Georgian Ornament - Davit Kakabadze

The subject of today’s talk is an investigation of the types of Georgian ornament: what were the existent forms from the antiquity to the 17th century, in what ways their development is manifest and what caused the decline of that kind of art.

Ornaments in Georgian art are prevalent not only in churches, but also in castles and diverse buildings. In churches ornaments adorn the exterior walls, and in ancient time, the interiors as well. In Georgian art ornament does not lose its function, as a form of decoration, and is always en place as an adornment to exterior windows and door frames, as well as to friezes and arches. Inside of the church, ornament is found in mentioned places as well as vaults (e.g. Sapara monastery, Khobi monastery). Often, the ornament expresses the compositional meaning of the church itself (as in Mtskheta). In Georgian art, ornament, as a decorative element, is central and in this sense Georgian ornament has attained an apex of its development. In general, some ornamental works are so splendidly executed that some Georgian artworks were considered as the best specimen of the Byzantine art (according to Uvarov and Kondakov, the iconostasis of Sapara monastery), though now it is obvious that those are the best examples of Georgian, not Byzantine, art. Diverse opinions have been expressed concerning the Georgian ornament. According to Kondakov, typical of ancient Georgian orna- ment are only geometrical gures and circles, while new images are gradually introduced since the 12th century, which has helped improve the Georgian ornament, - that is, vegetal and oral patterns. In the beginning of the 15th century, he adds, the oral pattern is more widespread than the braided, while this latter pattern gradually vanishes. This must also be a false assumption. On the contrary, what we encounter among the oldest signs is an imaged ornament, as in Jvari monastery, Ateni Sioni monastery and Bana. The plain braided and geometrical patterns come in later. In the 12-13th century braided and o- ral patterns become interlinked and this can be considered as the line of development of the Georgian ornament and not the extension of the types of images or the complete loss of braided pattern. As for the period of decline of art, the oral pattern is the most prevalent, the tendency we may also observe in the setting of icons.

Georgian ornament or braid, based on its visual form, can be divided in several groups: 1) oral, vegetal, depicting a ower, a leaf or some other plant-like form; 2) geometric circles, depicting diverse forms of crosses or simple circles, inter- twined; 3) intertwined geometric and oral patterns and 4) depictions of animals, birds, human gures and oral patterns – all intertwined. In most cases, oral braid is akin to lotus or acanthus ower; it is only in Jvari and Ateni Sioni mon- asteries that we nd a clover-like ornament, as for an ornament at Bana or Sapara monasteries, it re- sembles vine. Ancient ornament can be found in Akhasheni, Jvari, Ateni Sioni, Bana, Ekhevi and Dolis-qana (in Klarjeti) – all of these belong presumably to 7-9th centuries. Pattern and braid in most cases are o- ral (depicting acanthus and lotus). One braid at Akhasheni combines images of a cross and a leaf. In Jvari and Ateni Sioni, the type of ornament is clover, general shape of which is strongly reminiscent of the types of icon setting. Bana holds a special place among these images. Its ornaments resemble fruit-bearing or leafy vine. There is an image among the ornaments of Dolis-qana that bears a striking resemblance with one in Bana, though the previous is further removed from the oral image. Ornament on the door frame at Ekhevi church is very similar to a ower braid, which becomes a prevalent image in the next century, for example in Jvartamaghleba monas- tery in Katskhi (11th century). The general outline of this ornament resembles certain types of icon settings. Moulding of the gate of this church bears a cord-like ornament (twisted type).

Generally, the ornament of this period is not as complex as at later times. Mostly it is oral braid, while the geometric gures that would later become common are mostly absent (looking at the examples of this period, one can clearly see line of development in Georgian ornament): in the works of the 10th century, the development of this eld is evident. There are outstanding ornaments in the Tbeti monastery, where both oral and geometric types of braid are present. Floral braid, which adorns the pillar at the Tbeti monastery is masterfully executed and the complex nature of the braid itself shows the advance of the craft (the braid is in three lines). Yet more complex is an ornament of Ateni Sioni, where geometric and oral patterns are intertwined. Generally, isolated oral image is rare and is more often combined with the geometric braid – something we do not encounter in the previous period. A striking example of this is the pillar adornment of Tbeti monastery. It is over owed with braids of both geometric and twisted types. Geometric pattern is square, at the center of which is braid- ed or plain cross. This type of braid can often be found on windows or vaulted arches, as in Tbeti monastery, or on doors, as in Bedia monastery. This pattern is widespread and we often encounter it in the following centuries. The kind of braid that is the most typical of Georgian art is that which adorns the window frame at Tqeti. This braid consists of a circle which is twisted and braided, something we will often en- counter later (e.g. in the 13th century Mghvime monastery.) [Often, the circular images will have highly diverse paintings; no circle is repeated (as in the iconostasis at Shiomghvime monastery)]. The ornament at the top of the entrance at Bedia monastery, depicting a cross and a oral image, strongly resembles the analogous ornament at Ekhevi monastery, though surpasses it in beauty. Circular braid, which can also be found in the door frame of Bedia monastery, is another widespread patter in the following centuries. We nd the same pattern, for example, among the ruins of the bell-tower, in the window frame of Tchule monastery, at the gate of Savane monastery (11th century) and at Karzameti (15th century). Geometric braid that adorns the arches of the Bedia monastery is often encountered, say, at Zarzma monastery (11th century), which probably belongs to the 9-10th century, on the iconosta- sis at Tiri monastery (16th century) and Ghvime monastery (13th century). The ornament which adorns the frieze at Tbeti monastery is of special importance. The images is formed by several circles. The same image can be found in Nikortsminda (11th century), as well as in icon settings, e.g. in the 15th century icons of Transfiguration and Crucifxion at the Shemokmedi monastery. If we bear in mind all the above described types of ornament and also remember examples of 7-9th century art, we may begin to approximately outline the development of Georgian ornamental art. Before the 9th century, the type of ornament is mostly oral. The braid itself is not explicitly outlined and it is only after the 9th century that we begin to see, alongside the oral patterns, geometric and circular patterns and braids gain- ing a special place as a characteristic of the Geor- gian art. This characteristic is constituted in the explicitness of the braid. We see in the cases of Tqeti and Ateni that oral and geometric gures become allied and we get the third image: the intertwined oral and circu- lar patterns. In the following centuries (9-13th) this intertwining achieves the highest point of its development and this must be one of the ways in which Georgian ornament has advanced. The period between the 9th and 13th century could be recognized as the highest point of Georgian art. This craft is outstanding, technically as well as generally. Here we encounter all four types of patterns ( oral; circular; geometrical and oral circle; oral and animal images; intertwined). Outstanding ornaments adorn the 9th century Bagrati monastery in Kutaisi. Several noteworthy ornaments on pillars clearly show the develop- ment of art. These ornaments combine oral, cir- cular and animal images. Floral image resembles lotus. It is clear from these works how Georgian braid, on the path of its development, yearned to connect the oral with the circular. Noteworthy are the braids which must belong to the window of the dome and the upper part of the dome’s interior. More distinguished example of combined o- ral and circular patterns are depicted in Savane monastery (11th century). The same type is later found in Nikortsminda and Sapara monastery, though braided in a more complex manner. Ornament on the Zarzma monastery window is interesting as an example of the braid of geomet- ric circle and image. Very interesting and diverse types of ornament can be found in Nikortsminda monastery. In those ornaments we see oral, as well as plain images. These clearly represent the main line in the development of Georgian ornament, which is constituted by the connection of oral and plain braids. Example of this is the adornment of the exterior walls. The total outline of one wall bears a strong resemblance with one ornament at Savane monastery. The two ornaments are formed from several circles containing oral and plain braids, strikingly intertwined. One of them is very reminiscent of a braid that we often encounter as an isolated ornament, for example on one door frame in Nikortsminda itself , in Katskhi monastery and at the top of the door in Ekhevi church. The braid that adorns the window, door frame and the frieze of this monastery is of great interest. All these images are also found in Tbeti monastery (10th century), for example on the door frame, the same braid as on the interior pillar of Tqeti monastery. Generally, this image is very common in Georgian art – for example in the ornament of a door frame which constitutes a very complex braid (combination of geometri- cal and circular patterns), on one of the window frames of Tbeti monastery. Also worth noting is the braid on the dome window frame, made up from several intertwined circles. The frieze of this monastery stands out: it is formed of several little circles, a pattern also found in Tbeti monastery. As I have said before, the same image is there in the icon settings. Vaulted arches of Nikortsminda monastery are adorned on all sides with splendid ornaments, top and bottom parts of these arches are highly interesting and unique, prevalent in all Georgian art. In general, all abovementioned ornaments at Nikortsminda are very similar to the ornaments at Tbeti monastery. Sadly, very few cases of 12-13th century art are at my disposal. Works of this century are clearest demonstrations of the highest level attained by art during that period. A splendid iconostasis was found in Abkhazia, at the homeland of Voronov. Ms. Uvarova attributes it to the 12th or 13th cen- tury. This ornament represents an image of inter- twined oral and plain braids. The two elements are perfectly combined, giving the work a uni ed character, a depiction at the same time complex and simple. All the characteristics of this ornament are typical of Georgian ornament, more speci cally of the braid. Of equal interest is the adornment of Ghvime monastery, which probably dates in the 13th century. In most cases, this adornment is of plain (geometric) nature. Unfor- tunately, I have no characteristic examples of this monastery. Now, if we bear in mind all the types of ornament that adorn Tqeti, Nikortsminda and other monasteries, we shall clearly see the development that I was talking about. The 12-13th century nearly ends the development of the Georgian ornament. Ornaments of this period are characterized by splendid expressivity and execution, not infe- rior in beauty to the art of any other nation. 13th century gives us nothing further; on the contrary, the beauty present in the 12th century art is missing here. Art of this period has an almost degraded quality. Good example of this is Ghvime monastery. Monastery ruins in Karzmeti, probably dating back to the 14th century, is adorned with beautiful ornaments. Worthy of close attention are the ornaments that adorn the door frame (if we take notice of the ornaments at Sapara monastery, which, according to Brosset, date to 1309, while Bakradze attributes them to the 11th century). Imagery of these ornaments is indistinguishable from the ornaments of the past centuries. It is formed from plain circle and braid. One of them constitutes the image of intertwined circle and cross (the general character and the braid are strongly executed), while the second image is found in the 10th century art, as on the door frame at Bedia monastery. If we take a close look at those ornaments we shall see that in terms of quality they are in no way inferior to the works of 9-12th centuries. At the same time, if 13th century presents us with almost a decline of art, 14th century could be considered as the age of rebirth. The instance of this rebirth is equally evident in the icon setting, something I have mentioned in my frst talk concerning this subject. Of special importance is the iconostasis of Sapara monastery (XXXIII), which, according to Brosset, dates to 1309, while Bakradze attributes it to the 11th century. Both Uvarov and Kondakov doubt that it belongs to Georgian art, attributing it in- stead to the Byzantine. But theirs must be a false assumption, for we see a large amount of such images in Georgian art. For example, in the exterior decoration of Svetitskhoveli in Mtskheta, or on the iconostasis of the same church, or else in Gudarekhi and so forth. The character of this ornament is the best exam- ple of the Georgian braid. It constitutes a combination of oral image, a circle and a braid, which relates it to Georgian ornament in general. The general visual character and the technical skill involved attain the highest point of beauty which must have been the reason of its false attribu- tion by some to the Byzantine art (like Kondakov claiming that it was done by the Greeks). Ornament which is formed from two rows of circle strongly resembles the icon settings, only the splendidly worked braid is unique to it. The type of leaf does not resembles lotus or acanthus, but rather vine, this bringing it closer to the icon set- ting. Floral braid, which is made of an image of cross and which is found in one of the north windows at Svetitskhoveli, is of a vine type. In general, it is worth noting that the general characteristic of this iconostasis can be found in the ornamental works at Mtskheta and the braid on iconostssis in both monasteries is of the same kind. Thus we conclude the description of the nest examples of Georgian ornament, those explicitly showing how the braid has attained this marvel- ous stage of its development. Characteristics of the 15th century ornamental art is already strikingly di erent from the ornament of 9th, 12th or 14th century. Explicit depiction of the braid and the combination of oral and simple braid – the elements that typify the best examples of ornamental art, - gets somewhat confused in the 15th century. For example, ornament in Svetitskhoveli is mostly oral (vege- tal). Type of ornaments in this century is almost old and the sole di erence is in their execution and interrelation. Exterior adornment of Svetitskhoveli must date to the 15th century (but it is also doubtful that all the ornaments belong to the 15th century). The general type of these ornaments remind us of those at Tbeti, Nikortsminda etc., where the braid holds the central importance. Here we nd the oral – say, on the north and south window frames – as well as the plain cord-like braid. There also is a oral ornament, which has no braid at all. Some types of ornament remind us of icon setting, while some others are the examples of 10th century. The ornament of iconostasis, as I have mentioned before, strongly resembles one ornament of iconostasis in Sapara monastery. The ornament of the exterior vault is similar to that of Mtskheta monastery. In general, these ornaments have solid appearance and might hold an important place in Georgian art. Based on an example of the 16th century, one can observe the decline of art. Adornment of the churches is very poor and lacks the character that was so striking in the previous centuries. Technical aspect is equally weak, this becoming more evident in the 17th century examples. Although some ornaments retain the old characteristics, we may also discern the appearance of brand new images. Ornaments of the church in Vale village date to the 16th century. These are very di erent from any above described type and represent anoth- er type of ornament. The type is oral, while the Georgian braid, typical and unique characteristic of Georgian art, is completely missing. This type of ornament can be found in frescoes and in icon settings of 15-16th century, and it demands an extensive study of its own. Ornament on the iconostasis in Tiri monastery belongs to the 17th century. The type belongs to the 14th century, while the technical aspect is very weak. This iconostasis incorporates the general top of the pillar as a special type in place of the pillar. This proves how diminished the state of art was in the 17th century. The clearest sign of this is when any given image or ornament loses its function. Generally, based on 17th century art, one can see that Georgian art loses the rich and beautiful ornamental character which existed in 11-12th century, which only proves the downfall of the Georgian art. Noteworthy are the ornaments to be found in Tiseli monastery, on the bell-tower of Tchule monastery  and othersthough dates are unknown. But those ornaments provides us no new type, belonging rather to the di erent ages. I have said nothing of the vaulted arches in the descriptions above. From the examples that I have I would be unable to deduce the general characteristic. I can barely draw a few conclu- sions. Vaulted arches are formed by two, three or more rows. Top and bottom parts of the arch only get the ornamental adornment during the general development of art. As we may see from certain examples (Nikortsminda), vaulted arches were also adorned with ornaments. Top parts of arches in Nikortsminda, Ikorta and Bagrati mon- asteries may be the best examples among Georgian art. Noteworthy are the top parts of the arches in Bana monastery, distinguished with their out- standing ornamental adornment. Here I conclude my talk about the Georgian or- nament. Based on the examples that we have discussed above, we can draw the following conclusion: the oldest form of ornament, from 7th to 9th century, is oral, though in some cases we also encounter geometric forms. Braid is not as complex as in the following centuries. Beginning with 10th century, art makes a great leap forward. We nd not only oral types of images, but also geometric and simple braid. The braid itself becomes more complex and attains the apex of its development in 12-13th century. Characteristic of this age is the approximation of the oral and simple braid. The general characteristic of these works is highly complex, though, at the same time, it doesn’t lose the fresh expression. Ornamental art of this time, with its outstanding characteristics, is not inferior to the art of any other nation. The art of 13th century provides no novelty, re- peats the images of the previous century this too, in some cases, is very poorly executed. The art in general shows the state of decline. 14-15th centuries can be considered as a renaissance of Georgian art. Works of this period are in no way inferior to those of 11-12th centuries. Types of oral as well as simple braid appear, though the rst is more common than the second. 16th century marks the beginning of the down- fall of art. The technical skills involved are strongly diminished. Types are sometimes those of old braid, while others represent a new type – in most cases it is oral (typical of frescoes in Georgian art). It is worth noting that we encounter the similar types in the 15-17th century icon settings and a new study of fresco ornaments is needed for investigating this type, which would set us on a brand new path.

Understanding of this type would give us a lot, but unfortunately I have a few examples at my disposal; nor are there more than that to be found in publications.