Petrosyan, Hamlet (2008). Խաչքար. ծագումը, գործառույթը, պատկերագրությունը, իմաստաբանությունը [Khachkar: The Origins, Functions, Iconography, Semantics] (PDF) (in Armenian). Yerevan: Printinfo. ISBN 978-99941-836-6-1. Archived from the original on 22 January 2022.
128
խաչքարեր, 12-րդ դ. վերջ, Ապարանք
129-132
ոճական կաղապարը հարյուր տարի անց դեռ չէին մոռացվել: Բայց ակնհայտ է և նորամու- ծությունը' սալի ստորին մասում հորինվածքային կարևոր բաղադրիչների' վարդյակի. աստի- ճանաձև պատվանդանի և նույնիսկ ուղղաձիգ արմավազարդի հիմնամասի ժխտման գնով զուտ դեկորատիվ տպավորության ստեղծումը: Կարելի է հավաստել, որ սա նույնպես «հյուս- վածքայնության» հիմնարար գադափարի տեխ- նիկական փնտրտուքների ուղղություններից մեկն էր, որը սակայն հակառակ էր խաչային հորինվածքի կուռ կառուցվածքին և, ըստ էու- թյան, միայն եզակի շարունակություններ ունե- ցավ հետագայում: Ի մասնավորի, այս ուղղու- թյանր պիտի վերագրել և Դերջանի Ապարանքի վանքի 12-րդ դարերի վերջին վերաբերող երեք հայտնի խաչքարերը (նկ. 158, 159). որոնցից մեկր թվագրված է 1181, երկուսը' 1194 թվակա- նով: Տայերեն արձանագրություններից զատ խաչքարերից մեկն ունի նաև արաբատառ ար- ձանագրություն: Այս դեպքում էլ աչքի են զարև- վում սալի բացարձակ չափերև ու խիստ ձգված համամասնությունները (մուր 6մ*1.20մ, այսինքն' բարձրությունը մուր հինգ անգամ գերազանցում է լայնությունը), սալի մակերևսի մի զգալի մասը բուն խաչային հորինվածքից դուրս թողնելը և այն անկախ պատկերագրական, դեկորատիվ և արձանագրական հատվածների վերածելը: Մի դեպքում խաչքարի ստորին հատվածր զրա- ղեցնում են ոճավորված ծառի տակ կանգնած զույգ սիրամարգերն ու արձանագրական հատ- մածը (նկ. 160). երկու դեպքում արձանագրու- թյուններն ու դեկորատիվ քանդակը: Այս խաչ- քարին անդրադարձած Կատարինա վան Լուն կարծում է, թև ներբնամասը սիրամարգերով հանդերձ խորհրդանշում է հինկտակարանային կենաց ծառը, իսկ վերևամասը' ի դեմս խաչի' նոր կե նաց ծա ռը (Van Loo 1995, s. 115, taf. 2): Խաչային հորինվածքը ներկայանում է լիովին ձևավորված կառուցվածքով. աստիճանաձև բլուրն ավարտվում է վարդյակով, վարդյակը' շքեղ խաչով: Երկու դեպքում խաչերն ուղեկցվում են ներքևից ուղղաձիգ արմավազարդով, իսկ վերևից' խաղողի ոդկույզի նմանակումներով: Մեկի քիվն ունի խիստ ձգված ու խորաքանդակ խորան, ուր պատկերված է Ամենակալը գահին հորինվածքը: Խաչքարի քանդակազարդ մակե- րեսի նման բաժանումը երկու մասի. ըստ էու- թյան, բխում էր ոչ թե խաչային հորինվածքի ծավալման պահանջներից, այլ խիստ սլացիկ կոթողը քանդականախշ դարձնելու զուր գե- ղագիտական պահանջից: Սալի նման սլացի- կությունը, դեկորատիվ քանդակի առանձնա- հատվածի առկայությունը, թիվի վրայի նեղ ու խորաքանդակ' միհրար հիշեցնող խորանր վկայում են ժամանակի մահմեդական արվես- տի որոշակի ազդեցության մասին (Thierry. Donabedian 1987, p. 245): Բնութագրական է, որ քննարկվող օրինակներն այդպես էլ մնացին եզակի: Խաչասալը շարունակեց ենթարկվել խաչային հորինվածքի զարգացման տրամա- բանությանը և պահպանեց երկարության ու լայնության դասական' 2-3/1 հարաբերու- թյունը: Փաստորեն, քննված խաչքարերն էլ կարելի է համարել 12-14-րդ դարերի խաչքա- րերի ժամանակազրական-տիպաբանական առաջին խումբը, որոնք խաչքարային մշակույ- թի ավանդական հիմնատարրերը պահելով հանդերձ' փորձ են անում արձագանքել նաև տարածաշրջանի մշակութային փոփոխու- թյուններին: Ապարանքի 1194թ. խաչքարերից մեկի արձանագրությունը մեզ հաջողվեց վեր- ծանել շնորհիվ Վիրտուալ Աևի (www. virtu- alani.org ) ինտերնետային կայքի համակար- գող Ս. Սիմի ուղարկած լուսանկարների (եկ. 161), որի համար մեր երախտագիտությունն ենք հայտնում: Այն հետևյալն է. «Զամենարհ- նեալ եւ զփրկական կենսաբեր հրաշագործող սբ նշանս Քի, որ է փայտ կենաց պատարագո-ղաց եւ յեցողաց ի սայ իբրեւ ի Տր յախտակտու- թիւն, քանզի սա եղեւ ցուպ եւ արուցիչ եւ գա- ազան հաստատութելան անկելոցս մարդկու- թե[անխ եւ կործանելոցս ի մեդս, որ է զէն յաղ- թութեյանի ընդդէմ թշնամոցն, սուր անբիթելի սրինալ արեամբ որդոյն Այեւ պատալրագ ան- մայի գառինն, որ Լբարձ զմեղս աշխարհին եւ կարապետ յառաջընթաց միւս անգամ գալրս- տեանն Քի. որով պարծին ամենայն հառա- գասեալքս եւ ամաչեցեալ պարտալկ ին ջոկթ «հահաատլիցի: Զայս գործի կենաց ես' յէտևեալ Ադամա. պարտակիանս բիւր քանթարոյ Սահակ' որդի Ելչիխաթունին կանկնեցի ե առաջնորդ առ Քս կենաց մտին Տերասպետ թահանայի եւ հարազատ եղբաւր | Կլոստանդիանոսին և քեռ իմոյ. միասուզ, որ կան որք յետ մեր գնա հահապան յասուրն անեղին, ամէև»: Նա խաչթողային եզակի արձանագրություն- ներից մեկը ուր ի սի են բերված խաչի փրկա- գործական սործառույթի մի շարք ուշագրավ կողմերը, սենք շարադրանքի ընթացքում դեռ անդրադարաայու ենք նրա բնութագրումներին:
133 / Aparank (Armn.: "palace'). Several monastic churches. Remote, but the situation is fine and the buildings are of great interest. pdf page, not actual page [1]
Analysis
editAt the lowest level is a row of three crosses, each set within an arched canopy. Above this is a panel with a long inscription in Armenian. Above this is a section filled with a complicated knotwork interlace that rises to form a stepped base. This stepped feature is said to symbolise the hill of Golgotha. Flanking the steps are two small crosses - again probably symbolising Golgotha. From the summit of the stepped base a stalk rises into a disk decorated with a six pointed star interlace. This disk motif is said to symbolise the fertile seed from which the stem is sprouting. The stem continues upwards and into what is termed a "tied-up flowering foot" - a motif that is thought to represent the Tree of Life. Directly above this is a large cross - the principal motif of all khachkars. The corner of each arm of this cross ends in a coiled, leaf-like, trefoil. A band of interlace runs vertically from the flowering foot through the middle of the cross. On reaching the top of the cross this interlace splits into two curling, vine-like tendrils, each ending in a fruit (probably a bunch of grapes). This continues the symbolic reference to the Tree of Life. Above the cross is a panel with some figurative sculpture: a seated figure (Christ?) on a throne gives a blessing with his raised right hand, and holds a book in his left hand.[2]
The right stele [4.9] follows this structure, but is additionally provided with a plastically protruding frame as an upper conclusion. As with the middle cross-stone, the entire front is framed by a continuous interlace band. The single-column inscription field reproduces a hymn to the sign of the cross; above it are traces of a year date that can no longer be identified. Scriptologists from the Matenadaran in Yerevan date the script used to the 12th/13th century. Another inscription is found on the right (southern) narrow side of the stele. It is written exclusively in Arabic script and refers to the construction of "this [?] fortress". The year 903 is mentioned, but it is unclear whether this refers to the Armenian or Islamic calendar.¹⁶ [903 Armen. or Islamic calendar= 1454 or 1525 us. calendar.] Here, the name of a sultan contained in the text might provide further information through additional research.[3]
The second khachkar [4.9] follows the same overall design and motifs as its companion, but with different decorative carving. The principle difference is that the top of the stone has a hooded moulding that is similar to Muslim funerary monuments of the same period. This khatchk'ar also has an inscription in Arabic lettering on its southern side.[2]
Like the two large cross-stones, the left (northern), smaller stone [2m] also shows the representation of the cross as the tree of life framed by interlacing above the ziggurat and the world disk. The differences lie in ornamental details and especially in the fact that a front inscription field is not present.[4]
unsorted
editThe upper convent comprises the Saint David church, ... and a cemetery with some exceptional cross-stones – two of which are some 5 meters tall – bearing the dates 1171, 1175, 1194 and 1277.[5]
In 1274-1275, the archbishop of Erznga, Serge, Hohannès his son and the Seljuk Kaykhusraw III added their own inscriptions, in Armenian and Arabic, to that of the large 1175 stele.[5]
In the early 1980s, one top corner of the 1277 stele was broken off and the stone pulled down. Blows to the main inscriptions on the two giant steles of 1175 and 1194 have left deep gouges.[5]
The Tourism Directorate guide states that the khachkars are in Ottoman. We think this is how they must have escaped from being destroyed.[6]
At the very top, a person sitting on a throne in the middle is in a blessing position (like Jesus) and holds a book in his right hand.[6]
The second khachkar next to it is represented in the same way, but has a headpiece like Muslim tombstones. Arabic writings are also noticeable on it. This must be the reason why the khachkars are listed as Ottoman in the city guide.[6]
Bruchhaus
editThe monastery church corresponds to the type of cross-domed church with four free-standing pillars and a three-part sanctuary, whose apses protrude outside from the rectangular floor plan and are polygonally mantled; they are connected to each other inside by round-arched passages between the apse partition walls. The axial dimensions of the church are 14.66 m (length) x 10.20 m (width) in the interior. An annex building is attached to the church space in the eastern section of the south side, obviously a later addition, as evidenced by the connection details. Interior axial dimensions: 4.82 m (length) x 3.20 m (width).[7]
The building is accessed through an entrance situated in the middle of the west facade with a flat-arched end. It is part of a two-tiered recessed round-arched portal, crowned by an arched profile strip with horizontally extending ends. The interior is illuminated by slit windows with inwardly beveled jambs. They are located on the outside in small, single-stepped blind niches and are found on each side of the externally twelve-sided tambour as well as in the south, west, and north walls; in addition, there is a small quatrefoil window in the front walls of the transverse barrel vaults and above the central apse. The conches themselves contain no windows.[8]
The identified damages to the church are comparatively minor and have not yet affected the load-bearing core of the building. They are mainly limited to the exterior of the building and particularly affect the roof area. Here, the large stone slabs that form the final roof covering have been removed with few exceptions. The rubble that surrounds the apses on the outside does not come from the church, but from the enclosure wall of the monastery complex that collapsed in this section. The apses themselves, as far as can be seen, are only slightly damaged.[9]
Further damage is shown in the view of the church from the southeast. It extends to the eaves area of the annex, a broken-out window jamb, and gaps in the roof cornice of the church. The dome roof has also not been spared from violent interventions; the dome tip and all ridge stones between the roof slopes are missing. Unfortunately, despite a lengthy search, it was not possible to identify fragments of these stones among the surrounding debris. The crown cornice mediating between tambour and dome roof, however, is largely intact.
In the interior, broken-out floor slabs and the destroyed platform of the sanctuary are the damages that first catch the eye. Much more serious, however, are the partially removed iron tie-rods that were attached at two levels. The church is located in an area particularly vulnerable to earthquakes, so that the missing tie-rods today represent a significant weakness in the structural framework of the building.[9]
The elevated earthquake risk is also addressed by special precautions on the round pillars. They consist of monolithic drums, which are each assembled using a 3-5 mm thick intermediate layer of lead. This process is widespread in the region, but the additional securing of the drum edges with iron hoops is unusual. The springer plates of the capitals are also banded with iron strips. Above them, at varying heights, are the arch bases of the longitudinal and transverse barrel vaults; pendentives form the transition from the square of the crossing to the round of the tambour.[9]
Corresponding to the arches of the directionally alternating vaults, the north, south, and west walls are structured by pilaster-like wall projections with simple capitals and divided into three sections each. In the eastern section of the north wall is a rectangular baptismal niche. In keeping with its special significance, it is distinguished by richly profiled side jambs and a horizontally running terminal cornice. The four small wall niches within the three-apsidal eastern part of the church, however, have no profiling.[10]
On all building elements, there are traces of plaster, indicating that the entire interior of the church was once uniformly covered with a white plaster layer. There are no traces of paintings.[11]
The annex shows a rectangular room that is barrel-vaulted in the longitudinal direction. It is illuminated by four slit windows with inwardly beveled jambs, of which the eastern one is buried by stones from the collapsed enclosure wall. Inside, fragments of a stone water conduit are preserved, which was fed by a spring that is now dried up outside the monastery walls. After passing through the annex building, the water was further channeled across the monastery courtyard to finally resurface outside the walls. This rather vulnerable water supply of the monastery is referenced in a hint from Inčičean also cited by Oskian: "In the year 937 (1488)⁸, God became angry with a village called Adaruk' in the land of Derdžan, in the area of the place Kot'er, near the monastery of S. Grigor, which today bears the name Apranic'-Monastery, because evil spirits had nested there, causing difficulties for the monastery by diverting the water."⁹ It remains unclear whether the presumed well structure northwest of the monastery walls was the exit point of this water flow or was fed by its own, now also dried-up spring. Remains of a slightly pointed barrel vault and fragmentary traces of foundation walls are preserved here.[11]
Apart from the church, the inner monastery area presents a desolate picture today. Nevertheless, the arrangement of other buildings and access paths can be largely discerned from the course of the foundation walls; they are concentrated in the northern part of the grounds. A straight-running alley forms the connection between the church and the north gate; from here and from a path joining the alley at right angles, the individual buildings were accessed. About their structural design, the findings allow only the following statements:[11]
The building walls were constructed of field stones and roughly hewn broken stones with a core of mortar and rock fragments. The buildings in the northwestern area were two stories high and provided with wooden beam ceilings. Evidence for this is provided by beam holes under the high-lying windows. Fragments of round pillars scattered on the grounds suggest that there was once a multi-aisled, barrel-vaulted room, possibly a Ġawit' or Žamatun. Further statements are not possible under the circumstances encountered without excavation.[12]
Chapel
editThe chapel on the hill south of the monastery walls is a single-aisle building barrel-vaulted in the longitudinal direction with an apse inscribed within the rectangular floor plan, accompanied by two tiny side rooms. The axial dimensions in the interior are 5.45 m (length) x 3.43 m (width). It is accessible from the west via an obviously later added forecourt, whose enclosure walls of field stones and roughly hewn broken stones still stand upright to a height of approx. 2.00 m. At the northwestern outer corner of the forecourt is a cross-stone; next to it is the foundation of another stele.[13] The sacred space is illuminated by two slit windows, which are located in the middle of the gable field of the west facade and in the apse round, respectively; in addition, there is a tiny light opening in the east wall of each of the flanking side rooms. The entrance is formed by a rectangular opening in the west facade with a large, inset lintel stone within an outwardly flush, unprofiled arch portal with a medallion-like disk at the apex of the arch. The exterior condition of the building roughly corresponds to that of the monastery church. In the interior, the destructions are unfortunately somewhat greater, but do not yet pose a danger to the building's stability.[13] According to a presumably incomplete inscription in the arch field of the entrance, begun in the second half of the 19th century, the chapel was a pilgrimage site dedicated to S. Dawit'. The completed part of this inscription reads:
ՈՎ ՈՒԽՏԱՒՈՐ Ս ԴԱՒԻԹԻ ԳԱԼՈՒՍ ..... [You pilgrims of S. Dawit' .....]¹⁰[14]
According to references cited by Oskian¹¹, the chapel is supposed to contain the grave of "a certain Dawit'". However, it is quite possible that these references were derived from the inscription. A large number of cross-stone fragments in the forecourt and on the floor of the interior attest to the former importance of this site.[3]
The east and west facades of the building contain several figurative and ornamental stone carvings, some of which were set as spolia, some cut into the finished masonry. Notable among them is a cross-stone slab in the southern edge area of the western gable field, but especially the framing and crowning of the slit window above the entrance, a representation of the cross as the tree of life, which nourishes the birds with its fruits.¹²[3]
A comparable representation is shown by the approx. 2.40 m high cross-stone at the outer northwest corner of the forecourt. Here, the tree of life appears in two forms: in the lower area of the stone as a rectangularly stylized form with birds, above it as a cross above the ziggurat.¹³ ⁺¹⁴ A weathered inscription on the front identifies the stele as a tombstone for a man named Grigor. It bears the year 620 [1171/72 CE].[3]
The earliest reference to the existence of the site is the year date mentioned on the cross-stone at the forecourt to the chapel, the adaptation of which to our calendar gives the dating 1171/72. This is followed by the date 1194/95, also converted, contained in the inscription field on the middle stele of the triad. Whether the actual monastery complex already existed at this time is unclear. A possibly first reference to the monastery of S. Dawit' is contained in a colophon from the 13th century, written by a certain Samuel:¹⁸ "I wrote the part of the Prohoros after three years in the monastery of Dawit' in the year 651 [1202/1203 CE]."¹⁹ Some historians of the Matenadaran suspect that this mentioned monastery is identical to the complex discussed here. A chronologically subsequent reference is contained in the above-mentioned inscription from 1877, in which the year 1234/35 CE is given for the erection of the cross-stone group. The source of this date, however, is unknown.[15]
That the monastery already existed in 1488 is evidenced by the reference cited by Oskian from Inčičean²⁰ regarding the problematic water supply. From then on, however, the history of the complex until the second half of the 19th century remains obscure. This also applies to the construction history, primarily for the following reasons:[15]
No excavations could be carried out that would have certainly provided more extensive information than the surface analysis.
In the entire region between Tercan and Kığı, no comparable dated examples have been preserved.
The building type of the chapel corresponds to a conception that was maintained over many centuries without significant changes.
The ornaments, which mostly appear as isolated inserted pieces, cannot serve as a basis for dating.
Written sources, especially colophons, are only partially processed and, as experience shows, hardly accessible. An exception is the excellent work by Avedis Sanjian, a selection of colophons in English translation.²¹ Unfortunately, it contains no information about the monastery complex under discussion.[15]
In view of this situation, it is gratifying that some building inscriptions dated from the second half of the 19th century, together with other references, at least illuminate this period. Among them, the most important are found in the arch field of the entrance to the monastery church or directly next to it.²²
Inscription of the arch field:
ՆԱԽԸ ԳՐԻԳՈՐ ԼՈՒՍԱՒՈՐԻՉ Է ԿԱՆԱՑՄԿՑԵԼ · ԳԴԱՁ · ՍՊՍ · ՓՈՔՐԻԿ ՄԱՏՈՒՌՍ ՄԻ ·
ԱԺՄԱՀՏՕ · ՍՈՅ ԺՈԺԱՆՈՒ ՄԿՐՏՉԻ · ԱՅՆՈՒՀԵՏԵՒ ԱՀՍՏՈՍԻ · ՇԻՆԵՑ ՄԵՕ · ՍԱ
ԵԿԵՂԵՑԻՆ: 1854
[At this place stood a small chapel dedicated to the Saints Grigor Lusaorič' (Gregory the Illuminator) and Yohanēs Mkrtič' (John the Baptist). Thereafter, an AG under the same dedication built this large church. 1854].[16]
Above it, at a prominent place between two cross-stone slabs, on the left the Armenian abbreviation "Ա" for "God"; next to it on the right the note: ԵՓՐԵՄ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏՄ ԱՇԽԱՏԱՒ: [Ep'rem va[r]dapet, Worker]. The inscription placed next to the entrance reads as follows:
ՏԷՐՍ ԵՓՐԵՄ ՎԱՐԴԱՊԵՏՄ ·ՈՐԴԻ ՕՍԵԱՆԻ ·ՈՐԴԻ ԱԴԱՄՏ·ՐՍ ԱՂՕՐ ԿԵՐՏԵԼ ՀԱՏԱԿՆ ՀԱՅՑ ԵԿԵՂԵՑՒՑ ՍՍԱԱՅՄԱՍԱՅ ԵՆ ԽԱՇԱԶՆԵԼ · ԵՓ Գ...ՆԷ ՀԱՅՐ ԴՂՈՐԴԱԼ ՍԼՍՕՐԱԼՆ՝ ԴՂՈՐԴԱԼՑ ՀԴՂՀՑ ԵՓՐԵՄ ՐԱՅԾՕՌԴԻ · ՐԳԱՄ ՕՐՕԳԵԱԼ ԱՀՍՏՈՍԱԴՌԴԻՆ · ՐԱԺՆ ՍԼՍՕՐԱԼՆ՝ ՋԵՎ ՄՕՍ ԵՆ ՍՓՈՎԵԼ ՈՐԺԱԼ Ի ՍՈՒՐԲ ՍՌԱՎԵԼՈՒՄ · 1873:
[I, Tēr Ep'rem vardapet, son of Oskean, son of Tēr Adam, have made the floor of this holy church as well as its Ħač'kal and ..... (there follows an intercession) 1873].[16]
These building inscriptions, as well as the already mentioned inscription from 1877 on the back of the small cross-stone of the triad, also authored by Ep'rem vardapet, are evidence of construction activities in the second half of the 19th century. It is therefore to be assumed that the entire complex was in a relatively good, at least functioning condition at this time. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, the monastery is listed as an intact institution in the official directory of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, compiled in 1903.²³ The rapid decline followed; in 1915 the monastery was abandoned.²⁴ For this period, Oskian already establishes the current condition: "... lies on a height of the Höôpek abandoned and without maintenance."²⁵ [16]
Turkish
editThe entrance features stones with a date of 1854 inscribed above the door, notable for their architecture and decoration. Along with the church, there is a chapel and two standing stones.[17]
The rectangular-planned church has an exterior made of finely cut stone, while the interior consists of mortared stonework. The church is entered through a round-arched door.[18]
unsorted Arm
editԱպրանք (Ապարանք) գյուղի նկատմամբ համեմատությունը՝ շեշտը դնելով բնական աճի վրա: Ըստ Գ. Սրվանձտյանցի, այդ գյուղն ունեցել է 35 տուն հայ բնակչություն: Ա-Դոն այստեղ գրանցում է 40, իսկ արխիվային փաստաթուղթը՝ 72 տուն23: Այսպիսով, 33-35 տարում աճը կազմել է 37 ընտանիք, որը թերևս ընդունելի ցուցանիշ է: https://arar.sci.am/dlibra/publication/43021/edition/38540/content https://web.archive.org/web/20250430202221/https://arar.sci.am/Content/38540/file_0.pdf
https://hy.wikisource.org/wiki/%D5%80%D5%8D%D5%80/%D4%B4%D4%B5%D5%90%D4%B6%D4%B1%D5%86_%D4%B3%D4%B1%D5%8E%D4%B1%D5%8C
Ապրանք
Հայ ընտանիքների թիվը
Թուրք ընտանիքների թիվը
https://tert.nla.am/archive/NLA%2520AMSAGIR/Handesamsorya/1989(1-12)_ocr.pdf
Gallery
edit
_near_Surb_Hovanes_Church_%5E_Surb_David_Chapel_-_panoramio_(1).jpg)
- ^ Sinclair, T. A. (1987). Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeological Survey, Volume 1. London: Pindar Press.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
virtualaniwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d Bruchhaus 2010, p. 234.
- ^ Bruchhaus 2010, pp. 235–236.
- ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
collectif2015was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
Nalcıwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Bruchhaus 2010, p. 230.
- ^ Bruchhaus 2010, pp. 230–231.
- ^ a b c Bruchhaus 2010, p. 231.
- ^ Bruchhaus 2010, pp. 231–232.
- ^ a b c Bruchhaus 2010, p. 232.
- ^ Bruchhaus 2010, pp. 232–233.
- ^ a b Bruchhaus 2010, p. 233.
- ^ Bruchhaus 2010, p. 233-234.
- ^ a b c Bruchhaus 2010, p. 236.
- ^ a b c Bruchhaus 2010, p. 237.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
tercan.gov.trwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
kulturportaliwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).