1/12

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TIMBER ROOFS IN 19TH C. CHURCHES. THE EXAMPLE OF HAGIOS DIMITRIOS IN MOSCHOHORI, FLORINA.

Aineias Oikonomou

University of Patras, Department of Architecture 25, Iasonos street, 16671 Vouliagmeni, Greece

Keywords: three-aisled basilica, timber roof, restoration, Moschohori, Florina ABSTRACT The paper presents the methodology of documentation and restoration of timber roofs in typical 19th century churches in northern Greece. These pertain to the type of three-aisled basilica and present many similarities concerning their plan, dimensions and constructional system. All the above allow researchers to use parallel examples for the documentation of the initial form of specific elements, which have been destroyed, such as the timber roofs. The church of Hagios Dimitrios (1871), an important three-aisled basilica, in the deserted settlement of Moschohori, Florina, is selected as a case-study. The analysis presents data concerning the typology and the dimensions of the plans of three-aisled basilicas of the wider area of Florina and Prespa Lakes, while, data concerning the design and the tracing of the plan, are also mentioned. The relative research proves that these churches were “designed” in terms of their plan, with the use of specific metric models, whereas their tracing was executed with the help of right-angled triangles and their construction was based on the metric system of the architect’s cubit. The timber roofs follow a specific structural system, where there are primary trusses with posts, that are supported by the columns and secondary dense trusses with only tie beams and rafters. The methodology of the representation is based on the examination of examples of churches in the immediate geographical area with similar roof typology, form and construction. The standardisation of the plan dimensions allows the precise determination of the position of the wooden columns that form the aisles. From the above, it can be seen that in cases where the monument image is incomplete, parallel examples of monuments can be used, in order to safely complete the image of the monument and scientifically document the restoration of the initial form. THE BUILDING GUILDS Guild origins Based on various bibliographical sources, in Northern Greece, as well as in the rest of the Ottoman Empire, the design and construction of buildings was, almost exclusively, carried out by groups of master builders organised in guilds (esnaf) [1]. Building guilds, which either travelled, either had a permanent base, existed even before the 16th century, but did not undertake the design and construction of works in the towns. This began after the end of the 17th century, when the increasing urban, Muslim as well as Christian population began to prosper [2]. The prosperity of the guilds began at the end of the 18th century at the western parts of the Balkan Peninsula. During the 17th and the 18th century, master builders from Albania designed and constructed public and private buildings in Albania, Epirus and Macedonia. At the end of the 18th and during the 19th century, the master builders that worked in these areas mainly came from the northern parts of Macedonia [2].

2/12

The master builders that worked in the wider area of Macedonia came from Albania, Epirus and Macedonia. In particular, Moutsopoulos [1] mentions that many came from the villages of Koritsa (arbanites) and Dibra (debrelides). He also mentions that the builders that worked in the town of Florina during the 19th century came from Dibra, and known craftsmen villages of the area, like Alona (Armentsko), Flambouro (Negobani) and Drosopigi (Belkameni) [3]. Many master masons also came from the Chouliarochoria of Epirus, the villages of Tzoumerka Mountains and the villages of Konitsa [1], whereas many builders came from the craftsmen villages of Western Macedonia, namely Eratyra (Selitsa) and the villages of Siatista and Kozani, such as Bogatsiko (Bogatsko), Neapolis (Anaselitsa), Pentalofos (Zoupani), Vithos and Eptachori [1 and 4].

Methods of design and tracing of churches The investigation of proportions and constructional tracing in Byzantine churches has been the object of many previous studies. In Bulgaria, concerning medieval churches, I. Popov [5] investigated the proportions using diagonal tracing and squares (quadratura or ad quadratum), while G. Kozukharov [6] used equilateral and right-angled triangles in order to explore circular and arched tracing. In Greece, N. K. Moutsopoulos [7] applied geometrical tracing in sections of Byzantine inscribed cross-shaped churches and argued that there exist constructional tracings that define the proportions of their parts. Furthermore, K. Oikonomou [8] analysed sections of Byzantine churches using diagonal and square constructional tracing (quadratura), while A. Prepis [9] analysed plans of Serbian and Albanian post-Byzantine churches using diagonal circular tracing. P. A. Rappoport [10] analysed the building process of Russian Kievan churches from the tenth to the twelfth centuries, reported specific external dimensions (30x20 ‘belts’ – measuring units) for these Byzantine monuments [Rappoport 1995: 163] and stated that: ‘it has been supposed that the working system of a Kievan architect was based on geometrical constructions. However, in the absence of drawings, it is more likely that the dimensions of the building were determined arithmetically, in the form of simple proportional relationships, with linear measures as an initial unit’ [10]. Concerning Byzantine architecture between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, R. Ousterhout [11] analysed the building methods of Byzantine master builders and emphasised on the use of modular systems based on the Byzantine foot (31.2 cm) and the existence of specific geometric ratios such as 4:3 and 2:1 [11]. He characteristically states that ‘‘the application of geometry must begin with a system of measurement. There are elements from remaining buildings that Byzantine builders used a standardised measuring system’’ [11]. Apart from the above, B. Sisa [12] analysed plans and sections of Protestant wooden bell towers in the Carpathian basin using as a starting point the medieval theory of the constructional principles of the circle-square-triangle, which provides evidence that carpenters did not use drawings but applied these principles directly during the construction stage. Sisa’s drawing analysis showed that these timber structures are based on a constructional grid with specified proportions [12]. Based on the afore-mentioned bibliographical review, it can be seen that apart from the studies by Ousterhout [11] and Rappoport [10], who refer to specific module and dimensions in Byzantine feet, most of the other studies do not use or present a given module, but apply tracing of circles and diagonals which subdivide the façades or sections in smaller parts, without mentioning the use of the module.

3/12

METHODOLOGY OF DOCUMENTATION AND RESTORATION Typology of 19th century churches The basic building type of the post-Byzantine churches of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is that of the single-nave church (monohoros dromikos), whereas in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the type of the single-nave church with portico and the type of the three-aisled basilica (trikliti basiliki) are commonly used in the wider Balkan area. Christians were neither allowed to build churches of great size, nor to use marks and signs such as the cross. As a result most of the post-Byzantine churches have a small size and many of them resemble to houses or farmhouses (see also [13]. This prohibition of building grand churches by the Christians concerns mainly the towns and villages that were predominantly inhabited by Muslims. Nevertheless, between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries, important churches in terms of size and intentions, of the Athonite cross-in-square type, have been built in monasteries [13]. It was only after the first Ottoman Tanzimat Reform (Hati Serif of Giullhane - 1839) that Christians throughout the Empire were widely allowed to build large basilicas and to use the sign of the cross on the façades, although there are some exceptions built in the eighteenth century, in areas like Voio, Zagori and Pelion [13]. The three-aisled basilicas of the 19th century in the area of Florina can be divided, based on their typology into four major categories: a) three-aisled basilicas, b) three-aisled basilicas with a simple hayat, c) three-aisled basilicas with a portico and d) with an external narthex [14]. Concerning the second category, the hayat is on the southern side or extends also to the western (L-shaped). In most cases, it was added afterwards, but there are examples, where it was constructed together with the church. In the third category, there is usually a space reserved for women (gynaekonitis) over the portico, which is situated at the western side. Finally, in the latter category, there is a closed perimetric external narthex, which is designed and constructed initially. The metric system of the architect’s cubit The measuring of plots and the construction of buildings in the Ottoman Empire was based on the mimar arşin or architect’s cubit, which is equal to 0.757738 m. The arşin is divided into 24 parmak (3.157 cm), or fingers; the finger is divided into 12 hatt (0.263 cm), or lines; and the line is divided into 12 nokta (0.022 cm), or points [2]. The arşin is also divided into two equal parts of 37.8869 cm called kadem [15]. The Ottomans used the architect’s cubit (mimar arşin or zira) from the beginning of the sixteenth century, though its precise measurement varied. A. Özdural mentions that the imperial measuring unit was equal to 72.1 cm in 1520; 73.4 cm during the last quarter of the sixteenth century; and 76.4 cm during the third quarter of the eighteenth century[15]. The architect’s cubit of 75.8 cm was the fourth and final version, assigned as the imperial measuring unit by Selim III, during the years 1794-95; it remained in use until 1934, when it was replaced by the metre [15]. The arşin, similar to the old English yard, was both an instrument and a measuring unit [2]. As an instrument, it was usually made of ebony, wood, bronze, copper or bone and could be folded into two (kadem) or four parts. As mentioned, it was subdivided into parts of 12 or 24 [15].

4/12

Basic metric models The relative research [16] proves that 19th-century, three-aisled basilicas were “designed” in terms of their plan, with the use of specific metric models, whereas their tracing was, most probably, executed with the help of right-angled triangles and their construction was based on the metric system of the architect’s cubit. The plans of eighty post-Byzantine churches of Florina prefecture drawn by Moutsopoulos [17] were analysed using the application of the constructional module (a modular grid) and triangular tracing. This was done in order to obtain a better understanding of the standardisation of plans, their proportions and constructional dimensions [16]. The research was a continuation of a previous post-doc research [Oikonomou 2011], supervised by Professor Aikaterini Dimitsantou-Kremezi, and conducted in the Laboratory of Architectural Form and Orders, N.T.U.A. School of Architecture. Based on the analysis of the plans, the monuments are divided into five basic categories: i. Churches with plan proportions 3:2, where the tracing is based on two consecutive right 3-4-5 triangles (22 churches); ii. Churches with plan proportions 4:3, where the tracing is based on one right 3-4-5 triangle (13 churches); iii. Churches with plan proportions 1.618:1, 21:13 or 13:8, where the tracing is based on the golden section (√5+1:2) (6 churches); iv. Churches with plan proportions 8:5, where the tracing is based on right triangles and circles (5 churches); v. Churches with plan proportions 2:1, where the tracing is based on right triangles and multiple circles (12 churches). The metric models, which can be found in the post-Byzantine churches of northwestern Greece, as well as in the wider Balkan area, are possibly based on rough plans (skariphos) [11] that master builders widely used. In the church architecture of the Florina area, the most common metric models that are observed are: a. Church with a plan of 16x10 arşin (ratio 8:5); b. Church with a plan of 24x12 arşin (ratio 2:1); c. Church with a plan of 24x16 arşin (ratio 3:2); d. Church with a plan of 32x20 arşin (ratio 8:5). The use of triangular tracing The metric models that are analysed contribute to the standardisation of the construction of the post-Byzantine church. Most of the churches presented have a fully rectangular plan. At the same time, the constructional module is applied accurately, not only in the placement of the basic wooden structural elements and the openings, but also in the dimensions of the spaces. All the above lead to the conclusion that before the construction of the church, certain basic architectural tracing, which assumes basic knowledge of geometry, took place. For the tracing of the rectangular perimeter of the church and its main walls, the Pythagorean Theorem with the basic right-angled triangle 3-4-5 is applied with the use of knotted ropes. Stoichkov has proven that master builders in Bulgaria used the 3-4-5 triangle during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries [18]. It is also mentioned that “the masters of Bratzigovo (…) traced their plans directly on the site, which would sometimes result in harmonic relation and even in golden rule

5/12

proportions” [2]. Furthermore, Cerasi mentions that “the analysis of plans and elevations of buildings by Balkan masters has shown the existence of proportions and tracing inscribed in circles”. He also notes that the use of long leather strips in Bulgaria for the measuring and tracing on the site encourages circular and diagonal tracing [2].The same methods certainly apply in northwestern Greece during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but also during the whole post-Byzantine period. Ousterhout characteristically states for the construction of churches in Western Europe that “to lay out a building, one simply had to know the ropes” [11]. The 3-4-5 triangle can be multiplied by various factors to produce triangles of the necessary dimension; thus multiplication by a factor of 2 produces the 6-8-10 triangle; by a factor of 3, 9-12-15; by a factor of 4, 12-16-20; by a factor of 5, 15-20-25; and so forth. Furthermore, the use of circular auxiliary tracing can not be ruled out, especially in the case of churches that have a plan with a ratio of 13:8. These numbers are related to the subdivision of a line with a length of 13 into two parts with lengths of 8 and 5 (extreme and mean ratio) and the Fibonacci series [19]. The following diagrams include observations concerning the various metric models and their way of tracing (fig. 1). In this way, the relationship with the above-mentioned, characteristic right-angled triangles is investigated and conclusions concerning the possible tracing of the churches’ walls and their design can be drawn.

Figure 1. Basic models. Use of the module and triangles 6-8-10, 9-12-15, 12-16-20, 15-20-25.

At this point it is useful to cite the definition given by Jouven concerning the (harmonic) tracing: “A harmonic trace is a geometric figure whose design coincides with the main lines of a building (or what amounts to the same, its graphic representation in geometrical projection). The choice of this geometric figure, conceived at the same time as the building by the architect, is based on the remarkable properties that are included in it” [20]. Jouven also explains: “We mean by main lines those whose knowledge is sufficient to determine the elements of construction (perimeter, axes, lines of change, etc.). We can say in a quick way that they are the main lines of a first rough drawing of the building” [20]. We must bear in mind that the tracing of the perimeter and the elements of the church’s upper part (dome, roof or upper storey) is also made on the ground, and the construction is based on the specific grid and module (foot or architect’s cubit). This can result in a rather complex triangular tracing, without necessarily meaning that the diagonals are in fact traced on the ground: only the corners of the church walls are marked by small stones and then the plan is laid out with knotted ropes [11]. A

6/12

stone is placed the centre of the altar and uncut stones mark the four corners. Then, the master architect traces the plan with the use of a measuring instrument and finally the perimeter of the church is marked with a help of a string [10]. In this way it is impossible to find any sign or mark of the presented tracings as they were made on the ground before the churches were actually built. Nevertheless, master builders often used on the façades circumscribed symbols like the five-pointed star (pentalpha), the six-pointed star (double triangle) and the double square. It is a scientific question if these symbols are in any way related to any possible geometrical tracing on the ground, or if they stand for other purposes. The construction of 19th century churches The construction of three-aisled basilicas during the 18th and at the beginning of the 19th century is characterised by the presence of visible wooden ties (fig. 2) at small intervals (75-90 cm). On the contrary, later in the 19th century, the wooden ties are usually hidden and can be found from the characteristic metal “keys”, that hold the metal ties buttresses at the corners of the masonry (fig. 3).

Figure 2. Hagia Paraskevi in Ano Kranionas.

Use of timber ties in wall construction. Figure 3. Metal ties and “keys” in the corners of

Hagios Dimitrios in Moschohori (1871).

The vertical structural elements of the 19th century churches are made of stone with clay mortars or, more rarely, lime mortars, with lime-mortar joint-fillings, the corners are formed by large chiseled corner-stones, whereas the horizontal structural elements (floors and roofs) are made of local structural timber. The timber roofs follow a specific structural system, where there are primary trusses with posts, that are supported by the columns and secondary dense trusses with only tie beams and rafters. The form of 19th century churches The form of the churches under consideration presents a vast variety, and usually follows more or less closely the architectural styles of the time of construction. The churches of the mid 19th century have a relatively simple form, while those of the end of the century are influenced by classicism and present elements that refer to neo-renaissance standards (fig. 5). On the three facades (the western, the southern and the northern), the openings are relatively large and morphologically similar to those of the houses of the same period, whereas those of the eastern façade are smaller and are placed over the recesses. The opening over the apse of the altar has, in many instances, the form of a four-leaf, whereas the openings over the conchs of diakoniko and prothesis, have an elliptical or rhombus form,

7/12

deriving from eclecticism (fig. 4). A characteristic morphological element of the three-aisled churches is also the gambrel roof on the western, as well as on the eastern façade.

Figure 4. Hagios Dimitrios in Lehovo (1868) Figure 5. Hagios Georgios in Krystallopigi (1891).

The Church of Hagios Dimitrios in Moschochori Moschochori (formerly known as Vambeli) was a settlement, which was situated very close to the village of Kristallopigi (Smardesi), near the Greek-Albanian border, at a distance of fifty kilometres from the town of Florina. At the beginning of the 20th century, the village had 700 inhabitants and 120 houses [21]. On 1903 (Ilinden uprising), the settlement was burnt to the ground by the Ottomans [22], and so was Krystalopigi. Many of the inhabitants left Greece after the 1st World War. On 1928, the population of the village was 444 people and, apart from the church of Hagios Dimitrios, had a primary school and a post-office. [23] During WWII, an Ochrana detachment (armed group of collaborators of the axon organised by the internal Macedonian revolutionary organisation) was formed, while after the end of the Civil War (1949), both the settlement was abandoned and destroyed, and again, so was Krystallopigi [22]. Hagios Dimitrios is the settlements church and was built, according to the stone lintel of the entrance, on 1871 [17]. Despite the abandonment and the destruction of the settlement on 1949, the church was preserved in a fairly good state up until the Dictatorship. According to the people of Krystallopigi, around 1971, a military group from Kastoria removed all the timber parts of the church (woodcut icon-screen, Episcopal throne and seats) and transferred them to an unknown location. As a result of this, the wooden columns and the roof collapsed and the church’s interior was destroyed. It is an important three-aisled basilica, which had in its western part, a raised place set apart for women (gynaikonitis). The plan of the church has external dimensions of approximately 2390x1494 cm (32x20 arşin), while its interior is 22.10x13.00 m (fig. 7). The internal height up to the beginning of the roof is 6.75 m (9 arşin). At the centre of the western façade, there is a double stone staircase, which leads to the main entrance, while on the southern façade, there were two more doors. On the western façade, there existed a stone cross at the upper part, and on the entrance a portico, supported by stone pillars (fig. 8). The openings have stone frames and have relieving arches on their upper part. The quality of the stonework and the joint-fillings leads to the conclusion that the church was built by an important company of builders (esnafi), probably coming from the villages of Voio or those of Epirus. On the eastern façade (fig. 10), there existed a circular rose window with a twelve-pointed star and two stone cypress trees on its sides, on the pediment over the apse.

8/12

Figure 6. View from the north. Figure 7. Plan.

Figure 8. View from the west. Figure 9. View from the south.

Figure 10. View from the east. Figure 11. Northern façade.

These stone parts are today found in the interior of the church, together with many structural elements of the roof and some of the wooden columns that supported the roof internally and formed the aisles. In the interior of the church, a large part of the initial renderings is preserved and, on this, the zones of the mezzanine and the balcony of the gynaikonitis can be discerned. On the eastern wall, small, earthen pots are preserved walled in at a height of approximately 6 m (8 arşin).

9/12

Figure 12. Western façade. Figure 13. Eastern façade.

Figure 14. Southern façade.

REPRESENTATION OF THE ROOF’S INITIAL FORM The methodology of the representation is based on the following steps. First, examples of churches of the immediate geographical area with similar roof typology, form and construction were found in the relevant bibliography. The timber trusses follow a similar construction system with the churches of Hagios Georgios in Krystallopigi (1891), Hagia Paraskevi in Pisoderi (1848) and Hagios Athanasios in the deserted settlement Sfika. In these roofs, across the church and over the pillars, there are diaphragms that are formed by posts and diagonals, on which there lies a transverse beam. This beam supports the main rafters, which together with the tie beams form the trusses that are placed at very small distances. The pillars support, apart from the posts, diagonal elements that span the width of the church, pertain to the main trusses and support a second transverse beam (fig. 15). In the case of Hagios Georgios in Krystallopigi, which was immediately reconstructed after its burning on 1903, the trusses are placed at one-arşin intervals, whereas the posts are 5 arşins apart. Furthermore, more distant examples, such as this of Hagios Dimitrios in Lehovo (1868) and Hagios Georgios in Eratyra (1844), are used in order to compare the construction details and to reach relevant conclusions. In these churches, the transverse beams are supported on the posts through capitals (baslik), while, due to the increased width and the given typology, there is a second diaphragm, formed by posts and diagonals spanning the length of the church (fig. 16).

10/12

Figure 15. Hagios Georgios in Krystallopigi. Internal view of the roof.

Figure 16. Hagios Dimitrios in Lehovo. Internal view of the roof.

It is actually a roof construction system, which in its simplest form, with very close trusses without posts can be dated back to the Byzantium and survives and evolves throughout the post-Byzantine period [16]. At the same time, it can be safely documented that this system of post-Byzantine timber roofs has many common features with the structural system of Gothic cathedral pointed roofs. The standardisation of the plan dimensions in the church of Hagios Dimitrios in Moschochori allows the precise determination of the position of the wooden columns that form the aisles, as well as the representation of the balcony of the special space set apart for women above the western entrance. The positions of the primary structural elements (pillars and posts), which are placed at 375-cm (5-arşin) intervals, as well as the distances of the rafters (75 cm), derive from the analysis of similar examples, the plan of the church and the applied module (fig. 17). As mentioned above, it is a structure that follows the design and construction principles that apply from the middle ages up to the 19th century (fig. 21).

Figure 17. Plan with arsin grid. Representation. Figure 18. Cross Section. Representation.

The initial altitude of the roof was assigned based on the remaining south-eastern part of the perimetric roof eaves. The roof slope (27o) derives from photogrammetric analysis of the eastern and western facades (figs. 18 - 20). Despite the fact that the precise positions of the primary structural elements and the tie beams are not known because there are no signs of beam sockets in the destroyed walls, the cleaning of the floor will reveal the precise position of the columns and will finalise the form of the roof.

11/12

Figure 19. Western façade. Proposal. Figure 20. Eastern façade. Proposal.

Figure 21. Representation of the roof structural system. Axonometric.

CONCLUSIONS The presented methodology is based on the systematic documentation, which included the analysis of the typology, the constructional elements and their details, as well as the tracing of specific examples of churches in the wider area with the same or similar typological and constructional characteristics. The analysis of the traditional methods of construction is necessary, in order to avoid unwise proposals and to comprehend the design principles that were applied up to the beginning of the 20th century. The timber roofs of the churches of the 19th century in Northern Greece, constitute constructional elements that present a great standardisation, are constructed with similar principles and follow specific building standards. Based on the analysis of the structural system and the constructional details in churches of the same period found in neighbouring areas, the representation of the form of the destroyed and actually unknown roof of an important monument of the 19th century is made possible. From the above, it can be seen that in cases where the monument image is incomplete, parallel examples of monuments can be used, in order to safely complete the image of the monument and scientifically document the restoration of the initial form.

12/12

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Some of the material that appears here appeared in an earlier publication of mine, entitled “Design and Tracing of Post-Byzantine Churches in the Florina Area, Northwestern Greece” (Nexus Network Journal, vol. 14, no. 3 (2012), pp. 495-515) The author would like to thank Prof. Stavros Mamaloukos (Dr. Arch. Eng.) for his valuable scientific advice concerning the design and construction of Byzantine and post-Byzantine churches, and also the 16th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities in Kastoria. for providing the relevant permission. REFERENCES [1] Moutsopoulos N.K., (1967). I laiki architektoniki tis Beroias (The popular architecture of Veroia), Technical

Chamber of Greece, Greece. [in greek] [2] Cerasi M., (1988). “Late-Ottoman Architects and Master Builders”, Muqarnas V: An Annual on Islamic Art and

Architecture, 87-102. [3] Moutsopoulos N.K., (1967). “I laiki architektoniki tis Florinas (The popular architecture of Florina)”, Hos 63-65,

selides. [in greek] [4] Vakalopoulos A., (1988). I istoria tis Makedonias 1354-1833 (The history of Macedonia 1354-1833), Banias, Greece.

[in greek] [5] Popov I., (1955). Proporcii v Bulgarskata Arhitektura (Proportions in Bulgarian Architecture), Hayka y Yekystvo,

Bulgaria. [in bulgarian] [6] Kozukharov G., (1974). Svodut v Anticnostta u Srednite Vekove, Anticnostta, Bulgaria. [in bulgarian] [7] Moutsopoulos N.K., (2010). Naodomia (Construction d’Églises), University Studio Press, Greece. [in greek] [8] Oikonomou K., (2003). I Architectoniki tis Koimiseos Theotokou stin Aiani Kozanis. Morfologiki-Typologiki

Diereynisi (Architectural Remarks on the Church of the Koimises of Virgin Mary in Aiani), Greece. [in greek] [9] Prepis A., (2007). “O Andrej Damjanov ke i symvoli tou sthn Ekklesiastiki architectoniki tis Dytiko-kentrikis

Balkanikis” (Andrej Damjanov and his Contribution in Church Architecture of Western-Central Balkans in the 19th Century). In Proc. of the National Conference on Istoria Domikon Kataskeuon (History of Constructions), Xanthi: Department of Architecture, Democritus University of Thrace. (in Greek)

[10] Rappoport P.A., (1995) Building the Churches of Kievan Russia, Variorum, Hampshire. [11] Ousterhout R., (1999). Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton University Press, USA. [12] Sisa B., (1990). “Hungarian wooden belltowers of the Carpathian Basin”, in EEPS, Armos: vol. A, Polytechnic

School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 305-352. (in Greek) [13] Bouras Ch., (2001). Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Architecture in Greece, Melissa, Greece. (in Greek [14] Tsitimaki M., (2006). Traditional chuch-building in Lesvos (18th & 19th c.), Ph.D. Thesis, N.T.U.A., Greece. [15] Özdural A., (1988). “Sinan’s Arşin: A Survey of Ottoman Architectural Metrology”, Muqarnas XV: An Annual on

the Visual Culture of the Islamic World, 101-115. [16] Oikonomou A., (2012). “Design and Tracing of Post-Byzantine Churches in the Florina area, Northwestern Greece”,

Nexus Network Journal 14:3, pp. 495-515. [17] Moutsopoulos N. K., (2003). Byzantina kai Metabyzantina Mnimeia tis Makedonias. Ekklisies tou Nomou Florinas

(Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Monuments of Macedonia. Churches of Florina Prefecture), Malliaris-Paideia, Greece. (in Greek)

[18] Stoichkov J., (1977). Za Arhitecturata na Koprivchtitza (The Architecture of Koprivchtitza), Tehnika, Bulgary. (in Bulgarian)

[19] Konstantinidis D., (1961). Peri armonikon haraxeon eis tin arhitektonikin kai tas eikastikas tehnas. Historia kai Aesthitiki (On Harmonic Tracing in Architecture and Visual Arts. History and Aesthetics), Greece. (in Greek)

[20] Jouven G., (1951). Rythme et Architecture. Les Traces Harmoniques, Editions Vincent, Freal et Cie, France. [21] Lithoksou D., (2009). Oi oikismoi tis Kastorias pou arxizoun apo A-B (The settlement of Kastoria, whose names

begin with A - B), [Online] Available, http://lithoksou.net/kastoria_a_v.html, 28.03.2014 [22] Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (2013). Moschochori, Florina, [Online] Available,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vambel, 28.03.2014 [23] Megali Elliniki Egkyklopaedia (Major Greek Encyclopaedia), vol. IZ, O Pyrsos Publications, Greece, p. 40. (in

Greek)