Download PDF | (Medieval Mediterranean_ 136) Rafal Quirini-Poplawski - The Art of the Genoese Colonies of the Black Sea Basin (1261-1475)-Brill (2023).
432 Pages
Acknowledgements
At its crucial stage (2013–2015) the research was greatly helped by a financial support in the form of a grant from the Polish National Science Centre (UMO-2012/05/B/ HS2/04011), which allowed for the intensification of field research and archival and library queries. I am deeply grateful to the authorities of the Faculty of History of the Jagiellonian University, in particular to its Deans, Professor Jan Święch and Professor Stanisław Sroka, for financing the translation of the book.
This book would not be possible without the help and support I received from many people. I would like to heartily thank Professor Piotr Skubiszewski for his warm-hearted suggestions at the stage of formulating the preliminary subject and scope of the study, and for his incessant interest in the progress of my research. During my research visits to Turkey, especially in Istanbul, I was given all-embracing help by Professor Aygül Ağır, a historian of architecture from the Istanbul Technical University; during the visits to Crimea – by an archaeologist Dr Serhiy Zelenko from the Taras Shevchenko National University in Kiev; and in Saint Petersburg – by Dr Yuriy Pyatnitskiy, an art historian from The State Hermitage Museum. I owe gratitude to Dr Aleksandr Dzhanov (National Sanctuary Complex “Sophia of Kiev”, Kiev) and Dr Hasan Sercan Sağlam (formerly Politecnico di Milano; currently Kadir Has Üniversitesi, Istanbul) for their valuable substantive help (mainly at the stage of preparing the English version of the book), and in particular for bibliographic suggestions, photographs, and comments.
I would also like to thank the latter for his inspiring suggestions expressed during our “research” walks through former Pera. My separate thanks are extended to the anonymous reviewer who expended a considerable amount of work, time, and kindness in reading my English manuscript and for his remarks from which I have greatly benefited; to Piotr Godlewski for his excellent translation and Aeddan Shaw’s work proofreading the manuscript; and to Tomasz Pasteczka for reading the Polish manuscript, his helpful comments, redrawings and preparation of indexes (the index of place names and subjects – together with Małgorzata Maruszak).
I would also like to thank Marcella Mulder for the long-term contact that led to this book being accepted for publication, and Ester Lels for her work in producing it. In addition, I also received valuable help from the following persons (in alphabetical order): Dr Svetlana Adaksina (Deputy Director of The State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg), Dr Gianluca Ameri (Università degli Studi di Genova), Professor Michele Bacci (Universität Freiburg), rev. Simon Bayan (Library of Mekhitarist Congregation in Vienna), Dr Ioanna Bitha (head of the Research Center for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art of the Academy of Athens, Athens), Dr Nicla Buonasorte (Galata Museo del Mare, curator of Museo Navale di Pegli, Genoa), Dr Ioanna Christoforaki (Research Center for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art of the Academy of Athens, Athens), Dr Francesca De Cupis (La Soprintendenza per i Beni Storici, Artistici ed Etnoantropologici per la Liguria, Genoa), Professor Clario Di Fabio (Università degli Studi di Genova), Dr Patrick Donabédian (Université d’Aix-Marseille), Dr Anastasia Drandaki (curator of the Byzantine Collection in the Benaki Museum, Athens), late Professor Giuseppe Felloni (Università degli Studi di Genova), Professor Julian Gardner (University of Warwick), Nousha Hariri and P. G. D. Kiers (London), Dr Giustina Olgiati (Archivio di Stato di Genova), Dr Muzaffer Özgüleş (previously İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi; currently Alanya HEP Üniversitesi), Professor Valeria Polonio (Università degli Studi di Genova), Dr Adelmo Taddei (curator of Museo di Sant’Agostino in Genoa), Nenad Vukićević (srpskoblago.org), Professor Stephan Westphalen (Universität Heidelberg) and rev. Dariusz Wiśniewski (formerly Sent Antuan Kilisesi, Istanbul).
Finally, I would like to thank my mother Danuta for the inspiration to undertake research on Genoese Black Sea colonies, for our trips to Turkey, for her immense help and her unwavering support and advice. I am also grateful to my brother Łukasz, to Tomasz Dyląg, Małgorzata Rzychoń, and Józef Skrabski for their readiness to share the burden of our trips to the Black Sea coasts. I owe a separate debt of gratitude to my wife Anna – for her patience, help, heart, and care.
Introduction
Etanti sun li Zenoexi / e per lo mondo sí destexi / che und’eli van o stan / un’atra Zenoa ge fan1 This anonymous rhyme was created in Genoa at the close of the 13th century and its somewhat ambiguous meaning highlights a specific dichotomy which accompanies any study on the Genoese colonies. Should we read the word ‘atra’ as emphasising the differences (different) rather than the similarities (another) between the colonies and the metropolis? In other words, did the Genoese always seek to imitate metropolitan patterns or did they rather adapt to the local conditions, each time creating a new settlement organised on different principles? Regardless of our interpretation of the above rhyme, what is beyond dispute is that Genoa was a major maritime trading power in the Mediterranean. From the chronological point of view, the period of its colonial power followed and stemmed from the decline of Pisa’s importance. Together with its great rival, the Venetian Stato da Mar, both experienced a parallel boom, albeit with a different topographical focus.
While Venice was focused on the Adriatic and the Eastern Mediterranean basin (including the western half of the Aegean), Genoa dominated trading networks through the Western Mediterranean and especially the eastern portion of the Aegean to the Black Sea. This connected it with much larger, trans-Asian trading networks through the Crimea and Sea of Azov in the north and Anatolia and Persia in the south.2 Although the history of the overseas presence of Venetians and Genoese has enjoyed the considerable and lively interest of researchers, the artistic and monumental heritage of the Genoese trading posts has been relatively under explored, especially in comparison with Venetian ‘colonial’ material. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the decidedly worse state of preservation of the Genoese outposts when compared to their Venetian counterparts, mainly stemming from the different attitudes towards this heritage which were held by the successor countries which replaced them. It suffices to compare the approach of the Austrian Empire to the Venetian heritage of Istria and Dalmatia with the fate of Genoese buildings in Crimea under the rule of the Romanov Empire in the nineteenth century or the degree of protection extended by Greece and Turkey in the twentieth century. Moreover, it seems that the artistic heritage of the Genoese outposts is a little more complex and multifaceted than that of its erstwhile Venetian rival, nor has it ever been studied in a comprehensive manner. Regardless of the state of preservation, the heritage of the Genoese colonies in the Black Sea still presents us with a rich corpus with much to tell, one encompassing a range of sites from trading posts and fortresses to what may be considered two metropolises: Pera (now part of Istanbul) and Caffa (now Feodosia in Crimea). This wealth of heritage and rich corpus is the focus of the present book. 1
The Aims of the Book While 40 years have passed since the publication of the “classic” works by Michel Balard and Paolo Stringa on the subject, historical and archaeological research on the Genoese colonies has made considerable progress in both Eastern and Western Europe, and especially in the last quarter of a century. This book aims to collate the results of this research, from different countries and various specializations, with two main objectives in mind. The first is a synthetic presentation of works of art created within the borders of Genoese possessions in the Black Sea basin. Importantly, the book takes into account the artistic legacy of Genoese colonies in its broad understanding, meaning not only the works of art created by/for the Latins, but also those created by/for people of other nations and religions living in the colonies. In other words, this is about answering a simple question of which buildings/works of art can be included into a group labelled “architectural and artistic activity within Genoese colonies”? The chronological framework of the study is quite natural and is marked by the Byzantine-Genoese treaty of Nymphaeum (1261) on the one hand and the capture of Caffa and other colonies in Crimea by Ottoman Turks (1475) on the other. The topographical framework, taken in principle from Paolo Stringa’s catalogue,3 is less unambiguous. The inclusion of Pera (which does not actually lie on the Black Sea coast) is justified for several reasons. First, Pera was functionally and administratively always connected with the Genoese centres on the Black Sea coast. Second, Pera and the Black Sea colonies shared the same administrative and political status for a considerable period of time (as a colony subordinated directly to the authorities of the Republic), while colonies further south, in the Aegean, were ruled by Genoese families (e.g. Gattilusio) or by a Maona association (Chios). Fulfilling this aim required the collection of essential information on particular works of art, but also a critical analysis of sometimes widely differing views concerning their dating and original functions. An important outcome of this part of the study has been the verification of opinions concerning the allegedly Genoese origins of many buildings once standing or still surviving in nearly all of the countries of the Black Sea.
The structures which may have been built or rebuilt within the borders of Genoese colonies are analysed within the main text, while in the case of those buildings whose Genoese origin has been ruled out, the results of research are summed up in the catalogue which closes the book. Including an extensive polemic with previous views on the issue, be it within particular chapters or as a separate chapter, would lead us to problems often chronologically far removed from the late Middle Ages, and to buildings/works of art created outside Genoese colonies. In either case, this would result in significant deviations from the assumed scope of the study, breaking its composition, and changing the proportions. The works of art discussed herein are relatively poorly known in the international art-historical literature, with at least several reasons for this somewhat sorry state of affairs. First and foremost is the sense that the legacy of the Genoese colonies lacks a distinct “nationality”, something already emphasised by Jaroslav Folda with regard to Crusader Art.4 In fact, these works were not considered to be part of the national legacy of any of the countries of the Black Sea, or even the “foreign heritage of Italian culture”. Regardless of the predominantly local focus of the research pursued in Italy, clear Italian traits were more difficult to discern in buildings constructed in the Genoese colonies on the Black Sea than in the Venetian colonies, for example. A second reason was certainly the generally lower artistic appeal in comparison with the objects of Latin art in Syro-Palestine, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, or other parts of Greece. Similarly, sites on the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts of Turkey were traditionally more likely to attract academic interest. A third factor was (and remains) the distances and logistical issues affecting access to the monuments (despite obviously being easier to access those in Istanbul than Crimea). However, the essential difficulty with regard to Crimea and the wider northern part of the Black Sea basin has been the political situation for much of the last century. It meant that the territory of the Soviet Union was essentially inaccessible to Western researchers, being the sole preserve of Soviet scholars who only published in Russian. Deficiencies in language skills and the impeded flow of literature across the Iron Curtain resulted in Western scholars being unfamiliar with Soviet research and Soviet scholars having only a limited knowledge of historical research, mainly archival, conducted in the West.
The situation began to change significantly from the early 1990s, leading to improved physical access to monuments in Ukraine and Russia. At the same time, this revived the circulation of scientific information, for linguistic reasons, mainly from the West to the East. Publications by Eastern researchers in Western languages remained relatively few and far between. It is worth emphasising that it is precisely over the last 25 years that a certain number of objects probably created in Genoese outposts in the Black Sea basin have been published (e.g. some works of goldsmithery from The State Hermitage collection in Saint Petersburg, and some objects of sigillography mainly kept in private hands).5 Others – like fragments of the painted decoration of the Dominican church in Pera or the fresco from Cembalo – have been discovered relatively recently and are at the initial stage of research. After less than a quarter of a century of positive developments, the situation again deteriorated significantly after the illegal occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014. One might even say that it returned to its previous state of de facto inaccessibility to foreign researchers.
The research has also lost considerable momentum due to organisational and staffing changes at scientific institutions located in Crimea, the departure of some of the researchers previously working there, and financial constraints. Studies of Genoese monuments in Turkey encounter problems of a different kind, glaring proof of which is the actual covering up of an extensive painting cycle recently discovered in the former Dominican church in Pera (now the Arap Camii Mosque in Istanbul). A symbolic example of the common fate of Genoese monuments on the Black Sea are the foundation and grave slabs from Caffa and Pera. After their publication, with the exception of a few slabs in the permanent exhibition, the slabs from Caffa were stored in the interwar period on a pile in the open air near the Feodosia Museum of Antiquities, while those from Pera were locked in the warehouses of the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. Admittedly, these were not identical circumstances, but in both cases the slabs were inaccessible to researchers, and their state of preservation had deteriorated considerably in the meantime.6 These monuments constitute an interesting, albeit still neglected, comparative material for the studies which have developed dynamically in recent decades, in particular the studies on Latin art in the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin (the art of crusader states in SyroPalestine and Cyprus, the art of Venetian colonies, Crete included, and the art of Rhodes under the rule of the Knights Hospitaller). This is a serious gap in the art history literature, and even broader – medieval culture history.
The works of art created in Genoese Black Sea colonies deserve to be included there not so much for the sake of their high artistic value, but above all as a testimony to unique phenomena developing on the borderlands of cultures and civilisations. Forming and framing a reliable catalogue and determining the basic chronology of objects created within Genoese colonies in the Black Sea basin are the basis for fulfilling the second objective of this book. This second aim is primarily the analysis of selected problems related to intercultural exchange and the interplay of different artistic traditions. Therefore, the main focus has been placed on objects and artistic phenomena of an unobvious (i.e. hybrid, unique) nature, for example Byzantine-style mosaics in mendicant churches in Pera, decorations representing so-called Seljuk style on slabs from Genoese defensive walls, or the co-occurrence of Tatar and Christian symbols on such slabs and on coins.
Therefore, only some of the objects appearing in particular chapters of the book when discussing selected artistic phenomena have been analysed here – from a selected perspective and against a broad comparative background. As more variegated and often surprising picture of the art in the Genoese Black Sea colonies emerged during the course of research, the realisation of the second objective required the formulation of a number of detailed research questions: 1. Did the urban planning and architecture of the colonies refer to Genoa itself and other Ligurian centres? 2. What was the scale of references to the Italian artistic tradition? Were West-European building types, construction systems, individual architectural motifs, or characteristic iconographic motifs “transferred” to the Black Sea basin?
3. Were artists and craftsmen of Greek origin (representing Byzantine artistic tradition) employed in Pera for creating objects of art, especially such designed primarily for the Latins? 4. Do the wall paintings of the churches of Pera reflect the Byzantinization of the artistic taste of Genoese colonists or occidentalisation of the style of Greek artists? 5. What was the style of painted and sculptural decorations of buildings constructed in the Crimean colonies of Genoa, and who were possibly their authors? 6. Can we speak, and to what extent, about Latin and Greek influences on the art of Armenians inhabiting the Crimean colonies? 7. For what purpose and under what circumstances were motifs of Mongol origin used in Genoese colonies? 8. What was the purpose and origin of spolia used by the Genoese in some of their colonial buildings? In the second place, the objective of the analytical parts of this book was to verify previous beliefs about the prevalence of Italian, or more broadly speaking Latin, cultural component. This, in turn, offered an opportunity to ask whether, and to what extent, we can speak of cultural Latinisation of Genoese colonies and, thanks to the Genoese, of cultural Latinisation of the entire Black Sea basin in late Middle Ages, or to what extent the processes of acculturation taking place there were going in other directions. Therefore, attention was turned to the previously rarely emphasised aspects of the cultural (and not only commercial and political) importance of Genoese Black Sea colonies, including the intensification of cultural exchange in the region and its inclusion in a network of international contacts which stretched from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. To date, these works and artistic phenomena have not been more widely considered, although in principle they relate to similar issues and questions that researchers dealing with the above-mentioned regions have been asking themselves for quite some time. These include the question of the participation of builders, artists, and craftsmen of other nationalities/denominations in the creation of art in the areas under Latin control; there is also the matter of the relationship between a given style and the nationality and/or confession of its creator. Researchers of the Venetian colonies are interested in the question of metropolitan symbols and their diffusion in the colonies, as well as imitations of specific metropolitan buildings. A methodological question relevant for all of the overseas domains is whether they should be regarded as part of the art history of the metropolis (here: Venetian or Genoese art), the region, or of the country they now belong to? For example, is the Armenian miniature painting in Caffa part of Crimean, Armenian, Genoese, or perhaps even Italian art?7 A similar question can be asked with respect to the Dominican church in Chania, Crete – is it part of the art of Crete, is it Venetian, or perhaps even Greek or Italian art?8 The Genoese colonies in Crimea are also important for the study of the art of both the Armenian diaspora and Jewish artists. Finally, the book refers to the larger debates around medieval colonies and cross-cultural exchange/hybridization. These debates have developed in several directions in recent years. One of the fundamental assumptions has been to identify the Mediterranean Basin, and especially the Mediterranean ports, as the main melting pots of cross-cultural exchange in the Middle Ages. Therefore, one of the tasks of the research was to understand the “topography” of cross-cultural exchange – to identify the cities or regions where it took place.9 Another direction was the study of “cross-cultural transfers of industrial technologies” or what are known as hybrid objects (implicitly, works of art with hybrid artistic origins).10 Such a synthetic work on the Genoese legacy in the Black Sea basin may be of practical significance for the ongoing efforts to include some of its monuments in the UNESCO World Heritage List.11 The results may also be of use as literature for international tourism, for those keen to explore the potential of the countries neighbouring the Black Sea and which are currently experiencing a rapid growth in tourism (especially in Ukraine, Georgia, and Bulgaria). Let us hope that the book will: 1. Increase scholarly interest in the issues pertaining to the cultural heritage in the late medieval Black Sea countries. 2. Introduce works of art created within the Genoese Black Sea colonies to the international academic literature, including synthetic studies. 3. Present these phenomena and the individual works as important reference material in studies on the art of other areas of the Genoese colonization and on Latin art in the eastern Mediterranean. The book presented to the reader is organized in chronological-topical order. A brief introduction of the history of Genoese colonies in the Black Sea basin is followed by the discussion of the circumstances relevant for the functioning of art in the colonies, namely the legal and organisational frameworks of constructional, artistic, and craft activity as emerging from the analysis of written sources, as well as information on artists and craftsmen. Next, the topography of Genoese centres in the Black Sea basin is described, as well as secular architecture (primarily military works) closely connected with it. Chapter Three deals with sacral architecture, which is discussed separately for particular centres. The specific nature of research on this issue is the reason why the reader will find extensive considerations here on the identification and religious attribution of individual buildings.
The part which follows presents objects with relief decoration, including foundation slabs and tombstones, while the last one deals with painted interior decoration, objects of panel and miniature painting, artisanal handicraft (goldsmithery in particular), as well as coinage and sigillography. Each of these chapters includes analytical parts pertaining to the selected artistic phenomena listed above, connected with intercultural exchange within Black Sea colonies of Genoa. In the conclusion, apart from a summary, the question of the impact of Genoese colonies on the art of Black Sea countries is discussed. Due to the breadth of the issue, it possibly deserves another, separate study. Finally, a catalogue of buildings still standing today in locations on the Black Sea coast has been attached to the book, divided into three categories: A. built or rebuilt within the borders of Genoese colonies, B. of uncertain Genoese origin, C. having been erroneously ascribed a Genoese origin. 2 State of Research – Literature Review Although not always expressed directly, a conviction prevailing in the literature on Genoese Black Sea colonies and their material relics was that they imitated the Ligurian metropolis, and the buildings and works of art created in the colonies were analysed primarily for their similarity to late medieval art of North Italy, in particular Liguria and Genoa itself. According to some authors, the source for this attitude can be found in late medieval Genoa itself as testified by the famous rhyme opening this book.12 A comparison of Caffa to Genoa also appeared in 1435 in Florentine humanist Giannozzo Manetti’s work Elogia Ianuensium: Aliam insuper urbem construxerunt, quam Caffam ex eo vocaverunt quod apud eas gentes caffar salutis portum significant, quoniam is locus ab omni hostile invasione et diruptione ita totus est ut nullus in toto fere terrarium orbe securior esse videatur, quamquam nonnulli aliam huius barbari nomini causam fuisse assignaverint. Hanc urbem adeo magnam esse constat ut ipsi Ianue cum magnitudine tum multitudine civium longe preferatur.13 That sort of romantic vision was later popularised by travellers visiting former colonies in the second half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th, a phenomenon perhaps deserving a separate study in itself. Among many examples one can quote here the opinion written in 1837 by the Russian traveller, Anatoly Demidov, concerning Feodosia (formerly Caffa): “the entire street running parallel to the sea is an Italian street, surrounded with arcades like streets of Bologna, this is a Tatar and Russian town, but a town working and functioning is always a Genoese town”.14 What is important in this context is that the Italians had long ceased to live in Feodosia by that time, and the material traces of medieval Caffa had been in most part destroyed some 25 years before Demidov’s visit.
The aforementioned conviction prevailed in the publications of Western European authors writing about traces of Genoese colonies, for example in pre-war works of Leone Andrea Maggiorotti, and later especially in the works of Paolo Stringa, Mario Marcenaro, and Ennio Poleggi.15 One of the chapters of Michel Balard’s monumental work on the history of Genoese colonies, in which the topography and buildings of Pera, Caffa, and Chios are discussed, is entitled Three other Genoas.16 This kind of (mis)understanding of Genoese heritage was also reflected in the works of some Soviet architects and conservators, especially those working under the leadership of Yevgeniya Lopushinskaya on the reconstruction of the Soldaia fortress in the 1980s. According to Igor’ Baranov, the belief in a homogenous, Genoese origins of the entire fortress even led to some falsifications during the works carried at that time: “The idea of the Genoese Kulturträger approach had a negative impact on the restoration of the Sudak fortress, whose architectural complexes, originating from different historic periods and representing different styles, have been rebuilt by Y. I. Lopushinskaya based on very controversial analogies for single details [originating – RQP] from west European epochs of Late Gothic and Renaissance”.17 However, other than pointing to the similarities between Liguria and Genoa on one hand, and Genoese colonies in the east on the other (and, by the same token, to occidental traits in colonial art), the conviction prevailed that the existence of these colonies had relatively few cultural consequences, limited essentially to secondary elements. This is well illustrated by the findings of Michel Balard, who noted the appearance in Genoa of certain eastern names, and the popularity of single oriental elements in material culture. He found the impact of Byzantium on the artistic taste of the inhabitants of Genoa to have been extremely limited and resulting primarily from the import of Byzantine relics and reliquaries, and consequently insignificant.18 At the same time another belief was formed, according to which Genoese castles or other buildings were present in nearly all parts of the Black Sea coast. Such a picture emerges from a review of the older literature. It is worth noting that as early as the mid-17th century, a Turkish traveller Evliya Çelebi reported (and undoubtedly overestimated) the data, writing that “all seven hundred seventy castles standing on the coast of the Black Sea were ruled by the Genoese at that time [at the close of the 14th century – RQP]”.19 Roughly at the same time, a legend appeared in the 17th-century Moldavian chronicles, in which Genoese (Ianovezi) were the ones who founded major cities in Moldavia and erected the castles there.20 This story, however, was already regarded as improbable at the beginning of the 18th century – it was rejected by the Moldavian Voivode, Dimitrie Cantemir, in his Descriptio Moldaviae.21 It is worth emphasising that some Western European travellers in the 19th century started to raise doubts about the information they received locally regarding the Genoese origins of certain buildings, and they did not even try to find historical evidence to corroborate such claims. One of many such examples is a travel report by a British government agent, James Stanislaus Bell, who, mentioning the Genoese origins of the castles at Waia, Sukuch, Vardan (Leup), and Mamai (Psicha) near presentday Sochi, quoted the opinions of his Circassian companions, who described them as built by Genoese or “Francs” (said, as usual, to have been Genoese; Genoese as they are always called).22 In a similar manner, whenever John A. Longworth, a London Times correspondent accompanying Bell in his travels, cared to ask about the origin of a stone building, the answer was almost invariably “it is Genoese”.23 This was typical for a folk tradition widespread in the 19th century in most countries in the Black Sea basin, known from its Turkish, Caucasian, Bulgarian, and Romanian coasts, a tradition that dictated to see in every more prominent building of the past a work of the Genoese.
The tradition probably emerged from a similarity between Turkish words meaning the Genoese (ceneviz) and mythical giants (cin).24 Nevertheless, some contemporary scholars still continue to use it to identify alleged Genoese outposts. Mario Marcenaro did so with respect to the Turkish coast of the Black Sea: he believed that the functioning of Turkish toponyms like Cineviz Kalesi (Genoese castle) or Cinevizlerden (work of the Genoese) was sufficient proof for claiming Genoese presence (or possibly rule) in many places along the coast.25 In their vast majority, places mentioned by travellers are not tantamount with those referred to in historical accounts on Genoese colonies. In addition, many of the surviving buildings differ considerably among each other in terms of their overall appearance and architectural details. In many cases, no research has ever been undertaken to verify the traditional views. It is worth pointing out here that previous research and research hypotheses were in some cases motivated by political and nationalistic reasons, since attributing a given building to the Genoese was perceived as politically more “profitable” or “secure”. However, this otherwise fascinating issue goes beyond the basic scope of this study. The academic research on late medieval Genoese colonies in the Black Sea basin has thus far predominantly focused on their history, both in synthetic approach and with respect to individual sites. Such research has a sound foundation thanks to the wealth of the materials preserved in Archivo di Stato di Genova, which offer an insight into the functioning of the Black Sea colonies. These include, among others, the statutes issued by Genoese central authorities, the accounts of Massaria, and various notarial acts.26 Many of the most important source texts have been published thanks to the efforts of such scholars as Lodovico Sauli, Vladislav Yurgevich, Amedeo Vigna, Luigi Tommaso Belgrano, Nicolae Iorga, Gheorghe I. Brătianu, Michel Balard, Geo Pistarino, Giovanna Balbi, Silvana Raiteri, Ausilia Roccatagliata, Laura Balletto, Enrico Basso, Alfonso Assini, and Maria Grazia Alvaro. Of particular interest are source editions prepared by Vigna (Codice diplomatico delle colonie tauro-liguri durante la signoria dell’Ufficio di S. Giorgio (1453–1475)) and Belgrano (Documenti riguardanti la colonia genovese di Pera), and the publications of notarial acts: within the Notai genovesi in Oltremare series and in the book Akty genuezskikh notariyev, sostavlennyye v Kaffe i v drugikh gorodakh Prichernomor’ya v XIV–XV vv.27 From the perspective of studies on the artistic legacy of the colonies, however, these materials are of limited value. To a certain extent, the statutes mentioned here are of some interest, since they sometimes shed light on the regulations concerning issues such as raising buildings or craft activities. Notarial acts very rarely contain information which might be helpful in determining the location, identification, and function of individual buildings, although they sometimes mention smaller pieces of portable art (in the form of bequests) as well.28 Undoubtedly, the most important archive materials are those created by the financial offices known as Massaria. These are the accountancy books recording the income and expenditure of public funds by colonial authorities. Unfortunately, however, their state of preservation differs: all that survived for Pera, for example, are fragmentary records for 1390–1391 (published by Belgrano) and 1402–1403. In contrast, those of Caffa and its dependent colonies have survived to a much greater extent, with 42 volumes available. However, they only cover the last century of Caffa’s existence, as the oldest book dates to 1374 while the majority (as many as 26) were created over a relatively short period when the colonies were administered by the Bank of Saint George (1453–1475).29 These materials remain largely unpublished, and have only been analysed to a limited extent.30 Above all, they have remained the preserve of historians, only to a limited extent interested in the buildings and artistic life of the colonies. In his synthetic study of Genoese colonies, Michel Balard only took into account the books created before the beginning of the 15th century,31 although many of his papers make use of the information to be found in later books as well. Evgeniy Khval’kov, in turn, was primarily interested in the books from the years 1381, 1423, and 1461.32 Andrey Ponomarev’s research on the topography of Caffa in the period under discussion only used the two earliest books: from 1374–1375 and 1380–1381.33 Marian Małowist, whose research on Caffa dates from the interwar period,34 apparently remains until this day the only scholar to have systematically investigated the books from the times of the Bank of Saint George’s administration. However, it should be noted that extensive extracts concerning Caffa and Crimea were recently published by Aleksandr Dzhanov (1374–1375, 1380–1381, 1441–1442, 1454–1456, 1456–1459 and 1472–1473).35 The Massaria books are an excellent source of information concerning the expenditure of the colonial authorities, but the data are presented in a very concise form. They rarely provide details of the buildings erected or repaired, works of art, or the names and origin of their creators. Studying Massaria documents is also an arduous task, due to the frequently barely legible handwriting and the significant volume of the books. The result is limited efficiency with a relatively large expenditure of time.
Therefore, the analysis of all the books from the point of view of gaining information on architecture and the art of the colonies still remains a viable avenue of research for other scholars. The roots of historical research on Genoese colonies in the Black Sea basin can be traced back to the second half of the 18th century. In this research, an important role was played not only by scholars from Western Europe, in particular from Italy, France, and Germany (e.g. Wilhelm Heyd, Roberto Lopez, Gian Giacomo Musso, Mario Buongiorno, L. Balletto, G. Pistarino, Paul Meinrad Strässle, Enrico Basso, Sandra Origone, Annika Stello, and in particular M. Balard),36 but also by Russian, Romanian, and Polish scholars (e.g. Nikolay Murzakevich, N. Iorga, G. Brătianu, Marian Małowist, Sergey Karpov, Evgeniy Zevakin, Nina Penchko, Aleksandr Emanov, Danuta Quirini-Popławska, Rafał Hryszko, Virgil Ciocîltan oraz E. Khval’kov).37 Their works often provide very interesting information, albeit typically isolated and scattered, on the objects of architecture and art in the colonies. Many buildings to be found on the Black Sea coast have been mentioned or briefly described in the accounts of European travellers, beginning from the late medieval period and especially in the second half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th. Opinions suggesting their Genoese origins, often completely unfounded, have proven exceptionally enduring and they were often included as such in the academic literature and remain there to this day. The artistic phenomena that emerged in the Genoese colonies (not only those from the Black Sea basin) still await their own broad-based study in art history. Nevertheless, some works are particularly worthy of mention, above all the afore-mentioned work by Paolo Stringa, where Genoese colonies in the Black Sea and Mediterranean basins are concisely discussed from the perspective of urban planning.
The book also provides a catalogue of places linked (sometimes incorrectly) with the Genoese presence, summarises the history of their contacts with Genoa, and includes descriptions of extant and nonextant buildings that were attributed Genoese origins.38 It has been followed by a few papers by the Genoese art historian, Mario Marcenaro, in which the results of his journeys to places he considered to be Genoese colonies in Crimea and the Turkish coast of the Black Sea are presented in the form of brief historical notes and descriptions of surviving buildings or their remains. Marcenaro included a few places on the Turkish coast which were not included in Stringa’s catalogue.39 Some of the publications of Michel Balard, in which he addresses selected urban-planning, architectural, and cultural aspects of the Genoese colonisation (not only in the Black Sea basin), are also worth noting. These are two chapters from his book La Romanie génoise (XIIe–début du XVe siécle), where he presents the topography of the three major Genoese cities in the east (Pera, Caffa, and Chios) and the cultural consequences of Genoese colonisation, as well as a paper on its military aspects.40 Standing out against the above background is a doctoral dissertation by H. Sercan Sağlam, published on the internet. Sağlam investigated in detail urban plans, topography, and architectural remains of Genoese colonies in the territory of present-day Turkey, with a particular focus on Pera, including some monuments from Crimea as a comparative material. In addition, his study contains a catalogue of Genoese foundation slabs from that area.41 Nevertheless, the vast majority of research undertaken over the last 150 years on material evidence of Genoese Black Sea colonisation was focused on particular regions, colonies, or individual buildings. The remains of Pera – a Genoese colony in the vicinity of Constantinople – started to attract international research interest as early as the mid-19th century, with the first studies devoted to Pera’s defensive walls, still quite well preserved at that time.42 Belgrano and Ettore Rossi published a catalogue of foundation slabs originating from these fortifications.43 Several works have been created since the interwar period, systematising our knowledge of the urban development of Pera, its topography, and the chronological sequence of its fortifications,44 but Sağlam’s findings should be seen as a breakthrough in this field.45
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق