Рецензия на: Peschlow U. Ankara. Die bauarchäologischen Hinterlassenschaften aus römischer und byzantinischer Zeit. Mit einem Beitrag von W. Brandes. Bd. 1–2. Wien: Phoibos Verlag, 2015. 306 S., 586 Abb.
The paper deals with the comparison of building techniques on the churches of the Byzantine emperors and the Kiev Prince in the 1040s and the reconstruction of the chronology of the building crews working for them. Before 1042–1043, on the order of dioiketes John Organotrophos, the Lycian masters rebuilt St. Nicholas in Myra, inaugurated later, under Constantine IX Monomachos. The latter attached these builders to the Constantinopolitan masters for the reconstruction of the Anastasis church in Jerusalem, executed between 1042–1043 and 1047. Constantine sent a similar group of masters no later than 1044 to the island of Chios, where they joined “Helladic” builders working here previously for execution of the katholikon of Nea Mone, finished before 1049; the Anatolian masters could come to Jerusalem and to the Chios independently, or from one site to another. Finally, Constantinopolitan and “Helladic” masters from this crew were given by the same Emperor to Yaroslav of Kiev, probably after the conclusion of the Byzantine-Russian peace in 1046. The chronology of these crews can be reconstructed approximately as follows: 1041–1043 — Myra, 1043–1046 — Jerusalem, 1044–1048 — Nea Mone, from 1047 — Chernigov.
The question of the origin of the triconch of “Athonite type” — an inscribed cross on 4 free-standing supports with additional apses from the south and north — still causes a heated debate in the scholarship.
The purpose of this article is to draw attention to monuments of this type outside the Balkans. It is very likely that the Triconch hall and the church of the Archangel Michael, built for the Emperor Theophilos by Ioannes Grammatikos and the architect Patrikios, had probably such a plan, possibly following an Arabic model, which, in turn, goes back to the Late Antique examples. The early churches of this type in Asia Minor (Islamköy and Sarıca Kilise), dating to the early 10th century, show its common and “prestigious” character, which led to its spread not only to the Balkans, but also to Russia.
The publication aims to justify the applicability of the term ‘Kuppelhalle’ [single-nave domed church] to Byzantine architecture and reconstruct the development of the Kuppelhalle in the Byzantine world. Single-nave domed churches were present in several types. The most common variant had a rectangular naos divided by dome supports into a number of subsequent bays with a dome over the central bay. This type originated in the late fourth – early fifth century and is widespread in Spain, Apulia, Hellas, Greek islands, Minor Asia, Abkhazia, Armenia and Eastern Georgia. Kuppelhalle varied in dome carrying structures (with or without pilasters), bay sizes and dome shapes (regular or narrow), and may have had blind arches or additional compartments. ‘Genuine’ Kuppelhalle must not be confused with Phrygian-Lydian and South Italian single-nave churches with two domes. The second type combines a narrow narthex opening into a naos in the form of ‘compactly inscribed (atrophied Greek) cross’; this type developed independently in Pontus and Western Georgia in the ninth century, in Campania in the ninth – tenth centuries (?) and in Raška (Serbia) in the second half of the twelfth century. In other types of Kuppelhalle, increased pilaster protrusion resulted in shorter lateral ‘cross arms’ (on the exterior as well as the interior) and the growing convergence of Kuppelhalle with the ‘compactly inscribed cross’ type; the latter gave rise to a combination of the Kuppelhalle and the inscribed cross church which subsequently underwent serious transformations in the Post-Arabic Caucasus.