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

by

Michael Gervers

The Zaguë capital, Lalibäla, with its twelve rock-cut and monolithic sites designated as churches, has received more attention in travel and scholarly literature than any other medieval place in Ethiopia. The churches known as Däbrä Sina and Golgotha (Fig. A) have been considered of primary importance within the rock-cut complex since it was first described in western literature by the Portuguese priest, Father Francisco Alvares, following his visit in 1521.[1] He describes ten churches[2] in considerable detail, and ends by saying “I weary of writing more about these buildings, because it seems to me that I shall 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 artistica indiscussa”.[4]

A third important component is the small, totally rock-cut structure described 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 aisle (Fig. A:H). It is, in fact, no more a crypt than any other rock-cut monument in Lalibäla because it is on the same underground level as the Däbrä Sina and Golgotha churches, and has no vertical link to the surface. It is, however, an exceptionally dark spot, since natural light comes only through a single, small window in the SW corner, and is held to be such a holy place that few people outside the superior ranks of the priesthood have ever been granted access to it. The first non-ecclesiastics known to have entered this chapel were Italians in 1939, who shortly afterwards provided detailed descriptions.[5] According to the Memhir with whom Beatrice Playne spoke in 1946 or 1948, this sacrilege took place “at the point of a pistol”.[6] Since that time, access has occasionally been afforded to laymen, [7] who have described the Däbrä Sina– Golgotha – Sellassie complex as “Lalibala’s most secret and holiest place”[8] and the Sellassie chapel as “the place of greatest sanctity in Lalibela”.[9] Bianchi Barriviera considered the tri-partite unit as unique “and perhaps the most important for the study of monolithic churches”.[10]

THEORETICAL INTERPRETATIONS AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS

The unique nature of the rock-cut monuments in Lalibäla, together with their sanctity and, especially in the case of the Sellassie Chapel, its secrecy, has led some scholars to go well beyond the evidence in their attempts to interpret the “meaning” of the site as a whole.  Two particularly imaginative examples come to mind, the first being the widely distributed work of Irmgard Bidder. In Lalibela, The Monolithic Churches of Ethiopia, published in 1958, she theorized that the structures as we know them today are reworked versions of ancient sanctuaries originally devoted to nature worship. This line of reasoning led her to many quite fantastic conclusions, not the least of which was her overall view of the cosmology of the site. It was, she thought, the physical expression of a creation myth. She considered the churches in three groups, the first concentrated in the NE section, near the monolithic church of Betä Emanuel. They, she wrote, represented the “Womb of the Earth”. The second group, concentrated around the Grave or the Church of Golgotha in the NW section, represented “the form and the idea of the stele projected horizontally into the rock’s surface”; in other words the impregnating phallus. The remaining unit, the single church of Betä Giyorgis to the SE, expressed “logically the idea of the ‘Offspring of Heaven 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 from Monti della Corte”) and cited for its descriptions and illustrations.

Another comprehensive hypothesis was proposed by the much regretted Jacqueline Pirenne in her paper “La signification symbolique des églises de Lalibéla, à partir des inscriptions découvertes en 1980-1983”, delivered at the Eighth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies in 1984.[12] Inspired by the discovery and publication by Gigar Tesfaye of four inscriptions engraved on fragments of wood and bearing the theme of Christ’s Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, and of the invocations inscribed on ten mänäbert tabot of which nine were attributed to King Lalibäla,[13] she concluded that the excavated site, for which she gave credit to the king alone, represented a mystical commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John.[14] Much of her argument derived from the association of each tabot with a specific church (identified by similarities in the decorative elements common to both the tabot and church), and from her absolute conviction that the attributions to King Lalibäla were original and correct. However, Stuart Munro-Hay has recently expressed serious doubts about the matter, suggesting that the mänäbert tabot may be no more than “pious forgeries dating from a subsequent phase”, and pointing out that even if they are the Zaguë monarch’s work, “they do no more than indicate that King Lalibela took an interest in the churches – they are far from proof that he had all, or any of them, constructed.”[15]

            The idea that King Lalibäla might not have been responsible for all, or indeed 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 to Bidder’s theories to find precedents for rock-cut religious architecture in the highlands of Ethiopia. In 1972, Taddesse Tamrat proposed that the Zaguë king, Yəmrehänna Krəstos, was responsible for introducing the phenomenon in the mid-twelfth century,[17] while Claude Lepage  suggested simultaneously that the rupestrian “églises de vallée” in Tigray, such as Degum, were totally Axumite in their rendition, that they very clearly preceded the examples from Lasta, and that some of them might well have been executed as early as the seventh century.[18]  There is no absolute proof either way, but there can be no question that Axumite elements appear to a greater or lesser degree in the rock-cut churches of Ethiopia, and that proportionately more of them can be found in the churches of Tigray, the traditional centre of Axumite power and influence, than in Lasta and regions to the south.

THE EXCAVATION OF LALIBÄLA’S ROCK-CUT CHURCHES

Developing a chronology for Ethiopia’s rock-cut ecclesiastical heritage is essential and scholars like Lepage, and David Buxton before him,[19] have paved the way through their sometimes meticulous analysis of the physical make-up of these monuments and of the perceptible similarities and differences among them. One must exercise caution in attempting to determine the age of a rock-cut or monolithic structure, however, because unlike a built counterpart, one cannot trace its history back any further than its visible surfaces.  Any earlier stage of construction is by necessity removed forever by the workman’s chisel. As a consequence, it is impossible to determine whether the rock-cut monuments 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 they were all constructed under the aegis of King Lalibäla in the twenty-two or twenty-four year period Alvares understood it took to make them.[20] Certainly, the job could have been done in that time, for the tufa from which the monuments were cut would not have been particularly difficult to excavate before it was exposed to the air;[21] yet the structures display a sufficiently wide range of architectural and stylistic differences to make it doubtful that they all belong to such a short period of time. Buxton has suggested that Lalibäla represents “a museum of church types”,[22] but while that may actually be the case it can hardly have been the original objective of its constructors. One may also wonder for what purpose they carved out the complex in the NE section of the site. In comparison with the structures in the NW section, only Betä Emmanuel and Betä Libanos are oriented; the others may once have served for civil purposes and should probably not be considered in terms of ecclesiastical architecture at all.[23] We remember that the fifteenth-century gadle of King Lalibäla reports that the angel of the Lord instructed the king to build ten churches.[24] Eleven dedications are actually cited, but Betä Lehem is not included among them, quite probably because it was not a church at the time. There is, furthermore, the possibility, alluded to by several 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 in Ethiopian rock-cut architecture and the relative antiquity of any given site, then Betä Maryam (Figs. B/E:O), Abba Libanos, and Betä Emmanuel, and perhaps in its enlarged formula, Medhane Alem, represent the most conventional type among the churches of Lalibäla. Excluding Betä Merqorios, Betä Gabriel and Betä Lehem, which are not oriented and which may as a consequence never have been conceived as churches,[26] the least “Axumite” of the ecclesiastical structures in Lalibäla are those of the Däbrä-Sina - Golgotha – Sellassie complex, and Betä Giyorgis. They in fact appear to disregard Axumite traditions almost entirely, notwithstanding the non-functional transversals in the entrance door and lower range of windows at Betä Giyorgis (Fig. 1).[27] The absence of long-established forms suggests that these monuments were carved at a time when those traditions were no longer considered essential in church construction; that is, at a date following the creation of Betä Maryam and others of its type. In terms of the ground plan alone, that so-called Axumite type consisted of a central square divided into three aisles by two sets of two pillars contained in a rectangular frame (Fig. B:O).[28] At each end of the central square this frame incorporated a tripartite division of space corresponding to the layout of the three aisles. 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 sanctuary and/or the side aisles, which served as sacristies.  At the west end, a central entrance vestibule was situated between two chambers, with access to the northern chamber from the vestibule and to the southern from the south aisle. In addition to the west entrance, there were northern and southern ones which opened into the westernmost bay of the central square. This is precisely the formula found at Betä Emmanuel and Betä Libanos,[29] and very close to that of Betä Maryam which is otherwise distinguished by two additional pillars, one in front of 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 complex is through the south or west portals of Däbrä Sina (Fig. A). The interior measurements of Däbrä Sina are approximately 9.50m E-W and 8.50m N-S. The church is divided into three aisles by two rows of four cruciform columns which support arches rising to a height at mid-point of about 3.4m. The flat ceiling is 5m high.[30] Unlike the examples described above, there are no chambers in the four corners of Däbrä Sina. The pillars at the east and west corners of the central square are free-standing, not engaged, thereby doubling the usual number from four to eight. In another divergence from Axumite principles, the east end, which is wholly occupied by the sanctuary, is accessed from the north and south aisles by a step rising from the back of the first set of pillars, and from the nave by a double step rising between the second set of pillars (Figs. A/C:A).[31] As a result, the clergy have a considerably larger space for their use during the celebration 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 is known as the Church of Golgotha (Figs. A/C/D:B & C, 2). Compared to other churches in Lalibäla, and noticeably to Däbrä Sina, this is a poor structure, badly wrought, yet considered to be among the holiest places on the site because it houses the so-called “Tomb of Christ” and, supposedly, the remains of King Lalibäla himself (Figs. A/C/D: F,G).  Its 10.7m E-W length is separated into two aisles by three cruciform piers. The total width measures approximately 6m. The north aisle is wider than its southern counterpart, suggesting that the original intention may have been to create a tri-partite structure with a nave broader than each of two flanking aisles. Certainly, compared to the southern wall, the northern wall is rough and unfinished, leaving the impression that it was hastily prepared. An entablature in low relief carries around the south, east and west walls at the point where, on the pilasters, arches spring from bracket capitals to corresponding brackets on the three central piers (Fig. D). Arches also link the piers 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 19^th-century, run along the south wall at the level of brackets and capitals. A greenish-blue rectangle surrounded by a triple frame of bands in the order of yellow, red and yellow, covers the north face of the pilaster capital standing to the east of the door connecting Golgotha to Däbrä Sina in the third bay. The bracket above it is painted in an unsuccessful attempt to create a Greek meander. The pier below bears a representation of a female saint in frontal position. The western wall, reached by a step which in the north aisle is broad enough to serve as a plinth (Fig. A:E), is pierced by windows on 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 north and south walls to meet at the central row of piers.  The entablature separates these openings from five cruciform windows which pierce the wall below, two in the south aisle and three in the broader north aisle. Each of the five windows is itself set back into the top of a vertical recess which stands between the raised floor and the entablature.

At the opposite end of the interior, in the NE corner, the first bay of the north aisle rises three steps above the floor of the church. A blind archway in the east wall of this bay may have been intended to contain a monumental standing figure in relief, but nothing can be discerned from available photographs.[32] A final transversal arch rises above it from within the wall creating a blind 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, facing 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 over his chest and he wears a short, thigh-length tunic. The face is without features and was either unfinished or rendered purposely thus. An angel stands in relief at his feet; if there was once one also at his head, as postulated by Barriviera,[33] it was not visible to this writer.[34]

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

In the spaces between the pilasters along the north and south walls of Golgotha are five larger-than-life-sized figures standing in relief within blind arches (Figs. A/C/D:2-6,  5).[37]  Those in the north wall appear, like the wall itself, to be unfinished (Fig. 6). Each is identified as a saint by inscriptions on the front of the arches, but since these inscriptions are only lightly incised and the letters unevenly distributed along the curve of the arch, it is generally thought that they were added at a later date.[38] Similar arches over the narrow doorways leading from the south aisle into the NE corner of the Church of Däbrä Sina on the one hand and into the Jesus Cell on the other, suggested to Barriviera that two more saintly figures in relief may once have stood below them, but that these were lost when the doorways were cut through.[39]

THE JESUS CELL

Two doorways open from the SE corner or first bay of the south aisle, one leading through the south wall into a small chamber measuring 2 x 1.3m known as the Jesus cell (Fig. A:D) and the other through the east wall to the Sellassie Chapel. The Jesus cell is linked to the east end of the north aisle of Däbrä Sina by a small aperture in its SW corner. A modest window with a pointed arch looks out from high in the wall of the SE corner over the deep rock-cut passage which delimits the east end of Däbrä Sina. An interior frieze is said to be decorated with leaves similar to those which extend like swans’ necks out of the upper frame of the broken arch on the exterior wall (Figs. A:J, 7).[40] According to Barriviera, this cell formerly contained a tabot.[41]

THE SELLASSIE CHAPEL

The Sellassie chapel is a rough trapezoid measuring 6.5m wide at the east end 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). A single, 60cm-square, 5.4m-high pillar rises on the central axis about a third of the way into the room. It has no capital, but brackets support wide ribs which cross transversely and longitudinally above it. A 40cm-high step, or plinth, leads eastwards out of the base of the pillar for a distance of 1.5m, whereupon it intersects with, and continues a step higher than, three well-delineated steps leading up to a platform which extends on a slight convex curve from one side of the room to the other. In the centre of the platform and directly in line with 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 horizontally with crosses incised at the upper level on each of the four faces. Anthropomorphic symbols of the four beasts of the Apocalypse, with arms raised 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 wall behind the central monolith is a 2.7m high niche surmounted by an arch.[43] The niche, 1.4m wide, is stepped on three levels at the bottom, increasingly recessed to a depth of 1.1m before the springing of the arch.  In a blind arch on the north side of this central niche, directly behind its corresponding monolithic altar, a larger-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 is encircled with a nimbus containing a cross in the top centre. Monte della Corte’s description of this head as that of an ox, although true, has been much derided by subsequent commentators.[44] The decoration on the drapery of this figure seems somewhat more elaborate than on the well-preserved figures along the south wall of Golgotha, but all would appear to be contemporary. The figure intended for the south side is represented only by a small fold of drapery in the lower left corner of the space delineated by the arch, apparently all that the sculptor achieved before his work was definitively interrupted.

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

RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE COMPLEX

The Däbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex is certainly unique among the Lalibäla churches in its structure and composition, devoid as it is of nearly every traditional characteristic of Axumite-style architecture. The absence of corner chambers in Däbrä Sina is a new departure in church construction, with eight piers instead of four (Fig. A), thus creating an open interior space considerably 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 complex when the Church of Däbrä Sina was conceived. On the contrary, the narrowness of the two doorways in the north wall of Däbrä Sina which are the only means of entry to Golgotha, suggests they were cut at a time when the architectural vocabulary of the former had already been established. Golgotha itself, with three free-standing piers, only two aisles and also devoid of corner chambers, is even less conventional in its conception than Däbrä Sina. Its construction 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 monuments in Lalibäla, was the Sellassie Chapel. It must have followed the completion of Golgotha because it can only be entered through the doorway at the east end of Golgotha’s south aisle; and it must have followed the excavation of the Jesus cell as its SW corner is excavated on an angle in order not to cut into and obliterate the cell’s east wall. Thus, there is a very clear progression in the construction of the complex. As Däbrä Sina is the oldest of the group and already devoid of Axumite features, it is not surprising that such features are also totally absent from the rest. There are no transversals (square “monkey heads”), typical of Axumite architecture, to be found in any of the doors and windows. The windows from the exterior are barely framed, if at all, and the relief of those which are decorated is shallow (Fig. E). There is, furthermore, no consistency between the shapes of the windows in Däbrä Sina and those in Golgotha, not to mention the two with highly stylized meandering fronds which distinguish the Jesus cell and Sellassie Chapel from the others (Fig. 7). They, too, could have been cut as an afterthought. The amount of light they let through is minimal and their placement is entirely utilitarian. These windows can, therefore, be considered to be among the newest of the new.

THE AXUMITE “WINDOW”

Not to be overlooked when considering the windows of the complex is the Axumite doorway opening onto the top of the deep trench delineating the west exterior wall of the Church of Golgotha (Figs. B/E/F:Q, 11). This doorway, described in the literature as a “balcone”[47] and understood to be a window, stands at the western extremity of a corridor which is directly in line with the E-W axis of the Church of Betä Maryam, and which opens through a double portal into the courtyard before the west façade of that church (Figs. B/C/E/F:M). The corridor is now open to the elements, but it is very likely that it was once a rock-cut passage and that the roof collapsed. It is also probable that this corridor served as the principal access to Betä Maryam before the deep trench surrounding the Däbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex was cut.[48] That would have been even before the carving out of the so-called “Tomb of Adam” onto which the Axumite doorway looks (Figs. A/B/E/F:K, 11). It is, in fact, almost certain that this trench was once far shallower and that formerly it was the principal link between the river now known as the Jordan and the entrance to Betä Maryam.  At that time the site was still designated as Roha, presumably derived from al-Ruha, the Arabic name for the ancient riverine town of Edessa in Asia Minor. Edessa is a Macedonian term referring to “abundant water”. [49] It has recently been argued that 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 lie behind 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 solitary witness to the Betä Maryam site before the excavation of the present deep trenches leading both to the river and around what subsequently became the Däbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex.

THE CHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXT FOR THE GOLGOTHA COMPLEX

If the concept and aspects of the architectural and decorative details of the Däbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex are unique to Lalibäla, they are not unique to Ethiopia. In his consideration of the chronological development of ecclesiastical architecture, and especially of rock-cut ecclesiastical architecture in Ethiopia, Claude Lepage noted already thirty years ago that there was a clear progression from late Axumite (or early Zaguë),[51] to various stages of Axumite-influenced, and then to post-Axumite styles. Among the first, he refers to what he calls the “églises de vallée” of which an early example is Degum;[52] the second, to Berakit, Čerqos Wuqro, Abreha-Asbeha and Mikael Amba,[53] which relate to the churches built in caves by the Zaguë and which (with the exception of the possibly contemporary Berakit) precede the late Zaguë monoliths in Lalibäla;[54] and third, to the post-Zaguë period which saw the construction of such rock-cut churches as Enda Maryam Wuqro (Amba Sanayt) and May Kado Giyorgis  in Tigray in the late-thirteenth to early fourteenth century and thereafter.[55] The latter are of particular significance in the present study because both have a raised, central sanctuary containing a monolithic mänbärä tabot and a raised platform in the NE corner. In the case of May Kado, this platform contains a monolithic altar, while at Enda Maryam a similar altar is situated in a room of modest dimensions entered from the north side of the central sanctuary.[56] The west faces of both bear a cross in relief closely resembling those in the upper sections of the three monolithic altars in the Sellassie Chapel (Figs. 8, 12). The raised position of the NE corner 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 an extension of the sanctuary. The monolithic altar in May Kado confirms this employ. It has already been proposed that the Sellassie Chapel in Lalibäla, although constructed at a somewhat later date, served as a sanctuary for the Church of Golgotha. The central sanctuaries with monolithic mänäbert tabot 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 in Maryam Wuqro which may have served the same purpose as the arcosolium containing the “body” of the Dead Christ in Golgotha.[57] Such similarities do not presuppose a direct influence between these arguably post-Axumite style churches in Tigray and the Däbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex at Lalibäla in Lasta, but they do have enough in common to suggest that they are related chronologically. Fundamental to this argument is the presence of the raised sanctuary, a feature common to all of the aforementioned structures, as well as to Lalibäla Betä Giyorgis. Lepage’s proposed late thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century date for the Tigrayan monuments is difficult to confirm, but the reduction, or total absence, of Axumite architectural elements and traditions in all of these churches does point to a post-Axumite period for their excavation in the rock.[58]

THE MONOLITHIC ALTAR

The presence of monolithic altars is of prime importance to the argument for the particularly late construction of the Sellassie Chapel. Their appearance at Maryam Wuqro and May Kado Giyorgis in the context of the raised sanctuary has already been mentioned, but there are many more in Tigray and the more one looks the more one finds. Of fourteen examples cited here, it is certain that ten churches have a monolithic altar or mänbärä tabot in the central part of the sanctuary.[59] If there is a second altar, and there often is, it is usually to be found in the NE corner of the church,[60] confirming Lepage’s assessment of the ceremonial importance and sanctity of this part of the monument.[61] Abba Yohanni has a monolithic altar at the east end of each of its three aisles (Fig. 13). Altars of this type in the SE corner of Iyyesus Wanza and Mikael Barka suggest that each may also have a total of three. Iyyesus Wanza contains interior features remarkably close to those at Däbrä Seyon, which also contains a monolithic altar and is dated to the period 1382-1411.[62] In chronological terms, churches with only one monolithic 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 of the 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 monolithic altars on the same plane to the north and/or south of the central sanctuary, as at Enda Maryam Wuqro, Mikael Barka and Tselal Moo, may either be later extensions 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 altars coincided with the enlargement of the sanctuary area to the full width of the church, as was probably the case for Abba Yohanni. At Abräha Atsbäha, an altar constructed 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 in the central sanctuary area of some churches may well belong to the latest period of development, and in some cases have been introduced as an eastward extension 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 or mänbärä tabot place them between the late thirteenth century (starting with the reign of Yekuno Amlak, 1270-1285) and the early fifteenth century;[65] that is, to the post-Zaguë period. Significantly, the one church known to have three such monoliths is Abba Yohanni, a late structure believed to bear the name of the fourteenth-century Abba Yohanni whose Vita was composed in the fifteenth century by Menas IV, bishop of Axum.[66] Seen in this context, the three carefully worked monolithic altars in the Sellassie Chapel would appear to be the high point of this rupestrian development which, probably in the late fourteenth to early fifteenth 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 of the Church of Golgotha and the Sellassie Chapel of larger than life-sized relief sculptures representing holy figures (Figs. A/C/D:1-6, 5, 6), and of the recumbent figure in the arcosolium in the NE corner of Golgotha said to represent the Dead Christ (Figs. A/C/D:G, 3, 4). All those who have studied them comment that they are unique not only in Lalibäla, but in Ethiopia as a whole. While the identity of the standing figures remains uncertain, there can be no doubt that they represent saints since all but one has a nimbus. That exception is the most frequently reproduced because not only is the relief in nearly perfect condition, standing below the small window opening into the Church of Däbrä Sina in the centre 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, but since, as was mentioned before, the inscriptions do seem to have been added later, this information may probably be disregarded. Furthermore, the presence of a turban rather than a nimbus suggests that the figure is not meant to represent a saint, but instead a high ecclesiastical official. It is also notable that this relief is small in comparison to the others, perhaps to indicate a figure of lesser stature than a saint. Such differences do detract from the theories that these reliefs represent the Nine Saints or the Twelve Apostles.[68] Elsewhere, from a chronological viewpoint, the introduction of oriental dress goes hand in hand with the rise of the Ottoman Turks and the spread of their empire in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Ethiopian Court had adopted Turkish court costume with narrow sleeves by the sixteenth century and in 1628 Almeida recorded that “Rich men have [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 of Abba Yemata at Guh (Gäralta, Tigray), perhaps the closest in style to the Golgotha figure, have been attributed broadly to the fifteenth to seventeenth century (Fig. 16).[70]

All scholars note that the reliefs are unusual. Sergew Hable Sellassie points out that “the usage of statues in the church is not at all a practice of the Ethiopian church nor of the Orient in general. It is reminiscent of the western practice.”[71] Similarly, Jules Leroy finds the presence of these “sculptures animés” to be “un fait très rare et contraire à la pratique générale des chrétientés orientales”,[72] and comments with reference to the recumbent figure that in a western context the representation of the Entombment in churches does not become widespread until the fifteenth century.[73] Lepage compares their style to examples in “divers manuscrits bien datés” of c. 1400.[74]  The general consensus points to a fifteenth century date for these reliefs.[75] A postquam date is provided by Alvares who reported seeing two of them in 1521.[76]

SOLOMONIC REHABILITATION OF THE ZAGUË DYNASTY

Despite the presence of the relief sculptures, the Church of Golgotha is hardly a burial place fit for a thirteenth-century Zaguë king, not comparable in quality with such other churches in Lalibäla, as for example Betä Maryam, or even Däbrä Sina. Had King Lalibäla chosen his own burial place, one might have thought that he would have provided something better for himself. But if the evidence here is correctly interpreted, there is little possibility that the Church of Golgotha even existed at the time of the king’s death, and obviously even less that he was buried next to the symbolic tomb of Christ when that tomb with its recumbent effigy may not have been fashioned from the rock for up to two centuries 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 has been referred to as Lalibäla’s tomb.[78] Furthermore, it has been recently argued that it was only from the fourteenth century that the churches at Lalibäla began to be ascribed to the king in Ethiopian sources,[79] and not until the fifteenth century that “pilgrimage to the tomb of Lalibela developed”.[80] The fifteenth century 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 the Zaguë dynasty, long branded by scholars as usurpers, were rehabilitated in the fifteenth century. This is the century when, as far as can be determined, the names 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 their dynasty were then acceptable to the Orthodox Church. This is also the century when the lives of Lalibäla and Neakkuto Leab entered the literature as hagiographical texts,[83] and the century when the name Lalibäla is first used to designate the site of the rock-cut and monolithic churches which the Zaguës had called Adefa or Roha.[84] The evidence for the incorporation of the kings of the Zaguë dynasty, and especially of King Lalibäla, into the mainstream of Ethiopian religious culture in the fifteenth century is overwhelming. The process may have begun in the previous century when, for example, the authors of the Kebra Nägäst gave Solomonic legitimacy to the Zaguë dynasty by tracing their descent to the handmaiden of the Queen of Sheba who, like the Queen herself, was impregnated by King Solomon.[85]

One may ask why this change which was so supportive of the Zaguë came about. There is no firm answer, but it could be suggested that it was related to the long-standing controversy over the celebration of the double Sabbath which had been so disruptive throughout the land during most of the fourteenth century, and even before, only to be resolved to the satisfaction of the followers of the monk Ewostatewos by King Zar’a Ya’qob at the Council of Däbrä Metmaq in 1445.[86] The reasoning behind this association lies in the text inscribed on a mänbära tabot, now in the Church of Däbrä Sina, attributed to King Lalibäla and designated by Gigar Tesfaye as “Golgotha 1”.[87] This perfectly preserved, lengthy inscription is consecrated to Sunday, “the sabbath of the Christians”.[88]  Such a statement of orthodoxy may possibly belong more to the Alexandrian position of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than to a Zaguë king of the early thirteenth, unless of course, the observance of Saturday was already rooted in the Zaguë period.[89] This mänbära tabot, together with four others from the Däbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex, two from the Church of Mädhane Aläm and two from Betä Gabriel, are thought to have been produced in the early thirteenth century, but although they all bear the name of King Lalibäla, there is nothing to prevent their having been made at a later date.[90]

One may suggest, therefore, that the kings of the Zaguë Dynasty were rehabilitated by the Orthodox Church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries possibly in an attempt to counter the Tigrean heresy of Ewostathianism which at that very time was penetrating Lasta from the north. The Zaguë capital at Roha had by then been abandoned as a centre of government, but the Axumite-style monoliths and rock-cut churches remained and, like the foundation of St. James of Compostella in Spain shortly after the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in the eighth century, circumstances encouraged their transformation into a centre of orthodox pilgrimage. A pilgrimage site needs a saint, however and, possibly because he had some reputation as a supporter of orthodoxy, King Lalibäla was selected for this purpose. His relics were retrieved, or invented, and an especially 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 Church and the monarchy may have sought to engender local support by promoting the memory of, and sanctifying, a popular Zaguë king who may himself have triumphed over an earlier wave of “Sabbathic” monasticism.

One need not insist upon this interpretation of the motivation which lay behind 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 king was introduced to the Synaxarium at about this time, and that the rock-cut complex incorporates architectural features and liturgical elements which postdate those apparent in the other ecclesiastical monuments on the site. The period witnessed a vogue in the production of mänäbert tabot. These may include those made from wood and bearing invocations ascribed to the king, those in the very same style carved as monoliths in the Sellassie Chapel (Fig. 8) and, the largest of them all, the so-called “Tomb of Adam” (Fig. 11) and the Church of Betä Giyorgis (Fig. 1) which, as David Buxton so aptly put it over forty years ago, “is nothing more nor less than a glorified portable altar (manbar)”.[91] The characteristics, both decorative and architectural, which Betä Giyorgis holds in common with the churches, chapels and cells of the Däbrä Sina-Golgotha-Sellassie complex, make it quite clear that it is contemporary with them. The “Tomb of Adam”, in turn, can be compared with the probably late medieval Tigrayan phenomenon of the monolithic mänbärä tabot, while the positioning of the cross on the upper level of the south face recalls those on each of the monolithic altars in the Sellassie Chapel. In this case, however, the shape of the cross suggests an even later date, further confirmed by the fact that the lower half of this monolith extends below the floor level of the Golgotha complex, and was almost certainly fashioned out of the rock after its completion. As for the life-size relief sculptures 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 the Patriarch of Alexandria who represented the orthodoxy which this holy sanctuary was created to promote.