The Architect Trdat: Building Practices and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Byzantium and Armenia

The Architect Trdat: Building Practices and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Byzantium and Armenia Christina Maranci The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 62, No. 3. (Sep., 2003), pp. 294-305. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-9808%28200309%2962%3A3%3C294%3ATATBPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians is currently published by Society of Architectural Historians. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/sah.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. http://www.jstor.org Wed Nov 7 13:00:11 2007 The Architect Trdat Building Practices and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Byzantium and Armenia CHRISTINA MARANCI Cnlrerslq of l4Tsconsin-\T11~~ aukee he Armenian architect Trdat is known to historians of both Byzantine and Armenian architecture because of the bicultural nature of his works: he is credited with the repair of the dome of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, as well as with the construction of Ani Cathedral in Armenia (989-1001), one of the best-known medieval monuments of the Caucasus.' As a highly regarded builder in Armenia, Trdat was also entrusted with the construction of the patriarchal cathedral of Argina (ca. 985) and the palace chapel of King Gagik I1 (ca. 1001-5). T h e main churches at the monasteries of Marmagen, Sanahin, and Halpat, all from the second half of the tenth century, have also been attributed to him. Such high-level projects earned Trdat unusual celebrity, and he is one of the few medieval architects mentioned by name in contemporary sources. However, the body of literature on this figure is, perhaps predictably, asymmetrical. Armenological studies tend to focus on his building projects at home, mentioning his efforts at the Great Church only in passing.' Scholars of Byzantine architecture, although cognizant of his activity in the capital, often neglect his constructions in Armenia; some seem unaware that he enjoyed a career there at all.3 This historiographical bifurcation, the result of both the divergent character of the Byzantine and Armenian sources and persistent cultural and national myopia, has limited our understanding of the architect.+ In exploring the historical circumstances surrounding Trdatk Constantinopolitan commission, I consider what he may have brought from one culture to another, raising the broader question of how Byzantines and .Armenians perceived each other's architectural traditions. This is particularly important given the unique character of medieval Armenian culture, which was linked to not only the Mediterranean but also the Islamic world, and which possessed a literature, language, and Christianity distinct from its Greek neighbors.' A study of Trdat's case also offers critical information regarding medieval building practices. Clues to his design process and on-site construction methods are furnished in both a contemporary text and surviving monuments. This evidence is particularly significant, for direct commentary on the subject is very scarce in medieval ~ources.~Although largely overlooked hitherto, Trdat's career provides an important resource for the study of both cross-cultural exchange and building practices in medieval architecture. This inquiry, moreover, furnishes some newr perspectives on a group of very familiar monuments. Trdat and the Hagia Sophia: Textual and Archaeological Data Numerous Byzantine sources report on the devastation of the earthquake of 989, the collapse of the dome of the Hagia Sophia, and its subsequent repair under Emperor Basil I1 (r. 976-1025).' However, none mentions the builder involved in the rebuilding project; it is in an early-eleventhcentury Armenian source, the three-volume Universal His- t o y by Step'anos Taronec'i, that his identity is ~ f f e r e dIn .~ the last volume, the author discusses Byzantine-Armenian relations during the reign of Basil 11, and mentions the earthquake in Constantinople and the repair of the Hagia Sophia. After describing the damage done to a number of structures in the city and its vicinity, Taronec'i relates the condition of the church: "Even [Hagia] Sophia, the cathedral, was torn to pieces from top to bottom. On account of this, many skillful workers among the Greeks tried repeatedly to reconstruct it. The architect and stonemason Trdat of the Armenians also happened to be there, presented a plan, and with wise understanding prepared a model, and began to undertake the initial construction, so that [the church] was rebuilt more handsomely than before."" Taronec'i's text may contain an element of encomium: after local builders struggle and ultimately fail to arrive at a solution, an outsider conceives and executes-with little evident hardship-a successful repair of the dome. Most interesting in this respect is the use of the verb dipim (to happen, to arrive by chance). A literal reading would hence suggest that Trdat happened to be in Constantinople at the time of the dome's collapse, an interpretation running counter to the commonly held idea that he was ~urnmoned.'~ The verb may have also been used, however, to emphasize further the casual nature of Trdat's victory over the hapless Byzantine architects. Regardless, for our purposes, the basic units of historical narrative can be set out as follows: Trdat was in Constantinople when the dome collapsed, made preparatory studies of the repair, and undertook the beginning stages of work. Acquiring more specific information regarding Trdat's interventions has been one of the aims of archaeological surveys by William Emerson and Robert L. Van Nice." In a series of publications from the 1940s and '50s, the two scholars presented the results of their examinations, offering a detailed account of the construction of Hagia Sophia's second dome by Isidorus the Younger and subsequent repairs in the tenth and fourteenth centuries. Although now more than a half-century old, their observations have never been seriously challenged.12The scholars located Trdat's contribution based on information from the Byzantine sources and their physical observations of the structure; they concluded that his repair comprised the replacement of the western segment of the dome and the reinforcement of the western arch (Figure 1). First, Emerson and Van Nice noted that in this portion, the radial ribs had been filled in (Figure 2). In place of the ribs is the wall of the dome shell, which runs straight, as does the cornice from which it springs. After inspecting exposed masonry at the interior base of the dome, they concluded that this apparent irregularity was the result of the widening of the great western Figure 1 Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, 532-37 and later, view toward the west Figure 2 Hagia Sophia, plan of the dome THE ARCHITECT TRDAT 295 The Building Practices of Trdat: Possible Explanations for His Hire Figure 3 Hagia Sophia, diagram juxtaposing the four great arches of the dome. Note that the western arch rises higher than the other three. arch, which was built to protrude farther into the dome area than its predecessor (Figure 3). Trdat, the historians believed, also increased the height of the arch, as is evident from the mass that projects above the roofline of the west side of the dome base (Figure 4). This projection, moreover, does not extend straight from corner to corner, but curves inward toward the dome at its center point.13 Emerson and Van Nice suggested that this inward cambering was intentional14 and resulted from Trdat's study of the south side of the dome; as it does today, it survived then in its sixth-century state and bore a threatening outward bulge.15 Hence, they asserted, it is most likely that Trdat intended to safeguard against a similar deformation on the west side. Although the archaeological aspects of Trdat's repair of the dome have been carefully examined, the historical circumstances surrounding it remain unclear. It would be particularly interesting to know how Trdat earned such a prestigious commission, a job for which, as is attested by John Scylitzes, the scaffolding alone cost one thousand pounds of gold.16 At that point in his career, Trdat had already built a cathedral for the reigning catholicos of Armenia, and it is quite possible that his reputation preceded him. Yet, one would imagine, hiring a local architect would have been more practical. Additional answers to the question of Trdat's hiring may be sought in the historical context of the late tenth century. Basil II's concern with expanding imperial borders into the Balkans and the Caucasus often kept him from the capital, and, unlike his namesake, Basil I, he is not known to have commissioned any major architectural projects there." Although it is dangerous to draw firm conclusions given the piecemeal nature of the evidence, it is perhaps significant that no monuments from his reign survive in Constantinople.18 Moreover, Basil's eastward campaigns may have brought him in direct contact with Armenian builders. A number of sources report on Basil's interaction with Armenians; according to the chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, for example, he met with Armenian philosophers during his travels in the Cauca~us.'~ While these factors suggest a scenario in which Trdat was drawn to the capital, they leave a number of problems unaddressed. He was not, most likely, an expert in building Byzantine churches, and the brick and mortar of Byzantine structures constituted a dramatic departure from the stone- Figure 4 Hagia Sophia, view of the west face of the dome showing the projecting mass - & 296 J S A H / 62:3, S E P T E M B E R 2003 "...'>- / .;.'. faced rubble masonry of Armenia and Georgia. Churches of the Caucasus, such as the cathedral of Ani (see Figure 1I), were sheathed with thin slabs facing a core of fieldstone and mortar, materials that necessitated a different system of vault ~ o n s t r u c t i o nYet . ~ ~if Trdat was not chosen for his mastery of Byzantine materials and techniques, an examination of his repair of the Hagia Sophia also shows little evidence of architectural methods borrowed from the Caucasus. T h e cladding of Armenian monuments, formed by carefully cut, well-squared stones, would n o doubt have struck a Byzantine spectator as distinctive, and hence we might expect to find such masonry in Trdat's repair. As Emerson and Van Nice noted, however, the stonework of the western portion of cornice of Hagia Sophia is marked by a striking lack of uniformity. Unlike the other segments, which feature a consistency in block size, Trdat's portion is composed of varying sizes and shapes. What, then, recommended Trdat over others for the job? One potentially attractive aspect of Trdat's curriculum vitae was his experience in dome construction, in particular, domes on pendentives, like the Hagia Sophia. Although in Armenia squinches were the more commonly used method of supporting domes, it is noteworthy that, to the best of our knowledge, in all of Trdat's monuments there he utilized pendentives beneath the domes.21Another aspect of Trdat's architectural skills is revealed in Taronec'i's description of Trdat's election to the job, where he does not offer generic praise but, rather, connects the architect's success directly to the use of preparatory studies. Surprisingly, Taronec'i cites not one but two forms: Trdat "presented a plan [aw~i-inak], with wise understanding prepared a nlodel [katabal-1,and began to undertake the initial construction." T h e term awri~zak,according to Matthias Bedrossian, is defined as type or model; however, in its secondary meaning, it possesses more precise associations with graphic media, specifically with drawings and plans." Kntabar, by contrast, refers to a three-dimensional medium, meaning cast, shape, or mold.23Hence we may infer from Taronec'i's account that Trdat produced both graphic and plastic studies in preparation for his repair. Such a design process finds no parallel description elsewhere in medieval Armenian texts. In the History of the Amenia~zsby Agat'angeios, dated to the fifth century, Saint Gregory lays out the foundations of martyria with an architect's line (lar): "Saint Gregory himself took up the architect's line and set out the foundations for the saint's chapels of repose."" T h e same phrase is used in the tenth-century Histofy of the House of the A?-ts~zuzik' to describe the founding of the palace complex at Alt'amar: "Then [Gagik] in his wise understanding, with many artisans took up the archi- tect's line, to measure and sketch and indicate at the foot of the mountain."25 This method is also mentioned in the Armenian foundation rite, in which the bishop "takes out the architect's measuring line" to mark the perimeter of the foundation, a practice that suggests the buildings were laid out on-site with ropes, a practice for which Robert Ousterhout has adduced numerous parallels in Byzantium and medieval E ~ r o p e . ' ~ T h e uniqueness of Taronec'i's text may be explained in a number of ways, but i t is important to note that the medieval Armenian accounts of the foundation of churches belong to a well-established literary tradition, and the events described above are embedded in a larger hagiographical narrative. In this light, it is significant that the ik' author of the Histo~yof the House of the A ~ ~ s r u ~ zemploys precisely the same phrase, "to take up the architect's line," as his fifth-century predecessor. It is thus tempting to assert the veracity of Taronec'i's text based on its distinctness from the literary topos and, more particularly, in its use of technical and differentiated terms. But such an assertion must be predicated on a comprehensive analysis of building practices in the medieval Caucasus, which has not yet been ventured, apart from studies of churches in the region of Tao." However, archaeological and textual evidence can provide a context for Trdat's design practices. With regard to the use of three-dimensional studies, a group of small stone models, dating from the seventh to fourteenth centuries, survive in Armenia and Georgia. Generally ranging in height from one to three feet, they are shaped like the domed, centrally planned churches characteristic of the medieval Caucasus, and occur in a variety of contexts: in addition to their appearance in the relief sculptures of donation scenes, as in the famous example at the tenth-century church of Alt'amar,2Rthey also functioned as acroteria, crowning the gables of monastery churches, and reliquaries, as in an example from the monastery of S a n a h i ~ ~Many . ? ~ of them, though, do not seem to be connected with a particular monument, and hence they have been considered workshop models; one tentatively dated to the seventh century and found in the region of Sisian is currently held in the State 1Museum of Erevan (Figure 5).j0 In view of the very schematic form of the representatives of this group, it is doubtful that they would have aided much in the design process-it is more likely that such models were used for the purposes of presentation.jl In any case, this corpus of sculpture, which finds no parallel in Byzantium, suggests that architectural model-making was a familiar concept in the Caucasus. Trdat's use of drawings may also be situated within a Transcaucasian architectural tradition, as demonstrated in Figure 5 Stone church model found in Sisian, Armenia, seventh centun, (?I Figure 6 Church, GagkaSen, Armenia (present-day northeast Turkey), ca. 1001-5 (collapsed), plan the church of GagkaSen in Ani, Armenia (Figure 6), an early-eleventh-centuly structure attributed to the architect.'? As is attested by Tar6necLi,it is built in imitation of the seventh-century church of Zuart'noc', in Armenia (Figure 7).j3 Both monuments are in ruins; however, even in a study of ground plans, the similarity of GagkaSen to its prototype is readily apparer~t.~) T h e buildings feature doubleaisled tetraconch plans with four large, W-shaped piers and exedrae of six columns. Both also share almost precisely the same measurements in overall dimensions and the relationship of component^.^^ As Ousterhout has observed, these similarities strongly suggest that Trdat imitated GagkaSen with the aid of a drawing.j6 Additional evidence for the use of plans in Arn~eniacan be adduced: in a recent publication, Armen Chazarian and Ousterhout brought to light a diagram of a muqarnas vault that was inscribed on the walls of the thirteenth-century Armenian n~onastery.~' Medieval Georgia also offers evidence for the use of drawings: the eleventh-century source Eprem Mcire relates that Nino, the Georgian illuminator, drew the plan of a church that was then built by architects and masons.3HIn the biography of Serapion of Zarzma, Basil Zarzmeli likewise wrote that Serapion traced the plan of a church and gave it to the architect Michael and his assistant for execut i ~ n . Visual ~" evidence for the practice of using drawings 298 J S A H 1 6 2 : 3 , S E P T E M B E R 2003 can be found at the tenth-century Georgian church of K'orogo, in which a sculpted capital depicts the donor holding a plan of the building."' Such evidence for the conceptualization of architecture does not seem to find a parallel in contemporaneous Byzantium. As Ousterhout has argued, iMiddle Byzantine architects more commonly relied on practical experience rather than theoretical training, a position that is suggested in part by the tenth-century Poliorccticn, a military treatise on war machines." Its author, Heron of Byzantium, drew from a Roman source but made significant changes to the original text, removing, for example, the technical vocabulary, which, he explains, would be unfamiliar to the reader. Heron also redrew the two-dimensional classical diagrams as realistic three-dimensional illustrations, a change, Ousterhout asserts, that suggests his audience was unaccustomed to dealing with diagrams or working drawings?? What explains the seemingly divergent approaches to building in Byzantium and the Caucasus? Ousterhout posits differences in building materials: the cut-stone masonry of Armenian and Georgian churches would have required more planning than the brick-and-mortar structures of Byzantium, in which adjustments could be made (and concealed) during the process of construction. It is certain that 'I'rdat's use of plans and models may be situated within a Trdat in Armenia Figure 7 Church, Zuart'noc', Armenia, ca 640-61 icollapsedi. plan regional tradition, and his conceptual expertise would have been particularly appealing to his employers, who were confronted with the repair of an architectural hapax like the Hagia Sophia. A survey of the Hagia Sophia itself, however, suggests that a third aspect of Trdat's experience was also called into use. Emerson and Van Nice observed a series of readjustments to the setting lines of the dome in the repaired area. At the south end of the repair is a circular groove near the lip of the cornice, concentric with the pendentive below.+3 At the northern end, however, there is no such groove; rather, the lip of the cornice is concentric with the rim of the pendentive. Based on this lack of uniformity, the scholars suggested that Trdat began by setting the stones of the southern segment of the cornice first, and inscribing a curve on them for the ribs above; at the north end, however, he simply designed the cornice itself to indicate the curve of the dome. Hence it appears that Trdat adjusted his methods as he went along.* From the archaeological and textual sources, we may infer that Trdat was proficient in the theoretical planning of the repair while also capable of negotiating with what must have been an unpredictable on-site construction process. I propose that in addition to his reputation as a high-level builder in Armenia, some or all of the skills discussed above were evident to his Byzantine employers and perhaps earned him a supervisory position as master builder, orpromaistor, of the project.+' What is certain is that his work has endured the test of time-the western segment of the dome has stood for more than a millennium. Trdat was active in Armenia both before and after his repair of the Hagia Sophia. H e is mentioned in connection with -4rgina (now Ergine), a fortified town north of the city of Ani." In the ninth century, the seat of the catholicos was transferred there from Vaspurakan, and several buildings were erected, including a cathedral. According to the Univernal History,it was built by Trdat: in an account of the foundation of h i Cathedral, Taronec'i named "the architect (fartarapet) Trdat, who constructed the cathedral of Argir~a."~' Elsewhere in the text, Taronec'i related that Argina Cathedral was built in 985 at the behest of catholicos XaE'ik (r. 972-92). We may thus conclude that Trdat constructed the monument in 985, before his visit to Constantinople. T h e cathedral of Argina, which stood partially ruined since the early twentieth century, collapsed completely in 1966.'8 However, documentary photographs reveal that it was an aisleless, longitudinal structure crowned by a dome on pendentives (Figures 8,9). T h e exterior was punctuated by pairs of triangular niches, a common feature of Armenian and Georgian architecture, which indicate the main divisions of the interior. O n the inside, the longitudinal space was divided into three bays by thick bundled piers, which formed, at their summit, rib arches for the vaults. In the central bay, the arches were slightly pointed and once provided support for the pendentives, drum, and dome. T h e semicircular apse at the east was flanked by two small side chapels, and the triumphal arch was articulated by a series of three ribs supported on bundled shafts." Such rich profiling gave the interior a strikingly muscular effect and an emphasis on linearity, which anticipated Trdat's work at h i Cathedral. Probably owing to such a high-status commission, Trdat was hired by King Smbat I1 in 989 to build a cathedral in the city of h i , in present-day northeast Turkey.jo According to an inscription on the south wall, construction was interrupted by the death of Smbat in 989, was subsequently resumed by Queen Katramide, the wife of Smbat's brother and successor, Gagik I, and was concluded in 1001. How much of the building was completed at the time of Smbat's death is a matter of debate.jl Moreover, it is not known under what circumstances Trdat left the project and traveled to Constantinople. For the present purpose, however, it is more important to observe the physical features of the structure. Currently in precarious condition, the cathedral employs in its general outlines the form of seventh-century, centrally planned basilicas in Armenia (Figure Constructed of rubble masonry, the monument once bore a dome with a conical roof, which was still extant in the nineteenth century.53 Figure 8 Arg~naCathedral, Armenia (present-day northeast Turkey), ca. 985 (collapsed), plan Figure 9 Argina Cathedral (collapsed), view from the west , ' , ' > ~ I Figure 10 Ani Cathedral, Armenia (present-day northeast Turkey). 989-1 001, plan 300 J S A H / 62:3, S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 Figure 11 Ani Cathedral. view from the northwest Supported on pendentives, the dome stood atop the intersection of four barrel vaults elevated to a cruciform design and topped with gabled roofs (Figure 1I). Inside, four massive, freestanding piers divide the space into three aisles, the nave of which terminates in an eastern apse flanked by twostory side chapels (Figure 12). At Ani Cathedral, Trdat introduced a number of innovations to the architectural scheme of the early medieval domed basilica. As in Argina Cathedral, the vaulting is articulated by a series of pointed rib-arches that spring from profiled piers. However, at Ani these supports are thinner and endow the interior with sinuous elegance echoed by the slender blind arcades of the exterior walls. Another departure from seventh-century architecture, which has been observed by many scholars, is the enlarged space under the dome. Although the structure bears the same general layout as the domed basilica of Mren, at Ani the four main piers stand much closer to the lateral walls, so that the ratio of the width of the side aisle to the domed area is roughly 1: 2.54At Mren, these widths are almost equal. It is generally believed that Trdat worked on the church of Gagik I, or GagkaSen, after Ani Cathedral was completed (see Figure 6).55The church was dedicated to Saint Gregory and built in imitation of the church of Zuart'noc' (see Figure 7). However, they were not identical; the colonnettes of the four piers project more emphatically at Gagkagen Figure 12 Ani Cathedral, view of the interior T H E A R C H I T E C TT R D A T 301 than at Zuart'noc', creating, as at Ani and Argina, a greater sense of linearity. Also, Trdat replaced the solid eastern apse at Zuart'noc' with a fourth exedra, which opens out into the ambulatory. Finally, while the architect retained the measurements of the central space (approximately twenty-five meters in both buildings), he decreased the width of the ambulatory from four meters (taken at the outermost curve of the exedrae) to about two and a half. As at Ani Cathedral, the layout allots greater space to the area under the dome. These monuments suggest two elements of Trdat's architectural aesthetic: linearity created by the profiling of the supports and arches, and larger central space^.'^ A Comparative Study Having surveyed the campaigns of Trdat in Constantinople and Armenia, it is important to consider whether his experiences in one tradition shaped his involvement in the other. It is difficult to imagine how Trdat would have remained unaffected by the interior of the Hagia Sophia, which has overwhelmed visitors since the sixth century, and how an architect working on high platforms within the church could not have been inspired by one of the most impressive domed spaces ever built. In this light, we might perceive the new, larger proportions of the central areas at h i Cathedral and the church of GagkaSen as a reflection of Trdat's memory of the vast continuous spaces of the Hagia Sophia.'; The open eastern exedrae at GagkaSen may also be construed as a response to the Hagia Sophia, whose inner core is obstructed nowhere by solid wall, but screened by piers, columns, and exedrae. Conversely, it is hardly likely that Trdat discarded his experience with Armenian architecture when he stepped into the Hagia Sophia. His arch, which Emerson and Van Nice describe as "extravagantly thickened,"'* makes more sense when understood as coming from the world of its maker; Armenian buildings were typically more massive, with thicker walls, lower profiles, and fewer windows than their Byzantine counterparts. Perhaps it is for this reason that Trdat decided not only to strengthen the great western arch, but also to alter an adjacent part of the surviving sixth-century dome: according to the archaeologists, the architect filled in two pairs of windows at either end of his ~egment.~%nxietyabout these openings is more understandable when we consider that the drum windows of tenth- and eleventh-century Armenian churches, such as the Church of the Savior in Ani, were quite narrow and often alternatingly blind.60Finally, the cornice at the Hagia Sophia may also refer to Armenian building practices. While the north, east, and south segments were constructed 302 J S A H / 6 2 : 3 ,S E P T E M B E R 2003 to slope downward, Trdat's cornice extends parallel with the ground (see Figure 3). Emerson and Van Nice referred to this feature as "an i r r e g ~ l a r i t y "yet ; ~ ~we should remember that it is standard in medieval Armenian building, as is illustrated by the dome cornice of the main church at the tenthcentury monastery of Marmasen." In the end, it is the great disparity in Trdat's Byzantine and Armenian work that stands out. T h e Hagia Sophia, after all, was not rebuilt with a conical roof, nor was h i Cathedral constructed of bricks and mortar, and this divergence is one of the most important and intriguing aspects of Trdat's oeuvre. WTe may wonder how Trdat negotiated between two very different professional and technological milieus, how he interacted with Greek builders, and how he was regarded by them. While answers to these questions may elude us at present, a comparative study of Trdat's career offers a chance to explore broader issues of cultural exchange between Byzantium and Armenia in the tenth and eleventh centuries. It is only a matter of venturing across the border. Notes Versions of this paper were read at the "Conference on the Historic .Armenian r and at the symposium "The Province of .hi/Kara," UCLA, 8 S o v e ~ n h e 2001, Return of the Dome: Ideas on the Study of his to^?," Princeton U~iiversitv,11 .\lay 2002. In addition to the audiences at each ineetlng, I n-izh to thank Robert Ousterhout, Zejmep Celik, Slobodan Curtit, Biasera Pentcheva, and .hthony Cutler, who first encouraged me to explore the topic. 1. It is generally accepted that the same Trciat undertook both works. However, it is a o r t h laying out the evidence. h architect named Trdat is mentioned in two sections of Step'anos Taronec'i's Cizirur~.alHistmy: once in relation to the Hagia Sophia, and later in connection with the cathedrals of .%rgina and h i . .Although it is conceivable that Taronec'i was writing about tv-o different Trdats, the argument for a tingle individual is much more inviting for many reasons. First, the l r d a t responsible for the cathedrals of h g i n a and Ani u-as already a noted builder in .Armenia prior to the collapse of the dome of the Hagia Sophia; it is certain that he constructed the patriarchal cathedral of.Argma prior to 989, and most likely had begun work on .%ni Cathedral as well. Hence, he would have been of the appropriate status for an inlperial project. Second, an inscription on the south wall of . h i Cathedral indicates that Smbat I1 died in 989 and that construction nas completed in 1001 under Queen Katra~nide.T h e death of Srnbat could have created a hiatus in building precisely when Trdat a a s allegetlly in Constantinople. Finall!; it seems doubtful that two high-level architects working in tenth-century ,knienia named Trdat would be mentioned in the same source without differentiation. Armenian chroniclers of the era (like their Byzantme counterparts) rarely mention the names of architects (the case of Manuel, the architect of .kItcamar, is one of the few exceptions). In this regard, it is notewor- ofA~meniai?A-ope~Xumes (Hayoc' thy to consider Hraceay .%carean's Dictzoiz~~y A?zc'na7zz~nei-i Barai-an) (Beirut, 1972), a five-volume reference culled from classical and medieval sources. T h e name "Trdat" appears only once in the tenth century. 2. T o my knowledge, there is only one monograph on Trdat: Kevork Hovhan&s)an, P d a t Cirltn~.upetli(The architect Trdat) (Erevan, 19.51). Reference articles include Karnik Saxyan, "Trdat," H~lykakaiz So~etukar?Hanrakltaran (.Asmenlan-Sox-iet encyclopedia) (Erevan, 1986), 93; and Luc). Dcr Alanuelian, "Trdat," in Joseph R. Strayer, ed., Dicrioira~yqf'the.lIiddleAges (Sexv York, 19821, 161-65. Discussions of some length also appear in: Sedrak Barxudanan, JIy"~zadn~yan H q &rita~-apetner p i . K'algois kkrpehrer (Alediex-al .-\rtnenian architects and stone masons) (Erevan, 1963); T'oror Toramanyan, Ajut'er Huvkirkan &1itarap~ti~ti;/i121 Pamut:ya/l (Materials for the study of Armenian architecture), ? vols., ed. Hovsep' Orbeli (Erevan, 194248), 68,71,275,276, 385; Josef S t r z y de7-14777e11ze7-~r2d EIIYOPU (l-ienna, 19181, 590-95; Sirarpie g o a s h , D I PBarik~~~zst Der Sersessian, The .A~-me~lran.r(xeu I b r k , 19;0), 108-10; and Jean-AIichel (Paris, 1987), 481. T h e h m e Thiern- and Patrick Donabedian, CAT?alrni~~ierz ~ ~ ' S I I I Z(lvatertown, I~~RI Mass., 199?), nologist Garhis .&men's ,417 ,4~.chlte~tuie 17-50, attempts to elaborate on Trdat's efforts in Constantinopie; llowex.er, the author ~ n a k e sthe assumption that Trdat reconstructed the entire dome, and hence attributes to him the "innovations" of the pier buttresses and the dome ribs. These elements had been added in the sixth century with the second dome of Isidorus the Younger. 3. For cxample, ITilliam Emerson and Robert L. f i n Nice, u-hose studles of Trdatk repair of the H a p a Sophia are discussed beloxr; make no mention of his Armenian constructions. 'I'here are exceptions: Cyril AIango and Richard Krauthet~nercite Trdat's n-ork in .Asmenia, although they focus on his activities ~ York, 1985), 130; in B>-zantinm.See Cyril hlango, Rjza?ztil?e A n h r t e c t r i ~(iXe\v and Richard Krauthetriler and Slobodan C u r i ~ Ea1-(1, ~ . Chrrstrnn and Byzantme .4i.cb1recture (Harmondsxr-orth, England, and Xeu- York, 19R6), 330. Trdat's works in .Armenia are also discus\ed hr~eflyin Rohert OusterhoutS Jfa.rtei Ba11rtL.uof L?yzarltt~irn(Princeton, 1090), 56, 273, n. 49. 1.For further discussion of the probletn of natronalist ideolog) in the literature on .Asmenran architecture, see Christina Alaranci, .\Ied1rzirl.4r~11e1rzonAichztr1~11,a: Cunstirii-tzonsqf R~ice~ r i ~Satzuii d (Louvaln, 2001). 5 . 'I'he best English-language sun-ey of rnedieval .Asmenian culture t ( ~date remalns Serse\v.ln, The A T - ~ I I ~ I I I ~ ~ I ~ . 6. As Ousterhout has shoun in .llaste7- R1~11dri.s ? f ' B y z ~ ~ u t z uchronicles, n~, military treatises, and especiall) sa~nts'lives offer important and overlooked resources for this ltne of inquiry (50). 7 . Byzantine sources that mention the earthquake i~icludeLeo D~aconus,John Sqlitzes, and Glycas. T h e episode is also mentioned in an .*ah text by h h y a ibn-Sa'id. T h e h m e n i a n account of Step'anos Tarrinec'i is d~scussedbelow. For a complete list of texts. analyses, and further references, see Cyril hlango, "Byzantine IYr~terson the Fabric of Hagia Sophia," in Robert 1Iark and .*met (<:alnbrldge, S. Cakmak, eds., H a p a Sophmfi-ui71tl.e.4gc nfj'rrstilzzaiz to the P~e~.e~zt England, and S e a h r k . 1092), 54; and l l a n g o , The .llosuzc~qf'St. Sophln nr Iltirnbill, Du~irbaituriOirkr Stirdies 8 (\Ihshington, D.C., l06?), 7 ; . 8. 'lhrirnec'~nas actwe in the early eleventh century. Otheruise k n i ~ u na\ .-\solik, the author came from the province ofTaron, south\vest of Lake E n (presentclay southeast Turkey), .lnd mas appo~ntedby the catholicos Sargis (r. 992-1010) to supervise nionastenes and churches. It was Sargis n-ho comtnlssioned Tar6ncc'i to urite L'i~ii.c~t.;alHi.rto~y,a, three-book account that begin? with l~stsof hihlical kings and procecds in the 5ec1,nd and third books to name rulers of Byzantine, Sassanian, and Islamic emplres. T h e critical edition of the text remains Step'an L ~ R ~universal I history of Alalrasean, Step'atzos Tari~rec'7;.ojPamrrt'r;~.nE P Z P ~ - I (The Step'anos Taronec'i) (St. Petersburg, 1885). Several translations exist In French, . unrzeiselle, pt. 1 including Edouard Dulaur~er,~ t z e n n rAcoghig de D u ~ o n H1stoz1-e dr E r o n Hl.rtozre of the Hzsto~y(Paris, 1881): and FridCric Alacler, ~n~~nne..lrolrk pts. 2 and 3 o f t h e Hzsto~y(Paris, 1917, 1920), u h ~ c his also printed in r~r71ae~relle. P~~blzcano~rs de l'icole des Ia~zguesoi1e~1tu1e.s z~iiaizter,1st ser., 18 (1920). In German, see Heinrich Geizer and Xbrecht Burckhardt, Stephulzos roll ?irro71.Amre~zrsc!v Geschicl~te (Leipzig, 1907). Important secondary studies include Gevorg hbgaryan, "Karcec'yal Step'anos Taronec'in Noyn ink'@Step'anos Tarirnec'i hso- likn@"(The so-called Step'anos Taroncc'i: T h e same person as .-\solik), PutmaRanasiiakuil Hu7rdZs (Historical-ph~lologicalreview) 1 (1962), 210-14. For further references, see Robert Thomson, A Bibliography qf Clasrical AI-menian ~ ~ Belgium, 1995), 202-3. Llteuztrrl-e to 1 1 0 0 (Turnhout, 9. Tksn oroy bazum F a n clew arhestau~orEartarac'n Yunac' a i i verstin norogel: -4y1 and dipeal Cartarapetin Havoc' Trdatay k'aragorci; tay zorinak dinuacoyn, i m a s n ~ nhanEarov patrasteal zkakapars kazmacoyn ew skzbnaureal ~ l i n e l n .o r e n gekec'kapes linec'aw p a p a ? k'an zahECinn. Malxasean, Step'anos Tni.onec'xo~P u t m ~ ~ t ' i wTiezep-akntz, ~z 28, 250-51). 10. See, for example, Nersessian, The .4~1e1riuns,108. This passage also raises questions about the interruption of budding at . h i Cathedral, which I discuss beloxr. 11. See IVilliam Emerson and Robert L. Tan Sice, "Hagia Sophia, Isranbul: Preof liminary Report of a Recent Examlnat~onof the Structure," An~r~.icu~zj'oui~zal .4?zhurolo~p~4 7, no. 4 (1943), 403-65; and ITilliam Emerson and Robert L. I k n Ntce, "Hagia Sophia: T h e Construction of the Second Dome and Its Later Repa~rs,".4rchaeology 4,no. 13 (195 I), 163-7 1. See aim Kou-land Mainstone, Hagla Sophi~:~4,z.hitcct1~re, Ptt~uct~1re and L I ~ z I I ;of3z~sfln1a?li. ~)' Gieut Church (London, 1098). 12. For example. the contributors to &lark and Cakmak, Hagla Sophla finm the Age ofJ~sti;iiun,make use of these surveys n i t h little revision. 13. Emerson and THn xice, "Hagia S o p h ~ aT: h e Construction of the Second Dome," fig. 9. 14. T h e cambering is related to the questton of whether the semidomes affected the stability of the matn dome; on this issue, see the comnients of Roxvland hlainstone, In n-Ilich, based on evidence from Italian and Syrian examples, he affirms that they worked as buttresses; .Llalnstone, Hu,ql~rSophm: .4i~hitecturr.Stixctzr~e ~12dL i t ~ r I;?. ~, 15. Emerson and \:In h-ice, "Hagia Sophia: T h e Construction of the Second Dome," fig. 2 . 16. Alango, "Byzdntine M r~ters."54. 17. "Basil 11," 0rfbr.d Dictro~inryof'Byzantrirm, 1: 261. 18. We may also rernember the concomitant construction In tnainland Greece, such as the Katholikon of the monastery of IIosios Loukas and the church ofthe Ilol! Apostles in Athens. However, the clrculnstances of the prol~ferationof rnonastlc foundations outside the capital at this tltue are complex, involving a number of socioeconomic firctors, particularly the rise of privately endoued institutions. For further general discussion, see Mango, Bjza~ztz71rAi.chitectew, 115-16, and Krautheirner and curi.16, Etz~.!yChi.isrian and Byza~ztz~re Archztectul-e, 173 (see n. 3). For a historical study of t h ~ sproblen~,see John Phillip Thomas, Pizznte Rel~gzoic~ FoiilzaLtions rn the i?~,zanrlneEmprt-K(IVashington, D.C., 1987). 19. See Ilinre~iiuunii the Ci.irsi~dt~s, E,irth to E e l f i h Centuiles: The Chvonzcle rf .\Itltthei~. qfE~li,.csu,trans. and colnrn. .Ira Dostourtan (Lanham, .\Id., S e w York, and London, 1993), 39-47. 20. Discussions of T'allt~and of other medieval Armenian nlonuments can be found in Sirarpie Der Kerses~ian,L/iitt117nr;n101(Paris, 1077); Thierry and Dondi i4i?hztettr~~~iz =iilnelin (Alilan and Venice, abedian, L 4 1 t t11711:nieir;Do~rrrne~iti ui7ne11~ dul (j~laltoa1 1968-present); and Paolo Cuneo et al., eds., Alxhltett~r~a iiiczanorenmo srrolo (Rome, 1988). T h e most comprehens~ve,if problematic, study IIS~ rind EIII-opa(see n. 2). remains Strzygox5-sh, Dze B I Z I I ~ Nde1-ilirnmler 2 1. These buildings include the cathedrals of .Asgina, h i , and GagkaSen, which are associated with Trdat via literary sources. Hou-ever, the main churches at Sanahin, Ilatpat, and LlarmaSen, whtch are tentat~velyattrihuted t o h ~ m alqo , bear pendentires beneath the do~nes. 22. See llatthias Brdrossian, .Xez Dictloila~yArmeiliu~z-Englzsh(Beirut, 1985), 762. 23. Ibid., 321. 24. Agathuirgrlos: Hlstoty ofthe .47~nenians,trans. Robert M: Thomson (Ahan); h-.Y, 1976), 297, sec. 758. 25. Thomas .Irtsruni, Hiqtoiy of the Hoiise ofthe Amruizik', trans. and comm. l'i'escher, Poholr~tzquedesgmcs (Paris, 186;). Robert \T' 'Thornson (Detroit, 1985), 356, sec. 294. 26. See Robert L4: Thotnson, ".Architectural SJulltolisn~in Classical -Armenian 43. Emerson and \Tan Nice, "Hagia Sophia, Istanbul," fig. 11 (see n. 11). Literature,"30unzal of Theolo~qicalStudies30 (l979), 109; and Ousterhout, Allil.rter 42. Ousterhout, .\later Builde~*.r,65-66. 14. Emerson and Van Kite, "Hagia Sophia: T h e Construction of the Second 60 (see n. 3). Bziill(L.1~, Dome," 167-68 (seen. 11). 45. For a discussion of project supenision in the Byzantine world, see Ouster27. See Wachtang Djobadze, "The Georgian Churches of Tao-Klarjet'i: Conhout, Jlastw Builden, 46-49. u s (1978), 114-34; and structlon Jlethods and llaterials," Opzie?rsC h n s t ~ u ~ 62 46. T h e site was in the possession of the Xr~nenianKatnsarakdn dynasty until the Ousterhout, ,ZIaster Builders, 69-70. seventh century, when it u-as conquered by the Persians. In the follouing centur); 28. See Paolo Cuneo, "Les A~fod6lesen pierre de l'architecture ar~nknienne," Revue des~tudes~?7nii1ieniles, n.s., 8 (1971), 201-3 1, figs. 1 , 5. it passed into the hands of the Bagratids. 29. Ibid., figs. 20, 21. This reliquary rests on a lintel above the entrance to the 47. :\rkane h i ~ n ne w mecasen ekelec'yn i noqn k'alak'in .%nioy i jei-n Earsoutheast side chapel of the main church. Its presence is particularly interesting tarapetin Trdatay, o r zkat'oiikosaranin ekelec'in sineac' y-kkinay. AlalxasTzezerakalz, 11, 187. ean, Step'ni~orE~.inec'cqyP~itnzz~t'zziz since the building has been attributed, albeit tentatively, to Trdat. 48. T h e complex at .Argina also included the residence of the patriarch. For fur30. Ihid., 223-30. 3 1. See the related discussion regarding the plan at K'orogo in Ousterhout, .\tzsther discussion of the cathedral, see d7-nie1rlaizArc/~itectzlw:A Doii~~r~e?rtedPhoto(Zug, tel. Builders, 70. .ilicbi:al CoNectioiz on JIii~oj5chefir the Stud)$of Arme?ziaiz A~.chztecti~re 32. In threc copies of Taronec'i's manuscript, the account of the building of Switzerland, 1980-90) 6, fiche A-2200, C7-C8; Strzygo~r-ski,Die Batrklil~std e ~ dimi-i~ier uirdEz~ropa,194, 590-91, 699 (see n. 2). For a more recent discussion, Gagkagen 1s written under the heading: "On the Construction by King Gagik of the Church called Saint Greg.01~in the toun of . h i . T h e master of the church see Cuneo, .A-cbhettum nl7nenil (see n. 20). 19. Surviving decoration includes the sculpture of the pier capitals, which feais Trdat." Although it is possible that this is simply a later invention (at least one tured an interlace design typical of the period. of the manuscripts dates to the sixteenth century), there is also good reason to 50. It is rivaled in fame perhaps only by the palace chapel of Alt'a~naron Lake believe it is accurate: Trdat's oeuvre, ~rrhichincludes commissions by both Smbat T'an, which also dates to late tenth centun. Sources for the cathedral are more I1 and Gagik's wife, establishes him as the "court architect" of the Bagratids o f h i abundant than can be listed here; a basic introduction to the site as well as referin the late tenth/early eleventh century. As Trdat had just completed the catheences for further reading are provided in ".411i," Doa1mei-2tzdi.47-chitettura A ~ m o i a dral of h i for Gagik's wife, Katramide, it is not hard to imagine that Gagikwould (1981) (seen. 20); Sersessian, L ' A ~ t i l ~ m h ~ z e101, i l , 106, 107, 163 (seen. 20); and hare commissioned him to consuuct a second church. For discussion of the mon123, 167-69, 598 (seen. 2 ) . Thierry and Donabkd~an,L'A7-t 1~17ni~zie7z, unlent and hibliographical references, see 11. 33. 33. Sources for Zuart'noc' include T'oros T'ora~nanyan,Zz~al,t'i?oc'-G~zgknSeiz 5 1. T h e construction period Inay have extended until 1010. For a sumlnaryof the (Erevan, 1981); Tiran llarut'yan. Zziart'izoc' ez. zrrai-t'nor'atip tatarner (Zuart'noc' positions on this debate and an argument for its conclusion in 1001, which is and churches of ~ t type) s (Erevan, 1963): Step'an hInac'akanyan, Zuart'noc' generally accepted, see Tiran ?larutcyan, " n ' h e n I l j s , h i Cathedral Con(Moscow, 1071); and X'arazdat Harut'junyan, Zuait'?-2oc'(Erevan,1954). See also structed:"A~-7tienianReaiea' 43, no. 4 (1990), 95-1 10. 7\\ Eugene Kleinbauer, "Zvart'nots and the Orig~nsof Christian .Architecture in 52. Recent d p a m i t e blasts in the region hale caused the northwest corner of the .Armenia,"An Bulleti~z53 (Sept. 1972), 245-62; Kleinbauer, "The Aisled Tetrastructure to topple, leaving the monument in innninent danger of complete colconch" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1967); and Christina hlaranci, "Byzanlapse. 6, fiche A-2 161, B I-B3. tium through .Armenian Eyes: Cultural Appropriation and the Church of 53. ?'his is verified by H . Ep'rikean inAi7nei1~11i?Architem~lu 51. See Mango, Byza~ztiizeAlzl>itectuiu, 106, fig, 150 (see n. 3). Zuart'noc'," Gerta 10, no. 2 (2001), 105-21. 34. T h e relationship of the almost identical plans of Zuart'noc' and GagkaSen 55. For the church of Gagkaren, and particularly its relation to Zuart'noc', see presents an interesting counterexample to prevalent scholarly theories regardToramanyan. Z?~art'nor'-GngkaSen(see n. 33). Further studies include Kleining medieval copies. On this issue, see the se~riinalarticle by Richard bauer. "Zvart'nots and the Origins of Early Christian .Architecture in Armenia," Krautheimer, "Introduction to an 'Iconography of Alediaeval .krchitecture,"' 151-56 (see n. 33); Thierry and Donabidian, L21.t a~rniilirn,485: Cuneo, j'oz/17zill of the Warbz~rgand Coultnr~ldbzstitzrtes 5 (l1142), 1-33. A~chitrtturnalnieizn; and " . h ~ , "Documenti dl .4whitenu1-aAwne7m (1984). 35. For example, in both cases the exedrae, measured from the centerpoints of the 56. See, for example, the comments of h-ersessian, LL4i-t avmhierz, 101 (see n. 20). piers, are exactly fifteen meters. T h e diameters of the entire inner cores are also equal, measuring twentyfive meters from the centers of the north and south exe57. In the case of . h i Cathcdral, however, thls hypothesis rnust remain extremely tentative, since we do not h o w how much was built before Trdat went to Condrae. Hourever, the ambulatories, discussed below, are of different widths. 36. Ousterhout, Master Buildem 273 n. 19. stantinople. 58. Irn~ersonand Van Nice, "Hagia Sophia, Istanbul," 1 3 1 (seen. 11). 37. See ;\mien Ghazarian and Robert Ousterhout, "A Afuqarnas Drawing from 59. Ihid. Thirteenth-Century Armenla and the Use of.lrch~tecturalDrawings during the fig. 68. Middle Age\," .\.fz~qamas18 (2001), 141-51. 60. Nersessian, L 4 z t illmi?~ien, 38. Djobadre, "Georgian Churches," 116 (seen. 27). 61. See Emerson and Van Sice, "Hagia Sophia: T h e Construction of the Second 39. Ibid. Dome," 167 (seen. 11). 10. See Djobadze, "Georgian Churches," 116, fig. 1; and Ousterhout, Jlastel. 62. Although the monument is discussed in all the surveys of Armenian archlBuzlders, 70, fig. 43. tecture mentioned thus far, the most recent study and only monograph is by W l progeno di 1.ertnziro 41. See Ousterhout, .Zfa.ctw Bzi~ldelr,65-66; Denis Sullivan, ed., The Poborcetrcil Gaiane Casnati and Maria llimmo, La chiesa dl .Ila~-~?zashe?z. of Hewn of B'fzant~um: Text, l?anslation, and Commentaiy Washington, D.C., perI:4miienia (.\Man, 1994). It is interesting to note that the cornice of h i Catheforthcoming): Denis Sullivan, "Originality in the Poliorcetica of 'Heron' of dral 1s unusual in having a stepped profile. Is this a reflection of the sloping corByzantiu~n,"Byzaiztilze Stzcdies Coilference, Abstracts 18 (1993), 32-33; and Carle nices of the Hagia Sophia? 304 J S A H / 6 2 : 3 ,S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 Illustration Credits Figure 1. Robin Cormack, Byza;ztilze A r t (Oxford, 2000), fig. 15 Figure 2. Robert Ousterhout, "Constantinople, Bithynia, and Regional Developments in Later Paleologan .bchitecture," in Slobodan c u r % and Doula A'fouriki, Twilight of Byza?7tium:Aspects of Cz~lturaland Religioi~rHistoly in the Late Byzantil~eEmpire (Princeton, 1991), fig. 4 Figure 3. Emerson and Van Nice, "Hagia Sophia, Istanbul," fig. 12 Figure 4. Emerson and Tran Nice, "Hagia Sophia: T h e Construction of the Second Dome," fig. 8 Figure 5. By permission of the State Historical Museum, Erevan Figures 6, 7, 10. Strzygowski, Die Baukiinst de~Amze72ierulzd Ezdropa, figs. 122, 112, 222 Figures 8, 9. Armenian Architectuve 6 , fiche -4-2200, C10; fiche A-2200, C1 Figure 11. Courtesy of Richard and Anne Elbrecht Figure 12. Courtesy of Thomas F. Alathews THE ARCHITECT TRDAT 305 http://www.jstor.org LINKED CITATIONS - Page 1 of 2 - You have printed the following article: The Architect Trdat: Building Practices and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Byzantium and Armenia Christina Maranci The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 62, No. 3. (Sep., 2003), pp. 294-305. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-9808%28200309%2962%3A3%3C294%3ATATBPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR. Notes 11 Haghia Sophia, Istanbul: Preliminary Report of a Recent Examination of the Structure William Emerson; Robert L. van Nice American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 47, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1943), pp. 403-436. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28194310%2F12%2947%3A4%3C403%3AHSIPRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F 33 Zvart'nots and the Origins of Christian Architecture in Armenia W. Eugene Kleinbauer The Art Bulletin, Vol. 54, No. 3. (Sep., 1972), pp. 245-262. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3079%28197209%2954%3A3%3C245%3AZATOOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D 33 Byzantium through Armenian Eyes: Cultural Appropriation and the Church of Zuart'noc' Christina Maranci Gesta, Vol. 40, No. 2. (2001), pp. 105-124. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-920X%282001%2940%3A2%3C105%3ABTAECA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R 34 Introduction to an "Iconography of Mediaeval Architecture" Richard Krautheimer Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 5. (1942), pp. 1-33. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4390%281942%295%3C1%3AITA%22OM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list. http://www.jstor.org LINKED CITATIONS - Page 2 of 2 - 37 A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages Armen Ghazarian; Robert Ousterhout Muqarnas, Vol. 18. (2001), pp. 141-154. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0732-2992%282001%2918%3C141%3AAMDFTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.