«Անիի միջնադարյան քաղաքատեղիի վերականգնումը. իմ պատկերացումը» - Արմեն ՂԱԶԱՐՅԱՆ

Armen Kazaryan's article "Restoration of the Medieval Site of Ani: My Vision" is devoted to reflecting on the goals, methodology, and ethical principles of conservation and restoration of the architectural monuments of Ani — the medieval capital of Armenia, located in present-day Turkey.

Context and occasion for the presentation

The author notes the symbolic significance of the 2011 conference as the first instance of discussing restoration projects for Ani with the participation of Turkish, Armenian, and international specialists since the activities of the Russian Archaeological Institute in the early twentieth century. He points to the positive, though technically imperfect, experience of temporary metal reinforcements of the monuments, initiated earlier by the author himself.

The significance of Ani for various cultures

Kazaryan reveals the multilevel value of the site:

for the Armenian people — a symbol of the pinnacle of medieval civilization, secular and ecclesiastical culture;
for Turkish culture — a potential "bridge" between civilizations and one of the poles in the formation of the image of modern Turkey alongside Constantinople;
for world culture — a monument unique in its state of preservation and informational richness, surpassing comparable medieval cities of the Near East.

Key premise: principles of restoration

The author's central thesis is the priority of preserving authenticity over the complete reconstruction of volumes. He formulates criteria for evaluating projects:

maximum preservation of the authentic core of the monument;
correspondence of the project to the optimal historical image;
inadmissibility of aesthetically and ethically unjustified "embellishment" of buildings.

As negative examples, he cites cases of excessive new masonry in Armenian (Irind, Voskevaz) and Turkish (the palace of Paron, the walls of Ani) restoration practice.

A differentiated approach to the monuments

The author proposes a concrete program:

full reconstruction is justified only for three buildings (the Church of Tigran Honents, the church of the Abughamrents family, and the six-apsed church of the Convent of the Virgins);
partial reconstruction is possible for the gavit of the Church of the Apostles, the Church of the Savior, and the palace church;
for the remaining monuments — excavation, conservation, and fragmentary restoration of forms without large-scale new masonry.

Institutional proposals

Kazaryan insists on the necessity of preliminary scholarly and theoretical reflection on the task, and also proposes creating an international institute for the study and restoration of Ani, funded through a special international foundation, referring to the historical experience of N. Marr's Ani Archaeological Institute and the practice of Armenian public funding in the early twentieth century.

Conclusion

The article's key conclusion is that the strategy for preserving Ani should be built on the principles of museumification of the ruins as an open-air site, rejection of the complete reconstruction of lost forms, and the granting of international scholarly and financial status to the restoration process, capable of uniting the efforts of Armenian, Turkish, Russian, and world specialists.