Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
Historical
and
archaeological
analysis
of
the
Church
of
the
Nativity
Michele
Bacci
a, Giovanna
Bianchi
b,∗, Stefano
Campana
b, Giuseppe
Fichera
b aDepartmentofhistoricalsciences,universityofFribourg,SwitzerlandbDepartmentofhistoricalsciencesandheritage,UniversityofSiena,Italy
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Articlehistory:Received9October2012 Accepted9October2012 Availableonline22November2012 Keywords:
Nativitychurch Bethlehem Historicalanalysis
Historyofarchaeologicalexcavations Archaeologicalanalysisofarchitecture Historyofarchitecture
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
TheteamhasconsideredthespecialstatusoftheBasilicaofBethlehem,whichisnotjustamonument ofoutstandinghistoricandartisticimportance,butalsoandfundamentallyaholyplace,thathaslong beenandisstillperceivedasamemorialsite,markingtheplaceofChrist’sbirthandtranscribinginto asacredtopographythemaineventsoftheGospelnarratives.Becauseofsuchapeculiarity,theteam consideredthatitwasindispensabletoanalyzetheBasilicaofBethlehemfromdifferentviewpoints, namelythoseofarchaeologicalandhistoricalresearch.Thehistoricalapproachaimsatunderstandingthe centuries-olddevelopmentoftheholysiteasaritualspaceandthematerializedexpressionofholiness, thewaysinwhichithasbeenperceivedandused,andthemessagesthatitwasmeanttoconveytoits beholders.Itcombinesthefindingsofpreviousarchaeologicalresearchwiththedataprovidedbythe analysisofwrittenevidence,includingoldtextualsourcesabouttheBasilica(especiallychroniclesand pilgrims’accounts).ForthearchaeologicalstudyoftheBasilicaoftheNativity,weusedthemethodology ofitsinvestigationoftheArcheologyofArchitecture.Stratigraphicalanalysiswascarriedoutinrelation tovariousportionsofthechurchwalls,aswellasinrelationtothebuildingsthatmakeupthewhole complex,inordertounderstandthedynamicsofmajorchangesinthestructureinitsentirety.Direct analysisofevidencefromthewallswassupportedbythereadingofexistingliteratureandhistorical mapswithparticularreferencetotheplansofthechurch.
Thesetoolsofinvestigationhavebeenappliedtotheanalysisofthechurchinitsentirety,includingits undergroundcavities.
©2012PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.
1. Researchaims
Thehistoricalresearchwasdevotedtotheexaminationofthe previous archaeological, historical, and art-historical secondary literatureontheBethlehembasilicaandtoasamplingofold writ-tensources,byfocusingonthehistoryofthebasilicaandonits transformationsdownthecenturies,whichcanbeusefully com-binedwiththedataprovidedbyarchaeologicalandarchitectural analysis.
Themainaimofthearcheologicalresearchconsistsinthe appli-cationofthestratigraphicalmethodtoarchitecture.Theanalysisof theplanofthebuilding,whichwasinthepastthemostdebated topic,hasbeenintegratedwiththeobservationsofthe stratigraph-icalrelationshipsthatwemade,analysingtheexternalstanding wallsofthebasilica.
Thepresentstudyispartofawide-rangingproject commis-sioned, and funded, by thePalestinian National Authority. The project,awardedafteraninternationaltender,wasaimedatthe
∗ Correspondingauthor.viaRoma56,53100Siena,Italy.Tel.:+390577233636. E-mailaddress:giovanna.bianchi@unisi.it(G.Bianchi).
analysisofthehistoricalandarcheologicalaspects,atassessingthe physicalandstructuraldecayoftheChurchinallitscomponents (see[1]and[2])andattheanalysesofthemosaics[3].
2. Historicalanalyses-M.Bacci
2.1. Bethlehemashistoricalproblem
Inthecontextoftheinternationalteamforthesurvey, assess-mentstudy,andconservationplanfortheBasilicaoftheNativity, theunitbeingresponsibleforhistoricalandarchaeological analy-sishasbeenfocusedonthehistoricalaspectsandthegatheringof writtensources.Theresearchworkwasdevelopedontwodifferent, yetstrictlyintertwined,grounds:
• itaimedatprovidingtheotherunitswithhistoricalinformation beingusefulforthecurrentworksofinvestigationoftheroofs andothermaterialpartsofthebuildings;
• it providedsomegroundsfora thoroughreassessmentof the historical problems underlying the site and its architectural-artisticpeculiarities, startingfromananalysisof thedifferent 1296-2074/$–seefrontmatter©2012PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.
e6 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26 methodologicalapproachesappliedbypastscholarstothe
inter-pretationoftheNativitychurch.
Infirstinstance,itmustberemarkedthat,despitethelarge num-berofpublicationsconcerningthesite,manyaspectsofitshistory stillprovetobedisregardedoruninvestigated.Morespecifically, thecontributionsofexpertsinmanydifferentdisciplinaryfields havemostlynotbeenmergedintoageneralhistoryoftheBasilica. Thescholarlydebatestartedalreadyinthe16thand17thcenturies withthepublicationsbybothGreekandFranciscanauthorswho basicallydealtwiththeoriginsofthesite,itsholymementoesin theirdevotionalandcommemorativesignificance,andthe proper-tiesandrightsgrantedtoeachChristiancommunity.Fromthe19th centuryonwards,thebasilicahasbeeninvestigatedfromthe view-pointofhistorical-religioustopography[4,5],architecturalhistory
[6–8],structuralanalysis[9,10]andarchaeology[11–13],andart historyandiconography[14–19].Whereastheearlyhistoryofthe buildinghasbeenmuch discussedsincetheverybeginnings,its developmentsintheByzantineandCrusaderperiodshavebeen morespecificallyinvestigated onlyinmuchmorerecent works. Notwithstandingthelargeamountofwrittensourcesbearing wit-nesstothehistoryofthemonumentinthelatercenturies,thelatter havenotsomuchretainedtheattentionofscholars.
2.2. Stateofthefield
Tosomeextent,theabundanceandvarietyofsourcesconstitute alimitationtothedevelopmentofhistoricalresearch.Chronicles andarchivaldocumentsoccasionallyshedsomelightsonspecific aspectsofthesite history. Yet,pilgrims’accountsconstituteby andlargethemostimportantcategoryofwrittensources:those workedoutfromthe4ththroughthelate13thcenturyareeasily accessibleinapublishedcollections oftextsinboththeir origi-nallanguage(Greek,Latin,Armenian,andArabic)andLatin,Greek, EnglishorFrenchtranslations[20–26].Ontheotherhand,fromthe 14thcenturyonwardspilgrimagereportsanddescriptionsofthe holysitesweredisseminatedalmosteverywhereandwerewritten inalmostalltheEuropeanandMediterraneanlanguages (includ-ingItalian,Spanish,Portuguese,French,English,German,Danish, Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Greek,Armenian,Georgian,Arabic,Persian,andEthiopic);a tho-roughexaminationofallsuchsources[27]provestobeextremely difficult,asmanyofthemhavepublishedbyscholarsinterested onlyintheirhistorical-linguisticaspectsand,evenifsomeofthem canbeaccessedthroughsomeanthologiesoftexts[23,24,28–36]
have never been gathered within systematic databases, a pre-liminaryattemptbeingthat recentlyestablishedbytheproject DigiberichteofKielUniversity(www.digiberichte.de).
Iconographicsourcesincludeviewsofthecityand the basil-ica,plans,illustratedproskynetaria,andelevationsofthebuilding. Mostlydatingfromthelate16thcenturyonwards(includingthe importantengravingsbyNataleBonifacio,BernardinoAmico, Cor-nelis vanBruyn, Robertsand Bartlett), they have beenalready publishedandusedbymostofthescholarsdealingwiththehistory oftheNativitychurch[13];yetathoroughcatalogueofallextant witnessisstilllacking.Anotherimportantsourceofinformationis representedbythePalestinianwoodenandmother-of-pearlmodel reproductionsoftheBasilica,manyofwhichweretheobjectofa specificinvestigationbyMichelePiccirillo[37].
Archaeologicalinvestigationswereoccasionallyexecutedinthe 19thcenturyintheFranciscancompound.Newandmoreaccurate excavationsandsoundingsweremadein1932inthenarthex,in 1033–1934inseveralpartsofthebasilica[38],andagainin1947 through1951intheareaoftheFranciscanconvent[13].Soundings oftheremnantsofmosaicinthenaveandtransepttookplacein 1983undertheauspicesoftheDeutschesArchäologischesInstitut
andtheGörres-InstitutandwerecarriedonbyProf.GustavKühnel, whoseworkstillremainspartlyunpublished[17,39].
Onthewhole,thecontributionsgivenbymanydifferent scho-larshavemanagedtoshedlightonspecificaspectsofthehistoryof theBasilica,yetawiderandfullerinterpretationofthesiteisstill lackingandmanyquestionsremainunanswered.Insomerespects, pastscholarshavesometimesprovedtodisregardthetrue peculiar-ityoftheNativitychurch,whichisbyitselfnotjustaveryeminent historicalsiteandaverysumptuousmanifestationof monumen-talarchitecture,butalsoandveryspecificallya“mnemotopos”,i.e. atopographicaltranscriptionofseveraleventsmentionedinthe ChristianHolyScripturesandreligioustradition[40].This speci-ficitydistinguishesthePalestinianlocasanctafromanyotherholy placeintheChristianworld:inasmuchastheyareperceivedto bearwitnesstoChrist’sIncarnationandtobeimbuedwithaholy powerconnectedtotheircontactwithChrist’sbody,theyarealso deemedtobeholyanddeservingveneration;thewaysinwhich holyeventshavebeenmoreorless firmlyassociatedwith spe-cificsitesandpublicdevotiontothemhasbeenarchitecturally, spatially,andvisuallypromotedtotheeyesofpilgrimsand devo-teesconstitutesaspecificfieldofresearchwhichremainslargely uninvestigated.
2.3. MajorthemesofBethlehem’sarchitecturalandartistic history
ThelocationofChrist’sbirthanditsdepositioninthemanger on the cave of Bethlehem, on the second hill over the Wadi el-Charubeh,wasalreadyhintedatinthewritingsofJustin Mar-tyr(mid-2ndcentury)andOrigenes(3rdcentury)andwasclearly promulgatedbythewritingsofecclesiasticalwritersfromthe4th centuryonwards,aswellasbythedescriptionsofanumberofearly pilgrims.AccordingtotheviewespeciallydefendedbyFranciscan authors[41,42]butrecentlyrejectedbyTaylor[43],thememory ofthelocationhadpossiblybeenpreservedbythelocal Jewish-Christiancommunities.
Thesumptuous churcherectedby Constantine,accordingto EusebiusofCaesarea’saccount,wasactuallynotthemainfocus of thepilgrim’s experience,as it was basicallyconceived of as abeautifuland monumentalframemarkingthesite ofand giv-ingaccesstotheundergroundcave,wherevisitorswereallowed toworshipthevisualandspatialmementoesofJesus’birth.The special setting of the cave itself, including, among others, the gildedrevetmentofthemangerandlateronthevisualizationof theconnectedeventbymeansofa mosaicimage,wasjustone ofthemanystrategiesworkedoutsincetheverybeginningsin order toenhanceand stimulate thevisitor’s feelingof holiness associatedtothesite.In thecourseoftimethenearbygrottoes and some specificspots in the basilicaitself and its surround-ingswerealternativelyidentifiedwitheitherminoreventsofthe Nativitystory(e.g.,thesitewheretheMagilefttheirhorses,the placeof Christ’s circumcision,the tombsof theholyinnocents, theplacewhereadropoftheVirgin’smilkhadfallendown,the site of Christ’s firth bath, thepalm under which, according to Islamictradition,theVirginMarygavebirthtoJesus,etc.)orthe documentedpresenceofimportantpersonagesofchurchhistory nearthebasilica(Jerome,JohnofDamascus,etc.).Suchlocations mayvaryaccordingtothedifferentviewsofeachChristian com-munity,themultifariousperceptionsandexperiencesofvisitors, and thedifferentemphasis laid oneach eventin thecourseof time.
Asvisualand tangibleevocations ofholy history, holyspots andtheirsettingplayedaprimaryroleinthepilgrim’sexperience oftheBethlehem basilica.Yet,if comparedtootherPalestinian holysites,thelatter’saestheticappealandmonumental appear-ancewasoftenrecordedassomethingunexpected;especiallyfrom
the14thcenturyonwards,manyvisitorsstatedthatthebuilding wasbyfarthemoststrikingandbeautifulofthewholeHolyLand. According to Eusebius, it had been constructed by Emperor Constantine to enshrine the site of Christ’s birth at the same time asthe HolySepulcher(marking thesite of Hisdeathand burial)andtheEleonachurchontheMountofOlives (celebrat-ingthespotofHisascensiontoHeaven).Sincethe17thcentury, theConstantinianorigins ofthepresent-day basilicahavebeen frequentlyamatterofdebate.Earlysourceswitnessthata basil-ica waserected onthe site shortly after theCouncil of Nicaea in325andthatthelatterwasalready builtupby333, whenit wasmentionedbytheanonymouspilgrimfromBordeaux;such witnesshad beentraditionallyused,especially byLatinauthors
[44],tocorroboratetheideabywhichthewholebuildingdated backtothe early4th century, whereas Greek writers [45] had laidmore emphasisontherole playedbyEmperorJustinian in the mid-6th century, notwithstanding the lack of any hint at Bethlehem in Procopius’ book On Buildings, which records the Byzantineruler’smanyandmultifariousactsofpatronage;actually therebuildingofthechurchbyorderofJustinianafterthe dam-agescausedbyarevoltoftheSamaritansisfirstclearlywitnessed in the 10thcentury Arabic chronicle by Patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria.
The excavationsmade in the1930s throughthe 1950s first shed light onthe early architectural history of the basilica,by revealingthattheeasternendwasatacertaintimetransformed from an octagonal structure into a triconch, and by discover-ingremnantsofa4thor early5thcenturymosaic pavementin someareasofthepresent-daybemaandmainnave.Many scho-larshavesubsequentlyacceptedtheviewexpressedbyVincent andAbel[5,46]accordingtowhichtheremakingoftheeastend shoulddatefromtheJustinianicera,whereasthenaveshouldbe regardedas theoriginal4th-centurybuilding. Othershave pre-ferredtoregardthebuildingasstylisticallyuniformandtothink ofeither aJustinianic [47] oranearlier date,sometimesinthe late5thorearly6thcentury[48–50].Thedateofsuch ornamen-tal features as capitals or thefoliate motifson thearchitraves inthenavehasbeenalsomuchdebatedand thereisno agree-mentaswhethertheywereactuallymadeinConstantine’stimes oraretobeinterpretedaslaterinterpretationsofConstantinian formulae[51,52].ThetwobronzedoorsoftheNativityChapelare almostuniversally consideredtodatefromtheageof Justinian
[53,54].
A dating of the triconch in the Crusader period has been recentlyformulatedbytheAmericanscholarJordanPickett dur-ingasymposiuminJerusaleminNovember2010(VisualConstructs ofJerusalem);thisproposalimpliesthattheeastendwasatacertain pointdestroyed,notwithstandingthecurioussilenceofoldsources aboutthefateofthebuildinginthelongperiodbetweentheEmpire ofJustinianandtheLatinconquestofPalestinein1099.Alegend knownfroma9thcenturyByzantinesourceemphasizesthatthe basilicahadnotbeendestroyedduringthePersianinvasionof614, whereasIslamicwritersfromthe10thand11thcenturiesclearly statethat,duringtheArabconquestof636,theCaliphOmarhad extendedhisprotectionoverthechurchoftheNativity.According tosomeauthors,amihrabwasbuiltupinthesouthernapseandthe palmmentionedintheHolyQuran,underwhichMaryhadgiven birthtoJesus,waspreservedinitsinterior;Islamicpilgrimspaid theirrespectstotheplace,whichwasapparentlynotevendamaged duringthedestructionsoperatedbytheEgyptianCaliphal-Hakim in1009[55].
Suchevidenceseemstoindicatethat,atthearrivalofthe Cru-sadersin 1099,the Basilica was in fairly good conditions. The enhancedstatusofthecity,theuseofthebuildingascoronation churchforBalduinIintheyear1100,theelevationofBethlehem toabishopricin1108,andtheintensificationofpilgrimageinthe
subsequentdecadesstimulateditsembellishmentwithnew fur-nishingsandornaments.Firstofall,itwasprovidedwithliturgical structuresenablingtheperformanceoftheLatinrite,aswellas utensilsandpreciousvasasacra,includingtheorgan,bells, candle-sticksandbrassbowlswithscenesfromthelifeofSaintThomas unearthedin1869andnowintheMuseumoftheFlagellation Con-ventinJerusalem.SometimesinthetwodecadesprecedingSultan Salahad-Din’sreconquestofPalestinein1187,theNativitygrotto wasrefurbishedbysculptorsfromtheTempleareaworkshop,who revesteditsouterwallswithwhitemarble,enclosedthe Justini-anicentranceswithinarcheddoorwaysandtransportedtherethe 6thcenturybronzedoorsoriginallyincludedinthemetal chan-celdelimitingthealtarareaoftheearlyChristianbasilica.Visitors soonstartedmanifestingtheirpietybyoccasioningthepainting ofsomecolumnsinthesouthnavewithimagesofsaintsand fig-uresofsupplicants:onthefirstoneinthesecondrawSaintJacob theGreatisaccompaniedbyabowingmalefigure,exhibitinga shell fixedontohis mantle thatsodeclares hisstatus as a pil-grimtoSantiagodeCompostela;closerisanimageoftheVirgin Glykophilousa being worshipped by a groupof both male and femalesupplicants,whoseprayerisexpressedbyaLatin inscrip-tion bearing thedate 1130.The rows of columns lookingonto thecentralnavearedecoratedwithimages,whichseemto per-taintoasomewhatlater,andmoreuniform,campaignofmural decoration.
Bythefarthemostextensiveprogramofdecorationmadein theCrusaderperiodisrepresentedbythemosaics,whichembellish theupperportionsofthewallsinthenaveandtransept.Although onlyremnantsarepreservedtoday,olddescriptions[56]witness thattheyoriginallydecoratedthewholebuildingwith represen-tationsoftheVirginMaryintheapseconchanda sequenceof Evangeliceventsinthetransept,whereasthegenealogyofChrist, theprovincialcouncilsofSyria-Palestine,andmonumentalfigures ofangelswheredisplayedinthemainnaveandtheTreeofJesse inthewesternwall.AdoubleLatinandGreekinscriptioninthe apserecordedthatthedecorationhadbeentheoutcomeofajoint sponsorshipbytheByzantineEmperorManuelComnenus,theKing ofJerusalemAmaury(Amalricus)andtheLatinbishopof Bethle-hemRaoulintheyear1169.SuchacollaborationbetweenLatin andGreekrulersactingasdonorsforthesamemonumental con-textprovestobeunparalleledinthehistoryofMedievalartand witnessesthattheuniversallysharedinterestintheholyplaces couldalsogivebirthtoextraordinaryphenomenaofcross-cultural andtrans-confessionalpatronage.Thesameinscriptionsrevealthe nameofthepainterEphraim,possiblyaGreekorMelkiteSyrian whoconceivedthewholeprogramofdecorationaccordingtothe stylisticandcompositionalpatternsbeingwidespreadinthe Com-nenianperiodofByzantinehistory.Anotherinscription,writtenin bothLatinandSyriacandincludedinthelowermarginofoneofthe archangels,revealsthenameofone“BasiliustheDeacon”,whowas mostlikelyalocalPalestinianartistworkingunderthedirection ofEphraim.ThepresenceofPalestinianworkmanshipmayexplain suchdistinctivelylocaldevicesastheuseofmother-of-pearlforthe renderingofround-shapedornamentswithinthemosaics; more-over,thestrongconnectionofthewholecyclewiththefiguralarts oftheHolyLandisevidencedbytheimitationofsomeornamental patternsincludedinthemosaicdecorationoftheDomeoftheRock intheHarames-SharifinJerusalem.
TheinvolvementoftheArmeniancommunityinthedecoration ofthechurchisbestrevealedbythemagnificentwoodendoorin thenarthex,whichissculptedwithhigh-reliefcrosses(khatchkars) and includes an Arabic and an Armenian inscription mention-ing theSultan of Damascusal-Malik al-Mu‘azzam(1218–1227) andtheKingofCiliciaHethumI(1226–1270),aswellasFather AbrahamandFatherArakel,whomadetheworkintheyear1226
e8 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26 2.4. Newevidenceonpastrestorations
ThehistoryofthebasilicaaftertheCrusadersisstillscarcely investigated,themainstudybeingstillthatbyVincentandAbel[5]. Itcanbesaid,ingeneralterms,inthe13ththroughthe19th cen-turythebuildingdidnotundergosignificantalterations:according tobothAyyubid,MamlukandOttomancustomarylaw,Christians wereallowedtopreservetheirchurchesbuttheywereprevented frombotherectingnewbuildingsandembellishingoldones;in ordertomakerepairs,itwasnecessarytoreceiveaspecial per-missionfromtheSultanhimself.Becauseoflackofmaintenance thechurchstartedfallingintoastateofdecay,aswasfrequently remarked,fromthe14thcenturyonwards,bythosesamepilgrims whoneverstoppedmanifestingtheirastonishmentforthebeauty of the church, its paintings, marble incrustations, monumental columns,andmagnificentroof.Thesumptuousmarblerevetments ofthesidewallshadbeenfrequentlystolen,aswaswitnessedby boththevisitors’accountsandthelatemedievallegendreporting thatahugesnakehadmiraculouslyappearedwhenaSultanhad attemptedatremovingsomepreciousslabs:somepilgrimsstated thattheclearsignsofitsbodycouldbeclearlyremarkedontheir surface.AsstatedbytheGreekpilgrimArseniosin1512,thelatter, aswellasotherremnantsofthemarblerevetments, were pre-servedonlyinthebemaandthechoir,whereasthenavehadbeen completelydeprivedofthem[59].Bythesecondhalfofthe15th century,portionsofthemosaicdecorationhadstartedfallingdown, aswasremarkedbyLouisdeRochechouartin1461[60]andFelix Fabriin1480[61].
Nonetheless,themostseriousproblemsconcernedthechurch roof.Themedievalone,whichwasalwaysdescribedasmadewith severalqualitiesofwood(cedarofLebanonandcypress)and cov-eredwithlead,wasbythelate15thcenturyinsuchabadstate ofpreservation,thatrainfelldownfromitsmanyholesandthe pavementwascoveredwithbirds’dung,evenif,accordingtosome sources,afirstrestorationhadbeenaccomplishedin1435under theauspicesoftheGreekEmperorofTrebizondAlexiosKomnenos Doukas[62].Yet,theportionofroofoverhangingthechoirwas goingtocollapse whentheItalianpilgrimvisitedthechurchin 1474andsawthattheFranciscanfriarshadbeenobligedtoerect awoodenstructuretoholditup[63].AsweareinformedbyFriar FrancescoSuriano[64],theFranciscanGuardianGiovanni Toma-celliobtainedtheSultan’spermissionforthethoroughrestoration oftheroof;thisfactisalsowitnessedbytheoriginalfirman[65]
andFelixFabri’saccount[61].TomacelliwasanObservantfriar and hisefforts to restorethe basilica’s ancient decorum mani-festedaradicalchangeofattitude,implicitlycontrastingthatof thepreviousConventualadministration(asisimpliedbySuriano’s words).HewasableenoughtoobtainsponsorshipsfromtheDuke ofBourgogneandtheKingofEngland;whereasthelatter’smoney wasusedfortheleadcovering,theformer’swasinvestedforthe makingof thenew woodenstructure. Venetian carpenters and wood-carverscametoBethlehemtotakemeasurementsandthey subsequentlymadebeamsoutofpine-woodsfromtheAlps.The materialswerethentransportedbyshiptoJaffaandthence trans-ferredtoBethlehembymeansofcamelsandoxen;specialmachines wereconstructed in order to transport the hugest and longest beams.
Sourcesaresilentabouttheroof inthe16thcentury,butas earlyas1607andlateronin1617itsconditionhadbecome pre-carious,andtheGreekcommunitywasallowedtooperatesome substitutionsofrottenbeams.Yet,amuchmoreefficacious inter-ventiontookplaceontheinitiativeoftheGreekPatriarchDositheos in 1672: thanks to the sponsorship of a rich Greek devotee, ManolakisofKastoria,itwaspossiblenotonlytorenovatetheroof withnewbeamsfromMytileneandanewleadcovering,butalsoto makenewornamentsinthechurch.Thewindows,whichhadbeen
previouslyclosedwithhardstones,weresubstitutedwithiron cas-ingsandglass; someofthenavewallswereplastered, andthe entrancestotheNativitygrottowereembellishedwithnewmarble slabs[45,62].
Onlyinterventionsforthebuilding’sordinarymaintenancetook placeinthe18thcentury,exceptfortherestoration,in1775,of awall,locatedclosetothewestentrance,thatwasgoingto col-lapse[62].In1834,thebasilicawasdamaged byanearthquake andalready by1837theGreekcommunityhad receivedlotsof offeringsfromthedevoteestomakenewembellishmentsinthe narthex[66].Finally,in1842theSultanAbdulMecit,answering totheofficialrequestoftheGreekPatriarchAthanasiusIII,gave permissiontoworkoutathoroughrenovationofthewoodenroof anditsleadcoverings;onthesameoccasion,anewpavementwas madeinthechoirwithmarbleslabsfromthePropontisandinthe navewithlocalstones[62].Atthesametime,withtheexception oftheextantremnantsofthe12thcenturymosaicdecoration,the upperportionsofthenaveandtranseptwallswherealmost com-pletelycoveredwithathickplastering;accordingtosomeauthors
[5],significantportionsofmosaicmayhavebehiddenunderthis plasteringanditwouldproveextremelyimportanttobringthem backtovisibility,withthehelpofathermographicanalysisanda thoroughrestorationofthewalls.
Thatof1842wasthelastsignificantinterventionmadeinthe basilica,whereasthefurnishingsandsettingoftheNativitygrotto andtheotherneighboringcaveswerestronglyalteredinthelate 19thandearly20thcenturies.By1912,accordingtoJ.M.deVogüé
[6],themosaicshadbecomemuchdarkerthantheywereinthe mid-19thcentury.
3. ArchaeologicalexcavationsattheChurchofthe
Nativity–S.Campana
Therehavebeenrelativelyfewarchaeologicalexcavationsinor aroundtheBasilica,allhavingtakenplacesince thelastpartof theXIXcentury.Thefirstknowninvestigationsoccurredin1871 withtheaccidentaldiscoveryoftheGrottodelLavacroagainstthe easternapseonthenorthernsideoftheBasilica.Fromthiswork, undertakenbyafriaroftheFransciscanCommunityinthecourse ofresearchinspiredbya numberofancienttexts,thereremain somemeagrerecordsinthearchivesoftheCustodiadiTerraSanta, alongwithalatersynthesispublishedbyBagattiinhis1952book GliAntichiEdificiSacridiBethlemme.Theexcavation,withinthe gia-rdinodeilimoni,revealedashortflightofstepsbeneathavaulted opening,thefivestepsofwhichleddowntoanundergroundspace afewmetresindiameterwithinthefloorofwhichwasasmallpool. Onthebasisofthesurvivingrecordsandofhisownobservations Bagattisuggestedthatthegrottohadbeendeliberatelyconstructed inthiswayaspartoftherebuildingoftheBasilicaduringthework carriedoutbyJustinian,perhapsinrecognitionofsomekindof venerationalreadyattributedtoitduringtheConstantinianperiod
[13].
Thenextexcavations,undertaken in1932duringtheBritish Mandatefor Palestine,concentrated onthe atriumtothe west ofthechurch.TheresultswerepublishedbyR.W.Hamilton,the directoroftheexcavations,intheQuarterlyoftheDepartmentof AntiquitiesinPalestine[12].Vincent[67]andRichmond[68],inthe yearsimmediatelyfollowingtheexcavations,presentedtheirown interpretations.Therearesomeinconsistenciesbetweenthe vari-ousaccountsbuttheexcavationsmadeitpossibletodocumenta westerlyextensionofthenorthandsouthwallsoftheatrium.In thisregardthereisareferencereportedonlybyBagatti[13]– with-outsupportfromanyotherpublication,archivalsourceorother record– concerningexcavationsin1906carriedoutduringrepairs tothegatesoftheGreekcemetery.During thisworkthere was
uncoveredawallwhichflankedthenorthsideoftheatriumalong thesamelineasthenorthwalloftheBasilica.
Turningtotheextendedwallsoftheatriumthatcametolightin the1932excavationsthevariousauthorsareinagreementabout theirsimilaritytothepresent-daywallsoftheBasilica.Thewalls weredescribedclearlybyHamiltonasbeingconstructedof regu-larcoursesofsquaredmasonrymarkedbytheuseofacomb-pick. Theextendedwallsmarkedoutanarea64.20mlongby28.20m wide,subdividedbyacross-wall.Vincentdescribedthecross-wall as beingof smaller dimensionsand madeof residual material. Hamilton,bycontrast,maintainsthatitsharedthesame dimen-sionsandconstructiontechniqueastheperimeterwalls,making itcomparabletothoseoftheBasilica.Theatriumwouldthushave hadtwodistinctparts,onefacingontotheBasilicaandtheother lookingwesttowardsthevillage,towhichitwasconnectedbya pavedstreet.Intheeasternpartoftheatriumtherewasfounda furthercross-wall,nowrepresentedbythestylobatewithinthe atriumoftheBasilica.Apartfromthearchaeologicalevidencethis viewissupportedbyiconographicsourcesandbythehypothetical reconstructionsputforwardbyAmico(1609)andVogüé[6].
Thesefirstsubstantiveexcavationswereconsideredbyscholars asanextraordinaryopportunitytoresolveakeyhistorical prob-lemwhichatthattimestillremainedunresolved:theattribution ofthepresent-daybuildingeithertoConstantianoralternatively toJustinian. Inpracticeit wasnotpossiblefrom the documen-tarysources toresolve this conundrumwithany certainty,the descriptionby Sophronius in 602AD of the buildingas triple-apsedderivingfromtoolateadatetodemonstratewhetherthe formobservedbyhimbelongedtoJustinian(527–565AD)orto theworkoftheearlieremperor.AtalaterdateEutychius,during theXcentury,maintainedthat Justinianhadthechurch demol-ishedas beingtoosmall,soas toreconstructit in theformof a granderandmore handsomestructure.Thissource,however, isconsideredunreliable aspotentiallyrelying moreon mythol-ogythandemonstratedfact;moreover,theCorinthiancolumnsof thechurchhavebeenconsideredbymostarchaeologiststodate fromthefourthcentury [5,67].Incontrasttothis viewthere is thatofViollet-le-Ducwhomaintainedthatthewholeofthe build-ingshouldbeattributedtoJustinian[11].Asfarasthedatingof thechurchwasconcernedanotherquestionthat stillremained unresolvedlayintheattributionofthestructureeithertoasingle periodofconstructionortotwoormoreidentifiablephases.The thesisthatthebuildingderivedfromasinglechronologicalperiod wasadvancedinamulti-authoredvolumeeditedbyLethabyand Harveyandpublishedin1910.Subsequently,therewasnolackof opposinghypotheses,forexamplethatofVincentandAbelbased onobservationoftheroofofthenortherngrottowheretherewas visiblethefoundationofthenorthernperimeterwall,continuing acrosspartofthenorthernapse.Fromthisandotherconsiderations (forinstance,theconnectingwallsbetweentheapseshavingthe samedimensionsastheexternalwallsof themain bodyofthe church)theysuggestedthatJustinianlimitedhimselftothe addi-tionofthethreesemi-circularapsestotheoriginalConstantinian structure.
In1934furtherexcavations,beginningwithlittlemorethantrial trenches,wereundertakenwithintheBasilicaitself,resultingin aseries ofpublicationsby Harvey[69],Richmond [68],Vincent
[67],Crowfoot(1941),andHamilton[12].Inthiscase,the gene-sisoftheexcavations,asintheearlierepisodes,layintheneed tocarry outrestorationwork.Theinvestigationswereaimedat definingthestructuralmaintenanceworknecessaryinresponse totheearthquakeof1927.Inparticular,Harvey,commissionedby thePalestiniangovernmenttocarryoutastructuralanalysisofthe Basilica,recordsthatinthefirstinstanceexcavationworkwasnot envisagedbutthatthisbecamenecessaryfollowingthe identifi-cationofpossiblecavitiesbeneathpartsofthefloor[70].Thefirst
trenchwasopenedattheeasternendthesouthernaislesbutin itselfdidnotresolvetheproblem.Themostimportantresultwas theuncoveringatadepthofca.75cmbelowthepresentfloorof amosaicpavement.Thispromptedmoreextensiveexcavationsin otherpartsofthechurch,whichbroughttolightanimportantcycle ofmosaicrepresentationsextendingthroughoutalargepartofthe naveandintopartsoftheaisles.
Furthermore,theexcavationsinthenorth-easternsectorofthe church uncovered significantelements of theplan of the Con-stantinianchurch,revealinganoctagonalstructurewithasunken circular‘well’locatedimmediatelyabovetheGrottoofthe Nativ-ity,conjectured byHarveytohave a itsrealentrance fromthe westalthough noarchitectural evidenceexiststoshowhow,in theearlierchurch,accesswasprovided tothegrotto.The exca-vationsalso showedthat thecolumnsof thenave restedupon astylobate,whichextendedwithoutabreakalongthelengthof thenave,cuttingthepreviously-existingmosaicsanditselfresting directlyuponthenativerock.Inthegreatlevellingoftheground surface to facilitateconstruction of the churchin the Justinian periodtherewerefoundnumerousfragmentsofrooftileswhich HarveyattributedtothecoveringoftheConstantinianstructure, alongwithpotteryoftheVIcenturythatconfirmedtheJustinian reconstruction.
The newdata broadly confirmedthe reading of Vincent [5]
who had long maintained that thelayout and structure of the present-daychurchwasforthemostpartattributabletoJustinian, asopposedtoWeigand’sinsistenceontheConstantinian charac-terofthebasilica[51].Onthebasisofthediscoveriesmadeduring theexcavationsof1932and1934,Richmond[68],Vincent[67]and Hamilton[12]putforwardhypotheticalreconstructionsofthe prin-cipalphasesinthelifeofthechurch,asillustratedhereinFigs.1–2. Theseobservationsandsuggestionsarefundamentaltofurther discussionbutitisworthemphasisingthattheyarebasedonasmall numberofrelativelylimitedexcavations,leavingmanyquestions unresolved.Forexample,itisnotpossibletodeterminewhetherthe flankingwallsandstylobateintheatriumbelongedtothe Constan-tinianperiod,norwhetherthebuildingofthefirstchurchcoincided withorprecededthelayingofthemosaicpavement.Theinternal dispositionofstructuralfeatureswithintheConstantinian basil-icastillremainedunknown,withtheoctagonat theeasteither containinganoculusintotheunderlyingGrottooralternatively pro-vidingsupportforanaltar.Moregenerally,arewereallylookingat acompleteoctagonalstructureoralternativelyattheeasternpart ofanoctagonalapse?Bagatti’sbookof1952maintainsforexample thatonthebasisoftheevidenceavailableatthattimetheoctagon couldinrealityhavebelongedtoanpolygonalapseandthatthe supposedoculusmightalternativelyhaveprovidedthebaseofthe ciboriooveranaltarsituateddirectlyabovetheGrotto–areading which,ifconfirmed,wouldreconcileaseriesofelementsthatare outofkeepingwithknowntraditionswithintheChristianchurch (Fig.3).
Kühnel[71]andPringle[8],ontheotherhand,wereinclined towardsanalternativeviewoftheConstantinianchurch.They pro-posedthatthiswouldhaveconsistedofacolonnadedatriumand alongitudinalbodywithacentralnaveandfourflankingaisles, onebayshorteronthewestthanthepresentchurch.Thisinturn wouldhavebeenconnectedattheeasttoanoctagonalstructure withsurroundingambulatory,withflightsofdescendingstepsso astoprovidepilgrimswithaviewintothesacredGrottoofthe Nativityimmediatelybelow.Thecombinationofabasilicawitha centralfeatureofthiskind,occurringhereforthefirsttime,was inKühnelviewaninnovationthatwasentirelyinkeepingwith theideasoftheimperialarchitects,whilethetechniqueof con-struction–involvingtheuseofshapedmasonryblocksratherthan thetypicalbrickworkoftheRomanperiod– couldbeinterpreted asaresponsetolocalbuildingtraditionswithinPalestine.Then,
e10 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26
Fig.1. ReconstructionoftheConstantinianchurchproposedbyRichmond(1938).Hamilton,in1947,publishedanalmostidenticalinterpretation,withthesoleexception oftheomissionofthestepswithintheoctagon.
asnow,onlyrenewedstratigraphicalexcavationscouldhopeto resolvesomeoftheseoutstandingquestions.
Theexcavationsof1948and1949,undertakeninconnection withtherestorationofthemedievalcloisterandpublishedin1952 byBagatti,consistedofthreetrenchesinthenorthwesterncorner oftheJustiniannarthexandinthemedievalcloisteritself;other excavationswereundertakenbytheCustodiadiTerraSantaofthe Latincemeterytothenorthoftheconvent.Bagatti’s1952volume presentsathoroughgoingreviewoftheliterary,iconographicand archaeologicalevidence,offeringacomprehensiveanalysisofthe Basilicaand ofthe surroundingbuildings.Thenewexcavations madeitpossibletoclarifycertainsituations,inparticularinthe
Justiniannarthexcontainingthenortheasternpilastroofthe Con-stantinianatrium.Overandabovetherevisedinterpretationofthe Basilicaandoftheadjacentstructures,themostinteresting contri-bution,however,comesfromBagatti’sattentiontotheelevations andinparticulartothestructuralelementsofthewesternfacade andthebelltoweroftheXIIcentury[8,13].
Theworkonthealterationstothewesternfacademustbeseen asthemostimportantafterthereconstructionofthechurchinthe VIcentury.Onthebasisofpresentknowledgewecanassumethat whenthecrusadesarrivedatBethlehemattheendoftheXI cen-turytheyfoundthechurchsubstantiallyasitappearedintheVI century.Thesamedoesnotholdtrue,however,forthemonastic
Fig.3. Plans,sectionsandreconstructionofthemedievalbelltowerproposedbyBalduzzi. Bagatti,1952.
structuresthatgrewupalongsidetheBasilica.Thealterationsto thefacadetookplaceduringtheXIIcenturyandinvolvedthe clo-sureoftwooftheentrancesintothenarthexandthemodification ofthecentralentrancethroughtheinsertionofanarrowerdoorway withapointedarch[8,38].Thebell-towerislocatedonthenorth sideofthefacade.Itmeasuredabout6mby8matitsbaseand wasinsertedintothenorthwesternpartoftheVI-centurynarthex, extendingthisupwardsbyafurtherthreestoreys.Threebellswere foundin1863inthemedievalcloisterandanother13in1906 out-sidethecloister alittle furthertothenorth.AccordingtoElart thebellsshouldbeattributedtotheXIIIcentury[7,8].Themost significantinterventionsintheBasilica,apartfromtheadditionof thebell-towersandthemodificationoftheentrance[s],arethosein
theinteriorandinparticulartheredecorationoftheancient build-ingthroughtheintroductionofcyclesofrepresentationsandthe paintingsonthecolumnswhichconstitutethemostimposingcycle intheambitofmonumentalpaintingwithintheTerraSanta[71].
4. Archeologicalanalysisofthearchitecture
4.1. Themethodofarcheologicalanalysisofarchitecture–G. Bianchi
Despite thefact thatthe primeobjective of theprojectwas restoringtheroofofthebasilica,thecloseconnectionbetweenthe monument’swallsanditsroofhasledtoanoverallstudyofthe
e12 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26
Fig.4.PlanofBasilica(groundfloor). materialfeatures,backedupbythemethodologicaltoolsofthe
ArcheologyofArchitecture.
Withinthisdiscipline,whichwasdevelopedinthecontextof ItalianMedievalArcheology,startinginthe1970s, methodologi-caltoolshavebeendevelopedwhichhaveborrowedtheprinciples ofstratigraphicalsequencingfromtraditionalarcheology,withthe aimofidentifying,inthefabricofwalls,thetracesand relation-shipsofthemainactionsinvolvingconstructionanddestruction whichhavetakenplaceovertime.Thisallowsustoidentifythe differentphasesoflifeofthebuildingitself,thankstothe identi-ficationofthephysicalandstratigraphicalrelationshipsbetween thevarioustransformationsintheconstructionofthearchitecture. Atthesametime,theanalysisofthefeaturesofthefabricofthe wall,suchasconstructiontechniques,typesofwindows,andthe formaldecisionsmaderegardingtheplanofthebuildingandits originalformulation,allowonetoreconstructthestagesinvolved intheproductioncycleconnectedtotheworldofbuilding,thelevel ofspecializationofthebuildersandcraftsmeninvolved,andthe financialresourcesofthepeoplewhopaidforthework.
The stratigraphical analysis of the architecture has made it possibletoshedlightontheconstructionsequencesofthe monu-mentalcomplex,thankstoobjectivecriteriathathavebeentried andtestedinotherresearchcontexts,butsofarneverappliedtothe ChurchoftheNativity.Inthemostimportantstudiescarriedout inthepast,preferencehasinsteadbeengiventoakindof investi-gationbasedaboveallonanalyzingdocumentarysources,andon criteriaofanalysisborrowedfromarthistoryorthehistoryof archi-tecture,wherethehistoryofarchitectureisreferredtointhesense ofanoverallviewofthechangesintheplan,andintheentire archi-tecturalvolumes.Theonlymaterialevidencethathasalwaysbeen referredtointhevariousstudiesrelatestothefindingsfrom exca-vationsinsidethebuilding(seethecontributionfromCampana, below).OnlyBagatti,inhismonographicalwork,paidattention tospecificcharacteristicsofpartsofthewalledstructures,with special attentiontothebuildingtechniquesused[13]. Bagatti’s workalsoincludesfurther,interestingconsiderationsregardingthe constructionsequenceandthephysicalrelationshipsbetweenthe wallsofthebasilicathattheauthorwasunabletoexplore,sincethe
Fig.6.Archedentrancetocaveslocatedonsouthsideofaisle.
analyticaltoolsoftheArcheologyofArchitecturewerenotavailable atthattime.
4.2. Analysisofthearchitecture–G.Fichera
Theinterpretiveapproachadoptedinthecourseofthisresearch relatedtothebuildinginitsentirety,andisdividedintothree “lev-els”,correspondingto:thebasementlevelofthecavesandgrottoes, whoseconstructionhasbeenplacedinrelationtotherestofthe wallsofthecomplex;thegroundfloorlevelofthebasilica;and finallythelevelcorrespondingtothehigherpartsvisiblefromthe terracesandtheoriginalwalkways.Theillustrationofthefindings willgobackoverthemainstagesinthestudy,andwillbe subdi-videdintoadescriptionofthefoursidesofthebasilica,canonically laidoutalonganeast-westaxis,andthesubjectofanoverall anal-ysisaimedatverifyingthestratigraphicalrelationshipsinvolving themaineventsofconstructionanddestruction,anddescribingthe characteristicsofthebuildingtechnique(Figs.4and5).
Theinternalelevationsofthebasilicaitselfwereomittedfrom theoverallanalysis,giventhatthevarioustypesoffacing (plas-ter,mosaic,andwalllinings)didnotmakeitpossibletoconducta completeanalysisofthesequenceinwhichthewallswerebuilt. 4.2.1. Thesystemofcaves
Theundergroundlevelofthebasilicahasacomplexsystemof rock-cutchambers.Themostimportantoftheseiscertainlythe GrottooftheNativity,whichislocatedintheexactcentreofthe currentpresbyteryarea,andwhichintheJustinianerahadtwonew accesspointsonthenorthernandsouthernsides.Thearcheological analysiscarriedout,cross-referringdatafromthebuilding’splan andtechnologicaldata(stratigraphicalrelationships,construction technique,workingtools...),hasmadeitpossibletoplacethe con-structionofthecavesinrelationtothechronologyofthebasilica above,andtherebytoputforwardnewsuggestionsfor interpreta-tion,inthepanoramaofstudiesofthemonument.
Onthesouthside,closetothegardenwhichiscurrently main-tainedbytheGreekOrthodoxChurch,thestepsbeginthatleadtoa systemofcavitieswhichinancienttimesborethename“Cavesof theInnocents”,althoughtheoriginalentrancetothemwas prob-ablya setofstepscarved directlyintotherock,which arestill partiallypreservedbelowthemodern-daysteps.
Theentrancetotheundergroundcorridoriscrownedbyaround arch locatedexactly vertically below the nave wallabove, and stratigraphicallylinkedtoaperpendicularwallcorrespondingto thewallwhich, atground level, connectsthenave totheapse (Fig.6).Analysisoftheconstructiontechnique,thetoolmarkson thestone,andthekindofroundarchesoftheinternalwallsinthe
corridorofthecaves,alignednorth-south,showsthatthesewere builtatthesametimeastherestofthestructure.
Theobservationofthesurveyofthefloor-plan,carriedoutby DenysPringle[8],hasalsoshownthatthesizeofthecavesgradually diminishesasonemovestowardtheinternalparts(Fig.4).Thefirst undergroundchambercorrespondstothespaceoffivebaysinthe nave,thesecondchambertothespaceofthreebays,andthelast onetoasinglebay.Onthebasisofthesurvey,andtherecording ofthematerialevidence,itisseenthatinthegrottochamberthe rockymasssupportingthenavecolumnsabovehasbeenleftin place.Thisisafurtherclueconfirmingthefactthatthegrottoes werecreatedatthesametimeasthesystemofwallsandcolumns belongingtothebasilicaabove.Intheremaininggrottoes,nosuch detailshavebeenfound,andforthisreasonthematerialevidence pointstothefacttheymayhavepredatedtheconstructionofthe basilicaweseetoday.
Asecond,smallergrottoissituatedexactlybelowthecentral apse,andiscalledthe“GrottooftheBathing”.Theentrancetothe grotto,whichdoesnotcommunicatewiththeonesnexttoit,is todaymadepossibleviaacorridorcreatedattheendofthe19th century[13],sincetheoriginal access,beingatthelevelof the outergroundlevel,musthavebeendirect.Thewallsdefiningthe accesstothegrottoveryprobablyshowanintentiontogivethe caveamonumentalscale.Theyalsoshowconsiderablebuilding skillincreatingthedoublearchway,thefirstbeingsituated verti-callybelowtheexternalapseelevation,andthesecondpractically inthecentreofthethicknessofthewall,andinclinedinlinewith thecurveoftheapse.Thespacebetweenthetwoiscoveredbya vaultcomposedoflongsquaredblockshighabovethesystemof stepsleadingdowntothelevelofthegrotto.Thesewallsstand directlyonrock,moreorlessattheleveloftheoriginalceilingof thegrotto.Inthecentreofthegrotto,thewallsofwhicharelined withalayerofplaster,abasinhasbeendugintotheground.This is0.73×0.76minsize,withadepthof0.84m.Itssidewallsare linedwithplaster.Thebasin,fedbyasystemofterracottapipes arrivingfromthenorth,onesmallpartofwhichisstillvisiblein thewesternwalloftheaccesssteps,wasalsosurroundedbyafloor pavedwithstoneslabs,althoughonlyafewremainsofthisare pre-served(Fig.7).Thetechnicalcharacteristics,andthestratigraphical relationships,makeitpossibletoattributethisconstructiontothe eraofthebasilicaabove,whileitisnotpossibletodeterminewith certaintyhowlongbeforethegrottowasexcavated,andwithwhat function.
The“GrottooftheNativity”,situatedinthecentreofthecurrent basilica,andinthecentreofthepreviousConstantine-erachurch
[13],hasarectangularshapewhichhasaneast-westalignment, withanicheonthesouthernside,wherethealtarofthemanger stands.Fromanarcheologicalpointofview,thepresenceofmarble slabs,picturesandpaintings,almostcompletelyliningthewallsup totheceiling,makesitimpossibletoputforwardfurther hypothe-ses.
Thestepsleadingdowntothesystemofgrottoeslocatedonthe northernsideofthebasilica,knownasthe“CavesofStJerome”, werecreatedbelowthenorthernapse,andthusinsidethe modern-day Church of St Catherine. In this instance, the underground chambershaveamorecomplexplanthanthecavesseensofar,with asubdivisionintonumerousinternalchambers.Whiletheevidence fromthewalloftheaccessdoorwayatteststoacontemporaneous relationshipwiththeworkcarriedoutintheconstructionofthe basilicaweseetoday,itishardertotrytoestablishwhenthecaves weredug,bystylisticanalogybothwiththearchabovethedoor andintermsoftheconstructiontechnique.Thisistrueespecially owingtothehighnumberofrenovationinterventionsandattempts tointegratethewallsinsidethegrotto,whichpreventonefrom sug-gestingpossibleassociations.However,thefactthatatleasttwoof thecolumnsofthenaveaboveseemtostandaboveanemptyspace
e14 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26
Fig.7. Entrancetocavelocatedineasternapse,anddetailofbasindugincenterofchamber.Lowerdown:detailshowingclaytubingstillpresentinwallsofcave.
makesitpossibletosuggestthatthisgrotto,justliketheGrottoof theNativity,maypredatetheconstructionofthemodernbasilica. 4.2.2. Theelevations
4.2.2.1. Southernfacade. Thesouthernfacadeofthebasilica,now subdividedbetweentheareaundertheArmeniancommunityon thesouth-westernside,andtheGreekOrthodoxcommunityon thesouth-easternside, ispreservedalmostintact,and theonly portionwhichremains impossibletoinvestigateisthat relating tothesouth-westerncornerofthenarthex,coveredbybuildings constructedintheCrusaderera.Moreover,slightlyfurthertothe east,awallthatstratigraphicallyrestsagainstthewallelevation separatestheArmenianpartfromtheGreekOrthodoxpart.
Theelevationcanbebrokenupintothreelevels,thelowestof whichiscurrentlyvisible insidethe“GottoesoftheInnocents”, describedabove.Themiddlesectionconstitutesthewalloftheside navesituatedatthesamelevelasthecourtyard(Elevation100), andthetopportionrepresentsthecontinuationofthewallofthe centralnave(Elevation200).
Thewalllocatedatthelevelofthecourtyardhasaseriesoffour windows,nowblockedupbyirregularly-shapedstones,withan abundantuseofmortar(Fig.8).Thefactthatthewindowsare con-temporarywiththewallitselfisprovenbythefactthatthewindow openingsaretoppedbyanarchitravecomprisingasinglestonethat occupiesexactlythespaceoftwocoursesofstone-work,andbythe factthatthearchitraveisstratigraphicallyassociatedwiththe fab-ricofthewall.However,thesidesofthewindows,correspondingto thewindowjambs,haveirregularedges,asifanattempthadbeen madetowidenthem.Afifthwindowissituatednearthechurch’s facade,inthegardenbelongingtotheArmeniancommunity.This hasbeenblockedupwithathicklayerofmortar,onthesurfaceof whichasharpinstrumenthasbeenusedtoreproducethe horizon-talandverticallinesoftheadjacentwallelevation.Finally,inthe westernmarginoftheelevation,thestratigraphicalrelationships revealalowersectionofwall,madeoflargestoneblocksbonding thebodyofthenarthextothatofthenave,andanupperpartin whichthevolumeofthenarthexrestsonthebodyofthechurch. Thiswouldrevealaverycleardynamicofconstruction,whereby theconstructionofthelowerpartofthewallcamefirst,followed
bythecompletionofthenave,andfinallythenarthex,atleaston thesouthernsideofthebasilica.
Continuingupwards,acarefulanalysisoftheelevationabove thelevelofthegutterhasrevealedaninterventiontoraisethe levelofthewallofthenave,veryprobablyintheCrusaderperiod. Thisinterventionisevidencedbyagradualreductionofthesize ofthestonemasonryblocks,byachangeinthewaytheywere worked,andinthewaytheywerefinished,andbytheinclusion ofpiecesthatwereprobablyreusedintheexternalelevation,as forexamplealongblockofpinklimestonewithaline,andother inscribedmarks.Furthermore,adecorativedevicealsovisibleon thenorthernsideofthebasilica,consistinginaseriesofblocks whichthebuildersdeliberatelyleftprotrudinginthesideofthe transeptwall,wasinthiscaseinpartremovedandpartlyusedto bondwiththeupperextensionofthewall,whichprobablyserved tofortifyanddefendthissideofthebuilding(Fig.9).
Abovethiselevation,thereisthetopportionofthewallofthe centralnave(Elevation200),inwhichthereare11round-arch win-dows(Fig.10).Theeasternmostofthesewindows,locatedinthe
Fig.9.Bondingsystemofraisedsectionofsouthwallofaisle.
pointwherethewallbondswiththetransept,iscurrentlyblocked up,andhassomeofthewedge-shapedstoneelementsofthearch missing.Thisistheonlyexampleofpartsremovedfromanyof thenumerouswindowsofthebasilica.AccordingtoBagatti,the windowswereblockedupin1560[13].
Atthepointofcontactbetweenthewallofthenaveandthe transeptwall,onecanseeatechnicalexpedientwhichshows,with extremeclarity,theconsiderableskillofthebuilders,andthefact thatthetwoperimeterwallswerebuiltatthesametime.Thisisa semi-pilastercomposedofstoneblockswithfourvisiblefaces.This wasdifficulttobuild,butextremelyeffectivein“bonding”thetwo wallstructurestogether.
Thewesternwallofthesoutherntransept(Elevation400) con-stitutesthewallthatconnectstheperimeterwallofthenaveand thesouth apse.It ismarkedbythepresenceoftworound-arch windows,bothblockedup,similartotheadjacentwindowinthe navewall(Fig.11).Startingfromthesillofthesouthernwindow, onenotesalineofdiscontinuityinthewaythewallisdevised, whichincludeswithinittheright-handsideofthewindow,too. On theoppositeside ofthechurch, in anextremely symmetri-calposition,it ispossible toseethesame dividingline. Thisis solelyanindicationofaspecificmethodofconstruction,andnot, asotherwritershavesuggestedseveraltimesinthepast,of differ-entconstructionphases.Thetwodividinglinesindicateaspecific
Fig.10.Elevation200.Toppartofsouthwallofnave.
Fig.11.Elevation400.Westernwallofsouthtransept.
Fig.12.Elevation300.Southwallofcounter-facade.Thelineshowsthesurviving originalportion.
stratigraphicalrelationship,onthebasisofwhichthebloc compris-ingthethreeapsesrestsagainstthebloccomprisingthebasilica’s nave,withinabuildingprojectwhichdisplaysa strongunityof design,andtotalcontemporarystatusinthechronologyofthese buildingparts.Accordingly,constructionwouldhavestartedfrom thewesternside,beforeproceedingsubsequentlytothe construc-tionoftheapses,whichwerejoinedtogetherwiththebodyofthe naveatapointcorrespondingtotheaforementionedbreaksinthe lineofthebuild.Thus,startingfromthelevelofthewindow-ledges
e16 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26
Fig.14.Elevation800.Thelineshowsthecorneroftheoriginalbasilica.
Fig.15.Elevation900.Thelineshowsthecorneroftheoriginalbasilica.
andthesemi-pilastersjoiningthenaveandapse,whichindeedare situatedatthesameheightaboveground,constructionworkwould haveadvancedcontemporaneouslyalongthewholeperimeterof thebasilica,creatingtheformworksnecessaryfortheconstruction ofthewindows.
Ontheleft-handsideofElevation200,thereisajoinwith Ele-vation300,whichconstitutesthesouthernwalloftherearofthe facade(Fig.12).Anirregularbreakline(showninthephoto)means
Fig.16.Elevation1100.Connectingwallbetweensouthtranseptandeasternapse.
Fig.17.Elevation1200.Connectingwallbetweensouthtranseptandeasternapse.
itisnotpossibletoknowtheoriginalformofthissectionofwalling, whichonthefacadefunctionedasaformofscenery,inotherwords itbroughtthelevelofthewallofthesidenavesintolinewiththat ofthecentralnave,despitethefactthereisanemptyspaceonthe rearside.
Boththeperimeter wallof thenave (Elevation100)andthe perimeterwallof thetransept(Elevation 400) are stratigraphi-callyconnectedtothewallofthesouthapse(Elevation500).This isfurtherconfirmationofthefactthatthenaveandthebodyof theapsesaresubstantiallycontemporaneousintheirconstruction (Fig.13).
Intheapseelevation,atthelevelofthecourtyard,thereare threedoors,withroundarches.Thesestandontheinternalsideof thechurch,atalevelaround2metreshigherthantheactualground level.Thisdifferenceinheight,whichmusthaveexistedrightfrom thestart,requiresasetofstepstoreachthelevelofthenave.Inthe past,thecentraldoormusthavehadasortofprojectingporchroof, andindeedinthatpositiononecanstillseethetracesof6 square-shapedholescutintothewallandlaterfilledin,andtracesofthe illuminationsystem,whichtookadvantageofthegapsbetween stonesinthecoursesofmasonry,expandingthosegaps.
Astringcoursecornicemarkstheleveloftheflooroftheterrace ontheoutersideofthewall,andinthissamepositiontherearea numberofmetaltubesemergingfromthewall.Theywereadded atacontemporaryperiod insidecavitieswhich perhapsalready
Fig.18.Elevation1300–1500–1600–1700.Eastapseandconnectingwallswith northapse.
Fig.19. Elevation1400.Gableofcentralapse.
Fig.20. Elevation1600.
existed,andwhichservedtodrainoffrainwaterthatcollectedon theroofoftheapse,which wasstructuredinsuchawayasto havetwomainslopingpoints,correspondingtothetwodraining channels.
Fig.21.Elevation1900.Connectingwallbetweennorthtranseptandeasternapse.
Fig.22. Elevation2000.Connectingwallbetweennorthtranseptandeasternapse.
Atapointwherethereisagablecrowningtheapsewall (Ele-vation600),onefindsawindowsimilartothepreviouswindows, allowingdirectaccesstothespacebelowtheroof.
ThesouthernsideofthebasilicathatisvisiblefromtheGreek Orthodoxgardenendswiththefirstconnectingwallbetweenthe southern apseand theeastapse(Elevation700), againstwhich abutstotheeastthecornerofabuildingconstructedintheCrusader erawhichborderstheeasternsideofthecomplex.Atthecentreof theelevation,atthelevelofthemodern-daycourtyard,onefinds around-archwindow,similartotheotheronesseensofar,which, onthenaveside,issituatedafewmetersfromthefloorlevelinside thebasilica.Thestringcoursecornice,situatedasthecontinuation ofthecornicefromtheapse,doesnotoccupythewholewidth,and islimitedtotheportionadjacenttotheapsewall,veryprobably
e18 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26
Fig.24.Elevation2100.Exteriorviewfromterrace,andinteriorviewfromChurch ofStCatherine.
takenawayandreplacedbyacompensatorywallelevationwhich isstillclearlyvisibleintheuppersectionofthewall(showninthe photo).Aswellasthisreconstructionintervention,aminorfill, vis-ibleatapointwhereoneoftheilluminationfittingsintheouter courtyardhadbeenfitted,couldalsobetheresultofmorerecent restorationwork.
4.2.2.2. Easternfacade. Theeasternfacadeofthebasilica,divided into the area that is the responsibility of the Greek Orthodox Church,onthesouth-easternside,andtheFranciscanstothe north-west,isdominatedinthecentrebythevolumeofthecentralapse, anditispartiallycoveredbyabuildingerectedintheCrusaderera inthesouth-easterncorner.Theconstructionofthisbuildingvery likelyalsoaltered theshapeofthewalkwayscreatedabovethe apses.Inthiscase,theraisedwalkwaybetweenthesouthernapse andtheeasternapseisblockedbythepresenceoftheterraceof theaforementionedbuilding.
Thefirsttwoelevationscomprisingthisfacadeofthebasilica, Elevations800and 900,are currentlysituatedinside the afore-mentioned building, and, despitebeing heavilyreworked, they stillpreservealmostintactremainsofthetworound-arch win-dowsalreadyseen inthe adjacentelevations(Figs. 14and 15). Furthermore,inElevation900,justabovetheremainsofthearch,a new,smaller,rectangularwindowwascreated,atanindeterminate
Fig.26.Elevation2300.Perimeterwallofnorthernaisle,locatedinFranciscan clois-ter.
momentintime,andtheoriginaldrainforrainwaterwasconcealed byafakepilasterabuttingtheinternalcorner.
Thetwoelevationssituatedabovetheroofofthelessernaves, Elevations1100and1200,compriserespectivelytheeasternwall of thesouthern transept,and theconnectingwallbetweenthe southerntranseptandtheeasternapse.Thesearestratigraphically associated,bothwitheachotherandwiththetwoapseswhichthey connect(Figs.16and17).Thewidthofthetwoelevationsis occu-piedbyfourlargeround-archwindows.Ofthese,thetwosituated inthepointofcontactbetweenthetwowallsareblockedup,with twosmallerwindowscreatedinthefill.
Inthelowersectionoftheouterwallofthebasilica’scentral apse(Elevation1300),oneseesoneofthethreedoorsthat,like theotherapses, gaveaccess throughtheapsewall(Fig.18).In theuppersectionofthewall,probablyrebuilt,atleastinpart,one seessometubesemergingfromthewall’ssurface,justabovethe stringcoursecornicemarkingthelevelofthepavingoftheterrace. Theseallowedrainwatertodrainofffromtheterraceitself.Indeed, thepavingoftheterracehastwoslopingpointsdirectedtowards theouterdrainagepoints,and athird slope downtothespace outside thechurch, situated betweentheeastern and northern apses.
Fig.27.Elevation2300.Doorlocatedinwesternsideofelevation.
Theapsewalliscompletedbyatriangulargableroof (Eleva-tion1400),inwhichthereisaround-archwindowallowingdirect accesstothespacebelowtheroof(Fig.19).Anarrowwalkway, cre-atedbytheoriginalbuildersonthecrestofthewall,enabledaccess betweentheeasternapseandthenorthernapse,verylikelytobe abletocarryoutmaintenanceworkontheroof.
Theconnectingwallsbetweentheeasternapseandthe north-ernapse,Elevations1500,1600and1700,donotdisplaysignsof
Fig.28.Elevation2300.Topsectionofwallofnorthaisle.
Fig.29.Elevation2500.Topsectionofwallofnave.
interruptionintheirbuild.Atthegroundlevelofthecourtyard, therearethreedoorsinthesewalls,alltoppedbyaroundarch. InElevation1600thecorniceadorningtheupperpartofthewall waslimited,eversinceitsorigin,totheeasternhalfofthewall,to defineasortofpilaster,againstwhichtheremainderofthewall abutsstratigraphically.Thisdoesnotdenotethefactthatitwas builtlater,andonlyindicatesaparticularmethodofconstruction (Fig.20).Indeed,atthesameheightasthecornice,theelevationis stratigraphicallybondedwiththeadjacentElevation1700,inthe formofanumberofcourseslaindiagonally,connectingthetwo elevations.Similarly,alargeblockofstonefoundlowerdown,just abovethewindowarches,actsasanarchitraveforagutterchannel forrainwaterfromthegulliesintheroof,locatedintheinternal space.Thissystemisofconsiderableimportance,insofarasitisthe onlyextantevidenceoftheoriginalsystemofdrainageofwater fromtheroofofthebasilica.
Ontheright-handsideofElevation1700,thereisanabutting wallthatactsasabuttress.Thiswasbuiltatalater time, prob-ablyowingtoaslightlandslipinthedirectionofthenaturallie oftheterrain,whichslopessteeplytothenorth.It appearsthat thisisalsoshownbythefactthewallitselfslantsawayfromthe perpendicular.
Thetwoelevationssituatedabovetheroofofthelessernaves, Elevations1900and2000,constituterespectivelytheconnecting
e20 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26 wallbetweenthenorthtranseptand theeasternapse, andthe
easternwallofthenortherntransept,whicharestratigraphically connectedtoeachother,andtothetwoapseswhichtheyconnect (Figs.21and22).Thewidthofthetwoelevationsisoccupiedby fourlargewindowswithroundarches.Ofthese,thetwosituated inthepointofcontactbetweenthetwowallsareblockedup.The keystoneofthearchoftheeasternwindowhasafour-sidednotch, withaninclinedsection,symmetricaltoasimilarnotchsituated inthearchofthenorthernwindowofElevation2000.Judgingby theirinclinedsection,thesenotchescouldhaveservedtosupport alargerroofthantheonecurrentlyinexistence,whichwasvery likelycreatedlateron(detailofFig.23).
4.2.2.3. Northernfacade. Atthenorthernfacadeofthebasilica,the constructionoftheChurchofSt-Catherine,anditscloister,abutting thewallofthenave,hasledtoasubstantialtransformationofthe originalstateofaffairs,incorporatingpartofthenorthernapse,and itssystemofaccesstothecavesblow,insidethenewchurch,and creatingadivisionontwolevelsoftheoriginalwallofthenorthern nave.
Thefirstofthewallswhicharetobeseenfromtheterraceinthe FranciscanzoneisElevation1800,thelastoftheconnectingwalls betweentheeasternandnorthernapses,stratigraphicallylinkedto thewesttotheapseelevation,beingpartiallycoveredtotheeast bythebuttressconstructedatalatertime(Fig.23).Also,thewall hasobviouslybeenrestoredontheupperleft-handside(shownin theFig.23),probablylinkedtostructuraldamagethatledtothe constructionofthebuttressitself.
Fig.31.Elevation2300.Wallstructurestratigraphicallyassociatedtoaisle(top)and tofacadeofBasilica(below).
Theapseelevation,Elevation2100,isalsotodayvisible,with respecttoitslowersection,insidetheChurchofSt-Catherine,and, asregardstoitsuppersection,attheterracelevel(Fig.24).Inthe lowersectionoftheelevation,inwhatisademonstrationofthe factthatthegroundlevelsmusthavebeenoriginallydifferenton thesouthernfacadeofthebasilica,therearetwoofthewindows thatilluminatedtheapse.Thesearesituatedafewmetersoffthe ground,andfurthermorethedoorstillgivesaccesstotheinterior ofthenave.Aflightofstairsalsogivesaccesstotheunderground chamberssituated belowthenorthernapse ofthebasilica.The factthattheaccesssystemandtheexistingbasilicawere contem-poraryisattestedtobyaclear,specificstratigraphicconnection betweenthewalls,andbythefactthatasimilarconstruction tech-niquewasusedforthewallsleadingtothegrotto.However,thefact thatatleasttwoofthecolumnsofthenaveseemtorestabovean emptyspaceleavesonetoimaginethatthisgrotto,liketheGrotto oftheNativity,couldhavepredatedtheconstructionofthenew basilica.
Intheuppermostsectionoftheelevation,atthepointwhere theapsewallbondswiththewallofthenave,onecanobservethe systemof“decoration”employedbytheoriginalbuilders,whichis partiallyhiddenontheoppositesideofthenavebytheraised sec-tionofwall,whichwasaddedintheCrusaderera.Thisisasystem offourprotrudingstones,whichjutoutfromtheverticalelevation ofthewall.Theywereleftinthatposition,givingtheappearance thatthere wereplansfor a newwalltobebondedwiththem.
Fig.33. Elevation2900.Differentphasesofthecentraldoorway.
However,inactualfacttheymerelyservedasadecorativedevice, ascanalsobeseenontheleft-handsideofthefacade.Finally,a particularmodeoffinishingthecorners,apparentlyconnectedto thewall,consistsintheabsenceofcornerstonesimmediatelybelow theaforementioned“decoration”(Fig.25).Theterraceofthe north-ernapse,onwhichElevation2200rises,hasasingle,accentuated slopefromwesttoeast,inthedirectionofthespaceoutsidethe church,situatedbetweentheeasternandnorthernapses,between which the original system of raisedwalkways is still perfectly preserved.
Oftheperimeterwallofthenorthernnave,Elevation2300,there remains asection aroundthree metreshighinside theexisting Franciscancloister.Overtime,therehavebeennumerous restora-tioninterventionsonthissection,aswellasholesmadeinitto provideafootingfortheceilingvaultsinthecorridorofthe clois-ter.Theseinterventionshavegreatlyaltereditsoriginalappearance (Fig.26).Onthewesternsidethereisasmalldoorgivingdirect accesstothenaveofthebasilica.Thisdoorisframedontheouter sidebytwomonolithiccolumnsandbyapointedarchatopan archi-travethatisclearlyrecent.Asregardsthedoor-jambs,theoneon therightcouldseemoriginal,whiletheoneontheleftshowssigns ofhavingbeenbrokenandrestored.Ontheinternalside,thewall surroundingthedoorisframedbyathickwall,andthepresence ofalayerofplastermakesitimpossibletodefinethe stratigraph-icalrelationshipsbetter,leavingachronologicalattributionofthe doorwaystillpending(Fig.27).
Theremainingportionofthewallispreservedatapoint corre-spondingtotheterraceabovethecorridorofthecloister.Muchof thiselevationistheresultofalaterreconstructionofthewall, sim-ilartowhatwesawonthesouthernfacadeofthebasilica(Fig.28). Theoriginalportionislimitedonlytothetwolowestcourses,upto theheightofthedrainagetubesemergingfromthewallitself,while thehigherpartistheresultofanoperationtoraisetheheightofthe wall,whichprobablytookplaceintheCrusaderera,asisdeduced
Fig.34.Elevation2900.Detailofnortherncorner.
fromthestratigraphicalrelationships,fromtheconstruction tech-nique,andfromsimilarconstructioneventsfoundonthesouthern fac¸adeofthebasilica.
Thewesternwallofthenorthtransept,Elevation2400,a con-nectingwallbetweenthewallsofthenaveandthenorthapse, featurestworound-archwindows.Ofthese,theonesituatedwhere thetranseptandthenavemeetisblockedup,liketheadjacent win-dowinthewallofthenave.Ontheleft-handsideoftheelevation, onecanseethebreaklineinthebuild,whichismirroredbythe breaklinedescribedontheoppositesideofthebasilica,whileon theright-handsideoneseesthesemi-pilastermadeofstoneblocks createdtobondthewallwiththeadjacentElevation2500.This lat-terelevationconstitutestheupperpartofthewallofthecentral nave,andithas11round-archwindows(Fig.29).Theeasternmost ofthese,situatedwherethewallmeetsthetransept,isblockedup. OnthewesternsideofElevation2300onecansee,atapoint correspondingtotheroofofthenarthex,theperimeterwallofa quadrangularstructuresituatedinthenorthcornerofthebasilica, whosesidesarestratigraphicallybonded,andthuscontemporary, withtheperimeterwallofthenave,bymeansofElevation2600 (Fig.30),andwiththefac¸adewall(Fig.31).Thecontemporarylink isalsoshownbytheadoptionofthesameconstructiontechnique. Asmallerdoorsituatedinthemiddleofthewallgivesaccesstothe terraceabovethenarthex.Theheightofthestructurewassupposed tobeatleastashighasthetoppartoftheroofofthecentralnave. 4.2.2.4. Western facade. Elevation 2900 constitutes the main facadeofthebasilica.Ofalltheelevationsanalyzed,thisistheone
e22 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26 thatappearstobetheresultofacomplexseriesoftransformations
andadditions,whichhaverevolutionizeditsoriginalappearance (Fig.32).Theelegantsystem,whichoriginallyallowedaccessto thenarthex,tooktheformofacentraldoorwayandtwosmaller doors,oneoneachside.However,itisdifficulttoperceivethese today,owingtoamajorbuildsituatedonthesouthernsideofthe basilica,whichhaslargelyobliteratedthesoutherndoorway,and abuttressbuiltupagainstthefac¸adeitself,whichhascoveredthe northdoorandpartofthecentraldoorway.Moreover,thecentral doorwayhas,overtime,seendifferenttransforminginterventions thathavereducedtheirsize.ThishappenedinitiallyintheCrusader era,withtheadditionofawallwithapointedarch,and,lateron, byfurtherreducingthesizeoftheaccesswiththeadditionofalow architrave,creatingtheformofwhatisstilltodaycalledthe“Door ofHumility”(Fig.33).
In thesectionof the facadenorth ofthe buttress,there are theremainsoftheangularpilasterthatdefinedthetower-shaped structure(seeElevations2300,2700and2800).Alsoremainingare themouldedcornice,abovewhichthewallthatactsasahandrail forthenarthexterracewasrebuiltlateron,andtheremainsofa round-archwindowcutintothefac¸adewall,aswellasthe extrem-ityofthearchitravethatusedtoadornthenorthdoorway.Asecond window,createdaftertheoriginalphase,islocatedinthespace bor-deredbythebuttress,andathirdwindow,nowblockedup,isfound alongsidethecentraldoorway.
Finally,bycarefulobservationofthewallstratigraphy,onecan alsoidentifythetracesofaveryparticularconstructiondevice.The largecorner-stones(quoins)protrudedfromtheverticallineofthe corneritself,defininga“serrated”systemsimilartothatfoundat themeeting-points betweenthenorthandsouthapsesandthe navewalls.Excludingthepossibilitythattheywereleftinplaceto helpbondanewwall,onecanplausiblysuggestthatthesestones hadapurelydecorativefunction(Fig.34).
Elevation2700constitutesthefacadewalloftheChurch, vis-iblefromtheterrace situatedabovethenarthex(Fig.35).Once canseefairlyclearlytheslopingprofilesoftheoriginalpitched roofofthecentralnave,tothesidesofwhichthewallwaslater raised.Thewallfacealsobearsthetracesofa roofwhich,after theconstructionofthebasilica,musthavebeenbuiltabovethe narthexterrace,inrelationtowhichthereisalsoaseriesofcuts, todayobliterated,whichservedtohousearegulargridofwooden beams.
Atapointcorrespondingtothenorthernpitchoftheroof,one canstillnotetheremains of thetower-shapedstructure which wasoriginallydesignedtodecoratethenorth-westerncornerof thebasilica,whiletothesouthasmallwindowgaveaccesstothe southernsideofthepitchedroof.
Inperiodslaterthantheconstructionofthebasilica,thespace withinthenarthexwasmodifiedandsubdivided,andonthe south-ernfacade,nowusedasaguard-room,largeroundarcheswere created,probablyintheCrusaderperiod,butthesearenowfilled in.OfspecialinterestisthefactthatinElevation3200,opposite thefacadeelevation,traceshavebeenfoundofalargedoorway withanarchitrave,mirroringtheoneseeninthefacade,which is now blocked in. This originallygave access to the basilica’s narthex.
Onthesouthsideof thenarthex,theoriginalwallonly sur-vivestoaheightofafewmetres,sincealoweringofthevaulted ceilingobliteratestheuppersection.Thesurvivingwallfacestill bearsthe marks, asfor example in Elevation 3300, of the sys-temofgroovesandholes thatheldinplacetheclampsusedto anchorthemarbleslabswhichoriginallylinedsomewallsofthe basilica(Fig.36).Finally,twodoorsweresubsequentlycreatedin thesouthand south-westernwalls,allowingaccesstothe inte-riorpartstothesouth-westofthebasilica,andtotheArmenian garden.
Fig.35.Elevation2700.Facadewallabovenarthex. 4.2.3. Constructiontechnique
Theconstructiontechniquefoundinallthewallsattributedto theoriginalconstructionphaseismarkedbytheuseoflarge, per-fectlysquaredstoneblocks.Thesewereupto1mlongandupto 0.4mhigh,andwerelaininhorizontal,parallelcourses,theheight ofwhichwasfairlyregular,butnotalwaysidentical.The inter-sticesbetweentheblocksareextremelynarrow,wheretheycan beseenatall,thankstothefactthatthefacesoftheblocksare perfectlyconjoined(Fig.37a).Overthecenturies,theapplication oflayersofcementmortarcoveringtheoriginalcoursesmeansitis notpossibletoidentifydefinitetracesoftheoriginalbondingagent, unlessthiscoincidedwithacompact,off-whitemortarthatisfullof
e24 M.Baccietal./JournalofCulturalHeritage13(2012)e5–e26
Fig.38.Evidenceofinterruptionsinthebuildinthewallelevations,andconstructiontechniques. fragmentsofcrushedbrickortilewhichalsocoatedtheedgesofthe
individualblocks,andwhichissometimesinscribedwithapointed tool(Fig.37b),visibleespeciallyintheareaofthenorthapseofthe basilica.
Themarksleftbyworkers’toolsindicatetheuseofaflatchisel usedtodresstheedgesofadjacentblocks(anathyrosis).Thistool wasapparently2/3cmwide.Therewasalsoanotherkindofcutting tool,aserratedchisel,usedtosmooththesurfaceoftheblocks (Fig.37c).Theconstructiontechniqueisassociatedwiththelocal stonetype,Malaki,whichrangesincolourfrompaleyellowtogrey, withdifferentlevelsofhardness.
5. Conclusion–G.Bianchi
Ascanbeseenfromreadingthepreviousparagraph,themain findingthatemergesfromourresearchrelatestotheunitarynature oftheconstructionofthebasilica.Thestratigraphicalrelationships betweenthevariouspartsofthewalls,fromthenarthextothe apses,clearlyindicatethatthemodern-daybasilicaistheresultof asingle,unitaryconstructionprocess,andthatmostofthe archi-tecturalfeaturesvisibletodaydate,surprisingly,tothatphase.In otherwords,theweight-bearingstructureshavenotbeenaltered particularlyoverthecenturies.Accordingly,thesefindingsarethe basisfordispellingthemanydoubtsrelating,forexample,tothe relationshipbetweentheapsesectionandthenave,whichsome scholarsstillbelievetorelatetotheConstantin-eraphase,orinany caseasbelongingtoaconstructionphasethatisdifferentfromthat oftheapses(SeeBacci’scontributionbelow,withreferencetothe
viewsofVincentandAbel[5],Krautheimer[46]andmostrecently J.Pickett).
Insomecases,this interpretationhasbeensupportedbythe evidenceofinterruptionsinthebuildinthewallelevations asso-ciatedwiththejunctionbetweenthenaveandtheapsetransept (Fig.38).Bycontrast,ouranalysishasplacedthis“break”linein relationtoasimplepauseinconstructionworkonthebuilding, beingcontemporarywiththeentireprojectasawhole,alsoonthe basisofanalogieswithevidenceofthesametypefoundin numer-ousotherbuildings,forexampleincentralandnorthernItaly[72]. Thepresenceofthesamebreaklines,andoftheother stratigraph-icalrelationships,has,infact,madeitpossibletodeterminethe sequenceofthebasilica’sconstruction.Afterconstructionofthe lowersectionofthenaveandtheperimeterwallsofthenarthex, workcontinuedwiththeerectionofpartofthenaveitself,following bythatofthenarthexandtheapses,beforecontinuing,ina uni-fiedmanner,intheupperzoneofthewholebasilica,attheheight oftheleveloftherowofwindows.Giventhat,alsoforsymbolic reasons,theconstructionofmostreligiousbuildingsusuallybegan fromthepresbytery,wecanatpresentonlysuggestanumberof hypothesestoexplainthepracticeadoptedhere.Theseincludethe possibilitythat,bybuildingthelargestpartofthebasilicafirst,it wouldhavebeenpossibletoreducethelengthoftimeduringwhich itwasnotpossibletousethepresbytery,wherereligiousfunctions wereconducted,andbelowwhichtheGrottooftheNativityitself stood.
Asalreadymentioned byother scholars,andas isnow con-firmedbyarcheologicalanalysis,accesstothebasilicabuiltinthis phasewasviaanarthexwiththreedoors,themiddledoorbeingthe largest.Originally,thenarthexdidnothavetheinternalpartitions