new evidence for church decoration in the early ninth century

17

This paper examines church decoration during the Transi-tional period (ca. 650–850), focusing on unpublished elements from the Fatih Camii (Hagios Stephanos?) in Zeytinbağı (Tri-lye). Located on the south shore of the Sea of Marmara, the church may be securely dated to the early years of the ninth century. Among the variety of decorative details uncovered during an unauthorized restoration in 1997 are more than a dozen fragments of opus sectile. The variety of these panels expands the corpus of geometric patterns known from the pe-riod; in addition, opus sectile seems to have been used both on the walls and the floor.Keywords: architectural decoration, Transitional period, opus sectile, Bithynia, architectural sculpture, windows

Introduction

The ninth century, according to most scholars, was a period of cultural revival in Byzantium, but it continues to pose difficulties to art historians. In spite of the many references to renewal and reconstruction in ninth-centu-ry Constantinople, for example, none of the monuments discussed in the texts survives.1 Without monuments, of course, it is difficult to write art history. Although few monuments survive from the so-called Transitional pe-riod (ca. 650–850), it was indeed a period of transition, both in architecture and in its decoration. In church de-sign, there is a distinct shift from the grand, wooden-roofed basilicas of the Early Christian period, to the small, domed, centrally-planned churches of the Middle Byzantine period.2 In architectural decoration, figured, tesselated floor mosaics seem to have been abandoned in favor of non-figural marble panels and opus sectile, with figural decoration relegated to the walls and vaults.3

* [email protected] V. Byzantium in the ninth century: dead or alive?, ed. L.

Brubaker, Aldershot 1998, including my paper: R. G. Ousterhout, Re-constructing ninth-century Constantinople, 115–130. For architecture v. also L. Brubaker, J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast era (ca. 680–850). The sources. An annotated survey, Aldershot 2001; and more re-cently v. Transforming sacred spaces, ed. S. Feist, Wiesbaden 2020.

2 For an overview v. most recently R. G. Ousterhout, Eastern medieval architecture. The building traditions of Byzantium and neigh-boring lands, Oxford 2019, 245–265.

3 Note the important discussion: H. Maguire, The medieval floors of the Great Palace, in: Byzantine Constantinople: monuments, to-pography, and everyday life, ed. N. Necipoğlu, Leiden 2001, 153–174.

As scholars have realized, Bithynia seems to have held an important role in this period, from which a va-riety of monuments survived well into the twentieth cen-tury.4 For architectural developments, the Fatih Camii at Trilye (Zeytinbağı) is one of the best preserved examples, although its architectural form has received more atten-tion than its decoration (fig. 1). The purpose of this short note is to present some unpublished elements of the origi-nal architectural decoration of the Fatih Camii, and to of-fer a few suggestions as to what it might mean for our un-derstanding of church decoration during the Transitional period and into the early Middle Byzantine period.

Picturesquely set at the center of the historic town of Trilye-Zeytinbağı on the south shore of the Sea of Mar-mara, the Fatih Camii, perhaps originally dedicated to Hagios Stephanos, has long been recognized as a signifi-cant early example of the cross-in-square church type.5 It can now be safely placed in the early ninth century by dendrochronology, with a post quem date of 793 for the wood analyzed from the building.6 This date accords well with the historical evidence, which suggests that the foun-dation is associated with St. Stephen the Confessor, who suffered persecution under Leo V.7 The study by Sacit Pekak has clarified many of the architectural details and provided a good set of architectural drawings – on which my own are based (fig. 2).8 The naos is close to square in overall plan, with a dome just under 5 m (ca. 15 Byz-antine feet) in diameter, raised on a tall drum above four columns. The crossarms are covered by barrel vaults. The

4 F. W. Hasluck, Bithynica, ABSA 13 (1906/1907) 285–308; C. Mango, I. Ševčenko, Some churches and monasteries on the south-ern shore of the Sea of Marmara, DOP 27 (1973) 235–277; B. Geyer, J. Lefort, La Bithynie au Moyen Âge, Paris 2003; M.-F. Auzépy, Monaster-ies during the transitional period, in: Transforming sacred spaces, ed. S. Feist, Wiesbaden 2020, 77–91.

5 Mango, Ševčenko, Some churches and monasteries, esp. 236–238; M. Sacit Pekak, Trilye (Zeytinbağı) Fatih camisi Bizans kapalı Yu-nan haçı planı, Istanbul 2009, based on his unpublished dissertation from 1991 at the Hacettepe University.

6 P. I. Kuniholm, C. L. Pearson, T. J. Ważny, Of harbors and trees. The Marmaray contribution to a 2367-year oak-tree-ring chronol-ogy from 97 sites for the Aegean, East Mediterranean, and Black Seas, in: Istanbul and water, ed. P. Magdalino, N. Ergin, Leuven 2014, 45–90.

7 Mango, Ševčenko, Some churches and monasteries, 236–238, esp. 238; notе also Hasluck, Bithynica, 289–291.

8 Sacit Pekak, Trilye.

New evidence for church decoration in the early ninth century

Robert G. Ousterhout*

University of Pennsylvania, United States of America

In memory of Urs Peschlow

UDC 738.5:726.59(560.6)”06/08”https://doi.org/10.2298/ZOG2044017ООригиналан научни рад

ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

18

corner compartments are somewhat uneven, isolated by projecting pilasters and covered by ovoid domical vaults. The pastophoria were quite large—the diakonikon is now missing—with their lateral walls projecting 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 semi-circular on both interior and exterior. To the west is a broad, barrel-vaulted narthex, preceded by a colonnaded portico.

Lateral arcades

Exposed remains of architectural sculpture and ad-ditional marbles littering the site suggest that the original building was lavishly outfitted. Much of the sculpture, including the capitals of the naos and closure panels, is reused from the fifth or sixth century, although some, in-cluding the capitals of the lateral arcades and some of the cornice patterns, may be ninth century (fig. 3). The build-ing was subjected to an unauthorized and undocumented restoration during the winter of 1995–1996. Since then, the interior has been repainted, and the exterior masonry dramatically repointed with raised pink mortar, with the bricks garishly painted red, obliterating much of the his-torical fabric.

The restoration of the mid-90s was also destructive, although it had the good fortune of revealing many origi-nal elements of the ninth-century building. For exam-ple, the rubble fill was removed from the lateral transept

walls, exposing arcades in the north and south. In each, two column shafts with cubic capitals supported stilted arches (fig. 4). The barrel vaults of the crossarms above, still blocked, were most likely filled by lunette windows. These provide early comparanda for several Constantin-opolitan churches of the early Middle Byzantine period, such as the Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (ninth century?) or the North Church of Constantine Lips (ca. 907).9 At the Fatih Camii, the central intercolumniation is wider that the openings to either side, measuring 125 cm across on the south façade, compared to 85–87 cm for the lateral spaces.

The lateral spaces were closed by marble closure panels, 1.07 m high, topped by a marble coping and case-ment windows, all cut with curved surfaces to join the columns. The casements are divided into two lights and topped by a cavetto cornice. Both the closure panels and the capitals of the arcades are decorated on both surfaces, as described below.10 The central opening on both the north and south facades is now filled with post-Byzantine masonry. Its original form is unclear, although it may have contained a door frame. The western portico once had a door frame in its central intercolumniation, as re-corded by Hasluck, and doors set between columns are known from several monuments in Constantinople: St. John Stoudion, the Hagia Sophia Baptistery, and the Cho-

9 Ousterhout, Eastern medieval architecture, figs. 11.12b, 15.2. These are briefly noted by Sacit Pekak, Trilye, 133–135, but they were revealed only after the survey conducted for his 1991 dissertation.

10 V. Sacit Pekak, Trilye, 101–102.

Fig. 1. Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, distant view from east

Ousterhout R.: New evidence for church decoration in the early ninth century

19

ra parekklesion.11 In addition, the combination of closure panels and casement windows would compare with the gallery windows of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.12

11 Hasluck, Bithynica, fig. 1; R. G. Ousterhout, The architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington D.C. 1987, 56–57, with ad-ditional bibliography.

12 R. J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, New York 1988, fig. 65.

Similar forms of closure are likely in several early Middle Byzantine churches, but these do not survive.

The decorative elements within each arcade are significant as well. The capitals are large and cubic in form, and they may be partially recarved sixth-century pieces. On the exterior, they are plain with a circular medallion set within a trapezoidal field (see fig. 5). On

Fig. 2. Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, plan and cutaway view, partially restored (based on S. Pekak)

ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

20

the interior, however, the capitals are lavishly covered with a shallow relief of intertwined circles containing a radiating leaf pattern (see fig. 4). The capitals have been cut down at the lower surface in order to fit the com-paratively slim columns, and this suggests reuse. The patterns conform to those elsewhere in the building, and the recarving is most likely from the ninth-century construction period.13

13 Sacit Pekak, Trilye, 101–102, identifies these as Middle Byz-antine, while M. Dennert, Mittelbyzantinische Kapitelle. Studien zu Ty-pologie und Chronologie, Bonn 1997, no. 170, suggests comparisons of

All four of the closure slabs are decorated on both surfaces. Those on the south side have a lavishly molded diamond pattern with small leafy details on both sur-faces. Those on the north side are relatively plain on the exterior, with a simple cross mounted on a globe, while the interior features diamond patterns similar to those on the south side (fig. 6). There are similar panels else-where at the site – one loose, another incorporated into

the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and on this basis proposes a later date for the church.

Fig. 3. Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, interior of the naos, looking south


21

the fountain west of the church, all spolia from the late fifth or sixth century.14 The diamond pattern is relatively common on closure panels, and a number of these have been documented elsewhere in Bithynia.15 The quan-tity of early spolia at the Fatih Camii led Pekak to the intriguing but unfounded suggestion that the present building represents a reconstruction of a sixth-century

14 Sacit Pekak, Trilye, 122–123. 15 S. Y. Ötüken, Forschungen in nordwestlichen Kleinasien: an-

tike und byzantinische Denkmälerin der Provinz Bursa, Tübingen 1996, 101–107, Pls. 14–15, cites numerous similar examples from the region.

church.16 Above each panel, the window sill is also re-used, plain on the exterior but decorated on the interior with a pattern of alternating rings and leaves surround-ing a bullnose molding.17

In sum, the details from the north and south cros-sarms are significant, as they are preserved in greater de-

16 Sacit Pekak, Trilye, 147–164, suggests the lower lateral walls and lower main apse walls predate the ninth century; note in particular his figs. 25–26.

17 Cf. ibid., no. 41b.

Fig. 4. Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, detail of the south arcade

ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

22

tail than any of the slightly later comparanda from Middle Byzantine Constantinople.

Opus sectile

The interior of the Fatih Camii was originally deco-rated with mosaics, the presence of which was noted dur-ing the period of Greek occupation in 1920–1922, when the building was briefly reconverted to a church. Tryph-

on Evangelides noted at that time, “after the whitewash had been scraped off the walls, there appeared wonderful mosaics, which I deeply regret I did not photograph for lack of film”.18 Unfortunately he is no more specific about the mosaics, so that we know neither where exactly they were located, nor what they represented, nor what kind of mosaics they were. Were they tessellated or opus sectile?

18 T. E. Ευαγγελίδης, Βρύλλειον-Τρίγλεια, Αθήνα 1934, quoted by Mango, Ševčenko, Some churches and monasteries, 236.

Fig. 5. Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, view of the north arcade, from the exterior


23

Fig. 6. Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, closure panel in the north arcade, seen from the interior

Fig. 7. Trilye (Zeytinbağı), Fatih Camii, detail of the surviving opus sectile on the floor of the prothesis apse

ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

24

Today, opus sectile in a simple grid of oversized tesserae of black, white, and, yellow stone is visible in the reveals of the south arcade and east windows (see fig. 4).19 The crustae are relatively large, measuring between 2.7 and 2.9 cm square. To my knowledge, the appearance of opus sectile within the reveals of arches is exceptionally rare within the context of Byzantine architecture, although something similar is known from Hagios Demetrios in Thessalonike, probably from the seventh century.20 In addition to the crustae in the window reveals of the Fatih Camii, a small area of floor mosaic survives in the pro-thesis apse composed of hexagons and triangles of white and black stone (fig. 7).

During the winter of 1996–1997, the restoration ex-posed quantities of opus sectile, primarily from the floor. Regrettably these were removed and discarded without documentation. This is all the more unfortunate because of the dearth of securely dated opus sectile from the pe-riod of the seventh through tenth centuries, as will be discussed below. A dozen fragments were salvaged from the Fatih Camii, which I was able to study, and during a cursory visit to the site in 1997, I noted several additional fragments.

Among the fragments I studied, none bore evidence for a covering of plaster or paint, suggesting the majority of them came from the floor. Many, however, had a splat-

19 Sacit Pekak, Trilye, figs. 36–37.20 Π. Ασημακοπούλου-Ατζακά, Η τεχνική opus sectile στην

εντοίχια διακόσμηση, Θεσσαλονίκη 1980, Pl. 44a–b, with large trian-gular crustae forming hexagons; also v. A. C. Antonaras, Gold-glass tile decoration in the St. Demetrios Basilica, Thessaloniki, in: Annales du 18e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, ed. D. Ignatiadou, A. Antonaras, Thessalonike 2009, 301–306, esp. fig. 5 for gold-glass crustae still in situ in the western tribelon.

tering of cement and latex paint, apparently from the res-toration. Most were set into a thick bedding of pink mor-tar, sometimes up to 9–12 cm thick. Some preserved sand or small stones or irregular impressions on the reverse side that suggest they came from the floor. One fragment incorporates glass tesserae, which would have been im-practical – although not unknown – in a floor covering. In addition, a few fragments bear patterns similar to those in the window reveals, so some of the pieces discussed here may have come from the superstructure.

Most surprising is the variety in the patterns of the opus sectile. Several fragments preserve clear edges, and at least some of these patterns must have formed decorative bands between large panels of marble, as was common in the opus sectile of later centuries. In addition, several hex-agonal crustae are large, measuring ca. 10 by 20 cm, and a floor fragment noted at the site indicates they were envel-oped by patterning composed of smaller stones.

What follows is a descriptive catalogue, followed by a brief discussion of the significance of this material.

[1] A rectangular fragment, measuring 12 by 8.5 cm, with mortar 3–5 cm thick with exposed aggregate on the lower surface (fig. 8). The pattern is very fine, consist-ing of squares of a hard, yellow limestone, measuring 3 cm across, with an inset pattern of rotated white tesserae, now quite corroded. These are surrounded by triangles primarily of green porphyry, but they also include red stone, porphyry, and blue glass. A similar border 1.5 cm wide, of rotated squares and triangles. Considering the delicacy of this fragment, it is difficult to imagine it as part of the floor decoration.

[2] A triangular fragment, measuring 17 by 14 cm, with the mortar 5–6 cm thick, with a flat lower surface

Fig. 8. Opus sectile fragment removed from the Fatih Camii, no. 1


25



ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

26




27

(fig. 9). An original edge is preserved on the long side, with the impressions of two larger panels and the mortar joint between them. The pattern was set diagonally to the larger panels. It consisted of large black squares, measur-ing 2.5 cm square, framed by white bands, ca. 1 cm thick, with small red squares at the corners. All the stone has flat color; I assume none is marble.

[3] An irregular fragment, measuring 11.5 by 9 cm, with the mortar 5 cm thick, with a flattish lower surface (fig. 10). The pattern is composed of black hexagons, 3 cm wide, framed by white triangles. These join a black dia-mond, 5 cm wide, joined by a yellow ochre triangle. All are flat in color, presumably with no marble. Not enough of the pattern is preserved to determine how it was devel-oped over the field – perhaps the joint between two dis-similar patterns.

[4] An irregular fragment, measuring 19.5 by 14 cm, with the mortar 6.5 cm thick, with exposed aggregate on the lower surface (fig. 11). The pattern consists of radiat-ing bands arranged in a complicated repeat pattern. Every other band alternates green porphyry (or occasionally green Breccia) with red or striated purple marble. The

other bands alternate yellow limestone, green porphyry, and a corroded white stone. The two different alterna-tions come together to form crosses of green, with red at the center and alternating white and yellow at the corners. The radiating pattern suggests this might have been the frame of an omphalion, perhaps with a rota at its center, set beneath the dome or within the apse.

[5] Another irregular fragment, measuring 32 by 18.5 cm, with the mortar 5–9 cm thick, with irregular im-prints on the lower surface (fig. 12). This fragment has a notable convex curve, with a recession of ca. 1 cm over its length. Either it came from an irregular area of the floor or perhaps from the inner surface of the apse. The pat-tern consists of regular rows of circles, 3.4 cm in diameter, divided into halves, with one half black and the other half alternating between white and yellow ochre. Small red squares are set diagonally between the circles.

[6] An irregular squarish fragment measuring 26.5 by 26 cm, with the mortar 9 cm thick, with irregular imprints of brick or stone on the rear surface (fig. 13). The pattern is a basket-weave composed of rectangular black bands, ca. 4.5 by 1.4 cm each, framing white or


ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

28

ochre squares, measuring 1.5 by 1.5 cm each, organized in groups of four. There is a flat edge to one side. The patter is similar to that appearing in the south window

reveals, and thus could have come from one of the win-dows. The imprints on the rear surface may encourage this identification.


Fig. 15. Opus sectile fragments removed from the Fatih Camii, nos. 8–9


29

[7] The trapezoidal fragment measures 26 by 17 cm, with the mortar 9 cm thick, with irregular imprints of brick or stone on the reverse (fig. 14). The pattern is identical to no. 6, although the two fragments do not join.

[8 & 9] Two fragments that may be joined together; individually they measure 15 by 14.5 cm, and 24.5 by 14.5 cm; together they measure 37 by 14.5 cm (fig. 15). The mortar is ca. 9 cm thick. The pattern is rather complex, with a grid formed by yellow limestone bands, measuring 4.0–4.2 by 1.0–1.3 cm, with small green porphyry squares at the intersections. Within the grid are two different pat-terns. The first has a rotated square of green Breccia, ca. 2.8–3.0 cm on each side, the corners filled by triangles of porphyry or red stone framing a central triangle of white limestone. In alternating fields, the rotated square is of porphyry or of red marble, and the surrounding triangles are of green porphyry or Breccia, framing a triangle of white limestone. There is a distinct edge (on the bottom in the image), indicating this was a band framing a large panel of marble.

[10, 11 & 12] Three hexagonal marble crustae, all measuring 10–10.5 cm by 20–20.5 cm, with a covering of white mortar on the rear surface (fig. 16). One is a white marble with purple veins, ca. 2 cm thick; the second of Proconessian marble, 2.5 cm thick; the third of a crystal-line white marble, broken into two pieces, 3 cm thick.

In addition to these fragments, I also noted several loose pieces littered around the site.

[13] A roundel of grey-white marble, ca. 20 cm in diameter and ca. 10 cm thick, with an irregular lower sur-face (fig. 17). Could this have been the center to an om-phalion (see no. 4)?

[14] A fragment of a checkerboard pattern, with a slight suggestion of radiating pattern, similar to no. 4, measuring 13 by 9.5 cm (fig. 17, lower left).

[15] A fragment measuring 27 by 18 cm (fig. 17, lower right). It includes the settings for two hexagonal crustae, like nos. 10 to 12 above. Between these are pat-terns of black and white triangles.

[16] A fragment measuring 16 by 25 cm, with trac-es of a circular pattern matching that of no. 5 above, but with almost all the stone lost (fig. 17, upper right). Traces of the setting bed are preserved.

Commentary

The unique nature of the Fatih Camii opus sectile fragments requires some additional comments. Opus sec-tile was one of the most lavish treatments used in ancient and Byzantine interior decoration.21 The continuation of the ancient tradition of opus sectile has been the subject of important articles by Guiglia Guidobaldi, Peschlow, and Pedone.22 The older tradition of large crustae form-

21 Ασημακοπούλου-Ατζακά, Η τεχνική opus sectile, with many examples.

22 A. Guiglia Guidobaldi, L’opus sectile pavimentale in area bi-zantina, in: Atti del 1o Colloquio dell’ Associazione Italiana per lo Stu-dio e la Conservazione del Mosaico, ed. R. Farioli Campanati, Ravenna 1993, 643–663, esp. 656–667; eadem, Note preliminari per una defi-nizione dell’arte pavimentale costantinopolitana dei primi secoli, JÖB 32/4 (1982) 403–413; eadem, The marble floor decoration in Constan-tinople: prolegomena to a Corpus, in: 11th International colloquium on ancient mosaics, ed. M. Șahin, Istanbul 2011, 413–436; U. Peschlow, Zum byzantinischen opus sectile-Boden, in: Beiträge zum Altertum-skunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, ed. R. M. Boehmer, H. Hauptmann, Mainz am Rhein 1983, 435–447; Y. Demiriz, Örgülü Bi-zans döşeme mozaikleri, Istanbul 2002; S. Pedone, The marble Omph-alos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople. An analysis of an opus sectile


ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

30

ing decorative patterns or figures depended on the avail-ability of marble and other luxury stones, most of which were not quarried after the seventh century. In the sur-viving Middle Byzantine examples, one normally finds large panels framed by decorative bands, all composed of reused materials. The large panels could be rectangular or circular, or in more complex arrangements.23 The pieces from the Fatih Camii would seemed to have conformed to this general pattern. Although the large panels have disap-peared, the hard edges to several of the fragments suggest they framed panels; moreover, the fragments of radiating patterns and the single surviving disk suggest that ompha-loi were also included in the floor decoration. The substi-tutions and mixtures of different types of stone, however, and the occasional lack of precision distinguished the ex-amples from Trilye. These are the product of a workshop with limited resources, perhaps imitating the style of the capital.

As with so many other arts, the period of Icono-clasm seems to have instigated a transition in the devel-opment of Byzantine floor mosaics. Figural tessellated floors are rare after this period, and opus sectile increases in popularity – a medium which could communicate meaning not through images or narratives but through the luxury of its materials. As Henry Maguire has em-

pavement of Middle Byzantine age, in: 11th International Colloquium on ancient mosaics, ed. M. Șahin, Istanbul 2011, 750–768.

23 Note discussion by Maguire, The medieval floors of the Great Palace, esp. 160–163.

phasized, after Iconoclasm, figural pavements would have competed for prominence with the wall and vault decorations in a small building.24 The fact that opus sec-tile could be easily created from spolia may be significant in a period when colored stones were no longer readily available – not to mention a period in which figural im-agery was banned from churches. But, again, as Magu-ire emphasizes, the shift from tesselated floors to opus sectile must have been result of a conscious, aesthetic choice, rather than an ideological one, or a practical one – that is, it did not come about because of a lack of skilled artisans or materials.25

In his study of the development of opus sectile, Peschlow emphasizes the importance of Bithynia, and more generally, the hinterland of the capital. Indeed, the closest comparisons for the Fatih Camii are close at hand, for example at Imralı Adası, perhaps from the 780s; at Değirmenaltı by Tuzla, and at Yakacık on the Gulf of Izmit, both generally dated to the ninth or tenth century.26 The monastery at Kurtköy near Pendik be-longs to this group but is not securely dated.27 Other examples have been noted along the south shore of the Sea of Marmara, most of which no longer survive, as at the Pantobasilissa at Trilye, the Medikion monastery, St.

24 Ibid., esp. 169–174.25 Ibid.26 Peschlow, Zum byzantinischen opus sectile-Boden, 444–445.27 Ibid.



31

John of Pelekete, St. Constatine at Lake Apolyont, and at Kurşunlu village and monastery.28

28 Mango, Ševčenko, Some churches and monasteries, esp. 247–248, 255 (with texts from Covel and Pančenko); Hasluck, Bithynica, 292–293; C. Mango, The Monastery of St. Constantine on lake Apolyont, DOP 33 (1979) esp. 332.

A few apparently ninth-century fragments survive from the church at Vize in Thrace, but they lack the rich-ness and the precision of the examples from Trilye.29 The

29 A. Kahramankaptan, Vize’den tarih fışkırıyor, Mozaik 1 (1995) 18–33, esp. 22, 32.

Fig. 18. Architectural sculpture removed from the Fatih Camii, no. 1: upper cornice

Fig. 19. Architectural sculpture removed from the Fatih Camii, no. 2: lower cornice

ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

32

opus sectile from the church of St. Nicholas at Myra/Demre might also be dated to the eighth or ninth cen-tury, as Yıldız Ötüken has suggested, rather than the eleventh; it is considerably less sophisticated than the examples from Trilye, except where older panels are in-corporated.30 A few Constantinopolitan examples may belong to this period as well. The mosaic floor of the church of St. John at Hebdomon may date from the res-toration of Basil I, as Peschlow suggests.31 The omphalos on the floor of Hagia Sophia has also been assigned to the restoration of Basil I.32 The lovely fragment from a chapel at Hagia Euphemia may be assigned a post quem date of seventh-century.33 Alas, all of the Constantino-politan floor lack secure dating.

Although the overall organization of the interior decoration at Trilye is unknown, several of the patterns and systems of organizations are unique – or at least un-usual. For example, the use of large hexagonal crustae is fairly common both earlier and later, but normally they are used to form a rectilinear grid. At the Fatih Camii, the pattern is more complex, apparently with some of the hexagonal crustae set on the diagonal. In addition, de-signs common in later centuries, such as a matrix of in-terlocking circles and squares, are absent. Similar patterns appear at Nicaea, but many resist comparison.34 For ex-ample, I have found nothing in opus sectile to compare to

30 S. Y. Ötüken, 1993 Yılı Demre, Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazısı, in: XV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, ed. İ. Eroğlu, F. Bayram et al., An-kara 1995, 361–376, esp. 366; O. Feld, Die Innenausstattung der Niko-laoskirche in Myra, in: Myra. Eine lykische Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit, ed. J. Borchhardt, Berlin 1975, 394–397.

31 Peschlow, Zum byzantinischen opus sectile-Boden, 442.32 Pedone, The marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constanti-

nople, esp. 767–768.33 Peschlow, Zum byzantinischen opus sectile-Boden, 442.34 S. Eyice, Two mosaic pavements from Bithynia, DOP 17

(1963) 373–383.

the halved circles, the basket-weave pattern, or the filled squares.

In sum, the new information from the Fatih Camii opus sectile decoration may help us to form a link, now however incomplete, between the Late Antique tradi-tion and its Middle Byzantine successors. Perhaps most importantly, the Fatih Camii begins to provide us with a concrete example of the richness of architectural decora-tion achieved in the early ninth century.

Architectural sculpture

For the sake of completeness, I include examples of the disjecta membra that were salvaged following the res-toration. Many correspond to elements still in situ at the Fatih Camii.

[1] A cornice fragment of crystalline white marble, 21 cm long by 10.5 cm deep by 7 cm high (fig. 18). The exposed surface has a 2-cm fillet and a 7-cm chamfered decorated surface. The low relief pattern alternates an ar-row and a double wicket. This corresponds to the upper naos cornice in the Fatih Camii and must have come from there.35

[2] Fragment of a white marble cornice broken from a corner, 14.5 by 16.4 by 11 cm tall (fig. 19). This has a 2.7-cm fillet at the top, with an 8-cm decorated chamfered field, then a 2.4-cm setback and a 1.5-cm lower fillet. The pattern has five-lobed leaves, joined by a stem, with alternating leaves inverted. This matches the lower naos cornice.36

[3] Fragment of an attenuated marble capital from a pilaster or mullion, 24 cm high, with maximum widths

35 Cf. Sacit Pekak, Trilye, 104.36 Oddly omitted from ibid., but visible above the capitals of

the lateral arcades, 101.

Fig. 20. Architectural sculpture removed from the Fatih Camii, no. 3: capital


33

Fig. 21. Architectural sculpture removed from the Fatih Camii, no. 4: relief panel

of 5 by 8 cm (fig. 20). The decoration extends over two surfaces of the piece, with bulbous necking rings at the based a lily-like motif spreading above it. Nothing simi-lar is found in or around the building. It may have come from the templon.

[4] Fragment of a marble panel, 21 by 17 by 6.2 m thick, with a 2.5-cm band at the bottom (fig. 21). The pat-tern is composed of a three-branched-leaf set within a stem that loops around it. Each measures 4.5 cm across and is cut to a depth of ca. 1 cm. These are organized into rows with the pattern inverted in alternating rows. There is no corresponding motif in situ, however the pattern fits well with the decorative repertory of the building. The rear surface was left rough. An identical fragment was built into the wall of the Greek School at Trilye.

Commentary

Most of these fragments should date from the time of the construction of the church – that is, early ninth century. The crispness and exactitude of the lower cornice corresponds with that observed at the North Church of Constantine Lips in Constantinople (ca. 907).37 The only exception may be the upper cornice, for which Pekak ten-tatively proposes an early Byzantine date.38 The sugges-tion that these pieces were spoliated is encouraged by the

37 C. Mango, E. Hawkins, Additional notes, DOP 18 (1964) fig 15.38 Sacit Pekak, Trilye, 104.

awkward cuttings of the pattern at the corners of those pieces in situ.

Conclusions

With its date now secure and with new evidence of its interior decoration, the Fatih Camii offers an im-portant example of the transition from Late Antiquity to the Middle Byzantine period. With the exception of Hagia Sophia, its casement windows may be unique in their survival, and they offer a model of closure for the less well-preserved churches of Constantinople. The ar-chitectural sculpture – a mix of reused pieces and newly carved ones – accords with what we find in the capital as well. Finally, the fragments of opus sectile offer new and necessary information for the transformation of church interior decoration between the sixth and the tenth cen-turies.

Acknowledgements

The archaeological discoveries from Trilye (Zeytinbağı), including the material from Fatih Camii, lie under the jurisdiction of the Bursa Museum. I am grate-ful to the directorate of the Bursa Museum for the sup-port and guidance they extended to me when I began this study in 1997. I regret that it has taken me two decades to bring the project to fruition.

ЗОГРАФ 44 (2020) [17–35]

34

Antonaras A. C., Gold-glass tile decoration in the St. Demetrios Basilica, Thessaloniki, in: Annales du 18e Congrès de l’Association Interna-tionale pour l’Histoire du Verre, ed. D. Ignatiadou, A. Antonaras, Thessalonike 2009, 301–306.

Auzépy M.-F., Monasteries during the transitional period, in: Trans-forming sacred spaces, ed. S. Feist, Wiesbaden 2020, 77–91.

Brubaker L., Haldon J., Byzantium in the Iconoclast era (ca. 680–850). The sources. An annotated survey, Aldershot 2001.

Byzantium in the ninth century: dead or alive?, ed. L. Brubaker, Alder-shot 1998.

Demiriz Y., Örgülü Bizans döşeme mozaikleri, Istanbul 2002.Dennert M., Mittelbyzantinische Kapitelle. Studien zu Typologie und

Chronologie, Bonn 1997.Eyice S., Two mosaic pavements from Bithynia, Dumbarton Oaks Pa-

pers 17 (1963) 373–383.Feld O., Die Innenausstattung der Nikolaoskirche in Myra, in: Myra.

Eine lykische Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit, ed. J. Borchhardt, Berlin 1975, 394–397.

Geyer B., Lefort J., La Bithynie au Moyen Âge, Paris 2003.Guiglia Guidobaldi A., L’opus sectile pavimentale in area bizantina, in: Atti

del 1o Colloquio dell’ Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazi-one del Mosaico, ed. R. Farioli Campanati, Ravenna 1993, 643–663.

Guiglia Guidobaldi A., Note preliminari per una definizione dell’arte pavimentale costantinopolitana dei primi secoli, Jahrbuch der Öster-reichischen Byzantinistik 32/4 (1982) 403–413.

Guiglia Guidobaldi A., The marble floor decoration in Constantinople: prolegomena to a Corpus, in: 11th International colloquium on an-cient mosaics, ed. M. Șahin, Istanbul 2011, 413–436.

Hasluck F. W., Bithynica, The Annual of the British School at Athens 13 (1906/1907) 285–308.

Kahramankaptan A., Vize’den tarih fışkırıyor, Mozaik 1 (1995) 18–33.Kuniholm P. I., Pearson C. L., Ważny T. J., Of harbors and trees. The Mar-

maray contribution to a 2367-year oak-tree-ring chronology from 97 sites for the Aegean, East Mediterranean, and Black Seas, in: Istanbul and water, ed. P. Magdalino, N. Ergin, Leuven 2014, 45–90.

Maguire H., The medieval floors of the Great Palace, in: Byzantine Constantinople: monuments, topography, and everyday life, ed. N. Necipoğlu, Leiden 2001, 153–174.

Mainstone R. J., Hagia Sophia, New York 1988.Mango C., Hawkins E., Additional notes, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18

(1964) 299–315.Mango C., Ševčenko I., Some churches and monasteries on the southern

shore of the Sea of Marmara, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973) 235–277.

Mango C., The Monastery of St. Constantine on lake Apolyont, Dum-barton Oaks Papers 33 (1979) 329–333.

Ötüken S. Y., 1993 Yılı Demre, Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazısı, in: XV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II, ed. İ. Eroğlu, F. Bayram et al., Ankara 1995, 361–376.

Ötüken S. Y., Forschungen in nordwestlichen Kleinasien: antike und byz-antinische Denkmälerin der Provinz Bursa, Tübingen 1996.

Ousterhout R. G., The architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington D.C. 1987.

Ousterhout R. G., Reconstructing ninth-century Constantinople, in: Byz-antium in the ninth century: dead or alive?, ed. L. Brubaker, Alder-shot 1998, 115–130.

Ousterhout R. G., Eastern medieval architecture. The building traditions of Byzantium and neighboring lands, Oxford 2019.

Pedone S., The marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople. An analysis of an opus sectile pavement of Middle Byzantine age, in: 11th International colloquium on ancient mosaics, ed. M. Șahin, Is-tanbul 2011, 750–768.

Sacit Pekak M., Trilye (Zeytinbağı) Fatih camisi Bizans kapalı Yunan haçı planı, Istanbul 2009.

Peschlow U., Zum byzantinischen opus sectile-Boden, in: Beiträge zum Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, ed. R. M. Boehmer, H. Hauptmann, Mainz am Rhein 1983, 435–447.

Transforming sacred spaces, ed. S. Feist, Wiesbaden 2020.

Ασημακοπούλου-Ατζακά Π., Η τεχνική opus sectile στην εντοίχια δι-ακόσμηση, Θεσσαλονίκη 1980 (Asēmakopoulou-Atzaka P., Ē technikē opus sectile stēn entoichia diakosmēsē, Thessalonikē 1980).

Ευαγγελίδης T. E., Βρύλλειον-Τρίγλεια, Αθήνα 1934 (Euangelidēs T. E., Vrylleion-Trigleia, Athēna 1934).

Нова сведочанства о декорацији цркава из раног IX века

Роберт Г. Оустерхаут

Универзитет Пенсилваније, Сједињене Америчке Државе

Мало је преосталих споменика из такозваног прелазног периода (око 650–850), а они који су са-чувани нису добро датовани и често су недовољно проучени. У форми цркава из тог времена огледа се изразит помак од великих базилика с дрвеним кро-вом из ранохришћанског раздобља ка малим црквама

централног плана и с куполом, карактеристичним за средњовизантијски период. Када је реч о архитектон-ској декорацији, чини се да су фигурални подни мо-заици напуштени у корист мермерних плоча с не-фигуралним мотивима и технике opus sectile, док је фигурални украс пребачен на зидове и сводове. Из-

ЛИСТА РЕФЕРЕНЦИ – REFERENCE LIST


35

гледа да је у том периоду важну улогу имала Битинија, из које потичу разноврсни споменици сачувани све до XX века. Што се тиче архитектонских достигнућа, Фатих џамија (Свети Стефан?) у месту Зејтинбаг (Трилје) један је од најбоље очуваних примера и сада се може сигурно датовати у рани IX век. Сврха овог рада јесте да представи неке необјављене делове ори-гиналне архитектонске декорације Фатих џамије и да укаже на то какву она вредност може имати за наше разумевање декорације цркава из прелазног периода и раног средњовизантијског раздобља.

Елементи који се овде разматрају укључују си-стеме затварања бочних аркада, у којима су између стубова сачувани преградни панели, парапети и про-зорски оквири. Они пружају добар компаративни ма-

теријал за рану средњовизантијску архитектуру Ца-риграда, где је сачувано мало таквих елемената. Када је реч о новим открићима из Фатих џамије, највећу важност има више од десет фрагмената с пода и можда зидова украшених у техници opus sectile, а уклоњених током неовлашћене рестаурације грађевине 1997. годи-не. Изузетна разноликост материјала и геометријских мотива значајно проширује нашa знањa о тој техници, слабо познатој када је у питању разматрани прелазни период. Иако фрагментарни, ови елементи посебно су значајни јер се са сигурношћу могу датовати, док дру-ги сачувани примери не могу. Коначно, disjecta membra архитектонске скулптуре одговарају онима који су још in situ и може се закључити да потичу из времена из-градње цркве или да су сполије из VI века.

new evidence for church decoration in the early ninth century

Documents