Constantinople & Marmara · 3 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourceatlas region / method
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 3 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Production evidence is strongest when museum records explicitly say Constantinople or probably Constantinople; monument profiles describe use in situ.
- Movement / provenance
- Movement is not inferred from capital association alone.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Object record: A ca. 1100 Constantinopolitan gold and cloisonné enamel pendant with Christ Pantokrator and the Virgin Hagiosoritissa. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Object record: Cloisonné-enamel panel made in Constantinople around 1100 and once part of a cover for an icon of the Virgin Hagiosoritissa. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Object record: Early-1300s Byzantine miniature-mosaic icon of the Virgin Eleousa, registered as a source-backed museum object. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Object record: Late-900s Byzantine ivory icon of the Koimesis, or Dormition of the Virgin, registered from the Met collection record. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Constantinople & Marmara · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- 4th–15th c. Byzantine core; records vary
- Production / use
- Object record: Mid-tenth-century Byzantine ivory Crucifixion panel, the surviving central portion of a triptych. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 6th c. onward; regional contexts vary
- Production / use
- Sinai profiles emphasize surviving icons/monuments; Egypt/Transjordan profiles capture regional evidence rather than a single production center.
- Movement / provenance
- Preservation outside Constantinople is not a movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 6th c. onward; regional contexts vary
- Production / use
- Sinai profiles emphasize surviving icons/monuments; Egypt/Transjordan profiles capture regional evidence rather than a single production center.
- Movement / provenance
- Preservation outside Constantinople is not a movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 6th c. onward; regional contexts vary
- Production / use
- Sinai profiles emphasize surviving icons/monuments; Egypt/Transjordan profiles capture regional evidence rather than a single production center.
- Movement / provenance
- Preservation outside Constantinople is not a movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 2 sourcesatlas region / method
- Chronology
- 6th c. onward; regional contexts vary
- Production / use
- Sinai profiles emphasize surviving icons/monuments; Egypt/Transjordan profiles capture regional evidence rather than a single production center.
- Movement / provenance
- Preservation outside Constantinople is not a movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 2 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- 6th c. onward; regional contexts vary
- Production / use
- Sinai profiles emphasize surviving icons/monuments; Egypt/Transjordan profiles capture regional evidence rather than a single production center.
- Movement / provenance
- Preservation outside Constantinople is not a movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- 6th c. onward; regional contexts vary
- Production / use
- Object record: Thirteenth-century Byzantine-or-Crusader icon from Egypt, preserved as explicit tempera-on-wood evidence in the Materials Laboratory. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- 6th c. onward; regional contexts vary
- Production / use
- Object record: Fifth- to sixth-century limestone lintel fragment bearing a Chi-Rho and Alpha-and-Omega symbolism. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Greece & Aegean · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- primarily Middle/Late Byzantine; site-specific
- Production / use
- Monument profiles are places of use/survival; the UNESCO three-monastery series is comparative.
- Movement / provenance
- No route among Daphni, Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni is inferred from shared typology.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Greece & Aegean · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- primarily Middle/Late Byzantine; site-specific
- Production / use
- Monument profiles are places of use/survival; the UNESCO three-monastery series is comparative.
- Movement / provenance
- No route among Daphni, Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni is inferred from shared typology.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Greece & Aegean · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- primarily Middle/Late Byzantine; site-specific
- Production / use
- Monument profiles are places of use/survival; the UNESCO three-monastery series is comparative.
- Movement / provenance
- No route among Daphni, Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni is inferred from shared typology.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Greece & Aegean · 3 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- primarily Middle/Late Byzantine; site-specific
- Production / use
- Monument profiles are places of use/survival; the UNESCO three-monastery series is comparative.
- Movement / provenance
- No route among Daphni, Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni is inferred from shared typology.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourceatlas region / method
- Chronology
- primarily Middle/Late Byzantine; site-specific
- Production / use
- Monument profiles are places of use/survival; the UNESCO three-monastery series is comparative.
- Movement / provenance
- No route among Daphni, Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni is inferred from shared typology.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourcenetwork model
- Chronology
- primarily Middle/Late Byzantine; site-specific
- Production / use
- Monument profiles are places of use/survival; the UNESCO three-monastery series is comparative.
- Movement / provenance
- No route among Daphni, Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni is inferred from shared typology.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Ravenna & Byzantine Italy · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- primarily 5th–8th c. Byzantine Italy context
- Production / use
- San Vitale and Ravenna are surviving use contexts, not automatic production locations for all related motifs.
- Movement / provenance
- Political/artistic contacts are source-backed; object movement is not invented.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Ravenna & Byzantine Italy · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- primarily 5th–8th c. Byzantine Italy context
- Production / use
- San Vitale and Ravenna are surviving use contexts, not automatic production locations for all related motifs.
- Movement / provenance
- Political/artistic contacts are source-backed; object movement is not invented.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Ravenna & Byzantine Italy · 1 sourceatlas region / method
- Chronology
- primarily 5th–8th c. Byzantine Italy context
- Production / use
- San Vitale and Ravenna are surviving use contexts, not automatic production locations for all related motifs.
- Movement / provenance
- Political/artistic contacts are source-backed; object movement is not invented.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Ravenna & Byzantine Italy · 1 sourcenetwork model
- Chronology
- primarily 5th–8th c. Byzantine Italy context
- Production / use
- San Vitale and Ravenna are surviving use contexts, not automatic production locations for all related motifs.
- Movement / provenance
- Political/artistic contacts are source-backed; object movement is not invented.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Ravenna & Byzantine Italy · 3 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- primarily 5th–8th c. Byzantine Italy context
- Production / use
- San Vitale and Ravenna are surviving use contexts, not automatic production locations for all related motifs.
- Movement / provenance
- Political/artistic contacts are source-backed; object movement is not invented.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Crete & Venice · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- late Byzantine and especially post-Byzantine/Venetian context
- Production / use
- Candia supports named icon-painter production evidence; Venice is a reception/market/artistic-contact context.
- Movement / provenance
- Specific object movement requires provenance; market reception does not prove a given icon travelled.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Crete & Venice · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- late Byzantine and especially post-Byzantine/Venetian context
- Production / use
- Candia supports named icon-painter production evidence; Venice is a reception/market/artistic-contact context.
- Movement / provenance
- Specific object movement requires provenance; market reception does not prove a given icon travelled.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Crete & Venice · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- late Byzantine and especially post-Byzantine/Venetian context
- Production / use
- Candia supports named icon-painter production evidence; Venice is a reception/market/artistic-contact context.
- Movement / provenance
- Specific object movement requires provenance; market reception does not prove a given icon travelled.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Crete & Venice · 2 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- late Byzantine and especially post-Byzantine/Venetian context
- Production / use
- Candia supports named icon-painter production evidence; Venice is a reception/market/artistic-contact context.
- Movement / provenance
- Specific object movement requires provenance; market reception does not prove a given icon travelled.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Crete & Venice · 3 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- late Byzantine and especially post-Byzantine/Venetian context
- Production / use
- Candia supports named icon-painter production evidence; Venice is a reception/market/artistic-contact context.
- Movement / provenance
- Specific object movement requires provenance; market reception does not prove a given icon travelled.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Georgia & Caucasus · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- especially 11th–12th c. enamel exchange context
- Production / use
- Constantinopolitan manufacture is asserted only where an object record says so or qualifies it.
- Movement / provenance
- The Djumati medallions carry a possible-gift hypothesis, not certain provenance.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Georgia & Caucasus · 2 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- especially 11th–12th c. enamel exchange context
- Production / use
- Constantinopolitan manufacture is asserted only where an object record says so or qualifies it.
- Movement / provenance
- The Djumati medallions carry a possible-gift hypothesis, not certain provenance.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Georgia & Caucasus · 2 sourcesatlas region / method
- Chronology
- especially 11th–12th c. enamel exchange context
- Production / use
- Constantinopolitan manufacture is asserted only where an object record says so or qualifies it.
- Movement / provenance
- The Djumati medallions carry a possible-gift hypothesis, not certain provenance.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Georgia & Caucasus · 2 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- especially 11th–12th c. enamel exchange context
- Production / use
- Constantinopolitan manufacture is asserted only where an object record says so or qualifies it.
- Movement / provenance
- The Djumati medallions carry a possible-gift hypothesis, not certain provenance.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Georgia & Caucasus · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- especially 11th–12th c. enamel exchange context
- Production / use
- Object record: Cloisonné-enamel medallion of Saint George made in Constantinople around 1100 and originally belonging to an icon frame. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Kyivan Rus’ · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- late 10th–13th c. core context
- Production / use
- Saint Sophia combines local builders and Byzantine masters; local luxury objects show adaptation of courtly forms.
- Movement / provenance
- The adoption of Christianity and local production are not treated as a single object-movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Kyivan Rus’ · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- late 10th–13th c. core context
- Production / use
- Saint Sophia combines local builders and Byzantine masters; local luxury objects show adaptation of courtly forms.
- Movement / provenance
- The adoption of Christianity and local production are not treated as a single object-movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Kyivan Rus’ · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- late 10th–13th c. core context
- Production / use
- Saint Sophia combines local builders and Byzantine masters; local luxury objects show adaptation of courtly forms.
- Movement / provenance
- The adoption of Christianity and local production are not treated as a single object-movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Kyivan Rus’ · 3 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- late 10th–13th c. core context
- Production / use
- Saint Sophia combines local builders and Byzantine masters; local luxury objects show adaptation of courtly forms.
- Movement / provenance
- The adoption of Christianity and local production are not treated as a single object-movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Kyivan Rus’ · 2 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- late 10th–13th c. core context
- Production / use
- Saint Sophia combines local builders and Byzantine masters; local luxury objects show adaptation of courtly forms.
- Movement / provenance
- The adoption of Christianity and local production are not treated as a single object-movement route.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Kyivan Rus’ · 1 sourceverified object
- Chronology
- late 10th–13th c. core context
- Production / use
- Object record: Eleventh- to twelfth-century Kyivan Rus’ temple pendant with male saints, executed in cloisonné enamel and gold. Production place is taken only from explicit museum/graph evidence; current collection is a separate present-location state.
- Movement / provenance
- BIU010 does not infer medieval movement from current museum ownership. Any gift/provenance hypothesis must be carried by an explicit source-backed network record.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Balkans & Athos · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- 11th c. onward; monument-specific
- Production / use
- Nerezi/Studenica are local monument evidence; Athos is an enduring monastic/artistic center.
- Movement / provenance
- No single route across the Balkans is inferred.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Balkans & Athos · 2 sourcesmonument/place
- Chronology
- 11th c. onward; monument-specific
- Production / use
- Nerezi/Studenica are local monument evidence; Athos is an enduring monastic/artistic center.
- Movement / provenance
- No single route across the Balkans is inferred.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Balkans & Athos · 1 sourcemonument/place
- Chronology
- 11th c. onward; monument-specific
- Production / use
- Nerezi/Studenica are local monument evidence; Athos is an enduring monastic/artistic center.
- Movement / provenance
- No single route across the Balkans is inferred.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Balkans & Athos · 2 sourcesatlas region / method
- Chronology
- 11th c. onward; monument-specific
- Production / use
- Nerezi/Studenica are local monument evidence; Athos is an enduring monastic/artistic center.
- Movement / provenance
- No single route across the Balkans is inferred.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Later Orthodox / Russian Reception · 2 sourcesnetwork model
- Chronology
- 16th c. onward reception context
- Production / use
- This family is not used to redetermine medieval production places.
- Movement / provenance
- Later reception is not retrojected into Kyivan Rus’ provenance.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Later Orthodox / Russian Reception · 1 sourcenetwork model
- Chronology
- 16th c. onward reception context
- Production / use
- This family is not used to redetermine medieval production places.
- Movement / provenance
- Later reception is not retrojected into Kyivan Rus’ provenance.
Boundary: Map position, proximity or visual similarity never creates a transmission edge. Follow the named source and explicit relationship records.
Anatolia & Cappadocia · 1 sourceregional context
- Chronology
- 4th c.–13th c.; emphasis 8th–13th
- Production / use
- Regional use/monastic image practice; no single workshop is inferred.
- Movement / provenance
- No object movement route is inferred from the region alone.
Boundary: Modern regional grouping does not create influence or production edges.
Anatolia & Cappadocia · 1 sourcemonument landscape
- Chronology
- post-842 Byzantine emphasis
- Production / use
- Monument/site evidence, not a portable-object production attribution.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement/provenance route is inferred.
Boundary: The UNESCO property covers a wider Cappadocian landscape; BIU does not collapse all sites into Göreme.
Anatolia & Cappadocia · 1 sourcemonument
- Chronology
- 10th century
- Production / use
- Surviving monument context; no workshop attribution in BIU014.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement claim.
Boundary: BIU014 relies on UNESCO’s monument/date framing only.
Anatolia & Cappadocia · 1 sourcemonument
- Chronology
- late 12th–early 13th century
- Production / use
- Surviving monument context; no workshop attribution in BIU014.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement claim.
Boundary: BIU014 does not infer specific iconographic programs beyond the UNESCO source.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourcelate Byzantine city / artistic center
- Chronology
- 1262–1460; artistic zenith 14th–15th c.
- Production / use
- Urban/church production context; not one workshop.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement route is inferred from the city alone.
Boundary: Influence is retained only where UNESCO explicitly states it; proximity does not create routes.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourcemonument
- Chronology
- c. 1310
- Production / use
- Monument-specific context only.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement claim.
Boundary: Date and artistic context follow the UNESCO property statement.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourcemonument
- Chronology
- 1350–1365
- Production / use
- Monument-specific context only.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement claim.
Boundary: BIU014 does not infer specific workshop movement.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourcemonument
- Chronology
- third quarter 14th century
- Production / use
- Monument-specific context only.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement claim.
Boundary: BIU014 keeps site-level chronology separate from broad Renaissance framing.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourcemonument
- Chronology
- c. 1430
- Production / use
- Monument-specific context only.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement claim.
Boundary: BIU014 keeps later use and restoration separate from original dating.
Sinai & Eastern Mediterranean · 1 sourceobject production place
- Chronology
- 500–650 object context
- Production / use
- Production place is explicitly supplied by the museum object record.
- Movement / provenance
- The surviving museum object’s later provenance is not reconstructed from its production place.
Boundary: A single treasure does not establish a regional workshop network.
Greece & Aegean · 1 sourcerepresented narrative place
- Chronology
- early 15th c. object context / biblical-saint narrative
- Production / use
- This is represented narrative place, not the panel’s production place.
- Movement / provenance
- No movement route is inferred from the scene setting.
Boundary: Do not equate depicted Patmos with object provenance.
