DOI article:
Próchniak, Daniel: Wczesnochrześcijańskie kościoły bezkopułowe w Armenii: główne cechy i ewolucja typologiczna układu architektoniczno-przestrzennego
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27405#0032
28
DANIEL PRÓCHNIAK
the arched vautting in Asia Minor). Nowhere however, except in Armenia, were they used with such a
conséquence and nowhere did they occur at the same time. The concentration of these characteristics
within the confines of one group of buiidings shouid be regarded as the achievement of Armenian
architects atone.
We hâve no grounds to daim direct inspiration, coming to Armenia front the outside. Historicat
documents or antique materia) provide no evidence either. We can onty assume that the factor which to
a targe extent inftuenced the shape of the domeless churches was the natura] conditions of the site where
they were buitt. The lack of wood made peopte use stone which was easity accessible and change the open
roof rafter framing with the arched vautting. The constant threat of earthquakes made them work out an
extremely durable buitding technique "midis" and totatly mass the etements by building round the apse and
eliminating the transept and choir.
2. The natura] conditions of the site and the technical-constructional solutions which they implied
dominated, to our mind, the course of typological évolution within the group of the domeless churches.
One has to note the exceptional différentiation in size of the one-aisle buildings (tabl. I, II). It goes
without saying that it came as a conséquence of the local liturgical needs. Along with the enlarging of the
buiidings 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 élévation
were a temporary solution, and that was made in a dozen or so buildings (e.g. in Gamia, tabl. H). There
existed a better solution still, namely, the transfer from the one-aisle to three-aisle édifices. It is a
characteristic thing that the largest out of the one-aisle churches (e.g. in Lernakert, Gamia) had almost
the same iength as the smallest three-aisle basilicas (e.g. in Astarak, Cicemavak, 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 traditiona) form of the hidden apse along with the working out of
spatial variants. In the basilica it) 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 tumed out to be very smali and close (ca 3,8 m^)
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. 111). Yet in this manner the
uniformity of the side élévations was disrupted, and that in tum was made up for by building porticos.
Thus the principle of the constructiona! unity of the apse and aisle trunk hâve been preserved without
enfeebling the basie layout. At the same time the the size of the whole building was increased.
Taking this course of the typological évolution of the domeless churches proves that their subséquent
transformations bore an autonomie character. This means that they occured within the confines of this
group only and were implied by the necessity to solve constructiona! problems proper to this group alone.
DANIEL PRÓCHNIAK
the arched vautting in Asia Minor). Nowhere however, except in Armenia, were they used with such a
conséquence and nowhere did they occur at the same time. The concentration of these characteristics
within the confines of one group of buiidings shouid be regarded as the achievement of Armenian
architects atone.
We hâve no grounds to daim direct inspiration, coming to Armenia front the outside. Historicat
documents or antique materia) provide no evidence either. We can onty assume that the factor which to
a targe extent inftuenced the shape of the domeless churches was the natura] conditions of the site where
they were buitt. The lack of wood made peopte use stone which was easity accessible and change the open
roof rafter framing with the arched vautting. The constant threat of earthquakes made them work out an
extremely durable buitding technique "midis" and totatly mass the etements by building round the apse and
eliminating the transept and choir.
2. The natura] conditions of the site and the technical-constructional solutions which they implied
dominated, to our mind, the course of typological évolution within the group of the domeless churches.
One has to note the exceptional différentiation in size of the one-aisle buildings (tabl. I, II). It goes
without saying that it came as a conséquence of the local liturgical needs. Along with the enlarging of the
buiidings 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 élévation
were a temporary solution, and that was made in a dozen or so buildings (e.g. in Gamia, tabl. H). There
existed a better solution still, namely, the transfer from the one-aisle to three-aisle édifices. It is a
characteristic thing that the largest out of the one-aisle churches (e.g. in Lernakert, Gamia) had almost
the same iength as the smallest three-aisle basilicas (e.g. in Astarak, Cicemavak, 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 traditiona) form of the hidden apse along with the working out of
spatial variants. In the basilica it) 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 tumed out to be very smali and close (ca 3,8 m^)
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. 111). Yet in this manner the
uniformity of the side élévations was disrupted, and that in tum was made up for by building porticos.
Thus the principle of the constructiona! unity of the apse and aisle trunk hâve been preserved without
enfeebling the basie layout. At the same time the the size of the whole building was increased.
Taking this course of the typological évolution of the domeless churches proves that their subséquent
transformations bore an autonomie character. This means that they occured within the confines of this
group only and were implied by the necessity to solve constructiona! problems proper to this group alone.