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 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 - İstanbul/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 Sophia in Constantinople 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: Delphi 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 Chalke 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).