Izvorni znanstveni članak
PRE-ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE FROM THE CHURCH OF ST SAVIOUR AT CETINA
Tonči Burić
; Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, HR, 21000 SPLIT
Sažetak
The Church of St Saviour at the village of Cetina, by the very source of the homonymous river, has together with the large mediaeval cemetery, for more than a century been the focal point of ever present interest of archaeologists and art historians. Meritorius pioneers of Croatian national archaeology, Franciscans Stjepan Zlatović and Lujo Marun were the first to describe and present facts about the Church and its surrounding cemetery at the end ofthe last century. Systematic excavations led by Stjepan Gunjačafrom 1947 until 1954, enriched the holdings ofpre-Romanesque sculpture from the church but the finds were not studied systematically. Their attention was drawn by two architraves of the altar screen, mainly because ofthe inscription ofthe donor and not because oftheir artistic qualities. According to the paleographic features, the inscription was therefore dated to the 9th-10th century and its content also confirmed the continuity ofthe titular until the present.
The greatest number ofpre-Romanesque sculptural fragments are parts of altar screens (cancellum), altars and architectural decorative elements: portal framings, lintels and jambs. The altar screen fragments mostly belong to its lower part (pilasters and plutei) found in minor pieces. There are also two completely preserved architraves and part of the pediment belonging to the upper part (trabeation), while a smaller capitalfragment and a smaller column fragment (presently misplaced) are alt that is left from the central part. Of all the fragments it was possible to determine three pilasters (Cat. no. 1, 12 and 25) andfour plutei (Cat. no. 2, 4-11 and 26). It was not possible to determine the function of a smaller number offragments (Cat. no. 3 and 21), while Cat. no 24 is likely to have been part of the cancellum stipes. According to these finds, a sketch reconstruction of the altar screen was proposed (Crtež la-b). Preserved openings for placing the architrave in the side walls clearly determined its position. The altar remains are the mensa supporter (Cat. no. 17) andfragments ofthe mensa (Cat. no. 19) which was reconstructed. Of the portal framing, three fragments were found (Cat. no. 19, 20 and 28), while the fourth fragment was walled in as a spolium when the presbytery was added in the late Middle Ages. (Cat. no. 22; its decorative field was deliberately etched in the late 1980 s due to increasing religious intolerance). The function offragment no. 23 was not exactly determined, while the rest are fragments of the portal jamb and lintel).
From the reconstruction it is evident that the cancellum belonged to an aisleless church whose outer columns were in the axis of the altar conch corners. The lower part is rhythmically composed oftwo wider and two narrow plutei as well as four pilasters. Their decorative fields bear geometric compositiOns of various types of grid all of them interlaced. The pilasters bear a number of "eights'; and untied circles interlaced in a grid of rhombs. Particularly important are compositions of grids on plutei, because, along with the decorative field on the trabeations -they are the crucial element of art expression by means of which it is possible to attribute the work to a certain stone-mason or workshop. Plutei from the Church ofSt Saviour bear two compositions of grids. Grid a on narrow plutei, as on thepilaster on the right hand to the entrance to the presbytery and Grid b on targerplutei that is literally decorated by a "dense" interlace. The architraves are divided into two longitudinal strips, separated from one another by a prominent rib that has a stylized cymatium chiselled on its lower part. The upper parts have characteristic high motifs of rnnning dog with j1.uted lower parts, while the donoris inscription is carved in the lowerpart. (ref paper by Vedrana Uelonga in this volume). The pediment framing follows the scheme ofthe architrave, but only its minor fragment from the left side was found. Jt bears the remainder ofthe zone with rnnning dog and a smallfragment of the central jield with usual iconographic representation of the cross
with two birds under its arms. The preservedpart ofthe cross shows lined and undecorated arms, as welt as the larger part of the bird to the lejt, probably holding a bunch ofgrapes in its beak.
The schematic bird is a shallow relief whose feathers and wing are only indicated by parallel lines. The running dog motif on each architrave are divided into two opposite rows, separated from each other by small crosses ofidenticalfeatures as the cross on the pediment. The portalfragments also bears a reduced variant ofGrid a, whose circles are tied in a raw. The mentioned work has uniformed stylistiC features clearly denoting that they date from the same period. The only exception are altar elements, i.e. the cross on the supporter of the mensa whose features are completely different from those ofthe crosses on the pediment and architraves. Such crosses were very common in pre-Romanesque sculpture in Churches in Trogir, and it is likely that they had been made in one ofits
workshops, either then or later.
Since the fragments have not been systematically published, when studying the sculpture from St Saviour, until the present, researchers only considered architraves and compared their stylistic features with the same or similarfinds. Their style and date was for the first time determined more precisely by Jvo Petriciali who compared them to similar elements from a number of other churches (Šapat, Ždrapanj, Biskupija-Bukorovića podvornica) and dated them to the time ofprince Branimir (879-892). These results, somewhat supplemented, were accepted by Miljenko jurković, and further elaborated by Nikola jakšić (ref his work "The Stone-cutting Workshop from the time of Prince Branimir" in this volume. He considered tbat tbe sculpture from some otber sites also belonged to tbis group: that from Biskupija -Crkvina, 2nd phase, unknown site (tbe ''Bibać'' Society collection, Split or Solin (the Bihać SOCiety collection), Livno-Rapovine, Vrba (Glamoč) and Plavno (Knin). He noticed tbat details of their decorative compositions were identical or very similar by treatment or structure which is wby be assigned them all to the same workshop (jar all analogies refer to Fig. 1 -32). Apart from tbe trabeation he also related plutei fragments witb Grid afrom the following sites: Zdrapanj, Biskupija, Crkvina, BiskupijaBukarovićapodvornica. As tbe main characteristics oftbe workshop production jakšić brings poor quality ofexecution, and the lack of a longer crajtsmansbip tradition. The entire worksbop production is accordiong to him a "Significant discantinuation " of tbe stonecutting tradition in Dalmatian towns. He agrees with the dating by Petriciali, but due to a greater number ofsites whose sculptural decoration was considered to be produced in worksbops, it is likely that they have existed somewbat later as well. Considering the workshop within the historicalframework ofthe time, tbe crajtsmen wbo worked at tbe court at tbe time wben Branimir discontinued relations with Byzantine towns along tbe coast, according tojakšić, belonged to this workshop, wbicb explains the "discontinuation of tbe stonecutting tradition of those towns". Therefore, be assigns the jinds from the Bibać collection to the unknown church at Solin.
The reconstrnction of the altar screen from St Saviour and the publisbing of pre-Romanesque finds from various sites, enabled an analysis of the mentioned workshop enriched with new details which resulted in new facts. Because ofthe congruent composition and certain motifs that are treated in the same manner, fragments of the cancellum from the Church of St Saviour, apart from the already determined sites, parts of the altar screen from other sites may be assigned to the same workshop as well. Such are the fragments from Oton near Knin (BenderCrkvina) and at Droar (Spasovina, Šobića cemetery). They are accidental finds, and the sites have not been excavated yet so that not all main pieces of the altar screen are known oj, particularly the trabeation. The pilasters bear a Grid b (Bender-Crkvina and Droar-Spasovina), and the plutei bear Grid a (Droar-Šobića groblje), that also appears on the pluteus from Biovičino selo (Knin) and on one from the town of Knin. As both variants of meshes (with tied circies, and that with untied anes) appear on a number of pilasters and plutei from the eastern Adriatic coast, both in towns and in the hinterland, plutei from Bikovičina selo and Knin cannot be considered to be workshop products with certainty. Special attention in this paper was paid to two monuments from the Bihać collection -the pediment from an unknown site and the ciborium arch that was in literature first referred to as a find from Solin and ajterwards considered to have belonged to the finds of the belfry near the Split cathedral. I was more likely to believe in Split as their provenance and not to include Solin as a town of the workshopis activity. Products of this workshop, would, in that case be those at Cetina -St Saviour, Biskupja Bukarovića podvornice, Biskupija -Crkvina (St Marija), Biskupija -St Trinity, Livno -Rapovine (St Peter), Šapat -Crkvina, Ždrapanj and Plavno, and most probably Vrba (Glamoć) and Droar Spasovina, Šobića cemetery. As most of these sites were not systematically excavated, this analysis might require certain corrections and supplements upon completion ofexcavations. Believing that the pediment and arch, with characteristics of a workshop production were found in Split, I suppose they originally belonged to the church furnishings, particularly because this site yietded no ciborium with pre-Romanesque features after the 8th c. Considering the historic circumstances, the time ofprince Branimir, the centre ofthe workshop must have been in Split, in spite ofthe poor craftsmaship of the entire work, which is undeniable. The period of prince Branimir was accompanied by intensive reconstructions and construction of new churches throughout Croatia, proved by quality sculpture at Muć, Otres near Bribir and Nin (all architraves were dated by the inscription ofthe saidprince), sculpturalfinds of lesser quality prove that even such workshop stood out, just as in towns where the quality ofpreRomanesque products varied. As a tangible evidence of intensive Christianization in Croatia at the end of the 9th c., this process also denotes an increased influence ofthe Split archbishopry. Although its see was in the town of Byzantine province of Dalmatia -it took advantage of the decreasing Frankish influence on Croatia and thus the influence of the Aquileian patriarchate on religious circumstances and acts in accordance with the papal policy on the eastern Adriatic..This process reached its climax during the well-known Councils in the time of king Tomislav (925 and 928), when the Split metropolitan became the ecclesiasticalprimas ofCroatia. The relation ofthe Split church with the court that had been established during the rule ofprince Trpimir in the mid 9th c, and particularly intensified when the Nin bishop, i.e. Croatian bishop Theodosius lalthough being an Aqui!eian suffraganl became archbishop in the time ofprince Branimir was very strong. In spite ofvaried political relations within global processes at the time, its strength was proved by the unpreserved Branimir's deed ofgift to the Split church, and was recorded in the deed ofgift of the Hungaro-Croatian king Gejza II to the same church from 1158. This explains the activity of a number of workshops from Split or Trogir in Croatia, among which is the one analyzed here, that produced the furnishings in the Church of St Saviour. Due to the large number ofchurches that it worked for, its activity must have lasted very long, and its activity should therefore be extended anto the period of prince Mucimir (around 892 -910), particularly anto churches further inland, on the present-day territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Drvar, Livno, Glamoč), that be!onged to Croatia under the Trpimirović dynasty. Apart from Croatia, the workshop was proved to work in Split as well, most probab!y producing the stone furnishings for the cathedra!, among which the ciborium as well. Since the church ofSt Saviour was not chronologicatly precise!y determined, the construction andfurnishing ofthe church should be dated to the approximate time of the workshop's activity: the rule ofBranimir and Mucimir (around 879 -910), not excluding the possibility that it might have been built earlier, in the time ofprince Branimir.
Ključne riječi
Hrčak ID:
93631
URI
Datum izdavanja:
27.12.1995.
Posjeta: 2.019 *