--KAPAK ARAÞTIRMA kopya - Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
--KAPAK ARAÞTIRMA kopya - Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
--KAPAK ARAÞTIRMA kopya - Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
uts a <strong>ve</strong>ry interesting phenomenon. In fact, while after the great season of St Polyeuktos’,<br />
of Ss Serge and Bacchus’ and of St Sophia’s, in the Capital we notice few innovatory<br />
layouts 40, we can obser<strong>ve</strong> in those towns a new trend and richer layouts. This<br />
phenomenon perhaps starts from Constantinople, but, - when in the Capital, at the end<br />
of the Justinianian age, a cycle seems to come to an end –it flourished in different places<br />
we can call Aegean, in the second half of the 6th century, and anticipates the elements<br />
we will obser<strong>ve</strong> in Middle-Byzantine sculpture. In this group we can also include<br />
the famous slab of Hyacinthus, the founder of the Koimesis in Nicaea (inv. n. 736) 41<br />
(Fig. 9) that, in this way we can date it at the second half of the 6 th century and not at<br />
the beginning of the 8th century 42.<br />
We must list Ephesus among the centres where, in the second half of the 6th<br />
century, there are many innovati<strong>ve</strong> layouts created by Aegean workers 43 (Figs. 10, 11).<br />
In the Justinianian age in the case of St John’s and St Mary’s in Ephesus, we can see<br />
the whole range of the possibilities we ha<strong>ve</strong> already listed: products imported from the<br />
quarries in Proconnesian island, that are already finished or rough cast works made in<br />
loco by workers of various origins: Constantinopolitan, Greek-Constantinopolitan, Aegean,<br />
local, marbles from classic buildings reworked, etc. 44.<br />
In Ephesus we can ascertain a continuity of the workers which contradicts the<br />
conclusions Professor Deichmann was sure to ha<strong>ve</strong> reached. The German scholar has<br />
rightly placed the roots of Constantinople art in the craftsmen’s traditions of Western<br />
and Southern Asia Minor 45 but,- as he considers Constantinople as the centre, along<br />
with Zollt 46 - has considered that this has happened to the detriment of the big centres<br />
in Asia Minor because of the moving of workers to the "new Capital", so that the production<br />
"had nearly completely ended" in Ephesus, in Aphrodisia and in Pamphylia as,<br />
for example, Side and Perge 47. Elsewhere I ha<strong>ve</strong> outlined the de<strong>ve</strong>lopment of the Ephesus<br />
sculpture denying such a conclusion 48. Today, at the end of my lecture, I would<br />
like recall a series of three capitals of Ephesus (Fig. 12), dating to the first decades of<br />
the 5th century; they show a classicist and retrospecti<strong>ve</strong> structure, the work of a high<br />
le<strong>ve</strong>l Ephesian workers 49. Their form and their decoration actually explain both the capital<br />
of Marcianus’ column in Constantinople, about 450-452 A.D. 50 and the capital and<br />
know because of the publication of S. Eyıce, DOP, 17 (1963), p. 378, fig. 16, of the floor of a church near Yakacık in<br />
Bythinia, found in 1962, where also the slab is published; by means of this publication we can now identify the slab.<br />
About this slab see for the moment Russo, Bizantinistica, serie seconda, 4 (2002), pp. 7-8, fig. 29.<br />
40 See a list ibid., pp. 7-8, notes 29, 30, 36.<br />
41 Ibid., pp. 10-11, fig. 39 (6 th c. second half).<br />
42 The date to the second half of the 6 th century is also in Th. Schmit, Die Koimesis-Kirche von Nikaia, Berlin–Leipzig<br />
1927, p. 20. C. Mango, Architettura bizantina, Venezia 1974, p. 165, dated the church, probably, at the end of the 6 th<br />
century, but more recently, in accordance with the inscription found on the marble lintel, perhaps from the central portal<br />
of the entrance from the outside to the nartex, with the Hyacinth monogram in the middle, and compared with the<br />
inscription of Artauasdos, done shortly after 727, in the town-walls, changed his opinion and he suggest the end of<br />
the 7 th century: C. Mango, TravMem, 12 (1994), pp. 350-353, figs. 4-6. In any case, the Hyacinth slab and the Hyacinth<br />
lintel are contemporary, but C. Mango himself obser<strong>ve</strong>d the difference between the monogram on the slab and<br />
monogram on the lintel (ibid., p. 352). In my opinion is chiefly a problem of quality, because of the same inscription<br />
of Artauasdos has letters of higher workmanship than those of the lintel. So the problem is sol<strong>ve</strong>d admitting at Nicaea<br />
the presence and the work of different craftsmen, of different technicall skill, craftsmen from abroad for the Hyacinth<br />
slab and for other marble decorations of the church (see Russo, Bizantinistica, serie seconda, 4, 2002, pp. 8-9,<br />
figs. 32-34), and local craftsmen for the lintel with the monogram, with letters, E, for example, whose form appears<br />
earlier confronted with those of Artauasdos inscription.<br />
43 About the early indications see Russo, in Efeso paleocristiana e bizantina, pp. 45-46, 52, figs. 54-55.<br />
44 Ibid., pp. 30-34, 39-49, 50, figs. 9-11, 28-31, 36-58, 60-67, 69.<br />
45 Deichmann, Studien zur Architektur Konstantinopels im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nach Christus, passim and pp. 37, 56-<br />
63, 91; in Mélanges Mansel, p. 550; Rom, Ra<strong>ve</strong>nna, Konstantinopel, Naher Osten. Gesammelte Studien zur spätantiken<br />
Architektur, Kunst und Geschichte, Wiesbaden 1982, pp. 620-621.<br />
46 Zollt, Kapitellplastik Konstantinopels vom 4. bis 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr., pp. 334-366.<br />
47F.W. Deichmann, Corsi Ra<strong>ve</strong>nna, 29 (1982), p. 150; in Mélanges Mansel, p. 551.<br />
48 Russo, in Efeso paleocristiana e bizantina, pp. 26-53.<br />
49 Ibid., pp. 37-39, figg. 26-27; in Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, in the press.<br />
50 Kautzsch, Kapitellstudien, pp. 47-49, n. 156, figs. 3-4, pl. 11; J. Kollwitz, Oströmische Plastik der theodosianischen<br />
Zeit, Berlin 1941, pp. 69-70, 74-75 (P. Schatzmann), pl. 10; Peschlow, in Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen<br />
Kunst, pp. 26-28, fig. 6 left si-de, pl. 5; Zollt, Kapitellplastik Konstantinopels vom 4. bis 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr., n. 586.<br />
197