gervers-zague-kings-dabra-sina-golgatha-complex-in-lalibela-2003.pdf

Michael Gervers

THE REHABILITATION OF THE ZAGUË KINGS AND THE BUILDINGOF THE DÄBRÄ SINA–GOLGOTHA–SELLASSIE COMPLEX IN

LALIBÄLA*

The Zaguë capital, Lalibäla, with its twelve rock-cut and monolithic sitesdesignated as churches, has received more attention in travel and scholarlyliterature than any other medieval place in Ethiopia. The churches known asDäbrä Sina and Golgotha (Fig. A) have been considered of primary impor-tance within the rock-cut complex since it was first described in western liter-ature by the Portuguese priest, Father Francisco Alvares, following his visit in1521.1 He describes ten churches2 in considerable detail, and ends by saying

23

AFRICANA BULLETIN

Warszawa 2003 Nr 51

* The author is grateful to Professor Alessandro Bausi of the Istituto Universitario Orientalein Naples for his valuable reflections on the content of this paper; to Ato Kebede Amare,Commissioner of Tourism in the Tigray, and to Professor Stanislaus Chojnacki for helping withthe identification of churches containing monolithic altars; to Dr Nicoletta Barbarito of theCanadian Embassy in Rome and to Dr. Livia Varga for assistance in the translation of varioustexts; to Paul Henze for permission to reproduce his photographs as figs. 3 & 4; and to GillianLong of the DEEDS Project, University of Toronto, for bibliographical research and editing.

1 C.F. B e c k i n g h a m and G.W.B. H u n t i n g f o r d , eds., The Prester John of the Indies.A true relation of the lands of the Prester John, being the narrative of the Portuguese Embassy toEthiopia in 1520 written by Father Francisco Alvares, 2 vols., Hakluyt Society, Works, ser. 2, nos.114-15, Cambridge, 1961 (hereafter: B e c k i n g h a m & H u n t i n g f o r d , Prester John), vol.1, pp. 205-28, esp. pp. 205-21.

2 The gadl or Vita of King Lalibäla speaks of an angel instructing the king to build tenchurches (J . P e r r u c h o n , trans., Vie de Lalibala Roi d’Éthiopie, Publications de l’École desLettres d'Alger, Bulletin de Correspondance Africaine, Paris, 1892, pp. 121-27 (hereafter:P e r r u c h o n , Vie de Lalibala); also quoted in Gabriel S i m o n , Voyage en Abyssinie et chez lesGallas-Raias. L’Éthiopie, ses mœurs, ses traditions, le négouss Iohann±s, les églises monolithes

“I weary of writing more about these buildings, because it seems to me that Ishall not be believed if I write more ...”.3 More than four hundred years later,A.A. Monti della Corte referred to the site as “la gemma archeologica e artis-tica indiscussa”.4

A third important component is the small, totally rock-cut structuredescribed almost universally in the literature as the Sellassie Chapel or “Crypt”,which is accessed through a simple doorway at the east end of Golgotha’s south

Michael Gervers

24

de Lalibéla, Paris, 1885, pp. 321-22). There are several differences in these two accounts: onlythe Vie de Lalibala includes the churches of Däbrä Sina, Betä Gabriel and Betä Libanos, whileonly Alvares mentions Bethlehem and “Lalibela”, which latter he cites as “the principal one”.Both include Golgotha, by which Alvares may also have meant Däbrä Sina (see below). Neithermentions Mikael, which appears to be a later appellation for either Golgotha or Däbrä Sina (In L.Bianchi B a r r i v i e r a ,” Le chiese in roccia di Lalibelò et di altri luoghi del Lasta”, Rassegna diStudi Etiopici, vols. XVIII-XIX (1962 & 1963) (hereafter: B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”),pl. 8 & 8bis, Däbrä Sina is described also as Chidane Meret, while the western part of what mostrefer to as Golgotha is described as Mikael and the eastern part as Lalibäla. His plan placesGolgotha in the western part of what has become known as the Sellassie Crypt, and Sellassie in theeastern part. On the other hand, Alessandro Augusto M o n t i d e l l a C o r t e (Lalibelò. Le chieseipogee e monolitiche e gli altri monumenti medievali del Lasta, Rome, 1940 (hereafter: Montidella Corte, Lalibelò) , p. 56) and Irmgard B i d d e r (Lalibela. The monolithic churches ofEthiopia, Cologne, 1958 [hereafter: B i d d e r , Lalibela] , fig. 25, p. 117) identify Däbrä Sina asMikael and make no reference to Lalibäla or Chidane Meret). Neither the Vita nor Alvares makesspecific mention of the Sellassie Crypt and it may well be that Alvares never entered it. Theabsence of any reference in the Vita to Beta Lehem suggests that the structure was not a church atthe time the work was composed. What Alvares meant by the church of Lalibäla remains unclearunless, perhaps, he was referring to Däbrä Sina, making it the “principal” church of the complexand Golgotha “the church of the least buildings here” (B e c k i n g h a m & H u n t i n g f o r d ,Prester John, p. 207). Achille Raffray, who visited Lalibäla in 1873, speaks of ten churches, butincludes Däbrä Sina (“Mikael”) with Golgotha and makes no mention of the Sellassie Chapel, ofwhich he was undoubtedly ignorant. Nor does he refer to the church of Bethlehem (AchilleR a f f r a y, Les Églises monolithes de la ville de Lalibéla (Abyssinie), Paris, 1882 [hereafter:R a f f r a y, Lalibéla], p. 5). It seems very likely that the names of some churches have changedover the course of time, and that the use of some of the excavated structures has gone from civil toecclesiastical. Certainly, as Stuart M u n r o - H a y has recently pointed out, some of the woodenalters that have been found in Lalibäla “do not ... share the present dedications of the churches”(Ethiopia the Unknown Land. A cultural and historical guide, London – New York, 2002 [here-after: M u n r o - H a y, Unknown Land] , p. 191). He also questions, in light of King Lalibäla’sVita, whether some of the attributions current in the fifteenth century were different from those oftoday (ibid. p. 193), which may have been different again from the time of their original dedica-tion.

3 B e c k i n g h a m & H u n t i n g f o r d, Prester John, vol. 1, p. 226.4 M o n t i d e l l a C o r t e , Lalibelò, p. 15.

aisle (Fig. A:H). It is, in fact, no more a crypt than any other rock-cut monumentin Lalibäla because it is on the same underground level as the Däbrä Sina andGolgotha churches, and has no vertical link to the surface. It is, however, anexceptionally dark spot, since natural light comes only through a single, smallwindow in the SW corner, and is held to be such a holy place that few people out-side the superior ranks of the priesthood have ever been granted access to it. Thefirst non-ecclesiastics known to have entered this chapel were Italians in 1939,who shortly afterwards provided detailed descriptions.5 According to theMemhir with whom Beatrice Playne spoke in 1946 or 1948, this sacrilege tookplace “at the point of a pistol”.6 Since that time, access has occasionally beenafforded to laymen,7 who have described the Däbrä Sina–Golgotha–Sellassiecomplex as “Lalibala's most secret and holiest place”8 and the Sellassie chapel

D‰br‰ Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie Complex in Lalib‰la

25

5 B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, pp. 5-6, 35-39, 96-100 and pl. 3, 6, 8 – 11bis, 57-8;M o n t i d e l l a C o r t e , Lalibelò, pp. 54-63 and pl. XVI. There is a possibility that Miguel deCastanhoso entered the Sellassie Chapel in 1543 as he speaks at one point of “a high altar andother altars, all of the same stone” (as quoted in M u n r o - H a y, Ethiopia, p. 196). The threemonolithic “altars” in the chapel (see below) are unique to the known monuments of Lalibäla,with the apparent exception of the monolith in the maqdas of Betä Merqorios (see below, n. 26).G. R o h l f s mentions the Sellassie “tomb” in the following context: “Der König Lalibala liegt inder Golgatha-Kirche begraben, wo auch ein anderer berühmter Heiliger Abessiniens, Selasse,seine Grabstätte hat” (Land und Volk in Afrika. Berichte aus den Jahren 1865-1870, Bremen,1870, p. 143). It is clear from the confusion over the meaning of the term “Selasse” that he neverentered the chapel.

6 Beatrice P l a y n e , St. George for Ethiopia, London, 1954, p. 139. The accusation isunlikely as Bianchi Barriviera was told he could not see into the “tomb of Lalibäla” without “aspecial authorization from the head of the Ethiopian Church, because it is the tomb of a saint”(B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, p. 34, n. 1. See also below, n. 35). Had force been used toenter the Sellassie Chapel, it could also have been used to see into the tomb, but was not.

7 Georg G e r s t e r ’s classic fish-eye photograph was first published in 1968 (Kirchen imFels, Stuttgart; English trans. by Richard H o s k i n g , Churches in Rock. Early Christian Art inEthiopia, London, 1970 [hereafter: G e r s t e r , Churches in Rock], pl. 81). The photographsaccompanying the present article were taken by the author in the company of E. B a l i c k a -W i t a k o w s k a , S. C h o j n a c k i and P. H e n z e in 1993. P. S c h o l z published two photo-graphs of the central altar from the Sellassie Chapel in 1989, but provides no reference to hissource (Piotr S c h o l z , “Bemerkungen zur Ikonologie der sog. ‘Vier apokalyptischen Wesen’andem Steinaltar der Dreifaltigkeitskapelle zu Lalibala”, in Proceedings of the first InternationalConference on the History of Ethiopian Art. Sponsored by the Royal Asiatic Society. Held at theWarburg Institute of the University of London, October 21 and 22, 1986, London, Pindar Press,1989, pp. 23-29 (hereafter: S c h o l z , “Vier apokalyptischen Wesen”), figs. 48 & 50.

8 G e r s t e r , Churches in Rock, p. 100.

as “the place of greatest sanctity in Lalibela”.9 Bianchi Barriviera consideredthe tri-partite unit as unique “and perhaps the most important for the study ofmonolithic churches”.10

THEORETICAL INTERPRETATIONS AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS

The unique nature of the rock-cut monuments in Lalibäla, together withtheir sanctity and, especially in the case of the Sellassie Chapel, its secrecy, hasled some scholars to go well beyond the evidence in their attempts to interpretthe “meaning” of the site as a whole. Two particularly imaginative examplescome to mind, the first being the widely distributed work of Irmgard B i d d e r.In Lalibela, The Monolithic Churches of Ethiopia, published in 1958, she theo-rized that the structures as we know them today are reworked versions of ancientsanctuaries originally devoted to nature worship. This line of reasoning led herto many quite fantastic conclusions, not the least of which was her overall viewof the cosmology of the site. It was, she thought, the physical expression of acreation myth. She considered the churches in three groups, the first concentrat-ed in the NE section, near the monolithic church of Betä Emanuel. They, shewrote, represented the “Womb of the Earth”. The second group, concentratedaround the Grave or the Church of Golgotha in the NW section, represented “theform and the idea of the stele projected horizontally into the rock’s surface”; inother words the impregnating phallus. The remaining unit, the single church ofBetä Giyorgis to the SE, expressed “logically the idea of the ‘Offspring ofHeaven and Earth’”.11 In the nearly half century since the book was published,perhaps because it was so fanciful, no one has commented upon her reasoning,although the work is frequently consulted for its ground plans (“adapted fromMonti della Corte”) and cited for its descriptions and illustrations.

Another comprehensive hypothesis was proposed by the much regrettedJacqueline Pirenne in her paper “La signification symbolique des églises deLalibéla, ò partir des inscriptions découvertes en 1980-1983”, delivered at the

Michael Gervers

26

9 http://www.selamta.net/lalibela.htm10 As quoted in Jules L e r o y, L’Éthiopie. Archéologie et culture, [Desclee de Brouwer],

1973 (hereafter : L e r o y, L’Éthiopie), p.137.11 B i d d e r , Lalibela, p. 116.

Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies in 1984.12 Inspired by thediscovery and publication by Gigar Tesfaye of four inscriptions engraved onfragments of wood and bearing the theme of Christ’s Transfiguration on MountTabor, and of the invocations inscribed on ten mänäbert tabot of which ninewere attributed to King Lalibäla,13 she concluded that the excavated site, forwhich she gave credit to the king alone, represented a mystical commentary onthe Apocalypse of St. John.14 Much of her argument derived from the associa-tion of each tabot with a specific church (identified by similarities in the deco-rative elements common to both the tabot and church), and from her absoluteconviction that the attributions to King Lalibäla were original and correct.However, Stuart Munro-Hay has recently expressed serious doubts about thematter, suggesting that the mänäbert tabot may be no more than “pious forger-ies dating from a subsequent phase”, and pointing out that even if they are theZaguë monarch's work, “they do no more than indicate that King Lalibela tookan interest in the churches – they are far from proof that he had all, or any ofthem, constructed.”15

The idea that King Lalibäla might not have been responsible for all, orindeed any, of the rock-cut and monolithic structures at this eponymous place,has been growing steadily over the years.16 It is not necessary to return toBidder's theories to find precedents for rock-cut religious architecture in thehighlands of Ethiopia. In 1972, Taddesse Tamrat proposed that the Zaguë king,Yñmrehänna Krñstos, was responsible for introducing the phenomenon in themid-twelfth century,17 while Claude Lepage suggested simultaneously that the


27

12 In Taddese B e y e n e , ed., Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference ofEthiopian Studies, University of Addis Ababa, 1984, Addis Ababa, 1989, pp. 137-45 (hereafter:P i r e n n e , “Signification symbolique”).

13 G i g a r Tesfaye, with the collaboration of Jacqueline P i r e n n e , “Inscriptions sur bois detrois églises de Lalibala”, Journal of Ethiopian Studies, 17, 1984, pp. 107-43 (hereafter: G i g a r ,“Inscriptions”).

14 Her argument may also have been influenced by that propounded in S c h o l z , “Vierapokalyptischen Wesen” (above, n. 7).

15 M u n r o - H a y, Unknown Land, p. 191.16 Emeri van D o n z e l , “Ethiopia’s Lalibäla and the fall of Jerusalem 1187”, Aethiopica,

1,1998, pp. 27-49, esp. p. 40 (hereafter: van D o n z e l , “Ethiopia’s Lalibäla”); Munro-Hay,Unknown Land, pp. 190-94.

17 Taddesse Ta m r a t , Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527, Oxford, 1972 (hereafter:Taddesse, Church and State), p. 58. Taddesse’s opinion is perpetuated by Marilyn E. H e l d m a n ,“Legends of Lalibala, The development of an Ethiopian pilgrimage site”, Res, 27, 1995, pp. 25-38 (hereafter: H e l d m a n , “Legends”), (p. 28 & n. 24).

rupestrian “églises de vallée” in Tigray, such as Degum, were totally Axumite intheir rendition, that they very clearly preceded the examples from Lasta, andthat some of them might well have been executed as early as the seventh centu-ry.18 There is no absolute proof either way, but there can be no question thatAxumite elements appear to a greater or lesser degree in the rock-cut churchesof Ethiopia, and that proportionately more of them can be found in the churchesof Tigray, the traditional centre of Axumite power and influence, than in Lastaand regions to the south.

THE EXCAVATION OF LALIBÄLA’S ROCK-CUT CHURCHES

Developing a chronology for Ethiopia’s rock-cut ecclesiastical heritage isessential and scholars like Lepage, and David Buxton before him,19 have pavedthe way through their sometimes meticulous analysis of the physical make-upof these monuments and of the perceptible similarities and differences amongthem. One must exercise caution in attempting to determine the age of a rock-cut or monolithic structure, however, because unlike a built counterpart, onecannot trace its history back any further than its visible surfaces. Any earlierstage of construction is by necessity removed forever by the workman's chisel.As a consequence, it is impossible to determine whether the rock-cut monu-ments of Lalibäla ever existed in a form other than what can be seen at present.The question, as far as the churches of Lalibäla are concerned, is whether theywere all constructed under the aegis of King Lalibäla in the twenty-two or twen-ty-four year period Alvares understood it took to make them.20 Certainly, the job

Michael Gervers

28

18 Claude L e p a g e “L’église rupestre de Berakit”, Annales d’Éthiopie, 9, 1972, pp. 147-88& pl. XXV-XXVII (hereafter : L e p a g e , “Berakit”), esp. pp. 167, 179; idem, “Une origine pos-sible des églises d’Éthiopie”, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,juillet-octobre 1997, Paris, 1998 (hereafter: L e p a g e , „Origine”), fasc. 3, pp. 199-211 (p. 210).

19 David B u x t o n , “The Christian Antiquities of Northern Ethiopia”, Archaeologia, orMiscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity, London: Society of Antiquaries, XCII (1947), pp.1-42(hereafter: B u x t o n , “Christian Antiquities").

20 Charles B u c k i n g h a m , “Notes on an unpublished manuscript of Francesco Alvares:Verdadera Informa¤am das Terras do Preste Joam das Indias”, Annales d'Ethiopie, 3, 1959, pp.139-54 (see p. 145). R a f f r a y reports having found a ms. in the Church of Medhane Alem ,apparently a Vita of King Lalibäla, in which it is stated that the work was completed in twenty-three years (R a f f r a y, Lalibéla, p. 9).

could have been done in that time, for the tufa from which the monuments werecut would not have been particularly difficult to excavate before it was exposedto the air;21 yet the structures display a sufficiently wide range of architecturaland stylistic differences to make it doubtful that they all belong to such a shortperiod of time. Buxton has suggested that Lalibäla represents “a museum ofchurch types”,22 but while that may actually be the case it can hardly have beenthe original objective of its constructors. One may also wonder for what purposethey carved out the complex in the NE section of the site. In comparison with thestructures in the NW section, only Betä Emmanuel and Betä Libanos are orient-ed; the others may once have served for civil purposes and should probably notbe considered in terms of ecclesiastical architecture at all.23 We remember thatthe fifteenth-century gadle of King Lalibäla reports that the angel of the Lordinstructed the king to build ten churches.24 Eleven dedications are actuallycited, but Betä Lehem is not included among them, quite probably because itwas not a church at the time. There is, furthermore, the possibility, alluded to byseveral scholars,25 that some at least of the dedications have changed over time.

AXUMITE ARCHITECTURAL TRADITIONS

If there is any correlation between the presence of Axumite elements inEthiopian rock-cut architecture and the relative antiquity of any given site, thenBetä Maryam (Figs. B/E:O), Abba Libanos, and Betä Emmanuel, and perhaps in


29

21 Paul H e n z e has reported the recent excavation of seven rock-cut churches: in somecases the work was undertaken by a single individual. Three discovered in 1997 were: Petros &Pawlos (Tsada Amba,Tigray), Chicheho Gabriel (Wollo-Gondar border), Etissa (Shoa). Agroup offour found in 1999 in the Saraya region north of Debre Berhan were dedicated to Mikael,Egziabeher Ab, Maryam and Sellassie.

22 D.R. B u x t o n , “Ethiopian Medieval Architecture – The Present State of Studies”,Ethiopian Studies, papers read at the Second International Conference of Ethiopian Studies(Manchester University, July 1963), ed. C.F. B e c k i n g h a m & Edward U l l e n d o r f f , Journalof Semitic Studies, 9, 1964, pp. 239-44 (hereafter: B u x t o n , “Ethiopian MedievalArchitecture”), p. 243.

23 S e r g e w Hable Sellassie, Ancient and Medieval Ethiopian History to 1270, AddisAbaba, 1972 (hereafter: S e r g e w H.S., Ethiopian History), p. 278.

24 See above, n. 2.25 P i r e n n e , “Signification symbolique”, pp. 140-41; M u n r o - H a y, Unknown Land, p.

191.

its enlarged formula, Medhane Alem, represent the most conventional typeamong the churches of Lalibäla. Excluding Betä Merqorios, Betä Gabriel andBetä Lehem, which are not oriented and which may as a consequence neverhave been conceived as churches,26 the least “Axumite” of the ecclesiasticalstructures in Lalibäla are those of the Däbrä Sina–Golgotha–Sellassie complex,and Betä Giyorgis.27 They in fact appear to disregard Axumite traditions almostentirely, notwithstanding the non-functional transversals in the entrance doorand lower range of windows at Betä Giyorgis (Fig. 1). The absence of long-established forms suggests that these monuments were carved at a time whenthose traditions were no longer considered essential in church construction; thatis, at a date following the creation of Betä Maryam and others of its type. Interms of the ground plan alone, that so-called Axumite type consisted of a cen-tral square divided into three aisles by two sets of two pillars contained in a rec-tangular frame (Fig. B:O).28 At each end of the central square this frame incor-porated a tripartite division of space corresponding to the layout of the threeaisles. At the east end, the sanctuary stood as a continuation of the central aisle,and was flanked to the north and south by rooms, accessed from the sanctuaryand/or the side aisles, which served as sacristies. At the west end, a centralentrance vestibule was situated between two chambers, with access to the north-ern chamber from the vestibule and to the southern from the south aisle. In addi-tion to the west entrance, there were northern and southern ones which openedinto the westernmost bay of the central square. This is precisely the formula

Michael Gervers

30

26 Betä Merqorios has a sanctuary containing a monolithic altar or, more likely in view of itsheight, a mänbärä tabot (measurements taken by a priest in 2002 at the author’s request were: 2.5x 1.35 x 1.35m), suggesting a construction date of the late 14th or, quite probably, the 15th centu-ry (see below, n. 63). This date, consistent with the reference to the site in the 15th-century Vie deLalibela as a church “d’une construction différente” (P e r r u c h o n , Vie de Lalibela, p. 124),does not preclude the prior existence of a rock-cut structure which might have served a civil role.Monti della Corte speaks of un luogo di dimora e di rappresentanza (Lalibelò, p. 27). M u n r o -H a y (Unknown Land, p. 194) suggests that it might have been part of the royal residence (seealso: Roderick G r i e r s o n and Stuart M u n r o - H a y, The Ark of the Covenant, London, 1999,p. 256).

27 Betä Giyorgis also has a stepped foundation, but it is not rendered in the Axumite fashion.In a further departure from Axumite forms, this church has no interior transversals marking thecorners of doors and windows.

28 Mario D i S a l v o , with texts by Stanislaw C h o j n a c k i & Osvaldo R a i n e r i ,Churches of Ethiopia. The Monastery of NÇrgÇ ÂellÇsÿ, Milan-New York, 1999, pp. 62-4.

found at Betä Emmanuel and Betä Libanos,29 and very close to that of BetäMaryam which is otherwise distinguished by two additional pillars, one in frontof the sanctuary and the other opposite in the entrance vestibule.

THE CHURCH OF DÄBRÄ SINA

The only means of entering the Däbrä Sina – Golgotha – Sellassie complexis through the south or west portals of Däbrä Sina (Fig. A). The interior measure-ments of Däbrä Sina are approximately 9.50m E-W and 8.50m N-S. The churchis divided into three aisles by two rows of four cruciform columns which sup-port arches rising to a height at mid-point of about 3.4m. The flat ceiling is 5mhigh.30 Unlike the examples described above, there are no chambers in the fourcorners of Däbrä Sina. The pillars at the east and west corners of the centralsquare are free-standing, not engaged, thereby doubling the usual number fromfour to eight. In another divergence from Axumite principles, the east end,which is wholly occupied by the sanctuary, is accessed from the north and southaisles by a step rising from the back of the first set of pillars, and from the naveby a double step rising between the second set of pillars (Figs. A/C:A).31 As aresult, the clergy have a considerably larger space for their use during the cele-bration of holy offices.

THE CHURCH OF GOLGOTHA

Narrow doorways in the NE and NW section of Däbrä Sina’s northern wall,leading out of the first and fourth bays, serve as the only entrances to what isknown as the Church of Golgotha (Figs. A/C/D:B & C, 2). Compared to otherchurches in Lalibäla, and noticeably to Däbrä Sina, this is a poor structure, badlywrought, yet considered to be among the holiest places on the site because ithouses the so-called “Tomb of Christ” and, supposedly, the remains of KingLalibäla himself (Figs. A/C/D: F, G). Its 10.7m E-W length is separated into twoaisles by three cruciform piers. The total width measures approximately 6m.The north aisle is wider than its southern counterpart, suggesting that the origi-


31

29 With the exception that there is no NW chamber at Betä Libanos.30 B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, p. 31.31 L e p a g e , “Installations liturgiques”, p. 91 & fig. 8.

nal intention may have been to create a tri-partite structure with a nave broaderthan each of two flanking aisles. Certainly, compared to the southern wall, thenorthern wall is rough and unfinished, leaving the impression that it was hastilyprepared. An entablature in low relief carries around the south, east and westwalls at the point where, on the pilasters, arches spring from bracket capitals tocorresponding brackets on the three central piers (Fig. D). Arches also link thepiers to each other on the E-W axis of the structure. Unlike those in Däbrä Sina,the capitals are devoid of any chiseled decoration. Painted bands, in greenish-blue and red, and probably dating from the 19th-century, run along the southwall at the level of brackets and capitals. A greenish-blue rectangle surroundedby a triple frame of bands in the order of yellow, red and yellow, covers the northface of the pilaster capital standing to the east of the door connecting Golgothato Däbrä Sina in the third bay. The bracket above it is painted in an unsuccessfulattempt to create a Greek meander. The pier below bears a representation of afemale saint in frontal position. The western wall, reached by a step which in thenorth aisle is broad enough to serve as a plinth (Fig. A:E), is pierced by windowson two levels (Figs. D, E). At the upper level in each aisle the opening is semi-circular and corresponds to the transversal arches which spring from the northand south walls to meet at the central row of piers. The entablature separatesthese openings from five cruciform windows which pierce the wall below, twoin the south aisle and three in the broader north aisle. Each of the five windowsis itself set back into the top of a row of vertical recesses which stands betweenthe raised floor and the entablature.

At the opposite end of the interior, in the NE corner, the first bay of the northaisle rises three steps above the floor of the church. A blind archway in the eastwall of this bay may have been intended to contain a monumental standing fig-ure in relief (Fig. A/C/E:1), but nothing can be discerned from available photo-graphs.32 A final transversal arch rises above it from within the wall creating ablind lunette below.

A recess in the north wall, protected by an iron grate, is designated the“Tomb of Christ”. Within, a recumbent figure in low relief lies at floor level, fac-ing east (Figs. A/C/D:G, 3, 4). The body tapers from broad shoulders to his feet,which are integrated into the east wall of the arcosolium. His hands are crossed

Michael Gervers

32

32 Bianchi Barriviera reports that this eastern niche contains a poorly preserved, larger-than-life sized figure, identified by a later inscription as “Maryam” (Barriviera, “Le chiese in roccia”,p. 32) but the presence of any such figure is unlikely.

over his chest and he wears a short, thigh-length tunic. The face is withoutfeatures and was either unfinished or rendered purposely thus. An angel standsin relief at his feet; if there was once one also at his head, as postulated byBarriviera,33 it was not visible to this writer.34

The second bay of the north aisle contains the “Tomb of Lalibäla”,35 sur-mounted by a large mänbärä tabot draped in cloth. Today, it, together with theraised first bay, is normally curtained off.36

In the spaces between the pilasters along the north and south walls ofGolgotha are five larger-than-life-sized figures standing in relief within blindarches (Figs. A/C/D:2-6, 5).37 Those in the north wall appear, like the wall itself,


33

33 Ibidem, p. 33.34 R a f f r a y (Lalibéla, p. 7) writes that the head of the recumbent figure lies on a Greek

cross, but recent photographs provide little evidence to confirm this point.35Alvares’description suggests that a tomb monument stood on the surface of the rock floor

which could be seen from any of the windows at the west end of the church “at the right of the highaltar” (B e c k i n g h a m & H u n t i n g f o r d , Prester John, vol. 1, p. 207). What was meant bythe “high altar” is unclear in terms of the actual arrangement, wherein the tomb monument standsin the second bay of the north aisle. There is no altar on the raised area represented by the confinesof the first bay, although there may once have been one. Today, the king’s remains are said to lie ina vault under the floor, probably the spot identified by Alvares as “the entrance to the lower cham-ber”: “In the centre of the body of the church is the mark of a door like a trap door; it is covered upwith a large stone, like an altar stone, fitting very closely. They say that this is the entrance to thelower chamber, and that no one goes in, nor does it look as if the stone or door could be lifted. Thisstone has a hole in the centre which pierces it through; its size is three spans. All the pilgrims [, whocome here in infinite numbers for devotion,] put their hands into this stone (where there is hardlyroom for them), and they say that many miracles are done” (ibid., pp. 207 & 221). B a r r i v i e r adescribes the tomb monument as a “tabot”, below which “close to the northern wall is a rectangu-lar opening measuring 100 x 180cm. dug into the floor and closed on top by a wooden cover”. Hewas told by the monks that this opening led to the tomb of Lalibäla, to which he was not able togain access because it would have involved obtaining a special authorization from the head of theEthiopian Church. As a consequence “we could not check this enclosed space to see whether it dif-fered from others which were open and empty, nor could we clarify Alvares' text, which does notcorrespond with what we saw” (B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, p. 34 & n. 1; see alsoM o n t i d e l l a C o r t e , Lalibelò, p. 61 ).

36 That this space is surrounded by curtains increases its sanctity, but unlike the sanctuary ofan Ethiopian church, non-priests have occasionally obtained access to it. Golgotha would seem,therefore, not to have a sanctuary per se, although a tabot is kept with the “tomb of Lalibäla” in thenorth aisle and also with another, commemorating Kidana Mehret (the Pact of Mercy), whichstands opposite it in the second bay of the south aisle.

37 The smallest of these reliefs, its height limited by the existence of a little window above itpiercing the wall between Golgotha and Däbrä Sina, is still as large as life. See the illustration inL e r o y, L’Éthiopie, p. 139, in which a living priest stands beside the relief.

to be unfinished (Fig. 6). Each is identified as a saint by inscriptions on the frontof the arches, but since these inscriptions are only lightly incised and the lettersunevenly distributed along the curve of the arch, it is generally thought that theywere added at a later date.38 Similar arches over the narrow doorways leadingfrom the south aisle into the NE corner of the Church of Däbrä Sina on the onehand and into the Jesus Cell on the other, suggested to Barriviera that two moresaintly figures in relief may once have stood below them, but that these were lostwhen the doorways were cut through.39

THE JESUS CELL

Two doorways open from the SE corner or first bay of the south aisle, oneleading through the south wall into a small chamber measuring 2 x 1.3m known

Michael Gervers

34

38 The inscribed identifications documented by B a r r i v i e r a are as follows, reading clock-wise starting with the figure in the niche in the east wall of the north aisle: 1) Maryam, 2) Yohannes,3) Qirqos, 4) Giyorgis, 5) Gabra Kristos, 6) Estifanos, and 7) Mikael (Barriviera, “Le chiese in roc-cia”, p. 32). There is, however, no figure evident in the deep niche designated by B a r r i v i e r a asno. 7. That the two reliefs seen by Alvares were described as SS Peter and John (B e c k i n g h a m& H u n t i n g f o r d , Prester John, vol. 1, p. 221), suggest the inscriptions are in fact quite recentas Peter is absent from B a r r i v i e r a ’s list. The four seen by Findlay included SS John, Stephen,George and Kirkos (Louis F i n d l a y, The Monolithic Churches of Lalibela in Ethiopia, Cairo,1944 [hereafter, F i n d l a y, Monolithic Churches], p.14), that is, those which according toB a r r i v i e r a ’s list correspond to the figures along the south wall and one, Stephen, in the centreof the north wall. In December 2002, Afe Memhir Alebachu Retta reported in conversation withthe author that these inscriptions were added a century ago, that is to say, c. 1900.

39 B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, p. 33 n. 1. Two additional figures would have amount-ed to a total of nine, which, Barriviera thought, could have represented the well-known Nine Saintsto whom are attributed the spreading of the faith in Ethiopia in the fifth century. Munro-Hay findsthis “an unlikely theme here”, adding that “if there were nine here, they, with three others in theSellassie chapel, would represent the twelve apostles” (M u n r o - H a y, Unknown Land, p. 213).There are at present only places for two such figures in the Sellassie Chapel, not three, although ithas been postulated that a third figure may once have stood in the centre of the chapel’s east wall.There is no sign now of there ever having been a relief sculpture in this central niche. Because thechapel bears the dedication Sellassie (“The Trinity”), those favouring the previous existence of athird figure argue that the three taken together represent the Trinity rather than three of the TwelveApostles (G e r s t e r , Churches in Rock, p. 102, with reference to fig. 81; Ewald H e i n & BrigitteK l e i d t , Ethiopia – Christian Africa. Art, Churches and Culture, John M. D e a s y, trans.,Ratingen: Merlina-Verlag, 1999 [hereafter: H e i n & K l e i d t , Ethiopia], p. 145). The fact of thematter is that the single, complete relief figure in the Sellassie Chapel bears the head of an ox and isobviously a representation of one of the four beasts of the Apocalypse, thus negating any associa-tion with either the Nine Saints, the Twelve Apostles or the Trinity.

as the Jesus cell (Fig. A:D) and the other through the east wall to the SellassieChapel. The Jesus cell is linked to the east end of the north aisle of Däbrä Sina bya small aperture in its SW corner. Amodest window with a pointed arch looks outfrom high in the wall of the SE corner over the deep rock-cut passage whichdelimits the east end of Däbrä Sina. An interior frieze is said to be decorated withleaves similar to those which extend like swans’necks out of the upper frame ofthe broken arch on the exterior wall (Figs. A:J, 7).40According to Barriviera, thiscell formerly contained a tabot.41

THE SELLASSIE CHAPEL

The Sellassie chapel is a rough trapezoid measuring 6.5m wide at the eastend and 4.6m at the west. It is 6.8m deep on the north side and 6m on the south.The south side was made shorter to avoid cutting into the pre-existing Jesus cell(Fig. A). Asingle, 60cm-square, 5.4m-high pillar rises on the central axis abouta third of the way into the room. It has no capital, but brackets support wide ribswhich cross transversely and longitudinally above it. A 40cm-high step, orplinth, leads eastwards out of the base of the pillar for a distance of 1.5m, where-upon it intersects with, and continues a step higher than, three well-delineatedsteps leading up to a platform which extends on a slight convex curve from oneside of the room to the other. In the centre of the platform and directly in linewith the column at a depth of 50cm from the top step is a monolithic altar,flanked by two others equi-distant from the north and south walls (Figs. A, C, 8).The central monolith is 1.5m high, while those on either side stand at 1.35m.Each is roughly 70 to 90cm square. The vertical surfaces are divided horizon-tally with crosses incised at the upper level on each of the four faces.Anthropomorphic symbols of the four beasts of the Apocalypse, with armsraised in prayer, fill the lower faces of the central monolith: the man in the west,the eagle in the east, the bull in the south and the lion in the north.42

Corresponding surfaces in the flanking monoliths are empty. In the east wallbehind the central monolith is a 2.7m high niche surmounted by an arch.43 The


35

40 P i r e n n e , “Signification symbolique”, p. 138.41 B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, p. 34.42 S c h o l z , “Vier apokalyptischen Wesen”.43 Drawings published by both M o n t i d e l l a C o r t e (Lalibelò, p. 59) and Bianchi

B a r r i v i e r a (“Le chiese in roccia”, tav. 10) show a disc containing a relief cross sculpted justbelow this arch, but none was visible to this writer.

niche, 1.4m wide, is stepped on three levels at the bottom, increasingly recessedto a depth of 1.1m before the springing of the arch. In a blind arch on the northside of this central niche, directly behind its corresponding monolithic altar, alarger-than-life anthropomorphic figure with the head of an ox stands in relief(Figs. 9, 10). The hands are held clasped above the waist, while the head isencircled with a nimbus containing a cross in the top centre. Monte della Corte’sdescription of this head as that of an ox, although true, has been much derided bysubsequent commentators.44 The decoration on the drapery of this figure seemssomewhat more elaborate than on the well-preserved figures along the southwall of Golgotha, but all would appear to be contemporary. The figure intendedfor the south side is represented only by a small fold of drapery in the lower leftcorner of the space delineated by the arch, apparently all that the sculptorachieved before his work was definitively interrupted.

At the bottom of the steps on the north wall is the opening to an empty tombchamber. The west end of the south wall is pierced by a single small windowwhich, from the outside, appears next to, and is framed with decoration verysimilar to, that of the window opening into the Jesus cell (Figs. A:I, 7).45 Theswan-necked, floral pattern which delineates the frame of these windows withpointed arches is again reproduced in all twelve of the upper range of windowsin the Church of Betä Giyorgis, although in the latter they are not so delicatelyconceived (Fig. 1).

Michael Gervers

36

44 M o n t i d e l l a C o r t e , Lalibelò, p. 60. A priest “reluctantly explained” to BianchiB a r r i v i e r a that the figure on the left had the head of an ass and that on the right the head of anox. The sides are obviously transposed and there is absolutely no sign of the head of an ass in thesouth niche. B a r r i v i e r a , who could not have seen what was there, objects to this interpretation(which encouraged M o n t i d e l l a C o r t e to associate it with a Nativity scene), and supposedinstead that the figures had human heads which were destroyed (B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese inroccia”, p. 37, n. 1). The occurrence of the standing anthropomorphic figure with the head of an oxis ancient in Christian iconography, as evidenced by the late 8th- 9th-century example occurringon the Soiscél Molaise (National Museum of Ireland, R.4006; see Michelle P. B r o w n , TheLindisfarne Gospels, Society, Spirituality & the Scribe, London: British Library, 2003, p. 210,fig. 79).

45 The two windows are very similar in their appearance, although the somewhat more elab-orate design of that of the Sellassie chapel suggests that it was inspired by, but carved later than,the Jesus cell window.

RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMPLEX

The Däbrä Sina – Golgotha – Sellassie complex is certainly unique amongthe Lalibäla churches in its structure and composition, devoid as it is of nearlyevery traditional characteristic of Axumite-style architecture. The absence ofcorner chambers in Däbrä Sina is a new departure in church construction, witheight piers instead of four (Fig. A), thus creating an open interior space consid-erably larger than that of an Axumite precursor constructed around a square.There is no evidence that there was any intention to excavate the rest of the com-plex when the Church of Däbrä Sina was conceived. On the contrary, the nar-rowness of the two doorways in the north wall of Däbrä Sina which are the onlymeans of entry to Golgotha, suggests they were cut at a time when the architec-tural vocabulary of the former had already been established. Golgotha itself,with three free-standing piers, only two aisles and also devoid of corner cham-bers, is even less conventional in its conception than Däbrä Sina. Its construc-tion preceded the next stage of expansion which was the tiny Jesus cell.46

The final excavation, and perhaps the last of any of the rock-cut monumentsin Lalibäla, was the Sellassie Chapel. It must have followed the completion ofGolgotha because it can only be entered through the doorway at the east end ofGolgotha’s south aisle; and it must have followed the excavation of the Jesuscell as its SW corner is excavated on an angle in order not to cut into and obliter-ate the cell's east wall. Thus, there is a very clear progression in the constructionof the complex. As Däbrä Sina is the oldest of the group and already devoid ofAxumite features, it is not surprising that such features are also totally absentfrom the rest. There are no transversals (square “monkey heads”), typical ofAxumite architecture, to be found in any of the doors and windows. The win-dows from the exterior are barely framed, if at all, and the relief of those whichare decorated is shallow (Fig. E). There is, furthermore, no consistency betweenthe shapes of the windows in Däbrä Sina and those in Golgotha, not to mentionthe two with highly stylized meandering fronds which distinguish the Jesus celland Sellassie Chapel from the others (Fig. 7). They, too, could have been cut asan afterthought. The amount of light they let through is minimal and their place-


37

46 The purpose served by this chamber is unknown, although it may possibly have served afunction similar to that of the aedicule of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem which covered the rock-cut tomb where Christ’s body was thought to have been laid after the Deposition.

ment is entirely utilitarian. These windows can, therefore, be considered to beamong the newest of the new.

THE AXUMITE “WINDOW”

Not to be overlooked when considering the windows of the complex is theAxumite doorway opening onto the top of the deep trench delineating the westexterior wall of the Church of Golgotha (Figs. B/E/F:Q, 11). This doorway,described in the literature as a balcone47 and understood to be a window, standsat the western extremity of a corridor which is directly in line with the E-W axisof the Church of Betä Maryam, and which opens through a double portal into thecourtyard before the west façade of that church (Figs. B/C/E/F:M). The corridoris now open to the elements, but it is very likely that it was once a rock-cut pas-sage and that the roof collapsed. It is also probable that this corridor served asthe principal access to Betä Maryam before the deep trench surrounding theDäbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex was cut.48 That would have been evenbefore the carving out of the so-called “Tomb of Adam” onto which the Axumitedoorway looks (Figs. A/B/E/F:K, 11). It is, in fact, almost certain that this trenchwas once far shallower and that formerly it was the principal link between theriver now known as the Jordan and the entrance to Betä Maryam. At that time thesite was still designated as Roha, presumably derived from al-Ruha, the Arabicname for the ancient riverine town of Edessa in Asia Minor. Edessa is a

Michael Gervers

38

47 B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, pl. 6, no. 3.48 This hypothesis is similar to that proposed by Lino Bianchi B a r r i v i e r a , “Restauri alle

chiese di Lalibelò”, Rassegna di Studi Etiopici, 22, 1968 for 1966, pp. 135-46. On p. 138, foot-note 2, he writes: “Il ritrovamento, nel corso dei piu recenti lavori di restauro, di tombe scavatenel pavimento di questo corridoio archittonicamente importante, l'esistenza di una croce scolpi-ta nella sua fronte interna est, e altre particolarita gia notate, ci confermano nell'idea che essopossa esser stato originariamente un ingresso, e piu precisamente quello principale, al quale sidoveva accedere per una gradinata dalla trincea antistante, il cui piano di calpestio potevaessere a una quota circa corrispondente al ripiano superiore della “Tomba di Adamo”; e chequesta e la chiesa di Golgota-Mikael Sellase siano state scavate e scolpite in un tempo successi-vo, con la conseguente asportazione della gradinata per l’abbassamento della trincea. Per leconsiderazioni sopraccenate e per alcune osservazioni relative alle finestre di quest’ultimachiesa, vedi RSE vol XVIII, 1962, pag. 21, nota 1; pag.42, nota 1; pag. 44. Questa nostra timidaipotesi e confortata dal fatto che anche l’ingresso sud al cortile di Maryam ha una struttura sim-ile, e corrispondenza di quote relative”.

Macedonian term referring to “abundant water”.49 It has recently been arguedthat the etymology of al-Ruha can be traced to the Arabic rawahah, meaning“low plain where water accumulates”.50 It is this association which may liebehind the choice of the name Roha for a site with plentiful supplies of water.The now functionless doorway opening onto the void may thus be seen as a soli-tary witness to the Betä Maryam site before the excavation of the present deeptrenches leading both to the river and around what subsequently became theDäbrä Sina–Golgotha–Sellassie complex.

THE CHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXT FOR THE GOLGOTHA COMPLEX

If the concept and aspects of the architectural and decorative details of theDäbrä Sina–Golgotha–Sellassie complex are unique to Lalibäla, they are notunique to Ethiopia. In his consideration of the chronological development ofecclesiastical architecture, and especially of rock-cut ecclesiastical architec-ture in Ethiopia, Claude Lepage noted already thirty years ago that there wasa clear progression from late Axumite (or early Zaguë),51 to various stages ofAxumite-influenced, and then to post-Axumite styles. Among the first, herefers to what he calls the églises de vallée, of which an early example isDegum;52 the second, to Berakit, erqos Wuqro, Abreha-Asbeha and MikaelAmba,53 which relate to the churches built in caves by the Zaguë and which(with the exception of the possibly contemporary Berakit) precede the lateZaguë monoliths in Lalibäla;54 and third, to the post-Zaguë period which sawthe construction of such rock-cut churches as Enda Maryam Wuqro (Amba


39

49 Amir H a r r a k , “The Ancient name of Edessa”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 51/3,July 1992, pp. 209-14.

50 Ghada J a y y u s i - L e h n , “Edessa: A Holy City in the Muslim-Crusader Conflict”,Toronto Studies in Central and Inner Asia, vol. 6 (2004), forthcoming.

51 Lepage, “Berakit”, p. 150.52 On his dating of Degum, see: L e p a g e , “Berakit”, p. 151; idem, “Découverte d’un art

étonnant: les églises éthiopiennes du Xe au XVIe siècles”, Archéologia, 64, 1973, pp. 45-58 (here-after: L e p a g e , “Églises éthiopiennes”), (p. 53); idem, “Le premier art chrétien de l'Éthiopie:Les églises et leur architecture” in “Découverte de l’Éthiopie chrétienne”, Les Dossiers del’Archéologie, 8, 1975, pp. 34-59 (hereafter: L e p a g e , “Le premier art”), (p. 56).

53 L e p a g e , “Berakit”, p. 151 & n. 11.54 L e p a g e , “Berakit”, pp. 152, 155.

Sanayt) and May Kado Giyorgis in Tigray in the late-thirteenth to early four-teenth century and thereafter.55 The latter are of particular significance in thepresent study because both have a raised, central sanctuary containing amonolithic mänbärä tabot and a raised platform in the NE corner. In the caseof May Kado, this platform contains a monolithic altar, while at EndaMaryam a similar altar is situated in a room of modest dimensions enteredfrom the north side of the central sanctuary. The west faces of both bear a crossin relief closely resembling those in the upper sections of the three monolith-ic altars in the Sellassie Chapel (Figs. 8, 12). The raised position of the NEcorner of these two churches further recalls that of the Church of Golgotha(Fig. C), and points to the probable use of the area in all three cases as anextension of the sanctuary.56 The monolithic altar in May Kado confirms thisemploy. It has already been proposed that the Sellassie Chapel in Lalibäla,although constructed at a somewhat later date, served as a sanctuary for theChurch of Golgotha. The central sanctuaries with a monolithic mänäberätabot may also have been later additions to the other two churches. There is,furthermore, a small chamber leading off the north side of the NE corner inMaryam Wuqro which may have served the same purpose as the arcosoliumcontaining the “body” of the Dead Christ in Golgotha.57 Such similarities donot presuppose a direct influence between these arguably post-Axumite stylechurches in Tigray and the Däbrä Sina – Golgotha – Sellassie complex atLalibäla in Lasta, but they do have enough in common to suggest that they arerelated chronologically. Fundamental to this argument is the presence of theraised sanctuary, a feature common to all of the aforementioned structures, aswell as to Lalibäla Betä Giyorgis. Lepage's proposed late thirteenth- or earlyfourteenth-century date for the Tigrayan monuments is difficult to confirm,but the reduction, or total absence, of Axumite architectural elements and

Michael Gervers

40

55 L e p a g e , “Installations liturgiques ”, pp. 99-101; L e p a g e , “Les églises éthiopiennes”,p. 58.

56 Mordini gives the measurements of the room as 3.31 x 2.78m, with a height of 2.3m,adding that the monolithic altar stands 1.7m. high by 1m wide (Antonio M o r d i n i , “La chiesaipogea di Ucrò (Ambò Seneiti) nel Tigrai”, Annali dell’Africa Italiana, II , 1939, pp. 519-26 (here-after: Mordini, “Ucrò”), (p. 523). His fig. 4 on pl. 3, however, indicates the height and width to besimilar, probably at 1 m. The monoliths at Enda Maryam Wuqro are so similar in appearance tothose at May Kado as to suggest they may have been carved by the same workmen.

57 L e p a g e identifies this chamber as a placard or cupboard which could have served as asacristie (L e p a g e , “Les Installations liturgiques”, p. 99), while in Golgotha the purpose is obvi-ously funerary (L e p a g e , “Le premier art”, p. 52; L e p a g e , „Origine”, pp. 207, 210 & n. 27).

traditions in all of these churches does point to a post-Axumite period fortheir excavation in the rock.58

THE MONOLITHIC ALTAR

The presence of monolithic altars is of prime importance to the argument forthe particularly late construction of the Sellassie Chapel. Their appearance atMaryam Wuqro and May Kado Giyorgis in the context of the raised sanctuary hasalready been mentioned, but there are many more in Tigray and the more onelooks the more one finds. Of fourteen examples cited here, it is certain that tenchurches have a monolithic altar or mänbärä tabot in the central part of the sanc-tuary.59 If there is a second altar, and there often is, it is usually to be found in theNE corner of the church,60 confirming Lepage's assessment of the ceremonialimportance and sanctity of this part of the monument.61 Abba Yohanni has amonolithic altar at the east end of each of its three aisles (Fig. 13). Altars of thistype in the SE corner of Iyyesus Wanza and Mikael Barka suggest that each mayalso have a total of three. Iyyesus Wanza contains interior features remarkablyclose to those at Däbrä Seyon, which also contains a monolithic altar and is datedto the period 1382-1411.62 In chronological terms, churches with only one mono-


41

58 The church of Gännätä Maryam, which according to an inscription was decorated withmural paintings c. 1270 under the patronage of Yekuno Amlak, the first king to hold the throneafter the fall of the Zaguë dynasty, retains many Axumite characteristics. The new, simpler stylewould seem, therefore, to have made its appearance at a later period still.

59 The fourteen include Abba Yohanni (Tembien), Abräha Atsbäha, Bahera Maryam, DäbräSeyon (Geralta), Maryam Dengelat (Amba Sanayt), Enda Maryam Wuqro (Amba Sanayt),Gabriel Wuqien (Tembien), Iyyesus Wanza (or Gedjet), Iyyesus Weleghesa (Tembien), JohannesMaqudi, May Kado Giyorgis, Mikael Ambo, Mikael Barka, and Tselal Moo. It has not as yet beenpossible to confirm whether there is a monolithic altar in the central sanctuary of Abräha Atsbäha,Gabriel Wuqien (Tembien), or of Iyyesus Wanza.

60 Churches containing two monolithic altars, one in the NE corner and one in the centre ofthe sanctuary, include Bahera Maryam, Enda Maryam Wuqro, May Kado Giyorgis and TselalMoo. Att Abräha Atsbäha, rather than being a monolith, its equivalent in the NE corner is con-structed of stone. Since there is a monolithic altar in the SE corner of Mikael Barka, it is likely thatthere is another in the NE corner, but its presence has not yet been documented.

61 L e p a g e , “Installations liturgiques”, pp. 98-101.62 G e r s t e r , Churches in Rock, p. 81. In addition to having monolithic altars, the common

feature is the superimposed rows of small, blind arcades, which in Däbrä Seyon contain the paint-ed heads of holy figures. Outside the church of Iyyesus Wanza, on the south side in line with its

lithic altar, as at Maryam Dengelet, could represent the earliest of their type.These may have been followed by those with similar monoliths at the east end ofthe north or south aisles when those aisles terminate to the west of the sanctuary,as at Iyyesus Wanza and May Kado Giyorgis (Fig. 12). Those with monolithicaltars on the same plane to the north and/or south of the central sanctuary, as atEnda Maryam Wuqro, Mikael Barka and Tselal Moo, may either be later exten-sions to a church which began with a single monolith in a central sanctuary“apse”, or were carved into the rock at a time when the popularity of such altarscoincided with the enlargement of the sanctuary area to the full width of thechurch, as was probably the case for Abba Yohanni. At Abräha Atsbäha, an altarconstructed of stone and mortar in the NE corner of such an expanded sanctuary,may represent a later attempt to keep up with the new custom.63 Tall monoliths,measuring up to 2.7m in height and fashioned to serve as the mänbärä tabot inthe central sanctuary area of some churches may well belong to the latest periodof development, and in some cases have been introduced as an eastward exten-sion to the sanctuary of a previously existing rock-cut church (Fig. 14).64

All those who have attributed dates to churches with a monolithic altar ormänbärä tabot place them between the late thirteenth century (starting with thereign of Yekuno Amlak, 1270-1285) and the early fifteenth century;65 that is, to

Michael Gervers

42

east end, are the remains of what would appear to have been a series of three more monolithicaltars which might once have been enclosed in a built structure.

63 The priests reported to Ewa Balicka-Witakowska in November 2002 that the tomb of SS.Abräha and Atsbäha in the south compartment of the sanctuary is a monolith covered by metal. Itmust have originated as a monolithic altar and later been designated as the so-called “grave” of thechurch's patrons. The compartment is closed by a wall with a window-like opening and an entry.It is opened only once a year on the festival day of SS. Abräha and Atsbäha.

64 The monolithic mänbärä tabot is to be found at Abba Yohanni, Enda Maryam Wuqro,Johannes Magudi, May Kado Giyorgis and Tselal Moo. A cavity to hold the tabot was carved outof the front of the monolithic altar at Bahera Maryam in recent times, in the process destroying thepainting of the Virgin Mary between the archangels. Previously, access may only have been fromthe east side, but the existence of such an opening has not been confirmed. The monolith in theChurch of Lalibäla Merqorios, which measures 2.5m high (see above, n. 26), must also belong tothis group.

65 G e r s t e r, Churches in Rock, p. 102; Jean G i r e & Roger S c h n e i d e r, “Étude des églisesrupestres du Tigré: Premiers résultats de la mission 1970”, Travaux de la recherche coopérative surprogramme R.C.P. 230, Documents pour servir ò l’histoire des civilisations éthiopiennes, (serieslater named Abbay) fasc. 1, 1970, pp. 73-79 and 12 pl. hors texte (pp. 74, 78-79 and pl. 3-4, 11-12);L e p a g e , “Installations liturgiques”, pp. 99-101; M o r d i n i , “Ucrò”, p. 526; Roger S a u t e r ,“Églises rupestres au Tigré”, Annales d'Éthiopie, X, 1976, pp. 157-175 (p. 160, no. 8).

the post-Zaguë period. Significantly, the one church known to have three suchmonoliths is Abba Yohanni, a late structure believed to bear the name of the four-teenth-century Abba Yohanni whose Vita was composed in the fifteenth centuryby Menas IV, bishop of Axum.66 Seen in this context, the three carefully workedmonolithic altars in the Sellassie Chapel would appear to be the high point ofthis rupestrian development which, probably in the late fourteenth to early fif-teenth century, filtered its way down from Tigray to Lalibäla in Lasta.

THE RELIEF FIGURES

An anomaly in any style and at any time is the presence in the wall niches ofthe Church of Golgotha and the Sellassie Chapel of larger than life-sized reliefsculptures representing holy figures (Figs. A/C/D:2-6, 5, 6), and of the recum-bent figure in the arcosolium in the NE corner of Golgotha said to represent theDead Christ (Figs. A/C/D:G, 3, 4). All those who have studied them commentthat they are unique not only in Lalibäla, but in Ethiopia as a whole. While theidentity of the standing figures remains uncertain, there can be no doubt thatthey represent saints since all but one has a nimbus. That exception is the mostfrequently reproduced because not only is the relief in nearly perfect condition,standing below the small window opening into the Church of Däbrä Sina in thecentre of the south wall of Golgotha, but the figure is depicted wearing a turban(Fig. 15).67 The inscription on the arch above identifies him as St. Cyriacus, butsince, as was mentioned before, the inscriptions do seem to have been addedlater, this information may probably be disregarded. Furthermore, the presenceof a turban rather than a nimbus suggests that the figure is not meant to representa saint, but instead a high ecclesiastical official. It is also notable that this reliefis small in comparison to the others, perhaps to indicate a figure of lesser staturethan a saint. Such differences do detract from the theories that these reliefs repre-sent the Nine Saints or the Twelve Apostles.68 Elsewhere, from a chronological


43

66 René B a s s e t , “Vie d'Abbâ Yohanni”, Bulletin de Correspondance Africaine, III, 1884,pp. 433-53 (p. 440).

67 M o n t i d e l l a C o r t e , Lalibelò, between pp. 59 & 60; B u x t o n , “ChristianAntiquities”, p. 28/b; B a r r i v i e r a , “Le chiese in roccia”, pl. 9; G e r s t e r , Churches in Rock,p. 102 & fig. 79; L e r o y, L’Éthiopie, p. 139; H e i n & K l e i d t , Ethiopia, p. 146.

68 See above, n. 38.

viewpoint, the introduction of oriental dress goes hand in hand with the rise ofthe Ottoman Turks and the spread of their empire in the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies. The Ethiopian Court had adopted Turkish court costume with narrowsleeves by the sixteenth century and in 1628 Almeida recorded that “Rich menhave [round, red] caps worked for them in silk and gold by Turkish tailors”.69

The turbaned representations of the saints and biblical figures in the church ofAbba Yemata at Guh (Gäralta, Tigray), perhaps the closest in style to theGolgotha figure, have been attributed broadly to the fifteenth to seventeenthcentury (Fig. 16).70

All scholars note that the reliefs are unusual. Sergew Hable Sellassie pointsout that “the usage of statues in the church is not at all a practice of the Ethiopianchurch nor of the Orient in general. It is reminiscent of the western practice.”71

Similarly, Jules Leroy finds the presence of these „sculptures animées” to be„un fait très rare et contraire ò la pratique générale des chrétientés orien-tales”,72 and comments with reference to the recumbent figure that in a westerncontext the representation of the Entombment in churches does not becomewidespread until the fifteenth century.73 Lepage compares their style to exam-ples in „divers manuscrits bien datés” of c. 1400.74 The general consensuspoints to a fifteenth century date for these reliefs.75Apostquam date is providedby Alvares, who reported seeing two of them in 1521.76

Michael Gervers

44

69 Manoel d e A l m e i d a , Some Records of Ethiopia 1593-1646, being extracts from “TheHistory of High Ethiopia or Abassia” by Manoel de Almeida together with Bahrey's “History ofthe Galla”, ed. C.F. B e c k i n g h a m & George Wynn Brereton H u n t i n g f o r d , London:Hakluyt Society, Works, second series, vol. CVII, 1954, p. 61.

70 L e p a g e , “Berakit”, p. 176; G e r s t e r , Churches in Rock, p. 135 & pl. 191. See alsoGigar Te s f a y e , “Reconnaissance de Trois Eglises Antérieures ò 1314”, Journal of EthiopianStudies, XII/2, 1974, pp. 57-75 (p. 64).

71 S e r g e w H.S., Ethiopian History, p. 275. The author nevertheless concludes that “the artemployed on these statues ... is Oriental” (ibid.).

72 L e r o y, L’Éthiopie, p. 136.73 L e r o y, L’Éthiopie, p. 140.74 L e p a g e , “Le premier art”, p. 46.75 F i n d l a y (Monolithic Churches, p. 14) finds them to be “identical in style with similar

but smaller ones carved in wood in the Coptic Churches of Cairo”, but suggests no date.76 Beckingham & Huntingford, Prester John, vol. 1, p. 221.

SOLOMONIC REHABILITATION OF THE ZAGUË DYNASTY

Despite the presence of the relief sculptures, the Church of Golgotha is hard-ly a burial place fit for a thirteenth-century Zaguë king, not comparable in qual-ity with such other churches in Lalibäla, as for example Betä Maryam, or evenDäbrä Sina. Had King Lalibäla chosen his own burial place, one might havethought that he would have provided something better for himself. But if theevidence here is correctly interpreted, there is little possibility that the Church ofGolgotha even existed at the time of the king’s death, and obviously even lessthat he was buried next to the symbolic tomb of Christ when that tomb with itsrecumbent effigy may not have been fashioned from the rock for up to two cen-turies after his death. Either his remains have been translated from elsewhere,77

or Lalibäla may not be buried in what for at least the past five hundred years hasbeen referred to as Lalibäla’s tomb.78 Furthermore, it has been recently arguedthat it was only from the fourteenth century that the churches at Lalibäla beganto be ascribed to the king in Ethiopian sources,79 and not until the fifteenth cen-tury that “pilgrimage to the tomb of Lalibela developed”.80 The fifteenth century


45

77 J.-B. C o u l b e a u x indicates that King Lalibäla's remains lay in the Church of BetäMariam (Histoire Politique et Religieuse d’Abyssinie depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’òl'av±nement de Ménélik II, 2 vols., Paris, 1928 or 1929, vol. 1, p. 269.

78 The dedication of the Church of Golgotha in Lalibäla to the memory of Christ'sCrucifixion and burial in a rock-cut tomb on the Golgotha hill in Jerusalem makes this site a sym-bolic representation of the aedicule of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The tradi-tion which places Christ's Birth in a rock-cut grotto commemorated by the Church of the Nativityin Bethlehem and his burial in a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem from which the Resurrectionoccurred, provides the context for the phenomenon of rock-cut ecclesiastical buildings in theChristian world (see Michael G e r v e r s , “The Iconography of the Cave in Christian andMithraic Tradition”, in Mysteria Mithrae, ed. Ugo B i a n c h i , Leiden, 1979, pp. 579-96). The fif-teenth-century gadl of King Lalibäla, which is more a work of hagiography than a history, con-tains many elements which serve to compare the king's life with that of Christ, while his “burial”beside the “tomb of Christ” in the rock-cut environment of the Church of Golgotha emphasizesthe theme of Resurrection attached to the site (see Michael G e r v e r s , “The MediterraneanContext for the Medieval Rock-Cut Churches of Ethiopia”, Proceedings of the EighthInternational Conference of Ethiopian Studies, University of Addis Ababa, 26-30 November1984, Addis Ababa – Frankfurt am Main, 1988, vol. 1, pp. 171-83; idem, “The Monolithic Churchof Wuqro Mäsqäl Krñstos”, Africana Bulletin, 50, 2002, pp. 99-113, esp. pp. 111-13; L e p a g e ,“Origine” pp. 207-10).

79 v a n D o n z e l , “Ethiopia’s Lalibäla”, p. 40.80 H e l d m a n , “Legends”, p. 35.

is also the time when images of King Lalibäla first appear in art.81

This chronology suggests that for reasons still unclear, the kings of theZaguë dynasty, long branded by scholars as usurpers, were rehabilitated in thefifteenth century. This is the century when, as far as can be determined, thenames of the Zaguë kings Lalibäla, Neakkuto Leab, Yitbarek and Harbay (i.e.Gebre Maryam) were first included in the Ethiopian version of the Synaxarium,or Book of Saints.82 Their inclusion is a clear indication that they and theirdynasty were then acceptable to the Orthodox Church. This is also the centurywhen the lives of Lalibäla and Neakkuto Leab entered the literature as hagio-graphical texts,83 and the century when the name Lalibäla is first used to desig-nate the site of the rock-cut and monolithic churches which the Zaguës hadcalled Adefa or Roha.84 The evidence for the incorporation of the kings of theZaguë dynasty, and especially of King Lalibäla, into the mainstream ofEthiopian religious culture in the fifteenth century is overwhelming. Theprocess may have begun in the previous century when, for example, the authorsof the Kebra Nägäst gave Solomonic legitimacy to the Zaguë dynasty by trac-ing their descent to the handmaiden of the Queen of Sheba who, like the Queenherself, was impregnated by King Solomon.85

Michael Gervers

46

81 H e l d m a n , “Legends”, p. 33 & fig. 6.82 E.A.W. B u d g e , The Book of Saints (= Synaxary), 4 vols., London, 1928 (reprinted,

Hildesheim-New York, 1976), vol. 1, pp. xix-xx; v a n D o n z e l , “Ethiopia's Lalibäla”, pp. 35 &n. 57, 38. Heldman (“Legends”, p. 35) postpones the inclusion until the sixteenth century.

83 G e t a t c h e w Haile and Wm. F. M a c o m b e r , A Catalogue of Ethiopian ManuscriptsMicrofilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa and for the HillMonastic Manuscript Library, Collegeville, vol. 5, Collegeville, MN, 1981, pp. 121-22;Heldman, “Legends”, p. 33; M u n r o - H a y, Unknown Land, p. 190. The example in the BritishMuseum (Or. 719), which may be the oldest surviving copy, is dated to 1434 (C.W. W r i g h t , ed.,Catalogue of the Ethiopic manuscripts in the British Museum acquired since the year 1847,London, 1877, nos. 294 & 295. L e p a g e (“Le premier art”, p. 45) and v a n D o n z e l(“Ethiopia’s Lalibäla”, p. 28, n. 4) attribute King Lalibäla’s gadl to the fourteenth century.

84 In the second half of the twelfth century, and apparently as late as the fifteenth centurywhen the Gadla Yñmrähannä Krñstos was written, the site was known as Arafah/Adefa(M u n r o - H a y, Unknown Land, pp. 193-94). S e r g e w H.S. thought the change from anothername, Werwer, to Roha took place at some point early on in the construction of the site (EthiopianHistory, p. 273). On Roha/Warwar, see also H e l d m a n “Legends”, p. 29, and v a n D o n z e l ,“Ethiopia's Lalibäla”, pp. 34, 39. Monti della Corte notes that the first occurrence of Lalibäla as aplace name occurs as “Lalabedò” in the mappa mundi published by the Venetian Fra Mauro in1459 (Lalibelò, p. 21, n. 1).

85 v a n D o n z e l , “Ethiopia’s Lalibäla”, p. 38.

One may ask why this change which was so supportive of the Zaguë cameabout. There is no firm answer, but it could be suggested that it was related tothe long-standing controversy over the celebration of the double Sabbathwhich had been so disruptive throughout the land during most of the fourteenthcentury, and even before, only to be resolved to the satisfaction of the follow-ers of the monk Ewostatewos by King Zar’a Ya’qob at the Council of DäbräMetmaq in 1445.86 The reasoning behind this association lies in the textinscribed on a mänbärä tabot, now in the Church of Däbrä Sina, attributed toKing Lalibäla and designated by Gigar Tesfaye as “Golgotha 1”.87 This per-fectly preserved, lengthy inscription is consecrated to Sunday, “the sabbath ofthe Christians”.88 Such a statement of orthodoxy may possibly belong more tothe Alexandrian position of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than to aZaguë king of the early thirteenth, unless of course, the observance of Saturdaywas already rooted in the Zaguë period.89 This mänbärä tabot, together withfour others from the Däbrä Sina – Golgotha – Sellassie complex, two from theChurch of Mädhane Aläm and two from Betä Gabriel, are thought to have beenproduced in the early thirteenth century, but although they all bear the name of


47

86 P. P i o v a n e l l i , “Les controverses théologiques sous le roi Zar’a Ya’qob (1434-1468) etla mise en place du monophysisme éthiopien”, in : Alain Le B o u l l u e c , ed., La controversereligieuse et ses formes, Paris, 1995, pp. 189-228; Edward U l l e n d o r f f , The Ethiopians. AnIntroduction to Country and People, 2nd ed. London, 1965, p. 105; G e t a c h e w Haile,“Religious Controversies and Growth of Ethiopic Literature in the 14th and 15th Centuries”,Oriens Christianus, 65, 1981, pp. 102-36, esp. pp. 131-32; idem, “Ethiopian Saints”, in TheCoptic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, NY, 1991, pp. 1050-53; Ta d d e s s e , Church and State, pp. 206-47.

87 G i g a r , “Inscriptions”, pp. 114-19.88 G i g a r , “Inscriptions”, p. 108.89 Gianfrancesco L u s i n i argues that it does, noting that the spiritual father of Ewostatewos

(1273-1352) was Dan’el, abbot of Däbrä Maryam on Mount Qorqor, whom he met c. 1280. Hefurther argues that Dan’el, in turn, was the student of ‘Ebna Sanbat’, a name which he interprets tomean “Stone of the Sabbath” or “Son of the Sabbath”. “This name”, he writes, “leads one tobelieve it to be a clue to the existence of some controversy about the observance of the 'Sabbath'”around the middle of the thirteenth century; that is, during the period of Zaguë rule. Lusini refersto the inscription on the tabot published by Gigar Tesfaye as providing further evidence for “a pos-sible ‘Sabbathic’ controversy during the reign of Lalibala” (Gianfrancesco L u s i n i , “A newsource for the history of Gar’alta (Ethiopia). The “Life” of Dan’el of Dabra Maryam on MountQorqor (KRZ 36)”, Quaderni Utinensi, 8 (15-16), 1996 for 1990, pp. 345-352. See also: idem,Studi sul Monachesimo Eustaziano (secoli xiv-xv), Naples, 1993, pp. 27-28). If the inscriptiondoes date from Lalibäla’s reign, it may be that part of the king’s renown, and consequently hisrehabilitation a century or more later, can be attributed to his orthodox position.

King Lalibäla, there is nothing to prevent their having been made at a laterdate.90

One may suggest, therefore, that the kings of the Zaguë Dynasty were reha-bilitated by the Orthodox Church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries possi-bly in an attempt to counter the Tigrean heresy of Ewostathianism which at thatvery time was penetrating Lasta from the north. The Zaguë capital at Roha hadby then been abandoned as a centre of government, but the Axumite-style mono-liths and rock-cut churches remained and, like the foundation of St. James ofCompostella in Spain shortly after the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsulain the eighth century, circumstances encouraged their transformation into a cen-tre of orthodox pilgrimage. Apilgrimage site needs a saint, however and, possi-bly because he had some reputation as a supporter of orthodoxy, King Lalibälawas selected for this purpose. His relics were retrieved, or invented, and anespecially dark, mystical space was hastily carved out of the rock to house them.Lasta was former Zaguë territory and in the fourteenth century both the Churchand the monarchy may have sought to engender local support by promoting thememory of, and sanctifying, a popular Zaguë king who may himself have tri-umphed over an earlier wave of “Sabbathic” monasticism.

One need not insist upon this interpretation of the motivation which laybehind the sanctification of King Lalibäla and the creation of the Däbrä Sina -Golgotha – Sellassie complex, but it cannot be denied that the name of the kingwas introduced to the Synaxarium at about this time, and that the rock-cut com-plex incorporates architectural features and liturgical elements which postdatethose apparent in the other ecclesiastical monuments on the site. The period wit-nessed a vogue in the production of mänäbert tabot. These may include thosemade from wood and bearing invocations ascribed to the king, those in the verysame style carved as monoliths in the Sellassie Chapel (Fig. 8) and, the largestof them all, the so-called “Tomb of Adam” (Fig. 11) and the Church of BetäGiyorgis (Fig. 1) which, as David Buxton so aptly put it over forty years ago, “isnothing more nor less than a glorified portable altar (manbar)”.91 The character-istics, both decorative and architectural, which Betä Giyorgis holds in commonwith the churches, chapels and cells of the Däbrä Sina – Golgotha – Sellassiecomplex, make it quite clear that it is contemporary with them. The “Tomb of

Michael Gervers

48

90 G i g a r , “Inscriptions”; M u n r o - H a y, Unknown Land, p. 191. See also p. 27, n. 15above.

91 B u x t o n , “Ethiopian Medieval Architecture”, p. 243, n. 1.


49

Adam”, in turn, can be compared with the probably late medieval Tigrayan phe-nomenon of the monolithic mänbärä tabot, while the positioning of the cross onthe upper level of the south face recalls those on each of the monolithic altars inthe Sellassie Chapel. In this case, however, the shape of the cross suggests aneven later date, further confirmed by the fact that the lower half of this monolithextends below the floor level of the Golgotha complex, and was almost certain-ly fashioned out of the rock after its completion. As for the life-size relief sculp-tures in the Church of Golgotha, perhaps the figure wearing the bulbous turban(Fig. 15) is the abuna who sponsored the construction work, or maybe even thePatriarch of Alexandria who represented the orthodoxy which this holy sanctu-ary was created to promote.

gervers-zague-kings-dabra-sina-golgatha-complex-in-lalibela-2003.pdf

Documents

i n g h

p e r r u c h o n

h u n t i n g f o r

churches of dbr sina

gabriel s i

prester john

father francisco alvares

whileonly alvares