Sonderdruck aus Falko Daim · Jörg Drauschke (Hrsg.)
Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter Teil 2, 1 Schauplätze
Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte
RGZM
Gesamtredaktion: Kerstin Kowarik (Wien) Koordination, Schlussredaktion: Evelyn Bott, Jörg Drauschke, Reinhard Köster (RGZM); Sarah Scheffler (Mainz) Satz: Michael Braun, Datenshop Wiesbaden; Manfred Albert, Hans Jung (RGZM) Umschlaggestaltung: Franz Siegmeth, Illustration · Grafik-Design, Bad Vöslau
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
© 2010 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, der Entnahme von Abbildungen, der Funk- und Fernsehsendung, der Wiedergabe auf photomechanischem (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) oder ähnlichem Wege und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen, Ton- und Bildträgern bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Die Vergütungsansprüche des § 54, Abs. 2, UrhG. werden durch die Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort wahrgenommen.
ÖRGÜ DALGIÇ
THE CORPUS OF FLOOR MOSAICS FROM ISTANBUL Modern-day Istanbul, developed over time and rests upon the ruins and surviving monuments of Late Antique and medieval Constantinople, offers limited opportunities for archaeological exploration. It is usually the accidental discoveries at construction sites and their ensuing rescue excavations that produce the most important archaeological finds. Floor mosaics are one of the most striking finds from these excavations. Surprisingly, despite the scarcity of art works with a secure Constantinopolitan provenance in museum collections and the few surviving examples of archaeological evidence pertaining to Late Antique Constantinople, there has been little study of the city’s floor mosaics, with the exception of the ones from the Great Palace. The mosaics that originate from 14 different sites in Istanbul and that range in date from the 2nd-6th century AD remained as an untapped source of information about the city and its urban development. In reality, it was not so surprising that we had no comprehensive study of the mosaics of Istanbul, since most of these mosaics are »products« of salvage excavations. They were dug up hurriedly and were often very poorly documented. The majority of these pavements were already in a fragmentary state when discovered and were then, cut into smaller pieces in order to facilitate their transport, following the usual procedures. They had been removed from their original contexts and were subsequently piled up in the storerooms of Istanbul’s museums with other mosaics from other parts of the city. In some instances, the mosaics were preserved in situ and there are also a few others that we only know from earlier photographs or publications. In addition, overshadowed by the grandeur of the famous Great Palace Mosaics, other Istanbul mosaics are often characterised as »commonplace works of little significance which do not suggest the presence of flourishing mosaic workshops in the city« 1. Thus, although the date of the Great Palace Mosaics and the identification of the building to which they belonged has been the subject of extensive scholarly debate, the remainder of Istanbul’s mosaics have largely been ignored. Dating these pavements is also highly problematic. In the absence of archaeological evidence, stylistic comparison remains the only tool, although the perils of such an approach were clearly demonstrated by the Great Palace mosaics which, for some decades, had been dated, on stylistic grounds, to anytime between the 4th and the 7th century 2. A secure dating was not confirmed until the late 1980s, after the study of amphora shards and other material found in the layer of fill under the foundations 3. Although style is not always a reliable tool for dating, the lack of relevant comparanda makes the study of Istanbul’s mosaics even more problematic. Geographically, the city’s most likely links would have been with western Asia Minor. However, the mosaics of Asia Minor are still relatively unknown and very few sites have been published in detail 4. Consequently, studies based on stylistic comparisons lean towards sites where there
1
2
3
Dunbabin, Mosaics 232. – Hellenkemper Salies, Konstantinopel 614-625. For a summary of the proposed dates see: Hellenkemper Salies, Mosaiken im Großen Palast 275. Jobst / Vetters, Mosaikenforschung esp. 28-60. – More recently, based on brickstamp dating, Bardill argued that the peristyle is post-Justinianic: Bardill, Brickstamps 134-147.
4
Levi, Antioch. – Budde, Mosaiken. – Jobst, Ephesos (A second volume is in preparation by V. Scheibelreiter). – Campbell, Aphrodisias. – Campbell, Anemurium. – Campbell, Antioch. – There is no systematic study and catalogue of the mosaics from Pergamon or Sardis. Individual finds are published in the annual excavation reports.
Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke
127
are significant published comparanda with a relatively longer continuity in mosaic production, such as Antioch, greater Northern Syria and North Africa. The first and the only discussion of mosaics from Istanbul as a group (although now an incomplete group) was by G. Hellenkemper Salies, who studied mosaics from seven different sites in and around Istanbul in a short encyclopaedic entry in 1989 5. She also referred to them occasionally in her treatment of the Great Palace mosaics, focusing on their stylistic connections with Syrian workshops 6. The present article is a brief summary of a comprehensive study of the corpus of floor mosaics from Istanbul 7. This study comprised the first systematic and contextual study of the known tessellated floor mosaics of Istanbul. It combined a first-hand examination of the mosaics with a study of excavation records and relevant archival material when available, as well as an examination of the archaeological sites and their relation to urban topography. For the study of this small corpus of fragmentary, poorly documented and mostly de-contextualised mosaics, a combination of different approaches proved to be the most beneficial; each individual case was considered in light of extant material and available relevant information on site. When studied as paintings, the mosaics enhance our understanding of the pictorial or ornamental styles current in Constantinople during the period to which they belonged. The subjects they represent provide information about the visual culture of those who commissioned them. Coming from various contexts, including the domestic, public and religious, when studied together with contemporary literature, philosophy, religion and comparative works of art, floor mosaics provide access to the physical, as well as the intellectual and cultural realms of the society that created them. Besides, mosaics were an integral part of the buildings whose floors they covered. When studied as such they can help to physically reconstruct the spaces to which they belonged. Understanding the function of floor décor in the context of architecture, and the ways in which viewers selected and interacted with pictorial signs, guides modern visitors through the spaces, even though little remains of the buildings themselves. The distribution of known mosaic sites on the city map of Constantinople follows a clear pattern (fig. 1). The concentration is at the tip of the peninsula, where eight of the sites, including the pre-Constantinian Hagia Eirene and Çatalçeşme mosaics, were located 8. Ranging in date from the 2nd to the 6th century, they reflect the continuous settlement at the city’s easternmost zone from the Roman era through Late Antiquity. These are two Roman mosaics discovered underneath the nave pavements of the Church of Hagia Eirene and along the Çatalçeşme Street, early 4th century mosaics excavated in the garden of the Four Seasons Hotel, an early 5th century mosaic from Hagia Sophia; a mid-5th century mosaic from Amiral Taldif Street, another mid-5th century mosaic discovered across from the Vilayet building, and an early 6th century mosaic now in the Eresin Hotel on Küçük Ayasofya Street 9. These are all non-figural, geometric, ornamental mosaics with occasional floral and animal motifs inserted into geometric compartments. The architectural context of the mosaics from the garden of the Four Seasons Hotel and the Eresin Hotel are currently unknown. The excavation at the former is still ongoing and my 4th century dating is primarily based on
5
6
7 8
Hellenkemper Salies, Konstantinopel 615-625. – She concluded that the Great Palace mosaics in Constantinople were connected with the leading workshops of Syria, since there was no welldeveloped workshop tradition in the city and Syrian mosaics were far superior to those in Asia Minor and in Greece. Hellenkemper Salies, Die Datierung. – Hellenkemper Salies, Mosaiken im Großen Palast. – Hellenkemper Salies, A propos. Dalgıç, Mosaics of Constantinople. Dalgıç, Pre-Constantinian.
128
9
For the Hagia Eirene mosaic see: Ramazanoglu, Neue Forschungen 231-235. – For the Çatalçeşme mosaic: Mamboury, Les fouilles Byzantines 279. – For the Four Seasons Hotel mosaic: Denker, Büyük Saray Kazısı 134. – Pasinli, Magnum Palatium 23. – For the Hagia Sophia mosaic: Schneider, Die Grabung 388389. – For the mosaic on Amiral Taldif Street: Düzgüner, Yeni Buluntular 32-50. – For the Vilayet mosaic: Harrison / Lawson, Vilayet Building 13-14.
Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul
Fig. 1 Map of Constantinople showing find spots of the floor mosaics from Istanbul: 1 Hagia Eirene Mosaic. – 2 Çatalçeşme Mosaics. – 3 Four Seasons Hotel Mosaic. – 4 Hagia Sophia Mosaic. – 5 Great Palace Mosaics. – 6 Amiral Taldif Street Mosaic. – 7 Vilayet Mosaic. – 8 Eresin Hotel Mosaic. – 9 Mosaic from the Myreleion Rotunda. – 10 Belediye Mosaics. – 11 Polyeuktos Mosaic. – 12 Kocamustafapaşa Mosaic.
stylistic observations 10. The Eresin Hotel Mosaic was excavated 15 years ago and its publication is still pending. Thus, my proposed early 6th century date is again only based on style. The mosaic excavated by A. M. Schneider in front of Hagia Sophia in 1935 is dated to approx. 418 on the basis of the style of related architectural sculpture, masonry technique and brickstamps 11. It belonged to a pavement along the east side of the street, which continued north passing along the outer wall of the atrium wall of the Theodosius’ Hagia Sophia 12. The mosaic floor, discovered on Amiral Taldif Sokak in 1998, decorated the floor of a structure that was laid over a water spring which became a hagiasma in the late Byzantine period. The function of the mosaic-bearing structure is again not clear and the dating is based on style, supported by limited archaeological finds, such as coins, which do not yet provide a terminus post or ante quem for the pavement 13. The largest of the mosaic floors discovered in this part of the city is the paving located across from the Vilayet building, lifted in 1966 and now stored in the atrium of Hagia Eirene. The floor is archaeologically and stylistically dated to the mid-5th century 14. The décor is mostly non-figural with, in parts,
10
A coin dated to the reign of Constantius was found at the site which, however, may not have been in situ (personal correspondence with the current excavator A. Denker in August 2006). The 5th or the 6th century dating suggested by the excavators is also based on style: Denker, Büyük Saray Kazısı 134. – Pasinli, Magnum Palatium 2-3.
11
12 13 14
Schneider, Die Grabung 388-389. – Schneider, Vorjustinianische Sophienkirche 83. – Schneider, Byzanz 74-75. – Schneider, Die Hagia Sophia 8 Abb. 4. – Schneider, Die Grabung 5. – For its identification see: Mathews, The Early Churches 14-16. – For the brickstamp dating see: Bardill, Brickstamps 55-56. Mathews, The Early Churches 14-15. Düzgüner, Yeni Buluntular 32-50. Harrison / Lawson, Vilayet Building 13-14.
Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke
129
geometric patterns filled in with figural motifs, including birds and fish. The mosaic was the floor of a large hall with east-west orientation that was surrounded by a portico along the extant south and west sides. Although attributed to a basilica church, the porticos on the sides were too narrow to function as aisles and the colonnade continued along the west side, which would otherwise have been a wall with passages separating the nave from the narthex 15. The mosaic floor perhaps belonged to a congregational hall of a now unknown character. Moving west from the east end of the peninsula, the Myrelaion Rotunda, the Belediye (City hall) and the church of St. Polyeuktos are the next mosaic sites that were located outside the downtown area but within the Constantinian city walls 16. They reflect the westward expansion of the capital within the city walls between the 4th and the 6th century. The Belediye mosaics are the earliest of these. They are standard examples of 4th century figural style and iconography in the eastern part of the empire and should be dated to the second half of the 4th century. This agrees with the 4th century date suggested by earlier scholars based on the construction technique of the structure to which they belonged and the style of the mosaics 17. The Belediye is also the largest of the mosaic sites ever discovered in the city after the peristyle of the Great Palace and reveals the most extensive program, again with the exception of the Great Palace. As these mosaics were cut into pieces for easy transportation, my reconstructions of the mosaics and the structure they once decorated were based on a large collection of unpublished archival data and topographical information pertaining to the site. I identified the mosaics as part of the »Thermae Constantianae«, the public baths that Emperor Constantius built between 345 and 378, whose general location is known only through textual sources. In light of this identification, the Belediye mosaics reveal one of the earliest known imperial uses of secular iconography in Constantinople, which finds its richest and most perfect expression in the Justinianic mosaics of the Great Palace. The early 5th century Myrelaion mosaic is also figural. It has been greatly damaged and its extant pieces then randomly arranged at the western entrance to the rotunda at a later period. The Polyeuktos mosaic is geometric and has also survived in a very fragmentary condition. It dates to the construction of the church in 524 in one of the capital’s prime neighbourhoods, along the northern branch of the Mese, which was aligned with important residential, civic and religious structures 18. Another mosaic was discovered in 1998 in the narrow buffer zone between the 4th and the 5th century fortifications. In this exquisite example of Late Antique art, a triumphant Dionysus in his panther-drawn chariot is depicted surrounded by a Dionysiac thiasos 19. It may once have decorated the reception room of an aristocratic residence in the ancient district of Psamatia, one of the suburbs of Constantinople, and presents one of the very few instances where we can really comprehend the texture of the private life of the Constantinopolitan elite. The brickstamps from the structure to which the mosaic belonged suggest a date in the second half of the 5th century. Its size, the innovative character of its composition, the peculiarities of the iconography and the vitality of the figures offer a fresh interpretation of this canonical theme at a period when Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. The Kocamustafapaşa mosaic is better understood when interpreted in the light of contemporary texts full of references to the drinking parties alluding to Dionysiac revels 20. Such parties would surely have taken place in the structure to which the mosaic originally belonged. 15
16
17 18
Berger suggested that it was possibly the Church of Urbikios: Berger, Regionen und Straßen 393. Naumann, Myrelaion 206-210. – Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı 9-12. – Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane 182. Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı 9-12. – Ward-Perkins, Notes 66. Berger, Regionen und Straßen 369-370. – Magdalino, Aristocratic Oikoi 53-69.
130
19
20
Dalgıç, Mosaics of Constantinople 111-143. – Also mentioned briefly in: Berger, Streets and Public Spaces 178. – Gates, Archaeology in Turkey 330-331. – Mathews, Byzantium 76. – Tunay, Byzantine Archaeological Findings 229. See for example: Palladii dialogus 92.
Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul
Two additional mosaics were found close to the city, in the villages of Orta Köy near Silivri (Selymbria) and in Esenköy (prov. Yalova) across the Sea of Marmara. Both are approximately 50 km west and south of modern Istanbul, a distance short enough to consider these sites within the artistic orbit of the capital 21. The geometric Silivri mosaics evidently belonged to a church floor and can be dated, stylistically, to the mid5th century. Mosaics from Esenköy, decorated with floral and bird motifs, cannot be contextualised as they could fit into any religious or secular context and, stylistically, could be dated anywhere between the 4th and 6th century. These 14 sites in and around Istanbul attest that Constantinopolitan mosaics adorned structures serving a wide variety of purposes, ranging from the public to the private, from sidewalks to interiors of villas and congregational and social areas, such as churches and baths. For the most part, it is not possible to reconstruct the mosaic-bearing structures since archaeological evidence is incomplete. A few sites, such as Belediye and Kocamustafapasa, were relatively well-preserved upon discovery and exemplify the great variety of iconography, styles and functions of the buildings to which they belonged. Their dates and locations provide important insights into the urban development of Constantinople in the 4th and 5th century. They confirm the information we can glean from literary sources, other archaeological discoveries and surviving monuments. Also, they are instructive in terms of the complexity of the challenges involved in analyzing this material, as well as the promise of future discovery inherent in the city’s archaeology. Despite their limited number, these sites suggest a well-established mosaic tradition in the city. The two earlier Roman examples, Hagia Eirene and Çatalçeşme, indicate that the tradition goes back to ancient Byzantion, long before its Constantinian rededication in 330. Mosaics dating from the 4th to the 6th century are quite fragmentary and are principally geometric in their repertoire, except for the Belediye and Kocamustafapaşa mosaics, which are figural. The main value of these fragmentary and mostly ornamental mosaics is that they document the continuity of the mosaic tradition in the early Christian city. The Belediye and Kocamustafapaşa mosaics, on the other hand, are evidence of the richness of the iconographic repertoire and the technical mastery of the Constantinopolitan workshops. The available evidence does not confirm the notion that Byzantion once became Constantinople, the imperial capital, and that the mosaics should all be superior to those of the rest of the empire. The quality of mosaics from the city varies, reflecting the nature of the medium, from the simplest and the coarsest to the most sophisticated and the finest, depending on the context, the financial resources of the patrons and the availability of artists or craftsmen. A systematic study of mosaics prior to the Great Palace from Istanbul also reveals how this significant art form developed in the capital. Whilst the pre-Constantinian mosaics show a strong Hellenistic tradition relating to western Asia Minor and eastern Greece in the early 2nd century, and to the western part of the Empire in the 3rd century, Constantinople’s mosaics have a broader base. Although the limited extent of material from the city and the absence of a corpus of floor mosaics from Turkey make generalisations difficult, the extant evidence from western Asia Minor points to an increase in mosaic production in the later Roman Empire 22. At this time, there appears to have been a preference for geometric over figural mosaics, as is seen in the capital. Cities like Antioch and Zeugma were both geographically and artistically part of Northern Syria and do not reflect the development of mosaic art in western Asia Minor. While Constantinople shares a great deal of its decorative vocabulary with western Asia Minor and eastern Greece, at the same time, its mosaic art appears to be particularly close to that of Antioch. Belediye pavements suggest a strong presence of Antioch mosaic workshops in the capital in the 4th century, along with few other pave-
21
Duyuran, İzmit ve Silivri 213-218. – Dirimtekin, Esenköy 51-52.
22
Dunbabin, Mosaics 225.
Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke
131
ments bearing references to the west of the empire, thus suggesting several workshops working together on a large project. These various traditions are easily justifiable by the influx of artists to the new capital, especially from the major centres of mosaic production, Northern Syria in particular. The later Kocamustafapaşa mosaic suggests a possible North African connection. In the style of the figures, the Kocamustafapaşa mosaic is closest to the classicising and vibrant figure style of the Great Palace. In both, figures are set in an abstract background, in the geometric compartments of a large composition at Kocamustafapaşa, and randomly distributed on a plain white background at the Great Palace. Finally, the small mosaic fragment comes from the Polyeuktos Church, which was a prestigious monument patronised by Anicia Juliana, who spared no expense in the construction and decoration of the church. The only mosaic-paved part of the church was the eastern end of the nave 23. This is the holiest part of the church after the sanctuary and its mosaic pavement survives as testimony to the importance and novelty of tessellated mosaic floors in the capital by the first quarter of the 6th century. In studying this admittedly scarce material, one cannot help but contemplate the significant loss of evidence from Late Antique Constantinople, as well as the exceptional challenges posed by the surviving examples. The latter, however, speak clearly about the mentality of artists, patrons and viewers, along with the cultural and social milieu. Studying the style, techniques or workshops of these mosaics is the starting point for further understanding the intellectual climate that created them.
REFERENCES Sources Palladii dialogus: Palladii dialogus de vita S. Joanni Chrysostomi. Edited by P. R. Coleman-Norton (Cambridge 1928).
Literature Bardill, Brickstamps: J. Bardill, Brickstamps of Constantinople (New York 2004). Berger, Regionen und Straßen: A. Berger, Regionen und Straßen im frühen Konstantinopel. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47, 1997, 349-414. Berger, Streets and Public Spaces: A. Berger, Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54, 2000, 161-172. Budde, Mosaiken: L. Budde, Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien, Beiträge zur Kunst des Christlichen Ostens (Recklinghausen 1969-1972).
Dalgıç, Mosaics of Constantinople: Ö. Dalgıç, Late Antique Floor Mosaics of Constantinople prior to the Great Palace [unpubl. Diss., New York University 2008]. Dalgıç, Pre-Constantinian: Ö. Dalgıç, Pre-Constantinian Mosaics from Istanbul. In: J. D. Alchermes / H. C. Evans / T. K. Thomas (eds.), ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ ΕOPTIKA: Studies in Honor of Thomas F. Mathews (Mainz 2009) 124-130. Denker, Büyük Saray Kazısı: A. Denker, Sultanahmet Eski Cezaevi: Büyük Saray Kazısı. In: Gün Işığında Istanbul’un 8000 Yılı; Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet Kazıları (Istanbul 2007) 126-163.
Campbell, Anemurium: S. Campbell, The Mosaics of Anemurium (Toronto 1998).
Dirimtekin, Esenköy: F. Dirimtekin, Mosaic Pavement Discovered Near Esenköy, in the District of Mahmud Bey, West of Istanbul. Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı 4, 1962, 51-52.
Campbell, Antioch: S. Campbell, The Mosaics of Antioch (Toronto 1988).
Dunbabin, Mosaics: K. M. D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge 1999).
Campbell, Aphrodisias: S. Campbell, Mosaics of Aphrodisias in Caria (Toronto 1991).
Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı: R. Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı Mozaikleri. Architekt 9-12, 1955, 166-170.
23
Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane 182.
132
Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul
Duyuran, İzmit ve Silivri: R. Duyuran, İzmit ve Silivri’de Yapılan Arkeolojik Araştırmalar: 1947-48. Belleten 15/58, 1951, 213-218. Düzgüner, Yeni Buluntular: F. Düzgüner, Anaplous ve Prookhthoi’de Yeni Buluntular: Hagia Maria Hodegetria ve Nea Ekklesia (Mesakepion) Kiliseleri. Myth to Modernity, Istanbul, Selected Themes, Annual Supplement of Arkeoloji ve Sanat Magazine 1 (Istanbul 2002) 32-50. Gates, Archaeology in Turkey: M. N. Gates, Archaeology in Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 100/2, April 1996, 277-335. Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane: R. M. Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul 1 (Princeton 1986). Harrison / Lawson, Vilayet Building: R. M. Harrison / G. R. J. Lawson, The Mosaics in front of the Vilayet Building. Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı 13-14, 1966, 216-218. Hellenkemper Salies, A propos: G. Hellenkemper Salies, A propos des mosaïques du Grand Palais de Constantinopole. In: La mosaïque gréco-romaine. VIIe Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique 2 [Tunis 1994] (Tunis 1999) 685-690. Hellenkemper Salies, Die Datierung: G. Helenkemper Salies, Die Datierung der Mosaiken im Großen Palast zu Konstantinopel. In: J.-P. Darmon / A. Rebourg (eds.), La mosaïque gréco-romaine. IVe Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique [Trèves 1984] (Paris 1994) 186-188. Hellenkemper Salies, Konstantinopel: G. Hellenkemper Salies, Konstantinopel. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst (1963) 614625. Hellenkemper Salies, Mosaiken im Großen Palast: G. Hellenkemper Salies, Die Datierung der Mosaiken im Grossen Palast zu Konstantinopel. Bonner Jahrbücher 187, 1987, 273-307. Jobst, Ephesos: W. Jobst, Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos 1. Die Hanghäuser des Embolos. Forschungen in Ephesos 8/2 (Vienna 1977).
Mamboury, Les fouilles byzantines: E. Mamboury, Les fouilles Byzantines à Istanbul et dans sa banlieue immédiate aux XIX et XX siècles. Byzantion 11, 1936, 229-283. Mathews, Byzantium: T. F. Mathews, Byzantium: from Antiquity to the Renaissance (New York 1998). Mathews, The Early Churches: T. F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (Pennsylvania 1971). Naumann, Myrelaion: R. Naumann, Myrelaion. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16, 1966, 199-216. Pasinli, Magnum Palatium: A. Pasinli, »Pittakia« ve »Magnum Palatium – Büyük Saray« Bölgesi’nde 2001 Yılı Çalışmaları (Eski Sultanahmet Cezaevi Bahçesi), Müze Araştırmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu 13, 2003, 1-16. Schneider, Byzanz: A. M. Schneider, Byzanz, Vorarbeiten zur Topographie und Archäologie der Stadt. Istanbuler Forschungen 8 (Berlin 1936). Schneider, Die Grabung: A. M. Schneider, Die Grabung im Westhof der Sophienkirche zu Istanbul. Istanbuler Forschungen 12 (Berlin 1941). Schneider, Die Hagia Sophia: A. M. Schneider, Die Hagia Sophia zu Konstantinopel. Bilderhefte antiker Kunst 6 (Berlin 1939). Schneider, Vorjustinianische Sophienkirche: A. M. Schneider, Die vorjustinianische Sophienkirche. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36, 1936, 77-85. Ramazanoglu, Neue Forschungen: M. Ramazanoglu, Neue Forschungen zur Architekturgeschichte der Irenen-Kirche und des Komplexes der Sophienkirche. In: Atti dello VIII Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini [Palermo 3-10 aprile 1951] (Rome 1953) 232-235.
Levi, Antioch: D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Princeton 1947).
Tunay, Byzantine Archaeological Findings: İ. M. Tunay, Byzantine Archaeological Findings in Istanbul during the Last Decade. In: N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography, and Everyday Life (Leiden, Boston 2001) 217234.
Magdalino, Aristocratic Oikoi: P. Magdalino, Aristocratic Oikoi in the Tenth and the Eleventh Regions of Constantinople. In: N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography, and Everyday Life (Leiden, Boston 2001) 53-69.
Ward-Perkins, Notes: J. B. Ward-Perkins, Notes on the Structure and Building Methods of Early Byzantine Architecture. In: D. T. Rice (ed.), The Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, the Second Report (Edinburgh 1958) 52-104.
Jobst / Vetters, Mosaikenforschung: W. Jobst / H. Vetters, Mosaikenforschung im Kaiserpalast von Konstantinopel (Vienna 1992).
ILLUSTRATION REFERENCE Fig. 1 Map courtesy of E. Nicolescu and L. Safran, mosaic sites added by Ö. Dalgıç.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG / ABSTRACT / RÉSUMÉ Bodenmosaike zählen zu den am wenigsten untersuchten Kunstformen des spätantiken Konstantinopel. 14 Mosaike, von verschiedenen Fundorten, sind bislang bekannt. Sie stellen eine kleine aber aussagekräftige Fundgattung dar. Die Mosaike datieren zwischen das 2. und 6. Jahrhundert und ihr Verbreitungsmuster folgt eindeutig der Stadtentwicklung. Die Untersuchungen des architektonischen und topografischen Kontexts der Mosaike sowie stilistische und ikonografische Analysen vermitteln wichtige Informationen zum öffentlichen, religiösen und privaten Leben in der Hauptstadt. K. K.
Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke
133
Tessellated floor mosaics are one of the least-studied art forms of the Late Antique Constantinople. Known mosaics from 14 different sites comprise a small but significant corpus. Their dates range from the 2nd to the 6th century AD and their distribution on the city map follows a clear pattern corresponding to the city’s urban development. Examination of the architectural and topographical contexts of these mosaic floors, as well as their style and iconography, provides information about the public, religious and domestic spheres of life in the capital. Les mosaïques de pavement comptent parmi les formes d’art les moins étudiées de la ville de Constantinople durant l’Antiquité tardive. Quatorze mosaïques de différents sites sont connues jusqu’à présent. Elles représentent un petit corpus néanmoins significatif. Les mosaïques datent du IIe au VIe siècle et leur distribution sur le plan de la ville suit de toute évidence l’évolution urbaine. Les études du contexte architectural et topographique des mosaïques de pavement ainsi que leurs analyses stylistique et iconographique fournissent d’importantes informations au sujet de la vie publique, religieuse et privée dans la capitale. A. S. Dr. Örgü Dalgıç Post Doctoral Teaching Fellow in Byzantine Studies Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 1703 32nd Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 USA E-mail:
[email protected]
134
Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul
BYZANZ – DAS RÖMERREICH IM MITTELALTER VERZEICHNIS DER BEITRÄGE
TEIL 1
WELT DER IDEEN, WELT DER DINGE
WELT DER IDEEN Ernst Künzl Auf dem Weg in das Mittelalter: die Gräber Constantins, Theoderichs und Chlodwigs
Yvonne Petrina Kreuze mit geschweiften Hasten und kreisförmigen Hastenenden
Vasiliki Tsamakda König David als Typos des byzantinischen Kaisers
Anastasia G. Yangaki The Scene of »the Holy Women at the Tomb« on a Ring from Ancient Messene and Other Rings Bearing the Same Representation
Umberto Roberto The Circus Factions and the Death of the Tyrant: John of Antioch on the Fate of the Emperor Phocas
Ellen Riemer Byzantinische und romanisch-mediterrane Fibeln in der Forschung
Stefan Albrecht Warum tragen wir einen Gürtel? Der Gürtel der Byzantiner – Symbolik und Funktion
Aimilia Yeroulanou Common Elements in »Treasures« of the Early Christian Period
Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm Heilige Nägel und heilige Lanzen
Tivadar Vida Zur Formentwicklung der mediterranen spätantikfrühbyzantinischen Metallkrüge (4.-9. Jahrhundert)
Tanja V. Kushch The Beauty of the City in Late Byzantine Rhetoric Helen Papastavrou Classical Trends in Byzantine and Western Art in the 13th and 14th Centuries
WELT DER DINGE Birgit Bühler Is it Byzantine Metalwork or not? Evidence for Byzantine Craftsmanship Outside the Byzantine Empire (6th to 9th Centuries AD) Isabella Baldini Lipolis Half-crescent Earrings in Sicily and Southern Italy
Anastassios Antonaras Early Christian and Byzantine Glass Vessels: Forms and Uses Binnur Gürler und Ergün Lafli Frühbyzantinische Glaskunst in Kleinasien Ronald Bockius Zur Modellrekonstruktion einer byzantinischen Dromone (chelandion) des 10./11. Jahrhunderts im Forschungsbereich Antike Schiffahrt, RGZM Mainz Isabelle C. Kollig, Matthias J. J. Jacinto Fragata und Kurt W. Alt Anthropologische Forschungen zum Byzantinischen Reich – ein Stiefkind der Wissenschaft?
TEIL 2
SCHAUPLÄTZE
KONSTANTINOPEL / ISTANBUL
ANDRONA / AL ANDARIN
Albrecht Berger Konstantinopel – Gründung, Blüte und Verfall einer mediterranen Metropole
Christine Strube Al Andarin, das antike Androna
Rudolf H. W. Stichel Die Hagia Sophia Justinians, ihre liturgische Einrichtung und der zeremonielle Auftritt des frühbyzantinischen Kaisers
Marlia Mundell Mango Androna in Syria: Questions of Environment and Economy
AMORIUM / HISARKÖY Helge Svenshon Das Bauwerk als »aistheton soma« – eine Neuinterpretation der Hagia Sophia im Spiegel antiker Vermessungslehre und angewandter Mathematik Lars O. Grobe, Oliver Hauck und Andreas Noback Das Licht in der Hagia Sophia – eine Computersimulation Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger Die justinianische Hagia Sophia: Vorbild oder Vorwand? Örgü Dalgıç The Corpus of Floor Mosaics from Istanbul Stefan Albrecht Vom Unglück der Sieger – Kreuzfahrer in Konstantinopel nach 1204 Ernst Gamillscheg Hohe Politik und Alltägliches im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel
AGHIOS LOT / DEIR ‘AIN ‘ABATA Konstantinos D. Politis The Monastery of Aghios Lot at Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata in Jordan
ANAIA / KADIKALESİ Zeynep Mercangöz Ostentatious Life in a Byzantine Province: Some Selected Pieces from the Finds of the Excavation in Kuşadası, Kadıkalesi/Anaia (Prov. Aydın, TR)
Christopher S. Lightfoot Die byzantinische Stadt Amorium: Grabungsergebnisse der Jahre 1988 bis 2008 Eric A. Ivison Kirche und religiöses Leben im byzantinischen Amorium Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan Die mittelbyzantinische Keramik aus Amorium Edward M. Schoolman Kreuze und kreuzförmige Darstellungen in der Alltagskultur von Amorium Johanna Witte Freizeitbeschäftigung in Amorium: die Spiele
CHERSON / SEWASTOPOL Aleksandr Ajbabin Das frühbyzantinische Chersonesos/Cherson Adam Rabinowitz, Larissa Sedikova und Renata Henneberg Daily Life in a Provincial Late Byzantine City: Recent Multidisciplinary Research in the Southern Region of Tauric Chersonesos (Cherson) Tatjana Jašaeva Pilgerandenken im byzantinischen Cherson
EPHESOS / SELÇUK Handan Üstündağ Paleopathological Evidence for Social Status in a Byzantine Burial from Kuşadası, Kadıkalesi/Anaia: a Case of »Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis« (DISH)
Sabine Ladstätter Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit – das letzte Kapitel der Geschichte einer antiken Großstadt
Andreas Külzer Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit – ein historischer Überblick Andreas Pülz Das Stadtbild von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit Martin Steskal Badewesen und Bäderarchitektur von Ephesos in frühbyzantinischer Zeit Gilbert Wiplinger Die Wasserversorgung von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit Norbert Zimmermann Die spätantike und byzantinische Malerei in Ephesos Johanna Auinger und Maria Aurenhammer Ephesische Skulptur am Ende der Antike Andrea M. Pülz und Feride Kat Byzantinische Kleinfunde aus Ephesos – ein Materialüberblick Stefanie Wefers und Fritz Mangartz Die byzantinischen Werkstätten von Ephesos Manfred Koob, Mieke Pfarr und Marc Grellert Ephesos – byzantinisches Erbe des Abendlandes Digitale Rekonstruktion und Simulation der Stadt Ephesos im 6. Jahrhundert
IUSTINIANA PRIMA / CARIČIN GRAD Vujadin Ivanišević Caričin Grad – the Fortifications and the Intramural Housing in the Lower Town
KRASEN Valery Grigorov The Byzantine Fortress »Krasen« near Panagyurishte
PERGAMON / BERGAMA Thomas Otten Das byzantinische Pergamon – ein Überblick zu Forschungsstand und Quellenlage Manfred Klinkott Die byzantinischen Wehrmauern von Pergamon als Abbild der politisch-militärischen Situationen im westlichen Kleinasien Sarah Japp Byzantinische Feinkeramik aus Pergamon
TELANISSOS / QAL’AT SIM’AN Jean-Luc Biscop The Roof of the Octagonal Drum of the Martyrium of Saint-Symeon
USAYS / ĞABAL SAYS Franziska Bloch Öllampenfunde aus dem spätantik-frühislamischen Fundplatz Ğabal Says im Steppengürtel Syriens
TEIL 3
PERIPHERIE UND NACHBARSCHAFT
Franz Alto Bauer Byzantinische Geschenkdiplomatie
Péter Prohászka Die awarischen Oberschichtgräber von Ozora-Tótipuszta (Kom. Tolna, H)
DER NÖRDLICHE SCHWARZMEERRAUM
Falko Daim, Jérémie Chameroy, Susanne Greiff, Stephan Patscher, Peter Stadler und Bendeguz Tobias Kaiser, Vögel, Rankenwerk – byzantinischer Gürteldekor des 8. Jahrhunderts und ein Neufund aus Südungarn
Elzara Chajredinova Byzantinische Elemente in der Frauentracht der Krimgoten im 7. Jahrhundert Rainer Schreg Zentren in der Peripherie: landschaftsarchäologische Forschungen zu den Höhensiedlungen der südwestlichen Krim und ihrem Umland
DER UNTERE DONAURAUM Andrey Aladzhov The Byzantine Empire and the Establishment of the Early Medieval City in Bulgaria Stanislav Stanilov Der Pfau und der Hund: zwei goldene Zierscheiben aus Veliki Preslav
DER MITTLERE UND OBERE DONAURAUM Jörg Drauschke Halbmondförmige Goldohrringe aus bajuwarischen Frauengräbern – Überlegungen zu Parallelen und Provenienz
Ádám Bollók The Birds on the Braid Ornaments from Rakamaz: a View from the Mediterranean Péter Langó Crescent-shaped Earrings with Lower Ornamental Band Miklós Takács Die sogenannte Palmettenornamentik der christlichen Bauten des 11. Jahrhunderts im mittelalterlichen Ungarn
SKANDINAVIEN John Ljungkvist Influences from the Empire: Byzantine-related Objects in Sweden and Scandinavia – 560/570-750/800 AD
Unter diesem Banner erscheint im Jahr 2010 eine Reihe von Publikationen des Verlages des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, die sich mit der Archäologie und Geschichte des Byzantinischen Reiches beschäftigen. Anlass ist die Ausstellung »Byzanz – Pracht und Alltag«, die vom 26. Februar bis zum 13. Juni 2010 in Bonn gezeigt wurde. Veranstaltet von der Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde sie vom RGZM in Zusammenarbeit mit zahlreichen Fachkollegen konzipiert. Das RGZM setzt damit seine Forschungen im Bereich der Spätantike im Mittelmeerraum und des Byzantinischen Reiches fort, die bereits auf eine lange Tradition zurückblicken können und die in den letzten Jahren – nicht zuletzt durch einige Projekte, die zusammen mit Kooperationspartnern an Plätzen im Gebiet des Byzantinischen Reiches selbst durchgeführt werden – zu einem Schwerpunkt der Tätigkeiten des RGZM geworden sind.
Falko Daim · Jörg Drauschke (Hrsg.) Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter Monographien des RGZM Band 84, 1-3 Teil 1 Welt der Ideen, Welt der Dinge 507 S. mit 319 meist farb. Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-153-5 € 90,– Teil 2 Schauplätze 2 Bd., 922 S. mit 701 meist farb. Abb., 1 Falttaf. ISBN 978-3-88467-154-2 € 170,– Teil 3 Peripherie und Nachbarschaft 451 S. mit 261 meist farb. Abb. ISBN 978-3-88467-155-9 € 80,– Teil 1-3 zusammen € 295,–
Jörg Drauschke · Daniel Keller (Hrsg.) Glas in Byzanz – Produktion, Verwendung, Analysen RGZM Tagungen Band 8 270 S. mit 200 Abb., 15 Farbtaf. ISBN- 987-3-88467-147-4 € 44,–
Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im RGZM Teil 1: Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und mit festem Beschläg des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer Band 30,1 2. Aufl., 268 S. mit 545 Abb., 4 Farbtaf. ISBN 978-3-88467-134-4 € 70,–
Mechthild Schulze-Dörrlamm Byzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschläge im RGZM Teil 2 Die Schnallen mit Scharnierbeschläg und die Schnallen mit angegossenem Riemendurchzug des 7. bis 10. Jahrhunderts Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer Band 30,2 (2009) 414 S. mit 522 Abb., 2 Farbtaf., 1 Beil. ISBN 978-3-88467-135-1 € 98,–
Fritz Mangartz Die byzantinische Steinsäge von Ephesos Monographien des RGZM Band 86 122 S. mit 100 Abb., 23 Farbtaf. ISBN 978-3-88467-149-8 € 45,–
Henriette Kroll Tiere im Byzantinischen Reich Archäozoologische Forschungen im Überblick Monographien des RGZM Band 87 306 S. mit 80 Abb.; 16 Farbtaf. ISBN 978-3-88467-150-4 ca. 55,–€
Birgit Bühler Der »Schatz« von Brestovac, Kroatien Monographien des RGZM Band 85 ca. 400 S. mit 300 z.T. farbige Abb. ISBN 978-3-7954-2348-3 ca. 120,–€
Falko Daim (Hrsg.) Die byzantinischen Goldschmiedearbeiten im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschchtlicher Altertümer Band 42 ca. 300 S. mit 650 meist farbigen Abb. ISBN 978-3-7954-2351-3