MASARYK UNIVERSITY Faculty of Arts Department of Art History

The church of Talin Bachelor thesis author: Veronika Hermanová

supervisor: prof. Ivan Foletti, MA, Docteur es Lettres

Brno, 2020

I hereby declare that I worked on this bachelor thesis on my own and that I used only sources listed in the bibliography.

______

The writing of this thesis was yet the most challenging task of my life. I would like to use this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the people who helped me during this tangled process. This thesis could never be completed without the assistance from Yerevan Academy of Fine Arts. My most sincere thank you goes to Gayane Poghosyan, Ani Yenokyan, Davit Petrosyan and Nare Batouzian, for their enormous help and great effort with acquiring the secondary literature and occasional translations from Armenian. Furthermore, I am very grateful to Boris Gasparyan for providing the visual documentation from the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography in Yerevan. No less important was the help from Cassandre Maddy, who not only shared with me the great number of sources, but also encouraged me with her interest and inspiring discussions. However, I also received significant support from the Czech side. My immense thanks belongs to PhDr. Jan Frolik and Ing. Jiří Šindelář, who kindly provided me with the latest pictorial documentation of the cathedral and its surroundings. Simultaneously, I am grateful to the supervisor of this bachelor thesis doc. Ivan Foletti, for giving me this wonderful opportunity and the much-needed advice and feedback. Last, but not least, I need to thank to Emily, for the English language corrections, and to my loving family and Ivan for their exceptional support and love. Thank you all!

INTRODUCTION 1

STATE OF RESEARCH 2 Early sources 2 The first research 5 Soviet research 7 Latest studies 11 Summary 15

THE CATHEDRAL OF T’ALIN 16 Restorations 16 Technique of construction 18 Architecture 19 Sculptural decoration 22 Architectural models and dating 24

THE WORDS AND IMAGES 29 Murals 30 Description of murals 30 Dating of murals 32 The empty throne 34 The traditional interpretation 34 The throne on the Council of Ephesus 36 The episcopal throne 40 The throne, the altar or the Ark? 42 Inscriptions 45 Summary 47

THE COMPLEX OF CHURCHES AND GRAVES 49 Church of Saint Mary (Astvatsatsin) 49 Architectural composition and construction 49 Decorations of exterior and interior 51 The small church of big significance 52 One-nave church of T’alin 56 Other structures 57 Minor monuments 59 Summary 61

THE ROLE OF T’ALIN IN TIME AND SPACE 62 The palatine chapel 62 The pilgrimage site 64 The placing of relics 66

Summary 68

CONCLUSION 70

BIBLIOGRAPHY 73 Sources 73 Secondary literature 73 Websites 84

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 85

INTRODUCTION

My first visit to T’alin cathedral took place during the school excursion in May 2016. It was my first encounter with Armenian architecture, which immediately awakened my fascination with its uniqueness and beauty. I remember seeing the monumental cathedral, dated to the 7th century, decorated with murals in the interior and sculpted reliefs on the exterior. I wondered, why is this gem located on the outskirts of a small town in the middle of a modern cemetery? This short visit naturally raised many questions for me. However, when I tried to find answers to my questions, I was disappointed. There is little information about the T’alin cathedral, which is, after all, based mostly on the analysis of the architecture. T’alin is one of the cases where the only source for clarifying the building has become the building itself. What a challenge for an art historian! Since then, I have been fortunate enough to visit T'alin twice more and study the secondary literature. This work’s intention is not only to summarize the knowledge I managed to gather, but also, a little boldly, to design a new interpretation of the T'alin cathedral, taking into account the analysis of the surrounding monuments and its spatial composition. The second goal of this thesis is to pay a tribute to the quite overlooked fragments of the cathedral’s interior murals. The iconological interpretation of the mural could have a significant impact on the further study of the cathedral’s function. The following chapter aims to gradually introduce publications that deals with the temple. The cathedral itself will be analyzed in the second chapter, concluded with the dating of the structure, based on the architectural models. The third chapter will cover concepts regarding the murals. Despite fragmentary preservation, the efforts will be made to deduce their iconographic program and iconological context. In the fourth chapter, the missing archeological excavations will be at least partially replaced by the analysis of the surrounding objects. Eventually, the fifth chapter evaluates the current interpretations of the building and offers the promised new inference.

STATE OF RESEARCH

Early sources

For a centuries Armenia was a tempting site for European travelers, exploring the oriental culture and mysterious mountains. Many of them visited T’alin, as an important site on their journey from Ani to Echmiadzin. There is no surprise that the first brief references to the cathedral appeared already at the end of the 17th century in the writings of Italian traveler Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri (1651-1725).1 He was among the first Europeans to undergone the journey around the world.2 Gemelli visited T’alin in 1694 and saw there images of the apostles painted in the apse of already ruined cathedral, which was still used as a 3 place of worship. The following mention of T’alin brings us to the 19th century. The journey of artist and diplomat Sir Robert Ker Porter (1777-1842) was recorded in two volumes of Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, ancient Babylonia &c..4 On his way from Ani, Porter arrived to the vicinity of an ancient city, which he incorrectly called Talys.5 Interestingly enough, the city as Porter describes it, was abandoned at that time and he did not stopped to see the place. In his book he is only describing what he saw from the distance:

“I could distinguish two very large churches, the remains of houses and other buildings, and a great extent of walls. At the same time i first beheld the double head of Ararat.”6

1 Gemelli is using the name Talen when referring to T’alin. 2 Magnaghi 1932. 3 Era già quivi un'ottima Chiesa, per uso de Cristiani Armeni, che compongono la maggior parte degli abitanti, veggendosi nell'altar maggiore dipinti le figure dei SS Apostoli; però è oggidì andata in rovina, non meno che un'altra contigua. in: Gemelli Careri 1699, p. 3; Alishan 1890, pp. 141. 4 Seccombe 1885-1900. 5 Porter 1821, p. 178; Lynch 1901, p. 324. 6 Porter 1821, p. 178.

T’alin appeared again in the Description of Etchmiadzin and Five Districts of Ararat, written by bishop Hovhannes Shahkhatuniants (1799-1849). He described the village, which in that time consisted of 43 houses, but was much more populated in the past.7 Shahkhatuniants also mentioned the ruined basilica and the 8 inscription located on the small church. British traveler John Ussher (1841-1913) visited Armenia during his adventurous journey from London to Persepolis in the 1860’s. Although, the expedition was undertaken solely for purposes of pleasure and amusement, Ussher decided to 9 record what he saw and heard. In his book he describes his visit of T’alin as follows:

,,We found there two more dilapidated churches, one having apparently suffered from an earthquake; the other, which was smaller and in better repair, was still used as a place of worship. They were both built of the usual red stone and on the ordinary plan – a Greek cross, with a conical or extinguisher-shaped dome over 10 the centre.”

Together with the churches, Ussher described an abandoned fort of quadrangular shape with a lofty towers.11 It was probably the fortress of Dashtadem located 5 km south of the city of T’alin.12 In addition, Ussher explained the current situation of the city. The inhabitants moved to the city only in 1829, when it was captured from the Turks, probably after the Russo-Turkish war in 1828-1829.13 Before that the city was abandoned for some time.14 The following account of the site was written in 1890 by Ghevont Alishan (1820-1901). This Armenian Catholic priest was active in San Lorenzo monastery in Venice, where he wrote several books on Armenian history, geography and

7 Shakatuniants 1842, pp. 238-239. 8 Shakatuniants 1842, pp. 238-239. 9 Niederl-Garber 2013, pp. 101-106. 10 Ussher 1865, p. 247. 11 Ibidem 12 Melkonyan, Babajanyan, Harutyunyan, Davtyan,Aghaian 2017, p. 264. 13 More about Russo-Turkish war in: Allen, Muratoff 2010, pp. 23-45. 14 Ussher 1865, p. 248. 3

15 archeology. The topographies of Alishan present all possible information supplied by the travelers until the 20th century. In his topography of the Ayrarat province, Alishan repeats the information already published by Shahkhatuniants, with the addition of the engraving depicting the ruined cathedral and accompanied by another structure on its south-western side [1]. There is also a drawing of the 16 small church dedicatory inscription. Also, Henry Finnis Blosse Lynch (1862-1913) visited the site during one of his 17 two journeys in 1890’s. His experiences were published in two volumes titled 18 Armenia, Travels and Studies, which is now considered the first modern western 19 study of Armenian architecture. As much as T’alin is concerned, Lynch describes the village first and then the cathedral:

,,It is a church—they call it cloister (vank) and it perhaps belonged to a monastery—which, although in ruins is fairly well preserved. The roof has fallen in; the walls display wide breaches; but the masonry is still sharp and fresh, as when first put together, and the traceries might just have undergone the finish touch. With its bold windows – no mere apertures – and bands of elegant 20 sculpture, I thought it the most beautiful building I had yet seen in Armenia.“

Lynch assumed that the cathedral was once a part of the monastery complex.21 It is likely that he came to this conclusion thanks to the number of ruins around the church. However, later in the passage Lynch refers to the grandfather of the priest, living in the village:

15 Kertmenjian 2016, p. 179. 16 Alishan 1890, pp. 134-143. 17 Niederl-Garber 2013, p. 122. 18 Lynch 1901, pp. 322-325. 19 Maranci, p. 23. 20 Lynch 1901, p. 322. 21 Ibidem

“[...] the monastery and the church had been maintained up to a comparatively recent period. He said, that the priests had fled during the campaign of Paskevich, since which date the building had been allowed to fall into decay.”22

Lynch also pays attention to the ornamental mouldings on southern and northern exedra, sun-dial on the south wall and the relief of Virgin and Child attended by two angels, carved on a square block found near the church.23 Lynch assumed, that the cathedral was built during the reign of Bagratid dynasty, after his guide showed him the partially defaced inscription mentioning the name of King Sembat.24 In addition, Lynch’s publication includes the first photographic documentation of the ruined cathedral, comprised of two close-ups of southern and northern walls and photography of the village [2,3,4]. Few years later the same information appeared again, this time in second volume 25 of an Illustrated natural dictionary written by Sukias Ep’rikian (1873-1952). He even uses the same illustration already published in Alishan [1].

The first research

At the turn of the 20th century, in Armenia as well as in all the Russian empire, we can observe a growing interest in the medieval Armenian heritage. One of the catalyzing moments was certainly linked with the archaeological excavations in 26 Ani. At the same time at the Kunsthistorisches Institut of the University of Vienna, Josef Strzygowski (1862-1941) was already deeply interested in 27 Armenian art. His big opportunity came in 1891, after the arrival of a young 28 Armenian student from Tbilisi, Loen Lissitzian. Strzygowski appreciated not

22 Lynch 1901, p. 323; For more about the campaign of Paskevich see Allen, Muratoff 2010, pp. 23-45. 23 Lynch 1901, p. 323. The mentioned relief is probably the paleo-christian stela depicting Virgin Mary and the child between two angels on its base, and King Trdat III transformed into wild boar. The stele was transferred to National Museum of Armenia in Yerevan. Thierry, Donabédian 2008, p. 581. 24 Lynch 1901, p. 323.In the note the author clarifies that it might be the king Sembat II (977-89), the one considered to be the founder of Ani. 25 Ep’rikian 1907, pp. 5-8. 26 Der Manuelian 2001, pp. 1-13. 27 Maranci 2001, pp. 80-81. 28 This event is mentioned by S. himself in: Strzygowski 1918, p. VI.

only Lissitzian’s artistic sensitivity and native language, but also his knowledge of available written sources and his acquaintance with the architect T’oros 29 T’oramanyan (1864-1934). It was these three men, who in the autumn of 1913 participated on the month-long journey to Armenia with an exclusive purpose – to properly study and document the Armenian monuments of the early middle ages. 30

Strzygowski and Toramanian spend two days in T’alin, exploring and measuring 31 the basilica and its surroundings. They even made some photographs of the cathedral [5-9]. The goal of the expedition was to publish a conjoined book on Armenian architecture with Toramanian, who supplied the scholar with a great deal of materials about Armenian monuments and shared his opinions about their 32 development. World War I unfortunately disturbed their plans by keeping both of the researchers trapped in their countries. Eventually, Strzygowski decided not to wait any longer and published the two volumes Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa on his own.33 Right at the opening of Strzygowski’s volume, he emphasizes T’alin cathedral for the extraordinary construction of its walls. The whole building with its ceiling and columns is from outer and inner sides built of perfectly worked stone blocks, which are creating some kind of mould. The walls are then completely poured with filling, which is made of coarse stones and resembles concrete. Strzygowski is connecting this type of masonry specifically to the development of one 34 construction type — the dome over the square bay construction. The author determines the cathedral as s three-nave longitudinal space with 35 domed transept. Strzygowski was convinced, that basilica as a Mediterranean architectural element represented Armenian nation under foreign rule, while the dome originated from Iran (the cradle of Aryan art) was regarded as a part of

29 Ibidem. 30 Ibidem. 31 Ibidem, p. 20. 32 Kertmenjian 2016,p. 181. 33 Strzygowski 1918, p. X. 34 Strzygowski 1918, p. 4. 35 Ibidem, pp. 167-173.

36 indigenous Armenian tradition. For Strzygowski, T’alin as a domed basilica presented a new strengthening of national feeling in 7th century Armenia. As far as murals are concerned, Strzygowski mentions the remains of twelve standing figures at the window level, probably the apostles, and illegible inscription above. In the apse itself he identifies the apocalyptic depiction – a great throne in a mandorla with a cushion and a book with seven pages on it, and 37 on the pillar between the apse and left side-chapel Christ’s entry into Jerusalem. Although Strzygowski presents the examples of murals in few other Armenian churches, he is convinced, that the Armenian churches of early Christian period were not decorated with human figures, and the wall paintings we can see today 38 has been brought to the country by Greeks and Syrians. For Strzygowski, T’alin represents a “purely Armenian” example of three-nave basilica with dome transept, built on principle, which is, in his opinion, peculiar to 39 Armenian architecture – the dome is the middle. He sees the cathedral as a transitional point between basilica and cross-domed Armenian churches and his viewpoint becomes essential for researchers dealing with the T’alin cathedral during the following decades.

Soviet research

After the first world war Armenia experienced some turbulent times. In 1918, the new established Democratic Republic of Armenia participated in a short war with neighbouring Georgia concerning the region of Lori. The Republic of Armenia however, lasted only for two years, and already in 1921 the area fell under the 40 dominance of Soviet Union. The new researches on T’alin in following years thus had to be understand in the context of the political situation on the territory of Armenia.

36 Ibidem, pp. 679-690. 37 Ibidem, p. 298. 38 Ibidem, p. 302. 39 Ibidem, p. 501. 40Anderson, Partskhaladze 2015.

In 1922, an article of Giorgi Chubinashvili (1885-1973) entered into the 41 awareness of the public. This recognized Soviet-Georgian art history professor criticized Strzygowski‘s book for intentionally overlooking Georgian architecture, and the adaptation of information, in order to confirm his thesis about Armenian origin of western Christian architecture. In the other article from 1930, he questioned the dating of the T’alin cathedral, which Strzygowski dated into 7th 42 century. Chubinashvili analysed the architecture and came to a conclusion, that the cathedral represents itself in very poor artistic quality, and must have been 43 executed in the middle of the 10th century. His arguments consists of barrel vaults in the corner rooms, instead of cross vaults typical for older churches, but also of pendentive construction of the dome. According to Chubinashvili, pendentives did not appear in Armenian architecture until the end of the 9th 44 century. He even declares, that the great T’alin church, because of its very inharmonious composition of the architectural elements, can by no means claim to 45 be of artistic importance and magnificence. In the following decades T’alin became an irreplaceable part of general publications concerned with development of Armenian architecture, which became the domain of Soviet scholars. Anatoly Leopoldovich Yakobson (1935-1978) in his Essays on the history of Armenian architecture in 5th – 17th century described T’alin as a remarkable domed basilica and classified it, in the 46 second half of the 7th century. He is contradicting Chubinashvili emphasizing the harmony and balance of T’alin’s entire composition with the dome over the center of the building. In his opinion, T’alin represents itself as a basilica according to the plan, but not in its spatial composition. Therefore, it stands somewhere in between. Yakobson also speaks about outside sculptural decoration and inner wall-painting fragments in the apse, but instead of an apocalyptic vision, he is

41 Chubinashvili 1922, pp. 217-237. 42 Strzygowski 1918, p. 167. 43 Chubinashvili 1930, pp. 260- 270. 44 Chubinashvili 1922, p. 270. 45 In his later book Разыскания по армянской архитектуре [Search for Armenian Architecture, in Russian] from 1967, Chubinashvili accused Armenian priests of falsification of church inscriptions, in order to support the myth about ancient origin of Armenian churches. In fact he claims, that the majority of Armenian churches was built during the Islamic period, not sooner than 10th century. 46 Yakobson 1950, pp. 42-45. 8

giving an account of an image of Virgin Mary in the conch and circles with depictions of saints on the triumphal arch. Unlike Strzygowski, he sees the traces 47 of an ancient Syrian character in its decoration. Soon after Yakobson, one of the first methodological works on the history of Armenian architecture was created. The publication named the Monuments of Armenian Architecture repeats the information and attributes the donation to the 48 Kamsarakan family. Publication includes photo of the cathedral and church of Saint Mary, showing their state before the first restorations [10-11]. An entirely new approach to the problems of the Armenian medieval art was 49 introduced by Lydia Durnovo (1885-1963). In 1957 she published the very first overview of Armenian fresco painting, titled Brief history of ancient Armenian painting, in which she introduced the Armenian frescoes and manuscripts as a 50 separate, independent area of medieval art of Armenia. She was convinced, that fresco paintings were an original part of Armenian churches already in 5 to 6th 51 centuries, and thereby contradicting Strzygowski, who believed the T’alin 52 murals were of Byzantine origin. Durnovo assumed, the murals in T’alin to depict something totally different than her predecessors believed. She saw in the apse the depiction of Christ in Glory surrounded by heavenly guards with flames in the background — and compared T’alin to two 7th century churches (the church of Lmbat monastery and a small church near Kosh) which preserved their murals 53 depicting the same subject. Another large work on Armenian architecture was created by Nikolai Tokarski (1892-1977). Tokarski was trying to present historical narrative of the evolution 54 of Armenian architecture, providing a formal classification of the monuments. That’s why in his publication on Armenian Architecture of IV-XIV century, he 55 dated the cathedral of T’alin with certainty to the second half of 7th century.

47 Ibidem, p. 43. 48 Arutjunjan, Safarjan 1951, p. 45. 49 Durnovo 1957. 50 Drampyan 2018, p. 243. 51 Durnovo 1957, p. 8. 52 Strzygowski 1918, p. 302. 53 Durnovo 1957, p. 10-11. 54 Maranci 2001, p. 225. 55 Tokarski 1961, pp.101-104.

Moreover, he marked it as the first domed basilica and found the common 56 features with Zvartnots temple in T’alin’s outside decoration. Tokarski as well rejected Chubinashvili’s comparison of T’alin with the 11th century Kutaisi Cathedral, claiming that the Kutaisi temple represents the development of another 57 cruciform type, created by first-class craftsmen working in the 10th century. Yakobson’s and Tokarski’s narratives became unquestionable facts during the rest of Soviet period, especially in large general publications dealing with the history of Armenian art. One of the first examples appeared in 1964 as a two volumes 58 title Glimpse to Armenian Art History, published by the USSR Art Institute. The short passage concerned with T’alin gives us only one piece of new information. Authors notify that the ornamental sculptural decoration above the windows together with sculpted cornices must have been painted as there are still visible 59 traces of red and white color. In 1966, a third volume the General history of architecture was published. According to the preface, its ambition was to “fulfill the need to create a history of architecture based on Marxist materialist positions.” 60 The part dedicated to the History of Armenian Architecture written by O.K. Xalpaxč’yan is presenting the Cathedral of T’alin as a three-nave basilica with a peculiar composition of an elongated vertical axis and an enlarged perimeter of 61 the dome. This expansion of the internal space made T’alin the transition point between a three-nave basilica and a so-called domed hall. The change was caused, according to Xalpaxč’yan, by a new need to have significant free space in the 62 center due to the alteration of a worship ritual. Xalpaxč’yan used this development theory to prove the origin of the domed churches in a popular dwelling called glxatun - a rural mode of habitation used in Armenia during antiquity and Middle Ages – and create out of Armenian churches the national

56 Ibidem, p. 104. 57 Ibidem 58 Kushnaryan, Muradyan, Gyodakyan, Arakelyan, Mazmanyan 1964. 59 Ibidem, p. 168. 60 “В мировой научней литервтуре по архитектуре работ подобного масштаба и объема не было, а необходимость создания истории архитектуры, основанной на марксистских материалистических позициях, настоятельно диктовалась многими серьезными причинами.” This words are used by the author in the preface of Xalpachčyan 1966, p. 7. 61 Ibidem, pp. 19 7-299. 62 Ibidem, pp. 212-213.

63 architecture of Armenians. The same interpretation can be found in another general publication on architectural monuments in the Soviet Republic of 64 Armenia. The authors are again presenting T’alin as a one stage in the development of Armenian churches from the second half of 7th century. In addition, a note can be found there, about a number of 5th to 7th century steles located on the cemetery near T’alin church, which iconography can be traced back 65 to the earliest works of Christian art.

Latest studies

Since the 80’s, Armenian art started to be once more appreciated among western researchers. Step by step, the research began to liberate itself from Soviet dominance, not only thanks to new approaches, but also because of the results of modern archeology and surface explorations. Unfortunately, there were still no archeological excavations done on T’alin’s site. However, the use of new methods helped to explore some very interesting facts, which were presented in the latest publications on medieval architecture in Armenia. The very breakthrough, which once again reminded the western scholars the importance of Caucasian architecture, is the extensive publication of Paolo Cuneo (1963-1995). Architettura Armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo is a result of more than twenty years of research of Cuneo and his colleagues Thomasso Breccia, Murad Hasratyan, Maria Adelaide Lala Comneno and Armen Zarian. The authors took into consideration the vast geographical area of eastern Turkey, northwestern Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan and even larger period from the 4th to the 19th century.66 This publication introduced an entirely new approach to the topic. For the first time, the question of urban planning, economy, politics and religion were considered as a whole and presented in the three essays, accompanied by an enormous catalogue of monuments.67 But despite the new approach, the cathedral of T’alin was introduced in a rather traditional way. The

63 Maranci 2001, p. 226. 64Mnacakanyan, Stepanjan 1971, p. 27. 65 Ibidem, p. 55. 66 Cuneo 1988, p. 5. The information is given by Cuneo himself in the preface of the book. 67 Ruggieri 1992, p. 291.

author was interested mainly in the architectural specificity of T’alin without any effort of deeper analysis. On the other hand, the surrounding monuments on the site got much more attention than ever before. The funerary function was assigned to the church of Saint Mary and the recently discovered one-nave basilica was introduced to the broader public.68 The French researcher Jean-Michel Thierry (1916-2011) followed in Cuneo's footsteps. Armenia in the Middle Ages is concerned with Armenian architecture 69 from the early to late middle ages. Thierry suggested the basilica of Dwin, to be the model for T’alin, which later might serve as a model for 10th century threeconch churches in Georgia. He came to this conclusion by comparing the ground plans of the cathedrals to the excavated ground plan of the Dwin basilica, rebuilt, as he assumes, at the beginning of 7th century into an enclosed cross shape. The reason of the evolution from basilica to a cross shape is explained by Thierry as a practical solution, which would support the dome by lateral conches. 70

Another valuable contribution to the study of T’alin cathedral was made by 71 Marie-Thérese Mittermayer and Christopher Supa. The scholars decided to use the latest technology to properly measure the dimensions of the cathedral. Based on the measurement, they created a computer 3D reconstruction, to show the appearance of the building before numerous earthquakes [16-22].72 The authors also report to us on the actual state of preservation of the monument, together with a complete photographic documentation.73 Even if the result cannot replace the archeological research, it can at least give us a more precise picture of the monument. In addition, the authors discovered some significant areas in the existing building that were previously unknown. Patrick Donabédian finally looks at the cathedral of T’alin from a wider perspective. In his publication on 7th century Armenian architecture, Donabédian

68 Cuneo 1988, p. 92. 69 Thierry de Crussol 2002, pp. 90-91. 70 Ibidem, p.90, Thierry is mentioning the the Cathedral of Oschki in Tajk, built in 963 and the Cathedral of Kutaisi from around the year 1000. 71 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, pp. 80-104. 72 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 104. 73 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, pp. 92-103.

marks the period between 630 and 690 as “the first Golden Age” of Armenian architecture.74 The turning point, in authors view, seems to be the reconquest of Armenia by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius around 630, what led to the temporary stability and the climate of openness to the Byzantine world.75 According to the author, the Armenian architecture gained the main essence of its typological and decorative arsenal during this period, and T’alin as a domed basilica of last decades of 7th century contains this essence.76 Donabedian as well as other scholars attributed T’alin cathedral to Nerseh Kamsarakan and dated it to the last decades of 7th century. Moreover, he presents the hypothesis about the original function of the cathedral from the time of its construction. Donabédin assumes, that T’alin cathedral could be adjoint to the princely residence of Kamsarakan, as there are multiple similarities with cathedrals in Dvin and Aruch, which are both accompanied by a palace building.77 This hypothesis appeared to be very unclear and cannot be confirmed until proper archeological research has been carried out. Despite that, Donabédian’s publication stays among the most important works relevant for this thesis. Another scholar who concerned himself specifically with the 7th century 78 architecture in the Caucasus is Armen Kazaryan. Result of his complex research was published in a book containing four volumes, which is the most recent and complete summary of what we know about the topic. Kazaryan’s publications combines the analytical parts with the very wide and comprehensive catalog, 79 involving the archival materials and latest results of archeological research. The catalogue information about T’alin summarizes all the accessible knowledge with 80 a clear reference to its source, and thus might almost substitute for a monograph. Kazaryan without doubt claims the original function to be the bishop’s chair, as the cathedral status is contained already in the inscription speaking about the creation of murals, which according to him is the oldest inscription related to the

74 Donabédian 2008, p. 12. 75 Donabédian 2008, p. 93. 76 Ibidem. 77 Donabédian 2008, p. 118. 78 Kazaryan 2012, 2013. 79 Baljaev 2014, pp. 177-179. 80 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, pp.146-183.

building.81 The analytical part is trying to trace the place of T’alin in the bigger picture. According to Kazaryan, the last third of the 7th century could be marked as the period of decline during the “golden era” of Armenian architecture. This era was characterized by the reproduction of previously developed types, as the Arab raids caused the cut off of local architects and donors from leading 82 architectural centres. The cathedral of T’alin might thus be the result of surviving architectural forms received from Byzantium, preserved on the court of Kamsarakan princes. The most recent publication relevant for this paper is a monograph on the monumental painting in early medieval Armenia, written by Nikolay Gareginovich Kotanjyan (1928–2013), finished and published after the author’s 83 death by Irina Drampyan. Kotanjyan participated on the cleaning of T’alin murals in 1970’s and was able to recreate a hypothetical drawing of the composition of murals in the apsidal zone.84 The result proved the veracity of Strzygowski’s observations and identified the iconography in the apside as Etymassia – the prepared throne of Christ, in this case with an open gospel on it.85 Kotanjyan noted that Lydia Durnovo must have noticed this iconography, as there are drawings preserved in her notebook showing the altar with an open book, but for some unknown reason she eventually decided to identify the composition as 86 the Christ in Glory. Thanks to Kotanjyan, today we have an idea not only about all the preserved fragments of the mural in T’alin, but also about the structure of its colors. In his older book, Colour in Early Medieval Painting of Armenia he was concerned with the the tonality, structure and spatial composition of colors of 87 T’alin’s murals. The book offers important information about the material nature of the problem, but Kotanjyan is using this information in a way already typical of Armenian researchers – to solve the problem of national specificity in medieval 88 art.

81 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, p. 146. 82 Ibidem, p. 35. 83 Kotanjyan 2017. 84 Kotanjyan 2006. 85 Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96. 86 Ibidem, p. 96. 87 Kotanjyan 1978, pp. 45-46. 88 Drampyan 2018, p. 249.

Summary

The original goal of this chapter was to summarize the most important literature concerned with the cathedral of T’alin, but as it turns out, the available information is scattered all over the general publications on Armenian architecture. At the same time i was forced to leave the Armenian literature out, due to the language barrier. This chapter also does not include the most recent publications of Nina Garsoian, Annegret Plontke-Lüning, Cynthia Hahn, Ivan Foletti and many others, which publications were relevant for this thesis, simply because they were not directly concerned with T’alin cathedral. Therefore, my efforts were to encapsulate the publications that pointed out on how the cathedral of T’alin was generally understood in certain period, and simultaneously presented some new knowledge and approaches. Unfortunately, due to the missing archaeological research, most scholars did not dare to form hypotheses and payed attention only to the formal analysis of the building. As a result, most of the research was focused on finding models and placing T’alin in the developmental chain of Armenian architecture. This problem is specifically related to Soviet scholars who have been forced by the ideological subtext, to cut T'alin out of the context of time and place. Many questions thus remain unanswered and offer opportunities for further research. One of many unresolved problems is the the question of importance of the cathedral within the urban area and its original function. No less important is the question of the mural decorations. What is its program and how could it be connected with the function of the cathedral? The following chapters can help us to find at least a partial answer to these questions.

THE CATHEDRAL OF T’ALIN

What a magnificent impression the T’alin cathedral is in a snowy landscape. Even from a distance the visitor is struck by the largeness and elegance of the structure, crowned by a huge windowed drum. The red and black stones radiate on a white background and usurp the gaze of the viewer. The medieval theologists would probably describe it as the vision of the Noah’s Ark on the foamy sea. But the closer one gets to its walls, the more details will be exposed to him. This Ark is ruined and overgrown with petrified vine and pomegranates. Is this rather an oasis, in the otherwise dusty land? In this chapter I will be concerned with the architecture of the cathedral. From all the known interventions of restorers, through the construction techniques, to the description of the architecture and its decorations. Based on this information, I will finally compare the cathedral with other structures and set the date of its construction.

Restorations

There is an agreement between the scholars, that the cathedral was ruined during the earthquake in 1840, when it lost its dome, part of the drum and part of 89 the southern wall. However, the testimony of travelers suggest that the cathedral has been damaged even before 1840.90 In the late 17th century, Giovanni Gemelli visited the ruined church in T’alin, which was still used as a place of worship. Additionally, Robert Porter and Henry Lynch testified, that the whole city was abandoned at the beginning of 19th century and the Cathedral was left to fall into 91 decay [2-4]. After the earthquake in 1840, some blocks of the Cathedral were used during the construction of the church of Astvatsatsin (located in the center of 92 T’alin) in 1866. In this miserable condition the cathedral was seen by

89 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 82, 168; Donabédian 2008, p. 119; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 90 There is mention about the cathedral being damaged during Turkish campaigns in 1514 in: Thierry, Donabédian 1987, p. 580. 91 See the chapter Early sources. 92 Kazaryan 2012, p. 147.

Strzygowski in 1913 [5-9], but the following earthquakes in 1919 and 1931 caused even bigger disruptions and ruined the south-western wall and southern 93 exedra. In 1947, the preserved fragments of the drum and northern wall had been conserved and during the reconstruction works in 1959 the southern exedra, southern wall and parts of vault had been recovered, while some lost fragments of 94 the building were discovered in the ruins [12]. The second phase of restorations took place in the 1970’s. As a result, the dome was partially rebuild, and the 95 murals of the cathedral underwent a detailed study and cleaning [13-15]. Explorations of the churches surroundings in these years revealed a one-nave 96 church situated only five meters north of the cathedral [99]. In 1988, efforts were made to restore the cathedral to its original form, but the works were soon canceled due to the unsatisfactory condition of the building's 97 statics. Instead, the walls were supported by reinforced concrete bonds. The

Cathedral was soon struck by another earthquake − Spitak 1988 — and after the 98 fall of the Soviet Union the reconstruction works were stuck at a deadlock. The last intervention into the state of the cathedral was done to stabilize the building 99 after the last earthquake. The church of Saint Mary (Astvatsatsin) located near the cathedral, was reconstructed in the 1990’s and the very last finding on the site took place in 2001, when researchers explored the vaulted crypt situated under the 100 one nave church which were discovered in the 1970’s.

93 Tokarsky, 1961, p. 103; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 94 The reconstruction works of 1947 and 1959 were guided by A. Balasanyan (А. Баласанян) and G. Hakobyan (Г. Акопян). Tamanyan 1988, p. 93-95; Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 169; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 95 The reconstructions during 1970’s were made according to plan of A. Stepanyan (А. Степвнян), under the leadership of A. Avetisyan (А. Аветисян). The drum has been temporarily strengthened with metal pylons, its remains has been fixated and then the walls were replenished. Kazaryan 2012, p. 147; The cleaning of frescoes is repeatedly mentioned in Kotanjyan 1978, p. 46; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96. 96 Manouthcharian 1977; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 97 The project for reconstruction was made by A. Manasyan (А. Манасян) and S. Saroyan (С. Сароян), but never realized. The static problems consisted of cracks in the pillars supporting the dome, overstrain of the western arch and tilted western wall. Tamanyan 1988, p. 95; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 98 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 169; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 99 Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 100 Kazaryan 2012, p. 148.

In 2002 an expedition from Vienna remeasured the cathedral and created a 101 computer 3D reconstruction of its presumably original state [16-22]. A similar expedition was undertaken in 2019 by archeologists from the Academy of Science in Prague. The project called Apostolus 2019 focused on T’alin cathedral, church of Saint Mary and paleochristian steles from the nearby cemetery.102 The scholars used photogrammetry to create 3D models of the cathedral, small church and the early Christian stela from its near its vicinity.103

Technique of construction

After the earthquake, the southwestern part of the building remained cut off [25]. The subsequent restoration conserved the perfect cross-section of the walls, exposing their construction technique. Now one can clearly see, that the whole building with its ceiling and piers is built from outer and inner side from perfectly worked stone blocks of red and black tuffa. The stone blocks acts like a 104 mold, completely filled up with vertically placed stones and lime concrete. The 105 blocks are not polished, as there are still visible traces of a tool. This construction technique called “midis” is typical to the territory of historical 106 Armenia and was used throughout the whole Middle Ages. The blocks have different dimensions but are precisely fitted. They are placed vertically and horizontally, while sometimes short and long blocks alternate [26]. This solution is used to support the walls and make them resistant 107 to seismic shocks. The layer of clay under the outline walls that was discovered during the probes of the foundation of the temple, might fulfill the same function.

101 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 81. 102 More about Apostolus 2019 can be found in the official press release of Archeological institute AVČR Prague from 24.10.2019. Online:https://www.avcr.cz/opencms/export/sites/avcr.cz/. content/galerie-souboru/tiskove-zpr avy /2019/TZ_APOSTOLUS_2019.pdf (18.3.2020) 103 The final 3D models together with description of used method can be found at: https://www.capturingreality.com/photogrammetry-documentation-architects?fbclid=IwAR3LBf P0LMSxbWmMDPM-beFvoee2Jx1W5gaNFYEwB5svKAiqJqRUj-HcU6s (26.3.2020). Another result of Apostolus is virtual presentation of T’alin cathedral, which can be found online: http://www.nasehistorie.cz/talin360/index.html?fbclid=IwAR06qUFQb6IGLDhvBWRiExACD BhvdYnE9VC3ckc9Oh-Ka_TiVmqlRo5gIBU (7.4.2020) 104 Strzygowski 1918, p. 4.; Romanazzi 2009, p. 1201; Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 105 Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 106 Ter Martirosov, Mikaelyan 2009, p. 131. 107 Fujita 2011.

108 109 Many of the blocks are marked on the surface by various mason's marks. Axially wide chambers are preserved on their horizontal edges. The seams which are holding the blocks together were sealed and decorated with a concave groove. 110 This seal preceded the plaster on the inner side of the walls. The construction of the dome was achieved through an impressive transition from a circular shape on the bottom, to a polygonal shape of the windowed drum. [27]. On its top, the drum is once again getting a circular shape 111 thanks to twelve small conical vaults situated between the windows. Some scholars assume, that the huge dome determines the form of entire structure. In this case, the exedrae serve as the best possible option of distributing 112 the mass and support for the dome. This might be the reason, why the building has a form of the cross with a dome in a the center achieved in the longitudinal building.

Architecture

Even in a damaged condition, the cathedral of T’alin mesmerize the viewer with the outstanding quality of architecture and unusually large dimensions [28]. The inner space is 15,8 meters wide and 27 meters long, 113 however, with its exedrae the width is 24,95 m and length 34,5 m. The building itself can be classified as a three nave domed basilica, with three exedrae protruding to the east, south and north [16a-j]. The eastern exedra is slightly wider, and it is completed by two small chapels flanking the eastern apse from 114 southern and northern side [24a-b]. The whole building is placed on a three 115 tiered platform [29]. The main apse situated on the eastern side is three-sided, while the exedrae on both the northern and the southern sides are endowed with

108 Kazaryan 2012, p. 148, Kazaryan does not refer to any source, only mentioning the probes of foundation made by A. Avetisyan [А. Аветисян]. 109 Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 110 Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 111 Romanazzi 2009, p. 1205. 112 Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Romanazzi 2009, p. 1205. 113 The outer dimensions are 17,8 x 34,3 m, with lateral apses 26,9 x 36,9 m. This is the latest measurements,, provided by Kazaryan in: Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 114 Strzygowski 1918, p. 168; Yakobson 1950, p. 42; Tokarsky 1961, p. 102; Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 90; Donabédian 2008, p. 118; Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 115 Kazaryan 2012, p. 150..

five edges. All exedrae reach the same height as the sidewalls, which are 116 decorated by blind arcades and crowned by a semi-hexagonal roof. The gable roofs above the exedrae are slightly elevated [30]. In their crossing, the twelve-sided drum with the same width is crowning the whole building, and is 117 embellished just like the exedrae by blind arcades. According to the latest computer 3D reconstruction, the drum could have been covered by a twelve-sided 118 pyramidal roof [16-22]. One of the things that makes T’alin cathedral so unusual is its spatial composition. While standing in the interior, the space seems to be divided into a 119 longitudinal nave, transept and sanctuary [31]. However, in the plan one can see the dome situated in the center of a rectangular building with three apses [24a-b]. This effect is achieved by a complicated system of round arches dividing the 120 building into smaller parts. The two pillars on the western wall are connected to two western piers under the dome by wide arches [32]. These arches are dividing the longitudinal space into two lateral sections and one main nave. Four freestanding piers under the dome are then linked with each other and with the 121 walls of the building on different level, by considerably narrower arches. The eastern piers are then connected to the eastern walls by much narrower and shorter arches, since they are meeting the walls of the lateral chapels [33]. This is creating 122 an impression of an elongated eastern apse similar to sanctuary. T’alin thus represents itself as a basilica according to the plan, but not in it’s spatial 123 composition. The four freestanding piers are resting on a low stone base [34]. The piers are supporting double arches, linked by spherical pendentives, which are creating 124 a circular cornice. On the top of it a 12-sided drum is forming 8,6 meters wide

116 Kazaryan 2012, p. 150. 117 Tokarsky 1961, p. 103; Donabedian 2008, p. 119; Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 85, Romanazzi 2009, p. 1205; Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 118 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, pp. 80-104. 119 Tokarsky 1961, p. 103. 120 Kazaryan 2012, p. 148-149. 121 Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 122 Tokarsky 1961, p. 103. 123 Yakobson 1950, pp. 42-45. 124 Romanazzi 2009, p. 1204-1205.

125 dome. On the west side, the barrel vault rises over a rectangular triple-nave, while the small spaces between the side chapels and nave are covered by a cross vault [35,36]. The conchs atop the exedrae are placed a bit lower, which causes the space to form like a crescent moon situated above its arches [37]. In case of 126 T’alin this space is effectively filled with oculi. The efficient window placements, is one of the reasons why the whole structure seems to be very light despite its dimensions. There are three arch shaped windows placed in southern and northern exedrae, with which an oculus is placed above. Another six windows pierce the southern and northern wall in a 127 symmetrical way [32]. On the eastern wall, three windows in the apse are accompanied by pair of oculi above them [38]. One arch-shaped window and a 128 small oculus is illuminating both of the lateral chapels. The western wall used to be especially decorative thanks to its five arch-shaped windows with the same number of oculi; though, nowadays only two windows and one oculus stayed 129 preserved [12, 17, 39]. The central space was lit by twelve windows in the drum. Two entrances on the southern facade are mirroring another two entrances on the northern side [plan]. The main entrance leads from the west and is flanked 130 by two decorative niches. All the entries were originally roofed by a portico, 131 though, today only lower parts of their walls are still standing. The square-shaped chapels flanking the eastern apse are both covered by barrel vaults and end with a small apse, which are crowned by a conch and 132 completed with a window in the center. The eastern apse partially preserved its bema, which is most probably from a later period [40]. However, its existence in 133 ancient times was not excluded. One low step (about 10 cm high), is elevating

125 The measurements were provided by Kazaryan 2012, p. 148; he claims the drum to be 16-sided, what is not true according to Tokarsky 1961, p. 103; Donabedian 2008, p. 119; Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 85, Romanazzi 2009, p. 1205. Before them Strzygowski assumed the drum to be octagonal, but this was disproved after the first reconstructions. Strzygowski 1918, p. 170. 126 Kazaryan 2012, p. 149. 127 Kazaryan 2012, p. 151. 128 Kazaryan 2012, p. 149. 129 Strzygowski 1918, p. 169. 130 Kazaryan is convinced, that the niches of Talin’s western facade are among the first known example of niches, with purely decorative function, in: Kazaryan 2012 p. 151. 131 Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 82; Kazaryan 2012, p. 151. 132 Kazaryan 2012, p. 149. 133 Ibidem.

the space in front of the altar and lateral chapels [41]. Kazarjan suggested, it 134 might have been a base for an altar rail. Especially in the eastern parts of the church, the floor was made of black stone which has partially preserved its form. The stone blocks in the center of the building, copy the circular shape of the dome above, creating a pattern of concentric circles in which a significant object could 135 be placed [42]. The northern apse contains a niche on its western side [43]. This element is interesting not only thanks to its unsymmetrical position in only one of the lateral apses, but also thanks to its direction, as it is facing the apsidal zone.

Sculptural decoration

The T’alin cathedral preserved one of the richest sculptural decorations known throughout Armenia. But while the outside walls are adorned with precisely carved reliefs, the interior stayed quite plain, since the walls were fully 136 decorated with murals. The main emphasis inside the building was put on the dome. In the center, eight relief-rays were spread out to the sides, from which 137 only the lower part remained preserved, and was finished in a circular form. The rays reached the height of the decorative band and was filled with disks of concentric circles [27]. Under it, twelve windows were placed inside shallow 138 niches. At the very bottom of the drum, a cornice circling on its perimeter is protruding into the space under the dome. The dome is supported by four piers decorated with an elegant combination of lesene and pronounced cubic capitals [8,44]. From the side oriented into the central square, the lesene is shallow and flat, while the side oriented out of the space of the central square is covered by a 139 semi-circular lesene. The pair of oculi above the apse, placed in small niches 140 with the conch is divided by a small square based column [45].

134 Ibidem. 135 Kazaryan 2012, p. 150. 136 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Durnovo 1957, p.10; Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 95. 137 Strzygowski 1918, p. 169, 297; Kazaryan 2012, p. 152. 138Donabédian 2008, p. 238; Kazaryan 2012, p. 152; Donabédian suggests this solution to serve for better illumination of the drum and compares it with the arches covering the mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna. 139 Kazaryan 2005, p. 17. 140 Kazaryan 2012, p. 152.

The decorative richness of T’alin is fully manifested on its outside facade. The blind arcades on the double half-columns with a cubic basis and capitals, 141 encircle the drum and all three exedras. To fit the round shape of a column onto the square shaped base, the column is formed on its bottom by two cut-outs [46,47]. Every pair of columns is slightly broken into an obtuse angle to fit tightly 142 on the wall to support the archivolts made of a three staged profile. The top of the drum is endowed by double cornice, with the upper part wider and decorated 143 by shallow denticles [30]. In comparison with the lower part of the building, the drum seems to be quite austere. The blind arcades placed at the outer walls of the exedras have their 144 archivolts adorned with a precisely sculpted relief of ornamental patterns. On the apse, the archivolts bare the ornament of basketry lace, while the northern and southern exedrae are decorated with the pattern of pomegranate branches and vine 145 foliage [48-50]. The capitals, crowning the half columns of the blind arcades bare the basket lace ornament, or different variations of relief with palm trees, 146 which diverge from the middle [51]. As Kazaryan proposed, this contrast with the use of decorative patterns in the upper and lower parts of the building might be intended by the architects. The dome is distant from the viewer and thus it 147 seems inefficient to put emphasis on invisible details. However, it is necessary to consider that the drum, which is visible today, underwent a massive 148 reconstruction [6,7,27,46]. The builders of T’alin payed a lot of attention to the embellishment of the windows. While the ones situated in the exedrae are surrounded by an ornamental relief of archivolts, the rest of them were endowed by a sculpted ornamental band of geometric patterns such as rings, horseshoe designs, dragon ornaments and

141 Strzygowski 1918, p. 172; Tokarsky 1961, p. 104; Donabédian 2008, p. 240; Kazaryan 2012, p. 152. 142 Kazaryan 2012, p. 152. 143 Tokarsky 1961, p. 104; Kazaryan 2012, p. 152. 144 Strzygowski 1918, p. 172; Tokarsky 1961, p. 104; Donabedian 2008, p. 240. 145 Strzygowski 1918, p. 172; Tokarsky 1961, p. 104; Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 102. 146 Strzygowski 1918, p. 172; Kazaryan 2012, p. 151-152; According to Donabédian, the palmets might represent the later version of a hellenistic acanthus ornament. More on that in Donabedian 1993, p. 166. 147 Kazaryan 2012, p. 152. 148 Mittermayr. Supa 2004, p. 169; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147.

149 others [52-56]. The most emphasis was put on the western wall, which includes the main entrance to the cathedral [12,17,39]. On both sides of the facade there was a window with a sculpted band above, and an oculus framed by a laurel relief [57]. The portico, which used to cover the entry, was flanked by two decorative 150 niches filled with a pair of half columns. One of the niches is still preserved today, showing its double-column surmounted by cubic capitals, with a hole on its 151 top which was probably used as a placement for a stone cross. Above the portico are three windows which used to reach the same height as two niches on their sides [17]. The entire composition was shielded by a coherent relief band 152 with a geometric pattern, that follows the shape of windows and niches. Finally, three oculi arranged in a triangular shape used to crown the gable of the western 153 facade, and were surrounded by laurel reliefs on their perimeter. The wide cornice, today only partially preserved, used to complete the 154 perimeter walls on their tops, bearing an intertwined zigzag pattern [58]. In 1960’s there were still visible remains of red and white color on some parts of the cornices and windows crowns, meaning that the relief decoration of the exterior 155 was probably painted. In addition, the sundial is placed right in the middle of the southern exedra, carved into a single piece of stone block [9,59]. It is exhibited in a palmetto design, with thirteen segments radiating from a central rosette form. Each segment is ends with a medallion incised with a number, 156 bearing the form of a pomegranate.

Architectural models and dating

Scholars categorized the structure in terms of architectural type, as a triconch domed basilica, with a cross inscribed in its plan. This type of

149 Tokarsky 1961, p. 155-162; Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Donabédian 2008, p. 247-251; Kazaryan 2012, p. 153. 150 Kazaryan is convinced, that the niches of Talin’s western facade are the first known example of niches, with purely decorative function, in: Kazaryan 2012 p. 151. 151 Donabedian 2008, p. 242; Kazaryan 2012, p. 151. 152 Strzygowski 1918, fig. 199; Kazaryan 2012, p. 153, fig. 1464, 1465. 153 Strzygowski 1918, p. 169; Kazaryan 2012, p. 153. 154 Tokarsky 1961, p. 104,152; Donabédian 2008, p. 253. 155 Rakelyan, Mazmanyan 1964, p. 168; Kazaryan 2012, p. 153. 156 Strzygowski 1918, p. 173; Kazaryan 2012, p. 153; Maranci 2014, p. 565.

architecture only has a few representations throughout the territory of historical Armenia and Georgia. In today’s Georgia, the churches of this type can be found in Oshk (963-973) and Kutaisi (1003), but extensive discussion in the mid-20th century eventually proved that these buildings could not be directly linked to the Cathedral of T’alin.157 Much more convenient, is the connection with the church of Saint Gregory in Dvin, which served as an official Cathedral of the Armenian Church since 470 (471) up to its destruction by an earthquake in 893.158 Excavated by the archeologists between 1907-1908 and 1936-1939, it was first built in the mid-5th century as a three-nave basilica.159 Scholars first assumed that between the years 608-628, the basilica was rebuilt into the triconch domed basilica.160 However, as Kazaryan proposed, it seems more likely that the church was rebuilt shortly after the Arab raids in 640.161 According to Thierry, Donabédian and Kazaryan, this second version of the cathedral probably served as a model for the cathedral of T’alin.162 No doubt, the plan of both structures—rectangle with pentagonal exedrae to the south and north and trapezoidal to the east—look almost identical. The only difference seems to be the elongated western arm of T’alin, in comparison with Dvin, which southern and northern exedrae are placed bit more to the west [60,61]. The idea, that the exedrae became another step in the evolution of Armenian architecture, supporting the dome and making the whole structure more resistant to seismic activity, was generally accepted among scholars for decades. 163 It was Mario D’Onofrio, who introduced a new approach to this problem. He believes, that the type of triconchal church arrived in Armenia through cultural contact with the Byzantine Empire. D’Onofrio compared the cathedral of Dvin to

157 About the discussion see Chubinashvili 1930, pp. 260- 270; Tokarsky 1961, p. 104; Chubinashvili 1967, pp. 264-269; Kazaryan 2012, p. 146-147. 158 More about Dvin Cathedral in: Tokarsky 1961, p. 102-103; Hasratian 2000, p. 59; Thierry de Crussol 2002, pp. 90; Kazaryan 2005, p. 17; Donabédian 2008, pp. 66, 118; Kazaryan vol II 2012, pp. 426-428. 159 Kazaryan 2005, p. 13. 160 Tokarsky 1961, p. 101; Hasratian 2000, p. 59. 161 Kazaryan 2005, p. 14. Donabédian, on the other hand, proposed the three-conchal cathedral to be built at the beginning of the 7th century and decorated after the 640. Donabédian 2008, p. 66 162 The direct connection between Dvin and T’alin was confirmed by: Thierry de Crussol 2002, pp. 90; Kazaryan 2005, p. 17; Donabédian 2008, pp. 66, 118. 163 Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Romanazzi 2009, p. 1205.

the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem, rebuilt into the triconchal basilica by Emperor Justinian in the second half of 6th century. Though he eventually concluded that Armenians adopted this architectural type from other shrines in Palestine.164 D’Onofrio assumed that the cathedral of Dvin was rebuilt into a triconch at the beginning of 7th century, when the Armenian church was led by Monophysists and the contact with Constantinople was thus excluded.165 His hypothesis was further developed by Armen Kazaryan. He managed to refute D’Onofrio's doubts about the impossibility of contact with Byzantium during the first half of the 7th century, as well as the misleading dating of Dvin cathedral.166 He even found some common features between the Nativity Church in Bethlehem the cathedral of T’alin—a possible copy of the Dvin cathedral. The first feature is the semicircular lesene on pillars supporting the dome, which in both, Bethlehem and T’alin, are placed unusually at the sides of the pillars facing not the central square, but the naves [31].167 This feature, as Kazaryan assumed, might be transferred from Bethlehem to Dvin, where it could be slightly modified and eventually used in T’alin. The second feature common for both churches is the triplet of windows not only in eastern exedra, but also in the southern and northern ones. Kazaryan claims, that this element cannot be found in other churches in the region before Dvin, and is only preserved in two churches in the historic territory of Armenia, which are both built after the Dvin cathedral—the T’alin cathedral and the tetraconch church of Saint John in Sisavank (670-689).168 To summarize, Kazaryan believes that the direct model for the T’alin cathedral is the temple in Dvin, but the architectural type of building is taken from the Nativity Church in Bethlehem, combined with local architectural type of cross-domed structures, which was very popular between the end of the 5th and first half of the 7th century.169

164 D’Onofrio 1973, pp. 102-103. More about the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem in: Bacci 2017. 165 D ’Onofrio 1973, p. 103; Kazaryan 2005, p. 14. 166 Kazaryan 2005, pp. 16-17. The architectural contact between Byzantium and Armenia during first half of 7th century can be traced in the Church of Saint Hripsime (618), which is probably inspired by Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. 167 Kazaryan 2005, pp. 17-18. 168 Kazaryan 2005, p. 18. More about Sisavank in: Kazaryan vol. III 2012, pp. 124-145. 169 Kazaryan 2005, pp. 18.

The similarity of sculptural decorations between T’alin and the Zvartnots temple, built in the mid-7th century, turned out to be a widely accepted fact.170 One can see an indisputable resemblance in the detailed vine foliage of the blind arcades, the cuboid capitals with palm trees diverging from the middle, in the oculi surrounded by laurel reliefs, or intertwined zigzag pattern on the cornices.171 But even this conclusion might rather point to Dvin, rather then Zvartnots itself. Only a few fragments of sculptural decoration were found during the excavations in Dvin in the 1950’s.172 The discovered fragments consist of one piece of a protruding portal, two parts of a cornice with basketry lace pattern, and two pieces of blind arcade—a features that can easily be linked with the Zvartnots temple. Moreover, the connection of Dvin with the Zvartnots temple was proved through the analysis of mason’s marks on both churches, which showed that six of the nine mason’s marks found in Dvin are identical with those in Zvartnots.173 Thus, the similar sculptural decoration of the T’alin cathedral and Zvartnots temple might be caused by intentional reproducing of the cathedral of Dvin by the builders of T’alin, not only in terms of its architectural form, but also sculptural decoration. Because the cathedral in Dvin fails to provide enough material evidence to be linked with certainty directly to T’alin, scholars often resort to a comparison with other structures, specifically a number of churches dated back to various periods of the 7th century. Such buildings include the cathedral of Aruch (660), thanks to its high number of large windows on the perimeter walls, and the solution of the dome, which is encircled on its bottom by perfectly round profiled cornices.174 No less obvious, is the same intertwined zigzag cornices that can be found in T’alin and Zvartnots, as well as sculpted window bands above every window. The relief plasticity of both is of the same nature as of the one’s in T’alin.175 The church of Saint John in Sisavank (670-689) shares with T’alin not

170 Strzygowski 1918, p. 172; Tokarsky 1961, p. 104; Hasratian 2000, p. 77; Donabédian 2008, p. 119; Kazaryan 2012, p. 154. 171 More about Zvartnots sculptural decoration in: Donabédian 2008, pp. 190-198; Kazaryan vol. II 2012, pp. 492-550. 172 Donabédian 2008, p. 67. 173 Kazaryan 2005, p. 16. 174 Kazaryan vol III 2012, p. 37. 175 More about Aruch in: Donabédian 2008, pp. 126-128; Kazaryan vol III 2012, pp. 78-81.

only the triplet of windows in every exedrae, but also the form of the drum and its outside decoration [62].176 Among the churches from the first half of the 7th century, it is possible to recognize some similarities with the church of Saint Hripsime, especially in the decoration of the dome, which in both structures is adorned with eight relief rays spread to the sides, with its bottom is encircled with a decorative band of concentric circles [63].177 Last but not least, is the church of Saint John the Baptist in Baghavan (631-639), with a spacious, elongated interior composition and a multi-tiered system of windows, which has a lot in common with T’alin cathedral.178 All the aforementioned features convinced the scholars that the cathedral must have been executed in the 7th century.179 Josef Strzygowski dated the church to the second quarter of the century, but the decorative richness of sculpted reliefs suggest the post-Zvartnots era. That was confirmed later by identification of the model in Dvin cathedral.180 Anatoly Jakobson and Nikolay Tokarsky stopped at this point and categorized the cathedral into the second half of 7th century.181 However, the form of the dome identical with Sisavank cathedral (670-689) and the use of exterior niches with columns for a solely decorative purpose point in the last quarter of the 7th century. Kazaryan even specified the dating between the 70’s and 80’s of that century.182 Murad Hasratian, Jean Michel Thierry and Patrick Donabédian dated the cathedral to the last decades of the century, according to the possible attribution by Nerseh Kamsarakan, ruler of Armenia between 689-693 and builder of the church of Saint Mary just few meters to the south of the cathedral.183 Kamsarakan’s participation with the church construction is not confirmed by any documentary source, but the fact that this magnificent cathedral was built in the center of his patrimony, speaks for itself.184

176 More about Sisavank in: Donabédian 2008, pp. 172-174 ; Kazaryan vol. III 2012, pp. 124-145. 177 More about Saint Hripsime church in: Donabédian 2008, pp. 83-87; Kazaryan vol. I 2012, p. 290-324. 178 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, p. 38. More about Baghavan in Donabédian 2008, pp. 104-105. 179 Strzygowski 1918, p. 167. 180 Strzygowski 1918, p. 316. 181 Strzygowski 1918, p. 167; Jakobson 1950, p. 42; Tokarsky 1961, p. 104. 182 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, 154. 183 Hasratian 2000, p. 76; Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Donabédian 2008, p. 118. 184 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, p. 154.

THE WORDS AND IMAGES

[...] in the churches of Christians, and in the dwellings of the martyrs of God, we see painted Saint Gregory, his torments pleasing to God and his holy virtues; the protomartyr Stephen among the stoners; the blessed and glorious Saint Gayane and Saint Hrip'simé with all their companions and the glorious martyrs; likewise other virtuous and respectable men, of angelic piety, which we cannot enumerate [...] in the churches of God we see the divine cross, the cohort of apostles carrying the cross, and the prophets who made wickedness disappear, and spread the worship of God in the universe, and confounded the devil and his legions. For in the churches of God we see painted all the wonders of Christ, as it says in the scriptures, and which, as we have previously mentioned, were predicted to us by the prophets; I mean birth, baptism, passion and crucifixion, burial, resurrection and ascent to heaven. Everything that the scriptures tell is painted in 185 the churches.

This text was written by Vrťanes K’ert’ogh, an Armenian monk-poet, as a 186 defense of images against the iconophobic sects in the mid-7th century. No doubt, the mentioned Armenian saints attest to the fact, that the monk is

185 [...] tandis que dans les églises des chrétiens, et dans les demeures des martyrs de Dieu, nous voyons peints saint Grégoire, ses tourments agréables à Dieu et ses saintes vertus; le protomartyr Étienne au milieu des lapideurs; la bienheureuse et glorieuse sainte Gayané et sainte Hripsimé avec tous leurs compagnons et les martyrs glorieux; de même d'autres hommes vertueux et respectables, d'une piété angélique, que nous ne pouvons énumérer [...]; tandis que dans les églises de Dieu on voit la croix divine, la cohorte des apôtres portant la croix, et les prophètes qui firent disparaître l'impiété, et répondirent l'adoration de Dieu dans l'univers, et confondirent le démon et ses légions. Car dans les églises de Dieu nous voyons peintes toutes les merveilles du Christ, tel qu'il est dit dans les écritures, et qui, comme nous l'avons précédemment mentionné, nous furent prédites par les prophètes; je veux dire la naissance, le baptême, la passion et le crucifiement, l'ensevelissement, la résurrection et l'ascension au ciel. Tout ce que les saintes écritures racontent est peint dans les églises. In: Der Nersessian 1944-1945, p. 64. The text was translated from Greek by Der Nersessian. 186 The date and authorship was examined by Der Nersessian in the same article. Her conclusion dated the writing from around 633 to 668.

describing the interior of Armenian churches. The description is very general but gives a clear idea about the iconographic decorations of 7th century Armenian churches. Is this description somehow relevant for T’alin? To find it out, this chapter will be concerned with iconography and iconology of the apsidal mural. Eventually, I will examine the meaning and significance of the inscriptions preserved in the church.

Murals

Description of murals

The fragments of murals preserved in the entire interior suggest that the 187 whole surface of the interior was once adorned with colorful paintings. The disrupted state of building over the span of at least two centuries caused a radical disappearance of the murals, and today only a few fragments bear the traces of colors to allow researchers to reflect on their original appearance and iconography. Even some parts which were still visible as late as 1950’s, have 188 vanished entirely. The only readable fragments stayed preserved in the eastern part of the church, especially in the altar zone. Despite the layers of paint that have disappeared, the visible preliminary drawing has made it possible to recognize the composition. In the conch, there are fragments of a great throne with a cushion and an open book located in the 189 mandorla encircled with stars [64-66]. On its side, one can see the traces of 190 wings endowed with eyes [66]. Nikolay Kotanjyan assumed that the composition was symmetrical, and placed the creatures on both sides of the throne 191 when creating the hypothetical reconstruction [67]. The band was made of eleven medallions, and framed by two strips of floral ornament which are situated

187 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Durnovo 1957, p.10; Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 95. 188 Kotanjyan 2017, p. 97. 189 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Kotanjyan 1978, p. 46; Donabedian 2008, p. 220; Kazaryan 2012, p.153; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96. 190 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Durnovo 1957, p. 10; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 97. 191 More on the reconstruction of mural composition in: Kotanjyan 2006.

in the triumphal arch. The medallions depict busts of saints, except for the middle 192 one, which bears the cross [68]. All of the medallions are encircled with 193 ornamental bands, each one with different ornamentation. Some of the patterns resemble palmettes, circles, half-palmettes, or hearts. Bright brownish-red 194 outlines frame the black background of the band on its edges. According to Lydia Durnovo, two narrow strips of ornaments outlined by a red colour used to follow the edge of the triumphal arch, meeting each other at the top. These two garlands were supposed to rise from two vessels placed on the top of capitals, depicted at the bottom of triumphal arch, and were hung with colorful fruits and 195 bunches of leaves. This motif did not survive through the 1970’s; today we only 196 know about it from the work and sketches of Lydia Durnovo. Another such band with ten medallions in an ornamental frame is situated under the conch, unfortunately, there are no that would suggest what was depicted inside of them 197 [69]. In the central part of the apse, some fragments of figures were preserved, standing in one row at the window level [70]. They probably represented the twelve apostles, four at the right and left side, and two pairs between the 198 windows. Strzygowski even noted some illegible inscription above the figures, 199 but this was not noted by any other scholar. Some other traces of murals are still visible on the southern wall of the altar zone [71]. Thanks to fairly well preserved preliminary drawings, one can easily recognise the image of Christ on the donkey. 200 The iconography can be determined as the Christ entering Jerusalem without a

192 Durnovo 1957, p. 10; Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 97. 193 Durnovo 1957, p. 10; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 97. 194 Durnovo 1957, p. 10. 195 Durnovo 1957, p.10. 196 Kotanjyan 2017, p. 97. 197 Kotanjyan 2017, p. 97; During the cleaning of frescoes in 70’s, the researchers could not reconstruct what was depicted in the medallions. Kotanjyan left the medallions blank when creating the linear reconstruction of mural. Lydia Durnovo presumed there were depicted the busts of saints, but it also could have been some symbols. 198 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Donabédian 2008, p. 220; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 98. 199 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298. 200 In 1913 Strzygowski was able to recognise Christ sitting on donkey, heading towards an architecture on the left and three saints following him. Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 98.

201 doubt. Lydia Durnovo also recognized two horse riders on the pillars, flanking 202 the apse and facing the main nave. Only one of them, depicted on the northern 203 pillar, is still partially visible [72]. The wall of the southern side-chapel bared the remains of figures in an ornamental frame, from which only heads with nimbuses were preserved [73]. On the side of the murals, there is an inscription 204 done with a black paint, revealing the name of Moses – executor of the murals. The material substances of the mural were well examined by Nikolay Kotanjyan. He took samples of the mural, and tried to recreate its original colors 205 according to the mineral composition of the samples. The result showed not only the richness and brightness of the colors, but also some similarities with the church of Lmbat, which was dated to the 6th and the 10th centuries, in terms of 206 used mineral pigments and resulting color palette.

Dating of murals

For decades the opinion was generally accepted that there is no place for monumental paintings in medieval Armenia. The poor state of preservation of the monuments caused a disruption of the paintings and left them in fragmented state. Furthermore, there was a notion between scholars, that the murals in Armenia 207 were not developed due to the iconoclastic position of the Armenian church. That is why the first large works concerned with Armenian architecture at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century more or less overlooked the remains of murals in numerous Armenian churches. The scholars considered the paintings to be imported from Greeks and Syrians, or a special form of “Chalcedonian” art 208 in Armenia.

201 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Durnovo 1957, p. 11; Donabédian 2008, p. 220; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 98. 202 Durnovo 1957, p. 11. 203 Kotanjyan 2017, p. 98. 204 It was noted by Strzygowski that Marr recognized the name of the artist as Moses. Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Durnovo 1957, p. 11; Kazaryan 2012, p. 146; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 98 205 Kotanjyan 1978, fig. 46, 47. 206 Kotanjyan 1978, p. 45; More about Lmbat in: Donabédian 2008, pp. 138-139; Kazaryan vol. III 2012, pp. 580-592. 207 Drampyan 2018, p. 233. 208 Lynch 1901 and Strzygowski 1918 give some descriptions of preserved fragments, but not paying more attention to them. More about the history of Armenian monumental painting study in: Drampyan 2018.

This changed rapidly in the mid-1940’s. In those years Sirarpie der Nersessian (1896 - 1989) published her articles proving that the official Armenian church has never expressed itself unfavorably in relation to images, and the 209 reverse assumption that was accepted for many decades is a historical fault. Der Nersessian translated the medieval texts of Vrťanes K’ert’ogh — the theologian and chronicler, who testified about extensive decorative “programs” of murals in 7th century Armenian churches, depicting Christological and everyday scenes, 210 together with the apostles, saints and prophets. Lydia Durnovo carried out her research simultaneously with Der Nersessian and came to a similar conclusion. Paintings in Armenia have a 211 continuous tradition, at least since Hellenistic times. However, Durnovo probably did not know about the articles of Der Nersessian, since she assumed, that the monophysite Armenian church really did ban the paintings and the numerous 7th century churches with preserved fragments of murals must have 212 been executed under the chalcedonian, dyophysite donors. The cathedral in T’alin was presented as one of these examples. Durnovo considered T’alin’s murals to be contemporary with the church construction, as the main themes did not differ from the production of Syria and Egypt in that time. Even if the scholars accepted the fact that the monumental paintings have always had a tradition in Armenia, the cathedral in T’alin preserved its status of a 213 church built by a chalcedonian donor — however, not thanks to its murals. The latest contributions of Donabédian and Kotanjyan already count on the fact that the murals in T’alin were executed in 7th century, even though this conclusion was 214 never verified by modern scientific methods.

209 Der Nersessian 1944-1945. 210 Der Nersessian 1944-1945, p. 64. 211 Durnovo 1957, pp. 4-5. 212 Durnovo 1957, p. 8. 213 More about that later in the text. 214 Donabédian 2008, p. 220; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 95.

The empty throne

The traditional interpretation

The composition of an empty throne with an open book was recognised in 215 T’alin in 1918 by Josef Strzygowski. The following research however, tended to ignore this observation. In the 1950’s, Anatoly Yakobson and Lydia Durnovo presumed, that the throne must be the part of a much more usual depiction, like 216 the enthroned Virgin Mary or Christ in Glory. It was not until Nikolay Kotanjyan — some 20 years later — set the record straight, and the apsidal composition was once again identified as an “empty” throne in mandorla, with an 217 open book. But the question of iconography and the significance of the depiction has not yet been sufficiently developed. Strzygowski interpreted the iconography of the mural as an apocalyptic 218 depiction, the creatures with eyed wings as polyommata [cherubim]. He probably meant the vision described in the Book of Revelations 4:1, in which Saint John is allowed to see the God enthroned, surrounded by a rainbow and guarded by a cherubim with six wings full of eyes, bearing the form of a lion, bull, human and eagle. However, this explanation seems highly implausible for various reasons. Before entering this discussion, it is worthy to mention that we do not have any similar decorations within the region. We should thus work with similar compositions all around Mediterranean. Such an approach is of course, problematic. On the other side it seems reasonable to speak – until the 7th century 219 – of a relatively coherent mediterranean Christian iconographic tradition. Thus, we can thus compare the throne from T’alin to the apocalyptic depiction located on the triumphal arch of the basilica of Saint Cosma and Damian in Rome, dated to 526-530; one can see that they have very little in common [74]. In the case of the Roman basilica, the reference to the Book of Revelation seems obvious. The

215 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298. 216 Yakobson 1950, p. 43; Durnovo 1957, pp. 10-11. 217 Kotanjyan 2006; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96. 218 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298. 219 Grabar 1979; Foletti, Meinecke 2019.

throne is surrounded by seven candles, guarded by angels and four apocalyptic creatures, and adorned by 24 elders, while on the throne there is a Lamb and a 220 scroll. The composition in T’alin on the other hand, is very indefinite, accompanied only by two creatures, and accept from the scroll, the throne bears a book. Moreover, the article by Robert W. Thompson proves quite sufficiently, that the Book of Revelations never gained a major place in the Armenian biblical canon or liturgical readings of the Church. In fact, the book might have been 221 completely unknown in Armenia until the 12th century. Thus, it seems very strange to place an apocalyptic vision into the focal center of the church. Another possible interpretation was presented by Donabédian and Kazaryan. Both scholars agreed, that the empty throne with an open book is just another way of depicting Christ in Glory during theophanic vision flanked by 222 tetramorphs. According to Donabédian, such a composition fits very well into the repertoire of early Christian, proto-byzantine apsidal painting, known especially from Egypt. In Armenia as well — in Mrén, Lmbat and Koch — the apsidal paintings bears a symbolic scenes of glorification of the Christ, through 223 the representation of a theophanic vision. In addition, the scenes in Lmbat, Mren and T’alin are all accompanied by a row of apostles in their lower part. Donabédian refers to André Grabar when interpreting this union as the connection of the Ascension with Theophany. This concept was constituted in Late Antique art and represents a scene when the apostolic cenacle is added to the theophanic 224 vision. Even though this interpretation seems probable, the use of an open gospel instead of the figure of Christ needs further explanation. Kotanjyan identified the depiction as Etimasia — the throne prepared for 225 Christ, to sit on during the last judgement, as in Psalm 9:8 or Matthew 25:31. At the same time, Kotanjyan agrees with Durnovo, that the creatures flanking the

220 Foletti 2017, p. 163-164. 221 Thompson 2014, p. 251. 222 Donabédian 2008, p. 221; Kazaryan vol. III 2012, pp. 153-154. More about Lmbat in: Donabédian 2008, pp. 138-139; Kazaryan vol. III 2012, pp. 580-592; More about Mren in: Maranci 2015; More about Koch in: Donabédian 2008, p. 137; Kazaryan vol. III 2012, pp. 506-516. 223 Donabédian 2008, p. 221. 224 Donabédian 2008, p. 221; Grabar 1966, p. 174; Grabar 1970, p. 23. 225 More about Etimasia in: von Bogyay 1960.

226 throne must be tetramorphs. The depictions of the Etimasia are well known from the Byzantine churches up to the 10th century, where they accompany the main composition. Usually, it is located on the triumphal arch, under the conch or 227 in a small dome. The motif has its roots in Greece and was subsequently transferred into the Roman, and later into the Christian tradition. Several writings testify about pagan ceremonies, during which an empty throne with the attributes 228 of some particular god was supposed to deputize for the god himself. In Christianity, the throne is usually surmounted by a cross, scroll or an apocalyptic lamb. But the mural in T’alin is quite unusual. The composition occupies the most prominent place in the church, and its dimensions are incomparable to the other known depictions of Etimasia. The above mentioned interpretations reflect on the traditional approaches taken by scholars, when trying to explain the meaning of an empty throne in Christian depictions. However, it seems like the traditional interpretations are not sufficient enough to be applied toward T’alins mural. The following ideas represent rather an unorthodox approach towards the problem.

The throne on the Council of Ephesus

Although very briefly, Nikolay Kotanjyan suggested one more possible interpretation. Unfortunately, he did not try to developed the hypothesis further. In the footnotes, Kotanjyan mentioned the Council of Ephesus (431), on which the Armenian church also participated. The Council was described by Cyril, 229 bishop of Alexandria, in a letter to the Emperor Theodosius. According to his testimony, the Council fathers gathered around the Christ himself, present in the 230 form of an empty throne on which the sacred scriptures had been placed. In case of the Council, the empty throne was understood as the presence of Christ, but the throne represented in T’alin might have another meaning. Guglielmo Matthiae already proposed the idea when dealing with Roman mosaics, that an

226 Durnovo 1957, p. 10; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96- 97. 227 Hakopyan 2016, p. 137; Foletti 2017, p. 48. 228 More about an empty throne in Greco-Roman world in: La Rocca 2007. 229 Cyril of Alexandria 1673, VI, p. 251. 230 Grabar 1952, p. 40; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96; Foletti 2017, p. 47.

empty throne with a book or a scroll might serve as an explicit reminder of the Council of Ephesus. In that case, the whole composition would have an 231 anti-Nestorian aspect. To fully understand the meaning of this interpretation, it is necessary to have a closer look at the theological disputes and the historical situation of 7th century Armenia. In 506 at the Council of Dvin, the Armenian church rejected the doctrine from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and started to be considered, mainly by 232 Constantinople, as a monophysite church. After the emperor Heraclius’ victory over Persia around 630, however, the Byzantine ruler forced the Armenian church to adopt the dogma of Chalcedon, or rather its softened version which was more 233 acceptable to the monophysites. This was a symbolic act, important not so much for reinterpretation of Christological dogma as such, but rather as a 234 manifestation of obedience towards the Byzantine empire. But the Armenians never fully accepted the Chalcedonian dogma. In 649 at another Council at Dvin 235 its rejection was reaffirmed. In 652/653 Teodoros Rechtouni decided it would be in the best interest of Armenia to reverse the situation and negotiate with the Arabs about the favourable condition for Armenian vassalage. This act provoked an immediate reaction from Constantinople. The emperor Constance II gathered his army and in 653 arrived to Dvin, where the Armenian clergy once more accepted the dogma of 236 Chalcedon. This caused the division of Armenia into two camps — the pro-Arab camp, led by Teodoros Rechtouni, and the Byzantine camp, favoring the doctrine of Chalcedon. In 655 the Arabs took over Armenia for a few months, but already in 656 the civil war weakened the caliphs power and Byzantium once 237 again restored its authority in the region. During the following five decades, Armenia was ruled by four princes succeeding one another: Hamazasp

231 Matthiae 1967, p. 91. 232 More about Armenians and the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon in: Sarkissian 1975, pp. 212-213. 233 This happened at the Council of Karin (633). More about the Councils of Karin in: Otsnetsi Catholicos 2010, p. 27; Garsoian 2012, pp. 59-60. 234 Donabédian 2008, p. 93. 235 Donabédian 2008, p. 94; Otsnetsi Catholicos 2010, p. 27. 236 Garsoian 2012, p. 61. 237 Donabédian 2008, pp. 95-96; Mahé 2012, pp. 108-109.

Mamikonian (654/655-662) under Byzantine guardianship, his brother Grigor Mamikonean (662-685) who renewed the pact with the Arabs, followed by Ashot Bagratuni (685-689) and finally by Nerseh Kamsarakan (689-693), titled again by 238 the Byzantine emperor. As was already said, the scholars consider Nerseh Kamsarakan to be the builder of T’alin cathedral. Not much is known about the man, but his sympathy 239 towards Byzantium and the Chalcedonian dogma. He was appointed by the Emperor Justinian II, who made the final attempt to create a pro-Chalcedonian 240 union between the two churches. Patrick Donabédian even considers the triplet of windows in the exedrae of the T’alin cathedral to be a declaration of 241 Chalcedonian dogma, materialized in the architecture. In light of this, the placing of a scene into the apse, which would be explicitly reminiscent of the council of Ephesus, would be inappropriate. On the other hand, during another synodes in Dvin (719) and Manazkert (726), the Armenian doctrine was changed yet again, this time definitively. The catholicos John of Odzun (650-729) fixed the Christological doctrine based on the 242 formula of the Council of Ephesus: “into the unique nature incarnate Word.” It seems like the T’alin mural could very well embody this new dogma. Moreover, in this case the empty throne with an open book would play a double game. The same image would explicitly remind the Council of Ephesus and at the same time the accepted dogma itself — an open gospel can easily be understood as the incarnate Word. If this interpretation is correct, it would be possible to postulate that the murals would have to be remade during the reign of catholicos John of Odzun, between 718 and 728, or shortly thereafter. Since the ascension of the Abbasid dynasty in 750, the situation in Armenia changed rapidly. The new rulers 243 applied a policy of intolerance and persecution. According to Jean Pierre Mahé, after the establishment of the new dogma, the veneration of images was forbidden. The frescoes disappear from the churches for a while, and the light

238 Donabédian 2008, pp. 97; Mahé 2012, pp. 109-111. 239 Greenwood 2004, p. 51; Donabédian 2008, p. 99. 240 Garsoian 2012, p. 62. 241 Donabédian 2008, p. 97-98. 242 Donabédian 2008, p. 94; Otsenatsi Catholicos 2010, pp. 28-31; Mahé 2012, p. 114. 243 Garsoian 2012, p. 104.

illuminated the altar through a single window in the apse, to represent the new Christological doctrine. However, the images remained in the form of embroidery 244 and illuminated manuscripts. Finally, the entire concept associating the image of an empty throne with a specific council seems to be problematic. The Council of Ephesus was not the only occasion, during which an open gospel was placed on an empty throne to represent the god’s presence. The manuscript Homilies of Gregory the Nazianus in Paris preserved an illumination of the second Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 [75]. The image shows the congregation, gathered around the elevated throne on which an open gospel is placed. The same practice is known from the eight Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in 869-870.245 Moreover, Giovanni Battista de Rossi analyzed a sarcophagus in 1872 , depicting an empty throne with a monogram of Christ, a small star next to it and the letters I.X.US. De Rossi interpreted the symbol of the star as the primary symbol of the Gospel proclamation, according to the language of the prophets and apostles.246 Stars can also be found in the apse of T’alin, as the throne is encircled by them.247 Overall, the composition on the sarcophagus was interpreted by De Rossi as a symbol of the doctrinal teaching and of a memory of the councils. De Rossi’s eventually suggested, that the sarcophagus was intended for a bishop — the protector of the doctrine.248 The conclusions of De Rossi thus demonstrate not only the possibility to understand the depiction of an empty throne as a general memory of councils and the doctrine, but also point towards the second option for interpretation of T’alin’s mural — the empty throne as an episcopal representation.

244 Mahé 2012, p. 114. 245 Forsyth 1972, p. 87. 246 De Rossi 1872, p. 133; Foletti 2004, pp. 70-71. 247 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Kotanjyan 1978, p. 46; Donabedian 2008, p. 220; Kazaryan 2012, p.153; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96. 248 De Rossi 1872, p. 140; Foletti 2004, pp. 70-71.

The episcopal throne

An entirely new approach was introduced by Sible de Blaauw and Ursula 249 Nilgen, and subsequently developed more recently by Ivan Foletti. Even if their studies are concerned with Roman churches of the early Middle Ages—especially with Santa Maria Maggiore—it is likely the concept can be at least partially applied towards the T’alin cathedral as well. Nilgen was concerned with the triumphal arches of Roman churches, bearing the depictions from the Book of Revelations [76]. She connected the decorations of the churches with the liturgical practice and together with it with the position of liturgical furnishing. Nilgen concluded, that during the Eucharistic liturgy the focal moment was the recitation of Sanctus — a literal passage from the Book of Revelations. At the same time, the altar, with which the liturgy was performed, was placed under the triumphal arch. In this way, the decoration on 250 the wall was mirroring exactly what was happening underneath. But Nilgen’s theory was contested by Sible de Blaauw, who proved that the altar in Santa Maria Maggiore was not located under the arch. Until the beginning of the 8th century, the altar was placed in the nave, while the apsidal 251 zone was occupied by a bishop’s throne placed on a raised podium. However, the logic behind the composition stays the same: the throne of God on the triumphal arch is located just above the throne of his representative on the Earth 252 — the bishop. The tradition of the episcopal throne in the apse on a bema, seems to be — according to Foletti — connected with the Syriac liturgical customs, which 253 were plausibly transferred to Rome together with the large Syrian diaspora. Firstly, the real throne was placed on the bema, accompanied by other seats for the clergy. But with time, the throne used by bishop only for several occasions, changed into an symbolic object. Foletti even proposed, that in certain cases, the

249 de Blaauw vol. I 1994; Nilgen 2000; Foletti 2017. 250 Nigen 2000, p. 79. 251 De Blaauw 1994, pp. 350, 379-382. 252 Foletti 2017, p. 49. 253 Foletti 2017, pp. 53-54.

thrones in the bema were not at all meant to be sat on. Rather, they were used for 254 placing a gospel on them and symbolizing the throne of God. The connection of the T’alin cathedral with the above-mentioned hypothesis seems logical. The easiest way to interpret its mural in this new light, is simple — the apse depicts the throne of God, expressing his symbolic presence in the church. Besides that, the concept of the heavenly throne mirroring the episcopal throne underneath is tempting to adopt. The episcopal status of T’alin became generally accepted among scholars, not only thanks to the undated inscription on the mural, but also thanks to the monumentality and artistic quality 255 of the building. Moreover, there is no doubt, that the 7th century Armenian church had close relations with the Syrian church. At the council at Manazkert in 726, the catholicos John of Odzun met with the representatives of the Syrian Jacobite Church to establish a union between the two churches and discuss 256 doctrinal concerns. Throughout the entire 5th century up to the 6th century, the Armenian and Syrian architecture shared common features in terms of plan types, 257 elevations, and sculptural decorations. It would be no surprise, if both churches shared the tradition of placing the episcopal throne on the bema in the apse, while the altar would be located in the nave. In case of T’alin, the distribution of liturgical furnishings would answer the question of what significant object could 258 be placed in the circular space under the dome. The position and form of the altar and baptismal font in Armenian church was established at the fifth Council of Dvin in 720. Before that the position of altar could differ, or even been moved 259 as needed. Although, the Armenian church could have adopted the concept of an empty throne from the Byzantine side as well. It was noted, that the emperor Constance II Heraclius recognized the principality of Hamazasp Mamikonean 260 (654-661), by the sending of a silver throne and the title of curopalate.

254 Foletti 2017, p. 52; Grabar 1954, pp. 24-25. 255 See the part Inscriptions. 256 Otsenatsi Catholicos 2010, p. 30; Garsoian 2012, pp. 93-94. 257 Maranci 2018, p. 33. 258 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, p. 150. 259 Otsenatsi Catholicos 2010, p. 29. 260 Mahé 2012, p. 109.

The throne, the altar or the Ark?

Lydia Durnovo carried out her research in the 1950’s. It was already mentioned, that the T’alin mural underwent some massive disruptions since then. Some items were recorded only by Durnovo, and after that vanished forever. In spite of that, Durnovo interpreted the composition as Christ in Glory, flanked by a 261 tetramorphs — she seemed to entirely ignore the open gospel. This observation seems irrational, especially if the gospel was noticed by Strzygowski before and 262 Kotanjyan after Durnovo’s research. It turned out, however, that Durnovo did see the open book in the apse of T’alin. Kotanjyan mentioned it in his footnotes, that for unexplained reasons, Durnovo decided to interpret the T’alin mural as Christ in Glory, even though in her notebooks he found a drawing of an altar with 263 an open book. This is not the first time the altar and the throne were confused, however, this confusion was not by accident. Foletti observed, that on the triumphal arch of Saint Cosmas and Damian in Rome, the throne without a backside resembled an altar more than a cathedra [74]. Moreover, not only the visual aspect connected the two objects. During the solemn procession in Constantinople at the beginning of the 6th century, sacred scriptures were brought to the altar, while it was 264 proclaimed that the Christ was assuming his place on the throne. Foletti thus concluded, that the throne (resembling an altar) depicted on the triumphal arch or 265 in the apse, becomes a metaphorical image of the real altar placed underneath. Today’s state of preservation of the mural does not allow us to recognize if the throne had its back. And even though Kotanjyan’s hypothetical reconstruction shows the throne with the back part, it is questionable whether the reconstruction can be considered true, when the author himself described the process of its 266 creation as an “experimental experience”.

261 Durnovo 1957, pp. 10-11. 262 Strzygowski 1918, p. 298; Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96- 97. 263 Kotanjyan 2017, p. 96. 264 Foletti 2017, p. 171. The procession was published by: Ousterhout 1998, p. 84. 265 Foletti 2017, p. 171. 266 Kotanjyan 2006.

But there is a far more important question to answer: Is it possible to apply Foletti’s hypothesis, proposed for roman milieu, on 7th century Armenia? The 7th century text of Vrťanes K'ert'ogh mentioned above, can help to resolve this problem. At the very beginning of his Defense of the Image he states:

Moses, as the first one, made the model of the images for the altar: two winged cherubim, of human form, made of hammered gold and placed above the mercy seat/propitiation; and the Lord of Lords spoke among them. The apostle confirms this by his testimony. “The cherubs of glory,” he said, “who covered the mercy seat/propitiation.” This is the image of 267 the great mystery.

The author refers to Exodus 25: 10-22 and to the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:5. In both cases, the “mercy seat” is a translation of a Hebrew word kapporet — the golden lid of the Ark of the Covenant, inside of which the tablets of the covenant law were placed. The etymology of the word is unclear. While some translations use the term “cover,” others prefer the translation “mercy seat”. In the Jewish tradition kapporet consisted of two golden cherubim with outspread wings, upon which the divine Majesty was said to be enthroned. It was understood both as a 268 divine throne or footstool and as a shrine for the relic of “God’s revelation.” Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translated kapporet as hilasterion — a term translated into English as “propitiation.” This translation appears in the Epistle to the Romans 3:25, where Christ is presented as a propitiation (the sacrifice of atonement), referring to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, which was sprinkled by blood of a sacrificial goat at the day of 269 Atonement. In this way the Throne of God started to be associated with the

267 “Car Moïse, le premier, fit le modèle des images pour l'autel : deux chérubins ailés, de forme humaine, fabriqués en or martelé et placés au-dessus du propitiatoire; et le Seigneur des Seigneurs parlait d'au milieu d'eux. L'apôtre confirme ceci par son témoignage. "Les chérubins de la gloire, dit-il, qui couvraient le propitiatoire."C'est là l'image du grand mystère.” Der Nersessian 1944-1945, p. 59. Der Nersessian translated the text from Old Armenian. The original version in Grabar and modern Armenian can be found at: http://armenianart. org/nyuter/Vrtanes%20Qertox.pdf (26.5.2020); 268 Schwartz 2011, p. 67. 269 Tanner 2018, p. 3.

sacrificial altar. Moreover, later in the text Vrťanes K’ert’ogh speaks about the gospel as follows:

“For we see the book of the gospels painted with gold and silver and, moreover, bound with ivory and purple parchment. And when we bow down to the holy gospel, or when we kiss it, we do not bow down to the ivory and the lacquer, brought for the sale of the land of the barbarians, 270 but before the word of the Savior written on the parchment.”

Vrťanes K’ert’ogh in his writing literally explains the meaning of the images in the altar. According to the text we can interpret the mural in T’alin as the Throne of God guarded by two cherubim. It is the throne of the God of mercy, who gave his son on the sacrificial altar for our sins. The gospel on the throne, thus, may be seen as a representation of God in the form of his word. The gospel allows us to “meet” God, as written in Exodus 25:22.

There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

This interpretation seems even more probable if we apply Foletti’s hypothesis already mentioned above — the image on the wall is mirroring the action underneath. The Armenian church preserved many of the liturgical practices from the earliest days of the religion. One such practice is the use of flabella — liturgical fans. These objects were originally used during the liturgy, when two of the deacons, on each side of the altar, held the flabella to keep flies 271 away from the eucharist. What makes these objects important for our study, is the regular occurrence of the images of cherubim on their surface [77]. Flabella

270 “Et lorsque nous nous prosternons devant le saint évangile, ou bien lorsque nous le baisons, nous ne nous prosternons pas devant l'ivoire et la laque, apportés pour la vente du pays des barbares, mais devant la parole du Sauveur écrite sur le parchemin.” Der Nersessian 1944-1945, p. 65. 271 Kessler 2012.

represented the cherubim, sometimes even supplemented by a small bells, to 272 resemble the sound of the wings. So while on the mural, the two cherubim guarded the throne of God — the “mercy seat” sprinkled by the blood of Christ as “propitiation,” underneath the real altar with the sacrificed blood of Christ — the eucharist, was guarded by symbolic cherubim — the flabella.

Inscriptions

Even if the primary dedication inscription is missing, the cathedral preserved some later carved writings. One inscription is placed on two adjacent blocks on the southwestern pier inside the cathedral [78]. It informs us about the year 232 in the Armenian era, which is 15 May 783/13 May 784 , and thus represents the oldest preserved example of the use of Armenian era chronology 273 so far. The inscription in seven rows of letters says:

“ - 232 of the Armenian era, I monk Uchtatur and Tuti my brother we bought a water source from K’arkap[.] ... to T’alin. If anyone from? 274 destroys it, may he be liable for my sins. - ”

Despite its unusual location, the inscription was proven to be original by a test, which relied on paleographical comparison. Michael Stone tried to trace the development of certain forms of letters, and the result of his study led him to the conclusion that the inscription of monk Uchtatur and his brother Tuti is original. 275 As a rare example of preserved inscriptions from the 8th century, it illustrates the huge contrast between the golden age and the following century. The inscription is announcing a small practical donation. The protective curse suggests, that the monks were actually worried about the fate of their donation, as 276 the political situation in the region was tense. Though, the main significance of the writing, lies in preservation of the exact date, which proves that the cathedral

272 Venables 1875, pp. 675-677; Kessler 2012. 273 Greenwood 2004, p. 50. 274 Ibidem, p. 87, The name can be also found as Uxtaytur. 275 Stone 1982, pp. 9-18. 276 Greenwood, pp. 77-78.

had to be built before 783/784. The writing also testifies about the community of monks maintaining the building. Another inscription preserved in the cathedral speaks about the year 1040. It is located on the southwestern pillar, and announces the dedication of a garden 277 to the cathedral by the king Hovhannes Smbat. This carved writing once again gives a testimony about an active community, living in the vicinity of the church, as the newly created garden had to be maintained and used. Finally, the inscription located on the wall of southern pastaphory could 278 be, according to Kazarjan, the oldest inscription preserved in the temple [79]. It was executed in a black paint on the surface of the mural on behalf of Movses, its initiator:

“-I Movses insignificant and unworthy Ekekhetsapan of this holy church ordered to paint this holy cathedral (Catholicos) for the sake of 279 intercession for me and for my parents.-”

This inscription gives a very important information, as it might prove the cathedral status of the church. Kazaryan believes that the monumentality of the 280 temple and the emphasis on decoration attest to this status. A problem might arise when considering the meaning of the word Catholicos [cathedral] in connection with the medieval Armenian churches. Kazaryan and Garibian de Vartavan are convinced, that the title can be assigned to churches with an 281 episcopal function. But some scholars present different opinions on this matter. Jean-Pierre Mahe rejects this position and considers the designation of Catholicos 282 to be the proper name of the church. Much less convincing, is the interpretation presented by Armen Khatchatrian and Armen Zarian. These scholars proposed,

277 Strzygowski 1918, p. 167. 278 Kazaryan 2012, p. 146. 279 “Я Мовсес ничтожный и недостойный екехецапан сей святой церкви велел расписать этот святой собор (католике) ради заступничества за меня и за моих родителей.”, Inscription was translated by Armen Kazaryan, published in: Ibidem, p. 146; It was first publicated in Manucharyan 1988, pp. 41-48. 280 Kazaryan 2012, p. 146. 281 Kazaryan 2012, p. 146; Garibian de Vartavan 2003, pp. 428-429. 282 Donabédian 2008, p. 118.

283 that Catholicos is associated with the domed churches. Moreover, it stays unclear, whether this writing really comes from the times of the church construction.

Summary

The murals in T’alin until today did not get the attention they deserve. Especially due to the poor state of preservation, which urges an immediate action by restorers as well as art historians. The few readable fragments in the apsidal zone were interpreted by scholars as the depiction of Christ in Glory, an Apocalyptic vision or Etymasia. However, none of the options seems to be accurate, considering the visuality of the mural, its location and dimensions, or the historical context. Throughout this chapter I made an attempt to contribute to the study of the mural by developing some possible theories. They were already suggested in connection with other monumental depictions of an empty throne. The first option suggested the explicit reference of the mural to the Council of Ephesus. This scenario requires us to place the dating of the mural to the first half of the 8th century. Unfortunately, the dating of the mural was not tested by modern scientific methods, and I even dare to say, it was not questioned at all. Moreover, the connection of an empty throne composition with the one specific council would be problematic, since the Council of Ephesus was not the only occasion which used the empty throne as a symbolic representation of God’s presence. Therefore, even this suggestion must be left open and I will work with the hypotheses, which relies on the simultaneous execution of the architecture and the paintings. The second hypothesis proposes to interpret the mural as the throne of God, occupied by a book, to symbolize God’s presence. The mural in this case would serve as a mirror of the actions taking place on the bema, where the episcopal throne is placed according to the Syrian tradition. Even though this option seems very probable, it cannot be confirmed by any documentary or

283 Khachatrian 1971, p. 85; Zarian 1988/1991, p. 731.

material source, which would attest to the presence of a cathedra in the bema of Armenian churches. The last hypothesis I find the most convincing. It relies on the possibility, that the throne depicted in T’alin is missing its back piece, and thus resembled an altar. This confusion, however, was intentional and created an intellectual and visual connection between the action taking place on the altar, and the mural above. The text of Vrťanes K’ert’ogh from the mid-7th century seems to support this hypothesis, as well as the use of flabella during the liturgical ceremony. Moreover, in the following chapters, I intend to evolve this hypothesis in connection with the rituals of the 7th century Armenian church and the function of the cathedral. The inscriptions on the church also provide an important testimony. At first, the writing of the monk Uchtatur proves the construction of the church to be before the year 784 and thus supports the dating determined at the end of the 7th century. The second writing attests to the flourishing of T’alin in the 11th century under the Bagratid reign. The third one, although the most mysterious among the preserved inscriptions, is the most important one. The writing probably attests to the episcopal function of the church, when assigning the title Catholicos to the structure.

THE COMPLEX OF CHURCHES AND GRAVES

The cathedral is located north of the city of T’alin. The double head of mount Arteni rises from the west, like if the entire building had faced its majesty. Surrounded by a large modern cemetery and accompanied by the the church of Saint Mary, the cathedral acts as an abandoned ruin, a monumental backdrop for cemetery visitors. The late medieval graveyard to the north suggests that the graves around the cathedral have a long tradition [80-83]. Except for the cathedral and Saint Mary’s church, the existence of at least one other church on the site has been proven. But is this the finite number? In this chapter I will focus on the surroundings of the cathedral. What did it look like in the Early Middle Ages and what does it say about the cathedral itself? The analysis of neighbouring monuments could help to answer these questions.

Church of Saint Mary (Astvatsatsin)

Architectural composition and construction

The church of Saint Mary is located just 140 meters south from the 284 cathedral [84]. This modest three-conchal domed church is 9,88 meters long 285 and 7,50 meters wide, with a cross inscribed in its ground plan [85]. The slightly elongated western arm of the cross represents a rectangular entrance space, vaulted with a barrel vault. All three exedrae end with conches, while the 286 eastern one consist of a small rectangular space in front of the apse. The central part is also rectangular, limited by four high arches, and reinforced by additional frontal arches [86]. They bare the tromps, which transform the rectangular space in the center into an elongated octagon — the form of the drum above them, and

284 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.326; In numerous sources the church can be found also as Kamsarakan church, the small church of T’alin or T’alin chapel. 285 The measurements were provided by M. Danielyan in 1983, in Kazaryan vol. III 2012, p. 557. 3D model of the church can be found online: https://www.capturingreality.com/photo grammetry-documentation-architects?fbclid=IwAR3LBfP0LMSxbWmMDPM-beFvoee2Jx1W5 gaNFYEwB5svKAiqJqRUj-HcU6s (26.3.2020) 286 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.326; Kazaryan vil. III 2012, p. 557.

another eight small conical vaults above the drum, which are creating a transition 287 from an octagonal drum to an oblong dome. The dome reaches the height of 12 288 meters. As a result, the space inside the church seems very tight, but tall at the 289 same time [87,88]. Every exedra is pierced by one arch shaped window, with 290 another four windows situated in the drum. In the eastern apse there is a bema; 291 today, it has a small altar from a later period. The main entrance leads from the west, but despite the small dimensions of the church, there is another entrance 292 from the south [89]. From outside, all exedrae bear the form of a rectangle, resting on a two-stepped platform and covered by a gable roof. In their crossing, the octagonal drum is raised, and supported on four sides by tromps. Today’s roofing is a result 293 of restoration works from 1990-1998. That is why the cap of the dome, roofing of the trompes and all the gable roofs are redone in modern tiles, and the church 294 seems to have lost its original appearance [84,90,91]. One of the peculiarities of the Saint Mary’s church is the massive niche 295 placed on the western side of the northern exedra [92]. Inside the niche the podium-like step can be found. Its height matches the height of the stepped 296 platform of the church. The function is unknown, but according to its dimensions and orientation which corresponds with the main entrance, Patrick

287 Hasratian 2000, p. 63; Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.326; Donabédian 2008, p. 146; Kazaryan 2012, p. 557. 288 The height of the dome was measured by Strzygowski 1918, p. 162; Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 326. 289 Strzygowski 1918, p. 162; Kazaryan 1918, p. 557. 290 Kazaryan 2012, p. 558. 291 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.326; 292 Strzygowski 1918, p. 162; Plontke-Lüning 2007,Kat. CD ROM p.326; Kazaryan 1918, p. 558. 293 The very first intervention to the appearance of the roof was made during the restorations in 1947-1948, when it was covered by temporary thin roof, without completing the ruined parts of the dome (Kazaryan 2012, p. 516).The form of the roof was reconstructed in 1990-1998 according to some fragments of original tiles, which were found in church vicinity (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, p. 166). During this reconstruction the floor in the interior was remade as well. The church was encircled by pavement, steles were installed on a stepped-base and khachkars and other fragments were displayed along the walls. In: Kazaryan 2012, pp. 557. 294 Donabédian 2008, p. 146; Kazaryan 2012, pp. 557. 295 Hasratian 2000, p. 63;Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.326; Donabédian 2008, p. 146; Kazaryan 2012, p. 557. 296 Cuneo proposed that the niche could have been sheltered by wooden portico (Cuneo 1988, p. 92), but no traces of such portico were never found. Donabédian 2008, p. 146: Kazaryan 2012, pp. 557.

Donaédian supposes that the niche could be used during special ceremonies such 297 as a baptism or exhibition of relics. Even from a distance one can see the difference in quality and color of stone on the outside walls of the church [89]. If counted from the base, between the third and fourth row of stone blocks there is an obvious dividing line. The lower part, together with the stepped platform and southern and western doors are built from black stones, while the upper part with a dedicatory inscription consists 298 of red colored blocks. Even the mason’s marks differ in the upper and lower parts of the church, which might suggest different phases in construction of the 299 church.

Decorations of exterior and interior

Certainly, the most characteristic feature of this church is its denticle cornice, encircling the top of the entire perimeter walls and the drum [89]. It is 300 made of three rows of teeth, which alternate its length in a chessboard pattern. 301 Each of the teeth bears a relief ornament of a cross or square [93]. The cornice has been restored in 1947-1948, when the missing parts were replaced by entirely new stones. These were imitating the original form of the cornice, however, 302 without its relief details. The edges of the outside corners of the trompes on the other hand, are endowed by a very simple narrow cornice with a trough under it. 303

Sculptural relief decoration can also be found around the windows on the walls and drum. Four windows of the exedrae are crowned with ornamental relief bands, which in the case of the southern and northern exedra bear different variations of horseshoe patterns [94]. The original window band of the western window has been lost. It was replaced during the restoration in 1947-1948, and now its new relief is imitating the same pattern that can be seen on the southern

297 Donabédian 2008, p. 146. 298 Kazaryan 2012, pp. 557. 299 Ibidem; More about that in following chapter. 300 Strzygowski 1918, p. 163; Tokarsky 1961, p. 152; Donabédian 2008, p. 147, 253 301 Hasratian 2000, p. 63; Kazaryan 2012, p. 558. 302 Kazaryan 2012, p. 556. 303 Kazaryan 2012,p. 558.

304 exedra. Strangely enough, the eastern window band has stayed bare, with no ornamental relief decoration [95]. The windows around the drum are decorated with a simple profiled bands of an almost semi-circular shape. A similar horseshoe pattern as on the window bands can be found on the archivolt of the 305 portal, endowing the main entrance. The archivolt is supported by two double-columns with double cubic capitals and bases, which are placed on the second step of the stepped platform, while the doorway starts from the first step 306 [96]. Above the portal on the window level, there is an inscription carved into four stone blocks, which mentions Nerseh Kamsarakan, the builder of the church 307 dedicated to the Holy Mother of God [92]. Just like neighbouring cathedral, the interior of the small church was probably entirely covered by wall paintings. There are still numerous remains which can be seen on its interior walls, unfortunately, only few aniconic 308 fragments and ornaments are recognizable. Most readable fragments are situated in the dome area. The four big tromps bear the traces of red and white 309 stripes [97]. The smaller tromps above them have a preserved aniconic decoration of red rays emerging from the center of the semi-circular shape of the 310 tromp, framed by a band of concentric circles [98]. One of the tromps on the eastern side, bears an ornament similar to a lotus flower in the place of rays. It is 311 very likely the linear decoration covered the entire dome.

The small church of big significance

The church of Saint Mary represents an important milestone in the study of 7th century architecture in the territory of historical Armenia. Not only is it among one of the oldest known churches with a dedicatory inscription provided,

304 Kazaryan 2012, p. 556. 305 Donabédian 2008, pp. 234-235; Kazaryan 2012, p. 558. 306 Kazaryan 2012, p. 558. 307 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 326; More about the inscription can be found in following chapter. 308 Donabédian 2008, p. 220; Kazaryan 2012, p. 558. 309 Kazaryan 2012, p. 558 310 This band of concentric circles is strikingly similar to the relief band with disks, situated in the drum of T’alin cathedral. See fig. 28. 311 Kazaryan 2012, p. 558.

but despite quite insensitive restorations, it was preserved in a fairly good 312 condition. Moreover, the dating of this church is connected to a complicated issue regarding the genealogy of Kamsarakan family, as it does not state the precise date of construction, but mentions a few important names. It says:

” - I Nerseh apohypat patrik, lord of Shirak and Arsharunik, built this church in the name of the Holy Mother of God for the intercession of me 313 and Shushan my wife and Hrahat our son. "

Scholars have struggled to trace the identity of the donor, as there were several Nerseses during the 7th-8 th century, all of them from the Kamsarakan 314 family. Josef Strzygowski was among the first who looked into this question. He traced the identity of Nerseh as one of the princes from the first half of the 7th century — Nerseh I, was mentioned in the inscriptions of Alaman and Mren both dated to 630’s; or Nerseh II, appointed by Emperor Justinian II as the Prince of 315 Armenia between 688/89-691/92. Strzygowski believed the second option was correct for two reasons. The first reason is because the colophon in the Armenian translation of Socrates Scholasticus Ecclesiastical History, dates back to 695 and 316 mentions the name of Nerseh II:

“O Lord Nerseh apohypaton patrikios, you who are a builder of churches 317 [...].”

The titles of the donor are identical in Socrates and in the Saint Mary's church inscription, unlike the ones attributed to Nerseh in the inscriptions at Alaman and Mren. The second reason is the identity of Shushan — Nerseses wife. He believed she might have been the princess Shushan, mentioned in the History of Lewond,

312 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 327. 313 Greenwood 2004, p. 86. 314 Strzygowski connected to the work of Mesrop Ter-Movsesian, Nikolai Marr and Joseph Orbeli. 315 Strzygowski 1918, p. 50; Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 327. 316 More about that in:Strzygowski 1918, pp. 50-51; Greenwood 2004, p. 51; Kazaryan 2012, p. 551. 317Greenwood 2004, p. 51 The titles apohypaton patrikios means ex-consul and patrician. 53

who helped the Arab’s pursuit with Armenian forces after they had been defeated 318 in a battle at Vardanekert in 703. Based on these facts, Strzygowski dated the small church around the year 690. Some scholars presented different opinions on the dating of Saint Mary’s church. Chubinashvili assigned the inscription to Nerseh IV (750–785). He compared the church to the monuments on Sevan Island and thus dated it to the 319 8th-9 th century. His opinion, however, was not supported by any of his followers. Other scholars relied on epigraphical analysis of the inscription, which classified it as similar to the inscription in Mren, which despite the fact that it 320 contains the date 639, it was strangely dated to 613. According to this analysis, 321 Vahn Grigoryan dated the church to 613-615. Nevertheless, the most recent studies tend to come to an agreement with Strzygowski. Paolo Cuneo and Patrick 322 Donabédian agree with Strzygowski regarding both the donor and the dating. Annegret Plontke-Lüning also agrees that the church was built at the turn of the 7th and 8th century, but attributes the donorship to Nerseh III, son of Nerseh II, 323 which ruled in the region since around 691.

Both Donabédian and Plontke-Lüning, point out the difficulties of dating this structure in terms of its architectural elements. The oval form of its dome has been compared to the dome of Saint Mary's church in Dorbantivank, dated to the 324 6th, or the first half of the 7th century. The denticle cornice was also dated by 325 some scholars into the first half of the 7th century. On the other hand, the huge niche, placed in the northern exedra can be found only in one other example of

318 Strzygowski 1918, p. 52; Lewond 1982, 25.19-26.3. Greenwood is clarifying the identity of Shushan as well. In the History of Lewond Shushan, who was helping Arab troops in 703, was also martyred in Xaran in Mesopotamia in 706/707. According to Greenwood, it is very unlikely that this is the same person and it is more probable, that the Shushan from the inscription, would be the martyr from 706/707. In both cases, Shushan was an important figure, whether as a rich princess or martyr. Greenwood 2004, p. 70. 319 Chubinashvili 1967, pp. 69-71. 320 Grigoryan 1982, p. 20; Tamanyan 1988, p. 33; Kazaryan 2012, p. 559. 321 Grigoryan 1982, p. 20; Hasratian 2000, p. 63. 322 Cuneo 1988, p. 92; Greenwood 2004, p. 74; Donabédian 2008, p. 147. 323 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 327. 324 More about the church at Dorbantivank in: Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 109; Donabédian 2008, p. 140; Kazaryan vol. II, p. 369. 325 The cornice is dated into first half of 7th c entury by: Grigoryan 1982, p. 20; Thierry, Donabédian 1987, p. 580 ; Donabédian 2008, p. 147.

cross planned churches in the territory of Armenia — the church in Hnevank, 326 dated to the second half of the 7th century. The dating of the inscription, as presented above, is also uncertain, but mostly refers to the end of the 7th century. A different approach, which seems to resolve the obvious contradiction, was introduced by Armen Kazaryan. Kazaryan noticed two different levels of 327 masonry, both visible on the outer walls of the building. Based on this observation, he attributed the foundation of the building into the first half of the 7th century, while the upper zone, containing the cornice and inscription could be built at the end of the century. According to Kazaryan, the building could have been damaged during one of many earthquakes in the region, or not finished at all, 328 and later rebuilt by Nereh Kamsarakan during the last decade of 7th century. Even if this seems to be a possible solution, several arguments speak 329 against it. Probably the most convincing of them is the identical mason's marks on the lower part of Saint Mary’s church at T’alin and the ones at the church in 330 Hnevank, dated to the second half of the 7th century. Eventually, most of the scholars agreed, that the church was built at the end of the 7th century by Nerseh Kamsarakan, ruler of Armenia between the years 688-691, titled by the emperor Justinian II as apohypat and patrik. As far as functions are concerned, Cuneo and Donabédian connected the three-conchal churches with a cross inscribed in their plan, with a funerary 331 function. The situation is becoming more complicated, since the niche in its 332 northern exedra was proposed to serve for a baptism or exhibition of relics. However, this hypothesis has not yet been sufficiently studied. The funerary function seems more probable considering the surroundings of the church, its size, and ground plan.

326 More about Hnevank in: Hasratian 2000, p. 64; Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 148; Donabédian 2008, p. 148; Kazaryan 2012, pp. 239-249. 327 Kazaryan 2012, p. 557. 328 Kazaryan 2012 p. 559. 329 Kazaryan 2012 p. 559. 330 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 327; Kazaryan 2012, p. 559. 331 Cuneo 1988, p. 29; Donabédian 2008, p. 130. 332 Donabédian 2008, p. 146.

One-nave church of T’alin During the reconstruction of the cathedral in 1959, the workers discovered fragments with denticle ornaments, which was considered to be peculiar to the 5th century. They also discovered fragments of round columns, which did not belong 333 to any of the known buildings. During another restorations in the 1970’s, the foundation of the church was discovered just 5 meters to the north of the cathedral 334 [99]. For a long time, only the ground plan with a few fragments of stone reliefs were known, until 2001, when a small underground chapel was discovered under 335 its floor level [100,101]. Almost 20 years later, there is still very little knowledge about the church or its chapel. From the foundation, one can detect a one-nave church with an inscribed apse and rather thick walls [102]. Its interior might have been about 14 meters long and 4,8 meters wide. The walls were supported by two pairs of 336 pilasters and the entrance lead from the west. On the site one can see preserved 337 fragments of a bent arch with palmette frieze and bases of pilasters [105-107]. They are cubic shaped and profiled with flat projecting strips, similar to those of 338 the mausoleum in Aghts [108]. The underground chapel is vaulted by a barrel vault [101]. It is located in the central part of the church, in between four pillars, and the steps which lead to 339 the chapel face the entrance [103,104]. Sources do not mention if the pillars were supporting a dome. There were probably no fragments found, and since there were no proper archeological excavations, it is now impossible to tell. What is obvious however, is the primal focus of the entire architecture on this chapel. Judging according to its similarity to other structures of this type, such as the underground chambers located in the churches of Saint Gayane and Saint

333 Tamanyan 1988, pp. 93-95; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 334 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.325; Kazaryan 2012. p. 147. 335 Donabédian 2008, p. 22; Kazaryan 2012, p. 148. 336 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.325. 337 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.326. 338 Thierry, Donabédian 1987, p. 581; Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p.326. More about Aghts basilika and mausoleum in: Thierry, Donabédian 1987, pp. 473-474; Plontke-Lüning 2007 Kat. CD ROM, pp. 13-15; Donabédian 2008, pp. 22-24. 339 The dimensions of underground chapel are 2,5 x 1,75 m. Donabédian 2008, p. 22.

340 Hripsime, the chapel probably had a martyrial function. Even more similar are the one nave basilicas with underground chambers such as Saint Etienne in Nakhjavan and of Saint Thadee in Karenis, both dated by Donabédian into the 7th century. Their underground chapels were also assigned with a martyrial function. 341 These days, the only way to date this church is to compare the fragments with relief decorations. That method made the scholars to agree on 5th century as a 342 date of church's construction. The same method was used by Annegret Plontke-Lüning, but it brought her to a different conclusion. She dated the church 343 according to fragment of the arch with a palmette frieze to the 6th century. Unfortunately, any of the suggested dating cannot be considered final for now.

Other structures Today not many traces of other buildings can be seen in the vicinity of the cathedral [80-83]. The most obvious uncovered foundations are situated on its south side, and a bit further to the southeast. However, the first travelers and scholars visiting the site noted some traces of other buildings on the site and these mentions serve as the only evidence of their possible existence. One of the first such buildings, the existence of which has not yet been proven, is the domed chapel which was depicted on an engraving, published in 344 1842 in a book by Hovhannes Shahkhatuniants. The same picture appeared later 345 in a book by Ghevont Alishan [1]. In the picture one can see small chapel with a rectangular plan, with a partially ruined drum pierced by windows and with an entrance to the west. The chapel in the picture is located just a few meters south from the cathedral. The church of Saint Mary is also located to the south, however, its distance from the cathedral is much greater than the distance of the

340 Donabédian 2008, p. 22. 341 More about Saint Etienne and Saint Thadee in: Donabédian 2008, pp. 203-205. 342 Tamanyan 1988, pp. 93-95; Cuneo 1988, p. 220; Kazaryan 2012, p. 147. 343 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 326. 344 Shakatuniants 1842, pp. 238-239. 345 Alishan 1890, p. 137.

depicted chapel. Moreover, if we compare the engraving with the church of Saint Mary, we can easily conclude that there is no similarity between them [109,90]. The chapel on the engraving gives the impression of a very primitive architecture. Bare walls without windows, the location and shape of the entrance, and a windowed drum and simple gable roof made it strikingly similar to the 346 church of Saint Nino in Mtskheta [110]. Despite the tradition which links the chapel of Saint Nino with the martyr from the 4th century, the chapel was probably 347 from a later period — between 5th-6 th century — and had memorial function. According to Jean-Michel Thierry, the remains of an oblong structure to the south from the cathedral were still visible at the beginning of the 20th century. 348 If we look at the plan of Saint Nino, it is rectangular with an inscribed apse and a square center space, thus can easily be described as oblong [111]. It seems like the engravings preserved an image of a chapel, which accompanied the cathedral at the beginning of the 19th century; though it was probably destroyed during the 1840 earthquake, since it has not been mentioned since. If the comparison with the Church of Saint Nino is correct, the chapel might be one of the oldest structures discovered at the T’alin site. Another nonexistent chapel was described by Henry Lynch in 1890’s. This one, however, should be located to the east of the cathedral. Lynch mentioned it only in a few words, quoted as follows:

349 “A little on the east we noticed the remains of a small chapel.”

The list of monuments from the city of Talin in 2018 states that there is a chamber(?) located 150 meters to the southeast of the cathedral, dated to the 350 9th-11 th century. The square shaped foundations in this area are clearly visible

346 More about the church of Saint Nino in Mtskheta in: Donabédian 2008, p. 29; Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM pp. 201-203. 347 Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM pp. 203. 348 Thierry, Donabédian 1987, p. 581. He refers to Toros Toramanian, but does not specify the source. 349 L ynch 1901, p. 322. In the note Lynch clarifies, it is probably Sembat II (977-89), the one who left to built the cathedral of Ani. 350 The List of Monuments of T’alin City can be found online: http://aragatsotn.mtad.am/files/co mm_docs/1/80 3 /68693.pdf (2.4.2020)

on aerial photographs [82]. Secondary sources do not mention the chapel ruins to the east of the cathedral; but there is an inscription with the name of King Sembat from the Bagratid dynasty, located on one of the piers of the cathedral, announcing the dedication of a garden in 1040.351 Numerous khachkars dated to 352 this period serve as evidence of active use of the site during the Bagratid period. The existence of the first of the aforementioned structures is for now, purely hypothetical. Since these references cannot be verified without archaeological excavation, I have to leave this task to others.

Minor monuments The complex of T’alin wouldn’t be complete without the four-sided stelae and khachkars placed in the vicinity of the churches. They have various dates, spanning from early Christian times up to the modern period. Some of them were already transferred into the History Museum of Armenia, others are still located at 353 the site [115-120]. They are erected, simply leaned against the walls of 354 churches or left lying on the ground. In the History Museum of Armenia, the fragment of a four-sided stele is preserved and dated back to the 5th-6 th century [112,113]. Relief on two sides of the stele show arrowheads. The meaning of these images is not clear; however, scholars believe it could refer to the Armenian legend, in which Movses Khorenatsi witnessed the king Arshak I pierce a stone with a spear. The third side of the stele depicts a male figure with a round nimbus and raised arm, this is most 355 most likely Christ. This fragment is not the only stele in T’alin dated approximately to the 5th century. Some 30 meters from the cathedral, a four-sided erected stele depicting the relief of a prolonged Latin cross with broadened arms, is dated between 4th-5 th century [114]. Another such stele depicting a row of

351 See Inscriptions. 352 See The List of Monuments of T’alin City, Ibidem. 353 Many of the stelae and khachars were not properly studied yet. The most promising publication on this topic seems to be GRIGORYAN, G,. Հայաստանի վաղ միջնադարյան քառանիստ կոթողները [ Early Medieval FourSided Stelae in Armenia, in Armenian] Yerevan 2012., published by History Museum of Armenia. Unfortunately, i was not able to include this publication into this thesis. 354 See The List of Monuments of T’alin City. 355 This information is given at the exhibit in History Museum of Armenia.

typical encircled Latin crosses was dated between 4th-7 th century and is still 356 situated on the site lying carelessly on the ground. The most impressive example of a four-sided stele in T’alin accompanies the church of Saint Mary. It is made of black stone, situated just a few meters to the southeast [121]. Composed of a cuboid base and obelisk-like pier, the stele is 357 erected on a modern stepped platform, imitating the composition in Avan. The relief on the base depicts an enthroned Virgin Mary with Child flanked by two 358 angels. Their wings cross above the head of the Virgin, as if she was sheltered 359 by an arch. As usual in this objects, the sides are occupied with a long plant pattern. The pier bears a relief of two figures — Saint Grigory, and under him King Trdat with a wild boar head — an image, interpreted as legend about the conversion of Armenia to Christianity [122-123]. Scholars usually don’t dare to date the stele precisely, but only classified it to an early Christian period. Donabédian, on the other hand, suggested that the stele was made during the “Golden Age,” as he found it more appropriate to date the relief depicting Virgin 360 Mary and Child into 7th century. In any case, the stele represents a unique example of depicting Armenia’s convergent history, and demonstrates that this subject has been incorporated into its iconographic tradition since the early 361 Middle ages. Some examples of stelae show Old Testament scenes such as the Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace, the Binding of Isaac, the Prophet Elijah in the 362 Chariot of Fire or Daniel in the Lion’s Den. All these scenes are specific to the early Christian funerary tradition, therefore it is no surprise, that the stele usually accompanied martyria or mausoleums and were an integral part of the cemetery. 363 Their function can also be understand in relation to the Armenian landscape. As an outdoor object, the stele with images consecrated the surroundings of

356 For both stelae see The List of Monuments of T’alin City. 357 More about Avan in: Plontke-Lüning 2007, Kat. CD ROM p. 66; Donabédian 2008, p. 27. 358 Thierry, Donaédian 1987, p. 581; Hasratian 2000, p. 80; Donabédian 2008, p. 205; Maranci 2018, p. 47. 359 Maranci 2018, p. 47. 360 Donabédian 2008, p. 205. 361 Maranci 2018, p. 47. 362 Hasratian 2000, p. 80. 363 Donab0dian 2008, p. 27.

churches and graves and at the same time, communicate with the landscape, 364 providing the worshiper with an extraordinary experience.

Summary

The T’alin Cathedral was undoubtedly part of a larger church complex. Such a relatively small area contained at least three churches, while the existence of other two chapels has not yet been confirmed. While the cathedral and the church of Saint Mary were dated by scholars to the second half of the 7th century, the one-nave basilica to the north of the cathedral was probably built in the 5th-6 th century. However, this basilica may not be the only building on the site dated to an earlier period. A number of stelae, dated before the 7th century, may suggest that the cathedral was built in the middle of a cemetery. The significance of this place as a burial ground is also highlighted by the underground chapel, discovered under the one-nave basilica to the north of the cathedral. Judging by its location in the heart of the basilica, and compared to similar underground vaulted chapels, this room probably served as a martyrium. Other structures in this area were probably also associated with burial rituals. A funerary function was proposed for the Church of Saint Mary as a triconchal building with a cross-plan. A chapel to the south of the cathedral, whose existence has not yet been confirmed, could have also held a memorial function, if the comparison with the chapel of Saint Nino is correct. Analysis of the cathedral’s surroundings show the big importance of this place as a burial ground. This reputation has remained to this day, as evidenced by the extensive cemetery that has spread around the cathedral in recent years. How many churches and chapels were originally located on the site, and whether buildings and graves can be truly dated to 5th-6 th century cannot be said with certainty. Without archaeological research, this chapter will never be completed.

364 Maranci 2018, p. 49.

THE ROLE OF T’ALIN IN TIME AND SPACE

While the previous chapters provided all the necessary information about the cathedral, its murals and surroundings, the aim of this chapter is to offer an interpretation of the structure. Since the secondary literature concerned with T’alin tends to avoid this part of the research, the number of options for interpretation is very limited. The reason for this, may be due to the stereotype which has been associated with T’alin since the very beginning of the research: the connection of the building with Nerseh Kamsarakan. This was considered the only possible explanation for the presence of such a luxurious building on the outskirts of a small town. At the same time, scholars have been burdened with some historical errors that have only been corrected in recent years. Despite that, the cathedral of T’alin hides a number of clues pointing on another possible solution, which was not yet proposed by the scholarly community.

The palatine chapel

The city of T’alin has a long history. It was mentioned previously by 365 Claudius Ptolemy back in 2nd century. If there were any mentions of T’alin in medieval sources, they always referred to a small city or a village. The presence of a huge cathedral in such a small town seems illogical. But T’alin is definitely not a unique case. Nina Garsoian rightfully pointed out, that except for the important centers such as Dvin and Valaršapat, the surviving 7th century Armenian churches are missing an urban context and are directly linked to the princely families. These families played the most important role, since they owned the estates and hereditary offices and thus, all the administrative power 366 was concentrated in their hands. This did not change during the whole 7th century, as the Sasanian administration, as well as the Byzantine one, had always

365 Danielyan 2016. Online:http://www.fundamentalarmenology.am/datas/pdfs/366.pdf (2.6.2020) 366 Garsoian 2012, p. 41.

supported the pre-existing political structures in Armenia, by appointing their own 367 clients from princely families as a princes of Armenia. It was previously demonstrated, that the cathedral was dated according to the architectural analysis into the last two decades of the 7th century. At this time, the city of T’alin was governed by Nerseh II Kamsarakan and appointed by the 368 emperor Justinian II as the Prince of Armenia between the years 689-691. There is no written source attributing the cathedral directly to Nerseh Kamsarakan. However, scholars have unanimously agreed on the attribution of the cathedral to him, since it was built in the center of his patrimony and the neighbouring church 369 of Saint Mary was inscribed with his name. Garsoian considered the connection of T’alin with a princely family and compared it with the nearby Aruch — a cathedral attributed to the princely family of Mamikonyan, accompanied by a palace. Based on that observation Garsoian concluded, that the cathedral in T’alin, as well as the one in Aruch, served as a palatine chapel of a princely family. It has been assumed, that the palace of the Kamsarakan family must be located in close vicinity to the church but has not been discovered yet due to the missing 370 archeological excavations. Garsoian’s hypothesis, although probable, does not take into account a few factors. First of all, the entire complex of T’alin puts a great emphasis on the funerary function. The cathedral is literally surrounded by a graveyard and funerary chapels. The early-Christian stelae still located in the vicinity close to the church, as well as the 5-6th century one-nave basilica, which most probably served as a martyrium, convincingly attests to the option, that the site was popular as a 371 funerary place long before the construction of the cathedral. To build a royal palace in such a locality would be rather unusual. The second factor involves the space composition of the church and was already described by Kazaryan. He observed that the space in T’alin is, despite all the architectural similarity, radically different from the space in Aruch. In T’alin, the visitor is constantly

367 Greenwood 2004, pp. 63-65. 368 See the part Architectural models and dating. 369 Strzygowski 1918, p. 167; Hasratian 2000, p. 76; Thierry de Crussol 2002, p. 91; Donabédian 2008, p. 118; Kazaryan vol. III 2012, 154. 370 Garsoian 2012, p. 41. 371 See the chapter: The complex of churches and graves.

attracted to the movement to discover new perspectives of the structure. The central space of the church surrounded by four pillars and crowned by the dome which subconsciously seduces the circular trajectory of movement. But as it is possible to enter through the five doors, the visitor can actually choose the direction of the movement, and every change of position reveals an entirely new view. Aruch, on the contrary, with its harmonic and simple solutions, is much 372 more suitable for the quiet contemplation required of a private palatine chapel. In short, the structural composition and funerary context of the cathedral make this church a very bad candidate for a private church of a princely family.

The pilgrimage site

373 The urban situation of ancient T’alin is unfortunately unknown. What is known, however, is the location of T’alin on an important medieval trade route. Starting from Dvin, the North route led trough Ervandachat, Bagavan, T’alin and Kars, all the way to the Black sea. The Southern route connected Dvin with routes 374 to India and China. The Northern route was used at the time of Traian and 375 reached its peak during the Bagratid period. As a reminder of the importance of T’alin on this route, the 13th century caravanserai, used to secure lodging for 376 merchants, and it is still located to the south of the city. For a long time, there was a belief in the circle of researchers, that Armenia in the 7th century served as a battlefield of two powers, and that the trade 377 routes were inaccessible until the 9th century. The latest studies of Garsoian and Donabédian proved sufficiently, that at least from the mid 7th century, despite the alterations between Persian and Byzantine guardianship, Armenia was 378 experiencing almost four decades of religious freedom and prosperity. The prosperous economy was clearly manifested on the vast building activity of that period. The trade in the Araxe valley must have continued, and it is no

372 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, p. 38. 373 Kazaryan vol. III 2012, p. 38 374 Zarian 1988, p. 77. 375 Zarian 1988, p. 77. 376 Tokarsky 1961, pp. 273-275. 377 Zarian 1988, p. 77. 378 Donabédian 2008, p. 97; Garsoian 2012, pp. 44-45.

coincidence, that the biggest cathedrals preserved from that period — Dvin, Bagavan, Bagaran, T’alin, Aruch, Karin and even the martyria in Ejmiatsin, were 379 all located along the trade routes. During this time, T’alin found itself on the main international trade route between the Eastern and Western world. The merchants from India, Persia, Rome and Byzantium, all conducted their business there in silk, ivory, precious stones, spices and fabrics. Such a wealthy and safe route was undoubtedly attractive for pilgrims as well. In this context the monumental cathedral on the periphery of a small city suddenly makes sense. Especially if it is accompanied by an older basilica with a crypt, which once probably sheltered the remains of an anonymous 380 martyr. It is important to reiterate, that there is no evidence of relics ever being located in T’alin. There are, however, a few arguments which support this hypothesis quite sufficiently. First of all, the dimensions of the structure and its decorative richness indicate the special status of this church. Even the fact, that the plan of the construction was probably inspired by the most important temple of the then, Armenian church — the cathedral of Dvin, the seat of catholicos — 381 speaks for T’alin’s extraordinary rank. Furthermore, the remains of the mausoleum and the popularity of the site as a burial ground suggests the intensive presence of “holiness” in this place. It was the hope that the presence of holy objects near the burial site would transfer sanctity to the deceased ones buried here. Such relics attracted not only the dead, but especially the living. The pilgrims could reach the church easily, as it was located on the well-known trade route, not far from other centers of worship such as Dvin or Valarchapat/Ejmiatsin. As the urban situation of ancient T’alin is unknown to us, it is hard to judge which way the temple was meant to be approached. The main emphasis was put on the decoration of the western facade, with its two decorative niches, which were filled with inserted columns crowned by crosses. The upper part was then

379 Donabédian 2008, p. 98. 380 See the chapter The complex of churches and graves. 381 Thierry de Crussol 2002, pp. 90; Kazaryan 2005, p. 17; Donabédian 2008, pp. 66,118.

pierced by a number of oculi and other windows decorated by sculpted bands. Eventually, all the five doors were sheltered by a portico and all the perimeter 382 walls were precisely decorated, and even richly painted. This suggests that not only the interior, but the exterior as well was designed for movement. The pilgrims would see the church from all the sides while visiting the minor structures, and the whole impression was completed by the stelae and khachkars, scattered all around the area.

The placing of relics

It was already proposed by Donabédian, that the huge outside niche located on the northern exedra of the Saint Mary’s church could be used for the exhibition of relics.383 Another such niche can be found in the interior of the 384 cathedral, on the western side of the northern exedra. This way of exhibition would make the relics more approachable to the pilgrims. It is, however, much more tempting to imagine that the relics of such importance which would deserve a shrine like T’alin, must have been displayed with greater opulence. Since the mid- 4th century the holy relics — the bodies of martyrs — were moved out of their tombs and placed in a special location within the church — under the altar. This new trend was soon spread all around the Mediterranean and 385 the relics were newly interpreted as the proof of saintly triumph over death. Probably the most striking example of the new practice appeared in 4th century Milan, where the bishop Ambrosius placed the relics of martyrs directly into the 386 golden altar, and thus, changes it into the reliquary. He even explained this action himself by writing:

382 See the part Sculptural decoration. 383 Donabédian 2008, p. 146. 384 See the part Architecture. 385 Bogdanovic 2017, p. 183. 386 Hahn 1999, pp. 168-169.

Let the triumphant victims [martyrs] take their place where Christ is the victim. Let Him be above the altar who suffered for all; let them be 387 beneath the altar who were redeemed by His suffering.

The worship of an altar in the early Armenian church is well documented in the description of the liturgical rituals called maštoc. The description was preserved in two 9th–10 th century manuscripts, which, however, refer to the time 388 prior to the catholicos John of Odzun (650?-729). It was documented, that the newly baptised were dressed into white garments and led to the altar, to bow and 389 kiss the altar on the three sides. Another ritual preserved in the maštoc, consists of carrying the altar out of the church, while the congregation is gathered around, 390 singing psalms and bearing the cross. The cathedral in T’alin provides an ideal space for such an altar/reliquary. The circular area under the dome is located in the exact center of the church. The dome supported by four pillars can be understood as the architectural version of a ciborium — a canopy on four columns sheltering the tomb and the altar placed above it. In the old basilica of Saint Peter, the ciborium was placed in the crossing of the T-shaped basilica, above the tomb of the apostle, while the bema was reserved for the episcopal throne. The altar in the basilica was movable, and was brought to the tomb only for the celebration of Saint Peter’s day and other 391 important feasts. Here it is interesting to note, that the altar in the 7th century Armenian church was also movable, as it was regularly carried outside the church. 392 Moreover, the space under the dome in T’alin appears even more significant if we consider, that the four pillars are decorated by lesene and cubic capitals only 393 from the side, which were oriented outside the central space. It was as if the inner space was not meant to be stepped in. What is, however, the most striking, is the link between the altar and the mural in the apse of the T’alin cathedral. In

387 Ambrose, Epistola 22.13: PL 16:1066; Beyenka 1954, pp. 380-381. 388 Renoux 1997, p. 5. The manuscripts are Venice Mekhitarists 320 and Yerevan Matenadaran 100131. 389 Renoux 1997, p. 9. 390 Maranci 2017, p. 114. 391 Bogdanovic 2017, p. 184. 392 Maranci 2017, p. 114. 393 Kazaryan 2005, p. 17.

chapter 3, I have interpreted the mural of an empty throne with a book as the New Testament representation of the Ark of the Covenant. This image symbolizes at the same time, the altar on which the blood of Christ was sprinkled as the “propitiation” for the sins of humanity, and the throne of God, which was –– according to Jewish tradition –– located on the cover of the Ark. But according to Cynthia Hahn, this image could also be understood at the third level. The Ark of Covenant is, according to Hahn, the prototype of all Christian reliquaries:

“If the Ark held the tablets of the Law, the rod of Aaron and the pot of manna, in a sense it was a reliquary dedicated to the Jewish religion. In turn it was claimed by the cross and the Christianity and became the 394 heavenly throne of the vision of Ezekiel.”

Ivan Foletti contributed to this topic by an argument, that the empty Ark of the covenant could be the metaphorical reference to the resurrection, but also a visual allusion to the empty tomb, proof of the resurrection that took place. This duplicity was therefore represented in the term itself used to define the ark. The word "arca" referred throughout antiquity and Middle Ages not only to the Ark, but to the tomb as well.395

Summary

T’alin was for a very long time, perceived simply as a luxurious donation of an Armenian prince. Garsoian even marked the church as a palatine chapel of the Kamsarakan family. But after the careful analysis of the church architecture and surroundings, this assumption must be rejected. On the other hand, what was constantly overlooked is the position of T’alin on a very important trade route, and its emphasis on the funerary context. These factors, together with the basilica with an underground crypt which was just a few meters from the cathedral, point rather on a martyrial and pilgrimage function of the church.

394 Hahn 2020, p. 13. 395 Foletti 2014, p. 44.

Despite what the missing documentary might prove about the presence of concrete relics in T’alin, their existence in the area can be deduced out of many circumstantial evidences. The mystery that remains, is their possible position in the temple. Donabédian proposed their location in the monumental niche of Saint Mary’s church. It is more believable, that the relics were to be placed in the heart of the church, located possibly inside or under the movable altar, crowned by an architectural ciborium in the form of the dome on pillars. If we accept this scenario, the fresco in the apse would, therefore, refer not only to the Ark of Covenant as the place where God appears and Christ is sacrificed, but also to the Ark as a prototype of Christian reliquaries.

CONCLUSION

Probably the biggest challenge of this thesis resided in breaking the stereotypes about the Armenian architecture. Although they are present mostly in the older studies, their impact is still visible today. First of all, it was important to accept the fact that the 7th century architecture on the territory of modern-day Armenia is not completely Armenian, in the way art history understands it. The territory of Armenia, and especially the Arax valley, was a crossroad of trade and power interests between the Persian, Arab and Byzantine world. This vivid interaction was undoubtedly manifested in the cultural sphere of which architecture is one of the very few surviving elements. Secondly, the methodology used during the Soviet era, as well as the missing archaeological excavations on the sites, caused the monuments to be understood as a part of a group of the same architectural type, or as an element in the developmental chain of Armenian architecture. The majority of the monuments are missing their very own interpretation at the expanse of formalism. As far as T’alin is concerned, these prejudices started to be thrown away just recently and the process is still not completed. The formalistic approach, however, was quite useful in terms of the dating of the temple. Based on the comparison of other surviving structures of the 7th century, the dating was set to the last quarter of the century. According to this dating and location of the church, together with the inscription located on the neighbouring funerary chapel, Nerseh Kamsarakan was appointed as the donor of the temple. The inscription located on the surface of the mural, and the monumentality and decorative richness of the church, attest to the cathedral status of the temple. However, this claim is rightfully questioned by some scholars, as the title catholicos might not explicitly mean the cathedral in a sense of ecclesiastical seat, as we know it today. Though, the name catholicos or cathedral is still used as the proper name of the church. On the contrary, the area of the T’alin cathedral for which the formalistic approach is quite inefficient, is the mural. The few still surviving fragments are missing the sufficient interpretation. The composition in the apsidal zone was

convincingly identified as the open book, placed on the throne, flanked by two creatures. The creatures are either tetramorphs, or cherubim, depending on which of the two most common options the scholar is inclined towards — the apocalyptic vision or the theophanic vision. The inclination towards one of the options is, however, never adequately supported by arguments or set into the context of the structure. Thanks to the latest studies concerned with the Roman mosaics depicting the empty throne, I was able to suggest three new possible interpretations of the T’alin mural. After careful consideration, I am inclined to the third option, which is associating the empty throne on the mural with an altar, on which the mystery of eucharist is performed. This association is possible via the Ark of the Covenant, which in the Old Testament served as both: the throne of God — the place of revelation, and the sacrificial altar — the place of propitiation. Moreover, that option is supported by the 7th century text of the Armenian catholicos Vrťanes K'ert'ogh, claiming that the image of the Ark guarded by two cherubim was established already by Moses, as a model for the images of an altar. Another area of T’alin which was not yet properly examined, is the closest surrounding of the cathedral. A number of minor structures can be found there, including the 5th-6 th century one-nave basilica with a crypt just few meters north of the cathedral. The small church of Saint Mary, dated to the same period as the cathedral was appointed –– according to the dedicatory inscription, to Nerseh Kamsarakan –– and was placed some 150 meters south-eastern. Two other chapels were probably located to the southeast of the cathedral, the existence of which is for now, purely hypothetical; and the foundations of some other structures are visible to the south, which history is totally unknown. Furthermore, scattered around the whole site are the memorial stelae, dated variously from the 4th century up to the modern era. North of the cathedral is a medieval graveyard, whose dating is for now, unknown. The funerary and memorial function of the site is striking, as all the monuments preserved there most probably serve that purpose. Moreover, if the dating of the monuments is correct, the funerary function was assigned to the site long before the construction of the cathedral.

The little information provided by a formal analysis prevented the researchers from forming a hypothesis about the possible function of the cathedral. The only function assigned to the church was based on the attribution of the church to Nerseh Kamsarakan, and subsequent comparison of T’alin with the nearby Aruch. Thus, the function of a palatine chapel of the princely family of Kamsarakan was proposed for the cathedral, and the unidentified foundations to the south from the cathedral, were suggested to be their palace. This hypothesis, however, was not considered in the context of the cathedral’s surrounding and spatial composition of the structure. In the light of this information and considering the position of T’alin on a frequented wealthy trade route suitable for pilgrims, the martyrial and pilgrim-like function of the cathedral is much more convenient. The relics could be placed in the crypt of the one-nave basilica, or in the monumental niches on the northern exedra of both the cathedral, and the Saint Mary’s church. However, the most spectacular way of their exhibition, which would be in collaboration with the mural in the apse, would be to place the relics into or under the altar. That would be situated, according to an old Roman practice, in the crossing of the church, which in the case of T’alin is crowned by an “architectural ciborium” — a dome on four pillars. The altar would once again refer to the Ark of the Covenant, as the prototype of all Christian reliquaries. The hypotheses presented in this thesis naturally have its limitations. Not only archaeological excavations but also a close examination of documentary sources is needed. Many problems remain open, as their solution cannot be included in a format such as a bachelor thesis. Nevertheless i hope, that this thesis provides an updated summary of the topic which can be used at least as a starting point for further research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, Opera Omnia, ed. Aupertus, VI, 1673.

LEWOND, E., History of Lewond, the eminent vardapet of the Armenians : translation, introduction, and commentary by Zaven Arzoumanian, Penn 1982.

OTSNETSI, CATHOLICOS, H., The Book of Canon Law, ed. Vaskan Hakobyan, Burbank 2010.

PHILOSOPHI OZNIENSIS, D. J., Armeniorum Catholici opera, ed. and tr. J. B. Aucher, Latin and Armenian eds., Venice 1834.

Secondary literature

ALLEN, W.E.D., MURATOFF, P., The Russo-Turkish Campaign of 1828-9, in: Caucasian Battlefields: A History of the Wars on the Turco-Caucasian Border 1828-1921, New York 2010, pp. 23-45.

ALISHAN, G., Այրարատ [Ayrarat, in Armenian], Venice 1890.

ANDERSON, A., PARTSKHALADZE, G., Armeno-Georgian War of 1918 and Armeno-Georgian Territorial Issue in the 20th Century, 2015.

ARUTJUNJAN, V.M., SAFARJAN, S.A., Памятники Армянского Зодчества [Monuments of Armenian Architecture, in Russian], Moscow 1951.

BACCI, M., The Mystic Cave: a History of the Nativity Church in Bethlehem, Brno 2017.

BALJAEV, V.A., Казарян А.Ю. ЦЕРКОВНАЯ АРХИТЕКТУРА СТРАН ЗАКАВКАЗЬЯ VII ВЕКА: ФОРМИРОВАНИЕ И РАЗВИТИЕ ТРАДИЦИИ. М.: Locus Standi, 2012–2013. 4 т. Т. I (2012). 388 с.; Т. II (2012). 640 с.; Т. III (2012). 690 с.; Т. IV (2013). 340 с. Ил [Seventh Century Church Architecture of Transcaucasian Countries: Formation and Development of Tradition, Locus Standi, 2012-2013. 4 volumes, V.I (2012). 388 p.; V.II (2012). 640 p.; V. III (2012). 690 p.; V. IV (2013). 340 p., in Russian], in: РОССИЙСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ No 2 (2014), pp. 177-179.

BAYENKA, M. M., Saint Ambrose: Letters, New York 1954.

BOGDANOVIC, J., The Framing of Sacred Space. The Canopy and the Byzantine church, New York 2017.

CUNEO, P., Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, Rome 1988.

DANIELYAN, E.L., Footnote Commentaries to the Chapter on Great Armenia in Claudius Ptolemy’s Geography, FUNDAMENTAL ARMENOLOGY № 2 (4) 2016, Online: http://www.fundamentalarmenology.am/datas/pdfs/366.pdf (2.6.2020)

DE BLAAUW, S., Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardoantica e medievale. Basilica Salvatoris Sanctae Mariae Sancti Petri, 2 vols., Vatican City 1994.

DE ROSSI, G.B., Tusculo, le ville tusculane e le loro antiche memorie Cristiane, Parte seconda, Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana, Seconda Serie , 3 (1872), Roma, pp. 125-140.

DER NERSESSIAN, S., Une Apologie des Images du Septième Siècle, Byzantion, Vol. 17 (1944-1945), pp. 58-87.

DER MANUELIAN, L., Ani: The fabled Capital of Armenia, in: Ani: World Architectural Heritage of a Medieval Armenian Cepital ed. S. Peter Cowe, Peeters-Leuven-Sterling 2001. pp. 1-13.

DONABÉDIAN, P., L'âge d'or de l'architecture arménienne: VIIe siècle, Marseille 2008.

DONABÉDIAN, P., Les métamorphoses de l’acanthe sur les chapiteaux arméniens du Ve au VIIe siècle, In : L’acanthe dans la sculpture monumentale de l’antiquité à la Renaissance : actes du colloque tenu du 1er au 5 octobre 1990 à la Sorbonne. Paris 1993, p. 147-174.

D’ONOFRIO, M., La Chiesa di Dvin, Rome 1973.

DRAMPYAN, I. R., К истории изучения средневековой армянской фресковой живописи, Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Искусствоведение [To the history of the study of medieval Armenian fresco painting, Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Art history], Т. 8. Вып. 2 (2018), pp. 232–257.

DURNOVO, L., Краткая история древнеармянской живописи [Brief history of ancient Armenian painting, in Russian], Yerevan 1957.

EP'RIKIAN, S., Պատկերազարդ բնաշխարհիկ բառարան: Հտ. 2 [Illustrated Natural Dictionary. Vol. 2, in Armenian], Venice 1907.

FOLETTI, I, Germigny-des-Prés, il Santo Sepolcro e la Gerusalemme Celeste, Convivium Vol. 1, No. 1. (2014) , pp. 32-49.

FOLETTI, I., Maranatha: Space, Liturgy, and Image in the Basilica of Saints Cosmas and Damian on the Roman Forum, in: The Fifth Century in Rome: Art, Liturgy, Patronage, Brno 2017, pp. 161-179.

FOLETTI, I., Prima dell’Etimasia. L’iconografia del trono vuoto dal IV al IX secolo, master thesis for Section de l’histoire de l’Art, Faculté des Lettres université de Lausanne 2004.

FOLETTI, I., Sicut in caelo et in terra. Observations on the cathedra vacua in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, in: The Fifth Century in Rome: Art, Liturgy, Patronage, Brno 2017, pp. 41-62.

FOLETTI, I., MEINECKE, K., Jupiter, Kristus, Chalífa: Obrazy mocných a zrození středověku (IV.–VII. století), Brno 2019.

FORSYTH, I.L., The throne of Wisdom: Wood Sculptures of the Madonna in Romanesque France, New Jersey 1972.

FUJITA, Y., The Construction Techniques of Masonry in Armenian Churches from the Fourth to the Seventh Century: On the Research of the Armenian Church in the Republic of Armenia 2, Journal of Architecture and Planning, vol. 76. No. 664, 2011, pp. 1179-1188. Online: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/aija/76/664/76_664_1179/_article , (11.3.2020)

GARIBIAN DE VARTAVAN N., L’aspect primitif de l’église-mère Ejmiacin, in: Revue des Etudes Arméniennes, n. 29, Paris (2003-2004), pp. 403-501.

GORSOÏAN, N., Interregnum. Introduction to a Study on the Formation of Armenian Identity (ca. 600-750), Louvain 2012.

GEMELLI CARERI, G.F., Giro del Mondo. Parte seconda [Voyages Around the World. Volume 2, in Italian], Naples 1699.

GRABAR, A., Deux portails sculptés paléochrétiens d'Égypte et d'Asie Mineure et l'art roman, Cahiers Archéologiques, XX., Paris 1970, pp. 15-28.

GRABAR, A., L'âge d'or de Justinien, Paris 1966.

GRABAR, A., La sedia di san Marco à Venise, Cahiers Archéologiques VII (1954), pp. 19-34. GRABAR, A., Les voies de la création en iconographie chrétienne : Antiquité et moyen age, Paris : Flammarion, 1979.

GRABAR, A., "Le trône des martyrs," Cahiers archéologiques VI (1952), pp. 31-41.

GRABAR, A., L’Empereur dans l’art byzantin. Recherches sur l’art officiel de l’Empire d’Orient, Paris 1936.

GREENWOOD, T., A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58 (2004), pp. 27-91.

GRIGORYAN, G. V., Малые центричные памятники Армении раннего средневековья [Small central monuments of Armenia of the early Middle Ages, in Russian] Yerevan, 1982.

HAHN, C., Narrative on the Golden Altar of Sant'Ambrogio in Milan: Presentation and Reception, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 53 (1999), pp. 167-187.

HAHN, C., Passion Relics and the Medieval Imagination. Art, Architecture and Society, Oakland 2020.

HASRATIAN, M., Early Christian Architecture of Armenia, Moscow 2000.

HAKOPYAN, Z.A., Монументальная живопись Армении VII столетия в контексте восточнохристианской традиции [Armenian Monumental Painting of the 7th Century in the Context of Eastern Christian Tradition., in Russian], in: Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art 6: Collection of Articles, St. Petersburg 2016, pp. 133-142.

CHUBINASHVILI, G., Die Große Kirche von Thalin in Armenien, Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXIX (1930).

CHUBINASHVILI, G., Die Christliche Kunst im Kaukasus: und ihr Verhältnis zur allgemeinen Kunstgeschichte (eine Kritischewürdigung von Josef Strzygowskis „Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa“), Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft, Vol. 15, No. 7/9 (1922).

CHUBINASHVILI, G., Разыскания по армянской архитектуре [Search for Armenian Architecture, in Russian], Tbilisi 1967.

KAZARYAN, A., Церковная архитектура стран Закавказья VII века: формирование и развитие традиции Том I-IV [Seventh Century Church Architecture of Transcaucasian Countries: Formation and Development of Tradition, in Russian], Москва 2012, 2013.

KAZARYAN, A. ‘Триконховые крестово-купольные церкви в зодчестве Закавказья и Византии’ [Triconch Cross-Domed Churches in the Architecture of Transcaucasus and Byzantium, in Russian] in: Byzantine World: Art of Constantinople and National Traditions, Ed. by M.A. Orlova, Moscow 2005, pp. 13-30.

KERTMENJIAN, D., Armenian-Russian Co-operation in the Study of Armenian Architectural Heritage, Journal of Armenian Studies N 3 (12), 2016.

KESSLER, H.L., Images Borne on a Breeze: the Function of the Flabellum of Tournus as Meaning, in: Charlemagne et les objets : des thésaurisations carolingiennes aux constructions mémorielles . ed. Philippe Cordez, Bern 2012, pp. 57-86.

KHATCHATRIAN, A., L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe siècle, Paris 1971.

KOTANJYAN, N.G., Քոտանջյան, Թալինի սէծ տաճարի զլխավոր աբսիդի որմնանկարի զճային կէրակառսւցման փորձը, in:Հայ արվեստի հարցեր [An Experimental Experience of Styling the Fresco of the Talin Temple, in: Questions of Armenian Art, in Armenian], Yerevan 2006.

KOTANJYAN N., Цвет в раннесредневековой живописи Армении. Анализ памятников VI – VII веков [Colour in Early Medieval Painting of Armenia. The Analysis of the Monuments of the 6th–7th Centuries, in Russian], Yerevan 1978.

KOTANJYAN N., Монументальная живопись в раннесредневековой Армении (IV-VII века) [Monumental Painting in Early Medieval Armenia (4th-7th centuries), in Russian], Yerevan 2017.

KUSHNARYAN, CH. S.,MURADYAN, M. H., GYODAKYAN, G. S., ARAKELYAN, B. N., MAZMANYAN, M. N., Ակնարկներ հայ արվեստի պատմոիթյան 2 հատորը [Glimpse to Armenian Art History 2 vol., in Armenian], Yerevan 1964.

LA ROCCA, E., I troni dei nuovi dei, in Culto imperial, política y poder, a cura di T. Nogales, J. Gonzàles, Roma 2007, pp. 75-104.

LYNCH, H.F.B., Armenia, Travels and Studies. Vol. 1, London 1901.

MAGNAGHI, A., GEMELLI CARERI, Giovanni Francesco, Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 1932; http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/gemelli-careri-giovanni-francesco_(Enciclope dia- Italiana)/; (26.2.2020).

MAHE, J.P. and A., Histoire de l'Arménie. Des Origines à nos jours, Perrin 2012.

MANOUTCHARIAN, A.A., Una chiesa esa conca recentemente scoperta nella regione di Thalin in Armenia RSS [One nave church recently discovered in the region of Thalin in Armenia RSS, in Italian], Ricerca sull’architettura armena. Fonti. Vol. 2, n° 15, Milano 1977.

MARANCI, Ch., Medieval Armenian architecture: constructions of race and nation, Leuven 2001.

MARANCI, Ch., Sacred Art in Armenia. Exterior Sculpted Reliefs, in: Icons and the Liturgy, East and West. History, Theology and Culture, ed. Nicholas Denysenko, Notre Dame 2017, pp. 104-127.

MARANCI, Ch., Sundials and Medieval Armenian Architecture, in: The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: a Comparative Perspective; Essays Presented in Honor of Professor Robert W. Thomson on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, Leiden-Boston 2014, pp. 553-571.

MARANCI,. Ch., The Art of Armenia: an Introduction, New York 2018.

MARANCI, Ch., Vigilant powers: three churches of early medieval Armenia, Turnhout 2015.

MATTHIAE, G., Mosaici medievali delle chiese di Roma, Rome 1967.

MELKONYAN, H., BABAJANYAN, A., HARUTYUNYAN, A., DAVTYAN, D., AGHAIAN, S., The excavations of Dashtadem fortress: preliminary report on 2015 fieldwork activity, AMARAZD: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies, volume XI ISSUES 1–2 2017, pp. 263-292.

MITTERMAYR M., SUPA CH., Baudokumentation am objekt: Die kathedrale von Thalin: Graphische Auswertung des Bestandes in: Die Baukunst Armeniens: Christliche kultur an der schwelle des abendlandes, Wien 2004, pp. 80-104.

MNACAKANYAN S., STEPANJAN I., Памятники архитектуры в советской армении [Architectural monuments in the Soviet Republic of Armenia, in Russian], Leningrad 1971.

NIEDERL-GARBER, C., Wie Europa Armenien "entdeckte": das Bekanntwerden der Kunstgeschichte Armeniens im Spiegel westlicher Reisender, Wien 2013.

NILGEN, U., Die Bilder über dem Altar. Triumph- und Apsisbogenprogramme in Rom und Mittelitalien und ihr Bezug zur Liturgie, in: Kunst und Liturgie im Mittelalter, Nicolas Bock, Sieble de Blaauw eds., Munich 2000, pp. 75-89.

OUSTERHOUT, J., The Holy Space. Architecture and the Liturgy, in: Heaven on Earth. Art and the Church in Byzantium, ed. Linda Safran, University Park 1998, pp. 81-120.

PLONTKE-LÜNING, A., Frühchristliche Architektur in Kaukasien: die Entwicklung des christlichen Sakralbaus in Lazika, Iberien, Armenien, Albanien und den Grenzregionen vom 4. bis zum 7. Jh, Vienna 2007.

PORTER, R.K., Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, ancient Babylonia, &c. &c. : during the years 1817, 1818, 1819, and 1820. Vol. 1, London 1821.

RAKELYAN, B.N., MAZMANYAN, M.D., Ակնարկներ հայ արվեստի պատմաԻթյան 2: Ակնարկ հայ ճարտարապէտոիթյան պատմոիթյան [Glimpse of Armenien History of Art 2: Glimpse of Armenian History of Architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1964, pp. 167-168.

RENOUX, CH., Initiation Chrétienne I. Rituels arméniens du baptême, Paris 1997.

ROMANAZZI, H., Domed Medieval Churches in Armenia: Form and Construction, Actas del Sexto Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción, Valencia 21-24 octubre 2009, eds. S. Huerta, R. Marín, R. Soler, A. Zaragozá, Madrid 2009, pp. 1199-1208.

RUGGIERI, V., Paolo CUNEO, Architettura Armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, con testi e contributi di Tommaso BRECCIA FRATADOCCHI, Murad HASRAT'YAN, Maria Adelaide LALA COMNENO, Armen ZARIAN. Tomo I: о testi introduttivi e schede degli edifici; tomo II: tavole sinottiche ed apparati di consultazione. Roma 1988, pp. 926, foto bianco/nero, disegni, planimetrie ed una carta geografica, in: Orientalia Christiana Periodica vol. 58 (1992), pp. 290-294.

SARKISSIAN, K., The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, New York 1975.

SCHWARTZ, J.B., Ark of the Covenant, in: The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, ed. Adele Berlin, New York 2011, p. 67.

SECCOMBE, T., Porter, Robert Ker, Dictionary of National Biography; Volume 46, London 1885-1900.

SHAHKHATUNIANTS, H., Էջմիածնի եւ Հինգ Գաւառացն Արարատայ II [Description of the Etchmiadzin cathedral and the five districts of Ararat, in Armenian], Etchmiadzin 1842.

STONE, M.E., The Armenian Inscriptions from Sinai with Appendixes on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by Michel van Esbroeck and W. Adler, in: ed. R.W. Thomson, Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 6, Cambridge 1982, pp. 9-18.

STRZYGOWSKI, J., Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa, Vienna 1918.

TAMANYAN, A.J., Памятникам- Новую Жизнь [Monuments - New Life, in Russian], Ереван, 1988.

TANNER, K.N., Fusing a False Dichotomy: Paul’s Use of ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25, 2018. Online at: https://www.academia.edu/36444504/Fusing_a_False_Dichotomy_Pauls_Use_of _ %E1%BC%B1%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%81%CE %B9%CE%BF%CE%BD_in_Romans_3_25 (26.5.2020).

TER MARTIROSOV, F., MIKAELYAN, L., Древние корни строительной техники «мидис» [The ancient roots of Midis construction technique, in Russian], Լրաբեր Հասարակական Գիտությունների=Herald of Social Sciences, № 2, 2009, pp. 131–144. Online: http://lraber.asj-oa.am/561/ , (11.3.2020).

THIERRY DE CRUSSOL, J.M., Armenien im Mittelalter, Regensburg 2002.

THIERRY DE CRUSSOL, J.M., DONABÉDIAN, P., Les arts arméniens, Paris 1987.

THOMSON, R.W., The Reception of the Biblical Book of Revelation in Armenia, in: The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition. A Comparative Perspective, eds. Bardakjian K.Z. and La Porta S., Leiden-Boston 2014, pp. 242-253.

TOKARSKIJ, N.M., Архитектура Армении IV-XIV вв.[Armenian Architecture of IV-XIV century, in Russian], Yerevan 1961.

USSHER, J., A Journey From London To Persepolis, London 1865.

VENABLES, E., Flabellum, in: The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, ed.Samuel Cheetham, London 1875, pp. 675-678. VON BOGYAY, T., Zur Geschichte der Hetoimasia, München 1960.

XALPAXČ’YAN, O.K., O., Архитектура Армении, in: Всеобщая История Архитектуры в 12 томах [Armenian architecture in: General history of architecture, in Russian], Leningrad - Moscow 1966.

YAKOBSON, A.L., Очерки истории зодчества армении V - XVII веков [Essays on the history of Armenian architecture in 5th – 17th century, in Russian], Moscow and Leningrad 1950.

ZARIAN, A., L’effetto statico-dinamico in alcuni edifici paleocristiani armeni, in: Atti del Quinto Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena, Venise 1988/1991.

ZARIAN, A., Lineamenti di Storia Urbanistica dell’Armenia, in: Architettura Armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, Rome 1988, pp. 74-85.

Websites https://www.avcr.cz/opencms/export/sites/avcr.cz/.content/galerie-souboru/tiskov e-zpravy/2019/TZ_APOSTOLUS_2019.pdf (18.3.2020)

https://www.capturingreality.com/photogrammetry-documentation-architects?fbcl id=IwAR3LBfP0LMSxbWmMDPM-beFvoee2Jx1W5gaNFYEwB5svKAiqJqRUj -HcU6s (26.3.2020) http://armenianart.org/nyuter/Vrtanes%20Qertox.pdf (26.5.2020) http://aragatsotn.mtad.am/files/comm_docs/1/803/68693.pdf (2.4.2020) http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/iaa_architecture/images/talincathedral_floor plan_large.jpg (16.6.2020) https://www.vanker.org/fiche/monuments/talin-eglise-sainte-mere-de-dieu/#photo s (17.6.2020)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1) The cathedral of T’alin (Alishan 1890, fig. 51.) 2) Close-up of the southern wall from 1890’s (Lynch 1901, fig. 62.) 3) Close-up of the southern wall from 1890’s (Lynch 1901, fig. 63.) 4) T’alin village in 1890’s (Lynch 1901, fig. 61.) 5) T’alin cathedral from the north-east in 1913 (Strzygowski 1918, fig. 198.) 6) T’alin cathedral from the south-west in 1913 (Strzygowski 1918, fig. 199.)

7) T’alin cathedral interior in 1913 (Strzygowski 1918, fig. 200.) 8) T’alin cathedral south-western pillar in 1913 (Strzygowski 1918, fig. 201.) 9) T’alin cathedral southern exedra in 1913 (Strzygowski 1918, fig. 202.) 10) T’alin cathedral, northern facade before the restorations (Arutjunjan, Safarjan 1951, fig. 43.) 11) T’alin cathedral, detail of the northern facade (Arutjunjan, Safarjan 1951, fig. 44.) 12) The cathedral before the reconstruction in 1970’s, western facade (https://allinnet.info/antiquities/katoghike-church-talin-armenia/, online 22.3.2020) 13) The cathedral from north-east before the earthquake in 1988 (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 18.) 14) The cathedral from south before the earthquake in 1988 (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 19.) 15) The cathedral from north before the earthquake in 1988 (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 17.) 16) The cuts of the cathedral, a-j (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 6-16.) 17) 3D reconstruction of the cathedral from the west (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 98.) 18) 3D reconstruction of the cathedral from the south-west (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 99.) 19) 3D reconstruction of the cathedral from the north-west (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 100.) 20) 3D reconstruction of the cathedral from the south-east (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 101.) 21) 3D reconstruction of the cathedral, view on western wall from interior (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 103.) 22) 3D reconstruction of the cathedral, view on dome from interior

(Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 104.) 23) 3D reconstruction of the cathedral, view on south-east from interior (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 105.) 24) Plans of the cathedral, a-b (© Geo.cz 2019) 25) The view on cut-off southeastern corner of the cathedral (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 26) The view on the stone blocks placement (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 27) The view on the dome (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 28) T’alin cathedral from the distance (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 29) Three stepped platform of the cathedral (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 30) Roofing system of the cathedral (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 31) View on the interior of the cathedral (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 32) North-western arch of the cathedral (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 33) View on the eastern arches (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 34) Base of the south-eastern pillar (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1486.) 35) Vault of the southern lateral nave of the cathedral (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1476.) 36) Cross vault of the cathedral (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1489.) 37) Southern exedrae of the cathedral (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 38) The eastern apse

(© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 39) View on the western facade (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1496.) 40) Bema in the altar space of the cathedral (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1484.) 41) View on the interior from the north-western corner (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1474.) 42) View on the central space and the northern exedra (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1471.) 43) View on the lateral nave and the niche in northern apse (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 44) View on the north-eastern pillar (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 45) The eastern apse (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 46) The drum from the west (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 47) The northern exedra (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 48) The blind arcade on the eastern exedra (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 49) The blind arcade on the northern exedra (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 50) The blind arcade on the southern exedra (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1520) 51) Detail of the blind arcade on the eastern exedra (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 52) Window band on the northern wall, first from the west (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 53) Window band on the northern wall, second from the west (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 54) Window band on the northern wall, third from the west

(© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 55) Window band on northern wall, fifth from the west (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 56) Window band on the northern wall, sixth from the west (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 57) Oculus on the western wall (Mittermayr, Supa 2004, fig. 86.) 58) Cornice of the perimeter walls (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 59) Sundial on the southern exedra (Kazaryan 2012, fig. 1523.) 60) Plan of T’alin cathedral (Online:http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/iaa_architecture/images/talin cathedral_floorplan_large.jpg (16.6.2020)) 61) Plan of Dvin cathedral (Kazaryan 2005, fig. 1б) 62) The church of St. John in Sisavank (Wikimedia Commons) 63) The dome of St. Hripsime church (Wikimedia Commons) 64) Mural in the apsidal zone (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 65) Detail of the mural in the apse (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 66) Detail of mural in the apse (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 67) Hypothetical reconstruction of mural composition made by N. Kotanjyan (Hakopyan 2016, fig. 1.) 68) Detail of mural on the triumphal arch, medallions (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 69) Detail of mural under the apse, medallions (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019)

70) Detail of mural under the apse, apostles (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 71) Detail of mural on southern wall, Christ entering Jerusalem (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 72) Detail of mural on northern apsidal pilar (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 73) Detail of mural on southern wall, inscription (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 74) Mosaics in St Cosma and Damian in Rome (© David Lown 2001-2019) 75) Gregorio di Nazianzo, Byzantine manuscript (880-883), Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzo, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Ms gr.510, fol. 355 r. (Jean-Michel SPIESER, Byzance Médievale, fig. 49). 76) The mosaic in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome (© 2020 Stefano Sandano On the Art of Rome) 77) Silver flabella from Armenia (Wikimedia Commons) 78) The inscription of the monk Uchtatyr (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 79) The inscription on the mural (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 80) Aerial photograph from the northwest (© Geo.cz 2019) 81) Aerial photograph from the northeast (© Geo.cz 2019) 82) Aerial photograph from the southeast (© Geo.cz 2019) 83) Plan of the T’alin site (Cuneo 1988, p. 221) 84) The church of Saint Mary (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016)

85) Plan of the Saint Mary church (Kazaryan vol. III 2012, fig. 2220) 86) The interior of the church of Saint Mary, arches (© vanker.org. 2014-2019) 87) The interior of the church of Saint Mary, east (Kazaryan vol. III 2012, fig. 2224) 88) The interior of the church of Saint Mary, west (Kazaryan vol. III 2012, fig. 2225) 89) The church of Saint Mary, southern facade (© vanker.org. 2014-2019) 90) The small church with provisional roofing (Thierry, Donabédian 1987, fig. 853) 91) Saint Mary church in T’alin before the restorations (Arutjunjan, Safarjan 1951, fig. 30.) 92) The niche of Saint Mary’s church (© vanker.org. 2014-2019) 93) The detail of the cornice of Saint Mary’s church (Kazaryan vol. III 2012, fig. 2231) 94) The detail of a window band of Saint Mary’s church (Kazaryan vol. III 2012, fig. 2235) 95) The detail of the eastern window band of Saint Mary’s church (Kazaryan vol. III 2012, fig. 2236) 96) The portal of Saint Mary’s church (© vanker.org. 2014-2019) 97) The detail of the Saint Mary’s church tromps (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 98) The detail of the Saint Mary’s church smaller conical vault (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 99) The cleaned site of the One-nave church (© Institute of Archeology and Ethnography in Yerevan) 100) The crypt of the One-nave church (© Institute of Archeology and Ethnography in Yerevan)

101) The interior of the crypt of the One-nave church (© Institute of Archeology and Ethnography in Yerevan) 102) The plan the One-nave church (© Institute of Archeology and Ethnography in Yerevan) 103) The crypt of the One-nave church in 2019 (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 104) The entrance to the crypt of the One-nave church in 2019 (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 105) The fragment of a bent arch of the One-nave church (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 106) The fragment with a palmette frieze of the One-nave church (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 107) The bases of a pilaster of the One-nave church (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2019) 108) The bases of a pilaster of the Aghts mausoleum (Thierry, Donabédian 1987, fig. 568.) 109) The chapel on the Alishan’s engraving (Alishan 1890, fig. 51.) 110) The church of Saint Nino in Mtskheta (Wikimedia Commons) 111) The plan of Saint Nino in Mtskheta (Donabédian 2008, fig. 16.) 112) Stele from T’alin in History Museum of Armenia (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 113) Stele from T’alin in History Museum of Armenia (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 114) Stele from T’alin with Latin cross (© vanker.org. 2014-2019) 115) Stele from T’alin (© Center for Early Medieval Studies 2016) 116) Stele from T’alin (© vanker.org. 2014-2019)

117) Stele from T’alin (© vanker.org. 2014-2019) 118) Base of stele from T’alin (© Norbert Breton 2016) 119) Stele from T’alin, lower part (© Norbert Breton 2016) 120) Stele from T’alin , upper part (© Norbert Breton 2016) 121) Stele from T’alin on stepped-platform (© vanker.org. 2014-2019) 122) Stele from T’alin, front side (© Norbert Breton 2016) 123) Stele from T’alin, back side (© Norbert Breton 2016)