The Church of the Holy Apostles (The Athenian Agora 20)

THE

ATHENIAN AGORA RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS CONDUCTED

BY

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

VOLUME

THE THE

XX

CHURCH HOLY

OF

APOSTLES BY

ALISON

FRANTZ

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS PRINCETON,

NEW JERSEY

1971

,

A,M

'_';

.,..'

.

"

,'-

' "

' "

" ..'

-

The Holy Apostles.

The Holy Apostles.

PUBLISHED

WITH THE AID OF A GRANT

ALL RIGHTS

PRINTED

IN GERMANY

FROM MR. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER,

RESERVED

at J. J. AUGUSTIN,

GLUCKSTADT

JR.

FOR

ANASTASIOS K. ORLANDOS

PREFACE The investigationandrestorationof the Churchof the HolyApostleswereundertakenby theAmerican Schoolof ClassicalStudieson the invitationof theDepartmentof Restorationin theArchaeological Serviceof the GreekGovernment,underthe Directorshipof AnastasiosK. Orlandos.Warmestthanks are here expressedon behalfof the School to ProfessorOrlandosand his associate,EustathiosStikas, for invaluableassistancethroughall phasesof the undertaking. Theprojectwasmadepossibleby generousgrantsfromthe SamuelH. KressFoundationof New York whichmet all the expensesof the preliminarywork, the restoration,and the preparationof the final publication.In expressingour gratitudeto the Foundationit is a pleasureto recallthe personalinterest shownby the late RushKresswho, withMrs.Kress,visitedAthenstwicewhilethe workwasin progress. We are also indebtedto Miss Mary Davis, Vice Presidentof the KressFoundation,for continuedinterestand help, and to Mrs.MurrayDanforth,Mrs.HenrySharpe,and Mrs.C. AlexanderRobinson,all of Providence,Rhode Island,for theirassistancein the landscapingof the area. Many scholarsvisitedthe churchduringthe courseof the work and gave the benefitof theirexpert knowledge.I profitedespeciallyfrom discussionon the spot with GeorgeH. Forsyth,RichardKrautheimer,A. H. S. Megaw,RichardStillwell,and the late PaulA. Underwood. A numberof colleaguesin the Agorahavehelpedin the publicationof the church.NicholasRestakis circumstances. Poly Demproducedthe prints,sometimesfrom negativesmade underdisadvantageous oulini smoothedthe way in endlessmattersof long-distancecollaborationin the final stages.I am indebtedto MargaretCrosbyfor her patiencein allowingan intruderto encroachon her own areaof excavation,and for crowningher kindnessby makingpossiblethe color platefor the frontispiece. The restoreddrawingsof the church(Pls.29-37, 40) arethe ornamentof this book. Theyarethe work of WilliamB. Dinsmoor,Jr., to whomI expressmy gratitudeand admirationfor his patienceand skill. Specialthanksandappreciationgo to HomerThompson,classicistpar excellence,on whoseinitiativethe studyand restorationof this mediaevalmonumentwereundertakenand completed,and who couldconsiderthe vagariesof Byzantinebuilderswiththe same care that he bestowson the precisionof the architects of the 5th century B.C.

To recordadequatelymy debt to JohnTravloswouldrequirean acknowledgement on everypage. He has generouslygiven his counsel and sharedhis knowledge,and his mastery of both the practical and the theoreticalaspects of Byzantinearchitecturehas facilitatedthe excavation,accomplishedthe restoration,and enrichedthe publication. To ProfessorAnastasiosOrlandosI offerthis opusculum in token of affectionategratitudefor many kindnessesovera quarterof a century,and in recognitionof his incomparablecontributionto the study of Byzantinearchitecturein Greece. ALISON FRANTZ

Princeton,N.J. June20, 1971

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES vii

PREFACE.................................................................................... ... LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

....

...

....

...

..

..

...................................................

FIGURES ..................................................................................

X

.....

PLATES ..............................................................................

xiii

..........................................................................i... ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION....................

1

........

......................................

........

REMAINS................................................................ THEEARLIER

3 4

THE FIRSTPERIOD ...........................................................................

THEPLAN.............

.

...................................................

.4...........

4

.

5 7 7 9 10

. . . . THE FOUNDATIONS ..................................5........................... THE MASONRY............................................................................. BRICKWORK THE ORNAMENTAL ............................................................ THE COLUMNS............................................................................. .................................. THE DOMEAND VAULTS............................... THE ROOF ......................................................................

THEWINDOWS.............................................................................................. ...... .................................. THED OORS. ...................................... THEPAVING........................................................ ... ................... ....................... THEWALLDECORATION THE ARCOSOLIUM .. ................ THE ICONOSTASIS

THEFONT ....................... TYPE .................. ARCHITECTURAL DATE .......................

THETOMBS.....27.........

.....

10 12 12

... .......13

13 14

....................................... ..........................................

...

......................................... ....

....

....

..........................................

..................

.........................................

MATERIALFROMTHECHURCH..3.......0................. HUMANSKELETAL

THELATERPERIODS .......................................................................... II ............................................................................ PERIOD PERIOD III................................................................................. PERIOD IV .........................................................................

X

17 18

.24

..

....

27

...........

30

.

.. . .

32 32 35 38

CONSERVATION ANDRESTORATION ..............................................................

40

INDEX ....................................

43

PLATES

LIST

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Masonryon East Side of East Apse (J. Travlos). KufesqueDesignsin Masonry(A. H. S. Megaw,preparedby H. Besi). WindowDetails. A. East Apse. B. Dome, SoutheastFace (W. B. Dinsmoor,Jr.). Windows. a. EastApse. b. NorthApse. c. Diaconicon. d. Dome, SoutheastFace (W.B. Dinsmoor,Jr.). Door Frameof PeriodI (J. Travlos). SarcophagusFront, RestoredDrawing(J. Travlos). Iconostasis,RestoredDrawing(J. Travlos). Churchesin Greece. a. Methana, St. Nicholas. b. Platani, St. Nicholas. c. Kastoria,Koumbelidiki. d. Varasova,St. Demetrios. e. Athens, Moni Petraki. f. Manolada,Palaiopanagia. g. Athens, Holy Apostles. h. Gavrolimni,Panaxiotissa. i. Arta, St. Nicholas'PoSi&as.(1:200) SectionsthroughChurchProperand Narthex,showingTombs(J. Travlos). The Holy Apostles.Plan by A. Lenoir(1836). The Holy Apostles.Plan of 1854. Positionof Orthostatesin WestWall (J. Travlos).

PLATES The Holy Apostles. FRONTISPIECE 1. The Holy ApostlesbeforeRestoration(1953). a. East End. b. West End. c. North Side. d. South Side. 2. a. Foundationsof Churchon Floor Beddingof Nymphaeum. b. Foundationsof Mint (?) underWestApse. c. EarlyByzantineHouse WallsunderEast Apse. d. The Churchca. 1890(Phot. G. Lambakis). 3. a. Foundationsof West Apse from East. b. Crosswallof PeriodsI-III, from West. c. Junctionof WestApse and AdjoiningWall. d. OriginalStep Blockin Place. 4. WallsStrippedof LaterMasonry. a. North Side. b. OriginalEnd of North Wall. c. South Side. 5. a. Foundationsof NorthwestAngle Chamber,from Southeast. b. Brickwith Sketchfor KufesqueDesign. c. SouthwestCapital. d. NorthwestCapital. e. SouthwestColumnBase. f. NortheastColumn.

PLATES 6. a. Detail of Dome afterRemovalof Stucco. b. OriginalWindowArchesin Dome. c. SoutheastFace of Dome with OriginalMullion. d. SouthwestPendentive. e. NortheastSegmentof Interiorof Dome. 7. a. WestVaultbeforeRepairs. b. Semi-domeof SouthwestAngle Chamber. c. Vaultingof SouthwestAngle Chamber. d. TriangularVault of SouthwestAngle Chamber. 8. Dome and Roofs afterRestoration. 9. a. PumicePackingover East Vault. b. PlasterBeddingfor Roof Tiles. c. Junctionof East Apse and BarrelVault. d. KufesqueBrickworkin South Apse. e. Windowsof East Apse and Diaconicon. f. RestoredWindowof Narthex. 10. a. OriginalPavingin NorthwestAngle Chamber,from South. b. Arcosolium,from North. c. Restoringthe Omphalos. d. Font in ByzantineMuseum(photographby EugeneVanderpool,Jr.). e. SarcophagusFront. 11. Fragmentsof Iconostasisof Holy Apostles. a. EpistyleBlock D, Front. b. EpistyleBlock D, Underside. c. EpistyleBlock E, Front. d. EpistyleBlock E, Underside. e. ClosurePanel. f. ColumnB. B. Epistyle Block in Byzantine Museum.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

17.

h. EpistyleBlock found in Asklepieion. i. ClosurePanelfrom Moni Petraki. j. ClosurePanelin ByzantineMuseum. a. Manolada,Palaiopanagia,from Northwest. b. Manolada,Palaiopanagia,from Southeast. c. Manolada,Palaiopanagia,Narthex,North End. d. Hosios Loukas,Iconostasisin Katholikon(CourtesyE. Stikas). a. Athens, Moni Petraki,from East (CourtesyM. Sotiriou). b. Gavrolimni,Panaxiotissa,from Northeast. c. Hosios Loukas,Katholikonand Theotokos,from East. d. Hosios Loukas,Katholikon,from Southwest(CourtesyE. Stikas). a. Holy Apostles,West End beforeRestoration. b. From Northwest,RestorationCompleted. a. Tombs 1-4. b,c,d. Jugsfrom Tomb 2. e. Glass Bottlefrom Tomb 3. f. Lintelof SmallDoor of PeriodI. g. Tombsin Narthex. a. Tombs 12 and 13. b. Tombs 14 and 13. c. Tomb 11. d. Cornerof Arcosoliumwith Late XcovEurrpilov. e,f. SouthWall of Narthexin PeriodII. WallPaintingsof PeriodII. a. Angel of Trinityand Sacrificeof Isaacin Prothesis. b. Aaronin Dome. c,d. Saintsin West Angle Chambers.

xi

xii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

18. a. Gable of Later Periods. b. Window of Period II in North Wall. c. Altar and Floor of Period IV. d. Pantokrator in Dome, Period II. e. Pantokrator in Dome, Period IV. f. Blocked Doorway in North Apse, from Outside. 19. a. Narthex, with Threshold Adjusted for Period III, from East. b. West Wall, Orthostates Replaced in Original Positions. c. Interior, Period IV, Looking East. d. Interior, Period IV, Looking West. 20. a,b. Interior Bracing. c,d. Piers of West Arch after Destruction of Apse. e. Inner Face of Wall before Restoration. 21. Replacing Columns. a. Southeast Column in Process of Removal. b. Reinforcing Rods in Place. c. Cement Bases for New Columns. d. Half of Mould for Shaft. e. Mould for Core of Capital. f. Mould for Column in Place. 22. Reconstruction of Narthex. a. Centering. b. Reinforcing Rods. c. Roof Half Finished. d. Rebuilding the Fagade. 23. a. Laying the Roof Tiles. b. Carving the Lunette. 24. After Restoration, from Southeast 25. After Restoration and Landscaping, from Southeast (1959). 26. The Interior, Restored. a. Looking East. b. Looking Southeast. 27. The Interior, Restored. a Looking Southwest into Narthex. b. Southeast Bay Narthex, looking into Church Proper. 28. Development of Plan (J. Travlos). 29. Restored Plan, Period I (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.). 30. East Elevation (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.) 31. West Elevation (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.) 32. North Elevation (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.) 33. South Elevation (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.). 34. Transverse Section, Church Proper (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.). 35. Longitudinal Section (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.). 36. Transverse Section, East End (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.). 37. Transverse Section, Narthex (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.). 38. Plan, Period III (J. Travlos). 39. Floor Plan, Period IV (J. Travlos). 40. Plan of Roof (W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr.).

ABBREVIATIONS ABME 'ApX.'Eq. B.N.J. Bouras,Manolada AIEE D.O.P. AXAE Ebersolt EEBX EMME

A. K. Orlandos, 'ApXEiovrCOvBuLavrTv~$v MvriaEkcov -ris 'E?a&8os, Athens

Athens 'ApXatoXoyu<~ 'Eq:,rIEpis, Athens Jahrbiicher, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Ch. Bouras,'H TTaaioi-rravayi'a MavoX&Sos, 'E'mrralMovvK' 'E'rrelp'S-riq Ho\Xvl'laveirloriou 'AporooTEXdov esE*aaoov[nrS, IV, 1969, -rExvuIIS2XOXs too Salonica,pp. 233-266 Athens inal'ESvoAoyKijS AE?J'iov-rfs 'Ic-ropudiS 'ET-rapEiaS, DumbartonOaksPapers,Washington AEX-rTov"rfSXplc-riavtKis 'ApxatoXoyt
J. Ebersolt,Monumentsd'architecture byzantine,Paris, 1934

Athens XTrovuS&v, 'E-relpis 'E-racpeiasBvLav-rtvwAv -r&vMEcatcoviK&$v Mvr1PEco0v E'VpEsTlptov Trq 'E?Na'?oS,Athens D. Kambouroglou, '1o'-ropioa Kambouroglou, '!aTrop[a -rGv 'A.9i[vaicov. ToupKoxpa-ria, -[EpioSos TrpcTrj,

1458-1687,II, Athens, 1889 PelicanHistoryof Art, R. Krautheimer,EarlyChristianand ByzantineArchitecture, Krautheimer 1965 G. Lambakis,M6moiresur les antiquitischrftiennesde la Grace,Athens, 1902 Lambakis,Mgmoire A. Lenoir,L'architecture Lenoir,L'architecture monastique,I, Paris, 1852 H. "The Chronologyof some Middle-ByzantineChurches,"Annualof the Megaw, Megaw,Chronology BritishSchoolat Athens,XXXII, 1931-32,pp. 90-130 byzantine,Paris, 1916 Millet, L'ecolegrecque GabrielMillet,L'ecolegrecquedansl'architecture M. Sotiriou,T6 KaSoX7K6v AXAE,1961,pp. 101-129 'riisMovfs VTETrpa
1970 'E J. Travlos, 7OAEOA5OIIKI QEXt~ts'rLv 'A$rivov, Athens, 1960

INTRODUCTION T he Byzantinechurchof the Holy Apostles(Frontispiece)is one of the two buildingsin the Athenian Agora to have remainedstandingfrom the time of its constructionto the present.The Templeof Hephaistos,whichlooks down over the Agorafrom Kolonos Agoraioson the west side, sufferedsome minorvicissitudesbetweenthe Herulianinvasionof A.D. 267 and its conversioninto a Christianchurch in the 7th century.From that time on its new status ensuredthe templeprotectionand maintenance throughtwelvecenturies,afterwhichit was retiredfromthis pre-eminentpositionto the safe statusof a nationalmonument.The Churchof the Holy Apostles,althoughdamaged,survivedoccupationand invasionby Franks,Turksand Venetianslargelythroughthe accidentof havingbeenbuilt overthe solid foundationsof a Nymphaeumof the 2nd centuryafterChrist.Thus the two buildings,one pagan,the otherChristian,owedtheirsurvivalto the ironicandunwittingagencyof the opposingreligion,to which each was implacablyopposed.' At the time of the constructionof our churchAthenshad only recentlyemergedfroma long periodof decline and debility which began in 529 with the closing of the schools by edict of Justinian. Threat of

invasionby Slavictribeson land and Arabpiratesby sea furtherdiscouragedeconomicgrowthas many of the inhabitants retreatedto the safer inland areas. By the end of the 9th century, however, the Slavs had been brought under control and the recapture of Crete from the Arabs in 961 reduced the danger

fromthat direction.Withthe pressuresrelaxedon both sidesAthensgraduallyrecoveredand by the beginning of the 1nthcentury had entered on a period of relative prosperity which was to last until the establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Constantinople after the Fourth Crusadeof 1204. These two centuries saw the erection of the major Byzantine churches in Athens, of which the Holy Apostles is one of the two earliest,2and in 1018 the city received an imperial visit when Basil II, Bulgaroktonos,passed

throughafterhis successfulcampaignagainstthe Bulgarsto give thanksfor his victoryin the Churchof the Virgin, theonce the Parthenon.3

The Churchof the Holy Apostles standsover the southeastcornerof the Agora at the side of an important crossroads of both classical and Byzantine times, just west of the Panathenaic Way and the Post-HerulianWall which had protected the city in times ofstres s since the end of the 3rd century. 1 The churchis mentioned or describedbrieflyin the following sources: K. S. Pittakys, L'ancienneAthnes, 1835, pp. 43, 46,48, 70; Lenoir, L'architecturemonastique,I, 1852, p. 252; A. Mommsen,Athenaechristianae,1868, pp. 24-25, 91-92; A. Choisy, L'art de batir chez les byzantins,1883, pp. 132-133; idem,Histoirede l'architecture,II, 1889, pp. 34-35; G. Lambakis,ZTO&,12 August de la Grice, 1902,p. 12; Neroutsos, AIEE, 1884,p. 3; idem,'Ep5opas,1884,p. 189, note 1P;idem,Memoiresurles antiquiteschliretiennes III, 1889, p. 74; Kambouroglou,'lOropia, II, 1889, p. 293; idem,TTcxXaial 'ASfivat, 1922, p. 160; 0. Wulff, Die Baukunst,II, 1903, pp. 395,481; A. Struck,AthenundAttika,1911,p. 141; Th. Philadelpheus,'lo-ropia-rv 'ASrvwvvTrrl 1902,1, p.276; TovpKOKparias, J. Strzygowski,Die Baukunstder Armenier,1918,II, p. 798; G. T. Rivoira, LombardicArchitecture:Its Origin,DevelopmentandDerivatives(tr. G.McN. Rushforth),1910, I, p. 187; A. Xyngopoulos, EMME,I, pp. 77-79; Megaw, Chronology,passim; Ebersolt,Chap. X; Orlandos,ABME,VII, 1951,p. 154, and XI, 1969, pp. 65-66, 81-82; A. Frantz,Byzantion,XXIV, 1954, pp. 513-520; eadem,The Middle Ages in the AthenianAgora, Picture Book No. 7, 1961, figs. 46-59; J. Travlos, HOEMoSovtK1, 1960, pp. 151, 155; idem, XplcaavtKal

'ASfivat,

in eplcKEUTtriK' Kal 'HIK9 'EyKUKXoTraiSeia, 1962, p. 738; Krautheimer, 1965, pp. 275-277; Propylaen Kunst-

geschichte,III, Byzanz(Chatzidakis), 1968, p. 225 and fig. 148; Stikas, H.L, 1970, pp. 193. 2 The katholikon of the Moni Petraki is now shown to be the first; both churchesare probablyto be dated in the 10th century (below, p. 23). 3 Kedrenos,II, 475 (Bonn); Glykas, IV, 578-579 (Bonn); Zonaras,XVII, 9. Basil was the firstemperorto visit the city since Constans II winteredthere in 662/3.

2

INTRODUCTION

The epithet Solaki, which has long been attachedto the church,derivesfrom the quarterin which it stands.4 The earliestknowndescriptionof the churchis by the Frencharchitect,AlbertLenoir,who visited Greeceand Constantinoplein 1836for the purposeof studyingthe historyof Christianarchitecture.5 Althoughthe majorpartof the churchhad remainedstanding,it had beendisfiguredby wellintentioned effortsto preserve,enlarge,and embellishit. As long as it was surroundedby the housesthat madethe areaa slumuntil 1931the inartisticadditionsof the late 19thcenturywerehardlynoticeable.But when the shacksthat clusteredaroundthe buildingweregraduallyclearedawayit becamean eyesorefromall directionsexceptthe east, whichhad remainedrelativelyunmolested.Furthermore, closerexamination revealedthat the fabric,althoughapparentlysound on a superficialview, was actuallyin a precarious statedue to the crumblingof the mortar.Sincesubstantialmeasuresof conservationwereobviouslyessential,it seemeddesirableat the sametimeto investigatethe buildingthoroughlyfromthe archaeological standpointin orderto recoverthe originalplan,whichwasconcealedby the late additions,to solidify whateverremainedof the originalbuilding,and to restoreit as far as possibleto its originalappearance by meansof whatevernew constructionmightbe necessary. At the beginningof workthe areahadalreadybeenfreedof the squalidhousessurrounding the church, one meterabovethe original but the pavedcourtyardhad beenleft undisturbedat a levelapproximately groundlevel (P1.1,a-d).At that time the aspectof the buildingwas that of the finalremodelingand enlargementcarriedout in 1876-1882,as recordedin an inscriptionon the bell tower.The mainfeatureof thisremodelingwas a largewesternextensionforminga navewhichwas saddleroofedat a heightgreater thanthatof the mainvaultsof the originalbuilding,thusobscuringfromthewestalmostthewholebuilding exceptthe dome. Through careful demolition of the late walls and excavation inside the building it was discoveredthat instead of the two visible phases, the first and the last, there were four main building periods in the history of the church: the original construction in the late 10th or early 1lth century; a first remodeling necessitated by damage to the west end, probably in the late 17th century; an enlargementsoon after the War

of Independence,between1836and 1854;and the more substantialrenovationof 1876-1882.6 The archaeologicalinvestigation was begun on February 12, 1954, and the restoration was completed

in timefor the churchto sharein the dedicationceremoniesof the Stoaof Attaloson September3, 1956.7 4

Mommsen, Athenaechristianae,pp. 24-25. The origin of the name is uncertain,but Pittakys' conjecture(L'ancienneAthenes, olKol,on the ground that here was the house of the legislator,need not be regardedany p. 70) that it was derivedfrom 2X6Acovos more seriouslythan the even more enticingbut equallyunsubstantiatednotion that the churchwas erectedon the site of the Altar of the Twelve Gods. A more probableexplanationis that of Kambouroglou('lo-ropiac, p. 293) that the epithetcame from the name of a "greatAthenianfamily" living in the vicinity. 5 L'architecturemonastique,I, p. 252, fig. 163. The account of his trip is found in "Rapportfait par M. Albert Lenoir, architecte, sur son voyage dans le Levantpendantl'ann6e1836," Annalesde la Societi libredes Beaux-Arts,1837.The resultsof this trip formed the basis of L'architecturemonastique,which was publishedin 1852. In that same year he issued a pamphlet, Instructionsa l'usage des voyageursen Orient:Monumentsde l'ere chritienne,in which he comparedthe Holy Apostles with Eusebius'descriptionof Constantine's Golden Octagonin Antioch. For the relevanceof Lenoir's descriptionof the Holy Apostles to the history of the church, see below, pp. 32-34. 6 For the later periods see below, pp. 32-39. 7 Accounts of the work as it progressedmay be found in Homer A. Thompson, "Activitiesin the Athenian Agora," Hesperia, XXIV, 1955, pp. 55-57; XXV, 1956, pp. 65-66; XXVI, 1957,pp. 101-103.

THE

EARLIER

REMAINS

C ontraryto a local tradition'there is no evidenceof a cryptbeneaththe churchnor of any earlier churchon the samespot. All structuralremainsunderthe churchwereunrelatedto it. The earliest of thesewas a shortstretchof the foundationfor the westwallof a buildingof the 5thcenturyB. C.,2 probably to be identifiedas the Mint, whichwas foundjust insidethe westernapse (Pls. 2,b, 28). Most of the easternhalf of the churchrestedeitheron the bottomof the curvedwall trenchof the Nymphaeum3 or on the concretebeddingfor its floorslabs(Pls. 2, a, 28). Immediatelywest of the Mintwallweresome of the 4th centuryafterChrist.Any earlierremainsbeneaththe remainsof a metalworkingestablishment centralpart of the churchhad been eitherremovedor concealedby the tombswhichoccupiedthatarea. East of the iconostasis,however,wheretherewereno tombs,was a stretchof a roughwall foundation madeof rubblebeddedin clay. It restedon the foundationof the Nymphaeumand ran southwardfrom close to the northwall as far as the southeastcolumn,whereit was brokenaway.Anothershortbit of the samemasonryled off eastwardnot far fromthe preservedsouthend. Thesefoundationspresumably belonged to a house of earlierByzantinetimes, perhapsdemolishedto make room for the church (Pls. 2,c, 28). 1 Referredto by A. Xyngopoulos in EMME,p. 79, and also by Kambouroglou ('lo-ropia, pp. 293-294), who includeda sketch of a crypt wrongly attributedto the Holy Apostles. The sketch was originally publishedby E. Breton, Athenes2,1868, p. 182, and correctlyidentifiedas the wellhouse of the Klepsydra,on the north slope of the Acropolis. The wellhousewas consecrated,perhaps as early as the 10th century, as the chapel of the Holy Apostles (cf. A. W. Parsons, Hesperia,XII, 1943, pp. 250-251 and fig. 21, p. 222); hence the confusion. The chapel is mentioned in EMME,p. 103 under the name Ayioi 'ArooroToto"T-ra Ip&ppapa."The same sketch appears in TTaAaia'ASiva, Nb6ocr 'AaoAovTXvirs, 1931, p. 65, fig. 44 as "the crypt of the church of SS. Theodore, near the Tower of the Winds." 2 Hesperia,XXIV, 1955, p. 59. 3 Ibid., pp. 57-59.

THE FIRST PERIOD Before the workof restorationbeganthe churchpresentedthe appearanceof a triconch,withapseson thenorthandsouthsidesas wellas theeast.Thewestendwascompletelyobscuredby thelongmodem addition.A photographtakenby G. Lambakisca. 1890(PI.2,d), afterthe constructionof the addition but beforeit had receivedits finalcoat of stucco,showedcloisonnemasonry,apparentlycontemporary withthe earliestpartsof the building,extendingas farwestas the door in the northwall.Thissuggesteda triconch with a nave, after the "Hagioritic" plan, so called because of its frequency in the churches of

Mt. Athos.1Thosewho acceptedthis plan as the originalexcludedthe possibilityof a fourthapse. But according to an old tradition the church had originally been a baptistery2and therefore a tetra-

conchand,in fact,an apseof a remarkable shapewas shownby Lenoir(Fig. 10).3Choisy,also, described the church as having had four apses, one of which had been destroyed.4In this view the prolongation of

the wallswestwardwas regardedas a lateraddition,eventhoughthis wouldleaveunexplainedthe lack of symmetrybetweenthe obtuse angles of the prothesisand diaconiconand the rightangledwestern anglechambers.Ourfirstobjective,then,was to confirmor disproveone or the otherof thesetheories by removing all of the modem masonry and by excavation inside the church, and to discover where and how the building had originally terminatedat the west.

THE PLAN The problemof the groundplanwas quicklysolvedby excavation(Pls. 28, 29), whichprovedboth of the opposingschoolsof thoughtrightin somedegree.Not far belowthe pavingwereuncoveredthe founto the threealreadyvisible,butprovidedwitha doorway(PI.3,a). dationsof a fourthapsecorresponding western that the At the sametimeit was clear apsehad alwaysbeensurroundedby a narthex,the extent of whichwas fixed by the foundationfor a crosswallconnectingthe northand southwalls,whichcame to light2.65m. west of thewestface of the apse(PI.3,b). Two coursesof masonrywerepreservedabove the groundlevel of the apse; they were of cloisonne,but simplerand rougherthanthat usedelsewhere in the building.The foundationswerewell bondedinto the adjacentwalls(P1.3,c). Whenthe wallsof the modernadditionwerestrippedof all latermasonrythe originalconstructionwas foundto reachas far as the doorwaysin the northand southwalls(PI.4, a). At this pointthe northwall showeda finishedendface,exactlyat the line of the newlydiscoveredcrosswall(PI.4, b). The foundations of all the wallsruncontinuouslywithoutany breakor changein construction.Pierswerebuiltinto both endsof eachof the wallsof the westernapse,withrespondswellintegratedinto the masonryof the three wallsof the narthex,showingthatthe narthexwas vaultedin threebaysat the westandtwo, flankingthe 1EMME, I, p. 77. 2 Cf. Lambakisin 'EpSouds,1884, p. 189, note 1. 3 L'architecture,I, p. 252, fig. 163, whence our Fig. 10. 4 Auguste Choisy, Histoirede l'architecture,II, 1899,p. 33. Choisy had alreadypublishedthe buildingin some detail in his L'Art de batir chez les byzantins,pp. 132-133, which appeared in 1883,just one year after the completion of the final restoration.Given even an averagelapse of time betweenstudy and publication,he must have seen the churchwell before its latest phase, when any traces of an apse were concealedby the new marblepavement.

THE FOUNDATIONS, THE MASONRY

5

apse,at the east (Pis.28,29). The northwall was preservedoverits entirelengthup to the heightwhere the slope of the gablebegan.The southwall remainedfor its wholelengthonly in the lowercourse,descendingin a jaggedline from its full heightat the east end to only four coursesat the west (PI.4,c). with a dome on pendentivescarriedon arches The plan is thus revealedas basicallya cross-in-square supportedby four free-standingcolumns.It is, however,elaboratedinto a tetraconchby the additionof a three-sidedapse, similarto that at the east end, on each of the otherthreesides.The plan is unusual in thatthe apsepenetratedinto the narthex,whichenclosedits lowerpartcompletely,leavinga trapezoidal spaceon eachsideof the apse.Thus,only the easternelementsof the building,the threeapsesto east, northand south,and the prothesisand diaconicon,with theirwallsformingobtuseangles,stood out on the groundplan. The west apse and the westernanglechamberswere visible only abovethe roof of the narthex.The anglechambersat this end wereright-angled,to take accountof the prolongationof their wallsinto those of the narthex,and theirwest wallswerepiercedby archeddoorwaysto providecirculation betweenthe side bays of the narthexand the mainbody of the church. In the interiorall apsesand anglechambersare semicircular,and a semicircular niche, subsequently blockedup, was sunk into the opposingwall of each of the westernangle chambers.Entranceto the churchwas providedby a largecentraldoorwayin the westwall of the narthex,flankedby two narrower openings.The originalstep block was found in placein front of the middledoor (P1.3,d). The buildingis not quiteregular.No two walls are exactlyparalleland the anglesof the outerwalls of all the apsesdifferin somedegree.The asymmetryis less pronouncedin the interior,wherethe major apsesand also the anglechambersare all a little morethan a semicircle(ca. 200?). The architectof the HolyApostleswas ableto use the eastwardrisinggroundline to good effectby introducinga two-stepchangeof level withinthe church,at the entranceto the westernapse, in addition to thosedictatedby commonpractice,i.e., fromthe outsideinto the narthexandagain,viathe solea,into the sanctuary.The climacticeffectis now very apparent,afterrestoration,as the visitorwalksinto the narthexfrom outdoors,and againas he mountsthe two intermediatesteps into the churchproper.A comparableeffectwas achievedalso on the outside,wherethe lowerlevelwas usedto diminishthe apparent heightof the narthexin relationto the westernapse and thus allow the latterto be seen to full advantage. THE FOUNDATIONS The foundationsconsist of rubblemasonryset in firm lime mortar(PI.5,a) and vary in depthfrom 0.75 to 1.10m., the highestpoint beingat the east.Thisis accountedfor by the graduallyrisingground level in this directionwhichprevailedat the time of the constructionof the churchand was adheredto in the junctionof the foundationswith the cloisonnemasonry,whereasthe bottomline was dictatedby the level surfacesof the ancientmonumentson whichthe buildingwas bedded(Pls. 32, 33). The foundationswere laid exactlyon the linesto be followedby the walls,withboth innerand outersurfacesalready clearlydefined,and with no extraneousconnectinglines in the interior.The easternhalf of the of its building,as noted above,was built overthe foundationsof the Nymphaeum,on the underpinning massivesemicircularwall and on the heavyconcretebeddingfor its marblefloor slabs,whichhad been plunderedin antiquity(PI.2, a). This circumstance may accountin partfor the betterabilityof this section of the buildingto withstandthe damagewhichresultedin the destructionof the west end. THE MASONRY In the churchproperthe wallsof the originalbuildingweresubstantially intactwithonlyminorrepairs and alterations,chieflyon the south side.5The masonrythroughoutthe churchis a carefullylaid cloiBelow, p.5 39.

THE FIRST PERIOD

6

sonneconsistingof poroslimestone,chieflythecharacteristic Megarianstonewhichcontainsa largequantity of sea shells.The coursesare separatedby a double(veryrarelysingle)layerof bricksset in a firm whitemortarmadeof riversandand lime,with a considerableamountof grogmadeof groundup tile. The exposedsurfacesof the mortarhave weatheredto a pinkishbrown,but it was obviousduringthe repairworkthat whereit was protectedit was a startlingwhite,brokenup only by bits of grog. It was obviousthatthis was useddeliberatelyto givea strongcontrastwiththe stoneandbrick.Thesameeffect may be seenin churcheswheresomeof the masonryhas beenprotectedby laterconstruction,e.g. at the southwest comer of the Theotokos at Hosios Loukas, where the Katholikon abutted against the wall and

coveredits surface.6 Aboveeye levelalmostall of the verticaljointsarefilledwithbricksset in ornamentalpatterns(Fig.I Pls. 8, 9,d).7 In the lowercoursesthe simplestcloisonnemasonrywas used.

Fig. 1. Masonryon EastSideof EastApse Largeancientblocks were set on end at all key points of the building,in the lowest course:at the outer corners of all the apses and the narthex, and flanking thethhreedoorways in the west wall. In ad-

dition,two otherswereplacedat irregularintervalsin the southwallof the narthexand at leastone, and probablytwo, in the north(Pls. 4,c, 32, 33).8Behindthe cloisonnefacingthe thicknessof the wall was filledout witha core of rubblemasonry,givingthe wallsa total thicknessof 0.70-0.80m. 6 Stikas, H.L., p. 146, fig. 63, p. 151, fig. 68. 7 Below, pp. 7, 22.

8 For the significance of these blocks in the dating of the church, see below, p. 25.

THE ORNAMENTAL BRICKWORK, THE COLUMNS

7

THE ORNAMENTAL BRICKWORK DENTILCOURSES

Five horizontalbricksawtoothfriezes,enclosedaboveand belowby a single course of bricks,break the monotonyof thewall faces(Pls. 1,a,c, d, 8). The uppermost,whichalso formsa corniceof threesuccessivelyprojectingrowsunderthe eaves of the majorapses,is separatedfrom the next belowby one course of cloisonnemasonry.From theredownwarda doublecourseintervenes.In addition,another dentilcornicerunsunderthe roof of the highestpartof the building,i.e. the fourbarrelvaultswiththeir gables.The lowestfrieze,whichis at the level of the springingof the archesof the windowsof the east apse, interruptsits courseto framethe brick archesof all the windows(Fig. 4). It also apparentlycontinuedon the same horizontalline to crownthe wallsof the narthexat the level of the beginningof the gable. BRICKPATTERNS

Thepatternsin the verticaljoints of the cloisonn6masonryareof varyingdegreesof complexity(Fig. 2; P1.9,d).9Onlytwo can be consideredto havea Christological significance:No. 22, withalphaandomega, and No. 23, a leavedcrosswith IC XCin the upperangles.A few are simplegeometricdesigns;the rest are imitationKufic or Kufesque,10 all purelydecorative.n An interestingexampleof how the architecthandedon his ideas to the masonis providedby a half brickwitha Kufesquedesigndrawnin blackon its unevensurface(P1.5,b).12It was foundin the rubble core of the southwallof the southapseduringconservationoperations,havingapparentlybeen discarded after servingits purposeas a model and pickedup on the spot to be used as buildingmaterial.It cannotbe matchedexactlyon the churchbut Megaw'sNo. 6 (Fig. 2) is a close approximation.13

THE COLUMNS The domewas supportedby archescarriedon fourfree-standing columns,4.07m. high,threeof which were still all had been taken from ancient still All four shaftsweremonolithic,of bluestanding; buildings. gray Hymettianmarble,with ancientcapitals.Those at the northwestand southeastwere late Corinthianin type(PI.5,d); the capitalof the southwestcolumnwas of the so-calledTowerof the Windstype, withlotusleavesspringingfrombehinda singlerowof acanthus(Pl.5,c).The northeastcolumnhad been replacedin some intermediateperiodby a makeshiftbuilt up of twenty-onedrumsof poros limestone rangingin heightfrom0.10to 0.20m.,threadedon an uprightironrod.Thedrumsweresecuredby melted lead pouredaroundthe rod. Unevenbeds of mortarwere laid betweenthe drumsand some effortwas madeto evenup the surfacesby drivingnails into the edgesof thejoints and evenoccasionallyinserting wholehorseshoes.An invertedIonic base servedas a capital(P1.5,f). In the finalperiodof the churchall the columnswerepaintedblackand the capitalswerepaintedin brightcolorstrimmedwith gilt. The two westerncolumnsrested,below floor level, on companionancientmarblebases, ca. 0.75 m. squareandca. 0.50m. high,withplainmouldingsat top andbottom.Thetop surfaceof eachwaschipped 9 The brick patternsof the

Holy Apostles form an importantpart of Megaw'sanalyticalstudy of brick patternsin general(Chtronology, pp. 102-115). Special thanks are here expressedto Mr. Megaw for permissionto reproducehis drawings,which include all the decorativeelementsfound on the church; our Figure 2 was preparedby Helen Besi from Mr. Megaw's drawings. 10 I have adopted GeorgeMiles' term 'Kufesque' for the "meaninglesssimulation of ornamentalKufic" (D.O.P., XVIII, 1964, p. 20). 11For the bearingof the ornamentalbrickworkon the date of the church,see below, pp. 24-26. 12 Inv. A 2523. 13 It is clear that the brick is to be regardedas a convenientpiece of scratchpaper ratherthan as the first stage of a design to be completedby the champleveprocess (Chronology,pp. 105-106). This latter possibilityis ruled out by the uneven surfaceand coarse consistencyof the brick and, even more, by the absenceof the champlevetechniqueelsewherein the church.

8

THE FIRST PERIOD

away to a depth of 0.05-0.06 m., except where the column rested, probably to receive the marble floor of the latest period.That they were originally usedin the Nymphaeumis suggestedby the presenceof a roughly cut channel, semicircularin section, ca. 0.04 m. wide and 0.02 m. deep, running vertically down the face

of the southwestbase. It showssome signsof waterwearand mightpossiblyhavebeen madeto receive a lead pipe (PI. 5,e).

t s

, I 2

1

, 5

4

3

I

BS^im

\

6

7

A

1t

?

1 -

A_-=

gL _A

8

2In

""ie

9

_^J

12

11

10

IB

1 15

14

21

20

I1

16

0I

-- , - -

Fig. 2.

19

25

*

31

30

29

I

/

,,

21

37

36

35

34

T - - - -

;

24

R 28

13

1B

23

33

32

I

17

22

27

26

1

1""

t< sY

1

__

_A

1

50 I

Kufesque Designs in Masonry

I

IM.

THE DOME AND VAULTS

9

Thefoundationsof the northeastcolumnconsistedof a largeblockof marblerestingon severalsmaller blocks of conglomerate,all bondedwith strongTherancement.The southeastcolumnrestedon an invertedIonic base.14Thefoundationsof all fourcolumnswerelaid directlyon the concretebeddingof the Nymphaeum. THE DOME AND VAULTS Thedomeis of the traditionalAttictype: octagonal,withan archedcornicepushingwell up abovethe druminto the roof. The corniceis of Aeginetanporos limestonewith a broad,shallow,concavemoulding.Attachedmarbleshaftsat the eightcornersare surmountedby plainflaringcapitals(PI.6, a). The masonryis cloisonnewithsinglebricksin bothhorizontalandverticaljoints.Theappearanceof the dome had been greatlymarredin the courseof timeby changesmadein the windows.Originallyeightin number, four had beenblockedup in the thirdor fourthphaseof the church,leavingopen only those at the cardinalpointsof thecompass.In the secondperiodall eighthadbeenremodeledby reducingtheirheight and toppingthemwith a low, flat arch(P1.6,b,c).15 The removalof the stuccowhichcoveredall the masonryof the domerevealedthe tops of the original windowframesstill in place.Theywerein varyingstatesof preservationand in all casesthe mortarhad crumbledbeyondall usefulness,buttheschemecouldbe recoveredwithcertainty(Figs.3, B,4, d; P1.6,b,c).

/ L-A

B

I

A-A

B-B

B4 I

0 I

1

.I I- . ,

W.B.D.,JR.-1969

4 1

3 1

M.

Fig. 3. WindowDetails. A. EastApse. B. Dome, SoutheastFace 14 Inv. A 4203. This might also be thought to be a late replacement,since the top of the base as found bore the impressionof the column in a bedding of Theran cement, but the contractorwho carriedout the restoration,Stratos Phergadiotes,reportshaving seen the same cement under the churchof the Katapolianion Paros. 15 For the sequence,see below, pp. 34-35.

10

THE FIRST PERIOD

Thisconsistedof a two-lightwindow,eachlightarchedseparatelyin brickand the wholeenclosedunder anotherarchwhichwas separatedfrom the corniceby a singlerow of bricks.The archesfor the lights sprangfrom a commonpoint in the middle,wherethey weresupportedby a singlemullion.Onlytwo mullionswerediscoveredin place, one in the south,the other in the southeastwindow.Probablyonly the latteris original;it is a slim stele-likerectanglewithits top matchingthe long narrowrestingsurface of thecapitalwhichit supports(Fig.3, B;P. 6, c). Thesouthwindowis nowdividedby an octagonalcolumn whichin no wayfitsits capital.Thetwo survivingcapitalsaredecoratedwithanincisedrosetteat eachend. The decorativeschemein the tympanumof the arches(Fig.4, d;P1. 8) was composedof a fairlylarge blockof poroslimestone,roughlytriangular,in the center,its loweredgechiseledto a point to fit in the two smallarches.Theremainingspacewasfilledwitha simplepatternof brickwork spandrelbetweenthe laid in a heavybeddingof mortar.Evenwherethe originalschemehad completelydisappearedon the outsideface, as in the southwindow,the archeswerefoundto be preservedhalfwaythroughthethickness of the wall, includingeven the facingof the soffit,whichwas a coatingof creamywhiteplaster,0.010.02 m. thick,with muchstraw(PI.6,b,c). The pendentivesand the ringof masonryon whichthe drumof the domerestedwereof brickslaid in mortarup to almosttwicetheirown thickness(P1.6,d).The drum,witha heightof 1.60m. and an inner diameterof 3.00 m., and the dome itself wereof well cut blocks of soft poros limestoneset in regular coursesin thin beds of mortar(P. 6,e). Barrelvaultson the mainaxesled to the four apsesand wereof similarconstructionto thatof the dome(PI.7,a). Thefouranglechamberswerecoveredwithsemi-domes, the remainingtriangularspacesbeingcoveredwithbrickvaults(PI.7,c,d). The lowerpartsof the semidomeswereof rubble;the upperwereof bricksset in thickbedsof mortarof less regularcostruction he adjacenttriangles(PI.7,b). The trapezoidalspacesflaking the westernapseweregrinaulted thanth but the threebays on the west side of the narthexwereprobablycoveredwith saucerdomescarriedon archeswhichbridgedthe gaps betweenthe piersin the walls and the cornersofthe apse.16 THE ROOF The roofsof all partsof the churchexceptthe narthexwerewellpreserved(Pls. 8, 40). Broadpan tiles, cover tiles werelaid in a bed of mortarover a packinglargelycom0.51X 0.38 m., with semicircular posedof pumice(PI.9,a,b). The existingtilesappearto belongto the firstperiodof the churchor, if not, to a time when tiles of the same size and shapewerein use, as theirdimensionsexactlymatchthe impressionsin the mortarbedding.The tiles projected0.13 m. beyondthe two dentilcoursescrowningthe wallwhichin turnprojecteda total of 0.08m. beyondthe wall,andwiththesemakean attractivecornice. Junctionsbetweenthe differentroof levelswereachievedby a singlecourseof cloisonnemasonrywith Kufesqueelements(PI.9,c). The lowestof the dentilcoursessurroundingthe church,whichcorresponds to the pieseivedtop of the northwallOf the narthex,determinsthhight of the narthexbo the start overed of the gable.Betweenthis level ad thetir dentilcourseoiga cisonne masonryw d point at undermodernplasteron eachside the h of the westeraps, the lowercoursemar* whichthe westernanglechambersand apse becamevisiblefrom the outside(P1.14, a,b). THE WINDOWS The windowsin the mainbody of the churchareof the "arcade"type,17i.e. eachlightis archedseparatelyin brickand all lightsare of equalheight.The windowof the east apse is triple;thosein the north 16 Below, p. 20. 17 This is the name given

to the type by Megaw (Chronology,pp. 120ff., q.v. for the most useful discussionof the development of window design in Byzantinearchitecture).

11

THE WINDOWS

and south apses and the dome are double (Figs. 3, 4; Pl. 9,e).18The mullions are elongated in section, on flaring bases and with flaring capitals decorated with incised crosses or rosettes. There is insufficientevidence for an accurate restoration of the windows of the narthex. The north wall had been pulled out at that point for the construction of an arcosolium (P1. 10,b), leaving only a small bit -A

,* .

A.. ..A.-

.

.l

A~~~~~

* ' ^'

*'

_

*-. J

#

..

'

v

t

b

a

e.

I

o - - --. .1a , .,C,~

? /-

'

-!--:--:,

i.

.--

'C

,,e%

.o,,-

m-I,=-%M

' "

'"1a-i' ' :;|*. - ' ~ .... ?6, .-.,.. . . . ' 2 -- . -?- .

'.'

^ ;',_

,

. . ,r >. . r

..

,^,

\

,

:

~ . ....

.-..

mat .

-

..r ^- ^> , ^

^-

Q i

Ii

c

Fig. 4.

3i

I

W.B.D.,JR.-19

M.

69

d

Windows. a. EastApse. b. North Apse. c. Diaconicon. d. Dome, SoutheastFace

18 See also below, pp. 24-25.

12

THE FIRST PERIOD

of the crownof a brickarchwitha spanwideenoughto enclosea two-lightwindow.The corresponding part of the south windowis missing.Failingmorepreciseevidencethe windowshave been restoredon the analogyof those in the dome (P1.9,f). THE DOORS Thedoorswereframedby mouldedjambsandlintelsof Pentelicmarble,of whichmanyfragmentswere foundin and aboutthe church.A lintel,foundintact,builtinto the later masonry,correspondedin size to the indicationsof openingsin the foundationsand could be assignedto one of the smallerdoorways (P1.15,f). Severalfragmentsjoinedto makeone completejamb,chiselledat the upperend to fit the cuttingsin the undersideof the lintel.It was thuspossibleto establishthe height of the small doorwaysat 1.875m. andtheirwidthas 0.655m. (Fig. 5). Thewidthof the centraldoorwaywasfixedby the threshold at 1.30m. In the absenceof definiteevidenceits heightwas restoredby analogyat 2.10 m.

Fig. 5. Door Frameof PeriodI

THE PAVING The originalpavingwas preservedin a numberof places along the walls,especiallyin the east apse, whereit was 0.19m. belowthe levelof themodernfloorin theeast apse,andin the northwestanglechamber,whereit had escapedthe later tombdiggers.The floorconsistedof flagsof irregularsize and shape,

THE WALL DECORATION, THE ARCOSOLIUM

13

both graystone and whitemarble,jointedwith graylime mortar(PI. 0,a). The actualpavingwas confinedto the churchproper,but numerousindicationsof the floorlevelof the narthexestablishedthe fact that therewas a differenceof 0.44 m. betweenthe two partsof the church.19 Therewas no traceof a mortar bed for the floor. The remainingslabshad probablybeen relaidat a latertime. In the loose earthdirectlybeneaththe domewerefoundseveralfragmentsof opussectile,formingparts of rosettessuchas areusedin decorativepanelsnormallyfoundin this position.20 Consideringtheirfindit seems certain that these must have of formed the ing place, pieces part originalomphalosof the church, and they have,therefore,been incorporatedinto the restoreddesign(P1.10,c).2 THE WALL DECORATION Nothing remainedto show the characterof the wall decorationof the firstperiod.The possibilityof mosaicsanywherein the churchis apparentlyruledout by the total absenceof remainsof the iron pins customarilyused to securethe backingof a mosaicto the wall itself.22 A few scrapsof frescowerefoundin the east apse,in an earlierlayerthanthe remainsof the painting of PeriodII. It is unlikelythat these werepart of the originaldecorationof the churchalthoughthey mightstill datefromwithinthe firstperiod.In all probabilitythe churchwas coveredfromthe beginning with paintingswhichwould have followedthe usualiconographicschemeand whichwould have been constantlyeitherfreshenedup or completelyrenewedas they crumbledaway.

THE ARCOSOLIUM At some time after the constructionof the churchbut stillwithinits firstperiod,the northend of the narthexwas extendedto includean arcosolium.Thiswasaccomplishedby removingthe lowerpartof the wall betweenthe two westernmostpiersand rebuildingit 1.60m. beyondits originalface (P1.10,b).The gap was spannedby a brickarcha few centimeterslowerthanthat of the originalwindow,leavingonly the crownof the lattervisible(P1.32). The masonrywas cloisonnesimilarto, but not identicalwith,that of the originalbuilding.It was accentedby largeancientblocksstandingon end, similarto those used for the samepurposeelsewherein the church:one at each of the outercornersand one in the middleof the north side. The east and west walls werebuilt againstthe narthexwith no bonding.Moreover,the masonryof the narthexgives no indicationof havingbeen laid with an openingin mind;it has the appearanceratherof havingbeencarelesslytornout. Theopeningwasblockedonlyin the finalphase,after the destructionof the upperpartof the arcosolium,in orderto makea windowto fit the new schemeof fenestration. It is clearthat the arcosoliumis an afterthought,but how muchlateris an open question.The ground levelaroundit had not risenappreciablyand its masonryputsit well withinthe Byzantineperiod.Arcosolia in churcheswerenormallyused only for foundersor importantecclesiasticalpersonages.The fact that the arcosoliumof the Holy Apostleswas addedafter,but not long after,the erectionof the church 19

Above, p. 5. 20E.g. at Hosios Meletios, ABME,V, 1939-40, pp. 67-68 and figs. 19, 20. 21 Below p. 41. 22 It might be argued that any pins might have been removedin later times in the course of applyingsuccessivelayers of plaster as the paintingswere periodicallyrenewed,but the late Paul A. Underwood,whose experiencein this field was extensive,examined the walls with care and concludedthat their original surfaceswere sufficientlywell preservedto justify the assumptionthat no such pins ever existed. A handful of mosaic tesserae,found wrappedin a bit of paper in the blocking of the doorway in the north apse (below, p. 39) could hardlyhave been a survivalfrom the earliest period of the Holy Apostles since they were put there two centuries after any mosaics in the church must have been destroyed.They are undoubtedlya relic from a crumblingmosaic from some other church which a pious monk pressedinto the hands of a travelerin returnfor a few lepta.

14

THE FIRST PERIOD

permits speculation that it was made for the founder, whose name was perhaps Solakis, thus accounting for the persistence of the name as an epithet for the church. An elaborately worked sarcophagusfront of the Middle Byzantine period (Fig. 6 P1. 10,e) which was found not far from the church has now been placed in the position of the arcosolium.23It is well known

-- 1

IFt -

H--?

?M.

Fig. 6.

197'1

Sarcophagus Front, Restored Drawing

that the Byzantinemarbles of Athens traveledfar afield from their places of origin in Turkishand modern times as they were used as building material in fortifications and houses, so that attribution to specific buildings on the basis of their finding place is highly unsafe. But the good state of preservation for so fragile a piece as our sarcophagus front (its overall dimensions are 2.24 X 0.72 m., with a thickness of only 0.10 m.) suggests that it had not been moved far from its original position. We are probably therefore justified in attributing it to the Holy Apostles.24 THE ICONOSTASIS Part of the foundation for the iconostasis was found between the two east columns. It consisted of a limestone block on a rubble bedding, on which was a narrowermarble block, badly broken. Many fragments of all the membersof the iconostasis itself: columns, epistyle blocks, and closure panels, were found built into the masonry of the two latest periods, in the loose fill in and around the church and in the building material taken from the demolition of modern houses in the vicinity. The screen apparently survived up to Period III, when the fragments first appear in the masonry of the church. The largest piece, the greaterpart of the closure panel (A; P1. 11,e), was built into the northwest corner of the foundations of Period IV together with a piece of the epistyle (E; P1. 11,c, d); a piece of the epistyle (D, 1) was built into the later phase of the northwest pier (Period III) and a large joining piece was used as part of the cover of Tomb 2 (D, 3). Another came from debris inside the church (D, 2) and a small fragment of the braided cross (D, 4) was found in the earthjust behind the iconostasis where it fell as it splinteredoff when the rest was dismantled (P1. 11,a). The largest piece of one of the columns (B) was built into the foundations of the modern iconostasis (P1. 1 , f) while a smaller piece of a column (C) came from the demolition of neighboring houses. Both pieces of the epistyle (P1. 11,a-d) were made from an Ionic architrave of the Roman period, at least 2.20 m. long. The three fasciae were visible from inside the sanctuary.All of the pieces have been built into the restored iconostasis (Fig. 7; P1. 26). Inv. S 511. For otherarcosolia,cf. the Monasteryof the 'AyicovTTv&rcov EMME,pp. 128-129 and figs. 161-163, including ('Ovo7XoyiTorav), sarcophagusfront; also the monasterychurchof Hosios Meletios on Mt. Kithairon, of the last quarterof the 11th or the beginning of the 12thcentury,ABME,V, 1939-40,p. 59, fig. 12 andp. 62. For the date of the church,ibid.,p. 65. The carving on our sarcophagus front bears a fairly close resemblance,although not in all details, to some of the panels from the iconostasis at Hosios Meletios (ibid.,p. 105, fig. 52). 23 24

THE ICONOSTASIS

Fig. 7.

15

Iconostasis, Restored Drawing

FRAGMENTSOF THE ICONOSTASIS

A. Closure Panel. PI. ll,e. (A 4201) PH. 0.67; restored H. 0.835; W. 0.89; T. 0.09-0.10. Built into the northwest corner of the foundations of Period IV. The bottom (or top?) edge and two opposite corners are missing. Mended from three pieces. The whole surface much worn, as if from use as a paving block. Within a rectangularpanel, a large central rhomboid enclosing a circle, with circles in the corners of the rectangle, all interlaced. In the central circle, a Maltese cross. A broad flat band borders the panel at top and right; a narrowband at left. Back very roughly dressedwith a rectangularcutting in the middle. Pentelic marble. For the general scheme, cf. the iconostasis of the Katholikon at Hosios Loukas (PI. 12,d); also a panel from near the Bema church at Corinth (Scranton, Corinth,XVI, pl. 19, 10) and another in the Byzantine Museum, No. 104 (P1. 1i,j).

16

THE FIRST PERIOD

B. Column. P1.11,f. (A 2561) PH. 0.55; diam.0.19. Builtinto the foundationsof the modem iconostasis. Thepieceincludespartof the octagonalshaftandpartsof two sidesof its squarecapital.Capitaldecoratedon one sidewitha rosettein a lyre-shapedframe;on the adjacentsidewitha rosettein a circlewith four (?)loops formingcorners. C. Column. Not illustrated. (A 2562) PH. 0.27; PW. 0.10; PT. 0.19. From straymarblesin the vicinityof the church.Possiblyfrom the iconostasis. Similarto the precedingbut with only one side (as preserved)decoratedwith a rosettein a looped circle;adjacentside plainwith an attachmenthole. D. EpistyleBlock. Pl. ll,a,b. (A 2492a) PL. 0.80; H. 0.235; T. 0.295(bottom);0.37 (top). Sevenjoiningfragments,builtinto late masonryof the church,in debrisinsideor foundamongstraymarblesin the vicinity. Bothendsmissing.Cutfroman ancientIonicarchitrave.Frontand bottomforman obtuseangle.On front,a central(?)braidedcross,projectingslightlybeyondthe face, flankedby interlacingdoublerectangles,eachcontaininga rosettein a doublecircle.A triangularleaf in each corner.On underside,a lozengeenclosingtwo palmettes,root to root; palmettesin the corners.All unitsmuch triple-bordered elongated.On back,the fasciaeof the originalarchitrave. For the braidedcrossreliefcf. the crosswhichoriginallystoodon the domeof the Theotokosat Hosios Loukas(Stikas,H.L., p. 212, fig. 105). E. EpistyleBlock. Pl.ll,c,d. (A 2492b) PL. 1.07;H. 0.235; T.0.295(bottom);0.37 (top). Foundtogetherwith the closureslab A. Both endsand the top of the frontface brokenaway.Fromthe sameIonicarchitraveas D. On front, betweentwo convex-concaverosettebossesare threeinterlacedcircles,the centralenclosinga Maltese cross,the othersa palmettewithina palmette.To the rightof therighthandbossis the startof a palmettefilled cross. On underside,to left, a rectangularrestingsurface,followedby threeinterlacedcirclesenclosinga Maltesecross(center)andtwo plainrosettes.Onthe back,the fasciaeof the originalarchitrave. The schemeis closelyparalleledon two fragmentsof an epistylewhichundoubtedlybelong together and probablyjoin, one in the ByzantineMuseum,No. 197, the otherphotographedin the Asklepieion in 1961(P1.ll,g,h). The generalschemeof the decorationof the iconostasisis typicalof the MiddleByzantineperiod.Panels with a combinationof interlacedrectangle,rhomboid,and circleshavebeenfoundin manyplaces2 and of varyingdegreesof complexity,but these variationsare apparentlywithoutregionalsignificance and they havenot been sufficientlystudiedto affordprecisechronologicalcriteria.In the simplerforms the rhomboidis connectedto the enclosingrectangular frameonlyat its corners,whereit meetsthe frame at mid pointin each of the four sides.The circlesfillingthe comersare linkedto the rhomboidbut not to the frame,and the centerof the rhomboidis occupiedby an unconnectedrosette,as, e.g., in a panel from the Moni Petrakiin Athens(P1. l,i)26and some of the panelsin the windowsand galleryof the 25

Cf. Bulletinde correspondance hellenique,XXXIII, 1909, pp. 352 ff; also Sotiriou, Petraki,p. 111.

26Now in the ByzantineMuseum,No. 166. Cf. Sotiriou, Petraki,pl. 49. I am indebtedto Mme. Sotiriou and to M. Michaelides

for permissionto include this and other architecturalmarblesin the ByzantineMuseum.

THE FONT

17

Katholikonat HosiosLoukas.In the Holy Apostlespaneleachof the cornercirclesis linkedto two adjacent sidesof the framebut not to the rhomboid,whichis connectedinsteadwiththe centralcircleas well as withthe rectangular frame.A stillmorecomplexformis represented by anotherpanelin the Byzantine Museum(No. 104)in whichall the elementsareconnectedwitheachother(PI. 1 ,j). Rosettesof assorted typesare the normalfillingornamentfor the circles.Pinwheels,as in the panelfrom the Moni Petraki, seemto be confinedto the earlierexamples.The Maltesecrossin the centerof the Holy Apostlespanel is rare,but it occursin a very similarpanelin the ambonof the basilicain Kalambaka27 and a related variantin the lunetteover the west door of the LittleMetropolisin Athens. Fragmentsof a numberof panelsof thistypecameto lightduringexcavationsmadepriorto rebuilding the refectoryat Hosios Loukas,28 whichStikasattributesto an earlierbuildingon the spot, eitherthe Theotokosor the small oratorychapelsaid to have been built by the followersof the saintsoon after his death.So far as can be madeout in theirfragmentary conditiontheirinterlaceis relativelysimpleand they differfromthoseunderdiscussionin that theyareborderedwithwidebandsof Kufesqueornament in whichStikassees a close resemblanceto the brickfriezessurroundingthe Theotokos.29

THE FONT A marblefont, now in the ByzantineMuseum,was foundin the courtyardof the churchand can almost certainlybe attributedto the firstperiodof the church.30It is decoratedwith an interlacedcross (P1.10,d). 27

EEBZ,VI, 1929, p. 303, fig. 7. G. Sotiriou dates the churchin the 11th century. Stikas, H.L., pp. 17ff. and figs. 9, 10. 29 Cf. a similar panel with a Kufesqueband in the ByzantineMuseum,No. 323, reproducedin part in H.L., p. 22, fig. 15. 30 EMME,I, p. 78, fig. 74, and p. 79. 28

THE ARCHITECTURAL TYPE T he churchof the Holy Apostlesis the workof someunknownarchitectwho combinedthe elements to createa uniquebuildingwhichstands of the centralizedplan, a tetraconchand a cross-in-square far above all the other extantchurchesof Athensin imaginationand sophistication.'His achievement with the tetraconchbut also in findinga happysolution lies not only in combiningthe cross-in-square to the problemof addinga narthexto this type. A seriesof churchesin Greecedemonstrateshow architectsweregrapplingwith the problemof combininga triconchor, morerarely,a tetraconchwitha narthexso thatthe resultwouldbe satisfactoryfrom a practicalpoint of view and at the sametime aestheticallypleasing.In none of the knownchurchesexThe simplestsolutionis represented by numerceptthe Holy Apostleswas the resultentirelysuccessful.2 the In ous diminutivethree-apsedchurchesfoundall overGreece,especiallyin opencountry. thesethere is usuallyno narthexin the senseof an articulatedpartof the building;the westvaultis merelyprolonged slightlyto give a little additionalspace,e.g. in the smallchurchof St.Nicholasin Methana(Fig.8,a).3A morecomplexexample,but stillwithoutanychangein the outlineof the groundplan,is to be foundin the PanagiaKoumbelidikiin Kastoria(Fig.8,c), in whichthe westwardextensionis set off by beingcovered witha transversebarrelvaultand is separatedfromtherestof thechurchby a wallwitha widedoorway.4 The extraspaceachievedby this devicewas necessarilysmall,beinglimitedto the widthof the vaults of the church;furtherprolongationwouldhaveturnedthe narthexinto a nave,whichwasliturgicallyundesirableat this time.5The nextstep,illustratedin the largerchurchof St. Nicholasat Platani,nearPatras, was to attacha much broadernarthex,allowingit to projectat both ends (Fig. 8,b).6That this is apparentlythe only survivingexampleof this typemaybe coincidenceor it mayhavebeenquitereasonably regardedas a failure,for the ends werevirtuallydead spacesand the clumsyappearancefrom the outsidewouldnot have encouragedemulation. A moresuccessfulapproachwas takenby the architectof the now ruinedchurchof St. Demetriosat Varasova,on the Gulfof Corinth,7a muchlargerbuilding(ca. 16.50 X 11m.; Fig. 8,d). As at St. Nicholas at Platani,a narthexwas addedagainstthe westernvault,but hereits connectionwasmadeless tenuous by continuing the north and south walls eastwardto merge with those of the north and south apses, thus avoiding the creation of awkward open spaces such as are found at Platani. The western vault of

the churchproperwaslongerthanthat at Plataniandthe largerspacesenclosedto eithersideweremade nicheon the chambersenteredfromthe narthex,eachhavinga smallsemicircular into smallrectangular east side. The nicheslookedinto the northand southapsesthroughsmallarchedwindows. 1 Combinationsof diverseplans in a single buildingare not uncommon.For a varietyof examplescf. Ebersolt,Chap. X. Ebersolt cites the Holy Apostles but of course without the then unknowncomplicationsof the west end. 2 This series forms part of Orlandos'illuminatingstudy of the triconchin Greecein ABME,I, 1935,pp. 105-120, whichincludes a section on the problem of the narthex. ProfessorOrlandoshas kindly given permission to include his plans, some of which are reproducedhere in Fig. 8. No claims are made for the actual dates of the individualbuildingsmentionedhere, but they representa logical sequence. 3 ABME,I, 1935, p. 113, fig. 7. 4 ABME,IV, 1938, p. 127, fig. 88, reproducedas our Fig. 8,c but without the later addition. 5Many of the churchesof this type have been so enlarged,but only in the 17th and 18th centuries. 6 ABME,I, 1935,pp. 112, 116 and fig. 12. 7 Ibid., pp. 105ff.

THE ARCHITECTURAL TYPE

19

a c

f

d

g

1h

i

Fig. 8. Churches in Greece. a. Methana, St. Nicholas. b. Platani, St. Nicholas. c. Kastoria, Koumbelidiki. d. Varasova, St. Demetrios. e. Athens, Moni Petraki. f. Manolada, Palaiopanagia. g. Athens, Holy Apostles. h. Gavrolimni, Panaxiotissa. i. Arta, St. Nicholas cPoba-g. (1:200)

20

THE ARCHITECTURAL TYPE

Althoughthe generaleffectof the churchat Varasovawas moreharmoniousthan that offeredby St. Nicholas,circulationbetweenthe narthexand the rest of the churchwas improvednot at all, for there was no communicationbetweenthe smalllateralchambers,whichperhapsservedas chapels,and the churchproper.8 An intermediate stagebetweenVarasovaandtheHolyApostlesmaybe recognizedin the churchof the Dormitionof the Virgin,popularlyknownas the Palaiopanagia,at Manolada,in Elis (Fig. 8,f; P1.12, a,b,c).9The basis of this churchis not a triconchor a tetraconchbut a free cross, with armsof equal length,the westernarmbeingsurroundedby a pi-shapednarthex.Thetwo baysflankingthe westernarm of the cross communicatewith the churchproperby doorways,this finallyprovidingfree accessfrom the narthexto the mainbody of the church.10 representsa transitionbetweenthe typesof churchesdiscussed Althoughthe planof the Palaiopanagia above, the actualbuildingmust be regardedas a late provincialexample.The large blocks forming crossesin the masonryof the west facade,for example,are characteristic of the secondhalf of the 11th andthe 12thcentury,andthe fact thattheyareoutlinedin brickmakesthe laterpartof thisperiodmore likely(PI. 12,a).11In fact, Bourasfindsso manysimilaritiesin buildingdetailsbetweenManoladaand the Naupliachurch,builtin 1143,that he believesthe two buildingsto be closelycontemporary.12 For the arrangementof the interior,Manoladaoffersthe closestparallelto the Holy Apostlesyet discovered.The generaleffect,however,is muchless pleasing.The parallelwallsof the westernarmof the crosspresentan uncompromising interruptionof the interiorspaceand createa tunnel-likeimpression (PI. 12,c), whereasin the Holy Apostlesthe diagonalwalls of the westernapse lead naturallyinto the angle chambers.The heavy walls supportingthe dome at Manolada add to the impressionof confinement

in contrastto one of lightnessandopenspacegivenby the freestandingcolumnsof the Athenianchurch, an impressionwhichis heightenedby the successivechangesin level.13 The narthexof the Palaiopanagiaprovidedthe analogyfor the restorationof the Holy Apostles,with saucerdomesoverthe threewesternbays.Theirregularshapeof the easternbaysin the Athenianbuilding called,however,for a groinvault and,in fact,a verysmallbit of the startof a groinvaultwas found in the northeastcornerof the northernbay. The similaritybetweenthe two churchesis confinedto the west end. Theheavyproportionsof Manoof the domesupportedby long vaults(P1.12,b),'4havelittlein comlada,withits forthrightarrangement of equilibrium, monwiththeharmonious"combinations ingeniousalmostto thepointof subtlety"which evokedthe admirationof Choisy15in the Holy Apostles.The obtuseanglesof all the apses and of the prothesisand diaconiconsoftenthe articulation,and the dentilcourseswhichrun aroundthe building unifyall the elements. 8 The breaksin the north and south walls of the westernvault shown on the plan apparentlyleave open the possibility of door-

ways into this part of the church,but Orlandosspecificallyexcludedthis (ibid., p. 115). 9 This interestingbuildingwas first noticed by G. Lambakis,who publishedbrief accounts in AXAE,ser. 1,II, 1894, p. 14, and again in his Memoire, p. 19. A corrected plan was published by Orlandosin ABME,I, 1935, p. 118, fig. 15, in the article under discussion(here reproducedas Fig. 8,f). Most recentlythe churchhas receivedthe full publicationit deserves from Ch. Bouras in EXOXis ToO'ApiarroTesXEou naveTorlopiou 'ETcrraMovK1Kh 'ErreTilpISTrS TToXUTEXVXiKs

IV, 1969, pp. 233-266, with eescra?ovi{Knri,

earlier bibliography. 10Bouras (p. 235) regardsthese doorwaysas "probably"a late modification,but apparentlyon no other grounds than that the TrCO alcbvcov,Athens, 1924, Si& pacroou walls are representedas unbrokenon Lambakis'plan and that G. Papandreou,in 'H 'HAeia p. 203, stated that they had recentlybeen opened. But Lambakis'plan is inaccuratein many respectsand Bouras regardedPapandreou's descriptionin generalas "unimportant."To the observeron the spot, the doorwaysshow no sign of not being contemporary with the original building. 11E.g., the Kapnikareaand Daphni in the11th century,the Hagia Moni at Nauplia and the churchesat Chonikaand Amphissa in the 12th century(Megaw, Chronology,pp. 101-102). 12 Bouras, Manolada,p. 258. For the date of the Hagia Moni, cf. Megaw, Chronology,p. 94. 13 Above, p. 5. 14 Bouras notes (Manolada,pp. 236-237) that the architect of the Palaiopanagiawas not insensitiveto the heavy effect created by intrusionof the massive walls into the interiorspace and that he alleviatedit by cutting away the cornerswhere they met under the dome to give them a concave surface. The same device was used in the church of H. Photeini in Thebes(now ruined), a church of relatedplan which Orlandosdates in the second half of the 10thcentury(ABME,V, 1939-40, pp. 145-146). 15Choisy, L'art de batirchez les byzantins,pp. 132-133.

THE ARCHITECTURAL TYPE

21

Varasovaand Manoladaareessentiallyhybrids,withthe easternhalf constructedon the planof a free The three crossbut thewestern,becauseof the enclosingnarthex,becomingvirtuallya cross-in-square. the with surrounded the of the fourth Athenian the narthex,bring by Holy Apostles, projectingapses churchinto this generalcategory,with the differencethat the angle chambersand the free-standing columnsease the transitionbetweenthe two architectural typesand open up the interiorspace.Furthermore,in the Holy Apostles,sincethe westernapse rose high abovethe narthex,it is only in the ground is evident,whereasin the two provincialchurchesthe westernarm of the plan that the cross-in-square cross is completelyswallowedup by the narthexand is invisiblefrom the outside. in which The essenceof the plan of the Holy Apostlesis the simpleConstantinopolitan cross-in-square all armsof the crossareof equallength,the anglechambersconsequentlysquareandthe domesupported by four free-standingcolumns.The variationconsistedin the additionof apsesto all four armsof the cross,therebyopeningup spacein all directionsand emphasizingthe centralizedcharacterof the plan.16 The apseswereaddeddirectlyto the mainvaultswithoutthe intermediatevaultwhichin the composite form makesa transitionand providesextraspacefor the sanctuary.The squareanglechamberswhich arenormallycoveredwitheithergroinvaultsor saucerdomesarehereroofedin the combinationof half domes and triangularvaults noted above,17a variationdictatedby the semicircularinteriorof these chambers. The Constantinopolitan is rarein Greecebeforethe end of the 11thcentury,in concross-in-square trastwiththe provincialtypein whichthe anglechambersarebarrel-vaulted; the resultis thatin the provincialchurchessymmetryis less of a factor sincethese spacescould be, and often were,elongatedat will.18The evolutionof the Greektype can be tracedin actualmonumentsfromits originin the basilica andthe transitional throughSkripou,the firstsurvivingchurchin Greeceto presagethe cross-in-square,19 churchesof the 10thcentury,downto the fullydevelopedbuildingof the 1lth-12th centuries.Illustrative of the 10thcenturychurchesis the PanagiaPanaxiotissaat Gavrolimni,on a ruggedmountainslopebehindNaupaktos(Fig.8,h; PI.13,b).Althougha developedcross-in-square, it has someof the archaicfeatures of Skripou, e.g., the semicircularapse and the short stretches of wall which will later become freestanding supports.20The Constantinopolitantype, on the other hand, having no roots in Greece,2'makes its first appearance already fully developed and so appears as an intrusion and a conscious importation. Its sudden appearancecan hardly be due to pure chance. It seems more likely that some external circumstance arose to open this new channel in the currentof Byzantinearchitecturein Greece, and it is possible that the answer lies in the Monastery of Hosios Loukas (PI. 13,c, d). Without doubt the most important building of the Constantinopolitanstyle ever built in Greece22is the Church of the Theotokos at Hosios Loukas. (PI. 13,c). The recently completed work of conservation and 16 For the relation of the Holy Apostles to the tetraconch,cf. also Orlandos in ABME,XI, 1969,pp. 81, 82. An earlier but related in Salonica(ABME,VII, 1951, pp. 146exampleof the type may be seeinin the 10th centurychurchof H. AndreasTCv epio-repcov 167), a tetraconchin which a prothesisand diaconicon,added for liturgicalratherthan architecturalreasons,are almost completely sealed off from the main body of the church.The four free-standingcolumns are so close to the inner cornersthat the buildingcan hardlybe classifiedas a cross-in-squareat all, and domes cover all arms of the cross. Orlandosdescribesthe churchas being a mixture of Early Christianand proto-Byzantineelements.

17 Above, p. 10.

18 The

differentiationof the Constantinopolitanand Greek types of cross-in-squarewas first enunciatedby Millet in his L'ecole grecquedans l'architecturebyzantine,1916. This pioneer work formed the basis for the study of Byzantinearchitecturein Greece. More detailedexaminationand in many cases removalof later accretionshave made possible greaterprecisionin applyinghis principles, which by now have become almost axiomatic. At the same time, they have made the distinctionsless clear-cut.The subject has been more fully explored and elaboratedby Orlandos,as summarizedin ABME,V, 1939-40, pp. 3-10. For recentdiscussionscf. Sotiriou, Petraki,pp. 101-129 and Krautheimer,pp. 275-280. The basic differencesare seen as going back to the ultimatederivation of the two types: the Greek from the Easternbasilica and the Constantinopolitanfrom the cruciformchurchbroughtto perfection in the capital. Only the elements directlyapplicableto the presentsubjectare touched on here. 19M. Sotiriou, 'Apx. 'Ep., 1931, pp. 119-157. 20 ABME,I, 1935, pp. 121-124. For other 10th centurychurchescf. Sotiriou, Petraki, pp. 107-108. 21 The cruciform church of the Katapolianion Paros is no more native to Greece than are the later churches of Constantinopolitan origin. 22 The churchesof Salonica and Mt. Athos are excludedfrom considerationas being in the sphere of the capital, not of the provinces (cf. Orlandos,ABME,V, 1939-40, p. 6, note 1).

THE ARCHITECTURAL TYPE

22

evidencethat the Theotokos,contraryto restorationof the monasterybroughtto lightincontrovertible With recentlyprevailingopinion,was builtbeforethe Katholikonand not a quarterof a centuryafter.23 the relativechronologyof the two churchesnow established,it wouldbe usefulto be able to fix theiractualdatesprecisely,but at leastthe limitshavebeennarrowedconsiderably.Stikasrejectsthemoregenerally accepteddatingof the Katholikonin the firstquarterof the 11thcentury,with its implicationthat it mighthave beenfoundedby BasilII on hisjourneythroughGreecein 1018,on the groundsthat any suchmonumentalundertaking wouldnot haveescapedthenoticeof thechroniclersof the event.24 Instead, Monomachos of of Ancona the was built Constantine Katholikon on a that statement by Cyriacus relying (1042-1055),he wouldput the constructionof thatchurchbetween1042and 1044,the lowerlimitbeing ted in fact that whose theimitated the fasimitat hatin Panagiabuiding was lobvious thens, imposedby the obvious Thisseemsan uncomfortably founderdiedin 1044.25 crampedintervalinto whichto squeezethe planning and buildingof the Katholikon,the spreadof its influenceenoughto inspireimitation,and finally,the it runscounterto themoregenerallyacceptedopinactualconstructionof the Lykodemou.Furthermore, ion thatthe mosaicsandmanyof the frescoesdatefromthefirstquarterof the century.Failingnewsolid evidenceit seemsbest to retainthe traditionaldating.26 The dating of the Theotokos, on the other hand, must be drastically revised. If the Katholikon is to be dated ca. 1010-1025, the Theotokos can hardly be later than the turn of the century,27even without the independentevidence of the Joshua fresco. This fresco, discovered under the marble revetmentin the the west wall of the Theotokos, is dated stylisnorth transept of the Katholikon which proved to be alsothe tically to the late 10th or beginning of the th century.28Whether or not the Theotokos is the original

churchof St. Barbaraerectedon the site soon afterthe deathof St. Lukein 953,29 it seemsalmostcertain that it was built at least as earlyas the last quarterof the 10thcentury.30 in Greecehadreachedits peak,the effect As a buildingof the 11thcentury,whenByzantinearchitecture of the Theotokos would have been limited and negligible except in specific details; asa church of the latter part of the 10th centuryit can be viewed as the prototype for the other churchesof Constantinopolitan derivationin Greece and it thus assumesgreat importancein its relationto the Holy Apostles, not only for its plan but for details of construction.3 In connection with the churches of the Constantinopolitan

typeit mustbe notedthathowevercloselytheirplanswerederivedfromthe capital,theirbuildingmethods were entirely Greek. The cloisonne system of masonry is found only in Greece, never in Constantinople, where bricks were used as ornamentallevelling courses but not in the verticaljoints.32Other brick

ornamentaldevices,suchas Kufesqueand relatedbrickpatternsembeddedin the masonry,are likewise confinedto Greece;but the dentilcornice,consistingof two or threesuccessivelyprojectingrowsof sawtooth brickwork,is commonto both schools.33 The influenceof both churchesat Hosios Loukaswas powerful.Nothingcomparableto the Katholikon was built in Greeceduringthe wholeByzantineperiodalthoughit was imitatedin simplerformin 23

Stikas, H.L., pp. 147ff.

24H.L., p. 13. The accountsare to be found in the sources mentionedabove. 25 H.L., pp. 34-36. For the date of the Lykodemou,cf. Millet, L'ecole grecque,p. 7, note 1, and Megaw, Chronology,pp. 95-96. 26 The various opinions held from the beginningof interestin the monumentare convenientlysummarizedin H.L., pp. 29-33. On other groundsOrlandos(ABME,VII, 1951, p. 144) proposed a date ca. 1010, and Chatzidakis(Cahiersarcheologiques,XIX, 1969, pp. 127-150) offeredeither 1011 or 1022, preferablythe former. Stikas (H.L., pp. 16ff., 244ff.)rejectsall of these. 27 At the junction of the two buildingsit was discoveredthat up to the level of the floor of the gynaikonitisof the Katholikon the original south wall of the narthexof the Theotokos servedas the common wall. At that point it had been stripped down to make a beddingfor the floor of the gynaikonitisand from there upwardthe wall was completedin new masonry (H.L., pp. 155, 170, figs. 71-72). Stikas suggeststhat the upperstorey of the narthexmust have alreadybeen in a ruinouscondition to warrantdemolition of the wall. 28H.L., pp. 174-178, with references. 29 H.L., p. 194.

30

The various aspects of the relationshipbetweenthe two churcheswill be discussedmore fully below in their respectiveplaces.

31

Below, p. 25.

32

Millet, L'ecole grecque,p. 225. Ibid., pp. 264-265, and Megaw, Chronology,pp. 116-117. Millet includes dentil courses in the wall surfacesin the categoryof strictly Greek elements,but Krautheimer,p. 352, note 42, disagrees. 33

THE ARCHITECTURAL TYPE

23

the seriesof octagonalchurches:PanagiaLykodemou,Christianou,Daphni,SS. Theodoreat Mistraand S. Sophiaat Monemvasia.34 Certainly,contemporaryarchitectsmusthave been keepinga watchfuleye on the developmentsat Hosios Loukas.ThePanagiaLykodemou,whileborrowingthe Kufesquefrieze of the Theotokos,owes still more, becauseof its plan and generalappearance,to the Katholikon.35 One of the earliest,perhapsthe earliest,churchof the Constantinopolitan typein Greeceis the katholikon of the Moni Petrakiin Athens(Fig. 8,e; PI. 13,a). Until recentlythe wholebuildingwas covered withpaintedplasterwhichconcealedthe distinctionbetweenthe originalbuildingand laterrepairsand additionsand gavea false impressionof a late date.For thatreasonit had beengenerallyoverlookedby in Greece.36 Theremovalof the plasterrevealedmuchof the realcharstudentsof Byzantinearchitecture acterof the buildingand gave an opportunityfor Mme. Sotiriouto studyit in detailand to distinguish the originalchurchfromall latermodifications,majorandminor.As a resultof herinvestigationit must now be consideredto head the list of the still existingchurchesbuilt in Athensin the Byzantineperiod and is almostcertainlyto be datedin the 10thcentury.37 The churchis drawnmore firmlyinto the orbit of Constantinopleby the projectingarchesof the transepts,also presentin the Theotokos(P1.13,c),and it seemsnot impossiblethatthis churchprovided the inspirationfor the Moni Petraki.38 The Holy Apostlesrepresentsnot a furtherstagein the orderlydevelopmentof the cross-in-square, but the independentby-productof an architectof genius.In plan, the Moni Petrakiis closer,but in the total effectit comes out ratheras a poor relation.The Holy Apostlesborrowed,so far as its meager resourcespermitted,the bestfeaturesof the exteriorof the Theotokos.39 In the interior,the two churches havein commonthe fourfree-standing columnsbut in otherrespectsthe Holy Apostlesis superiorto the Theotokosin the interplayof space. 34 35

Millet, L'ecole grecque,pp. 117-118.

Pp. 22, 25, note 11.

36 It was publishedbriefly by Orlandosin EMME,pp. 125-129, whereit was dated to the 13th or 14thcentury.!It does not appear in Megaw's sequence,presumablybecauseit was thought to be too late. 37 Sotiriou, Petraki, pp. 101-129. Warmestthanks are here expressedto Mme. Sotiriou for the photographin Plate 13,a and for permissionto reproducethe plan in Figure 8,e. 38 The relativedates of the two buildingsremain to be determined.The more primitivecharacterof the Athenianchurch,with its round apses, irregularmasonry,and somewhatcrude sculpture in contrast to the semi-hexagonalapses and sophisticatedcloisonne masonryof the Theotokos, may perhaps be explainedby the fact that Athens was just beginningto emerge from a long period of depressionratherthan by a prior date. 39 For the similaritiesof detail, cf. below, p. 25.

DATE There is no externalevidencefor the date of the Holy Apostles.No convenientfounder'sinscription was discoveredbuilt into its walls, nor can any mentionof the churchbe found in contemporary literarysources.Ceramicand numismaticevidencewas also lackingfrom the excavation.On stylistic grounds,however,it had been consistentlydated in the 11th centuryby Millet,' Xyngopoulos2and others,and these broad limits were narroweddown to the firstquarterof the centuryby Megaw,who madethe firstdetailedanalysisof the building.3Megaw'sdatinghas beengenerallyfollowed4and whatevernew evidencewas uncoveredduringrecentoperationstends to strengthenratherthan questionit. It has been seenthat plan alonecannotbe usedas a criterionfor datingthe churchesin Greece,since after they some types, e.g. Manolada, survived long were, theoretically, superseded.Details of construction are often a more reliable guide to absolute chronology and it was on this basis, supported by some external evidence, that Megaw established his sequence of twenty-two churches, beginning in the early years of the 11th century and ending in the last quarterof the 12th. The Holy Apostles is assigned second place in the series, between the two churches at Hosios Loukas.5

The key elementsin determiningthe date of the Holy Apostlesare the design of the windowsand the characterof the brick ornament and of the masonry in general. As noted above, the windows are of

the "arcade"type,the earliestin Megaw'ssequenceof windowdesign,whichhe derivesfromthewindow arcades of Early Christianbasilicas and follows into the west fagade of Skripou (A.D. 87314).The gap can be further bridged by the Panaxiotissa at Gavrolimni (PI. 13,b)6 and by the Moni Petraki at Athens (PI. 13,a). Both churches have broad, triple arcaded windows in semicircularapses. Arcaded windows

survivedbeyondthe firsthalf of the 11thcenturybut they arefoundless and less frequently,and only in smallchurches.Thebroadtriplewindowin the apsedisappearsentirelyaboutthe middleof the century, inwhi the latest known example being in the Kapnikarea in Athens, or about 1050. middle theof the mcentury,

Megaw's series dates shortly after

A datein the late 10thor early 11thcenturyfor the Holy Apostlesis supportedby the masonry,both in generalandin detail,and most conspicuouslyby the brickornament,chieflyKufesque,in thejoints of thecloisonnemasonry.Theuseof Kufesquedesignsin Byzantinemasonrywasa phenomenonwhichburst upon the scenein Greece,and only in Greece,in churchesof the 11thor eventhe 10thcenturyandflourishedfor somethingoverhalf a century,and thendisappearedentirely.8ObviouslyderivedfromIslamic 1 L'ecole grecque,p. 94, etc. EMME,I, p. 79. 3 Chronology,p. 104, and passim. 4 E.g., Krautheimer, 276; Travlos, foAMoSoPIKi, pp. 151, 155; Frantz, Byzantion,XXIV, 1954, p. 520. p. 5 Chronology,p. 129. The Katholikonwas placed first, following the opinion prevailingat the time of Megaw's publication. Although the relativepositions of the two buildingshave now been reversed,the place of the Holy Apostles remainsunchanged,and it will be seen that the new order makes for a somewhateasier progression. 6 Above, p. 21. 7 Chronology,pp. 107, 121, 129. 8 Megaw, Chronology,pp. 104ff.; Millet, L'ecole grecque, pp. 254-256. Cf. also A. Grabar, "La d6corationarchitecturalede l'eglise de la Vierge a Saint-Lucen Phocide, et les d6buts des influencesislamiques sur l'art byzantin de Gr&ce,"Comptesrendus dclel'academiedes inscriptionset de belles-lettres,1971, pp. 15-37. This important article came to my attention after the present work was in page proof. 2

DATE

25

textiles,pottery,etc., its suddenappearancehas been attributedto the actualpresenceof Arab technicians, but in what capacitythese artisansfound themselves,whetheras colonizers,prisonersof war, or traders,has neverbeen satisfactorilyexplained.9 The datablechurchesexhibitan unusualsequencein that theybeginwiththe most elaborateandfully Considerdevelopedstyle(e.g., the Theotokosat Hosios Loukas)and graduallybecomemoreaustere.10 ing the complexityof the techniquethis reversalof the naturalprogressionwouldbe inexplicableexcept by assumingthe presenceandparticipationof the inventorsof the system(orthoseto whomit wasnative), who turnedit overto local workmenas theirown colonygraduallydiminished.Thereviseddatingof the two churchesat HosiosLoukasseemsmorelogicalin thislight,andone mayeasilysupposethattheTheotokos was the examplefrom whichthe laterchurchesdrewtheirinspiration. The masonryof the Holy Apostles,althoughmuchless elaboratethan that of the Theotokos,is still and uses some of the samepatamongthe richestin Kufesqueornamentof all the churchesin Greece"1 ternsas the Theotokos.Otherelements,too, strengthenthe link betweenthe two churches.Theyhave in commonthe arcadedwindows,triplefor the mainapse and doubleelsewhere,with the addedfeatureof in thedome.2TheHolyApostles,however,withobviouslymorelimitedmeans two-lightgroupedwindows could not emulatethe rich carvingthat adornedthe dome of the Theotokos.Both churchesexhibitthe samefree use of dentilcoursesto relievethe monotonyof the wall surfacesand to counteractthe strong verticalsprovided,in the case of the Holy Apostles,by the cornersof the apsesand anglechambersand in the Theotokosby the apses and projectingarchesof the transepts.In addition,both churchesmake the same use of largeblocksin the lowest course,not to form a patternof crosses,but for accentand stability. The churchof SS. Jason and Sosipatrosin Corfou,althoughdifferentin plan, is closely relatedin masonry. Its generallyaccepted date in the 12th centuryhas been revised,on convincinggrounds, to ca. A.D. 1000 by P. L. Vokotopoulos.12a In plan it is unrelatedto either the Holy Apostles or the Theotokos, being a cross-in-squareof the 2-columnedGreek type, but the Kufesquebrickworkin the joints of the masonryis veryclose to that of the Holy Apostles,althoughwith a little less variety. This, however,is compensatedfor by two Kufesquefriezeson the east end similar to those on the Theotokos.Vokotopoulosnotes the close relationto both the Holy Apostles and the Theotokosand concludesthat mastermasonshad been broughtfrom Athens or Thebesto buildthe Corfiotechurch. One is temptedto go even furtherand suggestthat the samemasonsworkedon the HolyApostlesand SS. Jasonand Sosipatros,even thoughthe two buildingsweresurelydesignedby differentarchitects. Megaw'sargumentsfor a date in the firstquarterof the 11thcenturyhave been summarizedabove. Somefurthercorroborationseemedto be furnishedwhenthe recoveryof the originalform of the dome addedto the similaritiesbetweenthe two churches.But now that the Theotokoscan with certaintybe attributedto the 10thcentury,the HolyApostlesshouldprobablybe putbacka quarterof a century,into 9 On this vexed question,and the evidencein generalfor an Arab colony in Athens, cf. G. Sotiriou, Ka-r& -roO BVuavrivo0S Xpovous,"

"'ApapiK&AEiyavaiv 'ASAivait TfiS'AKa8tpifa 'ASBvCv, IV, 1929, pp. 266ff.; idem, "'ApapiKat AilKoaitIicEtisEIST&a TpcK-riK&

B.N.J., 1935, pp. 233-269; KennethM. Setton, "On the Raids of the Moslems in the Aegean in the Ninth MvTnLETa TfiS'EAS&SoS," and Tenthcenturies,"A.J.A., LVIII, 1954, pp. 311-319; George C. Miles, "Byzantiumand the Arabs: Relations in Crete and the Aegean Area," D.O.P., XVIII, 1964, pp. 3-32; idem,"TheArab Mosquein Athens," Hesperia,XXV, 1956,pp. 329-344. All of these articleslist and take account of earlier bibliography. 10Megaw, Chronology,pp. 106-107. 11The PanagiaLykodemouin Athens,with its elaborateKufesquefriezeon the northfacade, also deservesa place in this category, but its frieze is made by the champlev6process, in which the design is drawn on a flat tile and the background then cut away, instead of by the conventional method of using the thin edge of several pieces of brick to compose the design, the rest being embeddedin the mortar of the joint. The champlev6techniquemust be regardedas a later development(Megaw, Chronology,pp. 105-106). 12 Megaw, writinglong before the recentwork on the Holy Apostles, noted that whereasthe dome of the Theotokos had grouped windows,the Holy Apostles did not. His obviousreservationon this point was justifiedby the later discovery of the original scheme. In comparingthe two domes it is importantto bear in mind that the presenthorizontalcornice of the Theotokos dates from a late repair. Originallythe archespushed up into the dome as do those on the Holy Apostles (Stikas, H.L., p. 117, fig. 47). 12aAXAE, Per. 4, V, 1969, pp. 149-174.

26

DATE

the last quarterof the 10th.It shouldprobablybe regardedas inspiredby the Theotokosratherthan Theclosurepanelof the iconostasisof the Athenianchurchis close enoughto one exactlycontemporary. in the centralsectionof the screenof the Katholikonof HosiosLoukasto indicatea fairlyclose chronologicalrelationship(PI.12,d), but the epistyleof theHolyApostlesis primitivebesidethe elaborateornathe of the screenat Hosios Loukas.On the otherhand, the closurepanel of the mentationof the epistyle epistyle Holy Apostlesis considerablymoredevelopedthanthe slabfromthe Moni Petraki(PI.11,i). The relative datesof theMoniPetrakiand theTheotokosare still opento question,but in anycase the combinaand sculpturalevidencejustifiesassigningthe Holy Apostlesto the intervalbetween tion of architectural these two churchesand the Katholikon. The above revisionof datingmakesimprobablean earliersuggestionthat the Holy Apostlesmight Morelikely,it was builtto fill havebeenbuiltto commemoratethe visit of BasilII to Athensin 1018.13 the needsof the growingparishin an alreadyexpandingcity. Thevisitof Basil,however,maywellhave been a majorfactorin the generalimprovementin the economicsituationof Athenswhichlasteduntil the Frankishoccupation.The PanagiaLykodemou,whichfollowsthe Holy Apostlesin the sequenceof is the most monumentalof all the middleByzantinechurchesin Athensand is also Athenianchurches,14 Fromthis point on the provincialschool the last to showany appreciableinfluenceof Constantinople.15 takesoverwithbarrelvaultsreplacinggroinvaultsandsaucerdomesin the anglechambersandthe sanctuarymergingwiththe crossof the centralpartof the church(Fig. 8,i).16At the sametimethe cloisonne masonrybecomessimpleras the Kufesqueelementsdecreasein numberandcomplexityandthe number of bricksin thejointsis graduallyreducedto one. The Kapnikareawill sufficeto showthe directionByzantinearchitecturewas takingin Athens.The arcadedwindowsare now confinedto the east end; the Kufesquepatternsare greatlyreduced,and the singlebrickin the masonryjoints is the rule. 1954, p. 520. Megaw, Chronology,p. 129. The mass destructionof churchesin the mid-19thcenturymust be borne in mind. Cf. Didron's account: "aprestoutes les guerres... il restaitencore,en 1839,quatre-vingt-huit6glises,ou en entierou en partie.Onen d6molittous les jours; car le plan d'alignementet les constructionsnouvelles ont force de mettrela pioche dans ces monuments,qu'on respecte beaucoupmoins qu'une pierre ou le paganismeaurait laisse une empreintedouteuse et meme enti6rementeffac6e.Pendantnotre sejour,sous nos yeux, un de ces monumentsaet6 ras6du sol et a compltement disparuavec ses peintures"(Annalesarchdologiques, I, 1844,p. 42). Even allowingfor some exaggerationand grantingthat by no meansall of these churcheswereof the Byzantineperiod we must allow the possibility of some gaps in the series. 15Millet notes that titled persons and membersof rich families are among those whose epitaphs are inscribedon the south wall of the church(L'ecolegrecque,p. 7, note 1). 16 St. Nicholas 'Poits, Arta (afterSotiriou, Petraki, fig. 10). As the influenceof the capital recedesin Athens it makes itself felt in the provinces,whichhad been previouslyimpervious.Cf., e.g., Hosios Meletios (ABME,V, 1939-40, pp. 34-106, with plan, p. 59, fig. 12); H. Sotir, Amphissa, with its projectingarches (ABME,I, 1935, pp. 181-196); the Argolid group of Chonika, H. Moni at Nauplia, and Merbaka(A. Struck,Ath. Mitt., XXXIV, 1909, pp. 189ff; Megaw, Chronology,passim;Krautheimer,pp. 279-280). 13 Cf. Frantz, Byzantion,XXIV,

14

THE TOMBS considerable part of the interior of the church was occupied by tombs and burials, i.e. the central part of the church proper and the western bays of the narthex (Fig. 9; Pls. 15, 16, 28). In addition, two vaulted osteothekai were constructed immediately to the west of the narthex, in the space later enclosed by the exonarthex, and another to the north, just outside the later addition. With one possible A

I6 67525 lw VT

'I

4

2 t:,

-tCJJ

. luf^i^

-

-'NYM

zm

'/^'o'

PHAEU

M

CONCRETF E

SECTION

a-a

SECTION

b-b

I I 67.10

19 10

0

I

-i

Fig. 9.

I

i

5

4

J.T. 1955

SectionsthroughChurchProperand Narthex,showingTombs

exception, all of the tombs were built after the erection of the church but before the end of Period I. The tombs were repeatedly cleaned out and re-used, leaving the remains of only the most recent occupants, which therefore offer no clue to their original date. 1. (P1. 15,a). A shallow grave fitted into the space between the arc of the northern apse and the vaulted tomb, No. 2. Inner dimensions: L. 2.00; W. (center) 0.43; depth 0.37 m. The walls were carefully constructed of brick, the bricks on the north side being trimmed to fit the curve of the wall. The stones forming the cover were also carefully arranged to conform to the wall. There were no contents other than the bones.

28

THE TOMBS

2. (PI.15,a). A vaultedtomb adjacentto No. 1, its crownlying immediatelyunderthe level of the flagged floor. Inner dimensions: L. (without entrance) 2.00; (with entrance) 2.65; W. 1.26; H. (to top of

vault) 1.30m. Moderatelywellconstructedof fieldstonesand soft limestoneblocks;enteredat the eastby two steps. Thereis no traceof mortarin the wallsnor of any plasterlining.The vaultis of stoneexceptaroundthe opening,whereit is of largebricks.The squareopeningwas partiallycoveredby a slab of graymarble 0.90 X 0.40-0.50m. Theremainingspacewasfilledwitha pieceof the epistyleof the originaliconostasis. A jaggedhole, ca. 0.70 x 0.70 m., wascut in the westend of the southwallfor lateruse. A pile of bones was foundat this end, togetherwith threejugs of the Turkishperiod,probablythe 16thcentury(PI.15, b,c,d).1

3. A shallowburialbetweenthe vault of No. 2 and No. 4. The head(missing)at the west,the lowerleg bonescut off by the moderniconostasis.In the angleof the rightarmwas a glassbottle(P1.15,e)2and a piece of a curvedtile of yellowishgreenclay, inscribed N

KA-. The presence also of some small scraps of material, perhaps the edging of a priest's vestment,

indicatesthe recentnessof the burial. 4. (PI. 15,a).Next to No. 2. An ancientsarcophaguscut in one piece out of graylimestone.Inner dimensions:L. 1.94;W. 0.84; H.0.80m. It was fittedfor re-usewith two stepsat the east end. The areaall aroundwas churnedup at a verylate periodand the fill both insidethe sarcophagusand aroundit wasthe sameloose earthwithmanysmallstones,pavingslabsandbones.Thestonesundoubtedlycamefromthe packingaroundthe sarcophagus,and perhapsalso froma vault.Tombs2 and4 rest on the concretebeddingof the Nymphaeum;Nos. 1 and 3 are ca. 0.80-0.90m. aboveit. Apparentlytherewereno tombsin the squareformedby the columnsunderthe dome.The southapse remainedunexcavated. All the tombsin the narthexwerein the westernhalf (P1.15,g). Therewerenone in the irregularbays flankingtheapseexceptfor the stepsleadingdowninto No. 11.OnlyNo. 11wasvaultedwhendiscovered. 5. (P1.15,g, extremeleft).The northedge of this tombwas concealedunderthe latermasonrywhich thickenedthe wallof the narthexat thispointandthe insidewascoveredwitha massof rubble,probably from a late bench,betweenthe pilasters.It was not practicableto investigateit further. 6. (P1.15,g). The lowerpartof the tombconsistedof a late sarcophagus,hewnout of a singleblock of poros. Innerdimensions:L. 2.03; W. 0.67; H. 0.57 m. Additionalmasonryconsistingof a courseof poros blocksand anotherof mixedporos blocksand brickbroughtthe total preservedheightup to ca. 1.10m.

Thetwo uppercoursesweresteppedbackat the eastend to formtwo irregularsteps.Somemortaradheredto the bricksand a massof rubblefromthe packingsurroundedthe tomb.Therewas no traceof a cover.One skeletonwas laid out, headto the west,but withconsiderablespacebetweenit and the end of the tomb.Twolatejugswerefoundat the westend,anda Turkishcoin of 1810closeto the spine.Two otherskullsand a swept-upheap of bonesindicatedearlierburials. 7. (PI. 15,g).Adjacentto No. 6. Innerdimensions:L. (withoutstep) 1.98;(withstep)2.24; W. 0.62; H. 1.25m. Built entirelyof brickand rubble.The south half of the east end is formedby the foundationof the northpilasterof the apse, and the correspondingpart of the west end by the respondin the west wall. 1 Inv. b. P 24720; c. P 24718; d. P 24719. 2 Inv. G 16.

THE TOMBS

29

Room was madefor a stepby undercuttingthe foundationof the apse.The southsidewas brokenaway to 0.66 m. abovethe floorby the orthostatefromthe northwestcornerof the apse,whichfell diagonally acrossTombs7 and 8.3The floor of the tomb is bedrock.One cover slab, originallypart of an iconostasispanel,remainedin place at the west end. A carveddesignon the undersidewas so worn as to be unintelligible.The bones of one personwerefoundin a heap.Therewereno coins or pottery. 8. (P1.15,g). Contiguousto No. 7. L. 2.13; W. 0.54 m. This tomb is of similarconstructionto No. 7. A singleskeletonhad beenlaid out, headto the west, but only the legs remainedin place,protectedby the orthostatewhichoverlayTombs7 and 8. Westof the orthostatewasloose fill to the bottom of the tombcontainingfiveskulls,a few otherbonesandthree coins,of whichtwo werebrokenor illegible,the otherdated1827.In the sameloose fill,whichcontinued underthe orthostateand overthe skeleton,was an accumulationof potsherdsof the Turkishperiodand iron nails. Underthe orthostate,also in loose fill, was an iron cannonball.4 9. (P1.15,g). Contiguousto No. 8. Like Nos. 4 and 6, this tomb consistedessentiallyof an ancient sarcophagus.Innerdimensions:L. 1.96;W. 0.67; H. 0.65 m. Therewas no step at the east end. The sides were raisedby a singlecourseof bricksand limestoneblocks,0.16-0.19 m. high. Two irregularcoverslabs,piecedout with smallerstones,werefoundin placeat the east end; the westernhalf was uncovered.The tomb containedthe bones of two people,along with a fragmentof a Turkishpipe and a Greekcoin of the 19thcentury. 10. UnderTomb9 andsupersededby it wasa vaultedtomb,probablythe earliestin the church.Inner dimensions:L. 2.15; W. 1.02m. No stepblockswerefoundbut the narroweast end(0.65m.) suggeststhatthiswasa steppedentrance. None of the vault was preservedbut its outlineremainedin the shapeof the west wall, givingan inside heightto the crownof 1.25m. A thickcoat of pinkishplasterlinedthe interiorand a largecrosswas impressedon the westwallwhilethe plasterwas stillwet. Thefloorwascomposedof squareterracottatiles. No bonesor otherobjectsremained.Thelatebrickwallacrossthewestapseranoverthe rimof the tomb, so that the vaultmusthavebeen destroyedby the time the wall was built. 11. (P1.16,c). At the southend of the narthex.L. 2.48; W. 1.33m. This was a largevaultedosteotheke,well constructedof cut stone and rubble.At the east end was a squareopeninginto whicha stonecoverwas fitted,probablyservingthe firstand secondperiodsof the church.Duringthe thirdperioda smalleropeningwasmadeoverthe westend,surroundedby a collarof rubblemasonryhigh enoughto give easy accessfromthe laterfloor.A numberof boneswerefoundinside, all apparentlyfrom the most recentburials. 12. (P1.16,a). Along the south wall of the exonarthex.L. 2.00; W. 0.77 m. Thiswas a singlegravewithwallsconstructedof somewhatirregularstoneslabsplacedon edge.It was occupiedby a singleundisturbedskeleton,headto west.The gravecontainedno pottery,coins or other objects.No coverslabswerefoundbut one of the largeancientblocksfromthe west wall of the church overlayit in latertimes. 13. (Pls. 15,g, 16,a,b). Adjacentto Tomb 12. Innerdimensionsca. 1.20 x 2 m. (withoutentrance), 2.82 m. (withentrance).Heightto crownof vault, 1.68m. Althoughthis tomb is enclosedwithinthe exonarthex,it antedatesit. It was well constructed,with a highproportionof soft porosblocks,also a littlebrickand somefieldstones.Littlelimemortarwasused belowthe vaultbut in the vaultitselfwas firmwhitishmortar.The easternhalf of the vaultwas overlaid by a roughlycircularmassof flaggingon a rubblebed laid to makethe surfaceflat.A squarehole in the 3 Below, p. 33. Inv. IL 1371; below, pp. 32-33.

4

30

THE TOMBS

middlegaveaccessto the tomb.A largeirregularstonecoveredthe opening,whichwas at approximately the level of the originalchurchfloor,but this mustbe regardedas a secondaryentrancesincethe tomb entranceat the east end. was also providedwith a three-stepped 14. (PI.15,g, 16,b). In the westernhalf of the exonarthex,betweenthe centraldoorwayandthe north wall, with whichit is not exactlyaligned.Innerdimensions:L. (withoutsteps)ca. 2.20, (withsteps)ca. 2.85; W. 0.90; H. (to crownof vault) 1.35m. Anothervaultedosteotheke,butmuchlesswellconstructedthanTomb13.Thewallswerebuiltof field stoneand brickset in mud,but a fairlyfirmgraylimemortarwas usedfor the vault,whichwas madeof brick.The easternthirdof the tomb, over the two-steppedentrance,was coveredwith two stone slabs. As in No. 12 manyboneswerefoundinside. The wall of the exonarthexoverrodethe west end. 15. (P1.15,g). A vaultedtomb or osteothekeunderthe northwall of the narthex,its southwall was destroyedto a level of 0.57 m. abovethe floorby the buildersof the latestadditionto the church.Inner dimensions:L. 2.05; W. 1.20,with an entrance0.66 m. long and 0.60 m. wide. Thewestwall was missing.The northwallwas preservedto the springof the vault, 1.20m. abovethe floor.Thiswasthemostpoorlybuiltof all the tombs.Exceptfor the vault,whichwasof brick,the masonry wasrubblepackedwithearth;the insidewas smearedwithmud,not plaster.A coin of NikephorosIII (1078-1081)was foundin the tomb, but the fill had been completelychurnedup by lateractivities. HUMAN SKELETALMATERIALFROM THE CHURCH BetweenAugust 20 and 27, 1954,J. LawrenceAngel studiedand photographedthe skeletonsfrom Tombs6, 8,9 and 13, and from a bone pit in front of the altarbeforethe bones werereburiedduring the restorationof the church.PanosYannoulatosassistedhim. The followingnotes are contributedby Dr. Angel. The skeleton(182 AA) from Tomb 6, accompaniedby a coin of 1810,is that of a womanjust under 50 yearsold, mediumin body size, and sufferingfrom bilateralcongenitalhip dislocationswith subsequent slippingof hip epiphysesand formationof new joints for the deformedfemoralnecksabovethe originalacetabula;the shoulderjoints are arthritic(bicipitalgroovesespecially)and armsand forearms as if fromuse of crutchesor staffsfor supportin walking.Thiscrippledconditionin a arehypertrophied personof apparentlyspecialsocial or religiousstatusis interesting. Thereare sevenotherskeletonsfromthe othertombsbut the rest of the bonesare isolatedfrom one another,presumablyfromsecondaryburial,and seemto represent150to 250 adults(allowingfor many brokenbonesnot profitablefor study)and veryfew children.In the total sampleareabout 100maleand 60 femalefemora,almostall unpaired,smallernumbersof otherlong bones,and 66 maleplus 23 female skullsrarelyaccompaniedby mandibles. The healthstatusof this populationof 19thcenturyor Romanticperioddate is interestingand is not bad. Averageage at deathis 44 yearsfor 66 males and 39 yearsfor 24 females,slightlyolderthan the total Romanticperiodsample(males40 [N==208]and females37 [N=29]), verymuch olderthan the Baroqueperiodsample(34 and28 yearsfor malesandfemales)andon the waytowardthe averageGreek longevityin 1928of 56 formalesand 54forfemalesaccordingto age at deathdatapublishedby Valaoras; the relativelyshorterfemalethanmalelife spanis importantin relationto fairlylargefamiliesand presumablyhighinfantmortality.Theaveragestatures,170cm.(143)formalesand 158cm.(87)forfemales,are aboutthe sameas in Classicalandin modernGreece(though5 cm.less than in modemU.S.A.).Linesof arrestedgrowth(hypoplasia)on enamelof permanentteethmarkthe effectsof someinsultto the enamel organsas they formtooth crownsbetweenbirthand about 10 yearsof age; the hypoplasticlines occur-

HUMAN SKELETAL MATERIAL

31

ringall at a singletimeor successionof times,liketreerings,indicatechildhooddisease(s)or occasionally malnutrition,obviouslydependingon the child'sphysiologicalresilience.In slightdegreetheseoccurin 29 %and mediumdegree17%(N=24) in the Romanticsampleas comparedwith 51%and 8 %in modernU.S. whiteskulls(N= 111)of moderateto poor economicbackground.Anemiaas indicatedby porotic hyperostosisoccursin tracedegreein 25%and slightand moderatedegreesin 7% as comparedwith about8 %and0 %in modemwhites(N= 163);thisprobablyreflectsoccurrenceof abnormalhemoglobins in the populationas a responseto falciparummalariapresentin GreeceuntilafterWorldWarII. Dental lesions(loss in life, cariousand abscessedteeth)average10.9per mouth,in comparisonwith about 13 in livingGreeksand 15 in U.S.A. (thoughonly 4.5 lesionsin ClassicGreeks). The robusticityindex(relativethickness)of the femuris fairlyhigh, 13.6(33) in malesand 12.8(29) in females. One femurand severaltibiaeshow severeperiostitisand thickening,plausiblysyphiliticin origin. The femurpilastricindex, or back to front as relatedto transverseshaftthickness,at 107.0(96) and 105.4(57)for malesandfemales,also indicatesstrongmuscles.Butthe platymericindexat the upperend of the femurshaft is 83.9 for 98 males and 80.0 for 56 females,or about in the rangeof semi-urban ratherthan ruralor earlypopulations.And the cnemicindexof the shin, at 68.8 for 42 malesand 72.4 for 24 females,also showsless flatteningthan in prehistorictimes thoughbelow the averagefor really urbangroups.Likewisethe knee and anklejoints show a little less rough-countryspecializationthan earlier.Thetotal bodybuildof the few moreor less full skeletonsseemsto fit the stockyandrobustform typicalat almostanyperiodin Greece,andthe quitevariedskullformmatchesthat of the modernpopulationin general,fittingthe microevolutionary trendwhichreallystartsto movein the timeof the Roman from the norm. Classic Empireaway

THE LATER PERIODS PERIOD II The

church apparently remained in use for more than six centuries with little change except for the addition of the arcosolium and occasional digging up of the floor to add more tombs or remove the bones from those already existing to make room for new burials. There is no way of knowing whether or not the building suffered in 1204, when Leon Sgouros sacked the lower city.' Excavations in the Agora have produced evidence of extensive destruction of private houses at that time, but the fact that a number of pieces of the original iconostasis were found built into the masonry of Periods III and IV, and none into that of Period II, suggests that the screen survived through Period II, an unlikely event if there had been much damage to the fabric of the building. The next phase can be reconstructed from internal evidence, aided by the plan published by Lenoir (Fig. 10).2A cannon ball found in a tomb in front of the western apse3indicated gunfire as the probable

Fig. 10. The Holy Apostles.Plan by A. Lenoir(1836). 1 Nicetas Choniates,pp. 804 ff. (Bonn). It seems likely that most of the architecturalsculpturebuilt into the walls of the Little Metropolisrepresentsthe debrisfrom churchesdestroyedby Sgouros,since the latest pieces can hardlybe earlierthan the 12th century, or much later. 2 L'Architecture,p. 252, No. 163. For Lenoir's visit to Greece, cf. above, p. 2. Although his plan was not publisheduntil 1852, his only visit was apparentlyin 1836, giving a terminusante quernfor the beginningof Period II. 3 Tomb 8, above, p. 29.

PERIOD II

33

cause of the damageto the church,which includedthe destructionof the roof and vaultsof the west the wallsof the latter.The domealso was westand south apse andthe narthex,and of the upperpartof damaged,as well as some of the masonryof the church,especiallyon the south side. Two historical events would fit the circumstances:the fighting in Athens betweenthe Turksand Venetianswhich resultedin the destructionof the Parthenonin 1687,and the siege of the Acropolisby the Turksin 1826.Of these, the earlieris preferable.The potteryin the debriswhichaccumulatedin the loose earth over the cannonball was all earlierthanthe 19thcenturyand the wall paintings,whichmustpost-date the remodelingof the dome, are attributableto the 18thcentury.4 Rebuildingof the narthexmusthavefollowedsoon afterthe destruction.A greatquantityof building wastakenfromthe destructiondebris,includingmanyblocksof shell materialusedin the reconstruction conglomerate.Theseblockswereof a convenientand easilyportablesize and such a quarrywouldnot marblesfromthe originalstructurewerealso rehavebeen ignoredfor long. A numberof architectural used. One of thesewas the lintelfor the southdoorwayof the narthex,whichwas found,intactand unweathered,builtinto thenewmasonryof the southwall(Fig.5; P1.15,f).Weareprobablysafein assuming, therefore,thatthe firstmajorremodelingof the churchtook placein the late 17thor early18thcentury. In this phasethe perimeterof the churchremainedthe same.The mainbody of the buildinghad sufferedonly superficialdamageand ald the narthexhad to be almost rough completelyrebuiltenoughremainedof its walls to serveas a basis for the reconstruction.5 The majorchangewas the additionof a secondstorey,dictatedby the needto coverthe archwaythat had beenleft exposedby the destructionof the vaultof the westernapse.The upperstoreymighthavebeenusedas a women'sgallery(gynaikonitis) or, perhaps, as a library.6

In earlierrestorations7 it had beenassumedthat the west apsehad been completelyeliminatedin the first rebuilding (Period II). Closer examination, however, shows that this was probably not the case. A large ancient block, similar to those used in the west wall and elsewhere at key points, was found lying diagonally across Tombs 7 and 88 (Pls. 15,g, 28). This must have stood originally at the north side of the entrance whence it fell or, more likely, was pulled down to make way for the square pier of Period III

whenall the remainingpartsof the apseweredemolished.9 The ruthlesstearingawayof the wallsat that time createdtwo free-standingpiersat the east end, and the precariousstateof theseas theywerefound makesit doubtfulthat they could have survivedthe vicissitudesof so long a periodas that coveredby PeriodsII throughIV.10 This conclusionis sustainedby Lenoir'splan (Fig. 10),whichshowsa square-sidedapse whoseinner semicirclecoincidesexactlywith that of the newlydiscoveredfoundation.The inaccuraciesof Lenoir's plan are obvious:the exteriorside wallsof the mainapsesare representedso that if theywereprojected theywouldmeetat a rightinsteadof an obtuseangle;the outerwallsof the prothesisand diaconiconare shownas semicircular,and both they and the westernchambersare made slightlylargerthan the main apsesinsteadof half theirsize. Theseerrorsare easilyexplainedif one considersthat Lenoirwouldhave had few facilitiesfor drawingwhenhe was in Athensin 1836and that he probablydrewhis planfor the muchlaterpublicationfrom briefnotes madeon the spot. The squareexteriorof the west apseas shownby Lenoirmay be dismissedalongwithhis othererrors (it may be noted in passingthat the massivepiers at the entrancewould easily give the impressionof squareness),but the actualexistenceof the apse on his plan must be takenmoreseriouslybecausethere need to would have been noinvent

such a structure.The upper part (i.e., the vault) had certainly been

4 Below, p. 35. 5 Above, pp. 4-5. 6 For the latter use, cf. the church of Blachernaiin Elis (A. K. Orlandos,'ApX. SEp., 1923, pp. 18-19 and fig. 29); also Daphni (G. Millet, Le monasterede Daphni,1899, p. 59). 7Byzantion, XXIV, 1954, p. 515, fig. 1, and Agora PictureBook, No. 7, fig. 47. 8Above p. 29. 9 Below, p. 37. 10Below, pp. 38-39.

34

THE LATER PERIODS

destroyedbeforeLenoirsaw the churchbecauseonly afterits destructionand the additionof the second storeywas thereany reasonfor the stairwayon the southsideas shownon his plan.Butsomethingmust haveremainedto be recordedso accuratelyas far as the innersemicircleis concerned. The level of the floor of the secondstoreyis determioned by a seriesof beam-holesin the southwall is not how It certain much of the of (P. 16,e). originalvaulting the narthexsurvivedto supportthe floor, whetherany of it wasrebuiltor whetherit wasreplacedentirelyby horizontalsupports.In all probability the threewesternbayscollapsedbut the north-southarchesof the easternbaysremainedor wererebuilt. One smallsectionof vaulting,consistingof threeyellowishbricksset in hardgraymortar,was foundreused as buildingmaterialin the northwall of the latestaddition.The curvedsurfacewas coveredwith plasterbearingtracesof greenandwhitefloralornamenton a blackground.Theonly otherevidencefor paintingwasfoundin the northhalf of the narthexin two patchesof destructiondebriscoveredwithca. 0.25 m. of soft earthbetweenthe floor levels of PeriodsII and III. Here, in additionto muchbroken marble,wasa largequantityof fallenplasterwithtracesof paintingbutnonewiththe solidblueor yellow which was found in the upperlayers.The use of yellow brick, which is not found elsewherein the church,andthe fact thatall the survivingvaultsof the originalchurchare of cut stoneseemto preclude a date in PeriodI proper,but it is not impossiblethat all of these remainsare attributableto the arcosolium. The reconstructed narthexwas coveredwith a timberroof of whichthe ridgewas ca. 0.35 m. higher thanthe peak of the adjacentwesternvaultof the Byzantineperiod,but 0.55-0.60m. lowerthanthat of the latestaddition(P1. 18,a). Accessto the upperstorey,as shownon Lenoir'splan,was by meansof a face of the soutsth the wall, beginingatat the westwall of the southapseandending stairwayalong weouter between at the junction betweethe

church proper and the narthex. No trace of a foundation for a stairwas found

blockedup, wasfoundto have hereor elsewhere,but a doorwaymeasuring1.10x 2.00m., subsequently existedat exactlythe point whereLenoir'sstairwayends,usingthe cloisonnemasonryof the southwest anglechamberas its easternface (PI. 16,e,f). Fourtimberslaid sideby sidecomposedthe lintel,and the wholedoorway,includingthe Byzantinemasonry,was linedwitha coatingof whitishplaster.Two windows,also blockedup, werefounddirectlyoppositeeachotherin the northand southwalls,two meters fromthe east end.Thenorthwindowwaspreservedto its full heightof 1.27m. butits westsidehad been cut awayby the windowof the latestperiod(P1.18,b). Of the oppositewindowonly partof the sill and west face remained,but a long marbleblock underlyingthe sill madeit possibleto restorethe widthat the windowsmeasuredca. 1.28 x 0.90m. ca. 0.90m. Assumingthatthe two windowsweresymmetrical, Thearcosoliumremainedin usein someformuntiljustbeforethefinalrestorationof 1876-1882,but it is doubtfulthatthe tombitselfcouldhavesurvivedthe destructionof the narthexandapse.It wasprobably at this time that it was turnedto a moreprosaicuse, that is, to housethe xcoverrjplov,or disposal placefor the baptismalwater.Thatthis was its finalpurposeis clearfrom the presencein the northeast cornerof a deephole, roundand wide at the bottombut narrowingtowardthe top, whereit was fitted witha squarecurbingof tile aroundan opening0.26 m. square(P1.16,d). Thecontentswerechieflyglass bottles; one, intactand stillfull of water,wastightlysealedby its glass stopperand bore the impressed inscriptionLUBIN PARFUMERIEPARIS.n THEDOME DuringPeriodII the shapeof the windowswas changed,probablyon accountof damageby gunfire. This involvedno greatstructuraloperationssince,as noted above,12the brickworkof the headsof the archeswasin placein mostof thewindows,althoughin a parlouscondition.Thatall thewindowswereleft open at this time is demonstratedby the wall paintingswhichnot only took accountof the spacingby 11The firm of Lubin has kindly furnishedthe date of 1798 for its founding, thus corroboratingthe archaeologicalevidencethat was in use duringthe 19th century. the Xc.veuvrfpiov 12 P. 10.

PERIOD III

35

puttinga standingfigurein each of the interveningwall surfaces,but also continuedwith simplefloral ornamentinto the embrasuresand the newlycreatedsoffits.In addition,the divisionbetweendrumand dome was markedoff by a narrowbandjust abovethe presenttop of the windows. THEWALLPAINTINGS

Probablythe wholeof the interiorwascoveredwithpaintingsduringPeriodII. All thosein the narthex disappearedwhen the innerfaces of the wall were reinforcedin PeriodIV, or even earlier,but in the easternend of the churchand in the dome some remainswerefoundunderthe latestpaintings.All are of mediocre work of the 18th century, extensivelyrepaintedand disfiguredby the pick-holes made to pro-

vide a toothedsurfacefor laterplaster.They deserveonly the briefestattentionhere. In the summitof the domeis the Pantokrator(PI.18,d),surroundedby a bandof floralornament,and underneath,a zone, 0.88 m. high, endingat the top of the windowsin theirpresentform,with St. John the Baptist,six-wingedcherubimand six archangels.In the spacesbetweenthe windowswereSolomon, Aaron(P1.17,b), HabbakukandElisha;of theremainingfourfiguresonlythelowerpartswerepreserved. Tracesof the Evangelistsremainin the pendentives. The soffitsof the main archeswere decoratedwith busts of saintsin medallions;those of the lesser archeswith half figures.The Virginoccupiedher usual place in the apse,with the Communionof the Apostlesbeneath.Both scenesarealmostcompletelydefaced.In the half domesof the prothesisanddiaconiconare two of the figuresof the OldTestamentTrinity,inscribed0 MEFAAHC BOYAHC ArFFEAOC and 0 lTTAAAIOC TON HMEP&)N, respectively,and on the wall of the prothesisis the Sacrificeof Isaac of whichonly the uppermostpartis preserved(PI. 17,a). In the nicheof the northwestanglechamberis St. Romanus(P1.17,c) standing,with a band of floral ornamentunderneath.An unidentifiedsaintoccupiesthe corresponding nichein the southwestchamber (P1.17,d). Both of thesenicheswerelaterblockedup. Tracesof still earlierpaintingssurvivein the east end of the church,underneaththe laterlayer,but only enoughto showthat one or possiblytwo serieshad precededthe present.No figuresarepreserved, and the few tracesof ornamentindicatemerelythat they belongedto an earlier,less naturalisticphase. PERIOD III This is a briefand somewhatshadowyperiodin the historyof the church.The evidencefor its existenceas an entirelyseparateperiodlies mainlyin a plan publishedin 1854(Fig. 11),13togetherwith the corroborativetestimonyof a foundationdiscoveredon the line of the west wall of the churchas shown on this same plan (P1.16,a). But elsewherethe evidenceof the excavationis at variancewith the plan and we must supposeeithera transitionalperiodor else someinaccuracyin the plan. Therecan be littledoubtthat the destructionthat necessitatedthe rebuildingin PeriodIII was caused by the furiousfightingbetweenGreeksandTurksin 1826.It hasbeenshownthatthe damageto the east pedimentof the Hephaisteionwas inflictedin that yearby Greeksoldierson the Acropolisfiringon the Turkswho gatheredin the building,andthatthe Turkswerecontinuouslybombardingthe Acropolis(and no doubt often fallingshort)fromthe Pnyx,the northandthe east.14And Lenoir,in 1836,referredto "le derniersi6gequi,en 1827,reduisiten cendrestoutesles habitationsetpresquetoutes leseglisesd'Athenes."15 Theplan of 1854givesno indicationof the continuedpresenceof the originalwestwall but represents an elongatednave,with the piersat the entranceto the westernapse and the pilastersflankingthe cen13Under the signatureA (= Antonin, Archimandrite)in the Journalof the Russian Ministryof Education(Journalministerstva narodnagoprosviestseniia),LXXXI, 1854, part 2, p. 38, No. 8. 14 A. Orlandos, "T1T6- Kaid&r6 rrofouvKarEo-rp&qi -r6 &vo-rouKOV TOU 'E1oaiou'," Nia 'E-ria, 830/1-2, 1962, aT6rcopaa

pp. 144-147. 16Rapport,p. 6.

THE LATER PERIODS

36

tral doorway in the west wall transformedinto four free-standingpiers. The transformationof the piers of the west apse is confirmedby the evidence of the excavation which also, however, establishesbeyond doubt the fact that between Periods II and IV the central doorway was still in use, its threshold raised to conform to the new ground level and the doorway widened (P1. 19,a). The piers, therefore, could not have been free-standingat this time (P1. 38).

Fig. 11. The Holy Apostles.Plan of 1854. To learn what happened to the original west wall during the successive periods of rebuildingit will be most convenient to begin with the state in which it was uncovered and track its history backward. As discovered, almost immediatelyunder the tiled floor of the latest period, the top course consisted of two large ancient blocks (Nos. 7 and 3) which had stood as orthostates in the wall16and had been carefully tipped over from their positions at the north sides of the north and south doorways respectively(Fig. 12). Their

0

5 M. Fig. 12. Positionof Orthostatesin WestWall.

16

For the use of these in the original masonry, cf. above, p. 6.

PERIODIII

37

originalpositionsweremadecertainby the factthatwhenthe blockswerepulleduprighttheirlowerends fittedexactlyinto the cavitieswhichthey had left. Even the surfaces,whichwere alreadychippedand weatheredwhenthey werefirstbuiltinto the wall,fittedthe impressionswhichthey had left in the mortar of the pilasterson the innerside of the wall, as into a mould.In the positionof the centraldoorway was the originalthresholdof the church.But to take accountof the new groundlevel it had beenlifted fromits originalposition(or, morelikely,froman intermediatepositionfor use in PeriodII) and relaid in a bed of graymortaron top of anotherorthostate(No. 5), whichhad stood at the northside of the doorwayand,likeits neighbors,hadbeenpulleddownandlaidin the lineof the wall,butat a lowerlevel. OrthostateNo. 4, on the southsideof the centraldoorway,haddisappeared by thistime,its cavitynow a southward extension of the threshold of consisting part of an ancientstele with a being occupiedby pivothole cut closeto the edge(P1.15,g),thuswideningthe wholethresholdfrom 1.61m. to 2.33m. The only reasonfor this change,as a resultof whichthe doorwaywas no longercenteredon the axis of the building,musthavebeen the necessityof usingthe reconstitutedpiernextit as the southjambafterthe of the orthostate(P1.19,a).OrthostateNo. 5, on the northsideof the door,wasno longer disappearance in place, havingbeen used as a base for the threshold,but this was partlycompensatedfor by shifting the thresholdblock slightlynorthward.The remainingspacewas filled with rubblemasonrywhichmay havebeencontinuedupwardto formthe northdoorjamb.No. 6 wasmissing,andNo. 2 hadbeenpulled downjust outsidethe line of the wall becausetherewas no spacefor its lengthin the wall. To sum up: of the eightorthostateswhichoriginallyconstitutedthe lowerpartof the westwall,those at the corners(Nos. 1 and 8) have remainedin placethroughthe wholehistoryof the churchup to the present.DuringPeriodIII Nos. 2, 3, 5, and7 also remainedin place,a fact thatis establishedby the plaster stilladheringto someof theirsurfaces;e.g., of No. 3, as it stoodin its originalposition,onlythe south half of the eastfacewasplastered,firstwithblue,thenwithyellow,to a verticallinecorresponding exactly with the south side of the pilaster(also yellow)againstit. That these adjustmentstook place not long beforethe finalremodelingof 1876-1882is demonstratedby the levelat whichthe thresholdwas placed, withits surfacejust belowthe floorof PeriodIV and0.06 m. abovethe floorof the narthexin PeriodIII. Furthermore,on two orthostates(Nos. 2 and 7) both the blue and the yellowcoats of plasterbeginonly ca. 0.65 m. fromthe bottom,i.e. at the level of the floor of PeriodIII (P1.19,b). On the basisof the above,the wallfoundationof largeblocksand rubblemasonryfoundon the same line as the west wall on the plan of 1854may be takenat its face value;we must supposea transitional periodbetweenour PeriodsII and III, in whichthe west wall was once morerebuiltwith its threshold ca. 0.20 m. higherthan previouslyand the narthexreplastered. It was probablyat the timeof the raisingof the thresholdthat the last remnantsof the apsewere destroyed,becausesomeof the sameblue and yellowcoats of plasterwerefound on the surfacethat had been left exposedwhenthe apse wall was torn awayat its junctionwith the main arch. The easternpairof the free-standingsupportsof PeriodIII wasbuilton the piersflankingthe entrance to thewesternapse(Pls. 19,a, 28, 38).Eachonewas0.63m. square,of shellconglomerate, andoccupiedthe outerhalf of the pier.The westernpairwasrecognizedonly in a changeof earthneatlyoutlinedby a line of plaster,havingbeen completelyuprootedwhenthe west wall was finallydemolished. The floor of the secondstoreymust have collapsedalong with the destructionof the apse at the end of PeriodII andit is uncertainwhetherit was replacedin PeriodIII. The doorwayat the top of the stairwaywasfoundblockedup, as werethe two windowsof PeriodII, butwhetherthiswasdonein PeriodIII or IV cannotbe determined. A smallxcoveuivrptov, crudelyconstructedof fieldstoneswithno mortarof any kind,was builtagainst thewall in the southeastcornerof the narthex.A clay pipe of a type stillin use today,ca. 0.15 m. in diameter,drainedinto it from above.Two coins, one of 1844,the otherof 1869,werefoundinside. A stonebenchoccupiedthe spacebetweenthe pilastersof the southwallof the narthex.Nothingcould be determinedaboutits dateexceptthat it post-datedthe constructionof the vaultedtomb(No. 11)and

38

THE LATER PERIODS

thatit, like the Xcov6urnptov, wentout of use beforePeriodIV. A similarbenchon the northsideis perhaps representedby the rubblemasonryoverlyingTomb 5.17 A briefdescriptionof the churchby Petit de Jullevillein 1868showsthat the churchwas not entirely withoutcharmin PeriodIII, whenhe refersto it as "assezgracieuse."It is perhapsworthquotingthe entirepassage,whichgivessomeideaof the settingof the churchat this time:"A l'emplacement oiuCurtius et Bursianont place l'auteldes douze dieux(au centrede leurAgora)s'elve une importanteglise 'Aw6ocrroAol oA&KoI. Solakoi [sic] est le nom du quarbyzantinededieeaux Douze Apotres(oi b&6eKa tier). "L'eglise,tres-ancienne,a ete rebatiedans un styleassezgracieuse;mais ses mursrajeunisoffrentde nombreuxdebrisbyzantinsou memeantiques.D'autresfragments,trouvessans doutependantles travauxde restauration,sont deposesdansune cour attenantea l'edifice.'"18

PERIOD IV The remodelingof 1876-1882was apparentlyundertakenmorefromthe prevailingdesirefor enlargethan from necessity(Pls. 1, 19,c,d, 39). Much of the workis recordedin the ment and embellishment form of accountsof paymentsto masons,carpenters,etc., culminatingin the proud in the parishregister announcementof the purchaseof the bell on July 27, 1883: "Paidto the Papaeliopoulosbrothersof Athens, for a bell weighing307 okes (860lbs.), at five drachmasthe oke, the sum of 1535drachmas, paid in new francs."The city of Athenspaid for the bell; the rest of the expensesof the renovationof the churchwereborneby the parish. In preparationfor this finalremodelingwhateverorthostateshad remainedstandingin the wall of the narthexthroughPeriodII, otherthanthoseat the comers,werelaid downin the line of the foundations of the wallwherespaceallowedor elsewereremoved,anda newfloorof marbletileswaslaidca. 0.15 m. abovethe old, givinga singlecontinuouslevelfrom the west end of the churchup to the solea(P1.39). The northand south wallsof PeriodsII and III wereallowedto remainbut wereraisedstill higherby 0.55 m.19Themainentrancewas now throughthe northwall, undera higharchwhichformedthe lower storeyof the bell tower.A less imposingdoorwayoppositegaveaccessfrom the south.Theseentrances coincidedwith the ends of the originalwallsof the 1 th century. The new additionwas roofed with a low pseudo-vault,the skeletonof which was formedof iron girdersand woodentransversesupports.Lightand air wereadmittedthrougharchedwindowsopposite each otherin the lowerpart of the northand south wallseast of the doors and two othersin the west wall. The balcony,which ran aroundthe west end, was lightedby a pairof narrowarchedwindowsin the lunetteover the maindoorwayand a correspondingpair in the southwall, as well as by two rectangularwindowsin the upperpart of the west wall (Pls. 1, b-d, 19,d). On the exteriorthe archedwindowsin the west wall were surroundedby ornamentalbrickborders whichwerelater coveredup when the whole additionwas plasteredover (after 1890,whenLambakis photographedthe churchas shownon P1.2,d). Theinterioralso was plasteredand in the courseof time most of its surfaceswerecoveredwithpaintings,manyof themsurroundedby frames.Someof the paintingsweresignedanddated,thelatestin 1910.Thequalityof thepaintingsspeaksforitself(Pls. 18,e, 19,c), In thelatestperiodthe sidedoorwaysfromthenarthexinto thechurchproperhadbeenalmostdoubled fromtheiroriginalwidthof 0.90m. Thechangenot onlydetractedgreatlyfromtheirappearancebut also 17 Above, p.

28. L. Petit de Julleville,"Recherchesur l'emplacementet le vocable des 6gliseschr6tiennesen Grace," Archivesdes missionsscientifiques,2e s6r., V, 1868, pp. 469-533. 19 The exonarthexof Period III must have been destroyedin toto; no breakscould be seen in the masonryof the new walls west of the limits of Periods I and II, and whateverancient marbleswere recoveredfrom them were quite inconspicuousand would not have arousedthe comment of de Julleville. 18

PERIOD IV

39

endangeredthe solidityof the buildingby cuttinginto the piers supportingthe mainwestvault,already weakenedby the removalof the apse.Thecrowningarchof the northdoorwaywas stillin place,together with a verysmall bit of the originalgroin vaultingof the northwestern On the cornerof the narthex.20 south side short lengths of wooden beams had been placed transverselyover the top of the arch to preventits collapse. A smalldoorwaywas openedin the south wall of the diaconicon,its threshold,whichis at the outsidegroundlevelof the latestperiodof the church,beinga clearindicationof its date(P1.l,d). Thisdoor, whichwas still in use whenthe restorationof the churchbegan,may have been in compensationfor a door in the east wall of the northapse createdin PeriodIII, and blockedup duringthe remodelingof PeriodIV or shortlybefore(P1.18,f). The blockingwas a shoddypiece of construction,particularlyon the inside,where it consistedof loose rubble.In among the rubblewereplaced,as relics,99 mosaic tesseraewrappedin a pieceof paper,21 severalhandbills, dated1862and 1863,announcingcelebrations of variouschurches,and partsof at least threesheetsengravedin Tenosin 1823showingthe architect's visionof the new churchon the island.Partof a humanskeletonwas also foundamongthe relics. CHURCHFURNITURE

The originalaltartableprobablywentout of use at the sametimeas the iconostasis.It was replacedin PeriodIII or PeriodIV by a fineDoric capital2supportedon a stackof otherre-usedmarbles(P1.18,c). 20 21 22

Above, p. 10. Above, p. 13, note 22. Inv. A 4202.

CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION T he need for immediatemeasuresof conservation,both temporaryand permanent,becameincreasingly apparentas demolitionof the late walls revealedmoreand more weaknessesin the original fabric,whethercausedby time or by misguidedeffortstowardimprovement.Almost immediatelythe churchwas buttressedfrom withoutby largetimbers,and as workprogressedin the interiorall of the archeswerebraceduntilthe restorationwas completed(Pls. 14,a, 20,a,b). The most precariouspart was the westernapse. Its destructionand the creationof the free-standing piersof PeriodIII from the stubsof its wallshad removedall supportof the main archfrom the west, and the situationwas madestill worseby the wideningof the lateraldoorwaysin PeriodIV (PI.39). The state of the pierscould be appreciatedonly afterthe removalof the late plaster,whichrevealedthat no attempthad beenmadeto reinforcethem;thejaggedsurfaceshad merelybeencoveredwith a rubbishy facing,ca. 0.10m. thick,of loose brick,tile, and stonebarelyheld togetherby a soft mortar.Wherethe originalblockswerepreservedthey werein verypoor conditionand flakedeasily(P1.20,c,d). In general,the exteriormasonrywas in good conditionand neededonly some repointing,whichwas done withmortarcarefullycomposedto correspondto thatusedin the originalbuilding.Somepatching that had beendone duringthe laterperiodsof the church,particularlyon the southside,was muchless solid than it looked, owingto the inferiorqualityof the mortarused in the repairs.Theseplaceswere but not rebuiltin cloisonnein orderto preservethe indicationsof the history tidiedup and strengthened, of the building.Therubblemasonryliningtheinteriorfacesof thecloisonnewasfoundin numerousspots was done piecemeal,taking to be in poor conditionon accountof the crumblingmortar.Reinforcement the weakest spots first and moving to another area while the concrete was setting (PI. 20, e). alterations to windows in the Although damage to the outer faces of the dome had necessitated Period II,1the vault itself was intact (PI. 6, e). The mortar, however, was crumblingand had to be replaced in toto. In order not to destroy the appearanceof the roof or remove the tiles which, if not original were

still very old, this whole operationwas conductedfrom the inside, after the temporaryremovalof The mortarwas squirtedby means of a gun into the joints without the paintingof the Pantokrator.2 of the blockscomprisingthe dome. disturbingthe arrangements In restoringthe tympanaof the domeall originalbrickswere left in place wherethey had survived.3 Necessaryreplacementsweredrawnas far as possiblefrom old brickssalvagedfrom the demolitionof the laterwalls.New triangularlimestoneblockswerecut to preservethe originaldecorativeschemeand all loose joints werefilled with new mortar(P1.8). The cloisonnemasonrybelow the archeswas also repointed. Of thefourcolumns,onlythe southwesternwaspronouncedsufficientlysoundto be allowedto remain andit wasreinforcedby fourbronzebands(Pls.26, a,b, 27,a). Of theotherthree,thatat the northeasthad 1Above, p. 34.

canvas supportedon a light wooden frame and later put back in place. This delicateoperation was the work of the highly skilled technicianPhotis Zachariou,whose serviceswere kindly made availableto us for the occasion by the Greek Government. 2 The paintingwas transferredto

3 Above, p. 35.

CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

41

alreadybeen replaced4(P1.5,f). The southeasterncolumn had been shatteredby verticalcrackscaused whenthe moderniconostasiswasanchoredto it, so thatit hadto be wrappedin ropesto preventit from fallingapartin theprocessof removal(P1.21,a). At thenorthwestcornerthecolumnappearedat firstsight to be in good conditionbutafterthecoveringof paintand plasterwasremovedthe lowerpartwasseento havebeenso hackedaway,possiblywhenthemodernfloorwaslaid,thatlittlemorethanhalfits diameter was left, the circlehavingthen been filledout withplastercontainingmuchstraw. Substitutesfor the threeunsoundcolumnswerecast in concrete.Eachwas beddedon a slab, 1.20m. square(P1.21, c), over whichwas laid a gridof iron rods (P1.21,b). A base in the form of a truncated pyramidwas cast in a woodenmouldoverthe beddingandthe concreteshaftwas pouredinto a wooden mould erectedaround a skeletonof verticaliron rods surroundedby rings (PI. 21,b,d,f). After the columnhad set a simpleflaringcapitalwas cast in the sameway (PI.21,e), but small enoughto allow for a facing,in finewhitecement,madefroma cast of the bestpreservedof the two survivingCorinthian capitals.The shaftswerealso facedwithgrayishwhitecement,lightlyveined(Pls. 26,a,b, 27,a). On the adviceof the engineers,the groinvaultsand saucerdomesof the narthexwerereconstructed in reinforcedconcrete(P1.22,a-c). The supportingpiersand the newlyconstructedwall of the apsewere built of simplecloisonnewith a singlebrickin the joints. These and all other interiorsurfacesexcept wherethe wall paintingswerepreservedweresubsequentlyplastered(Pls. 26-27). The west wall, of course,and muchof the southhad to be rebuilt.The orthostateslyingin the line of thewallandnearby wereraisedandreturnedto theiroriginalpositions,as was also the threshold,andthe step in front of the door was solidified.Of the two missing orthostates, one was replaced by the similar one which lay in front of the western apse, the other by a new block. The masonry above and around the

relievingarchesoverthe threearcheswasbuiltin cloisonnemasonrywithKufesqueelementscopiedfrom elsewhere in the church and crowned with a Kufesque frieze5(Pls. 22, d, 23, a).

A low bench was built aroundthe foundationsas they were exposedby the excavationsup to the original ground line, with the dual purpose of protecting the foundations and restoringthe proportions of the building (PI. 24).

The wall paintingswerecleanedand the pick-holeswhichhad been madeto providea tooth for new plasterwerefilledin and tintedlightly.The asepticcharacterof the newwallsof the narthexwas relieved by installingheresome of the wall paintingswhichhad beenremovedfromthe littlechapelof St. Spyridon beforeit was demolishedin 1939. The chapel,which stood above the foundationsof the Library of Pantainos,south of the Stoa of Attalos, was built in the early 17thcenturyagainstthe ruinouseast wall of an earlierchurch.The paintingsdatedfrom both periods.6A fewveryfragmentarybits of paintings fromthe Hephaisteionin its latestChristianphasewere also insertedin the walls,and the narthex wasfurtherembellishedby installingin the positionof the arcosoliumthe sarcophagusfrontfound in the vicinity.7 New frameswereconstructedfor the threedoors of the narthexout of piecesof the originalframes supplemented by newmarble.The lintelof the southdoor,whichhad beenrebuiltintactinto the wall of PeriodIII, was restoredto its originalpositionand a companionpiece was carvedfor the north door. All the doorwayswerefurnishedwith new oak doorscarvedwith an ornamentalpeacockdesign. A newmarbleiconostasiswas carved,usingthe originalfragmentsas a modelandincorporatingthem in the new screen(Fig. 7; P1.26,a,b).8No foundationswerefoundfor the altartable;its supportswere 4

Above, p. 7.

5 This frieze is

one of the few elementsin the whole churchfor which there is no evidence, but in view of other similaritieswith the Theotokos at Hosios Loukas (above, p. 25) and, even more significant, the close similarity between the masonry of the Holy Apostles and that of SS. Jason and Sosipatrosin Corfu with its Kufesquefrieze (above, p. 25), its inclusion was felt to be justifiable. 6 Hesperia,IX, 1940, pp. 293-295; X, 1941, pp. 193-198. 7 Above, p. 14. 8 All the new marble carving was the work of AristeidesRombos, who was also responsiblefor the new omphalos,composedof eight differentkinds of marble (P1. 10,c). The doors were carved by TheophanesNomikos.

42

CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

basedon a colonettefoundduringthe excavationsinsidethe church.The windowgrillesand the lunette over the maindoor, of whichno remainswerefound,werepatternedafterthose of Hosios Loukas.9 Threehanginglampswerepurchasedfrom antiquedealersand hung in the narthex;for the church propertwo largepolyelaioiwerecommissionedfroma bronzeworkeron HephaistosStreet.Theantique dealersin the neighborhood,who claimthe Holy Apostlesas theirpatronsaints,presenteda handsome brasslampfor the mainicon.10 TheHoly Apostleshadabsorbedthe parishesof otherchurchesin the Agora,includingthe Hypapanti, duringthe courseof the excavations.Whenour churchbecamea publicmonumentits parish,by now much diminished,was incorporatedwith that of St. Philipjust north of the present(1971)limit of the excavations. LANDSCAPING

The church,whichhad becomeprogressivelymore isolatedas diggingto the northreachedancient levels,has now been broughtwithineasy reachof the Agora by the constructionof an informalstairway leadingdownto the EastBuilding;the intermediatelevelshavebeenterracedand plantedwith low shrubs.Anotherstairwayin two descendingflightsgivesaccessto the churchfromthe roadon the south side,via a flaggedwalkflankedby oleanders.The areawestof the buildingis keptas a lawnas far as the foundationsof the latestphasewhich,togetherwiththe line of the westwallof PeriodIII, havebeenpreservedat groundlevel as a visiblebut unobtrusivereminderof the laterhistoryof the church.An olive and some smallbusheson all sidesblendin with the landscapingin otherpartsof the Agora(Frontispiece,PI. 25). The Byzantinemarblesfrom all parts of the Agora have now been broughtto the area aroundthe churchto makean outdoormuseum.Manyof themare storedon shelvesbuiltalongthe retainingwall betweenthe east-westroad and the SoutheastFountainHouse,immediatelysouthof the church.Some linethe two stairwaysof the approachesandothershavebeenplacedalongthelow parapetat thewestern limit of the precinctwhichguardsthe drop in level to SouthStoa I. A carvedmarblefountaindated 1872has been relocatednear the southeastcomer of the fountain house and connectedwith the water supply,and the bronzebell of PeriodIV has beenhungnearby. Althoughthe parishhas beendispersed,the Feastof the Holy Apostlesis stillcelebratedeveryyearon June30th,whena processionof formerparishioners,clergy,and a militarybandescortsthe icon around Way. theparishandreturnsto thechurchby thetraditionalrouteof religiousprocessions,thePanathenaic 9 We are indebtedto the FertilizerCompanyof Athensfor donatingthe glass for the windows,and particularlyto Mr. Buell Maben for his help in selectingand obtaining the properquality of glass. 10The icon lamp, the hanginglamps of the narthexand some icons that had beenhung on the walls of the church were later stolen. Others,includingthe large main icon, are now in the churchof St. Philip. The marble iconostasis of Period IV was donatedto the churchof the Metamorphosisin New Smyrna.

INDEX (For entriesspecificallyrelatingto the Churchof the Holy Apostlessee underHoly Apostles) ACROPOLIS, siege of 1826:33, 35 Amphissa, Sotir: 2011,2616

Apses, semicircular:24 Arabsin Greece:1, 24-25 Arcosolia: 13-14, 1424,32, 34, 41

Arta, St. Nicholas 'PoSias: 19, 2616 Asklepieion,Byzantineepistylefrom: 16 EARLYCHRISTIAN, 24 BASILICAS, Elis: 336 Blachernai,

Brickwork:22, 24; dentil cornices,use of, 22; dentil courses,use of, 2233,25; patternsin masonry,22, 24 ByzantineMuseum,marblesin: 15, 16, 17 CENTRALIZED PLAN:18 Champleve process: 713,2511

Chonika:2011,2616 Christianou:23 Churchesin Athens(otherthanHolyApostles):'AyicovTTavrcov Monastery,1424;Hypapanti, ('OgoAoyBTrCv), 42; Kapnikarea,2011,24, 26; LittleMetropolis,17, 321;Moni Petraki,12, 16, 23, 26; PanagiaLykodemou, 22, 23, 251, 26; St. Philip,42; St. Spyridon,41 Cloisonnemasonry:5-6, 7, 10, 24, 34, 40, 41; used only in Greece,22 ConstansII, visit to Athens: 13 ConstantineIX, Monomachos:22 Corfou,SS. Jasonand Sosipatros:25, 416 Corinth,Bemachurch:15 Crosses,in masonry:20, 25 Cross-in-square plan: 5, 18, 21, 23 Cyriacusof Ancona: 22 DAPHNI,MONASTERY, 2011,23, 336 336 ELIS, BLACHERNAI,

FREECROSS PLAN:20 PANAXIOTISSA: GAVROLIMNI, 21, 24 HEPHAISTEION (Theseion): 1, 35, 41 Holy Apostles: altar table, 39, 41; architectural type, 18-23; arcosolium, 13-14, 32, 34, 41; bell 38, 42; bench, on exterior, 41, in narthex, 37-38; Xcov6rwnpiov,34,37-38; columns, 7-9,40-41; conservation and restoration, 40-42; date, 24-26; dome, 9-10, 34-35, 40; doors, 5, 12, 34, 36-39,41, 42; font, 17; foundations, 5; furnish-

ings, 42; iconostasis,14-17, 26, 28, 32, 41; later periods, II, 32-35, III, 35-38, IV, 38-39; masonry,5-6, 7, 9-10, 24, 34, 40, 41; omphalos,13; ornamentalbrickwork,7, 24; orthostates,6, 36-38, 41; paving,12-13, 38; plan, PeriodI, 4-5, PeriodII, 32-34, PeriodIII, 35-36, PeriodIV, 38-39; roof, 10, 34; sarcophagus, from arcosolium(?), 14, 41; stairwayto upperstorey, 34; tombs, 27-31; upperstorey, 33-34, 37; vaults, 10, 39, 40, 41; wall decoration,13, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41; windows,10-12, 34, 37, 38, 42 Holy Apostles,chapelin Klepsydra,31

44

INDEX

Hosios Loukas:Katholikon,6, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24-26, 42; Theotokos,6, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24-26 Hosios Meletios,Mt. Kithairon:1314,142, 2616 House, earlyByzantine,underHoly Apostles:3 IN GREECE:24-25 ISLAMICINFLUENCE JUSTINIAN,EDICTOF: 1 BASILICA:17 KALAMBAKA,

Kastoria,PanagiaKoumbelidiki:18 Kufesquepatterns:7, 10, 17, 23, 24-25, 26, 41 LEONSGOUROS:32

20-21, 24 MANOLADA,PALAIOPANAGIA: Merbaka:2616 Metal-working establishment under Holy Apostles: 3

Methana,St. Nicholas: 18 Mint, in Agora: 3 Mistra, SS. Theodore: 23

Monemvasia,St. Sophia:23 Mt. Athos: 2122 NAUPLIA,HAGIA MONI: 20, 2616

Nymphaeum,in Agora: 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 28 WALL:13, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 PAINTING,

PanathenaicWay: 42 Paros,Katapoliani: 914, 2121 Parthenon:as Christianchurch,1; destructionof, 33 Platani,St. Nicholas: 18 SKRIPOU: 21, 24

Slavicinvasionsof Greece:1 Solaki,epithetof Holy Apostles:2, 14, 38 TETRACONCH: 4, 5, 18 Thebes,St. Photeini:2014 2116 Thessalonika: churches in, 2122; St. Andreas TCOV TEpitrrepcov,

Tombs,in Holy Apostles:27-31, 37 Triconch:4, 18 wars: 33 Turkish-Venetian 18, 20-21 VARASOVA,ST. DEMETRIOS: WAR OF INDEPENDENCE: 2, 35

Windows: arcaded, 10, 24, 25, 26; double, 11, 25; grouped, 25; triple, 10, 24, 25

PLATES

b. West E a. East End.

4.

c. North Side.

d. South S

The Holy Apostles before Restoration (1953).

.

b. Foundationsof Mint (?)

a. Foundationsof Churchon Floor Bedding of Nymphaeum.

..

u!~~~qfl w~~~, m

?~, m ,

c. Early Byzantine House Walls under East Apse.

.a n a

.

a

d. The Church ca. 1890 (Ph

a. Foundationsof West Apse from East.

a;;;" .

b. Crosswallof

. ..

14

c. Junctionof West Apse and AdjoiningWall.

d. Original

PLATE 4 -

I,

.41

^.'M

8* ?; .-.

i ~.

?

.1:

a. North Side.

' JL.

...
b. OriginalEnd of North Wall.

a -

..

' .;.:.:..'.... .

'

. . L.

e:.

:

.. ~?

~

.

.

...

.

'

i

? .

'

.

.-...

.;:

..'?:..

.

~

~

~

M

I

P.I I 11 :1.

,

.

. . ...

-

. -

.

., t:l

c. South Side.

Walls Stripped of Later Masonry.

,

I

. -A

PLATE 5

..,

,

.

.

,^yZ.

H^a^^&

>C

yI ';~

?L.

a. Foundationsof Northwest Angle Chamber,from Southeast.

b. Brickwith Sketchfor Kufesque Design.

d. d. Northwest Capital.

c. SouthwestCapital.

e. Southwest Column Base.

f. NortheastColumn.

4u -

I .,

!,Wivj

i

b. OriginalWindow Archesin Dome.

a. Detail of Dome after Removalof Stucco.

d. SouthwestPendentive.

e. NortheastSeg

?

^

L

v.,.,. ~.

.,.

.

.

?

~.g

-

Semi-domeo

3b.

a. West Vraultbefore Repairs.

-.'.N:,,.,..::,. ~~~~~~,~" "7~~~~~

c. Vaulting of SiouthwestAngle Chamber.

'.A~'':

d. TriangularVault of

PLATE 8

t.-...:!.:.'.- ...., ? .:.....g; '. *.

i' ' ".. . ! "* i'

?:::!

7'S:, "... ..:,!:,-: :; :'~~'..~ ::: _.~-.. . /...it_~:~.:~~"

-v %

S

V i

_

_

.

I.", F

__-7T

.0-s

j:". I " .... ^^^X~~.;

S^^r-

r

'rc?

,

%-.^

.

*^^"'

?

, ''~~,:..''

":.

.....A..

I

4..

?'

,*

-

,' fi. i 4,`l '-<

^

B

'

.

i

IV

-..

.L

.

:

-

-i:

Dome and Roofs after Restoration.

.

-.

.

.--

? ./ ?,_-

.

, _':

PLATE 9

a. PumicePackingover East Vault.

b. PlasterBedding for Roof Tiles.

d. KufesqueBrickworkin South Apse.

c. Junctionof EastApse and BarrelVault.

-1mi,.

.1

,*d.

1

u'.

e. Windows of EastApse and Diaconicon.

f. RestoredWindow of Narthex.

PLATE 10

a. Original Paving in Northwest Angle Chamber, from South.

c. Restoring the Omphalos.

e. Sarcophagus Front.

b. Arcosolium,from North.

d. Font in Byzantine Museum.

PLATE 11

a. Epistyle Block D, Front.

c. Epistyle Block E, Front.

?

~.-~

,_,,...... X...:V ......

b. Epistyle Block D, Underside.

^K.

;S35KA

d. Epistyle Block E, Underside.

e. Closure Panel. f. Column B.

Fragments of Iconostasis of Holy Apostles.

.

Epistyle

Block

found

in

Asklepieion.

h. EpistyleBlock found in Asklepieion.

g. Epistyle Block in Byzantine Museum. it.

i. Closure Panel from Moni Petraki.

j. Closure Panel in Byzantine Museum.

a. Manolada,Palaiopanagia,from Northwest.

b. Manolada,Palaiopana II*' ': . 'i ."

.i:

. t: I ?.-'%' .~. . . .; t .;..

.. .,.

.' ,~? ..?

**

c. Manolada, Palaiopanagia, Narthex, North End.

c. Manolada,Palaiopanagia,Narthex, North End.

d. Hosios Loukas,Iconostasisin Kath

-

-

-

-

- -1-.-.--

-

.

b. Gavrolimni,Pa

a. Athens, Moni Petraki,from East (CourtesyM. Sotiriou).

Katholikon and .Theotokos, Hosios Loukas -.,

from East.

c. Hosios Loukas,Katholikonand Theotokos,from East.

d. Hosios Loukas, (Cour

PLATE 14

a. Holy Apostles, West End before Restoration.

b. FromNorthwest, RestorationCompleted.

.

PLATE 15

a. Tombs 1-4.

? ...

f. Lintel of SmallDoor of Period I.

c. Jug from Tomb 2.

b. Jug from Tomb 2.

d. Jug from Tomb 2.

g. Tombs in Narthex.

.

^

:F

e. Glass Bottle from Tomb 3.

PLATE 16 . ''SB

.:..

* I..

.r

.

'' . Ss -;r

:

1-

,

, .L -'r

1.

D

a. Tombs 12 and 13.

b. Tombs 14 and 13.

I c. Tomb 11.

d. Cornerof Arcosoliumwith Late XwveuTr4pLov.

e, f. SouthWall of Narthex in PeriodII.

PLATE 17

a. Angel of Trinityand Sacrificeof Isaacin Prothesis.

b. Aaronin Dome.

c, d. Saintsin West Angle Chambers.

c. Altar a

a. Gable of LaterPeriods. b. Window of Period II in North Wall.

rd. Pantokratorin Dome, PeriodII.

e. Pantokratorin Dome, PeriodIV.

. ;

f. Block

PI

-MM I

*. .

a.

-

_

Ss 7 k

i I

*

I -o

be

Po

d.Ineo

K a. Narthex, with ThresholdAdjustedfor PeriodIII, from East.

\~~~~

b. West Wall, Orthost

x 'l

=

....,

-.

'

;.xt,

"

:.^ _,.*R?^ m _l...I.. .asto.,. Itro, -a....IV.. . Pro c. Interior,PeriodIV, LookingEast.

d. Interior,P

: I-'

..- .. -

.

.

.

- 1

a, b. InteriorBracing.

c, d. Piersof West Arch after Destructionof Apse.

e. Inner F

c. CementBas

b. ReinforcingRods in Place.

a. SoutheastColumnin Processof Removal.

~I;~~~

-

o

~.

a

f.

d. Half of Mould for Shaft.

Replacing Columns.

I

IV

0'AESI

a. Centering.

b. ReinforcingR

I

1'.

a -"* --h ... -

. .. d. Rebuildingthe

c. Roof Half Finished.

Reconstructionof Narthex.

I

II. I#

1 a. Laying the Roof Tiles.

"

b. Carvin

PLATE 24

w

I

After Restoration,from Southeast.

PLATE 25

wzzr?.l .. - '$ yr4

r

L

-. -IZ

AfterRestorationand Landscaping,from Southwest(1959).

-.

_.,-^jj

a. Looking East.

b. Looking

The Interior,Restored.

b. SoutheastBay of Nart

a. Looking Southwest into Narthex.

The Interior,Restored.

PLATE 28

NY MPH AEUM

i1

/. /

/

,/

a

1 - -B f :

2

}e

/

'

3 :

b

PERIOD

I

PERIOD

PERIOD II

PERIOD

III

PERIOD

IV

I

0 I

I

I

I

I

5 I

Development of Plan.

J.T. 1C D M. 1955

I

PLATE 29

_I

z70 Il lt ll l

lI

I!

5 I

10 I0

M.

W.B.D.,JR.-1969

RestoredPlan, Period I.

,_

f w

DXrL1T^ (Lm=- l-zaI"?^ |1. 11ICi

LcE1 I3Z"="

LIzoI-i|s>r' i-s 1

- 1 0[oXzLmlKr

[_iF2 1 Z*iCI

lIEtl

-"

m.l

l ','..i'

Sci p|ig

,^-7^

;.,:

:z iIjtSiw i F l aZ2IJE7| r. plrrc+7

tYrzi

67,70

0

5

I WBD.,R.-1969

10 M. M

W.B.D.,JR.-1969

East Elevation.

1 iilt,,,,, ,,I , W.B.D.,JR.-1969

0

i

I

5 Ii

10 M.

West Elevation.

PLATE 32

kl

~~~~~~~~~~,L-i

:.. F"'I t ~.:~ ]-I

:.

L~~?~L EV:

!.L I mo/dNI 1''~;'~ i-~.

MY~

L

-..,Fv,: r-'r'--'LV ~Li

Lb. .~

'

~--,f~

~

j

F

r

L~ i / ~ ),~'~[~1I'._~FI'= o ,

'@~~~~

PLATE 33

o-

0 10-

:: 4*5

o Vi

C,

0

6C 0-

r- --77

MI,

0

I ,III.. I .

I

. . I II I I

5

W.B.D.,JR.- 1969

TransverseSection, ChurchProper.

10 I IM.

t1 r

-v. v <~~~~~~~

',7;, , 77 m;g f. I ,.9a,

-Mh.-.g

0

1

WB.DIJR.- 1969

;

5 I

W.B.D.,JR.-1969

LongitudinalSection.

10 I M.

PLATE 36

'-7 ~

~ ~

z

r) I-) LO

114

LO~

~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~-

-E:

OMt~-

c'-4

CJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l t

mm(

~

~2

v

5

I

0 I,,,,,,,,,1

,

,

,I

10

II

M.

W.B.D.,JR.-1969

TransverseSection,Narthex.

PLATE 38

it L-

I

)ow

I \^ \

,\\\\\\

\ 0 I

I

I

I

I

5i

I

Plan, Period III.

1C) J.T. I M. 1971

PLATE 39

C-r

L

,L_^~~~ 0

II

_T 5

~~~~I

Floor Plan, Period IV.

.T. ......I

M.

1954

PLATE 40

0

I

5

I|~~~~~~~~~~~ l~~~~~~ i~ l~~~~~~~~~~~~~

W.B.D.,JR.-1969

Plan of Roof.

10

l~~I

M.