Are there any busts and sculptures found from the Byzantine empire that are post Arab invasion?

Submitted by gayfantasia t3_y2e44t in history

I know that statues were still being made and modified during the Byzantine empire. For instance, a statue of Empress Irene comes to mind. That one was placed along the Spina of the Hippodrome.

There’s a famous “roundel” that depicts John 2 Komnenos in the Dumbarton Oaks museum. For me this comes close towards a more sculptured depiction of a byzantine emperor. Of course there’s also the amazing ivory works during the Macedonian era, which really shows the skill of artists in this era.

Roundel:

https://www.doaks.org/resources/bliss-tyler-correspondence/art/bz/BZ.1937.23.jpg/view

Macedonian era Veroli casket:

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O70463/veroli-casket-casket-unknown/

These two examples are only relief art, and are not classical statues like they were being made in the pagan era of the empire. The casket also is made of ivory and is of course quite small.

Even though a lot of statues are reportedly reused to depict a different emperor, new statues were being made throughout the byzantine era. However I can’t find any physical evidences.

It seems to me that any statues and busts post Phocas/Heraclius seem to be entirely lost. Even Justinian era statues and busts are rare…

10

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

LargeMonty t1_is2y63q wrote

I am not an expert but I suspect it is due partly to the iconoclasm periods, where religious art was actively destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm?wprov=sfla1

5

gayfantasia OP t1_is4i88a wrote

I’ve sort of read that during those times people wouldn’t dare to destroy ancient statues, because people thought they were possessed. Also during iconoclasm, the statue of Irene I mentioned was made by constantine VI, member of the isaurian dynasty and an iconoclast symphatiser. Since his father and grandfather was an iconoclast.

I suspect it has more to do with the 4th crusade and the post 4th crusade empire, as they had barely any money to maintain anything monumental and everything around them was crumbling.

5

Anthemius_Augustus t1_is4x1lk wrote

Iconoclasm did not affect imperial images, it was only aimed at specifically religious images. Early Christianity did not really have many religious statues, that was more of a Medieval Catholic development. Early Christian art was usually in the form of icons, mosaics, frescoes etc. Statues were likely not a major target.

3

Anthemius_Augustus t1_is4xt7x wrote

I haven't really found any literature on this specifically, but I suspect it might have something to do with these statues being more of a uniquely Constantinopolitan development, thanks to the city's extraordinarily preserved classical heritage. You don't really hear about any similar vast statue collections in any other Eastern Roman cities during the Middle Byzantine period, so I suspect most of these statues were not mass produced, and likely were exclusive decorations for the capital.

This explains why finds are so rare, since Istanbul is quite lacking when it comes to the archaeological front, it is quite a limited surface area for any statues to be found, assuming they survived the sacks in 1204 and 1453.

You should also be careful ascribing dates to these statues from the names the primary sources give them. Statues were often given local names/attributions that were entirely incorrect. The equestrian statue on the Column of Justinian is a classic example. It was put atop the column by Justinian, but most Byzantine tour guides thought the statue was actually of Heraclius. Depictions of the statue before it was destroyed seem to suggest however that it was originally Theodosian. So the identity of these statues would often get confused or twisted for ideological purposes.

Many of these statues might not even have been fully original, since the early 5th Century it had become common practice to simply decapitate an old statue/bust and add a new head. Justinian's aforementioned statue might have been one of these, as it had a Theodosian inscription on it.

The only proper statue that may date from this period is the Carmagnola in Venice, which is traditionally believed to be Justinian, but it could be from a later date too.

2

gayfantasia OP t1_is55s33 wrote

That’s true. I also believe the Justinian statue might be 90% spolia and 10% original work, (if that’s the correct term for it). But I would Like to give Byzantine craftsmen more appreciation. I think pieces such as ivory works and the roundel I showed makes me think they’re capable enough to produce busts or statues. Especially when you basically inhabit a whole open museum with an immense collection of antique works you can use as reference. It surprises me that the vanity of rich nobles and emperors would only produce relief and mosaic art.

But I think you might be right that it is only Concentrated in Constantinople and that it’s buried beneath the Istanbul streets.. never to be found.

1