GREAT PALACE

Sultanahmet, Fatih - Istanbul - Turkey

GPS : 41°00'26.0"N 28°58'49.0"E / 41.007222, 28.980278



PHOTOGRAPHS ALBUM

The palace was located between the ancient Hippodrome,Hagia Sophia and the Marmara Sea, behind the Blue Mosque today. The Great Palace was first built by Constantine in the 4th century , than used by later emperors until the 12th century. The Great Palace palace was abandoned during Latin Occupation between 1204-1261 when the emperors moved to the Blachernai Palaces (also known as Tekfur Palace).

Ruins of the palace that was the seat of government for the eastern Roman and Byzantine empires for more than a millennium have been found beneath Istanbul's streets, according to Alpay Pasinli, director of the Istanbul Museum of Archaeology, who oversaw the excavations. Restoration work on the Four Seasons Hotel, originally an Ottoman prison, led to the discovery, which lies between the Byzantine church Ayia Sophia, now a museum, and the entrance to the Topkapı Palace of the Ottoman sultans.

Byzantine palace remains exposed at ground level include several collapsed columns, water conduits, and a wall, possibly part of a tomb, with frescoes of a cross motif in yellow, red, and green. The ground breaks away at one point to reveal a large subterranean chamber constructed of vaulted brick arches and domes supported by 16-foot-tall stone columns. The domes are about ten feet in diameter and five feet high.

A number of narrow tunnels lead from the chamber, but their extent has not been determined. Early speculation was that they might be the pitae, archives housing manuscripts and icons. The structure's exact age is unclear. Pasinli, who is not a Byzantinist, told Reuters it was of the fifth century, but in other reports it has been dated to the sixth or ninth century; Halil Ozek, another archaeologist involved in the excavations, told the New York Times that it was of ninth-century date.

Construction of the palace began under Constantine, who moved the capital of the Roman Empire to the city in A.D. 330. Expanded over a number of centuries, the palace included ceremonial halls, churches, and gardens on 100 acres of land extending from the Hippodrome, now Sultanahmet Square, to the Sea of Marmara. By the time Sultan Mehmet II captured Constantinople in 1453, it had fallen into disrepair and was largely abandoned.

The Ottomans sited their palace partly on the ruins of the old one, the rest of the Byzantine complex being buried beneath centuries of other buildings. The site's future is uncertain. Pasinli is no longer speaking to reporters after the Turkish press alleged that he was connected with artifact smuggling and that the palace discovery was a scam involving the hotel, which wanted to cash in on the find by converting part of the uncovered palace remains into a tourist bazaar.

None of these allegations is proven, but Pasinli is under investigation by the Ministry of Culture. Pasinli is on the Preservations Commission, which is charged with granting building permits for projects in areas of archaeological interest (the whole of Sultanahmet Square has been such an area since 1990). According to his detractors, Pasinli, who has powerful political, business, and union backers, has ensured passage of permit applications by the commission. One such application was for the restoration of the hotel.

What happened to the palace remains that must have been found during this work, which involved digging a large hole underneath the hotel, is unknown. The hotel, which also wanted to build on the site of the new discovery, paid the Istanbul Museum of Archaeology for the excavations there. Sources at the museum who are unfriendly to Pasinli say that the hotel is indeed looking for ways to incorporate the palace remains into a new building, possibly a reconstructed version of a nineteenth-century Ottoman one that stood there.

That the permit was granted is almost more surprising than the discovery of the palace remains. German archaeologists Theodore Wiegand and Ernst Mamboury witnessed the construction of the Ottoman prison, now the hotel, in 1911 and examined the palace sites not requiring excavation, publishing their findings in 1934. French archaeologists surveyed the area during the Allied occupation of the city following World War I, and two years ago Oxford University doctoral student Eugenia Bolognesi also surveyed it.

A Turkish team that has conducted a geophysical investigation of the area since 1990 has located hundreds of anomalies that may indicate buried structures. It initially recommended the closure of the area to traffic and to further building, but was overruled by Pasinli and the commission. Strangely, the geophysical team is now working for Pasinli. The Great Palace of Constantinople "Palatium Magnum" (Turkish: Büyük Saray) was the principal residence of Byzantine emperors from Constantine the Great to Alexios I and the symbolic nerve centre of the empire.

Also known as The Sacred Palace, it was the Byzantine equivalent of the Palatine in Rome. The Great Palace of Constantinople was a large complex of buildings and gardens situated on a terraced, roughly trapezoidal site, measuring 600×500 m, and overlooking the Sea of Marmara to the south-east. The complex was enclosed by the Hippodrome to the west, by the Regia (a ceremonial extension of the Mese), the Augustaion, and the Senate to the north, and by the sea walls to the south and east.

Modern understanding of the Great Palace depends heavily on the literary sources and, to a lesser degree, on the meagre archaeological evidence. Of the few archaeologically explored components of the palace complex, the largest is an apsed hall preceded by a large peristyle court with splendid floor mosaics, which feature hunting and pastoral scenes combined with figures from mythology.

The isolated nature of these finds and the ambiguity of the written sources preclude any comprehensive architectural reconstructions of the palace despite repeated attempts since the 19th century. In its scale and general character the Great Palace must have resembled a city, with numerous buildings, private harbors, avenues, open spaces, terraces, ramps and stairs, gardens, fountains and other amenities, built and rebuilt over nearly eight centuries.

Rebuilding of palace components at new locations, but retaining their old names, along with the changing functions and names of preserved buildings, are among the factors contributing to the confusion in the current state of knowledge about the Constantinople Great Palace. Notwithstanding these problems, it is possible to identify the main stages in its development. The initial phase, under the auspices of Constantine the Great, produced the core of the palace complex, which, by all accounts, must have resembled several other imperial palaces built during the Tetrarchy.

Constantine’s palace was an overtly urban complex, approached by the Regia. Adjacent to the Regia stood the large Baths of Zeuxippos, a public bath also related to the palace compound. The entire western flank of the Great Palace bordered the Hippodrome, while the so-called Kathisma - a component of the palace with the imperial box for viewing the Hippodrome races, and rooms for other ceremonial functions - provided a palpable link between the Great Palace and the city itself.

The second major phase in the development of the Great Palace occurred in the 6th century, during the reigns of Justinian I and Justin II. Justinian’s building programme was spurred in large measure by the damage caused by the Nika riots in 532, and it involved the rebuilding of structures along the north flank of the palace complex, including the Magnaura and the Chalke.

The latter’s ceiling was decorated with mosaics showing Justinian’s victories over the Vandals in North Africa (533-534) and the Goths in Italy and in part of Spain (535-555); in the centre of the ceiling was a portrait of the imperial couple surrounded by senators. Justin II is credited with the construction of the Chrysotriklinos, the octagonal domed throne-room, the resplendent decoration of which was finished by Tiberios I (578-582). The Chrysotriklinos became in effect the new ceremonial nucleus of the palace, modifying the original Constantinian layout.

The Great Palace was expanded again by Justinian II (685-695; 705-711), who built the Lausiakos and the Justinianos, two halls in the vicinity of the Chrysotriklinos. He is also credited with the construction of a wall enclosing the palace, and of another gate, the Skyla, on the south side. This development marks the end of an ‘open’ relationship between the palace and the city, characteristic of Late Antique imperial palaces in general. This change was brought about, in all likelihood, by the growing urban tensions and violence.

During the iconoclastic controversy (726-843) the Chalke acquired a particular significance in the arguments for and against the worship of images. On the building’s façade was an icon of Christ Chalkites (of the Chalke) shown standing on a footstool; in 726 or 730 Leo III Isaurikos (717-741) removed the icon and replaced it with a cross as the first overt act of imperial iconoclasm.

The image of Christ was restored around 787 by Empress Eirene, only to be removed once again by Leo V (813-820) in 813 and replaced by a cross at the start of the second period of iconoclasm. By that time the iconoclastic emperor Theophilos (829-842) had already begun the next major phase in the development of the Great Palace, which continued under Michael II, Basil I and Leo VI.

Theophilos was responsible for the strengthening of the sea walls and for a new two-storey ceremonial complex centred on the Trikonchos, preceded by the Sigma court and surrounded by other pavilions. In its general character, this complex owed as much to the Late Antique palatine tradition as it probably did to the palaces of the Umayyads, with whom Theophilos is known to have maintained close cultural contacts.

Michael III is noted for several building restorations (particularly of the Chrysotriklinos) and adaptations, but his most celebrated addition to the Great Palace was the church of the Virgin of Pharos "Lighthouse", renowned for the relics it contained and for its splendour, if not for its size.

By far the best-known church to be added to the Great Palace was the five-domed Nea Ekklesia under the auspices of Basil I. This emperor was responsible for one of the most extensive building programmes to the Great Palace, which must have substantially altered its appearance. Among his additions were two halls, known as the Kainourgion (the New Hall) and the Pentakoubiklon (a room divided into five bays), and a large court for polo games, known as the Tzykanisterion.

Leo VI is credited with the construction of a sumptuously decorated bathhouse. In the following centuries the amount of construction within the Great Palace of Constantinople diminished. During the reign of Nikephoros II Phokas (963-969) another line of fortification walls was erected, apparently enclosing the shrunken core of the Great Palace.

The final decline of the Great Palace began under Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), who moved the imperial residence to the new palace of Blachernai. Despite this shift, the Great Palace retained its ceremonial role for some time to come. Even some new construction occurred, as under Manuel I (1143-1180), who built two halls: the Manouelites and the Mouchroutas. The latter, known to have been the work of a Persian builder, had a painted and gilded stalactite ceiling akin to such ceilings in Islamic architecture.

During the Latin occupation of Constantinople (1204-61) the Great Palace was used, but was also despoiled of its major treasures. The Palaiologan emperors (1261-1453) never attempted to restore the abandoned, slowly decaying complex. Its final demise came in 1489-1490, when a large quantity of gunpowder stored in one of the old buildings exploded, obliterating most of the surviving remnants.

LOCATION SATELLITE MAP



These scripts and photographs are registered under © Copyright 2017, respected writers and photographers from the internet. All Rights Reserved.

MYRELAION PALACE

Laleli, Fatih - İstanbul - Turkey

GPS : 41°00'31.0"N 28°57'20.0"E / 41.008611, 28.955556



PHOTOGRAPHS ALBUM

Myrelaion Palace was a summer residence located between Aksaray and Laleli districts. Very few remains were found during the excavations. This palace was built at an unknown time into the ruins of a vast late antique palace. It stood on an elevated platform that was formed by inserting a cistern into the former circular main hall. The monumental semicircular courtyard in front of the rotunda which connected it to the colonnaded main street in the north, still survived, but was not accessible from the new buildings on the platform.

Under the name of Ta Amastrianou (= property of a man from Amastris) it was used as a market place and for executions. The new palace later became property of Romanos Lakapenos and was converted by him into a monastery at the beginning of his reign (920-944).

Excavations of a huge rotunda next to the Myrelaion started before the World War II (D.T. Rice and T. Macridy)1 and were completed in the 1960s by R. Naumann. The unearthed (probably) fifth-century centrally-planned building, originally covered with a large dome, has outer diameter 41.80 m which makes it the second largest circular structure of the Roman-Byzantine period (only the Pantheon in Rome surpasses it). Inner diameter is 29.60 m and the maximum thickness of the rotunda wall is 6.10 m.

The lower part of the building, which has survived up to 3.40 m, is built of cramped limestone blocks. The interior of the circular hall was articulated with large niches: four rectangular niches on the main axes and four semicircular niches on the diagonals. The exterior of the building is flatened on the north and south and there were entrances to the interior through the respective rectangular niches.

The north door was the main entrance and was preceded with a (probably) semicircular (sigma) portico of which only two columns and part of a stylobate survived in-situ. The reconstructed diameter of the semicircular colonnaded forecourt, which was located just south of the Mese street, is about 55 m. Due to the sloping ground there were eight semicircular steps in front of the south entrance. A fragment of wall projects from the south façade of the hall and a column base aligned with this wall was found nearby.

These remains are interpreted as part of a north-south colonnade which may have had its counterpart west of the south door of the rotunda. If so, there would be an elaborate entrance way leading to the rotunda from the south. Yet further south of the huge rotunda another centrally-planned building was excavated. This small structure stood on a lower level than the rotunda and had an opus sectile floor. The original function and identity of the rotunda are disputed. One of the possibilities, taking into account the probable fifth-century date of the complex, is that it was the palace of the Theodosian princess Arcadia.

Moreover, Naumann suggested that the sigma portico of the rotunda could be identified as the Amastrianon which served as a market and place for public executions in the Middle Ages (this identification accepted for example by A. Berger). According to Byzantine texts, the Amastrianon was an open space limited by a semicircular portico and adjacent to the Mese approximately in the location of the Myrelaion rotunda and it was defined by a semicircular portico and a straight wall which contained a gate.

The Patria (10th century) tell us other interesting details: For example, there were several reliefs and statues in the Amastrianon court, such as Zeus driving a chariot , turtles, a personification of the Lycus River and a relief of a man from Amastris with his servant. In the 8th century the rotunda behind the portico must have been in ruins (confirmed by the twentieth-century excavations) and it is quite possible that the sigma court may have become a market place by that time.

One of the most significant monuments in Istanbul's history has been one of its least fortunate survivors. A large rotunda from an Late Roman palace was incorporated as the substructure for the palace of Romanos Lecapenos in the early tenth century. The church, adjacent to Romanos' palace, was built on separate substructures, into which a funerary chapel was added in the Late Byzantine period. The site thus represents three major periods in the Byzantine history of the city.

The rotunda had been converted to a cistern when the tenth-century palace was added, with the insertion of dozens of columns to support the vaulting. In the early 1990s bulldozing for the construction of a hotel next door damaged the cistern. In 1993-94, the cistern was cleared, cleaned, and replastered by developers, who have turned it into a shopping bazaar -- one of the most surprising adaptive reuse projects I've seen. The terrace above was paved with marble.

Palace of Romanos I Lakapenos

The ruined rotunda was re-used when a new palatian building was erected directly on the top of it in the Early Middle Ages. Before the construction of the new palace started, the walls of the rotunda had been consolidated and both doors walled-up. The interior of what had left of the late antique structure was converted into a cistern whose vaulting, supported by re-used columns, created a leveled platform on which the medieval palace was built. The palace was considerably smaller than the rotunda and occupied only the eastern part of the platform.

It consisted of a rectangular hall (21.75 x 7.80 m) with two corner tower-like structures connected by a portico. Thus, the building resembled Roman corridor villae. The building was identified as the palace which belonged to the emperor Romanos I Lakapenos (920-944) and was converted by him to a nunnery, as it is known from the sources, situated near the Myrelaion church (also work of Romanos) which fortunately survived, converted into a mosque (Bodrum Camii).

Nevertheless, it is not certain whether Romanos built this palace. In this respect it has been suggested that the palace may be the same as the House of Krateros adjacent to the semicircular Amastrianon court (either the general Theodore Krateros serving under the emperor Theophilos (first half of the 9th century) or Andreas Krateros who was a domestikos in the reigns of Basil I and Leo VI (second half of the 9th century).

The church, now Bodrum Camii, suffered in a disasterous restoration in 1964-65 that replaced 90% of the exterior masonry with concrete bricks, altering the lines of the building. This restoration was abandoned before completion, and the building was re-restored in the late 1980s to a more satisfying appearance, although there is virtually no original surface left on the building.

LOCATION SATELLITE MAP



These scripts and photographs are registered under © Copyright 2017, respected writers and photographers from the internet. All Rights Reserved.

YARIMBURGAZ CAVE

Yarımburgaz, Başakşehir - Istanbul - Turkey

GPS : 41°04'32.4"N 28°44'28.8"E / 41.075667, 28.741333



PHOTOGRAPHS ALBUM

Two parts cave, which is in 1.5 km south of Lake Küçükçekmece, one conjoined inside. Yarımburgaz Cave is a very important place in terms of it being the oldest settlement in Turkey to be observed as layered. The height of the ceiling is more than 10 m and the upper cave measuring 15 x 52 m. In the cave below the layers dating from 600 - 400 thousand years BC can be seen. As a consequence of investigation, Yarımburgaz Cave is understood to have been inhabited and settled in the Lower Paleolithic Age, Chalcolithic Age and Early Byzantine Age.

The lower cave, where the studies especially regarding the Paleolithic Age were performed, has to passages. In the Paleolithic period, people used the caves temporarily in the summer months when bears wake up from their winter hibernation. Afterwards the cave was abandoned for a long time. The first hunter and collector communities lived here and in between 7300 and 5800 BC agriculture communities settled in the cave for a short period. In the early Byzantine period, some part of the upper cave is considered to have been used as a church. It is certain that this church is related with the monastery building outside the cave.

Yarimburgaz Cave is a cave of significant archaeological and paleontological importance, located within Istanbul Province. Yarımburgaz Cave is approximately 20 km (12 mi) west of the city of Istanbul, and about 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) north of Lake Küçükçekmece and south of Sazlıdere Dam. It is situated in a locality known today as Altınşehir, within the neighborhood of Güvercintepe in Başakşehir district. The cave was formed as a result of a subterranean river eroding an ancient limestone formation.

It has two entrances, one above the other. The lower entrance is at an altitude of 11.5 m (38 ft) AMSL, which the upper entrance is situated 7 m (23 ft) above. The cave is on the eastern bank of the Sazlıdere Creek, which empties into Lake Küçükçekmece. The entrances face southwards overlooking Sazlıdere Valley. Wheras the lower cave has a length of 500 m (1,600 ft), the upper is only 52 m (171 ft) long. After about 25 m (82 ft) inside, a short, slopy passage connects both caves. The lower cave is in the form of a meandering tunnel, forking into two at a distance of 240 m (790 ft) from the mouth. The upper cave's chamber is 15 m (49 ft) wide and 10 m (33 ft) in height.

The cave is an important fossil site which has been researched by archeologists, paleontologists, geoarchaeologists and biospeleologists. Scientific exploration of the cave began in the mid-19th century. Excavation attempts made in 1920 were followed by systematic archaeological work in the 1980s financially supported by the National Geographic Society.

In the Byzantine era, a cave-church was carved into the walls of the upper cave, and a monastery was built outside the cave mouth. Although these alterations may have resulted in the loss of prehistoric material, some artefacts remain in the cave. In the upper cave, traces of settlements were found dating back to the Upper Paleolithic subdivision of the Stone Age up until the Chalcolithic period of the Bronze Age.

These traces were lying on beach sand from the last interglacial period and beneath debris from Byzantine and later times. The beach sand covers sediments with Lower Paleolithic artifacts. The upper cave was destroyed by treasure hunting and illicit diggings, which left 2–3 m (6.6–9.8 ft)-deep pits. Unlike the prehistoric deposits found in the lower cave, the upper cave lacks any evidence of debris from that era.

The existence of paleontological and archaeological findings point towards the use of the cave as a human and an animal habitat, alternatively. The finds include bones of herbivore and carnivore mammals, marine and freshwater molluscs, microfauna as well as artifacts like potsherds, knives on flint, oldowans, choppers and hammerstones on quartzite, as well as manuports.

The wide variety of prehistoric faunal specimens belong to bones of herbivore mammals such as cave bears (Ursus deningeri), horses (Equus caballus), wild boars (Sus scrofa), fallow deer (Dama dama), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), deer (Megaloceros), cattle (Bos/Bison), antilopes (Gazella), goats (Capra), and carnivores such as wolves and dogs (Canis), foxes (Vulpes), tigers (Panthera), cats (Felis) and hyenas (Crocuta).

Findings of "more than 5000 fossil bones and teeth of cave and brown bears", which provide some chronological indicators, led to their extensive scientific study. Another subject of such extensive study were the fossils of several species of Middle Pleistocene bats (Chiroptera), including horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus), mouse-eared bats (Myotis), long-eared bats (Plecotus) and bent-winged bats (Miniopterus).

Some artifacts found in Yarımburgaz Cave are exhibited in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums. In 2001, Yarımburgaz Cave was declared an archaeological-nature reserve of first grade. It is also listed as "Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection".

During the last two decades, the cave suffered serious, irreversible damage caused by the external interactions of humans. Following scientific excavations inside the cave, and the related publications in the 1990s, the cave gained wide popularity. For this reason, it was brought to the attention of several picnickers, treasure hunters, illegal explorers, amateur speleologists and archaeologists due to its past use as a historic cave-church and its proximity to the city center.

Yarımburgaz is a double cave with slightly offset upper and lower entrance chambers, connected laterally inside the cave. Below Byzantine and modern debris, the upper cave encloses Chalcolithic to Upper Paleolithic occupations above a beach sand attributed to the Last Interglacial. Below the beach sand, strongly modified sediments contain sparse Lower Paleolithic artifacts. The lower cave preserves only Lower Paleolithic industries, but with abundant cave bear and other fauna.

Lower cave sediments (0.5 m thick) comprise a lower, barren section of decalcification clays interfingering with alluvial fine sands, small gravel and rounded pebbles from the cave interior, and isolated limestone blocks from the cave ceiling. These sediments have been strongly affected by secondary phosphatization that fills vugs, cements the sediments, and produces thick reaction rinds on the large blocks. The upper 2 m of the fill becomes more rocky as the evidence of human and bear utilization of the cave becomes prominent.

No habitation structures or hearths were detected in the lower cave. ESR and uranium-series dating suggests an age between 160 and 390 ka for the lower cave occupations. Apparently the cave was wide open to the exterior at that time. The final phase of filling was characterized by abundant angular limestone blocks, suggestive of earthquake disturbance.

The cave system consists of two passages; the longer, lower passage penetrates about 500 m into the limestone ridge, but the shorter, higher one reaches a dead end only 50 m from the present entrance. A short transverse corridor connects the two longer passages, sloping down from the upper to the lower cave about 25 m inside the cave. The mouths of the two passages are, respectively, 11.5 and 18.6 m/sl and face southward overlooking the Sazlidere valley, the marshy floodplain of which is only about 1 m above sea level.

The lower passage is still an active karstic cave, with growing speleothems and pools of standing water in its dark, inner recesses. Evidence of running water exists in the form of rounded quartz and chert pebbles and stratified sand on the cave floor. These exotic materials indicate that an insurgence exists (or existed in the past) in the inner reaches of the cave. We excavated similar deposits in Lower Paleolithic levels in the outer part of the lower passage, as described below.

Also, deposits of very fine silt and clay occur in the active portion of the cave, especially where lateral karstic conduits join the main passage. These fine deposits appear to be reworked surface soil or decalcification clays washed in from other parts of the karstic system. Again, they have counterparts in the Lower Paleolithic deposits. The upper cave was strongly modified in Byzantine times when a church was carved into its walls, and a monastery constructed outside the cave mouth.

These modifications removed prehistoric deposits to an undetermined extent, but some Chalcolithic and Upper Paleolithic deposits remain. The lower cave was also disturbed by illicit excavators or treasure seekers. Modern pits as deep as 2 or 3 m were revealed in our excavations, and any evidence of prehistoric deposits intermediate in age between the Lower Paleolithic and the modern, mixed debris is missing, that is, Middle/Upper Paleolithic and Chalcolithic, which are present in the upper cave.

On the other hand, erosion of preexisting cave sediments was very clearly in evidence at the mouth of the lower passage. The deepest trench (in the lower cave, adjacent to another trench) reached 5 m below the present floor of the lower cave, but the lowest 3 m appear to be barren of artifacts or bones. We did not reach bedrock at any point along the central axis of the lower cave.

Human ancestors, cave bears, and brown bears have coexisted in Eurasia for at least one million years, and bear remains and Paleolithic artifacts frequently co-occur in cave sediments, particularly those dating to the Middle Paleolithic period. These peculiar associations were once the inspiration for the so-called “cave bear cult”, a theme that persists in popular literature.

A deeper understanding of the causes of human-bear associations in Paleolithic caves is made possible in part by appeal to modern bear ecology. A central example of Paleolithic human-bear relations is the Middle Pleistocene case of Yarımburgaz Cave in Turkish Thrace. Here, multiple lines of evidence show that cave bear and human use of caves were independent events.

The apparent spatial associations between human artifacts and cave bear bones in the cave are explained principally by slow sedimentation rates relative to the pace of biogenic accumulation and bears' bed preparation habits. In other circumstances, however, cut marks on bear bones suggest that some bears were hunted by hominids. These are usually brown bears, whose remains often occur as a very minor component of refuse middens.

None of the examples support the notion of ritual use of cave bear remains by ancient humans. Although the cave bear cult is just a story, the Middle Paleolithic record is not without provocative indications of Neanderthal (Middle Paleolithic) social sensibilities.

LOCATION SATELLITE MAP



These scripts and photographs are registered under © Copyright 2017, respected writers and photographers from the internet. All Rights Reserved.