--KAPAK ARAÞTIRMA kopya - Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF
THE ARCHITECTURAL AND DECORATIVE BYZANTINE
SCULPTURE IN TURKEY
Eugenio RUSSO*
The study of the architectural and decorative Byzantine sculpture in Turkey
which has been carried out since 1996, in the frame of a research with the authorization
of the Turkish Government, started in 1970 focusing its attention on the production
existing in Ravenna; since then it has gone on uninterruptedly with the study of the
sculptures in Ravenna 1 and in its surroundings 2, in the Upper Adriatic (Parenzo) 3, in
Rome 4, in Palestine 5, in Venice and in its area, as works coming from Constantinople 6.
One of the points of the research has concerned the diffusion of materials coming
from Constantinople into the Western Mediterranean basin. It is in fact, a common
shared opinion, starting with Kautzsch’s contribution 7, of the role played by the
Capital on the Bosphorus in the diffusion of works in the whole Mediterranean basin,
thanks also to the marble quarries situated in the Proconnesian island. The scholar
mainly in favour of the importance and function carried out by the Capital has been
F.W. Deichmann: according to the great German scholar we can see a diffusion of artefacts
and ideas in the Mediterranean basin, but not one of architects and workers; it
was a mobility of ideas and sculptures, worked and ready for use, made out of Proconnesian
marble, but not a mobility of workers. Deichmann is inclined to admit the presence
in loco of artists from Constantinople only in the evident case that marble is local
or reworked and the product reveals the style of the workers from the capital. This
is the case with the Cathedral of Stobi, with the basilica A in Nea Anchialos, with Basi-
* Prof. Dr. Eugenio RUSSO, Universita degli Studi di Bologna Facolta di Cons. Beni Culturali Via Mariani 5 48100
Ravenna/İTALYA
1 E. Russo, StudRomagn, 19 (1968, but published 1971), pp. 321-330.
2 E. Russo, Studi sulla scultura paleocristiana e altomedievale, Spoleto 1974 and StudMed, 15, 1 (1974), pp. 25-142;
AttiMemDepMarche, 86 (1981, but 1983), pp. 461-508; RACr, 61 (1985, but 1986), pp. 119-158; in Pesaro tra Medioevo
e Rinascimento, Venezia 1989, pp. 79-147; RACr, 67 (1991, but 1992), pp. 383-404; VetChr, 29 (1992), pp. 137-
160; RavennaStudRic, 4, 2 (1997), pp. 97-146.
3 E. Russo, Sculture del complesso eufrasiano di Parenzo, Napoli 1991; in Medioevo: immagine e racconto (Atti del
Convegno internazionale di Studi, Parma, 27-30 settembre 2000), Venezia 2003, pp. 142-161.
4 E. Russo, MEFRM, 94, 1 (1984), pp. 7-48; RendPARA, 55-56 (1982-1984, but 1985), pp. 3-33; in Studi in memoria
di Giuseppe Bovini, Ravenna 1989, pp. 597-610; in Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana alla città cristiana (Catalogo della
Mostra, Roma, 22 dicembre 2000 – 20 aprile 2001), Roma 2000, pp. 191-199, 644-646; in Ecclesiae Urbis (Atti del
Congresso internazionale di studi, Roma, 4-10 settembre 2000), Città del Vaticano 2002, pp. 1629-1632.
5 E. Russo, ActaAAHist, s. a., 6 (1987), pp. 113-248.
6 E. Russo, in Storia dell’arte marciana: sculture, tesoro, arazzi (Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia, 11-
14 ottobre 1994), Venezia 1997, pp. 125-163. See also in Queritur inventus colitur. Miscellanea in onore di P. Umberto
Maria Fasola, Città del Vaticano 1989, pp. 671-695; in Historiam pictura refert. Miscellanea in onore di P. Alejandro
Recio Veganzones, Città del Vaticano 1994, pp. 497-512.
7R. Kautzsch, Kapitellstudien, Berlin-Leipzig 1936.
193