Masarykova Univerzita Seminář Dějin Umění the Armenian Basilica Of

Masarykova univerzita

Filozofická fakulta

Seminář dějin umění

Sára Anna Hudcovicová

The Armenian basilica of Ererouk

Bakalářská diplomová práce

Vedoucí práce: Ivan Foletti

2018

Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalářskou diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně a uvedla všechnu použitou literaturu a prameny.

......

Podpis autora práce

iii

As writing of this thesis proved at times to be a truly "byzantine process", the following is by no means a formality. In the first place, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my amazing family: to my dearest mother for her loving encouragement, to my father for finally accepting I will not become a doctor and supporting me anyway, to my brothers and sisters for making our home a place to which I love to come back. I would like to thank Jakub for his voice of reason and Ester, Johana, Kristýna and Michaela for their kind-hearted friendship during the studies. My sincere gratitude belongs to Christina Maranci who generously provided me with some of the less accessible materials and to my tutor Ivan Foletti who broadened my horizons in many aspects and introduced me to Caucasus. For the gorgeous photographs I am indebted and grateful to Petr, Katarína, Filip and Míša, who, turned our trip to Armenia into a wonderful experience. A special thanks goes to Petr for his interest and ideas regarding the topic and its popularization as well as a thorough grammar and spell check. Last but not least, my eternal gratitude belongs to Leoš – the first and last critic of this thesis – for the countless discussions, advice, cups of coffee and everyday abundance of mutual support and love. Thank you!

Psaní této práce bylo chvílemi skutečně spletitým procesem a následující tak v žádném případě není pouhou formalitou. Na prvním místě bych ráda vyjádřila nejupřímnější poděkování své úžasné rodině: mé nejdražší mamince za její laskavá povzbuzení, mému tatínkovi za jeho podporu, i přesto, že se pravděpodobně již nestanu lékařkou, mým sourozencům, díky nimž se budu vždy ráda vracet domů. Ráda bych poděkovala Jakubovi za jeho hlas rozumu a Ester, Johaně, Kristýně a Michaele za jejich dobrosrdečné přátelství v průběhu studia. Mé vřelé díky patří Christině Maranci, která mi velkoryse poskytla několik obtížně dostupných materiálů, a mému vedoucímu práce, Ivanovi Folettimu, za rozšíření horizontů v mnoha směrech a seznámení s Kavkazem. Za nádherné fotografie jsem zavázaná a vděčná Petrovi, Kataríně, Filipovi a Míše, díky nimž se z naší společné výpravy do Arménie stal nezapomenutelný zážitek. Speciální poděkování patří Petrovi za jeho zájem a nápady ohledně tématu a jeho popularizace stejně jako důkladnou korekturu gramatiky a pravopisu. V neposlední řadě bych ráda vyjádřila svou neskonalou vděčnost Leošovi – prvnímu a poslednímu kritikovi této práce – za nespočet diskuzí, rad, hrnků kávy a každodenní hojnost vzájemné podpory a lásky. Děkuji!

Content

Introduction ...... 1

1 State of research ...... 3 Uncovering and exploring ...... 3 The Holy Trinity of Ererouk studies: Marr, Toramanian, Strzygowski ...... 6 After Strzygowski: stone vault vs. timber roof ...... 12 Game-changing discoveries of archaeology ...... 20 Conclusion: answers and questions ...... 26

2 Sanctuary in a wasteland ...... 27 The architecture of the basilica ...... 29 Technique of construction ...... 36 Decoration ...... 38 Conclusion: character of the building ...... 43

3 The ecclesiastical complex ...... 45 Funerary zone ...... 45 Settlement in the neighborhood of the basilica ...... 48 Minor architectural structures ...... 49 Conclusion: architectural context ...... 53

4 The genesis of the basilica ...... 54 Testimony of word ...... 55 Testimony of architecture ...... 61 Syrian models ...... 66 Conclusion: datation and its limitations ...... 67 Epilogue: reconstruction of the priest Jacob ...... 70

5 Martyrium ...... 72 Prestigious dedication ...... 73 Allure of relics ...... 77 Iconography of architecture ...... 79 Visualization of presence ...... 82 Patronage ...... 87 Conclusion: intentions of creation ...... 88 Epilogue: true believers in Christ...... 90

6 On the Armenian basilica ...... 92

Conclusion ...... 96

Bibliography ...... 99 Sources ...... 99 Secondary literature ...... 100 Web sites ...... 116

List of illustrations ...... 117

vii

viii

Introduction

It was Monday 19th March 2018 when we visited the basilica of Ererouk. After an exhaustive drive trough several small Armenian villages the dusty road finally ended in front of the monument standing on the outskirts of a seemingly uninhabited town. Only few cows were seen wandering among the ruins looking for remaining patches of grass, completely unfazed by our arrival. The wind was strong and full of dust – the sole sound audible in the deserted landscape apart from the car engine. The basilica, silent and abandoned, did not seem to evince any signs of current or past human presence, an impression erroneous in every aspect…

The reader must forgive the beletristic opening, but no woman or man could remain completely untouched by the extraordinary atmosphere surrounding the magnificent, yet dilapidated church of Ererouk [1].1 Simultaneously, the introduction serves two other purposes – firstly, to pay tribute to the 19th century travellers whose similarly poetic reports of the basilica are the earliest documented accounts of its existence, and secondly, to highlight the danger of projecting the present-day situation onto the history of the building that more than few scholars fell into. This thesis aims to demonstrate the very opposite, that is to show the ruined sanctuary as once an active center of religious and social life of the region, as well as a destination of both local and foreign pilgrimage.

1 The basilica or more specifically the locality in which it stands (see below) is referred to as “Ererouk” throughout this thesis as such transliteration of the name appears in English, French, Italian and Russian bibliography. Nevertheless, the appelation is generally used rather incoherently with a wide range of variation like Yereouk, Yereruyk, Ereruyk, Ereruk and many others.

First of all, however, the current state of research of the site in art history and archaeology will be presented. As the bibliography is at the same time quite repetitive and difficult to access, only the most important studies are discussed.2 The general focus of the scholarship on formalistic questions creates a basis for the two following chapters introducing the hypothetical reconstruction of the original appearance of the building and its urbanistic context. The reconstructed basilica is subsequently confronted with the Early Christian architecture of Armenia and Syria in order to establish a basic framework for its datation. The fifth chapter finally addresses the considerable role the church might have played and possible intentions of its construction. Last but not least, a brief historiographical reflection of the conception of the Armenian basilica is presented to point out the marginalization of its research and a necessity of reexamination.

2 As the transliterations of the titles from the Armenian, Cyrillic and Georgian into the Latin alphabet differ profoundly among different scholars, the sources throughout this thesis are cited in their respective original alphabets as not to further contribute to the confusion and to facilitate the simplest way of tracing the studies in question for the reader.

State of research

It is neither the goal of this thesis nor the capacity of its author to encompass a complete bibliography of the Ererouk basilica. Due to the language barrier, Armenian studies in general became a domain of scholars of Armenian descent or Armenians themselves and to pierce through this historiographical discourse is not an easy task. The present chapter therefore partially relies on the studies of Western Armenian-speaking scholars who could summarize the conclusions of theirs predecessors, and introduces only the crucial works for the research of Ererouk.

Uncovering and exploring

We do not find any mention of Ererouk in primary sources. The basilica therefore enters the historiography only in 1842 when it appears in the second volume of the Description of the Etchmiadzin cathedral and the five districts of Ararat written by Bishop Hovhannes Shahkhatuniants.3 The author gives a basic description of the building with its dimensions and records the inscription found to the left from the east portal of the south facade, which mentions the toponym of the site and dates to 1038.4 Shahkhatuniants’s description was practically repeated by an Armenian Catholic priest, Ghevont Alishan, in his overview of the region of

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

4 Ibidem, pp. 43–44.

Shirak some fourty years later.5 The text was, however, newly accompanied by a drawing of the aforementioned inscription and the first visual evidence of the building – an engraving of the basilica, already in ruins at that time [2].6 Apart from the incription of 1038 [3], merely one another account of the toponym existed – a dedicatory inscription on the south facade of the church of Zakare in Ani dated between 1201 and 1221 [4].7 As neither of these present the name in its nominative form, Alishan has reconstructed the toponym as “Ererouk”, which was generally accepted – although originally probably designating the settlement in the proximity of the basilica, the term is henceforth used to identify the building itself.8

5 ALISHAN, G., Շիրակ [Shirak, in Armenian], Venice 1881, pp. 170–171.

6 Ibidem, fig. 78.

7 The building known also as the Kizkale church is in ruins today. More on the church in: TORAMANIAN, T., Հայկական ճարտարապետություն I [Materials on the history of Armenian architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1942, pp. 133, 330, 332; ORBELI, I. A., Избранные Труды [Selected works, in Russian], Yerevan 1963, pp. 113– 114; ORBELI, I. A., Դիվան հայ վիմագրության I, Անի քաղաք [Corpus of Armenian inscriptions I, City of Ani, in Armenian], Yerevan 1966, pp. 57–60; CUNEO, P., Ani (Documenti di Architettura Armena 12), Milan 1984, pp. 72–73, 82–83; CUNEO, P., Architettura armena dal quarto al diciannovesimo secolo, Rome 1988, p. 650, note 416; COWE, S. P., Ani: World Architectural Heritage of a Medieval Armenian Capital, Leuven 2001, p. 36; KEVORKIAN, R. H., Ani: capitale de l’Arménie en l’an mil : Pavillon des arts 7 février - 13 mai 2001, Paris 2001, p. 288; https://www.virtualani.org/kizkale/index.htm.

8 KOUYMJIAN, D., “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի Պատմութեան Հետկերով” [On the Historical Tracks of the Ererouk basilica, in Armenian], ՀԱՍԿ [HASK, in Armenian] XLIII/7–8 (1974), p. 305. The article was translated in Italian as: “Traccie storiche della basilica di Ererouk”, Ricerca sull’ Architettura Armena XV/2 Fonti (1977), pp. 57– 72.

Finally, a German geologist and traveler, Otto Wilhelm Hermann von Abich, is credited with drawing the first schematic plan of the basilica [5]. Although created already in 1844 during Abich’s visit of Ererouk, the drawing was published only posthumously at the end of the 19th century as a part of his correspondence.9 The building is presented as a single-nave church (which is quite absurd due to its monumental dimensions) with a cross-vaulted porticoes around its north, west and south facade. The site is also wrongly identified as Alam, which lies on the other side of the Akhurian river.10 From the early historiography of Ererouk, a striking phenomenon stands out. Unlike the much visited Armenian medieval capital city of Ani standing only a few kilometers away, the basilica was generally omitted from the travelers’ accounts of western proto-scholars exploring the Caucasus in the 19th century. Ererouk’s absence in the writings of Frédéric DuBois de Montperreux11, Charles Texier12 and Marie-Félicité Brosset13 who had all visited and described Ani and its surroundings is definitely surprising. One explanation for this omission could be, of course, the

9 von ABICH, O. W. H., Aus dem Kaukasischen Ländern: Reisebriefe von Hermann Abich Herausgegeben von dessen Witwe I, Vienna 1896, p. 201.

10 KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), p. 308. The locality of Alam can be found on the map of Armenia attached to: LYNCH, H. F. B., Armenia, travels and studies, London 1901; while that of Ererouk is absent.

11 DUBOIS DE MONTPÉREUX, F., Voyage autour du Caucase, chez les Tcherkesses et les Abkhases, en Colchide, en Géorgie, en Arménie et en Crimée, Paris 1839–1843.

12 TEXIER, C. F. M., Description de l’Arménie, la Perse et la Mésopotamie, Paris 1842– 1852.

13 BROSSET, M.-F. Les ruines d’Ani, capitale de l’Arménie sous les rois bagratides, aux Xe et XIe siècles: histoire et description, Saint Petersburg 1860–1861.

inaccessibility of the site in this period.14 On the other hand, the "western- looking" basilica could simply not be so interesting for the travelers visiting the Orient as was suggested by Christina Maranci.15 Whether it was really so will remain a question, it is, however, important to note that the absence of reports about Ererouk does not necessary imply ignorance of its existence.16

The Holy Trinity of Ererouk studies: Marr, Toramanian, Strzygowski

Proper scientific research of Ererouk begun only after the turn of the 20th century. A Georgia-born linguist and historian, Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr, explored the site in 1907 following the completion of his excavations in Ani.17

14 Already in the middle of the 19th century had the river Akhurian dividing Ererouk and Ani demarcated the border between Russian and Ottoman territory as is seen on the map published at the end of: CURZON, R., Armenia: a year at Erzeroom, and on the frontiers of Russia, Turkey, and Persia, New York 1854. The border was, of course, permeable, the natural character of the landscape and above all the canyon of the river could, however, present certain obstacles for the travellers. It is possible that a more convenient crossing was located farther to the north as is suggested by the map registering a road between the cities of Kars and Gyumri. For an overview of the continuous transformations of the "borders" of Armenia troughout the history see: HEWSEN, R. H., SALVATICO, C. C., Armenia: A Historical Atlas, Chicago 2001; GALICHIAN, R., Historic Maps of Armenia: The Cartographic Heritage, London 2014.

15 MARANCI, C., Medieval Armenian Architecture: Constructions of Race and Nation, Leuven 2001, p. 28.

16 More about the 19th century travellers to Armenia in: LYNCH, Armenia, travels and studies (n. 10).

17 Further on Marrʼs studies of Armenian achitecture: MNATSAKANIAN, St., Նիկողայոս Մառը եվ հայկական ճարտարապետությունը [Nicolas Marr and Armenian

Apart from writing the first monographical study on Ererouk,18 Marr organized a second archaeological expedition on which he was accompanied by Toros Toramanian and other scholars.19 The group cleared the interior of the basilica and send some of the lapidary monuments to the museum of Ani for safekeeping – these pieces are lost today as the musem was destroyed during the World War I.20 The sanctuary was also measured, drawn and photographed. Results of this mission, which took place in the summer of

Architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1969; forewords to MARR, N. Y., Ani, rêve d’Arménie, Paris 2001; http://www.virtualani.org/marr/index.htm.

18 MARR N. Y., “Ереруйкская базилика, армянский храм V—VI вв.” [Basilica of Ererouk, Armenian sanctuary of the Vth–VIth cs., in Russian], Записки Восточного отделения Императорского Русского Археологического общества [Notes of the Oriental Section of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Society, in Russian] XVIII/I (1907–1908), pp. XII–XIV.

19 Toramanian collaborated with Marr since the beginning of the second campaign of excavations in Ani and its surroundings in 1904. BALADIAN, A. T., “Toros Toramanian”, Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot LXXXI (2002), p. 18.

20 KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), p. 309. On the destruction of the museum of Ani: MARR, N. Y., “Ani, la ville arménienne en ruines d’après les fouilles de 1892–1893 et de 1904–1917”, Revue des Études Arméniennes I (1921), pp. 395–410; CUNEO, Ani (n. 7), p. 20; COWE, Ani: World Architectural Heritage (n. 7), p. 119; KEVORKIAN, Ani, capitale de l’Arménie (n. 7), p. 52; http://www.virtualani.org/marr/index.htm.

1908, were then published in two short articles.21 The final and most extensive study was, however, not made public until 1968.22 Marr’s work presented the main points reflected in the historiography of Ererouk to this day – the datation of the basilica, its proximity to the architecture of Syria and the Armenian church of Tekor, the question of roofing and the interpretation of epigraphy. The basilica was dated to the 5th or 6th century, although some later additions were recognized. Marr recorded the cruciform pillars [6] and the absence of traces of vaulting above the central nave. After re-examining both incriptions mentioning the toponym, the scholar has proposed the reconstruction of the name of the site as “Ererui”, which was, however, not followed.23 Toramanian himself had not published any reports from the expedition. Nevertheless, he used the findings when comparing the

21 MARR N. Y., “Матеріалы къ исторіи армянскаго искусства въ Ширакѣ. Камсаракановскій періодъ. Ереруйская базилика – Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire de l’art arménien dans le Chirak. Ere Kamsarakane. Basilique dʼErerou” [in Russian], Известия Санкт-Петербургской императорской академии наук – Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, serie VI, III/16 (1909), p. 1091; MARR, N. Y., “Новые археологические данные о постройках типа Ереруйкской базилики” [New archeologic findings on the buildings of the Ererouk basilica type, in Russian], Записки Восточного отделения Императорского Русского Археологического общества [Notes of the Oriental Section of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Society, in Russian] XIX/1 (1909–1910), pp. 64–68.

22 Until then was the manuscript kept at the Saint Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences together with other Marr’s notebooks. MARR, N. Y., Ереруйкская базилика, армянский храм V—VI вв. в окрестностях Ани [Basilica of Yererouk, Armenian sanctuary of the Vth–VIth cs. in the vicinity of Ani, in Russian], Yerevan 1968.

23 KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), p. 305.

neighboring church of Tekor to the basilica in his 1911 monography.24 The plan of Ererouk as imagined by the scholar appears on page 51 – the basilica already has three naves which are divided by three pairs of cruciform pillars and topped by barrel vaults [7].25 The corner rooms and side porticoes are precisely recorded in contrast with the rather crude plan of Abich. Two small niches are drawn in the east walls of the west corner rooms – only the north one is present in later plans. In 1913, Toramanian was invited to Vienna by Josef Strzygowski. After leading a seminar on Armenian art based on Toramanian’s visual materials the scholars decided to undertake an expedition and visit the monuments together.26 They departed in September and spent more than a month travelling around Armenia – they explored the Ererouk basilica on 29th September 1913.27 Strzygowski and Toramanian were originally planning to put out the results of their research as a conjoint publication on Armenian architecture. Their intentions were, unfortunately, ceased by the World War I leaving one of the scholars in Vienna and the second one in Armenia. Finally, Strzygowski decided to publish the opus on his own, including the plans and reconstructions of Toramanian.28 The whole scope of Toramanian’s contribution to the research of Ererouk was released only

24 TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911.

25 Ibidem, fig. 18.

26 BALADIAN, “Toros Toramanian” (n. 19), p. 18.

27 STRZYGOWSKI, J., Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa, Vienna 1918, p. 21.

28 Ibidem, pp. 10–11. While Strzygowski recognized the participation of Toramanian in the introduction, the single-handed publication was apparently undiscussed with the latter resulting in a rather unpleasant and long-lasting dispute over the recovery of Toramanianʼs materials. See: BALADIAN, “Toros Toramanian” (n. 19), p. 19.

after his death in 1942 and 1948 as a part of two volumes summarizing his work.29 In this context Strzygowski’s Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa appears as the first comprehensive overview of Armenian architecture presented in the West.30 The author’s position towards Ererouk is in a way stated already in the preface, where he writes: “The ancient Asiatic-Aryan culture remained victorious in Armenia and this explains why the domed building,

29 TORAMANIAN, Հայկական I (n. 7); TORAMANIAN, T., Հայկական ճարտարապետություն II [Materials on the history of Armenian architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1948.

30 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27). On Strzygowski and his view on Armenian and Eastern art in general more in: MARQUAND, A., “Strzygowski and His Theory of Early Christian Art”, The Harvard Theological Review III/3 (1910), pp. 357–365; MARCHAND, S. L., “The Rhetoric of Artifacts and the Decline of Classical Humanism: the Case of Josef Strzygowski”, History and Theory XXXIII/4 (1994), pp. 106–130; MARANCI, C., “Medieval Armenian Architecture in Historiography: Josef Strzygowski and his Legacy”, Mnημειο kai Пεριβαλλον [Monument and Environment, in Russian] (1998–1999), pp. 169–173; MARANCI, C., “Armenian Architecture as Aryan Architecture: The Role of Indo-European Scholarship in the Theories of Josef Strzygowski”, Visual Resources XIII/3–4 (1998), pp. 363–380; MARANCI, Medieval Armenian Architecture (n. 15); MARANCI, C., “The Historiography of Armenian Architecture: Josef Strzygowski, Austria, and Armenia”, Révue des études arméniennes XXVIII/1 (2001–2002), pp. 287–308; ELSNER, J., “The Birth of Late Antiquity: Riegl and Strzygowski in 1901”, Art History XXV/3 (2002), pp. 358–379; MARANCI, C., “Basilicas and Black Holes: The Legacy of Josef Strzygowski and the Case of Armenian Architecture”, Acta Historiae Artium XLVII/1 (2006), pp. 313–320; ZÄH, A., BUSCHHAUSEN, H., MARANCI, C., “Josef Strzygowski als Initiator der christlich-kunsthistorischen Orientforschung und Visionär der Kunstwissenschaft”, Römische Quartalschrift für Christlichen Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte CVII (2012), pp. 249–292.

not the basilica, could become ruling there and then conquer Europe from Armenia.”31 In the book, the Ererouk basilica represents the one and only peak of Hellenism in Armenia, still pervaded, however, with the more resourceful oriental spirit. Strzygowski goes to great lenghts to demonstrate this victory over Hellenism on individual structural and decorative elements of the basilica.32 Nevertheless, the proximity with Late Antique and Syrian architecture is emphasized and therefore the earliest possible datation suggested – Strzygowski finds the origin of Ererouk already in the mid-5th century.33 Based on an older (and erroneous) plan of Toramanian with possible interventions of Strzygowski himself the building is described as a vaulted basilica divided by T-shaped pillars with a monumentalized south facade and timber-roofed porticoes [8].34 More interesting is a fragment of a capital from Ererouk noted by the scholar in the museum of Ani which is most

31 “Die alte asiatisch-arische Kultur blieb in Armenien Sieger und daraus erklärt sich, daß der Kuppelbau, nicht die Basilika, dort herrschend werden konnte und dann von Armenien aus Europa eroberte.” STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. V.

32 The chapter about the Hellenistic basilicas of Armenia was actually written by Heinrich Glück, a graduate student who took part in the 1913 excursion. Several art historians, however, quote it as Strzygowski instead of: GLÜCK, H., “Die hellenistische Überlieferung: Das tonnengewölbte Langhaus”, in: STRZYGOWSKI, J. (ed.), Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa I, Vienna 1918, pp. 373–403; GLÜCK, H., “Der christliche (syrisch-kleinasiatische) Hellenismus”, in: STRZYGOWSKI, J. (ed.), Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa I, Vienna 1918, pp. 407–419. Maranci sees the delegation of these chapters to the student as an expression of Strzygowski’s marginal interest in the topic. See: MARANCI, Medieval Armenian Architecture (n. 15), p. 113.

33 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 791.

34 Ibidem, fig. 177.

definitely lost today [77].35 The piece depicts a medallion of a Holy figure on the front side, an eagle or a dove (as Strzygowski writes) flying downwards on the left lateral side and a standing figure with its right hand raised above the central medallion on the right lateral side. Above the front figure is a Greek inscription, unfortunately not recorded. As Strzygowski describes the fragment only when looking for comparisons with the capitals at Zvartnots, he does not pursue any interpretation of this scene.36 To conclude, although the last to visit the site, Strzygowski was the first from the three mentioned scholars to publish an extensive scientific study of the basilica. His publication therefore represents a major impulse for the research of not only Ererouk, but also of Armenian and oriental art in general. Further cleaning of the site was funded by the Armenian Committee for the preservation of monuments in 1928 and the first attempt to restore parts of the basilica was made 20 years later.37

After Strzygowski: stone vault vs. timber roof

With Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa the research of Armenian architecture was firmly established and Ererouk became a part of general publications on the subject. However, with a certain delay – only at the beginning of 1950s can we register similar works from Soviet Armenia and Russia.38 They limit theselves to a few pages of description of the basilica and

35 Ibidem, fig. 456.

36 Ibidem, p. 422. An interpretation of the depiction will be suggested below.

37 KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), p. 309.

38 BUNIATOV, N. G., YARALOV, Y. S., Архитектура Армении [Armenian Architecture, in Russian], Moscow 1950; YAKOBSON, A. L., Очерк истории зодчества Армении В— ХВИИ веков [Essays on the history of architecture of

repeat Strzygowski’s datation to the 5th century.39 The site also undergoes a restoration in 1957–1959 after an earthquaquake, which struck the region.40 We can note a more distinctive departure from Strzygowski in 1960s when Tokarskii rejects the stone vault and proposes an alternative solution of roofing – a timber roof supported by stone arches of the central nave.41 The scholar presents the first hypothetical reconstruction of the basilica with a central nave higher than the lateral ones, two facade towers in front of the west facade and collonaded galleries along its three sides [9].42 Simultaneously, the significance of Armenian art grows in the eyes of Western scholars. Richard Krautheimer’s Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture is the first of such publications reserving a chapter for Armenia in the architectural history.43 While Krautheimer recognizes the proximity of Ererouk with Syrian architecture, he also stresses the impact of Asia Minor manifested, according to his opinion, especially in the barrel vaults. Similar to Strzygowski, the scholar sees the basilica as a starting point of the decline

Armenia in the Vth–XVIIth centuries, in Russian], Moscow-Leningrad 1950; ARUTYUNYAN, V. M., SAFARYAN, S. A., Памятники армянского зодчества [Monuments of Armenian Architecture, in Russian], Moscow 1951.

39 KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), p. 298.

40 Results of this restoration were published in: SAHINIAN, A. A., HOVHANNISYAN, K. K., MNATSAKANIAN, St., BABAYAN, L. M., Ակնարկ հայ ճարտարապետության պատմության [Survey of history of the Armenian architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1964, p. 87–89.

41 TOKARSKII, N. M., Архитектура Армении IV—XIV вв. [Architecture of Armenia in IVth–XIVth cs, in Russian], Yerevan 1961, p. 78.

42 Ibidem, fig. 22.

43 KRAUTHEIMER, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Harmondsworth 1965.

of Hellenism in Armenia and dates it around or before 500.44 The Italian catalog Architettura medievale armena suggests even a 4th century datation.45 Finally, let us not forget Marr’s study on Ererouk mentioned above that was published during this period.46 The Western interest in Ererouk culminates in the 1970s with two crucial publications in its historiography. The first one is Armen Khatchatrian’s detailed analysis of Early Armenian architecture, in which the author defines two types of basilicas – the Hellenistic (with a central nave higher than the side-aisles, a clerestory and a flat timber roof) and the oriental (all naves vaulted with stone and covered by a single roof) –, a concept outlined already by Gabriel Millet at the beginning of the century.47 For Khatchatrian Ererouk represents the only example of the truly Hellenistic type, and therefore the first basilica in Armenia. The preference of this "Syrian Hellenism" is further emphasized by rejecting the hypothesis of the barrel-vaulting of the central nave in behalf of the wooden ceiling and roof. The scholar even considered the possibility of the central nave being roofed by 4 separate erdik constructions above its square bays in accordance with such hypothetic roofing of Armenian episcopal palaces.48 For the side porticoes, Khatchatrian proposed a wooden roof in combination with supporting stone arches between the pilasters and free- standing columns. The author furthemore pointed out the homogeneity of

44 Ibidem, pp. 229–230.

45 Architettura medievale armena: Roma, Palazzo Venezia, 10–30 giugno 1968, Rome 1968.

46 MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22). Ererouk is discussed also in the commentary of Marr’s work written a year later. MNATSAKANIAN, Նիկողայոս Մառը (n. 17).

47 KHATCHATRIAN, A., L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe s., Paris 1971; MILLET, G., L’École grecque dans l’architecture byzantine, Paris 1916, pp. 15–53.

48 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 45–46.

the main structure with these side porticoes and the external apses, which to him must be explained by a fixed liturgical practice. He suggested masses for catechumens or commemoration of the dead. As he did not find any tombs in proximity of the porticoes (!), he favoured the former. Finally, the scholar suggested a presence of the baptistery in the southwest corner room with an entrance from the outside as well as inside.49 The second major work of the 1970s in the historiography of Ererouk is the 9th volume of Documenti di Architettura Armena dedicated to the basilica.50 Its authors questioned some of the claims made by previous scholars; Strzygowski, Tokarskii and Khatchatrian in particular – the concept of Ererouk as a Hellenistic basilica was rejected and a new reconstruction closer to the contemporary Armenian production presented [10].51 The height difference between the central nave and the lateral ones was reduced and the stone vault reinstated. Consequently, the clerestory dissapeared. The scholars believed that “…these differences not only allow us to exclude a servile reproduction of the models that the Armenians could find right under their eyes, but also indicate an originality in their architecture that often preserves only a memory of the Syrian one.”52

49 Ibidem, pp. 47–48.

50 PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977.

51 Ibidem, p. 56, fig. 1.

52 “Tali differenze non solo consentono di escludere una servile riproduzione dei modelli che gli armeni potevano ritrovarsi sotto gli occhi, ma indicano anche nella loro architettura una originalita che di quella siriaca conserva spesso solo il ricordo.” PABOUDJIAN, P., “La basilica di Ererouk. Profilo descrittivo-illustrativo”, in: PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A. (eds), Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 14.

As a result, the potential impact of Syria on the architecture of Ererouk was dramatically lessened and the self-sufficiency of Armenia underlined based on the depicted differences of composition. The undeniably Syrian features (the corner rooms and the porticoes between them) were ascribed only to a later and not so durable addition to the original nucleus dated to the 5th century [11].53 Furthemore, explicitely negative stance was taken to these added components as according to the authors “… time seems to have wanted to do justice to this ‘external skin’ shaking it off the monument.”54 For the initial construction, however, much greater continuity was imagined – Alpago-Novello proposed possible pre-existence of a pagan temple on the site from which the crepidoma could be preserved.55 The necessity of examining the church in its urbanistic environment which must have emerged in its proximity during the period of its existence was suggested before a brief overview of the complete history of Ererouk written by Dickran Kouymjian closed the textual part of the publication.56 The studies were further accompanied by a rich supplement of visual materials.

53 PABOUDJIAN, ALPAGO-NOVELLO, Ererouk (n. 50), p. 56, fig. 2.

54 “…il tempo sembra aver voluto far giustizia di questa ‘pelle esterna’, scrollandola di dosso al monumento.” ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., “La basilica di Ererouk. Annotazioni critiche”, in: PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A. (eds), Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 25.

55 Ibidem, p. 17.

56 KOUYMJIAN, D., “Breve cronologia storica”, in: PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO- NOVELLO, A. (eds), Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, pp. 28–29. The contribution is a summary of the author’s article from 1974. KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), pp. 296–310.

Francesco Gandolfo followed in Khatchatrian’s footsteps with another major work on Armenian basilicas published in 1982.57 He questioned the T-pillar plan of Ererouk unanimously accepted by scholars following Strzygowski and returned to Marr’s and Toramanian’s cruciform conception. Gandolfo even suggested that this alteration of plan was intentionally made by Strzygowski to support his hypothesis of vaulting, which he therefore rejected.58 The scholar did not, however, perceive the wooden roof as a connection to Syria, but instead stressed the formative process of Armenia itself. Gandolfo understood the lightening through wood and clerestory as a parallel to the “opening” introduced with the Armenian dome and dated Ererouk to the transformative period of the 6th century.59 The author also pointed out that one of the corner rooms might have served for the preservation of relics and noted the secluded character of this part of the basilica which would be – according to the author – most suitable for this function.60 From 1985 to 1988 another reconstruction of Ererouk took place – this one concentrated on the clearance of the basilica and its surroundings. Consequently, several previously unknown structures were discoverd including the traces of a settlement to the east and south of the church and a wall surrounding the complex. These results were presented by Felix Ter- Martirossov.61 The reconstruction was, however, interrupted by the

57 GANDOLFO, F., Le basiliche armene, IV–VI secolo, Rome 1982.

58 Ibidem, p. 67.

59 Ibidem, pp. 75–76.

60 Ibidem, p. 73.

61 TER-MARTIROSSOV, F. I., “Археологические разыскания памятников в Ереруйке” [Archaeological researches of the monuments in Yererouk, in Russian], VI республиканская научная конференция по проблемам культуры и искусства

earthquake of 1988, and therefore remained incompleted. Furthemore, the basilica was badly damaged during the event and subsequent intervention was desperately needed. The project was firstly discussed with the international community of scientists before being assigned to the architect Vitali Guevorkian, who in 1996 secured the walls of the building with iron traverses anchored in concrete. Inadequacy of this solution was kept in mind and a less crude intervention was pursued since 2002 in cooperation with the Italian Centro Studi e Documentazion della Cultura Armena (CSDCA).62 This collaboration laid the foundations for subsequent archeological investigations of the site that will be discussed below. Although still being mentioned in general publications about Armenian architecture,63 Ererouk has gradually lost its appeal among art historians. The most complex study after Gandolfo is the book Frühchristliche

Армении. Тезисы докладов [VIth republican scientific conference on the problems of culture and art of Armenia. Theses of reports, in Russian], Yerevan 1987, pp. 216– 218; TER-MARTIROSSOV, F. I., “Малоизученные памятники Ереруйка” [Little studied monuments of Yererouk, in Russian], Հայոց սրբերը և սրբավայրերը [Saints and sanctuaries of Armenia], Yerevan 2001, pp. 234–243.

62 MONTEVECCHI, N., TONGHINI, C., “Lo sviluppo construttivo della basilica di Ererouk (Armenia), secoli VI-X: una ri-lettura archeologica”, Arqueología de la Arquitectura 9 (2012), pp. 29–30.

63 MANGO, C. A., Byzantinische Architektur, Stuttgart 1975; THIERRY, J.-M., DONABÉDIAN, P., Les arts arméniens, Paris 1987; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7); HASRATIAN, M. M., Early Christian architecture of Armenia, Moscow 2000; THIERRY, J.-M., L’Arménie au Moyen Age, Paris 2000. Translated in German: Armenien im Mittelalter, Regensburg 2002; LEHNER, E., OHANDJANIAN, A., Die Baukunst Armeniens: christliche Kultur an der Schwelle des Abendlandes, Vienna 2004.

Architektur in Kaukasien by Annegret Plontke-Lüning.64 The scholar summarized the previous research and characterized its main questions and problems. According to Plontke-Lüning, the function of the Ererouk basilica had been only very insufficiently examined – the author elaborates the hypothesis of Ererouk as a martyrial and pilgrimage site and suggests its comparisons with Syria and Northern Africa.65 In terms of traditional questions of historiography, Plontke-Lüning supported the Syrian bond and – based on this comparison – the 6th century datation.66 Donabédian’s L’âge d’or de l’architecture arménienne is one of the latest general publications reserving a page or two for the basilica.67 The scholar likewise pursued the function of the object and pointed out the role of the building as a part of a larger memorial complex comprising funeral monuments at the south side of the church and a further unspecified mausoleum which he calls “Saint Theodore’s”.68 In this sense Donabédian explained some of the structural and decorative elements as related to this specific function of a martyrium. The author also noted the traces of polychromy on one of the southern portals which he considered to be the oldest in Armenia.69 The characteristic elements of Ererouk outlined already by Marr have been subjects of discussion ever since. The form of roofing, internal supports

64 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.

65 Ibidem, CD-ROM catalog, p. 371.

66 Ibidem.

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

68 Ibidem, p. 49.

69 Ibidem, p. 61.

or porticoes remained unsolved – even the hypothesis of a stone vault has not been fully abandoned by mainly Armenian scholars.70 As a result of uncertainty and contradiction of opinions on these formal questions and unwillingness to move from them at the same time the research of Ererouk slipped through the fingers of art history and became a domain of archaeology.

Game-changing discoveries of archaeology

Based on previous cooperation on the restoration of the basilica an international archaeological research was launched at the beginning of the 21st century. The main objective of its first phase was a detailed analysis of the structural layers of the building and the technique of construction as well as an update of visual documentation of the site. The exploration took place in 2005 with the participation of Jean-Claude Bessac, Nadia Montevecchi, Cristina Tonghini and Christina Maranci.71 The goal of the article published consequently by Nadia Montevecchi and Cristina Tonghini was to present the detected phases of construction of the basilica.72 According to the authors, the general outline of the contemporary building was already laid out during the beginning of its construction and only very little altered afterwards. In these first phases, which Montevecchi and Tonghini date between the 6th and 7th centuries, the

70 See: GRIGORYAN, V., “Երերույքը հայ հանճարի փայլատակումներից է” [Ereruyk is one of the jewels of Armenien genius, in Armenian], Սովետական արվեստ [Soviet art, in Armenian] VIII (1989), pp. 32–38; GRIGORYAN, V., “Reconstruction of the Ereruyk Basilica”, Atti del quinto simposio internazionale di arte armena: Venezia, 28 maggio – 5 giugno 1988, Venice 1992, pp. 179–184.

71 MONTEVECCHI, TONGHINI, “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62), p. 30.

72 Ibidem, pp. 29–56.

basilica was completed to its uppermost part, but, never roofed [12].73 The scholars believe that in a later period, the original walls were lowered, the clerestory inserted, the original porticoes dismantled and the whole structure finally covered – they did not rule out the possibility of vaulting the central nave. A vestibule was also added to the western facade around this time.74 Apart from this intermission only smaller breaks were noted between the construction of individual layers. Lastly, the authors ponted out that the very moment of the collapse of the basilica is impossible to determine as we do not know any sources mentioning the building from the 13th century until Shakhatuniants’s description.75 After publishing some of his findings in an article about the Armenian style of building,76 Jean-Claude Bessac likewise dedicated a sole study to Ererouk.77 Instead of dividing the basilica according to its phases of construction, he analyzed in detail its individual components. The scholar recognized a halting of the construction for an unknown reason for at least several decades based on stylistical and technical changes in the upper parts of the walls [13].78 The only other major intervention recorded was the reconstruction of the western facade carried out after a rather large chronological distance – the author tried to interpret this intervention as a structural solution reinforcing the building (maybe after an earthquake) and

73 Ibidem, pp. 32–33.

74 Ibidem, p. 47.

75 Ibidem, p. 55.

76 BESSAC, J.-C., “Observations sur la construction monumentale dans le nord-ouest de la République d’Arménie”, Syria 88 (2011), pp. 379–415.

77 BESSAC, J.-C., “Observations sur la construction de la basilique d’Ererouk en République d’Arménie”, Syria 89 (2012), pp. 331–366.

78 Ibidem, p. 364.

therefore disregarding the previous decoration. He admited, however, that the technique is as thorough as that of the basilical core which does not indicate any haste.79 Most importantly, Bessac with certainty refused the possibility of a vault above the central nave – apart from the difficulties which such structure would pose, he stressed the absence of concavely cut stones in the proximity of the basilica.80 Furthermore, the scholar summarized the technique of construction as a distinctly Hellenistic, although differing from the one of north Syria by the use of lime mortars.81 Finally, Bessac stressed the necessity of further research, ideally encompassing with the other shore of the Akhurian river. Such ideal cooperation was unfortunately not yet established; the research at the site, however, did not cease. Already in 2008, a series of multidisciplinary campaigns was launched based on the cooperation of French and Armenian institutions, namely the Laboratoire d’Archéologie Médiévale et Moderne en Méditerranée (LA3M) of the University Aix- Marsille, the Regional museum of Shirak in Gyumri, the State University of Yerevan and the Ministry of Culture of Armenia. The goal of the project was an enviromental analysis of the site that has never been done before. The conclusions of these works were released between 2012 and 2015 in several

79 Ibidem.

80 Ibidem.

81 Ibidem, pp. 364–365.

reports from the individual campaigns,82 as well as in a few articles83 - most of these are published online at the official site of LA3M.84 From the many important discoveries achieved by this interdisciplinary analysis of the site, I will mention just the most crucial ones for the art historical discussion.

82 DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S.,., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix- Marseille 2012. Online:〈halshs-00800724〉; DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013. Online:〈halshs- 00907001〉; DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 2: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 2: Etude anthropologique des sépultures, University Aix-Marseille 2013. Online:〈halshs- 00906307〉; DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014. Online:〈halshs-01075566〉; DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015. Online: 〈halshs-01223227〉

83 BAILET, P., DONABÉDIAN, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., MARCHAND, G., MARTINEZ, D., SCHNEIDER, L., “Nouvelles rechereches sur l’ensemble paléochrétien et médiéval d’Ereruyk en Arménie”, Antiquité Tardive XX (2012), pp. 315–341; DONABÉDIAN, P., “Ereruyk’: nouvelles données sur l’histoire du site et de la basilique”, Travaux et Mémoires XVIII (2014), pp. 241–284.

84 http://la3m.cnrs.fr/pages/recherche/axes/axe-2/A2_Prog3/ereruyk/ererouyk. php

As for the basilica, the absence of a pre-Christian foundation was confirmed. The building was founded directly on the rock, with the degrees surrounding it being only an imitation of the antique krepis without any static meaning.85 In comparison with the previous archaeological research, the homogeneity of the construction was emphasized [14] with only one significant intervention – the rebuilding of the western portico into a lower gallery with a balcony probably in the 7th century.86 Based on the comparative analysis of the decoration and form, the inclination towards the 6th century datation was underlined.87 Most importantly, the basilica was presented as a part of a greater structured complex pre-dating the building itself [15]. Especially the funerary zone occupying a rather large area to the south and east of the church was examined in detail. Several discovered bodies were analyzed and dated by the radiocarbon method to establish the typology and chronology of inhumation.88 The traces of piedestals at the south base of the basilica89 as well as other minor funerary monuments90 were also carefully researched. In the wall enclosing the complex from the north and east, two exedrae were discovered, probably contemporary with the building of the basilica.91 The small structure on the northeast was acknowledged to serve

85 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 47–48.

86 Ibidem, pp. 12–14.

87 The decorative program was particularly analyzed during the mission of 2013. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), pp. 51–61.

88 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 19–20, 49–60.

89 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), pp. 24–27.

90 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), pp. 55–59.

91 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 13, 35–39.

as a mausoleum92 while the walls barring the valley on the southeast from the basilica were confirmed to be a barrage of a water reservoir with a probable second function as a viaduct.93 This complex urbanistic environment in which the Ererouk basilica stands attests its importance for the medieval society of Armenia. Especially the massive concentration of tombs could point to the attractivity of the building as a martyrium and for funeral ceremonies connected with this function. An interesting phenomenon that could help to understand this particular function of the basilica was also noted by the scholars – the majority of sepulchres dated to the 11th and 12th century appear to be children of a very young age compared to the previous inhumations which are of a mixed population. A connection with the dedication of the church to Saint John the Baptist was suggested – children dying before receiving baptism could have been brought to this specific site for a burial.94 It is apparent that these discoveries could help to escape from the dead end of formalistic questions on the basilica itself through its consideration within a larger architectural context. The mission of Laboratoire d’Archéologie Médiévale et Moderne en Méditerranée further contributed to the research with the topographical plan, stratigraphic recordings of elevations, a vast photographic documentation of the site and an updated 3D reconstruction of the basilica [16].95 Last but not least, the question of the conservation of the monument and its mediation to the public constituted an equally important element of the excavations. As a result of

92 Ibidem, pp. 15–16, 30–31.

93 Ibidem, pp. 16, 39–44.

94 Ibidem, p. 47.

95 Ibidem, figs 6, 7.

the efforts of the scientific community the Ererouk basilica was declared one of the “7 most endangered” monuments of Europe in 2016.96

Conclusion: answers and questions

The results of the latest archaeological investigations present a great advancement in the study of Ererouk which was for a long time revolving around a limited range of mainly formal questions. These sources therefore represent the basis of the present work which aims to overpass the problematic issues of the roof-forms, pillar-forms and Syrian decoration discussed in the past 100 years after Strzygovski and to focus on the function of the basilica and its possible liturgical connection with Syria instead. Despite the change in the point of of view presented by the latest sources, there is a noticeable undertone connecting the majority of bibliography from the first descriptions of Ererouk to its most up-to-date studies – the dimension of travelling. The research of the basilica never lost the character of an expedition. From the proto-scientific travels to the international missions, the physical exploration represents the core of the study. Alpago-Novello even points out the scholars who did not visit the site in person and discredits their findings as a result.97 Let us now see for ourselves the genius loci of Ererouk that became an inseparable part of the identity of the building.

96 http://7mostendangered.eu/2016-list/

97 ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), pp. 19, 21.

The sanctuary in a wasteland

“I have given as gifts in the memory of my pious, pure wife, for our sons Shahanshah and Avag, in rememberance of us and our parents […] Ererouk, with all its lands and its flower garden...”98

Such reads the dedicatory inscription of General Zakare in Ani. Today we do not find any such thing. Where there were gardens, only dust and stone remain. Ererouk is the sole dominant structure of the arid plateau stretching from the gorge of the Akhurian river just a few several kilometres southeast of the ancient Armenian capital.99 As the river became a state border in the

98 Cited from: KOUYMJIAN, “Breve cronologia storica” (n. 56), p. 28. The inscription was dated by Marr between 1208 and 1212. MARR, N. Y., Ани, книжная история города и раскопки на месте городища [Ani, History of the city according to literary sources and the excavations of the site of the ancient city, in Russian], Leningrad, Moscow 1934, pp. 33–34.

99 More on Ani in: BROSSET, Les ruines d’Ani (n. 13); LYNCH, Armenia, travels and studies (n. 10); SZTRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27); MARR, “Ani, la ville arménienne en ruines” (n. 20); MARR, Ани (n. 98); TORAMANIAN, Հայկական I, II (n. 7, 29); CUNEO, P., L’architettura della scuola regionale di Ani nell’Armenia medievale: relazione svolta nella seduta del I° marzo 1976, Rome 1977; HAKOBYAN, T., Անիի պատմություն [History of Ani, in Armenian], Yerevan 1980; CUNEO, Ani (n. 7); HAKOBYAN, T., Ани - столица средневековой Армении. История и судьба городища [Ani – The capital of medieval Armenia. The history and destiny of the settlement, in Russian], Yerevan 1985; HAKOBYAN, T., Անի մայրաքաղաք [Ani the capital, in Armenian], Yerevan 1988; COWE, Ani: World Architectural Heritage (n. 7); KEVORKIAN, Ani, capitale de l’Arménie (n. 7); MARR, Ani, rêve d’Arménie (n. 17);

modern era, the sites are strictly separated into the region of Kars on the Turkish and the marz of Shirak100 on the Armenian side of the border making the basilica with a small village called Anipemza within its proximity, the furthermost settlement of Armenia in this region [17]. The impression of a lonely ruin in a weatherworn landscape, however, does not really reflect the life the locality once lead. As the inscription above testifies, the site was much more linked to the city of Ani in the past – there must have been roads, settlements, travelling people. The stress on the “lands and flower garden” suggests peculiar agricultural fertility of the surroundings of the basilica similarly attested by the barrage retaining rainwater discovered in the valley.101 Volcanic rocks prevailing in the landscape – orange tuff and basalt in particular – were quarried as a building material of high quality further engaging Ererouk in the trade network of the kingdom.102 Finally, the church as such could not stand alone and had to be a part of a larger ecclesiastical complex comprising of dwellings for the community, pilgrims and livestock.103 In this rich natural, social and

WATENPAUGH, H. Z., “Preserving the medieval city of Ani: cultural heritage between contest and reconciliation”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians LXXIII/4 (2014), pp. 528–555; GRIGORYAN, A., Անի. Հազարամյա Մայրաքաղաք Հայոց – Ani. The millenial capital of Armenia, Yerevan 2015; https://www.virtualani.org/.

100 The marz is an Armenian administrative unit. The country is divided into 10 such areas (and the capital Yerevan) with the marz of Shirak located on its northwestern border. http://www.gov.am/en/regions/.

101 DONABÉDIAN, “Ereruyk’” (n. 83), p. 279.

102 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 11.

103 ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), pp. 16–17.

economic environment, the architecture should be perceived from the beginning.

The architecture of the basilica

The building itself is a monumental three-naved basilica ending with a semi- circular apse oriented towards the east [18]. The 26,60 m long and 11,45 m wide inner space is partitioned by regularly distributed pilasters – three on the north and the south side, two on the east and the west one [19–21].104 On the intersections of the lines connecting the corresponding pilasters, the free- standing supports have been reconstructed. The discussion about the form of such supports can be satisfactorily concluded as the cruciform base of the easternmost pillar in the south line remains visible [22].105 The interior is thus divided by three pairs of cruciform pillars into the significantly dominant central nave of four square bays and two lateral aisles only a third of its

104 PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), CD-ROM catalog, p. 368.

105 The base was noted already by Marr in 1908 along with its dimensions (1,36 x 1,30 m) – the report was, however, never published and remains in the Saint Petersbourg archive as document A1538a. Strzygowski’s T-pillar plan therefore ruled the historiography until Gandolfo pointed out the oversight in 1982. GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), p. 67. The base was probably uncovered during one of the clearings of rubble inside the basilica since it is recorded already at the plan published in the Documenti di Architettura Armena. PABOUDJIAN, ALPAGO- NOVELLO, Ererouk (n. 50), p. 49. In the text the T-pillar reconstruction is, nevertheless, still pursued. PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 5. The cruciform base is, as far as I can tell, properly registered only after the archaeological mission of 2005. MONTEVECCHI, TONGHINI, “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62), pp. 42, 49, fig. 18.

width.106 The aisles were further distinguished by a raised floor with an additional step – a sort of a bench – along the sides. The apse of 2,25 m in diameter, adjoined to the central nave on the east side, was most definitely elevated with a bema according to the Armenian tradition.107 The differentiation of levels continues when we look at the three entrances – one on the west and two on the south side. All are provided with a few stairs, so the entry to the church is a descent from a platform erected around the building [23]. The number of other openings is limited – there is a single arched window in the apse, four windows regularly spaced out along the south side, two arched windows illuminating the aisles from the west and a triple window in the gable of the same facade. Note the openness of the south facade while the north one is left completely solid. In the hypothetical elevation, there would have been two sets of four arches connecting the free-standing pillars and dividing the space into three naves. The question of their covering is, however, much more complicated as we already saw from the bibliography. According to Marr, there were no traces of vault above the central nave in 1907.108 Strzygowski, on the other hand, records a springer of a vault in the northeast corner of the aisle that has since dissapeared.109 The consensus of the recent bibliography is therefore a hybrid solution – a stone vault above the lateral aisles and a

106 While the central nave is slightly more than 6 m wide, the width of the side aisles is 1,92 m. PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 5.

107 Nikolai Marr notes its destruction already in 1907. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 62; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 5.

108 MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), pp. 10–11, 19, 21.

109 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 155, fig. 178; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 60.

timber roof above the raised central nave.110 The height difference between the naves creates space for a clerestory at the level of the western triple window, its concrete form, however, remains unspecified.111 Apart from the apse on the east side, four two-storey corner rooms are added to the rectangular core – all are only accessible from the aisles [18].112 The east ones flank the apse in a transversal direction enclosing the semi-circular sanctuary into a flat wall while overpassing the perimeter of the church and protruding to the exterior. The north room is illuminated by two narrow windows to the east, the south one has one window to the east and one to the south. There is also a small rectangular niche in the east wall

110 For example: PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), CD-ROM catalog, pp. 370–371; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), p. 44; BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction de la basilique” (n. 77), p. 364; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 60. Alpago-Novello considers this compromise to be unimaginable for Armenian architects preferring the robustness of stone constructions. ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 18.

111 The latest reconstruction presents the clerestory as four small arched windows situated above the lower ones of the south facade [16]. In parallel, a second set is probably conceived on the north side. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), fig. 6. The clerestory could have been, however, completely window- free as was suggested in: PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 11.

112 There appears a second entrance from the exterior to the west corner rooms on the plan of Strzygowski. The indicated entrances were, however, dismissed by the reconstruction of 1977 and do not appear on later plans. STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 153, fig. 177; ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 21.

of the south room.113 The vaults of both storeys are preserved [24] – while the lower ones are vaulted transversally to the nave on a horizontal plane, the upper vaults incline towards the exterior. Such unusual choise could have been made to harmonize the presumed gable roofs above the eastern chambers with the sloping roofs of the lateral aisles.114 The west corner rooms appear as towers enclosing the west facade [18]. Only the lower part of the north chamber is preserved today [25]. It has two narrow windows – one on the west and the second one on the north side. This disposition was mirrored by the south room as it is visible from the plan of Strzygowski115 and repeated in the second storeys.116 In the east wall of the north chamber, there is a semi-circular (or rectangular) niche which was similarly reconstructed in the south chamber by Toramanian117 – such symmetrical application is, however, a pure conjecture and does not appear on other plans. The towers were supposed to be of the same height as the

113 The niche is not recorded on all plans, as for example on the plan of LA3M. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), fig. 6.

114 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 61.

115 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 153, fig. 177. The southeast corner room is the fastest deteriorating part of the basilica. While a part of its west wall with the window was still in place at the beginning of the 20th century, only a few rows of stones remain today. Comparison of photographs in: PABOUDJIAN, ALPAGO- NOVELLO, Ererouk (n. 50), p. 19.

116 As is suggested by the reconstructions of Tokarskii and LA3M. TOKARSKII, Архитектура Армении (n. 41), p. 78, fig. 22; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), fig. 6.

117 TORAMANIAN, Տեկորի (n. 24), p. 51, fig. 18.

lateral aisles of the basilica, vaulted in the direction of its main axis and finally separately roofed with gable roofs [16].118 Between these four protruding structures, external galleries were raised on the north, west and south side of the church [26]. These three facades are also enclosed by several low steps.119 The rather narrow lateral galleries are reconstructed between the pilaster on the east wall of the west lateral chambers and the corresponding pilaster on the west wall of the east ones. Both of these galleries end with an 2,42 m wide and 1,83 m deep built- in apse in the east [27,28].120 The form of supports was already identified as columnar by Toramanian,121 probably thanks to the large number of shafts, capitals and bases found on the site [29].122 The number of such supports is, however, more difficult to ascertain. For a long time, three columns were assumed to stand opposite the three pilasters of each of the lateral facades

118 TOKARSKII, Архитектура Армении (n. 41), p. 78, fig. 22; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), fig. 6.

119 There is one such step along the north side, two on the west one and three on the south. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 64.

120 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 157.

121 TORAMANIAN, Տեկորի (n. 24), p. 51, fig. 18.

122 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 60. The plan published in the Documenti di Architettura Armena features T- shaped pillars instead of columns, although the texts operate with columns. PABOUDJIAN, ALPAGO-NOVELLO, Ererouk (n. 50), p. 57; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ereroukˮ (n. 52), p. 7; ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 22.

[30] and thus the only question was whether they were covered by a vault,123 a wooden roof,124 or their combination – a roof on stone arches.125 The latest recalculations of the angle given by the voussoirs remaining above the pilasters flanking the apses resulted, however, in a much reduced span of the intercolumnar arches. The numbers were finally set to seven arches on six columns on the south side [31] and eight arches on seven columns on the north one [32].126 According to this reconstruction, the pilasters of the facades were not related to the free-standing supports and only served to strengthten and set a rythm to the facades.127 The galleries were proposed to be covered jointly with the lateral aisles under a single sloping roof.128 A similar construction probably also stood between the towers to the west, which was, however, rebuilt into a lower vestibule at an unknown

123 TORAMANIAN, Տեկորի (n. 24), p. 51, fig. 18; ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 22.

124 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 153, fig. 177; TOKARSKII, Архитектура Армении (n. 41), p. 78, fig. 22; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), pp. 69–70.

125 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 48; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), pp. 6, 8.

126 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 10, fig. 6.

127 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), pp. 60–61. The non-supporting function of the pilasters was already suggested before; a different number of columns was, however, not thought of – they were always presented in correspondance with the pilasters. GLÜCK, “Die hellenistische Überlieferung” (n. 32), p. 401.

128 Ibidem; PABOUDJIAN, ALPAGO-NOVELLO, Ererouk (n. 50), p. 56; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 8; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 10–11, fig. 6.

period [33].129 This structure is clearly a later addition – it does not bind with any wall of the original building and was simply inserted into a previously defined space.130 In doing so, the lowered gallery disrupts the original portal and halves the two pilasters flanking it. The porch consists of three arches attached to the west facade with two narrow arches set in between, one arch on the south side of the north protruding chamber and one on the north side of the south one, supporting a barrel vault transversal to the main axis of the church. The disposition of its front part is reconstructed with three arches on pillars – the central one facing the entrance is larger than the other two – which could could followed the plan of the original columnar gallery [34].131 Covering by a flat roof with a balcony was proposed for the lowered porch.132 Last but not least, the whole building appears to stand on a stepped platform [35].133 The steps are, however, only an imitation of the antique

129 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82) p. 61. Possible datations of this reconstruction will be suggested below.

130 Stated already by: GLÜCK, “Die hellenistische Überlieferung” (n. 32), pp. 398, 402.

131 The three-arch disposition was suggested already by Tokarskii. TOKARSKII, Архитектура Армении (n. 41), p. 78, fig. 22. Gandolfo, however, points out that because of the trasversal vaulting the frontal pillars do not have to face the ones attached to the facade. GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), p. 71.

132 Comparison of the 3D reconstructions of the basilica before and after the alteration of the gallery in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), figs 6, 7. The form of the roof of the initial structure, however, remains questionable as there are no traces its attachment to the facade. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 61.

133 The number of these steps is in a way difficult to ascertain as observations of individual authors differ. Strzygowski, for example, suggests six or seven steps, Khatchatrian and Paboudjian six, Donabédian et al. five or six. STRZYGOWSKI, Die

krepis and do not serve as the actual base of the building, which was founded directly on the rock base.134 Furthemore, an additional grade was inserted along the north and south galleries serving simultaneously as the final step of the crepidoma and the base for the columnar arcade.135 The floors of the galleries themselves were then lowered making space for an autonomous zone between the interior and the exterior.136

Technique of construction

The question of its foundations brings us to the overall technique of construction of the basilica. As this aspect was more than thoroughly analyzed by the recent archaeological missions, I will only briefly summarize the findings important for establishing the basic building chronology and founding of further art historical inquiry.137

Baukunst (n. 27), p. 390; KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 45; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 5; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 16. I have taken note of five such steps around the building and a sixth one around its corner rooms.

134 Confirmed during the excavations of 2014. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 16.

135 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), pp. 61–62.

136 Ibidem.

137 The technical character of individual architectural elements is in detail analyzed in: BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction de la basilique” (n. 77); while the individual layers of construction were defined by Montevecchi and Tonghini in: “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62). It is, however, important to note that such archeological representation of the relative chronology of building can be misleading for an art historian, who tends to interpret the individual "phases" as resulting from a significant change of conditions. In case of the Ererouk basilica, the

No anterior layer was discovered along the internal perimeter of the main apse [36] and the southwest chamber138 – this absence puts an end to the theories of a pagan temple pre-dating the church from which the crepidoma was supposed to remain.139 The basilica appears to be the first construction on the site. While the foundations were laid in gross blocks of basalt evening out the irregularities of the rock, the rest of the building is constructed using the technique of rubble masonry – a concrete-like filling faced with neatly cut tuff panels, which is a specific adaptation of the Roman practice of opus caementicium common in Armenia and Asia Minor [37].140 For some scholars, this method of construction presents the crucial argument for the prevalance of Armenian character of the basilica over the Syrian.141 Nevertheless, Jean-

individual periods of interruption and resumption of work suggested by Montevecchi and Tonghini most probably are not accompanied by significant changes of conception. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 12–14.

138 MONTEVECCHI, TONGHINI, “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62), pp. 32–34; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 47.

139 ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), pp. 16–17; KOUYMJIAN, “Breve cronologia storica” (n. 56), p. 28.

140 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 14, 47; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), p. 20. More on the techniques of construction in Armenia in: BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction monumentale” (n. 76).

141 PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 14. The emphasis on the technological aspects classifying the monument as Armenian is also expressed by the archaeological reports of LA3M. For example: DONABÉDIAN, “Ereruyk’” (n. 83), p. 251.

Claude Bessac stressed the Hellenistic and Roman heritage of building techniques in the overall construction.142 Apart from the rebuilding of the west portico, relative homogeneity of conception and construction of the basilica was stated.143 Most importantly, the four corner rooms were proved to be conceived jointly with the basilical core and definitely not added later as was previously thought by some researchers.144 Several smaller changes were made in the course of time, yet the reconstruction of the west porch represents the only significant intervention to the initial conception of the building.

Decoration

The decoration of the basilica is rather modest and reserved strictly to a few architectural elements like portals, window frames, cornices or capitals. The main focus of the interior and therefore the most decorated place is the apse, especially its conch [38–40].145 The triumphal arch delimited by a dentil cornice stands on two imposts carved with a cross pattée146 in a medallion

142 BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction de la basilique” (n. 77), pp. 364–365.

143 Contrary to the previous Italian mission that recognizes several distinctive interruptions. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 12– 14, 39; MONTEVECCHI, TONGHINI, “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62), pp. 32, 38.

144 For example: KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 47–48; ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 22; PABOUDJIAN, ALPAGO-NOVELLO, Ererouk (n. 50), p. 56. See MONTEVECCHI, TONGHINI, “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62), pp. 32–37, 55, figs 4, 8, 10, 14.

145 The decoration is generally concentrated in the apse until it shifts to the dome in the 7th century. Comparison of these two decorative systems in: DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 267–272.

146 An Early Christian form of a cross with equally long arms spreading outwards. The cross appearing in Ererouk is also known as the “Bolnisi cross” after the

with a stylized ribbon in-between two vegetal motives on the west side [44, 47] and the same medallion flanked instead by two rosettes on the apsidal side [45, 46].147 These decorative elements appear in different variations on the majority of capitals and bases of the building, including the imposts of two pilasters flanking the apse and terminating the lateral arcades [42, 43, 48, 49]. The conch itself was horizontally circumscribed at the bottom by a molded band which was later battered to affix the plaster for a wall painting.148 Its traces are still visible as is the original embellishment of the apse – the bichromic laying of orange and gray tuff stones [41].149 This decorative arrangement is with a little more modest execution repeated in the exterior apses [50–55]. This is, however, where the similarity of the lateral facades ends. While the northern facade is simply divided by pilasters with non-ornamental capitals, the south one represents the principal focus of the exterior decoration [56, 57]. Apart from two richly

Georgian church in Bolnisi Sioni from the 5th century, where the ornament appears. More on the church and the cross for example in: BERIDSE, V., “ბოლნისის სიონი” [Bolnissi Sioni, in Georgian], in: ქართული საბჭოთა ენციკლოპედია II [Georgian Soviet Encyclopaedia, in Georgian], Tbilisi 1977, p. 454; MEPISACHVILI, R., TSINTSADZE, V., L’Art de la Géorgie ancienne, Paris 1978, pp. 60, 66; ALPAGO- NOVELLO, Art and Architecture in Medieval Georgia, Leuven 1980, pp. 45, 47, 302– 305; BERIDSE, V., NEUBAUER, E., Die Baukunst des Mittelalters in Georgien vom 4. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, Vienna 1981; MACHAVARIANI, H., ბოლნისის სიონის სამშენებლო წარწერა [Epigraphy from Bolnisi Sioni, in Georgian], Tbilisi 1985.

147 More on these motives in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), pp. 57–58.

148 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 10.

149 BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction de la basilique” (n. 77), pp. 362–363. More on the bichromic decoration in Armenia in: BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction monumentale” (n. 76), pp. 402–403.

adorned portals that will be described below, there were three pilasters as in the north (here, however, with decorated bases and capitals), molded window frames around the four windows, and a dentil cornice above them. Let us not forget that the gallery standing in front of the facade must have similarly had the capitals and bases of its columns ornamented – there are in fact several fragments that could be assigned to this placement [75, 76].150 The portals consist of a semi-columnar door frame supporting a horseshoe archivolt surmounted by a gable with a dentil cornice [58, 59, 61, 62].151 The capitals of the columns are ornamented with stylized acanthus leaves,152 while a geometric pattern decorates the imposts supporting the gable. The lintel of the west portal of the south facade depicts the cross in a medallion appearing on the capitals – this time, however, two “wings” come out of the base of the cross [60]. The medallion is flanked by two low-carved trees and two horned animals. Above the carving, the cross in-between rosettes composition is carried out in red painting. The east portal is at first sight the more abundant one [63]. The whole lintel is framed by a rondel alternating with a pair of rhomboids, while its central motive is once again the cross in a stylized medallion between two trees and two rosettes, on which there remain traces of a green polychromy.153

150 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), p. 56.

151 More on this and other types of Armenian portals in: DONABÉDIAN, P., “Le portail dans lʼarchitecture arménienne du haut Moyen Âge”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XX (1986–1987), pp. 337–380.

152 Marr decribes them as thistle leaves, perhaps because of their sharp thorn-like endings. MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), p. 15.

153 Donabédian considers it to be the oldest preserved polychromy in Armenia. DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), p. 61.

The rather large south windows show a descending tendency towards the east that is probably related to a required prioritization of the interior bays by their illumination.154 This potential was further regulated by filling-in the three windows from the west at an unknown period.155 All the windows are framed by several molded bands with right-angle bends at their bases [64]. The west facade was probably also quite privileged in decoration; a part of it was, however, markedly disrupted by the reconstruction of the porch. Thus, the portal – originally embellished similarly to the ones on the south side – was deprived of its gable and the lower part of the window frames covered by the transversal vault [65]. Two pilasters and the triple window decorate the upper part of the facade, which must have been also surmounted by a gable of the roof and a cornice [66].156 Although devoid of a gable, the west portal preserves the acanthus capitals and geometric imposts of its doorframe [67, 69, 70]. The lintel is then a synthesis of the south ones – it is framed by the same rondel-rhomboid ornament as the one on the east side while presenting more modest iconography of the west one: a cross with two wings at its base flanked by two animals [68]. It is more apparent here that these are moufflons or deer,

154 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82) p. 56, note 94.

155 There is not an agreement on the period of this intervention. While the article of Bessac suggests its contemporaneity with the initial construction, the report of LA3M defines it as medieval and the contribution of Montevecchi and Tonghini considers it undateable. BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction de la basilique” (n. 77), pp. 346–348, figs 20–22; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), p. 55; MONTEVECCHI, TONGHINI, “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62), p. 52.

156 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), p. 53.

which is a more probable presumtion. According to Donabédian, the scene could thus be interpreted in accordance with the Psalm 42,1–2 as a depiction of the soul yearning for God.157 The lower west windows are framed as the south ones – using several molded bands bent at their base; the innermost band is, however, adorned by a dentil ornament. Although not applied on the east part of the building, the dentil is a major decorative element of its west section framing the windows of both the facade and corner towers as well as the westernmost window of the south facade [71]. The triple window is, on the contrary, only framed by several carved lines above its arches [72]. There are also two carved crosses above the trumeaux with capitals decorated with a cross and a rosette, from which leaves spring. Finally, the east facade is the most sober one as it is only ornated by several modest window frames and a molded horizontal band, which also stretches around the corner rooms delimiting thus the easternmost part of the church from the rest of the building [73]. From the lapidary material found at the site several capitals can be assigned to the supports of the basilica or its porticoes.158 They are monumental in size and decorated as a distant derivation of the Ionic capital with two small spiral ornaments on the corners [75].159 Some of them are also carved with vegetal or geometric motives [76]. Last but not least, let us not forget the capital recorded by Strzygowski which has been lost [77].160 We

157 The same iconography can be found in the basilica of Kasagh. Ibidem, p. 58.

158 Ibidem, p. 56, figs 133–135.

159 A capital from Ererouk photographed by Marr is published and compared to one from Dvin in: PABOUDJIAN, ALPGAGO-NOVELLO, Ererouk (n. 50), p. 29, figs 1– 2.

160 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), pp. 422, 423, fig. 456.

can, however, conclude safely from its description that it depicted the Baptism of Christ. In general, however, the decoration of the basilica is non-figurative with countless variants of stylized crosses and vegetation. A cross in a medallion is the most common motive carved as an apotropaic “symbol” above the entrances, but also above the niche in the northwest chamber [74].161 Here and on other depicted decorative elements we can observe a distinctive deviation from their classical Greco-Roman prototypes – they are used more freely, often without any link to the architectural structure (as for example the dentil cornice of the south facade), which is one of the typical characteristics of not only the Paleochristian architecture of Armenia, but also of Syria and Asia Minor.162

Conclusion: character of the building

The most important features of the Ererouk basilica are its monumental dimensions163 – even more emphasized by the artificial crepidoma, pronounced corner rooms and the distinctive preference of the south facade by both architecture and decoration. This orientation towards the south was apparently rethought later with the reconstruction of the porch, accenting the west portal and the longitudinal axis of the church.

161 There are several other blocks depicting the medallion among the lapidary remains of the church. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), p. 54, figs 116–117.

162 GLÜCK, “Der christliche (syrisch-kleinasiatische) Hellenismus” (n. 32), p. 419.

163 The whole building measures 36 x 14 m and is thus one of the largest Armenian basilicas. PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), CD-ROM catalog, p. 368.

Based on the results of the recent archaeological explorations of the site, the following chapter aims to incorporate the basilica into a larger architectural context and explore how its main characteristics were developed by its surroundings.

The ecclesiastical complex

As was emphasized previously, the basilica as such could not stand on its own. This fact was further affirmed by the various removal and restoration works taking place in the course of the 20th century, which lead to discoveries of several structures in the surroundings of the church. It was, however, only the archaeological missions of Laboratoire d’Archéologie Médiévale et Moderne en Méditerranée that properly analyzed the individual components of the whole ecclesiastical complex and outcomes of which serve therefore as a basis for the present chapter, which aims to briefly describe these constructions and exmplain their relation with the basilica.

Funerary zone

The closest and most interconnected with the church is the vast funerary zone stretching from the base of the crepidoma to a low wall about 10 meters far to the south, and to an eclosure to the east [78, 79]. The cemetery appears to be pre-dating the basilica itself; we can, however, find evidence for its use throughout the whole Middle Ages and sporadically even later.164 Apart from continuous inhumation, the time span is apparent through the variety

164 An attempt to establish a typochronology of inhumations was one of the main focuses of the archaeological missions. Its summary is presented in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 45–50.

of tombstones ranging from Late Antique sarcophagi165 to medieval khachkars [80, 81].166 There are two major turning points in the development of the funerary zone – both clearly linked to the sanctuary. First, after the construction of the church we can note distinct polarization of the area at its base, especially by the side of the apse. The space clearly becomes considered as privileged as not only regular tombs, but also more noble monuments emerged. At least six staired pedestals topped by funerary stelae, columns and crosses were assembled at the southeast base of the basilica and perhaps two other on the southwest [82, 84].167 Based on the preserved fragments, we can see that the stelae were decorated with vegetal and geometric ornaments, as well as with figurative representations of biblical scenes or saints – we

165 BAILET et al., “Nouvelles rechereches” (n. 83), pp. 333.

166 The Armenian khachkar is a stone panel carved with a cross as the Tree of Life on its west face and used in funerary context from the 9th century onwards. More in: Abraham Shahinyan, Armenian Khachkars and their inscriptions [in Armenian], Yerevan 1970; THIERRY, DONABÉDIAN, Les arts arméniens (n. 63); DONABÉDIAN, P., “Le khatchkar”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, pp. 153–175, 310–322; PETROSYAN, H., Khachkar: the origins, symbolism and applications, Yerevan 2008; PETROSYAN, H., “La sculpture médievale arménienne et les khatchkar: pierres- croix”, in: ULUHOGIAN, G., ZEKIYAN, B. L., KARAPETIAN, V. (eds), Arménie: Impressions d’une civilisation, Milan 2011, pp. 69–75.

167 On this type of monuments in South Caucasus more in: TCHUBINACHVILI, G. N., Кхандиси [Khandisi, in Russian], Tbilisi 1972; MNATSAKANIAN, Su., Հայկական վաղ միջնադարյան մեմորիալ հուշարձանները [Armenian commemorative monuments of the Early Middle Ages, in Armenian], Yerevan 1982; DONABÉDIAN, P., “Compte rendu de Su. Mnatsakanyan 1982”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XIX (1985), pp. 450– 458; MACHABELI, K., Early medieval Georgian stone crosses, Tbilisi 2008; GRIGORYAN, G., Early Medieval Four-Sided Stelae in Armenia, Yerevan 2012.

find, for example, a depiction of Madonna and Child and Daniel in the Den of Lions [83].168 The monuments did not serve as prestigious graves themselves, but rather as symbolic markers and commemorative signs for the tombs in their proximity.169 We can note a concentration of inhumations around these pedestals appearing after their implementation in the period from the 8th to 10th century – the area could perhaps be understood as an ostentatious family burial ground.170 The second change of dynamics of the cemetery arriving in the 11th and 12th century was related to its "content". Having been of heterogenous composition until then, the inhumations became reserved to children of very young age.171 Such change could be attributed to a shift in the understanding of the dedication of the church, which is characterized as a martyrium of Saint John the Baptist and Saint Stephen the Protomartyr by one of its inscriptions dated at the latest to the 10th century.172 Based on the association with Saint John the Baptist, the specialization of the cemetery could be seen

168 BAILET et al., “Nouvelles rechereches” (n. 83), pp. 331–332. More on the iconography of the stelae in: DONABÉDIAN, P., “Les thèmes bibliques dans la sculpture arménienne préarabe”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXII (1990–1991), pp. 247–308; DONABÉDIAN, P., “Notes d’architecture et d’archéologie médiévale en Arménie”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXIII (1992), pp. 273–308.

169 The absence of a sepulchre was confirmed by a sondage of one of the piedestal in 2013. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), pp. 26– 27.

170 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 46–47.

171 Ibidem, pp. 47–48.

172 The inscription could, however, date already to the 7th century. That would mean that the comprehension of its dedication underwent a significant change. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), pp. 16–17. The inscription will be further discussed below.

as a transformation into a prominent funerary area designated for infants dying before receiving baptism, and offering thus an exceptional possibility of their entrance into Heaven thanks to the intercession of the saint.173 Such prominent character of the cemetery could also imply a specific liturgical practice, or a pilgrimage to the site. The prolonged use of the funerary zone also suggests presence of a settled community in its proximity.

Settlement in the neighborhood of the basilica

Traces of multiple modest dwellings and stables were discovered during the reconstructions of 1985–1988 in a rather large area south and west of the basilica [85, 86].174 While the ruins were presented as of a medieval village in the reports from the excavation,175 they appear to be of a much later date and

173 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 47. The phenomenon has its parallel in the West, although no earlier than at the end of the 13th century, when the so-called “sanctuaire à répit” appeared in the theological discourse of establishing the Limbo of Infants. The central figure of the belief is, however, usually Virgin Mary. For example: SAINTYVES, P., “Les résurrections d’enfants morts-nés et les sanctuaires ‘à répit’”, Revue d’Etnographie et de Sociologie III–IV (1911), pp. 65–74; LETT, D., “Faire le deuil d’un enfant mort sans baptême au

Moyen Âge: la naissance du Limbe pour enfants aux XIIe- XIIIe sièclesˮ, Devenir VII/1 (1995), pp. 101–112; GÉLIS, J., Les Enfants des Limbes. Mort-nés et parent dans l’Europe chrétienne, Paris 2006; TZORTZIS, S., SÉGUY, I., “Pratiques funéraires en lien avec les décès des nouveaux nésˮ, Archéo-anthropologie funéraire XXII (2008), pp. 75–92.

174 None of the uncovered structures can be interpreted as remains of an Early Christian palatial or patriarchal residence. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), pp. 18–19.

175 GRIGORYAN, “Երերույքը” (n. 70), pp. 32–38.

belong probably to a settlement of a mixed population established here in the 19th century.176 Nevertheless, as the funerary and building activity of the site testifies, there must already have been an inhabitation in the Middle Ages, which could have at least partly corresponded to the uncovered area.177 The crucial evidence of this medieval settlement is provided by the aforementioned inscription in the basilica mentioning a town – “gyughakaghak” – in which the church stands.178 Finally, as it was already outlined in the previous chapter, the site was very close to the medieval capital of Armenia. It is probable that when the city of Ani came to power in the 10th century, Ererouk had expanded correspondingly – not only do we note more inhumations, but also an escalating building and agricultural activity in this period.179

Minor architectural structures

The settlement, together with the church and its cemetery, was enclosed by a perimeter wall of which only the north and east segments remain [15, 87, 88].180 Both are reinforced by butresses, and in case of the east wall by two

176 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 14–15. The ruins are already attested by Shahkhatuniants and Marr. SHAHKHATUNIANTS, Էջմիածնի (n. 3), pp. 43–44; MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), p. 8.

177 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82) p. 15.

178 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), p. 19.

179 Ibidem.

180 The technique of construction of the wall resembles the one applied for the basilica. Nevertheless, a slightly different orientation than that of the church leaves the researchers in doubt of their contemporaneity. More detailed analysis in:

protruding exedrae opening towards the inner space. While the south one might have served for celebrating outdoor liturgy,181 the bigger one to the north probably had a funerary function [89, 90].182 We can consequently consider this privilegedly located exedra as another major focal point of the funerary zone around the church. The basilica itself stands in the utmost northeast corner of this enclosure, which probably served more as a symbolic demarcation of the sacred area than as its protection.183 In the presumed southeast corner of the perimeter, we find several walls diverting towards the valley which forms a natural border of the area from the east. This phenomenon was crucial for the agricultural activity of the site as the wadi of the valley provided water during periods of rain (in spring and autumn), enabling thus irrigation of the land.184 To maximize the effect, several more or less parallel walls were built to form a dam retaining

DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 18, 41–47, 48–49; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 12–13, 26–30, 35–39.

181 Ibidem, p. 37.

182 It could also serve to display relics. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 48–49.

183 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 13.

184 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 60.

rainwater [91]185 – the use of which is still attested in the 19th century.186 From the reinforcements of several walls in the uphill direction and an additional filling between these walls, we can conclude that the structure was further extended into a thoroughfare to the ecclesiastical complex, probably in the form of a viaduct.187 The mission of 2014 actually noted traces of a road heading east from the dam [92].188 Clearly disproportionate to the dimensions of the valley, the viaduct also served as a demonstration of prestige and wealth.189 Based on these findings, we can presume the existence of a representative gate to the complex in the southeast corner of the enclosure.190 On the opposite end of the valley, to the northeast of the basilica, another minor construction appears half-buried in alluvium [93, 94]. It is a

185 The structure was excavated in the 1950s and dated contemporary to the church. SAHINIAN, HOVHANNISYAN, MNATSAKANIAN, BABAYAN, Ակնարկ (n. 40), pp. 87–89, figs 20, 20a. Much later datation was proposed in the ‘80s. TER- MARTIROSSOV, “Археологические разыскания” (n. 61), pp. 216–218; TER- MARTIROSSOV, “Малоизученные памятники” (n. 61), pp. 234–243. The latest detailed analysis appear inconclusive in this matter. BAILET et al., “Nouvelles rechereches” (n. 83), pp. 328–329; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), pp. 43–44; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 60–64; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 31–34, 39–44.

186 Based on Marr’s inquiry of the villagers in 1907. MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), p. 9.

187 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 62–63.

188 Ibidem, p. 64.

189 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 44.

190 BAILET et al., “Nouvelles rechereches” (n. 83), p. 322. More in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 30.

rectangular vaulted building oriented towards the east with only limited openings.191 When discovered in 1980s, the structure was presumed to be a medieval cistern;192 the latest analysis, however, recorded a technical similarity to the basilica.193 Furthermore, due to the absence of traces of waterproof plaster, the hypothetesis of a cistern was dismissed and a possible funerary function pursued instead, in accordence with the tradition of Armenian hypogea.194 Note the chosen position of the supposed mausoleum outside of the enclosure and close to the seasonal river, which even had to have been regulated to avoid it [15].195 Finally, two small cave chambers oriented along the east-west axis were excavated in the rock, to the north of the basilica [95]. Although Paleochristian dating and a liturgical function was imagined,196 neither can be confirmed at present.197

191 More detailed description in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012 (n. 82), pp. 64–65; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 30–31.

192 TER-MARTIROSSOV, “Малоизученные памятники” (n. 61), p. 242.

193 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), pp. 15, 31, note 43.

194 Ibidem, pp. 15–16. The intentional burying of the building was confirmed by the sondage of 2013. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 76), pp. 45–46.

195 Ibidem, pp. 44–46.

196 TER-MARTIROSSOV, “Археологические разыскания” (n. 61), pp. 216–218; TER-MARTIROSSOV, “Малоизученные памятники” (n. 61), pp. 234–243.

197 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 12.

Conclusion: architectural context

From the discussion above, we can see that the church itself is but a unit in a complex environment of functional, representational and liturgical structures – even though the most important one preceding and essentially generating the others. The character of the basilica can therefore only be indicated by the dialogue with its surroundings, majority of which appears to have been constructed more or less concurrently. As we can judge from what was preserved, the emphasized features of the building are further expanded in its environment. The orientation towards the south is very clearly respected, as is the secluded character of the north external gallery – while the south facade opens to a spatious funerary zone, the opposite side is abruptly cut off by the perimeter wall. Note also that the ruins of the modern settlement can be found much closer to the west facade of the basilica whereas the space in front of the south one is left vacant. The church was clearly conceived to be observed and accessed from this direction. The privileged character of the south facade is further attested by the concentration of tombs in its proximity, especially at the side of the apse. The funerary dimension is in general the most prominent feature of the whole complex. All the structures contemporary to the basilica – the enclosing wall with the exedrae, the presumed mausoleum in the valley and, of course, the cemetery – share and enrich this aspect. Before we get to the question of how the basilica itself was involved in stimulating funerary culture, the issue of its genesis must be adressed and a basic political, cultural and religious aspects of the period outlined.

The genesis of the basilica

The present chapter aims to situate the construction of the Ererouk basilica in the historical and architectural context. Based on the archaeological analysis quoted above, the building will be considered as homogeneous with the significant intervention being but the reconstruction of the west portico. Only these two crucial moments in the history of the basilica – its conception and alteration – will be therefore discussed.198 Although we find an unusual quantity of epigraphical evidence in Armenia,199 neither an inscription, nor a chronicle reports the foundation of the church in Ererouk.200 Such absence of a testimony creates a considerable

198 To encompass the complete history of the building is not possible in the scope of this thesis. Speculations about the later religious and political status of the basilica based on the testimony of its inscriptions are summarized in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 31–34.

199 MARANCI, C., “Building Churches in Armenia: Art at the Border of Empire and the Edge of the Canon”, The Art Bulletin LXXXVIII/4 (2006), p. 656. A complex summary of Armenian epigraphy in: GREENWOOD, T., “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions”, Dumbarton Oaks Paper LVIII, pp. 27–91; GREENWOOD, T., “Armenian Epigraphy”, in: CALZORALI, V., STONE, M. E. (eds), Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to the Digital Text, Leiden 2014, pp. 101–121. While the former text is accompanied by an appendix of the individual inscriptions and their photographic documentation, the latter presents a complete bibliography of the topic as such.

200 DONABÉDIAN, “Ereruyk’” (n. 83), p. 242.

obstacle for the dating of the construction, which has not yet been satisfactorily overcome. Nevertheless, there are several inscriptions as well as specific architectural features that could make our understanding at least a little clearer.

Testimony of word

Crucial for the establishment of a basic framework for the datation is a Greek inscription found at the eye level at the easternmost end of the south facade, more specifically at the easternmost end of the south wall of the southeast corner chamber [96].201 The text is arranged in a tabula ansata202 and reads as follows:

“Holiness befits your house, O Lord, for evermore.”203

201 On the inscription: STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 31, fig. 32; KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 45; SHELOV-KOVEDIAEV, F. V., “Заметки по греческои епиграфике Армении” [Notes on the Greek epigraphy of Armenia, in Russian], Պատմա-Բանասիրական Հանդես [Historical- Philological Journal, in Armenian] I (1986), pp. 59–65; GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), pp. 40, 59–60, 87–88, n° 16, fig. 16; FELLE, A. E., Biblia epigraphica. La Sacra Scrittura nella documentazione epigraphica dell’Orbis christianus antiquus (III–VIII secolo), Bari 2006, p. 198, n° 4ϒ17; BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction de la basilique” (n. 77), pp. 344–345; MONTEVECCHI, TONGHINI, “Lo sviluppo construttivo” (n. 62), pp. 45–46; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 23–26.

202 This form is also used in the church of Etchmiadzin and Hripsime. DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 52, 86–87.

203 The actual inscription is distributed into five lines: 1. + TΩ OIKΩ COϒ 2. ΠPEΠI AΓIAC 3. MA KE EIC MAK

This quotation of Psalm 92:5 places the incription in a broader epigraphical context outreaching the imaginary borders of the historical Armenia itself.204 First of all, the direct citation of Bible is absolutely unique in the Armenian context as is the use of Greek.205 Since the introduction of Armenian alphabet at the beginning of the 5th century,206 writing has been used to give expression to the political and religious identity of the nation (in the medieval sense of the word) – the instances of non-Armenian monumental epigraphy can be counted on the fingers of one hand.207 At the same time, the exact verse appears on multiple churches troughout the Mediterranean from Sicily to Syria recorded on different media.208 In Armenia itself, we can

4. POTHTA H 5. MEP{E}ΩN + Cited from: GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), pp. 87–88, n° 16, fig. 16.

204 According to the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The verse figures as 93:5 in the Hebrew Bible. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 23.

205 GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), p. 59.

206 More on the process of formation of the Armenian alphabet in: MOURAVIEV, S. N., Erkataguir ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien, Sankt Augustin 2010; YUZBASHYAN, K., “L’invention de lʼalphabet arménien: de langue parlée à la langue écrite”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXXIII (2011), pp. 67–129.

207 Up to the 7th century there are but five Greek inscriptions preserved – apart from Ererouk they are in Etchmiadzin, Bayburd, Zvartnots and Mastara. Partially in Greek is also an inscription in Avan. There are also several Arabic inscriptions in Zvartnots and one in Aruch; all are, however, only secondary additions dating from the 8th century. GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), pp. 40–42.

208 Ibidem, p. 59, note 162; FELLE, Biblia epigraphica (n. 201), nos 16, 126, 169, 173, 179, 248, 280, 417, 422, 509. Felle dates all but one of these inscriptions between 5th and 6th century. Two later mosaic inscriptions from Hosios Loukas and Sicily were added to these by Christina Maranci. MARANCI, C., “‘Holiness Befits Your House’ (Ps. 92

note one other example discovered quite recently by Christina Maranci – a painted Armenian inscription on the triumphal arch in the church of Mren [97, 98].209 The explanation of this phenomenon can be found in the rite of consecration of a church as the verse was apparently chanted not only during the Greek,210 but also the Armenian ceremony.211 In both cases, the Psalm 92 is pronounced during the dressing of the altar, which constitutes the final

[93]:5): A Preliminary Report on the Apse Inscription in Mren”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXXVI (2014), pp. 241–245.

209 According to Maranci, the inscription appears to be contemporary with the building of the church that dates to the 7th century and as such represent the oldest known Armenian biblical quotation in monumental epigraphy. The scholar considers the use of the verse in the context of the consolidation of the area by the emperor Heraclius as a possible encounter of Armenian and Byzantine liturgical practice. MARANCI, C., “New Evidence for the Wall Paintings and Triumphal Arch Inscription at Mren”, Banber Matenadarani XXI (2014), p. 298; MARANCI, “‘Holiness Befits Your House’” (n. 208), pp. 237–259. For the wall paintings see also: MARANCI, C., “New Observation on the Frescoes at Mren”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXXV (2013), pp. 203–225.

210 Felle finds the verse as “Domum tuam Domine decet sanctitudo” in: GOAR, J., Euchologion sive Rituale Graecorum, Venice 1730, pp. 485, 663. FELLE, Biblia epigraphica (n. 201), pp. 46, 115. The same Latin verse was likewise chanted during the ritual of consecration in the West troughout the whole Middle Ages. http://cantusindex.org/id/002425

211 Guirk Metz Machtots [Book of Great Ritual, in Classical Armenian], Constantinople 1807, p. 174; TER-VARDANIAN, G., Մայր Մաշտոց. Ժ դար I [Principal Ritual. Xth c., in Armenian], Etchmiadzin 2012, p. 105; CONYBEARE, F. C., Rituale Armenorum: being the administration of the sacraments and the breviary rites of the Armenian Church, together with the Greek rites of baptism and epiphany edited from the oldest manuscripts, Oxford 1905, p. 7.

part of the Armenian ritual followed only by a hymnus, a prayer, drawing the curtains of the sanctuary and lighting of lamps. The consecration is then concluded with the Liturgy of the World and Eucharist.212 Prior to the dressing of the altar, the verse could have also been cited during the proclamation of the dedication succeeding the anointing of the altar and other interior furnishings.213 After the name of the sanctuary was announced, the clergy exited the building, the bishop repeated the dedication outside and while circuiting the church anointed its four sides.214 Whether this second dedication took place on the southeast of the building is hard to ascertain, nevertheless, the corners of the church must have played an important part during the ritual as the limitations of the sacred area.215

212 FINDIKYAN, M. D., “The Armenian Ritual of the Dedication of a Church: Analysis of Three Early Sources”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica LXIV (1998), pp. 104– 106, 112–114, 117; MARANCI, C., “A Comparison of Psalms Read in the Byzantine and Armenian Church Dedication Rites”, online: https://auralarchitecture.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/maranci- a_comparison_of_psalms_read_in_the_byzantine_and_armenian_church_dedicati on_rites.pdf

213 As it is recorded in the 9th century manuscript Venice 457. FINDIKYAN, “The Armenian Ritual” (n. 212), p. 102.

214 More on the Armenian rituals taking place outside of churches and especially the rite of consecration in: MARANCI, C., “Performance and Church Exterior in Early Medieval Armenia”, in: GERTSMAN, E. (ed.), Visualizing Medieval Performance: Perspectives, Histories, Contexts, London 2008, pp. 17–32; MARANCI, C., “The great outdoors: Liturgical encounters with the early medieval Armenian church”, in: PENTCHEVA, B. V. (ed.), Aural Architecture in Byzantium: Music, Acoustics, and Ritual, London, New York 2018, pp. 32–51.

215 FINDIKYAN, “The Armenian Ritual” (n. 212), pp. 103, 109.

The quotation of the Psalm 92:5 therefore both preceeded and succeeded the exterior consecration of the church, encapsulating thus the memory of the act. Consequently, we can assume that the placement and content of the Greek inscription in Ererouk most probably served to materialize the moment of the consecration of the basilica.216 This ritual significance was, in my opinion, the decisive motivation for the execution of such epigraphy which must therefore have taken place only after the completion of the building of the sanctuary. Theories of the inscription having been re-employed or carved before it was set in place seem to neglect its purpose.217 If we, however, consider the consecration as the conclusion of the construction, dating of the epigraphy presents a significant milestone for the datation of the church itself. Results of a

216 The Psalm 92 is, however, prominent and present also in other Armenian rituals, most notably as the opening sequence of the eucharistic liturgy. Similarly, it constituted a part of the Byzantine rite of eucharistic entrance at the latest from the 8th century. It appears that the quotation of Psalm 92:5 located above the apse – as the inscription in Mren – or anywhere else near the sanctuary acts primarily in this eucharistic context which is probably not the case of Ererouk. TAFT, R. F., “The Armenian Liturgy: Its Origin and Characteristics”, in: MATHEWS, T. F., WIECK, R. S. (eds), Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion, and Society, New York 1998, pp. 13–30; FINDIKYAN, “The Armenian Ritual” (n. 212), pp. 102–104; FINDIKYAN, M. D., The Commentary on the Armenian Daily Office by Bishop Step‘anos Siwnec‘i († 735) (Orientalia Christiana Analecta CCLXX), Rome, 2004, pp. 437–453; MARANCI, “‘Holiness Befits Your House’” (n. 208), pp. 245–248.

217 BESSAC, “Observations sur la construction de la basilique” (n. 77), p. 345. The theories were also dismissed for practical reasons. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 24–26.

palaeography-based analysis therefore place the utmost terminus ante quem for the basilica to the 7th century.218 From all the inscriptions of the Psalm 92:5, the one carved in a tabula ansata on the lintel of the east door of the south facade of the Syrian church at Deir Sem’an appears to be the closest one to Ererouk by both its execution and content.219 Some scholars thus suggested that the epigraphies had been made by the same Syrian workshop, specifying the terminus post quem as 476, when the construction of the church of Deir Sem’an begun.220 Leaving aside the similarity in appearance, the inscriptions operated in a slightly different context as the first appears above the most prestigious entrance to the sanctuary, while the second one is on the edge of visibility.221 Once again, the ritual significance should be brought up as the carved words were cited on multiple occasions. The presence of the verse above the entrance could have referred to several liturgical ceremonies, while its use in Ererouk apparently emphasized the rite of consecration alone. Its marginal position therefore does not have to have resulted from a certain discretion of using Greek in an Armenian-writing context as was suggested,222 but had rather represented the purpose of the epigraphy more as its very existence that its legibility. With the hypothesis of a Syrian epigraphical workshop, we have entered on a disputable ground as it could imply also the presence of Syrian

218 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 31, fig. 32; KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 45; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 26, note 87.

219 SHELOV-KOVEDIAEV, “Заметки” (n. 201), pp. 63–65.

220 Ibidem, p. 64; GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), p. 60.

221 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 24.

222 Ibidem, p. 26.

architects and builders at the construction of Ererouk which was shown to be a problematic topic for several scholars. Let us now examine more closely both the Armenian and Syrian architecture in relation to Ererouk and try to scale down the chronological range of its datation laid out by the inscription between the last quarter of the 5th and the 7th century.

Testimony of architecture

From the small number of Armenian three-naved basilicas the majority could be characterized as “oriental” rather than “Hellenistic” and in plan rather profoundly different from Ererouk.223 The basilicas are generally less articulate with a simple rectangular plan terminated by an apse, which recalls the composition of single-nave churches only on a larger scale [99]. The austerity continues in the elevation which suppresses the differentiation of naves and compresses the building into a monumental block with a single gable roof [100, 101]. Even this sober architecture can, however, anticipate some of the characteristics of Ererouk like, for example, the 4th or 5th century basilica of Kasagh, which presents the majority of its openings on the south facade including windows framed by molded bands bent in right angle and gradually descending towards the apse [102].224 The deer approaching the

223 The typology used by Khatchatrian was defined already by Gabriel Millet. KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 43; MILLET, L’École grecque (n. 47).

224 On Kasagh: SAHINIAN, A., Քասաղի բազիլիկայի ճարտարապետությունը [The Architecture of the Basilica of Kassagh’, in Armenian], Yerevan 1955; KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 58–62; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), pp. 28–35; THIERRY, DONABÉDIAN, Les arts arméniens (n. 63), p. 545; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7), pp. 168–169, fig. 54.

cross scene is likewise depicted above the west portal of the church, though in a much more sophisticated manner [103].225 Apart from Ererouk, only two other basilicas, Tsitsernavank and Ashtarak, can be undoubtedly considered as “Hellenistic” as far as the elevation is concerned – that is, we have material evidence that their central nave was raised above the lateral ones.226 While the height difference of Tsitsernavank is not so pronounced [104], the composition of the Tsiranavor church in Ashtarak provides enough place for a clerestory [105].227 Furthemore, the interior of the latter basilica dated to the 6th century appears to me as generating a strikingly similar spatial impression, although in much reduced dimensions, as Ererouk [106].228 Several more individual architectural features typical of Ererouk can also be found elsewhere in Armenia. The oblong corner chambers added perpendicularly to the apse appear in the cathedrals of Dvin and Etchmiadzin after their reconstruction in the last quarter of the 5th century [107, 108].229 Porticoes concluded by external niches were likewise employed

225 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), p. 58.

226 DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 45, 49.

227 Ibidem, p. 49, note 112.

228 On Ashtarak: KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 44; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), pp. 77–84; THIERRY, DONABÉDIAN, Les arts arméniens (n. 63), p. 497; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7), pp. 194–195, fig. 73; HAKOBYAN, M., “Աշտարակի ‘Ծիրանավոր’ եկեղեցին” [The ‘apricot’ church of Ashtarak, in Armenian], Ետչմիադզինե [Etchmiadzin, in Armenian] X–XII (1990), pp. 87–103.

229 Comparison of plans in: DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 40, 43, 45, 51, 54, figs 57, 67, 75, 94, 101. The generally accepted date of the reconstruction of Etchmiadzin was, however, re-examined in the latest bibliogrpahy. See: KAZARYAN, A., Кафедральный собор Сурб Эчмиадзин и восточнохристианское

in Dvin.230 A single portico with an apse runs along the north side of the eldest Georgian church in Bolnisi dated to the end of the 5th century [109, 110].231 The cathedral further bears resemblance in some decorative motifs – not only the so-called “Bolnisi cross” encircled by one or two bands of triangles [111], but also the stylized even pinnacle leaves with a rounded contour on the north pillar flanking the apse appear on multiple places in Ererouk [112]. We find three external porticoes once more at the 7th century modification of the church in Odzoun [113, 114].232 However, the closest to the architectural conception of Ererouk is the 5th century Armenian church of Tekor standing less than twenty kilometres

зодчество IV- VII веков [Cathedral of Holy Ejmiacin and the Eastern Christian architecture of the 4th–7th centuries, in Russian], Moscow 2007, pp. 31–40; GARIBIAN DE VARTAVAN, N., La Jérusalem nouvelle et ler premiers sanctuaires chrétiens de l’Arménie, Yerevan 2009, pp. 289–345.

230 On Dvin: KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 53–58; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), pp. 36–43; THIERRY, DONABÉDIAN, Les arts arméniens (n. 63), p. 514; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7), pp. 114–115, fig. 14; KALANTARIAN, A., Dvin: histoire et archéologie de la ville médievale, Neuchâtel, Paris 1996.

231 On Bolnisi Sioni see note 146.

232 On Odzoun: SHAKHKYAN, G., Օձունի եկեղեցու [The church of Odzoun, in Armenian], Yerevan 1983; THIERRY, DONABÉDIAN, Les arts arméniens (n. 63), p. 563; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7), pp. 282–285; MNATSAKANIAN, St., Крестовокупольные композиции Армении и Византии V—VII веков [Dome compositions of Armenia and Byzantium in 5th to 7th cs., in Russian], Yerevan 1989, pp. 90–101; HASRATIAN, Early Christian architecture (n. 63), pp. 34, 74, 155–156; SHAKHKYAN, G., Հայ ժողովրդի ճարտարապետական-շինարարական գործունեությունը VIII–IX դարերում [Architectural activity and construction of the Armenian people in 8th–9th cs, in Armenian], Yerevan 2004, pp. 53–62.

eastwards; today, however, on the other side of the border with Turkey and completely in ruins [115].233 Originally a three-naved basilica with a protruding polygonal apse flanked by two oblong corner rooms on the east, the building was likewise surrounded by porticoes on three sides and seated on a monumental stepped platform [116, 117].234 There was also a small exterior apse in the west wall of the northeast protruding chamber.235 As the church was later transformed into a domed basilica with a transept, we can only guess how its original elevation looked like.236 It is possible that the

233 The similarity was noted already by Marr and Strzygowski. MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), p. 28; STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), pp. 157–158. On the church of Tekor: TORAMANIAN, Տեկորի (n. 24); KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 48–53; VYSOTSKY, A., The church at Tekor and the history of its construction, Yerevan 1978; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), pp. 20–27; THIERRY, DONABÉDIAN, Les arts arméniens (n. 63), pp. 584–585; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7), pp. 642–644; MNATSAKANIAN, Крестовокупольные композиции (n. 232); HASRATIAN, Early Christian architecture (n. 63), pp. 33, 73–74, 153–154; PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), pp. 260–270, CD ROM catalog pp. 311–318; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 54–57; PAGLAZOVA, N. M., “Текор – храм Камсараканов” [Tekor – the Kamsarakan Church, in Russian], Архитектурное наследство [Architectural heritage, in Russian] L (2009), pp. 5–16.

234 Although the presence of porticoes based on the analysis of Toramanian is sometimes contested. See: MARANCI, Medieval Armenian Architecture (n. 15), pp. 51– 52.

235 See the reconstruction of the plan in: TORAMANIAN, Տեկորի (n. 24), pp. 13, 15, figs 5, 6.

236 See the proposition of Toramanian in: Ibidem, figs 14, 15. Whether the dome was a part of the original conception of the church or only a later modification of the barrel-vaulted structure, is a subject of a fierce debate among scholars as the former would make Tekor the oldest known domed building in Armenia. The arguments

central nave was raised above the lateral one sufficiently enough to provide space for a clerestory which would make Tekor another “Hellenistic basilica” of Armenia, although this time a barrel-vaulted one [118, 119].237 Concerning the decorative program, there are several disparities as well as analogies between the churches. From the drawings made by Toramanian the ornamentation of Tekor appears to me much cruder and less naturalistic than the one of Ererouk [120, 121].238 While the latter is dominated by vegetal motives, the former is generally geometric or substantially stylized. Still, the composition of the portal as a slightly overpassed arch resting on embedded columns with schematic acanthus capitals is shared by both churches [122]. Similarly, the moulded bands framing the windows and the cornice running along the facades without any functional justification, otherwise uncharacteristic elements in the context of Armenian architecture, appear in both. Nevertheless, it is precisely these features common to both Tekor and Ererouk that are generally attributed to Syrian architectural influence in Armenia rather than to local production. The link is further strenghtened by

are based on the shape of the pillars – today impossible to verify – and their consequent capability to support the weight of a dome. For a later addition, probably between the 5th and 7th century, argue for example: STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 157; KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 51–53; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), p. 22. The dome is considered as an original structure by: DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 54–55; HASRATIAN, M. M., Histoire de l’architecture arménienne des origines à nos jours, Meyzieu 2010, pp. 53–54.

237 As was proposed in: TORAMANIAN, Հայկական I (n. 7), pp. 195, 198–199, figs 115, 118, 119.

238 TORAMANIAN, Տեկորի (n. 24), pp. 81, 85, 87, 89, figs 29, 31, 32, 33.

non-Armenian inscriptions appearing in both churches.239 Let us therefore take a closer look at the Syrian chuches perceived as models for the Armenian Hellenistic basilicas.

Syrian models

The idea of a Syrian model of Ererouk – present in its historiography from the very beginning – was fundamentally emphasized by Krautheimer and further developed by Khatchatrian.240 The comparisons made by the authors were subsequently either reinforced or trivialized by the following scholars. Majority of the bibliography, nevertheless, accepted the Syrian origin of the west tower-porch, the east corner chambers, the porticoes and several decorative elements, especially the molded bands.241 The west tower facade which is a unique feature in Armenia appears in multiple religious buildings of Syria.242 The late 5th or early 6th century churches of Qalb Loze, Ruweiha and Turmanin represent the clearest parallels with Ererouk with their similar composition of a tripartite porch topped by a terrace and a triple window in-between the towers [123–128].243 As neither of these churches is surrounded by galleries, we could see the different mass disposition of the west facade of Ererouk as an adaptation of the frontage of Ruweiha extended to cover the porticoes.

239 Several Syrian votive inscriptions in Tekor were recorded already by Marr, but published only in: PAGLAZOVA, “Текор” (n. 233), pp. 6–7.

240 KRAUTHEIMER, Early Christian (n. 43), pp. 229–230; KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 95–96.

241 Summary in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 14– 16.

242 Ibidem, p. 14.

243 PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52) p. 13.

The east corner rooms flanking the apse are similarly common in Syria, although they are usually not protruding behind the perimeter of the church as in Ererouk.244 The basilicas of El Bara and Resafa are the exceptions of this rule foreshadowing the transversal chambers with a pair of secondary constructions added to their eastern corners [129, 130]. This extension consequently enabled anchoring of porticoes between the east and west protruding structures – along the south and west facades in Resafa, and along all except the east one in El Bara. In the architectural composition of Syrian churches, we can note a certain fluidity – it is never completely identical to the one of Ererouk, which further differs in the substitution of columns for pillars and its overall massive dimensions.245 While this disparity leads some scholars to lessen the impact of Syrian models on the architecture of Ererouk, the similarity of decorative elements was unanimously recognized.246 The bands running along the facades and framing the windows with a right angle bend appear on multiple constructions in Syria – for example in the church of Saint Simeon Stylites or Qalb Loze [131, 132].247

Conclusion: dating and its limitations

Despite the evidence outlined, limitations of the stated comparisons have to be recognized – the vast majority of the building mentioned is in a state of

244 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 14.

245 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 95–96.

246 Alpago-Novello, for example, considers the decoration to be the single distinctive connecting link between Ererouk and Syria. ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), pp. 22, 25.

247 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 15.

decay, and we can thus only compare their fragments or their hypothetical reconstructions. This leads to a heavy reliance on the results of previous scholars, which are often outdated from the point of view of the latest research or impossible to verify as the buildings have since much more deteriorated. As we do not posses any other clues, however, we have to, all the same, rely on such comparisons to approximate the date of the construction. The connection to Syria has been viewed as one of the major arguments for the early datation of Ererouk. Based on the discourse of a linear development of Christian architecture in Armenia beginning with the input of Hellenistic Syria and culminating in a properly Armenian expression in the 7th century, the basilica has been associated with the utmost beginnings of Armenian architectural tradition and the hypothesis of its 5th century datation pursued in the majority of scholars.248 A similar reflection regarding the ornamentation have lately lead to a shift in preference of the 6th century construction characterizing the decorative forms of Ererouk as already distinctly departed from the Hellenistic antiquity while simultaneously foreshadowing the 7th century production.249 There are several problems, however, with this line of thought. First of all, the architecture and decoration are understood in terms of the simplified concept of a linear evolution of forms culminating with the "true expression of Armenian spirit" in the 7th century implying a lower value for

248 See: KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), p. 298.

249 GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), pp. 74–76; PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), CD-ROM catalog, p. 371; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), pp. 51–61. Main arguments are summarized in: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 16– 17.

the artistic production of the preceding period.250 In this sense, the building is judged by the extent to which it anticipates the "Armenian forms". Consequently, the basilica is presented as a composite of individual elements, which are only compared based on their formal qualities, while their functional aspects are generally disregarded. These comparisons of plans do not take into account that the arrangement of structures is most probably guided by the specific needs of the local religious community eventually resulting in merging of several disparate components into one building. This is, in my opinion, the crucial thought for Ererouk as its composition is formed in a purely additive manner combining the Syrian corner chambers with the interior space of Ashtarak. Finally, while the importance of Syria has been empasized in secondary literature, we also find parallels to several churches in early medieval Georgia or Asia Minor. The four protruding corner chambers with galleries, for example, can be seen in the basilica 32 of Binbirkilise [133].251 A more complex comparison of Ererouk within the architectural production of a larger geographical area, overpassing the scope of this thesis, would be needed here. To conclude, when compared with the architecture of the region, Ererouk could be placed within the Armenian ecclesiastical production of the late 5th or 6th century. More specific datation can not yet be satisfactorily stated.

250 DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 5, 12–16.

251 KRAUTHEIMER, Early Christian (n. 43), pp. 121–123. On the church see: RAMSAY, W. M., BELL, G. L., The thousand and one churches, London 1909, pp. 199, 209–221.

Epilogue: reconstruction of the priest Jacob

For the dating of the reconstruction of the west facade, epigraphy is once more essential. An Armenian inscription disposed in eight lines on the north pilaster flanking the apse [134] reads as follows:

“I, priest Jacob who arrived from K‘ałak‘udašt in this town and in this holy martyrium for the intercession of true believers in Christ, have restored it [the martyrium] in the name of the Precursor and the Protomartyr.”252

The inscription records the act of a restoration of the church, characterized as a “martyrium”, by a priest coming from the religious residence of Vagharshapat, which is generally associated with the reconstruction of the porch.253 The dating of the epigraphy is therefore seen as the decisive element in estimating the time of the intervention.

252 Translated by the author from: “Moi, prêtre Yakob qui suis venu de K‘ałak‘udašt dans ce bourg et dans ce saint martyrium pour l‘intercession des vrais croyants dans le Christ, je l‘ai restauré au nom du Précurseur et du Protomartyr.” as it was translated from Armenian by Patrick Donabédian, Agnès Ouzounian and Gaguik Sargsyan. DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82) p. 27. More on the inscription in: MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), p. 20; MNATSAKANIAN, Նիկողայոս Մառը (n. 17) pp. 4–5; MANUTCHARYAN, A., “Երերույքի տաճարի վիմագրերը” [Lapidary inscriptions of the church of Ererouk, in Armenian], Հին հայաստանի մշակույթը [The culture of ancient Armenia, in Armenian] XIV (2008), pp. 287–288; MOURAVIEV, Erkataguir (n. 206), pp. 156–157; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 26–31.

253 The toponym K‘ałak‘udašt – one of the names of Vagharshapat – was thought to be indicative of a specific time by Marr. Later studies, however, proved it to be used troughout a longer period and therefore inconclusive for the dating of the

From the earliest palaeographical analysis by Marr, a rather late datation to the 10th century was imagined for the inscription.254 This date has later been reassessed as the uppermost limit of the dating and the inclination towards the 6th or 7th century expressed,255 further supported by a recent study.256 Due to the lack of other means of dating the reconstruction of the porch, we have to rely on the palaeographical results alone, and situate the structural intervention between the 6th and 7th centuries. The concrete circumstances of both the foundation and the restoration will be more broadly outlined in the following chapter.

inscription. MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), p. 20; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 27.

254 MARR, “Новые археологические данные” (n. 21), p. 64; STRZYGOVSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), p. 154.

255 KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), pp. 299–300; KOUYMJIAN, “Breve cronologia storica” (n. 56), p. 28.

256 MOURAVIEV, Erkataguir (n. 206), p. 157.

Martyrium

We have established the formal character of the basilica of Ererouk and situated its foundation between the 5th and 6th century in the previous chapters. The present chapter is going to adress possible reasons for the choice of the visual features of the building and roles the church could have played at this period of time. An assessment like this should undoubtedly be founded on the evidence of the basilica itself. The Armenian inscription recalling the restoration of the church by the priest Jacob [134], discussed in the previous chapter, proves to be useful not only for the dating of the intervention, but also for the function it ascribed to the church. The basilica was defined as a “martyrium” restored in the name of the Precursor (Saint John the Baptist) and the Protomartyr (Saint Stephen). We can presume that a church characterized in this way could have been the place where relics of these saints had been deposed.257 Yet, it is not clear from the inscription, whether this function and dedication were original ones, only reconfirmed by the restoration, or whether they were newly ascribed to the church.258 As Donabédian notes, however, it would have been unusual if the dedication had been changed as a consequence of such a simple intervention.259

257 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), pp. 29–30.

258 According to the translation of Donabédian, the verb of the sentence could be understood as “I have restored, renovated”, but also “I have recovered in the initial state, I have returned to the original cult”. Ibidem, note 107.

259 Ibidem, p. 30.

On the following pages, I will pursue the hypothesis of Ererouk being conceived as a martyrial church from the utmost beginning, and explain the role of such a building in the religious and political environment of Early Christian Armenia. To begin with, I will adress the question of the dedication and possession of relics.

Prestigious dedication

As the inscription informs us, the basilica supposedly commemorates two very popular saints of the Early Christian era, the martyrs John the Baptist and Stephen. Let us take a brief look on the history of their relics and their possible appearance in Armenia. Although the cult of Saint Stephen was already established during the first centuries AD, it experienced a significant stimulus after 415 when the remains of the martyr were discovered near Jerusalem.260 The body was translated into the city and eventually into a new basilica comissioned by the empress Eudocia to commemorate the stoning of Stephen in 460 – “the largest post-Constantinian building project in Jerusalem” [135].261 The discovery incited a strong demand for the relics of the saint which were consequently massively distributed to the East and West.262 The cult was promoted by theologians, including John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, whose homilies and commentaries on the life of Stephen also circulated in

260 BOVON, F., “The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr”, The Harvard Theological Review CXVI/3 (2003), pp. 282, 285–286.

261 DIETZ, M., Wandering Monks, Virgins, and Pilgrims: Ascetic Travel in the Mediterranean World, A. D. 300–800, University of Pennsylvania 2005, p. 143. On the basilica see: MOMMERT, C., Saint Étienne et ses sanctuaires à Jérusalem, Jerusalem 1912; MARE, W. H., The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area, Eugene 2002, pp. 240–241.

262 BOVON, “The Dossier” (n. 260), pp. 286–287.

Armenia.263 During the following century, the remains were transfered to Constantinople and then to Rome.264 I was not able to trace the possible possession of any relic of the martyr in Armenia before the 7th century.265 Nevertheless, the cult must have already been present in the region earlier with a church dedicated to Stephen attested in Syunik and Edessa.266 Even if we can not confirm whether there actually was a relic of the saint kept in Ererouk, we can perceive the dedication as a pursuit of a prestigious association with the popular cult of the day. The veneration of John the Baptist is, on the contrary, a rather constant phenomenon. The saint has held a privileged position among the Christian pantheon as the Precursor of Christ – he symbolizes the transition between the Old and the New Testament, between the prophets and the apostles.267 John the Baptist might actually have been the second most popular saint of Armenia, right after its christianizer and patron, Gregory the Illuminator – a church dedicated to the Precursor (Karapet in Armenian)

263 Ibidem, p. 282, 290, 305–311.

264 Ibidem, p. 286.

265 At the beginning of the 7th century the relics of Saint Stephen are brought from Jerusalem. See: THOMSON, R. W., “Jerusalem and Armenia”, Studia patristica XVIII/1 (1986), pp. 77–78. Subsequently, several churches dedicated to the saint – namely Lmbat, Koch and Nakhtjavan – appear. DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 137–138, 203–204.

266 BOVON, “The Dossier” (n. 260), p. 287; HASRATIAN, Early Christian architecture (n. 63), pp. 14, 55; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 19, 33.

267 HUGHES, J. H., “John the Baptist: The forerunner of God Himself”, Novum Testamentum XIV/3 (1972), pp. 191–218.

can be found in many monasteries and there are several feasts per year celebrated in his honour.268 Such immense popularity might have been, in fact, caused by the association of the cult with the conversion of the state since the relics of John the Baptist were allegedly among the first ones brought to Armenia by Gregory the Illuminator himself.269 According to the 5th century chronicler Agathangelos, Gregory received the relics of the saint and the martyr Athenogenes when he was ordained in Caesarea.270 After his return to Armenia, the relics were deposed in several churches, most famously in the newly founded martyrion of Surb Karapet near Mush which soon became a prominent destination for pilgrims [136].271 The single nave basilica of the

268 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 30.

269 THOMSON, R. W., Agathangelos: History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary, Albany 1976, pp. 349, 371. On the different versions of the text see: WINKLER, G., “Our Present Knowledge on the History of Agat‘angelos and its Oriental Versions”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XIV (1980), pp. 125–141.

270 The event was dated to 314 in: ANANIAN, P., “La date e le circostanze della consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore”, Le Musèon LXXIV (1961), pp. 43–73, 319– 360.

271 The monastery lying in present-day eastern Turkey was destroyed after 1915. See: LYNCH, Armenia, travels and studies II (n. 10), pp. 174–197; AVETISYAN, K., “Տարոնի պատմական հուշարձանները” [Historical monuments of Taron, in Armenian], Հայրենագիտական էտյուդներ [Armenian studies sketches, in Armenian], Yerevan 1979, p. 204; VARDANIAN, V., ZARIAN, A., “Մշո Ս. Կարապետ վանք” [S. Karapet monastery of Mush, in Armenian], in: Հայկական սովետական հանրագիտարան VII [Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, in Armenian], Yerevan 1981, p. 660; SINCLAIR, T. A., Eastern Turkey: An Architectural & Archaeological Survey I, London 1989, pp. 292–293; THIERRY, J.-M., Armenian Art, New York 1989, p. 175; MARANCI, C., “The Art and Architecture of Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush”, in:

Holy Forerunner in Hovhannavank [137], the memorial complex of Achtichat, and the church of Bagavan were allegedly likewise founded by Gregory to safeguard the relics of the saint.272 The high status of the cult is also attested by three Armenian arm reliquaries containing the relics of Saint John the Baptist [138]. As the number of preserved reliquaries is quite low, they create an important asset right after the reliquaries of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, holding a prominent status in the Armenian church.273 Although dated at the earliest to the 14th century, they probably reflect an older tradition of preserving the relics.274 In spite of the reliquaries being shaped like a right arm, the relic contained inside could have originated from a different body part275 – the form is presumably rather symbolic and refers to the use of the reliquary during the ceremonial consecrations and benedictions.276

HOVANNISIAN, R. G. (ed.), Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush, Costa Mesa, California 2002, pp. 119–146.

272 Out of these three buildings only the church of Hovhannavank is preserved. DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 104.

273 KOUYMJIAN, D., “Reliques et reliquaires. Comment les Arméniens honorent leurs saints”, in: DERMERGUÉRIAN, R., DONABÉDIAN, P. (eds), Armeniaca 2, La culture arménienne hier et aujourd’hui, Aix-en-Provence 2008, pp. 171–182.

274 KOUYMJIAN, D., “Reliquaire de la main de saint Jean-Baptiste”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, p. 280.

275 HAHN, C., “The Voices of the Saints: Speaking Reliquaries”, Gesta XXVI/1 (1997), pp. 20–22.

276 KOUYMJIAN, “Reliques et reliquaires” (n. 273), pp. 174–175. More on the use of the so-called “speaking reliquaries” in: HAHN, “The Voices of the Saints” (n. 275), pp. 20–31.

We have established that the veneration of both Stephen and John the Baptist is rooted in the Armenian tradition, and that the relics of these saints could have already circulated in the area before the construction of Ererouk. As the cults are rather prominent – especially in the case of Saint John the Baptist – let us reevaluate the capacity of the basilica and its surroundings to house such prestigious sacred objects.

Allure of relics

The first indication of the prominent status of the basilica is its monemumental dimensions. The church is one of the largest Early Christian Armenian basilicas, second only to the Cathedral of Saint Grigor in Dvin [108].277 If we rule out a patriarchal or royal representation, based on the absence of traces of a noble residential building in the surroundings, the possession of precious relics is definitely a convenient explanantion of such grandeur. Secondly, the abundance of sepulchral monuments in the environs of the basilica and the vast funerary zone stretching on its east and south sides speak undisputedly of the attractivity of the site that the possession of relics might have accounted for. The desire to be buried ad sanctos – in a physical proximity of holy remains in order to gain a moral closeness and advocacy of the saint during the Last Judgement – is a phenomenon characteristic of the whole Middle Ages, but above all of Late Antiquity.278 While especially the closest environs of the apse became a focal point for tombs and minor

277 While Ererouk measures 36 x 14 m, the cathedral of Dvin measures 58 x 29 m together with its porticoes. PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), p. 260, CD-ROM catalog, p. 368.

278 JOHNSON, E., “Burial ad sanctos”, in: TAYLOR, L. J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Medieval Pilgrimage, Leiden, Boston 2010, pp. 68–70.

funerary monuments, the prohibition of interior burials by the Armenian canons explains the absence of sepulchres in the basilica itself.279 Furthermore, the rather unique specialization in the inhumation of infants in the 11th and 12th centuries could be seen as a result of a shift in understanding of the dedication to Saint John the Baptist. The cemetery might at this period of time have provided the privilege of the saint’s intercession exclusively aimed for children who died unbaptized to avoid their unacceptance in Heaven.280 In light of the above stated, we can most likely consider the basilica of Ererouk as a pilgrimage church safeguarding the holy remains of the popular saints.281 Its ambitions are attested by its monumentality as well as its popularity by the memorial environment surrounding the church. The Armenian inscription also mentioned a “town” in the proximity of the basilica which must have developed – if we stick to the dating of the epigraphy – already before the 7th century.282 The activity of the site is further attested by the mausoleum buried in the valley.

279 According to the Canon 20 issued from one of the synods in Dvin in 552/553 and 555. Vazgen HAKOBYAN, V. A., Կանոնագիրք Հայոց I [Book of Canons of the Armenians, in Armenian], Yerevan 1964, p. 486; MARDIROSSIAN, A., Le Livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayots‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i. Église, droit et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle, Leuven 2004, pp. 623–625.

280 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2015 (n. 82), p. 47.

281 Suggested already by: ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 17; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7), p. 234; THIERRY, L’Arménie au Moyen Age (n. 63), p. 44; TER-MARTIROSSOV, “Малоизученные памятники” (n. 61), p. 237.

282 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 29.

The basilica itself is then the absolute focal point of this rather large memorial complex.283 Aware of its exclusive character, we can look again at the formal features of the building and try to determine whether they might have been generated by its memorial function.

Iconography of architecture

Since the 1940s, it is generally accepted that the content of medieval architecture played a significant role in its materialization.284 In this sense, we could read some of the formal characteristics of the Ererouk basilica as visual signs following the established architectural "iconography" used by the conceptor to convey a message about the martyrial function of the building. Patrick Donabédian was the first one to propose such a way of reading the church of Ererouk.285 The scholar saw a conscious association of the basilica with the Early Christian sepulchral architecture especially in the monumental krepis, which he considered unusual for an ordinary church and, at the same time, proper to memorial structures.286 In the context of Armenian architecture, the krepis is indeed an exceptional feature. While the majority of Armenian churches are encircled by several small stairs from the exterior, Donabédian found two other examples of such monumentalized stepped base – the already mentioned

283 MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), pp. 27, 31; THIERRY, L’Arménie au Moyen Age (n. 63), p. 44; DONABÉDIAN, Lʼâge dʼor (n. 67), p. 49.

284 KRAUTHEIMER, R., “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Medieval Architecture’”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes V (1942), pp. 1–33.

285 DONABÉDIAN, P., “Les premiers édifices chrétiens dʼArménie”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, p. 56.

286 DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 28, 40, 49, 133–134.

church of Tekor [122] and the 7th century Zvartnots cathedral [139].287 According to the art historian, the use of the crepidoma in all three instances points to the memorial status shared by the churches.288

287 DONABÉDIAN, “Les premiers édifices” (n. 285), p. 56. On Zvartnots: STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), pp. 108–118, 685–697; TORAMANIAN, Հայկական I (n. 7), pp. 172–173, 175–176, 247–259, 267–270; ARUTYUNYAN, V. M., Zvartnots, Yerevan 1954; MARUTYAN, T., Զվարտնոտս եվ Զվարտնոտսատիպ տաչարներ [Zvartnots and churches of the Zvartnots type, in Armenian], Yerevan 1963; KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 22, 68, 84; MNATSAKANIAN, St., Звартноц: памятники армянского зодчества 6-7 вв. [Zvartnots: monument of the Armenian architecture of the 6th – 7th cs., in Russian], Moscow 1971; KLEINBAUER, W. E., “Zvart’nots and the Origins of Christian Architecture in Armenia”, The Art Bulletin LIV/3 (1972), pp. 245–262; DER NERSESSIAN, S., L’art arménien, Paris 1977; TORAMANIAN, T., Զվարթնոց, Գագկաշեն [Zvartnots, Gagkashen, in Armenian], Yerevan 1984; CUNEO, Architettura armena (n. 7), pp. 102–105; KAZARYAN, A., “Алтарная преграда и литургическое пространство храма Звартноц” [The Chancel and Liturgical Space in the Church of Zvartnots, in Russian], in: LIDOV, A. M. (ed.), Иконостас: Происхождение – развитие – символика [Ikonostas: Origin – Evolution – Symbolism, in Russian], Moscow 2000, pp. 85–117; MARANCI, C., “Byzantium through Armenian Eyes: Cultural Appropriation and the Church of Zuart’noc‘”, Gesta XL/2 (2001), pp. 105–124; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 190–198; KAZARYAN, A., Церковная архитектура стран Закавказья VII века: Формирование и развитие традици II [Church architecture of the 7th century in Transcaucasian countries: Formation and development of the tradition, in Russian], Moscow 2012, pp. 492–549; MARANCI, C., “The Archaeology and Reconstruction Theories of Zuart’noc‘”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers LVIII (2015), pp. 69–115; MARANCI, C., Vigilant Powers: Three Churches of Early Medieval Armenia, Turnhout 2015; MARANCI, C., “The Monument and the World: Zuart’noc‘ and the Problem of Origins”, Convivium supplementum (2016), pp. 70–87.

288 DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), p. 49.

In case of Zvartnots, the event the church commemorated had been the meeting of king Trdat III with Gregory the Illuminator that allegedly took part at the site.289 Moreover, the relics of Saint Gregory were deposed in the middle of the edifice.290 The church of Tekor is then explicitely defined as the martyrium of Saint Sarkis by an Armenian inscription carved above its western entrance [140].291 Nevertheless, although such function is generally accepted in the academic community, the authenticity of the inscription can be contested as it only appears to be a copy of an original epigraphy.292 Consequently, the inscription might have referred to a different building, which was not preserved, and be only later transfered to the lintel of the basilica.293 One must therefore be very careful with making hasty conclusions assuming the architectural features of Tekor to be in accordance with its function we are not sure about. Still, the use of the krepis could prove that the church is in fact the martyrium mentioned by the epigraphy. As Donabédian did not provide any other specific examples of the “memorial architecture” the crepidoma is inherent to, we can hardly accept his argument as sufficient. The krepis seems to play a different role in the

289 THOMSON, R. W., The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos I, Liverpool 1999, p. 112.

290 DONABÉDIAN, P., “L’âge d’or de l’architecture arménienne”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, p. 85.

291 On the inscription: KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 49– 50; GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), pp. 37, 40, 54, 70, 79–80.

292 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 50; GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), p. 37.

293 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 50.

basilicas, where it firmly encircles the perimeter of the church, merely providing space for the side porticoes; as compared to Zvartnots where it facilitates a circumambulatory movement around the cathedral. Furthermore, several Armenian churches of a martyrial character – Saint Hripsime and Saint Gayane, for example – possess but a few low stairs along the facades. At the same time, it is necessary to recall that the krepis of Ererouk does not serve as foundations of the building and only artificially envelops its outer sides. We can therefore agree that its purpose is more symbolic than static. The desired effect should be, however, seen as more complex rather than simply a label of the martyrial character of the basilica. The crepidoma additionally elevates the church in both size and significance, which the sanctuary in possession of precious relics certainly would have had.

Visualization of presence

Further confirmation of the martyrial function of the church and its dedication might be provided by the fragment of a capital depicting the Baptism of Christ [77]. Apart from the scene of Psalm 42,1–2 above the west portal, the capital presents the sole figural scupture of the basilica and therefore must have had a particular significance for the building. The scene, however, does not have to refer solely to the possession of the relics of the saint, but also to the baptismal liturgy – the emplacement of the capital might have highlighted either the setting of baptism or contemplation of the relic. Since the fragment is lost today, the only point of reference remains the drawing made by Strzygowski. The scholar in a hard-to-read handwriting describes the piece as 62 cm high, 68 cm wide and 33 cm long – the capital appears to have been broken in half.294 If we double the length, the measurements would be compatible with the diameter of the columnar

294 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), pp. 422, 423, fig. 456.

shafts of the side porticoes recorded by the mission of Laboratoire d’Archéologie Médiévale et Moderne en Méditerranée as ranging between 60 and 70 cm.295 This correspondence favours the placement of the capital on the exterior columns, rather than on the internal pillars. As the character of both situations the capital might have referred to is rather exclusive, I would argue for a more distinctive architectural setting created by the lateral porticoes concluded by the external apsidioles, rather than the west porch. Neither the location of a baptistery, nor that of a relic display is ascertained. Situating liturgical ceremonies within the inner and outer space of the church has never been the objective of the bibliography of Ererouk. Nevertheless, the existence of a baptistery was suggested several times as a minor concern without any reference to sources or further implications. Khatchatrian located it in the northwest corner chamber based on the erroneous plan suggesting the room had two entrances.296 The proposition was accepted by Paboudjian who considered it to “coincide with the baptism ritual” and Alpago-Novello who, at the same time however, ruled out the existence of a second entrance from the exterior.297 The question has never been adressed again with the sole exception being a marginal suggestion of localizing a baptismal font in one of the exterior apsidioles presented by Donabédian.298 For the time being, the northwest corner chamber with the niche in its east wall marked by a cross in a medallion might be supposed to house a

295 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1 (n. 82), p. 56.

296 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 48.

297 PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 8; ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 21.

298 Ibidem, p. 37.

baptismal font [25]. It is evident, however, that a more substantial analysis of the baptismal ritual is desperately needed to support the hypothesis. Consequently, the capital placed in the exterior portico would not emphasize the actual ritual of baptism, but rather generated an expectation of it. As several scholars have suggested that the porticoes concluded by apses served to house liturgical ceremonies for catechumens, such interpretation seems plausible.299 This function of the porticoes is further supported by their disappearance in the 7th century when the baptism of infants prevailed and the necessity of separation ended.300 Nevertheless, the housing of catechumens is probably not the only role the porticoes of Ererouk played. We have already noted the disparate character of the north and south facade – while the former is completely closed off, the latter constitutes the focal point of the basilica. It appears that a different liturgical practice was situated in the north and the south porticos.301 The alternatives to the masses of catechumens might be commemorative services for the dead, and the displays of relics.302 It is, however, necessary to remember that the use of the porticoes might not have been exclusive, but rather a combination of the above stated functions. To comprehend the spatial and liturgical dynamics of the Ererouk basilica and to suggest a placement of the capital, the function of the east corner chambers flanking the main apse must be discussed as well. Usually

299 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 48; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 8; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), p. 37.

300 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 52.

301 Paboudjian suggest the catechumens might alternate between the sides according to seasons. PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 8.

302 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 48; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 8; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 37, 49.

characterized as pastophoria, that is a prothesis and a diaconicon,303 the side chambers actually might have served a different purpose as they are not connected with the apse, but solely with the lateral aisles of the basilica. As a matter of fact, the broad application and inappropriatness of the terms related to the Middle Byzantine liturgy have lately become an object of dispute, and the functional variety of the side chambers was put to front instead.304 In the Syro-Armenian, milieu it appears that the term pastophoria was firstly used for the rooms next to the apse in a rather all-embracing sense as a reference to the side chambers of the Jerusalem Temple without any specific implication of their function.305 A diferentiation occurred in the 5th century northern Syria when the north chamber was established to serve as a treasury of liturgical vestments, vessels and offerings, and the south one became a “chapel of martyrs”.306 In this view, the south chamber can be

303 PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), pp. 12–13; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), p. 43.

304 The terminology was universally applied since it appeard in: BRAUN, J., Der christliche Altar, Munich 1924. See: DESCOEUDRES, G., Die Pastophorien im syro- byzantinischen Osten, Wiesbaden 1983, IX–XXVI; TETERIATNIKOV, N., “Upper- Story Chapels Near the Sanctuary in Churches of the Christian East”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers XLII (1988), p. 70; SMITH, J. C., “Form and Function of the Side Chambers of the Fifth- and Sixth-Century Churches in Ravenna”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians XLIX/2 (1990), pp. 181–182.

305 DESCOEUDRES, Die Pastophorien (n. 304), XIII–XIV.

306 LASSUS, J., Sanctuaires chrétiens de la Syrie: essai sur la genèse, la forme et l’usage liturgique des édifices du culte chrétien en Syrie, du IIIe siècle à la conquete musulmane, Paris 1947, p. 173; LASSUS, J., “Liturgies nestoriennes médiévales et églises syriennes antiques”, Revue de l’histoire des religions CXXXVII/2 (1950), p. 248, fig. 2;

considered as the proper martyrium where the relics could have been stored307 – note the presence of a rectangular niche in the east wall of the southeast room of Ererouk. By pouring oil through the reliquary, contact relics in the form of oleum martyris were produced in the chapel of martyrs and subsequently distributed in ampullae among the faithful or used in salutary anointings308 – to anoint one’s whole body with holy oil and thus experience the grace of the martyr was a common practice, especially recommended by John Chrysostom.309 It is imaginable that the south exterior apsidiole adjacent to the chapel of martyrs indeed served as an architectural ostensorium of the martyrs’ relics as was suggested by Donabédian.310 The placement of the capital in the south portico would therefore highlighted the real presence of John the Baptist in the sanctuary incarnated by the relic as well as reminded of the salvation through baptism to the catechumens. In this way, the capital could be considered as another medium of representing the elevated status of the basilica.

TCHALENKO, G., Villages antiques de la Syrie du nord, Paris 1953, figs. LXVI, LXXX- 4, LXXXI-3, CXII.

307 GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), p. 73.

308 LASSUS, J., “Nouveaux relevés d’églises dans la Syrie du Nord”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettre XCI/1 (1947), pp. 166–167. The process of creating holy oil is described by Paulinus of Nola (Carmen XXI, lines 586– 600). Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum XXX, Vienna 1866, p. 177. In northern Syria, the practice was confirmed by archaeological discoveries of modified reliquaries with funnel-shaped openings on top and taps at the bottom to collect the oil. LASSUS, Sanctuaires chrétiens (n. 306), pp. 163–164.

309 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, St., MAYER, W., The Cult of the Saints: Select Homilies and Letters, New York 2006, p. 31.

310 DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), p. 37.

Patronage

As demonstrated, the sanctuary apparently acted as a depository of precious relics and a centre of pilgrimage. Consequently, the basilica must have played an important role in the region generating a considerable income and promoting both the Armenian state and church. It is apparent that such an ambitious project was commissioned by a wealthy patron. The basilica was situated on the lands of the Kamsarakans, Armenian princes ruling the territory from the 4th century until the rise of the Bagratids, and therefore it was most probably founded by this family.311 Such commission would create another link to the church of Tekor, which was attributed – according to the inscription characterizing the church as a martyrium of Saint Sarkis – to the prince Sahak Kamsarakan and the patriarch Yohan Mandakuni.312 The foundations could be seen as an attempt to create a spiritual centre of the region representing the family and attracting believers to the relics of the three most revered Armenian saints: John the Baptist, Stephen and Sarkis.313

311 MARR, Ереруйкская базилика (n. 22), p. 28; KOUYMJIAN, “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի” (n. 8), p. 299; KOUYMJIAN, “Breve cronologia storica” (n. 56), p. 28; DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 16. More on the Kamsarakan family in: TOUMANOFF, C., “Kamsarakan”, Encyclopædia Iranica XV/5, pp. 453–455.

312 This association enables us to date the construction to the 480s. KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 49–50. The question of the authenticity of the inscription was adressed above.

313 TER-MARTIROSSOV, “Малоизученные памятники” (n. 61), p. 237; DONABÉDIAN, “Ereruyk’” (n. 83), p. 274, note 108.

Towards the end of the 8th century, the territory passed to the rising Bagratid dynasty.314 Both sanctuaries, nevertheless, preserved their prominent status as is attested by the inscriptions dating from this period found on both churches [3].315 The epigraphies testify of an ongoing support by the ruling family symbolically demonstrated by the exemption from taxes.316 Similar benefits are also later granted to Ererouk by the Zakarids.317

Conclusion: intentions of creation

While firmly grounded within the formal aesthetic of the 5th and 6th centuries, the construction of the church was laid out primarily to accomodate the ritual – both the ordinary and the exclusive. Regarding the former, the church structured the daily religious life of the area, embeded the ambitions of the local secular and ecclesiastical authorities into the landscape, and created a point of reference along the route connecting the north and south of the country.318 As to the latter, the basilica visualized the presence of the relics, elevated the status of its founders, and incorporated the martyrium

314 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 32.

315 On the Bagratid inscription in Ererouk: DONABÉDIAN, “Ereruyk’” (n. 83), pp. 275–277. On the one in Tekor: KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), pp. 49, 53.

316 On the specific character of the tax: DONABÉDIAN, “Ereruyk’” (n. 83), p. 276, note 113.

317 On the inscription of General Zakare in Ani dated to the beginning of the 13th century: DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 33.

318 Among many other churches located along the route around Aragats are for example Dvin, Tekor, Ashtarak, Aruch, Talin, Avan and Yeghvard. ALPAGO- NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), pp. 16–17.

within a larger network of pilgrimage outreaching Armenia itself. These two sides of the same coin should be considered as all the possible motivation behind the particular arrangement of the basilica does not have to derive exclusively from its function as a martyrium. Nevertheless, due to the lack of evidence to analyze the daily use of the church, it is its more prominent memorial function that is adressed in the scope of this thesis. The church was conceived as a monumental treasury of the precious remains of popular saints safeguarded probably in the southeast corner chamber judging by the concetration of sepulchres and funerary monuments in its proximity as well as by the correspondence with the Syrian chapels of martyrs. Although the south facade is generally prominent in the Armenian architecture as is apparent from the distribution of entrances and the emplacement of epigraphy, the orientation is yet more emphasized in Ererouk by the free space of the funerary zone.319 A pilgrim entering the complex through the southeast gate would immediately have perceived the magnificence of the longitudinal building. At the same time, the funerary monuments testifying of the popularity of the sanctuary would have been exhibited to the viewer. The positioning of the lateral facade of the church towards the pilgrims can be observed also in Syria or North Africa.320 Apart from connecting the region with neighboring countries through pilgrimage, the construction of the martyrium also generated an important stimulus for the local political authorities as the feasts of the saints were an opportunity to form supranational ecclesiastical and secular

319 GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), p. 36.

320 PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), CD-ROM catalog, p. 371.

alliances.321 In a society that had just gained its religious freedom, the cult of martyrs further served to centralize the ritual practices from the households into the church, and to confirm the authority of the official ecclesiastical hierarchy.322 To sum up, the impact of the custody of the relics can be seen as threefold: in shaping the church as a martyrial building, in generating a memorial environment around it, and in establishing a new layer of socio- political relations in the region. Although of a minor interest in the secondary literature, the memorial function of the basilica fundamentally formed its appearance and reputation while establishing both physical and spiritual connection with the Late Antique world.

Epilogue: true believers in Christ

Little by little, traces of a spectacular past emerge from the ruins. We have previously outlined the context of the foundation of the basilica – what was then the reason of its reconstruction? According to the inscription, the priest Jacob came from Vagharshapat “for the intercession of true believers in Christ”.

321 LEEMANS, J., ALLEN, P., MAYER, W., DEHANDSCHUTTER, B., “Let Us Die that We May Live”: Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria (c. AD 350-c. AD 450), New York 2003, pp. 17–18.

322 Armenian nobility has secured religious freedom against Zoroastrianism by the rebellion between 481–484. Those who had perished in the previous unsuccessful revolt of 451 were considered and venerated as martyrs of faith – the notion of martyrdom therefore must have had strongly resonated with the public of the era. van LINT, T. M., “The Formation of Armenian Identity in the First Millenium”, Church History and Religious Culture LXXXIX/1 (2009), pp. 273–274. More on the Late Antique veneration of martyrs in: BROWN, P., The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity, Chicago 1981.

For Donabédian, the phrasing indicated a denouncing of heretics directly following after a period of a religious turmoil.323 The scholar finds such turbulent times at the turn of the 7th century when the territory passed under the Byzantine rule of the emperor Maurice, and a Chalcedonian anti- catholicosate was established in Avan.324 Donabédian interprets the intervention declared by the epigraphy as a reconversion of the basilica through the restoration in its original dedication after the retreat of the Byzantines and the return of the locality under the control of the Armenian church at the beginning of the 7th century.325 While such explanation seems convenient, the phrase “true believers in Christ”, in my opinion, does not necessarily imply an indication of a religious crisis. Although the intercession is usually asked for by the founder and his family,326 the expression might be seen as a rather general idiom referring to the ecclesiastical character of the intervention – a difference in character of Armenian secular and clerical inscriptions has already been pointed out by Timothy Greenwood.327

323 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 28.

324 Հայ ժողովրդի պատմություն II [History of the Armenian people, in Armenian], Yerevan 1984, p. 270; ISKANYAN, V. K., Հայ-բյուզանդական հարաբերությունները ՎԻ- ՎԻԻ դդ. [Armeno-Byzantine relations in the 4th-7th cs., in Armenian], Yerevan 1991, pp. 325–350.

325 DONABÉDIAN et al., Rapport de la campagne de 2014 (n. 82), p. 29. On Armenia in the 7th century see: GARSOÏAN, N. G., Interregnum: Introduction to a Study on the Formation of Armenian Identity (ca 600–750), Leuven 2012.

326 See: GREENWOOD, “A Corpus” (n. 199), pp. 79–91.

327 Ibidem, pp. 54–57, sp. p. 55.

On the Armenian basilica

As a 5th or 6th century church, the basilica of Ererouk belongs to a period deemed as decisive for the constitution of the Armenian religious and cultural identity – from the official acceptance of Christianity as the state religion at the beginning of the 4th century328 until the Arab occupation of the country at the end of the 7th century, Armenian particularity in worship and arts had been established.329 It is no wonder that this era has at the same time been probably the most popular and most problematic in Armenian studies as the scholars tend to overestimate the national uniqueness at the expense of flattening the complex social, political and religious relations of the Late Antique society. The Ererouk basilica perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. Troughout the presentation of the church, we have been faced with several academically established polarities employed to clearly distinguish the Armenian and the foreign. The first dichotomy presented to us is the juxtaposition of the “Hellenistic” and the “oriental” basilica.330 Defined from the Greco-centric point of view, the former is considered as full of “lʼair et la lumière”, while the latter as “la grande nef aveugle”.331 The categorization is purely formal without evaluating the technique of construction, climate

328 The datation of the event oscillates between 301 and 314. van LINT, “The Formation” (n. 322), p. 269.

329 DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 5, 15.

330 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 43.

331 MILLET, L’École grecque (n. 47), pp. 16–17.

conditions, and the use of the space.332 Nevertheless, traditional historiography accepted the antithesis and fully appropriated the “austerité orientale” in contrast with the “confort hellénistique”.333 The still used concept of the “Armenian vaulted basilica” creates a tension when dealing with Ererouk which does not adhere to the rule and defy the established order.334 The anxiety regarding the Ererouk basilica grows with the second essential division, that is the dichotomy between Armenia and Syria. Although the effort of several, mainly Armenian, scholars to exclude any role of Syria in the construction have proved inconclusive,335 the acknowledgment of a more considerable "foreign" input is still problematic. The emphasis on a properly Armenian technique of construction, rather massive dimensions, and the “caractère régional de son inspiration”336 reveals an inherent fear of being accused of spiritless copying from the neighbours – a dependence of any kind has been explicitely denied by several scholars.337 While the Christianization from Syria is admitted, the possibility of an accompanying artistic stimulus is perceived as degrading.338

332 Ibidem, pp. 15 – 53.

333 Ibidem, p. 17.

334 PLONTKE-LÜNING, Frühchristliche Architektur (n. 64), p. 262.

335 Ibidem, CD-ROM catalog, p. 370.

336 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 101.

337 Ibidem, p. 95; PABOUDJIAN, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 52), p. 14; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), p. 75.

338 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 101; DONABÉDIAN, L’âge d’or (n. 67), pp. 8, 14, 17.

Eventually, the two sets of opposites merge into a single one: the Syrian Hellenistic basilica versus the Armenian oriental one.339 This reasoning has had a substantial relevance for the bibliography of Ererouk as it has limited the debate to the defensive position. For how can the basilica be Armenian when it is “Hellenistic”? Last but not least, from the very beginning, the Armenian studies have been shaped by the dichotomy of a basilica and a domed church. While establishing the field, Strzygowski’s Die Baukunst initiated a fundamental opposition of the two structures interpreted as embodiments of the Mediterranean corruption and the Aryan supremacy.340 Although the Armenian dome was disproved to serve as a major architectural impulse for the West,341 its superior and national character has still been maintained in historiography – the centralized domed church represents the utmost achievement of Armenian architecture and a manifest of religious and cultural identity of the state.342

339 KHATCHATRIAN, L’architecture arménienne (n. 47), p. 95.

340 STRZYGOWSKI, Die Baukunst (n. 27), pp. 777–781. See: MARANCI, Medieval Armenian Architecture (n. 15), pp. 85–175; MARANCI, “Basilicas and Black Holes” (n. 30), p. 314.

341 Strzygowski’s theory was based on an erroneous chronology dating the appearance of the dome in Armenia already to the 4th century and rather disparate comparisons. A Czech reader might find interesting that several parallels of the Armenian domed church were seen also in the churches of Vlnoves or Řeporyje. While similar in plan, the buildings differ profoundly in the elevation and the technique of construction – the danger of such “paper plan comparisons” was for that matter emphasized already by Krautheimer. See: MARANCI, Medieval Armenian Architecture (n. 15), pp. 95–97, 102–106, 120–133; KRAUTHEIMER, Early Christian (n. 43), p. 326.

342 HASRATIAN, Histoire de l’architecture arménienne (n. 236), p. 51.

As a result, the basilica has been historiographically perceived as foreign. When dealing with Ererouk Alpago-Novello writes: “Adopting the basilical typology in Armenia would be a process of assimilation of imported forms that would not find comparisons in the local culture (which seems, frankly, rather strange).”343 The church itself is then portrayed as anticipating the centralization and unification of the 7th century domed structures by the emphasis on the lateral facade – as if the basilical form needed to be justified.344 By no means do I want to suggest that differences between the categories in question do not exist. I am merely pointing out that the polar reasoning – the domestic versus the alien – has reduced the discussion regarding the Ererouk basilica to a formalistic apologetics and prevented it from any distinctive progress. As the dilapidated state of the building does not provide an unambiguous account of its original appearance, the ideological struggle is most clearly reflected in the hypothetical reconstructions by the individual scholars which profoundly affects the research. Revisiting the Armenian basilica and its placement within the Late Antique world is therefore desperately needed in order to liberate the established terminology from its nationalistic connotations and overpass the insularity of the field. Although lacking the iconicity of a domed church, the basilica still deserves equal scientific attention. Even the Syrian Hellenistic one.

343 “Adottando la tipologia basilicale, quindi, in Armenia si assisterebbe ad un processo di assimilazione di forme d'importazione che ‘non troverebbero in pratica riscontro nella cultura locale’ (cio pare francamente alquanto strano).” ALPAGO-NOVELLO, “La basilica di Ererouk” (n. 54), p. 17.

344 Ibidem, p. 18; GANDOLFO, Le basiliche armene (n. 57), p. 76.

Conclusion

On the periphery of academic awareness, at the border of the state, on the margin of historiography, the Armenian basilica of Ererouk seems to be of little or no significance to the traditional art history. The existing research has further limited itself to the formalistic debate over the shape of pillars, the type of covering, and phases of construction. Due to the difficulty of art historians to satisfactorily answer these questions, the study of Ererouk has gradually become primarily a domain of archaeology. This shift is, nevertheless, no reason for despair as particularly the excavations having taken place at the site over the last 15 years provided much better knowledge of the structure and its surroundings than ever before. The intention of this thesis was therefore to summarize the latest findings and outline the ways in which they might enrich the art historical discussion. First of all, in accordance with the detailed analysis of the remains, the archaeological missions resulted in a new hypothetical reconstruction of the original form of the building. The outcome enables us to reevaluate the comparisons made in the past and situate the basilica within a broader architectural context outreaching the historical Armenia itself – analogies are found especially in Syria and Asia Minor. A more comprehensive review of related designs should be, however, made in future on a broader scale. Secondly, major attention was for the first time paid to the surroundings of the basilica. Not only the minor architectural structures, but also the lapidary fragments were carefully recorded and analyzed facilitating thus a better understanding of the complete disposition of the area. The prevalence of sepulchers and funerary monuments gave prominence to the mortuary character of the site and opened up new questions about its consecutive use. Although not pursued in this thesis, an extensive examination of Armenian funerary rituals would be needed to fill

the present-day blanks and help us comprehend the spatial setting of the practices. Finally, the unusual elements such as the corner chambers, external apsidioles, and porticoes were proved to be conceived as parts of the initial design of the church. The originality of these spaces serve as a basis of a further inquiry after their purpose. It was suggested that the eastern corner chambers flanking the apse might have been derived form the north Syrian disposition combining a treasury and a chapel of martyrs. Probably the south one of these rooms would then serve to house precious remains of the immensely venerated martyrs Saint Stephen and Saint John the Baptist, mentioned by the Armenian inscription carved next to the apse. Consequently, the portico concluded by the external apse running along the south facade might have sheltered secondary liturgical ceremonies related to the monstration of the relics to the pilgrims, distribution of contact relics, and possibly also baptismal or funerary rituals. Needless to say, the theories presented here are but mere speculations revealing a significant void in the existing studies of the Ererouk basilica, the primary objective of which was to anchor the building within a strictly formal architectural frame of reference. The possibility of a functional or liturgical justification of its unique disposition represented, at best, only a marginal interest without any constructive implications. It is of the utmost importance, I believe, to analyze the character of the ritual practices – the day-to-day services as well as the particular ceremonies related to baptism, display of relics, and funerals – and to evaluate to what extent it might provide answers which were so far searched for only in the domain of formalistic art history and archaeology. Such a gap can not be bridged on the level of a bachelor thesis as it requires a comprehensive analysis of sources that are difficult to access both linguistically and physically. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to outline several directions in which the research could be pursued in future – in

particular the role of the sanctuary as a pilgrimage centre, liturgical contextualisation and a possible reevaluation of the relationship with Syria on its basis. The intention of the construction as a martyrium of prestigious saints might also help to overcome the seeming insularity of Armenia created by historiography, and to demonstrate its active engagement within the Late Antique cult of martyrs and pilgrimage. The basilica of Ererouk therefore definitely deserves our second look.

Bibliography

Sources

CONYBEARE, F. C., Rituale Armenorum: being the administration of the sacraments and the breviary rites of the Armenian Church, together with the Greek rites of baptism and epiphany edited from the oldest manuscripts, Oxford 1905.

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum XXX, Vienna 1866.

FINDIKYAN, M. D., The Commentary on the Armenian Daily Office by Bishop Step‘anos Siwnec‘i († 735) (Orientalia Christiana Analecta CCLXX), Rome, 2004.

GOAR, J., Euchologion sive Rituale Graecorum, Venice 1730.

HAKOBYAN, V. A., Կանոնագիրք Հայոց I [Book of Canons of the Armenians, in Armenian], Yerevan 1964.

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, St., MAYER, W., The Cult of the Saints: Select Homilies and Letters, New York 2006.

MARDIROSSIAN, A., Le Livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayots‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i. Église, droit et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle, Leuven 2004.

TER-VARDANIAN, G., Մայր Մաշտոց. Ժ դար I [Principal Ritual. Xth c., in Armenian], Etchmiadzin 2012.

THOMSON, R. W., Agathangelos: History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary, Albany 1976.

THOMSON, R. W., The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos I, Liverpool 1999.

Secondary literature von ABICH, O. W. H., Aus dem Kaukasischen Ländern: Reisebriefe von Hermann Abich Herausgegeben von dessen Witwe I, Vienna 1896.

ALISHAN, G., Շիրակ [Shirak, in Armenian], Venice 1881.

ALPAGO-NOVELLO, Art and Architecture in Medieval Georgia, Leuven 1980.

ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., “La basilica di Ererouk. Annotazioni critiche”, in: PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A. (eds), Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, pp. 16–27.

ANANIAN, P., “La date e le circostanze della consecrazione di S. Gregorio Illuminatore”, Le Musèon LXXIV (1961), pp. 43–73, 319–360.

Architettura medievale armena: Roma, Palazzo Venezia, 10–30 giugno 1968, Rome 1968.

ARUTYUNYAN, V. M., Zvartnots, Yerevan 1954.

ARUTYUNYAN, V. M., SAFARYAN, S. A., Памятники армянского зодчества [Monuments of Armenian Architecture, in Russian], Moscow 1951.

AVETISYAN, K., “Տարոնի պատմական հուշարձանները” [Historical monuments of Taron, in Armenian], Հայրենագիտական էտյուդներ [Armenian studies sketches, in Armenian], Yerevan 1979, pp. 199–211.

BAILET, P., DONABÉDIAN, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., MARCHAND, G., MARTINEZ, D., SCHNEIDER, L., “Nouvelles rechereches sur l’ensemble paléochrétien et médiéval d’Ereruyk en Arménie”, Antiquité Tardive XX (2012), pp. 315–341.

BALADIAN, A. T., “Toros Toramanian”, Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot LXXXI (2002), pp. 17–19.

100

BERIDSE, V., “ბოლნისის სიონი” [Bolnissi Sioni, in Georgian], in: ქართული საბჭოთა ენციკლოპედია II [Georgian Soviet Encyclopaedia, in Georgian], Tbilisi 1977, p. 454.

BERIDSE, V., NEUBAUER, E., Die Baukunst des Mittelalters in Georgien vom 4. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, Vienna 1981.

BESSAC, J.-C., “Observations sur la construction monumentale dans le nord- ouest de la République d’Arménie”, Syria 88 (2011), pp. 379–415.

BESSAC, J.-C., “Observations sur la construction de la basilique d’Ererouk en République d’Arménie”, Syria 89 (2012), pp. 331–366.

BOVON, F., “The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr”, The Harvard Theological Review CXVI/3 (2003), pp. 279–315.

BRAUN, J., Der christliche Altar, Munich 1924.

BROSSET, M.-F. Les ruines d’Ani, capitale de l’Arménie sous les rois bagratides, aux Xe et XIe siècles: histoire et description, Saint Petersburg 1860–1861.

BROWN, P., The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity, Chicago 1981.

BUNIATOV, N. G., YARALOV, Y. S., Архитектура Армении [Armenian Architecture, in Russian], Moscow 1950.

COWE, S. P., Ani: World Architectural Heritage of a Medieval Armenian Capital, Leuven 2001.

CUNEO, P., Ani (Documenti di Architettura Armena 12), Milan 1984.

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

CURZON, R., Armenia: a year at Erzeroom, and on the frontiers of Russia, Turkey, and Persia, New York 1854.

CUNEO, P., L’architettura della scuola regionale di Ani nell’Armenia medievale: relazione svolta nella seduta del I° marzo 1976, Rome 1977.

101

DER NERSESSIAN, S., L’art arménien, Paris 1977.

DESCOEUDRES, G., Die Pastophorien im syro-byzantinischen Osten, Wiesbaden 1983.

DIETZ, M., Wandering Monks, Virgins, and Pilgrims: Ascetic Travel in the Mediterranean World, A. D. 300–800, University of Pennsylvania 2005.

DONABÉDIAN, P., “Compte rendu de Su. Mnatsakanyan 1982”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XIX (1985), pp. 450–458.

DONABÉDIAN, P., “Ereruyk’: nouvelles données sur l’histoire du site et de la basilique”, Travaux et Mémoires XVIII (2014), pp. 241–284.

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

DONABÉDIAN, P., “L’âge d’or de l’architecture arménienne”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, pp. 76–87.

DONABÉDIAN, P., “Le khatchkar”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, pp. 153–175, 310–322.

DONABÉDIAN, P., “Le portail dans l’architecture arménienne du haut Moyen Âge”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XX (1986–1987), pp. 337–380.

DONABÉDIAN, P., “Les premiers édifices chrétiens d’Arménie”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, pp. 48–59.

DONABÉDIAN, P., “Les thèmes bibliques dans la sculpture arménienne préarabe”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXII (1990–1991), pp. 247–308.

DONABÉDIAN, P., “Notes d’architecture et d’archéologie médiévale en Arménie”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXIII (1992), pp. 273–308.

102

DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S., JORDA, C., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix-Marseille 2012. Online:〈halshs-00800724〉

DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013. Online:〈 halshs-00907001〉

DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 2: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 2: Etude anthropologique des sépultures, University Aix-Marseille 2013. Online:〈halshs-00906307〉

DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014. Online:〈halshs-01075566〉

DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015. Online: 〈halshs-01223227〉

DUBOIS DE MONTPÉREUX, F., Voyage autour du Caucase, chez les Tcherkesses et les Abkhases, en Colchide, en Géorgie, en Arménie et en Crimée, Paris 1839–1843.

ELSNER, J., “The Birth of Late Antiquity: Riegl and Strzygowski in 1901”, Art History XXV/3 (2002), pp. 358–379.

FELLE, A. E., Biblia epigraphica. La Sacra Scrittura nella documentazione epigraphica dell’Orbis christianus antiquus (III–VIII secolo), Bari 2006.

103

FINDIKYAN, M. D., “The Armenian Ritual of the Dedication of a Church: Analysis of Three Early Sources”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica LXIV (1998), pp. 75–121.

GALICHIAN, R., Historic Maps of Armenia: The Cartographic Heritage, London 2014.

GANDOLFO, F., Le basiliche armene, IV–VI secolo, Rome 1982.

GARIBIAN DE VARTAVAN, N., La Jérusalem nouvelle et ler premiers sanctuaires chrétiens de lʼArménie, Yerevan 2009.

GARSOÏAN, N. G., Interregnum: Introduction to a Study on the Formation of Armenian Identity (ca 600–750), Leuven 2012.

GÉLIS, J., Les Enfants des Limbes. Mort-nés et parent dans l’Europe chrétienne, Paris 2006.

GLÜCK, H., “Der christliche (syrisch-kleinasiatische) Hellenismus”, in: STRZYGOWSKI, J. (ed.), Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa I, Vienna 1918, pp. 407–419.

GLÜCK, H., “Die hellenistische Überlieferung: Das tonnengewölbte Langhaus”, in: STRZYGOWSKI, J. (ed.), Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa I, Vienna 1918, pp. 373–403.

GREENWOOD, T., “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions”, Dumbarton Oaks Paper LVIII, pp. 27–91.

GREENWOOD, T., “Armenian Epigraphy”, in: CALZORALI, V., STONE, M. E. (eds), Armenian Philology in the Modern Era: From Manuscript to the Digital Text, Leiden 2014, pp. 101–121.

GRIGORYAN, A., Անի. Հազարամյա Մայրաքաղաք Հայոց – Ani. The millenial capital of Armenia, Yerevan 2015.

GRIGORYAN, G., Early Medieval Four-Sided Stelae in Armenia, Yerevan 2012.

104

GRIGORYAN, V., “Երերույքը հայ հանճարի փայլատակումներից է” [Ereruyk is one of the jewels of Armenien genius, in Armenian], Սովետական արվեստ [Soviet art, in Armenian] VIII (1989), pp. 32–38.

GRIGORYAN, V., “Reconstruction of the Ereruyk Basilica”, Atti del quinto simposio internazionale di arte armena: Venezia, 28 maggio – 5 giugno 1988, Venice 1992, pp. 179–184.

HAHN, C., “The Voices of the Saints: Speaking Reliquaries”, Gesta XXVI/1 (1997), pp. 20–31.

HAKOBYAN, M., “Աշտարակի ‘Ծիրանավոր’ եկեղեցին” [The ‘apricot’ church of Ashtarak, in Armenian], Ետչմիադզինե [Etchmiadzin, in Armenian] X–XII (1990), pp. 87–103.

HAKOBYAN, T., Անիի պատմություն [History of Ani, in Armenian], Yerevan 1980.

HAKOBYAN, T., Ани - столица средневековой Армении. История и судьба городища [Ani – The capital of medieval Armenia. The history and destiny of the settlement, in Russian], Yerevan 1985.

HAKOBYAN, T., Անի մայրաքաղաք [Ani the capital, in Armenian], Yerevan 1988.

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

HASRATIAN, M. M., Histoire de l’architecture arménienne des origines à nos jours, Meyzieu 2010.

Հայ ժողովրդի պատմություն II [History of the Armenian people, in Armenian], Yerevan 1984.

HEWSEN, R. H., SALVATICO, C. C., Armenia: A Historical Atlas, Chicago 2001.

HUGHES, J. H., “John the Baptist: The forerunner of God Himself”, Novum Testamentum XIV/3 (1972), pp. 191–218.

105

ISKANYAN, V. K., Հայ-բյուզանդական հարաբերությունները ՎԻ-ՎԻԻ դդ. [Armeno-Byzantine relations in the 4th-7th cs., in Armenian], Yerevan 1991.

JOHNSON, E., “Burial ad sanctos”, in: TYALOR, L. J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Medieval Pilgrimage, Leiden, Boston 2010, pp. 68–70.

KALANTARIAN, A., Dvin: histoire et archéologie de la ville médievale, Neuchâtel, Paris 1996.

KAZARYAN, A., “Алтарная преграда и литургическое пространство храма Звартноц” [The Chancel and Liturgical Space in the Church of Zvartnots, in Russian], in: LIDOV, A. M. (ed.), Иконостас: Происхождение – развитие – символика [Ikonostas: Origin – Evolution – Symbolism, in Russian], Moscow 2000, pp. 85–117.

KAZARYAN, A., Церковная архитектура стран Закавказья VII века: Формирование и развитие традици II [Church architecture of the 7th century in Transcaucasian countries: Formation and development of the tradition, in Russian], Moscow 2012.

KAZARYAN, A., Кафедральный собор Сурб Эчмиадзин и восточнохристианское зодчество IV- VII веков [Cathedral of Holy Ejmiacin and the Eastern Christian architecture of the 4th–7th centuries, in Russian], Moscow 2007.

KEVORKIAN, R. H., Ani: capitale de l’Arménie en lʼan mil : Pavillon des arts 7 février - 13 mai 2001, Paris 2001.

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

KLEINBAUER, W. E., “Zvart’nots and the Origins of Christian Architecture in Armenia”, The Art Bulletin LIV/3 (1972), pp. 245–262.

KOUYMJIAN, D., “Breve cronologia storica”, in: PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A. (eds), Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, pp. 28–29.

106

KOUYMJIAN, D., “Երերուկի Բազիլիկայի Պատմութեան Հետկերով” [On the Historical Tracks of the Ererouk basilica, in Armenian], ՀԱՍԿ [HASK, in Armenian] XLIII/7–8 (1974), pp. 296–310.

KOUYMJIAN, D., “Reliquaire de la main de saint Jean-Baptiste”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, pp. 279–280.

KOUYMJIAN, D., “Reliques et reliquaires. Comment les Arméniens honorent leurs saints”, in: DERMERGUÉRIAN, R., DONABÉDIAN, P. (eds), Armeniaca 2, La culture arménienne hier et aujourd’hui, Aix-en-Provence 2008, pp. 171–182.

KRAUTHEIMER, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Harmondsworth 1965.

KRAUTHEIMER, R., “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Medieval

Architecture’”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes V (1942), pp. 1– 33.

LASSUS, J., “Liturgies nestoriennes médiévales et églises syriennes antiques”, Revue de lʼhistoire des religions CXXXVII/2 (1950), pp. 236–252.

LASSUS, J., “Nouveaux relevés d’églises dans la Syrie du Nord”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettre XCI/1 (1947), pp. 158–174.

LASSUS, J., Sanctuaires chrétiens de la Syrie: essai sur la genèse, la forme et l’usage liturgique des édifices du culte chrétien en Syrie, du IIIe siècle à la conquete musulmane, Paris 1947.

LEEMANS, J., ALLEN, P., MAYER, W., DEHANDSCHUTTER, B., “Let Us Die that We May Live”: Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria (c. AD 350-c. AD 450), New York 2003.

107

LEHNER, E., OHANDJANIAN, A., Die Baukunst Armeniens: christliche Kultur an der Schwelle des Abendlandes, Vienna 2004.

LETT, D., “Faire le deuil d’un enfant mort sans baptême au Moyen Âge: la naissance du Limbe pour enfants aux XIIe- XIIIe siècles”, Devenir VII/1 (1995), pp. 101–112. van LINT, T. M., “The Formation of Armenian Identity in the First Millenium”, Church History and Religious Culture LXXXIX/1 (2009), pp. 251– 278.

LYNCH, H. F. B., Armenia, travels and studies, London 1901.

MACHABELI, K., Early medieval Georgian stone crosses, Tbilisi 2008.

MACHAVARIANI, H., ბოლნისის სიონის სამშენებლო წარწერა [Epigraphy from Bolnisi Sioni, in Georgian], Tbilisi 1985.

MANGO, C. A., Byzantinische Architektur, Stuttgart 1975.

MANUTCHARYAN, A., “Երերույքի տաճարի վիմագրերը” [Lapidary inscriptions of the church of Ererouk, in Armenian], Հին հայաստանի մշակույթը [The culture of ancient Armenia, in Armenian] XIV (2008), pp. 287– 288.

MARANCI, C., “A Comparison of Psalms Read in the Byzantine and Armenian Church Dedication Rites”, online: https://auralarchitecture.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/maranci- a_comparison_of_psalms_read_in_the_byzantine_and_armenian_church_d edication_rites.pdf

MARANCI, C., “Armenian Architecture as Aryan Architecture: The Role of Indo-European Scholarship in the Theories of Josef Strzygowski”, Visual Resources XIII/3–4 (1998), pp. 363–380.

108

MARANCI, C., “Basilicas and Black Holes: The Legacy of Josef Strzygowski and the Case of Armenian Architecture”, Acta Historiae Artium XLVII/1 (2006), pp. 313–320.

MARANCI, C., “Building Churches in Armenia: Art at the Border of Empire and the Edge of the Canon”, The Art Bulletin LXXXVIII/4 (2006), pp. 656–675.

MARANCI, C., “Byzantium through Armenian Eyes: Cultural Appropriation and the Church of Zuart’noc‘”, Gesta XL/2 (2001), pp. 105– 124.

MARANCI, C., “‘Holiness Befits Your House’ (Ps. 92 [93]:5): A Preliminary Report on the Apse Inscription in Mren”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXXVI (2014), pp. 237–259.

MARANCI, C., Medieval Armenian Architecture: Constructions of Race and Nation, Leuven 2001.

MARANCI, C., “Medieval Armenian Architecture in Historiography: Josef Strzygowski and his Legacy”, Mnημειο kai Пεριβαλλον [Monument and Environment, in Russian] (1998–1999), pp. 169–173.

MARANCI, C., “New Evidence for the Wall Paintings and Triumphal Arch Inscription at Mren”, Banber Matenadarani XXI (2014), pp. 293–299.

MARANCI, C., “New Observation on the Frescoes at Mren”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXXV (2013), pp. 203–225.

MARANCI, C., “Performance and Church Exterior in Early Medieval Armenia”, in: GERTSMAN, E. (ed.), Visualizing Medieval Performance: Perspectives, Histories, Contexts, London 2008, pp. 17–32.

MARANCI, C., “The Archaeology and Reconstruction Theories of Zuart’noc‘”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers LVIII (2015), pp. 69–115.

109

MARANCI, C., “The Art and Architecture of Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush”, in: HOVANNISIAN, R. G. (ed.), Armenian Baghesh/Bitlis and Taron/Mush, Costa Mesa, California 2002, pp. 119–146.

MARANCI, C., “The Historiography of Armenian Architecture: Josef Strzygowski, Austria, and Armenia”, Révue des études arméniennes XXVIII/1 (2001–2002), pp. 287–308.

MARANCI, C., “The Monument and the World: Zuart’noc‘ and the Problem of Origins”, Convivium supplementum (2016), pp. 70–87.

MARANCI, C., Vigilant Powers: Three Churches of Early Medieval Armenia, Turnhout 2015.

MARCHAND, S. L., “The Rhetoric of Artifacts and the Decline of Classical Humanism: the Case of Josef Strzygowski”, History and Theory XXXIII/4 (1994), pp. 106–130.

MARE, W. H., The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area, Eugene 2002.

MARQUAND, A., “Strzygowski and His Theory of Early Christian Art”, The Harvard Theological Review III/3 (1910), pp. 357–365.

MARR, N. Y., Ани, книжная история города и раскопки на месте городища [Ani, History of the city according to literary sources and the excavations of the site of the ancient city, in Russian], Leningrad, Moscow 1934.

MARR, N. Y., “Ani, la ville arménienne en ruines d’après les fouilles de 1892–1893 et de 1904–1917”, Revue des Études Arméniennes I (1921), pp. 395– 410

MARR, N. Y., Ani, rêve d’Arménie, Paris 2001.

MARR N. Y., “Ереруйкская базилика, армянский храм V—VI вв.” [Basilica of Ererouk, Armenian sanctuary of the Vth–VIth cs., in Russian], Записки Восточного отделения Императорского Русского Археологического

110

общества [Notes of the Oriental Section of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Society, in Russian] XVIII/I (1907–1908), pp. XII–XIV.

MARR, N. Y., Ереруйкская базилика, армянский храм V—VI вв. в окрестностях Ани [Basilica of Yererouk, Armenian sanctuary of the Vth–VIth cs. in the vicinity of Ani, in Russian], Yerevan 1968.

MARR N. Y., “Матеріалы къ исторіи армянскаго искусства въ Ширакѣ. Камсаракановскій періодъ. Ереруйская базилика – Matériaux pour servir à lʼhistoire de lʼart arménien dans le Chirak. Ere Kamsarakane. Basilique dʼErerou” [in Russian], Известия Санкт-Петербургской императорской академии наук – Bulletin de lʼAcadémie Impériale des Sciences de Saint- Pétersbourg, serie VI, III/16 (1909), p. 1091.

MARR, N. Y., “Новые археологические данные о постройках типа Ереруйкской базилики” [New archeologic findings on the buildings of the Ererouk basilica type, in Russian], Записки Восточного отделения Императорского Русского Археологического общества [Notes of the Oriental Section of the Russian Imperial Archaeological Society, in Russian] XIX/1 (1909–1910), pp. 64–68.

MARUTYAN, T., Զվարտնոտս եվ Զվարտնոտսատիպ տաչարներ [Zvartnots and churches of the Zvartnots type, in Armenian], Yerevan 1963.

MEPISACHVILI, R., TSINTSADZE, V., LʼArt de la Géorgie ancienne, Paris 1978.

MILLET, G., L’École grecque dans l’architecture byzantine, Paris 1916, pp. 15–53.

MNATSAKANIAN, St., Крестовокупольные композиции Армении и Византии V—VII веков [Dome compositions of Armenia and Byzantium in 5th to 7th cs., in Russian], Yerevan 1989.

MNATSAKANIAN, St., Նիկողայոս Մառը եվ հայկական ճարտարապետությունը [Nicolas Marr and Armenian Architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1969.

111

MNATSAKANIAN, St., Звартноц: памятники армянского зодчества 6-7 вв. [Zvartnots: monument of the Armenian architecture of the 6th – 7th cs., in Russian], Moscow 1971.

MNATSAKANIAN, Su., Հայկական վաղ միջնադարյան մեմորիալ հուշարձանները [Armenian commemorative monuments of the Early Middle Ages, in Armenian], Yerevan 1982.

MOMMERT, C., Saint Étienne et ses sanctuaires à Jérusalem, Jerusalem 1912.

MONTEVECCHI, N., TONGHINI, C., “Lo sviluppo construttivo della basilica di Ererouk (Armenia), secoli VI-X: una ri-lettura archeologica”, Arqueología de la Arquitectura 9 (2012), pp. 29–56.

MOURAVIEV, S. N., Erkataguir ou Comment naquit l’alphabet arménien, Sankt Augustin 2010.

ORBELI, I. A., Դիվան հայ վիմագրության I, Անի քաղաք [Corpus of Armenian inscriptions I, City of Ani, in Armenian], Yerevan 1966.

ORBELI, I. A., Избранные Труды [Selected works, in Russian], Yerevan 1963.

PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977.

PABOUDJIAN, P., “La basilica di Ererouk. Profilo descrittivo-illustrativo”, in: PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A. (eds), Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, pp. 5–15.

PAGLAZOVA, N. M., “Текор – храм Камсараканов” [Tekor – the Kamsarakan Church, in Russian], Архитектурное наследство [Architectural heritage, in Russian] L (2009), pp. 5–16.

PETROSYAN, H., Khachkar: the origins, symbolism and applications, Yerevan 2008.

112

PETROSYAN, H., “La sculpture médievale arménienne et les khatchkar: pierres-croix”, in: ULUHOGIAN, G., ZEKIYAN, B. L., KARAPETIAN, V. (eds), Arménie: Impressions dʼune civilisation, Milan 2011, pp. 69–75.

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.

RAMSAY, W. M., BELL, G. L., The thousand and one churches, London 1909.

SAHINIAN, A., Քասաղի բազիլիկայի ճարտարապետությունը [The Architecture of the Basilica of Kassagh’, in Armenian], Yerevan 1955.

SAHINIAN, A. A., HOVHANNISYAN, K. K., MNATSAKANIAN, St., BABAYAN, L. M., Ակնարկ հայ ճարտարապետության պատմության [Survey of history of the Armenian architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1964.

SAINTYVES, P., “Les résurrections dʼenfants morts-nés et les sanctuaires ‘à répit’”, Revue dʼEtnographie et de Sociologie III–IV (1911), pp. 65–74.

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

SHAKHKYAN, G., Հայ ժողովրդի ճարտարապետական-շինարարական գործունեությունը VIII–IX դարերում [Architectural activity and construction of the Armenian people in 8th–9th cs, in Armenian], Yerevan 2004.

SHAKHKYAN, G., Օձունի եկեղեցու [The church of Odzoun, in Armenian], Yerevan 1983.

SHELOV-KOVEDIAEV, F. V., “Заметки по греческои епиграфике Армении” [Notes on the Greek epigraphy of Armenia, in Russian], Պատմա- Բանասիրական Հանդես [Historical-Philological Journal, in Armenian] I (1986), pp. 59–65.

113

SINCLAIR, T. A., Eastern Turkey: An Architectural & Archaeological Survey I, London 1989.

SMITH, J. C., “Form and Function of the Side Chambers of the Fifth- and Sixth-Century Churches in Ravenna”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians XLIX/2 (1990), pp. 181–204.

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

TAFT, R. F., “The Armenian Liturgy: Its Origin and Characteristics”, in: MATHEWS, T. F., WIECK, R. S. (eds), Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion, and Society, New York 1998, pp. 13–30.

TCHALENKO, G., Villages antiques de la Syrie du nord, Paris 1953.

TCHUBINACHVILI, G. N., Кхандиси [Khandisi, in Russian], Tbilisi 1972.

TER-MARTIROSSOV, F. I., “Археологические разыскания памятников в Ереруйке” [Archaeological researches of the monuments in Yererouk, in Russian], VI республиканская научная конференция по проблемам культуры и искусства Армении. Тезисы докладов [VIth republican scientific conference on the problems of culture and art of Armenia. Theses of reports, in Russian], Yerevan 1987, pp. 216–218.

TER-MARTIROSSOV, F. I., “Малоизученные памятники Ереруйка” [Little studied monuments of Yererouk, in Russian], Հայոց սրբերը և սրբավայրերը [Saints and sanctuaries of Armenia], Yerevan 2001, pp. 234–243.

TETERIATNIKOV, N., “Upper-Story Chapels Near the Sanctuary in Churches of the Christian East”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers XLII (1988), pp. 65– 72.

TEXIER, C. F. M., Description de l’Arménie, la Perse et la Mésopotamie, Paris 1842–1852.

THIERRY, J.-M., Armenian Art, New York 1989

THIERRY, J.-M., L’Arménie au Moyen Age, Paris 2000.

114

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

THOMSON, R. W., “Jerusalem and Armenia”, Studia patristica XVIII/1 (1986), pp. 77–91.

TOKARSKII, N. M., Архитектура Армении IV—XIV вв. [Architecture of Armenia in IVth–XIVth cs, in Russian], Yerevan 1961.

TORAMANIAN, T., Հայկական ճարտարապետություն I [Materials on the history of Armenian architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1942.

TORAMANIAN, T., Հայկական ճարտարապետություն II [Materials on the history of Armenian architecture, in Armenian], Yerevan 1948.

TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911.

TORAMANIAN, T., Զվարթնոց, Գագկաշեն [Zvartnots, Gagkashen, in Armenian], Yerevan 1984.

TOUMANOFF, C., “Kamsarakan”, Encyclopædia Iranica XV/5, pp. 453–455.

TZORTZIS, S., SÉGUY, I., “Pratiques funéraires en lien avec les décès des nouveaux nés”, Archéo-anthropologie funéraire XXII (2008), pp. 75–92.

VARDANIAN, V., ZARIAN, A., “Մշո Ս. Կարապետ վանք” [S. Karapet monastery of Mush, in Armenian], in: Հայկական սովետական հանրագիտարան VII [Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, in Armenian], Yerevan 1981, p. 660.

VYSOTSKY, A., The church at Tekor and the history of its construction, Yerevan 1978.

WATENPAUGH, H. Z., “Preserving the medieval city of Ani: cultural heritage between contest and reconciliation”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians LXXIII/4 (2014), pp. 528–555.

115

WINKLER, G., “Our Present Knowledge on the History of Agat‘angelos and its Oriental Versions”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XIV (1980), pp. 125–141.

YAKOBSON, A. L., Очерк истории зодчества Армении В— ХВИИ веков [Essays on the history of architecture of Armenia in the Vth–XVIIth centuries, in Russian], Moscow-Leningrad 1950.

YUZBASHYAN, K., “L’invention de l’alphabet arménien: de langue parlée à la langue écrite”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXXIII (2011), pp. 67–129.

ZÄH, A., BUSCHHAUSEN, H., MARANCI, C., “Josef Strzygowski als Initiator der christlich-kunsthistorischen Orientforschung und Visionär der Kunstwissenschaft”, Römische Quartalschrift für Christlichen Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte CVII (2012), pp. 249–292.

Web sites http://7mostendangered.eu/2016-list/. http://cantusindex.org/id/002425. http://www.gov.am/en/regions/. http://la3m.cnrs.fr/pages/recherche/axes/axe- 2/A2_Prog3/ereruyk/ererouyk.php. https://www.virtualani.org/. https://www.virtualani.org/kizkale/index.htm. http://www.virtualani.org/marr/index.htm.

116

List of illustrations

1/ The basilica of Ererouk (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 107.)

2/ Engraving of the basilica by D. Yessayan (ALISHAN, G., Շիրակ [Shirak, in Armenian], Venice 1881, fig. 78.)

3/ Inscription of the queen Katranide mentioning the toponym Ererouk (ALISHAN, G., Շիրակ [Shirak, in Armenian], Venice 1881, fig. 79.)

4/ Inscription from the Kizkale church in Ani (ORBELI, I. A., Դիվան հայ վիմագրության I, Անի քաղաք [Corpus of Armenian inscriptions I, City of Ani, in Armenian], Yerevan 1966, fig. XIX.)

5/ Ground plan of the basilica as drawn by Abich in 1844 (von ABICH, O. W. H., Aus dem Kaukasischen Ländern: Reisebriefe von Hermann Abich Herausgegeben von dessen Witwe I, Vienna 1896, p. 201.)

6/ Dimensions of a pillar recorded by Marr (GANDOLFO, F., Le basiliche armene, IV–VI secolo, Rome 1982, fig. 150.)

7/ Ground plan drawn by Toramanian (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, fig. 18.)

8/ Ground plan drawn by Toramanian with possible interventions of Strzygovski (STRZYGOWSKI, J., Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa, Vienna 1918, fig. 177)

117

9/ Reconstruction suggested by Tokarskii (TOKARSKII, N. M., Архитектура Армении IV—XIV вв. [Architecture of Armenia in IVth–XIVth cs, in Russian], Yerevan 1961, fig. 22.)

10/ Hypothetical cross-section of the basilica published in Ererouk (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 56, fig. 1.)

11/ Ground plan of the original core of the church with later annexes (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 56, fig. 2.)

12/ Phases of construction according to Montevecchi and Tonghini (MONTEVECCHI, N., TONGHINI, C., “Lo sviluppo construttivo della basilica di Ererouk (Armenia), secoli VI-X: una ri-lettura archeologica”, Arqueología de la Arquitectura 9 (2012), fig. 14.)

13/ Phases of construction suggested by Bessac (BESSAC, J.-C., “Observations sur la construction de la basilique d’Ererouk en République d’Arménie”, Syria 89 (2012), fig. 20.)

14/ Phases of construction according to LA3M (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 24.)

15/ Topographical plan of the site (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 3.)

118

16/ Reconstruction proposed by LA3M (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 6.)

17/ Localization of Ererouk and Ani (Wikimedia Commons)

18/ Ground plan of the basilica recorded by LA3M (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 5.)

19/ View into the basilica from the west (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

20/ North inner wall of the basilica (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

21/ South inner wall of the basilica (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

22/ Base of the easternmost cruciform pillar in the south line (MONTEVECCHI, N., TONGHINI, C., “Lo sviluppo construttivo della basilica di Ererouk (Armenia), secoli VI-X: una ri-lettura archeologica”, Arqueología de la Arquitectura 9 (2012), fig. 18.)

23/ Cross-sections of the basilica through the south entrances (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 52.)

24/ Northeast corner chamber (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

25/ Northwest corner chamber, sometimes considered as a baptistery (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

119

26/ North facade of the basilica with the protruding corner chambers (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

27/ Gallery along the north facade ending with an apse (DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S.,., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix-Marseille 2012, fig. 140.)

28/ Gallery along the south facade ending with an apse (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 110.)

29/ Fragment of a column from a portico (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

30/ Lateral facades of the basilica (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 51.)

31/ Reconstruction of the portico along the south facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 8.)

32/ Reconstruction of the portico along the north facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 9.)

33/ Remains of the lowered portico along the west facade (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

120

34/ Reconstruction of the lowered portico along the west facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 7.)

35/ View of the basilica with the crepidoma from the south (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

36/ Rock foundations of the apse (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 64.)

37/ Rubble masonry of the basilica (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

38/ Decoration of the apse (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

39/ Pilasters flanking the apse on the north (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

40/ Pilasters flanking the apse on the south (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

41/ Traces of a plaster at the base of the apsidal conch (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 32.)

121

42/ West side of the pilaster flanking the apse on the north (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 148.)

43/ South side of the pilaster flanking the apse on the north (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 149.)

44/ West side of the north impost of the apsidal arch (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 145.)

45/ South side of the north impost of the apsidal arch (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 144.)

46/ North side of the south impost of the apsidal arch (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 146.)

47/ West side of the south impost of the apsidal arch (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 147.)

122

48/ North side of the pilaster flanking the apse on the south (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 150.)

49/ West side of the pilaster flanking the apse on the south (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 151.) 50/ North external apse (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

51/ Capital of the pilaster flanking the north exterior apse on the north (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

52/ Capital of the pilaster flanking the north exterior apse on the south (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

53/ South external apse (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

54/ Capital of the pilaster flanking the south exterior apse on the north (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 158.)

55/ Capital of the pilaster flanking the south exterior apse on the south (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 159.)

123

56/ North facade of the basilica (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 113.)

57/ South facade of the basilica (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

58/ West portal of the south facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 121.)

59/ Drawing of the west portal of the south facade (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, fig. 17.)

60/ Lintel of the west portal of the south facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 138.)

61/ East portal of the south facade (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

62/ Drawing of the east portal of the south facade (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, fig. 19.)

63/ Lintel of the east portal of the south facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 122.)

124

64/ Window of the south facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 126.)

65/ Window of the west facade partially covered by the lowered portico (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

66/ Pilaster of the west facade (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

67/ West portal (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

68/ Lintel of the west portal (Wikimedia Commons)

69/ Acanthus capital of the west portal (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

70/ Geometric impost of the west portal (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

71/ West window of the northwest corner chamber (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

72/ Triple window in the gable of the west facade (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

73/ East facade (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 114.)

74/ Lapidary fragment decorated by a cross in a medallion (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

125

75/ Capital of a column found on the site (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 133.)

76/ Capitals decorated with medallions and rosettes (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

77/ Capital from Ererouk recorded by Strzygowski in the museum of Ani (STRZYGOWSKI, J., Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa, Vienna 1918, fig. 456.)

78/ Funerary zone on the south of the basilica (DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S.,., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix-Marseille 2012, fig. 11.)

79/ Layout of the sepulchers (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 99.)

80/ Tombstone near the basilica (DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S.,., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix-Marseille 2012, fig. 131.)

81/ Sarcophagus near the basilica (DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S.,., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix-Marseille 2012, fig. 13.)

126

82/ Pedestals on the south of the basilica (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 15.)

83/ Fragments of funerary stelae found on the site (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

84/ Reconstruction of the funerary stelae (Detail of: DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 6.)

85/ Traces of a settlement on the west from the basilica (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

86/ Traces of a settlement on the south from the basilica (DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S.,., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix-Marseille 2012, fig. 20.)

87/ Reconstruction of the east perimeter wall (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 43.)

88/ Traces of the perimeter wall on the southeast of the basilica (DONABÉDIAN, P., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., BAILET, P., DORSO, S.,., et al., Ereruyk, site paléochrétien et médiéval (Chirak, Arménie): Mission Ereruyk, rapport de fouilles et d’investigations, campagne 2012: rapport d’opération archéologique, University Aix-Marseille 2012, fig. 14.)

127

89/ Traces of the north exedra in the east perimeter wall (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 81.)

90/ Reconstruction of the north exedra of the east perimeter wall (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 44.)

91/ Wall reinforcing the south side of the valley (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 66.)

92/ Traces of a road leading to the complex noted by LA3M (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 115.)

93/ Exterior of the mausoleum in the valley (Wikimedia Commons)

94/ Interior of the mausoleum in the valley (Wikimedia Commons)

95/ North cave chamber (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 8.)

128

96/ Greek inscription at the southeast corner of the south chamber (photo: courtesy of Katarína Kravčíková, Petr Sudický and Filip Fuchs)

97/ Drawing of the apse of the Mren cathedral (MARANCI, C., “New Evidence for the Wall Paintings and Triumphal Arch Inscription at Mren”, Banber Matenadarani XXI (2014), fig. 17.)

98/ Fragment of the inscription on the triumphal arch in Mren (MARANCI, C., “New Observation on the Frescoes at Mren”, Revue des Études Arméniennes XXXV (2013), fig. 15.)

99/ Armenian three-nave basilicas (DONABÉDIAN, P., BAILET, P., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2014: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk, Arménie, University Aix-Marseille 2014, fig. 6.)

100/ Cross-section of the basilica of Tsitsernavank (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 24.)

101/ Cross-section of the basilicas of Ashtarak and Kasagh (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 25.)

102/ The basilica of Kasagh (Wikimedia Commons)

103/ Lintel of the west portal of the basilica of Kasagh (DONABÉDIAN, P., MARTINEZ, D., BAILET, P., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk, vol. 1: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M. Rapport de la campagne de 2013. Volume 1: Textes et illustrations, University Aix-Marseille 2013, fig. 142.)

104/ The basilica of Tsitsernavank (Wikimedia Commons)

129

105/ The Tsiranavor basilica of Ashtarak (Wikimedia Commons)

106/ Interior of the Tsiranavor basilica of Ashtarak (Wikimedia Commons)

107/ Ground plan of the Etchmiadzin cathedral after 485 (HASRATIAN, M. M., Early Christian architecture of Armenia, Moscow 2000, p. 242.)

108/ Ground plan of the Dvin cathedral at the end of the 5th century (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 55, fig. 16.)

109/ The basilica of Bolnisi (Wikimedia Commons)

110/ North gallery of the Bolnisi basilica terminated by an apse (Wikimedia Commons)

111/ The “Bolnisi cross” (Wikimedia Commons)

112/ North pillar flanking the apse of Bolnisi (Wikimedia Commons)

113/ The church of Odzoun (Wikimedia Commons)

114/ Ground plan of the church of Odzoun (DONABÉDIAN, P., L’âge d’or de l’architecture arménienne. VIIe siècle, Marseille 2008, fig. 170.)

115/ The basilica of Tekor at the beginning of the 20th century (DONABÉDIAN, P., “Les premiers édifices chrétiens d’Arménie”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, fig. 21.)

130

116/ Ground plan of the Tekor basilica recorded by Toramanian (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, fig. 5.)

117/ Phases of the Tekor basilica proposed by Toramanian (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, fig. 6.)

118/ Hypothetical elevation of Tekor before the construction of a dome (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, fig. 15.)

119/ Hypothetical cross-section of Tekor before the construction of a dome (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, fig. 11.)

120/ Details of decoration of the Tekor basilica (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, p. 81.)

121/ Details of a columnar capital and base of the Tekor basilica (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, fig. 31.)

122/ Drawing of the basilica of Tekor from the north (TORAMANIAN, T., Տեկորի տաճարը [The Temple of Tekor, in Armenian], Tiflis 1911, fig. 7.)

123/ Ground plan of the Qalb Loze basilica (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 55, fig. 6.)

124/ West facade of the basilica of Qalb Loze (Wikimedia Commons)

125/ Ground plan of the Ruweiha basilica (PABOUDJIAN, P., ALPAGO-NOVELLO, A., Ererouk (Documenti di Architettura Armena 9), Milan 1977, p. 55, fig. 8.)

131

126/ Drawing of the west facade of the basilica of Ruweiha (KHATCHATRIAN, A., L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe s., Paris 1971, fig. 167.)

127/ Ground plan of the Turmanin basilica (KHATCHATRIAN, A., L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe s., Paris 1971, fig. 164.)

128/ Drawing of the west facade of the basilica of Turmanin (KHATCHATRIAN, A., L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe s., Paris 1971, fig. 163.)

129/ Ground plan of the basilica of El Bara (KHATCHATRIAN, A., L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe s., Paris 1971, fig. 165.)

130/ Ground plan of the basilica of Resafa (KHATCHATRIAN, A., L’architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe s., Paris 1971, fig. 166.)

131/ The church of Saint Simeon Stylites (Wikimedia Commons)

132/ The basilica of Qalb Loze from the southeast (Wikimedia Commons)

133/ The church 32 of Binbirkilise (RAMSAY, W. M., BELL, G. L., The thousand and one churches, London 1909, fig. 164.)

134/ The inscription of the priest Jacob on the north pillar flanking the apse (DONABÉDIAN, P., HANSEN, H.., HARTMANN-VIRNICH, A., JORDA, C., KRÄHENBÜHL, F., et al., Fouilles et investigations à Ereruyk 2015: Mission archéologique franco-arménienne du LA3M à Ereruyk. Rapport de la campagne de 2015, University Aix-Marseille 2015, fig. 15.)

132

135/ The basilica of Saint Stephen founded by the empress Eudocia (MOMMERT, C., Saint Étienne et ses sanctuaires à Jérusalem, Jerusalem 1912, fig. VIII.)

136/ The church of Surb Karapet of Mush from the southwest (LYNCH, H. F. B., Armenia, travels and studies II, London 1901, fig. 156.)

137/ The single nave basilica of Surb Karapet in Hovhannavank (Wikimedia Commons)

138/ Arm reliquary of Saint John the Baptist, Cilicia 17th century (KOUYMJIAN, D., “Reliquaire de la main de saint Jean-Baptiste”, in: DURAND, J., RAPTI, I., GIOVANNONI, D. (eds), Armenia sacra: mémoire chrétienne des Arméniens (IVe – XVIIIe siècle), Paris 2007, p. 279.)

139/ Ruins of the Zvartnots cathedral standing on a crepidoma (Wikimedia Commons)

140/ Armenian inscription above the west portal of the Tekor basilica (GREENWOOD, T., “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions”, Dumbarton Oaks Paper LVIII, fig. 1.)

133