Location

The spring is located in the Hadrut region, in the Taghaser village's south-eastern part (Fig. 1). Taghaser has been under Azerbaijani occupation since October 2020.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser.jpg?v=1657605107" width="1358" height="473" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser.jpg?v=1657605107 1358w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-300x104.jpg?v=1657605107 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-1024x357.jpg?v=1657605107 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-768x267.jpg?v=1657605107 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-370x129.jpg?v=1657605107 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1358px) 100vw, 1358px" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpg?v=1657605132" width="800" height="522" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpg?v=1657605132 800w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-300x196.jpg?v=1657605132 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-768x501.jpg?v=1657605132 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-370x241.jpg?v=1657605132 370w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" title="Fig. 1 The general view of the spring, photo by S. Karapetyan, source: http://www.raa-am.com/raa/public/publish.php?mid=5&more=2&cont=32&obid=136&uid=4255." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 1 The general view of the spring, photo by S. Karapetyan, source: http://www.raa-am.com/raa/public/publish.php?mid=5&more=2&cont=32&obid=136&uid=4255.

Historical overview

Movses Hovsepyan, a wealthy villager, built the spring in 1915 with his own financial means and left a building inscription, but it was defaced after being targeted by dekulakization ideology.

Architectural-compositional examination

It is a vaulted structure with a rectangular architectural plan. It has a nave on the lower part. The spring is made of lime stone and mortar. The arches, corner stones of the walls, and nave have all been polished. A rectangular 1-meter-wide, 5-meter-long drainage basin is located at the back of the spring.

It measures 6 meters in length, 2.1 meters in width, and 3.2 meters in height.

As a result of renovation in the mid-2000s, the spring was plastered (Fig. 2).

It was managed to partially restore the building inscription. It says, "This spring was built by Movses Osepyants as a memorial in 1915." (Fig. 3).

The condition before, during, and after the war

The spring was not harmed during or after the military operations in 2020.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002.jpg?v=1657605273" width="1779" height="1171" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002.jpg?v=1657605273 1779w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-300x197.jpg?v=1657605273 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1024x674.jpg?v=1657605273 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-768x506.jpg?v=1657605273 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1536x1011.jpg?v=1657605273 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-370x244.jpg?v=1657605273 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1779px) 100vw, 1779px" title="Fig 2 The spring after the repair. The photo is provided by the Artsakh Republic's "State Service for the Protection of Historical Environment" SNCO's electronic database." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig 2 The spring after the repair. The photo is provided by the Artsakh Republic's "State Service for the Protection of Historical Environment" SNCO's electronic database.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2.jpg?v=1657605312" width="1779" height="952" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2.jpg?v=1657605312 1779w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-300x161.jpg?v=1657605312 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-1024x548.jpg?v=1657605312 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-768x411.jpg?v=1657605312 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-1536x822.jpg?v=1657605312 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-370x198.jpg?v=1657605312 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1779px) 100vw, 1779px" title="Fig. 3 The constructional inscription of the spring. The photo is provided by the Artsakh Republic's "State Service for the Protection of Historical Environment" SNCO's electronic database." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 3 The constructional inscription of the spring. The photo is provided by the Artsakh Republic's "State Service for the Protection of Historical Environment" SNCO's electronic database.

Location The spring is located in the Hadrut region, in the Taghaser village’s south-eastern part (Fig. 1). Taghaser has been under Azerbaijani occupation since October 2020. Historical overview Movses Hovsepyan, a wealthy villager, built the spring in 1915 with his own financial means and left a building inscription, but it was defaced after being targeted by dekulakization ideology. Architectural-compositional examination It is a vaulted structure with a rectangular architectural plan. It has a nave on the lower part. The spring is made of lime stone and mortar. The arches, corner stones of the walls, and nave have all been polished. A rectangular 1-meter-wide, 5-meter-long drainage basin is located at the back of the spring. It measures 6 meters in length, 2.1 meters in width, and 3.2 meters in height. As a result of renovation in the mid-2000s, the spring was plastered (Fig. 2). It was managed to partially restore the building inscription. It says, “This spring was built by Movses Osepyants as a memorial in 1915.” (Fig. 3). The condition before, during, and after the war The spring was not harmed during or after the military operations in 2020.

<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.1 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo/ -->
<title>Taghaser's Shenin spring - Monument Watch</title>
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1" />
<link rel="canonical" href="https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/taghasers-shenin-spring/" />
<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />
<meta property="og:type" content="article" />
<meta property="og:title" content="Taghaser's Shenin spring - Monument Watch" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Location The spring is located in the Hadrut region, in the Taghaser village's south-eastern part (Fig. 1). Taghaser has been under Azerbaijani occupation since October 2020. Historical overview Movses Hovsepyan, a wealthy villager, built the spring in 1915 with his own financial means and left a building inscription, but it was defaced after being targeted by dekulakization ideology. Architectural-compositional examination It is a vaulted structure with a rectangular architectural plan. It has a nave on the lower part. The spring is made of lime stone and mortar. The arches, corner stones of the walls, and nave have all been polished. A rectangular 1-meter-wide, 5-meter-long drainage basin is located at the back of the spring. It measures 6 meters in length, 2.1 meters in width, and 3.2 meters in height. As a result of renovation in the mid-2000s, the spring was plastered (Fig. 2). It was managed to partially restore the building inscription. It says, "This spring was built by Movses Osepyants as a memorial in 1915." (Fig. 3). The condition before, during, and after the war The spring was not harmed during or after the military operations in 2020." />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/taghasers-shenin-spring/" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Monument Watch" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2022-07-15T11:22:17+00:00" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpg?v=1657605132" />
	<meta property="og:image:width" content="800" />
	<meta property="og:image:height" content="522" />
	<meta property="og:image:type" content="image/jpeg" />
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:label1" content="Est. reading time" />
	<meta name="twitter:data1" content="1 minute" />
<script type="application/ld+json" class="yoast-schema-graph">{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/taghasers-shenin-spring/","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/taghasers-shenin-spring/","name":"Taghaser's Shenin spring - Monument Watch","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-07-12T05:55:48+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-15T11:22:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/taghasers-shenin-spring/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/taghasers-shenin-spring/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/taghasers-shenin-spring/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Taghaser’s Shenin spring"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/","name":"Monument Watch","description":"Monitoring the Cultural Heritage of Artsakh","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://monumentwatch.org/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}</script>
<!-- / Yoast SEO plugin. -->


Location

Gtchavank is located 1.8 kilometers northwest of Togh village in the Hadrut region of the Republic of Artsakh, in the concavity of the northwestern slope of Toghasar, or Chgnavor, mountain. Historically, it was part of the Myus Haband province of Greater Armenia's Artsakh province. It is currently occupied by Azerbaijan (Fig. 1).

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TOKH-VANAKAN-HAMALIR-GTCHAVANQ.jpg?v=1657278056" width="1357" height="559" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TOKH-VANAKAN-HAMALIR-GTCHAVANQ.jpg?v=1657278056 1357w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TOKH-VANAKAN-HAMALIR-GTCHAVANQ-300x124.jpg?v=1657278056 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TOKH-VANAKAN-HAMALIR-GTCHAVANQ-1024x422.jpg?v=1657278056 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TOKH-VANAKAN-HAMALIR-GTCHAVANQ-768x316.jpg?v=1657278056 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/TOKH-VANAKAN-HAMALIR-GTCHAVANQ-370x152.jpg?v=1657278056 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1357px) 100vw, 1357px" title="TOKH, VANAKAN HAMALIR ”GTCHAVANQ”" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-scaled.jpg?v=1657276749" width="2560" height="1702" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-scaled.jpg?v=1657276749 2560w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-300x199.jpg?v=1657276749 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1024x681.jpg?v=1657276749 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-768x511.jpg?v=1657276749 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1536x1021.jpg?v=1657276749 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-2048x1362.jpg?v=1657276749 2048w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-370x246.jpg?v=1657276749 370w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-272x182.jpg?v=1657276749 272w" sizes="(max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" title="Fig. 1 The general view of the Gtchavank monastic complex, photo by H. Petrosyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 1 The general view of the Gtchavank monastic complex, photo by H. Petrosyan.

Historical overview

The monastery's history has been documented since the early middle Ages. According to the Armenian Catholicos Yeghia Archishetsi's paper, the abbot of Gtchavank also attended the Ecclesiastical Assembly held at Partav in 704. ("Gtay vanats monk," Hakobyan 1981, 150; Kaghanakvatsi 1969, 233). The monastery also functioned as the bishop's residence. The fortress built above it was named Gtich after the monastery that served as Yesai Abu Muse's residence in the 9th century and the heart of the new kingdom created in Dizak in the 10th century (Mkrtchyan 1985, 84).

During the reign of the Dizak Meliks, particularly Melik Yegan, the monastery flourished (the first half of the 17th century). Inscriptions from the 13th to 17th centuries preserved on the complex's walls provide vital information about the province's rich medieval past. The inscription on the northern wall of the main church indicates that the monastery's main church was built in 1241–1246 by the bishop brothers Sargis and Vrtanes of Amarasi. (Hakobyan 2009, pp. 91-92.)

Gtchavank also became a cultural center in the 15th century. It featured a Scriptorium, which held several famous manuscripts. Sayun, a Togh villager, renovated the dome of Gtchavank's main church in 1717. Melik Yegan appointed Bishop Mesrop as abbot of Gtchavank in 1723. In the nineteenth century, Arakel Kostandyants, the abbot of Gtchavank, produced a historical and ethnographical study that Raffi incorporated into his book "Khamsa's Melikdoms." In 1913, a part of this manuscript was published in Vagharshapat under the title "Dizak's Melikdom." Matenadaran holds the whole manuscript.

The earthquake in 1868 destroyed the single-nave church. Gtchavank was abandoned and deserted after the domed church was wrecked.

Architectural-compositional examination

The main church, the gavit attached from the west, and the single-nave church built from the north comprise Gtchavank's monastic complex. The remnants of residential buildings and the battlement have been maintained to the west of the main buildings (Fig. 2). Khachkars and stele inscriptions abound in the complex. The Gtich monastery's manuscripts have been preserved. The cemetery extends all around the monastery, the majority of which has been ruined. There are very few tombstones buried in the earth, and the majority of them are covered with soil. Khachkars are lying on the ground.

The church is a domed hall of average size (size: 10.0 x 7.5 m, Fig. 2). The prayer hall concludes in the east with a semi-circular high altar, flanked by elongated, double-storied sacristies on the south and north sides. These are rectangular, vaulted, and contain small niches on the eastern side. The prayer hall leads to the sacristies on the first floor, and stone steps lead to the sanctuary on the second floor. The dome-supporting arches are held by the wall pilasters of the prayer hall's southern and northern walls, as well as the original walls of the high altar. The wall pilasters are linked together by arrow-shaped arches. Pendentives carry out the transition from the square under the dome to the dome (Fig. 3).

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-2-1.jpg?v=1657276882" width="794" height="511" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-2-1.jpg?v=1657276882 794w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-2-1-300x193.jpg?v=1657276882 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-2-1-768x494.jpg?v=1657276882 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-2-1-370x238.jpg?v=1657276882 370w" sizes="(max-width: 794px) 100vw, 794px" title="Fig. 2 The general architectural plan of the complex, the measurements by M. Hasratyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 2 The general architectural plan of the complex, the measurements by M. Hasratyan.

The main church's solitary entrance is on the western façade, and it opens into the gavit adjacent to it. Its rectangular opening is set into a finely built porch. The latter's double arch of semi-cylinders rests on semi-column beams with hemispherical basements and capitals. Similar porch solutions can be seen in the porches of 10th–11th century Armenian architecture, particularly in Shirak churches (Hasratyan 1992, p. 63).

The decorative characteristics of the church's exterior architecture are the pair of triangular wall niches adorned with beam-shaped cuts on all facades (excluding the western one) and the windows fringed with wide platbands installed in the flatness centers (fig. 4). Some of the decoration's themes have equivalents in the arch crowns of the Gandzasar church's niches (Mkrtchyan 1985, 86). The dome is cylindrical and crowned with a hand-fan-shaped spire (fig. 5). Its height (the drum and the spire combined) matches the height of the church's main volume and is the dominating element of the entire building. To minimize the height of the drum, medieval craftsmen wrapped a large area around its circumference.

The hand-fan-shaped roof reflects the classic form of the 10th–11th century and is typical of Bagratuni era Armenian churches. The dimensional composition and details of Gtchavank's main church resemble those of Ani-Shirak's architectural monuments. This was something Leo noticed once (Leo 1885, p. 247).

Similarities can also be seen inside the church. The bema wall of the tabernacle features a geometric bas-relief displaying protuberant diagonals and hexagons on a background of deeply carved triangles.It resembles a unique mosaic. Similar solutions can be found in the porches and bema walls of the main churches of 13th century monastic complexes (Makaravank, Hovhanavank, Saghmosavank, Aghjots Monastery, etc.). The cornice on the front wall of the Gtchavank stage is quite unique in architectural solutions. It features a section with stylized pomegranate sculptures (fig. 6).

The church is made of clean, polished white felsite stones.

The gavit was linked to the main church from the west, slightly off the longitudinal axis. It is a rectangular hall that runs west to east. A pilaster in the northern part divides the hall into a big southern and a small northern section, both of which are vaulted. The northern corridor-shaped section, with a pair of arched entrances, faces the gavit's larger side. The entrance to the second church of the Gtchavank complex is located in the northeast corner of the corridor. Similar unique solutions to the gavit can be found in Syunik monuments dating from the early 10th–11th century (Gndevank, Vahanavank, Karakop) (Mnatsakanyan 1952, pp. 24, 25). These primarily refer to early dating examples of gavits.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-scaled.jpg?v=1657276947" width="2560" height="1813" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-scaled.jpg?v=1657276947 2560w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-300x213.jpg?v=1657276947 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-1024x725.jpg?v=1657276947 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-768x544.jpg?v=1657276947 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-1536x1088.jpg?v=1657276947 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-2048x1451.jpg?v=1657276947 2048w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1-370x262.jpg?v=1657276947 370w" sizes="(max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" title="Fig. 3 Longitudinal section of the main church and gavit, measurements by M. Hasratyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 3 Longitudinal section of the main church and gavit, measurements by M. Hasratyan.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-scaled.jpg?v=1657277044" width="2560" height="1702" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-scaled.jpg?v=1657277044 2560w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-300x199.jpg?v=1657277044 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1024x681.jpg?v=1657277044 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-768x511.jpg?v=1657277044 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1536x1021.jpg?v=1657277044 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-2048x1362.jpg?v=1657277044 2048w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-370x246.jpg?v=1657277044 370w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-272x182.jpg?v=1657277044 272w" sizes="(max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" title="Fig. 4 The southern facade of the main church, photo by H. Petrosyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 4 The southern facade of the main church, photo by H. Petrosyan.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-1.jpg?v=1657277074" width="700" height="467" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-1.jpg?v=1657277074 700w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-1-300x200.jpg?v=1657277074 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-1-370x247.jpg?v=1657277074 370w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-1-272x182.jpg?v=1657277074 272w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px" title="Fig. 5 The Gtchavank complex, from the south, photo by H. Petrosyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 5 The Gtchavank complex, from the south, photo by H. Petrosyan.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/006.jpg?v=1657277161" width="472" height="337" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/006.jpg?v=1657277161 472w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/006-300x214.jpg?v=1657277161 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/006-370x264.jpg?v=1657277161 370w" sizes="(max-width: 472px) 100vw, 472px" title="Fig. 6 The bema wall of the main church, photo by H. Petrosyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 6 The bema wall of the main church, photo by H. Petrosyan.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-scaled.jpg?v=1657277204" width="2560" height="1702" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-scaled.jpg?v=1657277204 2560w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-300x199.jpg?v=1657277204 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-1024x681.jpg?v=1657277204 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-768x511.jpg?v=1657277204 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-1536x1021.jpg?v=1657277204 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-2048x1362.jpg?v=1657277204 2048w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-370x246.jpg?v=1657277204 370w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/007-272x182.jpg?v=1657277204 272w" sizes="(max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" title="Fig. 7 The khachkar bearing the construction inscription, photo by H. Petrosyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 7 The khachkar bearing the construction inscription, photo by H. Petrosyan.

Inside the gavit, adjacent to the western wall of the church on the right, there is a carved khachkar that was raised in 1246 by one of the brothers who built the church, Ter Vrtanes. As the inscription says, "I, Ter Vrtanes, raised this cross for the salvation of my soul in 1246." (CAE 5, 184). Khachkar's frame is wide and rectangular, consisting of semi-cylinders and slabs (fig. 7). On the left side, a second similar khachkar was raised, which is today maintained in Etchmiadzin's Mayravank. Both are outstanding pieces of art that depict the Second Coming of the Cross and the Righteous Judgment (Petrosyan 2008, 156-157).

The gavit was also used as a mausoleum for Armenian nobles. There are lace frames and typographic tombstones among the tombstones kept here. The courtyard was constructed using rough basalt stone and lime mortar.

The second church of Gtchavank is linked to the primary church and gavit by the southern wall. It features a rectangular vaulted hall from the layout. The roof fell, and the upper portions of the side walls were damaged (fig. 8). The prayer hall concludes with a rectangular tabernacle. It is vaulted and separated from the prayer hall by a broad arch. The use of single-nave churches with a rectangular tabernacle is typical of Artsakh ecclesiastical architecture from the 12th–13th centuries, and it flourished in the late middle Ages as well. Similar architectural solutions can be seen in the churches of Dadivank, Gtchavank, "Bri Eghtsi", Yeghishe the Apostle, Karmir Kar, Charektar, Khatravank, "Okht Eghtsi" monasteries, Koshik anapat, and other complexes. Four of Handaberd Monastery's five churches contain similar compositions (Petrosyan et al. 2009, 31–34). Another unique characteristic of the church is that the pair of sacristies on the eastern side, adjacent to the church's southern and northern walls, are not located on both sides of the tabernacle (as appropriate), but beneath the floor of the tabernacle and have a staircase entrance from the prayer hall. According to M. Hasratyan, this is an exceptional and rare phenomenon in Armenian architecture (Hasratyan 1992, p. 66).

This church of Gtchavank lacks decorative elements like the gavit. The entrance is the only decorative area. Only one of the three khachkars enchased above the arched entrance has been preserved. A khachkar was utilized as a lintel stone. There are numerous examples of such khachkar reuse in Artsakh's medieval architecture. They are sometimes used to embellish building exteriors (Handaberd Monastery) and surfaces (Bri Eghtsi).

Like the gavit, this church is made of rough, unpolished basalt stone and lime mortar.

The building remains of the residential chambers and the battlement wall have been maintained on the western side of the Gtchavank sacred structures.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/008.webp" width="1041" height="800" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/008.webp 1041w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/008-300x231.webp 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/008-1024x787.webp 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/008-768x590.webp 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/008-370x284.webp 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1041px) 100vw, 1041px" title="Fig. 8 The Gtchavank monastery, from the west, photo by H. Petrosyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 8 The Gtchavank monastery, from the west, photo by H. Petrosyan.

Bibliographic examination

Gtchavank is one of the complexes that has received the least amount of professional research. Sh. Mkrtchyan addressed the history of the monastery's foundation and briefly presented its individual buildings and khachkars in his monographs dedicated to Nagorno Karabakh's historical and architectural monuments (Mkrtchyan 1985, 84-87; Mkrtchyan 1988, 67-71; Mkrtchyan 1989, 67-71). In his work dedicated to the Artsakh School of architecture (Hasratyan 1992, 62–67), M. Hasratyan made a professional reference to the Gtchavank complex. The monastic complex is mentioned briefly in V. Harutyunyan's book on the history of Armenian architecture (Harutyunyan 1992, 339,340).

The condition before, during, and after the war

Gtchavank has always been difficult to reach due to its location. However, it should be noted that it is also one of the most visited complexes. During the Soviet era, many visitors left their imprints on the complex's walls, both inside and outdoors. The structures have been vandalized with messages made with coal and paint in several languages. The second single-nave church in the complex is in a critical state. The roof collapsed. The upper sections of the side walls were broken. A large fracture has emerged on the eastern and western facades, threatening the structure's integrity and stability. During the Soviet era, the main church and the gavit were mostly intact. The roofs had been damaged. The complex was not severely damaged during the first Artsakh war. From 2005–2007, Gtchavank restoration work was completed according to architect Mary Danielyan's plan (fig. 9). The main church's spire and vault, as well as the roofs of the crucifixes and the gavit, have all been repaired. The restoration process is yet incomplete (Fig. 10). The complex's second church remained half-destroyed. During the 44-day war, it did not change significantly. The current state of affairs is unknown.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/009-1.jpg?v=1657277470" width="600" height="625" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/009-1.jpg?v=1657277470 600w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/009-1-288x300.jpg?v=1657277470 288w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/009-1-355x370.jpg?v=1657277470 355w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" title="Fig. 9 The Gtchavank monastery before restoration, photo by H. Petrosyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 9 The Gtchavank monastery before restoration, photo by H. Petrosyan.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/010.jpg?v=1657277505" width="698" height="440" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/010.jpg?v=1657277505 698w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/010-300x189.jpg?v=1657277505 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/010-370x233.jpg?v=1657277505 370w" sizes="(max-width: 698px) 100vw, 698px" title="Fig. 10 The Gtchavank monastery during restoration, photo by H. Baze." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 10 The Gtchavank monastery during restoration, photo by H. Baze.

Bibliography

Barkhutaryants, 1895–Barkhutaryants M., Artsakh, Baku.

CAE, 5-Barkhudaryan, Corpus of Armenian Inscriptions, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences, Yerevan, 1982.

Leo, 1885-Leo, My diary, Shushi.

Kaghankatvatsi, 1969-Movses Kaghankatvatsi, History of the Caucasian Albania, "Hayastan" publishing house, Yerevan.

Hakobyan, 1981-Hakobyan A., The newly discovered paper of Catholicos Yeghia Archishetsi, Historical-philosophical journal, N 4.

Hakobyan, 2009-Hakobyan A., Historical-geographical and lithographic research (Artsakh, Utik), Mkhitrayan publishing house, Vienna-Yerevan.

Hasratyan, 1992–Hasratyan, M., Syunik School of Armenian Architecture, NAS RA Publishing House of Armenia, Yerevan.

Harutyunyan, 1994–Harutyunyan, V., History of Armenian Architecture, "Luys" State Publishing House, Yerevan.

Mkrtchyan, 1977-Mkrtchyan Sh., Ecclesiastical and historical monuments of Hadrut region, "Ejmiatsin", III.

Mkrtchyan, 1985-Mkrtchyan Sh., Historical and architectural monuments of Nagorno Karabakh, "Hayastan" publishing house, Yerevan.

Petrosyan, 2008-Petrosyan H., Khachkar. Origin, function, iconography, semantics, Printinfo, Yerevan.

Mkrtchyan, 1989-Mkrtchyan, Sh., Historical and architectural monuments of Nagorno-Karabakh/second edition/, "Parberakan", Yerevan.

Mnatsakanyan, 1952-Mnatsakanyan S., Architecture of Armenian vestibules (gavits), Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, Yerevan.

Location Gtchavank is located 1.8 kilometers northwest of Togh village in the Hadrut region of the Republic of Artsakh, in the concavity of the northwestern slope of Toghasar, or Chgnavor, mountain. Historically, it was part of the Myus Haband province of Greater Armenia’s Artsakh province. It is currently occupied by Azerbaijan (Fig. 1). Historical overview The monastery’s history has been documented since the early middle Ages. According to the Armenian Catholicos Yeghia Archishetsi’s paper, the abbot of Gtchavank also attended the Ecclesiastical Assembly held at Partav in 704. (“Gtay vanats monk,” Hakobyan 1981, 150; Kaghanakvatsi 1969, 233). The monastery also functioned as the bishop’s residence. The fortress built above it was named Gtich after the monastery that served as Yesai Abu Muse’s residence in the 9th century and the heart of the new kingdom created in Dizak in the 10th century (Mkrtchyan 1985, 84). During the reign of the Dizak Meliks, particularly Melik Yegan, the monastery flourished (the first half of the 17th century). Inscriptions from the 13th to 17th centuries preserved on the complex’s walls provide vital information about the province’s rich medieval past. The inscription on the northern wall of the main church indicates that the monastery’s main church was built in 1241–1246 by the bishop brothers Sargis and Vrtanes of Amarasi. (Hakobyan 2009, pp. 91-92.) Gtchavank also became a cultural center in the 15th century. It featured a Scriptorium, which held several famous manuscripts. Sayun, a Togh villager, renovated the dome of Gtchavank’s main church in 1717. Melik Yegan appointed Bishop Mesrop as abbot of Gtchavank in 1723. In the nineteenth century, Arakel Kostandyants, the abbot of Gtchavank, produced a historical and ethnographical study that Raffi incorporated into his book “Khamsa’s Melikdoms.” In 1913, a part of this manuscript was published in Vagharshapat under the title “Dizak’s Melikdom.” Matenadaran holds the whole manuscript. The earthquake in 1868 destroyed the single-nave church. Gtchavank was abandoned and deserted after the domed church was wrecked. Architectural-compositional examination The main church, the gavit attached from the west, and the single-nave church built from the north comprise Gtchavank’s monastic complex. The remnants of residential buildings and the battlement have been maintained to the west of the main buildings (Fig. 2). Khachkars and stele inscriptions abound in the complex. The Gtich monastery’s manuscripts have been preserved. The cemetery extends all around the monastery, the majority of which has been ruined. There are very few tombstones buried in the earth, and the majority of them are covered with soil. Khachkars are lying on the ground. The church is a domed hall of average size (size: 10.0 x 7.5 m, Fig. 2). The prayer hall concludes in the east with a semi-circular high altar, flanked by elongated, double-storied sacristies on the south and north sides. These are rectangular, vaulted, and contain small niches on the eastern side. The prayer hall leads to the sacristies on the first floor, and stone steps lead to the sanctuary on the second floor. The dome-supporting arches are held by the wall pilasters of the prayer hall’s southern and northern walls, as well as the original walls of the high altar. The wall pilasters are linked together by arrow-shaped arches. Pendentives carry out the transition from the square under the dome to the dome (Fig. 3). The main church’s solitary entrance is on the western façade, and it opens into the gavit adjacent to it. Its rectangular opening is set into a finely built porch. The latter’s double arch of semi-cylinders rests on semi-column beams with hemispherical basements and capitals. Similar porch solutions can be seen in the porches of 10th–11th century Armenian architecture, particularly in Shirak churches (Hasratyan 1992, p. 63). The decorative characteristics of the church’s exterior architecture are the pair of triangular wall niches adorned with beam-shaped cuts on all facades (excluding the western one) and the windows fringed with wide platbands installed in the flatness centers (fig. 4). Some of the decoration’s themes have equivalents in the arch crowns of the Gandzasar church’s niches (Mkrtchyan 1985, 86). The dome is cylindrical and crowned with a hand-fan-shaped spire (fig. 5). Its height (the drum and the spire combined) matches the height of the church’s main volume and is the dominating element of the entire building. To minimize the height of the drum, medieval craftsmen wrapped a large area around its circumference. The hand-fan-shaped roof reflects the classic form of the 10th–11th century and is typical of Bagratuni era Armenian churches. The dimensional composition and details of Gtchavank’s main church resemble those of Ani-Shirak’s architectural monuments. This was something Leo noticed once (Leo 1885, p. 247). Similarities can also be seen inside the church. The bema wall of the tabernacle features a geometric bas-relief displaying protuberant diagonals and hexagons on a background of deeply carved triangles.It resembles a unique mosaic. Similar solutions can be found in the porches and bema walls of the main churches of 13th century monastic complexes (Makaravank, Hovhanavank, Saghmosavank, Aghjots Monastery, etc.). The cornice on the front wall of the Gtchavank stage is quite unique in architectural solutions. It features a section with stylized pomegranate sculptures (fig. 6). The church is made of clean, polished white felsite stones. The gavit was linked to the main church from the west, slightly off the longitudinal axis. It is a rectangular hall that runs west to east. A pilaster in the northern part divides the hall into a big southern and a small northern section, both of which are vaulted. The northern corridor-shaped section, with a pair of arched entrances, faces the gavit’s larger side. The entrance to the second church of the Gtchavank complex is located in the northeast corner of the corridor. Similar unique solutions to the gavit can be found in Syunik monuments dating from the early 10th–11th century (Gndevank, Vahanavank, Karakop) (Mnatsakanyan 1952, pp. 24, 25). These primarily refer to early dating examples of gavits.

<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.1 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo/ -->
<title>The monastic complex of Gtchavank - Monument Watch</title>
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1" />
<link rel="canonical" href="https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-gtchavank/" />
<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />
<meta property="og:type" content="article" />
<meta property="og:title" content="The monastic complex of Gtchavank - Monument Watch" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Location Gtchavank is located 1.8 kilometers northwest of Togh village in the Hadrut region of the Republic of Artsakh, in the concavity of the northwestern slope of Toghasar, or Chgnavor, mountain. Historically, it was part of the Myus Haband province of Greater Armenia's Artsakh province. It is currently occupied by Azerbaijan (Fig. 1). Historical overview The monastery's history has been documented since the early middle Ages. According to the Armenian Catholicos Yeghia Archishetsi's paper, the abbot of Gtchavank also attended the Ecclesiastical Assembly held at Partav in 704. ("Gtay vanats monk," Hakobyan 1981, 150; Kaghanakvatsi 1969, 233). The monastery also functioned as the bishop's residence. The fortress built above it was named Gtich after the monastery that served as Yesai Abu Muse's residence in the 9th century and the heart of the new kingdom created in Dizak in the 10th century (Mkrtchyan 1985, 84). During the reign of the Dizak Meliks, particularly Melik Yegan, the monastery flourished (the first half of the 17th century). Inscriptions from the 13th to 17th centuries preserved on the complex's walls provide vital information about the province's rich medieval past. The inscription on the northern wall of the main church indicates that the monastery's main church was built in 1241–1246 by the bishop brothers Sargis and Vrtanes of Amarasi. (Hakobyan 2009, pp. 91-92.) Gtchavank also became a cultural center in the 15th century. It featured a Scriptorium, which held several famous manuscripts. Sayun, a Togh villager, renovated the dome of Gtchavank's main church in 1717. Melik Yegan appointed Bishop Mesrop as abbot of Gtchavank in 1723. In the nineteenth century, Arakel Kostandyants, the abbot of Gtchavank, produced a historical and ethnographical study that Raffi incorporated into his book "Khamsa's Melikdoms." In 1913, a part of this manuscript was published in Vagharshapat under the title "Dizak's Melikdom." Matenadaran holds the whole manuscript. The earthquake in 1868 destroyed the single-nave church. Gtchavank was abandoned and deserted after the domed church was wrecked. Architectural-compositional examination The main church, the gavit attached from the west, and the single-nave church built from the north comprise Gtchavank's monastic complex. The remnants of residential buildings and the battlement have been maintained to the west of the main buildings (Fig. 2). Khachkars and stele inscriptions abound in the complex. The Gtich monastery's manuscripts have been preserved. The cemetery extends all around the monastery, the majority of which has been ruined. There are very few tombstones buried in the earth, and the majority of them are covered with soil. Khachkars are lying on the ground. The church is a domed hall of average size (size: 10.0 x 7.5 m, Fig. 2). The prayer hall concludes in the east with a semi-circular high altar, flanked by elongated, double-storied sacristies on the south and north sides. These are rectangular, vaulted, and contain small niches on the eastern side. The prayer hall leads to the sacristies on the first floor, and stone steps lead to the sanctuary on the second floor. The dome-supporting arches are held by the wall pilasters of the prayer hall's southern and northern walls, as well as the original walls of the high altar. The wall pilasters are linked together by arrow-shaped arches. Pendentives carry out the transition from the square under the dome to the dome (Fig. 3). The main church's solitary entrance is on the western façade, and it opens into the gavit adjacent to it. Its rectangular opening is set into a finely built porch. The latter's double arch of semi-cylinders rests on semi-column beams with hemispherical basements and capitals. Similar porch solutions can be seen in the porches of 10th–11th century Armenian architecture, particularly in Shirak churches (Hasratyan 1992, p. 63). The decorative characteristics of the church's exterior architecture are the pair of triangular wall niches adorned with beam-shaped cuts on all facades (excluding the western one) and the windows fringed with wide platbands installed in the flatness centers (fig. 4). Some of the decoration's themes have equivalents in the arch crowns of the Gandzasar church's niches (Mkrtchyan 1985, 86). The dome is cylindrical and crowned with a hand-fan-shaped spire (fig. 5). Its height (the drum and the spire combined) matches the height of the church's main volume and is the dominating element of the entire building. To minimize the height of the drum, medieval craftsmen wrapped a large area around its circumference. The hand-fan-shaped roof reflects the classic form of the 10th–11th century and is typical of Bagratuni era Armenian churches. The dimensional composition and details of Gtchavank's main church resemble those of Ani-Shirak's architectural monuments. This was something Leo noticed once (Leo 1885, p. 247). Similarities can also be seen inside the church. The bema wall of the tabernacle features a geometric bas-relief displaying protuberant diagonals and hexagons on a background of deeply carved triangles.It resembles a unique mosaic. Similar solutions can be found in the porches and bema walls of the main churches of 13th century monastic complexes (Makaravank, Hovhanavank, Saghmosavank, Aghjots Monastery, etc.). The cornice on the front wall of the Gtchavank stage is quite unique in architectural solutions. It features a section with stylized pomegranate sculptures (fig. 6). The church is made of clean, polished white felsite stones. The gavit was linked to the main church from the west, slightly off the longitudinal axis. It is a rectangular hall that runs west to east. A pilaster in the northern part divides the hall into a big southern and a small northern section, both of which are vaulted. The northern corridor-shaped section, with a pair of arched entrances, faces the gavit's larger side. The entrance to the second church of the Gtchavank complex is located in the northeast corner of the corridor. Similar unique solutions to the gavit can be found in Syunik monuments dating from the early 10th–11th century (Gndevank, Vahanavank, Karakop) (Mnatsakanyan 1952, pp. 24, 25). These primarily refer to early dating examples of gavits." />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-gtchavank/" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Monument Watch" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2022-07-15T09:17:18+00:00" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-scaled.jpg?v=1657276749" />
	<meta property="og:image:width" content="2560" />
	<meta property="og:image:height" content="1702" />
	<meta property="og:image:type" content="image/jpeg" />
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:label1" content="Est. reading time" />
	<meta name="twitter:data1" content="10 minutes" />
<script type="application/ld+json" class="yoast-schema-graph">{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-gtchavank/","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-gtchavank/","name":"The monastic complex of Gtchavank - Monument Watch","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-07-08T11:01:19+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-15T09:17:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-gtchavank/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-gtchavank/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/the-monastic-complex-of-gtchavank/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The monastic complex of Gtchavank"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/","name":"Monument Watch","description":"Monitoring the Cultural Heritage of Artsakh","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://monumentwatch.org/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}</script>
<!-- / Yoast SEO plugin. -->


Լալազարի կամուրջը

Տեղադրությունը

Հուշարձանը գտնվում է Արցախի Հանրապետության Քաշաթաղի շրջանում (նկ. 1, 2): Արցախյան 44-օրյա պատերազմից հետո օկուպացվել է Ադրբեջանի կողմից։

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lalazar.jpg?v=1657878732" width="1341" height="463" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lalazar.jpg?v=1657878732 1341w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lalazar-300x104.jpg?v=1657878732 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lalazar-1024x354.jpg?v=1657878732 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lalazar-768x265.jpg?v=1657878732 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lalazar-370x128.jpg?v=1657878732 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1341px) 100vw, 1341px" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpeg?v=1657878765" width="800" height="815" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpeg?v=1657878765 800w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-294x300.jpeg?v=1657878765 294w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-768x782.jpeg?v=1657878765 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-363x370.jpeg?v=1657878765 363w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" title="նկ. 1 Կամրջի ընդհանուր տեսքը, լուս.՝ Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 111-112, նկ. 152-154:" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

նկ. 1 Կամրջի ընդհանուր տեսքը, լուս.՝ Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 111-112, նկ. 152-154:

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002.jpeg?v=1657878798" width="800" height="814" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002.jpeg?v=1657878798 800w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-295x300.jpeg?v=1657878798 295w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-768x781.jpeg?v=1657878798 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-364x370.jpeg?v=1657878798 364w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" title="նկ. 2 Կամրջի ընդհանուր տեսքը, լուս.՝ Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 111-112, նկ. 152-154:" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

նկ. 2 Կամրջի ընդհանուր տեսքը, լուս.՝ Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 111-112, նկ. 152-154:

Պատմական ակնարկ

Համաձայն արձանագրության` այն կառուցել է խնձորեսկցի Հովակիմ Լալազարյանցը 1867 թվականին, իսկ 1900-1902 թվականներին նորոգել է որդին` Սիմեօնը։

Արձանագրության մեջ ասվում է. «Խնծորէսկ գիւղացի Յովակիմ Լալազարեանցի` 1860-ական թուականներին Բարգիւշատ գետի վրա կառուցած քարէ կամուրջը քայքայված էր, անպէտքացած: Այժմ նա վերանորոգված է եւ արդէն համարեա պատրաստ է: Վերանորոգողը հանգուցեալի որդի Սիմէօնն է. նրա ծախսով ճիշտ տարի ու կէս է, ինչ աշխատանքներ էին կատարվում կամուրջի վերանորոգութեան վրա: Ինքը, Սիմէօն Լալազարեանցը, անձամբ հսկում էր այդ գործի վրա» («Մշակ», 1902, № 161, էջ 2, տես`Կարապետյան 2009, 110)։

Կամրջի կառուցման և վերանորոգման տարեթվերը, որոնք նշմարվում են շինարարական արձանագրության մեջ, դեռևս խորհրդային տարիներին ադրբեջանցիների կողմից միտումնավոր կերպով քերվել են ( նկ. 3)։

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003.jpeg?v=1657878881" width="800" height="600" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003.jpeg?v=1657878881 800w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-300x225.jpeg?v=1657878881 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-768x576.jpeg?v=1657878881 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-370x278.jpeg?v=1657878881 370w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" title="նկ. 3 Կամրջի վնասված արձանագրությունը, լուս.՝ Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 113, նկ. 157:" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

նկ. 3 Կամրջի վնասված արձանագրությունը, լուս.՝ Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 113, նկ. 157:

Ճարտարապետական-հորինվածքային նկարագրություն

Կամուրջը երկթռիչք է. թռիչքներն ունեն համապատասխանաբար 13,84 և 12,66 մետր երկարություն, անցուղու լայնությունը 4,31 մետր է (նկ. 4)։ Կառուցված է կոպտատաշ կրաքարից, սակայն եզրաքարերը սրբատաշ են։

Վիճակը պատերազմից առաջ, ընթացքում և պատերազմից հետո

Պատերազմից առաջ հուշարձանը կանգուն էր, ամբողջական և գործածվում էր: Պատերազմի ընթացքում և դրանից հետո կամրջի մասին տեղեկություններ հայտնի չեն:

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004.jpeg?v=1657878952" width="800" height="790" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004.jpeg?v=1657878952 800w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-300x296.jpeg?v=1657878952 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-768x758.jpeg?v=1657878952 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-370x365.jpeg?v=1657878952 370w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" title="նկ. 4 Կամրջի չափագրությունը և կտրվածքը, Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 135, նկ. 38:" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

նկ. 4 Կամրջի չափագրությունը և կտրվածքը, Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան, 2009, էջ 135, նկ. 38:

Գրականություն

Կարապետյան 2009 – Կարապետյան Ս., Արցախի կամուրջները, Երևան:

<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.1 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo/ -->
<title>Լալազարի կամուրջը - Monument Watch</title>
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1" />
<link rel="canonical" href="https://monumentwatch.org/hy/monument/լալազարի-կամուրջը/" />
<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />
<meta property="og:type" content="article" />
<meta property="og:title" content="Լալազարի կամուրջը - Monument Watch" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Տեղադրությունը Հուշարձանը գտնվում է Արցախի Հանրապետության Քաշաթաղի շրջանում (նկ. 1, 2): Արցախյան 44-օրյա պատերազմից հետո օկուպացվել է Ադրբեջանի կողմից։" />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://monumentwatch.org/hy/monument/լալազարի-կամուրջը/" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Monument Watch" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2022-07-22T11:19:38+00:00" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpeg?v=1657878765" />
	<meta property="og:image:width" content="800" />
	<meta property="og:image:height" content="815" />
	<meta property="og:image:type" content="image/jpeg" />
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<script type="application/ld+json" class="yoast-schema-graph">{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/hy/monument/%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%a6%d5%a1%d6%80%d5%ab-%d5%af%d5%a1%d5%b4%d5%b8%d6%82%d6%80%d5%bb%d5%a8/","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/hy/monument/%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%a6%d5%a1%d6%80%d5%ab-%d5%af%d5%a1%d5%b4%d5%b8%d6%82%d6%80%d5%bb%d5%a8/","name":"Լալազարի կամուրջը - Monument Watch","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-07-15T09:56:33+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-22T11:19:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/hy/monument/%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%a6%d5%a1%d6%80%d5%ab-%d5%af%d5%a1%d5%b4%d5%b8%d6%82%d6%80%d5%bb%d5%a8/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https://monumentwatch.org/hy/monument/%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%a6%d5%a1%d6%80%d5%ab-%d5%af%d5%a1%d5%b4%d5%b8%d6%82%d6%80%d5%bb%d5%a8/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/hy/monument/%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%ac%d5%a1%d5%a6%d5%a1%d6%80%d5%ab-%d5%af%d5%a1%d5%b4%d5%b8%d6%82%d6%80%d5%bb%d5%a8/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Լալազարի կամուրջը"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/","name":"Monument Watch","description":"Monitoring the Cultural Heritage of Artsakh","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://monumentwatch.org/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}</script>
<!-- / Yoast SEO plugin. -->

Լալազարի կամուրջը - Monument Watch

Լալազարի կամուրջը - Monument Watch


Location

The "Kronk" monastery is about 3 kilometers southwest of Tsaghkaberd in the Kashatagh region, in one of the rocky ravines on the right side of the Hakari river, about 1-2 kilometers from the river (fig. 1). Following the second Artsakh war, those territories and the monastery were retaken by Azerbaijan.

Researchers discovered several rock-hewn churches in the Kashatagh region, which was liberated after the first Artsakh war. The caves in the river gorges were formerly private and safe sanctuaries, far from the invaders. The majority of the cave churches were initially hermitages.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Tr-Qronk.jpg?v=1656775344" width="1356" height="594" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Tr-Qronk.jpg?v=1656775344 1356w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Tr-Qronk-300x131.jpg?v=1656775344 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Tr-Qronk-1024x449.jpg?v=1656775344 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Tr-Qronk-768x336.jpg?v=1656775344 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Tr-Qronk-370x162.jpg?v=1656775344 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1356px) 100vw, 1356px" title="Tr Qronk" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-scaled.jpg?v=1656753036" width="2560" height="1707" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-scaled.jpg?v=1656753036 2560w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-300x200.jpg?v=1656753036 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-1024x683.jpg?v=1656753036 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-768x512.jpg?v=1656753036 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-1536x1024.jpg?v=1656753036 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-2048x1365.jpg?v=1656753036 2048w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-370x247.jpg?v=1656753036 370w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-272x182.jpg?v=1656753036 272w" sizes="(max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" title="Fig. 1 The general view of the "Kronk" Cave monastery, photo by S. Danielyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 1 The general view of the "Kronk" Cave monastery, photo by S. Danielyan.

Historical overview

Stephen Orbelian, a 13th century historian, mentions the "Kronk" monastery (Stephen Orbelian 1986, 282). The settlement of Krvank in the 7th province of Haband is referenced in the 74th chapter of his historical record, "Tax list of the twelve provinces of Syunik according to the old regulations," with a tax amount of 20 parts (given to the Tatev monastery), where possibly the "Kronk" monastery was located (Stephen Orbelian 1986, 400).

Architectural-compositional examination

Kronk is a cave monastery complex carved into a rocky gorge. Due to their softness, the vertical white limestone rocks easily cave in. Only a part of the complex has been maintained today. The church is built on the cliffs at the gorge's southern end. On the northern edge of the cliffs, there are several anthropogenic cave exits. Rooms are hewn on four levels on this side, joined by nearly impenetrable tunnels that, in some areas, develop into nearly vertical holes (fig. 2). These caves were once used as shelters, and the holes inside were most likely used for storage. It is possible to enter one of them and climb up through the other. In addition to the preserved room, the sanctuary featured a second room. This is evidenced by the holes meant for the wooden roof logs. The basement floor was also maintained, although the entrance was partially blocked, making it impossible to descend.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1-1.jpg?v=1656753298" width="1889" height="1360" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1-1.jpg?v=1656753298 1889w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1-1-300x216.jpg?v=1656753298 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1-1-1024x737.jpg?v=1656753298 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1-1-768x553.jpg?v=1656753298 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1-1-1536x1106.jpg?v=1656753298 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1-1-370x266.jpg?v=1656753298 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1889px) 100vw, 1889px" title="Fig. 2 The main architectural plan of the "Kronk" complex, Shahinyan S., Sacred Underground Structures of the Gochants River Basin, Cave Structures of Mountainous Armenia-Artsakh, NUASA, Yerevan, page 45." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 2 The main architectural plan of the "Kronk" complex, Shahinyan S., Sacred Underground Structures of the Gochants River Basin, Cave Structures of Mountainous Armenia-Artsakh, NUASA, Yerevan, page 45.

The complex includes a rock-hewn church, although it is separate. On the layout, it is a basilica-style structure stretched longitudinally (fig. 3). It is 12 meters in length, 8 meters wide, and 5 meters high. The northern longitudinal wall has two windows. The interior walls and facade have been smoothed out (fig. 4).

The church is in a state of extreme emergency. On the northeast side, the entrance and a portion of the window have already collapsed. The entry wall is over 1.5 meters thick, yet it has already broken in several spots and is unsupported (fig. 5). The northern section of the tabernacle has been destroyed, as has the stage; only the remnants of stairs remain on the side of the intact wall. The preserved wall has two niches, which were most likely crosses that have been demolished.

By construction, the "Kronk" church is partially rock-hewn and partly above-ground. This type of architectural tradition is common in the Armenian highlands. The Geghardavank complex contains similar solutions (Harutyunyan 1996, 301-308). The presence of various cave buildings hewn into the rocks around the church, which were the residences of the church servants and also functioned as hiding places, adds to the complex's similarity (Shahinyan 2020, 44).

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-370x356.jpg?v=1656753322" width="370" height="356" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-370x356.jpg?v=1656753322 370w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-300x289.jpg?v=1656753322 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1024x986.jpg?v=1656753322 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-768x739.jpg?v=1656753322 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-1536x1479.jpg?v=1656753322 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-1-2048x1971.jpg?v=1656753322 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 370px) 100vw, 370px" title="Fig. 3 The architectural plan of the complex's church, Shahinyan S., Sacred Underground Structures of the Gochants River Basin Cave Structures of Mountainous Armenia-Artsakh, NUASA, Yerevan, page 48." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 3 The architectural plan of the complex's church, Shahinyan S., Sacred Underground Structures of the Gochants River Basin Cave Structures of Mountainous Armenia-Artsakh, NUASA, Yerevan, page 48.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-scaled.jpg?v=1656753361" width="2560" height="1707" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-scaled.jpg?v=1656753361 2560w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-300x200.jpg?v=1656753361 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-1024x683.jpg?v=1656753361 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-768x512.jpg?v=1656753361 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-1536x1024.jpg?v=1656753361 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-2048x1365.jpg?v=1656753361 2048w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-370x247.jpg?v=1656753361 370w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/004-1-272x182.jpg?v=1656753361 272w" sizes="(max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" title="Fig. 4 The facade of the monastery-church, photo by S. Danielyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 4 The facade of the monastery-church, photo by S. Danielyan.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-scaled.jpg?v=1656753408" width="1707" height="2560" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-scaled.jpg?v=1656753408 1707w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-200x300.jpg?v=1656753408 200w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-683x1024.jpg?v=1656753408 683w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-768x1152.jpg?v=1656753408 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-1024x1536.jpg?v=1656753408 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-1365x2048.jpg?v=1656753408 1365w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/005-247x370.jpg?v=1656753408 247w" sizes="(max-width: 1707px) 100vw, 1707px" title="Fig. 5 The interior of the church, photo by S. Danielyan." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Fig. 5 The interior of the church, photo by S. Danielyan.

Bibliographic examination

As early as 1987–89, research on rock-hewn complexes was conducted in the Kashatagh region. The research was carried out by the speleological expedition of the Armenian SSR's NAS institute of geography.

These works were put on hold due to the escalation of the Artsakh conflict, but they were resumed in 2003. The Speleological Center of Armenia conducted the research. The collaborative research studies of the latter and international scientific expeditions on speleology in the Hakari River basin and its tributaries were summarized in local and worldwide scientific journals and magazines (Shahinyan 2015, 164–168). The architectural plan and a full description of the "Kronk" monastery are included in the collection of international conference materials (Gunko, Shahinyan, Kondrateva 2021, 57–63).

Samvel Karapetyan writes in his book "Monuments of Armenian Culture in the Occupied Territories of Soviet Azerbaijan" about St. Astsvatsin Church of Anapatik Village, which is referenced in the manuscript "Exegesis of Liturgy," created in 1361, and quotes this passage: "This was written as a sign of devotion to St. Mary by the liturgical exegetic, Zaqaria Hieoromonk, in the gorge of Haykara, near the village of Anapatik, during the Khanate of Yois and the reign of St. Stephanos Catholicos. It was the year 810.” (Karapetyan 1999, 185).

Since the rock-hewn churches are commonly referred to as Anapats, it is reasonable to believe that the "Kronk" sanctuary is the Anapat mentioned above.

The condition before, during, and after the war

Tsaghkaberd was known as Gulyberd during the Soviet era, and it was the last village in the Lachin region to the south, bordering Goris. The community was depopulated and inhabited by Muslims during that time. The village's "Kronk" sanctuary and the stone-built houses surrounding it were primarily used as cow barns. During this time, the complex's entrance to the church was exploded. Kronkavank once again served as a Christian sanctuary following the first Artsakh war and the liberation of the Kashatagh region.

It did not change significantly during or after the Second Artsakh War.

Bibliography

Karapetyan, 1999-Kapetyan, S., Monuments of Armenian Culture in the Occupied Territories of Soviet Azerbaijan, "Science" Publishing House of NAS RA, Yerevan.

Harutyunyan 1992-V. Harutyunyan, History of Armenian Architecture, "Luys" State Publishing House, Yerevan.

Stephen Orbelian,1986-Stephen Orbelian, History of Syunik, Translation, introduction and notes by A. Abrahamyan, "Soviet Writer" publishing house, Yerevan.

Shahinyan 2015 - Shahinyan S., Religious Underground Structures in Gochants Basin (Artsakh), Speleology and spelestogy: Proceedings of the VI International Scientific Conference.-NGPU, Naberezhnye Chelny, 164-168.

Shahinyan 2020-Shahinyan S., Sacred underground structures of the Gochants river basin: Cave structures of mountainous Armenia-Artsakh, NUASA, Yerevan, 44.

Location The “Kronk” monastery is about 3 kilometers southwest of Tsaghkaberd in the Kashatagh region, in one of the rocky ravines on the right side of the Hakari river, about 1-2 kilometers from the river (fig. 1). Following the second Artsakh war, those territories and the monastery were retaken by Azerbaijan. Researchers discovered several rock-hewn churches in the Kashatagh region, which was liberated after the first Artsakh war. The caves in the river gorges were formerly private and safe sanctuaries, far from the invaders. The majority of the cave churches were initially hermitages. Historical overview Stephen Orbelian, a 13th century historian, mentions the “Kronk” monastery (Stephen Orbelian 1986, 282). The settlement of Krvank in the 7th province of Haband is referenced in the 74th chapter of his historical record, “Tax list of the twelve provinces of Syunik according to the old regulations,” with a tax amount of 20 parts (given to the Tatev monastery), where possibly the “Kronk” monastery was located (Stephen Orbelian 1986, 400). Architectural-compositional examination Kronk is a cave monastery complex carved into a rocky gorge. Due to their softness, the vertical white limestone rocks easily cave in. Only a part of the complex has been maintained today. The church is built on the cliffs at the gorge’s southern end. On the northern edge of the cliffs, there are several anthropogenic cave exits. Rooms are hewn on four levels on this side, joined by nearly impenetrable tunnels that, in some areas, develop into nearly vertical holes (fig. 2). These caves were once used as shelters, and the holes inside were most likely used for storage. It is possible to enter one of them and climb up through the other. In addition to the preserved room, the sanctuary featured a second room. This is evidenced by the holes meant for the wooden roof logs. The basement floor was also maintained, although the entrance was partially blocked, making it impossible to descend. The complex includes a rock-hewn church, although it is separate. On the layout, it is a basilica-style structure stretched longitudinally (fig. 3). It is 12 meters in length, 8 meters wide, and 5 meters high. The northern longitudinal wall has two windows. The interior walls and facade have been smoothed out (fig. 4). The church is in a state of extreme emergency. On the northeast side, the entrance and a portion of the window have already collapsed. The entry wall is over 1.5 meters thick, yet it has already broken in several spots and is unsupported (fig. 5). The northern section of the tabernacle has been destroyed, as has the stage; only the remnants of stairs remain on the side of the intact wall. The preserved wall has two niches, which were most likely crosses that have been demolished. By construction, the “Kronk” church is partially rock-hewn and partly above-ground. This type of architectural tradition is common in the Armenian highlands. The Geghardavank complex contains similar solutions (Harutyunyan 1996, 301-308). The presence of various cave buildings hewn into the rocks around the church, which were the residences of the church servants and also functioned as hiding places, adds to the complex’s similarity (Shahinyan 2020, 44).

<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.1 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo/ -->
<title>“Kronk” cave monastery of Tsakhkaberd - Monument Watch</title>
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1" />
<link rel="canonical" href="https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/kronk-cave-monastery-of-tsakhkaberd/" />
<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />
<meta property="og:type" content="article" />
<meta property="og:title" content="“Kronk” cave monastery of Tsakhkaberd - Monument Watch" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Location The "Kronk" monastery is about 3 kilometers southwest of Tsaghkaberd in the Kashatagh region, in one of the rocky ravines on the right side of the Hakari river, about 1-2 kilometers from the river (fig. 1). Following the second Artsakh war, those territories and the monastery were retaken by Azerbaijan. Researchers discovered several rock-hewn churches in the Kashatagh region, which was liberated after the first Artsakh war. The caves in the river gorges were formerly private and safe sanctuaries, far from the invaders. The majority of the cave churches were initially hermitages. Historical overview Stephen Orbelian, a 13th century historian, mentions the "Kronk" monastery (Stephen Orbelian 1986, 282). The settlement of Krvank in the 7th province of Haband is referenced in the 74th chapter of his historical record, "Tax list of the twelve provinces of Syunik according to the old regulations," with a tax amount of 20 parts (given to the Tatev monastery), where possibly the "Kronk" monastery was located (Stephen Orbelian 1986, 400). Architectural-compositional examination Kronk is a cave monastery complex carved into a rocky gorge. Due to their softness, the vertical white limestone rocks easily cave in. Only a part of the complex has been maintained today. The church is built on the cliffs at the gorge's southern end. On the northern edge of the cliffs, there are several anthropogenic cave exits. Rooms are hewn on four levels on this side, joined by nearly impenetrable tunnels that, in some areas, develop into nearly vertical holes (fig. 2). These caves were once used as shelters, and the holes inside were most likely used for storage. It is possible to enter one of them and climb up through the other. In addition to the preserved room, the sanctuary featured a second room. This is evidenced by the holes meant for the wooden roof logs. The basement floor was also maintained, although the entrance was partially blocked, making it impossible to descend. The complex includes a rock-hewn church, although it is separate. On the layout, it is a basilica-style structure stretched longitudinally (fig. 3). It is 12 meters in length, 8 meters wide, and 5 meters high. The northern longitudinal wall has two windows. The interior walls and facade have been smoothed out (fig. 4). The church is in a state of extreme emergency. On the northeast side, the entrance and a portion of the window have already collapsed. The entry wall is over 1.5 meters thick, yet it has already broken in several spots and is unsupported (fig. 5). The northern section of the tabernacle has been destroyed, as has the stage; only the remnants of stairs remain on the side of the intact wall. The preserved wall has two niches, which were most likely crosses that have been demolished. By construction, the "Kronk" church is partially rock-hewn and partly above-ground. This type of architectural tradition is common in the Armenian highlands. The Geghardavank complex contains similar solutions (Harutyunyan 1996, 301-308). The presence of various cave buildings hewn into the rocks around the church, which were the residences of the church servants and also functioned as hiding places, adds to the complex's similarity (Shahinyan 2020, 44)." />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/kronk-cave-monastery-of-tsakhkaberd/" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Monument Watch" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2022-07-15T11:20:15+00:00" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-1-1-scaled.jpg?v=1656753036" />
	<meta property="og:image:width" content="2560" />
	<meta property="og:image:height" content="1707" />
	<meta property="og:image:type" content="image/jpeg" />
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:label1" content="Est. reading time" />
	<meta name="twitter:data1" content="5 minutes" />
<script type="application/ld+json" class="yoast-schema-graph">{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/kronk-cave-monastery-of-tsakhkaberd/","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/kronk-cave-monastery-of-tsakhkaberd/","name":"“Kronk” cave monastery of Tsakhkaberd - Monument Watch","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-07-02T09:17:10+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-15T11:20:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/kronk-cave-monastery-of-tsakhkaberd/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/kronk-cave-monastery-of-tsakhkaberd/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/monument/kronk-cave-monastery-of-tsakhkaberd/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“Kronk” cave monastery of Tsakhkaberd"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/","name":"Monument Watch","description":"Monitoring the Cultural Heritage of Artsakh","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://monumentwatch.org/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}</script>
<!-- / Yoast SEO plugin. -->


Родник «Шенин» Тагасера

Локализация

Родник расположен в юго-западной части села Тагасер Гадрутского района (рис. 1). С октября 2020-го года Тагасер оккупирован Азербайджаном.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser.jpg?v=1657605107" width="1358" height="473" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser.jpg?v=1657605107 1358w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-300x104.jpg?v=1657605107 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-1024x357.jpg?v=1657605107 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-768x267.jpg?v=1657605107 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Taghaser-370x129.jpg?v=1657605107 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1358px) 100vw, 1358px" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpg?v=1657605132" width="800" height="522" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpg?v=1657605132 800w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-300x196.jpg?v=1657605132 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-768x501.jpg?v=1657605132 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001-370x241.jpg?v=1657605132 370w" sizes="(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px" title="Рис. 1 Общий вид родника, фото С.Карапетяна, источник: http://www.raa-am.com/raa/public/publish.php?mid=5&more=2&cont=32&obid=136&uid=4255" alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Рис. 1 Общий вид родника, фото С.Карапетяна, источник: http://www.raa-am.com/raa/public/publish.php?mid=5&more=2&cont=32&obid=136&uid=4255

Исторический очерк

Родник построил Мовсес Овсепян, один из зажиточных жителей села, в 1915-ом году на собственные средства, о чем он оставил строительную запись. В советские годы памятник был разрушен, став жертвой антикулацкой идеологии.

Архитектурно-композиционный анализ

Памятник представляет собой сводчатое сооружение прямоугольной формы. В нижней части имеет желоб. Построен из известняка на растворе. Свод, угловые камни стен, резервуар полностью обтесаны. В задней части источника находится прямоугольный бассейн шириной 1 метр и длиной 5 метров для сбора воды.

Длина памятник 6 метров, ширина - 2,1 метр, высота - 3,2 метра.

В середине 2000-х в результате ремонта родник был обмазан цементом (рис. 2). Удалось частично восстановить строительную надпись: «Этот источник был построен на память Мовсесом Осепянцем... в 1915-ом году» (рис. 3)

Состояние до, во время и после войны

Во время военных действий 2020-го года и после них родник не пострадал.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002.jpg?v=1657605273" width="1779" height="1171" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002.jpg?v=1657605273 1779w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-300x197.jpg?v=1657605273 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1024x674.jpg?v=1657605273 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-768x506.jpg?v=1657605273 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-1536x1011.jpg?v=1657605273 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/002-370x244.jpg?v=1657605273 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1779px) 100vw, 1779px" title="Рис. 2 Родник после ремонта, фото из электронного каталога ГНО «Государственной службы охраны исторической среды» Республики Арцах." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Рис. 2 Родник после ремонта, фото из электронного каталога ГНО «Государственной службы охраны исторической среды» Республики Арцах.

		<img src="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2.jpg?v=1657605312" width="1779" height="952" srcset="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2.jpg?v=1657605312 1779w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-300x161.jpg?v=1657605312 300w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-1024x548.jpg?v=1657605312 1024w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-768x411.jpg?v=1657605312 768w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-1536x822.jpg?v=1657605312 1536w, https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/003-2-370x198.jpg?v=1657605312 370w" sizes="(max-width: 1779px) 100vw, 1779px" title="Рис. 3 Строительная надпись на роднике, фото из электронного каталога «Государственной службы охраны исторической среды» Республики Арцах." alt="" loading="lazy" 		class="so-widget-image"/>

Рис. 3 Строительная надпись на роднике, фото из электронного каталога «Государственной службы охраны исторической среды» Республики Арцах.

Локализация Родник расположен в юго-западной части села Тагасер Гадрутского района (рис. 1). С октября 2020-го года Тагасер оккупирован Азербайджаном. Исторический очерк Родник построил Мовсес Овсепян, один из зажиточных жителей села, в 1915-ом году на собственные средства, о чем он оставил строительную запись. В советские годы памятник был разрушен, став жертвой антикулацкой идеологии. Архитектурно-композиционный анализ Памятник представляет собой сводчатое сооружение прямоугольной формы. В нижней части имеет желоб. Построен из известняка на растворе. Свод, угловые камни стен, резервуар полностью обтесаны. В задней части источника находится прямоугольный бассейн шириной 1 метр и длиной 5 метров для сбора воды. Длина памятник 6 метров, ширина – 2,1 метр, высота – 3,2 метра. В середине 2000-х в результате ремонта родник был обмазан цементом (рис. 2). Удалось частично восстановить строительную надпись: «Этот источник был построен на память Мовсесом Осепянцем… в 1915-ом году» (рис. 3) Состояние до, во время и после войны Во время военных действий 2020-го года и после них родник не пострадал.

<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.1 - https://yoast.com/wordpress/plugins/seo/ -->
<title>Родник «Шенин» Тагасера - Monument Watch</title>
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1" />
<link rel="canonical" href="https://monumentwatch.org/ru/monument/родник-шенин-тагасера/" />
<meta property="og:locale" content="en_US" />
<meta property="og:type" content="article" />
<meta property="og:title" content="Родник «Шенин» Тагасера - Monument Watch" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Локализация Родник расположен в юго-западной части села Тагасер Гадрутского района (рис. 1). С октября 2020-го года Тагасер оккупирован Азербайджаном. Исторический очерк Родник построил Мовсес Овсепян, один из зажиточных жителей села, в 1915-ом году на собственные средства, о чем он оставил строительную запись. В советские годы памятник был разрушен, став жертвой антикулацкой идеологии. Архитектурно-композиционный анализ Памятник представляет собой сводчатое сооружение прямоугольной формы. В нижней части имеет желоб. Построен из известняка на растворе. Свод, угловые камни стен, резервуар полностью обтесаны. В задней части источника находится прямоугольный бассейн шириной 1 метр и длиной 5 метров для сбора воды. Длина памятник 6 метров, ширина - 2,1 метр, высота - 3,2 метра. В середине 2000-х в результате ремонта родник был обмазан цементом (рис. 2). Удалось частично восстановить строительную надпись: «Этот источник был построен на память Мовсесом Осепянцем... в 1915-ом году» (рис. 3) Состояние до, во время и после войны Во время военных действий 2020-го года и после них родник не пострадал." />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://monumentwatch.org/ru/monument/родник-шенин-тагасера/" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Monument Watch" />
<meta property="article:modified_time" content="2022-07-17T09:33:29+00:00" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://monumentwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/001.jpg?v=1657605132" />
	<meta property="og:image:width" content="800" />
	<meta property="og:image:height" content="522" />
	<meta property="og:image:type" content="image/jpeg" />
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<script type="application/ld+json" class="yoast-schema-graph">{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/ru/monument/%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba-%d1%88%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%bd-%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%b3%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b0/","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/ru/monument/%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba-%d1%88%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%bd-%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%b3%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b0/","name":"Родник «Шенин» Тагасера - Monument Watch","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-07-12T05:55:48+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-17T09:33:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/ru/monument/%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba-%d1%88%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%bd-%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%b3%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b0/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https://monumentwatch.org/ru/monument/%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba-%d1%88%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%bd-%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%b3%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b0/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/ru/monument/%d1%80%d0%be%d0%b4%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba-%d1%88%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%bd-%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%b3%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b0/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://monumentwatch.org/en/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Родник «Шенин» Тагасера"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://monumentwatch.org/#website","url":"https://monumentwatch.org/","name":"Monument Watch","description":"Monitoring the Cultural Heritage of Artsakh","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://monumentwatch.org/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}</script>
<!-- / Yoast SEO plugin. -->