ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURE: ARCHETYPES AND PERCEIVED FORM

By Stefano Martinelli

When in the previous article we talked about “Vishap: the origin of architecture” we addressed a topic referring to the structural anthropological characteristics of architecture, valid at a universal level even if manifested in a specific geographical area, in the plateau between Mount Aragats and Mount Ararat. Now we address the perceptible form of the event which, sacred or profane, is always architecture, which does not only have a formal value but is based on profound, spiritual and material assumptions, defined within the existential space of the specific culture. 
So in this short article we will evaluate how the structural anthropological characteristics of architecture connected with the manifestation of an “event” that connects the earth and the sky and that at an archaic level manifests itself with the Vishap have directly reflected on the specific perceptive characteristics of architecture that in history has characterized that specific cultural area, identifiable as Armenia, but which does not necessarily coincide with the current Republic of Armenia. Of course, it is not intended here to develop an exhaustive and comprehensive critical theme of all the aspects, which have been so well addressed by eminent scholars, I only mention Paolo Cuneo, but we will refer to individual paradigmatic architectures that have a certain relevance for the cultural area in question. 
Armenian architecture, to a large extent, is characterized at the level of anthropological structure but also at the perceptive level by the ability to identify a sphere, an area of ​​influence of the form perceived as a reflection of its centrality, even without having that preponderance and specific spatial presence of monumental architecture. Of course, the sphere cannot be identified by means of objective and material boundaries but extends according to the different sensibilities of the users of the place. 
Just as a characteristic is recognizable in the identification of a very present but also very articulated directionality that ultimately always leads back to the center of the architectural body of the building. The main direction is never the one that can be developed on the horizontal plane of fruition but the vertical one towards the sacred always prevails which however is born and takes root in the earth to project itself outwards towards the sky, in conformity with the archaic principles of the Vishap.
As a consequence of the perceptive manifestation of the previous structural characters of the domain and the directions, contained in a large part of the Armenian architecture, the aspects connected with the identification of the architectural emergent assume a notable importance, being themselves enhanced by the previous ones and acting as the main character of reference for the orientation in the enjoyment of the place. We are in one of the most particular cases that consists in the possibility of appropriating the place produced by the specific architecture and at the same time, contextually, in conditions of belonging to it even just by entering into a perceptive relationship with the architectural emergent.

To verify the structural anthropological principles of Armenian architecture, it seems useful to study the theme of the Cathedral of Echmiadzin, not only because it is in fact one of the most important and best preserved architectures in the entire area, it is a UNESCO site, but also for the continuity with the archaic anthropological principles that underlie its foundation and for the process of formation that produced the architecture currently perceptible. 
Meanwhile, the foundation of the place seems to be in continuity with the archaic principles that, according to some recent theories, led to the erection of the “Vishap”. The Event, probably of physical origin transposed into metaphysics, which produces a divination from which the place “Echmiadzin” also takes its name, is the one in which Saint Gregory has a vision of Christ descending from heaven and striking the ground with a golden hammer to show the place where the Cathedral was to be built. 
This architecture, not the perceptible form that we see today that is part of a process of inactuality, but the original perceptible form, possesses another archetypal principle; in fact, it is the first Christian church in the world to be built, between 301 and 303 AD, at the behest of a state authority: the Kingdom of Armenia, closely linked to the Roman Empire. According to historical sources of the time, it was an architecture built with a basilica plan with a barrel vault, also creating the archetype of the first early Christian churches built a few decades later, when Christianity in turn became the state religion of the Empire with the edict of Constantine in 313 AD, with the difference that in the West they mainly had wooden roofs, also due to a larger size of the plan. Obviously if we reason by archetypes, in this case the name also supports us, it is obvious to remember that the archetype of the early Christian basilica is the Roman civic basilica that constituted the reference center of the public life of the City, but it is not obvious to reflect on the fact that the Roman basilica is “uncovered”, a regular square surrounded by porticoes, the central place of the public life of the city, while the early Christian basilica is “covered”. The reason for this evolution of the archetype does not depend on functional factors to protect from atmospheric agents, but for symbolic reasons, referring to the Gospels; “… you are Peter and on this rock you will build my Church”. The covering serves to transpose the archetype of an urban place into the archetype of an architectural place. Transpose the Basilica from a square to a building, built according to the will of Christ.
The current perceptible form can be traced back to a very different architecture. In fact, the church we have spoken of so far was completely rebuilt with a “Greek cross” architectural plan at the end of the 5th century and restored again in 618 AD, when, in place of the wooden one, the stone masonry dome was built resting on four massive pillars joined to the external walls by means of arches. Here we cannot avoid referring to the Cathedral of Avan, which has a very original architectural plan derived directly from classical Roman architecture and, since it is of fairly modest dimensions, it was built with a stone dome between 591 and 602 AD: currently reduced to ruins. Other significant changes have occurred over the centuries. In particular, between 1654 and 1658 the bell tower was rebuilt in its current form. Starting in 1720, the interior decoration was created, which was to be completely devoid of decoration, as in many medieval Armenian churches, although recent excavations and archaeological investigations have identified the presence of ancient mosaics. The last significant restoration was completed in 1837. 
The architectural layout is shaped like a barrel vault on the naves that define a Greek cross, lobed at the ends by apses that become semi-octagons on the outside, and cross vaults on the four corners that identify the square area of ​​reference for the entire place of worship. This area extends to the east, in the part behind the apse of the altar where the service rooms are built in complete continuity with the rest of the architectural structure, also equipped with an apse to the east that is a semi-octagon on the outside, in complete transposition of the apse of the place of worship where the altar is located. 
The main entrance is from the western apse through a “narthex” that characterizes much of the perceptible form of the church, with a structure that develops vertically on three levels as an autonomous architecture, with a progressive lightening from the first to the third level. Starting from the first level where the actual quadrangular narthex merges with the structure of the place of worship opening to the outside with three heavy arches, we reach the second level with a square loggia and conclude at a third level connecting with an octagonal loggia surmounted by an eight-sided pointed cusp. 
This development in height of the structure also characterizes the terminations of the three apses that conclude the arms of the Greek cross, also surmounted by similar loggias. The apotheosis of the architecture is defined by the sixteen-sided dome surmounted by a very pointed cusp, again with sixteen segments that take on the synthetic shape of a cylinder and a cone.
It seems that the principle of this close relationship between the earth where the stone architecture is planted, and the sky where the architecture merges with the vault of the firmament, characterizes the Armenian sacred architecture, in continuity with the archaic principles that probably, as an interpretation of physical events, led to the erection of the structures with metaphysical meaning represented by the “Vishap”: symbols which enclosed the close relationship between the earth and the sky.

This principle, which is the foundation of the anthropological structure of Armenian architecture, and this need to use architecture to establish this ancestral relationship between the earth and the sky, is unexpectedly found again in the Armenian architecture of the 20th century, to which the architect Alexander Tamanian contributed to the creation of the architectural identity of the Armenian Soviet Republic. But in this case, for the adherence to the characteristics of the anthropological structure of Armenian architecture, I would like to mention two projects from the second half of the century. The Summer Hall of Moscow Cinema in Yerevan designed and built in 1966 by architect Spartak Kntekhtsyan, whose 100th birthday was celebrated on December 30, 2024, with Telman Gevorkyan, and the Yeritasardakan Metro Station, also in Yerevan, designed in 1978 by architect Stepan Kyurkchyan and completed in 1981. Although this is an architectural structure whose usability is completely underground, it opens to the sky with a splendid skylight that closes a cylindrical inclined structure, embedded in the earth in complete analogy with the numerous “Vishap” bent by time, present in the territory. Every architecture, to be defined as such, cannot ignore its archetypes.