armenian church and monastery restoration project

8/12/2019 Armenian Church and Monastery Restoration Project

1/33

The rmenian Churchand MonasteryRestoration Project


2/33

Copyright 2014United Nations Development Programme .Produced in Cyprus.Al l rights reserved. No part o this publication maybe reproduced stored in a retrieval system or transmittedin any form or by any means electronic mechanicalphotocopying record ing or otherwise without priorpermission o UNDP-Action for Cooperation and Trust.Published by UNDP ACT

@USAIDFROM THE MERIC N PEOPlE

CTION FOR COOPER TION ND TRUST IN CYPRUSWWWC fundporg

www.cy.undp.org


3/33

The rmenian Church and MonasteryRestoration Project

2014 UNDP All rights reserved


4/33

Photo and figure captionsFig 1 The restored Armenian Church complex in theArabahmet district of Nicosia. (UNDP-ACT) Page 5Fig 2 Despite many alterations, the church remains anoutstanding example of Cypriot gothic architecture. In thewalls in the foreground of this photo one can see theoutlines of t he original fourteenth-century niches, whichwe re filled in during the renovations in the early sixteenthcentury. The barrel vault in the background and the dooron the north wa ll we re added at the same time. (Vitti)PageFig. 3 Detail. (UNDP-ACT) Page 6Fig 4 A rare example of Cypriot gothic funerary art, thecarved relief of the Abbess Eschive de Dampierre wasoriginally shaped to fit into a niche inside the church.(Vitti) Page 7Fig. 5 The narrow lance shape of these windows andthe decorative, four-leafed quatrefoil tracery are classicfeatures of gothic ecclesiastical architecture. (Vitti) Page 8Fig 6 Traces of the devastating 1491 earthquake, such asthis collapsed rib vault, are sti ll visible today. Immediatelyafter the earthquake, some parts of the church were walledoff or only partially repaired. (Vitti) Page 9Fig 7 Masons marks were used to indicate either theproper placement of a stone or the name of the workshopthey came from. These marks were a feature of Venetianmasonry and became common in Cyprus in the sixteenthcentury along with many Venetian architectural motifs.(UNDP-ACT) Page 1Fig 8 This carved stone gate marked the entrance to thebeautiful and we ll-fo rtified Melikian mansion. By thesixteenth century much of the original Benedictinemonastery had been dismantled and the stones were usedin new buildings. (BCD Progetti) Page 1Fig. 9 Firman, 15 May 1571. PageFig. 10 Photo courtesy of Asdvadzadzin. PageFig 11 By 2007 the site was in urgent need of attention . Asa first step, the historical and cu ltural importance of eachbuilding was assessed, as well as its state of repair.(BCD Progetti) Page 12Fig. 12 Modern plasters that we re chemically incompatiblewith the sandstone, cement mortar repairs and the humidclimate of Nicosia together reduced some blocks to dust.(BCD Progetti) Page 13Fig 3 Most of the roofs had collapsed or were tile-less,leaving the buildings unprotected. The wooden andmudbrick features were in urgent need of intervention.(Vitti) Page 14Fig 4 The church and the associated bui ldings and spaceswere the centre of the Armenian community and wereused for educational and social purposes as we ll as religiousones. (Photo courtesy of Melkonian school) Page 15

Fig 5 The belfry and the buttresses were the last majoradditions to the church. (Vitti) Page 16Fig 6 At the beginning of the project, the porch was inimminent danger of collapse. Everyone of the pillars wasslanted, and the buttresses we re cracking. (BCD Progetti)Page 17Fig 7 The engineers chose the more effective, yetchal lenging, option of restoring the porch s earlierconfiguration. (UNDP-ACT) Page 18Fig 8 Terracotta pots, used by sixteenth-century masonsto lighten the load on the porch, were discovered when theheavy terrace floor, seen on the left of the photo, wasremoved. (BCD Progetti) Page 19Fig 9 The project engineers invented a techniqueusing hydraulic jacks to literally push the collapsingsixteenth-century porch upright, one centimetre at a time.The circle in the picture shows the gap between the originalprop, and the location of the arch after it had been slowlypushed back into place. (BCD Progetti) Page 2Fig_ 20 A conservator from the Istituto Centra e delRestauro tests the original plasters during the Assessmentof the Church. One of the most technically challenging taskswas to remove the modern plaster that was damaging theunderlying stone, without damaging the traces of olderplaster beneath it. (Vitti) Page 2Fig 21 The portion of the wa ll within the tape has beensandblasted. After careful testing, this technique was usedto remove the last thin layer of modern mortar that couldnot otherwise be removed without harming the stone.(BCD Progetti) Page 2Fig 22 Conservators injected liquid consolidants into thepulverised stones, to strengthen the decayed stone. Thisallowed the project to preserve many of the damagedoriginal stones. (BCD Progetti) Page 2Fig 23 Masons used coarse-tooth ch isels to mimic theeffects of historical stone-cutting techniques andweathering so that the new stone blocks wou ld blend withthe ancient ones. (BCD Progetti) Page 22

Fig 24 These metal gratings supported a stained-glasswindow in the original fourteenth-century church. (Vitti)Page 23Fig 25 The removal of thick layers of gypsum plaster fromthe bosses on the ceiling revealed two intricately carvedsurfaces. The most elaborate design was an agnus dei. ThisLamb of God is a common Christian symbo l. (Vitti) Page 23Fig . 26 Church interior after the restoration. (UNDP-ACT)Page 24Fig 27 28 29: These are 3D models of the church showingthe major struc tural changes. (Vitti-Zappis) Page 26 27 28Fig 30: Ground map of the Armenian Church andMonastery Complex. Page 3


5/33

I oreword by hristopher ouiseProgramme Manager UN P ACT

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), with funding from theUS Agency for International Development (USAID), has been supporting a rangeof peace-building projects in Cyprus since 1998. Restoring the islands culturalheritage has been an important dimension of this effort. The aim is not only toconserve buildings and sites, but also to provide Cypriots with the opportunity toreconnect with th ir common heritage. These projects bring people together arounda common and inclusive vision of a shared future.The restoration of the Armenian Church and Monastery complex in the Arabahmetneighbourhood of Nicosia is one example of this initiative. The completionof this project comes at a crucial time in the process of finding a settlement for theCyprus issue. It is a reminder of the potential of cultural heritage initiatives to helpheal the wounds of the past and to build trust among Cyprus communities. Theindividual s and groups who participated in the restoration of the Armenian Churchaffirmed the values of trust, tolerance and respect. These values were expressedat every level of the project from the involvement of multiple stakeholders in theplanning and design, to the broad-based consultations that ensured that the physicalwork always respected the communities memories of the site.UNDP and USAID are proud of the achievements of the Armenian Chu rch andMonastery restoration project and hope it will demonstrate how places, as well asprojects, can flourish in an environment of peace and goodwill.


6/33

The Armenian Churchand Monastery projectThe scholarly investigation and conservation of the Armenian Church complex in theArabahmet neighbourhood of Nicosia began in 2007. The restoration of thisextraordinary fourteenth-century build ing and its environs is one of several UNDP ACTprojects aimed at renewing the physical and cultural landscapes of Cyprus.

The church is located in the Arabahmet district in the western quarter of the walled city ofNicosia. The entire neighbourhood has been undergoing restoration since 1989 as part ofthe Nicosia Master Plan .The current Armenian Church was originally part of a Benedictine monastery builtnear the beginning of the fourteenth century. Most of the ancillary buildings associatedwith the original monastery have been dismantled but their scattered fragmentscan be seen in the fabrics of the buildings th t have replaced them. The church andthe surrounding buildings now known as the Armenian Church complex are anarchitectural record of 700 years of sometimes tumultuous change. The church itselfalthough remaining one of the most outstanding examples of gothic architecture inCyprus has undergone many modifications.


7/33


8/33

A destructive earthquake in 1491 seriously damaged the church . Some repairs weremade immediately, but the building seems to have been left in a semi-derelict stateuntil major renovations were undertaken in the sixteenth century. Architectural anddocumentary evidence, including work done by this project, suggests th t the buildingmay have been transferred to the Armenian Church at about this time and these majorrenovations may have been conducted at the time of this transfer.There are references to Armenians in Cyprus as early as 578 A.D . and they arementioned in many histories, travelogues and government documents in thesucceeding centuries. The size of the community has fluctuated widely, but therewere very close ties between the Frankish Kingdom of Cyprus 1192-1489) and theKingdom of Armenia, and many Armenians arrived on the island during this period,particularly after the collapse of the Crusader Kingdoms in the Eastern Mediterranean.The Ottomans also recruited Armenian craftsman, who settled in Nicosia . A fire at theArmenian Prelature in 1860 robbed the community of import nt archives, but it isclear th t the Armenian community has deep roots in Cyprus and in the Arabahmetdistrict of Nicosia .

The history of the churchEven after extensive remodelling and renovationsover seven centuries, the fourteenth-centurychurch remains a fine example of Gothicarchitecture and retains many of its originalfeatures. It originally consisted of a single navedivided in two bays and a polygonal choircovered by ribbed vaults . The windows on thesouthern side, to the right of the entrance, weresmaller than those to the north, to protect theinterior from the hot local sun. The choir hadtypical gothic windows: lancet shaped, dividedby a central vertical post called a mullion, andsurmounted by a four-leafed quatrefoil design.The original windows were stained-glass, and thewalls were covered in plaster painted with blueand red lines to mimic ashlar masonry. The gothicinterior, with large windows and white plasterwalls would have been full of light. Fig 4 A rare example of Cypriotgothicfunerary ort, the carved

relief of the Abbess Eschive deOampierre was originallysh ped to fit into a niche insidethe church. Vitti)


9/33

Fig The narrow lanceshape o these windowsand the decorativefour-leafed quatrefoiltracery are classicfeatures o gothicecclesiasticalarchitecture. VitH)

A cornice divided the windows from the lower wall which waspunctuated by niches, one of which can be identified as theoriginal location of the tom of Abbess Eschive de Dampierred. 1340 , now located on the northern porch . This tom is

one of the few surviving masterpieces of Cypriot gothicfunerary art. The carved relief of the Abbess and her coat ofarms is crowned with a gabled cornice and was originallyshaped to fit into one of the wall niches.


10/33

In the 1491 earthquake the first bay s ribbed vault and thl entire western facadecollapsed. Traces of this devastating event, such as the ruined northern walland part of the collapsed ribbed vau lt, are still visible today, despite many subsequentrenovations. The initial repairs included a wall separating the ruined first bay fromthe rest of the church and a new access door on the south wall. The church continuedto be used in this semi-derelict state for some time.

The reconstruction of the first bay had to wait for sometime, probably until the early part of the sixteenthcentury. At this time there were a series of majorrenovations including a new barrel vault replacing the oldcross vau lt, and a new porch built on the north side of thechurch . The addition of the porch meant th t the lowerparts of the large northern windows were blocked. Manyof the niches, including the one where the Abbess Eschivede Dampierre s tomb was located, were walled up and anew entrance was opened from the new porch into thechurch . The result would have been a darker, but largerchurch. These modifications transformed the Benedictinechurch to a church more su itable for the Armeniandenomination, with les s light, a porch on one side of thechurch and, at a later date, a raised area in the choir,reserved for the altar and the priests.

i Traces of thedevastating 1491earthquake, such as thiscollapsed ri vault, are stillvisible today. Immediatelyafter the earthquake, someparts of the church werewalled offor only partiallyrepaired. The once wealthyBenedictine monastery mayhave been losing influenceby the end of the fifteenthcentury. Vitti)

these modificationstranifOrmed theBenedictine churchto a church moresuitableforthe rmeniandenomination


11/33

Other architectural and documentary evidence suggests the Church was handed over toth Armenians between 1491 and 1504 A D .Stylistically, th modifications described in the previous paragraph exhibit th strongVenetian influence present in sixteenth-century Cypriot architecture. Many Venetianarchitectural features, such as drop arches, profile mouldings and masons marks,were used in Cypriot architecture during this period and th reconstructed first bayand the new porch clearly show this new architectural language.By the time of these renovations, th ancillary buildings of the monastery had beendismantled and the remains of these buildings were used in the constructionof new houses. The Melikian Mansion, a house to the east of the church, was built bya wealthy merchant around the sixteenth century. It is distinguished by a well-protectedstorage/treasure room on the ground floor, an arched loggia on the first floor anda nicely carved arched stone gate on the same side as th loggia .

Fig Masons marks were usedto indicate either the properplacement of a stone or the n meof the workshop they came from.These marks were a feature ofVenetian masonry and becamecommon in Cyprus in thesixteenth century along withm ny Venetian architecturalmotifs. UNDP-ACT)

Fig This carved stone gate marked theentrance to the beautiful and well-fortifiedMelikian mansion. By the sixteenth centurymuch f the original Benedictine mon steryhad been dismantled and the stones wereused in new buildings. BCD Progetti)


12/33

A firman decree) issued 15 May1571, less than a year after theOttoman conquest in September1570, gave the church to theArmenians. The firman alsoindicates that the church had beenused or an unspecified time as aplace to store state salt. Thisdocument bears witness to theupheaval o the Ottoman siege, andits aftermath .

Figirm an5 May 1571

Apart from the transfer o the premises o the Metropolis to the west side o the siteduring the tenure o the Metropolitan Akob 1783-1799), little is known about thecomplex between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries . However, there wasa burst o construction activity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries .In 1858, after the collapse and reconstruction o the central part o the northern porcho the church, new buttresses were built to support the porch . The buttresses werecomposed o heavy pillars placed a short distance from the porch and connectedto it by arches. This arrangement provided support, while leaving the area close to theporch as free as possible from structures. Hapetic Nevrouzian o Constantinopledonated a belfry in 1860, which was added to the north side o the church . The dateo the construction is recorded on the surviving bell.The Church underwent minor repairs in 1884, and in 1903-4 it was heavily remodelled; thewall surfaces were re-plastered with gypsum plaster, the remarkably carved ancientwooden doors, described by the French historian Camille Enlart, were sawn o and thewindows were filled with new wooden sashes and panes o white and blue glass The flatroof was covered with a pitched roof with French tiles .Throughout much o thetwentieth century the Churchand the surrounding complexwere used by the Armeniancommunity for religious andcultural purposes. Due to itsproximity to the buffer zone,which was established inNicosia following intercommunaltensions in 1964, the site waslargely abandoned and by thetime the UNDP project began in2007 the bUilding had not beenused as a church or decades. Fig 1 Photo courtesy of Asdvadzadzin


13/33


14/33

onditionof the site before the projectWhen the design phase began in 2007, large portions of the site were in needof immediate intervention, while others had already collapsed . The church, with thepossible exception of the northern porch, had not suffered serious structural damage.However, broken and missing widows and a leaking roof, combined with the humidclimate, had created the circumstances for heavy material damage. In addition,the gypsum and cement plasters used in previous renovations and repairs had damagedboth the interior and exterior walls. Some of the soft sandstone blocks were crumblingand intervention was needed to prevent further deterioration.

Fig 2 Modern plasters th t were chemicallyincompatible with the sandstone, cement mortarrepairs and the humid climate of Nicosia togetherreduced some blocks to dust. BeD Progetti

Melikian s Mansion (Building B in the fol out site plan, page 30) suffered the most severedamage. Most of the roof had collapsed or was tile- less leaving the rooms unprotected .The woo work in the traditional Cypriot false ceiling had suffered serious damage and rainhad heavily eroded the mudbrick masonry. The overall structural condition was critical,especially the loggia on the eastern side of the mansion, which was near collapse . Theother buildings, including the schools and the premises of the Prelacy, neededto be secured against future deterioration.


15/33

Fig 3 Most o the roofs had collapsedor were tile-less, leaving the buildingsunprotected The wooden andmudbrick features were in urgentneed o intervention VitH)

The conservation and restoration planThe goals of the project were to preserve all of the buildings in the compound forfuture generations, while maintaining their historical and social integrity, and to usethe restoration and conservation process s n opportunity for dialogue andreconciliation. One of the design phase challenges was the multiple approachesnecessary given the distinct historical, scientific and social significance of eachbuilding; it was necessary to distinguish between the buildings th t hadn unquestionable value s works of art , such s the Armenian Church and Melikian's

Mansion, and those th t had primarily architectural or social v lue, such s theschool buildings.


16/33

These challenges were shared with the stakeholders and with the communitieswith historical ties to the site, and the final design proposal was a result of thesecollaborations. The aim was not to return the church or the site to its original state,but to preserve the rich historical layers contained within the site . Each historicaltransformation was given equal value; together they express the unique historyof the monument. The only exceptions to this approach were some additions th t werephysically and chemically incompatible with the preservation of the underlyingstonework. In the end, the proposal contained four different types of interventions:conservation, restoration, reconstruction and, in very limited cases reversal of thoseprevious interventions th t may have compromised the structure.

Fig 4 The church andthe associated buildingsand spaces were the centreof the Armenian communityand were used foreducational and socialpurposes as well as religiousones. Photo courtesy ofMelkonian school)

The im was not to return the church or thesite to its original state but to preserve therich historical layers contained within the site

The first stage of the design phase included archival research and a complete surveyof the site. The condition of the site and of the buildings was sCientifically recorded innew drawings, which were then compared to archival sources in order to understandthe evolution of the site. For all of the buildings, other than the church, the aim wasto restore them to functioning architectural conditions and to preserve them againstfuture deterioration. Melikian s Mansion was immediately secured from further collapseand protected by a temporary roof, but its complete restoration was postponed untila later date.


17/33

The design for the siteThe new design for the site balances two distinct factors . On the one hand, it respectsthe Armenian community s partitioning of the exterior space into three courtyards :Melikian s Mansion s courtyard; the courtyard between the church and the main gateon Victoria Street; and the courtyard north of the church. On the other hand, changesin the neighbourhood and the public spaces around the site, as well as changes thathave occurred during the last decades within the boundary walls could not be ignored.The new layout is thus based on the historical use of the space, but also links thecourtyards to the wide public area that today lies to the north of the church.Following this plan, the area between the church and the Victoria street doorway,an area used for both social and religious events th t was already partially paved, wasgiven a new stone paving. n addition, a tamped earth paving now links the northerncourtyard, via a new gate, to the adjacent public space. The new access highlights thenineteenth-century belfry built on the north elevation of the church and located justin front of the new gate. The wall th t originally separated Melikian s Mansion from therest of the site will be rebuilt to restore the third courtyard.

Fig 5 he belfry and the buttresseswere the last major additions to thechurch. Vim)


18/33

The intervention on the churchThe conservation and structural stabilization of the fourteenth-century church and itssixteenth-century porch were the most critical and the most technically challengingaspects of the project. The removal of the cement and gypsum plasters and thecomplex structural restoration of the porch required both creativity and flexibility.Methods had to be continually modified during the restoration work, in response tounexpected architectural problems th t were encountered.For each challenge, the team developed new techniques using a step-by-stepmethodology. First, the technique was tested on samples, in order to adapt theprocedures to the actual condition of the building and to verify the compatibilityof the materials. Then the procedures were honed to ensure th t they did not cause anydamage, and finally the overall aesthetic result was considered. Only when the teamwas completely satisfied th t they had identified the best possible techniquewas it adopted .

StructuralinterventionStructural decay had seriouslydamaged the porch, which was nearto collapse . The pillars had beengradually overturned by the thrustcoming from the heavy load of thevault and the roof above. This slowbut steady pressure had distortedthe overall geometry of the vaultand some of the wedge-shapedstone voussoirs, which form part ofthe arches, had fallen or were aboutto fall. ll the columns of the porchwere visibly inclined outwards.Structural decay was also visible onthe north side of the church . Themost serious problems were deepcracks in the choir s ribbed vault. Fig 6 At the beginning othe project the parch was inimminent danger o collapse.Everyone o the pillars wasslanted and the buttresseswere cracking . BeD Progetti


19/33

Soil tests and georadar records established that the damage was not caused by thesettlement of the foundation. A three-dimensional model of the church was usedto simulate its behaviour under different types of stress and allowed the design teamto determine th t the cracks n the church vault had been caused by the nineteenthcentury addition of the heavy bell tower. They also established th t the structure, afterthe initial damage, had stabilised; therefore, the cracks on the vault under the belltower could be safely filled n without extra support being added.The structural damage to the porch was caused by two factors : the heavy loadon the vaults and the corrosion of the iron tie rods. In both cases, the design team chosean intervention without alteration strategy. The buttresses built n the nineteenthcentury to support the sixteenth century pillars were themselves widely crackedand tilting. Instead of adding new structures, or repairing the old repairs, the engineerschose the more effective, yet challenging, option of restoring the porch's earlierconfiguration, load and tie rods efficiency. To do this they had to apply a force equalto the force th t had caused the porch to collapse (mainly gravity), but n the oppositedirection i .e., upwards). In other words, they decided to literally push the porch backto its original position .

Fig 7 The engineers chose the more effective,yet challenging, option o restoring the porch searlier configuration. UNDP-ACT)

The challenge was to re-establish theupward thrust n the reverse sequence towhich the collapse had occurred . Once thevaults were repositioned they would helpto push the arches back to their originalposition; once the drift of the arches wasreduced, it would be possible to applyan external push to the columns andre-establish the original geometry of thewhole addition. The force applied had tobe strictly controlled to avoid crushingthe fragile sandstone used for the porchstructure.

.


20/33

The first step in this process was to shore up the vault; the next step was to decreasethe substantial weight of overlying fill to prevent the porch from slowly collapsingagain. Like every oth r part of this project this led to unexpected discoveries.When the team dismantled the floor of the terrace which formed the roof of the porchthey uncovered a series of terracotta pots which had been used by the original buildersin an attempt to lighten the weight on the supporting structure. These pots have beenprotected and left in th ir original location .

Fig 8 Terracotta pots, used by sixteenth-centurymasons to lighten the load on the porch, werediscovered when the heavy terrace floor seen on theleft o the photo, was removed. BeD ProgetH

In the next step the joints between the stones in the vaults were cleaned to allow eachseparate element to be moved without creating new cracks. Three temporary steelbuttresses were then erected around the porch . Each exerted 2 tons of force on thearches via th ir hydraulic jacks. Once all of these preparatory steps were completedthe porch could be moved in carefully calculated and controlled steps a few centimetresat a time. At each step the geometrical layout was fixed and the tension was transferredto the new stainless steel tie rods. After many cycles the initial goal was reachedand the porch was fully restored without having to substitute a single stone.The final stage involved backfilling the masonry joints and restoring the ancient drainagealong the top of the buttresses.


21/33

Removing the plaster and restoringthe masonryDuring the design phase conservators tested several methods for removingthe modern plasters from the interior surfaces of the church. These trials were essentialto ensure th t the adherent cement plasters could be removed without further damagingthe decayed stone. The conservators also needed to detect and preserve the rareand extremely thin fragments of the original fourteenth-century lime plaster.

Fig 9 The project engineers invented atechnique using hydroulic jacks to literolly pushthe collapsing sixteenth-century porch upright,one centimetre t a time. The circle in the pictureshows the gap between the original prop, andthe location of the arch after it has been slowlypushed back into place. BCD Progetti)

Fig 2 A conservator from the Istituto Centraledel Restauro tests the original plasters duringthe Assessment of the Church. One of the mosttechnically challenging tasks was to removethe modern plaster tha t was damaging theunderlying stone, without damaging thetraces of older plaster beneath it. Vitti)

Once the plasters were carefully removed the stone surfaces had to be cleaned.Given the time-consuming nature of cleaning the stone manually a modified sandblasting procedure was tested and approved. At the end of this stage the entire stonesurface w s completely clean and it w s possible to proceed to the next stage:the consolidation or substitution ofthe crumbling stones .


22/33

s the project progressed it became clear that over the years the addition and removalof plaster and other materials and the humid conditions had so damagedthe original stonework th t some degree of stone restoration and even replacementwas necessary. The most damaged stones were found on the southern exterior surfaceand the interior vaults . Different intervention strategies had to be devised for thesetwo areas.

Fig 2 The portion of the wall within the tape has been sandblasted. After carefultesting, this technique was used to remove the last thin layer of modern mortarth t could not otherwise be removed without harming the stone. BCD Progetti

Fig Conservators injectedliquid consolidants into thepulverised stones, to strengthenthe decayed stone. This allowedthe project to preserve m ny ofthe damaged original stones.BCD Progetti

Stones with minor damage were consolidated and preserved; only stones that weredisintegrating into fragments and dust and thereby threatening the stability of themasonry were replaced . This respect for the authenticity of the fabric requireda careful stone by stone examination before any decision regarding consolidationor substitution was approved. This minimum intervention strategy was appliedto all surfaces but the substitution of the stones on the exterior surfaces was moreextensive due to climatic factors which both increased the weathering of the stoneand reduced the penetration of the consolidating material.


23/33

The final and most delicate phase of the intervention was the aesthetic presentationof the newly cleaned and conserved walls. First to match the new stones to the existingstone surface the new stones were roughened along the edges with a chisel whereverthe neighbouring stones were visibly decayed. For similar aesthetic reasons the newstone surfaces were treated with a coarse-toothed bush hammer making them lookmore like the ancient ones.

Fig 3 Masons used coarse-tooth chisels to mimic the effects of historicalstone-cutting techniques and weathering so th t the new stone blockswould blend with the ancient ones. BeD Progetti

For the interior surfaces the aesthetic treatment took into account threeconsiderations: the historical appearance of the interior the need to integratethe fragmentary plasters from different historical periods and the memories of thepeople who had used the site in their youth. The original fourteenth-century surfacessuch as the walls colonettes ribs and vaults had been coated with a very thin paintedlime plaster. The barrel vault and the porch bui lt some two hundred years laterhad a much thicker plaster much of which had been removed during the twentiethcentury. o preserve the aesthetics of the church it was necessary to propose a finishth t could match and preserve the historic plasters while still matching the memoriesof the people who had used the church.The fourteenth century surfaces were painted with a very light lime wash mixed withstone dust in order to suggest the tone of the fourteenth-century plaster while leavingvisible the texture of the ashlar masonry and the fragmentary original plasters .The sixteenth century surfaces and the more recent additions were fully plasteredclearly distinguishing them from the more ancient ones .


24/33

New discoveriesach stage of restoration revealed a wealth

of new information about the site . Twounexpected discoveries were the gratingsused in the original gothic windows and twopainted bosses on the key of the vault . Theformer, exceptionally important for Cypriotgothic architecture, were the original metalgratings th t supported the gothic stainedglass . These gratings had been visible beforethe intervention, but had been interpretedas modern gratings. The removal of thegypsum plasters used to wall up the windowsrevealed th t these gratings ran the heightof the window and belonged to the originalfourteenth-century church. These are, to ourknowledge, the only known examples ofstained glass window supporting structuresin Cyprus. The metal was treated to preserveit for years to come. Fig 4 These metal gratings supported astained-glass window in the originalfourteenth-century church. (Vitti)

The second discovery was two decorated bosses . After removing the thick gypsumlayer from the key stones at the intersection of the vaults' ribs, two delicately carvedsurfaces came to light. The boss at the intersection of the second bay is a simplepattern with leaves th t circle the central area, while the boss above the choiris an impressive agnus dei. This Lamb of God is represented in the traditional formof a lamb looking backwards, holding in its right foreleg a Christian banner wi th a cross.

Fig 5 The removal of thicklayers of gypsum plaster fromthe bosses, on the ceilingrevealed two intrica tely carvedsurfaces. The most elaboratedesign was an agnus dei .This Lamb of God is a commonChristian symbol. (Vitti)

Each stage irestoration revealeda wealth i n winformation aboutthe site


25/33

The removal of the gypsum plaster from the walls also uncovered many fragments of theoriginal plaster, only a few millimetres thick . Remains of the colours demonstratethat the walls and the ribs were painted with straight red lines imitating the joints of ashlarmasonry. The central mullions of the windows were also painted red and boththe bosses have traces of the original red paint. During restoration these plasters weretreated in order to highlight the fragments and make them visible from floor level.The intervention on the southern window formerly a doorway) also involved the cleaningand consolidation of the remains of a mural of St. Paul in the flat semi-circularlunette above the old doorway. It probably originally framed a painted image of the Virgin,which is now lost.

LegacyEveryone involved in this undertaking recognized th t it was much more thana routine cultural heritage project. Restoring the monument was obviously rewardingfor its own sake but the revitalized space is also both an example of andan opportunity for, inter-communal harmony. Furthermore, the transfer of skillsand knowledge and the building of local expertise will have a long-term durable impacton cultural heritage in Cyprus. The project illustrates how people with a sharedvision can achieve the seemingly impossible. It also illustrates the value of embracingparticipatory approaches at every stage of the undertaking.

Fig 6 Church interior fter the res toration. UNDP-A Tj


26/33

Selected bibliographyArmenian Prelacy of Cyprus. The Armenian Church in Cyprus. Nicosia 2003.Chamberlayne, J. Tankerville, Lacrimae Nicossienses. Recueil des inscriptions funeraires, la piu part fran


27/33

Structural timeline of the site Early fourteenth century Construction of the church with two cross-vaulted bays

and five-rib choir as part of Our ady of Tortosa Monastery

1312 1482: Various burials (recorded by T J Chamberlayne, 1894) including 1340- burial of Abbess Eschive de Dampierre in the Church 1348- burial of thirteen nuns who died of the Black Death

1491: Destructive earthquake causes the collapse of the church s first bay vault; thefirst bay is walled off from the rest of the church; a new doorway is opened on thesouth side

Early Sixteenth century Reconstruction of first bay vault and western facade; openingof the new north entrance; construction of the porch; walling up of niches and oorpassage in the apse; filling ofthe lower part of most of the windows


28/33

Beginning ofth sixteenth century According to Anagnosmata ([1504] citedin Chebeyan 1955), the church was at this time in the hands of Armenians

15 May 1571: Firman issued giving the church to the Armenians, after it had been usedto store state salt

1688: Restoration of the church 1783 1799: Metropolitan Akob moves the premises of the Metropolis from the east

side of the church to the present location in the west courtyard

1788: Construction of a baptistery Eighteenth to Nineteenth centuries hanges to the choir (new raised area, tiled

surface facing the two bays and a wooden ciborium added to the altar, merging withthe carved tim er work from an older ciborium)

1858: Construction of buttresses to support the porch 1860: Construction of belfry, made possible by a donation of Hapetic Nevrouzian

from Constantinople


29/33

1884: Restoration of the church 1886: Construction of Vartanaz school in front of th porch

(replaced by building C in 1950) 19 4: Restoration of th church ; the wall surfaces were plastered, ancient wood doors

sawn off, th windows filled with new wood sashes with white and blue glasses 1921: Construction of Melikian school (building D 1938: Construction of Ouzonian school (building E 1945: Women s gallery donated by th Dicran Ouzounian family 195 : Restoration of the belfry (iron tie rods) 195 : Construction of th nursery school (building C 196 : Renewal of church floor; some grave stones were removed from the floor

at this tim


30/33

LegendThe red lines indicate buildings th t have collapsed or been demolished since the 1927Land Registration and Survey Department survey.A: Armenian Church (N6tre Dame de Tortose)B: Melikians Mansion: B1 (original mansion north building) B2 (original mansion southbuilding)c Nursery (built 1950)D: Melikian schoolE Ouzounian schoolF Armenian Prelacy officef: FountainsG: Western wing of Melikian house with a two-storey C-shaped portico (collapsed) .A door in the western boundary wall connected the house to the Armenian ChurchH Two-storey buildings to the North of B1 (collapsed). Accessible from another staircaseon the north side of the H elevationL One-storey room belonging to building H (collapsed) . This building replaced a grandertwo-storey building, part of H, recorded in Kitchener s 1881 mapM: Two-storey building (collapsed) leaning against the corner of building B1N One-storey building, (collapsed) with a later addition above the first floor,connecting B1 to GP: One-storey building (collapsed)Q One-storey boy-scout building (collapsed)R Two-storey building (collapsed) . This was a private house bought by the ArmenianPrelature, which collapsed after 1963. All th t remains of this building are the entranceand a door on Victoria Streets One-storey buildingT One-storey building (demolished) replaced with the Ouzonian school E)U One-storey building replaced in 1950 with the nursery. Building U was the old Vartanazboys school already visible in Kitchener s mapV : Collapsed part of building B2 (still standing in 2002)V : Partially collapsed part of building B2 . The upper storey was made of mudbrick


31/33

Fig 30 Ground map o the ArmenianChurch and Monastery complex

ii ACM BuildingsBuildings surveyed in 927 nowdemolished or collapsed

one-storey Buildings

TWo-Storey Buildings


32/33


33/33

armenian church and monastery restoration project

Documents