Is it possible to go to and not visit? Istanbul is simply an amazing city that you should definitely see at least once in your life - stroll through the narrow streets, sail along the Bosphorus, taste local delicacies (in Istanbul we found the most delicious Turkish sweets!), meet Istanbul cats and just enjoy the city with richest history. Today I will tell you how you can get to Istanbul from one of the most popular resorts.
Regardless of the type of transport, any route from Antalya to Istanbul will look like this:
The distance from Antalya to Istanbul is 720 km. There are several ways to overcome it.
It takes a very long time to travel by bus to Istanbul - the journey takes about ten to eleven hours. This long method is usually chosen by those who are simply afraid of flying. Or those who save on air travel (although with local low-cost airlines, flights are even more profitable than traveling by bus).
During the season, comfortable international buses depart every four hours. The main carriers in this direction: Kamil Koç and MetroTurizm:
Ticket prices vary in the range from 150 to 160 liras (prices 2019). All buses are air conditioned, passengers are offered drinks and snacks, and some buses even have Wi-Fi.
There is no direct train connection between Antalya and Istanbul, so this type We immediately dismiss transport.
Air travel is the easiest and most quick way overcome considerable distances between cities. You can choose one of two Istanbul airports as your final destination.
One of them (Ataturk Airport) is located closer to the city center in its European part. was built much later and is located outside the city, in its Asian part.
Ataturk Airport
About 30 airline flights depart from Antalya towards Ataturk Airport every day AtlasGlobal,Onur Air And Turkish Airlines.
The first flight departs from Antalya to 07.00 , the last one is in 23.55 . The flight takes approximately one hour ten to an hour twenty. The minimum cost of an air ticket, for example, for October 2017 is 2505 rubles:
Sabiha Gokcen Airport
There are 23 flights departing from Antalya daily. Air travel is carried out by companies Pegasus Airlines, Sunexpress And Turkish Airlines. The flight time takes approximately the same as the flight to Ataturk Airport. But it takes much longer to get from Sabiha Gokcen Airport to the city center.
Offers the cheapest air tickets Pegasus Airlines(as of June 2019) – from 1651 RUR :
You will need a ferry if you decide to fly from Antalya to Sabiha Gokcen Airport, which is quite distant from the city. From the airport you will need to get to the Kadıköy pier and cross the Bosphorus Strait by ferry, which departs every half hour. True, there is also Alternative option, how to get there from the airport, but more about that below.
An excursion from Antalya to Istanbul is convenient because it includes all transfers along the road “from hotel to hotel”. As a rule, such sightseeing tours are designed for 1-3 days and involve direct flights to Ataturk Airport. A standard excursion costs from $200 per person.
A plane ticket from Antalya to Istanbul can be purchased at a travel agency, ticket office and airline representative office (at domestic flight terminals). But the easiest way, of course, is to buy a ticket on Aviasales or Skyscanner - there you can find the most profitable and time-convenient option. To be honest, this is the only way we always buy tickets.
Here you can see when the best tickets are available:
Tickets for intercity buses are sold at the ticket office of Antalya bus station, at official representative offices of bus companies (on the main streets of the city) and in travel agencies. You can also buy a ticket on the bus company’s website; prices there are often lower than at street offices.
For example, tickets to Istanbul on the company website Kamil Koç (prices for 2019 are around 135-150 liras):
The cost of tickets when purchased through the website is 5 liras less than at the bus station
From Antalya to Istanbul you get to either one of two airports or one of the bus stations - Bayrampaşa, Büyük otogar or Esenler.
1. Metro
The M1 metro line from the airport (the station is called Havalimani) through the central areas of the European part of the city stretches to the Aksaray bus station.
2. Bus
Municipal bus 96T also goes from the airport to the center of Istanbul (for example, to the Bakirkoy and Yenikapi areas). The bus leaves every hour.
3. Taxi
Usually, tourists are not recommended to use taxi services at the airport - it is very expensive, and there are plenty of scammers in such a “bread and butter” place. You can order a taxi in advance on the website individual transfers(for example, a trip from Ataturk Airport to the historical center of Sultanahmet will cost 27 euros).
1. Taxi or private transfer
In the same way, you can take a taxi at the airport, or you can order it in advance on this website.
An individual transfer is usually 10% more expensive, but you don’t need to wait in line, you will be immediately greeted with a sign, the fare will be known in advance, the class of the car will be known and, if necessary, a child car seat will be installed immediately.
From the airport to the historical center of the city (Sultanahmed) you will be taken in approximately 53 euros.
2. Bus + ferry
Take the Havataş bus or the E10 city bus to Kadikoy pier. From here a ferry departs every half hour to Eminonu.
After getting off the ferry and crossing the road, you need to take the light rail. Sultanahmed center is literally three stops away.
You can also take the Havatash bus to Taksim Square, and from there you can take the metro or bus to wherever you need to go.
Taksim Square:
3. Bus + metro
In October 2013, the Marmaray tunnel was opened under the Bosphorus. From the final stop of the E10 city bus, you can now take the metro to the center of Istanbul (to Sirkeci station).
Marmaray Tunnel Station:
From the central bus station (Bayrampaşa), you can go into the city either by metro (line M1) or by one of the buses:
Also from the bus station there are free shuttles from various bus companies to some areas of the city. There are no direct buses to Sultanahmet, but you can then walk. To use the free shuttle, you need to show the driver your intercity bus ticket. For example, you traveled from Antalya to Istanbul by company Kamil Koç, then at the bus station you need to find a shuttle bus of this particular company.
The easiest way to travel from Antalya to Istanbul is by plane. There are many direct flights budget options, and tickets can be booked in advance online.
When purchasing tickets, pay attention to which part of Istanbul your hotel is located. IN European part It is more convenient to get to the city from Ataturk Airport, to the Asian one - from Sabiha Gokcen Airport.
The multi-hour bus option remains for those who are afraid of flying or love adventure and want to see the views from the bus window.
Which way do you prefer to get from Antalya to Istanbul? Have you used the long bus crossing? Isn't this too tedious? We were traveling by bus from Izmir to Istanbul and were very tired, but it’s much further to get from Antalya.
Larionov A. I.
The foundation stone to mark the beginning of the construction of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was installed by Emperor Constantine I the Great on May 11, 330. Around the same time, the construction of the complex of buildings of the Great Imperial Palace began, which continued later, until the buildings, occupying the slope of Augustion Hill, turned into a huge palace complex with an area of several hundred thousand square meters. During the reign of Emperor Justinian I, the palace was fundamentally rebuilt, expanded and decorated, at the same time a peristyle was created, supported by 42 columns, where the chrysotriclinium was located - the Golden Dining Hall - with mosaic paving of the floors. In the entire history of the development of mosaic art, which dates back over 60 centuries, such a grandiose work has rarely been created: the mosaic set occupied an area of 66.5 meters by 55.5 meters, and the set module is so small in places that there are up to 420 tesserae per square decimeter. This enormous paving is an outstanding example of the technical, creative and physical capabilities of mosaic artists.
Not a single book, in one way or another devoted to the mosaics of the Great Palace, contains a convincing substantiation of the reasons for the difference between the style of the chrysotriclinium mosaic set and the dominant style of the Justinian era, to which the vast majority of scientists attribute the time of its creation. Beautifully executed, multi-level, intricately arranged, surrounded by a majestic border, the chrysotriclinium mosaic is a mystery measuring three thousand square meters.
It is premature, if at all possible, to claim that the source of the mosaic subjects is any specific region of the empire. There is a low probability of their capital, Constantinople, origin, as some experts insist; one should hardly look for the source of the triclinium plots in central Europe, in the Pyrenees or the British Isles. Judging by the style of execution of the mosaics, the most likely origin of most of the pictorial motifs is territorially connected with the Mediterranean, but regardless of whether they were made in the mosaic centers of Syria, the workshops of Italy or on the coast of North Africa, their blood connection with the ancient world becomes decisive.
What style, region, and time can the chrysotriclinium mosaic be attributed to? Many scientists who dealt with the problems of dating, style and interpretation of paving plots tried to answer these questions, which still arouse keen scientific interest. The main conclusions that can be drawn based on the work of these researchers are as follows:
1. Despite some reservations and differences of opinion, almost all authors, with rare exceptions, agree that the rather widely interpreted time of creation of the chrysotriclinium mosaic most likely dates back to the reign of Justinian. Other dates are also mentioned (Hellenkemper Salies1, Trilling2, etc.). The main arguments allowing us to attribute the mosaic to the beginning - middle of the 6th century are stratigraphic and archaeological evidence.
2. All authors state that the mosaic paving of the triclinium is characterized by the absence of an internal structure of the composition, which is supported by a wide border and division into four fairly conventional registers, which in turn are also conventionally connected to each other by the verticals of trees.
3. Terminologically, the authors define the style of depicting individual subjects as late Roman, early Christian, late classical, orientalizing, late antique, late Hellenistic, classicizing and early medieval. And although all terms define approximately the same time, the variety of its names reveals the preferences of the authors.
4. Scientists associate the method of mosaic typing with workshops in various regions of the empire: Rome, Greece, Constantinople, North Africa, but most often with Syria.
5. The most detailed study related to the division of the mosaic into subject groups for their further comparative analysis, undertaken in the book by D.T. Rice3, although he himself considers his work to be nothing more than an addition to the fundamental work of G. Brett.
The main concepts regarding the features, origin and iconography of this mosaic are as follows:
1. The work on the mosaic decoration of the chrysotriclinium floor was carried out by craftsmen from a prestigious Syrian workshop invited to Constantinople. In Syria, mosaics of a similar composition were widely represented in the second half of the 5th century, while palace mosaics should be compared only with Syrian figurative carpet mosaics (H. Salies4).
2. In the mosaic section opened in the 50s, the general movement within the subjects is directed in the opposite direction from the direction of movement of the subjects in the section opened before the war. The change in direction is due to the fact that craftsmen from another mosaic workshop (D. Talbot Rice5) were working on this site.
3. Typologically, mosaic belongs to Roman mosaic art. The mosaic images are reminiscent of floor mosaics found primarily in Syria. However, in the mosaics of the Grand Palace the motifs are clearly of Roman origin. It is likely that the arrangement of subjects in the registers throughout the entire mosaic space was agreed upon in advance, and the themes, sizes and placement of figures and surroundings were left to the discretion of the owner of each individual workshop, and therefore some subjects are repeated more than once. (Fatih Cimok6).
4. A significantly later dating is also proposed, although its author takes into account the influence of Syrian figurative carpet mosaics. The interpretation of pictorial space is typical for the first half of the 7th century. The arguments are based on comparison with a small number of works in other materials, and are not convincing (Trilling7).
5. Clarifying the meaning and content of the Constantinople mosaic remains problematic. The artist's goal was probably to surround the rulers of the empire walking along the portico with beautiful images of the world they ruled and which was characterized by generosity peaceful nature on the one hand, violence and cruelty on the other (Katherine M.D. Dunbabin8).
It can be assumed that the view on this issue is not limited to the named concepts, and the emergence of new ones is a matter of time. Let us suggest one of them concerning the dating and probable method of creating the unique paving of the peristyle and triclinium.
A mosaic set of such a scale as chrysotriclinium paving requires significant material costs for its execution. Moreover, it is doubtful that after all the persecution and persecution to which the first Christians were subjected, the Church would be indifferent to the revival of ancient (pagan) images in the very heart of the Empire - the Great Imperial Palace. But the greatness of the Empire, in which the Church was vitally interested, required the transformation of Constantinople into one of the wonders of the world, and first of all it was necessary to decorate the refectory of the Great Palace, where the most important meetings took place. If we take into account the expenses of Justinian I on wars and diplomacy, on the construction of new cities, the construction of temples and, finally, on the reconstruction of the Great Palace, it becomes clear that the idea of \u200b\u200bmosaic paving under the terms of a regular order is illusory. Obviously more was found economical way implementation of the idea of decorating a triclinium, but the opposite is also possible - the existence of such a method led to the emergence of the idea of mosaic paving. Let's try to find him too.
The discrepancy between the style of paving and the visual canons of the 6th century is puzzling. Since the “golden age” of ancient mosaics is a thing of the past, the energy of living movement, the volume of flesh, the ancient plasticity of figures, the good-natured irony of individual scenes are noticeably different from the ascetic images belonging to a different era. The mosaic workshops that decorated the houses and villas of landowners gradually went bankrupt, but after their closure, all property, including completed works, became the property of the municipalities and was stored somewhere in warehouses awaiting their fate. By the way, we should not exclude the possibility that many of the images were originally part of the decoration of country villas in remote regions of the empire, then they were removed from the architectural context and subsequently decorated the floors of the peristyle of the Grand Palace. By the time Justinian undertook the reconstruction of the Great Palace, the supply of mosaic images that could be used to decorate the peristyle of the palace was very significant. Of the many mosaics suitable for decorating the palace, only those were selected that corresponded in scale to the pictorial plane of the interior, were similar in size of tesserae and level of artistic skill. Several artists could be commissioned to make copies of selected mosaics on a certain scale, and a court artist could arrange these copies in relation to the purpose of the room. After the idea received the highest approval, without which, given the church’s attitude towards images of this kind, this work could not be completed, the project began. Mosaic works were delivered to the palace to the place of final assembly. Here they were carefully cut off almost to the very outline of the image, preserving one or two facing rows (by chance or not, the designers of F. Kimok’s book “Mosaics of Istanbul”9 highlighted the image of the head and paw of a tiger on a white background in exactly this way; they did it on paper the same thing that the masters of the 6th century probably did with mosaics, i.e. they preserved two rows of background tesserae adjacent to the outline of the image), which allows the background set to continue, making the seams between the old and new set almost invisible. Then the images were laid out on a prepared lime-cement bed in accordance with general plan, becoming “beacons” for further work, which consisted of setting the background with “fish scales”. Such work could be done by students or apprentices under the guidance of one master, whose main task was to adjust the background tesserae to the contour of the image in such a way that the joints were invisible, and the entire figurative mosaic carpet gave the impression of a work created in one go. The plot with two tiger hunters allows us to obtain confirmation of the idea expressed: the seam between the main background and the facing rows to the left of the hunters and to the left of the tree is too noticeable to be accidental - its obvious delineation, certainty looks unambiguous; This can hardly be explained by the carelessness of the mosaic masters; rather, the seam became noticeable over time as a result of movements and subsidence of the soil and the mosaic foundation. The lower edge of Ocean's beard on the border is also eloquent: with careful detailing of the algae hair framing the exceptionally thin set of the face, this lapidary edge produces a feeling of disharmony. Approximately the same can be said about the plot with horses and a foal: the crack that passed below the animals’ hooves did not affect the images, and the wide intertesseral seams, more like cracks, softly flow around the contours of the images of horses.
Many stories were initially devoid of any philosophical content or hidden meaning and could only be of interest to those owners of country houses who ordered them. All these subjects, which have nothing in common with each other, are limited by a wide border, which, in terms of the style of the set of acanthus curls, spirals, and “crow’s feet,” did not contradict too much the new stylistic requirements. The border mascaron differs in tesserae modulus and set style from the acanthus ornamental surroundings. There is a certain constraint in the way the acanthus curls weave around the masks, for example, the mask of the “Barbarian Leader” seems to peek out from under the acanthus leaves that hide the top of his head. Although images of masks, and sometimes busts, are found on the borders of mosaics in different regions empire, but it was precisely the technique of depicting a mask on the border in acanthus that was more common in the art of Syria. For example, on a mosaic border from Shahba dating back to the beginning of the 4th century, the mask and the acanthus entwining it look more natural, although their size falls out of the general rhythm of the acanthus thickets; the masks on the border from the Atrium House in Antioch occupy the middle of the upper and lower horizontal lines. Also organic is the combination of head and acanthus on the border surrounding the early 4th century mosaic from Daphne. In both cases, the simultaneity of the set of the head and the decor surrounding it is beyond doubt. On the paving of the triclinium, in order to preserve the unity and integrity of the border, the craftsmen sometimes sacrificed the intrinsic value of the masks, which were probably delivered to the palace in finished form and mounted in the mosaic bed, while the rest decorative elements the borders were installed simultaneously with the background of the main paving. The masks of the chrysotriclinium border were supposed to create a certain rhythm, although their absence on one of the surviving corners does not correspond to the established tradition of emphasizing the corners of the mosaic frame with masks. The differences in the methods of interpretation between the mascaron set and the ornamental curls of the border suggest that the masks on the border of the Grand Palace, as well as the subjects of the main mosaic space, are so-called “displaced mosaics”. The most likely time of their execution dates back to approximately the 3rd - 4th centuries, and before many of them took their place in the floor mosaics of the peristyle, they could decorate the country villas of wealthy citizens of the empire. The stratigraphic studies mentioned in the book by K. Dunbabin10 do not contradict our concept. This approach to the problem allows us to dispel most of the previously inexplicable contradictions associated with the origin of this mosaic and provide an explanation for some of the oddities in the construction of the composition.
If we consider the floor paving from the point of view of the function of the chrysotriclinium, then its name - the Golden Refectory - speaks for itself, that is, this vast room is intended for dinner parties on celebrations with a large number of invited guests. We have no information about how many dining tables were placed on the huge surface of the paving, nor do we have information about where the imperial table might have stood, whether it was raised on a platform, how the tables of the courtiers were arranged, whether space was left for a stage or where was main entrance for the emperor and retinue. The lack of exact answers to these questions allows us to make the most daring assumptions. For example, the fact that the plots on all four registers face the same direction may indicate the location of the royal table and the tables of his entourage. The guests' tables were apparently located in image-free spaces between the registers; feast tables installed on the short sides of the peristyle were located perpendicular to the registers and those installed on them dining tables– this explains the rotation of the images by 90 degrees. The multidirectional movement of the plots on the paving areas open at different times is explained by the fact that the huge peristyle could have internal divisions dividing the common space into chamber rooms - these could be suspended structures or something like screens. But in any case, the seemingly haphazard composition was created in accordance with the strict requirements of hierarchy and function. One can even assume that the manager, the nomenclator, seated the disgraced dignitaries at tables near which scenes of terrifying content were placed, and those who were surrounded by pastoral scenes during the meal could feel relatively safe.
We will try to identify stylistic and subject correspondences between some images of the mosaic paving of the Grand Palace and iconographic analogues created in different techniques (mosaics, examples of decorative and applied art, miniatures) found in the art of other regions. But let us preface the comparison with a reminder that Katherine Dunbabin shares the point of view of Hellenkemper Salies, who believes that homogeneous works made in the same technique and belonging to the corresponding tradition should be compared11. It should also be noted that Professor Dunbabin, and not only her, considers the floor mosaics of the main pictorial field and the border of the chrysotriclinium to be naturalistic,12 but it is difficult to agree with such a definition, since naturalism is detrimental to mosaic art. Each paving plot represents an isolated, epic or dramatic, emotionally charged event with an action taking place before our eyes that seems familiar to us from the beginning of time as a living relic memory. No activity continues within the paving space and is limited only by the area it occupies. this story; then a pause follows, filled with a fan-shaped set of backgrounds, and a new plot begins, limited only by its own space. The pictorial spaces seem to float on top of each other, kaleidoscopically changing the theme; In those places where the scenes touch, some discrepancy in the scale of the images is noticeable. Dramatic events are presented at the moment of climax, epic events are presented as a continuous process in an indefinite time and place. In each image it is noticeable that the artist strives to penetrate into the essence of the subject and event, avoiding everything momentary and transitory, and therefore most of the subjects have a timeless nature, and this is more inherent in deep, meaningful realism.
To prepare this work, materials were used from the site http://www.portal-slovo.ru
Türkiye, 28.05 - 18.06. 2013
Istanbul, 30.05 - 6.06. 2013
In 324, after victories in internecine wars, the Emperor of the Roman Empire Constantine the Great visited a small town of the empire - VizAntii.
Legend says that the city was founded in the Vll. BC e. Byzas - the son of Poseidon and Keroessa, daughter of Zeus. And the gods will not settle in a bad place, Byzantium was very well located - on the shore Sea of Marmara, at the intersection of the Bosphorus and the Golden Horn. The city controlled the Bosporus and, accordingly, trade routes from Europe to Asia and from the Black Sea to the Aegean. Being on the peninsula, Byzantium could easily defend itself.
Highly appreciating the strategic position of Byzantium, the emperor launched a major construction project here - building new palaces and temples, rebuilding the hippodrome, and erecting fortress walls.
Constantine became obsessed with the dream of creating a city, initially and entirely subject to him alone, which would symbolize the beginning of a new era in the history of Rome. It had to be extraordinary beautiful city with new architecture, new ideology and, most importantly, with a new religion.
With his spear, Constantine drew the future boundaries of the city. His retinue was amazed at the scale of his plan. In response, he declared: “I will go as far as He who leads me will allow me.”
Works of art were brought to Byzantium from all over the empire: paintings, sculptures, the best pagan monuments of Rome, Athens, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch.
On May 11, 330, Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to a city on the Bosphorus and officially named it New Rome, but for the soul - Constantinople .
The new capital was built on seven hills in the image and likeness of ancient Rome. But the emperors Byzantium and its architects surpassed the Romans by creating masterpieces of engineering.
The longest aqueduct of antiquity...
About all this and much more, read more...
The Romans and Greeks knew a lot about relaxation and entertainment. Theatre, stadium, hippodrome, baths are indispensable attributes of ancient Roman and Greek cities.
Construction Hippodrome in Byzantium it was started by the Roman emperor Septimius Severus in 203. In 330 - 334, Emperor Constantine, creating a new capital, completely rebuilt the Hippodrome.
The Hippodrome was one of the largest buildings in ancient Constantinople and the center of the social and political life of the capital. Its size was 450 meters long and 120 meters wide, the capacity of the hippodrome was 100,000 people.
Reconstruction of the Hippodrome of Constantinople
The Hippodrome was surrounded on three sides by Sfenda - spectator stands. The fourth side was closed by Kathisma - a large building with boxes for dignitaries and an imperial tribune. The Imperial Tribune was connected by a covered passage to the Great Imperial Palace, located next to the Hippodrome. Kathisma was crowned with a bronze Quadriga - four horses brought from Greece.
In the center of the arena there was a low dividing barrier 10 meters wide - the back. columns, obelisks, and statues towered on it, brought at different times from different parts of the empire.
We will not see the Hippodrome itself - it is hidden by a many-meter layer of earth, although its outlines are easy to guess. Only the obelisks of Theodosius and Constantine, and the Serpentine Column have survived. And also the southern part of Sfenda on a slope above the sea.
Snake Column was brought from the Delphic sanctuary of Apollo in Greece in 326 by order of Emperor Constantine the Great. The column symbolized the victory of 479 BC. e. Greek city-states over the Persians at Plataea.
In the original, this column, 6.5 meters high, consisted of three intertwined snakes and was crowned with a three-legged golden bowl, and the snakes themselves were cast from the bronze shields of the fallen Persians. One of the snake heads is in the archaeological museum Istanbul. In Byzantine times, the column was a fountain and had 29 recesses on a bronze base.
The column once stood on a hill, but gradually, along with the entire Hippodrome, it goes underground. That is, the ground level rises.
Egyptian obelisk or obelisk of Theodosius was brought from Luxor in 390 by order of Emperor Theodosius l and installed at the Hippodrome on a specially made marble pedestal. The pedestal depicts various scenes with the participation of Emperor Theodosius and the scene of the installation of the obelisk itself at the Hippodrome. His age is dated XVl century BC uh., but it looks very modern. ABOUT It is made of white and pink Aswan granite, its weight reaches 300 tons.
On all sides of the obelisk are Egyptian hieroglyphs depicting the heroic deeds of Pharaoh Thutmose lll. In the original, the height of the obelisk was 32.5 meters, but during transportation it was shortened to 18.8 m (including the pedestal).
This pedestal scene depicts Theodosius on the imperial platform during the competition, with a laurel wreath for the winner.
Here the fans are holding scarves in their hands, the colors of which they used to support their teams and, accordingly, parties.
Openwork stone column Constantine was built from stone blocks by order of Emperor Constantine Vll in honor of the memory of his grandfather Basil l. The original height of the column was 32 meters, it was covered with gilded bronze sheets. Now the height of the column is 21 meters.
Sfendu You can see the hippodrome by going down the narrow streets Istanbul closer to the sea. There is a building on it, and a cafe underneath it.
Numerous arches are built or used by local residents. The sphenda of the Hippodrome of Constantinople is almost 1700 years old.
Emperor Constantine the Great begins construction near the Hippodrome Grand Imperial Palace.
Grand Palace V Constantinople remained the main residence of the Byzantine emperors for 800 years, from 330 to 1081. It was founded by Constantine the Great, rebuilt by Justinian and expanded by Theophilus. The emperor's children born in the Porphyry Hall of the Palace were called porphyritic, or purplish-born. It was a title that could not be purchased or received as an inheritance or gift.
Galleries were added to the Palace, connecting it with St. Sophia and the Hippodrome. The emperor could go from the Hippodrome to Hagia Sophia without leaving his home.
Map from Wikipedia
At the beginning of the 20th century, several fragments of the Great Imperial Palace were discovered in a fire - prison cells, burials and halls with mosaic floors from the 5th century. During subsequent excavations, a quarter of its territory was uncovered.
In 1953, at the site where mosaic floors were discovered during excavations in 1938, a small Mosaic Museum.
Mosaics of the Grand Palace scientists date it to the period of the reign of Emperor Justinian (Vl c). They are much older than the mosaics in the Chora Monastery and the Church of St. Sophia. The subjects on them are antique - harvesting, hunting, pictures from the series of animal life.
Here you can find leopards devouring an antelope, hunting a hare, a monkey picking a banana from a palm tree, a girl with an amphora, a camel with children on its back, milking goats and much more.
The images are made with great skill from colored 5 mm cubes of various types of limestone, marble and smalt on a white background.
Different episodes are separated from each other by trees, buildings, rocks, mythical creatures.
The entire floor mosaic is perceived as a huge carpet framed by a wide border. The richness of imagination, the ease of conveying the movements of people and animals, and facial expressions on people are amazing.
The paintings seem to be painted with an artist’s brush, the smallest details are conveyed. Even the background is not just laid out with a white mosaic, but in the form of scales.
The wall from the Bukoleon Palace on the south side near the Sea of Marmara has been preserved.
Bucoleon Palace was part of the Grand Imperial Palace, the seaside residence of the emperors Byzantium. The name comes from the statues of bulls and lions that decorated the local harbor. The surviving ruins were erected by Emperor Theophilos. There was a balcony on the wall from which the emperor could admire the sea views.
While building and strengthening the new capital, glorifying the Almighty, Emperor Constantine the Great did not forget about his beloved self, striving to glorify and preserve his name for centuries.
Forum of Emperor Constantine was located on the current Cemberlitas Square in Istanbul. There was a colonnade, statues of pagan gods and Christian saints, brought from various temples of the empire.
The central place in the forum was occupied by a majestic column with a marble capital on top. And on the capital was erected a golden statue of Constantine the Great in the form of the god Apollo with seven rays emanating from his head.
Reconstruction of the Forum of Constantine 
Was fused into the statue nail from the Cross of the Son of God. The height of the monument was 38 meters, it was erected in 330 at the direction of Emperor Constantine and stood for 800 years, glorifying the first emperor of the great Empire.
According to legend, under the base of the column, the emperor himself walled up a cache of holy relics - an ax from Noah's ax, a crosshair of Moses, the remains of the bread of Jesus and "Palladium"- a wooden figurine of Pallas Athena from Ilion, previously kept in Rome.
The crusaders dug a tunnel under the column in search of holy relics. The relics were not found, and the foundation was damaged.
In 1779 strong fire destroyed the buildings in the forum, and black stains from the fire remained on the column. The blackened and cracked column was reinforced with iron hoops, and its base with bandage masonry.
The Turkish name of the monument is Cemberlitash, which means Column with hoops, or Belted Column. Europeans call it the Burnt Column. The Column of Constantine the Great is almost 1700 years old.
As a result of large-scale construction Constantinople increased several times. The city's growing population was sorely lacking fresh water- there were no sources within the city. Unlike other capitals, Constantinople did not stand on a river.
Konstantin planned a powerful city water supply, but this plan was already implemented by his successors.
The Byzantines built the longest aqueduct of those times. Spring water moved along it for 650 km. The water supply included underground tunnels, canals on the surface of the earth and many aqueducts. Recently, British archaeologists explored the route of the Byzantine water supply and discovered 19 aqueducts hidden from view in dense forests, some of them well preserved, only heavily overgrown with greenery. The ancient builders built to last for centuries and their buildings were distinguished by their beauty and grace, although they were located far outside the city, in a deserted area. Their aqueducts are more like triumphal arches- two-, three-level, with beautiful cornices, fine stone carvings, they are made as if they should have stood in the center of the city.
Aqueduct of Valens- part of this water supply. A two-tier trestle aqueduct, put into operation in 369, almost one kilometer long and 26 meters high. The city's busy highway, Ataturk Boulevard, now passes under it. Istanbul.
Through lead pipes laid along the top of the aqueduct, water flowed into the city until the middle of the 19th century.
Bringing water to Constantinople was the solution to only half the problem. Water had to be stored somewhere, but there was no place in the city. Byzantine engineers built an amazing system of underground reservoirs - cisterns. They were dug up in huge quantities - under palaces, churches, residential buildings and very beautifully decorated. Not like utility rooms, and like palaces - marble columns, high vaults, arches. The desire for beauty was in the Byzantines' blood. The Byzantines could not build without beauty. Everything they created had to be beautiful.
The largest of the reservoirs is Basilica Cistern (lV - Vl centuries) Construction of the cistern began under Emperor Constantine the Great and was completed under Emperor Justinian.
Entrance to the Basilica Cistern:
The dimensions of the underground structure are 145 by 65 meters, capacity - 80,000 cubic meters. meters.
The vaulted ceiling is supported by 336 columns 8 meters high, the walls are made of 4 meters thick fire bricks and covered with a special waterproofing solution.
Most of the columns were taken from various ancient temples, so they differ from each other in the type of marble and type of processing. At the base of two columns is the head of a Gorgon Medusa. It is unknown where they were brought from and which temple they belonged to before.
Column with scrolls. You are supposed to insert your finger into the hole, scroll and make a wish.
Nearby is a wishing pool where coins are thrown. Fish swim in large numbers, tourists feed them. Previously, residents of houses above the cistern fished without leaving their houses, through holes in the floor.
The cistern was actively used until the 15th century, then it was abandoned and heavily polluted. In 1987, the cistern was cleaned and a museum was opened in it.
Episodes of the James Bond film "From Russia with Love" were filmed here.
Next to the Basilica Cistern is a nondescript sandstone pillar. This Million Stone, mile zero of Constantinople, part of the Miliarium Aurelum gate, on which the distances to the most important cities were marked Byzantium.
Theodosius Cistern (420) - one of the underground Constantinople cisterns measuring 45 by 25 meters. The domed vaults are supported by 32 marble columns 9 meters high. Restored, protected by UNESCO, it is a museum, but is always closed.
Zeyrek tank (1118 - 1143) An underground reservoir, which is considered the third largest in Istanbul. Dimensions 50 by 20 meters. Closed for restoration.
The reservoirs maintained an adequate water supply to the city even in the summer, when the aqueduct provided very little water. Thanks to the system of reservoirs, the population of Constantinople grew to astonishing proportions for that time.
To be continued...
With. thirty¦ When Constantinople was founded in 330, Christian art in Rome and the East already had a long history. In all major cities had their own art schools, local traditions. Constantinople alone was deprived of these traditions. Created by the will of Constantine, it was forced from the very beginning to borrow from outside. There is reason to think that the main source of Constantinople painting of the 4th–5th centuries was the art of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus and a number of other Hellenistic cities of the East. Here, by the 5th century, the basic principles of that “Byzantinism” had been developed, which a number of scientists recklessly associate exclusively with Constantinople. In fact, Constantinople found in ready-made form much of what later formed the basis of its own aesthetics. He inherited spiritualistic art with a pronounced dualism, carefully developed iconography that embraced the Old and New Testaments, mature mosaic, fresco and encaustic techniques, which made it possible to record a phenomenon not only in its linear, static aspect, but also in a purely pictorial, impressionistic plane , a rich fund of ornamental motifs, a refined palette and a developed system of monumental decoration. But the role of Constantinople was never reduced to slavish copying of other people's models. Very soon he moved on to critical selection, discarding everything that did not meet his needs. On this path, he gradually moved away from Roman traditions, which were dangerous due to their undisguised sensualism, reflecting the practical spirit of the Western Church. On this same path, he moved away from Syrian traditions, whose rough, expressive realism could not appeal to the refined tastes of metropolitan society. And on this path he joined the classicist traditions of Alexandrian art, which preserved in the most pure form Greek Hellenism. Thus, Constantinople became his direct heir, logically continuing the line of his urban development. Overcoming popular influences, he carefully preserved from the past all those forms that were cultivated by the upper classes of late antique society. The spiritualized forms of late antique art were especially valuable to him. From all this complex amalgam of various intersecting currents, Constantinople created its own style, which first appears to us as something holistic in the 6th century, in the era of Justinian.
We do not know what was done in Constantinople in the field of antique painting in the 4th–5th centuries. Here the later mosaic floors in the northern and southern porticos of the peristyle of the Great Imperial Palace 60 come to our aid. Figures of people and animals arranged in the form of freely interpreted friezes are presented on a white background. (Table 6–10). Various episodes are separated from each other by trees, buildings, rocks, personifications (for example, the figure of a river nymph), which involuntarily brings to mind the compositional principles underlying the miniatures of the Vatican Scroll of Joshua. The entire floor mosaic is perceived as a huge carpet filled with decorative motifs. It is framed by a wide border of a succulent, purely antique type of acanthus, between the shoots of which masks, figures of various animals, fruits and flowers can be seen. When comparing the mosaics of the Grand Palace with the mosaics of Italy, France, Africa and Syria, one is struck by the variety and liveliness of the scenes depicted on it: there are various animal fights (lion with elephant, deer with snake, griffin with lizard, leopards with gazelle, wolf with ram, lioness with a wild donkey, an eagle with a snake), hunting hares, wild boars, lions and tigers, a mountain goat peacefully nibbling grass, milking goats, a herd of horses, children herding geese, a young mother sitting with a child on her lap, a fisherman with a fishing rod, Pan with Bacchus on shoulder, moschophorus, woman carrying a jug, circus games (young men roll wheels with sticks, skillfully going around the mark). Most of these images are traditional in nature and are found in the mosaics of the villa in Piazza Armerina in Sicily, as well as in similar mosaics in Antioch, Homs and Apamea. In 1953–1954, new fragments of the same mosaic floor were discovered, which depict two charming genre scenes: boys riding a camel (Table 11) and a mule, throwing its rider and bundles of firewood to the ground. One of the fragments also revealed a walled building with streams of water flowing from the gate. The mosaic of the Grand Palace is made of limestone of various types, marble and smalt (blue, green and yellow). The general range of colors, which is dominated by shades of red, blue, green, yellow, brown and gray, as well as white and black, is dim. The tradition of ancient colorism with its light and transparent halftones is still strongly felt in it.
60 K. Bittel. Archäologische Funde aus der Türkei 1934–1938. - ArchAnz, 54 1939, 182–183 (“Die Grabungen im Gebiet der Kaiserpaläste”); G. Brett. The Mosaic of the Great Palace in Constantinople. - JWarb, V 1942, 34–43; G. Brett, G. Martigny, R. Stevenson. The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors. Being a First Report on the Excavations carried out in Istanbul on behalf of the Walker Trust (The University of St. Andrews). 1935–1938. Oxford 1947, 64–97, pl. 28–56; C. Mango. Autour du Grand Palais de Constantinople. - CahArch, V 1951, 179–186; D. Talbot Rice. Excavations in the Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, - Πεπραγμένα τοῦ IX διεθνοῦς βυζαντινολογιϰοῦ συνεδρίου. I. Ἀθῆναι 1955, 468–473; Grabar. La peinture byzantine, 75–76; D. Talbot Rice. Mosaics of the Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors: Last Finds. - ILN, 12 March 1955; Id. Les mosaïques du Grand Palais des empereurs byzantins à Constantinople. - RArts, V 1955, 159–166; D. Talbot Rice. The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors. Second Report. Edinburgh 1958, 123–160, pl. 42–50 (rec. K. Mango and I. Lavin: ArtB, XLII 1960 1, 67–73); Talbot Rice. Arte di Bisanzio, 55–56, tav. 38–41; Beckwith. Art of Constantinople, 29–30; P. J. Nordhagen. The Mosaics of the Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors. - BZ, 56 1963 1, 53–68; D. Talbot Rice. On the Date of the Mosaic Floor of the Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors at Constantinople. - Χαριστήριον εἰς Ἀ. K. Ὀρλάνδου, I. Ἀθῆναι 1965, 1–5. To date, not a single decisive argument has been given in favor of one or another dating of the floor mosaics of the Grand Palace. Based on logic artistic development, then the most likely time for the execution of the mosaics should be considered the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century. But when applied to Byzantine painting, we always have to take into account the possibility of very late outbreaks of Hellenism, which makes it extremely difficult to resolve the issue that interests us. This is why the dating of the Grand Palace mosaics remains controversial and requires further clarification.
The discovery of the mosaic floor in the peristyle of the Great Palace is of great significance for the history of early Byzantine painting. It indisputably testifies to two things: the presence of its own school in Constantinople and the vitality of the traditions of late antique impressionism on Constantinople soil. Although some of the graphic motifs of this mosaic floor reveal a close relationship with the mosaic floors of Antioch, North Africa and Italy, the quality of its execution is nevertheless incomparable. It amazes not only with the variety of motifs, freedom in conveying the most complex turns and movements of figures and the liveliness of facial expressions, but also with the finest pictorial modeling using small cubes placed with impeccable precision. Although the masters who performed the mosaics were With. thirty
With. 31¦ simple artisans, but they mastered their art so subtly that the figures they depicted seem to have been painted with bold strokes by real artists. For these masters, Hellenism was a living tradition, much more effective than for the rapidly barbarizing West. Apparently, Emperor Constantine, having founded the new capital, brought here the most qualified craftsmen from Rome and major Hellenistic centers, who laid the foundations for the local school. And since Constantinople was an eastern and not a western city, it naturally adopted primarily Hellenism of the eastern type. This, in particular, is indicated by the abundance in the mosaic of purely eastern animals (elephants, camels, lions, tigers, monkeys), which were exotic for the West.
In the absence of solid starting points, it is very difficult to date floor mosaics. They always contain so many craft stamps and traditional motifs, borrowed from widespread collections of samples, that the dating of the same monument often differs by several centuries. Thus, K. Bittel dated the mosaics of the Great Palace to the 4th century, J. Brett - to the second decade of the 5th century, D. Talbot Rice - around 530, K. Mango and I. Lavin - between 565 and 582, P. Nordhagen - to the era of Justinian II (685–695), J. Baxter - 8th century. The most likely time for the emergence of sex seems to be the second half of the 6th century. This is indicated by the general compositional structure of the mosaic, in which the principle of a separate figured plot dominates. The images are presented as isolated parts of the frieze, due to which they are perceived as self-contained images scattered throughout white background like decorative ornaments. The lack of spatial relationship introduces into the mosaic that element of abstraction that is typical of monuments of both painting and sculpture starting from the second half of the 5th century.
The floor mosaic of the Grand Palace is a chance surviving fragment of the secular art that flourished at the court of the Byzantine emperors. From it one can only get a vague idea of the richness and brilliance of this antique art. Unfortunately, not a single work has yet been discovered from church painting of the 5th century on the soil of Constantinople. The same two monuments that will now be discussed and which are associated with the territory of Greece can hardly be used to characterize Constantinople painting, since they gravitate in their style to a different circle. With. 31
¦
