From the Anastasis Rotunda at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the Dome of the Rock, centrally planned memorial monuments offer a compelling typology. André Grabar once characterized these as martyria, or places of witness, suggesting a relationship between centralized form and commemorative function. Grabar's study, published in 1949, was idea-driven, and although its basic thesis energized a generation of scholars, more recent scholarship has removed many of Grabar's key monuments from the category of memorials or martyria. Current scholarship in Byzantine architecture usually views a typological approach as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, with church construction more design-driven than function-driven.
Vered Shalev-Hurvitz's study (expanded from a 1999 Tel Aviv University dissertation) takes typology as its focus and never quite escapes its sway. While she has examined the scholarship closely (if selectively), she has not been as careful with the architecture. To be sure, the fourth century is a confusing period for architectural developments. Just as the Church was attempting to find unity in its doctrine, liturgy and symbolism, architects were attempting to find concrete forms to represent the new religion and to ground it in the millennial landscape. The common characteristic of the architecture is perhaps its diversity.
Most of the buildings, ideas, sources and scholarship discussed here will be familiar to specialists. The four monuments at its core – the Anastasis Rotunda, the Church of the Ascension, the Kathisma Church, and Mary's Tomb – are all problematic, much debated, and incompletely known. Shalev-Hurvitz draws many conclusions from a biased reading of early texts, which she quotes selectively, in translation. She views the Anastasis Rotunda as the work of Constantine, finished along with the basilica (called Martyrion) before both were dedicated in 335. She reads the text of Eusebios as referring to both buildings, while most scholars agree that the Rotunda was only constructed after Constantine's death. The important (and uncited) paper by W.E. Kleinbauer (in Gesta, 2006) argues that the idea of the “double-shell” plan used in the Anastasis Rotunda, with the central space enveloped by an ambulatory, originates only in the period of Constantine's son, Constantius II. Rather than viewing Jerusalem as the generator of new architectural forms, Kleinbauer more plausibly suggests the imperial court at Antioch.
With a similar eccentric reading of texts, Shalev-Hurvitz argues that the round church marking the site of the Ascension was also Constantinian. Here she augments the new date with a new plan. To the very limited evidence for a buttressed rotunda, she adds an undocumented inner colonnade, transforms the buttressed wall into a stylobate for a second colonnade, and adds an undocumented outer wall. It is imaginative, if untenable.
The Kathisma Church, rediscovered in 1992, has been subject to a careful modern excavation that established its original plan and history. Nevertheless, Shalev-Hurvitz's Kathisma is oddly different to that of the excavators, with porticoes on four sides, and that to the east replacing the apse. She takes the Ascension Church (her reconstruction) as its model. The Tomb of the Virgin is more problematic, for although the lower, cruciform crypt is preserved, there is simply nothing remaining of the upper church. Here she proposes a round church, based on Arculf's vague description, again modelled on the Ascension (her reconstruction).
Similar problems emerge as the author expands her view to discuss other churches outside Jerusalem. The lengthy excursus on the church on Mt Garizim has little to do with its form or function, and its similarities to the Kathisma could have been more effectively explored. The octagon at Caesarea is reconstructed on far too little evidence. The unique round church at Scythopolis, which was undoubtedly unroofed, is provided with a bizarre reconstruction that flies in the face of the archaeological evidence. Neither of the latter was likely a cathedral, and while both reuse temple sites, the destruction of the temples and the construction of the churches were unrelated events.
In addressing the original forms of these and other churches, Shalev-Hurvitz insists upon finding similarities where none may have existed. Indeed, it is hard to draw sweeping conclusions based on a limited and incomplete data set. Sameness is emphasized throughout by repetition of measurements, and while a 50-foot diameter may be common in early Byzantine churches (see P.A. Underwood in Cahiers Archéologiques, 1949), it is unclear where exactly Shalev-Hurvitz is measuring – interior, exterior, or midpoint of supports? At the Ascension, Mary's Tomb, and Scythopolis, the 50-foot measurements are for entirely imaginary colonnades. Sameness is also emphasized by using the Dome of the Rock – the only fully standing of the centrally planned buildings – as the model for reconstructing the elevation of many others. The analyses of proportional systems are similarly flawed. Colourful overlays, superimposing one plan on top of another, only confuse the issue, particularly when many of the details are either imaginary or incorrectly rendered.
Finally, the study gives too much agency to Jerusalem as an architectural centre. Syria had its own strong building tradition, as did early Christian Italy. S. Lorenzo in Milan does not need the Anastasis Rotunda to make sense; similarly S. Stefano Rotondo in Rome may be best viewed as a failed formal experiment rather than an architectural copy. Justinian's churches in Constantinople are likewise out of place in this discussion. The Romanesque pilgrimage choir developed independently and does not presuppose knowledge of the monuments of Jerusalem – a bizarre suggestion. As Cyril Mango once wisely commented (in Muqarnas 1991), criticizing the typological approach in Byzantine architectural studies, “buildings are labeled and pigeon-holed like biological specimens according to formal criteria: where a resemblance is found a connection is assumed even across a wide gulf in time and space”. It is unfortunate to see this approach dominate a study in a series for which he was a founding editor.
