The Transfiguration at Shivta. Retracing Early Byzantine Iconography*

The Transfiguration at Shivta. Retracing early Byzantine iconography* Emma Maayan Fanar** University of Haifa, Art History Department UDC 75.033.2(569.492 Shivta) 75.046.3:27–312–6 DOI 10.2298/ZOG1741001M Оригиналан научни рад ‘Tell the vision (to horama) to no man, until the Son of Man be risen again from the dead.’ Mt 17, 9 The Transfiguration constitutes one of the most important ently quite rich, as attested by its three churches, built ac- events in the New Testament. Yet, only few pre-iconoclastic cording to the practice current elsewhere in the Land of examples of the Transfiguration scene have survived: S. Apol- Israel; a monastic complex was possibly attached to the linaire in Classe, Ravenna, St. Catherine Monastery, Sinai and Northern church.3 That number of churches in a small Poreć in Istria, each has its unique iconography. Therefore, place was not unusual for the Byzantine settlements in scholars have concluded that the Transfiguration scene became 4 widespread only after the iconoclastic controversy. We aim to Palestine, but all three Shivta churches were much invest- show, that Transfiguration scene in Shivta, an early Byzantine ed and painted, with geometric floor mosaics, while the 5 settlement in the Negev desert, allows a glimpse into the early three apses of the Northern church were clad in marble. Christian iconography of the well-known scene, providing a Contrary to neighbouring Nessana and other Negev missing link to its development in the post-iconoclastic period. settlements,6 Shivta seems neither especially important nor Keywords: Shivta, Transfiguration, Early Byzantine iconogra- situated on any important roads or trade routes.7 Hirschfeld phy, Negev suggested that Shivta could have been on the pilgrimage route from Jerusalem through Rehovot-in-the-Negev and Nessana to Sinai (the route taken by Antonius of Piacenza Shivta in 560).8 This source however is unclear, and probably refers Shivta (Sobbota/ Soubaita/Esbeita) was a rural set- to Mitzpe Shivta and to the hostel of St. George, as Figueras 9 tlement in the Negev from the fourth-fifth to eighth-ninth argues. Precisely these features make the Transfiguration centuries and then abandoned. It was not very large, with scene found in the lateral apse of its Southern church so about 170 houses, some two-storied, housing approxi- significant for this research, as it still preserves remnants of mately 2200 people.1 Shivta probably became Christian pre-iconoclastic iconography lost everywhere else. sometime in the fifth century.2 Its population was appar- market and was eventually rescued by the bishop of Elusa. Analysing this story, Mayerson concludes that at the time of its invention Shivta was * This study is a part of the ‘Byzantine bio-archaeology research entirely pagan. But the date of the Narration as well as its attribution to program of the Negev’ (BYBAN), launched in 2015, which aims to discover St. Nilus (died after 430) are disputed by scholars. Cf. Ph. Mayerson, The possible causes of collapse of Byzantine settlements in the Negev (http:// desert of Southern Palestine according to Byzantine sources, Transactions negevbyz.haifa.ac.il/index.php/en/). My gratitude goes to Prof. Guy Bar and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 95 (1964) Oz, Dr. Yotam Tepper and Dr. Ravit Linn. It is my belief that a combined 166–167; D. F. Caner, History and hagiography from the late antique Si- effort of scholars from three disciples—archaeology, conservation and art nai, Translated Texts for Historians 53, Liverpool 2010, 73–135. 3 history—made it possible to understand more fully significance of the R. Erez-Edelson, Sedentary zone in the Negev during the Transfiguration scene in Shivta for the study of early Byzantine iconography. Byzantine period. Settlement distribution and runoff farming, Ramat- ** [email protected] Gan 2004 (doctoral dissertation, University of Bar Ilan, in Hebrew), 1 128; J. Shereshevsky, Byzantine urban settlements in the Negev Desert, Y. Hirschfeld, Man and society in Byzantine Shivta, Qadmo- Jerusalem 1986, 195–199 (in Hebrew). niot 125 (2003) 12 (in Hebrew). For the main scholarly sources on 4 Y. Tsafrir, Some notes on the settlement and demography of Shivta v. A. Segal, Shivta. Plan and architecture of a Byzantine town in Palestine in the Byzantine period. The archaeological evidence, in: Re- the Negev, Jerusalem 1981; idem, The Byzantine city of Shivta (Esbeita), trieving the past. Essays on archaeological research and methodology in Negev Desert, Israel, Oxford 1983, idem, Shivta. A Byzantine town in honor of Gus W. Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger, Starkville, MS 1996, 278. the Negev Desert, JSAH 44 (1985) 317–328; idem, Architectural decora- 5 tion in Byzantine Shivta, Negev Desert, Israel, Oxford 1988; A. Negev, R. Stroumsa, People and identities in Nessana, Durham, NC 2008 (doctoral dissertation, Duke University), 40. Subeita, RB 81 (1974) 397–420; idem, The Greek inscriptions from the 6 Negev, Jerusalem 1981; Y. Kedar, Ancient agriculture at Shivtah in the Ibid., 39–40. 7 Negev, Israel Exploration Journal 7 (1957) 178–189; D. Chen, Byzan- Segal, Shivta. A Byzantine town, 317–328. tine architects in Mampsis and Sobota, Palaestina Tertia, LA 31(1981) 8 Y. Hirschfeld, The monasteries of Gaza. An archaeological re- 235–244; G. Crowfoot, The Nabatean ware of Sbaita, Palestine Explora- view, in: Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, ed. B. Bitton-Ashkelony, A. tion Fund Quarterly Statement 68 (1936) 14–27. Kofsky, Leiden 2004, 66. 2 The only existing account mentioning Shivta is the late fourth– 9 P. Figueras, Monks and monasteries in the Negev Desert, LA to early fifth-century Narration by Pseudo Nilus. It tells the story of St. 45 (1995) 420–423; for an analysis of the itinerary and of conditions in Nilus’ son Theodoulus, who was sold into slavery at the Sobota [Shivta] the region v. Mayerson, op. cit., 169–172. 1 ЗОГРАФ 41 (2017) [1–18] Fig. 1. Shivta, Southern Church, overview (photo: Dror Maayan) The Transfiguration in Shivta. A missing link Earliest notice of the painting between pre-iconoclastic and post-iconoclastic The painting was first recorded by E. H. Palmer, an iconography English explorer who visited Shivta in 1870. His adven- tures are colourfully described in The desert of the Exo- Hardly anything remains of the earlier beauty dus. The Shivta ruins are called the ‘most imposing and of Shivta’s churches (fig. 1). Architectural ornaments, considerable of any which we had seen’.11 Palmer was ac- as well as small pieces of surviving paintings, suggest companied by photographer C. F. Tyrwhitt-Drake, who different styles and perhaps even dates. The Northern photographed Shivta extensively; some of the photos church deserves special attention, which is beyond the were published in the book. These pictures are invaluable scope of the present study and will be discussed sep- since they show the place in its original state in the nine- arately. It is also impossible to reconstruct the icono- teenth century, before the extensive reconstruction there graphic program of the Southern church as it has been from the 1930s onward. Palmer testifies to the existence ruined by the climate, natural disasters and the icono- of the wall paintings, but without identifying them: ‘some clasm, or even several iconoclasms, down the centuries. rude paint ornamentation still visible upon a small arched Quite clearly, the wall paintings were deliberately de- niche in the centre, and also some vestiges of a fresco.’12 stroyed; someone was at pains to scrape the paint off It was only in 1914 that the wall painting was de- almost completely. scribed and identified as the Transfiguration by Leonard Apparently, the central apse was first plastered Wooley and T. E. Lawrence: then painted, while paint seems to have been applied directly to the stones in the lateral apses,10 perhaps at- On the central apse no more than a few faint testing to different dates. The state of preservation, trances of colour survived. In the southern apse alone however, does not allow any explicit conclusions. Some could any coherent design be distinguished, and here pieces of coloured plaster are still visible in the central the colours had faded under exposure to the light, apse, showing some use of blue and red pigments. An most of the surface had been scraped away by icono- arrangement of red lines and tiny spots of colour still clasts, and rain-water had brought down lime from visible on the northern lateral apse may suggest the the upper ruins and left a thick white deposit over presence there of a large central motif flanked by some the whole wall-face. Only by wetting the stone were motifs on either side; but no further identification can we able to make out and roughly to sketch the origi- be made. The image on the southern apse comes as nal painting. The subject was the Transfiguration. In a complete surprise. For whatever reason it has sur- the centre is Christ, full-face, with hands raised and vived—to the point that it can still be recognized de- brought together over the breast, The chiton was spite heavy damage. From that surface the scene of the Transfiguration emerges (fig. 2). 11 E. H. Palmer, The desert of the Exodus. Journeys on foot in the wilderness of the forty years’ wanderings, London 1871, 375. 2 10 I am grateful to Dr. Ravit Linn for this observation. 12 Ibid., 377. Maayan Fanar Е.: Th e Transfi guration at Shivta Fig. 2. Shivta, Southern Church, Southern apse, overview (photo: Dror Maayan) seemingly of light pink edged with gold, the himati- In the early 1930s Colt excavated Shivta.15 De- on of dark blue; the halo was a plain yellow ring with spite several seasons of work, hardly any documentation white centre; the vesica of light pink.

Load more