The Armenian Architecture of the 10th to 13th Century Renaissance: Regional Schools and the Case of Haghbat
Paolo Cuneo
Armenian architecture is an unseparable unity, with common fixed characteristics in time and space which make it unique and recognizable among all the contemporary architectural productions of the surrounding regions.
This is especially true for its formative and classical periods, from the 4th to the 7th century, when its fundamental typological and morpho-logical features were established and experimented with over the whole of the Armenian territory, from the northenmost region of Gugark to the southern Van-Vaspurakan area. The main lines of the national style were then fixed forever, and became a valid reference on a nationwide level, as well as a genuine source of inspiration for the architects of the following generations.
The cultural and economic development, including the building activity, of the so-called Armenian Renaissance, particularly important since the recovery of political independence at the end of the 9th century, was part of the search for the renewal of past unity. Nevertheless some regional differences appeared, corresponding to the formation of a series of feudal states under the weakened suzerainity of the Abbasid Empire [1].
This distinction can be better appreciated in its full richness through a closer approach to the architectural heritage itself, which is now better known to us that it was at the beginning of this century thanks to new territorial exploration and recent historical-critical reflection [2]. Varied architectural research work, inspired by the common models, themes and types of the classical period, has been able to distinguish and elaborate on different forms of artistic renaissance [3].
Local trends, evident from the 9th-10th centuries, for instance in the severe and simple conception of the space arrangement typical of the poor, mountainous, isolated areas of the Eastern and Southern Armenia, which is very different from the taste for sophisticated decorative patterns and modules we can observe in the regions of the Central and Northern Armenia that were naturally open to trade activity and international cultural emulation [4].
In the former regions (that is, Syunik and Vaspurakan, both provided with a vaste inner tableland basin, the Sevan and the Van Lake respectively), mountainous, lonely, hardly accessible terrain prevails, which favours to the particularism of secluded, well sheltered principalities. In both areas, despite some historical and geographical diversity, it is not difficult to discern a common attitude, which led to the adoption of compact buildings and preference for enclosed complexes for many churches, with an eastern wall on the same line:
Vanevan (7th, 9th-10th c.), Tsakatskar West (10th-11th c.), Aratesvank (9th-10th c, 13th c.) in Syunik'; Varagvank 10th-13th, 15th-18th c.), Ganjak S. Astvatsatsin, Angegh, Arakelots and Karapetivank near Mush (all of them built in many phases between the 10th and 17th centuries), in Vaspurakan (fig.1).
Fig. 1: Plan of the monastery of Vanevan.
[1] First to discuss the idea of 'regional schools' were authors such like Alishan, Lalayean and Voskian, who devoted their attention to individual areas of historic Armenia, followed by authors of more recent 'guidebooks' like those by H. Eliazarian on Dilijan (1937), Ijevan (1947), Alaverdi-Tumanian (1952), Azizbekov (1955), and that by V. Abrahamian on Ashtarak (1949). The first scholarly research with an explicit reference to this term is S. Mnatskanian, Haykakan chartarapetut'yan Syunik'i dproc'e (The school of Syunik' in Armenian Architecture), Erevan 1960. Another in-depth study aimed at a specific historic region is that carried out in the Van-Vaspurakan area, published in a long series of articles in the Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, (from 1967 to 1977) and extensively developed in J.-M. Thierry, 'Monuments arméniens du Vaspurakan', Paris 1989.
[2] Suffice it to remember that the total number of Armenian monuments known to the international specialists, which was no more than the 65 included in the general work by J. Strzygowski in 1918, has reached more than 400 in the most recent publication. see: J.-M. Thierry, P. Donabedian, 'Les arts arméniens', Paris 1987, P. Cuneo, 'Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo', Roma 1988.
In the same areas some simple typologies such as triconches and tetra-conches, which are scarce in the northern regions, are not unusual. This are found in two of the churches of the Sevan monastery, the main churches in the Hayrivank on Sevan, Vanevan, Mak'enotsatsvank, Kotavank, Masrats Anapat, Tsaghatskar West, Orotnavank, Gndevank Kugivank, Tsghkashen, all of themin Syunik; and also in three of the churches in Varag, of one in Narek, S. Astvatsatsin in Iluvank, S. Karapet in Aparank, Butats Vank, S. Tikin at Sorkin, all of them in Vaspurakan.
In addition, the practice of masonry apparata, less accurate and less elaborate, can be found. In Syunik', this result was obtained by the general use of the roughly cut basalt with its severe greyish-blue colour; in Vaspurakan, a similar result was obtained by using the locally-quarried limestone and cristalline schist, also in rough blocks (figs. 2 and 3). It was not a question of a different technological level, or of poor ability on the part of the stone cutters and master masons, because some of the earlier monuments in the same regions (like Por, Soradir, Arcuaber in the Van basin) are built in square blocks, which were sometimes carried from faraway quarries (as in the case of Aghtamar), and also some noble parts of the buildings in rough masonry have a quite accurate finish.
In the latter group of regions, that is, Ayrarat and Shirak in the Centre, Gougark' and Artsakh in the North and North-East, we observe the widespread tendency to repeat a variety of typological models and the frequency of far more elaborate architectural themes, stylistic ornaments, and care in the walling apparatus.
In Shirak the influence of the Ani school is well-know and has already been documented in some detail [5] , even beyond the boundaries of the Bagratid kingdom.
Among the architectural choices belonging to or influenced by this school we may mention the frequent choice of symmetry on both axes, producing cross-shaped volumes with symetrical arms (as in the Ani Cathedral, and the Shirakavan and Marmashen main churches), the recurrence of central plans, very scarce elsewhere in Armenia (as in S. Arakelots and S. Amenaprkitch in Ani , and S. Sarkis in Khtskonk), and a preference for complicated hexagonal schemes (as in the S. Grigor Abughamrents, Kusanats and Hovvi churches at Ani, and at Bagnayr and Bagaran)
Another typical recurrence is the use of architectural devices aimed at showing and stressing symmetry, regularity, uniformity and visibility from a distance, such as the system of blind arches (fig. 4 ) covering not only cylindrical drums and apses, but also flat façades [6]. This is seen in the Ani Cathedral, Arakelots, S. Grigor of Tigran Honents., in both the main churches of Marmashen, in S. Hovhannes at Byurakan, in the churches of Djala on Cildir Lake, and in Baysiz.
Among the other typical features we may mention the use of pairs of diedral niches (fig. 5) on all the four façades of a building, as in the S. Grogor of Tigran Honents, and the 'Unical Monument' at Ani, in the two main churches in Marmashen, in the now-disappeared S. Stepanos at Khtskoknk, in the church of Hogevank and in Makaravank at Pemzashen.
Other decorative or architectural elements are strongly-framed windows, as we can observe at S. Grigor of Tigran Honents, Shirakavan, Marmashen, Haridjavank, and umbrella-like roofing, as have the churches of Kusanats and Hovvi at Ani, S. Sarkis at Khtskonk, the main church at Marmashen and the churches at Zarnja, Bjni and Amberd.
[3] Some regional differences existed, of course, since the earliest centuries, at least in the primary type of the one-nave church (simple in the centre, porticoed in the North, with vaulted side extension in the South of the country).
[4] Cuneo, P. 'Le scuole regionali nell'architet-tura armena, in Atti del primo Simposio inter-nazionale di Arte Armena', 1975, Venezia 1978, pp. 89-127.
Fig. 2: View of S. Marinos, Srxuvank.
Fig. 3: View of the pendentives of S. Marinos.
Fig. 4: Anì, S. Grigor Tigran Honenc'.
Fig.5: Anì, Cathedral.
In the North, a regional peculiarity, beyond already-mentioned stylistical accuracy, is the presence of many large monastic complexes, often surrounded by fortified wall, which, generally speaking, developed from the 9th to the 13th centuries, around an original nucleus. It suffices to mention a few: Haghbat, Sanahin, Khoranashat, Harijavank, Haghardzin, Ghoshavank, Ketcharis, Makaravank, Hovhannavank, and Saghmosavank, out of some dozens we had the opportunity of visiting.
Fig. 6: Plan of the Monastery of Haghbat.
[5] Cuneo, P. L'architettura della scuola regionale di Ani nell'Armenia Medievale, Roma 1977; P. Baboudjian, 'Le Mausolée de Mama Khatoun a Terjan et les monuments de l'école d'Ani', Haikakan Haygitakan Handes, 9, 1979, pp. 203-238.
Cuneo P. 'Le couvent de Marmashen et l'école architecturale d'Ani', Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, 23, 1992, (Mémorial S. Der Nersessian), pp. 419-471.
[6] On this theme, beyond the above-mentioned studies, see the recent F. Gandolfo, 'Le arca-telle cieche nelle architetture di Ani', Rivista dell'Ist. Naz. d'Archeol. e Storia dell'Arte, III serie, 14-15, 1992, pp. 269-303.
A short description follows of the first complex on this list, which is also the largest and can be considered representative of the whole of Armenian architecture because it offers an evident example of a religious settlement formed by variously-built elements devoted to house a variety of functions and activities, and therefore includes most of the recurrent architectural and structural typologies of the relevant period [7].
Haghbat was founded in the second half of 10th c. by the will of Queen Khosrovanush, the bride of the Bagratid Ashot III, and continued by their sons Smbat and Gourgen. Chosen in 12th c. as the site of royal mausolea, it was developed in the 13th c. into an international centre of religious culture, provided with a rich library of manuscripts and an active scriptorium, and enriched with princely donations of important agricultural domains.
Fig. 8: Haghbat, general view.
The monastery consists of a cluster of monumental buildings within a polygonal wall enclosure, most of which are grouped in the centre of the open space. As in many other cases, the complex grew according to the principle of subsequent aggregation, without an obvious planned scheme, around an originary church, S. Nshan, built in 976-991 by the royal family. Further additions were S. Grigor, built in 1015 and enlarged in 1211; the gawit of S. Nshan built in 1210; the Ukanc chapels built in 1211-20; the bell-tower built in 1245; the gawit of Hamazasp built in 1257; and the hall of the great khatchkar built in 1262. In the course of the 13th c. the church of S. Astvatsatsin, the library, the refectory, and the kitchen were also added.
The two earliest churches follow in simple form the common typology of the domed hall inscribed in a rectangle, in this case producing a compact basic volume from which the arms of a tri-dimensional cross emerge. The most striking building is the large gawit [8] of S. Grigor (fig. 7) (a multi-functional ante-chamber offering a good example of the typical convent building so frequent in Armenian architecture) here in an unusual variant which consists of a cross-shaped plan with free-standing arms. Most striking is its central sector, which is covered by a daring dome, square in plan and borne by two pairs of intersected arches [9], and lit from the top by a second similar structural device on a smaller scale, supporting a lantern. This device, which is often used in Armenia for large monumental buildings, is in the same complex of Haghbat, also found in the library (1258-68) [10] (fig.8) and in the refectory [11] (fig.9), where it is repeated twice (as in the similar building at Haghardzin), with only two free-standing pillars supporting the ample vaulting of the rectangular hall.
Fig. 7: Haghbat, view of the gawit.
[7] Among the main monografic studies on this convent, O. Khalpakhtchian, 'Arkhitekturnoe pamiatniki Akhpada' (Architectural Monuments of Haghbat) in Arkhitektura Respublik Zakavkaz, Moscow 1951, pp. 321-355, K. Ghafadaryan, 'Haghbati chartarapetakan karucvacknere ev vimakan arjaragrutyunnere' (The architectural construction and mural inscriptions of Haghbat), Erevan 1963; S. Mnatzakanian, A. Alpago Novello, Hakhpat, Milan 1968 (in Italian, English and Armenian); K. Hovanissian, Sanahin-Hakhpat, Erevan 1978 (in Armenian, Russian and French); J.-M. Thierry - P. Donabedian, Les arts... (1987), pp.543-545, P. Cuneo, Architettura ...,(1988), pp. 301-310.
[8]For a general presentation and dicussion of this type, which is sometimes also called jamatun S. Mnatsakanian, Arkhitektura Armianskikh pritvorov (The Architecture of the Armenian Nartex), Erevan 1952.
[9] On this typical Armenian architectural device see: Baltrusaitis J., Le problème de l'ogive et l'Arménie, Paris 1936; A. Jakobson, 'Gli archi incrociati nell'architettura armena', Atti del Primo Simposio internazionale di Arte Armena,(1975), Venezia 1978, pp. 323-338. For a visual prospectus of many exemples of this kind of structure, see P. Cuneo,Architettura.... (1988), pp. 774-776.
[10] On this type of building, see O. Khalpakhtchian, Grajdanskoe Zodchestvo Armenii (Civil building in Armenia), Moscow 1971, pp. 124-153.
[11]On this type, ibid., pp. 155-185.
[12] Another well known example of the Armenian monumental bell tower is in the Sanahin monastery, in the same region.
[13] On the multi-storeyed memorial monu-ments in Armenia see, for the earliest examples, the many studies by Suren Mnatsakanian, some of which are mentioned in P. Cuneo, (1988), p. 894. For the Middle Ages see G. Ieni, Strutture a piani sovrapposti nell'architettura transcau-casica dal X al XIV secolo (paper presented at the First International Congress on Caucasian Art, pp. 1-12. See also: S. Shahinian, S. Asdvadzadzìn - Burtelashén. Cappella funeraria di Amaghu Noravank, Zürich 1993 (University thesis, with an illustration of this typology on pp. 44-53 and a list of 18 monuments on p. 83).
Fig.9: Haghbat, view of the library.
Fig. 10: Haghbat, view of the refectory.
The largest of the covered spaces of the convent is the so-called gawit of Hamazasp, a second example in Haghpad of the above-mentioned multi-functional ante-chamber, which is here covered by a central dome (also taking light from a lantern at the top), on four free-standing columns and with vaults standing over the eight surrounding sectors. In this case the gawit gives access to a very small chapel in front of the main gate.
Also worth a mention is the architecture of the bell tower (1245) [12] (fig. 10), an elegant three-storey building (similar in this to the memorial monuments of the 13th c.) [13] which arises isolated on the east side of the central nucleus.
This building, cross-shaped at ground-floor level, octagonal at first-floor level and surmounted by a slender lantern with pointed roofing (and an umbrella-like frame) on eight columns, has a compact vertical volume (an example of so-called non-'trasparent' architecture, i.e. not hinting at the existence of seven inner chapels with apse from the outside). The walls of this volume are decorated with tall crosses in relief, mullioned windows [14], and muqarnas-shaped squinches at the four angles [15].
Fig. 11: Haghbat, the bell tower (section and plans of the second floor (above) and first floor (below).
On the slope just outside the enclosure, the Kusanats church (or the Virgins' Ermitage) built in th13th c., and restored in the 17th c., is what remains of the convent section then inhabited by the nuns' community. The group was completed by other religious buildings, such as the hilltop church of Jgrashen and a monumental fountain [16].
Haghbat was enriched with frescoes (of which only some fragments of a Deesis, an Annunciation, and a Christ's Baptism remain), and some elements of sculptural apparatus, such as the stone model of the church (fig. 11) forming an acroterium on top of the east cusp of S. Nshan, and the presentation scene, also including a stone model (fig. 12) in the hands of the princely brother donors [17]. Geometric sculptured interlacements in low relief appear, too, on the gate frames of the Ukanc family Chapel-Mausolea.
Fig. 13: Haghbat, relief of the donation of the church.
The masterpiece of the convent is, nevertheless, the large khatch-kar [18] carved by master Vahram in 1279, which stands on a tall pedestal in the passageway from S. Nshan church to the Library. It is an important example of its type of monolithic memorial stela, very common in numerous groups in old Armenian cemeteries, or isolated in highly visible points of the landscape, or even symbolically re-used in the restoration of some religious buildings: in the case of Haghbat we observe one of the rare instances in which the stela, instead of consisting of the more common aniconic representation of a cross, offers the beatifully carved image of a crucifixion [19] among angels and saints, with traces of the original green and red colouring.
Fig. 12: Haghbat: model on the roof of the church S. Nshan.
[14] This is another interesting feature of Armenian medieval architecture with many antecedents in the formative period. See Cuneo (1988), pp. 790-792.
[15] On the use of muqarnas see Mnatsakanian, Arkhitektura....(1960); some examples of this geometrical decorative device are shown in Cuneo (1988), p. 797.
[16] On this kind of building see Khalpakhtchian, Grajdanskoe ....(1971), pp. 229-239.
[17] On the 'stone models' typology and their possible purpose, see P. Cuneo, 'Les modèles en pierre de l'architecture arménienne', Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, VI, 1969, pp. 201-232; G. Ieni, 'La rappresentazione dell'oggetto architettonico nell'arte medievale con riferi-mento particolare ai modelli di architettura cau-casici', in: Atti del Primo ... 1978, pp. 147-164; a series of twenty-one Armenian stone models is shown in Cuneo 1988, pp. 760-761.
[18] On the khatchkar ('cross-stone') refer to L. Azarian, A. Manoukian, Khatchkar, Milan 1969 (in Italian and English); A; Jakobson, Armianskie Khatchkari, Erevan 1986.
[19] Other examples of the crucifixion on a khatch-kar can be seen in the Sevan Monastery and in the collection seen in the Etchmiatsin enclosure (description of these from Jiringhiugh; see Azatian, Manukian, op. cit., 1969, f. 34).