DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47598#0112
known. Still, it finds no analogy in Nubia, and only few parallels in the area of Byzantine culture11.
As the structure is described in the paper of Mr. P. Gartkiewicz, only some details on results of the
excavations of that building will be given here.
The edifice underwent two rebuildings. One, includes placing of the tribune in the haikal located in
between the easternmost columns. At that time the whole interior of the building was plastered.
These changes in the interior first of all give the edifice a character of the church and the
construction itself points to the early date of this rebuilding, possibly not many years after the
original building period. Another evidence from the rebuilding is in contrary very late. The
construction is done in mud-brick and comprises again the new shaping of the haikal made
cruciform as if being influenced by the form of the building itself (fig. 9). The main entrance to the
church, made originally on its axis in the west wall, was by that time blocked and in the western bay
a small room formed, accessible only from the main central bay. The pottery associated with these
structures clearly indicates the date for this rebuilding as Terminal Christian Period i.e. 14th
century. Such is also the date which can be attributed to the remnants of murals found on the walls
of the haikal, based on stylistic evidence of the latest frescoes from Faras12.
In the walling up of the western entrance, precisely on the axis of the church and visible from the
outside, a stone keystone was inserted containing an incised monogram (fig. 10), which I am
proposing to read as: ΓΕΙϋρΓΙογ ΕΠΙΟΚΟΠΟγ. Bishop Georgios, therefore, seems to be
connected either with constructing (if the keystone originally having been employed in the archway
of this side was consequently re-set in the walling up) or the rebuilding of the Cruciform Church.
Both adjustments definitely show that the Cruciform Building was used as a church for some time.
However, its original function not necessarily is so obvious. I hope that the crypt located in the
eastern “arm of the cross” of this unique building when opened will give a hint to support the well
founded hypothesis of a mausoleum13 as the early destination of the edifice.
The whole structure of the Cruciform Building rests upon the massive stone pavement of an earlier
church, apparently basilican in plan and dated at the latest to the beginning of the seventh century.
This church called “of the Stone Pavement” seems to be purposely levelled out in order to form
a platform for the Cruciform one (fig. 11). The last is most probably totally built of re-used material,
the columns, capitals and even the bricks of the previously mentioned one. The Church of the Stone
Pavement was also one of the large churches. The uncovered remains so far attest that its dimensions
exceede 25 x 30 metres. Further two campaigns are still necessary to complete the works on this site.
r11 tGartkiewicz, supra, p. 56 ff.
12 K. Michalowski, Die Kathedrale, p. 165-170; Μ. Martens, Observations II, Etud. Trav., VII, p. 222-225.
13 Gartkiewicz, supra, p. 62 f.
As the structure is described in the paper of Mr. P. Gartkiewicz, only some details on results of the
excavations of that building will be given here.
The edifice underwent two rebuildings. One, includes placing of the tribune in the haikal located in
between the easternmost columns. At that time the whole interior of the building was plastered.
These changes in the interior first of all give the edifice a character of the church and the
construction itself points to the early date of this rebuilding, possibly not many years after the
original building period. Another evidence from the rebuilding is in contrary very late. The
construction is done in mud-brick and comprises again the new shaping of the haikal made
cruciform as if being influenced by the form of the building itself (fig. 9). The main entrance to the
church, made originally on its axis in the west wall, was by that time blocked and in the western bay
a small room formed, accessible only from the main central bay. The pottery associated with these
structures clearly indicates the date for this rebuilding as Terminal Christian Period i.e. 14th
century. Such is also the date which can be attributed to the remnants of murals found on the walls
of the haikal, based on stylistic evidence of the latest frescoes from Faras12.
In the walling up of the western entrance, precisely on the axis of the church and visible from the
outside, a stone keystone was inserted containing an incised monogram (fig. 10), which I am
proposing to read as: ΓΕΙϋρΓΙογ ΕΠΙΟΚΟΠΟγ. Bishop Georgios, therefore, seems to be
connected either with constructing (if the keystone originally having been employed in the archway
of this side was consequently re-set in the walling up) or the rebuilding of the Cruciform Church.
Both adjustments definitely show that the Cruciform Building was used as a church for some time.
However, its original function not necessarily is so obvious. I hope that the crypt located in the
eastern “arm of the cross” of this unique building when opened will give a hint to support the well
founded hypothesis of a mausoleum13 as the early destination of the edifice.
The whole structure of the Cruciform Building rests upon the massive stone pavement of an earlier
church, apparently basilican in plan and dated at the latest to the beginning of the seventh century.
This church called “of the Stone Pavement” seems to be purposely levelled out in order to form
a platform for the Cruciform one (fig. 11). The last is most probably totally built of re-used material,
the columns, capitals and even the bricks of the previously mentioned one. The Church of the Stone
Pavement was also one of the large churches. The uncovered remains so far attest that its dimensions
exceede 25 x 30 metres. Further two campaigns are still necessary to complete the works on this site.
r11 tGartkiewicz, supra, p. 56 ff.
12 K. Michalowski, Die Kathedrale, p. 165-170; Μ. Martens, Observations II, Etud. Trav., VII, p. 222-225.
13 Gartkiewicz, supra, p. 62 f.