An Earlybyzantine Capital from Apollonia – Sozopol: A New Attempt at Interpretation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Early Byzantine Capitals from the Episcopal Basilica of Philippopolis (in Bulgarian)
Проблеми на изкуството / Art Studies Quaterly, 2021
For the first time capitals of the Episcopal Basilica of Philippopolis, samples of the and impost the Ionic impost type – Byzantine inventions designed to carry arcades – are being published. Some of the specimens testify to a large-scale reconstruction of the roof structure of the basilica. The analysis of the shape and decoration places the capitals in the period between the second half of the 5th century and the second half of the 6th century. The limits become even narrow of the already proposed stages of laying floor mosaics, probably preceded by other construction activities, are being taken into consideration. Most likely, the capitals and the reconstruction of the church accordingly date from the reign of Justinian I. The parallels from Constantinople, Chersonesos, Greece, Odessos, etc. suggest that most on the capitals of the Episcopal Basilica of Philippopolis originated from the imperial quarries and workshops on the island of Proconnesоs. Jugging by some marked but not sufficiently shaped details of the relief decoration as well as by specific decorative schemes of pulvinae, at least the final phase had to be executed on site. The unfinished Ionic capital made of syenite, the material extracted close to Philippopolis during the Roman period is evidence of continuing, albeit limited, stonemasonry activity.
About the “two” Large Late Antique Ports of Sozopol
2024
The functioning of several ancient ports of Sozopol is evidenced by a partially preserved anonymous Byzantine periplus dated to the second half of the 6th century (Anonym. Peripl. Pont. Eux.78.15r21 – 15r 25/ed. Diller/). It mentions that the former Apollonia Pontica / Magna, which “is now called Sozopol, has two large harbours” (Ἀπολλωνίαν πόλιν τὴν νῦν Σωζόπολιν λεγομένην ἔχουσαν καὶ λιμένας μεγέλος δύο). The part of the periplus we are interested in, mentions the term λιμήν, which means a place where ships are drawn ashore. What were these two ports of Sozopol and where were they located? It is known that the first and oldest port of the city was located in the water area to the west of the island of St. St. Cyricus and Julita. The impossibility of building a port on the eastern side of the Skamni Peninsula is obvious, since the small bay between the old town and the Akrotiri Peninsula (Harmanite) is perfectly exposed to all the dangerous winds of the Black Sea. The next so-called Paradise Bay is also too small and exposed to the north and northeastern winds. Despite the recorded anchor finds in it, I believe that it does not correspond to the idea of an area where a large port would exist. To the south, the well-protected bay next to the Budzhaka Peninsula remains the only possibility to have been part of the large harbour zone of the ancient polis. The bay is bounded by Cape Hristos to the north and Cape Golyama Agalina to the south. During the two underwater campaigns conducted by the National History Museum in 2022, various items related to shipping, loading and unloading activities in the bay were discovered. An area with a large assemblage of fragments of Late Antique vessels and amphorae has been located. The most characteristic are Late Roman 1 type amphora body walls, Late Roman C red-glazed Asia Minor plates and local kitchen ware. The fragments date from the 5th – 6th centuries. The ceramic assemblage is one of the largest that has been recorded underwater along the southern Bulgarian Black Sea coast. It marks the places of loading and unloading activities in the quietest part of the bay next to Cape Hristos. If the hypothesis that a large Late Antiquity harbour functioned in the bay between the capes of Hristos and Agalina is true, it remains to discover the Late Antiquity structures that served it. In any case, to this day the described bay remains one of the places with abundant concentration of Late Antique underwater materials. This is hardly accidental. The research is at the very beginning and underwater excavations are forthcoming, on the results of which the answers to the questions posed in the article, depend.
The article is devoted to Ionic capitals of Late Antique Palestine which is a comparatively uninvestigated subject. The analysis is based on the classical morphology of the Ionic order. It should be noted that it is changing in a considerable way under the influence of the new tendencies of the epoch. Capitals are divided into three main groups (simple Ionic, Golan and diagonal), as accepted by Israeli scholars (Tsafrir, Hachlili). Each group, however, is represented by a whole row of examples from the coeval ecclesiastical architecture as well as from the previous Greco-Roman and Near-Eastern traditions. This method has enabled us to make important stylistic observations and to determine interreligious tendencies, rooted in the ancient layers of local culture. The spatial analysis of Ionic capitals is represented: their location in the interior or exterior was directed by certain aims and due to the original decisions of Late Antique masters, a new sacral image of a synagogue or church has appeared. Keywords: Synagogues, churches, Late Antiquity, Palestine, Pseudo-Ionic capitals, classification: simple, Golan, diagonal
Палеологовское зодчество Салоник в контексте проблематики поздневизантийской архитектуры: историографический обзор // Актуальные проблемы теории и истории искусств. 2020. №10. С. 772-786, 2020
The paper deals with history of research on the Palaeologan churches of Thessaloniki in the context of issues of Late Byzantine architecture from 19th century to modern studies. The main purpose of the article is to make a historiographic analysis of works devoted to the architecture of Thessaloniki of the late 13th–14th centuries. The main stages of this process are described, and the main problems, methods and results of the stages are analyzed. The key points of scientific discussion are given, and as a result the prospects for further research are identified.
Porozhanov, Kalin. The Odrysian Kingdom, the Poleis along its Coasts and Athens from the End of the 6th Century until 341 BC. 2nd revised and supplemented edition. Publishing Hous “Ral-Kolobar”, 371 p. Sofia, 2021. In Bulgarian, English Summary. ISBN 978-954-2948-67-4, 2021
All rulers from Oloros until Kersebleptes concluded treaties with Athens for dividing the spheres of influence and for ruling over the coasts of the Odrysian kingdom. If for Oloros, Teres I and Sparadokos there is indirect evidence of such pacts, for the remaining kings – Sitalkes, Seuthes I, Medokos/Amadokos I, Hebryzelmis, Kotys I and Kersebleptes – the written sources and the epigraphic monuments are categorical and unambiguous proof of that. The motivation for such a conduct of all kings – a conduct consisting in targeted pursuit of the vitally important policy of the Odrysian basileia for taxation and utilisation of the markets of Greek cities along its coast – can be seen in the numerous dynastic residences, as well as those adjacent to the Greek poleis, above all along the coasts of the Sea of Marmara, the Thracian Sea and the Black Sea, as well as those located in their not too distant rear on the mainland. In minimum concrete terms, the levying of taxes only from the Greek poleis and emporia looks as follows: Teres І – 7-11 talents; Sparadokos – 17 (27?) talents; Sitalkes – 77-78 talents; Kersebleptes – 230 or 330 talents, only from its emporia and from the Thracian Chersonesos. Added taxes from other subordinate poleis and ethnoses: Sitalkes – 1000 talents Seuthes І – 400 talents; Metokos/Amadokos І – 400 (?) talents; Hebryzelmis – 400 (?) talents; Kotys І – 400, 600, 900, and probably much more than 1,000 talents; These data reveal an intensive increase of the taxes coming into the treasury of the Odrysian basileia, especially under Sitalkes, Seuthes I and Kotys I. The sums of these receivables by the Odrysian kings are comparable to the sums collected by the Athenian arché.
NEW SIBERIAN JERUSALEM: ORIGINS, TRANSFER, TOPONYMICS IN THE XVII – BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY
Шаповалов, М. С. Новый Сибирский Иерусалим: истоки, трансфер, топонимика в XVII - начале XX вв / М. С. Шаповалов // Праксема. Проблемы визуальной семиотики. – 2020. – № 2(24). – С. 182-198. – DOI 10.23951/2312-7899-2020-2-182-198. – EDN KBXNML., 2020
The paper examines the phenomenon of the “Siberian Jerusalem” based on both materials of religious and secular texts of Siberian authors of the XIX –early XX centuries and documents of the regional archives. Special attention is paid to the analysis of Jerusalem and Palestinian toponymy in Siberia. The author aims to analyze the genesis of the phenomenon of Siberian Jerusalem: its semantics, the relation between the concepts of Siberian and New Jerusalem if such a relation exists. In terms of methodology, the article relies on devel opments in the field of hierotopy (A. M. Lidov) and cultural-semiotic transfer (S. S. Avanesov). The author comes to the conclusion that Jerusalem during the XVII–XXI centuries remained one of the space-forming sacred symbols of Siberia. At various times, in the social-religious and academic discourse, Tobolsk, Yeniseisk, Tomsk, Kainsk, Novokuznetsk were attributed to Siberian Jerusalem. Siberian pilgrimage and religious texts of the XIX – early XX centuries point to the fact of separation of the concepts of the Old and New Jerusalem in the consciousness of the Siberians. Siberian Jerusalem can be regarded as the image of the New Jerusalem, a continuation of the iconization of Moscow Russia. Until 1917, residents of the territory beyond the Urals recognized Tobolsk as Siberian New Jerusalem. The status of Tobolsk was reinforced by the cultural-semiotic transfer of the Jerusalem topos to Siberia in the form of an idea (Tobolsk as the center of the Universe), an image (the Tobolsk Kremlin complex) and liturgy (“the procession on the donkey”). The construction of Siberian Jerusalem was accompanied by an active transfer of the symbols of Jerusalem to Siberia, which was reflected in the toponymy of the region. Reconstruction of the origin of names reveals several sources of the creation of Palestinian toponymy in Siberia such as church construction, gold mining and the Jewish presence.