Download presentation
1 -

Published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and CollectionDistributed

Dumbarton Oaks Papers Number Sixty 3130302931e Church of Hagia Sophia in Bizye Vize Results of the Fieldwork Seasons 30292928 and 30292927 Franz Alto Bauer and Holger A Klein313029282726 2524 2322212

hanah's Recent Documents



published 0K
North Carolina Providers Council
North Carolina Providers Council

2018 Annual ConferenceSeptember 1820 2018Sheraton Greensboro at Four Seasons Greensboro North CarolinaIn Collaboration with the NC Chapter of the Developmental Disabilities Nurses AssociationAgendaTue

published 0K
AbstractSydney Prentice 18731943 was a paleontological illustrator an
AbstractSydney Prentice 18731943 was a paleontological illustrator an

13VOL 45 NO 1 WINTER 2013 RN SCIENILLUSTRTIONNote 147Sydney148 is spelled 147Sidney148in some publications and Allemano records her father146s birthdate as 1871 but in a copy of a handwritten

published 0K
anFebMarAprMayunuOAuJSepOctNovDecMON POUNDS342020 DATA SOURCEx
anFebMarAprMayunuOAuJSepOctNovDecMON POUNDS342020 DATA SOURCEx

US CKeddar CKeese ProductLon2016201x001a201x001b201x001c

published 0K
Antonin 3calias 0hilosophy of nterpretation
Antonin 3calias 0hilosophy of nterpretation

From Textualism to DeferentialismScott SoamesThe opening sentence inJustice 3caliasCommon aw Courts in a Civil aw 3ystem announces his attempt to explain the currentlyneglected state of the science of

published 0K
Breaking the chain at the 145mode of transmission146 is one of the mos
Breaking the chain at the 145mode of transmission146 is one of the mos

4 - 2Table of Survival Times of Microorganisms on Hard Inanimate SurfacesOrganism Survival Time Adenovirus Up to 3 monthsClostridium dix006600660069cile Up to 5 monthsCoronovirusE coli Up to 16 months

published 0K


published 0K

8/9/21PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONDE 21-119PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIREd/b/a EVERSOURCE ENERGYProposed Tariff Amendments to Residential Time-of-Day RateORDER OF NOTICEThe settlement agreemen

published 0K
Download Section

Download - The PPT/PDF document "" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Document on Subject : "Published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and CollectionDistributed"— Transcript:

1 Published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Lib
Published by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and CollectionDistributed by Harvard University Press,  Dumbarton Oaks Papers Number Sixty,  e Church of Hagia Sophia in Bizye (Vize): Results of the Fieldwork Seasons  and  Franz Alto Bauer and Holger A. Klein    on the southwestern slopes of the Stranda mountains (Yldz Dalar), the ancient city of Bizye (modern Vize) is well known not only as a place of exile during the early Byzantine period, but also as the home and cult center of St. Mary the Younger, a pious woman of Armenian origin who died there in  and was subsequently buried in the city’s cathedral. Relying on an inscription recorded by Georgios Lampousiades, the region’s super-intendent of antiquities during the Greek occupation of race from  to , Cyril Mango was the rst to suggest that the Byzantine church still standing on the acropolis of Vize, now known as Ayasofya or Süleyman Paa Camii, should be identied as Bizye’s Byzantine cathedral and location of the saint’s rst tomb as mentioned in her Life. Citing similar cross-domed churches such as Dereaz in Lycia, Mango concluded that the former church of Hagia Sophia at Vize may well pertain to “the period of Byzantine expansion in the Balkans in the late eighth and ninth centuries, a period that is…very poorly represented in terms of architectural monuments, but which m怀ay also have pro-duced St. Sophia at Salonica.” While the building’s imposing size of circa twenty-ve by twelve meters seems to support Mango’s hagio-graphical arguments for identifying the church as the city’s Byzantine cathedral, his dating of the structure to the eighth or ninth century has not remained unchallenged. When Semavi Eyice published the results of his survey of Byzantine monuments in Eastern race, he compared Forinformationonthehistorythecity,seeE.Oberhummer,“Bizye,

2 48;.():
48;.():;A..Samothrakis,    \r \f \n\rnd(Athens,),b–b;and–.AdditionalinformationhaseenprovidedbyV.Velkov,“DiethrakischeStadtBizye,”inStudia in honorem Veselini Beševliev(Soa,),–;J.Jurukova,Griechisches Münzwerk: Die Münzprägung \ton BizyeSchrienzurGeschichteundKulturderAntike(Berlin,),orsummaryaccount,seeF.A.BauerH.A.Klein,“DieHagiaSophiainVize:ForschungsgeschichteRestaurierungenNeueErgebnisse,”Millennium ():–,esp.–.thechurchHagiaSophia,seemostrecentlyidem,HagiaSophia(SüleymanPaa Camii)inVize:BerichtüberdieArbeitenimJahr,”\b\b. Aratrma Sonuçlar ToplantsAnkara,),:–and“Vize’deAyasofya(SüleymanPaaCamii):YlÇalmalarRaporu,”\b. Aratrma Sonuçlar Toplants(Ankara,),:–. Forearlyreferencesthecityasplaceexile,seeSocratesScholasticus,Kirchengeschichteed.G.C.Hansen,GCS,.s.,(Berlin,),;Sozomenus,Kirchengeschichteed.J.BidezandG.C.Hansen,GCS,n.s.,(Berlin,),–.ForMaximostheConfessor’sexileinBizye,seeScripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantiaed.P.AllenandNeil,CCSG(Turnhout,),alsoP.AllenandB.Neil,Maximus the Confessor and His Companions: Documents om Exile(Oxford,),–. FortheLife St.MarytheYounger,seeBHG,AASS No\tembris(Brussels,),–,aswellastheEnglishranslationwithintroductionbyA.LaiouHoly Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives

3 in English Translationed.A.-M.albot,Byza
in English Translationed.A.-M.albot,ByzantineSaints’LivesinEnglishTranslation(Washington,DC,),–,withfurtherbibliographicalreferences.ForthepresumeddateMary’sdeath,seePratsch,“DasTodesdatumderMaria(derJüngeren)vonBizyeBHG):.Februar,”():–.“eByzantineChurchatVize(Bizye)inraceandSt.MarytheYounger,”ZRVI ():–.Ibid.,. \r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f the architecture of Ayasofya to that of the domed basilicas of Arta and Mistras and concluded that it likewise must have been built in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Since the publication of Mango’s and Eyice’s studies, scholars have remained divided over the question of dating the church. While Eyice’s typological arguments have been accepted by Nazan Yavuzolu and James Morganstern, other schol-ars like Yldz Ötüken, Robert Ousterhout, and Vincenzo Ruggieri have followed Mango’s lead and argued for a late eighth- or early ninth-century date of the church. A more recent study by Ayegül Kahramankaptan and Özkan Erturul even argued for two distinct building phases: one in the tenth century, still visible in the basilican structure of the ground oor, and another in the thirteenth or four-teenth century, in which the galleries and the dome were added.e apparent diculties in establishing even an approximate date for the construction of the church at Vize indicate not only the restric-tions of comparative architectural analysis but also the limits of our knowledge and understanding of the building’s physical makeup. Since the structure has suered dramatically from decades of neglect, van-dalism, and a recent, heavy-handed restoration conducted under the supervision of the Edirne Vakar Bölge Müdürlüü, a joint archaeo-logical survey project has been established by the authors of this report to examine th

4 oroughly the building’s fabric and
oroughly the building’s fabric and to document compre-hensively the various architectural spolia scattered around the site. e rst eldwork campaign at Vize, carried out during July and August of , aimed at providing accurate plans for the ground and gallery levels of the church as well as detailed longitudinal and transverse sections.  In addition, a catalogue of architectural spolia—some incorporated in the fabric of the present structure, some scattered inside and outside the building—was compiled, fragments measured, photographed, and “Trakya’daBizansdevrineaiteserler,”Belleten ():–,esp.–.yicerepeatedargumentsintwolaterarticles:“Lesmonumentsbyzantinsdelaraceturque,”CorsiRav():–,esp.–,and“Ayasofya’lar,”Ayasofya Müzesi Yll ():–,esp.–,ithEnglishtranslationat–:“eother‘Ayasofyas’.”Yavuzolu,“Vize’dekiBizanseserleri”(MAdiss.,stanbulÜniversitesi,),–;Morganstern,e Byzantine Church at Dereaz and its DecorationIstanbulerMitteilungen,Beihe(Tübingen,),n.;Mango,Byzantine ArchitectureMilan,);ÖtükenandOusterhout,“NotesontheMonumentsTurkishrace,”AnatSt ():–,esp.;Ruggieri,Byzantine Religious Architecture (\b–): Its History and Structural ElementsOCA(Rome,),;V.Ruggieri,L’architettura religiosa nell’Impero Bizantino (ne VI–IX secolo) Messina,),–. somewhatmorecautiouspositiontakenbyH.Buchwald,“LascaridArchitecture,”JÖB ():–,esp.n.,whononetheessfavorsearlydate

5 .“Vize’dentarihfk
.“Vize’dentarihfkryor,”Mozaik ():–,esp.and.FeridunDirimtekinwastherstprovideroughgroundplanandelevaiondrawing(northfaçade)forthechurch.SeeF.Dirimtekin,“Vize’dekiAyasofyaKilisesi(SüleymanPaa),”Ayasofya Müzesi Yll ():–,pl.,withEnglishtranslationat–:“ChurchSt.-Sophia(SüleymanPaa)atVize.”somewhatoreaccurateplanforthegroundoorgallerylevelthechurchwasprovidedbySemaviEyice in:“Trakya,”res.,“Monuments,”g.,and“Ayasofya’lar,”res.  ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ drawn for publication.† e second season of eldwork at Vize, sup-ported by a Dumbarton Oaks project grant, was conducted during June and July of „ and resulted in a photogrammetric evaluation of the building’s exterior façades as well as a preliminary examination of the remains of an earlier ecclesiastical structure.‡ History and State of Preservation e Byzantine church commonly known as Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia) or Süleyman Paa Camii is situated within the connes of the fortica-tion walls on the southwestern slopes of the acropolis of Bizye (g. ).ˆ Both its size and commanding presence overlooking the racian plain seem to indicate that it was once the city’s principal place of worship, presumably Bizye’s cathedral. Unfortunately, little is known about the early history of Bizye’s Christian community and their cathedral. Seephotographsbelow,–.esite’sarchitecturalspoliahavepreviouslybeenmentionedonlyinpassing.SeemostrecentlyÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”.ResponsibleforthecataloguingarchituralspoliaduringtheeldworkcampaignwereRobertaCasagrande,MA(ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork)

6 andDr.KirstinNoreen(LouisianaStateUniver
andDr.KirstinNoreen(LouisianaStateUniversity,BatonRouge).eremainswerepartlyuncoveredonthesouth,north,andeastsidesthepresentbuildingduringtheVakarrestoration.brickfoundationslargesemicircularapsetheeastwererstdescribedbyÖtükenandOusterhout,whoidentiedas“theeasternend earlyChristianchurch”andsuggestedthat“thepresentbuildingwasconstructedonthesitepredecessor.”SeeÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”–.theforticationsVize,seeEyice,“Trakya,”–,and“Monuments,”.SeeMango,“ByzantineChurch,”n.above);Eyice,“Trakya,”,and“Monuments,”ÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”.Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,exteriorfromwest,(thisandallunattributedphotosbytheauthors) \r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f SS. Severos and Memnon are said to have suered martyrdom in the city along with their companions, but it remains uncertain when the rst Christian church was established there. Known as a place of exile already under emperor Valens, Bizye has been an episcopal see since at least „. However, the date of the cathedral’s dedication during the Byzantine period remains unknown. e Life of Saint Mary the Younger simply refers to it as “‰Š‹ŒŽ‘‰• –‰‰Ž˜™šŠ,” and while the build-ing’s modern Turkish name Ayasofya Camii may well preserve the memory of a previous Byzantine dedication, the present association with Holy Wisdom cannot be traced back further than the nineteenth century. e other Ottoman name associated with the building, Süleyman Paa Camii, may hint at an early conversion into a mosque, since a Süleyman Paa, son of Orhan Gazi and brother of Sultan Murad I (›œž), is known to have led the Ottoman conquest of Eastern race. But if the mosque was in

7 deed named aŸer him, it must have b
deed named aŸer him, it must have been dedicated to his memory, as he died in ¡, well before the cap-ture of Bizye. Another possibility is that the mosque was named aŸer Hadm Süleyman Paa, the governor of Rumeli who died in „ž and is known for his founding of mosques in Edirne and Ferecik.  e most likely candidate to have converted the Byzantine church of Bizye into a mosque, however, might be yet another Süleyman Paa, namely a grand-son of Gazi Mihal, who died around .† But given the lack of more precise historical information, the identity of the mosque’s founder and precise date of its conversion may never be known.‡ Nevertheless, a short reference in the Seyhatnme of Evliy¢ Çelebi, who visited Vize in ››, may indicate that the church was adapted to Muslim worship soon aŸer the capture of Bizye under Mehmet the Conqueror in „.ˆ While there are no written documents that would help to elucidate the H.Delehaye,“SaintsderacedeMésie,”AB():–,esp.–.Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanaeed.J.Darrouzès(Paris,),.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;..ForthebishopsBizye,seeR.Janin,“Bizya,”inDictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques(Paris,–),:–.BHG,AASS No\tembris(Brussels,),,;Talbot,Holy Women,(n.above).S.Ioannidis, \r  ­€\n\r ‚ƒ\r \f \n\r\r\f \n\t\b \t \n\b\b\f&

8 #3;(Athens,),&#
#3;(Athens,),(writtenin).SeealsoN.Bapheidis,„…† ‡ \f‡ ƒ‡  ƒ‡ \f\nˆ‡ser.,():–,at.Eyice,“Ayasofya’lar,”Bizyewasrstcapturedbythe ttomansinbutlaterreturnedByzantinerule(probablyin).ItwasnceagaincapturedbytheOttomansin.thehistorytheconquest,seeBabinger,Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrscha‰ in Rumelien(Brünn–Munich–Vienna,),andM.T.Gökbilgin,XV–XVI asrlarda Edirne ve Paa livas(Istanbul,),A.Bakalopulos,“Leslimitesdel’empirebyzantindepuisnXVesièclejusqu’àchute(),”():–,esp.;Mango,“ByzantineChurch,”withn.(n.above).thetransferthemetropolitanseeMesembria,seeF.MiklosichandI.Müller,Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevivol.,Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani ŠŠ–Š‹Œ\b Vienna,),.SeeEyice,“Ayasofya’lar,”  &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; HadmSüleymanPaa’sfoundationhemosqueatFerecikhasbeencalledntoquestionbyE.H.Ayverdi,Osmanl Mimarsinin ilk Devri Istanbul,),.identicationrstgivenbyLampousiades,“\n\t\n,”rakika():andhasbeenacceptedbyDirimtekin,“ChurchSt.Sophia,”n.above);Ayverdi,Osmanl Mimarsinin;Mango,“ByzantineChurch,”Eyice,“Ayasofya’lar,” &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; On &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; theid

9 enticationSüleymanaa,seeMango
enticationSüleymanaa,seeMango,“ByzantineChurch,”andEyice,“Trakya,”,and,“Ayasofya’lar,””– &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; (bothn.above).Ed.Danman(Istanbul,),:.  ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ history of structural modications and restorations in Ottoman times, the building seems to have served as the city’s principal mosque well into the twentieth century. Its decline started only around , when its minaret was destroyed by Bulgarian troops during the First Balkan War. In the decades that followed, the mosque seems to have slowly fallen into disrepair, since the Vakar Bölge Müdürlüü considered its restoration already in /. e plan, however, was never carried out. About a decade later, the mosque ceased to function as a house of worship for the community of Vize (g. ). Judging from photos taken by scholars during the ›s and ¡s, the profanation of the mosque led to the building’s accelerated dete-rioration, which came to a halt only in ¡, when the Edirne Vakar Bölge Müdürlüü nally authorized the long-planned restoration of the mosque. While well intentioned, this restoration campaign eminaretstillbeseenintheearliestpublishedphotographstheAyasofyafromand.SeeA.K.P.Stamoules,“ \f ­€‚ \f\nƒ„…„\b† ‡\tˆ‰,”Žƒ ‘\r „…ƒ\r “\rser.(Athens,),:,g.Lampousiades,“&#

10 129;\n\t\n&#
129;\n\t\n,”;R.M.Dawkins,“eModernCarnivalinraceandtheCultDionysus,”(),,g..ItnolongervisibleinthephotographpublishedinbyK.H.Škorpil,“Arkheologicheskibieliezhkiot”Strandzha-planina,”Izvestija na B”lgarskoto Archeologi•esko Dru—estvo(/):,g..Eyice,“Ayasofya’lar,”– &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; Eyice(ibid.)relatesthatinheimammadecallforprayer standingmoundoutsidethechurchandthenperformedprayersaloneforlackcongregation.DocumentsandreceiptspertainingtherestorationcampaignarehousedthearchivestheEdirneVakarBölgeMüdürlüü.ig.Vize,HagiaSophia,exteriorfromsouthwest,ca.(photo:C.Mango) „\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f resulted in some unfortunate interventions and led to the destruction of valuable archaeological evidence inside and outside of the church. Due to nancial diculties and complaints from the Vize Belediyesi, work was eventually abandoned in ž and the restoration of the building was leŸ partly unnished. As far as can be ascertained from what is visible today (g. ), the restoration work that was car-ried out under the supervision of Erol Çetin of the £stanbul Vakar Bölge Müdürlüü followed three main objectives: () the removal of earth that had washed down from the hill of the acropolis for cen-turies and had built up around the church to a maximum height of over ten meters at its eastern end (g. „); () the restoration of the building’s “original” appearance on the exterior, which involved the opening of three tympanum windows on the north and south façades to their (presumably) original size, as well as the repair and pointing erenoo‹cialwrittenorphoto-raphicd

11 ocumentationthiscampaign.eonlyinfor
ocumentationthiscampaign.eonlyinformationthatexistsconcerningtheVakarrestorationletterdatedAugust,therestorer-architectErolÇetin,citedbyÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”–(n.above),aswellaslettersandreceiptskeptinthearchivestheEdirneVakarBölgeMüdürlüü.PhotographstakenpriortheVakar restorationshowtheextentearthaccumu-ation,especiallyonthebuilding’ssoutheastfaçade.SeeMango,“ByzantineChurch,”gs.and.eremovalearthwasaccompaniedbythebuildinglargeretainingwallsonthenorth,south,andeastsidesthechurch.eexcavatedmaterialwasmovedtheareawestthechurch,wherewaspiledupcreatelargemounds.Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,exteriorfromeast,(photo:R.Rosenbauer)  ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ up of joints between brick courses and stones on the building’s north, south, and east façades;  () the restoration of the building’s “original” appearance on the interior, which involved the removal of the raised Ottoman marble and opus sectile oor as well as the replastering of much of the unpainted wall surfaces, corner piers, and tympanum arches over the south and north galleries (gs. œ›).† While the Vakar restoration succeeded in slowing the deteriora-tion on much of the building’s exterior façades, the abandonment of the project leŸ the narthex open to the elements, thus heightening the danger of its collapse.‡ Even more regrettable than the discontinua- PriortheVakarrestorationthesizethewindowswasmuchreduced,beseeninphotographpublishedCyrilMango;ibid.,g.,andMango,Byzantine Architectureg.(n.above).edecisionpointupthejointsbetweenbricklayersandstonesseemshavebeenguidedbythediscoveryoriginalllinhelowerportionsthewalls,sincetherestorationworkmimicstheoriginaltechue.Tracestheoriginalllbestseeninthelowerareasthenorthandeastfaçades.BeforetheVak

12 arrestorationthenaveand sideai
arrestorationthenaveand sideaislesthechurchwerepavedwithwhitemarbleandraisedslightlyhigherlevelthanthenarthex,whichwasalsopavedwithmarble.ReusedfragmentsByzantineopussectileoorwerefoundincorporatedintothemarbleoorbothinthenaveandinthenarthex.Fordescripiontheoorpriorremoval,seeDirimtekin,“ChurchSt.Sophia,”–(n.above),andMango,“ByzantineChurch,”whoassumesthatthemarbleoorwasraisedduringtheOttomanperiod.DrawingsthespecimenopussectilefragmentsfoundinAyasofyahavebeenpublishedinEyice, “Trakya,”res.(n.above).Whentherestorationcampaignwashaltedin,themarbleoorpanelswereledispersedfrontthechurch.Itunknownifthenineteenth- enturywoodenmuezzin’sgalleryonthesecondoorthenarthexwasremovedduringtheVakarrestorationorifcollapsedearlier.Photographstakenthelatesshowdilapidatedyetilllargelyintact.SeeMango,“ByzantineChurch,”g.Eyice,“Trakya,”res..Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,exteriorfromeast,ca.(photo:C.Mango) ›\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f tion of the project, however, is the loss of valuable archaeological infor-mation from the undocumented removal of earth outside and excava-tions below the original Byzantine oor level inside the church. On the exterior, for instance, numerous sculptural fragments of liturgical furnishings seem to have been uncovered during the restoration cam-paign.ˆ Some more lavishly decorated fragments were subsequently brought to the archaeological museums in Edirne and Tekirda, where they were rediscovered during the summer of „; the rest remained scattered in front of the building’s western façade. ey were prob-ably taken into the narthex and piled up between the minaret and the blocked southern entrance into the narthex in , following an architectural survey and cleaning campaign conducted by Özkan Erturul of Trakya Üniversitesi in Edirne. While the exact ndspots as wel

13 l as the circumstances that led to the d
l as the circumstances that led to the discovery of these spolia remain unknown, other archaeological discoveries are more clearly attributable to the Vakar restoration, the most signicant being the SincetheyarenotrecordedbyDirimtekin,Mango,andEyice,mustbeassumedthatthesearchitecturalfragmentswereuncoveredduringtheVakarrestoraion.eyarerst,butonlybriey,menionedbyÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”(n.above).efragmentsinEdirnewereidenti-onthebasisphotographsfoundinhearchivestheEdirneKurul;thoseinTekirda,bythedirectorthemuseumduringroutinevisitinJune.Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,interiortowardeast,(photo:R.Rosenbauer)Twofragmentsparapetslabturingcarvedcrosswererstpublished KahramankaptanandErturul,“Vize,”(n.above). ¡ ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ uncovering of the brick foundations of a semicircular apse and the remains of walls extending to the north, south, and west, which pre-sumably relate to a previous ecclesiastical structure on the site. e semicircular apse and the walls extending to the north and south have been leŸ essentially intact, but they remain exposed to the elements. e walls extending to the west, on the other hand, have been reused as foundations for the large retaining walls that now ank the building’s north and south façades. In the interior, the undocumented removal of the marble and opus sectile oor in the nave and narthex and its replacement with a con-crete oor may be considered even more devastating, since it destroyed not only a privileged burial in front of an arcosolium in the third bay of the south side aisle, but also ten to Ÿeen other burials in the nar-thex. e loss of the narthex tombs, which were rst mentioned by Savvas Ioannides in the late nineteenth century, is particularly regret- SeeÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”–f

14 orbriefdiscussiontheseremains.
orbriefdiscussiontheseremains.NotmentionedbyÖtükenandOusterhout,thewallsthatextendwestwardpresumablyformedthefoundationsthesideaislewallsthepreviousstructure.Asmentionedabove,theonlyrecordtheworkcontainedinletterbytherestorer-architectErolÇetin.Accordingthisdocument,thebodilyremainsfoundduringtherestorationwerereburiedinfrontthebuilding.SeeÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”–.Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,interior(photo:U.Peschlow) ž\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f table, since they might have contained evidence to date more securely the Byzantine church. is at least is suggested by the discovery of a lead seal found allegedly on the chest of the body buried in front of the arcosolium tomb. is seal can be identied by its inscription as having belonged to eodoros Dekapolites, a well-known legal gure in tenth-century Constantinople.  While Ousterhout has accepted the seal as supporting evidence for a ninth-century date of the present structure, the lack of any written or photographic documentation of the nd makes it impossible to verify the archaeological record and to substantiate any claims relating to the burial.† It is likewise regrettable that Özkan Erturul’s cleaning of the narthex in  seems to have remained equally undocumented. According to his summary account in the popular magazine Mozaikthe removal of earth in the narthex resulted in the temporary exposure not only of a well-preserved fresco of a gure in prayer but also of the very inscription rst published by Lampousiades and later interpreted by Mango as relating to St. Mary the Younger. Both fresco and inscrip-tion seem to have fallen o the wall shortly aŸer their discovery and are no longer extant.‡ Preliminary Results of the  and  Fieldwork SeasonsAs this summary account of the history and state of preservation of the former church of Hagia Sophia at Vize may indicate, a thorough documentation and analysis of the structure is

15 not only long overdue, as recently remar
not only long overdue, as recently remarked by Ousterhout and Ötüken, but has become a pressing issue aŸer both the heavy-handed restoration in the early žs and more recent interventions. Given the presumed—and as yet unvalidated—importance of the structure as a key monument in the history of Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture, the archaeological survey project that was begun in  and continued in „ set out to document the building in its present state and to recover any infor-mation that might help to elucidate the history of the church and its decoration in Byzantine and Ottoman times.SeeIoannidis,ŒŽ\f\t , &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; Bapheidis,\t•\b†,(bothn.above)];seealsoMango,“ByzantineChurch,”n..einscriptionreads:\b/\f\b­[—]/˜\b\n[—]/˜\b\n™ &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; / &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; [š]›[\b]/œ\t›(obverse) \f\t\n/[]› ž/[]\n Ž\fŸ\t[\n]]\f™ &#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ;&#x/Act;&#xualT;xt ; ¡\b /\f[‰](reverse)¢“eotokos,helpyourservanteodore,thepatrikiosandquaestorDekapolites.”eodoreDekapolites,see:withfurtherreferences.tombsinByzantinechurchesandtheirdecoration,seemostrecentlyU.Weißbrod,˜Hier liegt der Knecht Gottes™›: Gräber in byzantinischen Kirchen und ihr Dekor (ŠŠ. bis Š. Jahrhundert)MainzerVerö£entlichungenzurByzantinistik(Wiesbaden,).SeeÖtükenandOusterhout,otes,”;R.Ousterhout,Master Builders of Byzantium(Princeton,),,.whereaboutsthesealare unknown,butphotographhasbeenpublishedÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”pl.XXXIIIa.A.KahramankaptanandÖ.rturul,“Vize,”–&

16 #28;.Twofrescofragentsallegedlyfoundinth
#28;.TwofrescofragentsallegedlyfoundinthechurchduringrecentrestorationcampaignbytheVakar(seepostscript)maybeidentiedastheonesdescribedbyErturul.eyarenowkeptintheKrklareliMuseum.  ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ In addition to conducting a thorough photographic survey of the building, the primary goals of the  eldwork season were to establish a catalogue of surviving spolia on the site and to provide accurate plans and sections for the church. e latter was achieved by using the tape-measure system in combination with reector and reectorless tachymetry.ˆ e ground and gallery plans that resulted from this survey (g. ¡) update and correct those published earlier by edatathuscollectedwereverieddirectlyon-sitewiththeprogramCAPLAN(version.),developedbyCremerProgrammentwicklungs-GmbH,Munich(,furtherprocessedwithAutoCAD(release),andnallylaidoutusingAdobeIllustrator(version..).workwasdirectedbyRalphC.Rosenbauer,MA(UniversitätBern). Byzantine Phase IByzantine Phase II Ottoman Modern  m Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,groundandgalleryplan(drawings:R.Rosenbauer) ›\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f Dirimtekin and Eyice, both of whom surveyed the structure before the lower parts of the building’s eastern end were exposed during the Vakar restoration. In addition, longitudinal and transverse sections (gs. žœ) were provided to complete the archaeological record of the extant structure and to visualize the building’s elevation and overall proportions. Where possible, the plans and sections indicate apparent changes in the building’s structure and identify distinct phases of con-struction and restoration. e chronology of these phases should be considered preliminary and will need to be reassessed when the surve

17 y of the building has been completed. A
y of the building has been completed. A few general observations on the building, however, are worth pointing out already. Abrupt changes in the stone- and brickwork of the central dome (g. ) as well as the blocking of eight of originally sixteen windows on the north side, for instance, seem to indicate a partial collapse and rebuilding of the six-teen-sided structure in Byzantine or Ottoman times. While it remains uncertain if the assumed collapse of the dome prompted the reinforce-ment of the four columns or piers that originally carried the weight of the dome on the ground level of the naos, the damage to the church—Dirimtekin’sgroundplan,hardlymorethansketch,omitsnumberimportantdetails,forinstancethenorthandsouthentrancesintothenarthex,thebasetheminaret,botharcosoliatombsinthesouthsideaisle,andthesmallnicheinthesouthwallthediakonikon.Eyice’sgroundplanmoreaccurate,buthe,too,omits importantdetail:thearcosoliumintheesternmostbaythesouthaisle.Eyice’sgalleryplanalsoomitsnumberdetails:squareandroundednicheintheeasternchapelthenorthgalleryandtheirregularshapethesmallchapelthewest.Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,transversesectionswithviewseastandwest(drawings:R.Rosenbauer) › ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,longitudinalsectiontowardsouth(drawing:Rosenbauer)Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,domefromeast ›\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f presumably the result of an earthquake—seems to have been extensive. is at least is suggested by evidence for a complete rebuilding of the northeast-ern gallery chapel and the upper parts of the north-ern half of the central apse, which now lacks two of its originally seven windows. On the lower level, the central apse once featured three large windows, which were subsequently blocked, most likely by an increased accumulation of earth at the eastern end of the church. Small irregularities in the outer skin of the side apses

18 further suggest that these, too, once fe
further suggest that these, too, once featured windows on both the ground and gallery levels. Other changes to the building’s original fabric are clearly visible on the exterior of the south façade. At some point in the Byzantine period, an arcosolium tomb was added in the westernmost bay of the south side aisle. Unlike the arcosolium in the third bay of the south aisle, which forms an integral part of the wall and thus an integral part of the original building, the western arcosolium was clearly an aŸerthought that involved not only the partial opening of the south wall but also the addition of a reinforcement wall on the exterior (g. ). A still-puzzling feature is the blocked archway and an adjacent wall fragment that protrudes southward at the eastern end of the south façade (g. ). It may be assumed that the archway once connected the diakonikon with an adjacent room or chapel to the south, but this claim cannot be veried at present. In the interior, the removal of the Ottoman marble oor during the Vakar restoration exposed fragments of the original Byzantine oor in the sanctuary and the corners of the side chapels (g. ). Furthermore, a row of greenish marble blocks was uncovered, which once dened the limits of the sanctuary (g. „). Traces of dowel holes reinforcementpreviouslyexistingpiersorcolumnshasbeenassumedbyEyice,“Trakya,”;idem,“Monuments,”bothn.above);Mango,“ByzantineChurch,”n..ÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”suggestedlateByzantinedateforthesereinforcementsbasedonthepiers,whichhavedecorativetechniquethatusesincisedlineshighlightthemortarllsbetweenbricksandstones.Y.Ötüken,“Bizansduvartekniindetektonikveestetikçözümler,”Röleve ve Restorasyon Dergisi ),citedasbeinginpressbyÖtükenOusterhout,“Notes,”n.,wasnotaccessibleegallerychapelonthenorthnowlacks formerve-sidedapse.Aerpresumedcollapse,wasrebuiltwithnlyatwallateasternend.Mango,“ByzantineChurch,”assumesthattherebuild

19 ingthechapeltookplace“duringtheTurk
ingthechapeltookplace“duringtheTurkishperiod.”Brickarchesontopandcontinuousrowashlarblocksonthebottomclearly denethesizetheoriginalwindows.eusesmaller,moreirregularlyplacedstonesintheupperllseemsindicatethatthewindowswereclosedovertimeratherthanallatonce.enarrowwindowthatonceopenedintheeasternapsethesouthgallerychapelonlyfaintlyvisibleontheexterior,butlargelypreservedontheinterior.hasalreadybeenobservedbyÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”.Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,southfaçade,detailreinforcementwallbehindwestarcosolium › ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,southfaçade,wallprotrudingsouthwithblockedarchwayFig.Vize,HagiaSophia,diakonikon,fragmentoriginalmarbleoorFig.Vize,HagiaSophia,sanctuarywithoriginaloortilesandtemplonstylobate(drawing:R.Casagrande) ›„\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f and markings on the marble blocks suggest that they once must have formed the stylobate of a templon screen. A central doorway about one meter wide can be reconstructed on the basis of dowel holes and traces of wear, which leŸ the marble considerably more polished in the center than in other areas. Fragments of the Byzantine opus sectile oor (g. ), previously described by Dirimtekin, Mango, and Eyice as having been reused in the Ottoman marble oor, were recovered during the  eld-work campaign together with other Byzantine spolia in the southwest corner of the narthex.  Among the more prominent pieces found in the narthex were parts of an ambo (gs. ›œ¡), frag-ments of a lintel with a central cross (g. ž) that resembles closely those that can still be found in situ, and various fragments of a marble screen decorated with crosses in double relief (g. ).† A comprehensive catalogue of the site

20 ’s spolia, which relate to the deco
’s spolia, which relate to the decoration of both the extant Byzantine church and its predecessor, is currently underway and will be published upon completion.‡ Work on the church continued during the second season of eld-work in „ with a thorough cleaning of the brush and dirt that had accumulated for twenty-ve years in the corridors anking the north, south, and east façades (g. ). e cleaning, which was not only a prerequisite for a photogrammetric evaluation of the exterior façades of the building but was also expected to yield new information about the structure partially excavated during the Vakar restoration, led to the discovery of the remains of two walls that run parallel to the north and south aisles of the extant building (gs. œ).ˆ In the early žs, these walls were used as foundations for the large retaining walls that now ank the church on both sides. As the orientation of the walls closely corresponds with that of the apse found to the east of the present structure, it might be presumed that they formed part of a Forearlierreferencestheopusectileoorfragments,seeDirimtekin,“ChurchSt.Sophia,”(n.above);yice,“Trakya,”res.;Mango,“ByzantineChurch,”.AertheVakarrestoration,thefragmentswereseenandsummarilydescribedbyKahramankaptanandErturul,“Vize,”(n.above).ÖtükenandOusterhout,“Notes,”,mentionthefragmentamboalongwithIonicimpostcapitalaslyingthewest thebuildingwithnumerousotherspolia.eywereprobablyremovedfromthisareaandtakenintothenarthexforsafekeepingaerthesurveyconductedbyÖzkanErturulin.Ithopedthatthecompletecataloguearchitecturalspoliafoundonthesitewellasinlocalmuseumswillnotonlyprovideinventoryliturgicalfurnishingsassociatedwiththepresentandpreviouschurches,butalsohelpnarrowdown¢throughanalysisthespoliareusedthefabricthepresentbuilding¢heapproximatedatesconstructionforthetwochurches.Atwesternendthesouthwall risesheightabout.andcons

21 iststwolayersashlarblockstoppedbybandthr
iststwolayersashlarblockstoppedbybandthreefourbrickswithwidemortarbeds.enorthwallconsistslargerashlarblocksandincorporatessectionsworkedbedrock.Fig.FragmentByzantineopussectileooropposite pageigs.–Fragmentsamborawing:K.NoreenandR.Casagrande)Fig.FragmentslintelFig.FragmentsmarblescreenFig.Vize,HagiaSophia,southcorridoraercleaninginFigs.–Vize,HagiaSophia,southandnorthcorridors,detailwallbelongingpreviousstructure › ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „   cm   ››\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f basilican structure that preceded the present church. e cleaning of the corridors and the main apse of this building allowed for the rst time the drawing of an accurate plan of the remains of this structure (g. ), previously recorded in a sketchy drawing by Yldz Ötüken and Robert Ousterhout. e primary goal of the „ eldwork campaign, however, was to conduct a thorough photogrammetric evaluation of the four façades of the building. Using a combination of traditional and inno-vative architectural survey techniques, i.e., reector and reectorless tachymetry in combination with digital photography, it was possible to render undistorted planimetric views of the building’s main façades (g. „). Instrumental in our eort to survey the large—and partly inaccessible—structure in a timely manner was the use of a reectorless theodolite in combination with a semi-professional digital camera and the soŸware PhotoPlan. e computer-generated views thus created of the four façades were printed out, checked against the fabric of the building and hand drawn stone by stone. In a nal step, the stone-by-stone drawings served to determine an

22 d record the various phases of construct
d record the various phases of construction, reconstruction, and restoration of the building.In addition, a topographical survey has been started to render the acropolis of Vize with its Byzantine city walls and surviving ecclesiasti-cal structures in a single plan as well as in a three-dimensional digital model. e rst step in this project was an exploration of the plateau  “Notes,”,g..workwasconductedunderthesupervisionRalphC.Rosenbauer,MA,andAugusteWaldmann,MA.eodolite:LeicaTCRXR.Camera:Nikon.esowareAutoCADplug-indevelopedbyKubit GmbH,Dresden(,MA,andMeredithFluke(bothColumbiaUniversity).VeryablesupportwasprovidedbyKristianL.Hansen(ColumbiaUniversity).second,muchsmallerchurchorchapelhasbeendiscoveredsouththechurchHagiaSophiaduringroadwork.WhilethisstructurehasbeenpartlyexcaatedandapsemosaictransportedhemuseuminTekirda,hasremainedunpublished.ig.Vize,HagiaSophia,groundlanwithremainspreviousstructure(drawing:R.Casagrande) ›¡ ­\n€  \t\r‚ (ƒ\r): ­­\n­   „ on which the church of Hagia Sophia and its predecessor were built (g. ). An extension of the landscape model is planned for one of the next eldwork seasons as it will not only help to determine the spatial relationship between the church of Hagia Sophia and a smaller church or chapel to its south, discovered during roadwork, but also facilitate a reconstruction of their exact location on the acropolis in relation to the surviving system of walls and fortications of the Byzantine city. Unfortunately, eldwork in Vize in  was hampered by the Edirne Vakar Bölge Müdürlüü, which did not initially grant the neces-sary permission for us to continue our survey and restoration project. Instead, the Edirne Vakar Bölge Müdürlüü hired a private company to execute those restoration measures we

23 had advocated in our previ-ous two surve
had advocated in our previ-ous two survey applications with the Department of Antiquities in Ankara. Despite an oer to cooperate with the authorities in Edirne and to oversee the restoration work that was to be executed, the nec-essary work permits were not granted until September , which resulted in the cancellation of the  eldwork season. An application to continue eldwork in Vize in › has been sub-mitted with the Department of Antiquities in Ankara. Unfortunately, Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,westçade(drawing:R.RosenbauerandCasagrande)workwasconductedbyStephanieChasaignandJelenaDeli¤(boththeUniversitätZürich). ›ž\r \f \n \t\b  \n\f . \f the Edirne Vakar Bölge Müdürlüü has meanwhile started its own restoration project on the building. In May ›, a team of workmen was seen conducting restoration work on the building’s west façade without supervision by an archaeologist or architect.  Given the dev-astating results of the rst Vakar restoration campaign in the early žs, it can only be hoped that the current project will not once again result in the destruction of valuable archaeological evidence. —Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich—e Cleveland Museum of ArtWe thank Slobodan ¤ur¥i¦ (Princeton University), Robert G. Ousterhout (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Urs Peschlow (Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz), Cecil Striker (University of Pennsylvania), and Alice-Mary Talbot (Dumbarton Oaks) for their support and advice on this project. For their help and assistance in Turkey, we would like to acknowledge Selçuk Ylmaz (Belediye Bakan Vekili), Mustafa H. Sayar (£stanbul Üniversitesi), Tuncay Sonel (Vize Kaimakam), and Nalan Güven (Krklareli Müzesi).eworkwasobservedbyDr.AlessandraRicciandgroupdoctoralandpostdoctoralfellowsfromtheCenterforAnatolianCivilizationsatKoçUniversity. Fig.Vize,HagiaSophia,siteplan(drawing:R.