11TH

INTERNATIONAL
ANAMED ANNUAL
SYMPOSIUM
 Sacred Spaces and Urban Networks EDITORS PRINT
Suzan Yalman Ofset Yapımevi
© Koç University Research Center A. Hilâl Uğurlu Çağlayan Mahallesi,
for Anatolian Civilizations Şair Sokak, No. 4
(ANAMED), 2019 AUTHORS Kağıthane, Istanbul
Ayşe Belgin-Henry Certificate No: 45354
KOÇ UNIVERSITY SUNA KIRAÇ LIBRARY Paolo Girardelli
CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Rachel Goshgarian PUBLISHER
International ANAMED Annual Christina Maranci KOÇ UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER
Symposium Sacred spaces, urban networks Zeynep Oğuz Kursar FOR ANATOLIAN CIVILIZATIONS
/ authors : Ayşe Belgin-Henry, Paolo Robert Ousterhout (ANAMED)
Girardelli, Rachel Goshgarian, Christina
A. Hilâl Uğurlu Istiklal Cad. No: 181, Merkez Han
Maranci, Zeynep Oğuz Kursar, Robert
Suzan Yalman 34433 Beyoğlu, Istanbul
Ousterhout, A. Hilal Uğurlu, Suzan Yalman,
Zeynep Yürekli T. +90 212 294 10 00
Zeynep Yürekli ; editors : A. Hilal Uğurlu,
anamed_info@ku.edu.tr
Suzan Yalman ; publication coordinator and
proofreading : Alican Kutlay ; copy editors COPY EDITORS Certificate No: 18318
: Lauren Davis, Brian Johnson.-- İstanbul Brian Johnson
: Koç University Research Center for Lauren Davis FIRST EDITION
Anatolian Civilizations, 2019. Istanbul, 2019
200 pages ; 19,5 x 25 cm.-- Koç PUBLICATION COORDINATOR
Üniversitesi Anadolu Medeniyetleri & PROOFREADING ISBN
Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları
Alican Kutlay 978-605-7685-14-8
ISBN 978-605-7685-14-8
1. Sacred space. 2. Religions. I. Belgin-
PUBLICATION ASSISTANT COVER IMAGE
Henry, Ayşe. II. Girardelli, Paolo. III.
Goshgarian, Rachel. IV. Maranci, Alara Demirel Adapted from the symposium
Christina. V. Oğuz Kursar, Zeynep. VI. poster designed by Suzan Kentli
Ousterhout, Robert. VII. Uğurlu, A. Hilal. BOOK DESIGN Aral.
VIII. Yalman, Suzan. IX. Yürekli, Zeynep. Burak Şuşut, Fika
X. Kutlay, Alican. XI. Davis, Lauren. XII. © 2019. This book has been published on the
Johnson, Brian. XIII. Koç Üniversitesi occasion of the 11th International ANAMED
SYMPOSIUM COORDINATOR
Anadolu Medeniyetleri Araştırma Merkezi. Annual Symposium “Sacred Spaces + Urban
Ebru Esra Satıcı Networks,” that was held at Koç University
XIV. Title.
Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations
BL580.K88 2019
CONTRIBUTING COORDINATOR (ANAMED), Istanbul, on December 9th, 2016.
Şeyda Çetin © 2019. All rights reserved. No part of this
publication, either text or photographs, may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
PROJECT MANAGER
or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
Buket Coşkuner electronical, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without prior
ANAMED DIRECTOR permission.
Chris Roosevelt The authors of this book acknowledge that the
work is their original creation and that all the
opinions are their own and no one else can be
held accountable for them, and that there are
no parts in their work that could infringe upon
the rights of third parties.
 SACRED SPACES
AND

URBAN NETWORKS

EDITED BY SUZAN YALMAN AND A. HİLÂL UĞURLU

Table of Contents

vii
Acknowledgments

ix
Abbreviations

3
Introduction
SUZAN YALMAN and A. HİLÂL UĞURLU

17
CHRISTINA MARANCI
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the
Armenian Foundation Rite

33
PAOLO GIRARDELLI
Landscape and Divine Justice: Archbishop Hilléreau’s Perception
and Patronage of Christian Architecture in Istanbul

51
AYŞE BELGİN-HENRY
The Bishop, the Saint, and Their Site: The Wondrous Mountain
in an Antiochene Context

67
ZEYNEP OĞUZ KURSAR
Sultans as Saintly Figures in Early Ottoman Royal Mausolea
89
ROBERT OUSTERHOUT
Constructing and Deconstructing Sacred Space in
Byzantine Constantinople

105
A. HİLÂL UĞURLU
The Role of “Sacreds” in the Political Agenda of the
“Reformist” Ottoman Sultan Selim III (r. 1789–1807)

119
SUZAN YALMAN
From Plato to the Shāhnāma: Reflections on Saintly Veneration in
Seljuk Konya

141
RACHEL GOSHGARIAN
The Arm of St. Thecla between Armenia and Aragon: Bodilessness,
Placelessness, Diplomacy, and the Reliquary Trade

159
ZEYNEP YÜREKLİ
Ibn al-‘Arabi and Rumi in the Twists and Turns of Ottoman
Religio-Politics

177
Contributors

181
Index
 Acknowledgments

The 11th International Annual Symposium of Koç University’s Research Center for Anatolian
Civilizations (ANAMED) and this volume owe much to the assistance and encouragement
of numerous individuals. We are thankful to Umran İnan, President of Koç University, and
Aylin Küntay, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Humanities, for their support. We
would also like to express our deepest gratitude to ANAMED’s director Chris Roosevelt and
manager Buket Coşkuner, who both played decisive roles in bringing this project to life.
Without the invaluable contributions of our colleagues, neither the symposium nor
this volume would be possible. We are grateful to each one of them. Our earnest and special
thanks go to the two keynote speakers, Robert Ousterhout and Zeynep Yürekli, whose
enlightening lectures set the tone for the symposium. Aside from the authors in this volume,
İklil Erefe Selçuk, Oya Pancaroğlu, and Tolga Uyar presented papers at the conference and
Deniz Çalış Kural, Koray Durak, Shirine Hamadeh, and Sara Nur Yıldız chaired and moderated
panels. Among those who could not attend the symposium, we are delighted that Christina
Maranci could participate in the final publication.
During the symposium, former ANAMED publications editor Özge Ertem and former
project and event coordinators Şeyda Çetin and Ebru Esra Satıcı, as well as Ceren Öner and
Serra Tanman offered critical assistance. Graphic designer Suzan Kentli Aral created the eye-
catching symposium poster. For the present volume, we are deeply indebted to publication
specialist Alican Kutlay, who supported us at every stage of the process, from its inception
to publication. We would also like to acknowledge his intern Alara Demirel. We express our
sincere thanks to Brian Johnson and Lauren Davis, who copyedited the English volume, and
to translators Barış Cezar and Hilal Gültekin, who helped us reach a broader audience. This
handsome volume became tangible thanks to the patience and artistic endeavors of designer
Burak Şuşut.
Several current and former undergraduate and graduate students from Koç
University’s Department of Archaeology and History of Art (ARHA) offered their kind help:
Bihter Esener and Levent Tökün translated abstracts and prepared the symposium booklet;
Zarifa Alikperova and Pelin Peker assisted during the symposium; and Sabahattin Enes Can
Kırbaç prepared initial lists for the index, which were ultimately composed and finalized by
Lauren Davis. We are grateful to all of them.
The invaluable insight and generous spirit of friends such as Ivana Jevtić and Leyla
Kayhan Elbirlik deserve special mention. Finally, our eternal thanks go to the Yalman-
Okurer and Akçal-Uğurlu families, who have shown great patience, unwavering support,
and understanding throughout the years spanning the symposium and final publication.
 Abbreviations

ACHCByz Association des amis du Centre d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance

AJA American Journal of Archeology
AKMED Koç University Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Center
for Mediterranean Civilizations
ANAMED Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations
AUB American University of Beirut

BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies

BOA T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı
ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift

CUP Cambridge University Press

DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers

DORLC Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

EI2 Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2. ed., 13 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1960–2009)

EI3 Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3. ed. (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007– )
EUP Edinburgh University Press

HUP Harvard University Press

IAE Istanbul Research Institute

IJMES International Journal of Middle East Studies
INHA Institut National de l’Histoire de l’Art
ISGBSS International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium

JEH Journal of Ecclesiatical History

JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRS Journal of Roman Studies

LUP Liverpool University Press

MMA Metropolitan Museum of Art

NYU New York University

x SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS

OUP Oxford University Press

PSUP Pennsylvania State University Press

PUP Princeton University Press

REB Revue des études byzantines

SUNY State University of New York

TDVIA Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, 44 vols.

(Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1988–2016)
TTK Türk Tarih Kurumu

UC Press University of California Press

UCP University of Chicago Press

VGM Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü

VKV Vehbi Koç Foundation

YKY Yapı Kredi Publications

YUP Yale University Press
PAPERS
 Liturgical Landscapes:
Text and Context in the Armenian
Foundation Rite

Christina Maranci*

Anyone who has travelled to historical Armenian lands knows well the inherent drama
of the physical terrain, with its high plateau and sweeping vistas punctuated by deep
gorges and mountain chains. As one often sees in tourist photography, this landscape
forms a stunning background to the many medieval churches of Armenia. Nineteenth-
and early twentieth-century antiquarian and travel literature, in various languages,
often attended carefully to the entire landscape, setting medieval buildings within their
geographical landscape, including archaeological, geological, and botanical notes. In
the following decades, historians of Armenian architecture turned largely to formalist
questions such as the domed construction of monuments, all too often ignoring their
physical setting (Fig. 1).1
Recently, however, scholars have returned to questions of the landscape,
considering issues such as spolia and reuse, the mythologization of Urartian fortresses
and stelae by medieval writers, the prominent role of the plateau and mountains in the
Armenian conversion tradition, and the way in which monumental imagery is made
more powerful by considering its immediate setting.2 These works ask how medieval

* I am grateful to Suzan Yalman and A. Hilâl Uğurlu for their kind invitation to contribute to this volume. As
always, I thank Robert Dulgarian for working through the Classical Armenian with me, and for helping me
with this essay from its initial planning stages to the final edits. All errors are my own.

1 Josef Strzygowski offers an early and supreme example of this approach; reading his account of the
churches of Khtskōnk‘, for example, which focuses almost exclusively on design and construction, one
has no sense of the astonishing natural landscape in which they stood. See Die Baukunst der Armenier und
Europa (Vienna: Anton Schroll, 1918), 104.
2 A few works may serve here to exemplify the range of scholarship: for spolia in an Armenian context,
see Christina Maranci, Vigilant Powers: Three Churches of Early Medieval Armenia (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015),
177–82; 235–45; and Lynn Jones, Between Byzantium and Islam: Aght‘amar and the Visual Construction of
Medieval Armenian Rulership (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 105–106; for iconography related to the immediate
physical landscape, see Ioanna Rapti, “Le Jugement dernier arménien: réception et évolution d’une
18 SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS CHRISTINA MARANCI

Fig. 1. The Church of Surb Sargis (Saint Sergius), Monastery of Khtskōnk‘, Digor, modern eastern Turkey,
founded 1029 (Photo: Christina Maranci).

spectators viewed their physical surroundings, the older settlements in their midst, or
the dramatic landforms around them, drawing in the process from historical sources,
epigraphy, monumental sculpture, and archaeology.
Another important if largely neglected source for understanding the sacred
landscape of Armenia, is the liturgy, and particularly the rite of the Foundation
(Հիմնարկութիւն) of the Church, which occurred in the open air at the building yard. The
rite of foundation is performed prior to the church’s construction (upon its completion,
the rite known as the consecration, or Օրհնութիւն, is celebrated). The following essay
offers a description of the foundation, with particular attention to the specific directives
for movement and the imagery called forth by its readings.

imagerie eschatologique médiévale,” Cahiers archéologiques 56 (2016): 95–118 at 108; for issues of sacred
topography, see Nazénie de Vartavan Gharibian, La Jérusalem Nouvelle et les premiers sanctuaries chrétiens de
l’arménie (Erevan: Isis Pharia, 2009); for the role of caravanserai and trade routes, see Kathryn Frankl, This
World is an Inn: Cosmopolitanism and Caravan Trade in Late Medieval Armenia, (PhD diss., The University of
Chicago, 2014). See also Sacred Landscapes in Anatolia and Neighboring Regions, ed. C. Gates, J. Morin, and T.
Zimmerman (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2009). These works follow an already rich investigation of landscape
undertaken by archaeologists of pre-Christian Armenia, including of Bronze Age and Hellenistic sites.
See for example Adam Smith, The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities
(Berkeley: UC Press, 2003); and Lori Khatchadourian, “Unforgettable Landscapes: Attachments to the Past
in Hellenistic Armenia,” in Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological
Research, ed. N. Yoffee (Tuscon: University of Arizona, 2007), 43–75.
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the Armenian Foundation Rite 19

I do not offer here a textual analysis of the rite. This has been undertaken
already by Gēorg Tēr-Vardanyan in his massive critical edition of the entire Armenian
liturgy, published in 2012.3 I refer the reader to Tēr-Vardanyan’s work, to Father Daniel
Findikyan’s publication of the consecration rite, and, for a discussion of architectural
imagery, to Robert W. Thomson’s “Architectural Symbolism in Classical Armenian
Literature,” the latter two containing discussions of the foundation rite.4 Instead, I
hope to bring attention to this text for what it can tell us about medieval perceptions of
Armenian architecture in its physical setting. Through its ritual directives and readings,
the foundation rite offers a range of ways to envision the built and natural worlds.

The Foundation Rite

The rite of foundation, as it is practiced today, derives from the Great Mashtots‘ (Ritual) of
Constantinople, dated to 1807. As described in the Mashtots‘, this elaborate ordo extends
over several days, involving the anointment and consecration of individual building
stones, accompanied by numerous scriptural readings and repeated blessings and
prayers. As Father Findikyan has suggested regarding the rite of consecration contained
in the same publication, the expansiveness and repetitiveness found in the foundation
rite may reflect the compiler’s desire to account for a large range of manuscript versions.5
By comparison, the early medieval Armenian versions of the foundation are more
streamlined. The rite is described in a manuscript (MS 457) located in the Mkhit‘arist
library in Venice, generally dated to the late tenth or early eleventh centuries and offers
a detailed account of its prayers, movements, and scriptural readings.6 In addition to
the new critical edition of Tēr-Vardanyan, the text is collated by Frederick Cornwallis
Conybeare with other manuscripts, including two from the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, and translated into English in his monumental Rituale Armenorum (1905).
Early medieval liturgical commentaries attributed to Step‘anos Siwnets‘i and Yovhannēs

3 Gēorg Tēr-Vardanyan, Mayr Mashtots‘, vol. 1, book 1 (Etchmiadzin: The Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin,
2012), 85–96.
4 See notes 6 and 9 for complete citations of these works.
5 Michael Daniel Findikyan, “The Armenian Liturgy of Dedicating a Church: A Textual and Comparative
Analysis of Three Early Sources,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 64/1 (1998): 75–121 at 75. For the 1807
Mashtots‘, see Girk‘ mets mashtots‘ koch‘ets‘eal [The Great Mashtots‘ Book], Constantinople, 1807, 154–66. The
1807 text deserves its own separate study, as it demonstrates intriguing relations with the early versions of
the rite and includes a fascinating illustration of a church ground plan, showing the placement of stones
and their symbolic associations.
6 On this manuscript, see Tēr-Vardanyan (as above), Barsegh Sargisean and Grigor Sargsean, Մայր ցուցակ
հայերէն ձեռագրաց Մատենադարանին Մխիթարեանց ի Վենետիկ [Main Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of the
Mkhit‘arist Library in Venice] vol. 3 (Venice: Casa editrice armena, 1966), 1–5; Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare
and Reverend A. J. Maclean, Rituale Armenorum Being the Administration of the Sacraments and the Breviary
Rites of the Armenian Church Together with the Greek Rites of Baptism and Epiphany (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1905), xi–xiii; and Michael Daniel Findikyan, “The Armenian Liturgy of Dedicating a Church: A Textual and
Comparative Analysis of Three Early Sources,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 64/1 (1998): 75–121 at 76, n. 3.
20 SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS CHRISTINA MARANCI

Ōdznets‘i also address the foundation rite.7 The summary offered below is based on Tēr-
Vardanyan’s critical edition, with consideration of these liturgical commentaries.
The foundation rite begins with the bishop assembling the order of holy clerics at
the selected building site, bringing with them twelve “uncut and unpolished” (անտաշս
եւ անկոփս) stones.8 In his commentary, Ōdznets‘i reads the gathering of the clergy at
the building site as recalling biblical models of witnessing, including that of the prophet
Moses on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration.9 Ōdznets‘i, like Siwnets‘i, compares the
twelve uncut stones with the twelve apostles; the former also alludes to the twelve
stones Joshua brought from the Jordan River (Joshua 4:9).10
Besides these scriptural parallels, another image of unworked stones must have
come to the mind of the participant: an image drawn from the fifth-century History of
the Armenians by Agat‘angeghos. In this text, which preserves the tradition of Armenia’s
conversion to Christianity, Trdat, the first Christian king of Armenia, quarries stones
from Mount Ararat (Masis) for the martyria of the virgins he had previously executed.
Section 767 describes Trdat’s voyage to the mountaintop, where he cut stones,

unworked, unhewn, immense, heavy, wide, enormous and huge, which no

single person could ever move, not even a great number of men. But he with
giant strength like Hayk’s picked up eight columns and on his own back carried
them to the martyria […].11

7 Ժամակարգութեան մեկնութիւն ընդարձակ եւ համառօտ Ստեփանոսի Սիւնեցեաց

For Step‘anos Siwnets‘i,
եպիսկոպոսի եւ նորին Պատճառ հիմնարկութեան եկեղեցւոյ [Commentary on the Office Long and Short by
Bishop Step‘anos of Siwnik‘ and his Explanation of the Founding of a Church], ed. S. Amatuni (Etchmiadzin:
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, 1917), 71–72; for Yovhannēs Ōdznets‘i, see Domini Johannis Ozniensis
Philosophi armenorum catholici Opera, ed. and trans. J. B. Aucher (Venice: Typis PP. Mechitaristarum, 1834)
(in Latin and Armenian). Conybeare includes an English translation of Ōdznets‘i’s commentary on the
founding in Rituale Armenorum, 12–13. For both Ōdznets‘i and Siwnets‘i, and generally on the Armenian
liturgy, see these and other works by Michael Daniel Findikyan: “The Armenian Liturgy of Dedicating a
Church” (as above); The Commentary on the Armenian Daily Office by Bishop Step‘anos Siwnec‘i (†735): Edition
and Translation of the Long and Short Versions with Textual and Liturgical Study (PhD diss., Pontifical Oriental
Institute, Rome, 1997); “The Liturgical Expositions Attributed to Catholicos Yovhannēs Ōdznets‘i: Problems
and Inconsistency,” in The Armenian Christian Tradition: Scholarly Symposium in Honor of the Visit to the
Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, of His Holiness Karekin I, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians,
ed. R. F. Taft, S. J. December 12, 1996=Orientalia christiana analecta 254 (Rome: Pontificio istituto orientale,
1997), 125–73; “Bishop Step‘anos Siwnets‘i: A Source for Medieval Armenian Liturgy,” Ostkirchliche Studien
44/2–3 (1995): 171–96.
8 Tēr-Vardanyan, Mayr Mashtots‘, 85; Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (English translation), 1; Sargisean and
Sargsean, Main Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Mkhit‘arist Library in Venice, 5 (the latter
numbered by columns).
9 Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 11; Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 256.
10 Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 256. See also Robert W. Thomson, “Architectural Symbolism in Classical
Armenian Literature,” The Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 30/1 (1979): 102–14 at 109. For Siwnets‘i, see
Amatuni, 71. Notably, Siwnets‘i suggests a total of thirteen stones: one as symbolic of Golgotha, the other
twelve as apostles. But the other two texts specify twelve stones. The Mashtots‘, by contrast, indicates
sixteen stones.
11 The Lives of Saint Gregory: The Armenian, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History attributed to
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the Armenian Foundation Rite 21

This passage and its surrounding texts offer a powerful local model for the foundation
of Armenian churches, even using the same terms “uncut” (անտաշ) and “unpolished”
[անկոփ]. Indeed, as we shall see below, Yovhannēs Ōdznets‘i explicitly invokes a related
passage from the History in parallel to a later moment in the liturgical rite.
A group of four psalms immediately follows this description of the stones:
Psalms 47/48 (“The Lord is great and highly to be praised”), 83/84 (“How lovely are
your dwellings”), 84/85 (“You were pleased, Lord, with your earth”),12 and 86/87 (“His
foundations are in the holy mountain”).13 Psalm 47/48 begins triumphantly and joyfully,
describing in the city of God with Mount Zion in the city’s far north: “his holy mountain.”
The architectural and Jerusalemic imagery is clearly appropriate for the rite; one can
also imagine that it held special resonance in an Armenian context, in which mountain
chains are ever present on the horizon. Indeed, the first line of Psalm 86/87, which refers
to Mount Zion, finds a felicitous local parallel in Mount Ararat, the source of the earliest
Christian monuments of Armenia.
Natural imagery abounds in Psalm 83/84. The psalmist longs to find a home
in Zion, just as the sparrow and turtledove seek their nests. Those progressing there,
moreover, traverse the “valley of sorrow.” Such delicate and precise evocations of the
natural world were surely only intensified when sung aloud in the open air.
Ōdznets‘i highlights the sense of joyful anticipation in this psalmody, which
would have been a particularly appropriate way to mark the first moment of the building
process. Psalm 48:12–5, for example, invites us to walk around Zion, count its towers,
go through its citadels so that “you may tell the next generation (յազգ յայլ) that this
is God, our God forever and ever.” Moreover, we should not forget the encouragement
such jubilant psalms might have offered to anxious patrons or builders confronting the
various financial, structural, and professional anxieties that inevitably accompany the
launch of a building project.
After the psalmody, the deacon proclaims, “Let us ask in Faith and Accord”
(Խնդրեսցուք հաւատով եւ միաբանութեամբ) and, three times, “Lord have Mercy” (Տէր
ողորմեա). Then, “they lay down” (հաստանեն) one stone for the church foundation at the
center of the bema and the other stones at the four corners of the site.
Both Ōdznets‘i and Siwnets‘i comment on the distribution of the stones
on the ground. Siwnets‘i, who seems to pass, after this point, to a discussion of the

Agatha ngelos, trans., intr., and comm. R. W. Thomson (Ann Arbor: Caravan, 2010), 361.
12 There are some questions surrounding the inclusion of hymns 83/84 and 84/85. Tēr-Vardanyan (85, note
3) includes 83/84 and 84/85 because the psalm numbers are indicated in the manuscript. Conybeare says
that the hymn 83/84 is not mentioned in Venice MS 457 (see Sargisean and Sargsean, Main Catalogue of the
Armenian Manuscripts of the Mkhit‘arist Library in Venice, 5); Ōdznets‘i includes it in his commentary (see
Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 1, no. f, and 12; and Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 258).
13 Note: all the biblical texts included here are my translations of the Armenian of the Zohrap Bible, as
published online at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/arm/zohrab/armat/armat.htm (Old Testament)
and http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/arm/zohrab/armnt/armnt.htm (New Testment), accessed 15
January 2018.
22 SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS CHRISTINA MARANCI

consecration rite, compares the single uncut rock of the sanctuary to the rock of
Golgotha, citing also Ephesians 2:20: “built on the foundation of apostles and prophets,
and Christ as cornerstone,” thus correlating the building stones to biblical personae.14
On the other hand, Ōdznetsi‘i’s commentary includes an additional element to this
part of the liturgy: after the stones are laid in place, they are washed with water and
wine.15 This directive does not appear in the other abovementioned textual accounts
and raises interesting questions about the development of the rite that are left to a
later discussion. Noteworthy, however, is the series of parallels that Ōdznets‘i adduces:
the baptism of the Gentiles, the water and blood that flowed from Christ’s side in the
Crucifixion, the wine of the Last Supper, and Christ’s washing of the apostles’ feet, the
last event offering a particularly elegant figure for the “bathing” of the lowest zone of
the church structure.16
After the distribution of the stones, in the next directive, included in all the versions
of the rite discussed here, the clergy lead a procession with lighted candles (lamps in
Ōdznets‘i’s commentary)17 and thuribles, and the bishop offers a prayer to God to establish
the foundations of the church.18 The bishop then orders the architect (ճարտարապետ) to
trace out the design of the church with a measuring tool (գործի չափոյն), according to
the wishes of the builder (շինող—presumably here the patron). The bishop then anoints
the stones with chrism (սուրբ իւղ), and the four corners [sic],19 with a blessing upon
them in the name of the Trinity.
Ōdznets‘i compares the measuring and tracing in this directive both to Ezekiel’s
vision of the Temple (Ez. 40) and the construction of martyria in Agat‘anghegos’s History
of the Armenians mentioned above, contrasting the measurability of such monuments
with the immeasurability of God.20 Ezekiel 40, which is sung later in the rite, records
the precise dimensions of the Temple, offering a powerful type for the ritual tracing of
the church design on the ground. The foundation of martyria by Saint Gregory in the
History of the Armenians (§758), on the other hand, would have furnished an appropriate
local model, because: “Saint Gregory himself took up the architect’s line and set out

14 Amatuni, 71. Siwnets‘i’s wording of the second part of this sentence differs slightly, reading for the second
phrase “եւ գլուխ անկեան Քրիստոս.” Instead of “որոյ է գլուխ անկեանն յ(իսու)ս ք(րիստո)ս.” This connection
is visualized and made more explicit in the Great Mashtots‘ of 1807, in which a ground plan (on p. 154)
illustrates the placement and symbolism of each stone, and the person whom each stone signifies: the
twelve apostles (with Matthias instead of Judas), Paul, the evangelists, and Gregory the Illuminator.
15 “Իսկ զերկոտասան քարինսն առեալս` նախ լուանան ջրով, եւ ապա գինւով”/Then they wash the twelve
stones first with water and then with wine.” (Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 258, 260; Conybeare, Rituale
Armenorum, 12).
16 Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 258, 260; Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 12.
17 Lamps: Լապտեր (Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 260).
18 Tēr-Vardanyan, Mayr Mashtots‘, 85; Sargisean and Sargsean, Main Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts
of the Mkhit‘arist Library in Venice, 6; Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 1; see also Aucher, Domini Johannis
Ozniensis, 260.
19 Presumably here the four sets of stones? The texts are not specific.
20 Thomson, “Architectural Symbolism,” 109–10; and Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 260.
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the Armenian Foundation Rite 23

Fig. 2. Monastery of the Virgins, Ani, modern eastern Turkey (Photo: Christina Maranci).

the foundations for the saints’ chapels of repose.”21 Notably, however, in the History it is
Gregory, and not, as in the foundation rite, the architect, who takes the tool and traces
the ground. Yet, near the close of the foundation rite (as shown below) the bishop indeed
takes up and works with a building tool.22 This rite ends with a kts‘ord (a multivalent
term often meaning a refrain or short hymn)23 of Psalm 89/90 (“Make straight for us,
Lord, the works of our hands”).24
The next stage in the liturgy comprises a series of lections from Proverbs 3:19–26;
Job 28:5–28; Isaiah 65:21–66:2; Ezekiel 40:3–10; Zechariah 2:1–5 and 4:1–9; Haggai 2:5–10;
I Corinthians 9–15; Psalm 21; and Matthew 16:13–9. Taken as a whole, these readings
would have offered timely messages regarding foundation-building and the importance
(and limits) of human wisdom. The language of Proverbs 3:19–20, “With wisdom the
Lord laid the earth’s foundations, with thought he prepared the heavens,” offers a
particularly appropriate image for the open-air rite, in which the participants were
surrounded by evidence of God’s creation. Natural imagery abounds in Job 28: birds
and “the young of the proud [beasts] have not trampled it, nor the lion,” (v. 8) while
watery life is evoked in v. 11: “they expose the depths of the rivers.” One can imagine

21 Lives of Saint Gregory, 353. For further discussion of the use of measuring lines in Armenian architecture,
see Robert Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton: PUP, 1999), 60; Armen Ghazarian (aka
Kazaryan) and Robert Ousterhout, “A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of
Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages,” Muqarnas 18 (2001): 141–54; Maranci, Vigilant Powers, 133,
137–54.
22 Thus, Gregory seems to form a model for the architect as well as the bishop, and Trdat, for the patron and
for the labourer. I thank Robert Dulgarian for this observation.
23 For discussion of this term, see Findikyan, The Commentary on the Armenian Daily Office by Bishop Step‘anos
Siwnec‘i (†735), 525–30.
24 The Armenian version of Ps. 90:17 is close to the Septuagint: Զգործս ձեռաց մերոց ուղի́ղ արա ՛ի մեզ տ(է)
ր, զգործս ձեռաց մերոց աջողեա́ ՛ի մեզ.
24 SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS CHRISTINA MARANCI

Fig. 3. The Church of Karmirvank‘,

tenth-eleventh centuries?, near
Ani (Photo: Christina Maranci).

the power of such imagery when uttered, for example, at Ani, with the Akhurian
River coursing just below the city (Fig. 2), or at the nearby monastery of Karmirvank‘
(Fig. 3), built on the banks of the Akhurian, or at the monastery of Hoṙomos, with its
lower complex built upon (what is at least now) a seasonal island (Fig. 4).25 Job 28
contains themes of subterranean excavation equally relevant to the moment: v. 9 “the
rocks are dug by their hands.” Lapidary themes are also pursued in New Testament
imagery, with Matthew 16:18, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” In 1 Corinthians
3:9–15, Paul is the “wise architect” (v. 10) who has laid the foundation of God’s building.
For the builders present at the rite, the exhortations of Proverbs 3:21–2 would have
contained special meaning: “Son, maintain wisdom and understanding; preserve sound
judgment and discretion, they will be life itself for you, a favor upon your neck.” Such
relentless pursuit of knowledge was doubtlessly required of those building Armenian
churches. Beginning already in the sixth century, the monuments of the medieval
south Caucasus demonstrate an astonishing level of complexity and refinement in their
planning, vaulting systems, dome construction, and stonemasonry. The most advanced

25 On Hoṙomos and its natural landscape, Whitney Kite, The Holy Land of Hoṙomos: Landscape, Liturgy, and
Architecture (MA Qualifying Paper, Tufts University, 2017).
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the Armenian Foundation Rite 25

Fig. 4. The Monastery of Hoṙomos, tenth-thirteenth centuries, near Ani (Photo: Christina Maranci).

engineering projects of their day, these monuments testify to the development and
organization of tremendous specialized knowledge. Structural failure, moreover, was
always a possibility in this actively seismic area, not only endangering lives but also
destroying professional reputations and draining financial coffers. Hence the “wisdom
and understanding” of Ps. 3:21 probably offered a specific and immediate message to the
builders present at the foundation rite. Attached to these exhortations, however, were
reminders of the greater wisdom of fear in the Lord (Job 28:28), and of the inefficacy
of a measuring line to record the size of the Heavenly Jerusalem, as “[God] will be as
a rampart of fire surrounding it” (v. 5). Isaiah 66:1 might additionally offer particular
admonishment to arrogant builders: “Heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool;
how shall you build my house?” Notably, here and in Proverbs 3:19–20 (in which God lays
“earth’s foundations”), metaphorical imagery communicates the concept of Creation by
stressing the constructed character of the natural landscape.
This set of lections, like the last, also invites participants to look forward to the
New Jerusalem with the Isaiah reading, “they shall build houses and inhabit them,” and
with Haggai 2:5–10. Haggai 2 opens with the Lord’s encouragement to those surveying
the ruins of Solomon’s Temple:

[5] And now take courage, Zerubabbel, says the Lord […], and take courage,
Joshua, son of Jehozadak the high priest, and take courage all the people of the
land, says the Lord, and work, for I am with you, says the Lord Almighty.26

26 Tēr-Vardanyan, Mayr Mashtots‘, 90.

26 SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS CHRISTINA MARANCI

When uttered at the site of the foundation, surrounded by a few unprocessed stones, such
lines would hold particular resonance, inviting those assembled to imagine themselves
standing before the ruins of the Temple, and receiving the commandment to restore it: with
v. 10, God promises that the “glory of this house will be greater than that of the former.”27
Similar imagery occurs at the close of the rite with Daniel 9, as will be shown below.
Following these readings, the deacon proclaims, “For Peace from Above (Վասն ի
վերուստ խաղաղութեան)” and the bishop recites a prayer, invoking the Petrine imagery
of Matthew 16:18.28

Lord our God, who are pleased to build your church upon this rock, O Lord,
we offer to you that which is your own, to build for your glorification this
house, which is to be built; fill it with your heavenly benefaction, and be our
recompenser, and strengthen those that serve; keep its foundations unshaken,
immovable, and firm. Complete and fill this house, so that in it, with songs of
all-praising and glorification, we may bless the honorable and splendid name
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, now and forever.29

The deacon then proclaims, “Let us ask the Lord in faith and accord for mercy,”
followed by “Lord have mercy. And praise and glory,” said twelve times. Thereafter, the
bishop takes the mattock (բրիչ) in his hand, and strikes the ground, which the artisan
(արուեստաւոր, Conybeare “artificer”) has traced: three times to the east, three times
to the west, three times to the south, and three times to the north. The bishop then
gives the tool to the workmen, and they lay the twelve stones in the four corners of the
sanctuary (խորան, Conybeare “tabernacle”), where the bishop has struck.30
Ōdznets‘i offers a rich interpretation of this part of the foundation liturgy, paying
special attention to the numerical symbolism of the mattock’s blows. The three strokes
in each direction signify the three temporal divisions in which the mystery of the
church was imprinted: the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple of Solomon, and the Temple
restored by Zerubabbel.31 He follows this with a discourse on the number twelve (the
total number of strokes) for the twelve apostles, the twelve principal members of man,
the divisibility of the number into 1, 3, 4, 6, and 12, and because on the twelfth day the
moon grows full.32

27 Ibid.
28 Sargisean and Sargsean, Main Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Mkhit‘arist Library in Venice, 6.
29 Tēr-Vardanyan, Mayr Mashtots‘, 92 (my translation). See also Conybeare’s translation (p. 2) and discussion of
this prayer and its Greek version on p. 18. Sargisean provides only the first line of this prayer (“Տէր աստուած
մեր որ հաճեցար ի վերա(յ) այսր վիմի շինել զեկեղեցի քո,” p. 6).
30 See Tēr-Vardanyan, Mayr Mashtots‘, 92; Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 2–3; and Sargisean and Sargsean,
Main Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts of the Mkhit‘arist Library in Venice, 6–7.
31 Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 262.
32 Ibid.; Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 13; Thomson, “Architectural Symbolism,” 110.
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the Armenian Foundation Rite 27

Fig. 5. Stone fragment of

decoration, Zvart‘nots‘, 641–61
(Photo: Christina Maranci).

Particularly vivid is Ōdznets‘i’s commentary on the bishop’s use of the mattock to strike
the ground:

Because the Lord, by his own hand, set to work to dig and pluck from our na-
ture the wounding thorns, having crushed and softened [them] with the tor-
ments of the Cross, sowing in us the word of faith and, in like manner, belief in
the Crucifixion.33

Here Ōdznets‘i draws a remarkable parallel between the bishop’s actions and the
salvation of humanity. Just as God removed the thorns of our nature by digging and
crushing, so the mattock, as used by the bishop, clears the ground for the construction
of the church. The work of removing vegetation, including such sharp “thorns” (փուշս)

33 Aucher, Domini Johannis Ozniensis, 262.; Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 12

28 SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS CHRISTINA MARANCI

mentioned by Ōdznets‘i, surely formed part of the first stages of the preparation of the
footing for churches. One can easily imagine, therefore, that the bishop’s use of the
mattock sometimes served not only a ritual but also practical function by clearing a few
weeds. Indeed, at the seventh-century church of Zvart‘nots‘, images of figures pruning
and vine-clipping with mattocks appear, along with figures with building tools, in the
spandrels of the first-story blind arcades (Fig. 5).34 Ōdznets‘i’s commentary therefore
offers a reminder of the menial and sometimes painful first tasks to take place at the
building yard; it also suggests, as do the sculpted figures of Zvart‘nots‘, that this work
was worthy of praise, alongside that of building design and dome construction. After
the builders lay down the stones, the participants in the rite enter “that place where
the altar is being set” (presumably the clearing in the center of the stones).35 They
then perform a canon repeating a kts‘ord from Ps. 87, “His foundations are in the Holy
Mountain.”
Next is a series of lections from Isaiah 60:1–7, I Peter 2:4–10, Psalm 84, and Matthew
7: 24–9. The rite concludes with the prayer of Daniel 9 up to verse 19. This set of readings
contains strong architectural imagery, repeating some of those discussed earlier (viz.
Psalms 86/87, 83/84). Anticipation of Heavenly Jerusalem is likewise rekindled here:
Isaiah 60, for example, promises the construction of a “glorious house” drawing those
from distant lands. The Rock of Faith and Christ as cornerstone, from Ephesians 2:20,
returns here in the mouth of Peter. The reading from Matthew, on the other hand,
highlights once more the theme of wisdom and understanding. Matthew 7:24–7
additionally contains the timely parable of the wise and foolish builders, the former
building his house upon stone, the latter upon sand.
The foundation rite concludes with the prayer of Daniel 9, concerning the end of
the captivity of the Jews and the eventual reconstruction of Jerusalem. In his confession
and supplication, Daniel, beseeches the Lord to,

[17] let your face shine upon your desolated sanctuary. [18]  Incline, my God,
your ear, and listen to me. Open your eyes and look at our desolation and the
city that bears your name. We do not lay our supplication before you on account
of our righteousness, but on account of your abundant mercy. [19] Hear, Lord;
forgive, Lord, heed us, and do not delay my God. For your name is bestowed
upon your city.

Hearing Daniel’s words voiced aloud, those at the building yard would be transported to
the ruins of Jerusalem; looking down upon the stones as if upon “its desolated sanctuary”
rather than the first stages toward a new church. As with the prophecy of Haggai 2,

34 See Maranci, Vigilant Powers, 146–56.

35 Tēr-Vardanyan, Mayr Mashtots‘, 92.
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the Armenian Foundation Rite 29

these verses set what might seem a discordantly dark tone for an event celebrating the
commitment of numerous individuals and the coordination of considerable resources,
skills, and interests. The rite ends in this way, omitting the following verses of Daniel 9
in which Gabriel informs the prophet of the future rebuilding of the Temple and the End
of Days.
Yet one must remember that after the rite ended, the building process began.
One can well imagine that the builders, already present for the rite, would stay behind to
discuss and organize the project. In the following weeks, months, and years, passersby
would see the building rise from a few stone courses to the beginnings of vaults and
domes, and ultimately to the finished construction. The next rite, the consecration
or blessing, would inaugurate its use as a place of worship. Over this long period, the
words of Gabriel, although not voiced aloud, were, in a sense, enacted by the steady
rise of the walls and vaults, recalling the prophecy of Zerubabbel’s reconstruction of
the Temple (Daniel 9:25), and ultimately the Heavenly Jerusalem. The foundation rite
thus offered its participants a powerful way to envision the church rising in their midst,
evoking simultaneously past, present and future, uniting the construction site with the
Holy City, and the divinely-created world with the manmade.36

Further Questions
Some final comments and questions are in order. First, one hopes for a thorough
textual study of this rite, including a study of the manuscripts, a collation of the known
published texts, a comparison to the Georgian, Byzantine, and Syriac rites (among
others), and an inquiry into questions of origins and development.37 Along these lines,
equally desirable is a comparative study with the rite of consecration, considering if
and how the images and concepts of the foundation are pursued with the completion
of the church. Such questions are not only important for studies of liturgy but for an
understanding, more generally, of medieval perceptions of sacred architecture and its
environment.
Second, one should ask how the imagery of this rite might have informed site
selection, building design, decoration, and epigraphy. For example, Timothy Greenwood
has shown that the elaborate dating conventions found in seventh-century Armenian
foundation inscriptions, including not only regnal years but also months, dates,
and days of the week, are echoed in 1 Kings 6 and 8, regarding the foundation and
completion of Solomon’s Temple.38 Yet Haggai 2:1, which, unlike 1 Kings, is read out

36 On the subject of sacred place-making in a medieval context, see above all the work of Robert Ousterhout,
including for example, “The Sanctity of Place and the Sanctity of Buildings: Jerusalem versus Constantinople,”
in Architecture of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to Byzantium, ed. B. D. Wescoat
and R. G. Ousterhout (New York: CUP, 2012), 281–306.
37 See Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum, 18. Findikyan’s work provides a model for this project.
38 Timothy Greenwood, “A Corpus of Early Medieval Armenian Inscriptions,” DOP 58 (2004): 27–91 at 53–54.
30 SACRED SPACES AND URBAN NETWORKS CHRISTINA MARANCI

during the foundation rite, and concerns the foretelling of Zerubabbel’s reconstruction
of the temple, also contains developed chronography, suggesting a broader scriptural
context in which to understand the dating formulae of the epigraphy.
Further, one should address the potential influence of the rite of foundation
upon church design. This question arises, for example, in relation to the “uncut” and
“unpolished” stones mentioned at the opening the liturgy. I know of no comprehensive
survey of Armenian church substructures, yet it might demonstrate a propensity, in this
or that period, to either polished or unworked foundation stones. Certainly, Christian
monuments beginning already in the fourth century (the tomb of Aghdsk‘) feature
stepped foundations; some churches of the ninth to eleventh centuries suggest particular
attention to the lowest zone of the exterior elevation. One striking example is found in
the monastic complex of Khtskōnk‘, situated on a dramatic promontory overlooking
the Digor River valley.39 Founded in 1029, the church of Surb Sargis (Saint Sergius) is the
only surviving church of the monastery, taking the form of a small rotunda, elevated
on a stylobate, and topped with an “umbrella-style” cupola (Fig. 1). Celebrated as an
architectural masterpiece yet lamented for its appalling state of preservation, Surb
Sargis seems to emerge from a series of layers, beginning with natural striated bedrock,
followed by carved bedrock, upon which are laid the roughly processed stones of the
foundation, and finally the polished stones of the elevation. This effect, only enhanced
in the modern era by erosion, creates a continuum between the natural landscape and
the architecture above it, recalling one scholar’s comparison of Armenian architecture to
“crystals pushing up out of the earth.”40 With its bottom course of roughly cut masonry,
it might also have reminded visitors of the first stones used in the foundation rite, as
well as the metaphorical imagery of God laying the “earth’s foundations.”
Another inquiry might pursue the iconography of bas-relief and wall painting
programs in light of the imagery and readings of the foundation rite. At the church of
Mren, ca. 638, the sculpted tympanum of the west portal features Peter and Paul, while
on the eastern facade is Daniel in the Lion’s Den: personae who, as we have seen, feature
in the foundation rite.41 Moreover, as noted above, the sculpted figures at Zvart‘nots‘ of
vine-cutting and gardening evoke the “wounding thorns” mentioned in the commentary
of Ōdznets‘i. What other imagery, sculpted, painted, or inscribed, might be interpreted
in light of the rite or its commentaries?

See also Maranci, “The Great Outdoors: Liturgical Encounters with the Early Medieval Armenian Church,”
in Aural Architecture in Byzantium: Music, Acoustics, and Ritual, ed. B. V. Pentcheva (London: Routledge, 2018),
32–51 at 32.
39 For a recent discussion of this church, see Armen Kazaryan, “The Classical Trend of the Architectural
School of Ani,” in A Handbook to the Classical Reception in Eastern and Central Europe, ed. Z. M. Torlone, D. L.
Munteanu, D. Dutsch (Malden: Wiley, 2017): 528–40.
40 Helen C. Evans, “The Armenians,” in The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D.
843–1261, ed. Evans and William D. Wixom (New York: MMA, 1997) 251–52.
41 For Peter and Paul, see Maranci, Vigilant Powers, 45, fig. 1.13; for the Daniel image at Mren, see Jean-Michel
Thierry and Nicole Thierry, “La cathédrale de Mren et sa decoration,” Cahiers Archéologiques 21 (1971): 43–77.
Liturgical Landscapes: Text and Context in the Armenian Foundation Rite 31

Finally, it seems crucial to analyze individual sites in light of the foundation rite.
How might the various readings and directives have resonated with a particular patron
at a particular historical moment? How would the rite have been interpreted differently
(or modified) at large cathedrals versus family chapels, urban versus monastic spaces,
and in churches situated on mountains, riverbanks, cliffs, islands (such as Aght‘amar),
or excavated from the living rock? As these preliminary questions suggest, study of the
Armenian foundation rite promises important insight into medieval attitudes towards
churches and their physical settings, supplying scholars with a vast library of imagery,
narratives, and concepts to explore.