T001332 PDF

THE HAGIA SOPHIA IN ITS URBAN CONTEXT:
AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
TRANSFORMATIONS OF AN ARCHITECTURAL
MONUMENT WITH ITS CHANGING PHYSICAL
AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
A Thesis Submitted to
the Graduate School of Engineering and Sciences of
İzmir Institute of Technology
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Architecture
by
Nazlı TARAZ
August 2014
İZMİR
We approve the thesis of Nazlı TARAZ
Examining Committee Members:
___________________________
Assist. Prof. Dr. Zeynep AKTÜRE
Department of Architecture, İzmir Institute of Technology
_____________________________
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ela ÇİL SAPSAĞLAM
Department of Architecture, İzmir Institute of Technology
___________________________
Dr. Çiğdem ALAS
25 August 2014
___________________________
Assist. Prof. Dr. Zeynep AKTÜRE
Supervisor, Department of Architecture, İzmir Institute of Technology
_______________________________ ______________________________
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şeniz ÇIKIŞ Prof. Dr. R. Tuğrul SENGER
Head of the Department of Architecture Dean of the Graduate School of
Engineering and Sciences
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Assist.Prof.Dr.Zeynep

AKTÜRE for her guidance, patience and sharing her knowledge during the entire study.
This thesis could not be completed without her valuable and unique support.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my committee members Assist.
Prof. Dr. Ela ÇİL SAPSAĞLAM, Dr. Çiğdem ALAS, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdem ERTEN
and Assist. Prof. Dr. Zoltan SOMHEGYI for their invaluable comments and
recommendations.
I owe thanks to my sisters Yelin DEMİR, Merve KILIÇ, Nil Nadire GELİŞKAN
and Banu Işıl IŞIK for not leaving me alone and encouraging me all the time. And I also
thank to Seçkin YILDIRIMDEMİR who has unabled to sleep for days to help and
motivate me in the hardest times of this study.
Special thanks to my mom Afife Neslihan TARAZ, my dad Orhan TARAZ and
to my brother Ali Can TARAZ for their outstanding support, trust and making me
keep going despite the problems and difficulties.
Others too many to mention have inspired and encouraged me during thie study and
all of them I owe a dept of gratitude.
ABSTRACT
THE HAGIA SOPHIA IN ITS URBAN CONTEXT: AN

INTERPRETATION OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS OF AN
ARCHITECTURAL MONUMENT WITH ITS CHANGING PHYSICAL
AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
In this thesis, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is handled as a living monument in its

physical and cultural context in the Historic Peninsula to question the existence of a
correlation between the changes in the building scale and transformations in a larger
physical and cultural context. In order to do this, urban and architectural scale studies
on the Historic Peninsula and Hagia Sophia are cross-read to highlight Hagia Sophia as
the center of a continuously changing physical and cultural context which is changing
with its transforming environment and, at the same time, changes its context through
conversions that occur in the building scale up to the Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth
century.
This survey reveals Hagia Sophia as one of the most important architectural
monuments in the world that has been a continually transforming edifice to remain in
use for different civilizations in a synchronously changing urban context. The
importance of the urban context of Hagia Sophia has had a major share in the
maintenance of the building’s importance. Changes and continuities in Hagia Sophia, in
their turn, had their share in the maintenance of the importance of the building’s urban
context in a larger scale in a palimpsestic process.
Keywords: Hagia Sophia; Historic Peninsula of Istanbul; continuities and changes;

urban context, palimpsest
iv
ÖZET
KENTSEL BAĞLAMI İÇİNDE AYA SOFYA: BİR MİMARİ ANITIN

DÖNÜŞÜMLERİNİN DEĞİŞEN FİZİKSEL VE KÜLTÜREL ÇEVRESİ
İLE BİR YORUMU
Bu tez kapsamında, İstanbul’daki Ayasofya, Tarihi Yarımada’daki fiziksel ve

kültürel bağlamı içinde yaşayan bir anıt olarak ele alınarak, yapı ölçeğindeki değişimler
ile daha geniş bir fiziksel ve kültürel bağlam içinde gerçekleşen dönüşümler arasındaki
karşılıklı etkileşimin varlığı araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla, Tarihi Yarımada ve Ayasofya
üzerine yapılan kent ve yapı ölçeğindeki çalışmalar çakıştırılarak okunmuş ve
Ayasofya’nın onbeşinci yüzyılda gerçekleşen Osmanlı fethine kadar, değişen fiziksel ve
kültürel bağlamı içinde dönüşürken, eş zamanlı olarak içinde bulunduğu çevreyi de yapı
ölçeğindeki dönüşümler üzerinden değiştiren bir merkez olduğu ortaya çıkarılmıştır.
Bu çalışma, dünyanın en önemli mimari anıtlarından biri olan Ayasofya’nın
sürekli dönüşerek, eş zamanlı olarak değişen bir kentsel bağlam içinde farklı
uygarlıkların kullanımında kalan bir mimari yapıt olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayasofya’nın
önemini korumasında, yapının kentsel bağlamının önemi büyüktür. Aynı zamanda, yapı
ölçeğindeki süreklilik ve değişimlerin de tarih boyunca Ayasofya’nın içinde bulunduğu
kentsel bağlamın daha geniş bir ölçekte palimpsest bir süreç yoluyla önemini
korumasındaki büyük etkisi görülmüştür.
Anahtar kelimeler: Ayasofya; İstanbul Tarihi Yarımada; süreklilikler ve değişimler;

kentsel bağlam, palimpsest
v
To İcloş and Ali Dede…
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1

1.1. Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 2
1.2. Literature Review ................................................................................. 8
1.3. Scope and Outline............................................................................... 13
1.4. Methodology....................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2 SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF THE HISTORIC PENINSULA OF

ISTANBUL: FROM THE FOUNDATION 20 OF GREEK
BYZANTION (7TH C. BC) TO OTTOMAN
KONSTANTINIYYE (15TH C. AD) ................................................... 20
2.1. The Greek Byzantion: The First Settlement on the Acropolis and
the Coastal Stretch (7th c. BC-AD 2nd c.) ......................................... 21
2.2. The Roman Byzantium: New Center of Urban Life Near the
Hippodrome (2nd c.-4th c.) ................................................................ 24
2.3. Refoundation as the Capital of Roman Empire by Constantine the
Great (4th c.) ....................................................................................... 27
2.4. Christianization of the City by Theodosius the Great (4th c.-6th c.) ...... 34
2.5. Monumentalization of Constantinople by Justinian the Great (6th
c.) ........................................................................................................ 39
2.6. From Constantinople to Konstantiniyye: The Historic Peninsula
up to the Ottoman Conquest (6th c. -15th c.) ..................................... 44
2.7. Konstantiniyye: Ottoman Capital of Sultan Mehmed II (15th c.) ...... 51
2.8. Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................ 58
CHAPTER 3 HAGIA SOPHIA AS A TRUE PALIMPSEST: CONSTRUCTION

STAGES AND REFERENCES OF THE MONUMENT .................... 62
3.1. The Augusteion Square and its Vicinity: Above and Underground
Layout of the Historic Peninsula ........................................................ 63
vii
3.2. Model City Rome and the Imperial Trilogy: Hippodrome-Temple-
Palace .................................................................................................. 68
3.3. Early Christian Churches from the 3rd Century to the Justinain’s
Great Hagia Sophia in the 6th Century............................................... 79
3.4. Hagia Sophia: From the Initial Constantinian Construction to the
Justinian the Great’s Great Monument ............................................... 90
3.5. Imperial Ceremonies: The Route from the Great Palace to Hagia
Sophia ................................................................................................. 99
3.6. Chapter Conclusion .......................................................................... 103
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION HAGIA SOPHIA AS A CUMULATIVE

PALIMPSEST: ITS CHANGING CONTEXT AND USES FROM
THE CONSTANTINIAN BASILICA (4TH C.) TO THE ROYAL
MOSQUES OF MEHMED II (15TH C.) ........................................... 105
4.1. From Crusades to the Ottoman Conquest: Continuities and
Changes in Hagia Sophia and Its Neighborhood .............................. 106
4.2. Hagia Sophia in 1453: The Imperial Mosque of the Ottoman Empire . 120
4.3. An Overview of the Palimpsestic Process in Hagia Sophia and its
Urban and Imperial Context ............................................................. 123
4.4. Conclusion and Further Studies..............................................................
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 137
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. CHRONOLOGICAL MAPS OF THE HISTORIC PENINSULA
OF ISTANBUL (7TH C. BC-15TH C. AD) ...................................... 144
APPENDIX B. PALIMPSEST MAPS OF THE HISTORIC PENINSULA OF
ISTANBUL (7TH C. BC-15TH C. AD)............................................. 150
APPENDIX C. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE EMPERORS (7TH C. BC-
15TH C. AD) ...................................................................................... 154
APPENDIX D. EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES (4TH-5TH C. ........................... 155
APPENDIX E. SUPERIMPOSITION OF THE IMPERIAL ROUTE AND THE
MOSAICS OF HAGIA SOPHIA
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 2.1. Neolithic settlements of Istanbul ............................................................... 21
Figure 2.2. Byzantion, 7th c. BC................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.3. Temples of the Severan City of Byzantium............................................... 26
Figure 2.4. Byzantium, 2nd c. AD ............................................................................... 25
Figure 2.5. Ports of Constantinople ............................................................................. 28
Figure 2.6. Street Map of Constantinople .................................................................... 30
Figure 2.7. Constantinople in 4-7th century ................................................................. 32
Figure 2.8. Plan showing the location of the Golden Gate in Constantinople ............. 36
Figure 2.9. Theodosian City of Constantinople, 4th c. ................................................. 37
Figure 2.10. Constantinople in 4th-7th century ............................................................... 45
Figure 2.11. Constantinople in 8th-12th century ............................................................. 47
Figure 2.12. Monasteries on the northwest of Constantinople ...................................... 48
Figure 2.13. Constantinople in the 15th-16th centuries. .................................................. 52
Figure 2.14. Bursa map in the 14th century. ................................................................... 56
Figure 3.1. Milion in Constantinople ........................................................................... 64
Figure 3.2. Branchroads of the Mese in Constantinople .............................................. 66
Figure 3.3. Map of the City of Rome ........................................................................... 69
Figure 3.4. Circus Maximus and Palatine Hill in Rome from the south. ..................... 70
Figure 3.5. Palace and the hippodrome in Constantinople .......................................... 71
Figure 3.6. The Imperial Trilogy in Constantinople .................................................... 77
Figure 3.7. Plan of Lateran Church in Rome ............................................................... 80
Figure 3.8. Plan of Santa Croce in Rome..................................................................... 81
Figure 3.9. Plan of San Sebastiano in Rome ................................................................ 82
Figure 3.10. Plan of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem......................................................... 83
Figure 3.11. Hyphotetical plan of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople ....................... 84
Figure 3.12. Plan of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome .......................................................... 85
Figure 3.13. Plan of the Studios Basilica in Constaninople ........................................... 86
Figure 3.14. Plan of the Topkapı Basilica in Constantinople ........................................ 87
Figure 3.15. Plan of the Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople ............ 88
Figure 3.16. Plan of the Beyazit Basilica A in Constantinople...................................... 89
ix
Figure 3.17. Plan of St. Hagia Eirene in Constantinople ............................................... 91
Figure 3.18. Models for Hagia Sophia in Constantinople from Thedosius II to
Justinian the Great. .................................................................................... 92
Figure 3.19. Remains of Theodisian Hagia Sophia in Constantinople .......................... 93
Figure 3.20. “A tentative reconsruction of the Theodisian Hagia Sophia” in
Constantinople ........................................................................................... 94
Figure 3.21. Plan of Pantheon in Rome ......................................................................... 95
Figure 3.22. Section of Pantheon in Rome .................................................................... 96
Figure 3.23. Ground floor and gallery level plans of Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople ........................................................................................... 98
Figure 3.24. Imperial route from Great Palace to Hagia Sophia.................................. 101
Figure 3.25. Procession route into the Hagia Sophia ................................................... 102
Figure 4.26. Mosaic of Leo VI in Hagia Sophia .......................................................... 109
Figure 4.27. Seraphims on pendentives in Hagia Sophia. ........................................... 110
Figure 4.28. Apse mosaic, Virgin Mary and Child Jesus in Hagia Sophia.................. 111
Figure 4.29. Mosaic of Virgin Mary, Constantine and Justinian in Hagia Sophia ...... 112
Figure 4.30. Empress Zoe and Empress Eirene mosaics in Hagia Sophia................... 114
Figure 4.31. The gravestone of Dandolo in the south gallery of Hagia Sophia ........... 115
Figure 4.32. St. Mark’s Basilica and Doge’s Palace in Venice ................................... 117
Figure 4.33. Deesis Mosaic in Hagia Sophia ............................................................... 118
Figure 4.34. Mihrab and minbar of Hagia Sophia ....................................................... 122
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Since the emergence of an urban way of living, religious buildings were among
the most important structures in towns because they were seen as origins of sacredness
and protected through centuries. In addition to their sanctity, major religious buildings
have always reflected their epoch’s highest level of architectural achievement and these
buildings have differentiated themselves from the other buildings of settlements with
their direct reflection of changes in cultural and construction practices. Instead of
destroying these most prominent monuments, changing civilizations and different
cultures took care of and kept them alive by the aid of different interventions. This
resulted in a long life as part of a continuously changing urban setting.
Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is such a building that continuously transformed with
its changing urban context. The building has received different cultural influences by
passing through essential reconstruction periods several times in its history. In each of
these, Hagia Sophia has never lost its importance. On the contrary, the building has
always remained in use and has been maintained carefully by all civilizations. During
transformation periods, not only Hagia Sophia but also its neighborhood have
transformed synchronously. The settlement itself transformed from the Greek colony of
Byzantion to the Roman Byzantium, then to the imperial capitals of Constantinople and
Konstantiniyye, and finally to the world city Istanbul.
Therefore, in this thesis, Hagia Sophia is studied in its urban context, especially
in the Historic Peninsula, in order to reveal the type and pace of transformation in urban
and building scale to understand a single monument as part of a larger city. This focus
has been defined on the basis of a tendency observed in Hagia Sophia studies to handle
the building as a single monument focusing on its architectural and ornamental details,
without a comprehensive analysis of the relation between Hagia Sophia and its urban
context.
1
1.1. Conceptual Framework
Handling monuments in their contexts is, in fact, a popular approach in

architectural and especially urban studies, however, without a consensus on the exact
meaning of the term. Therefore, it may be useful to start with the well accepted lexical
meaning of context.
The term context is defined as “the circumstances that form the setting for an
event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood” and the word
originally comes from the Latin word contextus which is a combination of con
(together) and texere (to weave) in the Oxford Dictionary. 1 In other words, context
defines an interconnection between an event and its environment that makes this event
meaningful with the contribution of its environmental factors. In this thesis, the term
“event” in the description of context is taken to mean Hagia Sophia, following the
discourse that conceptualizes works of architecture as “events” and “the circumstances”
are taken as its imperial and, urban setting which help us to attribute meaning to the
Historical Peninsula to handle Hagia Sophia as an important monument which is
affected by its setting while affecting it synchronously from the first settlement in the
seventh century BC to the Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth century.
In their edited book Rethinking Architectural Historiography (2006), Arnold,
Ergut and Özkaya highlight a general tendency to handle architecture as an
“aesthetically beautiful structure” that is not affected by the passing time and criticize
this tendency with their emphasis on the importance of handling an architectural work
in its context. 2 According to Arnold, a work of architecture continuously changes
according to change in time, space and use. Thus, an architectural monument can be
thought of as a product of continuously changing time and space organization, and each
time-space transformation brings out its own product. 3 In other words, the context
definition of Arnold may be made as the changing time and space organization resulting
in a work of architecture as the end product of changing circumstances in time.
According to Arnold, each product becomes one of numerous fragments of the (con)text
which can be read in numerous ways in a palimpsest process.
1
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/context
2
Dana Arnold, Elvan Altan Ergut, and Belgin Turan Özkaya, eds., Rethinking Architectural
Historiography (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), xv.
3
Arnold, Rethinking Architectural Historiography, 7.
2
The palimpsest analogy used by Arnold constitutes one of the most important
starting points of this thesis. In the Oxford Dictionary palimpsest is defined as “the
manuscript or piece of writing material on which later superimposed on effaced earlier
writing.” 4 In a preliminary presentation of this research, “beauty” and “palimpsest”
concepts have been determined as keywords and handled via the Japanese philosophy
Wabi-Sabi. 5
In his article ‘Time Perspectives, Palimpsest and the Archaeology of Time’
(2007), the British archaeologist Geoff Bailey adopts the idea to differentiate different
types of archaeological remains by five types of palimpsest: true palimpsests,
cumulative palimpsests, spatial palimpsests, temporal palimpsests and palimpsests of
meaning. In all these types of palimpsests, Bailey points to the danger in a permanent
deletion of the past, and also to the opportunity to find traces of all time periods with
their own characteristics overlapped on the latter due to the palimpsest effect in a
continual process. 6 The following categorization will be used in the remainin part of this
thesis to interpret the imperial, urban and building scale data on Hagia Sophia and its
context.
As the first type, true palimpsest is defined as a complete or wide deletion of the
former traces of earlier activities on a site and emergence of a new layer. 7 According to
Bailey, as a result of a successional use, the final function of an area may be completely
differentiated from its first use and, since the traces of the earlier activities are
completely deleted, Bailey emphasizes on a deceptive approach on thinking that the full
history of a site could be understood from its uppermost layer.
Secondly, Bailey mentions cumulative palimpsest which keeps the earlier traces
and the new layer of a site together at the same time. While the older layer retains its
characteristics, it is integrated with the new layer inseparably and they become
functional together on the uppermost layer of a site. The cumulative palimpsest is
defined as “one in which the successive episodes of deposition, or layers of activity,
remain superimposed one upon the other without loss of evidence, but are so re-worked
and mixed together that it is difficult or impossible to separate them out into their
4
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/palimpsest
5
This part of the thesis has been presented earlier at the 3rd IAPS-CSBE Culture and Space Symposium
which was held on 27-28 November 2012 with the theme of “Istanbul as a palimpsest city and
imperfection” in reference to the Japan Wabi philosophy. (Taraz, 2013).
6
Geoff Bailey, “Time Perspectives, Palimpsests and the Archaeology of Time,” Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007): 203.
7
Bailey, “Time Perspectives, Palimpsests and the Archaeology of Time,” 203.
3
original constituents.” Bailey emphasizes on the unseparable integration of cumulative
palimpsest and compares it to the true palimpsest. While the traces of the earlier layers
are completely or widely disappeared and it is easy to distinguish the uppermost layer in
true palimpsest, Bailey emphasizes on a harmony between the earlier traces and the
uppermost layer which makes it impossible to distinguish the uppermost layer from the
precedent layers in a cumulative palimpsest. 8
A spatial palimpsest constitutes the third type and is handled as “a variant of the
cumulative palimpsest.” 9 In the spatial palimpsest, certain activities and materials which
have their own characteristics are seen in different geographical locations. In other
words, Bailey defines spatial palimpsest as different sites which are located in different
geographical regions and have several characteristics in common functionally or
materially. As the most important difference, while the cumulative palimpsest occurs in
the same site, the spatial palimpsest is seen in different geographic locations.
Fourthly, Bailey explains the temporal palimpsest as “an assemblage of
materials and objects that form part of the same deposit but are of different ages and life
spans.” 10 While different traces are mixed in different episodes in the cumulative
palimpsest, temporal palimpsest consists of materials and traces dating to the different
periods but stays in use as the constituents of the same episode.
As the last type, Bailey defines the palimpsest of meaning as “the succession of
meanings acquired by a particular object, or group of objects, as a result of different
uses, contexts of use and associations to which they have been exposed from the
original moment of manufacture to their current resting place, whether in the ground, a
museum, a textbook, an intellectual discourse, or indeed as objects still in circulation
and use.” According to Bailey, modifications and transformations may have resulted in
change in the earlier meaning of an object and handling this object in its context in
relation to its surrounding objects may be helpful to attribute true meaning to the
uppermost use with the help of the palimpsest of meaning. 11 In this respect, Bailey’s
classification of palimpsest is useful for this study in explaining the variation in
continual transformation in urban and building scale.
8
9
10
11
4
In his book The Architecture of the City (1982), Aldo Rossi handles cities as
continual construction processes in a larger scale. 12 While certain traces are transformed
according to the changing context, some of them remain unchanged and stay in use as
the oldest witnesses of the passing time during the continual growth of a city. 13 These
traces can be seen physically in the architectural elements of the city and, in this way,
the architecture of the city emerges as a visible connection between the past and the
present day of the city.
According to Rossi, urban studies lack such a point of view of handling the
architectural elements as living witnesses of the historical past of their cities. Rossi
criticizes the general tendency of handling monuments as single structures disconnected
from their context. To emphasize the importance of placing single structures in their
own contexts, Rossi suggests an “analytical method” and uses the term “urban artifact”
to describe architectural works in a holistic view including not only single structures but
also their relationships with their urban history, geography and the daily life of the
city. 14 In this way, Rossi puts forward an interdisciplinary perspective on urban studies
to be conducted by different fields such as history, history of architecture and sociology.
According to Rossi, while larger-scale studies can be used to analyze the social,
political and economical circumstances, in the narrower scale, architectural and
topographical studies may be useful to combine building scale data into the urban
context to constitute a holistic view about the architecture of the city. 15 From this point
of view, the context definition of Rossi may be made as changing social, political and
economical circumstances that resulted in a change in the architecture of a city.
While the growth of the city continues steadily, some urban artifacts lose their
functions and disappear in the city in time. As Bailey mentioned, a palimpsestic process
may result in a permanent deletion of the past and in this respect, Rossi’s approach on
disappearing artifacts in the urban context shows parallelism with Bailey’s palimpsest
understanding. According to Rossi, cities consist of residential areas and monuments as
primary urban artifacts. In time, these urban artifacts are affected from the change in
context and transform. However transformation process of the residential areas and
monumental buildings differ from each other. While dwelling function of residential
areas remain unchanged as they transform physically in time, on the contrary,
12
Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (Cambridge: Oppositions Books The MIT Press, 1982), 21.
13
Rossi, The Architecture of the City, 21.
14
15
5
monumental buildings remain unchanged physically and their function is transformed
according to change in context.
Rossi calls these monuments as important permanent elements and advocates the
idea that these monuments exist as symbolic artifacts of their changing contexts.
According to Rossi, monuments are continually transforming elements in the urban
layout and their existence continues functionally or physically. Although some
monuments lose their functions and continue their existence as physical artifacts, their
value never diminishes and the major reason of this continuity is derived from the
monuments which bear the traces of the historical past of their cities. These monuments
are defined as art-works by Rossi and become characteristic elements of their urban
contexts. Thus, they distance from being architectural buildings and become urban
artifacts. 16
While Arnold emphasizes on the fact that nothing remains unchanged and adopts
itself to the changing circumstances in time, Rossi focuses on monuments as persistent
elements of cities and handles context as changing social, political and economical
circumstances. So, in both Arnold’s and Rossi’s approaches that argue architecture as
changing through changes in time, context reveals as the key determinant to understand
the work and Bailey’s approach may be useful to understand the process of change that
is described by both with the analogy of palimpsest.
In this thesis, the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul is studied as the urban context of
Hagia Sophia with reference to Arnold and Rossi and, Hagia Sophia is handled as a
continuously transforming architectural monument that has remained visible through its
newer urban and physical setting in a palimpsestic process. The data about the context
of Hagia Sophia is gained from the physical traces of the architectural monuments
which are functionless in the contemporary Historical Peninsula as the characteristics
elements of the city with reference to Rossi. To constitute a meaningful whole, this
physical data is combined with the information on changing social, economical and
political circumstances of the Historic Peninsula from the first emergence of an urban
way of living with reference to Arnold and Rossi’s approaches on context.
From this point of view, imperial context is used in this thesis to refer to
changing civilizations and the transformations that occurred in the Historic Peninsula.
Within this framework, changing religious understanding from pagan to Christianity
16
6
and then from Christianity to Islam, public entertainments and imperial ceremonies are
included in the imperial context and they are handled as important “events” that help us
to attribute meaning to the use of Hagia Sophia and its vicinity. Although the first
construction of Hagia Sophia dates back to the imperial setting of the fourth century
AD, to answer “why was Hagia Sophia built there?”, this study begins from the seventh
century BC when the first urban way of living in the Historic Peninsula emerged. In this
way, Hagia Sophia is handled as a product of a continuously changing time and space
organization in parallel with Arnold’s approach.
In addition to the imperial context, the Historical Peninsula of Istanbul is
handled as an urban context which consists of architectural works dating back to the
first emergence of an urban way of living in the peninsula. In this respect, urban context
of Hagia Sophia refers to the physical remains and is used in this thesis to define the
architectural monuments and public open spaces of the Historic Peninsula which
become the characteristic elements of the city with reference to Rossi. Besides handling
these monuments and open spaces as physical structures, their use by the public and the
imperial family, and their relationship with each other are studied to constitute an
interconnection between them and Hagia Sophia.
As the second keyword of this thesis, the palimpsest analogy is handled in
different perspectives under the light of Bailey’s palimpsest approach. The term overlap
is used in thesis to refer to the “permanent deletion” mentioned by Bailey which results
in the disappearance of the older. On the other hand, palimpsest is used to describe “the
opportunity of finding traces of all times” to define continual existence of an
architectural work in different layers that emerged in time.
In this respect, the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul is handled as consisting of
(con)textual layers of the city written in different periods and Hagia Sophia is
interpreted as one of the most important characteristic elements of Istanbul due to its
being one of the most long-lived witnesses of the passing time. In order to read Hagia
Sophia in its context, Rossi’s and Arnold’s understanding of handling the city as a
continual construction process and architectural elements as products of this continual
space-time organization in their context is integrated with Bailey’s palimpsest approach
in this thesis. In this way, the possibility of interconnection between Hagia Sophia and
its urban and imperial context is questioned.
7
1.2. Literature Review
Hagia Sophia has been on the public agenda in the past decade with a request for
its conversion back into a mosque. On newspapers and journals, there are discussions on
the necessity of the conversion, supported by historical documents whose reliability is
another discussion topic. 17 There is also popular media coverage handling Hagia Sophia
in its history, with a focus on its changing uses as a church, mosque and museum as
well as the ongoing reconstruction process of the building. 18 Additionally, there are
popular documentaries and television programs focusing on the history of Hagia Sophia
and novels, using Hagia Sophia as a location for fictional stories. 19 This popularity takes
precedence over the architectural and historical significance of Hagia Sophia as material
evidence for continual change in a world city.
In fact, because of its architectural innovations and long-lived existence, Hagia
Sophia has long been subject to academic research and there is an extensive literature
handling Hagia Sophia in different aspects by historians of art and architecture, and
lately by structural engineers. These studies can be grouped according to their focus on
Hagia Sophia’s structural characteristics 20, ornamental and legendary characteristics 21,
and those handling Hagia Sophia as a part of a certain neighborhood. 22 There are also
publications focusing on the history of Hagia Sophia 23, and on its structural details. 24
17
Toplumsal Tarih (Ç. Kafesçioğlu, 2014), Derin Tarih (M. Çelik, 2013), Cumhuriyet (Nov. 27, 2013),
Milliyet (Nov. 24, 2013), Sabah (Nov. 24, 2013), Radikal (Dec. 2, 2013), Star (Nov., 8, 2013).
18
Habertürk (May. 10, 2010), Hürriyet (Oct., 24, 2013), Radikal (Dec. 8, 2013), Milliyet (Jan., 8, 2010),
Cumhuriyet (Apr., 26, 2013).
19
Beneath the Hagia Sophia (2013), Ayasofya’nın Sırları [The Secrets of Hagia Sophia (2011)], Inferno
(2013), A Memento for Istanbul (2010).
20
Dynamic Response of Hagia Sophia Considering Cracks (Şahin, 2002), Re-evaluation of Earthquake
Performance and Strengthening Alternatives of Hagia Sophia (Kırlangıç, 2008), The Restorations of
Hagia Sophia Under the Light of Documents (Diker, 2010).
21
Zoe and Komnenian Mosaics in Hagia Sophia: A Comparative Study on Pictorial Arrangement and
the Subject (Erdihan, 2010), Legends of Hagia Sophia (Aslan, 2009).
22
Istanbul and the Monuments in the Notes of the Western Travellers which were published in English
and Turkish in the Sixteenth Century (Taşçıkar, 2002), Reconstruction of Urban Space Through the
Dialectics of Global and Local: Evolution of Urban Space in Sultanahmet-Istanbul (Gür, 1999), A
Research on the Chronological and Structural Process of Sultanahmet Square (Yıldız, 2002).
23
Üç Devirde Bir Mabed-Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia: An Edifice in Three Eras, Akgündüz, 2005),
Justinian, the Empire and the Church (Meyendorff, 1968), Justinian as a Builder (Downey, 1950),
The Latins at Hagia Sophia (Swift, 1935), The Hagia Sophia: From the Age of Justinian to the
Present (Mark and Çakmak, 1992), Hagia Sophia and the Great Imperial Mosques (Charles, 1930),
Kiliseden Müzeye Ayasofya Camii (From Church to Museum: The Mosque of Hagia Sophia,
Akgündüz and Öztürk, 2006), Justinian and his Age (Ure, 1951), Constantine the Great and the
Christian Church (Baynes, 1972), Constantine’s Churches: Symbol and Structure (Armstrong, 1974),
A History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death Justinian (Bury,
1923)
8
In this existing literature, two main tendencies come to the fore. The first is to
minimize reference to the urban context of Hagia Sophia and handle the building as a
single monument socially and physically disconnected from its urban context. Those
that relate the monument to its context, on the other hand, are limited chronologically.
As an example, among the most important recent publications, Kleinbauer and White
handle Hagia Sophia as a single structure in their book Ayasofya (2004), focusing on the
interior design, central dome, mosaics and ornamental characteristics, naturally, starting
from the period of Justinian the Great when the monument that we know today was
initially constructed. So, the initial construction phases of Hagia Sophia are not
mentioned in detail and only a very general overview of the urban context of
Constantinople is given. This deprives the authors of the possibility of reading Hagia
Sophia as a document of a continuously changing urban context from its first
construction phase onwards.
Mark and Çakmak’s Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present
(1992) is a collection of essays on the construction process of Hagia Sophia up to the
Ottoman period imperial mosque and its influences on the contemporary architecture.
The compiled essays of the book address three main questions: construction technology
of the building, its static strength and the resistance of the building for the future
environmental loadings. Because Hagia Sophia is handled as a single building, Mark
and Çakmak’s book remains incapable to consider Hagia Sophia as a continually
changing and transforming monument in its urban context, although the book is rich in
structural information on Hagia Sophia. HOW ABOUT NECİPOĞLU?
Differently, in his book Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of
Justinian’s Great Church (1988), Mainstone focuses on the past of the building from
the first construction phase to the second and then on Justinian’s great monument. Due
to the lack of evidence, Mainstone mentions the hypothetical plan scheme of the
Theodisian church via archaeological excavation reports. Besides the historical
background of Hagia Sophia, Mainstone explains structural characteristic of all
24
Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Cutler, 1966), The Mosaics of St. Sophia
at Istanbul: The Rooms above the Southwest Vestibule and Ramp (Cormack and Hawkins, 1977),
Ayasofya ve Fossati Kardeşler (Hagia Sophia and Fossati Brothers, Doğan, 2012), What is the
Appearance of Divine Sophia? (Fiene, 1989), Design and Technology in Hagia Sophia (MacDonald,
1957), The Mosaics of Hagia Sophia (Rufus, 1944), The Wells , Subterranean Passage, Tunnels and
Water Systems of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (Aygün, 2013), Ayafosya’nın Betimi (A Description of
Hagia Sophia, Mabeyinci, 2010), Hagia Sophia: New Types of Structural Evidence (Van Nice, 1948),
Hagia Sophia: A Unique Architectural Achievement of the Sixth Century (Emerson and Van Nice,
1950).
9
architectural components of the building such as domes, semi-domes, exedrea and
galleries. Yet, although, Mainstone puts forward a detailed study on the architectural
characteristics of Hagia Sophia, he handles the monument as a single structure which is
physically and socially disconnected from its vicinity. In this respect, his study is short
of handling Hagia Sophia as a transforming core in its continuously changing urban
context.
Türkoğlu’s popular book Ayasofya’nın Öyküsü (The Story of Hagia Sophia,
2002) is another source handling Hagia Sophia as a single monument. Although
Türkoğlu mentions the construction phases of Hagia Sophia, he mostly focuses on the
ornamental characteristics of the building. Also, he describes certain ceremonies
conducted in Hagia Sophia such as coronation and birthday ceremonies of emperors.
Gürşan handles Hagia Sophia similarly in her book Yapıların Efendisi: Aya Sofya’nın
Hikayesi (Master of the Monuments: The Story of Hagia Sophia 2011), focusing on the
structural details and architectural innovations. On the one hand, Gürşan and Türkoğlu
put forward a comprehensive diachronic handling of the monument and these books are
helpful for a detailed research on architectural characteristics of Hagia Sophia such as
materials and hidden meanings of mosaics. But, these books fail in constituting a
relationship between Hagia Sophia and its urban context. As an example, although
ceremonies conducted in Hagia Sophia are described in detail, there is not any
information about the procession of the emperor from his palace to the Hagia Sophia
and, so, it is hard to understand how the procession was conducted in a major urban
public space. Similarly, both books have information based on archaeological evidence
about the past of the building from the period before Justinian, but lack in the urban-
scale information about the transformation of the monument from a pioneering
Christian religious building to the imperial churchs of Constantine, Theodosius and
Justinian, then into an imperial mosque. Although they provide detailed information
about the architectural characteristics of Hagia Sophia, these books are incapable to
place the monument in a changing urban context and there is a lack of handling Hagia
Sophia as a part of the continuously transforming religious, public and political core of
Constantinople.
As to the second tendency, besides publications focusing on Hagia Sophia as a
single monument, there are a wide range of publications handling the urban context of
Hagia Sophia. But these studies focus on the urban context of the building via single
monuments in the immediate vicinity, without interconnecting them in the public space
10
to compose a general urban picture of the city. 25 Also, there are archaeological reports
focusing on Hagia Sophia and the monuments of the immediate vicinity individually. 26
These reveal that there actually exist sufficient publications that can provide
contextual information about Hagia Sophia in imperial, urban, neighborhood, and
building scale. However, these have rarely been made use of for a cross-reading with
research in building scale.
Freely’s Istanbul the Imperial City (1998) is one source that focuses on the
urban transformation of the city as the capital city of Eastern Roman Empire and then as
of Ottoman Empire. In his book, Freely provides comprehensive information about the
public and social life of Constantinople and supports his narrative with maps, drawings
and miniatures. In this respect, Freely puts forward an extensive knowledge about the
history of Constantinople from seventh century BC as a Greek colony up to the Turkish
Republican city, and uses historical data to constitute a detailed research on the social
transformation of the city. Besides urban change, the imperial transformation of
Constantinople is analyzed in political and ideological aspects. However, although
Freely provides detailed information about the history of Constantinople, it is hard to
determine the role of Hagia Sophia in this historical progress and continuous public and
imperial change. Although the building is handled as one of the most important
monuments of the city, the change in its use as resulting from the social and political
transformation is not given much emphasis.
More comprehensive information in this regard comes from Krautheimer (1983),
Müller-Wiener (2007), Erkal (1995) and Woodrow (2001). Krauthemier compares three
important capitals of the late antiquity Rome, Constantinople and Milan in Three
25
The Urban and Architectural Evolution of the Istanbul Divanyolu: Urban Aesthetics and Ideology in
Ottoman Town Building (Cerasi, 2005), Istanbul Yedi Tepede On Yedi Gezi (Seventeen Trips on the
Seven Hills of Istanbul, Özkök, 2010), The Architectural Heritage of Istanbul and the Ideology of
Preservation (Altınyıldız, 2007), The Urban Image of the Late Antique Constantinople (Bassett,
2006), The Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate (Mango, 2000), The Urban
Evolution of Latin Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life (Matschke, 2001),
Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople (Berger, 2000), From the Hippodrome to the Reception
Halls of the Great Palace: Acclamations and Dances in the Service of Imperial Ideology (Pitarakis,
2013).
26
Hagia Sophia, Istanbul: Preliminary Report of a Recent Examinations of the Structure (Emerson and
van Nice, 1943), Second Report upon the Excavations carried out in and near the Hippodrome of
Constantinople in 1928 (Casson, 1929), Istanbul, Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors. Second
Report (Rice, 1961), Notes on the Archaeology of St. Sophia at Constantinople: The Green Marble
Bands on the Floor (Majeska, 1978), Byzantine Archaeological Findings in Istanbul During the Last
Decade (Tunay, 2001), Archaeogeophysical Studies in the Sultanahmet –Blue- Mosque (Evren, 2012),
Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos (Bassett, 1996), The Antiquities in
the Hippodrome of Constantinople (Bassett, 1991), The Monument of Porphyrius in the Hippodrome
at Constantinople (Vasiliev, 1948).
11
Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics (1983) and handles important monuments
in their urban context. He analyzes their political and ideological roles in these cities,
focusing on fourth and fifth centuries. Although Krautheimer relates the social and
political transformations of these cities to their most important monuments, the period
of the study involving the fourth and fifth centuries remains incapable to make a
comprehensive analysis of the reflections of transformations in Constantinople on Hagia
Sophia since the monument as we know today was not yet constructed then. Although
Hagia Sophia is handled as an important monument, Krautheimer does not focus on the
building as the imperial religious core and its effective role in transforming the public
and political life of the city via ceremonies or its mosaics.
In his book Istanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası: 17. Yüzyıl Başlarına Kadar
Byzantion Konstantinopolis-Istanbul (Historical Topography of Istanbul, 2007), Müller-
Wiener offers a general overview about the transformation of the city, particularly the
Historic Peninsula, from the sixth century BC to the seventeenth century based on
archeological surveys. Different building types are analyzed diachronically from their
first construction onwards, with the help of maps showing the distribution of
monuments in the city. Similarly, in his book Istanbul Bir Kent Tarihi: Bizantion,
Konstantinopolis, İstanbul (History of Istanbul: Byzantion, Constantinople, Istanbul,
2004), Kuban outlines three fundamental periods for Istanbul, examining Byzantion,
Constantinople and Istanbul with their own characteristics and offers a historical
narrative of the transformation of the city from the capital of Roman and later Ottoman
Empires to a megapol in the Turkish Republican period based on historical search.
Although monuments are described in detail on their own, their role in the public life of
the city and changing uses according to the transformations of the city remain short to
correlate buildings and their use in the city in both publications. Additionally,
inconsistencies reveal in cross-evaluating the historical information given by Kuban
through superimposition over maps provided by Müller-Wiener. Such presentation of
archaeological and historical evidence as unified in period-maps is the strongest aspect
of Müller-Wiener’s approach from the contextual point of view.
To understand Hagia Sophia and its immediate vicinity as part of an imperial
organization, Erkal’s master’s thesis Constantinopolis: A Study on the City of
Constantinople as the Artifice of Constantine the Great’s Imperial Project (1995) is
more useful in this respect. Erkal focuses on the re-foundation phase of Constantinople
between 324-330 and analyzes Constantinople as a small-scale model of Rome,
12
revealing continuities and discontinuities in the imperial scale. Antonia Woodrow’s
doctoral thesis Imperial Ideology in Middle Byzantine Court Culture: The Evidence of
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s de ceremoniis (2001) in a way completes Erkal’s
analysis by investigating the role of imperial ceremonies in the tenth century conducted
in the Historical Peninsula including Hagia Sophia. The latter dissertation mainly uses
the most important written evidence for the period, de ceremoniis of Procopius, to
analyze the physical environment in the light of the political and religious
transformation of the city.
These two tendencies in the existing literature, of handling Hagia Sophia as a
single building disconnected from its context and in its immediate neighborhood
without relating it with the other major monuments in the area and the larger public
space, have provided insight for this thesis to approach Hagia Sophia as a living and
continuously transforming monument in a living urban environment. On the basis of
existing literature on the Historic Peninsula and Hagia Sophia, it is aimed to overcome
the shortcomings of these two tendencies to reveal an interrelation between building
scale changes in Hagia Sophia and physical and cultural transformations in its larger
context by reading the physical and cultural continuities and discontinuities in the urban
and monumental palimpsest we have today to decipher the palimpsestic process.
1.3. Scope and Outline
This survey’s period is determined as from the first urban settlement in the
Historic Peninsula in the seventh century BC up to the Ottoman conquest in the
fifteenth century because the life of the monument under Ottoman and Turkish
Republican rule deserves another much comprehensive research which could not be
handled here due to the time constraints and necessity of a different methodology
regarding the Ottoman and Turkish Republican period sources.
This study consists of four chapters. In the first chapter, the extensive literature on
Hagia Sophia is studied partially to reveal a lack in handling Hagia Sophia as a
continuously transforming monument in its physical and cultural context. Then the
metaphor of palimpsest is highlighted in a conceptual framework for a reading of available
data in this vein. The methodology of this reading is summarized under a separate heading.
13
In the second chapter, in order to handle Hagia Sophia as a synchronously
transforming part of a continually changing urban texture, settlement history of the
Historic Peninsula of Istanbul up to the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople is studied
for a better understanding of the reasons that brought out Hagia Sophia as an imperial
monument through the ages. Freely (1998), Erkal (1995), Kuban (2004) and Müller-
Wiener (2007) are used as main sources to construct a chronological overview about the
urban context of Hagia Sophia.
In the third chapter, the construction of Hagia Sophia is studied in its immediate
vicinity via the most important public and administrative buildings and open spaces to
understand the monument in a transforming social and political urban context. The
outcome has been interpreted as a true palimpsestic process since the traces and remains
of the studied period has dominated over the preceding. In order to do this, the cities of
Rome, Venice and Bursa as well as predecessors and antecedents of early Christian
churches are studied as models for and on Constantinople and Hagia Sophia. Then, the
imperial ceremonies are studied to understand the role of Hagia Sophia in the public and
administrative life at the religious core of the city. The role of monuments in the
immediate vicinity of Hagia Sophia, and of mosaics inside the building as important
nodes through the ceremonies, as well as their use in the urban context is studied to
make a link between Hagia Sophia and its superior role as the core of the city. Also,
these monuments located in the immediate vicinity of Hagia Sophia are studied to
understand shifting centres of the Historic Peninsula regarding the administrative,
religious and public use of Hagia Sophia and its vicinity in the neighborhoods scale. In
this chapter, in addition to the publications of Freely (1998), Erkal (1995), Kuban
(2004) and Müller-Wiener (2007); Macdonald (1982), Woodrow (2001) and Kleinbauer
(2004) are used as main sources with the articles of Vasiliev (1948), Armstrong (1974),
Ousterhout (1990), Berger (2013) and Pitarakis (2013).
The conclusion chapter begins with the regression period of the Eastern Roman
Empire in the sixth century and continues with the Latin domination in the thirteenth
century to understand the changing urban context of the city during the difficult times of
the empire. Then, the Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth century is studied to understand
the transformations occurred in both urban and building scale and it is aimed to reveal a
correlation between Hagia Sophia and its urban context. These transformation in urban
and building scale are best understood in terms of a cumulative palimpsest in which it is
not easy to distinguish earlier and later periods.
14
Lastly, the data on the settlement history and the neighborhood scale
information are cross-read to understand the palimpsestic process in building and urban
scale to reveal continuities and discontinuities that constitute the essential value of
Hagia Sophia as an architectural masterpiece. This renders the monument as a major
palimpsest of meaning that has acquired a succession of meaning as a result of different
uses, contexts of use and associations it has been exposed from its construction up to the
Ottoman conquest.
1.4. Methodology
As a methodological model for this thesis, in Mark and Çakmak’s Hagia Sophia
from the Age of Justinian to the Present (1992), Necipoğlu focuses on the Ottoman
period of Hagia Sophia in ‘The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after
Byzantium’. Necipoğlu handles Hagia Sophia as an architectural work which provides a
continuous correlation between the past and present. Necipoğlu does this by constituting
the urban picture of the new capital of Mehmed the Conqueror in reference to structures
that are not seen today, written documents of Ottoman period travelers, poets and
historians and miniatures of the Ottoman historian Matrakçı Nasuh, maps of the French
traveler Guillaume-Joseph Grelot and drawings from the Lewenklau Album.
Firstly, Necipoğlu mentions the importance of Hagia Sophia by giving examples
of such monumental buildings as the Parthenon, Great Mosque of Cordoba and
Pantheon which became architectural symbols of their epoch and remained as
monuments in the future. Then she gives a detailed study on the change in structural and
ornamental characteristics of Hagia Sophia. Necipoğlu puts forward detailed
information about the conversion of Hagia Sophia from a Christian church into an
imperial Muslim mosque, and analyzes each transformation of Christian ornaments into
Islamic details and Muslim additions such as mihrab and minarets, interpreting these
changes in the light of transformation in the urban context of Hagia Sophia. In this way,
Necipoğlu constitutes a detailed overview of building scale changes as resulting from
urban and imperial scale transformation. Even though most of the older layers are
illegible, information about them is revealed from secondary sources and written
narratives of the Ottoman Empire.
15
In addition to secondary sources, Necipoğlu uses written evidence belonging to
the epoch’s important historians and travelers in her study. For example, Necipoğlu
refers to the Ottoman historian Tursun Beg, who wrote the chronicle of the reign of
Bayezid II, the successor of Mehmed the Conqueror. Similarly, the Ottoman traveler
Evliya Çelebi’s travel notes and Cafer Çelebi’s poems are used by Necipoğlu as
important sources. While Tursun Beg’s narrative is used to describe the emperor’s life
in Konstantiniyye, Evliya Çelebi’s notes and Cafer Çelebi’s poems are used to describe
aesthetical characteristics of Hagia Sophia and to give information about epoch’s cities
outside Konstantiniyye. While Necipoğlu uses these sources, their exaggerated
narratives are not ignored regarding their reliability. Mehmed the Conqueror’s
Waqfiyyas are another group of written evidence used by Necipoğlu to give information
about the city and its important monuments such as Hagia Sophia and Fatih Complex.
Narratives of Ottoman travelers, poems and historians give information about epoch’s
social, economical and political circumstances and, in this way, Necipoğlu’s context
shows parallelism with Rossi’s context definition. The study of Necipoğlu begins with
the Ottoman conquest in 1453 and ends in 1934 with the transformation of Hagia
Sophia into a Turkish Republican museum.
While the conceptual framework and the literature review are used to formulate
the main research question and constitute the conceptual approach of this thesis,
Necipoğlu’s study is used to understand the method of handling the same monument in
its context in a different period. In order to do this, Necipoğlu’s method which
combines the urban and building scale data with visual documents is used to handle
Hagia Sophia in its urban context. Building and the urban scale data are combined
focusing on the correlation between Hagia Sophia and its immediate vicinity and, in this
way, Hagia Sophia and its neighborhood is handled as a whole which is continually
changing and transforming synchronously. As Necipoğlu, written information on the
building and urban scale data are combined with maps, drawings and photographs for a
better understanding of the correlation between Hagia Sophia and its vicinity.
This thesis attempts to extend Necipoğlu’s approach to the period before the
Ottoman conquest. As an important difference from Necipoğlu, while she constitutes
her study on the basis of written evidences belonging to the Ottoman travelers,
historians and poets; and her contextual data comes from these primary sources; due to
the scope of this thesis, it is impossible to reach such written evidence belonging to the
Roman and Byzantine periods of the city with a few exceptions such as de ceremoniis
16
written by Procopius, who was the one of the Macedonian dynasty emperors of the
Byzantine Empire in the tenth century. Therefore, the physical remains in the urban
setting of the Historic Peninsula are used to gain information about the social,
economical and political circumstances of the Roman and Byzantine period of the city
with reference to Rossi. In this way, the urban setting consisting of physical remains is
used as source of information to constitute the urban context of Hagia Sophia. This is
done in three different scales: urban, neighborhood and building scale.
Firstly Constantinople is handled in the urban scale and the growth of the city is
analyzed for traces of its public, administrative and religious cores. For this purpose,
general surveys are combined with archaeological data in building and neighborhood
scale.
To gain neighborhood scale data, Hagia Sophia and its vicinity consisting of such
elements as the hippodrome, palace and squares are studied in order to reveal the
relationship between the major public, administrative and religious buildings of the city.
These buildings correspond to Rossi’s monuments which stayed in use with a change in
their function in different contexts. Coronation ceremonies and public entertainments
such as the chariot races are handled as important imperial events that make the urban
context of Hagia Sophia and its immediate vicinity a social setting with the participation
of the public and the imperial family. In this way, urban and neighborhood scale studies
on Hagia Sophia and the Historic Peninsula are superimposed to reveal concurrent
transformations both in the urban context of the city and in Hagia Sophia.
In the building scale, construction phases of Hagia Sophia, its architectural and
liturgical characteristics, and processions conducted in the building are studied to
understand the effect of changing urban and imperial context on Hagia Sophia ato see
whether there was any correlation between the change in the urban context and the
building; and whether the building’s presence may have played any part in the decisions
taken in the neighborhood and urban scale.
To answer these questions, a cross-reading of urban, neighborhood and building
scale data is made, and mainly secondary sources are used throughout this thesis. While
a chronological history of the city and Hagia Sophia is given, certain periods such as the
pagan Roman period of the city dating from the second century AD could not be
completed due to the lack of written and archaeological evidence.
As Necipoğlu has constituted her study by revealing invisible traces of the Early
Ottoman period of the city which could not be seen today with the help of written
17
evidence belonging to the Ottoman historians, travelers and poets, in a parallel vein,
drawings and maps of archaeological finds are used in this thesis in addition to the
written evidence to gain urban, building and neighborhood scale data. It is aimed to
reveal the meaning of some traces dating to the earlier periods of the city via the cross-
reading of different scaled data, and then, these traces are overlapped with the help of
maps to reveal the palimpsestic process of the Historic Peninsula.
In order to do this, all maps are given as layers on transparent print-outs to
superimpose different periods of the city. In chronological maps, it is aimed to represent
historical periods of the city from the first settlement to the Ottoman conquest
[Appendix A- Chronological Maps of the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul (7th c. BC-15th
c. AD)] and, palimpsestic maps are used to show continuity and changes that occurred
in the urban context which constitute the backbone of this thesis [Appendix B-
Palimpsest Maps of the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul (7th c. BC-15th c. AD)].
Both chronological and palimpsest maps are given as transparencies in
appendices to ease tracing of the overlapping palimpsestic layers of the city. In addition
to the visual appendix, a chronological order of civilizations and emperors who ruled
the city from the first settlement in the seventh century BC to the Ottoman conquest in
the fifteenth century is given in another appendix to enlighten chronological
transformations of the city and to clarify the historical narrative in the study. [Appendix
C- Chronological List of the Emperors].
Also, earlier churches are studied to compare Hagia Sophia with its predecessors
and plans of these churches are studied via their architectural characteristic such as size
and location as part of a building complex. Same-scaled plans of these earlier churches
are given in an appendix to ease comparing these buildings with Hagia Sophia
[Appendix D- Early Christian Churches (4th-5th c.)].
Finally, the ornamental characteristics and mosaics are investigated on site and
the route of the emperor used during the imperial ceremonies in Hagia Sophia is
documented with contemporary photographs taken by the author. In this way, it is
aimed to contextualize the verbally described ceremonial route of the emperor in the
building scale. The route then serves as a contextual whole to interpret individual
mosaic remains as parts of a larger palimpsest. As the last appendix, the
superimposition of this route and mosaics are given in a scheme to ease understanding
the imperial route in Hagia Sophia. [Appendix E- Superimposition of the Imperial
Route and the Mosaics of Hagia Sophia]
18
As conclusion, the data on the building and urban context of Hagia Sophia is
cross-read to reveal continuities and discontinuities that make Hagia Sophia an
important part of a larger context and under the light of these data, the Historic
Peninsula of Istanbul is revealed as a palimpsest context consisting of the older and
newer traces of the past. To support the written evidence on the building and urban
scale data, maps are used to ease understanding of the co-existence of the older and
newer traces of the Historic Peninsula from the first emergence of an urban way of
living in the seventh century BC to the Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth century.
19
CHAPTER-2
SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF THE HISTORIC

PENINSULA OF ISTANBUL: FROM THE FOUNDATION
OF GREEK BYZANTION (7TH C. BC) TO OTTOMAN
KONSTANTINIYYE (15TH C. AD)
In this chapter, the settlement structure of the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul is

analyzed in terms of its macroform, transportation network and monumental public core
from the first emergence of an urban way of living in the seventh century BC to the
Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth century to handle Hagia Sophia as a synchronoulsy
transforming part of a continually changing urban context from its construction in the
fourth century onwards. Each of these are followed by perios of rebuilding and
monumentalization during the reigns of Theodosius, Justinian and Basileios. Also,
Rome, Venice and Bursa are studied as as the antecedents and predecessors of
Constantinople.
The chapter is organized chronologically, starting with the Greek, and Roman
and continuing with the Byzantine and Ottoman periods. Each oeriod is analyzed
according to the same parameters of urban macroform, infrastructural networks and
maim public spaces that reveals three main periods of reconstructuring during the reign
of Septimus Severus, Constantine the Great and Mehmed the Conqueror.
In this chapter, it is aimed to reveal reasons that brough out Hagia Sophia as an
imperial monument in its changing urban context and Freely’s Istanbul the Imperial
City (1998), Erkal’s “Constantinopolis: A Study on the City of Constantinople as the
Artifice of Constantine the Great’s Imperial Project” (1995), Kuban’s İstanbul Bir Kent
Tarihi: Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, İstanbul (2004) and Müller-Wiener’s İstanbul’un
Tarihsel Topografyası: 17. Yüzyıl Başlarına Kadar Byzantion-Konstantinopolis-
İstanbul (2007) are used as main sources to constitute the chronological study of the
Historic Peninsula and the urban context of Hagia Sophia.
20
2.1. The Greek Byzantion: The First Settlement on the Acropolis and
the Coastal Stretch (7th c. BC-AD 2nd c.)
Due to its advantageous geographical location between the Mediterranean,

Black Sea and Anatolia, and on hills, which was an important advantage for defending
the settlement, the site of contemporary Istanbul was settled continuously from the early
history onwards. Contemporary Ambarlı, Haramidere, Ağaçlı, Pendik and Tuzla are
among the sites that provide archaeological evidence for settlement from the Neolithic
age onwards (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1. Neolithic settlements of Istanbul

(Source: Kuban, 2004, 15.)
The first urban settlements at the site were two Greek colonies established on the
two sides of the Bosphorus in 7th century BC. 1 Both settlements were founded by
settlers from Megara, the first with the name of Chalcedon on the Asian side and the
second as Byzantion on the European side of the Bosphorus. Both settlements were
surrounded with city walls. 2
As a result of its location at the junction of two important routes, i.e. the land
route between Europe and Asia and the channel between the Black Sea and the
1
Doğan Kuban, İstanbul Bir Kent Tarihi: Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, İstanbul (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı
Yurt Yayınları, 2004), 15.
2
Wolfgang Müller-Wiener, İstanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası: 17. Yüzyıl Başlarına Kadar Byzantion-
Konstantinopolis-İstanbul (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2007), 16.
21
Mediterranean, Istanbul has always been an important commercial port. The historically
documented ports of Neorion and Prosforion of Byzantion are accepted as the first ports
of the city and that served as the most important places for the sea commerce until the
reign of Constantine the Great (306-337). In the lack of archaeological evidence they
are assumed to have been located on the north part of today’s Sarayburnu (Figure 2.2). 3
In addition to the commercial importance, cereal transfer and slave-trade were the major
source of income in Byzantion and the ports were the most important centers of this
trade. 4 So, the ports of the city were important areas for both commerce and the navy,
and were protected with chains and towers. 5
Within the boundaries of city walls, Byzantion was enhanced as a Greek city and
as a result of the location of Neorion and Prosforion, this enlargement took place near
6
these two ports at the skirts of the highest area of the town called Bosphorus Acra or
Acropolis. To respond to shelter need of naval forces and storage need of sea
commerce, Strategion was built on the west side of the Acropolis. 7 On the south side of
the Strategion, Thrakion near the city gate served as the entrance square of the
settlement 8 and the Agora of Byzantion was placed on the south side of the gate. Also,
a theatre on the north and a stadium on the west side of the Acropolis were built during
the extension of the city. 9
3
Wolfgang Müller-Wiener, Bizans’tan Osmanlı’ya İstanbul Limanları (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt
Yayınları, 1998), 5.
4
Müller-Wiener, Bizans’tan Osmanlı’ya İstanbul Limanları, 3.
5
6
Namık Günay Erkal, “Constantinopolis: A Study on the City of Constantinople as the Artifice of
Constantine the Great’s Imperial Project” (doctoral thesis, METU, 1995), 16.
7
Erkal, “Constantinopolis: A Study on the City of Constantinople as the Artifice of Constantine the
Great’s Imperial Project,” 16.
8
9
Müller-Wiener, İstanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası: 17. Yüzyıl Başlarına Kadar Byzantion-
Konstantinopolis-İstanbul, 18.
22
Figure 2.2. Byzantion, 7th c. BC
(Source: Müller-Wiener, 2007, 17.)
In addition to these, several temples such as those dedicated to Hera, Pluto, Zeus
Ourios and sacred areas of Apollon and Athena Ekbasia among others were built,
among the most important public spaces of Byzantion. The location of these temples
and sacred areas would seem to overlap with the legendary “Seven Hills of Istanbul”.
For example, the first hill now under Topkapı Palace was designated as the Acropolis of
Byzantion, and Athena Ekbasia sacred area and Artemis, Aphrodite and Poseidon
temples were other buildings that affirm to the religious importance of the area. In the
same way, the Greek Hera and Pluto temples define another hill of the city. (Appendix
B)
To summarize, from 7th century BC up to the Roman conquest of the city in AD
196, as a result of living by the sea, important buildings and public spaces of the town
were located near the coastal stretch between the two ports of the city in the north and
the Acropolis. The Acropolis was the most important area of the Greek Byzantion due
to its location there of the most important religious buildimgs of the city. (Appendix A)
23
2.2. The Roman Byzantium: New Center of Urban Life Near the
Hippodrome (2nd c.-4th c.)
In 196, Byzantion was sieged by the Roman army with the orders of the Roman
emperor Septimus Severus (193-211) and the name of the city was changed from
Byzantion to Byzantium. This war resulted in significant damage on the city walls and
important buildings. 10 After the conquest of the city, reconstruction was begun on the
orders of the emperor. During the re-foundation of the town, city walls were enlarged to
the west side of today’s Sarayburnu. Neorion and Prosforion Ports which were located
outside of the earlier city boundaries were included in the new walls of Byzantium. The
most important sacred areas of Greek Byzantion were presumably respected in this
enlargement, through the construction of Rhea and Tyke Temples on the hill with the
Greek Hera and Pluto Temples. Unfortunately the current state of research on the
religious landscape of Roman Byzantium is insufficient to provide a fuller picture.
However, in a map recently published by Çakmak and Freely, it is clear that the most
important temples of the city were gathered on the top of the Acropolis hill as in the
Greek period (Figure 2.3). 11
10
Konstantinopolis-İstanbul, 168
11
Çakmak and Freely, İstanbul’un Bizans Anıtları, 8.
24
Figure 2.3. Temples of Severan City of Byzantium
(Source: Çakmak and Freely, 2005, 8.)
The Severan enlargement of the city shows similarities with the construction
activities in Leptis Magna, which was the hometown of the Emperor Septimus Severus,
with respect to the length of the colonnaded streets and the importance given to their
connection to public squares. While Byzantium was expanding from Acropolis to the
west and south side of the settlement, during the reconstruction, the earlier settlement’s
important parts such as squares were preserved, and new construction activities
concentrated on the south side of the old city (Figure 2.4). 12
12
Great’s Imperial Project,” 21, 23.
25
Figure 2.4. Byzantium, 2nd c. AD
(Source: Müller-Wiener, 2007, 25)
The Portcio of Septimus Severus was constructed as the main route of the town
and the Agora of Byzantion was preserved and transformed it into Tetrastoon Square
which was surrounded by columns. 13 Construction of a hippodrome was started as the
most important public area and became an inseparable part of the entertainment life of the
city. 14 These routes, public spaces and the hippodrome become characteristic elements of
the urban context and stayed in use with their public function from their first construction
in the Roman period of the city to the Ottoman domination. (Appendix B)
Also, the Augusteion Square was built as the meeting area on the north side of
the hippodrome. The construction of the Baths of Zeuksippos on the site of the Herakles
and Zeus Hippios Temples, near the Augusteion Square, was begun on the orders of
Septimus Severus but could not be completed. 15 The name of the bath comes from the
13
14
Kuban, İstanbul Bir Kent Tarihi: Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, İstanbul, 18.
15
26
Olympian god Zeus and the sacred cavalier of the Thrakia religion in relation the users
of the bath as horseman racers and spectators. 16 In addition to the hippodrome, basilike
stoa at the north side of the hippodrome was built during the Severeran reconstruction.
Due to the lack of the information about temples, the religious core of the Byzantium
cannot be detailed further currently.
Shortly, along with the Roman domination, the urban extension of the town
continued toward the west and south parts of contemporary Sarayburnu, with extended
city walls and the urban core shifted as a result of new buildings to the south part of the
city. With this shift and the new Severan Portico, the public importance of the Acropolis
diminished and Byzantium’s new ceremonial and meeting areas in the neighborhood of
the hippodrome defined the new character of urban life in the city (Appendix A).
2.3. Refoundation as the Capital of Roman Empire by Constantine the

Great (4th c.)
In 324, Byzantium became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire with the
orders of the Emperor Constantine (306-337) and the name of the re-structured town
was changed from Byzantium to Constantinople. The existing settlement area became
insufficient and the new walls of Constantinople were constructed 15km toward the
west of the Severan walls. 17 In this way, the new town was extended from the current
Atatürk Bridge of Haliç along the Marmara shore. 18 As a result of the enlargement of
the city, Neorion and Prosforion Ports remained incapable and two new ports were
constructed. Kontaskalion and Eleutherios ports were lined up from east to west on the
south shores of the city (Figure 2.5).
16
17
18
27
Figure 2.5. Ports of Constantinople
According to the change in the city size, the public, religious and administrative
core of the Severan city became off-centric but retained its central function since
Constantine planned his construction activities through a main principle. 19 Instead of
determining a new center for the expanded city, the Severan Byzantium was taken as
the main core for Constantine’s new city, and many buildings such as the hippodrome
and baths were preserved. 20 Additional new monuments were built with the orders of
Constantine to show the new imperial power to the whole world (Appendix B).
Berger (2000) divides the street layout of Constantinople into three zones the
Severan’s city as the first zone dating from a period when any planned street system
19
20
28
was not available. The second corresponds to Constantine’s town which was based on a
street plan and the third is the area between the Constantinian and later city walls which
lacked regular street layout. During the reign of Theodisius II, the expanded area of the
city was not densely inhabited and consisted of unplanned newly built monasteries and
cemeteries. 21 In contrast to the first and third zones, the second shows a regular street
plan which consists of stairs as a result of the topography. In this way, the old buildings
of the Severan period and the new constructions of Constantinople were integrated with
a grid plan that consisted of right angled streets. Diagonally adjoining this system was
the planned city of Constantine from the Forum of Constantine westwards (Figure 2.6).
The Forum of Constantine was constructed at the end of the Severan Portico
with the orders of Constantine the Great who emphasized his power by the aid of his
new obelisk in the middle of this forum. 22 Known as Çemberlitaş, the Column of
Constantine served as the end point of the administrative ceremonies of the city and the
new city of Constantine the Great was dedicated by the Emperor in front of this column
in 330. The dedication ceremony was repeated annually in the Forum of Constantine
which was later ornamented with pagan and Christian statues. 23 A senate house, a
military quarter and nymphaion for wedding ceremonies were constructed near the
Forum of Constantine. 24
21
Albrecht Berger, “Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54, (2000):
162, 171.
22
23
24
29
Figure 2.6. Street Map of Constantinople
(Source: Berger, 2000, 171.)
The Mese developed from the Severan Portico, and served as the main road of
Constantinople, with two monuments on the branchroads. The first was the Milion Arch
located at the beginning of the road and the second was the Capitolium on the
bifurcation point of the Mese. 25
The Milion Arch took its reference from the Golden Milestone in Rome, which
was accepted as the zero point of the world. According to the Roman understanding, the
most important public area was the heart of the capital city and that city was the zero
point of the Roman Empire. 26 In this respect, the Forum Romanum was the core of
Rome and the Golden Milestone in the middle of this forum symbolized the zero point
of the Roman Empire and the whole world. But, with the change of the capital city of
the Empire, this zero point should be replaced in the new capital where the all roads of
25
26
30
the city ended and, so, the Milion was accepted as the new zero point of the world in
Constantinople. Also, on the north of the Mese, the Severan Tetrastoon was transformed
into a new square with a new statue from the imperial family. 27 To the southwest of the
Milion, the completion of the Severan hippodrome as the most important area for both
public celebration and imperial ceremonies was completed during the reign of
Constantine the Great.
To the southeast of the Milion, the Great Palace was constructed on the south
side of the city with supplementary buildings such as guard houses to provide the
security of Constantine the Great. The Severan hippodrome played the determining role
in the site selection for this new palace. As a Roman imperial tradition, the route the
emperor followed from the city gate to his palace had a ritualistic meaning and at the
end of the road, the palace of the emperor should provide both residence and a place
where the emperor could join the public ceremonies of the city without going outside
from his palace. Because of this, the imperial palace of the emperor was constructed
near the hippodrome which was the public heart of the city and connected with other
public buildings such as baths and important religious buildings. The construction of the
Zeuksippos Baths was completed by Constantine the Great in 330 AD. Shops were built
with the orders of Constantine the Great around the baths to provide the maintenance
and statues were erected to symbolize the power of the emperor. Built adjacent to the
Great Palace, the Zeuksippos Baths were presented to the public by the emperor as a
gift and another symbol of his power. 28
Until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the old
pagan traditions and the new religion’s regulations lived together through years with the
existing pagan temples staying in use. This co-existence of two different religious views
continued until the period of the emperor Theodosius I, known as Theodosius the Great
(379-395). 29 Nevertheless, to spread Christianity in Constantinople, numerous basilicas
and monasteries were built with the orders of Constantine. In contrast to the old pagan
traditions, these new Christian buildings were accessible to the public and served as
social places for people in addition to their religious purposes. In addition to basilicas
27
28
Great’s Imperial Project,” 93, 94, 96, 114.
29
31
and monasteries, Constantine built martirions in commemoration of people who died for
the sake of religion to affect more people.
The Church of the Holy Apostles and the Mausoleion of Constantine on the hill
earlier occupied by the Greek Hera and Pluto and later by the Roman Rhea and Tykhe
temples; and the episcopal Hagia Eirene were built during the period of Constantine the
Great. After the conversion of Constantinople into Christianity, the first Christian
building of the city, the Hagia Eirene, was added in the 4th century to north of the Great
Palace and served as the most important religious building of the city until the
construction of the first Hagia Sophia. 30 The construction of the first Hagia Sophia, then
known as Megale Eklessia or Great Church, was begun on the orders of Constantine the
Great, completed in the reign of Constantius, the son of Constantine. In this way, the
religious core of the town moved from the Greek Acropolis to the southern slopes of the
hill (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7. Constantinople in 4-7th century

30
32
In contrast to the location of Hagia Eirene near the hippodrome and the
Acropolis, the Church of the Holy Apostles was located in the west part of the city
where the Greek Hera and Pluto and Roman Rhea and Tykhe Temples were located, on
the fourth hill now occupied by the Fatih Complex. Adopting a model long employed in
the city of Rome, the emperor constructed his mausoleum near this church. In contrast
to the Roman tradition where emperors constructed their mausolea near the imperial
palace, Constantine ordered the construction of the Church of the Holy Apostles on the
highest point of the city, which was far from the administrative core of Constantinople.
Constantine’s unusual site selection for his mausoleum can be seen as a result of his
desire to be unique and different from previous emperors. 31 On the other hand, the
construction of the Church of Holy Apostles remote from the core of the city can be
interpreted as a way to offer new living areas for the increased population while
continuing the enlargement of the city. In this respect, religious buildings reveal as
important factors in transforming distant areas of the city into attractive living spaces.
Therefore, to respond to the necessities of the new inhabitants of Christian
Constantinople, the ruler class created a new charm in an unsettled area by constructing
the Church of Holy Apostles where now stands the Fatih Complex.
The Church of the Holy Apostles was described by the Roman historian
Eusebius as “a single building that was situated at the center of a porticoed courtyard”
but in the lack of archaeological evidence, there are two possible architectural
interpretations of the building. The first is accepting the building as a cruciform basilica
and the second as a rotunda. Beyond the arguments about the architectural form of the
Church of the Holy Apostles, the building was important in Constantinople as a place
for pilgrimage and a sacred spot to emphasize the divinity of Constantine the Great in
the Christian world. 32
To summarize, after being the capital of Roman Empire to the death of
Constantine the Great, the city walls were enhanced and two new ports were
constructed to respond the needs of new population of the town while Constantinople
was developed from Severan Byzantium. For example, the Mese Route was built as a
continuation of the Severan Portico and the old road’s end point was identified with the
Forum of Constantine. The south part of the town remained as the administrative core of
31
32
Great’s Imperial Project,” 135, 136, 137.
33
Constantinople and construction of the Great Palace increased the importance of the
area. Also, the construction of the Forum of Constantine created a new meeting area for
Constantinople. (Appendix A). In several of these operations, the city of Rome was
taken as model.
2.4. Christianization of the City by Theodosius the Great (4th c.-6th c.)
After the death of Constantine the Great in 337, Constantine’s three sons,
Constantius, Constantine and Constants confederated and called themselves as
Augustus. 33 After a year, the three Augusti decided to divide the administration of the
empire into two. The eastern part was ruled by Constantius and the west was ruled by
the other two brothers, but when the emperors of the west were killed, Constantius
became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire in 353 and Constantinople became the
imperial seat. 34 During the reign of Constantius, the first Hagia Sophia called Megale
Eklessia, built with the orders of Constantine the Great, opened in 360 on the north of
35
the Augusteion Square in a Roman basilical plan with timber roof. In this way,
entertainment, administration and religious functions of the city were gathered at the
neighborhood of the Great Palace. The construction of this building is the first of the
three ruptures in the history of Istanbul because the Megale Eklessia as the pioneer of
the Hagia Sophia we know today represents the final conversion of the Roman Empire
into Christianity. After the construction of the Megale Eklessia, Hagia Eirene which had
served as the cathedral of the city was devoted to Divine Peace and re-named as the
Palia Eklessia the Old Church and the new basilica, the Hagia Sophia dedicated to
Divine Widsom, was named as the Great Church. 36
After the death of Constantius in 361, Julian came to the throne as the first
emperor born in Constantinople. During his reign, two harbours, a senate house and a
library were constructed in the city. 37 The two harbours were built on the Marmara
coast and the first was called the Julian or Sophia Port, which is known as Kadırga
Harbour today, and the second was Konstaskalion Port known as Kumpkapı in
33
John Freely, Istanbul the Imperial City (London: Penguin Books, 1998), 48.
34
Freely, Istanbul the Imperial City, 48.
35
Sabahattin Türkoğlu, Ayasofya’nın Öyküsü (İstanbul: Yazıcı Basım Yayınları, 2002), 7.
36
37
Freely, Istanbul the Imperial City, 50, 51.
34
contemporary Istanbul. 38 During the reign of Julian, the Basilice Stoa became the
intellectual core of the city with surrounding buildings such as a public library, outdoor
book bazaar, law school and a courthouse. 39 Forum Bovis was constructed on the
40
southern branch of the Mese as the execution square for the city and Julian ordered
the erection of an Egyptian obelisk but it was erected during the reign of Theodosius I. 41
During the reign of Theodosius I, known as Theodosius the Great (379-395), the
Theodosius Port was constructed on the south coast of the city, as the largest harbor of
the city 42 and served for wheat import between Constantinople and Egypt. 43 The city
was enlarged and the 5.7 km Theodosian Walls were constructed beyond 1.5 km west of
the walls of Constantine the Great. 44 At the end of the construction of the Theodisian
Walls, Constantinople had seven hills in its boundaries and was divided into fourteen
regions like the city of Rome. 45
The Theodisian Walls had ten gates at intervals of twenty meters 46 and the
Golden Gate was the main entrance of the walls in Hebdomon serving as an important
gate through which the emperor entered the city after acclamation as Augustus in 379 to
be welcomed by the administrators of the city. Similarly, when the emperor returned
from a battle with victory, he used this gate as a ceremonial returning point to the city
and was welcome by the people, clergy and administrators. 47 (Figure 2.8) Also, the
Golden Gate shows similarity with Porta Triumphalis in Rome with respect to the statue
of the four elephants drawn quadriga, the chariot car, on the top. 48
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
35
Figure 2.8. Plan showing the location of the Golden Gate in Constantinople
(Source: Bardill, 1999, 693.)
The Theodosius Forum was built in the Tauri Forum to the north of the Mese on
the third hill. The distinction between these two forums is explained by the religious use
of the Tauri Forum as different from the “planned” Theodosius Forum 49 that consisted
of baths, gymnasia and porticoes. 50 The Theodosius Forum was the biggest square of
the city at that time and the Theodisian Arch was constructed on west of the forum. In
the middle, a monumental column ornamented with Theodosius’s victory reliefs was
constructed with the Emperor’s equestrian statue on top (Figure 2.9). 51 The Theodosius
Column shows similarities with the Traianus Column in the city of Rome. The Emperor
received foreign rulers in front of this column in Constantinople. 52 Later, the sculptures
of his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, were erected and Basilica Theodosiana was
constructed near this forum. 53
49
50
51
52
53
36
Figure 2.9. Theodosian City of Constantinople, 4th c.
In addition to the Golden Gate, the Egyptian obelisk (Dikilitaş), which was
ordered by the emperor Julian but erected during the reign of Theodosius in the
hippodrome is an important monument from the period of Theodosius the Great that can
be seen in Istanbul today. 54 The University of Constantinople, Capitolium, was founded
in the Basilice Stoa during the reign of Theodosius the Great and lectures were given
both in Greek and Latin including rhetoric, law and philosophy. 55
Because Theodosius I made Christianity the empire’s official religion, he was
called Theodosius the Great. 56 After entrance to Constantinople in 380, Theodosius’
religious edicts prohibited paganism in the city. In addition to the prohibition of all kind
of pagan activities such as construction of temples and religious ceremonies,
Theodosius ordered the destruction of the existing pagan buildings. 57 In this way,
change in the religious understanding of the empire resulted in demolition of the
54
55
56
57
37
physical traces of the pagan belief in the city. However, Jewish tolerance from the reign
of Julian remained and synagogues were reconstructed with the orders of Theodosius. 58
When he died in 395, Theodosius the Great was buried in the Church of the
Holy Apostles and the administration of the Roman Empire was divided into two. While
Arcadius ruled the East, Honorius ruled the West.59 During the reign of Arcadius (395-
408), his wife Eudoksia was closely involved in the administration of the Empire and
her statue was erected near the Augusteion Squre to emphasize her power. 60 In this
respect, the statue of Eudoksia may be interpreted as an important physical reflection of
the imperial context of the empire. In 404, when the Patriarch of Constantinople Ioannes
on the physical setting of its capital. Chrysostomos was sent to exile as a result of his
conflict with Empress Eudoksia, the people protested against the Empress and burned
the Megale Eklessia and the senate house. 61 After that fire, the building was
reconstructed with some innovations and opened for public in 415 with the orders of
Emperor Theodosius II.
To attract populations to the new empty area between the walls of Constantine
and the Theodisian Walls, monasteries and reservoirs were built on the order of
Theodosius II. The Notitia, the list of the monuments in Constantinople, was written at
that time and, with its monumental administrative and public buildings and safe urban
life, Constantinople was described as a model city. All the city components such as
buildings and streets were planned according to a building law which determined the
minimum height of the houses above the street, distance between two house and the
width of the streets and the construction of the city was conducted depending on these
rules. Nevertheless, as a result of the increasing population, existing buildings remained
incapable and illegal housing began near the Great Palace. 62 Bukoleon Palace was
constructed on the west of the Great Palace with the orders of Theodosius II but,
because of the construction of the private buildings near the Great Palace was prohibited
in 409, there was not any direct connection between the two palaces. 63
In 450, Theodosius II died and was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles.
After the death of Theodosius II, ten rulers came to throne and finally, Romulus
58
59
Freely, Istanbul the Imperial City, 55, 58.
60
61
62
Freely, Istanbul the Imperial City, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65.
63
38
Augustulus ruled the western Empire as the last emperor of the west. As of 476, with
the overthrow of Augustulus, the emperor in Constantinople became the sole ruler of
the Roman Empire. Up to the reign of Justinian the Great (527-565), Constantinople
was rapidly transformed both in religious and political respects. The bilingual public life
was changed and although the court and the official state language was Latin, the
empire became Greek and Christian. 64
To summarize, changing official religion of the Roman Empire into Christianity
and strict Pagan prohibition can be said as the most important change in Constantinople
during the reign of Theodosius the Great. Also, with the new street that linked
Theodosius Port, the Golden Gate and the Theodosian Column, a new ceremonial route
emerged parallel to the Mese. On the road, the biggest square of Constantinople, the
Theodosius Forum known as Beyazıt Square in contemporary Istanbul, points to the
continual use. 65 (Appendix A and B) In the meanwhile, the cosmopolitan religious life
in the city came to an end under the domination of Orthodox Christianity, which found
its physical expression in the construction of religious buildings.
2.5. Monumentalization of Constantinople by Justinian the Great (6th c.)
The reign of Justinian (527-565) is accepted as the golden age of the Eastern
Roman Empire with regard to political and civic union of the Empire and, so, the
Emperor is known as Justinian the Great. 66 During his reign, the population of
Constantinople reached 500.000 within the city walls exceeding the population of its
contemporary Rome. 67 To protect the unity of the Empire, Codex Justinian was declared
in 529 as a compilation of the Roman law. 68 Justinian the Great avoided uncontrolled
enlargement of the city and established regulations within the existing city boundaries
in the Codex Justinian. 69
Despite this attempt to protect the physical structure of the city, however, one of
the most destructive events that damaged the monumental core of the city occurred
64
Freely, Istanbul the Imperial City, 68, 69, 77, 78.
65
66
67
Rowland J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great
Church (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988), 145.
68
69
39
during the reign of Justinian within the city boundaries. The chariot teams of the
hippodrome became political parties of Constantinople in time and while the Greens
were linked to the merchants; the Blues represented the aristocracy of the city. As a
result of the conflicts between these two groups, Justinian decided to punish them and
when the government gave death penalty decision for some members of these groups,
Blues and Greens revolted in 532. The name of the riot comes from the rebelling of the
people with “nika!” shouts which means “victory”. 70 Group members and supporters
shouted for the abdication of Justinian and moved out the hippodrome to damage the
city. 71
To call the ruler’s attention to the demands of the people, the most important
buildings of the city such as the Great Palace, Hagia Sophia, Baths of Zeuksippos,
Basilice Stoa and hippodrome were badly damaged during the six day of the Nika Riot.
In the end, rioters were killed and displayed publicly in the hippodrome in ruins. 72 As it
is seen, the hippodrome became a political stage where people expressed their reaction
to the emperor. In other words, reflections of such a change in the social circumstances
may be seen in the characteristic monuments of the city and changing use of the
hippodrome may be interpreted as an important result of change in the urban context.
To repair the damaged buildings, Justinian ordered an extensive reconstruction
programme. The Great Palace, Hagia Sophia, Hagia Eirene, Church of the Holy
Apostles, Baths of Zeuksippos and the Hippodrome were restored and, most importantly
for this study, Hagia Sophia took its final form that it preserved until today. 73 The
reconstruction of Hagia Sophia occurred in an area completely cleaned as a result of the
Nika fire, 74 and conducted by the architects Anthemius and Isidorous. 75 To avoid any
destruction from future fires, Hagia Sophia was built completely out of stone and
brick, 76 and completed in 537 with a re-dedication to Divine Wisdom. 77 On the south,
the Baptisterion was the most divine building of the Hagia Sophia and served as a
shelter for people who escaped from the Nika Riot and for the homeless. 78
70
Türkoğlu, Ayasofya’nın Öyküsü, 23, 26.
71
Rüknü Özkök, İstanbul Yedi Tepede On Yedi Gezi (İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2010), 26.
72
Türkoğlu, Ayasofya’nın Öyküsü, 30.
73
74
Glanville Downey, “Justinian as a Builder,” The Art Bulletin 32, no. 4 (1950): 262.
75
76
Nazlı Gürşan, Yapıların Efendisi Aya Sofya (İstanbul: Cinius Yayınları, 2011), 40.
77
78
40
Apart from the uniqueness of the building, there were arguments about how
Justinian afforded such a monument’s construction expenditures. It is said that the
Emperor used people’s goods and confiscated their estates. Reconstruction of the
Church of the Holy Apostles in 536 was another significant expenditure from the
revenue of the Empire. At that time, the return of Justinian’s commander Belisarius
from an African campaign that resulted in victory contributed in the revenues of the
Empire and the expenditure for these two churches was covered largely from this newly
acquired treasure. While his new buildings in Constantinople composed a “balanced
group of structures” consisting of religious, public and administrative buildings,
Justinian’s construction activities were seen as an excessive show of his desire to be
unique regarding building costs and magnificence. 79 Also, a statue of Justinian was
erected in the middle of the Augusteion Square and the Basilice Cistern, known as
Yerebatan Sarnıcı today, was built under the Basilice Stoa as an important
infrastructural building for Constantinople 80 and the above buildings of the Basilice
Cistern were used as book shops. 81
Prohibited by Theodosius the Great but continued to be active in small groups,
minorities such as pagans and atheists were eliminated by Justinian during this
reconstruction period and, with the construction of monumental Christian buildings and
new regulations in the city, the emperor increased the emphasis on Christianity. 82
Beside reconstruction activities, forty churches were constructed in Constantinople
during the reign of Justinian but only three of them, Hagia Sophia, Hagia Eirene and St.
Sergius & Bacchus Churches have remained up to the present. 83
Importance given to Christianity by Justinian revealed itself in his edict Sixth
Novella. Imperial dignity and the priesthood were described as the greatest two things
by the Emperor who advocated the idea that the emperor and priesthood, administration
and religion shouldn’t be separated. 84 As a result of the administrative approach that the
public should be governed not only by strict political laws but also by religious beliefs,
Justinian gave significant importance to the constructions of religious buildings in the
city. The Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus near the Great Palace was built as a
79
Downey, “Justinian as a Builder,” 262, 263, 265.
80
81
82
John, Meyendorff, “Justinian the Empire and the Church,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22, (1968), 45.
83
84
Meyendorff, “Justinian the Empire and the Church,” 48.
41
model for Justininan’s Great Hagia Sophia. In contrast to the existing basilical church
typology with three naves and a timber roof; the Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus was
built with a dome which covered the highest middle nave of the building. 85
The new Hagia Sophia should be unique among the earlier emperors’ buildings
and, so, the architects designed the biggest dome of Constantinople with more than 32
meter in diameter. 86 Similarly, the damaged Hagia Eirene was reconstructed with a new
dome and a new building with a courtyard was constructed near this church, which is
now estimated as the Sampson Hospital. 87 In 558, there was a big earthquake and the
dome of the Hagia Sophia collapsed. The new dome of the building was constructed
higher than the old one and Justinian’s Great Hagia Sophia was opened again in 563. 88
Hagia Sophia was connected directly to the Great Palace with an elevated
gallery and this connection with the palace and the neighborhood of the building with
the hippodrome and public spaces strengthened the public, politic, religious and
administrative symbolism of the core of Constantinople, which had moved from
Acropolis to the southern parts of the city in the reign of Septimus Severus. 89 Later
during the reign of Constantine, the coronation ceremonies which used to be conducted
in the hippodrome until the construction of the Hagia Sophia began to be performed in
this new monument of the city. 90 These ceremonies began in the Great Palace,
continued in the form of a procession with the public and ended with arrival into the
Hagia Sophia. 91 Along the procession, the Emperor accepted the greetings of the people
and when he arrived in the Hagia Sophia, celebrations were begun. This part of the
ceremony was visible by the public from the Augusteion Square, but in a scale much
diminished than hippodrome coronations.
The Emperor was crowned by the patriarch in the Hagia Sophia and, in this way,
the increased importance of the Christian religion through the ceremonies added a
religious mark to the emperor’s administrative power, in addition to his political
acclaim. 92 After crowning by the patriarch, the people began to shout “blessed!” three
times and “respect to the god in the heaven and peace in the world, long live emperor!”
85
Türkoğlu, Ayasofya’nın Öyküsü, 31, 35.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
42
The use of Hagia Sophia during the most important imperial ceremonies of the city may
be interpreted as an indicator of a reflection of the imperial context on the building scale
revealing the status of Hagia Sophia as the most important religious building in the
empire. While Hagia Sophia gains an administrative importance with these coronated
ceremonies, at the same time, the emperor gains a religious importance as coronating by
the patriarch in the most important religious bilding of the city. This may be interpreted
as a reciprocal correlation between Hagia Sophia and its urban contex. In this way, the
Hagia Sophia became an interface that connected the public to the administration.
Decisions that were made by the patriarchate were also declared to the people in the
exterior narthex of the building and people’s wishes, desires and complaints were hung
on the wall of the narthex. 93
To summarize, the reign of Justinian the Great distinguishes itself from those of
the other two Great Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire in respect to the prosperity,
gloriousness and importance given to Christianity in administration. While Constantine
the Great’s Constantinople was transforming into the capital of the Eastern Roman
Empire with the enlargement of the city, with the core of the settlement replaced from
the Severan Byzantium towards to the southern parts, the Empire passed through a
tumultuous period. During the reign of Theodosius the Great, the total area of the city
was eight-folded in comparison to the Severan city and Christianity was accepted as the
official religion of the Empire. In this respect, if Constantine’s reign may be described
by transformation and that of Theodosius’ by expansion, Justinian the Great’s period in
the city is best described with the word prosperity, although the great majority of
monuments documenting it could not survive up to today.
Among his glorious buildings, Justinian the Great’s Hagia Sophia became the
most important node in Constantinople. Besides structural innovations, Hagia Sophia
had a significant role in the public, religious and politic life of the city. Ceremonies
conducted in the building and its immediate context were the most important indicators
of the vital importance of the Hagia Sophia. But, when Hagia Sophia became the stage
of these ceremonies, uniting the public and the empire, the accessibility of people to the
administration diminished in comparison to the ceremonies conducted in the
hippodrome as a result of the decreased size of the gathering area. On the other hand,
relocating the coronation ceremony from the hippodrome to Hagia Sophia points to the
93
43
increased importance of the Christian religion in the administration and the strengthened
power of the emperor via the power of Christianity.
2.6. From Constantinople to Konstantiniyye: The Historic Peninsula

up to the Ottoman Conquest (6th c. -15th c.)
The plague epidemic in 542, when 300.000 people died, marks the end of the
bright era of Justinian. While Byzantine Empire was regressing because of earthquakes
and epidemics, the Muslims were gaining in strength along the 1300 km south of the
empire with the birth of Islam in 610. Beginning from the seventh century, Eastern
Roman Empire began to lose its lands as a result of continuous conflicts with Muslims.
As the most powerful capital and the symbol of successful administration, urban
development and imperial grandeur, Constantinople was a perfect model for Muslims.
Besides its imperial appeal, Muslim desire to conquer Constantinople was based on the
hadiths promising that the sins of the conqueror of Constantinople would be forgiven
and he would ascend to the heaven. 94
While Muslims were gaining in strength, Heraclius (610-641) came to the throne
in 610 and reorganized the weakened military and administrative regime of
Constantinople. To increase the belief in Christianity, the religion was promoted by
Heraclius as a shelter to protect Constantinople from epidemics, earthquakes and wars.
However, earthquakes continued to damage the city. The old ports of Neorion and
Prosforion on the north, and Kontaskalion and Eleutherios on the south shore of
Constantinople became unusable. Although the Heptaskalion Port is used to be dated to
the period of Constantine the Great, recent archaeological studies revealed that
Heptaskalion was built in the seventh century on the north shore of the Historic
Peninsula that is known as the Keras (Haliç) today, possibly to take over the function of
the destructed harbours (Figure 2.10). 95
94
Nadia Maria El Cheikh, Arapların Gözüyle Bizans, trans. Mehmet Moralı (İstanbul: Alfa, 2012), 76.
95
Nergis Günsenin, City Harbours from Antiquity through Medieval Times, 103.
44
Figure 2.10. Constantinople in 4th-7th century
Shipyards, docks and new housing were constructed around Heptaskalion and, in
this way, the commercial port of Constantinople moved from the south to the north,
where the first core of the Greek Byzantion had been located. On the south of the
Historic Peninsula, instead of constructing new buildings, Heraclius focused on repair
and reconstruction of the damaged hippodrome, Great Palace and most important
religious buildings such as Hagia Sophia and Hagia Eirene.
The first siege of Constantinople by Arabs was in 674 and continued for a
century. 96 During the reign of Leon III (717-741), reconstruction of Constantinople
continued and relations were improved with Arabs. Besides continual conflicts, the
Umayyad prince Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik’s (705-738) expedition to Constantinople
in 717 is accepted as the most important Umayyad attempt to improve good relations
with Romans in the eighth century and, although the certain location is not known
today, the first mosque is known to have been constructed in Constantinople in this
96
Yavuz Afşar, Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle Ayasofya (İzmir: Kaynak Yayınları, 2014), 90.
45
period. 97 An earthquake in 740 and plague epidemic in 747 resulted in the destruction of
city walls and a significant decrease in population during the eighth century.
Construction activities continued to concentrate on repairing the hippodrome, palace
and Hagia Sophia afterwards, as an indication of the ongoing importance of the area in
this period. 98
Decline of the Eastern Roman Empire, which begun in the sixth century, came to
a halt during the reign of Basileios I (867-886). 99 Since Basileios was an Armenian
emperor whose family lived in Macedonia, his reign is called the Macedonian dynasty
and known as “the second golden age” of the Orthodox Roman Empire. 100 Kuban
entitles the Macedonian dynasty as the Middle Byzantine Era that ends with the Latin
invasion in 1204. 101 In this period, the size of Constantinople remained unchanged and
Theodosian Walls were reconstructed. Heptaskalion remained as the main harbor of
Constantinople on the Keras and construction of newly built areas increased on the
northern shore. 102 As it is seen in Müller-Wiener’s maps, ports of Eleutherios and
Sophia on the south shore were re-opened and began to be called as Langa and
Konstaskalion ports in the ninth century. Basileios’s construction activities focused on
the repair of damaged buildings of the period of regression. The Palace of Mangana was
built on the east of the Greek Acropolis as the new residence of Basileios I, including a
hospital, library, school of law, galleries and gardens (Figure 2.11). 103
97
El Cheikh, Arapların Gözüyle Bizans, 77.
98
99
100
Paul Lemerle, Bizans Tarihi, trans. Galip Üstün (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1994), 77.
101
102
Müller-Wiener, İstanbul Limanı, 12.
103
Gülgün Köroğlu, “İstanbul’daki Bizans İmparatorluk Sarayları,” Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma
Merkezi, (13 Aralık 2006): 7.
46
Figure 2.11. Constantinople in 8th-12th century
Hippodrome and the churches of Constantinople were reconstructed in the

period of Basileios and in the site of the Great Palace, a new church (Nea Eklessia) was
built after the transfer of palace functions to the newly constructed Mangana. Although
Nea Ekklesia introduced a new religious building plan type in the Middle Byzantine
period, monasteries integrated with a church continued their use. Examples of such
complexes in the cross-in-square plan typology we can see today are Lips Monastery
(Fenari İsa Cami) built in 908 and Myrelaion Monastery (Bodrum Cami) built in 922.
104
As another important period of urban reconstruction, in 1081, Alexios I

Komnenos (1081-1118) came to the throne to start the so-called the Komnenos dynasty.
Alexios reorganized the military, administrative and public life of the Empire and his
reign was the most powerful times of the period of regression. While the city size
remained unchanged, Alexios’s reconstruction programme was focused around the
Augusteion Square. Because the Palace of Mangana remained unprotected and insecure,
Alexios I moved to the Blachernea Palace next to the Theodisian wall on the
104
47
northwestern region of Constantinople.105 While the imperial family lived in the
Blachernea Palace, Alexios I repaired the damaged structure of the Great Palace. 106
Besides hippodrome and palace, Alexios gave importance to the construction of
monasteries to emphasize the generosity of the imperial family. 107 Because the members
of the Komnenos dynasty were born and raised in the northwestern of Constantinople,
construction activities in this region increased during the reign of Alexios. In 1118,
Philanthropos Christ Monastery for monks and Teotokos Kekharitomene Monastery
(around Kariye Cami) for nuns were built in the northwestern regions of the city. In the
same year, Teotokos Pammakaristos Monastery (Fethiye Cami) was built on the
northwest, around Philanthropos and Kekharitomene Monasteries. 108 In addition to
monasteries, palaces for statesmen were built on the northwest of the city (Figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12. Monasteries on the northwest of Constantinople.

105
Köroğlu, “İstanbul’daki Bizans İmparatorluk Sarayları,” 7.
106
107
Malamut, “I. Aleksios Komnenos Döneminde Konstantinopolis (1081-1118),” 41.
108
48
In this way, while the city size remained unchanged in the eleventh century, the
density of the northwest regions increased and the religious building density of the city
moved to the northwest of the Historic Peninsula. While the urban context of Hagia
Sophia was passing through an extensive reconstruction period, Hagia Sophia became
an architectural tool where the former emperors were depicted with Virgin Mary and
Christ to resurrect the power of the Roman Empire during the earthquakes, conflicts and
epidemics.
As of tenth century, conflicts between Byzantines and Latins increased. The
Latin desire to conquer Constantinople resulted in longtime conflicts and Crusaders
attacked in 1203. Although the number of Crusaders was 20.000 versus the 400.000 that
populated Constantinople, Byzantines had weakened as a result of earthquakes and
epidemics and Crusaders conquered Constantinople in 1204. 109 Crusaders shared the
lands of Byzantine Empire between Latins and Venetians. Baldwin of Flanders was
crowned in Hagia Sophia as the new emperor of the Latin Kingdom and Constantinople
was accepted as the capital. The Venetian Doge Dandolo was appointed as the “Lord
and Despot of a quarter and half of a quarter of the Roman Empire.” 110 The major
monuments of the Historic Peninsula such as the hippodrome and Hagia Sophia were
badly damaged during the conquest. Because they chose to live in there, the Great
Palace was not damaged by Latins. 111 Additionally Hagia Sophia was repaired to be
converted into the central Catholic church in the city. Because hippodrome was badly
damaged during, public and entertainment function of the building came to a halt under
the Latin domination. 112
The Latin domination continued for more than a half century and Michael VIII
(1261-1281) recaptured Constantinople in 1261. Michael VIII is also known as “the
new Constantine” of the Orthodox Roman Empire due to his extensive
reconstruction. 113 Michael VIII began his program by repairing the ruined city walls and
increased the height of the walls by 2 meters. 114 During the reconstruction of
Blachernea Palace, Michael VIII lived in the Great Palace. 115 Although the certain
109
Alice-Mary Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 47 (1993), 245.
110
111
112
113
Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” 251.
114
115
49
location is not known today, a new mosque was built on the orders of Michael VIII to
form good relationship with Muslims on the east. A result was a bilateral agreement on
the rights of merchants and rules of transportation. 116
During the fourteenth century, lands of the Byzantine Empire were limited to
Constantinople and as a result of a plague epidemic, the population of the city decreased
significantly. 117 While the Byzantine Empire was losing power, the Ottoman Empire
was strengthening on the east and in 1453, Mehmed II was to conquer the city.
To summarize, the regression period of the Byzantine Empire begun in the sixth
century as a result of the conflicts, earthquakes and plague epidemics and up to the
ninth century, emperors focused on the repair of Constantinople. In the ninth century,
the Byzantine Empire lived its second golden age and construction of new buildings in
the city accelerated. Most importantly, the Palace of Mangana was built on the east of
the Greek Acropolis as the new residential area of the imperial family. In the eleventh
century, the imperial residence moved to the Blachernea Palace next to the Theodisian
walls. But during the Latin domination in the thirteenth century, Latin emperors
repaired and lived in the Great Palace and, while turning Hagia Sophia into the main
Catholic building in their capital city, the imperial trilogy model returned back partially.
When the city was re-captured by Byzantines, the emperor lived in the Great Palace.
Although the hippodrome was repaired, the building had never reached its former public
function. Due to the weakened military power and decreasing population, the Byzantine
Empire could not stand to the Ottoman attacks and the city was conquered in 1453.
(Appendix A and B)
116
117
50
2.7. Konstantiniyye: Ottoman Capital of Sultan Mehmed II (15th c.)
Before the city was officially conquered in 1453, the Turks had a close
relationship with Constantinople. As mentioned under the previous heading (p:48),
Arabs continuously conflicted with the Byzantine Empire from the seventh century
onwards but the most destructive war for the Empire occurred in the eleventh century
between the Byzantines and Turks. Beginning with the Battle of Manzikert in 1071,
Seljukid Turks increased their dominance in Anatolia. The increasing hegemony of
Turks resulted in the establishment of the Ottoman Empire in 1299 near Bilecik. Then,
in 1326, Bursa became the capital of the Empire for 36 years. The capital was moved to
Edirne in 1362 and the Ottoman Empire extended its lands near the Byzantine
Empire. 118
Since Prophet Muhammad says “Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What
a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!” in his
hadith, conquering Constantinople was one of the most important desires of the Muslim
world. Before Mehmed II’s conquest, Constantinople was besieged by his grandfather
Sultan Bayezid I the Thunderbolt (1389-1402) in 1395. To control the Bosphorus,
Anatolian Castle was constructed in 1393 on the orders of Bayezid I. 119 Then, in 1421,
Constantinople was sieged by Mehmed II’s father Sultan Murad II (1421-1451), but he
failed. At the end of the fifteenth century, preparations for the conquest of the capital of
the Byzantine Empire were accelerated. On the opposite shore of the Anatolian Castle,
the Rumelian Castle was constructed during the reign of Mehmed II (1444-1481).120
Finally, Constantinople was conquered by Mehmed II in 1453, as the final result of a
long process that was accompanied by the increasing Muslim presence in the city.
During the three days of the conquest, Constantinople was badly damaged and
the city walls were destroyed. The Blachernea Palace, located near the walls, was
demolished. While the Great Palace and the hippodrome were looted, Hagia Sophia and
the Church of the Holy Apostles were protected on the orders of Mehmed II. Hagia
Sophia was converted into the imperial mosque, and Fatih Complex was later built over
The Church of the Holy Apostles.
118
Afşar, Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle Ayasofya, 93
119
120
51
After the conquest, the name of the city was changed from Constantinople to
Konstantiniyye to become the third capital of the Ottoman Empire and Sultan Mehmed
II called as Mehmed the Conqueror. 121 Instead of changing the name, Mehmed II used
Konstantiniyye for his new capital in continuation of the Christian Roman name of the
city to maintain the Roman past of the city. The maintenance of the city’s name may be
interpreted as a continuation indicating the importance of the city in the imperial scale.
As a result of long-lasting reconstructions of existing monuments and continuing
population rise in the city, construction activities in Konstantiniyye began ten years
after the conquest. During the reconstruction of the Theodisian walls, Yedikule Fortress
was built on the southwestern edge of the walls and combined with the Golden Gate.
Because existing ports were damaged and could not be used actively, Port of Sophia
which was called as Konstaskalion in the ninth century on the south shore began to be
used as the main harbor of Constantinople, and the name of the port was changed to
Kadırga Port (Figure 2.13).
Figure 2.13. Constantinople in the 15th-16th centuries.

(Source: Base map from Müller-Wiener, 2007, 32.)
121
Kuban. İstanbul Bir Kent Tarihi: Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, İstanbul, 205.
52
For new settlers and soldiers, a new neighborhood was established in Yedikule
and although there is not any archaeological evidence, it is thought that a new mosque
was built in this new neighborhood. 122 To increase the population of the city, Mehmed
the Conqueror imported people from all around the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the social
structure of Konstantiniyye now consisted of Muslim Turks and non-Muslims such as
Rums, Armenians and the Jewish. 123 Contemporary Aksaray and Karaman are some
examples of areas settled by these minorities in Konstantiniyye. 124
Differently from the Byzantine city organization characterized by a development
within the city walls, Konstantiniyye was enlarged beyond the walls and consisted of
different settlement areas surrounded by their own boundaries. 125 Within the Theodisian
walls, the urban structure of Konstantiniyye was re-organized by Mehmed the
Conqueror. According to a new regulation, Konstantiniyye was administrated by the
sultan and controlled by the grand vizier. The city was described as “a place where there
is a mufti concerning religious regulations and a kadi ruling the cases of the city”.
Konstantiniyye was divided into thirteen demos, each including 5-30 neighborhoods
around a prayer room or mosque. Each demos was named after a monument in the zone,
with Hagia Sophia as the first demos of Konstantiniyye. 126 This choice is another
indicator showing the importance of the building and area in Mehmed the Conqueror’s
Konstantiniyye.
When the city organization and street layout of Constantinople is compared with
those of Konstantiniyye, it can be seen that the grid-iron plan of the Roman city was
replaced by the organic urban growth of the Ottoman city. While the city had been
enlarged according to a grid street plan consisting of parallel streets intersecting with
right angle junctions in Constantinople, Konstantiniyye was enlarged with
neighborhoods consisted of a mosque in the center and dead end streets scattered
amongst houses for privacy. Non-Muslims, who did not leave the city during the
Ottoman conquest formed their own groups according to their religions and each group
was called as millet. 127 Except small-scaled churches, existing religious buildings of
Non-Muslim’s were converted into churches. Pantocrator Church (Zeyrek Mosque) and
122
123
124
125
126
127
53
St. Saviour Pentepoptes Church (Eski İmaret Mosque) are among the churches
converted into mosques that remained today. 128
Yet, Mehmed the Conqueror allowed the existence of a patriarch in
Konstantiniyye and the Church of the Holy Apostles became the Orthodox patriarchate
in 1456. In the sixteenth century, firstly, Pammakaristos Church (Fetih Mosque) on the
northwest of the Church of the Holy Apostles became the patriarchate and later, St.
George Church in Fener was used as the Orthodox patriachate. 129 This later change was
apparently due to the site selection of the Sultan for his first monumental complex in
Konstantiniyye. In 1463, Mehmed the Conqueror ordered Atik Sinan (?-1471), who also
had a Greek name Christodouloa, for the construction of Fatih Mosque as part of a
larger complex on the site of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where the mausolea of
Byzantine emperors starting from Constantine the Great was located. 130 Thus, the
church and mausoleum complex of the Orthodox Roman emperors was replaced by
Mehmed II’s Islamic complex. Like Justinian’s initial Hagia Sophia, this initial Fatih
Mosque would be damaged after its completion and the mosque we see today would be
built in 1771 after following minor modifications. 131
As the biggest complex of the Muslim world of the time, Fatih Complex
consisted of madrasas, Koran courses, a library, hospital, guest house, imaret,
caravansaray and mosque. Although not in a direct relationship with the existing street
network and squares of the city regarding the scale and the buildings in the complex,
Fatih Complex became a public node of Konstantiniyye as the first monumental
building of Mehmed the Conqueror and a model for the future constructions in the
city. 132 When Mehmed the Conqueror died in 1481, debates rose about the cause of his
death. On the one hand, it is assumed that he died of gout and buried in his monumental
Fatih Complex though without a visible tomb today, on the other hand, it is assumed
that he was poisoned and his body was buried in an unknown location. 133 The first
possibility suggests further continuity with the use of the site by the Orthodox Greek
emperors. In either case, his burial place is lost how, like that of the great emperors of
the earlier Byzantine period.
128
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi, “İslam Ansiklopedisi,” Cilt: 23
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/yayin.php (Accessed: 29.05.2014), 221.
129
130
131
132
133
54
To construct the Fatih Complex, the Church of the Holy Apostles was destroyed
and traces of the Byzantine past with the tombs of the emperors disappeared with it. In
this way, the co-existence of the Church of the Holy Apostles and Hagia Sophia as the
most important religious monuments of the Byzantine city came to an end although co-
existence of two important monuments of the replacing Islamic religion continued on
these two sites. However the demolition of the Church of the Holy Apostles for the
construction of the Faith Complex may be interpreted as an important overlap which
resulted in the permanenet deletion of the former traces of the site. (Appendix B)
Despite these imperial developments in the urban scale, the Mese remained as
the most important route of the city during the Ottoman domination as an important
palimpsest from the Greek period of the city. This is mainly because on the east of the
Mese, Hagia Sophia was converted into the imperial mosque, according to the Muslim
tradition to transform the most important church of a conquered city into the imperial
mosque after the conquest. On the south of the Mese, reconstruction of the badly
damaged Great Palace was begun and a new palace, now called the Old Palace due to
the construction of Topkapı Palace afterwards, was built on the site of today’s Istanbul
University Beyazıt Campus, to the north of the Theodosius Forum as the temporary
residential area of the Sultan’s family.
On the south of Topkapı Palace, although it was the oldest church in the city,
Hagia Eirene’s religious function came to an end after the Ottoman conquest and the
building started to be used used as armory. Hagia Eirene would be included in the site
of Topkapı later in the fifteenth century, 134 and became the first military museum in the
nineteenth century.
As Constantine the Great took Rome as the model for his new capital city of the
Eastern Roman Empire, Mehmed the Conqueror’s construction activities seem to have
been modeled on the first capital of the Ottoman Empire, Bursa. Bursa was captured in
1326 by Orhan Gazi and became the capital in 1335. 135 Orhan Gazi moved to the citadel
(hisar) that was surrounded with walls on the north and the construction of Bey Palace
was begun to host administrative and residential building inside walls. As the biggest
religious building of Bursa, St. Elias Monastery was converted into a mosque and called
as Silvered Tomb (Gümüşlü Kümbet) because Orhan Gazi and his father were buried
134
135
Aptullah Kuran, “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul,” Muqarnas
13, (1996), 114.
55
there. Near Bey Palace, Orhan Gazi ordered the construction of a bath. Outside of the
citadel, the commercial area of Bursa, bedesten, was located as the most important
public space of the city. On the southwest, another palace, mosque and bath were built
for Orhan Bey’s brother Alaeddin Bey (Figure 2.14). 136
Figure 2.14. Bursa map in the 14th century

(Source: Base map from Kuran, 1996, 115.)
Thus the imperial complex model in Bursa parallels the Roman trilogy with the
notable exception of the public part, the hippodrome. This may be taken to reflect the
absence of a public square in the Ottoman society in the Roman sense. On the other
hand, it may be said that the public component of the Roman trilogy model was
replaced by a commercial center in the Ottoman city, which points to the structural
difference of the two imperial capitals.
Differently from Bursa, to the east of the Mese, the hippodrome was repaired to
become the ceremonial core of Constantinople as it was during the Byzantine Empire.
Beginning from the fifteenth century, wedding ceremonies, birth and the circumcision
feasts of the Ottoman sultans were conducted in the hippodrome. 137 To the north of the
hippodrome, a bedesten was built as the commercial center of the city on the site of the
Forum of Constantine. The hippodrome, to be named as Sultanahmet Square after the
136
Kuran, “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul,” 115.
137
Gülsüm Ezgi Korkmaz, “Surnamelerde 1582 Şenliği” (master thesis, Bilkent University, 2004), 19.
56
construction of Blue Mosque in the seventeenth century, remained as the main public
square of the city for centuries afterwards. In this way, Ottoman and Byzantine
traditions, were in a way, merged.
As it is seen in Bursa, the relationship between administrative buildings and
imperial mosque remained an important factor in the spatial organization of the
Ottoman cities and, so, the new imperial palace of the Ottoman Empire had to be built
on a special site connected to the most important religious building of the city, Hagia
Sophia. 138 Beside its gloriousness as the highest point of the city, the former Acropolis
in the proximity of Hagia Sophia revealed as the most appropriate site for the new
imperial palace to emphasize the religious and political power of the Ottoman Empire.
Thus, the construction of Saray-ı Humayun, known as Topkapı Palace, began in 1459
on the Acropolis hill, 139 and the name of the route connecting the palace to the Yedikule
Gate, which was the Golden Gate in the Byzantine Empire, was changed from Mese to
Divan Route. 140 In this way, the ceremonial route of the city remained unchanged from
the Byzantine period in the co-existence of the palace, religious monument and the
public area in the Roman imperial trilogy model in the Ottoman Empire.
To summarize, while the Ottoman period was an important rupture in the
imperial and urban scale, at the same time, Mehmed the Conqueror’s period may be
interpreted in continuity of the Byzantine past of the city. The name of the city was
preserved in translation to Konstantiniyye and, in this way, the Roman past of the
settlement was maintained. Similarly, the name of Hagia Sophia was preserved and
became the eponym of the first zone of the city. The first imperial residence of the
Ottoman sultan was built on the west of the Great Palace temporarily and the
construction of the Topkapı Palace as the main administrative and residential area of the
Ottoman Empire was begun on the Greek Acropolis hill, where the first monumental
religious core was established. As another continuation from the Byzantine past of the
city, and at the same time a rupture, Mehmed the Conqueror chose the site of the
Church of the Holy Apostles to construct his first monumental complex. After the
conversion of Hagia Sophia into the imperial mosque and the construction of Topkapı
Palace, the Roman Mese remained as the main route of Konstantiniyye and called as
Divan Route. The palimpsestic continuity of this route from the Severan Portico in the
138
139
140
57
Roman period to the Divan Route in the Ottoman domination may be seen as a result of
the urban context that consisted of characteristic monumental elements of the city such
as Hagia Eirene, Hagia Sophia Great Palace and the hippodrome. Because they stayed
in use physically or functionally, the Mese continued its use as the most important route
of the city.
On the other hand, there were also major discontinuities. The city macroform
changed through expansions beyond the Byzantine walls. To increase the population in
the city, people were imported from all around the Ottoman Empire and the
enlargement of the city was different from the Christian Roman Constantinople. While
Constantinople had a grid-iron plan, Konstantiniyye’s urban growth was organic due to
the scattered neighborhood establishments. In this respect, Mehmed the Conqueror’s
Konstantiniyye consisted of both new constructions of the Sultan and the repaired
existing monuments from the Byzantine period of the city. (Appendix
2.8. Chapter Conclusion
From the establishment of the first settlement to the conversions into the
Ottoman capital, Historic Peninsula served as the administrative, public and religious
core of Istanbul in its history and passed through several changes regarding macro-scale
transformations in the urban context. When the enlargement of the city is analyzed
chronologically, the first settlement Greek Byzantion was established in the seventh
century BC on and around the Acropolis hill as the highest area of the Historic
Peninsula and surrounded with walls. Two ports were built on the north shore of the
settlement and public spaces concentrated around these ports. In addition to the ports
and public spaces, due to the temples and sacred areas located on the Acropolis hill,
northern parts of contemporary Sarayburnu became the religious core of Byzantion.
In the second century AD, Byzantion came under Roman domination after the
conquest by Septimus Severus but the name of the city was maintained as Byzantium.
The city was enlarged from the Acropolis hill towards the west and southern parts of the
Historic Peninsula, and new city walls were built. While the city was enlarging, the old
settlement’s traces were protected and the new city of Severus was developed from the
Greeek Byzantion. This may be interpreted as an important palimpsestic process
regarding the co-existence of the Greek Byzantion settlement with the new Roman
58
Byzantium. Most importantly, Severan Portico was built as the main route of the city.
After its construction, the hippodrome served as the most important entertainment
building of the city. To the north of the hippodrome, the Augusteion was added as the
biggest square of Byzantium. With the construction of the Baths of Zeuksippos on the
site of the former sacred areas, the public core of the city moved from north to the
southern part of Byzantium and the importance of the Acropolis hill diminished.
In the fourth century, Byzantium became the capital of the Eastern Roman
Empire and the name of the city changed from Byzantium to Constantinople under the
reign of Constantine the Great and the city walls were enlarged 15 km toward the west
of the Severan walls. To provide the increasing needs of the city, two new ports were
built on the south shore. During the city enlargement, former traces of the Severan city
were maintained while Constantine planned his new city according to a grid-iron plan.
The Mese was developed from the Severan Portico as the main route of the city in a
palimpsest process and the Milion was erected to the west of the Augusteion Square as
the beginning of the Mese. While the traces of the Severan period such as the
hippodrome and baths were preserved, the Great Palace was built to the south of the
Mese. On the north of the Great Palace, Hagia Eirene was built and the construction of
the first Hagia Sophia was begun. In this way, Constantine the Great created a core for
the city at the site where the hippodrome, the Great Palace and the Augusteion Square
were located. In other words, with the construction of the Great Palace, the south part of
the city, which was created as a public ceremonial area by the Roman Emperor
Septimus Severus, was transformed into an administrative center by Constantine the
Great. Additionally, to the northwest of the city, the Church of the Holy Apostles was
built with the mausoleum of Constantine on the site of the former Greek temples.
After the death of Constantine the Great, several emperors came to the throne
but during the reign of Thedosius the Great, the city was significantly enlarged and
Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. New city walls were built on the
1.5 km west of the walls of Constantine. Amongst ten gates of the Theodisian Walls, the
Golden Gate was used as the most important ceremonial gate where the emperor entered
to the city after a battle with victory. Thus a new ceremonial route emerged parallel to
the Mese from the Great Palace to the Golden Gate and new squares were built on this
road. While the hippodrome continued to be used for entertainment, the building also
became an important public space where the imperial ceremonies were conducted. In
59
this way public, administrative and religious core of the city remained on the south of
the Historic Peninsula.
In the sixth century, the city was monumentalized under the reign of Justinian
the Great and the Eastern Roman Empire lived its golden age. Hippodrome became a
political stage due to the conversion of chariot race teams into parties and housed the
most destructive riot of the Empire. After the Nika Riot, damaged buildings of
Constantinople such as the Great Palace, Hagia Sophia, Hagia Eirene, Church of the
Holy Apostles, Baths of Zeuksippos were repaired and Hagia Sophia took its final form
that we know today. Because the imperial ceremonies were conducted in the Hagia
Sophia after its construction, the hippodrome did not serve for the ceremonies anymore
and used for entertainment.
Beginning from the sixth century, the Byzantine Empire began to lose its lands
as a result of continuous conflicts with Muslims, plague epidemics and earthquakes and,
the period of regression of the empire began. In the seventh century, Constantinople
gathered strength and the weakened military and administrative regime were
reorganized. A new port was built on the north shore of the Historic Peninsula that is
known as Keras (Haliç) today and the reconstruction of the most important monuments
of the city such as the Great Palace, Hagia Sophia, the Church of the Holy Apostles and
the hippodrome was accelerated. In the ninth century, during the reign of Basileios I
called as the “second golden age” of the Roman Empire, construction of newly built
areas increased. The Palace of Mangana was built on the east of the Acropolis as the
new residence of Basileios I, including a hospital, library, school of law, galleries and
gardens. In the eleventh century, the city size remained unchanged but the density of the
northwest regions increased and the religious building density of the city moved to the
northwest of the Historic Peninsula due to the monastery construction of the emperor
Alexios I. Nevertheless, the Great Palace and Hagia Sophia maintained their ceremonial
importance especially during foreign embassies.
As a result of continuous conflicts with Latins, the Byzantine Empire lost its
power and the city came under the domination of Latins in the thirteenth century for
fifty seven years. Converting Hagia Sophia into a Catholic cathedral and themselves
living in the repaired Byzantine Great Palace, the Latin emperors also maintined the
centrality of Hagia Sophia. Although the city was re-captured by the Roman emperor
Michael VIII in the thirteenth century, the Byzantine Empire was weakened and its
lands were limited to Constantinople. As a result of continuous earthquakes, epidemics
60
and conflicts with Turks, the empire further weakened and in 1453, Ottomans
conquered Constantinople.
Under the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror, the name of the city continued from
Constantinople to Kontantiniyye and the city became the capital of the Ottoman Empire.
To increase the population of the city, Mehmed the Conqueror imported people from all
around the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the social structure of Konstantiniyye now consisted
of Muslim Turks and non-Muslims such as Rums, Armenians and the Jewish.
Konstantiniyye was enlarged beyond the walls and consisted of different settlement
areas surrounded by their own boundaries and the grid-iron plan of the city was
replaced by an organic growth consisted of scattered neighborhoods. Most importantly,
Hagia Sophia was converted into the imperial mosque and except minor additions such
as mihrab, minbar and a minaret, the original structure of the building was protected. As
an important change in use, Hagia Eirene’s religious function came to an end and the
building was uesd as armory up to its conversion into museum. After ten years, Fatih
Complex was built as the first monument of the Sultan on the site of the Church of the
Holy Apostles. In this respect, while the public and religious core of the city remained
on the southern parts of the city, the administrative core shifted to the north as it was in
the first settlement.
61
CHAPTER-3
HAGIA SOPHIA AS A TRUE PALIMPSEST:

CONSTRUCTION STAGES AND REFERENCES OF THE
MONUMENT
In this chapter, the continual transformation process in the Hagia Sophia

building complex and its vicinity is studied in continuation of the contextual analyses of
the previous chapter. This is done in three different scales to find some references of its
characteristics in the urban and site contexts. Urban scale conversions establishing
contextual continuities and discontinuities are studied to understand the hierarchies of
power in the Orthodox Christian and later Ottoman capital as a context to interpret the
changing function and meaning of Hagia Sophia. This enables an interpretation of
Hagia Sophia as part of a larger network of relations instead of a single structure
independent of its context. In this way, seemingly independent traces in the building
scale and in the neighborhood of Hagia Sophia are combined to reveal clues about the
building and its site in a contextual framework.
In order to do this, firstly, the formation and re-formation of the immediate
context of the building is studied, focusing on the monumental buildings and open
public spaces existing before the construction of Hagia Sophia, via secondary sources
citing medieval scripture. Müller-Wiener’s İstanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası (2007)
and Erkal’s “Constantinopolis: A Study on the City of Constantinople as the Artifice of
Constantine the Great’s Imperial Project” (1995) are used as the main sources for the
contextual information on the Historic Peninsula in general. With Müller-Wiener’s
book, it is aimed to compose a general overview about the changing public use of the
immediate vicinity of the building after Hagia Sophia. Erkal’s dissertation is used to
reveal certain similarities between the city of Rome and Constantinople. Amongst these
similarities, “imperial trio” in both cities is analyzed. Besides Erkal’s dissertation,
Staciolli’s Ancient Rome Past and Present (2000) and Macdonald’s The Architecture of
the Roman Empire-I: An Introductory Study (1982) are used as the main reference for
Constantinople’s model city, Rome..
62
Then, the Christian worship places and religious buildings before the
construction of Hagia Sophia are studied to reveal the architectural innovations that
made Hagia Sophia different from the earlier religious buildings and to interpret the
change in places of worship with the acceptance of Christianity as the official religion
of the Eastern Roman Empire. In order to do this, Mathew’s (1971) “The Early
Churches of Constantinople”Armstrong’s (1974) and “Constantine’s Churches: Symbol
and Structure” are used as main sources.
Then, the building is analyzed as a single structure with its spatial, structural and
ornamental characteristics in reference to Kleinbauer and White’s Ayasofya (2004) and
Nelson’s Hagia Sophia 1850-1950 (2004) to find clues about the synchronous change
of the building and conversions in its urban context. Lastly, Zoe Antonia Woodrow’s
“Imperial Ideology in Middle Byzantine Court Culture: The Evidence of Constantine
Porphyrogenitus’s de ceremoniis (2001) is used to analyze the role of Hagia Sophia and
its neighborhood’s importance during the imperial and public ceremonies of
Constantinople. While the previous chapter is used to compose a general overview
about the site and the building complex; in this chapter, ceremonies are described to
find out the role of the immediate vicinity of Hagia Sophia. In microscale, mosaics and
ornaments are used to interpret Hagia Sophia’s decorations hinting at larger scale
contextual changes in the empire and its capital through changes in the religious and
public life of Constantinople.
3.1. The Augusteion Square and its Vicinity: Above and Underground
Layout of the Historic Peninsula
The initial Hagia Sophia in the form of a timber basilica was built in 360 during
the reign of Constantine the Great, on a site that would be surrounded with the Great
Palace and Zeuksippos Baths on the south, hippodrome on the southwest and Hagia
Eirene on the north. At that time, Augusteion Square was an important public space
connecting these buildings that form a complex apparently modeled on the imperial
trilogy consisting of temple, palace and hippodrome in references to the city of Rome,
as will be explained below.
63
Figure 3.1. Milion in Constantinople.
(Source: Taraz, 2013)
As another reference to the city of Rome, the Augusteion Square had the Milion
erected at its centre as the zero point of the Roman Empire and the symbol of the
beginning of the ceremonial road of Constantinople, the Mese (Figure 3.1). On the other
hand, the name of the Augusteion Square in Constantinople may have references from
the Roman emperor Augustus. In 330, the dedication ceremony of Constantinople began
at the Forum of Constantine, continued with a ceremonial walk along the main route of
the city, the Mese, and passing the Milion, ended with the arrival of the emperor to the
Great Palace.
The Mese branched into two at Philadelphion Square (site of Laleli Cami),
which was used as the nodal point of ceremonies and decorated with the statues of
Constantine the Great and his three sons. 1 The first branch road continued towards
southwest and ended with the Golden Gate (contemporary Yedikule). Golden Gate was
the triumphal gate of the city and was opened only for the return of the emperor from
1
64
battle after victory. The emperor was welcomed here by the clergy. After he was seated
on the golden throne, crowned and carried through a golden chariot, procession was
continued with acclamations through the road where the Theodosius Forum (Beyazıt
Square) was located and ended with arrival to the Great Palace. 2
The second branch road continued to the northwest of the city and ended with
the Gate of Adrianople (Edirne Kapısı). The Church of the Holy Apostles and the
Mausoleum of Constantine were located on that branch road. As a result of being on the
highest point of Constantinople, the Mausoleum symbolized the power of Constantine
the Great, and the Church of the Holy Apostles served to the Christian pilgrims. The
funeral ceremonies of emperors were conducted on this branch road and, after exit from
the Chalke of the Great Palace, procession was continued to the Church of the Holy
Apostles with shouts “Go out, Sire, for it is the King of Kings who calls thee now, and
the Lords of Lords!” 3 (Appendix A and B)
As explained in more detail in the previous chapter (p:30), the area to the north
of this branchroad is known to have developed in the period of Constantine. A building
law determined the minimum height of the houses above the street, distance between
two house and width of the streets and the city was constructed along these rules. 4 The
old buildings of the Severan period and the new constructions of Constantinople were
integrated with a grid plan that consisted of right angled streets. With the construction
of the Church of the Holy Apostles and the Mausoleum of Constantine, a district of the
city was upgraded and the road became an important link connecting the core of the city
to tge newly built area (Figure 3.2).
2
3
4
65
Figure 3.2. Branchroads of the Mese in Constantinople
(Source: Base map from Kuban, 2004, 71.)
A basilica was built during the reign of Constantine the Great to the west of the
Augusteion Square and because of the existing Basilice Stoa on the site from the
Severan period, the building was named as Basilica and was used as a university up to
425, with a library. In the seventh century, the basilica began to be used as a court.
During the reign of Justinian the Great, a cistern was built underneath this building.5
This cistern is currently referred to as Basilica Cistern (Yerebatan Sarayı). This cistern
is a major component of the infrastructural network that provided water to the important
private and imperial monuments that concentrated in this part of the city.
Because of the lack of any running water, the water supply of the monumental
city centre was provided from aqueducts and cisterns. The first waterway of the city was
built in the second century by Hadrian and during the reign of Theodosius II, the
5
Konstantinopolis-İstanbul, 283, 284.
66
waterway was repaired to serve to the Great Palace. After Constantinople became the
capital, water demand of the city increased and new aqueducts were built on the north
and northwest hills of the city. The construction of the Valens Aqueduct was begun in
368 as the most important water supply of Constantinople and spanned the road along
which Church of the Holy Apostles was located. 6 Beginning from the fifth century,
cisterns were connected to these aqueducts.
As an example, the Philoxenos Cistern to the south of the Mese further to the
west, (Binbirdirek Sarnıcı) most probably provided water for the Lausos and Pantiochos
Palaces wherein lived the elite of Constantinople in the vicinity of the Imperial Palace.
Located on the west of the hippodrome, Lausus Palace was built by Lausus, who was an
important administrative figure of Constantinople in the fifth century. On the south side
of the Lausus Palace, the half-round colonnaded main entrance opened to a vaulted
main space surrounded with niche rooms. The Lausus Palace was known as a house of
art collection with its sculptures and art objects but in the fifth century, the building and
objects were badly damaged in a fire and after a reconstruction, the building was begun
to be used as a dwelling. 7
With the construction of the Basilica Cistern, the building became the uppermost
component in the hierarchy of the existing water supply infrastructure of
Constantinople. With its scale matching with that of Hagia Sophia, Basilica Cistern may
be understood as the monument of the underground network of the city. Just like the
predominant existence of Hagia Sophia among its contemporary religious buildings in
terms of its scale and central location, the Basilica Cistern may be understood as the
major node in a network of more modest underground buildings scattered through the
city, with a specific concentration around the imperial trio of Constantinople. The
construction of the Basilica Cistern transformed the infrastructural network by
introducing an upper level into the existing hierarchy, by monumentalizing already
marked nodes.
The subterranean channels recently discovered under the Hagia Sophia should
also be understood as other important components of the same water network. In 2005,
tunnels connecting Hagia Sophia to the hippodrome were found, in addition to north
6
Konstantinopolis-İstanbul, 271, 273.
7
67
and southward channels under the building site. 8 These tunnels are also thought to have
provided private connection between the components of the monumental complex
above ground, forming a counterpart to the pompous ceremonial connection. As studies
are continuing, legendary tunnels and secret passages of Hagia Sophia are used in
popular publications such as Dan Brown’s book Inferno (2013) and Göksel Gülensoy’s
documentary Ayasofya’nın Derinliklerinde (2013).
To summarize, a parallel development can be observed when the above and
underground network of Hagia Sophia and its immediate vicinity is analyzed. The
existence of Hagia Sophia, the Great Palace and Zeuksippos Baths give important hints
about the underground of the site. These buildings and underground monuments near
the Augusteion Square establish an upper level of hierarchy regarding building scales
and locations, documenting the synchronously changing upper and under networks of
the city. Above the ground the Zeuksippos Baths, hippodrome and Great Palace were
marking the highest level of hierarchy, as components of an “imperial trio” originating
from the city of Rome.
3.2. Model City Rome and the Imperial Trilogy: Hippodrome-Temple-

Palace
Legends attest that the foundation of Rome on the Palatine Hill was in the 8th
century BC by King Romulus, from whom the city got its name. The city grew towards
the Esquiline Hill on the east and in the 4th century BC the city occupied more than 400
hectares within walls. 9 During the 2nd and 1st century BC, new squares were built
between these two hills, and the old ones were reconstructed and new functions were
added to them. Besides the public squares, Circus Maximus was used as one of the most
important public entertainment areas of Rome for chariot races from its construction in
sixth century BC. Circus Maximus was located between the Palatine and Aventine Hills
as the largest circus of Rome to accommodate 300.000 spectators. Due to proximity to
the important temples of the city such as Ceres and Flora, Mercury and Dis, Luna and
Venus Obsequens, Circus Maximus also had a religious importance. When the first
emperor Augustus began to live on the Palatine Hill, the area became the imperial
8
Özkan Aygün, “The Wells , Subterranean Passage, Tunnels and Water Systems of Hagia Sophia in
Istanbul,” 35.
9
Staccioli, Ancient Rome Past and Present, 4.
68
residence and the first imperial palace was built on this hill on the orders of Tiberus, the
successor of Augustus (Figure 3.3). 10
Figure 3.3. Map of the City of Rome

(Source: Base map from www.probertencyclopaedia.com)
Construction of the Domitian Palace, also known as Flavian Palace, was

completed in 92 on the Palatine Hill. 11 Domitian Palace consisted of the Domus Flavia
on the northwest including reception halls and the Domus Augustana in the center
constituting the private spaces. 12 As the public part of the Domitian Palace, Domus
Flavia consisted of a large, colonnaded courtyard surrounded with public audience halls.
A basilica and the throne room were located on the north of the courtyard and on the
south, the imperial dining room was protected by a guard room. As the private part of
the Domitian Palace, Domus Augustana was built in two-storey to orient the slope of
the site and the entrance was provided from the side of the Circus Maximus. Domitian
10
11
Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I: An Introductory Study, 47.
12
Magnus Edizioni, Rome: Art and Architecture, ed. Marco Bussagli, trans. Peter Barton (Berlin:
Könemann, 1999), 86.
69
Palace was used by Septimus Severus as the imperial residence like other Roman
emperors.
Figure 3.4. Circus Maximus and Palatine Hill in Rome from the south.
(Source: Koskimies http://truthbook.com)
On the upper level, there was the official part of the palace with a courtyard and
on the east a hippodrome was located facing the Circus Maximus. 13 When Domitian
ordered a direct connection between his palace and Circus Maximus, new seats were
added, the tribune was divided into three parts with horizontal passageways and an
imperial box was built, and directly connected with the palaces on the Palatine Hill
through terracing (Figure 3.4). 14 Similarly, the imperial palace of Constantinople was
constructed over terracing towards Marmara Sea and terraces were organized according
to a hierarchy of their public and private functions (Figure 3.5).
13
Edizioni, Rome: Art and Architecture, 88.
14
70
Figure 3.5. Palace and the hippodrome in Constantinople
(Source: Base map from Düzgüner, 2004, 75.)
In Rome, a religious area (temenos) or building was later added to this palace-
hippodrome complex to form what is usually referred to as an imperial trio. 15 When the
Domitian Palace was built to the north of the Circus Maximus, Temple of Elegabalus on
the east, Temple of Apollo on the west and Temple of Venus and Rome on the north
were constituting the third components of the imperial trio.
In continuation of Rome, the imperial trio typology was used also in
Constantinople where the hippodrome and palace were built adjacent to each other and
located near the old temples of the city. The Severan bath complex near the hippodrome
was located on the site of old pagan temples Zeus and Hippios from which it took the
name Zeuksippos Baths. By reconstructing the Severan hippodrome and building the
15
71
Great Palace to its southeast, Constantine, thus, adopted the imperial trio model in his
new capital city. Later, Hagia Sophia would be added to this complex as the new
religious building type in the trio.
Due to this central location, the baths became one of the most important
buildings at the urban core of the city. Although the building dates from the period of
Severan rebuilding of the city, the extant remains belong to Justinian the Great’s
reconstruction programme after the Nika Riot. 16 Used actively beginning from its
construction, the baths were reconstructed by Constantine and presented by the Emperor
to the city. 17 The maintenance of the baths was provided by the shops near the
building 18 and in addition to the healing and bathing functions, Zeuksippos Baths also
served as an important public area where people explicitly enunciated their thoughts
about the public life or the administration. 19 Beginning from the eighth century, the
Baths were transformed into the Prison of Numeri. 20 When the location of Zeuksippos
Baths and the Augusteion Square is considered, the transformation of a public bath into
a prison adjacent to the most important public square of the city would seem curious
and worth of further research in future studies.
The second component of the imperial trilogy of Constantinople was the
hippodrome. As explained in the previous chapter (p:24), with the coming to the throne
of the Roman emperor Septimus Severus in 196, the walls of Byzantium were extended
toward the west and south parts of contemporary Sarayburnu. Among the new
buildings, the hippodrome became one of the most important buildings as the
entertainment and public core of Byzantium, following the start of its construction in
203 with the orders of Septimus Severus. In the lack of archaeological evidence, there is
not any detailed structural information about the Severan building but it is known that
the first hippodrome was out of timber, like the early entertainment buildings in the city
of Rome. 21 The timber hippodrome, which was already damaged from several fires
during the reign of Septimus Severus, was reconstructed in stone and brick on the orders
16
Great’s Imperial Project,” 112,
17
18
19
Sarah Buberti Bassett, “Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos,”
American Journal of Archaeology 100, no. 3 (1996): 493.
20
21
Özkök, İstanbul Yedi Tepede On Yedi Gezi, 23.
72
22
of Constantine during the refoundation of the city as Constantinople. This new
enlarged hippodrome was 440 meter long and 125 meter wide, with a capacity of
30.000 seats. 23 So, despite the adoption of the imperial trilogy model from Rome, the
scale in Constantinople was incomparable to that of the Circus Maximus in Rome that
housed 300.000 people.
Although the size of the hippodrome and the palace of Constantinople was much
smaller than those in Rome, the palace-hippodrome relationship of Constantinople is
similar with that of Rome. A direct connection to the hippodrome was made with
kathisma in both cases, although the terracing was in the opposite direction of the
hippodrome in Constantinople. In this way, emperors could watch the games in Circus
Maximus in Rome and hippodrome in Constantinople, and joined celebrations from
their respective residences without going outside as the imperial box, kathisma,
provided the connection between the Emperor and the public.
Among the twelve gates of the hippodrome which symbolized the twelve signs
of the zodiac, the three main entrances were located on the north, west and east sides of
the building. 24 The first opened to the Mese Route, the second on the west was called
Lausus Gate due to the palace there with the same name and the third opened to the
Great Palace on the east. 25 The most prominent entrance was the one on the Mese and
Augusteion Square, and was decorated with Roman emperor statues. 26 Other sculpture
existed inside the hippodrome since, in addition to the formal references to the Circus
Maximus, Constantine initiated ornamentation with sculptures and obelisks for his new
monument which are classified by Sarah Guberti Bassett as apotropaic sculptures,
victory monuments, public figures and images of Rome.
As the first group, apotropaics consist of old pagan deities, wild animals and
fantastic creatures that are believed to have protecting and motivating power. Secondly,
victory monuments symbolize the triumphs and military successes of the imperial
family. In addition to imperial success, the third antiquity group relates to the racers of
the hippodrome and consists of the sculptures of mythical creatures and demigods as
symbols for the competitors. This fourth group includes the sculptures of previous
22
23
24
25
26
73
Roman emperors and images of the city of Rome to remind the earlier capital city of the
Roman Empire to create a comparison between the past and the present. In addition to
sculptures, two obelisks called Heliopolitan and Theban had similar references to Rome.
The first is the other of a pair of obelisks from Heliopolis in the Circus Maximus and
the second was erected after the erection of the second obelisk in the Circus Maximus.
These reveal that Constantine’s New Rome had several references from the old
capital Rome and the larger Roman Empire. In other words, while Constantine the Great
intended to constitute a completely new capital city for his empire, he used the epithet
“New Rome” for his city and transformed that old city’s elements into new components
to create his new forward looking city. 27 Among the monuments of the hippodrome, the
serpent column of Constantine (Yılanlı Sütun), the Obelisk of Theodosius the Great
(Dikilitaş) and the Column of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (Örme Dikilitaş) still
stand in Istanbul and define the central axis of contemporary Sultanahmet Square. 28
Among these, the Obelisk of Theodosius is especially important due to the
information it gives on the use of the hippodrome and its connection to the palace. On the
north side of the monument, the Emperor is described during the construction of the
Obelisk and on the west, the imperial family is depicted with slaves paying court to the
Emperor. On the south side of the Obelisk, the imperial family is seen as they were
watching a chariot race in the hippodrome and on the east, Theodosius the Great is depicted
in the kathisma of the Great Palace with daphne wreath to award the winner charioteer.29
The kathisma was located at the middle of the southeast wing of the hippodrome, and as
separated from the tribunes with special seats of the imperial family. 30
Chariot racing as the most popular activity of Byzantium was performed in the
hippodrome with four different teams symbolized with blue, green, white and red
colors. Each color had its own meaning, but in time, the great victories of the greens and
blues resulted in the erosion of the other two groups. As one of the most successful
groups, the blues represented the upper-middle class of the city who were strictly
Orthodox and conservative. The greens consisted of the working class who were
radicals both in religious and political aspects. 31 Supporters of the two competitor
27
Bassett, “The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople,” 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95.
28
29
30
31
74
groups used to sit on separated tribunes across the kathisma, and had their own dancers
and entertainment groups. 32 Also, each group had their own textiles for waving and to
decorate the architraves of the hippodrome. Separately from the daily celebrations and
dances of the hippodrome, each racing group had its own victory dances and certain
acclamation figures at the end of the race. The winner group began its special dance
after the race and went to the kathisma to get permission from the emperor to go out of
the hippodrome and celebrate the victory on the Mese. 33
At the end of the race, the winner went to the kathisma, the emperor’s seat, and
was awarded a daphne stick by the emperor. A competitor who won the race several
times was declared as a national hero and his statue was erected in the hippodrome. The
competitions were performed during the national holidays which correspond to 60 days
and 24 competitions for each day. Wild animals, clowns, acrobats and dwarfs took part
in other entertainments performed during the race breaks in the hippodrome. 34 While
the chariot racing had a political meaning for the city with its competitor groups coming
from different social classes, these shows including animals and acrobats fulfilled the
entertainment function of the hippodrome.
Traditional chariot races continued to be performed at the hippodrome in
Constantine’s capital city. Additionally, public celebrations and imperial ceremonies,
such as the accession to the throne ceremony was conducted in the hippodrome, and the
opinion of the people about the new emperor was understood from the acclamation or
jeering of the crowd. In addition to the administrative ceremonies, the military
successes of the emperor were celebrated in the hippodrome and all activities during the
celebrations such as prayers, acclamations and hand gestures were assumed as symbols
of loyalty to the Empire. 35 In this way, entertainment function of the Severan
hippodrome was transformed into a stage of the administrative ceremonies of the
empire during the reign of Constantine the Great. 36 In this way, the continual use of the
hippodrome was maintained and this may be interpreted as a continual trace regarding
the public use of the area.
32
Pitarakis, “From the Hippodrome to the Reception Halls of the Great Palace: Acclamations and
Dances in the Service of Imperial Ideology”, 130.
33
34
35
36
75
The hippodrome, which was the most important public stage of Constantinople,
transformed into a political space when an administrative cortege participated in the
celebrations in the tenth century. 37 In this way, dancers and other celebration activities
begun to serve for the administrative banquets and participation of the public to the
celebrations was restricted to those conducted in the hippodrome. The dancers of Blues
and Greens were replaced by the choristers of Hagia Sophia and Church of the Holy
Apostles in the hippodrome and musical activities were strictly regulated during the
banquets of the Great Palace.
In this way, the public use of the hippodrome diminished beginning from the
tenth century. The common people participating in the celebrations were replaced by
administrative figures of the Empire and the hippodrome became a stage of the Great
Palace where the imperial events were celebrated such as the birth of an imperial child,
victory of a war or celebration of a new emperor. The replacement of public dancers and
musicians by the choristers of the two important churches, Hagia Sophia and Hagia
Eirene, may be understood as an indicator of the diminishing publicity of the events and
the superior power of the religion upon the public and administrative life of the state.
As a result of being a meeting point between the emperor and public, the
hippodrome was damaged several times by the public. As explained in detailed in the
previous chapter (p:43), the Nika Riot is among the most important examples of this
kind of destructive events that occurred in the hippodrome. Similarly, executions of
some of emperors were realized here. 38
37
38
Vasiliev, The Monument of Porphyrius in the Hippodrome at Constantinople,” 29, 30.
76
Figure 3.6. The Imperial Trilogy in Constantinople
(Source: Superimposition of the map from Berger, 2013, 6)
As the third component of the imperial trilogy, the Great Palace was built on the
orders of Constantine the Great in the middle of the 4th century (Figure 3.6). As a result
of the steep land, was built as a complex over three main construction sites consisting of
terraces that date to different periods. The terracing from the hippodrome to the seashore
resulted in vaults and infrastructural spaces below the Palace. Kostenec describes the
Great Palace as consisting of two main parts corresponding to public and semi-public
areas. 39 On the north side, a Senate House, known as Magnaura Palace (4th c.), was
located as one of two senate houses of Constantinople and housed senators up to the sixth
century as the semi-public parts of the Great Palace. Beginning from the sixth century,
senators began to live in the Great Palace 40 and in the ninth century, the Magnaura Palace
was begun to be used as a court and a university was added in the palace. 41
39
40
41
77
The first reception hall of the Great Palace was the Hall of the Nineteen
Couches, 19 Accubita on the upper terrace. Then, Daphne Palace was constructed as the
main imperial residence housing the bedchamber of the emperor called the Octagon.
The Daphne Palace consisted of ceremonial halls, and was connected to hippodrome on
the west with the imperial box, kathisma, through stairs. The Daphne Palace stayed in
use up to the Latin invasion in 13th century. In time, needs of the imperial family and
officials increased and the Great Palace was expanded towards southwest in the fifth
century, and the second and third terraces were built during the reign of Theodosius the
Great. The second was consisted of grand gardens and game areas 42 and on the third
terrace near the sea, Boukoleon Palace (5th c.) and a harbor with the same name were
built on the south of the Great Palace.
The main entrance of the Great Palace was from the Chalke Gate at the end of
the Mese, which opened onto the Augusteion Square on the north. The public part of the
palace was adjacent to the hippodrome and consisted of a square of the Tribunal, a
horseshoe-shaped courtyard called Onopoidon, and a meeting hall called Consistorium.
The access of the administrative figures to the Great Palace may have been provided
from the street near the Zeuksippos Baths through the Tribunal or from the gate under
the kathisma of the hippodrome. 43 On the other hand, it is known that up to the
construction of Hagia Sophia, the site of the church was occupied by houses 44 and, so,
instead of the Augusteion Square, Dihippion in front of the hippodrome may have been
used as the public square of the city. In this scenario, the core of the monumental
complex would have been located around the Dihippion, with the hippodrome on the
south, Great Palace on the east and Palaces of Lausos and Anthiochos on the west. In
this way, access to the hippodrome and Great Palace may have been provided from
Dihippion Square on the south of the Milion, at the beginning of the Mese.
With the construction of Hagia Sophia in 360, the house settlement on the site
was cleaned and the Augusteion Square became a transition between Hagia Sophia on
the north and Great Palace and hippodrome on the south. In this way, the public core of
the city moved from Dihippion to the vicinity of the Augusteion Square through the
addition of Hagia Sophia as the new religious component in the imperial trilogy model
adopted from Rome.
42
43
Berger, “The Byzantine Court as a Physical Space”, 6.
44
Kleinbauer and White, Ayasofya, 14.
78
3.3. Early Christian Churches from the 3rd Century to the Justinain’s
Great Hagia Sophia in the 6th Century
In this section, Christian worship places and buildings before the Hagia Sophia
in Constantinople are analyzed to understand the architectural innovations that made
Hagia Sophia different from its contemporaries in building scale and to interpret the
change in the ways and places of worship as well as their symbolic presence with the
acknowledgement of Christianity as the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire.
(Appendix D)
Until Christianity became the official state religion, Christians in Constantinople
remained a minority and conducted their religious rituels in their house-churches and
specific religious buildings called domus ecclesiae. While the house-churches were used
during commemorative rites, domus ecclesiae were for communal rituals. But in the
fourth century when Christianity began to spread, these old religious places became
insufficient and people needed new complexes for their rituals. From the Roman period,
the building type Basilica had been used as a public meeting hall, and from the fourth
century onwards, the use of basilica was thus dominated by imperial and religious
functions and these buildings begun to be used as Christian basilicas. Although Roman
basilicas before Christianity differ in their plan typologies, beginning from their use as a
Christian ritual space, the use and plans were specified clearly. The entrance to the
basilica was provided from one short edge of the building and a semi-circular apse was
located across this entrance. 45 While house-churces were used as private religious
spaces, using basilicas for communal rituels may be interperetd as an important
transition from private domain to a public one regarding the religious understanding. In
this respect, the use of basilicas as religious spaces may be seen as a reflection of a
change in the imperial context on the building scale.
During the reign of Constantine the Great in the fourth century, Christian
basilicas were built as showcases of the power of emperor and this may be interpreted
as an important indicator of an interrelation between the imperial context and building
scale activities in Constantinople. Basilicas appear to have constituted a primary
inspiration for the Constantinian church types that are classified by Armstrong under
45
79
five main categories in chronological order. 46 In addition to in-text individual plans of
these basilicas, a same-scaled scheme of these buildings are given as an appendix to
ease a compare architectural characteristics with those of Hagia Sophia. (Appendix D)
Since all were built in the period of Constantine, this appendix represents the spatial
palimpsest they form though in a condensed layout.
The first group had a rectangular plan with a longitudinal axis, side aisles and
naves. As an example of this group, the Lateran Church was built between 313-318 in
Rome on the orders of Constantine, as the first Christian basilica in the city. Before its
construction on the site, the Lateran Palace was the private property of the Emperor on
the Celine Hill and with the construction of the Church, the Lateran Palace was donated
to the church. The building complex housed the residence of the bishop, as well as the
magistrate of Christ on earth. The Lateran Church had a five-naved basilical plan and
the contemporary transept of the church was added in the medieval times. The middle
nave of the Lateran Church was larger than the others and light was received from the
clerestory windows on the naves’ walls (Figure 3.7). 47 In addition to the basilical plan
of the initial Megale Ekklesia and the presence of a bishopric within its confines,, the
site selection for Hagia Sophia near the Great Palace of Constantinople shows
parallelism with the Lateran Church.
Figure 3.7. Plan of Lateran Church in Rome

(Source: Armstrong, 1974, 6.)
46
Gregory T. Armstrong, “Constantine’s Churches: Symbol and Structure,” Journal of Society of
Architectural Historians 33, no.1 (1974): 6.
47
80
The palace churches constitute the second group that similarly includes different
plan types. The Sessorian Palace, known as Santa Croce in Jerusalem, built in 325 with
no side aisles, is given as an example for this group (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8. Plan of Santa Croce in Rome

The third group is distinguished with a side aisle continuing as an ambulatory

and with catacombs. The Church of San Sebastiano, built in 340 in Rome, is given as
the earliest example for the second group and includes martyrs which emphasized on
the Christian cult of the dead instead of the public gathering function as in the first two
groups of Constantine buildings (Figure 3.9). 48 The commemorative use of the church
may be seen in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople as well. As it was in
the Church of the San Sebastiano, the Church of the Holy Apostles was used as the
burial place of the Roman emperors and, in this respect, the religious importance of the
Church of the Holy Apostles is dominated by its mausoleum function.
48
Armstrong, “Constantine’s Churches: Symbol and Structure,” 9, 11.
81
Figure 3.9. Plan of San Sebastiano in Rome
An early example of the type may be found outside of Rome in the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre that was constructed in Jerusalem. The Church of Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem was constructed on the orders of Constantine in 326, on the site of the pagan
Venus Temple. Holy Sepulchre is a combination of a rectangular basilica and a
colonnaded rotunda, wherein Jesus the Christ is believed to have been buried. The
Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been used since as an important pilgrimage church
and a patriarchate. The five-naved basilical part of the Church of Holy Sepulchre is
accessed from the atrium on the east. The rotunda is located on the west with the Tomb
of the Christ. Between these two parts, there is a court, which had the Chapel of Calvary
49
on the southeast corner. As such, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre displays a
combination of variety of plan types (Figure 3.10).
49
Robert, Ousterhout, “The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior,” Gesta 29, no: 1
(1990), 45.
82
Figure 3.10. Plan of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem
(Source: Ousterhout, 1990, 46.)
Apparently inspired from this archetypal example is the fourth group called
imperial mausolea. These were built as a centralized tomb connected with the palace
and this centralized architectural type was repeated in the Church of the Holy Apostles
built in 330 in Constantinople. 50 The building was cruciform and the tomb of
Constantine was in the middle of the building as the thirteenth apostle surrounded with
cenotaphs symbolizing twelve apostles (Figure 3.11). 51 Although no physical remains
have been unearthed so far of this first structure in the site of contemporary Fatih
Mosque, its plan is commonly accepted as in Greek cross form and is differentiated
from the earlier basilica-derived types. Of the Justinianic second church at the same site,
some remains were unearthed in excavations in 2000 and these suggest a Latin cross
plan.
50
After the birth of Islam in the seventh century, Muslims gained strength and continuously conflicted
with Christians. To show their power to the Byzantines, Muslims built Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem
in the seventh century as the first domed monumental building in the Islamic architecture. Dome of
the Rock has the traces of the early Christian churches to symbolize the superior power of Islam over
Christianity50 and can be compared to these imperial mausolea with its architectural characteristics. As
in the imperial mausolea, Dome of the Rock has a religious core at the heart of its central structure.
The difference is that while a tomb is located in the imperial mausolea, Dome of the Rock was built
over the rock from where Prophet Muhammad is believed to have ascended to the heaven. This is but
one example highlighting the difficulty of conceiving the development of Islamic monumental
architecture is isolation from earlier traditions.
51
Armstrong, “Constantine’s Churches: Symbol and Structure,” 12.
83
Figure 3.11. Hyphotetical plan of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople
(Source: http://historyofarchitecture.weebly.com)
As such, this second Holy Apostles in Constantinople would seem to follow the
typology set by the final group of Constantinian churches that shows similarities with
the first group except in the construction of a transept, i.e. “a great cross hall as tall as
the nave with a large apse that is the focus of the entire building” as in the initial phase
of St. Peter’s in Rome. The Church of St. Peter was built between 333-360 on the
Vatican Hill near the pagan necropolis area of Rome. Before its transformation into a
cathedral by Michelangelo in the 16th century, the Church of St. Peter was built on the
same plan typology with the Lateran Church except in the additional transept. The
Church of St. Peter consisted of five naves, with an enlarged middle nave, and was used
as a funeral hall. The tomb of St. Peter was located in the center of the apsis (Figure
3.12). 52
52
84
Figure 3.12: Plan of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome
To summarize, with the spread of Christianity in the fourth century, pagan worship
places and domus ecclesiae of minorities were replaced by Christian basilicas. Until the
construction of Hagia Sophia in Constantiople as the new center of Christianity of the
Empire, these churches and basilicas reveal as important examples to show imperial power
to the world. As building scale symbol of the change in the religious understanding in the
imperial context, construction of the most important churches are mostly concentrated in the
capitals of Christianity such as Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople.
As it was in Constantinople, these churches were built on the earlier sites of Greek
temples in their cities, hiding their traces, and, thus, fitting into the category of true
palimpsests in Bailey’s categorization in building scale; but, in the urban scale, due to their
co-existence in the capitals of Christianity in different parts of the empire may be
understand in terms of a spatial palimpsest. On the other hand, as it was in the Lateran
Church, the construction of the churches near the palace of the emperor and the location of
these palace-church complexes near the highest hill of the city can be seen in
Constantinople with the construction of Hagia Sophia near the Great Palace on the skirts of
the Acropolis hill. Similarly, use of the church as mausoleum as it was in the San
Sebastiano in Rome can be seen in the Church of the Holy Apostles which was used as the
most important burial place of the Christian Roman emperors in Constantrinople. Also
these examples show that there are more than one big churches in these cities located on the
hills, and construction of these complexes on the highest point of their cities as the most
visible sites may be interpreted as a symbol of the increasing importance of religion. In this
respect, the changing religious understanding of the empire in the fourth century shows
85
itself in the urban context of Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople. These similarities
between the religious buildings located in Rome, Jerusalem and Constantinople may be
taken to support their interpretation as forming spatial palimpsests since they are on
different locations but used for similar functions and with similar configurations.
In the urban context of Constantinople, while the fourth century religious buildings
were conversions of the congregation halls into religious buildings, beginning from the fifth
century, construction of Christian basilicas increased.53 As the first example of the fifth
century basilicas, the Studios Basilica (contemporary Imrahor Mosque) was built near the
Golden Gate in 463. Entrance to the symmetrical three nave basilica was provided from a
square atrium located on the west of the building and the ground level of the Studios
Basilica was surrounded with a U-shape gallery level on the upper story (Figure 3.13).54
Construction of the Studios Basilica near the Golden Gate may be interpreted as an
important site selection regarding the imperial context because as mentioned in the previous
chapter (p:36), the Golden Gate was the victorial entrance of the city where the emperor
returned from battle with victory. The later conversion of basilica into a mosque, on the
other hand, may be understood best in terms of a palimpsest of meaning.
Figure 3.13. Plan of the Studios Basilica in Constantinople

(Source: Mathews, 1971, 20.)
53
These churches mentioned in detial in this heading can be seen in the Appendix A.
54
Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, 21.
86
Secondly, the Topkapı Palace Basilica was built on the Acropolis hill in the fifth
century and, due to the lack of evidence about the original name of the basilica, the building
is named from its location in the boundaries of contemporary Topkapı Palace. In the lack of
detailed evidence, according to the archaologists, the Topkapı Palace Basilica was a three-
naved rectangular building and access to the basilica was provided from an atrium on the
west. Differently from the Studios Basilica, the apsis wall of the Topkapı Palace Basilica
was separated from the main structure of the building on the east (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.14. Plan of the Topkapı Basilica in Constantinople

As it was in the Studios Basilica, the site selection for Topkapı Palace Basilica
on the former Greek Acropolis gives hints about the continuities in the urban context.
Since it overlaps with the earlier site of the Greek temples dating to the seventh century
BC. Instead of constructing these basilicas on the empty areas in the city, emperors
ordered their constructions on sites earlier occupied by the earlier period’s religious
areas and temples. This may be interpreted as a palimpsest of meaning in the urban
scale in which the religious importance of the location is lasting from the first
settlement in the Historic Peninsula, although the building process itself works as a true
palimpsest in which traces of earlier writings are erased.
87
In the sixth century, newly built religious buildings differ from the fifth century
basilicas regarding their size and plan types. As the first important church that differs
from the earlier buildings with its plan type and domed structure, the Church of the St.
Sergius and Bacchus was built in 527 near the Great Palace. As an important difference
from the rectangular basilicas, the Church of the Sergius and Bacchus has a central
dome covering its square plan. Due to its centrality and covered central space in front of
the apsis, as it was in Hagia Sophia, this church is named as Little Hagia Sophia and
accepted as a small-scaled model of Hagia Sophia (Figure 3.15). 55 In the middle of the
sixth century, the Petros and Paulos Church was built adjacent to the south wall of the
Church of the St. Sergios and Bacchus, and in the lack of evidence, it is thought that a
long narthex and an atrium were shared by these twin churches in the sixth century. 56
Figure 3.15. Plan of the Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople
As another sixth century basilica, the Beyazit Basilica A was built as the oldest
building located in the Beyazıt Church complex near the Forum of Tauri. 57 Differently
from the other two-storied fifth and sixth century churches, the Beyazıt Basilica A was a
55
56
57
88
single storey building, and consisted of three naves and two aisles surrounding the
church on the north, south and west. According to the excavations, the apsis wall of the
basilica was located on the east and was separated from the main structure of the
building. In this respect, the plan type of the Beyazit Basilica shows similarity with the
Topkapı Palace Church (Figure 3.16). 58 (Appendix B)
Figure 3.16. Plan of the Beyazit Basilica A in Constantinople

When taken together these early Christian religious building remains

concentrating around the vicinity of Hagia Sophia form a temporal palimpsest
consisting of traces of a number of period in the same location, highlighting the
increasing religious importance of the area which was once the heart of public
entertainment. To summarize, up to the emergence of Christianity as the official empire
religion, Christians in Constantinople conducted their religious rituels in house-
churches and domus ecclesiae. While the house-churches were used as personal worship
places, domus ecclesiae were used for communal rituels. This came to a halt in the
fourth centıry, when the Christianity became the state religion and the basilicas, public
meeting buildings of Christians, began to be used for the communal Christian worship
ceremonies. In time, these basilicas were specified in their plan types and their
construction as religious buildings accelerated in Constantinople. This may be
58
89
interpreted as an indicator of the reflection of changing religious understanding of the
Roman Empire in the building scale and on the other hand, the concentration of these
religious buildings concentrated around the Great Palace and this shows parallelism
with the religious temples and sacred areas of the earlier periods of the city and this may
be interpreted as a palimpsest of meaning in the urban context.
3.4. Hagia Sophia: From the Initial Constantinian Construction to

Justinian the Great’s Great Monument
Beginning from its initial construction phase, it is possible to find traces of these
earlier Constantinian churches in the evolution of Hagia Sohia. The initial construction
phase of Hagia Sophia in 360 has been restituted with a basilical plan with double side
aisles and galleries that resembles the Lateran Church in Rome. With its enlarged
middle nave and transept that provide additional spaces for ceremonial or religious use,
the Church of the St. Peter’s can be seen as another model for the Megale Eklesia
except in its transept.
Up to the construction of Hagia Sophia in the 4th century, Hagia Eirene was used
as the church of the patriarchate in Constantinople. Hagia Eirene is included in the first
group of Armstrong’s study with its basilical plan with two aisles but the building
additionally has a dome on the four buttresses over the main space. Although its central
domed area and aisles on both sides of the enlarged middle nave are comparatively
smaller than those of Hagia Sophia, the Church of Hagia Eirene can be seen as another
model for Hagia Sophia in its later phase.
Because the building passed several reconstruction periods, information about
the first construction phase of Hagia Eirene is not detailed, but consistent estimates are
given by archaeologists on the basis of the condition of the building today. Hagia Eirene
was built 110 meters to north of the site of Hagia Sophia in the fourth century, and
consisted of three naves and double portico in the atrium. A first fire badly damaged
Hagia Eirene in the Nika Riot in 532 and, after thirty two years, a second fire resulted in
the demolition of the atrium and the narthex. 59 After its repair, Hagia Eirene was
damaged by an earthquake in 740 but the scope of the demolition and its repair is not
59
Thomas F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, (London: The
Pennsylvania University Press, 1971), 79.
90
known clearly. Finally, the building was repaired by Ottomans to be used as a museum
and took its final form that we know today. 60
Up to the construction of Hagia Sophia in the fourth century, Hagia Eirene was
the biggest church of Constantinople and used as the patriarchate. As in Hagia Sophia,
there was a private building serving for the patriarchate in the site of Hagia Eirene.
Also, when Hagia Sophia was damaged in 404, Hagia Eirene gained in importance and
was used again as the church of the patriarchate for eleven years to lose its significance
again after the reconstruction of Hagia Sophia by Theodosius II. As mentioned in detail
in the previous chapter (p:35), Hagia Eirene was called the Old Church. After the Nika
Riot in 532, both churches were reconstructed by Justinian and Hagia Eirene was
devoted to Holy Peace. The building was included in the Topkapı Palace after the
Ottoman conquest and used as armory up the seventeenth century. 61 Because the
building was not transformed into a mosque and stayed in use as the museum, Hagia
Eirene, as known today, remains from the age of Ottoman reconstruction period (Figure
3.17). 62 This may be interpreted as a cumulative palimpsest, which resulted in merging
of traces of all construction activities together in the current state of the building.
Figure 3.17. Plan of Hagia Eirene in Constantinople

60
61
In the eighteenteenth century, Hagia Eirene began to be used as armor museum and consisted of two
important collections: Mecma-I Esliha-I Atika (Old Armor Collection) and Mecma-I Asar-I Atika
(Antiquities Collection). “Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 1, 433.”
62
Sumner-Boyd and Freely, İstanbul Gezgininin Rehberi: İstanbul’u Dolaşırken, 105.
91
Hagia Sophia’s construction near Hagia Eirene as the most important church of
Constantinople and the patriarchate may be interpreted as an indicator of the effect of
Hagia Sophia’s urban context on its construction. The site of Hagia Sophia was
occupied by temples in the Greek period and since all traces of these buildings were
lost, the construction of Haga Sophia resulted in a true palimpsest though the continual
religious use of the area may also be interpreted as a palimpsest of meaning. Also,
instead of constructing Hagia Sophia on an empty area in the city, Constantine the
Great’s choice near Hagia Eirene and the Great Palace may be seen an important
continuity of the palace-church complexes mentioned in the previous section. Even
though Constantine was the first emperor that rendered Christian architecture visible in
the urban context with his monumental Hagia Sophia, the traces of former attempts
elsewhere in Constantine’s empire can be seen in the unique architecture of Hagia
Sophia.
As mentioned in the previous chapter (p:32), the construction of the first Hagia
Sophia, as the Megale Eklessia to the north of the Augusteion Square, was begun on the
orders of Constantine the Great and completed in the reign of his son Constantius in
360. Due to the lack of evidence, it is assumed that Megale Eklessia was in the form of
a three naved Roman basilica with a raised middle nave, covered with a timber roof.
Because the building was accepted as the symbol of the wisdom of Christ, Megale
Eklessia was devoted to Divine Wisdom (Figure 3.18). 63
Figure 3.18: Models for Hagia Sophia in Constantinople from Thedosius II to Justinian
(Source: http://www.byzantium1200.com)
63
92
During the reign of Theodosius II, the Megale Eklessia got burned in a fire and,
after a reconstruction, re-opened for public use in 415. Today, remains from this second
building consisting of “a monumental colonnade and entrance portico” are visible
outside of the main entrance of Hagia Sophia from the west. Also, a 4 meter-long wall
out of brick and rubble stone, running from west to the east of the Theodisian church is
thought to belong to this building phase. The floor of the Theodisian church between
this wall and the colonnade is about 2 meters below today’s church. The building was
restituted as accessed through an atrium by six steps from the paved roadway on the
west. 64 In this respect, architectural characteristics of the Theodisian Hagia Sophia
shows parallelism with earlier churchs built during the reign of Constantine the Great
with its rectangular basilical plan and roof. Also, the Theodisian Hagia Sophia was
oriented more to the south than the contemporary Hagia Sophia (Figure 3.19-20). 65
Figure 3.19. Remains of Theodisian Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in front of the

west facade of the contemporary Hagia Sophia today. (Source: Taraz,
2013)
64
Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church, 135.
65
93
Figure 3.20. “A tentative reconsruction of the Theodisian Hagia Sophia in Constantinople,
based on a scaling-up of plans of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem and other related structures.” (Source: Mainstone, 1988, 141.)
Differently from the formers, Justinian’s Hagia Sophia was built out of brick and
stone to avoid destructions of possible fires in the future and, in 537, Hagia Sophia was
opened with a re-dedication to Divine Wisdom.66 As a result of big earthquakes in 557,
the dome of Hagia Sophia collapsed and a new dome was built higher than the old one
and the building was re-opened in 563. 67
As explained in more detail in the previous chapeter (p:42), this second Hagia
Sophia got burned in the Nika Riot during the reign of Justinian the Great when the
most important public monuments of Constantinople were destroyed. The construction
of the Hagia Sophia that we know today was begun in 532 and was conducted on a
completely burned and cleaned area after the Nika Riot.
In addition to the earlier churhces in Constantinople, Justinian’s great monument
had references from the Pantheon in Rome. Although, the Christian use of Pantheon dated
to the seventh century, the building stayed in use from its construction in 25 BC by
Agrippa (45-12 BC). In Campus Martius, Pantheon was surrounded with the Baths of
Nero on the north, Baths of Agrippa on the south, and the Domitian Stadium on the west.
However, the Pantheon, “of all Gods” in Greek, as we see today is not Agrippa’s original
building. According to the archaeological evidence, “Agrippa’s Pantheon was a
rectangular building. There were ten columns on two long sides and the temple opened to
66
67
94
the south. On the south of the building, there were the Baths of Agrippa, the first public
Roman bath.” 68 When Agrippa’s Pantheon got burned in 80 AD, the building was
reconstructed and today’s Pantheon dates to a Hadrian (117-138) period reconstruction
between 118-125 AD. Hadrian’s Pantheon consists of an eight-colonnaded pediment, a
domed cylinder and, between these two, there is a rectangular space (Figure 3.21). 69 This
rectangular part of Pantheon faces north while the cylindrical main space that was entered
from covered with the largest dome of its time (43m. in diameter). The coffered dome is
divided into five horizontal and twenty-eight vertical sections, and at the center, there is
an oculus as the only source for light and ventilation. 70 As in the earlier Hagia Sophia, a
true palimpsest may be seen in the case of Pantheon as well in which the later building
erases all traces of the earlier building. Apart from its predecessor Roman buildings
which were designed as “exterior architectures” with no public access, Pantheon was
designed as an interior public space that could be entered (Figure 3.22). 71
Figure 3.21: Plan of Pantheon in Rome

(Source: Macdonald, 1982, plate: 98).
68
Joost-Gaugier, “The Iconography of Sacred Space: A Suggested Reading of the Meaning of the
Roman Pantheon,” 25.
69
William L. Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I: An Introductory Study (London:
Yale University Press, 1982), 95.
70
Joost-Gaugier, “The Iconography of Sacred Space: A Suggested Reading of the Meaning of the
Roman Pantheon,” 25.
71
Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I: An Introductory Study, 111.
95
Figure 3.22: Section of Pantheon in Rome
(Source: Macdonald, 1982, plate: 105).
The undivided space of the rotunda and the dome with oculus remove the sense of
direction in the interior space. In this way, the interior itself becomes the focus for the
visitor. This undivided space perception and covering the main area with a monumental
dome is seen in Hagia Sophia as a continuation from Pantheon, although over a rectangular
main space in continuation of the basilical type. As to the construction technique, the timber
roofing of the Constantinian basilicas were replaced by the possibilities offered by concrete
as exemplified in the Hadrianic Pantheon. In this way, two separate lines of evolution were
combined to produce an exemplary monument for centuries to come.
Justinian’s Hagia Sophia is a two-storied almost squarish rectangular building that
consisted of the combination of a central and longitudinal plan types covered with a central
dome between two semi-domes.72 (fig.3.20) While Hagia Sophia has the characteristics of
early Constantinian churches with its longitudinal basilical plan, at the same time,
continuation of space and spectacular covering dome of Hagia Sophia has references of
Pantheon in Rome. The biggest dome of Costantinople was designed by architects
72
96
Anthemius of Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus as a symbol of the power of Justinian. 73 The
central (31x31m.) square space under the dome consists of four buttresses (41,5m. height)
and these butresses are connected with four arches. Above this square, the central dome
made of brick is located, and its drum is divided into forty windows. 74
Around the central area of the building, galleries and aisles are located. To access
these galleries, ramps in towers were built on the corners of the building. Two semi-domes
are connected to the central dome from the east and west to provide spatial continuity. This
continuity of space was created by Antheimus and Isidorus for the first time in the basilical
plan typology in Hagia Sophia. This central area is separated by a two-storied colonnade
from the two naves on the north and south. On the four corners of the naves, exedras are
located and, in this way, the central nave of Hagia Sophia became oval, which revealed the
first example of oval-shaped naved basilicas. With this spatial continuity provided by
domes, semi-domes and exedras, the apsis is no longer the focus of the basilica, and the
spatial characteristics of the enlarged oval-shaped nave change the space perception. In this
way, the gloriousness of the building with the enlarged nave without partition became more
important than to reach the apsis in the basilica.75
Kleinbauer and White use Procopius’s De aedificiis, one of the most important
written evidence for the public and political life of the Empire and the architectural
activities in Constantinople in their book Ayasofya to describe Justinian’s construction
activities. In De aedificiis, the Emperor is called “the person who reconstructed the
world”. Procopius starts De aedificiis with the construction of Hagia Sophia and the
building is described as a symbol of the power of Justinian the Great. According to De
aedificiis, to construct such an important building, 10.000 construction foremen worked
and the dwellings on the site were destroyed. 76 (Figure 3.23)
As explained in detail in the previous chapter (p:43), Justinian’s Hagia Sophia
was built southeastwardly in the public and administrative core of the city. With its
orientation to the southeast, Hagia Sophia differs from the existing churches and grid
street layout of Constantinople which is described in the previous chapter (p:29). To the
south, Hagia Sophia was connected directly to the Great Palace via the Augusteion
Square. In this way, Hagia Sophia was integrated as the new religious building in the
imperial trio model adopted from the city of Rome and revealed as the visible
73
74
75
Kleinbauer and White, Ayasofya, 18, 24.
76
Kleinbauer and White, Ayasofya, 12, 13, 14.
97
monument of the new religious understanding of the empire in urban scale also as the
most important node of the imperial ceremonies.
Figure 3.23: Ground floor and gallery level plans of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
(Source: Mainstone, 1988, 271.)
98
3.5. Imperial Ceremonies: The Route from the Great Palace to Hagia
Sophia
Hagia Sophia had a key role in public and political ceremonies in

Constantinople. Woodrow groups these ceremonies as “those celebrated at Hagia
Sophia only, involving the procession of the court from the palace to the cathedral and
back; those that conduct the court further afield, to other Constantinople churches and,
in particular, along the Mese to the Forum of Constantine; and those that were
celebrated exclusively within the palace walls.” 77 Among them, the ceremonies
conducted in Hagia Sophia will be analyzed here due to the link they reveal with the
Great Palace.
While transformation of Roman basilica into Christian basilica indicates the
effects of changing official religion of the Roman Empire physically; re-location of
imperial ceremonies conducted in Constantinople from the hippodrome to Hagia Sophia
can be interpreted as a reflection of the power of the new religion in the urban context.
Admission of the patriarch as the magistrate is one of the visible examples of this
transformation in the city. While churches and basilicas appear as visible traces of
monumentalization of Christianity in the urban context, ceremonies conducted in these
monuments are ritualistic symbols of this transformation.
These ceremonies consisted of two important stages: the procession of the
Emperor to Hagia Sophia as the sole agent of the Empire and the liturgy managed by
the Patriarch as the head of the Church. From the throne (Figure 3.24) [1] to Daphne
Palace [2], the court consisted of administrators and guards of the emperor. Besides the
religious and political importance, processions were important indicators of the loyalty
of administrative figures to the emperor. 78
The day before the ceremonies, the route used in the ceremonies was cleaned
and decorated with flowers. 79 After the completion of preparations, the emperor left
from his throne room, Chrysotriklinos, in the Great Palace and prayed above the
imperial throne, in front of the enthroning Christ mosaic and put on the ceremonial
77
Zoe Antonia Woodrow, “Imperial Ideology in Middle Byzantine Court Culture: The Evidence of
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s de ceremoniis” (doctoral thesis, DUR, 2001), 59. Available at Durham
E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3969/)
78
Antonia Woodrow, “Imperial Ideology in Middle Byzantine Court Culture: The Evidence of
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s de ceremoniis” (doctoral thesis, DUR, 2001), 45, 489, 49.
79
Robert S. Nelson, Hagia Sophia 1850-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 5.
99
dress, scaramangia and sagia. The procession can be followed from the previous
section. (p:55, Figure 3.6) At this stage, the mosaic of the enthroned Christ was a
symbol of the superior power of the religion over the emperor.
The procession of the emperor from his residence to the Great Palace presents
the emperor as a political character receiving courtiers, while a faithful character
praying in front of the Christ mosaic. Beginning from the Triumph of Orthodoxy in, the
Council of 843 that allowed using icons, the route the emperor followed from the Great
Palace throughout the ceremonies was decorated with divine figures and icons. In this
way, political declarations were integrated with Orthodoxy and the power of the religion
was emphasized with pictorial representations of administration.
After receiving the prayers in Daphne Palace, the procession was begun by the
emperor and his military and civil officials. Firstly in Daphne, the emperor received candles
from the sanctuary of Theotokos, who was accepted as one of the most important divine
figures that interfered in the salvation of Constantinople. Then the emperor visited the
sanctuary of the Holy Trinity and baptistery to venerate the cross, which was the most
important figure that symbolized the Christ and accepted as the life-giving cross. Then the
emperor and his court moved through the Octagonal Chamber [3] and the emperor waited
for the instructors of the patriarch for the religious ceremony. When the instructors were
received, the emperor was dressed. In the tenth century, the re-dressing of the emperor
was made in Hagia Sophia with the patriarch. With “Be pleased!” shouts, the emperor
and his court moved through the meeting place, Consistorium [4] where the emperor
was given gifts from the courtiers consisting of magistrates, proconsuls and patricians.
After the Consistorium, the court and the emperor arrived in the Lynchi in the Tribunal
[5] where the emperor listened to the acclamations of Blues and Greens. 80 Then the
emperor walked through the Chalke [6], the bronze gate of the Great Palace, and
crossed the Augusteion Square [7]. In this way, the imperial privacy of the procession
gained a public character between the Great Palace and Hagia Sophia. Then the emperor
arrived at the Hagia Sophia [8] with acclamations.
80
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s de ceremoniis” (doctoral thesis, DUR, 2001), 49, 57, 58, 69, 70, 71,
78.
100
Figure 3.24: Imperial route from Great Palace to Hagia Sophia
(Source: Base map from Düzgüner, 2004, 75.)
The Emperor entered Hagia Sophia from the southwest vestibule that opened to
the inner narthex and left his crown (Figure 3.25) [1]. The emperor was met here by the
patriarch and venerated the cross. Then they passed through the Royal Doors with
thanksgivings and entered into the nave [2]. The emperor moved to the sanctuary from
the way that sceptres and banners were lined up both sides of the emperor, and the
patriarch and the emperor walked through the apse and the Royal Doors [3]. While the
patriarch moved, the emperor waited in front of the altar with candles and the patriarch
101
brought forward the altar cloth to kiss. Then the white clothes were opened and gold
and liturgical objects were left. The emperor kissed the golden crucifix at the apse [4]
and stood at the south-east of the nave [5].Then the emperor walked back to the holy
doors and kissed the sanctuary. The emperor went back to the south-east of the nave [6]
and then the patriarch came to meet the emperor and accompanied him to the door of
the Holy Well where the patriarch crowned the emperor [7]. The re-coronation of the
emperor symbolized the return of his authority and political character that disappeared
when the patriarch took his crown in front of the door of Hagia Sophia. During the
ceremonies, common acts of the emperor and patriarch symbolized the inseparable
union of the religion and administration, and the arrival of the emperor to the sanctuary
demonstrated the important place of the emperor in the divinity of the religion.81
(Appendix E) 82
Figure 3.25: Procession route into the Hagia Sophia

(Source: Base map from Woodrow, 2001, 262.)
81
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s de ceremoniis” (doctoral thesis, DUR, 2001), 79, 80, 83, 92.
82
For more information on the liturgical use of Hagia Sophia, “Mathews, Thomas F. The Early
Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy. London: The Pennsylvania State University,
1971.” is recommended.
102
As it is seen, each step of the emperor from his palace to the most important
monument of Christianity in Constantinople, Hagia Sophia, had its own meaning
emphasizing the obedience of administration to Christianity. The Great Palace and
Hagia Sophia had key role in the imperial ceremonies of Constantinople and after
Christianity became the state religion, while the physical changes can be seen in the
transformation of the worship places from house-churches to the Roman basilica and
then to Christian basilica, at the same time, changing religious understanding may be
seen symbolically throughout these ceremonies via mosaics, emperor and religious
figures as visible symbols of power of the empire with an amphasis on the superiority of
Christianity over administration.
3.6. Chapter Conclusion
A diachronic reading of traces in and around Hagia Sophia shows that after
becoming the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, Constantinople enlarged in a grid-
iron plan and existing monuments and public buildings such as the Zeuksippos Baths
and hippodrome from the period of Greek Byzantion were maintained. Mese was
developed as the most important route of the city which had references from the city of
Rome with Milion as the beginning point and, in time, the branchroads of the Mese
housed important religious buildings and public squares of Constaninople. While the
above ground street network developed according to a grid-iron plan around the Mese,
constructions of cisterns and subterranean tunnels brought about an underground
network which may be understood as complementary to the above ground street and
monumental network of the city. While both networks had their own hierarchical
organizations regarding building size and their locations, the hidden and isolated
underground level of the site may be seen as the contrast of the pomposity of the above
ground of Constantinople.
As another reference from the city of Rome, the imperial trilogy model was
adopted in Constantinople and after the construction of Hagia Sophia, the immediate
vicinity of the building became the administrative, public and religious core of the city.
Regarding their accommodation capacities and sizes, those imperial trilogy components
of Constantinople portrait a minimized Rome. In both cities, construction site of the
imperial palace was chosen according to the location of a major public entertainment
103
buildimg in order to provide a direct connection of emperor to the public without
moving out his residence and, declaring the Milion “zero point” in the middle of their
most important public squares, Forum Romanum in Rome and Augusteion Square in
Constantinople, at the very beginning of foundation of the cities may be seen as the
common symbols of world-wide significance of the two capitals.
In terms of religious power, which was always minor and mixed in the imperial
cult and pompous importance of public spaces in Rome, Constantinople’s monumental
religious buildings, and most importantly Hagia Sophia, point to rising religious power
and decline in public entertainment in the city. In other words, while Constantinople
was re-founded as a small-sized and Christianized Rome, Hagia Sophia and the
hippodrome reveal as spatial reflections of changing significance in the public and
religious understanding from the city of Rome to Constantinople.
When Hagia Sophia is analyzed as a single structure, mosaics of the building
through the imperial processions demonstrate the changing relation between
administration and religion in the city. The progression of the Emperor during the
ceremonies such as praying in front of the Hagia Sophia, leaving the crown before
entering into the church and receiving the crown from the patriarch may be seen as the
most important indicators of the uppermost importance of Christianity over the imperial
power, on the other hand, depictions of the emperors and empresses in Hagia Sophia
beginning from in the eleventh century may be interpreted as an indicator of the
increasing presence of the emperor in the religious sphere via the most important
religious building of the city, as we will see in the next chapter.
104
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
HAGIA SOPHIA AS A CUMULATIVE PALIMPSEST:
ITS CHANGING CONTEXT AND USES FROM THE
CONSTANTINIAN BASILICA (4TH C.) TO THE ROYAL
MOSQUE OF MEHMED II (15TH C.)
In this chapter, firstly, the period of regression of the Eastern Roman Empire that
began in the sixth century is studied to understand changing imperial and urban context
of difficult times in the city of Constantinople which continued with the Latin
domination in the thirteenth century. To understand the timing and nature of building
scale changes in Hagia Sophia in relation to those in its urban context, repairs and
decoration of Hagia Sophia are studied. Then, the Ottoman domination of
Constantinople in the fifteenth century is studied to understand the physical traces of
change in the imperial context during the transformation of the city from Christianity to
Islam and the effects of this transformation in the building scale on Hagia Sophia and its
vicinity via Mehmed the Conqueror’s interventions.
As conclusion, the data on the settlement history of the Historic Peninsula of
Istanbul from the first emergence of an urban way of living in the seventh century BC to
the Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth century studied in detail in the second chapter are
combined with the third chapter consisting of the continual transformation process of
Hagia Sophia and its immediate vicinity buildings to interpret Hagia Sophia as part of a
larger urban context in relation to its surrounding buildings. In order to do this, the
information on the macroform and neighborhood scale data is cross-read to understand
Hagia Sophia and the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul in a palimpsestic process which
contains the earlier and the newer traces of the urban context. In this way, continuities
and changes in the building and urban scale data are superimposed to reveal the
essential value of Hagia Sophia as an architectural masterpiece.
105
4.1. From Crusades to the Ottoman Conquest: Continuities and
Changes in Hagia Sophia and Its Neighborhood
As mentioned in the previous chapter (p:47), with the death of Justinian the
Great, the period of regression for Byzantine Empire began. Beginning from the second
half of the sixth century, earthquakes and plague epidemics resulted in a decrease in
population and the destruction of the major monuments of Constantinople. Therefore,
emperors who came to throne after Justinian mostly focused on the reconstruction of the
city. In 610, when Heraclius came to the throne, Constantinople passed through an
expansive reconstruction programme, as mentioned in the previous chapter. (p:47) The
reconstruction programme of Heraclius concentrated on the neighborhood of the
Augusteion Square. Due to Heraclius’s aim to strengthen the weakened military power
of Constantinople, on the south of the Augusteion, Zeuksippos Baths were transformed
into a military post and prison. On the south, damaged reception hall of the Great Palace
was reconstructed. The structure of the hippodrome was strengthened to support
demolished arches and some rooms were used as a cistern. A two-storey building of the
patriarch was reconstructed on the southeast of the Augusteion Square. On the north, the
demolished narthex of Hagia Eirene and the structure of Hagia Sophia were repaired. 83
During the reconstructions, new movable objects ornamented with sacred
84
representations began to be used in churches and called as icon.
As a result of deep interest in ornamentations and figures in churches, Emperor
Leon III (717-741) was concerned about the domination of worship to such depictions
and prohibited the description of sacred figures in the most important religious
buildings of the city. This attitude is called as Iconoclasm. 85 During the reign of Leon
III, Hagia Sophia was badly damaged by Iconoclasm and icons were destroyed. 86 The
information that we know today about the icons of Hagia Sophia is based on the written
records of Fossati brothers, who reconstructed Hagia Sophia in the nineteenth century. 87
83
Konstantinopolis-İstanbul, 65, 112, 248, 249.
84
85
86
87
Marie-France Auzepy. “Konstantinopolis’in Siyasal ve Dinsel Yaşamında Ayasofya’nın Yeri.” In
Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı (İstanbul: Kitap
Yayınevi, 2011), 111.
106
According to the Fossati brothers, the banned saint descriptions were replaced with
landscape and nature scenes during the Iconoclastic period. 88
Up to the eighth century, administration of the Byzantine Empire had close
relations with the patriarch. While the emperor profited from the divine power of the head
of religion, the patriarch gained an imperial importance as the closest figure to the
emperor. But during the reign of Leon III in the eighth century, this mutual relationship
was damaged when the patriarch asked to increase the use of icons in the churches. The
Emperor was annoyed by the increasing belief on sacred depictions and prohibited icon
worship. This prohibition of Leon III indicates that although the head of the religion and
the emperor had voice in the other’s management domain, the emperor had the last word
in both the imperial and religious decisions. Similarly in the ninth century, Basileios I
intervened in the religious context of the Empire and cancelled the iconoclastic period.
Thus, according to the records of Fossati brothers, the apse of Hagia Sophia was
ornamented with the icons of Virgin Mary and Child Jesus mosaic and the inner sides of
the arches were decorated with the icons of previous patriarchs in the ninth century. 89
As mentioned in the second chapter (p:49), the reign of Basileios (867-886) is
called as “the second golden age” of the Roman Empire when the decline of the
Byzantine Empire, lasting for three centuries, came to a halt. This was when prohibition
of religious icons was cancelled and landscape paintings in Hagia Sophia were replaced
by saint depictions. Construction of monasteries adjacent to churches increased during
the reign of Bailesios and these religious complexes were ornamented with religious
mosaics. 90 As mentioned in the second chapter (p:50), the plan type of Nea Ekklesia
brought innovation to the religious complexes and monasteries built after Basileios used
the cross-in-square plan type of Nea Ekklesia. These monasteries were constructed as
building complexes on the western regions of the Historic Peninsula including a library,
dormitory and hospital besides their religious buildings. In this respect, the western part
of Constantinople became a public core where people could pray, learn and recover.
Because Basileios moved to the Palace of Mangana on the east of the Acropolis, the
Great Palace was abandoned and the division of the imperial trilogy began. The
administrative part of the trilogy model moved to the north shore of the city. This
separation may also be interpreted in the structural sense as a separation of the religious
88
White, Matthew, and Kleinbauer, Ayasofya, 49.
89
90
Kuban, İstanbul Bir Kent Tarihi: Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, İstanbul, 141, 142.
107
and administrative power in the city and empire. However, although the imperial palace
component was physically distanced from the main church in the city and empire, there
actually seems to be no decline in the power of the emperor in the representation of the
religious power in the city.
This would be confirmed by the information we have on the interior of Hagia
Sophia before the ninth century based on the written evidences of Procopius (500-565)
and Paulos Silentiarios (520-575). 91 These two writers emphasize on the grandeur of
Hagia Sophia which was created by the use of gold and marble on the walls and
floors. 92 Although some of the Justinian period mosaics including geometrical
ornaments, fruit and flower figures revealed during the on-going restoration work; due
to the several destruction and reconstruction phases of Hagia Sophia, mosaics known
today mostly date to the period between the Macedonian dynasty in the ninth century
and the Latin invasion in 1024 mentioned in the previous chapter. 93
Beginning from the ninth century, liturgical ornamentation of Hagia Sophia may
be seen as a reflector of the urban context of the building. For example, theme of the
mosaic dating to the period of regression in the tenth century focuses on the historical
background of the Roman Empire or seraphims dating to the ninth century were seen as
the protectors of the weakened Empire due to the epidemics and continuously
collapsing dome of Hagia Sophia after earthquakes. To reveal such a parallelism,
mosaics of Hagia Sophia are studied in their context (Appendix E).
As one of the earlier mosaics of Hagia Sophia dating to the ninth century on the
inner-above side of the Imperial Gate, Emperor Leo VI (886-912) who is the successor
of Basileios I is depicted as kneeling down in front of Christ sitting on a throne. Instead
of constructing new buildings or repairing damaged structures, Leo VI was interested in
religious and philosophical development of Constantinople and known as “Leo the
Wise.” To symbolize his deep interest in the religion, Leo VI ordered his mosaic as a
symbol of his loyalty to Christianity. On the book which is held by Christ, “the best of
peace to you. I am the light of the world” is written. 94 On both sides of this mosaic, two
medallions of Mary and Gabriel are located. On the other hand, as mentioned
previously, the relationship between the head of the religion and the emperor was
91
Pierre Chuvin. “Ayasofya Yeniyken... Açılışı Yapıldığında Bazilikanın Renkli Süslemeleri.” In
Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı (İstanbul: Kitap
Yayınevi, 2011), 90.
92
Chuvin, “Ayasofya Yeniyken... Açılışı Yapıldığında Bazilikanın Renkli Süslemeleri,” 90.
93
White, Matthew, and Kleinbauer, Ayasofya, 49.
94
108
weakened in the eighth century. In this respect, the mosaic of Leo VI can be interpreted
as a symbol of the end of debates between the head of the religion and the empire.
Emperor Leo VI is seen as kneeling down in front of Christ which may be interpreted as
symbolizing the dominance of the religion over the emperor. However, the mosaic is
also depicting the emperor, and not the patriarch, in the presence of Christ, as the
earliest known instance when an emperor joined the holy figures depicted in the
monument. This presence may be interpreted as a reflection of the ongoing presence of
imperial power in the religious context of the city and empire, and may be interpreted as
another indicator of the ongoing power of administration over religion (Figure 4.26).
Figure 4.26: Mosaic of Leo VI

(Source: Kleinbauer, 2004, 60.)
As another ninth century depiction of Hagia Sophia, bishops and seraphims were
revealed during the recent studies on both sides of the nave as troops of guardsman of
the Pantocrator mosaic holding the Bible on their left hand and bless with the right. But
only four seraphims on the four pendentives under the dome can be seen today. The
mosaic of Pantocrator and surrounding depictions are religious representation of
109
imperial ceremonies which consisted of an emperor and his statesmen, politicians and
wardens, also materializing imperial power in a religious context (Figure 4.27). 95
Figure 4.27. Seraphims on pendentives.

As the last ninth century depiction, the Virgin Mary and child Jesus mosaic
between archangels Michael and Gabriel is located on the apse vault of Hagia Sophia.
While Pantocrator mosaic is located on the west wall, Virgin Mary and child Jesus is at
the opposite as the protector of east side of Hagia Sophia. As the mother and the first
believer of Christ, Virgin Mary has a major role in the religious buildings of Christians
and the figure of Mary is located on the most important part of the church, the apse, in
the religious core of the Empire at that time (Figure 4.28). This choice requires a
95
110
detailed explanation, through a better knowledge on Christian ornaments in churches,
which could not be attained within the time limits of this study.
Figure 4.28. Apse mosaic, Virgin Mary and Child Jesus.

Although the reign of Basileios I in the ninth century is called as the “second golden
age” of the Roman Empire, in the tenth century the Empire began to lose power as a result
of continuous conflicts with Muslims and Latins. As a tenth century mosaic, Virgin Mary
was depicted between Justinian the Great and Constantine the Great on the Imperial Gate in
the southwest vestibule. While Constantine was the first emperor of Constantinople as the
capital of the Orthodox Eastern Roman Empire in the fourth century, and Justinian was the
most important emperor that monumentalized Constantinople with his construction
activities in the sixth century, their mosaics do not date to a period of decline in their epochs
but to the tenth century.
On this renowned mosaic, Virgin Mary and child Jesus are represented as seated on
a throne and meeting two great emperors of the Roman Empire. While Constantine presents
a model of Constantinople, Justinian carries the model of Hagia Sophia. Also, on the
ceiling, flower figures and geometrical ornamentations dating from the Justinian period are
111
seen around the mosaic. (Figure 4.29) Dating to a period of decline, this mosaic may
perhaps be interpreted as an attempt to remind the city its earlier grandeur and power, as a
firm basis on which to flourish again.
Figure 4.29. Mosaic of Virgin Mary, Constantine the Great and Justinian the Great
above the Imperial Gate. (Source: Taraz, 2013)
From the economical point of view, while the imperial budget focused on military
expenditure in the urban context of Hagia Sophia, in the building scale, there was
significant investment for liturgical ornamentations of the building in the tenth century. This
mosaic symbolizes the relation of the founders of the Eastern Roman Empire and Hagia
Sophia; in other words, emphasizes on the ongoing strong bond between administration and
religion.96 The selection of the former successful emperors as theme for this very visible
mosaic can be interpreted as a desire to re-build the power of the historical background of
the Empire to increase the depleted trust on the Byzantine Empire in the tenth century.
While Constantinople was passing through a military and administrative regression in the
96
112
urban context of Hagia Sophia, in the building scale, successful emperors of the Roman
Empire and Virgin Mary as the savior of Christians were used to resurrect the weakened
belief in the Empire. However, while those two emperors had the power to build a huge city
and a unique monument such as Hagia Sophia, that of the emperors of the regression period
only sufficed for minor decorations such as this mosaic.
During the reign of Alexios I Komnenos in the eleventh century, Constantinople
passed through an extensive reconstruction programme. While Alexios I was living in
the Palace of Mangana including a hippodrome and vast gardens, the entertainment
function of the Byzantine hippodrome decreased in the eleventh century. The audience
in the hippodrome of Mangana consisted of the administrative figures of the Mangana
Palace, and the public participated only in the imperial ceremonies conducted in the old
hippodrome. Thus, the division of the imperial trilogy model which began in the ninth
century with the abandonment of the Great Palace increased with the abandonment of
the Byzantine hippodrome. Later, Alexios I moved to the Blachernea Palace at the north
end of the Theodisian walls due to the security concern. Although there are debates on
the construction date, it is assumed that the Palace of Porphyrogenitus (Tekfur Sarayı)
was constructed in the site of the Blachernea Palace in the period of Alexios I and
remained as the only surviving structure belonging to the Blachernea Palace. 97
Although the Great Palace was no longer used as the administrative and
residential core of the Empire anymore, its building and the terraces were repaired
according to their old functions. The upper terrace was at the same level with Hagia
Sophia, Augusteion and the hippodrome. The entrance to the palace was provided from
the western gate of the hippodrome, under the imperial seat, kathisma. The lower
terrace was at the sea level and foreign administrators and important visitors were
hosted at this terrace after meeting by the Emperor at the gate adjacent to the
hippodrome. 98 This highlights the ongoing representative function of the Great Palace,
which is seen as reflected also in the nearby Hagia Sophia.
As the eleventh and twelfth century mosaics, on the eastern wall of southern
gallery, depictions of Empress Zoe and Konstantinos IX mosaic (11th century), and
mosaic of Empress Eirene, Ioannes Komnenos II and their son Alexios II (12th century)
are located on the two sides of the window which is located across the apse vault. For
the first time, depictions of empresses are seen in the mosaics of Hagia Sophia with
97
98
113
Empress Zoe and Empress Eirene. Because Empress Zoe was interested in the
improvement of education and ordered the construction of new institutes in
Constantinople, she was accepted as important as the Emperor and depicted on the
eastern wall of southern gallery. 99 In both mosaics, Empresses are depicted as holding a
purse and a roll of paper on both sides of Christ symbolizing the charity and generosity
of the imperial family. (Figure 4.30) This, again, is implying the ongoing influence of
the imperial family in the religious sphere.
Figure 4.30. Empress Zoe and Konstantinos IX mosaic (left) and Empress Eirene and
Ioannes Komnenos II mosaic. (Source: Taraz, 2013)
Up to the Latin conquest in 1204, the Byzantine Empire struggled to get stronger
after the destructive effects of plague epidemics, earthquakes and attacks. Emperors
focused on repair and reconstruction of damaged major buildings of Constantinople. As
explained in the second chapter (p:52), when Latins attacked Constantinople, the
Byzantine Empire was too weak to confront and in 1204, Latins conquered
Constantinople. Although Constantinople became the capital of Romania, Baldwin and
Dandolo continued to damage the city. To symbolize their superiority, Latins protected
Hagia Sophia and converted the most important religious building of the Byzantine
Empire into the cathedral of their new kingdom. Although the gravestone of Dandolo is
99
114
located in the south gallery, no other remains from his burial were found in Hagia Sophia
(Figure 4.31). While Byzantine emperors were buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles
as the most important mausoleum from the reign of Constantine the Great, Dandolo’s
choice to be buried in the most important Orthodox monument may be interpreted as a
monumental symbol of the superiority of Latin Catholicism over Roman Orthodoxy. On
the other hand, his burial inside a church would fit into the church-mausoleum typology
of the Constantinian period. After the re-conquest of the city from the Latins, a bronze St.
Michael’s Column, not seen today, was erected on the orders of Michael VIII in front of
the Church of the Holy Apostles according to recent archaeological studies. Although
there is no evidence about the burial place of Michael VIII, it is assumed that the tomb of
the Emperor was in the Church of the Holy Apostles as the “new Constantine” of the
Byzantine Empire. 100 This would mean a return back to the Orthodox tradition.
Figure 4.31. The gravestone of Dandolo in the south gallery of Hagia Sophia.
100
Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” 255, 258.
115
As to the building itself, the damaged structure of Hagia Sophia was supported
by flying buttresses on the western wall and the building was transformed into the
cathedral of the Latin patriarch in 1204. 101 The Quadriga statue with four horses, moved
from hippodrome to the top of the buttresses of Hagia Sophia, was moved to the St.
Mark’s Basilica in Venice in 1204. In the same year, the religious ceremonial gifts in
Hagia Sophia were moved to Venice and the Byzantine altar was replaced by a Latin
one. 102
In 1246, the main dome collapsed for an unknown reason and was reconstructed
in eight years with grants from the public. 103 This may be taken to show the weakness
of Latin economic power in the city. The Great Palace reconstructed in the twelfth
century was used for dwelling and administration by the imperial family during the
Latin domination. 104 With the conversion of Hagia Sophia into the cathedral and the re-
use of the Great Palace as the administrative building, the imperial trilogy model began
to come together again in the thirteenth century which finds its parallel also in the
proximity of the Doge’s Palace and St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice where we have the St.
Mark’s Square instead of the hippodrome.
When the St. Mark’s Basilica was built in 1094 in Venice, the building had
references from the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople with its Greek-cross
plan type and five domes 105, as an instance, when Constantinople became a model for
another city. Also, St. Mark’s had its own square which served as the main public area
of Venice at that time. After the construction of the St. Mark’s Basilica, Doge’s Palace
was built on its south with its own courtyard and connected to the basilica. 106 In this
configuration, we may observe the survival of the religious building, public square and
palace combination that is similar to Constantinople’s. In this respect, the pillaging of
Constantinople treasures of to Venice may be more understandable (Figure 4.32).
101
Emerson H. Swift, “The Latins at Hagia Sophia,” American Journal of Archaeology 39 (1935), 459.
102
103
104
105
Robert F. Gatje, Great Public Squares (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), 36.
106
Robert F. Gatje, Great Public Squares (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), 36.
116
Figure 4.32. St. Mark’s Basilica and Doge’s Palace in Venice.
(Source: Gatje, 2010, 34.)
Constantinople was taken back from the Latins by Byzantine Emperor Michael
VIII (1261-1281) in 1261. As mentioned in the second chapter (p:53), Michael VIII was
named as “the new Constantine” of the Empire as he focused on the reconstruction and
repair of Constantinople. Although Michael VIII was crowned in Nicaea in 1259, his
second coronation ceremony was conducted in Hagia Sophia in 1261 to symbolize the
rebirth of the Byzantine Empire. 107 Up to the coronation ceremony of Michael VIII, the
Latin additions to Hagia Sophia were removed. Sacred gifts and religious textiles were
used to symbolize the re-gained Byzantine religious power of Hagia Sophia. On the
vault of the south gallery, the Deesis mosaic depicting Virgin Mary and John the Baptist
107
117
as praying to Christ for his pardoning the sins of humanity on the judgement day, is the
only thirteenth century mosaic probably from this period (Figure 4.33). 108
Figure 4.33. Deesis Mosaic.

Despite the ongoing symbolic importance of Hagia Sophia, when the urban
context of Hagia Sophia is studied between the ninth and thirteenth centuries, it is seen
that the immediate vicinity of Hagia Sophia was losing its importance. While Michael
VIII was living in the Great Palace, the burned walls and buildings surrounding
Blachernea Palace were reconstructed as the imperial residence. 109 The imperial trilogy
model decomposed with the abandonment of the Great Palace for Blachernea and that
of the hippodrome on the south of the Historic Peninsula. But this did not happen
immediately. In the ninth century, Palace of Mangana was built on the east shore of the
Acropolis and the emperors chose to live in there up to the eleventh century. When
Alexios I came to the throne in the eleventh century and Michael VIII after the Latin
invasion, Blachernea Palace near the Theodisian walls began to be used. Although the
construction of Nea Ekklesia and repair of the hippodrome may be interpreted as
108
Nelson, Hagia Sophia 1850-1950, 22.
109
118
maintaining the administrative importance of the Great Palace area between the ninth
and thirteenth centuries, the entertainment, administrative and religious unity of the
imperial trilogy was divided.
While Constantinople was passing through continual transformation, the
emperors mentioned in this chapter mostly focused on the repair and reconstruction of
the city. Although Heraclius, Basileios, Alexios I and Michael VIII were among the
most important emperors that recovered Constantinople after earthquakes and
epidemics; the emperors depicted in Hagia Sophia were Constantine, Justinian, Leo VI,
Empress Zoe and Empress Eirene. As it is mentioned, these mosaics date back to the
Macedonian Dynasty of the Empire when the urban context of Hagia Sophia was
passing through a significant change.
In the urban context of Hagia Sophia, surrounding buildings began to be used for
different functions to cope with the period of regression. For example, Baths of
Zeuksippos were transformed into a prison and monasteries were converted into
military posts. While its urban context was badly affected by attacks of Arabs and
Latins, Hagia Sophia was ornamented with sacred depictions of Christ and the
important administrators of the Empire. The ninth century mosaics of Hagia Sophia can
be interpreted as reflections of the change in the imperial context of the building.
Liturgical ornamentations of Hagia Sophia were used to represent the power the
Byzantine Empire via luminous effects of mosaics. The central dome which is perceived
as hanging in the air, decoration materials and light penetrating into the nave were
major tools for creating a sacred atmosphere in Hagia Sophia. While Procopius and
Silentiarios mention geometrical ornaments, fruit and flower figures in their written
records, beginning from the ninth century, depictions of emperors, Virgin Mary and
Christ in the mosaics of Hagia Sophia indicate the importance of religion as a tool for
administration in the urban context of Hagia Sophia. It is clear that Hagia Sophia was
seen as a shelter by people in Constantinople and, in the worst times of the Byzantine
Empire, Hagia Sophia was ornamented with the mosaics of the emperors. Using the
most successful emperor depictions in Hagia Sophia in the weakened times of the
Empire can be seen as a desire to focus on the power of the historical background to
increase the depleted trust on the Byzantine Empire. In this respect, dates of mosaics in
Hagia Sophia can be interpreted as clues for important changes in its imperial and urban
context. In this way, a cumulative palimpsest may be seen in Hagia Sophia consisting of
a combination of the earlier traces of the building with the new imperial context.
119
4.2. Hagia Sophia in 1453: The Imperial Mosque of the Ottoman
Empire
As mentioned in the second chapter (p:55), Constantinople was badly damaged

during the three days of the Ottoman conquest and the two components of the already
dissolved imperial trilogy consisting of the hippodrome and the Great Palace were
looted. Due to the construction of new dwellings around after the conquest, the size of
the hippodrome was reduced, but in later periods the area would remain as the most
important ceremonial core of Konstantiniyye. 110 The circumcision celebration of Murad
III’s son Mehmed in 1582 was one of the most important ceremonies conducted in the
hippodrome which lasted for fifty three days. 111 In this way, after the Ottoman conquest,
chariot races and the imperial ceremonies of the Byzantine Empire were replaced by
javelin tournaments and Ottoman imperial ceremonies and celebrations.
The second component of the Roman imperial trilogy, the Great Palace was
badly damaged during the Ottoman conquest. Although the Great Palace was
reconstructed, the so-called Old Palace (in the sense of being older than Topkapı
Palace) was built on the site of today’s Istanbul University Beyazıt Campus as the new
residential area of Mehmed the Conqueror. In 1459, the construction of Topkapı Palace
began on the former Acropolis hill. After its completion, Ottoman sultans started to live
in Topkapı and eventually the Mese became the Divan Route where the imperial
ceremonies were conducted in Konstantiniyye. As the most important public square of
the Roman imperial trilogy model adopted by the Byzantine Empire, the hippodrome
would be transformed into the Sultanahmet Square after the construction of Blue
Mosque on the north of the Great Palace in 1616. The prison in the site of the Baths of
Zeuksippos on the north of the Great Palace moved to the Yedikule Fortress and the
baths were destroyed in the reign of Mehmed the Conqueror. Although the conversion
110
Mustafa Yıldız, “Sultanahmet Meydanı’nın Kronolojik ve Mekansal Oluşum Süreci Üzerine Bir
Araştırma” (master thesis, Yıldız Technical University, 2002), 43. Although the hippodrome was not
used commonly for wedding ceremonies, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent’s sister Hatice Sultan and
Pargalı İbrahim Pasha’s wedding ceremony in 1524 may be given as a rare example for the use of
hippodrome during the wedding eremonies in the Ottoman Empire.
111
Yıldız, “Sultanahmet Meydanı’nın Kronolojik ve Mekansal Oluşum Süreci Üzerine Bir Araştırma,”
43.
120
of the palace into a prison at the center of the city may be curious, according to the
written evidences, the repositories of the repaired Great Palace were used as prison. 112
With the re-location of the residential area of rulers from the Great Palace to the
former Acropolis hill, the imperial trilogy model of Constantinople may be thought to
have continued with the Ottoman conquest of the city, however in a modified way.
While the Roman Empire trilogy consisted of the hippodrome, the Great Palace, and the
church of Hagia Sophia, Ottoman’s new trilogy consisted of the hippodrome as a public
square, Hagia Sophia as the imperial mosque and the Topkapı Palace on another but
proximate location. The real rupture would appear to be not in the physical model but in
the power relations it symbolized.
Although the Great Palace and the hippodrome were badly damaged in the
imperial trilogy model, the third component, Hagia Sophia was protected on the orders
of Mehmed the Conqueror. When Constantinople was conquered in 1453, the first
building visited by the Ottoman conqueror Mehmed II was Hagia Sophia. As mentioned
in the written records of the traveler Evliya Çelebi, Ottomans had close relationship
with Constantinople and especially with Hagia Sophia before the conquest. Although
his narrative is found occasionally exaggerated, according to Evliya Çelebi, Mehmed
the Conqueror sent the Ottoman architect Ali Neccar to repair the damaged structure of
Hagia Sophia in response to the request of the Byzantine Empire before the conquest of
the city. 113 Even though the Byzantines were in contact with the Ottomans, making a
request for the repair of a Christian monument from a Muslim empire may be curious.
But if the claim of Evliya Çelebi is true, the repair of Hagia Sophia by the Ottomans can
be seen an indicator of the increasing voice of the Ottomans in Constantinople.
As mentioned in the second chapter (p:55) the most important church of the
conquered city was transformed into the imperial mosque after the conquest as a
Muslim custom and Hagia Sophia was converted into the imperial mosque of the
Ottoman Empire in 1453. Because the orientation of Hagia Sophia was towards the east,
a new mihrab and minbar was built ten degrees southwardly aligned to Mecca. 114 On
the right of the mihrab, one of the prayer carpets of the Prophet was hung. 115 Hanging of
Prophet Muhammed’s hadith near the Imperial Gate from where the Byzantine Emperor
112
113
Necipoğlu, “The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium,” 202.
114
115
Afşar, Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle Ayasofya, 106.
121
used to enter in monument during ceremonies indicates that the Ottomans was informed
about the ceremonies of the Byzantines in Hagia Sophia. The interior furniture of
Christian Hagia Sophia consisting of benches and the altar were removed and a vast
emptiness was provided for Muslims to use during their ritual worship, namaz (Figure
4.34). 116 Mosaics of Hagia Sophia were partially plastered over. To re-call the
Byzantine past of Hagia Sophia and symbolize the superior power of Islam over
Christianity, Mehmed the Conqueror did not removed all mosaics of Hagia Sophia.
Instead, the mosaics which were located at the eye-level and seen during the namaz
were plastered over and the others located on the upper levels were protected. 117
Figure 4.34: Mihrab and minbar of Hagia Sophia

(Source: Kleinbauer, 2004, 85-6.)
Although the conquest of Hagia Sophia was a long-standing dream of the

Ottoman Empire, Mehmed the Conqueror realized minor interventions in the building.
Naturally Muslim additions were made to use Hagia Sophia as a mosque, but partial
masking of the mosaics was Mehmed the Conqueror’s preference to keep alive the
Byzantine and Christian past of the building. By keeping the traces of Christian and
Byzantine background of Hagia Sophia, Mehmed the Conqueror registered himself as
the last emperor of the world, and Islam as the superior religion over Christianity. In
116
117
Necipoğlu, “The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium,” 204.
122
contrast to the Byzantine emperors, Mehmed the Conqueror’s administration did not
attempt to control religion. Mehmed’s choice to preserve earlier traces of Hagia Sophia
dating to the Roman period of the building may be interpreted as a cumulative
palimpsest which includes the former traces and the newer interventions at the same
time. Integration of the earlier traces such as the mosaics of the Roman emperors and
Mary and Jesus figure with new Islamic additions were then parts of a cumulative
palimpsest that resulted from the conversion of Hagia Sophia from the imperial church
to the imperial mosque.
4.3. An Overview of the Palimpsestic Process in Hagia Sophia and its

Urban and Imperial Context
In this study, Hagia Sophia has been handled as a long-lived monument in its
continuously changing physical and cultural context. In order to reveal the type and pace
of transformation that occurred both in the building and urban scale, Arnold’s and Rossi’s
approaches on handling monuments in their contexts are used to constitute this thesis’s
conceptual framework with reference to Bailey’s palimpsest analogy. Therefore, the
Historic Peninsula is handled as a palimpsest (con)text which contains the traces of an
urban settlement from the first Greek establishment in the seventh century BC to the reign
of Mehmed the Conqueror in the fifteenth century. In this way, the Historic Peninsula
became a canvas where the older and the newer traces of the physical and cultural context
of Hagia Sophia co-existed via continuities and changes in a palimpsestic process. In this
section, urban and building scale data are cross-read to reveal these continuities and
discontinuities that make Hagia Sophia a living part of a larger context.
To start with the urban macroform, when the first Greek settlement of Byzantion
was established and surrounded with walls on the Acropolis hill in the seventh century
BC on the north of the Historic Peninsula, Neorion and Prosforion ports were built as
the first ports of the settlement on the north shore. This city was sieged and conquered
by the Romans after major destruction. In the second century AD, the boundary of the
Roman Byzantium was enlarged to the western and southern parts of today’s
Sarayburnu and new Severan walls were built to the west of the existing walls of the
Greek Byzantion. The city enlargement continued when Byzantium converted into
Constantinople as a capital of the Roman Empire in the fourth century and walls were
123
constructed to the west of the walls of the Roman Byzantium. Existing ports from the
period of the Roman Byzantium remained incapable and Kontaskalion, Eleutherios and
Julian ports were built on the south shore of Constantinople. In this way, trade in the
city expanded on both north and south shores of the Historic Peninsula. Then, at the end
of the fourth century, city enlargement continued. Theodisian walls were built to the
west of the existing walls and the Theodisian port was built on the south shore. From
the fourth century to the sixth, the walls remained unchanged but Heptaskalion port was
built on the south as the new port of the city in the seventh century. Then, the city was
conquered by the Ottomans in the fifteenth century and the city walls remained
unchanged and took their final form as the Yedikule Fortress as we know today.
As an important continuity, the northern ports of the city stayed in use from the
first Greek urban settlement to the Ottoman period of the city. Newly built ports on the
south resulted in the emergence of a new road that linked the south and northern regions
of the Historic Peninsula. While the southern ports were used for commerce, the
northern ports served for the Ottoman imperial family who lived in Topkapı Palace on
the Greek Acropolis hill in the fifteenth century.
In this enlarging macroform of the city from the north to the south and western
regions of the Historic Peninsula, Severan Portico emerged as the first main road of the
Roman Byzantium in the second century. The Severan Portico was developed as the Mese
in Constantinople and bifurcated into two important axes towards west in the fourth
century. The first branch road continued to the southwest with public squares on the road
and ended with the Golden Gate (contemporary Yedikule). This gate at the southwest
edge of the walls was the ceremonial gate of the city and was opened only for the return
of the emperor from battle after victory. The second branch road continued to the
northwest and ended with the Adrianople Gate (Edirne Kapı). While the southwest branch
of the Mese was a ceremonial road, the northwest branch had a religious importance due
to the Church of the Holy Apostles located on the road with the mausolea of Roman
emperors beginning from the fourth century. In the Ottoman period, the Mese was
converted into the Divan Route and retained its use as the ceremonial route constituting
an important continuity from the Roman period of the city.
While the city was enlarging from the north to the south and west of the
peninsula, the Mese stayed in use as the most important route of the city. Besides its
public use, this route was used as the most important ceremonial route with its
southwest branchroad ending to the Golden Gate, where was the ceremonial gate of the
124
city used by the emperor when he returned with victory from battle. Beside the victorial
return of the emperor, the Mese was began in the Augusteion Square where was the
most important public space of the city surrounded with Hagia Sophia, Great Palace and
the hippodrome. On the other hand, the northwest branch of the Mese was an important
housing the Church of the Holy Apostles where was the mausoleum of the Roman
emperors beginning from the burial of Constantine the Great in the fourth century. The
use of the Mese regarding its ceremonial and religious use continued in the Ottoman
period of the city. While the Golden Gate (Edirne Kapı) used for the return of the sultan
from the battle, the northwest branchroad stayed in use with the construction of Fatih
Complex, on a completely cleaned area from the remains of the Church of the Holy
Apostles, with its religious and public function including madrasas, Koran courses, a
library, hospital, guest house, imaret, caravansaray and mosque.
As the main axis of the city, the most important public squares were located
around the Mese and on its two branch roads. Before the first emergence of the Mese as
the Severan Portico in the pagan Byzantium in the second century, the public spaces of
the Greek Byzantion were located around the city port on the north and the Agora was
the most important public area of the city. As an important continuity in the public use
of the northern regions, the Greek Agora was converted into the Tetrastoon Square in
Roman Byzantium. This may be interpreted both as a contiuity and as a change
regarding the continual public use of the area from the Greek Byzantion to Byzantium.
At the beginning of the Severan Portico, the Augusteion Square was built as the main
open-public area of the city in a location cleared from Greek city walls and the
construction of the hippodrome to the southwest of the Augusteion was begun as the
main public building of Roman Byzantium. While the Augusteion Square points out the
location of the former city walls, there is not any visible remain from the Greek
Byzantion in the area and this may be interpreted as the permanent deletion of the traces
of the Greek city regarding the overlap of the new public spaces of the Roman
Byzantium on the traces of the Greek Byzantion.
When the city became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire as
Constantinople in the fourth century, the Severan Portico was developed as Mese.
Parallel with the city enlargement, the Mese was elongated toward west and at the
bifurcation point of the road, the Philadelphion Square (contemporary site of Laleli
Mosque) was built to the west of the Augusteion Square. On the southwest branch of
the Mese, new public squares such as the Forum Bovis and Forum Arcadius were built
125
in time as nodes of the ceremonies conducted to celebrate the return of the emperor after
the battle with victory. Such open public ceremonies did not exist in th Greek and
Roman period and, so, the series of public spaces hosting them may be interpreted as
the materialization of a change in the imperial context. Today, this ceremonial rout is
visible only partially, thanks to the survival of some of the monuments marking these
squares such as the Dikilitaş and Yılanlı Sütun.
While these squares served as open-space public areas in Constantinople, after
the completion of the hippodrome as the main entertainment building on the southwest
of the Augusteion, the public life of the city moved from open spaces to the enclosed
building complexes. In this respect, the construction of the hippodrome in
Constantinople may be interpreted as an important change in the public life of the city.
The building first housed chariot races as the entertainment core of the city. In addition
to this entertainment function, the hippodrome was used for the coronation ceremonies
of the emperors up to the construction of Hagia Sophia. In the sixth century, chariot race
teams turned into political parties and the hippodrome became a stage where people
argued their political tendencies. In this respect, the traces of the pagan Roman city
were preserved in the physical sense but the entertainment function was transformed
into a semi-political one in the Christian Roman city, as an important discontinuity.
When Latins captured the city in the thirteenth century, the hippodrome was badly
damaged and abandoned. Then, the city was re-captured from Latins but the building
was not used up to the Ottoman conquest.
When the use of the hippodrome came to a halt under Latin occupation in the
thirteenth century, public life around the Augusteion Square also diminished. But under
Ottoman domination, this discontinuity ended when the hippodrome started to be used
for wedding ceremonies and circumcision feasts. This public use of the hippodrome
continued when the Blue Mosque was built in the seventeenth century and the site of the
area converted into the Sultanahmet Square. Transformation of the hippodrome into the
Sultanahmet Square reveals an important continuity from the Roman period of the city
regarding the public re-use of the area, but with almost no trace of the Latin interlude.
This may be interpreted as a true palimpsest, erasing the earlier layers except in traces
preserving the architecture of the hippodrome while the area preserved its importance
through the ages.
As it is seen, hippodrome stayed in use from its first construction in the Roman
Byzantium to the Ottoman domination of the city and became one of the most important
126
characteristic elements of the Historic Peninsula with reference to Rossi. While the
hippodrome was used for the chariot races and coronation ceremonies in the fourth
century, the building was transformed into a political space in Constantinople in the sixth
century. Then the building became a public and imperial space where the wedding
ceremonies and circumcision feasts were conducted in the Ottoman Konstantinyye in the
fifteenth century and in this way, the use of the hippodrome as a public space continued.
In this respect, while the urban context was changing continuously, the hippodrome
stayed in use as a public space. Therefore, the continual use of the hippodrome as a public
space in the Historic Peninsula reveals the building as an important trace in a palimpsestic
process which lasted from the first construction up to the fifteenth century.
Around the hippodrome, as the public heart of the city, the imperial trilogy
model appears as an import from the city of Rome in Constantinople and constitutes a
complex into which Hagia Sophia would later be added next to the hippodrome and
palace in the immediate vicinity of the Augusteion Square. This co-existence of the
hippodrome and the palace in Constantinople had references from the city of Rome
where the Circus Maximus and the Domitian Palace were built adjacent to each other to
provide a relation with the public for the emperor without going outside of his
residence. The third component of the trilogy were the baths that were, in the case of
Constantinople, built over the Temples of Zeus and Hippios, preserving their trace in
the name Zeuksippos. Hagia Sophia would substitute this erased religious component of
the Roman imperial trilogy model, in such a grand scale that would alter drastically the
religious landscape of the city. When the imperial route beginning from the Great
Palace to Hagia Sophia combined with the interior space ornaments and mosaics of the
church, an interconnection may be seen between the building and its urban context.
According to the written evidence belonging to Procopius and Silentiaros,
interior ornamentation of Hagia Sophia consisted of geometrical ornaments, fruit and
flower figures up to the ninth century. These ornamentations were replaced by the
depictions of the emperors and religios figures beginning from the ninth century when
the period of regression began in the Eastern Roman Empire due to conflicts with
Arabs, Latins and Turks resulted in a halt in the urban growth of the city. While the
urban development ceased and the imperial budget focused on military expenditures in
this period, the interior of Hagia Sophia was decorated with mosaics of early successful
emperors of the Roman Empire and the figures of Virgin Mary and Jesus as the savior
of Christians to increase the weakened belief in the empire and resurrect the depleted
127
trust on the administration. This lack of synchrony between embellishment in urban and
building scale is noteworthy, in showing how Hagia Sophia had become a tool for
political propaganda during times of crisis. On the other hand, this may be interpreted as
an important effect of the urban context of Hagia Sophia in the building scale because
depicting the successful emperors of the empire such as the Constantine and Justinian
may be seen as an important attempt to increase trust on the Empire via the mosaics of
the most important church of the capital of the Roman Empire. In this respect, change in
the ornamentation of Hagia Sophia from floral figures to the emperor and Virgin Mary
depictions as the protecter of the empire may be interpreted as an important indicator of
an interconnection between the Hagia Sophia and its imperial context.
Up to the construction of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the religious core of the
Greek Byzantion was located on the Acropolis hill, as surrounded with walls, and
consisted of temples and sacred areas on the north. In addition to the temples and sacred
areas in the boundaries of the Greek Byzantion, there were several temples outside of the
walls along the southern slopes of the Acroplis hill and the northwest regions of the
Historic Peninsula. In the lack of archaeological evidence pertaining to the religious areas
of the Roman Byzantium, the degree to which this religious landscape was preserved or
transformed could not be studied in this thesis. Advance of archaeological knowledge on
Roman Byzantium would have a lot to contribute in surveys such as the present one.
When the city was re-founded as Constantinople under the reign of Constantine
the Great, Hagia Eirene was built to the north of the Augusteion Square as the first
church and patriarchate of the city in the fourth century. Then, the initial construction of
Hagia Sophia was begun on the site between the Hagie Eirene and the Augusteion
Square. After its completion, the patriarchate moved to Hagia Sophia and, in this way,
the religious importance of Hagie Eirene diminished. Up to the Ottoman period, the
religious use of Hagia Eirene continued but, in the fifteenth century, the building was
converted into a military museum and included in the boundaries of Topkapı Palace.
Conversion of Hagia Eirene into a museum reveals an important discontinuity regarding
the religious use of the building, through a process described by Bailey through his
category of palimpsests of meaning.
In the urban context, the site of Hagia Sophia overlaps with the earlier site of the
Greek temples in Byzantion and this may be interpreted as a true palimpsestic process
that erased all traces of earlier buildings though their meaning was in a way preserved in
the continual religious use of the area. This continuation may be seen in the construction
128
of Hagia Eirene as well, over the sacred areas of the Greek Byzantion on the southern
slopes of the Acropolis hill. In addition to Hagia Eirene and Hagia Sophia, the Church
of the Holy Apostles was built in the fourth century with the mausoleum of the Roman
emperors starting with Constantine the Great, on the northwest branch road of the Mese
where Greek temples were located outside of the city walls in the period of Greek
Byzantion.
With the construction of the Church of the Holy Apostles, a district of the city
was upgraded and the road became an important link connecting the core of the city
with the newly built area. Additionally, monasteries built in the fourth century increased
the religious importance of the northwestern regions. Although the Church of the Holy
Apostles had a major importance as the mausoleum of the Roman emperors, the vicinity
of the Augusteion Square on the south of today’s Sarayburnu became the religious core
of the Christian Roman capital due to Hagia Eirene as the first patriarchate and Hagia
Sophia as the most important node of the imperial ceremonies.
When the city was captured by the Latins in the thirteenth century, Hagia Sophia
was converted into a Catholic cathedral for fifty seven years. As Constantinople
imported the imperial trilogy model from the city of Rome in the fourth century,
Constantinople apparently became a model for Venice in this period. It is argued that
the plan type of the St. Mark’s Basilica built in Venice in 1094 had references from the
Greek-cross plan type of the Church of the Holy Apostles, which was built for a second
time under the reign of Justinian the Great in the seventh century in Constantinople. The
monumental organization at the heart of Venice may also be compared to
Constantinople’s to see a parallelism in the square of the St. Mark’s Basilica as the main
public square like Constantinopolitan hippodrome. A similar parallelism may be
observed in the construction of the Dodge’s palace adjacent to St. Mark’s Basilica with
the administrative component of the imperial trilogy model of Rome as imported in
Constantinople. When all the material stolen by the Latins to Venice are also taken into
consideration, Constantinople may be observed to have become a model city in the
eleventh century, while the city modeled Rome up to that time. The gravestone of the
Venetian Doge Dandolo in Hagia Sophia may be interpreted as an important reflection
in the building scale of the change that occured in the urban context of the building as
the monumental symbol of the superiority of Latin Catholicism over Roman Orthodoxy.
Reflections of changing urban context on building scale may be seen in the
administrative buildings of the city besides the public spaces and religious buildings. In
129
fact in the Greek Byzantion, the administrative buildings of the city were located on the
north of the Agora. In the lack of archaeological evidence, there is not any reliable
evidence about the site of the palace of Septimus Severus in the Roman Byzantium, but
one mentioned possible location is the site of today’s Istanbul University Beyazıt
Campus on the north of the hippodrome where a temporary residence was built for
Mehmed the Conqueror right after the Ottoman conquest of the city at the end of the
Severan Portico in the Roman Byzantium, which would developed into the Mese in
Constantinople and become the junction point of two main axis of the city. This may be
interpreted as a true palimpsestic process due to the construction of the palace on the
earlier site of the administrative buildings of the Roman Byzantium, thanks to which the
location retained its administrative importance though erasing all earlier traces.
Then, the Great Palace was built in the fourth century as the main administrative
core of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire to the south of the Augusteion Square
in Constantinople and adjacent to the hippodrome as in the Roman imperial trilogy
model. In this way, the administrative core of the city moved from the Agora area on
the north to the beginning of the Mese on the west of the Augusteion Square. From
fourth century to the ninth century, the Great Palace was used as the residential area of
the Christian Roman emperors and the core of the city remained unchanged around the
Augusteion Square.
In the ninth century, due to the damaged structure of the Great Palace after
earthquakes, the Palace of Mangana was built to the east of the Acropolis hill and used
as the new residential and administrative building of the emperor. In this way, the first
dissolution of the trilogy occurred in the ninth century as the administrative component
of the trilogy was separated from the public and religious components, i.e. the
hippodrome and Hagia Sophia. In the eleventh century, due to the unprotected site of
the Palace of Mangana, the emperor moved to the Blachernea Palace near the
Theodisian Walls on the northwest branch of the Mese. This relocation of the
administrative core first in the east and then to in northwest of the city is a noteworthy
but now widely known discontinuity from the fourth century to the eleventh century in
Constantinople. As an indicator of the permanent deletion of the Christian Roman
Constantinople, while the Mangana and Blachernea Palaces had major importance as
administrative cores of their own contexts, the only known palace dating from the
period of the Christian Roman city is the Great Palace today.
130
During the Latin occupation in the thirteenth century for fifty seven years, Latins
repaired and moved back to the Great Palace. The existence, in the vicinity of the
palace, of Hagia Sophia which converted into a catholic cathedral by the Latins, had a
major role in the increasing importance of the Great Palace under the Latin domination,
and may be taken as an indicator of the effect of Hagia Sophia on its urban context. In
this way, the separation of palace from the imperial trilogy model ended in the
thirteenth century when the Latins used the Great Palace as their residential area. After
re-capturing the city from Latins, the Byzantine emperors continued to live in the Great
Palace. The palace was abondened only after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople.
The so-called “Eski Saray” (Old Palace) was built to the west of the Augusteion
Square as a temporarily residence for Mehmed the Conqueror. Located at the junction
of two main axis of the Byzantine city and possibly at the location of the Roman palace,
this temporary residence apparently restored the administrative importance of the area
around the Augusteion Square at the beginning of the ceremonial roads of the city. This
reveals an important continuity from the period of the Christian Constantinople and
possibly Roman Byzantium. Yet, very much like the lost traces of the Greek city walls
in the vicinity of the Augusteion Square, the trace of these two palaces was also lost
beneath the current Beyazıt Campus of Istanbul University.
Then, Topkapı Palace was built on the former Greek Acropolis hill as the
permanent residential area of the sultan. In this way, the northern regions of Sarayburnu
retained their importance but as an administrative core, which is an important
discontinuity from the religious use of the hill from the period of Greek Byzantion in a
true palimpsestic process. On the other hand, the religious use around the Augusteion
Square remained unchanged and the area retained its importance from the Christian
Roman Constantinople to the Ottoman Konstantiniyye in the fifteenth century.
Like Constantine the Great’s new capital had references from the city of Rome
as the former capital of the Roman Empire, Mehmed the Conqueror’s capital had
references from the former Ottoman capital Bursa. Similar to the Roman trilogy model,
the palace of the sultan and the main mosque were built in the vicinity of each other in
Bursa with an important difference from the Roman model: a missing public space
component. Instead of a public building like the hippodrome, grand bazaars existed in
the former capital of the Ottomans. When Bursa became the capital of the Ottoman
Empire, Orhan Gazi had moved to the citadel surrounded with walls on the north of
Bursa, and the construction of Bey Palace had begun to host administrative and
131
residential building inside walls. As the biggest religious building of Bursa, St. Elias
Monastery was converted into a mosque and called as Silvered Tomb (Gümüşlü
Kümbet). Near Bey Palace, Orhan Gazi ordered the construction of a bath. Outside of
the citadel, the commercial area of Bursa, bedesten, was located as the most important
public space of the city. Differently when Constantinople became the new capital of the
Ottoman Empire as Konstantiniyye, the hippodrome was repaired to become the
ceremonial and public core of the city as it was during the Byzantine Empire. In this
way, the commercial area in the Bursa model was replaced by the hippodrome in
Konstantiniyye, as an important continuity from the Christian Roman period of the city.
As the religious component of the trilogy, Mehmed the Conqueror converted
Hagia Sophia into the imperial mosque of the Empire, following the model of Orhan
Gazi, and the building was largely preserved except in “minor” interventions such as
mihrab, minbar and minaret additions. To re-call the Byzantine past of Hagia Sophia
and symbolize the superior power of Islam over Christianity, Mehmed the Conqueror
did not remove all mosaics of Hagia Sophia. Instead, the mosaics which were located at
the eye-level and seen during the prayer (namaz) were plastered over and the others
located on the upper levels were protected. While this partial masking of the mosaics
may be interpreted as important change in the building scale, preservation of Christian
traces in the grand mosque of the Ottoman Empire may be seen as a continuity
regarding the visibility of the former traces of the Christian city in the imperial scale in
a cumulative palimpsest.
When Mehmed the Conqueror converted Hagia Sophia into the imperial
mosque, the hadith of Prophet Muhammed was hung near the Imperial Gate of the
building as an indicator that the Ottomans were informed about the ceremonial route in
the Byzantine past of the city. In other words, the traces of the former writings
belonging to the Roman past of the city can be seen in the preservation and maintenance
of Hagia Sophia under the Early Ottoman domination in the form of maintained un-
changed traces while the imperial context of Hagia Sophia was largely changed.
Similarly, after the conversion of Hagia Sophia into the grand mosque of the Ottoman
Empire, Mehmed the Conqueror preferred minor additions to increase the legibility of
Roman writings of the building to emphasize his power by keeping alive the former
traces in the building. The preserved ornamentations of Hagia Sophia including
seraphims, former emperor depictions and Virgin Mary and Jesus mosaics can be seen
132
as the uppermost writing of the building indicating an important continuity from the
previous writings of the building in a cumulative palimpsestic process.
When interventions of Mehmed the Conqueror on Hagia Sophia are compared
with those of the Byzantine emperors, it may be said that the Ottoman sultan did not
placed himself at the heart of the religion. The preservation of the Byzantine traces in
the building instead of making his own depictions on the walls and hanging Prophet
Muhammed’s hadith near the Imperial Gate may be seen as clues for Mehmed the
Conqueror’s choice to separate the administratyive and religion in contrast to the
Byzantine emperors who placed themselves at the head of the religion. As another
indicator of this segregation, Mehmed the Conqueror’s religious monumental complex
was located on the northwest regions of the city instead of the southern regions in the
vicinity of Hagia Sophia, Great Palace and Topkapı Palace.
After the conversion of Hagia Sophia into the imperial mosque, the construction
of Mehmed the Conqueror’s first Islamic monument was begun on the northwest
branchroad of the Mese where the Church of the Holy Apostles was located. To
construct Fatih Complex, the Church of the Holy Apostles was demolished and the
Christian Roman traces on the site were largely deleted. This new monumental complex
may be interpreted as the uppermost writing of the site in a true palimpsest process that
maintained the religious function of the area that is known to have started in the Greek
period and continued under the Roman though without a visible trace today.
Thanks to recent archaeological excavations, remains from the second Church of
the Holy Apostles can be seen in the site of Fatih Complex today. As the remains of the
Theodisian Hagia Sophia are visible today in the form of a 4 meter-long wall out of
brick and rubble stone running from west to the east, traces of the second Church of the
Holy Apostles dating to the period of Justinian the Great in the sixth century can be
seen in the courtyard of Fatih Mosque today. In this respect, these traces belonging to
the Theodisian Hagia Sophia and the Justinianic Church of the Holy Apostles reveal as
important traces surviving from the continual change in the urban context. Today, while
the remains of Hagia Sophia were preserved and opened for visit in front of the
building, the traces of the Church of the Holy Apostles in the site of Fatih Complex are
largely ignored and visitors are not informed about the previous period remains in the
area. Although it is not possible to grasp the connection of these traces in their own
temporal contexts today, future studies with a similar methodology of handling
133
monuments in their own temporal and spatial contexts may be helpful to understand the
whole picture consisting the ignored traces of the past in a spatial palimpsest in the city.
While Mehmed the Conqueror’s new monument resulted in a change both in the
physical and symbolic sense, the religious importance of the area continued. On the
other hand, after the construction of Fatih Complex, it may be said that the religious
core of the city was divided into two and while Fatih Complex became an important
religious center on the northwest of the city, the importance of Hagia Sophia remained
as the imperial mosque on the south. Hence the religious component of the imperial
trilogy model was divided into two parts, one located at the beginning of the ceremonial
axis of the city in the immediate vicinity of the Augusteon Square, and the on the
northwest branch road of this axis on the former site of the mausoleum of the Christian
Roman emperors. This decision would be better understood within the larger
perspective of the urban scale.
Although the main axis of the city and the site selection for the administrative,
public and religious buildings shows parallelism with the Roman period of the city, the
street layout of the Ottoman Konstantiniyye shows discontinuity regarding the street
layout and their connection with each other in the urban texture. The old buildings of
the Severan period and the new constructions of Christian Roman Constantinople were
integrated with a grid plan that consisted of right angled streets. In the Ottoman period,
the grid-iron plan of the city was replaced by scattered neighborhoods which resulted in
an organic growth in the street layout and enlargement beyond the city walls in a true
palimpsestic process.
In this respect, the Ottoman period of the city may be interpreted as an important
discontinuity from the Byzantine city regarding the change in the street layout. While
the grid-iron plan disappeared and was replaced by scattered neighborhoods, buildings
belonging to the former periods remained as monumental traces on the new layout of
the city dating from the earlier times.
4.4. Conclusion and Further Studies
Throughout these transformations occurred in the imperial and building scale,

Hagia Sophia was both affected from the transformations and itself transformed its
urban context synchronously. As a result, the building and its physical and cultural
134
context became a canvas where different writings dating from several periods of the city
overlap each other. Although these writings are not seen clearly and constitute a
meaningful whole in contemporary Istanbul, it is possible to trace them still by handling
the historic monuments such as Hagia Sophia in their own period’s physical and cultural
context. In this way, continuities and changes that occured both in Hagia Sophia and its
urban context reveal a correlation between the building and its immediate vicinity.
Conclusions reveal the potential in handling Hagia Sophia as a single monument
connected to its social and physical environment and the monument reveals as a
physical symbol of the urban and imperial scale transformations in the city.
The data on the imperial and urban context of Hagia Sophia is gained from the
changing time and space organization of the Historic Peninsula including changing
religious understanding, imperial ceremonies and public entertainments in addition to
the data on the use of these monuments by the public and the imperial family. When this
data is cross read in the previous section, Hagia Sophia revealed as an important
monument which is affected by its context while affecting it synchronously. Therefore,
an interconnection between Hagia Sophia and its urban context consisting of
architectural monuments is revealed and “is there any correlation between Hagia Sophia
and its urban context?” and “is the building affected from changes occurred in its urban
and imperial context?” are answered. Because Hagia Sophia adopted itself to different
uses and contexts, the building stayed in use from the first construction up to today. In
addition to the building scale conversions, correlation between Hagia Sopha and its
vicinity provided a continual use of the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul.
Similarly when the chronological use of the site of Hagia Sophia and its vicinity
studied, a continual religious use of the area can be seen which begins with the sacred
areas of the Greek Byzantion in the seventh century BC. In this way, “why was Hagia
Sophia built there?” is answered with the help of the palimpsestic point of view. As
another indicator of Hagia Sophia’s major effect on its urban context, the conversion of
the building into a mosque is a popular issue which has been debating in recent years.
These debates show the role of Hagia Sophia as an important monument which affects
the urban context via its use as mosque or museum.
In addition to these questions as the backbone of this thesis, this survey’s period
is determined as from the first emergence of urban way of living in the Historic
Peninsula in the seventh century BC up to the Ottoman conquest in the fifteenth century
because the life of the monument under Ottoman and Turkish Republican rule deserves
135
another much comprehensive research which could not be handled here due to the time
constraints and the necessity of a different methodology and literature study. In a
similar vein, the period between the second century to the fourth, especially the reign of
Septimus Severus in the Roman Byzantium, cannot be studied in detail due to the lack
of evidence. In this respect, this thesis may be helpful to fill such a gap regarding one of
the most important historical periods of the city.
The approach of this study in handling Hagia Sophia as a continuously
transforming monument in the Historic Peninsula may be helpful to combine older
traces hide behind the uppermost writings of the contemporary Istanbul. If we take
Istanbul as an urban palimpsest, while a newer (con)text is written, the earlier traces are
continuously covered or deleted partially. Traces surviving from this continual deletion
reveal continuities and discontinuities between the older and the uppermost writing of
the city. Hagia Sophia is one of those traces that may be used as a document situated at
the center of the public, administrative and religous core of the city from the first
settlement period up to the Ottoman conquest.
In this respect, new design proposals focusing on the historical past of the
monuments in their own contexts via the cross-reading of the urban scale literature and
building scale studies may be useful to constitute a meaningful whole and show Historic
Peninsula and Istanbul the respect they deserve in a larger scale in a palimpsest process.
This resembles that how we can understand a word with the help of its existing letters
even if its certain letters are missing, we can constitute a meaningful whole via physical
traces which are meaningless in contemporary urban setting of the Historic Peninsula
with the help of a palimpsestic view.
136
REFERENCES
Afşar, Yavuz. Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle Ayasofya. İzmir: Kaynak Yayınları, 2014.
Akgündüz, Ahmet, and Said Öztürk. Kiliseden Müzeye Ayasofya Camii. İstanbul:
Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı Prestij Kitaplar, 2006.
Akgündüz, Ahmet, and Said Öztürk. Üç Devirde Bir Mabed-Ayasofya. İstanbul:

Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı Tarih Dizisi, 2005.
Altınyıldız Artun, Nur. “Mimarlık Nesnesi ve Başka Nesneler.” E-skop Sanat Tarihi
Eleştiri 2 (2012): 1-24.
Altınyıldız, Nur. “The Architectural Heritage of Istanbul and the Ideology of

Preservation.” Muqarnas 24, History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the
“Lands of Rum” (2007): 281-305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482464
Armostrong, Gregory T. “Constantine’s Churches: Symbol and Structure.” Journal of

Society of Architectural Historians 33, no:1 (1974):5-16.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/988835
Arnold, Dana, Altan Ergut, and Belgin Turan Özkaya, eds., Rethinking Architectural
Historiography. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.
Arnold, Dana. Rethinking Architectural Historiography. London: Routledge, 2002.
Arens, Katherine. “Stadtwollen: Benjamin’s ‘Arcades Project’ and the Problem of

Method.” PMLA 122 no: 1 (2007): 43-60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25501670
Auzepy, Marie-France. “İstanbul’un Hipodromu.” In Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar,

Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı, İstanbul: Kitap
Yayınevi, 2011.
Auzepy, Marie-France. “Konstantinopolis ve Araplar (7.-9. Yüzyıllar).” In Bizans:

Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı,
İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.
Auzepy, Marie-France. “Konstantinopolis’in Siyasal ve Dinsel Yaşamında

Ayasofya’nın Yeri.” In Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie
Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.
Aygün, Çiğdem Özkan. “The Wells, Subterraenan Passage, Tunnels and Water Systems
of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.” August 20, 2013, www.fera-journal.eu
Bailey, Geoff. “Time Perspectives, Palimpsests and the Archaeology of Time.” Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007): 198-223.
137
Balivet, Michel. “Konstantinopolis’te Türkler (11.-15. Yüzyıllar).” In Bizans: Yapılar,
Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı, İstanbul:
Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.
Bassett, Sarah. Review by Elizabeth Marlowe. “The Urban Image of the Late Antique
Constantinople.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 126 (2006): 203-204.
Bassett, Sarah Guberti. “Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of
Zeuxippos.” American Journal of Archaeology 100, no. 3 (1996): 491-506.
Bassett, Sarah Guberti. “The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople.”

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45, (1991): 87-96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291694
Baynes, Norman Hepburn. Constantine the Great and the Christian Church. London:
Oxford University Press, 1972.
Berger, Albrecht. “Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks

Papers 54, (2000): 161-172. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291837
Berger, Albrecht. “The Byzantine Court as a Physical Space,” in The Byzantine Court:
Source of Power and Culture. Papers from The Second International Sevgi
Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, ed. Ayla Ödekan, İstanbul: Koç University
Press, 2013.
Bizantion’dan İstanbul’a Bir Başkentin 8000 Yılı. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Sakıp
Sabancı Müzesi, 2010.
Braubaker, Leslie. “Processions and Public Spaces in Early and Middle Byzantine
Constantinople,” in The Byzantine Court: Source of Power and Culture. Papers
from The Second International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, ed.
Ayla Ödekan, İstanbul: Koç University Press, 2013.
Brown, Peter. Geç Antikçağda Roma ve Bizans Dünyası. Translated by Turhan Kaçar.
İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2000.
Bury, John Bagnell. History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius
I to the Death of Justinian. London: Macmillan, 1923.
Casson, Stanley. Second Report upon the Excavations Carried out in and near the
Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1928 on Behalf of the British Academy. British
Academy, 1929. http://www.jstor.org/stable/297363
Cerasi, Maurice. “The Urban and Architectural Evolution of the Istanbul Divanyolu:
Urban Aesthetics and Ideology in Ottoman Town Building.” Muqarnas 22
(2005): 189-232. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482429
Charles, Martin A.. “Hagia Sophia and the Great Imperial Mosques.” The Art Bulletin
12, no:4 (1930): 320-345.
138
Chatzidakis, Nano. “Konstantinopolis’in İkonaları.” In Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar,
Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı, İstanbul: Kitap
Yayınevi, 2011.
Cormack Anthony and Ernest J. W. Hawkins. “The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul:
The Rooms above the Southwest Vestibule and Ramp.” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 31 (1977): 175-251. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291407
Cutler, Anthony. “Structure and Aesthetics at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.” The

Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 25, no:1 (1966): 27-35.
Çakmak, Ahmet S., and John Freely. İstanbul’un Bizans Anıtları. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi
Yayınları, 2005.
Chuvin, Pierre. “Ayasofya Yeniyken... Açılışı Yapıldığında Bazilikanın Renkli

Süslemeleri.” In Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong,
trans. Buket Kitapçı Bayrı, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.
Fiene, Donald M. “What is the Appearance of Divine Sophia?.” Slavic Review 48, no:3
Doğan, Sema. Ayasofya ve Fossati Kardeşler. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları,

2012.
Düzgüner, Fırat. Iustinianus Dönemi’nde İstanbul’da Yapılar. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve

Sanat Yayınları, 2004.
Downey, Glanville. “Justinian as a Builder.” The Art Bulletin 32, no. 4 (1950): 262-266.
Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı ve Tarih Vakfı Ortak
Yayını, Cilt 1, 1993.
Edizioni, Magnus. Rome: Art and Architecture. Edited by Marco Bussagli. Translated
by Peter Barton. Berlin: Könemann, 1999.
El Cheikh, Nadia Maria. Arapların Gözüyle Bizans. Translated by Mehmet Moralı.

İstanbul: Alfa, 2012.
Emerson, William and Robert L. Van Nice. “Hagia Sophia: A Unique Architectural
Achievement of the Sixth Century.” The American Academy of Arts and
Sciences 4 no:2 (1950):2-3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3822741
Emerson, William and Robert L. van Nice. “Hagia Sophia, İstanbul: Preliminary Report
of a Recent Examination of the Structure.” American Journal of Archaeology 47,
(1943):403-436. http://www.jstor.org/stable/499830.
139
Emerson, William and van Nice, Robert. “Hagia Sophia and the First Minaret Erected
After the Conquest of Constantinople.” American Journal of Archaeology 54,
no:1 (1950): 28-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/500639
Erkal, Namık Günay. “Constantinopolis: A Study on the City of Constantinople as the

Artifice of Constantine the Great’s Imperial Project.” Master thesis, METU,
1995.
Evren, Emre. “Archaeogeophysical Studies in the Sultanahmet –Blue- Mosque.” Vakıf

Restorasyon Yıllığı 4, (2012): 99-112.
Freely, John. Istanbul the Imperial City. London: Penguin Books, 1998.
Gatje, Robert F.. Great Public Squares. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.
Günsenin, Nergis. City Harbours from Antiquity through Medieval Times

http://www.nautarch.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/14_Gunsenin_B.pdf
(Accessed: 19.04.2014)
Gürşan, Nazlı. Yapıların Efendisi Aya Sofya. İstanbul: Cinius Yayınları, 2011.
Joost-Gaugier, Christiane L. “The Iconography of Sacred Space: A Suggested Reading

of the Meaning of the Roman Pantheon.” Artibus et Historiae 19, no: 38 (1998):
21-42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1483585
Kleinbauer, W. Eugene, and Anthony White, Ayasofya. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat

Yayınları, 2004.
Korkmaz, Gülsüm Ezgi, “Surnamelerde 1582 Şenliği.” Master thesis, Bilkent

University, 2004.
Kostof, Spiro. A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals. New York: Yazıcı
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Köroğlu, Gülgün. “İstanbul’daki Bizans İmparatorluk Sarayları.” Osmanlı Bankası

Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi, (13 Aralık 2006): 1-13.
http://www.obarsiv.com/e_voyvoda_0607.html (Accessed: 08.05.2014)
Krautheimer, Richard. Three Christian Capitals. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1983.
Kuban, Doğan. İstanbul Bir Kent Tarihi: Bizantion, Konstantinopolis, İstanbul.

İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2004.
Kuran, Aptullah. “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and
Istanbul.” Muqarnas 13, (1996): 114-131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1523255
Lemerle, Paul. Bizans Tarihi.Translated by Galip Üstün. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları,

2000.
140
Mabeyinci, Pavlos. Ayasofya’nın Betimi. İstanbul: İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü
Klasik Yapıtlar Dizisi, 2010.
MacDonald, William. “Design and Technology in Hagia Sophia” Perspecta 4, (1957):

20-27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566853
Macdonald, William L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire I: An Introductory

Study. London: Yale University Press, 1982.
Mainstone, Rowland J. Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Justinian’s

Great Church. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988.
Mainstone, Rowland J. “Justinian’s Church of St. Sophia, Istanbul: Recent Studies of its
Construction and First Partial Reconstruction.” Architectural History 12, (1969):
34-49+102-107. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568335
Majeska, George P. “Notes on the Archaeology of St. Sophia at Constantinople: The

Green Marble Bands on the Floor.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978): 299-
308. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291426
Malamut, Elisabeth. “I. Aleksios Komnenos Döneminde Konstantinopolis (1081-

1118).” In Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans.
Buket Kitapçı Bayrı, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.
Mango, Cyril. Bizans Mimarisi. Translated by Mine Kadiroğlu. Ankara: Özel Basım,
2006.
Mango, Cyril. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453: Sources and Documents.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986.
Mango, Cyril. “The Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate.”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000): 173-188.
Mark, Robert, and Ahmet Ş. Çakmak. Hagia Sophia: From the Age of Justinian to the
Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Mathews, Thomas F. The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy.

London: The Pennsylvania State University, 1971.
Matschke, Klaus-Peter. “Builders and Building in Late Byzantine Constantinople.” In

Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, edited
by Nevra Necipoğlu, 315-328. Boston: Bardill, 2001.
Meyendorff, John. “Justinian the Empire and the Church.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22,
Morey, Charles Rufus. “The Mosaics of Hagia Sophia.” The Metropolitan Museum of
Art Bulletin 2, no:7 (1944): 201-210. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3257129
141
Morton, Patricia A.. “The Afterlife of Buildings.” In Rethinking Architectural
Historiography ed. By Dana Arnold, Elvan Altan Ergut, and Belgin Turan
Özkaya, (London and New York: Routledge, 2006): 215-228.
Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. Bizans’tan Osmanlı’ya İstanbul Limanları. İstanbul: Tarih

Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998.
Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. İstanbul Limanı. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2003.
Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. İstanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası: 17. Yüzyıl Başlarına

Kadar Byzantion-Konstantinopolis-İstanbul. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları,
2007.
Nelson, Robert S. Hagia Sophia 1850-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

2004.
Osterhout, Robert. “The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior” Gesta
29, no: 1 (1990): 44-53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/767099
Özkök, Rüknü. İstanbul Yedi Tepede On Yedi Gezi. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2010.
Pitarakis, Brigitte. “From the Hippodrome to the Reception Halls of the Great Palace:
Acclamations and Dances in the Service of Imperial Ideology.” In The Byzantine
Court: Source of Power and Culture. Papers from The Second International
Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, ed. Ayla Ödekan, İstanbul: Koç
University Press, 2013.
Recchi-Franchescini, Eugenia Bolognesi. “The Great Palace Itineraries.” In 26.

Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 3. Cilt, 26-30 Mayıs 2008, T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı
Yayınları Yayın No: 3172-3, Ankara: Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Yayın No: 131-3, 2009.
Rice, Talbot D., Review by D. M. Nicol. “Istanbul. The Great Palace of the Byzantine
Emperors. Second Report.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 81 (1961): 230-231.
Rossi, Aldo. Architecture of the City. Cambridge: Opposition Books The MIT Press,
1982.
Schwartz, Vanessa R.. “Walter Benjamin for Historians.” The American Historical
Review 106 no: 5 (2001): 1721-1743. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692744
Sieburth, Richard. “Benjamin the Scrivener.” Assemblage no:6 (1988): 6-23.

Sodini, Jean Pierre. “Konstantinopolis: Bir Megapolün Doğuşu (4.-6. Yüzyıllar).” In

Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar, ed. Annie Pralong, trans. Buket Kitapçı
Bayrı, İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.
Staccioli, Romolo Augusto. Ancient Rome Past and Present. Rome: Vision, 2000.
142
Sumner-Boyd, Hilary, and John Freely. İstanbul Gezgininin Rehberi: İstanbul’u
Dolaşırken. Translated by Yelda Türedi. İstanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 2011.
Swift, Emerson H.. “The Latins at Hagia Sophia.” American Journal of Archaeology 39,
no:4 (1935): 458-474. http://www.jstor.org/stable/498154
Talbot, Alice-Mary. “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII.”

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993): 243-2601.
Taraz, Nazlı. “Limits of Re-writing and Legibility of Transformations in Istanbul’s

Historic Peninsula: An Interpretation Inspired from the Wabi-Sabi Philosophy.”
ITU AZ Journal 10, no. 1 (2013): 37-50.
Tekeli, İlhan. Birlikte Yazılan ve Öğrenilen Bir Tarihe Doğru. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı
Yurt Yayınları, 2007.
Tunay, Mehmet İ.. “Byzantine Archaeological Findings in Istanbul During the Last
Decade.” In Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday
Life, edited by Nevra Necipoğlu, Boston: Bardill (2001): 217-231.

http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/yayin.php (Accessed: 29.05.2014).

http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/yayin.php (Accessed: 29.05.2014).
Türkoğlu, Sabahattin. Ayasofya’nın Öyküsü. İstanbul: Yazıcı Basım Yayınları, 2002.
Ure, Percy Neville. Justinian and his Age. Hormondsworth: Greenwood Press Reprint,
1951.
Van Nice, Robert. “Hagia Sophia: New Types of Structural Evidence.” Journal of
Society of Architectural Historians 7 No:3/4 (1948):5-9.
Vasiliev, Alexsandr Aleksandrovitch. “The Monument of Porphyrius in the

Hippodrome at Constantinople,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4, (1948):27+29-49.
White, Antony, Henry Matthew, and W. Eugene Kleinbauer. Ayasofya. İstanbul:

Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2004.
Woodrow, Zoe Antonia. “Imperial Ideology in Middle Byzantine Court Culture: The
Evidence of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s de ceremoniis.” Doctoral thesis,
DUR,2001. Available at Durham E-Theses Online:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3969/
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/context (Accessed: 07.08.2014)
143
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGICAL MAPS OF THE HISTORIC

PENINSULA OF ISTANBUL (7TH C. BC-15TH C. AD)
144
145
146
147
148
149
APPENDIX B
PALIMPSEST MAPS OF THE HISTORIC PENINSULA OF

ISTANBUL (7TH C. BC-15TH C. AD)
150
151
152
153
APPENDIX C
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE EMPERORS (7TH C.

BC-15TH C. AD)
154
APPENDIX D
EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES (4TH-5TH C.
155
APPENDIX E
SUPERIMPOSITION OF THE IMPERIAL ROUTE AND

THE MOSAICS OF HAGIA SOPHIA
156

T001332 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T001332 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE HAGIA SOPHIA IN ITS URBAN CONTEXT:

Examining Committee Members:

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Assist.Prof.Dr.Zeynep

THE HAGIA SOPHIA IN ITS URBAN CONTEXT: AN

In this thesis, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is handled as a living monument in its

Keywords: Hagia Sophia; Historic Peninsula of Istanbul; continuities and changes;

KENTSEL BAĞLAMI İÇİNDE AYA SOFYA: BİR MİMARİ ANITIN

Bu tez kapsamında, İstanbul’daki Ayasofya, Tarihi Yarımada’daki fiziksel ve

Anahtar kelimeler: Ayasofya; İstanbul Tarihi Yarımada; süreklilikler ve değişimler;

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2 SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF THE HISTORIC PENINSULA OF

CHAPTER 3 HAGIA SOPHIA AS A TRUE PALIMPSEST: CONSTRUCTION

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION HAGIA SOPHIA AS A CUMULATIVE

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 137

Handling monuments in their contexts is, in fact, a popular approach in

1.3. Scope and Outline

SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF THE HISTORIC

In this chapter, the settlement structure of the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul is

Due to its advantageous geographical location between the Mediterranean,

Figure 2.1. Neolithic settlements of Istanbul

2.3. Refoundation as the Capital of Roman Empire by Constantine the

Figure 2.7. Constantinople in 4-7th century

2.5. Monumentalization of Constantinople by Justinian the Great (6th c.)

2.6. From Constantinople to Konstantiniyye: The Historic Peninsula

Hippodrome and the churches of Constantinople were reconstructed in the

As another important period of urban reconstruction, in 1081, Alexios I

Figure 2.12. Monasteries on the northwest of Constantinople.

Figure 2.13. Constantinople in the 15th-16th centuries.

Figure 2.14. Bursa map in the 14th century

2.8. Chapter Conclusion

HAGIA SOPHIA AS A TRUE PALIMPSEST:

In this chapter, the continual transformation process in the Hagia Sophia

3.2. Model City Rome and the Imperial Trilogy: Hippodrome-Temple-

Figure 3.3. Map of the City of Rome

Construction of the Domitian Palace, also known as Flavian Palace, was

Figure 3.7. Plan of Lateran Church in Rome

Figure 3.8. Plan of Santa Croce in Rome

The third group is distinguished with a side aisle continuing as an ambulatory

Figure 3.13. Plan of the Studios Basilica in Constantinople

Figure 3.14. Plan of the Topkapı Basilica in Constantinople

Figure 3.16. Plan of the Beyazit Basilica A in Constantinople

When taken together these early Christian religious building remains

3.4. Hagia Sophia: From the Initial Constantinian Construction to

Figure 3.17. Plan of Hagia Eirene in Constantinople

Figure 3.19. Remains of Theodisian Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in front of the

Figure 3.21: Plan of Pantheon in Rome

Hagia Sophia had a key role in public and political ceremonies in

Figure 3.25: Procession route into the Hagia Sophia

3.6. Chapter Conclusion

Figure 4.26: Mosaic of Leo VI

Figure 4.27. Seraphims on pendentives.

Figure 4.28. Apse mosaic, Virgin Mary and Child Jesus.

Figure 4.33. Deesis Mosaic.

As mentioned in the second chapter (p:55), Constantinople was badly damaged

Figure 4.34: Mihrab and minbar of Hagia Sophia

Although the conquest of Hagia Sophia was a long-standing dream of the

4.3. An Overview of the Palimpsestic Process in Hagia Sophia and its

4.4. Conclusion and Further Studies

Throughout these transformations occurred in the imperial and building scale,

Afşar, Yavuz. Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle Ayasofya. İzmir: Kaynak Yayınları, 2014.

Akgündüz, Ahmet, and Said Öztürk. Üç Devirde Bir Mabed-Ayasofya. İstanbul:

Altınyıldız, Nur. “The Architectural Heritage of Istanbul and the Ideology of