Status of monument -> National monument
Published in the „Official Gazette of BiH“ no. 88/07
Pursuant to Article V para. 4 Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 39 para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments, at a session held from 6 to 9 March 2007 the Commission adopted a
D E C I S I O N
The historic building of the site and remains of the architectural ensemble of the Serbian Orthodox monastery of Rmanj with the remains of original frescoes in Martin Brod is hereby designated as a National Monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the National Monument).
The movable property referred to in para. 1 of this clause consists of fragments of frescoes applied to a backing.
The National Monument is located on a site designated as cadastral plot no. 35/109-1, title deed no. 240, cadastral municipality Veliki Cvijetnić, Municipality Bihać, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The new monastery konak building located to the north of the monastery church, standing on cadastral plot. No. 35/109-1, cadastral municipality Veliki Cvijetnić, and the monastery church renovated in the 1980s, are not protected as a national monument by the provisions of this Decision, and the protective measures set forth in this Decision do not apply to them.
The provisions relating to protection measures set forth by the Law on the Implementation of the Decisions of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments, established pursuant to Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH nos. 2/02, 27/02 and 6/04) shall apply to the National Monument.
The Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the Government of the Federation) shall be responsible for ensuring and providing the legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary to protect, conserve, and display the National Monument.
The Commission to Preserve National Monuments (hereinafter: the Commission) shall determine the technical requirements and secure the funds for preparing and setting up signboards with the basic data on the monument and the Decision to proclaim the property a National Monument.
To ensure the on-going protection of the National Monument, the following protection zones are hereby stipulated
Protection Zone I consists of the part of cadastral plot no. 35/109-1, cadastral municipality Veliki Cvijetnić, on which the monastery church stands. In this zone:
- all works are prohibited other than research and conservation and restoration works and works designed to display the monument, with the approval of the Federal Ministry responsible for regional planning and under the expert supervision of the heritage protection authority of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the heritage protection authority).
Protection Zone II consists of the part of cadastral plot no. 35/109-1, cadastral municipality Veliki Cvijetnić, forming the site of the old monastery konak building, defined by the following boundaries: from north to south, between the monastery church and the new monastery konak, and from west to east, from the asphalt road to the west of the monastery complex as far as the first row of graves to the east of the monastery church. Within this buffer zone:
- archaeological investigative works and conservation and restoration works may be carried out, this part of c.p. no. 35/109-1 may be set in order, and works designed to present the archaeological finds may also be carried out, with the approval of the relevant ministry and under the expert supervision of the heritage protection authority.
All executive and area development planning acts not in accordance with the provisions of this Decision are hereby revoked.
Everyone, and in particular the competent authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Canton, and urban and municipal authorities, shall refrain from any action that might damage the National Monument or jeopardize the preservation thereof.
The removal of the movable heritage referred to in Clause 1 para. 2 of this Decision (hereinafter: the movable heritage) from Bosnia and Herzegovina is prohibited.
By way of exception to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Clause, the temporary removal from Bosnia and Herzegovina of the movable heritage for the purposes of display or conservation shall be permitted if it is established that conservation works cannot be carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Permission for temporary removal under the conditions stipulated in the preceding paragraph shall be issued by the Commission to Preserve National Monuments, if it is determined beyond doubt that it will not jeopardize the movable heritage in any way.
In granting permission for the temporary removal of the movable heritage from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission shall stipulate all the conditions under which the removal may take place, the date by which the items shall be returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the responsibility of individual authorities and institutions for ensuring that these conditions are met, and shall notify the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the relevant security service, the customs authority of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the general public accordingly.
The Government of the Federation, the relevant Ministry, the heritage protection authority, and the Municipal Authorities in charge of urban planning and land registry affairs, shall be notified of this Decision in order to carry out the measures stipulated in Articles II to V of this Decision, and the Authorized Municipal Court shall be notified for the purposes of registration in the Land Register.
The elucidation and accompanying documentation form an integral part of this Decision, which may be viewed by interested parties on the premises or by accessing the website of the Commission (http://www.aneks8komisija.com.ba)
Pursuant to Art. V para 4 Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, decisions of the Commission are final.
On the date of adoption of this Decision, the National Monument shall be deleted from the Provisional List of National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of BiH no. 33/02, Official Gazette of Republika Srpska no. 79/02, Official Gazette of the Federation of BiH no. 59/02, and Official Gazette of Brčko District BiH no. 4/03), where it featured under serial no. 210.
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption and shall be published in the Official Gazette of BiH.
This Decision has been adopted by the following members of the Commission: Zeynep Ahunbay, Amra Hadžimuhamedović, Dubravko Lovrenović, Ljiljana Ševo and Tina Wik.
7 March 2007
Chair of the Commission
E l u c i d a t i o n
I – INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Law on the Implementation of the Decisions of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments, established pursuant to Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a “National Monument” is an item of public property proclaimed by the Commission to Preserve National Monuments to be a National Monument pursuant to Articles V and VI of Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and property entered on the Provisional List of National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of BiH no. 33/02) until the Commission reaches a final decision on its status, as to which there is no time limit and regardless of whether a petition for the property in question has been submitted or not.
The Commission to Preserve National Monuments issued a Decision to add the Rmanj monastery near Drvar to the Provisional List of National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, numbered as 210.
Pursuant to the provisions of the law, the Commission proceeded to carry out the procedure for reaching a final decision to designate the Property as a National Monument, pursuant to Article V para. 4 of Annex 8 and Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments.
II – PROCEDURE PRIOR TO DECISION
In the procedure preceding the adoption of a final decision to proclaim the property a national monument, the following documentation was inspected:
- Data on the current condition and use of the property, including a description and photographs, data of war damage, data on restoration or other works on the property, etc.
- Inspection of the current condition of the property,
- Copy of cadastral plan
- Historical, architectural and other documentary material on the property, as set out in the bibliography forming part of this Decision.
The findings based on the review of the above documentation and the condition of the site are as follows:
1. Details of the property
The Rmanj monastery is in Martin Brod, approx. 43 km as the crow flies to the south-east of Bihać, 19 km to the west of Bosanski Petrovac and approx. 24 km north-west of Drvar, very close to the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia. The monastery, which stands approx. 30 m from the left bank of the Unac, is abouat 700 to the south-east of the confluence of the Unac and the Una. The plateau on which the monastery church was built is at an altitude of approx. 324 m. above sea level(1).
In the 1970s and 1980s a number of fish-farming tanks were constructed to the east of the monastery church. The largest of these, on a levelled plateau at an altitude of 320.90 m above sea level, measuring approx. 80 x 145 m, is about 45 metres from the church.
The Una valley is surrounded to the north-east by spurs of Mt. Osjenčica (summit 1795 m) and to the south-west by spurs of Mt. Sjenica (summit 1114 m), while to the south-east, very close to the monastery, is Očigrijansko hill (or Ćelije), and to the north-east of the monastery is Očijevsko hill (also referred to as Pogledalo).
The exact date when the monastery was founded is not known, but it can be dated to the late 15th or early 16th century.
Older documents refer to the Rmanj monastery as Hrmanj, Ajerman, Chermlja, Szermil, Hermanya, Herman(2). Three muniments(3) written in Glagolitic script, dating respectively from 1448, 1451 and 1478, refer to Rmanj as the capital town of the Lapčana(4) tribe(5).
A reference to the monks of Rmanj in the Kruševo memorial book (late 15th century) is the earliest(6) written evidence of the monastery, along with a reference to the Rmanj monastery dating from 1498, when Vojvodas Petar, Petrašanin and Vukodrag paid for an icon of the Virgin and Christ to be painted for the Rmanj monastery(7). In the summer of 1515 a silver kivot (reliquary)(8) was cast there thanks to an elder, Makarija, and a large silver chalice(9) also dates from that year, while a large silver censer dates from 1516. A monastery seal dating from 1553 has also been found(10). According to written sources(11), the monastery was set on fire in 1563. From 1566 it was the seat of the Dabar-Bosnia episcopate(12). Rmanj was the headquarters of the Metropolitans of Dabar-Bosnia for 105 years: Varlam, Aksentije, Gavrilo (Avramović), Teodor, Hristifor, Milentije, Gerasim and Gavrilo (Predojević).
Between 1548 and 1577 the Turks conquered Banija, the region between the rivesr Una, Kupa and Sava, almost as far as Karlovac(13).
All the church articles were later, in 1578, taken from the Rmanj monastery to the Marča monastery(14), "on which occasion Metropolitan Gavrilo(15) and all his monks and priest-monks, 70 in all, fled Bosnia, close to the great fort of Bihać, from the waters of Zrmanja from the Hrman monastery of the church of St. Nicholas the Miracle-Worker, and took with them all the monastery articles, books and everything else now in Marča(16).“
There are a number of references to the Rmanj monastery in the 17th century. In 1612 the monk Teodosije made a gift of a panegyric to the monastery(17).(18) A Gospel(19) transcribed in the Rmanj monastery, which was taken from Rmanj to the Marča monastery, is mentioned in the Memorandum of the Varaždin Serbs, of 23 April 1750. That year the monastery church roof was reclad with shingles(20). A monastery record housed in the Lepavica monastery recounts that a new floor was laid in the church in 1632-1633, during the time of Abbot Mihail, and that at the same time two crosses were decorated with silver, gold and precious stones(21).
In the early 17th century the Rmanj monastery became the seat of the Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia, which it remained for 110 years. The most important of these Metropolitans was undoubtedly Metropolitan Teodor, who also held the title of exarch of all Dalmatia, and who in 1615 founded the first Serbian seminary from Rmanj – the seminary in the Krka monastery.
In 1638 the monks of Rmanj, led by Abbot Kiril Nikšić and the Dabar-Bosnia Metropolitan Gavrilo Predojević, again moved away to the monasteries of Marča and Lepavina, taking the church valuables with them(22).
In 1657, at the request of one Sava Stanisalić, the priest monk Kiril Nikšić, a tonsured monk of the Rmanj monastery, transcribed a psalter(23) in Marča, but it is not known whether he was a monk in Rmanj at that time(24).
In 1663 the Turks again set the Rmanj monastery on fire; after renovations, it was reoccupied in 1737(25).
There are many references to the Rmanj monastery in the 18th century. "In 1735, its meneon(26), in 1741 an irmology was donated to it(27), and in 1741 so was a prologue(28); in 1754, thanks to Abbot Vasilije known as Tašme a prologue was acquired for it(29); in 1755 there is a reference to Abbot Vasilije(30), and in 1762 to Abbot Milentije Vukolević(31); in 1784 a kivot was donated to it (now in Krupa monastery)(32) and a chalice (now in Krupa monastery)(33).“ (34)
During the 1788-1791 war between Austria and Turkey the Rmanj monastery was again burned down, the monks fled to Lika and Dalmatia, and the monastery was abandoned for the next 78 years, until 1863(35). The monastery was repaired between 1863 and 1865: "In 1863 Deputy Gavro Vučković(36) acquired a permit from the Ottoman court to repair and renovate the monastery. Hearing of this permit, the people hastened to donate funds, and within two years the Deputy had renovated the Holy Family and in 1865, on the Dormition of the Virgin, the first holy liturgy was held in it after so many years(37).“ There is information to the effect that the monastery was repaired in 1874(38), set on fire again in the 1875/1876 insurrection, when the roof was burned down and the frescoes damaged, and renovated in 1883: "in the renovations c. 1883 all the necessary articles were acquired in quantity," and Mr. Bilbija says that this place of worship was adorned with icons and other church articles, and that it surpassed many city churches in its wealth of such articles(39)." The 1894 work by Kosta Novaković gives a detailed description of the refurbished monastery.
During World War II, on Good Friday 23 April 1944, the Rmanj monastery was bombed by the Germans and razed to the ground. The valuable frescoes in the monastery were destroyed.
In 1974, during the time of Bishop Stefan of Dalmatia, work began on rebuilding the monastery church, which was completed in the 1980s during the time of Bishop Nikolaj Mrđa of Dalmatia and Bishop Hrizostom Jević of Bihać and Petrovac.
The restoration of the monastery began 1974, during the time of Bishop Stefan Boco of Dalmatia, and continued during the time of Bishop Nikolaj Mrđa of Dalmatia and Bishop Hrizostom Jević of Bihać and Petrovac. The foundations for the new monastery konak were consecrated in 1993 and the first monk of the Rmanj monastery was admitted to the order in 1994.
During the 1992-1995 war the monastery church was badly damaged during the Storm action: the roof was shelled, the frescoes were destroyed, and the liturgical items and church books were scattered around. The monks returned to Rmanj monastery in 1998, and in 2003 work continued on the konak building, which is still inhand.
2. Description of the property
Access to the monastery complex is from the west, from the side road joining the bridge over the Unac and the town of Martin Brod. The monastery complex is surrounded by a slag concrete block wall about 2 m high to the east (by the fish farm), and by a hurdle and paling fence to the west, facing the road.
There are two surviving descriptions of the former appearance of the monastery church, one dating from 1894 and the other from 1904(40). The 1904 description, which is quite similar to that of 1894, is accompanied by a very accurate drawing of the ground plan of the church.
The 1894 description of the church(41) is paraphrased by Vojislav Matić in his work(42). Quote: "The 1894 description(43) says that the monastery church was built of dripstone and faced east, with a semicircular altar apse 3.31 m in width. The depth of the apse to the masonry iconostasis partition is 4.75 m, and the width of the entire altar area (including the proscomidion and diaconicon) is 6.93 m. The partition between the nave and the altar area consists of a wall 68 cm thick, with three openings of the same height, 1.94 m. The royal doors are 87 cm wide, and the north and south doors are 74 cm wide. The nave of the church is 5.67 m long and 6.93 m (should be 6.93, like the altar). The parvis of the church is 6.39 m long, 4.35 m wide and 5.07 m high. It was separated from the antenave of the church by a wall with a door 92 cm wide and 2.47 m high (?). To the left and right of this door were two niches. The west door of the church is 1.55 cm wide and 2.05 cm high. The outer walls of the church are 75 cm thick. The choir windows on the north and south sides of the church are 80 cm wide and 1.87 m high. The central altar window is 65 cm wide and 1.55 m high. The windows in the proscomidion and diaconicon are 50 cm wide and 74 cm high. There is a single vault above the parvis (a longitudinal barrel vault 5.07 m high), and four in the nave supporting a round dome 5 to 6 m in height. The height of the dome with its cross (on the outside) is 7 to 8 m. The dome, which is clad with sheet metal, has four windows, facing the four points of the compass, 25 cm wide and 1.50 m high. The altar apse has its own separate, lower roof, 3.80 m above groundlevel. The height of the roof above the proscomidion and diaconicon is 4.50 m and the part of the roof over the nave surrounding the dome is 6.73 m above ground level. The roof over the parvis is lower than the nave, at 3.42 m from ground to eaves, with a height to the west pediment of 6.06 m. A niche 65 cm wide and more than a metre in height has been carved above the portal at the west end.”
The church has a single nave and is rectangular in ground plan (measuring approx. 8.20 x 18.92 m on the outside), with deep rebated arches (approx. 61-67 cm deep, with a span of approx. 2.52-2.56 m) along the side walls, and a dome (interior diameter approx. 3.00 m, exterior diameter approx. 4.00 m) resting on free-standing pillars (approx. 60 x 70 cm). In terms of layout, it consists of a nave (approx. 5.46 x 6.95 m), with an altar area (approx. 2.80 x 6.92 m) and a semicircular apse (interior radius approx. 2.23 m) and a parvis (approx. 4.30 x 6.92 m). The nave is separated from the altar area by a masonry altar partition (the wall is 62 cm thick) with three round-arched passages (width approx. 37.5 p 47 cm x height approx. 2.30 m).
The church has one entrance, 1.55/1.64m wide (outer/inner masonry measurements) in the axis of the west end, with an architrave beam above which is a semicircular niche with the figure of the patron saint of the church, St. Nicholas.
The window openings, which are 1.40/1.65 m high (outer/inner masonry measurements), through which light enters the church, are round-arched, and in each case the openings in the wall are conical in shape to allow for the maximum amount of light to enter. The windows are rectangular, and arched at the top. The drum has four round-arched rectangular windows 1.55 m in height (inner masonry measurements).
The exterior of the church is simple, with the only decoration consisting of a cornice of shallow arcade niches (12 in all) below the dome cornice. The wall surfaces are not articulated.
The floors of the parvis, nave and altar area are paved with stone slabs.
A detailed analysis and the origin of the fresco ensemble of the Rmanj church were provided by Zdravko Kajmaković in two works, an article entitled "Manastir Rmanj i njegove freske" (The Rmanj Monastery and its Frescoes) in the Collected Papers of Svetozar Radojčić published in 1969, and a book published in 1971 entitled Zidno slikarstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini (The Art of the Mural in Bosnia and Herzegovina). In these works, Kajmaković says of the Rmanj church that it is the "westernmost site with Serbian frescoes in Bosnia" (Kajmaković, 1971, 111). He states that the frescoes date from the late 15th or early 16th century, and certainly prior to 1520, when these parts were conquered by the Ottomans. Further evidence in support of this assertion lies in the fact that the church was painted immediately after it was built, as confirmed by the absence of an under layer of the plaster backing, which would necessarily have been found when the church was rebuilt if it had been used for any length of time without its fresco ensemble – the porous tufa blocks must have been plastered on the inside (Kajmaković, 1969, 142).
The earliest written information on the Rmanj frescoes was provided by Kosta Novaković in the Bosnia and Herzegovina sourcebook for 1894. He surmises that the final traces of the Rmanj murals were plastered over in or around 1878. However, Zdravko Kajmaković is of the view that the Rmanj frescoes were plastered over somewhat earlier, in 1863, during a major renovation of the church. Kajmaković observes that "at the time they were plastered over, [the frescoes] were in very poor condition," and that "for the most part they were lost in the major upheavals the monastery experienced. All that survives are a few fragments in the lower zones, beneath the part that was earthed up when the floor in the prothesis and the altar conch was raised" (Kajmaković, 1971, 112).
When the demolished church was being excavated, it became evident from the excavation of the foundations and the cleaning of the frescoes that the church and the parvis were both painted at the same time. It was found that the socle was decorated with ochre-coloured pleated drapery hanging on rings from a red border. The upper edge of the drapery was decorated with three horizontal parallel lines following the pleats, and the other sections were each decorated with three semicircles facing each other, also in red. This decoration ran the full length of the socle in both the nave and the parvis.
Above the socle and the drapery, a band of floral ornament consisting of an original design ran the full length of the wall surface between red borders edged with narrow white lines. The background to this band was painted at the edges with broad brush strokes of light ochre, while the middle retained the white of the first plaster base coat. Along the middle of the band ran a dark green branch with lily-like, tendril-tipped flowers growing from it, behind which were acanthus leaves with a red circle in the middle and at the tips of the tendrils. A lily and an acanthus leaf formed the design unit, which was repeated in three different colours: dark blue, dark green and dark violet. A similar floral band, with stylized lily flowers drawn in ochre and brown line, decorated the eastern edge of the north wall of the prothesis. The western edge of the east wall was covered with a design composed of intersecting wavy lines inscribed on a chequerboard background, with yellow, pink, green and blue semicircles.
The best preserved section of the former fresco ensemble in Rmanj was on the north wall of the prothesis, where the figure of the Archangel Michael was discovered. The figure was minus its head, shoulders and left arm. The background of the fresco was green below and dark blue above. The archangel's cloak, falling in swirls almost down to the ground, was red; his armour was ochre with detailing in dark brown line; his robe below the armour was blue; his breeches were yellow with characteristic circular wrinkles at the knees; his boots were violet with beads above the central incision; and he had a pink flaming sword in his hand. The tops of his wings, too, were painted pink, and part of his hand and forearm had survived by the hilt of the sword, from which the skin tones could be deduced. Kajmaković observes that these were olive-green with an overlay of dark yellow on the highlights.
Traces of the frescoes in the apsidal conch revealed five figures of church fathers on each side of the conch. Here too there were no surviving inscriptions. The archpriests were depicted facing east, stooping slightly, holding unrolled scrolls. Parts of the torsoes of the central figures on the south half of the apse had survived. The priests were depicted cloaked in white priests' vestments decorated with red crosses inscribed in circles. Their epitrachelions were dark red or dark green, decorated with strings of pearls and ellipsoidal designs of precious stones surrounded by pearls. The hems at the bottom of the epitrachelions were decorated with pink tassels. One priest had green slippers with red appliqué work at the tip.
Not one figure or letter had survived on the remains of the frescoes in the Rmanj church that would shed a clearer light on the artistic features of the painter. Kajmaković states that notwithstanding, he was in many ways an original artist. This is suggested by the ornamental frieze with floral designs above the socle, which is not found on any other frescoes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Kajmaković's view, this can be compared only with similar instances in Zadar and Split(44). The artist depicted the Archangel Michael on the east wall of the prothesis, but in Serbian mural art the archangel would usually have featured by the entrance door, which he would protect with his sword, as a " warrior of God." Kajmaković also notes that the artist paid particular attention to the ornamentation. On the east wall, one section in the first register was reserved for a free-standing ornamental panel. The pleated drapery on the socle was finished with an ornamental band similar to that of the Papraća monastery, except that in Rmanj much more elaborate designs were used. Judging from the Archangel Michael's body, Kajmaković was of the view that the human figures were not that successfully proportioned – their legs were rather short and their trunks rather wide. Kajmaković also observed that the armour plating on the archangel's chest was painted rather carelessly and schematically. He held the view that they do not reveal the meticulous care displayed by the artist when working on the ornamental, which he even enriched with tonal values. His colour palette was a rich one – in addition to several different shades of red, he also used two shades of green, along with dark blue, pure blue (which was very seldom used at that time, almost invariably being replaced by the cheaper alternative of black), pink, ochre, grey, brown, violet, olive-green, cyclamen-purple and black.
Kajmaković states that the originality of the Rmanj artist was the result of "western admixtures to this trend of Serbian art, which reached the marginal areas of western Bosnia by a roundabout route, via central Dalmatia, in the 15th and 16th century" (Kajmaković, 1971, 115). Kajmaković also believed that the similarities between the architecture of the churches in Rmanj and Gomionica and those in Krka and Krupa could also be traced in the mural art of Orthodox churches in Dalmatia.
Kajmaković concluded that the fragments of the frescoes in the Rmanj monastery dated from the late 15th or early 16th century, and that they were the work of a distinct group of Serbian artists who, working far in the west in complex cultural and political circumstances, developed a specific artistic vocabulary within the framework of old Serbian art, thereby enriching it with yet another variant. Not a single building now survives with similar frescoes(45) (Kajmaković, 1971, 114-116).
Following the reconstruction of the church, the Institute for the Protection of the Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of Bosnia and Herzegovina introduced a number of fresco fragments into the church, mounting them on a backing with a plaster base coat and then attaching them to the wall of the church.
In August 1995, during the Storm action, the fresco fragments disappeared. All that remained was a single panel measuring 35 x 35 cm on the south wall of the church, on which rosette motifs in ochre, blue and pink painted on a darker blue background could be seen.
Icons have been mounted on the iconostasis partition. The upper register is currently covered by small icons on a backing, while the others are in tempera on wood. The latter are on loan from the Bihać Petrovac Eparchy and are not the property of the monastery.
An episcopal throne was installed in the church in 2004, the work of Zdravko Popović of Banja Luka.
The niche above the entrance door contaıns a mosaic depicting St. Nicholas. The mosaic dates from the 1980s.
About 15 to 20 metres to the north of the church, a new monastery konak has been built of brick blocks with vertical and horizontal reinforced concrete ring beams, and a tiled roof. It has a basement, ground floor, first floor and attic floor, and the building itself measures approx. 13 x 28.50 m.
There is a reinforced concrete 4 x 4 m plinth abutting onto the south facade of the new konak, intended for the new bell tower, which is to be approx. 22.50 m in height.
To the east of the church is a burial ground in active use. The oldest graves, dating from the early 20th century, are on the part of the monastery complex where the east wing of the old monastery konak used to be.
On the east side, below a wooden pent roof clad with salonite tiles, is a steep structure from which three bells are hung. The bells were manufactured in 2005 in the Kremenović Foundry in Belosavci, and were consecrated on 2 October 2005.
The bells were a private gift to the monastery. In addition, the 2004 budget of Bihać Municipality included an allocation of 3,000 KM to purchase bells for the monastery(46).
3. Legal status to date
The documentation on the legal protection of the Rmanj monastery (file, Ruling on placing the property under state protection, Ruling on entry in the Register of Immovable Cultural Monuments etc.) of the Institute for the Protection of the Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage of BiH in Sarajevo was lost during the war.
The Commission to Preserve National Monuments adopted a decision to add the Rmanj Monastery near Drvar to the Provisional List of National Monuments of BiH under serial no. 210.
The 1980 Regional Plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina listed the Rmanj Monastery as a category I cultural and historical property.
4. Research and conservation and restoration works
The work published by Vojislav Matić(47) on the works carried out in the 1980s provides a good deal of information on the reconstruction of the Rmanj monastery. The following quotations are from that work:
"The most important sources and information dictating these major reconstruction works are:
- ground plan of the church building saved from destruction in 1940, excavated and conserved 1966, and the detailed architectural drawings thereof made in 1968 and 1972.
- Photograph of the church building taken in or about 1920 (south-east side), showing the roof of the church clad with shingles.
- Photograph of the church fron the south-east just before the war (1940) with roofs clad with new rebated tiles.
- Photograph from just before the war showing detail of altar apse from the south-east.
- Engraving of the church, mid 19th century, showing the view of the building from the south-west.
- Description of the church building and numeric details provided by K. Novaković, Kratak opis protoprezviterata petrovačkog (Brief Description of the Petrovac Protopresbytery), Bosansko-hercegovački istočnik (BiH Source Booki), Sarajevo 1894, IV-V, 184-190.
- Description of the church building and ground plan of the church with numeric details provided by S. Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska Vila, Sarajevo 1904, 1 (13-15), 2 (31-32), 3 (52-54), 4 (72 -74), 7 (130), 8 (152-153), 9 (169-171), 10 (191-193), 11 (211-213).
- Details provided in writing and verbally by the investigator and conserver of the monument, Z. Kajmaković.
- Details collected by the author of this work in the field from older residents of Martin-Brod.
- Details found during excavations of the church: fragments of pendentives, parts of inner cornice of the dome, and details from test digs and soundings.“
"The reconstruction works on the Rmanj monastery were carried out in two stages. Stage 1 of reconstruction: forming the building as it was prior to destruction, given the volume of data on the church at that time. Stage 2 of reconstruction: forming the logical appearance of a mediaeval building.
GROUND PLAN – the existing data on the building, with walls more than a metre high, exterior dimensions of 8.20 m x 18.92 m and interior dimensions of 6.93 x 17.58 m, are sufficient to allow for a fully accurate treatment of the ground plan of the church. All that is missing on the architectural drawings of the excavated church is the south-west dome pillar in the nave of the building. Its existence is confirmed in a number of ways: the dome on the church in 1621, a mid-19th century engraving showing the dome, the 1894 description, and 1904 description and ground plan, and finally the descriptions provided by older residents of Martin Brod. The position of the south-west dome pillar is accurately shown on the 1904 ground plan of the church, and is determined by the remains of a pilaster on the inside of the south-west outside wall of the building. Two free-standing square pillars and the pillars set into the masonry altar partition formed a square area and provided a basis for the treatment of the dome. The transition from the square ground plan of the area below the dome to the circular plan of the dome was achieved by means of pendentives. Confirmation of this was found during the 1996 excavations in the form of a corner fragment of a pendentive made of cut dripstone (photograph).
The parvis, which is narrower than the rest of the church, was built at the same time as the rest of the church (as was confirmed during excavations). On each side of the interior longitudinal walls of the parvis are two relatively deep rebated arches, which take the load of the longitudinal barrel vault of the parvis. The north-west part of the parvis, with two rebated arches, is the best preserved part of the entire building. The perfectly regular round arches can be seen intact. They are 3.09 m in height. The division between the parvis and the antenave consists of a 2.98 m wide arch.
According to the 1894 description, there was a 70 cm thick wall here, with a 92 cm wide door. To the left and right of this door, in the antenave, were two round-arched niches, forming with the door a kind of counterpart to the three openings in the masonry altar partition. Judging from the surviving remains of one of these niches in the north-west part of the wall between the parvis and the antenave, they were 25 cm deep, about 1.50 m high, and probably about 90 cm wide. Both were painted.
The antenave, the nave with its north and south choirs, and the altar area with the proscomidion and diaconicon, form a rectangular area within the outer walls of the church, with an apse of regular semicircular form inside and out at the east end of the building. The interior width of the church is the same in all these sections, at about 6.95 m. This is the same as that given in the 1894 and 1904 descriptions.The nave and altar area are separated by a masonry altar partition with three round-arched openings. According to the 1894 description, these openings were 1.94 m high. It should be noted that this was certainly measured after the floor level in the church was raised, which means from the present floor. If this were not so, and the height of the openings in the iconostasis had been measured from the old, lower floor level, when the floor level was raised the height of these openings would have been reduced to 1.60 m, which is not very likely.
Before it was destroyed, the church had a door at the west end only. This was the only opening in the building with a flat (architraval) lintel. The width of the portal was 1.55 m and the height 2.05 m. The portal had double oak doors(48). There was a shallow round-arched niche, about a metre high and 65 cm wide, above the door, containing an icon (on metal) of the saint to whom the church is dedicated. The depth of the niche is not indicated, but would normally have been 8 to 12 cm.
The church had five window openings at the lower level, all of which probably acquired this shape during the 1883 renovations. Z..Kajmaković found that the window openings had been widened(49). The choir windows, with a decorative plaster band following the outline of the opening, are 80 cm wide and 1.87 cm high. The central window in the apse is 65 cm wide and 1.55 cm high. The windows in the proscomidion and diaconicon are 50 cm wide and 74 cm high. All these openings have round-arched lintels.
In addition to these openings, the inside walls of the building also contain six round-arched or rectangular niches, one in the south choir area, three in the proscomidion and two in the round-arched altar wall. We do not know whether there were niches in the diaconicon.
SECTIONS – the treatment of the longitudinal and cross sections and the upper parts of the vaulted areas was based on the details given in the 1894 description, statements by older residents of Martin-Brod, and a comparison with nearby monuments. The 1894 description refers to "four vaults in the main church and a round dome in the middle". This obviously refers to the section of the longitudinal and transverse barrel vaults, above which the dome was formed by means of pendentives. The recollections of older residents of Martin Brod also suggest this. When comparing some of the perspective drawings provided, they all opted without hesitation for this design. Another possible solution was that the buttresses supported the dome, but this was rejected. This design of the vaulted areas in the nave became the obvious one after comparison with drawings of nearby churches. The Krupa, Krka and Gomionica monastery churches are treated in much the same way, by cross barrel vaults, and the transition from the square to the circular planof the dome. The Vozuća, Tavna, Tronoša, Holy Trinity (Ov¬čar), Majstorovina and Dobrilovina monastery churches also have a similar design of vaults and dome resting on cross vaults.
In the parvis, the system of vaults was resolved simply. A longitudinal barrel vault rests on the rebated round arches (3.09 m in height) already described. This barrel vault is 5.07 m above floor level. In the antenave, the longitudinal barrel vault rests on two smaller, lower barrel vaults set transversally to the north and south. The vaults above the proscomidion and diaconicon are not referred to in the 1894 and 1904 descriptions of the monastery. According to older residents, they were rather higher than the altar semicalotte. One old resident, Branko Reljić, a pensioner from Martin Brod whose house is near the church, said that the vault of the altar semicalotte was "within arm's reach," even though the sheet metal roof cladding over the apse has a relatively steep fall, and suggests a higher apse vault.
FACADES – When resolving the treatment of the facades during stage 1, in addition to the ground plan of the building, the most significant information was that provided by three old surviving photographs, on which the facades, roof system and central dome can all be seen. The mid 19th century engraving already referred to, with minor deficiencies, shows the same building from a different angle. In both instances the facades are rendered, concealing the cut dripstone masonry. The side facades (south and north), are treated in unusual fashion. The outer wall of the antenave is built up to the height of the choir walls, so that instead of a system of stepped roofs, the entire central section (nave, antenave and choir areas) are under a single hipped roof from which the circular dome rises. This design is unique and original. The old builders achieved simplicity and gained time at the expense of aesthetics (the exterior appearance of the church). True to this method, the altar area outside the apse and the proscomidion and diaconicon to the side are also under a simple gabled roof instead of a system of stepped roofs. Clearly the arrangement of the roofs does not suggest the system of vaults inside the building. The parvis, with four rebated arches and a longitudinal barrel vault, has a lower gabled roof, and the semicircular apse and the round dome are clad with suitable sheet metal.
A relatively simple solution for the facades was made possible by the numeric details from the 1894 description of the monastery. The facades were measured by height, from ground level to the roof eaves. The sheet metal capping of the altar apse is 3.80 m in height, the eaves above the diaconicon are 4.50 m high, the height to the topmost eaves of the central section of the building is 6.73 m, the eaves on the parvis are 3.42 m high and the height to the roof pediment at the west end is 6.06 m. Drawing the window openings and determining their position was made easier by having the basic dimensions of the openings (choir, 80 cm x 1.87 m, central apse 64 cm x 1.55 m, and side apse 50 x 74 cm). The plastered wall surfaces had some modest decorative features. Probably when the windows were widened, a decorative plaster band was added around the window openings, following their outline, while very shallow projections were executed at the corners of the building, probably with the intention of accentuating the verticality of the facade. It is possible that the rectangular portal at the west end also acquired a plaster moulding by way of a frame at the same time. The influence of central and western Europe in the 19th century was thus reflected here by widening the openings and decorating them with plaster mouldings. There are probably only two architectural decorative features dating from the original building: a dome string course inside the building (found in the ruins of the church) and a series of shallow round-arched blind niches below the apex of the dome.
The dome, which is circular in section, had four window openings facing the four points of the compass. It is clear from these openings that the roof panes around the dome were raised in height as time passed, so that the south and north windows of the dome were closed off as a result of the roof being raised by a quarter. This came about because of the relatively shallow pitch of the hipped roof over the central section of the building. The mid 19th century engraving particularly emphasizes the shallow pitch. The windows on the dome have undergone certain alterations. It can be seen on an enlarged photograph of the church taken before the war that the narrow rectangular wooden frames were a later addition over the still narrower round-arched openings typical of our mediaeval monuments. This intervention to the dome windows was effected only on the outside, mainly to protect the interior from the elements.
Most of the details available to us, on the basis of which Stage 1 of the reconstrution was carried out, pertain to the building that finally took shape during the 1863 and 1883 renovations. We know of no major interventions to the church in the late 19th or during the 20th century. The only differences between the 1894 and the 1904 descriptions are that the wall between the antenave and the parvis was opened up and the door and two painted niches were removed. Later, in 1929 or 1930, the shingles visible on the photograph taken at that time were replaced by a roof cladding of new rebated tiles, leaving the arrangement and pitch of the roof panes unchanged. The sheet metal cladding of the dome and apse roofs was not replaced when the tiles were laid. The floors, as already explained, were not raised after these renovations.
As already noted, the second and final stage of reconstruction consisted of forming the logical appearance of a mediaeval building dating from the time of retreat in the face of the Turkish advance and retained during the Ottoman period. The interventions to be carried out during this stage are relatively simple. Inside the building, the floors should be lowered, since soundings in the diaconicon indicate they had been raised by 35 to 40 cm. This can be done only after taking a number of soundings in various characteristic places: outside the threshold of the west portal, below the new arch where the parvis and nave meet, and below the royal doors on the masonry iconostasis. It should be ascertained whether there was a step where the masonry iconstasis stands, as would be the norm, to raise the altar area by comparison with the nave. Lowering the floor in the parvis would accentuated the higher level of the surrounding terrain and require two steps to be built on the inside of the entrance portal. A simple portal and two round-arched niches also need to be added where the antenave and parvis meet. The other interventions concern the exterior of the building. The pitch of the hipped roof around the dome should be made less steep, so uncovering the two walled-up lower quarter of the south, west and north dome windows. The window openings on the east, south and north facades should be reduced in height and width and given round arches, and provided with simple wooden frames on the inside. Narrower, round-arched windows on the dome would give the appearance of the old-style loophole windows. It would also be worth covering the dome with an overhanging roof to facilitate drainage. The pitch of the roof cladding above the apse should be reduced and the eaves should overhang. All the roofs of the church should be clad with simple sheet copper, and a properly proportioned pommel with a cross should be added above the dome.“
This work provides an interesting piece of information on the exterior appearance of the church and the old monastery konak, based on the observation of an original drawing of the monastery complex dating from the late 18th century, found in the War Archives in Vienna. Quote:
"Meanwhile, there had been major discoveries concerning the church building and konaks of the Rmanj monastery. An original late 18th century drawing (1794) was found in the War Archives in Vienna,showing the Rmanj monastery, the Rmanj tower and their respective positions on the map(50). Of particular interest and value to us is the depiction of the Rmanj monastery on this original drawing, not least because it is the oldest drawing of this monastery. The ground plans of the church and of the konak, and a perspective view of the church and the konak from the north-west, were given in the bottom right-hand corner of the document. These two drawings have descriptive captions and a key:
- church built of dripstone blocks with vaulted upper surfaces and floors of red marble slabs
- monks' cells
- corn granary
- remains of old wall
The ground plan of the church on this drawing matches the basic measurements of the present-day building. There can be no doubt that it is the same. The relationship between the width and the length of the central section is identical. The width of the parvis on the drawing is slightly less, and there is no drawing of the projection of the dome and vaults. This, the oldest drawing of the ground plan of the Rmanj monastery, confirms the presence of a door between the antenave and parvis, and provides details of the flooring in the church, made of regular red marble slabs. Outside the west end, the remains of a square porch, probably made of wood, are shown in plan and elevation. The proportions of the ground plan of the church have certain imprecisions: the window openings are now shown by the narrower parvis, nor are projections of the dome and vault, although the draftsman drew them on the perspective view of the church building. This also raises the question of why the square pillars in the antenave, the masonry iconostasis and the many hollow niches in the walls of the church were not shown. One has the impression that the draftsman drew the plan of the foundation walls of the church. Then again, on the perspective drawing of the church is a vertical line separating the proscomidion and diaconicon from the nave, although it is obvious from the drawing of the plan and elevation that there was no such line.
The elevation of the church seen from the north-west provides a number of important new items of information. The west portal was round-arched, but the cut stone of the portal terminated in the top register in a point, probably under the influence of Islamic design. Earlier it was suggested that there was a window opening in the proscomidion or the diaconicon. The perspective drawing of the church shows a window opening in the proscomidion. The relatively small window openings had rectangular bands around the opening, probably formed by carving out the dripstone. There is the same decoration around the openings on the dome. A new feature on the dome is the decorative band between the blind niches and window openings on the dome.This was certainly removed during subsequent repairs.
The perspective view from the north-west shows the church building and that of the konak without their roofs. This damage to the monastery probably arose during the Austro-Turkish war of 1785. The removal of the roof panes reveals the outer side of the vaults and their presence above the parvis, nave, altar area and dome. The key accompanying the drawings says that the church was built of blocks of dripstone, while the perspective drawing shows that at that time the church was not rendered on the outside, leaving the regular dripstone blocks exposed.
An entirely new piece of information was the size of the konak building and the layout of its rooms. The explanation accompanying the drawing notes that four rooms in the konak were used as monks' cells, the largest room was used as a storeroom, and the kitchen was in the north-western part of the building. To the east, behind the konak, was a small detached corn granary. The konak, like the church building, is shown on the drawing minus its roof, so that one can see that the rooms in the konak were vaulted. A row of six posts can be seen outside the eastern part of the konak, probably the remains of a wooden porch and steps, suggesting that this side of the konak had rooms on the first floor too. One is struck by the many small openings indicated on the outer walls of the konak building. These were probably small openings with no panes, intended for ventilation and to allow a small amount of light to enter the konak rooms. All the rooms in the konak had one or two such openings.“
According to the details on the drawing(51) provided by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities of BiH in Sarajevo, made for the purpose of the reconstruction project, it is clear that the vaults above the church nave and the dome are of reinforced concrete (reinforced concrete shells approx. 10 cm thick) with horizontal ring beams set on the crown of the walls and the drum of the dome. These were executed as hidden ring beams (set inside the stone walls). In addition, another, also hidden ring beam was set in the outer walls of the church at about 1.50 m above floor level. These ringbeams were probably designed to add horizontal rigidity to the building. The floor of the church, which is stone paved, has a layer of hydroinsulation and is laid on a tampon base. The roof frame is wooden, with 10/14 cm rafters, 20/15 cm purlins, and a cladding of 0.55 m sheet copper laid over one-inch boards.
During the reconstruction of the Rmanj monastery church, conservation and restoration works were also carried out on the surviving fresco fragments that were discovered. The fresco fragments were mounted on a backing with a plaster base coat and attached to the walls of the church(52).
5. Current condition of the property
The chosen position on the location of the monastery plot, and in particular the size of the new monastery konak building currently under construction, block off all views of the monastery church, and markedly diminish the artistic value, clarity and landscape value of the Rmanj monastery.
There is a fresco fragment mounted on a 35 x 35 cm backing on the south wall of the church. This fragment is in good condition.
In August 1995, during the Storm action, the fresco fragments that had been mounted in the church when it was rebuilt disappeared.
6. Specific risks
The river Unac, which runs alongside the site of the monastery to the north, rises as the Mlin brook below Mt. Šator at an altitude of 876 m above sea level, and flows through the Pojila gorge, four valleys and another three gorves. From Drvar to Martin Brod it flows through its narrowest gorge, at a depth of as much as 350 m in places. It is 66 kilometres in length, and a fall of about 450 m from source to mouth.
On 26 September 2006, following a proposal by the Federal Ministry of Energy, Mining and Industry, the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted a Decision to declare public interest, begin preparations for the construction of hydro power facilities, the selection of strategic partners and the allocation of concessions (Decision V no. 553/06), pursuant to which the public corporation Elektroprivreda BiH allocated work in preparation for the construction of the Ustikolina, Vranduk and Rmanj Monastery hydro power plants, the Tuzla bloc 7 and Kakanj thermo power plants, and the Bugojno Ri thermo power plant.
The public corporations Elektroprivreda BiH and Elektroprivreda HZ H-B invited tenders and appointed the APET Group consortium (VATECH Hydro, ALSTOM, VOITH, SIEMENS HYDRO, POYRY, ALPINE, MAYREDER and PORR) of Austria as strategic partner for the construction of the Ustikolina, Vranduk, Rmanj Monastery and Vrilo hydro power plants
The open invitation for expressions of interest in strategic partnership to carry out new capital investment projects in the electric power section of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, published by the Federal Ministry of Energy, Mining and Industry in July-August 2006, provides the following information on the planned construction of the Rmanj Monastery hydro power plant: installed power of the hydro power plant of 2 x 36 MW, planned annual power generation of 250 GWh, height of dam 137 m, construction costs of 69.3 million Euros.
The first analyses of the energy potential of the river Unac began in 1954-1955. In the 1960s, the research was limited to studies of the hydro potential to supply the water required for the technological process of trhe operation of the cellulose factory in Drvar. Along with a study of the possibility of building a dam on the Unac, the possibility of creating reservoirs on the tributaries of the Unac – the Visućica, Drvar and Gudaja – was also investigated. As a result of these studies, the Zupnica dam was built 10 km upstream from Drvar, and a small hydro power plant (0.12 MW) was built at the source of the Baštaša in 1985.
One of the features of the river Unac is that it disappears underground and reappears above ground along its entire course, but in addition, it collects most of the water of its catchment area, with the greatest concentration in its lower reaches.
The Commission to Preserve National Monuments has requested that the relevant institutions provide a copy of or access to the study concerning the planned hydro power plant on the river Unac, but so far(53) this document has not been provided, nor is the location of the proposed dam itself known. The deep gorge of the river Unac ends about 750 m east of the site of the Rmanj monastery.
According to the information received during an on site visiton 23 February 2007 from Muhamed Ibrahimpašić, a member of the Advisory Council for the Environment of the Federation of BiH, a Regional Plan for the Federation of BiH is currently being drafted, as is a Regional Plan for the Una Sana Canton (USC). Tourism and the environment are strategic sectors for USC, and the Una National Park is the backbone for the development of tourism. According to Mr. Ibrahimpašić, as long ago as 1986 a feasibility study was drawn up for Energoinvest for the construction of the Rmanj hydro power plant on the Unac, and all the necessary investigations and measurements were conducted at that time. The hydrogeological findings were very disadvantageous: it was revealed that the limestone cliffs are highly porous and friable, and that there are numerous chasms into which the water would disappear.
III – CONCLUSION
Applying the Criteria for the adoption of a decision on proclaiming an item of property a national monument (Official Gazette of BiH nos. 33/02 and 15/03), the Commission has enacted the Decision cited above.
The Decision was based on the following criteria:
A. Time frame
B. Historical value
C. Artistic and aesthetic value
C. v. value of details
C.vi. value of construction
D. Clarity (documentary, scientific and educational value)
D. iv. evidence of a particular type, style or regional manner
E. Symbolic value
E.i. ontological value
E.ii. religious value
E.iii. traditional value
E.iv. relation to rituals or ceremonies
E.v. significance for the identity of a group of people
G.i. form and design
G.iii. use and function
G.v. location and setting
G.vi. spirit and feeling
G.vii. other internal and external factors
The following documents form an integral part of this Decision:
- Copy of cadastral plan
- Proof of title;
- Photodocumentation (all old photographs from the books listed in the bibliography; photographs of the current condition of the property taken on 22 February 2007 by Slobodanka Lalić and Emir Softić),
- (drawings from the books listed in the bibliography)
- three drawings(54) from the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities of BiH in Sarajevo (architect’s studio, chief designer Aleksandar Ninković, graduate architect; construction engineer: Ismet Tahirović, graduate civil engineer)
· drawing of north facade
· transverse cross-section 5-5 (through altar area with view of apse)
· transverse cross-section (through nave at the position of the dome)
During the procedure to designate the site and remains of the architectural ensemble of the Serbian Orthodox Monastery of Rmanj with the remains of original frescoes in Martin Brod as a national monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina the following works were consulted:
1878. Ilarion Ruvarac: Nešto o Bosni, dabarskoj i dabro-bosanskoj episkopiji i srpskim manastirima u Bosni, Some references to Bosnia, the Dabar and Dabar-Bosnia episcopate and Serbian monasteries in Bosnia), Annual of Nikola Ćupić II, Belgrade 1878, 259-261
1884. Manastir Rmanj, Vijenac infotainment issue no. 26, Zagreb 1884, XVI, 414
1899. Man Grbić: Karlovačko Vladičanstvo, (The Karlovac Episcopate) bk I, Karlovac 1899, 171-175
1894. Kosta Novaković, Kratak opis protoprezviterijata petrovačkog (Brief Description of the Petrovac Protopresbytery) Bosansko-hercegovački istočnik (BiH Source Book), nos I-V, 1894,185-187 (184-190)
1904. S. Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj (Rmanj Monastery), Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, 1(13-15), 2(31-32), 3(52-54), 4(72-74), 7 (130), 8 (152-153), 9 (169-171), 10 (191-193), 11 (211-213)
1902-1926. Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi (Old Serbian Records and Inscriptions), coll. and ed. by Ljubomir Stojanović.- Belgrade: Serbian Royal Academy, 1902-1926. 6 vols.
1954-1955. Medaković, Dejan: Beleške o srpskoj umetnosti u oblasti stare Slavonije i Hrvatske, (Notes on Serbian Art from Old Slavonia and Croatia), Starinar, official jnl of the Archaeological Institute, new series, bk. V-VI, Serbian Academy of Science, Belgrade 1954-55, 317, 324
1950. Petković, Dr Vladimir R., Pregled crkvenih spomenika kroz povesnicu srpskog naroda (Survey of Ecclesiastical Monuments Through the History of the Serbian People), Serbian Academy of Science; Special edition, bk. CLVII, Social Sciences Dept, new series, bk. 4, pp. 241-242, 448, Belgrade.
1969. Zdravko Kajmaković, Manastir Rmanj i njegove freske (The Rmanj Monastery and its Frescoes). Collected Papers of Svetozar Radojčić, Faculty of Philosophy, Art History Department, Belgrade, 1969, 133-142
1971. Zdravko Kajmaković, Zidno slikarstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini (Wall Painting in BiH), Sarajevo, 1971.
1984. Šuput, Marica: Srpska arhitektura u doba turske vlasti: 1459-1690 (Serbian Architecture during Turkish rule: 1459-1690). [French translation by Mara Kordić] Belgrade, Institute for the History of Art, Faculty of Philosophy, 1984, 119 pp,  p. with tables; illus; 28 cm (Special Edition, Serbian Academy of Science and the Arts, bk. 559, Department of Historical Studies, bk. 10) (Study, Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, Institute for the History of Art)
1984. Matić, Vojislav: Rekonstrukcija manastira Rmanj (Reconstruction of the Rmanj Monastery), Naše starine, Annual of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities of BiH in Sarajevo, XVI-XVII, Sarajevo, 1984, 201-213
2002. Ševo, Ljiljana, Pravoslavne crkve i manastiri u Bosni i Hercegovini do 1878. godine (Orthodox Churches and Monasteries in BiH to 1878), Banja Luka.
(1) Data from copy of cadastral plan.
(2) Ilarion Ruvarac: Nešto o Bosni, dabarskoj i dabro-bosanskoj episkopiji i srpskim manastirima u Bosni (Some references to Bosnia, the Dabar and Dabar-Bosnia episcopate and Serbian monasteries in Bosnia), Annual of Nikola Ćupić II, Belgrade 1878, 259
(3) “In the historical monuments of the south Slavs, bk. I, published by I Kukuljević in 1863, three muniments are published, written in Glagolitic script…”, all three issued in “Rmanji” (Ilarion Ruvarac: Nešto o Bosni, dabarskoj i dabro-bosanskoj episkopiji i srpskim manastirima u Bosni, Annual of Nikola Ćupić II, Belgrade 1878, 259, fn. 1).
(4) “In the old Lapačka county, and the Lapčana tribe is one of the oldest Croatian tribes, the main centre was probably Donji Lapac, where there was a rectangular fort with a round tower at one corner which, together with the nearby town, acquired the unusual name of Rmanj in 1449. Juraj on the Frankopan division.” (Nadilo, Branko: O utvrdama na ličkom području (Forts in the Lika area), Građevinar, 54 /2002/, 7, p. 435)
(5) Ilarion Ruvarac: Nešto o Bosni, dabarskoj i dabro-bosanskoj episkopiji i srpskim manastirima u Bosni, Annual of Nikola Ćupić II, Belgrade 1878, 259;
“...there is no doubt that in present day Martin Brod, formerly Rmanj, Ermanj or Hrmanj, there was a fortified town of the same name of which the župan [lord of the county] and castellan are referred to in 1431 and 1448 (I. Kukuljević, Acta croat, 56 and 71). The remains of a massive towwer, a few hundred metres to the west of the ruined church, are still standing in Martin Brod.” (Kajmaković, Zdravko: Manastir Rmanj i njegove freske (Rmanj Monastery and its Frescoes), Collected papers of Svetozar Radojčić, Belgrade, 1969, 134).
(6) Petković, Dr Vladimir R, Pregled crkvenih spomenika kroz povesnicu srpskog naroda (Survey of Ecclesiastical Monuments Through the History of the Serbian People), Serbian Academy of Science; Special edition, bk. CLVII, Social Sciences Dept, new series, bk. 4, p. 287, Belgrade, 1950 (The author refers to his source: Glasnik S.U.D. [Jnl. Of the Serbian LearnedSociety] 42, Belgrade)
(7) “Referred to among the articles transferred from m. Hrmanj to m. Marča, in a list annexed to the Memorial of the Varaždin Serbs of 1750. – Yr. II, 260” (Old Serbian Records and Inscriptions, coll. and ed. by Ljubomir Stojanović.- Belgrade: Serbian Royal Academy, 1902-1926. – 6 vols, 4957)
(8) kivot (Gr.) in the Orthodox church, a container with the relics of a saint; a container used to house the eucharist; also known as a ćivot.
(9) Stojanović: 1902-1926, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi III 4958, 4959
(10) D. Medaković: Beleške o srpskoj umetnosti u oblasti stare Slavonije i Hrvatske (Notes on Serbian Art from Old Slavonia and Croatia), Starinar, new series, bk. V-VI, Belgrade 1954-55, 324, fn. 25 (the author cites Vid Vuletić Vukasović, Srpski pečati u Herceg-Bosni [Serbian Seals in Herceg-Bosna], Starinar VI, Belgrade, 1889, p. 5-6)
(11) “In. 1563 the Kulinović beys attacked, plundered and torched the monastery and seized a number of villages and land. Between 1564 and 1608 the monastery deteriorated greatly. The Kulinović’s took away everything of value, and the number of monks fell to 7 to 10. Prior to that there had been about 100 monks there, and the monastery had been very wealthy.” /(S.Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, no. 10, p. 192)
(12) Petković, dr Vladimir R, Pregled crkvenih spomenika kroz povesnicu srpskog naroda, Serbian Academy of Science; Special edition, bk. CLVII, Social Sciences Dept, new series, bk. 4, p. 287, Belgrade, 1950. The author refers to his source: R. Grujić in Nar. enciklopedija itd. [National Encyclopaedia etc.] vol. 3, p.232, vol.5, p. 540. Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenačka [National Serbo-Croato-Slovene Encyclopaedia] (Prof. Stanoje Stanojević. - Zagreb: Bibliografski zavod D.D, 1925-1929 (Zagreb: Zaklada tiskare Narodnih novina). - 4 bk.
(13) S.Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, no.11, p. 211
(14) After the battle of Mohács in 1526 and the fall of Lika and Obravac to the Turks in 1528, the Orthodox population migrated to the north-west, which resulted in the founding of monasteries in the Croatian frontier region: in 1602 the Gomirje monastery was built between Senj and Ogulin, while in or about 1609 the Marča monastery was built in the Slavonia frontier region and in 1636 the Lepavina monastery between Križevac and
Koprivnica. Given its central geographical location, Marča was chosen as the residence of the new Vretanija eparchy (also known as the Marča and the Uskok eparchy), founded in 1609 by the Peć patriarch Jovan for all the Orthodox in Croatian, Slavonia, Carinthia, Styria and western Hungary. Its first bishop was Simeon, 1609-1630.
(15) Gavrilo Avramović, Metropolitan of Dabar-Bosnia from 1570 to 1588 and exarch of the Peć patriarchy for Dalmatia (D. Medaković: Beleške o srpskoj umetnosti u oblasti stare Slavonije i Hrvatske, Starinar, New series, bk. V-VI, Belgrade 1954-55, 324, fn. 24)
(16) Medaković: 1954-55, p. 324, (The author refers to Ilarion Ruvarac: Nešto o Bosni, dabarskoj i dabro-bosanskoj episkopiji i srpskim manastirima u Bosni, Godišnjica Nikole Ćupića II, Belgrade 1878, 259-261)
(17) panegyric (Gr. panégyris, the assembly of an entire people, a saint’s day rally) formal speech to the people, formal congratulatory speech in someone’s honour, a formal encomium; fig. exaggerated expression of gratitude or praise
(18) Petković, Dr Vladimir R, Pregled crkvenih spomenika kroz povesnicu srpskog naroda, Serbian Academy of Science; Special edition, bk. CLVII, Social Sciences Dept, new series, bk.4, Belgrade, 1950, p. 287 (The author refers to his source: Spomenik S.K.A. (Srpska kraljevska akademija) [Commemorative Volume of the Serbian Royal Academy] XXXVII, grade 2 - Belgrade p.144
(19) Dr. Dejan Medaković writes of the Gospel: “In 1621the “Tolkovanije Gospel”, a srbulja [mediaeval Serbian church book] was written in Rmanj monastery in Bosnia, and in 1690 the book was renovated at the expense of the Marča monastery and later transferred to Lepavina.” (Medaković, Dejan: Beleške o srpskoj umetnosti u oblasti stare Slavonije i Hrvatske, Starinar, Jnl. of the Archaeological Institute, New series, bk. V-VI, Serbian Academy of Science Belgrade 1954-55, p.326)
(20) Ševo, Ljiljana, Pravoslavne crkve i manastiri u Bosni i Hercegovini do 1878. godine (Orthodox Churches and Monasteries in BiH to 1878), Banja Luka, 2002, 280;
(21) (Kajmaković, Zdravko: Manastir Rmanj i njegove freske, Zbornik Svetozara Radojčića, Belgrade, 1969, 135).
(22) S.Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, no.11, p. 212
(23) Psalter (Gr.. psalterion) in the Orthodox church: a book of Psalms, so called because the psalms wereonce sung to the accompaniment of a psalterion or psaltery (Gr. psalterion – stringed instrument).
(24) Ševo, Ljiljana, Pravoslavne crkve i manastiri u Bosni i Hercegovini do 1878. godine, Banja Luka, 2002, 280
(25) S.Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, no.11, p. 212
(26) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi V 7703;
- Meneon (Gr. monthly) in the Orthodox church: a liturgical book containing tropars and all the hymns to be sung on feast days
- tropar (Gr. trade or craft; melody) in the Orthodox church: hymn in praise of a saint
(27) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi V 7800;
(28) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi V, 1905, br. 7703, 7800 i 7897;
- prologue (Gr. pro-logos foreword) in ancient drama: first section, played before the entry of the choir, designed to introduce the audience to the dramatic action; hence foreword, introductory section, and in particular speech to an audience before the start of a play; opp. epilogue.
- the books were donated by priest-monk Atanasije and his son
(29) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi V 8019;
(30) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi V 8043;
(31) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi V 8221, 8223;
(32) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi II 3544;
(33) Stojanović, Ljubomir.: Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi II 3545;
(34) quoted from Petković, Dr Vladimir R, Pregled crkvenih spomenika kroz povesnicu srpskog naroda, Serbian Academy of Science; Special edition, bk. CLVII, Social Sciences Dept, new series, bk. 4, Belgrade 1950, p. 287
(35) “…it was again torched by the Turks, who seized and shared out its movable and immovable property. The monks fled with the relics and other items ….The monastery’s articles were then distributed among different churches in the Lika area of Prilog.” ( S.Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, no .11, p. 212
(36) Gavro Vučković was a merchant from Bosanski Petrovac.
(37) Kosta Novaković: Kratak opis protoprezviterijata petrovačkog (Brief Description of the Petrovac Protopresbytery), Bosansko-Hercegovački istočnik (Bosnia Herzegovina Source Book), IV-V, 1894, p. 185
(38) S.Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, br.11, p. 130
(39) S.Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904, br.11, p. 171
(40) S. Tomić (Atom), Manastir Rmanj, Bosanska vila, Sarajevo, 1904,
(41) Kosta Novaković: Kratak opis protoprezviterijata petrovačkog, Bosansko-Hercegovački istočnik, IV-V, 1894, 185-187
(42) Matić, Vojislav: Rekonstrukcija manastira Rmanj (Reconstruction of the Rmanj Monastery) Naše starine, Annual of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities of BiH in Sarajevo, XVI-XVII, Sarajevo, 1984, 201-213
(43) Kosta Novaković: Kratak opis protoprezviterijata petrovačkog, Bosansko-Hercegovački istočnik, IV-V, 1894.
(44) Kajmaković cites the medallions on the Gothic frescoes of the episcopal church in Zadar, which are edged with similar ornaments, and those on the frescoes of the socle of the demolished church of St Magdalene in Stonsko polje (Kajmaković, 1971, 115)
(45) "A pink sword, all that survives of an unidentified fresco in a niche on the west facade of the Moštanica monastery church near Dubica, may be associated geographically speaking with the older frescoes in Rmanj, but it is so badly damaged that it is impossible even to hypothesize about this. In Kajmaković's view, the destroyed fresco in Moštanica was certainly of more recent date than the murals in Rmanj." (Kajmaković, 1971, 116)
(46) Official Gazette of Bihać Municipality, no. 15, 26 December 2005, p.478
(47) Matić, Vojislav: Rekonstrukcija manastira Rmanj, Naše starine, Annual of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities of BiH in Sarajevo, XVI-XVII, Sarajevo, 1984, 201-213
(48) According to Branko Reljić, a pensioner from Martin-Brod
(49) During excavations of the church it was found that the window and door openings had been widened. This can be most clearly seen from the damage to the frescoes in the apse, see Z. Kajmaković, Manastir Rmanj i njegove freske, 136
(50) Plan von Unna und Unnack, profils und prospect kula Ermain und kaludier Kioster, Kriees-archiv Wien, StiPgasse 2, G L H 159-1.
(51) Three drawings by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities of BiH in Sarajevo (no details of their exact date, but they were made during the 1980s):
- drawing of north facade
- transverse cross-section 5-5 (through altar area with view of apse)
- transverse cross-section (through nave at the position of the dome)
(52) There is no information as to whether all the fresco fragments or only some of them were returned after the rebuilding of the church and the conservation and restoration works on the fresco fragments
(53) by end February 2007 (op E. Softić)
(54) no details of their exact date, but they were made during the 1980s