IV i

The Building:
Its Architecture and
Archaeology
INTRODUCTION a en between the two stories, and
e present architectural each is accessible by ils own entrances,
e Despite the numerous destructions and remodel-
ue of the Bodrum Cami vepel ie we ings which the church has suffered In the course of
general conclusions regarding the history of th ae —_its history, its salient architectural features are still
buildin ryofthebuild-
ing in Byzantine times. lTheadjci
sae erected by Romanus' rdn a its entirety evident, The building is small in scale, but strictly
original intent of the wabere ane § hls palace. The organized, both in the articulation of its wall surfaces
suppo -pforthecchurch, anda die ina provide a and in the internal organization of space. Large half-
buttresses—the most disti nctiv e aspect of
The ‘ie onian phase cylindrica l
it served no relig ious func tion
was badly the exterior—punctuate the west facade and the
damaged by fire about 1200, vrre oe ably in the Latin flanks of the narthex and naos, marking the order of
Conquest of 1203-1204 Nice
Conquest, it was Sonica s ane of the Latin internal bay division (figs. 10, 11, 38). The strong ver-
ae
isch ime:the:substructii was fitted out asaburial the year 1300, at —_tical accent is, in turn, transected by horizontal cor-
a al : e —_niced string courses, dividing the lower elevation into
two registers. Emerging above this in simple, geo-
|
The church stands at the southeast corner ofahigh, metric me is the dieistrichioe fully intelligible as
flat terrace, now almost entirely enclosed by apart- to the shape which it encloses (fig. 40). A cross,
ment houses. to the west, south, and east.’ The ex- —_—_ formed by barrel-vaulted gables, is inscribed within
plorationsof Wulzinger, Talbot Rice, and Naumann? _the square of the naos below and rises out of it. Sur-
have. shown. that this terrace covers the lower walls mounting the cross at its intersection is a dome, raised
of animme nscent
fifth e.ury rotunda, 41.8 metersin on a cylindrical drum, penetrated by eight windows,
exterior diameter. The identification and original pur- and articulated between the windows by triangular
poseof this rotunda are'still a matter of speculation, —_ projecting buttresses. The clarity of the exterior ex-
but by the tenth century. it was no longer in use. At tends to the eastern elevation of the church (figs, 12
lateral
this time; simuSltan
e Te eous. with the erection of the and 39). The main, polygonal apse is flanked by
church; the entire interior enclosed by the lower walls —_ polygonal apses of the prothesis and diaconicon, in
of this rot wau n
s co reda
ved with a vaulted system each of which is a single recessed window. Originally,
carried or column Aboves:this, on the eastern half the main apse was opened by lights in each of its
ce
rsafor med, was erected the palace, three facets, set off by mullions.
of the terthu
One enters the building now through a single door
its facade facing west. The vaulted enclosure below
in the west facade of the narthex. From the narthex,
served as a cistern, The rising walls of the palace are
three doors now open into the naos, corresponding
no jonger’visible, but its foundations were fully ex-
posedin the'recent excavation of Naumann. to the nave and two side aisles. The two side passages
may originally have been blocked.
As part of this complex—early rotunda, vaulted ter-
The plan of the naos, excluding the bema and pas-
race with cistern below, and palace—the church was
tophoria (fig. 1), is laid out as a square 8 meters on
erected, much as it stands today, against the south-
a side. Inscribed in this is a cross with arms 4 meters
east wall of the rotunda, flanking the superimposed s,
is on in width, projecting in the four cardinal direction
palace, It is a two-story structure. The church into nine
is all- and subdividing the square plan of the naos
the’ same level as the terrace and palace, and cal nti _—ibays.
on. The sub str uct ure , alm ost ide
brickconstructi At the int ers ect ion of the cro ss- arm s, four piers
in’dimensions to the church, is of rough of ashlar and car ry the su pe rstructure, con-
fo rm thesame — (or igi nal ly co lu mn s)
s to cre ate a pl at axi s, ris ing
brick. Its pu rp os e wa
ou nd __ sis tin g of ba rr el -v au lt ed ga bl es in the cro ss-
ro tu nd a, th er eb y br
height as the ch to that of the palace. No internalin gi ng the gr -
ab ov e the four subsictiary corner bays. Above the in
ievel of the chur

i v e s , i an igh
ei ght-t-cuspe d
pe nd en ti ve s, Is
12 tersection, resting on
carrying a dome.
ce nt ra l sq ua re of 7"
“To ie cant ac e to th e
south yD
no rt h an d
is the be ma , fl an ke d to th e
un icate WI .
on ic on , wh ic h co mm
thesis and di ac
s be en p
de co ra ti on ha
through doors. No tr ac e of
served in the interior of the church.
The church stands on a rectangular platform pro-
vided for it by the substructure (fig. 28). The platform
‘pinal dimens
is aeslightly larger (estimated orginal ¢ ions
; 13.10
(th
x 24.10 meters) than the exterior dimensions of
church (11.22 x 17.50 meters) thereby creating an €X-
terior gallery which originally ran around the entire
church ona level with its floor. To the west, the gallery
(at this point 1.30 meters in width) provided access
from the palace to the main entry of the church. Along
the two flanks of the church, it was little more than
a catwalk, one meter in width. But to the east, it
opened to a terrace 5.50 meters in width (fig. 27). The
eastern terrace is now lost and the gallery along the
flanks badly eroded, but the western gallery, first ex-
posed by Talbot Rice and now permanently by Nau-
mann, preserves most of its original form.
In the west, and along the two flanks of the build-
ing, the gallery rests on corbels connected by barrel
vaults, which arise from rectangular buttresses placed
around the exterior 1walis of the substructure corre-
sponding in their position to the half-cylindrical but-
tresses of the church. The corbels are the necessary
solution to the problem of providing a projecting sup-
port for the surrounding gallery and at the same time
maintaining the walls of the lower and upper stories
in vertical alignment with one another. It is important
to bear this in mind in understanding the coherent
relation between church and substructure.
In the east, the gallery or terrace was originally
supported by a barrel vault in north-south axis rising
from the buttresses of the substructure and carried
farther to the east by a wall parallel to the substruc-
ture. The springing of the vault and the wall still exist,
and a portion of the vault was still intact at the time
of Talbot Rice’s excavation, but this in the meantime
has collapsed and disappeared.
The substructure itself presents a utilitarian aspect,
resulting from its rough ashlar and brick construction,
and contrasting with the all-brick construction of the
church (figs. 11 and 50). In its original phase, to the
extent that it was visible, its most notable architectural
feature would have been the aforementioned rectan-
gular buttresses, which subdivide the otherwise un-
decorated wal] surface. Subsequent progressive earth-
filling raised the exterior ground lIevel to that of the
church (8 meters above the original ground level of
the substructure), totally obscuring the substructure.
Portions of its exterior were exposed by Talbot Rice
in 1930, but then refilled. In 1950, the construction of
THE MYRELAION {BODRUM CAMII)
ch
the apartment house to the south of the chur at No.
17 Mesih Pasa Caddesi permanently exposeq
um an
the so ut h fac ade , an d the ex ca va ti on s of Na
= r west
: ‘nm 1965-1966 permanently laid free the Uppe
th facade
facade and the western portion of the nor
The eastern part of the north facade and the west end
of the substructure still remain obscured by later
structures or earth fill.
Access to the interior of the substructure was o,;,.
inally possible probably only through a door in the
south facade which opened directly into the naos,
the This was later blocked and reopened at the beginning
of the present investigation. The interior of the nag.
is a simple, rectangular hall 8 x 10.65 meters in plan
(fig. 7). Within this, four columns in the center of the
room and two walls projecting perpendicularly from
the east wall provide support for the four columns
and bema walls of the church above (fig. 29). At the
same time, they carry a system of barre] vaults (fig.
51) corresponding to the bay division of the church:
wide vaults in the main cross-axis, Narrower vaults
in the aisles flanking the bema and in the two sub-
sidiary corner chambers to the west. The naos interior
was lit by windows above the two doors and by three
windows in the east bema wall.
A single door leads from the naos into the narthex,
a barrel-vaulted hal], 2.65 meters in width, and iden-
tical in length to the width of the naos. This narthex
was originally lit by lunettes over recessed panels:
one in the center of the west wall, a second in the
south end. At a later date, access was created to the
interior of the cistern within the adjoining rotunda by
cutting a hole in the north wall of the narthex and a
corresponding one through the wall of the rotunda.
The hole in the wall of the narthex was filled in the
course of the work of Naumann.
Briefly stated, this is the present situation of the
building and the general site, together with a brief
identification of its original form. A general descrip-
tion of the archaeological findings might also be useful
as an introduction to the detailed report.
Digging was carrried out in two areas. A small
sounding was made in the floor of the church at the
base of the northeast pier. From this it was possible
to determine how the stylobates of the church were
laid on the vaults of the substructure. Furthermore,
at least in the area where the vaults of the substructure
were exposed, no evidence was found for structure
having rested here prior to the present church.
Mention has already been made of the earth fill,
which at the beginning of the present investigation
encumbered the interior of the substructure to a
height of 3.50 meters of its 7.75 meters. Access to the
interior at this point was only possible by means of
a ladder lowered through the window in the east wail.
To facilitate excavation, the blocked south door of the
 ; partially opened, and through this the in-
naos WO" Ae substructure was excavated down to its
ground level. |
‘ f 0
tere |
orig ji proved on the basis of pottery to be ap-
The ately half Turkish and half Byzantine in date
prom Where the Byzantine fill was undisturbed
formed a sealed deposit, it lay in well-defined
and vevealing the following sequence of events, No
strates discovered for an original floor or floor set-
trace Unless a floor and all trace of its setting was
etal ately removed prior to the thirteenth century,
. must have existed in the primary phase of the
njding. A destruction of the building by fire about
1200 is indicated by the discovery of an ash layer
rectly overlaying a fine fragment of Persian Minai
ware. Not long thereafter, in the late thirteenth or
arly fourteenth centuries, the church was remod-
e The evidence for this is a deep layer, overlying
the ash layer, of brickbats and architectural fragments
in a loose earth matrix. The greatest concentration of
these fragments directly beneath the windows sug-
gests that they were dumped through the substruc-
ture windows from the church, and represent dam-
aged liturgical furniture, opus sectile flooring, and
marble revetment from the primary phase of the
church that could not be reused.
Shortly thereafter, the substructure itself was fitted
out as a burial chapel (fig. 32b). The ground was lev-
eled and a brick floor laid. Along the south wall and
in the bema, multiple tomb chambers were created
by digging out the fill down to the original ground
level, laying rubble walls against the fill parallel to
the south wall and across the bema, and subdividing
these areas into smaller chambers by perpendicular
walls. The chapel bema was decorated with fresco,
and from this decor the lower portion of a panei de-
picting a female donor kneeling before a standing
Virgin Hodegetria has survived on the north bema
wall (figs. 60, 61).
The Turkish fill yielded the greatest concentration
of pottery from the sixteenth century, somewhat less
from the eighteenth century and some modern, but
little correlation may be drawn between these fills and
the history of the building in Turkish times.
ROMANUS’ CHURCH
The Site, Palace, and Rotunda
The original construction of the Bodrum Camii was
directly related to the siting requirements of the ro-
tunda with its superposed palace lying to the north-
west,
In a remarkable analysis of the architectural evi-
dence then available, Wulzinger was the first to dis-
cern in the vaulted construction of the so-called Bod-
rum Cistern the substructure of a palace (fig. 66),
+ he identified as the palace of Romanus at the
i yre mbit On the basis of this, he also proposed a
13
eho etical reconstruction of the superstructure of
© Palace (fig. 68). At least the plan of the building
and the general lines of its elevation have been ver-
ified by the recent excavation of Nauman
n.4
_ Tt will be recalled from the brief description in the
introduction to this chapter that the palace, with its
underlying cistern, was built in and over the existing
ruins of an immense, niched rotunda. This rotunda
was first made known through the excavation of Tal-
bot Rice, who was able to determine its general form
(fig. 67). Talbot Rice accepted Wulzinger’s analysis
and nica of the palace without elaborating
on it.
The most extensive investigation of the rotunda-
palace-cistern complex was undertaken by Naumann
in 1965-1966. He exposed much of the perimeter of
the rotunda including its north and south doors,
down to their original ground level, and laid free the
foundations of the palace above (figs. 69, 70). The
description here of the complex is based on obser-
vations made during and after the excavation and
upon Naumann’s preliminary report of his excava-
fions,
The rotunda has an exterior diameter of 41.80 me-
ters, making it, next to the Pantheon in Rome, the
second largest known from the Roman period. Its
interior diameter is 29.60 meters, with walls 6.10 me-
ters in thickness, now standing to a maximum height
of 3.40 meters above the original floor level. The main
portions of the rotunda are of large, finely worked
limestone ashlar, in blocks averaging 1.20 to.1.50
meters in width, set in courses averaging .50 meters
in height and fixed in some places with iron cramps.
The interior is opened by eight niches, four rectan-
gular ones in the cardinal axes and four semidrcular
ones in the diagonal axes. Doors open to the exterior
in the outer walls of the north and south niches.
The exterior of the north and south of the rotunda
is provided with flat facades. Of these, the north fa-
cade (fig. 71) is the more richly articulated of the two,
and is presumed by Naumann to have been the prin-
cipal entry. A stylobate with two column bases i situ
precedes this facade, from which one must assume
the original presence of a colonnaded porticus. The
south door (fig. 73) is preceded by a flight of eight
semicirculars steps which compensated for the down-
ward sloping terrain from north to south. Flanki
the door at the western extremity of the flat facade
is a wall projecting to the south, in bond with the
wall of the facade (fig. 69). Naumann reconstructs a
corresponding wall projecting from the eastern ex-
tremity of the facade and suggests that both origi-
nally may have given rise to colonnades. A column
base in sit was discovered in north-south alignment
with the western projection, and a colunin base with
THE BULLDING
 rch
16 lution to the problem of how to build the chu
it in an
against the round wall of the rotunda, orient
t
east-west axis, make it accessible by entry in its wes
facade, and keep this access at the same level as the
ground floor of the palace.
There remains to be considered the general ap-
P on of its new build-
upo completi
pearance of f the the sitesite upon
ings, and the related question of means of access from
palace to church. Our interpretation of the evidence
relating to both of these questions differs in several
essential respects from Naumann’s. From our earlier
discussion of the Coliseo, we recall that Naumann
visualized the rotunda as standing, at Jeast in part,
sufficiently above ground for him to identify it in the
Valvassore print as the Coliseo. Moreover, he believed
it to have been visible not only above the ground level
of the palace and church, but, at least on the south
side, down to the original ground level of the rotunda.
This conception emerges from his discussion of the
means of passage between palace and church, which
he believes was effected by a bridge at the point of
intersection of the rotunda and the northwest comer
of the church substructure. At this point the upper
corner of the substructure overlaps the rotunda and
rests upon it, without doubt providing here a con-
necting bridge between palace and church (figs. 28,
48).
icin Naumann’s discovery of a tipped column
approximately four meters to the southwest of the
church substructure, and belonging originally to a
colonnade flanking the entrance to the rotunda, leads
him to suggest that this colonnade might still have
been standing in the tenth century, and might have
carried part of the connecting bridge between palace
and church. Accordingly, Naumann supposes that
what survived of the south face of the rotunda and
its flanking colonnade were exposed down to their
original ground level; and whatever the colonnade
carried was connected to the west face of the church
substructure at the level of the corbels, thereby wid-
ening the western gallery outside the church.
Our investigation of the substructure virtually ex-
cludes this last possibility. Moreover, there is an al-
ternative conception of the appearance of the com-
pleted site (fig. 26) which more reasonably explains
all of the internal evidence. We believe that at the
time of the construction of the palace and church, the
rotunda was found and remained largely subterra-
nean. Once the identification of the rotunda with the
Coliseo is discarded, there is nothing to suggest that
any of the rotunda superstructure rose above the
ground level of palace and church.
If we suppose further that below this level the ro-
tunda was largely buried and, on the exterior, re-
mained so, it would only have been necessary to clear
the interior and to excavate on the exterior at three
places: outside the north and south doors sufficiently
THE MYRELAION (BODRUM CAMII)
their blocking walls, and at the southeast to
ig comment of the church substructure.
Following this the excavated zones could have been
filled and the site terraced downward from north to
—— consideration of the church substructure, we
will present evidence favoring such an interpretation.
But an alternative interpretation of the significance of
the tipped column found by Naumann also leads nec-
essarily to the same conclusion.
If this column, together with others which would
have accompanied it in a north-south range lying ap-
proximately parallel to and three meters west of the
church substructure, was reutilized at the time of the
church construction to carry an extension of the west-
ern gallery outside the church, we must explain how
this extension connected to the corbel system of the
west face of the substructure. But the west face of the
corbel system exposed by Naumann (fig. 41) is fair
and clean, with no trace that anything ever was at-
tached to or abutted it. Moreover, had a wide gallery
carried to the west by columns been intended, there
would have been no need to construct the corbel sys-
tem in the first place, since arches connecting the
church with the colonnade would have supported the
western gallery more easily. We must thus discard
the hypothesis that the tipped column had any struc-
tural relationship to the palace and church complex,
At the same time, the very presence of the column
offers supporting evidence for our hypothesis of a
largely subterranean rotunda. Naumann is certainly
correct in associating the column with the primary
phase of the rotunda. He found the column tipped
to the west, with its lower end still resting on the
original column base, plinth, and stylobate system.
If the column could not have been used as part of the
palace and church structural system, the only expla-
nation for its presence is that it remained buried and
undisturbed in its tipped state during the construction
of the palace and church. Accordingly, the top of the
column would be the minimum exterior grade level
of earth surrounding the rotunda at the time of the
tenth century construction.
The Church
There remains from the primary phase of the church
the foundations, stylobates, portions of each of the
exterior half-cylindrical buttresses, most of the inte-
rior wall surface above the lower cornice, and with
the exception of small repairs all of the interior vault-
ing. Some primary structure has also survived in the
Jower part of the eastern elevation. The small size of
the building, and its regular, bilaterally symmetrical
form make it possible to reconstruct its original form
with considerable accuracy.
Evidence for the original form of certain important
features, however, is completely lacking. Among
these are the flank walls below the co
central bays of the naos, and the north mice i
and south a
walls of the narthex. Information is also lacking for
the dimensions of most windows and for the heig
hts
of sills in the lower register of the buildin
An examination of the plans of the ehiurchy at var
ious
levels (figs. 1-4) shows that the areas of greatest mod-
ification and rebuilding are where one would nor-
mally least expect them to be, namely in the
lower
portion of the building. Moreover, they affect in a
number of areas only one surface of a wall. This is
largely due to the arbitrary nature of the restoration
of 1964-1965, and this must be kept in mind in at-
tempting to understand the logic—or absence thereof—
of the structural history of the church.
Except for the stylobates and decorative details of
comices, the material of the church is entirely brick,
The bricks used for vertical structure {as opposed to
vaulting) average 4 centimeters in thickness and 30
to 35 centimeters in width, and are set with rather
thick bed joints averaging 5.5 to 6 centimeters. The
mortar is light pinkish with large additions of crushed
and powdered brick. Pointing is with a flat wipe,
generally flush with the brick face, although occa-
sionally slightly recessed. A very slight curvature also
appears occasionally in what appears to be the same
pointing phase. The construction of vaults will be
discussed below.
Founpations. The foundations and stylobates are of
mortared rubble construction (fig. 1) with roughly
squared stones used as facing. They are laid directly
on the extrados surface of the vaults of the substruc-
ture. Their purpose was to create a level footing on
which the church could be erected, by building up
the areas in the spandrel voids between the vaults of
the substructure to the level of their crowns. The sty-
lobates are generally 1.10 meters in width, although
slight settling along the south aisle required that the
south stylobate be raised slightly and widened to 1.45
meters.
The discontinuity of the stylobates in the main
cross-axis of the naos results from the projection here
of the crowns of the barrel vaults of the substructure
almost up to the floor level of the church. A single
sounding made at the base of the northeast pier laid
free the extrados of the main east-west barrel vault
of the substructure and established that at this point
the stylobates are built up to a height of 57 centi-
meters.
Monolithic thresholds of green Thessalian marble
were used both for the main door into the narthex
and the central door into the naos. Hinge sockets in
the former are spaced at a distance of 1.80 meters and
in the latter 1.40 meters. The absence of thresholds
in the two lateral passages leading from the narthex
to the naos raises the question of whether these were
originally doors. Conclusive evidence one way or the
17
other is lacking since the reveals of both passageways
were completely rebuilt in the 1964-1965 restoration.
However, foundations that run under these passages,
which appear to be original, rise to the same level
as
the central threshold indicating that no thresholds
ever existed, and this suggests that the passages were
onginally blocked, possibly with low marble screens.
Exrerior. The most notable feature of the exterior of
the Bodrum Camii are the half-cylindrical buttresses
articulating its facades (figs. 11, 12), They form part
of a sophisticated and rigorous system of wall organ-
ization affecting both exterior and interior and cor-
respond to the internal form of the building.
The buttresses are constructed of bricks with curved
surfaces which must have been fashioned especially
for this purpose. They are laid three to a course in
each buttress and in bond with the wall behind the
buttress, The buttresses themselves range in diameter
from .85 to 1 meter and only the three extant on the
west facade are consistent in size with one another.
No significance can be attached to the variation in size
elsewhere. Four originally must have existed on the
west facade of which only the lower courses of the
three northern ones survive. Six were placed along
each of the flank walls.
The complex sequence of doors, windows, and
arches along all of the exterior wall surfaces results
in a corresponding variation in the form of each of
the buttresses and in the manner in which each is
applied to the wall. This is further enhanced by the
rich enframement of doors and windows with the
consequent multiplication of wall planes (fig. 23). This
is evident, for example, on the south facade in the
two bays flanking the center bay of the naos which
have three planes. The foremost is that of the spandrel
wail surrounding the oculi in the attic zone which is
carried down to-the lower register as pilasters behind
the half-cylindrical buttresses. Behind this is the plane
surrounding the oculi, which is co-planar with the
spandrels surrounding the windows in the lower reg-
ister. A third plane is formed by the recessed arch
enframing the windows. The manner in which the
buttress is engaged varies accordingly: in the lower
register, with a pilaster; in the attic, directly with the
spandrel wall.
On the three main facades, the buttresses are the
only elements in which no recession or change of
plane occurs from lower to upper register. As such,
they are the unifying element in the facade, their un-
varied vertical ascent interrupted only by the simple
comice transecting them.
As van Millingen first pointed out,'' a special solu-
tion was necessary in the eastern bays of the two flank
walls, The problem here was, on the one hand, to
preserve the alignment of church buttresses over cor
THE BUILDING
 18 responding supports in the substructure, to synchro-
nize this alignment with the interior bay organization
and to preserve the apparent identity of volume
among all buttresses, while, on the other hand, not
obscuring the windows in the narrower eastern bay.
The solution was using quarter-cylindrical buttresses.
The buttresses not only serve as the primary ele-
ment of exterior wall organization, but immediately
express, as well, the nature of the internal organi-
zation of the building. In plan, both the major divi-
sions into narthex, naos, and bema, and the subdi-
vision of each of these areas into bays, are marked
with their respective buttresses,
Within the church, each exterior buttress is backed
by a corresponding wall respond, confirming the rec-
iprocity of exterior and interior articulation, and giv-
ing rise in the interior to the supporting arches of the
vaulting. The alignment of buttress and respond in
every case is not exact (fig. 1) since slight adjustments
were necessary to reconcile their differing function.
But these adjustments may only be discerned on
measured drawings.
A second notable feature of the exterior is the va-
riety and number of openings in all facades of the
building, Special difficulty exists in determining the
original form of doors and windows in the lower reg-
ister of the building and to a somewhat lesser extent
in the attic and gables as well. It is evident from pho-
tographs and the descriptions of other scholars, that
even before the restoration of 1964-1965, considerable
modifications had been made in doors, windows, lu-
nettes, and portions of the wall surface between the
half-cylindrical buttresses. Some of these modifica-
tions may be assigned to the Palaeologue remodeling
of the building, others to remodeling and repair in
the Turkish period (fig. 22). These will be discussed
in their appropriate context below. But even the evi-
dence for the later modifications was almost totally
obliterated in the lower portion of the exterior by the
restoration of 1964-1965. The west facade was refaced
in its entirety (figs. 36, 41). The north facade, save for
two small zones, suffered the same fate. The south
facade (fig. 40) fared somewhat better, but here as
well, windows were inserted and walls rebuilt with
little regard for their original form.
Thus, in the reconstruction and analysis, especially
of the lower portion of the exterior, it has been nec-
essary to rely heavily on photographs of the building
taken before the restoration. From these, a graphic
reconstruction has been attempted of the ground
story of the west facade and the two flank walls (fig.
21), for the purpose of distinguishing their structural
phases, Since the eastern exterior was less affected
by the restoration, its various phases could be ade-
quately rendered in the survey drawing (fig. 12). The
THE MYRELAION {BODRUM CAMII)
north facade at the time of our survey consisted only
of the restoration of 1964-1965, and it was felt that a
measured survey drawing of this elevation could be
omitted.
The west facade (figs. 10, 21a, 34) was divided hor-
izontally by a cornice into two registers and vertically
by the buttresses into three bays. The cornice may be
seen on pre-restoration photographs, and the lowest
courses of the three northern buttresses survive, In
the lower register, the central bay is opened by a door,
the original width of which, 2.20 meters, may be de-
termined by the lowest courses of its reveals, which
survive. Over the door was a shallow segmental arch.
The arch has been rebuilt, and whether or not it was
a true segment cannot be determined from photo.
graphs, It sprung at an approximate height of 3 meters
above the threshold. Two hinge sockets in the thresh-
old indicate the original presence of bivalve doors,
It appears that windows flanked the door in the
two side bays, although information about them jis
imprecise, Their arched heads appear clearly on pre-
restoration photographs, and the surface masonry
filling their lights is discernibly later. Yet it is not cer-
tain that these were windows rather than blind ly.
nettes, While they were already closed in Palaeotogue
times, the generous fenestration elsewhere in the
building would suggest that windows originally ex-
isted here as well. The height of the sill given in the
perspective reconstruction (fig. 28) is conjectural.
In the attic zone of the facade, lunettes crown the
door and the flanking windows, but once again all
evidence for their original form has been obliterated
from the building itself. The reconstruction of the two
flanking Iunettes as blind and the center lunette open
is based upon a clear difference in filling masonry
visible on the pre-restoration photographs. The lateral
fillings, discounting stone and rubble repair, are all
brick, and follow exactly the coursing of the remain-
der of the facade. In the north lunette, the filling even
appears to be in bond with the lowest courses of the
surround. The filling of the central lunette, on the
contrary, is of rough squared stones and brick and
shows evidence that a once open semicircular light
the size of the surround was reduced to a smaller
semicircular light and then finally blocked. The filling
in two stages is clear evidence that the lunette was
originally open.
From the pre-restoration photographs it is impos-
sible to determine the original aspect of the spandrel
wall above the three lunettes. Most of this zone ap-
pears to have already been repaired before the 1964-
1965 restoration. The photographs suggest that a con-
centric frieze of some sort may have surrounded the
arches of the lunettes, and presumably a coping car
ried the projecting eaves of the roof.
 All evidence indicates
that the two flank wall
the church were originally s of
2 neni other. Th symmetrical with respect
j ey have, howeve
aifferent modifications from one ano
tr, Suffered quit
. ther in the COue
of their subsequent history (figs. 21, 22). The Sie.
ration of 1964-1965 particularly affe
cted the north wall
(fig. 36), sparing only the lowest‘St co Courses of the but-
tresse
s (they were buried), portions of the central and
west arch in the triple arch window of the c
entral b ay,
and the lower half ® of the eastern quarter
yindrical
-C lind °
The re ma in de r wa s co mp le te ly
buttress. rebuilt. O
the south facade (fig. 40), the lower portion ofall
between the buttresses, and the upper portion of the
walls
buttresses themselves, were rebuilt; but substantial
areas of primary masonry remain elsewhere.
Further evidence of the original form of the flank
walls is visible on the pre-restoration photographs,
and here a correction must be made in van Millingen’s
assertion that the entire north wall is modern.!2 Van
Millingen saw the exterior of the north wall ina plas-
tered state and assumed from the fact that it was flat
that nothing remained of the original structure, least
of all the buttresses. Photographs of the north wall
taken in 1964 (fig. 35) show clearly that while the
buttresses were cut back flush with the wall plane at
some subsequent date, much of their original struc-
ture, as well as that of the walls between, remained.
Particularly important for the reconstruction of the
wall is the original structure which appears to survive
in the upper portion of the center bay, since this al-
ready had been lost in the corresponding area in the
south wall.
The composition of the flank walls of the church
is an elaboration and adaptation of the west facade
to the special requirements of the flanks. To the extent
that the west facade and flank walls have in common
the expression on the facade of three arms of an equal-
armed cross, inscribed in a square plan, the principles
of design remain the same. The fact that this was
carefully calculated is demonstrated by the identity
between the three facades, well within constructional
error, of the width of the central bay and two flanking
bays.!3 Variation from the west facade occurs in add-
ing to the central element the walls of the narthex,
gable, and pastophoria.
The center bay of each of the flank walls, with its
two flanking bays, is composed bilaterally symmet-
rical, but the reconstruction of the center bay presents
difficulties. It is certain that the lower register of this
bay originally was subdivided by three arches. On
photographs of the north wall prior to the 1964-1965
restoration (fig, 35) the voussoirs of the two lateral
arches are still sufficiently preserved and visible to
determine the approximate center and span of the
arches, Since the buttresses were cut back flush here,
the bonding of the skewbacks of the arches into the
“66g is also visible, a further proof of their orig- 19
or mu ‘ je on south wall (fig, 38) only the first two
den. goait ussoir bricks of the lateral arches can be
Monk e Bing from the buttresses. But this is suffi-
Here baie their onginal presence there, as well.
eile e eer evidence ends and two questions
oa : re the arches, which were doubtlessly stilted,
carried by columns or mullions? And was there a door
in the central arch? Our reconstruction (figs. 27, 28)
of this bay with windows on parapet slabs set off by
mullions requires justification, especially since it is in
apparent contradition to the reports of van Millingen
and Ebersolt.
Van Millingen states, “In the lowest division of the
south wail stood originally a triple arcade with a door
between the columns. The arcade has been built up,
but the molded jambs and the cornices of the door,
and the arch above it, now contracted into a window,
still show on the exterior, while the columns appear
within the church.” Without mentioning the columns
or claiming the door to be original, Ebersolt speaks
of “une ancienne porte, dont les chabranles ont été
conservés 4 l'extérieur,” and the door is shown in
plan and elevation in the Thiers drawings."
Since van Millingen and Ebersolt only saw the wall
plastered on both sides, they were unable to deter-
mine that the full wall in which the door under dis-
cussion was placed was secondary. This is evident
from photographs taken after the removal of plaster
and before the 1964-1965 restoration. While it is the-
oretically possible that an original door with its
molded frame was retained in the rebuilding, this is
very unlikely.
Doors here, and as we shall see in the flanks of the
narthex, must have a reason for existence. At least on
the south side of the church, such doors would have
led only to the narrow gallery running around the
church; and we conclude that in its primary phase
the church was only accessible by one door in the
west facade.
Subsequently, perhaps only as early as the seven-
teenth century, the area immediately to the south of
the substructure was earth filled and built up with
vaulted terracing, raising the exterior grade to the
church ground level, and allowing direct access to the
building from the south. It is perhaps only as late as
this period that the door was inserted in this bay.
The original existence of the triple arch windows
in the attic of the same bay is secured by its survival
in the north wall prior to the 1964-1965 restoration
(fig. 35). The corresponding arches in the south wall
may also be assigned to a Palaeologue rebuilding,
following the original form, save for the omission at
the single recessed arch of the central window.
The three gables to the north, south, and west were
entirely rebuilt in 1964-1965, and consequently no in-
THE BUILDING

20 formation has been preserved regarding their fenes-
tration. They have been reconstructed hypothetically
here by analogy to Fenari Isa Camii, which in turn 1s
hypothetical. But the reasons offered by Megaw for
a reconstruction with two mullions subdividing the
lunette into three equal parts, we consider to be
valid.!>
For the two bays which flank the central bay there
is a similar disparity in the amount of information
surviving for the attic as compared to the ground
story. In the ground story, only the arched head of
a window in the eastern bay of the south wall is pre-
served. The corresponding window in the other three
bays together with the wall under all four windows
already had disappeared before the modern restora-
tion. Presumably the three other windows were iden-
tical to the one preserved, but the reconstruction of
the height of the sili is hypothetical.
On the other hand, information on the notable oculi
in the attic is quite secure. Although they have since
been completely rebuilt, substantial remains of the
two on the north wall are still visible in photographs
taken before the restoration; and the eastern oculus
in the south wall has survived. The oculi are in the
same plane as the window below and are enframed
by and recessed behind the main arch of the bay,
which in turn rises from the jambs of the window
below. The bay is tightly knit, with the consequent
strong vertical relation between the lower and attic
zones broken only by the cornice running the full
breadth of the facade.
The remaining bays to be considered on these walls
are those flanking the narthex and the pastophoria.
Insofar as can be determined, the bays flanking the
pastophoria had roundheaded windows in the ground
story crowned with blind lunettes in the attic. The
disposition of planes repeated that of the adjoining
bay: the main arch of the blind lunette and the jambs
of the window form one plane, and recessed behind
this, the voussoirs of the window, and the filling wail
of the lunette, a second. There is no evidence for a
door having originally existed in this bay in the south
wall as reconstructed by Conant (fig. 65).!° The door
shown crudely blocked with a dry stone fill in pho-
tographs of the 1930s and 1940s, and filled with mor-
tared masonry in photographs of the 1950s, must have
been cut subsequent to the photograph in Ebersolt
and Thiers’? which shows a flat, unbroken wall.
The narthex bays represent a special situation, for
here the interior ends of the narthex open into shallow
niches the full width of the narthex and are expressed
on the exterior, Original masonry from these niches
survives only on the south in the spandrel wall of the
lower story, Its external curvature (a segment of 86.5°
turned on a radius of 1.95 meters) was reproduced
correctly in the 1964-1965 complete rebuilding of the
two niched flanks of the narthex.
THE MYRELAION (BODRUM CAMII)
nk
t here, as with the center bays of the naos fla
wits information is lacking as to whethe
r the niches
s,
were opened at ground story by doors or window
early
Ebersolt reports that he saw moldings of an
door, subsequently walled up, on the north exterior;
but since the walls were plastered on both sides at
the time, it is certain that he mistook the marble frame
of a Turkish window in this bay for an original door,
The matter is made more difficult by several mod-
* iGcations of the narthex flanks in the twentieth cen-
tury, by different modifications in the north and
south, and by the fact that elsewhere in the building,
especially along the north facade, typical square Turk-
ish windows were inserted only slightly above ground
level.
Our reconstruction with windows is based on the
same consideration as our reconstruction of windows
in the flanks of the naos: the fact that doors here in
the original phase would have led only to the gallery
surrounding the church.
The Iunette in the attic above, restored as open in
1964-1965, was originally blind, as is evident in pho-
tographs of both flanks before the restoration (figs.
34, 38). ,
The eastern elevation of the church (figs. 12, 37, 65)
was much less affected by the restoration than the
other three exterior facades. The attic of the prothesis
was rebuilt and the upper portion of that of the dia-
conicon repaired. Likewise, refacing was done under
the windows of the apses of the bema and diaconicon;
ard the lower part of the prothesis was largely rebuilt.
The comparison of a photograph taken after the fire
of 1911 (fig. 37) with the surviving evidence reveals
that the greatest modification in the east facade oc-
curred in connection with what we believe to have
been a Palaeologue remodeling about the year 1300.
In the main apse, the center facet and most of the
flanking facets were rebuilt. The windows of the
flanking facets were suppressed and that of the center
facet lowered.
Subsequently, in the Turkish period, probably at
the time of the transformation of the building to a
mosque, typical square windows were installed only
slightly above ground level in the center facets of the
prothesis and main apses, creating two ranges of
windows horizontally divided by masonry (fig. 22).
In the diaconicon, the lower two meters of its window
were blocked without disturbing the jambs.
But despite these modifications, sufficient evidence
Survives to give a fairly accurate reconstruction of the
original appearance of the east elevation (fig. 27).
Three triple-faceted apses occupy the full width and
height of the east facade, the center apse being twice
the width of the two flanking apses. The division of
the other facades into ground story and attic is pre-
served here, only with the necessary modifications
to accommodate the windows of the center aps
e. The
vertical articulation is expressed here, in the abseri
of buttresses, by the prismatic effect of
ce
wall surfaces, and by the projection, valle
sion, of wall planes.
Loo.
Further consistency of design
with the other facades is kept by the central facets of
the two pastophoria apses where
the arrangement of
roundheaded window with blind lunette in the attic
above repeats the arrangement in
the east bays of the
flank walls.
The pastophoria windows were onginally
unusu-
ally tall and narrow. Their estimated dimensions of
.60 x 2.90 meters can be determined from
the surviv-
ing jambs of the diaconicon window which sur
vived
the 1964-1965 restoration. Marble screens rather
than
masonry may have formed the closure below
the
windows.
The central apse was orj ginally opened by a win-
dow in each of its three fa cets. The outer jambs an
d Detailed comments on the original exterior ap-
auSEMoirs of the windows in the two lateral facets are
vouss
still visible, forming clear joints with the subsequent
fill. The arches of the lateral windows were stilted
above the cornice line, with the crown of their
intra-
dos rising to an estimated 1.70 meters above the cor-
nice level. Since the voussoirs were 30 centimeters
high, bringing the height of the extrados of the flank-
ing windows to 2 meters above the exterior corn
ice,
we are able to verify that the height of the center
window was the same as that of the two flanking
windows. On the corresponding interior of the apse,
the height of the cornice marking the impost of the
apse conch, and hence the maximum rise of the apse
windows, is 2 meters above the level of the exterior
cornice.
In the absence of surviving evidence, we recon-
struct the windows of the center apse, by analogy to
the north church of Fenari Isa Camii (fig. 77a), with
mullions bearing capitals, placed at the intersections
of the facets and rising to the level of the cornice.
Given the remarkable similarity between the propor-
tions and dimensions of the apses of the two build-
ings,'® we presume that the resemblance was close.
A final question regarding the reconstruction of the
original phase of the ground level exterior remains to
be considered. The suggestion has been offered by
yanious scholars that porticoes, open or closed, vaulted
or timber-roofed, originally existed along the flank
walls and the west facade.'® Our investigation yielded
no evidence in support of this suggestion, and two
considerations exclude a reconstruction with porti-
coes,
Porticoes—especially closed porticoes—would have
drastically modified what has been characterized
above as a carefully organized exterior architecture,”
rendering the half-cylindrical buttresses among other
features visually meaningless had their lower portions
been masked by porticoes, Second, the width of the 21
gallery around the upper church js ingufficient to have
carried anything but the very lightest and thinnest
supports for a portico and still permit the passage of
a person,
One feature on the west facade visible on photo-
graphs taken before the 1964-1965 restoralion (figs.
21a, 34) may have contributed to the mistaken sug-
gestion that a timber-roofed portico once existed here.
Above the cornice, a row of fourteen post holes may
be clearly seen. They obviously are secondary, how-
ever, and were cut into the wall in Turkish times after
the half-cylindrical buttresses had already been cut
back flush with the wall plane. Undoubtedly they are
to be associated with the Turkish wooden porch il-
lustrated in Paspates’ lithograph of the building (fig.
64) prior to 1877.2!
pearance of the gable zone of the building is impos-
sible. The exterior of this zone was entirely refaced
in the 1964-1965 restoration, and in photographs
taken prior to it, the area is too overgrown to distin-
guish various phases of masonry. It is probable that
the original form was similar to the present, since the
range of possible modifications here is rather limited.
The three arms to the west, north, and south, which
form the superstructure of the inscribed cross (fig.
40}, are of equal length. They enclose barre! vaults
within, with deep interpenetrating ramping lunettes,
and are open at each end by lunette windows, prob-
ably subdivided by mullions. The basis for this sup-
position has been dealt with above with regard to the
north and south arms, and doubtless the west arm
was identical.
The eastern gable covers the bema in addition to
the east arm of the inscribed cross and is correspond-
ingly extended to the east by one bay on the exterior.
The bema bay is distinguished on the exterior by a
slight offset in its wall plane.
A feature of interest about which no information
is available is the original form of the vertical walls
along the haunches of the gables. Even before the
recent restoration, they are shown in photographs
inclined at an approximate angle of 12°, and while
this enhances the pyramidal effect of the extenor, it
is the only oblique element in the exterior composi-
tion. A dogtooth coping was also visible on photo-
graphs taken before the restoration, but it is impos-
sible to determine whether or not this was part of the
original design.
Although the exterior of the drum was less affected
by the restoration of 1964-1965 than the gable zone,
nothing remains of primary masonry (fig. 5). Here
again, the fact that the interior surface of the drum
ls almost entirely intact, and several of the window
reveals have survived, limits the extent to which its
THY BUILDING
22 form could have been modified, The greater part of
the drum exterior, together with the spandrel wall
above the windows, dates from a rather careful Turk-
ish restoration of undetermined date. We are there-
fore inclined to accept its present form as a close re-
flection of the original, even if some details may not
be entirely correct.
The drum is a cylinder 5.50 meters in diameter and
rising to a height of 3.15 meters. It is opened by eight
roundheaded windows, the reveals of which are ra-
dial. Set between each two windows is a triangular
buttress rising to the same Jevel as the window soffit
and giving rise to dogtocth friezes over the windows.
As in the case of the lower portions of the building,
it is uncertain whether or not the frieze reflects the
Original form. The effect of the buttresses, on the one
hand, is to enhance the already strong profiling of
the drum, and on the other, to introduce a prismatic,
octagonal element into the otherwise strictly cylin-
drical composition. Above the spandre] wall of the
windows, a dogtooth coping encircles the drum, but
it is uncertain whether this element is original.
INTERIOR. In turning from the exterior of the church
to its interior, it is immediately evident that similar
problems exist in determining its original form and
subsequent structural history. Repeated damage and
repair had already wrought substantial change in its
interior aspect before the 1964-1965 restoration. But
the restoration had a particularly disfiguring effect
(figs. 43, 45) through the crude refacing of almost all
wall surfaces below the lower cornice. Detailed ob-
servations regarding the prerestoration state of the
interior were also hindered by the fact that virtually
no photographs taken beforehand were available. The
discussion must therefore be confined only to those
areas unaffected by the restoration.
The plan and general organization of the interior
have already been described: a naos, square in plan,
is preceded by a rectangular narthex, and appended
to at its opposite eastern end by the bema and pas-
tophoria. The predominant effect of the interior is of
a compact, unified space, given form and intelligibil-
ity by strong profiles and rich modeling of wall sur-
faces in a tightly coordinated system of articulation.
The interior (figs. 15-18) is divided clearly into hor-
izontal zones, marked by cornices corresponding to
those of the exterior. Jn the naos there are four zones:
ground story, attic, gable, and drum with dome. Sim-
ple ratios govern the proportions of these vertical
divisions, When the heights of the cornices are re-
duced to their lowest whole-number ratios of 9:13:18,
it becomes evident that the ground story rises to ex-
actly half the height of the interior up to the drum
ring. Other simple ratios exist as well. Measuring
from the lower cornice, the heights of upper cornice,
intrados crown of the gable vaults, and Intrados
THE MYRELAION (HOPRUM CAMII)
crown of the dome are in the respective ratio of 1:2:4,
Moreover, the gabled cross-arms rise to a height ex-
actly three times their width.
But caution must be exercised here in attempting
to deduce an overall system of proportions. While
one may have existed for the building, the combj-
nation of structural error, subsequent modifications,
and our ignorance of the actual method by which the
building was laid out, makes it extremely difficult to
deduce such proportional relationships except in the
most obvious and simple cases, and then only when
it is certain that measurements may be taken from
primary structure.
These proportions impart to the naos a marked ver-
ticality, enhanced both by the wall responds and the
four vertical supports placed at the intersection of the
cross-arms. Agreement has not always existed as to
whether or not the present crude square ashlar piers
represent the original support system, or are a re-
placement for columns which originally stood in their
Jace. Those who have contended the former have
considered the piers to be a preliminary phase in the
development of the four-column church. And even
among proponents of the latter opinion, it has been
Suggested that the present piers may enclose the
original columns.”
Our investigation has left no doubt that col-
umns—subsequently removed—were once the orig-
inal support. Cleaning at the base of all four piers
revealed the badly damaged but stil] discernible oc-
tagonal bases of the original columns (fig. 59). When
the crude plinths of the present piers were set, the
original octagonal bases were filled out to form a
square base, explaining why they have never been
observed before. In connection with the removal of
the columns, the spandrels above each of the piers
were rebuilt (fig. 43). This is indicated not only by a
difference in their masonry and by a joint near the
crown of each arch springing from the piers, but also
by the absence of post holes for tie beams directly
above the piers, corresponding to holes directly op-
posite in original masonry. The rebuilding of the
spandrels was carefully executed and dates probably
from an earlier Turkish period. Leaving sufficient
room for capitals, it may be estimated that the original
column shafts were approximately 3.70 to 3.80 meters
long.
Considerable attention has been given above to the
analysis of the exterior of the perimeter wall of the
building, and here it will be sufficient to consider
those aspects of the ground story interior which are
not reflected on the exterior.
Notable among these is the handling of the bema
and especially the pastophoria flanking it. Undoubt-
edly these were originally screened off from the re
mainder of the naga by an iconostasis, although no
 trace could be located of its emplacement, All thre
e om a circle corresponding to its inner diam
apses are small, the main one measuring 2.70 met
across, and those of the pastophoria, a mer ers
e 1.69
meters. The pastophoria—especially the prothesis
— and
were badly mutilated by the recent res
toration due
to a complete disregard for the complex and sophis-
ticated treatment of the walls. Despite this, some
idea
can still be gleaned of their Original form from
areas
untouched in the diaconicon.
The side walls of the pastophoria are
shallow niches 1.20 meters in width and ie
by windows to the outside and by doors communi-
cating with the bema to the inside, The resulting for
m the consistent preference evident throughout the
is that of a trefoil chamber with the apse forming the
third lobe. The semiconch of the apse is correspond-
ingly reflected by the shallow conchs crowning the
niches. The small scale of the chambers, the varie
of openings leading out of them, and the clear, yet
subtle handling of wall surface—not to mention the
vaulting which will be discussed below—all contrib-
ute to the remarkable plastic sense of the rooms. It
should be noted, moreover, that the present dark and
crowded sense of the pastophoria is misleading, since
both of its windows to the exterior opened originally
to a much lower level.
The superstructure of the interior above the lowest
cornice is composed with careful regard for intelligi-
bility and coherence (figs. 29, 43), Consistent through-
out the attic and gable zones is a system of compo-
sition already suggested on the exterior. Every arch
at ground level, open or blind, is crowned by its cor-
responding arch above—generally a lunette—which
may be open or blind. That this system of superposed
arcades was a conscious choice rather than the in-
advertent result of some other intent, seems to be
indicated by the rejection of the use of simple barrel
vaults over the gables and bema in favor of the much
more complicated deep interpenetrating ramping lu-
nettes. The result is that al] blind surfaces of the attic
and gable zones join with the arcuated windows to
form a consistent system unbroken by areas of flat
wall surface. And the doubling—in some cases tn-
pling—of superposed arches further contributes to
the vertical unity of the interior. The architectural ef-
fect alone is noteworthy, but beyond this it might be
suggested that the blind lunettes—there are thirteen
in all in the naos—were conceived as well as framed
panels for mosaic decoration.
Crowning the superstructure above the central
square of the crossing is a remarkable cusped drum
carrying a melon dome (fig. 47). Here, as is evident
throughout the building, the apparent complexities
of design can be derived from relatively simple prin-
ciples of geometric construction capable of execution
either on the drawing board or at full scale at the
building site (fig. 25). The plan of the drum is laid out
eter def
by the points of the cusps. An octagon is ins ined
cri
in the circle by construction of perpendiculars bed
bisection of resultant angles. The cusps are formed
by turning semi-circles with radii of one-sixth the di-
ameter of the larger circle (found by construction)
from centers midpoint on the sides of the octagon.
The inner width of the window reveals are equal! to
this same radius. The splay of the reveals is found
a radii projected from the center of the larger cir-
In the cusped drum and its melon dome is revealed
building for curvilinear forms composed in strict geo-
metrical manner. The result here is particularly felic-
tous architecturally and is especially well adapted to
receive mosaic decoration. Here the curving surfaces
with strong lighting between and their (doubtless)
original mosaic sheath would have created a refined,
ever-changing, and brilliantly dominating effect, ap-
propniate to the central and crowning element of the
interior architecture,
The vaulting elsewhere in the building (fig. 6) has
survived intact as well, with the exception of a few
small areas of repair. This is fortunate, since we have
preserved here an entire system as originally con-
ceived, one of the few areas which suffered no sub-
sequent modification.
With the exception of the central bay of the narthex,
the dome, and the pastophoria, the vaults are con-
sistently groin or barrel vaults with lunettes inter-
penetrating so deep as to meet at the crown, thus
forming continuous groins. Save for the exceptional
bays just mentioned, all are rectangular in plan, and
the reconciliation of the rise of the cross members of
each vault is achieved by stilting the arch over the
shorter side. Since the lunettes in the gable zone can-
not rise to the full height of the barrel vaults which
they penetrate, their ridge lines ramp approximately
16° upward toward the center, resulting in conical
surfaces for the penetrating lunettes. The same method
has been used in the lateral bays of the narthex be-
cause of their unusually oblong plan. Here the ridge
lines in east-west axis are only slightly ramped (ap-
proximately 8° over a distance of 1.40 meters) with
the result that this may hardly be discerned without
the use of instruments.
Domical vaults cover the central narthex bay and
the two pastophoria. The vault in the narthex is par-
ticularly noteworthy for its very low construction. It
rises only .47 meters over a span of 2.80 meters. In
the general format of the building, its effect is to
state—together with the main dome and the bema—
the main, longitudinal axis of the building.
The small, domical vaults of the pastophoria (fig.
46) are integral to the globular, plastic shape of these
THE BUILDING
24 chambers. They are carried by strong arches in trans-
verse axis and by the niched lunettes in longitudinal,
thus developing the trilobed effect already observed
for the plan into the elevation as well,
The construction of al] three domical vaults is me-
ticulously regular. They are built up in concentric
courses of bricks smaller than those used elsewhere
in vertical construction. The bricks were trimmed and
cut by the mason as construction proceeded. As the
courses approach the crown and are laid in decreasing
diameter, the bricks or brick fragments become pro-
portionally smaller.
in this context, mention should be made of the fact
that the domical vaulting of the church—particularly
that of the pastophoria—is identical in construction
to that of the substructure of the adjoining palace (fig.
76). Thus it contributes to the evidence for their con-
temporaneous construction.
No trace of the original decoration of the church
remains in sift, which is not surprising in light of the
many vicissitudes which the building has suffered.>
Yet it is impossible to conceive that a building of all-
brick construction—already a sign of affluence—small
in scale and consummate in its refinement of archi-
tectural design, should not have been decorated in
a correspondingly appropriate manner. And if the
building was, as we believe, built by Romanus, we
may assume that its decoration was one of opulence
and splendor.
Despite the absence of decoration jn situ, the ex-
cavation of the substructure and the sounding in the
church yielded fragmentary material, which we may
assign with reasonable certainty to the decoration of
the church. While only one piece of evidence suggests
a tenth century date for the material, our excavation
of the substructure places the decorative fragments
as a whole to some time before ca. 1200; and there is
nothing which excludes an earlier date.
The decorative material includes mosaic tesserae,
opus sectile, polychrome marble revetment, oma-
mented polychrome ceramic revetment, and frag-
ments of marble liturgical furniture.
The material was found in two places. Tesserae and
polychrome ceramic revetment were recovered from
unstratified rubble fil] at the base of the northeast pier
in the church, and all elements mentioned were found
in 2 deep stratum in the substructure excavation (fig.
31), designated the architectural fragment layer (Level
3). The evidence for assigning the material from this
stratum to the decoration of the church is as follows.
The material lay in a stratum 1.30 meters in maximum
depth. It was deepest directly below the two windows
of the substructure and tapered down to the east and
west, indicating that it had been dumped there
through chutes in the two windows from the church.
THE MYRELAION (BODRUM CAMII)
The terminus ante quem for the dumping of this deposit
is set at ca. 1300 from the latest pottery found in it,
The layer overlies an ash layer throughout the interior
of the naos indicating the destruction prior to the
dumping of combustible material in the substructure.
The ash layer, in turn, lay directly over a sherd of fine
Persian Minai ware which can be dated to the decade
ca. 1200. This establishes the terminus post quem for
the fire causing the ash layer as ca. 1200.
A further analysis of the circumstances of the de-
struction represented by the ash layer will be given
below, but briefly stated, these confining dates would
coincide well with a destruction of the church in the
Latin Conquest of 1203-1204 and a remodeling follow-
ing the end of the Conquest at the close of the thir-
teenth century. By this interpretation, the architec-
tural fragments found in the substructure represent
decorative material from the church so badly dam-
aged as to be useless in connection with the Early
Palaeologue remodeling, and this is consistent with
the residual nature of the material found. The quan-
tity was great (261 pieces of opus sectile fragments
alone) but, save for a few stray intact pieces, frag-
mentary and useless, indicating that it had been care-
fully sorted before being discarded. That this was a
builder’s dump is further indicated by lime deposits
throughout the level.
From the nature of the material found, it is likely
that the church originally had an opus sectile floor
made of geometric motifs in which diamond, hex-
agonal, and mandorla shapes predominated. The
walls were covered with polychrome marble revet-
ment with green Thessalian marble in particular abun-
dance, and the upper zones bore mosaic decoration.
One element of the decoration deserves special
mention, since it is the only one found which has a
bearing on a date of the deposit, and by extension on
that of the church itself. Fragments of ornamented
polychrome revetment tile were recovered both from
the church sounding and from the architectural frag-
ment level of the substructure. Unfortunately, the
context in which such tiles have been found elsewhere
are not sufficiently exactly dated to determine se-
curely the time limits in which this method of archi-
tectural decoration was in common use.*4 In some
sites from Constantinople and from Bulgaria they are
found in association with tenth century buildings. In
others not.
Their discovery at the Bodrum Camii in the archi-
tectural fragment level of the substructure excavation
is consistent with the hypothesis that they are part
of the damaged refuse from the tenth century phase
and were dumped in the substructure at the time of
the Palaeologue remodeling of the church.
There is one confirmation that such tiles were used
by Constantinopolitan artists at least in the tenth cen-
tury: tiles with identical motifs to those found
stantinople are still preserved in situ
; eo
on the aaa
the mosque of Cordoba. Here they decorate
narrow
cornices and are used as transitional
moldings be-
tween areas of revetment and mosaic, From
Islamic
sources, it is known that the mihrab was decorated b
Byzantine craftsmen requested from the
arepserde
Nicephorus Phocas by the caliph of Cordoba Hakam
JJ, in 965.4 From their use in the Co
rdoba mihrab we
might infer that such tiles were similarly
used as art
of the decorative scheme of the Bodrum Camii P
Cornices and capitals in the church probably bore
sculptural decoration. The fragments of carved marble
recovered from the substructure excavation were tog
small to give any idea of what the style of this dec-
oration might have been like. However, most of the
cornices of the church show evidence on their un-
dersides of low relief having been cut back flush with
the surface. One piece of cornice with decorative relief
similar to the style of the cornices at Fenari Isa Camii
north was discovered by Naumann in his excavation
to the northwest of the building.
Thus, despite the fragmentary evidence surviving
which may be associated with the decoration of the
church, there is little doubt that it was decorated in
a manner appropriate to the best and most opulent
Constantinopolitan architecture.
The Substructure
In marked contrast to the church, the substructure
presents a utilitarian, austere, and rough aspect (figs.
11, 50). Its exterior is devoid of any decoration in the
form of moldings, stringcourses, and other refine-
ments present in such abundance in the church. A
careful examination of its fabric indicates that none
of these elements were originally present. Windows
and doors are built economically and simply with no
concern for the niceties of enframement, recession,
symmetry, plasticity, or composition so subtly con-
ceived and worked out in the church. The economical
impression of the substructure is confirmed by the
cheaper material of its construction—rough squared
ashlar with intermittent leveling bands of brick.
The difference in appearance between the two
stories is the principal reason for past doubts that they
were contemporaneous and conceived as one struc-
ture. Underlying this opinion is a premise contra-
dicted by the architectural evidence of the Bodrum
Camii: namely, that buildings erected at the same ime
and place should Jook alike. This is not to suggest
that stylistic analogy is invalid as a method for estab-
lishing date, but the application of the method must
be tempered by a consideration of the purpose for
which a building was erected, and by regard for the
fact that buildings erected for different purposes at
the same time and place may look different.
exception, the evidence of our investlya-
shows that the church and substructure were
conceived and built together; and the rough
-
anceck,of gin
the e subsT
truce
ture,
,
arar iaige se
“ conirast to the refiyned
hi oe bebe ther te $ utilitarian intent. Moreover,
substructure exterior wag in-
tended to be at least partially buried.
The substructure is in good condition, and with the
exception of minor repairs and damage, preserves its
original condition throughout.?” In its present state
the exterior of the substructure is partially obscured
Or buried on ali sides and is accessible only through
the door in its south facade,
A portion of the upper part of the west facade of
the substructure was permanently exposed in the
course of the excavation of Naumann (fig. 41). But
here difficulties were encountered in providing ade-
quate underpinning for the minaret which is joined
to the southwest corner of the building. [n order to
insure the stability of the minaret, Naumann erected
a high retaining wall around the southwest corner of
the building which masks the substructure at this
point. The upper part of the northern two bays of this
face were left exposed down to a level of 5 meters
above the interior floor level.
The eastern exterior of the substructure was par-
tially excavated by Talbot Rice, but then refilled. It is
now partially exposed down to the level of the sill of
the central window, a level of 5.50 meters above the
interior floor level.
At the time of our survey, all original structure on
the north exterior of the substructure was obscured.
The ground level rose to that of the church in the
west, covering the two western bays; the corbels and
upper part of the buttresses of the eastern three bays
had been cut away and replaced by a battered retain-
ing wall, against which subsequent modern structures
had been erected. Naumann’s excavation exposed the
upper portion of the two western bays (fig. 72) down
to a level of 3.50 meters above interior floor level, but
no information regarding the structure of this part of
the building was revealed beyond that which could
be observed from the interior.
In the course of our excavation of the interior of the
substructure, the naos and narthex were cleared of
earth fill down to the level of the stylobates. Second-
ary structures—specifically the Palaeologue tomb
walls along the south aislke—which could not be con-
served, or for which removal was necessary for in-
vestigative purposes, were also removed. As a result
of excavation, the interior of the substructure was
restored to its original proportions and could be stud:
ied in its entirety.
With one exception, our analysis and reconstruc:
tion of the substructure is based on direct evidence.
We have relled upon Talbot Rice’s report for the por-
THE BUILDING
IV
Conclusions
IpENTIFICATION and DATE. Our confi Tmation of the
traditional identification of the Bodr um Camii with
the church erected by Romanus I at the Myrelaio
rests on no single piece of conclusive evidence But
notwithstanding the complex problems of Constan-
snopolitan topography, the few Byzantine buildin 5
that have survived in modern Istanbul, and the aloe
total absence of systematic architectural and archae-
ological investigations of those which have, we be-
lieve this identification to be secure.
Five points in particular emerge from ou
favoring this identification: 1, the identification ste
Myrelaion by Pierre Gilles only a century after the
Turkish Conquest and probably based on oral tradi-
tion; 2. the topographical indications from Byzantine
sources locating the Myrelaion in the vicinity; 3. the
improbability that an elaborate palace and church
complex other than the Myrelaion, and unknown
from literary sources, would have stood nearby; 4.
the close analogy in design and construction to the
securely dated and almost contemporaneous Theo-
tocos Church of Constantine Lips; and 5. the insup-
portability of doubts raised by Millet and Talbot Rice
regarding the identification.
We set the date for completion of construction of
the church, for historical reasons, at about 922.
Four-COLUMN CHURCHES. The church of the My-
relaion was originally built with four columns sup-
porting the superstructure of the central bay of its
naos. Ajthough this has generally been assumed, the
assumption always rested on analogy to other build-
ings, not on physical evidence. Consequently some
authors have concluded otherwise, assuming the
present crude piers to be primary, and viewing the
Myrelaion as an early phase of the development of
the four-column church, Others have been perplexed
by the apparent contradictory use of columns in the
substructure and piers in the church.
Our investigation yielded conclusive physical evi-
dence that the piers are secondary, replacing col-
umns, We exposed the damaged but recognizable
octagonal column bases and demonstrated that the
spandrels above each of the piers were rebullt,
The building may thus be securely placed with the
earliest four-column, cross-in-square churches of
Constantinople and is second in date among those
surviving there only to the Theotocos Church of Con-
stantine Lips,!
by It the
j inBlshed from other churches of this type
fourceol Structure on which it stands, likewise a
olmn, cross-In-square construclion.
Purross of THE SUBSTRUC
TURE, Originally, the sub-
Ae was built for the sole purpose of carrying
es church at the same level as the adjoining palace.
is resulted from the decision to construct the palace
. a terrace built over the remains of a large rotunda.
| he difference in appearance between the church and
its substructure reflects their difference in purpose.
Only the church was originally intended for ecctesi-
astical use. The substructure, which was probably
partially buried, was undecorated, had an earth floor,
and already in the thirteenth century was used as a
builder’ $ dump. Prior to that it may have served some
incidental utilitarian purpose such as a storeroom.
_ The presence in it of columns with spolia capitals
in no way qualifies this conclusion. It was normal in
Constantinople to make use of columns and deco-
rated capitals in utilitarian structures which were
never intended to be seen. One need go no further
than the adjoining cistern to verify this.
Only in a secondary phase, about the year 1300,
was the substructure used as a burial crypt. At this
time, it was installed with multiple tombs atong the
south aisle and bema, provided with a brick floor,
and modestly decorated in fresco.
Two-Srory CHURCHES. The Myrelaion must de dis-
tinguished from a church type with which it has fre-
quently been associated, namely that of two-story
churches (églises superpostes, Doppelkapelten),* in which
both stories serve some ecclesiasticat purpose. This
follows from the unambiguous evidence that its sub-
structure served no ecclesiastical purpose in its pn-
mary phase. The distinction is essential because prop-
erly speaking the Myrelaion is nota two-story church:
it is a one-story church on a substructure.
This has broader consequences, for the Myrelaion
must accordingly be removed from discussion in any
thesis attempting to group these churches typotogi-
cally and to fink them functionally or iconagraphically
to so-called palace churches or burial churches or
both,
Paradoxically, the Myrelaion appears to have all of
the features common to this type. It adjoins a palace,
was built by an emperor, and was used for burial
and, in addltion to its having two stories, it beats

34 some formal resemblance to two-story Late Antique
mausolea in Dalmatia and their possible tenth century
successors in Croatia and the Asturias.” But apart
from the fact that the whole theory underlying these
associations requires critical re-examination, the ap-
Parent resemblance of the Myrelaion to this group-—
if, indeed, such a typological group exisis—is acci-
dental. The features linking it to this group are more
readily explained by special, local circumstances.
RELATION TO THE T118OTOCOS CHURCH OF CONSTAN-
TINE Lirs. Among surviving Constantinopolitan
churches, there is but one other from the same period,
the Theotocos Church of Constantine Lips (the north
church of Fenari Isa Camii).4 The building is securely
dated to the year 907 or about fifteen years before the
completion of the Myrelaion.
There are numerous resemblances between the
two: the smallness of scale, the four-column cross-in-
square plan of the naos, the niches opening the ends
of the narthex, the fenestration of the apses and their
identity of dimensions. Other similarities include the
use of alternating bands of ashlar and brick (although
at Fenari Isa Camii the cutting and fitting of ashlar is
much finer, and at the Bodrum Camii this feature Is
confined to the substructure), and the oculus motif,
which at Fenari Isa is a blind decorative element above
the windows of the pastophoria.
There are also differences. No attic zone is present
at Fenari Isa; the deep interpenetrating lunettes and
domical vaults are absent; profiling and articulation
throughout is less pronounced; the pastophoria are
arranged somewhat differently; and there are tech-
nical differences, for example in the construction of
arched niches.*> Whether these differences represent
different stages in a possible development in Con-
stantinopolitan architecture of the early tenth century
or only variation within the same type is, in the com-
plete absence of comparable buildings, impossible to
determine.
One feature at Fenari Isa is worthy of special men-
tion since the problems associated with it are relevant
to the original form of both buildings. As recon-
structed by Megaw,® the north church had a naos
subdivided into three aisles, The center bay of the
flank walls of the naos (that is to say, the outer walls
of the transverse cross-arms) were opened by triple-
arched windows set off by mullions, which still exist.
Flanking the pastophoria were additional side chap-
els, Over the pastophoria themselves were roof chap-
els with doors in their outer walls. Two smaller roof
chapels were placed over the ends of the narthex.
Access to the eastern roof chapels was by means
of an exterior gallery supported in part by marble
corbels, which still survive on the north wall, located
in the spandrels of the cross-arm windows. The re-
THE MYRELAJON (BODRUM CAMII)
construction is based in part on analyslg of alon stand
structur e and in part on sou ndi ngs made ng
exte rior flan k of the buil ding , & the
north aw’s
Meg reconstruction differs in an essential
spect from one offe red a num ber of year s be #
published in many versions by Brunov. To gojye » i @
problem of communication between the western
eastern roof chapels, Brunov suggested that ,iia.i.
flanke
tional aisles with galleries above them
. Fle reco nstr ucte d the cent ral bay of the Naos he
naos
hays .
open, resulting ina plan described by him ag g
five aisles.’
We find the arguments of Megaw against thi. _
and in sup por t of his own to be cone
construction a n
inso far as anal ogie s to the Myre laio
sive; and
relevant, in support of our findings wetherrecal e, Foy wae
and prac tica l reas ons, l tha, the
tural, formal, structure
ossibility that porticoes or other lateral
flanked the Myrelaion had to be excluded, ese 4
ingly, the flanks of the Myrelaion were exterjor walls
and the subdivision of their central bays into triple
arcaded windows, probably set off by mullions and
closed below with marble screens, would have borne
close resemblance to the arrangement at Fenarj |<,
Desicn. At the Myrelaion a quality of design is
achieved which is quite exceptional for Byzantine ar.
chitecture. The building is refined and intricate byt
with no trace of pettiness or mannerism. In plan and
elevation spaces are clearly defined and strongly ar-
ticulated, and they are vaulted with uncommon dj.
versity and virtuosity. Correspondence and req-
procity between exterior and interior design is
enhanced by the sharp distinction between support
elements and enclosing walis. The substance of the
walls themselves is asserted by the multiplication of
planes and by the array of blind lunettes, oculi, and
windows.
The most distinctive feature of the exterior, the sem-
icircular buttresses, are without precedent, making
it the more difficult to speculate whether they were
intended primarily as formal or structural features.
While their formal effect is undeniable, it is also pos-
sible that they were intended primarily as structural
members. The combined height of the substructure
and church reaches 14.5 meters around the exterior
walls. In order to support walls and vaulting at such
a height the buttresses may have been enlarged in
response to a perceived requirement of loading which
would, in fact, stiffen the support elements. But-
tresses of such dimensions make their appearance
only once again at the Panaghia Chalkeon in Thes-
saloniki in 1028, and while they are handled quite
differently, here too they are used in the supersteuc
ture of a tall, small-scale building.
HistoricaL Position. The importance of the My-
relaion for the history of Byzantine architecture is in
part the result of the accident of survival. Except for
Fenari Isa Camii, nothing has survived from Con-
stantinople of churches from the three centuries be-
fore its construction, and another century must elapse
before we can pick up the thread of Byzantine
church construction in Constantinople from surviving
buildings. But its importance is not only accidental.
The Myrelaion is the first private burial church of
a Byzantine emperor and it very likely established the
subsequent Byzantine tradition of private burial 35
churches. It is one of two surviving churches from
Constantinople from the Macedonian Renaissance
and of them the only imperial foundation. And fi-
nally, although it is a few years younger than the
earliest Middle Byzantine church surviving from the
capitol, in its clarity, refinement, and maturity of de-
sign, the Myrelaion is the fully-realized paradigm of
the four-column, cross-in-square type church, the
quintessence of the new church architecture of me-
dieval Byzantium.