Wczesnochrześcijańskie kościoły bezkopułowe w Armenii. Główne cechy i ewolucja typologiczna układu architektoniczno-przestrzennego

Abstrakt

The paper presents in an abridged form two theses from the author’s doctoral dissertation entitled „The Early Christian Domeless Churches in Armenia” and completed in 1991.

The domeless one- and three-aisle churches constitute the earliest group of Christian edifices in Armenia. A considerable number of buildings (over 50) of the period from the fourth century to the mid-fifth century have been preserved, which is a rare thing in the history of the Early Christian architecture (see the map).

Their exceptional similarity, especially the uniform architectonic-spatial layout, is worth noting: rectangular plan, massing of the elements, the apse is hidden in the walls (with few exceptions), no transept or choir, the side aisles are markedly narrowed in the three-aisle basilica. All buildings, perhaps with the exception of the basilica in Ereruk, were covered with the arched vaulting, most often strengthened by buttresses (tabl. I-IV).

1. Those facts induce one to explain that state of affairs. On comparison with the then Christian architecture in the neighbouring territories that is, Syria, North Mesopotamia or Asia Minor, we could say that particular solutions in Armenia were known also in other regions (e.g. the hidden apse in Syria, the arched vaulting in Asia Minor). Nowhere however, except in Armenia, were they used with such a consequence and nowhere did they occur at the same time. The concentration of these characteristics within the confines of one group of buildings should be regarded as the achievement of Armenian architects alone.
   We have no grounds to claim direct inspiration, coming to Armenia from the outside. Historical documents or antique material provide no evidence either. We can only assume that the factor which to a large extent influenced the shape of the domeless churches was the natural conditions of the site where they were built. The lack of wood made people use stone which was easily accessible and change the open roof rafter framing with the arched vaulting. The constant threat of earthquakes made them work out an extremely durable building technique „midis” and totally mass the elements by building round the apse and eliminating the transept and choir.

1. The natural conditions of the site and the technical-constructional solutions which they implied dominated, to our mind, the course of typological evolution within the group of the domeless churches. One has to note the exceptional differentiation in size of the one-aisle buildings (tabl. I, II). It goes without saying that it came as a consequence of the local liturgical needs. Along with the enlarging of the bulidings their proportions were changing. Consequently, the aisles were lengthened which was unpropitious for saying masses. It was impossible to proportionally widen the building due to the limited span of the arched vaulting. The side extensions which flanked the apse and portico along the elevation were a temporary solution, and that was made in a dozen or so buildings (e.g. in Garnia, tabl. II). There existed a better solution still, namely, the transfer from the one-aisle to three-aisle edifices. It is a characteristic thing that the largest out of the one-aisle churches (e.g. in Lernakert, Garnia) had almost the same length as the smallest three-aisle basilicas (e.g. in Astarak, Cicernavak, tabl. III). Along with the extension of the side aisle there appeared the problem of preserving one hidden form of the apse. Typologically, the earliest solution of this problem was the use of the projected apse, built round on many sides (e.g. in Kazakh, tabl. II), but this made the construction of this part of the building weaker. Eventually, they went back to the traditional form of the hidden apse along with the working out of spatial variants. In the basilica in Astarak (tabl. I) on the sides of the apse, on the extension of the side aisle there were introduced square rooms incorporated in the cuboidal mass. However, due to the above-mentioned narrowing of the side aisles, those rooms turned out to be very small and close (ca 3,8 m²) which undoubtedly made it difficult to use them for liturgical purposes. The way out was their enlargement nothward and southward (e.g. in the basilica in Ereruk, tabl. III). Yet in this manner the uniformity of the side elevations was disrupted, and that in turn was made up for by building porticos. Thus the principle of the constructional unity of the apse and aisle trunk have been preserved without enfeebling the basic layout. At the same time the the size of the whole building was increased.

Taking this course of the typological evolution of the domeless churches proves that their subsequent transformations bore an autonomic character. This means that they occured within the confines of this group only and were implied by the necessity to solve constructional problems proper to this group alone.