Architecture as Relic and the Construction of Sanctity: The Stones of the Holy Sepulchre

Author(s): Robert Ousterhout

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 4-
23
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3655081 .
Accessed: 18/12/2012 19:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Architecture as Relic
and the Construction of
The Stones of the Holy Sepulchre
he specificity of place ... is what gives rise
to and what is perpetuated in memorial,"
states Jonathan Z. Smith in his provocative
study of ritual theory.1 Nowhere was this more true than in
medieval Jerusalem, where history, ritual, and loca sancta--
holy sites-merged in the experience of the faithful (Fig-
ure 1). In Jerusalem, according to Smith, "story, ritual, and
place could be one."2 This is a constant theme in the
accounts of early Christian visitors to Jerusalem. For exam-
ple, St. Jerome told of the efficacy of worship within the
holy places, where the events commemorated could be
made spiritually present through ritualized veneration:
"Whenever we enter [the Tomb of the Lord]," he wrote,
"we see the Savior lying in the shroud. And lingering a lit-
tle we see again the angel sitting at his feet and the hand-
kerchief wound up at his head."3 Similarly, when Jerome's
friend Paula came before the relic of the True Cross at
Golgotha, "she fell down and worshipped ... as if she could
see the Lord hanging on it."4 Because the exact locations of
the Crucifixion, Entombment, and Resurrection were fixed
and immutable, set precisely where the sacred events had
occurred, the faithful could experience there the "real pres-
ence"of holy persons and events; this belief gave the loca
sancta power in the Christian imagination. The specificity
of place is emphasized in pilgrimage literature as a valida-
tion of the scripture.5 As Jerome relates, following the
psalm, it is the Christian obligation to worship "where his
feet have stood."6
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sanctity
ROBERT OUSTERHOUT
Universityof Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign
A holy site, then, was efficacious because it was perma-
nent and unchanging; it provided a direct link between the rit-
ual of veneration and the historical event it commemorated.
The architectural setting of the holy site was another matter.
Although novelty may not have been possible in terms of the
locations or distinctive natural features of the locasancta,their
architectural frames display remarkable resilience, as monu-
mental churches were constructed, embellished, and recon-
structed. At these locations, our simplistic modernist
explanation that "form follows function" proves to be woefully
inadequate. For architecture did not simply house sites and rit-
uals, it glorified and magnified them, it authorized and vali-
dated them, and it ultimately became part and parcel of the
ritual experience. This is certainly true of the church of the
Holy Sepulchre, for which pilgrims' souvenirs provide ample
visual testimony. As has been frequently noted, the late-sixth-
century ampullae, or pilgrims' flasks, from the Holy Sepulchre
were often adorned with images anachronistically depicting
the Resurrection of Christ (Figure 2): the holy women carry
censers-liturgical objects-and encounter the angel not at the
rock-cut tomb but at the embellished aedicula beneath the
dome of the Anastasis Rotunda-that is, at the holy site as it
appeared at the time the ampulla was created.7The historical
event and its ritual reenactment are conflated, as are the holy
site and its (later) architectural setting. To be sure, place
remained a constant, but by the fourth century the setting had
been utterly transformed. The site may have been fixed and
immutable, but its architectural frame was not.
 with one from the twelfth century,the productof a crusader
workshop(Figure 3).8 Both ampullaecontainedblessed oil
no: i;:_:i~i;:i
: : :
pre
i: i: :
taken from a lamp inside the Tomb of Christ, both were
_ : :::::
_
:

:all designed to be pilgrims' souvenirs, and both feature

:::i::l:::/::j/l::::::::::::::: v schematic images of the church of the Holy Sepulchreto
Th,: identify the site. The most notable differencebetween the

::
lff4i::::::i:::;::l:i:::
:::::::::i
:::::;:;:
::::3MX::
: :iz. :
::::~i-::iii:::::::::::iI::
:q:iA
::I:::::::,::,:::i:~i:;l~llltwo is thatthe laterflaskdoesnot portraythe narrativeof the
l~i:

holy women at the Tomb. The architecturalimage stands

:.. ::
1:::--(:1:~1-~:::1:i:1:1:
.. ..'to A,
:::-::-ii:::j::::16-::-
-::-::::::::: alone;the monumentrepresents the site and is the site. Simi-
larly,through the courseof the Middle Ages,the sanctityand
~P?-::? A4 spiritualmeaning of a place were assumedby the architec-
ture:a monumentbuilt to house the locussanctuscame to be
regardedboth as a reliquaryand as a relic in its own right.
The criticalrole played by the architecturalsetting in
t4a avA I the validationof a site and in shapingritualexperiencemay
MET ?

be elucidatedthrough a close examinationof the medieval

reconstructions of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem.In the rebuildingsof the eleventh and particu-
larly of the twelfth centuries, architecturaldecisions were
basedon a combinationof culturalfamiliarityand site speci-
ficity. Masons of the eleventh and twelfth centuries
groundedtheir reconstructionsin parton theoreticalarchi-
tecturalmodels establishedin their own day and from their
own culturalmilieu, but their designs had to be adjustedto
accommodatethe immutablesite as well as the remnantsof
the venerable old building that had been constructed
aroundit.
Figure 1 Aerialview of Jerusalem, with the church of the Holy The spiritual significance of the church of the Holy
Sepulchre in the foreground and the Dome of the Rock in the Sepulchre, marking what is believed to be the sites of
background Christ'sCrucifixion,Entombment,and Resurrection,guar-
anteed the building a tumultuoushistory,as it became the
object of intensive creativeand destructiveactivitiesby its
adherents and opponents (Figure 4). A disastrousfire in
Monumentshousing holy sites like the Tomb of Christ 1808 and the subsequent,ongoing restoration-or rather,
underwent an almost constant process of elaborationand series of restorations-have replacedmuch of the historic
modification throughout the Middle Ages. The dynamic fabricof the building.Moreover,the competinginterestsof
interplay between place and commemorative structure the various religious communities in control of the Holy
speaksof more than just changes in the liturgy,devotional Sepulchrehave hamperedboth the restorationefforts and
practices,or architecturalstyles. Ultimately, the medieval historicalanalysis,at the same time providinginterior par-
understandingof the sanctityof the site and the shapingof titions and surface coverings that completely alter the
the ritualexperiencemayhavebeen as much a matterof the impressionof the interiorspace.9Althoughwe mayneverbe
novelty of its monumentalsetting as the fundamentalasso- able to recover some of the details of its history, its three
ciations of the place itself. Smith'sobservationson the sig- major phases extended throughout the Middle Ages and
nificanceof placeshouldbe expandedto includethe vibrant were governedby more or less unified concepts that reflect
interaction of site and setting, which must be understood the architecturalthinkingof the day.They may be outlined
on a symbolic level: in the imaginationsof the faithful,the as follows.
architecturalframe became identified with and thus inter- Constructionwas undertakenat the initiative of Con-
changeablewith the site itself. stantine the Great in 326 and apparentlycontinued long
The increasedimportanceof the architecturebecomes afterhis deathin 337. The fourth-centurycomplexisolated
evident when we contrastthe sixth-centurypilgrim'sflask the most significant holy sites-Calvary and the Tomb

THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 5

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 :Z

tn:
: : :: z
i
:::*4N:
OR:
;4M:
M4 AI

Figure 2 Ampullafrom the HolySepulchre

illustratingthe HolyWomen at the Sepulchre.
DumbartonOaks Collection,Washington, D.C.
J:1

Figure 3 Ampullafrom the HolySepulchre showing

the Holy Sepulchre. BritishMuseum, London

...... .
.

.. ..

:rA

I.d iso
?

Figure 4 Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. Generalview of the complex from the southeast

6 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 4 6 7

.Q??
?O5

Figure 5 Holy Sepulchre. Reconstructed plan of the fourth-century

complex. Elements survivingat ground level are in black;
reconstructed elements are hatched: 1. Patriarchate;2. Anastasis
Rotunda;3. TombAedicula;4. Courtyard;5. Calvary;6. Basilica;
7. Atrium

Figure 6 Holy Sepulchre. Interiorof the Anastasis Rotunda,view

toward the northwest, by Cornelis le Bruyn,1681, with the much-
reconstructed Tomb of Christat the center

and established the basic architecturalfeatures to glorify

them (Figure 5). It consisted of an atriumthat connected
to the Cardo(the main streetofJerusalem)on the east side,
a five-aisledbasilicawith its apseorientedto the west, a por-
ticoed courtyardwith the rock of Calvaryin the southeast
corner, and, finally, the great Anastasis (Resurrection)
Rotunda,housing the Tomb of Christ (Figure 6).10As the
site was leveled,the bedrockaroundthe tomb was removed;
the tomb was thus isolated, and decoratedas an aedicula.11
The rock of Calvaryseems to have been similarlyisolated.
As the excavationsof the 1960s-70s demonstrated,site lim-
itations resultedin a D-shaped rotunda,flattenedalong its
easternfagade,with portalsto either side. It is unclearif the
fagadewas marked by a fastigium, as Charles Couasnon
proposed in his fanciful reconstructiondrawings;because
of later constructionsonly limited excavationwas possible
in this area.12Constantine'sbiographerEusebius claimed
that all remains of an earlier Roman temple had been
removedto purifythe site; in fact, as the archaeologistVir-
gilio Corbo has demonstrated, several Roman walls and
foundationswere incorporatedinto the Constantiniancom-
plex, and they help to explainits numerousirregularities.13
In the secondmajorphase,followingdamageandrepair
in, respectively,the seventhand tenthcenturies,aboutwhich
little is known, the church complex was destroyedin 1009
and subsequentlyrebuilt with the financialsupport of the
Byzantineemperors.It was apparentlycompleted by Con-
stantineIX Monomachosin about 1048 (Figures 7, 8). As I
have demonstratedelsewhere, this phase in the history of
the Holy Sepulchrefollowed Byzantinearchitecturalideas
and was probablydirected by a master mason from Con-
stantinople.14 Althoughthe rotundaandthe porticoedcourt-
yard remained much the same, neither the basilicanor the
atriumwas reconstructed;the AnastasisRotundawas pro-
vided with an open, conicalvault and an apse on its eastern
fagade.The south entranceprobablybecamethe mainpoint
of accessat this time. The courtyardbecamethe focus of the
complex,envelopedby numerousannexedchapelsorganized
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 7

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1 12 ]6

4
.

D3 :::
::::::::::::: ::
:::
:
:: : ,1:

Figure 7 Holy Sepulchre. Reconstructed plan of the eleventh-century complex. Elements

survivingat ground level are in black;reconstructed elements are hatched: 1. Patriarchate;2.
Anastasis Rotunda;3. TombAedicula;4. Courtyard;5. Omphalos; 6. Holy Prison;7. Chapel of
the Flagellation;8. Chapel of the Crown of Thorns;9. Chapel of the Divisionof the Garments; 10.
Cryptof the Inventionof the Cross; 11. Calvary;12. Chapel of St. Mary;13. Chapels of St. John,
HolyTrinity(Baptistery),and St. James

Figure 8 Holy Sepulchre. Reconstructed view

of the eleventh-century complex, with clusters .:
of subsidiarychapels to the east and south, as if`
l
well as on the gallery level at the southeast
. . . . .

corner

if •:.•i•
..:: y •

8 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 01

12

9 Holy Sepulchre Plan of the present complex. Crusader additions of the

6.Figure twelfth century are shown in black: 1. Patriarchate;2. Anastasis Rotunda;3.

Tomb 4.Crusader
Aedicula; Choir;
5.Chapel
ofSt.Mary;
6.Chapels;
7.Holy
uPrison; 8. Ambulatorywith radiatingchapels; 9. Chapel of St. Helena; 10. Crypt
0, of the Inventionof the Cross; 11. Calvary;12. Entrance

on two levels. Along the eastern perimeter, the chapels
markedevents from the Passionof Christ,includingthe so-
called Prison of Christ, the Flagellation, the Crown of
Thorns, the Division of the Garments,and, in an elevated
position, the Chapelof Calvary,above the Chapelof Adam.
Stairsled to a grotto beneath the ruins of the basilica,iden-
tified as the site of the Invention of the Cross. There were
also additional chapels on the gallery level, constructed
above the Chapel of Calvary.
In the third principalphase, following the conquest of
Jerusalemat the completion of the First Crusadein 1099,
the complexwas given a more unified appearance,in accor-
dancewith western Europeanstandards,incorporatingele-
ments associated with western European pilgrimage
architecture(Figure 9).15 As with its predecessor,the cru-
saders' building project seems to have been motivated by
the limited scale of the existing structure.William of Tyre
noted that at the time of the First Crusade,"therewas only
a rathersmall chapel here, but after the Christians,assisted
by divine mercy,had seized Jerusalemwith a strong hand,
this building seemed to them too small. Accordingly,they
enlargedthe originalchurchand addedto it a new building
of massive and lofty construction, which enclosed the old
church and in marvelouswise included within its precincts
the holy places."'16
The chronology of the crusaders'construction is not
entirely clear. William, for example, seems to have been
writing after the fact about events he might not have wit-
nessed. Other textualreferencesarefew and similarlyunin-
structive.I7The history of this campaignhas been analyzed
by JaroslavFolda and may be outlined as follows. It began
with the erection of the Cloister of the Canons, between
about 1114 and 1120, to the east of the Byzantinecomplex,
on the site of the Constantinian basilica. This phase also
included the subterraneanChapel of St. Helena-itself an
expansion of the Byzantine Crypt of the Invention of the
Cross;the vaultingof the chapel rests below the gradelevel
of the cloister, although its dome projects into the open
courtyard."8It is not clear if a master plan had been devel-
oped at this point, and subsequent work apparentlypro-
ceeded slowly. The Anastasis Rotunda was left in its
eleventh-century,Byzantineform,with much of the Byzan-
tine decorationstill in place. The Byzantinecourtyardand
its subsidiarychapels were replaced by a domed transept
and a Romanesquepilgrimage choir. The relics and dedi-
cations of the Byzantine chapels eliminated in the recon-
structionwere assumedby the three radiatingchapels.The
Chapel of Calvarywas expandedbut contained within the
eastern portions of the south transept.The choir was ded-
icated in 1149 to celebrate the fiftieth anniversaryof the
conquest of Jerusalem. It is not known exactly when the
construction of the crusaderchoir began. Although work
may have commencedin the 1130s, Folda placesthe bulk of
the building activity in 1140-49; it was certainlynot fully
completed at the time of the dedication.19 John of
Wiirzburg, writing in about 1170-74, refers to "this new
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 9

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

church," emphasizing the newness and spaciousness of the
crusaders' additions: "The new church, a new addition, con-
tains a very wide Priests' Choir and a very long sanctu-
ary. ... Outside this sanctuary of the altar and inside the
wall of the exterior of the building, there is a wide space,
and round it there is, in this new building (just as in the
monument that was there before) a wide space suitable for
a procession."20 To connect the transept to the Anastasis
Rotunda, the Byzantine apse was removed and the portals to
either side were enlarged. For the first time, all the Holy
Sites were housed under one roof, with the monumental
entrance at the south transept (Figure 10; see Figures 4, 9).
Previous studies of the crusader church have sought to
identify the masons responsible for the construction or the
intended audience for specific forms and signature details.
Recent scholarship has favored an ecumenical explanation
for the construction and its interpretation, noting elements
that could be attributed to both indigenous and European
workforces and, in turn, understood by audiences from sev-
eral different cultures.21While these investigations are use-
ful for placing the building within a broad cultural context,
many of the decisions that ultimately affected the design
may be clarified by a close reading of the construction's fab-
ric. Internal information, still preserved in situ, may pro-
vide some explanation for its complexity.
The crusader building is replete with disquieting dis-
junctions-so much so that Robert Venturi included its plan
as an illustration in his seminal book Complexityand Con-
tradictionin Architecture.22It hardly stands comparison with
10 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Figure 10 HolySepulchre.
Generalview from the south,
showing the base of the
crusader belfry rising above a
Byzantinechapel, the
monumental fagade, and the
Chapel of the Franks
the clarityof its chief competitorin the city, the Umayyad
Dome of the Rock (see Figure 1). Certainlythe basic plan-
ning concepts evident in the three different phases of the
Holy Sepulchre'sconstructionstand in starkopposition to
each other. The centralizeddesign of the Early Christian
rotunda,for example,was subvertedby the addition of the
Byzantineapse and sanctuary;moreover,the orientationof
the complexwas shifted from west to east, and the unity of
focus was fragmentedwith the addition of the numerous
subsidiarychapels. In turn, the private devotional charac-
ter of the Byzantinephase was exploded by the introduc-
tion of the pilgrimage choir, which was designed to
accommodate large congregations of worshippers.Yet as
each phase incorporatedlarge elements of its predecessor,
the inherent contradictionsin planning principlesbecame
permanentaspectsof the design. The final form is a direc-
tionally ambivalentpilgrimage church, with a rotunda in
the place of the nave, enveloped by a hodgepodge of sub-
sidiaryspaces.There is an old joke that a camel is a horse
designed by committee. In architecturalterms, the Holy
Sepulchreis a camel.
In many cases, the irregularitiesare indicators of the
complexhistoricaldevelopmentof the building,but within
the crusaders'reconstruction alone there is evidence for
numerous subphasesand design changes.The form of the
building appearsto have been rethought on several occa-
sions, and new ideas were introducedlong after construc-
tion had begun. For example,several changes are evident
at the level of the high vaults.A truncated,blockedwindow

Figure 11 HolySepulchre. View looking north into the domed
crossing, showing a blocked window to the rightside
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in the western wall below the crossing dome suggests that
the crossing bay was originally intended to be covered by a
tower (Figure 11), as Alan Borg once observed. Only after
the tower was begun was it transformed into a dome on
pendentives.23 The symbolic implications of the dome at
the crossing have been hypothesized: It was positioned
above a site called the omphalos, said to mark the center of
the earth, a component of the complex accorded great sig-
nificance by pilgrims.24 Visually, the crossing dome pro-
vided a counterbalance for the larger, conical dome of the
Anastasis Rotunda; perhaps it also resonated symbolically
with the domed buildings on the Haram.25
More important from the point of view of interior
design was the introduction of quadripartite ribbed groin
vaults above the transept arms and choir (Figure 12; see Fig-
ure 11). Although none of the great pilgrimage churches had
similar forms of vaulting, the Holy Sepulchre's vaults corre-
sponded with the latest fashion in French architecture,
appearing at exactly the time of the transition from
Romanesque to Gothic in the 1140s.26 Slightly pointed
arches are used throughout the crusaders' additions, but
these more likely represent a continuation of local architec-
tural forms than a response to the advent of Gothic; similar
arches appear in the eleventh-century Byzantine phase as
well.27 Despite these distinctive features, the character of the
crusader building is clearly Romanesque, with heavy sup-
ports and a structural system that relies on its mass for sta-
bility, as was the case with the slightly earlier ribbed vaults at
St.-Etienne in Caen or Durham Cathedral. Moreover, there
is nothing in the rising walls and supports of the Holy Sepul-
Figure 12 Holy Sepulchre. View
into high vaults and dome, showing
the ribbedgroin vaults supported on
heavy compound piers
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 11

Figure 13 Holy Sepulchre. Extradosof a high vault duringrestoration,
showing the exposed ribstems
Figure 14 Holy Sepulchre. Generalview from the south, by Erhard
Reuwich, 1486, before the destruction of the belfry
chre to suggest that the ribbed vaults were intended from
the beginning. The lower vaults are all unribbed groin
vaults, and the compoundpiers lack colonnettes or pilaster
stripsto correspondto the ribs of the vaulting,as was com-
mon in contemporaneousFrencharchitecture.Similarcom-
poundpiersarefound in earliercrusaderbuildings,but they
supportunribbedgroin vaults.28
The quadripartiteribbed groin vaults of the Holy
Selpulchre are particularlynoteworthy, as they mark the
first instanceof ribbedvaultingin the Holy Land. In addi-
tion, they rankamong the earliestexamplesof their use in
12 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the high vaults of a medieval church. In French Gothic,
quadripartitehigh vaultsdid not become common until the
earlythirteenthcentury,and the transeptvaultsat the Holy
Sepulchre fail to incorporate the intermediate supports
within each bay. Nevertheless, the high vaults must have
resulted from the introductionof new buildingtechnology
from France toward the middle of the twelfth century.
Details and the construction technique correspond with
slightly earlier examplesfrom the Ile-de-France.Notably,
the ribs have rebated shelves to support the vaulting com-
partments and penetrating stems that are visible in the
extrados of the vaults (Figure 13); these and the simple,
cylindrical profile of the ribs correspond to construction
details in the side aisle vaults of St.-Etienne at Beauvais
(1130-40).29
Other design afterthoughtsclutter the exterior of the
Holy Sepulchre.The crusaderbelfry,constructedabove a
Byzantinechapelto the left of the south transeptentrance,
disrupts the balance of the fagade (see Figures 4, 10).
Althoughless commonin crusaderarchitecture,belfriesand
towers were standardelements in European Romanesque
architecture,where they were normallyfullyintegratedinto
churchdesign.The limitationsof the preexistingremainsat
the Holy Sepulchre, however, may have prevented the
inclusion of an integrated belfry in the original crusader
plan. In any event, the belfrysufferedrepeateddamage,and
its upperportionswere subsequentlyremoved,althoughits
form may be surmisedfrom some older historicalillustra-
tions (Figure 14).30The decision to include a prominent
belfry at the entrancemay have providedthe motivationto
transform the crossing tower into a dome; visually, two
asymmetrical towers would have created an even more
unbalancedsilhouette.
A second intrusionto the exteriorimpressionis the so-
called Chapel of the Franks,added to the right side of the
entrance,with stairsand a domed vestibule that served as a
second entranceto the elevatedChapelof Calvary(see Fig-
ure 10, right). It clearly represents a modification to the
original fagadedesign. The motivationfor its construction
may have been purely functional: to provide additional
access for the multitudesvisiting the church. At the same
time, the chapelwas lavishlydecorated,with exteriorsculp-
ture that correspondsto that of the main fagade,and with
mosaic decorationinside.31
Despite the numerouschanges,there was a clarityand
openness to the crusaders'buildingthat is difficultto imag-
ine today.With the continuedpartitioningof the interiorin
subsequentcenturies,the intendedvistais only partiallyevi-
dent, and only at the gallerylevel (see Figures 7, 8, 11, 12).
Unlike the visitor of today,who is met at the entranceby a
high wall covered with mediocre mosaics, the twelfth-cen- columns and capitals,with an occasionalbase used as a cap-
tury visitor encountereda panoramicview that swept from ital, andheterogeneouscolumn shaftsgraftedtogether(Fig-
Calvary,at the extreme right side, to the Tomb, on the left, ure 15). The result is awkwardat best and finds no good
which could be seen through the arches that the crusaders comparison in contemporaneous Byzantine architecture.
had opened in the rotunda'sfagade.Set next to Calvary,as My initial reading of the evidence for this phase of con-
if to endow them with sanctity,were the tombs of the Latin structionwas that althoughbuildersand subsidieswere pro-
Kings." The two most sacred sites in Christendom were vided from the Byzantine court, new building materials
joined by the crusadertransept.In neither of its earlieriter- were not." This suggestion now requiresamplification.
ations did the buildingpresentsuch a spectacle.Althoughit The crusaders'building displaysanalogousdiscrepan-
is often commented that the crusaders' addition physically cies. For example, although they appearedconspicuously
connected the two holy sites under one roof for the first awkwardfrom the outset, the Arches of the Virgin were left
time, it is probablyjust as importantthat it connected them in place. The crusaders'transeptaddeda second set of sup-
visually.William of Tyre could rightfullyclaim that the new ports in a distinctlydifferentstyle immediatelyadjacentto
crusader building "enclosed the old church and in mar- them (Figure 16). Here as elsewhere,neat, competent con-
velous wise includedwithin its precinctsthe holy places.""33 struction contrasts with fragmented and clumsily reused
Clearly, the Byzantine and crusaderphases of recon- components. In another example,the dome of the Chapel
struction representedsignificantmodificationsin the form of St. Helena rises elegantlyabovestubbycolumn shaftsand
of the building, introducing new, medieval concepts of retrofitted,oversizedcapitals,with the latter awkwardlycut
church planning into the old site. Both were at odds with down to fit the columns (Figure 17). Why in both periods
the original plan, but they probablyhad symbolic implica- of rebuildingwere such awkwardnessesallowed, when the
tions, relating them to the ideological concerns of their evidence suggests that the patrons could have affordedthe
respective founders. The Byzantine reconstruction, for better building materialsthat were available?Considering
example,with its series of annexedchapels,distinctivebrick the religious significance of the monument, economy is
and stone masonry,and mosaic decoration, added a stamp hardlya suitable explanation.
of Byzantineimperialauthority,as ConstantineIX sawhim- My answer to this question is that the architectureof
self as the ecumenical patron of the Church and the suc- the Holy Sepulchrehad come to be regardedas sacred,and
cessor to Constantinethe Great.34Similarly,the crusaders' through its tumultuous history the building itself had
project placed the building in the context of Romanesque become a venerated relic. Thus the stones of the Holy
Europeanpilgrimagearchitecture."As the late Tom Lyman Sepulchrewere reemployedinsofar as possible in each suc-
wrylyremarked,paraphrasingOscarWilde, afterthe Euro- cessive reconstruction.We may never be able to determine
peans had derived so much architecturalinspiration from the point of origin of all of the variousreused architectural
the Holy Sepulchre,the introductionof Romanesqueforms components in the building, but many of them must have
into the Jerusalem monument, in effect, "returned the come from the site. The columns and capitalsof the Arches
compliment."36 of the Virgin, for example,were at best maladroitin their
As the preceding discussionshould indicate, both the eleventh-centuryform but were neverthelessmaintainedin
Byzantine and the crusader phases of construction are the twelfth-centuryreconstruction,where they clash with
extremelycomplex, and no single explanationcan account the newer components. Visually,this portion of the build-
for all of their various peculiaritiesof design. Within the ing appearscompletely illogical, but perhapsby their very
eleventh-centurybuilding, it is evident that the quality of awkwardnessthe columnsand capitalstestifiedto the build-
the Byzantinereconstructionis distinctlyuneven.In spite of ing's antiquity and, therefore, to its religious significance.
the heterogeneous nature of the workshops responsible They providedan immediatevisualreferenceto the historic
for the reconstruction,the disparitiescannotbe dismissedas validityof the site.
the result of differingabilitiesamong the groups of partic- There is another dimension to the reuse of building
ipating masons. The masonry of the south chapels, con- materials, namely the preservationand reuse of the stand-
structedby a local workshop,as well as that of an elevated ing walls of the older church.This would have had an even
chapel above Calvary,constructedby a Constantinopolitan more direct effect on architecturaldesign than the incor-
atelier,are exceptionallyfine and carefullydetailed(see Fig- porationof spolia.In his discussionof the Byzantinerebuild-
ure 4, left and right). In contrast,the remainingportions of ing of the Holy Sepulchre, Couasnon emphasized the
the eleventh-centurycourtyard,the so-calledArches of the maintenance or attempted replication of older features,
Virgin, consist of a hodgepodge of spolia,of unmatched insofar as existing materials and building technology
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 13

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Figure 15 Holy Sepulchre. Northcolonnade of the eleventh-century Figure 16 Holy Sepulchre. View of the northtransept, showing the
courtyard(Arches of the Virgin),composed of reused columns and column with reused Abbasid capitalat the center; the Arches of the
capitals, view toward the west Virginappear immediately behind the crusader arcade

Figure 17 Holy Sepulchre. Chapel of

St. Helena, view toward the east
showing the reused columns and
capitals

14 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

allowed.38Althoughit was apparentlynot possibleto recon-
struct the Constantinianbasilica in the eleventh century,
the courtyardwas rebuilt, following the exact plan of the
original. The form of the Arches of the Virgin thus repli-
catedthe fourth-centuryportico,utilizingavailablebuilding
materials.The mismatchedspoliamay also derive from the
earlierconstructionphases,representingwhat survivedthe
destructionof 1009.
The same process of reuse must have occurredin the
twelfth century.Indeed, the crusaders'building is as inter-
esting for what they did notreconstructas for what they did.
For example,the crusadersopened the fagadeof the Byzan-
tine rotundato their new transept,addingslightly pointed
arches in the rotunda'seast fagade.But they left the rem-
nants of the Byzantine arcades unmodified above and
aroundthem, and this causedsome difficultyin connecting
the older and newer components, requiringvery compli-
cated and irregulargroin vaults (Figure 18). The resulting
vaults are unique in medieval architecture,with half of a
quadripartitegroin vaultmergedwith a series of half-groin
vaults.This vault would have been as difficultto construct
as it is to describe.It would havebeen considerablyeasierto
bridge the connection by removing the older elements of
the rotundafagadeand thus allowinga standardquadripar-
tite vault,but this wasnot done, andthe vestigesof the older
building are clearlyvisible.
More important,the limits of the crusaderrebuilding
were determined by preexisting walls, notably the lateral
walls of eleventh-century complex-which were in turn
definedby their EarlyChristianpredecessors.The crusader
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Figure 18 Holy Sepulchre. South
transept, detail showing the
connection between the crusader
addition and the fagade of the
Anastasis Rotunda.At the bottom
is the crown of the arch opened by
the crusaders; above it are two
setback windows, remains of the
older portals.
transeptwas built within the outer walls of the Byzantine
courtyard,significant elements of which were left in situ.
Only the curvatureof the crusaderchevet and the thickened
wall of the south transeptportalprojectedbeyond the east-
ern limit of the Byzantinecourtyard(Figure 19; see Figure
9). The crusaders'new design thus interjected the most
prominentelements of a Romanesquepilgrimagechurch-
the chevet and the monumentalentrance-into the preex-
isting frameworkof the complex,with minimalintervention
elsewhere.Even elements at the uppermostlevels were left
in place: the gallery above the Arches of the Virgin, for
example,retainsits Byzantinefloor and large portions of its
north wall, piercedby a series of windows,which were par-
tially rebuilt by the crusaders.39In the modification,piers
and columns topped by Constantiniancapitalswere added
againstthe existingwall to supportthe new crusadervaults.
The positions of the windows determinedthose of the sup-
ports. As in the connection to the rotunda faqadeon the
groundfloor, the differencein rhythmbetween the Byzan-
tine wall and the structuralsystem of the crusadertransept
requireda very irregularseries of groin vaults to serve as a
bridge (Figure 20).
In additionto the galleryabove the Arches of the Vir-
gin, severalsmallchapelsfrom the eleventhcentury,includ-
ing a distinctivedomed chapel,were left on the upper level
above Calvary,at the southeastcorner of the complex (see
Figures 7, 8, 19).40 As on the north side, where new ele-
ments were added,the height of the crusaders'galleryhad
to conformto the level of the Byzantinegallery.41Thus not
only the plan but also the proportions of the crusader
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 15
 I :1

.'." ,,
.??

;"" %,\
? . "?.
- :
.. ,
,.

F
/
-
i ...-..;;

i:? ?

Figure 19 Holy Sepulchre. Plan of the crusader additions at gallery

level. Olderwalls and chapels are indicated in gray.

Figure 20 Holy Sepulchre. Galleryabove the Arches of the Virgin

churchwere determinedto a large extentby the preexisting of the marble revetment is still visible. Structuralstability
building. The numerous compromisesin the twelfth-cen- may have been challengedin order to preserveas much as
tury design indicate that a sense of obligation toward the possible of the old walls.
older componentsultimatelyoutweighedaestheticand even Another telling detail is the asymmetryof the south
structuralconcerns. For instance, the domed chapel, visi- fagade (Figure 22; see Figure 10). The belfry to the west
ble on the exterior,must have been a bit at odds aestheti- and the Chapel of the Franksto the east representmodifi-
callywith the crusaderfagade(see Figure4).42Perhapsmore cations to the twelfth-centurybuilding project, noted ear-
important,structurallysupportingit and the adjacentele- lier. But the setback immediately to the right of the twin
vated chapels must have been a bit problematicwhen the portalsis more difficultto explain.It was a partof the orig-
Chapel of Calvary,just beneaththem, was reorganizedand inal crusader design for the fagade, thickening the wall
expandedin the twelfthcentury(compareFigures9, 19). In aroundthe main entranceportals.The sculpturaldecora-
the same expansion,new pierswere addedto the Byzantine tion of the fagadetakes the setbackinto consideration,and
Chapel of Adam on the ground floor. In this case, new the cornicesextendaroundthe corner.No similarfeatureis
structuralelementswere built directlyagainstthe older sup- evidenton the opposite side of the portals,where the bands
ports;however,the original revetmentsand cornices were of sculpturaldecorationsimplystop beforethe projectionof
left in place, so the two phases could not be properly the belfry.In fact, it is not entirelyclearhow the fagadewas
bonded together (Figure 21). The stonework of the new meant to be resolved on the left side before the belfry was
piers was carefullynotched to fit over the existing cornice, added. On the right side, however, the setback was not
andwithin the joint between the two phases,the rough end bonded to the adjacentwall in its lower courses,where the

16 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ti~~lrfalnltt~!lJ

look
i ~
V1.??i:::iP
II
----i i ---
A
'N" ~ ,.-r:

i YR?

.... ?e 4?i :ii;:•:•:• •

"I

•l
i
.....

Figure 21 HolySepulchre. The Chapel of Adam, beneath the

Chapel of Calvary.At the rightside (see arrow),the crusader
pier overlaps with the Byzantinecornice and revetment.
At
Ak W.
Figure 22 HolySepulchre. Generalview of the south fagade

Figure 23 HolySepulchre. South fagade, detail of upper level

. _ ::
.
.... ........... . ] .. .. " . .. ... . iii;,
............ ....
.. . ::.

r;iliiii!:.,,:,:,e r?siri~'ii
I!ilii z-; "i::*
..... ... .......... .....

31.

iil
EVERe
... ..... 'A
n.-
wg 44. 'nalp
so*,*M is#

THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 17

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
wall is of a rougherashlar.43The wall is, I believe, a remnant two-portalformatis often comparedwith the Golden Gate
of the eleventh-centurybuilding, and the line of the fagade of Jerusalem,in its two-storied elevation it bears stronger
at this point correspondswith portions fartherto the east, formal analogies with the monumental entrances of pil-
following the foundations of the fourth-centurybuilding, grimagechurches,such as that of the south transeptat San-
that are clearlyfrom the eleventh century. It would seem tiago de Compostela.50At the same time, the south fagade
that the crusaderfagadewas joined directlyto the Byzantine includes far more sculptural decoration than either the
wall on the most prominentpartof the building.This detail Golden Gate or the averagewestern Europeanpilgrimage
was unfortunatelyobscuredwith the additionof the Chapel churchportal.Moreover,there areimportantdistinctionsin
of the Franksat the entrance to Calvary.In any case, the the decorative details of the Holy Sepulchre fagade; it
design for the crusaders'rebuildingfollowed the line of the appearsto have been composed of a combination of both
walls of the older building,retaininglarge portionsof them new and reused pieces. It is clear, for example, that the
as well. columnsat the jambsarespoliaof at least four differenttypes
The respect given to the older structureencouragesus of marble."
to reconsiderthe reuse of architecturalsculpturethrough- The two cornicesmayalsobe ancient,andtheyhavepro-
out the building. The use of spoliais a favorite subject of vokeda varietyof interpretations. Josef Strzygowskiproposed
architecturalhistorians,although most scholarshave con- thatthe corniceswerereusedLateAntiquepieces,andhe sug-
centratedon the reuse of ancient architecturalelements in gested that they came from the Constantinianchurchbuild-
a medieval context.4sIn a place with the historical signifi- ing.2 In contrast,Couasnonidentifiedthe upper cornice as
cance of Jerusalem, old stones never die; but as they are second-centuryRoman (Figure 23)-and thus reused from
passed on, they can sometimes serve as vehicles for the the Romantempleonce on the site-and the lowercorniceas
transferof meaning. But how much did they travel?With a crusaderimitation(Figure24), an opinionrecentlyaccepted
the intensive reuse of architecturalelements in medieval by Folda.53NurithKenaan-KedarandVirgilioCorboviewed
Jerusalem,we can never be certainthat all of the spoliacame both cornicesas crusaderworks.54Are they Late Antiqueor
from the sameplace.John Wilkinson, for example,has sug- aretheycrusader? Aretheyspoliaor whatwe mightcallpseudo-
gested that the reused capitalsin the crusaderchurchcame spolia?In addition to the Late Antique stylistic vocabulary,
from the Haram, perhaps from the Al-AqsaMosque, and which is frequentlynoted, the plasticity,the carvingwith a
accordinglyhe included them in his catalogue(see Figures runningdrill,and the occasionalpoor joiningof components
16, 17).46 He notes that many of the capitals in the Holy suggest that the cornicesare reusedRomanpieces.I believe
Sepulchrematchcapitalsnow on the Haram,and according that both cornicesare from the second century,but that the
to his dating they would not correspondto known rebuild- upper cornice was partiallyrecarvedby the crusadersand
ings at the Holy Sepulchre. However, if the crusader more recentlyby the restorers.Good Romanimperialcom-
masonswere scouringthe city for suitablebuildingmateri- parisonscanbe foundat Gerasa,Scythopolis,and Caesarea.55
als, they could certainlyhave found better pieces than, for But the uncertaintyis telling.Elsewherein the building,
example,the mismatchedcolumns and cut-down capitalsin the crusadersreusedsignificantolderpiecesandcopied older
the chapel of St. Helena. sculptures.Manycrusadercarvingsfollowolder,localmodels,
Another telling-and aesthetically more satisfying- as severalscholarshavenoted.56In the clearestexampleof imi-
example,is in the north transept,where a large cylindrical tation,the so-calledwind-blowncapitalsaremodeledon fifth-
pier was included as the intermediate support where the century Syro-Palestinianprototypes-and perhapseven on
crusaderadditionsmeet the Archesof the Virgin. Elsewhere reusedpiecesfromthe eleventh-centurybuilding(Figure25;
in the twelfth-century building, coupled columns invariably see Figure 23).57Even the standardacanthuscapitalsof the
in
appear analogouspositions. The cylindricalpier topped fagademay reflect local, sixth-centurymodels.58A console
is
by an impressive,reused Abassidcapital,appropriateto its frieze with ball-flowerson the crusaderentranceto Calvary
scale.47In this case, the significanceof the capitalcould have follows the model of the fagadefriezes,but it is clearlya cru-
motivated the design decision. It may be noteworthy that sadercreation.A friezewith a flattenedrosettepatternaround
although many new capitalswere carved for the crusader the gadroonarcheson the lower level is also a crusaderwork,
building, reused capitals nevertheless appear in the most but likely modeled on a Syrianor perhapseven a Hadrianic
prominentpositions.48 source (see Figure 24).59 Other decorativeelements of the
If there is a messageto the use ofspoliaat the crusaders' fagade,such as the gadroon arches, suggest contemporary
Holy Sepulchre, the south transept fagade requires addi- Islamic sources, while still others, such as the vine-scroll
tional examination (see Figure 22).49 Although the transept's friezes,weremost likelybasedon westernEuropeanmodels.60
18 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Figure 24 Holy Sepulchre. South fagade, detail of lower cornice and
gadroon and rosette friezes
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The intended reading of the fagade was certainly not as
a postmodern pastiche. Rather, the mixture of sources on
the fagade suggests that the crusader builders understood
the significance of their project within a local, historical
context. In the reuse of materials, the south face even
included what we might call crypto-spolia:one of the histo-
riated lintels (now removed) is recarved from a closure slab,
whose geometric pattern is preserved on the reverse (Fig-
ure 26). Although normally identified as Abbasid, this piece
may have been part of the eleventh-century Byzantine tem-
plon, as Michele Piccirillo has suggested in conversation.61
Thus there is a "local" element to crusader art that includes
both the imitation and the appropriation of the historical
art objects of the region. At the Holy Sepulchre, much of
this may have come from or been inspired by previous con-
structions on the same site.
It is debatable how much of the interaction of old and
new was planned in the crusader building. Although some
juxtapositions may have been the result of happenstance,
many others were clearly intentional, to symbolic ends. The
subterranean Chapel of St. Helena is instructive in this
respect (see Figures 9, 17). Functionally, the chapel was
positioned in relationship to the eleventh-century Crypt of
the Invention of the Cross. The chapel's plan follows that of
a Byzantine cross-in-square church, for which there were
several models close at hand, such as the church ofJohn the
Baptist at Ein Kerem and, perhaps more important, the
katholikon of the Monastery of the Cross, both from the
mid-eleventh century.62The latter, constructed on the site
Figure 25 Capitalfrom the Holy
Sepulchre, now in the garden of
the Churchof All Nations,
Jerusalem
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 19

of the tree from which the wood of the True Cross was cut,
would have provided a symbolically significant parallel to
the site of the discovery of the True Cross by St. Helena.
The selection of this particular building type for the chapel
may thus have had a special meaning. Moreover, the chapel
reverberates with the interaction of old and new, a phe-
nomenon that goes far beyond the expansion of an older
crypt and the incorporation of spolia, discussed earlier. The
lateral walls of the chapel are formed by the foundation
walls of the destroyed Constantinian basilica; the chapel is
literally enveloped in them. The dome of the chapel is posi-
tioned at almost the exact center of the basilica, the remains
of which were subsequently covered by the crusader clois-
ter. The setting of the chapel in such an exacting relation-
ship to the older foundations suggests the significance they
were accorded and the dramatic impact they had on the
design of the crusader additions.
What does all of this mean for our understanding of
the architecture of the Holy Sepulchre? First, the church
not only housed the most important sites in Christendom,
but in the Middle Ages the very fabric of the building came
to be regarded as a sacred relic. Second, the sanctity of the
architecture ultimately compromised the unity of design in
both the eleventh- and twelfth-century rebuildings. The
masons were obliged to balance aesthetic and structural
decisions with spiritual concerns: the venerable antiquity,
or more properly, the venerable antiquities of the building
constituted a more potent expressive force than the latest
imported architectural features. No medieval pilgrim ever
commented on the early and very au courantappearance of
20 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Figure 26 Holy Sepulchre. Rear
surface of east lintel from the south
fagade
ribbed-groin vaults in the crusader church, but few visitors
failed to notice the church's antiquity. Third, the architec-
tural additions to the holy site became inextricable elements
of the experience and meaning of the place. The old stones
both testify to the authenticity of the site and are the site,
while the new architectural framework provided a more
immediate visual validation to the biblical events.
To conclude, the idea that a historical building could
be viewed as a sacred relic is reinforced by the record of the
reconstruction of the Abbey Church of St.-Denis, outside
Paris, by Abbot Suger, ca. 1130-44.63 The abbey church
offers a useful, contemporaneous comparison to the cru-
saders' reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre. In both, a
venerated older building housing a sacred tomb was aug-
mented by new additions that included a chevet and a mon-
umental entrance. Suger stated explicitly that his work
represented the "completion" of the older monument,
which was substantially preserved because the building was
believed to have been dedicated by Christ Himself. Suger's
intention was to "respect the very stones, sacred as they are,
as if they were relics" (ipsis sacratis lapidibus tanquam
reliquiis deferremus), as he wrote in his well-known account
of the rebuilding.64
As at St.-Denis, architectural decisions at the Holy
Sepulchre were guided to a large extent by the desire to
"respect the very stones" of the older building, resulting in
both aesthetic and structural compromises in the final
design. Although the comparison with St.-Denis may seem
particularly apt, unfortunately the crusader rebuilding of
the Holy Sepulchre lacked an Abbot Suger. The stones may
speak eloquently, but the sources are unusuallysilent. For
the most important architecturalundertakingof the cru-
saderperiod, oddly, there is no text; the donors go unmen-
tioned, and the beginning and end datesof constructionare
unknown. In their accounts,pilgrims from the period usu-
ally limit their comments to the sacred contents of the
building and say virtuallynothing specific about the archi-
tecture,either old or new. Still, the very combinationof old
and new was perhapsthe most remarkableand most evoca-
tive aspect of the medieval rebuildings.The new architec-
ture could, in effect, framethe old and add to its lustre.
In his sermon on the dedicationof the church at Tyre,
Eusebius repeated the prophesy of Haggai, to emphasize
that "the latter glory of this house shall be greaterthan the
former"(Hg 2:9).65The same could be said of the medieval
rebuildings at the Holy Sepulchre. Although its location
was fixed, the Tomb of Christwas glorified and authorized
by the churchbuildingthat enshrinedit. Consequently,the
new architecturalfeaturesover time became part and par-
cel of the ritualexperienceat the holy site, just as they added
new elements of culturalidentity.The true significanceand
validationof the site'sposition in Christianhistory lay not
simplyin the specificityof place,but also in its architecture,
old andnew. Perhapswe must reconsiderthe propositionof
JonathanZ. Smith thatin Jerusalem,"story,ritual,and place
could be one."66For by the twelfthcentury,the idea of place
extended beyond the Tomb to include its architecturalset-
ting, just as the sacred story had expandedbeyond that of
Christ to include Constantineand the tumultuousmedieval
history of Jerusalem. Ritual in turn responded to these
expandedmeanings of place and story. Medieval pilgrims'
texts, notably that of John of Wiirzburg, mix together the
biblical accounts of Christ's Passion, its liturgical com-
memoration, architecturaldescriptions,verses of the Old
Testament, stories of the activities of Constantine and
Helena and the capture and liberation of Jerusalem,
importedrelics and their locations,dedicationsof altars,and
the texts of inscriptionsdecoratingthe building.They also
refer to the crusaders'reconsecrationand introduction of
new ceremonies.67Story,ritual,and place were still inextri-
cably linked, but the meaning of each had become consid-
erablymore complex than it had been in the first, or in the
fourth, century.
The medievaldesireto "respectthe very stones, sacred
as they are, as if they were relics" seems to have been
ignored in the twentieth-century restoration of the Holy
Sepulchre. Damaged architecturalcomponents were sim-
ply removedand replacedwith blandreplicas.In contrastto
the Middle Ages, when the stones of the Holy Sepulchre
were valuedand eitherreusedin the laterrebuildingsor dis-
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
seminated throughout Europe by pilgrims as sacredrelics,
the discardedstones from the twentieth-centuryrenovation
receivedno specialtreatmentand were scatteredaroundthe
city by the restorers.68Fragmentsof carvedcapitalsand col-
umn shafts removed from the Holy Sepulchre now lie
unobtrusivelyat the entranceto the Greek Patriarchate,in
the courtyardof the Museum of the Flagellation,andin the
landscapedterracesof the Church of All Nations (see Fig-
ure 2 5). These bearersof meaning and witnesses to sacred
history have been all but forgotten, demoted to garden
ornaments.It is now the architecturalhistorian,not the pil-
grim, who seeks them out.69
Notes
This paper is dedicated in gratitude to my friends Bianca and Gustav Kiih-
nel, who arranged and enlivened my stay in Jerusalem between November
1997 and January 1998.
1. Jonathan Z. Smith, To TakePlace: TowardTheoryin Ritual (Chicago, 1987),
22, 86.
2. Ibid., 86.
3. Jerome, Epistula 46.5, Patrologia cursuscompletus,series latina, J.-P. Migne,
ed. (Paris, 1844-80), vol. 22, 426.
4. Jerome, Ep. 108.9, Patrologia 22, 884.
5. This theme is developed in several essays included in Robert Ousterhout,
ed., TheBlessings ofPilgrimage(Urbana,1990),in particularby SabineMac-
Cormack,"Loca Sancta:The Organizationof SacredTopographyin Late
Antiquity,"7-40.
6. Jerome, Ep. 46.7, Patrologia22, 488; as noted by MacCormack,"Loca
Sancta,"21.
7. GaryVikan,ByzantinePilgrimageArt (Washington,D.C., 1982), 20.
8. Rowena Loverance, Byzantium(Cambridge,Mass., 1988), fig. 71. For
similar examples,see Lieselotte Koetzsche, "ZweiJerusalemerPilgeram-
pullen aus der Kreuzfaherezeit,"Zeitschriftfiir Kunstgeschichte 51 (1988),
13 ff.;JaroslavFolda, TheArt of the Crusaders in theHolyLand1098-1187
(Cambridge,England, 1995), 294-97.
9. For the legislationconcerningthe building,see AlbertRock, OFM, The
StatusQuoin theHolyPlaces(Jerusalem,1989);for a brief surveyof its pres-
ent state,see GrevilleS. P. Freeman-Grenville,TheBasilicaoftheHolySepul-
chrein Jerusalem(Jerusalem,1994).
10. The standardmonograph on the city remains Hubert Vincent and
FElix-MarieAbel,Jirusalemnouvelle,vol. 2 (Paris,1914).The historyof the
building is summarizedin Robert Ousterhout, "Rebuildingthe Temple:
ConstantineMonomachusandthe Holy Sepulchre,"JSAH 48 (Mar.1989),
66-78. Virgilio C. Corbo, II Santo Sepolcrodi Gerusalemme,3 vols.
(Jerusalem,1981),is indispensibleand has supersededall previouspublica-
tions on the subject,butwithout providinga full analysisof the architectural
remains.A less satisfactoryaccount,with imaginativereconstructiondraw-
ings, is providedby CharlesCouasnon, The Churchof theHolySepulchrein
Jerusalem(London, 1974). Shimon Gibson and Joan Taylor,Beneaththe
Churchof the Holy Sepulchre(London, 1994), have produced important
observations on the site of the Constantinian building, although their
attemptsat reconstructionareless useful.MartinBiddle, TheTombof Christ
(Sutton, 1999), offers a useful analysisof the building'shistorywhile focus-
ing on the presentcondition of the tomb aedicula.In general,more atten-
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 21
tion has been given to the perplexing early history of the site than to the
standing remains.
11. Gibson and Taylor, Beneath the Church, 74-77.
12. Couasnon, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 32-3 5, pl. 17.
13. Corbo, Santo Sepolcro, 1: 41-42; Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Averil
Cameron and Stuart Hall, intro., trans., comment. (Oxford, 1999), 3:26,
132-33.
14. Ousterhout, "Rebuilding the Temple"; Biddle, Tomb of Christ, 77-81,
has questioned the attribution of the Byzantine reconstruction with Con-
stantine Monomachus, preferring his predecessor Michael IV (1034-41).
The association with Constantine Monomachus was recorded after ca. 1165
by William of Tyre, based on local tradition, although the reconstruction
may have been begun several decades earlier.
15. A thorough recent analysis is presented byJaroslav Folda, Art of the Crm-
sadersin the Holy Land, 1098-1187 (Cambridge, England, and New York, 1995),
175-245, with important observations on the chronology of construction.
16. William Archbishop of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done beyond the Sea,
trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A. C. Crey (New York, 1943), 344; Folda,
Art of the Crusaders, 503 n. 121.
17. Folda discusses this problem at length in Art of the Crusaders, 57-67,
177-245.
18. Ibid., 57-60, 517 n. 3; fig. 5 for plan of the cloister (repr. from Camille
Enlart, Les Monuments des croisis dans le royaume de Jirusalem [Paris,
1925-28], atlas 1, pls. 2, 3).
19. Ibid., esp. 178.
20. John of Wiirzburg, in John Wilkinson, J. Hill, and W E Ryan, Jerusalem
Pilgrimage 1099-1185 (London, 1988), 262-63; also discussion by Jaroslav
Folda, "Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre through the Eyes of Crusader Pil-
grims," in Bianca Kiihnel, ed., The Real and IdealJerusalem in Jewish, Christian,
and Islamic Thought, special issue of Jewish Art 23-24 (1997-98), 158-64.
21. Note, among others, Nurith Kenaan, "Local Christian Art in Twelfth-
CenturyJerusalem," Israel Exploration Quarterly 23 (1973), 167-75, 221-29;
Lucy-Anne Hunt, "Artistic and Cultural Inter-relations between the Chris-
tian Communities at the Holy Sepulchre in the 12th Century," in Anthony
Mahony et al., eds., The Christian Heritage of the Holy Land (London, 1995),
57-95; and Jaroslav Folda, "The South Transept Fagade of the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre: An Aspect of 'Rebuilding Zion,"' in The Crusadesand
Their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and
William G. Zajac (Aldershot, 1998), 239-57.
22. Robert Venturi, Complexityand Contradictionin Architecture (New York,
1966).
23. Alan Borg, unpublished lecture (London, 1977), cited in Folda, Art of
the Crusaders, 213.
24. Nurith Kenaan-Kedar, "Symbolic Meaning in Crusader Architecture:
The Twelfth-Century Dome of the Holy Sepulchre Church in Jerusalem,"
CahiersArchiologiques 34 (1986), 109-17.
25. Ibid.
26. For comments on the use of ribbed groin vaults, see Robert Ouster-
hout, "Construction of Vaults and Cultural Identity in Crusader Architec-
ture," in Daniel Weiss, ed., Frankish Culture at the End of the Crusades:France
and the Holy Land (Baltimore, 2003).
27. Ousterhout, "Rebuilding the Temple," 74-75 (see n. 14).
28. See, for example, the church of St. Anne inJerusalem, which dates from
the 1130s; Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 133-36.
29. For early ribbed vaults in France, see Marcel Aubert, "Les Plus Anci-
ennes Croisoes d'ogives: Leur R61e dans la construction," Bulletin Monu-
mental93 (1934), 5-67, 137-237; for a view of the extrados of the high vaults
during restoration, in which the rib stem is clearly visible, see Corbo, Santo
Sepolcro,3: pls. 174-76 (see n. 10).
22 JSAH / 62:1, MARCH 2003
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30. The belfry is discussed by Folda, Art of the Crusaders,243-45, who notes
the first reference to the tower in 1154; for the 1486 illustration by Erhard
Reuwich, see Harry Hazard, ed., A History of the Crusades,vol. 4, The Art and
Architecture of the Crusades(Madison, 1977), 71 fig. 1.
31. Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, "Une Mosaique medi6vale au Saint-S6pulcre,"
Revue Biblique 83 (1976), 237-53.
32. See the discussion by Hunt, "Artistic and Cultural Inter-relations,"
65-66, with additional notes (see n. 21).
33. William Archbishop of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done beyondthe Sea, 344
(see n. 16); Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 503 n. 121.
34. Ousterhout, "Rebuilding the Temple," 78.
35. Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 535 n. 30.
36. Thomas Lyman, "The Counts of Toulouse, the Reformed Canons, and
the Holy Sepulcher," Benjamin Z. Kedar, ed., in The Horns of Hattin
(Jerusalem, 1992), 63.
37. Ousterhout, "Rebuilding the Temple," esp. 76-77.
38. Couasnon, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 54-57 (see n. 10).
39. Corbo, Santo Sepolcro,2: pl. 30.
40. Ibid., pl. 7.
41. Ibid., pl. 31.
42. Folda, Art of the Crusaders, figs. 7.2a, 7.2c.
43. Differences in coursing are evident in Couasnon'selevation drawing,
reproduced by Corbo, Santo Sepolcro,2: pl. 54.
44. This, in turn, rested on a reused Hadrianic wall; ibid., 2: pl. 46.
45. See, for example, Dale Kinney, "Making Mute Stones Speak: Reading
Columns in S. Nicola in Carcere and S. Maria in Aracoeli," in Cecil L.
Striker, ed., Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer (Mainz,
1997), 83-86; Dale Kinney, "Rape or Restitution of the Past? Interpreting
Spolia," in Susan Scott, ed., The Art of Interpreting (State College, Penn.,
1995), 52-57.
46. John Wilkinson, Column Capitals in the Al-Haram Al-Sharif(Jerusalem,
1987), 27-28. Of course, if the capitals did in fact come from the Haram,
they could have been symbolically associated with the Temple ofJerusalein
as well. Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 536 n. 39, questions whether it was the
crusaders or the Byzantines who first introduced the Abbasid spolia.
47. Wilkinson, Column Capitals; Corbo, Santo Sepolcro,2: pl. 26.
48. Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 204-12.
49. Ibid., 214-29; Folda, "South Transept Fagade," 2 39-57; Kenaan, "Local
Christian Art," 221-22.
50. Folda, "South Transept Fagade," 239-57, with additional references (see
n. 21).
51. Ibid., fig. 7.2e.
52. Josef Strzygowski, Orient oder Rom: Beitrage zur Geschichteder spitan-
tiken undfriihchristlichen Kunst (Leipzig, 1901), 126-50.
53. Couasnon, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 60; Folda, "South Transept
Fagade," 243.
54. Kenaan, "Local Christian Art," 225, notes Syrian comparisons; Corbo,
Santo Sepolcro,3: fig. 199.
55. C. H. Kraeling, ed., Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven, 1938), pl.
11a; Asher Ovadiah and Yehudit Turnheim, Peopled Scrolls in Roman Archi-
tectural Decoration in Israel (Rome, 1994), esp. 69-75 for comparisons.
56. Most notable is Kenaan, "Local Christian Art," 223-29.
57. Ibid., esp. 222-23.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid., 223-25, and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, "The Fagade of the Holy
Sepulchre," Rivista di Studi Orientali 59 (1985), 289-96; and Folda, "South
Transept Fagade," 244. All note Early Christian Syrian examples and par-
allels with the Golden Gate. For a similar Hadrianic piece, see Kraeling,
Gerasa, pl. 10c.
60. Kenaan, "Local Christian Art," 225; Folda, "South Transept Fagade,"
244.
61. I am grateful to Michele Piccirillo for discussions on this subject. For the
piece, see Ernest T. Richmond, "Church of the Holy Sepulchre: Note on a
Recent Discovery," Quarterly of the Department ofAntiquities in Palestine 1
(1931), 2; Folda, Art of the Crusaders, fig. 7.8m; compare to the eleventh-
century panel illustrated in Corbo, Santo Sepolcro,3: 205 (see n. 10).
62. Denys Pringle, The Churchesof the Crusader Kingdom: A Corpus (Cam-
bridge, England, 1993-98), vol. 1, 30-38; vol. 2, 33-40.
63. Sumner McKnight Crosby, The RoyalAbbey of Saint-Denis from Its Begin-
nings to the Death ofSuger 475-1151 (New Haven, 1987), 251-65, and passim;
for a recent appraisal of the bibliography on the building, see Lawrence Hoey,
"A Critical Account of the State of Some Questions Concerning Suger's
Architecture at Saint-Denis," AVISTA Forum 12, no. 1 (1999), 12-19.
64. Erwin Panofsky, ed. and trans., Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-
Denis and Its Art Treasures(Princeton, 1946), 100-01.
65. As emphasized byJohn Wilkinson, "Paulinus' Temple at Tyre," ahrbuch
der OsterreichischenByzantinistik 32, no. 4 (1982), 553-61.
66. Smith, To TakePlace, 86 (see n. 1).
67. Wilkinson, Hill, and Ryan, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 242-65 (see n. 20).
68. I strongly suspect that the relics of the Holy Sepulchre noted in Euro-
pean inventories could be either fragments of the Tomb or of the church
building. This question, as well as the catalogue of Holy Sepulchre relics,
deserves separate study. For a relic of the Holy Sepulchre at Notre-Dame
of Paris, see Genevieve Bautier, "L'Envoi de la relique de la Vraie Croix
Notre-Dame de Paris en 1120," Bibliothique de l'Ecolede Chartes 129 (1971),
This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:03 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
387-97; Folda, Art of the Crusaders,83; for a relic at Neuvy-St.-Sepulcre, see
Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, Dictionnaire raisonne de l'architecture
franfaise, vol. 8 (Paris, 1859), 288, and Jean Hubert, "Le Saint-Sepulcre de
Neuvy et les pelerinages de Terre-Sainte au XIe siecle," Bulletin Monumen-
tal 90-91 (1931-32), 98, who refer to the 1257 gift by Cardinal Eudes de
Chiteauroux to Neuvy of fragments of Christ's Tomb and drops of the Pre-
cious Blood. At Borgo Sansepolcro, relics of stones from the Holy Sepul-
chre led to the founding of the town; see Marilyn A. Lavin, Piero della
Francesca'sBaptism of Christ (New Haven, 1981), 2 3-24, with further refer-
ences. For architectural copies of the Tomb and rotunda, see most recently
Robert Ousterhout, "Flexible Geography and Transportable Topography,"
in Kiihnel, The Real and the Ideal Jerusalem, 393-404 (see n. 20).
69. See my comments in Robert Ousterhout, "The Church of the Holy
Sepulchre?" BiblicalArchaeologyReview 26, no. 6 (2000), 20-3 5.
Illustration Credits
Figure 1. Courtesy of Time Magazine
Figure 2. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks
Figure 3. From Loverance, Byzantium, fig. 71
Figures 4, 10-12, 15-18, 20-25. Photographs by the author
Figures 5, 7, 9, 19. Drawn by the author after Corbo
Figure 8. From Couasnon, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, pl. 25, courtesy the
British Academy
Figure 13. From Corbo, Santo Sepolcro, 3: pl. 174
Figure 14. From Hazard, A History of the Crusades,4: fig. 1
Figure 26. From Folda, Art of the Crusaders, fig. 7.8m
THE STONES OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE 23