1. The historical background

The monastic community dedicated to the Theotokos Peribleptos was installed in the Psamathia vicinity near the Marmara shore, in the southwest part of the city. The monastery and its church were commissioned by Romanos III Argyros (r. 1028-34) who, between 1030 and 1034, erected a church there, aspiring after building a monument rival to the ones of Justinian I. After his death, he was buried in his institution. A few years after him, another imperial benefactor, Nikephoros III Botaneiates (r. 1078-81), was also buried in the church.¹

At some point during the Latin occupation of Constantinople, probably around 1206, the Peribleptos monastery was given to Latin monks. It was returned to the Greeks after the recapture of Constantinople (1261), by Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1261-1282), who also restored the church.² After that, the church seems to have played some role during the Palaeologan period and the imperial court visited it on the day of the Hypapante (the feast of the Presentation in the Temple). The church was also well known for the relics it housed, such as the hand of St. John the Baptist and the head of St. Gregory of Nazianzos.³ Two late 12^th-c. sculptural icons with the Archangel Michael and the Virgin Orans from the monastery of Peribleptos are preserved and they are today in the Museum für Spätantike und Byzantinische Kunst in Berlin.⁴

After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans, the monastery was soon given to the Armenians as the seat of their patriarchate, probably as early as in 1458. The church was rededicated to St. George (Surp Kevork) and remained the Armenian patriarchal church until 1643-4. It is supposed that the church was already dilapidated by then, but it also suffered damages from fire in 1782 and again in 1872. The modern Armenian church of Surp Kevork, which have also served as a school, was erected on the ruins of the Byzantine church. It is also known today in Turkish as Sulu Manastır, meaning the “watery monastery”, because of the "hagiasma" (holy source) in the courtyard of the church.⁵

2. Evidence of the existing structure

Until the 1990s the church was known only from the description of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, who in 1403 passed through Constantinople on an embassy from Henry III of Castile to Tamerlane. It was usually argued that the Byzantine church had been completely destroyed by fires by the 20^th century, although substructures under the existing Armenian church had been noted as early as 1924. In the 1940s, a photograph was taken of exposed Byzantine brick and stonework substructures to the south of the modern church, but this was only published in the 1990s. Building works near Sulu Manastır have exposed architectural fragments that possibly relate to the Byzantine church, but they had not been recorded in a systematic way.⁶ However, comparison with Tower B19 of the city walls built under Romanos III, which constitutes a parallel as regards the masonry of the substructure, has allowed the identification of the substructure with that of the Byzantine church.⁷

In 1998, an archaeological survey under the auspices of the Istanbul Rescue Archaeological Survey, directed by Ken Dark and Ferudun Özgümüş, shed light on the Byzantine substructure, which had been once again exposed due to building works in and adjacent to Surp Kevork. The principal substructure stands approximately six and a half metres above the modern pavement, and appears to be the same as that in the 1940s photographs. The substructure is constructed of red brick with some uncoursed stone rubble. The southern facade has four high, round-headed niches, and there is another arched niche in a wall immediately to the west continuing until modern houses obstruct the view. The exterior closely compares to the substructure of the Myrelaion church (Bodrum Camii), built AD 920) and the "recessed brickwork" is typical of the Middle Byzantine period. The interior of the substructure contains four or probably five eastern apses connected by what Dark describes as "tunnels"; its arrangement on the whole, which resembles a cross-in-square, renders its interpretation as a space of liturgical function rather likely. The substructure was once again associated with the Byzantine church of the Peribleptos monastery and for the first time a reconstruction of the church would be supported by archaeological evidence.⁸

3. Reconstruction of the church of Peribleptos

Dark used both the written accounts and the 1998 survey of the substructure, to suggest a tentative reconstruction of the Peribleptos church and monastery. According to him, the church might be either a cross-in-square (which would resemble the Athonite Middle- and Late Byzantine katholika) or a cross-domed church with a dome dominating the central crossing and supported by columns of green marble ("jasper," according to Clavijo). Clavijo's description support both suggestions. In any case, the church should also have a U-shaped ambulatory, which Dark thinks would explain some parts of Clavijo's description. Besides, such ambulatories were a common feature of Late Byzantine religious architecture, and could well belong to the phase of Michael VIII's restoration. The church probably had three apses, according to the usual Byzantine scheme, but, since Clavijo speeks of "five altars," Dark suggests the existence of two internal apses at the east end of the lateral parts of the ambulatory. There was a large atrium, probably containing a (perhaps central) fountain, to the west of the main church. Both the church and atrium stood on a large, wide, substructure with arched niches along its sides, analogus to those of the Myrelaion.⁹

The church must have been richly decorated. The floor was probably of marble and the walls were also adorned with marble revetment. Mosaics covered the dome and some parts of the walls. Clavijo mentions the portraits of an imperial family, probably the portraits of Michael VIII Palaiologos, his wife and his son Constantine; he also mentions a representation of the Virgin Mary and a Tree of Jesse, a theme that became rather popular in Palaiologan monumental painting.¹⁰