• Aucun résultat trouvé

Historical and archaeological analysis of the Church of the Nativity

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Historical and archaeological analysis of the Church of the Nativity"

Copied!
22
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

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,Switzerland

bDepartmentofhistoricalsciencesandheritage,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.

(2)

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

(3)

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

(4)

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

(5)

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,

(6)

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

(7)

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

(8)

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

(9)

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

(10)

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

(11)

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

(12)

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.

(13)

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

(14)

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.

(15)

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

(16)

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.

(17)

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

(18)

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

(19)
(20)

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

Figure

Fig. 2. Overall plan of the Basilica according to the reconstruction of Bagatti (1952).
Fig. 3. Plans, sections and reconstruction of the medieval bell tower proposed by Balduzzi.
Fig. 7. Entrance to cave located in eastern apse, and detail of basin dug in center of chamber
Fig. 9. Bonding system of raised section of south wall of aisle.
+7

Références

Documents relatifs

Il faut souligner que c’est dans ce canton que se concentre la majorité (33%) des Équatoriennes et Équatoriens résidant (avec ou sans papiers) en Suisse 1. D’un point de vue

Effets civils (art. Mais seule l’incorporation parfaite p rod uit complète assim i­ lation.. L’incorporation parfaite déploie son plein effet : l’incor­ poré est

Ein verwandt- schaftliches Empfinden ergab sich vor allem aus dem gemeinsamen Status einer Republik, aber auch aufgrund der ähnliehen politischen Institutionen und

In the Falck case, the far-sighted family champion of change Alberto Falck—with crucial support of the external CEO Achille Colombo—was able to de-escalate the family business

C’était le moment choisi par l’aïeul, […] pour réaliser le vœu si longtemps caressé d’ accroître son troupeau que les sècheresses, les épizoodies et la rouerie de

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des

l’utilisation d’un remède autre que le médicament, le mélange de miel et citron était le remède le plus utilisé, ce remède était efficace dans 75% des cas, le

In this chapter I want to describe five different areas: the development of voluntary activities, relations with businesses outside, relations with local councillors, the