.4
Preslav, Round
Church, interior
view with
remains of the
colonnade (C.
Mango,
Dumbarton Oaks
Image Collection
and Fieldwork
Archives)
colonnaded narthex to the west was flanked by ornamental sculpture and glazed ceramic tiles ad-
stair turrets, indicating an upper level. The heres to contemporary Constantinopolitan models,
atrium was similarly niched. In contrast to the as at the Church of the Theotokos tou Libos, and
architectural forms, which find their best com- suggests that craftsmen from the Byzantine cap-
parison in early Byzantium, the decoration of ital were employed at Preslav.
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO: EXPORTING A CULTURE/IMPORTING A CULTURE 535

The close associations between Preslav and
Constantinople are evident elsewhere as well.
Cross-in-square churches, which became standard
in Middle Byzantine Constantinople, are found
in abundance in and around Preslav, often bear-
ing the hallmarks of the Constantinopolitan mon-
uments: four columns as supports, the structural
system articulated on the façades, an extended
three-part sanctuary (Figs. 22.5A–C). As with
much of the architecture of the period, most are
known only from foundations. The excavation of
the Church of St. Panteleimon at the Patleina
Monastery also encourages a connection with
Constantinople (Fig. 22.5D). Rather than col-
umns, the dome rose above piers, but with
concave surfaces facing the central bay. While un-
usual, the supports are quite similar to the reen-
trant piers at St. George of Mangana, perhaps
rising to squinches.
Not all Bulgarian architecture of the period re-
flects the close association with Constantinople—
nor should we expect it to. Many small churches,
both basilican and domed, find no comparisons
in the capital. At Messembria (Nesebar), on the
Black Sea coast, for example, the Church of St.
John also follows a cross-in-square plan but of
rough rubble construction, with limited brick de-
tailing around doors and windows and with piers
as the support and a cylindrical dome drum (Fig.
22.6). It is for all intents and purposes a provin-
cial Byzantine church, probably built in the tenth
century.
In 969, the Bulgarians suffered a major defeat
at the hands of the Byzantines, effectively mark-
ing an end to the First Bulgarian Empire, although
a continued presence lingered in the western ter-
ritories, where Samuel (986–1014) established a
short-lived kingdom, centered at Ohrid and Lake
Prespa.8 This came to an end with the annihila-
FIGURE 22.5 Preslav, church plans: (A) Avradaka no. 1;
tion of the Bulgarian army by Basil II in 1018. Of
(B) Avradaka no. 2; (C) Bial Briag no. 1; (D) St. Panteleimon
the monuments of the period, the Church of St.
at Patleina Monastery (after S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the
Achilleios at Mikre Prespa is the most important Balkans, 2010)
(Fig. 22.7). It was built just before 1000 by
Samuel, as part of his new capital. Located near
his palace, the church was to be the seat of the
Bulgarian patriarch and to house the relics of St. Achilleios, which Samuel had stolen from La-
rissa. The largest medieval church in the Balkans,
8
N. Moutsopoulos, “Anaskafe tes basilikes tou Agiou Achilleiou,” the three-aisled basilica measured approximately
EEPS 5 (1971–72): 47–461; D. Evyenidou, I. Kanonides, and Th. 22 by 44 meters overall. Originally with pier
Papazotos, The Monuments of Prespa (Athens, 1991). supports and galleries above the side aisles, its

FIGURE 22.6
Nesebar, St.
John, exterior
from the
southwest
(author)
FIGURE 22.7 Mikre

Prespa, Church of St.
Achilleios, plan (after
Moutsopoulos, EEPS,
1971–72)
bema was flanked by domed, cruciform pasto- is to resonate with the Byzantine past, signaling a
phoria. The south chapel (diakonikon) contained revival; another reason may have been the congre-
the tomb of the saint, and an additional four gational needs for a cathedral in a capital. While
tombs lined the wall of the south aisle, associated many Byzantine sites preserved Early Christian
with the founders, with one probably that of basilicas, still in use, at other sites basilicas contin-
Samuel. ued to be constructed, often (but not always)
While roughly built, the size of St. Achilleios as cathedrals. At Nesebar/Messembria, the
certainly says something about the ambitions of sixth-century Old Metropolis was overhauled.
its patron. But why select a basilican plan, rather At Servia, Serres, and Veroia, new cathedrals
than something more up to date? One suggestion were constructed from scratch on basilican plans

FIGURE 22.9 Kolusha, St. George, seen from the southwest
in 1898 (from S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 2010)
FIGURE 22.8 Sapareva Bania, St. Nicholas, view from the
southeast (Ivan Vanev)
of the period. The monastery was originally in-
(see Figs. 10.16 and 17.7). Thus, while St. Achil-
9 habited by Georgian monks, who maintained
leios may have had a particular meaning within their own school. The katholikon was a triconch,
the context of Samuel’s new capital, it was not a apparently following the Athonite (or possibly
unique creation. Georgian) model. Most impressive today is the
That said, with the demise of the First Bulgar- eleventh-century ossuary, well preserved outside
ian Kingdom and the return of the territory to the monastic enclosure, on sloping ground (Figs.
Byzantine control, architectural production con- 22.10 and 22.11). The building is two storied,
tinued very much along the same lines—that is, barrel vaulted in both levels, with the lower level
for the period of 1018–1185, what appears in the serving for burial of the bones of the monks, in
region might be characterized as provincial Byz- fourteen grave pits beneath the floor. The upper
antine with Constantinopolitan associations. For level was covered by a banded barrel vault and
example, the small cruciform Church of St. Nich- served as a funerary chapel; both are decorated
olas at Sapareva Bania is built in the recessed with wall paintings. The exterior of the upper
brick technique, a hallmark of the Byzantine cap- chapel is detailed with blind arcades, formed of
ital (Fig. 22.8). But the lack of sophistication and stepped pilasters and torus moldings, which bear
squat proportions suggest local builders, perhaps no relation to the internal structure. In fact, the
guided by an imported mason. In contrast, the combination of banded barrel vault, torus mold-
Church of St. George at Kolusha is quite similar ings, and the lack of relationship between interior
in its construction, although more sophisticated, and exterior call to mind the monuments of the
on a cross-in-square plan with a tall drum. Both Caucasus, a connection quite probable consider-
must be from the twelfth century (Fig. 22.9). ing the origin of the founder: compare, for exam-
The Petritzos Monastery, or the Theotokos Pe- ple, the vaulting and external arcading at Ot‘ht‘a
tritzonitissa, now known as Bachkovo, was founded Eklesia or the torus moldings prominent on the
in 1083 by Gregory Pakourianos, a Byzantine gen- facades at Ishkani (see Figs. 19.21 and 19.28). How-
eral of Caucasian (Armeno-Georgian) origin.10 Al- ever, the construction at Bachkovo is of banded
though its typikon is preserved, the monastery brick and stone, as one might find in Constanti-
itself has been largely reconstructed. Neverthe- nople. In short, the ossuary is a hybrid monu-
less, it provides some sense of the cultural richness ment—one that challenges the notion of a distinct
regional identity in Bulgarian architecture.
With the weakening of Byzantine power in the
9
Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 308–15; M. Altripp, Die Balkans following the death of Manuel Komne-
Basilika in Byzanz (Berlin, 2013). nos, a Second Bulgarian Empire was founded in
10
E. Bakalova, ed., The Ossuary of the Bachkovo Monastery (Plovdiv, 1185, with a capital at T’rnovo. This parallels
2003). developments in Serbia, to be discussed shortly.

FIGURE 22.10
Bachkovo,
Ossuary, view
from the
southeast (author)
FIGURE 22.11 Bachkovo, Ossuary, section and plans at the

upper and lower levels (after Ćurčić, Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
FIGURE 22.12 Asenova Krepost, Church of the Mother of God Petrichka, seen from the south (author)
We will return to Bulgaria in a subsequent chap- discontinuities of medieval Bulgarian history, its
ter, although the Church of the Bogoroditsa Pet- architecture seems firmly connected to that of
richka at the Asenova Krepost (Asen Fortress, Constantinople.
Byzantine Stenimachos), near Asenovgrad, is best Kievan Rus’. The situation in early Russia dif-
discussed here (Fig. 22.12).11 Built ca. 1200 as part fered from that of its Balkan neighbors, as Kievan
of an older part of the fortress, set high on a rocky Rus’ rose in territory outside the extent of the Byz-
outcropping above a mountain pass, the church is antine Empire and with no building tradition
long, narrow, and single aisled, with a domed in permanent materials. Nevertheless, Byzantine
naos. Although raised on a vaulted substructure, architecture played a critical role in the Christian-
unlike Bachkovo, the lower level was never in- ization of Kievan Rus’, as well as in the transfor-
tended as a burial crypt; it was simply a level plat- mation and subsequent transmission of Russian cul-
form to anchor the church on uneven terrain. ture. Although new architectural concepts were
Built of banded brick and stone with arcaded regularly introduced into Russia after the eleventh
exterior facades, construction details and decora- century—from the Romanesque and Gothic ar-
tive articulation—notably brick patterning— chitecture of Western Europe, from Renaissance
find their best comparisons in Middle Byzantine Italy and Baroque Germany—once introduced,
Constantinople. Even the unusual belfry, rising the Byzantine element never entirely disappears.12
above the narthex, may find comparison in the In 987, the Russian ambassadors sent by Prince
Byzantine capital—a subject to which we shall Vladimir were overwhelmed by the visual splendor
return. Thus, through the various transitions and
12
D. Shvidkovsky, Russian Architecture and the West (New Haven,
11
Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 480–82. 2007).

of the liturgical celebrations in the churches of Con- fragmentary, but archaeologists have identified
stantinople, declaring “we knew not whether we several stone buildings and evidence of costly dec-
were in heaven or on earth . . . we only knew that orations; a Byzantine connection is supported by
God dwells there among men . . . we cannot forget the appearance of brick, polychrome tiles, mosaic,
that beauty.”13 No doubt they were responding to and fresco, as well as Proconnesian and other types
the interior of Justinian’s Hagia Sophia, the major of marble among the finds. Thus, Kiev seems to
site of ecclesiastical ceremony. It was (at least in have possessed Byzantine-style masonry architec-
part) on the basis of the architectural impression ture as early as the middle of the tenth century, and
that Vladimir converted Kievan Rus’ to Ortho- there must have been Greek masons and crafts-
dox Christianity, following the Byzantine model— men, as well as clergymen, in residence several de-
rather than Islam, Judaism, or the Church of cades before the official conversion in 988.
Rome. The metropolitan see of Kiev was estab- Only following the Christianization of Rus’,
lished as subservient to that of Constantinople; however, is there a monumentalization that could
Byzantine priests were dispatched, bringing with characterize Kiev as an urban center. Vladimir ex-
them the instructions for liturgical celebrations, panded and fortified the Starokjivs’ka Hill settle-
devotional texts, icons, relics, and other religious ment, and within it, his first major projects were
paraphernalia to strengthen the relationship with the construction of the Tithe (Desyatinnaya)
Byzantine Orthodoxy. Wishing to share the pres- Church, which was completed in 996, and an ad-
tige and wealth of the Byzantine Empire, Vladimir jacent palace of identical construction technique
married the Byzantine princess Anna, who was the (Fig. 22.13).15 Dedicated to the Dormition of
sister of the reigning emperor Basil II, and a politi- the Virgin, the church was financed by a tithe
cal alliance with Byzantium was eagerly pursued. on Vladimir’s income and measured 33.5 by 37
Russian architecture quickly followed the ide- meters overall; at its center was a dome approxi-
ological lead. Most important in this respect is mately 5 meters in diameter. Destroyed by the
the introduction of architecture in brick and Mongol sack of 1240, the building is known only
stone, which supplanted the traditional Russian from its partially preserved excavated remains.
architecture of wood, at least for the most impor- Scholars disagree as to whether it should be re-
tant constructions. The physical manifestation of constructed as a domed basilica, a cross-domed
a broader cultural transformation, masonry archi- basilica, or a cross-in-square church—or even if it
tecture appeared hand in glove with the expan- was domed at all.16 Enveloped by ambulatories or
sion of Kiev as a political and religious center in subsidiary spaces, the poor coordination suggests
the late tenth and eleventh centuries. Until the a change of design as the building was enlarged,
late ninth century, Kiev consisted of a series of but the excavations indicated construction occurred
undistinguished small habitation sites on the within a short period of time. The interior was
easily fortified promontories above the Dnieper lavishly decorated with marble and mosaic, some
River. For the early period, there is no evidence of fragments of which have survived. Of the palace,
an urban center, no princely administrative site, only the plan is preserved. Together they created
no numismatic evidence, no buildings in perma- an ideological center for Vladimir’s state, with
nent materials, and no indication of long-distance Byzantine-style architecture conveying symbolic
trade—it was an “extreme border zone.”14 By the
mid-tenth century, however, Kiev was on the 15
A. I. Komech, Drevnerusskoe zodchestvo konca X-nachala XI v.
rise. Stone architecture began to appear on the (Moscow, 1995); Rappoport, Building the Churches of Kievan
Starokjivs’ka Hill, probably as a consequence of Russia; W. Brumfield, A History of Russian Architecture
trading connections with the Byzantines in (Cambridge, 1993); for new excavations, see O. Ioannissian and
the Crimea. Excavated remains are exceptionally G. Ivakin, “Desjatinnaja cerkov’ v Kieve: ‘staryĭ vzgljad’ v novom
osveshhenii,” in Archeologia Abrahamica, ed. L. Beliaev (Moscow,
2009), 179–202.
13
For text, Zenkovsky, Medieval Russia’s Epics, 66–67. 16
G. Ivakin, Ioannisian, and D. Jolshin, “Arhіtekturno-arheologіchnі
J. Callmer, “The Archaeology of Kiev to the End of the Earliest
14
doslіdzhennjacerkvi Bogorodicі Desjatinnoiv Kievі u 2008–2011
Urban Phase,” HUkSt 11 (1987): 323–64. pp,” in Slov’jani і Rus’: arheologіja ta іstorіja (Kiev, 2013), 73–80.

FIGURE 22.14 Kiev, reconstructed Golden Gate, seen from
the west (author)
and St. George; and the main entrance to the walled

city was called the Golden Gate (Fig. 22.14). Al-
though both St. Sophia and the Golden Gate were
probably built by Byzantine masons, neither looked
FIGURE 22.13 Kiev, Tithe Church, hypothetical very much like its prototype—St. Sophia had thir-
reconstructed plan and plan of excavated foundations teen domes; the Golden Gate was surmounted by a
(redrawn after Ivakin et al., Slov’jani i Rus’, 2013) domed chapel; the resonant dedications seem to
have been enough to have conveyed the intended
messages of status and authority. Vladimir’s suc- meanings to a population that had never seen the
cessor Jaroslav dramatically expanded the city in Byzantine capital. In fact, the Golden Gate (heavily
the early eleventh century. With successive expan- restored in 1982) became the prototype for the
sions, Kiev achieved a maximum population of common form of Russian urban and monastic gate
around forty thousand, which was probably surmounted by a chapel. Rather than the Golden
maintained into early thirteenth century, before Gate of Constantinople, its model may have been
the area succumbed to the Mongols in 1240. the Chalke Gate, the entrance to the Great Palace,
When Jaroslav expanded Kiev into a substan- which had a chapel on its upper level (see Fig. 15.21).
tial city, both Byzantine models and Byzantine Although we do not have the names of indi-
ideas came into play, replicating significant top- vidual artisans recorded, Byzantine masons were
onyms so that Kiev emerged as a sort of “copy”: in certainly at work in Kievan Rus’ in the tenth and
a period of rapid growth and emerging civic and eleventh centuries, but the references to them are
national consciousness, the identity of Kiev as a extremely vague; they are usually referred to as
city gained credibility and luster through the “masters,” following the Greek maistor or masto-
symbolic association with Constantinople. The ras. The Laurent‘ev Chronicle of 989 and the
new cathedral was dedicated to St. Sophia; two Ipat‘ev Chronicle of 991 record simply that Vladimir
nearby monasteries were dedicated to St. Eirene brought Greek masters to construct the Tithe

FIGURE 22.15
Kiev, St. Sophia,
east façade, with
areas of eleventh-
century masonry
exposed (author)
Church in Kiev. At the Church of the Dormition required more than a million bricks, which would
of the Virgin in the Monastery of the Caves in have been produced in kilns on site. In the wall
Kiev (built 1073–78), the monastery’s Paterikon reconstruction of the early churches, the bricks
ports that a local team of workmen was headed were set in the recessed brick technique, a hall-
by four masters from Constantinople. Other Greek mark of Constantinople and areas under its influ-
masters seem to have been at work in Kiev, ence in the tenth through twelfth centuries (Fig.
Chernigov, and Pereslavl’ in the eleventh century, as 22.15).19 Often the technique was combined with
well as at Kiev, Vitebsk, and Pskov in the twelfth.17 pilasters, niches and stepped arcades, and occa-
In addition, where we find mosaic decoration in the sionally decorative patterns in brick, all of which
early churches, as at St. Sophia, we can be certain were common in Constantinople. Similarly, wooden
that Byzantine artisans were present. beams strengthen the walls and foundations; domes
There are a variety of technical features in early were built without formwork, so that they are slightly
Russian architecture that can only be explained egg shaped. Similar technical details appear in the
by the presence of Byzantine masons. The con- early monuments of Chernigov and Novgorod.
struction technique is normally an opus mixtum, While technically identical to the churches of
with alternating courses of brick and rough stone- Constantinople, formally the early Russian churches
work. Russians learned brick production from are perplexingly distinct. Working in Kiev, however,
Byzantium: even the word for brick—plint or Byzantine masons faced challenges unknown in
plinf—comes from the Greek word plinthos; the Constantinople. After the Russian state was Chris-
bricks were long and flat, about a foot square and tianized, it required large congregational churches
two inches thick, as they were in Constantino- for the recently converted population—a need that
ple.18 A moderately large church would have was often met in Byzantium by existing Early Chris-
tian basilicas. Masons familiar with the structural
17
Rappoport, Building the Churches of Kievan Russia, esp. 193–211. 19
H. Schäfer, “Architekturhistorische Beziehungen zwischen
18
Rappoport, Building the Churches of Kievan Russia, 5–53; after the Byzanz und der Kiever Rus in 10. und 11. Jahrhundert,” IstMitt
fourteenth century, the word kirpich, of Turkic origin, is also used. 23–24 (1973–74): 197–224.

at the core of the building, so that the dome rises
29 meters off the floor, with the vaults stepping
down gradually around it. The resultant pyramidal
massing of forms is characteristic of contemporane-
ous Byzantine churches built on a much smaller
scale.
In the final analysis, St. Sophia in Kiev repre-
sents an expansion and elaboration of Byzantine
ideas to suit the different needs of the recently Chris-
tianized Russian state. The fact that no identical
building survives on Byzantine soil should not de-
tract from the basic Byzantineness of the build-
ing. All of the individual components find good
Byzantine comparisons, and even the manner in
which they are assembled accords with estab-
lished Byzantine practices. That said, it is note-
worthy that Byzantine masons transmitted to
Russia a limited repertory of construction tech-
niques and architectural forms, and this fact has
important implications for subsequent architec-
tural developments. The conservatism of the Rus-
sian workshops may have been encouraged by their
relative isolation. For example, vaulting types were
limited: domes were invariably set above penden-
tives, raised on windowed drums, their interior
FIGURE 22.16 Kiev, St. Sophia, plan and reconstructed
surfaces left plain; scalloped pumpkin domes and
longitudinal section (after Y. Aseyev, V. Volkov, and ribbed domes, so popular in the Byzantine capi-
M. Kresalny, in H. Logvin, Kiev’s Hagia Sophia, 1971) tal, are never found. Other vaults were almost in-
variably limited to barrel vaults; groin vaults
systems of the small, vaulted churches could not appear only during the early twelfth century with
hope to replicate the form of Hagia Sophia. This the introduction of new architectural ideas from
is evident in the layering of spaces at the Tithe Romanesque Europe. Even variations based on
Church and more clearly understood at Jaroslav’s the barrel vault are rare. A Byzantine staircase, for
St. Sophia in Kiev, begun before 1037, which, de- example, was normally covered by a ramping
spite its Baroque exterior, preserves much of its barrel vault, but in the Russian examples, barrel
original form (Figs. 22.15–22.18). Both churches vaults were stepped in series, as occurred in the
elaborated a basic Byzantine schema, by which the staircase at St. Sophia in Kiev.
domed core of the building was enveloped by a There is also a uniformity in the design. Early
series of ambulatories and galleries. At St. Sophia, Russian architecture consisted primarily of varia-
these increased the interior space systematically to tions of a building type that was introduced with
create what was necessary for a large congrega- the earliest churches of Kiev. This basic formula
tion. The central domed bay of the naos measures was copied at other locations, with some alterations
about 7.5 meters across, but the entire building to meet specific needs. The St. Sophia churches in
covers a vast area of about 40 by 49 meters. Bar- Polotzk (1044–66) and Novgorod (1045–50), for
rel-vaulted aisles and domed chapels were multi- example, might be best understood as “copies” of
plied, expanding outward, wrapping around the St. Sophia in Kiev, replicating its basic forms, ded-
core in a logical manner. Marble columns were ication, and construction techniques, although
not available, and thus cruciform piers were in- perhaps less coherent in their organization (Figs.
troduced to support the naos dome, adding to its 22.19 and 22.20). At Chernigov, the Transfigura-
stability and allowing for the increase in the verticality tion Cathedral (ca. 1036) has arcades separating

FIGURE 22.17
Kiev, St. Sophia,
reconstructed east façade
and axonometric section
(after Y. Aseyev, V. Volkov,
and M. Kresalny, in
H. Logvin, Kiev’s Hagia
Sophia, 1971)
the central domed bay from the aisles, but the By the mid-twelfth century, activity had shifted
basic configuration is the same, as is the recessed northward, notably with the establishment of the
brick technique (Fig. 22.21). The tall cross-in- Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal under Andrei
square core of Kiev’s St. Sophia, with its central Bogolyubsky (1157–75). With the shift northward
dome raised above cruciform piers, provided a came a shift in cultural orientation, with Andrei
model for the smaller and simpler Russian churches. said to have “invited craftsmen for every land,”
The attenuated proportions of the naos of St. notably masons from Western Europe, who in-
Sophia had resulted from the pyramidal massing of troduced ashlar stone construction and a variety
components, as the tall core of the building was of details associated with Romanesque architec-
enveloped by layers of subsidiary spaces. In smaller ture, such as the corbel table frieze and external
churches of simpler design, the attenuated core stone sculpture. Nevertheless, the basic church
stands on its own, a towering block, as at the type of Byzantine derivation was maintained. The
Dormition Cathedral in Kiev or in St. George at Dormition Cathedral at Vladimir, begun by Andrei
the Yuriev Monastery in Novgorod. in 1158–60 and expanded 1185–89, is virtually

FIGURE 22.18
Kiev, St. Sophia,
interior of the naos,
view into the dome
(author)
FIGURE 22.19
Novgorod, St.
Sophia, view from the
south (Wikipedia)

FIGURE 22.21 Chernigov, Transfiguration Cathedral, plan
and longitudinal section (redrawn after A. Komech,
FIGURE 22.20 Novgorod, St. Sophia, plan and longitudinal Drevnerusskoe, 1995)
section (after H. Faensen and V. Ivanov, Early Russian
Architecture, 1975)
(Veil of the Virgin) Church on the Nerl River
near Vladimir, built ca. 1165, presents the distilled
indistinguishable in plan from its Kievan prede- essence of the Vladimir style—a domed, cross-in-
cessors (Figs. 22.22 and 22.23). At the same time, square church with cruciform piers on the interior,
there is a greater vertical attenuation to the the exterior an attenuated, arcaded block—stand-
exterior, which rises to a tall block, with the linear ing out dramatically in the strafing northern light
articulation of arcades and window forms more (Figs. 22.24 and 22.25).
Romanesque than Byzantine. The church became A final development is noteworthy in this
the seat of the Metropolitan of all Russia, as well period, seen at the Piatnitsa Church in Chernigov,
as the coronation church (until 1440) and a site of an all-brick construction of ca. 1200, which re-
great spiritual significance, housing the famed places the blocky exterior with gradual stepping
icon of the Virgin of Vladimir. The tiny Pokrov up to the dome (Fig. 22.26). Destroyed in 1943,

FIGURE 22.22
Vladimir, Cathedral
of the Dormition,
view from the
southwest (Moscow
Institute of
Architecture
Scientific Library)
FIGURE 22.23 Vladimir, Cathedral of the Dormition, plan

and longitudinal section through the south aisle (after
K. J. Conant, in S. H. Cross, Medieval Russian Churches,
1949)
FIGURE 22.24 Vladimir (near), Church of the Prov on the Nerl (Moscow Institute of Architecture Scientific Library)

aspect of the design. The plan (approximately 11.5
by 16 meters) remains virtually identical to that of
the Pokrov Church. In sum, while maintaining
core elements derived from Byzantine architec-
ture, by the end of the twelfth century Russian ar-
chitecture was charting its own course. The Mongol
(Tatar) invasions of the early thirteenth century,
which destabilized much of Russia in the 1220s–
1230s, brought an end to the first phase of its archi-
tecture, which would be revived after 1300 with the
rise of Moscow (discussed in Chap. 27).
Serbia. With the demise of the First Bulgarian
Empire and the weakening of Byzantine control
in the region following the death of Basil II in
1025, Serbia began to emerge as an independent
FIGURE 22.25 Vladimir (near), Church of the Prov on the
polity.20 Much of the area that was to become the
Nerl, plan and transverse section, with suggested restoration
of the outer gallery (redrawn after Moscow Institute of
Serbian Kingdom (including what is now south-
Architecture Scientific Library) ern Serbia, Kosovo, and parts of Macedonia) had
been part of the Byzantine Empire, often with
close associations with Constantinople, as is evi-
FIGURE 22.26 dent in the architecture. Both the tiny quatrefoil
Chernigov, Church of the Virgin at Veljusa and the five-
Piatnitsa domed Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, for
Church, seem example, reflect the architecture of the capital and
from the were built for cosmopolitan patrons (see Figs.
southeast 15.9B, 13.21, 17.8, and 17.9). By the middle of the
(author) twelfth century, however, Byzantine control was
challenged by local rulers, the most important of
whom was Stefan Nemanja, grand župan of Raška
ca. 1166–96, who led a protracted struggle against
the Byzantines, finally achieving independence
following the death of Manuel Komnenos in
1180.21 In a region already Christianized but not
urbanized, Nemanja sought to solidify his base
with ecclesiastical support, patronizing the con-
struction of churches and monasteries. This pro-
gram was followed by his successors as well, and
as a consequence we can find a significant politi-
cal message in the surviving monuments. The as-
sociated architecture is sometimes referred to
as the Raška School. What is intriguing in this
respect is how the early Serbian state both
20
Ćurčić, 486–87; F. Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages,
the church was reconstructed with great authen- 500–1250 (Cambridge, 2006); J. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans:
ticity in the 1960s. On the façades, the central A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman
arch of the cross arm is flanked by lower quadrant Conquest (Ann Arbor, 1994).
arches, and the dome rises above superimposed 21
For the history see among others, Fine, Early Medieval Balkans;
gables (kokoshniki), which emphasize the vertical and Fine, Late Medieval Balkans; F. Curta, Southeastern Europe.

FIGURE 22.27
Kuršumlija, Church
of St. Nicholas, seen
from the northeast
(heavily restored)
(N. P. Ševčenko)
emulated and distanced itself from Byzantium in and executed in a rough mix of stone and brick.
its architecture. While both phases are often attributed to the pa-
Critical for the development of Serbian archi- tronage of Stefan Nemanja, the naos is more
tecture is the Church of St. Nicholas at Kuršumlija, likely Byzantine—perhaps during the campaigns
in what is now southern Serbia (Fig. 22.27; and of Manuel in 1148–50, while the western addi-
see Fig. 13.15C). Closely aligned with the build- tions are the work of Nemanja, ca. 1166–68.22
ings of Constantinople, St. Nicholas was built on The odd juxtaposition at St. Nicholas was sub-
an atrophied Greek cross plan, with a dome ap- sequently followed at the Church of St. George in
proximately 5 meters in diameter. Like the Chora the monastery of Djurdjevi Stupovi, begun some-
in Constantinople, it similarly had an annexed time after 1166 and completed by 1170–71, under
chapel to the south and was built in the recessed the patronage of Stefan Nemanja—and indicating
brick technique. Both the lunettes and the dome that both phases of St. Nicholas should date before
had large windows, and the interior of the dome this time (Fig. 22.28). On a narrow hilltop site, the
is ribbed—that is, the church bears all the charac- church merges the twin-towered western portion
teristics of a Constantinopolitan monument. An with the atrophied Greek-cross naos, covered by an
unusual feature is the extra bay to the west of the oval dome (4.4 by 5.5 meters in diameter). Vesti-
naos, separated from it by a broad arch, with ar- bules flank the naos to either side. Despite the
cosolia on either side. Should this space be under- heavy reconstructions at both sites, it is clear that
stood as part of the naos or as the narthex? The
church was expanded in a second phase with the 22
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 491–95; note also
addition of a deep narthex preceded by a twin- M. Mihaljević, “Constantinopolitan Architecture of the
towered portico, a feature unknown in Byzantine Komnenian Era (1080–1180) and Its Impact in the Balkans,” PhD
architecture but common to European Romanesque diss., Princeton University, 2010.

A similar sort of juxtaposition is found at the
Church of the Mother of God (Bogorodica) at the
Studenica Monastery, founded by Stefan Nemanja,
the most important foundation of medieval Serbia.
Both the church and the monastery set a standard
for subsequent Serbian architecture. The monas-
tery is a roughly circular, walled enclosure, with
monastic cells, the refectory, and other buildings
set against the wall, with the katholikon freestand-
ing at its center (Figs. 22.29-22.30). Sometime
called “the cross in the circle,” the basic organiza-
tion follows the Byzantine model.23 Entered from
the west, the gate led directly to the church, which
was originally preceded by a freestanding phiale, or
holy water font, similar to those of Mount Athos.
This was subsequently enclosed by the construc-
tion of a large outer narthex ca. 1230. The refectory
lay immediately to the north of the gate. To the
south, several small chapels were added.
The church itself follows the Byzantine model of
the atrophied Greek-cross plan—perhaps following
that established in the region by St. Nicholas, but
the construction was by builders from the Adriatic
littoral (Figs. 22.31 and 22.32).24 Begun sometime
after 1183, the church was apparently still incom-
plete when Nemanja abdicated in 1196 to become a
monk in the monastery. In its design, the church
omits the western towers of St. Nicholas and St.
George, while maintaining the narthex; the inter-
mediary western naos bay, like that at St. Nicholas,
was equipped for burials—with the sarcophagus of
FIGURE 22.28 Church of St. George at Djurdjevi Stupovi
Nemanja in the south recess. The lateral vestibules
Monastery, plan and longitudinal section (after S. Ćurčić,
of St. George are also repeated here, although each
Architecture in the Balkans, 2010)
is equipped with an apse in its eastern wall. It is also
substantially larger, measuring approximately 10 by
the builders at St. George came from a different 28 meters overall. Despite these similarities, the
tradition: construction is all porous limestone, the most striking discrepancy is the external appearance
eaves are lined with corbel tables; the interior of the of the church, constructed of a locally quarried
dome drum features a curious blind arcade. Mate- marble, carefully cut into ashlar blocks, some
rials, towers, and details all impart a Romanesque 50 centimeters thick. Architectural detailing is es-
character to the church exterior, while the liturgical sentially Romanesque, with corbel tables along the
organization of the interior maintains what would eaves, elaborated jambs, archivolts, windows, and
be necessary for Orthodox monastic use. In short, architectural sculpture. All would compare favora-
the odd juxtapositions in both buildings reflect the bly with the contemporaneous architecture of the
dual cultural and political orientation of medieval
Serbia, which maintained economic ties to the
towns along the Adriatic littoral, where a version of 23
Popović, Krst u Krugu.
the Italian Romanesque had been developed. Ne- 24
S. Ćirković, V. Korać, and G. Babić, Studenica Monastery (Belgrade
manja subsequently captured Kotor in 1196, but 1986), 32–42; also Čanak-Medić and Bošković, L’architecture de
cultural connections clearly precede this event. l’epoque de Nemanja.

FIGURE 22.29
Studenica
Monastery,
aerial view
(Alxadj,
Wikimedia
Commons)
Adriatic coast, as, for example, St. Lawrence at In contrast to the exterior, the interior appears almost
Trogir.25 Some Byzantine features were retained, purely Byzantine, functionally equipped and deco-
however, such as the great arch with setbacks on the rated for the Orthodox liturgy.
lateral façades, as well as the window openings in The thirteenth-century successors to Studen-
the lunettes. The latter were intended to be three- ica repeat many of the same concerns. At the
part windows, like those of St. Nicholas, but were Monastery of Sopoćani, for example, founded by
altered in the final form, with Romanesque bifora Uroš I (reg. 1243–76) sometime after 1250, the
incongruously inserted into each light. monastic organization is remarkably similar—
Most striking, however, is the inclusion of a roughly circular with a freestanding katholikon at
purely Constantinopolitan dome, built of brick and the center (Figs. 22.33 and 22.34). Seen from the
stone, a pumpkin dome on the interior, with en- exterior, the church, dedicated to the Holy Trin-
gaged colonnettes and scalloped eaves on the exte- ity, reads as a Romanesque basilica with a gratu-
rior. The juxtaposition of styles and concomitant itous dome (the present one is reconstructed); the
change in materials has long intrigued scholars.26 interior is essentially a domed Byzantine micro-
Should we attribute the building to a mixed work- cosm. The region and its architecture will become
shop, with the Romanesque team responsible for the more important to our discussion in the four-
wall construction and the Byzantine-trained masons teenth century. The stylistic dichotomy persists,
in charge of the dome? Did they work in tandem or reflecting the continuing mix of political and cul-
in succession? One wonders how the combination of tural associations of the medieval Serbian state.
forms was understood by the contemporary viewer.
,
25
26
See Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 496–99; Čanak-Medić Nationalist narratives and self-referential na-
and Bošković, L’architecture de l’epoque de Nemanja, 88. tionalist historiographies have colored the study

FIGURE 22.30
Studenica
Monastery, plan
(after S. Popović,
Krst i Krugu, 1994)
of architecture, often in contradiction of histor- but if we focus instead on the medieval narra-
ical realities. Should the emerging architectures tives and historiographies, we find a different
of Bulgaria, Russia, and Serbia be viewed as ev- set of cultural engagements as a part of identity
idence of nascent national identities? Historical construction. Just as buildings are conserva-
maps are difficult to draw against competing tively based on other buildings, symbolism also
territorial claims. Medieval Bulgaria went back draws upon established imagery. Architecture
and forth between Bulgarian and Byzantine can represent power, prestige, and authority, and
control, and many of its historical monuments for Bulgaria, Russia, and Serbia, the Byzantine
are now in Macedonia and Greece. Much of Empire represented a certain set of values
medieval Russia is now in Ukraine, which also worth imitating—a prestige bias. In the uneven
holds claim to its historical culture, while much Bulgarian experience, builders may not have
of medieval Serbia lies in Kosovo and Macedonia. found distinct forms to distinguish themselves
Such geographic discontinuities are not unique, from the Byzantines, while in Russia and Serbia,

FIGURE 22.31
Studenica
Monastery, view of
the church from the
southeast (author)
FIGURE 22.32
Studenica Monastery,
interior of the naos,
looking west; note the
brick construction in the
pendentive (author)

FIGURE 22.33 Sopoćani
Monastery, plan (after
S. Popović, Krst i Krugu,
1994)
FIGURE 22.34
Sopoćani
Monastery,
Church of the
Trinity, seen
from the south;
the western
portico and
belfry are later;
the dome has
been
reconstructed
(author)
other styles—specifically the Romanesque of centers of political power in the period, none
Western Europe—came into play. But for all, had the historical legacy or the cachet of
two underlying themes were maintained. First, Constantinople—even in its decline it was the
the churches were the settings for Orthodox logical referent. The symbolic resonance of the im-
worship, following the model of Constantinople; perial city continued through the thirteenth cen-
the idea of the naos as a domed microcosm pre- tury, even after the disastrous events of 1204, as
vails. Second, although there were other rising will be discussed in the next chapter.

PART FOUR
THE LATE BYZANTINE AND

POST-BYZANTINE CENTURIES
Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
THE DIFFICULT THIRTEENTH CENTURY
A map of the thirteenth-century Mediterranean

is almost impossible to draw, with an ever-
shifting balance of power and an increasing number
in Anatolia and the Ayyubid conquest of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187, Western interven-
tions of the eleventh and twelfth centuries had
of players, as well as cultural interchanges across seen little success, leading Pope Innocent III to
often hostile frontiers. At its core, central authority call for a new crusade in 1198. The royal families
in Constantinople collapsed in 1204, as the city and of Europe were indifferent to the call, and the
much of Byzantine territory fell under the control of crusade was organized by the lesser nobility, who
Western Europeans, mostly from Flanders, France, contracted the Venetians for their transportation
and Venice (whom the Byzantines call simply the and provisioning. As the crusade set sail in 1202,
Franks).1 A period of internal disruption had it was considerably smaller than expected, and
followed the death of Manuel Komnenos in 1180, the participants were unable to pay their bill. The
and the lack of leadership within the capital allowed economy of Venice would have collapsed if the
the participants of the Fourth Crusade to alter their crusade had not succeeded—and it had to turn a
course and capture Constantinople, rather than profit. A chance encounter with a Byzantine pre-
continuing on to Jerusalem. Although Baldwin of tender to the throne, who promised untold riches,
Flanders was established as ruler in Constantinople, led to the rerouting of the fleet to Constantino-
Venice and Venetian economic interests were ple, whose citizens, not surprisingly, showed little
critical, as the so-called Latin Empire subdivided interest in the pretender. A siege soon followed,
the territories under their control. for which the Byzantine forces were unprepared.
The consequences of the Fourth Crusade should Many from the Byzantine court simply fled in
not be underestimated, although its motivations panic. Poorly organized from the beginning, the
continue to be debated. Against the Seljuk success crusaders suddenly found themselves in posses-
sion of Constantinople and its empire, with little
1
For history, see D. Queller and T. Madden, The Fourth Crusade, notion of what to do next—except to loot the
2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1999); and the studies in G. Ortalli, city. Needless to say, the crusade never made it to
G. Ravegnani, and P. Schreiner, eds. Quarta Crociata, 2 vols. Jerusalem.
(Venice, 2006).
Geghard Monastery, interior of gavit, looking north (author)
561
The conquest of Constantinople significantly the architecture. In church construction, the
altered the balance of power in the eastern Medi- design of the naos followed planning types estab-
terranean, led to the fragmentation of the Byzan- lished in the Middle Byzantine period, but its
tine Empire, and solidified the break between the formal language increased in complexity, with a
churches of Rome and Constantinople. Rival greater emphasis on surface decoration and the
Byzantine claimants to the throne emerged: addition of multiple subsidiary spaces—porticoes,
the so-called Empire of Nicaea in western Asia expanded narthexes, ambulatories, galleries, an-
Minor; the Despotate of Epiros in northwest nexed chapels, and belfries. A general loosening
Greece, centered at Arta; and the self-styled of architectural rigor is evident in planning, as
Empire of Trebizond in the eastern Black Sea—all well as in the lack of relationship between interior
were led by relatives of the Komnenos or Angelos spaces and exterior articulation. Moreover, frequent
dynasties. Boundaries and allegiances fluctuated political intersections led to cultural interchanges,
through the century. In 1261, led by the usurper from which a variety of hybrid architectural forms
John VIII Palaiologos, the Nicaean faction retook emerge.
Constantinople, although the city had been deci- Constantinople. As evinced by the rich collec-
mated by the looting of the Franks. The frag- tions of relics, reliquaries, and luxury goods from
mented political picture continued for the next the Byzantine capital now in Venice and across
centuries, exacerbated by religious and economic Europe, the participants of the Fourth Crusade
rivalries with Western Europe and the growing were far more interested in loot than in cultural
political challenges of the Turks. investment. Significant evidence of architecture
Anatolia also witnessed a shifting balance of in Constantinople from the period 1204–61 may
power. Various Turkish tribes had entered Anatolia be limited to the addition of flying buttresses and
after the Seljuk victory at the Battle of Manzikert a belfry—both Western features—to the façade
in 1071, but the situation was far from stable.2 of Hagia Sophia, probably after the earthquakes
There had been a concerted effort by the Byzan- of the 1230s (Fig. 23.1).3 Both are new elements
tines, assisted by Crusaders, to reconquer lost ter- in Late Byzantine architecture: belfries and the
ritories, and this allowed the Empire of Nicaea to use of bells became common thereafter, and
control western Anatolia. But there was also in- Gothic-style buttressing was less so.
fighting among the Seljuk successors, as well as Nicaea. The lacuna created by the Latin Oc-
with other Turkish beyliks (principalities) through cupation of Constantinople is difficult to fill, al-
the twelfth century. By 1205 the Seljuks had though the developments in western Asia Minor
emerged as the dominant force, with their capital during the so-called Empire of Nicaea—where
established at Konya, although their political power much of the Byzantine court had fled—may help
was curtailed by the arrival of the Mongols at to bridge the gap.4 The capital city of Nicaea
mid-century. (İznik) is best known from texts, which speak of
At first glance, this confused state of affairs its beauty and the revival of Greek culture, but
seems as if it should not have been conducive to there is little construction surviving from this
architectural production. On the contrary, build- period. Early in the century, Theodore I Laskaris
ings of the period exhibit a robustness that belies restored the walls of the city, raising their height
the political instability—indeed, they often emerge and adding an outer wall, lined with towers, per-
as symbols of power within redefined systems of haps 3,500 meters in overall length—a smaller
territorial control. Stylistically, with the fragmen-
tation of the Byzantine state (and former territo- 3
Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 102–13, suggests an earlier date for the
ries) came a concomitant visual fragmentation of buttresses; see also, S. Ćurčić, “Some Reflections on the Flying
Buttresses of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul,” Sanat Tarihi Defterleri 8
2
For history, see C. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey (2004): 7–22; and A. Berger, “Die Glockenturm der Hagia
of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History c. 1071–1330 Sophia,” Sanat Tarihi Defterleri 8 (2004): 59–73.
(London, 1968); A. C. S. Peacock and S. N. Yıldız, eds., The Seljuks 4
For history, see M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile:
of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East (London, Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204–1261)
2013). (Oxford, 1975).

FIGURE 23.1
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia, ca.
1680, view from the
southwest, showing
the belfry rising above
the buttresses of the
west façade (F. Grelot,
author’s collection)
version of the Land Wall of Constantinople (Fig. Fortresses through the Aegean territories were
23.2).5 The church often identified as St. Try- refurbished and new ones added to form a defen-
phon, built ca. 1254–58 by Theodore II Laskaris, sive chain down the coast, where Magnesia and
gives some impression of the construction of the Nymphaion also served as imperial residences.
period (Fig. 23.3). Now in ruins, it had an atro- The ruins of the imperial palace built by John
phied Greek-cross naos, enveloped by an ambula- Vatatzes after 1222 survive at Nymphaion (Nif )
tory, perhaps following the model of the nearby (Fig. 23.4).7 Originally a three-storied block—
Koimesis Church. Constructed of rough bands of presumably with the audience hall on the upper-
brick and stone, archaeological evidence indicates most level, it is now a hollow shell, isolated on the
lavish decoration of mosaic and marble revet- plain outside the fortified acropolis. Church E at
ments.6 Sardis, a cross-in-square church known from its
excavated remains, is also from this period (see
Fig. 16.3). Topped by five domes, with those at the
5
A. M. Schneider and W. Karnapp, Die Stadtmauer von Iznik corners blind, the exterior featured a variety of brick
(Nicaea), IstForsch 9 (Berlin, 1938); C. Foss and D. Winfield, patterning.8 Churches surviving at monasteries at
Byzantine Fortifications: An Introduction (Pretoria, 1986), 79–122.
6
Never fully published, but see S. Eyice, “Die byzantinische
7
H. Buchwald, “Lascarid Architecture,” JÖB 28 (1979): 261–96,
Kirche in der Nähe des Yenişehir-Tores zu Iznik (=Nikaia) (Kirche with chronology in need of revising for the Chian monuments.
C),” Materialia Turcica 7, no. 8 (1981–82): 152–67; Peschlow, “The 8
H. Buchwald, Churches Ea and E at Sardis, Archaeological
Churches of Nicaea/Iznik.” Reports of Sardis 6 (Cambridge, MA, 2015).
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE: THE DIFFICULT THIRTEENTH CENTURY 563

FIGURE 23.2
İznik/Nicaea, aerial
view of the two lines
of the city walls near
the Istanbul Gate,
seen from the east
(Mehmet Buldu)
FIGURE 23.3
İznik/Nicaea, Latmos (Bafa Gölü) may belong to this period as
church well, such as the island monasteries on İkiz Ada
identified as St. and Kahve Asar Ada, whose churches have elabo-
Tryphon, plan rate brick decoration on the façades, similar to
and Church E (Fig. 23.5).9 Several churches on Chios
hypothetical may belong to this period as well, such as the Pan-
elevation of the agia Church at Sikelia. Unfortunately, for most
lateral façade examples, the chronology is not secure.
(after
Epiros. In northwest Greece, Arta emerged as
U. Peschlow,
the capital of the Despotate of Epiros in this
“Churches of
Nicaea,” 2003)
period, ruled by the family known as the Kom-
nenodoukai (combining the names Komnenos
and Doukas, 1204–1318), with a court in resi-
dence, refurbished fortifications, and secular and
religious constructions to resonate as a center of
power, often with associations with Constantino-
ple.10 Numerous Byzantine churches were erected
or enlarged under the ruling families, beginning
with the Panagia Vlacherna, the katholikon of a
male monastery just outside the city, transformed
9
U. Peschlow, “Der Latmosregion in byzantinischer Zeit,” in Der
Latmos: Eine unbekannte Gebirgslandschaft an der türkischen
Westküste, ed. A. Peschlow-Bindokat (Mainz, 1996), 58–87.
10
For history see D. Nicol, The Despotate of Epirus, 1267–1479
(Cambridge, 1984).

FIGURE 23.4
Nymphaion
(Nif ) palace,
seen from
the west
(author)
into a nunnery ca. 1224–30 (Figs. 23.6 and building is oddly irregular, with little attempt at
23.7).11 As the name (after the Blachernae) im- symmetry. The domes are not aligned and are
plies, the foundation had explicit Constantinop- poorly coordinated with the supports, with an
olitan and imperial connotations, and it became additional colonnette inserted into each of the
the mausoleum church of the ruling family. The nave arcades. And rather than being expressed
church is a three-aisled, barrel-vaulted basilica, prominently on the exterior, the lateral domes are
measuring just under 13 meters square (excluding tucked behind decorated gables. Complexity may
the narthex), the result of several distinct phases be the watchword here. With the added segrega-
of construction. It replaced an older basilica, of tion of the aisles, the building likely functioned as
which the apse of the diakonikon is the only re- three churches side by side, and as a family mau-
maining part. In a subsequent phase, toward the soleum, it perhaps followed the model of Con-
middle of the century, domes were inserted into stantinople’s Pantokrator Monastery.12
the vaulting, with a narthex added toward the Other churches of Arta took a variety of forms:
end of the century. Construction is a rough mix- the Kato Panagia, built by Michael II (1231–68),
ture of brick and stone, with exuberant brick dec- has a high transverse barrel vault rather than a
oration around the windows, in the gables, and dome—an architectural type limited almost ex-
on the domes. But like the brick decoration, the clusively to thirteenth-century Greece.13 St. Theo-
dora, built to accommodate the tomb of the wife
11
For a reassessment of the churches and their history, see
S. Georgiadou, “Architecture and Statehood in Late Byzantium:
12
A Comparative Study of Epiros and Trebizond,” PhD diss., H. Küpper, Bautypus und
13
Genesis der griechischen
University of Illinois, 2015. Dachtranseptkirche (Vienna, 1996).

FIGURE23.5
Kahve Asar
Adası/
Latmos,
church, view
from the east
(author)
FIGURE 23.6
Arta, Church
of the
Blacherna,
view from
the northeast
(author)

of Michael II, is a three-aisled basilica with a
vaulted portico; St. Basil’s is a single-aisled basilica
with lateral chapels. All are small in scale, their flat
façades carpeted with brick and tile decoration, in-
cluding carved bricks and glazed tiles (Fig. 23.8).
An attempt at monumentality is evident with
the construction of the Pantanassa at Philippias,
just outside Arta, now in ruins, also associated with
Michael II (Fig. 23.9). A cross-in-square core, with
a dome estimated just over 5 meters in diameter,
was enveloped by domed subsidiary chapels, porti-
coes, and a belfry, measuring approximately 25 by
32 meters overall.14 The naos itself appears to have
been similar to Church E at Sardis, while the porti-
coes and belfry are likely the result of modifications
later in the century, executed by a team familiar
with Western European architecture: Gothic-style
portals were introduced, and the keystones of
ribbed vaults were found in the excavation. Frag-
ments of opus sectile, wall painting, and gilded
sculpture give a tantalizing suggestion of the luxuri-
ous nature of the foundation.
The Pantanassa provides a prelude to the most
important of these, the Panagia Paregoretissa. FIGURE 23.7 Arta, Church of the Blacherna, plan and
Begun at mid-century as a modest cross-in-square longitudinal section (after A. K. Orlandos, ArchBME, 1936)
FIGURE 23.8
Arta, Church
of St.
Theodora,
detail of the
west façade
(author)
14
P. L. Vocotopoulos, Pantanassa Filippiados (Athens, 2007).

FIGURE 23.9 Philippias, Church of the Pantanassa, plan,
partially restored (after S. Ćurčić, Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
FIGURE 23.10
Arta, Church
of the
Paregoretissa,
east façade
(Giannis
Chouliaras)
church, it was transformed before ca. 1290 into the masonry on the east façade indicate that the
an octagon-domed naos enveloped by a two-sto- ambulatory is a later phase, and the masonry
ried ambulatory, measuring 22.10 by 20.27 changes just above the lozenge frieze on the main
meters overall (Figs. 23.10–23.12).15 Sutures in apse. At that point, reused columns were inserted
to act as brackets to support engaged columns,
15
A. K. Orlandos, He Paregoretissa tes Artas (Athens, 1963); which rise through three levels to support the
L. Theis, Die Architektur der Kirche der Panagia Paregoretissa in Arta/ dome in an octagon-domed system, the dome
Epirus (Amsterdam, 1991). close to 6 meters in diameter, above a naos close

to 9.20 meters square. While the transformation
harks back to that at Nea Mone on Chios, the so-
lution at the Paregoretissa is unique; the corbelled
columns appear as odd intrusions, and at the upper
level, colonnettes support Gothic traceries and
arches with figural sculpture of Italian character.
But like the Pantanassa, the eclectic character was
the result of conscious choice. The dome preserves
a substantial portion of its mosaic decoration; this
and the marble champlevé relief decoration indi-
cate the lavishness of the foundation, perhaps in-
tended to be the new cathedral for the city.
The exterior appears as a massive block today,
although the rough masonry and the pilasters
of the lower level suggest there was originally a
portico of light construction surrounding the
building on three sides. Above is regular cloi-
sonné masonry with two levels of windows, all
two-light windows, each framed by a setback arch
and dogtooth. Although the windows are aligned
on the west façade, they are staggered on the lat-
eral facades. Four domes rise above the corner
bays on the gallery level, with an open baldachin
centered on the west gallery. Bands of brick pat-
terning decorate the east façade, although oddly
asymmetrically disposed. Constructed quickly,
the church was apparently never completed, and
the gallery spaces were left undecorated.
The thirteenth-century architecture of Epirus
had a great impact in the region, extending to
what is now Albania (St. Nicholas at Mesopotam;
Holy Trinity at Berat) and Macedonia (St. Nicho-
las at Prilep; Perivleptos at Ohrid), and will have
repercussions well into the fourteenth century
(see Chap. 26). A final example, the tiny monas-
tic Church of St. Demetrius at Kypseli may be
emblematic of the Epirote style (Figs. 23.13 and
23.14). Likely dating from the end of the century,
the monastery is associated with a high court offi-
cial named Michael Zorianos, according to a
brick inscription on the south façade (reading
ΜΧΛ/ΖΡΝ).16 Despite its complexity, the build-
ing measures a mere 13.7 by 13.2 meters. Built in
two closely related phases, the naos has a trans-
verse barrel vault rather than a dome, with quadrant
vaults in the lateral bays, while the ambulatory
FIGURE 23.11 Arta, Church of the Paregoretissa, plans for a
ground floor and gallery levels, and longitudinal section
16
P. Vocotopoulos, The Monastery of Saint Demetrios at Phanari: A
(after A. K. Orlandos, Paregoretissa, 1963)
Contribution to the Study of the Architecture of the Despotate of Epiros
(Athens, 2012).

FIGURE 23.12 Arta, Church of the Paregoretissa, interior of the naos, looking northeast (author)

FIGURE 23.13
Kypseli, Church of
St. Demetrios,
view from the east
(author)
has domed chapels at the eastern corners. Subdi- FIGURE 23.14
vided, the ambulatory spaces are too small to be Kypseli, Church of

functional, most no more than 2 by 2 meters, St. Demetrios,
plan and transverse
covered by transverse barrel vaults. Space is frag-
section through
mented, with disjunctions expressed on the exterior.
the bema and
The two domed chapels at the eastern corners are lateral chapels
different scales, with distinctive domes and apses (after
and no attempt at symmetry. In short, although it P. Vocotopoulos,
is small, the significance of the building is ex- Monastery of St.
pressed by complexity of forms, rather than by Demetrius, 2012)
monumentality, enhanced by the abundant sur-
face decoration in brick and tile.
Morea. Although coming under the control of
Western Europeans, the situation in the Pelopon-
nese could not be more different than that of
Constantinople. Following the conquest of the
Peloponnese (or Morea) in 1205 by William
of Champlitte and Geoffrey of Villehardouin,
Andravida (or Andreville) was established in the
northwest as the capital and administrative center.
The castle at nearby Chlemoutsi (or Clermont,
1220–23) was a luxurious, French-style fortified
royal residence (Fig. 23.15). The most ambitious
undertaking, built by Geoffrey de Villehardouin
in 1220–23, Chlemoutsi consisted of a hilltop
hexagonal citadel and outer enclosure, with fea-
tures similar to those at Crac de Chevaliers (see

FIGURE 23.15
Chlemoutsi
Castle, aerial
view
(©Ministry of
Culture &
Sports,
Ephorate of
Antiquities of
Eleia—
Chlemoutzi
Castle,
Archaeological
Receipts Fund)
Fig. 20.33). A port and economic center was sub- French; there were intermarriages on all social
sequently established at Glarentza (Clarence), a levels. Unlike Constantinople, the Peloponnese
villeneuf, comparable to Aigues Mortes in the had less of the ideology of Byzantine superiority
south of France.17 While the “triangle of power” and the consequent automatic disparagement of
developed in the northeast Peloponnese may have foreigners. Ethnic identity was more negotiable;
been exclusively Western in its architecture and language barriers were crossed; Orthodox and
population, the cultural developments of the Catholics attended services in each others’
period were not without the support of the local churches; Byzantines became feudatories in the
Greek archontes, who were quickly integrated into Frankish system. Moreover, they intermarried,
the feudal system.18 Indeed, while the urban centers and their children could in effect choose their
were primarily Latin—at least in the administra- ethnic identity. Both groups felt a localized iden-
tion, the countryside remained Greek. Intereth- tity that, by the end of the century, stood in
nic assimilation, coupled with a regional identity, opposition to both Angevin and Constantinop-
came to be shared by both Latins and Greeks— olitan rule.
the pragmatism of a premodern frontier zone. Throughout the territory, a number of large
The ruling Villehardouins learned to speak Greek, basilicas were constructed in a Gothic style, to
and there were a variety of Greeks who spoke serve the needs of the new, Roman Catholic pop-
ulation. French Cistercians founded monasteries
17
D. Athanasoulis, “The Triangle of Power: Building Projects in
at Zarakas and Isova, although both were subse-
the Metropolitan Area of the Crusader Principality of the quently abandoned and are now in ruins. The
Morea,” in Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Church of St. Sophia at Andravida was built at
Peloponnese, ed. S. E. J. Gerstel (Washington, DC, 2013), 111–51. mid-century as a timber-roofed structure with a
18
For background, see G. Page, Being Byzantine: Greek Identity vaulted sanctuary with squared apses, covered by
before the Ottomans (Cambridge, 2008); and A. Bon, La Morée ribbed groin vaults on pointed arches—forms
franque: Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la immediately recognizable from the mendicant
principauté de d’Achaïe (Paris, 1969). churches of France and Italy (Fig. 23.16). Although

FIGURE 23.16 Andravida, Church of St. Sophia, remains of
the sanctuary, looking northeast (author)
FIGURE 23.17 Glarentza, Church of St. Francis, plan partially restored (after D. Athanasoulis, “Triangle of Power,” 2013)
the church belonged to the Dominicans, it dou- These buildings dramatically commanded the
bled as an audience hall for Geoffrey de Villehar- landscape with their distinctive foreignness. In all,
douin, as well as the court chapel and cathedral. however, the imported plans, details, and structural
The Church of St. Francis at Glarentza, dated to systems combined with regionally established con-
the 1260s, was similar in form and function to St. struction techniques, testifying to workshops of
Sophia at Andravida—that is, serving a combina- mixed backgrounds—that is, they speak more of
tion of monastic (Franciscan), public assembly, cooperation than of conflict. At the same time,
and lay worship, with a similar plan (Fig. 23.17). standard design continued. The numerous small,

FIGURE 23.18
Merbaka,
Church of
the Koimesis,
view from
the southeast
(author)
domed churches of the Peloponnese, constructed in from Italy around the middle of the thirteenth cen-
a Byzantine style but exhibiting Gothic detailing, tury; these, in combination with some Gothic
have been viewed within an Orthodox Byzantine details—colonnettes and capitals in the window
context and thus were thought to belong to an ear- frames—place Merbaka into the latter part of the
lier period, but this interpretation is now in ques- thirteenth century and within the context of Frank-
tion.19 The Church of the Koimesis at Merbaka, for ish patronage, perhaps associated with William of
example, is a carefully constructed cross-in-square Moerbeke, archbishop of Frankish Corinth, as the
church, lavishly decorated on the exterior with a unusual toponym suggests.
combination of brick patterning, spolia, carved Churches at Gastouni, Elis, Geraki, and elsewhere
stone, and glazed ceramic bowls (Fig. 23.18). Much fit into a growing picture of Moreote architecture
seems to depend on the nearby Hagia Mone, dated as the product of a mixed workforce serving a
1149, with which it is often compared (see Figs. heterogeneous clientele. At Gastouni, the Panagia
17.22 and 17.24). Many of the ceramic bowls are in Katholike is close in style to the churches of Epirus,
a technique known as proto-majolica, introduced but it is decorated with proto-majolica bowls simi-
lar to those at Merbaka (Fig. 23.19). The dedica-
tory inscription records that it was a private foun-
19
For the older view, see Bon, Morée franque; challenged by
dation of 1278/79 by the Kalligopoulos clan, a
M. L. Coulson, “The Church of Merbaka: Cultural Diversity and
local family of archontes, or wealthy landowners,
Integration in the 13th Century Peloponnese,” PhD diss.,
Courtauld Institute of Art, 2002; Ch. Bouras, “The Impact of who prospered under the Villehardouins—among
Frankish Architecture on Thirteenth-Century Byzantine whose brothers, the oldest was named Youliam,
Architecture,” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and or William. The unusual name selection could be
the Muslim World, ed. A. Laiou and R. P. Mottahedeh (Washington, the result of either prestige bias or intermarriage.
DC, 2001), 247–62. There is even the suggestion that the Kalligop-

FIGURE 23.19
Gastouni,
Church of
the Panagia
Katholike,
view from
the north
(author)
ouloi converted to Catholicism—something not Anatolia, ruled by the so-called Grand Kom-
unheard of in this period.20 The katholikon of the nenoi, survived until 1461 (Fig. 23.22). With the
Blachernai Monastery at Elis offers a more obvi- advance of the Seljuk Turks northward, Trebi-
ous blending of forms (Figs. 23.20 and 23.21). zond was cut off from Greek- and Latin-ruled ter-
The three-aisled basilica was once thought to have ritories to the west; its history was more closely
been begun in the twelfth century and finished in aligned with that of Anatolia and the Black Sea
the thirteenth, with a lancet window in the gallery, than with the later Byzantine Empire.22 Neverthe-
ribbed groin vaults in the narthex, and Gothic- less, the Trapezundines saw themselves as Greeks
style colonnettes and crocket capitals. More likely, and sought to define their state vis-à-vis Laskarid
this is one build, as there are Gothic elements Nicaea and subsequently Palaiologan Constanti-
mixed into the alleged Byzantine portions.21 In all, nople. Their fluctuating and negotiable identities
these small buildings may have been private rather are evident in their architecture.
than institutional foundations—that is, the out- The cathedral Church of the Panagia
ward appearance may be more indicative of social Chrysokephalos (Fatih Camii) was the first large-
status rather than ethnicity. scale project of the Grand Komnenoi; it also served
Trebizond. Founded in 1204 by the grandsons as their mortuary and coronation church and was
of Andronikos Komnenos with Georgian sup- thus the most important church of the empire
port, the “Empire” of Trebizond in northwest (Figs. 23.23–23.25).23 Begun sometime after 1214,
20
D. Athanasoulis, “He anachronologese tou naou tes Panagias 22
M. Angold, “Byzantium in Exile,” in The New Cambridge
tes Katholikes ste Gastoune,” DChAE 24 (2003): 63–78. Medieval History 5: c. 1198–1300, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge,
21
H. Grossman, “Syncretism Made Concrete: The Case for Hybrid 1999), 543–68; also W. Miller, Trebizond: The Last Greek Empire
Architecture in Post–Fourth Crusade Greece,” in Archaeology in (London, 1926).
Architecture: Studies in Honor of Cecil L. Striker, ed. J. Emerick and 23
For the churches see Ballance, “The Byzantine Churches of
D. Deliyannis (Mainz, 2005), 65–73. Trebizond”; and Georgiadou, “Architecture and Statehood.”

FIGURE 23.20
Elis, Church of
the Blacherna,
view from the
south (author)
banded barrel vaults over the nave, similar to the

older St. Anne, as well as to nearby Georgian bar-
rel-vaulted churches. In both, however, the cen-
tral bays were reconfigured to insert a crossing
and dome, as well as projecting lateral porches, all
probably following the model of the newly built
Hagia Sophia—and both phases in the thirteenth
century. In their barrel-vaulted form, the churches
had a regional identity, while remodeled with
domes, their Byzantine identity would have been
emphasized—perhaps reflecting the re-establish-
ment of power in Constantinople.
The most important monument of this period,
Hagia Sophia, is usually dated ca. 1238–63 and
attributed to Manuel I, built to be the new mor-
tuary church of the imperial family (Figs. 23.26–
FIGURE 23.21 Elis, Church of the Blacherna, plan (after
23.28).24 A monastic church, located 3 kilometers
D. Athanasoulis, “Triangle of Power,” 2013)
west of the city, the Hagia Sophia is a singular
construction. It was built on a cross-in-square
it was completed by 1235, when the second ruler plan of large scale, 14 by 31 meters overall, ex-
of Trebizond, Andronikos I Gidon (1222–35), was panded by barrel-vaulted, colonnaded porches on
buried there. They also replaced the major pilgrim- three sides. Its dome is raised above four columns,
age Church of St. Eugenios (Yeni Cuma Camii),
although the chronology for both continues to be 24
A. Eastmond, Art and Identity in Thirteenth-Century Byzantium:
debated—neither has been examined in detail, as Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond (Burlington, 2004);
both function as mosques. Both were originally Georgiadou, “Architecture and Statehood,” argues for a slightly
three-aisled basilicas, of ashlar construction, with later date.

FIGURE 23.22
Trebizond
(Trabzon), view of
the city from the
north, with
remains of the
Byzantine citadel
and palace at the
center (author)
FIGURE 23.23
Trebizond, Faith
Camii/Church of
the Panagia
Chrysephalos,
view from the
northeast (Sofia
Georgiadou)

FIGURE 23.24 Trebizond,
Faith Camii/Church of the
Panagia Chrysephalos, plan
(redrawn after S. Ballance,
AnatSt, 1960)
FIGURE 23.25 unclear. Significant construction continued in

Trebizond, Trebizond into the fifteenth century.
Faith Camii/ The Seljuks of Rûm. Following their success
Church of the
in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Seljuk
Panagia
Turks swept across Anatolia, as far west as Nicaea,
Chrysephalos,
interior,
which they held briefly, while establishing Konya
looking east (the formerly Byzantine city of Ikonion) as their
(author) capital in 1091.25 Forming a separate sultanate
from the Great Seljuk Empire centered in Persia,
they identified their territory as Rûm, or Roman
(meaning Byzantine), gradually expanding their
control from central Anatolia to reach both the
Mediterranean Sea in the south and the Black Sea
in the north. As a consequence of the continuing
turmoil, however, we do not have significant evi-
dence of cultural production until at least the end
of the twelfth century. Konya was captured by the
Mongols in the battle of Köşe Dağı in 1243, al-
though the Seljuks continued to rule a vassal state
after that time, with significant architectural pro-
duction.
During the first half of the thirteenth century,
the Seljuks undertook an ambitious building pro-
gram of unprecedented scale, building mosques,
with both columns and capitals imported from schools, hospitals, and fortifications, and they es-
Constantinople, as was likely the cross-in-square tablished networks of caravansarays along the
plan, unusual in the region. In contrast, its stone major east–west and north–south trade routes—
construction and carved detailing betray its mixed evidence of their economic prosperity and ability
origins, exhibiting a combination of regional, to marshal a workforce. Both stand in sharp
Caucasian, and Seljuk features, with relief sculp- contrast to the comparatively modest Byzantine
ture in profusion on the south porch and curious construction of the preceding centuries. The
muqarnas decoration on the west porch. The
origin of its distinctive lateral porches remains 25
Peacock and Nur Yıldız, Seljuks of Anatolia.

FIGURE 23.26
Trebizond,
Church of St.
Sophia, view
from the
southeast,
with the
belfry in the
distance
(author)
workforce must have been heterogeneous, for From the palatial residence in Konya’s citadel,
there is ample evidence in the architectural details a late twelfth-century pavilion survived into the
and masons’ marks for Caucasian builders partic- nineteenth century, when it was photographed.27
ipating in design and construction. Originally two storied, it had balconies facing in
Konya centers on an artificial mound, the three directions over the city. Although older, it
acropolis of the ancient city, which became the was refurbished by Alaeddin Keykubad, as was
citadel of the Seljuk city, including an older Byz- the city’s central mosque, the Alaeddin Camii,
antine church at its summit (now disappeared), as which lay behind the palace to the south (Fig.
well as the mosque and the palace of the Seljuk 23.30).28 A curious mélange of different elements
rulers. The city walls were expanded and refur- and styles, with an overall trapezoidal shape, the
bished on the order of Alaeddin Keykubad complex combines commemorative, funerary,
(r. 1219–36) in 1219–21 and are documented in and religious forms and functions, including the
older views, although they no longer survive (Fig. distinctive conically roofed tomb tower of Kılıç
23.29). Lavishly decorated with sculpture—both Arslan II (r. 1156–92) within its courtyard, along
spolia and newly created figural pieces—as well as with an unfinished tomb tower, as well as a hypo-
numerous inscriptions, the walls formed a sort of style hall, a domed mihrab, and adjoining hall.
mirror of the state, as well as an expression of per- The preponderance of early Byzantine spolia has
sonal imperial authority. They incorporate the led to the suggestion that the mosque replaced a
pre-Islamic past with the present in a nexus of converted fifth-century church, whose building
history, myth, and religion—that is, with mes- materials were systematically reused. The distinctive
sages not unlike those of the sculptural programs
assembled for the foundation of Constantinople 27
F. Sarre, Der Kiosk von Konia (Berlin, 1936); R. McClary, Rum
in the early fourth century.26 Seljuq Architecture, 1170–1220: The Patronage of Sultans (Edinburgh,
2017), 3–38.
26
S. Redford, “The Seljuks of Rum and the Antique,” Muqarnas 28
S. Redford, “The Alaeddin Mosque in Konya Reconsidered,”
10 (1993): 148–56. Artibus Asiae 51 (1991): 54–74.

FIGURE 23.27 Trebizond,
Church of St. Sophia,
plan (after D. Talbot Rice,
Church of Haghia Sophia,
1968)
north façade, which faced the palace, features The İnce Minareli Medrese at Konya, built after
windows framed by spoliated Byzantine mul- the Mongol takeover in 1258, continues the tradi-
lions, as well as elegant portals framed in bi- tion of fine sculpture. Its elegant façade combines
chrome marble interlace and sculpted frames, the vegetal motifs, interlace, and long bands of calligra-
work of an architect from Damascus. One curi- phy, two of which frame the door and overlap (Figs.
ous feature is the elbow columns, flanking the 23.31 and 23.32). The tall minaret (destroyed by
doorway—an import from Crusader architec- lightning in 1901) was decorated with glazed tiles, as
ture, presumably by way of Syria. was the dome covering the interior. The latter rises

FIGURE 23.28
Trebizond,
Church of
St. Sophia,
interior,
looking east
(author)
FIGURE 23.29
Konya, view of the
city walls in 1826,
decorated with
spolia and other
sculptures, now
destroyed (L. de
Laborde, Voyage en
Orient I, 1837)

FIGURE 23.30
Konya,
Alaeddin
Camii, detail
of the north
portal
(H. Comertel,
Wikimedia
Commons)
FIGURE 23.31
Konya, İnce
Minareli in
1884, seen from
the citadel in
1884 (John
Henry Haynes,
University of
Pennsylvania
Museum
Archives)

FIGURE 23.32
Konya, İnce
Minareli, interior
view (author)
above “Turkish triangles” which provide the transi- Sultan Han is but one of perhaps two hundred
tion above the square space, flanked by the rooms of Seljuk caravanserais built within a fifty-year period.
the students and an axial ayvan mosque. Dormito- Divriği. The Seljuks were not the only Turks
ries for the students flank the central hall, which in building in Central Anatolia. The Great Mosque
older medreses would have been an open court. and Hospital at Divriği, built 1228–29 by the
The Sultan Han, built by Alaeddin Keykubad local dynasty of the Mengujekids, offers a dizzying
in 1330s, on the road near Aksaray, offers a good array of architectural forms reflecting the range of
example of the type of caravansaray built as char- cultural interchange in thirteenth-century Anato-
itable foundations for the comfort and protection lia (Figs. 23.35–23.38).29 The plan is a relatively
of travelers—a sort of medieval version of the conservative five-aisled mosque, with a high dome
truck stop (Figs. 23.33 and 23.34). Enclosing an above the mihrab; this is combined with a cen-
area of approximately 3,900 square meters, rooms trally planned madrasa-like complex that served as
are organized around a courtyard that provided the hospital, with rooms organized around a cov-
essential services, such as bathing, cooking, and ered courtyard. A corner room in the latter, desig-
dining, as well as accommodation. A raised mosque nated a tomb chamber, has a high dome and a
appears at the center of the courtyard. The large window opening into the mosque. The common
hall included stables for pack animals within its combination of functions and standard typology
side aisles, with a raised platform at its center for stands in sharp contrast to the decorative pro-
their keepers. The exterior is relatively austere, ap- gram. The vast array of architectural sculpture and
pearing like a fortress, with the exception of the vault forms in the complex are without parallel.
elegantly decorated portal, covered by a muqar- Each of the portals is distinctive in its carving,
nas vault. A similar vault marks the entrance into
the hall, whose central aisle is covered by a banded 29
O. Pancaroğlu, “The Mosque–Hospital Complex at Divriği: A
barrel vault and a dome, with transverse vaults over History of Relations and Transitions,” Anadolu ve Çevresinde
the side aisles. Impressive in its own right, the Ortaçağ 3 (2009): 169–98.

FIGURE 23.33
Sultan Han,
plan and
longitudinal
section (after
A. Gabriel,
Monuments
turcs I, 1931)
FIGURE 23.34
Sultan Han,
interior of the
vaulted hall
(author)

FIGURE 23.35
Divriği, Mosque–
Hospital, north
portal (author)
FIGURE 23.36
Divriği, plan
and longitudinal
section
(redrawn after
A. Gabriel,
Monuments turcs
II, 1934)

FIGURE 23.37
Divriği,
interior of
the mosque,
looking
southeast
(author)
FIGURE 23.38
Divriği,
variations in
vault forms
from the
mosque:
(A) fan vault;
(B) pumpkin
dome on
squinches;
(C) folded
plate vault;
(D) ribbed
vault (author)

FIGURE 23.39
Haghpat,
monastery,
general view
looking east,
with the
Virgin’s
Chapel at
the center
(author)
with the unique north entrance to the mosque the the monasteries of Sanahin and Haghbat in the
most elaborate; by contrast, the smaller east portal mountainous north (Figs. 23.39 and 23.40) or
would not have been out of place in Konya. Vault Geghard in a gorge near Garni (Figs. 23.41–23.43).
forms are similarly elaborated: ribbed vaults, a All grew around older foundations. Geghard is
pumpkin dome, fan vaults, and others of decora- primarily from the thirteenth century, at the site
tive complexity. The name of a mason from Ahlat of an older cave hermitage and spring, expanded
(eastern Anatolia) is recorded, as well as a carpen- with both rock-cut and masonry architecture.
ter (?) from Tbilisi (Georgia), suggesting a mobile Some of the additions were small chapels, the
and heterogeneous workforce. result of private benefaction, but there are also bel-
Armenia. The thirteenth-century Caucasus also fries, refectories, and libraries.
saw a great deal of construction. Although archi- Most impressive and original of the thirteenth-
tecture in Georgian territories remained relatively century additions is the monumental entry vesti-
conservative, new and complex forms emerged in bule, usually set on the western side of the church
Armenia.30 Curiously, the architecture of the and called either a gavit or a zhamatun.31 These
church proper remained relatively conservative as were multipurpose spaces that could serve as
well—usually domed and cruciform with corner meeting halls, burial places, overflow from the
compartments on two levels, the dome rising church, or even the setting for services when the
above pendentives, with the surfaces of the vaults main church was not used. Although they origi-
unarticulated to allow for painted decoration. The nated earlier, they proliferate in the thirteenth
exteriors are similarly formulaic. Within monastic century. Occasionally these had a three-naved
complexes, however, many were now surrounded plan (as in the north gavit at Sanahin), but more
by clusters of subsidiary buildings, loosely organ- commonly they were nine bayed with the central
ized and distinct, the whole often fortified, as at vault opening into an oculus, with a bravura
30
S. Mnats’akanyan, Architektura armjanskich pritvorov (Erevan, 1952). 31
Vardanyan, Hoṙomos Monastery.

FIGURE 23.40
Haghpat,
monastery, plan
(after A. Alpago
Novello, 1970)
display of vaulting forms. In all, variety seems the muqarnas, with an oculus at the crown (Fig.
key concern, with several different vaulting types 23.42). Dramatically contrasting with the auster-
employed simultaneously or alternating with panels ity of the katholikon, the rock-cut spaces added
of stone ceiling. They sometimes included muqa- subsequently were lavishly detailed and could
rnas and other forms derived from contempora- easily be mistaken for ashlar construction. These
neous Seljuk architecture—and reflected the close include two rock-cut chapels and two gavits. The
working relationship of the masons with their first of the rock-cut churches has intersecting
Muslim counterparts. The gavit at Geghard, added arches framing the central conical muqarnas vault
before 1225, shortly after the completion of the (Fig. 23.43); the second is covered by a hemi-
main church in 1215, is particularly impressive, spherical dome rising on a tall drum, with muqarnas
with perhaps twice the floor space as the church in the pendentives, all surfaces lavishly detailed.
proper. The vaults rise above four cylindrical piers, For most constructions, the exterior surfaces remain
with the central bay covered by a cascade of relatively plain, with carved doors and window

FIGURE 23.41
Geghard
Monastery,
plan (after
A. Alpago
Novello,
1973)
FIGURE 23.42
Geghard
Monastery,
interior of
gavit, looking
north (author)

FIGURE 23.43
Geghard
Monastery,
interior of the
rock-cut chapel,
looking north
(author)
frames and sparsely applied relief sculpture. At employ the same system of vaulting, repeated
Haghpat, a great gavit was added to the tenth- twice to span the elongated interiors. At the li-
century katholikon at the end of the twelfth cen- brary at Sanahin, the arches form a rotated square
tury and expanded ca. 1209 (Fig. 23.44). Its with squinches at the corners. What is fascinating
vaults rise above intersecting arches that extend is the interchangeability of forms, both within
from wall to wall, rising above engaged piers, different building types and across confessional
with two freestanding piers to the west. Within boundaries.
the cupola, a second set of intersecting arches
rises to the oculus. ,
The gavit added to the Church of the Holy
Apostles at Ani is similarly innovative. Elongated The political complexities of the thirteenth cen-
and attached to the south side of the church, the tury are reflected in its architecture. While quite
central muqarnas vault is set on the diagonal, diverse across the map, for all, the watchword may
raised above two pairs of intersecting arches. The be complexity, with new forms developed from
other areas of the ceiling are filled with geometric heterogeneous sources: Crusader elbow capitals
patterning in two colors of stone (Fig. 23.45; and appeared in Konya, by way of Damascus; muqar-
see Fig. 19.15). Innovative vaulting forms appear nas vaults became popular in Armenia through
in other types of monastic buildings as well. The interaction with the Seljuks; in turn, a variety of
libraries at Haghpat (one of the earliest examples, innovative vaulting forms appearing in Seljuk and
1158–62), Saghmosavank (1255), and Goshavank Mengujekid may have depended on the architec-
(1241–91) eliminate the interior columns, sup- ture of the Cacausus. In Greece, Gothic-style
porting the vaults with intersecting arches that vaults and architectural details arrived from
extend from wall to wall, rising above engaged France; bacini came from Italy. The architecture of
piers. The refectories at Haghpat and Haghartsin Trebizond betrays inspiration from both Georgia

FIGURE 23.44
Haghpat
Monastery,
great gavit,
view into the
vault (author)
FIGURE 23.45
Ani, Holy
Apostles,
gavit, detail
of the
vaulting
(author)

and Constantinople, as well as details from the The decorative complexities of Epirote architec-
Seljuks. Even in Constantinople, Western-style ture or the seemingly endless variety in Armenian
buttresses and belfries are introduced into the ar- vaulting forms are particularly indicative of this
chitectural vocabulary. Complexity is not simply trend: a wall is not simply a built surface; a vault is
the result of cultural interchange or hybridity, never simply structural. While betraying larger
however; rather, it seems to have been an aesthetic concerns and associations of the period, they had
choice—one that resonated locally and regionally. a special meaning to a regional audience.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR
PALAIOLOGAN CONSTANTINOPLE
AND A NEW ARCHITECTURAL IDIOM
O n August 15, 1261, Michael VIII Palaiologos

made his triumphal entry into Constantinople,
after Byzantine forces had retaken the city from
beginning and remained so until the end.
Nevertheless, he was able to found a dynasty
that endured until the fall of the city to the
the Franks. He could not have been particularly Ottoman Turks on May 29, 1453. Thus, the Late
happy with his first view of his new capital: all too Byzantine period is often termed the Palaiologan
visible was the evidence of looting, destruction, era (see Map 6).1
abandonment, and neglect. After fifty-seven years Under Michael (r. 1261–82) and his son
of occupation, the population of the city had been Andronikos II (r. 1282–1328), Constantinople
reduced to perhaps forty thousand, one tenth its experienced a brief cultural revival, marked by
twelfth-century maximum, while its legendary significant works of restoration and new con-
wealth had disappeared into the coffers and church struction to reconnect the city to its past glory,
treasuries of Western Europe. The extensive damage despite continuing economic and political set-
caused by the fires of the 1190s and 1203, the backs. Unfortunately, the palace coup of 1328,
Crusaders’ siege of 1203–4, and the looting thereafter which unseated the elderly Andronikos, was fol-
had remained unaddressed through the long lowed by several decades of civil war, from which
decades of Latin control. Nor could the Byzantines the empire never recovered. Nevertheless, the in-
have been particularly happy with their savior: ternal policies of Michael and Andronikos pro-
Michael was a rebel, an upstart, and a usurper. At moted the restoration of the city with a profound
the death of Theodore II Laskaris in 1258 at mixture of old and new that set the course for
Nicaea, Michael had seized the guardianship of Late Byzantine architecture.2 They discouraged
the rightful heir, eight-year-old Michael IV, whom new ecclesiastical foundations while encouraging
he subsequently blinded and dispatched to a the aristocracy to devote themselves to older
monastery. Regarded as a heretic for promoting a
union between the Roman and Greek churches 1
For background, see D. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium,
and recognizing the authority of the pope, 1261–1453 (Cambridge, 1993).
Michael was refused Orthodox burial at his death 2
A.-M. Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under
in 1282. His position was tenuous from the very Michael VIII,” DOP 47 (1993): 243–61.
Constantinople, Chora Monastery (Kariye Camii), parekklesion, looking east, with Theodore Metochites’s tomb
to the left (author)
595
[Map 6] The Byzantine Empire and surrounding territories in the second half of the fourteenth century (Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. C. Mango, 2002, p. 264)
monastic establishments, which were restored political identity of Constantinople still revolved
and expanded, often adding large chapels for around the old core of monuments and cults, as if
privileged burials. Building activity in the capital there had been no interruption.
was for the most part rebuilding, rather than new Toward the end of his reign, Michael com-
construction; Palaiologan architecture thus looked missioned a new and unique monument to cele-
both to the Byzantine past and to the new com- brate his restoration of the city. In front of the
plex designs of the thirteenth century for the Church of the Holy Apostles, he erected a
creation of a new architectural idiom. With the column bearing a statue of his patron and pro-
fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire, how- tector, St. Michael the Archangel, at the feet of
ever, other competing political and architectural whom knelt the emperor offering a model of the
centers emerged, as will be discussed in the next city. As a renovator of the city, Michael could
chapters. present himself as a “new Constantine” with a
monument before the church where Constantine
, himself was buried—and perhaps where Michael
envisioned his own burial.5 Unfortunately known
The Restoration of Michael VIII. Restoration only from description, the column revived a type
works under Michael were both practical and of triumphal monument virtually unknown since
symbolic in nature, addressing the infrastructure Late Antiquity.
and defenses of the city, as well as its major mon- As he attempted to combine symbolism with
uments, although they have left few visible remains. practicality, Michael needed a place to live and
The court poet Manuel Holobolos lauded Michael from which to govern, to represent his imperial au-
in rather vague terms for the “beautification of thority. Both the Great Palace and the Blachernae
public buildings, hippodromes . . . a teeming mar- Palace were in perilous states. Of these, he chose
ketplace, law courts, streets, stoas, a multitude of the Blachernae to be his official residence, perhaps
baths and old age homes everywhere.”3 He also because it had been the preferred dwelling of the
built orphanages, schools, and hospices. The Komnenian emperors, whose fame still loomed
Land and Sea Walls of the city required strength- large: Michael was distantly related to the family,
ening; the harbors needed to be refurbished. an association he promoted to bolster his claim to
Hagia Sophia demanded to be “cleansed,” shorn the throne, adding “Komnenos” to his patronymic
up, and redecorated, as it was reconverted to or signing himself simply “Michael Komnenos.”6
Orthodox usage after serving as the Latin cathe- The project took ten years, during which time he
dral. Michael also concerned himself with the res- resided in the ruins of the Great Palace. Fortified
toration of two monasteries associated with his from within and without, the Blachernae Palace
family, St. Demetrius on the Golden Horn and took on the character of a citadel within the city.
St. Michael (formerly Sts. Peter and Paul) at Mt. While the palace has all but disappeared, the
Auxentius on the Asian shore; he encouraged the surviving building known as the Tekfursaray was
aristocracy to follow suit. Michael also built a likely an extension to it. It is labeled palatium
mosque, perhaps to replace that destroyed by the imperatoris on late medieval Italian views of the
Crusaders and perhaps as a part of his political city and may have been the last standing element
negotiations with the Mamluks. More significantly, of the Blachernae Palace (Figs. 24.1–24.3).
the Church of St. Euphemia at the Hippodrome Probably to be identified as the “House of the
was also restored and redecorated sometime in Porphyrogennetos” mentioned in 1328, it was
the 1260s; a local saint, Euphemia was a famed constructed ca. 1261–91 and associated with the
upholder of Orthodoxy; her bones (still present) unfortunate third son of Michael VIII, the por-
could reaffirm the imperially vested sanctity of phyrogennetos Constantine, who was held there
the city.4 Indeed, in many ways, the religious and
5
Talbot, “Restoration,” 258–60.
3
Talbot, “Restoration,” 253. 6
D. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258–
4
Naumann and Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche, 113–17. 1282 (Cambridge, MA, 1959).
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR: PALAIOLOGAN CONSTANTINOPLE 597

FIGURE 24.1
Constantinople,
Tekfursaray,
north façade of
the main palace
block, before
restoration
(author)
under house arrest after 1293.7 The building finds level had niches or cupboards flanking the win-
no parallels in earlier Byzantine architecture: set dows and may have been subdivided into apart-
between two lines of the Land Walls, it rises over ments (see Fig. 24.3). The upper level seems to have
25 meters tall, through three stories, facing north been a single large room, with windows on all
to a courtyard in the intervallum. The lowest level sides, as well as a balcony on the southeast corner
is opened by an arcade, its interior covered by (facing into the city) and a tiny chapel projecting
domical vaults supported on columns. The upper out on the south façade, supported on corbels.
two floors had windows overlooking the courtyard The three-story elevation has often been com-
and were covered by wooden roofs. The second pared with the design of medieval and Renaissance
Italian palaces, with its three levels serving utilitar-
7
C. Mango, “Constantinopolitana,” JDAI 80 (1965): 335–36. ian, public, and private functions. The comparison

FIGURE 24.2
Constantinople,
Tekfursaray, view
from the
northwest,
showing the ruins
of the western
wing of the palace
(left) and an older
tower incorporated
as a donjon (right)
(author)
may be valid, but here the functions of the upper FIGURE 24.3
two levels were switched, with an open audience Constantinople,

hall at the top and private apartments at mid- Tekfursaray,
interior of the
level. The Genoese town hall in Pera (now de-
main palace
stroyed) may have provided an Italianate model
block, before
for it close at hand.8 Like many of the early restoration
Venetian palaces, the arcades are not vertically (author)
aligned through the three levels of the façade but
treated as horizontal zones. But similarities with
Byzantine tower residences, the Laskarid Palace at
Nymphaion, and Seljuk kiosks are also worth
considering. And although it is dated somewhat
later, a comparison with the Palace of the Despots
at Mystras (discussed in the next chapter) may be
useful as well. Still, the three-storied block did
not exist in isolation: an archway originally con-
nected it to an adjoining tower of the Land Wall,
which may have served as a sort of donjon.
Further to the north are remains of a second Late
Byzantine façade, although with only a single wall
rising above the fortifications, facing west, its
plan is impossible to reconstruct (see Fig. 24.2).
8

Construction and decorative details of the
Tekfursaray are also unique and correspond
only in general terms to contemporary ecclesias-
tical or defensive architecture. The exterior façade
is of alternating bands of brick and stone of
great regularity, set with very thin mortar joints.
Decoration abounds, with much executed in
tilework, laid in a variety of geometric patterns,
filling the spandrels of the arcades and with an
interlace band between the upper stories—closer
to Seljuk or Persian decoration than to Byzantine.
The arches have banded voussoirs, outlined with
green-glazed ceramic rosettes, another novelty for
the capital. Early visitors noted animal protomes
on the balcony, as well as emblems associated
with the Palaiologan family.9 Perhaps it is best to
view the palace as designed to speak an interna-
tional lingua franca of power and authority.
Frustratingly, while other imperial or aristo-
cratic residences in the capital are mentioned or
described in the texts, almost none survives. The
so-called Mermerkule (Marble Tower), on the FIGURE 24.4 Constantinople, Mermerkule, seen from the
Marmara Sea Wall, was expanded somewhat later west, 1905 (Photo Steglitz; author’s collection)
as a fortified residence, associated with a certain
Theodoros Palaiologos Kantakouzenos in the early enveloped by an outer ambulatory (Figs. 24.5
fifteenth century (Fig. 24.4). It rose through sev- and 24.6; and compare Fig. 15.35).11 The connec-
eral stories, with a central courtyard, similarly in- tion of the two churches is not straightforward:
corporating an older tower as a donjon.10 the south annexed chapel of the older church was
The Restoration of Andronikos II. Much of transformed into the prothesis of the new church,
the construction associated with the reign of and the preservation of the older stair tower re-
Michael VIII was either secular or directed toward quired the new narthex to be asymmetrical, with
the urban infrastructure, while the major projects an off-axis dome. Most striking in the additions is
of the reign of his successor Andronikos II were the accommodation for burial throughout the
ecclesiastical, devoted to city’s churches and mon- complex. The inner walls of St. John’s are lined
asteries. Of these, the first important undertaking with arcosolia, with additional cyst tombs be-
was the expansion of the Lips Monastery (Mone neath its floor; these accommodated the burials
tou Libos, or Fenari İsa Camii), for which the Typikon of the founder and her immediate family (but
survives, undertaken by Theodora Palaiologina, not her heretical husband). Two additional arco-
the widow of Michael VIII, after his death. In two solia appear in the narthex, with another seven in
closely related phases, ca. 1282–1303, the old tenth-
century Church of the Theotokos was expanded
by the addition of an ambulatory-plan church 11
Th. Macridy et al., “The Monastery of Lips and the Burials of the
to the south, like that at the twelfth-century
Palaeologi,” DOP 18 (1964): 253–77; V. Marinis, “The Monastery
Pammakaristos, dedicated to John the Baptist, tou Libos: Architecture, Sculpture and Liturgical Planning in
Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople,” PhD diss.,
9
Mango, “Constantinopolitana.” University of Illinois, 2004; for the Typikon, A.-M. Talbot, trans.,
10
U. Peschlow, “Mermerkule—Ein spätbyzantinischer Palast “Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of Lips
in Konstantinopel,” in Studien zur byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte. in Constantinople,” in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents,
Festschrift H. Hallensleben zum 65. Geburstag (Amsterdam, 1995), ed. J. P. Thomas and A. Hero, 3rd vol. (Washington, DC, 2000),
93–97. 1265–82.

FIGURE 24.5
Constantinople,
Monastery of Lips
(Fenari İsa
Camii), seen from
the southeast,
with St. John to
the left and
Theotokos to the
right (author)
FIGURE 24.6
Constantinople,
Monastery of
Lips (Fenari İsa
Camii), plan
(after
V. Marinis,
2012)

the ambulatory. Clearly, privileged burial was of Following the models of the imperial Pantokrator
prime concern.12 and the Lips monasteries, several of the aristo-
In both its function and its organization, the cratically supported monasteries of the era ad-
complex begins to resemble the twelfth-century opted the church-cluster plan, similarly providing
Pantokrator (compare Figs. 15.26–15.29): although accommodation for privileged burials. At the
on a considerably smaller scale, it was similarly Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), the
a monastic-family mausoleum church cluster. twelfth-century ambulatory-plan church was ex-
Complexity becomes the watchword of its design, panded in several stages, although unraveling the
with disparate apses aligned along the east façade chronology is complicated by the drastic changes
and the roofline featuring multiple domes. There effected during the Ottoman period (Figs. 24.7
is little attempt at integration: the parts read indi- and 24.8; and see Fig. 15.35).13 The narthex may
vidually, without rigid conformity, and speak to be an addition, although of uncertain date, with
the inherent significance (and multiple functions) niched pilasters on the façade, like those of St.
of the whole. The similarities with the Pantokrator John of Lips. Under the patronage of Michael
also emphasized the familial association of the Glabas Tarchaniotes, during the late thirteenth
Palaiologoi and the Komnenoi, and it is probably century, a small domed chapel was added at the
also significant that the ambulatory plan repli- northeast corner, probably with the lateral aisle
cates that of another Komnenian foundation, the connecting to it. A single bay, projecting west
Pammakaristos. from the narthex, seems to have been a belfry, its
The outer ambulatory seems to be an after- upper portion now removed, with a spiral stairway
thought: the exterior façades of St. John’s are in one of the piers. A new feature of the period,
detailed with stepped pilasters with recessed the use of belfries and bells seems to have been
niches—a common exterior feature in this period; popularized from Western Europe during the thir-
the joint is evident in the masonry on the east teenth century. Most important of the additions is
façade, although the northwest termination of the south parekklesion, a miniature but ornate
the ambulatory (and its connection to the Theo- cross-in-square chapel, built ca. 1310 by Michael’s
tokos Church) is unclear. Nevertheless, the ma- widow Martha to house his tomb. It included an
sonry is identical, as is the detailing of the fa- arcosolium in its north wall, as well as additional
cades, with stepped pilasters and niches. Damage arcosolia in the narthex, the latter surmounted by
and alterations through the Ottoman period a twin-domed gallery. In the second quarter of the
have destroyed much of the beauty of the com- fourteenth century, probably associated with
plex and leave much to speculation: on the inte- Andronikos III, an ambulatory extended around
rior, all the columns have been removed, replaced the western portions of the building.14 Thus, the
by broad arcades; mosaics and marbles have van- twelfth-century core was gradually enveloped by
ished. On the exterior, all the original domes later additions, in a minimum of three phases.
have been destroyed, with the major two clum- The “jewelry-box” of the parekklesion exem-
sily replaced; the scalloped roofline of the ambu- plifies Palaiologan architecture at its finest: small-
latory has been leveled, and the ground level has scale, intricate, rich in ornament (Fig. 24.9). The
risen by perhaps 2 meters. Nevertheless, the east vertically attenuated interior is decorated with
façade provides an impression of its original ele- marble revetments and mosaics—a Deesis in the
gance: the careful ordering, stark simplicity, and bema and choirs of monastic saints in the corner
symmetry of the tenth-century apses contrast bays emphasize the funerary function of the
with the asymmetry, complexity, and decorative
profusion of the thirteenth-century apses, an object 13
H. Belting, C. Mango, and D. Mouriki, eds., The Mosaics and
lesson in the differences between Constantinopolitan Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul
architecture of the Middle and Late Byzantine (Washington, DC, 1978); H. Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur
periods. Baugeschichte der ehemaligen Pammakaristoskirche, der
heutigen Fethiye Camii in Istanbul,” IstMitt 13–14 (1963–64):
128–93; summarized by Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 87–8.
12
V. Marinis, “Tombs and Burials.” 14
Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen,” 137–39.

FIGURE 24.7
Constantinople,
Monastery of
the Theotokos
Pammakaristos
(Fethiye
Camii),
parekklesion,
seen from the
south (author)
FIGURE 24.8
Constantinople,
Monastery of
the Theotokos
Pammakaristos
(Fethiye Camii),
plan (author,
modified from
C. Mango,
1978)

FIGURE 24.9 Constantinople, Monastery of the Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), parekklesion, interior,
looking southeast (author)

chapel. An elaborate series of epigrams extends narthex. The portico façade is particularly note-
around the building, inside and out—painted on worthy, a characteristic feature of Palaiologan ar-
the interior cornices and carved on the exterior chitecture, with triple porticoes on the lower level
string course.15 The south façade is a master work, flanking the entrance, with columns and parapets,
whose complexity belies the simplicity of the build- framed by niches. Above are five arches framing
ing behind it. Organized around two unrelated windows of several different forms, probably orig-
axes, one defines the naos, rising from a door on inally topped by a scalloped roofline, now leveled.
the ground floor through two three-light windows Above this rise the three domes, all originally with
to align with the dome. A second axis defines the scalloped cornices. As at the Tekfursaray, these
narthex, rising through two levels of windows to elements are not aligned vertically. On the inte-
align with the narthex domes. Decorative niches rior, the central dome is a pumpkin dome, the lat-
or roundels are placed symmetrically to either side eral two ribbed, all decorated with mosaic. Like
of each axis, although the intersection between the Pammakaristos, the design favors variety
the two axes is left unresolved: at the center of the and small-scale relationships. Construction is of
façade, three niches of different sizes and shapes narrow bands of brick and stone, similar to Lips.
appear side by side on the ground level, with a The Chora Monastery. Of the surviving
window flanked by niches of different sizes at Palaiologan monuments of Constantinople, un-
mid-level, surmounted by a round-headed niche, doubtedly the most important is the Chora
an ogival arch, and a roundel on the upper level. Monastery (Kariye Camii), which was restored
The design favors small-scale relationships, in which and lavishly decorated by the statesman and
the parts relate to each other but not to the whole scholar Theodore Metochites, ca. 1316–21. The
composition. Decorative aspects dominate, and a twelfth-century naos was refurbished and stabi-
clear expression of the structural system is sub- lized, its dome replaced, and it was enveloped by
verted. Based on the clarity of Middle Byzantine additions. Unlike the other complexes just dis-
design, one would expect to find pilasters or but- cussed, the additions to the Chora represent a
tresses to visually emphasize the structural organ- single phase of construction (Figs. 24.11–24.13;
ization; instead, there are niches cut into the and see Figs 15.13 and 16.9).17 These included the
wall surface—that is, where one would expect rebuilding of the pastophoria, with the southern
presence, one finds instead absence. It comes as a one isolated from the bema to serve as a private
shock to realize that the plan of the parekklesion chapel. A two-storied annex flanked the naos to
is identical to that of the Panagia ton Chalkeon in the north, the upper level functioning as the
Thessalonike (compare Figs. 17.3 and 17.4). founder’s study, accessible by a vaulted staircase
The building now known as the Vefa Kilise set into the northern wall. Two broad narthexes
Camii was similarly expanded in several phases, fronted the building to the west—the inner was
from a Middle Byzantine core, with the addition topped by two asymmetrical domes; the outer
of a two-storied annex, a belfry, and a three- opened by a portico façade (now blocked). To the
domed, porticoed exonarthex with burial vaults south, a large, domed funeral chapel or parekklesion
beneath its floor (Fig. 24.10; and see Fig. 15.6).16 was added to provide spaces for the privileged
Its original dedication and patrons are unknown, burials of Metochites, his family, and compatri-
as is its date, although the additions most likely ots. A belfry rose at the southwest corner (now
belong to the first part of the fourteenth century. replaced by a minaret), while the twelfth-century
Incompletely studied, it had at least three phases apse was stabilized by the addition of a flying
of additions, all unified—or rather, the awkward buttress.
connections were masked—by the broad outer At first glance, the design may appear an inco-
herent jumble, but, like the Pammakaristos, it is
15
I. Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Late Byzantium 17
For what follows, see Ousterhout, Architecture of the Kariye Camii;
(Cambridge, 2016), 202–14. R. G. Ousterhout, The Art of the Kariye Camii (London–Istanbul,
16
H. Hallensleben, “Zu Anexbauten der Kilise Camii in Istanbul,” 2002); H. Klein, R. G. Ousterhout, and B. Pitarakis, Kariye Camii,
IstMitt 15 (1965): 208–17; Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 204–05. Yeniden/The Kariye Camii Reconsidered (Istanbul, 2011).

FIGURE 24.10
Constantinople,
Vefa Kilise
Camii, west
façade (author)
governed by a series of unrelated axes—in terms framed symmetrically. From the south, one axis
of both its major facades and its plan. From the aligns a portal with the inner narthex and its
west façade, one axis leads to the naos and the dome, while the other aligns the parekklesion
other to the parekklesion, although neither is dome with the naos dome. The large size and

FIGURE 24.11
Constantinople,
Chora Monastery
(Kariye Camii),
exterior, seen from
the southeast, with
the base of the
belfry to the left
and the flying
buttress to the right
(author)
FIGURE 24.12
position of the south inner narthex bay are reflected Constantinople,
in the detailing of the south and west façades. The Chora Monastery
Deesis mosaic fills its eastern wall (Fig. 24.14). (Kariye Camii),
In spite of the lack of clear relationships transverse section
among the architectural elements and the odd and plan, with the
juxtapositions of spaces, the fourteenth-century reused portions of
additions were nevertheless high in quality and the older naos
the result of a single phase of construction—that highlighted in
pink (author)
is, its puzzling design was the result of intention,
rather than happenstance. No attempt was made at
symmetry, and the numerous functional units re-
ceived individual expression. The formal organiza-
tion might be described as manneristic (or even
postmodern), consciously breaking fixed patterns,
creating surprising juxtapositions in the relation-
ship of parts to the whole. When considered indi-
vidually, all are part of the established architectural
vocabulary, but the way they are put together is
new. On the south façade of the parekklesion, for
example, stepped pilasters with half-columns appear
beneath the two large arches, but the rhythm is
quickened, and identical features appear below
the windows as well, as if supporting them (see
Fig. 24.11). A column implies structure, but here
it is taken out of its structural role and used as

FIGURE 24.13
Constantinople,
Chora
Monastery
(Kariye Camii),
west façade,
hypothetical
reconstruction
(Tayfun Öner,
with the
author’s
modifications)
FIGURE 24.14 decorative appliqué. The illogic is intentional,

Constantinople, adding an element of intellectual tension to a vis-
Chora Monastery ually attractive façade. Similarly, in the inner nar-
(Kariye Camii),
thex, the order and arrangement of the marble
view from the
revetments seem to have complete disregard for
main entrance
into the inner
the structural divisions (compare Figs. 15.13 and
narthex, looking 24.15). The verde antico frames of the repeat pat-
southeast to the terns seem to purposely avoid the pilasters and to
Deesis mosaic create a counterpoint to the rhythm of the archi-
(author) tecture—and stand very much in contrast to the
naos revetments.
The west façade appears particularly awkward
in its present state, less so perhaps with its original
undulating roofs and scalloped cornices, as appear
in pre-1870 photographs and drawings, and con-
siderably less so with the open arcade, belfry, and
undulating roofs and eaves restored (Fig. 24.13).
But there is still an odd lack of symmetry, com-
bined with small-scale relationships and irregulari-
ties that defy easy explanation. More importantly,
the intricacies of the decorative program seemed
to fit exactly with the elaborations of its architec-
tural setting, as if the two had been carefully co-
ordinated—either by a single master, perhaps

FIGURE 24.15
Constantinople,
Chora
Monastery
(Kariye Camii),
inner narthex,
interior looking
south (author)
guided by the patron, or by the close cooperation Normally, groin vaults with triangular segments
of master mason and painter. were used in narthexes, but the extensive narra-
In the narthexes, a curious system of domical tive cycles of the lives of Christ and the Virgin
vaults was introduced (Figs. 24.15 and 24.16). required larger flattish surfaces. In order to fit the

FIGURE 24.16
Constantinople,
Chora Monastery
(Kariye Camii),
outer narthex,
interior looking
southeast toward
the dedicatory
image of Christ,
identified in the
inscription as
“the Land
(Chora) of the
Living” (author)
FIGURE 24.17
Constantinople,
Chora
Monastery
(Kariye Camii),
inner narthex,
south bay,
pumpkin dome
with mosaic
decoration
(author)

FIGURE 24.18
Constantinople,
Chora
Monastery
(Kariye Camii),
parekklesion,
looking east,
with Theodore
Metochites’s
tomb to the left
(author)
domical vaults into the rectangular bays, extra (Fig. 24.17). In the parekklesion, a funeral chapel
arches were added, springing from the larger decorated with fresco, the dome is articulated
arches. While the solution seems a little odd, the with flat ribs instead: the flatter surface is better
extra arches provide surfaces for individual figures suited to the fresco medium (Fig. 24.18). Throughout
of saints. The domes in the building also show a the building, the relationship between architecture
sensitivity to the decorative media. Those in the and decoration is noteworthy. For example, the
naos and narthex were scalloped, so-called pump- domed space at the south end of the narthex was
kin domes, creating a vibrant surface for mosaic apparently used as a place to honor the previous

founders of the monastery, two of whom are pic- The mosaic program places the Chora Monastery
tured at the feet of Christ and the Virgin in a under the protection of the Virgin Mary, while
huge wall mosaic. The holy figures are over 10 feet reinforcing her role as the guardian of the city.
tall, and there is no way to get a good frontal view The monastery was dedicated to the Virgin, and
in the narrow space. But the view was directed in his poetry, Theodore Metochites referred to
toward the entrance of the narthex, and the figures both monastery and Virgin as his protection and
are optically corrected for this view (see Fig. 24.14). refuge. These ideas are expressed visually in the
The parekklesion is one of the finest examples image of the Virgin positioned above the main
of late Byzantine architecture, demonstrating the entrance to the church, where she is depicted
beauty of small-scale planning (Fig. 24.18). The with Christ in her womb (Fig. 24.20). The image
elongated chapel is topped by a dome, a domical repeats the significant features of a miraculous
vault, and the conch of the apse, the last deco- protective icon of the Virgin that was kept at the
rated with a scene of the Anastasis; the walls are nearby imperial Church of the Blachernae, where
lined with arcosolia for burial. The vaults form a the sacred relic of the Virgin’s robe was also kept.
cascading display, and below the dome, where the Traditionally regarded as the sacred palladia of
light is concentrated, the largest of the tombs is the city, both the robe and the icon were paraded
that of its proud founder. The domical vault is around the walls when the city was under siege—
uniquely decorated with a scene of the Last that is, the Virgin, represented by the robe and
Judgment. Christ as judge calls forth the dead icon, provided spiritual protection and was capa-
from their tombs—both those painted in the ble of turning back invading armies.18 In the
vault and those buried in the arcosolia below. The Chora image, the Virgin’s cascading robes frame
architectural setting helps to give the scene an im- the view looking westward into the monastery
mediacy and a sense of drama unique among courtyard. Normally a dedicatory image like this
Byzantine representations of the Last Judgment. one would be placed leading into the church.
It is not so much a fresco program set into an ar- That role is taken by a pendant image of Christ,
chitectural space as an architectural space that has for the main church was dedicated to him (see
become an integral part of its decoration. Fig. 24.16). But the monastery proper was dedi-
It is also possible to read the architecture and cated to the Virgin, and that explains her odd po-
decoration of the Chora as part of a discourse with sitioning. Moreover, the view westward was
the Byzantine past and its urban identity. In the toward the Land Walls, which would have been
building program, we find new architectural addi- visible in the fourteenth century, and the image
tions artfully set against older elements, which were of the Virgin could be read in association with
left exposed. With his wealth, Metochites could them. The Virgin was thus the protector of both
have easily afforded to start from scratch, but he Theodore Metochites and his monastery—and
chose not to—instead, he preserved and built she was also the protector of the city and its walls.
around the older core of the complex. The juxtapo- Like the Blachernae Church, the Chora offered a
sition of old and new was intentional. The new por- spiritual outpost for the defense of the city. In
tions may be understood as a response to history, an spite of Constantinople’s transformation and de-
attempt to establish a symbolic relationship with cline, the image of the Virgin of the Chora testi-
the past. The domes of the naos and the funeral fies to the city’s enduring urban identity and civic
chapel are aligned, for example, and the detailing of consciousness into its final period.
the older apse is reflected in that of the newer apse Smaller foundations. The smaller foundations
(Fig. 24.19). Moreover, the builders seem to have of the period are incompletely known. The church
been inspired by the difficulties of adding to an known as the İsa Kapı Mescidi is somewhat simi-
older building, to design around, but to maintain lar in its construction to the Chora and the
the integrity of, the historical core of the monastery. Pammakaristos, a wooden-roofed basilica with a
The masons would appear to be addressing not just
new functional considerations, but also the sym- 18
See B. Pentcheva, Icons of Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium
bolic significance of the historical setting. (University Park, 2006), 145–63.

FIGURE 24.19
Constantinople,
Chora Monastery
(Kariye Camii),
detail of the east
façade with the
fourteenth-century
parekklesion apse
to the left and the
twelfth-century
naos apse to the
right (author)
FIGURE 24.20
Constantinople,
Chora Monastery
(Kariye Camii), outer
narthex, interior of
the arch above the
entrance, looking
west, with the image
of the Theotokos
Blachernitissa,
identified in the
inscription as “the
Container (Chora) of
the Uncontainable”
(Dumbarton Oaks
Image Collection and
Fieldwork Archive)

FIGURE 24.21 tion collapsed following the earthquake of 1346
Constantinople, (Fig. 24.24; and compare Fig. 9.6). A project of
İsa Kapı this magnitude required an international inter-
Mescidi, south
vention—involving a Byzantine mason named
façade, detail
Georgios Synadenos Astras and a Catalan or
(author)
Italian, Giovanni Peralta, with funding from the
Grand Duke of Moscow.20 The uneven quality of
execution is sorely evident in both the masonry
and the mosaics—notably in the unsightly bulge
in the northeast pendentive, where the fourteenth-
century repair is joined to the sixth-century masonry.
St.-Benoit in Galata, which may be dated ca. 1427,
preserves a Byzantine-style domed chapel and a
belfry, which indicate the continued architectural
production in Constantinople well into its final
century. The best documented architectural proj-
ects for this period, however, are the repairs to the
Land Walls, which were in a constant state of
maintenance through the period (see Fig. 7.13). A
thorough restoration of both the inner and the
outer wall was ordered in 1343, the most compre-
hensive undertaking since their initial construc-
tion. Late repairs are documented by John V,
John VI, John VII, and John VIII, with inscrip-
tions surviving from the last two.21 Most repairs
are in stone, with banded voussoirs in the arches.
tripartite sanctuary (Figs. 24.21 and 24.22). The
so-called Bogdan Saray is also similar in its con- ,
struction, single aisled and domed, probably a pri-
vate chapel, attached to a residence that no longer The emphasis on the restoration of older build-
survives. Both have all but disappeared in the past ings had a direct impact on the development of a
century, and neither is securely identified or dated. new style of Palaiologan Constantinople. But it is
Twilight of Byzantium. By 1330, the short- difficult to envision the city around these monu-
lived “Palaiologan renaissance” had ended in the ments in the final centuries of Byzantine rule.
capital, at least in terms of major church con- Foreign accounts often overemphasize the nega-
struction. The masons responsible for the Chora tive, while Byzantine ekphraseis and other patrio-
may have worked subsequently at the Church of graphic writings seem not to recognize change.
St. John at Selymbria (Silivri) in nearby Thrace, Occasionally, we find a more transparent view,
built by Alexios Apokaukos, ca. 1328 (Fig. 24.23). notably in the oration in praise of Constantinople,
The construction and elegant decorative details Byzantios, composed by Theodore Metochites,
are similar—at least in the nineteenth-century ca. 1303–16, in which he emphasizes the city’s
photographs of the now-lost building.19 Of the past greatness while recognizing its diminished
later projects, the restoration of the dome of
Hagia Sophia is most important: the eastern por-
20
R. G. Ousterhout, “Constantinople, Bithynia, and Regional
Developments in Later Byzantine Architecture,” in The Twilight of
19
R. G. Ousterhout, “Two Byzantine Churches of Silivri/ Byzantium, eds. S. Ćurčić and D. Mouriki (Princeton, 1991), 75–91.
Selymbria,” in Approaches to Architecture and Its Decoration: Festschrift 21
Foss and Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications, 44–77; B. Meyer-
for Slobodan Ćurčić, eds. M. Johnson, R. Ousterhout, and Plath and A. M. Schnieder, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel, 2nd
A. Papalexandrou (Burlington, 2012), 239–57. vol. (Berlin, 1943).

FIGURE 24.22
Constantinople,
İsa Kapı
Mescidi, plan,
hypothetical
reconstruction
(V. Marinis,
2012)
FIGURE 24.23 Selymbria (Silivri), Church of St. John, view of the ruins from the southeast, ca. 1912–13 (Stéfane
Tchaprachinkov, Bulgarian National Archive, Sofia)
state.22 Still, Metochites gives it a positive spin: are replaced by new growth. In a like manner,
the city is constantly regenerating herself. As birds Constantinople renews herself, he argues, so that
molt, new feathers appear amid the older plum- ancient ruins are woven into the city’s fabric to
age; in an evergreen plant, losses are not fatal but assert their ancient nobility amid the new con-
structions. Similarly, he notes how the ruins of
22
P. Magdalino, “Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the city are recycled in new constructions both
Constantinople,” in Kariye Camii, Yeniden/The Kariye Camii within the city itself and—as evidence of the city’s
Reconsidered, eds. H. A. Klein, R. G. Ousterhout, and B. Pitarakis, generosity—in other cities. The intended message
(Istanbul, 2011), 169–87. of Metochites’s encomium is of unchanging great-

FIGURE 24.24
Constantinople,
Hagia Sophia,
plan of the dome
showing area of
repairs (author,
redrawn after
R. Van Nice,
1965)
ness, implying that the new creations replicate the Constantinople that survive are simplified, show-
pattern of their predecessors, while glossing over ing just the walls of the city with the dome of
the tawdrier realities of ruin and spoliation. For Hagia Sophia rising above them, augmented by a
Metochites, Constantinople could be simultane- few gratuitous rooftops, as in the mosaic image in
ously eternal and a city in transition. the southwest vestibule of Hagia Sophia. The
Another view of the Byzantine city in its final Buondelmonti views, however, show the sprawl
days is provided graphically by the picture-maps of the city, triangular in plan and enveloped by
that accompany various versions of the Florentine walls and waterways, with the major monuments
Christopher Buondelmonti’s travel account, Liber spread out across its territory, many identified by
Insularum Archipelagi, originally written ca. name. Both lines of the Land Walls are represented,
1418–20, but frequently recopied through the as is the moat; the fortifications of Pera are also
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Fig. 24.25).23 shown in detail. Hagia Sophia, the Hippodrome,
The Byzantines did not have their own tradi- the Blachernae/Tekfursaray, the harbor, and a few
tion of urban representation; the few views of churches and monumental columns stand out,
separated by a loose network of streets. Reflecting
23
I. Manners, “Constructing the Image of a City: The Representation the author’s text, there is little evidence of the
of Constantinople in Christopher Buondelmonti’s Liber city’s greatness; the emphasis is on the defenses,
Insularum Archipelagi,” Annals of the Association of American while much of the city is empty, with ruins and
Geographers 87 (1997): 72–102. few inhabitants.

FIGURE 24.25 Constantinople, plan after Cristoforo Buondelmonti, from a copy of the Liber insularum archipelagi, ca.
1450 (Private Collection Photo © Christie’s Images/Bridgeman Images)

In fact, by the time of the Ottoman Conquest else.24 He didn’t, of course, and his subsequent
in 1453, Constantinople was little more than a engagement with the long history of Constantinople
collection of villages within the walls, with a di- charts the course for the next phase in the trans-
minished population and much dereliction. formation of an eternal city.
Following his victory, Fatih Mehmed II (“the
Conqueror”) despaired over the state of the city 24
Ç. Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter,
and is said to have considered building a wall Imperial Vision, and the Construction of an Ottoman Capital
around Hagia Sophia and destroying everything (University Park, 2009).

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE
OLD AND NEW

Greek Cities and Landscapes
A lthough the Byzantines regained control of

Constantinople in 1261, the situation across
the Eastern Mediterranean was far from stable. A
Mount Athos and elsewhere, older monasteries
were restored and their fortifications strengthened,
while new monasteries were founded, although
centralized Byzantine rule was never re-established.1 more secure locations were often sought. The same
Once the court had left Nicaea, western Anatolia holds true for urban developments: older cities
rapidly succumbed to the advances of the Ottoman with well-established fortification systems contin-
Turks, who had been settled there by the Seljuks. ued, most notably Constantinople and Thessa-
By the 1320s, the Ottomans had taken control of lonike, while new cities and settlements were
Bithynia, with Bursa (Byzantine Prousa) as their founded at more easily defensible locations, taking
capital. By the 1330s, the Ottomans were clearly advantage of the topography, with concomitant
in control, and within a few decades they had changes in urban planning. The countryside also
crossed into Europe and established a new capital experienced changes, as transportation routes and
in Edirne (Byzantine Adrianople). Within the the hinterlands of cities were fortified. In many
Balkans, the northern border of Byzantium was ways, the quality and quantity of architectural
threatened by the Bulgarians and Serbs, with the investment stand in stark contrast to the more un-
latter taking control of vast areas of Byzantine pleasant realities of the period—warfare, destruc-
territory in the 1350s, while further south in tion, plundering, economic chaos, shifting frontiers,
mainland Greece and the islands, territories were and the inexorable advance of the Ottoman Turks.
contested by Western European powers.
Despite the insecurities of the age, there is a ,
remarkable vitality to the architecture of the Late
Mount Athos. The most important undertaking of
Byzantine period, with a great deal surviving. On
the early fourteenth century was the renovation
1
S. Ćurčić, “Architecture in an Age of Insecurity: An Introduction
of the Hilandar Monastery. Through its history,
to Secular Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500,” in Secular Hilandar (Chilandari) has always been associated
Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, ed. S. Ćurčić and with Serbia (Fig. 25.1). Initially founded by Stefan
E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, 1997), 19–51. Nemanja, who retired there in 1196 after his
Mount Athos, Hilandar Monastery, view from the southwest (author)
621
FIGURE 25.1
Mount Athos,
Hilandar
Monastery,
view from the
southwest
(author)
abdication, it was destroyed a century later and monasteries, Hilandar is inland, tucked away in
was subsequently rebuilt with the support of king the mountains, with a guard tower to protect the
Uroš Milutin (about whom, more in Chap. 26).2 path from the shore and a small fortress (the
Although probably constructed by masons from Arsenal) at the harbor, both from the period of
Constantinople, the katholikon, built 1300–1303 Milutin (Fig. 25.4).
or slightly later, is regular and conservative by The church follows the model of its tenth-
comparison to the contemporary churches in the century predecessors: a cross-in-square, four-
capital (Figs. 25.2 and 25.3). The monastery itself column naos with lateral apses or choroi, carefully
follows a plan similar to the Great Lavra: forti- constructed and elegantly articulated on the ex-
fied, inward turning, with residential buildings terior, 13 by 30 meters overall, with a dome of
facing the central courtyard. The katholikon is 5.3 meters in diameter. Rather than the cluster of
freestanding toward the south of the courtyard, spaces around the narthex, however, Milutin’s
with a phiale (dated 1784/1821) to its north. The church had instead a six-bayed lite—an expanded
trapeza (refectory), immediately to the west, was narthex, with domes above the western corners.
built at the same time as the katholikon but reno- Creating a lively, three-domed silhouette, the lite
vated in later centuries. Towers to the south and may represent a synthesis of earlier developments—
east of the church are also from Byzantine times, that is, formally and functionally merging narthex
with construction and renovation continuing and annexed chapels.3 The domes are all pump-
through the nineteenth century—and revived in kin domes, raised on tall drums, with the scal-
the twenty-first century, following a fire in 2004, loped forms expressed both on the interior and
which destroyed much of the northern portion on the exterior. The walls and vaults were deco-
of the monastery. Unlike most of the Athonite rated with painting, while the floor was covered
2
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 652–55; D. Bogdanović et al., 3
S. Ćurčić, “The Twin-Domed Narthex in Paleologan
Chilandar (Belgrade, 1978). Architecture,” ZRVI 13 (1971): 333–44.

FIGURE 25.2
Mount Athos,
Hilandar
Monastery,
view from the
northwest
(author)
FIGURE 25.3 Mount Athos,

Hilandar Monastery, plan and
longitudinal section (after Hilandar,
1978)
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE: OLD AND NEW 623

FIGURE 25.4 Ottoman control. The monastic communities
Mount Athos, continued to receive significant endowments, and
Hilandar because they were under the protection of the
Monastery
sultan, they were used as treasuries by the wealthy.
(near), Tower
Architecturally they followed the established
of King
Milutin
model: fortified, inward turning, with a free-
(author) standing katholikon, triconch in plan.5 Indeed,
one might argue that Byzantine architecture (and
a Byzantine monastic lifestyle) continued on Athos
almost until the present.
New monastic foundations. The disruptions of
the fourteenth century led to some movement of
monks. Andronikos II had encouraged the Athonite
communities to take advantage of the greater se-
curity offered by the walls of Thessalonike, and
this may account for the prominence of monasti-
cism in the Late Byzantine city (as discussed below).
The monasteries of Meteora in Thessaly had a
similar start: fleeing from a Turkish raid on Mount
Athos in 1340, St. Athanasios of Meteora settled
atop a rock pinnacle—the name Meteora means
“floating in the air”—and founded an isolated
community (Fig. 25.5).6 The katholikon of the
Metamorphosis Monastery was constructed in
1387–88 as a simple cross-in-square church, shortly
with marble and opus sectile. Toward the middle
after the saint’s death, expanded in 1544–45 to take
of the century, the Serbian ruler Stefan Dušan
on an Athonite plan, with the old church serving
added the outer narthex, repeating the ground
as the bema to a large triconch naos with a lite.
plan of the lite, but with a greater degree of open-
Construction at other Meteora monasteries oc-
ness and a single axial dome above the entrance.
curred during the early Ottoman period, with
In addition to the lively masonry detailing, it in-
much dating from the 1540s. Like St. Symeon
cluded sculptural decoration and painted plaster,
Stylites on his column, the monks sought isola-
similar to what will characterize Serbian architec-
tion by situating themselves between heaven and
ture later in the century (see Chap. 26).
earth. Before the twentieth century, access was
The defensive measures instituted at Hilandar
only possible by a rope ladder or a windlass.
are indicative of the increasing insecurity in the
Elsewhere, monks sought protection in iso-
region, as the monasteries came under attack by
lated settings, as hermits had throughout the
pirates and raiders from the Turkish beyliks on
Middle Ages. Caves had always had an appeal.
the coast of Anatolia.4 As Byzantine power de-
Along the shore of the Great Prespa Lake, numer-
clined in the region, the monasteries collectively
ous hermitages date from the period, such as
sought the protection of the Ottoman sultan, thus
Panagia Eleousa hermitage of the beginning of
guaranteeing their stability in subsequent centu-
the fifteenth century, its tiny church tucked away
ries. Numerous new monasteries were founded in
the latter part of the fourteenth century—including
Pantokrator, Konstamonitou, Gregoriou, Simono-
petra, Dionysiou, St. Paul, and Koutloumousiou, 5
Of the twenty monasteries documented by P. L. Mylonas,
and construction continued into the centuries of nineteen adhere to the elaborated triconch plan; see Mylonas,
Pictorial Dictionary of the Holy Mountain; and Mylonas, “Le plan
initial,” 98–112, esp. fig. 18.
4
For background, see the introductory essays in A. A. Karakatsanis, 6
D. Nicol, Meteora: The Rock Monasteries of Thessaly (London,
ed., Treasures of Mount Athos (Thessalonike, 1997). 1963); Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 597–98, 790–92.

FIGURE 25.5
Meteora,
Metamorphosis
Monastery,
distant view
from the west
(Michalis
Kappas)
within the cavern (Fig. 25.6).7 In Lakonia, a variety caves as well, as, for example, the Grand Hermitage
of hermitages and monasteries are situated within of the Zoodochos Pege, near Mystras.8 Unlike the
8
L. Bender, “Ermitages et monastères rupestres de la Laconie
7
Evyenidou, Kanonidis, and Papazotos, Monuments of Prespa, 54–57. byzantine (XIe–XVe siècle),” PhD diss., Université de Fribourg, 2016.

FIGURE 25.6
Great Prespa
Lake, hermitage
of the Panagia
Eleousa (Stavros
Mamaloukos)
rock-carved architecture of Cappadocia, there is Thessalonike witnessed much construction in

very little attempt to control the landscape; forms the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, adapted
remain rough with little external articulation. to the lines of a city plan laid out primarily in the
Thessalonike. After the Fourth Crusade, Roman period. Unlike many Byzantine cities,
Thessalonike was briefly occupied by the Latins, Thessalonike did not shrink after Late Antiquity
subsequently contested by the armies of Epiros but continued to maintain the line of its fifth-
and Nicaea. Following the reconquest of Constan- century walls, with a fortified acropolis added
tinople, the city became an alternate location for to its north, extending from the upper city.
the Byzantine court, often with the empress in Archaeology indicates its grid system was also
residence, and was a bone of contention in the maintained—indeed, evidence of the Byzantine
civil wars of the 1320s. As the second city of the streets lies below many of the present streets (see
empire, the city maintained a population of ap- Figs. 7.22 and 7.23). Although the Agora had long
proximately forty thousand, occupying a strategic since fallen out of use as a public space, urban life
position in the commercial and transportation continued in the lower city, with densely inhab-
networks of the Balkans. Thessalonike fell to the ited neighborhoods, as well as areas of ruin and
Ottomans in 1387, after which control alternated abandonment. The area around the old Constan-
between Byzantine, Ottoman, and Venetian, tinian harbor maintained its commercial aspect.
before succumbing to the Ottomans once and for The upper city was less densely inhabited, with
all in 1430. There is little evidence for architec- large areas taken over by gardens, monasteries,
tural investment after ca. 1380.9 and cemeteries. The administrative center seems
to have been in the acropolis; the Heptapyrgion
fortress, at the northern extreme of the acropolis,
9
A. E. Vakalopoulos, A History of Thessaloniki (Thessalonike, however, is Ottoman, dating ca. 1430–31, built on
1972); with update and bibliography in Ch. Bakirtzis, “The Urban the site of a Late Antique fortress. Unfortunately,
Continuity and Size of Late Byzantine Thessalonike,” DOP 57 virtually nothing is preserved of palatial, residen-
(2003): 35–64. tial, or administrative buildings. Throughout

FIGURE 25.7
Thessalonike,
plans of
churches: (A) St.
Panteleimon;
(B) St. Catherine;
(C) Holy Apostles;
(D) Vlatadon;
(E) St. Nicholas
Orphanos (after
S. Ćurčić, 2012;
and A.
Xyngopoulos,
1952)
the city, older basilicas were maintained; Hagia came from Mount Chortiates and was distributed
Sophia continued to function as the cathedral, as from the monastery’s cisterns. Thessalonike also
well as St. Demetrius as a pilgrimage center. In saw the construction of numerous monastic
addition to the churches and monasteries, there is churches in the Late Byzantine period. At the
also evidence of the water system, as well as a churches of St. Panteleimon, St. Catherine, and
Byzantine bath and a series of water mills just the Holy Apostles, all late thirteenth or early
outside the city.10 fourteenth century in date, a vertically attenuated
While following the complexities of the con- cross-in-square core was enveloped by a pi-shaped
temporary architecture of Constantinople, the ambulatory (Fig. 25.7). Topped by multiple domes
new construction in Thessalonike was primarily and opened by porticoes, the auxiliary spaces in-
monastic rather than aristocratic in its patronage. cluded subsidiary chapels. Planning and construc-
Monasteries controlled large areas of the city and tion bear similarities with the churches of Epiros
must have played a significant role it its daily life. and Nicaea, and considering the political associa-
Today the Vlatadon Monastery still covers an area tions, it is not unlikely that masons from these
of 13,000 square meters; in the Late Byzantine areas found employment in Thessalonike as the
period, it controlled the city’s water supply, which city grew in prominence.11
10
Tripsiani-Ominou, “Byzantine Baths,” 314–17; Ch. Siaxabani, 11
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 445–59; for the churches see
“Watermills, Area of Thessaloniki, Greece,” in Secular Medieval also A. Mentzos, ed., Impressions: Byzantine Thessalonike through the
Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, ed. S. Ćurčić Photographs and Drawings of the British School at Athens (1888–1910)
and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, 1997), 338–41. (Thessalonike, 2102).

FIGURE 25.8
Thessalonike, St.
Panteleimon, view from
the southeast, ca. 1890
(British School of
Archaeology, Athens)
The oldest of the group is probably St.

Panteleimon, which may be associated with the
monastery of Kyr-Isaak, ca. 1295–1314, and was
the largest, with a relatively broad dome—close
to 5 meters in diameter—preceded by a domed
narthex (Figs. 25.7A and 25.8). Of the ambula-
tory, only the eastern chapels survive, although its
full extent had been ascertained archaeologically,
and older photographs show an axial dome rising
above arcades. A vertical joint separates the am-
bulatory from the naos, although they appear to
have been constructed simultaneously. Proportions
are tall, with stilted windows. Construction is of
brick with a rough mixture of stone, laid with a
very weak mortar, which led to significant damage
requiring a protracted restoration following the
1978 earthquake. The Church of St. Catherine
(Hagia Aikaterine) is similar, also probably mo-
nastic in origin, although smaller and simpler,
eliminating an independent narthex, with four
domes set at the corners of the ambulatory, which
is opened by porticoes (Figs. 25.7B and 25.9).
Most important of the group is the church
FIGURE 25.9 Thessalonike, St. Catherine, view from the now known as the Holy Apostles, probably origi-
southwest (author) nally dedicated to the Virgin as the katholikon of

FIGURE 25.10
Thessalonike,
Holy
Apostles,
view from
the southeast
(author)
a large monastery, still unidentified, by the west- Constantinople. Cloisonné masonry—virtually

ern wall of the city. Numerous inscriptions pro- unknown in Constantinople—appears regularly,
vide the name and title of Niphon I, patriarch of and the lively brick decoration of the east façade,
Constantinople, who is identified as the ktetor, with areas of surface patterning, as well as brick
rendering a date of 1310–14 and suggesting possi- patterning set into arcades, all would appear more
ble Constantinopolitan associations (Figs. 25.7C, at home in Arta than in Constantinople.
25.10, and 25.11).12 Both the proportions of the Because of the lack of formal integration be-
plan and the construction technique are more tween the core and the ambulatory at the east
regular than that of St. Panteleimon or St. end, it was once thought that the Holy Apostles
Catherine and the decoration is more lavish, with was built in two closely related phases, but it is
mosaics in the naos, although perhaps left unfin- now clear that the construction was simultane-
ished when Niphon was expelled from office in ous. Here, and in St. Catherine’s as well, doors
1314. The lower walls were subsequently painted, open directly from the east ambulatory chapels
although marble revetments may have been in- into the pastophoria, and construction appears to
tended. Domes appear above the chapels at the be bonded. Most likely, in all three examples, the
east ends of the ambulatory, with a second pair building was conceived as two distinct elements,
of domes (scalloped on the interior) flanking the with the separate functional components clearly
narthex, which could be entered laterally through expressed and visually distinct on the exterior.13
a triple arcade. Although the construction details The combination of naos enveloped by subsidiary
are elegant, they are distinct from those of spaces is clearly similar to the Palaiologan churches
of the capital, but those of Thessalonike appear to
12
But see Kuniholm and Striker, “Dendrochronology,” for a slightly
later date. See also M. Rautman, “The Church of the Holy Apostles 13
For the debate, see S. Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church
in Thessaloniki: A Study in Early Palaeologan Architecture,” PhD and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture (University Park, 1979),
diss., Indiana University, 1984; M. Rautman, “Patrons and Buildings 71–74; Kuniholm and Striker, “Dendrochronology”; Ousterhout,
in Late Byzantine Thessaloniki,” JÖB 39 (1989): 295–315. Master Builders, 114.

FIGURE 25.11
Thessalonike,
Holy
Apostles,
interior of
the naos,
view into the
dome
(author)
be of one build, rather than the expansion of older the first decades of the century, is a small, timber-
foundations. Moreover, a sense of symmetry is roofed basilica, enveloped by lateral chapels and a
maintained, although in St. Catherine’s and the narthex, the floors of the subsidiary spaces honey-
Holy Apostles, the northern aisle is more enclosed combed with tombs (Fig. 25.7E). The Church of
than the southern—perhaps a response to climatic the Taxiarchs (Archangels), also fourteenth cen-
conditions. Another critical distinction is scale— tury, was similarly a basilica, but raised above a
the churches of Thessalonike are considerably three-aisled crypt, lined with arcosolia for monas-
smaller than their counterparts in Constantinople. tic burials (Figs. 25.12 and 25.13).14 Most impres-
The entire area of the Holy Apostles, for example, sive of the later churches is that now known as
would barely cover that of the Chora’s naos. And Profitis Elias (Prophet Elijah), dated ca. 1360, and
yet, the vertical attenuation of the core, with the katholikon of an otherwise unidentified mon-
the minor domes framing the tall naos, gives the astery. Built on an Athonite plan, with a dome
Thessalonian churches a sense of monumentality. 5.5 meters in diameter, the church was the largest
Finally, although their counterparts in Constan- of the late Byzantine churches in the city and is
tinople clearly served for privileged burials, the impressive even in its heavily restored state (Figs.
functions of the ambulatory in Thessalonike are 25.14 and 25.15). Centrally planned, domed cha-
less evident; there are no arcosolia, no indications pels appear at the four corners; the naos is pre-
of important tombs. ceded by a four-columned lite, with a gallery
Several smaller churches survive for the same above its eastern three bays and domes above
period, and some of them preserve evidence of the western corner bays, the whole enveloped by
burials. The katholikon of the Vlattadon Monastery,
built ca. 1351–71, is a smaller, simpler version of
the above type, with the domed naos enveloped
by an ambulatory (Fig. 25.7D). The katholikon 14
A. Xyngopoulos, Tessares mikroi naoi tes Thessalonikes ek ton
of the monastery of Nikolaos Orphanos, built in chronon ton Palaiologon (Thessalonike, 1952).

FIGURE 25.12
Thessalonike,
Taxiarchs,
view of the
east façade
(author)
FIGURE 25.13 Thessalonike, Taxiarchs, plans at the crypt

and main levels (after A. Xyngopoulos, 1952)

FIGURE 25.14
Thessalonike, Prophet
Elijah, view from the
southeast (author)
Thessalonike as an architectural center well into

the fourteenth century.
Mystras. In contrast to Thessalonike, Mystras
(or Mistra) in the Peloponnese was a new city.
William II of Villehardouin had built a castle on
the summit of the hill in 1249, although after the
Battle of Pelagonia in 1259 it passed into Greek
control in 1262. Shortly thereafter, the inhabit-
ants of nearby Lacedaimonia (ancient Sparta)
abandoned their homes and sought security in a
new settlement on the steep, north-facing slope
below the castle (Figs. 25.16 and 25.17). Mystras
FIGURE 25.15 Thessalonike, Prophet Elijah, plan (after
gradually emerged as a major Byzantine political
Th. Papazotos, 1991) and cultural center. Initially the city and its terri-
tories were governed by a general with the title of
kephale (head), with a one-year term; in 1348,
a pi-shaped portico.15 In its totality, the church re- John VI Kantakouzenos (who settled in Mystras
flects several centuries of developments on Mount after his abdication) established his son Manuel
Athos and demonstrates the enduring vitality of (r. 1349–80) as despotes of the Morea, with a life-
time term. The city was ruled by members of the
imperial family until its conquest in 1460 and thus
15
Th. Papazotos, “The Identification of the Church of ‘Profitis maintained close connections with Constantinople
Elias’ in Thessaloniki,” DOP 45 (1991): 121–27. and, through intermarriage, with the courts of

FIGURE 25.16
Mystras, distant
view, from the
east (author)
Western Europe. At its height, Mystras had a pop- a two-storied block with lancet windows, was
ulation estimated at twenty thousand, including likely built by the Franks at the middle of the
the suburbs. Although giving the impression of a thirteenth century to be their administrative
ghost town today—and described in tourist bro- center (Figs. 25.19 and 25.20). This was expanded
chures as “the Byzantine Pompeii”—Mystras was through several stages into an L-shaped complex,
occupied through the Ottoman period and was a framing the open courtyard, which may have
center of the silk industry; the city burned in 1825 been reserved for ceremonial use. The large south-
during the Greek uprisings.16 In 1834, part of the west wing, the so-called Palaiologos wing, proba-
population was resettled in Sparta, and the last bly added in the early fifteenth century when
residents departed only in 1955, when Mystras was Manuel II was in residence, is distinctive and
officially transformed into an archaeological site. offers some comparisons to the Tekfursaray in
The organization of Mystras was completely Constantinople, although Venetian comparisons
subject to the challenging topography and the are also suggested. The wing rose through three
requirement of defense, lacking any evidence of levels, with substructures of utilitarian function at
orthogonal planning. Some areas within the walls the bottom, with a modular series of vaulted
were too steep to build upon; others were too pre- apartments above, either for servants or for guards
cipitous even to require fortifications. Divided by (Fig. 25.21). Each was equipped with a fireplace.
an internal wall into an upper and lower city, the Both levels were fronted by arcades facing toward
road system zigzagged up the slope, too steep for the courtyard, supporting a large terrace on the
wheeled vehicles (Fig. 25.18). The upper city was uppermost level. Behind the terrace lay the audi-
dominated by the palace, which occupied a broad ence hall, an enormous interior space measuring
terrace at its western extreme. The oldest portion, 10.5 by 36.3 meters internally, covered by a
wooden roof. A niche at the center of the long
16
S. Runciman, Mistra: Byzantine Capital of the Peloponnese wall seems to have been the setting from the des-
(London, 1980); an excellent overview is provided by Kalopissi- pot’s throne. Unfortunately, none of the interior
Verti, “Mistra.” decoration survives, although the carved traceries

FIGURE 25.17
Mystras,
plan (after
S. Kalopissi-
Verti, 2013)
on the façade reflect late Gothic style. Like the family activities would have taken place. The ear-
three-storied elevation, the lack of vertical align- lier houses were relatively closed in form, perhaps
ment is also similar to the Tekfursaray. The upper reflecting the insecurities of the age, but by the
row of ocular windows is not aligned with those mid-fourteenth century, a distinctive type of house
immediately below them, even though they open had been developed, adjusted to the slope and
into the same space. oriented to the view. The so-called House of the
The evidence of domestic architecture at Mystras Frangopoulos is a good example: set perpendicu-
is plentiful but remarkably understudied.17 Most lar to the slope with a vaulted lower level above a
were two storied with a utilitarian lower level, usu- cistern, the upper level is a single room, covered
ally vaulted, which could serve for storage, stables, by a wooden roof (Figs. 25.22 and 25.23). Lined
or workshops, with one large room on the upper with niches, it opened to a balcony facing the
level, usually called the triclinium, in which all street (and the distant view), with a fireplace
built into the opposite wall. The so-called
17
Orlandos, “Ta palatia kai ta spitia tou Mustra”; A. K. Orlandos, Laskaris House is a more elaborate version, sim-
“Quelques notes complémentaires sur les maisons paléologuiennes ilar in its orientation, but formed by joining sev-
de Mistra,” in Art et Société à Byzance sur les Paléologues (Venice, eral buildings together, beginning with a cluster
1971), 73–89. of single-story workshops on the ground floor

FIGURE 25.18
Mystras,
Monemvasia
Gate and
street view
(author)
FIGURE 25.19 Mystras, palace complex, view looking north, before restoration (author)

FIGURE 25.20
Mystras, palace
complex, plan
showing major
phases of
construction
(after S. Sinos,
2013)
FIGURE 25.21 Mystras, palace complex, Palaiologos Wing, hypothetical

reconstruction of the elevation (after A. K. Orlandos, 1937)

FIGURE 25.22
Mystras,
so-called
Frangopoulos
House, view
looking south
(author)
FIGURE 25.23
Mystras, so-called Frangopoulos House, plan at two levels and
section (after A. K. Orlandos)

FIGURE 25.24 Mystras, so-called Laskaris House, looking southwest, with the Pantanassa monastery and the Frankish castle
in the background (author)

FIGURE 25.26 Mystras, St. Demetrius (Metropolis), view
from the east (author)
The Metropolis was built as a timber-roofed, three-

aisled basilica, set near the walls in the lower city
(Fig. 25.26).19 This may follow the model of the
Basilica of St. Nikon in Sparta, from where the
metropolitan see was transferred. Construction may
FIGURE 25.25 Mystras, so-called Laskaris House, plan at two have begun as early as 1262, finished ca. 1273–83,
levels (after A. Kalligas and H. Kalliga, “House of Laskaris,” when it was painted. Although the church was
1997) later substantially remodeled, the lower east façade
is from this period, with cloisonné masonry and
(Figs. 25.24 and 25.25). In its final form, it was dogtooth framing the windows. A similar Helladic
three storied, with three interconnected rooms on style appears in a second early church, dedicated
the upper level, with a large balcony facing the to the two Sts. Theodores, the first katholikon of
street; the house was continuously occupied until the Brontochion Monastery, which is similar in
1955.18 Both houses must date from the early fif- its construction details (Fig. 25.27). Built before
teenth century. ca. 1296, it adopted a domed-octagon church type,
The earliest churches followed regionally probably after the model of the Church of St. Sophia
established types and construction standards. in Monemvasia: this may follow the transfer of the
seat of the Byzantine governor from Monemvasia to
Mystras (ca. 1270–89). The subsidiary chapels were
18
A. G. Kalligas and H. Kalligas, “House of Laskaris, Mistras,
Greece,” in Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500,
and Its Preservation, eds. S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos 19
G. Marinou, Hagios Demetrios he metropole tou Mustra (Athens,
(Thessalonike, 1997), 244–45. 2002).

FIGURE25.27
Mystras, Sts.
Theodores in the
Brontochion
Monastery, view
from the east
(author)
used for aristocratic burials, including two mem- lateral doors, centrally positioned in each wall,
bers of the Palaiologos family. now open directly on axis with a column. All
Monastic patronage at Mystras was aristocratic, these details suggest that the church was begun
following the model of Constantinople, with as a simple cross-in-square church and was subse-
which there were strong architectural connec- quently elaborated to include the unusual ar-
tions. The second katholikon of the monastery, rangement of galleries, for which the extra columns
the Hodegetria (or Aphentiko) Church, built ca. were inserted. Change may have come under the
1309–22, introduced a new church type and influence of Constantinopolitan ritual, in which
stands in stark contrast to the earlier churches members of the court and other officers take part
(Figs. 25.28–25.30). In many ways, it reflects the in the services from the gallery.
close association of Mystras with Constantinople. Constantinopolitan elements appear in the ar-
A curious juxtaposition of a basilica on the lower chitectural detailing as well, notably the structural
level and a five-domed cross-in-square unit sur- articulation of the lateral walls, the apses detailed
mounting it, the Hodegetria introduced a new with niches, and the undulating forms of the roof-
church type that came to be associated with ing. An elegant belfry was attached to the western
Mystras.20 In fact, it came into existence only portico. In the painted decoration, there are refer-
gradually, with at least three major phases of con- ences to the major Marian shrines of Constantinople
struction. Sutures mark the connection between as well: the Zoodochos Pege, the Blachernae and
the naos and the north portico, the narthex, and the Chalkoprateia, while the dedication reflects
flanking chapels; the naos and narthex were not another, the Hodegon Monastery, as well as a
bonded on the lower level but are on the gallery distinctly Constantinopolitan style.21 One chapel
level. These details indicate a change of design
after the construction of the lower naos walls. The 21
T. Papamastorakis, “Reflections of Constantinople: The
Iconographic Program of the South Portico of the Hodegetria
20
H. Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und Typologie Church, Mystras,” in Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late
des ‘Mistratypus,’” MarbJb 18 (1969): 105–18. Medieval Peloponnese, ed. S. Gerstel (Washington, DC, 2013), 371–

FIGURE 25.28 Mystras, Hodegetria (Afentiko) in the Brontochion Monastery, distant view from the west (author)

FIGURE 25.30 Mystras, Hodegitria (Afentiko) in the
Brontochion Monastery, interior, looking southeast (author)
monastery. The naos also featured marble revet-

ments along the lower walls—unique to Mystras.
The masonry is of rough fieldstone alternating
with courses of brick, although the outer façades
were probably regularized with plaster and paint.
The monastery also preserves its refectory, to
the south of the Hodegetria and parallel to it, as
well the remains of monastic cells and other
buildings, clustered around the church. Others
survive around Sts. Theodores.
In many ways, the unusual design of the so-
called Mystras type, developed at the Hodegetria,
FIGURE 25.29 Mystras, Hodegitria (Afentiko) in the
reflects the complexities seen elsewhere in the
Brontochion Monastery, plan at two levels and elevation church design of the thirteenth and fourteenth
(after H. Hallensleben, 1969) centuries. In other locales, the churches sprawl,
expanded horizontally, but the steep topography
includes painted copies of four imperial chryso- of Mystras would not allow this; instead, the
bulls granting privileges and properties to the church expanded as it grew vertically, with nota-
ble differences between the upper and lower levels.
95; also R. Etzioglou, Ho naos tes Hodegetrias tou Brontochiou ston The significance accorded the Mystras type is
Mustra: hoi toichographies tou nartheka kai e leitourgike chrese tou evident in the remodeling of the Metropolitan
chorou (Athens, 2013). Church of St. Demetrius in the early fifteenth

FIGURE 25.31
Mystras,
Pantanassa,
view from the
east (author)
century. At that time, galleries and vaulting were

added to the old basilica, replicating the upper
level of the Hodegetria, with a five-domed cross-
in-square unit. The katholikon of the Pantanassa,
completed in 1428 under the patronage of John
Phrangopoulos, an important state official, fol-
lows the same model, completed in a single phase
(Figs. 25.31 and 25.32). Stylistically, however, it
reflects the changing tastes of Mystras, replete
with Gothic details: stone appliqués with lancet
arches and fleurs-de-lis on the apses and similar
details on the belfry.
The introduction of Western stylistic elements
may have come with intermarriage within the
upper classes of Mystras. Most notable was the
Despot Manuel Kantakouzenos’s marriage to
Isabelle de Lusignan, who built the katholikon of
the Perivleptos Monastery in 1365–74, attached
to a cave with sacred associations (Fig. 25.33).
The cloisonné masonry and the two-columned
plan of the church continue in the Helladic tradi-
tion, while Gothic details appear throughout the
monastery, including a variety of heraldic devices.
Several smaller churches follow a two-column plan
FIGURE 25.32 Mystras, Pantanassa, interior looking
as well, as at the St. Sophia and the Evangelistria,
southeast (author) both insecurely dated.

FIGURE 25.33
Mystras,
Perivleptos
Monastery,
general view
from the
southeast
(author)
Geraki. Located between Monemvasia and northwest of Thessalonike, Gynaikokastro was

Sparta, the town of Geraki has a history similar to built by Andronikos III ca. 1330 as part of a pro-
that of Mystras in the thirteenth and fourteenth gram to strengthen the empire at vulnerable points,
centuries (Fig. 25.34). The Frankish hilltop for- controlling the plain of the Axios/Vardar River
tress was ceded to the Byzantines in 1263, and a and access to western Macedonia. Its walls enclosed
town developed on the southwest slopes below it, an area of 2.5 hectares with a citadel and donjon
with a number of small churches. The houses tend on the crest of the hill.23 John VI Kantakouzenos
to be detached, one or two storied, blocky and set built a similar fortress at Pythion, in the upper
parallel to the slope, in contrast to the more dis- Evros River valley, which served as his personal
tinctive later houses of Mystras. treasury (Figs. 25.35 and 25.36).24 The fortress
The Countryside. Moving away from the cos- consisted of an outer enclosure and an inner en-
mopolitan centers, we may observe changes in the closure, separated by a gateway framed by two
countryside as well, often reflecting the insecuri- towers. The larger of the two, which served as the
ties of the age. Fortresses were built to protect the donjon, rose through four vaulted stories on a
hinterland of the cities as well as major overland unique four-bayed plan, with machicolations pro-
routes. To the east of Thessalonike, the fortified jecting from the upper level.
hilltop settlement at Rendina guarded a critical By the fourteenth century, fortified towers were
pass that connected inland Macedonia to the sea. constructed as individual, freestanding entities,
Although an older settlement, its fortifications were
strengthened, and a vaulted passage was added to
connect to a cistern fed by a stream.22 To the 23
A. Tourta, “Fortifications of Gynaikokastro, Greece,” in
Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its
22
N. K. Moutsopoulos, “Rendina, Greece,” in Secular Medieval Preservation, ed. S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike,
Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, ed. S. Ćurčić 1997), 110–11.
and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, 1997), 82–85. 24
Ousterhout and Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments, 144–54.

FIGURE 25.34
Geraki,
general view
from the
west (author)
FIGURE 25.35
Pythion,
fortress seen
from the
south
(author)

FIGURE 25.36
Pythion,
hypothetical
reconstruction
and section of
the donjon
(after E. Korres,
“Architecture of
Pythion,” 1989)
refuge or as residences in their own right. At

Karytaina, several residential tower-houses are
preserved on the slope below the Frankish–
Byzantine citadel.25 The tower-house of Matzoura-
nogiannis, built ca. 1400 for a local lord, is two
storied, with the triclinium measuring ca. 4.8 meters
square, expanded by niches. A vaulted cistern
formed the substructure, with an internal staircase
leading to the roof. Elegant brickwork (similar to
that of Mystras) framed the original entrance, on
the upper level. Near ancient Olynthos, the Tower
of Mariana was built ca. 1373 when the village
became the property of Docheiariou Monastery on
Mount Athos (Figs. 25.37 and 25.38).26 Originally
six stories tall with a chapel in the uppermost story,
the tower’s entrance was on the second level, with
an internal spiral staircase connecting to the upper
levels. Brick decoration on the façade includes the
monogram of the monastery: ΔΧΑΡ. The tower
25
N. K. Moutsopoulos, “Tower of Karytaina, Greece,” in Secular
Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation,
ed. S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, 1997), 214–15
(but with corrections).
FIGURE 25.37 Mariana, tower, distant view (author)
26
P. Theocharides, “Tower of Mariana, Greece,” in Secular Medieval
Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, ed.
like Milutin’s Tower, guarding the route to Hilandar
S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, 1997), 220–21;
Monastery (see Fig. 25.4). Originally rising through J. Bogdanović, “Life in a Late Byzantine Tower: Examples from
seven stories (the upper level, apparently a chapel, Northern Greece,” in Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and Its
is now missing) accessed by an internal spiral Decoration: Studies in Honor of Slobodan Ćurčić, ed. M. J. Johnson,
staircase, the tower was braced by buttresses on R. G. Ousterhout, and A. Papalexandrou (Aldershot, 2012)
the exterior. They could also serve as places of 187–202.

often little more than a modest church is pre-
served today; rarely are village sites excavated.27
An exception is Panakton, a mountaintop site be-
tween Athens and Thebes, where a village devel-
oped in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries on
the ruins of an ancient garrison post.28 The plan is
irregular, dictated by the rough terrain, often re-
using older walls, with an estimated thirty houses.
All appear to have been single storied, consisting
of a few irregular rectangular rooms of rough
stone construction, with evidence of a harsh,
agriculturally based existence. The archaeologists
suggest the village was the result of a hasty reloca-
tion of a small population, seeking a more secure
location at an isolated site, dominated by the re-
mains of the ancient fortress and a medieval tower.
The village church was small, single aisled, and
centrally located, in scale and quality not very
different from the houses around it.
,
Despite the turbulent times, which have left their
imprint on the architecture of the period, we have
a rich and varied selection of architectural types
surviving. Indeed, it is much easier to gain a pic-
ture of the Late Byzantine period from the evi-
dence surviving in Greece than perhaps anywhere
else. In addition to a wide assortment of churches
and monasteries, a variety of domestic structures
survive, representing all levels of Byzantine soci-
ety. Compared to earlier centuries, however, the
scale of almost all building projects is reduced,
in both religious and domestic architecture. In
FIGURE 25.38 Mariana, tower, plan and section (after
church architecture, the decorated surface domi-
P. Theocharides) nates, both interior and exterior, testifying to the
continued vibrancy of the period.
served to guard the monastic estates and could
have served as a place of refuge.
Villages. Despite the prominence of urban 27
S. Gerstel, Rural Lives and Landscapes in Late Byzantium: Art,
centers during the thirteenth and fourteenth cen- Archaeology, and Ethnography (Cambridge, 2015), esp. 10–43.
turies, much of the population remained rural, S. Gerstel et al., “A Late Medieval Settlement at Panakton,”
28
with life centered in small villages. For these, Hesperia 72 (2003): 147–234.

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX
REGIONAL DIVERSITY
Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania
W ith the weakening of central authority, a

variety of regional idioms emerged in the
architecture of the Balkan states. To a certain
Edirne (Byzantine Adrianople) as their capital
(discussed further in Chap. 27). Bulgaria fell to
the Ottomans in 1393. Serbia put up a notable
degree, the distinctiveness of the various archi- resistance, but after the losses suffered in the Battles
tectural styles depended on distance—both geo- of Marica (1371) and Kosovo (1389), the Serbian
graphical and political—from Byzantium. As in army was decimated and within a few years re-
earlier centuries, Bulgarian architecture maintained duced to vassalage, although remaining semi
close ties to Constantinople, but with a greater -independent until 1459. Wallachia had a difficult
emphasis on the decorative features of the exterior. history after 1453, although Moldavia managed
Serbia relied heavily on Byzantine styles and to maintain independence, until 1538; by the six-
Byzantine craftsmen in the early fourteenth century, teenth century, both had become vassal states.
when political connections were strongest, but by Despite the complex and often destructive political
the end of the century had developed a characteristic situation, there is notable architectural produc-
“national” style, often called the Morava School. tion during this period—indeed, church archi-
Romania—Wallachia and Moldavia, latecomers tecture continued in all these areas to serve the
on the scene—found initial architectural inspiration Christian communities long after the Ottoman
in Serbia, while the region of Moldavia developed Conquest. To a certain extent, religious architec-
a distinctive church architecture with its exterior ture was employed as a part of the construction of
walls decorated with fresco. identity among the minority populations through
For all, the inexorable advance of the Ottoman the Ottoman centuries.
army into the Balkans played a critical role in Bulgaria. After the foundation of the Second
political and cultural developments. Introduced Bulgarian Empire in 1186, with its capital at
into Europe by John VI Kantakouzenos in 1346 Turnovo, Bulgaria benefitted from the disarray in
during the civil war with John V Palaiologos, the neighboring Byzantium to briefly expand its con-
Ottomans quickly began to conquer territory in trol into Thrace and Macedonia, but for much of
their own right, and by 1363 they had established its later history, it suffered from a lack of economic
Gračanica, Church of the Dormition of the Virgin, view from the southeast (N. Zarras)
649
FIGURE 26.1
Turnovo,
panorama of the
Tsarevets Hill,
from the northwest
(infobvg,
Wikimedia
Commons)
stability.1 After the death of Ivan Asen II in 1241, second city of Bulgaria, including several cross-
the Bulgarian state entered a long period of de- in-square churches with articulated façades, al-
cline, with allegiances shifting between neighbor- though their original dedications are unknown.
ing Serbia and Byzantium. There was a short period The one known as Church 2, probably from the
of stability under Ivan Alexander (r. 1331–71), but early fourteenth century, has an atrophied cross
within a few years of his death, Bulgaria had plan, its apses detailed with niches and its façades
become a virtual Ottoman vassal; by 1393 it had decorated with half-columns.3
been absorbed into the Ottoman Empire. Similar concerns for security may be noted
Although a center of trade, industry, and schol- across Bulgaria, comparable to those discussed in
arship in the fourteenth century, Turnovo has left the previous chapter. At Turnovo, the river and
few standing remains beyond the fortifications on the steep plateaus helped to protect the city,
two adjacent plateaus, isolated by the serpentine which was also provided with fortification walls.
Yantra River (Fig. 26.1). The fortified complexes At Rila Monastery, the spiritual center of Bulgaria,
of the Palace of the Tsars and the Patriarchate have a fortified tower was constructed almost identical
been excavated, as well as several churches, al- to that built by Milutin near Hilandar. Dated to
though none is in a good state of preservation.2 1335, as identified by a brick inscription, it was
Of these, the most important is the monastic built by the protosevastos Khrelio (or Hrelja in
Church of the Forty Martyrs, initially built under Serbian), an official in the court of Stefan Dušan
Ivan Asen II, ca. 1230, as a simple basilica. This of Serbia (Fig. 26.2). Like Milutin’s tower, it was
became the royal mausoleum church, expanded buttressed on the exterior, vaulted on the lowest
in the fourteenth century with a monumental level, with wooden floors above and a chapel at its
outer narthex and external porticoes. The lower top.4 Unfortunately, this is the only medieval ele-
portion of the outer narthex survives, constructed ment left at the monastery, which was destroyed
of alternating bands of brick and stone, articu- with the advance of the Ottomans and then re-
lated by blind arcades, outlined with glazed ce- built in the late fifteenth century and again in the
ramic decoration—details that correspond to the nineteenth.
churches of Nesebar, discussed below. A number As the limited data from Turnovo and Cherven
of churches have been excavated in Cherven, the suggest, throughout the fourteenth century,
1
R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria: A Comparative Study across 3
Mijatev, Mittelalterliche Baukunst, 164–66; Ćurčić, Architecture in
the Early Medieval Frontier (Berkeley, 1975); Fine, The Late the Balkans, 618–19.
Medieval Balkans. 4
A. Kirin, “Contemplating the Vistas of Piety at the Rila
2
Mijatev, Mittelalterliche Baukunst, 124–34; Ćurčić, Architecture in Monastery Pyrgos,” DOP 59 (2005): 95–138; Ćurčić, Architecture
the Balkans, 472–81. in the Balkans, 522–23.

FIGURE 26.2
Rila Monastery,
Khrelio’s Tower,
seen from the west,
with the new
katholikon to the
right (Alexander
Kouyoumdzhiev)
Bulgaria remained close to Constantinople in its follows the domed cruciform plan of Cherven 2.
architectural developments. The numerous sur- Almost all had an upper level of uncertain pur-
viving churches from Nesebar (Mesembria) are pose above the narthex, although heavy restora-
perhaps our best indication of this. Located on tions complicate the analysis.
the Black Sea coast, the town passed repeatedly Two buildings may be singled out because of
between Byzantine and Bulgarian control—six their close resemblance to the architecture of
times alone during the fourteenth century— Constantinople. The churches of the Pantokrator
leading to the question of whether the surviving and St. John Aleitourgetos must date to the mid-
monuments should be understood as Bulgarian fourteenth century and are most distinctive for
or Byzantine.5 None of the five late churches with their colorful exteriors, combining brick and
standing remains is securely dated, although they stone decoration with glazed ceramic disks and
are usually ascribed to the period of Ivan Alexander rosettes. Both were laid out on cross-in-square
(1331–71). Although more robust in terms of plans. The plan of the Pantokrator is elongated,
their surface decoration, the late churches have measuring 6.7 by 16 meters, with barrel-vaulted
the solid wall construction of banded masonry, corner compartments and a pumpkin dome (par-
with the blind arcades and façade ornamentation tially reconstructed), with a large barrel-vaulted
of Constantinople. All are relatively small and narthex surmounted by a tower with a chamber
would appear to be private foundations. Plans overlooking the naos (Figs. 26.3–26.5). Covered
vary: St. Paraskeva and St. Theodore are single- by a blind dome on squinches, the upper room is
aisled basilicas, while the Church of the Archangels accessed by an internal staircase. Its function is
unclear—either a katechoumenion or possibly a
5
Rachénov, Églises de Mésemvria; Ćurčić, Architecture in the belfry—but formally it serves to accentuate the
Balkans, 619–24; Ousterhout, “Constantinople, Bithynia,” 83–84. tall proportions of the building. The dome is
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX: REGIONAL DIVERSITY 651

crowned by multiple bands of glazed ceramic ro-
settes. On the apsidal façades, two zones of corbel
tables—one alternating ogival and trilobed stone
arches, the other with banded voussoirs—project
the upper levels of the building outward. The
lateral façades are treated as three superimposed
zones of arcades, with no coherent vertical rela-
tionships; purely decorative, they provide no in-
dication of the internal organization. Arches are
outlined with rows of glazed ceramic rosettes and
discs. The lack of vertical relationships in the ar-
cades recalls the north façade of the Tekfursaray
in Constantinople, which also features glazed ce-
ramic decoration, while the lack of correspondence
between the interior and exterior is similar to that
of the Chora parekklesion.
St. John Aleitourgetos is more regular in its
proportions, measuring 10.25 by 18.5 meters over-
all, and is the largest and most carefully constructed
of the Nesebar churches (Figs. 26.6–26.8). Only
the lower walls survive, but these are lavishly dec-
FIGURE 26.3 Nesebar, Pantokrator Church, view from the orated with brick patterning and architectural
east (author) sculpture, all carefully carved. The east façade is
FIGURE 26.4 Nesebar, Pantokrator Church, south façade (author)

particularly elaborate, with blind arcades on the FIGURE 26.5
lower level, surmounted by a band of patterned Nesebar,

brickwork—a different pattern on each facet, Pantokrator
Church, plan and
above which rise two zones of corbel table friezes.
longitudinal
The north façade (which faces toward the city) is
section, partially
also quite lavish. Piers support five arches of equal restored (after
dimensions, and the surviving brackets indicate A. Rachénov, 1932)
this was surmounted by a corbel table frieze. Like
the Pantokrator, then, the façade was divided into
superimposed arcades, and similarly, the arcading
does not correspond with the interior. The pilasters
are pierced by niches, like those of the Pamma-
karistos parekklesion, while decoration is concen-
trated in the lunettes and spandrels of the arcade.
Coupled arches were added within each spandrel,
transforming the field into a heart shape, filled with
brick or sculpted decoration. While more elaborate
than anything in the capital, there are enough dis-
tinctively Constantinopolitan stylistic and construc-
tional features to suggest a direct workshop con-
nection—perhaps filling the gap after the brief
flourishing in Constantinople under Andronikos II.
Serbia. While the fortunes of Bulgaria waned, proclaimed emperor of the Serbs and Greeks. His
Serbia was on the rise in the late thirteenth and successor, Stefan Uroš V (r. 1355–71), was unable
fourteenth centuries, led by a series of powerful to maintain his father’s empire, however, particu-
rulers, who intersected with the Byzantine state larly when faced with the advances of the Ottomans.
in a variety of ways.6 Under Stefan Uroš II Milutin Confronting the aggression of the Serbs, the
(r. 1282–1321), Serbia became a major political and Byzantines sought the assistance of the Ottoman
economic power. Milutin aggressively expanded army, who defeated the Serbs in the Battle of
Serbian control into Byzantine territories but re- Maritsa in 1371. More disastrous was the Battle of
lations were stabilized in 1299, when Andronikos Kosovo in 1389, which ended more or less in a
II offered his young daughter Simonis to Milutin draw. The Ottoman sultan Murat was killed, but
(as his fourth wife), as well as Byzantine court both sides suffered devastating losses; the Ottomans
titles. After this was a period of peaceful coex- had additional troops to replenish their army; the
istence. Milutin’s son Stefan Dečanski (Stefan Serbs did not. Within two years Serbia had become
Uroš III; r. 1322–31) spent the years 1314–20 in a vassal of the Ottoman state. In spite of continued
Constantinople as a political prisoner (his father infighting, the period of Stefan Lazarević, who
had intended for him to be blinded), but as king ruled as prince (knez), 1389–1402, and subse-
continued his father’s aggressive political policies. quently as despot, 1402–27, was a productive time.
In 1330, he had a major victory against the Medieval Serbian architecture drew on both
Bulgarians, who had sided with the Byzantines. the Byzantine style and the Romanesque of the
His son (and murderer) Stefan Dušan (Stefan Dalmatian coast, with masons probably imported
Uroš IV; r. 1331–55), who had spent part of his from both areas during the twelfth and thirteenth
childhood with his exiled father in Constantinople, centuries (as at Studenica, after 1183; and Sopoćani,
expanded Serbian territory to its greatest extent, ca. 1265; see Chap. 22), but as close ties and po-
incorporating much of mainland Greece, with his litical rivalry with Byzantium developed in the
sights set on Constantinople. In 1346, he was fourteenth century, Serbian architecture generally
followed Byzantine developments, importing both
6
For medieval Serbia, Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, is ideas and masons. Milutin, in particular, was
fundamental; for what follows, esp. pp. 624–85. sympathetic to the Byzantines; moreover, he

FIGURE 26.6 Nesebar, Church of St. John Aleitourgetos, view of the east façade (author)

FIGURE 26.7
Nesebar, Church
of St. John
Aleitourgetos,
detail of the north
façade (Ivan
Vanev)
understood the propaganda value of architecture, FIGURE 26.8

supporting ecclesiastical construction across Nesebar, Church
Serbia, but also in Thessalonike (St. Nicholas of St. John
Orphanos), Mt. Athos (Hilandar), Constan- Aleitourgetos, plan
tinople, and Jerusalem—that is, he presented and longitudinal
himself as an ecumenical patron of the arts. With section,
his marriage and political alliance established in hypothetical
1299, Milutin was given the lands he had con- restoration (after
A. Rachénov, 1932)
quered as a dowry, extending his territories south-
ward almost to Ohrid.
The biggest gap in our knowledge of this
period is Milutin’s capital city of Skopje. The city
had been passed back and forth during the thir-
teenth century, and with its position on the
Vardar/Axios River, it was an important connector
into the Balkans. In 1282, Milutin took Skopje
from the Byzantines once and for all. From Skopje
itself, unfortunately, there is virtually nothing
medieval remaining apart from sections of its for-
tifications, although a few small churches survive
in the outskirts. St. Niketas at Čučer-Banjani
(shortly after 1299), for example, a cross-in-square
church of modest dimensions, gives some idea of

FIGURE 26.9
Čučer-Banjani, Church of
St. Niketas, view from the southwest
(Ilievski Vladimir, Wikimedia
Commons)
the import of Byzantine masons to support new In both projects, similarities with the monu-
Serbian construction (Fig. 26.9). ments of Epiros and Thessalonike are strong in
Within Serbia, Milutin was responsible for sev- the cloisonné masonry construction, brick deco-
eral major projects during the latter two decades ration, and ceramic insets, not to mention the
of his reign. He supported the construction of the five-domed design with minor domes set at the
Church of the Virgin (Bogorodica) Ljeviška at corners. Both monuments employed Byzantine
Prizren 1306–7, utilizing the core of an older painters for their interior decoration, and they
basilica, which was transformed into an elongated must have been the work of imported Byzantine
cross-in-square naos, with tiny domes positioned masons as well.
at the four corners, enveloped by lateral ambulato- In many ways, King Milutin’s Church of the
ries and an exonarthex, with a prominent, axial Dormition at Gračanica, built before 1321, repre-
belfry over the latter—one of the finest surviving sents the culmination of Late Byzantine archi-
examples from the period (Figs. 26.10 and 26.11). tectural design, bringing a new synthesis to the
As with contemporary Byzantine churches, there various elements at play in the near-contemporary
is an evident lack of relationship between the architecture of Serbia, Greece, and Constantinople
aisles and the core of the building. The Church of (Figs. 26.12–26.14). Integrating a vertically atten-
St. George at Staro Nagoričino, dated 1311–12, uated cross-in-square naos with a pi-shaped am-
similarly utilized the standing walls of an older bulatory, the whole is topped by five domes.
basilica, transforming it into an elongated cross- Those on the east rise above lateral chapels, while
in-square church with corner domes and lateral those on the west cover the corners of the nar-
annexes. In spite of a dedicatory inscription thex. A deep sanctuary is covered by a blind dome
claiming that Milutin built the church “from the flanked by barrel vaults, with a simple niche for
foundations,” the older masonry is clearly visible. the prothesis. Arcosolia in the outer walls of the

FIGURE 26.10
Prizren, Church of
the Virgin
(Bogorodica)
Ljeviška, aerial
view from the
southeast (Photo
Balkan, Wikimedia
Commons)
chapels and the south aisle suggest the church FIGURE 26.11
was intended for privileged burial—perhaps for Prizren, Church
Milutin himself, although this is uncertain, as he of the Virgin
was eventually interred in Banjska Monastery, a (Bogorodica)
church more Romanesque in character (Fig. 26.15).7 Ljeviška, plan and
The exterior of Gračanica is particularly dra- longitudinal
section (after
matic, exhibiting a deceptive sense of monumen-
S. Ćurčić,
tality. Measuring approximately 13 by 16.5 meters
Gračanica, 1979)
overall, it is barely larger than the Myrelaion in
Constantinople. It rises from the bold clarity in
the cubic volumes of the lower façades to the ex-
uberant complexity in the pyramidal massing of
the high vaults, which step upward to be crowned
by five domes. What distinguishes the planning of
Gračanica from the Holy Apostles in Thessalonike
(see Figs. 25.10 and 25.11)—perhaps its closest
comparison—is the greater vertical attenuation
combined with the unity of all components:
the ambulatory spaces are fully integrated with
the naos, without visual distinction, and with space
7
Ćurčić, Gračanica.

FIGURE 26.12
Gračanica, Church of the
Dormition of the Virgin, view from
the southeast (N. Zarras)
flowing uninterrupted from one into another. What was perhaps not taken into consideration
The façades are dramatically simplified, detailed by the designer was the interior decoration. With
with triple arcades like those of a Middle Byz- the narrow volumes and steep ascent, painted
antine cross-in-square church. On close inspec- cycles rise through zone after zone, virtually illeg-
tion, however, it is evident that the façade artic- ible in the upper registers. This is problematic in
ulation bears no relationship to the interior the naos, glaring in the minor spaces. We may
spaces but appears as a completely separate design speculate that the master mason and painter
concern. The east façade is similarly simplified, (probably from the workshop of Michael Astrapas)
and—again, in contrast to the Holy Apostles—the did not collaborate in the design, with the painter
corner domes are almost perfectly symmetrical arriving only after the construction was com-
along both axes. The talented master mason was pleted. The sort of balance between architectural
clearly familiar with architectural developments forms and decoration one finds in contemporary
in Epirus and Thessaloniki, but in the end, he is in Constantinopolitan monuments is not evident
a class by himself—nothing surviving from the here, despite the individual talents of the mason
period approaches the architectural sophistication and the painter.
of Gračanica. The patriarchate at Peć is more important as
The interior is similarly dramatically attenu- a spiritual center than for its architecture, which
ated, with the central dome rising eight times its is of low proportions and rough construction—
diameter, the corner domes fourteen times their something of a letdown after the grandeur of
diameter. With the small scale of the building, Gračanica and probably the work of local masons
this reduces the domes to “spotlights” in towers, (Fig. 26.16). The monastery had been the seat
providing more drama than actual illumination. of the Serbian Orthodox Church since the late

thirteenth century. The original cruciform Church
of the Holy Apostles (which incorporated the lat-
eral walls of an older church) was expanded
through several phases, beginning when the north
lateral chapel was replaced by the single-aisled,
domed Church of St. Demetrius (1321–24). The
southern chapel was replaced by the Church of
the Virgin, a cross-in-square church with a dome
on piers (1324–30), to which was added a small
chapel dedicated to St. Nicholas, as well as a spa-
cious, open narthex (in its present form, recon-
structed in 1557, lacking its belfry) extending
across the west face of the three major churches—
the latter three elements all under patronage of
Archbishop Danilo II. The construction reveals a
combination of Byzantine and local workman-
ship, while the church-cluster plan may follow
the model of the Pantokrator Monastery or con-
temporary complexes in Constantinople—that
is, a group of churches, asymmetrically disposed,
with domes of different forms, joined by a
common narthex.
After the architectural production of Milutin’s
reign, the Church of the Pantokrator at Dečani
Monastery (1327–35) appears something of a
throwback, closer to the Westernizing monuments
of the previous century (Figs. 26.17–26.19)—and
to Milutin’s mausoleum church at Banjska. Built
by Fra Vita, a Franciscan friar from Kotor on the
Adriatic coast, Dečani was the principal architec-
tural undertaking of Milutin’s son and his succes-
sor Stefan Dečanski, with whom there was no
love lost. Milutin exiled Stefan Dečanski and at-
tempted to have him blinded; his son, Stefan
Dušan, had him murdered but completed the ar-
FIGURE 26.13 Gračanica, Church of the Dormition of the
chitectural project nonetheless. Stefan Dečanski Virgin, plan and longitudinal section (after S. Ćurčić,
was declared a saint, and his tomb is still revered. Gračanica, 1979)
Large by Serbian standards, the church measures
22 by 33 meters, and it is constructed of alternat-
ing courses of white and yellow marble, similar to exterior roofline suggests a basilica with side
contemporary Italian churches. With the excep- aisles, more in keeping with Romanesque design.
tion of the dome, external details appear almost Parapets closed off the lateral chapels and the
entirely Western, including corbel tables, window western corners of the naos. The founder and his
forms, portals, and architectural sculpture; ribbed wife were interred in the southwestern corner of
groin vaults are employed throughout the inte- the naos—that is, in a position analogous to their
rior. The unique plan incorporates a large narthex thirteenth-century predecessors. Sainted already
and lateral chapels with a centralized, domed in 1343, the founder’s remains were subsequently
naos. While the interior, with its rich painted moved to an elevated wooden reliquary placed
decoration, conforms to Orthodox standards, the just to the north of the sanctuary entrance. While

FIGURE 26.14 Gračanica, Church of the Dormition of the Virgin, interior of the naos, view into the dome (N. Zarras)

FIGURE 26.15
Banjska Monastery,
Church of
St. Stephen, view
from the southeast,
showing surviving
areas of distinctive
polychrome ashlar
construction
(I. Drpić)
the contrast with the previous generation of build- FIGURE 26.16
ing is striking, it is unclear how the choice of style Peć, Patriarchate

should be interpreted for a royal mausoleum. The complex, plan of
the thirteenth-
dedication to Christ Pantokrator would seem to
century church
refer directly to the great Constantinopolitan
(above); plan with
monastery where Stefan Dečanski had spent his fourteenth-century
exile. additions (below)
The period of Stefan Dušan also witnessed a (after S. Ćurčić,
great deal of construction, often similar to devel- Gračanica, 1979)
opments in northern Greece—indeed, as Dušan
extended his rule into the Greek mainland, he
styled himself “emperor of the Serbs and Greeks.”
Nevertheless, Dušan’s mausoleum Church of the
Archangels near Prizren, which survives only in
its excavated foundations, seems to have been a
large, Western-styled church, although built on a
cross-in-square plan. The choice of a Romanesque
style for Studenica seems to have established a
precedent for the royal mausolea of the succeed-
ing centuries. In contrast, the well-preserved
Church of the Archangels at Lesnovo Monastery,
built 1341–47 by the sevostokrator Jovan (= John)
Oliver, one of Dušan’s powerful noblemen, is a

FIGURE 26.17
Dečani Monastery, Church
of the Pantokrator, view
from southwest (Pudelek,
Wikimedia Commons)
grand cross-in-square church with a domed nar- chapels (Fig. 26.24). It is, however, considera-
thex added in a second phase of construction, ca. bly rougher in its construction. The richness
1347–49 (Figs. 26.20 and 26.21). In its quality, and variety of these monuments may provide
construction details, and stylistic features, it some idea of what medieval Skopje might have
would not seem out of place in Late Byzantine looked like.
Thessalonike.8 Serbian power disintegrated after the disas-
Among the monastic foundations of the period, trous Battle of the Marica (1371), in which
St. Demetrius at Markov Monastery (ca. 1365/66– most Serbian leaders were killed, allowing the
1371) is one of the finest (Figs. 26.22 and 26.23). Ottomans to advance rapidly into the Balkans.
A cross-in-square church measuring 10 by 16 As the Serbian state contracted, with its focus
meters, with octagonal stone columns supporting shifting northward, remarkably, architectural
the dome, the narthex merges with the naos production intensified. A group of distinctive
through a tribelon. The construction of sandstone monuments, which Gabriel Millet termed
ashlars and brick is particularly fine, with limited “l’École de Morava” or the Morava School, is
brick decoration, primarily on the niched apse. often taken to represent the national style of
The Church of the Virgin at Matejič (or Matejče) Serbia.9 Smaller and more decorative, utilizing
Monastery (1343–52), founded by Jelena, the the triconch plan, the churches betray a close
wife of Stefan Dušan, is considerably larger, meas- relationship to Mount Athos, as well as to the
uring 14 by 24 meters, a cross-in-square church
built on a five-domed scheme, with minor 9
G. Millet, L’ancien art serbe (Paris, 1919); for critical assessment,
domes over the corners of the narthex and eastern Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 670–73; and J. Trkulja, “Aesthetics
and Symbolism of Late Byzantine Church Facades,” PhD diss,
8
S. Gabelić, Manastir Lesnovo: istorija i slikarstvo (Belgrade, 1998). Princeton University, 2002.

FIGURE 26.18
Dečani Monastery,
Church of the
Pantokrator, plan
(after S. Ćurčić,
Architecture in the
Balkans, 2010)
FIGURE 26.19
Dečani Monastery,
Church of the
Pantokrator,
interior looking
east (N. Zarras)

FIGURE 26.20
Lesnovo Monastery, Church of the
Archangels, view from the southeast
(N. Zarras)
FIGURE 26.21 construction and stylistic features of Constan-

Lesnovo tinople, probably coming by way of the Holy
Monastery, Church Mountain. Two variations in the standard plan
of the Archangels, emerge in the churches constructed by Prince
plan and Lazar during the 1370s. At the Church of St.
longitudinal
Stephen (also called Lazarica) at Kruševac, a
section (after
single-aisled naos is expanded with lateral apses,
S. Gabelić,
Manastir Lesnovo,
its tall dome rising above pilasters engaged to
1998) the lateral walls (Figs. 26.25 and 26.26A). The
large narthex is topped by a tower, offering a
counterbalance to the dome. The attenuated
verticality follows that seen at Gračanica. Both
the tower and the dome rise dramatically
through several stages above highly articulated,
richly decorated façades. The tower houses a
katechoumenion overlooking the naos, with
bells in the uppermost level. The construction
of alternating bands of brick and stone is regu-
larized with plaster and paint; windows have
elaborately sculpted frames, ceramic insets, and
curious traceried rose windows in the upper
walls—perhaps the result of Gothic stylistic
contacts from the Adriatic coast.

FIGURE 26.22
Markov
Monastery, Church
of St. Demetrius,
north façade
(author)
A second type is represented by the Church FIGURE 26.23
of the Ascension at Ravanica Monastery, built at Markov

about the same time under Lazar’s patronage Monastery, Church
(Figs. 26.26B-26.27). At a slightly larger scale of St. Demetrius,
plan and
(11 by 29 m), the cross-in-square naos has four
longitudinal
tiny, attenuated domes at the corners; the spa-
section (after
cious, nine-bayed narthex was subsequently de- S. Ćurčić,
stroyed. Construction, decorative details, and Architecture in the
the attenuated proportions are all quite similar Balkans, 2010)
to Kruševac. In the upper lunettes, the checker-
board pattern is painted in imitation of masonry.
Within the naos, the dome supports resemble
Gothic piliers cantonnés—cylindrical with engaged
colonnettes—although the colonnettes are posi-
tioned on the diagonal and are completely deco-
rative, colorfully painted and gilded. Tombs, in-
cluding that of Lazar, were positioned in the western
corner bays.
The origins of the Morava style continue to be
debated, although it is often credited to the reign
of Dušan—notably, his destroyed mausoleum
Church of the Archangels outside Prizren and the
exonarthex added to the katholikon of Hilandar

FIGURE 26.24
Matejić Monastery,
Church of the
Virgin, south
façade (author)
Monastery (see Fig. 25.2).10 The Hilandar exonar-

thex is particularly noteworthy; dated to the
1350s, it preceded Prince Lazar’s construction
projects by perhaps two decades, yet it includes
virtually all the same details: a high degree of plas-
ticity to the façades, painted imitation of ma-
sonry, and carved sculptural ornament, including
a rosette window. It is tempting to hypothesize
many of these same features at the Archangels.
The Church of the Presentation of the Virgin
at Kalenić Monastery (1413–18) follows the
model of Kruševac and is slightly larger in scale,
while displaying an increasingly ornamental
aesthetic, with a greater verticality, more complex
external articulation, more intricate sculptural
decoration, and more pronounced polychromy
(Figs. 26.28 and 26.29). Actual masonry is regu-
larized with mortar and highlighted with red
paint, blending seamlessly into painted imitation
in the upper levels.
The Church of the Holy Trinity at Manasija
(also known as Resava) Monastery (1406–18), the
FIGURE 26.25 Kruševac, Lazarica Church, view from the

east (N. Zarras) 10
Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans, 655, 671–73.

largest undertaking before the Ottoman Conquest, FIGURE 26.26
was founded by despot Stefan Lazarević, contem- Plans to the same

porary with Kalenić but quite different in its out- scale: (A) Kruševac,
Lazarica Church;
ward appearance (Figs. 26.30 and 26.31). While
(B) Ravanica
following the design of Ravanica, including tiny,
Monastery, Church
attenuated corner domes and a large narthex of the Ascension
(now restored), the construction is of fine ashlar, (after S. Ćurčić,
with no polychromy and simplified external artic- Architecture in the
ulation, detailed with a corbel table at the eaves Balkans, 2010)
and gothic-style windows, coupling two lancets
with a roundel. These Western features suggest
that talented but conservative masons from the
Adriatic coast were responsible for the construc-
tion—perhaps following the lead of the Nemanjić
royal foundations. Counterbalancing the delicacy
of the church construction are the massive fortifi-
cations surrounding the monastery, which testify
to the hard realities of the day (Fig. 26.32).11 The
monastic organization follows earlier examples,
laid out on a roughly oval plan, with the church
and refectory (now in ruins) freestanding, with
other monastic buildings set against the walls, but from the city proper by a moat and an internal
the scale of the fortifications visually overpowers line of fortifications. Enclosing the palatial resi-
all else, with eleven massive towers projecting from dence of the despot, the citadel included a low
the walls, including a twin-towered entrance at the outer wall facing the rivers, with niches and
west and the donjon to the north. Rising above a loopholes to accommodate twenty cannons.
battered base, the donjon extends through seven This may be the first defensive system to take into
stories, with machicolations at the upper level. The consideration the changes in military technology
defensive system also included a much lower outer brought about by the introduction of gunpowder,
wall and a dry moat enveloping the complex. although it otherwise follows long-established
Most impressive of the Serbian fortifications models. The fortress fell to the Ottomans in 1459,
are the citadel and fortified town at Smederevo marking the end of the medieval Serbian state.
(1428–39). Constructed by Djuradj Branković as Romania. A latecomer to the scene, Romania
a new capital, following the loss of Belgrade to the entered the Orthodox sphere as Wallachia liber-
Hungarians in 1427, Smederevo was the largest ated itself from Hungary in 1330, followed by
and most important work of defensive architec- Moldavia ca. 1352. Leaders of both principalities
ture to be built before the Ottoman conquest, looked to Byzantium for church structure, re-
enclosing an area of 10 hectares (Fig. 26.33).12 questing bishops to be sent from Constantinople.
Triangular in plan, the town was set at the con- Culturally, both depended on neighboring
fluence of the Danube and the Jezava Rivers, Slavic states, however, as church Slavonic became
with a triangular citadel at the point, separated the language of the liturgy. Neither enjoyed a
long independence, as the Ottomans extended
11
G. Simić, “Donjon, Manasija Monastery, Yugoslavia,” in Secular their conquests into Europe through the late
Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. When the
ed. S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, 1997), 236–39. Crusade of Varna of 1444 failed to check
12
N. Jocović and J. Nešković, “Fortifications of Smederevo,” in Ottoman advances, Wallachia succumbed in
Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its 1462; Moldavia held out until 1504 and was
Preservation, ed. S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, briefly independent again ca. 1527–38. Both
1997), 132–35, 208–11. continued as semi-independent, locally ruled

FIGURE 26.27
Ravanica Monastery, Church
of the Ascension, north
façade (author)
FIGURE 26.28
Kalenić Monastery, Church of
the Presentation of the Virgin,
view from the southwest
(author)

principalities, however, playing an important role FIGURE 26.29
supporting Orthodoxy through the Ottoman cen- Kalenić Monastery,

turies, providing subsidies for both the patriarchate Church of the
Presentation of the
in Constantinople and the monasteries on Mount
Virgin, detail of
Athos, while attracting a population of Greek im-
windows (author)
migrants. The flourishing of a Byzantine-inflected
culture long after the fall of Constantinople has
been termed “Byzance après Byzance.”13
The princely Church of St. Nicholas at Curtea
de Argeş, the capital of Wallachia, dates ca. 1352
and is credited to Basarab I (reg. ca. 1310–52). A
somber cross-in-square church, there is little dis-
tinctive in its architecture, although its painted
program, by a Byzantine master, reflects that of
the Chora in Constantinople. The katholikon of
Cozia Monastery, dated to 1388, built by Mircea
I (reg. 1386–1418) and housing his tomb, pro-
vides a better indication of the association with
the Morava architecture of Serbia and was clearly
built by Serbian masons (Fig. 26.34). Features
such as the trefoil plan, a deep narthex with
(originally) a tower above it, elaborate façade ar-
ticulation, and architectural sculpture are virtu-
ally identical to the Serbian monuments, as, for
example, at Lazarica or Kalenić. Like the Serbian
monasteries, Cozia is fortified and inward ori-
ented, with the church freestanding at its center. uments, much of the detailing, including the
After a century of apparent inactivity, there muqarnas cornices and the spiral fluting, as well
was a flourishing of architecture in sixteenth- as the ashlar construction, probably depend on
century Wallachia, witnessed by two churches of contemporary Ottoman architecture.
ashlar construction and elaborate ornamentation Architecturally, Moldavia shows a greater
at Dealu Monastery (1502) and the episcopal originality.14 Located further to the north, the
monastery at Curtea de Argeş (completed 1526), region initially had closer links to Hungary, Poland,
although both have been heavily restored. Both and Transylvania. Among the earliest surviving
repeat the triconch plan, with multiple, vertically churches, St. Nicholas in the Bogdana Monastery
attenuated domes. Curtea de Argeş includes an near Rădăuţi (1359–65) is a modest, three-aisled
outsized lite with an ambulatory plan, its central basilica, covered by a banded barrel vault, with
dome competing for prominence with the naos a steeply pitched, overhanging roof—more
dome, while adding two additional domes at the Romanesque than Byzantine in character. The
western corners, both spirally fluted with win- near-contemporary Church of the Holy Trinity at
dows on the diagonal (Fig. 26.35). Raised on a Siret (1354–58) adopted a single-aisled triconch
platform, the building conveys an odd sense of plan, which became common thereafter. A distinc-
monumentality despite its small size—the major tive regional idiom emerged during the reign of
domes are less than 3 meters in diameter. While Stephen III the Great (1457–1504), a prolific
retaining some of the details of the Morava mon-
14
G. Balş, Bisericile lui Ștefan cel Mare (Bucharest, 1926); P. Henry,
13
N. Iorga, Byzance après Byzance (Bucharest, 1935); trans. Les églises de Moldavie du nord des origins à la fin de XVIe siècle (Paris,
L. Treptow, Byzantium after Byzantium (Cambridge, MA, 2000); 1930); and most recently, A. I. Sullivan, “The Painted Fortified
see also Fine, Late Medieval Balkans; for the monuments, Mango, Monastic Churches of Moldavia: Bastions of Orthodoxy in a
Byzantine Architecture, 340–50. Post-Byzantine World,” PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2017.

FIGURE 26.30
Manasija
Monastery, Church
of the Holy Trinity,
view from the
north (author)
FIGURE 26.31
Manasija Monastery, Church
of the Holy Trinity, interior,
view into the vaulting
(author)

FIGURE 26.32
Manasija
Monastery, Church
of the Holy Trinity,
view of the
monastery, from
the southwest
(Magyshadow,
Wikipedia)
FIGURE 26.33
Smederevo,
fortified town,
aerial view
(S. Ćurčić)

FIGURE 26.34
Cozia Monastery,
Katholikon, south
façade (Andrei
Stroe, Wikimedia
Commons)
FIGURE 26.35
Curtea de Argeş,
Church of the
Episcopal
Monastery, view
from the southwest
(Alexandru Baboş,
Wikimedia
Commons)

builder credited with more than forty foundations, Gothic windows, buttresses, blind arcades, and
although his principal foundation at Putna was ceramic insets.
totally rebuilt at a later date. Monastic churches Most distinctive for this group of churches is
like the Church of St. George at Voroneţ, built ca. their external painted decoration—almost as if
1488 (Figs. 26.36–26.38), adopt an elongated tri- the churches had been turned inside out, with
conch plan, derived ultimately from Serbia, with the sort of iconography one would expect to
the apses articulated on the exterior by niches and find on the interior covering the external surfaces
the walls braced by pilasters. Characteristically, as well, protected by the overhanging roofs.
the naos is surmounted by a steeple-like dome, While many Byzantine churches must have had
which interrupts the line of the pitched roof. On external decoration, nowhere else does it survive
the interior, the dome rises through several stages, in such profusion. Most painted programs were
with two sets of pendentives, the upper set ro- added several decades after the initial construction,
tated 45 degrees, above which the drum rises, dra- a process that may have begun during the reign
matically reducing the diameter of the dome—a of Stephen’s son, Peter Rareş: the Church of the
curious feature, probably a Moldavian invention Annunciation at Moldoviţa was built in 1532
common to the region. Windows and portals take and painted in 1537 (Fig. 26.40). Voroneţ was
on Gothic forms. The Church of the Ascension painted on the exterior ca. 1547, more than half
at Neamţ Monastery, the largest surviving of a century after its construction (see fig. 26.36).
Stephen’s ecclesiastical foundations, was added Suceviţa, the last of the great monastic under-
in 1486–97 to the oldest Moldavian monastery, takings in the style established during the reigns
originally founded in 1210 (Fig. 26.39). Its elon- of Stephen and Peter, was built ca. 1581–83 and
gated plan repeats the rotated Moldavian dome painted 1595–96 (Fig. 26.41). Viewed from a
(but as blind domes) another four times, above negative perspective, one might argue that
the western extension of the naos (a burial space), within Moldavia, architecture has become subser-
as well as the narthex and exonarthex, all covered vient to the painted program; on the contrary, we
by a pitched roof. The exterior is detailed with may be witnessing a new level of interaction
FIGURE 26.36
Voroneţ
Monastery, Church
of St. George, view
from the southeast
(A. I. Sullivan)

FIGURE 26.37 Voroneţ Monastery, Church of St. George,
plan and longitudinal section (after G. Balş, Bisericile, 1926)
FIGURE 26.38
Voroneţ
Monastery, Church
of St. George,
interior of the
naos, view into the
dome (G. Serrano,
Flickr)

FIGURE 26.39
Neanţ Monastery,
Church of the
Ascension
(A. I. Sullivan)
FIGURE 26.40
Moldoviţa
Monastery, Church
of the
Annunciation,
view from the
southeast
(A. I. Sullivan)

FIGURE 26.41
Suceviţa
Monastery, aerial
view (Zsolt Deak,
Wikimedia
Commons)
between painter and mason. The distinctively agery that connoted power, authority, or sanctity,
hybrid architecture reflects the diverse cultural the new nations often sought to distance them-
interchanges still possible in the late medieval selves from Byzantium, to focus on what was truly
Balkans, as well as the potential for creativity, “theirs.” One wonders if the inhabitants of the late
even in politically challenging times. Still envel- medieval Balkans would have viewed these monu-
oped by a fortified enclosure, Suceviţa provides ments similarly—that is, as regionally specific
a sense of both monastic organization and the political signifiers—or whether religious affilia-
insecurities of the era. Unlike Byzantine and tion outweighed national or ethnic identity, as it
Serbian foundations, the Moldavian monaster- did during the centuries of Ottoman rule. In a
ies invariably adopted a rectilinear plan. period of rapid political transformations, what does
a building mean? With church architecture, texts
, rarely pursue symbolism beyond the obvious—
heaven on earth, the new Jerusalem, or similar sen-
Since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, it has timents. Other than the evident grandeur or luxury,
been common to view the architecture discussed in how aware of style would a medieval viewer have
this chapter in terms of “national” styles. The been? Was there an easily understood political mes-
modern nation-states of the Balkans looked deep sage, for example, in the selection of a Romanesque
into their regional histories as part of identity con- or Byzantine prototype in Serbia? We shall return to
struction, but with an odd ambivalence toward the larger issues of signification at the end of the
Byzantium.15 While their late medieval predecessors next chapter. In the final analysis, despite the inse-
had looked to Byzantine architectural forms for im- curities of the period, there was also wealth—in
Serbia, thanks to mining. The elite of late medieval
15
A. Ignjatović, “Byzantium Evolutionized: Architectural History
Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania built in profusion.
and National Identity in Turn-of-the-Century Serbia,” in “Regimes of
Historicity” in Southeastern and Northern Europe, 1890–1945, eds.
D. Mishkova, R. Trencsényi, and M. Jalava (Basingstoke, 2014), Entangled Histories of the Balkans. I. National Ideologies and Language
254–74; R. Detrez, “Pre-National Identities in the Balkans,” in Policies, ed. R. Daskalov and T. Marinov (Leiden, 2013), 13–66.

,
678
CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN
RIVAL POWERS
The Ottomans and Russia
W hat happens after 1453? Byzantine archi-

tecture doesn’t simply stop, but continues
to have a cultural resonance, particularly among
interest in architectural form than in its mean-
ing—or at least the meanings assigned to it by
those who built it. While both the Russians and
the minority Christian populations of the Ottoman the Ottomans looked to the Byzantines, their ar-
Empire. As we saw in the previous chapter, archi- chitecture and its symbolic vocabulary developed
tecture flourished in Moldavia and Wallachia long in very different ways. Nevertheless, both might be
after the demise of the Byzantine state. Small, regarded as Byzantium’s legitimate successors.
domed churches continued to be constructed The Ottomans. The Osmanlı (Ottoman) Turks
across the Balkans and the Caucasus, although as probably entered Anatolia in the thirteenth century
“unofficial” architecture there is little innovation in with a second wave of Turkish migrations, as refu-
most regions. In contrast, the achievements of gees from the Mongol invasions. Osman was leader
Byzantine architecture find an immediate following from ca. 1281 to 1326, and he became the founder
in the empires of Russia and the Ottomans, of the dynasty that bore his name.1 The tribe had
although they take very different directions. settled in Bithynia along the frontier with the
Following the Ottoman conquest of Constan- Byzantine Empire toward the end of the century,
tinople in 1453, Moscow ascended as the center of nominally under the rule of the Seljuk sultan. The
Orthodox Christianity, styling itself the “Third population remained largely mixed. Osman pro-
Rome.” While influenced by Italian architects and claimed his independence in 1299, and his state
indigenous developments, Russian architecture re- quickly emerged as the most powerful of the beyliks
flects the picturesque complexities of the later in Anatolia following the demise of the Seljuks.
Byzantine style, as well as the symbolic meanings Osman’s son Orhan (r. 1326–62) captured Bursa in
associated with built forms. The Ottomans settled 1326, and it subsequently became the capital.
in Byzantine territory and relied on Byzantine Nicaea (İznik) fell in 1331 and Nicomedia (İzmit) in
masons to construct their earliest buildings. After 1337, but parts of the region remained in Byzantine
the conquest, however, they began a sort of com-
petitive discourse with the Byzantine past, turning 1
C. Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman
to the monumentality of Hagia Sophia as their State (Berkeley, 1995); H. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman
chief source of inspiration—that is, with a greater State (Albany, 2003).
Edirne, Selimiye Camii, view from the west (G. Necipoğlu)
679
FIGURE 27.1
Bursa, Orhan
Camii, view from
the northwest
(author)
hands long after the fall of the major centers. With the Muslim architecture that had evolved in other
the expansion of control across the Dardanelles into parts of Anatolia, no doubt employing the Byzantine
Europe, Orhan’s son and successor Murad became builders of the region in their early projects. Indeed,
beylerbey of the European territories in 1360, cap- on the one hand, there are numerous formal simi-
turing Adrianople (Edirne) in 1369. Under Murad, larities that exist between late Byzantine and early
who ruled as sultan between 1362 and 1389, an Ottoman architecture in the methods of wall con-
Ottoman Empire was formed, and the Byzantine struction and decorative detailing.3 On the other
rulers in effect became vassals of the Ottomans. hand, the plans and vaulting forms are more closely
It is much easier to track the political success aligned with the architecture of the Seljuks. Such a
of the early Ottomans than it is to assess their ar- mixture of forms would seem to reflect the mixed
chitectural achievements. In spite of their clear, background of the Ottomans, who were politically
dramatic rise to power, the origins of Ottoman and religiously linked with the Seljuks, while occu-
architecture remain problematic. Prior to their pying Byzantine lands and incorporating Byzantine
settling in Bithynia, we have no clear evidence institutions into their nascent state; the resulting
for an architecture in permanent materials. The heterogeneous architecture may be emblematic of
mausolea for Osman and Orhan were reused early Ottoman culture.
Byzantine churches in Bursa.2 By the 1330s, the The early Ottoman monuments speak more of
former nomads were actively building, and in a integration than domination. The Orhan Camii
manner technically and stylistically distinct from in Bursa (1334; repaired 1417), for example, one of
the oldest Ottoman buildings to survive (Fig. 27.1),
has an inverted T plan, characteristic of the early
2
S. Çağaptay, “Visualizing the Cultural Transition in Bithynia mosques of Bursa, which seems to have derived
(ca. 1300–1402): Architecture, Landscape and Urbanism,” PhD
diss., University of Illinois, 2007; S. Çağaptay, “Frontierscape:
Reconsidering Bithynian Structures and Their Builders on the 3
R. G. Ousterhout, “Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation
Byzantine–Ottoman Cusp,” Muqarnas 28 (2011): 155–91. in Early Ottoman Architecture,” Muqarnas 13 (1995): 48–62.

FIGURE 27.2
İznik (Nicaea).
Hacı Özbek
Camii, façade
(now destroyed),
in a nineteenth-
century
photograph, where
it is identified as a
Byzantine church
(G. Berggren,
author’s collection)
ultimately from Anatolian Seljuk architecture. The in a Byzantine context. The Hüdâvendigâr Camii
wall construction is of rough brick and stone main Çekirge, begun in 1365–66, fits into this pic-
sonry, close to the traditional Byzantine architecture as well (Fig. 27.3). The two-storied portico
ture of Bithynia, as are the numerous decorative façade compares to Late Byzantine façades, such
details—banded voussoirs, dogtooth friezes, bulls- as that of the Tekfursaray in Constantinople, and
eyes, and decorative patterning. Byzantine masons numerous pieces of architectural sculpture were
must have participated in the construction. Many reemployed. The construction, materials, and
of the same features appear in the nearby Church some of the decorative details reflect Byzantine ar-
of the Pantobasilissa at Trilye on the Sea of chitecture, but the unique two-storied plan, which
Marmara, which also dates to the 1330s. It is likely combines elements of a zawiya or a madrasa with
that the same workshops were constructing both a mosque, is best understood in an Islamic context.
churches and mosques at the same time. Early Ottoman architecture is a reflection of
Similar construction details appeared in the the society that produced it. From the beginning,
Hacı Özbek Camii in İznik, built ca. 1330 with the Ottoman state was multiethnic and religiously
a single-bayed plan and a colonnaded porch heterogeneous, comprising peoples of many dif-
(Fig. 27.2). Here, the use of Byzantine spolia led ferent nationalities and backgrounds, based as
early visitors to identify the mosque as an “anci- much on cooperation as on coercion. In short,
enne église byzantine.” The Hüdâvendigâr Camii the architectural picture conforms to the histori-
at Behramkale (ancient Assos, ca. 1380) is built cal one. However, Ottoman domination was
almost entirely of spolia, including an inscribed more clearly expressed in the standard practice of
doorframe from a church dedicated to St. transforming the cathedral of a conquered city
Cornelius, leading to a similar misidentification. into a mosque, as at the Hagia Sophia in İznik/
In both examples, Byzantine spolia are used for Nicaea. The actual appropriation of important
exactly the same purposes they would have served Byzantine buildings was symbolically significant
CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN: RIVAL POWERS 681

FIGURE 27.3
Bursa-Çekirge,
Hüdâvendigâr
Camii, portico
façade (author)
and would have been clearly understood by the The daring scale, originality of the design, and
contemporary viewer, although the continuation solid ashlar construction reflect the growing confi-
of Byzantine forms into Ottoman architecture dence of Ottoman builders. The dome as the dom-
had a different and subtler message. inant feature marks the beginning of a competitive
Attitudes toward Byzantine culture seem to discourse, expressed in architectural terms, with
shift as the Ottomans extended their control onto Byzantium—although not the weakened, contem-
European soil and set their sights on the conquest porary state, but its illustrious past, as represented
of Constantinople. This is particularly notewor- by the great Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
thy in the architecture of Edirne during the first Indeed, the dome of the Üç Șerefeli is the largest to
half of the fifteenth century, with the construc- have been constructed since the sixth century.
tion of mosques, baths, and covered markets, The conquest of Constantinople in 1453 under
often following the model of the architecture of Mehmed II continues the dialogue with the
Bursa. All the same, the Üç Șerefeli Cami (liter- Byzantine past. While the city had been rapidly
ally “three balconies”—a reference to its largest enveloped by Ottoman-controlled territories, its
minaret), built under Murad II, ca. 1438–47, fall was not a foregone conclusion. Its defensive
marks a significant transition in scale and concept system remained unsurpassed, with the double
(Fig. 27.4).4 The mosque centers on an enormous line of the Land Walls and their moat, the Sea
dome, approximately 24 meters in diameter, rising Walls, and the entrance to the Golden Horn
27 meters above hexagonal supports, a grand ex- guarded by a chain.5 But the resources and popu-
periment and major engineering achievement. lation of the city were substantially diminished,
4
S. Blair and J. Bloom, The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250–1800 5
M. Philippides and W. Hanak, The Siege and Fall of Constantinople in
(New Haven, 1994), 144–45. 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies (Farnham, 2011).

while the Ottomans had a vastly larger army and FIGURE 27.4
new military technology at their disposal. The Edirne, Üç Șerefeli

construction of the fortress known as Rumeli Cami, plan and
section (after
Hisar on the European shore of Bosporus in less
G. Necipoğlu,
than five months (April–August 1452) is indica-
2005)
tive of their ability to muster resources and man-
power (Fig. 27.5). Set opposite a smaller fortress
on the Asian shore of the straits, Rumeli Hisar
effectively controlled traffic through the straits, as
the Ottomans tightened their grip on the city; its
low barbican wall along the waterfront was armed
with twenty cannons.6 Surprisingly, the city’s for-
tifications held through a protracted siege—that
is, until the Ottomans brought their cannons to
the Land Walls. Although they had protected the
city for more than a millennium, the Theodosian
Walls succumbed to cannon fire. The fall of the
city on 29 May 1453 sent shock waves through
Christian Europe, and Byzantine writers present
the event in apocalyptic terms.
For the Ottomans, Constantinople represented
the ultimate victory—they had taken the golden
apple. Mehmet’s first official act was the conver-
sion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque (see Fig. 23.1).
The conversion involved minimal physical trans-
formation, and even its name remained the
same—Ayasofya Camii in Turkish. As appropri-
ated, however, the scale and evocative power of the
building cry out for a symbolic reading. Hence, it
was necessary to create an Islamic text and an
Ottoman legend for Hagia Sophia.7 Borrowing
from Byzantine accounts, Ottoman historical
texts interwove history and myth to situate Hagia
Sophia in an Ottoman present and to justify its
conversion into a royal mosque. Thus, according Mecca), and the prophet’s saliva.8 In addition,
to one version, when the half-dome of the apse Muslim and Ottoman symbols were introduced
collapsed on the night of the Prophet Mohammed’s into Hagia Sophia, including the first minaret, the
birth, it could only be repaired with a mortar mihrab, and other mosque furnishings, as well as
composed of sand from Mecca, water from the sacred relics and battle trophies.9
well of Zemzem (a miraculous water source in The profound influence direct exposure to
Hagia Sophia had on Ottoman architecture should
6
Z. Ahunbay, “Fortress of Rumeli Hisar, Turkey,” in Secular not be underestimated. The new Fatih Camii, or
Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, Mosque of the Conqueror, begun in 1463 by Atik
ed. S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos (Thessalonike, 1997), 166–69. Sinan (a manumitted slave) to replace the dilapi-
7
G. Necipoğlu, “The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia dated Church of the Holy Apostles, was smaller
Sophia after Byzantium,” in Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to
the Present, eds. R. Mark and A. Çakmak (Cambridge, 1992),
195–225. See also Ç. Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul:
8
Necipoğlu, “Life of an Imperial Monument,” 200, with further
Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of an references.
Ottoman Capital (University Park, 2009). 9
Ibid., 206–207.

FIGURE 27.5
Rumeli Hisar, view
of the fortress on
the Bosporus
(İ. D. Kılıçoğlu,
Wikimedia
Commons)
than Hagia Sophia, but it was larger in scale than The construction of the Fatih Camii with its
any previous Ottoman mosque—or any Byzantine adjoining mausoleum is recognized as one of
church built since the sixth century (Fig. 27.6). Mehmet’s important symbolic acts of refoundation,
The plan, with a square domed bay (approxi- as it replaced the church of the old Byzantine Holy
mately 26 meters in diameter and 44 meters tall) Apostles and the Mausoleum of Constantine—that
expanded with an axial half-dome, followed the is, replacing the martyrium of the founder of the
model of Hagia Sophia. The connection was Christian city with that of his Muslim successor.11
clearly recognized at the time of construction. The mosque of Mehmed’s successor Beyazid II
Mehmet’s biographer, Tursun Bey, wrote that (1501–6) makes a more explicit reference to Hagia
Mehmet had Sophia (Fig. 27.7A). Although smaller than the
Fatih Camii, its dome (16.8 meters diameter) is
constructed a great mosque on the design of the flanked symmetrically by two half-domes. Both
apprentice work of Ayasofya, which apart from set a model for the sultanic mosques to follow:
combining all the artifices of Ayasofya, has prominently situated for maximum visibility, fo-
found, according to the uses of the moderns, a cused on a dominant dome, the mosques estab-
sort of new style and immeasurable beauty, lished an imperial image by paraphrasing the
and in its effulgence its miraculous quality is superstructure of Hagia Sophia.12
evident.10 The notion of a competitive discourse with the
past, played out in architectural terms, underlies
the sultanic mosques constructed by Mimar
10
J. Raby, “El Gran Turco: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of
Sinan, who was court architect from 1538 to 1588.
the Arts of Christendom,” (PhD diss., Oxford University, 1980),
253 and n. 111; see also G. Necipoğlu, “Challenging the Past: Sinan
Sinan refers frequently to Hagia Sophia in his
and the Competitive Discourse of Early Modern Islamic
Architecture,” Muqarnas 10 (1993): 171; Mehmet’s mosque
11
Raby, “El Gran Turco,” 253 and n. 111.
collapsed in the earthquake of 1766 and was subsequently rebuilt; G. Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the
12
see Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 405–11. Ottoman Empire (Princeton, 2005), 71–124.

FIGURE 27.6
Istanbul, Fatih
Camii, plan of the
original complex
(after
G. Necipoğlu, Age
of Sinan, 2005)
autobiographical writings, and his awareness of bilaterally symmetrical buttressing to the dome, it
the building is evident in his Șehzade Mehmed also creates a pyramidal massing of forms, rising
Camii (1543–48) and Süleymaniye Camii (1550– above the cubic volume of the lower walls, not
57) in Istanbul, as well as the Selimiye Camii unlike many later Byzantine churches, but proba-
(1568–74) in Edirne. The first appears as the evo- bly equally informed by Italian Renaissance archi-
lutionary conclusion of a process of design that tectural theory.
began with the Üç Șerefeli, its domed bay ex- The grand Süleymaniye Camii, constructed
panded by a half-dome at the Fatih Camii and by 1550–57 for Süleyman the Magnificent, may rep-
two half-domes at the Beyazid Camii. The central- resent Sinan’s direct response to the challenge of
ized design of the Șehzade has a quatrefoil pattern, Hagia Sophia (Figs. 27.9–27.11). Here he re-
its central dome 19 meters in diameter, flanked by turned to the design of the Beyazid Camii, with
four half-domes (Figs. 27.7B and 27.8). While— half-domes flanking the main dome on the longi-
as is often noted—the design corrects the major tudinal axis. While the central dome measures
structural problem of Hagia Sophia, the lack of 26.5 meters in diameter, the overall scale of the

FIGURE 27.7
Istanbul, plans of
the (A) Beyazid
Camii and (B)
Șehzade Camii
(after A. Kuran,
Mosque in Early
Ottoman
Architecture, 1968)
FIGURE 27.8
Istanbul, Șehzade
Camii, interior
view, looking into
the vaulting
(author)

FIGURE 27.9
Istanbul,
Süleymaniye Camii
complex, aerial
view looking
north, with the
Golden Horn in
the background
(G. Necipoğlu)
mosque approaches that of Hagia Sophia. There Hagia Sophia at the Selimiye Camii in Edirne
is a greater orderliness to the design, as the central (1658–75), built for Süleyman’s successor, Selim
dome is surrounded by smaller domes, with the (Figs. 27.12 and 27.13). Sinan himself states,
structural organization clearly visible on the inte- “I demonstrated my power by making the height
rior. Unlike the disjunction between the nave and of this dome 6 cubits [4.5 meters] and its circum-
secondary spaces at Hagia Sophia, space appears ference 4 cubits [3.0 meters] larger.”14 In fact, its
rational and unified, with a greater sense of open- diameter is more or less the same: 31.22 meters,
ness and structural clarity. Similarly, the exterior compared to Hagia Sophia’s, which varies be-
appears lighter and more elegant than the heavily tween 30.9 and 31.8 meters, but its overall height
buttressed Hagia Sophia, and Ottoman commen- is considerably less. Here Sinan seems to have
tators recognized it as a significant advancement been measuring the dome from its springing, and
aesthetically.13 Moreover, its prominent setting on with its greater roundness, the Selimiye dome is
a ridge toward the center of the city provided indeed taller. The great dome seems to have been
greater visibility to Sinan’s mosque—particularly the generative concept behind the design, with
from the European quarter of the city in Pera, eight great piers supporting it, with flanking
across the Golden Horn. spaces reduced to a minimum, except for an extra
While the mosque refers to Hagia Sophia, the semidomed bay at the qibla.
octagonal tomb, enveloped by a portico, seems to With the ubiquity of great domed mosques
recall the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which dominating the skyline, uninitiated visitors to
Süleyman had recently restored. His mosque modern Istanbul may be forgiven for seeing Hagia
could thus become the new Temple of the Second Sophias everywhere they look. There is, of course,
Solomon (Süleyman = Solomon), an association much more to Ottoman architecture than simply a
also made by Justinian’s sixth-century church. competition with the Byzantine past. The great
The eclectic and ambitious allusions draw on a mosques of Istanbul and Edirne are enveloped by
rich and evocative past. pencil-thin minarets and a külliye—regularized
Contemporary texts suggest that European complexes of subsidiary spaces—the latter far re-
architects challenged Sinan to outdo the dome of moved in scale and orderliness from the irregular
13
Necipoğlu, “Challenging the Past”; Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 14
Tezkiretü’l-Bünyan, quoted by Necipoğlu, “Challenging the
207–22. Past,” 175; Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 238–56.

FIGURE 27.10 Istanbul, Süleymaniye Camii complex, plan showing the organizations of subsidiary structures (redrawn after
Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 1977)

FIGURE 27.11
Istanbul,
Süleymaniye Camii
complex, interior,
looking south
(author)
FIGURE 27.12
Edirne, Selimiye Camii, view from the west
(G. Necipoğlu)

with steeply pitched roofs rising to a single dome
(Fig. 27.15).15 Distinctive is the use of quadrant
arches on the corner façade bays, as had been em-
ployed earlier at the Piatnitsa Church in Chernigov
(see Fig. 22.26). In the Novgorod churches, the
quadrant arches are multiplied to decorative effect.
As with most of the late buildings in the area, both
are roughly built, with plastered exteriors.
As Russia recovered from the Mongol inva-
sions, Muscovy developed its own distinctive ar-
chitecture, first seen perhaps in the cathedrals of
Zvenigorod, near Moscow, dedicated to the
Dormition (ca. 1396–98, now much altered) and
the Nativity of the Virgin in the Storozhevsky
Monastery of St. Savva (ca. 1405–8) (Fig. 27.16).
[NB: Unlike Byzantium, where a single church per
district or city had the rank of cathedral, in Russia,
multiple churches within the same area could have
this rank.] Both have simple, nine-bayed plans
with a central dome—the standard plan through-
out Russia, ultimately derived from the Byzantine
cross-in-square type. In many ways, the Zvenigorod
churches (and, indeed, their now-lost counterparts
in Moscow) hark back to the model of Vladimir
from before the Mongol Conquest, with tall pro-
FIGURE 27.13 Edirne, Selimiye Camii, plan and elevation portions and construction of white limestone.
(after A. Kuran, Sinan, 1987; and Burelli, reproduced in Façade bays are topped by decorative arches, or za-
A. Kuran, Sinan, 1987.) komary, rising above pilasters or colonnettes.
Decorative bands of sculpture enliven the façades,
neighborhoods that grew up around the great and the portals have stepped jambs and archivolts,
houses and monasteries of the Byzantine city. But with ogival arches. The zakomary of the Dormition
in so many ways, architecture responds to archi- Church must have also had ogival arches, as are pre-
tecture, with new additions to a historic city call- served at the Nativity Church. In addition to those
ing out for comparison with their pre-existing of the façade, there is a second zone set diagonally
neighbors. The geometric complexities of Sinan’s above the corner bays and a third zone framing the
Sokollu Mehmet Paşa Camii (1572), for example, dome drum. The decorative aspects of the zakom-
offer a dramatic challenge to the nearby Küçük ary are enhanced by a loosening relationship be-
Ayasofya Camii, the converted Church of Sts. tween interior and exterior, as the pilasters do not
Sergius and Bacchus (Fig. 27.14; and see Fig. 8.14). always correspond to the structural divisions of the
Russia. Russian history and Russian architec- interior. These details appear in the oldest surviving
ture take a very different course. Much of Russia Moscow church, the Cathedral of the Savior in the
was destabilized in the thirteenth century by the in- Andronikov Monastery, built in the 1420s, which
vasion of the Mongols, with the notable exceptions increases the complexity of the decorative arcading,
of Novgorod and Pskov, where medieval churches as it steps up gradually to the base of the dome.
survive from the twelfth century onward. In
Novgorod, churches like the St. Theodore Stratelates 15
For Russian architecture, see H. Faensen and V. Ivanov, Early
(1360) or the Church of the Transfiguration of the Russian Architecture (London, 1975); Brumfield, A History of Russian
Savior on Elijah Street (1374) have simple nine- Architecture; augmented by the many insights in Shvidkovsky,
bayed plans, marked by pilasters on the façades, Russian Architecture.

FIGURE 27.14
Istanbul, Sokkolu
Mehmet Paşa
Camii, view into
the dome
(G. Necipoğlu)
FIGURE 27.16 Zvenigorod, Cathedral of the Nativity of

the Virgin in the Storozhevsky Monastery of St. Savva
FIGURE 27.15 Novgorod, Church of the Transfiguration of (courtesy of Moscow Architectural Institute Scientific
the Savior on Elijah Street, view from the southeast (author) Library)

27.17 Moscow, historic plan of the
FIGURE
Kremlin and Kitay-Gorod (author, after
Moscow Institute of Architecture Scientific
Collection)
The beginnings of Moscow are usually traced confrontations with the Mongols, the fortifica-
to its first textual reference in 1147, although the tions were rebuilt in limestone in 1367, more or
settlement must have been older. In 1156, a less along the lines of the current triangular enclo-
wooden fortress rose on the high ground at sure, extending approximately 2 kilometers in
the confluence of the Moscow and smaller length. Because traditional Russian architecture was
Neglinnaia Rivers, where the Kremlin now stands ephemeral, built of wood and prone to fires, the
(Figs. 27.17 and 27.18). The name Kremlin means appearance of the Kremlin and the city around it is
“citadel,” but like the Acropolis in Athens, it difficult to envision before the fifteenth century.
became a site-specific toponym. Moscow’s early By the late fifteenth century, a new architectural
history is marked by clashes with the Mongols impetus arrived from Italy, in the form of imported
and with feuding Russian principalities; for much Italian architects. The period of Ivan III (r. 1462–
of its early history it was little more than a trading 1505) is particularly important, followed by that of
outpost in the vast forests of Russia. By the four- his son, Vasili III (r. 1505–33). In 1472, Ivan mar-
teenth century, Moscow began to emerge as the ried Zoe (renamed Sophia) Palaiologina, niece of
central power, notably under Ivan I, who took the last Byzantine emperor and claimant to the
control in 1325. In the same year, the patriarch Byzantine throne.16 With the collapse of the
Peter made Moscow his unofficial residence, thus Byzantine Empire, she had fled to the papal court
marking the beginnings of the consolidation of in Rome, where she came under the protection of
church and state. The first stone church was built Cardinal Bessarion, who subsequently arranged
shortly thereafter, the Cathedral of the Dormition her marriage to Ivan. Through Bessarion, Sophia
(subsequently rebuilt), significantly adopting the
dedication of the Cathedral of Vladimir, the 16
A.-M. Talbot, “Sophia Palaiologina,” Oxford Dictionary of
spiritual center of Russia. Facing continued Byzantium, 3rd vol. (Oxford, 1991), 1928.

was associated with the Greek and Italian intellec- FIGURE 27.18
tual circles of northern Italy and thus arrived in Moscow, Kremlin,

Moscow with both Italian Renaissance and general view
Byzantine imperial baggage. Shortly thereafter, looking east, with
the Cathedral of
Italian architects appear prominently in the histor-
the Annunciation
ical record.17
in the foreground
The first major project was the rebuilding of and the Cathedral
the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin, of the Archangels
1475–79, under the direction of Rodolfo Fioravanti, and the Bell Tower
nicknamed Aristotele (Figs. 27.19–27.21). A recon- of Ivan the Great
struction of the original church had been under- behind it (courtesy
taken by Muscovite builders in 1472, but it of Moscow
collapsed two years later as it neared completion. Architectural
Masons from Pskov were consulted, but they Institute Scientific
declined to take on the project, leading Ivan to Library)
seek outside expertise. The Bolognese architect
Fioravanti was well known in Italy for his engi-
neering skills, and he was a friend of the theorist
Filarete. Once he arrived in Russia, he was taken
to Vladimir to examine the Cathedral of the
Dormition, which his project was intended to
imitate and to surpass (see Figs. 22.22 and 22.23).
He thus combined Romanesque details derived
from Vladimir with a simplified twelve-bayed view into the eastern vaults, and although it blends
plan, topped by five domes. Fioravanti introduced seamlessly with the multiple registers of mural
a modular plan, so that all bays are the same di- painting, the iconostasis alters the spatial configu-
mensions, with groin vaults set at the same height ration, so that the central dome no longer appears
covering the undomed bays, rising above cylin- centrally but as the termination of the longitudinal
drical piers. To maintain the modular scheme, axis of the naos, with the sanctuary invisible behind
coupled chapels flanking the sanctuary were cov- the screen. In short, the cathedral represents a tra-
ered by a single dome, and to give it prominence, ditional Russo-Byzantine architectural vocabulary
the central dome was increased in scale, with a di- reinterpreted by an Italian Renaissance architect.
ameter larger than the width of the bay it covers. Paralleling the introduction of Renaissance ar-
Rather than a separate narthex, the western three chitectural ideas was the introduction of Byzantine
bays, all groin vaulted, are fully integrated into court ceremonial and ideology. Both seem to have
the modular design. On the façades, details are come with the entourage of Sophia Palaiologina.
simplified; arcades are identical, the bays marked Ivan selected the offspring of Sophia as his heir,
by pilasters, while the Romanesque forms of the rather than the children of his first wife, thus insur-
portals and the corbel table frieze recall Vladimir. ing a Byzantine bloodline. Within a few decades,
Fioravanti used a carefully cut limestone ashlar, we begin to find references to Moscow as the
the stones set with a strong mortar, while the “Third Rome” and the “Second Constantinople,”
vaulting was constructed of lightweight brick, reas Russia assumed the role of political and spiritual
inforced with iron ties. successor to Byzantium as the bastion of Orthodoxy.
The lofty interior has the feel of a spacious hall, With court ceremonial came court titles, and Ivan
easily adaptable for imperial ceremony, as it became III began to use the titles of tsar (derived from
the coronation church. The gradual raising of the Caesar) and imperator (emperor).
iconostasis in subsequent centuries now blocks the Soon after the completion of the Dormition
Cathedral, the nearby Cathedral of the Annuncia-
tion was rebuilt, 1484–89, to serve as the palace
17
Shvidkovsky, Russian Architecture, 73–104. chapel (Figs. 27.22 and 27.23). Work was done

FIGURE 27.19
Moscow, Kremlin,
Cathedral of the
Assumption, view
from the south
(author)
by architects from Pskov, who had earlier de- members of the royal family. Stylistically quite
clined to take on the challenge of rebuilding the distinct, the Annunciation Cathedral represents
Dormition Cathedral after its collapse. Their the continuation of traditional architectural
church was considerably smaller and simpler, es- forms, which parallel the Renaissance imports.
sentially a nine-bayed church with pier supports, The cathedral of the Archangel Michael at the
set atop a vaulted substructure to bring it to the Kremlin, built ca. 1505–9 by Alevisio Lamberti da
level of the residential chambers in the adjoining Montagnana, a Venetian architect, continues the
palace, to the west. It was originally topped by Renaissance trend begun by Fioravanti (see Fig.
three domes, with two small domes above the 27.18). The five-domed design follows that of the
chapels flanking the sanctuary, its silhouette Dormition Cathedral, but smaller in scale. Its ele-
enhanced by superimposed gables (kokoshniki) gant exterior is classicizing, with Corinthian capi-
with ogival arches. Through the next century it tals to the pilasters and ornamental half-shells in
was expanded, with a covered terrace forming an the zakomary. Similarly, the Great Bell Tower of
ambulatory, surmounted by independent domed Ivan III was begun by a Milanese architect known
chapels on the gallery level (1562–64), with two as Bon Fryazin (1505–8), its lower portions resem-
new domes added above the western corners of bling a Lombard-style, freestanding campanile—
the naos. In comparison to the Dormition although it was subsequently heightened and ex-
Church, the interior is relatively cramped, limited panded to house twenty-one bells (see Fig. 27.18).
by the famed iconostasis (painted by Theophanes Beginning in 1485, the Kremlin was strength-
the Greek, Prokhor of Gorodets, and Andrei ened with new walls of red brick, following the line
Rublev), which closes off the sanctuary and flank- of the older stone walls, punctuated with projecting
ing chapels. Despite its rank as cathedral, the church towers (Fig. 27.24). The work is credited to a mixed
functioned as a private chapel for the devotions of team of Russian and imported Italian builders, with

the latter directing the construction of the towers. FIGURE 27.20
With fortification of the residential neighborhood Moscow, Kremlin,

Kitay-Gorod to the east, 1536–39, the layout of Cathedral of the
Assumption, plan
Moscow began to resemble that of Smederevo in
and isometric
Serbia, with the citadel at the strategic point of a
section (redrawn
large triangular enclosure, separated internally from after
the residential area by a moat (see Figs. 27.17 and D. Shvidkovsky,
26.33). At the same time, the towers reflect con- Russian Architecture
temporary developments in Italian Renaissance— and the West, 2007)
specifically Lombard—architecture. If we discount
the later decorative extensions, the walls of the
Kremlin would not look out of place in Milan.
At Kolomenskoe, once an imperial estate over-
looking the Moscow River, several churches are
preserved, the most important of which is the
Church of the Ascension, built after 1528 to com-
memorate the birth of Ivan IV and dedicated in
1532 (Fig. 27.25). The plan is without precedent:
a square naos expanded with cruciform arms, set
on an elevated platform. As the church rises, the
upper stage is octagonal, covered by a pyramidal
tent roof, all constructed in brick. Kokoshniki
appear at the transition to octagon, with zakom-
ary at the base of the steeply pitched roof. The
tent roof, or chatior, seen for the first time here,
became a prominent feature in the architecture of
the period of Ivan, but its origins are obscure.
One theory is that the chatior developed out of
indigenous wooden architecture, although no
examples are preserved from this early period
(compare Fig. 27.26).18 Following this line of
thought, the new architectural forms represented
by Kolomenskoe stand in sharp contrast to the
deep. All the same, the architect was certainly
Italian-built cathedrals of the Kremlin and could
aware of the visual impact of traditional Russian
thus mark a conservative, nationalistic backlash
forms, as the application of kokoshniki and zako-
against the foreign influences.
mary attests. Should the chatior fall into the same
Recent scholarship has emphasized the Italian
category? Whatever the case, it would appear that
Renaissance (and even some Gothic) details of
an Italian architect was responsible for the intro-
the Church of the Ascension, however, and docu-
duction of the distinctive form in masonry—one
mentary evidence now indicates that an Italian
that has come to be interpreted as an indigenous
architect, Pietro Annibale, known in Russian as
Russian form.
Petrok Maly, was responsible for its design—the
The most iconic of the Moscow churches is
same architect who had directed the construction
also the most unusual. The Cathedral of St.
of the walls of Kitay-Gorod.19 It clearly demanded
Basil was built by Ivan IV (the Terrible) to com-
a skilled engineer to create the 62-meter-tall
memorate his 1552 victory at Kazan—a critical
building, which required foundations 9 meters
event in Russian history; the church was com-
pleted in 1561 (Fig. 27.27; and see Fig. 0.4).20
18
Faensen and Ivanov, Early Russian Architecture, 437–39.
19
Shvidkovsky, Russian Architecture, 111–21. 20
Shvidkovsky, Russian Architecture, 126–40.

FIGURE 27.21
Moscow, Kremlin, Cathedral of
the Assumption, interior,
looking east (courtesy of
Moscow Architectural Institute
Scientific Library)
FIGURE 27.22
Moscow, Kremlin,
Cathedral of the
Assumption, east
façade, with the
Cathedral of the
Annunciation in
the distance
(author)

FIGURE 27.23
Moscow, Kremlin,
Cathedral of the
Annunciation,
interior, looking
southeast toward
the iconostasis
(Shakko,
Wikimedia
Commons)
FIGURE 27.24
Moscow, Kremlin,
view of the
fortifications from
the Moscow River
(Gerald Carr)

FIGURE 27.25 Kolomenskoe, Church of the Ascension, view from the north (author)

It was originally dedicated to the Intercession of FIGURE 27.26
the Virgin, but it gradually became associated Kondopoga,

with Basil the Blessed, a holy fool whose burial Church of the
Assumption, dated
chapel was added at the end of the sixteenth
1774 (Happykg,
century. The original church actually consisted
Wikimedia
of nine adjoining chapels raised on an elevated Commons)
platform. Eight chapels around the perimeter
rise to different heights and are topped by pic-
turesquely distinctive onion domes. The central
chapel—that of the Virgin—towers above the
rest and is covered by a pyramidal tent roof,
crowned by a tiny, gilded onion dome. The in-
terior spaces are tall and tower-like, with maxi-
mum visual effect devoted to the exterior. The
onion domes are in fact hollow, formed by
metal sheathing over an armature; on the inte-
rior, the chapels terminate in rather modest
cloister vaults.
In many ways, St. Basil’s resembles a stage set,
and it appropriately became the backdrop for the
civic and religious ceremonies through which
Moscow symbolically expressed its identity. The
main western chapel was dedicated to the Entry
of Christ into Jerusalem, and this became the focus
FIGURE 27.27
Moscow, Cathedral
of St. Basil the
Blessed (Virgin of
the Intercession),
plan and transverse
section (after
H. Faensen and
V. Ivanov, Early
Russian
Architecture, 1975)

FIGURE 27.28 of a special ceremony on Palm Sunday: conducted
Moscow, Donskoy by the tzar, the patriarch rode a donkey at the
Monastery, Old head of a procession that ceremonially recreated
Cathedral, view
Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. Through such cere-
(author)
monies, the church—and subsequently Moscow—
became associated with Jerusalem.
One of the lingering questions in the develop-
ment of Russian architecture is the appearance of
the distinctive onion dome: does it have a special
meaning or function? Most of the churches just
discussed were constructed without them, only
to have them added in later remodelings. Those
at St Basil’s are obviously integral to its inception.
One suggestion is they are functional, diverting
snowfall from the roof. Another hypothesis is
they reflect the form of the canopy above the
Tomb of Christ in the Holy Sepulchre. Perhaps
the most compelling suggestion is an indebted-
ness to Islamic forms, adopted as a triumphalist
motif after the Battle of Kazan, which brought
significant Mongol territory under Russian
FIGURE 27.29
Istra, Monastery of the New Jerusalem,
Cathedral of the Resurrection, plan and
section (after H. Faensen and V. Ivanov,
Early Russian Architecture, 1975)

FIGURE 27.30 Lake Onega, Kizhi Island, Church of the Transfiguration, view from the south (J. Stubbs, courtesy World
Monuments Fund)

FIGURE 27.31
Lake Onega, Kizhi
Island, Church
of the
Transfiguration,
plan and section
(after H. Faensen
and V. Ivanov,
Early Russian
Architecture, 1975,
with the author’s
modifications)
control.21 Whatever their original meaning, they Boris Godunov repelled a Tatar attack, aided by
quickly became popular and took on a symbol- the miraculous icon of the Virgin of the Don
ism of their own, their shape compared to the (Fig. 27.28). The Old Cathedral, constructed in
flame of a candle, as a beacon of Orthodoxy. 1591–93, is relatively simple in plan, but its roof is
Not all churches in Moscow resemble St. Basil’s. composed of a series of zakomary, organized py-
The Renaissance rethinking of Byzantine forms at ramidally to culminate in an onion dome raised
the Dormition Cathedral found a notable follow- above a tall drum. As in many examples, the dra-
ing, as, for example, at the Cathedral of the matic exterior impression contrasts with a rela-
Dormition in the monastery of the Trinity and St. tively conservative interior.
Sergius at Zagorsk (1559–85), which copies its Russia’s debt to the Mediterranean past is also
namesake almost exactly, including the modular, evident in the Monastery of the New Jerusalem at
twelve-bayed plan, with five domes and five apses. Istra, near Moscow, begun in 1656 by Patriarch
Built under Ivan IV, the repetition of forms was Nikon (Fig. 27.29).22 A scale copy of the Church
intended to represent the power and royal associ- of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, translated
ations of the monastery. Constructed almost si- into a picturesque Russian vernacular, it appears
multaneously with St. Basil’s and by the same considerably more spectacular than its prototype.
patron, the church reflects the stylistic diversity At the same time, the monastery is painstakingly
possible in Russian architecture. Another stylistic accurate in following the Jerusalem building,
alternative is provided by the Donskoy Monastery, based on plans and models. Built to the same
founded in 1591 on the site where the future tzar scale in plan as the original, it rose considerably
Shvidkovsky, Russian Architecture, 128, with additional notes to

21 22
Shvidkovsky, Russian Architecture, 169–73; R. G. Ousterhout,
works (in Russian) by Brunov, Il’yin, Batalov, Vyachanina, and “Building the New Jerusalem,” in Jerozolima w kulturze europejskiej,
Bondarenko. eds. P. Paszkiewicza and T. Zadroznego (Warsaw, 1997), 143–54.

taller, with a great conical vault towering above dominated by the repetition of domes and ko-
the Rotunda, over 60 meters high. Criticized in kohsniki, all of wood and roofed with shingles.
his day for his presumption, Nikon’s contempo- While indicative of the preoccupation with deco-
raries viewed his building more as a hijacking of rative forms, the connection with the interior has
the sacred than as a conceptualization of it. been completely lost: the twenty-two domes are
With the majority of the Russian churches, the simply attachments to the superstructure. The
exterior was elaborated while the interior remained interior is a simple octagon extended with cross
relatively simple, as necessitated by Orthodox arms, covered by a flat ceiling, barely one third the
ritual. An extreme example of this tendency may total height, with the sanctuary visually blocked
be seen in the Church of the Transfiguration on by an iconostasis that extends to the ceiling. In
Kizhi Island (Lake Onega), built in 1714 and short, the church represents a complete departure
one of the oldest surviving wooden churches from the original Byzantine concept: at the core is
(Figs. 27.30 and 27.31).23 Here the exterior is the dome, whose meaning as a signifier of sacred
space might be similar, but its formal and archi-
23
Faensen and Ivanov, Early Russian Architecture, 505–11. tectural significance has been lost.

EPILOGUE
AN ENDURING LEGACY
T oday we tend to think of Byzantine archi-

tecture as church architecture and thus, for
better or worse, associated with the Orthodox
eclectic postmodern style; the Blue Guide describes
it as a “Minoan–Classical–Byzantine folly.”3 Its
interior decoration was just as original—so much
Christian religious world. In Greece, virtually every so that Greek Orthodox officials deemed it a bit too
village church follows a Byzantine model, small pagan and had it repainted. The church rarely
and domed, like the picture-perfect examples functions for the liturgy and remains more
from the Greek islands that grace so many interesting to tourists than useful to locals.
postcards and calendars (Fig. 28.1). In the middle In the Balkans, with the establishment and re-
of the twentieth century, the prolific Byzantinist assertion of national identities, a neo-Byzantine
Anastasios Orlandos designed a variety of style was developed in the early twentieth century
Byzantinizing churches around Greece, setting a and still persists.4 At Sofia, the Cathedral of
standard that other church builders have followed.1 Alexander Nevsky was completed in 1912 as
However picturesque, none of these is great Bulgaria sought a national identity. More recently,
architecture and none is particularly original, for the completion of the Church of St. Sava in
traditional religions rarely encourage architectural Belgrade (1935–2018) corresponds to the rise of
experimentation. As a bearer of meaning, the Serbian nationalism. Both are interesting as his-
conservative form of the building represents the torical phenomena, distinguished by their scale—
solid tradition of the faith. Thus, architectural St. Sava rises 70 meters tall—although neither
deviations might suggest theological error. This constitutes a significant work of architecture.
may be the reason the Church of St. Fotini near
Mantinea in the central Peloponnese, built 1970–
72 by Costas Papatheodorou, upsets many Greeks 3
R. Barber, Blue Guide: Greece, 5th ed. (New York–London,
(Fig. 28.2).2 It is spectacularly original, in an 1987), 322.
4
B. Pantelić, “L’église de Saint Savas à Belgrade,” Études Balkaniques
1
See A. Petronotis, “Ho architekton Anastasios Orlandos,” in 12 (2005), 181–86; B. Pantelić, “Designing Identities: Reshaping
Anastasios Orlandos: Ho athropos kai to ergo tou (Athens, 1978), 265–392. the Balkans in the First Two Centuries: The Case of Serbia,”
2
P. Sarantakis, Agia Foteine Archaias Mantineias (Athens, 2010). Journal of Design History 20 (2007), 131–44.
Design by Santiago Calatrava for St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at the World Trade Center (courtesy
Santiago Calatrava LLC, Zurich)
705
figure 28.1
Oia, Santorini,
view of post-
Byzantine
churches
(author)
figure 28.2
Mantinea,
St. Fotini, view
from the southeast
(author)

FIGURE 28.3
Ronchamps, Notre Dame du
Haut, view of the windowed
façade (Wladyslav, Wikipedia
Creative Commons)
One is left to wonder if a work of architecture le Corbusier seems to have been influenced by the
could be both neo-Byzantine and original with- outward appearance of the Panagia Chozoviotissa
out being heretical. Similarly, the development of Monastery on the island of Amorgos, which he vis-
a regional Russian Orthodox idiom inspired a ited during his eastern travels in 1933 (Figs. 28.3
variety of exotic constructions—at least exotic in and 28.4).7 Built into a cliff face and expanded
their unusual locations. For example, on Hokkaido during the post-Byzantine centuries, the white-
Island in Japan, the Hakodate Khristos was con- washed outer wall is punctured by an irregular
structed in 1916 by Izo Kawamura in a purely array of windows. The façade was imitated at
Russian style.5 In Chicago, the Russian Orthodox Ronchamps, but with the windows opening into
Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, built in 1903 by the central space of the nave rather than individ-
Louis Sullivan, stands as perhaps the most unusual ual monastic cells, creating a unique lighting
of the great architect’s designs, based on a Siberian effect for the interior. While following a historical
wooden church, which he had seen in a book model, Ronchamps is definitely not a typical neo-
about the Trans-Siberian Railway.6 Byzantine church, but then, the Chozoviotissa is
As Sullivan’s church suggests, even the modern not a typical Byzantine monastery.
movement has occasional Byzantine moments: at Unlike the new churches in Greece, designed
Notre Dame du Haut in Ronchamps (1950–55), to foster community, following a Middle or Late
Byzantine prototype, in the United States, Greek
5
B. Bognar, Architectural Guide Japan (Berlin, 2013), 52. Americans seem to prefer grand, imperial ges-
6
A. Bezkorovainy, A History of the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox tures, with Hagia Sophia as the inevitable model.
Cathedral of Chicago: 1892–1992 (Chicago, 1992), esp. 132; Even Frank Lloyd Wright seems unable to move
A. I. Dmitriev-Mamonov, ed., Guide to the Great Siberian Railway beyond what one scholar has termed “the tyranny
(St. Petersburg, 1900), photograph p. 207: St. Michael at
Tatarskaya, built 1897. 7
E. Stoller, The Chapel at Ronchamps (New York, 1999).
EPILOGUE: AN ENDURING LEGACY 707

FIGURE 28.4
Amorgos,
Chozoviotissa
Monastery, view
(Giorgio Martino,
Wikimedia
Commons)
of Hagia Sophia.”8 At Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, in buttresses at its entrance.10 It functioned only

the Church of the Annunciation, built in 1956– briefly as a Greek Orthodox church. With the chang-
61, the interior is spanned by an enormous sau- ing demographics in Chicago, most of the Greek
cer-shaped dome (Fig. 28.5). Developed according Americans moved to the north side of the city and
to an “organic” design with modern materials, it were replaced by African Americans. In 1971 the
is simply antithetical to Orthodox devotional building was sold to the Nation of Islam, a nonor-
practices, as well as to its meaning, and the con- thodox Muslim community, and it now functions
gregants continue to grumble that the interior is as a mosque, known as Mosque Maryam—its cross
too open, too exposed, too Unitarian—there is replaced with a crescent and its frescoes removed.
no mystery. The church stands as testament to The image of the Pantokrator in the dome, in fact,
the creative genius of its architect, who saw the was replaced with calligraphy of the same verses
building “not as a copy of Byzantine architecture— that appear in the dome of the Ayasofya Camii
but better than a copy.”9 For Wright, the spatial (Hagia Sophia) in Istanbul.
syntax seems to outweigh all else. All too often, the Byzantine form and style have
Another curious example, the Church of Sts. taken on a political context. One of the latest addi-
Constantine and Helen on the south side of tions to the Moscow skyline is the Cathedral of
Chicago, begun in 1946 by Christopher Chamales, Christ the Savior, originally built to commemorate
also adheres to the tyranny of Hagia Sophia, even the Russian victory over the French in the War of
to include the monumental but structurally pointless 1812 and set prominently on the bank of the Moscow
River (Fig. 28.6). Envisioned under Nicholas I and
given an importance similar to that of St. Peter’s in
8
Anthony Cutler, “The Tyranny of Hagia Sophia: Notes on Rome, the immense church was constructed by the
Greek Orthodox Church Design in the United States,” Journal of architect Konstantin Ton in a so-called Byzantino-
the Society of Architectural Historians 31 (1972), 38–50.
9
Robert Nelson, Hagia Sophia 1850–1950: Holy Wisdom, Modern
Monument (Chicago, 2004), 204–208. 10
Nelson, Hagia Sophia, 197–203.

FIGURE 28.5
Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin, Church
of the
Annunciation,
view (Robert
Nelson)
Russian style. According to Ton, “Our religious ar- the subtlety of the earlier monuments, it is clear
chitecture is the result of a Byzantine style accli- that Russia still believes in grand architectural
mated to our national spirit.” Rising 103 meters gestures.
high, the main dome was 25.5 meters in diameter, So, too, does the United States, as the many
and the entire building covered 6,800 square meters, mini Hagia Sophias amply demonstrate. One final
completed only in 1883.11 example is noteworthy. Virtually unknown and
Strongly associated with the Romanov dy- undistinguished before its destruction on 11
nasty, the gigantic and prominent church was a September 2001, the Church of St. Nicholas at the
sore point in the Soviet era. It was eventually World Trade Center in New York City had been
dynamited on the orders of Stalin in 1931 to repurposed from a modest residence-turned-tavern
make way for an even more immense Palace of in 1919. Its replacement (still under construction
the Soviets, a huge skyscraper topped by a colos- in 2018) was entrusted to the Spanish architect
sal statue of Lenin. Plagued by groundwater, fi- Santiago Calatrava, whose domed design is obvi-
nancial depression, and World War II, Stalin’s ously based on Hagia Sophia—perhaps the most
project never progressed beyond the founda- iconic design ever produced by the famously icon-
tions, which were eventually turned into the oclastic architect (Fig. 28.7).12 Now considerably
world’s largest swimming pool. With the demise larger than its predecessor and in a more promi-
of the Soviet Union, the reconstruction of Christ nent position in the new Liberty Park, the church
the Savior was undertaken at great expense, prima- has been reborn as the St. Nicholas Greek
rily for ideological purposes. From 1995 through Orthodox Church and National Shrine. Thanks to
2000, construction workers labored around the an unforgettable disaster and the involvement of a
clock, and progress was reported nightly on the signature architect, the once modest St. Nicholas
television news. Although the building may lack has been catapulted onto the world stage.
11
See, among others, E. V. Haskins, “Russia’s Postcommunist Past: 12
A project plagued by bureaucracy and financial shortfall; see
The Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the Reimagining of S. Otterman, “Work Stops on St. Nicholas Shrine at World Trade
National Identity,” History and Memory 21 (2009): 25–62. Center Site,” New York Times (26 December 2017).

FIGURE 28.6
Moscow, Cathedral
of Christ the
Savior, as rebuilt
1994–2000 (author)
Throughout the Ottoman Empire, Sinan and of the Ottoman past through bland reproductions
other architects cut their teeth on Byzantine ar- of Sinan’s masterpieces, while the connection with
chitecture, at least in terms of their formal vocab- the distant past—indeed, the Ottoman competi-
ulary. But rather than a symbolic form, as it had been tive discourse with the Byzantine past—seems to
for the Byzantines or the Russians, the Ottoman have been forgotten (Fig. 28.8). As with the
dome became a generative element in a new spa- Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the Byzantine con-
tial syntax. For many buildings and complexes, tributions have been sidelined in the service of na-
the domed bay was a modular unit (much as it tional and religious identity.
had been in the sixth century), repeated seem-
ingly endlessly and at a variety of scales (see Fig. ,
27.10).13 In some instances, notably the great sul-
tanic mosques, the dome could represent power, As I walk home each day in West Philadelphia,
prestige, or even some sort of cosmic symbolism, I pass St. Frances de Sales, a Roman Catholic
but over time, it gradually lost specificity of mean- church dedicated to a Savoyard saint, built in
ing. Like the bizarrely oversized Çamlıca Republic 1907 to serve an immigrant Irish community,
Mosque, still under construction in 2018, with its modeled after Justinian’s Hagia Sophia (Fig.
central dome 34 meters in diameter (a reference to 28.9).14 At that time, the Roman Catholic Church
the license plate number of Istanbul, but also, sig- was seeking stylistic alternatives to the Gothic,
nificantly, several meters larger than Hagia Sophia’s and some felt that the Byzantine style might
dome), new Turkish mosques refer to the greatness better represent the spiritual values of the early
13
D. Kuban, “The Style of Sinan’s Domed Structures,” Muqarnas 4 14
Henry D. Dagit, “Roman Catholic Church: The Church of St.
(1987): 72–97. Francis de Sales, Philadelphia, PA,” Architectural Record 29 (1911): 233.

figure 28.7 Design by Santiago Calatrava for St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church at the World Trade Center
(courtesy Santiago Calatrava LLC, Zurich)

FIGURE 28.8
Çamlıca (Istanbul),
Republic Mosque nearing
completion (Sibel Horada)
FIGURE 28.9 Philadelphia, Church of

St. Francis de Sales, interior, looking
south (author)

church than the ubiquitous Gothic. Like Hagia Romanesque or Gothic styles,16 St. Francis regu-
Sophia, it was a grand experiment, using light- larly reminds me of the enduring legacy of Eastern
weight Guastavino tiles for the large vault con- medieval architecture, far beyond the bounds of
struction15—and like Hagia Sophia, it was plagued Byzantium and far beyond the confines of Ortho-
by structural problems. A one-off for the archi- doxy. In the preceding pages, I hope to have con-
tect Henry Dagit, whose other churches were in vinced the reader of the same.
15
J. A. Ochsendorf, Guastavino Vaulting: The Art of Structural Tile Nevertheless, it was singled out in his obituary as the architect’s
16
(New York, 2013). major achievement: New York Times (26 March 1929).

GLOSSARY
Acanthus: Variety of thistle, whose leaves Annular: Curved in plan; used to describe a
were commonly imitated in architectural barrel vault or crypt
ornament, notably in the Corinthian capital Antiphon: Psalm or verse sung responsively as
Acropolis: Literally “high city”; a fortified part of the liturgy
citadel, used as a toponym for the sanctuary Apodyterium: Dressing room in a Roman bath
of Athena at Athens Apologia: Explanation or justification (not an
ad Sanctos: Burial in close proximity to that of apology)
a saint or a holy site Apotheosis: Deification, elevation of a human
Aedicula: Miniature building or architectural to divine status
frame; often a niche marked by columns and Apse: Semicircular recess, usually terminating
a pediment the longitudinal axis of a church, containing
Agora: Marketplace the altar
Aisled tetraconch: Centralized building with Apsidiole: Small apse
a four-lobed plan, with the central space Arcade: Row of arches
framed by an ambulatory Arch: Curved vertical structure spanning an
Altar: Table used as the setting for the opening
Eucharist Architekton: In Late Antiquity, an architect with
Ambo: Pulpit a technical (but not theoretical) education
Ambulatory: Curved aisle Architrave: Lintel or horizontal element
Ambulatory-plan church: Centrally planned supported by columns of piers; lowest
church with the central space enveloped by a element of the entablature
curved aisle Archivolt: Molding surrounding an arched
Amphora/ae: Ceramic vessel used for storage opening
and transportation Archon/archontes: Magistrate
Ampulla/ae: Flask, often a container for sacred Arcosolium/arcosolia: Arched niche
matter containing a tomb or sarcophagus
Anaphora: Eucharistic prayer, accompanying Arcuated: Composed of arches
the offering of the bread and wine Area/areae: Above-ground cemetery
Anastasis: Resurrection; toponym for the Arris/arrises: The sharp edge where two
rotunda at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem surfaces meet, as on a fluted column shaft
714
Arrowslit: Narrow vertical opening in a Buttress: Projecting mass of masonry to
fortification used by archers strengthen a wall; see also Flying buttress
Artopolia: Bakers’ quarters Caldarium: Hot room in a Roman bath
Ascetic: One who practices severe self- Calvary (Golgotha): The site, enshrined
discipline characterized by abstinence within the church of the Holy Sepulchre,
Ashlar: Cut-stone masonry marking the Crucifixion
“Athonite-type” church: Domed church with Cami/camii: Congregational mosque
a triconch plan, common on Mount Athos (pronounced jah-mee)
Atrium/atria: Forecourt of a church, usually Capital: The uppermost part of a column,
enveloped by porticoes marking the transition from round (the shaft
Atrophied Greek-cross type: Centrally beneath it) to square (the lintel above it)
planned church with the dome braced by Capitolium: As on the Capitoline Hill in
arches or narrow barrel vaults on four sides Rome, a temple dedicated to Jupiter, or to the
Aula: Ceremonial hall Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva
Ayvan: In Islamic architecture, a barrel-vaulted Caravansaray/caravanserai: In the Islamic
hall or space, open on one side world, a roadside inn, for the protection of
Bacino/bacini: Glazed ceramic bowl, often travelers, usually along major commercial
used as mural decoration routes
Baldachin, baldacchino: A canopy raised Cardo: In Roman planning, the north–south
above an altar, throne, or tomb street; see Decumanus
Banded barrel vault: Barrel vault reinforced Castrum/kastron: Roman military camp, a
by arches rectangular fortified enclosure
Baptistery: Building or room containing a font Catacomb: Underground cemetery
for Christian initiation Catechumen: An initiate or convert to
Barrel vault: Simple, continuous vault, usually Christianity, not yet baptized
semicircular in section Cathedra: Throne of a bishop
Basilica: Assembly room; the commonest Cathedral: The major church of a district, the
church type, usually composed of a seat of the bishop
longitudinal nave flanked by side aisles Cemetery basilica: In Late Antiquity, a
Bay: A compartment of space, often repeated, basilica outside the walls of a city, often part
in an interior of a larger cemetery, used for burials and
Belfry: Tower housing a bell or bells communal meals honoring the dead, as well
Bema: The chancel or sanctuary of a church, as irregular liturgies
containing the altar; see also Syrian bema Cenotaph: Empty tomb or a monument to
Beylerbey: Title of a high-ranking official in someone buried elsewhere
the Islamic world Centering: Temporary wooden framework to
Beylik: In Turkish, a polity ruled by a bey support an arch or vault during construction;
(chieftain) also called formwork
Bifore/bifora: A window with two parallel Chalcedonian Christianity: Denominations
openings divided by a mullion or colonnette adhering to the Christological definitions
Bishop: Administrator of a district (or established at the Ecumenical Council of
bishopric) within the Christian church Chalcedon in 451
Blind arcade: Arches applied to a wall as Chalke Gate: Bronze Gate, the main entrance
decoration to the Great Palace in Constantinople
Book of the Eparch: Collection of regulations Chamfer: Sloping surface at an edge or corner
governing the guilds of Constantinople, Chancel: See Bema
probably tenth century in origin Chancel barrier: Partition separating the
Boss: Ornamental knob on a vault sanctuary from the main body of the church;
Bouleterion: Council house; in ancient templon
Greece, where the council of citizens met Charakteres: Illegible, magical symbols
GLOSSARY 715
Chatior/shatior: In Russian architecture, Corinthian capital: Capital based on stylized
a tent-shaped roof, common in wooden acanthus leaves, with small volutes at the
architecture corners
Chi–Rho monogram: A Christian symbol Cornice: Horizontal molding, often marking
composed of the first two letters of Christ’s the springing of vaults or the upper
name in Greek termination of a wall
Choros/choroi: Literally “choir,” the lateral Crocket capital: In Gothic architecture,
apse of an Athonite church ornamental hook-like spurs replace the stylized
Ciborium: See Baldachin acanthus leaves of the Corinthian Order
Circus/Hippodrome: Course for horse or Cross arm: Bay flanking the central, domed
chariot racing, framed by stepped seating bay in a church
Cistern: Utilitarian space, either open or Cross-domed unit: Structural unit in which
enclosed, for the storage of water the central domed bay is braced on four sides
Citadel: Fortress on high ground, often by vaults
protecting a city Cross-domed church/cross-domed basilica:
Clerestory: Upper wall area, usually where the A church with a cross-domed unit at its core
nave rises above adjacent aisles, opened by Crossing: Bay where the nave and transept of a
windows church intersect
Cloisonné masonry: Masonry style in which Cross-in-square church type: Church with
ashlar blocks are framed by bricks placed a nine-bayed nave, the central dome braced
horizontally and vertically by tall, vaulted cross arms, with lower
Cloister: Courtyard of a monastery vaults above the corner bays; sometimes
Cloister vault: Vault rising from a square or confusingly termed a quincunx
polygonal base, curved in section, but not in Crypt: Vaulted space beneath a church, often
plan housing relics or burials
Coenobium/cenobium: Monastery organized Cubiculum/cubicula: In the catacombs, a
for a communal lifestyle small room for private or family burials,
Colonnade: Row of columns often framed by arcosolia
Colonnette: Small column Curtain wall: Thin, non-load-bearing wall
Column: Cylindrical support, commonly Dado: Lower part of a wall, decorated
consisting of a base, shaft, and capital differently from the upper
Composite capital: In Roman and Late Decumanus: In Roman orthogonal city
Antique architecture, a capital composed planning, an east–west street; see Cardo
of the stylized acanthus leaves of the Deesis: Literally “entreaty”; image of Christ
Corinthian Order and the volutes of the flanked by the Theotokos and John the
Ionic Order Baptist in supplication
Compound pier: Pier with columns, shafts, or Dendrochronology: Science of determining
pilasters attached to its faces dates of wood based on the pattern of tree-
Conch: Half-dome or quarter-sphere vault, ring growth
usually the covering of an apse or exedra Despotes: Literally “lord” or “master”; a title
Confessio: Underground chamber sheltering a applied to the emperor; also to the patriarch
relic beneath or near the altar of a church or bishops
Consecratio: In Rome, the ceremony marking Diakonikon: Sacristy, often attached to the
the apotheosis of an emperor bema
Console: Ornamental bracket Diaphragm arch: Transverse arch spanning a
Corbel: Masonry block projecting from a wall nave or aisle, dividing the roof into sections
to support something above it Dies natalis: Birthday or anniversary
Corbel table frieze: A decorative arcade Diophysite: One who maintains the
supported on corbels, usually the upper Chalcedonian doctrine that Christ has two
termination of a wall natures, divine and human

Dodekaorton: Twelve major feasts of the Fenestration: System of windows
Orthodox liturgical calendar: Annunciation, Feudalism: Medieval system of social
Nativity, Epiphany, Presentation in the structuring based on landholding
Temple, Transfiguration, Entrance into Flying buttress: Buttress with flyers (arches or
Jerusalem, Resurrection of Lazarus, half-arches) connecting to the wall it supports
Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, Font: Basin, often that used for baptism
Dormition of the Theotokos, Pentecost Formwork: See Centering
Dogtooth cornice: Cornice made of brick set Forum/fora: In Roman architecture, a public
at a 45-degree angle to the wall surface space surrounded by civic buildings and
Dome: Hemispherical vault colonnades
Domed basilica: Vaulted church type that Four-column church: See Cross-in-square
maintains an elongated nave, covered in part church type
by a dome Free-cross plan: Church with a cruciform
Domical vault: Vault with a high center, based naos, whose form is expressed on the exterior
on spherical geometry Fresco: Painting on plaster
Domus: House or housing block Frieze: Continuous band of decoration
Domus ecclesiae: House church Frigidarium: Cold room in a Roman bath
Donjon: Inner tower or keep of a medieval Frourion: Fortress
castle Furta sacra: Holy theft, the stealing of a saint’s
Dovecote: Pigeon house, room(s) lined with relics
niches (pigeonholes) for birds to roost Gable: Triangular area immediately below the
Drum: Cylindrical structure on which a dome roof; also called a pediment
is raised Gadroon: Pillow-shaped voussoir
Ecclesia/ekklesia: In ancient Greece, a Gallery: Upper level in a church, above the
political assembly; in Christian terms, the side aisles and narthex; also sometimes called
congregation Katechoumena of Gynaikeion
Ekphrasis/ekphraseis: Evocative writing, Gavit/zamatun: In Armenian architecture, the
often in the form of a description of a work multipurpose forehall of a church
of art or architecture Gesamtkunstwerk: Literally a “total work of
Elbow column: In Crusader architecture, a art,” one that engages many different art
truncated column shaft forms a bracket, forms simultaneously
supporting a capital, beneath the vaulting Glacis: Sloping surface below a fortification
Enkainia: Foundation ceremony for a church wall
Entablature: Superstructure supported by Greek cross: Cross with equal arms
columns, usually with an architrave, frieze, Groin vault, or cross vault: Vault formed by
and cornice the intersection of two barrel vaults
Epistyle: See Architrave Hagiasma: Spring of holy water
Ergasterion: Workshop Haunch: Sides of an arch, distinguished from
Ergates: Untrained worker the crown
Ergolabos: Building supervisor Hegoumenos: Abbot, head of a monastery
Esplanade: Large, open platform, often paved Hemicycle: Annular corridor or portico
Eucharist: Communion service, in which Hemisphaeron: Literally “hemisphere,” an
consecrated bread and wine are consumed enigmatic term used for the apse conch in
Eukterion: Chapel the basilica at Constantine’s Holy Sepulchre
Exedra: Colonnaded niche Church in Jerusalem
Exonarthex: See Narthex Hermit: One who lives in solitude, usually for
Exo teichos: Outer wall in a fortification system religious reasons
Extrados: Outer (upper) surface of an arch or Hermitage: Dwelling of a hermit
vault Heroon/heroa: Shrine to a hero
Fastigium: Colonnaded screen, often gabled Hieron: Sacred place, a sanctuary or temple
GLOSSARY 717
Hippodrome: See Circus Koine: Common shared language, a lingua
Horreum/horrea: Warehouse franca; the form of Greek used during the
Horseshoe arch: Arch greater than Hellenistic and Roman periods
semicircular in form Koinobion/-a, cenobite: Member of a religious
Hypatos: Low-level Byzantine court title order, following as communal rule
Hypocaust: Hollow space below the floor of a Kokoshniki: In Russian architecture,
Roman bath, through which hot air flows for decorative overlapping gables
radiant heating Kremlin: Fortress, in Russian; used as the
Hypogeum/hypogea: Underground tomb toponym for the religious and administrative
chamber center of Moscow
Icon: Literally “image,” usually refers to a Ktetor: Founder or patron, in Greek
religious image used for devotional purposes Külliye: In Ottoman architecture, a complex
Iconoclasm: Active rejection of destruction of buildings centered on a mosque
of images for political or religious reasons; Latin cross: Cross with three equal arms and
those who destroy images are iconoclasts, one long arm
as opposed iconophiles, who love icons or Laura or lavra: Loosely structured monastic
images cluster of cells (or caves) for hermit monks,
Iconostasis.: Later version of the chancel sharing a common church and often a
barrier or templon, a screen covered with refectory
icons Leptourgos: Carpenter or woodworker, in
Impost block: In Late Antique architecture, Greek
the extra block inserted between the capital Lime mortar: Binding element in construction
and the entablature or arcade above it based on hydrated quicklime combined with
Impost capital: Capital that takes the shape of aggregate
an impost block Limes: Border of frontier; pronounced
Inhabited scroll: Decorative frieze of scrolling “lee-mays”
vegetation, with animals or humans in it Lintel: Horizontal beam spanning an opening
Inscribed cross plan: See Cross-in-square Lite: Expanded monastic narthex; pronounced
church type “lee-tee”
Indiction: Fiscal period of fifteen years Lithoxoos: Stone carver, in Greek
Insula: Roman housing block or apartment Liturgy: Collection of rituals prescribed for
building public worship
Intervallum: Area between two walls in a Loculus/loculi: Small cavity, specifically a
fortification system shelf-like tomb in a catacomb
Intrados: Lower or inner surface of an arch or Locus sanctus/loca sancta: Holy site
vault Lunette: Semicircular high wall beneath a
Ionic capital: Capital characterized by two vault, opened by window(s)
prominent volutes Macellum/macella: Market building
Iwan: See Ayvan Machicolation: Corbelled parapet on the
Jamb: Lateral frame of a door or window exterior of a fortification wall, with openings
Katechoumena: Gallery in the floor, through which objects may be
Kathedra: See Cathedra dropped on attackers
Katholikon: Main church of a monastery Madrasa/medrese: College for Islamic
Kephale: Literally, “head”; title of rotating instruction
ruler in Late Byzantine Mystras Maistor/mastoras: Literally “master”; usually
Khachkar: In Armenian architecture, a stone designates a master builder
cross Majolica: Painted Italian pottery with an
Klimax: Ladder of scaffold, in Greek opaque glaze; see also Protomajolica
Kline/klinae: Couch used for dining Martyr: Literally “witness”; used for those who
Knez: Prince, in Serbian seal their testimony with their blood

Martyrium/martyria: Tomb of a martyr or inner and other narthexes (esonarthex and
site that bears witness to the Christian faith exonarthex)
Mausoleum: Monumental building for burial Nave: Central aisle of a basilica
Meander pattern: Geometrically intricate, Necropolis: City of the dead; a cemetery
rectilinear decorative motif Neophyte: Novice or convert
Mechanikos/mechanikoi or Mechanikopoios/ Niche: Shallow recess
mechanikopoioi: Architect-engineer with a Nomisma/nomismata: Standard gold coin of
broadly based, theoretical education the Byzantine Empire; also Solidus
Mega teichos: Large inner wall in a Nymphaeum/nymphaea: Fountain enclosure,
fortification system usually decorated with columns, niches, and
Mensa: Table used for celebrating mass statues
Mese: Middle Way, the main street of Octaconch: Eight-niched structure
Constantinople Octagon-domed church: Centrally planned
Metochion/metochia: Dependency of a church with a dome supported above eight
monastery points
Miaphysite: One who upholds the united Ogival arch: Pointed arch common to Gothic;
human and divine nature of Christ, in also a decorative, pointed arch, with double
contrast to the Chalcedonian doctrine curves on both sides
Mihrab: Niche in a mosque marking the Oikodomos/oikodomoi: Builder
direction of prayer, toward Mecca Oikos: House or household
Minaret: Tower of a mosque used for the call Oikoumene/ecumene: Inhabited earth
to prayer Onion dome: Onion-shaped hood
Mithraeum: Temple for the worship of the god surmounting the dome in Russian church
Mithras architecture
Monastery: Cluster of buildings housing a Opus africanum: Ashlar wall construction
religious community of monks or nuns, who common in North Africa, with larger
follow a rule of conduct that governs their vertical stones alternating with horizontal
daily life and worship courses of smaller stones
Mortar: Binding element in masonry Opus listatum: Wall construction alternating
construction; see Lime mortar courses of brick and stone; also incorrectly
Mortared rubble: Irregular construction of but commonly called opus mixtum
rough stone and mortar Opus mixtum: Wall construction of “mixed
Mosaic: Decorative surface composed of work,” of opus reticulatum (reticulate
tesserae (squared pieces) of stone or glass stonework) framed by opus latericium
Mosque: Building used for Islamic worship (horizonal brick courses)
Mullion: Vertical element separating the lights Opus sectile: Floor or wall covering of inlaid
in a window marble work, both figural and geometric
Muqarnas: Decorative vault form common Orant: Figure standing with arms raised in a
in Islamic architecture composed of gesture of prayer (orans)
superimposed corbelled niches Oratory: Small, private chapel
Myrobletos/myrobletoi: A saint whose tomb Ossuary: Container for bones of the deceased;
miraculously exudes aromatic oil (myron) sometimes a room of the same purpose
Mystery religion: Popular in Late Palatium: Palace, in Latin
Antiquity, a religion centered on secret rites Palisade: In defensive architecture, a fence of
by the initiates, promising salvation to a upright wooden stakes
select few Palladion/palladium: Ancient cult image
Naos: Church or temple; commonly, the main of Athena, believed to ensure the safety
space of a centrally planned church of Troy; taken by Aeneas to Rome, later
Narthex: Transverse entry vestibule preceding alleged to be in Constantinople, buried
the nave or naos; may be doubled to include beneath the Column of Constantine
GLOSSARY 719
Pan tiles: Flat roofing tiles Pozzolana: Volcanic sand, a critical ingredient
Pantokrator: Christ as ruler of the world in Roman concrete
Parapet: Low, protective wall Praetorian prefect: Important regional, civil
Pastophoria: Chambers flanking the bema in functionary, who acted as a sort of vice emperor
Middle and Late Byzantine churches, the Presbyterium: Place for priests and officiants to sit
prothesis and the diakonikon in the apse of a Late Antique church in Western
Paterikon: Collection of sayings of the Europe, the equivalent of the Synthronon
“fathers”—saints, martyrs, and church leaders Prokonnesos/Proconnesus: Island in the
Patriarch: Male head of a family or tribe; title Sea of Marmara, famous for its quarries of
of the head of the Orthodox Church Prokonnesian (Proconnesian) marble
Patrikios: High-ranking court title Propylon/propylaeum: Entry gate into a
Pendentive: Technically a spherical triangle, sacred precinct or building
used to make the transition from square to Proteichisma: Outer defense wall
circle beneath a dome Prothesis: Chamber used for the preparation
Pendentive dome: Shallow dome in which the of the Eucharist and the storage of
curvature is continuous from the pendentives; Eucharistic vessels
in contrast to a dome on pendentives, where Protomaistor: See Maistor
the two have different curvatures Protomajolica: An early form of Majolica,
Peristyle: Colonnaded courtyard, or a produced in medieval Italy
colonnade surrounding a building Protome: Decorative antefix
Phiale: Fountain with a basin, common to Protosebatos: High court title
monastery courtyards Pseudo-Kufic: Stylized decoration imitating
Pier: Rectangular support an Arabic script
Pilaster: Engaged pier, that is, attached to a Pumpkin dome: Dome composed of fluted
wall segments
Pilgrim: One who travels to visit a sacred site, Putlog: Timber used to attach scaffolding
who goes on a pilgrimage or formwork to a building, often leaving a
Pilier cantonné: Compound pier common to pattern of holes in the wall surface
the Gothic, with four colonnettes attached to Pylon temple: In ancient Egypt, a temple
a large central pier preceded by a monumental gateway
Pillow voussoir: See Gadroon Qibla: In Islam, the direction of prayer, toward
Piscina: Pool or basin used for baptism; see Mecca
Font Quadrant arch: Half-arch, only the quadrant
Pithos/pithoi: Large storage vessel of a circle
Point support: Structural system in which Quadrant vault: Half-barrel vault
the weight of vaulting is adjusted to critical Quadriburgium: In Crusader architecture, a
points, rather than relying on solid walls four-sided fortress
Pointed arch: See Ogival arch Quadrifrons arch: Four-fronted ceremonial arch
Polis: City, in Greek Quincunx: Five-spot pattern on dice; see
Pomerium: Legal boundary of a Roman city Cross-in-square church type
Pope: Bishop of Rome and titular head of the Rampart: Defensive wall with a parapet at its
Catholic Church upper surface
Porphyrogennetos: Literally “born to the Rebated shelf: In the construction of a ribbed
purple”; refers to an imperial child born in groin vault, where the ribs connect to the
the Porphyra, the porphyry-lined chamber of webs of masonry
the imperial palace Recessed brick masonry: System of wall
Porphyry: Hard, purplish stone, known only construction in which alternating courses
from imperial quarries in Upper Egypt, of brick are set back from the surface and
reserved for imperial use covered by mortar; also called the concealed-
Portico: Colonnade or covered ambulatory course technique

Refectory: The dining hall of a monastery; see Stational liturgy: Worship service
also Trapeza incorporating a procession from one church
Refrigerium/refrigeria: In Late Antiquity, to another
a funeral banquet commemorating the Stele/stelae: Upright stone marker
deceased Stilted arch: Arch whose springing is raised
Relics: Mortal remains of holy persons or some distance above the impost
objects sanctified by contact with them Stoa: Covered hall or portico
Respond: Pilaster behind a column String course: Continuous projecting
Revetment: Cladding or facing of marble or horizontal band; a cornice
other luxury stones used to decorate walls Stucco: Plasterwork
and piers Stylite: Ascetic monk who stood atop a pillar
Ribbed dome: Dome articulated by ribs Stylobate: Continuous base of stone, raised
Ribbed vault: Vault articulated by ribs above floor level, on which columns or piers
Romanitas: Romanness, the qualities that rest
define one as Roman Synagogue: Building for Jewish worship; a
Rotunda: Round building, usually domed Jewish assembly or congregation
Sail vault: See Domical vault Synkellos: Adviser to the patriarch
Sanctuary: See Bema Synthronon/synthrona: Benches reserved for
Sarcophagus/sarcophagi: Literally “flesh-eater”; the clergy within the apse of the church
stone coffin used for the burial of the dead Syrian bema: Raised platform at the center of
Scaffolding: Temporary wooden structure to the nave of a Syrian church, with seating for
support workers during construction the clergy; distinct from the bema
Schola cantorum: Enclosure designed for the Taberna/tabernae: Shop, often organized in
choir in early Roman churches series along colonnaded streets
Sebastokrator: Highest court rank, conferred Technites: Skilled worker
on emperors’ sons Temenos: Sacred precinct
Semidome: Half-dome or quarter-sphere Templon: Screen separating the nave or naos
Shaft: Main cylindrical element of a column from the sanctuary; also called chancel
Shed roof: Sloping roof barrier
Sigma: C-shaped (following the Byzantine Tepidarium: Warm room in a Roman bath
sigma = C) Tesserae: Small pieces of squared stone or glass
Sigma table: Table with a rounded end, used used in the fabrication of mosaic
for ceremonial dining Tetraconch: Four-lobed building
Skeuophylakion: Treasury, usually containing Tetrapylon: See Quadrifrons arch
the sacred vessels of a church Tetrarchy: Late Antique system of government
Skeuophylax: Keeper of the vessels, treasurer proclaimed by Diocletian with four rulers,
Solea: In early churches, a closed processional two with the title Augustus, two with the
pathway extending from the templon into title Caesar
the nave Tie beams/tie rods: Wooden or iron
Solidus/solidi: Standard gold coin of the reinforcement spanning an arch in masonry
Byzantine Empire; also Nomisma/nomismata construction
Sol Invictus: Invincible sun, Helios as Titulus/tituli: In Rome, a Christian community
protector of the emperor building; see Domus ecclesiae
Spandrel: Space between the haunches of Theophany: Appearance of the divinity
adjoining arches Theotokos: Literally “God-bearing”; Mother of
Spolia: Materials taken for reuse from older God, a common epithet of the Virgin Mary,
buildings, often decorative, often with as proclaimed in the Council of Ephesus, 431
ideological overtones Thermal window: Semicircular window, like
Squinch: Corbelled arch or half-conical niche those in Roman baths (thermae), filling the
used as a transitional element in vaulting lunette and divided by mullions
GLOSSARY 721
Torus molding: Convex decorative molding Tubi fittili: Hollow ceramic tubes used in
Trabeated: Constructed of horizontal beams; lightweight vaulting
as opposed to arcuated Tufa: Soft, porous limestone
Tracery: Ornamental stone divisions in Tuff: Consolidated volcanic ash; often
windows, common in Gothic architecture erroneously called tufa
Transept: Transverse spatial unit in a basilican Two-column church: Abbreviated version of a
church cross-in-square church type
Transverse arch: Arch set at 90 degrees to Typikon/typika: Foundation document
major axis of building regulating the organization of a monastery
Transverse barrel vault: Barrel vault set at 90 Tzar/tsar: Title assumed by the Russian
degrees to major axis of building emperor in the sixteenth century; also czar,
Trapeza: Literally “table”; a monastic derived from the Byzantine title Caesar
refectory, often featuring a masonry table Vassal: Person or country in a subordinate
and benches position
Tribelon/tribela: Triple-arched opening, Vault: Arched roofing, usually of masonry
usually between the narthex and the nave Verde antico/verde antique: Green Thessalian
Triclia: Arbor or summer house; term used breccia (stone), common in revetments
for open, ceremonial banqueting structures Vita: Literally “life”; the biography of a saint
above the catacombs in Rome Volute: Spiral scroll, as in an Ionic capital
Triclinium: Ceremonial dining hall Votive: Something offered in fulfillment of a vow
Triconch: Three-lobed building Voussoirs: Wedge-shaped components of a
Triumphal arch: In Rome, a monumental masonry arch
arch, constructed as permanent Wadi: Valley
commemoration of a military victory; term Wind-blown capital: Variation of the acanthus
also used for the transverse arch at the east capital, in which the leaves appear to turn
end of the church framing the sanctuary over, as if struck by a sudden gust of wind
Trumpet squinch: Conical squinch Xenodochia: Guesthouse
Tropaion/tropaia: Literally “trophy”; Zakomary: In Russian architecture, a
monument to a deceased hero or martyr semicircular gable finishing a division of the
Truss/trussing: System of triangular wooden façade
rafters to support roofing Zawiya: Islamic religious school; see Madrasa

ABBREVIATIONS
(BASED ON DUMBARTON OAKS)
AB Analecta Bollandiana
ActaIRNorv Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia Institutum Romanum Norvegiae
AH Art History
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AM Athenischen Mitteilungen
AnatSt Anatolian Studies
ArchBME Archeion ton byzantinon mnemeion tes ellados
ArchE Archaiologike ephemeris
ArtB The Art Bulletin
BAR British Archaeological Reports
BByzI Bulletin of the Byzantine Institute
BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
BSA The Annual of the British School at Athens
BTTK Belleten, Türk tarih kurumu
BullMon Bulletin monumental
ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CahArch Cahiers archéologiques
CBCR Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae
CFHB Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae
CorsiRav Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina
DChAE Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Hetaireias
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
ECBA Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture
EEPS Epistimynke Epeteris tes Polytechnikes Scholes
EtBalk Études Balkaniques
GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Review
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUkSt Harvard Ukrainian Studies
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
723
IRAIK Izvestiia Russkogo arkheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantinopole
IstForsch Istanbuler Forschungen
IstMitt Istanbuler Mitteilungen
JbAC Jarhbuch für Antike und Christentum
JDAI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
JEChrSt Journal of Early Christian Studies
JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSAH Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians
JWarb Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
MarbJb Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft
MDAIRA Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung
ÖJh Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien
RACr Rivista di archeologia cristiana
TAPA Transactions [and Proceedings] of the American Philological Association
WJKg Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte
ZKunstg Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte
ZRVI Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
general studies Mango, C. Byzantine Architecture (New York,

Čurčić, S. Architecture in the Balkans from 1974) presents Byzantine architecture from a
Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent (New historical approach, with buildings as
Haven, 2010) is a thoroughly detailed documentary evidence, read in tandem with
assessment of the architecture of the Balkans, texts, more concerned with post-sixth-century
including Greece, Turkish Thrace, and developments.
Constantinople, with thorough Marinis, V. Architecture and Ritual in the
documentation. Churches of Constantinople: Ninth to Fifteenth
Jeffreys, E., et al., eds. Oxford Handbook of Centuries (Cambridge, 2014); while focusing
Byzantine Studies (Oxford, 2008) presents an on the capital, this is the best recent
up-to-date overview of Byzantium and its assessment of the relationship of architecture
institutions. and liturgy.
Krautheimer, R., and S. Ćurčić. Early Christian Ousterhout, R. Master Builders of Byzantium
and Byzantine Architecture, 4th ed. (New (Princeton, 1999) views architecture from the
Haven, 1986) has been the standard perspective of the builders, examining aspects
handbook for generations and is still very of design and technology.
useful for the early centuries; it is less so for
the later centuries, emphasizing a formal research tools
approach, although grounded in archaeology. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, a major scholarly
Lowden, J. Early Christian and Byzantine Art journal, includes thematically organized
(London, 1997) is an excellent overview of listings of recent books and articles in each
Byzantine art, with limited discussion of issue; published twice a year and very
architecture. thorough.
Mango, C. Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Oxford
Sources and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, 1991) provides good, short introductions to a
1972) offers a selection of texts in translation variety of subjects, with basic bibliography.
(most are from Greek) that relate to art and Kleinbauer, W. E. Early Christian and Byzantine
architecture; the texts used here are from pp. Architecture: An Annotated Bibliography and
140–43, 185–86, and 239–40. Historiography (Boston, 1992) includes a
725
synthetic overview of scholarship, combined Oxford Bibliographies on Byzantine Art and
with a thematically arranged annotated Architecture: http://www.
bibliography—both still very useful. oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/
Kalopissi-Verti, S., and M. Panayotidi-Kesisoglu, obo-9780199920105/obo-9780199920105-
eds. Multilingual Illustrated Dictionary of 0042.xml; updated annually.
Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture Guide for Research in Islamic Architecture:
Terminology. Herakleion, 2010. http://guides.hcl.harvard.edu/content.
Etlin, R., ed. Cambridge World History of php?pid=201953&search_terms=islamic
Religious Architecture (in press) has thematic Archnet:
chapters with bibliography. https://archnet.org/; open-access scholarly
Research Guide for Byzantine Art and resource that focuses on the architecture of
Archaeology: https://ica.princeton.edu/ the Muslim world.
reference/brown.htm; provides a very Dumbarton Oaks Resources for Byzantinists:
thorough listing of available hard-copy and http://www.doaks.org/research/byzantine/
online resources. resources

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aboba-Pliska. 2 vols. IRAIK 10. Sofia, 1905. Angold, M. “The Inventory of the So-Called
Adam, J.-P. “La basilique byzantine de Kydna de Palace of Botaniates.” In The Byzantine
Phrygie.” Revue archéologique 1 (1977): 53–78. Aristocracy IX–XIII Centuries, edited by
Adam, J.-P. Roman Building: Materials and M. Angold, 254–66. Oxford, 1984.
Techniques. Bloomington, 1994. Angold, M. “Byzantium in Exile.” In The New
Agathius. The Histories, edited by R. Keydell. Cambridge Medieval History 5: c. 1198–1300,
CFHB 2. Berlin, 1967. edited by D. Abulafia, 543–68.
Ahunbay, Z. “Fortress of Rumeli Hisar, Turkey.” Cambridge, 1999.
In Secular Medieval Architecture in the Ani: Millennial Capital of Armenia. History
Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, ed. Museum of Armenia. Yerevan, 2015.
S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, 166–69. Apollonj Ghetti, B. M., et al. Esplorazioni sotto la
Thessalonike, 1997. confessione di San Pietro in Vaticano.
Akyürek, E., and R. G. Ousterhout. “The Vatican, 1951.
Church of the Transfiguration on Burgazada.” Arubas, B., and R. Talgam. “Jews, Christians,
CahArch 49 (2002): 5–14. and ‘Minim’: Who Really Built and Used the
Alexakis, A., ed., and A.-M. Talbot, trans. “Life Synagogue at Capernaum—A Stirring
of Euthymios the Younger.” In Holy Men of Appraisal.” In Knowledge and Wisdom:
Mount Athos, edited by R. P. H. Greenfield Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honour
and A.-M. Talbot, 84–97. Cambridge, of Leah di Segni, edited by G. C. Bottini,
MA, 2016. L. D. Chrupcala, and J. Patrich, 237–73.
Alpago Novello, A. Art and Architecture in Milan, 2014.
Medieval Georgia. Louvain, 1980. Asgari, N. “Roman and Early Byzantine Marble
Altripp, M. Die Basilika in Byzanz. Berlin, 2013. Quarries of Proconnesus.” In Proceedings of
Anastylose ton byzantinon kai metabyzantinon the 10th International Congress of Classical
mnemeion ste Thessalonike. Thessalonike, 1985. Archaeology, I, 467–80. Ankara, 1978.
Andreescu-Treadgold, I., and W. Treadgold. Asgari, N. “The Proconnesian Production of
“Procopius and the Imperial Panels at San Architectural Elements in Late Antiquity
Vitale.” ArtB 79 (1997): 768–23. Based on Evidence from the Marble
Angold, M. A Byzantine Government in Exile: Quarries.” In Constantinople and Its
Government and Society under the Laskarids of Hinterland, edited by C. Mango and
Nicaea (1204–1261). Oxford, 1975. G. Dagron, 263–88. Aldershot, 1995.

727
Aslanidis, K. “Constantinopolitan Features in Avner, R. “The Recovery of the Kathisma
the Middle Byzantine Architecture of Naxos.” Church and Its Influence on Octagonal
In Architecture of Byzantium and Kievan Rus’ Buildings.” In One Land—Many Cultures:
from the 9th to the 12th Centuries, 21–34. Archaeological Studies in Honor of S. Loffreda,
St. Petersburg, 2010. edited by G. C. Bottini, L. di Segni, and
Asutay-Effenberger, N. Die Landmauer von L. D. Chrupcala, 173–86. Jerusalem, 2003.
Konstantinopel-Istanbul: historisch- Avner, R. “The Kathisma: A Christian and Muslim
topographische und baugeschichtliche Pilgrimage Site.” ARAM 19 (2007): 541–57.
Untersuchungen. Berlin, 2007. Avner, R. “The Dome of the Rock in Light of
Athanasoulis, D. “He anachronologese tou naou the Development of Concentric Martyria in
tes Panagias tes Katholikes ste Gastoune.” Jerusalem: Architecture and Architectural
DChAE 24 (2003): 63–78. Iconography.” Muqarnas 27 (2011): 31–50.
Athanasoulis, D. “Corinth.” In Heaven & Earth: Babić, G. Les chapelles annexes des églises
Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, byzantines: Fonction liturgique et programmes
edited by J. Albani and E. Chalkia, 192–209. iconographiques. Paris, 1969.
Athens, 2013. Bakalova, E., ed. The Ossuary of the Bachkovo
Athanasoulis, D. “The Triangle of Power: Monastery. Plovdiv, 2003.
Building Projects in the Metropolitan Area of Bakirtzis, Ch. “Neoteres paratiriseis sten
the Crusader Principality of the Morea.” In ktetorike epigrafe tou troullou tes Agias Sofias
Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Thessalonikis.” Byzantina 11 (1982): 167–80.
Late Medieval Peloponnese, edited by Bakirtzis, Ch. “Western Thrace in the Early
S. Gerstel, 111–51. Washington, DC, 2013. Christian and Byzantine Periods: Results of
Athanasoulis, D. “Some Notes on the Impact of Archaeological Research and Prospects,
Constantinople on the Architecture of the 1973–1987.” Byz 14 (1989): 41–58.
Aegean and the Peloponnese.” In Proceedings Bakirtzis, Ch. “Byzantine Ampullae from
of the Symposium on City Ports from the Aegean Thessaloniki.” In Blessings of Pilgrimage,
to the Black Sea: Medieval–Modern Networks, edited by R. G. Ousterhout, 140–49.
edited by F. Karagianni and U. Kocabaş, Urbana, 1990.
163–76. Istanbul, 2015. Bakirtzis, Ch. “The Urban Continuity and Size
Atiya, A. S. The Coptic Encyclopedia. 8 vols. New of Late Byzantine Thessalonike.” DOP 57
York, 1991. (2003): 35–64.
Aubert, M. “Les plus anciennes croisées d’ogives: Bakirtzis, Ch. “Late Antiquity and Christianity
leur role dans la construction.” BullMon 93 in Thessalonikē: Aspects of a
(1934): 5–67 and 137–237. Transformation.” In From Roman to Early
Augenti, A. “The Palace of Theoderic at Christian Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and
Ravenna: A New Analysis of the Complex.” Archaeology, edited by L. Nasrallah, Ch.
In Housing in Late Antiquity: From Palaces to Bakirtzis, and S. J. Friesen, 397–426.
Shops, edited by L. Lavan, L. Özgenel, and Cambridge, 2010.
A. Sarantis, 425–54. Leiden, 2007. Baldovin, J. Urban Character of Christian
Auld, S., ed. Ayyubid Jerusalem: The Holy City in Worship: The Origins, Development, and
Context 1187–1250. London, 2009. Meaning of Stational Liturgy. Rome, 1987.
Avigad, N. “A Building Inscription of the Ballance, S. “The Byzantine Churches of
Emperor Justinian and the Nea in Jerusalem Trebizond.” AnatSt 10 (1960): 141–75.
(Preliminary Note).” IEJ, 27, no. 2/3 (1977): Balş, G. Bisericile lui Ștefan cel Mare. Bucharest,
145–51. 1926.
Avigad, N. “The Nea: Justinian’s Church of St. Balty, J. C. “Le groupe épiscopal d’Apamée, dit
Mary, Mother of God, Discovered in the Old ‘cathédrale de l’est’—premières recherches.”
City of Jerusalem.” In Ancient Churches In Apamée de Syrie. Bilan des recherches
Revealed, edited by Y. Tsafrir, 128–35. archéologiques 1969–1971, edited by J. Balty
Jerusalem, 1993. and J. C. Balty, 187–205. Brussels, 1972.

Banterle, G., et al., eds. Opera omnia di Basile, F. Chiese siciliane del periodo normanno.
sant’Ambrogio. Inni, iscrizioni, frammenti. Rome, 1938.
Milan, 1994. Bassett, S. The Urban Image of Late Antique
Barber, C. “The Imperial Panels at San Vitale: A Constantinople. Cambridge, 2004.
Reconsideration.” BMGS 14 (1990): 19–43. Bassett, S. “Style and Meaning in the Imperial
Barber, R. Blue Guide: Greece. 5th ed. New Panels at San Vitale.” Artibus et Historiae 29,
York–London, 1987. no. 57 (2008): 49–57.
Bardill, J. “The Palace of Lausus and Nearby Bauer, F. A. Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der
Monuments in Constantinople: Spätantike. Mainz, 1996.
A Topographical Study.” AJA 101 (1997): Bauer, F. A. Eine Stadt und Ihr Patron:
67–95. Thessaloniki und der Heilige Demetrios.
Bardill, J. “The Great Palace of the Byzantine Regensburg, 2013.
Emperors and the Walker Trust Excavations.” Bauer, F. A., and H. Klein. “The Church of
JRA 12 (1999): 216–30. Hagia Sophia in Bizye (Vize): Results of the
Bardill, J. “The Golden Gate in Constantinople: Fieldwork Seasons 2003 and 2004.” DOP 60
A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I.” AJA 103 (2006): 249–70.
(1999): 671–96. Bavant, B. “Caričin Grad and the Changes in
Bardill, J. “The Church of Sts. Sergius and the Nature of Urbanism in the Central
Bacchus in Constantinople and the Balkans in the 6th Century.” In The Transition
Monophysite Refugees.” DOP 54 (2000): 1–11. to Late Antiquity: On the Danube and Beyond,
Bardill, J. Brickstamps of Constantinople. Oxford, edited by A. Poulter, 337–74. Oxford, 2007.
2004. Behrens-Abouseif, D. Islamic Architecture in
Bardill, J. “A New Temple for Byzantium: Anicia Cairo: An Introduction. Leiden, 1989.
Juliana, King Solomon, and the Gilded Bell, G. The Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭur
Ceiling of the Church of St. Polyeuktos in ‘Abdin, Edited by M. M. Mango. London,
Constantinople.” In Social and Political Life 1982.
in Late Antiquity, edited by W. Bowden, Belli d’Elia, P. Pouilles Romanes. La Nuit de
A. Gutteridge, and C. Machado, 339–70. Temps 68. Sainte-Marie de la Pierre-qui-Vire,
Leiden, 2006. 1987.
Bardill, J. “Building Materials and Techniques.” Belting, H., C. Mango, and D. Mouriki, eds.
In Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary
edited by R. Cormack, J. F. Haldon, and Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul.
E. Jeffreys, 335–52. Oxford, 2008. Washington, DC, 1978.
Bardill, J. “Église Saint-Polyeucte à Bender, L. “Ermitages et monastères rupestres de
Constantinople: Nouvelle solution pour la Laconie byzantine (XIe–XVe siècle).” PhD
l’énigme de sa reconstitution.” In Architecture diss., Université de Fribourg, 2016.
paléochrétienne, edited by J.-M. Spieser, Benvenisti, M. The Crusaders in the Holy Land.
77–103. Gollion, 2011. Jerusalem, 1970.
Bardill, J. Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Berenfeld, M. “The Triconch House and the
Christian Golden Age. Cambridge, 2012. Predecessors of the Bishop’s Palace at
Barnish, S. J. “The Wealth of Julianus Aphrodisias.” AJA 113 (2009): 203–29.
Argentarius: Late Antique Banking and the Berger, A. Das Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit.
Mediterranean Economy.” Byzantion 55 Munich, 1982.
(1985): 5–38. Berger, A. “Viranşehir (Mokisos), eine
Barnish, S. J., and F. Marazzi, eds. The Ostrogoths byzantinische Stadt in Kappadokien.” BZ 48
from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: (1998): 349–429.
An Ethnographic Perspective. Woodbridge, 2006. Berger, A. “Streets and Public Spaces in
Barry, F. “Walking on Water: Cosmic Floors in Constantinople.” DOP 54 (2000): 161–72.
Antiquity and the Middle Ages.” ArtB 89, Berger, A. “Die Glockenturm der Hagia Sophia.”
no. 4 (2007): 627–56. Sanat Tarihi Defterleri 8 (2004): 59–73.
Bibliography 729
Berger, A. “Mokisos—eine kappadokische Bognar, B. Architectural Guide Japan. Berlin, 2013.
Fluchtsiedlung des sechten Jahrhunderts.” In Bolman, E. S. “Veiling Sanctity in Christian
New Cities in Late Antiquity: Documents and Egypt: Visual and Spatial Solutions.” In
Archaeology, edited by E. Rizos, 177–88. Thresholds of the Sacred, edited by
Turnhout, 2017. S. E. J. Gerstel, 74–104. Washington, DC,
Bergman, R. “Byzantine Influence and Private 2006.
Patronage in a Newly Discovered Medieval Bolman, E. S., ed. The Red Monastery Church:
Church in Amalfi: S. Michele Arcangelo in Beauty and Asceticism in Upper Egypt. New
Pogerola.” JSAH 50 (1991): 421–45. Haven, 2016.
Bernard, L. W. “The Origins and Emergence of Bon, A. La Morée franque: Recherches historiques,
the Church in Edessa during the First Two topographiques et archéologiques sur la
Centuries A.D.” Vigilae Christianae 22 principauté de d’Achaïe. Paris, 1969.
(1968): 161–75. Bouras, Ch. Chios. Athens, 1974.
Bertelli, G., and A. Attolico. “Analisi delle Bouras, Ch. “Twelfth and Thirteenth Century
strutture architettoniche della Cattedrale di Variations of the Single Domed Octagon
San Sabino a Canosa: primi dati.” In Canosa: Plan.” DChAE 9 (1977–79): 21–34.
Richerche Storiche, edited by A. Attolico, Bouras, Ch. “City and Village: Urban Design and
723–58. Canosa, 2010. Architecture.” JÖB 31, no. 2 (1981): 611–53.
Bezkorovainy, A. A History of the Holy Trinity Bouras, Ch. “Ena byzantine loutro ste
Russian Orthodox Cathedral of Chicago: Lakedaimonia.” ArchE (1982): 99–112.
1892–1992. Chicago, 1992. Bouras, Ch. Nea Moni on Chios: History and
Biddle, M. The Tomb of Christ. Thrupp, 1999. Architecture. Athens, 1982.
Blair, S., and J. Bloom. The Art and Architecture Bouras, Ch. “Houses in Byzantium.” DChAE 11
of Islam 1250–1800. New Haven, 1994. (1982–83): 1–26.
Blanc, P., A. Desereumaux, and S. de Courtois. Bouras, Ch. “The Impact of Frankish
“Report on the State of the Preservation of Architecture on Thirteenth-Century
the Byzantine Mosaics of the Saint Gabriel Byzantine Architecture.” In The Crusades from
Monastery of Quartamin, Tur Abdin the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim
(Southwest Turkey): October 10th–14th, World, edited by A. Laiou and
2006.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 12, R. P. Mottahedeh, 247–62. Washington,
no. 1 (2009): 5–19. DC, 2001.
Blanc, P.-M, and P. Piraud-Fournet. “La grande Bouras, Ch. “The Soteira Lykodemou at Athens.
église à plan centré du quartier est de Bosra.” Architecture.” DChAE 25 (2004): 11–24.
In Hauran V: La Syrie du sud du néolithique à Bouras, Ch. “Byzantine Athens.” In Heaven &
l’antiquité tardive, 1st vol., edited by M. al- Earth: Cities and Countryside in Byzantine
Maqdissi, F. Braemer, and J.-M. Dentzer, Greece, edited by J. Albani and E. Chalkia,
275–87. Beirut, 2010. 168–79. Athens, 2013.
Bloch, H. “The Origin and Fate of the Bronze Bouras, Ch. “Byzantine Cities in Greece.” In
Doors of Abbot Desiderius of Montecassino.” Heaven & Earth: Cities and Countryside in
DOP 41 (1987): 89–102. Byzantine Greece, edited by J. Albani and
Boas, A. Archaeology of the Military Orders. E. Chalkia, 49–73. Athens, 2013.
London: Routledge, 2006. Bouras, Ch. He architektonike tes Mones tou
Bogdanović, D., et al. Chilandar. Belgrade, 1978. Hosiou Louka. Athens, 2015.
Bogdanović, J. “Life in a Late Byzantine Tower: Bouras, Ch. Byzantine Athens: 10th–12th
Examples from Northern Greece.” In Centuries. Routledge, 2017.
Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and Its Bouras, Ch., and L. Boura. He hellenike
Decoration: Studies in Honor of Slobodan naodomia kata ton 12o aiona. Athens, 2002.
Ćurčić, edited by M. J. Johnson, Bowersock, G. W., P. Brown, and O. Grabar,
R. G. Ousterhout, and A. Papalexandrou, eds. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical
187–202. Aldershot, 2012. World. Harvard, 1999.

Bovini, G. Ravenna. New York, 1971. Brubaker, L., and J. Haldon. Byzantium in the
Bowes, K. Private Worship, Public Values, and Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: A History.
Religious Change in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, 2011.
Cambridge, 2008. Brumfield, W. A History of Russian Architecture.
Brandenburg, H. Die Kirche S. Stefano Rotondo Cambridge, 1993.
in Rom: Bautypologie und Architektursymbolik Bryer, A., and D. Winfield. The Byzantine
in der spätantiken und frühchristlichen Monuments and Topography of the Pontos.
Architektur. Berlin, 1998. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 20. Washington,
Brandenburg, H. Ancient Churches of Rome from DC, 1985.
the Fourth to the Seventh Century. Turnhout, Buchwald, H. The Church of the Archangels in
2005. Sige near Mudania. Vienna, 1969.
Braunfels, W. Monasteries of Western Europe: The Buchwald, H. “Sardis Church E—A Preliminary
Architecture of the Orders. Princeton, 1972. Report.” JÖB 26 (1977): 265–99.
Brenk, B. “Spolia from Constantine to Buchwald, H. “Lascarid Architecture,” JÖB 28
Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology.” (1979): 261–96.
DOP 41 (1987): 103–9. Buchwald, H. “Western Asia Minor as a
Brenk, B. Die Christianisierung der spätrömischen Generator of Architectural Forms in the
Welt. Wiesbaden, 2003. Byzantine Period, Provincial Back-wash of
Brenk, B., et al., eds. La Cappella Palatina a Dynamic Center of Production.” JÖB 34
Palermo. 4 vols. Modena, 2010. (1984): 199–234.
Briggs. M. S. The Architect in History. Oxford, Buchwald, H. “The Geometry of Middle
1927. Byzantine Churches and Some Possible
Brody, L. R., and G. L. Hoffman, eds. Dura Implications.” JÖB 42 (1992): 293–321.
Europos: Crossroads of Antiquity. Boston, Buchwald, H. Form, Style and Meaning in
2011. Byzantine Church Architecture. Farnham,
Broglio, G., and B. Ward-Perkins, eds. The Idea 1999.
and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity Buchwald, H. “Retrofit—A Hallmark of
and the Early Middle Ages. Leiden, 1999. Byzantine Architecture?” In Form, Style and
Brooks Hedstrom, D. L. The Monastic Landscape Meaning in Byzantine Church Architecture,
of Late Antique Egypt: An Archaeological 1–22. Farnham, 1999.
Reconstruction. Cambridge, 2017. Buchwald, H. Churches Ea and E at Sardis.
Brown, P. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. Archaeological Reports of Sardis 6.
Berkeley, 1967, 2000. Cambridge, MA, 2015.
Brown, P. The World of Late Antiquity. London, Bulia, M., and M. Janjalia, eds. Mtskheta.
1971. Tbilisi, 2006.
Brown, P. The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function Burns, J. P., and R. M. Jensen. Christianity in
in Early Christianity. Chicago, 1981. Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices
Browning, R. Byzantium and Bulgaria: A and Beliefs. Grand Rapids, 2014.
Comparative Study across the Early Medieval Butler, H. C. Early Churches in Syria: Fourth to
Frontier. Berkeley, 1975. Seventh Centuries. Amsterdam, 1969.
Brubaker, L. “Topography and the Creation of Butler, L. “Hagia Sophia’s Nave Cornices as
Public Space in Early Medieval Elements of Its Design and Structure.” In
Constantinople.” In Topographies of Power in Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the
the Early Middle Ages, edited by M. de Jong, Present, edited by R. Mark and A. Çakmak,
31–43. Leiden, 2001. 57–77. Cambridge, 1992.
Brubaker, L. Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm. Byrd, K. M., trans. Pierre Gilles’ Constantinople:
Bristol, 2012. A Modern English Translation with
Brubaker, L., and J. Haldon, eds. Byzantium in Commentary. New York, 2008.
the Iconoclast era (ca. 680–850): The Sources. Çağaptay, S. “Visualizing the Cultural Transition
Aldershot, 2001. in Bithynia (ca. 1300–1402): Architecture,
Bibliography 731
Landscape and Urbanism.” PhD diss., Choisy, A. Histoire de l’architecture. Paris, 1903.
University of Illinois, 2007. Chorikios. Choricii Gazei, Opera, edited by
Çağaptay, S. “Frontierscape: Reconsidering R. Foerster and E. Richsteig. Leipzig, 1929.
Bithynian Structures and Their Builders on Ćirković, S., V. Korać, and G. Babić. Studenica
the Byzantine-Ottoman Cusp.” Muqarnas 28 Monastery. Belgrade, 1986.
(2011): 155–91. Cobb, P. M. The Race for Paradise: An Islamic
Cahen, C. Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey History of the Crusades. Oxford, 2014.
of the Material and Spiritual Culture and Comay, J. The Temple of Jerusalem. New York,
History c. 1071–1330. London, 1968. 1975.
Callmer, J. “The Archaeology of Kiev to the End Conant, K. J. A Brief Commentary on Early
of the Earliest Urban Phase.” HUkSt 11 Medieval Church Architecture. Baltimore,
(1987): 323–64. 1942.
Camerlenghi, N. “Interpreting Medieval Conant, K. J. “The First Dome of St. Sophia and
Architecture through Renovations: The Roof Its Rebuilding,” BByzI 1 (1946): 71–78.
of the Old Basilica of San Paolo fuori le Mura Concina, E. Storia dell’Architettura di Venezia dal
in Rome.” In Approaches to Byzantine VII al XX Secolo. Milano, 1995.
Architecture and Its Decoration: Studies in Connor, C. “The Epigram in the Church of
Honor of Slobodan Ćurčić, edited by Hagios Polyeuktos in Constantinople and Its
M. J. Johnson, R. G. Ousterhout, and Byzantine Response.” Byzantion 69 (1999):
A. Papalexandrou, 259–76. Aldershot, 2012. 479–527.
Cameron, A. Procopius and the Sixth Century. Constantine Porphyrogennetos. The Book of
London, 1985. Ceremonies. Translated by A. Moffatt and
Camp, J. M. The Archaeology of Athens. New M. Tall. Canberra, 2012.
Haven, 2001. Corbey Finney, P. “Early Christian Architecture:
Campbell, W. A. “The Martyrion at Seleucia The Beginnings.” HTR 81, no. 3 (1988):
Pieria.” In Antioch-on-the-Orontes III. The 319–39.
Excavations, 1937–1939, edited by R. Stillwell, Corbo, V. Ricerche Archeologiche al Monte degli
35–54. Princeton, 1941. Ulivi. Jerusalem, 1965.
Čanak-Medić, M., and D. Bošković. Corbo, V. The House of Saint Peter at
L’architecture de l’époque de Nemanja, Capharnaum. Jerusalem, 1969.
I. Monuments de l’architecture médiévale serbe, Corbo, V. Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme.
Corpus des édifices sacraux. Belgrade, 1986. 3 vols. Jerusalem, 1981.
Canepa, M. The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Cormack, R. “The Arts during the Age of
Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iconoclasm.” In Iconoclasm: Papers Given at
Iran. Berkeley, 2009. the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Cassiodorus. The Letters of Cassiodorus. Studies, edited by A. A. M. Bryer and
Translated by T. Hodgkin. London, 1886. J. Herrin, 35–44. Birmingham, 1977.
Cecchi, R. La basilica di San Marco. La Cormack, R. The Byzantine Eye: Studies in Art
costruzione bizantina del IX secolo. Permanenze and Patronage. London, 1989.
e trasformazioni. Venice, 2003. Coüasnon, C. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre
Changova, I. “Tŭrgovskite pomesteniia krai in Jerusalem. London, 1974.
iuznata krepostna stena na Preslav.” Izvestiia Coulson, M. L. “The Church of Merbaka:
na arkheologicheskiia Institut 22 (1957): Cultural Diversity and Integration in the 13th
233–90. Century Peloponnese.” PhD diss., Courtauld
Chatzidakis, M. “A propos de la date et du Institute of Art, 2002.
fondateur de Saint Luc.” CahArch 19 (1969): Creswell, W. A. C. A Short Account of Early
127–50. Muslim Architecture. Harmondsworth, 1958.
Chitty, D. J. The Desert a City. Oxford, 1966. Croke, B. “Justinian, Theodora, and the Church
Choisy, A. L’art de bâtir chez les Byzantins. of Saints Sergius and Bacchus.” DOP 60
Paris, 1883. (2006): 25–63.

Croke, B., and J. Crow. “Procopius and Dara.” Istanbul.” Sanat Tarihi Defterleri 8 (2004):
JRS 73 (1983): 143–59. 7–22.
Cross, S. H. Medieval Russian Churches. Ćurčić, S. Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian
Cambridge, MA, 1949. to Süleyman the Magnificent. New Haven, 2010.
Crow, J. “The Long Walls of Thrace.” Ćurčić, S. “Christianization of Thessalonikē: The
In Constantinople and Its Hinterland, Making of Christian ‘Urban Topography.’” In
edited by C. Mango and G. Dagron, 118–24. From Roman to Early Christian Thessalonikē:
Aldershot, 1995. Studies in Religion and Archaeology, edited by
Crow, J., J. Bardill, and R. Bayliss. The Water Supply L. Nasrallah, Ch. Bakirtzis, and S. J. Friesen,
of Byzantine Constantinople. London, 2008. 213–44. Cambridge, 2010.
Crow, J., S. Turner, and A. Vionis. Ćurčić, S. and E. Hadjitryphonos. Secular
“Characterizing the Historic Landscapes of Medieval Architecture in the Balkans,
Naxos.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1300–1500. Thessalonike, 1997.
24 (2011): 111–37. Curran, J. Pagan City and Christian Capital:
Crowfoot, J. W. Churches in Bosra and Samaria- Rome in the Fourth Century. Oxford, 2000.
Sebaste. London, 1937. Curta, F. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages,
Crowfoot, J. W. Early Churches in Palestine. 500–1250. Cambridge, 2006.
London, 1937. Curta, F. The Other Europe in the Middle Ages:
Cuneo, P., et al. Ani. Documents of Armenian Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans. Leiden,
Architecture 12. Milan, 1984. 2008.
Ćurčić, S. “The Twin-Domed Narthex in Cutler, A. “The Tyranny of Hagia Sophia:
Paleologan Architecture.” ZRVI 13 (1971): Notes on Greek Orthodox Church Design
333–44. in the United States.” JSAH 31 (1972): 38–50.
Ćurčić, S. “Architectural Significance of Cutler, A. and A. Kazhdan. “Patrons and
Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Patronage.” Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.
Churches.” JSAH 36 (1977): 94–110. Oxford, 1991. 3: 1602–04.
Ćurčić, S. Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church and Cyril of Scythopolis. The Lives of the Monks of
Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture. Palestine. Translated by R. M. Price.
University Park, 1979. Kalamazoo, 1991.
Ćurčić, S. “Medieval Royal Tombs in the D’Andria, F. “Il santuario e la tomba
Balkans: An Aspect of the ‘East or West’ dell’apostolo Filippo a Hierapolis di Frigia.”
Question.” GOTR 29 (1984): 175–94. Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana
Ćurčić, S. “Some Palatine Aspects of the Cappella di Archeologia 84 (2011–2012): 1–52.
Palatina in Palermo.” DOP 41 (1987): 125–44. D’Andria, F. “Saints and Pilgrims in the Lykos
Ćurčić, S. “The Architecture.” In The Mosaics of Valley (Asia Minor).” DChAE 38 (2017): 35–55.
St. Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo, edited by Dagit, H. D. “Roman Catholic Church: The
E. Kitzinger, 26–67. Washington, DC, 1990. Church of St. Francis de Sales, Philadelphia,
Ćurčić, S. “Architecture in an Age of Insecurity: Pa.” Architectural Record 29 (1911): 233.
An Introduction to Secular Architecture in Dagron, G. Naissance d’une capitale:
the Balkans, 1300–1500.” In Secular Medieval Constantinople et ses institutions. Paris, 1974.
Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, edited Dagron, G. Constantinople imaginaire. Paris, 1984.
by S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, 19–51. Dale, T. “Cultural Hybridity in Medieval Venice:
Thessalonike, 1997. Re-inventing the East at San Marco after the
Ćurčić, S. Middle Byzantine Architecture on Fourth Crusade.” In San Marco, Byzantium,
Cyprus: Provincial or Regional? Nicosia, 2000. and the Myths of Venice, edited by H. Maguire
Ćurčić, S. Some Observations and Questions and R. Nelson. 151-91. Washington, DC, 2010.
Regarding Early Christian Architecture in Dalla Costa, M. La Basilica di San Marco e i
Thessaloniki. Thessalonike, 2000. restauri dell’Ottocento. Venice, 1983.
Ćurčić, S. “Some Reflections on the David, M. Eternal Ravenna from the Etruscans to
Flying Buttresses of Hagia Sophia in the Venetians. Brepols, 2013.
Bibliography 733
David, M. ed., La basilica di Santa Croce. Nuovi Companion to Medieval Palermo: The History
contributi per Ravenna tardoantica. Ravenna, of a Mediterranean City from 600 to 1500,
2013. edited by A. Nef, 139–94. Leiden, 2013.
Davis, R, trans. The Book of the Pontiffs (Liber Di Stefano, G. Monumenti della Sicilia normanna.
Pontificalis). Liverpool, 1989. 2nd ed. with W. Krönig. Palermo, 1979.
Davis-Secord, S. Where Three Worlds Meet: Sicily in Dittelbach, T., ed. Die Cappella Palatina in
the Early Medieval Mediterranean. Ithaca, 2017. Palermo: Geschichte, Kunst, Funktionen.
De Bernardi Ferraro, D. “Il Battistero di Canosa nel Swindoft, 2011.
quadro dell’archittetura dell’Europa bizantina.” Djobadze, W. Z. “Gelat‘i.” In Dictionary of the
Puglia Paleocristiana 3 (1979): 163–76. Middle Ages, edited by J. Strayer, 374. 5th vol.
De Blaauw, S. Cultus et Décor. Liturgia e New York, 1985.
architettura nella Roma tardoantica e Djobadze, W. Z. Archeological Investigations in
medievale. Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, the Region West of Antioch on-the-Orontes.
Sancti Petri. Vatican City, 1994. Stuttgart, 1986.
Deckers, J., and Ü. Serdaroğlu. “Das Hypogäum Djobadze, W. Z. Early Medieval Georgian
bein Silivri-Kapı in Istanbul.” JbAC 36 Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjet‘i, and
(1993): 140–63. Šavšet‘i. Stuttgart, 1992.
Deichmann, F. W. Ravenna: Haupstadt des Dmitriev-Mamonov, A. I., ed. Guide to the Great
spätantiken Abenlandes I. Wiesbaden, 1969. Siberian Railway. St. Petersburg, 1900.
Deichmann, F. W. Ravenna: Haupstadt des D’Onofrio, M. “Comparaisons entre quelques
spätantiken Abenlandes II. Wiesbaden, 1976. édifices de Style normand de l’Italie
Deichmann, F. W. “Westlich Bautechnik im méridionale et du royaume de France aux XIe
römischen und rhomäischen Osten.” et XIIe siècles.” In Les Normands en
MDAIRA 86 (1979): 473–527. Méditerranée dans le sillage des Tancrède.
Deichmann, F. W., and A. Tschira. “Das Colloque de Cerisy-la-Salle (24–27 septembre
Mausoleum der Kaiserin Helena und die 1992). Actes, edited by P. Bouet and
Basilika der Heiligen Marcellinus und Petrus F. Neveux, 179–201. Caen, 1994.
an der Via Labicana vor Rom.” JDAI 72 Dolenz, H., and H. Baldus. Damous-el-Karita.
(1957): 44–110. Die österreichisch-tunesischen Ausgrabungen der
Demangel R., and E. Mamboury. Le quartier des Jahre 1996 und 1997 im Saalbau und der
Manganes et la première region de Memoria des Pilgerheiligtums Damous-el-
Constantinople. Paris, 1939. Karita in Karthago. Vienna, 2001.
Demus, O. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration. Dothan, M. Hammath Tiberias. Jerusalem, 1983.
London, 1948. Downey, G. “Byzantine Architects: Their Training
Demus, O. The Church of San Marco in Venice, and Methods.” Byzantion 18 (1946): 99–118.
History, Architecture, Sculpture. Washington, Downey, G. “On Some Post-Classical
DC, 1960. Architectural Terms.” TAPA 77 (1946): 22–34.
De Rossi, G. B. Roma sottorranea. Rome, 1857. Drandakes, N. Vyzantina glytpa tes Manes.
Deliyannis, D. Ravenna in Late Antiquity. Athens, 2002.
Cambridge, 2010. Drandakes, N. Mane kai Lakonia, edited by Ch.
Descourdes, G. Die Pastophorien in syro- Konstantinide. 5 vols. Athens, 2009.
byzantinischen Osten. Wiesbaden, 1983. Drpić, I. Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Late
Detrez, R. “Pre-National Identities in the Byzantium. Cambridge, 2016.
Balkans.” In Entangled Histories of the Duncan-Flowers, M. “A Pilgrim’s Ampulla from
Balkans. I. National Ideologies and Language the Shrine of St. John the Evangelist at
Policies, edited by R. Daskalov and Ephesus.” In The Blessings of Pilgrimage, edited
T. Marinov, 13–66. Leiden, 2013. by R. G. Ousterhout, 125–39. Urbana, 1990.
Di Liberto, R. “Norman Palermo: Architecture Duval, N., and F. Baratte. Les ruines de Sufetula:
between the 11th and 12th Century.” In A Sbeïtla. Tunis, 1973.

Dyggve, E., and R. Egger, eds. Die altchristliche Eyice, S. “L’église cruciforme byzantine de Side
Friedhof Marusinac. Forschungen in Salona, en Pamphylie.” Anatolia 3 (1958): 34–42.
vol. 3. Vienna, 1939. Eyice, S. “La ruine byzantine dite ‘Üçayak’ près
Eastmond, A. Art and Identity in Thirteenth- de Kırşehir.” CahArch 18 (1968): 137–55.
Century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Eyice, S. “Die byzantinische Kirche in der Nähe
Empire of Trebizond. Burlington, 2004. des Yenişehir-Tores zu Iznik (= Nikaia)
Ebersolt, J., and A. Thiers, Les Églises de (Kirche C).” Materialia Turcica 7, no. 8
Constantinople. Paris, 1913. (1981–82): 152–67.
Edwards, R. W. The Fortifications of Armenian Faensen, H., and V. Ivanov, Early Russian
Cilicia. Washington, DC, 1987. Architecture. London, 1975.
Egeria. Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land. Fakhry, A. The Egyptian Deserts: The Necropolis of
Translated by J. Wilkinson. Warminster, 1981. El-Bagawat in Kharga Oasis. Cairo, 1951.
Ellis, S. “The End of the Roman House.” AJA 92 Fauvelle-Aymar, F.-X., L. Bruxelles, R. Mensan,
(1988): 565–76. and C. Bosc-Tiessé. “Rock-Cut Stratigraphy:
Elsner, J. “The Viewer and the Vision: The Case of Sequencing the Lalibela Churches.” Antiquity
the Sinai Apse.” AH 17, no. 1 (1994): 81–102. 84 (2010): 1135–50.
Elsner, J. “The Rhetoric of Buildings in the De Fenwick, C. “From Africa to Ifrīqya: Settlement
Aedificiis of Procopius.” In Art and Text in and Society in Early Medieval North Africa
Byzantine Culture, edited by L. James, 33–57. (650–800).” Al-Masaq: Islam and the
Cambridge, 2007. Medieval Mediterranean 25 (2013): 9–33.
Enlart, C. Les Monuments des croisés dans le Fernie, E. “The Date, Iconography, and
royaume de Jérusalem: Architecture religieuse et Dedication of the Cathedral of Canosa.” In
civile. 2 vols. Paris, 1925–28. Romanesque and the Mediterranean: Points of
Ennabli, L. Carthage, une metropole chrétienne. Contact, edited by R. M. Bacile and
Paris, 1997. J. McNeill, 167–72. Leeds, 2015.
Ettel, P., A.-M. Flambard Héricher, and Fine, J. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical
T. E. McNeill, eds. Château Gaillard: Études Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth
de Castellologie Médiévale. Bilan des Recherches Century. Ann Arbor, 1991.
en Castellologie: Actes du Colloque Fine, J. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical
International de Houffalize (Belgique) 2006. Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the
Château 23. Caen, 2008. Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor, 1994.
Ettinghausen, R., O. Grabar, and M. Jenkins- Finneran, N. “Ethiopian Christian Material
Madina. The Art and Architecture of Islam Culture: The International Context. Aksum,
650–1250. 2nd ed. New Haven, 2003. the Mediterranean, and the Syriac Worlds of
Etzioglou, R. Ho naos tes Hodegetrias tou the Fifth to Seventh Centuries.” In Incipient
Brontochiou ston Mustra: hoi toichographies tou Globalization? Long-Distance Contacts in the
nartheka kai e leitourgike chrese tou chorou. Sixth Century, edited by A. Harris, 75–89.
Athens, 2013. Oxford, 2007.
Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Translated by Fitchen, J. The Construction of Gothic Cathedrals.
A. Cameron and S. Hall. Oxford, 1999. Chicago, 1961.
Evans, H., and B. Ratliff, eds. Byzantium and Fitzgerald, G. M. Beth-Shan Excavations
Islam: Age of Transition. New York, 2012. 1921–23: The Arab and Byzantine Levels.
Evyenidou, D., I. Kanonides, and Th. Papazotos. Philadelphia, 1931.
The Monuments of Prespa. Athens, 1991. Flood, F. B. The Great Mosque of Damascus:
Eyice, S. “Amasra Büyükada’sında bir Bizans Studies on the Making of an Umayyad Visual
kilisesi.” BTTK 15 (1951): 469–96. Culture. Leiden, 2001.
Eyice, S. “Deux anciennes églises byzantines de Flood, F. B. “Christian Mosaics in Early Islamic
la citadelle d’Amasra.” CahArch 7 (1954): Jordan and Palestine: A Case of Regional
97–105. Iconoclasm.” In Byzantium and Islam: Age of
Bibliography 735
Transition, edited by H. Evans and B. Ratliff, Gabriel, A. Monuments turcs de Anatolie. Paris,
117. New York, 2012. 1934.
Fobelli, M. L. Un tempio per Giustiniano: Santa Gardner, H. Art through the Ages, 6th ed., revised
Sofia di Costantinopoli e la Descrizione di by H. de la Croix and R. G. Tansey. New
Paolo Silenziario. Rome, 2005. York, 1975.
Folda, J. The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Garsoïan, N. “History of Armenia.” In
Land, 1098–1187. Cambridge, 1995. Dictionary of the Middle Ages, edited by
Folda, J. Crusader Art in the Holy Land: From the J. Strayer, 474–88. 1st vol. New York, 1982.
Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre, 1187–1291. Gartkiewicz, P. M. Dongola II: The Cathedral in
Cambridge, 2005. Old Dongola and Its Antecedents,
Foletti, I., and E. Thunø, eds. The Medieval Nubia I. Warsaw, 1990.
South Caucasus: Artistic Cultures of Albania, Geanakoplos, D. Emperor Michael Palaeologus
Armenia, and Georgia. Brno, 2016. and the West, 1258–1282. Cambridge, MA,
Forlati, F. “Il primo San Marco: nota 1959.
preliminare.” Arte Veneta 5 (1951): 73–76. Georgiadou, S. “Architecture and Statehood in
Forlati, F. La Basilica di San Marco attraverso i Late Byzantium: A Comparative Study of
suoi Restauri. Trieste, 1975. Epiros and Trebizond.” PhD diss., University
Forsyth, G. “The Monastery of St. Catherine at of Illinois, 2015.
Mount Sinai: The Church and Fortress of Georgopoulou, M. “The Artistic World of the
Justinian.” DOP 22 (1968): 1–19. Crusaders and Oriental Christians in the
Forsyth, G., and K. Weitzmann. The Monastery of Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” Gesta 43,
Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai: The Church no. 2 (2004): 115–28.
and Fortress of Justinian. Ann Arbor, 1973. Gerstel, S. Rural Lives and Landscapes in Late
Forsyth, J. The Caucasus: A History. New York, Byzantium: Art, Archaeology, and Ethnography.
2013. Cambridge, 2015.
Foss, C. Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Gerstel, S., et al., “A Late Medieval Settlement at
Byzantine and Turkish City. Cambridge, 1979. Panakton.” Hesperia 72 (2003): 147–234.
Foss, C. “The Walls of İznik 260–1330.” In İznik “Gertrude Bell Archive.” Newcastle University
throughout History, edited by A. Akbaygil, Library. 2014. http://www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk.
H. İnalcık, and O. Aslanalpa, 249–62. Gibson, S., and J. E. Taylor. Beneath the Church
Istanbul, 2003. of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem: The
Foss, C., and D. Winfield. Byzantine Archaeology and Early History of Traditional
Fortifications: An Introduction. Pretoria, 1986. Golgotha. London, 1994.
Fowden, E. K. The Barbarian Plain: St. Sergius Giovannini, L., ed. Arts of Cappadocia. London,
between Rome and Islam. Berkeley, 1999. 1971.
Fox, R. L. “The Life of Daniel.” In Portraits: Giudetti, M. In the Shadow of the Church: The
Biographical Representation in the Greek and Building of Mosques in Early Medieval Syria.
Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, edited Leiden, 2017.
by M. J. Edwards and S. Swain, 175–225. Gkioles, N. “The Church of the Kapnikarea in
Oxford, 1997. Athens: Remarks on Its History, Typology
Frantz, A. The Church of the Holy Apostles. The and Form.” Zograf 31 (2006–7): 15–27.
Athenian Agora 20. Princeton, 1971. Gough, M. ed. Alahan: An Early Christian
Frazer, M. “Church Doors and Gates of Monastery in Southern Turkey. Toronto, 1985.
Paradise: Byzantine Bronze Doors in Italy.” Grabar, A. Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des
DOP 27 (1973): 145–62. reliques et l’art chrétien antique. 2 vols. Paris,
Frutaz, A. Il complesso monumentale di 1943–46.
Sant’Agnese. Vatican, 1969. Grabar, A. Early Christian Art. New York, 1969.
Gabelić, S. Manastir Lesnovo: istorija i slikarstvo. Grabar, O. The Formation of Islamic Art. Rev. ed.
Belgrade, 1998. New Haven, 1987.

Grabar, O. The Shape of the Holy. Princeton, the 7th–10th Centuries.” In Byzantina
1996. Mediterranea: Festschrift für Johannes Koder
Grabar, O. The Dome of the Rock. Cambridge, zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by K. Belke,
2006. E. Kislinger, A. Külzer, and
Grabar, O., and B. Z. Kedar, eds. Where Heaven M. Stassinopoulou, 215–30. Vienna, 2007.
and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Hallensleben, H. “Untersuchungen zur
Austin, 2009. Baugeschichte der ehemaligen
Greenfield, R. P. H., ed. and trans. The Life of St. Pammakaristoskirche, der heutigen Fethiye
Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: An Eleventh-Century Camii in Istanbul.” IstMitt 13–14 (1963–64):
Pillar Saint. Washington, DC, 2000. 128–93.
Grossman, H. “Syncretism Made Concrete: The Hallensleben, H. “Zu Anexbauten der Kilise
Case for Hybrid Architecture in Post–Fourth Camii in Istanbul.” IstMitt 15 (1965):
Crusade Greece.” In Archaeology in 208–17.
Architecture: Studies in Honor of Hallensleben, H. “Untersuchungen zur Genesis
Cecil L. Striker, edited by J. Emerick and und Typologie des ‘Mistratypus.’” MarbJb 18
D. Deliyannis, 65–73. Mainz, 2005. (1969): 105–18.
Grossmann, P. Mittelalterliche Harrison, R. M. Excavations at Saraçhane in
Langhauskuppelkirchen und verwandte Typen Istanbul. Princeton, 1986.
in Oberägypten. Glückstadt, 1982. Harrison, R. M. A Temple for Byzantium: The
Grossmann, P. “Beobachtungen zum Discovery and Excavation of Anicia Juliana’s
ursprünglichen Grundriß der Sergios und Palace-Church in Istanbul. Austin, 1989.
Bakchoskirche in Konstantinopel.” IstMitt 39 Haskins, E. V. “Russia’s Postcommunist Past:
(1989): 153–59. The Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the
Grossmann, P. “The Pilgrimage Center at Abu Reimagining of National Identity.” History
Mina.” In Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late and Memory 21 (2009): 25–62.
Antique Egypt, edited by D. Frankfurter, Haspels, C. H. E. The Highlands of Phrygia.
281–302. Leiden, 1998. 2 vols. Princeton, 1971.
Grossmann, P. Christliche Architektur in Ägypten. Heather, P. Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in
Leiden, 2002. the Age of Justinian. Oxford, 2018.
Grossmann, P. “Early Christian Architecture in Heldman, M. “Architectural Symbolism, Sacred
Egypt and Its Relationship to the Geography and the Ethiopian Church.”
Architecture of the Byzantine World.” In Journal of Religion in Africa 22 (1992):
Egypt in the Byzantine World 300–700, edited 222–41.
by R. Bagnall, 103–36. Cambridge, 2007. Heldman, M. “Legends of Lalibela: The
Grube, E., and J. Johns. The Painted Ceilings of Development of an Ethiopian Pilgrimage
the Cappella Palatina. Genoa, 2005. Site.” Res 27 (1995): 25–38.
Gui, I., N. Duval, and J.-P. Caillet, eds. Henning, J., ed. Post-Roman Towns, Trade, and
Basiliques chrétiennes d’Afrique du Nord. 2 Settlement in Europe and Byzantium. 2nd vol.
vols. Paris, 1992. Byzantium, Pliska and the Balkans. Berlin,
Gussone, M., and D. Sack. “Resafa/Syrien. 2007.
Städtebauliche Entwicklung zwischen Kultort Henry, A. “The Pilgrimage Center of St. Symeon
und Herrschaftssitz.” In New Cities in Late the Younger: Designed by Angels, Supervised
Antiquity: Documents and Archaeology, edited by a Saint, Constructed by Pilgrims.” PhD
by E. Rizos, 117–36. Turnhout, 2017. diss., University of Illinois, 2015.
Haldon, J. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Henry, P. Les églises de Moldavie du nord des
Cambridge, 1990. origins à la fin de XVIe siècle. Paris, 1930.
Haldon, J. “‘Cappadocia Will Be Given over to Herzfeld, E., and S. Guyer, Meriamlik und
Ruin and Become a Desert’: Environmental Korikos: Zwei christliche Ruinenstätten des
Evidence for Historically-Attested Events in Rauhen Kilikiens. Manchester, 1930.
Bibliography 737
Hill, D., H. Roland, and K. Ødegård. “Kastro Ivakin, G., O. Ioannisian, and D. Jolshin.
Apalirou, Naxos: A Seventh-Century Urban “Arhіtekturno-arheologіchnі
Foundation.” In New Cities in Late Antiquity: doslіdzhennjacerkvi Bogorodicі Desjatinnoїv
Documents and Archaeology, edited by Kievі u 2008–2011 pp.” In Slov’jani i Rus’:
E. Rizos, 281–91. Turnhout, 2017. arheologija ta istopija, 73–80. Kiev, 2013.
Hill, S. The Early Byzantine Churches of Cilicia Ivanišević, V. “Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima):
and Isauria. Aldershot, 1996. A New-Discovered City for a ‘New’ Society.”
Hirschfeld, Y. The Judean Desert Monasteries of In Proceedings of the 23rd International
the Byzantine Period. New Haven, 1992. Congress of Byzantine Studies, Plenary Papers,
Hoffmann, V., ed. Die geometrische Entwurf der 107–26. Belgrade, 2016.
Hagia Sophia in Istanbul: Bilder einer Ivison, E. “The Șeyh Murat Mescidi at
Ausstellung. Bern, 2005. Constantinople.” BSA 85 (1990): 79–87.
Hoffmann, V., and N. Theocharis, “Der Ivison, E. A. “Amorium in the Byzantine Dark
geometrische Entwurf der Hagia Sophia in Ages (Seventh to Ninth Centuries).” In Post-
Istanbul: Erster Teil.” IstMitt 52 (2002): Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe
393–428. and Byzantium. Vol. 2: Byzantium, Pliska, and
Hollerweger, H. Turabdin. Linz, 1999. the Balkans, edited by J. Henning, 25–60.
Horden, P. “Memoria, Salvation, and Other Millennium Studies, 5, no. 2. Berlin, 2007.
Motives of Byzantine Philanthropists.” In Izdebski, A. A Rural Economy in Transition: Asia
Stiftungen in Christentum, Judentum und Minor from Late Antiquity into the Early
Islam vor der Moderne. Auf der Suche nach Middle Ages. Warsaw, 2013.
ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschieden in Jacoby, Z. “Crusader Sculpture in Cairo:
religiösen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken Additional Evidence on the Temple
und historischen Transformationen, edited by Workshop of Jerusalem.” In Crusader Art of
M. Borgolte, 137–46. Berlin, 2005. the Twelfth Century, edited by J. Folda,
Horn, W., and E. Born. The Plan of St. Gall: A 122–38. Oxford, 1982.
Study of the Architecture & Economy of, & Life Jacoby, Z. “The Workshop of the Temple Area in
in a Paradigmatic Carolingian Monastery. 3 Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century: Its Origins,
vols. Berkeley, 1979. Evolution, and Impact.” ZKunstg 45 (1982):
Howard, D. The Architectural History of Venice. 325–94.
Yale, 2002. Jeffreys, E., ed. and trans. Digenis Akritis: The
Hunt, L.-A. “Churches of Old Cairo and Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions.
Mosques of al-Qahira: A Case of Christian– Cambridge, 1998.
Muslim Interchange.” Medieval Encounters 2 Jensen, J. M. “Dining with the Dead: From the
(1996): 43–66. Mensa to the Altar in Christina Late
Ignjatović, A. “Byzantium Evolutionized: Antiquity.” In Commemorating the Dead: Texts
Architectural History and National Identity and Artifacts in Context: Studies of Roman,
in Turn-of-the-Century Serbia.” In “Regimes Jewish, and Christian Burials, edited by
of Historicity” in Southeastern and Norther L. Brink and D. Green, 107–44. Berlin,
Europe, 1890–1945, edited by D. Mishkova, 2008.
R. Trencsényi, and M. Jalava, 254–74. Jensen, J. M. Living Water: Images, Symbols, and
Basingstoke, 2014. Settings of Early Christian Baptism. Leiden,
Ioannissian, O., and G. Ivakin. “Desjatinnaja 2011.
cerkov’ v Kieve: ‘staryĭ vzgljad’ v novom Jerphanion, G. de. Une Nouvelle province de l’art
osveshhenii.” In Archeologia Abrahamica, byzantin les églises rupestres de Cappadoce.
edited by L. Beliaev, 179–202. Moscow, 2 vols. with plates. Paris, 1925–42.
2009. Jerphanion, G. de. “L’eglise de Saint-Clément à
Iorga, N. Byzance après Byzance. Bucharest, 1935. Angora,” in Mélanges d’archéologie
Iorga, N. Byzantium after Byzantium. Translated anatolienne: monuments préhelléniques, gréco-
by L. Treptow. Cambridge, MA, 2000. romains, byzantins et musulmans de Pont, de

Cappadoce et de Galatie, 113–43. Mélanges de Kafescioğlu, Ç. Constantinopolis/Istanbul:
l’Université St. Joseph 13. Beirut, 1928. Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the
Jewell, H. H., and F. W. Hasluck. The Church of Construction of an Ottoman Capital.
Our Lady of the Hundred Gates (Panagia University Park, 2009.
Hekantopyliani) in Paros. London, 1920. Kaldellis, A. Hellenism in Byzantium: The
Jobst, W., B. Erdal, and C. Gurtner. Istanbul. Transformations of Greek Identity and the
The Great Palace Mosaic. Istanbul, 1997. Reception of the Classical Tradition.
Jocović, N., and J. Nešković. “Fortifications of Cambridge, 2007.
Smederevo.” In Secular Medieval Architecture Kaldellis, A. “The Making of Hagia Sophia and
in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its the Last Pagans of Rome.” JLA 6 (2014):
Preservation, edited by S. Ćurčić and 347–66.
E. Hadjitryphonos, 132–35, 208–11. Kalinka, E., and J. Strzygowski. “Die Kathedrale
Thessalonike, 1997. von Herakleia.” ÖJh 1 (1898): 3–28.
Johnson, M. J. “Toward a History of Theoderic’s Kalligas, A. G., and H. Kalligas. “House of
Building Program.” DOP 42 (1988): 73–96. Laskaris, Mistras, Greece.” In Secular
Johnson, M. J. The Roman Imperial Mausoleum Medieval Architecture in the Balkans,
in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, 2009. 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, edited by
Johnson, M. J. “The Mausoleum of Bohemond S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, 244–45.
in Canosa and the Architectural Setting of Thessalonike, 1997.
Ruler Tombs in Norman Italy.” In Kalopissi-Verti, S. “Mistra: A Fortified Late
Romaneseque and the Mediterranean: Points of Byzantine Settlement.” In Heaven & Earth:
Contact, edited by R. M. Bacile and Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece,
J. McNeill, 151–66. Leeds, 2015. edited by J. Albani and E. Chalkia, 224–39.
Johnson, M. J. San Vitale in Ravenna and Athens, 2013.
Octagonal Churches in Late Antiquity. Kalopissi-Verti, S., and M. Panayiotidi-
Wiesbaden, 2018. Kesisoglou. Multilingual Illustrated Dictionary
Jones, A. H. M. The Later Roman Empire. of Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture
Baltimore, 1964. Terminology. Heraklion, 2010.
Jones, L. Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght‘amar Kappas, M. “E Eparmoge to Stauroeidous
and the Visual Construction of Medieval Engegrammenou ste Mese kai ten Ystere
Armenian Rulership. Aldershot, 2007. Byzantine Periodou.” PhD diss., Aristotle
Jones, M. W. Principles of Roman Architecture. University, 2009.
New Haven, 2000. Kappas, M., and S. Mamaloukos. “The Church of
Jordan, R., trans. “Pantokrator: Typikon of St. Constantine on Lake Apollonia, Bithynia,
Emperor John II Komnenos for the Revisited.” DChAE 38 (2017): 87–104.
Monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Karakatsanis, A. A., ed. Treasures of Mount Athos.
Constantinople.” In Byzantine Monastic Thessalonike, 1997.
Foundation Documents, edited by J. Thomas Karamut, İ., et al. Gün Işığında: İstanbul’un
and A. Hero, 1st vol., 725–81. Washington, 8000 yılı: Marmaray, metro, Sultanahmet
DC, 2000. kazıları. Istanbul, 2007.
Jordanov, I. “Preslav.” In The Economic History of Karydis, N. Early Byzantine Vaulted Construction
Byzantium: From the Seventh through the in Churches of the Western Coastal Plains and
Fifteenth Century, edited by A. Laiou, River Valleys of Asia Minor. Oxford, 2011.
667–71. Washington, DC, 2002. Karydis, N. “The Evolution of the Church of St.
Kadiroğlu, M. The Architecture of the Georgian John at Ephesos during the Early Byzantine
Church at Işhan. Frankfurt, 1991. Period.” ÖJh 84 (2016): 97–128.
Kaegi, W. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Karnapp, W. Die Stadtmauer von Resafa in
Conquests. Cambridge, 1992. Syrien. Berlin, 1976.
Kafadar, C. Between Two Worlds: The Construction Kautsch, R. Kapitellstudien: Beiträge zu einer
of the Ottoman State. Berkeley, 1995. Geschichte des spätantiken Kapitells im Osten
Bibliography 739
vom vierten bis ins siebente Jahrhundert. Interpreting, edited by S. C. Scott, 52–67.
Berlin, 1936. University Park, 1995.
Kaymak, G. Die Cumanin Camii in Antalya. Kinney, D. “The Church Basilica.” ActaIRNorv
Antalya, 2009. 15 (2001): 115–35.
Kazaryan, A. Cerkovnaja arhitektura stran Kinney, D. “Architectural Sculpture.” In The Red
Zakavkaz’ja VII veka: Formirovanie i razvitie Monastery Church: Beauty and Asceticism in
tradicii [Church Architecture of the 7th Century Upper Egypt, edited by E. S. Bolman, 79–94.
in Transcaucasian Countries: Formation and New Haven, 2016.
Development of the Tradition]. 4 vols. Kinney, D. “The Type of the Triconch Basilica.”
Moscow, 2012. In The Red Monastery Church: Beauty and
Kazaryan [Ghazarian], A., and Asceticism in Upper Egypt, edited by
R. G. Ousterhout. “A Muqarnas Drawing E. S. Bolman, 37–48. New Haven, 2016.
from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Kirin, A. “Contemplating the Vistas of Piety at
Use of Architectural Drawings during the the Rila Monastery Pyrgos.” DOP 59 (2005):
Middle Ages.” Muqarnas 18 (2000): 141–54. 95–138.
Kazhdan, A., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Kitzinger, E. “Mosaic Pavements in the Greek
Byzantium. 3 vols. Oxford, 1991. East and the Question of a ‘Renaissance’
Kazhdan, A., and G. Constable. People and Power under Justinian.” In Actes du VIe Congrès
in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern International d’Etudes Byzantines, Paris 1948,
Byzantine Studies. Washington, DC, 1982. 209–23. Paris, 1951.
Kelly, J. “The Column of Arcadius: Reflections Kitzinger, E. “The Hellenistic Heritage of
of a Roman Narrative Tradition.” In Byzantine Art.” DOP 17 (1963), 95–115.
Byzantine Narrative: Papers in Honour of Kitzinger, E. Byzantine Art in the Making.
Roger Scott, edited by J. Burke, 259–65. Cambridge, 1977.
Melbourne, 2006. Kızıltan, Z., ed. Stories from the Hidden Harbor:
Kenaan-Kedar, N. “The Cathedral of Sebaste: Its Shipwrecks of Yenilapı. Istanbul, 2013.
Western Donors and Models.” In The Horns Klein, H., R. G. Ousterhout, and B. Pitarakis.
of Hattin, edited by B. Z. Kedar, 99–120. Kariye Camii, Yeniden/The Kariye Camii
Jerusalem, 1992. Reconsidered. Istanbul, 2011.
Kennedy, H. Crusader Castles. Cambridge, 1994. Kleinbauer, W. E. “The Origin and Functions of
Keser Kayaalp, E. “Églises et monastères du Ṭur the Aisled Tetraconch Churches in Syria and
‘Abdin: les débuts d’une architecture ‘syriaque.’” Northern Mesopotamia.” DOP 27 (1973):
In Les églises en monde syriaque, edited by 89–114.
F. Briquel Chatonnet, 269–88. Paris, 2013. Kleinbauer, W. E. “‘Aedita in Turribus’: The
Keser Kayaalp, E., and N. Erdoğan. “Recent Superstructure of the Early Christian Church
Research on Dara/Anastasiopolis.” In New of S. Lorenzo in Milan.” Gesta, vol. 15, no.
Cities in Late Antiquity: Documents and 1/2 (1976): 1–9.
Archaeology, edited by E. Rizos, 153–75. Kleinbauer, W. E. “The Church Building at
Turnhout, 2017. Seleucia Pieria.” In Antioch: The Lost City, edited
Kiilerich, B. Late Fourth Century Classicism in by C. Kondoleon, 217–18. Princeton, 2001.
the Plastic Arts: Studies in the So-Called Kleiss, W. “Beobachtungen in der Hagia Sophia
Theodosian Renaissance. Odense, 1993. in Istanbul.” IstMitt 15 (1965): 168–85.
Kiilerich, B. “Making Sense of Spolia in the Klengel, H. Syrien zwischen Alexander und
Little Metropolis in Athens.” Arte Medieval 4 Mohammed. Vienna, 1987.
(2005): 95–114. Knoll, F., and J. Keil. Die Marienkirche.
Kinney, D. “The Evidence for the Dating of Forschungen in Ephesos VI.1. Vienna, 1932.
S. Lorenzo in Milan.” JSAH 31, no. 2 (1972): Koder, J., ed. and trans. To Eparchikon Biblion.
92–107. Vienna, 1991.
Kinney, D. “Rape or Restitution of the Past? Koder, J. “Fresh Vegetables for the Capital.”
Interpreting Spolia.” In The Art of In Constantinople and Its Hinterland, edited

by C. Mango and G. Dagron, 49–56. Kraeling, C. H. Gerasa, City of the Decapolis.
Aldershot, 1995. New Haven, 1938.
Kollwitz, J. “Die Grabungen in Resafa.” In Neue Kraeling, C. H. The Synagogue: The Excavations
deutsche Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet at Dura Europos Conducted by Yale University
und vorderen Orient, edited by E. Boehringer, and the French Academy of Inscriptions and
45–70. Berlin, 1959. Letters, Final Report VIII, 1. New Haven,
Komech, A. I. Drevnerusskoe zodchestvo konca 1956.
X-nachala XI v. Moscow, 1995. Kraeling, C. H. The Christian Building: The
Konrad, M. “Roman Military Fortifications Excavations at Dura Europos Conducted by Yale
along the Eastern Desert Frontier: Settlement University and the French Academy of
Continuities and Change in North Syria Inscriptions and Letters, Final Report VIII, 2.
4th–8th centuries.” In Residences, Castles, New Haven, 1967.
Settlements. Transformation Processes from Late Krautheimer, R. “S. Nicola di Bari und die
Antiquity to Early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, apulische architekur des 12. Jahrhunderts.”
edited by K. Bartl and A. Moaz, 533–53. WJKg 9 (1934): 5–42.
Rahden, 2008. Krautheimer, R. “Introduction to an
Korres, M. “The Parthenon from Antiquity to ‘Iconography of Medieval Architecture.’”
the 19th Century.” In The Parthenon and Its JWarb 5 (1942): 1–33.
Impact in Modern Times, edited by Krautheimer, R. “The Architecture of Sixtus III:
P. Tournikiotis. Athens, 1994. A Fifth-Century Renaissance.” In Essays in
Korres, M. “The Architecture of Pythion Honor of Erwin Panofsky, edited by M. Meiss,
Castle,” Byzantinische Forschungen 14 (1989): 291–302. New York, 1961.
273–78. Krautheimer, R. Early Christian and Byzantine
Kostof, S. The Orthodox Baptistery of Ravenna. Architecture. Harmondsworth, 1965.
New Haven, 1965. Krautheimer, R. Early Christian and Byzantine
Kostof, S. A History of Architecture: Settings and Architecture. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth,
Rituals, 2nd ed. New York, 1995. 1975.
Kotzabassi, S., ed. The Pantokrator Monastery in Krautheimer, R., et al. Corpus Basilicarum
Constantinople. Byzantinisches Archiv 27. Christianarum Romae: The Early Christian
Berlin, 2013. Basilicas of Rome (IV–IX cent.). 5 vols. Vatican
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., and Ch. Bakirtzis. City, 1937–77.
Philippi. Athens, 1995. Krautheimer, R. Rome: Profile of a City 312–1308.
Koumantos, A. “Wooden Reinforcement in Princeton, 1980.
Byzantine Masonry: A Rough Guide to Their Krautheimer, R. “Success and Failure in Late
Position and Arrangement.” In Against Antique Church Planning.” In Age of
Gravity: Building Practices in the Pre-Industrial Spirituality: A Symposium, edited by
World, edited by R. G. Ousterhout, H.-G. Beck, 121–39. New York, 1980.
L. Haselberger, R. Holod, and P. Webster, Krautheimer, R. Three Christian Capitals:
1–32. Philadelphia, 2016. Online publication Topography and Politics. Berkeley, 1983.
of papers from the 2015 Penn Center for Krautheimer, R., and S. Ćurčić. Early Christian
Ancient Studies Conference: http://www.sas. and Byzantine Architecture. 4th ed. New
upenn.edu/ancient/masons/abstracts/Agudo/ Haven, 1986.
Athanasios%20Koumantos%20-%20 Kreutz, B., ed. Before the Normans: Southern Italy
Against%20Gravity%20paper.pdf. in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries.
Koumantos, A. “Xulines Domikes Enischuseis Philadelphia, 1992.
ste Vyzantine Architektonike.” PhD diss., Kuban, D. “The Style of Sinan’s Domed
University of Patras, 2018. Structures.” Muqarnas 4 (1987): 72–97.
Kozelj, T., A. Lambraki, and J.–P. Sodini. Les Kühnel, B. Crusader Art of the Twelfth Century: A
carrières à l’époque paléochrétienne, Aliki I. Geographical, an Historical, or an Art
Paris, 1980. Historical Notion? Berlin, 1994.
Bibliography 741
Kuniholm, P. I. “New Tree-Ring Dates for Lavan, L., ed. Recent Research in Late Antique
Byzantine Buildings.” Byzantine Studies Urbanism. JRA Supplement 42. Portsmouth,
Conference Abstracts of Papers 21 (1995): 35. 2001.
Kuniholm, P. I. “Dendrochronology and Lavan, L. “From Polis to Emporion? Retail and
Other Applications of Tree-Ring Studies in Regulation in the Late Antique City.” In Trade
Archaeology.” In The Handbook of Archaeological and Markets in Byzantium, edited by
Sciences, edited by D. R. Brothwell and C. Morrisson, 333–77. Washington, DC, 2012.
A. M. Pollard, 1–11. London, 2001. Lavin, I. “The House of the Lord: Aspects of the
Kuniholm, P. I., and C. L. Striker, Role of Palace Triclinia in the Architecture of
“Dendrochronology and the Architectural Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.” ArtB
History of the Church of the Holy Apostles 44, no. 1 (1962): 1–27.
in Thessaloniki,” Architectura 2 (1990): 1–26. Lehmann, K. “The Dome of Heaven.” ArtB 27,
Kuniholm, P. I., C. L. Pearson, T. J. Ważny, and no. 1 (1945): 1–27.
C. B. Griggs. “Of Harbors and Trees: The Lemerle, P. Philippes et la Macédoine Orientale à
Marmaray Contribution to a 2367-Year Oak- l’époque chrétienne et byzantine. Paris, 1945.
Tree-Ring Chronology from 97 Sites for the Lenoir, A. Architecture monastique. Paris, 1852.
Aegean, East Mediterranean, and Black Seas.” Leone, A. Changing Townscapes in North Africa
In Istanbul and Water, edited by P. Magdalino from Late Antiquity to the Arab Conquest.
and N. Ergin, 45–90. Peeters, 2014. Bari, 2007.
Küpper, H. Bautypus und Genesis der griechischen Lepage, C., and J. Mercier. Les églises historiques
Dachtranseptkirche. Vienna, 1996. du Tigray. Paris, 2005.
Kuran, A. The Mosque in Early Ottoman Levine, L. The Ancient Synagogue: The First
Architecture. Chicago, 1968. Thousand Years. New Haven, 2000.
Kuran, A. Sinan: The Grand Old Master of Lewis, S. “Function and Symbolic Form in the
Ottoman Architecture. Istanbul, 1987. Basilica Apostolorum at Milan.” JSAH 28
Laborde, L. de. Voyage en Orient. I. Asie (1969): 83–98.
Mineure. Paris, 1937. Lewis, S. “The Latin Iconography of the Single-
Lactantius. De Mortibus Persecutorum. Oxford, Naved Cruciform Basilica Apostolorum in
1984. Milan,” ArtB 51, no. 3 (1969), 205–19.
Ladstätter, S. “Ephesus.” In The Archaeology of Lloyd, S., and D. Storm Rice. Alanya. London,
Byzantine Anatolia, edited by P. Niewöhner, 1958.
238–40. Oxford, 2017. Logvin, H. Kiev’s Hagia Sophia. Kiev, 1971.
Lafontaine, J. “Sarıca Kilise en Cappadoce.” Loosley, E. The Architecture and Liturgy of the
CahArch 12 (1962): 263–84. Bema in Fourth- to Sixth-Century Syrian
Laiou, A. “Händler und Kaufleute auf dem Churches. Leiden, 2012.
Jahrmarkt.” In Fest und Alltag in Byzanz, Lowden, J. Early Christian and Byzantine Art.
edited by G. Prinzing and D. Simon, 53–70. London, 1997.
Munich, 1990. Lowry, H. The Nature of the Early Ottoman State.
Lancaster, L. Concrete Vaulted Construction in Albany, 2003.
Imperial Rome: Innovations in Context. Löx, Markus. Monumenta sanctorum: Rom und
Cambridge, 2005. Mailand als Zentren des frühen Christentums:
Lancaster, L. Innovative Vaulting in the Märtyrerkult und Kirchenbau unter den Bischöfen
Architecture of the Roman Empire 1st to 4th Damasus und Ambrosius. Wiesbaden, 2013.
Centuries ce. New York, 2015. Maas, M., ed. The Cambridge Companion to the
Lassus, J. “L’église cruciform de Antioche- Age of Justinian. Cambridge, 2005.
Kaoussié.” In Antioch on the Orontes, vol. 2, MacDonald, W., and J. Pinto. Hadrian’s Villa
edited by R. Stillwell, 114–56. Princeton, and Its Legacy. New Haven, 1995.
1938. Macridy, Th., et al., “The Monastery of Lips and
Lassus, J. “La basilique africaine.” CorsiRav 17 the Burials of the Palaeologi.” DOP 18
(1970): 217–34. (1964): 253–77.

Madden, T. Venice: A New History. New York, 2012. Maguire, H. “Truth and Convention in
Magdalino, P. “The Byzantine Aristocratic Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art.”
Oikos.” In The Byzantine Aristocracy IX–XIII DOP 28 (1974): 113–49.
Centuries, edited by M. Angold, 92–111. Maguire, H. “The ‘Half-Cone’ Vault of St.
Oxford, 1984. Stephen at Gaza.” DOP 32 (1978): 319–25.
Magdalino, P. “Observations on the Nea Maguire, H. “The Cycle of Images in the
Ekklesia of Basil I.” JÖB 37 (1987): 51–64. Church.” In Heaven on Earth: Art and the
Magdalino, P. Constantinople médiévale: Études Church in Byzantium, edited by L. Safran,
sur l’évolution des structures urbaines. Paris, 121–51. University Park, 1998.
1996. Mainstone, R. J. Hagia Sophia: Architecture,
Magdalino, P. “Constantine V and the Middle Structure, and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great
Age of Constantinople.” In Studies on the Church. New York, 1988.
History and Topography of Byzantine Malalas, J. The Chronicle of John Malalas.
Constantinople, 1–24. Aldershot, 2007. Translated by E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys,
Magdalino, P. “Medieval Constantinople.” In R. Scott, and B. Croke. Melbourne, 1986.
Studies on the History and Topography of Mallius, Petrus. Basilicae veteris vaticanae
Byzantine Constantinople, 1–111. Aldershot, descriptio. Rome, 1646.
2007. Mamaloukos, S. To Katholiko tes Mones Vatopediou.
Magdalino, P. “Theodore Metochites, the Chora, Istoria kai Architektonike. Athens, 2001.
and Constantinople.” In Kariye Camii, Mamaloukos, S. “Zetemata schediasmou ste
Yeniden/The Kariye Camii Reconsidered, edited byzantine architektonike.” DChAE 4, no. 24
by H. A. Klein, R. G. Ousterhout, and (2003): 119–28.
B. Pitarakis, 169–87. Istanbul, 2011. Mamaloukos, S. “A Contribution to the Study
Magdalino, P. “The Byzantine Antecedents to of the ‘Athonite’ Church Type of Byzantine
the Round Church at Preslav.” Problemi na Architecture.” Zograf 35 (2011): 39–50.
Izkustvoto 2 (2012): 3–5. Mamaloukos, S. “Zetemata anaparastases tes
Magdalino, P. “The Pantokrator Monastery in its archikes morphes to Naou to Agiou Tito ste
Urban Setting.” In The Pantokrator Monastery Gortyna.” DChAE 34 (2013): 11–24.
in Constantinople, edited by S. Kotzabassi, Mango, C. The Brazen House: A Study of the
33–55. Byzantinisches Archiv 27. Berlin, 2013. Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of
Magen, Y. “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Constantinople. Copenhagen, 1959.
Mount Gerizim.” In Christian Archaeology in Mango, C. Materials for the Study of the Mosaic
the Holy Land: New Discoveries, edited by of St. Sophia at Istanbul. Washington, DC,
G. C. Bottini, L. di Segni, and A. Alliata, 1962.
333–42. Jerusalem, 1990. Mango, C. “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine
Magen, Y. Mount Gerizim Excavations, II. A Beholder.” DOP 17 (1963): 55–75.
Temple City. Jerusalem, 2008. Mango, C. “Constantinopolitana.” JDAI 80
Magen, Y., and R. Talgam. “The Monastery of (1965): 305–36.
Martyrius at Maale Adumim (Khirbet el- Mango, C. “Isaurian Builders.” In Polychronion
Murassas) and Its Mosaics.” In Christian (Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75 Geburtstag),
Archaeology in the Holy Land: Essays in Honor edited by P. Wirth, 358–65. Heidelberg, 1966.
of Virgilio C. Corbo, edited by G. C. Bottini, Mango, C. “The Byzantine Church at Vize
L. di Segni, and E. Alliata, 91–152. Jerusalem, (Bizye) in Thrace and St. Mary the Younger.”
1990. ZRVI 11 (1968): 9–13.
Magness, J. The Archaeology of the Holy Land Mango, C. “The Monastery of St. Abercius at
from the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Kurşunlu (Elegmi) in Bithynia.” DOP 22
Muslim Conquest. Cambridge, 2012. (1968): 169–76.
Maguire, E. “The Capitals and Other Granite Mango, C. Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453:
Carvings of Justinian’s Church at Mount Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs,
Sinai.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1986. 1972.
Bibliography 743
Mango, C. “The Church of Saints Sergius and Mansel, A. M. Die Ruinen von Side. Berlin,
Bacchus at Constantinople and the Alleged 1963.
Tradition of Octagonal Palatine Churches.” Maranci, C. Medieval Armenian Architecture:
JÖB 21 (1972): 189–93. Constructions of Race and Nation. Louvain,
Mango, C. Byzantine Architecture. New York, 2001.
1974. Maranci, C. “The Architect Trdat: Building
Mango, C. “The Monument and Its History.” In Practices and Cross-Cultural Exchange in
The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Byzantium and Armenia.” JSAH 62, no. 3
Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul, (2003): 294–305.
edited by H. Belting, C. Mango, and Maranci, C. “Building Churches in Armenia:
D. Mouriki, 1–39. Washington, DC, 1978. Art at the Borders of Empire and the Edge of
Mango, C. Le développement urbain de the Canon.” ArtB 88 (2006): 656–75.
Constantinople. Paris, 1985. Maranci, C. “The Archaeology and
Mango, C. “The Development of Reconstruction Theories of Zuart‘noc’.” DOP
Constantinople as an Urban Centre.” In 17th 68 (2015): 69–115.
International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Maranci, C. Vigilant Powers: Three Churches of
Main Papers, 117–36. New Rochelle, 1986. Early Medieval Armenia. Turnhout, 2015.
Mango, C. “Approaches to Byzantine Marinis, V. “The Monastery tou Libos:
Architecture.” Muqarnas 8 (1991): 40–44. Architecture, Sculpture and Liturgical
Mango, C. “Byzantine Writers on the Fabric of Planning in Middle and Late Byzantine
Hagia Sophia.” In Hagia Sophia from the Age Constantinople.” PhD diss., University of
of Justinian to the Present, edited by R. Mark Illinois, 2004.
and A. Çakmak, 41–56. Cambridge, 1992. Marinis, V. “Tombs and Burials in the
Mango, C. “The Water Supply of Monastery tou Libos in Constantinople.”
Constantinople.” In Constantinople and Its DOP 63 (2009): 147–66.
Hinterland, edited by C. Mango and Marinis, V. Architecture and Ritual in the
G. Dagron, 9–18. Aldershot, 1995. Churches of Constantinople: Ninth to Fifteenth
Mango, C. Hagia Sophia: A Vision for Empires. Centuries. Cambridge, 2014.
Istanbul, 1997. Marinis, V. “The Original Form of the
Mango, C. “The Palace of the Bukoleon.” Theotokos tou Libos Reconsidered.” In
CahArch 45 (1997): 41–50. Daskala: Apodose times sten Omotime Maire
Mango, C. “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine Panagiotide-Kesisoglou, edited by P. Petrides
at Constantinople.” In Acta XIII Congressus and V. Foskolou, 267–303. Athens, 2014.
Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, edited Marinis, V., and R. G. Ousterhout. “‘Grant Us
by N. Cambi and E. Marin, 61–76. Vatican to Share a Place and Lot with Them’: Relics
City and Split, 1998. and the Byzantine Church Building
Mango, C., and R. Scott, ed. and trans. The (9th–15th Centuries).” In Saints and Sacred
Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. Oxford, Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and
1997. Beyond, edited by C. Hahn and H. Klein,
Mango, C., and I. Ševčenko. “Some Churches 153–72. Washington, DC, 2015.
and Monasteries on the Southern Shore of Marinou, G. Hagios Demetrios he metropole tou
the Sea of Marmara.” DOP 27 (1973): Mustra. Athens, 2002.
235–77. Mark, R. Architectural Technology up to the
Mango, M. M. “The Commercial Map of Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, 1993.
Constantinople.” DOP 54 (2000): 189–207. Mark the Deacon. Vita Porphyrii, edited by
Manners, I. “Constructing the Image of a City: H. Grégoire and M. A. Kugener. Paris,
The Representation of Constantinople in 1930.
Christopher Buondelmonti’s Liber Insularum Marlowe, E. “Framing the Sun: The Arch of
Archipelagi.” Annals of the Association of Constantine and the Roman Cityscape.” ArtB
American Geographers 87 (1997): 72–102. 88, no. 2 (2006): 223–42.

Marr, N. Ani, knizhnaya istoriya goroda i Megaw, A. H. S. “Glazed Bowls in Byzantine
raskopki. Leningrad, 1934. Churches.” DChAE 4 (1964): 145–62.
Marr, N. Ani: Rêve d’Arménie, trans. Megaw, A. H. S. “The Original Form of
P. M. Muradyan. Paris, 2001. Theotokos Church of Constantine Lips.”
Marucchi, O. Le catacombe romane. Rome, 1933. DOP 18 (1964): 249–77.
Matejčić, I., and P. Chevalier. “Nouvelle Megaw, A. H. S. “Byzantine Architecture and
interpretation du complexe episcopal pré- Decoration on Cyprus: Metropolitan or
euphresien de Poreč.” Antiquité Tardive 6 Provincial? DOP 28 (1974): 57–88.
(1998): 355–65. Meiggs, R. Trees and Timber in the Ancient
Mathews, T. F. “An Early Roman Chancel Mediterranean World. Oxford, 1982.
Arrangement and Its Liturgical Uses.” RACr Melikian, S. “‘Byzantium Art’: A Fit-All
38 (1962): 71–95. Category Defeated by Its Elusiveness.”
Mathews, T. F. “Observations on the Church of International Herald Tribune (24–25 January
Panagia Kamariotissa on Heybeliada 2009): 11.
(Chalke),” DOP 27 (1973): 115–27. Mentzos, A. “Reflections on the Architectural
Mathews, T. F. The Byzantine Churches of History of the Tetrarchic Palace Complex at
Istanbul: A Photographic Survey. University Thessalonikē.” In From Roman to Early
Park, 1976. Christian Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and
Mathews, T. F. The Early Churches of Archaeology, edited by L. Nasrallah, Ch.
Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy. Bakirtzis, and S. J. Friesen, 333–60.
University Park, 1977. Cambridge, 2010.
Mathews, T. F. “Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Mentzos, A., ed. Impressions: Byzantine
Church Decoration.” Perkins Journal 41, no. 3 Thessalonike through the Photographs and
(1988): 11–21. Drawings of the British School at Athens
Mathews, T. F., and A.-C. Daskalakis-Mathews. (1888–1910). Thessalonike, 2102.
“Islamic-Style Mansions in Byzantine Mexia, A. “Byzantine naodomia sten
Cappadocia and the Development of the Peloponneso, He periptose ton
Inverted T-Plan.” JSAH 56 (1997): 294–315. mesovyzantinon naon tes Mesa Manes.” PhD
Mathews, T. F., and E. Hawkins. “Notes on the diss., University of Athens, 2011.
Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii in Istanbul and Its Meyer-Plath, B., and A. M. Schnieder. Die
Frescoes.” DOP 39 (1985): 125–34. Landmauer von Konstantinopel. 2 vols.
Matthews, D., and A. Mordini. “The Monastery Berlin, 1943.
of Debra Damo, Ethiopia.” Archaeologia 87 Michel, A. Les églises d’époque byzantine et
(1959): 1–58. umayyade de Jordanie (provinces d’Arabie et de
Matthews, J. “The Notitia Urbis Palestine) Ve–VIIIe siècle: Typologie
Constantinopolitanae.” In Two Romes: Rome architecturale et aménagements liturgiques (avec
and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, edited by catalogue des monuments). Turnhout, 2001.
L. Grig and G. Kelly, 81–115. Oxford, 2012. Mihaljević, M. “Constantinopolitan
McClary, R. Rum Seljuq Architecture, 1170–1220: Architecture of the Komnenian Era
The Patronage of Sultans. Edinburgh, 2017. (1080–1180) and Its Impact in the Balkans.”
McKenzie, J. The Architecture of Alexandria and PhD diss., Princeton University, 2010.
Egypt 300 BC–700 AD. New Haven, 2007. Mihaljević, M. “Üçayak: A Forgotten Byzantine
Megaw, A. H. S. “The Chronology of Some Church.” BZ 107 (2014): 725–54.
Middle Byzantine Churches.” BSA 32 Mijatev, K. Die mittelalterliche Baukunst in
(1931–32): 90–130. Bulgarien. Sofia, 1974.
Megaw, A. H. S. “Byzantine Architecture in Mileham, G. S. Churches in Lower Nubia.
Mani.” BSA 33 (1932–33): 137–62. Philadelphia, 1910.
Megaw, A. H. S. “Notes on the Recent Work of Miles, G. C. “Byzantium and the Arabs:
the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul.” DOP 17 Relations in Crete and the Aegean Area.”
(1963): 333–64. DOP 18 (1964): 20–32.
Bibliography 745
Miljković-Pepek, P. Veljusa. Manastir Sv. Mylonas, P. Mone Osiou Louka tou Steirote.
Bogorodica Milostiva vo Seloto Beljusa krai Athens, 2005.
Strumica. Skopje, 1981. Mylonas, P., ed. Vasili Gkregkorovits Mparski: ta
Miller, W. Trebizond: The Last Greek Empire. schedia apo ta taxidia tou sto Hagion Oros,
London, 1926. 1725–1726, 1744–1745. Thessaloniki, 2010.
Millet, G. Daphni. Paris, 1899. Naumann, R. “Vorbericht über die
Millet, G. L’école grecque dans l’architecture Ausgrabungen zwischen Mese und
byzantine. Paris, 1916. Antiochos-Palast 1964 in Istanbul.” IstMitt 15
Millet, G. L’ancien art serbe. Paris, 1919. (1965): 135–48.
Mitchell, J. The Butrint Baptistery and Its Naumann, R., and H. Belting. Die Euphemia-
Mosaics. London, 2008. Kirche am Hippodrom zu Istanbul und Ihre
Mnats’akanyan, S. Arhitektura armjanskich Fresken. Berlin, 1966.
pritvorov. Erevan, 1952. Necipoğlu, G. “The Life of an Imperial
Mongiello, L. Chiese di Puglia. Il fenomeno delle Monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium.”
chiese a cupola. Bari, 1988. In Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to
Monneret de Villard, U. Le chiese della the Present, edited by R. Mark and
Mesopotamia. OCA 128. Rome, 1940. A. Çakmak, 195–225. Cambridge, 1992.
Moore, K. The Architecture of the Christian Holy Necipoğlu, G. “Challenging the Past: Sinan and the
Land: Reception from Late Antiquity through Competitive Discourse of Early Modern Islamic
the Renaissance. Cambridge, 2017. Architecture.” Muqarnas 10 (1993): 169–80.
Morganstern, J. The Byzantine Church at Necipoğlu, G. The Age of Sinan: Architectural
Dereağzı and Its Decoration. Istanbuler Culture in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton, 2005.
Mitteilungen Beiheft 29. Tübingen, 1983. Nelson, R. S. “The Map of Art History.” ArtB 79
Moutsopoulos, N. “Anaskafe tes basilikes tou (1997): 28–40.
Agiou Achilleiou.” EEPS 5 (1971–72): 47–461. Nelson, R. S. Hagia Sophia 1850–1950: Holy
Moutsopoulos, N. K. Peristera, ho oreinos Wisdom, Modern Monument. Chicago, 2004.
oikismos tou Chortiatē kai ho Naos tou Hagiou Nestori, A. Repertorio topografico delle pitture
Andrea. Thessalonike, 1986. delle catacombe romane. Rome, 1967.
Moutsopoulos, N. K. “Rendina, Greece.” In Nicklies, C. “Builders, Patrons, and Identity:
Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans The Domed Basilicas of Sicily and Calabria.”
1300–1500 and Its Preservation, edited by Gesta 43 (2004): 99–114.
S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, 82–85. Nicol, D. Meteora: The Rock Monasteries of
Thessalonike, 1997. Thessaly. London, 1963.
Moutsopoulos, N. K. “Tower of Karytaina, Nicol, D. The Despotate of Epirus, 1267–1479.
Greece.” In Secular Medieval Architecture in Cambridge, 1984.
the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, Nicol, D. The Last Centuries of Byzantium,
edited by S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, 1261–1453. Cambridge, 1993.
214–15. Thessalonike, 1997. Niewöhner, P., ed. The Archaeology of Byzantine
Müller-Wiener, W. Bildlexikon zur Topographie Anatolia. Oxford, 2017.
Istanbuls. Tübingen, 1977. Noailles, P., and A. Dain, eds. Les novelles de
Mylonas, P. “Le plan initial du catholicon de la Leon VI le Sage. Paris, 1944.
Grande-Lavra au Mont Athos et la genèse du Nocera, D. “The Round Church at Beth Shean.”
type du catholicon athonite.” CahArch 32 Expedition 55, no. 1 (2013): 16–20.
(1984): 98–112. Noret, J., ed. Vita duae antiquae Sancti Athanasii
Mylonas, P. “Gavits armeniéns et Litae Athonitae. Turnhout, 1982.
byzantines. Observations nouvelles sur le Ochsendorf, J. A. Guastavino Vaulting: The Art of
complexe de Saint-Luc en Phocide.” CahArch Structural Tile. New York, 2013.
38 (1990): 99–122. Oikonomides, N. “The Contents of the Byzantine
Mylonas, P. Pictorial Dictionary of the Holy House from the Eleventh to the Fifteenth
Mountain Athos. Tübingen, 2000. Centuries.” DOP 44 (1990): 205–14.

Oikonomides, N. “The First Century of the Ousterhout, R. G. “Rebuilding the Temple:
Monastery of Hosios Loukas.” DOP 46 Constantine Monomachus and the Holy
(1992): 245–55. Sepulchre.” JSAH 48 (1981): 66–78.
O’Neill, R. “Gothic on the Edge: Light, Ousterhout, R. G. The Architecture of the
Levitation, and Seismic Culture in the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. Washington,
Evolution of Medieval Religious Architecture DC, 1987.
of the Eastern Mediterranean.” PhD diss., Ousterhout, R. G., ed., The Blessings of
Columbia University, 2015. Pilgrimage. Urbana, 1990.
Öner, T., and J. Kostenec. Walking through Ousterhout, R. G. “The Temple, the Sepulchre,
Byzantium: Great Palace Region. Istanbul, and the Martyrion of the Savior.” Gesta 29,
2007. no. 1 (1990): 44–53.
Orlandos, A. K. “Byzantina mnemeia tes Artes.” Ousterhout, R. G. “Constantinople, Bithynia,
ArchBME 2 (1936). and Regional Developments in Later
Orlandos, A. K. “Ta palatia kai ta spitia tou Byzantine Architecture.” In The Twilight of
Mystra.” ArchBME 3 (1937). Byzantium, edited by S. Ćurčić and
Orlandos, A. K. “Ta vyzantina mnemeia tes D. Mouriki, 75–91. Princeton, 1991.
Kastorias.” ArchBME 4 (1938). Ousterhout, R. G. “Originality in Byzantine
Orlandos, A. K. “He Mone tou Hosiou Architecture: The Case of Nea Moni.” JSAH
Meletiou kai ta paralauria aute.” ArchBME 5 51 (1992): 48–60.
(1939–40). Ousterhout, R. G. “Ethnic Identity and Cultural
Orlandos, A. K. Monasteriake Architektonike. Appropriation in Early Ottoman
Athens, 1958. Architecture.” Muqarnas 13 (1995): 48–62.
Orlandos, A. K. He Paregoretissa tes Artas. Ousterhout, R. G. “An Apologia for Byzantine
Athens, 1963. Architecture.” Gesta 35, no. 1 (1996): 21–33.
Orlandos, A. K. “Quelques notes complémentaires Ousterhout, R. G. “Building the New
sur les maisons paléologuiennes de Mistra.” In Jerusalem.” In Jerozolima w kulturze
Art et Société à Byzance sur les Paléologues, europejskiej, edited by P. Paszkiewicza and
73–89. Venice, 1971. T. Zadroznego, 143–54. Warsaw, 1997.
Orlandos, A. K. He xylostegos palaiochristianike Ousterhout, R. G. “Collaboration and
vasilike tes mesogeiakes lekanes. 2nd ed. Innovation in the Arts of Byzantine
Athens, 1994. Constantinople.” BMGS 21 (1997): 93–112.
Ortalli, G., G. Ravegnani, and P. Schreiner, Ousterhout, R. G. “Secular Architecture.” In The
eds. Quarta Crociata. 2 vols. Venice, Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the
2006. Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, edited
Otten, T. “Pergamon.” In The Archaeology of by H. Evans and W. Wixom, 193–99. New
Byzantine Anatolia, edited by P. Niewöhner, York, 1997.
226–30. Oxford, 2017. Ousterhout, R. G. “Reconstructing Ninth-
Otterman, S. “Work Stops on St. Nicholas Century Constantinople.” In Byzantium in
Shrine at World Trade Center Site.” New York the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive?, edited by
Times. 26 December 2017. L. Brubaker, 115–30. Aldershot, 1998.
Ötüken, S. Y. “2005 Yılı Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Ousterhout, R. G. Master Builders of Byzantium.
Kazısı.” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 28 (2006), Princeton, 1999.
II: 157–74. Ousterhout, R. G. “Contextualizing the Later
Ötüken, Y., and R. G. Ousterhout, “The Churches of Constantinople: Suggested
Byzantine Church at Çeltikdere Methodologies and a Few Examples.” DOP
(Seben-Bolu).” In Studien zur byzantinischen 54 (2000): 241–50.
Kunstgeschichte. Festschrift für Ousterhout, R. G. “Architecture of Iconoclasm.”
H. Hallensleben, edited by B. Borkopp, In Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca.
B. Schellewald, and L. Theis, 85–92. 680–850): The Sources, edited by L. Brubaker
Amsterdam, 1995. and J. Haldon, 3–36. Aldershot, 2001.
Bibliography 747
Ousterhout, R. G. The Art of the Kariye Camii. Ousterhout, R. G. “Houses, Markets, and Baths:
London–Istanbul, 2002. Secular Architecture in Byzantium.” In
Ousterhout, R. G. “Byzantine Funerary Heaven & Earth: Art of Byzantium from Greek
Architecture of the Twelfth Century.” Collections, edited by A. Drandaki,
Drevnerusskoe iskustvo. Rusi i stranii D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, and A. Tourta,
byzantinskogo mira XII vek, 5–17. St. 211–213. Athens, 2013.
Petersburg, 2002. Ousterhout, R. G. “The Life and Afterlife of
Ousterhout, R. G. “Architecture as Relic and the Constantine’s Column.” JRA 27 (2014):
Construction of Sanctity: The Stones of the 304–26.
Holy Sepulchre.” JSAH 62, no. 1 (2003): 4–23. Ousterhout, R. G. “Byzantine Architecture:
Ousterhout, R. G. “The French Connection? A Moving Target?” In Byzantium Modernism:
Construction of Vaults and Cultural Identity The Byzantine as Method in Modernity, edited
in Crusader Architecture.” In France and the by R. Betancourt and M. Taroutina, 163–76.
Holy Land: Frankish Culture at the End of the Leiden, 2015.
Crusades, edited by D. Weiss, 77–94. Ousterhout, R. G. “Architecture and Patronage
Baltimore, 2004. in the Age of John II.” In John II Komnenos,
Ousterhout, R. G. “‘Bestride the Very Peak of Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father
Heaven’: The Parthenon in the Byzantine and and Son, edited by A. Bucossi and
Ottoman Periods.” In The Parthenon from A. Rodriguez-Suarez, 135–54. Farnham, 2016.
Antiquity to the Present, edited by J. Neils, Ousterhout, R. G. “The Red Church at
292–325. Cambridge, 2005. Sivrihisar (Cappadocia): Aspects of Structure
Ousterhout, R. G. A Byzantine Settlement in and Construction.” In Against Gravity:
Cappadocia. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 42. Building Practices in the Pre-Industrial World,
Washington, DC, 2005; 2nd ed., 2011. edited by R. G. Ousterhout, L. Haselberger,
Ousterhout, R. G. “Architecture and Cultural R. Holod, and P. Webster, 1–11. Philadelphia,
Identity in the Eastern Mediterranean.” In 2016. Online publication of papers from the
Hybride Kulturen im mittelalterliche Europa, 2015 Penn Center for Ancient Studies
edited by M. Borgolte and B. Schneidmüller, Conference: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/
261–75. Berlin, 2010. ancient/publications.html.
Ousterhout, R. G. “Constantinople and the Ousterhout, R. G. “Sightlines, Hagioscopes, and
Construction of a Medieval Urban Identity.” Church Planning in Byzantine Cappadocia.”
In The Byzantine World, edited by AH 39, no. 5 (2016): 848–67.
P. Stephenson, 334–51. London, 2010. Ousterhout, R. G. Visualizing Community: Art,
Ousterhout, R. G. “New Temples and New Material Culture, and Settlement in Byzantine
Solomons: The Rhetoric of Byzantine Cappadocia. Washington, DC, 2017.
Architecture.” In The Old Testament in Ousterhout, R. G., Z. Ahunbay, and
Byzantium, edited by P. Magdalino and M. Ahunbay. “Study and Restoration of the
R. Nelson, 223–53. Washington, DC, 2010. Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: First Report,
Ousterhout, R. G. John Henry Haynes: A 1997–98.” DOP 54 (2000): 265–70.
Photographer and Archaeologist in the Ottoman Ousterhout, R. G., Z. Ahunbay, and
Empire, 1881–1900. Istanbul, 2011. M. Ahunbay. “Study and Restoration of the
Ousterhout, R. G. “Two Byzantine Churches of Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: Second Report,
Silivri/Selymbria.” In Approaches to 2001–2005.” DOP 63 (2010): 235–56.
Architecture and Its Decoration: Festschrift for Ousterhout, R. G., and Ch. Bakirtzis. The
Slobodan Ćurčić, edited by M. Johnson, Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River
R. Ousterhout, and A. Papalexandrou, Valley. Thessaloniki, 2007.
239–57. Burlington, 2012. Ousterhout, R. G., and D. F. Ruggles.
Ousterhout, R. G. “Binbirkilise Revisited: The “Encounters with Islam: The Medieval
1887 Photographs of John Henry Haynes.” Mediterranean Experience.” Gesta 43, no. 2
DChAE 34 (2013): 395–404. (2004): 83–85.

Öztürk, F. G. “Açıksaray ‘Open Palace’: A at Athens (1888–1910), edited by A. Mentzos,
Byzantine Rock-Cut Settlement in 64–80. Thessaloniki, 2012.
Cappadocia.” BZ 107 (2014): 785–810. Papalexandrou, A. “The Church of the Virgin at
Öztürk, F. G. “Rock-Cut Architecture,” in The Skripou: Architecture, Sculpture, and
Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia: From the Inscriptions in Ninth-Century Byzantium.”
End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the PhD diss., Princeton University, 1998.
Turks, edited by P. Niewöhner, 148–59. New Papamastorakis, T. “Reflections of
York, 2017. Constantinople: The Iconographic Program
Page, G. Being Byzantine: Greek Identity before of the South Portico of the Hodegetria
the Ottomans. Cambridge, 2008. Church, Mystras.” In Viewing the Morea:
Paissidou, M. “Panagia ton Chalkeon.” In Land and People in the Late Medieval
Impressions: Byzantine Thessalonike through the Peloponnese, edited by S. Gerstel, 371–95.
Photographs and Drawings of the British School Washington, DC, 2013.
at Athens (1888–1910), edited by A. Mentzos, Papangelos, J. “The Holy Monastery of Zygos, in
126–35. Thessalonike, 2012. Athos.” Pemptousia. Updated 24 August 2015.
Palmer, A. Monk and Mason on the Tigris http://pemptousia.com/2015/08/the-holy-
Frontier: The Early History of the Tur ‘Abdin. monastery-of-zygos/. Consulted 16 January
Cambridge, 1990. 2018.
Pancaroğlu, O. “The Mosque–Hospital Complex Papazotos, Th. “The Identification of the Church
at Divriği: A History of Relations and of ‘Profitis Elias’ in Thessalokini.” DOP 45
Transitions.” Anadolu ve Çevresinde Ortaçağ (1991): 121–27.
3 (2009): 169–98. Papazotos, Th. E Veroia kai oi Naoi tes. Athens,
Panofsky, E. Renaissance and Renascences in 1994.
Western Art. Stockholm, 1960. Paribeni, R. “Richerche nel luogo dell’antica
Pantelić, B. “L’église de Saint Savas à Belgrade.” Adulis.” Monumenti antichi 18 (1907): 437–572.
EtBalk 12 (2005): 181–85. Parker, S. The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan:
Pantelić, B. “Designing Identities: Reshaping the Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project,
Balkans in the First Two Centuries: The Case 1980–1985. Oxford, 1987.
of Serbia.” Journal of Design History 20 Paspates, A. G. Byzantinai meletai. Topographikai
(2007): 131–44. kai historikai. Constantinople, 1877.
Panvinio, O. De Ludis Circensibus, libri II. Patrich, J. “The Early Church of the Holy
Venice, 1600. Sepulchre in the Light of Excavations and
Papaconstantinou, A. “Historiography, Restoration.” In Ancient Churches Revealed,
Hagiography, and the Making of the Coptic edited by Y. Tsafrir, 101–17. Jerusalem, 1993.
‘Church of the Martyrs’ in Early Islamic Patrich, J. Sabas, Leader of Palestinian
Egypt.” DOP 60 (2006): 65–86. Monasticism. Washington, DC, 1995.
Papaconstantinou, A. “Divine or Human? Some Peacock, A. C. S., and S. N. Yıldız, eds. The
Remarks on the Design and Layout of Late Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the
Antique Basilicas.” In The Material and the Ideal: Medieval Middle East. London, 2013.
Essays in Medieval Art and Archaeology in Honour Pekak, M. S. Trilye (Zeytinbağı) Fatih camisi
of Jean-Michel Spieser, edited by A. Cutler and Bizans kapalı Yunan haçı planı. Istanbul,
A. Papaconstantinou, 31–48. Leiden, 2007. 2009.
Papacostas, T. “The Medieval Progeny of the Pentcheva, B. Icons of Power: The Mother of God
Holy Apostles: Trails of Architectural in Byzantium. University Park, 2006.
Imitation Across the Mediterranean.” In The Pentcheva, B. “Hagia Sophia and Multisensory
Byzantine World, edited by P. Stephenson, Aesthetics.” Gesta 50, no. 2 (2011): 93–111.
386–405. London, 2010. Peschlow, U. “Neue Beobachtungen zur
Papakyriakou, Ch. “Acheiropoietos.” In Architektur und Ausstattung der
Impressions: Byzantine Thessaloniki through the Koimesiskirche in Iznik.” IstMitt 22 (1972):
Photographs and Drawings of the British School 145–87.
Bibliography 749
Peschlow, U. “Die Architektur der Visual Constructs of Jerusalem, edited by
Nikolaoskirche in Myra.” In Myra: Eine B. Kühnel, G. Noga-Banai, and H. Vorholt,
lykische Metropole, edited by J. Borchhardt, 35–44. Turnhout, 2014.
303–59. Berlin, 1975. Pickett, J. “Water after Antiquity: The Afterlives
Peschlow, U. Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul. of Roman Water Infrastructure in the Eastern
Untersuchungen zur Architektur. Tübingen, Mediterranean (300–800 AD).” PhD diss.,
1977. University of Pennsylvania, 2015.
Peschlow, U. “Mermerkule—Ein Pitarakis, B., ed. Hippodrome/Atmeydanı: A Stage
spätbyzantinischer Palast in Konstantinopel.” for Istanbul’s History. 2 vols. Istanbul, 2010.
In Studien zur byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte. Plommer, H. “The Cenacle on Mount Sion.” In
Festschrift H. Hallensleben zum 65. Geburstag, Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, edited by
93–97. Amsterdam, 1995. J. Folda, 139–66. Oxford, 1982.
Peschlow, U. “Der Latmosregion in Popović, S. Krst u Krugu. Arhitektura manastira u
byzantinischer Zeit.” In Der Latmos: Eine srednjovekovnoj Srbiji. Belgrade, 1994.
unbekannte Gebirgslandschaft an der türkischen Potter, D. Theodora: Actress, Empress, Saint.
Westküste, edited by A. Peschlow-Bindokat, Oxford, 2011.
58–87. Mainz, 1996. Potter, D. Constantine the Emperor. Oxford, 2012.
Peschlow, U. “The Churches of Nicaea-İznik.” In Pringle, D. “Church Building in Palestine before
İznik throughout History, edited by the Crusades.” In Crusader Art in the Twelfth
A. Akbaygil, H. İnalcık, and O. Aslanalpa, Century, edited by J. Folda, 546. Oxford,
201–18. Istanbul, 2003. 1982.
Peschlow, U. “Dividing Interior Space in Early Pringle, D. The Churches of the Crusader
Byzantine Churches: The Barriers between Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus. 4 vols.
the Nave and the Aisles.” In Thresholds of the Cambridge, 1993–2009.
Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, Pringle, D. Secular Buildings in the Crusader
and Theological Perspectives on Religious Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological
Screens, East and West, edited by S. Gerstel, Gazetteer. Cambridge, 1997.
53–71. Washington, DC, 2006. Pringle, P. Defense of Byzantine Africa from
Peschlow, U. Ankara: die bauarchäologishchen Justinian to the Arab Conquest. Oxford, 1981.
Hinterlassenschaften aus römischer und Procopius. History of the Wars, Vols. 1–5. Translated
byzantinischer Zeit. 2 vols. Vienna, 2015. by H. B. Dewing. Cambridge, 1914–28.
Peschlow, U. “Nicaea.” In The Archaeology of Procopius. Secret History. Translated by
Byzantine Anatolia, edited by P. Niewöhner, H. B. Dewing. Cambridge, 1935.
203–16. Oxford, 2017. Procopius. On Buildings. Translated by
Petronotis, Α. “Ho architekton Anastasios H. B. Dewing and G. Downey. Cambridge,
Orlandos.” Ιn Charisterion eis Anastasion 1940.
K. Orlandon, 265–392. Athens, 1966. Pseudo-Dionysius. Pseudo-Dionysius: The
Philippides, M., and W. Hanak. The Siege and Complete Works. Translated by C. Luibhéid
Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, and P. Rorem. New York, 1987.
Topography, and Military Studies. Farnham, Queller, D., and T. Madden. The Fourth Crusade.
2011. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, 1999.
Phillipson, D. W. Ancient Churches of Ethiopia. Raby, J. “El Gran Turco: Mehmed the Conqueror
New Haven, 2009. as a Patron of the Arts of Christendom.” PhD
Philostorgius. Church History. Translated by diss., Oxford University, 1980.
P. R. Amidon. Atlanta, 2007. Rachénov, A. Églises de Mesemvria. Sofia, 1932.
Piccirillo, M. The Mosaics of Jordan. Amman, Reprinted, Nesebar, 2006.
1992. Ramsay, W. M., and G. L. Bell. The Thousand
Pickett, J. “Patronage Contested: Archaeology and One Churches. London, 1909.
and the Early Modern Struggle for Possession Rappoport, P. A. Building the Churches of Kievan
at the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem.” In Russia. Aldershot, 1995.

Rautman, M. “The Church of the Holy Apostles Sack, D. Die Grosse Moschee von Resafa. Mainz,
in Thessaloniki: A Study in Early Palaeologan 1996.
Architecture.” PhD diss., University of Safran, L. S. Pietro at Otranto: Byzantine Art in
Indiana, 1984. Southern Italy. Rome, 1992.
Rautman, M. “Patrons and Buildings in Late Sanders, G. D. R. “A Late Roman Bath at
Byzantine Thessaloniki.” JÖB 39 (1989): Corinth. Excavations in the Panayia Field,
295–315. 1995–1996.” Hesperia 68 (1999): 441–80.
Redford, S. “The Alaeddin Mosque in Konya Saradi, H. “The Use of Spolia in Byzantine
Reconsidered.” Artibus Asiae 51 (1991): 54–74. Monuments: The Archaeological and Literary
Redford, S. “The Seljuks of Rum and the Evidence.” International Journal of the
Antique.” Muqarnas 10 (1993): 148–56. Classical Tradition 3 (1997): 395–423.
Re’em, A., and I. Berkovich. “New Discoveries in Saradi, H. The Byzantine City in the Sixth
the Cenacle: Reassessing the Art, Architecture Century. Athens, 2006.
and Chronology of the Crusader Basilica on Sarantakis, P. Agia Foteine Archaias Mantineias.
Mount Zion.” In New Studies in the Athens, 2010.
Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, edited Sarre, F. Der Kiosk von Konia. Berlin, 1936.
by G. Stiebel et al., 56–92. Jerusalem, 2016. Schäfer, H. Die Gül Camii in Istanbul. Ein
Restle, M. Studien zur frühbyzantinischen Beitrag mittelbyzantinischen Kirchenarchitektur
Architektur Kappadokiens. Vienna, 1979. Konstantinoples. Tübingen, 1973.
Rheidt, C. “Byzantinische Wohnhäuser des 11. Schäfer, H. “Architekturhistorische Beziehungen
bis 14. Jahrhunderts in Pergamon.” DOP 44 zwischen Byzanz und der Kiever Rus in 10.
(1990): 195–204. und 11. Jahrhundert.” IstMitt 23–24
Rheidt, C. Die Stadtgrabung 2: Die byzantinische (1973–74): 197–224.
Wohnstadt. Altertümer von Pergamon 15.2. Schibille, N. Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine
Berlin, 1991. Aesthetic Experience. Aldershot, 2014.
Ricci, A. “Reinterpretation of the ‘Palace of Schick, R. The Christian Communities of Palestine
Bryas’: A Study in Byzantine Architecture, from Byzantine to Islamic Rule. Princeton,
History, and Historiography.” PhD diss., 1995.
Princeton University, 2008. Schilbach, E. Byzantinische Metrologie. Munich,
Rickman, G. Roman Granaries and Storage 1970.
Buildings. Cambridge, 1971. Schmit, T. Die Koimesiskirche von Nikaia. Berlin,
Riley-Smith, J., ed. The Oxford Illustrated History 1927.
of the Crusades. Oxford, 1995. Schneider, A. M. Die Hagia Sophia zu
Ristow, S. Frühchristliche Baptisterien. JbAC 27. Konstantinopel. Berlin, 1939.
Münster, 1998. Schneider, A. M., and W. Karnapp. Die
Rizos, E., ed. New Cities in Late Antiquity: Stadtmauer von Iznik (Nicaea). IstForsch 9.
Documents and Archaeology. Turnhout, 2017. Berlin, 1938.
Rodley, L. Cave Monasteries of Byzantine Schultz, R., and S. Barnsley, The Monastery of St.
Cappadocia. Cambridge, 1985. Luke of Stiris in Phokis. London, 1901.
Romano, C. La Basilicata, la Calabria. Milan, Scranton, R. Medieval Architecture in Central
1988. Corinth. Corinth 16. Princeton, 1957.
Rostovtzeff, M. I., et al., eds. The Excavations at Sedov, V. Kilise Dzhami: stolichnaia arkhitektura
Dura Europos Conducted by Yale University Vizantii. Moscow, 2008.
and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Ševčenko, I., ed. Chronographiae quae Theophanis
Letters, Preliminary Reports. New Haven, Continuati nomine fertur Liber quo Vita Basilii
1928–52. imperatoris amplectitur. Berlin, 2011.
Rott, H. Kleinasiatische Denkmäler aus Pisidien, Ševčenko, N. P., trans. “Kosmosoteira: Typikon of
Kappadokien, und Lykien. Leipzig, 1908. the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos for the
Runciman, S. Mistra: Byzantine Capital of the Monastery 782 of the Mother of God
Peloponnese. London, 1980. Kosmosoteira near Bera.” In Byzantine
Bibliography 751
Monastic Foundation Documents, edited by Sotiriou, G., and M. Sotiriou. He Vasilike tou
J. P. Thomas and A. Hero, 2nd vol., 782–858. Hagiou Demetriou Thessalonikes. 2 vols.
Washington, DC, 2000. Athens, 1952.
Sewter, E. R. A., trans. Fourteen Byzantine Spera, L. Il paesaggio suburbano di Roma
Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus. dall’antichità al Medioevo: il comprensorio tra
Harmondsworth, 1953. le vie Latina e Ardeatina dalle Mura Aureliane
Shalev-Hurvitz, V. Holy Sites Encircled. The Early al III miglio. Rome, 1999.
Byzantine Concentric Churches of Jerusalem. Spera, L. “The Christianization of Space along
Oxford, 2015. the Via Appia: Changing Landscape in the
Shvidkovsky, D. Russian Architecture and the Suburbs of Rome.” AJA 107, no. 1 (2003):
West. New Haven, 2007. 23–43.
Siaxabani, Ch. “Watermills, Area of Stanković, N. “At the Threshold of the Heavens:
Thessaloniki, Greece.” In Secular Medieval The Narthex and Adjacent Spaces in Middle
Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Byzantine Churches of Mount Athos
Preservation, edited by S. Ćurčić and (10th–11th Centuries)—Architecture,
E. Hadjitryphonos, 338–41. Thessalonike, Function, and Meaning.” PhD diss.,
1997. Princeton University, 2017.
Sigalos, L. “Housing People in Medieval Stephens, S., V. Kalinowski, and H. vanderLeest.
Greece.” International Journal of Historical Bir Ftouha: A Pilgrimage Church Complex at
Archaeology 7 (2003): 195–221. Carthage. Portsmouth, 2005.
Simatou, A. M., and R. Christodoulopoulou. Stephenson, P. The Serpent Column: A Cultural
“Observations on the Medieval Settlement of Biography. Oxford, 2016.
Geraki.” DChAE 15 (1989–90): 67–88. Stewart, C. A. “Domes of Heaven: The Domed
Simić, G. “Donjon, Manasija Monastery, Basilicas of Cyprus.” PhD diss., Indiana
Yugoslavia.” In Secular Medieval Architecture in University, 2008.
the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, Stewart, C. A. “The First Vaulted Churches in
edited by S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, Cyprus.” JSAH 69 (2010): 162–89.
236–39. Thessalonike, 1997. Stichel, R. H. W. “Die Kuppel an der ‘goldenen
Sinkević, I. “Alexios Angelos Komnenos: A Kette’: Zur Interpretation der Hagia Sophia
Patron without History?” Gesta 35 (1996): in Konstantinopel.” In Almanach Architektur
34–42. 1998–2002: Lehre und Forschung an der
Sinkević, I. The Church of St. Panteleimon at Technischen Universität Darmstadt, edited by
Nerezi: Architecture, Programme, Patronage. H. Svenshon, M. Bender, and R. May,
Wiesbaden, 2000. 244–51. Tübingen, 2003.
Sinos, S. Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Stichel, R. H. W., and H. Svenshon. “Das
Bera (Vira). Munich, 1985. unsichtbare Oktagramm und die Kuppel an
Smith, J. C. “Form and Function of the Side der ‘goldenen Kette’. Zum
Chambers of Fifth- and Sixth-Century Grundrissentwurf der Hagia Sophia in
Churches in Ravenna.” JSAH 49 (1990): Konstantinopel und zur Deutung ihrer
181–204. Architekturform.” Bericht über die Tagen
Sodini, J.-P. “Habitat de l’antiquité tardive.” für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und
Topoi 5, no. 1 (1995): 151–218. Bauforschung 2002 42 (2004): 187–205.
Sodini, J.-P. “Habitat de l’antiquité tardive.” Stikas, E. To Oikodonikon Chronikon tes Mones
Topoi 7, no. 1 (1997): 435–577. Hosiou Louka Phokidos. Athens, 1970.
Sodini, J.-P. “Saint Syméon, lieu de pélerinage.” Striker, C. L. The Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in
Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa 38 Istanbul. Princeton, 1981.
(2007), 107–20. Striker, C. L., and Y. D. Kuban. Kalenderhane in
Sodini, J.-P., et al. “Déhès (Syrie du nord) Istanbul: The Buildings. Mainz, 1997.
Campagnes I–III (1976–1978): Recherches Striker, C. L., and Y. D. Kuban. Kalenderhane in
sur l’habitat rural.” Syria 57 (1980): 1–304. Istanbul: The Excavations. Mainz, 2007.

Stoller, E. The Chapel at Ronchamps. New York, Constantinople.” In Byzantine Monastic
1999. Foundation Documents, edited by J. P. Thomas
Struck, A. “Vier byzantinischen Kirchen der and A. Hero, 3rd vol., 1265–82. Washington,
Argolis.” AM 34 (1909): 189–236. DC, 2000.
Strzygowski, J. Kleinasien: Ein Neuland der Talbot Rice, D. The Church of Haghia Sophia at
Kunstgeschichte. Leipzig, 1903. Trebizond. Edinburgh, 1968.
Strzygowski, J. Die Baukunst der Armenier und Tantsis, A. “The So-Called ‘Athonite’ Type
Europa. 2 vols. Vienna, 1918. Church and Two Shrines of the Theotokos in
Sukenik, E. L. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Constantinople.” Zograf 34 (2010): 3–11.
Alpha. Jerusalem, 1932. Tate, G. Les Campagnes de la Syrie du Nord du
Sullivan, A. I. “The Painted Fortified Monastic IIe au VIIe Siècle: Un Exemple d’Expansion
Churches of Moldavia: Bastions of Démographique et Économique à la Fin de
Orthodoxy in a Post-Byzantine World.” PhD l’Antiquité. Paris, 1992.
diss., University of Michigan, 2017. Tate, G. “The Syrian Countryside during the
Sullivan, D., trans. The Life of Saint Nikon: Text, Roman Era.” In The Early Roman Empire in
Translation, and Commentary. Brookline, the East, edited by S. Alcock, 55–71. Oxford,
1987. 1997.
Sullivan, D. Siegecraft: Two Tenth-Century Tchalenko, G. Villages antiques de la Syrie du
Instructional Manuals by “Heron of Nord: le massif du Bélus à l’époque romaine.
Byzantium.” Washington, DC, 2000. 3 vols. Paris, 1953.
Suny, R. “Georgia: Political History.” In Tchalenko, G. Églises de village de la Syrie du
Dictionary of the Middle Ages, edited by nord. Paris, 1979–80.
J. Strayer, 404–7. 1st vol. New York, 1982. Tekinalp, V. M. “Palace Churches of the
Svenshon, H. “Neue Überlegungen zum Anatolian Seljuks: Tolerance or Necessity?”
Grundrissentwurf der Sergios- und BMGS 33 (2009): 148–67.
Bakchoskirche in Istanbul.” Architectura 43 Terry, A. “The Architecture and the Architectural
(2013): 113–28. Sculpture of the Sixth-Century Eufrasius
Svenshon, H., and R. H. W. Stichel. “Neue Cathedral Complex at Poreč.” PhD diss.,
Beobachtungen an der ehemaligen Kirche der University of Illinois, 1984.
Heiligen Sergios und Bakchos (Küçük Terry, A. “The ‘Opus Sectile’ in the Eufrasius
Ayasofya Camisi) in Istanbul.” IstMitt 50 Cathedral at Poreč.” DOP 40 (1986): 147–64.
(2000): 389–409. Terry, A. “The Sculpture of the Cathedral of
Taft, R. The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. Eufrasius at Poreč.” DOP 42 (1988): 13–64.
Collegeville, 1992. Terry, A., and H. Maguire. Dynamic Splendor:
Taft, R. “Women in the Byzantine Church: The Wall Mosaics in the Cathedral of Eufrasius
Where, When—and Why.” DOP 52 (1998): at Poreč. University Park, 2007.
27–87. Teteriatnikov, N. Justinianic Mosaics of Hagia
Talbot, A.-M. “A Comparison of the Monastic Sophia and Their Aftermath. Washington,
Experience of Byzantine Men and Women.” DC, 2017.
GOTR 30 (1985): 10–20. Tezcan, H. Topkapı Sarayı ve Çevresinin Bizans
Talbot, A.-M. “An Introduction to Byzantine Devri Arkeologisi. Istanbul, 1989.
Monasticism.” Illinois Classical Studies 12 Theis, L. Die Architektur der Kirche der Panagia
(1987): 229–41. Paregoretissa in Arta/Epirus. Amsterdam, 1991.
Talbot, A.-M. “The Restoration of Theis, L. Flankenräume in mittelbyzantinischen
Constantinople under Michael VIII.” DOP Kirchenbau. Wiesbaden, 2005.
47 (1993): 243–61. Theocharides, P. “Tower of Mariana, Greece.” In
Talbot, A.-M. “The Posthumous Miracles of Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans,
St. Photeine.” AB 112 (1994): 85–104. 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, edited by
Talbot, A.-M., trans. “Lips: Typikon of Theodora S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, 220–21.
Palaiologina for the Convent of Lips in Thessalonike, 1997.
Bibliography 753
Theocharidou, K. The Architecture of Hagia Toynbee, J. M. C. Death and Burial in the
Sophia, Thessaloniki, from Its Erection up to the Roman World. Baltimore, 1971, 1996.
Turkish Conquest. BAR International Series Toynbee, J. M. C., and J. B. Ward Perkins. The
339. Oxford, 1988. Shrine of St. Peter. New York–London, 1956.
Theocharidou, K. “Symbole ste Melete tes Travlos, I. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des
Paragoges Oikodomikon Keramikon Antiken Athens. Tübingen, 1971.
Proionton sta Byzantina kai Metabysantina Treadgold, W. Renaissances before the Renaissance:
Chronia.” DChAE 13 (1988): 97–112. Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity and the
Thierry, J.-M., and P. Donabédian. Armenian Middle Ages. Stanford, 1984.
Art. New York, 1987. Tripsiani-Omirou, R.-S. “Byzantine Baths.
Thierry, N. “Illustration de la construction d’une Thessaloniki, Greece.” In Secular Medieval
église. Les sculptures de Korogo (Georgie).” Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its
In Artistes, Artisans, et Production Artistique au Preservation, edited by S. Ćurčić and
Moyen Age, edited by X. Barral I Altet, E. Hadjitryphonos, 314–17. Thessalonike,
1136–39. Rennes, 1983. 1997.
Thierry, N. Haut Moyen-Âge en Cappadoce: Les Trkulja, J. “Aesthetics and Symbolism of Late
églises de la région du Çavuşin. 2 vols. Paris, Byzantine Church Facades.” PhD diss.,
1983–94. Princeton University, 2002.
Thierry, N. La Cappadoce de l’Antiquité au Tronzo, W. The Cultures of His Kingdom: Roger II
Moyen Age. Turnhout, 2002. and the Cappella Palatina in Palermo.
Thomas, J. P. Private Religious Foundation in the Princeton, 1997.
Byzantine Empire. Washington, DC, 1987. Tsangadas, B. C. P. The Fortifications and Defense
Thomas, J. P. “In Perpetuum. Social and Political of Constantinople. New York, 1980.
Consequences of Byzantine Patrons’ Tunay, M. “Byzantine Archaeological Findings
Aspirations for Permanence for Their in Istanbul during the Last Decade.” In
Foundations.” In Stiftungen in Christentum, Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments,
Judentum und Islam vor der Moderne. Auf der Topography and Everyday Life, edited by
Suche nach ihren Gemeinsamkeiten und N. Necipoğlu, 217–31. Leiden, 2001.
Unterschieden in religiösen Grundlagen, Underwood, P.A. The Kariye Djami. 3 vols. New
praktischen Zwecken und historischen York, 1966.
Transformationen, edited by M. Borgolte, Underwood, P. A. “Some Principles of Measure
123–35. Berlin, 2005. in the Architecture of the Period of
Thomas, J. P., and A. Hero, eds. Byzantine Justinian.” CahArch 3 (1948): 64–74.
Monastic Foundation Documents. 5 vols. Urbano, A. “Donation, Dedication, and
Washington, DC, 2000. Damnatio Memoriae: The Catholic
Tiryaki, A. “Kisleçukuru Manastırı: Antalya’da Reconciliation of Ravenna and the Church of
On İkinci Yüzlıla Ait bir Bizans Manastırı.” Sant’Apollinare Nuovo.” JEChrSt 12, no. 1
In First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine (2005): 71–110.
Studies Symposium, Proceedings, edited by Vakalopoulos, A. E. A History of Thessaloniki.
A. Ödekan, E. Akyürek, and N. Necipoğlu, Thessalonike, 1972.
447–57. Istanbul, 2010. Van der Vin, J. P. A. Travellers to Greece and
Tourta, A. “Fortifications of Gynaikokastro, Constantinople: Ancient Monuments and Old
Greece.” In Secular Medieval Architecture in Traditions in Medieval Travellers’ Tales. 2 vols.
the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, Leiden, 1980.
edited by S. Ćurčić and E. Hadjitryphonos, Van Millingen, A. Byzantine Churches of
110–11. Thessalonike, 1997. Constantinople: Their History and Architecture.
Tourta, A. “Thessalonike.” In Heaven & Earth: London, 1912.
Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, Van Nice, R. L. St. Sophia in Istanbul: An
edited by J. Albani and E. Chalkia, 75–93. Architectural Survey. 2 vols. Washington, DC,
Athens, 2013. 1965, 1986.

Vardanyan, E., ed. Hoṙomos Monastery: Art and Ward-Perkins, B. “Old and New Rome
History. Paris, 2015. Compared: The Rise of Constantinople.” In
Vassilaki, M, ed. Images of the Mother of God: Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late
Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium. Antiquity, edited by L. Grig and G. Kelly,
Aldershot, 2005. 53–80. Oxford, 2012.
Velenis, G. Ermeneia tou Exoterikou Diakosmou Ward-Perkins, J. B. “Notes on the Structure and
ste Byzantine Architektonike. Thessalonike, Building Methods of Early Byzantine
1984. Architecture.” In The Great Palace of the
Vikan, G. Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art. Rev. Byzantine Emperors, Second Report, edited by
ed. Washington, DC, 2010. D. Talbot-Rice, 52–104. Edinburgh, 1958.
Vincent, H., and F. M. Abel. Jérusalem: Webb, R. “The Aesthetics of Sacred Space:
Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie, et Narrative, Metaphor, and Motion in
d’histoire. Paris, 1912–26. Ekphraseis of Church Buildings.” DOP 53
“Virtual Ani,” 2004–, https://www.virtualani.org. (1999): 59–74.
Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. Translated Webb, R., and L. James. “‘To Understand
by I. Rowland and T. N. Howe. Cambridge, Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places’:
1999. Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium.” AH 14
Vocotopoulos, P. L. He Ekklesiastike (1991): 1–17.
Architektonike eis ten Dutiken Sterean Hellada Weitzmann, K. Greek Mythology in Byzantine
kai ten Epeiron. Thessalonike, 1975. Art. Princeton, 1951.
Vocotopoulos, P. L. “The Concealed Course Welles, C. B. “Inscriptions.” In Gerasa: City of
Technique: Further Examples and a Few the Decapolis, edited by C. H. Kraeling,
Remarks.” JÖB 28 (1979): 247–60. 477–78. New Haven, 1938.
Vocotopoulos, P. L. “Church Architecture in Wescher, C. Poliorcétique des grecs. Paris, 1867.
Greece during the Middle Byzantine Period.” Wescoat, B., and R. G. Ousterhout. Architecture
In Perception of Byzantium and Its Neighbors, of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience
843–1261, ed. O. Z. Pevny, 154–67. New from Classical Greece to Byzantium.
York, 2000. Cambridge, 2012.
Vocotopoulos, P. L. Pantanassa Filippiados. Wharton, A. J. “Ritual and Reconstructed
Athens, 2007. Meaning: The Neonian Baptistery in
Vocotopoulos, P. The Monastery of Saint Ravenna.” ArtB 19 (1987): 358–75.
Demetrios at Phanari: A Contribution to the Wharton, A. J. Art of Empire: Painting and
Study of the Architecture of the Despotate of Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery.
Epiros. Athens, 2012. University Park, 1988.
Vogüé, C.-J.-M. de. Les Églises de la Terre Sainte. Wharton Epstein, A. “The ‘Iconoclast’ Churches
Paris, 1860. of Cappadocia.” In Iconoclasm, edited by
Voyadjis, S. “The Katholikon of Nea Moni on A. Bryer and J. Herrin, 103–12. Birmingham,
Chios Unveiled.” JÖB 59 (2009): 229–42. 1977.
Vryonis, S. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Wharton Epstein, A. “Middle Byzantine
Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization Churches of Kastoria: Dates and
from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Implications.” ArtB 62 (1980): 190–207.
Centuries. Los Angeles, 1971. Wharton Epstein, A. “The Date and Significance
Vryonis, S. “The Panegyris of the Byzantine of the Cathedral of Canosa in Apulia, South
Saint.” In The Byzantine Saint, edited by Italy.” DOP 37 (1983): 79–90.
S. Hackel, 196–227. London, 1981. Wharton Epstein, A. Tokalı Kilise: Tenth-Century
Walker, A. “Pseudo-Arabic ‘Inscriptions’ and the Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappadocia.
Pilgrim’s Path at Hosios Loukas.” In Viewing Washington, DC, 1986.
Inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval White, L. M. Building God’s House in the Roman
World, edited by A. Eastmond, 99–123. World. Architectural Adaptation among Pagans,
Cambridge, 2015. Jews, and Christians. Baltimore, 1990.
Bibliography 755
White, L. M. The Social Origins of Christian Xenaki, M. “Recherches sur les églises byzantines
Architecture. Valley Forge, 1996–97. de Cappadoce et leur décor peint (VIe–IXe
Whittow, M. The Making of Byzantium, siècles).” PhD diss., University of Paris, 2011.
600–1025. Berkeley, 1996. Xyngopoulos, A. “Byzantinos loutron en
Wickham, C. Framing the Early Middle Ages: Thessalonike.” Epeteris Philosophikes Skoles
Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800. Panepistemiou Thessalonikes 5 (1940): 83–97.
Oxford, 2005. Xyngopoulos, A. Tessares mikroi naoi tes
Wiessner, G. Christliche Kultbauten im Tur Thessalonikes ek ton chronon ton Palaiologon.
Abdin. Wiesbaden, 1981. Thessalonike, 1952.
Wilkinson, J. “The Tomb of Christ: An Outline Yasin, A. M. Saints and Church Spaces in the Late
of Its Structural History.” Levant 4 (1972): Antique Mediterranean: Architecture, Cult, and
83–97. Community. Cambridge, 2009.
Wilkinson, J. “The Church of the Holy Yasin, A. M. “Reassessing Salona’s Churches:
Sepulchre.” Archaeology 31, no. 4 (1978), Martyrium Evolution in Question.” JEChrSt
6–13. 20, no. 1 (2012): 59–112.
Wilson, R. J. A. Piazza Armerina. London, Yegül, F. Bathing in the Roman World. New York,
1983. 2010.
Wilson, R. J. A. “Terracotta Vaulting Tubes Zanini, E. “Technology and Ideas: Architects
(Tubi Fittili): On Their Origin and and Master-Builders in the Early Byzantine
Distribution.” JRA 5 (1992): 97–129. World.” In Technology in
Wortley, J. “Iconoclasm and Leipsanoclasm: Leo Transition A.D. 300–650, edited by L. Lavan,
II, Constantine V, and the Relics.” ByzF 8 E. Zanini, and A. Sarantis, 381–405. Leiden,
(1982): 253–79. 2007.
Wulzinger, K. “Die Steinmetzzeichen der Zenkovsky, S. Z., ed. Medieval Russia’s Epics,
Bin-bir-derek,” BZ 22 (1913): 459–73. Chronicles, and Tales. New York, 1963.

INDEX
Bold Page Numbers indicate illustration. Italicized entries indicate glossary terms
Abas I, King of Armenia, 466 Agora, 714

Abbasids, 160 Agrò (near Casalvecchio Siculo, Sicily), Pietro e
Abdera (Polystylon, Greece), 334 Paolo, Church of, 524, 526, 526, 527
Ablgharib, Armenian general, 465 Aigues Mortes (France), new town, 572
Abu Gosh, Crusader complex at, 486, 489, 490 Aisled tetraconch, 714
Abu Mena (Egypt), Pilgrimage and monastic Aesop’s Fables, 344
complex, 68–70, 71, 72, 75, 132, Akhisar (Cappadocia, Turkey), Çanlı Kilise
133, 134 (“Bell Church”), 342, 368, 369, 384,
Acanthus, 714 395, 435, 441, 441–43, 442
Achilleios, St., 536 Aksaray (Asia Minor, Turkey), Sultan Han,
Açıksaray (Cappadocia, Turkey), courtyard 583, 584
complex, 342, 448 Aksum (Ethiopia), 296
Acre (Palestine), 479, 493, 499, 500 Alaeddin Keykubad, Seljuk Sultan of Rûm,
Hospitaller Complex, 493, 495, 497, 498, 579, 583
498 Alahan Manastır (Asia Minor, Turkey),
Acropolis, 714 Pilgrimage complex of, 68, 178, 180,
Adrianople (Thrace, Turkey), Battle of, 21 181, 182
ad Sanctos, 714 East Church, 174, 178, 180, 181, 182
Adulis (Ethiopia), 296 South Church, 178
Aedicula, 714 Alaverdi (Armenia), 473
Aelia Capitolina (see Jerusalem) Alanya (Asia Minor, Turkey), Citadel Church,
Aeneas, 25, 27 437, 438
Afentrika (Cyprus), Alexandria (Egypt), 24, 54, 101, 132, 514
Asomatos, Church, 282 Mark, Martyrium of St., 132
Chrysiotissa, Panagia, Church of the, 282, Patriarch of, 293, 295, 296
289 Ali Hasan Dağı (Asia Minor, Turkey), Ala Kilise,
Aght’amar (Armenia, now eastern Turkey), Holy 443, 443
Cross, Church of the, 366, 414, 456, Alphabet, Glagolitic, 531
457, 458 Alphabet, Cyrillic, 531
757
Altar, 714 Annibale, Pietro (Petrok Maly), Italian
Amasra (Asia Minor, Turkey), architect, 695
Büyükada, 256, 259, 261 Antalya (Asia Minor, Turkey), 192, 250, 327
Fatih Camii, 259–60, 265 Cumanin Camii, 192, 193, 250
Kilise Mescidi, 260 Anthemius of Tralles, architect-engineer, 82, 194,
Ambo, 714 201, 206, 209, 212
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 42, 43, 44, 102, 116 Antinoopolis (Egypt), South Church at, 131, 133
Ambulatory, 714 Antioch (Asia Minor, Turkey), 64, 65, 101,
Ambulatory-plan church, 714 480, 500
Amorgos (Greece), Panagia Chozoviotissa Cathedral of, 65
Monastery, 707, 708 Golden Octagon, 78
Amorion (Asia Minor, Turkey), 389, 432 Antioch, Principality of (Crusader State), 480
Basilica of, 250, 432, 433 Antioch-Kaoussié (Asia Minor, Turkey), 64
Amphipolis (Macedonia, Greece), 109, 175 Babylas, Church of St., 64, 65
Church of, 114 Antiphon, 714
Amphissa (Central Greece), Transfiguration, Annular, 714
Church of the, 312, 314 Apamea (Syria), Cathedral of, 177, 178, 274
Amphora/ae, 714 Aparan (Armenia), Kazakh basilica of, 269
Ampulla/ae, 714 Aphrodisias (Asia Minor, Turkey), 170
Andronikos I Gidon, Ruler of Trebizond, 576 Bouleterion, 170
Anaphora, 714 North Agora, 170
Anastasis, 714 Triconch House, 170, 172
Anastasius I, Emperor, 147, 165, 279 Apodyterium, 714
Persian Wars, 165 Apokaukos, Alexios, Byzantine court official, 614
Anastasius II, Emperor, 345 Apollo, Greco-Roman god, 11, 27
Andravida (Peloponnese, Greece), 571 Apollodorus, Roman architect, 383
Sophia, Church of St., 572, 573, 573 Apollonia (Libya), Palace of the Dux, 172, 172
Andreville (see Andravida) Apologia, 714
Andrew the Apostle, St., 34, 49, 405 Apotheosis, 714
Angelos Dynasty, 562 Apse, 714
Angelos-Komnenos, Alexios, Prince, 373, 410 Apsidiole, 714
Angevin Empire, 572 Apulia (Italy), 507, 509
Ani (Armenia, now eastern Turkey), 385, 455, Aqueducts, Middle Byzantine, 338
456, 459, 460 Aquileia (Italy), Basilica of, 14
Apostles, Church of the Holy, 465–66, 466, Arcade, 714
467, 590, 591 Arcadius, Emperor, 139, 277
Cathedral of, 459–60, 461, 462, 462, 463 Archimedes, Greek mathematician, 81
Citadel Chapel, 464 Architect/builder/engineer, education of, 82
City walls, 393, 456, 461 Areia (near Nauplion, Greece), Hagia Mone,
Gregory of Gagik, Church of St. (Gagkašen), 420, 422, 423, 423, 574
385, 460, 464 Argentarius, Julianus, banker, 222, 230
Gregory of Grigor Pahlavuni, Church of St., Arch, 714
464, 465, 465 Architekton, 714
Redeemer, Church of the, 465, 464, 466 Architrave, 714
Anicia, Juliana, Byzantine noblewoman, 86, 86, Archivolt, 714
182, 184, 186 Archon/archontes, 714
Ankara (Asia Minor, Turkey), 333, 500 Arcosolium, 714
Clement, Church of St., 255, 258, 261 Arcuated, 714
Anna (sister of Emperor Basil II), Princess of Area/areae, 714
Kiev, 541 Arius of Alexandria, theologian, 102

Armatova (Elis, Greece), Byzantine house, Athonite-type church, 715
341, 341 Athos (Chalkidike, Greece), Mount, Monasteries
Arris/arrises, 714 of, 317, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328,
Arrowslit, 715 355, 366, 412, 552, 621–24, 662, 669
Arslan, Alp, Seljuk Sultan, 432, 455, 480 Dionysiou Monastery, 624
Arta (Epirus, Greece), 313, 562, 564, 629 Docheiariou Monastery, 646
Basil, Church of St., 567 Gregoriou Monastery, 624
Basil at the Bridge, Church of St., 313, 315 Hilandar (Chilandari) Monastery, 326,
Kato Panagia Church, 565 621–24, 622, 623, 624, 646, 650,
Panagia Paregoretissa Church, 567–69, 568, 655, 665–66
569, 570 Milutin, Tower of King, 622, 624,
Panagia Vlacherna (Blacherna) Church, 646, 650
564–65, 566, 567 Iviron Monastery, 321, 384, 412
Theodora, Church of St., 565, 567, 567 Konstamonitou Monastery, 624
Artsruni, Gagik, King of Vaspurakan (Armenia), Lavra, Great, 317–18, 319, 320, 321, 327,
456, 459, 460, 462 328, 395, 412, 622
Artopolia, 715 Pantokrator Monastery, 624
Aruch (Armenia), Church at, 269, 271, 275 Paul, Monastery of St., 624
Ascetic, 715 Simonopetra Monastery, 624
Asen, Ivan II, Tsar of Bulgaria, 650 Stavronikita Monastery, 325
Asenova Krepost (Bulgaria), Bogoroditsa Vatopedi Monastery, 318, 320, 321,
Petrichka (Mother of God Petrichka), 384–85, 412
Church of the, 540, 540 Zygos (Frankokastro) Monastery, 326, 326,
Ashlar, 715 327, 373, 412
Ashot III, King of Armenia, 456 Atrium, 715
Astrapas, Michael, painter, 658 Atrophied Greek-cross type, 715
Astvansankal (Armenia), Church at, 385, Attica (Greece), Meletios, Monastery of Hosios,
386, 387 324, 324, 325
Attaliates, Michael, 347 Augustine, St., Bishop of Hippo, 102, 104, 124
Ateni (Georgia), Sioni Church, 273 Augustinian Order, Jerusalem, 483
Athens (Attica, Greece), 104, 147, 148, 333, 335, Augustus, Emperor, 24, 25
339, 341, 344, 647 Mausoleum of, 24
Academy of, 104 Ara Pacis of, 24
Acropolis, 147, 692 Aula, 715
Agora, Apostles, Church of the Holy, 414, Aulis (Boeotia, Greece), Nicholas, Church of St.,
415, 419 312, 313
Baths of, 339 Avars, 145, 245, 531
Byzantine houses of, 339, 341, 342 Axios (Vardar) River (Macedonia and Greece),
Cathedral of, 147, 177, 85 153, 644, 655
Daphne Monastery, 314, 419, 419, 420, 420 Ayazin (Phrygia, Asia Minor, Turkey), rock-cut
Hadrian, Library of, 177, 85 churches of, 453
Little Metropolis (Theotokos Gorgoepikoos, Ayvan, 715
Mother of God Quick-to-Hear), Ayyubid Dynasty, 479, 561
420, 421
Kapnikarea, Church of, 419, 421, 423 Babić, Gordana, 318
Parthenon, Church of the, 147, 149, 420 Bachkovo (Bulgaria), Petritzos Monastery
Petrake, Mone, 413 (Theotokos Petritzonitissa), 538
Soteira Panagia Lykodemou, 314, 413, Ossuary (funerary chapel), 538, 539
418, 418 Bacino/bacini, 715
Athena, Greek goddess, Palladion of, 27 Bagavan (Armenia), Basilica of, 270
Index 759
Bagawat, Kargha Oasis (Egypt), tomb chapels of, Basil I, Emperor, 247, 250, 345, 357, 387, 407,
51, 53, 53, 54 434, 534
Baghdad (Iraq), 160, 365, 479 Basil II, Emperor, 412, 444, 456, 536, 541, 550
Bagrat IV, King of Georgia, 473 Menologion of, 60, 62
Bagratid Dynasty (Armenia), 455, 456, 458, 466 Basilica, 715
Bagratuni, Yovhannes-Smbat, King of Armenia, Christian, development of, 12–14
455 Roman, 13–14
Baldachin, baldacchino, 715 Division of men and women, 38, 41
Baldwin of Flanders, Latin Emperor of Basilicata (Italy), 507
Constantinople, 561 Bassus, Junius, Audience hall of (Rome), 13
Baldwin I, Crusader King of Jerusalem, 486 Bay, 715
Baldwin II, Crusader King of Jerusalem, 486 Baybars, Mamluk Sultan, 504
Balkan Wars, 431 Beauvais (France), Peter, Cathedral of St., xxii
Banded barrel vault, 715 Behramkale (ancient Assos, Asia Minor, Turkey),
Banjska (Serbia, now Kosovo), Monastery at, Hüdâvendigâr Camii, 681
657, 659 Beirut (Lebanon), John, Cathedral of St. (Great
Stephen, Church of St. (Mausoleum of Stefan Mosque), 484, 486
Uroš Milutin), 657, 659, 661 Belfry, 715
Baptism, ritual of, 42–44 Belisırma (Peristrema) Valley (Asia Minor,
Baptistery, 4–5, 37, 42–44, 65, 68, 715 Turkey), 439
Abu Mena (Egypt), 68 Ala Kilise, 449
Alahan Monastery (Asia Minor, Turkey), Karagedik Kilisesi (“Church of the Dark
68, 178 Pass”), 439, 440, 441
Butrint (Albania), 46 Belgrade (Serbia), 667, 705
Canosa (Italy), 46 Sava, Church of St., 705
Caričin Grad (Iustiniana Prima, Serbia), Bell, Gertrude, 192, 431, 441, 443
157, 158 Belvoir (Palestine), Crusader fortress, 501, 503,
Djémila (Cuicul, Algeria), 125 504
Dura Europos (Syria), 5, 6 Bema, 715
Ephesus (Asia Minor, Turkey), 110 Benedict, Monastic Rule of St., 321
Kébilia (Tunisia), 46 Berat (Albania), Trinity, Church of the Holy,
Kos, Mastichari (Greece), 108 569
Milan (Italy), 43–44 Bessarion, Catholic Cardinal, 692–93
Philippi (Greece), 109 Beth Alpha (Palestine), Synagogue of, 130, 131
Poreč (Croatia), 223 Bethlehem (Palestine), 29, 63, 64, 65, 175
Qal’at Sem’an (Syria), 68 Nativity, Church of the, 29–30, 29, 30, 32,
Ravenna (Italy), 44–46, 45, 46 63, 64, 70, 486
Rome (Italy), 42, 43 Bet She’an (see Scythopolis)
Samandağ (Asia Minor, Turkey), 68, 68 Beyazit II, Ottoman Sultan, 684
Speitla (Tunisia), 46, 47 Beylerbey, 715
Baqirha (Syria), East Church at, 239, 240 Beylik, 715
Bardo Museum (Tunisia), 46 Beyşehir Occupation Phase (Asia Minor,
Bari (Puglia, Italy), 77, 251 Turkey), 431
Bar Kochba rebellion, 34 Bishop, 715
Baroque, German, 540 Bishop of Rome (see Pope)
Barrel vault, 715 Binbirkilise (Lycaonia, Asia Minor, Turkey), 237,
Barskii, Vasilii, 327 239, 434
Basarab I, Ruler of Wallachia, 669 Church 1, 237, 238, 239
Basil, St., of Caesarea, 102, 104, 322 Church 8, 238, 239, 239
Basil, Monastic rule of St., 507 Church 32, 238, 239

Bithynia (Asia Minor, Turkey), 254, 317, 432, 540, 541, 550, 554, 561, 562, 575, 597
434, 631, 679, 680, 681 679, 692
Lake Apolyont, Constantine, Monastery of Byzantine-Persian War, 283
St., 256, 260 Byzantion (see Constantinople)
Bivongi (Calabria, Italy), Giovanni, Church of Byzantium (see Constantinople)
San, 524, 525 Byzas, founder of Byzantion, 23
Bizye (see Vize)
Black Sea, 147, 437, 575, 578, 651 Cairo (Egypt), 480, 523
Blind arcade, 715 Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammad,
Bogdana Monastery (near Rădăut ̧i, Moldavia, Mausoleum-Madrasa complex of, 500,
Romania), Nicholas, Church of St., 669 500
Bogolyubsky, Andrei (Prince of Vladimir- Calatrava, Santiago, architect, 709
Suzdal), 545 Cambazlı (Asia Minor, Turkey), Basilica of, 111,
Bonn (Germany), heroon at, 8 116
Book of Ceremonies, 170, 214 Canosa (Apulia, Italy), 46
Book of the Eparch, 715 Sabino, Cathedral of San, 509, 510, 511, 511,
Boris I, Ruler of Bulgaria, 532 523
Bosphorus (Asia Minor, Turkey), Yuşa Tepesi, Bohemond of Antioch, Mausoleum of, 511
359 Calabria (Italy), 507–09
Bosra (Syria), 239–40, 274 Caldarium, 715
Sergius, Bacchus, and Leontius, Sts., Church Calvary (Golgotha), 715
of, 239–40, 240 Cami/camii, 715
Boss, 715 Capernaum (Palestine), 70
Bouleterion, 715 Peter, House of St., 70, 73, 128
Branković, Djuradj, Despot of Serbia, 667 Synagogue, 131
Brick, manufacture of, 90–91, 91, 395 Capitolium, 715
Building materials and techniques Cappadocia (Asia Minor, Turkey), Region of,
Early Byzantine, 88–99 248, 334, 338, 431
Middle Byzantine, 391–403 Churches of (see by location)
Bulgaria, buildings in, 531–40, 649–653 Houses of, 342
Bulgarian Empire, First, 531, 532, 536, 538, 550 Masonry buildings of, 438–444
Bulgarian Empire, Second, 538, 649 Rock-carved monuments of, 431–32,
Buondelmonti, Christopher, author of Liber 444–453, 626
Insularum Achipelagi, 616, 617 Caracalla, Emperor, 21
Burgazada (Princes’ Islands, Sea of Marmara, Caravansaray/caravanserai, 715
Turkey), Monastery of the Cardo, 715
Transfiguration, 396 Caričin Grad (Iustiniana Prima, Serbia),
Burials (see Catacombs and Mausoleum) Cathedral complex at, 157, 158, 241, 245, 261
Bursa (Asia Minor, Turkey), 338, 621, 679, City plan of, 157
680–82 Carolingians, 508
Orhan Camii, 680–81, 681 Carthage (Tunisia), 124
Bursa-Çekirge (Asia Minor, Turkey), Basilica Majorum, 124, 124
Hüdâvendigâr Camii, 681, 682 Cypriani (St. Monica), Basilica, 124, 124
Buttress, 715 Damous el-Karita, Cemetery basilica and
Byblos (Giblet, Lebanon), pilgrimage center of, 124, 125
Castle of Giblet, 501 Carthage-Bir Ftouha (Tunisia), Complex of, 231,
John, Church of St., 484 235
Byzantine Empire, xix, xxii, 88, 245, 247, 267, Cassiodorus of Ravenna, Roman statesman in
274, 284, 286, 296, 297, 322, 333, 336, service of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, 81,
360, 391, 407, 431, 450, 507, 508, 532, 83, 84
Index 761
Castelvetrano (Sicily), Trinità di Delia, Church Christianoupolis (Peloponnese, Greece), Domed
of Santa, 518, 519, 519, 520, 524 octagon church of, 413
Castrum/kastron, 715 Christology, debates on, 102–04
Castrum Regis (Mi‘iliya, Palestine), 501, 501 Chronicon Sanctae Sophiae, 83, 84
Castrum Rubrum (Burl al-Ahmar, Syria), Chrysopolis (Asian shore of Constantinople), 21
501, 501 Chrysostom, St. John, 41, 42, 102
Catacomb, 7, 8, 8–10, 715 Chicago (Illinois, United States),
Catechumen, 715 Constantine and Helena, Church of Sts. (now
Cathedra, 715 Mosque Maryam), 708
Cathedral, 14, 42, 715 Trinity, Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the
Catholic Christianity, 572, 575, 710 Holy, 707
Çat Valley (Cappadocia, Turkey), chapel in, 449 Choniates, Michael, Archbishop of Athens, 420
Caucasus, monuments in, 268–277, 313 Chonika (Peloponnese, Greece), Church of the
Cefalù (Sicily), Cathedral of, 521, 523 Dormition, 423
Cella trichora, 8 Chorikios of Gaza, Greek rhetorician, 85
Cemetery basilica, 14–16, 48, 145, 715 Choros/choroi, 716
Cemil (Cappadocia, Turkey), Archangelos Ciborium (see Baldachin)
Monastery, 450 Cilicia (Asia Minor, Turkey), 178–79
Centering, 715 Circus/hippodrome, 716
Cenotaph, 715 Cistern, 716
Ceramic bowls, architectural decoration, 413, Cistercian Monasticism, 572
423, 426, 574, 600 Citadel, 716
Ceremony, Classe (near Ravenna, Italy), 121, 123
Liturgical, 37–38, 41, 101, 213 Apollinare, Sant’, in, 105, 230, 234, 241
Imperial, 213–15 Clerestory, 716
Cherven (Bulgaria), 650 Cloisonné masonry, 392, 413–14, 716
Church 2, 650, 651 Cloister, 716
Chalcedon (Asia Minor, Turkey), 347 Cloister vault, 716
Chalcedon, Council of, 102, 277 Coenobium/cenobium, 716
Chalcedonian Christianity, 715 Colonnade, 716
Chalke Gate, 715 Colonette, 716
Chamales, Christopher, architect, 708 Column, 716
Chamfer, 715 Composite capital, 716
Champlitte, William of, Prince of Achaea, 571 Compostela, Santiago de, Cathedral, 490
Chancel (see Bema) Compound pier, 716
Chancel barrier, 715 Conch, 716
Charakteres, 715 Confessio, 716
Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor, 267 Concrete, 88, 181
Chatior/shatior, 716 Consecratio, 716
Chernigov (Russia, now Ukraine), 395, 543 Console, 716
Piatnitsa Church, 547, 550, 550, 690 Constantine I, Emperor, 9, 10, 11–14, 16–19,
Transfiguration Cathedral, 544–45, 547 21–29, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 64, 90, 101,
Chi-Rho monogram, 11, 716 111, 137, 139, 141, 184, 597
Chios (Greece), Baptism of, 42
Nea Mone Church and Monastery, 313, 314, Christian conversion of, 12
315, 316, 390–91, 569 Chi-rho monogram, and, 11
Panagia Krina Church, 314, 391, 397, 398 Colossal statue of, 11
Sikelia, Panagia Church, 564 Column of, 26, 26–28
Chlemoutsi (Peloponnese, Greece), Castle at, Constantinople, Mausoleum of, 24, 64, 684
571–72, 572 Helios/Sol Invictus, and, 11, 12, 27, 49

Milvian Bridge, Battle of, 11 Cemeteries of, 145
Rome, Mausoleum of, 16 Chalkoprateia, Church of the Theotokos, 106,
Constantine V, Emperor, 251, 333, 345, 347 145, 640
Constantine IX Monomachos, Emperor, 313, Chora Monastery (Kariye Camii), 317, 349,
388, 390–91, 483 359, 361, 362, 375–76, 377, 385,
Constantinople (Istanbul), 3, 21, 22, 23, 23–28, 389–90, 390, 391, 396, 397, 401, 403,
34, 37, 39–41, 64, 65, 78, 82, 84, 85, 551, 605–12, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611,
90, 92, 95, 101, 107, 132, 137–147, 138, 613, 614, 630, 652, 669
175, 179–189, 193, 195, 219, 221, 222, Cisterns of, 92–93, 141–144
223, 227, 229, 245, 247, 248, 250, 253, Constantine I, Column of (Çemberlitaş), 23,
267, 268, 282, 336, 353–378, 431, 480, 26–28, 26, 27
500, 507, 508, 511, 514, 523, 524, 531, Constantine I, Forum of, 23, 26–28, 27, 138,
532, 534–5, 541, 542, 543, 550, 551, 145, 345
561, 562, 572, 576, 595–618, 617, 621, Constantine I, Land walls of, 23, 88, 137, 139,
622, 626, 629, 640, 649, 651, 653, 656, 140, 141
664, 667, 669, 682–83, 687 Golden Gate of, 139, 542
Akakios, Martyrium of, 24 ̇
Constantine Lips (tou Libos, Fenari Isa
Alexandrina, Horrea, 144 Camii), Monastery of, 259, 261, 600,
Anastasia, St., Church of, 250 601, 602, 605
Anastasius, Long Walls of, 147 John the Baptist (South Church), Church
Antiochos, Palace of, 95, 170, 181–182, 183, of St., 600, 601, 602
184, 347 Theotokos tou Libos (North Church),
Apostles, Church of the Holy, 24, 34, 49, 51, Church of the, 319, 321, 354–55, 355,
61, 62, 65, 78, 102, 117, 145, 193–94, 356, 357, 373, 401, 435, 535, 600, 601
194, 283, 298, 309, 357, 374, 405, 508, Cybele, Temple of, 24
511, 514, 516, 597, 683, 684 Demetrius, Monastery of St., 597
Michael the Archangel, Column of St., 597 Domninos, Portico of, 138, 388
Arcadius, Forum and Column of, 139, 139 Eirene, Hagia, 24, 88, 97, 190, 190, 191, 249,
Artopolia, District of (Breadmakers’ 250, 251–52, 253, 254, 261, 435
Quarter), 138 Eleutherios Harbor (Langa Bostan), 144
Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, 249, 255–56, 260, Eski Imaret Camii (Theotokos Pantepoptes),
261, 312 354, 358, 390
Augustaion, 23, 139, 144 Euphemia, Church of St. (at the
Auxentius, Mt., Michael, Monastery Hippodrome), 95, 170, 347, 597
of St., 597 Fall of (see Ottoman Conquest of )
Basilica Cistern, 93, 142, 144 Hodegon Monastery, 640
Benoit in Galata, Church of St.-, 614 Ottoman Conquest of, 3, 618, 669, 679,
Beyazid Camii, 685, 686 682–83
Beyazit, District of, 145 Fatih Camii (Mosque of the Conqueror), 193,
Blachernae, Theotokos, Church of the, 107, 683–84, 685, 685
145, 230, 565, 612, 640 Mausoleum of Mehmed II, 684
Blachernae Palace, 346, 350, 597, 616 Fildamı Cistern, 142, 143
Tekfursaray (House of the Fortuna, Temple of, 24
Porphyrogennetos), 597–99, 598, 599, Founding of, 21, 23
600, 605, 616, 633–34, 652, 681 Golden Horn, 138, 141, 144, 145, 147, 346, 682
Bryas Palace (Asian shore), 365 Golden Horn wall, 345
Bogdan Saray, 614 Granaries of, 144
Botaniates, Palace of, 347 Great Palace, 140, 141, 169–70, 171, 181,
Boukoleon Palace, 349, 350 349–50, 356–57, 365, 523, 542, 597
Capitoline Jupiter, Temple of, 23–24 Chalke (Bronze) Gate, 140, 349, 542
Index 763
Constantinople (Istanbul) (continued ) Nika Rebellion (Riots), 140, 199, 200, 206
Chalkites, Church of Christ, 365–66, 366 Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), Theotokos,
Chrysotriklinos (Golden audience hall), Monastery of the, 317, 361, 376–77,
170, 523 377, 378, 396, 600, 602, 603, 604,
Dekaenneakoubita (Hall of the nineteen 605, 612, 653
couches), 170 Pantokrator Monastery (Zeyrek Camii), 313,
Elijah, Church of St., 534 361, 370, 370–73, 371, 372, 374, 375,
Magnaura, 349 395, 565, 602, 659, 661
Mouchroutas, 349 Funeral chapel (St. Michael), 371–72, 372,
Nea Ekklesia (New Church), 356–57, 407 375, 375
Pharos Church, xxv, 349 North Church (Theotokos Eleousa),
Gül Camii (Hagia Theodosia), 247, 317, 370–71, 371
359, 361 South Church (Katholikon of Christ),
Hadrian, Aqueduct of, 141 371–2, 371, 372, 374
Harbors of, 144–45 Pera, 599, 616, 687
Hebdomon (Bakırköy), region of, 88, Fortifications at, 616
142, 395 Genoese town hall, 599
Hippodrome, 23, 24, 25, 26, 140, 141, 170, Peribleptos Monastery, Church of the
181, 185, 200, 346, 347, 616 Theotokos, 388
Theodosius, Obelisk of, 140, 141 Peter and Paul, Basilica of Sts., 185
Honoratai, District of, 86, 87 Philoxenos Cistern (Binbirderek Sarnıcı),
Holy Peace (see Eirene, Hagia) 142, 144
Holy Wisdom (see Sophia, Hagia) Photeine, St., 400
Hormisdas Palace, 185 Polyeuktos, Church of St., 182–84, 185, 186,
̇ Kapı Mescidi, 612, 614, 614, 615
Isa 186, 189
John, St., Monastery tou Libos, 377 Prosphorion Harbor, 144
John in Troullo, Church of St., 358, Psamatia, District of, 39
360, 373 Resurrection, Church of, 250, 388
John at the Diipion, Church of St., 534 Rumeli Hisar Fortress (Asian shore), 683, 684
Julian, Harbor of, 138, 144, 345 Sea Wall, 345, 346, 597
Kalenderhane Camii (Theotokos Kyriotissa, Sehzade Mehmed Camii, 685, 686
Church of the), 144, 247, 317, 348, 348, Sekbanbaşı Mescidi, 358, 360
359, 361, 362, 364, 385, 387 Senate House, 24
Kosmidion, Monastery of the, 388 Sergius and Bacchus, Church of Sts., 87, 88,
Latin Occupation (1204 Conquest) of, 334, 95, 106, 106, 184–90, 187, 188, 196,
347, 432, 437, 516, 561–62, 595, 626 221, 222, 228, 231, 690
Lausus, Palace of, 170, 181–82 Septimius Severus, Basilica of, 23
Lykos River, 141, 144 Șeyh Murat Mescidi, 354, 356
Makros Embolos (street), 138 Sigma, plaza on the Mese, 140
Mangana, George, Monastery of St., 366, Sokollu Mehmet Paşa Camii, 690, 691
367, 368, 388, 402, 516, 536 Sophia, Hagia, xxi, xxi, 24, 41, 42, 82, 83, 88,
Marmara, Sea of, 144, 145, 147, 185, 91, 95, 96, 106, 106, 107, 107, 145, 165,
257, 258 175, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190, 194,
Mermerkule (Marble Tower), 600, 600 195, 199–216, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205,
Mese (main street), 138–140 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213,
Mokisos, Church of St., 24, 145 214, 219, 225, 249, 250, 274, 310, 346,
Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii), 249, 250, 261, 348, 349, 354, 366, 370, 385, 389, 400,
306–310, 308, 309, 319, 348–49, 354, 400, 407, 418, 459, 462, 534, 541, 562,
384, 385, 445, 657 563, 597, 614, 616, 616, 618, 679, 682,
Neorion Harbor, 144 683, 684, 685, 687, 707, 708, 709, 710

Anthemius of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus, Cozia Monastery (Wallachia, Romania), 669, 672
architects, 82, 194, 201, 206, 209, 212 Crac des Chevaliers (Syria), Crusader fortress of,
Bricks of, 92 497–98, 499, 503, 504, 504–05
Collapse of first dome, 92, 210 Creed, Nicene, 41
Geometry of plan, 203, 205–06 Crete (Greece), 248, 259, 391
Lime mortar of, 91–92 Crimea (Black Sea), 541
Medieval repairs of, 210, 616 Crocket capital, 716
Original relics of, 216 Cross arm, 716
Ottoman conversion of, 683 Cross-domed church/cross-domed basilica, 249,
Structural issues of, 207–210 252–59, 716
Stoudios, John, Church and Monastery of St., Cross-domed unit, 716
39, 40, 41, 106, 108, 178, 201, 230 Crossing, 716
Strategion, 139 Cross-in-square church type, 716
Süleymaniye Camii, 685, 687, 687, 688, 689 Crusade, First, 480, 486
Tekfursaray, see Blachernae Palace Crusade, Fourth, 516, 561–62, 595, 626
Theodosian Harbor, 141 Crusader architecture, 434, 479–505, 580
Theodosianum, Horreum, 144 Crusader States, 479
Theodosius I, Forum of (Forum Tauri), 139, Crypt, 716
139, 345 Ctesiphon (Iraq), Taq-i-Kisra, 274
Theodosius I, Column of, 139 Cubiculum, 716
Valens, Nymphaea, 142 Č učer-Banjani (near Skopje, North Macedonia),
Theodosius II, Land Walls of, 137, 145, 146, Niketas, Church of St., 655–656, 656
163, 345, 458, 563, 597, 614, 616, Cult of saints, 8, 61
682, 683 Curtain wall, 716
Belgrade Gate (Second Military Gate), 140 Ćurčić, Slobodan, 318
Golden Gate of, 139, 140 Curtea de Argeş (Wallachia, Romania),
Theotokos, relics of, 145 Nicholas, Church of St., 669
Theotokos Panagiotissa (or Mouchliotissa), Episcopal Monastery, 669
359, 360 Cybele, Greco-Roman goddess, 24
Toklu Dede Mescidi, 358, 359 Cycladic Islands (Greece), 368
Topkapı Palace, 92, 144 Cyril of Scythopolis, Monastic historian, 82
Water management of, 141–144, 338 Cyril and Methodius, Sts., Missionaries to the
Valens, Aqueduct of, 142, 142, 345, 348 Slavs, 531, 532
Vefa Kilise Camii, 314, 354, 356, 357, 361, Cyprus, 267, 282–83, 391, 499, 512
373, 605, 606
Xerolophos, District of, 139 Dado, 716
Zeuxippos, Baths of, 23, 141, 142, 144 Dagit, Henry, architect, 713
Zoodochos Pege, 640 Dağ Pazarı (Asia Minor, Turkey), Church at, 179
Constantius II, Emperor, 49, 193 Dakhla Oasis (Egypt), 133
Contarini, Domenico, Doge of Venice, 514 Kellis, Southeast Church, 131, 133
Corbel, 716 Dalassena, Anna, Empress, 354
Corbel table frieze, 716 Dalmatia, Roman province of, 115
Corbusier, le, architect, 707 Damascus (Syria), 160, 284, 287, 480, 499,
Corfu (see Kerkyra) 580, 590
Corinth (Greece), 333, 335, 338, 339, 341, Great Mosque of, 287, 290, 292
426, 574 John, Church of St., 287
Lechaion, Basilica of, 106, 107, 108 Jupiter, Temple of, 287
Panagia Field, Bath, 339, 340 Nur al-Din, Hospital of, 499, 500
Corinthian capital, 716 Danilo II, Archbishop of Peć (Serbia, now
Cornice, 716 Kosovo), 659
Index 765
Danube River, 667 Dome, 717
Dara (Asia Minor, Turkey), 165, 166, 219 Domed basilica, 189–96, 251–52, 717
Cisterns of, 165 Dominican, Monastic order, 573
Kordes River, 165 Domus, 717
Dardanelles Strait (Turkey) , 680 Domus ecclesiae (House-church), 4–5, 73, 717
Dar Qita (Syria), Sergius, Church of St., 239 Dura Europos, of, 4–5, 6
David III of Tao (“the Great”), King of Georgia, Rome, of, 4
455, 469–71 Donjon, 717
David IV (“the Builder”), King of Georgia, 456, Doors, wooden, 39
475, 477 Dougga (Tunisia), 167–68, 168
Dealu Monastery (Wallachia, Romania), 669 Doukaina, Maria, Empress, 390
Debre Damo (Ethiopia), Church of, 296–97, 297 Dovecote, 717
Dečani (Serbia, now Kosovo), Monastery of, 659 Drama (Macedonia, Greece), Sophia, Church of
Pantokrator, Church of the (Mausoleum of Hagia, 318
Stefan Dečanski), 659, 661, 662, 663 Drum, 717
Dečanski, Stefan Uroš III, King of Serbia, 653, Dura Europos (Syria), 5, 5
659, 661 Domus ecclesiae (House-church), 4–5, 6
Decius, Emperor, 147 Mithraeum, 6
Decumanus, 716 Synagogue, 5–7, 7
Deesis, 716 Dušan, Stefan (Uroš IV), King of Serbia and
Déhès (Syria), village of, 163, 172 Greece, 624, 650, 653, 659, 661,
Demetrius, St., of Thessalonike, 74, 76, 77, 79, 662, 665
108, 153–54
Dendrochronology, 248, 251, 252, 257, 716 Ecclesia/ekklesia, 4, 13, 717
Dendyra (Egypt), Temple of Hathor, Church Ecclesius, Bishop of Ravenna, 83, 221, 222
in, 134 Edessa (Urfa, Asia Minor, Turkey), 277
Delphi, Serpent Column from, 26 Edessa, County of (Crusader State), 480
Dereağzı (near Myra, Asia Minor, Turkey), Edirne (Adrianople, Thrace, Turkey), 621, 649,
Church, 435, 436, 437 682, 687
Desiderius, Abbot of Montecassino, 507 Selimiye Camii, 687, 689, 690
Design methodology Üç Șerefeli Cami, 682, 684, 685
Early Byzantine, 81–88 Egeria, pilgrim, 33, 63
Middle Byzantine, 381–85 Egypt, monuments in, 51, 53–57, 132–134
Despotes, 716 ‘Ein Karim (Palestine), John the Baptist, Church
Diakonikon, 716 of St., 482
Diaphragm arch, 716 Ekphrasis, 717
Digenes Akritas, Byzantine novel, 342 Eirene-Piroska (Irene of Hungary), Empress, 370
Dies natalis, 716 Elbow column, 717
Diocletian, Emperor, 9, 10, 25, 69 Elegmi (see Kurşunlu)
Diophysite, 716 Elis (Peloponnese, Greece), 574
Dioscuri, Twins Castor and Pollux of Greco- Blachernae Monastery, 575, 576
Roman myth, 25 El Kef (Tunisia), Dar el Kous, 231, 235
Divriği (Asia Minor, Turkey), Mosque-Hospital, Enez (Ainos, Thrace, Turkey), Fatih Camii, 317,
583, 585 359–60, 365, 401, 401
Djémila (Algeria), Double church complex at, 123 Enkainia, 717
Djurdjevi Stupovi Monastery, Church of St. Entablature, 717
George, 551–52, 552 Ephesus, Council of, 102, 110, 145, 148
Dnieper River (Russia, now Ukraine), 541 Ephesus (Asia Minor, Turkey), 24, 64–65, 68,
Dodekaorton, 717 137, 147–148, 150, 151, 172, 333,
Dogtooth cornice, 717 334, 335

Ayasoluk, Hill of, 334 Fastigium, 717
Artemis, Temple of, 147 Fatimids, 294, 295, 413, 479, 480, 523
Embolos, 147, 150 Fenestration, 717
Gothic siege of, 147 Ferai (Thrace, Greece), Panagia Kosmosoteira,
John the Evangelist (Ayasoluk), Church of St., 357, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 412
64–65, 89, 110, 147, 195, 334, 344, 516 Feudalism, 717
Mary (Theotokos), Cathedral of St., 109, 115, Filarete (Antionio di Pietro Averlino), Florentine
147–8, 250, 255 architect, 693
Olympieion, 148 Fioravanti, Roldolfo (Aristotele), Bolognese
Panayirdağ, Maryrium of the Seven architect, 693, 694
Sleepers, 147 Fisandon (Lycaonia, Asia Minor, Turkey),
Epidauros (Greece), Basilica of, 107, 107, 108 443, 443
Epiphanius of Salamis, Bishop and Church Flying buttress, 717
Father, 149 Font, 717
Epirus (Greece), 562, 564–71, 564, 626, 656, Formwork, 717
658 Forum/fora, 717
Epistyle (see Architrave) Foundation systems, 92
Ereğli (Thrace, Turkey), Herakleia Perinthos, Four-column church, 717
cathedral of, 257 “Franks” (Western Europeans), 413
Eremos (Mani, Peloponnese, Greece), Barbara, Free-cross plan, 717
Church of St., 426, 428 Fresco, 717
Ergasterion, 717 Frieze, 717
Ergates, 717 Frigidarium, 717
Ergolabos, 717 Frourion, 717
Ereroyk’ (Armenia), Basilica, Turkey of, 269 Fryazin, Bon, Milanese architect, 694
Eski Gümüş (Cappadocia), residential complex, Fulcher of Chartres, Chronicler of the First
344 Crusade, 345
Esplanade, 717 Fulk, Crusader King of Jerusalem, 485
Ethiopia (Abyssinia), buildings in, 295–97 Furta sacra, 717
Eucharist, 717
Euclid, Greek mathematician, 81 Gable, 717
Eudoxia, Empress, 85 Gadroon, 717
Gaza, Church of, 85 Galatia (Asia Minor, Turkey), 443
Eufrasius, Bishop of Poreč, 223 Galerius, Emperor, 11, 153
Eukterion, 717 Galilee (Palestine), 70
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 22, 23, 26–27, Galla Placidia, Empress, 49–50, 121
30–34, 42, 49, 63 Gallery, 717
Life of Constantine, 23, 31, 34 Gaṙni (Armenia), Roman Temple at, 269
Euthymios the Younger, St., 405 Gastouni (Peloponnese, Greece), Panagia
Evros River Valley (Meriç, Maritsa, Thrace), 644 Katholike, Church of, 574, 575
Exedra, 717 Gavit/zamatun, 717
Exonarthex (see Narthex) Gaza (Palestine), 84–85
Exo teichos, 717 Eudoxia, Church of, 84–85
Extrados, 717 Rufinus, architect of, 85
Stephen’s, St., Church of, 85, 231
Falier, Vitale, Doge of Venice, 514 Geghard (near Gaṙni, Armenia), Monastery,
Faras (Nubia), 587, 589, 590
North Church, 295, 295 Gelveri (see Güzelyurt)
Old Dongola, Church of the Granite George of Antioch (prime minister of
Columns in, 295, 295 Roger II), 517
Index 767
Geraki (Peloponnese, Greece), 574, 644, 645 Güzelyurt (Karbala or Byzantine Gelveri, Asia
Houses of, 341 Minor, Turkey), 233, 441
Sozon, Church of St., 312, 314 Gregory, Church of St., 441
Gerasa (Jerash, Jordan), 130, 148–151, 152, 153, Gynaikokastro (Macedonia, Greece),
154, 157, 163 Fortress at, 644
Artemis, Temple of, 149
Cathedral complex, 130, 149, 153 Habsenas (Ṭ ur ‘Abdin, Turkey) Mor Lazoor,
Dionysus, Temple, 149 280, 282, 288
Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, Church of Hadrā, Dayr Anbā (Egypt), Church of, 294
the, 176, 176 Hadrian, Emperor, 12, 21, 23, 28, 141
Propylaia Church, 151 Haghbat (Armenia), Monastery of, 587, 588,
Theodore, Basilica of St., 130, 149 590, 591
Water management of, 151 Haghartsin (Armenia), refectory of, 590
Gerizim (Palestine), Mt., Theotokos, Church of Hagiasma, 717
the, 128, 134, 175, 176, 176 Ḥ āḥ (Ṭ ur ‘Abdin, Turkey), El-‘Adhra (Church of
Germanos I, Patriarch of Constantinople, xxiv the Virgin), 279–80, 287, 288
Gesamkunstwerk, 717 Hakim, al-, Fatimid Caliph, 479, 484
Giorgi I, King of Georgia, 473 Hammath Tiberias, Synagogue of, 130, 131
Giurdignano (Calabria, Italy), Salvatore, Church Hasan Dağı (Mt. Argaios, Asia Minor, Turkey),
of San, 509 160, 438
Glacis, 717 Süt Kilisesi (“Milk Church”), 438
Glarentza (Peloponnese, Greece), 572, Yağdebaş Kilisesi, 438, 439, 441
Francis, Church of St., 573, 573 Hattin, Battle of, 479
Godunov, Boris, Tsar of Russia, 702 Haunch, 717
Gothic, Western architectural style, 479, 492– Hegetor, Ram of, 383
99, 540, 562, 567, 569, 572, 574, 575, Hegoumenos, 717
590, 634, 643, 664, 665, 673, 695, 713 Helena, Empress (Mother of Constantine), 16,
Göreme (Cappadocia, Turkey), 330 29, 225
Çarıklı Kilise (“Sandal Church”), 452 Buildings of, 16, 29, 32
Elmalı Kilise (“Apple Church”), 447, 449 True Cross, and, 32, 63
Karanlık Kilise Monastery (“Dark Church”), Helladic School (“Helladic Paradigm”) of
307, 451, 452, 452 Architecture, 405, 412–427
Kılıçlar Kilise (“Swords Church”), 445, 447 Hemicycle, 717
Tokalı Kilise (“Buckle Church”), 444–45, 446 Hemisphaeron, 717
Gortyna (Crete, Greece), Titus, Church of St., Heraclius, Emperor, 270, 273, 283
259, 263, 298 Hermit, 717
Goshavank (Armenia), Monastery of, 590 Hermitage, 717
Grabar, André, 62 Hermopolis Magna (al-Ashmunayn, Egypt),
Gračanica (Serbia, now Kosovo), Dormition, Great Basilica at, 134, 134
Church of the, 656–58, 658, 659, Herod the Great, King of Judea, 28
660, 664 Heron of Byzantium, Byzantine writer,
Grado (Italy), 514 383–84
Graffiti, 9, 14, 73, 400 Heroon/heroa, 717
Greek cross, 717 Hierapolis (Pamukkale, Asia Minor, Turkey),
Gregory of Nazianzus, 70, 102, 104, 142, 237 74, 194
Gregory of Nyssa, 104, 239 Philip, St., Church of, 74, 75, 76, 194, 195
Gregory II, Pope, 267 Hieron, 717
Groin vault, or cross vault, 717 Hippodrome (see Circus)
Guiscard, Robert (brother of Roger II of Hisham, Umayyad Caliph, 160, 290
Sicily), 523 Hohenstaufen Dynasty (German), 526

Hokkaido Island (Japan), Hakodate Khristos, Iustiniana Prima (see Caričin Grad)
Church of, 707 Ivan Alexander, Tsar of Bulgaria, 650, 651
Holobolos, Manuel, Palaiologan court poet, 597 Ivan I, Prince of Moscow, 692
Holy Roman Empire, 267 Ivan III, Tsar of Moscow, 692, 693
Hoṙomos Monastery (Armenia, now eastern Ivan IV (the Terrible), Tsar of Moscow, 695, 702
Turkey), 466–67, 467, 468, 469 Iwan (see Ayvan)
Horseshoe arch, 718
Horreum/horrea, 718 Jamb, 718
Hospitallers, Order of the, 493, 500, 501, 504 Jaroslav (the Wise), Prince of Kievan Rus’,
Hungary, Kingdom of, 667 542, 544
Hypatos, 718 Jerash (see Gerasa)
Hypocaust, 718 Jericho (Palestine), 56
Hypogeum/hypogea, 718 Jerome, St., 61–62
Jerusalem, 6, 18, 21, 22, 28, 28, 56, 61–63, 130,
Icon, 718 147, 175, 215, 283, 284, 286, 395,
Iconoclasm, 245, 247, 267, 303, 718 480–92, 561, 699, 702
Iconostasis, 718 Aelia Capitolina, 21, 29
̇ Ada (Latmos, Asia Minor, Turkey),
Ikiz al-Aqsa Mosque, 481, 481, 482, 483–84, 499
Monastery, 564 Anne, Abbey Church of St., 484–86,
Illiad, 212 487, 488
Impost block, 718 Aphrodite, Temple of, 29
Impost capital, 718 Ascension, Church of, 29–30, 29, 486
Indiction, 718 Bethesda, Pool of, 484
Inhabited scroll, 718 Capitoline Jupiter, Temple of, 21, 29, 286
Innocent III, Pope, 561 Cardo, 29, 31
Inscribed cross plan, 718 Cenacle (Upper Room at Sion), 493, 496
Insula, 718 Cross, Monastery of the, 481–82, 483
Intervallum, 718 Cyril, St., Bishop of, 33, 42, 63
Intrados, 718 Dome of the Rock, 286, 291, 481, 483–84,
Ionic capital, 718 499, 687
Ipat’ev Chronicle, 482 Dormition of the Virgin, Church of the, 176
Isauria (Asia Minor, Turkey), 179 Eleona, Church of (Mount of Olives),
Ishkani (Iş̇ han, Georgia, now eastern Turkey), 29–30, 64
Cathedral of, 473, 474, 475, 538 Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount), 286,
Isidorus of Miletus, architect-engineer, 82, 194, 481, 499
201, 206, 209, 212 Gethsemane (Mount of Olives), 74
Isidorus the Younger, architect-engineer, 85, 210 Virgin, Tomb of the, 74, 486
Islam, Golden Gate, 492
Development of, 267, 284–85 Kathisma Church (Seat of the Virgin), 74,
Early architecture, 284–86, 309, 313 128, 175, 176, 176, 286
Shi’ite, 479 Mary Latin, St., 486
Sunni, 479, 480 Mary of the Germans, St., 486
Isova (Peloponnese, Greece), Church, 572 Mary the Great, St., 486
Istanbul (see Constantinople) Mary Magdalene, St., 486
Çamlıca Republic Mosque, 710, 712 Moriah, Mount, 286
Istra (near Moscow, Russia), New Jerusalem, Nea Ekklesia, 82, 225
Monastery of the, 700, 702 Sepulchre, Church of the Holy, 29–34, 31,
Resurrection, Cathedral of the, 700, 702 62–63, 65, 114, 147, 225, 286, 479, 481,
Italà (Sicily), Pietro e Paolo, Church of Santi, 482–83, 484, 485, 486–92, 490, 491,
524, 525 492, 493, 494, 497, 700, 702
Index 769
Jerusalem (continued ) Kantakouzenos, Manuel, Despot of the Morea,
Adam, Chapel of, 483 632, 643
Anastasis Rotunda, 32, 33, 44, 63, 286, Kars (Armenia, now eastern Turkey), 456
483, 485, 487 Karytaina (Peloponnese, Greece), Fortress at, 646
Belfry, Crusader, 489 Matzouranogiannis tower-house of, 646
Calvary (Golgotha), 32–33, 62–63, 483, Kastoria (Macedonia, Greece),
487, 489 Anagyroi, Church of the, 408, 409
Canons, Cloister of the, 487 Koubelidike Church, 313, 315
Choir, Crusader, 488, 493 Stephen, Church of St., 408, 408
Constantinian basilica, of, 30–32, 63, 487 Katechoumena, 718
Franks, Chapel of the, 489 Kathedra (see Cathedra)
Helena, Chapel of, 487, 491, 492 Katholikon, 718
Hemisphaeron, 31–32 Katramide, Queen of Armenia, 459
Invention of the Cross, Crypt of the, 487 Kawamura, Izo, architect, 707
Tomb of Christ (Aedicula), 29–34, 32, Kazan, Battle of, 695, 700
62–63, 700 Kellia (Egypt), monastic community of, 54, 55
Temple of Solomon, 18, 28–29, 29, 33, 42, Kephale, 718
130, 131, 147, 184, 215, 225, 285, Keria (Mani, Peloponnese, Greece), John,
286, 483 Church of St., 426
Holy of Holies (Tabernacle), 42, 131, 184 Kachkar, 718
Tyropoeon Valley, 33, 225 Kerkyra (Corfu, Greece), Iosonis and Sosipatros,
Jerusalem, Kingdom of (Crusader State), 480, Church of, 414
493, 561 Kharab Shams (Syria), Basilica of, 128
Jewish Revolt, great (first), 28 Kidron Valley (Palestine), 56
Jewish Revolt, second, 28 Sabas, St., Monastery (Great Lavra) of, 56,
Jezava River (Serbia), 667 57, 58,
John the Baptist, St., 13 Kiev (Russia, now Ukraine), 312, 368, 395,
John the Evangelist, St., 13 541–42
John VII, Patriarch of Constantinople, 365 Caves, Monastery of the,
Judean Desert (Palestine), 56 Dormition of the Virgin, Church
Julian the Apostate, Emperor, 102 of the, 543
Julius Caesar, Emperor, 25 Holy Trinity, Church of the, 312,
Jupiter, Roman god, 23–24 313, 543
Justin I, Emperor, 165, 184, 185 Dormition Cathedral, 545, 547,
Justinian I, Emperor, 64, 65, 82, 83, 91, 97, 134, Eirene, Monastery of St., 542
157, 161, 165, 184, 185, 189, 193, 199, George, Monastery of St., 542
200, 207–10, 215, 219, 221, 225, 245, Golden Gate, 542, 542
251, 261, 283, 687, 710 Sophia, Cathedral of St., 368, 542–43, 543,
Jvari (Mtskheta, Georgia), Holy Cross, Church 544, 544–45, 545, 546, 547
of the, 271, 273, 274, 278 Starokjivs’ka Hill, 541
Tithe (Desyatinnaya) Church, 541–42, 542,
Kafiona (Mani, Peloponnese, Greece), 544
Theodores, Church of Sts., 427, 429 Kievan Rus’, 215, 312, 357, 366, 395
Kahve Asar Ada (Latmos, Asia Minor, Turkey), Buildings in, 540–550
564, 566 Kılıç Arslan II, Seljuk Sultan of Rûm, 579
Kalenić Monastery (Serbia), Presentation of the Kilistra (Asia Minor, Turkey), Chapel, 453
Virgin, Church of the, 666, 668, Kirşehir (Asia Minor, Turkey), Üçayak Church
669, 669 (“Three Feet”), 440, 443–44, 444
Kalligopoulos family, 574–75 Kisleçukuru (Asia Minor, Turkey), Monastery,
Kantakouzenos, John VI, Emperor, 632, 644, 649 327, 329

Kitta (Mani, Peloponnese, Greece), Sergius and Kuršumlija (Serbia), Nicholas, Church of St.,
Bacchus (or St. George), Church of Sts., 551, 551, 552, 553
xxii, 312, 313, 314, 426, 426, 428 Kurşunlu (Bithynia, Turkey), Megas Agros
Klimax, 718 Monastery, 258–59, 262
Kline/klinae, 718 Kurşunlu (Elegmi, Bithynia, Turkey), Aberkios
Knez, 718 (Abercius), Church of St., 359, 402,
Koine, 718 434–35
Koinobion/-a, cenobite, 718 Kutaisi (Georgia), 473
Kokoshniki, 718 Gelati Monastery, 475, 476, 477
Kolomenskoe (Russia), 695 Academy, 475
Ascension, Church of the, 695, 698 George, Chapel of St., 475
Kolusha (Bulgaria), George, Church of St., 538, Nicholas, Chapel of St., 475
538, 602 Kydna (Lycia, Asia Minor, Turkey), Church,
Komnenian Dynasty, 317, 562, 564, 597 389, 389, 432
Tombs of, 373–76 Kypseli (Epirus, Greece), Demetrius, Church of
Komnenodoukai Dynasty (Despotate of St., 569, 571, 571
Epirus), 564
Komnenoi, Grand, 575 Lacedaemonia (see Sparta)
Komnenos, Alexios I, Emperor, 354, 480 Lalibela (Ethiopia), Churches of, 297
Komnenos, Andronikos, 575 Beta Emmanuel, Church of, 297, 297
Komnenos, Isaak, Crown Prince, 373, 375–76, Lambova (Albania), Koimesis Church, 318
390, 412 Larissa (Thessaly, Greece), 536
Komnenos, John II, Emperor, 370, 412 Larnaca (Cyprus), Lazarus, Church of St.,
Komnenos, Manuel I, Emperor, 538, 550, 551, 282, 290
561, 576 Laskaris, Theodore I, Emperor of Nicaea, 562
Komnenos Doukas, Michael II, Ruler of Epirus, Laskaris, Theodore II Doukas, Emperor of
565–66 Nicaea, 336, 563, 595
Kondopoga (Russia), Assumption, Church of Latin cross, 718
the, 699 Latmos (Bafa Gölü, Asia Minor, Turkey), 564
Konya (Ikonion, Asia Minor, Turkey), 432, 480, Laura or lavra, 718
562, 578, 579–83, 581, 587, 590 Laurent’ev Chronicle, 542
Alaeddin Camii, 579, 582 Lazar, Prince of Serbia, 664–66
̇ Minareli Medrese, 580, 583, 582, 583
Ince Lazarević, Stefan, Despot of Serbia, 667
K’orogo (Georgia), Church at, 385, 386, 391, Lazarus Galesiotes, St., 383
392, 395 Lebanon, Cedars of, 225
Kos (Greece), Mastichari, John, Basilica of St., Lekepanos, Romanos I, Emperor, 306, 309,
108, 111 348, 349
Köşe Dağı (Asia Minor, Turkey), Battle of, 578 Leo, Bishop of Argos, 420
Kosovo, 1389 Battle of, 649, 653 Leo III, Emperor, 345
Kotor (Serbia, now Montenegro), 552 Leo IV, Emperor, 345
Kramolin (Lovech, Bulgaria), 255 Leo V, Emperor, 345
Krautheimer, Richard, 247 Leptourgos, 718
Kremlin, 718 Les Andelys (France), Chateau Gaillard (of
Krum, Khan of Bulgaria, 532 Richard I Lionheart), 504
Kruševac (Serbia), Stephen (Lazarica), Church of Lesnovo (Serbia, now North Macedonia),
St., 664, 665, 666, 666, 667, 669 Monastery at, 661
Ktetor, 718 Archangels, Church of the, 661–62, 664
Kubāniyyah, Dayr al- (Egypt), Church of, Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Popes), 42, 48
294, 294 Libyan Desert (Egypt), 69
Külliye, 718 Licinius, Emperor, 11, 21, 26
Index 771
Lime mortar, 718 Mark the Deacon, Author of Vita Porphyrii, 84
Limes, 718 Markov Monastery (Serbia, now North
Limestone Massif (Syria), 128 Macedonia), 662
Quarries in, 88, 90 Demetrius, Church of St., 662, 665
Villages of, 162–63 Martin, St., Bishop of Tours, 61
Lindos (Rhodes, Greece), John, Church of St., Martyr, 718
437 Martyrium, 8, 16, 18, 33–34, 62–63, 64, 73,
Lintel, 718 286, 719
Lite, 718 Mary the Younger, St., of Vize, 252
Lithoxoos, 718 Matejič Monastery (Serbia, now North
Liturgy, 718 Macedonia), 662
Loculus/loculi, 718 Virgin, Church of the, 662, 666
Locus sanctus/loca sancta, 718 Mausoleum, 14, 37, 44, 46–47, 121, 719
Lombards, 507 Baptisteries, relationship to, 44
Luke (Greece), Blessed St., 414, 416 Maxentius, Emperor, 11, 14, 19
Luke the Apostle, St., 34, 49, 61 Basilica of, 19
Lunette, 718 Maximian, Bishop of Ravenna, 222, 230
Lusignan, Guy de, King of Jerusalem, 493 Maximian, Emperor, 11
Lusignan, Isabelle de, wife of Despot Manuel Mayafarqin (Ṭur ‘Abdin, Asia Minor, Turkey),
Kantakouzenos of Mystras, 643 Church of the Virgin, 192, 192
Mazara (Sicily), Nicolò Regale, San, 518, 519
Maale Adumin (Palestine), Monastery of Meander pattern, 719
Martyrius, 56–57, 59 Mechanikos/mechanikoi or mechanikopoios/
Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, 31 mechanikopoioi, 719
Macellum/macella, 718 Mecca (Arabian Peninsula), Muslim holy city,
Machicolation, 718 290, 309, 683
Madrassa/medrese, 718 Megara, Greek colony of, 23
Maghreb (North Africa), 479 Mega teichos, 719
Magnesia (Asia Minor, Turkey), 563 Megaw, A.H.S., 357
Mahdi, al-, Fatimid Caliph, 481 Mehmed (Mehmet) II (“the Conqueror”),
Maistor/mastoras, 718 Ottoman Sultan, 618, 682, 683–84
Majolica, 718 Melfi (Basilicata, Italy), 507
Malik, Abd al-, Umayyad Caliph, 286 Melisende, Crusader Queen of Jerusalem, 485
Mallius, Petrus, medieval Roman author, 16 Melitene (Malatya, Asia Minor, Turkey), 432
Mamluks, 504, 597 Menas, St. (Egypt), 68–70
Manasija (Resava) Monastery (Serbia), Holy Mendicant, Monastic orders, 572
Trinity, Church of the, 666–67, Mengujekid Turks, 583, 590
670, 671 Mensa, 719
Mango, Cyril, 248, 259 Merbaka (Peloponnese, Greece), Koimesis,
Mani (Peloponnese, Greece), 398, 413, 425 Church of the, 574, 574
Mantinea (Peloponnese, Greece), Fotini, Church Meryemlik (Asia Minor, Turkey), 64, 110,
of St., 705, 706 178, 179
Manuel, Bishop of Strumica, 409 Domed basilica, 178, 179
Manzikert (Asia Minor, Turkey), 1071 Battle of, Thekla, Church of St., 64, 110, 116, 134
432, 455, 480, 562, 578 Mese, 719
Mardin (Ṭur ‘Abdin, Asia Minor, Turkey), Dayr Mesopotam (Albania), Nicholas, Church of St.,
al’Za’faran, complex of, 279, 284, 285 569
Marea (Egypt), basilica of, 134 Mesarites, Nicholas, Byzantine author, 341
Marinis, Vasileios, 385 Messenia (Greece), Baths of, 339
Maritsa, Battle of, 649, 653, 662 Meteora (Thessaly, Greece), Monasteries of, 624

Athanasius of, St., 624 Palestine, in, 56–57
Metamorphosis Monastery, 624, 625 Syria, in, 65
Metochion/metochia, 719 Monemvasia (Peloponnese, Greece), 334, 413,
Metochites, Theodore, Byzantine politician and 639, 644
author, 349, 605, 612, 614–16 Sophia, Church of St., 334, 413, 639
Miaphysite, 719 Mongols, 456, 550, 562, 578, 581, 679, 690,
Michael IV, Emperor, 388 692, 700, 702
Mihrab Monica, St., 124
Mika’el debra Selam (Ethiopia), Church of, 297, Monograms, architectural, 189, 212, 212
298, 298 Monreale (Sicily), Cathedral of, 521, 521,
Mikre Prespa (Macedonia, Greece), Achilleios, 523, 524
Church of St., 536–38, 538 Montagnana, Alevisio Lamberti da, Venetian
Milan (Italy), 4, 11, 43, 44, 101, 102, 115–17, architect, 694
119–121, 516, 695 Montecassino (Italy), Monastery of, 507
Apostles, Church of the Holy (Basilica “Morava School” of architecture (Serbia), 649,
Apostolorum), 102, 115–16, 117, 119 662, 665, 669
Edict of (Peace of the Church), 4, 11, 14, 21 Moravia, Great, 531
Lorenzo, San, 44, 84, 85, 119–21, 120, 177 Morea (Peloponnese, Greece), 571–75
Sant’Aquilino, Chapel of, 44, Mor Gabriel (Qartmin, Ṭur ‘Abdin, Asia Minor,
119–121, 120 Turkey), 277–78, 283
Simpliciano, San (Basilica Virginum), 116–17 Mortar, 719
Tecla, Santa, Cathedral of, 43, 44, 115 Mortared rubble, 719
Baptistery of, 43–44 Mosaic, 719
Vittore, San, Church of, 121 Moscow (Russia), 679, 692, 692–702
Mileto (Calabria, Italy), Abbey church at, 523 Basil, Cathedral of St. (Intercession of the
Mili (Sicily), Maria, Church of Santa, 524, 524 Virgin), xxiii, 695, 699, 699–700, 702
Millet, Gabriel, 412, 662 Christ the Savior, Cathedral of (Andronikov
Milutin, Uroš, King of Serbia, 622, 650 Monastery), 690, 708–09, 710, 710
Milutin, Stefan Uroš II, King of Serbia, 653, Donskoy Monastery (Old Cathedral),
655–57, 659 700, 702
Minaret, 719 Virgin of the Don, 702
Mircea I, Ruler of Wallachia, 669 Grand Duke of, 614
Mithraeum, 719 Kitay-Gorod, neighborhood of, 695
Mithras, Cult of, 5 Kremlin, 692, 693, 694–96, 697
Moerbeke, William of, Archbishop of Frankish Annunciation, Cathedral of the, 693–94,
Corinth, 574 697
Mohammed, Muslim prophet, 284, 286, 683 Archangel Michael, Cathedral of the, 694
Mokisos (Viranşehir, Asia Minor, Turkey), Dormition (Assumption), Cathedral of the,
160–162, 161, 162, 172 692, 693, 694, 694, 695, 696
Moldavia (Romania), Region of, 649, 667, Great Bell Tower of Ivan III
669, 679 Moscow River (Russia), 690
Moldoviţa (Moldavia, Romania), Annunciation, Moses (Prophet), 227
Church of the, 673, 675 Mosques, 719
Monastery, 719 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 365
Monasticism, 37, 39, 54–57, 65 Mren (Armenia, now eastern Turkey), Cathedral
Egypt, in, 54–56 of, 269, 270, 271, 271, 272, 274, 459
Cappadocia, in, 450–53 Mtskheta (Georgia), Svetitskhoveli (Twelve
Coenobium, 54, 56 Apostles) Cathedral, 475, 476
Laura (lavra), 54 Mullion, 719
Middle Byzantine, 321–331 Murad I, Ottoman Sultan, 653, 680
Index 773
Murad II, Ottoman Sultan, 682 Nemanja, Stefan, grand župan of Raška, 377,
Mushabbak (Syria), 90, 128 378, 550, 551, 552, 621
Muqarnas, 719 Nemanjić Dynasty (Serbia), 667
Myra (Demre, Asia Minor, Turkey), Neon, Bishop of Ravenna, 44
(near) Alakent, Byzantine church of, 94 Neophyte, 719
Nicholas, Church of St., 74, 76–77, 251, 251, Neoplatonism, Pseudo-Dionysus and, 212
252, 432, 434 Nerezi (near Skopje, North Macedonia),
Myriokephalon (Asia Minor, Turkey), Panteleimon, Church of St., 357, 359,
Battle of, 432 373, 397, 410, 411, 412, 550
Myrobletos/-oi, 719 Nerl River (Russia), Pokrov (Veil of the Virgin)
Mystery religion, 719 Church, 547, 549, 550, 550
Mystras (Mistra, Peloponnese, Greece), 252, Nesebar (Messembria, Bulgaria), 650, 651
334, 339, 344, 625, 632–43, 633, Archangels, Church of the, 651
634, 646 John, Church of St., 536, 537
Brontochion Monastery, 639 John Aleitourgetos, Church of St., 651–53,
Hodegetria (or Aphentiko), Church of the, 654, 655
640, 641, 642–43, 642 Old Metropolis, 230, 233, 537
Theodores, Katholikon of Sts., 639–40, Pantokrator, Church of the, 651, 652, 653
640, 642 Paraskeva, Church of St., 651
Demetrius (Metropolis), Church of St., 639, Theodore, Church of St., 651
639, 642–43 Nestor of Thessalonike, St., 154
Despots, Palace of the, 599, 635, 636 Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 102
Palaiologos wing, 633, 636 New York City (United States),
Evangelistria, Church of the, 643 Liberty Park, 709
Frangopoulos House, 634, 637 Nicholas, Church of St., 709
Laskaris House, 634, 638, 639 Nicholas, Greek Orthodox Church and
Monemvasia Gate, 635 National Shrine of St., 709, 711
Pantanassa, Katholikon of the, 643, 643 ̇
Nicaea (Iznik, Asia Minor, Turkey), 335, 337,
Peribleptos (Perivleptos) Monastery, 432, 434, 480, 500, 562–63, 575, 578,
643, 644 621, 626, 627, 679
Sophia, Church of St., 643 Church A near the Istanbul Gate, 434,
Zoodochos Pege, Grand Hermitage of, 625 434, 435
Council of, 29, 102
Naos, 719 Empire of, 562
Narthex, 719 Hacı Özbek Camii, 681, 681
Nave, 719 Hyacinthus, Monastery of St., 254–55
Nation of Islam, 708 Koimesis (Dormition of the Virgin), Church
Natrun, Wadi (Egypt), of the, 248, 249, 250, 254, 261, 359,
Bishoi, Dayr Anbā, 294 434, 563
Virgin, Church of the (Dayr al-Suriān), Second council of, 79
294, 294 Sophia, Hagia, 434, 681
Naxos (Greece), Tryphon, Church of St., 563, 564
Apalirou, Kastro, 334–35, 336, 337 Walls of, 434, 563, 564
Apalirou, George, Church of St., 335 Niche, 719
Metochi, Holy Apostles, Church of, 368, 369 Nicomedia (Izmit, Asia Minor, Turkey), 9, 10,
Nea Anchialos (Thessaly, Greece), 109 24, 679
Neamţ Monastery (Moldavia, Romania), Nicholas of Myra, St., 77
673, 675 Nicholas of Sion, St., 94
Necropolis, 719 Nicholas I, Tsar of Russia, 708
Neglinnaia River (Russia), 692 Nif (See Nymphaion)

Nikephoros I, Emperor, 532 Oratory, 719
Nikopolis (Greece), 26, 109 Orders, Classical, 14, 104–06
Ass and Its Keeper statue, 26 Orhan, Ottoman Sultan, 679–80
Basilica A, 112 Orientalism, xix
Basilica B, 112 Orlandos, Anastasios, 705
Nile River (Egypt), 215 Ortahisar (Cappadocia, Turkey),
Niphon I, Patriarch of Constantinople, 629 Balkan Dere, Basil, Church of St., 449
Nitria (Egypt), monastic community of, 54 Hallaç Manastırı, residential complex, 342,
Nomisma/nomismata, 719 343, 444, 447, 448, 450
Normans, 507, 509 Orthodox Christianity, Constantinople-based,
North Africa, 531, 541, 572, 574
Fortification systems of, 167–68 Orthodox Church, Serbian, 658–59
Monuments in, 46, 98, 123–126, 231–233 Orthodox Church, Syrian, 277, 279
Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, 137, Oshki (see Öšk Vank)
138, 144 Öšk Vank (Georgia, now eastern Turkey), John
Novgorod (Russia), the Baptist, Church of St., 391, 392,
George, Church of St. (Yuriev 420, 471, 471, 472, 473, 473
Monastery), 545 Osman I, Ottoman Sultan, 679–80
Sophia, Church of St., 543, 544, 546, 547 Ossuary, 719
Theodore Stratelates, Church of St., 690 Ostia (Italy), 105
Transfiguration of the Savior on Elijah Street, Synagogue at, 132
Church of the, 690, 691 Ostrogoths, 102, 121
Nubia, Monuments in, 295 Ot’ht’a Eklesia (Dörtkilise, Georgia, now eastern
Nymphaion (Nif, Asia Minor, Turkey), Imperial Turkey), 469–71, 469, 470, 538
palace at, 563, 565, 599 Otranto (Italy), Pietro, Church of San, 508,
Nymphaeum/nymphaea, 719 509, 517
Ottoman Empire, buildings in, 669, 679–90
Octaconch, 719 Ottoman (Osmanlı) Turks, 26, 286, 326, 330,
Octagon-domed church, 719 353, 361, 431, 562, 575, 595, 602, 618,
Odo of Deuil, historian of the Second 621, 624, 626, 649, 650, 653, 662, 667,
Crusade, 346 669, 676, 679–90, 710
Ogival arch, 719 Ottomania, Viennese, 365
Ohrid (North Macedonia), 536, 655
Perivleptos, Church of the, 569 Pahlavuni, Grigor, Armenian aristocrat, 465
Oikodomos/oikodomoi, 719 Pakourianos, Gregory, Byzantine general, 538
Oikos, 719 Palaiologan Dynasty, 595, 597, 600, 602, 629
Oikoumene/ecumene, 719 “Palaiologan Renaissance,” 614
Old Church Slavonic, 531, 667 Palaiologina, Theodora, Empress, 600
Olia (Santorini, Greece), Church, 706 Palaiologina, Zoe (Sophia), Princess, 692–93
Olynthos (Macedonia, Greece), Mariana, Tower Palaiologos, Andronikos II, Emperor, 595, 600,
of, 646, 646–47 624, 653
Onega (Russia), Lake, Kizhi Island, Palaiologos, Andronikos III, Emperor, 602, 644
Transfiguration, Church of the, 701, Palaiologos, John V, Emperor, 614, 649
702, 703 Palaiologos, John VI, Emperor, 614
Onion dome, 719 Palaiologos, John VII, Emperor, 562, 614
Opus africanum, 719 Palaiologos, John VIII, Emperor, 614
Opus listatum, 719 Palaiologos, Manuel II, Emperor, 633
Opus mixtum, 719 Palaiologos, Michael VII, Emperor, 595, 597
Opus sectile, 719 Palaiologos, Michael VIII, Emperor, 597, 600
Orant, 719 Palaiologos Kantakouzenos, Theodoros, 600
Index 775
Palatium, 719 Perpetua, St., 124
Palermo (Sicily), 507, 517–524 Peter the Apostle, St., 8, 9, 14, 259
Caltado, San, 519, 520, 521 Basilica of (Rome), 16–17, 17
Cappella Palatina, 521–23, 521, 523, 524 House of (Capernaum), 70, 73
Cuba Palace, 517 Tomb of (Rome), 9, 11
Maria dell’Ammiraglio, Church of Santa Peter, Archbishop of Jerusalem, 82
(Martorana), 517, 518, 519, 521 Pheidias, Greek sculptor, 27
Ziza Palace, 517 Phiale, 720
Palisade, 719 Philadelphia (Alaşehir, Asia Minor, Turkey),
Palladion/palladium, 719 John, Church of St., 194, 195
Pan tiles, 720 Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States), Frances
Panakton (Attika, Greece), Village of, 647 de Sales, Church of St., 710, 712, 713
Pantokrator, 720 Philippi (Greece),
Panvinio, Onofrio, 357 Basilica A, 109, 113, 190
Papatheodorou, Costas, architect, 705 Basilica B, 97, 190–92, 191, 249, 344
Paphlagonia (Asia Minor, Turkey), Region Baths of, 339
of, 432 Market of (Macellum), 344
Parapet, 720 Paul, Cathedral of St., 109, 113
Parhali (Barhali, Georgia, now eastern Turkey), Philippias (near Arta, Epirus, Greece),
Monastery, 471 Pantanassa, Church of, 567, 568, 569
Paros (Greece), Ekatontapyliani (Katopoliani) Philostorgius, Church historian, 27
Panagia, Church, 106, 228, 230, 232 Phokas, Bardas, General, 444
Papal States, 507 Phokas, Nikephoros II, Emperor, 326, 349
Parthians, 284 Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, xxv
Pastophoria, 720 Phrangopoulos, John, state official in Mystras, 643
Paterikon, 720 Piazza Armerina (Sicily), Villa at, 168, 169, 169
Patriarch, 720 Pier, 720
Patrikios, 720 Pieria (Macedonia, Greece), Koundouriotissa,
Patronage, 82–84, 87, 101 Church of the, 318
Paul the Apostle, St., 8, 14, 102, 109, 112, 153, 259 Pilaster, 720
Paul the Silentiary, 84, 210, 215 Pilgrim, 720
Paula, St., 62 Pilgrimage, 37, 61–79, 124–25, 132, 231
Pax Nicephori, 508 Pilier cantonné
Peć (Serbia, now Kosovo), 658, 661 Pillow voussoir, 720
Apostles, Church of the Holy, 659 Pisa (Italy), 193, 514
Demetrius, Church of St., 659 Piscina, 720
Virgin, Church of the, 659 Pithos/pithoi, 720
Nicholas, Chapel of St., 659 Plataea (Greece), Battle of, 26
Pelagonia (Macedonia, Greece), Battle of, 632 Pliska (Bulgaria), 532, 533, 534
Pemzashen (Armenia), Church of, 274, 281 Basilica, 5, 533, 534
Pendentive, 720 Boyar Church, 533, 534
Pendentive dome, 720 Great Basilica, 532, 533, 534, 534
Pereslavl’ (Russia), 543 Palace complex, 532, 533, 534
Pergamon (Asia Minor, Turkey), 336, 339, 341 Typical Basilica, 532, 533, 534
Perge (Asia Minor, Turkey), Basilica A, 111, 117 Point support, 720
Peristerai (Greece), Andrew, Church of St., 357, Pointed arch, 720
359, 405, 406 Poland, 669
Peristerona (Cyprus), Barnabas and Hilarion, Polis, 720
Church of Sts., 283 Polotzk (Russia, now Belarus), Sophia, Church
Peristyle, 720 of St., 544

Pomerium, 720 Pylon temple, 720
Pope (Bishop of Rome), 14, 42, 48, 107, 185, 720 Pythion (Thrace, Greece), Fortress at, 644,
Poreč (Croatia), Eufrasius, Basilica of, 105, 223– 645, 646
25, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227
Porphyrogennetos, 720 Qal’at Sem’an (Syria), Symeon, St., Monastery
Porphyry, 720 of, 65, 66, 67, 68, 68, 69, 78, 105, 128
Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza, 84 Qalb Lozeh (Syria), Church at, 127, 128, 128,
Portico, 720 241
Pozzolana, 720 Qasr ibn Wardan (Syria), Palace and military
Praetorian prefect, 720 complex of, 166–67, 167, 227, 228,
Presbyterium, 720 230, 231
Preslav (Bulgaria), 344, 534–36 Qibla, 720
Avradaka, Church 1, 536 Quadrant arch, 720
Avradaka, Church 2, 536 Quadrant vault, 720
Bial Briag, Church 1, 536 Quadriburgium, 720
Patleina Monastery, Panteleimon, Church of Quadrifrons arch, 720
St., 535, 535 Quincunx, 720
Round Church, 534–35, 535 Quarry, 65, 88, 90, 230, 395
Prespa (Great), Lake, 536, 624 Aliki (Thasos, Greece), of, 88, 91
Panagia Eleousa, 624–25, 626 Dokimion (Asia Minor, Turkey), 395
See also Mikre Prespa Hebdomon (Bakırköy, Constantinople), 395
Prilep (Macedonia), Nicholas, Church of St., 569 Limestone Massif (Syria), of, 88, 90
Princes’ Islands (Sea of Marmara, Turkey), 247 Proconessus, Island of (Sea of Marmara, Asia
Chalke (Heybeliada), Theotokos Minor, Turkey), of, 88, 230, 395
Kamariotissa, 359, 360, 366, 414 Thasos (Greece), 395
Prizren (Serbia, now Kosovo),
Archangels, Church of the (Mausoleum of Rampart, 720
Stefan Dušan), 661, 665–66 Rareş, Peter, Ruler of Moldavia, 673
Virgin (Bogorodica) Ljeviška, Church of the, “Raška School” of architecture (Serbia), 550
656, 657 Ravanica Monastery (Serbia), Ascension, Church
Procopius, of Caesarea, court historian, 83, 161, of the, 665, 667, 667, 668
165, 185, 200, 208–10, 212–13, 215, Ravenna (Italy), 44, 98, 101, 102, 121, 169–70,
219, 225 224, 241
De Aedificiis, 219 Apollinare Nuovo, Sant’, 121, 122, 169
Secret History, 200 Baptistery, Orthodox (Neonian), 44, 45, 46,
Proconnesus, 720 99, 223
Prokhor of Gorodets, painter, 694 Croce, Santa, 49, 51, 52, 102, 121
Prokonnesos (see Proconnesus) Galla Placidia, Mausoleum of, 49–50, 51,
Propylon/propylaeum, 720 121
Prothesis, 720 Palace of Theoderic, 122, 123, 169, 170
Proteichisma, 720 Vitale, San, 83, 83, 99, 105, 219–223, 220,
Protomajolica, 720 221, 222, 225, 230, 241
Protome, 720 Rebated shelf, 720
Protosebatos, 720 Recessed brick masonry, 394–95, 394, 395, 720
Psellos, Michael, Byzantine author, 388–89 Red Sea, 295, 296
Pseudo-Kufic, 392, 413, 414, 419–20, 423, 720 Refectory, 721
Pskov (Russia), 543, 693, 694 Refrigerium/refrigeria, 721
Pumpkin dome, 720 Relics, 721
Putlog, 720 Translation of, 34, 49, 61, 62, 64, 69, 76
Pydna (Macedonia, Greece), Church at, 318 Veneration of, 27, 37, 39, 61–63
Index 777
Renaissance, Italian, 516, 540, 598, 693, 695 Constantine, Arch of, 12, 12, 28
Rendina (Macedonia, Greece), Fortress Constantine, Colossal statue of, 1, 11
at, 644 Constantiniana, Basilica (see Lateran
Resafa (Sergiopolis, Syria), 128, 158–160, 159, Basilica)
160, 290, 291 Callixtus, Catacombs of St., 7, 9
Al-Mundhir, Audience hall of (church?), 160 Popes, Chapel of the, 8
Basilica B, 159 Circus Maximus (hippodrome), 24
Fortifications of, 159, 160, 163–64, Clemente, San, (titulus Clementis), house
Mosque of, 290 church, 6
Basilica A, Church of St. Sergius (also Church Crisogono, San, church, 9
of the Holy Cross), 158–160, 291, 384 Domus ecclesiae, 4
Tetraconch Church, 160, 177 Forum Romanum, 4
Umayyad Mosque, 160 Giovanni e Paolo, Santi, (Titulus Byzantis or
Respond, 721 Pammachii), house church, 6
Revetment, 721 Imperial baths of, 144
Rhegion (near Constantinople), 88, 534 Lateran Basilica (Basilica Constantiniana),
Rhodes (Greece), 344, 437 13–14, 13, 17–18, 38, 42, 88, 104
Ribbed dome, 721 Baptistery of, 42, 43
Ribbed vault, 721 Licinian Gardens, Pavilion of, 95, 96, 179
Richard I (Lionheart), King of England, 505 Lorenzo fuori le mura, Church of San
Rila (Bulgaria), Monastery of, 650, 651 (St. Lawrence outside the walls), 231
Khrelio, Tower of, 650, 651 Maria Maggiore, Church of Santa, 112, 114,
Rivio (Epirus, Greece), Stephen, Church 118, 228
of St., 312 Maxentius, Basilica of, 19
Roger I, Norman King of Sicily, 524 Nero, Stadium of, 9
Roger II, Norman King of Sicily, 517, 521, 523, Palace, Imperial, 13
524 Pantheon, 182, 199, 201, 206, 212
Romanesque, Western architectural style, 459, Paolo fuori le mura, Church of San (St. Paul’s
460, 470, 479, 480, 484, 486, 489, 508, outside the walls), 94, 104, 111–12, 114,
514, 516, 540, 545, 547, 552, 557, 653, 117, 118, 507
661, 693, 713 Peter’s Basilica, St., 9, 16–19, 17, 18, 51, 63,
Romanitas, 721 65, 92, 93, 94, 94, 112, 114, 117, 708
Rome (Italy), 4, 6, 7–12, 8, 24, 27–28, 38, 47, Andrew, Chapel of, 19
88, 92, 93, 102, 132, 137, 175, 179, 231, Peter, Tomb of, 9, 11, 63, 64, 64
507, 531, 562 Petronilla, Chapel of, 19
Agnese, Sant’, 48, 231, 234, 267 Pietro e Marcellino, Basilica of Santi, Via
Costanza, Santa (Mausoleum of Labicana, 16, 16
Constantina), 48–49, 49, 50, 88, 105 Helena, Mausoleum of, 16, 47–48, 47
Apostolorum, Basilica (see Rome, Sebastiano, Sabina, Church of Santa, 38, 39, 38, 39
Basilica of San) Sebastiano, Basilica of San, Via Appia
Ara Pacis, of Augustus, 24 (Basilica Apostolorum), 14, 15, 16
Augustus, Mausoleum of, 24 Sebastiano, Catacombs of San, 7
Aventine Hill, 38 Sebastiano, Triclia of San, 7, 10
Bassus, Junius, Audience hall of, 13 Senate House, 24
Caelian Hill, 6 Stefano Rotondo, Church of Santo, 114–15,
Catacombs, 7, 8–10, 8, 9, 10, 51 119, 175
St. Callixtus, of, 7, 9, 9 Titulus/tituli, 4, 6, 38
Priscilla, of, 10 Trajan, Forum of, 13–14, 139
Colosseum, 27, 125 Ulpia, Basilica, 13–14
Helios (Sun god), colossal statue, 28 Vatican Hill, 9

Vatican Museum, 48 Sardis (Asia Minor, Turkey), 333, 344
Vestals, Temple of, 27 Church D, 194, 195
Roman Empire, 3 Church E, 384, 384, 396, 563, 567
Roman religion, 4 Synagogue, 132
Roman temples, 4 Sasanians, 5, 184, 215, 284, 309
Romania, buildings in, 667–76 Sbeitla (Sufetula, Tunisia), Cathedral complex
Romanov Dynasty, 709 of, 126, 126
Ronchamps (France), Notre Dame du Haut, Bellator, Church of, 126
707, 707 Jucundus, Chapel of (Baptistery), 126
Roofing, materials of, Vitalis, Basilica, 126
Ceramic tile, 92, 94 Scaffolding, 721
Cut stone, 92 Scetis (Egypt), monastic community of, 54
Lead sheeting, 92, 94 Schola cantorum, 721
Wooden trussed, 13, 14, 16, 39, 84, 93–94, Scythopolis (Bet She’an, Palestine), Round
95, 97, 177, 179, 183, 189, 223, 225 Church, 128, 129, 130, 175
Rossano (Calabria, Italy), Marco, Church of Sebaste (Palestine), John, Cathedral of St.,
San, 509 493, 496
Rott, Hans, 431, 443 Sebastokrator, 721
Rotunda, 721 Seben-Bolu (Çeltikdere, Phrygia, Asia Minor,
Rublev, Andrei, painter, 694 Turkey), Byzantine church of, 435,
Russia, buildings in, 690–703 435, 443
Selçikler (Phrygia, Asia Minor, Turkey), 432
Saghmosavank (Armenia), Library of, 590 Seleucia-Piera (near Antioch, Asia Minor,
Sail vault, 721 Turkey), 84
St. Gall (Switzerland), Monastery, 322 Church, Aisled tetraconch, 84, 85, 177, 177
Saladin, Ayyubid Sultan, 479, 499 Selim I, Ottoman Sultan, 687
Ṣalaḥ (Ṭ ur ‘Abdin, Asia Minor, Turkey), Mor Seljuk Turks, 349, 432, 434, 437, 455–56,
Ya‘qub, monastery of, 279, 286 479–80, 561, 562, 578–583, 588, 590,
Salamis (Cyprus), 592, 599, 600, 621, 679, 680, 681
Barnabas, Church of St., 282 Selymbria (Silivri, Thrace, Turkey), John,
Epiphanius, Cathedral of St., 282, 289 Church of St., 614, 615
Salona (Croatia), 8, 115 Semidome, 721
Salona-Marusinac (Croatia), Sens Cathedral (France), 493
Anastasius, Martyrium of, 115, 119 Septimius Severus, Emperor, 21, 23
Funerary Complex, 115, 119 Serbia, Buildings in, 550–53, 653–67
Samarina (Messenia, Greece), Zoodochos Pege, Serdica (Sofia, Bulgaria), 24
Church of the, 423–24, 424, 425 Serreh (Nubia), East, Churches of, 295, 296
Samandağ (near Antioch, Asia Minor, Turkey), Servia (Macedonia, Greece), Basilica, 408–09,
Symeon the Younger, St., Church abd 537
Monastery of, 68, 69, 70 Setting pins, 93, 94
Samuel, Ruler of Bulgaria, 536, 538 Sevanavank’ (Armenia), churches of, 277
Sanahin (Armenia), Monastery of, 587, 590 Ševčenko, Ihor, 259
Sanctuary (see Bema), 721 Seven Sleepers, martyr saints, 147
Sansovino, Jacopo, architect, 516 Severan Dynasty, 4
Santa Eufemia (Italy), Maria, Monastery of Shaft, 721
Santa, 523 Shechem (Nablus, Palestine), 64
Saone (Qal’at Saladin, Syria), Castle of, 501, 502 Jacob’s Well, at, 64
Sapareva Bania (Bulgaria), Nicholas, Church of Shed roof, 721
St., 538, 538 Shenoute, Leader of White Monastery
Sarcophagus, 721 Federation (Egypt), 54
Index 779
She-wolf, 25 Red Monastery, 54–56, 56, 132, 133, 133, 134
Shuhadā (Egypt), Dayr al-, Church at, 294, 294 White Monastery (Dayr al-Abiad), 54–56, 55,
Sicily (Italy), Norman, 507, 516–26 56, 133
Side (Asia Minor, Turkey), Solea, 721
Byzantine church, 437, 437 Solidus/solidi, 721
Church H, 257–58, 262 Sol Invictus, 11, 12, 27, 721
Episcopal palace, 258, 262 Sopoćani (Serbia), Monastery of, 553, 556, 653
Sige (Kumkaya, Asia Minor, Turkey), Church of Trinity, Church of the Holy, 553, 556
the Archangels, 256–57 Soviet Union, 709
Sigma table, 721 Spandrel, 721
Sinai (Egypt), 64, Catherine, Church and Sparta (Lacedaemonia, Peloponnese, Greece),
Monastery of St., 64, 94, 95, 164–65, 334, 339, 632, 633, 644
164, 219, 225, 226, 227, 227, 228, Sparta, Nikon, Basilica of St., 383, 639
229, 241 Split (Croatia), Diocletian, Mausoleum of, 44
Sinan, Mimar, Ottoman architect, 684–85, 687, Spolia, 12, 14, 17, 24–26, 33, 39, 55, 84, 92, 104,
690, 710 224, 259, 267, 721
Sinasos (Cappadocia, Asia Minor, Turkey), Basil, Squinch, 721
St., Church of, 248 Stational liturgy, 721
Siret (Moldavia, Romania), Holy Trinity, Staiti (Calabria, Italy), Maria, Church of
Church of the, 669 Santa, 524
Sirmium (Serbia), 154 Stalin, Joseph, Soviet ruler, 709
Sivirhisar (Cappadocia, Asia Minor, Turkey), Staro Nagoričino (Serbia, now North
Red Church (Kızıl Kilise), 97, 98, 233, Macedonia), George, Church of St., 656
236, 237, 237 Stele, 721
Sixtus III, Pope, 43 Stephen, St., relics of, 114–15
Skepides, John, Byzantine provincial Stephen of Aila, master mason, 225
administrator, 450 Stephen III the Great, Ruler of Moldavia,
Skeuophylakion, 721 669, 673
Skeuophylax, 721 Stilo (Calabria), Cattolica of, 357, 359,
Skopje (Serbia, now North Macedonia), 508–09, 510
655, 662 Stilted arch, 721
Skripou (Orchomenos, Boeotia, Greece), Stiris (Boeotia, Greece), 259
Koimesis, Church of the, 259, 264, 265 Loukas, Hosios, Monastery of, 295, 310, 322,
Slavs, 531 323, 324, 365, 393, 408, 413–14, 415,
Smbat, Yovhannes, Ruler of Armenia, 467 416, 417, 418–19
Smbat II, King of Armenia, 458, 459 Barbara, Church of St., 322
Smederevo (Serbia), Fortified town of, 667, Katholikon, 313, 319, 324, 413, 414, 415,
671, 695 417, 418–19, 429
Sofia (Bulgaria) Panagia, Church of the, 310, 322, 323,
Alexander Nevesky, Cathedral of, 705 324, 393, 413, 414, 419
Sophia, Cathedral of St., 230, 233 Stoa, 721
Soğanlı Valley (Cappadocia, Turkey) Stoudios, Consul in Constantinople, 39
Chapel, 449 String course, 721
Courtyard complexes of, 342 Strzygowski, Josef, 268, 431
Geyikli Monastery, 329, 330, 444, Stucco, 44, 224, 721
445, 450 Studenica (Serbia), Monastery of, 328, 377–78,
Kubbeli Kilise (“Domed Church”), 453 384, 552–53, 553, 554, 555,
Saklı Kilise (“Hidden Church”), 444 653, 661
Sohag (Egypt), 54–56, 133 Virgin, Church of the, 377–78, 385
Atripe, women’s monastery, 54 Stylite, 721

Stylobate, 721 Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, 81, 121
Suceviţa (Moldavia, Romania), Monastery of, Theodosius I, Emperor, 102, 139, 154
330, 673, 676 Theodosius II, Emperor, 137, 139, 141, 170, 181
Sullivan, Louis, architect, 707 Theophanes the Confessor, 259
Süleymaniye the Magnificent, Ottoman Theophanes the Greek, painter, 694
Sultan, 685 Theophilos, Emperor, 345, 365
Symeon I, Ruler of Bulgaria, 532, 534 Theophylact of Ohrid, 410
Symeon Stylites the Elder, St., 65, 322, 624 Thessalonike (Macedonia, Greece), 24, 74, 78,
Symeon Stylites the Younger, St., 68 108, 151, 153–155, 155, 163, 338, 395,
Synagogue, 5, 6, 10, 73, 130–132, 721 406, 605, 621, 624, 626–632, 656,
Beth Alpha (Palestine), 131, 130 658, 662
Capernaum (Palestine), at, 131 Acheiropoietos, Church of the, 105, 108, 109,
Dura Europos (Syria), at, 5, 6, 130 110, 111, 154, 230
Hammath Tiberias (Palestine), at, 131, 130 Agora, 153, 154, 344, 626
Ostia (Italy), at, 132 Apostles, Church of the Holy, 397, 627, 627,
Sardis (Asia Minor, Turkey), at, 132 628–30, 629, 630, 657, 658
Synkellos, 721 Byzantine Bath of, 339, 340
Synthronon/synthrona, 721 Catherine (Hagia Aikaterine), Church of St.,
Syrian bema, 721 627, 627, 628–30, 628,
Chortiates, Mount, 627
Taberna/tabernae, 721 David, Hosios, 249
T’alin (Armenia), Large church and chapel of, Demetrius, Church of St., 74, 76, 77, 78, 79,
259, 269, 271, 276, 277, 298 108, 154, 344, 627
Tabernacle, 33, 131 Decumanus (Mese), 153, 156
Taghba (Palestine), Multiplication of the Loaves, Dionysus, Temple of, 153
Church of, 128, 129 Egnatia, Via, 153
Tao-Klarjeti (Georgia, now eastern Turkey), Elijah (Elias), Church of the Prophet, 630,
Region of, 420, 456, 475 632, 632
Tarchaniotes, Michael Glabas, Byzantine Galerius, Arch of, 153, 156
military official, 602 Galerius, Mausoleum of (Rotunda of St.
Tatars (see Mongols) George), 153–54
Tebessa (Theveste, Algeria), Crispina, St., Heptapyrgion Fortress, 626
Pilgrimage complex of, 124–25, 125, 126 Hippodrome, 153
Technites, 721 Imperial palace, 153
Tegea (Peloponnese, Greece), Palaia Episkopi, Kassandreotike Gate, 344
357, 359 Kyr-Isaak, Monastery of, 626
Telanissos (Deir Sem’an, Syria), 68, 68 Panteleimon, Church of St., 627, 627, 628,
Temenos, 721 628, 629
Templar, Order of the Knights, 483, 484 Nestor, Martyrium, 154
Templon, 721 Nicholas Orphanos, Church of St., 627,
Tepidarium, 721 630, 655
Tessera, 721 Panagia ton Chalkeon, 397, 399, 406–07,
Tetraconch, 721 406, 605
Tetrapylon, 721 Serapeum, 153
Tetrarchy, 9, 11, 24, 44, 153, 721 Sophia, Cathedral of Hagia, 154, 155, 157,
Teutonic Knights, Order of the, 500 248, 249, 250, 252–54, 255, 256, 257,
Thasios Island (Bithynia, Asia Minor, Turkey), 256 258, 261, 317, 627
Thebes (Greece), 338, 341, 647 Taxiarchs (Archangels), Church of the,
Theodora, Empress, 82, 185, 189, 200, 210, 221, 630, 631
225, 277 Vlattadon Monastery, 627, 627, 630
Index 781
Theophanes Continuatus, Byzantine John Pelekete, Monastery of St., 259, 262, 263
historian, 247 Pantobasilissa, Church of the, 681
Theophany, 721 Tripoli, County of (Crusader State), 480
Theotokos, 721 Triumph of Orthodoxy, 248, 303, 322
Thermal window, 721 Triumphal arch, 722
Tiberias, Lake (Palestine), 128 T’rnovo (Bulgaria), 538; see Turnovo
Tie beams, wooden, 92, 93, 97, 397–98, 721 Trogir (Croatia), 553
Tie rods, iron, 97, 97, 721 Trojan War, 27
Timothy the Apostle, St., 34, 49 Tropaion/tropaia, 8, 9, 722
Titulus, 721 Troy (Asia Minor, Turkey), Athena, Temple of, 27
Tivoli, Hadrian’s Villa, 179 Trumpet squinch, 722
Tomarza (Asia Minor, Turkey), Church of the Truss/trussing, 722
Panagia, 231, 233, 236 Tsimiskes, John I, Emperor, 365–66
Tomb chapels, Egypt, of, 51 Tubi fittili, 44, 98, 99, 222–23, 722
Ton, Konstantin, architect, 708 Tufa, 722
Tortosa (Tartus, Syria), Notre Dame, Church of, Tuff, 722
492–93, 495 Tunisia, monuments in, 46, 47
Torus molding, 722 Ṭ ur ‘Abdin (Asia Minor, Turkey), 267, 277, 285,
Trabeated, 722 285, 298
Trabzon (see Trebizond) Midyat and Mardin, churches of, 277, 285
Tracery, 722 Turkish War of Independence, 431
Transept, 722 Turnovo (Bulgaria), 649–50, 650
Trans-Siberian Railway, 707 Forty Martyrs, Church of the, 650
Transverse arch, 722 Tsars, Palace of the, 650
Transverse barrel vault, 722 Patriarchate, Palace of the, 650
Transylvania, 669 Tursun Bey, biographer of Mehmed II, 684
Trapeza, 722 Two-column church, 722
Trdat, Armenian architect, 210, 366, 385, Typikon, 722
459–60, 462 Tyre, William of, Crusade historian, 486–87, 489
Trebizond (Asia Minor, Turkey), 344, 437, 444, Tzar/tsar, 722
575–78, 577 Tzetzes, John, Byzantine author, 346
Anne, Church of St., 437–38, 439, 576
Chrysokephalos, Cathedral of (Fatih Camii), Umar, Umayyad Caliph, 284
438, 575, 577, 578 Umayyads, 284, 285
Empire of, 562, 576 Umm ar-Rasas (Kastron Mefa’a, Jordan),
Eugenios, Church of St. (Yeni Cuma Camii), Stephen, Church of St., 291, 293
344, 438, 576 Ürgüp (Cappadocia), Turkey Sarıca Kilise
Nakip Camii, 438 (“Yellow Church”), 445, 447, 448
Sophia, Hagia, 576, 578, 579, 580, 581 Uroš I, Grand Prince of Serbia, 553
Tribleon/triblea, 722 Uroš V, Stefan, King of Serbia, 553
Triclia, 7, 10, 722
Triclinium, 722 Vagarshapat (Armenia), 414
Triconch, 722 Gayanē, Church of St. (Echmiatsin),
Trier (Germany), 14–15 270, 272
Basilica of (Aula Palatina), 14, 15 Hṙip’simē, Church of St., 269, 279, 273, 279,
Horrea of (warehouses), 14 280, 456
Trilye (Zeytinbağı, Asia Minor, Turkey), Zuart’noc’ (Zvart’nots’, Church of the Vigilant
Fatih Camii (St. Stephen?), 249, 250, 257, Powers), 274, 281, 282, 385, 462
258, 259, 261, 262, 261, Valdemone (Sicily), Churches of, 524
306, 309 Valens, Emperor, 142

Valenzano (Apulia, Italy), Ognissanti, Church Vladimir (Russia), Dormition Cathedral, 545,
of the, 511–12 692, 693
Vamvaka (Mani, Peloponnese, Greece), Vladimir, Virgin of (icon), 547
Theodores, Church of Sts., 399, 425, Vladimir (the Great), Prince of Kievan Rus’,
426, 427 540–41, 542
Van, Lake (Armenia, now eastern Turkey), 456 Vladimir-Suzdal (Russia), Principality of, 545
Van Millingen, Alexander, 247 Volute, 722
Vandals, 38, 102, 123, 167, 225 Voroneţ (Moldavia, Romania), George, Church
Vardar River (see Axios River) of St., 673, 673, 674
Varna, Crusade of, 667 Votive, 722
Vasili III, Grand Prince of Moscow, 692 Voussoirs, 722
Vassal, 722
Vatatzes, John II Doukas, Emperor of Nicaea, 563 Wadi, 722
Vault, 722 Walid, al-, Umayyad Caliph, 290
Vaulting systems, structural aspects of, 94–97 Wallachia (Romania), Region of, 649, 667, 679
Formwork, wooden, 97, 98 War of 1812, 708
Tie beams, wooden, 92, 93, 97 Wauwatosa (Wisconsin, United States),
Tie rods, iron, 97, 97 Annunciation, Church of the, 708, 709
Tubi fittili, 44, 98, 99 William I, Norman King of Sicily, 523
Venice (Italy), 508, 512–516, 561, 562 William II, Norman King of Sicily, 523, 526
Nicolò di Lido, Monastery of San, 514 Wind-blown capitals, 722
Marco, Basilica of San, xxi, 382, 400, 508, World War I, 431
514–516, 515 Wright, Frank Lloyd, architect, 707–08
Murano, Maria e Donato, Church of Santi, Würzburg, John of, Crusader author, 487
516, 517
Pala d’Oro, 370 Xenodochia, 722
Torcello, Maria Assunta, Cathedral of Santa,
512, 512, 513 Yantra River (Bulgaria), 650
Torcello, Fosca, Church of Santa, 512–13, Yemrehane Kristos (Ethiopia), Church of,
513, 514 297, 299
Veljusa (North Macedonia), Eleousa, Church of Yeroskipou (Cyprus), Paraskevi, Church of St.,
the, 313, 319, 321, 359, 409–10, 410, 550 283, 290
Verde antico/verde antique, 722 Yusuf, Emir of Azerbaijan (Sajid), 456
Veroia (Macedonia, Greece), Old Metropolis,
408–09, 409, 537 Zagorsk (Russia), Trinity and St. Sergius,
Victor, Bishop of Ravenna, 222 Monastery of, 702
Villehardouin, Geoffrey of, Crusader historian, Dormition, Cathedral of the, 702
571, 573 Zahir, al-, Fatimid Caliph, 481
Villehardouin, William II of, Prince of Zakomary, 722
Achaea, 632 Zarakas (Peloponnese, Greece), Cistercian
Villehardouin Dynasty, 572, 574 monastery at, 572
Vita, 722 Zawiya, 722
Vitalis, St., 221, 222 Zeno, Emperor, 65, 134, 175, 179
Vitebsk (Russia, now Belarus), 543 Zirid Court (Tunis, Tunisia), 519
Visigoths, 38, 102 Zromi (Georgia), Ascension, Church of the,
Vita, Fra, Franciscan friar and master builder 270, 271, 272, 273
from Kotor, 659 Zvenigorod (near Moscow, Russia),
Vitruvius, architect, xxv, 81, 84, 87, 381 Dormition, Cathedral of the, 690
Vize (Thrace, Turkey), Sophia, Hagia, 249, 250, Nativity of the Virgin, Church of the
252, 255, 261 (Monastery of St. Sava), 690, 691
Index 783

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EASTE RN M EDI EVAL

Publication was made possible with the

Sophocles and the Language of Tragedy

Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature

Beauty: The Fortunes of an Ancient Greek Idea

Euripides and the Gods

The Serpent Column: A Cultural Biography

Anna Komnene: The Life and Work of a Medieval Historian

Dirty Love: The Genealogy of the Ancient Greek Novel

PART ONE: LATE ANTIQUITY

CHAPTER SIX 101

CHAPTER SEVEN 137

CHAPTER EIGHT 175

CHAPTER NINE 199

CHAPTER TEN 219

CHAPTER TWELVE 267

PART THREE: THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE CENTURIES

CHAPTER FOURTEEN 333

CHAPTER FIFTEEN 353

CHAPTER SIXTEEN 381

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 405

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN 431

CHAPTER NINETEEN 455

CHAPTER TWENTY 479

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 507

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 531

viii EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR 595

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 621

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 649

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN 679

I n many ways, this book began in 1978, with my

xiv EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

T he rich and diverse medieval architectural

Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, view from the west (author)

INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE EAST AND WEST xxi

xxii EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE EAST AND WEST xxiii

xxiv EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURE EAST AND WEST xxv

ROME, THE DOMUS ECCLESIAE,

L et us begin with a few words on context

4 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

6 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

8 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

FIGURE 1.8 basic functions that would be of prime concern

10 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

away from polytheism. By 310 he had changed

12 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

14 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

16 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

18 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

I n 313 ce, Constantine and his eastern co-

22 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

Constantinople. No contemporary descrip- As to Constantine’s contribution, his biogra-

CHAPTER TWO: A TALE OF TWO CITIES 23

24 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER TWO: A TALE OF TWO CITIES 25

26 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

CHAPTER TWO: A TALE OF TWO CITIES 27

28 EASTERN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE

evidence of cultural investment. As a Roman FIGURE 2.10

CHAPTER TWO: A TALE OF TWO CITIES 29