xi. uluslararasi antik mozaik sempozyumu 11th international

XI. ULUSLARARASI ANTIK MOZAIK SEMPOZYUMU
16 – 20 EKIM 2009 BURSA, TÜRKIYE
Türkiye Mozaikleri ve Antik Dönemden Ortaçağ Dünyasına
Diğer Mozaiklerle Paralel Gelişimi:
Mozaiklerin Başlangıçından 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
Uludağ Üniversitesi Yayınları / Uludağ University Press
Uludağ Üniversitesi Mozaik Araştırmaları Merkezi Serisi
Uludağ University Mosaic Research Center Series
XI. ULUSLARARASI ANTIK MOZAIK SEMPOZYUMU
16 – 20 EKIM 2009 BURSA, TÜRKIYE
Türkiye Mozaikleri ve Antik Dönemden Ortaçağ Dünyasına
Diğer Mozaiklerle Paralel Gelişimi:
Mozaiklerin Başlangıçından 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
Yayımlanan yazıların içeriğinden yazarları sorumludur.
© Copyright 2011, Uludağ Üniversitesi
ISBN
Baskı / Printed by
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 Başlangıçından 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 Merkezi / Research Center of Mosaic
İstanbul 2011
Bildiriler soyadı sırasına göre sıralanmıştır. Bu kitapta yayınlanan bildirilerdeki bilimsel içerik ve dil sorumluluğu
yazarlarına aittir. Kaynak gösterilerek alıntı yapılabilir.
The papers are arranged in an ordered of surname. The content and language responsibility are belong to the authors.
If you show the source, you can be can be quoted. The quoted can be showed with source.
KURULLAR / COMMITTEE
Organizasyon Komitesi / Organizing Committee
Onursal Başkan / Honorary President
Prof. Dr. Mete Cengiz
Rector of Uludag University / Uludağ Üniversitesi Rektörü
Onur Kurulu / Honorary Committee
Ertuğrul Günay
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanı / Minister of Culture and Tourism
Şahabettin Harput
Bursa Valisi / Governor of Bursa
Recep Altepe
Bursa Büyük Şehir Belediye Başkanı / Mayor of metropolitan municipality of Bursa
Sempozyum Başkanı / Symposium President
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şahin
Başkan Yardımcısı / Vice President
Dr. Derya Şahin
Sempozyum Sekreterleri / Symposium Secretaries
Ali Altın - Başak İlgin
Lokal Organizasyon Komitesi / Local Organizing Committee
Prof. Dr. Zeren Tanındı
Prof. Dr. Selçuk Kırlı
Prof. Dr. İsmail Naci Cangül
Ass. Prof. Hakan Mert
Ass. Prof. Gürcan Polat
Birol CAN*
Technical, Stylistic, Iconographic Evaluation and
Dating of Mosaics of Altıntepe Church
Abstract
Altıntepe church is sized 19,60 x 11,30 m, has 2 x 3 columns situated in the east-west direction has 3 naves and is
planned in basilica form. Apses platform that is 60 cm high from the church ground is placed in the interior part
of the east wall. The entrance of the church is probably on north wall. The interior floor of the church which is approximately 220 m2 area is covered with mosaics except the pastaphorion chamber in which south-east corner. In
the rectangular panels, besides various geometrical and plantal components, many animal depictions reflecting
the style of the period are confronted too. Additionally, the semi-circular formed mosaic of the apse that is highly
destroyed too is also decorated with geometrical elements. Apart from the mosaic flooring covering the surface,
mosaic panels with religious elements and wall-paintings are placed in the walls of the structure, as far as understood from the pieces breaking off the ceiling, arches and walls. It is possible to date the Altıntepe church mosaics
to mid-6th century A.D. (period of emperor I. Justinianus).
Keywords: Mosaic, Altıntepe, Basilica, Early Byzantine, I. Justinianus, Paradeisos
Altıntepe is situated in East Anatolia, just in
north-east of Erzincan city center. Besides the
remnants of the castle, in which the clues of first
settlements reaches to the Bronze Age, belongs
to Urartian period1, it is also understood from
the ruins of the construct that are unearthed that
the castle remains its importance in later periods
(Karaosmanoğlu 2007: 69-83). The church complex having mosaic pavements that forms our
study’s subject is one those remnants2.
Architecture
The church that is begun to be excavated in 2003
is built on a natural terrace that is approximately
25 m high from the plain level in east hillside of
Altıntepe. The rectangular structure that is sized
19,60 x 11,30 m and situated in the east-west
direction has 3 naves and is planned in basilica
form (Fig. 1). 2 x 3 ordered column row, in which
only 3 pedestals remain, separates the naves. The
thicknesses of the walls are approximately 1 m in
* Atatürk University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Archaeology, Erzurum - Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]
1 One of the important remnants belonging to Urartu period on the Hill is pebble stone paved atrium of the temple-palace
complex. There is not any motive or a depiction on the pavement formed through closely spaced ranging colorful natural
stones. This is one of the important representatives of the Anatolian Iron Age pebble mosaics with floor pavement of the early
Phrygian period in Gordion: Özgüç 1966, 8, Panel XVI.1-2; Karaosmanoğlu 2009, 121, fig. 5.
2 I thank to the head of Altıntepe excavations Prof. Mehmet Karaosmanoğlu permitting me to study and publish this issue.
2
Birol Can
Fig. 1 Plan of Altıntepe Church
each direction. A 3,60 x 7,10 m sized apses platform that is 60 cm high from the church ground
is placed in the interior part of the east wall. In
the south of the apses platform, and in the southeast corner of the church there is a pastaphorion
chamber having 2,40 x 2,60 m dimensions. In the
north of the apses, a chamber does not exist and
this part is covered with a mosaic pavement as a
continuance of the north side nave.
Mosaics
a. Floor mosaics
The interior floor of the church which is approximately 220 m2 area is covered with mosaics except the south-east chamber. However, only
half of these mosaic pavements remained today
(Fig. 2).
As its structural technique, the perpendicular
cross section that is known generally in floor mosaics is formed also here too: in the bottom part, a
Fig. 2 Mosaic pavements, general view
statumen layer that is formed by flat stones takes
place with the aim of forming a straight ground.
Just above this part, the rudus layer that is formed
by smaller rubbles which are hold with coarse
mortar is placed. Upon the rudus layer the nucleus layer which is plastered with thinner mortar is placed for supporting the tesselatum layer.
Tesserae forming the pavement are cut from volcanic rocks (trachitis, trachi-andesite) and sedimentary rocks (Quartz, marl)3. The master colors
of the tesserae are black, grey, red, white, yellow,
3 I thank to Dr. İbrahim Kopar for his assistance in defining and analysing the tesserae.
Erzincan Altıntepe Church Mosaics
3
Fig. 3 Central panel
brown, blue and cream. 65 items of these tesserae
which are whittled in a cubic form and show differences around 1 cm2 in size are observed in a 10
cm2 area.
Generally, floor mosaics comprise of rectangular panels and bands within these panels. Besides
various geometrical and plantal components that
are committed together, many animal depictions
reflecting the style of the period are confronted
too. Geometrical motives exists in various sized
rectangular panels that are placed in the two
lateral naves situated in east-west direction, between the column bases, in the central nave and
in front of the apses. In the east and west of the
central nave, two large panels are situated. The
west panel is composed of a large central panel
in which the paradeisos scene is performed and
around the central panel eight little panels in each
of which an animal is depicted. In the east of the
central nave, just in front of the apses there is another large panel (presbyterium). Outer frame of
this highly destroyed panel that is composed of
rectangles placing one within the other is geometrically arranged, and the inner frame is designed plantally and with figures. Additionally,
the semi-circular formed mosaic of the apse that
is highly destroyed too is also decorated with geometrical elements.
a.1. Mosaics with figures
In the center of the large panel in the central
nave, a panel with figures that is found largely undamaged and sized approximately 2,34 x
5,86 meters is placed (Fig. 3). In this panel of which
the background is formed with white tesserae, the
visibility of the figures differentially is intended.
There is a composition formed with lion, taurus
and tiger figures orderly from left to right along
the north edge; and deer, bear, and chamois figures
orderly from left to right in south direction. These
imaged in profile animals are depicted as moving
and running or as attacking to the frontal animal.
The outline borders of the figures are drawn with
one or double row of tessera, and with different
colored tessera lines they are tried to be shaded.
The arrangement of the color tones which are
lightening from edges to the center emphasize on
the depth with the light-shadow effect in the bodies of polychrome figures. The legs that are behind
the body are colored darkly for the same purpose.
4
Birol Can
In the central panel besides the figures mentioned above which are forming the main composition, smaller bird figures are placed also. 13
items of these birds can be counted in the protected parts of the panel. Eight of these birds that
are placed irregularly in the empty parts of the
panel are directed to the left and five of them are
turned to the right. The similar general sights and
anatomies of these figures that probably belongs
to the same bird species differs slightly in details
such as color and dimension.
In the panel, besides the figures, trees, little plants and flowers are also used as inlay motives for the purpose of emphasizing the natural
ambiance and filling the empty parts over the
white ground. There are totally four tree motives.
Among these, only the tree on the south east corner in front of the chamois differs from others
with circular fruits on it. The four seen fruits are
enclosed with one row of red tesserae, inside of
these fruits are filled with white tesserae and their
stalk parts are indicated with a few red tesserae.
Mostly, flower motives are placed in the central panel. Both large and small flowers, that are
strewed irregularly without leaving any empty
space on the white ground display an inattentive labour. On the motives that are composed of
a short stalk, little leaves in twos near the stalk
and a quarry or hearth shaped flower at the top
of the stalk, the outline border is defined by one
row of black/gray tessera and the inward is filled
with fainty red. However, they are not engraved
in same anatomy, some of them are left simpler
and unelaborated.
“Animal campaign” or “association of wild animals” that is depicted on the central panel is a
ubiquitous subject. The subject that is mentioned
as “Paradeisos” scene and related with Orpheus
depictions (Tülek 2000: 12) also finds its place
in the Christian belief (The Peaceful Kingdom)
(Gough 1974: 412 et seq; Campbell 1995: 125 et
seq; Campbell 1998: 48-49) too. Wide ranges of
animals are depicted together in a natural context. The examples of this subject that is came up
in different characterized structures rather than
churches are mostly found in south-east Cilicia
and in centers around the North Syria (Levi 1947:
vol. I, 504, fig. 184; Tomasevic 1971: 395 et seq,
pl. CLXXXIX.2, CXCI.2; Balty 1977: 128, 130,
146, fig. 59, 60, 68; Brenk 1977: abb. 252; Donceel-Voute 1988: 138 et seq, 178 et seq, 193 et seq,
290 et seq, fig. 108-109, 150, 156, 159, 170-174,
272-278; Balty 1995: pl. XXV.1, XXXIII.2, XLII.1;
Campbell 1998: 44-50, pl. 207; Wisskirchen
2005/2006: 156 et seq, abb. 3; Salman 2007a: 5053, fig. 8-14; Salman 2007b: 166-172.).
The central panel is surrounded by a wide meander band4. Eight little panels are placed between
the arms of meander. Just like the central panel,
figure and motive elaborations in the little panels having white backgrounds are same with the
large panel. In the preserved six panels, a grazing
fawn, a spotted leopard crouched on hind legs,
a grazing deer, goose/duck and a sitting taurus
with a medallion figures are depicted. On one of
the partly damaged panels the animal can not be
understood, furthermore, the panel placed in the
south-east corner is damaged totally. Similarly
with the large panel, whole of the animals on the
little panels are depicted in profile. In these little panels, just like in the large panel, flowers and
plants are used in the empty places, and quarry or
hearth shaped flowers are strewed to emphasize
the natural ambiance.
Besides the central and meander panels, figures are seen on the center of the other highly
damaged large panel in front of the apses (presbyterium) (Fig. 4). On the presbyterium panel,
a plantal concentrated composition is depicted.
The bold body from which the symmetrically
placed boughs grow is largely damaged5. Grape
leaves and bunches of grapes are seen on the
grape boughs that grow from this bold root and
disperse on the white ground. Gray, dark brown,
fainty red, black and white tesserae are used in
the boughs, leaves and bunch.
4 The meander band surrounding the central panel and
having smaller panels in Altıntepe is an arrangement that its
similars can be seen on Near East mosaics especially in Cilicia and Syria: Chehab 1963, 335-336, fig. 7; Balty 1977, fig.
66; Campbell 1988, 7, pl. 8; Donceel-Voute 1988, fig. 93-94,
187.
5 Besides the boughs seen here, examples in which the
grape roots rise from the kantharos are found: Balty 1977,
fig. 64; Balty 1995, pl. XXVII.1-2.
Erzincan Altıntepe Church Mosaics
5
Fig. 4 Presbyterium panel, front of the apse
Grape boughs and bunches are used as a popular plantal composition in antiquity. Its sacredness also continues in late antiquity and Christianity and it is used in depictions of these eras. The
grape motive on the Altıntepe presbyterium panel
is an indicator of this. There are bird figures that
are placed symmetrically among grape branches,
leaves and bunch. Among the birds of which only
three can be seen, the anatomies, colors and making of the ones on the right and left corners are
quite similar with the bird figures on the central
panel. However, the third bird is engraved differently. The forms of neck, wing, scut etc. and the
posture of this polychrome engraved figure shows
that the bird can be a tropical bird (parrot?).
a.2. Geometrical Panels
Numerous rectangular panels on which geometrical motives are depicted are placed on the inner
ground of the church (Fig. 2). Besides the designs
formed by consistent combinations of squares,
circles and spirals; three dimensional (3D) prismatic combinations are seen from place to place.
North and south naves are filled with only
one geometrical motive. Especially, the north
nave that is composed of repeating thirteen same
sized, similar geometrical panels is remarkable.
There is a circular rosette in the center of the each
motive. Bird figures surrounded with triangles,
spiral wave motives or contrary ordered tulips are
placed in most of these circular areas. It is tried
to be form a tree-dimensional prismatic image by
using both cubic figures and color combinations.
In the central nave, a wide meander band is rotated around the central large panel with figures
(Fig. 3). Swastikas typed6 meanders among which
little animal panels are placed are formed by two
different arms crossing each other place to place.
One of these arms is left as straight bands and the
other is filled with two strand guilloche motives.
This motive that is found in many places in Anatolia with multiple examples from each term is
possible to be seen especially in Antiocheia mosaics (Özügül 1996: fig. 3.5; Cimok 2000: 86-87,
119, 121, 123, 136-137, 140-143).
4,95 x 4,20 m sized presbyterium panel is also
surrounded by geometrical elements (Fig. 4). The
main motive of the panel is composed of thin reticular bands. In the circular and angular spaces between these black bordered bands, quarry,
plus, flower etc. shaped rosettes are placed.
Except these, there are also geometrical depictions formed by nested rectangles, squares, quarries and triangles in the presbyterium, in front of
the apses and between the column bases.
6 About meander types on the mosaics: Sezer 2007,
552, fig. 5c.
6
Birol Can
Fig. 5 Apse Mosaic
Fig. 6 Block with mosaic from the west wall
Besides the mosaic pavement covering the
ground of the church, the surface of the apses
platform is also covered with mosaic on which
geometrical designs are placed (Fig. 5). The geometrical elements of only partly preserved mosaic are composed as a semi-circular shape properly
to the architectural form of the apses.
dress made from bold and flowing texture lies to
the ground and folds there. It is understood from
the left foot that the figure wears a sandal. Similar sandal engravings are also found in different
examples (Brenk 1977: 190-191, fig. 169; Treadgold 1992: fig. 11, 16). The colorful part near the
figure on the Altıntepe wall mosaic is supposed
to be endpiece of a wing. In this situation, it can
be said that this is an angel figure. On the wing
that is contoured with one row of black tesserae,
eye shaped circular spots are placed. Similar details on the wing also can be seen in other angel
figures (Brenk 1977: 190-191, fig. 169; Kitzinger
1990: panel XIV; Cimok 2001: 105, fig. 54).
From the polychrome glass mosaics of Altıntepe
Church walls and arches, only some little pieces
that spread and fragmented could remain. A little
part of a frontal face of a saint or an angel is seen
on one of these pieces (Fig. 7). White tesserae are
used as the hue of the skin in the figure formed
with bright and vivid colors and black is preferred
in the linear strokes and hairs. The pupil of the
eye is emphasized with purple tesserae. The shape
just near the figure can not be understood due to
the extreme damage. It is possible to encounter to
the similars of this piece belonging to Altıntepe
Church wall mosaics in pieces of the same period
(Treadgold 1992: fig. 6-10).
There are inscriptions characters on some of
the wall mosaic pieces (Fig. 8). On one of these
pieces “Δ” (Delta) and on one other “A” (Alpha)
characters are seen. In the light of these little
pieces, it is not possible to express an opinion
b. Wall Mosaics
Inside the debris stratum that fills the structure,
numerous broken arch (fascia) bricks are found. It
is understood from the tesserae and mosaic pieces, that are belongs to this arch and walls, mostly
spread through spilling and only few of them are
found with little mortar on pieces, that the bottom surface of the walls and arches are covered
with mosaics. The mosaic tesserae covering the
walls are made from various colored glass and
also these glasses are produced as golden glazed.
The most substantial piece of wall mosaics
is on a large block existing in front of the west
wall (Fig. 6). One surface of the block that is 65
cm wide and that is removed to Erzincan Museum for consolidation process (Can 2007: 106)
is covered with various colored glass tesserae. It
is understood that the scene is a part of a large
mosaic wall panel and this scene is surrounded
by a band formed by tiles one on the top of the
other. The background of the scene is composed
of horizontally arranged light green and dark
blue tesselatum. Here, a figure’s foot part turning
to left slightly is depicted. The fingers of the left
foot and a part of the pendant dress are seen. The
7
Erzincan Altıntepe Church Mosaics
Fig. 7 Part of the wall mosaics
Fig. 8 Part of the wall mosaics
about the context and subject of the inscription,
however, considering the character of the construction and the figures on the wall mosaics it
can be said that these are religious thematic inscriptions.
Wall paintings are placed in the spaces between the mosaic panels (Fig. 9)7. Red squares
and black sand-glass motives are depicted rotatively and spaces are painted with cream on the
preserved walls, especially in the west edge of the
north wall, in the geometrical bordure embroidered on stucco.
Evaluation and Date
The animal depictions from Altıntepe mosaics that are identified individually above are coherent typologically. All animals of the central
panel on which the paradeisos scene is depicted
are embroidered as moving. A few examples on
the other panels are standing firm however they
are activated with details such as neck, scut etc..
Some of these animals that are embroidered in
proportional sizes strike with their exaggerated
or incompatible appearance in details of their
bodies. It is possible to see this best in tiger and
taurus in the central panel. The body of the tiger
and its front-legs are depicted unproportionately.
Likewise, the head-body ratio of the taurus is not
successful and the arm-shoulder-chest part is
7 The pieces of the wall paintings that preserved slightly
are brought to Erzincan Museum and restoration of a little
part that stayed in-situ is partly made in 2005: Can 2007,
106-107.
Fig. 9 Remnants of wall paintings on the north wall
depicted as exaggerated. Therefore, it can be said
that the anatomies of these figures are apart from
naturalness in details.
In terms of color using, a successful typesetting is performed besides linear and rigid lines
from place to place. In all figures, outlines are
determined by one row black tesserae through
which the emphasis of the figures on the white
background is provided. Likewise in the other
examples of the period, colors are used to bring
depth and volume to the figures and tesserae are
ranked dark-light. The transitions between color
lanes that are formed with the aim of creating
light-shadow effect and depth are linear and sharp
in Altıntepe figures likewise other early Byzantine
period examples where as they are smoother and
vaguely on Hellenistic and Roman mosaics. The
vividness that is tried to be provided with body
8
Birol Can
movements of figures is emphasized more with
alternative color lanes. Especially, the arrangement of color tones of the figures as leaving one
side lighter and forming the other darker is for
the purpose of sunshine effect on the animals for
instance this can be seen on the taurus in the central panel. From this view point, shadow emphasis
through depicting the hind legs at the back -other
side of the body- darker is for the same purpose
and it is seen on almost all animals in Altıntepe
mosaics. In addition to this, likewise the tiger and
tree depictions that are placed one on the top of
other, through placing figures and depictions one
on the top of other also a composition depth is
tried to be obtained.
Besides the light-shadow effect that is tried to
be emphasized with locations of the figures and
color tones, another method that is applied in
painting and mosaic arts is the effort to create the
perspective. Especially in mosaics of Hellenistic
and Roman period, existence of figures in close
up or long shot and the emphasis of the issue is
tried to be formed through embroidering them in
different sizes and in different directions. On the
other hand, this kind of application aiming creating perspective and area depth can not be mentioned in Altıntepe mosaics. Overall figures are
one sided, standing in profile, unrelated to each
other and only proportional in size.
It can be thought that there can be a parallelism between the animal species depicted on mosaics and fauna of the region. However, this is not
acceptable for Altıntepe mosaics. Because, the
Altıntepe mosaic is unique in the region and the
technical and stylistic assessments indicates that
it is a product of an itinerant workshop coming
from another region -most probably East Mediterranean/North Syria environs-. It is a common
view that the Saztepe morass that is recent to the
Altıntepe and in which various kinds of animals
-especially tern species- lives, can be the paradeisos of Altıntepe, however, it is not possible to
say that the figures on the mosaics -especially the
birds- are related to the morass.
In the church’s ground, all places outside the
panels on which animal depictions are placed are
filled with panels with geometric motives. Almost
all motives are formed with different types of
geometrical������������������������������������
shapes. Only few of them have similar views; however they also differ in details and
sizes. At the panels that are composed of squares,
quarries, and circles that are ranked one within
the other or sequentially intersected, likewise the
panels with figures, polychrome combinations
are applied. Most of the geometrical depictions
are seem like they are not limited with the panels on which they are placed. The continuity of
the motives on the edges is emphasized by leaving them undone and through that, the continuity/infinity effect is tried to be created. Panels are
framed by contrary-straight ranked black and
white triangles.
Through the stylistic and typological evaluation of animal depictions and geometrical motives on mosaics covering the Altıntepe Church,
it became possible to commentate about the date
of the mosaics and hence also the structure. Similar examples that are used for comparison are
decisive in dating. Especially, the similars of the
animal depictions are frequently met. For comparisons of ground and wall mosaics, examples
are chosen from each region and from each period without any regional restrictions. Nevertheless, it is observed that the closest matches
in terms of iconographically and technically are
in North Syria and Cilicia regions. Mosaics of
capital city Constantinople that is the foremost
center outside the East Mediterranean centers are
also took in consideration for comparisons however a close similarity could not be determined.
Also, it is known that the art style of the capital
is formed highly with the effects of East Mediterranean (Alexandria, Antiocheia, Syria and Palestine) especially in 6th century A.D. (Dalton 1925:
45). Subjects that are embroidered in Syria mosaics are made considerably in similar techniques
in terms of figures and plantal elements. Orontes
Apameia mosaics are the closest counterparts of
Altıntepe mosaics through especially with flowers
that are strewed over white background. In addition to this, most of these compared structures
are religious structures -especially basilica form
planned- and this proves the existence of relations and similarities in architectural extent too.
Almost all comparison examples with which close
similarity is determined are belongs to 5th and 6th
Erzincan Altıntepe Church Mosaics
centuries A.D. As it is well known, these centuries
forming the peak of art of early Byzantine period
are also a period of increasing of structuring statistically in terms of geographically in a wide extend. Moreover, it is inevitable that the region in
which this structuring is mostly occurred is environs of Middle East, the oldest settlement place of
Christian people. After these centuries although
a decrease in structuring is observed both in numeral and esthetical meaning.
In the light of technical and stylistic assessments
that are mentioned above and geographic and
political interpretations, it is possible to date the
9
Altıntepe Church Mosaics to mid-6th century A.D.
The spolia materials that are observed in structure
walls also indicate that pieces elements belonging
to a structure -maybe having same function- existing in earlier periods are used in the church.
Additionally, indications of a date between 9th and
12th centuries A.D. coming from the analyzes of
the bones of many Byzantine tombs that are found
within the decadent stratum, are denotes that the
possibility of the destruction of the structure in the
period of Arabian invasions beginning around 7th
century A.D. and the continuity of Byzantine existence in the hill still for a long time.
Bibliography
BALTY 1977
J. Balty, Mosaiques Antiques de Syria, Bruxelles.
CİMOK 2000
F. Cimok, A Corpus Antioch Mosaics, İstanbul.
BALTY 1995
J. Balty, Mosaiques Antiques du Proche-Orient.
Chronologie, Iconographie, Interpretation, Centre de
Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne Volume 140, Paris.
CİMOK 2001
F. Cimok, Mosaics in İstanbul, İstanbul.
BRENK 1977
B. Brenk, Spaetantike und Frühes Christentum,
Berlin.
CAMPBELL 1988
S. Campbell, The Mosaics of Antioch, Subsidia
Mediaevalia 15, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, Canada.
CAMPBELL 1995
S. Campbell, “The Peaceful Kingdom: A Liturgical
Interpretation” in: R. Ling (ed.), Fifth International
Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics II, JRA Suppl. 9.2,
Ann Arbor, 125-134.
CAMPBELL 1998
S. Campbell, The Mosaics of Anemurium, Subsidia
Mediaevalia 25, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, Canada.
CAN 2007
B. Can, “Altıntepe Mozaikli Kilise 2005 Yılı Onarım
ve Restorasyon Çalışmaları” in: M. Şahin (ed.), III.
Uluslararası Türkiye Mozaik Korpusu Sempozyumu
Bildirileri / The Proceeding of III. International
Symposium of the Mosaic of Turkey, Bursa, 101-108,
201-203.
CHEHAB 1963
M. Chehab, “Les Caracteristiques de la Mosaique au
Liban” CMGR I, 333-339.
DALTON 1925
O. M. Dalton, East Christian Art, A Survey of the
Monuments, Oxford.
DONCEEL-VOUTE 1988
P. Donceel-Voute, Les Pavements des Eglises
Byzantines de Syrie et du Liban Decor, Archeologie et
Liturgie, Louvain.
GOUGH 1974
M. Gough, ““The Peaceful Kingdom” An Early
Christian Mosaic Pavement in Cilicia Campestris”
Mansel’e Armağan – Melanges Mansel, Ankara, 411419, pl. 129-130.
KARAOSMANOĞLU 2007
M. Karaosmanoğlu, “Altıntepe Kalesi İkinci Dönem
Kazıları” in: B. Can & M. Işıklı (eds.), Doğudan
Yükselen Işık, Arkeoloji Yazıları. Atatürk Üniversitesi
50. Kuruluş Yıldönümü Arkeoloji Bölümü Armağanı,
İstanbul, 69-83.
KARAOSMANOĞLU 2009
M. Karaosmanoğlu, “Altıntepe Urartu Kalesi 2007 Yılı
Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları” 30. KST I, Ankara, 119138.
KITZINGER 1990
E. Kitzinger, The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral
in Palermo, Dumbarton Oaks Studies XXVII,
Washington.
10
Birol Can
LEVI 1947
D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Vols. I-II,
Princeton.
ÖZGÜÇ 1966
T. Özgüç, Altıntepe, Mimarlık Anıtları ve Duvar
Resimleri, Ankara.
ÖZÜGÜL 1996
A. Özügül, Antik Döşeme Mozaiklerinde Bordür
Motifi, İstanbul Technical University, Institute of
Science and Technology, Unpublished Postgraduate
Thesis, İstanbul.
SALMAN 2007a
B. Salman, “Şanlıurfa Müzesi’nden Üç Adet Mozaik
Döşeme” in M. Şahin (ed.), III. Uluslararası Türkiye
Mozaik Korpusu Sempozyumu Bildirileri/The Pro����
ceeding of III. International Symposium of the Mosaic
of Turkey, Bursa, 45-54, 176-179.
SALMAN 2007b
B. Salman, Orta Euphrates Mozaikleri Işığında Edessa
ve Samosata Mozaikleri, Dokuz Eylül University,
Institute of Social Science, Unpublished PhD. Thesis,
İzmir.
SEZER 2008
S. Sezer, “Başlangıcından Roma Dönemine Kadar
Mozaikler Üzerinde Görülen Meander Motifleri”
in: B. Can & M. Işıklı (eds.), Doğudan Yükselen Işık,
Arkeoloji Yazıları. Atatürk Üniversitesi 50. Kuruluş
Yıldönümü Arkeoloji Bölümü Armağanı, İstanbul,
551-566.
TOMASEVIC 1971
G. C. Tomasevic, “Mosaiques Paleochretiennes
Recemment Decouvertes a Heraclea Lynkestis”
CMGR II.
TREADGOLD 1992
I. A. Treadgold, “The Mosaic Workshop at San Vitale”
in A.M. Iannucci, C. Fiori and C. Muscolino (eds.),
Mosaici A S. Vitale, E Altri Restauri, Ministero Per
i Beni Culturali e Ambientali Soprintendenza Per i
Beni Ambientali e Architetonici di Ravenna, Ravenna,
31-41.
TÜLEK 2000
F. Tülek, Efsuncu Orpheus. Orpheus, The Magician,
İstanbul.
WISSKIRCHEN 2005/2006
R. Wisskirchen, “Der Adler auf dem Paradiesesberg”
JbAC 48/49, Aschendorff Verlag, Münster, 154-163.