We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The publication of another article on the monastery complex at Alahan in Isauria so soon after the appearance of Professor P. Verzone's monograph and Professor G. Forsyth's paper on the same monument may seem premature, and to require some explanation. It can, however, be reasonably justified on the differing times and circumstances in which the various articles appeared.
In autumn 1955, I published “Some Recent Finds at Alahan (Koja Kalessi)”, an article based on two short visits which I had made to the monastery during 1952 and 1953. This paper coincided with the publication of the Turkish text of Professor Verzone's monograph, compiled after a stay at Alahan in the summer of the same year. Meanwhile, I had previously requested and obtained permission from the Turkish General Directorate of Museums and Antiquities to carry out limited soundings in the monastery complex, in particular in the building designated Chiesa n. 1 by Verzone. These soundings were, in fact, carried out in the interval between Verzone's visit and the publication of his monograph.
1 Alahan Monastır, Turin, 1956Google Scholar. The Turkish edition, entitled Alahan Manastırı üzerinde bir İnceleme, was published in Istanbul in 1955. Hereafter, the abbreviation AM is used for Alahan Monastır.
2 “Archaeological Notes on a Trip through Cilicia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XI, 1957Google Scholar.
3 Anatolian Studies, V, pp. 115–123Google Scholar.
4 For the date of Tarasis' death, see Bean's, G. E. comments in AM. pp. 53–4Google Scholar.
5 See Gough, , op. cit., p. 118, n. 10Google Scholar.
6 Voyage en Orient, pp. 124, 126.
7 “Ecclesiastical Sites in Isauria (Cilicia Trachea),” 1892.
8 Described by Gough, , op. cit., pp. 119–123Google Scholar, and by Verzone, , AM. pp. 29–32Google Scholar.
9 Overall dimensions are H. 1·05 m.; w. 0·76; th. 0·72.
10 For short preliminary reports of this excavation, see Gough, M., AS. X, 1960, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; also Gough, M., “Dağ Pazaı 1959”, Türk Arkeoloji Derneği, X–2, 1961, pp. 23–4Google Scholar.
11 Of the photographs illustrating the text, Pls. XXVIIIb, XXIXb, XXXa/b and XXXIIa were taken by Dr. Rosenbaum, Pl. XXIXa by Mr. Harry Martineau, and the remainder by the author. Dr. Ballance prepared Fig. 1, while Fig. 2 is the work of my wife. An overall survey of the monastery complex, which it is hoped to publish in AS. XIII, was undertaken by Mr. John Richards, A.R.I.B.A.
12 A comparison of our Fig. 1 and the site plan in AM. shows that Verzone correctly estimated the position of the north door into the Church of the Evangelists; his conjectural columned entrance to the narthex, however, is taken too far northwards, since the rock at this point makes the extension impossible. In fact, it existed only as far as the line of the northern stylobate.
13 For a description, see AM. p. 32. Most of the mouldings are repeated on the jambs of the central door into the church.
14 Verzone, , (AM. pp. 11–12)Google Scholar conjectured an internal narthex, basing his idea on the visible traces of walls, which were in fact secondary, separating the nave area from the side aisles. As these walls stopped short of the western façade, V., very understandably, thought of the intervening space as an internal narthex. In the secondary period it might perhaps be described as such, but the actual narthex of the original basilica was, of course, the “external propylaeum with columns” as V. describes it.
15 N.B. that while some of these frieze blocks form the lowest course of the wall itself, others are set flush against the lower course, and so project slightly to form a narrow bench. Thus the two “loose” blocks may well have been intended for such use.
16 H. 0·16 m.; w. 1–64 m.; th. 0·83 m.
17 Both pastophories could originally be entered from the sanctuary. The northern opening is quite clear, but the southern needs further investigation.
18 Irregularity of orientation is not in itself unusual. The basilica at Dağ Pazari is oriented over 30 degrees south of east.
19 See Gough, , AS. IV, p. 122, n. 25Google Scholar.
20 Headlam, in identifying them as busts, was presumably referring to the southern jamb, where the shoulders, arms and breasts of the figures are clear enough.
21 See Gough, M., “A Fifth Century Reliquary from Isauria,” Byzantinoslavica, XIX (2), 1958Google Scholar.
22 The dimensions of the order are; bases: 0·70 m. by 0·70 m. and 0·45 m. high on average; shafts: 2·50 m. high, with a lower diameter of 0·54 m.; capitals: 0·45 m. high. The total height from base to capital is therefore 3·40 m. The intercolumniation is 1·95.
23 The width of the blocks so employed varies, but the other dimensions are constant. H. 0·43 m., th. 0·63 m. The depth of relief is 0·025.
24 The builders of the secondary church sometimes showed a curious respect for the sculptured blocks that they hacked to pieces to provide rubble. A pair of crossed fish, or a single fish's head will often be found carefully cut away from its background.
25 Other considerations apart, it is most unlikely that the Monastery Church was the first at Alahan, if only because it would have been illogical in the monks to build 250 m. east of the natural caves which must immediately have been appreciated as potential cells, and which were in fact put to that use. The rock-cut cells between the Church of the Evangelists and the Monastery Church will have been fashioned after the whole monastery was a going concern.
26 The decorative panels of fish on the jambs and lintel soffit of the south door are a case in point. See Gough, M., The Early Christians, Thames and Hudson, London, 1961, Fig. 32Google Scholar.
