Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:53:53.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cumanin Cami'i at Antalya: A Byzantine Church

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

M. H. Ballance
Get access

Extract

This article is the result of a survey of Cumanin Cami'i carried out in the summer of 1953 during the writer's tenure of the Fellowship of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. That the survey took place is due in large measure to encouragement from the Director of the Institute, Mr. Seton Lloyd, and to the Turkish Antiquities Department, who readily gave the necessary permission. Further thanks are due to Mr. J. B. Ward Perkins for help in the solution of various problems connected with the work, to Mr. D. E. Strong for advice on the dating of the mouldings, and to Bayan Sabahat Öǧretmenoǧlu, then Director of the Antalya Museum, for her interest and support.

Cumanin Cami'i, otherwise known as Korkut Cami'i or more recently simply as Kesik Minare (the Broken Minaret), stands in the southern part of the old walled town of Antalya, the ancient Attaleia, in Pamphylia, its roofless minaret forming one of the most prominent marks on the horizon as seen from the region of the Konak, on the north side of the harbour.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 23 , November 1955 , pp. 99 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Niemann, G., Petersen, E. (ed. Lanckoronski, K.), Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, vol. I, Vienna, 1890, pp. 26–7, pls. X–XIGoogle Scholar; Rott, Hans, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler (Studien zur Christliche Denkmäler, 5–6), Leipzig, 1908, pp. 32–46Google Scholar, figs. 2, 10–18; see also Riefstahl, R. M., Turkish Archilecture in S.Jf. Anatolia (Art Studies VIII), Cambridge (Mass.), 1931, pp. 41–2Google Scholar, figs. 76–8.

2 A similar stone is used in the seats of the theatre at Aspendos, as well as in smaller quantities at Perge and at Side.

3 I assumed for some time that the bonding was secondary to the wall itself and that the latter had originally formed part of a much earlier building of the type of the Palaestra of Cornutus at Perge (Niemann, and Petersen, , op. cit., vol. I, pp. 41–4Google Scholar). The present conclusion is the result of discussion with Mr. Ward Perkins followed by a re-examination on the ground in 1954.

4 That this hole was at some time a door appears from Rott's account (op. cit., p. 44). It had a carved wooden lintel, shown in his fig. 2.

5 This opening may have been occupied in Period I by an arcade forming the front of a gallery over the narthex.

6 Well illustrated in Niemann, and Petersen, , op. cit., vol. I, pl. XIGoogle Scholar.

7 Rott considered that the brick arcading and the inner apse were earlier than the outer walls and outer apse. The collapse of the later accretions round the original piers I and II has shown that the latter are bonded into the east wall and certainly contemporary with the outer apse. Strzygowski, (Kleinasien, ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte, Leipzig, 1903, pp. 168–9Google Scholar) suggested that the church was a Kuppelbasilika, a suggestion that can only refer to the final form (Period III).

8 Jewell, H. H. and Hasluck, F. W., The Church of Our Lady of the Hundred Gates, London, 1920Google Scholar.

9 As will be seen from the accompanying isometric reconstruction (Fig. 2), the inclusion of a glazed clerestory would have resulted in a rather low ceiling in the gallery.

10 Headlam, A. C., ‘Ecclesiastical Sites in Isauria’ (Journal of Hellenic Studies: Supplementary Papers, II), London, 1893Google Scholar.

11 A large mass of masonry was added (almost certainly in Period II, as it corresponds to the Period II reinforcement in the lower storey) to the upper part of pier V. If, as is very likely, a similar addition was made to pier IX, it must have masked these two capitals. They play no part in the scheme of Period III and have, in the form of their vine-spray decoration, strong stylistic affinities to the Period I architrave-capitals.

12 Niemann and Petersen, op. cit., pl. X. This plan presents a more reliable picture of the vaulting of the mosque than does that of Rott (op. cit., fig. 18). fig.

13 For a similar representation, see Cabrol, and Leclercq, , Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne, VI, i, coll. 1003–4Google Scholar, 5230 (the Genoels-Elderen Diptych).

14 Orlandos, A. K., Ή Συλόστεϒος παλαιοχριστιανική Βασιλικὴ τῆς Μεσοϒειακῆς Λεκάνης, vol. I, Athens, 1952, p. 189, fig. 155Google Scholar.

15 Crowfoot, J. W., in Gerasa, New Haven, 1938, pp. 256 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 Gerber, W., Abramić, M. and Egger, R., Forschungen in Salona, vol. I, Vienna, 1917, pp. 23–39Google Scholar. Here the north and south arms of the cross were completely cut off by transverse arcades.

17 Alahan, two churches at Perge (Rott, op. cit., pp. 48 ff., figs. 19–21) and one at Kanli Divane (Strzygowski, op. cit., pp. 51–2, figs. 40–1). The subject of inscribed apses is treated extensively by Crowfoot, (Early Churches in Palestine (Schweich Lectures, 1937), London, 1941, pp. 65–7Google Scholar).

18 Kautzsch, R., Kapitellstudien (Studien zur Spätantiken Kunstgeschichte, 9), Berlin, 1936, pp. 182–3Google Scholar.

19 Cl. Huart, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. II, Leyden and London, 1927, p. 1078Google Scholar.