Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

‘the age of justinian’ 911
Constantinople by Justinian (or his court officials). There is clearly
insufficient evidence to decide on the provenance of the artists. The only
material factor is that the marble revetment around the base of the apse
(and other fittings in the sanctuary) is of Proconnesian marble. If this
marble was freshly quarried and transported out from the Sea of Marmara,
then it might seem reasonable to argue that the mosaicist accompanied the
cargo and came from Constantinople. But this was the period when, it has
been argued, the use of the quarries was virtually at an end, and the marble
may come from a stockpile anywhere – even perhaps in Jerusalem, since
churches of the fifth and sixth century in the Negev (and elsewhere) likewise
had access to this marble for their church fittings. 57 Similar discussions
about the existence of local mosaicists recur in all parts of the regions
involved – from France to Syria. For example, there are three mosaic apses
on Cyprus, all representing in diverse imagery the Virgin Mary, from the
period before iconoclasm (and very likely all from the sixth century):
Kanakaria (recently looted from the site and fragmented), Livadia (recently
destroyed) and Kiti. 58 The case proposed – that these mosaics were
achieved by imported mosaicists from Syria or Constantinople – is perhaps
undermined by the fact that archaeology reveals that an enormous amount
of mosaic work was done on the island in this period, sufficient, one might
argue, to support a local industry. The same issue emerges in the analysis
of the mosaic at Qartmin in Syria from the early sixth century. 59
The quantity of work and the links between Constantinople and so
much enterprise undertaken outside the capital does support the notion
that the period of Justinian adds up to an ‘age of Justinian’; despite the
loose connections between the emperor and the production of the art. All
over the Mediterranean one detects artistic contacts and intersections, and
the signs of an ‘international art’. The writings of the court encomiasts
equally support the interpretation that the built environment and the
culture of viewing were selfconsciously promoted under the name of the
emperor. 60 But clearly art was not all centred on Constantinople, and there
is no evidence that the Byzantine capital was the source of all artistic enterprise:
the character of the art of Ravenna is far too complex to support this
view. 61 In the same way, the architecture of the period shows many local
features. 62
57 Asgari (1995); a problem here is whether the quarries went entirely out of use in the sixth century
or whether the procedures for working in the quarries changed.
58 Megaw and Hawkins (1977); Megaw and Hawkins have dated the apse of Kiti to the late sixth
century; Barber (1991) argues for the late seventh century for Kiti. 59 Hawkins and Mundell (1973).
60 Cameron, Procopius. 61 Kostof (1965).
62 For the evolution of architecture over this period see fundamentally Grabar (1946) and Lassus
(1947); also Tchalenko, Villages. A more pragmatic coverage is offered by Krautheimer, Early Christian
and Byzantine Architecture and Mango, Byzantine Architecture. The range of possibilities is obvious from a
comparison of the Church of the Hundred Gates at Paros; Basilica B at Philippi (unfinished); the
church of St John at Ephesus; and Kasr Ibn Wardan in modern Jordan.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008