IN SEARCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE EREROUK BASILICA

Dickran Kouymjian

It is one of the enigmas of art history that an important monument remains

unremembered in the historical sources. This is seemingly the case with the Armenian

basilican church called Ererouk. The impressive ruins of this church are located in a

deserted area of the Republic of Armenia close by the Akhurian River on the Turkish-

Armenian frontier. The site is a few kilometers southeast of the ruined and deserted

medieval city of Ani. What little we know of its recent and past history will be presented

in this notice.

The plan of the church shows it to have been a basilica and the largest among

existing Armenian basilicas. This type of structure was in common use throughout the

Roman Empire, in both east and west, as an administrative building with no religious

connotations. After the acceptance of Christianity in the fourth century, the basilica was

the favorite construction used for large churches, and since a building was found in

nearly every city of the Empire, it became a sort of standard type of Christian religious

edifice. The plan of Ererouk is similar to a series of Armenian basilicas -- K'asagh,

Eghvard, Dvin, Ashtarak (Ciranavor), Cicernavank', Tekor - in that it had an interior

composed of three aisles or naves, the central and largest one of which was separated

from the others by pillars which also helped support the roof. It differed from them,

(except perhaps for Dvin and Cicernavank') by the fact that its central nave had a roof,

perhaps of wood, which was higher than those covering the side aisles, thus forming a

clerestory. This type was usually termed an Hellenistic Basilica, as opposed to the

Oriental Basilica in which all three aisles were covered by a single roof. Though the

central roof may have been covered by a wooden roof, the side aisles were vaulted in

stone. The use of wood for roofing was totally uncharacteristic of Armenian architecture

in this period, but was a common feature of the Hellenistic type basilica found in

neighboring Syria.

At the eastern end of the church was the apse, flanked by two lateral chambers.

At the western end there were two square tower chambers which were salient to the west

and to the north and south respectively. On the north and south side were covered

2

porches, established in the lateral area created by the protruding chambers; they were

covered by a wooded roof supported by arches which extended from the pilasters on the

wall (still visible on the church today) to disengaged pillars. There were smaller external

apses at the east end of each of these porches. At the west end of the area between the

two chambers was also covered and had an arcade and a monumental portal entrance. On

the south wall were two additional entrances. The whole church was built on a platform -

- called a stylobate in classical temple architecture -- of six steps. Some scholars

speculate that originally there had been a pagan temple on the site dating from the second

or third century A. D.

The architectural evolution of the church from the fifth to the seventh century has

been discussed in detail by many specialists, most recently A. Khatchtrian. Our concern

is not with tectonic considerations but with the history of the monument. Scholars are

divided as to whether it was founded in the fifth or sixth century; there is not a single

textual reference to a church b that name in Armenian sources, and the earliest dated

inscription on the church is of the eleventh century. Nicholas Marr, the first to devote a

monograph especially to the church, was of the opinion that it dates to the end of the fifth

or early sixth century. T'oros T'oramanian who accompanied Marr on the first excavation

of the church said it had a fifth century foundation. Josef Stryzgowski in his monumental

work on Armenian architecture was for a dating in the first half of the fifth century, so

also the Italian researchers in Armenian architecture, both at Milan and Rome.

Haroutyan and Safaryan vote for the fifth century; Krautheimer "near or before 550",

Khatchrian, "avec certitude du Ve siecle et da la considerer peut-etre comme la premire

dans la serie des basiliques armeniennes analouges (p.45)", but M. Thierry in the most

recent expresses opinion and in a review of Khatchtrian's books says, "L'auteur nous dit

bien que L'eglise, d'apres l'inscription, est anterieure au VIIe siecle mais l'argument

stylistique qui lui permet de remonter au ve nous parait demme de fondement, une 'etude

comparative meme rapide demontrera aisement que le decor est beaucoup plus proche de

celui de monuments syrians du VIe siecle." The only clue beyond comparison of

architectural style and decorative motifs with other dated Armenian and Syrian buildings

is a Greek inscription on the eastern end of the south facade which though bearing no

date and no other revealing information, is on pleographic grounds to be dated no later

3

than the seventh century. Thoramanian, Marr, Khatrian and others were also sure that the

original structure of the fifth-sixth century underwent changes during the sixth-seventh

centuries; this change may have been accompanied by additions in decoration by the use

of then current motives which may serve as the source for Thierry's statement on the

closeness of the external decoration to the sixth century Syria.

Beyond this we know nothing about Ererouk in the period before the seventh

century Arab occupation of Armenia. The location of the basilica is in the domains

owned by the Armenian Kamasarakan family and that like the neighboring church of

Mren was erected by that family. The later church was acquired in the late eighth century

(783) by Ashot Msaker, the head of a rapidly rising and rival princely family, the

Basgratuni. That the Bagratuni had possession of Ererouk in the early 10th century is

ascertained beyond a doubt by an inscription, yet when and how they took

control of Ererouk is still unclear. In fact, there is no evidence about the building during

the whole of the Arab period (seventh to ninth century) except possible

an undated inscription to the north of the apse in the interior of the ruined church.

The earlier (tenth century) inscription is in part as follows: "I, Yakob (Hakop) the

priest who came from the city and plain to this village and this holy martyrdom ( ).

. . .renovated (rebuilt) it (i.e. the church of Ererouk) in the name of Karapet (i.e. John the

Baptist) and promartyr (Armenian: ):. . . . ." Marr pointed out that the term

'city and plain' (k'aghak u dasht) was employed in Armenian sources of the sixth and

seventh centuries and afterward up to the tenth century, but not later. Therefore, the

building was restored or rebuilt, probably in the tenth century, or perhaps as early as the

sixth-seventh century, which, if the latter date be accepted it could be an inscription

referring to the sixth century changes mentioned above. Of more interest to our

immediate problem is the term martyrdom (vkayaran) used by Hakip to refer to the

structure. In the earlier Greek inscription presented above, the term sanctuary ( )

was used; in neither case was the word church employed. If the church in the tenth or an

earlier century was indeed a martyrdom, to whom was it dedicated? Since Hakob's

reconstruction was in honor of Karapet (presumably John the Baptist and the

protomartyr) then the logical and, indeed, with the evidence At hand, the only conclusion

is that the church was dedicated to the martyred St. John. But whether in fact the

4

bvasilica was called St. John before the time of the inscription of Hakob the priest, or for

that matter in the period after it, we do not know. Perhaps some day an unidentified

church of St.. John the Baptist may be discovered in the sources which could be

identified with Ererouk and add to our meagre information.

This brings us to the eleventh century when the whole of the Ayrarat valley and

the province of Shirak was in the hands of the Bagratouni family. By 885/7 the new

Bagratid Armenian Kingdom was secured and in the tenth century, Ani, a city on the

other side of the Akhurian River from Ererouk, became its capital. From the height of the

Bagratid period comes our first tangible, unimpeachable evidence, the famous inscription

of 1038, which for the first time records the name of the church, or more probably the

village in which the church was located. The history of the inscription is indeed the

history of the modern discovery of the basilica and its entry as a name in the annals of

history and art history. It was N. Shakhatunian who first brought Ererouk into view in

the second volume of his work Etchmiadzinand the surrounding area published in 1842.

Shakat'unian had visited the ruins, measured them, and recorded the inscription found to

the top left of the eastern door of the south facade of the church. It was inscribed on three

large rectangular stones. It began "In the name of God in the year 487 (of the Armenian

Era, which with the addition of 552, give 1038)" and continues, "I the pious Queen,

daughter of the Abas, spouse of Smbat Shahanshah and mother of Ashot. who freed the

tax (T'astak) of Ererouk (zErervac') for the sons of my son Smbat Shahanshah. . ." Smbat

Shahanshah can only refer to Hovhannes-Smbat, Bagratid King of Ani who died shortly

after in 1041. We have no other references to his wife or even her name, and do not

know about her son Ashot or her other son, SMbat if the inscription and its reading is

accurate. She could have been the daughter of Abas. The drawing of the inscription

along the SHankhat'unian's description was published by Alishan in his Shirak and later

again by Ep'rikian in his natural geography. Alishan accompanied his short notice on

Ererouk with an engraving of the ruins signed by D. Yessayan and his reading of the

inscription. In 1913 Garigan (then Vartapet) Hovsepian published the inscription again,

this time with a photograph (after Marr?) which showed that the third and bottom stone

on which the inscription was carved was missing from its place. Hovsepian read the date

as 477 i.e. 1038, but a careful look at his photo shows the second letter to more like (20)

5

than (70). Most recently Manandyan again gives a partial transcription of the inscription

when discussing the term t'astak. As will be seen below the lower broken and damaged

stone has been restored to its proper place.

Marr also records a second inscription with the date 1038, but without the

mention of any names, carved the lunette above the same door. Thus is is clear that the

church or village called Ererouk had passed by this period into Bagratuni possession. For

a century and a half there is no reference to the Basilica. Because of its proximity to Ani,

we must assume that it underwent the same fate as that city. In 1045 Ani was finally

occupied, after a long struggle by the Byzantine army. The Armenian King Gagik a

cousin of Hovhannes Smbat, after being tricked into coming to Constantinople, while his

capital was being seized by Imperial troops, received in exchange lands in the theme if

Lykandos in Cappadocia. The Byzantine strategy against the Seljuk Turkish invasions of

the Near East was to absorb Armenia directly into the Empire and instead of the troops of

its' unreliable Armenian allies and coreligionists' confront the Turks with Imperial

soldiers. The tactic failed disastrously for Byzantium and Armeina alike. In 1064 Ani,

its Armenia population and Greek defenders fell after a bitter siege to Sultan Alp Arslan.

Shortly after the Bagratid Kingdom of Kars was also taken by the Turks, again from the

Byzantines who had acquired only just before from King Gagik of Kars, for another

exchange in land. We must assume that nearby Ererouk also came under Seljuk control.

The Seljuks themselves did not keep Ani for long, but sold it to their vassal allies, the

Muslim Shaddadids, a family of Kurdish origin, who already had control of Dvin and

Ganja.

The twelfth century history of Ani and its environs is one of hostility between the

Georgians and the Shahdaddids for control of Ani and the surrounding Armenian areas.

The struggle was ended when Zakare and Ivane Mkhagrdzeli, the Armenian generals who

head the Georgian army of Queen T'amar captured Ani in 1199. In 1201 it was formally

given to Zakare and Ivane by Queen T'amar, and within a few years most of greater

Armenian came under Georgian control. It is just in this period that we have a

documented reference to Ererouk by way of another inscription, this time on the church

of St. John (Hovhannes) in Ani. The church was erected by Zakare according to the

inscription he had carved on the exterior of the southern wall. It reads in part: "In the

6

time. . . .of the Queen of Queens, I, Zakare. . . .High Constable . . . built this monument in

stone. . . and I gave as presents of endowment: opposite this monastery and was formerly

called Aver P'anduk, and Ererouk (zErerus) with all of its lands . . . and the spring of its

flower garden. . . " Thus, Ererouk passed under the control of the church of St.

Hovhannesin Ani. The inscription is not dated, but since Zakare and Queen T'amar both

died in the same year, 1221, it cannot be later than that date. Though the church could

have been built theoretically any time after the Mkhagredzeli's were given Ani, 1201,

according to Marr who lead the extensive excavation there before 1208. Our second

inscription then must date to circa 1208-1201.

These two inscriptions are the only known references to the name Ererouk before

the nineteenth century, when of course with the publication of these inscriptions, the

name entered Armenian Onomasticon. In neither case do we find the name in its absolute

or nominal form. Alishan's suggestion of Ererouk "or Ererowac" has been generally

accepted. Marr on the basis of the 1038 inscription called it the place name Ererui.

Though neither of the two inscriptions specifies whether Ererouk refers to the church or

the village, we must assume the reference is the place where the basilica was located

rather than to the building itself. Of course in practice, churches often took the name of

their city or village, e.g. the Ani Cathedral.

Once again we are left without testimony. T'oramanian reports an inscription of

the thirteenth century in or on the church itself, but without further specification. Its fate

under Mongol, then Turkoman and finally Ottoman and Persian rule in Armenia is

unknown. There us the very vaguest sort of evidence by the way of two Greek

inscriptions which Marr says are late seventeenth-eighteenth century," the haphazard

exercises of visitors. These are probably the graffiti of western travellers so common on

antique monuments in the Near East.

There is no further evidence on the history of the basilica. In Shkhatunian's time

it was already a ruin. In its immediate environs he reports the ruins of stone built

dwellings, graves and the location was called Kizil Kule, and the abandoned dwellings

were occupied by Kurds. The inscription 1038 was given as follows and the name

Armenian for the first time. By 1881 the date of the publication of Shirak, Alishan

speaks of the Russian guard post of Kizil Kule (Red Tower), probably established

7

sometime after the Russian Turkish War of 1874-1876, north of which are the ruins. In

1896 Madame H. Abich discusses the ruin and publishes the first plan of the church,

which she calls "Alam (Kissilkolba)". She must have confused it with an Alam on the

other side of the Akhurian River which can be found on the Map accompanying Lynch's

Armenia published in 1901, but describing his travels of 1893-1894 and 1898. On

Lynch's map, Ererouk is not found. There is south of Alam Kizil-kule, but he places like

Alam to the west of the Akhurian, but on the east bank of a tributary branch of the river.

It is too far south to be our Kizil Kule and is either another settlement with the same

name or a mistake on Lynche's part.

In 1907, Nicholas Marr, who had already been excavating at Ani, published the

first monograph devoted to Ererouk and its architecture. That was followed in the next

year by the first archaeological expedition led by Marr. The team which spent a fortnight

on the site, 23 July to 8 August, was composed of T'oros T'oramanian as architect, A.

Tetvadjian and S. N. Poltaratzkin as artists, and included the students Hovsep Orbeli and

N. N. Tikhonov. The interior of the church was clear and diggings made along the walls.

All parts of the building were measured, drawn and photographed. Some important

stones, probably khatchkars, carved with figures were removed to the museum in Ani,

ironically probably for safe keeping, and are of course lost today.

Marr during these days was also able to interview an old man from the Kizil-

Kule, which is referred to as a Kurdish village. The Kurd Isa Abdu-oghli discussed at

length the concaved depression near the basilica filled with water in the spring and was

used as a reservoir during the hot, rainless summer. It had a system of dikes which had

now gone to ruin. More importantly Isa Abdu-oghli told Marr that as far as he could

remember, and that was at least a half a century, the ruins were essentially as they are

now, i.e. 1908. This takes the history of the ruin back with in a decade and a half of

Shakhtunian's description, thus indicating its deserted state went back to at least the first

part if the nineteenth century. A comparison of the engraving in Alishan and the

photographs of Marr show at a glance basic truth of Isa's statement. The old Kurd also

related that one of the Armenians who used to live in Kizil Kule added that Armenians

from the village of Kizil Kule had built the Armenians of the village had erected the

western transverse wall or rebuilt the western transverse wall of the church. Marr then

8

wrote another article on the basilica as well as two full-length studies in which the course

of the excavations was reported. One of the studies remained in manuscript until its

publication in 1968.

In 1918 Josef Stryzgowski, relying heavily on the notes, surveys and photographs

of T. T'oramanian published his monumental Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europe. It

is mostly through this work that the Ererouk basilica became known to a small number of

specialists in the west. In 1923 a shorter work in English also mentioned the structure

and provided a plan and a view. Since then it is mentioned in one way or another by

nearly every authority writing on Armenian or early east Christian architecture. As for

the monument itself, T.oramanian reports that in 1928 thanks to the efforts of

academician A. I. Tamanian and the intercession of Mravian, governments funds were

provided the Committee for the Preservation of Architectural Monuments of the Republic

of Armenia S. S. R. Special attention was given to those parts of the building which were

in danger of collapsing. There was in addition to the reinforcing work, more clearing

done in and around the edifice. T'ormanian also adds that the former Kurdish Village,

(Kizil Kule) no longer existed and the basilica was in a totally deserted environment.

In 1948 the Committee for the Preservation of Monuments once again conducted

restoration work, this time under the supervision of architect Alexadre Sahinian. The broken

stone bearing the last lines of the inscription of 1038 was restores to its original place, parts

of the walls were touched up, the right hand columns of the east portal of the south wall was

replaced, the facing stones of the south wall were restored, and the stylobate was carefully

cleared showing a seven step gradient. Finally, in 1970 an Italian technical and research

mission composed of Adriano Alpago-Novello, Armen Manoukian and Herman Vahramian,

with the aid of the Monoukian Foundation of Milan and at the invitation of the government

of the Republic of Armenia S. S. R. made a thorough survey of the church, with plans,

elevations and complete photographic record. This material will be used in part for the

preparation of A forthcoming volume devoted entirely to Ererouk in the series Documents of

Armenian Architecture produced jointly by the Faculty of Architecture of the Polytechnic of

Milan and the Armenian Academy of Sciences. One waits anxiously for this volume,

hoping that the combined talents of those participating will help clear up some of the

mysteries behind this largest, but historically least remembered Armenian Basilica.