How the Restoration of Gelati Became a ‘Mission Impossible’

By Tamuna Kimadze

In February, a storm swept through Imereti. Due to heavy snowfall and strong winds, water infiltrated two churches in the Gelati Monastery complex. As a result, the medieval world-renowned artwork was once again damaged.

In March, British art restoration specialists visited Gelati to assess the situation, initiate preliminary interventions in critical areas, and plan future work. Their current mission is to save the damaged frescoes of Gelati.

On the morning of March 12th, Lisa Shekede and Stephen Rickerby answered questions from gathered Georgian journalists in the Gelati courtyard with the help of a translator. As soon as we had the chance, we spoke with both of them, asking a few questions about their mission. However, they responded with brief and neutral answers. We had hoped for an extensive interview, as we had been covering the situation at Gelati since 2020 and had accumulated many questions about the monument’s current issues.

[Dynamics of water deterioration, photo: Report of the Gelati Rehabilitation Committee]

When we requested a more in-depth interview at a later time, Shekede and Rickerby told us that it depended on Priest Kirion, stating, “We listen to him, and if he permits, we won’t object.”

Kirion Oniani is the Deputy Chairman of the Temporary Committee for Gelati Rehabilitation. He is also the Archimandrite of the Monastery of David Gareji and the Deputy Head of the Patriarchate’s Office for the Protection and Retrieval of Sacred Relics. Since April 2023, Kirion Oniani has taken charge of resolving Gelati’s problems, with a promise that the Patriarchate would make the process as transparent and open as possible.

Priest Kirion observed our five-minute conversation with the British specialists from about 20 meters away in the Gelati courtyard. After speaking with the specialists, we engaged in a conversation with him. After a half-hour dialogue, we had the impression that he was not opposed to sharing information. He also told us, “These are difficult days of fasting; contact me a bit later, and we’ll arrange a full interview.”

Based on this understanding, we reached out to him three weeks later. Priest Kirion no longer answered our calls. We then sent an email to the Gelati Rehabilitation Committee, requesting their assistance in arranging an interview with the British specialists.

“…Mr. Stephen and Ms. Lisa have declined to give extensive and individual interviews… They believe that they do not wish to discuss past interventions and are focused on the current challenges. They are open to a joint-public interview with journalists, as took place on March 12th…” the committee responded.

This situation struck us as unusual. Therefore, before publishing the article, we contacted the British specialists via their emails and sent them our questions in writing. Two days later, we received a response:

“There is a time and place to discuss the Gelati rehabilitation project. We will be happy to respond when the appropriate time comes, but we do not intend to answer unwelcome questions via email. Therefore, please refrain from contacting us in this manner.”

They also added that, for transparency, they had sent a copy of this correspondence to Priest Kirion and the Gelati Rehabilitation Committee.

We are unsure what kind of transparency the British specialists are referring to—perhaps the transparency in their dealings with the Patriarchate. However, using the word “transparency” about Gelati seems as absurd to us as the sight of the blue tarp draped over Gelati’s roof. Over the four years we have worked on this topic, many things related to Gelati have been far from transparent.

When the Ministry of Culture was responsible for Gelati’s rehabilitation, they did not answer our questions or share public information. Now that the Patriarchate has taken over, many questions remain unanswered, and obtaining information critical to the public requires significant effort from journalists.

As a result, it is still not entirely transparent what the current state of the medieval artwork is, what exactly the British specialists are doing or planning to do to save it, and how successful their efforts will be.

We have made every effort to piece together information on these issues from various documentary sources and sought opinions from both Georgian and foreign specialists. Below, we share all the details we gathered during the seven-month period we spent working on this article. During this research, we were the only ones who managed to speak with the Italian specialists who worked at Gelati in 2021-2022 under the commission of the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation.

We conducted a four-hour interview via online call with four representatives of the ” Association  Giovanni Secco Suardo”. They told us how they arrived in Gelati, the situation they encountered, what they did, and how they were forced to leave Gelati urgently in late September 2022 under completely unclear circumstances.

Since their departure until this spring, the artwork at Gelati was only being monitored and studied, with no actual work done to reinforce it. However, both the Italians during our interview and the Georgian specialists agree that during this period, the artwork at Gelati required active care, not just observation.

Currently, the British specialists are not touching the scenes that their predecessors, the “Suardo” team, worked on. During our conversation in the Gelati courtyard, Archimandrite Kirion told us that the artwork needs to deteriorate completely, so they can see the full extent of the regression, and only then will they intervene.

“They identified 21 critical locations where urgent intervention will now take place. Some of [the Suardo team’s work] has been marked as damaged, but they are not touching it because it would make things worse… They say it needs to stabilize in its regression, so they can see where it stops, and only then begin treatment… We want to act quickly, but the specialist explains—look what could happen? If we wait for it to stabilize, maybe 40 percent of the fresco will remain, but if I start intervening now, it could drop to 5 or 10 percent,” Archimandrite Kirion told us.

“It’s not just 21 locations that are critical. The entire wall’s artwork is in a critical state, including the mosaics. We found the artwork in such a terrible condition that no one else had ever seen it like this… The situation was very bad; pieces of the wall paintings were literally falling off the arches, so we began conservation, reinforcement, and preservation. The Ministry of Culture commissioned us to carry out urgent, emergency work, and Alessandro Massari studied every possible intervention step by step,” the specialists from the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” association told us.

Detachment of portions of plaster due to the failure of the protections ( stucco curbs) September 2021, Photo: “Suardo” report

“Our primary focus is not on the western arm of the church [where the Suardo team worked]… At this stage, that’s how it is. Of course, this will be a years-long process, and everything will need to be addressed step by step. The main thing is to first solve the roofing problem. We have to be systematic in everything, and it’s not worth rushing or undertaking thoughtless activities… As Father Kirion mentioned, there is currently no conservation intervention on the Suardo’s work, except for the superficial removal of salts…” explained Mariam Sagharadze, a specialist in wall painting and cultural heritage conservation, who was invited by the Patriarchate to work at Gelati.

“What do you mean, they don’t plan to intervene? If you’re a restorer, what else are you supposed to do? We’re not children! We understand that money is allocated to save the parts or fragments of the artwork that were damaged by rain, and to at least conserve what’s left. If you’re not doing that, what’s your purpose? Someone needs to explain this to me… Are you just going to watch as the artwork falls apart and announce to the public—look, it’s crumbling?” expressed Merab Buchukuri, unable to hide his frustration. Buchukuri worked on the Gelati artwork with the Italians in 2021-2022. He is a master restorer of the highest category and heads the department of easel and monumental painting restoration at the Tbilisi Theological Academy and Seminary.

Art historian Mzia Janjalia is also concerned that the British specialists do not intend to touch the work done by the “Suardo” team. In her view, this decision could lead to the destruction of those sections of the artwork, placing responsibility on the Gelati Rehabilitation Committee.

“The easiest way out is to say you won’t touch it, but that’s the worst thing for Gelati and for us. In this case, there’s a real risk of loss, and the parties will end up blaming each other… The responsibility here lies with the committee, the body managing the project. If whatever is supposed to fall off will just be allowed to fall, then why is there such extensive involvement? The new team might not find it appropriate to interfere with others’ work, but the Georgian side has an obligation to demand a detailed justification and to think about solutions. At the very least, there is an international council for that purpose.”

This conflict could be fatal for Gelati’s unique artwork. There is a risk that we may partially lose 16th-century scenes like “The Washing of the Feet,” “The Last Supper,” and “Christ Before Caiaphas.”

“The Washing of the Feet”

“Christ Before Caiaphas”

“The Last Supper”

The “Suardo” Era at Gelati: How the Italians Worked on the Artwork

In June 2021, the Ministry of Culture invited two groups of Italian specialists to save the artwork at Gelati.

The first group, “Restaureres,” was tasked with addressing structural and architectural issues within the Gelati Monastery complex. This group was led by Professor Ugo Tonietti from the University of Florence, who was invited by UNESCO.

The second group, “Giovanni Secco Suardo Association,” has been working on the restoration and conservation of cultural heritage since 1991. In addition to Italy, they have undertaken projects in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. They were invited to work on the damaged artwork at Gelati based on a recommendation from Ugo Tonietti. The team consisted of six conservator-restorers, a hygrometry expert, a conservation scientist-chemist, a petrographer, and an art historian.The Italian specialists were joined by Georgian specialists, led by Merab Buchukuri, under the direction of Mario Pulieri.

Here are the CV’s of the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” team members, which they sent to iFact.

The National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation signed a total of six contracts with the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” association between 2021 and 2022. Their tasks included studying the painted layers of wall paintings, plaster, and salt deposits, conducting test stabilization of unstable areas, planning microclimate monitoring, assessing the overall situation, and providing future recommendations. The Georgian restorers’ group, led by Merab Buchukuri, collaborated with the “Suardo” team.

“Giovanni Secco Suardo” worked on four scenes in the western arm of the main church:

Additionally, they focused on part of the Gethsemane scene and the area surrounding the cross in the upper section of the vault.

“None of the scenes were fully completed; we prioritized based on urgency and necessity… Ultimately, full conservation was not carried out. We managed to work on only 20 percent of the western arm and perhaps 5 percent of the entire church. We did not touch the other walls,” Merab Buchukuri told us.

Their work was evaluated at various times by different groups. The work and methodology of the Italians were assessed by the Chubinashvili National Research Centre, experts invited by the Patriarchate, and other international experts, including those from UNESCO.

In February 2022, UNESCO’s advisory body, ICOMOS, positively evaluated the work of the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” mission at Gelati. They approved the methodology developed by the Italians and recommended that the work continue. The Ministry of Culture highlighted this conclusion on their Facebook page:

“ICOMOS demands that the Italian specialists continue their work; it agrees with the recommendations of these experts, which are based on studies of the causes of the damage and laboratory research, especially given the highly critical condition of the wall paintings. It recommends that Georgia conduct identical expert assessments on all other parts of the church’s wall paintings,” the Ministry wrote on February 10, 2022.

We obtained this ICOMOS report directly from the Italians. However, this document is not publicly available on the Gelati Rehabilitation Committee’s website, as if it does not exist at all.

Instead, the site features reports that criticize the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” association. For instance, there are evaluations from the Chubinashvili National Research Centre, experts invited by the Patriarchate, and the British specialists currently working at Gelati, Shekede and Rickerby, dating from 2021.

These documents state that the “Suardo” methodology was flawed, premature, and inconsistent with international standards and that the materials selected were incompatible with the original artwork. There was particular criticism of the color restoration process using watercolor.

“…Intervention by restorers on the original plaster, replacing historical reality with their own interpreted reality, essentially amounts to falsification of the artwork and damages the appearance of this World Heritage site,” reads the January 2023 report from the Chubinashvili Centre.

The international advisory council invited by the Patriarchate also disapproves of the materials and methods used by the Italians, considering them incompatible with Gelati’s artwork. They criticized the use of acrylics, nanomaterials, silicates, phosphates, and oxalates.

“The proposed emergency interventions are concerning; this relates to the planned actions—such as the scale and extent of flake fixation, reinforcement/consolidation, salt reduction, injection, and edge stabilization, as well as the proposed materials and methods,” reads the 2022 report.

However, nothing is specifically said about what alternative materials and methods the Italian specialists should have used when working on Gelati’s damaged painting.

The work of “Suardo” is also criticized by Mariam Sagharadze, a Georgian specialist in painting conservation invited by the Patriarchate. According to her, the Italians carried out conservation work on the damaged artwork instead of emergency interventions, which she believes was premature:

“There are certain areas where toning and color have been applied, which in no way falls under emergency interventions… They performed full conservation-restoration on the upper level of the western arm’s vault… Since the structure was not fully dried out, and we did not know how the salt crystallization-melting process was unfolding, the conservation interventions on the surface were ineffective and made things worse… These areas are still experiencing losses because the underlying cause of the damage has not yet been eliminated. This is exactly what we have been working on for so long.”

The work of the Italians was also assessed by a joint UNESCO advisory mission. According to the report, there were no objections to the results of the test work conducted by “Suardo” in May-June 2021. However, in the next report published at the end of 2022, the Italian group’s techniques and materials used for conservation were criticized.

For example, the idea of using nano-lime was approved, but the reinforcement of the painting with synthetic polymers was deemed risky: “It may lead to the formation of a waterproof layer on or beneath the painting.”

Archimandrite Kirion also identified the use of polymers as the main mistake made by “Suardo.” During our conversation in the Gelati courtyard, he told us:

“Polymers and acrylics [were a mistake]; the materials they used sealed the layers. ‘Suardo’ and Tea [the Minister of Culture, Tea Tsulukiani] made a mistake by not listening… [The British specialists] they were telling them—stop, you’re moving too fast, incredibly fast. There were meetings about this; they met with the Ministry and talked to them. After conducting just three days of research, they started large-scale emergency work based on that short study.”

Merab Buchukuri responds to the criticism as follows: “When someone says that the use of polymers is not acceptable, ask them—then what is? This is the only material that is used worldwide. However, a restorer needs to understand where and how much to use… At one of the meetings in the Patriarchate, Priest Kirion said, ‘Who even uses this anymore?’ In 2019, the British  [specialists invited by the Patriarchate] worked on Gareji with the same material, which I don’t dispute. However, it was used unprofessionally, with a high concentration.”

The “Suardo” specialists used a toning technique to restore color to the damaged artwork at Gelati, highlighting lost colors with watercolor. Art historian Mzia Janjalia notes that while this approach is acceptable for some representatives of the Italian school, the Georgian conservation school, art historians, and many other international conservation schools view it as a serious issue.

“This type of restoration compromises the authentic appearance of the artwork. Such a decision should have been made only during the final stage of the work, during the presentation of the artwork, and only as a subject of discussion with the broad involvement of art historians. However, it was unimaginable to me that they did this autonomously and on walls that hadn’t dried. It was obvious that the goal was to quickly cover up and hide the damage, which is no longer just conservation—not even restoration,” Janjalia told us.

Merab Buchukuri, however, believes that toning cannot be the reason for either saving or losing the damaged frescoes at Gelati. He explains that it was a one-time procedure, used temporarily as a presentation sample and that the Italians had stated they would remove it if the method was not accepted.

“I said immediately that they were not ready for this, but for presentation purposes, what’s the harm? Toning means applying color to the part of the plaster you have restored using high-quality watercolor paints. If you want, you can wipe it off with a damp sponge right before your eyes, and the toning will be gone… This is an aesthetic aspect… Returning [toned artwork] to its original state is painless,” says Merab Buchukuri.

The on-site conservation team explained that this treatment was conducted as a sample to better understand future possibilities for ensuring the legibility of the artwork. This watercolor-based treatment is reversible. However, it seems that the need for such an intervention has now been completely ruled out, especially considering that changes and deterioration in the paintings are still ongoing. “Such treatment is not advisable at this time,” states the UNESCO joint advisory mission report from November 28 to December 2, 2022. By that time, “Suardo” had already left Gelati.

“Suardo” was not the first to use the toning method on the Gelati paintings. Evidence of this is found in the April 2020 field inspection report prepared by the Commission of the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation. One of the authors, Mariam Sagharadze, writes that in April 2020, traces of earlier interventions were noticed on the southern wall of the western arm:

“…Salt efflorescence is mostly observed on the restoration material used during the previous intervention (filling and toning). Notably, the salt efflorescence on the gray filling is causing the material to flake off,” the report states.

How “Suardo” Responds to the Criticism

We spoke with the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” team in December 2023 and July 2024. They provided a detailed account of the situation they encountered at Gelati, the measures they took to save the artwork, and their interactions with the Georgian side—the Patriarchate and the Ministry. Lanfranco Secco Suardo, Marco Pulieri, Alessandro Massari, and Lorenzo Budello also shared their arguments against the criticism directed at them.

They explained that they were called to Gelati to save the artwork in an emergency, arriving urgently and tasked with making immediate interventions. For this reason, they believe it is incorrect to claim that they were conducting full conservation and damaging the artwork.

“Our missions were very short-term… These were, in fact, emergency interventions because the focus was on saving the artwork, not on long-term conservation or an extended project. We didn’t have the opportunity for that…” said Marco Pulieri, a specialist in wall painting conservation.

“We were already preparing for a calm, long-term period, which would have been a 10-year conservation project if we had been given the time and resources… For example, the restoration of Leonardo’s ‘The Last Supper’ took 20 years, and that’s just one scene. Gelati could not have been done in two or three visits,” said Lanfranco Secco Suardo, president of the “Suardo” association.

Since April 2023, after the Patriarchate officially took over the Gelati rehabilitation process, regular monitoring and studies of the church’s damaged artwork began. This process was led by a group of Georgian specialists commissioned by the Patriarchate. In 2023, they prepared seven reports on the monitoring and study of the artwork.

The documents indicate that in the western arm of the main church—where “Suardo” worked—the damage to the artwork continues, and there are risks of further deterioration.

“The dynamics of the damage put the artwork at risk of loss… Such areas of concern are evident in the zones where conservation interventions were carried out in 2021–2022, as well as in the parts of the western, northern, and southern arms where no intervention appears to have been made in recent years. In these sections, both the plaster and the painted layers are damaged,” reads the April-May 2023 monitoring report on the state of the wall paintings, prepared by order of the Patriarchate.

Merab Buchukuri does not agree with the criticism directed at “Suardo,” suggesting that they are partially responsible for the worsening damage to the artwork. According to him, the problem lies in the fact that during the year and a half between “Suardo’s” departure and the arrival of the British specialists, the Patriarchate only monitored the damaged artwork without physically intervening to save it.

Merab Buchukuri responds to the criticism by stating: “We have documentation of what we left behind when we exited, and we take responsibility for what we did. I hold them accountable—if something was deteriorating during the monitoring, why didn’t they sound the alarm, even regarding our work? We all agree that the walls weren’t dry. The restoration methodology couldn’t achieve a final result because further intervention was necessary after the walls dried… Monitoring doesn’t mean just noting how bad the previous restorers were. If Buchukuri and Suardo didn’t know something, you’re there to document it—this is damaged, but I will fix it.”

The “Suardo” specialists did not start their work at Gelati with a clean slate. As they recall, they encountered traces of previous interventions on the damaged artwork, which they had to address.

“We found traces of old interventions near the arch and the cross—fragments that had been replastered and repainted in an intense blue. Some of these interventions were covered with terrible plaster that was completely incompatible with the artwork. The original painting was trapped beneath it, and we managed to bring it back to light,” the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” association told us.

Over the past six years, other groups besides “Suardo” have also worked at Gelati. For example, in 2021, the Technical Research Center for Painting “Bethania,” led by art historian Nana Kuprashvili, worked on the damaged paintings at Gelati under the commission of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency. They performed test stabilization on critically unstable areas—small fragments of the “Saint Marina Chapel” and parts of the “Washing of the Feet” and “Last Supper” scenes. “Suardo” also worked on these latter frescoes.

Additionally, the Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency’s team was involved in monitoring and removing crystallized salts at Gelati in 2020-2021. Mariam Sagharadze, a specialist in wall painting conservation, was part of this effort.

“We mainly observed the salt cycle—when it dissolved, when it crystallized, and how this process of dissolution and crystallization caused the periodic deterioration of the wall paintings,” Mariam Sagharadze explained during a phone interview.

Under What Circumstances Was “Suardo” Forced to Leave Gelati?

The team of specialists from the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” association was abruptly ordered to stop their work on the damaged artwork at Gelati on September 30, 2022. In an interview with iFact, the “Suardo” group recounted in detail the scene of their expulsion from Gelati. It turned out that Archimandrite Kirion and the Patriarchate’s spokesperson, Andria Jaghmaidze, were the ones who made them leave. At that time, the Patriarchate technically had no authority to intervene in the process, as the work was being carried out under the commission of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Agency.

“Archimandrite Kirion and another priest climbed up the scaffolding… They started yelling at us, and Buchukuri tried to calm them down, but they kept shouting. They didn’t try to understand the situation or listen to anyone’s opinion. Then someone named Kakha [Kakha Sikharulidze, Deputy Minister of Culture] called and said that the work needed to be stopped. It was midday, and I thought we would continue the next day, but we never went back after that…” recalled Lorenzo Budello.

“They sent us to the airport so quickly that we couldn’t even pack up our belongings or tools… They later sent them to us. On the way, we received an email stating that the work had been suspended at this stage, pending the well-known UNESCO report. They rushed us to the airport as if our very presence in Georgia was dangerous,” the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” specialists recounted.

“This incident was insulting not only to the Italians but also to us… Priest Kirion and Jaghmaidze came and asked, ‘Who gave you permission to work?’ I told them that the state had given us permission. ‘Why didn’t the Church know?’ they asked. I replied that Bishop Shio knew—I had sent him the documents, and a representative from the Patriarchate’s Architectural and Restoration Council had visited the site three times. I later learned that stopping the work was also a directive from Bishop Shio, so we stopped… Our four-month contract was terminated after two months,” recalled Merab Buchukuri, the head of the Georgian team, about the events of September 30.

As we found out, the expulsion of “Suardo” from Gelati was not a unanimous decision between all the Patriarchate’s groups and the Ministry of Culture. Although Archimandrite Kirion and Andria Jaghmaidze forced the Italian specialists to leave, this was not the desire of Culture Minister Tea Tsulukiani and the Patriarchate’s Council of Architecture, Restoration, and Arts, headed by Metropolitan David (Abba) of Alaverdi.

“When they left the job, it was not agreed upon with us [the council]… The Patriarchate issued the blessing or order that the work should be stopped. In the Patriarchate and on all its premises, decisions on such matters are made only in consultation with the council. Since there was no agreement with us, the answer is clear—we did not agree with the decision, and therefore… There were two joint council meetings with Bishop Shio and Minister Tsulukiani. The positions could not be clarified there, and then the council did not intervene further in this matter…” Metropolitan David (Abba) Alaverdeli told us in a phone conversation.

During the Italian mission, Metropolitan Alaverdeli visited Gelati several times to observe the ongoing work and, as it turns out, did not notice any significant problems.

“We never had direct communication with the Patriarchate, even though we wanted it and requested it several times. The only exception was when we met Metropolitan David of Kakheti [Alaverdeli] on July 27, 2022, who was completely satisfied with our work,” the “Giovanni Secco Suardo” specialists told us.

“Metropolitan David visited Gelati three times, spoke with the Italians through a translator, received comprehensive answers, and left satisfied,” Merab Buchukuri also confirmed Alaverdeli’s presence in Gelati.

“I climbed the scaffolding three times… What questions could I have about the methodology? I asked questions that came up during our conversations, and they answered accordingly. So, I had no suspicion that something was being done wrong there,” said Metropolitan David (Abba) Alaverdeli.

We wanted to hear directly from those involved in “Suardo’s” expulsion about why a group within the Patriarchate made this decision unilaterally.

Archimandrite Kirion Oniani did not respond to our calls, and Andria Jaghmaidze sent brief replies via WhatsApp, redirecting us to Kirion Oniani for details:

“In general, all avenues were explored to make the best choice… I was at Gelati; this incident was not about deciding to expel them at that moment. It was the result of much more complex and deep conclusions… We requested that the work be stopped because the walls were not dry, and according to the conclusions of several experts, using paints in this situation was not recommended.”

What Awaits Gelati Under the Patriarchate’s Control?

During our research, we discovered an interesting coincidence on September 30, 2022. On that day, two significant events took place simultaneously. First, Andria Jaghmaidze and Archimandrite Kirion climbed the scaffolding at Gelati and expelled the “Suardo” specialists. Second, Patriarch Ilia II sent a letter to UNESCO’s Director and ICOMOS’s President, requesting a thorough investigation of the problems at Gelati. Approximately two months later, a joint UNESCO advisory mission arrived in Gelati to assess the situation. They evaluated “Suardo’s” work, approving some aspects of it and criticizing others, and issued recommendations for future work, including both the roofing of Gelati Church and the restoration of the artwork.

Merab Buchukuri doubts that the Patriarch himself would have sent such a letter to UNESCO, suggesting that he would not intervene in the conservation and rehabilitation of a cultural monument in this manner, bypassing the government:

“There is a million-to-one chance that Ilia II wrote it… I know him well, and he wouldn’t interfere in such matters because he respects the law. The law clearly states that the government is responsible for conservation and restoration work. The permission must come from them, even though the Patriarchate is the owner. There are other interests at play here—mercantile and political ones.”

Five months after this incident, in April 2023, government agencies distanced themselves from addressing the problems at Gelati, handing over the responsibility to the Patriarchate.

“The Ministry will transfer the financial resources it was supposed to spend to the Georgian Patriarchate…,” Tea Tsulukiani stated on February 25, 2023, adding that removing politics from the process would benefit Gelati.

In March 2023, the Patriarchate established a temporary committee for Gelati’s rehabilitation. The committee is chaired by Metropolitan Shio Mujiri, the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal throne, and his deputy is Archimandrite Kirion Oniani, Deputy Head of the Patriarchate’s Office for the Retrieval and Protection of Sacred Relics.

The committee includes a bureau, a monitoring group, and advisory bodies, which comprise national scientific and international advisory councils. According to the committee, their goal is to protect Gelati from destruction, and they plan to carry out rehabilitation, conservation, and restoration work by recommendations from international organizations.

Ekaterine Gedevanishvili, an art historian and member of the National Council, told us that they meet very frequently due to the demanding nature of the work. However, the specifics of what they discuss remain unknown to the media and other interested parties.

“It’s not an easy task… We review texts, and work from home, and it’s a very productive, effective process. This is not just a formality… The National Council is practically responsible for everything happening here. The idea that something is hidden or closed off at Gelati… that’s not the case,” Ekaterine Gedevanishvili told us.

Despite these assurances, the Rehabilitation Committee does not upload the minutes of the council meetings to its website, nor does it send them when requested in writing. The lack of documented and publicly available records is a point of concern for former council member and art historian Mzia Janjalia.

“It doesn’t matter what council members discuss informally among themselves. What’s important is that there are documents showing their positions on the entire process, specific projects, and the work being done. When it comes to a World Heritage site, documents should either be posted on the website or made public upon request,” Janjalia explained.

The Patriarchate had promised that all their actions would be transparent to the public and that they would update the General Management Plan for Conservation. How well have these promises been kept?

The Conservation Plan

The Giorgi Chubinashvili National Research Centre for Georgian Art History and Monument Protection, established in 2006 under the Ministry of Culture, is actively involved in researching the ongoing developments around the Gelati Monastery complex. They evaluate the work and provide recommendations.

According to experts from the Chubinashvili Research Centre, they have not seen a plan where the committee has clearly articulated the planned work, its sequence, and specific measures for saving the artwork. Nor have they seen detailed justifications for the causes of damage and losses.

“The conservation plan for the artwork, detailing the goals and objectives of a specific phase or mission [referring to the British experts’ March mission], has not been made public. Nor has any project been published that would provide a well-argued presentation of the selected methodology and materials by specialists,” wrote art historians Mzia Janjalia and Maka Bulia in an April 2, 2024, Facebook post. They have been closely following the rehabilitation and conservation work at Gelati since it began.

Mariam Sagharadze mentioned that the Gelati Rehabilitation Committee does have a conservation plan for the current work, but it is not publicly available because it is a constantly evolving document. Since the website only features a very general conservation plan from 2023, we asked Sagharadze if there was a more detailed document outlining future interventions and the risks of damage to the artwork. She responded:

“We are still in the stage of developing the methodology for conservation interventions. We don’t have a ‘recipe’ yet. The first stage was in March, and since then, we have been monitoring those interventions. We will soon upload the results of the May-June monitoring… We will consider how to upload it on the website…”

Art historian Mzia Janjalia sees a problem in the fact that the conservation plan has remained unknown for so long, which raises many questions about the management’s work:

“We have been publicly discussing the lack of a known conservation plan since December. In January, during a meeting at the Chubinashvili Centre, committee representatives said that the document would be posted on the website within a few days. However, it still hasn’t appeared. I don’t know if the participants have their working version of the conservation plan, but the important thing is that a finalized and public document exists so it can be discussed… The results of the plan’s review by the International Council should also be made public.”

This ongoing lack of transparency and public access to the conservation plan, as well as the delays in its release, are points of concern for those closely following the rehabilitation efforts at Gelati.

Transparency Issues in Gelati’s Rehabilitation Under the Patriarchate

The Patriarchate had promised transparency, stating that nothing would be done in secret and that every step would be made public on a dedicated website, so that citizens could feel respected. While the website www.gelatirehabilitation.ge was indeed created, it does not provide access to all documents crucial to Gelati’s rehabilitation. The site does feature some documents that were never published by the Ministry of Culture, such as reports from “Giovanni Secco Suardo” and Gelati’s archival materials.

However, it still gives the impression that the Patriarchate selectively publishes information. For example, the website does not include the March 2024 report from the Giorgi Chubinashvili National Research Centre, which criticizes the Patriarchate’s Rehabilitation Committee for neglecting St. George’s Church and for inadequate monitoring of the artwork.

“Small fragments of the mural have been observed falling off multiple times in the church… Despite this, compared to the mural in the main church of the monastery, less attention has been paid to the mural in St. George’s Church since the beginning of the Gelati rehabilitation crisis, and this remains the case,” reads the March 2024 report from the Chubinashvili Centre.

In contrast, the website does include an older report from January 2023, which criticizes the work of “Suardo.”

The Patriarchate claims to have diverged from the Ministry of Culture’s approach by not restricting journalists’ access to public information, but this isn’t entirely accurate. The Gelati Rehabilitation Committee often justifies withholding information by citing confidentiality or ongoing work.

For instance, the committee did not provide us with contracts or payment details for foreign specialists invited by the Patriarchate, such as Stephen Rickerby, Lisa Shekede, Roberto Nardi, Andreina Costanzi Cobau, and Gerhard Wolf.

Under the Patriarchate’s management, it has become unclear exactly how the millions allocated for saving Gelati are being spent. When the Ministry of Culture managed the process, tender information could be found on the state procurement portal, revealing details such as specialists’ fees, flight costs, and even meal expenses. Now, the situation has changed drastically.

In December 2023, we requested financial reports from the Gelati Rehabilitation Committee detailing the funds transferred from and spent by the state budget. The response was vague: “As of today, 1 million GEL has been allocated from the state budget, which has not yet been fully utilized.”

This sum was used for monitoring the artwork, purchasing conservation supplies, documentation, projects, and plans. Part of the funds was spent on creating the website. However, specifics about the cost of each task or the amounts paid to individuals remain unknown. The Patriarchate provided only a summary of the expenses.

They promised that financial reports would be uploaded annually in July. However, it is now mid-August, and such data has yet to be published on the website.

In March 2024, former Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili issued a directive allocating an additional 7.5 million GEL from the state budget to the Patriarchate for continuing conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration work at Gelati. The directive does not provide further details on how these funds are to be specifically utilized.

What is happening in Gelati now?

The direct responsibility for saving and preserving the damaged artwork of the unique monument of Gelati has been in the hands of the Patriarchate for more than a year. However, the fact is that since the expulsion of the Italians, from October 2022 to March 2024, no one has touched the urgent work on the Gelati artwork.

Merab Buchukuri tells us that this year-and-a-half pause has had catastrophic consequences for the damaged artwork of the church, as the paintings were drying during this period, and it was necessary to constantly monitor the worsening situation:

“Last summer was very hot. That’s when drying begins actively, and professionals need to be there to check every morning and evening, to see if there’s any change, and to take photos. No one was working there at that time… Monitoring doesn’t mean just watching someone die; you have to help save them… If you’re a professional and see that damage is starting, you have to intervene and reinforce it… I don’t know what their interest was—whether it was to reinforce or to prove how ‘Suardo’ messed it up…”

We asked Mariam Sagharadze, a Georgian specialist in painting conservation invited by the Patriarchate, to respond to this accusation. She confirms that after “Suardo” left, from the fall of 2022 until March 2024, only monitoring and detailed studies were conducted on the damaged paintings. She explains it this way—they couldn’t begin physical interventions without complete information, and UNESCO advised them to do the same.

“UNESCO’s recommendation was—first, describe the entire condition of the church, [the painting’s] technology, plaster layers, painting, damage to the layers… To this day, we do not interfere in certain areas; the damage is so irreversible and complex that it’s quite a challenge for us not to cause minimal harm. [Stopping salts] completely doesn’t exist in nature… Everything is transient, and at some level, everything will be destroyed. We work to minimize this as much as possible,” says Mariam Sagharadze.

In the UNESCO report that Sagharadze refers to, it is stated that urgent interventions on the damaged paintings of Gelati were necessary starting from the winter of 2022. To date, these immediate interventions have not occurred.

“Immediate actions should focus on emergency stabilization work. Conservation work should be undertaken only after the structures, wall paintings, and mosaics are incorporated into and supported by a thoroughly developed and integrated conservation program for the entire monument, reinforced by systematic monitoring, research, and documentation,” reads the joint UNESCO advisory mission’s report from November-December 2022.

Mzia Janjalia, an art historian and specialist at the Chubinashvili National Research Centre, sees broader issues in the management of the rehabilitation process and the delay in the conservation plan:

“For me, the question is not why physical intervention on the paintings was delayed. The main issue is that the conservation plan was delayed. Every component of the rehabilitation, including the artwork, raises questions. The assessment of risks to the mosaics also raises questions. It’s unclear how the environmental management component within the interior of Gelati Church is being handled, among many other things.”

[Damage in the “Last supper” scene. Photo: from the 2023 report of the invited experts of the Patriarchate]

In February 2023, the Patriarchate stated in an official announcement that they had decided to replace the Italian specialists with highly qualified experts:

“We do not engage in professional and scientific discussions and evaluations of conservation-restoration and art history, as this is beyond our competence. However, the alignment of reports from international experts and Georgian scientists casts doubt on the advisability of continuing the conservation work by the current group of specialists… The situation is not only severe but critical! Immediate action is needed to rectify the situation and save the artwork!”

Even a year after this statement, no urgent conservation or stabilization work on the artwork had been undertaken at Gelati. The British specialists invited in the summer of 2023 were still assessing the condition of Gelati’s artwork.

Lisa Shekede and Stephen Rickerby were no strangers to the situation at Gelati, having critically evaluated “Giovanni Secco Suardo’s” work in 2021 at the request of the Ministry of Culture. However, their professionalism is questioned by Italian and Georgian specialists.

“It’s unfortunate that experts got involved whose competence we do not understand. We don’t understand their arguments, nor which side they represent at all. These experts made a lot of noise with some technical terms, creating a storm in a teacup. If their goal is to take over the work and then do it themselves, it would be very unfortunate because we do not see their high level of professionalism,” Lanfranco Secco Suardo told us.

Merab Buchukuri, a Georgian specialist and partner of “Suardo,” also questions the competence of Shekede and Rickerby. He claims that this British group worked with incompatible materials on the 13th-century paintings of “Dodorka” Monastery in David Gareji, which created a risk of damage to the artwork:

“In Gareji, the climate is dry, so plaster is mainly used. The same material is found in Cappadocia. This is something Western countries are not familiar with. So, when [the British] came, they should have studied the unfamiliar material. They said they didn’t research because they had experience. In reality, they had never worked on any artwork with plaster… They began reinforcing the frescoes with a lime-based solution… They are completely off track; it’s impossible to call them restorers.”

We also wanted to have an in-depth discussion with the British specialists on this issue, but our interview did not take place. Similarly, the ongoing work in Gelati has not been made transparent.

Moreover, the entire Gelati Monastery complex was closed, according to the Patriarchate, from July 2 to August 15, 2024. The reason given was that German companies, “Quadrex” and “Layer,” were working on the temporary roofing structure for the main church.

The Gelati Rehabilitation Committee did not disclose the project for the temporary roofing structure until the media and art historians raised concerns. However, specialists say that even the document published on August 1 is not complete.

The cost of these works is still unknown, as the relevant document has not been published. We sent these questions to the committee but have not yet received a response.

Naturally, we also had questions for the Cultural Heritage Agency. We contacted the press office of its head and requested an interview with Nikoloz Aznaurashvili. We also sent our questions by email but are still waiting for a response.

Before publishing this article, we made several attempts to interview Kirion Oniani, but he did not answer our phone calls. On the morning of July 11, we went to Gelati, hoping to meet the archimandrite, but the monastery’s abbot, Igumen David Umankoshvili, told us, “He is not here, and I don’t know when he will return.”

Contributors to the article:  Manana Ghoghoberidze (editor), Nino Bakradze (Editor-in-chief)