XI. ULUSLARARASI ANTIK MOZAIK SEMPOZYUMU 16 – 20 EKIM 2009 BURSA, TÜRKIYE Türkiye Mozaikleri ve Antik Dönemden Ortaçağ Dünyasına Diğer Mozaiklerle Paralel Gelişimi: Mozaiklerin Başlangıcından Geç Bizans Çağına Kadar İkonografi, Stil ve Teknik Üzerine Sorular S

11TH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON ANCIENT OCTOBER 16TH – 20TH, 2009, BURSA Mosaics of Turkey and Parallel Developments in the Rest of the Ancient and Medieval World: Questions of Iconography, Style and Technique from the Beginnings of until the Late Byzantine Era

AYRIBASIM / OFFPRINT Uludağ Üniversitesi Yayınları / Uludağ University Press Uludağ Üniversitesi Mozaik Araştırmaları Merkezi Yayınları Serisi - 1 Uludağ University Mosaic Research Center Series - 1 Sempozyum Bildirileri 3 / Symposium Papers 3

XI. ULUSLARARASI ANTIK MOZAIK SEMPOZYUMU 16 – 20 EKIM 2009 BURSA, TÜRKIYE

Türkiye Mozaikleri ve Antik Dönemden Ortaçağ Dünyasına Diğer Mozaiklerle Paralel Gelişimi: Mozaiklerin Başlangıcından Geç Bizans Çağına Kadar İkonografi, Stil ve Teknik Üzerine Sorular S

11TH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON ANCIENT MOSAICS OCTOBER 16TH – 20TH, 2009, BURSA TURKEY

Mosaics of Turkey and Parallel Developments in the Rest of the Ancient and Medieval World: Questions of Iconography, Style and Technique from the Beginnings of Mosaic until the Late Byzantine Era

Editör / Edited by Mustafa Şahin

© Copyright 2011, Ege Yayınları ISBN 978-605-5607-81-4 Yayıncı Sertifika No: 14641

Baskı / Printed by BİLTUR Basım Yayın ve Hizmet A.Ş. Dudullu Organize Sanayi Bölgesi 1. Cadde No. 16 Ümraniye - /Türkiye Tel: +90 (216) 444 44 03 Fax: +90 (216) 327 15 44 www.bilnet.net.tr Sertifika No: 15690

Yapım ve Dağıtım / Production and Distribution Zero Prodüksiyon Kitap-Yayın-Dağıtım Ltd. Şti. Abdullah Sokak, No: 17, Taksim, 34433 İstanbul Tel: +90 (212) 244 7521 Fax: +90 (212) 244 3209 E.posta: [email protected] www.zerobooksonline.com www.egeyayinlari.com XI. ULUSLARARASI ANTIK MOZAIK SEMPOZYUMU 16 – 20 EKIM 2009 BURSA, TÜRKIYE Türkiye Mozaikleri ve Antik Dönemden Ortaçağ Dünyasına Diğer Mozaiklerle Paralel Gelişimi: Mozaiklerin Başlangıcından Geç Bizans Çağına Kadar İkonografi, Stil ve Teknik Üzerine Sorular S

11TH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON ANCIENT MOSAICS OCTOBER 16TH – 20TH, 2009, BURSA TURKEY Mosaics of Turkey and Parallel Developments in the Rest of the Ancient and Medieval World: Questions of Iconography, Style and Technique from the Beginnings of Mosaic until the Late Byzantine Era

Editör / Edited by Mustafa ŞAHİN

Uludağ Üniversitesi / Uludağ University Mozaik Araştırmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi / Mosaic Research Center - AIEMA - TÜRKİYE İstanbul 2011 Silvia Pedone*

The Marble Omphalos of Saint in An Analysis of an Opus Sectile Pavement of Middle Byzantine Age

Abstract This paper deals with the extraordinary portion of marble pavement to be found in the church of St Sophia of Con- stantinople: an opus sectile panel still in use in the SE of the nave, near the great southern pilaster at the base of the cupola. This area is apparently not a part of the Justinianic sixth-century pavement, which is characterized by large slabs of Proconnesian marble. Square in shape, this area measures approximately 5.65 m on each side and has a large central disc that is partially tied to smaller discs of different sizes and located around its edge. Moreover, in the interstices, there appear finely detailed geometrical sections, which in all likelihood belong to subsequent restora- tions. My aim is to analyze and identify the materials that constitute this unique “insertion” within the pavement. This extraordinary marble collage appears in the oldest historical documentation for the St Sophia (even though rather lacunose) as well as in the critical studies of the mid- and late 19th century (Salzenberg 1854; Lethaby, Swain- son 1894; Antoniades 1908). Yet, although always mentioned in the scientific literature (Schneider 1936; Peschlow 1983; Guiglia Guidobaldi 1994; Demiriz 2002), it has never been the object of a specific study aiming to clarify the phases of its creation and completion.

Keywords: omphalos; omphalion; marble pavement; opus sectile; St. Sophia; Constantinople

Anybody who, still today, stay a long enough time polychrome opus sectile, near the south-eastern in the Church of Saint Sophia to admire the re- exedra, embedded in the pavement of Justinianic mains of what was the most important temple age made up of big Proconnesian marble stones. of Byzantine Christendom will surely note the Needless to say, several different interpretations crowd of tourists – day trippers or simply onlook- have been suggested about the functional mean- ers – attracted by a particular place in the naos ing of this decorative element, explained, for of the church. In that place there is the so-called example, somehow fancifully, as the place from omphalos or omphalion1 (fig. 1), a square piece of

Megale Ekklesia to designate the central zone of the build- * University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome-Italy. E-mail: ing. Omphalion, however, literally means “little omphalos”. I t [email protected]; [email protected]. was employed in ancient Greek world to designate the cen- 1 The words omphalos and omphalion are often used as tral element of the shield of the warriors (Aspis) and hence, synonyms, but they have different meanings. The first term in a metaphorical sense, all material objects with a generi- simply refers to the central point of a space or surface, in cally round form. The same analogy explains why the term an anthropomorphic vein it could be translated with “na- is adopted to describe the rotae of marble pavements, that vel” – within Mediterranean cultures the centre-navel of the therefore are not necessarily located in the middle of the world coincides with a sacral place or object (for instance the building floor, as in the case at hand. See Antoniades 1908: omphalos). As a point in a space the term is employed 38-39 and, above all, Schreiner 1979: 407-410; Prokopiou by Paulus Silentiarius in his well-known description of the 1981: 128 and recently Tronzo 2001: 241-260. 750 Silvia Pedone

interpretations of the possible symbolic mean- ings of the opus sectile were not less ingenious, such as the cosmologic hypothesis argued by Unger in 19353. In any case, in giving my paper I would prefer to set aside the discussion of these opinions and to focus my attention now rather on the analysis of the formal and stylistic features of the piece. Considering the general decorative design of the 6th century pavement4 (fig. 2) – enhanced by the chromatic effects of the symmetric streaks of the marble slabs, crossed by the simple pattern of green Thessalian marble stripes (Majeska 1978: 299-308) – our opus sectile pannel seems some- what problematic, both from the point of view of the building chronology and, more generally, in relation with the main trends of byzantine pave- ment decoration5. For the Saint Sophia omphalos

mention of a porphyry rota linked to the imperial ceremoni- al occurs in the De Cerimoniis (Vogt 1935-39: I: 78, vv. 20-21; 1.64; II: 96, v. 3; see also Ebersolt 1910: 12-14; Kähler, Mango 1967: 61-69). According to Schreiner’s opinion, the year A.D. 945 (the date of composition of the De Cerimoniis) repre- sents a terminus post quem non for the dating of the insert Fig. 1 Istanbul, Saint Sophia. Interior view of naos of the rota in the 6th century pavement. Later witnesses, par- (Photo S. Pedone 2009) ticularly the travel reports of pilgrims visiting the monument (Khitrowo 1889: 95) are however open to different critical interpretations because these explicit references to the rota which the emperor and his family attended the of Saint Sophia are often vagues, so that non certain match liturgy, or, more reasonably, as a visual reference is possible with the material remains of the omphalos as ap- 2 pears today in the naos of the church. Cfr. infra. point for the imperial crowning rite . But also the 3 Unger 1935: 445-447. The need to find a symbolic meaning to this decorative element induced the German scholar to propose a somehow hyperbolic hermeneutical 2 A lot of interpretations are prompted by the question interpretation based principally on the presumed identifica- about the original uses and functions of the panel within tion of the lesser rotae with the signs of the Zodiac and the Byzantine liturgical rites. Though there seem to be no explic- corresponding letters of Greek alphabet (according a Gnos- it mention of the panel, as it appears today, in the survived tic tradition). Unger sees in the opus sectile an allusion to the documentary records – the omission of such a conspicuous Trinity dogma (proclaimed on the occasion of the Council feature in the evocative ekphrasis of Paulus Silentiarius is a of Constantinople in 553) and the dedication of the church notable example – we know that the porphyry rotae served, to Christ and the Holy Wisdom, so that the three interlaced already in early Byzantine age, as visual indicators of specific discs on the east side of the panel would represent the Holy places in the architectural space. Some of these rotae are well Trinity. Unger’s hypothesis was ironically criticized by Sch- known: that one located under the Gate, on which neider (1936: 34-35) from both a methodological and philo- the Emperor stopped looking at the famous image of Christ; logical point of view. the slab that originally decorated the Hall of Justinian, on 4 Still today the plates by Van Nice are the only reliable which the proskynesis took place; that one in the Concistory graphic survey of the whole pavement of the Saint Sophia. The of Imperial Palace (even if in this case the form of the slab is extraordinary precision of execution and the richness of de- not known) (Paspates, Metcalfe 1893: 269, 279 and in par- tails make of these drawings the inescapable point of depart ticular note 96). As Schreiner has observed, the close asso- for the knowledge of the building. Van Nice 1965-1986: pl. 10. ciation, in the documentary sources, of the terms omphalion 5 For a wider excursus on Byzantine pavements and the and porphyry with the imperial ceremonial could suggest evolution of typology, the stylistic features, the parallels with that these elements refers to a place linked to the imperial western examples, see Kier 1969: 24-25; Glass 1980: 25-27; cult (Schreiner 1979: 402-403; Tronzo 2001: 243). The first Guiglia Guidobaldi 1982: 403-413; Peschlow 1983: 435-447; The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 751

Fig. 2 Plan of pavement Fig. 4 Istanbul, Saint Sophia. Opus sectile pavement (after Van Nice 1960: pl. 10) in the naos (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

First of all, we have to note the eccentric po- sition of the sectile with reference to the main axis of the church plan – with an east-west and north-south orientation – as if it marked its “oth- erness”, so to say, with respect to the “meadows of marble” evoked by Paul the Silentiary in his famous ekphrasis of the Megale Ecclesia (Mango 1972: 80-96; Fobelli 2005). This discrepancy has prompted a later dating, namely to the age of Bas- il I (867-886) (Kier 1969: 25, Peschlow 1983: 444; Demiriz 2002: 36, 38). However it’s noteworthy that the position of the omphalos is not so at ran- dom as it may seem at first sight, but it is exactly in the middle of the south-eastern quarter of the great square space under the dome (fig. 3), and so marking the diagonal crossing the square (Main- stone 1997: 252 fig. 248). The square perimeter of the pavement is lined by a large band of Thessalian green marble that borders a complex composition composed by 29 rotae of different size and marbles7 (fig. 4, Fig. 3 Plan of Saint Sophia with the graphic scheme of the position of omphalos (plan after Mainstone 1997) but never analytically examined in all its parts. Among the studies treating specifically of the omphalos see: Salzenberg 1854: 28 pl. XXII, fig. 9-15; Lethaby, Swainson 1894: 80-81; is practically beyond direct comparison with oth- Antoniades 1908: II: 38-39; Unger 1935: 445-447; Schnei- 6 er contemporary or later examples . der 1936: 34-37: fig. 7; Swift 1940: 71-72; Eyice 1963: 374, 380; Kier 1969: 24-25 fig. 313; Mathews 1976: 302 fig. 31-63; Schreiner 1979: 401-410; Peschlow 1983: 444; Guiglia Gui- Guidobaldi, Guiglia Guidobaldi 1983; Asimakopoulou-At- dobaldi 1994: 658; Demiriz 2002: 34-38. zaka 1984: 13-75; Guiglia Guidobaldi, 1984: 57-72; Guiglia 7 The kinds of marbles employed for the bigger rotae Guidobaldi 1994: 643-663; Guiglia Guidobaldi 1999: 321-358; are: Grey Granite (1), Red Porphyry (5), Green Porphyry (1), Tronzo 2001: 241-260, Demiriz 2002; Pajares-Ayuela 2002. Sagarian (3), Thessalian Green (3), Black-and‑White from 6 Surprisingly, there are few specific contributions to Aquitania (1), Pink Granite (1), for the lesser rotae: Marmor the study of this pavement panel, usually considered just Iassensis (4), Green Porphyry (5), Thessalian Green (4), Red by comparison with other Byzantine marble pavements, Porphyry (3). See also: Plate 1. 752 Silvia Pedone

Plate 1 Scheme of the type of marble used in the rotae (D. Cirulli, S. Pedone 2009) The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 753

Plate 1). Theserotae surround a huge central While in the documentary sources of Byzan- disc of Gray Granite 3.19 meters across. The in- tine age there is no explicit mention or descrip- terstitial spaces between the discs were filled, tion of the omphalion, and we find only refer- without a single uniform design, with tessellated ences to “round porphyry slab”9, it’s only in early surfaces, sectilia, slab fragments and champlevé fifteenth century that we can encounter another elements. loose allusion perhaps pertaining to our work and But before we analyze these different patterns in keeping with the witness of Russian pilgrim. and materials in more detail, it will be useful to That is the account by Ruy González de Clavijo retrace briefly the documentary history of the of his travel to Samarcand10. During his stay in omphalos, unfortunately a sketchy history, be- Constantinople the Spanish ambassador de- cause of the lack of circumstantial information scribes the Saint Sophia and he briefly mentions and a reliable dating. also the pavements and walls “covered by big, Probably, our earlier witness is the short de- smooth stone slabs of variegated marbles, form- scription by the monk Dobrynia Jadrejkovič, bet- ing interweaving patterns that are most beautiful ter known as Antony from Novgorod, which vis- to see”11. In this case, too, the relationship with ited the Saint Sophia church in the first decade our panel is only hypothetical, even if the refer- of the thirteenth century (Khitrowo 1889: 87-111; ence to “interweaving patterns” could hint to the Majeska 1984; Arrignon 1987: 33- 41). In the re- decorative lay-out of the omphalion. port of his pilgrimage travel – in Constantinople In order to find a more explicit witness and then toward the Athos peninsula – the monk we have to turn to the “visual evidence” left, a devoted little space to artistic descriptions, pre- century later, by the Flemish painter Lambert de ferring by far a much more detailed account of Vos12, which went to the court of Selim II as an liturgical rites and the holy relics. This notwith- attendant of the humanist Carolus Rymius in his standing, scholars agree on the likelihood that the pilgrim exactly makes reference to the omphalos and its possible function. Here are his words: “In possible that the inaccuracies of the pilgrim’s record are due to a collation of second hand sources. On the use of Por- the church of , near the altar, on the phyry within the imperial ceremonies see: Delbrück 1932; right, there is a red marble stone with a golden Lucci 1964: 226-271, in part. 256-270; Majeska 1997: 1-11. throne placed on it. On this throne the emper- See also, for the rotae porphyreticae in western tradition, ors were crowned. This place is bounded by (a) Schreiner 1979; Baade-Baade 1998: 1-15. 9 TheDe Cerimoniis reads: “When the sovereigns have copper (border?) in order to keep the people off” approached the holy doors and reached the place where the (Khitrowo 1889: 95; Schreiner 1979: 404). On round porphyry slab lies, the patriarch enters alone into the the basis of such a sweeping description – and in area within the screen, halting beside the holy doors on the spite of a lack of precise coincidence (for example left. […]”. Vogt 1939-1940: . the omphalos has not a “red” marble disc) – it was 10 González de Clavijo was a nobleman from Castilla, born in Madrid, which became chamberlain of Henry of assumed that this could be the original function Castilla and Leon. He was charged with a mission in East 8 of the opus sectile pavement . countries to reach the kingdom of Tamerlan. During his journey, started on may 21th 1403, González visited also Constantinople and the major monuments of the city, then 8 As rightly noted by Schreiner (1979: 404), the text of described in his travel diary. See: Boccardi Storoni 1999. Anthony from Novgorod has brought more confusion than 11 Boccardi Storoni 1999: 64-65. clarity on the question of the function of the omphalion, not 12 Lambert de Vos of Mechlin (Brema) went in the 1574 only because the records of the pilgrim don’t match the ac- in Turkey and made excellent watercolor drawings, now in tual features of the panel, but also because it’s not so obvi- the Album Freshfield preserved at Trinity College of Cam- ous from documentary sources that the imperial coronation bridge (ms. 0.17.2, foll. 8-10). According to Mango these took place on the omphalion, as Anthony’s account tell us. In sketches was secretly realized during the visit to the mosque: reality, the Emperor received the crown from the Patriarch Mango 1965: 305-336, in part. 306; 600 Yıllık Ayasofya: 2000: on the ambo or in bema space – see, for example, the min- 80-81; della Valle 2004: 743-745. We have no sure evidence iatures of (Tsamakda 2002) – after descend- on the dating of the drawings, but an hypothesis around ing from a wooden podium (αναβαθρα) that perhaps was 1576 has been suggested by Stichel (Santa Sofia ad Istanbul erected near the omphalion (Yannopoulos 1991: 73-89). It’s 1999: 160-163). See also Foschi 2002: 31 note 44. 754 Silvia Pedone

diplomatic mission to Constantinople. The paint- checkmate perspective a circular element, in a er’s “impressions” about Ottoman traditions and point exactly matching the actual position of the costumes were printed in 1574 (fig. 5a). Among omphalion (fig. 5b). It is probable that he was his material we find also two images of the Saint recording what he actually saw in the church. Sophia interior, in particular of the southern side, Unfortunately, no one of the famous travelers where it’s possible to sight a part of the pave- of the seventeenth century will capture the par- ment decoration. It seems to me not fortuitous ticular noted by de Vos, rather preferring to deco- that the painter inserts in the otherwise fanciful rate the pavement with an imaginary “carpet” of

a a

b b Fig. 5a-b Lambert de Vos, Interior view of the south side of Fig. 6a-b Louis-François Cassas, Interior view of Saint Sophia Saint Sophia and particular of pavement, 1574, watercolor, and particular, sketch, 1786 (after Byzance Retrouvé 2001: Cambridge, Trinity College, Album Freshfield 127, fig. 63) The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 755 flowery or geometrical patterns13. Seventy years later, at the end of eighteenth century, the French painter Louis-François Cassas14, in a sketch of the church interior (fig. 6a), depicts a circular element located in the “right” position and strangely sur- rounded by a circle of roughly outlined praying figures, as the caption reminds us: “tous faisons la prière”15 (fig. 6b). However, we have to wait for the 19th century to find an adequate attention to our pavement so that it was recorded in a scientific survey of the monuments of Constantinople. Somehow sur- prisingly, we can find the first exact reference to the omphalion not in the albeit rich documenta- tion (now in the Archivio di Stato of Bellinzona) gathered by the Fossati brothers16, that spent a lot of time in the church during the vast resto- ration campaign promoted by the sultan Abdül- mecid, but in the work of their “historical” rival, the Prussian engineer Wilhelm Salzenberg, that in the same years was carrying out his researches in Saint Sophia (Salzenberg 1854). Salzenberg was the first to make a modern graphic record of the omphalion, published in 1854 as an illustration of his great volume devoted

13 See, for example, the well-known views of Grélot (1681); Cornelius Loos (1710-1711); Séroux d’Agincourt (1823). For this references, see: Guiglia Guidobaldi, Barsanti 2004: 28 fig. 25; 32, fig. 29; 746-747: 434-435. 14 After an education as architect, he joined the French ambassador at Istanbul, earl Choiseul-Gouffier, in the Otto- man capital, from 1786 to 1787. During his stay he realized several drawings of the monuments of the city (Byzance re- trouvée 2001: 122-123, 126-127 n. 63, fig. 63). 15 The sketch, roughly and rapidly drawn, contains a number of verbal notes about the materials, the colours of architectural parts, the decorative patterns. The presence of these captions seems to prelude to a more finished plate de- picting the interior of the mosque. 16 The documents of Fossati brothers are housed today in the Archivio di Stato of Bellinzona. A lot of the Fossati drawings were published on the occasion of recent exhibitions (Die Hagia Sophia 1999; Santa Sofia ad Istanbul 1999 and 600 Yıllık Ayasofya 2000). Unfortunately, in this otherwise highly detailed material there is no trace of our marble panel at all. The only hint to the pavement of the church is this brief description of Giuseppe Fossati: “Il Fig. 7 Wilhelm Salzenberg, pavimento è di placeta, di grandi dimensioni e di marmo particular of opus sectile frigio, pure ragguardevoli per la loro qualità. Una parte del pavement of Saint Sophia pavimento è a scomparti a mosaico di buon gusto e di vari (after Salzenberg 1854: 28, coloti”, see: Lacchia 1943:45, note 39. Pl. XXII, fig. 9-15) 756 Silvia Pedone

to the Constantinopolitan architecture17 (fig. 7). The plate reproduces in detail the opus sectile of the bema, part of the wall panels in the aisles, and an half of our pavement panel, with the details of the tiny tesserae filling the interstitial surfaces and the flowery patterns on the corners. Although the drawing of the German scholar schematizes, ac- cording a symmetrical design, the disposition of the tessellate surfaces and of the red marble slabs (Marmor Iassensis), the quality of Salzenberg’s record is unquestionable (Salzenberg 1854: pl. XXII figs. 9-15). Unfortunately, just after its rediscovery, the destiny of the omphalion sank soon to oblivi- on again, under a layer of mortar and a coat of carpets, as we can see in the photographs dat- ing between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the next one. It was probably in these conditions that Antoniades (Antoniades 1908: II:38) found the church pavement when he worked in Saint Sophia at the beginning of the 20th century. In his three volumes the omphalion is also described but very likely only on the basis of Salzenberg’s drawing, symmetrically complet- Fig. 8a Istanbul. Saint Sophia. The naos after the ed and published in a plate of the second volume. transformation of the Mosque in Museum (DAI, Istanbul) In this way, however, Antoniades lost the asym- metries that characterize the pavement panel, es- pecially in the disposition of the lesser rotae. Only with the transformation of the church in a Museum18 – with the ensuing removal of the carpets – in the winter of 1935, it was possible to dig up the beautiful Justinianic pavement and the marble omphalion, perhaps somehow super- ficially damaged by the very mortar with which was covered19 (fig. 8a-b). After this sketchy summary of the critical for- tune (or misfortune) of the work, let’s turn now to the description of omphalion. The ensemble is made up of a set of thirty rotae positioned along

17 Salzenberg 1854: 28 pl. XXVIII; Die Hagia Sophia 1999: 228 n. 75; 600 Yıllık Ayasofya 2000: 157 note 85. 18 The mosque was deconsecrated between 1933 and 1934 and transformed in the Museum next year. On this oc- casion the first restorations were realized removing heavy carpets and so discovering the pavement. Arık 1953: 16. 19 Unger speaks about a mortar layer (“Zementschicht”) that in his opinion was applied by Fossati brothers (Unger Fig. 8b Istanbul. Saint Sophia. The pavement of the naos 1935: 455), but the fact is not sustained by external docu- from the dome (DAI, Istanbul) mentary evidence. The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 757

Fig. 9 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Opus sectile pavement Fig. 11 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of rotae of (Photo S. Pedone 2009) opus sectile (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

discs, in the lower zone, all of the main rotae are bounded by a Proconnesian marble band – made up of several pieces – “touching” the external green edge (figs. 11-12). Furthermore, the pres- ence of a kind of “tooth” or “foot” projecting from

documentary sources refers, was probably destroyed by the collapse of the eastern portion of the dome in the 1346 and was then replaced with the Gray Granite rota that we can see today (Schreiner 1979: 402; for an opposite opinion see Schneider 1936: 37). Granite rotae of such dimensions are known in antiquity, famous examples are those of the great floor of the aedes of the Templum Pacis in Rome (D. 2.54 m), dated to Severian age and today only fragmentary preserved. The slabs were framed by strips ofpavonazzetto and Porphy- ry (Fogagnolo 2005-2006). Among other great Granite rotae that of Ulpia (D. 3.16-3.18 m) and that still today in the pavement of Santa Maria in Aracoeli (D. 2,39-2,45 m) are likewise noteworthy (Glass 1980: 107-110). Considering Fig. 10 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Rota of Grey Granit the size of the slab it is also possible that it was obtained (Photo S. Pedone 2009) by the bottom of one of the great basin of a monumental fountain. In particular, the so-called “a bacino” type – ac- cording to Ambrogi’s classification, type VI (2005: 73-91) – two concentric circles inscribed in an irregu- could make available large marble slab. Among the examples 20 lar square , bounded by the external Thessalian with a diameter of at least 3.0 m: San Pietro square (D. 4.50 Green marble stripe (fig. 9). In the middle, the m), Fountain of Paolo V (D. 6.80 m), Quirinale square (D. huge Gray Granite disc occupies the most part 6.10), Cairoli square (D. 3.10), in Rome; and also Pergamon 21 quarries (D. 4.15 m), Egyptian quarries of Mons Claudianus of the square area (fig. 10). Apart from some (D. 3.90) (Ambrogi 2005: 215-241). But it is useful to remind that there are also great examples of Porphyry basins, like 20 The irregular square measures 6.0 x 5.80 m. that one now in the “Sala Rotonda” of Museo Pio-Clementi- 21 It is now widely assumed by scholars that the origi- no in the Vatican (D. 4.76 m). See Delbrück 1932: 169-192 in nal Porphyry slab in the middle of the sectile, to which the part. 189; Ambrogi 2005: 191-199. 758 Silvia Pedone

Fig. 12 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of rotae of opus sectile (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

Plate 2 Scheme of the interlacing of the border line of Proconnesian marble (D. Cirulli, S. Pedone 2009)

a b Fig. 13 the original design has been here preserved and Istanbul. Saint that it was conceived with the rotae framed by a Sophia. Particular of three rotae of square bordering band. opus sectile Observing the Proconnesian bands surround- (Photo S. Pedone ing the rotae we may note that only three rotae 2009) are interlaced with the bigger central Granite disc and to the main circle of rotae is then con- c nected a second circle of smaller discs, without border (Plate 2). The disposition of these rotae is not symmetrically arranged, with the exception of two Sagarian marble discs (figs. 13a, 13c, Plate 1, nn. 18 e 29), similarly contoured by a thin ring, decorated with tiny marble tesserae according to a geometrical pattern of alternated squares and triangles; in one of the border, on the right, there are even two different patterns22 (fig. 13b). Only another disc has a similar border with a decora- a b tion pattern based on intersected triangles, but it Fig. 14 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of two rotae of is probable that in this case it was inserted only to opus sectile (Photo S. Pedone 2009) fill an accidental gap of the porphyry slab (fig. 14, Plate 1 n. 20). We may exclude that the other discs the white marble band to the external green edge had an analogous edging, for there is no space be- is a particular that has gone till now unobserved tween the discs and the surrounding marble ring. and is a visual cue in reconstructing the original 22 The width of the rings interposed between the design and orientation of the whole composition rotae and the Proconnesian band, and decorated with a (Table 2). The detail has no comparison with other sectile of minute elements, is comprised between 0.25/0.3 m pavements of middle Byzantine age. It shows that and 0.4 m. The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 759

The interlaced scheme of these borders is also peculiar, particularly that interweaving the three discs on the eastern side of the square toward the apse (fig. 15). Further, the surface of the central smaller disc appears scraped, perhaps to be filled with mastic or thin slices of marble. The interstitial or “background” spaces, so to say, are more complex. We have here a real patch- work of different pieces and, moreover, the frag- Fig. 15 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of rotae of mentary status of the surfaces, due to several res- opus sectile on east side panel (Photo S. Pedone 2009) torations, makes it difficult to analyze the patterns and their original conception. I was able to single out five different decorative patterns, with respect to the disposition and the size of marble tesserae. 1) The well known design with alternated red and green squares and a more brilliant version of it with more vividly colored marbles (fig. 16-17); 2) a star-like pattern made up of the combination of hexagons and triangles (fig. 18); 3) a pattern of tesserae in which the little trian- gles have a radial disposition according to the profile of the rota (fig. 19). The other two schemes have: 4) a simple alternated pattern of upward and downward triangles (fig. 20); 5) a four petals flower (fig. 20). The fragmentary and rather chaotic appear- ance of the decoration is today the result of bad restorations and damages undergone through the centuries, from the famous collapse of the dome Fig. 16 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of the opus sectile, in 1346 to the abovementioned covering with a type 1 (Photo S. Pedone 2009) layer of mortar. It seems likely that the very re- moval of this layer caused the stripping of the smaller tesserae. It’s not so easy to say how the original decorative lay-out could appear, but it is probable that the overall design was more ho- mogeneous, with a dominant pattern with little triangles surrounding the rotae. Finally, we have to note the presence of two reused elements: a strange rectangular piece with squares alveoli filled with marble23 (fig. 21) – according to a tech- nique that we find in some fragments of the wall decoration from the Boukoleon Palace (Asgari 1984: 46, fig. 18; Mango 1997: 41-50: Barsanti 2007: 31) (now in the Archaeological Museum of Fig. 17 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of the opus sectile, type 2 (Photo S. Pedone 2009) 23 The measures are 0.27 x 0.18 x 0.10 .m Inside the carved cells is visible a blue filling material. 760 Silvia Pedone

Fig. 18 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of opus sectile, type 3 Fig. 20 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of the opus sectile, (Photo S. Pedone 2009) type 5 (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

Fig. 19 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of opus sectile, type 4 (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

Istanbul, fig. 22) – and a flowery piece with 16 pet- als24, realized in a technique roughly equivalent to the champlevé, that is to say with the background surface slightly carved and filled with colored mastic, in this case a red, blue and green alter- nated pattern (fig. 23). This detail, though less elaborated, is comparable only to the pavement design of Saint Sophia in Nicaea (Eyice 1963: 373- 383; Demiriz 2002: 84-92; Möllers 1994; Pinatsi 2006: 119-126) (fig. 24). The little moulded red marble fragment, inserted between the central rotae, is completely extraneous to the ensemble instead, perhaps originally pertaining to a wall re- vetment25 (fig. 25). Fig. 21 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of champlevé marble slab (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

24 The measures are 0.12 x 0.12 m. 25 The measures of the piece, until now passed un- noticed, are 0.35 x 0.135 m ca. The presence of a parallel The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 761

Fig. 22 Istanbul. Archaeological Museum, fragment from Boukoleon Palace (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

Fig. 25 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of re-used fragment of red marble (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

Both the rich repertory of the sectile and the complex, interlaced composition make the om- phalion of Saint Sophia a singular case, beyond meaningful direct comparison. Although the most recent researches on opus sectile pavements are trying to reconstruct – at least partly – the landscape of the models and evolution of patterns and decorative schemes used during the middle Byzantine period26, it is not yet possible to iden- tify with certainty the prototypes for the diffusion of a taste such as that of Saint Sophia omphal- ion, with marble interlaced rotae. The model of Fig. 23 Istanbul. Saint Sophia. Particular of champlevé marble Saint Sophia seems to anticipate – also because slab with flower shape (Photo S. Pedone 2008) of the lack of elaborated “winding” system – the great diffusion of sectile pavements in the middle-Byzantine period (especially in the 11th – 12th century)27. The only comparable example,

moulding (0.2 m) could suggest that the piece originally per- tained to a marble revetment. On the reuse of marble frag- ments coming from the sculpted decoration of the church, see the wide-ranging work of Flaminio 2004: 533-648. 26 For the earlier Byzantine examples see the important contribution of Alessandra Guiglia Guidobaldi, in this vol- ume, with rich bibliography. 27 It is possible to recognize four basic categories of de- sign in use in the middle-Byzantine period. The first is organ- ized around a central disk framed by different elements, e.g. a number of disks arranged in a cross or quincunx. The central Fig. 24 Iznik-Nicaea, Saint Sophia. Particular of the opus sectile omphalos may be enclosed by a square (e.g. Iviron, Westmin- pavement (Photo S. Pedone 2009) ster). The second type has a central circle that is surrounded by a ring of smaller circles (e.g. Hebdomon, omphalion of Saint Sophia, Montecassino). The third scheme shows large rectangular slabs of marble framed by strips of opus sectile (e. g. Panagia of ). The last class combines two 762 Silvia Pedone

a Fig. 27 Imralı. Pavement of the Metamorphosis Church (after Hasluck 1907)

Fig. 28 Kurtköy. Pavement of the chapel (after Peschlow 1983) b Fig. 26 Bakırköy (Hebdomon). Pavement after excavations of Metamorfosis Church at Imralı (Hasluck 1906- and watercolour by Demangel (1945) 1907: 285-308; Ötüken 1996: 243; Demiriz 2002: 31-33) (fig. 27), even though in these cases we with respect to the centralized scheme, is a series don’t find the interlaced elements so characteris- of pavements, of uncertain dating, that suggest tic of the Saint Sophia omphalion29. some analogies in the general design. I’m here From the point of view of the interlaced thinking, in particular, of the pavements of the scheme, the only possibly earlier example is the Hebdomon (Bakırköy)28 (fig. 26), or the pavement pavement of Kurtköy (Pendik) (Peschlow 1983: 444 pl. 92.1), where the marble rings surrounding types of design with rectangular slabs and rotae with the figu- the peripheral discs seem to overlap the central rative motif (e.g. Zeyrek Camii). See Maguire (2001) 2007: 4-5. 28 Today, the pavement, hypothetically dated to the age of (Janin 1969: 413), is no more visible, but was 1945: 21-24 figs. 8-9, pl. VI). See also: Peschlow 1983: 444 pl. photographed and then partly reproduced in the famous 92.1; Demiriz 2002: 68-72. watercolour published by Demangel in the mid ‘40s. The re- 29 Recently, on the occasion of the excavations carried mains of the panel pertained to a building not better identi- out for the Șehzadebașı subway station, a new pavement in fied, near the north side of the church of St. John the Baptist. opus sectile with a similar pattern to those above mentioned Also the dimensions of the pavement (side length: 7.0 m) has brought to light. For a brief note and photo see: Eyigün suggest a relation with the Saint Sophia panel (Demangel 2010:61-62 fig. 10. The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 763

of Saint Sophia in Trebisond (Texier, Pullan 1867: pl. 199; Demiriz 2002: 108-114; Eastmond 2004: 49) (mid-13th century). The omphalion of Saint Sophia reveals, in its “archaic” and somehow “experimental” character, a new path toward a rather different taste; above all the interlaced system and the detail of the “foot” projecting from the marble bands antici- pate a trend that will favour interlaced designs, a motive that will be in use until the late Byzantine period (Guiglia Guidobaldi 1984: 57-58). Through the analysis of materials I think it’s possible to identify at least two different and Fig. 29 Iznik. Fragment of the Koimesis Kilisesi’s pavement subsequent phases. The first one is datable on (after Schmit 1927) stylistic base at 9th century, during the reign of Basil I (867-886)32, that promoted an intensive one (fig. 28). A similar system is to be found in campaign of redecoration of the building. In two different floors now at Iznik: that, in situ, in this original configuration there was surely a big the little south annexe of Saint Sophia (Möllers central rota interlaced with smaller surrounding 1994: 59-67 fig. 18 pl. 43,1) church, and the square discs (perhaps fewer than today, to judge by the panel coming from the Koimesis Kilisesi30 (fig. linking elements between the central marble ring 29). Also considering the nature of design and the and the peripheral ones). This design was prob- magnificence of its size, it is difficult to compare ably lacking of the little discs without border that the Saint Sophia pavement to later pavements have different size and now seem rather to fill the dating to the 11th or 12th century, e.g. at Iviron background spaces decorated with tessellated el- (Liakos 2008: 37-44), at Hosios Lukas31 (fig. 30) ements. and at Nea Moni of (Bouras 1982: 89-90, The second phase is datable after the earth- 162-164 figs. 69-70) (fig. 31). In these instances, quake of 1346 that probably destroyed some parts we find a smaller size, a thicker and finer tessel- of the pavement. It is plausible that on the occa- late, and also a more sophisticated and symmetri- sion of the restoration the rotae of the mosaics cal layout of the individual elements. All of these were replaced with new ones, as we may suppose things indicate a greater technical competence. considering that at the present all the discs are Subsequent examples, such as the panel situated undamaged. If this hypothesis is correct then we in front of the entrance to Saint Sophia of Nicaea- can’t be sure that the original chromatic scheme Iznik (Eyice 1963: 373-383; Möllers 1994; Pinatsi was the same as today. In this phase the back- 2006: 119-126) (fig. 32) or the similar ones of ground spaces were also rearranged but without Myra (Feld 1975: 394-397 pls. 105, 129, 130) and Konya (Demiriz 2002: 101-107), seem to follow a 32 previous model. However, they render more com- I believe that it is important that in the Vita Basilii there is mention of at least two opus sectile pavements com- plex and multiply the basic structure, turning into missioned by the Macedonian emperor in the Great Palace. extremely intricate patterns such as the pavement The more detailed description pertains to the lost building of the Nea Ekklesia, of which it is said: “[…] As for the pave- ment, it appears to be covered with silken stuffs of Sido- 30 Wulff 1903: 157-164; Schmit 1927: 14-16 pl. XI, 4; nian workmanship: to such an extent has it been adorned Peschlow 1972: 166-167 pls. 41,1 and 42,3. Today, the church all over with marble slabs of different colours enclosed by is completely in ruins and the remains of pavement are tessellated bands of varied aspect, all accurately moine to- hidden. gether and abounding in elegance…”. Mango 1972: 202-205; 31 Schultz, Barnsley 1901: 31, 37, figs. 19, 27, pls. 30-33. Maguire (2001) 2007: 4-11. On the works of building and See also Guiglia Guidobaldi 1984: 60-61; Guiglia Guidobaldi the restorations of Basil I, see also: Flusin, Cheynet 2003: 1994: 661-662. 135-138. 764 Silvia Pedone

b

c a

Fig. 30 a-b: Hosios Loukas. Drawing of the katholikon’s pavement (after Schultz, Barnsley 1901); c: particular of opus sectile (Photo S. Pedone 2009)

Fig. 31 Chios, Nea Moni. Particular of the opus sectile pavement (after Bouras 1982) The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 765

Fig. 32 Iznik, Saint Sophia. Opus sectile pavement in the naos Fig. 33 Istanbul. Kariye Camii. Opus sectile pavement in the (Photo S. Pedone 2009) naos (Photo S. Pedone 2009) coherent design, including the irregular slabs of In conclusion, on a background both com- Marmor Iassensis, completely extraneous to the plex and incomplete such as that of Constantino- whole design33. ple, we have to consider the Saint Sophia om- An echo of this second phase is perhaps per- phalion for its novelty and its position in a very ceptible in the interlacing system of the quadran- differentiated landscape, resulting from different gular panel of the pavement in the naos of Kariye aesthetic choices and several autonomous work- Camii34 (fig. 31), that seems to cite the archaic shops. We hope that in the near future, with the model of Saint Sophia and represent one of the great forthcoming campaign of excavations in last remarkable examples of decoration, before city of Constantinople, we will be able to have not the final sunset of the traditional opus sectile only questions, but also some more answers. work in the Byzantine age (Guiglia Guidobaldi 1999: 327).

33 Today other slabs made of cipollino rosso can still be seen in front of the imperial gate and within the Justinianic pavement in the area of the bema of Saint Sophia. 34 The building’s extensive marble decoration, which includes the walls as well as the pavement, is now generally agreed to date to the years 1316-1321, as indicated by the poem written by Theodore Metochites, the great and generous patron of the restoration of the complex (Underwood 1967-1975; Ousterhout 1987). For a more detailed analysis of the pavement and, more generally speaking, the stylistic choices of the Palaeologan period, see Guiglia Guidobaldi 1999: 321-358. 766 Silvia Pedone

Bibliography

AMBROGI 2005 Delbrück 1932 A. Ambrogi, Labra di età romana in marmi bianchi e R. Delbrück, Antike Porphyrwerke, Berlin-Leipzig. colorati, Roma. DEMANGEL 1945 ANTONIADES 1908 R. Demangel, Contribution à la topographie de E. M. Antoniades, Ekphrasis tes Hagias Sophias, l’Hebdomon, Paris. Tomos B, Athinais. Demiriz 2002 Arık 1953 Y. Demiriz, Örgülü bizans döşeme mozaikleri/ R. O. Arık, Remzi Oğuz, L’histoire et l’organisation Interlaced Byzantine Mosaic Pavements, Istanbul. des Musées Turcs, Istanbul. Die Hagia Sophia 1999 ARRIGNON 1987 Die Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. Bilder aus sechs J.-P. Arrignon, “Un Pèlerin russe à Constantinople: Jahrhunderten und Gaspare Fossati Restaurierung Antoine de Novgorod”, in Médiévales, 6, 12: 33- 41. der Jahren 1847 bis 1849, Katalog der Ausstellung im Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 1984 Bernischen Historischen Museum 12. Mai bis 11. Juli P. Asimakopoulou-Atzaka, “I mosaici pavimentali 1999 und in Winckelmann-Museum Stendal 24. Juli paleocristiani in Grecia: Contributo allo studio e alle bis 26. September 1999, hrsg. von Hoffmann, Bern. relazioni tra i laboratori”, in Corsi di Cultura sull’Arte Eastmond 2004 Ravennate e Bizantina, 31: 13-75. A. Eastmond, Art and Identity in Thirteenth- Asgari 1985 Century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Empire of n. Asgari, “İstanbul temel kazılarından haberler – Trebizond, Aldershot. 1983”, in II. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Izmir, EBERSOLT 1910 16-20 Nisan, Ankara: 43-62. J. Ebersolt, Sainte-Sophie de Constantinople. Étude BAADE – BAADE 1998 de topographie d’après les cerémonies, Paris. I. J. Baade, E. C. Baade, The Red Stones Speak: EYICE 1963 Porphyry Discs in the Pavements of Roman Churches, S. Eyice, “Two Mosaic Pavements from Bithynia”, in in Qui miscuit utile dulci, Festschrift essays for P. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 17: 373-383. Lachlan MacKendrick edited by G. Schmeling, J. D. EYİGÜN 2010 Mikalson, Wauconda, Illinois: 1-15. Y. Eyigün, “İstanbul Metrosu-Unkapanı Arası BARSANTI 2007 Metro İnșaatı Projesi: Yenikapı İstasyonu / Istanbul C. Barsanti, “La scultura mediobizantina fra tradizione Metro Construction Project between Yenikapı and e innovazione”, in Bisanzio nell’età dei Macedoni: Unkapanı: Yenikapı Station” in İstanbul Arkeoloji forme della produzione letteraria e artistica, a cura di Müzeleri 1. Marmaray-Metro Kurtarma Kazıları F. Conca, G. Fiaccadori, Milano: 5-49. Smpozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı 5-6 Mayıs 2008, Istanbul BOURAS 1982 Archaeological Museum, Proceedings of the 1st C. Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios. History and Symposium on Marmaray-Metro Salvage Excavations Architecture, . 5th-6th May 2008, İstanbul, 53-63 Byzance Retrouvée 2001 FELD 1975 Byzance Retrouvée. Érudits et voyageurs français o. Feld, “Der opus sectile Boden”, in Myra. Eine [XVIe-XVIIIe siècles], Chapelle de la Sorbonne – Paris lykische Metropole, Berlin: 394-397. 13 aout – 2 septembre 2001. FLAMINIO 2004 Boccardi Storoni 1999 R. Flaminio, “Gli elementi marmorei di reimpiego”, in P. Boccardi Storoni, Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Viaggio Guiglia Guidobaldi - Barsanti 2004: 533-648. a Samarcanda 1403-1406. Un ambasciatore spagnolo FLUSIN – Cheynet 2003 alla corte di Tamerlano, Roma. B. Flusin - J-C. Cheynet, Jean Skylitzès. Empereurs de della Valle 2004 Constantinople, Paris. M. della Valle, “I restauri ottocenteschi dei marmi e FOBELLI 2005 una prima affermazione del gusto neo-bizantino”, in M. L. Fobelli, Un tempio per Giustiniano. Santa Sofia Guiglia Guidobaldi - Barsanti 2004: 739-792. di Costantinopoli e la Descrizione di Paolo Silenziario, Roma. The Marble Omphalos of Saint Sophia in Constantinople 767

FOGAGNOLO 2005-2006 Lacchia 1943 S. Fogagnolo, “Pavimenti marmorei di epoca severiana T. Lacchia, I Fossati architetti del Sultano di Turchia, del Templum pacis”, in Musiva et Sectilia, 2/3: 115- Roma. 141. Lethaby – Swainson 1894 FOSCHI 2002 W. R. Lethaby, H. Swainson, The Church of Sancta S. Foschi, “Santa Sofia di Costantinopoli: immagini Sophia Constantinople. A Study of Byzantine dall’Occidente”, in Annali di Architettura, 14: 7-33. Building, London. GLASS 1980 LIAKOS 2008 D. F. Glass, Studies on Cosmatesque Pavements, D. A. Liakos, “The Byzantine Opus Sectile Floor in the Oxford. Katholikon of Iveron Monastery on , in GUIDOBALDI – GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI 1983 Zograf, 32: 37-44. F. Guidobaldi, A. Guiglia Guidobaldi, Pavimenti LUCCI 1964 marmorei di Roma al IV al IX secolo. Studi di Antichità M. L. Lucci, “Il porfido nell’antichità”, in Archeologia Cristiana a cura del Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Classica, 16: 226-271. Cristiana, 36, Città del Vaticano. MAINSTONE 1997 GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI 1982 R. J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure A. Guiglia Guidobaldi, “Note preliminari per una and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church, London. definizione dell’arte pavimentale costantinopolitana MAGUIRE 2001 dei primi secoli”, in XVI Internationaler H. Maguire, “The Medieval Floors of the Great Byzantinistenkongress: Akten II/4: Jahrbuch der Palace” in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, österreichischen Byzantinistik, 32/4: Wien: 403-413. Topography and Everyday Life”, ed. by Nevra GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI 1984 Necipoğlu, Leiden:153-174 (reprint in the variorum A. Guiglia Guidobaldi, “Tradizione locale e influenze collected studies series: 2007 Image and Imagination bizantine nei pavimenti cosmateschi”, Bollettino in , Burlington: II:1-19) d’arte, 26: 57-72. MANGO 1965 GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI 1994 C. Mango, “Costantinopolitana”, in Jahrbuch des A. Guiglia Guidobaldi, “L’opus sectile pavimentale Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 80: 305- in area bizantina”, in Atti del 1° Colloquio AISCOM, 336 (Reprint in Mango, Cyril 1993 Studies on : 643-663. Constantinople, Aldershot). GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI 1999 MANGO 1972 A. Guiglia Guidobaldi, “La decorazione pavimentale C. Mango, The Art of the 312-1453: bizantina in età paleologa”, in L’arte di Bisanzio e Sources and Documents, Englewood Cliff. l’Italia al tempo dei Paleologi 1261-1453, a cura di A. MANGO 1997 Iacobini, M. della Valle; . Studi e ricerche d’arte C. Mango, “The Palace of the Boukoleon”, in Cahiers bizantina, 5: 321-358. archéologiques, 45: 41-50. GUIGLIA GUIDOBALDI – BARSANTI MATHEWS 1971 A. Guiglia Guidobaldi, C. Barsanti, Santa Sofia di T. F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople. Costantinopoli. L’arredo marmoreo della Grande Architecture and Liturgy, University Park-London. Chiesa giustinianea, Città del Vaticano. MATHEWS 1976 HASLUCK 1906-1907 T. F. Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul. F. W. Hasluck, “Bithynica”, in The Annual of the A Photographic Survey, University Park-London. British School at Athens, 13: 285-308. MAJESKA 1978 Kähler – Mango 1967 G. P. Majeska, “Notes on the Archeology of St. Sophia H. Kähler, C. Mango, Hagia Sophia, London. at Constantinople: the Green Marble Bands on the Khitrowo 1889 Floor”, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 32: 299-308. B. Khitrowo, Itinéraires russes en Orient, Genève. MAJESKA 1984 KIER 1969 G. P. Majeska, Russian travelers to Constantinople in H. Kier, Der mittelalterliche Schmuckfußboden, (Die the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in Dumbarton Kunstdenkmäler des Rheinlandes, 14), Düsseldorf. Oaks Studies 19, Washington D.C. 768 Silvia Pedone

MAJESKA 1997 SCHNEIDER 1936 G. P. Majeska, “The Emperor in His Church: Imperial A. M. Schneider, Byzanz. Vorarbeiten zur Topographie Ritual in the Church of St. Sophia”, in Byzantine Court und Archäologie der Stadt, Berlin: 34-37. Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. by Henry Maguire, SCHREINER 1979 Washington D.C.: 1-11. P. Schreiner, “Omphalion und Rota Porphyretica: zum Möllers 1994 Kaiserzeremoniell in Konstantinopel und Rom”, in S. Möllers, Die Hagia Sophia in Iznik/Nikaia, Alfter. Byzance et les Slaves: études de civilisation, Mélanges Ötüken 1996 Ivan Dujčev, Paris: 401-410. Y. Ötüken, Forschungen im nordwestlichen SCHULTZ – BARNSLEY 1901 Kleinasien. Antike und byzantinische Denkmäler in R. W. Schultz, S. H. Barnsley, The Monastery of Saint der Provinz Bursa, Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft, Luke of Stiris in Phocis, London. 41, Tübingen. 600 Yıllık Ayasofya 2000 Pajares-Ayuela 2002 600 Yıllık Ayasofya Görünümleri ve 1847-1849 Fossati P. Pajares-Ayuela, Cosmatesque Ornament. Flat Restorasyonu, 2000 Istanbul, Türk ve Islam Eseleri polychrome geometric patterns in architecture, Müzesi, 25 Eylül – 5 Kasım 2000, Istanbul. London. SWIFT 1940 Peschlow 1972 E. H. Swift, Hagia Sophia, New York. U. Peschlow, “Neue Beobachtungen zur Architektur TEXIER – PULLAN 1867 und Ausstattung der Koimesiskirche in Iznik”, IstMitt C. F.-M. Texier, P. P. Pullan, , 22, 145-187. London. PESCHLOW 1983 TRONZO 2001 U. Peschlow, “Zum byzantinischen opus sectile- W. Tronzo, “Shield, Cross, and Meadow in Opus Boden”, in Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens, Sectile Pavements of Byzantium, Southern Italy, Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, Mainz: 435-447. Rome and Sicily”, in L’ellenismo italiota dal VII al XII PESCHLOW 2003 secolo. Alla memoria di Nikos Panagiotakis, Atti del U. Peschlow, “The Churches of Nicaea-Iznik”, in Convegno, Venezia 13-17 Novembre 1997, Athena: İznik Throughout History, ed. by Işıl Akbaygil, Halil 241-260. İnalcık, Oktay Aslanapa, Istanbul: 201-218. TSAMAKDA 2002 PIGANIOL 1945 V. Tsamakda, The illustrated chronicle of Ioannes A. Piganiol, “L’hémisphairion et l’omphalos des lieux Skylitzes in Madrid, Leiden. saints”, Cahiers archéologiques, 7-14. UNGER 1935 PINTASI 2006 E. Unger, “Das Weltbild-Mosaik der Sophienkirche in C. Pinatsi,“New observations on the pavement of the Konstantinopel” in Forschungen und Fortschritte, II, church of Haghia Sophia in Nicea”, in Byzantinische 35: 445-447. Zeitschrift, 99,1: 119-126. VAN NICE 1965-1986 PROKOPIOU 1981 R. L. Van Nice, Saint Sophia in Istanbul. An G. A. Prokopiou, Ho kosmologikos symvolismos sten Architectural Survey, I, Washington D.C. architektonike tou Vyzantinou naou, Athenai. VOGT 1939-19490 Santa Sofia ad Istanbul 1999 A. Vogt, Le livre des cérémonies, voll. I-II, Paris. Santa Sofia ad Istanbul: sei secoli di immagini YANNOPOULOS 1991 e il lavoro di restauro di Gaspare Fossati (1847- P. Yannopoulos, “Le couronnement de l’empereur à 49), catalogo dell’esposizione; Casa del Mantegna, Byzance: rituel et fond institutionnel”, in Byzantion, Mantova, 14 novembre - 31 dicembre 1999, a cura di 61: 71-92. Volker Hoffmann, Berna, 1999. WULFF 1903 SALZENBERG 1854 o. Wulff, Die Koimesiskirche in Nicäa und ihre W. Salzenberg, Altchristliche Baudenkmäler von Mosaiken, Strassburg. Konstantinopel vom V. bis XII. Jahrhundert, Berlin. SCHMIT 1927 T. Schmit, Die Koimesis-Kirche von Nikaia, Berlin- Leipzig.