The Early Byzantine Churches of Cilicia and Isauria by Stephen Hill (review)

748book reviews which the Syriac texts and contexts are discussed. AU who have written on aspects of these matters since Drijvers have been required to take his work into account. The present volume makes a significant contribution by bringing together texts necessarily published in less accessible places. David Bundy Christian Theological Seminary Indianapolis, Indiana The Early Byzantine Churches of Cilicia and Isauria. By Stephen Hill. [Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs,Volume 1.] (Brookfield,Vermont :Variorum,Ashgate PubUshing Co. 1996. Pp. xxvi, 280, 62 figures, 127 plates. $94.95.) The Roman province of Cilicia is particularly rich in standing remains of the early Byzantine period, more so in its mountainous western part (Isauria) than in its eastern plain (Pedias).As usuaUy happens in the Near East, ancient monuments are preserved in inaccessible and sparsely populated districts, whUe they tend to disappear in centers of substantial and continuous habitation.This circumstance has created the impression that the CUician monuments were somehow marginal and rustic. Had they survived in major cities like Tarsus and Seleucia (SUifke), the picture might have been very different. The Christian remains fall between the fourth and early seventh century and include some ensembles that have attained a measure of fame among scholars: the cult center of St.Thecla at Meryemlik (outside SUifke),Alahan, and Corycus. Mopsuestia has yielded only one, badly excavated basilica, but Anazarbus, long deserted, is better represented by three churches of impressive dimensions. Anemurium, which has been systematicaUy excavated, has six churches, all fairly small.The other sites covered in this book are relatively obscure. Dr. HiU, who has explored CUicia for two decades and, furthermore, had access to the unpublished field notes of the late Michael Gough, has now produced a highly useful catalogue of aU known early Byzantine churches of the area to a total of 170. The entries are arranged alphabeticaUy by location and contain a fuU summary of what is known about each monument. The significance of this material is analyzed in a substantial introduction in which the author seeks to rescue the CUician churches from their obscurity and ends up by making some fairly bold claims on their behaU. His argument, in brief, is as follows.AU the CUician churches are basiUcas, but they exhibit certain peculiarities, notably a passage or adjunct behind the apse, sometimes containing one or more separate chapels. Previous scholars have not known what to make of this passage. Dr. HiU argues convincingly that it was martyrial on the analogy of the Constantinian shrines in the Holy Land, which combined basUica and martyrium.The next step in the argument concerns the book reviews749 transept, which is present in a dozen CUician churches. Its purpose, the author maintains,was to provide access to the eastern passage, and since the latter was a local feature, it follows that the transept, too, was not imported from elsewhere , but developed on the spot. Finally, there is the old problem of the origin of the domed basUica, represented here by at least two examples (the "Cupola Church" at Meryemlik and Dag Pazan). It has usuaUy been assumed that the domed basilica, representing as it does the crowning achievement of early Byzantine architecture, was invented in some major center, but at Constantinople it appears only in the sixth century. If the CUician examples are earlier, is it not possible to suggest that they exhibit the first experiments in the development of that particular form? Two other considerations are relevant. First, it is estabUshed that Isaurians had in antiquity a reputation as skUled masons. Second, the most likely period for a major building program in those parts is the reign of the emperor Zeno (474-491), himseU an Isaurian.After the bloody suppression of the Isaurians by the next emperor, Anastasius, the province probably declined, and Justinian is not recorded as having initiated much buUding, except for a few bridges in Cilicia. Dr. HiU has presented a well-argued case for considering Cilicia/Isauria a creative architectural center in the last quarter of the fifth century, even if occasionally (notably forAlahan) he seems to be pushing the evidence a little too far. His book wiU certainly remain an indispensable work of reference for...