THE NEW ARMENIAN MOSAIC FROM JERUSALEM
Today – 15:03
by Michael E. Stone
As recently as in 1992, while the Israeli Government was excavating a
hill outside the old city of Jerusalem for the construction of a major
boulevard, workers came upon a mosaic floor containing an inscription
in Armenian letters. After much debate and litigation, it was agreed
that the floor is the property of the Armenian Patriarchate, and in
order not to disturb the relatively large floor it should remain in
place for the time being. Today, it is preserved in place in a cement
chamber under the boulevard.
During archaeological excavations carried out in the Musrara quarter,
north of the Damascus Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem, four Armenian
inscriptions were discovered: one on a mosaic floor, two tombstones,
and one graffito on a large pottery bowl. These join a number of
other significant Armenian inscriptions recently found in Israel,
the most interesting of which are graffiti from Nazareth and the
Sinai, which date from the first part of the fifth century, that
is within decades of the invention of the alphabet (Stone, 1991A;
Stone, 1991B). The new mosaic inscription is particularly important
for the light it throws on the series of mosaics bearing Armenian
inscriptions discovered in Jerusalem from 1873 to the early twentieth
century. These mosaics are concentrated in two areas, on the Mount
of Olives and in Musrara where the new inscription was discovered.
The Mosaic Inscription The inscription is found in the middle of
a mosaic floor of the reception room, in the living quarters of a
monastic complex. It is set in a medallion 1.19 m. in diameter and
forms an integral part of the floor of the room. Its tesserae appear
identical in size to those of which the rest of the floor is made. A
frame surrounds the Armenian inscription, which is composed of seven
lines of writing. The first and last lines each contain a single word
and the length of the lines varies from 0.16m to 1.035m. according to
the space available. Wide red lines separate the lines of writing. The
inscription has been virtually completely preserved. Below we give
first an exact transliteration of the inscription, followed by a
transcription showing word divisions and normal syllabification.
The inscription is written in impeccable Classical Armenian. It is the
dedication of the building in which it occurs, but the word “house”
designating the building does not necessarily bear the meaning “church”
or “chapel,” although it does so sometimes . Indeed, as became evident
from the excavation, the room containing the inscription was in the
living quarters of the monastery and served for entertainment. The two
names mentioned are of Greek origin. is clearly an Armenian form of the
Greek name although it is not attested elsewhere. Indeed, even the full
form “Eustathius” is very rare in Armenian usage. No form of this name
occurs in the manuscript colophons down to 1200 (Mat’evosyan 1988),
or in the indexes of proper names in the catalogues of the Mas toc’
Matenadaran, Institute of Ancient Manuscripts in Erevan, Armenia and
of the Patriarchal library in Jerusalem. Ewstat’ is entitled, a title
corresponding to the Greek meaning both “elder” and “priest.” For
“mosaic” the inscription uses a rather rare word, which does not
occur on any of the other Jerusalem mosaics. The request which
follows the dedicatory formula is of a type commonly found on such
votive inscriptions. It preserves the name of Ewstat’~Rs brother,
i.e., Luke. From the fact that both names are Greek and Christian,
it is perhaps possible to infer that both brothers were clerics,
for it was the customary for clerics to take biblical names, or those
of saints of the Church. The new inscription, like the other mosaic
floors with Armenian inscriptions, is undated. The excavations which
uncovered the other floors yielded no clear dates either, so those
dates usually assigned them are quite speculative. The present mosaic
was uncovered in a carefully executed excavation and can be dated,
on archeological grounds, to the second half of the seventh century,
which is extremely important. This date is established by coins
discovered embedded in the mortar in which the floor was laid. In
the mortar five coins were found, the earliest of which is of the
fourth century and the latest is a Byzanto-Arab coin of the middle
of the seventh century. This last coin is the most important from our
perspective since it provides a terminus post quem for the laying of
the mosaic floor with the inscription. To the archeological data, we
may add considerations derived from the palaeographic character of the
mosaic. The Armenian script was invented early in the fifth century
C.E. and no manuscripts survive which bear sixth- or seventh-century
dates. The oldest, firmly dated manuscript is the Mlk Gospels of
the year 862. There are no other dated Armenian mosaic inscriptions
and thus we are thrown back on stone inscriptions for comparative
dating material. The graffiti from Nazareth and the Sinai date from
the first part of the fifth century that is within decades of the
invention of the alphabet (Stone, 1991A; Stone, 1991B). The oldest
inscription in Hovs p’ian’s work on Armenian paleography is from
the late fifth century. This is the inscription from the church of
Tekor, which was destroyed early in the 20th century by an earthquake
(Hovs p’ian 1913: plate 2; better photographs do exist, compare that
published by Der Nersessian [undated]: plate 32). The next inscriptions
are the dedication in the church of St. H ispim of 618 C.E. and the
Ani inscription of 622 (Hovs p’ian 1913: plates 2 and 1). From a
comparison with the script of these sources, we can see that a date
in the seventh century is reasonable for the new inscription.
Close by the Ewstat’ inscription is to be found the best-known
of the Jerusalem Armenian mosaics, the so-called “bird mosaic,”
famous for its great beauty and perfect preservation. This floor
was discovered in the year 1894 during building activities being
carried out in the Musrara district, north of the Damascus Gate. A
detailed description of the discovery was made by the Englishman,
Bliss (Bliss 1898: 253-259). Unfortunately, the present location of
other material uncovered at this site, which the Turkish authorities
removed to Constantinople, is unknown. It included glass and pottery
vessels and at least one further Armenian inscription on a stone
broken into seven pieces. The scholarly literature frequently refers
to this floor. Of particular interest are the article by Hovs p’ian,
and Dashian’s “Appendix” to Stryzgowski’s article on the Orpheus mosaic
which was discovered close to the Ewstat’ and the “bird” mosaics (Hovs
p’ian 1895; Dashian 1901; Stryzgowski 1901). Of course, the exact
relationship between the “bird” mosaic with its surrounding tombs and
the complex of buildings with which the Ewstat’ mosaic is associated
remains to be clarified. Nonetheless, these three mosaics should be
considered together in the formulation of the final hypotheses about
the present find.
The Ewstat’ mosaic forms part of the same complex of structures as the
church, in the apse of which a Greek inscription was discovered. This
Greek inscription has been dated on palaeographic grounds to the
early seventh century. Moreover, one of the Armenian tombstones
described below dates to the first part of the sixth century. This
fact is of considerable interest, for it raises issues about the
joint holding of monasteries by Armenians and Greeks. The Armenian
Church rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451,
a position which eventually caused the complete separation of the
Church of Armenia from that of Byzantium (see in detail Sarkisian
1965). The process of separation, however, was a gradual one and
the final position of the Armenian Church in Armenia itself was
not taken until the Council of Dvin in 506 C.E. (Sarkisian 1965:
196-213). In Palestine, the impression given by the sources is that
the integration of Armenians in non-Armenian monasteries continued
much longer. The chief source for the fifth and sixth centuries is
the work by Cyril of Scythopolis on the monks of Palestine which has
been discussed in detail elsewhere (Stone 1986). From Cyril’s work we
learn of a strong Armenian presence in the monasteries of Palestine,
where they had their own chapels and conducted their prayers in
Armenian. He also mentions the conflicts that were taking place early
in the sixth century over the monophysite issue. From this we learn
that it was not unusual for Armenians and Greeks to live together in
a monastery in Palestine in the sixth century, but it would become
more surprising as the years pass (in general, see Chitty 1966:
101-122). Yet the Armenian habitation of the present site continued
from the sixth century until after the Moslem conquest. There is no
reliable literary evidence referring to an Armenian presence in the
area of the Ewstat’ and “bird” mosaics, north of the Damascus gate,
in the sixth and seventh centuries. Although the list of Armenian
monasteries attributed to “Anastas vardapet” is not reliable as
it stands (Sanjian 1969), in it we do read about “the monastery of
Saint Polyeucete, to the North, built by the tetrarch of Armenia”
(Sanjian 1969: 276). On the basis of this brief note theories were
constructed about the identity of the chapel which contains the “bird”
mosaic. Hintlian says, “This is the funerary chapel of St.
Polyeucte, an officer of the twelfth legion, a solider martyr of
the third century, who along with many of his soldiers lies buried
under the cave-tomb below the mosaic floor” (Hintlian 1976: 15). Yet,
Anastas’ list speaks of a “monastery” not a funerary chapel. In fact,
as Hovs p’ian commented many years ago, there is no basis for this
identification: “Von einem Beweis fur dieselbe kan nich die Rede sien.
Wir vermissen jede Angage uber die Quelle, …, dass die aufgefundene
Reste vom dem Kloster des h. Poliktos herruhren” (Hovs p’ian 1895:
90). The new discovery raises the possibility that the two mosaics
formed part of a single, large monastic installation in which Armenians
played a prominent and continuing role. This hypothesis is, of course,
strengthened by the further finds at the same site as the Ewstat’
mosaic, the two tombstones and the graffito on the pottery bowl. Thus,
this archeological discovery contributes completely new historical
information about the Christian, and particularly Armenian, settlement
in Jerusalem in the seventh century.
The Tombstones Besides the mosaic inscription, two tombstones were
found on this site, one preserved completely and the other partly
broken. These stones turned up not far from the floor of the Greek
church in an area containing crypts. On one stone a horned cross is
engraved, below which are three lines of Armenian writing, in large,
erkat’agir (uncial) letters reading as follows:
of Petros of Sotk’
The name Petros is very common. The name and the local indicator
Sodac’i, “man of Sodk'” are both in the genitive case. Thus the
meaning of the inscription is “(This is the tomb) of Petros of Sodk'”.
Sodk’ is a district in the region of Siwnik’ in Armenia, not far from
Lake Sevan. The script is normal for the period and on palaeographic
grounds there is no reason to think that the inscription is of a
different origin from that of the floor. This tombstone was found in
a rectangular tomb underneath the mosaic floor of the narthex which
sealed three tombs, so that we may infer that the tombs are older than
the floor. In the fill that accumulated in them was a fifth century
coin. In view of these facts, we may cautiously date these tombs to
the first part of the sixth century, and the tombstone is at least
that old. The second inscription was found on a broken tombstone
measuring 70 cm. at its widest and 45 cm. high. The dimensions of
the inscription are 0.30 m. long and 0.145 m. high.
Abel
This inscription is the proper name “Abel.” It seems likely that the
inscription is incomplete and that the genitive suffix has been lost.
In that case, the meaning of the inscription would be “(This is
the tomb) of Abel.” The script is curious erkat’agir (uncial),
characterized by the round forms of all the letters. These make
the impression of having been drawn with a compass. The Petros
inscription was not deeply incised and the edges of the letters are
blurred, while the Abel inscription is expertly executed, with deep
incisions and sharp, distinct edges. From a palaeographic point of
view, the ligature of the letters “be” as is noteworthy. Thus, only
three distinct signs are present in the inscription. This is one of
the oldest ligatures known in the history of Armenian writing. This
broken tombstone was found during excavation of the chief crypt,
underneath the western part of the church and which was regularly
visited by pilgrims and devotees. It is impossible to know whether
this was the original site of the tombstone, for this crypt contained
objects which were thrown into it after the destruction of the church.
Graffito on Pottery Vessel This graffito was found upon the outer
surface of a deep pottery bowl found on the floor of the dressing room
in the baths north of the guest room. Four marks may be discerned on
this bowl. They were scratched unskillfully on the vessel, after its
baking. From left to right we may read four Armenian letters, the
letter G “G” written twice in different stances and following these
two letters, the Armenian letter A “A” and a partially preserved
B “B.” The descender of the B “B” crosses over the right-hand,
horizontal line of the A “A”. These letters do not form any word,
but are taken from the beginning of the alphabet (“ABG”) in the order
“GGAB.” The explanation of this may be the following. The author
of the graffito started to write the alphabet and wrote “AB.” Then
he wrote a “G” on the other side of the “A” (for reasons unknown),
but this “G” was imperfect, because the instrument slipped and made
a long, irregular scratch. So a bit further to the left, he wrote
another “G”, which is fairly perfect. Thus the first three letters
are similarly orientated, while the fourth is set differently. No
paleographic remarks can be made.