The State of Preservation of the Byzantine Mosaics of the Saint Gabriel Monastery of Qartamin, Tur Abdin (South-West Turkey)
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2008
Vol. 11, No. 1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv11n1blanccourboules
The State of Preservation of the Byzantine Mosaics of the Saint Gabriel Monastery of Qartamin, Tur Abdin (South-West Turkey)
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol11/HV11N1BlancCourboules.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 11
issue 1
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Mosaics
Qartmin
Tur Abdin
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
A mission organized by Alain Desreumaux and
Sébastien de Courtois, on the request of His Eminence
Mor Timotheos Samuel Aktas, Metropolitan of Tur Abdin conducted
over five days of study in October 2006 to evaluate the state
of preservation of the Byzantine mosaics adorning the sanctuary
of the church of Saint Gabriel Monastery in Tur Abdin and
proposed solutions for the mosaics’ long-term safeguard
and maintenance.
October
10th–14th, 2006
[1] The goal
of this mission, conducted over five days in October 2006, was
to evaluate the state of preservation of the Byzantine mosaics
adorning the sanctuary of the church of Saint Gabriel Monastery
in Tur Abdin, and to propose solutions for the mosaics’
long-term safeguard and maintenance. Organized by Alain
Desreumaux, researcher at the CNRS (Workshop on Ancient Semitic
Studies at the Collège de France’s Institute of
Semitic Studies: Eastern Mediterranean UMR) and by
Sébastien de Courtois, doctoral student at the EHESS,
the mission was completed thanks only to the support of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and especially of Michel Pierre,
who generously covered all transportation costs.
Location
[2] The
Monastery of Saint Gabriel, or Mar Gabriel, is located in the
region called Tur Abdin (in Syriac, “Mountain of the
Servants”), a mountain range in southeast Turkey that
overlooks the Mesopotamian plain to the southeast of
Diyarbekir. Southeast of Midyat, the monastery is located 5
kilometers from the village of Qartamin, 60 kilometers from the
Syrian, and 90 miles from the Iraqi border. At present, the
monastery belongs to the Syriac Orthodox Church, and wields
special spiritual influence in Tur Abdin thanks to the presence
of Archbishop Mor Timotheos Samuel Aktas, the diocesan bishop
who resides there.
History
[3] At the
heart of Tur Abdin history, the Mar Gabriel Monastery has long
been a center of Christianity and Syriac culture in the Middle
East. With its monuments and manuscripts, with its many
illustrious ascetic saints, monks, bishops, scribes and
writers, Tur Abdin has figured prominently in Syrian and
Mesopotamian history from the 3rd century to the
present.
[4] The
founding of Mar Gabriel likely dates to when Persians murdered
Bishop Karpos during a raid on Roman Nisibe in the middle of
the fourth century. A Syriac manuscript most probably dating
from the thirteenth century (British Museum manuscript, Add.
17265, which is completed by Sachau manuscript 221 of
Berlin’s Staatsbibliothek, dated to the
seventeenth century) explains the origins of the monastery
founded in 397 A.D. by Samuel, Karpos’ spiritual son and
a native of Mardin. One of his disciples, Simeon, succeeded him
in 408; Simeon had buildings erected and transformed the
hermit’s retreat into a spiritual hub sheltering hundreds
of monks. Because of its strategic location on the Roman
Empire’s eastern frontier, vast construction was
undertaken, first under Emperor Arcadius, then under Theodosius
II. But it was only Emperor Anastasius’ generosity that
allowed the monks to build a large church, finally completed in
512. As the British Museum’s manuscript tells us,
Anastasius sent the monks not just gold, but also skilled
specialized workers-builders, goldsmiths, sculptors, painters
and mosaicists credited with the sanctuary’s mosaic.
[5] In the
nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, several
European travelers visited the monastery: H. Pognon in 1899, C.
Preusser in 1909, Miss G. Bell in 1909 and 1911. Then, from
1918 to 1954, Tur Abdin became a military zone closed to
tourism. In 1954, J. Leroy, researcher at the CNRS, was the
first European allowed to see the monastery again. These
visitors left descriptions that provide useful testimony on the
state of the mosaics’ preservation.
[6] Gertrude
Lowthian Bell, who visited the monastery on two separate
occasions, took photographs and compiled a map of the
buildings, which she published along with two drawings of the
ceiling’s mosaics. In 1958, Abbot Jules Leroy briefly
mentioned two mosaics he had seen in 1954: “The first
(published in Preusser, 1911) shows
geometric designs with borders containing aces and
spades”. Concerning the second mosaic, he wrote,
“one can make out... a cross surrounded by vines.
According to [G. Bell in Van Berchem and] Strzygowski, Amida,
[1910,] p. 272, this is the oldest example of wall mosaic in
Mesopotamia.” Though the mosaic in question is the same
that decorates the barrel vaulted ceiling. After each having
stayed at the monastery in 1972, Ernest J. W. Hawkins and
Marlia C. Mundell conducted further study on the mosaics, and
published their findings in Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
together with a fine photographic illustration (DOP,
27, 1973, pp. 279-296, 49 fig.).
Description of the Decor
[7] The
mosaics in question adorn one room of the main church, situated
in the eastern section of the monastery. This space-called
“presbyterium” by G. Bell and
“sanctuary” by E. Hawkins and M. Mundell-forms the
church’s choir, and is partially occupied by a modern
altar affixed to the floor. The room measures 4.33 X 5.83
meters; at its center, the barrel vault rises to 5.36
meters.
[8] The
description found in the British Museum’s
thirteenth-century manuscript states, “The
sanctuary’s floor is covered with mosaics of white,
black, yellow, purple and maroon marble, with various figures.
Its circular walls are covered by marble slabs, and overhead,
on the vaulted ceiling, there are mosaics of golden
cubes.”
The Pavement
[9] G. Bell
mentioned that the pavement was decorated with polychromatic
marble, of which J. Leroy offered a brief description upon
which E. Hawkins and M. Mundell further elaborated, also
presenting three photographs: “The floor of the sanctuary
is paved with opus sectile of black, red, and white
marbles. A rectangular panel fills the west doorway (fig. 49).
The main floor has a rectangular design with a border around
the walls and a circular centerpiece with a spiraling pattern
around a small grey and white variegated marble disc (32 cm. in
diameter), now partly covered by the step in front of the
modern altar (figs. 47, 48).”
[10]
Covering a surface of about 25.25 m2, the flooring
is trichromatic opus sectile (black, white, red).
Along the checkerboard walls (whose squares are decorated with
alternating hourglasses and florets with two spear-shaped
petals each), the flooring’s bordering zone is delimited
towards the center by a row of white triangles on a black
background. The central part of the floor mosaic is adorned
with a grid of rows of adjacent squares, which form large
quadrangles occupied in turn by four white squares around
further black or red squares, all of which are decorated with a
four-petal floret of contrasting colors. At the center of this
composition, there is a large circle decorated with a
“triangle shield” with a double border-one border
on a white background being decorated with alternating black
beads and black squares and inscribed with a white square; the
other border being decorated with alternating black/red and
white squares marked with florets of contrasting colors. The
center of the shield is marked with a marble disk bordered by a
line of red and black triangles.
First Descriptions of the Wall Mosaics
[11] Of
the wall mosaics on the vaulted ceiling and lunettes, of which
about 45 m² are preserved, G. Bell left precise
descriptions: “Of the presbyterium mosaic a precious
fragment remains. The barrel vault is covered with a spreading
vine, the spirals of which encircle leaves and bunches of
grapes (Fig. 21 [drawing from a photograph]) … At each
of the four corners, the vine springs from a double handled
vase. The body of the vase is divided into two zones by a
narrow band; in the lower zone a geometric design springs up
from the pointed base. In the centre of the vine, at the top of
the vault, there is a rayed crux gemmata enclosed in a
circle (Fig. 22 [drawing of the motif]). The vault is bordered
by three bands of ornament. The first is a forked pattern
worked in three colours; the second a row of hollow 8-pointed
stars with a white dot in every point and an ivy leaf in the
hollow centre; the third a series of rhomboids, separated from
each other by a cross band of three jewels, the whole closely
resembling the jewelled bands which occur in Byzantine mosaics
of the 6th century. On the S. wall of the chamber,
under the vault, there are fragments of mosaic in which it is
possible to make out a small domed tabernacle, the dome carried
on two pairs of columns. On the N. wall also there are traces
of mosaic, and upon the floor there is a pavement of different
coloured marbles. The mosaic on the vault is carried out in
red, a pale greenish blue, and white, upon a gold
ground… The execution of the vine is fine and delicate
in detail, and the realistic treatment is unlike mosaics of the
Moslem period.”
[12] This
description was further elaborated upon by M.C. Mundell, who
was able closely to examine part of the mosaic during her stay
at the monastery in August 1972. The stylistic analysis that
she gave was accompanied by many photographs of details, which
are especially helpful for comparisons as we document of the
decor’s present state of preservation.
The Ceiling in 2006
[13] The
ceiling presents a decor of vine leaves springing from four
canthari vases set in the corners. To accentuate the effect of
height, the vines narrow towards the center of the ceiling,
which is marked by a radiating crux gemmata drawn onto
a starry background, inside a circle made of a row of trisected
calices set alternately top to bottom (diam. 1.40 m). In
smaller medallions, two other crosses standing on steps face
each other on the vaulted ceiling’s spring: one is
situated over the west door and is bordered by a guilloche
(diam. 59 cm); the other, less complete, is located over the
east apse and is bordered by a two-stranded braid (diam. 66
cm). The field is limited by three borders (width: 82 cm):
these are, from the inside outwards, a line of nesting
chevrons; a strip of eight-pointed stars (each point accented
with a little circle) decorated with circles marked with a
heart-shaped leaf; and finally a gem-studded line with
alternating large and small squares on edge.
[14] Less
complete, the southern and northern lunettes present figurative
decorations: to the south, framed by two trees (cypresses?), a
domed tabernacle supported by columns shelters an altar (?)
with two chalices, and oil-lamps hung on each side of the
tabernacle; to the north, the decoration, in a ruinous state,
seems to have been similar, though only the two side trees and
the tabernacle’s dome remain. Made of glass tesserae, a
Greek inscription is still partially preserved under the
tabernacle of the south lunette. This inscription, studied by
C. Mango (DOP, 27, 1973, p. 296), likely gave the
sponsors’, or perhaps the mosaicists’
signature.
[15] The
backgrounds’ tesserae have gold leaf. In the lunettes,
these tesserae are set in regular horizontal lines that are
widely spaced, and their surface is tilted slightly down.
Jutting out in this way, these tesserae’s reflections are
more fetching, catching the light better. The lines’ wide
spacing also allowed for savings on tesserae.
Identification of Other Decoration
[16]
During our brief mission, only the choir’s decor could be
studied, though the monastery also possesses vestiges of other
mosaics. According to G. Bell, “Local tradition insists
that the vault of the nave was once covered with mosaics like
the vault of the presbyterium; possibly a careful
examination of the brickwork might yield some evidence as to
the truth of this tale.” E. Hawkins and M. Mandel also
mentioned the presence of a destroyed mosaic in the
choir’ small apse: “The shallow apse bears traces
of destroyed mosaic decoration… All the mosaic in the
shallow apse recess has been lost, but an irregular area of
setting-bed (1.15 m. x 0.75 m.) bearing traces of the frescoes
design is exposed on the north side of the original window
opening and it is possible that more extends around to the
other side underneath comparatively modern renderings. The
design on the setting-bed is not immediately apparent thought
it seems to be a foliate decoration. Four years ago, as a
security precaution, the apse window was almost entirely
blocked up…” In a space situated further to the
north, Hawkins and Mandel made the following observation:
“On the south, east, and north walls of the ‘tomb
chamber’ chapel to the north of the northern compartment
of the sanctuary, there are areas of the characteristic
intermediate rendering for mosaics which bears a rough
herringbone pattern of incised lines. This plaster is similar
to that which can be seen in some places where mosaic has been
lost in the sanctuary (fig. 20), and it is reasonable to
suppose that this chamber was decorated with mosaic at the same
time as the sanctuary.”
State of Preservation
[17]
Already in 1909, Miss Bell noticed that “the vault is
much blackened by smoke; if it were cleaned every detail would
be visible.” This remark was echoed a half-century later
by Abbot Leroy: “The ceiling’s mosaic is difficult
to see because of the filth.” Ten years later, in 1968,
when he alerted the scientific community to “The present
state of Christian monuments in southeast Turkey (Tur Abdin and
surroundings)” (CRAI, 1968, p. 483), this same
Abbot Leroy painted a sad picture of the mosaics’
condition: the painting in the two lunettes were
“destroyed”, he wrote, and “wide sections [of
the ceiling] are in danger of immediate collapse”.
[18] But
E. Hawkins, who conducted precise observations in November
1972, gave a more detailed description of the mosaics’
state of preservation, also analyzing the remains of ancient
mortar. To further his examination, Hawkins mentioned that he
had been able to perform a limited cleaning: “The
mosaics…cover the vault and lateral lunettes... The
lower halves of the walls are now bare, except for some
relatively recent wall paintings… The colors of the
tesserae are overcast, in some places totally obscured, by thin
deposits of lime and soot which give to the whole a light gray
or blackened appearance... The deposits on the mosaics were
probably created by lime, carried down by rain water from the
masonry above, combining with soot from the smoke of frequent
fires below. Around its lower parts the mosaic has been partly
obscured by splashes and smears of later rough renderings of
the walls below… Most of the mosaic of the vault
survives, but there are several losses, notably to the west of
the center and along the lower part on the west, and to the
east behind the top of the modern altar. In the south lunette
most of the lower and middle parts of the mosaic has fallen.
The greater part of the north lunette mosaic has been lost and
of what remains much is in imminent danger of collapse. Other
areas where further falls could occur are at the left side of
the south lunette and near the center of the vault.”
[19]
Hawkins described the mosaic’s mortar setting: “As
might be expected over a brick vault, there are three
renderings of lime plaster; the first roughly finished, the
intermediate keyed with the point of a sharp tool with lines in
a broad herringbone pattern for the reception of the
setting-bed...”
[20]
Concerned that certain parts of the mosaics were in danger of
collapsing, Hawkins made sure to stress that “Adequate
scaffolding, time, and skilled workmanship will be necessary if
this is to be averted. There is indeed an urgent need for steps
to be taken to save this unique decoration.”
(DOP, 1973, p. 283).
[21]
Despite his warnings, no serious conservation work seems to
have been undertaken until 1997. At that time, the whole
interior of the church was “restored”, the walls
were cleaned and all traces of the ancient coating was removed.
The stones were bared and repointed with white cement mortar.
This also seems to have been when the gaps in the mosaics of
the vault’s spring were plugged with beige mortar,
underlining the vault’s lower section. A comparison of
the present state of preservation with the photographs Hawkins
and Mundell included in their article reveals that tesserae
have disappeared in places, especially in the southern
lunette’s inscription. The damage probably occurred in
the course of this restoration work.
[22] More
recently, in 2001 or 2002, the region’s governor called
in a team of Italian restorers who were working on mosaics
found during emergency excavations conducted because of the
construction of a dam on the Euphrates, which flooded part of
the ancient city of Zeugma. This team’s work lasted two
days, and consisted of gluing a layer of gauze to the mosaic to
maintain the most weakened sections of the ceiling and
lunettes. This gauze is still in place.
State of Preservation in 2006
[23] We
are faced with architecture that was entirely renovated without
concern for the materials used in the fifth century. The
mortars used in ancient times were made up of a lime binder
with a mineral mixture (sand, terra cotta, gravel) which let
water vapor through. Since it was not hard, it possessed a
certain elasticity that allowed it to give without breaking.
This is not the case with the modern cement mortars, waterproof
and very hard, that were set in place in the twentieth century.
Overly hard compared to the ancient materials, they are already
detaching.
[24]
Therefore, in years to come, we can expect many problems with
the architecture (fissures, buckling) which will risk altering
the buildings and their decorated parts. This deterioration may
have a direct influence on the mosaics’ preservation,
since these have been weakened by the mortar’s failure to
stick to the walls.
[25] It
is regrettable that the restoration work done thus far was
conducted without archeological input. This is particularly sad
given G. Bell’s photograph showing vestiges of wall
paintings, and also Hawkins and Mundell’s examination of
the vestiges of mortar that still bore traces of the tesserae
lost in other parts of the monastery.
The Opus Sectile
[26] In
the very irregular opus sectile flooring, ancient
restorations are still visible. These restorations were carried
out using grey cement and scattered marble fragments. Though
the marble pieces remain in place, several parts have cracks
that show the ancient mortar. The floor is normally covered
with carpets which have also served to protect it.
The Mosaic
[27] On
the mosaic of the barrel vault and lunettes, which was noted in
Miss Bell’s first descriptions, a blackish layer has
formed on the tesserae’s surface. This layer is composed
of chalky concretions, dust and the black smoke rising from
candles and incense used in religious ceremonies, but also
resulting from general sootiness, even if it seems that at some
unknown date, the decor may have been dusted off. We were able
to locate the part cleaned by Hawkins in 1972.
[28]
However, our examination brought to light graver damage, very
worrisome unless action is taken quickly. In many places, the
stone and brick masonry has detached from the first layer of
gross mortar. This has taken place both in the north lunettes
and on the ceiling. This detachment may cause large chunks of
the mosaic to fall, particularly in light of the region’s
vulnerability to seismic activity and aftershocks. The Italian
team recently called in reinforced many of the detached parts,
but this can only be a stop-gap measure until true restoration
work can be undertaken.
[29] In
the south lunette, the lower section has many lacunae, and is
plugged with the grey cement mortar seen already in the
photographs Hawkins and Mundell took in 1972. This cracked
mortar no longer sticks to the wall. In the center of the
pictured tabernacle, an older crack was filled with glazed blue
ceramic elements (already visible in 1972). It was on this
lunette that we located Hawkins’ cleaning test. In
comparison with the 1972 photograph, the Greek inscription
under the tabernacle has lost several tesserae, probably when
the mortar was repointed in 1997.
[30] By
comparison with the earliest illustrations, one can see that
the north lunette is much more damaged, and a large section of
the west side has detached, which is already visible in the
single photograph that we possess of the ceiling, taken in
1911. The cracks have been plugged with the same sort of grey
cement mortar. However, though the mosaic seems to have shifted
only slightly since Hawkins’ stay, all of the mosaics
contained in this lunette are in utter decay.
[31] The
ceiling also shows cracks: one large crack above the doorway
leading in from the central nave, on the western arch, already
visible in G. Bell’s photograph; another large crack
above the apse and behind the modern altar -this crack was
plugged, probably in 1997, with a beige mortar similar to the
one that borders the vault’s spring-; besides those,
there are numerous smaller cracks, which are old and sooty. Our
examination of the vault showed that even if the mortar is
barely sticking to the stone, the tesserae are at least
satisfactorily adhering to their mortar.
[32] Over
the course of our stay, besides the attentive examination of
the remains, we were also able to conduct a few cleaning tests
on the mosaics of the south lunette, and at the bottom of the
vault in the northeast corner.
[33] The
entirety of the decor is composed of colored, opaque glass
tesserae (dark blue with nuances of light blue, green, red,
brown and black), of translucent glass tesserae with a gold and
silver backing, of tesserae of white, pink or grayish limestone
(or marble? “Pink marble” according to M. C.
Mundell). As G. Bell, E. Hawkins and M. Mundell stressed,
a gentle cleaning would certainly sharpen the palette and help
identify the materials used.
[34] The
tesserae are irregular in shape, measuring from about 0.8 to 1
cm along their edge. The tesserae with silver leaf are slightly
smaller than the others. Several motifs are rendered by plaques
with specific forms (circles, droplets, etc.)
[35] Our
observations, however limited, revealed that the limestone,
colored glass tesserae, and gold-leafed tesserae are in good
condition. Those with silver leaf are less well preserved since
the metal at the edges of the tesserae has oxidized (silver
oxide). No exfoliation of the glass was noted.
[36] The
joints are very sooty, particularly since in this type of wall
mosaic, the joints are deeply recessed, which increases chances
for dirt deposit.
[37] On
the ceiling, we noted the presence of metal clamps stuck into
the mosaic, flush with the tesserae’s surface. These
hooks reinforce the mortar’s hold on the wall. Because of
the general sootiness and our limited time, we were unable to
check the regularity of their placement. A list will have to be
drawn up, and a more detailed study will need to be conducted
of the metal’s state of preservation. Depending on the
results, it may be necessary to replace them.
[38] On
the ceiling’s western spring, a large hole is visible in
the interior of the structure, in the mosaic and its mortars as
well as in the wall itself, but a corresponding hole was not
found on the ceiling’s exterior. It is most probably the
opening for a conduit whose function we were unable to
ascertain. The mosaic and its mortar incline slightly into the
conduit, proof that the conduit already existed when the
mosaics were being laid.
[39]
Moreover, we also observed various hooks from which light
fixtures have been hung over the centuries. The insertion of
these hooks broke numerous holes into the mosaic.
Cleaning
[40]
During the October 2006 mission, we conducted two cleaning
tests: the first on the tree pictured on the left side of the
south lunette (tesserae of colored glass and with gold-leaf),
the second at the bottom of the ceiling, in the northeast
corner (tesserae with gold leaf and silver leaf, glass tesserae
and limestone tesserae). These tests, which were conducted
mechanically (with scalpels) revealed a good overall
preservation of the tesserae, except for the silver leaf
tesserae.