Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo:
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book |
| Language: | Russian |
| Published: |
Poznań
Wydawn. Poznańskie
2004
|
| Series: | Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego
3 |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Item Description: | In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Byzantine mosaics of Chersonesus Taurica |
| Physical Description: | 122 S., [7] Bl. Ill. 30 cm |
| ISBN: | 837177298X 9788371772986 |
Staff View
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV022947120 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20081008 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 071106s2004 a||| |||| 00||| rus d | ||
| 020 | |a 837177298X |9 83-7177-298-X | ||
| 020 | |a 9788371772986 |9 978-83-7177-298-6 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)169070734 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV022947120 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rus | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 6,15 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 6,16 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Dombrovskij, Oleg Ivanovič |d 1914-1994 |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)137708947 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo |c Oleg Ivanovič Dombrovskij |
| 264 | 1 | |a Poznań |b Wydawn. Poznańskie |c 2004 | |
| 300 | |a 122 S., [7] Bl. |b Ill. |c 30 cm | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego |v 3 | |
| 500 | |a In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Byzantine mosaics of Chersonesus Taurica | ||
| 505 | 0 | |a Bibliogr. S. 120-[123] | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Mozaika bizantyjska / Ukraina / Krym |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Mozaika bizantyjska - Ukraina - Krym |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Mosaik |0 (DE-588)4040311-7 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Chersonez (miasto dawne) |2 jhpk | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Byzantinisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4009256-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Chersones |g Krim, Stadt |0 (DE-588)4420982-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Chersones |g Krim, Stadt |0 (DE-588)4420982-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Mosaik |0 (DE-588)4040311-7 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Byzantinisches Reich |0 (DE-588)4009256-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego |v 3 |w (DE-604)BV022947111 |9 3 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016151663 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 307.09 |e 22/bsb |f 0902 |g 477 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 709 |e 22/bsb |f 0902 |g 398 |
Record in the Search Index
| _version_ | 1804137188238032896 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ
ОЛЕГ ИВАНОВИЧ ДОМБРОВСКВИЙ
.............................................. 7
ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ
.................................................................. 10
ИСТОРИЯ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
......................................................
И
УТРАЧЕННЫЕ МОЗАИКИ
.......................................................... 17
МОЗАИЧНЫЕ ПОЛЫ БАЗИЛИКИ УВАРОВА
....................................... 29
МОЗАИКИ, ИЗУЧЕННЫЕ
IN SITU.................................................
42
МОЗАИЧНЫЙ ПОЛ ЗАГОРОДНОГО КРЕСТООБРАЗНОГО ХРАМА
.................... 65
МОЗАИЧНЫЙ ПОЛ ШЕСТИСТОЛПНОГО ХРАМА
................................... 87
МОЗАИКИ ХЕРСОНЕСА СРЕДИ РОДСТВЕННЫХ ПАМЯТНИКОВ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО
МОНУМЕНТАЛЬНО-ДЕКОРАТИВНОГО ИСКУССТВА
................................ 95
РЕЗЮМЕ:
THE BYZANTINE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS
TAURICA.................. 109
СПИСОК СОКРАЩЕНИЙ
......................................................... 119
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
.................................................................... 120
SPIS TREŚCI
OLEG IWANOWICZ DOMBROWSKI
................................................ 7
PRZEDMOWA
.................................................................... 10
HISTORIA BADAŃ
............................................................... 11
UTRACONE MOZAIKI
............................................................ 17
MOZAIKI PODŁOGOWE BAZYLIKI UWAROWSKIEJ
................................. 29
MOZAIKI ZBADANE IN SITU
...................................................... 42
MOZAIKA PODŁOGOWA KOŚCIOŁA KRZYŻOWEGO ZA MURAMI
.................... 65
MOZAIKA PODŁOGOWA KOŚCIOŁA SZEŚCIOFILAROWEGO
......................... 87
MIEJSCE MOZAIK CHERSONEZU WŚRÓD POKREWNYCH ZABYTKÓW BIZANTYJSKIEJ
SZTUKI MONUMENTALNO-DEKORACYJNEJ
....................................... 95
STRESZCZENIE:
THE BYZANTINE
MOSAICS OF
CHERSONESUS
TAURICA........... 109
SPIS SKRÓTÓW
.................................................................. 119
LITERATURA
.................................................................... 120
CONTENTS
OLEG
L DOMBROVSKIJ
........................................................... 7
INTRODUCTION
................................................................. 10
THE HISTORY OF THE STUDIES
.................................................... 11
THE DESTROYED MOSAICS
....................................................... 17
THE MOSAIC FLOORS OF THE UVAROV BASILICA
.................................. 29
THE MOSAICS STUDIED IN SITU
................................................... 42
THE MOSAIC FLOOR OF THE EXTRAMURAL CRUCIFORM TEMPLE
................... 65
THE MOSAIC FLOOR OF THE SDC-COLUMNED TEMPLE
.............................. 87
THE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS AMONG OTHER SIMILAR RELICS
OF THE BYZANTINE MONUMENTAL DECORATIVE ART
............................ 95
SUMMARY: THE BYZANTINE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS
TÁURICA
................. 109
ABBREVIATIONS
................................................................. 119
LITERATURE
............................. .............. 120
THE BYZANTINE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS TAURICA
Summary
Introduction
The many years project of the making of the drawings, re¬
moval, archeological study and restoration of the mosaic floors
in the medieval city of Chersonesus is now completed. During
fifteen consecutive seasons, all the mosaics were carefully re¬
moved by restoration technicians, taken to specialist workshops,
transferred to new mortar bases and returned to the exhibition of
the Chersonesus archeological reserve. Now it is finally possible
to make scholarly interpretations of their artistic content, and their
adequate critical descriptions must be promptly published.
During the work on the present book, we have had to return to
the polemics concerning the times of the making of the mosaics in
Chersonesus, polemics which have now lost much of their public¬
ity but which still have not been satisfactorily settled. Many of the
traditionally accepted dates of the making of the various mosaics
are vague and mutually contradictory, and sometimes downright
erroneous; if they are to be established with more accuracy, this
will bring up another unsettled issue, that of the compatibility of
the stylistic characteristics of each mosaic with the date of its
creation determined based on archeological information. One
must ask again which specific artistic features of a mosaic date
it to a particular period. While the methodological premisses
which make it possible to answer such questions, are far from
innovative, they nevertheless entirely suffice for our purposes,
as they provide more reliable insights into the diversified corpus
of the mosaic floors from the entire long history of the medieval
Chersonesus.
It must also be explained that the somehow sketchy nature of
the present book is due to our imperfect knowledge of the mosa¬
ics themselves as well as of the edifices in Chersonesus where
they were discovered. This will most probably remain an insur¬
mountable difficulty, since the excavation work which was done
in the past obviously cannot be repeated today using state-of-the
art archeological methodology. Thus, the reader will frequently
encounter criticism of the methodological shortcomings of the
research conducted in the past, shortcomings which in certain
instances may be explained by the situation at the time when such
work was done, and some of which were subsequently remedied
by later scholars. All of those circumstances must be understood
and borne in mind if future, better organized studies of the medi¬
eval Chersonesus are to be successful.
The History of the Studies
In
1853,
A. Uvarov unearthed the first mosaic of Chersone¬
sus, which is also among the most beautiful ones; it was located in
the southern aisle of the basilica which is now called the Uvarov
basilica in honor of its discoverer
[1954,
pp.
533-537; 1955,
pp.
167-168].
The proceedings of the Odessa Society of History and
Antiquities {Odesskoje
obščestvo
istorii
i drevnostej, OOID) for
1876-1877
describe the mosaic floor of one of the latest build¬
ings of Chersonesus, the so-called six-columned temple on the
Northern shore, close to the Uvarov basilica. The mosaic in its
exonarthex and a section of the mosaic floor in the annex added to
the southern aisle of the basilica, were also uncovered at that time.
These mosaics were covered up with soil, and unearthed for the
third time by K.
Koscjuško-Valjužinič
in
1901 [1902,
pp.
81-83;
OAK,
1902,
pp.
73-89].
K.
Koscjuško-ValjužiniČ
is also the author of a short account
of all the other mosaics found in Chersonesus prior to the Russian
Revolution: in
1889,
he unearthed the mosaics in the basilica which
was later called the Basilica in a basilica after the date of its dis¬
covery [OAK,
1889,
pp.
14-15].
In
1891
and
1901,
mosaics were
encountered in the Western basilica and its annexes [OAK,
1891,
p.
13; 1901,
pp.
22-30;
Koscjuško,
1902,
pp.
58-59, 64, 67,
Figs.
7,
8,12,14,16].
Further exploration of the Uvarov basilica identified
hitherto unknown mosaics in its southern aisle and in an annex at it,
in the narthex and another one in the exonarthex. At the same time,
mosaics were uncovered in the adjacent baptistery [OAK,
1901,
pp.
32-34;
Koscjuško,
1902,
pp.
81-82,
Figs.
23,30].
In
1902-1904,
the ruins of the so-called extramural cruci¬
form temple were discovered in the hills on the ravine of the
Karantinnaja; an essay describes the mosaics identified in that
church [OAK,
1902,
pp.
28-38;
Koscjuško,
1904,
pp.
31-50].
In
1906,
K.
Koscjuško
found mosaics in the four-apsed church
in the south-western corner of the ancient city [Leper,
1911,
pp.
94-96,98].
In
1932
and
1935,
G.
Bělov
discovered another two basili¬
cas on the northern shore of the archeological reserve, featuring
vestiges of floors
[1938,
pp.
101-107,
Figs.
63-66; 1941,
pp.
224-232].
In
1950,
during further exploration of the
1935
ba¬
silica
S. Strželeckij
excavated a mosaic which furnished an
earlier building
[1951,
pp.
131-138].
In
1953,
the present author
conducted a comprehensive exploration of the extramural temple;
that project included the unearthing and removal of its mosaic
panel for subsequent restoration, which exposed the archeological
material buried in the ground beneath it
[1993].
Another mosaic
was encountered in the so-called basilica on the hill, discovered
as early as in
1890
and definitively investigated during the exca¬
vation project conducted by S.
Běljajev
in
1973-1977 [1979].
In
1971-1974,
the
1889
basilica and its annexes, containing well-
preserved archeological material, were definitively investigated
by
S. Ryžov
[1997].
In
1977,
V. Kutajsov discovered the remnants
of a mosaic in a bad condition of preservation in the four-apsed
temple
[1982].
In
1979,
preparatory to the contemplated restora¬
tion, the same scholar was in charge of the exposing of the mosa¬
ics in the exonarthex of the Uvarov basilica and in the southern
aisle of the Western basilica, as well as in the chapel at the end of
the southern gallery of the latter temple [the Report for
1979].
The first attempt at an archeologically competent and exhaus¬
tive description of the temples of Chersonesus, including the
locations of their mosaics, was the article by A. Bert je-Delagard
[1893,
pp.
31-33,
Figs. I, V-VII]. When discussing the mosaics,
the author made certain short although true remarks on their style
and technique of execution. The well-drawn figures present the
general compositions of all the mosaics.
After the Russian Revolution, M. Lejter devoted an article to
the corpus of mosaics in Chersonesus
[1928].
Unfortunately, the
author knew them only from photographs, which deprived her
discussion of the necessary insights and depth. Much more satis¬
factory was the article, unfortunately unfinished, by
N.
Izmajlova,
who visited Chersonesus in
1923.
In
1959,
A. Jakobson
published his essential monograph
Rannesrednevěkovyj
Chersones [The Early-Medieval Chersone¬
sus], where a whole chapter was devoted to mosaics. That author
harshly criticized the present writer s preliminary and mainly oral
statements on the necessity of a revision of the dating of certain
churches and mosaic floors of Chersonesus
[1959,
p.
175,
foot¬
note;
180-182,206-207,222,237,240,246].
Jakobson
described
most mosaics as made no later than in the 6th cent., with the ex¬
ception of only one relic, the mosaic floor of the six-columned
temple, which he dated at first to the llth-Uth, and then, to the
10th cent.
[1950,
pp.
231-234; 1982,
pp.
504-512].
109
The Destroyed Mosaics
During the many years excavation work in various locations
in Chersonesus before the Russian Revolution and World War II,
e.g., during further exploration of the ruins of the Uvarov basilica,
the baptistery, the extramural cruciform temple and other medi¬
eval edifices, small fragments of wall mosaics and individual
extant pieces of
smalti
and colored stone (called cubes ) were
collected. Similar material was identified during the investigation
of buildings discovered in Chersonesus after the war. Still, not a
single larger section of a wall mosaic has been found yet. Accord¬
ingly, a short discussion of the content and style of the extinct
mosaic compositions inside the rained buildings may be in order.
Under their original designs, the edifices of the medieval
Chersonesus were decorated not only with mosaic floors, but
also, as in any other city, with frescos and mosaics on the walls
and ceiling vaults. The tiny fragments of mosaics and scattered
clusters of multicolored
smalti
and semiprecious stones which
are now kept in the stores of the Chersonesus archeological
reserve, were unearthed in various buildings. From the catalogs
and reports of the archeological expeditions, we infer that finds of
this type were never abundant. However, we also notice that such
mosaics appeared in most churches of the medieval city.
Judging by the entire extant corpus of the artistic furnish¬
ings of the churches of Chersonesus, they commonly applied the
same decorative combination of mosaics and frescos as may be
encountered in other cities, and particularly in the temples of the
medieval Kiev
(1
lth—12th cent). Obviously, in Chersonesus there
also must have been a small number of compositions consisting
exclusively of mosaic. Most probably they were placed in certain
specific locations, typically in the altar apses, inside which most
vestiges of the destroyed mosaics have been found.
Thus, we deduce that that mosaics were used in Chersonesus
not as continuous covering of walls and ceiling vaults, but only in
their sections of varying sizes, as distinctive decorations of char¬
acteristics elements of the architectural design of a building: the
dome, the altar concha or the triumphal arch in front of an altar.
Incidentally, fragments of mosaic made of tiny, almost grain-like
stones prove that at a fairly late period, apparently not earlier that
the 12th cent., portable mosaic icons were used in Chersonesus.
The material collected during all the excavation seasons
is sufficient to reconstruct the typical appearance of a basilica
in Chersonesus.. Generally, it followed the standard design of
the countless Byzantine basilicas, especially of those in the
eastern provinces of the empire. Based on the detailed study of
the remnants of the
1935
basilica, which have been completely
uncovered, we may reconstruct the interior
ofthat
temple, which
probably was representative of the medieval Chersonesus [Dom-
brovskij,
1959].
Pieces of plaster have been found all over the floor of the
southern aisle; it is thin and unpainted, merely covered with sev¬
eral coats of whitewash. It shows that the aisles had flat ceilings,
with mural paintings in selected sections only, and large amounts
of empty space between them. The plaster covered white stucco
cornices, molded or modeled by hand. In the dimly-lit aisles, the
light-colored ceilings reflected the scattered light onto the frescoed
walls; such scenes are suggested by the numerous pieces of paint¬
ed plaster found everywhere at the feet of the walls of the aisle. In
these lighting conditions, the matte surfaces of the frescos, which
were predominantly in warm, deep colors, reflected intense hues
and produced the illusion of being illuminated from the back.
In contrast to the dark aisles, the tall, two-tiered nave was
flooded with light from the windows located at all sides at its top;
these were closed up with marble lattices (and in certain instanc¬
es, with metal or wooden sashes). The pieces of painted plaster
found in the nave of the basilica suggest that the well-illuminated
paintings of the upper tier, surmounting the two rows of columns,
were executed in bright and cooler colors. At the end of the nave,
in the apse, which opened broadly onto the rest of the church, fur¬
ther windows provided more light to illuminate the altar; pieces
of plaster found during excavation work evidence that the walls
of the apse were also decorated with paintings.
Above the windows, there was the relatively shady spherical
concha, all glittering with a mosaic of colored and golden
smalti
(a large number of
smalti
has been identified in the ceiling of the
concha). The matte frescos contrasted with the shimmering bril¬
liance of the mosaic, producing the same peculiar artistic effect
that we already know from the mosaics and frescos of St. Sophia s
Cathedral in Kiev. The dissimilar textures amplified the opposi¬
tion of the colors between the mosaic and the frescos.
K. Koscjuško
found a large number of
smalti
during his fur¬
ther exploration of the baptistery at the Uvarov basilica in
1901
[1902,
p.
93].
There are no
smalti or
stones of intermediate or
dull hues in that collection, which consists mainly of
smalti
of
an intense color, principally light-blue, green-and-sky-blue and
golden. All the other colors contrast so strongly with one another
and, most importantly, are so scarce, that the nature of the mosaic
in the baptistery may be easily imagined. The total absence of
flesh-colored and dark stones or
smalti,
which were conven¬
tionally used to represent human bodies, clearly evidences that
the mosaic did not show people or their faces and did not illustrate
a specific subject. This suffices to date the mosaic in the dome of
the baptistery not to the first but at latest to the second period of
the construction of the city, which coincided with the time of the
iconoclasm
(the 8th—9th cent.).
Based on the quantitative ratio of the blue and sky-blue
smalti
to the other colors, K.
Koscjuško
very correctly deduced that the
mosaic in the dome of the baptistery represented the sky with
stars, and possibly with a golden cross in the middle
[1902,
p.
93;
cf. Bert je-Delagard,
1907,
p.
85].
The substantial and varied corpus of
smalti
collected during
the excavation work at the altar of the Uvarov basilica allows at
least a rough reconstruction of the nature of that mosaic. The mo¬
saic images in the altar concha
ofthat
church were shown against
a background of golden
smalti. Data
from A. Uvarov s and
K. Koscjuško s
excavation work, as well as those from the com¬
prehensive exploration conducted by the present author in
1953,
date this destroyed mosaic to a time after the
iconoclasm,
when
the luxurious backgrounds in mosaic compositions, which had
emerged during the period of the opposition against the religious
use of images, had entirely superseded the blue backgrounds, not
to mention the white and light-blue or sky-blue ones, typical of
early-Byzantine mosaics.
To the mosaic material deriving from the investigations of the
Uvarov basilica, the baptistery and other buildings, one may add
the fragments of
a smalto
mosaic found in the layers of sand and
rubbish between the mosaic floors and the earlier ones, made of
fired-clay powder, in the extramural cruciform temple, identified
during the excavation season of
1953.
Among the pieces of
Ље
mosaic, one distinguishes small golden background
smalti
with
cantharelli (coatings of glass on the surface) of varying thickness,
which imparted diversity to the lighting effects through the refrac¬
tion of the light rays reflected by the gold leaf under the cantharel¬
li, placed on bits of translucent pink or yellowish glass. Leaf made
of alloys of gold with silver and of pure silver was also used. We
notice that the spacings between individual
smalti
vary, that the
latter have been buried in the ground at varying depths, and that
their surfaces were set at varying angles to the light illuminating
the mosaic. In the spots where the
smalti
have fallen off, traces
of preliminary painting (red paint against a gray background) are
visible in the empty sockets.
In two sections, stripes of a colored pattern are extant beside
the golden background; these consist of brown and green
smalti
110
combined with grayish-white cubes of Proconnesus marble and
yellow marble-like limestone. Gray-pink and dull-red
smalti
were
added in two places. In the spots where the colored
smalti
and
stones have fallen off, traces of preliminary painting in watercol-
ors against a gray background are visible. We have not managed
to construe any ornaments or figures against the golden back¬
ground of these remnants.
During the excavation of the temple with the ark in
1954,
individual colored
smalto
cubes were also discovered, as well
as small pieces of plaster with vestiges of a mosaic pattern and
square sockets in the places where the cubes have fallen off.
Similarly to the extramural temple, before laying this mosaic a
sketch was painted in polychrome watercolors on fresh plaster.
The same technique was applied in all the mosaics of Kiev in the
llth-nthcent.
Two further destroyed mosaics were located in the four-apsed
temple. These are dated to two periods in the history of the con¬
struction of the city. The earlier one, probably made in the 7th
cent., was in the western apse. A careful study of all the available
material (and primarily of archive data) warrants the following
reconstruction of the image in the mosaic: Behind the threshold
in the western part of the church, where the mosaic has been de¬
stroyed, there might have been a representation of a vessel or a
basket, from which two stems of vine (partly extant) grew out,
curving to the right and to the left; they bore tripartite leaves,
tendrils and grapes. In the bottom right-hand section, there was
an eagle, or rather a bird with spread wings, of an altogether
not predatory species, judging by the harmless appearance of its
small, red bill. Another two birds were above it: on the left, a
dove with a golden-yellow trunk, and on the right, a short-tailed
bird with a blue neck and breast, a yellow trunk and a red wing.
All the birds were set inside coils of vine, with a large figure of a
peacock in the middle, shown in profile and apparently pecking
at the vine. The latter bird s head and the top part of its neck are
not preserved.
The later mosaic floor comes most probably from as late as
the
1
Oth cent. It was a pattern of intersecting reddish circles, filled
with white lanceolate segments and set against a yellow back¬
ground. In the central part of the building, the pattern changed
to large heart-shaped ivy leaves with sharp yellow points, high¬
lighted by their dark contours against a white background and
encircled by a dark stripe. In the central part of the temple, a lime
kiln was discovered under the mosaic floors, based on which K.
Grinevič
and V. Kutajsov described this edifice as a memorial to
Capitonus, one of the first bishops of Chersonesus, who baptized
the inhabitants of the city in the year
325.
The Mosaic Floors of the Uvarov Basilica
Most of the mosaic floor in a relatively good condition of
preservation which A. Uvarov discovered during his excavations
in
1853,
was transported to St. Petersburg in fairly mysterious cir¬
cumstances without having been secured in any way. During the
subsequent restoration (executed in accordance with the practice
of the 19th cent.), not only were the sections of mosaic collected
in various rooms transferred to a new cement base, but their origi¬
nal ordering was disturbed as well: they were used, quite skill¬
fully, to make the floor in a room in the
Ermitage
museum. This
makes it very difficult to date the various sections of the resulting
mélange
of mosaics and to identify their original locations. Some
other fragments of mosaics which were discovered later in the
same basilica and left in situ, have been lost now.
The archeological exploration of the basilica may be divided
into five periods, separated by long intervals: A. Uvarov s excava¬
tion work in
1853,
the OOID s in
1876-1888,
K. Koscjusko s in
1901-1902,
R. Leper s in
1908,
O. Dombrovskij s in
1953,
and
finally,
y
Kutajsov s in
1977
and
S. Ryžov s
in
1985.
Due to a
combination of circumstances, the various descriptions of the
mosaics in the basilica are rather contradictory.
By comparing the floor plan and the layout of the mosaic in
the Uvarov basilica with its sections moved to the room in the
Ermitage,
its original appearance in the southern aisle of the
church may be fairly clearly reconstructed. Unlike most other
mosaics, this one did not have a frame of plant motifs around the
geometric ornaments of the floor. The narrow and elongated inte¬
rior of the aisle was divided into three parts, with a large square
in the middle and two rectangles of identical decorative patterns
but of different dimensions in the east and west, extending along
the aisle. The western rectangle was somehow shorter (which ap¬
parently enhanced the visual effect). According to the plan drawn
in
1853,
the western part consisted of twenty-seven rows, each of
five identical octagons with four-leafed rosettes inside them, and
with black crosses within the latter. There were square pieces at
the corners of the rectangles.
The big medallion in the middle showed an elaborate multi¬
colored star, of a shape similar to that of a snowflake: this motif
appeared frequently both in the ancient and in the Byzantine
design of mosaic floors. The star had a contour of a complex
geometric pattern. Inside its points, there were very conventional
images of vessels with voluted handles.
In
1901,
K. Koscjuško
discovered another mosaic at a level
considerably below that of Uvarov s, laid on a rock floor covered
with two thin coats of lime mortar. The mosaic was extant in the
western part of the southern aisle; it featured a serrate edge divid¬
ing the border with plant ornaments from the main area. The latter
was also filled with octagons, apparently similar to the ornamen¬
tal design of Uvarov s mosaic in the eastern and western parts of
the southern aisle. Still, these octagons were much smaller, and
the leaves of the rosettes inside them were heart-shaped rather
than semicircular. Furthermore, although these octagons were
smaller than those in the later mosaic, each horizontal row of the
mosaic could fit only four instead of five. The main area had a
smaller size as well, since it was encircled by a double frame with
a wide ornamental frieze of plant patterns. There was no such
frieze in Uvarov s mosaic, and neither did it appear in the layout
in the
Ermitage.
As we can see, ample data are available on the two periods
of the construction of the Uvarov basilica, represented by two
mosaics dated to different times. The earlier mosaic, discovered
by K.
Koscjuško,
may be dated at earliest to the 7th cent., while
the later one, excavated by A. Uvarov, at earliest to the 10th cent.
The 10th cent, (at earliest) is also the dating of the hoard of coins
found at the altar of the temple
[1855,
pp.
163-165].
The Mosaics Studied In Situ
So far twelve mosaic floors have been removed from the
churches in the city and restored, which has made it possible to in¬
vestigate the layers under them, and thereby to gather reliable ar¬
cheological evidence pertaining to the dates of the buildings. The
earliest one was the mosaic panel from the 5th cent., decorating a
temple which preceded the two basilicas discovered by G.
Bělov
in
1935
and dated to the 6th-7th and the 10th cent. Unfortunately,
the walls
ofthat
earliest church have not been identified and prob¬
ably have been destroyed, which makes it impossible for us to
reconstruct its layout.
The overall dimensions of the extant section of the mosaic
are
5.02
x
1.61
m. In the east, north and west, its wide verge has
been preserved, showing a dark-colored branch of ivy with white
leaves against a golden background. Its wavy edge frames a nar¬
row rectangle extending from the west to the east. The latter 1S
divided into four sections, each containing a separate ornamental
composition laid along the West-East axis. The uppermost sec¬
tion
(1.03
x
0.53
m) represents a kylix holding two stems of vine
111
with grapes and tendrils, placed symmetrically with each other
and gracefully curved. The contour of the vessel is outlined by a
wide light-colored strip, made of cubes of Proconnesus marble.
In the center of the second square section
(1.07
x
1.07
m),
there is an elegant tall and ribbed cantharus with S-shaped
handles. It is also encircled by a white background. The third
rectangle is filled with ornamental zigzags: seven white stripes
(each consisting of two rows of marble bits) alternating with red
and yellow ones of the same size, separated from one another by
black lines. The pattern of the lowest square
(1.09
x
1.09
m)
is a
grid consisting of circles passing through one another s centers.
The ornament gains variety due to the various colors filling the
individual circles: each circle seems different, while in fact they
all follow the same design.
The material of the mosaic are several types of local stone
of various hues and imported marble: bluish (from Proconnesus)
and yellowish (Pentelic). Small pieces of both types of marble
abounded in the medieval Chersonesus, as they had been used
for making the countless ancient sarcophagi and other flat items
which subsequently were destroyed. Leftovers from contempo¬
rary architectural details were also applied as the material of mo¬
saics. Pebbles of various colors-red, yellow and black-were also
a common component of mosaics. These colors may seem plain,
but mosaics made of such pebbles were in fact fairly diverse, due
to the sophisticated mixtures of the hues and combinations of
such mixtures with pure colors at varying ratios. Obviously,
this use of colors must not be considered a coincidence, although
neither can it be explained as a personal technique developed by
an individual master. When studied in detail, the design of the
mosaic turns out to lose some of its stylistic uniformity in certain
sections, and the combinations of colors and various materials
sometimes appear fairly imperfect and mechanical. Nevertheless,
in spite of the occasionally inferior execution, the overall effect of
the mosaic is one of an age-long artistic tradition.
The mosaic is dated to the 5th cent, based on archeological
data, and particularly on the coin from the reign of Theodosius II
(408-450),
found in the base of the mosaic, made of pink lime and
fired clay powder.
In
1889,
K. Kpscjuško
unearthed a mosaic floor in the badly-
preserved building directly south of the basilica discovered in
the same year. When the mosaic was removed in
1952
by the
present author, two thick coats of fired-clay powder mortar ap¬
peared under it, placed on a layer of large stones densely packed
on another layer of the same mortar; between that and the bed¬
rock, there was an amorphous archeological layer
0.60
m
deep.
Since no traces of earlier floors were identified in the latter layer,
the mosaic floor may be safely considered the original bottom
surface of the room. It is dated to not earlier than the 6th cent.,
based on the coin from the reign of Anastasius
(518-527)
found
in the substruction.
This mosaic was originally a rectangular white field of the
dimensions of
3.22
x
2.78
m. A
broad yellow band surrounded
it on all sides, with a contour of two rows of dark-red and white
triangles. At the top right-hand corner of the mosaic, it had a small
rectangular projection
(0.80
x
0.39
m)
with the design of a band
wound into three large loops and two smaller rings. The entire
left-hand part of the floor is extinct, but it must have featured a
similar projection at the top left-hand corner, since the composi¬
tion was obviously symmetrical.
S. Ryžov
has established that the
two projections marked the location of a baptismal tank, and that
the building itself was a baptistery
[1997].
Inside the large rectangle, there were two interweaving wide
bands winding into loops of various shapes and sizes against a
white background; inside, a hexagon superimposed above them
occupied a third of the area of the field. In the corners of the
mosaic composition, the bands formed large rings. Everywhere
along the sides of the mosaic, fruit similar to apples were scat¬
tered. Medallions showed bright-colored doves against a golden-
yellow background, with bills turned toward the center of the
mosaic. The entire upper half of the hexagon was taken by the
garish figure of a standing big peacock with his tail spread out,
and below him, at its very feet, by two smaller olive-gray birds
chasing a butterfly. These may represent peahens or, judging
by their relatively small size, pea-chicks. A crack has seriously
damaged the peacock s chest and wings. His bluish-gray head is
marked against the bright-colored plumage of his tail. The latter
is represented as a circle, somehow darker than the light-colored
background of olive-gray and dull-blue pebbles, with the feathers
drawn in it.
The vivid images and the general quality of the composition,
which resembles a tapestry, are typical of the transitory period in
the history of Byzantine art, whose heyday occurred at the end of
the 8th cent. It was at that time that the early-medieval painting,
mosaic and sculpture, which continued the realistic style of the
late-ancient art, evolved into a radically different, conventional¬
ized and ornamental manner of representation. Nevertheless, if
one peruses the mosaic in detail-and particularly its colors and
techniques of execution-it becomes obvious that it complied with
the aesthetic standards of an earlier period. The applied colors are
refined, and the images are represented with a certain measure
of naturalism. Let us also note the technical excellence of the
mosaic: the fired-clay powder mortar provides a firm base, the
surfaces are smoothly polished, the cubes fit tightly together, and
most importantly, the contours are filled with pebbles of various
shapes and sizes, which produces an effect of artistic easiness.
All of these characteristics may also be construed as evidence of
a relatively early date of this find, since they were typical of the
late-ancient mosaic and eventually disappeared from the Byzan¬
tine practices of mosaic-making.
Thus, among the mosaic floors of Chersonesus, The Pea¬
cock unquestionably represents the early Middle Ages. Still, it
was not the only floor of this kind. Because of similar ornitho¬
logical subject matters, and possibly also because of the dates of
their making, the mosaics of the Basilica in a basilica should be
classified in the same category.
S. Ryžov,
who investigated them
in a definitive manner
[1997],
concludes that they come from the
first period of the construction of the temple, or from the 6th cent.
The principal objection against this dating is based on the appar¬
ent synchronism of the mosaics: If they all come from the same
time, then how can the different elevations of the floors in the
aisles, the nave and the narthex be explained? The natural relief
of the ground could hardly have caused that, if only because the
entire site of the construction of the basilica had been preliminar¬
ily leveled down. When summarizing the scarce data on the chro¬
nology of the mosaics from the first period of the construction of
the Basilica in a basilica, we may infer that the entire first period
lasted from the 6th to the 9th-10th cent., the floor of the nave be¬
ing probably earlier than the other ones.
Most mosaics of Chersonesus had geometric patterns with
the same motifs: intersecting circles, herringbone, and occasion¬
ally meanders or various combinations of interwoven rhombi
and squares. This standardization of designs makes it possible
to identify in a positive manner similar mosaic from the earlier
period. The upper mosaic floor of the
1935
basilica dates to the
10th cent. Its design is extremely simple: circles intersecting in
four directions, whose shapes are represented by cubes of dark
brownish-greenish sandstone. The circles, passing through one
another s centers, form rhomboidal figures, hemmed inside by
single rows of bits of red marble-like limestone and filled by
yellow cubes of the same material. The contours of these figures
draw quatrefoils with elongated pointed leaves. This pattern fills
a rectangular field surrounded on all sides with
a bordure
of an
112
undulated dark-colored branch of ivy with white heart-shaped
leaves against a yellow background. The mosaics in the aisles of
the basilica of
1832
had a similar design.
Apart from the locations listed above, the pattern of intersect¬
ing circles appears also in the Western basilica, in the narthex of
the Basilica in a basilica, in the apse of the chapel adjacent to the
southern aisle of the Western basilica, in the exonarthex and the
southern gallery of the Uvarov basilica, and in the annex at the
southern side of the baptistery building. Because of the geometric
simplicity of the ornaments of all of these mosaics, it is difficult
to distinguish nuances of style, which in each case may also be
construed as local or purely accidental technical peculiarities.
Throughout the period between the 5th and the llth-12 cent.,
the standard pattern of the ornament became gradually simplified:
the lines of the circles and the geometric layout of the composi¬
tions turned somehow irregular, the hues of the coloring lost their
variety, and the design of the
bordure
became less complicated.
A marked evolution is also noticeable in the overall techniques
and artistic devices applied in floor mosaics: with time, the bigger
and bigger pebbles were used, the surrounding frame turned more
repetitious and independent of the logic of the central image, and
the bits fit one another increasingly imperfectly. The formula of
the mortar also had become simplified by the 10th cent.
The Mosaic Floor of the Extramural Cruciform Temple
The history of the construction of the extramural temple was
as follows: At first, a memorial church was erected to mark the
location of the ruins of an earlier cemetery chapel from the 5th
cent., under whose shelves a coin from the reign of Theodosius II
(408-450)
has been found. The first church was built over an un¬
derground gallery, cut in rock and ending with a carved-out vault
of a very archaic trefoil (three-apsed) form. The tunnel leading
underground was accessed by an entrance at the southern wing
of the cruciform temple. The gallery was used partly as a dromos,
i.e. a passage leading to the vault, although its main application
was as a sewer collecting water from three wells; at a later time,
the southern wall of the western wing of the cruciform temple
adjoined the middle (and deepest) well. We infer that the purpose
of putting up that wall was to use its central section to cover up
the vestiges of the chapel because the edifice was very inconve¬
niently sited on a steep slope, while some ten meters further away
from the former chapel there is a flat rocky area which the build¬
ers of the temple did not use, and which became a building site
only much later. This proves the interrelations of the concept and
application of the structures in question, which make up a self-
contained church complex.
At the beginning, the temple had no altar, but instead there
were entrances from all the four directions. With time, the temple
was modified into an ordinary church, featuring an altar, which was
eventually erected in the eastern wing, with a side altar and a sacris¬
ty added to the altar from the outside. The final architectural design
which the temple acquired after the modifications and additions,
was similar to those of two other houses of worship in Chersonesus,
the temple with the ark and the central church with the reliquary.
In the case of Chersonesus, this type of edifice may be considered
an intermediate stage between the design with a roughly cruciform
floor projection, a dome above the central part and cylindrical
vaults above the wings, and a later design of a cruciform domed
church, with a floor projection in the shape of an inscribed cross.
Like many other temples in Chersonesus, the extramural cem¬
etery temple was gradually converted into a tomb, and eventually
graves appeared even in its altar part, as well as in the two an¬
nexes, where they were packed so tightly that one literally could
not walk between them. At the very beginning of this tnetamor-
phosis-when the altar with a throne and a synthronos had been
set up in the western wing, and ossuaries, in the eastern-the floor
projection of the temple turned into a T1 with a shortened right-
hand section. The new floor was furnished with a mosaic over the
substruction; the latter consisted of a pavement of finely crushed
stone on a sand bed, placed above the original fired-clay powder
floor, in places demolished by the gravediggers, which floor had
in turn been laid on a leveled embankment where construction
rubbish had been added to the soil. Let us note that the mosaic
in the western wing was more worn out by human feet and more
damaged, while both in the square section under the dome and in
the relatively secluded northern and southern wings, the mosa¬
ics are in a much better condition of preservation, and the top
surfaces of their stones have retained most of the texture of their
original cutting.
Between the two floors in the large temple (under the ex¬
tant mosaic of the square under the dome and its equally extant
substruction, rather than in the cracks in the mosaic), pieces of
glazed vessels from the 12th-13th and the
12-14Ш
cent, have
been found. The images in the mosaic in the southern wing were
designed to fit in the space left after the setting up of the ossuar¬
ies, which event took place not earlier than in the
11
гіі-Шіі
cent.,
since in the crushed-stone pavement of one of the ossuaries, a coin
of a pseudo-Romanus (III or IV, i.e.,
1028-1034
or
1067-1071)
has been discovered. Obviously, the mosaic could not have been
made before the minting of the coin. Shards of glazed pottery
from the same time have been found in the pavement under the
synthronos, which, judging by details of its execution, must have
been erected simultaneously with the mosaic on the floor; again,
the vessels identified under the floor cannot come from a period
later than the floor itself.
As we have already mentioned, the mosaic has the general
shape of the letter T. Its complex design consists of four sec¬
tions, corresponding to the architectural layout of the edifice.
Each section is essentially a self-contained composition, although
all of them are united by a shared frame showing stems of vine
with leaves and grapes. The square panel under the dome is also
the principal part of the design of the mosaic. It shows a gigantic
cantharus, at whose foot two peacocks stand with raised head.
Two stems of vine grow out of the vessel, bending down symmet¬
rically on the right and on the left, each in three broad flourishes.
Inside the flourishes, among the vine leaves and grapes, there are
doves. We emphasize that each side of the image is a mirror re¬
flection of the other.
Above this central section, there is a row of seven medallions
with images of birds, vases, fruits and blossoming twigs. On either
side of the frame of the central panel, we see three rows of similar
medallions with an even wider variety of figures borrowed-as K.
Koscjuško
put it- from the plant and animal kingdoms. Thirteen
rows, each of seven such medallions, take up the entire area of the
western wing of the temple.
The contours of the round medallions are made of interweav¬
ing triangular looping twists in two different and alternating com¬
binations of colors. The rhomboidal spaces between the medal¬
lions enclose identical simple geometric patterns.
The layout of the medallions provides an interesting insight
into the concept of the mosaic. In the western wing, the medal¬
lions make up something of a continuous carpet, which seen in
perspective, by an observer standing at the entrance to the temple,
makes the interior seem more spacious and elongated than it in
fact is. Thus, the placement of the medallions highlights the fact
that the western wing of the edifice is somehow elongated in
comparison with the transverse wings. The ample and light-col¬
ored central square of the mosaic, to which the carpet leads, is
promment against the dense and colorful grid of the medallions
which encloses it.
The impression of the elongation of the temple
s
western wing
is further strengthened by the frame of the mosaic, showing stems
113
of vine with leaves and grapes; its wavy curves going along the
walls surround the entire floor, beginning and ending in two small
craters above the upper left- and right-hand corners of the central
panel. The frame, which is slightly wider in the western wing
than in the other parts of the building, takes up some of the area
allocated to the medallions. To enhance the effect of the depth of
perspective, the spacing between the curves decreases a little with
their distance from an observer standing at the entrance.
The mosaic floor in the right-hand wing of the edifice,
which is shorter than the left-wing one, is a large square with an
inscribed circle, whose shape, as in the case of the smaller me¬
dallions, is outlined by a closed chain of four triangular twisted
loops, located in the corners of the square. Inside each loop, there
is a dark silhouette of a graceful kylix, and in the middle of the
circle enclosed by the chain, we can see a wide polygonal crater
with two doves sitting on its rim. Two stems of vine grow out of
the middle of the crater, and surround it on the right and on the left
in identical tiny flourishes, embellished with leaves and hanging
grapes. A conspicuous feature of this composition, in which mir¬
ror symmetry is also observed, is a sizeable empty space above
the cup. Similar earlier compositions, which demonstrably illus¬
trated the idea of the Holy Communion, showed a dove, the sym¬
bol of the Holy Ghost, soaring over the cup. After the period of
the
iconoclasm,
such images were placed in special locations, set
apart from the rest of the interior of a church, as it was forbidden
to tread on them. The absence of this symbol from the composi¬
tion in question made it less sacred, and apparently acceptable
as the design of a floor mosaic.
The floor in the left-hand (northern) wing was decorated by a
motley geometric design which showed in miniature many of the
ornamental motifs encountered in the mosaics of Chersonesus-as
if the designer intended it as a collection of various geometric
patterns. If it were conclusively established that this mosaic in¬
deed comes from an early period, this would justify
Koscjuško s
remark
[1904,
p.
36]
that the extramural temple provided a
treasury of designs for the later builders of basilicas in Chersone-
sus. Conversely, since the temple was in fact erected at a fairly
late period in the history of the city, this mosaic, laid at an even
later time, could not have inspired the decorative motifs in other
churches; it is much more likely that it constitutes a synopsis of
sorts of the previous work of the master builders of Chersonesus.
The geometric patterns in the northern wing of the temple
make up a distinct group, separate from the rest of its floor. Anum-
ber of frames, each enclosing a simple pattern, like pieces of vari¬
ous cloth in a patchwork quilt, is joined with the rest of the mosaic
by a common border of vine stems. As we have mentioned, all of
these patterns may also be found in other mosaics in Chersonesus,
but this
naïve
collection, while seemingly surprising, has a pecu¬
liar nature and attraction of its own. While geometric ornaments
more or less similar to certain patterns in this mosaic are known
from numerous other early-medieval mosaic floors, the shapes
from this composition were quite accurately copied in relatively
late mosaics throughout the city, e.g., on the floors of the basilica
of Partenity, dated to the 8th-10th cent.
[Rěpnikov,
1909,
p.
91-
-140].
Some of these ornaments (interwoven squares, triangles,
rhombi, checkerboards, herringbone etc.) had been used since the
earliest antiquity... It is thence extremely difficult to identify the
ultimate origin of a certain pattern, e.g., of zigzagging stripes of
alternating colors. We know that it appeared in the Balkans, in
the Apennine and Iberian Peninsulas, and eventually also in other
Western European countries. Accordingly, one may hardly won¬
der that the same pattern is encountered in the medieval Crimea
outside Chersonesus, e.g. in the coloring of the shield of a rider in
a fresco in the cave temple in
Éski-Kermen [Dombrovskij,
1966,
the colored dust jacket]. Although the frequent use of a pattern
may partly be explained by a coincidence, it can also be consid¬
ered evidence of not merely the unusual longevity, but in fact of
the autochthony of these motifs.
Some of the decorative plant and animal themes in the mo¬
saic floor of the extramural cruciform temple are still used as
Christian symbols. This, however, need not be a reason to over¬
emphasize the sacred quality of such images as stems of vine,
doves and other favorite subjects of the decoration of churches,
or to consider it absolute and permanent. In religious art, as in all
the other applications of art, the same ornament may have a dif¬
ferent significance in various periods. As its meaning may have
slightly evolved with time, it would be a mistake to claim that
the use of a certain image always followed a set of immutable
and perpetual rales.
As we know, a number of symbolic ornamental motifs typical
of Christianity and applied as its visual attributes, had been bor¬
rowed from the ancient and Oriental art. In particular, such was
the case of the images encountered in the mosaic in the extramu¬
ral cruciform temple: stems of vine, cups, peacocks, pheasants,
fish, various fruits and other animal and plant motifs. With time,
the Christian Church selected from this vast corpus a smaller col¬
lection of objects endowed with an important symbolic religious
significance: crosses, cups, fish, eyes (the all-seeing eye of the
Providence), lambs, palm trees, cypresses and olive branches;
as we have mentioned, special connotations were ascribed to the
picture of a soaring dove, which symbolized the Holy Ghost. Let
us now remark that the soaring dove differed from the other im¬
ages of doves and birds in general, which frequently embellished
churches-the latter subjects were shown in different situations,
e.g., pecking at fruit or drinking from cups. Occasionally, other
animals were depicted instead of or beside birds. With time, the
corpus of animal symbols began to include all the species of the
land and marine fauna, and vine was supplemented with miscel¬
laneous fruits, flowers, leaves, etc. To prove that by a certain time
in history, these images had lost all of their sacred meaning, we
mention the fact that they were represented in a multitude of
styles and in highly varying and often accidental combinations.
As we can see, the significance of certain motifs changed from
one period of the history of the Church to another, and accord¬
ingly they should be treated differently in the discussions of the
religious iconography of various epochs.
In the burial vaults of Chersonesus, like in the much more
numerous early Roman catacombs, we see in most prominent
locations the images of vine growing out of cups; very similar
designs, with a comparable symbolic and decorative purpose
[Rostovcev,
1914],
were also widely encountered in the late-an¬
cient tombs in all the Roman provinces (e.g., in Panticapaeum, the
capital of the Regnum Bosporanum). As we know, their signifi¬
cance in the pagan times was close to the Christian concepts and
derived from the Dionysian cult, among whose attributes were
the stem of vine and the grape. This is an eminent instance of how
the Christian Church, when collecting its corpus of iconography
and ornaments, at first borrowed the traditional symbols of the
previous periods.
The style of the representation of the birds, animals, fish,
blossoming plants, leaves and fruits shown in the medallions
around the central panel and in the western wing of the extramural
temple, is so distant from similar images in the late-ancient and
early-Byzantine art that it obviously does not constitute enough
of a reason to date the mosaic to a time before the period of the
iconoclasm.
Other characteristics denying such an early dating
are the schematic and conventional, two-dimensional treatment of
the shapes of the animals and plants, and above all, their herald¬
ing quality. These images represent the final stage of the process
whose beginning and development are manifest in the countless
works of the monumental-and-decorative and applied art of the
time following the
iconoclasm.
114
The Mosaic Floor of the Six-Columned Temple
The three-apsed six-columned temple is located near the Uva-
rov basilica, north-west of it. It is in the six-columned temple that
Chersonesus s only mosaic laid in the
opus sedile
technique can
be seen. When the mosaic was discovered in
1877,
several sec¬
tions of it of various sizes were preserved in situ, which seemed
to offer a chance of the restoration of its entire area in its original
condition. Unfortunately, the mosaic was left unattended in the
open air, and eventually disintegrated into individual stones
and
smalti, some
of which broke into smaller pieces, and most
of which at last were lost. At present, we may only visualize
the panel of the mosaic based on the watercolor painting by K.
Gémmel
man and the reconstruction drawing by A. Avdejev,
made at the request of A. Bert je-Delagard. A.
Jakobson
initially
dated the edifice, quoting its similarities with much better-known
buildings, to the Hth—12th cent.
[1950,
pp.
231-235],
and later
suggested that the mosaic floor came from the 10th cent.
[1984].
According to A. Avdejev s drawing, the mosaic floor consist¬
ed of three sections:
(1)
a rectangle in the west;
(2)
a large square
in the middle, whose side was of the same length as the longer
side of the rectangle; and
(3)
a small square. The large square was
encircled by a multicolored stripe made of tiny white squares and
green triangles. A white line separated this frame from the inter¬
nal field, which was in turn divided into four squares. The upper
left-hand and the lower right-hand square were filled with narrow
horizontal zigzagging stripes in three alternating colors: yellow,
green and white. These stripes were made of identical small flat
stones, cut in the shape of parallelograms. The upper right-hand
and the lower left-hand square were filled with rows of small
multicolored rhombi; each vertical row was of a certain color,
alternating in the order of yellow, green and white.
In the center of the field, a band of crescent-shaped bits of
light-colored marble with dark veins surrounded a circle, whose
internal design had been destroyed by the time of the excavation.
The lanceolate intersecting beams of a fourteen-pointed star pro¬
jected from the circle, contoured with flaring light-colored arch¬
ing stripes of small white and yellow triangles. The background
of the star was filled with yellow and green triangles, whose
size increased with their distance from the circle. The star was
framed by a white marble ring combined with a twisting band of
tiny white, yellow and green triangles; the band was fashioned
into eight round loops with small medallions of dark bluish-gray
stones inside them.
The rectangle, which in Avdejev s reconstruction adjoined the
western ( lower ) side of the large square, was framed with only
a narrow white stripe. On its right, there were two stripes of the
same width as the frame of the central square and consisting of
a motley array of small square bits, arranged in alternating rows
of six and seven; the smaller stones in the rows of seven were
laid in the order of white, red and green, and the larger ones in
the intervening rows of six were successively yellow, white and
green. The central field of the rectangle was taken by small yellow
octagons, with even smaller red-brown square bits laid between
them. In the middle, there was a wide circle of the same diameter
as that in the square section, surrounded with a white ring featur¬
ing four small sweeping loops at the corners of the rectangle. The
round inserts inside the loops were made of red marble-like lime¬
stone with white and pink veins. We do not know what was in the
middle of the large circle.
The small square in the east (although it is not certain whether
this section indeed had such a shape) either had no frame or had
one which subsequently became destroyed; Avdejev s drawing
shows in fact his personal idea of its right-angled contour. The
field was similar to that of the alleged rectangle in the western
section of the mosaic, the only difference being that both the yel¬
low octagons and
tlie
tiny square bits between them were smaller,
and the latter were green rather than red. Inside the small square,
there was a circle in a white ring with similar four round loops,
filled as follows: a smaller circle was drawn in its middle, whose
center was lost at a later time; this was encased by a white ring, its
outer rim shaded by triangular red notches; the latter ring was in
turn surrounded by concentric circles of eight zigzagging bands
in the alternating colors of white, yellow and green, their width
increasing in the outward direction. The loops of the white ring
enclosed smaller rings of green and yellow triangular bits; the
round inserts inside them were missing at the time of their discov¬
ery, and their content cannot be reconstructed.
When comparing the floor plan published in
1877
with
Gemmel man s watercolor, one must conclude that at the time of
the excavation work, both authors followed the same aim, which
was to represent the objective reality. According to the painting,
the fragments of the mosaic preserved in situ at the moment of
their discovery had already lost a direct mutual functional rela¬
tionship, and could be justly called islands remaining among the
vast empty space where the design of the mosaic had become
extinct. Therefore, while in Avdejev s colored drawing they are
tentatively shown as a whole (although not as a complete com¬
position), this is merely the artist s conjecture. Since experience
shows that conjectures are often erroneous, any reconstruction
must be verified objectively and scrupulously.
The only feature in Avdejev s watercolor painting which may
be considered fully convincing, is his rendering of the design
of the central square, all the components of which remained at
least partly in situ, held in their original positions by the forces
of nature, and whose relationships both with one another and
with the frame of the square are clearly demonstrable in view of
their geometric layout. Unfortunately, the concept of the small
square, which did not have a frame at the time of its discovery in
1877,
cannot be reconstructed equally definitely: its form in the
painting is only hypothetical. The least substantiated features of
the reconstruction are the shape and the size of the almost-equi¬
lateral rectangle in the west, which awkwardly touches the central
square with its unbordered eastern side-if only because the artist
arbitrarily correlated its size with the spacing between the middle
and the western pair of the columns in his reconstruction. His
rendering of the mosaic in this part of the temple must also be
considered unjustified, as the scarce vestiges of the mosaic which
have been found in situ, warrant several other (equally arbitrary)
reconstructions, which in turn makes each version inexorably
groundless.
Not a single entirely preserved mosaic of this type has
been discovered in Chersonesus, although a large number of
small fragments of and individual stone plates from such floors
has been found throughout the city in the cultural layers of the
Uth—13th cent. Remnants of
opus sedile
mosaic floors have also
been encountered elsewhere in Crimea: marble plates from such
floors have been unearthed in the nth-cent, churches in Laspi
and Partenity.
The intricate design of the mosaic in the six-columned
temple, the use of looping bands and medallions as the principal
ornamental motif, and the somehow mechanical combinations of
the various elements of the patterns-these characteristics are typi¬
cal of many floor mosaic in churches of the late Middle Ages, the
period when the six-columned temple was built (most probably,
in the 12th or even 13th cent.).
The Mosaics of Chersonesus among Other Similar Relics
of the Byzantine Monumental Decorative Art
Insofar as it is possible to date the mosaic floors in the churches
of the medieval Chersonesus (as well as other architectural com¬
ponents of these edifices), we notice in each of their chronological
groups certain conventionalized religious ornaments and decora-
115
tive
designs
which, while adhering to a fixed repertoire of subject
matters, differ in terms of artistic and physical characteristics. A
close scrutiny reveals significant divergences in the style of mosa¬
ics which come from various periods but have the same layout and
content. Finally, certain, mainly late, mosaics combine a multitude
of subjects-geometric, plant and animal motifs borrowed from
various geographical locations, each of whom may be traced to
the culture of a specific nation of the East or the West. G. Wentzel
made this astute observation when he remarked on the coexistence
and intermingling of various stylistic tendencies in Byzantine art
[Wentzel,
I960,
p.
89].
This global phenomenon is also noticeable
in the modest mosaics of the medieval Chersonesus.
The significance of the mosaic floors of the basilicas, cha¬
pels and domed churches does not consist only in their artistic
value. They are equally important as components of the archi¬
tectural complexes whose integral parts they constitute. As we
have already remarked, this unique combination of data of a dual
nature-both artistic and architectural-and-archeological-makes
each mosaic floor a chronological feature facilitating the peri-
odization of the construction (and ultimately also of the history)
of an architectural complex. As confirmation of this statement,
we may cite the lamentably scarce instances of the excavation
of a mosaic floor conducted in accordance with the scholarly
standards of archeology, which are known from the history of the
exploration of Chersonesus.
When considering the mosaic floors of the medieval Cher¬
sonesus as an item of the vast artistic heritage of the Christian
countries of the West and the East, it becomes obvious that an
overwhelming majority of finds of this type, both in Chersonesus
and elsewhere, cannot be dated with any certainty, i.e., based on
an archeologically documented periodization. The cultural-and-
historical layers encountered above the levels of the mosaics have
never been adequately investigated or secured; in fact, most of
them have been irretrievably lost. Neither are the substructions
of the floors and the cultural layers below them accessible to
researchers prior to the removal of the mosaics. On the few oc¬
casions when mosaics were removed and exhibited at a museum,
everything present under them was simply destroyed, as it only
encumbered the work of the restoration technicians, who after all
were not archeologists.
Therefore, both the termini ante quern and the termini post
quern of most mosaics have not been duly ascertained. Numer¬
ous authorities admit that the highly delicate task of dating does
not yet have its fully perfected techniques or a set of established
rules which would oblige a technician who is not an archeologist,
to request the participation of such a specialist in the restoration
work, and would at the same time ensure the archeologists coop¬
eration with competent restoration specialists in the process of the
archeological investigation of an architectural relic.
As archeology was developing into a mature branch of his¬
tory, it gradually became obvious how unreliable the assumed
chronology of many finds was, among them of most known
mosaic floors of the medieval Chersonesus. Now it is necessary
to revise the accepted dates based on archeological evidence, be¬
ginning with such dates as were initially established in a merely
tentative manner, but with time, for want of a better alternative,
started to be considered conclusive. Obviously, this is a danger
faced by many scholars conducting their investigations in various
countries. Suffice it to remind the reader of the statement by a
group of our French colleagues on this topic, printed in the issue
of the well-known journal
L archéologie
which was devoted to
mosaic floors
(1976),
a statement which still remains valid.
Having said everything that we know of the mosaics of the
medieval Chersonesus, we now proceed to make some conjec¬
tures based on the available facts. Unfortunately, it is now impos¬
sible to examine the mosaics of Chersonesus more scrupulously
than it was done at the time of their discovery, in order to use
these data as a basis for establishing a chronology of the artistic
evolution of medieval mosaic floors; such a task would consider¬
ably exceed both the extent of the available material and the scope
of the present book. The subject of our discussions are a few fairly
repetitious mosaics, originating mainly from the end of this pe¬
riod in the history of art. While each individual mosaic dates to a
different time, the chronology of most cannot be ascertained with
a sufficient accuracy. Accordingly, it would be futile to use their
physical characteristics as criteria of arranging them into an al¬
leged succession of chronological stages; any dating of this type
must be considered groundless, if not inescapably erroneous. Such
an artificial and schematic chronology of a discrete corpus of mo¬
saics would not provide an insight into the general history of the
art of mosaic-making: prearranged regularities of this type hardly
appeared in the actual historical reality. It is much more viable
to claim that the past was a matter of a coexistence of a number
of artistic evolutions leading in various directions, evolutions
which never followed straight lines, but always intersected and
interwove with one another. In a given country, period and physi¬
cal reality of a geographical location, some of these trends may
have developed belatedly or deviated from the main stream. In
certain locations they strengthened and became predominant, in
others, they unexpectedly gave rise to regional varieties of artistic
styles which must be considered ultimately and generally uni¬
versal. Although a detailed investigation into this elaborate and
often surprising process of the development of artistic styles is
still a matter of the future, it would be considerably facilitated-at
least in the area of the study of monumental-and-decorative and
applied art, and particularly of mosaic floors-by the accumulation
of a maximum number of descriptions of relics whose dates have
been established based on reliable archeological evidence.
To revert to the mosaics of the medieval Chersonesus, we
emphasize once again that any chronological conjectures based
solely on the presence or absence of certain specific motifs are
unavoidably insupportable. The figures of doves, peacocks, other
birds and various animals, fruits, cups with stems of vine and
grapes, patterns of vine and bindweed in the frames, as well as the
geometric ornaments of rhombi, squares, diverse loops and twist¬
ing bands, stars, rosettes, intersecting circles, zigzagging stripes,
herringbone (or chevrons^all these features were, as we have
demonstrated, applied in all of the medieval Church decorative
art throughout several centuries.
In all the geographical locations where the influence of
Christianity was noticeable, we also encounter these decorative
motifs, which ultimately originated from the late antiquity. Ac¬
cordingly, the mere fact of the presence of such images can hardly
be considered sufficient basis for ascertaining the chronology of
the liturgical vessels or church buildings which they decorated.
Neither can a historical interpretation of the mosaic floors of the
medieval Chersonesus be founded solely on similarities of visual
subject matters and ornaments.
To be sure, certain evidence of the time of the making of a
given mosaic in Chersonesus may be furnished by its stylistic
characteristics, which become apparent as we compare those
works of decorative applied art with objects whose dates have
been established with more certainty, decorated with similar
images and ornaments but used for other purposes and made of
other material. Nevertheless-as we have found out, having tried
this method-atthe present stage of the study of the regularities of
style, it is quite likely that scholars may judge such corpora of rel¬
ics based on their subjective impressions or preconceived notions.
Finally, we repeat that in the case of the works of church art, one
may encounter instances of traditional conventionalization and
anachronisms not only in the treatment of the actual subject mat¬
ters but also in the techniques of their visual presentation.
116
The questions of chronology, which disturb all the scholars
dealing with excavated mosaic floors, now require the compila¬
tion of an explanatory catalog, listing a maximum number of
these relics. Such, in fact, is the aim of numerous publications
appearing outside the Soviet Union, including the essential series
Corpus mosaicorum, which has been being published in Salonika;
the mosaics are described therein according to their locations. The
first issue of the series [Pelicanidis,
1974]
was devoted to such
mosaics of the Greek islands as the editor of the volume considers
to be early-medieval. Nevertheless, in spite of all the doubtless
and various merits of this valuable publication, the chronology of
the mosaic floors which it lists, is as incomplete as our chronol¬
ogy of the mosaics of Chersonesus. Both in Chersonesus and in
the Greek islands, a vast majority of mosaics were discovered at
the time when it was still a common practice to investigate them
out of their architectural and archeological context, and in fact at
a time when archeology itself was in the rough.
The numerous drawings and the excellent photographs taken
at the original locations of the finds convince us that these mosaic,
discovered relatively recently, had remained in situ until the time
of the publication of their descriptions. Paradoxically, this also
implies that their substructions and the cultural layers below them
have not been researched, and that accordingly, any dates ascribed
to these relics must be considered tentative, if not downright un¬
reliable. Thence, we cannot use the mosaics of the Greek islands
as a reference for those of Chersonesus, notwithstanding all the
analogies between the two and in spite of the fact that the penin¬
sula of Crimea was connected with Greece for such a long time
by sea routes of such intensity of traffic that these relations must
have left permanent traces in its material culture and art.
..
Only sufficiently dependable building-construction and
archeological data may provide a sound basis for ascertaining
the chronology of any works of monumental-and-decorative
art, including the mosaic floors of Chersonesus. Such data must,
obviously, be juxtaposed with a close scrutiny of stylistic details.
Nevertheless, in all the instances, not merely in Chersonesus,
both the mosaic floors and the medieval edifices where they are
located, have been explored to a varying degree, and therefore
their chronology as it has been established so far, remains subject
to revisions. Unfortunately, data which may make it possible to
determine the dates with absolute certainty, are not available,
whether in Chersonesus or elsewhere.
Because of the many existing difficulties, we cannot hope
to arrive at an ultimate and precise chronology of the medieval
architecture in Chersonesus ve%ry soon; on many occasions, re¬
searchers will have to
reexamine
the known relics of edifices and
their mosaic floors. Moreover, further mosaics may be discov¬
ered, and their termini ante quern and post quern may have to be
established, requiring additional archeological investigation, and
a careful study of the cultural layers above and below them as
well as of their substructions.
Nevertheless, no matter how vague our current notions of the
agelong process of the stylistic transformation or-if one prefers-
evolution of the geometric, animal and plant motifs in the medi¬
eval decorative art, we have already managed to identify several
relics from Chersonesus whose dates may be ascertained fairly
reliably, and which therefore may serve as chronological features.
We admit that so far very few items in Chersonesus can be used
for this purpose. If one peruses the history of their exploration, it
transpires that both here and in other countries, the vast majority
of medieval mosaic floors were dated out of their architectural
and archeological context. The time of the creation of these rel¬
ics was determined based on the criteria of their form and style,
which are extremely unreliable when applied to mosaics, whose
artistic and technical characteristics are indeed peculiar. In very
many cases, the mosaic floors of Chersonesus were dated based
on the influences visible in their subject matters and decorations,
influences which in fact are insignificant with respect to chronol¬
ogy. We have attempted to make up for these deficiencies by
referring to the works of other fine arts, and principally to decora¬
tive stone sculpture, which similarly to mosaics, constitutes an
integral part of the architectural design of an edifice. This method,
the only acceptable one in this situation, has turned out to be fairly
productive: when the same symbolic-and-decorative motifs are
represented in various media, both the differences and the conver¬
gences of the stylistic order are much more conspicuous.
Insofar as the present book deals with the Byzantine mosaics
of Chersonesus, it seems relevant to begin a study of the subject
matters and style of these relics by discussing their late-ancient
prototypes, which although absent from Chersonesus, abounded
in other locations. This path has already been cleared by a number
of eminent scholars and more than sufficiently beaten by their less
creative disciples. Nevertheless, limiting the study of the mosaics
of Chersonesus to their ancient Hellenistic and Roman inspirations
would amount to jejune imitation; we have attempted to avoid this
trap, especially since this topic, first broached by D. Ajnalov, has
already been investigated in detail by our predecessors, and in par¬
ticular, as we have mentioned before, by A.
Jakobson.
The monographs written by several generations of experts
in the Byzantine art provide a deep insight into the history of
the multifaceted artistic production of that empire and into its
individual works; the reader follows the stream of the evolution
of the Byzantine art as it breaks down into various channels, oc¬
casionally stagnating in tortuous meanders, contributing to the
artistic activity of other nations, or supplied by foreign tribu¬
taries which are diluted in its main current. Many authors have
reminded us of the obvious truth that the artistic production of
any nation always freely absorbs and adapts external influences
which reach it continuously and from everywhere, but principally
through trade routes. Likewise, the medieval Chersonesus, with
its direct links with the eastern provinces of Byzantium, and in the
lžth-Hth
cent, particularly closely related with Trebizond, could
not avoid the Orientalization which at that time was typical of the
arts of not only Byzantium, but also of the whole Europe. The
Eastern (Iranian-and-Armenian) thread interwove closely into the
Greco-Roman warp of the mosaics of Chersonesus, and we have
attempted to bear this fact in mind when discussing the artistic
style of these items.
During the second period of the economic prosperity of Cher¬
sonesus and in the 10th cent., when all of the large basilicas in the
city were being erected or rebuilt, apparently following the previ¬
ous period of decline or even ruin, the temples were furnished with
floor mosaics for the second time. The mosaics
ofthat
time, both
in Chersonesus and in all other locations, displayed certain pecu¬
liar artistic features: the ornaments were predominantly geomet¬
ric, and the images of plants and animals were conventional and
deprived of a depth of perspective; at the same time, the shapes
were shown in minute detail, and tension is often noticeable in the
choice of colors, as combinations of colors were selected based
on abstract
hannonies
rather than on the reproduction of the hues
ornature.
The technique of the execution of the ornamental motifs
had become standardized. And most importantly, the cultural rela¬
tions of Chersonesus with Syria and Palestine on the one hand,
and with Byzantium and Asia Minor on the other had by that time
resulted in a fairly moderate but nevertheless observable tendency
of the city s architects and artists to imitate the edifices, mosaics
and decorative sculpture of those overseas nations. However, the
influences of the Eastern medieval architecture and art did not
produce any major artistic achievements, most probably because
they were prematurely stopped by the final fall of the city.
Now, at the end of the many years project of the removal, ar¬
cheological study and restoration of the mosaics of Chersonesus,
117
we must conclude that we have not achieved the expected degree
of clarity in our accounts of these important relics of the medieval
city. Even the present book may be considered obsolete at the
very moment of its publication, as research work is still continued
in Chersonesus, yielding new findings every day. This, obviously,
is a danger with which all authors of scholarly monographs must
reckon, and in fact only a minor concern for the present writer.
Conversely, the publication of the book may also be considered
premature, as future discoveries in Chersonesus may make us
revise our present datings and interpretations of certain mosaics
in the city. Hopefully, any such developments will not make the
work of the present writer futile.
Whatever the future may bring, the present book will always
retain some value, both as a catalog of the mosaics which have
been excavated in Chersonesus before its publication, and as a
modest attempt at developing a methodology of their research.
Any possible mistakes of which our book may be guilty, will cer¬
tainly be noticed and avoided by our successors.
(Translated from the Russian by
Przemysław Znaniecki)
|
| adam_txt |
ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ
ОЛЕГ ИВАНОВИЧ ДОМБРОВСКВИЙ
. 7
ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ
. 10
ИСТОРИЯ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
.
И
УТРАЧЕННЫЕ МОЗАИКИ
. 17
МОЗАИЧНЫЕ ПОЛЫ БАЗИЛИКИ УВАРОВА
. 29
МОЗАИКИ, ИЗУЧЕННЫЕ
IN SITU.
42
МОЗАИЧНЫЙ ПОЛ ЗАГОРОДНОГО КРЕСТООБРАЗНОГО ХРАМА
. 65
МОЗАИЧНЫЙ ПОЛ ШЕСТИСТОЛПНОГО ХРАМА
. 87
МОЗАИКИ ХЕРСОНЕСА СРЕДИ РОДСТВЕННЫХ ПАМЯТНИКОВ ВИЗАНТИЙСКОГО
МОНУМЕНТАЛЬНО-ДЕКОРАТИВНОГО ИСКУССТВА
. 95
РЕЗЮМЕ:
THE BYZANTINE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS
TAURICA. 109
СПИСОК СОКРАЩЕНИЙ
. 119
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
. 120
SPIS TREŚCI
OLEG IWANOWICZ DOMBROWSKI
. 7
PRZEDMOWA
. 10
HISTORIA BADAŃ
. 11
UTRACONE MOZAIKI
. 17
MOZAIKI PODŁOGOWE BAZYLIKI UWAROWSKIEJ
. 29
MOZAIKI ZBADANE IN SITU
. 42
MOZAIKA PODŁOGOWA KOŚCIOŁA KRZYŻOWEGO ZA MURAMI
. 65
MOZAIKA PODŁOGOWA KOŚCIOŁA SZEŚCIOFILAROWEGO
. 87
MIEJSCE MOZAIK CHERSONEZU WŚRÓD POKREWNYCH ZABYTKÓW BIZANTYJSKIEJ
SZTUKI MONUMENTALNO-DEKORACYJNEJ
. 95
STRESZCZENIE:
THE BYZANTINE
MOSAICS OF
CHERSONESUS
TAURICA. 109
SPIS SKRÓTÓW
. 119
LITERATURA
. 120
CONTENTS
OLEG
L DOMBROVSKIJ
. 7
INTRODUCTION
. 10
THE HISTORY OF THE STUDIES
. 11
THE DESTROYED MOSAICS
. 17
THE MOSAIC FLOORS OF THE UVAROV BASILICA
. 29
THE MOSAICS STUDIED IN SITU
. 42
THE MOSAIC FLOOR OF THE EXTRAMURAL CRUCIFORM TEMPLE
. 65
THE MOSAIC FLOOR OF THE SDC-COLUMNED TEMPLE
. 87
THE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS AMONG OTHER SIMILAR RELICS
OF THE BYZANTINE MONUMENTAL DECORATIVE ART
. 95
SUMMARY: THE BYZANTINE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS
TÁURICA
. 109
ABBREVIATIONS
. 119
LITERATURE
. . 120
THE BYZANTINE MOSAICS OF CHERSONESUS TAURICA
Summary
Introduction
The many years' project of the making of the drawings, re¬
moval, archeological study and restoration of the mosaic floors
in the medieval city of Chersonesus is now completed. During
fifteen consecutive seasons, all the mosaics were carefully re¬
moved by restoration technicians, taken to specialist workshops,
transferred to new mortar bases and returned to the exhibition of
the Chersonesus archeological reserve. Now it is finally possible
to make scholarly interpretations of their artistic content, and their
adequate critical descriptions must be promptly published.
During the work on the present book, we have had to return to
the polemics concerning the times of the making of the mosaics in
Chersonesus, polemics which have now lost much of their public¬
ity but which still have not been satisfactorily settled. Many of the
traditionally accepted dates of the making of the various mosaics
are vague and mutually contradictory, and sometimes downright
erroneous; if they are to be established with more accuracy, this
will bring up another unsettled issue, that of the compatibility of
the stylistic characteristics of each mosaic with the date of its
creation determined based on archeological information. One
must ask again which specific artistic features of a mosaic date
it to a particular period. While the methodological premisses
which make it possible to answer such questions, are far from
innovative, they nevertheless entirely suffice for our purposes,
as they provide more reliable insights into the diversified corpus
of the mosaic floors from the entire long history of the medieval
Chersonesus.
It must also be explained that the somehow sketchy nature of
the present book is due to our imperfect knowledge of the mosa¬
ics themselves as well as of the edifices in Chersonesus where
they were discovered. This will most probably remain an insur¬
mountable difficulty, since the excavation work which was done
in the past obviously cannot be repeated today using state-of-the
art archeological methodology. Thus, the reader will frequently
encounter criticism of the methodological shortcomings of the
research conducted in the past, shortcomings which in certain
instances may be explained by the situation at the time when such
work was done, and some of which were subsequently remedied
by later scholars. All of those circumstances must be understood
and borne in mind if future, better organized studies of the medi¬
eval Chersonesus are to be successful.
The History of the Studies
In
1853,
A. Uvarov unearthed the first mosaic of Chersone¬
sus, which is also among the most beautiful ones; it was located in
the southern aisle of the basilica which is now called "the Uvarov
basilica" in honor of its discoverer
[1954,
pp.
533-537; 1955,
pp.
167-168].
The proceedings of the Odessa Society of History and
Antiquities {Odesskoje
obščestvo
istorii
i drevnostej, OOID) for
1876-1877
describe the mosaic floor of one of the latest build¬
ings of Chersonesus, the so-called six-columned temple on the
Northern shore, close to the Uvarov basilica. The mosaic in its
exonarthex and a section of the mosaic floor in the annex added to
the southern aisle of the basilica, were also uncovered at that time.
These mosaics were covered up with soil, and unearthed for the
third time by K.
Koscjuško-Valjužinič
in
1901 [1902,
pp.
81-83;
OAK,
1902,
pp.
73-89].
K.
Koscjuško-ValjužiniČ
is also the author of a short account
of all the other mosaics found in Chersonesus prior to the Russian
Revolution: in
1889,
he unearthed the mosaics in the basilica which
was later called "the Basilica in a basilica" after the date of its dis¬
covery [OAK,
1889,
pp.
14-15].
In
1891
and
1901,
mosaics were
encountered in the Western basilica and its annexes [OAK,
1891,
p.
13; 1901,
pp.
22-30;
Koscjuško,
1902,
pp.
58-59, 64, 67,
Figs.
7,
8,12,14,16].
Further exploration of the Uvarov basilica identified
hitherto unknown mosaics in its southern aisle and in an annex at it,
in the narthex and another one in the exonarthex. At the same time,
mosaics were uncovered in the adjacent baptistery [OAK,
1901,
pp.
32-34;
Koscjuško,
1902,
pp.
81-82,
Figs.
23,30].
In
1902-1904,
the ruins of the so-called extramural cruci¬
form temple were discovered in the hills on the ravine of the
Karantinnaja; an essay describes the mosaics identified in that
church [OAK,
1902,
pp.
28-38;
Koscjuško,
1904,
pp.
31-50].
In
1906,
K.
Koscjuško
found mosaics in the four-apsed church
in the south-western corner of the ancient city [Leper,
1911,
pp.
94-96,98].
In
1932
and
1935,
G.
Bělov
discovered another two basili¬
cas on the northern shore of the archeological reserve, featuring
vestiges of floors
[1938,
pp.
101-107,
Figs.
63-66; 1941,
pp.
224-232].
In
1950,
during further exploration of the
1935
ba¬
silica
S. Strželeckij
excavated a mosaic which furnished an
earlier building
[1951,
pp.
131-138].
In
1953,
the present author
conducted a comprehensive exploration of the extramural temple;
that project included the unearthing and removal of its mosaic
panel for subsequent restoration, which exposed the archeological
material buried in the ground beneath it
[1993].
Another mosaic
was encountered in the so-called basilica on the hill, discovered
as early as in
1890
and definitively investigated during the exca¬
vation project conducted by S.
Běljajev
in
1973-1977 [1979].
In
1971-1974,
the
1889
basilica and its annexes, containing well-
preserved archeological material, were definitively investigated
by
S. Ryžov
[1997].
In
1977,
V. Kutajsov discovered the remnants
of a mosaic in a bad condition of preservation in the four-apsed
temple
[1982].
In
1979,
preparatory to the contemplated restora¬
tion, the same scholar was in charge of the exposing of the mosa¬
ics in the exonarthex of the Uvarov basilica and in the southern
aisle of the Western basilica, as well as in the chapel at the end of
the southern gallery of the latter temple [the Report for
1979].
The first attempt at an archeologically competent and exhaus¬
tive description of the temples of Chersonesus, including the
locations of their mosaics, was the article by A. Bert'je-Delagard
[1893,
pp.
31-33,
Figs. I, V-VII]. When discussing the mosaics,
the author made certain short although true remarks on their style
and technique of execution. The well-drawn figures present the
general compositions of all the mosaics.
After the Russian Revolution, M. Lejter devoted an article to
the corpus of mosaics in Chersonesus
[1928].
Unfortunately, the
author knew them only from photographs, which deprived her
discussion of the necessary insights and depth. Much more satis¬
factory was the article, unfortunately unfinished, by
N.
Izmajlova,
who visited Chersonesus in
1923.
In
1959,
A. Jakobson
published his essential monograph
Rannesrednevěkovyj
Chersones [The Early-Medieval Chersone¬
sus], where a whole chapter was devoted to mosaics. That author
harshly criticized the present writer's preliminary and mainly oral
statements on the necessity of a revision of the dating of certain
churches and mosaic floors of Chersonesus
[1959,
p.
175,
foot¬
note;
180-182,206-207,222,237,240,246].
Jakobson
described
most mosaics as made no later than in the 6th cent., with the ex¬
ception of only one relic, the mosaic floor of the six-columned
temple, which he dated at first to the llth-Uth, and then, to the
10th cent.
[1950,
pp.
231-234; 1982,
pp.
504-512].
109
The Destroyed Mosaics
During the many years' excavation work in various locations
in Chersonesus before the Russian Revolution and World War II,
e.g., during further exploration of the ruins of the Uvarov basilica,
the baptistery, the extramural cruciform temple and other medi¬
eval edifices, small fragments of "wall" mosaics and individual
extant pieces of
smalti
and colored stone (called "cubes") were
collected. Similar material was identified during the investigation
of buildings discovered in Chersonesus after the war. Still, not a
single larger section of a wall mosaic has been found yet. Accord¬
ingly, a short discussion of the content and style of the extinct
mosaic compositions inside the rained buildings may be in order.
Under their original designs, the edifices of the medieval
Chersonesus were decorated not only with mosaic floors, but
also, as in any other city, with frescos and mosaics on the walls
and ceiling vaults. The tiny fragments of mosaics and scattered
clusters of multicolored
smalti
and semiprecious stones which
are now kept in the stores of the Chersonesus archeological
reserve, were unearthed in various buildings. From the catalogs
and reports of the archeological expeditions, we infer that finds of
this type were never abundant. However, we also notice that such
mosaics appeared in most churches of the medieval city.
Judging by the entire extant corpus of the artistic furnish¬
ings of the churches of Chersonesus, they commonly applied the
same decorative combination of mosaics and frescos as may be
encountered in other cities, and particularly in the temples of the
medieval Kiev
(1
lth—12th cent). Obviously, in Chersonesus there
also must have been a small number of compositions consisting
exclusively of mosaic. Most probably they were placed in certain
specific locations, typically in the altar apses, inside which most
vestiges of the destroyed mosaics have been found.
Thus, we deduce that that mosaics were used in Chersonesus
not as continuous covering of walls and ceiling vaults, but only in
their sections of varying sizes, as distinctive decorations of char¬
acteristics elements of the architectural design of a building: the
dome, the altar concha or the "triumphal" arch in front of an altar.
Incidentally, fragments of mosaic made of tiny, almost grain-like
stones prove that at a fairly late period, apparently not earlier that
the 12th cent., portable mosaic icons were used in Chersonesus.
The material collected during all the excavation seasons
is sufficient to reconstruct the typical appearance of a basilica
in Chersonesus. Generally, it followed the standard design of
the countless Byzantine basilicas, especially of those in the
eastern provinces of the empire. Based on the detailed study of
the remnants of the
1935
basilica, which have been completely
uncovered, we may reconstruct the interior
ofthat
temple, which
probably was representative of the medieval Chersonesus [Dom-
brovskij,
1959].
Pieces of plaster have been found all over the floor of the
southern aisle; it is thin and unpainted, merely covered with sev¬
eral coats of whitewash. It shows that the aisles had flat ceilings,
with mural paintings in selected sections only, and large amounts
of empty space between them. The plaster covered white stucco
cornices, molded or modeled by hand. In the dimly-lit aisles, the
light-colored ceilings reflected the scattered light onto the frescoed
walls; such scenes are suggested by the numerous pieces of paint¬
ed plaster found everywhere at the feet of the walls of the aisle. In
these lighting conditions, the matte surfaces of the frescos, which
were predominantly in warm, deep colors, reflected intense hues
and produced the illusion of being illuminated from the back.
In contrast to the dark aisles, the tall, two-tiered nave was
flooded with light from the windows located at all sides at its top;
these were closed up with marble lattices (and in certain instanc¬
es, with metal or wooden sashes). The pieces of painted plaster
found in the nave of the basilica suggest that the well-illuminated
paintings of the upper tier, surmounting the two rows of columns,
were executed in bright and cooler colors. At the end of the nave,
in the apse, which opened broadly onto the rest of the church, fur¬
ther windows provided more light to illuminate the altar; pieces
of plaster found during excavation work evidence that the walls
of the apse were also decorated with paintings.
Above the windows, there was the relatively shady spherical
concha, all glittering with a mosaic of colored and golden
smalti
(a large number of
smalti
has been identified in the ceiling of the
concha). The matte frescos contrasted with the shimmering bril¬
liance of the mosaic, producing the same peculiar artistic effect
that we already know from the mosaics and frescos of St. Sophia's
Cathedral in Kiev. The dissimilar textures amplified the opposi¬
tion of the colors between the mosaic and the frescos.
K. Koscjuško
found a large number of
smalti
during his fur¬
ther exploration of the baptistery at the Uvarov basilica in
1901
[1902,
p.
93].
There are no
smalti or
stones of intermediate or
dull hues in that collection, which consists mainly of
smalti
of
an intense color, principally light-blue, green-and-sky-blue and
golden. All the other colors contrast so strongly with one another
and, most importantly, are so scarce, that the nature of the mosaic
in the baptistery may be easily imagined. The total absence of
"flesh-colored" and dark stones or
smalti,
which were conven¬
tionally used to represent human bodies, clearly evidences that
the mosaic did not show people or their faces and did not illustrate
a specific subject. This suffices to date the mosaic in the dome of
the baptistery not to the first but at latest to the second period of
the construction of the city, which coincided with the time of the
iconoclasm
(the 8th—9th cent.).
Based on the quantitative ratio of the blue and sky-blue
smalti
to the other colors, K.
Koscjuško
very correctly deduced that the
mosaic in the dome of the baptistery represented the sky with
stars, and possibly with a golden cross in the middle
[1902,
p.
93;
cf. Bert'je-Delagard,
1907,
p.
85].
The substantial and varied corpus of
smalti
collected during
the excavation work at the altar of the Uvarov basilica allows at
least a rough reconstruction of the nature of that mosaic. The mo¬
saic images in the altar concha
ofthat
church were shown against
a background of golden
smalti. Data
from A. Uvarov's and
K. Koscjuško's
excavation work, as well as those from the com¬
prehensive exploration conducted by the present author in
1953,
date this destroyed mosaic to a time after the
iconoclasm,
when
the luxurious backgrounds in mosaic compositions, which had
emerged during the period of the opposition against the religious
use of images, had entirely superseded the blue backgrounds, not
to mention the white and light-blue or sky-blue ones, typical of
early-Byzantine mosaics.
To the mosaic material deriving from the investigations of the
Uvarov basilica, the baptistery and other buildings, one may add
the fragments of
a smalto
mosaic found in the layers of sand and
rubbish between the mosaic floors and the earlier ones, made of
fired-clay powder, in the extramural cruciform temple, identified
during the excavation season of
1953.
Among the pieces of
Ље
mosaic, one distinguishes small golden background
smalti
with
cantharelli (coatings of glass on the surface) of varying thickness,
which imparted diversity to the lighting effects through the refrac¬
tion of the light rays reflected by the gold leaf under the cantharel¬
li, placed on bits of translucent pink or yellowish glass. Leaf made
of alloys of gold with silver and of pure silver was also used. We
notice that the spacings between individual
smalti
vary, that the
latter have been buried in the ground at varying depths, and that
their surfaces were set at varying angles to the light illuminating
the mosaic. In the spots where the
smalti
have fallen off, traces
of preliminary painting (red paint against a gray background) are
visible in the empty sockets.
In two sections, stripes of a colored pattern are extant beside
the golden background; these consist of brown and green
smalti
110
combined with grayish-white cubes of Proconnesus marble and
yellow marble-like limestone. Gray-pink and dull-red
smalti
were
added in two places. In the spots where the colored
smalti
and
stones have fallen off, traces of preliminary painting in watercol-
ors against a gray background are visible. We have not managed
to construe any ornaments or figures against the golden back¬
ground of these remnants.
During the excavation of the temple with the ark in
1954,
individual colored
smalto
cubes were also discovered, as well
as small pieces of plaster with vestiges of a mosaic pattern and
square sockets in the places where the cubes have fallen off.
Similarly to the extramural temple, before laying this mosaic a
sketch was painted in polychrome watercolors on fresh plaster.
The same technique was applied in all the mosaics of Kiev in the
llth-nthcent.
Two further destroyed mosaics were located in the four-apsed
temple. These are dated to two periods in the history of the con¬
struction of the city. The earlier one, probably made in the 7th
cent., was in the western apse. A careful study of all the available
material (and primarily of archive data) warrants the following
reconstruction of the image in the mosaic: Behind the threshold
in the western part of the church, where the mosaic has been de¬
stroyed, there might have been a representation of a vessel or a
basket, from which two stems of vine (partly extant) grew out,
curving to the right and to the left; they bore tripartite leaves,
tendrils and grapes. In the bottom right-hand section, there was
an "eagle," or rather a bird with spread wings, of an altogether
not predatory species, judging by the harmless appearance of its
small, red bill. Another two birds were above it: on the left, a
dove with a golden-yellow trunk, and on the right, a short-tailed
bird with a blue neck and breast, a yellow trunk and a red wing.
All the birds were set inside coils of vine, with a large figure of a
peacock in the middle, shown in profile and apparently pecking
at the vine. The latter bird's head and the top part of its neck are
not preserved.
The later mosaic floor comes most probably from as late as
the
1
Oth cent. It was a pattern of intersecting reddish circles, filled
with white lanceolate segments and set against a yellow back¬
ground. In the central part of the building, the pattern changed
to large heart-shaped ivy leaves with sharp yellow points, high¬
lighted by their dark contours against a white background and
encircled by a dark stripe. In the central part of the temple, a lime
kiln was discovered under the mosaic floors, based on which K.
Grinevič
and V. Kutajsov described this edifice as a memorial to
Capitonus, one of the first bishops of Chersonesus, who baptized
the inhabitants of the city in the year
325.
The Mosaic Floors of the Uvarov Basilica
Most of the mosaic floor in a relatively good condition of
preservation which A. Uvarov discovered during his excavations
in
1853,
was transported to St. Petersburg in fairly mysterious cir¬
cumstances without having been secured in any way. During the
subsequent restoration (executed in accordance with the practice
of the 19th cent.), not only were the sections of mosaic collected
in various rooms transferred to a new cement base, but their origi¬
nal ordering was disturbed as well: they were used, quite skill¬
fully, to make the floor in a room in the
Ermitage
museum. This
makes it very difficult to date the various sections of the resulting
mélange
of mosaics and to identify their original locations. Some
other fragments of mosaics which were discovered later in the
same basilica and left in situ, have been lost now.
The archeological exploration of the basilica may be divided
into five periods, separated by long intervals: A. Uvarov's excava¬
tion work in
1853,
the OOID's in
1876-1888,
K. Koscjusko's in
1901-1902,
R. Leper's in
1908,
O. Dombrovskij's in
1953,
and
finally,
y
Kutajsov's in
1977
and
S. Ryžov's
in
1985.
Due to a
combination of circumstances, the various descriptions of the
mosaics in the basilica are rather contradictory.
By comparing the floor plan and the layout of the mosaic in
the Uvarov basilica with its sections moved to the room in the
Ermitage,
its original appearance in the southern aisle of the
church may be fairly clearly reconstructed. Unlike most other
mosaics, this one did not have a frame of plant motifs around the
geometric ornaments of the floor. The narrow and elongated inte¬
rior of the aisle was divided into three parts, with a large square
in the middle and two rectangles of identical decorative patterns
but of different dimensions in the east and west, extending along
the aisle. The western rectangle was somehow shorter (which ap¬
parently enhanced the visual effect). According to the plan drawn
in
1853,
the western part consisted of twenty-seven rows, each of
five identical octagons with four-leafed rosettes inside them, and
with black crosses within the latter. There were square pieces at
the corners of the rectangles.
The big medallion in the middle showed an elaborate multi¬
colored star, of a shape similar to that of a snowflake: this motif
appeared frequently both in the ancient and in the Byzantine
design of mosaic floors. The star had a contour of a complex
geometric pattern. Inside its points, there were very conventional
images of vessels with voluted handles.
In
1901,
K. Koscjuško
discovered another mosaic at a level
considerably below that of Uvarov's, laid on a rock floor covered
with two thin coats of lime mortar. The mosaic was extant in the
western part of the southern aisle; it featured a serrate edge divid¬
ing the border with plant ornaments from the main area. The latter
was also filled with octagons, apparently similar to the ornamen¬
tal design of Uvarov's mosaic in the eastern and western parts of
the southern aisle. Still, these octagons were much smaller, and
the leaves of the rosettes inside them were heart-shaped rather
than semicircular. Furthermore, although these octagons were
smaller than those in the later mosaic, each horizontal row of the
mosaic could fit only four instead of five. The main area had a
smaller size as well, since it was encircled by a double frame with
a wide ornamental frieze of plant patterns. There was no such
frieze in Uvarov's mosaic, and neither did it appear in the layout
in the
Ermitage.
As we can see, ample data are available on the two periods
of the construction of the Uvarov basilica, represented by two
mosaics dated to different times. The earlier mosaic, discovered
by K.
Koscjuško,
may be dated at earliest to the 7th cent., while
the later one, excavated by A. Uvarov, at earliest to the 10th cent.
The 10th cent, (at earliest) is also the dating of the hoard of coins
found at the altar of the temple
[1855,
pp.
163-165].
The Mosaics Studied In Situ
So far twelve mosaic floors have been removed from the
churches in the city and restored, which has made it possible to in¬
vestigate the layers under them, and thereby to gather reliable ar¬
cheological evidence pertaining to the dates of the buildings. The
earliest one was the mosaic panel from the 5th cent., decorating a
temple which preceded the two basilicas discovered by G.
Bělov
in
1935
and dated to the 6th-7th and the 10th cent. Unfortunately,
the walls
ofthat
earliest church have not been identified and prob¬
ably have been destroyed, which makes it impossible for us to
reconstruct its layout.
The overall dimensions of the extant section of the mosaic
are
5.02
x
1.61
m. In the east, north and west, its wide verge has
been preserved, showing a dark-colored branch of ivy with white
leaves against a golden background. Its wavy edge frames a nar¬
row rectangle extending from the west to the east. The latter 1S
divided into four sections, each containing a separate ornamental
composition laid along the "West-East" axis. The uppermost sec¬
tion
(1.03
x
0.53
m) represents a kylix holding two stems of vine
111
with grapes and tendrils, placed symmetrically with each other
and gracefully curved. The contour of the vessel is outlined by a
wide light-colored strip, made of cubes of Proconnesus marble.
In the center of the second square section
(1.07
x
1.07
m),
there is an elegant tall and ribbed cantharus with S-shaped
handles. It is also encircled by a white background. The third
rectangle is filled with ornamental zigzags: seven white stripes
(each consisting of two rows of marble bits) alternating with red
and yellow ones of the same size, separated from one another by
black lines. The pattern of the lowest square
(1.09
x
1.09
m)
is a
grid consisting of circles passing through one another's centers.
The ornament gains variety due to the various colors filling the
individual circles: each circle seems different, while in fact they
all follow the same design.
The material of the mosaic are several types of local stone
of various hues and imported marble: bluish (from Proconnesus)
and yellowish (Pentelic). Small pieces of both types of marble
abounded in the medieval Chersonesus, as they had been used
for making the countless ancient sarcophagi and other flat items
which subsequently were destroyed. Leftovers from contempo¬
rary architectural details were also applied as the material of mo¬
saics. Pebbles of various colors-red, yellow and black-were also
a common component of mosaics. These colors may seem plain,
but mosaics made of such pebbles were in fact fairly diverse, due
to the sophisticated mixtures of the hues and combinations of
such mixtures with "pure" colors at varying ratios. Obviously,
this use of colors must not be considered a coincidence, although
neither can it be explained as a personal technique developed by
an individual master. When studied in detail, the design of the
mosaic turns out to lose some of its stylistic uniformity in certain
sections, and the combinations of colors and various materials
sometimes appear fairly imperfect and mechanical. Nevertheless,
in spite of the occasionally inferior execution, the overall effect of
the mosaic is one of an age-long artistic tradition.
The mosaic is dated to the 5th cent, based on archeological
data, and particularly on the coin from the reign of Theodosius II
(408-450),
found in the base of the mosaic, made of pink lime and
fired clay powder.
In
1889,
K. Kpscjuško
unearthed a mosaic floor in the badly-
preserved building directly south of the basilica discovered in
the same year. When the mosaic was removed in
1952
by the
present author, two thick coats of fired-clay powder mortar ap¬
peared under it, placed on a layer of large stones densely packed
on another layer of the same mortar; between that and the bed¬
rock, there was an amorphous archeological layer
0.60
m
deep.
Since no traces of earlier floors were identified in the latter layer,
the mosaic floor may be safely considered the original bottom
surface of the room. It is dated to not earlier than the 6th cent.,
based on the coin from the reign of Anastasius
(518-527)
found
in the substruction.
This mosaic was originally a rectangular white field of the
dimensions of
3.22
x
2.78
m. A
broad yellow band surrounded
it on all sides, with a contour of two rows of dark-red and white
triangles. At the top right-hand corner of the mosaic, it had a small
rectangular projection
(0.80
x
0.39
m)
with the design of a band
wound into three large loops and two smaller rings. The entire
left-hand part of the floor is extinct, but it must have featured a
similar projection at the top left-hand corner, since the composi¬
tion was obviously symmetrical.
S. Ryžov
has established that the
two projections marked the location of a baptismal tank, and that
the building itself was a baptistery
[1997].
Inside the large rectangle, there were two interweaving wide
bands winding into loops of various shapes and sizes against a
white background; inside, a hexagon superimposed above them
occupied a third of the area of the field. In the corners of the
mosaic composition, the bands formed large rings. Everywhere
along the sides of the mosaic, fruit similar to apples were scat¬
tered. Medallions showed bright-colored doves against a golden-
yellow background, with bills turned toward the center of the
mosaic. The entire upper half of the hexagon was taken by the
garish figure of a standing big peacock with his tail spread out,
and below him, at its very feet, by two smaller olive-gray birds
chasing a butterfly. These may represent peahens or, judging
by their relatively small size, pea-chicks. A crack has seriously
damaged the peacock's chest and wings. His bluish-gray head is
marked against the bright-colored plumage of his tail. The latter
is represented as a circle, somehow darker than the light-colored
background of olive-gray and dull-blue pebbles, with the feathers
"drawn" in it.
The vivid images and the general quality of the composition,
which resembles a tapestry, are typical of the transitory period in
the history of Byzantine art, whose heyday occurred at the end of
the 8th cent. It was at that time that the early-medieval painting,
mosaic and sculpture, which continued the realistic style of the
late-ancient art, evolved into a radically different, conventional¬
ized and ornamental manner of representation. Nevertheless, if
one peruses the mosaic in detail-and particularly its colors and
techniques of execution-it becomes obvious that it complied with
the aesthetic standards of an earlier period. The applied colors are
refined, and the images are represented with a certain measure
of naturalism. Let us also note the technical excellence of the
mosaic: the fired-clay powder mortar provides a firm base, the
surfaces are smoothly polished, the cubes fit tightly together, and
most importantly, the contours are filled with pebbles of various
shapes and sizes, which produces an effect of artistic easiness.
All of these characteristics may also be construed as evidence of
a relatively early date of this find, since they were typical of the
late-ancient mosaic and eventually disappeared from the Byzan¬
tine practices of mosaic-making.
Thus, among the mosaic floors of Chersonesus, "The Pea¬
cock" unquestionably represents the early Middle Ages. Still, it
was not the only floor of this kind. Because of similar "ornitho¬
logical" subject matters, and possibly also because of the dates of
their making, the mosaics of the Basilica in a basilica should be
classified in the same category.
S. Ryžov,
who investigated them
in a definitive manner
[1997],
concludes that they come from the
first period of the construction of the temple, or from the 6th cent.
The principal objection against this dating is based on the appar¬
ent synchronism of the mosaics: If they all come from the same
time, then how can the different elevations of the floors in the
aisles, the nave and the narthex be explained? The natural relief
of the ground could hardly have caused that, if only because the
entire site of the construction of the basilica had been preliminar¬
ily leveled down. When summarizing the scarce data on the chro¬
nology of the mosaics from the first period of the construction of
the Basilica in a basilica, we may infer that the entire first period
lasted from the 6th to the 9th-10th cent., the floor of the nave be¬
ing probably earlier than the other ones.
Most mosaics of Chersonesus had geometric patterns with
the same motifs: intersecting circles, herringbone, and occasion¬
ally meanders or various combinations of interwoven rhombi
and squares. This standardization of designs makes it possible
to identify in a positive manner similar mosaic from the earlier
period. The upper mosaic floor of the
1935
basilica dates to the
10th cent. Its design is extremely simple: circles intersecting in
four directions, whose shapes are represented by cubes of dark
brownish-greenish sandstone. The circles, passing through one
another's centers, form rhomboidal figures, hemmed inside by
single rows of bits of red marble-like limestone and filled by
yellow cubes of the same material. The contours of these figures
draw quatrefoils with elongated pointed leaves. This pattern fills
a rectangular field surrounded on all sides with
a bordure
of an
112
undulated dark-colored branch of ivy with white heart-shaped
leaves against a yellow background. The mosaics in the aisles of
the basilica of
1832
had a similar design.
Apart from the locations listed above, the pattern of intersect¬
ing circles appears also in the Western basilica, in the narthex of
the Basilica in a basilica, in the apse of the chapel adjacent to the
southern aisle of the Western basilica, in the exonarthex and the
southern gallery of the Uvarov basilica, and in the annex at the
southern side of the baptistery building. Because of the geometric
simplicity of the ornaments of all of these mosaics, it is difficult
to distinguish nuances of style, which in each case may also be
construed as local or purely accidental technical peculiarities.
Throughout the period between the 5th and the llth-12 cent.,
the standard pattern of the ornament became gradually simplified:
the lines of the circles and the geometric layout of the composi¬
tions turned somehow irregular, the hues of the coloring lost their
variety, and the design of the
bordure
became less complicated.
A marked evolution is also noticeable in the overall techniques
and artistic devices applied in floor mosaics: with time, the bigger
and bigger pebbles were used, the surrounding frame turned more
repetitious and independent of the logic of the central image, and
the bits fit one another increasingly imperfectly. The formula of
the mortar also had become simplified by the 10th cent.
The Mosaic Floor of the Extramural Cruciform Temple
The history of the construction of the extramural temple was
as follows: At first, a memorial church was erected to mark the
location of the ruins of an earlier cemetery chapel from the 5th
cent., under whose shelves a coin from the reign of Theodosius II
(408-450)
has been found. The first church was built over an un¬
derground gallery, cut in rock and ending with a carved-out vault
of a very archaic trefoil (three-apsed) form. The tunnel leading
underground was accessed by an entrance at the southern wing
of the cruciform temple. The gallery was used partly as a dromos,
i.e. a passage leading to the vault, although its main application
was as a sewer collecting water from three wells; at a later time,
the southern wall of the western wing of the cruciform temple
adjoined the middle (and deepest) well. We infer that the purpose
of putting up that wall was to use its central section to cover up
the vestiges of the chapel because the edifice was very inconve¬
niently sited on a steep slope, while some ten meters further away
from the former chapel there is a flat rocky area which the build¬
ers of the temple did not use, and which became a building site
only much later. This proves the interrelations of the concept and
application of the structures in question, which make up a self-
contained church complex.
At the beginning, the temple had no altar, but instead there
were entrances from all the four directions. With time, the temple
was modified into an ordinary church, featuring an altar, which was
eventually erected in the eastern wing, with a side altar and a sacris¬
ty added to the altar from the outside. The final architectural design
which the temple acquired after the modifications and additions,
was similar to those of two other houses of worship in Chersonesus,
the temple with the ark and the central church with the reliquary.
In the case of Chersonesus, this type of edifice may be considered
an intermediate stage between the design with a roughly cruciform
floor projection, a dome above the central part and cylindrical
vaults above the wings, and a later design of a cruciform domed
church, with a floor projection in the shape of an inscribed cross.
Like many other temples in Chersonesus, the extramural cem¬
etery temple was gradually converted into a tomb, and eventually
graves appeared even in its altar part, as well as in the two an¬
nexes, where they were packed so tightly that one literally could
not walk between them. At the very beginning of this tnetamor-
phosis-when the altar with a throne and a synthronos had been
set up in the western wing, and ossuaries, in the eastern-the floor
projection of the temple turned into a'T1 with a shortened right-
hand section. The new floor was furnished with a mosaic over the
substruction; the latter consisted of a pavement of finely crushed
stone on a sand bed, placed above the original fired-clay powder
floor, in places demolished by the gravediggers, which floor had
in turn been laid on a leveled embankment where construction
rubbish had been added to the soil. Let us note that the mosaic
in the western wing was more worn out by human feet and more
damaged, while both in the square section under the dome and in
the relatively secluded northern and southern wings, the mosa¬
ics are in a much better condition of preservation, and the top
surfaces of their stones have retained most of the texture of their
original cutting.
Between the two floors in the large temple (under the ex¬
tant mosaic of the square under the dome and its equally extant
substruction, rather than in the cracks in the mosaic), pieces of
glazed vessels from the 12th-13th and the
12-14Ш
cent, have
been found. The images in the mosaic in the southern wing were
designed to fit in the space left after the setting up of the ossuar¬
ies, which event took place not earlier than in the
11
гіі-Шіі
cent.,
since in the crushed-stone pavement of one of the ossuaries, a coin
of a pseudo-Romanus (III or IV, i.e.,
1028-1034
or
1067-1071)
has been discovered. Obviously, the mosaic could not have been
made before the minting of the coin. Shards of glazed pottery
from the same time have been found in the pavement under the
synthronos, which, judging by details of its execution, must have
been erected simultaneously with the mosaic on the floor; again,
the vessels identified under the floor cannot come from a period
later than the floor itself.
As we have already mentioned, the mosaic has the general
shape of the letter "T." Its complex design consists of four sec¬
tions, corresponding to the architectural layout of the edifice.
Each section is essentially a self-contained composition, although
all of them are united by a shared frame showing stems of vine
with leaves and grapes. The square panel under the dome is also
the principal part of the design of the mosaic. It shows a gigantic
cantharus, at whose foot two peacocks stand with raised head.
Two stems of vine grow out of the vessel, bending down symmet¬
rically on the right and on the left, each in three broad flourishes.
Inside the flourishes, among the vine leaves and grapes, there are
doves. We emphasize that each side of the image is a mirror re¬
flection of the other.
Above this central section, there is a row of seven medallions
with images of birds, vases, fruits and blossoming twigs. On either
side of the frame of the central panel, we see three rows of similar
medallions with an even wider variety of figures borrowed-as K.
Koscjuško
put it-'from the plant and animal kingdoms." Thirteen
rows, each of seven such medallions, take up the entire area of the
western wing of the temple.
The contours of the round medallions are made of interweav¬
ing triangular looping twists in two different and alternating com¬
binations of colors. The rhomboidal spaces between the medal¬
lions enclose identical simple geometric patterns.
The layout of the medallions provides an interesting insight
into the concept of the mosaic. In the western wing, the medal¬
lions make up something of a continuous carpet, which seen in
perspective, by an observer standing at the entrance to the temple,
makes the interior seem more spacious and elongated than it in
fact is. Thus, the placement of the medallions highlights the fact
that the western wing of the edifice is somehow elongated in
comparison with the transverse wings. The ample and light-col¬
ored central square of the mosaic, to which the "carpet" leads, is
promment against the dense and colorful grid of the medallions
which encloses it.
The impression of the elongation of the temple
s
western wing
is further strengthened by the frame of the mosaic, showing stems
113
of vine with leaves and grapes; its wavy curves going along the
walls surround the entire floor, beginning and ending in two small
craters above the upper left- and right-hand corners of the central
panel. The frame, which is slightly wider in the western wing
than in the other parts of the building, takes up some of the area
allocated to the medallions. To enhance the effect of the depth of
perspective, the spacing between the curves decreases a little with
their distance from an observer standing at the entrance.
The mosaic floor in the right-hand wing of the edifice,
which is shorter than the left-wing one, is a large square with an
inscribed circle, whose shape, as in the case of the smaller me¬
dallions, is outlined by a closed chain of four triangular twisted
loops, located in the corners of the square. Inside each loop, there
is a dark silhouette of a graceful kylix, and in the middle of the
circle enclosed by the chain, we can see a wide polygonal crater
with two doves sitting on its rim. Two stems of vine grow out of
the middle of the crater, and surround it on the right and on the left
in identical tiny flourishes, embellished with leaves and hanging
grapes. A conspicuous feature of this composition, in which mir¬
ror symmetry is also observed, is a sizeable empty space above
the cup. Similar earlier compositions, which demonstrably illus¬
trated the idea of the Holy Communion, showed a dove, the sym¬
bol of the Holy Ghost, soaring over the cup. After the period of
the
iconoclasm,
such images were placed in special locations, set
apart from the rest of the interior of a church, as it was forbidden
to tread on them. The absence of this symbol from the composi¬
tion in question made it "less sacred," and apparently acceptable
as the design of a floor mosaic.
The floor in the left-hand (northern) wing was decorated by a
motley geometric design which showed in miniature many of the
ornamental motifs encountered in the mosaics of Chersonesus-as
if the designer intended it as a collection of various geometric
patterns. If it were conclusively established that this mosaic in¬
deed comes from an early period, this would justify
Koscjuško's
remark
[1904,
p.
36]
that the extramural temple provided "a
treasury of designs for the later builders of basilicas in Chersone-
sus." Conversely, since the temple was in fact erected at a fairly
late period in the history of the city, this mosaic, laid at an even
later time, could not have inspired the decorative motifs in other
churches; it is much more likely that it constitutes a synopsis of
sorts of the previous work of the master builders of Chersonesus.
The geometric patterns in the northern wing of the temple
make up a distinct group, separate from the rest of its floor. Anum-
ber of frames, each enclosing a simple pattern, like pieces of vari¬
ous cloth in a patchwork quilt, is joined with the rest of the mosaic
by a common border of vine stems. As we have mentioned, all of
these patterns may also be found in other mosaics in Chersonesus,
but this
naïve
collection, while seemingly surprising, has a pecu¬
liar nature and attraction of its own. While geometric ornaments
more or less similar to certain patterns in this mosaic are known
from numerous other early-medieval mosaic floors, the shapes
from this composition were quite accurately copied in relatively
late mosaics throughout the city, e.g., on the floors of the basilica
of Partenity, dated to the 8th-10th cent.
[Rěpnikov,
1909,
p.
91-
-140].
Some of these ornaments (interwoven squares, triangles,
rhombi, checkerboards, herringbone etc.) had been used since the
earliest antiquity. It is thence extremely difficult to identify the
ultimate origin of a certain pattern, e.g., of zigzagging stripes of
alternating colors. We know that it appeared in the Balkans, in
the Apennine and Iberian Peninsulas, and eventually also in other
Western European countries. Accordingly, one may hardly won¬
der that the same pattern is encountered in the medieval Crimea
outside Chersonesus, e.g. in the coloring of the shield of a rider in
a fresco in the cave temple in
Éski-Kermen [Dombrovskij,
1966,
the colored dust jacket]. Although the frequent use of a pattern
may partly be explained by a coincidence, it can also be consid¬
ered evidence of not merely the unusual longevity, but in fact of
the autochthony of these motifs.
Some of the decorative plant and animal themes in the mo¬
saic floor of the extramural cruciform temple are still used as
Christian symbols. This, however, need not be a reason to over¬
emphasize the "sacred" quality of such images as stems of vine,
doves and other favorite subjects of the decoration of churches,
or to consider it absolute and permanent. In religious art, as in all
the other applications of art, the same ornament may have a dif¬
ferent significance in various periods. As its meaning may have
slightly evolved with time, it would be a mistake to claim that
the use of a certain image always followed a set of immutable
and perpetual rales.
As we know, a number of symbolic ornamental motifs typical
of Christianity and applied as its visual attributes, had been bor¬
rowed from the ancient and Oriental art. In particular, such was
the case of the images encountered in the mosaic in the extramu¬
ral cruciform temple: stems of vine, cups, peacocks, pheasants,
fish, various fruits and other animal and plant motifs. With time,
the Christian Church selected from this vast corpus a smaller col¬
lection of objects endowed with an important symbolic religious
significance: crosses, cups, fish, eyes (the all-seeing eye of the
Providence), lambs, palm trees, cypresses and olive branches;
as we have mentioned, special connotations were ascribed to the
picture of a soaring dove, which symbolized the Holy Ghost. Let
us now remark that the soaring dove differed from the other im¬
ages of doves and birds in general, which frequently embellished
churches-the latter subjects were shown in different situations,
e.g., pecking at fruit or drinking from cups. Occasionally, other
animals were depicted instead of or beside birds. With time, the
corpus of animal symbols began to include all the species of the
land and marine fauna, and vine was supplemented with miscel¬
laneous fruits, flowers, leaves, etc. To prove that by a certain time
in history, these images had lost all of their sacred meaning, we
mention the fact that they were represented in a multitude of
styles and in highly varying and often accidental combinations.
As we can see, the significance of certain motifs changed from
one period of the history of the Church to another, and accord¬
ingly they should be treated differently in the discussions of the
religious iconography of various epochs.
In the burial vaults of Chersonesus, like in the much more
numerous early Roman catacombs, we see in most prominent
locations the images of vine growing out of cups; very similar
designs, with a comparable symbolic and decorative purpose
[Rostovcev,
1914],
were also widely encountered in the late-an¬
cient tombs in all the Roman provinces (e.g., in Panticapaeum, the
capital of the Regnum Bosporanum). As we know, their signifi¬
cance in the pagan times was close to the Christian concepts and
derived from the Dionysian cult, among whose attributes were
the stem of vine and the grape. This is an eminent instance of how
the Christian Church, when collecting its corpus of iconography
and ornaments, at first borrowed the traditional symbols of the
previous periods.
The style of the representation of the birds, animals, fish,
blossoming plants, leaves and fruits shown in the medallions
around the central panel and in the western wing of the extramural
temple, is so distant from similar images in the late-ancient and
early-Byzantine art that it obviously does not constitute enough
of a reason to date the mosaic to a time before the period of the
iconoclasm.
Other characteristics denying such an early dating
are the schematic and conventional, two-dimensional treatment of
the shapes of the animals and plants, and above all, their herald¬
ing quality. These images represent the final stage of the process
whose beginning and development are manifest in the countless
works of the monumental-and-decorative and applied art of the
time following the
iconoclasm.
114
The Mosaic Floor of the Six-Columned Temple
The three-apsed six-columned temple is located near the Uva-
rov basilica, north-west of it. It is in the six-columned temple that
Chersonesus's only mosaic laid in the
opus sedile
technique can
be seen. When the mosaic was discovered in
1877,
several sec¬
tions of it of various sizes were preserved in situ, which seemed
to offer a chance of the restoration of its entire area in its original
condition. Unfortunately, the mosaic was left unattended in the
open air, and eventually disintegrated into individual stones
and
smalti, some
of which broke into smaller pieces, and most
of which at last were lost. At present, we may only visualize
the panel of the mosaic based on the watercolor painting by K.
Gémmel
'man and the reconstruction drawing by A. Avdejev,
made at the request of A. Bert 'je-Delagard. A.
Jakobson
initially
dated the edifice, quoting its similarities with much better-known
buildings, to the Hth—12th cent.
[1950,
pp.
231-235],
and later
suggested that the mosaic floor came from the 10th cent.
[1984].
According to A. Avdejev's drawing, the mosaic floor consist¬
ed of three sections:
(1)
a rectangle in the west;
(2)
a large square
in the middle, whose side was of the same length as the longer
side of the rectangle; and
(3)
a small square. The large square was
encircled by a multicolored stripe made of tiny white squares and
green triangles. A white line separated this frame from the inter¬
nal field, which was in turn divided into four squares. The upper
left-hand and the lower right-hand square were filled with narrow
horizontal zigzagging stripes in three alternating colors: yellow,
green and white. These stripes were made of identical small flat
stones, cut in the shape of parallelograms. The upper right-hand
and the lower left-hand square were filled with rows of small
multicolored rhombi; each vertical row was of a certain color,
alternating in the order of yellow, green and white.
In the center of the field, a band of crescent-shaped bits of
light-colored marble with dark veins surrounded a circle, whose
internal design had been destroyed by the time of the excavation.
The lanceolate intersecting beams of a fourteen-pointed star pro¬
jected from the circle, contoured with flaring light-colored arch¬
ing stripes of small white and yellow triangles. The background
of the star was filled with yellow and green triangles, whose
size increased with their distance from the circle. The star was
framed by a white marble ring combined with a twisting band of
tiny white, yellow and green triangles; the band was fashioned
into eight round loops with small medallions of dark bluish-gray
stones inside them.
The rectangle, which in Avdejev's reconstruction adjoined the
western ("lower") side of the large square, was framed with only
a narrow white stripe. On its right, there were two stripes of the
same width as the frame of the central square and consisting of
a motley array of small square bits, arranged in alternating rows
of six and seven; the smaller stones in the rows of seven were
laid in the order of white, red and green, and the larger ones in
the intervening rows of six were successively yellow, white and
green. The central field of the rectangle was taken by small yellow
octagons, with even smaller red-brown square bits laid between
them. In the middle, there was a wide circle of the same diameter
as that in the square section, surrounded with a white ring featur¬
ing four small sweeping loops at the corners of the rectangle. The
round inserts inside the loops were made of red marble-like lime¬
stone with white and pink veins. We do not know what was in the
middle of the large circle.
The small square in the east (although it is not certain whether
this section indeed had such a shape) either had no frame or had
one which subsequently became destroyed; Avdejev's drawing
shows in fact his personal idea of its right-angled contour. The
field was similar to that of the alleged rectangle in the western
section of the mosaic, the only difference being that both the yel¬
low octagons and
tlie
tiny square bits between them were smaller,
and the latter were green rather than red. Inside the small square,
there was a circle in a white ring with similar four round loops,
filled as follows: a smaller circle was drawn in its middle, whose
center was lost at a later time; this was encased by a white ring, its
outer rim shaded by triangular red notches; the latter ring was in
turn surrounded by concentric circles of eight zigzagging bands
in the alternating colors of white, yellow and green, their width
increasing in the outward direction. The loops of the white ring
enclosed smaller rings of green and yellow triangular bits; the
round inserts inside them were missing at the time of their discov¬
ery, and their content cannot be reconstructed.
When comparing the floor plan published in
1877
with
Gemmel'man's watercolor, one must conclude that at the time of
the excavation work, both authors followed the same aim, which
was to represent the objective reality. According to the painting,
the fragments of the mosaic preserved in situ at the moment of
their discovery had already lost a direct mutual functional rela¬
tionship, and could be justly called islands remaining among the
vast empty space where the design of the mosaic had become
extinct. Therefore, while in Avdejev's colored drawing they are
tentatively shown as a whole (although not as a complete com¬
position), this is merely the artist's conjecture. Since experience
shows that conjectures are often erroneous, any reconstruction
must be verified objectively and scrupulously.
The only feature in Avdejev's watercolor painting which may
be considered fully convincing, is his rendering of the design
of the central square, all the components of which remained at
least partly in situ, held in their original positions by the forces
of nature, and whose relationships both with one another and
with the frame of the square are clearly demonstrable in view of
their geometric layout. Unfortunately, the concept of the small
square, which did not have a frame at the time of its discovery in
1877,
cannot be reconstructed equally definitely: its form in the
painting is only hypothetical. The least substantiated features of
the reconstruction are the shape and the size of the almost-equi¬
lateral rectangle in the west, which awkwardly touches the central
square with its unbordered eastern side-if only because the artist
arbitrarily correlated its size with the spacing between the middle
and the western pair of the columns in his reconstruction. His
rendering of the mosaic in this part of the temple must also be
considered unjustified, as the scarce vestiges of the mosaic which
have been found in situ, warrant several other (equally arbitrary)
reconstructions, which in turn makes each version inexorably
groundless.
Not a single entirely preserved mosaic of this type has
been discovered in Chersonesus, although a large number of
small fragments of and individual stone plates from such floors
has been found throughout the city in the cultural layers of the
Uth—13th cent. Remnants of
opus sedile
mosaic floors have also
been encountered elsewhere in Crimea: marble plates from such
floors have been unearthed in the nth-cent, churches in Laspi
and Partenity.
The intricate design of the mosaic in the six-columned
temple, the use of looping bands and medallions as the principal
ornamental motif, and the somehow mechanical combinations of
the various elements of the patterns-these characteristics are typi¬
cal of many floor mosaic in churches of the late Middle Ages, the
period when the six-columned temple was built (most probably,
in the 12th or even 13th cent.).
The Mosaics of Chersonesus among Other Similar Relics
of the Byzantine Monumental Decorative Art
Insofar as it is possible to date the mosaic floors in the churches
of the medieval Chersonesus (as well as other architectural com¬
ponents of these edifices), we notice in each of their chronological
groups certain conventionalized religious ornaments and decora-
115
tive
designs
which, while adhering to a fixed repertoire of subject
matters, differ in terms of artistic and physical characteristics. A
close scrutiny reveals significant divergences in the style of mosa¬
ics which come from various periods but have the same layout and
content. Finally, certain, mainly late, mosaics combine a multitude
of subjects-geometric, plant and animal motifs borrowed from
various geographical locations, each of whom may be traced to
the culture of a specific nation of the East or the West. G. Wentzel
made this astute observation when he remarked on the coexistence
and intermingling of various stylistic tendencies in Byzantine art
[Wentzel,
I960,
p.
89].
This global phenomenon is also noticeable
in the modest mosaics of the medieval Chersonesus.
The significance of the mosaic floors of the basilicas, cha¬
pels and domed churches does not consist only in their artistic
value. They are equally important as components of the archi¬
tectural complexes whose integral parts they constitute. As we
have already remarked, this unique combination of data of a dual
nature-both artistic and architectural-and-archeological-makes
each mosaic floor a chronological feature facilitating the peri-
odization of the construction (and ultimately also of the history)
of an architectural complex. As confirmation of this statement,
we may cite the lamentably scarce instances of the excavation
of a mosaic floor conducted in accordance with the scholarly
standards of archeology, which are known from the history of the
exploration of Chersonesus.
When considering the mosaic floors of the medieval Cher¬
sonesus as an item of the vast artistic heritage of the Christian
countries of the West and the East, it becomes obvious that an
overwhelming majority of finds of this type, both in Chersonesus
and elsewhere, cannot be dated with any certainty, i.e., based on
an archeologically documented periodization. The cultural-and-
historical layers encountered above the levels of the mosaics have
never been adequately investigated or secured; in fact, most of
them have been irretrievably lost. Neither are the substructions
of the floors and the cultural layers below them accessible to
researchers prior to the removal of the mosaics. On the few oc¬
casions when mosaics were removed and exhibited at a museum,
everything present under them was simply destroyed, as it only
encumbered the work of the restoration technicians, who after all
were not archeologists.
Therefore, both the termini ante quern and the termini post
quern of most mosaics have not been duly ascertained. Numer¬
ous authorities admit that the highly delicate task of dating does
not yet have its fully perfected techniques or a set of established
rules which would oblige a technician who is not an archeologist,
to request the participation of such a specialist in the restoration
work, and would at the same time ensure the archeologists' coop¬
eration with competent restoration specialists in the process of the
archeological investigation of an architectural relic.
As archeology was developing into a mature branch of his¬
tory, it gradually became obvious how unreliable the assumed
chronology of many finds was, among them of most known
mosaic floors of the medieval Chersonesus. Now it is necessary
to revise the accepted dates based on archeological evidence, be¬
ginning with such dates as were initially established in a merely
tentative manner, but with time, for want of a better alternative,
started to be considered conclusive. Obviously, this is a danger
faced by many scholars conducting their investigations in various
countries. Suffice it to remind the reader of the statement by a
group of our French colleagues on this topic, printed in the issue
of the well-known journal
L'archéologie
which was devoted to
mosaic floors
(1976),
a statement which still remains valid.
Having said everything that we know of the mosaics of the
medieval Chersonesus, we now proceed to make some conjec¬
tures based on the available facts. Unfortunately, it is now impos¬
sible to examine the mosaics of Chersonesus more scrupulously
than it was done at the time of their discovery, in order to use
these data as a basis for establishing a chronology of the artistic
evolution of medieval mosaic floors; such a task would consider¬
ably exceed both the extent of the available material and the scope
of the present book. The subject of our discussions are a few fairly
repetitious mosaics, originating mainly from the end of this pe¬
riod in the history of art. While each individual mosaic dates to a
different time, the chronology of most cannot be ascertained with
a sufficient accuracy. Accordingly, it would be futile to use their
physical characteristics as criteria of arranging them into an al¬
leged succession of chronological stages; any dating of this type
must be considered groundless, if not inescapably erroneous. Such
an artificial and schematic chronology of a discrete corpus of mo¬
saics would not provide an insight into the general history of the
art of mosaic-making: prearranged regularities of this type hardly
appeared in the actual historical reality. It is much more viable
to claim that the past was a matter of a coexistence of a number
of artistic "evolutions" leading in various directions, evolutions
which never followed straight lines, but always intersected and
interwove with one another. In a given country, period and physi¬
cal reality of a geographical location, some of these trends may
have developed belatedly or deviated from the main stream. In
certain locations they strengthened and became predominant, in
others, they unexpectedly gave rise to regional varieties of artistic
styles which must be considered ultimately and generally uni¬
versal. Although a detailed investigation into this elaborate and
often surprising process of the development of artistic styles is
still a matter of the future, it would be considerably facilitated-at
least in the area of the study of monumental-and-decorative and
applied art, and particularly of mosaic floors-by the accumulation
of a maximum number of descriptions of relics whose dates have
been established based on reliable archeological evidence.
To revert to the mosaics of the medieval Chersonesus, we
emphasize once again that any chronological conjectures based
solely on the presence or absence of certain specific motifs are
unavoidably insupportable. The figures of doves, peacocks, other
birds and various animals, fruits, cups with stems of vine and
grapes, patterns of vine and bindweed in the frames, as well as the
geometric ornaments of rhombi, squares, diverse loops and twist¬
ing bands, stars, rosettes, intersecting circles, zigzagging stripes,
herringbone (or chevrons^all these features were, as we have
demonstrated, applied in all of the medieval Church decorative
art throughout several centuries.
In all the geographical locations where the influence of
Christianity was noticeable, we also encounter these decorative
motifs, which ultimately originated from the late antiquity. Ac¬
cordingly, the mere fact of the presence of such images can hardly
be considered sufficient basis for ascertaining the chronology of
the liturgical vessels or church buildings which they decorated.
Neither can a historical interpretation of the mosaic floors of the
medieval Chersonesus be founded solely on similarities of visual
subject matters and ornaments.
To be sure, certain evidence of the time of the making of a
given mosaic in Chersonesus may be furnished by its stylistic
characteristics, which become apparent as we compare those
works of decorative applied art with objects whose dates have
been established with more certainty, decorated with similar
images and ornaments but used for other purposes and made of
other material. Nevertheless-as we have found out, having tried
this method-atthe present stage of the study of the regularities of
style, it is quite likely that scholars may judge such corpora of rel¬
ics based on their subjective impressions or preconceived notions.
Finally, we repeat that in the case of the works of church art, one
may encounter instances of traditional conventionalization and
anachronisms not only in the treatment of the actual subject mat¬
ters but also in the techniques of their visual presentation.
116
The questions of chronology, which disturb all the scholars
dealing with excavated mosaic floors, now require the compila¬
tion of an explanatory catalog, listing a maximum number of
these relics. Such, in fact, is the aim of numerous publications
appearing outside the Soviet Union, including the essential series
Corpus mosaicorum, which has been being published in Salonika;
the mosaics are described therein according to their locations. The
first issue of the series [Pelicanidis,
1974]
was devoted to such
mosaics of the Greek islands as the editor of the volume considers
to be early-medieval. Nevertheless, in spite of all the doubtless
and various merits of this valuable publication, the chronology of
the mosaic floors which it lists, is as incomplete as our chronol¬
ogy of the mosaics of Chersonesus. Both in Chersonesus and in
the Greek islands, a vast majority of mosaics were discovered at
the time when it was still a common practice to investigate them
out of their architectural and archeological context, and in fact at
a time when archeology itself was in the rough.
The numerous drawings and the excellent photographs taken
at the original locations of the finds convince us that these mosaic,
discovered relatively recently, had remained in situ until the time
of the publication of their descriptions. Paradoxically, this also
implies that their substructions and the cultural layers below them
have not been researched, and that accordingly, any dates ascribed
to these relics must be considered tentative, if not downright un¬
reliable. Thence, we cannot use the mosaics of the Greek islands
as a reference for those of Chersonesus, notwithstanding all the
analogies between the two and in spite of the fact that the penin¬
sula of Crimea was connected with Greece for such a long time
by sea routes of such intensity of traffic that these relations must
have left permanent traces in its material culture and art.
.
Only sufficiently dependable building-construction and
archeological data may provide a sound basis for ascertaining
the chronology of any works of monumental-and-decorative
art, including the mosaic floors of Chersonesus. Such data must,
obviously, be juxtaposed with a close scrutiny of stylistic details.
Nevertheless, in all the instances, not merely in Chersonesus,
both the mosaic floors and the medieval edifices where they are
located, have been explored to a varying degree, and therefore
their chronology as it has been established so far, remains subject
to revisions. Unfortunately, data which may make it possible to
determine the dates with absolute certainty, are not available,
whether in Chersonesus or elsewhere.
Because of the many existing difficulties, we cannot hope
to arrive at an ultimate and precise chronology of the medieval
architecture in Chersonesus ve%ry soon; on many occasions, re¬
searchers will have to
reexamine
the known relics of edifices and
their mosaic floors. Moreover, further mosaics may be discov¬
ered, and their termini ante quern and post quern may have to be
established, requiring additional archeological investigation, and
a careful study of the cultural layers above and below them as
well as of their substructions.
Nevertheless, no matter how vague our current notions of the
agelong process of the stylistic transformation or-if one prefers-
evolution of the geometric, animal and plant motifs in the medi¬
eval decorative art, we have already managed to identify several
relics from Chersonesus whose dates may be ascertained fairly
reliably, and which therefore may serve as chronological features.
We admit that so far very few items in Chersonesus can be used
for this purpose. If one peruses the history of their exploration, it
transpires that both here and in other countries, the vast majority
of medieval mosaic floors were dated out of their architectural
and archeological context. The time of the creation of these rel¬
ics was determined based on the criteria of their form and style,
which are extremely unreliable when applied to mosaics, whose
artistic and technical characteristics are indeed peculiar. In very
many cases, the mosaic floors of Chersonesus were dated based
on the influences visible in their subject matters and decorations,
influences which in fact are insignificant with respect to chronol¬
ogy. We have attempted to make up for these deficiencies by
referring to the works of other fine arts, and principally to decora¬
tive stone sculpture, which similarly to mosaics, constitutes an
integral part of the architectural design of an edifice. This method,
the only acceptable one in this situation, has turned out to be fairly
productive: when the same symbolic-and-decorative motifs are
represented in various media, both the differences and the conver¬
gences of the stylistic order are much more conspicuous.
Insofar as the present book deals with the Byzantine mosaics
of Chersonesus, it seems relevant to begin a study of the subject
matters and style of these relics by discussing their late-ancient
prototypes, which although absent from Chersonesus, abounded
in other locations. This path has already been cleared by a number
of eminent scholars and more than sufficiently beaten by their less
creative disciples. Nevertheless, limiting the study of the mosaics
of Chersonesus to their ancient Hellenistic and Roman inspirations
would amount to jejune imitation; we have attempted to avoid this
trap, especially since this topic, first broached by D. Ajnalov, has
already been investigated in detail by our predecessors, and in par¬
ticular, as we have mentioned before, by A.
Jakobson.
The monographs written by several generations of experts
in the Byzantine art provide a deep insight into the history of
the multifaceted artistic production of that empire and into its
individual works; the reader follows the stream of the evolution
of the Byzantine art as it breaks down into various channels, oc¬
casionally stagnating in tortuous meanders, contributing to the
artistic activity of other nations, or supplied by foreign tribu¬
taries which are diluted in its main current. Many authors have
reminded us of the obvious truth that the artistic production of
any nation always freely absorbs and adapts external influences
which reach it continuously and from everywhere, but principally
through trade routes. Likewise, the medieval Chersonesus, with
its direct links with the eastern provinces of Byzantium, and in the
lžth-Hth
cent, particularly closely related with Trebizond, could
not avoid the Orientalization which at that time was typical of the
arts of not only Byzantium, but also of the whole Europe. The
Eastern (Iranian-and-Armenian) thread interwove closely into the
Greco-Roman warp of the mosaics of Chersonesus, and we have
attempted to bear this fact in mind when discussing the artistic
style of these items.
During the second period of the economic prosperity of Cher¬
sonesus and in the 10th cent., when all of the large basilicas in the
city were being erected or rebuilt, apparently following the previ¬
ous period of decline or even ruin, the temples were furnished with
floor mosaics for the second time. The mosaics
ofthat
time, both
in Chersonesus and in all other locations, displayed certain pecu¬
liar artistic features: the ornaments were predominantly geomet¬
ric, and the images of plants and animals were conventional and
deprived of a depth of perspective; at the same time, the shapes
were shown in minute detail, and tension is often noticeable in the
choice of colors, as combinations of colors were selected based
on abstract
hannonies
rather than on the reproduction of the hues
ornature.
The technique of the execution of the ornamental motifs
had become standardized. And most importantly, the cultural rela¬
tions of Chersonesus with Syria and Palestine on the one hand,
and with Byzantium and Asia Minor on the other had by that time
resulted in a fairly moderate but nevertheless observable tendency
of the city's architects and artists to imitate the edifices, mosaics
and decorative sculpture of those overseas nations. However, the
influences of the Eastern medieval architecture and art did not
produce any major artistic achievements, most probably because
they were prematurely stopped by the final fall of the city.
Now, at the end of the many years' project of the removal, ar¬
cheological study and restoration of the mosaics of Chersonesus,
117
we must conclude that we have not achieved the expected degree
of clarity in our accounts of these important relics of the medieval
city. Even the present book may be considered obsolete at the
very moment of its publication, as research work is still continued
in Chersonesus, yielding new findings every day. This, obviously,
is a danger with which all authors of scholarly monographs must
reckon, and in fact only a minor concern for the present writer.
Conversely, the publication of the book may also be considered
premature, as future discoveries in Chersonesus may make us
revise our present datings and interpretations of certain mosaics
in the city. Hopefully, any such developments will not make the
work of the present writer futile.
Whatever the future may bring, the present book will always
retain some value, both as a catalog of the mosaics which have
been excavated in Chersonesus before its publication, and as a
modest attempt at developing a methodology of their research.
Any possible mistakes of which our book may be guilty, will cer¬
tainly be noticed and avoided by our successors.
(Translated from the Russian by
Przemysław Znaniecki) |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Dombrovskij, Oleg Ivanovič 1914-1994 |
| author_GND | (DE-588)137708947 |
| author_facet | Dombrovskij, Oleg Ivanovič 1914-1994 |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Dombrovskij, Oleg Ivanovič 1914-1994 |
| author_variant | o i d oi oid |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV022947120 |
| contents | Bibliogr. S. 120-[123] |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)169070734 (DE-599)BVBBV022947120 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02409nam a2200517 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV022947120</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20081008 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">071106s2004 a||| |||| 00||| rus d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">837177298X</subfield><subfield code="9">83-7177-298-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788371772986</subfield><subfield code="9">978-83-7177-298-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)169070734</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV022947120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,15</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,16</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dombrovskij, Oleg Ivanovič</subfield><subfield code="d">1914-1994</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)137708947</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo</subfield><subfield code="c">Oleg Ivanovič Dombrovskij</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Poznań</subfield><subfield code="b">Wydawn. Poznańskie</subfield><subfield code="c">2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">122 S., [7] Bl.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill.</subfield><subfield code="c">30 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego</subfield><subfield code="v">3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Byzantine mosaics of Chersonesus Taurica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bibliogr. S. 120-[123]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Mozaika bizantyjska / Ukraina / Krym</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Mozaika bizantyjska - Ukraina - Krym</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Mosaik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4040311-7</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Chersonez (miasto dawne)</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Byzantinisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4009256-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Chersones</subfield><subfield code="g">Krim, Stadt</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4420982-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Chersones</subfield><subfield code="g">Krim, Stadt</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4420982-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Mosaik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4040311-7</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Byzantinisches Reich</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4009256-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego</subfield><subfield code="v">3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV022947111</subfield><subfield code="9">3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016151663</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">307.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0902</subfield><subfield code="g">477</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">709</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0902</subfield><subfield code="g">398</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Chersonez (miasto dawne) jhpk Byzantinisches Reich (DE-588)4009256-2 gnd Chersones Krim, Stadt (DE-588)4420982-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Chersonez (miasto dawne) Byzantinisches Reich Chersones Krim, Stadt |
| id | DE-604.BV022947120 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T19:00:15Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:08:19Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 837177298X 9788371772986 |
| language | Russian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016151663 |
| oclc_num | 169070734 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 122 S., [7] Bl. Ill. 30 cm |
| publishDate | 2004 |
| publishDateSearch | 2004 |
| publishDateSort | 2004 |
| publisher | Wydawn. Poznańskie |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego |
| series2 | Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego |
| spelling | Dombrovskij, Oleg Ivanovič 1914-1994 Verfasser (DE-588)137708947 aut Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo Oleg Ivanovič Dombrovskij Poznań Wydawn. Poznańskie 2004 122 S., [7] Bl. Ill. 30 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego 3 In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The Byzantine mosaics of Chersonesus Taurica Bibliogr. S. 120-[123] Mozaika bizantyjska / Ukraina / Krym jhpk Mozaika bizantyjska - Ukraina - Krym jhpk Mosaik (DE-588)4040311-7 gnd rswk-swf Chersonez (miasto dawne) jhpk Byzantinisches Reich (DE-588)4009256-2 gnd rswk-swf Chersones Krim, Stadt (DE-588)4420982-4 gnd rswk-swf Chersones Krim, Stadt (DE-588)4420982-4 g Mosaik (DE-588)4040311-7 s Byzantinisches Reich (DE-588)4009256-2 g DE-604 Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego 3 (DE-604)BV022947111 3 Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Dombrovskij, Oleg Ivanovič 1914-1994 Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo Architektura wczesnobizantyjskich budowli sakralnych Chersonezu Taurydzkiego Bibliogr. S. 120-[123] Mozaika bizantyjska / Ukraina / Krym jhpk Mozaika bizantyjska - Ukraina - Krym jhpk Mosaik (DE-588)4040311-7 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4040311-7 (DE-588)4009256-2 (DE-588)4420982-4 |
| title | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo |
| title_auth | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo |
| title_exact_search | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo |
| title_full | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo Oleg Ivanovič Dombrovskij |
| title_fullStr | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo Oleg Ivanovič Dombrovskij |
| title_full_unstemmed | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo Oleg Ivanovič Dombrovskij |
| title_short | Vizantijskie mozaiki Chersonesa Tavričeskogo |
| title_sort | vizantijskie mozaiki chersonesa tavriceskogo |
| topic | Mozaika bizantyjska / Ukraina / Krym jhpk Mozaika bizantyjska - Ukraina - Krym jhpk Mosaik (DE-588)4040311-7 gnd |
| topic_facet | Mozaika bizantyjska / Ukraina / Krym Mozaika bizantyjska - Ukraina - Krym Mosaik Chersonez (miasto dawne) Byzantinisches Reich Chersones Krim, Stadt |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016151663&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV022947111 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dombrovskijolegivanovic vizantijskiemozaikichersonesatavriceskogo |