Sonderdruck aus

Falko Daim · Jörg Drauschke (Hrsg.)

Byzanz – das Römerreich im MittelalterTeil 2, 1 Schauplätze

R G Z MRömisch-GermanischesZentralmuseum

Forschungsinstitut fürVor- und Frühgeschichte

Gesamtredaktion: Kerstin Kowarik (Wien)Koordination, Schlussredaktion: Evelyn Bott, Jörg Drauschke, Reinhard Köster (RGZM); Sarah Scheffler (Mainz)Satz: Michael Braun, Datenshop Wiesbaden; Manfred Albert,Hans Jung (RGZM) Umschlaggestaltung: Franz Siegmeth, Illustration · Grafik-Design,Bad Vöslau

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation inder Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografischeDaten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

© 2010 Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums

Das Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begrün detenRechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nach drucks, derEntnahme von Abbildungen, der Funk- und Fernsehsen dung, derWiedergabe auf photomechanischem (Photokopie, Mikrokopie)oder ähnlichem Wege und der Speicherung in Datenverarbei -tungs anlagen, Ton- und Bild trägern bleiben, auch bei nur auszugs-weiser Verwertung, vor be halten. Die Vergü tungs ansprüche des § 54, Abs. 2, UrhG. werden durch die Verwer tungs gesellschaftWort wahrgenommen.

ÖRGÜ DALGIÇ

THE CORPUS OF FLOOR MOSAICS FROM ISTANBUL

Modern-day Istanbul, developed over time and rests upon the ruins and surviving monuments of LateAntique and medieval Constantinople, offers limited opportunities for archaeological exploration. It isusually the accidental discoveries at construction sites and their ensuing rescue excavations that producethe most important archaeological finds. Floor mosaics are one of the most striking finds from these exca-vations. Surprisingly, despite the scarcity of art works with a secure Constantinopolitan provenance inmuseum collections and the few surviving examples of archaeological evidence pertaining to Late AntiqueConstantinople, there has been little study of the city’s floor mosaics, with the exception of the ones fromthe Great Palace. The mosaics that originate from 14 different sites in Istanbul and that range in date fromthe 2nd-6th century AD remained as an untapped source of information about the city and its urban devel-opment. In reality, it was not so surprising that we had no comprehensive study of the mosaics of Istanbul, sincemost of these mosaics are »products« of salvage excavations. They were dug up hurriedly and were oftenvery poorly documented. The majority of these pavements were already in a fragmentary state whendiscovered and were then, cut into smaller pieces in order to facilitate their transport, following the usualprocedures. They had been removed from their original contexts and were subsequently piled up in thestorerooms of Istanbul’s museums with other mosaics from other parts of the city. In some instances, themosaics were preserved in situ and there are also a few others that we only know from earlier photographsor publications. In addition, overshadowed by the grandeur of the famous Great Palace Mosaics, other Istanbul mosaics areoften characterised as »commonplace works of little significance which do not suggest the presence offlourishing mosaic workshops in the city«1. Thus, although the date of the Great Palace Mosaics and theidentification of the building to which they belonged has been the subject of extensive scholarly debate,the remainder of Istanbul’s mosaics have largely been ignored. Dating these pavements is also highly problematic. In the absence of archaeological evidence, stylisticcomparison remains the only tool, although the perils of such an approach were clearly demonstrated bythe Great Palace mosaics which, for some decades, had been dated, on stylistic grounds, to anytimebetween the 4th and the 7th century2. A secure dating was not confirmed until the late 1980s, after thestudy of amphora shards and other material found in the layer of fill under the foundations3. Althoughstyle is not always a reliable tool for dating, the lack of relevant comparanda makes the study of Istanbul’smosaics even more problematic. Geographically, the city’s most likely links would have been with westernAsia Minor. However, the mosaics of Asia Minor are still relatively unknown and very few sites have beenpublished in detail 4. Consequently, studies based on stylistic comparisons lean towards sites where there

127Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke

1 Dunbabin, Mosaics 232. – Hellenkemper Salies, Konstantinopel614-625.

2 For a summary of the proposed dates see: Hellenkemper Salies,Mosaiken im Großen Palast 275.

3 Jobst / Vetters, Mosaikenforschung esp. 28-60. – More recently,based on brickstamp dating, Bardill argued that the peristyle ispost-Justinianic: Bardill, Brickstamps 134-147.

4 Levi, Antioch. – Budde, Mosaiken. – Jobst, Ephesos (A secondvol ume is in preparation by V. Scheibelreiter). – Campbell,Aphrodisias. – Campbell, Anemurium. – Campbell, Antioch. –There is no systematic study and catalogue of the mosaics fromPergamon or Sardis. Individual finds are published in the annualexcavation reports.

are significant published comparanda with a relatively longer continuity in mosaic production, such asAntioch, greater Northern Syria and North Africa. The first and the only discussion of mosaics from Istanbul as a group (although now an incomplete group)was by G. Hellenkemper Salies, who studied mosaics from seven different sites in and around Istanbul in ashort encyclopaedic entry in 19895. She also referred to them occasionally in her treatment of the GreatPalace mosaics, focusing on their stylistic connections with Syrian workshops6. The present article is a brief summary of a comprehensive study of the corpus of floor mosaics fromIstanbul 7. This study comprised the first systematic and contextual study of the known tessellated floormosaics of Istanbul. It combined a first-hand examination of the mosaics with a study of excavationrecords and relevant archival material when available, as well as an examination of the archaeological sitesand their relation to urban topography. For the study of this small corpus of fragmentary, poorly docu-mented and mostly de-contextualised mosaics, a combination of different approaches proved to be themost beneficial; each individual case was considered in light of extant material and available relevantinformation on site. When studied as paintings, the mosaics enhance our understanding of the pictorial or ornamental stylescurrent in Constantinople during the period to which they belonged. The subjects they represent provideinformation about the visual culture of those who commissioned them. Coming from various contexts,including the domestic, public and religious, when studied together with contemporary literature, philo s -ophy, religion and comparative works of art, floor mosaics provide access to the physical, as well as theintellectual and cultural realms of the society that created them. Besides, mosaics were an integral part ofthe buildings whose floors they covered. When studied as such they can help to physically reconstruct thespaces to which they belonged. Understanding the function of floor décor in the context of architecture,and the ways in which viewers selected and interacted with pictorial signs, guides modern visitors throughthe spaces, even though little remains of the buildings themselves. The distribution of known mosaic sites on the city map of Constantinople follows a clear pattern (fig.1).The concentration is at the tip of the peninsula, where eight of the sites, including the pre-ConstantinianHagia Eirene and Çatalçeşme mosaics, were located8. Ranging in date from the 2nd to the 6th century, theyreflect the continuous settlement at the city’s easternmost zone from the Roman era through Late Antiq-uity. These are two Roman mosaics discovered underneath the nave pavements of the Church of HagiaEirene and along the Çatalçeşme Street, early 4th century mosaics excavated in the garden of the FourSeasons Hotel, an early 5th century mosaic from Hagia Sophia; a mid-5th century mosaic from Amiral TaldifStreet, another mid-5th century mosaic discovered across from the Vilayet building, and an early 6th centurymosaic now in the Eresin Hotel on Küçük Ayasofya Street9. These are all non-figural, geometric, ornamentalmosaics with occasional floral and animal motifs inserted into geometric compartments. The architecturalcontext of the mosaics from the garden of the Four Seasons Hotel and the Eresin Hotel are currentlyunknown. The excavation at the former is still ongoing and my 4th century dating is primarily based on

128 Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul

5 Hellenkemper Salies, Konstantinopel 615-625. – She concludedthat the Great Palace mosaics in Constantinople were connectedwith the leading workshops of Syria, since there was no well-developed workshop tradition in the city and Syrian mosaicswere far superior to those in Asia Minor and in Greece.

6 Hellenkemper Salies, Die Datierung. – Hellenkemper Salies, Mo -sai ken im Großen Palast. – Hellenkemper Salies, A propos.

7 Dalgıç, Mosaics of Constantinople.8 Dalgıç, Pre-Constantinian.

9 For the Hagia Eirene mosaic see: Ramazanoglu, Neue Forschun-gen 231-235. – For the Çatalçeşme mosaic: Mamboury, Lesfouil les Byzantines 279. – For the Four Seasons Hotel mosaic:Denker, Büyük Saray Kazısı 134. – Pasinli, Magnum Palatium 2-3. – For the Hagia Sophia mosaic: Schneider, Die Grabung 388-389. – For the mosaic on Amiral Taldif Street: Düzgüner, YeniBuluntular 32-50. – For the Vilayet mosaic: Harrison / Lawson,Vilayet Building 13-14.

stylistic observations10. The Eresin Hotel Mosaic was excavated 15 years ago and its publication is stillpending. Thus, my proposed early 6th century date is again only based on style. The mosaic excavated byA. M. Schneider in front of Hagia Sophia in 1935 is dated to approx. 418 on the basis of the style of relatedarchitectural sculpture, masonry technique and brickstamps11. It belonged to a pavement along the eastside of the street, which continued north passing along the outer wall of the atrium wall of the Theodo-sius’ Hagia Sophia12. The mosaic floor, discovered on Amiral Taldif Sokak in 1998, decorated the floor ofa structure that was laid over a water spring which became a hagiasma in the late Byzantine period. Thefunction of the mosaic-bearing structure is again not clear and the dating is based on style, supported bylimited archaeological finds, such as coins, which do not yet provide a terminus post or ante quem for thepavement13. The largest of the mosaic floors discovered in this part of the city is the paving located acrossfrom the Vilayet building, lifted in 1966 and now stored in the atrium of Hagia Eirene. The floor is archae-ologically and stylistically dated to the mid-5th century14. The décor is mostly non-figural with, in parts,

129Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke

10 A coin dated to the reign of Constantius was found at the sitewhich, however, may not have been in situ (personal corre-spondence with the current excavator A. Denker in August2006). The 5th or the 6th century dating suggested by the exca-vators is also based on style: Denker, Büyük Saray Kazısı 134. –Pasinli, Magnum Palatium 2-3.

11 Schneider, Die Grabung 388-389. – Schneider, Vorjustiniani -sche Sophienkirche 83. – Schneider, Byzanz 74-75. – Schneider,Die Hagia Sophia 8 Abb. 4. – Schneider, Die Grabung 5. – Forits identification see: Mathews, The Early Churches 14-16. – Forthe brickstamp dating see: Bardill, Brickstamps 55-56.

12 Mathews, The Early Churches 14-15.13 Düzgüner, Yeni Buluntular 32-50.14 Harrison / Lawson, Vilayet Building 13-14.

Fig. 1 Map of Constantinople showing find spots of the floor mosaics from Istanbul: 1 Hagia Eirene Mosaic. – 2 Çatalçeşme Mosaics. –3 Four Seasons Hotel Mosaic. – 4 Hagia Sophia Mosaic. – 5 Great Palace Mosaics. – 6 Amiral Taldif Street Mosaic. – 7 Vilayet Mosaic. –8 Eresin Hotel Mosaic. – 9 Mosaic from the Myreleion Rotunda. – 10 Belediye Mosaics. – 11 Polyeuktos Mosaic. – 12 Ko ca mus ta fa paşaMosaic.

geometric patterns filled in with figural motifs, including birds and fish. The mosaic was the floor of a largehall with east-west orientation that was surrounded by a portico along the extant south and west sides.Although attributed to a basilica church, the porticos on the sides were too narrow to function as aislesand the colonnade continued along the west side, which would otherwise have been a wall with passagesseparating the nave from the narthex15. The mosaic floor perhaps belonged to a congregational hall of anow unknown character. Moving west from the east end of the peninsula, the Myrelaion Rotunda, the Belediye (City hall) and thechurch of St. Polyeuktos are the next mosaic sites that were located outside the downtown area but withinthe Constantinian city walls 16. They reflect the westward expansion of the capital within the city wallsbetween the 4th and the 6th century. The Belediye mosaics are the earliest of these. They are standard exam-ples of 4th century figural style and iconography in the eastern part of the empire and should be dated tothe second half of the 4th century. This agrees with the 4th century date suggested by earlier scholars basedon the construction technique of the structure to which they belonged and the style of the mosaics17. TheBelediye is also the largest of the mosaic sites ever discovered in the city after the peristyle of the GreatPalace and reveals the most extensive program, again with the exception of the Great Palace. As thesemosaics were cut into pieces for easy transportation, my reconstructions of the mosaics and the structurethey once decorated were based on a large collection of unpublished archival data and topographical infor-mation pertaining to the site. I identified the mosaics as part of the »Thermae Constantianae«, the publicbaths that Emperor Constantius built between 345 and 378, whose general location is known only throughtextual sources. In light of this identification, the Belediye mosaics reveal one of the earliest known im perialuses of secular iconography in Constantinople, which finds its richest and most perfect expression in theJustinianic mosaics of the Great Palace. The early 5th century Myrelaion mosaic is also figural. It has been greatly damaged and its extant piecesthen randomly arranged at the western entrance to the rotunda at a later period. The Polyeuktos mosaicis geometric and has also survived in a very fragmentary condition. It dates to the construction of the churchin 524 in one of the capital’s prime neighbourhoods, along the northern branch of the Mese, which wasaligned with important residential, civic and religious structures18. Another mosaic was discovered in 1998 in the narrow buffer zone between the 4th and the 5th centuryfortifications. In this exquisite example of Late Antique art, a triumphant Dionysus in his panther-drawnchariot is depicted surrounded by a Dionysiac thiasos19. It may once have decorated the reception room ofan aristocratic residence in the ancient district of Psamatia, one of the suburbs of Constantinople, and pres-ents one of the very few instances where we can really comprehend the texture of the private life of theConstantinopolitan elite. The brickstamps from the structure to which the mosaic belonged suggest a datein the second half of the 5th century. Its size, the innovative character of its composition, the peculiaritiesof the iconography and the vitality of the figures offer a fresh interpretation of this canonical theme at aperiod when Christianity was the official religion of the Empire. The Kocamustafapaşa mosaic is betterunderstood when interpreted in the light of contemporary texts full of references to the drinking partiesalluding to Dionysiac revels 20. Such parties would surely have taken place in the structure to which themosaic originally belonged.

130 Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul

15 Berger suggested that it was possibly the Church of Urbikios:Berger, Regionen und Straßen 393.

16 Naumann, Myrelaion 206-210. – Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı 9-12.– Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane 182.

17 Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı 9-12. – Ward-Perkins, Notes 66.18 Berger, Regionen und Straßen 369-370. – Magdalino, Aristo-

cratic Oikoi 53-69.

19 Dalgıç, Mosaics of Constantinople 111-143. – Also mentionedbriefly in: Berger, Streets and Public Spaces 178. – Gates,Archaeology in Turkey 330-331. – Mathews, Byzantium 76. –Tunay, Byzantine Archaeological Findings 229.

20 See for example: Palladii dialogus 92.

Two additional mosaics were found close to the city, in the villages of Orta Köy near Silivri (Selymbria) andin Esenköy (prov. Yalova) across the Sea of Marmara. Both are approximately 50km west and south ofmodern Istanbul, a distance short enough to consider these sites within the artistic orbit of the capital 21.The geometric Silivri mosaics evidently belonged to a church floor and can be dated, stylistically, to the mid-5th century. Mosaics from Esenköy, decorated with floral and bird motifs, cannot be contextualised as theycould fit into any religious or secular context and, stylistically, could be dated anywhere between the 4th

and 6th century. These 14 sites in and around Istanbul attest that Constantinopolitan mosaics adorned structures serving awide variety of purposes, ranging from the public to the private, from sidewalks to interiors of villas andcongregational and social areas, such as churches and baths. For the most part, it is not possible to recon-struct the mosaic-bearing structures since archaeological evidence is incomplete. A few sites, such asBelediye and Kocamustafapasa, were relatively well-preserved upon discovery and exemplify the greatvariety of iconography, styles and functions of the buildings to which they belonged. Their dates and loca-tions provide important insights into the urban development of Constantinople in the 4th and 5th century.They confirm the information we can glean from literary sources, other archaeological discoveries andsurviving monuments. Also, they are instructive in terms of the complexity of the challenges involved inanalyzing this material, as well as the promise of future discovery inherent in the city’s archaeology. Despite their limited number, these sites suggest a well-established mosaic tradition in the city. The twoearlier Roman examples, Hagia Eirene and Çatalçeşme, indicate that the tradition goes back to ancientByzantion, long before its Constantinian rededication in 330. Mosaics dating from the 4th to the 6th cen -tury are quite fragmentary and are principally geometric in their repertoire, except for the Belediye andKocamustafapaşa mosaics, which are figural. The main value of these fragmentary and mostly ornamentalmosaics is that they document the continuity of the mosaic tradition in the early Christian city. The Belediyeand Kocamustafapaşa mosaics, on the other hand, are evidence of the richness of the iconographic reper-toire and the technical mastery of the Constantinopolitan workshops. The available evidence does notconfirm the notion that Byzantion once became Constantinople, the imperial capital, and that the mosaicsshould all be superior to those of the rest of the empire. The quality of mosaics from the city varies,reflecting the nature of the medium, from the simplest and the coarsest to the most sophisticated and thefinest, depending on the context, the financial resources of the patrons and the availability of artists orcraftsmen. A systematic study of mosaics prior to the Great Palace from Istanbul also reveals how this significant artform developed in the capital. Whilst the pre-Constantinian mosaics show a strong Hellenistic traditionrelating to western Asia Minor and eastern Greece in the early 2nd century, and to the western part of theEmpire in the 3rd century, Constantinople’s mosaics have a broader base. Although the limited extent ofmaterial from the city and the absence of a corpus of floor mosaics from Turkey make generalisations diffi-cult, the extant evidence from western Asia Minor points to an increase in mosaic production in the laterRoman Empire22. At this time, there appears to have been a preference for geometric over figural mosaics,as is seen in the capital. Cities like Antioch and Zeugma were both geographically and artistically part ofNorthern Syria and do not reflect the development of mosaic art in western Asia Minor. While Constan-tinople shares a great deal of its decorative vocabulary with western Asia Minor and eastern Greece, at thesame time, its mosaic art appears to be particularly close to that of Antioch. Belediye pavements suggest astrong presence of Antioch mosaic workshops in the capital in the 4th century, along with few other pave-

131Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke

21 Duyuran, İzmit ve Silivri 213-218. – Dirimtekin, Esenköy 51-52. 22 Dunbabin, Mosaics 225.

ments bearing references to the west of the empire, thus suggesting several workshops working togetheron a large project. These various traditions are easily justifiable by the influx of artists to the new capital,especially from the major centres of mosaic production, Northern Syria in particular. The later Koca-mustafapaşa mosaic suggests a possible North African connection. In the style of the figures, the Koca-mustafapaşa mosaic is closest to the classicising and vibrant figure style of the Great Palace. In both, figuresare set in an abstract background, in the geometric compartments of a large composition at Koca-mustafapaşa, and randomly distributed on a plain white background at the Great Palace. Finally, the small mosaic fragment comes from the Polyeuktos Church, which was a prestigious monumentpatronised by Anicia Juliana, who spared no expense in the construction and decoration of the church. Theonly mosaic-paved part of the church was the eastern end of the nave23. This is the holiest part of thechurch after the sanctuary and its mosaic pavement survives as testimony to the importance and novelty oftessellated mosaic floors in the capital by the first quarter of the 6th century.In studying this admittedly scarce material, one cannot help but contemplate the significant loss of evidencefrom Late Antique Constantinople, as well as the exceptional challenges posed by the surviving examples.The latter, however, speak clearly about the mentality of artists, patrons and viewers, along with thecultural and social milieu. Studying the style, techniques or workshops of these mosaics is the starting pointfor further understanding the intellectual climate that created them.

132 Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul

23 Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane 182.

REFERENCES

Sources

Palladii dialogus: Palladii dialogus de vita S. Joanni Chrysostomi. Edited by P. R. Coleman-Norton (Cambridge 1928).

Literature

Bardill, Brickstamps: J. Bardill, Brickstamps of Constantinople (NewYork 2004).

Berger, Regionen und Straßen: A. Berger, Regionen und Straßenim frühen Konstantinopel. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47, 1997,349-414.

Berger, Streets and Public Spaces: A. Berger, Streets and PublicSpaces in Constantinople. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54, 2000,161-172.

Budde, Mosaiken: L. Budde, Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien, Beiträgezur Kunst des Christlichen Ostens (Recklinghausen 1969-1972).

Campbell, Anemurium: S. Campbell, The Mosaics of Anemurium(Toronto 1998).

Campbell, Antioch: S. Campbell, The Mosaics of Antioch (Toronto1988).

Campbell, Aphrodisias: S. Campbell, Mosaics of Aphrodisias inCaria (Toronto 1991).

Dalgıç, Mosaics of Constantinople: Ö. Dalgıç, Late Antique FloorMosaics of Constantinople prior to the Great Palace [unpubl.Diss., New York University 2008].

Dalgıç, Pre-Constantinian: Ö. Dalgıç, Pre-Constantinian Mosaicsfrom Istanbul. In: J. D. Alchermes / H. C. Evans / T. K. Thomas(eds.), ΑΝΑΘΗΜΑΤΑ ΕOPTIKA: Studies in Honor of ThomasF. Mathews (Mainz 2009) 124-130.

Denker, Büyük Saray Kazısı: A. Denker, Sultanahmet Eski Cezaevi:Büyük Saray Kazısı. In: Gün Işığında Istanbul’un 8000 Yılı; Mar-maray, Metro, Sultanahmet Kazıları (Istanbul 2007) 126-163.

Dirimtekin, Esenköy: F. Dirimtekin, Mosaic Pavement DiscoveredNear Esenköy, in the District of Mahmud Bey, West of Istanbul.Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı 4, 1962, 51-52.

Dunbabin, Mosaics: K. M. D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek andRoman World (Cambridge 1999).

Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı: R. Duyuran, Belediye Sarayı Mozaikleri.Architekt 9-12, 1955, 166-170.

Duyuran, İzmit ve Silivri: R. Duyuran, İzmit ve Silivri’de Yapılan Ar -keolojik Araştırmalar: 1947-48. Belleten 15/58, 1951, 213-218.

Düzgüner, Yeni Buluntular: F. Düzgüner, Anaplous ve Prookh -thoi’de Yeni Buluntular: Hagia Maria Hodegetria ve Nea Ekklesia(Mesakepion) Kiliseleri. Myth to Modernity, Istanbul, SelectedThemes, Annual Supplement of Arkeoloji ve Sanat Magazine 1(Istanbul 2002) 32-50.

Gates, Archaeology in Turkey: M. N. Gates, Archaeology in Turkey.American Journal of Archaeology 100/2, April 1996, 277-335.

Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane: R. M. Harrison, Excavations atSaraçhane in Istanbul 1 (Princeton 1986).

Harrison / Lawson, Vilayet Building: R. M. Harrison / G. R. J. Law-son, The Mosaics in front of the Vilayet Building. Istanbul Arke-oloji Müzeleri Yıllığı 13-14, 1966, 216-218.

Hellenkemper Salies, A propos: G. Hellenkemper Salies, A proposdes mosaïques du Grand Palais de Constantinopole. In: La mo -saï que gréco-romaine. VIIe Colloque international pour l’étudede la mosaïque antique 2 [Tunis 1994] (Tunis 1999) 685-690.

Hellenkemper Salies, Die Datierung: G. Helenkemper Salies, DieDatierung der Mosaiken im Großen Palast zu Konstantinopel. In:J.-P. Darmon / A. Rebourg (eds.), La mosaïque gréco-romaine.IVe Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique[Trèves 1984] (Paris 1994) 186-188.

Hellenkemper Salies, Konstantinopel: G. Hellenkemper Salies, Kon-stantinopel. Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst (1963) 614-625.

Hellenkemper Salies, Mosaiken im Großen Palast: G. HellenkemperSalies, Die Datierung der Mosaiken im Grossen Palast zu Kon-stantinopel. Bonner Jahrbücher 187, 1987, 273-307.

Jobst, Ephesos: W. Jobst, Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos 1. DieHanghäuser des Embolos. Forschungen in Ephesos 8/2 (Vienna1977).

Jobst / Vetters, Mosaikenforschung: W. Jobst / H. Vetters, Mosai -ken forschung im Kaiserpalast von Konstantinopel (Vienna 1992).

Levi, Antioch: D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements (Princeton 1947).

Magdalino, Aristocratic Oikoi: P. Magdalino, Aristocratic Oikoi inthe Tenth and the Eleventh Regions of Constantinople. In: N.Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topo -graphy, and Everyday Life (Leiden, Boston 2001) 53-69.

Mamboury, Les fouilles byzantines: E. Mamboury, Les fouilles By -zantines à Istanbul et dans sa banlieue immédiate aux XIX et XXsiècles. Byzantion 11, 1936, 229-283.

Mathews, Byzantium: T. F. Mathews, Byzantium: from Antiquity tothe Renaissance (New York 1998).

Mathews, The Early Churches: T. F. Mathews, The Early Churchesof Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (Pennsylvania 1971).

Naumann, Myrelaion: R. Naumann, Myrelaion. Istanbuler Mittei -lun gen 16, 1966, 199-216.

Pasinli, Magnum Palatium: A. Pasinli, »Pittakia« ve »Magnum Pala -tium – Büyük Saray« Bölgesi’nde 2001 Yılı Çalışmaları (Eski Sul-tanahmet Cezaevi Bahçesi), Müze Araştırmaları ve KurtarmaKazıları Sempozyumu 13, 2003, 1-16.

Schneider, Byzanz: A. M. Schneider, Byzanz, Vorarbeiten zur To po -graphie und Archäologie der Stadt. Istanbuler Forschungen 8(Berlin 1936).

Schneider, Die Grabung: A. M. Schneider, Die Grabung im West-hof der Sophienkirche zu Istanbul. Istanbuler Forschungen 12(Berlin 1941).

Schneider, Die Hagia Sophia: A. M. Schneider, Die Hagia Sophia zuKonstantinopel. Bilderhefte antiker Kunst 6 (Berlin 1939).

Schneider, Vorjustinianische Sophienkirche: A. M. Schneider, Dievorjustinianische Sophienkirche. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36,1936, 77-85.

Ramazanoglu, Neue Forschungen: M. Ramazanoglu, Neue For -schun gen zur Architekturgeschichte der Irenen-Kirche und desKomplexes der Sophienkirche. In: Atti dello VIII Congresso inter-nazionale di studi bizantini [Palermo 3-10 aprile 1951] (Rome1953) 232-235.

Tunay, Byzantine Archaeological Findings: İ. M. Tunay, ByzantineArchaeological Findings in Istanbul during the Last Decade. In:N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, To po graphy, and Everyday Life (Leiden, Boston 2001) 217-234.

Ward-Perkins, Notes: J. B. Ward-Perkins, Notes on the Structureand Building Methods of Early Byzantine Architecture. In: D. T.Rice (ed.), The Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, the SecondReport (Edinburgh 1958) 52-104.

133Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter · Daim/Drauschke

ILLUSTRATION REFERENCE

Fig. 1 Map courtesy of E. Nicolescu and L. Safran, mosaic sites added by Ö. Dalgıç.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG / ABSTRACT / RÉSUMÉ

Bodenmosaike zählen zu den am wenigsten untersuchten Kunstformen des spätantiken Konstantinopel. 14 Mosaike,von verschiedenen Fundorten, sind bislang bekannt. Sie stellen eine kleine aber aussagekräftige Fundgattung dar. DieMosaike datieren zwischen das 2. und 6. Jahrhundert und ihr Verbreitungsmuster folgt eindeutig der Stadtentwick-lung. Die Untersuchungen des architektonischen und topografischen Kontexts der Mosaike sowie stilistische undikonografische Analysen vermitteln wichtige Informationen zum öffentlichen, religiösen und privaten Leben in derHauptstadt. K. K.

Tessellated floor mosaics are one of the least-studied art forms of the Late Antique Constantinople. Known mosaicsfrom 14 different sites comprise a small but significant corpus. Their dates range from the 2nd to the 6th century ADand their distribution on the city map follows a clear pattern corresponding to the city’s urban development. Exami-nation of the architectural and topographical contexts of these mosaic floors, as well as their style and iconography,provides information about the public, religious and domestic spheres of life in the capital.

Les mosaïques de pavement comptent parmi les formes d’art les moins étudiées de la ville de Constantinople durantl’Antiquité tardive. Quatorze mosaïques de différents sites sont connues jusqu’à présent. Elles représentent un petitcorpus néanmoins significatif. Les mosaïques datent du IIe au VIe siècle et leur distribution sur le plan de la ville suit detoute évidence l’évolution urbaine. Les études du contexte architectural et topographique des mosaïques de pavementainsi que leurs analyses stylistique et iconographique fournissent d’importantes informations au sujet de la viepublique, religieuse et privée dans la capitale. A. S.

Dr. Örgü DalgıçPost Doctoral Teaching Fellow in Byzantine StudiesDumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection1703 32nd Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20007USAE-mail: odalgic@doaks.org

134 Ö. Dalgıç · The Corpus of Floor Mosaics From Istanbul

TEIL 1 WELT DER IDEEN, WELT DER DINGE

BYZANZ – DAS RÖMERREICH IM MITTELALTER

VERZEICHNIS DER BEITRÄGE

WELT DER IDEEN

Ernst KünzlAuf dem Weg in das Mittelalter: die Gräber Constantins,Theoderichs und Chlodwigs

Vasiliki TsamakdaKönig David als Typos des byzantinischen Kaisers

Umberto RobertoThe Circus Factions and the Death of the Tyrant: John of Antioch on the Fate of the Emperor Phocas

Stefan AlbrechtWarum tragen wir einen Gürtel? Der Gürtel der Byzantiner – Symbolik und Funktion

Mechthild Schulze-DörrlammHeilige Nägel und heilige Lanzen

Tanja V. KushchThe Beauty of the City in Late Byzantine Rhetoric

Helen PapastavrouClassical Trends in Byzantine and Western Art in the 13th and 14th Centuries

WELT DER DINGE

Birgit BühlerIs it Byzantine Metalwork or not? Evidence for Byzantine Craftsmanship Outside the Byzantine Empire(6th to 9th Centuries AD)

Isabella Baldini LipolisHalf-crescent Earrings in Sicily and Southern Italy

Yvonne PetrinaKreuze mit geschweiften Hasten und kreisförmigenHastenenden

Anastasia G. YangakiThe Scene of »the Holy Women at the Tomb« on a Ringfrom Ancient Messene and Other Rings Bearing theSame Representation

Ellen RiemerByzantinische und romanisch-mediterrane Fibeln in der Forschung

Aimilia YeroulanouCommon Elements in »Treasures« of the Early ChristianPeriod

Tivadar VidaZur Formentwicklung der mediterranen spätantik-frühbyzantinischen Metallkrüge (4.-9. Jahrhundert)

Anastassios AntonarasEarly Christian and Byzantine Glass Vessels: Forms and Uses

Binnur Gürler und Ergün LafliFrühbyzantinische Glaskunst in Kleinasien

Ronald BockiusZur Modellrekonstruktion einer byzantinischen Dromone(chelandion) des 10./11. Jahrhunderts im Forschungsbereich Antike Schiffahrt, RGZM Mainz

Isabelle C. Kollig, Matthias J. J. Jacinto Fragata und KurtW. AltAnthropologische Forschungen zum ByzantinischenReich – ein Stiefkind der Wissenschaft?

KONSTANTINOPEL / ISTANBUL

Albrecht BergerKonstantinopel – Gründung, Blüte und Verfalleiner mediterranen Metropole

Rudolf H.W. StichelDie Hagia Sophia Justinians, ihre liturgische Einrichtungund der zeremonielle Auftritt des frühbyzantinischenKaisers

Helge SvenshonDas Bauwerk als »aistheton soma« – eine Neu inter -pretation der Hagia Sophia im Spiegel antiker Vermessungslehre und angewandter Mathematik

Lars O. Grobe, Oliver Hauck und Andreas Noback Das Licht in der Hagia Sophia – eine Computersimulation

Neslihan Asutay-EffenbergerDie justinianische Hagia Sophia: Vorbild oder Vorwand?

Örgü DalgıçThe Corpus of Floor Mosaics from Istanbul

Stefan AlbrechtVom Unglück der Sieger – Kreuzfahrer in Konstantinopelnach 1204

Ernst Gamillscheg Hohe Politik und Alltägliches im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel

AGHIOS LOT / DEIR ‘AIN ‘ABATA

Konstantinos D. PolitisThe Monastery of Aghios Lot at Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata in Jordan

ANAIA / KADIKALESİ

Zeynep MercangözOstentatious Life in a Byzantine Province: Some Selected Pieces from the Finds of the Excavation in Kuşadası, Kadıkalesi/Anaia (Prov. Aydın, TR)

Handan ÜstündağPaleopathological Evidence for Social Status in a Byzan-tine Burial from Kuşadası, Kadıkalesi/Anaia: a Case of»Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis« (DISH)

ANDRONA / AL ANDARIN

Christine StrubeAl Andarin, das antike Androna

Marlia Mundell MangoAndrona in Syria: Questions of Environment and Economy

AMORIUM / HISARKÖY

Christopher S. LightfootDie byzantinische Stadt Amorium: Grabungsergebnisse der Jahre 1988 bis 2008

Eric A. IvisonKirche und religiöses Leben im byzantinischen Amorium

Beate Böhlendorf-ArslanDie mittelbyzantinische Keramik aus Amorium

Edward M. SchoolmanKreuze und kreuzförmige Darstellungen in der Alltagskultur von Amorium

Johanna WitteFreizeitbeschäftigung in Amorium: die Spiele

CHERSON / SEWASTOPOL

Aleksandr AjbabinDas frühbyzantinische Chersonesos/Cherson

Adam Rabinowitz, Larissa Sedikova und Renata HennebergDaily Life in a Provincial Late Byzantine City: Recent Multidisciplinary Research in the Southern Region of Tauric Chersonesos (Cherson)

Tatjana JašaevaPilgerandenken im byzantinischen Cherson

EPHESOS / SELÇUK

Sabine LadstätterEphesos in byzantinischer Zeit – das letzte Kapitel der Geschichte einer antiken Großstadt

TEIL 2 SCHAUPLÄTZE

Andreas KülzerEphesos in byzantinischer Zeit – ein historischer Überblick

Andreas PülzDas Stadtbild von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit

Martin SteskalBadewesen und Bäderarchitektur von Ephesos in frühbyzantinischer Zeit

Gilbert WiplingerDie Wasserversorgung von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit

Norbert ZimmermannDie spätantike und byzantinische Malerei in Ephesos

Johanna Auinger und Maria AurenhammerEphesische Skulptur am Ende der Antike

Andrea M. Pülz und Feride KatByzantinische Kleinfunde aus Ephesos – ein Materialüberblick

Stefanie Wefers und Fritz MangartzDie byzantinischen Werkstätten von Ephesos

Manfred Koob, Mieke Pfarr und Marc GrellertEphesos – byzantinisches Erbe des Abendlandes Digitale Rekonstruktion und Simulation der Stadt Ephesos im 6. Jahrhundert

IUSTINIANA PRIMA / CARIČIN GRAD

Vujadin IvaniševićCaričin Grad – the Fortifications and the Intramural Housing in the Lower Town

KRASEN

Valery GrigorovThe Byzantine Fortress »Krasen« near Panagyurishte

PERGAMON / BERGAMA

Thomas OttenDas byzantinische Pergamon – ein Überblick zu Forschungsstand und Quellenlage

Manfred KlinkottDie byzantinischen Wehrmauern von Pergamon als Abbild der politisch-militärischen Situationen im westlichen Kleinasien

Sarah JappByzantinische Feinkeramik aus Pergamon

TELANISSOS / QAL’AT SIM’AN

Jean-Luc BiscopThe Roof of the Octagonal Drum of the Martyrium of Saint-Symeon

USAYS / ĞABAL SAYS

Franziska BlochÖllampenfunde aus dem spätantik-frühislamischen Fundplatz Ğabal Says im Steppengürtel Syriens

Franz Alto BauerByzantinische Geschenkdiplomatie

DER NÖRDLICHE SCHWARZMEERRAUM

Elzara ChajredinovaByzantinische Elemente in der Frauentracht der Krimgoten im 7. Jahrhundert

Rainer SchregZentren in der Peripherie: landschaftsarchäologische Forschungen zu den Höhensiedlungen der südwestlichen Krim und ihrem Umland

DER UNTERE DONAURAUM

Andrey AladzhovThe Byzantine Empire and the Establishment of the Early Medieval City in Bulgaria

Stanislav StanilovDer Pfau und der Hund: zwei goldene Zierscheiben aus Veliki Preslav

DER MITTLERE UND OBERE DONAURAUM

Jörg DrauschkeHalbmondförmige Goldohrringe aus bajuwarischen Frauengräbern – Überlegungen zu Parallelen und Provenienz

Péter ProhászkaDie awarischen Oberschichtgräber von Ozora-Tótipuszta (Kom. Tolna, H)

Falko Daim, Jérémie Chameroy, Susanne Greiff, Stephan Patscher, Peter Stadler und Bendeguz TobiasKaiser, Vögel, Rankenwerk – byzantinischer Gürteldekordes 8. Jahrhunderts und ein Neufund aus Südungarn

Ádám BollókThe Birds on the Braid Ornaments from Rakamaz: a View from the Mediterranean

Péter LangóCrescent-shaped Earrings with Lower Ornamental Band

Miklós TakácsDie sogenannte Palmettenornamentik der christlichenBauten des 11. Jahrhunderts im mittelalterlichen Ungarn

SKANDINAVIEN

John LjungkvistInfluences from the Empire: Byzantine-related Objects inSweden and Scandinavia – 560/570-750/800 AD

TEIL 3 PERIPHERIE UND NACHBARSCHAFT

Unter diesem Banner erscheint im Jahr 2010 eine Reihe von Publikationen des Verlages des

Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, die sich mit der Archäologie und Geschichte des

Byzantinischen Reiches beschäftigen. Anlass ist die Ausstellung »Byzanz – Pracht und All-

tag«, die vom 26. Februar bis zum 13. Juni 2010 in Bonn gezeigt wurde. Veranstaltet von der Kunst- und

Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde sie vom RGZM in Zusammenarbeit mit zahl -

reichen Fachkollegen konzipiert. Das RGZM setzt damit seine Forschungen im Bereich der Spätantike im

Mittelmeerraum und des Byzantinischen Reiches fort, die bereits auf eine lange Tradition zurückblicken

können und die in den letzten Jahren – nicht zuletzt durch einige Projekte, die zusammen mit Koopera-

tionspartnern an Plätzen im Gebiet des Byzantinischen Reiches selbst durchgeführt werden – zu einem

Schwerpunkt der Tätigkeiten des RGZM geworden sind.

Falko Daim · Jörg Drauschke (Hrsg.)Byzanz – das Römerreich im MittelalterMonographien des RGZM Band 84, 1-3Teil 1 Welt der Ideen, Welt der Dinge507 S. mit 319 meist farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-153-5€ 90,–Teil 2 Schauplätze2 Bd., 922 S. mit 701 meist farb. Abb., 1 Falttaf.ISBN 978-3-88467-154-2€ 170,–Teil 3 Peripherie und Nachbarschaft451 S. mit 261 meist farb. Abb.ISBN 978-3-88467-155-9€ 80,–Teil 1-3 zusammen € 295,–

Jörg Drauschke · Daniel Keller (Hrsg.)Glas in Byzanz – Produktion, Verwendung, AnalysenRGZM Tagungen Band 8270 S. mit 200 Abb., 15 Farbtaf.ISBN- 987-3-88467-147-4€ 44,–

Fritz MangartzDie byzantinische Steinsäge von EphesosMonographien des RGZM Band 86122 S. mit 100 Abb., 23 Farbtaf.ISBN 978-3-88467-149-8€ 45,–

Mechthild Schulze-DörrlammByzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschlägeim RGZMTeil 2 Die Schnallen mit Scharnierbeschläg und die Schnallen mit angegossenem Riemendurchzugdes 7. bis 10. Jahrhunderts Kataloge Vor- und Früh geschichtlicher Altertümer Band 30,2 (2009)414 S. mit 522 Abb., 2 Farbtaf., 1 Beil.ISBN 978-3-88467-135-1€ 98,–

Mechthild Schulze-DörrlammByzantinische Gürtelschnallen und Gürtelbeschlägeim RGZMTeil 1: Die Schnallen ohne Beschläg, mit Laschenbeschläg und mit festem Beschläg des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts Kataloge Vor- und Früh geschichtlicher Altertümer Band 30,12. Aufl., 268 S. mit 545 Abb., 4 Farbtaf.ISBN 978-3-88467-134-4€ 70,–

Henriette KrollTiere im Byzantinischen ReichArchäozoologische Forschungen im ÜberblickMonographien des RGZM Band 87306 S. mit 80 Abb.; 16 Farbtaf.ISBN 978-3-88467-150-4ca. 55,–€

Birgit BühlerDer »Schatz« von Brestovac, Kroatien Monographien des RGZM Band 85ca. 400 S. mit 300 z.T. farbige Abb.ISBN 978-3-7954-2348-3ca. 120,–€

Falko Daim (Hrsg.)Die byzantinischen Goldschmiedearbeiten im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Kataloge Vor- und Frühgeschchtlicher AltertümerBand 42ca. 300 S. mit 650 meist farbigen Abb.ISBN 978-3-7954-2351-3