User:Yerevantsi/sandbox/Tekor2

User:Yerevantsi/sandbox/Tekor

User:Yerevantsi/sandbox/Tekor raw

Maranci

Christina Maranci

• Maranci, Christina (1998). Medieval Armenian Architecture in historiography: Josef Strygowski and His Legacy (PhD thesis). Princeton University. OCLC 40827094.

https://pdfupload.io/docs/06c1ce5d

Tekor

The church of Tekor is located in the district of Kars, close to the present-day eastern border of Turkey. Today, only remnants of the wall are left standing after earthquakes from 1911 and 1935. However, its architectural form can still be discerned: a domed, three-aisled basilica, terminating in a semi-circular apse flanked by two chambers. Serious questions surround the date and building phases of Tekor. Three inscriptions on the west portal provide ample, but confusing information.20

20=There are three inscriptions, which are all located on the west portal of the church. 
The first, which is dated 1008, recounts the lifting of taxes by queen Katramide, wife of king Gagik (990-1020). 
The second is dated 1014, and tell show King Asot also lifted taxes and mentions (in what could be a later addition to the text) the construction of Surb Sargis (Sergius).
The third, which is not securely dated (but purports to be fifth century) relates that Sahak Kamsarakan constructed the martyrium of St. Sargis. However, this inscription only makes sense when read starting with the bottom line and working upwards, as Marr had pointed out. For more discussion of the problems in the dedication and chronology of Tekor, as well as further reference, see Armen Khachatryan, L'architecture arménienne du Vie au VI siècles, Paris, 1971.

While we cannot go into the intricacies of the epigraphic evidence here, we should note that one of the inscriptions indicates that Sahak Kamsarakan built the church of St. Sergius in the fifth century. The other two date from the tenth century, and refer to rebuildings by the Bagratid queen Katramide. While most scholars agree on a fifth-century foundation date for Tekor, there is no consensus on its original appearance. Most scholars for example. believe that the dome was a seventh-century addition. In his article, "The church óf Tekor", Toramanyan provides his own hypothesis concerning the chronology and building sequences of the church. He proposed that the present structure was a conglomerate of several phases of construction, ranging from the pre-Christian period to the tenth century. In the following section, we shall consider these phases, paying special attention to a theme which is predominant in Toramanyan's work: the influence of classical (i.e. Greco-Roman) architecture on Armenia.

We shall begin with the earliest phase and work forward. According to Toramanyan, the first church phase at Tekor dated to the fourth century and consisted of a simple rectangle terminating in a square apse. At a subsequent time, probably in the fifth century, the apse was flanked by the two side chambers and a portico, which surrounded all sides. Thus, in a comparison of the present structure with this phase, there are several changes; the square apse was replaced by the semi-circular one, the portico was removed, and the dome was added.

Toramanyan gives a variety of reasons for his thesis. In some cases, he argues from surrounding elements. The presence of the stepped foundation, for example, was built to accommodate a portico. Further, because of their large size and regular intervals, he believes that the attached piers must have performed a function, rather than just being decorative. The cornice, which encircles the building, provided Toramanyan with further proof: he believes that it was placed there to "mask" the joint line where the portico vaults were removed. There are certainly problems with Toramanyan's argument. In order, for example, to accept that the cornice masked the remains of the portico, one must first believe that it existed. The presence of a stepped foundation and large attached piers also cannot confirm a portico: there are several Armenian churches with stepped foundations and no portico, such as the Cathedral of Ejmiacin, Zvartnoc, and the Cathedral of Ani. Further, large attached piers make up part of the decorative vocabulary of contemporary churches in nearby northern Syria: very large pilasters decorated the exteriors of both Qalat Siman and the east end of Qalb Lozeh, but in neither case were these features part of a portico system, 25

However, Toramanyan does find material evidence which supports his thesis. He notes for example the differences in the thickness between the upper and lower wall sections as well as a difference in the masonry coursing on the interior and exterior walls. The latter suggested to him the addition of a wall on the lower level in order to support

the vaults of a portico. On the north side, Toramanyan detected the remains of the springing of two arches from the attached columns, which he supposes were the base of the diaphragm arches for the portico vaults. Further, on the eastern end, he found a base of a capital, which suggested to him that the portico wrapped around the building completely, as in a peristyle temple. Unfortunately, Toramanyan provides no photographs or drawings to illustrate these observations, and this problem, coupled with the very poor condition of the building today, make it difficult to assess his archaeological finds.26

Despite the problem of the lack of proof, an assessment can be made of T'oramanyan's reconstruction by comparing it to contemporary Armenian monuments. The church of Ereruyk*, built in the fifth or early sixth century, shares the same general layout as Tekor-- a longitudinal building divided into a nave and three aisles (fig. 7, Chapter One, fig. 11). There was indeed a portico (now destroyed), but it only occurred on the north, south and west sides (with only the apse at the east end). Early northern Syrian churches also share this layout; Turmanin and Qalb Lozeh feature a portico extending around the north, south, and west sides. An eastern portico, by contrast, is an anomaly, found neither in Armenia nor elsewhere in the Christian East.

T'oramanyan's argument for a "peristyle" portico at Tekor is extremely revealing, and we will explore its significance further below. For the moment, however, we should consider another interesting aspect of T'oramanyan's reconstruction of fourth-century Tekor: the square apse. He believed that this apse (of which no traces remain) was

replaced some time in the fifth century by the present semi-circular apse. Unlike his argument for the portico, here Toramanyan has absolutely no physical evidence for a square apse, such as foundation lines or traces in adjacent masonry.

To argue his thesis, Toramanyan returns to the portico. Since, according to T'oramanyan, there was an eastern wing to the portico, the present semi-circular apse could not have been present, since they would have occupied the same position. This situation, he writes, "would not only have been unpardonably ugly"27 but it would also be "difficult to construct, since there would have been no free space at the east end."28 This is, of course, circular reasoning-- Toramanyan is arguing that the present apse was previously non-existent because it would have been incompatible with a feature which may or may not have existed.

Toramanyan also does not take into account the shape of the stepped foundation. In its eastern end, it projects outward with the same polygonal shape as the apse of the church. Since Toramanyan does not make any mention of an alteration to the masonry of this area, (which would be an arduous and unnecessary task) we may assume that the stepped foundation is contemporaneous with the apse. As we continue, we will see that this fact poses a serious problem for his general thesis.

T'oramanyan also argues that the placement of the semi-circular apse, which projects slightly from the eastern wall, reveals its later date. In its location, it "breaks the rules" of Armenian architecture, in which "the apse is either completely articulated on the exterior, or completely inscribed."29 Its "in-between" position thus proves that it was

made to fit within an already enclosed area. While Toramanyan could not have known it at the time, his "rule" of the position of the eastern apse does not hold. At the fifth century cathedral of Dvin, excavated in the 1950's, we find an example closely resembling that of Tekor-- a "semi-inscribed" eastern apse flanked by two transverse side chambers (fig. 8).

As further proof, Toramanyan argues that semi-circular apses were not native to Armenia, but were a Western importation.30 It was T'oramanyan's belief that churches in Armenia were initially furnished with a central altar rather than an eastern apse. It was only in the fifth century, when the Church enforced a uniformity of ritual on the East, that the eastern apse was built in Armenian churches.

One could approach this thesis in several ways, but I would like to point to two monuments from the fourth century which provide counter-examples: the hypogeum, and adjacent basilica of Alc* (the latter of which was not known until excavations of the 1970's). Both of these structures terminate in a semi-circular apse.31 More importantly, as with the portico, Toramanyan has not provided any positive evidence for a square apse. Yet his argument for these two features is extremely significant, for it allows Toramanyan to make a general conclusion: that the early churches of Armenia were derived directly from classical temple architecture. We will return to this theory below.

The Dome

Before doing so, however, we should consider his discussion of the dome of Tekor. According to T'oramanyan, in the final phase of the church of Tekor, which occurred between the fifth and seventh centuries, the four central piers were enlarged to support a square drum, on which rested a stone dome (fig. 9). To prove his point, Toramanyan rightly focused on irregularity of the pier sections as well as the lack of uniformity in the decoration of the bases; both of which suggest subsequent alterations to previously smaller piers (see fig. 4) 32

This, Toramanyan argues, was the first stone dome in Armenia. Comparing it to the domes of the seventh century, T'oramanyan points out its unusual design in which the inside forms a conical section, while the outside of the drum remains square. It was added, T'oramanyan believes, in imitation of the cathedral of Ejmiacin, which in this period, (according to Toramanyan) consisted of a wooden dome resting on a cross- shaped base :

"One day they had the desire to see the old building with a dome on four columns that supported a… cross-shaped roof, in imitation, of course, of the cathedral of Ejmiatsin cross-shaped roof, the oldest example of this form, which arose at the end of the fifth century and would be imitated subsequently in the roofs of churches large and small."33

To summarize: T'oramanyan's outline of building phases proceeds from a simple rectangular building with a square apse, to subsequent additions of flanking eastern side

chambers, portico, and dome. Most problematic, it should be noted, are the hypotheses of the portico and the square apse.

The Relation between Temple architecture and early church architecture in Armenia

Why was Toramanyan so insistent on these features? To answer this we must turn to yet another building phase of Tekor which is hypothesized by Toramanyan: a pre- Christian structure which lies directly under the first church. That is, according to T'oramanyan, the first church of Tekor was built directly on top of the remains of a pagan temple.

In a separate plan, Toramanyan provides a detail showing the walls of the north side (fig. 10). Underneath the first church plan, along the north wall, ran the older wall of the temple (in black on the plan) which continues east beyond the square apse. Thus, Toramanyan believed that the form of the early church of Tekor-- the pre-domed version-- was directly related to the temple architecture. Toramanyan does not explain this plan in any detail. Nor does he provide any evidence for the existence of this older wall. However, he accepts that not only was Tekor built on top of this structure, but that the first church incorporated its rectangular layout. Thus, he writes that Tekor serves "as a gateway onto the pagan world".34 In a later section, we will explore the supposed style of T'oramanyan's temple architecture and its significance.

---

It should not be inferred, however, that Toramanyan ignores the idea of indigenous traditions. Frequently in his discussion of the early churches, he speaks of a mixture of Roman and local forms. The remnants of a cornice at the Cathedral of Ejmiacin, for example, offer Toramanyan the opportunity to see "what harmony was commanded by the Romans in the Armenian style." This harmony is also evident at Tekor, which represents, in the decoration and construction of its earliest phase, "a harmonious mixture of Armenian and Roman architecture." But this mixture arises, for Toramanyan, out of a local imitation of Roman style.

Toramanyan posits that sometime between the fifth century and seventh century, an increased knowledge of stonework led to the construction of stone domes. To illustrate this, it will be remembered, he turns to the church of Tekor. Its unusual cubical drum and conical interior led T'oramanyan to believe that it was an imitation of a dome in wood. Thus, T'oramanyan dates the construction of Tekor's dome to after the wooden dome of the Cathedral of Ejmiacin in the fifth century and before the domed churches of the seventh century 57

The early dates of Ereruyk, Kasal and other basilicas are not the only proof of an initial basilican period in Armenia. Domed longitudinal structures (such as those we just examined) provide further hints. A number of them appear to be of two separate building periods, consisting of a basilican phase followed by a domed phase. The best known example is the church at Tekor. Located south of Ani, Tekor was initially constructed as a three-aisled basilica flanked at the north and south by porticoes. By the seventh century (perhaps earlier?) the four piers were enlarged in order to carry a dome and transverse barrel vault.

---

Strzygowski first considers the diffusion of barrel vaults through a comparison of the fifth-century Armenian church of Tekor with the Visigothic church of San Juan de Baños in Palencia, Spain. Although altered by a subsequent restoration, the plan of San Juan by Alvarez is still largely accepted. The original church consists of a three aisled core, the central of which terminates in a rectangular apse. The lateral aisles, however, do not flank it; instead, they wing away from the center in parallel chambers. Alvarez further hypothesized a columnar portico surrounding its west, north, and south sides. Strzygowski compares this layout to Toramanyan's plan of Tekor. Strzygowski claims that the churches share a square apse and unusually large, rectangular side chambers. He also cites the concurrence of a columnar portico and horseshoe arches. The concurrence of these features lead him to postulate a diffusion from Tekor to San Juan de Baños.

A number of factors weaken Strzygowski's thesis. First, there are several unresolved questions regarding the building phases of Tekor, making it an unstable point of comparison.66 [66 = The building phases present the greatest problem. While T'oramanyan proposed three building phases, a pre-Christian, a basilican, and a domed building, the current opinion of some scholars (Sahinyan, Thierry and Donabedian) is that the initial and only building phase was the current domed structure. This thesis, however, does not satisfactorily explain the altered character of the pier bases, which appear, as T'oramanyan noted, to have been enlarged at some point, suggesting the quite standard practice of adding domes to basilicas.]

Very little, then, encourages a direct connection between Tekor and San Juan de Baños.

---

Simultaneously, however, there occurred another development-- the emergence of the domed-centrally planned church in the sixth-seventh centuries. For Xalpaxcyan, the churches of Hripsime, Ojun, and Mastara marked the formation of a "well-developed" national architecture, which would exert an influence on that of later periods. Where did these structures come from? According to Xalpaxcyan, they find their ancestors in the popular domestic dwelling, or glxatun, found in Armenia (and much of the Caucasus, Near East, and Central Asia)160.

Constructed of wood, these structures usually consist of a single, square chamber, topped with a very characteristic roof: a system of wooden frames continuously corbelled until only a small smoke-hole, or erdik, remains open at the top. Generally, the roof is supported by four piers. The perishable character of wood has meant that no pre- modern structures of this sort survive, however, the prevalence of the glxatun as a mode of habitation, particularly in rural areas, as well as other evidence, has suggested to many scholars its existence during the Middle Ages. For Xalpaxčyan, proof of this hypothesis is found in the dome of Tekor. This structure, which Xalpaxč'yan considers among the oldest stone domes in Armenia, is sloped inwards on the sides, gradually narrowing to form a pyramidal, rather than cylindrical drum. Xalpaxčyan argues that this construction, which he refers to as corbelling, "is exactly the same as in the popular dwellings". Thus, he concludes, in Tekor we find a transitional monument, which signals the roots of the Armenian dome in the glxatun type. Xalpaxčyan finds further evidence in the cathedral of Ejmiacin. Agreeing with Alexander Sahinyan, he believes that the fifth-century phase of the cathedral differed little from its present state: a square chamber with axial apses divided by four central piers supporting a dome. Xalpaxc'yan considers the account of Sebeos, who tells us that the stone dome of the cathedral replaced the original wooden dome. The early occurrence of wooden dome, then, as well as the use of four supports, further allows Xalpaxcyan to liken this church type with the glxatun.

Varazdat Harutyunyan. Further, the whole architectural layout of Tekor, with its dome atop a three-aisled basilica, provided the model for the domed basilica. Although not created ex novo, as a "pure construction", in its conglomerate building phases, it nevertheless provided subsequent builders with a new model. Tekor thus assumes a central place in the development of Armenian architecture, for, as Harut'yunyan writes, "in this monument began the progress of the monumental dome" which was followed by its "logical integration" into the composition of the domed basilica. Among the examples of Tekor's progeny, according to Harut'yunyan, are the seventh-century churches of Ojun, Gayane, Mren, and Bagavan.182

---

---

---

• Maranci, Christina (2001). Medieval Armenian Architecture: Constructions of Race and Nation. Leuven: Peeters. ISBN 9042909390.

The church of Tekor is located in the district of Kars, close to the pre- sent-day eastern border of Turkey (Fig. 19, 20). Today, only remnants of the wall still stand.18 However, its architectural form can still be dis- cerned: a domed, three-aisled basilica, terminating in a semi-circular apse flanked by two chambers. Serious questions surround the date and building phases of Tekor. Three inscriptions on the west portal provide ample but confusing information.19 One inscription, located on the west façade, indicates that Sahak Kamsarakan built the church (identified as St. Sergius) in the fifth century. The other two data from the tenth cen- try and refer to renovations under the Bagratid dynasty. While most scholars agree on a fifth-century foundation date forTekor, there is no consensus on its original appearance, and many believe that the dome was a seventh-century addition.

In his book, The Temple of Tekor,20 T'oramanyan provided his own hypothesis concerning the chronology and building phases of the church. He proposed that the present structure was a conglomerate of several periods of construction, ranging from the pre-Christian period to the tenth century. The first church at Tekor, according to Toramanyan, dated to the fourth century and consisted of a rectangular structure terminating in a square apse (Fig. 21). A century later, he suggested, the apse was flanked with side chambers and a peristyle portico was constructed (Fig. 22).21

18 Considerable damage to the church occurred during the earthquakes of 1911 and 1935.
19 The first, which is dated 1008, recounts the lifting of taxes by queen Katramide, wife of king Gagik ( 990-1020 ). The second is dated 1014, and indicates that King Ašot also lifted taxes and mentions (in what could be a later addition to the text) the construction of Surb Sargis (Sergius). The third, which most likely dates from the 490s, relates that Sahak Kamsarakan constructed the martyrium of St. Sargis. However, this inscription only makes sense when read starting with the bottom line and working upwards, as Marr pointed out. For more discussion of the problems in the dedication and chronology of Tekor, as well as further references, see Armen Khatchatrian, L'architecture arménienne du IVe au VIe siècles, Paris, 1971.
20 Tekori tačarə, Tiflis, 1911. See also the article by the same name in Axurean, 1909, May, no. 39.
21 To be more precise, T'oramanyan specifies that the side chambers were built first, and that the portico was built very soon afterward.

As neither square apse nor portico exist in the current church, T'ora- many an's claims require some justification. Evidence for a portico, he argued, can be found through an inspection of the monument.22 Toramanyan suggested that Thor's broad, stepped platform provided an appropriate base for a wrap-around portico. Examining the exterior walls, Toramanyan noted the large size and regular intervals of the attached piers and interpreted them as responses for vaults of a portico. Further, the horizontal profiling of the exterior walls, according to T'oramanyan, functioned to mask the joint line which was exposed after the vaults were removed.

22 The evidence I present below represents only a fraction of the scope of T'oramanyan actual argument. However, I feel that I have provided a representative sample of his claims, both in terms of content and approach.

Certainly, porticos were common elements in both Syrian and Armenian architecture.23 However, T‘oramanyan’s reasoning does not provide convincing evidence of a portico at Tekor.24 The presence of stepped foundation and attached piers, for example, cannot confirm a portico: there are several Armenian churches with these elements and yet no portico, such as the Cathedral of Ejmiacin,25 Zvart‘noc‘, and the Cathedral of Ani.

Large attached piers decorate contemporary churches in northern Syria: both Qal'at Si'man and the east end of Qalb Lozeh are ornamented thus, but in neither case were these features part of a portico system.26 Most problematic, however, is T'oramanyan's proposal for a "peristyle" structure -- a form which finds no counterparts in the Christian East. The square apse proposed by Toramanyan is equally difficult to support. In the absence of archaeological evidence, the author built upon his previous claim, arguing that the present semi-circular apse could not have co-existed with a portico. Such a pairing, he wrote, "would not only have been unpardonably ugly"27 but it would also be "difficult to construct, since there would have been no free space at the east end" 28 This is of course circular reasoning.29

23 The basilica of Ereruyk*, built in the fifth or early sixth century, possessed one (now destroyed). Early Syrian churches, such as Turmanin and Qalb Lozeh, also featured porticos. One could hypothesize, based on these examples, the presence of such an ele- ment at Tekor. 
24 However, T'oramanyan does find material evidence which supports his thesis. He notes for example the differences in the thickness between the upper and lower wall sections as well as a difference in the masonry coursing on the interior and exterior walls. The latter suggested to him the addition of a wall on the lower level in order to sup- port the vaults of a portico. On the north side, T'oramanyan detected the remains of the springing of two arches from the attached columns, which he supposes were the base of diaphragm arches for the portico vaults. Further, on the eastern end, he found a base of a capital, which suggested to him that the portico wrapped around the building completely. Jean-Michel Thierry and Patrick Donabédian believe that the engaged columns were simply decorative (J.-M. Thierry and P. Donabédian, Armenian Art, New York, 1987, pp. 584-585 ). 
25 However, T'oramanyan believed the cathedral to have had a portico, although to my knowledge there is no physical evidence for it. 
26 See R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, pp. 144-155 . 
27 Materials, 1, p. 196. 
28 Ibid. 
29 T'oramanyan also does not take into account the shape of the stepped foundation. In its eastern end, it follows the outline of the polygonal apse. Since no mention is made of alteration to the masonry of this area (which would be an arduous and unnecessary task) we may assume that the stepped foundation is contemporaneous with the apse. T'oramanyan also argues that the placement of the semi-circular apse, which projects slightly from the eastern wall, reveals its later date. In its location, it "breaks the rules" of Armenian archi- tecture, in which "the apse is either completely articulated on the exterior, or completely inscribed." Its "in-between" position thus proves that it was made to fit within an already enclosed area. While T'oramanyan could not have known it at the time, his "rule" of the position of the eastern apse is broken in at least one instance. At the fifth-century cathedral of Dvin, excavated in the 1950s, we find an example closely resembling that of Tekor -- a "semi-inscribed" eastern apse flanked by two transverse side chambers.

Toramanyan also held that semi-circular examples were not indige- nous to Armenia, but imported from the West.30 Churches in Armenia, he believed, were initially furnished with a central altar rather than an eastern apse. In the fifth century, according to the author, the Church enforced a uniformity of ritual on the East which generated changes in liturgy and architecture. The supposed arrival of the eastern apse in Armenia is viewed in conjunction with these events. One could approach this thesis in several ways, but one may simply point to the hypogeum of Acc' near Mount Aragac in Armenia. The sub- terranean, cruciform chamber terminates in a horseshoe apse. T'ora- manyan did not know the hypogeum, which was excavated in the 1970s; however, it presents a counterexample to his thesis: a fourth-century monument with a semi-circular apse.31

III. The Dome

The last section of T'oramanyan's article considers the dome of Tekor. According to the author, between the fifth and seventh centuries the four central piers of the church were enlarged to support a square drum, on which rested a stone dome (Fig. 23). To prove his point, Toramanyan rightly focused on the irregularity of the pier sections as well as the lack of uniformity in the decoration of the bases; both of which suggest enlargements of previously smaller piers (see Fig. 19).32

Toramanyan believed that Tekor possessed the first stone dome in Armenia. Comparing it to seventh-century examples, he noted the unusual quality of its construction, which is conical on the interior and cubic on the exterior. This form, T'oramanyan argued, imitated the

Kouymjian

Dickran Kouymjian

By the late fifth or early sixth century the basilica of Tekor was modified by the addition of a dome over the central bay of the nave.
In the seventh century basilicas were built like Tekor with cupolas resting on four central and free-standing pillars (Odzoun, Bagavan, Mren, Gayane and Talin).

Dickran Kouymjian

https://web.archive.org/web/20240225201539/https://cah.fresnostate.edu/armenianstudies/resources/artsofarmenia/architecture.html

Type: Three aisled basilica with dome. Date: IV or V c. foundations. VI or VII present form. Evidence For Date: Stylobate indicates very early origins for foundation. Inscription at Western entrance.

Important Details: Free standing T-shaped piers and dome added in the 6th or 7th c. Portico on three sides. Small apse at end of north porch. State of Preservation: Now completely destroyed. In photos taken before World War I, it was standing complete with dome. Reconstructions: Conversion from a basilica to a domed basilica in 6th or 7th c. Dome exterior reconstructed in 10th century.

Summary

The Church of St. Sarkiss, Tekor is located in the village of the same name in Turkey, southwest of the ruined Armenian city of Ani. It is dated to the 5th century on the basis of archaeological evidence and its architectural style. There are also three inscriptions on the tympanum of the west portal that provide historical information on the Church. The inscriptions are considered copies of the original ones; however, are the subject of controversy regarding the name and dating of the original form of the Church.

The updated inscription is by the 5th century Prince Sahak Kamsarakan and states that he was the donor of "This Martrium of S. Sargis". It also includes the names of a contemporary bishop Hovhannes of Arsarunik' and the Catholicos Hovhannes. Most scholars accept the inscription as an authentic late 5th century document but the paleography indicates otherwise (Hovsepian and T'oramanyan). T'oramanyan also considers the inscription to refer to another Church, a smaller, more appropriate form for a moratorium. An added problem is that the Church is referred to in the inscription of 1008 by Queen Katranide, King Gagik I's wife, as S. Erordut'iwn (Holy Trinity), not S. Sargis. According to Marr, this means that Tekor had a change of name, while T'oramanyan thinks two different Churches are being mentioned. The third inscription is by Asot and dated 1014.

Tekor was originally a construction in basilican form with two pairs of cruciform pillars on the interior supporting cruciform vaults. According to Tormanian, it was originally a pagan monument that had been converted into a Christian edifice. Shortly after its construction in the late 5th century, significant changes were made to the structure. A cupola was constructed over the enlarged square bay. A semicircular apse and two transversal chambers were built at the east end. The chambers projected to the north and south and abutted the portico.

The stone dome of Tekor was among the earliest to be constructed in Armenia, and until its destruction, Tekor was the oldest extant domed Church in Armenia (Toramanyan). The dome was supported by enlarged free-standing pillars. The domeís early date is indicated by the fact that no pendentives or squinches were used to make the transition from the square bay to the circular drum of the cupola as in other Armenian Churches. Instead, four walls extended upward and inclined toward the center. Four slabs were placed diagonally on the corners of the pyramidal form at the base and top to make an octagon on which to rest the cupola. From the exterior the drum appeared to be a massive square crowned by a cornice. Above it was a narrow octagonal zone surmounted by the conical roof. The drum exterior is attributed to reconstruction work undertaken in the 10th century by the Bagratide as indicated in one of the inscriptions. The conical roof was umbrella-shaped.

The west facade contained figural relief sculpture (Toramanyan and Marr) which appears to be the earliest example of a donor portrait of its type not only in Armenia and the Caucasus but in Christian art in general (Mnatsakanyan, 1971). The cruciform window under the gable with three circular arms and a rectangular base had a human figure with a headdress carved on either side of the opening. Above these two busts were two peacocks biting fruit from a cup at the top. The figures are identified as Sahak Mamikonian and a woman (Toramanyan), although they were in ruinous condition when they were reported and photographed by Toramanian and Marr.

There were two decorated portals on the north and one on the west elevation. The west portal had a horseshoe-shaped archivolt supported by two square pillars, each with four columns. Floral motifs on the capitals of the piers are similar to those in other Armenian basilicas (Kasal, 4th century and Ereroyk, 5th century) and in 6th century Syrian Churches (S. Serge of Dar Qita, and Churches at Kimar and Meez). Tekor had large windows with extended arches characteristic of 5th-7th century Armenian Churches. During reconstructions between the 10th and 12th century, many of these were narrowed and splayed in accordance with the style of the period. Red stone was used in earlier parts of the structure and yellow in later sections, offering evidence of changes.

Other indications of renovations include the ribbed, umbrella-like form of the pyramidal roof. The 10th century Churches of Xc'kawnk and Marmasen have somewhat similar coverings. Also, the lining of the pyramidal roof had preserved some tiles typical of roofs earlier than the 7th century.

Subsequent restorations occurred in the course of the 11th to the 14th centuries.

Varazdat Harutyunyan

• Harutyunyan, Varazdat (1992). Հայկական ճարտարապետության պատմություն [History of Armenian Architecture] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan: Luys. ISBN 5-545-00215-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 January 2022.

Varazdat Harutyunyan

ՏԵԿՈՐԻ ՏԱՃԱՐԸ (այժմ ամբողջովին ավերված) գտնվում էր արևմտյան Շիրակի համանուն գյուղում, Անիից որոշ հեռավորությամբ: Թորամանյանը, որ դեռևս կանգուն վիճակում հանգամանորեն հետազոտել է տաճարը, հանգել է այն եզրակացության, որ նախապես եռանավ բազիլիկ հանդիսացող այս հուշարձանը վերակառուցման ենթարկվելով գմբեթավորվել է, առաջացնելով հայկական եկեղեցիների մի նոր տիպ՝ գմբեթավոր բազիլիկը: Թեև բազմատեսակ մեկնաբանությունների ենթարկված Տեկորի տաճարի շինարարական արձանագրության մեջ չի վկայված կառուցման տարեթիվը, սակայն հայտնի է, որ այն կառուցել տվող Սահակ Կամսարականը մասնակցել է 481-484 թթ. ապստամբությանը: Ուստի Տեկորի տաճարը անվերապահորեն թվագրվում է 5-րդ դարով: Այդ եզրակացությանը կարելի է հանգել նաև տաճարի ճարտարապետագեղարվեստական վերլուծության տվյալներով:

The Tekor Temple (now completely destroyed) was located in the village of the same name in western Shirak, at some distance from Ani. Toramanian, who thoroughly studied the temple while it was still standing, concluded that this monument, initially a three-nave basilica, underwent reconstruction, resulting in the addition of a dome, thereby creating a new type of Armenian church—the domed basilica. Although the construction inscription of the Tekor Temple, which has been subject to various interpretations, does not provide the date of its construction, it is known that its patron, Sahak Kamsarakan, participated in the 481–484 rebellion. Therefore, the Tekor Temple is unequivocally dated to the 5th century. This conclusion is also supported by an architectural and artistic analysis of the temple.

Թորամանյանի կարծիքով մինչև 5-րդ դարում կատարված վերակառուցումը, Տեկորի տաճարը եղել է եռանավ բազիլիկ՝ թաղածածկ նավերով և արևելյան կողմից ուղղանկյուն ավագ խորանով: Վերակառուցման ժամանակ քանդել և ձեվափոխել են արևելյան պատը, ավագ խորանը դարձրել կիսաշրջան (արտաքուստ առաջ բերելով եռանիստ ծավալով), այնուհետև ավագ խորանի երկու կողմերին կցել են նեղ ու ձգված ավանդատներ (ինչպես Երերույքի տաճարում): Որոշ փոփոխություններ մտցնելով մույթերի տեղադրության մեջ, դրանք հարմարեցվել են գմբեթ կրելու: Դրանով էլ արմատական փոփոխություն է կատարվել տաճարի հատակագծային և ծավալատարածական հորինվածքի մեջ:

According to Toramanian, before its 5th-century reconstruction, the Tekor Temple was a three-nave basilica with vaulted aisles and a rectangular altar apse on the eastern side. During the reconstruction, the eastern wall was dismantled and reshaped, transforming the altar apse into a semicircular form (externally appearing as a three-sided structure). Additionally, narrow and elongated side chambers (similar to those in the Yereruyk Basilica) were added on both sides of the altar. Some changes were made to the placement of the piers to accommodate the dome, fundamentally altering the temple’s floor plan and spatial composition.

Տաճարը տեղադրված է եղել բոլոր կողմերից ինը աստիճաններով շրջապատված հիմնահարթակի վրա: Աղոթասրահը երեք կողմերից (բացի արևելյան) շրջապատող, հետագայում հավելված պունասրահի երբեմնի գոյության որպես ապացույցներ են եղել արտաքին պատերին պահպանված որմնասյուներն և որմնամույթերը, որոնց քայլը համապատասխանել էր սյուների քայլին: Հյուսիսային սյունասրահը արևելակողմում ավարտվել է հատակագծում կիսաշրջան որմնախորշով (որպիսին Երերույքի տաճարում տեղավորված էր հարավ կողմում):

The temple was built on a raised platform surrounded on all sides by nine steps. The presence of a once-existing portico, later added around the prayer hall on three sides (except the east), is evidenced by surviving engaged columns and pilasters on the outer walls, whose spacing matched that of the freestanding columns. The northern colonnade ended in a semicircular apse on the eastern side (similar to a southern apse found in the Yereruyk Basilica).

Թորամանյանի վկայությամբ, Տեկորի տաճարի ճարտարապետական մանրամասները (հյուսխային ճակատի և արևմտյան շքամուտքի որմնասյուների, արևմտյան և հարավային ճակատների որմնամույթերի խարիսխներն ու խոյակները՝ զարդաքանդակված արջամագիլի տերևների, խաղողի ողկույզների ու տերևների մոտիվներով) բնորոշ էին հնավանդ ձևերով ու ինքնատիպությամբ: Նույնպիսի հատկանիշներ ունեին թեք և հորիզոնական քիվերով ամփոփված արևելյան և արևմտյան ճակատների եռանկյունաձև ճակտոնները, արևմտյան շքամուտքը, կամարաձև լուսամուտների պսակները և այլն: Դրանցում զգացվել են անտիկ ճարտարապետության ձևերից սերված հեռավոր այնպիսի արձագանքներ, որոնք Թորամանյանին բերել են այն համուզման, թե «Տենորի տաճարը կանգնած է հունա-հռոմեական քաղաքական և կրոնական արվեստներու հայ արվեստին վրա ներգործած շրջանին մեջ, որ շատ վաղ է, քան 7-րդ դար և հազիվ թե անցնի 5-րդ դարեն ալ այս կողմ»2:

According to Toramanian, the architectural details of the Tekor Temple—such as the engaged columns of the northern façade and the western portal, as well as the bases and capitals of the pilasters on the western and southern facades, decorated with intricate carvings of acanthus leaves, grape clusters, and vine leaves—were characterized by traditional forms and uniqueness. The eastern and western triangular pediments, enclosed by inclined and horizontal cornices, the western portal, and the arched window crowns displayed distant echoes of antique architectural forms. This led Toramanian to conclude that "the Tekor Temple stands within the period when Greco-Roman political and religious art influenced Armenian art—long before the 7th century, and hardly later than the 5th century."

Բազմակի վերափոխությունների ենթարկված այս հուշարձանում առավել հետաքրքրականը գմբեթն է, որով այն պսակվել է հիմնական վերակառուցման ժամանակ:

Among the multiple reconstructions of this monument, the most intriguing is the dome, which was added during a major renovation.

Չորս մույթերն իրար կապող կամարներով կազմավորված քառակուսու չորս անկյուններում շեղակի դրված քարերի միջոցով նախ քառակուսին վեր է ածվել անհավասար կողմերով ութանկյան, ապա դեպի կենտրոն թեքված սեղանակերպ հարթություններով իրականացվել է անցում դեպի սֆերիկ գմբեթի հավասարակողմ ութանկյան հիմքը: Կառուցվածքային այսպիսի լուծումը որոշ աղերս ունի հայկական գլխատների փայտագմբեթ ծածկերի ձևերի հետ: Միևնույն ժամանակ այն եզակի է վաղ միջնադարյան Հայաստանի գմբեթաշինության մեջ ու վկայում է գմբեթ կառուցելու նախնական, դեռևս անկատար փորձի մասին: Այդ հանգամանքը համոզում է, որ գմբեթը հավելվել է ոչ թե 6-7-րդ դդ., ինչպես ենթադրվում է, այլ 5 6-րդ դդ.: Այդ առումով Տեկորի տաճարը առանձնահատուկ տեղ է գրավում հայ ճարտարապետության պատմության մեջ, քանզի ըստ իշխող կարծիքի, մոնումենտալ գմբեթի ձևերի զարգացումը սկզբնավորվում է այս հուշարձանում:

At the four corners of the square formed by arches connecting the four main piers, diagonally placed stones first transformed the square into an irregular octagon. Then, through inward-leaning stepped surfaces, a transition was made to the base of a spherical dome with a regular octagonal shape. This structural solution bears some resemblance to the wooden domed covers of Armenian temples. At the same time, it remains unique in early medieval Armenian dome construction, indicating an initial, still-imperfect attempt at dome-building. This suggests that the dome was added not in the 6th–7th centuries, as previously assumed, but in the 5th–6th centuries. In this respect, the Tekor Temple holds a special place in the history of Armenian architecture, as the dominant view is that the development of monumental dome forms began with this monument.

---

Հայաստանի եռանավ բազիլիկ եկեղեցիները որոշակի թվագրված չեն, նրանց կառուցման ժամանակը սահմանվում է 4 6-րդ դդ.: Այդ խմբի հուշարձանների թվին են պատկանում Դվինի և Տեկորի (նախքան վերակառուցումը), Քասախի, Երերույքի, Աշտարակի, Եղվարդի, Աղցի, Ծիծեռնավանքի եկեղեցիները: Հետագա վերակառուցումների հետևանքով 5-րդ դարի վերջին Տեկորի բազիլիկը վերածվել է գմբեթավոր բազիլիկի:

The three-nave basilica churches of Armenia are not precisely dated; their construction period is generally placed between the 4th and 6th centuries. Among the monuments of this group are the churches of Dvin and Tekor (before reconstruction), Kasakh, Yereruyk, Ashtarak, Yeghvard, Aghtsi, and Tsitsernavank. Due to later reconstructions, by the late 5th century, the Tekor Basilica was transformed into a domed basilica.

Տեկորի բազիլիկի (որն ըստ Թորամանյանի վերակառուցվելով գմբեթավոր բազիլիկի է վերածվել 5-7-րդ դդ.), գմբեթի ձևերը հիշեցնում ոչ պարսկական և ոչ էլ հռոմեական գմբեթներին, նրանց կապը փայտագմբեթ ծածկի ձևերի հետ կասկած չի հարուցում:

The dome of the Tekor Basilica (which, according to Toramanyan, was rebuilt into a domed basilica between the 5th and 7th centuries) does not resemble Persian or Roman domes; its connection to wooden dome structures is unquestionable.

Գմբեթավոր բազիլիկ և գմբեթավոր դահլիճ տիպի եկեցիների հատակագծեր՝ Տեկոր, Մրեն, Բագավան Գայանե, Օձուն, Պտղնի, Արուճ:

Floor plans of domed basilica and domed hall-type churches include Tekor, Mren, Bagavan, Gayane, Odzun, Ptghni, and Aruch.

Sahinian

Храм Текора. Один из узловых памятников самого раннего периода формирования армянской классической архитектуры. Будучи памятником того же периода, что и упомяну- тые выше постройки, находившиеся в процессе формирования, он с очевидностью показывает и последующую ступень развития архитек- турно-строительного искусства Армении. Текорский храм находится недалеко от Ани, у северного подножья крепости Текор, созданной еще в дохристианскую эпоху вбли- зи нынешнего села Дигор. В настоящее время храм полностью разрушен. Жизнь на этой территории началась в да- леком прошлом, приобрела значительный размах при князьях Қамсараканах (V в.) и со временем, постепенно ослабевая, дошла до эпохи царствования Багратидов (X-XI вв.). Время постройки храма точно не известно. Начертанная на перемычке его западного парадного входа строительская надпись Саака Қамсаракана (V в.) приписы- вается времени реконструкции храма, а не основания. Анализ архитектурно-строительного ис- кусства храма показывает, что вначале он имел совершенно простые формы и, по-види- мому, существовал с первых лет провозгла-шения христианства государственной религией Армении5. Первоначально храм представлял собой трехнефный молитвенный зал, главный алтарь которого вместе с нынешней полукруглой в плане апсидой имел прямоугольную форму. Нефы были завершены каменным сводом. Центральный, более высокий неф, освещался окнами, устроенными на продольных стенах. Следовательно, храм Текора, подобно Ерерук- ской базилике, имел «базиликальный разрез». Впоследствии (IV-V вв.), с учетом требова- ний религиозных обрядов, к нему постепенно были добавлены наружные галереи, много- гранная извне и вогнутая изнутри нынешняя постройка главного алтаря с примыкающими к нему комнатами, затем купол. Нетрудно заметить, что храм Текора вместе с этими добавлениями (не считая ку- нола) в основном принимает вид базилики Ерерука последнего периода ее формирова- ния. С появлением же купола он вступает в лоследующую стадию развития базиликаль- ных построек: создается примечательный об- раз купольной базилики, благодаря чему храм приобретает исключительное значение в истории развития армянской церковной архи- тектуры.

Tekor Temple is one of the key monuments from the earliest period of the formation of Armenian classical architecture. While belonging to the same period as the aforementioned structures that were still in development, it clearly demonstrates the next stage in the evolution of Armenian architectural and construction art.
The Tekor Temple was located near Ani, at the northern foot of the Tekor fortress, which was originally built in the pre-Christian era near the present-day village of Digor. Today, the temple is completely destroyed. Life in this area began in ancient times, flourished significantly under the Kamsarakan princes (5th century), and gradually declined by the time of the Bagratid dynasty (10th-11th centuries).
The exact date of the temple’s construction is unknown. An inscription by Saak Kamsarakan (5th century), carved on the lintel of the western entrance, is attributed to a reconstruction rather than the temple’s foundation. Analysis of the temple's architectural and construction features suggests that it initially had very simple forms and likely existed from the earliest years after Christianity was declared the state religion of Armenia.
Originally, the temple was a three-nave prayer hall, with its main altar—along with the current semicircular apse—having a rectangular shape. The naves were covered by a stone vault, with the central, taller nave illuminated by windows set into the longitudinal walls. Thus, the Tekor Temple, like the Yererouk Basilica, had a "basilical section."
Later, in the 4th-5th centuries, in response to religious ritual requirements, external galleries were gradually added, along with the present-day polygonal exterior and concave interior of the main altar structure, which included adjoining rooms, followed by the addition of a dome. It is evident that, with these modifications (excluding the dome), the Tekor Temple largely took on the appearance of the Yererouk Basilica in its final stage of formation. With the addition of the dome, it entered the next stage in the development of basilical structures, becoming a remarkable example of a domed basilica, which grants the temple exceptional significance in the history of Armenian church architecture.

Как своеобразные культовые постройки, прошедшие определенный период формирова- ния, центрально купольные здания существо- вали в Армении, по меньшей мере, с V в. (Эч- миадзинский кафедральный собор). Возмож- но, прав Т. Тораманян, предполагая, что ку- пол храма Текора был воздвигнут по образ- цу созданного в V в. купола Эчмиадзинского кафедрального собора. Но первоначальный купол Эчмиадзинского кафедрального собора не сохранился, а из древнейших куполов пока что известен купол Текорского храма, создан- ный, вероятно, в конце V в. По сравнению с многообразными купо- лами армянской архитектуры, купол Текора имеет архаичную, чрезвычайно простую кон- струкцию. Ясно видно, что строители не имели еще необходимого опыта возведения купола но тем не менее осуществили свой замысел с большой изобретательностью. Покрывая купо- лом уже существующее здание, они увеличи- ли межпилонные размеры продольного на- правления базилики, привели их в соответствие с межпилонными размерами поперечного на-правления и таким образом получили четыре пилона, расположенные друг от друга на одинаковом расстоянии. Вслед за этим был создан подкупольный квадрат путем запол- нения каменной кладкой пустого пространства углов арок, начиная от пилонов до верхнего края замкового камня. Затем, заложив в че- тырех углах подкупольного квадрата по кам- ню, строители сначала создали многоугольник восьмью неравными сторонами, а потом, постепенно подымаясь по кладке стены, иду- щей к центру, на определенной высоте изнут- ри получили многоугольник с восьмью сторо- нами, а снаружи сохранили четырехгранную структуру. T. Тораманян считает, что поскольку строители не были знакомы с принципами по- стройки совершенных куполов, они от сторон равностороннего многоугольника провели но- вые, суживающиеся (наклоняющиеся) к цент- ру грани и получили пирамидальную конст- рукцию.[6=Покойный архитектор А. Акопян впервые обра- тил внимание на то, что наклон, напомннающий пер- воначальную внутреннюю конструкцию Текорского хра- ма, имеет также внутреннюю структуру барабана хра- ма Рипсиме, построенного в 618 г.]

As distinctive religious structures that underwent a specific formative period, centrally domed buildings existed in Armenia at least since the 5th century (e.g., the Etchmiadzin Cathedral). It is possible that architect Toros Toramanian was correct in suggesting that the dome of the Tekor Temple was modeled after the dome of the Etchmiadzin Cathedral, which was built in the 5th century. However, the original dome of the Etchmiadzin Cathedral has not survived, and among the oldest known domes, the dome of the Tekor Temple—likely built in the late 5th century—remains one of the earliest examples.
Compared to the diverse domes found in Armenian architecture, the dome of Tekor has an archaic and extremely simple construction. It is evident that the builders lacked extensive experience in constructing domes but nevertheless executed their vision with great ingenuity. When adding a dome to the existing structure, they increased the inter-pier distances along the basilica’s longitudinal axis, aligning them with the transverse pier distances, thereby forming four evenly spaced piers.
Following this, they created a subdome square by filling the empty spaces between the arches' corners with masonry, extending from the piers to the upper edge of the keystone. Then, placing stones in the four corners of the subdome square, they first created a polygon with eight unequal sides. Gradually, as the masonry rose toward the center, they achieved an internal octagonal shape while maintaining a quadrangular structure on the exterior.
Toramanian suggested that, since the builders were unfamiliar with the principles of constructing fully developed domes, they extended new converging (inclined) facets from the sides of the regular polygon toward the center, resulting in a pyramidal structure. The late architect A. Akopyan was the first to note that this inclination, reminiscent of the original interior construction of the Tekor Temple, also appears in the internal structure of the drum of the Saint Hripsime Church, built in 618.

Очевидно, что строители купола исполь- зовали опыт существовавших в то время деревянных покрытий народных жилищ «аза- рашен» («согомакаш») либо принцип создан- ных по существу тем же способом каменных покрытий жилищ-долменов. Сравнивая первоначальную структуру купола Текора с куполами последующих эпох (VI-VII вв.), можно воспроизвести процесс возникновения в Армении каменных куполов и их дальнейшее развитие. Первоначальная форма купола Текора-один из тех редких образцов, которые послужили прототипом для достигших высокого совершенства много- образных куполов армянских монументальных построек. С добавлением купола трехнефный храм Текора был преобразован в купольную бази- лику, однако эта перестройка была выполне- на таким образом, что создался общий контур центрально купольной постройки. Так, для того, чтобы возможно было поднять купол из центра здания, пришлось снести пару пило-нов восточной части молитвенного зала, вследствие чего сократилась длина храма. Таким образом, планово-пространственная и объемная структура здания, отдалившись от храмов продольного (базиликального) типа, получила более собранный и отвесный вид, характерный для центрально купольных пост-роек. Другими словами, купольная базилика приняла одновременно вид центральнокуполь- ной постройки, что сыграло определенную роль в формировании построек этого типа. Кроме добавлений, сделанных в IV-вв. в Текоре производились значительные рекон- структивные работы и в последующие века. Қонусообразное завершение купола, вог- нутого изнутри и веерообразного снаружи, было создано не ранее Х в. Подобная форма в армянской архитектуре появилась после Хв. (Хцконк, X-XI вв., Мармашен, X-XI вв., Амберд--XI в.). Не исключено даже, что веерообразная конструкция купола Текорского храма явилась одним из первых образцов аналогичных покрытий или, быть может, их прототипом.

It is evident that the builders of the dome drew upon the experience of contemporary wooden roof structures used in traditional dwellings known as azatashen (sogomakash) or on the principles of stone coverings in dolmen-like dwellings, which were constructed in a similar manner. By comparing the original structure of the Tekor dome with domes from later periods (6th-7th centuries), it is possible to trace the process of the emergence and further development of stone domes in Armenia.
The initial form of the Tekor dome is one of the rare prototypes that laid the foundation for the highly refined and diverse domes found in later Armenian monumental architecture. With the addition of the dome, the original three-nave Tekor Temple was transformed into a domed basilica. However, this reconstruction was carried out in such a way that the overall silhouette of a centrally domed structure emerged.
To elevate the dome from the center of the building, the builders had to dismantle a pair of piers in the eastern section of the prayer hall, thereby reducing the length of the temple. As a result, the spatial and volumetric structure of the building, moving away from the longitudinal (basilical) type, acquired a more compact and vertical appearance characteristic of centrally domed constructions. In other words, the domed basilica also took on the form of a centrally domed structure, which played a role in the development of this architectural type.
Apart from the additions made in the 4th-5th centuries, Tekor underwent significant reconstruction in later centuries as well. The conical dome, concave on the inside and fan-shaped on the outside, was not created before the 10th century. Such a form appeared in Armenian architecture only after the 10th century (e.g., Htskonk, 10th-11th centuries; Marmashen, 10th-11th centuries; and Amberd, 11th century). It is even possible that the fan-shaped structure of the Tekor dome was one of the earliest examples of similar coverings—or perhaps even their prototype.

В ту же эпоху закрываются большне окон- ные проемы храма и на их месте создаются новые узкие и продолговатые окна с харак- терными для того времени орнаментирован- ными бровками. Черепичное покрытие крыши заменяется каменными плитами. Примечательна реконструкция подпру- жных арок, где вместо камней, имевших лучеобразное расположение, выложены зуб- чатые камни. От этого конструкция арок стала более монолитной, а сейсмостойкость сооружения-более надежной.

During the same period, the larger window openings of the temple were sealed, and in their place, new narrow and elongated windows were created, featuring characteristic ornamental moldings typical of that time. The original tiled roof was replaced with stone slabs.
A notable aspect of the reconstruction was the reinforcement of the supporting arches. Instead of the previously used radially arranged stones, the arches were rebuilt using interlocking, toothed stones. This modification made the arch structures more monolithic and significantly improved the earthquake resistance of the building.

В такой стране, как Армения, где проне- ходили сильные землетрясения, антисейсми- ческие мероприятия, естественно, должны были привлечь внимание строителей. В тех пределах, которые позволяло строительное искусство эпохи, создателн первоначальной постройки храма и его последующих перест- роек стремились обезопасить здание от разру- шнтельных землетрясений. Так, например, с внутренней стороны внешних стен храма, в продольном направлении арок главного нефа, как и в последующем добавлении купольном квадрате, были созданы антисейсмические де- ревянные пояса. Они устроены специально в направлении верхних краев арок; кроме того, несколько таких поясов устроено параллельно друг другу в отвесных стенах. Подобная антисейсмическая мера, полу- чившая за последние столетия широкое рас- пространение в народной архитектуре, извест- на была армянским строителям, по меньшей мере, за полторы тысячи лет до этого.

In a country like Armenia, where strong earthquakes were frequent, seismic-resistant construction techniques naturally attracted the attention of builders. Within the limits of the construction techniques available at the time, both the original builders of the temple and those responsible for its later reconstructions took measures to protect the structure from destructive earthquakes. For instance, on the inner side of the temple’s outer walls, along the longitudinal axis of the main nave’s arches—as well as in the later addition of the dome square—seismic-resistant wooden reinforcements were installed. These were placed specifically along the upper edges of the arches, and several such reinforcements were arranged in parallel within the vertical walls. This seismic-resistant measure, which became widespread in vernacular architecture over the past centuries, was known to Armenian builders at least 1,500 years ago.

Thierry & Donabédian

• Thierry, Jean-Michel; Donabédian, Patrick (1989) [1987]. Armenian Art. Translated by Celestine Dars. New York: Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 0-8109-0625-2.

Patrick Donabédian

pp. 584-585

CHURCH OF ST, SERGIUS (Surb Sargis) or THE HOLY TRINITY (Surb Errordut'iwn)

The church stood at the south end of the village of Digor (Turkey, Kars district, Sirak area of Ayrarat province). Only a few wall fragments remain after the earthquakes of 1911 and 1935. An inscription on the west lintel, oddly written from bottom to top, mentions the building of « this St. Sargis' martyrion » by Prince Sahak Kamsarakan (attested in the 48os to early 6t century), and its « foundation » (consecration?) by the Patriarch Yohan Mandakuni ( 478-490 ). The church has therefore been dated from the 480s (K. Lafadaryan). 
It was restored at the time of the Bagratids, and two inscriptions dated 1008 and 1011 relate to tax exemptions, At the same time it seems to have been dedicated to the Holy Trinity (N. Marr). 
It was, at the beginning of this century, a large cross with four free-standing supports within a rectangular perimeter on a nine-stepped base, with a cupola. The apse had three facets slightly protruding outside, and was flanked by two oblong rooms jutting out of the north and south façades (related to Duin and Ereruk"). Inside, the drum was a kind of truncated, trapezoidal pyramid devoid of angular squinches or pendentives, and forming the base of the cupola (domed vault). 
Outside, the drum was a massive parallepiped with a pyramidal, slightly umbrella-shaped roof (rebuilt in the 10th to 11th centuries). There was a baptismal font in a niche in the north wall. Pilasters (west and south) and embedded columns (north) were arranged on the lower halfof the façades. Because the base is very wide, and there is a niche at the northeast end, many authors think that the pilasters and columns correspond to porticos. However, they were irregularly placed, and their disposition as regards the windows and the northeast niche seems contradictory to that function: pilasters and columns were rather decortive features imitating Roman orders, Immediately above them, following a Syrian formula, a molded band ran around the three façades, outlining the horseshoe arches of the windows and of the north east niche. A similar band ran along the cornices at the top of the walls and of the gables, above the upper windows and along the base of the semi-dome of the apse (practically identical to bands on the windows and apse at K'asal). The doors were framed with grooves, and inverted stylized palms were carved on the lintels (two doors to the north, facing the village, and one to the west). They were offset by large portals with horseshoe arches, resting on the two pairs of embedded columns of the jambs. The jambs had capitals with jagged acanthus leaves, in a basic and rather flat rendering common in the 5th and 6thh centuries, and similar to the capitals at Afuc and K'asa]. Slightly different acanthus leaves, more or less stylized, decorated the capitals of the exterior columns as well as the pilasters on either side of the apse, There were traces of paintings in the apse. 
On the strength of observations relative to the pillars, and now impossible to verify, T' T'oramanyan was lead to suppose that this building was originally a three-naved basilica with a flat chancel and cruciform pillars of pre-Christian origins, In the 5th century, an apse, lateral rooms and porticos would have been added, and the plan would have been turned into a cross within a perimeter, with a cupola (according to A. Khatchatrian, the cupola was added between the 6th and 7th centuries). According to the opinion currently prevailing, the church was originally, or nearly from the start, a cross within a rectangular perimeter, with decoration characteristic of the type (St. Mnac'akanyan, M. Hasrat'yan, A. Vysockii). The construction was perhaps interrupted during the uprising of 481-483 , hence some irregularities and different hues in the masonry, The windows were narrowed, the roof of the cupola was repaired and some decorative features were added, probably during restorations in the 10th and 11th centuries.

---

Jean-Michel Thierry

p. 56

...the church at Tekor... It was a cross with four free-standing supports within a rectangular perimeter, and the trapezoidal perimeter of the apse gave the chevet [apse] a shape close to the paleo-Christian basilica, while being relatively close to some centrally planned buildings such as the martyrion of St. Sergius at Resafa-Sergiopolis (6th century). 
A gallery surrounded the building on three sides, and it had a square drum. The shape of the cupola was not the usual hemisphere but a vault, more precisely a rounded cone, two features which lead Toramanyan to suppose that the building was a basilica later transformed into a cross within a perimeter. This hypothesis, formerly unanimously accepted, is now disputed by several authors (M. Hasratyan), who consider that the church at Tekor has always been centrally planned. This seems to be a sensible opinion, especially since its typology is very similar to that of a Georgian building at Cromi (c.635), whose structure is indisputably original.
Most authors agree on the date (c.485) engraved on the lintel. Even if we do not entirely share their conviction, the foundation could be close to 500, provided that subsequent restorations are taken into consideration. The lack of homogeneity found in the decoration, the differing structures of the façades and style of the sculptures, especially the imposts with acanthus leaves (either nearly realistic in the antique style or basic in the paleo-Christian style), are important enough to prevent us from choosing Tekor as the indisputable starting-point of the whole early medieval Armenian monumental chronology.

excerpts

The first, Tekor, is a church of perhaps the 5th century on which a dome was erected in a secondary phase. The monument has been virtually destroyed in modern times so that the problem of documenting it is principally a research assignment in older publications and photographic collections.

Stepan Mnatsakanian

p. 581 Գմբեթավոր կառույցների շինարարության ժամանակ առավել կարևոր էր գմբեթի հուսալի հենարանի ստեղծումը, այսինքն' կոնստրուկտիվ տարրի մշա- կումը, որը պետք է փոխանցում ստեղծեր գմբեթակիր կամարներով կազմված քառակուսուց դեպի գմբեթի շրջագծային հիմքը: Ուսումնասիր:ւթյունը ցույց է տալիս, որ դժվարը եղել է ոչ թե բուն գմբեթի վերնամասի կառուցումը, այլ այն փոխանցման գոտու մշակումը, որը պետք է տեղադրվեր հրկրաշափական տարբեր ձևեր ունեցող ծավալների միջև: Տեկորի տաճարում (V դ.րի վերջ) այդ փոխանցման գոտին փաստորեն ներկայացնում է ժողովրդական բնակելի տան մեջ օգտագործվող փայտյա գմբեթների' հազարաշենների վերարտադրու- թյունը քարի միջոցով և միայն հետո են մշակվում քարին յուրահատուկ ձևեր45 [Toramanian]

The church of Tekor (ca 485) probably housed the Martyrium of St Sergius with the appropriate relic, according to its foundation inscription40. = For a summary on the study of this cathedral church with the appropriate bibliography, see Donabédian, L’âge d’or (n. 2) pp. 54–57. For the English translation of the dedicatory inscription, see Timothy Greenwood, “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, lviii (2004), pp. 27–91, sp. p. 80. According to Zaroui Pogossian, the dedication of the martyrium of St Sergius in Tekor marked the introduction of the relics and cult of a new saint in the northern regions of Armenia. See Zaroui Pogossian, “Ruling Shirak and Aršarunik‘ at the End of the Fifth Century: Sahak Kamsarakan and a Mathematical Problem of Anania Shirakac‘i as a Historical Source”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, lxxxvi (2020/1), pp. 19–63, sp. pp. 41–42, 47–48, see pp. 57–63 for the dilemma of Tekor’s inscription.

---

In his brilliant The Temple of Tekor, Toramanian showed that the Church of Tekor, in its actual form with four pillars and cupola, is the result of many recon- structions. He said that the Tekor church was originally a simple rectangle in form, with apse, and two rows of three pillars in the interior. Later, a rectangular apse was added to the eastern section. At the time of the second reconstruction, two east- ern compartments were added, and the en- tire edifice was encircled by a portico. The third reconstruction would have consisted in the transformation of the rectangular apse into a semi-circular one. During a fourth reconstruction, in the Sixth and Seventh centuries, a cupola resting on four pillars was added, after some necessary constructional readjustments. The actual formula of the cupola belonged to the Tenth century59, (Fig. 7, 15, Pl. I, II). When was the original Tekor edifice constructed? Before the Christian era, Toramanian asserts categorically. Com- paring Tekor to other Armenian basilicas, he came to these conclusions: "In my opinion, the structures at Tekor and Kas- sakh were simply pagan temples; and the others, if they were not temples, were at least primitive Armenian churches built under the influence of pagan forms, al- though more probably the other analogous edifices might have been pagan temples."

---

Garbis Armen

88-89

The Basilica of Tekor The successful application of a dome on Echmiadzin provided a model for the conversion of basilicas into Armenian churches and the first was Tekor in 486 (Diag. 21). Its barrel vault roof had probably cracked or collapsed during an earthquake and the following renova- tions were carried out to convert the basilica, according to Torama- nian, who had the opportunity to study the building early this century, before its final collapse:

i. Addition of a peristyle (exterior columns) on three sides and of two chambers and an apse on the fourth. The structural rein- forcement provided by these additions against lateral seismic thrust would be most significant in later centuries;
ii. Addition of a timber belt at eaves level (where the walls would join the roof). This would help to restrain the movement of walls under the effect of P- and S-waves of an earthquake; 
iii. Reinforcement of four interior columns; 
iv. Construction of a square drum on these four columns to support a conical dome. Four windows on the drum were kept small and narrow, to avoid undermining the support of the dome.18

These additions were built in concrete, containing lime and rubble, poured inside stone facing slabs. The result was a more monolithic structure than a stone building and far more resistant to earthquake movement. Suffice it to mention that the renovated building withstood earthquakes for over 1400 years and provided an example for the conversion of basilicas like the Cathedral of Dvin into Armenian churches. The propagation of the domed hall as the basic form for all these churches was due to the successful crowning of Tekor basilica with a dome. According to Toramanian, this was the first dome to be built entirely of stone and concrete and hence, a very significant step forward from the Echmiadzin dome, despite the difference of only three years.19 Today, this historic church lies in badly mutilated ruins, the con- crete parts of its external walls standing up as ghosts, because they have been stripped of all usable stone by Turkish peasants.

131 Use of calcareous concrete infilling; addition of a timber belt at eaves level to restrain movement of walls; addition of a peristyle on three sides to but- tress a long building; square drum with narrow windows to support a dome

p. 52 /  There are a number of trends in the development of forms and features in Armenian architecture of particular interest to practicing designers of churches: the superstructure (dome plus drum) of Armenian churches has been continually increasing in proportion to the main building; that most of this increase is due to the relative growth of the dome, from the very primitive and experimental one of Tekor in 486 ad, the first built in stone, to the enormous, daring tower of St. Tadei vank in the sixteenth century.
p. 62 /  Fig. 5: The Domed Basilica of Tekor The second basilica after Etchmiadzin to receive a dome and the one to survive the longest - until early this century. It is the veritable link between basilicas and churches in Armenia. The Corinthian capitals of the columns and the arches linking pairs of columns betray a mix- ture of Hellenistic and Iranian influences, in the course of evolution towards the graceful blind arcading of tenth- and eleventh-century Arme- nian churches. The horseshoe arches above entrance doors are the earliest known to have been used in a Christian church.

---

Arshak Fetvadjian: Tekor, Ereuyk The SixthCentury,@c.-Among my studies I have two watercolours which are faithful portraits of the ruins of the churches of EREROUK and TEKOR. The former,which I visited in 1g06, remains as the drawing shows,but TEKOR, which I drew still earlier, was struck by lightning in 1912, after 1,500 years of existence, during several centuries of which it was abandoned. These two monuments are nearly identical in plan,details and technique, and also in the sculpture of their façades (the interiors are bare). They are examples of acharming archaism, and they are generally supposed to be the works of masters who were apprenticed to Syrianarchitects.

check these sources

• Khalpakhchian, O. Kh. [in Russian] (1962). "Армянская ССР [Armenian SSR]". Искусство стран и народов мира. 1: Австралия - Египет [Arts of the Countries and Peoples of the World. Vol. 1: Australia - Egypt] (in Russian). Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya. pp. 100–133.

Hovhannes Khalpakhchian https://archive.org/details/Art_Armenia1962/page/102/mode/2up?view=theater

• Hewsen, Robert H. (2001). Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-33228-4.

• Yakobson, A. L. (1970). "Взаимоотношения и взаимосвязи армянского и грузинского средневекового зодчества [Relationships and connections between Armenian and Georgian medieval architecture]" (PDF). Sovetskaya arkheologiya (in Russian) (4): 41–53. p.44 / Вероятно, к VII в. относится и возведение купола над базиликой V в. в Текоре [Marr, Ereruyskaya, 1968, p.27]

• Edouard Utudjian / Utudjian, Edouard (1968). Armenian Architecture, 4th to 17th Century. Paris: Morancé.

• Melik-Bakhshyan, Stepan [in Armenian] (2009). Հայոց պաշտամունքային վայրեր [Armenian places of worship] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan State University Publishing. pp. XXX. ISBN 978-5-8084-1068-8.